www.coxcastle.com Los Angeles | Orange County | San Francisco Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP
50 California Street, Suite 3200
San Francisco, California 94111-4710
P: 415.262.5100 F: 415.262.5199
Scott B. Birkey
415.262.5162
[email protected]
March 5, 2025
VIA E-MAIL ([email protected])
Pablo Rubio
City Clerk
City of Hawaiian Gardens
21815 Pioneer Boulevard
Hawaiian Gardens, CA 90716
Re: March 5, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting, Item A.1 – Requested Clarifications and Modifications to Proposed Conditions of Approval for PLNG2024-0011-MUP (12347 E. Carson Street)
Dear Mr. Rubio:
We represent Surf City Boats, Inc. (“Surf City Boats”) in connection with its proposed boat sales project (the “Project”) located at 12347 E. Carson Street (the “Property”), with an Assessor Parcel Number (“APN”) of 7066-017-127, in the City of Hawaiian Gardens (the “City”). We write, on behalf of Surf City Boats, to request clarification and/or modification of several of the Conditions of Approval (“COAs”) proposed by City staff in the draft Resolution No. 2025-0011 approving Surf City Boats’ minor use permit (“MUP”) application for the Project.
The COAs as currently drafted by City staff would unnecessarily restrict Surf City Boats’ ability to proceed with the Project. The COAs introduce unnecessary and inappropriate limitations and requirements as well as present a level of ambiguity as to their applicability to the Project. Accordingly, Surf City Boats provides the below requests and recommendations to the currently drafted COAs. As we understand the MUP approval is already set to go before the City Council for further consideration, our intention is not necessarily for the Planning Commission to resolve these requests at its March 5, 2025 meeting. Instead, our aim is to ensure that Surf City Boats’ concerns are formally documented and included in the record ahead of the City Council hearing. By doing so at this time, we are hopeful we can work 1 Draft Resolution No. 2025-001 and the associated COAs are both available at https://hgcity.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=4190 [Item A.1]. Notwithstanding the Planning Commission having directed City staff to prepare a resolution approving the MUP on January 29, 2025, City staff only provided Surf City Boats with the COAs for review 28 days later—at the end of the day on February 26, 2025.
Exhibit F
Mr. Pablo Rubio
productively with City staff to find mutually satisfactory clarifications and/or modifications of the COAs before the matter is considered by City Council.
1. Planning Department COA No. 1
This COA requires clarification. Surf City Boats has always maintained to City staff, including prior to purchasing the Property, that it would rent out a portion of the Property— separate from its Project and MUP approval. Other businesses are permitted to rent space pursuant to adherence with the Hawaiian Gardens Municipal Code (“HGMC”). The COA as currently drafted could be interpreted to vest discretion with the City where the HGMC otherwise allows for a matter by-right.
Surf City Boats’ Request: Surf City Boats hereby requests that the City make the following clarifications to this COA:
1. This Minor Use Permit will allow for the operation of boat sales, and sales of boat parts and accessories (Surf City Boats, Inc) on property located at 12347 E. Carson Street. No other ancillary services and/or other businesses or uses shall be allowed at the subject site, pursuant to the Minor Use Permit, unless approved by the Community Development Department.
2. Planning Department COA No. 2
This COA requires modification. Surf City Boats is unclear the purpose of dictating the range of boat sizes (20–30 feet in length) permitted for sale, and this requirement appears to be unrelated to HGMC requirements. This presents an undue limitation on Surf City Boats’ ability to sell boats.
Surf City Boats’ Request: Surf City Boats hereby requests that the City make the following modifications to this COA:
2. This approval allows for the sale of new and used boats (owned solely by Freedom Boat Club/Surf City Boats, Inc.), and allows only for the sale of boats ranging in size from 20-30 feet in length.
3. Planning Department COA No. 3
This COA requires clarification. The COA as currently drafted is overly broad and, as such, requires clarification to ensure that it is not interpreted to pose unnecessary limitations on the Project.
Surf City Boats’ Request: Surf City Boats hereby requests that the City make the following clarifications to this COA:
Mr. Pablo Rubio
3. No maintenance, repair, or painting of any boats and trailers, not intended for sale from the premises, shall be conducted on the premises. No installation of any products, upholstery installation or repair, unrelated to sales from the premises, shall be conducted on the premises.
4. Planning Department COA No. 8
This COA requires clarification. It is unclear to Surf City Boats what separate permit that would require review and approval by the Planning Division would be required for repaving and restriping the Property following MUP approval.
Surf City Boats’ Request: Surf City Boats hereby requests that the City clarify this COA.
5. Planning Department COA No. 12
This COA requires clarification. As currently drafted, this COA ends with “under separate.”—but, it is unclear exactly what this “under separate” language is referring to. It appears that there are some words missing from this COA.
Surf City Boats’ Request: Surf City Boats hereby requests that the City clarify the language in this COA.
6. Planning Department COA No. 13
This COA requires modification. The requirements listed in this COA are new to Surf City Boats and are contrary to Surf City Boats’ previous understanding on the matter, based on prior discussions and representations from the City during the processing of the MUP and based on HGMC section 18.70.050.B.5, which provides that “[e]xisting legal nonconforming fencings or walls should be maintained or repaired.” For example, pursuant to the “Incomplete Application” received by Surf City Boats on March 12, 2024 the Planning Department states the following as its first requirement for fencing on the site plan “Remove Privacy screening from plans and replace with plastic slats.”
Surf City Boats’ Request: Surf City Boats hereby requests that the City modify the language in this COA, which reflects Surf City Boats’ previous understanding on the matter.
13. The existing perimeter chain link fencing shall be repaired and barbed wire (sitewide) shall be removed. Plastic slats shall be inserted into the chain link fencing. The block wall on the south property line shall remain. Perimeter walls and fencing shall be replaced as follows: 1) The north and west property lines shall have a decorative block wall with a maximum height of six (6) feet; 2) The east property line along Claretta Avenue shall be a combination of low non-view obscuring decorative block wall with decorative wrought iron on top, with a combined maximum overall height of six (6) feet. Perimeter walls and fencing shall remain. All decorative block walls shall have anti-graffiti coating.
Mr. Pablo Rubio
7. Planning Department COA No. 14
This COA requires clarification. Surf City Boats seeks clarification that this only applies at the time Surf City Boats seeks to make exterior façade improvements to the mobile office building.
Surf City Boats’ Request: Surf City Boats hereby requests that the City clarify the language in this COA.
14. As applicable, eExterior façade improvements shall be made to the mobile office building under separate permit, subject to HGMC 18.70.090 Non-residential Design Guidelines.
The owner/applicant shall provide existing and proposed elevations for review and approval by Community Development subject to all applicable review and permits.
8. Planning Department COA No. 19
This COA requires clarification. The COA as currently drafted could be interpreted to provide excessive discretion for a member of the public to mandate the hiring of a noise consultant by Surf City Boats. Additionally, while the Project is not anticipated to generate significant noise, it is unclear to Surf City Boats whether the 65 dBA is derived from the HGMC—which appears to otherwise require adherence to a 75 dBA exterior noise level for commercial properties and in the Property’s C-4 zone. (See HGMC §§ 9.29.050–9.29.060.) Surf City Boats’ Request: Surf City Boats hereby requests that the City clarify the language in this COA.
19. Noise generated from the business shall comply with HG Municipal Code. In any case, noise shall not exceed 65 dBA, as measured at the property line. Should any noise complaints be formally submitted to the Sheriff Department/Code Enforcement, which includes reasonable evidence of potential exceedance of the applicable dBA standard, the applicant/owner shall be responsible to hire a noise consultant to measure the dBA during use and provide the evidence to Community Development staff that said use does not exceed 65 dBA.
9. Planning Department COA No. 20
This COA requires modification. Surf City Boats is unclear the purpose of limiting the overnight exterior storage on the Property to a maximum of 13 vehicles. This limitation of 13 vehicles appears arbitrary, as it has not been previously discussed with Surf City Boats, and considering that HGMC section 18.70.060 allows for ten vehicles absent a MUP (including one that specifically relates to the sale of inventory of “vehicles” as listed in the COA). This presents an undue limitation on Surf City Boats’ ability to sell boats and use the Property.
Surf City Boats’ Request: Surf City Boats hereby requests that the City modify the language in this COA.
Mr. Pablo Rubio
20. Onsite Vehicle storage is allowed under this MUP per HGMC 18.70.060 and is limited to a maximum of thirteen (13) [placeholder for a to be agreed upon number of] vehicles (ie. boats, trucks, trailers, etc.) for overnight storage at any given time in the designated display area. Any increase in storage of vehicles/boats/trucks/trailers beyond thirteen (13) the abovementioned number would require additional MUP review and approval of a new (or modified MUP) for vehicle storage.
10. Planning Department COA No. 22
This COA requires modification. The COA as currently drafted stipulates an exclusive list of items that may be contained in the equipment area. There is, however, no basis for this exclusive list, which omits several items commonly found in equipment areas of this type. Surf City Boats agrees to only maintain equipment within the equipment area related to the boat sales Project. Furthermore, the equipment area is to be screened pursuant to this COA in any event.
Surf City Boats’ Request: Surf City Boats hereby requests that the City modify the language in this COA.
22. The outdoor storage/equipment area identified on the approved site plan shall be fully screened with view-obscuring fencing and gate, and landscaping, so that the storage/equipment is not visible from public right-of-way and adjacent properties. The access gate to this storage area shall remain closed when not accessing the area. Such equipment area shall only contain the following items related to the functioning of boat sales: boat trailers for sale, equipment dollies, hand-trucks, and trailer mules for sale and for use onsite moving boats.
11. Planning Department COA No. 23
This COA requires clarification. The boats for sale and related equipment may contain gasoline and oil within them.
Surf City Boats’ Request: Surf City Boats hereby requests that the City clarify the language in this COA.
23. No hazardous materials (ie. gasoline, propane, oil) shall be stored on site outside of the boats for sale and related equipment.
12. Planning Department COA No. 33
This COA requires clarification. HGMC section 18.100.020.L–M provides for the possibility of permit extensions. Surf City Boats does not intend to waive any rights granted to it pursuant to the HGMC under this COA. In fact, Surf City Boats does not intend to waive any rights granted to it pursuant to the HGMC under any of the COAs, unless expressly stated.
Surf City Boats’ Request: Surf City Boats hereby requests that the City clarify the language in this COA.
Mr. Pablo Rubio
33. In the event that the herein specified entitlement and operation (Case No.
PLNG2024-0011-MUP) is not implemented within one (1) year from the date of approval of this application, unless otherwise extended in accordance with the Hawaiian Gardens Municipal Code or other law, such approval shall automatically become null and void.
13. Planning Department COA No. 34
This COA refers to a prior Subdivision Improvement Agreement (“SIA”) and appears to require Surf City Boats’ execution and recordation of the SIA as part of the MUP approval.
In addition to objecting to the vague and open-ended text “satisfaction of the Community Development Department,” we object to this COA and all other COAs that reference the SIA on the grounds that the City has not demonstrated any nexus or rough proportionality between the Project and the SIA. Put simply, the City has not explained why the Project requires an SIA, let alone why the SIA is even relevant here.
Without a further understanding of the applicability of the SIA to Surf City Boats, as we understand the SIA was not recorded against title pursuant to Government Code section 66411.1, subdivision (a) (as there was no relevant statement on the applicable parcel map and there was no instrument evidencing waiver of the parcel map), and because the COAs do not make clear the relationship between the Project and the unrecorded SIA, Surf City Boats cannot blanketly agree to any of the COAs that reference the SIA.
The above said, we are open to discussing any COAs that refer to the SIA before City Council’s further consideration of the MUP approval.
14. Clarification of Applicability of Building Department COAs As certain of these COAs do not appear applicable based on the nature of the Project (which is not to include a development of a building), Surf City Boats would appreciate further clarification from the City on which of these COAs are truly applicable to the Project (given that we understand many of these COAs to be standard in nature and not necessarily applicable to every project).
15. Clarification of Applicability of Engineering Division COAs Similar to the above, as certain of these COAs do not appear applicable based on the nature of the Project (which is not to include a final map), Surf City Boats would appreciate further clarification from the City on which of these COAs are truly applicable to the Project (given that we understand many of these COAs to be standard in nature and not necessarily applicable to every project).
Furthermore, as discussed in relation to Planning Department COA No. 34 above, without a further understanding of the applicability of the SIA to Surf City Boats in the first instance and without a further understanding of how the COAs that refer to the SIA align with Mr. Pablo Rubio
the previously unrecorded SIA, Surf City Boats cannot blanketly agree at this time to these COAs. (See, e.g., Engineering Division COA Nos. 9, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 25, 26, 29, 31, and
32.) As discussed above, we are open to discussing any COAs that refer to the SIA prior to City Council’s further consideration of the MUP approval.
* * *
As discussed above, because we understand the MUP approval is already set to go before the City Council for further consideration, our intention is not necessarily for the Planning Commission to resolve these requests at its March 5, 2025 meeting. Instead, our aim is to ensure that Surf City Boats’ concerns are formally documented and included in the record ahead of the City Council hearing—so that we can best work productively with City staff to find mutually satisfactory clarifications and/or modifications of the COAs before the matter is considered by City Council.
Surf City Boats thanks the Planning Commission, City staff, and the City Attorney’s Office for its attention to this matter—and looks forward to further coordination on the COAs in the weeks ahead.
Yours truly,
Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP
Scott B. Birkey
Cc: Tonya Pace, Senior Planner ([email protected]) Elise McCaleb, Community Development Director ([email protected]) Megan Garibaldi, City Attorney ([email protected]) Patrick Donnegan, City Attorney ([email protected])