A - October 22, 2025 - Hearing Report and Applicant Materials — Hawaiian Gardens City Council, December 10, 2025

CITY OF HAWAIIAN GARDENS

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item #A1
DATE: October 22, 2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Elise McCaleb, Community Development Director
BY: Elise McCaleb, Community Development Director
Tonya Pace, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION BY CITY COUNCIL PURSUANT TO HAWAIIAN GARDENS MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTION 18.100.170(D) OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO APPROVE A MINOR USE PERMIT (MUP) FOR A PROPOSED BOAT SALES BUSINESS LOCATED AT 12347 E.

CARSON STREET

SUMMARY
On February 20, 2024, Surf City Boats, Inc. (“Applicant”) filed an application for Minor Use Permit (“MUP”) No. PLNG2024-0011 to authorize a boat sales business to be located at 12347 E. Carson Street (“the Property”). On December 12, 2024, the Community Development Director (“Director”) issued a decision to deny MUP No. PLNG2024-0011 (Exhibit A). The property owner of the subject Property (“Property Owner”) timely filed an appeal of the Director’s decision to the City of Hawaiian Gardens Planning Commission.

On January 29, 2025, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the appeal filed by Surf City Boats, Inc. The Planning Commission determined that the proposed use of the property is a Boat Sales business and directed staff to prepare appropriate resolutions and conditions of approval to authorize the boat sales use on the Property 3 (AYES) to 2 (NOES).

On March 5, 2025, the Planning Commission determined that the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Action (CEQA) and approved Resolution No. 2025-001 (3 AYES; 2 ABSENT), subject to meeting certain Conditions of Approval.

On March 10, 2025, Councilmember Farfan requested that the Planning Commission’s decision approving MUP No. PLNG2024-0011 be reviewed by the entire City Council pursuant to the authority granted in Hawaiian Gardens Municipal Code (“HGMC”) Section 18.100.170(D). This section of the HGMC authorizes any member of the City Council to call up for review any decision made by the Director or Planning Commission. The City Council’s decision on the matter will be final.
12347 E. Carson Street
October 22, 2025

Page 2 ends

The purpose of this hearing is to give the City Council an opportunity to review the decision of the Planning Commission and affirm (with the same or different conditions of approval) or overturn the Planning Commission’s decision and adopt appropriate findings to deny the MUP.

Proposed Use
The Applicant proposes a boat sales business to be located at the Property, which consists of an approximately 25,182 square foot unimproved lot located on the southwest corner of Claretta Avenue and Tilbury Street. The proposed project includes use of an existing mobile home trailer as a proposed office, and use of the existing parking lot for boat sales and equipment storage.

The proposed site plan maximizes the site layout for use of the site as a boat sales use. In addition to using the existing mobile home for an office, the proposed Site Plan (Exhibit B) includes ingress and egress via the existing driveway, 13 Boat, Truck, and Trailer parking spaces and 10 additional vehicle parking spaces for customer parking. The proposed site plan also shows required perimeter landscaping, fencing, and lighting. The northwest corner of the property is proposed for equipment storage.

In addition, the business description provided by the Applicant (Exhibit B) states that a separate business unrelated to the boat sales, Chavez Unlimited Construction, Inc., would be renting/sharing a portion (not to exceed 49%) of the trailer office space. That request has been denied by the Director and is the subject of a separate appeal currently being processed.

RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends that the members of the City Council diligently review the materials presented by Staff, the Applicant/Property Owner, and consider evidence and testimony and adopt one of the following:

1. RESOLUTION NO. 029-2025, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF

THE CITY OF HAWAIIAN GARDENS, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AFFIRMING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S
DECISION TO APPROVE A MINOR USE PERMIT (PLNG2024-0011 MUP),

SUBJECT TO ATTACHMENT A - CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR A
PROPOSED BOAT SALES BUSINESS LOCATED AT 12347 E. CARSON STREET (“PROPERTY”) IN THE CITY OF HAWAIIAN GARDENS (APN:
7066-017-127) AND DETERMINING THAT THE PROJECT IS

CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT (CEQA)1; OR
1 It should be noted that although the Planning Commission imposed certain conditions of approval on their adoption of the Resolution approving MUP No. PLNG2024-0011, the Applicant has requested certain amendments to those conditions. In addition, Staff has become aware that certain unpermitted businesses may occupy a portion of the Property and certain unpermitted work (not meeting code) appears to have been undertaken. For these reasons, should the City Council wish to approve the Applicant’s request, it may be necessary to continue that decision to allow staff time to confer with the Applicant concerning these issues.
12347 E. Carson Street
October 22, 2025

Page 3 ends

2. RESOLUTION NO. 029-2025, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF HAWAIIAN GARDENS, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, OVERTURNING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION AND DENYING A MINOR USE PERMIT (PLNG2024-0011 MUP) FOR A PROPOSED BOAT SALES BUSINESS LOCATED AT 12347 E. CARSON STREET (“PROPERTY”) IN THE CITY OF HAWAIIAN GARDENS (APN: 7066- 017-127) AND DETERMINING THAT THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA).

BACKGROUND
Location and Zoning Map
The subject site is zoned C-4 General Commercial and abuts properties that are zoned C-4 General Commercial to the south (Enterprise Rent-A-Car), southwest, and east on Carson Street.

Properties to the west are zoned R-4 High Density Residential and located in the City of Hawaiian Gardens. Properties across the street from the subject site on Tilbury Street are zoned R-1 SingleFamily Residential and located in the City of Lakewood. Properties to the northwest on Farlow Street are zoned R-1 Single Family Residential and located in the City of Hawaiian Gardens.

Source: Google Earth, June 28, 2025
Existing Site Conditions
There is a mobile home trailer on the site that dates back to 1971 and was used by the former tenant “The Wood Doctor” who sold and repaired mobile homes. The site is unimproved and is not paved or striped as shown in photos (Exhibit C). There is chain link fencing with slats on three sides of the Property, and a block wall faces Tilbury Street. The chain link fencing was replaced with new chain link and slats by the Property Owner in 2025 without permits. That matter is the subject of a separate code enforcement action.
12347 E. Carson Street
October 22, 2025

Page 4 ends

The Property Owner has a business license to use the mobile home trailer for office use pertaining to his Boat Sales business. The City approved the business license for office use prior to any formal planning approvals to help the Property Owner obtain financing for the purchase of the property in 2024, but is not deemed to be formal zoning approval.

Proposed Use
The proposed use as depicted on the site plan provided by the Applicant is for a Boat Sales use.

The Property Owner owns a business called Freedom Boats. Freedom Boats is a franchise and membership-based charter company of power boats. As a member, you may reserve time to use boats from the fleet. According to the Applicant, after two to three years of boat use by members, the boats would be taken out of the fleet and moved to Hawaiian Gardens for sale.

The business description dated July 10, 2024 provided by the Applicant states that in addition to boat sales, “…office space not to exceed 49% of the structure on site, will be rented to Chavez Unlimited Construction…”. The Planning Commission only considered the Boat Sales use because it was the only use identified on the site plan. Additional uses proposed for the site would need to be shown on a revised site plan and reviewed by the Planning Department to ensure code compliance.

Timeline
The following is a timeline of the application review process:
• 2/20/24 - Application and application payment for MUP submitted (Exhibit B). • 3/12/24 - Application deemed incomplete.
• 4/30/24 - Meeting to discuss proposed project with Applicant. • 5/1/24 - City Planning staff requested business information from Applicant requesting what type of State License Applicant would obtain for Boat Sales. • 7/3/24 - City Planning staff again requested the same information and that the information be submitted by 7/17/24. No State License for Boat Sales was provided in response to the request.
• 8/28/24 - An incomplete letter was issued, indicating that the State License information was not received, and the proposed project application was deemed incomplete. • 10/18/24 – Applicant sent email to City outlining reasons why it believes the City should issue the MUP, and Applicant provided a California Department of Tax and Fee Administration Seller’s Permit.
• 12/12/24 -Director formally denied MUP application in writing to Applicant (Exhibit A). 12347 E. Carson Street
October 22, 2025

Page 5 ends

• 12/20/24 – Applicant timely filed its appeal (Exhibit D). • 01/29/25 – Planning Commission Public Hearing to discuss proposed MUP for Boat Sales (Exhibit E). Staff recommended denial of the MUP application, however the Planning Commission voted to overturn the decision of the Director, 3 (AYES) to 2 (NOES). The Planning Commission directed staff to return with a resolution approving the MUP for the Boat Sales use subject to Conditions of Approval.
• 03/05/25- Letter from Applicant’s attorney regarding questions about proposed Conditions of Approval and requesting clarification and changes to Conditions of Approval (Exhibit F). • 03/05/25 – Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2025-001 approving the MUP, subject to certain Conditions of Approval for the Boat Sales use (Exhibit G).

ANALYSIS/DISCUSSION
Minor Use Permit (MUP) Application
The table of permitted uses found in Section 18.60.050 (Uses Permitted in Non-Residential Zones) of the Hawaiian Gardens Municipal Code (HGMC) allows auto sales (new or used) as a use that is permitted in the Commercial General (C-4) zone, subject to the issuance of a Minor Use Permit (MUP). HGMC Section 18.20.030 defines “automobile sales area” to include “an open area or building used for the display or sales of new or used automobiles, trucks, trailers, or boats.” (emphasis added). The Property is located in the C-4 zone. Thus, an MUP is required for the proposed project at the Property.

Proposed Site Layout and Design
The proposed site plan shows use of the existing mobile home trailer as an office, ingress and egress via the existing driveway, 13 Boat, Truck, and Trailer parking spaces, and 10 additional vehicle parking spaces. The proposed site plan also shows required perimeter landscaping, fencing and lighting.

Minor Use Permit (MUP) Application Director Denial
In planning staff’s review of the totality of the application, including Applicant’s description of how the Property will be used and the proposed site layout, staff determined that the proposed operations are more akin to boat storage (and not sales)– which is not a permitted use in the C4 Zone. Staff further determined that the proposed use may be detrimental to the property or improvements in the surrounding area as a stagnant storage area, not manned by any employees or frequented regularly by customers looking to purchase boats, is a potential target for crime, vandalism, and/or loitering. Further, the business does not have regular days and hours of operation, which is commonplace for businesses in the C-4, General Commercial Zone. As a result, Staff determined the use was not consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Code and could not make the required findings for approval of the MUP. 12347 E. Carson Street
October 22, 2025

Page 6 ends

More specifically, the determination to deny the MUP was based on the Applicant’s description of how the site would be used. In meetings and written correspondence, the Applicant indicated that they will keep their waterfront office elsewhere (outside of the City of Hawaiian Gardens), that no staff will regularly be onsite, and that the Applicant would only occasionally bring a customer to the site to pick up a boat and trailer it to the water for “test drives.” This is akin to a situation where an auto dealership maintains a storage lot for storage of excess vehicles. While those vehicles are available for sale and can be driven to the retail dealership, they are not part of the inventory stored on the dealership. In such cases, it is clear that sales are not conducted from the storage lot.

On way to determine whether actual sales are conducted from the site is to review similar sales tax point-of-sale information. In this case, it was unclear to staff that if a sale is made, where the point of sale will be and where the appropriate sales tax will be paid. In an email to staff in 2024, the Applicant provided an address in Westminster where he conducts boat sales. From an aerial view, the site looks like an unimproved contractor’s storage yard consisting of boats, trucks, and trailers.

The Applicant was notified of the Director’s denial via email on December 12, 2024.

Property Owner’s Appeal of Director’s Decision and Planning Commission Hearing Pursuant to HGMC Section 18.100.050 (D), any decision by the Director is final unless an appeal is filed by the Applicant pursuant to section 18.100.170 of the HGMC. As noted above, the Applicant timely filed an appeal on December 20, 2024. The reasons for the appeal are set forth in full as Exhibit D.3
On January 29, 2025, the Planning Commission independently reviewed the Applicant’s application and all other written and oral evidence presented to the Planning Commission at the public hearing and exercised its own independent judgment as to whether the proposed project at the Property is consistent with the HGMC and meets the HGMC required findings for an MUP.

The Planning Commission voted to overturn the Director’s decision and directed staff to prepare a Resolution approving the MUP with the appropriate findings and conditions. On March 5, 2025, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 2025-001 and approved the MUP subject to the Conditions of Approval for Boat Sales at the Property.

City Council Request to Review and Consideration of Planning Commission’s Decision On March 10, 2025, and in accordance with HGMC Section 18.100.020(J) and Section

18.100.170(D), Administrative Procedures, a councilmember requested that the Planning Commission decision be reviewed and considered by the City Council. The Planning Commission’s decision was stayed pending the City Council hearing. The Public Hearing must be held within 45-days pursuant to HGMC 18.100.170(B).
3 In order to avoid paraphrasing or misrepresenting the Applicant’s position, staff is referring the City Council to the entirety of the Applicant’s appeal to the Planning Commission. However, the City Council’s role is to review the Planning Commission’s decision pursuant to the provisions of the HGMC related to the MUP. Other legal/constitutional arguments posited by the Applicant are disputed by City staff and are not the purview of the City Council for this hearing.
12347 E. Carson Street
October 22, 2025

Page 7 ends

The following timeline outlines what occurred following the councilmember’s request. • 3/26/25 – In person meeting with Applicant to City to review questions and concerns about Conditions of Approval.
• 3/27/25 – Received notice from Property Owner’s attorney requesting to postpone City Council Public Hearing date on 4/9/25 to further work through items with City team. • 04/22/25 – Business License Application received for Chavez Unlimited Construction. • 5/19/24 – Community Development sent letter to Property Owner to set City Council Public Hearing for June 25, 2025.
• 6/4/25 – Community Development received email from Property Owner’s attorney requesting continuance of Public Hearing in order to allow time to hear back from Planning Department regarding the approval or denial of the business license for Chavez Unlimited Construction, Inc.
• 6/25/25 – Letter from City to Property Owner denying business license application for Chavez Unlimited Construction, Inc.
• 7/25/25 – Business license application received for A Precision Roofing dba A Precision Construction.
• 8/29/2025 – Letter from City to Property Owner denying business license application for A Precision Roofing dba A Precision Construction.
• 9/15/2025 – Email from City to Property Owner to set dates for MUP Public Hearing for October 22, 2025 and Business License Hearing for November 12, 2025. • 9/29/25 – Email from Property Owner to City confirming date of MUP Public Hearing for October 22, 2025.

MUP Findings and Project Requirements
After conducting the public hearing, the City Council may decide to affirm the Planning Commission’s decision and approve the MUP. Such an approval may be based on the same findings made by the Planning Commission. A draft resolution containing these findings is attached (Exhibit H).

Alternatively, if the City Council decides to overturn the Planning Commission’s decision and deny the MUP. The City Council will need to support this decision with alternative findings for denial.

These are contained in a separate draft resolution (Exhibit I) and may be based on the following:

1. The proposed business operation for boat sales is not compatible with the stated purposes Hawaiian Gardens General Plan.

The Hawaiian Gardens General Plan-Land Use Element describes the policies and goals applicable to the City’s commercial designations. Applicable Goals and Policies provide:
12347 E. Carson Street
October 22, 2025

Page 8 ends

Goal LU-4: Provide commercial retail opportunities that serve residents and visitors.

Policies:

LU-4.4 Encourage the development of high-quality commercial projects.

LU-4.5 Ensure that applicable land use regulations allow for commercial uses that serve a broad market area, including visitor-serving uses.

LU-4.7 Provide neighborhood commercial uses throughout the community to make goods and services available within walking distance of residents. • Typically, office/professional and retail businesses have regular hours of operation as well as employees onsite. The proposed business does not have a regular schedule and is by appointment only and there are no employees onsite. • The proposed use does not support the residential area by providing shops for goods and services. No goods or services will be provided for the nearby residential area. • The use is different from auto sales in that boats are stored and trailered to the water, thereby making the use more similar to “storage” than a showroom which is typical for auto sales.

2. That the proposed use is contrary to the objectives of this Zoning Code or to the objectives of the applicable regulations.

HGMC Section 18.60.020(A) states in part, that:
“The purpose of the general commercial (C-4) zone is to designate areas for office/professional and retail businesses in the City that support residential area and provide jobs for area residents.

These areas are intended to accommodate a variety of shops for goods and services to serve the needs of the surrounding community. The C-4 zone is consistent with the general commercial designation of the General Plan.”
The proposed use will not serve the needs of the surrounding community. The proposed boat sale use appears to serve the needs of waterfront communities as the intended purpose of the site is to bring customers from there to this site, for the purpose of viewing boat inventory. Further, use of the sales trailer with another office use and shared storage area with unrelated contractor equipment is inconsistent with the use of the site as a boat sales facility.

3. That the proposed use will be located, operated, and maintained in a manner not consistent with the policies of the General Plan and the provisions of this Zoning Code.

The proposed improvements to the site are inconsistent with the use of the site as a commercial boat sales facility. Portions of the site are unimproved and at least one other non-boat sales related business will exist on the site and share the office space and parking/storage area.

4. That the proposed use will be detrimental to the property or improvements in the surrounding area or the public health, safety, or general welfare.

As noted, the purpose of the C-4 Zone designation is to designate areas for office/professional and retail businesses in the City that support residential area and provide jobs for area residents.

The proposed use will not serve the surrounding residential area. Further, the existing 12347 E. Carson Street
October 22, 2025

Page 9 ends

improvements on the site are inconsistent with the use of the site as a boat sales facility given that a portion of the site will be occupied by at least one other use that proposes to use the site as an office with storage of construction equipment. Such use is incompatible with a boat sales display area and customer office location.

Council Decision Criteria
Pursuant to HGMC Section 18.100.170(D) and Section 18.100.020(J), consideration by the City Council of a Planning Commission decision will serve as the appeal process for the project.

HGMC Section 18.100.170 posits the purpose and process for the filing and consideration of an appeal and in pertinent, subsection F describes the decision criteria for the City Council consideration of the Planning Commission decision:
“F. Decision criteria.

1. The appeal body shall make the same findings and use the same criteria as the decisionmaking body whose action is appealed.

2. If new plans are submitted during the appeal process, this shall be considered as a new request and therefore, a new application shall be submitted.

3. Nothing herein shall prevent the appellate or review body from imposing conditions on a project and granting approval to a project modified by conditions imposed as part of the decision.

4. The decision of the City Council shall be final.”
The City Council’s role is to review the Planning Commission’s decision pursuant to the provisions of the HGMC related to the MUP findings. The City Council has the discretion to approve (with the same or modified conditions) or deny the MUP application.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
The proposed appeal of the Minor Use Permit (MUP) is deemed categorically exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Specifically, denial of the MUP application is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Public Resources Code §21080(b)(5) and CEQA Regulation, §15270 (a), which posit that CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves. Alternatively, should the City Council decide to approve the MUP as applied for, then that approval is exempt under CEQA Regulations §§15301, 15303(c) &(e), 15304(b) 15311(a) &(b), and 15332, because it establishes rules and procedures to alter existing facilities, permit new construction or conversion of small structures; permit minor alterations to the land and landscaping; construct or replace accessory commercial structures, signs, and parking lots; and permits an in-fill development project which are all exempt under the aforementioned CEQA Regulations. The MUP is therefore categorically exempt from further CEQA review under CEQA Regulations §§15301, 15303(c) &(e), 15304(b), 15311(a) &(b), and 15332.

PUBLIC INPUT
To date, there has been no public input regarding this hearing. 12347 E. Carson Street
October 22, 2025

Page 10 ends

ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A - Director’s Denial Letter - dated 12/12/24
Exhibit B – Proposed Project Documents - Application, Proposed Site Plan, Business Operation Description
Exhibit C – Photos of Existing Site Conditions
Exhibit D – Applicant’s Appeal to Planning Commission Letter – 12/20/24 Exhibit E – Planning Commission Meeting Record – 1/29/25 - Staff Report and Attachments Exhibit F – Letter from Applicant’s attorney regarding proposed Conditions of Approval (3/5/25) Exhibit G - Planning Commission Meeting Record – 3/5/25 - Staff Report, Resolution 2025-001 and Agenda Materials
Exhibit H – Resolution No. 029-2025 Upholding Planning Commission Decision – Approve MUP Exhibit I – Resolution No. 029-2025 Overturning Planning Commission Decision – Deny MUP 1 | P a g e

HAWAIIAN GARDENS
via email: [email protected]
December 12, 2024
Mr. Andrew Hard
16360 Pacific Coast HWY, Ste 216
Huntington Beach, CA 92649-1813
Subject: Case #PLNG2024-0011 MUP - Deny Application (Boat Sales) Location: 12347 E. Carson Street, Hawaiian Gardens, CA 90716 Dear Mr. Hard:

The City’s Planning Department received your application for a Minor Use Permit (MUP) Application for Boat Sales on property located at 12347 E. Carson Street, Hawaiian Gardens in the C-4 (General Commercial) Zone (APN: 7066-017-127) (“Property”). We also received your Business Description, California Department of Tax and Fee Administration Seller’s Permit, and responses to the City’s questions in subsequent emails. Upon further review of the entirety of your submittal which consists of all of the documents you have submitted and responses, both verbally and in writing to City questions, the City is unable to make the findings required by the Hawaiian Gardens Municipal Code (“HGMC”). As explained in more detail below, your application for a Minor Use Permit (“MUP”) is not approved for the reasons set forth.

The use Table found in Section 18.60.050 (Uses Permitted in Non-Residential Zones) of the HGMC allows auto sales (new or used)1 as a use that is permitted in the C-4 zone (where the Property is located) subject to issuance of a MUP. Section 18.100.050 (E) lists the required findings for a MUP and states:
“In granting a Minor Use Permit, the Director shall make the following findings:

1.That the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan;

2.That the proposed use is not contrary to the objectives of this Zoning Code or to the objectives of the applicable regulations;

3.That the proposed use will be located, operated, and maintained in a manner consistent with the policies of the general plan and the provisions of this Zoning Code;
1 HGMC section 18.20.030 defines “automobile sales area” to include “an open area or building used for the display or sales of new or used automobiles, trucks, trailers, or boats.” (emphasis added).

CITY OF “Our Youth – Our Future”
Exhibit A
2 | P a g e

4. That the proposed use will not be detrimental to the property or improvements in the surrounding area or the public health, safety, or general welfare.” Based on all of the totality of your application, including your admitted description of how the Property is going to be used and the proposed site layout, the City finds that your operations are more akin to boat storage – which is not a permitted use and thus the City cannot make any of the required findings for the MUP. The proposed use is not consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Code and may be detrimental to the property or improvements in the surrounding area as a stagnant storage area not manned by any employees or frequented regularly by customer looking to purchase boats is a potential target for crime, vandalism and/or loitering.

The above determination is based on your description of how the site will be used. In our meetings and written correspondence, you indicated that you will keep your waterfront office elsewhere (outside of the City of Hawaiian Gardens), that no staff will be onsite, and that you will only occasionally bring a customer to the site to pick up their boat and trailer it to the water for “test drives”. This description supports the City’s determination that the proposed use is more akin to boat storage as the Property will be used as an open air warehouse for boats that are moved elsewhere via trailer to “test drive” the boat. Further it is unclear to the City that if a sale is made in the aforementioned example, where the point of sale will be and where the appropriate sales tax will be paid.

The following is a timeline of the application process:
• 2/20/24 - Application submitted
• 2/20/24 - Application Payment
• 3/12/24 - Application Deemed Incomplete
• 4/30/24 - Meeting to discuss Proposed Project with Applicant • On 5/1/24, City Planning staff requested business information from you regarding your State License for Boat Sales (email dated 5/2/24). Specifically, City Planning staff asked which Boat Sales license type you will obtain for the proposed Boat Sales business.
• On 7/3/24 City Planning staff again requested the same information (email from 5/1/24) and that the information be submitted by 7/17/24. No State license information was provided in response to the request.
• On 8/28/24 an incomplete letter was issued, indicating that the State License information was not received, and the proposed project application was deemed incomplete.
• To date, the City has not received the State License information for Boat Sales. • On 10/18/24, you sent a letter outlining reasons why you believe we should issue the MUP, and you provided a California Department of Tax and Fee Administration Seller’s Permit (one component required by the State for resale of products in the State of California). No Boat Sales license was provided (agent or broker license).
3 | P a g e
Without other information indicating that boat sales will occur, the City is unable to make the required findings to support your proposed project – boat sales. This very same information was discussed with you previously in the City’s August 28, 2024 letter. This was done in the spirit of collaboration to try and work with you. This official determination is being issued based on your request.

If you disagree with Staff's determination, you may file an appeal of this determination per HGMC 18.100 within ten (10) days of the date of this letter.

Thank you,
Tonya Pace
Senior Planner

Exhibit C
Site Photos – 12347 E. Carson Street
Exhibit C
Site Photos – 12347 E. Carson Street
Exhibit C
Site Photos – 12347 E. Carson Street
Exhibit C
Site Photos – 12347 E. Carson Street

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]
December 20, 2024
IN PERSON AND VIA E-MAIL ([email protected])
Pablo Rubio
City Clerk
City of Hawaiian Gardens
21815 Pioneer Boulevard
Hawaiian Gardens, CA 90716
Re: City Planning Department Case No. PLNG2024-0011-MUP (12347 E. Carson Street) – Appeal to Planning Commission of City Staff Denial on December 12, 2024
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 appeal the City Staff’s December 12, 2024 denial of Surf City Boats’ minor use permit (“MUP”) application for the Project (the “MUP Denial”).

1. Background Facts and Summary of City’s Processing of the MUP Application The approximately 25,182 square foot (“sf”) Property is located on the periphery of the City, sharing its northern border with the neighboring City of Lakewood. Because of the Property’s location, which is not on a major corridor1 and, thus, does not experience significant foot traffic, no significant development has occurred on the Property, and currently the Property is essentially vacant, primarily serving as an unpaved parking area for trucks and trailers. (See City Circulation Plan [depicting that the Property is not along a “major,” “secondary,” or “collector” street]; below Google Maps aerial image.)
1 The Property has no frontage on E. Carson Blvd., notwithstanding its property address.

Mr. Pablo Rubio

Page 2 ends

[Google Maps aerial image of the Property,
with the red line approximating the City limit]
The Property has a General Plan land use designation of “General Commercial” and consistent with that designation, the Property is zoned “C4 – General Commercial.” (See City General Plan Land Use Map; City Zoning Map.) There is no dispute that the Property’s C4 – General Commercial zoning allows boat sales subject to an MUP. In fact, Surf City Boats’ decision to purchase the Property was done in reliance on the City’s confirmation that boat sales would be permitted on the Property subject to an MUP. Because of the City’s representation that boat sales would be permitted, and that Surf City Boats’ operation would be considered “boat sales,” Surf City Boats applied for an MUP. A brief summary of the MUP application timeline to date is as follows:
 On February 20, 2024 (following discussions about the proposed Project and the City’s confirmation that the Project was allowed on the Property’s “C4 – General Commercial” zone subject to the City’s approval of an MUP), Surf City Boats applied for a MUP for the Project. The City accepted the MUP Application and assigned it Case No. PLNG2024-0011- MUP.
 On March 12, 2024, the City determined the MUP Application was incomplete (the “First Incompleteness Determination”).
 On March 21, 2024, Surf City Boats was informed that City Planner Sophia Tatlyan, who had been handling the MUP Application and related matters up to that point, had been replaced by City Planner Tonya Pace. After this staff transition, the City inexplicably pivoted away from its earlier representations to Surf City Boats that the Project would qualify as a boat sales use and would be permitted on the Property subject to an MUP.  On May 1, 2024, the City requested that Surf City Boats provide an unspecified and unidentified state “license” for boat sales on the Property (the “State License Information”).

Mr. Pablo Rubio

Page 3 ends

 On July 10, 2024 and July 22, 2024, Surf City Boats re-submitted the MUP Application to the City in response to the First Incompleteness Determination.  On August 28, 2024, the City determined the MUP Application (re-submittal) was again incomplete (the “Second Incompleteness Determination”) due to Surf City Boats’ inability to provide what effectively amounts to a fictitious state “license,” because to our knowledge no such license for this purpose exists.
 On October 18, 2024, even though not necessary to do so because of the Permit Streamlining Act (Gov. Code, §§ 65920 et seq., the “PSA”), Surf City Boats submitted a California Department of Tax and Fee Administration “Seller’s Permit” for the Property in the hopes of satisfying the City’s request for some kind of State License Information, as this is the only state licensing requirement Surf City Boats is aware of that is applicable to boat sales.  Surf City Boats requested that the City confirm receipt of the abovementioned “Seller’s Permit” from the City. However, no confirmation was ever received. Instead, on December 12, 2024, the City issued the MUP Denial. (See Exhibit A [December 12, 2024 MUP Denial].)
 On December 13, 2024, Surf City Boats informed the City that it planned to appeal the MUP Denial, requesting confirmation on the appeal process and requirements. The City responded, six days into the (10-day) appeal period, on December 18, 2024.

2. Statement and Reasons for Appeal
Pursuant to the Hawaiian Gardens Municipal Code (“HGMC”), Surf City Boats provides the following information demonstrating “where a determination or interpretation is not in accord with the purposes of [the Zoning Code]; where the decision was made inconsistently with [the] Zoning Code; where the record includes inaccurate information; or where a decision is not supported by the record.” (Section 18.100.170.B.) More specifically, Surf City Boats appeals the MUP Denial for the following reasons:
a. Contrary to the City’s determination and interpretation, the Project is a boat sales use, which is allowed pursuant to the Property’s C4 – General Commercial zoning subject to an MUP.
b. The City prejudicially abused its discretion in denying the MUP. c. The City violated the PSA in denying and improperly processing the MUP application.
d. The MUP Denial constitutes a “takings” of property without just compensation (and violates other Constitutional principles).

Mr. Pablo Rubio

Page 4 ends

a. The Property is Zoned for the Boat Sales Use Project There is no dispute that the Property’s C4 – General Commercial zoning allows boat sales subject to an MUP. In evaluating whether Surf City Boats’ use of the property constitutes a boat sales use, City staff appear to be taking the position that some kind of State License Information is required in order for the City to consider Surf City Boats’ use of the Property as “boat sales” rather than “boat storage.” The HGMC includes no such requirement, and the City’s failure to raise this issue in the First Incompleteness Determination, or at any point prior, suggests that any State License Information is not in fact required for the City to determine whether the Project constitutes allowable boat sales, but is rather being used as a pretext for denial.

The Project certainly is a boat sales use. The primary activity on-site is the active display, marketing, and sale of boats to individual customers, with any “storage” of boats being only incidental to and a normal part of this sales process. The storage uses prohibited in the C4 – General Commercial zone involve indefinite or long-term placement of goods without any apparent on-site effort to sell them. (See HGMC, §§ 18.60.020.B, 18.60.050 [e.g., “trucking terminal,” “wholesale distribution and storage,” “warehouse and storage buildings”].) These uses are fundamentally different from Surf City Boats’ proposed use of the Property, where boats will be actively displayed, marketed, and sold from the Property, and where any “stored” inventory turns over as sales are completed.

In fact, the City would receive sales tax revenue from the Project’s boat sales, further confirming the Project as a boat sales use rather than boat storage.

Nor is the Project’s business model a reason to categorize the use as boat storage rather than boat sales. The MUP Denial focuses on the alleged minimal pedestrian traffic anticipated for the Project. Extraneous factors, however, such as the level of foot traffic is not a basis for whether a use should be classified as boat sales or boat storage. In fact, other uses permitted in the C4 – General Commercial zone do not require public-facing operations or unfettered walk-in access to qualify as an authorized use. (See HGMC, §§ 18.60.020.B, 18.60.050 [e.g., “administrative/professional offices, “general offices,” “financial institutions (mortgage, real estate, tax, bookkeeping, credit, insurance, brokers, etc.)”].) b. The City Prejudicially Abused Its Discretion in Denying the MUP The City’s decision whether to issue an MUP is quasi-adjudicatory, requiring it to apply existing standards. Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 governs judicial review of adjudicatory decisions by administrative agencies. (Topanga Association for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 514.) Under section 1094.5, the inquiry of a court extends to questions about the agency’s jurisdiction to proceed, whether there was a fair trial, and “whether there was any prejudicial abuse of discretion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5, subd. (b).) An abuse of discretion is established if the agency has failed to proceed “in Mr. Pablo Rubio

Page 5 ends

the manner required by law, the order or decision is not supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported by the evidence.” (Id.)
The factual basis behind an agency’s (such as the City’s) decision is reviewed for “substantial evidence . . . in the light of the whole record.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5, subd. (c).) Substantial evidence is not synonymous with any evidence—rather, it is defined as evidence of “ponderable legal significance … reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value [, and] relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion…” (Young v. Gannon (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 209, 225; accord DiMartino v. City of Orinda (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 329, 336 [substantial evidence “must be reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value; it must actually be ‘substantial’ proof of the essentials which the law requires in a particular case.”].) In other words, “[w]here findings are devoid of evidentiary support, or are based upon inferences arbitrarily drawn and without reasonable foundation, or are contrary to facts universally accepted as true and judicially known, the administrative order will be reversed as not being supported by substantial evidence in the light of the whole record.” (Lorimore v. State Personnel Board (1965) 232 Cal.App.2d 183, 187.) The substantial evidence test is essentially a reasonableness test and requires that a reasonable person, having weighed the evidence in the entire record, be able to reach the same conclusion reached by the decisionmaker in order for the decision to be deemed lawful. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5; Kirkorowicz v. California Coastal Commission (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 980, 986; Sierra Club v. California Coastal Commission (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 602, 610.) The City’s “findings” in the MUP Denial are predicated entirely on the false premise that the Project constitutes boat storage (rather than boat sales). (See Exhibit A, emphasis added [“[t]he proposed use is not consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Code and may be detrimental to the property or improvements in the surrounding area as a stagnant storage area not manned by any employees or frequented regularly by customer looking to purchase boats is a potential target for crime, vandalism and/or loitering.”].) There is no substantial evidence to support the City’s premise. (See Section 2.a, above; see also Exhibit B [point-by-point analysis establishing why the specific points raised in the City’s December 12, 2024 MUP Denial do not constitute substantial evidence, but are rather unjustified and pretextual bases for denying the MUP].) Consequently, the “findings” inherently fail with the failure of that premise.

Furthermore, the City has no substantial evidence to support its spurious, unfounded, and frankly unfair claim that the Project would become “a potential target for crime, vandalism and/or loitering.” If anything, it is reasonable to conclude the opposite—that the Project would mitigate any such risks by activating underutilized and vacant Property. The Project would revitalize this Property and contribute to a safer and more vibrant environment, not only for the Property but also the surrounding properties. In a similar vein, the sales tax revenue generated from the Project would extend the Project’s benefits to the entire City, by bolstering the City’s overall fiscal health and general welfare.

Mr. Pablo Rubio

Page 6 ends

c. The City Violated the PSA in Denying and Improperly Processing the MUP Application
The MUP Denial violated the Permit Streamlining Act (Gov. Code, §§ 65920 et seq., the “PSA”). Once a development project (such as the Project) is complete within the context of the PSA, a local agency cannot deny the application on the ground that incomplete information has been provided. (Chino MHC, LP v. City of Chino (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 1049, 1077–1078 [because Mobilehome park conversion application complete under the PSA, city violated the PSA when it denied an application based on determination that applicant failed to presented sufficient evidence of the nonexistence of a homeowners association related to a “survey of support” finding needed for the conversion]; see Gov. Code, § 65944, subd. (a) [upon receipt of the completeness determination, the PSA prohibits an agency from thereafter requesting that the applicant provide “any new or additional information which was not specified in the list prepared pursuant to Section 65940”].)
Here, based on the timeline provided above, the MUP application was deemed complete, by operation of law, on August 21, 2024, because the City failed to provide a written determination within 30 days of the July 22, 2024 resubmittal. Accordingly, the MUP Denial predicated on Surf City Boats failure to provide some kind of (fictitious) State License Information violates the PSA.

The City’s processing of the MUP application also violated the PSA.2 In short, the Legislature declared when it adopted the PSA that “there is a statewide need to ensure clear understanding of the specific requirements which must be met in connection with the approval of development projects and to expedite decisions on such projects.” (Gov. Code, § 65921.) Accordingly, the PSA mandates transparency in the local review process and prevents agencies from “moving the goalposts” by limiting documentation requests “to those items actually required on the lead agency’s submittal requirement checklist,” and, in subsequent instances, prohibiting “the applicant [from being required] to provide any new information that was not stated in the initial list of items that were not complete.” (Gov. Code, § 65943, subd. (a).) Furthermore, the PSA mandates that local agencies determine in writing whether an application is complete within 30 days of application submittal and re-submittal. (Gov. Code, § 65943 [“If the written determination is not made within 30 days after receipt of the application . . . the application shall be deemed complete for purposes of [the PSA]. Upon receipt of any resubmittal of the application, a new 30-day period shall begin, during which the public agency shall determine the completeness of the application.”].) Because the (fictitious) State License Information was not included on the MUP application submittal requirement checklist or identified as part of the First Incompleteness Determination, it is yet another violation of the PSA for the City to have required Surf City 2 While the City’s processing of the Project is not immediately relevant to this appeal, we include this to the extent Surf City Boats needs to raise it administratively in order to preserve the right to subsequently raise it in court, should (hopefully not) the need arise.

Mr. Pablo Rubio

Page 7 ends

Boats to provide the (fictitious) State License Information in order for the City to process the MUP application.
d. The MUP Denial Constitutes a “Takings” of Property, which Requites Just Compensation and Violates Other Constitutional Principles Takings without Just Compensation: “[W]hile property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking.” (Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992) 505 U.S. 1003, 1014.) There are multiple paths to establish a regulatory “takings.” For example, Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City (1978) 438 U.S. 104, 124 (“Penn Central”) provides a multi-factored test for establishing a takings including [1] the regulation's economic effect on the landowner, [2] the extent to which the regulation interferes with reasonable investment-backed expectations, and [3] the character of the government action.” (Palazzolo v. Rhode Island (2001) 533 U.S. 606, 617, citing Penn Central at p. 124.) Lockaway Storage v. County of Alameda (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 161, 185–188 (“Lockaway”) has established that a local agency’s about-face in how it applies its code and policies, especially when such change unreasonably impairs the value and use of the property and interferes with distinct investment-backed expectations, makes an agency (such as the City) liable for a temporary taking under the Penn Central test. Here, there is no denying that the MUP Denial interferes with Surf City Boats’ distinct investment-backed expectations (who purchased the Property specifically for a boat sales use, after confirming such with the City).

Nor is there any question that the MUP Denial impairs the value and use of the Property— especially considering the Property has historically only been an unpaved parking area for trucks and trailers.

Surf City Boats believes these are sufficient grounds for a court to find the MUP Denial constitutes a taking, especially considering the current composition of the Supreme Court is readily inclined to interpret takings precedent more favorably to property owners. (See Sheetz v.

County of El Dorado, 601 U.S. 267 (2024); Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, 594 U.S. 139 (2021); Pakdel v. City & County of San Francisco, 594 U.S. 474 (2021); Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, 588 U.S. 180 (2019).)
Other Constitutional Violations: Apart from the abovementioned takings claim, other Constitutional challenges would be available to Surf City Boats in connection with the MUP Denial. If the State License Information requirement (which is a fictitious requirement) has been selectively imposed on Surf City Boats, in contrast to other projects that might have actual and legitimate state licensing requirements but for which the City does not require the project applicant to provide evidence of such during the entitlement processing stage, then such conduct would appear to be mere pretext to discriminate against the Project. The City, thereby, could be found to have infringed upon Surf City Boats’ due process and equal protection rights as secured by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and article I, section 7(a) of the California Constitution. (See, e.g., Village of Willowbrook v. Olech (2000) 528 U.S. 562 [equal protection claim successfully brought by a “class of one” where the plaintiff was required to Mr. Pablo Rubio

Page 8 ends

provide a 33-foot easement when other similarly situated property owners only had to provide an 18-foot easement].)
* * *
In light of the above, we request that the Planning Commission grant this appeal and issue an approval for the MUP based on the following required findings:

1. That the proposed use is consistent with the general plan.

2. That the proposed use is not contrary to the objectives of this Zoning Code or to the objectives of the applicable regulations.

3. That the proposed use will be located, operated, and maintained in a manner consistent with the policies of the general plan and the provisions of this Zoning Code.

4. That the proposed use will not be detrimental to the property or improvements in the surrounding area or the public health, safety, or general welfare. (HGMC, § 18.100.050.E.)
As to the first finding—the Project is consistent with the General Plan.3 As discussed above, the Property has a General Plan land use designation of General Commercial. (See City General Plan Land Use Map.) This designation supports a “broad range of commercial services and uses,” which would include the boat sales Project. (General Plan, p. 51.) The Project, including its improvements and upgrades to the Property, is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan, including, but not limited to, Goal LU-1 [Provide opportunity for continued revitalization of a balanced community], Policy LU-4.2 [Encourage development of vacant and underutilized commercial parcels], Goal LU-7 [Ensure the compatibility of land uses in close proximity to residential areas and public facilities], and Goal ED-1 [Encourage a balanced mix of commercial and industrial land uses to support the community].

As to the second finding—the Project is not contrary to the objectives of the Zoning Code or to the objectives of the applicable regulations. As discussed above, the Project is consistent with the Property’s C4 – General Commercial zone, as this zone allows for the boat sales Project with approval of an MUP. The Project will comply with all applicable regulations. 3 The goal of consistency is accomplished, if, considering all its aspects, the project will further the objectives and policies of the general plan and not obstruct their attainment. A given project need not be in perfect conformity with each and every general plan policy. It is enough that the project is compatible with the plan's objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs. (Save Livermore Downtown v. City of Livermore (2022) 87 Cal.App.5th 1116, 1124.)
Mr. Pablo Rubio

Page 9 ends

As to the third finding—the Project will be located, operated, and maintained in a manner consistent with the policies of the General Plan and the provisions of the Zoning Code. As discussed above, the boat sales Project, inclusive of its location, operation, and maintenance, is consistent with the General Plan’s goals and policies as well as the Zoning Code.

As to the fourth finding, the Project will not be determinantal to the property or improvements in the surrounding area or the public health, safety, or general welfare. The boat sales Project has been thoughtfully designed and will be maintained to ensure compatibility with the surrounding area. Accordingly, there will be no detrimental impacts (e.g., noise impacts) to the surrounding area. In fact, by revitalizing the long-underutilized Property, the Project supports the public health, safety, and general welfare by improving the surrounding area’s aesthetic and economic appeal and, thereby, contributing to a safer environment as well.

Moreover, the sales tax revenue generated from the Project would extend the Project’s benefits to the entire City, by bolstering the City’s overall fiscal health and general welfare.

Furthermore, while the Project requires California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) clearance, substantial evidence supports the Project as categorically exempt4 from CEQA under the New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures exemption and the In-fill Development Projects exemption. (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15303 and 15332.) None of the exceptions to a categorical exemption are present. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15300.2.) Namely, substantial evidence supports that the location exception, cumulative impacts exception, unusual circumstances exception, scenic highways exception, hazardous waste site exception, and historical resources exception do not apply to the Project. (Id.) * * *
Given that there is no legally adequate basis for the Planning Commission to uphold the MUP Denial, and considering the MUP Denial’s violations of state law and constitutional principles, including the possibility of constituting an uncompensated “takings,” we strongly urge the Planning Commission to overturn the MUP Denial and approve the Project. Surf City Boats reserves its right to supplement this appeal letter prior to the hearing on the appeal, which must be heard within 45 days of this letter (i.e., by February 3, 2025). (HGMC, §

18.100.070.B.)
4 Categorical exemptions are classes of projects that the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency, with the authorization of the Legislature, has determined are exempt because they do not have a significant effect on the environment. (IBC Business Owners for Sensible Development v. City of Irvine (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 100, 132.)
Mr. Pablo Rubio

Page 10 ends

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]) Mr. Pablo Rubio

Page 11 ends

Exhibit A
[December 12, 2024 MUP Denial]
1 | P a g e

HAWAIIAN GARDENS
via email: [email protected]
December 12, 2024

Mr. Andrew Hard
16360 Pacific Coast HWY, Ste 216
Huntington Beach, CA 92649-1813
Subject: Case #PLNG2024-0011 MUP - Deny Application (Boat Sales) Location: 12347 E. Carson Street, Hawaiian Gardens, CA 90716 Dear Mr. Hard:

1.That the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan;

2.That the proposed use is not contrary to the objectives of this Zoning Code or to the objectives of the applicable regulations;

CITY OF “Our Youth – Our Future”
2 | P a g e

If you disagree with Staff's determination, you may file an appeal of this determination per HGMC 18.100 within ten (10) days of the date of this letter.

Thank you,
Tonya Pace
Senior Planner
Mr. Pablo Rubio

Page 12 ends

Exhibit B
[Responses to City Staff’s December 12, 2024 MUP Denial Assertions] MUP Denial Assertion Response
“Based on all of the totality of your
application, including your admitted
description of how the Property is going to
be used and the proposed site layout, the
City finds that your operations are more
akin to boat storage – which is not a
permitted use and thus the City cannot
make any of the required findings for the
MUP.”
In addition to the points raised in the body
of the appeal letter, we note that the City
has failed to provide any specifics details
how a boat storage site would differ in
layout from a boat sales site (the latter of
which all parties agree is allowed on the
Property’s C4 – General Commercial
zoning with the approval of an MUP).

The City provided feedback on the
Project’s proposed site layout, yet failed to
identify any specific design features that
would distinguish a boat “sales” site from a
boat “storage” site. One would reasonably
expect such distinctions to have been
discussed at that time (or at any time
during the months the MUP application
was pending before City staff). This raises
concerns about the legitimacy of the City’s
insistence on this point at this time.
“The proposed use is not consistent with
the General Plan and Zoning Code and
may be detrimental to the property or
improvements in the surrounding area as a
stagnant storage area not manned by any
employees or frequented regularly by
customer looking to purchase boats is a
potential target for crime, vandalism and/or
loitering.”
In addition to the points raised in the body
of the appeal letter, we note again that the
boat sales Project is consistent with the
General Plan and Zoning Code with the
approval of an MUP.

The assertion that the Project would be a
stagnant storage area not manned by any
employees or frequented regularly by
customers looking to purchase boats is
unfounded. In reality, it is expected that
employees and/or customers will be on-site
daily. Like many appointment based
business, Surf City Boats schedules
appointments to show boats when it has a
potential customer(s). It is illogical to
assume that Surf City Boats would pursue
Mr. Pablo Rubio

Page 13 ends

MUP Denial Assertion Response
a stagnant storage area, as it does not
generate Surf City Boats income.

The City has no substantial evidence to
support its spurious, unfounded, and
frankly unfair claim that the Project would
become “a potential target for crime,
vandalism and/or loitering.” If anything, it
is reasonable to conclude the opposite—
that the Project would mitigate any such
risks by activating underutilized and vacant
Property. The Project would revitalize this
Property and contribute to a safer and more
vibrant environment, not only for the
Property but also the surrounding
properties. In a similar vein, the sales tax
revenue generated from the Project would
extend the Project’s benefits to the entire
City, by bolstering the City’s overall fiscal
health and general welfare.
“In our meetings and written
correspondence, you indicated that you
will keep your waterfront office elsewhere
(outside of the City of Hawaiian Gardens),
that no staff will be onsite, and that you
will only occasionally bring a customer to
the site to pick up their boat and trailer it to
the water for “test drives”. This description
supports the City’s determination that the
proposed use is more akin to boat storage
as the Property will be used as an open air
warehouse for boats that are moved
elsewhere via trailer to “test drive” the
boat. Further it is unclear to the City that if
a sale is made in the aforementioned
example, where the point of sale will be
and where the appropriate sales tax will be
paid.”
In addition to the points raised in the body
of the appeal letter, we note that the fact
that Surf City Boats maintains an office
elsewhere (outside of the City) is irrelevant
to the MUP application for the specific
Project. The same criticism can be made
of any use, such as a bakery, having its
administrative offices in a different city.

The City’s reference to boats being moved
off-site for “test drives” is logical,
considering the necessity of a large body of
water, such as the nearest ocean access
point, for conducting such tests.

The sales made from the Project will be
attributed to the Property in the City, as
demonstrated by the provided California
Department of Tax and Fee Administration
(“CDTFA”) “Seller’s Permit,” which
shows the address of the Property. As per
the CDTFA, this documentation confirms
Mr. Pablo Rubio

Page 14 ends

MUP Denial Assertion Response
that a portion of the sales taxes paid will be
allocated to the City.

Without other information indicating that
boat sales will occur, the City is unable to
make the required findings to support your
proposed project – boat sales.

See the body of the appeal letter, showing
that the required MUP findings for the
Project are supported by substantial
evidence.

CITY OF HAWAIIAN GARDENS

PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
Fabiola Hernandez, Vice Chairmember
Luis Alvarez, Commissioner
Axzel Roman,
Chairmember
Wednesday, January 29, 2025
Special Meeting, 6:00 PM
Luis Gonzalez, Commissioner
Grant Winford, Commissioner
AGENDA

1. Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing, and consider an appeal by Surf City Boats, Inc. of a denial of a minor use permit (PLNG2024-0011) by City staff for a proposed boat sales business located at 12347 E. Carson Street (“Property”) in the city (APN: 7066- 017-127).

SUGGESTED ACTION: Determine that the proposed use of the Property is a Boat Sales business as permitted via a MUP under the HGMC and satisfies the requirement of a MUP as stated in HGMC section 18.100.050 (E).

Or;
Uphold Staff’s Denial of the Appellant’s request.

Exhibit E

CITY OF HAWAIIAN GARDENS

PLANNING COMMISSION

STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item #A1
DATE: January 29, 2025
TO: HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Elise McCaleb, Community Development Director
BY: Patrick Donegan, Assistant City Attorney
Tonya Pace, Senior Planner
SUBJECT:

APPEAL BY SURF CITY BOATS, INC. OF A DENIAL OF A MINOR USE PERMIT (PLNG2024-0011) BY CITY STAFF FOR A PROPOSED BOAT SALES BUSINESS LOCATED AT 12347 E. CARSON STREET (“PROPERTY”) IN THE CITY (APN: 7066- 017-127).

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the members of the Planning Commission diligently review the materials presented by Staff, the Appellant and any other evidence before the Commission and makes one of the following decisions:

1.) The proposed use of the Property is a Boat Sales business as permitted via a MUP under the HGMC and satisfies the requirement of a MUP as stated in HGMC section

18.100.050 (E):
“1. That the proposed use is consistent with the general plan;

2. That the proposed use is not contrary to the objectives of this Zoning Code or to the objectives of the applicable regulations;

3. That the proposed use will be located, operated, and maintained in a manner consistent with the policies of the General Plan and the provisions of this Zoning Code; and

4. That the proposed use will not be detrimental to the property or improvements in the surrounding area or the public health, safety, or general welfare.” Or;
2). The Planning Commission makes a determination to uphold Staff’s Denial of the Appellant’s request.

Agenda Item #A1
January 29, 2025

Page 2 ends

SUMMARY
Surf City Boats, Inc. (“Appellant”) is appealing City staff’s denial of an application for a minor use permit (“MUP”) for a boat sales business at the Property. As discussed in more detail below, City staff denied the application. Pursuant to the Hawaiian Gardens Municipal Code (“HGMC”), the Appellant timely filed this appeal.

Surf City Boats application proposes to be located on an approximately 25,182 square foot partially vacant lot, located on the southwest corner of Claretta Avenue and Tilbury Street. The boat sales proposal includes use of the existing Mobile Home - Office as a proposed office, and parking lot, equipment area, landscaping, fencing, and lighting improvements. It should be noted, the Surf City Boats proposal includes a shared office with a separate business, which would require review and approval of separate license and any necessary permits in accordance with HGMC.

Location and Zoning Map
The subject site is zoned C-4 General Commercial and abuts properties that are zoned C-4 General Commercial to the south, southwest, and east on Carson Street. Properties to the west are zoned R-4 High Density Residential. Properties across the street from the subject site on Tilbury Street are zoned R-1 Single-Family Residential, located in the City of Lakewood. Properties to the northwest on Farlow Street are zoned R-1 Single Family Residential.

Existing Site Conditions
The existing site is partially occupied with what appears to be a contractor storage yard with construction equipment, commercial vehicles/trucks, and building materials.

Contractor Storage Yards (and related vehicles, equipment and materials) are not allowed in the C-4 zone, nor have any licenses or approvals been issued for this use on the site.

Agenda Item #A1
January 29, 2025

Page 3 ends

The subject site has been partially cleaned over the past year. At least one unlicensed business appears to be on the site.

Agenda Item #A1
January 29, 2025

Page 4 ends

Agenda Item #A1
January 29, 2025

Page 5 ends

Timeline:

The following is a timeline of the application review process:
• 2/20/24 - Application submitted (attached as Exhibit A). • 2/20/24 - Application Payment.
• 3/12/24 - Application deemed incomplete.
• 4/30/24 - Meeting to discuss Proposed Project with Appellant. • On 5/1/24, City Planning staff requested business information from Appellant requesting what type of State License Appellant would obtain for Boat Sales. • On 7/3/24 City Planning staff again requested the same information and that the information be submitted by 7/17/24. No State License for Boat Sales was provided in response to the request.
• On 8/28/24 an incomplete letter was issued, indicating that the State License information was not received, and the proposed project application was deemed incomplete.
• On 10/18/24, Appellant sent letter outlining reasons why Appellant believes the City should issue the MUP, and Appellant provided a California Department of Tax and Fee Administration Seller’s Permit. No Boat Sales license was provided (agent or broker license).
• December 12, 2024 - City formally denies MUP application in writing to Appellant (attached as Exhibit B).
• Appellant timely filed its appeal on December 20, 2024 (attached as Exhibit C).

ANALYSIS/DISCUSSION
Minor Use Permit (MUP)
The table of permitted uses found in Section 18.60.050 (Uses Permitted in NonResidential Zones) of the Hawaiian Gardens Municipal Code (HGMC) allows auto sales (new or used) as a use that is permitted in the Commercial General (C-4) zone subject to the issuance of a Minor Use Permit (MUP). HGMC Section 18.20.030 defines “automobile sales area” to include “an open area or building used for the display or sales of new or used automobiles, trucks, trailers, or boats.” (emphasis added). The Property is located in the C-4 zone. Thus, a MUP was required for the proposed project at the Property.

HGMC Section 18.100.050 (E) lists the required findings for a MUP and states:
“In granting a Minor Use Permit, the Director shall make the following findings:

1. That the proposed use is consistent with the general plan;

2. That the proposed use is not contrary to the objectives of this Zoning Code or to the objectives of the applicable regulations;
Agenda Item #A1
January 29, 2025

Page 6 ends

3. That the proposed use will be located, operated, and maintained in a manner consistent with the policies of the General Plan and the provisions of this Zoning Code;

4. That the proposed use will not be detrimental to the property or improvements in the surrounding area or the public health, safety, or general welfare.” In Staff’s review of the totality of the application, including Appellant’s description of how the Property is going to be used and the proposed site layout, staff believed that the proposed operations are more akin to boat storage – which is not a permitted use in the HGMC. Thus, staff could not make the required findings for the MUP as the proposed use is not consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Code and may be detrimental to the property or improvements in the surrounding area as a stagnant storage area not manned by any employees or frequented regularly by customers looking to purchase boats is a potential target for crime, vandalism and/or loitering.

The above determination was based on the Appellant’s description of how the site will be used. In meetings and written correspondence, the Appellant indicated that it would keep its waterfront office elsewhere (outside of the City of Hawaiian Gardens). They added that no staff will be onsite, and that Appellant will only occasionally bring a customer to the site to pick up their boat and trailer to take to the water for “test drives.” Further, it was unclear to the City that if a sale is made in the aforementioned example, where the point of sale will be and where the appropriate sales tax will be paid.

Pursuant to HGMC Section 18.100.050 (D), any decision by Staff is final unless an appeal is filed by the Appellant pursuant to section 18.100.170 of the HGMC. As noted above, the Appellant timely filed an appeal. The reasons for the appeal are set forth in full in Exhibit C.1
HGMC Section 18.100.170 posits the purpose and process for the filing and consideration of an appeal and in pertinent, subsection F described the decision criteria for the Planning Commission:
“F. Decision criteria.

1. The appeal body shall make the same findings and use the same criteria as the decision-making body whose action is appealed.

2. If new plans are submitted during the appeal process, this shall be considered as a new request and therefore, a new application shall be submitted. 1 In order to avoid paraphrasing or misrepresenting the Appellant’s position, staff is referring the Planning Commission to the entirety of the Appellant’s appeal. However, the Planning Commission’s role is to review and decide the appeal pursuant to the provisions of the HGMC related to the MUP. Other legal/constitutional arguments posited by the Appellant are disputed by City staff and are not the purview of the Planning Commission.

Agenda Item #A1
January 29, 2025

Page 7 ends

3. Nothing herein shall prevent the appellate or review body from imposing conditions on a project and granting approval to a project modified by conditions imposed as part of the decision.

4. The decision of the City Council shall be final.”
Thus, the Planning Commission should independently review the Appellant’s application and all other written and oral evidence presented to the Planning Commission at the public hearing and exercise its own independent judgment as to whether the proposed project at the Property is consistent with the HGMC and meets the HGMC required findings for a MUP.

Proposed Site Layout and Design
The proposed site plan shows use of the existing mobile home as an office, ingress and egress via the existing driveway, 13 Boat, Truck, and Trailer parking spaces, and 10 additional vehicle parking spaces. The proposed site plan also shows required perimeter landscaping, fencing and lighting (Proposed Site Plan included in Exhibit A).

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
The proposed appeal of the Minor Use Permit (MUP) is deemed categorically exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Specifically, denial of the MUP application is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Public Resources Code §21080(b)(5) and CEQA Regulation, §15270 (a), which posit that CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves. Should the Planning Commission decide to approve the MUP as applied for, then that approval is exempt under CEQA Regulations §§15301, 15303(c) &(e), 15304(b) 15311(a) &(b), and 15332, because it establishes rules and procedures to alter existing facilities, permit new construction or conversion of small structures; permit minor alterations to the land and landscaping; construct or replace accessory commercial structures, signs, and parking lots; and permits an in-fill development project which are all exempt under the aforementioned CEQA Regulations. The MUP is therefore categorically exempt from further CEQA review under CEQA Regulations §§15301, 15303(c) &(e), 15304(b), 15311(a) &(b), and 15332.

PUBLIC INPUT
As of the date that this report was prepared, staff has received one correspondence regarding this matter (Exhibit D.)
Agenda Item #A1
January 29, 2025

Page 8 ends

ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A - Application, Proposed Site Plan, Business Operation Description Exhibit B - City’s Denial Letter - dated December 12, 2024 Exhibit C - Appellant’s Appeal Letter - dated December 20, 2024 Exhibit D - Public Input

1 | P a g e

HAWAIIAN GARDENS
via email: [email protected]
December 12, 2024

1.That the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan;

2.That the proposed use is not contrary to the objectives of this Zoning Code or to the objectives of the applicable regulations;

CITY OF “Our Youth – Our Future”
2 | P a g e

If you disagree with Staff's determination, you may file an appeal of this determination per HGMC 18.100 within ten (10) days of the date of this letter.

Thank you,
Tonya Pace
Senior Planner

Mr. Pablo Rubio

Page 2 ends

Mr. Pablo Rubio

Page 3 ends

Mr. Pablo Rubio

Page 4 ends

In fact, the City would receive sales tax revenue from the Project’s boat sales, further confirming the Project as a boat sales use rather than boat storage.

Page 5 ends

Mr. Pablo Rubio

Page 6 ends

Mr. Pablo Rubio

Page 7 ends

Page 8 ends

1. That the proposed use is consistent with the general plan.

2. That the proposed use is not contrary to the objectives of this Zoning Code or to the objectives of the applicable regulations.

3. That the proposed use will be located, operated, and maintained in a manner consistent with the policies of the general plan and the provisions of this Zoning Code.

Page 9 ends

Moreover, the sales tax revenue generated from the Project would extend the Project’s benefits to the entire City, by bolstering the City’s overall fiscal health and general welfare.

Page 10 ends

Page 11 ends

Exhibit A
[December 12, 2024 MUP Denial]
1 | P a g e

HAWAIIAN GARDENS
via email: [email protected]
December 12, 2024

1.That the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan;

2.That the proposed use is not contrary to the objectives of this Zoning Code or to the objectives of the applicable regulations;

CITY OF “Our Youth – Our Future”
2 | P a g e

If you disagree with Staff's determination, you may file an appeal of this determination per HGMC 18.100 within ten (10) days of the date of this letter.

Thank you,
Tonya Pace
Senior Planner
Mr. Pablo Rubio

Page 12 ends

Page 13 ends

MUP Denial Assertion Response
a stagnant storage area, as it does not
generate Surf City Boats income.

Page 14 ends

MUP Denial Assertion Response
that a portion of the sales taxes paid will be
allocated to the City.

Without other information indicating that
boat sales will occur, the City is unable to
make the required findings to support your
proposed project – boat sales.

See the body of the appeal letter, showing
that the required MUP findings for the
Project are supported by substantial
evidence.

From: City of Hawaiian Gardens, CA
To: Tonya Pace
Subject: Public Hearing Case PLNG2024-0011 - Minor Use Permit Date: Thursday, January 23, 2025 11:38:30 AM
Message submitted from the <Hawaiian Gardens, CA> website.

Site Visitor Name: Sylvia Minjares
Site Visitor Email: [email protected]
Our Sr. Planner, Paul Kuykendall would like a copy of the staff report, exhibits, and any related traffic or parking studies.

Thank you in advance for your assistance and have a great day! Sylvia Minjares, Administrative Clerk
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

Page 2 ends

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

Page 3 ends

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

Page 4 ends

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

Page 5 ends

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

Page 6 ends

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

Page 7 ends

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.

CITY OF HAWAIIAN GARDENS

PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
Fabiola Hernandez, Vice Chairmember
Luis Alvarez, Commissioner
Axzel Roman,
Chairmember
Wednesday, March 5, 2025
Regular Meeting, 6:00 PM
Luis Gonzalez, Commissioner
Grant Winford, Commissioner
AGENDA

1. Recommendation to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2025-001, approving (overturning staff’s denial) a Minor Use Permit (PLNG2024-0011-MUP), subject to conditions of approval for a proposed boat sales business located at 12347 E. Carson Street (“Property”) in the City of Hawaiian Gardens (APN: 7066- 017-127) and determining that the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

SUGGESTED ACTION: Approve Recommendation.

CITY OF HAWAIIAN GARDENS

PLANNING COMMISSION

STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item #A1
DATE: March 5, 2025
TO: HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Elise McCaleb, Community Development Director
BY: Patrick Donegan, Assistant City Attorney
Tonya Pace, Senior Planner
SUBJECT:

APPEAL BY SURF CITY BOATS, INC. OF A DENIAL OF A MINOR USE PERMIT (PLNG2024-0011-MUP) BY CITY STAFF FOR A PROPOSED BOAT SALES BUSINESS LOCATED AT 12347 E. CARSON STREET (“PROPERTY”) IN THE CITY (APN: 7066- 017-127) AND APPROVAL RESOLUTION NO 2025-001.

RECOMMENDATION:

Per the Planning Commission’s direction on January 29, 2025, Staff prepared the attached Resolution 2025-001, approving (overturning Staff’s denial) a Minor Use Permit (PLNG2024-0011 MUP), subject to Attachment A - Conditions of Approval, for a boat sales business located at 12347 E. Carson Street (“Property”) in the City of Hawaiian Gardens (APN: 7066-017-127) and determining that the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The Planning Commission’s approval of the aforementioned Resolution No. 2025-001 is based on the following findings:

The proposed use of the Property is a Boat Sales business as permitted via a MUP under the HGMC and satisfies the requirement of a MUP as stated in HGMC section 18.100.050 (E):
“1. That the proposed use is consistent with the general plan;

2. That the proposed use is not contrary to the objectives of this Zoning Code or to the objectives of the applicable regulations;

3. That the proposed use will be located, operated, and maintained in a manner consistent with the policies of the General Plan and the provisions of this Zoning Code; and
Agenda Item #A1
March 5, 2025

Page 2 ends

4. That the proposed use will not be detrimental to the property or improvements in the surrounding area or the public health, safety, or general welfare.”

Agenda Item #A1
March 5, 2025

Page 3 ends

Timeline:

The following is a timeline of the application review process:
• 2/20/24 - Application submitted.
• 2/20/24 - Application Payment.
• 3/12/24 - Application deemed incomplete.
• 4/30/24 - Meeting to discuss Proposed Project with Appellant. • On 5/1/24, City Planning staff requested business information from Appellant requesting what type of State License Appellant would obtain for Boat Sales. • On 7/3/24, City Planning staff again requested the same information and that the information be submitted by 7/17/24. No State License for Boat Sales was provided in response to the request.
• On 8/28/24, an incomplete letter was issued, indicating that the State License information was not received, and the proposed project application was deemed incomplete.
• On 10/18/24, Appellant sent letter outlining reasons why Appellant believes the City should issue the MUP, and Appellant provided a California Department of Tax and Fee Administration Seller’s Permit. No Boat Sales license was provided (agent or broker license).
• On 12/12/24, the City formally denies MUP application in writing to Appellant. • On 12/20/25, the Appellant timely filed its appeal.
• On 1/29/25, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing to consider the appeal of Minor Use Permit (PLNG2024-0011 MUP), and directed Staff to prepare a Resolution for Approval.
• Staff prepared Resolution No. 2025-001 for approval subject to Attachment A - Conditions of Approval.

Existing Site Conditions
The existing site is partially occupied with what appears to be a contractor storage yard and includes construction equipment, commercial vehicles/trucks, and building materials.

Contractor Storage Yards (and related vehicles, equipment and materials) are not allowed in the C-4 zone, nor have any licenses or approvals been issued for this use on the site.

The subject site has been partially cleaned over the past year. At least one unlicensed business appears to be on the site.

Agenda Item #A1
March 5, 2025

Page 4 ends

Agenda Item #A1
March 5, 2025

Page 5 ends

Agenda Item #A1
March 5, 2025

Page 6 ends

ANALYSIS/DISCUSSION
The following Section is the analysis from the Staff Report for the Planning Commission meeting on January 29, 2025.

Minor Use Permit (MUP)
The table of permitted uses found in Section 18.60.050 (Uses Permitted in NonResidential Zones) of the Hawaiian Gardens Municipal Code (HGMC) allows auto sales (new or used) as a use that is permitted in the Commercial General (C-4) zone subject to the issuance of a Minor Use Permit (MUP). HGMC Section 18.20.030 defines “automobile sales area” to include “an open area or building used for the display or sales of new or used automobiles, trucks, trailers, or boats.” (emphasis added). The Property is located in the C-4 zone. Thus, a MUP was required for the proposed project at the Property.

HGMC Section 18.100.050 (E) lists the required findings for a MUP and states:
“In granting a Minor Use Permit, the Director shall make the following findings:

1. That the proposed use is consistent with the general plan;

2. That the proposed use is not contrary to the objectives of this Zoning Code or to the objectives of the applicable regulations;

3. That the proposed use will be located, operated, and maintained in a manner consistent with the policies of the General Plan and the provisions of this Zoning Code;

Agenda Item #A1
March 5, 2025

Page 7 ends

1. The appeal body shall make the same findings and use the same criteria as the decision-making body whose action is appealed.

2. If new plans are submitted during the appeal process, this shall be considered as a new request and therefore, a new application shall be submitted.

3. Nothing herein shall prevent the appellate or review body from imposing conditions on a project and granting approval to a project modified by conditions imposed as part of the decision.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
The proposed appeal of the Minor Use Permit (MUP) is deemed categorically exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Specifically, denial of the MUP application is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Public Resources Code §21080(b)(5) and CEQA Regulation, §15270 (a), which posit that CEQA 1 In order to avoid paraphrasing or misrepresenting the Appellant’s position, staff is referring the Planning Commission to the entirety of the Appellant’s appeal. However, the Planning Commission’s role is to review and decide the appeal pursuant to the provisions of the HGMC related to the MUP. Other legal/constitutional arguments posited by the Appellant are disputed by City staff and are not the purview of the Planning Commission.

Agenda Item #A1
March 5, 2025

Page 8 ends

does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves. Should the Planning Commission decide to approve the MUP as applied for, then that approval is exempt under CEQA Regulations §§15301, 15303(c) &(e), 15304(b) 15311(a) &(b), and 15332, because it establishes rules and procedures to alter existing facilities, permit new construction or conversion of small structures; permit minor alterations to the land and landscaping; construct or replace accessory commercial structures, signs, and parking lots; and permits an in-fill development project which are all exempt under the aforementioned CEQA Regulations. The MUP is therefore categorically exempt from further CEQA review under CEQA Regulations §§15301, 15303(c) &(e), 15304(b), 15311(a) &(b), and 15332.

PUBLIC INPUT
As of the date that this report was prepared, staff has received one correspondence regarding this matter, requesting the staff report for the January 29, 2025 Public Hearing.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A - Conditions of Approval
Attachment B - RESOLUTION NO. 2025-001
Attachment C - Planning Commission Staff Report 1/29/25

RESOLUTION NO. 029-2025

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HAWAIIAN

GARDENS, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
AFFIRMING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO APPROVE A MINOR USE PERMIT (PLNG2024-0011 MUP), SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OF

APPROVAL FOR A PROPOSED BOAT SALES BUSINESS LOCATED AT
12347 E. CARSON STREET (“PROPERTY”) IN THE CITY OF HAWAIIAN GARDENS (APN: 7066-017-127) AND DETERMINING THAT THE PROJECT IS

CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL

QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
WHEREAS, Surf City Boats, Inc., (“Applicant”) filed an application for a Minor Use Permit (“MUP”) for a boat sales business at the Property (“Project”); and WHEREAS, the Property is located within the C-4 (General Commercial) zoning district and is designated as General Commercial on the City of Hawaiian Gardens General Plan Land Use Map; and
WHEREAS, a Minor Use Permit (“MUP”) is required for a boat sales business; and WHEREAS, a proposed site plan was submitted in conjunction with the Minor Use Permit (“MUP”) application for the Project. The boat sales proposal includes use of the existing Mobile Home as a proposed office, and parking lot, equipment area, landscaping, fencing, and lighting improvements; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director issued a denial letter for the proposed Minor Use Permit (PLNG2024-0011 MUP) on December 12, 2024 based on the fact that the City is unable to make the findings required by the Hawaiian Gardens Municipal Code (“HGMC”); and
WHEREAS, the Applicant appealed the Director’s decision on December 20, 2024 to the Planning Commission of the City of Hawaiian Gardens (“Planning Commission”); and
WHEREAS, on January 17, 2025, a Public Notice was published in the Los Cerritos Community News; and notices were placed at the City Hall, Lee Ware Park, and Lakewood Mobile Home Park; and notices were mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the subject property specifying the date, time and location of the public hearing before the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on January 29, 2025, and fully considered all oral and written testimony, facts, and opinions offered at the aforesaid public hearing, and directed Staff to prepare a Resolution for Planning Commission Approval as a Consent Agenda item; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determined that Case Number PLNG2024- 0011 does satisfy the criteria of Section 18.100.050 (E) of the City of Hawaiian Gardens Exhibit H
Municipal Code for an MUP in that:

1. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan;

2. The proposed use is not contrary to the objectives of this Zoning Code or to the objectives of the applicable regulations;

3. The proposed use will be located, operated, and maintained in a manner consistent with the policies of the General Plan and the provisions of this Zoning Code;

4. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the property or improvements in the surrounding area or the public health, safety, or general welfare; and WHEREAS, the proposed MUP was deemed categorically exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Specifically, The approval is exempt under CEQA Regulations §§15301, 15303(c) &(e), 15304(b) 15311(a) &(b), and 15332, because it establishes rules and procedures to alter existing facilities, permit new construction or conversion of small structures; permit minor alterations to the land and landscaping; construct or replace accessory commercial structures, signs, and parking lots; and permits an in-fill development project which are all exempt under the aforementioned CEQA Regulations. The MUP is therefore categorically exempt from further CEQA review under CEQA Regulations §§15301, 15303(c) &(e), 15304(b), 15311(a) &(b), and 15332; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at its Regular Meeting on March 5, 2025, adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 2025-01 approving PLNG2024-0011 MUP subject to compliance with certain Conditions of Approval attached as Attachment “A” to Resolution No. 2025-01; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority granted in HGMC Section 18.100.170(D), any member of the City Council is authorized to call up for review any decision made by the Director or Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, on March 10, 2025, City Council Member Farfan requested review of the Planning Commission’s decision adopting Resolution No. 2025-01, approving PLNG2024-0011 MUP, authorizing the operation of a Boat Sales business; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on October 22, 2025, and fully considered all oral and written testimony, facts, and opinions offered at the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, all other prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Hawaiian Gardens as follows:

SECTION 1. RECITALS
The City Council hereby finds and determines that the foregoing recitals, which are incorporated herein by reference, are true and correct.

SECTION 2. MINOR USE PERMIT (PLNG2024-0011) Decision & Findings Having considered all of the oral and written evidence presented to it at said public hearing regarding the proposed Boat Sales business, the City Council hereby affirms and sustains the Planning Commission’s decision adopting Resolution No. 2025-02 approving PLNG2024-0011MUP, subject to the condition of approval contained in Attachment “A” to this Resolution. The City Council’s decision is based on the following:

1. The proposed use (Case PLNG2024-0011) is consistent with the General Plan and is not expected to be detrimental to the property or improvements in the surrounding vicinity;

2. That the proposed use is not contrary to the objectives of this Zoning Code or to the objectives of the applicable regulations;

3. That the proposed use will be located, operated, and maintained in a manner consistent with the policies of the General Plan and the provisions of this Zoning Code;

4. That the proposed use will not be detrimental to the property or improvements in the surrounding area or the public health, safety, or general welfare.

SECTION 3. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The action is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act because it is exempt from further CEQA review under CEQA Regulations §§15301, 15303(c) &(e), 15304(b), 15311(a) &(b), and 15332.

SECTION 4. RELIANCE OF 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 City Council in all respects and are fully and completely supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole.

SECTION 5. SUMMARIES OF INFORMATION
All summaries of information in the findings, which precede this section, are based on the substantial evidence in the record. The absence of any particular fact from any such summary is not an indication that a particular finding is not based in part on that fact.

SECTION 6.

The Mayor of the City of Hawaiian Gardens is hereby authorized to affix his signature to this Resolution signifying its adoption by the City Council.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Hawaiian Gardens City Council on this 22nd day of October 2025.
__________________________
Dandy de Paula
Mayor
Case Number PLNG2024-0011-MUP Page 1
October 22, 2025
ATTACHMENT “A”
Conditions of Approval
Case Number PLNG2024-0011-MUP (Surf City Boats, Inc.)
The Planning Commission hereby approves Case No. PLNG2024-0011 Minor Use Permit (MUP), subject to the following conditions necessary to protect the public’s health, safety, and general welfare.

Planning Department:

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 unless approved by the Community Development Department.

2. This approval allows for the sales 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. No maintenance, repair, or painting of any boats and trailers shall be conducted on the premises. No installation of any products, upholstery installation or repair shall be conducted on the premises.

4. The operator of the facility shall be responsible at the close of each business day to clean the property of all trash and debris including the adjacent public ways.

5. The driveways and parking lot shall not be sprayed or washed with any type of cleaning agent that could potentially be hazardous to the environment.

6. The approved hours of operation are as follows:

Daily 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM, by appointment only.

7. The Boat Sales use, per the approved site Plan, requires a minimum of ten (10) onsite customer parking spaces, to be provided per Code. The parking requirement is calculated based on the following operational characteristics and site layout shown on the approved Plan:
a. 1 space per 250 square feet of office area (1,500/250 = 6 spaces); b. 1 space per 1,000 square feet of outdoor display (3,900/1,000 = 4 spaces).

8. All parking areas shall be repaved and restriped per HGMC 18.70.010 under separate permit, subject to the review and approval by Planning and Building Divisions.

Case Number PLNG2024-0011-MUP Page 2
October 22, 2025

9. All customer parking identified on the approved Plan shall be for passenger cars and light-duty passenger trucks. Such customer parking area shall remain free of display and for-sale boats, trailers, and equipment.

10. Customer vehicles shall be parked in designated spaces only and shall not otherwise be parked in the drive aisles or other areas of the facility.

11. No sales or advertising is permitted from public streets or sidewalks.

12. All onsite improvements, including Parking lot Paving and Restriping, Landscape and Screening, Trash Enclosure and Recycling, Fencing, Walls, Gates, Lighting shall be shown on the plans for plan check in compliance with HGMC 18.70 Nonresidential Regulations, submitted to Community Development for review and approval under separate.

13. The existing perimeter chain link fencing and barbed wire (sitewide) shall be removed. 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. All decorative block walls shall have anti-graffiti coating.

14. Exterior 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.

15. Site-wide security cameras shall be provided to survey the subject site at all times.

16. A photometric lighting plan shall be provided with plans submitted for plan check to show that all areas on the site are lit, and that no lighting spillover will occur offsite.

17. The owner/applicant shall provide a security lighting plan during plan check for the subject site including customer and employee parking, boat and trailer display parking, and equipment areas.

18. All site lighting shall be shielded away from residential properties.

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 Case Number PLNG2024-0011-MUP Page 3
October 22, 2025
any noise complaints be formally submitted to the Sheriff Department/Code Enforcement, 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.

20. Onsite Vehicle storage is allowed under this MUP per HGMC 8.70.060 and is limited to a maximum of thirteen (13) 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) would require additional MUP review and approval of a new (or modified MUP) for vehicle storage.

21. 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: boat trailers for sale, equipment dollies, hand-trucks, and trailer mules for sale and for use onsite moving boats.

22. No hazardous materials (ie. gasoline, propane, oil) shall be stored on the premises.

23. Minor changes to the site plan shall be reviewed by the Community Development Director, and approved if acceptable. Major changes to the site plan or operation shall require the submittal of a new application (or Modification to the MUP) and plans to the Planning Department.

24. All signs require separate permits, subject to the review and approval by Planning and Building Divisions. The applicant shall obtain all applicable permits.

Approval of these plans does not imply approval of any signage.

25. The new trash enclosure shall be provided per HGMC 18.70.030, and shall meet all City and Commercial Waste requirements. The trash enclosure design, colors, and materials shall be consistent and compatible with the other structures on the site. Trash must be picked up as necessary to ensure that the trash enclosure has adequate space to accommodate the needs of the site. No trash storage/disposal shall be placed in the public right of way.

26. All new onsite utilities shall be provided underground.

27. This Minor Use Permit may be reviewed and reconsidered by the Director of Community Development and/or City Council at any time for the purpose of imposing new conditions to mitigate a nuisance or to revoke the permit to abate a nuisance.

28. Any questions of intent or interpretation of any conditions shall be resolved by the Case Number PLNG2024-0011-MUP Page 4
October 22, 2025
Director of Community Development.

29. It is not the intent of this approval to supersede and or replace any previously approved entitlements and associated conditions for the subject property. The Director of Community Development shall have the discretion to determine which conditions shall apply should conflicts arise between this approval and any other entitlements on the property.

30. These terms and conditions shall be perpetual, for the approved use only. All conditions for this use shall also bind all future owners and possessors of the subject property to the terms and conditions.

31. Plans shall be submitted to LA County Fire Prevention - Land Development Unit for review and compliance with all applicable codes and regulations, subject to review and approval by LA County Fire Department.

32. 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, such approval shall automatically become null and void.

33. The Subdivision Improvement Agreement shall be executed and recorded, subject to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.

34. Owner/Applicant shall fully indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless the City of Hawaiian Gardens (City) and the City’s agents, officers, employees, and attorneys (collectively, “Indemnified Parties”) from and against any and all actual or alleged claims, actions and/or proceedings against the Indemnified Parties by third-parties that relate to or arise from any approval of the Project or any related approvals, including but not limited to (i) any California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) approvals, findings, and/or determinations, (ii) the approval of any permits (including any conditional use permits), variances, plot plans, design plans, maps (including any tentative parcel maps), licenses, or amendments, (iii) any challenge to the reasonableness, legality or validity of any of the conditions set forth herein, and (iv) any other approvals or actions taken by the Indemnified Parties relating to the project (collectively, “Approvals”). The owner/applicant’s indemnification obligation shall include, but shall not be limited to, any and all future third-party claims, actions, and/or proceedings against the Indemnified Parties (i) which seek to attack, set aside, void, or annul any of the Approvals; and/or (ii) which seek damages (including, without limitation, special and consequential damages and punitive damages) allegedly related to or arising from the Approvals (collectively, “Claims”). The owner/applicant’s indemnification obligation shall further include, but shall not be limited to, any damages, fees (including attorney’s fees), and or/costs either awarded against and/or incurred by the Indemnified Parties in connection with the Claims.

Case Number PLNG2024-0011-MUP Page 5
October 22, 2025

35. Freedom Boat Club / Surf City Boats, Inc. shall obtain a business license and adhere to HGMC Chapters 5.04 and 5.06.

Building Department

1. The second sheet of building plans is to list all conditions of approval and to include a copy of the Planning Decision letter. This information shall be incorporated into the plans prior to the first submittal for plan check.

2. Fees shall be paid to the County of Los Angeles Sanitation District prior to issuance of the building permit.

3. In accordance with paragraph 5538(b) of the California Business and Professions Code, plans are to be prepared and stamped by a licensed architect.

4. Structural calculations prepared under the direction of an architect, civil engineer or structural engineer shall be provided.

5. South Coast Air Quality Management District must be contacted prior to any demolition or renovation. Call (909) 396-2000 for further information. Failure to comply with the provisions of Rule 1403 may result in a penalty of up to $25,000 per day.

6. A geotechnical and soils investigation report is required. Prior to permit issuance a PDF copy of the soils report shall be provided by the applicant.

7. The owner shall retain the soils engineer preparing the Preliminary Soils and/or Geotechnical Investigation accepted by the City for observation of all excavation and compaction testing. Observation and testing shall not be performed by another soils and/or geotechnical engineer unless the subsequent soils and/or geotechnical engineer submits and has accepted by the Public Works Department, a new Preliminary Soils and/or Geotechnical Investigation.

8. All State of California disability access regulations for accessibility shall be complied with.

9. Electrical plan check is required.

10. Mechanical plan check is required.

Engineering Division

1. Prior to submitting the final map to the City Public Works Department for examination, the owner/applicant shall obtain clearances from all affected Departments and Division, for the following mapping items: mathematical accuracy, survey analysis, and correctness of certificates, signatures, etc.

Case Number PLNG2024-0011-MUP Page 6
October 22, 2025

2. Prior to submittal of a final map, the owner/applicant shall pay all fees required to review documents and plans for final map clearance.

3. A final parcel map prepared by, or under the direction of a Registered Civil Engineer authorized to practice land surveying, or a Licensed Land Surveyor, must be processed through the City Engineer's office prior to being filed with the County Recorder.

4. A preliminary subdivision guarantee is required showing all fee interest holders and encumbrances. An updated title report shall be provided before the final tract/parcel map is released for filing with the County Recorder.

5. If applicable, monumentation of parcel map boundaries, street centerline and lot boundaries is required for a map based on a field survey.

6. Final parcel map shall be filed with the County Recorder and one (1) mylar copy of filed map shall be submitted to the City Engineer's office prior to issuance of building permits.

7. If applicable, the project shall comply with all requirements of the Subdivision Map Act.

8. The property shall be graded to drain to the street or approved easement, but in no case shall such drainage be allowed to sheet flow across the public sidewalk. A grading and/or drainage plan prepared by a licensed civil engineer shall be submitted to and approved by the Building Official/City Engineer, and such grading and drainage shall take place in accordance with such approved plan.

9. Per the Subdivision Improvement Agreement, the Permittee shall dedicate street easements, storm drain easements, public utility easements, sewer easements, bikeway easement or other identified easement to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The Permittee shall hire a Civil Engineer or Land Surveyor to prepare the legal description for the easement to be dedicated and shall the use the forms provided by the City. A street dedication at Tilbury Street shall be dedicated to the City to accommodate a full-width sidewalk and the completion of the circular cul-de-sac.

10. Water service facilities, including appropriate backflow prevention devices, shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Building Official.

11. Sanitary sewer facilities shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

12. If applicable, the owner/applicant shall submit a copy of the sewer plans to the Case Number PLNG2024-0011-MUP Page 7
October 22, 2025
City and to the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works for review.

Show sewer connections on site plan.

13. Grading and drainage plans must be approved to provide for contributory drainage from adjoining properties as approved by the City Engineer, including dedication of the necessary easements. A grading and drainage plan must be provided for this property to have an independent drainage system to the public street, to a public drainage facility, or by means of an approved drainage easement. Historical or existing storm water flow from adjacent lots must be received and directed by gravity to the street, a public drainage facility, or an approved drainage easement. Plans must be stamped by a registered civil engineer.

14. Offsite improvement plans must be approved by City Engineer and stamped by a register civil engineer.

15. Applicant shall install ADA compliant curb ramp at the southwest corner of Tilbury Street and Claretta Avenue. The existing tree and planter adjacent to the ramp shall be removed.

16. Applicant shall install ADA driveway along Claretta Avenue and replace adjacent parkway drain if damaged.

17. The gate located along Claretta Avenue shall be offset 20 feet from the street property line and shall be an electronic opening and closing gate per satisfaction of the Community Development Department, and Public Works.

18. The applicant shall construct new sidewalk on Tilbury Street to accommodate the street widening for the dedication to build the full cul-de-sac and the sidewalk shall extend to the intersection at Tilbury Street and Claretta Avenue.

19. The applicant shall construct a new decorative block wall along Tilbury Street to accommodate the new cul-de-sac extension. Such wall shall be constructed per Code under separate permit, subject to review and approval by Community Development and Public Works.

20. ADA parking stalls to be included onsite per Planning Department parking count requirement.

21. Pursuant to HGMC Chapter 6.47, the Permittee shall comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Los Angeles County MS4 Permit and the City of Hawaiian Gardens.

22. The Permittee shall pay all fees and charges in place related to report review and implementation, plan checking, and any field inspections.

Case Number PLNG2024-0011-MUP Page 8
October 22, 2025

23. The Applicant shall submit a drainage report if applicable. Hydrologic and hydraulic calculations demonstrating adequate site drainage from a 25-year return frequency storm (50-year frequency in sump areas) prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted with the Grading Plan. The report shall conform to the requirements of the latest edition of the Los Angeles County Hydrology Manual. If a drainage report is not applicable, a drainage memo shall be supplied to the City for review to show there are no impacts to the drainage systems.

24. The plans shall be checked and stamped for approval by the city engineering Division before building permits area issued. Project must comply with all Public Works requirements. All Public Works notes and corrections must be printed on the plan, and all requirements must be completed per the approved plans prior to the issuance of a building final.

25. A City public works permit shall be taken out for all work in public right-of-way before starting work. All work shall be done in accordance with APWA Standards and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and must be completed before issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. Utility trenches in the street rightof-way shall have pavement restoration per City Engineer.

26. A bond or surety device shall be posted with the City in an amount and type sufficient to cover the amount of off-site and on-site work to be done, as approved by the City Engineer.

27. Pad certification by the Design Civil Engineer and Soil Engineer is required prior to the commencement of structural construction.

28. The final compaction report prepared by a qualified Soil Engineer shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval before the commencement of structural construction.

29. The Applicant shall submit a Geotechnical Report for review.

30. All driveways, sidewalk and ADA Ramp shall meet current ADA requirements.

Improvements to be done per City Standards.

31. All existing off-site public improvements (sidewalk, curb & gutter, driveways, and street paving) at the development site, or adjacent to, which are in a damaged condition or demolished due to the proposed work shall be reconstructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and per City Standards.

32. Subdivision Improvement Agreement must be executed prior to approval of grading and building permits.

RESOLUTION NO. 029-2025

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HAWAIIAN

GARDENS, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
OVERTURNING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION AND DENYING A MINOR USE PERMIT (PLNG2024-0011 MUP) FOR A PROPOSED BOAT SALES BUSINESS LOCATED AT 12347 E. CARSON STREET (“PROPERTY”) IN THE CITY OF HAWAIIAN GARDENS (APN: 7066-017-127) AND

DETERMINING THAT THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM

THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
WHEREAS, Surf City Boats, Inc., (“Applicant”) filed an application for a Minor Use Permit (“MUP”) for a boat sales business at the Property (“Project”); and WHEREAS, the Property is located within the C-4 (General Commercial) zoning district and is designated as General Commercial on the City of Hawaiian Gardens General Plan Land Use Map; and
WHEREAS, a Minor Use Permit (“MUP”) is required for a boat sales business; and WHEREAS, a proposed site plan was submitted in conjunction with the Minor Use Permit (“MUP”) application for the Project. The boat sales proposal includes use of the existing Mobile Home as a proposed office, and parking lot, equipment area, landscaping, fencing, and lighting improvements; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director issued a denial letter for the proposed Minor Use Permit (PLNG2024-0011 MUP) on December 12, 2024 based on the fact that the City is unable to make the findings required by the Hawaiian Gardens Municipal Code (“HGMC”); and
WHEREAS, the Applicant appealed the Director’s decision on December 20, 2024 to the Planning Commission of the City of Hawaiian Gardens (“Planning Commission”); and
WHEREAS, on January 17, 2025, a Public Notice was published in the Los Cerritos Community News; and notices were placed at the City Hall, Lee Ware Park, and Lakewood Mobile Home Park; and notices were mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the subject property specifying the date, time and location of the public hearing before the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on January 29, 2025, and fully considered all oral and written testimony, facts, and opinions offered at the aforesaid public hearing, and directed Staff to prepare a Resolution for Planning Commission Approval as a Consent Agenda item; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determined that Case Number PLNG2024- 0011 does satisfy the criteria of Section 18.100.050 (E) of the City of Hawaiian Gardens Municipal Code for an MUP in that:

Exhibit I

1. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan;

2. The proposed use is not contrary to the objectives of this Zoning Code or to the objectives of the applicable regulations;

3. The proposed use will be located, operated, and maintained in a manner consistent with the policies of the General Plan and the provisions of this Zoning Code;

4. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the property or improvements in the surrounding area or the public health, safety, or general welfare; and WHEREAS, the proposed MUP was deemed categorically exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Specifically, denial of the MUP application is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Public Resources Code §21080(b)(5) and CEQA Regulation, §15270 (a), which posit that CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves. The MUP is therefore categorically exempt from further CEQA review under CEQA Regulations §§15301, 15303(c) &(e), 15304(b), 15311(a) &(b), and 15332; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at its Regular Meeting on March 5, 2025, adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 2025-01 approving PLNG2024-0011 MUP subject to compliance with certain Conditions of Approval; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority granted in HGMC Section 18.100.170(D), any member of the City Council is authorized to call up for review any decision made by the Director or Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, on March 10, 2025, City Council Member Farfan requested review of the Planning Commission’s decision adopting Resolution No. 2025-01, approving PLNG2024-0011 MUP, authorizing the operation of a Boat Sales business; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on October 22, 2025, and fully considered all oral and written testimony, facts, and opinions offered at the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, all other prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Hawaiian Gardens as follows:

SECTION 1. RECITALS
The City Council hereby finds and determines that the foregoing recitals, which are incorporated herein by reference, are true and correct.

SECTION 2. MINOR USE PERMIT (PLNG2024-0011) Decision & Findings Having considered all of the oral and written evidence presented to it at said public hearing regarding the proposed Boat Sales business, the City Council hereby overturns the Planning Commission’s decision adopting Resolution No. 2025-02 and denies PLNG2024-0011MUP. The City Council’s decision is based on the following:

1. The proposed business operation for boat sales is not compatible with the stated purposes Hawaiian Gardens General Plan.

The Hawaiian Gardens General Plan-Land Use Element describes the policies and goals applicable to the City’s commercial designations. Applicable Goals and Policies provide:

Goal LU-4: Provide commercial retail opportunities that serve residents and visitors.

Policies:

LU-4.4 Encourage the development of high-quality of high-quality commercial projects.

LU-4.5 Ensure that applicable land use regulations allow for commercial uses that serve a broad market area, including visitor-serving uses.

LU-4.7 Provide neighborhood commercial uses throughout the community to make goods and services available within walking distance of residents. • Typically, office/professional and retail businesses have regular hours of operation as well as employees onsite. The proposed business does not have a regular schedule and is by appointment only and there are no employees onsite. • The proposed use does not support the residential area by providing shops for goods and services. No goods or services will be provided for the nearby residential area.
• The use is different from auto sales in that boats are stored and trailered to the water, thereby making the use more similar to “storage” than a showroom which is typical for auto sales.

2. That the proposed use is contrary to the objectives of this Zoning Code or to the objectives of the applicable regulations.

HGMC Section 18.60.020(A) states in part, that
“The purpose of the general commercial (C-4) zone is to designate areas for office/professional and retail businesses in the City that support residential area and provide jobs for area residents. These areas are intended to accommodate a variety of shops for goods and services to serve the needs of the surrounding community. The C4 zone is consistent with the general commercial designation of the General Plan.” The proposed use will not serve the needs of the surrounding community. The proposed boat sale use appears to serve the needs of waterfront communities as the intended purpose of the site is to bring customers from there to this site, for the purpose of viewing boat inventory. Further, use of the sales trailer with another office use and shared storage area with unrelated contractor equipment, is inconsistent with the use of the site as a boat sales facility.

3. That the proposed use will be located, operated, and maintained in a manner not consistent with the policies of the General Plan and the provisions of this Zoning Code.

4. That the proposed use will be detrimental to the property or improvements in the surrounding area or the public health, safety, or general welfare.

As noted, the purpose of the C-4 Zone designation is to designate areas for office/professional and retail businesses in the City that support residential area and provide jobs for area residents. The proposed use will not serve the surrounding residential area. Further, the existing improvements on the site are inconsistent with the use of the site as a boat sales facility given that a portion of the site will be occupied by at least one other use that proposes to use the site as an office with storage of construction equipment. Such use is incompatible with a boat sales display area and customer office location.

SECTION 6.

The Mayor of the City of Hawaiian Gardens is hereby authorized to affix his signature to this Resolution signifying its adoption by the City Council.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Hawaiian Gardens City Council on this 22nd day of October 2025.
__________________________
Dandy de Paula
Mayor
Introduction
• Good evening Mayor and Councilmembers.
• My name is Andrew Hard, owner of Surf City Boats,
Inc. and 12347 E. Carson Street.
• Goal: correct misunderstanding and show project
aligns with zoning code and General Plan.
• This isn’t confrontation — it’s about restoring
fairness, transparency, and confidence.

How We Got Here
• Confirmed in early 2024 that boat sales allowed in C4 General Commercial with Minor Use Permit. • Applied in good faith; met all requests; agreed to 6
reasonable conditions (Sofia Tatlyan / Elise McCaleb).
• Mid-process, Sofia replaced by Tonya Pace — staff
reclassified use from Boat Sales to Boat Storage.
• Appealed decision → Planning Commission ruled in
favor, confirming compliance.

This Is a Real Boat Sales Business
• Part of Freedom Boat Club – largest boat club in the
world.
• Authorized dealer for 30+ manufacturers: Boston
Whaler, Sea Ray, Mercury Marine, etc.
• Operating since 2015; sold 27 boats in 2024, ~$2M in
sales.
• Sells ~1/3 of 50-boat fleet annually; CDTFA sales
generate local tax revenue.

Correcting False Claims
• Staff claimed business was 'boat storage' and
required nonexistent state license.
• Provided DMV proof showing no such license exists;
claim persisted.
• After losing appeal, staff quietly removed false
requirement.
• Mischaracterizations caused over $100K in lost time
and opportunity.

Improving the Property and
Community
• Property was in poor condition — broken fencing,
barbed wire, scattered tenants.
• Investments made: replaced fencing, new
lighting/landscaping, repainted office, added
licensed tenants.
• Site is now clean, secure, and productive — an asset
to the neighborhood.

Retaliation and Delay
• After appeal win, staff treatment changed dramatically. • Added 24 new conditions (6 → 32); denied tenant
licenses; cited minor repairs.
• Requests for written clarification ignored; City Manager promised investigation but no action.
• Pattern of retaliation and obstruction — not regulation. • Actions erode trust and contradict fairness.

Why the City’s Actions Are Improper
• Permit conditions must be related, proportionate,
and necessary.
• Staff added condition tied to old Subdivision
Improvement Agreement – invalid and unrecorded.
• Cannot legally be applied; violates Permit
Streamlining Act.

The Ask
• March 5, 2025: Planning Commission adopted to
allow MUP.
• Use is consistent with General Plan, complies with
zoning, not detrimental.
• Ask: Affirm Planning Commission decision and
restore 6 original conditions.

Restoring Trust and Fairness
• I’ve improved the property and acted in good faith.
• Faced delays, misinformation, and retaliation.
• Remain committed to legitimate, compliant business
that benefits Hawaiian Gardens.
• Thank you for helping restore fairness and trust.

Original 6 Conditions of Approval

1. Remove privacy screening from fence and replace with plastic slats.

2. Clarify if the boat trailers are for sale display or equipment storage.

3. Dimension all proposed stall. All new restriped parking stalls shall have a minimum dimension of 9’ x 20’.

4. Replace proposed tree with one from the City Master List

5. Show location of trash receptacles. Receptacles shall be stored in allocation, not visible from the street.

6. Please clarify on the plan if applicant is also requesting approval of overnight storage of company vehicles. Outdoor storage of vehicles shall comply with HGMC 18.70.060 .

STATEMENT
Rodrigo A. Ochoa Reynoso
Re: Surf City Boats, Inc. / 12347 E. Carson Street – City of Hawaiian Gardens In connection with the matter described above, I have been asked the following questions by Cox Castle & Nicholson LLP, legal counsel for Surf City Boats, Inc., as to its ownership and business operations at 12347 E. Carson Street in the City of Hawaiian Gardens. Below are my responses to each of these questions.

Section 1 – Background and Role

1. Please state your full name, title, and the period during which you performed code-enforcement services for the City of Hawaiian Gardens. Rodrigo A. Ochoa Reynoso - Enforcement Contractor from Willdan Engineering.

2. Were you an employee or an independent contractor during that period, and who were your direct supervisors? Yes, I was an on site. My direct supervisor was Elise.

3. Describe your general duties and responsibilities as a Code Enforcement Officer.

My duties at the city were to keep the city clear of illegal dumping, working on cases that other officers had left me and any other particular cases that Elise, City Manager, or Planning had for code enforcement.

4. Who were your principal contacts within the Planning or Community Development Department? Planning was Tonya and Kevin, Building was Nick, and Elise was the director
Section 2 – Assignment to 12347 E. Carson Street

5. When were you first assigned to handle enforcement matters at 12347 E. Carson Street, and who directed that assignment? All the cases were assigned to me when Jan B. left the job because of not having good leadership and knowledge of what they wanted to do. Also, it was said they didn’t want Jan there because she worked too much and made planning work too. The case became mine the day Jan left and Elise guided me to some that were on the agenda.

6. What instructions or expectations did you receive regarding the level of monitoring or enforcement at that property? Elise wanted the property owner to get things done, so the plan was to cite until the property owner would make the changes most important on the property, changes of things that could hurt someone, and to work with the property owner to have the property taken care of. I was advised that the property had to be monitored everyday morning and afternoon to see any changs or movement. Actually, on one occasion, I met with one of the property’s renters that came into the yard. I got some information from him. She asked to check it every day at least twice a day.

7. Were you told that this property should be treated differently from other commercial properties in the City? Elise and Tonya were upset because they had lost a hearing, something about them not having the right information. Also, Tonya was upset and Elise frustrated because Tony asked the property owner for information that didn’t exist just to deny the application of his property. That is why the moment the property owner decided to change the fence, Kevin and I were instructed to go immediately to the property and ask the property owner to stop the work that Elise and Tonya had asked him to do in prior time. That was the first time I met the property owner, Andrew, who was making the changes on the fence as requested by the city.

Section 3 – Citation Instructions and Enforcement Pattern

8. Were you ever instructed to issue weekly citations to Mr. Hard’s property, even when no new violations existed? If so, who gave those instructions, and how were they communicated? I was instructed by Elise to cite weekly on the property and to look for different violations, such as monitor their noise and to cite the property owner and renters for what she and planning had asked, which was the fence.

9. After Mr. Hard corrected previously cited issues (such as fencing repairs or barbed-wire removal), were you told to “find something else” to cite? By whom? Yes, Elise and Tonya would meet in Elise’s office and say that the lawyer had said to cite weekly. She would ask me what we could cite that location for to add things to the case, to cite not only the property owner but also the renters “To get their attention”

10. Were you or others instructed to conduct surveillance, routine monitoring, or photographic drive-bys of Mr. Hard’s property? Who gave those instructions, how frequently were they expected, and was this standard practice for other properties? The Director Elise asked me to pass by at least twice a day five days a week to the property, morning and afternoon. If possible to check and take pictures of any movements going on in the property. No this was not standard practice, as it only happened for this property, and there were many worse properties or cases happening at that time.

11. Did you ever express to supervisors that there were no further violations to cite, and if so, what was their response? Elise would ask me to cite for the fence violation, which I had told her that the fence had been changed, so I couldn’t cite for that. She said to look for other violations on the property to cite. But that stopped the moment Mr. Hard made a presence at City Hall. Tonya and Elise would get very upset and agitated when Andrew came in and asked questions about his property and the citations. They would ask me for his vehicle information and to check if he was in the parking lot.

12. Compared with other commercial properties, was the level of enforcement and monitoring at 12347 E. Carson Street typical, or was it unusually aggressive or punitive? I have worked in different cities and a different environments. I noticed that there was a particular situation going on with this property.

Another property they had issues with was one near Andrew’s property. They called it the 7-Eleven. The owner’s name was Josh, I forgot his last name. He had also come into City Hall and requested to talk to people above Elise to try to come to an agreement on his property. It felt like Elise and Tonya had it out for a couple with properties that questioned them and asked for other people at city hall.

Section 4 – Planning-Department Conduct and Internal Statements

13. Did any City staff member—including Tonya Pace or Elise McCaleb—ever state that Mr. Hard would “never” receive approval of his Minor Use Permit (MUP) or that the property would only be used as a storage yard? If so, who said this and in what context? Yes, I heard that from Tonya and the reason was that she thought the property owner just wanted to use the yard to store old boats, and that once he got in his property it would be like a junk yard for boats. She also questioned other properties or businesses that the property owner had in other cities by doing the research and mentioning it to the whole office. She made comments to Elise that she did not feel that the property owner was truthful, and that was the reason why she did not think it would be appropriate for the city to approve anything from him.

14. Did you hear Ms. McCaleb or Ms. Pace express that Mr. Hard had “embarrassed” the department or that they wanted to “get him on something” after his successful appeal? They mentioned it to the whole office that they were very upset. That, how was it possible that the property owner had successfully appealed? Elise also questioned Tonya in different locations on hiccups that Tonya had made on requesting certificates or licenses that do not exist. Elise brought this up to Tonya’s attention because the City Manager had brought it up to Elise. They were very upset due to the fact that they did not have all their ducks in a row and the property owner was able to successfully appeal their decision. That’s way they were going to try to make it impossible for him to get what he wanted.

15. Did any planner—such as Kevin Nguyen—disagree with Ms. Pace’s assessment and believe Mr. Hard’s project was appropriate or beneficial to the community? Please describe any discussions that you observed. Kevin did question Tonya’s assessment on the property and also made a point several times say that Tonya would take a very long time approving or disapproving any planning projects, as that would make her still valuable for the City, as she was a contractor. Kevin mentioned that there were many projects, and that Tonya would take months and months so that she could still have job. Also, Kevin mentioned that Tonya would say one thing, then say another thing, not only in this property owner’s case, but in many other cases, and that Kevin had to come out and try to fix the stuff for her. It was mentioned in the office many times that Tonya would go into Elise’s office to discuss things and would make Elise change actions or things already discussed, not only in his work load but in other areas.

16. What were Elise’s and Tonya’s thoughts on the tenants Mr. Hard had for his property? Tonya made the comment that the tenants the property owner had were not high value and that they would not attract very good tax value for the city, as other people would.

17. Are you aware of comments or directives from City Manager Ernesto Marquez criticizing Ms. McCaleb or Ms. Pace for delays or mishandling of Mr. Hard’s case? If so, please describe what you heard or observed. There was several times when Ernesto, after he met with Andrew Hard, came into Elise’s office and questioned the whole situation, and how Mr. Hard’s case had been treated by Tonya. He also questioned the time it takes Tonya to work on cases and brought it to Elise’s attention that the Community was bringing it up to him that Tonya would come late to work and or not show up. Others in the office were expected to show up.

Tonya had special treatment by Elise. Elise would follow Tonya’s opinions a lot with things the Tonya did not know about. That was the situation other code officers, like Jan, brought to my attention, since Tonya did not know much about code and would try to make things up. We heard that Elise went to war for Tonya when Ernesto chewed her up for the wrongful license and certification that Tonya had asked Mr. Hard for.

18. Did you hear any comments about the special permits or certifications, “a state boat sales license” that the property owner was required to get? Yes, Elise questioned Tonya several times about the permit not existing. She was upset Elise had not done her research properly and that it was causing problems with the case. Tonya said she had made a mistake since it was very similar to a situation at another city she had worked in. Then, later her story changed. I believe Tonya got caught in a lie.

19. Did you observe any changes in Ms. Pace’s behavior—such as attendance, responsiveness, or professionalism—after Mr. Hard filed his complaint or after Mr. Marquez addressed her performance? Yes, she started going in early and coming to the office on time for a few weeks.

20. Are you aware of other property owners or applicants who complained about unfair or inconsistent treatment by the Planning Department? Please identify any such cases or examples. Josh, the 7-Eleven guy, and Jimmy, a Hawaiian Gardens resident. He was told by Tonya to take down his carport. Tonya had looked at the wrong address and had made Jimmy demolish a carport that was actually already permitted.

21. Did Ms. McCabe or Ms. Pace treat certain people or cases differently? If so, how? Yes, people that questioned their authority would be treated poorly. They would make comments after people would call or they would hide when certain people would come to the front counter.

Section 5 – Restrictions on Communication

22. Did you attempt to meet or speak directly with Mr. Hard to discuss citation issues or compliance? Yes, at the city hall in Hawaiian Gardens and when I met him with Kevin on the fence issue.

23. Were you ever told that you were not permitted to meet or communicate with Mr. Hard? Yes, I was meeting with Mr. Hard in the conference room going over his citations and Elise told me she was “not comfortable” with me going over citations alone with Mr. Hard.

24. In your experience, were similar restrictions imposed on communication with other property owners or applicants? No, that had not happened before.

25. Did the City Manager, Mr Marquez, ever question you about Mr. Hard’s case?

Hawaiian Gardens City CouncilDecember 10, 2025

Hawaiian Gardens City Council
December 10, 2025