CITY OF HAWAIIAN GARDENS
CITY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item #A1
DATE: December 10, 2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Elise McCaleb, Community Development Director
BY: Elise McCaleb, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA REPORT: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS – CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: MINOR USE PERMIT (MUP) FOR A
PROPOSED BOAT SALES BUSINESS LOCATED AT 12347 E. CARSON STREET
SUMMARY
On October 22, 2025, the City Council held a public hearing to review the Planning Commission’s approval of Minor Use Permit (“MUP”) No. PLNG2024-0011 to authorize a boat sales business to be located at 12347 E. Carson Street (“the Property”). A copy of the October 22nd staff report is attached.
During the hearing, City staff made a presentation discussing the background and history of the requested MUP and the hearing conducted by the Planning Commission. The hearing was opened and the City Council heard a presentation from the Applicant and other interested parties, including existing tenants that are occupying the same Property pending separate appeals to denials of business license applications. The Applicant provided the Council with a PowerPoint presentation that raised certain additional issues. At the conclusion of the public comments, the City Council kept the hearing open and continued this matter to December 10, 2025.
The purpose of this supplemental report is to provide additional information in response to comments made during the hearing. These include the following statements made by Applicant (taken directly from the PowerPoint presentation):
1. Confirmed in early 2024 that boat sales allowed in C-4 General Commercial with Minor Use Permit; Applied in good faith; met all requests; Agreed to 6 reasonable conditions (Sophia Tatlyan / Elise McCaleb); Mid-process, Sophia replaced by Tonya Pace — staff reclassified use from Boat Sales to Boat Storage.
12347 E. Carson Street
December 10, 2025
Response
Email records indicate that City staff were still confirming the proposed use of the site throughout most of 2024. In late 2023, staff provided emails to the Applicant soliciting additional information about the proposed boat sales operations, the accessory operations and additional businesses that would occupy the site. An email dated October 11, 2023, by Senior Planner Sophia Tatlyan informed the Applicant that “[T]his application is not guaranteed to be approved and may be publicly noticed.”
As noted in the original staff report, on February 20, 2024, the Applicant filed their application for a Minor Use Permit (“MUP”). On March 12, 2024, City staff sent a letter to the Applicant (attached) informing the Applicant that the MUP application was incomplete. The letter, written by Senior Planner Sophia Tatlyan to the Applicant, listed six (6) requested changes to the site plan that were needed to formalize a complete MUP application and explicitly stated that the application was incomplete. We believe the Applicant’s reference to having six original conditions relates to this letter about their incomplete application. However, the March 12 letter clearly indicates that the six items identified in the letter were requested changes to the site plan needed to complete the MUP application so that staff could conduct its review and were not meant to be proposed (final) conditions of approval. No revised site plan was received by the City.
2. Staff claimed business was 'boat storage' and required nonexistent state license.
Response
After the Applicant submitted their Application on February 24, 2024, City staff attempted to determine the actual proposed use of the property – whether it was boat sales or boat storage.
As part of these efforts, City staff corresponded and met with the Applicant to discuss their incomplete application and solicit additional information (including sales tax and other information) about their proposed use to determine whether it was allowed in the C-4 zone. Hawaiian Gardens Municipal Code, Section 18.20.040 provides that:
“Whenever there is uncertainty over the meaning of terms in this Zoning Code, official interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Code shall be made by the Community Development Director…”
The requests by staff to the Applicant for state licensing and tax information were made for the purpose of assisting the Director in determining whether the proposed use was boat sales (a permitted use with an MUP) or boat storage (an unpermitted use). During project review, it is typical and routine to review proposed business operations, and related permits, and licenses required, pursuant to HGMC Section 5.04.060. Staff requested that the Applicant provide a license on May 2, 2024. A Seller’s Permit was provided on October 18, 2024 with an effective date of December 1, 2024. Moreover, as part of staff’s due diligence, staff asked the Applicant if he had any other existing locations to better understand the operation of the proposed business.
The applicant provided an address for a location in a neighboring city that looks like an unimproved storage lot. It was reasonable and within staff’s discretion to request additional information about licensing and other information related to the proposed business use to inform the Director’s interpretation and ultimate decision to deny the permit based on the required findings.
12347 E. Carson Street
December 10, 2025
3. Cited minor repairs. Pattern of retaliation and obstruction — not regulation.
Response
There is no argument that this site maintains certain code violations related to site conditions including overgrown landscaping, and construction work completed without building permits.
Some of these are cosmetic and relatively easy to comply with, while others are more substantive and more expensive to fix. In fact, the Applicant noted that some of the cosmetic items have been completed such as removing the razor wire from the fencing and trimming landscaping. City Code Enforcement efforts focused on gaining compliance relating to the cosmetic items. The more substantive items related to land use have been deferred pending resolution of this MUP request.
The Applicant’s presentation also included an interview with a former consulting code enforcement officer, who was a contractor with the City for less than six months. That interview (attached) implies that staff targeted the applicant due to personal animus. Staff strongly disputes this characterization. The City engaged in routine code enforcement, including for code violations at the property related to property maintenance as described above. The Department deploys a code enforcement officer to work throughout the City. A code enforcement officer’s primary function is to make site visits to inspect, investigate, and enforce municipal code violations. To conduct multiple site visits for open code violations in a City comprised of one square mile is standard practice.
4. Added 24 new conditions (6 → 32); Requests for written clarification ignored.
Response
As noted above, the six listed items referenced by the Applicant were never conditions of approval to be attached to the MUP, which would require formal action by the Director. They were incomplete items needed for the submittal of a complete MUP application. When the Director’s denial of the Application was appealed by the Applicant to the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission overturned the Director’s decision and approved the MUP, it imposed 32 Conditions of Approval, typical of all conditional use permits and minor use permits. These conditions include standard onsite improvements (e.g. paving, landscaping, fencing, lighting, exterior façade improvements), all of which would be required to comply with the City’s nonresidential regulations (HGMC 18.70). They also address such standard conditions as parking, security, noise, trash enclosures, signage, and hours of operation, none of which are unusual or uncommon conditions to permits. Other conditions are related to the proposed boat sales use and/or safety. For example, limiting boat size, prohibiting boat repair and maintenance and storage of hazardous materials on the premises, designated customer parking, no sales on public streets and sidewalks, and limits to overnight vehicle storage (boats, trucks, trailers) and outdoor storage/equipment area per the City’s code and final approved site plan.
The Applicant provided a letter to the City Clerk dated March 5, 2025 - the day the MUP was approved at the Planning Commission meeting - requesting modifications and clarifications to the Conditions of Approval. That letter was emailed to the City Clerk by the Applicant’s attorney, reviewed by the Planning Commission and no revisions were directed. The March 5th letter states that the intention was not for the Planning Commission to resolve the requested modifications to the proposed conditions but to ensure the Applicant’s concerns were formally documented and included in the record ahead of the City Council appeal hearing. Subsequently, on March 26, 12347 E. Carson Street
December 10, 2025
2025, staff met with the Applicant (each with legal counsel present) to address their concerns, but the discussion did not lead to a resolution on the imposed conditions and communication stalled pending this hearing.
Since this is a de novo hearing, it is possible for the City Council, should it uphold the decision of the Planning Commission, to delete, amend or add to these conditions of approval. The October 22, 2025 agenda report recommends that if the Council wishes to uphold the Planning Commission’s decision and approve the MUP, the Applicant and staff be directed to meet prior to the adoption of an approval resolution to review appropriate conditions of approval.
5. Permit conditions must be related, proportionate, and necessary; Staff added condition tied to old Subdivision Improvement Agreement – invalid and unrecorded. Cannot legally be applied.
Response
Two U.S. Supreme Court decisions – Nollan vs. California Coastal Commission (1987) and Dolan vs. City of Tigard (1994) – established the basic rule that conditions of approval must be reasonably related and roughly proportionate to the impacts of development on the community.
For land dedication requirements, California Government Code, Section 65909 similarly provides that dedications of land, must be "reasonably related" to the use of the property for which the conditional use permit is requested.
In 2019, the previous owner submitted a tentative parcel map to subdivide the site into two (2) parcels, including the parcel owned by the Applicant (Parcel Map No. 82285). The final map for Parcel Map No. 82285 was allowed to record based on the subdivider agreeing to construct certain public improvements to facilitate future development on both parcels. That agreement was contained within a “Subdivision Improvement Agreement” (SIA) requiring the subdivider to construct the following pursuant to Exhibit F:
The ”Public Improvements” are limited to:
1. Construction of public improvements on Lot B of the Tentative Parcel Map necessary to complete the Tilbury Street cul-de-sac (e.g. paving that portion of Lot B in the street and installing sidewalk on Lot B (the “Tilbury Work”).
2. Relocation of the block wall located on the northern boundary of Parcel 1 in connection with the Tilbury work.
3. Reconstruction of sidewalk and driveway aprons along Claretta Street which are immediately adjacent to and touch Parcel 1.
For unknown reasons, these conditions were never completed by the subdivider. At the time the MUP was approved by the Planning Commission, staff evaluated the appropriateness of these conditions, as compared to the proposed use (retail boat sales) and its impacts. Staff determined that the public improvements originally identified for Parcel Map No. 82285 were still appropriate for this proposed MUP authorizing retail boat sales. Staff evaluated the following:
A. Are the improvement conditions reasonable related to the impacts created by the MUP authorization? Yes - if the City Council determines that the Applicant is conducting retail 12347 E. Carson Street
December 10, 2025
boat sales from this site, it is expected that members of the public will arrive to view these boats and (presumably) to confer with sales personnel in the existing trailer. In order to conduct any boat sales business onsite by appointment, which the Applicant has stated is the proposed business model, this would require members of the public to enter the site from Claretta Avenue either on foot or by vehicle. The Applicant stated during the hearing that members of the community would indeed be able to visit the site by foot.
B. Are the improvement conditions roughly proportional to the impacts created by the MUP authorization? Yes - according to the International Traffic Engineers (ITE) - Trip Generation Manual (12th Edition) – it is expected that there will be vehicle trips generated as follows:
Daily trips = 125 vehicles per day
AM Peak = 12 vehicles per hour
PM Peak = 19 vehicles per hour
While the ITE Manual does not have a section for boat sales, the figures above are based on the closest comparable land use which would be for recreational vehicle sales and on a 25,000 square foot lot. This does not account for any vehicle trips generated by the other proposed businesses on the site. The public improvements required in the Conditions of Approval will assure that there is sufficient and safe public access to the site.
As a result, staff believes that the proposed improvement conditions originally identified in the SIA and not required as conditions of approval for the MUP are appropriate.
6. Violations of Permit Streamlining Act Re requests for additional information.
Response
The California Permit Streamlining Act generally imposes time limits on City review of land use applications. Generally, the Permit Streamlining Act clock does not start ticking until the applicant submits a completed permit application. The agency has 30 days after an application is submitted in which to inform the applicant of whether the application is complete. If the agency does not inform the applicant within that 30-day period, the application will be "deemed complete" if the application included the statement that it is an application for a development project (Government Code § 65943) even if the application is deficient. A new 30-day period begins with each resubmission of an application. (See Government Code § 65943.) Staff acknowledges requesting additional information that is not contained in the City’s list of items needed for submittal of a complete application. However, these requests were made for two purposes:
A. To assist the Director to determine whether the proposed use is boat sales or boat storage; and
B. To assist in determining the appropriate environmental determination pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
12347 E. Carson Street
December 10, 2025
Additional Issues Raised During Hearing
The Applicant included a site plan labeled “Design Option 2” (attached) in the presentation that is different from the original site plan submitted with the Application and approved by the Planning Commission. The new site plan proposes three businesses on the site: (1) Boat sales with incidental office use, (2) Chavez Construction office use with incidental storage, and (3) Precision Roofing/Construction office use with incidental storage. The new site plan raises several unanswered matters:
1) The proposed equipment area was reduced from 2,300 sq. ft. vs. 900 sq. ft.. Yet, the Applicant proposes three businesses that all have equipment to store. It does not appear that the smaller size of the equipment storage area would be adequate for the intended use.
2) Mobile home office is 1,500 sq. ft. but no floor plan has been provided to show how it would be split up for three different businesses.
3) Two construction businesses have equipment and construction materials. The Code does not allow storage of construction materials on site. Based on information provided, it is not clear where such construction equipment and materials would be stored. 4) In order to evaluate whether the new site plan satisfies the City’s Parking and Loading requirements pursuant to HGMC Section 18.70.010, staff would need to assess the proposed storage area, parking requirements and circulation to consider all proposed uses/business on the Property.
The City’s Code states that 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 (HGMC Section
18.100.70). Should the Council wish to deny the MUP on the basis that the new plans would require a new application to be submitted, Council may direct staff to amend the resolution reversing the Planning Commission’s decision without prejudice. 1 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 1 HGMC Section 1.14.060 states that following denial of a decision called for review, the same or substantially same matter shall not be considered by the same body within one year, unless the denial is made without prejudice.
12347 E. Carson Street
December 10, 2025
further CEQA review under CEQA Regulations §§15301, 15303(c) &(e), 15304(b), 15311(a) &(b), and 15332.
City Council Options
The City Council may affirm, modify or reverse the Planning Commission’s decision. 1) If the Council wishes to affirm the Planning Commission’s decision, and approve the MUP with the existing conditions, then the appropriate motion would be to adopt:
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).
2) If the City Council wishes to reverse the Planning Commission’s decision, and deny the MUP, then the appropriate motion would be to adopt:
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).
Alternatives:
3) If the City Council wishes to affirm the decision of the Planning Commission and approve the MUP with modified conditions imposed as part of the approval, then staff recommends that the Council direct staff to meet with Applicant prior to adoption of the approving resolution to review appropriate conditions of approval and return with the approving resolution subject to modified conditions.
4) If the City Council wishes to reverse the decision and deny the MUP on the basis that the new plans differ substantially from the original application considered by the Planning Commission, then staff recommends that the Council deny the MUP without prejudice and direct staff to amend the Resolution to include the specific reasons for reversal and denial.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. - October 22, 2025 hearing agenda report and applicant materials B. - Resolution No. 029-2025 Upholding Planning Commission Decision – Approve MUP 12347 E. Carson Street
December 10, 2025
C. - Resolution No. 029-2025 Overturning Planning Commission Decision – Deny MUP