COSTA MESA CITY COUNCIL WRAP-UP

-- Compiled by Lolita Harper

Here are some of the decisions made at Monday’s Costa Mesa City

Council meeting.

U-HAUL STORAGE

WHAT HAPPENED: The City Council denied a request from a local business

owner to store U-Haul rentals on his Newport Boulevard property.

Eugene Chan, the owner of a small storage facility, presented his case

-- for the third time -- to store up to six trucks on his property,

saying it would be more convenient for his customers to be able to load

and park their cars at the storage facility. Chan reduced the number to

four U-Haul trucks because of space concerns.

His concession, however, did not sway three council members and his

request was narrowly denied -- an action that was met by boos from a

spirited council audience.

On Oct. 15, council members upheld the Planning Commission’s decision

to deny Chan a permit to store six trucks at his storage facility at 2458

Newport Blvd. Council members said the large rental trucks were not

appropriate for the site, which runs along an alley. Councilwoman Karen

Robinson was concerned about room for emergency vehicles if up to six

trucks were parked behind the storage units.

Chan was not at the Oct. 15 City Council meeting because he said he

was misinformed about the starting time, so he was granted a rehearing by

the council so he could be present.

During his rehearing Monday, photographs of his business were shown,

sparking Councilwoman Libby Cowan to question if his sign was legal.

Councilman Gary Monahan reminded the council how hard it was to

develop that area of Newport Boulevard until Chan devised a workable

solution to develop the land.

WHAT IT MEANS: Chan will not be allowed to store any U-Haul vehicles

on his property.

VOTE: 3 to 2 to deny his request.

WHAT WAS SAID: Monahan, who owns a local restaurant and bar,

sympathized with Chan, saying he understood that customer convenience was

essential to an increase in business.

“If I don’t have hamburgers on my menu and my customers ask me for

hamburgers, I’m going to do my best to give them what they want,” he

said.

JIM’S TOWING

WHAT HAPPENED: Council members unanimously upheld the Planning

Commission’s decision to allow Jim’s Towing to add an impound yard, but

they added a few more conditions to ensure compatibility with neighbors.

The council allowed what was described as a “glorified parking lot” as

long as no structures were built, the additional land was landscaped to

match the rest of the property and that the owners of Jim’s Towing work

with staff to explore using pervious concrete for the resurfacing of the

parking lot.

This is the second time a city official has questioned the approval of

the additional lot at Jim’s Towing on 18th Street.

In August, the city zoning staff approved an additional vehicle

storage lot at 917 W. 18th St. Planning Commissioner Eleanor Egan

appealed the decision and took it to the Planning Commission for a vote.

The lot was narrowly approved by the commission, with Egan and the

commission’s chairwoman, Katrina Foley, voting against it.

Dixon said she is concerned with the neighbors in nearby homes and

what she calls an inconsistency with the council’s intent to revitalize

the Westside. She also said an auto storage lot is not a desirable use

for the land and thought it might depress land value in the area.

James Lewis, the owner of Jim’s Towing, said the storage area is

intended for long-term vehicle storage. He estimated that two or three

vehicles may need to be picked up at night, in response to calls from the

California Highway Patrol, but most business would take place during the

day.

A staff report stated that redevelopment of the Westside would be more

easily accomplished if there were no buildings on the land. Therefore, a

storage lot, and the subsequent rezone, would be preferred.

WHAT IT MEANS: A new impound yard will be built at Jim’s Towing,

holding about 50 cars for long-term storage.

VOTE: 5-0 to allow the impound yard.

WHAT WAS SAID: Councilman Gary Monahan wanted to ensure that

additional nighttime activity was not a problem and asked Lewis to

abandon any impound from the highway patrol, saying it was a minimal

portion of his business anyway.

Lewis refused saying:

“Business is business. In these uncertain times I can’t afford to give

up anything.”

VICTORIA STREET PARKING

WHAT HAPPENED: Council members allowed a reduction in parking at a

commercial complex on Victoria Street, saying the shape of the lot was

too unusual to accommodate the required amount.

Councilwoman Karen Robinson asked the council to review a change that

was granted by the Planning Commission for parking requirements at 248

Victoria St. In her appeal, Robinson said the variance lacked factual

basis.

The property was formerly a 10-unit apartment building that was cited

for substandard housing conditions and ultimately abandoned. The owners,

South Coast R.E. Investments, bought the land with the intention of

improving the apartment building. However, city codes did not allow for

residential use on the property, so the builder submitted plans to

convert the building into a commercial use.

To run a business out of the building, the owner was confronted with

citywide minimum parking space requirements. Because of the odd shape of

the lot -- a deep and rectangular space -- the required 24 spaces are

impossible to build, the owner said.

The applicant applied to build 16 spaces and an additional three

compact spaces.

WHAT IT MEANS: South Coast R.E. Investments will be allowed to offer

fewer parking spaces as long as the company reduces the number of tenants

from 10 to eight, posts signs prohibiting backing out of the driveway and

restricts parking in the rear of the lot to allow for enough room to turn

around and drive out facing front.

VOTE: 5-0 to allow the reduction in parking spaces.

WHAT WAS SAID: “My main concern is safety,” Mayor Linda Dixon said. “I

don’t want people to back out of that driveway onto Victoria Avenue.”

HABITAT FOR HUMANITY

WHAT HAPPENED: Councilman Chris Steel’s appeal of the Planning

Commission’s decision to approve affordable housing on Pomona Avenue was

postponed to the Jan. 22 meeting.

The apartments at 1925 Pomona Ave. are owned by Habitat for Humanity.

The organization has requested a conversion of the apartments to

ownership condominiums, which would be sold to Habitat for Humanity

clients as affordable housing. Plans for the site also include more open

space and parkway landscape.

The Planning Division and the city attorney are working on a response

to Steel’s appeal and have requested the hearing be delayed.

WHAT IT MEANS: Once city staff has the time to review and respond to

Steel’s appeal, the item will be brought back to the council’s attention,

at which time the public may comment on it.

VOTE: 5-0 to continue the item.

NEXT MEETING

* WHAT: Costa Mesa City Council meeting

* WHEN: 6:30 p.m. Jan. 22

* WHERE: Costa Mesa City Hall, 77 Fair Drive

* INFORMATION: (714) 754-5221