HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 UP 76-4 RevocationReport to the
ITEM #2
Planning Commission
DATE: JULY 8, 2002
SUBJECT:
OPERATOR:
REVOCATION OF USE PERMIT 76-4
ECONO LUBE N' TUNE & BRAKES
4911 BIRCH STREET
P.O. BOX 2470
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658
ATTN: DAVID SCHAEFERS AND DEAN MAAKESTAD
PROPERTY
OWNER:
LOCATION'
ZONING'
APEX MEAT COMPANY INCORPORATED
6014 S. EASTERN, SUITE 106
LOS ANGELES, CA 90040-3425
155 W. FIRST STREET
FIRST STREET SPECIFIC PLAN COMMERCIAL AS PRIMARY
ENVIRONMENTAL
STATUS'
ACTION:
THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT
PURSUANT TO SECTION 15321 OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
(CLASS 21)
CALIFORNIA
REVOCATION OF USE PERMIT 76-4 WHICH AUTHORIZED A
LUBRICATION AND MINOR TUNE-UP FACILITY
RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3837 recommending that the City
Council revoke Use Permit 76-4.
DISCUSSION
On February 23, 1976, the Planning Commission approved Use Permit 76-4 authorizing
the construction and operation of a lubrication and tune-up facility with four (4) work
bays and three (3) parking spaces on a 4,900 square foot corner lot at 155 W. First
Street (Attachment A- Location Map). The Planning Commission's decision to approve
the project was based on a number of findings and conditions of approval (Attachment
B - Staff Report, Site Plan, and Resolution No. 1497). Since 1994, a number of different
franchise owners have been authorized by Econo Lube N' Tune & Brakes to operate the
facility. Business license information shows there have been five (5) different franchise
owners since 1994 and Code Enforcement information indicates each of these owners,
business managers and/or employees, has violated Use Permit 76-4 and zoning, property
Planning Commission Report
Revocation of Use Permit 76-4
July 8, 2002
Page 2
maintenance, and water quality regulations. In addition, the character of the neighborhood
and regulatory framework has changed since the use was approved in 1976.
Pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 9293c, a conditional use permit granted in
accordance with the Zoning Code may be revoked by the City Council if the Council
makes one of the following findings:
1 ) If any of the terms or conditions of approval are violated; or,
2) If the following finding is made:
The continuance of the use would be detrimental to the health, safety, morals,
comfort and general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood
of such use, or would be injurious or detrimental to property and improvements in
the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City.
Based on the evidence as described in this report and attachments hereto, staff contends
that both findings can be made and recommends Use Permit 76-4 be revoked.
Public Notice
Before the City Council considers a revocation, the Planning Commission is required to
hold a public hearing after providing notice to the permittee. On June 25, 2002, staff
mailed notices to the corporate headquarters of Econo Lube N' Tune & Brakes, the last
known operator, and all property owners within three hundred (300) feet of the site. In
addition, staff provided a copy of the staff report to the corporate business owner, the last
known operator, and the property owner on July 2 2002, to provide sufficient time for
review. If the use permit is revoked, no new permit application for the same use at the
same site may be filed for one (1) year.
Findings in Support of Revocation of Use Permit 76-4
The facility's operators have consistently violated the terms of Use Permit 76.4 and have
not operated in accordance with the spirit and intent of the Planning Commission's
approval (Attachment C- Investigative Report). In addition, the issuance of any permit
requires that the applicant or operator to comply with all applicable local, State, and federal
regulations. However, there have been numerous violations at the site. Given the
continual violations of Use Permit 76-4 and the Tustin City Code, continuance of the use
would constitute a detriment to the health, safety, and general welfare of nearby
residences, businesses, and the community, as evidenced by the following findings:
The facility has not been operated in accordance with the terms set forth in Use
Permit 76-4.
Use Permit 76-4 authorized a "lubrication and tune-up facility" and finding h of
Resolution No. 1497 stated, "The applicant has represented that no major tune-
Planning Commission Report
Revocation of Use Permit 76-4
July 8, 2002
Page 3
up or repair work will be undertaken on the premises and upon that basis and in
reliance on such representation, this use permit has been approved." The
operators have exceeded the scope of Use Permit 76-4 by performing major
engine, transmission, and brake repair work (Attachment C -Investigative
Report and Exhibits 16, 22, and 24), performing work on vehicles outside the
work bays, in the parking spaces and drive aisles Attachment C - Exhibits 1, 2,
3, 4, 5, and 16), and test driving vehicles, including the testing of brakes, on C
Street (a residential street). For brake work, this testing involves rapid
acceleration, followed by sudden and full application of the brakes. In addition to
the evidence in the Investigative Report, Code Enforcement staff spoke with
nearby residents and verified that major repair work and testing of vehicles on C
Street has occurred (Attachment D). The use has not been operated in
accordance with Use Permit 76-4 and, with major repair work, outdoor work, and
on-street test driving in the area, continuance of the use would be detrimental to
the surrounding residences and businesses.
The facility's operators have failed to maintain trash-hauling service and properly
contain and dispose of refuse in accordance with Sections 4323 and 4324 of the
Tustin City Code.
Federal Disposal repossessed dumpsters from the site in December 2001,
February 2002, and May 2002 because the operator failed to pay the bill. In
February 2002, approximately twenty (20) trash bags were piled outside the trash
enclosure and a notice of violation was issued. In March, trash problems
continued and the operator was issued a citation on March 7, 2002 (Attachment
C - Exhibits 7-15). Again in June, trash was piled at the.rear of the property and
a citation was issued on June 5, 2002, for "trash not in a container" (Attachment
C - Exhibit 16-21). Improper waste disposal constitutes a violation of the Tustin
City Code and the Planning Commission's basis for approving Use Permit 76-4
by adopting findings c, d, e, and f of Resolution No. 1497. Continuance of the
use, and its associated waste and improper containment and disposal, would be
detrimental to the surrounding residences and businesses.
The facility's operators have failed to properly contain and dispose of hazardous
materials in accordance with Section 5502(d).
Since the facility handles hazardous wastes such as oil and anti-freeze, improper
refuse disposal is a concern. A Code Enforcement Officer observed hazardous
waste materials in the trash enclosure and issued a citation for illegal disposal of
solid hazardous waste on June 5, 2002 (Attachment C - Exhibits 16-21). A 55-
gallon drum containing anti-freeze was not properly contained and stored outside
the building; the operator was advised of the proper containment. A residue of oil
or anti-freeze was observed in puddles of water on the property, which is a water
quality violation. Improper containment and disposal of hazardous substances
constitutes a violation of the Tustin City Code and the Planning Commission's
basis for approving Use Permit 76-4 and adopting findings c, d, e, and f of
Planning Commission Report
Revocation of Use Permit 76-4
July 8, 2002
Page 4
Resolution No. 1497. Continuance of the use, and its associated improper
containment and disposal of solid and liquid hazardous waste, would be
detrimental to the surrounding residences and businesses.
The facility's operators violated Sign Code Sections 9404(a)(2)(a) and 9404(1)(c)
which prohibit aerial balloons and signs.
An aerial sign was affixed to the roof in August 2001 (Attachment C - Exhibit 6).
A notice of violation was issued, and, after the operator failed to remove the
balloon, a citation was issued on August 25, 2001. When the aerial balloon was
removed, pennants were strung on the property. The pennants were removed
four weeks later. These signs violate the Tustin City Code and the Planning
Commission's basis for adopting finding e of Resolution No. 1497. Continuance
of the use would be detrimental to the surrounding residences and businesses.
The facility has required continual code enforcement activity to ensure
compliance with Use Permit 76-4 and eliminate property maintenance, water
quality, and Tustin City Code violations.
While staff has worked with the various operators, they often failed to comply
with verbal warnings or to appear at pre-scheduled meetings to resolve
significant code violations. As a result, a number of violations and citations were
issued to a number of different operators (Attachment C -Investigative Report).
In addition to Code Enforcement activity outlined in Attachment C, the Tustin
Police Department has responded to fifteen (15) calls for service this year and a
total of 56 calls for service in the past five (5) years. The City Attorney's office
has been involved with a number of citations and provided support to staff's
enforcement activities. An excessive amount of staff and City Attorney time has
been necessary to enforce Use Permit 76-4 and the Tustin City Code, which is a
detriment to the general welfare of the City by focusing code enforcement activity
on one facility and detracting from the time and resources available for other
properties. Continuance of the use would require undue expenditures of City
resources for the purposes of monitoring the facility and enforcing applicable terms
and conditions of approval, which would be a detriment to the community as a
whole. The negative impacts on the community due to the inordinate devotion of
public resources far outweigh the benefits and services provided by the facility.
The facility, as currently conditioned and operated, is no longer appropriate for
the site.
In 1976, the site was located in the General Commercial (CG) zoning district, which
conditionally permitted establishments for automobile services and supplies. The
building was completed in April 1977. In 1985, the City Council adopted the First
Street Specific Plan that amended the zoning from the General Commercial zoning
district to the Commercial as Primary land use designation (Attachment E). While
service stations are conditionally permitted in the Commercial as Primary land use
Planning Commission Report
Revocation of Use Permit 76-4
July 8, 2002
Page 5
designation, the facility is not consistent with the First Street Specific Plan Design
Guidelines, which encourage a high quality of architectural design and pedestrian
orientation. In addition, the Planning Commission adopted the Auto Service
Guidelines in 1998 to specify development standards for auto-service uses. With
the existing building configuration, limited parking, limited and absent landscaping,
and outdoor vending machines, the facility is not consistent with the Guidelines.
Given the fact that the existing facility does not meet current development
standards, it is considered non-conforming.
In addition to the facility's non-conforming status, the staff report for Use Permit 76-
4 indicated that the maximum potential of the facility would be to work on four (4)
vehicles at one time since there are four (4) bays. As indicated previously, staff has
observed work being performed on vehicles in the parking spaces and drive aisles,
in addition to work being performed on vehicles in the work bays. Given these
observations and the site's historical operations, the size of the business has
outgrown the facility and is no longer appropriate for the site (Attachment C -
Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5). Continuance of the use would be injurious and a
detriment to the surrounding businesses and residences in that it would negatively
impact the area, create a disorderly image for the area, and detract from a quality
environment.
The facility, as currently conditioned and operated, is no longer appropriate for the
area.
At the time the facility was approved and constructed, an auto parts store was
located to the east of the property, residences were located to the north, an
office building was located to the west, and a hotel was located to the south.
Farther to the east were Mullen Lumber, a self-serve carwash, Big-O Tires, and
a service station. The auto parts store at 145 W. First was remodeled into an
office in 1978 and into a furrier's showroom and storage facility in 2000. Mullen
Lumber at 135 W. First was demolished in 1992 and the service station at 171
W. First Street the corner of Prospect and First was demolished in 1997.
Pedestrian-oriented retail development is envisioned for these vacant parcels.
The office building to the west, hotel to the south, and residences to the north
still exist.
In surveying First Street and the area, it is apparent that the facility, as conditioned
and operated, is no longer compatible with the adjacent residential or commercial
areas indicated below (Attachment C and Attachment F).
The residential neighborhood to the north still exists and is comprised
primarily of historic residences built generally between 1910 and 1930.
Although the area is not within the boundaries of the Cultural Resources
Overlay District, many of the homes are listed on the City's Historical Survey
and merit conservation. The area is well maintained and an asset to the
community. However, over the years, residents from this area have
Planning Commission Report
Revocation of Use Permit 76-4
July 8, 2002
Page 6
complained that the facility is disruptive and is not compatible with the
residential nature of the area. Recently, nearby residents have indicated
that the appearance and operation of the facility detracts from the
neighborhood, devalues their property values, makes it less desirable, and
has been disruptive (Attachment D).
Similarly, the facility, with its numerous violations, detracts from surrounding
businesses that have sought to create or maintain professional and
attractive images along First Street. New auto-related uses on First Street,
such as the Mountainview Tire and Service, exhibit the design principles
envisioned by the Design Guidelines and are able to operate within the
parameters of their entitlements without disrupting nearby businesses.
While there has been significant planning efforts to revitalize First Street and new
development has taken place, the facility, as conditioned and operated, has
become a nuisance and is no longer compatible with or consistent with the First
Street Specific Plan vision and new development in the area and continuance of the
use would be detrimental to the community.
FINDINGS
A decision to recommend revocation is supported by the findings contained within
Resolution 3837 (Attachment G).
Karen Peterson
Senior Planner
ks :cup76-4revoke.doc
Attachments:
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
Attachment D:
Attachment E:
Attachment F:
Attachment G:
Attachment H'
Location Map
Staff Report/Site Plan/Resolution No. 1497
Investigative Report/Photographs of Violations
Interviews
First Street Specific Plan Commercial as
Primary Land Use Designation
Photographs of Vicinity
Resolution No. 3837
PowerPoint Presentation
ATTACHMENT A
LOCATION~ MAP
g
IRVINE BOULEVARD
TFIA C, ~' 1~265
Revocation of Use Permit 76-4
155 w. First Street
125 12~
135 135A 1~0~
145' 140
155 150
165 160
175 170
500' Radius
FIRST. STREET
300' Radius
ORANGEWOOD LANE
' ~.TRA CT 1, 737
LOCKWOOD P IK PLACE
140
'~55 ~5°
165
SECOND STREET
SECOND STREET
ATTACHMENT B
PUBLIC HEARING NO. 1
DATE:
February 23, 19 76
SUBJECT:
Use Permit 76-4 (Econo-Lube, Incorporated)
IX)CATION: 155 West First Street
APP LI CANT:
REQUEST:
Robert R. Overde?est, 4321 Margarita, Irv~n'e, CA 92705
The applicant has requested a Use Per~zit (UP 76-4) for
authorization to construct and operate an automobile
lubrication and tune up facility in the Comr~rcial
General 'District.
BACKGROUND: Ordinance No. 654 creating the Com~ercia] C,~neral Dis-
trict authorizes, subj. ect~ to a use permit, establishments
for automobile supplies and services. The subject pro-
perty was acquired by the City of Tustin in conjunction
with the improvement of First Street. The City adver-
tised the property for Sale and it was ~,urchased by .Mr.
Fredrickson and subseouent!y rusold. ~']~ans h:,ve been
submitted by the applicant for the construction of a
waiting room and office space in conjt~nction with four
service bays and three off s'treet park~r~g stalls on a
parcel ± 4~900 square feet.
DISCUSSION:
Plans have been circulated to City der~artr~_~nts for review and
with the following responses:
City Engineer:
1. The driveway location on "C" Street is acceptable sug~ect t~
indication that there are no above cround utilities, ]i~;hts, power
poles or other impediments which are not indic~t~ ,~'~n t~e pl.~ns.
2. Tho sign location on First Street may ..-)resent a .~i.t,~ visibility
hazard and should .be located at the ~st northerly and eas~,,~]--.
location with an overatl~ heioht nc~t to ezcec, d t'):~'rty inches.
3. The sidewalk configuration on "C" Street .~eparat,~.~ a [~ub]:c fiShi-
er-way w~th a 3~' landscape strip on on,..· m~de of tho sidewalk and
a 2%' landscape area on the interior side. The road]ustm~_~nt of
the sidewalk loCation would provide for a mOre r~ractica] and
attractive landscape 'area.
Fire DC~rtment: ~x~...
The Fire Depart.~ent recommends at le~t one 2A rated fir,_- -~
e×~n~ui sher
wighin 50 fOot travel distance with ~h~ reco~-m~_ndation that t~he fire
extinguishers be of 2A-10BC type. 'Metal receptacles are required for
P~b!ic Hearing
2/23/76
page 2
grease and oily rags with containers that have self c].osing lids.
Comm~mity Development Department.
The applicant has deleted the request for the monun~nt 5i~n and wall
signs have been sl.tbmitted in lieu thereof. As propoac, d, the south-
wall, or the face of the bu£1d±ng would ha're a sSma et '~4 square feet
with wall signs on the westerly exposures of approximately 10 square
feet for each building. The si~n request is reasonable an~ by design
considerations could be made to be compatible with thc, ~i'te and
building. - -
The proposed develOpment with four service bays and t}~ree off .~treet
parking spaces indicates that there wil. be three em~loyees at oeak
operating hours with the potential of' u,r:,icing four automobile~. It
can be visualized that unless a serv~_-e bay is open, tt~;:re is no place
for the-~b-~icoto park while awaiting service. As a conseGuence,
street parking and lot conjestion would result from th,..,~ design layout.
A preferred solution' would be to develop three service bays on the
rear or northerly portion of the lot providing for egr,~.~ through the
alley, with parking and waitin~ area to b~ on the fro::;,-~,,.-~ of the lot.
The operations of this center will require the rtu~nzn,.: ~,f' automobile
engin,=s for tune up with the Dote~tiaI of creating hot}. a noise and
.
e>'~au~t nuisance for the nort,~erly residential proper;7,' The property
zm~nediate!y to the east is an auto~obiie parts store t!~a:- cou]~ be
concc'ived as compatible with this proposed use.
It is believed that the use of subject property could be accei.~t.able
and desirabl.e subject to redesign of the site. The a'~,~l~c.~-,r.t ha~
been made aware of the staff concerns and will have a]~',-'.r:,~te desir.~ns
for Co,.~nission consideration at tt~e public hearing.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
it is reco,~-unended that the PlannJn~ CommissJon approve {;p 76-4 author-
izin9 an Econo-Lube and tune up --*~{ac{]{~" t.o acco~A-ate
ba-.;s and not less than three on sit~3 T~arking ~acilities withthreet~'~
s~n s'~je_t to staff re. view. A~ternat~ve~,,~
to uon-in-~.:~ the matter for Compression approval theof
:>!ans. if t;:e Commission (les]res to approve the use, s~j,3ct to 'staff
approval cf final development Dla~s, Resolution No.
for th~: C.om~ission's ap?royal.
R,'-'~r'~::ctfuily submi
R. KE:~:;ETH FLEAGLE, ~.~'~.A.
;:ss~stant City Administrator
C(I~1~LLty Develosmz~nt Director
L)
JUl'l 4 1976
· .- ..... ~ ..... .:: .= TI)'ST~)UILDIHG DEPT.
.............. ,~___:.~f____________
IMBER:
1
4
9
10
11
15
16
1'/
:1.8
30 1!
1,
i:~$OLUTION NO. 1497
A 'RESOLUTION OF THE PLA~ING CO,'tqlS$ION OF _~liE
CITY OF TUSTIN GPJ~NTING A USE PEP.'4IT ON APPLICAT:O~
%40. UP 76-4 OF ECONO-LUBE, INC.
The Planning Com~,.i ss ion of the City of Tustin do~ h,zreby
resolve as follows:
1. The . lanning Commission finds and det.:rmines
a. That a proper application No. b-P 76-4 warn fl led on
behalf of Econo Lube, Inc. by Robert R.
4"321 Margarita, irVine, CA 92705, for a ua- p~_rmit
to authorize construction and maintenance of an
automobile lubrication and tune uo facility on the
property located on the north easterly cor';~-.r of
First and 'C' Street, known as 155 West First St.
b. That a public !:earing was duly called and noticed
and held on said application.
c. That the establishment and muintenance
of t~e use applied for w~ll not, =~der %h~, circ~--
stance of thi.~ Case be detrir~ental to
safety and mora].~ or comfort or q-_neral w-.~'fare of
the persons residing or working ~n the
of Such proposed use, as evidenced by th~. !ollcrwlng
findings:
l) The property is classifiJed in the
General District.
2) The General Plan designates the sub),_.ct area
for commercial
3) The property is adjoined on its eastern bcundar~
by an automobile parts store, 5cDar,~.t.,.-d on thc
north by a 15 a].luy and separated or,
by a p~lic street.
d. Tho establi~h~nt, maintenance, and o~,~rnt:on c',f
the use applied for w~il not be ~n)ur~ou:~ or dctr:-
m,.~lstal to the property and im:)ro';c?--n%'. ~:~ t~e
ne~ ghborh~d of ~ he sub-~c~ property, n,,r to th,'-
gcn~,ral wolf.ar(' of the (7~ty of Tu~t.~n, ar,,] :;'hould
be granted.
e. Th,. pro~:o:;(.-d d,.%,.~lot~..-~.:nt uhal] b,'? :n a-:,.'~,:,!anc,'.
w~th thc du';elo.r3r~_~nt poi ic~c£
Cji y ('ounci l, uniform .be: ]df'nc
by tiro !~ultc::n~; (~f:l.':l,~].
f. At, applir'.qti, on has b,,on f;]i:d and a,,,;r,,v,.,: fo: n
n.~','~atl v,.: docl ,tra% ton ~ rotr. t}l~ 1,3qu~ rt.t,~rr~t~ of ar]
] imlted scale.
g. Final development plans shall requl, rt- thc review
2-23-76
Page 2
Re.=olution i-~o. 1497
29
and approval of the Community
Depar tm~_nt.
~!-~h';,,'i The applicant has represented that no m~.jor tune-t,D
" ..... or repair work will be =nder:a~.en on
and upon that basis and in r.~tiance on =,:~h r.~pre-
sentatlon, this use permit bas been
2. The Planning Commission hereby grants a
applied for, to allow =.he constructlon an~ ~i, perat~on of
an auto,bile l~rica~icn and tune ~ facJ l J'V, to
consist o.f 4 serv.ce bay's in accord~ce wl%h tcvi~cd
site plans s~tted to the P]annino Co=~.~=~on Febr~r..
20', 1976 ~'~th the exception that th~ sid~wn]k be re-
aligned and peri~ter landscaDinq ,~'l~nq park;~, stalls,
with the signing li~ted to 54 suuare feet (,:~ thc
southerly face of the southerly ~u~.tding,
the side wall of each buildznc
po~ure n~t to exc~ ~d !~
si~ on the southerly sld~ of the 'north,~r]y building
a Northerly exit door to the facl
closed durin~ cnv tkhne-uD, work
to avoid creatinm a nu~sanc,_- to ~he -butting pro-
perty
b. The exhaust systat-. - , shall .r.~eet th~_ v,_-r;t~ ]a'Jon~
requirements of the Building Off:c:a].
c. The sok~nd level 'at the
line shall not exceed 65 dba.
d. Fina.1 develop.men% plan~, shall be appro,~:d by ti],:
Cassini tv Developr. ent DeDart.-w~nt to ~ :~c} ed,.. se-
curity lightir, g, landucaDinq,
materials, sign'.n~, and
and parking lot design.
PAS:;ED AND ADOPTED at a recu]a~ ~,:~.ti::c. c,f 'h,. ;'ia::ninq
Co.~.,~ssion hc]d on the t'-'enty third
· '~' ~z ~/ '
t___ !1/
ATTACHMENT C
CITY OF TUSTIN
CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER'S
INVESTIGATIVE REPORT
DATE: June 27, 2002
BUSINESS MANAGERS NAME:
Various
BUSINESS NAME:
Econo Lube N Tune
SUBJECT PROPERTY ADDRESS: 155 W. First Street, Tustin, CA 92780
SUBJECT:
Conditional Use Permit 76-4
RECORD OF ACTION
01/11/1994 Kathy Beal, Code Enforcement Officer, inspected an oil container and the smell
of oil in the rear alley way.
02/08/1995 Chris Cox, Code Enforcement Intern, inspected the property and found no major
auto repairs in progress. He did observe outdoor repairs of automobiles.
03/02/1995 The smell of fuel injector cleaner was reported to the City.
10/16/1995
A citizen complained that Econo Lube N Tune is operating on Sunday. The
complainant was also concerned that vehicle repair is being performed outdoors
and jacks are left outside overnight. Rita Westfield, Assistant Director of
Community Development, worked with the complainant.
The complainant was concerned that the business was operating on Sundays,
loud employee speech, parking, and working on vehicles on the street.
George Weisinger investigated the complaints and spoke with the business
manager and was assured that the business would not engage in the activity in
question.
10/27/1995 Rita Westfield sent a letter to the complainant informing her of the City's actions
in response to her complaint.
01/31/1996
George Weisinger, Code Enforcement Officer, issued a notice of violation to
Rocky Like, business manager. Mr. Like was given a notice of violation for the
outdoor repair of vehicles.
09/24/1996 George Weisinger issued a notice of violation to Rick Fernandez, business
manager, for outdoor repair of vehicles.
03/05/1997 Felix Garcia, Code Enforcement Officer, observed auto repair outside the bay
area. He talked to the manager (Exhibit 1).
155 W. 1st Street
C.E. Investigative Report & outstanding violations
June 27, 2002
Page 2
03/22/1997 Felix Garcia observed work outside the bay area, contacted the manager, and
photographed the violations (Exhibit 2).
03/25/1997 A citizen called to complain that vehicles were being "test driven" on C Street.
The Tustin Police Department was also notified.
03/26/2997
11/01/1997
Felix Garcia observed vehicle repair outside the bay area. He spoke with the
manager, Rick Fernandez, and warned a citation would be issued if the violation
continues. He photographed the violations.
Felix Garcia observed vehicle repair outdoors and obstruction of parking spaces
and drive aisles. The manager was contacted and he was informed of the zoning
requirements and Use Permit 76-4. The violations were photographed (Exhibit
3).
12/18/1997
Rita Westfield sent a letter to Rudy Delatorre, business manager, informing him
of the various complaints the City received during the past few years. The owner
and the business manager were invited to meet with City staff and discuss the
complaints.
01/05/1998 The business manager for Econo Lube N Tune failed to appear for the meeting.
01/13/1998 The business manager failed to appear forthe meeting with City staff.
01/22/1998 Felix Garcia observed vehicle repair outdoors. Photographs of the violations
were taken (Exhibit 4).
01/27/1998 Mr. Delatorre, the business manager, scheduled a meeting with City staff for this
date and failed to appear.
02/02/1998 Mr. Delatorre scheduled a meeting with City staff for this date and failed to
appear.
04/14/1998 Felix Garcia issued citation T140347 to Isodore Otero, the business manager
(Exhibit 5) for outdoor repair of vehicles.
08/13/1998
The City Attorney sent a memo to Rita Westfield detailing the terms of the
settlement agreement between Econo Lube N Tune and the City of Tustin.
Econo Lube N Tune was fined $1,000.00 and agreed to stop working on vehicles
outside the service bays.
The settlement was signed by Isodore Otero. The agreement states that Econo
Lube N Tune will agree to comply with zoning laws, the Tustin Municipal Code
9232(B)(6), and the conditions of CUP 76-4. Specifically, working on vehicles
outside the service bays, all work exceeding the noise levels established by the
Tustin Noise Ordinance, and major auto repair service were prohibited.
08/14/2001 Clayton Anderson inspected the property and observed an aerial sign attached to
the roof of the building (Exhibit 6). The sign was inflated with forced air. The
155 W. 1 st Street
C.E. Investigative Report & outstanding violations
June 27, 2002
Page 3
sign is orange and' approximately 10 feet tall. The sign looked like the cartoon
character Gumby. The business owner was told to remove the sign, A search of
the business license records indicated the business does not have a license. A
Notice of Violation was issued.
08/25/2001 Clayton Anderson inspected the property and observed the aerial sign on the
rooftop. Clayton Anderson issued Citation # T239238 to Jack Sellers.
08/30/2001 The aerial sign was removed but pennants were attached to the property.
09/10/2001 Clayton Anderson inspected the property and found the pennants attached to the
structure; a beehive wa's also found on the west side of the building.
09/17/2001 The pennants were removed and the bees were exterminated.
10/18/2001 The business owner returned the completed business license application.
12/20/2001 Jack Sellers did not appear for his arraignment, and a bench warrant was issued
for his arrest.
12/29/2001
Econo Lube N Tune failed to pay the bill for their trash disposal, and the
dumpster was repossessed by Federal Disposal. Clayton Anderson spoke with
Federal Disposal and learned that Econo Lube N Tune had a poor payment
history; Federal Disposal will require a deposit from Econo Lube N Tune before
they return the dumpster.
02/15/2002
Clayton Anderson inspected the property and found approximately 20 trash bags
piled at the exterior of the rear enclosure on the north side of property. The
waste hauler for the City of Tustin is Federal Disposal. Officer Anderson
contacted Federal Disposal to discuss the trash situation at 155 W. First Street.
When Officer Anderson contacted Federal Disposal, Officer Anderson spoke with
Ed Rivera. Mr. Rivera informed Officer Anderson that Econo Lube N Tune had
neglected to pay their monthly bill; as a result, the trash bin was removed and
trash removal has ceased. Notice of Violation V02-0569 was issued to the
property owner and to the business manager, Jack Sellers.
02/21/2002
Clayton Anderson and Ron Johnson, Code Enforcement Officers, inspected the
property at approximately 12:30 p.m. and found trashed piled in the rear
alongside the trash enclosure. Officer Anderson observed a 55-gallon drum
alongside the enclosure. During the course of the inspection, Officers Anderson
and Johnson spoke with an individual named Marcos. Marcos was working in
the office, and he met them as they approached the office. Officers Anderson
and Johnson' asked to speak with Jack Sellers. Marcos stated Mr. Sellers was
unavailable, but Marcos was in charge until Mr. Sellers returned on 02/22/2002.
Marcos was told that he needed to remove the trash in the rear by 3:00 p.m.
During the conversation, Officer Anderson asked Mr. Marcos to describe the
contents of the drum. Marcos stated the drum was filled with anti-freeze.
Marcos was informed of the water quality laws and told to use proper
containment if the drum was to be stored outside.
155 W. 1st Street'
C.E. Investigative Report & outstanding violations
June 27, 2002
Page 4
O2/28/2OO2
03/06/2002
03/07/2002
At approximately 4:00 p.m., Officer Anderson inspected the property and found
the trash removed. Officer Anderson suggested to Marcos that he resolve his
conflict with Federal Disposal if he wanted to eliminate this problem. Marcos
stated he had worked out the problems with Federal Disposal, and a dumpster
would be delivered on Friday, March 22, 2002.
Officer Anderson returned to the office and contacted Federal Disposal.
According to their records, Econo Lube N Tune had not paid its bill and service
was not scheduled to begin.
Clayton Anderson met with Jack Sellers to discuss the trash problem at the
property. Mr. Sellers stated he was contracting with Waste Management and
they would remove his trash. Mr. Sellers was informed of the City's contract with
Federal Disposal. The contract gives Federal Disposal exclusive rights to haul
trash in the City.
Trash was not piled against the trash encloSure, but it was piled 7¼ to 8 feet high
within the-confines of the trash enclosure. The interior of the trash enclosure was
filled with trash bags and other miscellaneous items. The trash bin was not in the
trash enclosure. There were Fram filter boxes at the top of the pile. The anti-
freeze container was removed from the exterior to the interior of the garage.
Clayton Anderson conducted an inspection of the property at approximately 5:00
p.m. and found the rear trash enclosure surrounded with empty boxes and other
debris (Exhibits 7 - 8). Officer Anderson spoke with Ms. Sellers; she was acting
as the cashier for the day, but she is the owner of the business. She stated the
trash would be removed by 10:00 a.m. on March 07, 2002. She requested that
Officer Anderson give her an opportunity to take care of the problem.
Officer Anderson granted her request and agreed to return at 10:00 a.m. on
Thursday March 07, 2002. Officer Anderson left a business card with Ms.
Sellers. On the back of the business card Officer Anderson noted the agreement
that the items would be removed by Thursday.
Clayton Anderson inspected the property with Ron Johnson at approximately
12:30 p.m. and found a number of violations related to improper trash disposal
and containment (Exhibits 9 - 15). During the inspection, trash was found
discarded at the exterior of the rear trash enclosure. The trash on the exterior of
the enclosure consisted~ of cardboard boxes and other miscellaneous items. At
the top of trash mound in the trash enclosure were Fram Filter boxes. The trash
within the enclosure was piled 7½ to 8 feet high. Officers Johnson and Anderson
declined to open the enclosure because they were unable to ascertain the
contents of the bags stored in the enclosure. There was also concern that the
mound of trash may collapse and injure someone if Officers Johnson and
Anderson opened the enclosure. '
155 W. 1 st Street
C.E. Investigative Report & outstanding violations
June 27, 2002
Page 5
During the inspection an individual identifying himself as a collection contractor
for the Sheriff's Department made inquiry into the purpose of our inspection. He
stated he was present to collect a judgement against Econo Lube N Tune.
Marcos Miranda was in the office during the first moments of the inspection. As
Officers Johnson and Anderson approached the office, Mr. Miranda emerged
from behind the desk. Officers Johnson and Anderson asked to speak with Jack
Sellers. Mr. Miranda stated Mr. Sellers "would not be in today," but Mr. Miranda
was in charge until Mr. Sellers returned. Mr. Miranda was informed of the City's
intent to issue a citation for the trash at the rear of the property. When Mr.
Miranda understood that he was to be cited, he stated he was only a cashier and
not in charge of the business. Mr. Miranda also insisted that Jack Sellers was at
the bank and would return within a half hour. Officer Anderson requested Mr.
Miranda's driver's license, but Mr. Miranda refused to comply. The Tustin Police
Department was contacted; Officer Martin was the responding Officer. Mr.
Miranda surrendered his driver's license to Officer Martin, and citation T239239
citing T.C.C. 5502(m)(6) was issued at approximately 1:00 p.m.
As Mr. Miranda was being cited, he called Ms. Sellers and Jack Sellers. Ms.
Sellers stated the trash would be removed within hours. She also asked to
speak with someone who could change Officer Anderson's decision to cite Mr.
Miranda. Officer Anderson gave her a phone number for the Supervisor of Code
Enforcement.
Ms. Sellers hung up and called back proclaiming that someone from City Hall
ordered Code Enforcement Officer Anderson and Police Officer Martin to cease
the issuance of the citation. Ms. Sellers was unable to verify with whom she
spoke.
Jack Sellers called and asked that we refrain from issuing the citation to Mr.
Miranda. Mr. Sellers stated he struck a deal with Federal Disposal, and the trash
bin would be delivered on Monday.
During the inspection puddles of water exhibiting the "rainbow effect" were
observed at the rear of the property. The rainbow effect is a term used to
describe the discoloration of water when it is mixed with oil. Econo Lube N Tune
staff absorbed the water with a dry absorbent.
Upon arrival at City Hall, Officer Anderson learned that Ms. Sellers had not
spoken with anyone in City Hall. She only left a message for the Code
Enforcement Supervisor.
Federal Disposal was contacted, and they had not spoken with anyone at Econo
Lube N Tune.
The Orange County Health Care Agency and the Orange County Fire Authority
were notified of the violations existing at this location.
155 W. 1st Street
C.E. Investigative Report & outstanding violations
June 27, 2002
Page 6
During the inspection an angry customer arrived to complain that his brakes had
"freezed up" and he wanted to speak with Jack Sellers. The customer was told
that Jack was not available. The customer demanded a refund and asked to see
the master cylinder that was replaced. Marcos Miranda informed the customer
that the old master cylinder had been returned as a core. He assured the
customer that a new master cylinder had been installed and a mechanic would
"take a look" at the vehicle.
03/11/2002
Clayton Anderson inspected the property and found the interior of the trash
enclosure clean. The exterior was also clean. The~'e was no debris in the area
around the trash enclosure.
03/11/2002
Clayton Anderson inspected the property and found the interior of the trash
enclosure clean. The exterior was also clean. There was no debris in the area
around the trash enclosure.
A blue engine block was observed at the front of the building.
During the inspection an employee of Econo Lube N Tune called a parts
distributor and ordered brake hardware for a 1988 Chevrolet Corsica. There was
a burgundy Chevrolet Corsica in the repair bay. I asked the mechanic, '~/hat
happened to the Chevy?" The mechanic stated he was doing a complete brake
job which included the installation of new springs, rotors, calipers, and brake
pads.
03/18/2002 Federal Disposal returned the trash bin after the deposit, and all other delinquent
charges were paid.
03/28/2002
Federal Disposal was informed that the credit card used to pay for the trash bin
did not belong to Econo Lube N Tune. The owner of the credit card called to
dispute the charge.
05/09/2002 Federal Disposal repossessed the trash bin.
O6/O5/2OO2
City staff received a complaint concerning trash piling at the rear of the property.
Clayton Anderson inspected the property and found trash accumulating in the
trash enclosure. Jack Sellers was cited for improper disposal of hazardous
waste and failing to store trash in a proper trash-receptacle (Exhibits 16- 21).
During the inspection Mr. Sellers acknowledged that his business performed
"major brake jobs." He also admitted that EcOno Lube N Tune had installed
engines and transmissions.
06/10/2002
City staff obtained a list of calls for service from the Tustin Police Department for
this address. There have been 15 calls for service this year. There are a total of
56 calls for service in the past 5 years.
06/18/2002 City staff met with Dean Maakestad of the corPorate operations department. Mr.
Maakested was present to clean the property and prepare it for the next
155 W. 1 st Street
C.E. Investigative Report & outstanding violations
June 27, 2002
Page 7
franchise owner. Mr. Maakestad stated the former franchise owner, Ann Sellers
had been evicted, and the corporate office will be the point of contact until a new
franchise owner occupies the facility.
The Orange County Sheriff's Department posted the eviction notice.
Exhibits 22-25 show the condition of the property and indicate major repair and
outdoor work was being conducted.
Exhibit # 1
Exhibit #2
Exhibit #3
Exhibit #4
Exhibit #5
EXHIBIT 6
EXHIBIT 7
EXHIBIT 8
EXHIBIT #9
EXHIBIT
EXHIBIT #'//
EXHIBIT #12
EXHIBIT
EXHIBIT 14
EXHIBIT
EXHIBIT #1~
EXHIBIT #17
EXHIBIT #19
EXHIBIT #1~
EXHIBIT #~0
EXHIBIT
EXHIBIT
EXHIBIT #"z3
EXHIBIT
EXHIBIT
ATTACHMENT D
DATE:
JULY 1, 2002
Inter_Com
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
PLANNING COMMISSION
CLAYTON ANDERSON, CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
FIELD INTERVIEWS WITH RESIDENTS OF C STREET
I am a Code Enforcement Officer with the City of Tustin and responsible for enforcing the Tustin City
Code and project entitlements (i.e., conditional use permits). I have been monitoring Econo Lube N'
Tune since August 2001. On June 25, and 27, 2002, I spoke with five (5) residents of C Street that
are directly impacted by Econo Lube N Tune. They wished to remain anonymous at this time, but
offered the following comments and observations:
· One resident had major repair work done at the facility.
Noise generated by the power tools is disruptive. The noise was more of a nuisance on
Saturday and Sunday but also disturbing in the evening hours. Patrons of the business
occupied most of the parking at the south end of the street within the residential neighborhood.
· There are often smells related to oil, grease, and other chemicals.
· Since 1985, the mechanics working for Econo Lube N Tune have test driven cars, including the
testing of brakes, on C Street.
· Econo Lube N Tune, as operated, has been a nuisance since it is located adjacent to residential
properties.
· Waste created by the facility has become a detriment to the community because it was not
disposed of properly.
· The outward appearance of 155 W. First Street has a negative affect on the value of homes in
the area and has a negative impact on the neighborhood.
· The business generated excessive noise and traffic.
A resident has purchased a property in Tustin Ranch because of the negative activities
associated with Econo Lube N Tune. The resident still owns the C Street property but he rents
it. He stated he had trouble renting the property because of Econo Lube N Tune.
The comments related to major work being done and improper trash and debris disposal
substantiate staff observations and documented evidence in the Investigative Report dated June 27,
2002.
CC:
William A. Huston
Elizabeth Binsack
Khanh Nguyen
ATTACHMENT E
LAND USE 'REGULATIONS
1. Commercial as Primary Use
a. Permitted and'conditional uses
The following uses shall be permitted by right
where the symbol "P" appears 'and may ' be
permitted subject to a conditional 'use permit
where the symbol "C" appears in the column to
the right.
1) Retail businesses conducted within a
building:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
j)
k)
!)
m)
n)
o)
P)
q)
r)
s)
t)
u)
v)
w)
x)
y)
z)
Antique shops P
Apparel stores. P
Appliance and hardware stores P
Automobile parts and supplies 'C
Bakeries, retail only P
Books, gifts and stationery P
Convenience markets C
Drug stores, pharmacies P
Florists P
Furniture stores P
General retail stores P
Hobby stores P
Hotels and Motels C
Jewelry stores P
Laundry and Dry Cleaners P
Liquor stores C
Neighborhood Commercial Centers P
Nurseries and garden supply P
Pet stores and supply P
Print shops P
Service stations C
Skating rinks .C
Sporting goods P
Supermarkets, grocery stores P
Theaters C
Tire sales and service C
3 ?-?-R~ III-7
2. Service Business including retail sales
incidental thereto:
a) Banks and financial institutions P
b) Barber,i beauty salons P
c) Car washes C
d) Cocktail lounges and bars When~
not an integral part of a
restaurant C
e) Locksmith P
'f) Restaurants with/without
alcoholic beverage sales C
g) Restaurant with drive thru
service C
h) Service stations C
i) Travel agencies P
j) Real estate sales P
3. Any other similar retail use the Planning
Commission deems 'consistent with the other
uses permitted.
b. Maximum Structural Height - 1 story, 18 feet,
Unless offices are incorporated on a second
floor in which case the maximum height shall be
28 feet.
c. Minimum Building Site Area - No minimum
d. Yard setbacks:
front: 10 feet
side: 0 feet
rear: 20 feet
e. Lot Coverage: Lot coverage shall include all
enclosed building area. Atriums open to the sky
or plazas, open parking, hardscaped areas shall
not constitute lot coverage.
Maximum allowed: Limited only by setback areas.
f. Landscaping: A minimum 'of ten percent of the
building site area shall be landscaped in
conformance with the design guidelines of this
specific plan area.
12-2-85 III-8
ATTACHMENT F
View to East from First Street
Banners, Outdoor Vending Machines, and Disabled Vehicles in Parking Stalls
July 1, 2002
Facility is Closed
View to South from C Street
Disabled Vehicles in Parking Stalls
July 1, 2002
Facility is Closed
View to East from C Street
Disabled Vehicles in Parking Stall and Drive Aisle
July 1, 2002
Facility is Closed
View to South from C Street
Proximity to Residential~rea
July 1, 2002 1
Facility is Closed
View to Northeast from C Street
Proximity to Residential Area and Lack of Landscaping in Planter
July 1, 2002
Facility is Closed
View to North from First Street
Proximity to New Development
July 1, 2002
View to West from First Street
Commercial Development Across C Street
July 1, 2002
View to Southeast at First Street and Prospect Avenue
New Auto-Service Development
July 1, 2002
ATTACHMENT G
RESOLUTION NO. 3837
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TUSTIN, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL REVOCATION OF
USE PERMIT 76-4 WHICH AUTHORIZED A LUBRICATION AND MINOR
TUNE-UP FACILITY AT 155 W. FIRST STREET
The Planning Commission does hereby resolve as follows:
I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows:
A,
That Use Permit 76-4 was approved by the Planning Commission on
February 23, 1976, authorizing a lubrication and minor tune-up facility on a
4,900 square foot lot on the property located at 155 W. First Street.
B,
That pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 9293c, the Planning Commission
may recommend to the City Council that a conditional use permit be revoked
and the City Council make revoke a conditional use permit if the Council
makes one of the following findings:
1 ) If any of the terms or conditions of approval are violated; or,
2)
If the following finding is made: The continuance of the use would
be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort and general
welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of
such use, or would be injurious or detrimental to property and.
improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the
City.
Based on the evidence as described in the Staff report dated July 8, 2002,
and attachments thereto, and the following findings, both findings can be
made and Use Permit 76-4 should be revoked.
C,
On June 25, 2002, staff mailed notices of the public hearing on July 8, 2002,
to the corporate headquarters of Econo Lube N' Tune & Brakes, the last
known operator, and all property owners within three hundred (300) feet of
the site. In addition, staff provided a copy of the staff report to the corporate
business owner, the last known operator, and the property owner on July 2
2002, to provide sufficient time for review. If the use permit is revoked, no
new permit application for the same use at the same site may be filed for
one (1) year.
D,
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the revocation of Use
Permit 76-4 at a duly noticed, regular meeting on July 8, 2002.
E,
The facility's operators have consistently violated the terms of Use Permit
76-4 and continuance of the use would constitute a detriment to the
health, safety, and general welfare of nearby residences, businesses, and
the community, as evidenced by the following findings:
Resolution No. 3837
Page 2
o
The facility has not been operated in accordance with the terms set
forth in Use Permit 76-4. Use Permit 76-4 authorized a "lubrication
and tune-up facility" and finding h of Resolution No. 1497 stated,
"The applicant has represented that no major tune-up or repair
work will be undertaken on the premises and upon that basis and in
reliance on such representation, this use permit has been
approved." The operators have exceeded the scope of Use Permit
76-4 by performing major engine, transmission, and brake repair
work (Attachment C- Investigative Report and Exhibits 16, 22, and
24), performing work on vehicles outside the work bays, in the
parking spaces and drive aisles (July 8, 2002, Staff Report
Attachment C - Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 16), and test driving
vehicles, including the testing of brakes, on C Street (a residential
street). For brake work, this testing involves rapid acceleration,
followed by sudden and full application of the brakes. In addition to
the evidence in the Investigative Report, Code Enforcement staff
spoke with nearby residents and verified that major repair-work and
testing of vehicles on C Street has occurred (Attachment D). The
use has not been operated in accordance with Use Permit 76-4
and, with major repair work, outdoor work, and on-street test driving
in the area, continuance of the use would be detrimental to the
surrounding residences and businesses.
,
The facility's operators have failed to maintain trash-hauling service
and properly contain and dispose of refuse in accordance with
Sections 4323 and 4324 of the Tustin City Code. Federal Disposal
repossessed dumpsters from the site in December 2001, February
2002, and May 2002 because the operator failed to pay the bill. In
February 2002, approximately twenty (20) trash bags were piled
outside the trash enclosure and a notice of violation was issued. In
March, trash problems continued and the operator was issued a
citation on March 7, 2002 (July 8, 2002, Staff Report Attachment
C - Exhibits 7-15). Again in June, trash was piled at the rear of the
property and a citation was issued on June 5, 2002, for "trash not in
a container" (July 8, 2002, Staff Report Attachment C - Exhibit 16-
21). Improper waste disposal constitutes a violation of the Tustin
City Code and the Planning Commission's basis for approving Use
Permit 76-4 by adopting findings c, d, e, and f of Resolution No.
1497. Continuance of the use, and its associated wasted and
improper containment and disposal, would be detrimental to the
surrounding residences and businesses.
.
The facility's operators have failed to properly contain and dispose
of hazardous materials in accordance with Section 5502(d). Since
the facility handles hazardous wastes such as oil and anti-freeze,
improper refuse disposal is a concern. A Code Enforcement Officer
observed hazardous waste materials in the trash enclosure and
issued a citation for illegal disposal of solid hazardous waste on
June 5, 2002 (July 8, 2002, Staff Report Attachment C - Exhibits
Resolution No. 3837
Page 3
16-21). A 55-gallon drum containing anti-freeze was not properly
contained and stored outside the building; the operator was advised
of the proper containment. A residue of oil or anti-freeze was
observed in puddles of water on the property, which is a water
quality violation. Improper containment and disposal of hazardous
substances constitutes a violation of the Tustin City Code and the
Planning Commission's basis for approving Use Permit 76-4 and
adopting findings c, d, e, and f of Resolution No. 1497.
Continuance of the use, and its associated improper containment
and disposal of hazardous waste, would be detrimental to the
surrounding residences and businesses.
,
The facility's operators violated Sign Code Sections 9404(a)(2)(a)
and 9404(1)(c) which prohibit aerial balloons and signs. An aerial
sign was affixed to the roof in August 2001 (July 8, 2002, Staff
Report Attachment C - Exhibit 6). A notice of violation was issued,
and, after the operator failed to remove the balloon, a citation was
issued on August 25, 2001. When the aerial balloon was removed,
pennants were stru.ng on the property. The pennants were
removed four weeks later. These signs violate the Tustin City Code
and the Planning Commission's basis for adopting finding e of
Resolution No. 1497. Continuance of the use would be detrimental
to the surrounding residences and businesses.
,
The facility has required continual code enforcement activity to
ensure compliance with Use Permit 76-4 and eliminate property
maintenance, water quality, and Tustin City Code violations (July 8,
2002, Staff.Report Attachment C -Investigative Report). While
staff has worked with the various operators, they often failed to
comply with verbal warnings or to appear at pre-scheduled
meetings to resolve Significant code violations. As a result, a
number of violations and citations were issued to a number of
different operators. In addition to Code Enforcement activity, the
Tustin Police Department has responded to fifteen (15) calls for
service this year and a total of 56 calls for service in the past five
(5) years. The City Attorney's office has been involved with a
number of citations and provided support to staff's enforcement
activities. An excessive amount of staff and City Attorney time has
been necessary to enforce Use Permit 76-4 and the Tustin City
Code, which is a detriment to the general welfare of the City by
focusing code enforcement activity on one facility and detracting
from the time and resources available for other properties.
Continuance of the use would require undue expenditures of City
resources for the purposes of monitoring the facility and enforcing
applicable terms and conditions of approval, which would be a
detriment to the community as a whole. The negative impacts on
the community due to the inordinate devotion of public resources
far outweigh the benefits and services provided by the facility.
Resolution No. 3837
Page 4
.
The facility, as currently conditioned and operated, is no longer
appropriate for the site. In 1976, the site was located in the
General Commercial (CG) zoning district, which conditionally
permitted establishments for automobile services and supplies.
The building was completed in April 1977. In 1985, the City Council
adopted the First Street Specific Plan that amended the zoning
from General Commercial to Commercial as Primary (July 8, 2002,
Staff Report Attachment E). While service stations are conditionally
permitted in the Commercial as Primary land use designation, the
facility is not consistent with the First Street Specific Plan Design
Guidelines, which encourage a high quality of architectural design
and pedestrian orientation. In addition, the Planning Commission
adopted the Auto Service Guidelines in 1998 to specify
development standards for auto-service uses. With the existing
building configuration, limited parking, limited and absent
landscaping, and outdoor vending machines, the facility is not
consistent with the Guidelines. Given the fact that the existing
facility does not meet current development standards, it is
considered non-conforming. In addition to the facility's non-
conforming status, the staff report for Use Permit 76-4 indicated
that the maximum potential of the facility would be to work on four
(4) vehicles at one time since there are four (4) bays. As indicated
previously, staff has observed work being performed on vehicles in
the parking spaces and drive aisles, in addition to work being
performed on vehicles in the work bays. Given these observations
and the site's historical operations, the size of the business has
outgrown the facility and is no longer appropriate for the site (July
8, 2002, Staff Report Attachment C - Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5).
Continuance of the use, as currently conditioned and operated,
would be injurious and a detriment to the surrounding businesses
and residences in that it would negatively impact the area, create a
disorderly image for the area, and detract from a quality
environment.
,
The facility, as currently conditioned and operated, is no longer
appropriate for the area. At the time the facility was approved and
constructed, an auto parts store was located to the east of the
property, residences were located to the north, an office building was
located to the west, and a hotel was located to the south. Farther to
the east were Mullen Lumber, a self-serve carwash, Big-O Tires, and
a service station. The auto parts store at 145 W. First was remodeled
into an office in 1978 and into a furrier's showroom and storage
facility in 2000. Mullen Lumber at 135 W. First was demolished in
1992 and the service station at 171 W. First Street the comer of
Prospect and First was demolished in 1997. Pedestrian-oriented
retail development is envisioned for these vacant parcels. The office
building to the west, hotel to the south, and residences to the north
still exist. In surveying the First Street and the area, it is apparent that
the facility, as conditioned and operated, is no longer is compatible
Resolution No. 3837
Page 5
with the adjacent residential or commercial areas (July 8, 2002, Staff
Report Attachment C and Attachment F). The residential
neighborhood to the north still exists and is comprised primarily of
historic residences built generally between 1910 and 1930. Although
the area is not within the boundaries of the Cultural Resources
Overlay District, many of the homes are listed on the City's Historical
Survey and merit conservation. The area is well maintained and an
asset to the community. However, over the years, residents from this
area have complained that the facility is disruptive and is not
compatible with the residential nature of the area. Recently, nearby
residents have indicated that the appearance and operation of the
facility detracts from the neighborhood, devalues their property
values, makes it less desirable, and has been disruptive (July 8,
2002, Staff Report Attachment D). Similarly, the facility, with its
numerous violations, detracts from surrounding businesses that have
sought to create or maintain professional and attractive images along
First Street. New auto-related uses on First Street, such as the
Mountainview Tire and Service, exhibit the design principles
envisioned by the Design Guidelines and are able to operate within
the parameters of their entitlements without disrupting nearby
businesses (July 8, 2002, Staff Re. port Attachment F). While there
has been significant planning efforts to revitalize First Street and new
development has taken place, the facility, as conditioned and
operated, has become a nuisance and is no longer compatible with or
consistent with the First Street Specific Plan vision and new
development in. the area and continuance of the use would be
detrimental to the community.
D,
That this project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15321 (Class
21) related to enforcement actions of regulatory agencies to revoke
entitlements of Chapter 3, Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations
(Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act.
II.
The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council revoke Use
Permit 76-4, which authorized a lubrication and minor tune-up facility, and require
the facility to be vacated and the site cleaned within ten (10) days of City Council
action.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, at a regular
meeting on the 8th day of July, 2002.
DOUGLASS S. DAVERT
Chairperson
ELIZABETH A. BINSACK
Planning Commission Secretary
Resolution No. 3837
Page 6
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
CITY OF TUSTIN )
I, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning
Commission Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California; that
Resolution No. 3837 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin
Planning Commission, held on the 8th day of July 2002.
ELIZABETH A. BINSACK
Planning Commission Secretary
ATTACHMENT H
PowerPoint Presentation
To Be Presented to the Planning Commission on July 8, 2002