Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 REVOC. U.P. 76-4 07-15-02AGENDA REPORT NO. 01 07-15-02 MEETING DATE: JULY 15, 2002 610-40 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: WILLIAM HUSTON, CITY MANAGER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REVOCATION OF USE PERMIT 76-4 SUMMARY: The operators of Econo Lube N' Tune at 155 W. First Street have violated the terms and conditions of Use Permit 76-4 and zoning, property maintenance and water quality regulations. On July 8, 2002, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, considered all the evidence submitted, and recommended that the City Council revoke Use Permit 76- 4. (Property Owner: Apex Meat Company, Business Owners: Econo Lube N' Tune) RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 02-67 revoking 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). In early 1995, the City hired professional code enforcement staff and began proactive code enforcement. Since that time, 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 maintenance, and water quality regulations. Due to the nature and number of violations between 1995 and 1998 and the operator's unwillingness to rectify violations, the City pursued civil penalties in court. In lieu of proceeding to trial, the operator and corporate officer decided to enter into a Settlement Agreement dated July 1998 (Attachment C), which required the operator and corporate officer to comply with Use Permit 76-4 and the Tustin City Code. Despite the Settlement Agreement, the various operators since 1998 have continued to violate the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Use Permit 76-4, and the Tustin City Code. City Council Report Revocation of Use Permit 76-4 July 15, 2002 Page 2 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 A-K hereto, staff contends that both findings can be made and recommends Use Permit 76-4 be revoked. In addition, on July 8, 2002, the Planning Commission found that both findings could be made and recommended that the City Council revoke Use Permit 76-4 (Attachment D - Resolution No. 3837. Public Notice The Planning Commission and City Council are required to hold public hearings for the consideration of revocation. 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 for both the Planning Commission and City Council revocation hearings. In addition, staff provided copies of the Planning Commission and City Council staff reports to the corporate business owner, the last known operator, and the property owner on July 2, 2002, and July 11, 2002, respectively, 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 continually violated the terms of Use Permit 76-4 and have not operated in accordance with the Planning Commission's approval (Attachment E - Investigative Report) or the July 1998 Settlement Agreement (Attachment C). In addition, the issuance of any permit requires that the applicant or operator to comply with all applicable local, State, and Federal regulations. 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. City Council Report Revocation of Use Permit 76-4 July 15, 2002 Page 3 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." Use Permit 76-4 specifically allowed minor "lubrication and tune-up" work only. Lubrication and tune up work would include such services as: changing fluids such as oil and anti-freeze; and changing spark plugs, batteries, and windshield wipers. For example, EZ Lube's website at www.ezlube.com indicates the company provides oil changes, installs new oil filters, lubricates chassis, checks and installs new air filters, checks and fills power steering fluid, windshield fluid, battery fluid, transmission/transaxle fluids, gearbox fluids, brake fluids, changes windshield wipers, and applies internal engine or oil system treatments or cleaners. The operators have exceeded the scope of Use Permit 76-4 by: performing major automotive, engine, transmission, and brake repair work (Attachment E- Investigative Report and Exhibits 16, 22, and 24); performing work on vehicles outside the work bays, in the parking spaces and drive aisles (Attachment E- 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 at this facility, the testing involved 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 F). A number of residents spoke at the Planning Commission hearing on July 8, 2002, and indicated that the operators: test drove vehicles on B and C Streets and in the public alley behind Econo Lube N' Tune and the office building to the west making the area unsafe for their children; had parked vehicles on C Street for their commercial use making it difficult for residents to find on-street parking; and, had used loud equipment, played loud music, and had been disruptive (Attachment D- Planning Commission Minutes). 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 and parking 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 refuse removal bills. 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 City Council Report Revocation of Use Permit 76-4 July 15, 2002 Page 4 (Attachment E - 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 E - Exhibit 16-21). In addition, some of the residents who spoke at the Planning Commission hearing on July 8, 2002, indicated they had observed excessive trash and debris on the site and one woman noted she had found the facility's trash on her property (Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes). 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 E - Exhibits 16-21). A 55- gallon drum containing anti-freeze was not propedy 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. In addition, one the residents who spoke at the Planning Commission hearing on July 8, 2002, indicated she had observed oil from the facility on the public street (Attachment D- Planning Commission Minutes). 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 solid and liquid hazardous waste, would be detrimental to the surrounding residences and businesses. The facility's operators violated Sign Code Section 9404(a)(1) and 9403(b) which prohibit painted wall signs, A-frame signs, aerial signs, pennants, and temporary banners without permits. In July 2000, a painted wall sign and window signs covering more than twenty- five (25) percent of the windows were installed and two notices of violation were issued because the operator failed to comply in a timely manner (Attachment E - Exhibit 6a). In December 2000, an A-frame sign and 3 temporary banners were displayed. An aerial sign was affixed to the roof in August 2001 (Attachment E - 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 City Council Report Revocation of Use Permit 76-4 July 15, 2002 Page 5 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 E -Investigative Report). Since 1994, staff estimates that hundreds of hours of staff time have been expended, including various code enforcement officer's, their supervisor's, and the Director's time. The City Attorney has also provided support on numerous citations and in court appearances, trial preparation, and preparation of a Settlement Agreement. This amount of time is excessive and considerably more than the two (2) hours that is spent on a typical code enforcement case. In addition, the Tustin Police Department has responded to fifteen (15) calls for service this year and a total of fifty-six (56) calls for service in the past five (5) years. An excessive amount of staff effort, City Attorney support, and City resources have 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 Apdl 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 G). While service stations are conditionally permitted in the Commercial as Pdmary land use designation, the facility is not consistent with the First Street Specific Plan Design City Council Report Revocation of Use Permit 76-4 July 15, 2002 Page 6 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 E - 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 E and Attachment H). 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 Oveday 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 City Council Report Revocation of Use Permit 76-4 July 15, 2002 Page 7 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. As indicated in Attachments D and F, 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. In addition, several residents outlined their concerns regarding the operations at the facility at the Planning Commission hearing (Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes). 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. Planning Commission Revocation Hearing On July 8, 2002, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered the written staff report and attachments; a slide presentation and verbal staff report, and testimony from area residents and two of the corporate officers of Econo Lube N' Tune (Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes). As noted previously, the residents noted a number of concerns with the facility including parking on C Street, use of B and C Streets for vehicle testing and unsafe conditions for children, noise and loud music being played, work on Sundays, eady in the morning, and late in the evening, oil from the facility in the street, and trash and debris from the facility traveling off-site to other properties. David McCombs, a corporate officer with Econo Lube N' Tune, indicated the following: Mr. McCombs was aware of the problems with the facility during the last fourteen (14) months and noted the last franchisee had been evicted on June 18, 2002. He also indicated staff had not contacted him or any corporate officers during that time. However, staff did work directly with the known operator and sent copies of notice of violations to corporate officers of Econo Lube N' Tune and the property owner (Attachment I - Letters to Dave Schaefers and Apex Meat Company). There are approximately 3,800 commercial businesses within the City. The City does not have the resources to advise each franchisor and/or business owner of all applicable regulations; it is the responsibility of the franchisor, business owner, City Council Report Revocation of Use Permit 76-4 July 15, 2002 Page 8 and property owner to ensure that the property and business comply with all applicable discretionary entitlements, the Tustin City Code, State laws, and federal laws. Mr. McCombs indicated that the facility operated for approximately twenty years prior to 1994 without problems. The City did not perform full-time code enforcement until approximately 1995 and it is unknown whether there were problems pdor to 1994. Regardless, the lack of previous violations does not justify the continual violations and adverse conditions that have been present on the site since 1994. Mr. McCombs indicated brake service had been approved and the City knew they were doing brake work and testing on public streets. Use Permit 76-4 allows only lubrication and tune-up services and there is no evidence that City staff authorized brake work at the facility or testing on public streets. Mr. McCombs referred to a previous City Council item involving the shared use of the monument sign for 145 and 155 W. First Street (Econo Lube N' Tune and Surfas Furriers) and indicated it was unfair of the City to take one year to resolve the sign issue and not provide sufficient time for him to resolve the problems with the facility. Although the sign issue is a separate issue and not the topic of this action, the code enforcement record is an indication that staff has given him several years to resolve and rectify problems with no permanent results. In addition, as noted previously, the City entered into a Settlement Agreement in July 1998 with the expectation .that the violations would cease; Mr. McCombs signed that Settlement Agreement and thereby accepted responsibility to comply with Use Permit 76-4. However, the record shows that numerous violations have occurred since 1998 to the present. Following the testimony and discussion among the Commissioners, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3837 (Attachment D) recommending that the City Council revoke Use Permit 76-4. FISCAL IMPACT: As evidenced in the staff report, excessive staff efforts have been required to enforce Use Permit 76-4 and the Tustin City Code. Since 1994, staff estimates that hundreds of hours of staff time have been expended, including various code enforcement officer's, their supervisor's, and the Director's time. The City Attorney has also provided support on numerous citations and in court appearances, trial preparation, and preparation of a Settlement Agreement. This amount of time is excessive and considerably more than the two (2) hours that is spent on a typical code enforcement case. In addition, the Tustin Police Department has responded to fifty-six (56) calls for service during the last five (5) years and fifteen (15) calls for service this year. The allocation of staff time and City Council Report Revocation of Use Permit 76-4 July 15, 2002 Page 9 public resources to one facility is not only excessive but also diverts time and resources that could be utilized in other parts of the City. Given the history of the facility, continuance of the use would require undue expenditures of public resources to ensure compliance with Use Permit 76-4 and the Tustin City Code. ENVIRONMENTAL: This action 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 Califomia Code of Regulations (Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act. FINDINGS A decision to recommend revocation Resolution No. 02-67 (Attachment J). Karen Peterson Senior Planner is supported by the findings contained within Community Development Director Attachments: Attachment A: Attachment B: Attachment C: Attachment D: Attachment E: Attachment F: Attachment G: Attachment H: Attachment I: Attachment J: Attachment K: Location Map Staff Report/Site Plan/Resolution No. 1497 Settlement Agreement dated July 1998 Resolution No. 3837 and Draft July 8, 2002, Planning Commission Minutes Investigative Report/Photographs of Violations Interviews First Street Specific Plan Commercial as Primary Land Use Designation Photographs of Vicinity Letters to Corporate Officers of Econo Lube N' Tune Resolution No. 02-67 PowerPoint Presentation ATTACHMENT A Location Map LOCATION MAP IRVINE BOULEVARD Revocation of Use Permit 76-4 155 W. First Street VILLA VIENTO APARTI~NT$ 135 135A I 130~ 145I 140 155 J 150 165 { 160 175 170 0RANGEWOOD LANE: LOCKWOOD F ;K PLACE 25 I 124 FIRST. STREET 300' Radius 500' Radius P£/~PER tREE PARK 140 155 150 165 1 I 5"ECONO STREET 180 __ '~05 150 11,5 110 125 120 13~IIIP' 130 p~r45 140 155 150 165 181-82,- R5 SECOND STREET ATTACHMENT B Staff Report/Site Plan/Resolution No. 1497 PUBLIC HEARING NO. 1 DATE: February 23, 1976 SUBJECT: Use Permit 76-4 (Econo-Lube, Incorporated) LOCATION: 155 West First Street APPLICANT: Robert R. Overdevest, 4321 Margarita, Irv~.ne, CA 92705 REQUEST: The applicant has requested a Use Permit (UP 76-4) for authorization to construct and ope_~ ~ .a~e an automobile lubrication and t=ne up facility in the Com.~,~_,rcial General District. BACKGROUND: Ordinance No. 654 creating the Cor..~_-rcia] C~neral Dis- trict authorizes, subject~ to a use permit, establishments. for automobile supplies and services. The .~ubject pro- petty was acquired by the City of Tustin in conjunction with the improvement of First Street. The City adv,_-r- tised the property for sale ,~:,d it was },urchased Dy Mr. Fredrickson and subsecuent!y resold. ;']~ns h;,ve been submitted by the applicant for the con:~tructAon of ~ waiting room and office space in conj,~nction with four service bays and three off street park~r:;~ stalls on a parcel ~ 4%900 square feet. DISCUSSION: Plans have been circulated to City departments for rcvi.~.w and with the following responses: City Engineer: 1. The driveway location on "C" Street is acceptable s~ect t'; indication that there arc n~ above c. round utiliti,.~, ]i~:h~- Dower poles or other impedin~nts whic'.'% are not indic~t,.?~ ?~,n 2. Thc sign location on First Street r. ay ..-~re-nent a :~'..,: visibility hazard and should be located at the n~st r:orth,_.r]y and location with an overall huickt hr,~ to ez'_',3c5 t.~rt¥ inches. 3. The side.walk configuration on "C" 3tr,..,:t .~;[~arat::.~ a .r)~]~c right- of-way with a 3~' landscape strip on on:: side of '..~,:? .~idew~!k and a 2%' landscape area on the interior side. The r,_',~d]ust..-~_.nt of the sidewalk location would provide for a more ?tactical attractive landscape area. Fire Dep_9. rtmen t: ~.~ The Fire Depart.~ent recommends at lea~t one 2A rated fir,_' ezt:ngu~i-=her '~ ' .ir_ within 50 foot travel distance with tine reco~-mw_-ndat~on that r~he =, ~ extinguishers be of 2A-10BC type. Metal receptacles are required for Public ~{earing '/~o. 2/23/76 Page 2 grease an~ oily rags with containers t_hat have self closing lid~. Com~m_ity Development Department- The applicant has deleted the request for the monun~nt si~n and wall signs have been submitted in lieu thereof. As propose, d, thc south- wall, or the face of the building would have a si?n of -~4 scuare feet with wall signs on the westerly exposures of approximately'10 square feet for each building. The sign request is reasonable and by design considerations could be made to be com?atible with th~, site and building. The proposed development with four s'ervice bavs and t}~ree o{~ ~-- parking spaces indicates that there wil. be three e~loyees at peak operating hours with the potential of u.r:,icing four autcmobiles. It can be visualized that unless a serv~-~ bay. is open, tl~::re is no place for t-hm.~bii~Jto park while awaiting service. As a consequence, street parking ~.nd lot conjestion would result from th,.; design A preferred solution would be to develop three servic,: bays on the .rear or northerly portion of the lot uroviding for egr,.;~.~ through the alley, with parking and ;;aitin~ area to be on thc fro::::~,,.-e of t,~e lot. The ;~pcrations of this center ',,'ill r~quire the ruJ~nix.,: ,~f' automobile engin,_-s for tune up with the potential of creating bot~, a noise and e>duau.~t nuisance for the northerly residential proper',..,. The property im~.~ediately to the east is an auto.~obiie parts store ;.!~at could be conceived as compatible with this proposed use. It is believed that the use of subject property could be ,.'~cce.nt.able and desirable subject to redesign of the site. Th,3 ~-~,:>l.~c.-~:.t h~:.~ been ?~ade aware of the staff concerns and '-'ill have a]t,_.rn~te desiqns for ~',s..~nission_ . , consideration at ~.~:_~ -~ublic hearing. ..'{ECOM:,~ENDED ACT I ON: it is reco,~-tmended that the PlannJn%-Commiss]on approv,: UP 7r~-4 author- J. zin,~ ar. Econo Lube and tune up facility to acco~da"e c bays and not less than three on site :>arking facilities with the d{~- si~n s'~jc-ct to staff review. Alternatively, the to :or,:]n'=.~ th(.. matter for Com~:[~sicn approval of :~a:'~::. if t::e Commisn]on c]cs]r,~s to apprcvt. ~he use, s~ject to for t3~: C'.,m~ission's ap?royal. A_~$~stant '_'it~.' /~drlnistrutor Co~un3.ty be vt- i osm~n t Di rector ............... R.~L?: rae~ ...................................................... I r,.i · I¢. · i I --I ST ?lTi. I I DATi~I_-~. ~ · /,n __ DRAWN BY I~.N__-----..-- BCAI. B! N O ?~'P BYI _ IMIEI:II RgSOLUTIO~ NO. 1497 lo 11 15 16 A 'i~__~OLUTION OF THE PI2~%'~ING CO:t~ISSION OF %~tE CITY OF TUSTIN GPJ~TXNO A ','SE PEP-~LIT ON APPLICAT:¢~ I40. UP 76-4 OF ECONO-LUBE, INC. The Planning Com~..-ission of the City of Tustin do~ hereby resolve as follows: 1. The . lanning Conunission finds and det.:r--.ines a. That a proper application No. b-P 76-4 wa~ Fl ]ed on behalf of Econo Lube, Inc. by Robert R. Ou-rd_-vest., 4321 Margarita, irvine, CA 92705, for a u,~. ~_rmit to authorize construction and ~.~intenance of an autor~obile lubrication and tt,~e up. facility on the property located on the north easterly c~r~;er of First and 'C' Street, known as 155 we~t First St. b. That· a public ::earing was duly called and noticed and held on said application. c. That the establishment and m-,intcnanc-, and opcra'_io~ of the use applied for w~ll not° ,,nder t!,~ circ~,- stance of thi.~ Case be d,_'trirw_-ntal to t.h,. safety and ~ora].~ or comfort or genera! w-.~'fare of the persons residing or working ,-n thc of such proposed use, as evidenced by %h-. roller-'lng findings: ]) The property is classified in the Co~..-.ercia! G~neral District. 2] The Ge_neral Plan designates ~- sub);.t area for com,~rcia! dcvelop...-~_nt. 3) The property is ddjoin,_-d on its c-a=t,:r:: bcundar~ by an automobl]e pat's sto~, ':er, arnt,:C on the north by a ]5' al luy and separat,.-d ¢,n t.h,.' we.~t by a public street. d. Th,.. ustabliGhment, m.~inte~:ance, and thc. use a.~:plied for w~ll not be ~n)urlou:. m,:~,tal to the pro!~ert.'.; an-] i m:-' rD vc .-,.n t '. ~:. the ne]g!%!)or.hood c,f t}~,3 sub'i,:c~ pro.r)ert¥. ::,,r t:, qcn~.ral wolfar:, of tt:e C:ty of Tus:.]n, ~.-': be granted. , e. Ti,,. pro::(::;(-d (:,.~..]o~..-~..'r~t ~hn] ] b,. :n Ci~';' ('r~tlricl], l:nlfQr.~. '-';t-'-' l-Il;Ir.: C':-::" .'t:. .:,/.--.:r,l'.'-'.'-r .... by '.1~,' 1:: r(' CJi~,_'~. , ,~:,'~ :.' ::-,-t [.-.':orr, v,':'°':.' r.'-~;.': :~-- f. ;..ri n!,i~lir-aticm has b,,(,n f;],.d and :t:.r;atlv.' dec-l,tratl(;:l ,' rom 'he :,.,qu: · -%.-.,,act u..')on %.hq ,.:;'..': :'on~.,': t :;i a :,r,'. l".-: ] im~tc'd SCi,]'-'. g. }'~nal developme, nt l,]an.". --hall r{,qu:rt- th:: review Resolu=£on i-Jo. 1497 2-23-76 4 6 and approval of the Community De. ve]opr,~-.t ., ~h~.; The mpplic~-nt has represented the~ no m~.jor t~ne-t-m '" "' ' or repair work will be '--~do_r:ar. en on ti,- eremites and upon that basis and in r~liance on =uch repre- 9 10 11 14 15 16 17, 2. The Planning Commission hereby gran'.s a ,:t~. I,.-..rmi: as applied for, to allow l~he construction and ,~l,eratJon of~ an automb~le l~rica=icn and tune ~ f,cili:.;, consist of 4 serv.ce bays in acc~rd~ce with site plans s~tted to the Plannino Co=l==~on Febr~r~ 20, 1976 with the exception tha~ the sid~,lk be re- aligned and pcri~er land~caD~nq ,~l~nq ?ark;~, stalls, with the ~i~ning limited to 54 square,~-,,_ ~. c,:, southerly face of %he southerly building, ,,;,t, ~i~ the ~ide wall of each b::lldlnc w:t~ ',._ · si~ on the southerly s~de of thc .n<)rth,:r3y l,uildinq. a. Northerly exit door to the fariliti,::~ =:',a]l be ;:,'pt closed during any t,'.ne-up work u:~op t:,- v,:h]cles to avoid creatinn a nu~sanc..- to the -bu: ting pro- perty or-'ne rs. b. The exhaust s},s'~ sha~ , the v,_-;' ~_r, .] ..-e_ut ,' ]atJ~n requirc.~nt.% of the 5uilding Off:c:a]. c. The so~nd !eve] at the line shall not exceed 65 dba. d. Final develop..-~nt p!anu shal] be a.:~i:r(,'~.-,': by th,: Co.~m%unitv Deve]opr. ent DeDart.-;:nt curity lighti=~g, lanF:ucaDinc. .';J: i','-r,¢; ,."-,|r:r:. and materials, siu:.:n~, and t:~: ]ocat~:. and pa:kine lot dcsicn. PA.G:;I:D AND Al)OPT.ED at a r',-cuZar Co..~,~s~on~ hc]d on thc t'-'cntv. '~-~rd.., c:.,';, o'. .... --,.!~u,.-v. ,~9':~.. . . .~, ~ /,' / ,//'//,.,/_.,... C~jff~...':/.'r,,L-~'i} ~.".-~'f-:. :;.':,27.2~:?", .', :-:.'.': :7:; 1:.';'? '-- ATTACHMENT C Settlement Agreement dated August 1998 ,SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND ¢0MPROMISE This Settlement Agreement and Compromise (hereinafter "Agreement") is entered into as of the __.___ day of July, 1998 by and between the CITY OF TUSTIN, a municipal California corporation ("Plaintiff"), ISIDORO OTERO ("Defendant"), and ECONO LUBE N' TUNE, INC., with respect to the following: RECITALS A. On or about June 8, 1998, the Plaintiff filed a criminal complaint against Defendant in the Municipal Court of the County of Orange, Central Judicial District, Case No. TUT140347, which arose out of certain alleged acts or omissions by Defendant occurring on or about April 14, 1998. In the complaint, the Plaintiff alleged a criminal misdemeanor violation of the Tustin Municipal Code. The complainant alleged that on the aforementioned date, the Defendant violated Tustin Municipal Code 9232(B)(b) by the unlawful service of vehicles outside an enclosed building at his place of employ, Econo Lube N' Tune #7, located at 155 West First Street, Tustin, California. Page -1- AGREEMENT The parties agree as follows: Release and Discharge 1. The Plaintiff, Defendant and ECONO LUBE N' TUNE, INC., mutually desire to settle the subject criminal action and believe that all parties' best interests will be served and expense will be saved by settling such dispute. 2. In consideration of'payment of ONE THOUSAND AND NO/100 ($1,000.00) DOLLARS receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Plaintiff, the people and the City of Tustin, hereby agree to dismiss misdemeanor complaint TUT140347 which names ISIDIRO OTERO as Defendant. In entering into this Agreement, the Defendant agrees to forego his right to a jury trial in the within matter, and hereby agrees to continue to obey all codes and statutes of the City of Tustin. 3. In addition, Defendant and ECONO LUBE N' TUNE, INC., specifically agree to comply with all of the City of Tustin's zoning laws, including Tustin Municipal Code 9232(B)(b) which prohibits any persons and/or businesses from servicing vehicles outside of enclosed structures. Defendant and Employer acknowledge that the following acts are prohibited under the Tustin Municipal Code and conditions of Conditional Use Permit 76-4: (a) Working on vehicles outside of the service bays, in the customer parking spaces and in the street; (b) Parking customer vehicles so as to block the public right of way; 110'~.100t e~7_~ Page -2- (e) (f) The northerly exit door of the northerly building shall be kept closed during any tune-up work; All work on the site shall not exceed the noise levels established by the City of Tustin Noise Ordinance; No customer or employee vehicles shall be parked, temporarily or permanently, in the public alley behind the facility; and No major automotive repair service shall be permitted on the premises. GOVERNING L.AW 4. This Settlement Agreement shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. EFFECTIVENESS 5. This Settlement Agreement shall be effective following execution by all of the parties. Subsequent to the execution, the Plaintiff has agreed to execute a dismissal of the entire criminal action against the Defendant and enter it as a matter of record with the court known as the Municipal Court of the County of Orange, Central Judicial District. 110'Z-1091 ~4,~_1 Page -3- B R E_A~CH.O F AGREEMENT 5. if Defendant and/or ECONO LUBE N' TUNE, INC., fail to comply with any of the terms of this Agreement, Defendant and Employer acknowledge that Plaintiff may file _~~ ,~iminal and/or civil complaint identifying any additional violations on said property. ~ OTERO, Defendant ECONO LUBE N' TUNE., INC. By:~ DAVID L McCOMBS Titie:*'~ -&'~j~'"'' ¢k' ~,,, ~:_~'e.-~g, ECONO LUBE N' TUNE, INC. Name al~d - 4911 BIRCH ST., NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 b,,a/~d,~ PHONE (714) 852-6691 ~'~ I~ l~' __.~4~--' FAX (714) 250-3162 (Typed or Printed) APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT: JO-~'PH W FORBATH, Deputy City Attorney For the City of Tustin and the People of the State of California ~102-x001 ~w_, Page -4- TOTAL P,06 VOUCHER INVOICE 00041937 TUT140347 CITTUS 185176 185176 DATE INV.ANT AMT. PAID DISC NET CHECK _ 7/31/98 1, 000. O0 1, 000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 0.00 1,000.00 , . · . ECONO LUBE N' TUNE, INC. ~ Sanwa Bank c,,,,om,, .,6..,s, 18517~ P.O. BOX 2470 NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE 122----6- 106 BRANCH #106 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92658 .oo MAC ARTHUR BLVD. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 (714) 851-2259 DATE AMOUNT 81ii/98 ~l,ooo.oo &Y One Thousand Dollars And 00 Cents THE RDER CITY OF TUSTIN 'z.. ATTACHMENT D Resolution No 3837 and July 8, 2002 Planning Commission Minutes 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 are hereby made and Use Permit 76-4 should be revoked. Co 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 Jdly 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: . 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, Resolution No. 3837 Page 2 "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 l::xhibits 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 accsleration, 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 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 Resolution No. 3837 Page 3 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 Section 9404(a)(1) and 9403(b) which prohibit painted wall signs, A-frame signs, aerial signs, pennants, and temporary banners without permits (July 8, 2002, Staff Report Attachment C - Exhibit 6). In July 2000, a painted wall sign and window signs covering more than twenty-five (25) percent of the windows were installed and two notices of violation were issued because the operator failed to comply in a timely manner. In December 2000, an A-frame sign and 3 temporary banners were displayed. An aerial sign was affixed to the roof in August 2001. 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 (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 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 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. ELIZABETH A. B'iNSACK Planning Commission Secretary DO UGT.~SS'"S. IDAVERT Chairperson 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. I~INSACK '" Planning Commission Secretary STAFF DRAFT MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING July 8, 2002 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER Given PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE All present ROLL CALL Staff present Elizabeth Binsack, Community Development Director Doug Holland, Deputy City Attorney Karen Peterson, Senior Planner Clayton Anderson, Code Enforcement Officer Eloise Harris, Recording Secretary None PUBLIC CONCERNS CONSENT CALENDAR Approved 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES- JUNE 24, 2002, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. It was moved by Hamilton, seconded by Denny, to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 4-0. Jennings abstained. PUBLIC HEARINGS Adopted Resolution No. 3837, as amended , REVOCATION OF USE PERMIT 76-4 WHICH AUTHORIZED A LUBRICATION AND MINOR TUNE-UP FACILITY. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 155 WEST FIRST STREET IN THE FIRST STREET SPECIFIC PLAN COMMERCIAL AS PRIMARY ZONING DISTRICT. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3837 recommending that the City Council revoke Use Permit 76-4. 7:02 The Public Hearing opened. Draft Minutes - Planning Commission July 8, 2002 - Page 1 Peterson Presented the staff report with a PowerPoint slide show presentation and photographs. Director Pointed out the report and attachments provide the foundation for a revocation; stressed the seriousness of the action staff is recommending that the Planning Commission take; noted that City staff has attempted, over the years, to assist the owners with compliance including holding meetings and then issuing citations, criminally prosecuting through the City Attomey's office, entering into a Settlement Agreement; regardless of whether it be Econo Lube N Tune, the corporate permitee, or the local operator, compliance has not been achieved; and, noted how significant this recommendation is, since 1996, staff has recommended only one other revocation of a permit in a similar instance. Jennings Asked if there are specific guidelines for the delineation of minor repair work from major repair work other than brakes. Peterson Staff has determined major versus minor repair. Davert Pointed out for the record that the resolution approved by the Planning Commission in 1976 addressed that issue in that the permit was for an automobile lubrication and tune-up facility; those two terms are self-explanatory. Director Noted that Finding h. within the approval of Use Permit 76-4 in Attachment B states: "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." Consistent with other minor lube and tune facilities, brake work, auto bodywork, or similar repairs are not authorized. There is a vehicle on-site now that requires much more than just a lube, tune, or changing of windshield wipers. Hamilton Asked if other attempted revocations involved this project. Director Answered that, since 1996, no revocation of this permit has been proposed. Hamilton Stated that the color photographs should be included in the record; asked about the earlier problem with the Surfas Furrier sign not having lighting and not being operational; No. 4 of the resolution addresses some signage issues, but not that one. Peterson Answered that Mr. Surfas was in control of the sign at one point and had removed Econo Lube and Tune's sign; and, added she was not aware of any illumination problems. Draft Minutes - Planning Commission July 8, 2002 - Page 2 Director Hamilton Director Hamilton Director David Grant, 130 North C Street Lisa Serafin, 124 North C Street Nathan Menard, 345 West 6"~ Street David McCombs, Econo Lube N Tune corporate representative Noted there were plexes removed and some of the electrical components of the lighting were in disrepair, but that issue was resolved. Asked what the photograph in Exhibit C represents. Stated the photograph shows a deflated sign. Asked if the decibel levels were ever measured for this site. Responded that a comprehensive noise analysis was not completed. Expressed concern regarding Sunday work; parking of vehicles from the facility on the street has been a problem for some time; test driving along C and B Streets puts residents, especially children, at risk; noise is especially disturbing on the weekend, beginning before 8:00 a.m.; the bees hive and trash are ongoing concerns. Stated she moved to C Street one and a half years ago; her house is across the street from Econo Lube N Tune; in addition to Mr. Grant's concems, noted this is a nice community; she and her husband remodeled their home and do not want to move; her children have neady been hit on two occasions by the people test- driving of vehicles; suggested that residents are not safe on the sidewalks; the alley is also used for test-driving; parking is a major problem; there is oil in the street; tune-up items and other trash from the facility drift to her property; has had to request that cars not be parked in front of her house; music is very loud; people are there late at night--which causes concern about what is occurring at the facility. Commended staff for the report and investigative work, the years and time spent on this to bring this proposal to the Planning Commission; stated his understanding of the severity of the outcome; noted, as a resident of Old Town, he encourages the Planning Commission to approve Resolution No. 3837 so this item may move forward to the City Council. Apologized to the community for the behavior of the franchisee during the last 14 months; stated charges have been filed against this franchisee with the Tustin Police Department, and the franchisee has been evicted from the site; and, noted his concerns related to the shared monument sign with Surfas Furrier. Draft Minutes - Planning Commission July 8, 2002 - Page 3 Davert Interjected that the sign is not at issue. Mr. McCombs Davert Mr. McCombs Kozak McCombs Davert McCombs Davert Stated the sign became an issue because it took the City a year to enforce the covenants of the signage; during that time, he was asked to be patient, even though the car count went down by half, as the City was doing everything legally possible to get the sign back; that process took more than a year; stated brakes are approved; stated that for 20 years, there were no problems at this location; prior to the episode with the last franchisee, each time corporate was made aware of a problem, the problem was addressed immediately. Asked what authority Mr. McCombs was referring to regarding the allowance of brake work. Stated the 1998 Settlement Agreement referred to brake work being done, but no further allowance of test-driving up and down the street; added approval was received to include Econo Lube N Tune and Brakes on the signage; and, noted that rebuilding engines is quite different which the franchisee should not have been doing. Stated the most recent franchisee was not the only problem; there have been five operators over the past eight years and problems existed with every one. Suggested there were problems with three, but for 20 years the building existed without problems; the criminal violation against the franchisee in 1997 or 1998 was to a franchisee who abandoned the building; stated the citation was based on the hood being left up on one vehicle; that situation was addressed and resolved in the 1998 Settlement Agreement; in 1998, when the decibel levels were addressed, Econo Lube N Tune spent several hundred dollars for less noisy guns for removing wheels; staff agreed in 1998 to call corporate when problems occur; after 14 months, the City finally agreed to resolve the Surfas Furrier sign problem after Econo Lube N Tune's business had been irreparably damaged; it seems unfair to revoke the permit based on a franchisee who has already been evicted. Asked when the franchisee was evicted. Indicated three weeks ago, June 18, 2002. Asked why there are still four smashed vehicles sitting on the lot, two old vending machines out front, a bee hive on the side of the building, and the premises are in complete disrepair; and, Draft Minutes - Planning Commission July 8, 2002 - Page 4 suggested if Econo Lube N Tune were acting in good faith, there would be effort to clean up the site. McCombs Stated he went to the City to get a business license to reopen that store and were told to stay away because of this public hearing; we were denied a business license; when we went to clean up the site, we were told to go away. Davert Asked the City Attorney if a business license is required to maintain a property. Holland Responded in the negative. McCombs Suggested it is when the City tells you to go away until the matter is resolved; stated Econo Lube N Tune has always been responsive to problems referred to them by the City, and there are huge gaps in the record when corporate was not informed. Hamilton Stated his concern regarding corporate's lack of control over the various franchisees over the years; and, added that corporate's representative should maintain better control of the franchisees by visiting the property on a more regular basis. McCombs Stated the issues from 1997 were resolved by the 1998 Settlement Agreement; while he agrees it is the franchisor's responsibility to ensure compliance, the franchisor can only do what the law requires which is the same excuse the City gave him regarding the Surfas sign issue. Davert Reiterated that the attempt to blame these problems on Mr. Surfas is inappropriate. Holland Noted the sign issue was diligently dealt with by the current processes and procedures to resolve that code violation; Mr. McCombs declined to pursue Mr. Surfas civially and instead relied upon the City to go through its process; the City is going through a similar process on the latest violations; pointed out that the Settlement Agreement of 1998 that Mr. McCombs signed contains no reference dealing with brakes, brake work, etc., and read from the agreement: "The Defendant and Employer acknowledge that the following acts are prohibited under the Tustin Municipal Code and conditions of Conditional Use Permit 76-4: (a) Working on vehicles outside of the service bays, in the customer parking spaces and in the street; Draft Minutes - Planning Commission July 8, 2002 - Page 5 Jennings McCombs Jennings McCombs Hamilton McCombs (b) Parking customer vehicles so as to block the public right of way; (c) The northerly exit door of the northerly building shall be kept closed during any tune-up work; (d) All work on the site shall not exceed the noise levels established by the City of Tustin Noise Ordinance; (e) No customer or employee vehicles shall be parked, temporarily or permanently, in the public alley behind the facility; and (f) No major automotive repair service shall be permitted on the premises." Stated her understanding of Mr. McCombs' frustration with the slowness of due process on the sign issue; however, the pages and pages of complaints that staff has against Econo Lube N Tune reflect the patience of the City; and, asked how franchisees are screened. Indicated there has been a problem getting good quality franchisees; various checks are completed including what businesses they have run previously; stated it is difficult for a parent organization to remove a franchisee once they are operating; stated the franchisee was evicted; stated the corporate office has another franchisee ready to take over this site once it is cleaned up; and, stated there has been a large amount of time, money, and effort expended over the years renovating and remodeling this building. Suggested that the franchisee screening perhaps needs upgrading; noted the money and time invested by Econo Lube N Tune may not match what the City has done in an effort to keep the facility at that location; stated the Planning Commission is not anti-business, but noted her concems related to the issues. Restated that for 20 years this was a good business with no problems; and, insisted the evicted franchisee is the cause of the revocation request. Expressed his appreciation to Mr. McCombs for his apology; asked Mr. McCombs to try to see this issue from the Planning Commission's point of view; and, noted there have been multiple complaints over the years. Responded that his desire is that the store be allowed to continue with a new franchisee who would be informed what the rules and responsibilities are; if rules are not followed, that business owner should be held accountable, not the corporation. Draft Minutes - Planning Commission July 8, 2002 - Page 6 Davert McCombs Davert Director Stated that Mr McCombs' suggestion that the monitoring of the franchisee, the policing of the facility, and ensuring compliance be the responsibility of the City is disingenuous; most franchises have routine inspections frequently to assure the facilities are being maintained in accordance with franchise agreements; that does not seem to be happening with Econo Lube N Tune; suggested it is not the City's responsibility to do that for Econo Lube N Tune and be reporting back to company headquarters when the franchisees do something in violation of the Code--that is corporate's responsibility; and, asked what Econo Lube N Tune is doing to police their franchisees. Stated he did not mean to imply it was the City's responsibility to monitor the franchisee; the request was for the City to call him if there was a problem; when he received calls in the past, he made a point of solving the problem; he visited this site anonymously and pointed out problems to the manager, talked to members from the corporate office, wrote them up, and got issues resolved; the corporate office has local representation who does monitor; if the owner refuses, only due process can remove that franchisee. Asked if there were any further questions for McCombs. Offered the following points of clarification: Mr. Grant indicated there was Sunday work occurring. This is a relatively old use permit. It did not fall under the auspices of current auto service guidelines. There were no day or time limitations in the use permit. In 1996, a relatively new franchisee had taken over because they were getting numerous complaints; this franchisee agreed voluntarily not to operate on Sundays. That may not have been true with operators since then and was not part of Use Permit. If a new use permit were being considered now, day and time limitations would be considered due to the proximity to residential uses. To put things into some perspective: In approximately 1994, the City established a professional code enforcement program; prior to that, there was a part-time planner that would respond to complaints. Since then, the City has had either one, two, or three professional code enforcement officers dealing with these specific kinds of things. Noted that the City did not tell Econo Lube N Tune or a new franchisee to go away and Draft Minutes - Planning Commission July 8, 2002 - Page 7 Peterson Dean Maakestad, representing Econo Lube N Tune Jennings Director 8:07 p.m. Hamilton Jennings Kozak we would not allow operation at that location. The request that was made was for an oil change, tune-up, smog check, and auto repair facility. The City submitted a letter back indicating that a business license could not be issued based on the proposed use. The use that was approved for that facility was a lube and tune facility only. Had they requested a lube and tune facility only, a business license would have been granted. Noted the City wanted any new franchisee to understand that a revocation of the use permit at this location was being commenced. Added that during Clayton Anderson's tenure, he has been dealing with Econo Lube N Tune's corporate headquarters, specifically, Dean Maakestad or Dave Shaeffers; Mr. McCombs' implication no contact was made with the headquarters is erroneous. Stated the first contact he had with the City of Tustin was with Clayton Anderson on June 18, 2002; indicated the franchisee was gone and showed Mr. Anderson the sheriff's notification; for the City to say corporate has been notified on any other cases is not true; there has been no notification to him; the only way the City got his name was Mr. Anderson's taking his card on June 18th; he had never dealt with the City before that day; to say that corporate did several things is not true. Asked staff for the date of the most recent request for a business license. Stated June 16, 2002, to which staff responded on the 19th. The Public Hearing closed. Noted all the evidence presented by staff supporting revocation of this permit; noted that harm to residents and the environment are major concems; stated his understanding that revocation of a conditional use permit is an important issue for the City; noted he supports property rights, but the evidence in this case supports revocation; suggested the franchisor should exert more control and be more vigilant regarding issues such as those presented in this report; and, stated his support for revocation. Stated her regret that revocation is necessary; suggested that Econo Lube N Tune needs to have more control over their franchisees; considering the pages and pages of reports, it would be difficult not to recommend revocation. Noted the seriousness of the proposed action; stated his understanding of the seriousness of the violations; stated that the Draft Minutes - Planning Commission July 8, 2002 - Page 8 Holland Davert Director Kozak Director Kozak Denny Anderson City is following due process; noted since 1998, the number of enforcement calls received does not suggest diligence on the part of Econo Lube N Tune in selecting appropriate qualified vendors or franchisees; and, noted his support of revocation. Added that he believes both findings in the resolution not only can be found but are found and recommended that be indicated in the resolution by adding "the same or similar use" so there can be no debate about major repair work, brake work, etc. The staff work is conclusive. There are numerous violations. The operation is not suitable for the site or the area. Noted the language "same use" is from the Code; it is not at the discretion of the Commission to expand that language. Asked if that could be evaluated at the staff level and a determination made. Answered that, if a similar use were to be presented, it would require a discretionary action and would come before the Planning Commission. Withdrew his comment in view of the City Attorney's legal point. Asked for clarification whether Commissioner Kozak questioned modifying Finding I of Resolution No. 3237 to read: "Both findings are hereby made and use permit should be revoked." Responded in the affirmative. Noted there was no representative of the property owner in attendance; stated he formerly lived at 178 North C Street and personally witnessed test driving up and down that street; his wife called the City a number of times (during 1996) and was told the City was aware of the problem; he had work done on his car beyond a lube and tune job an alternator replacement or something similar--considered a major repair; verified the neighbors' comments regarding the unsightly, unhealthy nature of the facility and surrounding area; noted that C Street became dangerous due to the number of cars parking on the street that were being serviced at the facility; and, asked if staff advised Econo Lube N Tune to clean up the site as it exists today. Responded that Econo Lube N Tune was informed it would a more timely process if they towed the cars than if the City had to do so, due to the noticing process. Draft Minutes - Planning Commission July 8, 2002 - Page 9 Denny Asked for the status of the current lease. Director Denny Peterson Denny Davert None Stated staff has no knowledge as to the business terms. Referred to Commissioner Hamilton's mentioning 56 complaints and cladfied that reference was to 56 staff actions since 1994; there were many more than 56 complaints. Stated the number 56 refers to the number of police calls for service. Stated he takes this action very seriously, perhaps the most serious a Planning Commission can take; staff is to be commended for the work on this report; noted this applicant is asking for a sixth opportunity with a sixth franchisee; noted his support of property rights, supports those rights within the context of community standards, and this operation has violated those standards continuously since 1994; and, supported staff's recommendation, with the suggestion made by Commission Kozak. Stated it has been his policy to protect property rights; noted he reviewed the staff report carefully looking for ways to vote against the revocation but found none; noted it is not the City's responsibility to track down who the manager of the day is, who the corporate officer of day is; noted notice has been provided repeatedly through the years; these are not small violations, such as a banner; these are major violations with serious health, safety, and environmental implications; noted the attempt to blame the neighboring property owner, the attempts to blame the staff, and the excuses for not cleaning up the property since this action was initiated are disingenuous; noted he would rather not revoke a the use permit but cannot ignore the rights of the community, the rights of the neighboring property owners; believed everyone deserves a second chance. However, there are seven pages of second chances in this case, and the City has done everything it can; noted the lack of oversight by the franchisor is troubling; reiterated his concern that nothing has been done to clean up the site or eradicate the bees; reiterated his support for the revocation of the permit; ;and, asked for a motion. Jennings moved to adopt Resolution No. 3837, as amended, seconded by Denny. Motion carried 5-0. REGULAR BUSINESS Draft Minutes - Planning Commission July 8, 2002 - Page 10 STAFF CONCERNS , REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN AT THE JULY 1, 2002, CITY COUNCIL MEETING. Director reported The City Planning action to meeting. Council received Chairman Davert's resignation from the Commission, effective August 1, 2002; the Council took set interviews and appointments at the August 5, 2002, The City Council selected John Laing Homes and directed staff to prepare an Exclusive Agreement to Negotiate the development of Planning Area 20, Tustin Legacy. As a follow-up item, stated that the population figures on the Caltrans entrance signs have been corrected. Davert Indicated the sign at the eastbound SR-22 transition to southbound SR-55 still reads about 52,000. COMMISSION CONCERNS: Hamilton Wished Chairman Davert the best of luck in his endeavors. Thanked the residents who attended and spoke at tonight's meeting. Indicated he enjoyed the Fourth of July festivities at Tustin High School. Stated the trash problem at southbound I-5 at Tustin Ranch Road is going to be a continual problem; and, suggested Caltrans should address this situation on a more regular basis. Jennings Stated she will be unable to attend the July 22, 2002, Planning Commission meeting as she will be out of the country. Since this was her last meeting with Chairman Davert, noted she enjoyed serving with him as an outstanding Chairperson; and, stated her appreciation for his service to the community. Thanked staff, naming Clayton Anderson specifically, for their work preparing the staff report, which was presented very clearly, making it easy to understand. Stated her concern regarding the parking lot behind Bally's; there have been small vans there frequently; recently there was a bus in Draft Minutes - Planning Commission July 8, 2002 - Page 11 Denny Kozak Davert Kozak bad condition, perhaps non-functioning; and, asked staff to investigate this situation. Reminded everyone the Living History Tour takes place July 27 from 11:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.; stated that David Hewes will be at her home waving from the porch and addressing the crowd; and, asked that everyone attend this fun event. Thanked staff for their thorough work on tonight's report, making the Commission's decision recommending revocation quite easy. Pointed out that the Arco station at Redhill and San Juan now has vans stored at the site; the weeds keep growing; the yellow tape is still up. Thanked the residents for attending the meeting and speaking out on behalf of their neighborhood. Stated it was a pleasure to serve with Chairman Davert. Noted he will be unable to attend the July 22, 2002, meeting. Thanked staff for the complete and thorough staff report; and, noted Clayton Anderson's attendance at the meeting. Stated his appreciation for Chairman Davert's service to the Planning Commission as Chairman and as a member over the years. Thanked staff for responding to the tree overgrowth at The Barn. Stated that revitalization efforts, which appear to be private, along Irvine Boulevard are reassuring and positive, especially in contrast to some of the aspects of tonight's item. Stated his appreciation to Parks and Recreation for their outstandingl work on the Fourth of July festivities again this year. Referred to Commissioner Kozak's mention a few meetings ago of tobacco advertising on the light standards at one of the gas stations; noted that tobacco advertising has appeared at the 7-11 store at Pacific and First Street; and, asked that code enforcement request the discontinuance of that advertising. Stated the signs at the Exxon station have not been removed. Draft Minutes - Planning Commission July 8, 2002 - Page 12 Director Apologized for not formally introducing code enforcement officer Clayton Anderson to the Commission; and, noted Clayton normally covers the Old Town area and most of north Tustin. 8:36 p.m. ADJOURNMENT The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Monday, July 22, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at 300 Centennial Way. Draft Minutes - Planning Commission July 8, 2002 - Page 13 ATTACHMENT E Investigative Report/Photographs of Violations CITY OF TUSTIN CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER'S INVESTIGATIVE REPORT DATE: June 27, 2002 (Amended July 8, 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 W eisinger 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 W eisinger, 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 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. 11/01/1997 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 for the 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. 155 W. 1st Street C.E. Investigative Report & outstanding violations June 27, 2002 Page 3 07/24/00 Complaint received regarding new bright red color on a portion of the walls on the front and rear buildings, prohibited painted wall sign (Exhibit 6a), and window signs covering more than 25% of the window area (Exhibits 6 a, b, c). The business owner was told to repaint the building, remove painted wall sign, and reduce amount of window coverage. 07/27/00 Notice of violation regarding new bright red building color, prohibited painted wall sign, and window signs covering more than 25% of the window area issued by Felix Garcia. 08/11/00 Second notice of violation issued by Felix Garcia for remaining window signs and bright red color on the rear building. The signs were reduced and the rear building was re-painted. 12/04/00 Complaint received temporary banners. were removed. regarding display of a prohibited A-frame sign and 3 Felix Garcia contacted the business operator and the signs 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 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 was 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 155 W. 1st Street C.E. Investigative Report & outstanding violations June 27, 2002 Page 4 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. 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. 02/28/2002 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 7~ 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. 03/06/2002 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. 155 W. 1 st Street C.E. Investigative Report & outstanding violations June 27, 2002 Page 5 03/07/2002 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 7¼ 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. 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. 155 W. 1 st Street C.E. Investigative Report & outstanding violations June 27, 2002 Page 6 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. 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. There 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, '¥Vhat 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 155 W. 1st Street C.E. Investigative Report & outstanding violations June 27, 2002 Page '7 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 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 Exhi >it #5 EXHIBIT 6 EXHIBIT 6a EXHIBIT 6b EXHIBIT 6c EXHIBIT 7 EXHIBIT 8 EXHIBIT #9 EXHIBIT ,~: 16> EXHIBIT # /I EXHIBIT #1~. EXHIBIT EXHIBIT 14 EXHIBIT EXHIBIT #16 EXHIBIT #t7 EXHIBIT #1~ EXHIBIT #1~1' EXHIBIT #~0 EXHIBIT EXHIBIT #~z EXHIBIT #'z3 EXHIBIT EXHIBIT ATTACHMENT F Interviews 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 G First Street Specific Plan Commercial as Primary Land Use Designation D. 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 building: conducted within a a) Antique shops P b) Apparel stores P c) Appliance and hardware stores P d) Automobile parts and supplies C e) Bakeries, retail only P f) Books, gifts and stationery P g) Convenience markets C h) Drug stores, pharmacies P i) Florists P j) Furniture stores P k) General retail stores P 1) Hobby stores P m) Hotels and Motels C n) Jewelry stores o) Laundry and Dry Cleaners P p) Liquor stores C q) Neighborhood Commercial Centers P r) Nurseries and garden supply P s) Pet stores and supply P t) Print shops P u) Service stations C v) Skating rinks C w) Sporting goods P x) Supermarkets, grocery stores P y) Theaters C z) Tire sales and service C I?-?-R~ 111-7 2. Service Business including retail sales incidental thereto: a) Banks and financial institutions P b) Barber,. beauty salons P c) Car washes C d) Cocktail lounges and bars when not an integral ~art 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. 12-2-85 111-8 ATTACHMENT H Photographs of Vicinity 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 Area July 1, 2002 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 I Copies of Letters to Corporate Officers of Econo Lube N'Tune Community Development Department August 11, 2000 Econo Lube N'Tune No. 7 Attn: Dave Schaefers 1550 Newport Boulevard Costa Mesa, CA 92626 City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 714.573.3100 SUBJECT: SECOND NOTICE OF VIOLATION - 155 WEST FIRST STREET, TUSTIN, CA 92780 - VIO00-801. WINDOW SIGNS EXCEEDING THE 25% MAXIMUM ALLOWED AND 1sT STREET SPECIFIC PLAN DESIGN GUIDELINES. Dear Mr. Schaefers: Signs are an essential element of our community's visual environment and economic vitality and their placement has a significant influence upon the community's visual and economic vitality. The regulation of signs is considered necessary to promote uniform practices, which are consistent with the adopted City of Tustin sign standards. · On July 25, 2000 and August 2, 2000 Kevin, Business Manager at Econo Eube N'Tune # 7, was verbally notified that the painted window business signs are covering more than the 25% maximum allowable window area and the colors that were used to paint the buildings have not been approved by the City. He was asked to correct the violations. Specifically, these are violations of the following Tustin City Code sections: CODE: VIOLATION: REQUIRED ACTION: CODE: VIOLATION: TCC 9403(d) SIGNS EXEMPT FROM SIGN PERMIT/PERMITTED IN'ALL DISTRICTS. (8) Advertising, incidental, and/or non-commercial signs mounted, painted, attached to, or placed upon windows and intended to be viewed from the exterior, provided that the aggregate area of such signs do not constitute more than twenty-five (25) percent of the window area upon which they are placed. Existing painted window signs are covering more than the 25% maximum allowable window area. Please reduce the excessive painted window signs to comply with the 25% maximum allowed. 1sT STREET SPECIFIC PLAN DESIGN GUIDELINES COLORS Select complementary pastel or earthtones. Unify existing single structures or satellite buildings within a complex with the use of common colors. The rear service building was painted on the upper portion with bright red, which doesn't match the colors on existing surrounding buildings. Econo Lube N"Tune, No. 7 Re: Sign Code & 1 st Street spe~...,,.: Plan Viol. August 11, 2000; Page 2 REQUIRED ACTION: Please paint the rear service building to match the front building, which was repainted in an acceptable way. There has been some progress in correcting the violations. Thank you for repainting the front building in an acceptable condition and for removing the painted wall sign. However the other building has to be repainted and the window signs reduced to the 25 % maximum. Failure to comply with this second notice could result in a citation being issued to you and/or the case may be referred to the City Attorney for legal action. Please take the necessary corrective action by August 15, 2000 or call me within three (3) calendar days of this letter to inform me of your plans to correct the outstanding violation. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at (714) 573-3135. Thank you for your prompt cooperation in this matter. Code Enforcement Officer CC: Econo Lube N'Tune, No. 7 155 West First Street Tustin, CA 92780 S-~...~=ettx~Vmll, m\155W lstS~Pa~edWtndowSig~V~ndLtr Community Development Department April 25, 2001 City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 714.573.3100 Mr. Dave Schaefers Econo Lube N Tune No. 7 155 W. 1st Street Tustin, CA 92780 SUBJECT: BUS~NESS LICENSE Dear Business Owner, On August 9, 2000 a letter was sent to you requesting a copy of your sellers permit. This letter was again forwarded to you on September 28, 2000. As of this date, a copy of the sellers permit has not been received. .. Your business license has gone through the approval process and is ready to be mailed to you however, I cannot mail the certificate until the following is received: o Please provide a copy of your sellers permit showing the Tustin address. Please forward the fee for business year 2001 by reviewing the enclosed gross receipt fee schedule. At the time you submitted your original business license application you paid for business year 2000 only. If you will forward the requested items within the next ten days no penalty will be charged. After ten days the tax penalty will move to one hundred percent. If you have any q~stions regarding this matter, please contact me at (714) 573-3144. Sincerely, Barbara Reyes Business License Technician PLEASE RETURN A COPY OF THIS LETTER. · D6 not set this aside. Should penalty be assessed, the date of this letter determines initial assessment date. Com nunity Development Department City o f T u stin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, Ca 92780 (714) 573-3100 08/14/2001 DAVE SCHAEFERS 155 W. 1ST STREET TUSTIN, CA 92780 SUBJECT: · NOTICE OF VIOLATION; 155 W 1ST ST TUST; CASE #V01-0309 ' PROPERTY MAINTENANCE AND/OR BUILDING VIOLATION(S) Dear DAVE SCHAEFERS' The City of Tustin has property maintenance standards and code requirements to ensure that the quality of our neighborhoods and property values are maintained. These standards are summarized in the attached informational brochure developed by the City's code enforcement staff. Recently, conditions that are in violation of Tustin City Code were observed on your property located at 155 W 1ST ST , parcel # 40153213. The violations and the corrections required are noted on the attached Correction List. Please correct the violations within7 days from 08/14/2001. Please contact me as soon as possible in order to obtain any additional information you may need to make the corrections. It is very important that you clean up, repair, remove, or cease the unlawful use of said property within the specified time. If you fail to do so, the City may take action that could include an enforcement fee. This fee may be in addition to other related fees. The City may also take action that could ultimately lead to the abatement of shid violations with the cost of the abatement assessed against you the property owner and/or the property as a lien. For futher clarification or assistance with this matter, or to make an appointment to meet me directly, please call me at your earliest convenience. If you have already corrected the violations please call me so that I may reinspect your property immediately and close the case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, CLAYTON ANDERSON Code Enforcement Officer 714-573-31~ qc~ CODE ENFORCE15, _ NT Correction List Case Number:V01-0309 Address:155 W 1ST ST TUST Cond: V025 Tustin City Code 9404 1 (c) Aerial signs. Signs which are inflatable or are designed to be flown or attached to the ground, a building, structure or other object, including metallic or nonmetallic balloons, strings of balloons, kites, or other aerial signs. Entry: 08/14/2001 By: C.A.A /kction: CN Please remove and do not replace the aerial sign and all hardware associated with the sign. Cond: V 100 Tustin City Code 2512(a) There are hereby imposed upon the businesses, trades, professions, callings and occupations specified in this chapter license taxes in the mounts hereinafter prescribed. It shall be unlawful for any person to transact and carry on any business, trade, profession, calling or occupation in the City without first having procured a license from the City to do so, or without complying with any and all applicable provisions of chapter 25 TCC. Entry: 08/14/2001 By: C.A.A Action: CN Please obtain a business license immediately. NOTE: FAILURE TO SECURE A BUSINESS LICENSE WILL RESLrLT IN FINES AND LEGAL ACTION TAKEN AGAINST YOU. Community Development Department City o f T u stin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, Ca 92780 (714) 573-3100 DAVE SCHAEFERS 155 W. 1ST STREET TUSTIN, CA 92780 SUBJECT: NOTICE OF VIOLATION; 155 W 1ST ST TUST; CASE #V01-0309 PROPERTY MAINTENANCE AND/OR BUILDING VIOLATION(S) Dear DAVE SCHAEFERS: The City of Tustin has property maintenance standards and code requirements to ensure that the quality of our neighborhoods and property values are maintained. These standards are summarized in the attached informational brochure developed by the City's code enforcement staff. Recently, conditions that are in violation of Tustin City Code were observed on your property located at 155 W 1ST ST , parcel # 40153213. The violations and the corrections required are noted on the attached Correction List. Please correct the violations withinl4 days from . Please contact me as soon as possible in order to obtain any additional information you may need to make the corrections. It is very important that you clean up, repair, remove, or cease the unlawful use of said property within the specified time. If you fail to do so, the City may take action that could include an enforcement fee. This fee may be in addition to other related fees. The City may also take action that could ultimately lead to the abatement of said violations with the cost of the abatement assessed against you the property owner and/or the property as a lien. For futher clarification or assistance with this matter, or to make an appointment to meet me directly, please call me at your earliest convenience. If you have already corrected the violations please call me so that I may reinspect your property immediately and close the case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Code Enforcement Officer 714-573-3134 Co..sm~..,ity Development ~,epat ~ment .. City of Tustin -. 300 Centennial Way Tustin, Ca 92780 (714) 573-3100 09/10/2001 DAVE SCHAEFERS 155 W. 1 ST STREET TUSTIN, CA 92780 SUBJECT: FINAL NOTICE OF VIOLATION; 155 WIST ST TUST; CASE #V01-0309 PROPERTY MAINTENANCE AND/OR BUILDING VIOLATION(S) Dear DAVE SCHAEFERS: In two previous letters dated 08/14/2001 and 08/30/2001, you were notified that your property located at 155 W 1ST ST TUST is in violation of the Tustin City Code and you were requested to correct said violations(s). To date, there has been little or no substantial progress in correcting said violations(s). Please take the necessary action to correct the violations(s) on the attached correction list or contact me within five (5) calendar days from the date of this letter. It is very important that you clean up, repair, remove, or cease the unlawful use of said property within the specified time. If you fail to do so, the City may take action that could include an enforcement fee. This fee may be in addition to other related fees. The City may also take action that could ultimately lead to the abatement of said violations with the cost of the abatement assessed against you the property owner and/or the property as a lien. Failure to comply with this notice could also result in a citation being issued to you, and/or the case being referred to the City Attorney for legal action. Please contact me if you' have any further questions concerning this matter or to confirm that the violation(s) have been corrected. ' Thank you for your immediate attention and cooperation regarding this matter. Sincerely, Code Enforcement Officer 714-573-31 49 cc: Scott Reekstin, Senior Planner Community Development D partment City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, Ca 92780 (714) 573-3100 02/15/2002 APEX MEAT CO INC 6014 S EASTERN AV # 106 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90040 SUBJECT: NOTICE OF VIOLATION; 155 W 1ST ST TUST; CASE #V02-0569 PROPERTY MAINTENANCE AND/OR BUILDING VIOLATION(S) Dear APEX MEAT CO INC: The City of Tustin has property maintenance standards and code requirements to ensure that the quality of our neighborhoods and property values are maintained. These standards are summarized in the attached informational brochure developed by the City's code enforcement staff. Recently, conditions that are in violation of Tustin City Code were observed on your property located at 155 W 1ST ST, parcel # 40153213. The violations and the corrections required are noted on the attached Correction List. Please correct the violations withinl 0 days from 02/15/2002. Please contact me as soon as possible in order to obtain any additional information you may need to make the corrections. It is very important that you clean up, repair, remove, or cease the unlawful use of said property within the specified time. If you fail to do so, the City may take action that could include an enforcement fee. This fee may be in addition to other related fees. The City may also take action that could ultimately lead to the abatement of said violations with the cost of the abatement assessed against you the property owner and/or the property as a lien. For luther clarification or assistance with this matter, or to make an appointment to meet me directly, please call me at your earliest convenience. If you have already corrected the violations please call me so that I rnay reinspect your property immediately and close the case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. S~ncerelv. ~ / ' ~ CLAYTX)N ANDERSON Code' Enforcement Officer 714-573-3149 CODE ENFORCEMENT Correction List Case Number:V02-0569 Address: 155 W 1 ST ST TUST Cond: V018 · Tustin City Code 5502(m)(6) Trash and debris. The property. shall be maintained free of the accumulation of trash and debris. Trash and debris associated with permitted uses are to be stored solely in designated trash enclosures. Entry: 02/15/2002 By: C.A.A Action: CN Please remove the trash bags and other debris from the dumpster area. Cease storing trash in public view. ATTACHMENT J Resolution No. 02-67 RESOLUTION NO. 02-67 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, REVOKING USE PERMIT 76-4 WHICH AUTHORIZED A LUBRICATION AND MINOR TUNE-UP FACILITY AT 155 W. FIRST STREET The City Council does hereby resolve as follows: I. The City Council 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, upon a recommendation by the Planning Commission, the City Council may 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 15, 2002, and attachments thereto, and the following findings, the City Council hereby determines that both findings are made. Co On June 25, 2002, staff mailed notices of the Planning Commission and City Council public hearings on July 8, 2002, and July 15, 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 copies of the Planning Commission and City Council staff reports to the corporate business owner, the last known operator, and the property owner on July 2 2002, and July 11, 2002, respectively, 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, and recommended that the City Council revoke Use Permit 76.4. E. The City Council held a public hearing on the revocation of Use Permit 76- 4 at a duly noticed, regular meeting on July 15, 2002. F. 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 Resolution No. 02-67 Page 2 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-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." Use Permit 76-4 specifically allowed minor "lubrication and tune-up" work only. Lubrication and tune up work would include such services as: changing fluids such as oil and anti- freeze; and changing spark plugs, batteries, and windshield wipers. For example, EZ Lube's website at www.ezlube.com indicates the company provides oil changes, installs new oil filters, lubricates chassis, checks and installs new air filters, checks and fills power steering fluid, windshield fluid, battery fluid, transmission/transaxle fluids, gearbox fluids, brake fluids, changes windshield wipers, and applies internal engine or oil system treatments or cleaners. The operators have exceeded the scope of Use Permit 76-4 by: performing major automotive, engine, transmission, and brake repair work (July 15, 2002, City Council Staff Report, Attachment E, Exhibits 16, 22, and 24); performing work on vehicles outside the work bays, in the parking spaces and drive aisles (July 15, 2002 City Council Staff Report, Attachment E, 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 at this facility, the testing involved 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 (July 15, 2002, City Council Staff Report, Attachment F). A number of residents spoke at the Planning Commission meeting on July 8, 2002, and indicated that the operators: test drove vehicles on B and C Streets and in the public alley behind Econo Lube N' Tune and the office building to the west making the area unsafe for their children; had parked vehicles for their commercial use on C Street making it difficult for residents to find on-street parking; and, had used loud equipment, played loud music, and had been disruptive (July 15, 2002, City Council Staff Report, 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 and parking 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 Resolution No. 02-67 Page 3 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 refuse removal bills. 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 15, City Council Staff Report, Attachment E, 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 15, 2002, City Council Staff Report, Attachment E, Exhibit 16-21). In addition, some of the residents who spoke at the Planning Commission meeting on July 8, 2002, indicated they had observed excessive trash and debris on the site and one woman noted she had found the facility's trash on her property (July 15, 2002, City Council Staff Report, Attachment D). 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 (July 15, 2002, City Council Staff Report, Attachment E, 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. In addition, one the residents who spoke at the Planning Commission meeting on July 8, 2002, indicated she had observed oil from the facility on the public street (July 15, 2002, City Council Staff Report, Attachment D). 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 solid and liquid hazardous waste, would be detrimental to the surrounding residences and businesses. , The facility's operators violated Sign Code Section 9404(a)(1) and 9403(b) which prohibit painted wall signs, A-frame signs, aerial signs, pennants, and temporary banners without permits. In July 2000, a painted wall sign and window signs covering more than Resolution No. 02-67 Page 4 twenty-five (25) percent of the windows were installed and two notices of violation were issued because the operator failed to comply in a timely manner (July 15, 2002, City Council Staff Report, Attachment E, Exhibit 6a). In December 2000, an A-frame sign and 3 temporary banners were displayed. An aerial sign was affixed to the roof in August 2001 (July 15, 2002, City Council Staff Report, Attachment E, 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 (July 15, City Council Staff Report, Attachment E). 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 E- Investigative Report). Since 1994, staff estimates that hundreds of hours of staff time have been expended, including various code enforcement officer's, their supervisor's, and the Director's time. The City Attorney has also provided support on numerous citations and in court appearances, trial preparation, and preparation of a Settlement Agreement. This amount of time is excessive and considerably more than the two (2) hours that is spent on a typical code enforcement case. In addition, 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. An excessive amount of staff effort, City Attorney support, and City resources have 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 Resolution No. 02-67 Page 5 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 15, 2002, City Council Staff Report, Attachment G). 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 15, 2002, City Council Staff Report, Attachment E, 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 with the adjacent residential or commercial areas (July 15, 2002, City Council Staff Report, Attachments E and H). The residential neighborhood to the north still exists and is comprised primarily of Resolution No. 02-67 Page 6 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. 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 15, 2002, City Council Staff Report, Attachments D and F). In addition, several residents outlined their concems regarding the operations at the facility (July 15, 2002, City Council 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 15, 2002, City Council Staff Report, Attachment H). While there have 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. O. 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 City Council hereby revokes Use Permit 76-4, which authorized a lubrication and minor tune-up facility, and directs the property owner to remove nuisance conditions and violations, secure the facility, and cease operations within ten (10) calendar days of City Council action. PAMELA STOKER City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) JEFFERY M. THOMAS Mayor Resolution No. 02-67 Page 7 CERTIFICATION FOR RESOLUTION NO. 02-67 PAMELA STOKER, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 02-67 was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 15th day of July 2002. COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: PAMELA STOKER City Clerk ATTACHMENT K PowerPoint Presentation o ~ 0 0 0 ' '"'~ *mi .,mC CD c~ 0 CD ~ CD (D (D CD c~ '0 0 CD 0 c~ 0 C) ~ m 0 0 © '0' 0 O, c~ 0 CD (D '¸0 c~ 0 CD . CD 0 CD (D c~ 0 CD c~ 0 CD (D .© O 0 ~ ~ o %2 '_~~ 0 (D' 0 ~ o o,,o .~ b iI '0 © O, c~ 0 (D ~ 0 ~) 0 ,. c~. 0 (D (D 0 C)°-~;~ I I I I O, c~ CD CD v ,, CD , Z I .© o ~ ~ 0 0 .0 I i I