Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC RES 3837RESOLUTION 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. Bo 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. C. On June 25, 2002, staff mailed notices of the public hearing on July 8, 2002, to the corporate headquarters of Econo Lube N' Tune & Brakes, the last known operator, and all property owners within three hundred (300) feet of the site. In addition, staff provided a copy of the staff report to the corporate business owner, the last known operator, and the property owner on 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. Eo 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 Exhibits 16, 22, and 24), performing work on vehicles outside the work bays, in the parking spaces and drive aisles (July 8, 2002, Staff Report Attachment C - Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 16), and test driving vehicles, including the testing of brakes, on C Street (a residential street). For brake work, this testing involves rapid acceleration, followed by sudden and full application of the brakes. In addition to the evidence in the Investigative Report, Code Enforcement staff spoke with nearby residents and verified that major repair work and testing of vehicles on C Street has occurred (Attachment D). The use has not been operated in accordance with Use Permit 76-4 and, with major repair work, outdoor work, and on-street test driving in the area, continuance of the use would be detrimental to the surrounding residences and businesses. , The facility's operators have failed to maintain trash-hauling service and properly contain and dispose of refuse in accordance with Sections 4323 and 4324 of the Tustin City Code. Federal Disposal repossessed dumpsters from the site in December 2001, February 2002, and May 2002 because the operator failed to pay the bill. In February 2002, approximately twenty (20) trash bags were piled outside the trash enclosure and a notice of violation was issued. In March, trash problems continued and the operator was issued a citation on March 7, 2002 (July 8, 2002, Staff Report Attachment C - Exhibits 7-15). Again in June, trash was piled at the rear of the property and a citation was issued on June 5, 2002, for "trash not in a container" (July 8, 2002, Staff Report Attachment C - Exhibit 16- 21). Improper waste disposal constitutes a violation of the Tustin City Code and the Planning Commission's basis for approving Use Permit 76-4 by adopting findings c, d, e, and f of Resolution No. 1497. Continuance of the use, and its associated wasted and improper containment and disposal, would be detrimental to the surrounding residences and businesses. . The facility's operators have failed to properly contain and dispose of hazardous materials in accordance with Section 5502(d). Since the facility handles hazardous wastes such as oil and anti-freeze, improper refuse disposal is a concern. A Code Enforcement Officer observed hazardous waste materials in the trash enclosure and issued a citation for illegal disposal of solid hazardous waste on June 5, 2002 (July 8, 2002, Staff Report Attachment C - Exhibits 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. o 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. I~LIZABE-FH A. I~INSACK - ~ Planning Commission Secretary DO U (~-AS S"S. IDAVE RT 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. E~INSACK " Planning Commission Secretary