Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC RES 02-067RESOLUTION 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. C. 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: 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. 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 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 concerns 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. G. 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. Mayor City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) 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 Worley, Bone, Doyle, Kawashima None None Thomas