HomeMy WebLinkAboutPH 4 CUP 89-25 DR 88-66 9-18-89PUBLIC HEARING
NO. 4
9-18-89
rATE:
SEPll~BER 18, 1989
Inter- Corn
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
WILLIAH A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
COMPIUNITY DEVELOPHENT DEPARTHENT
APPEAL OF PLANNING COHHISSION ACTION, CONDITIONAL USE PEI~IIT 89-25 AND
DESIGN REVIE# 88-66
RECOII~ENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission action to deny
Conditional Use Permit/Design Revtew 88-66 by adoption of Resolution No. 89-139.
BACKGROUND
At their regular meeting on August 28, 1989, the Planning Commission adopted
Resolution No. 2659 denytng Conditional Use Permtt 89-25/Design Review 88-66, a
proposal to authorize establishment of a 5,000 square foot full service car wash to
be located at 240 £. First Street (Attachment A). The applicant has appealed the
dectslon of the Planning Commission to the'-Clty Councll for consideration (Attachment
B).
The applicant proposes to construct a 5,000 square foot full service carwash on the
property located at 240 W. First Street. The project site is located within the C-2
(Central Commercial) district and the "Commercial as Primary Use" land use
designation in the First Street Specific Plan. A Conditional Use Permit is required
to authorize the establishment of a carwash in the "Commercial as Primary Use"
designation pursuant to Section III-D{1) of the First Street Specific Plan. The site
is also located within the Town Center Redevelopment Project Area and final Design
Review authority rests with the Redevelopment Agency.
The project site is approximately .55 acres and is located on the south side of First
Street, east of Prospect Avenue. The site ts presently vacant. Surrounding uses
include the Tusti'n Post Office to the east, existing non conforming warehouse/storage
type uses to the south, office uses and satellite dishes to the west and a McDonald's
restaurant across First Street to the north.
Since this item was considered as a public hearing by the Planning Commission, this
appeal item is also considered a public hearing. A public hearing notice denoting
the proposal, location and time of the hearing was published in the Tustin News. In
addition, property owners within 300 feet of the subject property were notified of
the hearing by mail pursuant to State law. The applicant and architect were
forwarded a copy of the meeting's agenda and staff report for this item.
Planntng Commission Report
Destgn Revtew 88-66
September 18, 1989
Page two
DISCUSSION
General - Submitted development plans propose, construction of a 110' x 46'
~g to be located on the easterly portion of the site perpendicular to
Ftrst Street. Bulldlng Improvement would tnclude an enclosed carwash tunnel and
applicable carwash equipment, watttng and cashter area, office, storage room,
employee room and restrooms. A fuel pump and vacuum area Is proposed to the
west of the butldtng to be covered 'by a wood trellts structure. Anticipated
hours of operation of the factltty would be 7:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. No detalltn§
area has been Identified on the plans.
Access to the project stte would be provtded by a 27 foot wtde driveway along
Ftrst Street. Vehlcles would pull forward to the fuel pumps and vacuum statton
and enter the wash tunnel from the south end of the property. Vehtcles would
then move north through the tunnel and enter the open drylng area tn the
northeast corner of the site. Staff as well as the Planning Commission were
concerned that there may not be a great deal of room for vehtcle stacktng as cars
exit the wash tunnel. -
Zo.nln9 Re.cl. ulrem_ents - The project compltes wtth all development standards for
~he First Street Specific Plan, wtth the exception of buildtng hetght. The
"Commercial as Prtmary Use" designation of the Ftrst Street Speclftc Plan
requtres a mlntmum 10 foot front yard setback, zero foot side yard setback, and
a 20 foot rear yard setback. The proposed bullding is setback 60 feet from
First Street wtth a 10 foot front yard setback from the proposed screen wall to
be constructed parallel with Ftrst Street. The buildtng would be situated $
feet from the easterly property 11ne and 5'-10" from the westerly property 11ne
with a 45 foot rear yard setback. While the maxtmum butlding height ts ! story
and 18 feet, project plans propose a hetght of ! story and 20 feet. Any
conditions of approval would require the reduction in building hetght for the
project to a maximum of !8 feet consistent with the Specific Plan since
applicant has not applied for a Variance from this standard.
The First Street Specific Plan does not specify any parking requirements for a
carwash. Provisions of the Specific Plan require the Planning Commission to
determine the appropriate amount of parking in such situations. The project proposes
a total of seven (7) marked spaces, one of which is a handicapped space. The Zoning
Report, a planning and zoning professional publication, indicates that a minimum of 3
spaces or one for each employee on the maximum shift whichever is greater is adequate
for full service carwashes. The majority of the vehicles are always in motion moving
through the fueling and vacuum stations, wash tunnel, and drying area then exit the
site. The applicant has indicated that a maximum of 7 employees would be on the site
at any one time.
Community Development Department
Planntng Commission Report
Design Revte~ 88-66
September 18, 1989
Page three
Circulation and Access - Carwashes typically generate a high rate of traffic in
~spe~t to the squ~-~ootage and could generate approximately 50% more vehicle trips
per day than a service station. A traffic report was, therefore prepared for the
project to evaluate potential traffic related impacts. The report indicates that the
proposed project would be estimated to generate approximately 900 vehicle trips ends
with 40 occurring in the.a.m, peak hour and 80 in the p.m. peak hour. The report
indicates that these trips may not necessarily be new vehicle trips. With the
additional vehicle trips generated by the project, the traffic report indicates that
the Level of Service would remain at Level of Service "C" as presently exists and
would be considered an "acceptable" traffic condition. The Planning Commission,
however, did not agree with all results of the traffic study and felt with the
proximity of the site to Prospect Avenue and the post-office and the volume of
traffic generated by the use that potential traffic problems would result in the
area.
As indicated above, access to. the project would be provided by a 27 foot wide
- driveway along First Street. Only right turns in and right turns out would be
permitted due to the existing raised median on First Street. Based on the results of
the traffic study, it is recommended that--the proposed access driveway be increased
from 27 feet to 30 feet to facilitate more efficient ingress and egress from the
si te ' s one dri veway.
Architecture - The applicant has done a commendable job in designing the
a~chitectural aspects of the project. The project proposes a mission style
architecture with smooth stucco finish, wood eaves, and window surrounds, built out
column treatments along the east elevation and full column treatments to support the
trellis. A wood trellis element is proposed over the entire fuel pump and vacuum
areas. A matching trellis element is also proposed along the front portion of the
perimeter wall. The building proposes pitched roofs to give the appearance of a full
pitched roof treatment. A pedestrian waiting area has been provided in the northwest
corner of the site which would al so be covered wi th a trellis. The proposed
materials include the use of a 3 color clay "S" roof tile (tan, orange, brown) brown
wood trim, light salmon stucco and dark salmon stucco trim.
As mentioned previously, the overall height of the b'uilding needs to be reduced from
20 feet to 18 feet to satisfy the .development standards of the First Street Specific
Plan. The proposed design provides a good level of architectural detail and is
consistent with the First Street design guidelines.
Community Development Department
Planning Commission Report
Design Review 88-66
September 18, 1989
Page four
Landscaping and Hardscape A conceptual landscaping plan has been included on the
~rte'"'~lan. ~How~ver~ spec-~f~c planttng materials, quantities, and stzes have not been
Identified. The conceptual plan Identifies a large accent canopy type tree located
In each corner of the property. Canopy type trees are also provided along the south
side of the property, on the north side of the fuel pump In front of the columns and
on the north elevation of the building. Various shrubs would be provtded along the
east and west sides of the property, as well as along First Street. Planter areas on
the north, west and south elevations of the building would also be provided. A
pedestrian bench and seating area with the use of interlocking paving is provided
along First Street outside the perimeter wall. Although the landscaping plan is
conceptual, it provides for a well landscaped site. Ftnal and prectse landscaping
and Irrigation plans would need to be prepared tn accordance with the City's
Landscaping and Irrigation Submittal Requirements that .specify minimum plant sizes,
spacing, quantities and other installation details. The entire front open area would
be treated wtth terra cotta Interlocking paving.. A six foot high blockwa11 is
alsoproposed around the entire perimeter of the site which would be finished in a
smooth stucco finish to match the building and an accent tile band near the top.
_Appropr.!at_eness of Use - Over the past few-years, staff, 'the Planning Commission, and
the City CounCil h~v& expressed continued concern over the existing auto oriented
uses along First Street and have not encouraged expansion of those uses or the
establishment of new auto oriented uses in efforts to more effectively implement the
policies and objectives of the First Street Specific Plan. Staff has reviewed the
First Street Specific Plan and offers the following summary of the goals and
objectives of the Specific Plan as it relates to the subject site and the proposed
carwash use'
A.
To promote development that Is the flrst priority (primary use) that satisfies
the required development standards and is responsive to the established design
guidelines. The Specific Plan designates this site as "Commercial as Primary
Use". This designation identifies retail uses and service businesses that would
be permitted or conditionally permitted. A carwash is not an outright permitted
· use---~-~,~n the "Commercial as Primary Use" and is identified as a service
business only authorized subject to granting of a conditional use permit which
is a discretionary action. The intent of the Specific Plan is to encourage
retail uses with incidental business uses on a particular property.
At the present time, there are seven (7) auto oriented uses within the limits of
the First Street Specific Plan between Newport Avenue and the Costa Mesa (55)
Freeway. In addition, the Post Office and McDonald's restaurant also generate a
significant amount of auto oriented trips. The proposed carwash would further
add to and encourage auto oriented uses in this particular area along First
Street and remove any potential retail or consolidated development opportunities
in the immediate vicinity a recognized objective of the First Street Plan.
Community Development Department
Planning Commission Report
Design Rev1 ew 88-66
September 18, 1989
Page ftve
B. Encourage ne~ development vhtch ts appropriate and feastble and vhtch can
be e~fecttvely Integrated and located to contribute most to the overall
leprovemnt to the area. The subject stte ts Identified tn the Spectflc
Plan as a stte that would be subject to new development. A carwash use may
not be the most appropriate use tn thts locatton gtven the htgh potential
in the vlctntty of the site for consolidated development and the multitude
of other retail commercial uses that could be permitted on the site. In
11ght of the concern over auto ortented uses, the proposed use may not be
the best use to contribute to the overall Improvement to the area.
One of the purposes of the Specific Plan ts to achteve an overall
positive tdenttty for the Spectftc Plan area. While there is concern
over the auto ortented character on First Street and the proposed
carwash would remove any potential for retail development in the
Immediate vicinity. The architectural design of the buildings could
mitigate aesthetic concerns (although the large issue ts land use).
C. To create a 'pedestrian friendly' environment wtth the use of
pedestrian arcades, plazas, and store fronts along Ftrst Street
froetage. The applicant has provided street furniture and landscaping
along First Street in efforts to provide a pedestrian element to the
project. A 6 foot high screen wall is proposed around the perimeter
of the site and along First Street in order to provide screening of
the auto drying area from First Street and soften the appearance of
the auto oriented use.
Zeprove site circulation b~t~een properties and maximize pedestrian
access. The proposed project does not make any provisions for any
type of circulation between properties as encouraged by the Speclftc
Plan. Customers of the carwash must exit the site onto First Street
to access adjacent properties and the alley to the south. The
extsttng parktng area and access from the Post Office and alley to
Prospect Avenue would remain as extsttng as this area would not be
affected by the project.
E. Promote the best use of property whlch balances maximum development with
compatible uses. Exhtbtt 2 of the First Street Specific Plan Identifies
thts stte as a new development site, stnce tt is vacant and can be destgned
from the ground up. The proposed carwash use may not be the best use of
property due to the Inability to provtde and implement the various goals
and objectives of the Ftrst Street Spectfic Plan as identified above and
would further encourage and establish auto related uses In this area of the
communi ry.
Community Development Department
Planning Commission Report
Design Review 88-66
Septembe.r [8, 1989
Page stx
Plan..n.!ng ..... Co.mmtsston Actton- On August 28, 1989, the Planntng Commission revtewed
thts 1tern and adopted Resolution No. 2659 to deny Conditional Use Permtt 89-25/Design
Revtew 88-66. A copy of the minutes from that meettng are Included tn Attachment C.
The Planntng Commission, tn making thetr decision, Identified Inconsistencies wtth
the goals and objectives of the Ftrst Street Spectftc Plan and Incompatibility wtth
adjacent uses as noted above as the prtmary reasons for the action of dental. The
Commission also noted concern that the 11mtted site stze further compounds the
concern related to circulation and compatibility wlth adjacent uses.
CONCLUSXON
A project to establish a carwash use at this location does not fully implement
policies, goals, and objectives of the First Street Specific Plan related to
encouragement of retail activity and a pedestrian environment and there are concerns
about the compatibility with other uses in the vicinity and any further proliferation
of auto related uses. In light of the inconsistencies with the First Street Specific
Plan and concerns expressed by the Planning Commission, it is recommended that the
City Council uphold the Planning Commission's action to deny Conditional Use Permit
89-25/Design Review 88-66.
Fox
Associate Planner
Christine'A. Shi ngl e~j6n
Director of Communi~6~ Development
CAS:DF'kbc
Community Development Department
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 89-139
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE PLANNING
COMMISSION ' S ACTION TO DENY' CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 8g-25/DESIGN REVIEW 88-66, A REQUEST TO
AUTHORIZE ESTABLISHMENT OF A FULL SERVICE CARWASH
LOCATED AT 240 E. FIRST STREET.
The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows:
I. The City Council finds and determines as follows:
.A. That a proper application, (Use Permit No. 89-25) has been filed
on behalf of Henry Kumagai to establish a 5,000 square foot full
service carwash on the property located at 240 E. First Street
and described as Assessor's Parcel No. 401-581-001.
B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said
application on August 28, 1989 by the Planning Commission at
which time the Commission adopted Resolution No. 2659 to deny
Conditional Use Permit 89-25/Destgn Review 88-66.
C. That an appeal of the Planning Commission's action has been
filed by Henry Kumagai.
--
D. That a public hearing to consider the appeal of said application
was duly called, noticed, and held on September 18, 1989.
E. That establishment, maintenance, and operation of the use
applied for wtll not, under the circumstances of this case,
be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, or
general welfare of the persons residing or working in the
neighborhood of such proposed use, evidenced by the following
fi ndtngs:
1. The use applied for is not an outright permitted use within
the "Commercial as Primary Use" designation of the First
Street Specific Plan and is only authorized subject, to
granting a conditional use permit which is a discretionary
action.
2. The proposed use is inconsistent with the policies and
objectives of the First Street Specific Plan in that the
proposed project site would not be developed with "primary"
retail uses nor provide an optimum pedestrian environment
as encouraged by the First Street Specific Plan.
3. The proposed use would further establish and reinforce the
existing automotive scale and character of First Street
which is discouraged by the First Street Specific Plan.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
19~
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Resolution No. 89-139
Page ~o
®
The proposed use would not be the "best" use of the
property given the hJgh development potential of the s~te
as Indicated Jn the Ftrst Street Spectftc Plan and gtven
the hJgh development potential of the stte as ~ndtcated Jn
the Ftrst Street Speclftc Plan and given the Jnabtllty to
full111 the deslred pedestrJan scale and retail uses
encouraged by the First Street Spectftc Plan.
II. The City CouncJl hereby upholds the Planning Commission's action to
deny CondltJonal Use Permit 89-25/Design Review 88-66, a request to
authorJze establJshment of a 5,000 square foot full servtce carwash
on the property located at 240 E. Ftrst Street.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meettng of the Tusttn Ctty Counctl, held on
the day of _ , 1989.
, ·
URSULA E~ K[NNJ:'DY, ' '
Rayor
RARY E.
Ctty Clerk
-.
.Ii'
·
!
,
. .
,.
,
·
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF TUSTIN
300 CENTENNIAL WAY, TUSTIN, CA. 92680
Project Title: CUP 89-25/ DR 88-66 (KUMAGAI)
Fi le No.
Project Location' 240 E. FIRST STREET
Project Description: A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO AUTHORIZE
ESTABLISHMENT OF A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT FULL SERVICE CARWASH AND RELATED DES
Project Proponent: HENRY KUMAGAI
Contact Person: DANIEL FOX Telephone: 544-8890 Ext. 254
i i i
The Community Development Department has Conducted an initial study for the
above project in accordance with the City of Tustin's procedures regarding
implementation of the California Envir'onmental Quality Act, and on the basis of
that study hereby find:
That there, is no substantial evidence that the project may have a
significant effect on the environment.
That potential significant affects were identified, but revisions have
been included in the project plans and agreed to by the applicant that
would avoid or mitigate the affects to a point where clearly no
significant effects would occur. Said revisions are attached to and
hereby made a part of this Negative Declaration.
IGN REVIE
Therefore, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not required.
The initial study which 'provides the basis for this determination is on
file at the Community Development Department, City of Tustin. The public
is invited to comment on the appropriateness of this Negative Declaration
during the review period, which begins with the public notice of a
Negative Declaration and extends for seven calendar days. Upon review by
the Community Development Director, this review period may be extended if
deemed necessary.
REVIEW PERIOD ENDS 4:30 p.m. on AUGUST 28, 1989
DATED: AUGUST 21, 1989
--
· Community Development Director
.... CITY OF TUSTIN
Con~nunity Development Department
£NVIRONM£NTAL I"'ITIAL STUDY FORM
!1.
,. N.m. of. '
2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent
e
Ermi~tal I~
(Explanatlans of all '~/es" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.)
Em'th. Will the proposal result im
Yes Maybe No
a. Unst~le earth conditions or in ctxu~es
in geologic substructures?
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction
ar overcovering of the soil?
c. Cha~ge in topography or ground surface
relief features? .........
...
d. The clesfi, uctian, covering or. modification
of any unique geologic or physical features?
e. Any increase in wind ar water erosian of
soils, either on or off the site?
f...Change, s in deposition ar eroston of beach ....
..sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or
erosion which may modify the channel of a
river or stream ar the bed of the ocean or
any bay, inlet ar lake? '
.%
e
Exposure of people or property to geolo-
gic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides,
mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazords?
Air. Will the proposal result im
a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration'
of ambient air quality?
b. The c;reotion of objectionable odors?
Co
Altemtian of air movement, mOisture, Or
temperature, or any change in climate,
either IocaJly or regionally?
·
Water. Will the proposal result in=
Changes. in currents~ or the course of di-
rectien of water movemenls, in either
marine or fresh waters?
bo·
Changes in absorptian rates, drainage pat-
terns~ ar the rate and amount of surface
runoff?
c. Alteratiem to the course or fl~w of flood ' · waters~ .......... -
__
d. Change in the amount of surface water in.
any water body?
go,
Dischar{le into surface'-waters; or in any
alteration of surface water quality~ in-
cluding but not limited to temperature,
dissolved., oxygen, or turbidity?
Alteration of the direction or rate of flow
of ground waters?
..Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additiorts or with-
drawalst or through interception of an
aquifer by cuts or excavations?
Substantial reduction in the amount of
water otherwise available for public water
_supplies?
i. Exposure of people or property to water re-
lated hazords such as flooding or tidal waves?
. 0
5,
1
Sa
Plant Life, Will the proposal result im
a. C'~e .in the diversity of species, ar
number of a~y species of plants (including
trees, shrubs, grass, crops, ~ aquatic
plants)?
b. Raductim of the numbers of any Unique,
rare or endangered species of plants?
c. lntroduatian of new species of plants'into
art areas ar in a barrier to the normal
replenishment of existing species?
d. Reduc'tion 'in acreage of any agriCUltural..'
crop?
Animal Life. Will the propo~l, result in=
a. Change in the diversity of species, or
numb&rs'of any Species of animals' (birds,'
land animals including reptiles, fish and
shellfish, benthic arganism~ ar insects)?
b. Reclu~tlan of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered specie~ of mimals?
c. Intreductian of new species o~ mimals into
m area, ar result in a barrier to the
migratian ar movement of mimals?
cl. Deterioration to existing fish ar wildlife
habitat?
Noi~e' Will the proposal result in=
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce ..
-new light or glare?
Land Use.. Will the proposal result in a sub-
stantial alteration of the prese.:t or planned
land'use of an area?
Netur~l Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural
resources?
I0.
b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable
.na..t~.ral ..resource~_ ......... .:~
Risk of umet W31i. the propmal in ive=
a.A risk of an expla~ian or the release
of hazarckxm sul~tanc~ (including, but not
'limited .tot oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation) in the event of an oacident or
u~,t canditk~m?
....
b. Pomible interference with ~ emergency
r~ plc~ or an emergency
plan?
II. Papulatian, Will the proposal altqr, the location, .......
distribution-, density, or growth rate of the
humc~ population of an area?
12. Hauling. 'Will the proposal affect existing hous-
ing, or create a demand for additional housing?
13. Trmnpartatlan/Circulatlan, Will the propc=~l
result im
a. Generation of substantial additional
vehioular, movement?
--
·
b. Effects on existing parking facilities,, or
derrmnd for new p~rking?
c. Substantial 'impact upon existing transpor-
tation s/stems? .......
d. Alterations to present patterns of circula-
tion or movement of people and/or goods?
e. Altercrtions to waterborne, rail or air
traffic?"
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists ar pedestrians?
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an
effect upon, or result in a need for new or
altered governmental services in any of the
following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
cl. Porks or other recreational facilities?
e. Maintenance'of public facilities, including
roads?
15.
f. Other governmental services?
Energy; Will the proposal result ins
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
..
b. Substantial increase in dernar~ upon exist-
ing sources of energy,, or require the
.d~..~lo~ent of_new sources, of energy?
Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need,
far new systems, or substantial alterations to
the following utilities,
a. Power or natural gas? ·
b. Comrr,~icatiam systems?
·
c. Water?
cL' Sewer 'ar septic targcs?
e, Starm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
17. I-katmn' Health. Will the proposal result ins
a. Creation of any health h~zarcl or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health)?
b. Expo,sum of people to potential health
hazards?
'18. Aeettietica.- Will the Proposal reSt'It in the
obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to
the public, ar will the proposal result in the
creation of an aesthetically offensive site open
to public view?
19. Recreati~ Will the proposal result ':in an
impact upan the quality or quantity of existing
recreational opportunities?
20. Cultural Resource~
Will the proposal result in the alteratian
of ar the ciestructian of a prehistaric ar
historic archaeological site?
Yes
b. Will the praposal result in adverse pl'~s~l
or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or
historic building, structure, or object?
Does the propeaal hava the potential to
cause a phy~l ~ whk:h wauld affect
unique etl~i~ cultural values?
Will the'lX.opmal 'restrict existing .rellgiaus'
er s~red u~es within the potential impm~
21. Mandatory Findings of Signif~
a. Does tile"project have the potential. to
degrade the quality of the envirmment, .
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cc~se a fish or wild-.
life populatian to drop below self su~-
taining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the
number ar restrict the renge of a ram or
endangered plant or animal ar eliminate
important exa. mples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory?
b. Does the project' have the potential to
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of
lang-term, enviranmental goals? (A short?.
term impact an the environment is one
which accurs in .a relatively brief, definitive
period of time while lang-term impacts
will endure well into the future.)
c. Does the project have impacts which are -'
individually limited, but cumulatively can-
siderable? (A project may impact on
or more .separate resources where the impact
on each resource is relatively small, but
where the effect of the total of those
impacts on the envirenment is significant.)
Does~}~'~'Pmjeat have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Y~
II!. Discuzzian of Enviram~ental Evaluatian
..... ...........
·
·
IV, Det~rrninatian
(To be completed by the Lead Ag~:y)
On the basis of thia initial evaluations'
I find that the propas~ project COULD NOT have a significant effect
an the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be. prepared.
I find that. although the proposed projec~ could have a significant effect
an the envirmu~mnt, there will not be a. significant effect in this case
I--I
because 'the mitigatlan measures cl~scribed an ~ att~h~ ~et h~e '
~ ~ to t~ pmj~t, A NEGA~VE DEC~ATION Wl~ BE PR~ARED..
I flM t~ Pm~ P~J~ MAY ~ a si~ificmt eff~ ~ t~ ~vir~
~t, ~ m ~VIRONM~T~ IMPACT R~ORT ~ r~uired.
DIBCUSSXON OF ENV~~~ EV2%LU~TTON
CONDXT~O~ USE PERXTT 89-25 )lid DESTGN REVIEW 88-66
P___UOJECT D~BcRxPTXON BUPPLEHEI~T - The proposed project is a request
for a Conditional Use Permit to authorize establishment of a full
service carwash within the -Commercial as Primary Use" designation
of the First Street Specific Plan and a Design Review for its
related physical development. The Conditional Use Permit is
subject to approval by the Planning Commission while the Design
Review is subject to approval by the City.,s Redevelopment Agency.
The subject property is located at 240 E. First Street in an urban
area within the.boundaries-of the First Street Specific Plan and
the Town Center Redevelopment project area. The Site is presently
vacant. Surrounding uses include a United States Post Office to
the east, nonconforming existing storage and warehouse uses to the
south, . office uses to the west, and a restaurant across First
Street to the north.
lo
F,~R~ - The proposed project site is free from any
topographical features and is presently vacant. Any
development of the site would require earth work and
compaction of the soil to create building pads and parking
areas. Appropriate grading plans and soil reports Would be
required as part of the City,s review and Plan check
process.
--
Sources: City of Tustin Community Development Department
. .
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: The applicant would be
required to submit appropriate soils reports and grading'
plans identifying the scope of work at the plan check
stage. All work would be done in conformance with the
Uniform Building Code as required by the the Building
official.
~IR The proposed project would "'not .... result in 'any
degradation to the existing air quality.
Sources: -AQMD standards for preparing EIR documents
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: None Required.
·
W~TER - The proposed project would add impervious surfaces to
the site which would effect drainage and run off. Given the
nature of the use as a carwash, water run off would also be
generated in its normal daily operations·
Sources:
City of Tustin Community Development Department
City of Tustin Public Works Department
Orange County Sanitation District
DXSCUBBXON OF ENVXRONMENT/qL EFALUATXON
CONDXTXON~L USE PERMIT 89-25 /%ND DESXGN REVXEW 8S-66 (KUNAG~X)
Page 2
·
·
·
·
Mitiqation Measures/Monitorinq: The site would' need to
be designed so that all run-off is picked up on site and
piped to the storm drain and/or the sewer· No sheet
'flow off the site would be permitted.
PLANT LIFE - The project site is free from any plant life
with the exception of native grasses and weeds. The proposed
project would introduce landscaping' and specimen trees on to
the site 'in'conformance with the requirements of the First
Street Specific Plan. '
Sources: Field Observations
Proposed Landscaping Plans
Mitigation MeaSures/Monitoring: None Required.
~NIMAL LIFE - The subject property is located within a
commercial area and is free from any significant population
of animals, fish, or wild life.
Sources: Field Observations.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: None Required.
NOISE - The proposed project would add new noise sources into
the area since the property is presently undeveloped. The
project is designed such that the wash tunnel is completely
within an enclosed building which" would reduce potential
'noise impacts from the mechanical equipment. There are no
land uses in the 'immediately vicinity that would be
especially .sensitive to noise generated by the .proposed use
at this location.
Sources: City of Tustin Community Development Department
Field Observations
Proposed Development Plans
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: All development related
to noise generation shall be in accordance with the
City,s Noise Ordinance which, in part, limits noise
generation to a maximum of 60 dba which Would be
verified by the Community Development Department prior
to project final·
LIGHT ~ GLARE - Since the projeCt site is vacant, any
development would ad~. new_ lighting into. the area· The
proposed u~e 'woUld be operative during the day hours· Any
exterior lighting that would be provided would be minimal in
DXSCUSSXON OF ENVXRO~2tLEV2~U~TXON
CONDXTXO]O~ USE PERMIT 89-25 AND DESX~N REVXE~ 88-'66
P~ge 3
·
·
10.
relation to surrounding uses since
utilized..-at.-.night,
the site
would not be
Sources: City of Tustin Community Development Department
Proposed Development Plans
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: All exterior lighting
shall be arranged so not to direct light or glare onto
adjacent properties. All lighting shall be .developed. in
accordance with the City,s SeCurity" COd~."'
I,~ND USE - The proposed project is located within the
"Commercial as' Primary Use" designation of the First Street
Specific Plan. A carwash is a conditionally permitted use
within that designation and identified as a service
commercial use by the Specific Plan. The goals and
objectives of the Specific Plan encourage development of
properties with primary uses, in this case retail uses. This
is particularly encouraged for the subject site since it is
presently undeveloped which the Specific Plan suggests high
development potential. However, as mentioned, the use is
identified among the list of conditionally permitted uses for
the *tCommercial as Primary Use- designation of the Specific
Plan.
Sources: City of Tustin Community Development Department
First Street Specific Plan
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: None Required.
N~T~ RESOURCES - The proposed project would not result in
any increased use of natural resources given the scale of the
project·
Sources: City of Tustin Community Development Department
City of Tustin Public Works Department
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: None Required.
RISK -OF UPSET - The proposed project would not result in any
significant risk of upset given the scale and nature of the
proposed use. A carwash typically does not represent a
significant potential of risk of upset.
Sources: Orange County Fire Department
City of Tustin Community Development Department
D~SCUSS~ON OF ENV~I~NI,~,.NTAL EVALUaTiON
COND~T~O]~USE PEII~IT 89-25 2tNDDES~GN~EW 88-66
Page 4
11.
12.
13.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: All construction shall
be in accordance with applicable Building and Fire Codes
which would be inspected by the the Community
Development Department and Fire Department during
construction and prior to project final.
POPULATION - The proposed project is an infi11 project and
would not result in any direct increase in population in that
no additi6nal dwelling units would be created. This small
scale project would be designed'to meet the needs of the
existing residents and businesses of the community.
source: City of Tustin Community Development Department
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: None Required.
HOUSING - The proposed project is a co~mercial infi11
project and would not result in any creation of new dwelling
units. This small scale project would be designed'to meet
the needs of the existing residents and businesses of the
community.
._
Source: City of Tustin Community Development Department
· .
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: None Required.
TI~ANSPORTATION ~ CIRCULATION - Since the site is vacant,
any development would generate additional vehicular trips to
the site and the existing street system has been designed to
anticipate commercial development. However, a full service
carwash is typically considered a fairly intense use, and
given.., its- location on First Street, 'could ' have potential
impacts to the circulation system. A Traffic Impact Study,
prepared by Weston Pringle & Associates, has been prepared to
address potential impacts as a result of the project and is
attached and incorporated herein by reference. The
conclusion of the report indicated that there would be no
significant impacts to the existing street system related to
this project. Mitigation measures were identified in the
report and are identified below.
Sources:
Weston Pringle & Associates, Traffic Impact Study
City of Tustin Public Works Department
City of Tustin Community Developmen~ Department
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: The project has been
conditioned to widen the driveway from 27 feet to 30
feet and would be subject to review in the final working
drawings and field inspections to ensure compliance.
DTSCUBBTON OF EHV~ROHMENTXL EV2~U]tTTON
CONDTTTO]f]~L USE PERMIT 89-:25 X]fD DEST(~,N REVIEW 88-66 (KUI~G]~)
Page 5
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
PUBLIC SERVICES - All services are existing and are adequate
to serve the proposed project. No additional public services
would be required.
Sources:
City of Tustin Community Development Department
Orange County Fire Department
City of Tustin Police Department
City of Tustin Public Works Department
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: None Required.
ENERGY - The proposed project would not result in any
significant change in the current use of energy given the
scale of new development.
Sources: City of Tustin Public Works Department
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: None Required.
UTILITIES - The site is located within an existing commercial
area with all utilities available to the site from First
Street. The proposed pro--ject would not required any new
utility service to the property.
Sources: City of Tustin Public Works Department
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: None Required.
..
~ HE]tLTH - The proposed project would not result in any
effect on human health. The proposed use as a full service
carwash typically would not create conditions that negatively
effect human health.
Sources: City of Tustin Community Development Department
Mitigation. Measures/Monitoring: None Re~ired.
]tESTHETICS - The First Street Specific Plan and related First
Street Design Guidelines identify certain development and
design standards that must be maintained on the subject
property and vicinity. The proposed project is in
conformance with all applicable standards and guidelines of
the Specific Plan. Since the project is located within the
Town Center Redevelopment project area, the City,s
Redevelopment Agency has final Design Review authority for
the project.
,
DTSCUSSZON OF EJTVZIIONKENT.~.T., EV]tLUAT'I'ON
CONDZTZON2%L USE PERMZT 89-25 ]LND DESTGN REVZEW 88~'66 (KON~GAT)
Page 6
19.
20.
21.
DF:
Sources: City of Tustin Community Development Department
..... First S.treet--Specific Plan
First Street Design Guidelines
City of Tustin Design Review Process
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: Conditions of Approval
for Design Review 88-66 shall be approved by the City,s
Redevelopment Agency and shall be incorporated into the
final working drawings for the project.
..~
RECREATION - The proposed project would not result in the
need for additional recreational opportunities. Commercial
uses. typically do not demand extensive recreational amenities
from the community as do residential land uses.
Sources: City of Tustin Community Development Department
City of Tustin General Plan Land Use Element
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: None Required.
CULTURAL RESOURCES - The proposed project would not result in
any'effect on existing cultural resources in that the General
Plan does not identify any cultural resources on this
property.
Sources: City of Tustin Historic Resources Survey
City of Tustin General Plan
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: None Required.
IO~ID~TORY.FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE - The proposed project to
establish a full service carwash on the subject property
could have a significant effect on the environment. However,
due to the project design and conditions of approval, the
potential impacts would be reduced to a level that clearly no
significant impact would occur.
Sources: As Previously Noted.
Mitiqation Measures/Monitoring: A's Previously Noted.
Weston 'l'>rin jle & Associates
..... ' TI(AFF1C & 'rR:kNSPORTATION ENGINEERING
duly 3, 1989
Mr. Henry Kumagai
19021 Canyon Road
Villa Park, CA 92667
SUBJECT: Tustin Plaza Car Wash
RECEIVED
JUN 1 7
COMM DEVELOPMENT
BY_ ??-. :' ' ,
Dear Mr. Kumagai: '~
This' letter summarizes our review of traffic factors related to your
proposed Tustin Plaza Car 'Wash project in the City of Tustin. The study
was based upon information provided by you and your architect, discussion
with City Staff,' field studies by our staff and standard reference data.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project consists of a car wash _with gasoline service A total of
three lanes are proposed through the gas pump area. All Vehicular access
is planned to be on First Street. The site is located on the southerly
side of First Street, easterly of Prospect Avenue and adjacent to the
Post Office. In addition to the gas and wash lanes, seven off-street
parking spaces are proposed.~ ...... ..
EXISTING CIRCU~TION CONDITIONS
First. Street is an east-west arterial with two lanes of traffic in each
direction and median channelization. There is a raised median adjacent
to the -site with left turns but-no U-turns Pem.!tted at tlte':'Post Office
driveway to the east. To the west of the site, the intersection of First
Street and Prospect Avenue is signalized with a t'wo phase operation.
2(.ir31 East Ch;~lmmn Avenue * Su~e !1() · Pullt. rl()n. (~i~lif'orntlx .~)'_'tiSI * (?14) ,%TI-2S)51
Prospect Avenue is a north-south arterial with two lanes in each
direction plus left channel ization. To the south of First Street, the
street narrows to provide one lane in each direction.
The location of the Post Office adjacent to the site presents potential
traffic concerns. Observations were made of traffic operations on First
Street at the Post Office from 4:00 to 5:00 PM on a weekday. During this
period 94 vehicles turned right into the Post ·Office and 60 turned left.
In addition, 47 vehicles stopped on First Street for Post Office
purposes. At times:, vehicles were stopped in front of the project site,
but did not extend to the driveway. ·
In order to quantify traffic existing conditions, AM and PM peak hour
traffic counts were completed at the First Street/Prospect Avenue
intersection. These counts were utilized to complete Intersection
·
Capacity Utilization {ICU} analyses. {The ICU methodology and
relationship of ICU to Level of Service is contained in Appendix A.)
Appendix B contains the existing volumes and ICU analyses. The ICU
analyses are summarized in Table 1... Review of Table 1 indicates an ICU
value of 0.61 {Level of Service A) during the AM peak hour and an ICU
value of 0.75 (Level of Service C) during the PM peak hour. These are
·
generally good traffic operational conditions.
TRIP GENERATION
Studies have been cbnducted by government agencies and cons'ultants to
determine trip generation characteristics of various land uses. From
this body of information, trip generation rates applicable to-this
project were obtained ,and are listed in Table 2. As indicated in Table
2, the project is estimated to generate 900 daily trip ends with 40
occurring during the AM peak hour and 80 during the PM peak hour.
.o
It should be noted that these will not all be new trips. Some will be
persons that utilize First Street for purposes such as the Post Office,
shopping, eating or others and will also divert to the car wash. No
reduction has ...been. made for__this "passer by" phenomena.for these analyses
which results in a conservative or worst case analysis.
Table i
ICU SUMMARY
First Street & Prospect Avenue
PERIOD Existing
__ .
ICU/LOS( 1 )
Existing Plus Project
AM Peak Hour 0.61/A
PM peak Hour
0.75/C
0.61/A
0.77/C
(1) ICU -- Intersection Capacity Utilization
LOS -- Level of Service
-4-
Table 2
TRIP GENERATION
PERIOD RATE(l) TRIP ENDS
- --~ mi iii ii i J i _
Daily
900 ... 900
AM Peak Hour
In
18 ' 20
Out 18 20
PM Peak Hour
In 40 40
Out 40 40
(1) Trip Ends per Site
Source:
"San Diego Traffic Generators", San Diego Association of
Governments, July, 1988.
-5-
TRIP ASSIGNMENT
A trip distribution similar to that observed for the Post Office would be
applicable to this project, This distribution was 60 percent west and 40
percent east. Due to the raised median on First Street, all trips into
and out of the site will be right turns. This restriction also results
in all trips to the site having to utilize the First Street/Prospect
Avenue intersection. It has been estimated that 40 percent will approach
from the north, 40 percent from the west and 20 percent from the south.
For. outbound trips,..it is assumed that 20 percentlwill make U-turns east
of the site with 10 percent going north on Pro. spect Avenue and 10 percent
west on First Street, The AM and PM peak hour project traffic
assignments to the intersection are contained in Appendix B.
ANALYSIS
,,
The AM and. PM peak hour ICU analyses at the First Street/Prospect Avenue
intersection were recalculated with project trips added to existing.
These analyses are contained in Appendix B and summarized in Table 1. As
indicated in Table 1, the project would not be anticipated to change
conditions during the AM peak hour and would increase the PM peak hour
ICU value to.0.77 but the Level of Service would remain at C.
The driveway geometrics were also reviewed to determine their adequacy to
accommodate traffic flow in and out of the site. This review indicated
· ,
that the proposed' 27 foot wide driveway could accommodate two-way
traffic. In order to provide improved operations, it is recommended that
a 30 foot driveway width be provided.
Based upon observations of existing conditions at the Post Office, it. is
not anticipated that operational problems will occur. The desire of some
customers to-travel west from the site, may increase" U-turns at various
locations along First Street, This condition is typical of a commercial
area with raised medians. The projected trip generation from the project
is not-.anticipated to result in a significant increase in this demand for
· U-turns. - ........
SUI~,IARY
This study has reviewed traffic factors related to the Proposed Tustin
Plaza Car Wash. Existing traffic conditions were quantified to provide a
basis for the study. Estimates were made of trips to be generated and
the ability of the street- sx. stem._t_o.accommodate these ..tr. ips evaluated.
Consideration was also given to the site access and traffic operations in
the area. In general, it was found that the project would not impact
traffic operations or safety.
The following are principal findings of the study.
.
The intersection of First Street and Prospect Avenue currently
· .
has a ICU value of 0.61 {Level of Service A)during the AM
peak hour and 0.75 {Level of Service C) during the PM peak
hour.
.
.
Current Post Office 'traffic queues do not extend to the
project driveway location.
The project would generate an estimated 900 daily trip ends
with 40 occurring during the AM peak hour and 80 during the PM
peak hour..
.
With the project, there is no change in ICU values at First
Street and Prospect Avenue during the AM peak hour while the
PM ICU increases from 0.75 to 0.77 remaining at Level of
Service C.
5. While the 27 foot driveway width is adequate, a wider driveway
recommended.
6. No significant traffic operational problems are anticipated.
·
·
MITIGATION MEASURES
i _
The following is recommended to reduce potential traffic operational and
safety problems.
-7-
The driveway should be widened from 27 feet to a minimum of 30 feet.*
We trust that this study will be of assistance to you and the City of
Tustin in processing of this project. If you have any questions or
require additional information, please contact us.
Respectful ly submitted,
WESTON PRINGLE & ASSOCIATES
Weston S. Pringle, P.E.
Registered Professional Engineer
State of California Numbers C16828 & TR565
WSP:hld
~890910
APPENDIX A
EXPLANATION OF INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION
AND
LEVEL OF SERVICE
APPENDIX A
EXPLANATION OF INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION
The capacity.~of a-.street-+s-nearly always greater'between'intersections and
less at intersections. The reason for this is that the traffic flows
continuously between intersections and only part of the time at intersections.
To study intersection capacity, a technique known as Intersection Capacity
Utilization {ICU) has been developed. ICU analysis consists of {a) determining
the proportion of signal time needed to serve each conflicting movement; (b)
summing the times for the movements;, and {c} comparing the total time required
to the time available. For example, if for north-squth traffic the northbound
traffic is"l,0OOvehicles'per hour,-~the southbound traff~ 'is 800 vehicles per
hour, and the capacity of either approach is 2,000 vehicles per hour of green,
then the northbound traffic is critical and requires 1,000/2,000 or 50 percent
of the signal time. If for the east-west traffic, 40 percent of the signal
time is required, then it can be seen that the ICU is 50 plus 40, or 90 percent.
When left-turn phases exist, they are incorporated into the analysis. As ICU's
approach 100 percent, the quality of traffic service approaches Level of Service
(LOS) E, as defined in the Highway Capa. city Manual, Special Report 87, Highway
Reasearch Board, 1965.
Level of Service is used to describe quality of traffic flow. Levels of
Service A to C operate quite well. Level of Service D is typically the Level
of Service for which an urban street._is designed. Level of Service E is the
maximum volume a facility can accommodate and will result in possible stoppages
of momentary duration. Level of Service F occurs when a facility is overloaded
and is characterized by stop-and-go traffic with stoppages of long duration. A
description of the various levels of .service appears on the. following page.
The ICU calculations assume that an intersection is signalized and that the
signal is ideally timed. Although calculating ICU for an unsignalized
intersection is not valid, the presumpti.on is that a signal can be installed
and the calculation'shows'whether the geometrics are capable of accommodating
the expected volumes· It is possible to have an ICU well below 1.0, yet have
severe traffic congestion. This would occur because one or more movements is
not getting enough time to satisfy.its demand with excess time existing on
other moves.
Capacity is often defined in terms of roadway width. However, standard lanes
have approximately the same capacity whether they are 11 foot or 14 foot lanes.
Our data indicates a typical lane, whether a through lane or left-turn lane
has a capacity of approximatel.y 1600 vehicles per lane per hour of green time.
The Highway Capacity Manual found capacity to be about 1500 vehicles per lane
per hour of green for through lanes and 1200 vehicles per lane per hour of green
for left-turn lanes. However, the capacity manual is based on pre-1965 data,
and recent studies and observations show higher capacities in the southern
California area. For this study a capacity of 1600 vehicles per lane has been
assumed for through traffic, and 1600 vehicles per lane for turning lanes.
APPENDIX A
LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS
i
Level of Nmninal Range
Service Of ICU
i i
A Low volumes; high speeds; speed not restricted 0.00.- 0.60
by other vehicles; all signal cycles clear with
no vehicles waiting through more than one signal
cycle. ...
B Operating speeds beginning to be affected by 0.61 - 0.70
other.traffic; between one and ten percent of
the signal cycles have one or more vehicles
which wait through more than one signal cycle
during peak traffic periods.
C Operating speeds and maneuverability closely 0.71 - 0.80
controlled by other traffic; between 1! and
30 percent of the signal cycles have one or
more vehicles which wait through more than
one signal cycle during peak traffic periods;
reco~m~ended ideal design standard.
D Tolerable operating speeds; 31 to 70 percent 0.81 - 0.90
of the signal cycles have.one or more vehicles
which wait through more than one signal cycle
during.peak traffic--periods; often used as'
design standard in urban areas.
E Capacity; the maximum traffic volumes an inter- 0.91 .- 1.00
section can accolm~odate; restricted speeds; 71
to 100 percent of the signal cycles have one
or more vehicl~ which wait through more th~n
one signal cycle during peak traffic peri.ods, .. . ..
. ..
F Long queues of traffic; unstable flow; stop- Not meaningful
pages of long duration; traffic volume and
traffic speed can drop to zero; traffic
volume will be less than the volune which
occurs at Level of Service E.
m m t n i i i lml I
_
ICU (Intersection Capacity Utilization) at various Levels
of Service versus Level of Service E for urban arterial
streets.
APPENDIX B
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION'
ANALYSES
Ii
o
ii
ti
II ----
Ii
Ii
L ,,J
__1 Ii
~ :1
~ Il
II
II ....
II
II
2~ II
~ Ii
__JII
~ II
.~ Il
II
(~ LLJ II
~ ~ II
~ II
il
~ t.~J II
.........................................
Ii ii
ti :N~ .'IC ]leg ~ II
II
II
LJ-j
Il Il 11
...................... ? ..... ';- .................................... II
.................................................................. II
II
II
II
11
Il
I I
..................... r---
Il
i I r'-.. r% l%,,,, , L/ ~ ¢'l'j ~ ,33 --1'* ~ ¢'.E.~ I..-~ (_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'~J
I I ~ I' ~ u"'a ~'.d "--.
I I
II
Il
I I ~---:)
.~.
II
II
II
II
,!
Il
Ii
II
Il
II
II
----II
II
il
II
II
Il
Il
C..~Il
II
I1'
II
II
II
---- II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
---- II
Il
,.
II
II
· ,;
Ii
Ii
ii
II
II
----
--
II
IT.I.. (J'J II
¢;3I.J.J 16
I~ Z II
II
II
I--- (../') II --~ ~ ('%i ~ ¢'..I
x ¢ II
L~ ....I I1
II
1---- II
~ 11
l.&J II
~ II ..1 t'-- ~.%T _.1 k--- ~ ..__J I'-- ~ _J I--,-
L,j II ~ Z ~(J~ (.fl (.~ ~ i.l.~l ~.J..I 3 3 ~.~
I I
It
----
r',-
k.t.J
,q...
.7--
k,d.J
--,J
..--.
Id..
I----
¢/-~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9ESOLUTION~NO. 2659
·
·
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TUSTIN, DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89-25,
A REQUEST TO AUTHORIZE ESTABLISHMENT OF A FULL SERVICE
CARWASH LOCATED AT 240 E. FIRST STREET.
The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby re.s~Ive as
follows: .
I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows:
A. That a proper application, (Use Permit No. 89-25) has been filed
on. behalf of Henry Kumagai-to establish a'5,000 square foot full
service, carwash on the property located at 240 E. First Street
and described as Assessor's Parcel No. 401-581-001.
B. ' Tha't a public hearing was duly cal.led, noticed and held on said
application on August 28, 1989.
C. That establishment, maintenance, and operation of the use
applied for will not, under the circumstances of this' case,
be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, 'or
general welfare of the persons residing or working in the
neighborhood of such proposed use, evidenced by the'following
findings: --
lo
The use applied for is not an outright permitted use within
the "Commercial as Primary Use" designation of the First
Street Specific Plan and is only authorize~l subject, to
granting a conditional use permit which is a discretionJry
action.
e
The proposed use is inconsistent with the policies
objectives of the First Street Specific Plan in that the
proposed project site wOUlld not be developed with "primary"
retail uses nor provide an optimum pedestrian environmen~
as encouraged by the First Street Specific Plan.
The proposed use would further establi'~h and' reinforce tile
existing automotive scale and character of First Street
which is discouraged by the First Street Specific Plan.
The proposed use would not be the "best" use of the
property given the high development potential of the site
as indicated in the First Street Specific Plan and given
the high development potential of the site as indicated in
the First Street Specific Plan.and given the inability to
fulfill the desired pedestrian scale and. retail uses
encouraged by the First Street Specific Plan.
E. A Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act.
ATTACHMENT A
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Resolution No. 2659
August 28, 1989 '~
page two
II. The Planntng Comnrisslon hereby denies Conditional Use Permit No.
89-25, a request to authorize establishment of a 5,000 square foot
full servtce carwash on the property located at 240 E. First Street,'
PASSED. AND ADOPTEO--.at-a regular'meeting of the Tustt'n Planning Commission,
he1d on the c~):~ ~-, day of _ (~~~ ~ , 1989.
-~ . ~ · .,// '/
lESLIE' ANNE'PONTIODS~
Chairman
RecOrding
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
CITY OF TUSTIN )
I, PENNI FOLEY, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Recording
Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City.of Tustin, California; that
Resolution No. ~-~.~-~ was duly passed and adopted at a ~lgular meeting of '
the T_ustin Planning Commission, held on the ~~X-day of ~_.?~.~.~.~a_/--~ ,
198_~. . " ,~
...
PENNI FOLEY
Recording Secretary
McCOLLOUGH
&ASSOCIATES
ARCHITECTS
17500 Red Hill Avenue/Suite 230
Irvine, CA 92714 (714) 660-0264
FAX 17141 757-0472
September 1, 1989
RECEIVED
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, California 92680
Subject: Conditional Use Permit 89-25 and
Desi.qn Review 88-66
Gentlemen:
We hereby request an appeal to City Council of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2659
denying Conditional Use Permit 89-25 on August 28, 1989.
In our opinion, the Commission did not have a clear understanding of the number of employ-
ees operating a fully automated car wash or the amount of traffic generated by the car wash
in spite of information provided in the present, ation and in the traffic report.
We are prepared to present additional data to support our position, on .the circulation and
traffic issues, and we believe the--Cburi'~'il wil-I '}~e able to arrive at a fair decision in this
matter.
We understand that we have the right of appeal under city ordinance, and we would like to
schedule a hearing at the earliest date possible.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Very truly yourS,"
Henry Kumagai
ATTACHMENT B
Planning CommisSion Minut.~
August :?8, 1989
Page thirteen
7. Condition.al Use Permit 89-25 and De.si~)n Review, 8.8-.6.6 (..Kumagai..)
APPLICANT/
OWNER:
LOCATION:
ZONING:
ENVIRONMENTAL
STATUS:
MR. HENRY KUMAGAI
!9021 CANYON DRIVE
VILLA PARK, CA 92667
240 E. FIRST STREET
C-2 (CENTRAL COMMERCIAL)/FIRST STREET SPECIFI~ PLAN
REQUEST:
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN' PREPARED IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.
AUTHORIZE ESTABLISHMENT OF A FULL SERVICE CARWASH
Recommendation: It is recommended that the Plann'ing Commission either: 1) Certify
the final "Negative Declaration for the project as adequate by adoption of Resolution
No. 2658; and 2) Either approve Conditional Use Permit 89-25 by adoption of
Resolution No. 2659 or deny Conditional .Use Permit 89-25 by adoption of Resolution
No. 2659(d).
Presentation: Daniel Fox, Associate Planner
Commissioner Shaheen asked if the Post Office had been approached regarding its
expansion Dla'ns; he noted that the Post Office may not be large enough to handle the
gro~h in East Tustin, and they may have .an objection to having a car wash at that
location.
The Director replied that as part of the public notification process, they notify
properties on the Assessor's rolls, but the Post Office is only a tenant on the land
where it is located. The Post Office has expressed needs for expansion and there are
conditions for an annex site on E1 Camino Real west of Myford Road for future consid-
eration. However, the expansion needs of the Post Office should not be the basis of
the decision, but the goals and objectives of the First Street Specific Plan relative
to the findings and issues of the staff report.
The City Attorney felt.that the Commission should confine the issues to the First
Street Specific Plan; that they should not go out of those bounds to determine what
the Post Office may do in the future.
Commissioner.Kasparian asked what the point was of sending letters to resident .
within' 300' feet if not to notify people of a pending project and the possible impacts.
The City Attorney-replied that the factors that needed to be considered are those set
forth in the First Street Specific Plan.
Commissioner Kasparian felt tih;nto,reaS a Planning Commission looking at the total
picture, it was di'fficult, to the impact of East Tustin unless they know that
there is a future availability of land for a new postal facility; and if the Post
Office was prohibited from building facilities elsewhere, there may be a real
~roblem.
ATTACHMENT C
Planning Commission Minut~
August 28, 1989
Page fourteen
The Director noted that it was important to recognize 'the'needr for postal services,
but relative to this application, they should consider: 1) whether this development
is appropriate and feasible, and when integrated with the rest of the development on
this block, contribute to the improvement of that area; and 2) does it improve the
site circulation between properties and the other goals and objectives which balance
maximum development-~.with, compa~i-b-le-~ses"-a-s' required by the-First Street Specific.
Plan.
Commissioner Shaheen asked how many cars they anticipated washing each day. Based
upon th'e 'st~aff report, he felt that it would be a lot of traffic in and out of a 30
foot frontage; and asked how much frontage and depth does the property have.
Staff replied that a traffic report was prepared, and indicated .that based .upon
facilities of this' nature and size, it coul~l be anticipatea t°-)~ave up to 900 vehicle
trips per day. It broke down to 40 trips during the morning and evening peak hours
and distributed the rest throughout the day, with Saturday afternoon being the
heaviest. In general, a car wash generates 50% more l:rips than a service station
wou 1 d.
The Director replied that the lot was approximately 110 by 200 feet.
Staff noted that this is a small piece of property for'this type of facility, which
is evidenced by the site plan, in that they--have not been able to provide a secondary
access, it is a very tight facility, there is not enough stacking area for drying the
vehicles, and there is not a large entrance stacking area.
Commissioner Shaheen asked if there has been an ~ttempt by the applicant to gain
access to the rear of the property.
Staff referred the question to the applicant.
Commissioner Kasparian asked what the Intersection Capacity Uti. lization (ICU) figures
W'oluld be; and if it Would change if this business was approved
The Director replied t~a't"the ICU at First and Prospect was .61 during a.m and .75
during p.m. peak hours. The Traffic Report suggests that the ICU figures would not
change during a..m. peak_hours, but woul.d=L~e~ease from .75 to .77 during p.m. peak
hours. It would remain at Level of SerVice "C"'-,-which presently exists in the area
{Summary finding No. 4 of Traffic Study}.
Commis. si.oner Shahe~n asked what the traffic count was on First Street at'that point.
The Director replied that it was in Appendix B of the report and was broken out by
movement.
·
·
The public hearing was opened at 9:05 p.m.
P1 ~nning Commi ssion'Minut~
August 28, 1989
Page fifteen
Dennis McCul.l. ou~)h, project architect, noted that they are fully aware of the
Commis's"ion's concerns towards auto use along First Street, and that most of the
concerns are justified. He noted that Mr. Kumagai is presently a businessman in
Tustin who wants to continue to do business within the City and feels so strongly
about the potential for this business in this area that he is willing to comply with
all of the conditions. They feel that they have addressed most of the concerns of'
the staff in providing a facility that is compatible and is a good neighbor to all of
the other establishments along First Street..He feels that.the design would function
well for Mr. Kumagai. Regarding inter-site circulation, it was considered, but since
they are only open on the south and east, the through circulation was not possible.
They would have liked .an entrance from the southeast, they felt, that· although it
would benefit the car wash, they would be unable to provide a benefit to the Post
Office after they take away three parking spaces.
Commissioner.Pontious noted that, regardless of her decision in the matter, she felt
that it Was an ou'tstanding piece of architecture.
Commissioner Kasparian asked if there would be a maximum of seven {7) employees, and
asked'"fOr a clarif(16ation of their positions; and how many cars could be in the car
wash at any one time.
4r. McCull..ough replied that the car wash was fully automated, the gas pumps were
se'if-service, there would be two {2) attendants vacuuming, one {1) at cashier station
{which would be the manager), and four ~(4) drying. Recognizing their limited room,
the idea was to have most of the employees drying So as to expedite the exit of
customers; and there would be two {2) cars in the facility at one time.
Commissioner Kas~arian asked how two cars at one time could equal 900 cars per day;
and if i't woul~ be' Iopen seven (7) days per week.
·
Mr. K.uma~)ai, the owner, stated that there could be four (4) cars in at one time, but
it is not large enough to clean 900 cars per day; he felt that 900 per day was
proposed as a maximum by the Traffic Study; and that the hours would be 8:00 a.m. to
5 or 6:00 p.m. sev. en (7~) days per week .... , ............
~ .
Commissioner Le Jeune stated .that he was concerned with the numher of people on
si~'e.' Ne' felt that based upon comparison with other car wash facilities, it was not
unusual to have ten or twelve people working at one time.
Commissioner Ka.sparian asked if a gas station and car wash would be subject to dif-
fe'rent'"safety regulations than a gas station only; and does self-serve pose any
probl ems.
The Director replied that they would still have to comply with all regional require-
ments of AQMD, vacuum recovery, fire department and water control, and sanitation
district for discharge of industrial waste; and that self-service would not matter,
hey still .have to comply with the requirements.
Commissioner Kasparian asked if the number of parking spaces for seven (7) employees
was addressed; and suppose the applicant actually has ten employees.
Planning Commission Minutes
August 28, 1989
Pa ge s.i xteen . ......
The Director replied that the number of employees on site was provided by the appli-
cant. The staff then referred to a publication, The Zoning Bulletin, which provided
the' standards for car washes. The City does not currently have a standard, but the
publication had done a nationwide survey. The Commission can clarify in the
Resolution limiting the number of employees on the premises at any one time.
Commissioner Kasparian asked if. the applicant would be able to comply with conditions
limiting the numbe'r" of employees on the site at any one time based upon the number of
parking spaces available.
Mr. Kumagai r~plied that they could rent parking spices in the adjacent parking lot,
if' "n'eedec]. "He noted that' he was' also considered-purchasing adjoining property for an
exit.
Commissioner Pontious asked if they could'limit the number of employees to seven (7)
given the'present c6nfiguration and that any additional employees would be contingent
on the applicant s'ecuring additional parking spaces.
The Director-noted that she would create language for this issue, as moved.
Co. mmis.sio, n. er' K.aspar. i.an asked if the applicant was leasing or buying the property.
Mr. Kuma~ai replied that he had purchased tee land about one and one-half years ago.
Pete Dwin~er, construction consultant, commented that the goal was to meet, as
closely as possible, the First Street Specific Plan goals. As shown in the architec-
tural model, they achieved the goals with extensive landscaping, shielded the First
Street traffic and public from the operation, the pedestrian amenities, and client
comfort. They addressed the sound attenuation problems by enclosing all of the
equipment within the building and the air conditioning in a well within the roof, and
provided a neighbor-friendly project. Mr. Kumagai will be the owner-operator of the
facility, providing pride in ownership and maintenance. He has been in the auto
business his entire life. He wanted to develop this property as a car wash, and as a
first class project as an asset to the First Street area and Tustin in architectural
design and as a revenue-generating facility.
The public hearing was closed at 9:20 p.m.
C.o. mmi.ssioner Shaheen noted that the architectural design was beautiful and would be
appropriat'e in a number of areas. This area, however, is not appropriate: the access
is bad, it conflicts with the Post Office, it precludes good traffic, conflict with
the islands, and it does not have enough square footage to be effective. In his
opinion, it would require 45-50,000 square feet to have an effective car wash. There
should be other accessibility besides the First Street frontage. He did not think it
would wo'rk in that location.
qo_._mmi..ssioner Le Jeune noted that discretionary items were the most difficult for the
2ommission to deci'de upon. However, they have to make the determinations based upon
the First .... Street Spe~:.ific.. Plan goals._._.He commended the architectural design, but was
concerned with the traffic, and that it was placed very close to the corner. He felt
that it was not the proper use of that lot.
Commiss.i oner Kaspari an concurred.
Planning Commission Minute.
August 28, 1989
- Page seventeen
Commissioner Pontious commented that it was a difficult decision, that she was
impressed With the presentation, but she referred the applicant to the City 'Council
for appeal.
The Director commented that the applicant has been tremendously cooperative and very
responsive to the gu_i._delj, nes, ...................
Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Kasparian seconded to deny Conditional Use Permit 89-25
by' the adoption of Resolution' No. 2'659. Motion carried 4-0.
NER:
ON:
ING:
R. UEST:
DAVID LI CO
230.10 LAKi DRIVE tTE E
HILLS 92653
MR MELVI. iLILLI
B. SCHMEL
RST STREE1
FIN,
KI TH H. T, ET. AL
440 FIRST EET
TUSTI ',A
C/0 MR )OD
AND 6 FIR STREET
PUD ( RAL IAL-
'.FIC PLA~
2)
3)
R THIS PROJ IN CONFOR
NTAL QUA[ ACT.
A fE DECLA ION HAS
ANCE W) 'HE CALI NIA ENVIRO
) A RE( ST TO ND THE F STREET ECIFIC PLAN ,ND USE
DESIGN~ )N ON PROPERTY )CATED AT 40 W. EET
FROM " AS PR RY USE" TO AL Y USE"
REQUEST DEVEI BONUSEE 'HE FIRST
IFIC PLA)
DEE REVIEW R A !5 SQUARE RETAIL LOCATED
ion
olutic
ati It is rec( :nded tha ~he P1 ing Commissi Recommend certifi-
1 Negati arati for t project to City Council by
of Reso on No. 266~ .,n( prova f Zone Chang~ )-02 to the City
adoptio ~ Resolutiol 2667; App Development nuses pursuant
rst Street ecific Plan ~d appro Desi~ view 89-52 b~._adootion of
. 2668, a. bmitted or ised.
ion Daniel Fox, ociate Pla~
oner Sh( asked i was a
barrier b~ the two
', )wn on site p
'procal with 7-11; and if
ldings; ~d asked about the barrier
ff replie, hat' as ondition ol
a( ~ement, but pres there is o~
d function a si th,
that would remain the pre .
roval, would need to be a reciprocal
a tentative agreement with 7-11; the site
was no barrier, only the large Jacaranda