HomeMy WebLinkAboutOB 2 CUP 89-25 10-16-89 ~ /~ 10=16=89
Inter- Com
3ATE: OCTOBER 16, 1989
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION, CONOITIONAL USE PEI~IT 89-25 AND
DESIGN REVIEW 88-66 j
RECOMMENDATION
Certify the final Negative Declaration for the project as adequate by adoption of
Resolution No. 89-159 and adopt Resolution No. 89-139 conditionally approving
Conditional Use Permit 89-25.
BACKGROUND
The City Council at a regular meeting on September 18th continued an appeal hearing
on the Planning Commission's denial of Conditional Use Permit 89-25 and Design Review
88-66, a request to authorize establishment .of a 5,000 squa6e foot full service
carwash to be located at 240 E. First Street. 'The matter was continued to enable the
Planning Commission to review site modifications proposed by the applicant to the
Council which were not originally reviewed by the Planning Commission and for the
Planning Commission to review and prepare a list of potential conditions of approval
for use by the City Council. '
On October 9, 1989, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed site modifications
and forwarded a list of potential conditions of approval for Council consideration as
requested. These conditions are contained in Exhibit A of Resolution 89-139.
DISCUSSION
The applicant presented several revisions to the City Council from the plans
originally reviewed by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission has had an
opportunity to review the proposed modifications which included the addition on the
site of 2 parking spaces for a total of nine spaces, increasing the driveway width
from 27 feet to 32 feet, and enlarging the front building setback from 60 feet to 66
feet. The increased setback area, as well as the installation of a second drying
machine in the wash tunnel, will help to better facilitate stacking as vehicles exit
the wash tunnel.
J
City Council Report
Appeal CUP 89-25 and DR 88-66
October 16, 1989
Pa ge two
In light of traffic related concerns associated wi th the project, additional
information was also provided by Pringle & Associates for an addendum to the Traffic
Report prepared July 3, 1989 (Attachment I). This addendum provides additional
information related to U-turn movements on First Street, on-street parking
conditions, and driveway width as requested by the City's Traffic Engineer.
Applicable mitigation measures have been included in the list of potential conditions
of approval for Council consideration as a result of this addendum.
Please refer to the City Council staff report dated September 18, 1989 for a more
complete--discussion on the project as previously presented to the City Council
(Attachment II).
As directed by the City Council at their meeting on September 18th, please find
attached Resolution No. 89-139, which would approve Conditonal Use Permit 89-25. The
resolution contains conditions of approval for the project which have been reviewed
by the Planning Commission. -
baniel Fox'm, / --
Acting Senior Planner
DF 'CAS 'kbc
Attachments'
Resolution No. 89-139
Resolution No. 89-159
Negative Decl arati on
Attachment I
Attachment I I
i Community Development Department
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
23
~4
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 89-159
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TUSTIN, CERTIFYING THE FINAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AS
ADEQUATE FOR CONDITIONAL USE PE..~MIT 89-25 AND DESIGN
REVIEW 88-66, INCLUDING REQUIRED FINDINGS PURSUANT TO
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.
The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows:
I. The City Council finds and determines as follows:
Ae
The request to approve Conditional Use Permit 89-25 and Design
Review 88-66 are considered "projects" pursuant to the tcrm. s of
the California Environmental Quality Act.
B. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project an~
has been distributed for public review.
C. Whereby, the Planning Commission and the City Council of the
City of Tustin have considered evidence presented by the
Community Development Director and other interested parties with
respect to the subject Negative Declaration.
D. The City Council has eyaluated the proposed final Negative
Declaration and determine~ it to be adequate and complete.
A Final Negative Declaration has been completed in compliance with
CEQA and State guidelines. The City Council, having final approval
authority over Conditional Use Permit 89-25, and Redevelopment Agency
having final approval authority over Design Review 88-66 has received
and considered the information contained in the Negative Declaration
prior to approving the proposed project and found that it adequately
discussed the environmental effects of the proposed project. On the
basis of the initial study and comments received during the public
review process, the City Council has found that although the proposed
project could haiFe a significant effect on the environment, there
will not be a significant effect on it in this case because
mitigation measures identified in the Negative Declaration have been
incorporated into the project which mitigate any potential
significant environmental effects to a point where clearly no
significant effect would occur and are identified in Exhibit A to the
attached Negative Declaration and initial study and are adopted as
findings of Resolution No. 89-139, incorporated herein by reference.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the
day of , 1989.
R~.EY WYNN,
City Clerk
DRS(JLA- E~ - KENN~,
Mayor
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
i9
2O
21
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 89-139
A RESOLUTION OF THE' CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TUSTIN, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89-25
AUTHORIZING 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 proper applications, (Conditional Use Permit No. 89-25 and
Design Review 88-66) have been filed on behalf of Henry Kumagai
to authorize establishment of a 5,000 square foot full service
carwash on the property located at 240 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 and Design Review 88-66.
--
C. That an appeal of the Planning Commission's action has been
filed by Henry Kumagal. ,
· ~o
D. That a public hearing to consider the appeal of said
application was duly called, noticed, and held on September 18,
1989 and continued to October 16, 1989.
E. 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
fi ndi rigs:
1. The use applied for is a conditionally permitted use within
the "Commercial as Primary Use" designation of the First
Street Specific Plan.
2. The proposed use would provide for the implementation of
various goals and objectives of the First Street Specific
Plan by providing a pedestrian element along First Street
despite the auto oriented use as a carwash.
3. The auto oriented aspects of the use would be predominately
screened from view due to site design and the perimeter
screen wal 1.
Fe
A Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act.
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
23
24
26
27
28
Resolution No. 89-139
page two
I1.
The City Council hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. 89-25
to authorize establishment of a 5,000 square foot full service
carwash subject to the following conditions contained in Exhibit A
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on
the day of , 1989.
Mayor
MARY WYNN,
City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO. 89-139
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 89-25/OESIGN REVIEW 88-66
GENERAL
(1) 1.1 The proposed project shall substantially conform with the submitted site
plan for the project date stamped October 16, 1989 on file with the
Community Development Department, as herein modified, or as modified by
the Director of Commbnity Development Department in accordance with this
exhibit.
(1) 1.2 Unless otherwise specified, all conditions contained in this exhibit
shall be complied with prior to the issuance of a building permit for the
project, subject to review and approval by the Community Development
Department.
1.3 Use permit approval and Design Review approval 88-66 shall become null
and void unless all building permits are issued within 18 months of the
date on this exhibit and substantial construction is underway.
Extensions may be granted by the Planning Commission if a request is
received in the Community Development Department 30 days prior to the
expiration date or the 18 months.
PLAN SUBMITTAL
2.:1 At building p]an check, three sets of construction level plans shall be
submitted as fol
(3) A.
Construction and grading plans, structural calculations for
structures, buildings and tank installation shall be submitted. All
plans and calculations shall have wet signature of a licensed
engineer. Requirements of the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Fire
Code, National Electrical Code, South Coast Air Quality Management
District, Orange County Heal th Care Agency, and Orange County
Sanitation District shall be met.
(3) B.
Provide preliminary technical detail and plans for all utility
installations. Additionally, a note on plans shall be included
stating that no field changes shall be made without corrections
submitted to and approved by the Community Development Department.
SOURCE CODES
i
(1) STANDARD CONDITION
(2) ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION
(3) UNIFORM BUILDING CODE/S
(4) DESIGN REVIEW
*** EXCEPTION
(5) SPECIFIC PLAN
(6) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY REQUIREMENT
(7) LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES
(8) PC/CC/ POLICY
Resolution 89-139
Exhibit A
October 16, 1989
Page two
NO ISE
(1) 3.1 All requirements of the City's Noise Ordinance (Chapter 6 of the
(2) Municipal Code) shall be met at all times which in part requires noise
levels not to exceed 60 dBa at any time.
PARKI NG/C I RCULATI ON
(1) 4.1 All vehicles that are not in the process of being washed shall be parked
(4) within a designated parking space.
(1) 4.2 All vehicles once dryed and finished with the wash process must exit the
(4) site or be parked in a designated parking space.
(1) 4.3 A total of nine marked parking spaces shall be permanently maintained on
the site.
(1) 4.4 No outdoor storage of any kind shall be permitted on the site or in
designated parking spaces.
(1) 4.5 No car wash detailing activitioes s,hall be condu, cted', within designated
(4) parking spaces.
*** 4.6 Notices shall be posted on the site requesting that all patrons please
remain on the premises until the vehicle is finished. Exact copy and
location of such notice shall be reviewed and approved by the Community
Development Department with the final working drawings.
*** 4.7 A "right turn only" sign shall be posted on the inside of the front
perimeter wall for exiting traffic. Exact details and location of said
sign shall be reviewed and approved by the Con~nunity Development
Department with the final working drawings.
WATER
(2) 5.1 A waste water system shall be provided to reduce chemicals, grit, and
sludge draining into the public sewers from the wash tunnel drainage.
5.2 All surface drainage areas shall be connected directly to the public
sewer or storm drain system, whichever is applicable subject to approval
of Sanitation District.
(2) 5.3 A drainage grate shall be provided across the entrance/exit approach to
ensure all water is collected on site and no water drains across the
public sidewalk.
DETAILING
*** 6.1 No detailing activities shall be permitted on the site as no specified
detailing areas are identified on the plans. Any proposal for detailing
would require Planning Commission review and amendment to the subject use
permit and design review.
Resolution No. 89-139
Exhibit A
October 16, 1989
Page three
LANDSCAPING, GROUNDS AND HARDSCAPE
(1) 7.1 Submit at plan check, complete detailed landscaping and irrigation plans
for all landscaping areas consistent with adopted City of Tustin
Landscaping and Irrigation Submittal Requirements. Provide a summary
table applying indexing identification to plant materials in their actual
location. The plan and table shall list botanical and common names,
sizes, spacing, actual location and quantity of the plant materials
proposed.
Show planting and berming details, soil preparation, staking~, etc. The
irrigation plan shall show location and control of backflow prevention
devices, pipe size, sprinkler types, spacing and coverage. Details for
all equipment shall be provided. Show all property lines on the
landscaping and irrigation plans, public right-of-way areas, sidewalk
widths, parkway areas, and wall locations. The Department of. Community
Development may request minor substitutions of plant materials or request
additional sizing or quantity materials during plan check. Note on
landscaping plan that adequacy of coverage of landsca,ping and irrigation
materials and replacement of existin~q landscaping in poor condition with
new landscaping is subject to field inspection at project completion by
the Department of Community Development.
7.2 Additional canopy trees shall be added to along the east property line
and the front 60 feet of the west property line, proportionally spaced
consistent with the rear elevation.
7.3 Earth mounding along the Firs.t Street frontage as well as special
attention to the entrys of the project shall be addressed {i.e.
decorative paving, variety of color in landscaping).
A complete, detailed sign program including design, locations, sizes,
colors and materials shall be submitted for review and approval by the
Community Development Department. The sign program shall include project
identification, addressing and directional signs to direct autos to
proper access, parking and loading.
!
BUILDING/SITE
(5) 8.1 The overall building height shall be reduced to not exceed a height of 18
feet.
(1) 8.2 The mechanical equipment well shall be designed so that all mechanical
(4) equipment is located a minimum of 6" below the top of parapet.
(2) 8.3 The driveway shall be increased in width from 27 feet to 32 feet.
*** 8.4 A second drying machine shall be included within the wash tunnel.
Resolution No. 89-139
Exhibit A
October 16, 1989
Page four
(2) 8.5 No on-street parking shall be permitted adjacent to the subject site.
The curbs along the entire street frontage shall be painted red and
posted'"no parking" per City standards.
FEES
(6) 9.1 Prior to the issuance of any building permits, payment shall be made of
(1) all required fees including'
A. Major thoroughfare and bridge fees to Tustin Public Works
Department.
B. Orange County Sanitation District No. 7 fees to the.Sanitati°n
District.
C. East Orange County Water District Fees to the Water District.
D. New development fees to-the Community Development Department.
E. All applicable plan check and building permit fees to the Community
Development Department. ,'
F. School Facilities Fees to the T~stin Unified School District.
c
,o
:- Weston l_' rlnglle' & A
September 29, 1989
ssociates
TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING
Mr. Henry Kumagai
19021 Canyon Road
Villa Park, CA 92667
Dear Mr. Kumagai:
Additional work has been completed in response to the letter you received
from the City of Tustin, dated September 26, 1989 relative to CUP 89-25.
The additional information and responses are contained below and correspond
to the question numbers, in the 9/26/89 letter.
1. Eight vehicles would be expected to be making eastbound to westbound
U-turns during the PM peak hour. These turns are expected to be made
at Hall Circle or Centennial Way. Estfmates indicate foUr U-turns at
both Hall and Centennial. These volumes are not expected to create a
significant impact. The AM peak hour and noon hour impacts would be
less than the PM peak hour. Since the PM peak hour is not expected
to experience adverse impacts, the AM a~d noon peaks are expected to
have acceptable operations as well. The AM peak would have two U-turns
each at Hall and Centennial.
, .
· , ·
2. A westbound to eastbound U-turn can not be made at Prospect Avenue
but can be made at E1Camino Real. It is expected that a maximum
of two and four vehicles would make U-turns at E1 Camino Real,
during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. These volumes would
not be expected to create significant impacts.
A 7TA CHMENT I
21i51 East i:hapmail :'xvcnuc * Suile 11{) · Fullermn, Califi)rnla 921:~31 * {714) ,%71-2.~131
3. A figure has been attached to this letter illustrating the proposed
project AM and PM peak hour volumes.
4. Two hour parking currently exists along the proposed project
frontage. The applicant is willing to have the parking along
his frontage prohibited (red curb), in conjunction with his
project, to.increase sight distance and better facilitate
inbound and outbound movements. This would also be expected
to improve eastbound ingress to the post office site.
5. The report recommended a 30 foot driveway to improve operations,
over a 27 foot driveway. In the City Council meeting the applicant
offered to provide a 32 foot driveway which would be even more
desirable. The wider driveway would serve to better facilitate
ingress and egress movements.
We trust that this additional information will be of assistance to
you and the City of Tustin. If you. have any questions please do not
hesitate to call us.
Respectfully submitted,
WESTON PRINGLE & ASSOCIATES
Weston'S. Pringle, P.E.
WSP:hld
#890910
13::
W
WW
W
~--
Z
W
Z
Z
W
.... 9-18-89
_
_
Inter- Corn
"ATE: SEPTEMBER 18, 1989
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
WILLIAH A. 'HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
COMMUNITY DEVELOPHENT DEPARTMENT
APPEAL OF PLANNING COHIqISSION ACTION, CONDITIONAL USE PEi~IT 89-25 AND
RECOMIq£NDATION
__
It ls recommended that the C'lty Council uphold the Planntng Comml ssion action to denny'''
Conditional Use Permit/Design Review 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 denying Conditional Use Permit 89-25/Design Review 88-.66, a
proposal to authorize establishment of a 5,000 square foot full service car wash to
De located at 240 E. First Street (Attachment. A). The applicant has appealed l~he
decision of the Planning Commission.to the'-City'Council 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"
Uesignation 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 is presently vacant. Surrounding uses
include the Tustin 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.
A TTA CHMENT H
Planntng Commission Report
Design Review 88-66
September ].8, ].989
Page ~o
DISCUSSION
General - Submitted development plans propose construction of a 110' x 46'
t~uildi~g to be located on the easterly portion of the site perpendicular to
First Street.- Building improvement would include an enclosed carwash tunnel and
applicable carwash equipment, waiting and cashier area, office, storage room,
employee room and restrooms. A fuel pump and vacuum area is proposed to the
west of the building to be covered by a wood trellis structure: Anticipated
hours of operation of the facility would be 7:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. No detailing
area has been identified on the plans.
Access to the project site would be provided by a 27 foot wide driveway along
First Street. Vehicles would pull forward to the fuel pumps and vacuum station
and enter the wash tunnel from the south end of 'the property. Vehicles would
then move north through the tunnel and enter the open drying area in the
northeast corner of the site. Staff as well as the Planning Commission were
.-oncerned that there may not be a great deal .of room for vehicle` stacking as cars
._
exit the wash tunnel..,
Zoning R.e. qulrements - The project complies with all development standards for
l~h~ .First Str~et Specific Plan, with the exception of building height. The
"Commercial as Primary Use" designation of the First Street Specific Plan
requires a minimum 10 foot front yard setback, zero foot side yard setback, and
a 20 foot rear yard setback. The prop,osed building is setback 60 feet from
First Street with a 10 foot front yard setback from the proposed screen wall to
be constructed parallel with First Street. The building would be situated 5
feet from the easterly property line and 5'-10" from the westerly property line
with a 45 foot rear yard setback. While the maximum building height is 1 story
and 18 feet, project plans propose a hetght of 1 story and 20 feet. Any,.
conditions of approval-would require the reduction in building height for the.
project to a maximum of 18 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
;ire. The applicant has indicated that a maximum of 7 employees would be on the site
at any one time.
Community Development Department
Planning Commission Report
Design Review 88-66
September 18, 1989
Page three
Circulation and' AcceSs - Carwashes typically generate a high rate of traffic in
~spect to the square footage 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 p~oject would be provided by a 27 foot wide
driveway along First Street. 0nly 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'- th'e"proposed access driveway be increased
from 27 feet to 30 feet to facilitate more efficient ingress and egress from the
st re' s one driveway.
·
Architecture - The applicant has done a commendable job in designing the
architectural aspects iof 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 wh_ich would also be covered with a trellis. The proposed
materials include the use of a 3 color clay "S" roof tile (tan, orange, brown) brown
~;~'dod. trim, light salmon stucco and dark salmon stucco trim.
As mentioned previously, the overall height of the building needs to be reduced from
20 feet to 18 feet' to satisfy the development standards of the First Street Specific
Pl'an. 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
Destgn Revtew 88-66
September ].8, ].989
Page four
Landscaping and Hardscape - A conceptual landscaping plan has been included on the
g)te planI. HOweVer, SPecific planting materials, quantities, and sizes 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 provided along the
east and west sides of the property, as well as alon. g 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 provide~q,.
along First Street outside the perimeter wall. Althoug'h the landscaping plan is
conceptual, it provides for a well landscaped site. Final and precise landscaping
and irrigation plans would ne~ to_ be-prepared in 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 with terra cotta interlocking paving. A six foot high blockwall 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.
Appropriateness of Use - Over the past few--yeart, staff, the Planning Commission, and
the City'~CounCi~l hav& 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 th'e 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 first 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 within 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
·
i
Planntng Commission Report
Design Review 88-66
September 18, 1989
Page fl ve
Encourage new development which ls appropriate and feaslble and which can
be effectively Integrated and located to contribute most to the overall
Improvement to the area. The subject site is Identified in the Specific'
Plan as a site that would be subject to new development. A carwash use may
not'be the most appropriate use in this location given the high potential
in the viclnity of the site for consolidated development and the multitude
of other retall commercial uses that cou. ld be permitted on the site. In
light of the concern over auto oriented 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 is to achieve an overall
positive identity for the Specific Plan area. While there is concern
over the auto oriented 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 is land use).
C. To create a 'pedestrian friendly' envlronment~ with the use of
pedestrian arcades, plazas, 'and '' store fronts along First Street
frontage. 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 propose.d 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.
D. [~rove site circulation between properties and maximize pedestrian
access. The proposed project does not make any provisions for any
type of circulation between properties as encouraged by the Specific
Plan. Customers of the carwash must exit the site onto First Street
to access adjacent properties and the alley to the south. T~h,e,.
existing parking area and access from the Post Office and alley to
Prospect Avenue would .remain as existing -as this area would not be
affected by th..e pro je_c_t
E. Promote the best use of property which balances maximum development with
co~attble uses. Exhibit 2 of the First Street Specific Plan identifies
this site as a new development site, since it is vacant and can be designed
from the ground up. The proposed carwash use may not be the best use of
property due to the inability to provide and implement the various goals
and objectives of the First Street Specific 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
September [8, 1989
Page six
Planning Commission Action - On August 28, 1989, the Planning Commission reviewed
~)~i~ item a~d ad'oPteu ReSolution No. 2659 to deny Conditional Use Permit 89-25/Design
Review 88-66. A copy of the minutes from that meeting are included in Attachment C.
The Planning Commission, in making their decision, identified inconsistencies with
the goals and objectives of the First Street Specific Plan and incompatibility with
aUjacent uses as noted above as the primary reasons for the action of denial. The
Commission also noted concern that the limited ,site size further compounds the
concern related to circulation and compatibility with adjacent uses.
CONCLUSION
A project to establish a carwash use at this location does not fully implement
policies, goals, and objecti.ves 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.
·
Associate Planner
CAS'DF 'kbc
Christine 'A. Shi ngl e/~n -
Director of Communi4~ Development
Community Development Dep~art'ment
NEG, 'IVF DEC,LARk. ION
· c T¥ TUSk'S.
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
·
·
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 Envl6onmenta] Quality Act, and on the basis of
that study herebyl' lin'd:
That there, ts 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 occ[Ir. ' Said revlsions-'are attached to'and
hereby made a part of this Negative Declaration.
IGN REVI]
·
Therefore, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not required.
i i
The initial study which provides the basis for this determination is on
file at the Community Development Department, Ci.t'y 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.
REYIEW PERIOD ENDS 4'30 p.m. on AUGUST 28, 1989
DATED: AUGUST 21, 1989
--
Community Development Director
· " CITY OF TUSTIN
C~...,lunity Development Department
ENVIRONMENTAL INiITIAL STUDY FORM
2. Addre~ and Phone Number of Proponent
3. Date of Checklist Submitted ,,c~k)C_?~'V' .~_~¢~. )¢~c~
Ag~,ncy R~uiri~ Ch~li~ ~l~ ~ ~STt~ '-
5. ~of pr~l, if a~ii:le CaF ~-~/~ ~-~
.,
. .
(~lm~i~s of all '~es" a~ "m~e" angers are r~uired on attach~ sh~t~)
Earth. Will the proposal r~uit
a. Unstable eord~ conditions or in changes
in geologic substructures?
b. Disruptians, displacements, compaction
or overcovering of the ~oil?
c. Chc~ge in topography or ground surface
relief features? ...........
d. The destruction, covering or modification
of any unique geologic or physical features?
e. Any increase in wind or water' erosion of '
soilst either on or--off ti~e site?
f; ..Change. s. i.n deposition or eros/on of beach.
.sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or
erosion which may modify 'the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the ocean or
any bay, inlet or lake?
g. Exposure of people or property to geolo-
gic hazarcL~ such as earthquakes, Iondslicles,
mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards?
Air. Will the proposal result
a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration'
of ambient air quality?
b. The creation of objectionable odors?
..
c. Alteration of air movement, rnoisturet or
temperatures or any change in climatet
eithe~ locaJly or regionally?
Water. Will the proposal result im
a. Changes in currents~ or the course of di-
rectim of water movements~ in either
marine or fresh waters?
b. Changes in absorption rates~ drainage pat-
terns~ or the rate and amount of ~urface
runoff?
c. Alterations to the course or fl~w of flood · waters~ . · .-~ .......... ·
..
d. Change in the amount of ~urface water in.
any water body?
e. Discharge into ~u-tfac~'"watem~ or in any
alteration of surface water quality~ in-
cluding I~t not limited to temperature,
dissolved., oxygen, or turbidity?
·
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow
of ground waters?
· .
g .... Change in the quantity of ground waters~
either through direct additions or w'ith-
drawals, o~ through interception of an
aquifer by cuts or excavations?
h. Substantial reductim in the amount of
water otherwise available far public water
_supplies?
Exposum of people or property to water re-
lated hazards such as flOOding ar tidal waves?
· ,
.0
.j
5
Se
Plant Life.. Will the proposal result in=
a. Change ;in the diversity of species, or
r~Jmber of. any speciea of plants (including
tr~-~, shrub~, grass, crops, and aquatic
plants)?
b. Recluctian of the numbers of any Unique,
rare or endangered species of plants?
c. Introduction of new species of plants'into
an area, or in a barrier to the normal
replenishment of existing ~pecies?
·
d. Reduction in acreacje of any agriCUltural''
crop?
Animal Life. Will the proposal, result in:
,.
Change in the diversity of species, or
numb~rs'o'f any Species of animals (birds,'
land animals including reptiles, fish and
shellfid~, benthic organi~rr_~_ or insect=)?
b. Reduction of the nurnbem of any unique,
rare or endangered specie~ of mimals?
·
.- ~.
c. Introckz,-tion of new specim' of c~imals into
on areat or result in a baffie~ to the
migration or movement of c~imals?
·
cl. Deterioration to existing ,fish or wildlife
habitat?
Will the proposal result in:
a. lncrea.~es in existing noise levels?
·
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
Light ~ Clam. Will the propo~l produce .-
new light or'glare?
Land Use.. Will the proposal result in a sub-
stantial alteration of the pre~.:t or planned
land'use of an area?
Ncztural Resources. Will the proposal result in=
a. Increase in the rate of use of any. natural
resources?
i i i
i i
X
Ye=~
10.
b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable
na.l~ml i~re~rce? .......
·
Risk of UI~.~: Will. the propo~l involve~
a. A ri~k of m expk~ian or the relea~
of hazarcla~ ~ul~t~ (including, ~ ~t
'limit~ .~o,. oil, ~~i~, ~i~ ~
r~i~ in t~ ~t of ~ ~i~t ~
~ ~iti~?
plm? .
d~tr~uti~ ~i~ ~ g~wth rote of ~e
~m~ po~ioti~ o~ ~ or~?
12. I-kx~ing. Will the propoaal affect existing hous-
ing, or create .a demand for additional housing?
13. Trc~q>m-tatlon/Circulcrtlam Will the propoaal
re, It in:
a. Generation of substantial additional
vehicular .'movement? ..
·
b. Effects on existing parking facilities,, or
demand for new parking?
c. Substantial impact upen existing transpor-
tation systems? ....
d. Alteratia~ to pre~ent potterr~ of circula-
tion or movement of people and/or gcx~?
e. Alteratic~ to waterborne, mil or air
traffic?"
f. Increase in traffic hc~q.rds to .motor
vehiCles~'bicyclists or p~estrian=?
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an
effect upon, or result in a need fc~ new or
alter..ecl govemmentol services in any of the
following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Perks or other recreational facilities?
e. Maintenance'Of public facilities, including
15.
f. Other governmental services?
F.m~ Will the proposal result im
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
· .
b. Substantial incr~ in c~m~nd upan exist-
lng sources of energy, or require the
develop, merit, of_n~w ~ources..of energy?
16. Utilities. Will the propc~sal result in a need.
for new sTsterr~, or substantial alterations to
the following utilities~
Power or natural gas? ·
b. C. om~ication~ systems?
--
c. 'Water?
·
cl" Sewer or septic tcr~s?
._
e. Storm water drainage?
f, So.lid ~c~ste and disposal?
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in=
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health)?
b. Expo~re of people to potential health
hez~?
18. AeSthetics,. Will the Proposal re~lt in the
obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to
...... ~-':.'_-the public, or will the proposal result in the
creation of an aesthetically offensive site open
to public view?
· .
19. R~iam Will the proposal result in an
impact upon the quality or quantity of existing
recreatianal .opportunit les?
20. Cultura/ Resources.
ct. WIll the proposal result in the alteration
of ar the ~ian of a prehi=taric or
historic archaeological site?
Y~
Will the proposal reault in adverse physical
or aesthetic cffect~ to a prehia"toric or
histaric 'building; s~ruc~Jre, or object?
· ,
c. Do~ the pr~l hev~ the potential to
cau~ a pfr~ical ~ which would affect
tmique ethnic cultural values?
Will the'proposal 're~trict existing 'rellglau~
a~ ~cred u~ within the potential impact
m'ea?
21. Mmdutory Findings of Significance.
a. Doe~ tfle"pmjec? have the potential' to.'"
degrade the quality of the enviranment~ .
substantially reduce the habitat of a fi~h
or wildlife species, ca~r~ a fish or wild-.
life. populatian to-drop-below-~if su~-
raining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare o~
encka~emd plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periocLs
of California hi~tory or prehismry?
b. IDoes the project' have the potentlaj to
achieve short-term, to the disa~lvc~tage of
long-terms envirmmental goals? (A short.-..
term impact an the environment is one
which occurs in a relative, ly brief~ definitive
peri~ of time while long-term impacts
will endure well into the furore.)
·
c. Does the project have impacts which are"
individually limited, but cumulatively con-
sidera~le? (A project may impact on two
or more.separate re=rces where the impact
on each m~,aurce is relatively small~ but
where the effect of the total of those
impacts on the enviranment is significant.)
d. Does the project have envirmmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
III. Di~:u~ion of Environmental E~lu~tion
IV. Determination
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
Y¢~
· ,
!
On fl'~ b~i~ of thi~ i~. ,~1 ~,v~lu~'i~ ..
I find that the propc~ed project C0~LD ~T h~ a s~nific~t aff~t
~ the ~viro~t, ~ ~ ~GATIVE DEC~A~OH will be pr~ar~.
I fled t~t alt~gh t~ pr~ pmj~ c~ld ~ "a s~nific~t eff~t
~ t~ ~vir~nt, t~m will ~t bo a. signific~t eff~ in ~ c~
I !
because 'the mitigation me~ur~ cie~rbed on an attachc-d sheet have '
been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED..
l'flnd the propc~e~l p~ject MAY hcr~ a significant effect an the environ-
rr~nt, and on ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. __.
·
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EV'ALUAT~ON
CONDiTiONAL USE PEPJ~T 89-25 AND DESION REVIEW 88-66
PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUPPLEMENT - 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.
·
E~RTH - The proposed project site is free from any
top.graphical 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 applican.t 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
D~SCUSS~ON OF ENV~RONI,~NTAL EVALUaTiON
CONDiTiONAL USE PElleT 89-25 AND DES~ON REVIEW 88-66 (KUN~GAI)
Page 2
·
·
·
·
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: 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.
PL~/~T 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 ~ree 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 Me4sures/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 add new lighting into the area. The
proposed use would be operative during the day hours. Any
exterior lighting that would be provided would be minimal in
D~SCUSS~ON OF ENV~RONI,~I~ EVALUATION
CONDiTiONAL USE PERMIT 89-25 ~ DESIGN REVIEW 88-66
Page 3
·
·
10.
relation to surrounding Uses since the site would not be
utilized at night·
Sources: City of Tustin Community Development Department
Proposed Development Plans
Mitigation Measures/Monitorinq: 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 Code.
L~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 -Commercial as Primary Use- designation of the Specific
Plan.
Sources: City of Tustin Community Development Department
First Street Specific Plan
Mitigation Measures/Monitorinq: None Required.
NATURAL 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
Mitiqation Measures/Monitoring: None Required.
RISK OF UPSET - The proposed project would not result in~ any
significant risk of upset given the scaIe 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 ENVIRONI,[ENTi%L EVALUATION
CONDIT~ONII~ USE PElleT 89-25 ~D DESIGN REVIEW 88-66 (KUN~GAI)
Page 4
11.
12.
13.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: All construction shal'l
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 infill project and
would not result in any direct increase in population in that
no additional 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 commercial infill
project and would not Fesult 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.
TIt~NS~RT~TION ]~ND 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 resuIt 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 Development Department
D~SCUSSION OF ENVIRONI~NTi~ EV'ALU~TION
CONDITION~T.~ USE PER~IT 89-25 ~ DESIGN REVIE~ 88-66 (KUN~G~I)
Page 5
14.
15.
16.
17.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: The project has been
conditioned to widen the driveway from 27 feet to 32
feet, place a no parking zone along the entire project
frontage and post a "Right Turn Only" sign at the exit
of the site which would be subject to review in the
final working drawings and field inspections to ensure
compliance.
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 project would not required any new
utility service to the property.
Sources: City of Tustin Public Works Department
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: None Required.
HUMAN ~~ - 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 Required.
July 3, 1989
TRAFFIC & TR:tNSPORTATION ENGINEERIbtG
Mr, Henry Kumagai
19021 Canyon Road
Villa Park;'CA 92667
RECEIVED
SUBJECT: Tus~in Plaza Car Wash
,
JUN
·
COMM N~_~.~TY DEVELOPMENT
BY_
Dear Mr. Kumagai:
This' letter summarizes our review of traffic factors related to you6 '"
proposed. Tus:in Plaza Car Wash project in the City of Tustin. Ihe study
was based "upon inform'a-tioff~proVi~ea by you and your architect, disaussion
--
with City Staff, field studies by our s~aff and standard reference data.
pROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project consists of a car wash .with gasoline service A to:al of
__
:hree lanes are proposed through :he gas pump area. All Vehicular access
is planned :o be on First Street. The site is located on the southerly
side of Firs= Street, easterly of Prospect Avenue and adjacent to the
Post Office. In addition :o the gas and wasa lanes, seven off-street
parking spaces are proposed. ..
· ·
.EXISTING CIRCULATION CONDITIONS
First Street is an eas:-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't~e'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 opera=ion.
21,151 I<asr t~11;~1)1111111 .~,Vt'llUc · .q~mh.' I lll · ihlllt, rl~}ll. (':~lil,~{~l~:~ ,)"{;"il · 17'1 l).'.;71-'~}'";I
Prospect Avenue a north-south arterial w,~h 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.. Beview 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 (~evel of Service C) during the PM peak hour. These are
· , .
generally good traffic operational conditions.
TRIP GENERATION
Studies have been conducted 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 peaJ~_.hour.. ~nd.80 during the-PM peak hour.
..
It should be noted that these will not all be new trips. Some will be
persons that utilize First S:reet for purposes such as the Post Office,
shopping, eating or others and will also divert to the car wash. No
reduction has ....b..een. made fQr__thi.s,"passer by" phenomena.for these analyses..
..
which result's in a conservative or worst case analysi.s.
Table ].
ICU SUMMARY
First Street & Prospect Avenue
pERIOD_ Exi sting
AM Peak Hour 0.61/A
PM peak Hour .....
ICU/LOS(1)
Existing Plus Project
0.75/C
0.61/A
0.77/C
(1) ICU -- Intersection Capacity Utilization
LOS -- Level of Service -
Table 2
TRIP GENERATION
PERIOD
RAT__.~.E(1) TRIP ENDS
Daily
900 'm 900
AM Peak Hour
In
Out
PM Peak Hour
In
Out
18 ' - 2O
·
18 20
40 40
-40 40
(1) Trip Ends per Site
Source:
"San Diego Traffic Generators", San Diego Assoqiation of
Governments, July, 1988.
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 percent-, wil l 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 p6ak 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 reca.lculated With project trips ad~ed to existing.
These analyses are contained in Appendix B and summarized in Table 1. As
indicated in Table 1, the project wou-ld-'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 ou: 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 conUitions 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 resuit in a significant increase in this demand for
U-turns. - ................
SUMMARY
_ _
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 .trips evaluated.
ConSideration was also given to the si~e 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.
·
·
1. 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.
· .
,.
2. Current Post 0ffice traffic queues do not extend to the
project driveway location. ,
.- ,
3. 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.
4. With .the .project, there is no bh.ange 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.
While the 27 foot driveway width is adequate, a wider driveway
i s recommended.
6. No significant traffic operational problems are anticipated.
MITIGATION MEASURES
--
The following is recommended to reduce potential traffic operationa! and
safety problems.
The driveway shoula _~ 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--ii-nearly.a~ways 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 tol~al time required
to the time available. For example, if for north-south traffic the northbound
traffic is.-1,OOO-vehicles-peF--hour~he southbound ~'raff~ '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 Capacity Manual,. Special Report 87, Highway
Reasearch Board, 1965.
--
Level of Service is used to describe qu2lity 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 accommo-da~.e 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.
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 presumption 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
~VEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS
Level of Nominal Range
Service Of ICe
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 0.7! - 0.80
controlled by other traffic; between 11 and
30 percen: of the signal cycles have one or
more vehicles which wait through more than
one. signal cycle during peak traffic periods;
recommended 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 tr~f. fic-..periods; often used as
design s:andard' in urban areas.
'E Capacity; ~he maximum traffic volumes an in,er- 0.91.- 1.00
section can acco~m~odate; restricted speeds; 71 ...
to 100 percen: of the signal cycles have one
or more v~icl~ which wai: :hrough more :h~n ·
one. m. Signal cyc]~..du..~ing 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 ~o zero; traffic
volume will be less than the volu~ which
occurs at Level of Service E.
. .
m i , m mmm m
. ..
ICU (Intersection Capacity Utilization) at various Levels
of Service versus Level of Service £ for urban arterial
streets.
APPENDIX B
'INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION
_ ANALYSES
II
I I '~:
II
ii ·
Il
ii
ii
II
I$
ii · i *
· . ..~
11 ii
ii II
II ii
II
I---
~..i i. J II
I~J ~"'II
I--', $ I I
~ .J II
Ii
II
~ II
.
II
· '' i.z-~ .:] 11'
il
~ ~ II
II
I1
II
Ii
I1
Il II
Ii
Il II
0 II ~ il
II ( II
I1 ¢'.~ II
11 II
II II
II II
II
II I1
II II
ii Ii
II II
~ 11 ~ ii
ii II
ii 11
ii II
ii ii
II II
ii ii
ii
ii ii
i...J , ii..'~ i o
ii II
II ii
·ii II
ii ii
---- ii .... Ii
II ii
ii I1
Ii II
Ii ii
· II ~ II
II ii
II Ii
ii II
II I1
ii
11
II
11
II
II
...,~ I i
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
Ii
II
II
II
It
il
II
I1
II
II
II
II
Ii
Ii
Ii
II
Ii
I1
1.~t.J"J Il
¢.:) ii./ Ii
I~ ~J~ii
r"L.~ ii
· iJ ii
II
I--, t./'i Ii =
I,,i.I ..-I Il
Il
II
II
~'-- II ~ .-- ~.-_' _ I ~.I r~' ..d t-- t'~ ._j rt'
~ II
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1'9
21
:24
25
27
28
~ESOLUTION NO. 2659
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'OF TH~ 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 res~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
servic~ 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 called, 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
St~'eet Specific Plan and is only authorize~l subjecT, to
granting a conditional use permit which is a discretlon~ry
act i on.
The proposed use is' inconsistent wi.th the policies
objectives of the First Street Specific Plan in.that the
proposed project site woul.d not be developed with "primary"
retail uses nor provide an optimum pedestrian environ.men~
as encouraged by the First Street Specific Plan.
J.. The proposed use would further establi'~h and reinforce ti~e
existing automotive scale and character of First StreeC
which is discouraged by the First Street Specific Plan.
.4.
The proposed use would not .be the "bes~" use of the
property given the high development potential of the site
as indicated in the First Street Specific Plan and gi.ven
the high development potential of the site as indicated in
the First Street Specific Plan and given ~he .inability to
fulfi___l] _..the ..desired pedestrian scale and. retail uses
encouraged by the First Street Specific Plan.
Ee
A Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance wi th the
California Environmental Qual'ity Act.
ATTACHMENT A
1
2
3
4
5
6
....
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
17
19
22
~5
261/
27
28
Resolution t~o. 2659
August 28, 1989
page ~o
II.
The Plannlng Commission hereby denles Conditional Use Permit No.
89-25, a request to authorize establishment of a 5,000 square foot
full servlce carwash on the property located at 240 E. First Street.'
PASSED. AND ADOPTED'~-a regular, meetlng of the Tus'tln Planning Commission,
held on the ~ day of _ (.'J....u~_zV.,J....,~ .~ , 1989.
' / . .~ / /' /,.' /
Record1 ng 'Secreta y
~'~N~ E- PO I, tT']: 0 IJ S; .....
C h a_'i rman .....
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. r~.~-~ was duly passed and adopted at a ~lgular~'meeting
the~tin Planning.Commission, held on the ~~X-day of
ii
PENNI FOLEY
Recording Secretary
McCOLLOUG,-
&ASSOCIATE_,
ARCHITECTS.
17500 tied Hill Avenue/Suite 230
In4ne, CA, 92714 (714) 660-0264
FAX (714) 757-0472
September I, 1989'
RECEIVED
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, California 92680
Subject: Conditional Use Permit 89-25 and
Desi.cln 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._atio.n and in the traffic~ report.
·
We are prepared to present additional data to support our position on the circulation and
traffic issues, and w'e believe th~-Cbur~'~]'l wili '[~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 ~ate possible.
i
Thank you for ydur assistance in this matter~
. ,
· Very truly yours,'
Henry Kumagai
ATTACHMENT B
P12nni ng Commi s's i on Mi nu*~s
August 28, 1989
Page thirteen
.
Conditional Use Permit 89-25 and Design Review 88-6.6 (Kuma~ai)
APPLICANT/
OWNER:
LOCATION:
ZONING:
ENVIRONMENTAL
STATUS:
MR. 'HENRY KUMAG~--'
19021 CANYON DRIVE
VILLAiPARK, CA 92667
240 E. FIRST STREET
C-2 {CENTRAL COMMERCIAL)/FIRST STREET SPECIFIC 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 Planning Commission either: 1) Certify
the final. N~gative 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 P'ost Office had been approached regarding its
expansion plans; he noted that the Post Office may not be large enough to handle t'he
growth 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
proper, ties 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 Commiss.ion 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.
commi'~SioneF~.Kasparian asked ~at the poin'~ was of sending letters to resident
~ithi'n 300 fee(~ if'not to notify people of a pending project and the possible impact~
The City Attorney-replie~ that the factors that needed to be 'considered are those set
forth in the First Street Specific Plan.
Commissioner Kasparian felt that, as a Planning Commission looking at the total
picture, it was diffiEult to ignore 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
-Qffice was prohibited from building facilities elsewhere there may be a real
~robl em. '
ATTACHMENT C
Plannin9 Commission Minu*os
August 28, 1989
Page fourteen
The Director noted that it was important to recognize the'need· 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, compatqi~le-uses'-a-s required by the "Fi'rst Street Specific.
Plan.
Commissioner Shaheen asked how many cars they anticipated washing each day. Based
upon th"e'staff, repoFt.,, 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 indi.c, ated .that based .upon
facilities of this' nature and size, it coul~ be anticiPated to have 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 trips than a service station
woul 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 facil-i~y,-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 attempt by the applicant to gain
access to the rear of the property.
Staff referred the question to the applicant.
·
· .
Commissioner Kasparian asked what the Inter~ection Capacity Ut~'iization {ICU) figures
would 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 would increase 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).
Commissioner Shaheen asked what the traffic count was on First Street at that point.
The Director replied that it was in Appendix 8 of the report and was broken out by
movement.
The public hearing was opened at 9'05 p.m.
--- ·
Planning COmmission Minutes
August 28, 1989
Page fifteen
Dennis McCullou~h, project architect noted that they are fully aware of the
'Commis'$i'on's concerns towards auto us'e 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
th.ey 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 out'standing piece of architecture.
Commissioner Kasparian asked if there would be a maximum of seven (7) employees, and
asked fO'~' a clarification of their positions; and how many cars could be in the car
wash at any one time. -
'. McCullou~)h replied that the Car wash was fully automated", the gas pumps were
s~lf-service, there would be two (2) attend~nt~' 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 th,ere would be two {2) cars in the'facility at one time
Commissioner Kasparian asked how two cars at one time could equal 900 cars per day-
'and if it would b~ o~en seven (7) days per week. '
Mr. Kumacjai_~ the owner~ stated that there could be four (4) cars in at one time, bUt
it is not arge enough to clean 900 cars per day; he felt that 9'00 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. seven (7) days per week '
Commissioner Le Jeune stated that he was concerned with the number of ~people on
site. He felt that based upon comparison with other car. wash facilities, it was not
unusual to hav6'ten or' twelve people working at one time.
Commissioner Kasparian asked if a gas station and car wash' would be subject to dif-
~6rent saf6ty regulations than a gas station only- and does self-serve pose any
problems. '
The Director replied that they would still have to comply with all regional' require-
ments of AQMD, vacuum" recovery ,--fi re ..... department and water control, and sanitation
district for discharge of industrial waste; and that self-service would not matter
ay still .have to comply with the requirements. '
C..lOmmissioner Kasplarian asked if the number of parking spaces for seven (7) employees
was addressed; and suppose the applicant actually has ten employees.
.
Planning Commission Min~,
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 Kasp. arian asked if the applicant would be able to compiy with conditions
limiting the nlum~"er of employees on the site at any one time based upon the number of
parking spaces available.'
M_r. Kumagai replied that they could rent parking s~ces in the adjacent parking lot,
if neede'a. 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 presenl~ configuration and that any additional employees would be contingent
on the applicant securing additional parking spaces.
The Director-noted that she would c~eat_e language for this issue, as moved.
Commissioner Kasparian asked if the applicant was leasing or buying the property.. '
Mr.i, Kuma~)a.i replied that he had purchased t~ie l'and about one and one-half years ago.
Pete Dwindler, construction consultant, commented that the goal was to meet, as
Closel~ 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. ~ ·
Commissioner S'haheen noted that the architectural design was beautiful and would be
appropriate 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 work in that location. "
ommissioner Le Jeune noted that discretionary items were the most difficult for the
Commission to decide upon. However, they have to mak'e the determinations based upon
the First. St. reet Spe:.ific..Plan g~als..~.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 p.roper use of that lot.
Commissioner Kasparian concurred.
: Planning Comission MinUtes
August 28, 1989
Page seventeen
Commissioner Pontious commented that it was a difficult decision, that she was
'imp~'essed with tl~e 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.de!.!.nes, ....
Commissioner Le Jeune moved Kasparian seconded to deny Conditional Use Permit 89-25
6'y' the adoption of R~soluti~n No. 2659. Motion carried 4-0.
· ,
INER:
L ~TION:
Z, ING:
R UEST:
ion o
oluti
wn on site p
S(~ff repliel 'hat' as
a~ement, but
wo09 d function a
that would remain
· .
DAVID ME', LI C~,
230.10 LAKI · ORI VE I TE E
GUNA HILLS 92653
MR MELVI iLILLI
8. SCHMEL
RST STREET
TIN,
KE TH H. T, ET. AL
440 FIRST EET
TUSTI :A 9268
C/O MR GR~ .... )OD
30 AND 6 T FI STREE'~
PUD ( RAL C IAL-PLA~
~FIC PL~
UNIT DEVEL ENT)/F TREET
.A NEG IE DECLAI ION HAS B
ANCE WI' E CALI NIA ENVIR(
) A RE ST TO ~ND THE F
DES I GNA ON
FROM " AS PR RY USE" TO
2) REQUEST DEVEI BONUSE.~
S IFIC PLA
3) DES REVIEW R A
·
PREPARi )R THIS PROj IN CONFOR
NTAL QUAI ACT.
F STREET 'ECIFIC PLAN ,ND USE
PROPERTY iCATED Al 40 'W. FIRS T
Y USE"
HE FIRST STRUT
SQUARE 'F RETAIL LOCATED
ti It is.rec, tha '.he P1 ing Commissi Recon~end certifi-
Negative larati for project to City Council by
of Reso on No. 266~ commend ~prova f Zone Chang~ )-02 to the City
adoptio, f Resoluti . 2667; App~ Development uses pursuant
rst St'r~et ~ecific P1 )d appro Desic ew 89-52 ~ tion of
. 2668, a.~ tted or ised. ' ~ ,
ation Daniel Fox, sociate Pla
oner Sh( asked i here was a
barrier bI the two
ciprocal reeme) with 7-11; and if
ildings; )d asked about the barrier
:ondition o roval, thl would need to be a reciprocal
prese~ there is o~ a tentative agreement with 7-11; the site
e site that th~ .~ was no barrier only the large Jacaranda
the prc rty, ' .