Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC RES 89-13910 111 12 1 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 20 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 89-139 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL TUSTIN, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE AUTHORIZING ESTABLISHMENT OF A FULL LOCATED AT 240 E. FIRST STREET. OF THE CITY OF PERMIT 89-25 SERV ICE CARWASH The City Council of the City of Tustln does hereby resolve as Ie The City Council finds and determines as follows: fol 1 ows: Ae 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. Be 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 Kumagai. D~ That a public hearlng to constder the appeal of application was duly called, noticed, and held on September 1989 and continued to October 16, 1989. said 18, E i 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: · The use applied for is a conditionally permitted use within the "Commercial as Primary Use" designation of the First Street Specific Plan. e 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. ® The auto oriented aspects of screened from view due to screen wall. the use would be predoml,;~.tely site design and the perimeter Fe A Negative Declaration has been prepared California Environmental Quality Act. In accordance wi th the 4 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 (.; 17 18 10 20 21 22 24 2,5 2(; 27 28 Resolution No. 89-139 pa ge two II. The Ctty Council hereby approves Condltlonal Use Permtt No. 89-25 to au'thorlZe establishment of a 5,000 square foot full servlce carwash subject to the following conditions contained tn Exhtbtt A attached hereto and Incorporated herein by reference. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular ~eettng of the Tusttn City Counc11, the 16th day of Octobee , 1989. held on Clty Cle~ Mayor RESOLUTZON NO. 89-139 EXH]BZT A CONDZTZONS OF APPROVAL FOR CONDZTZONAL USE PERMIT 89-25/DESIGN REVIEW 88-66 GENERAL 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 Community Development Department in accordance with this exhibit. (z) 1.2 Unless otherwise specified, all conditions contained .in this exhibit shall be complied wi th 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 SUBH ITTAL 2.1 At building plan check, three sets of construction level plans shall be submitted as follows. (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 Health 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 -.: (1) STANDARD CONDITION (5) (2) ENVI~NHENTAL MITIGATION (6) (3) UNIFOI~I BUILDING CODE/S (7) (4) DESIGN REVIEW (8) *** EXCEPTION SPECIFIC PLAN RESPONSIBLE AGENCY REQUIREHENT LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES PC/CC/ POLICY Resolution 89-139 Exhibit A October 16, 1989 Page two NOISE (11) 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. PARK I NG / C I RCU LAT I ON ' (1) 4.1 (4) All vehicles that are not in the process of being washed shall be parked within a designated parking space. (1) 4.2 (4) All vehicles once dryed and finished with the wash process must exit the site or be parked in a designated parking space. (1) 4.3 (4) 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 designated parking spaces. permitted on the site or in (1) 4.5 No car wash detailing activities shall (4) parking spaces. be conducted within designated *** 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) (6) 5.1 A waste water system shall be provided to reduce chemicals, grit, sludge draining into the public sewers from the wash tunnel drainage. and (2) (6) 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) (6) 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 ispecified detailing areas are identified on the plans. Any proposal for detailing would require Planning Commission review and amendment to the subject use permit and des*ign review. Resolution No.' 89-139 Exh~b~ t ^ October 16, 1989 Page three LANDSCAPING, GROUNDS AND HARDSCAPE (1) 7.1 Submit at plan check, complete detailed landscaping and irrigation plans for' allI 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 landscaping and irrigation materials and replacement of existing 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 and the front 60 feet of the west property line, consistent wi th the rear elevatlon. the east property line proportionally spaced 7.3 Earth mounding along the First Street frontage as attention to the entrys of the project shall be decorative paving, variety of color in landscaping). well as special addressed (i.e. 7.4 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 8.1 The overall building height shall be reduced feet. to not exceed a height of 18 (]) (4) The mechanical equipment well shall be designed so that all equipment is located a minimum of 6" below the top of parapet. mechanical (2) 0.3 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 Exhlb~ t A Octobe~ 16, 1989 Page fou~ (2) 8.5 No on-street parktng shall be permitted adjacent The' curbs along the entire street frontage shall posted "no parking" per Clty standards. to the subject stte. be painted red and FEES (6) (1) 9.1 Prior to the Issuance of any bulldlng permlts, payment shall be made of all requtred fees Including' Al Be Ce F® Major thoroughfare and bridge fees to Tustln Public Works Department. Orange County Sanitation District No. 7 fees to the Sanitation District. East Orange County Water District Fees to the Water District. New development fees to the Community Development Department. All applicable plan check and building permit fees to the Community Development Department. School Facilities Fees to the Tustin Unified School District. 1 _ NKCQLLDUCH & ASSSOC RTES AjRoin s �•WO aw�ww:.ri.w !q ww C��:-�• ••�:�r�a1M spa • « •a•ar•S lRDIKf w S d 0 Y D l�OMlltfia? 1 etnsM•! �V 115 �+ GOrC• e«c. ' lR6tT "fLt 5 rm a PEWS" b. Gb-1�9 yew SRstf we. II� II ��I I Q a oraz . .Y. _ . .wan•-..Yw...r..... .wIle ' . • - I•-•• �Y+wa1MrM�r.w+M�wr•... t Ma-rV.N•naw�v �.+r .•rte r.w. w N�www...... r1.Ir�wwl,w-rr,_rr� _Iw.rl.www. �•'•� L•wA I► wa.•�. •A.w ti•rr. w•w• ..wn1./.ww �� Ww1•w1•w.•►�aMNY � v • - a'��.r �� • ' — .� _ -•MaMM w•••_+wrw/r .•w1�Y.�•iY .r•�..�IU •. �\�.�tirVi+~wA ��� � � _w1-, �Vi='��""�� , ��- ot L i— OAF - dp •- , ..y .1..........1. __..,.. _ . —_ I w .wwnr•w _.www � w••r..a•w.r Lr+v • .._.-.� • _ t. O%P _. • =...� }.Ic y.AL -AL004 WIN," Mai _ f r II� II ��I I Q a September 29, 1989 Associates , · , ,= ,it , TRAFFI(' & TRANSPOI~:'rATION 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. Estimates 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 E1Camino Real, during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. These volumes would not be expected to create significant impacts. A ITA CHMENT I -2- 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 PROSPECT AVE. ArA CvrV A r BEET PROJECT ONLY VOLUMES WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES TO: WILLI~I~I A. 'HUSTON, CITY MANAGER ROM: SUBJECT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT APPEAL OF PLANNING COI4NISSION ACTION, CONDITIONAL USE PEI~IIT 89-25 AHD DESIGN REVIEW 88-66 ' RECOI~ENDATION It is recommended that the C'tty Council uphold the Planning Commission action to deify'" 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 be 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 i 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 ~edevelopment 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 thls ltem was considered as a publtc 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 7TA CHMENT II P1 ann1 ng Comml ss i on Report Destgn Revlew 88-66 September ~8, 1989 Page t~o '" 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 First Street.' Building improvement would include an enclosed Carwash tunnel and applicable ca'wash 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 concerned that there may not be a great deal of room for vehicle' stacking as cars exlt the wash tunnel... '- .. Zonlng...R~equ!rements - The project complies with all development standards for ~he' First Street 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,esed building is setback 60 feet from First Street with a 10 foot front yard setback from the proposed screen wall to be constructed feet from the wi th a 45 foot and 18 feet, conditions of project to a applicant has not appliedl for a.l-V, atiance from this standard, parallel with First Street. The building would be situated 5 easterly property line and 5'-10" from th'e westerly property line rear yard setback. While the maximum building height is 1 story project plans propose a height of 1 story and 20 feet. An~,. approval would require the reduction in building height for the maximum of 18 feet consistent with the Specific Plan since :.. The First Street Specific Plan does not specify any parking requirements for a carwash. Provisions .lOf 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 adequ.ate fOrm. fUll service lcal~washesI, The majority of the vehicles ~re' 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 .- Planning Commission Report Des1 gn Rev1 ew 88-66 Septembe~ Z8, ~989 Page ~h~ee Circulation and' Access -Carwashes typically generate a high rate of traffic in ~es~e~t-t°'- the-SqUare'footage and could generate approximately 50~ more vehicle trips pe.r 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 wi th 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 renmin 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. o As ihdicated above, access to the project would be provided by a 27 foo~ 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"th'e proposed access driveway be increased from 27 feet to 30 feet to facilitate more efficient ingress and egress from the sl re' s one drl veway. · Architecture - The applicant arChitectural aspects of the architecture with smooth stucco has done a commendable job in designing the project. The project proposes a mission style 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 also be covered with a trellis. The proposed materials include the use of a 3 color clay "S" roof tile (tan, orange, brown) brown ~~idod 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 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 Revlew 88-66 September 18, 1989 Page four · , Landscap~ing_and__Ha~rd_s_cape - A conceptual landscaping plan has been included on the Site ~lan. However, specific planting n~terials, quantities, and sizes have not been identified. ~The conceptual plan identifies a large accent canopy type tree located in each corner Olf the property. Canopy type trees are also provided along the south side of the llproperty, 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 providqq. 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 need. to. be m ~ 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. objectives of carwash use' Approl~_rta_teness of Use -Over the past few--years, staff, the Planning Commission, and ~he~City~ coun6i~l--haV6 expressed continued.-concern over 'the e'xtlstlng 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 the Specific Plan as it relates to the subject site and the proposed A~ To promw)te develop,w)nt that is the first priority (primry use) that satisfies the required develop,ent 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" andl. 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 amoun't 'of auto oriented trips. Thlelproposed 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 .... P~ anntng Comml sslon Report Design Revlew 88-66 September [8, 1989 Page ftve B~ C~ D~ E · Encourage ne~ development whtch ls appropriate and feasible and whtch can be effectively Integrated and located to contribute most to the overall Improvement to the area. The subject site Js Identified In the SpecJfJc' Plan as a site that ~ould be subject to ne~ development. ^ carwash use may not'be the most appropriate use In thts locatlon gtven the hlgh potential tn the vtclnlty of the stte for consolidated development and the multitude of other fetal1 commercial uses that cou. ld be permitted on the slte. In 11ght 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 Speclflc Plan ts to achieve an overall posttlve Identity for the Speclflc Plan area. Whlle there ts concern over the auto oriented character on Flrst .Street and the proposed carwash ~ould remove any potential for retatl development In the Immediate vicinity. The architectural destgn of the bulldlngs could mtttgate aesthetic concerns (although the large tssue Is land use). , To create a 'pedestrian friendly' environment ~lth the use of pedestrian arcades, plazas, *and store fronts al.on§ Ftrst Street frontage. The applicant has provided street furniture and landscaping along Flr~' Street In efforts to provtde a pedestrian element to the project. A 6 foot hlgh screen wall is proposed around the perimeter of the stte and along First Street In order tb provtde screening of the auto drying area from Flrst Street and soften the appearance of the auto orlented use. lu~rove access. type of circulation between properties as encouraged by Plan. Customers of the carwash must exit the site onto to access adjacent properties and the alley to the extstlng parklng area and access from the Post Offlce Prospect Avenue ~ould remaln as extstJng .-as this area affected by.. th.e pro je.c~.. ........ m m m ' $1te circulation between properties and ,aximlze pedestrian The proposed project does not make any provisions for any the Speciflc Ftrst Street south. The and alley to woul.d not be Promote the best use of property which balances maximum development with compatible 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 ,,, P~annlng Commission Report Des1 gn .RevJ ew 88-66 September 18, 1989 Page sJ x ~la__n~ng Cg_mm~ss~on_ Act_Ion - On August ;?8, [989, the Planning Commission reviewed thts 1tern and adopted Resolution No. 2659 to deny Conditional Use Permtt 89-25/Design Revlew 88-66.: A copy of the minutes from that meetlng are Included tn Attachment C. The Plannl'.ng' Commission, In making their decision, Identified Inconsistencies wtth the goals '.and objectives of the First Street Speclflc Plan:"'and Incompatibility wt~h adjacent, uses as noted above as the prlmary reasons for the actlon of denlal. The Commission also noted concern that the 11rotted ,slte size furthe~ compounds the concern related to circulation and compatfbtltty with adjacent uses. .i · CONCLUSZON i 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 pedestri'an environment and there are concerns about the compatibility with other uses in the vicinity and any further proliferation of auto'related uses.' I'n'light'of the inconsistencies with the First Street Specific Plan and concerns expressed by the Plannl'ng 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 Ch~i S tin-e '~.-S~ ngl ~~- Di rector o Commun evelopment -Community Development Depart'ment . . . N EG DEC LA..R.A,.,T,I,ON · o, .,u,s,.i, ............ 300 CENTENNIAL WAY, TUSTIN, CA.'92680 . , i i i i . i i i ii i ill i ~: , iii ~ ... ..,., .. . ~ .,,.. i ~. l --ProJect Title:' 'cu? "89-25/ I)~ 88-~6 (KU~CAZ) File No. " ' , Project Location' 240 R. FIRST STR~F.T · · Project Description' A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO AUTHORIZE ESTABLISHMENT OF A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT FULL. SERVICE CARWASH AND RELATED DES Pro~ect Proponent: HENRY KUMAGAI Contact Person: DANIEL FOX Telephone' 544-8890 Ext. 254 .... ' 111 t - i ~ll I , _ -- -- · I II _ Il - - I Il . t II I II II · IGN' · The Community Development Department has conducted an initial study for the ,.- above project in accordance wtth the Ctty of Tustin's procedures regarding Implementation of the C&ltfornta Envtr'onmental Quality Act, and on the basis of .... that study hereby'" fin'd: ............. · 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 occor. Said revi$'ions-'are a~ta'ched to"and hereby rode a part of this Negative Declaration. · Therefore, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not required. i i i i . . . . ........... _ ii mmm m I il i i m / i .... The initial study which provides the basis for this determination is on file at the Community Development Department, City of Tusl;.in. The public is invited to conment 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 revi'ew by the Community Development Director, this review period may be extended if deemed necessary. REVIEW PERIOD ENDS 4'30 p.m. on AUGUST 28. !.9,89 ,,. ii i im ' ' '' ' ......... ~ .......... iim _ iii ij mii i J m m t _IL m_ . DATED: AUGU..S~. 21, 1989 · - co~muni'6Y ~ D'eV~-loPm~nt' Oi'~'ec'tor " .j ..... CITY OF TUSTIN ....... Conu~unity Development Department EliVIRO~MENTAL I~'ITIAL STUDY FORM L_ ' I ....... -- .. . 2. Address and Phone Nurnbe~ of Proponent _ ' _ Imm ,! ! ! II I I I m J ._ Iqe,'~l_ c.z.xd.~_,-,d.. ~ ....................... _~. .. u, ~ ~ ?z~.~..K .,. c~. '.q.~oo~ ....................... ...... - _ ,mm, m m mm )_~ 5. ~~ of pr~~l, if a~li~le C~F ~- ~m~ / 0 ~ ~ ~ ' O~ _ _ mm II. Envirenn~ntal Impac~ (Explancrtions of all '~/es" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) , · .o I. Ecrffu Will th~ proposal result im a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Di~rt4~tiom, displocement~, cornpcx:tion or oven:overing of lhe ~oil? c. Chcr~e in topography or ground surface relief features? .......... .o. d. The ~sftuction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of ;SOilS,I either on or'-b'ff the site? f; ..Change. s i.n. depos!tion or erosLon 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? · 1 ii __ ' . m ' ii j _ ! J_IL g.Exposure of people or property to geolo- gic haze~ such as earthcluakes~ lends licles, .. mudslldes~ ground feilure~ or similer hazards? 2. Air. Will the proposal result im a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration. of ambient air quality? b. The c;reation of objectionable odors? ,.. c. Alteration of air movement~ moisture~ or temperature~ or any change in climate~ either locally or regionally? · , 3. Wm~. Will tl~ propo~l result im a. C~nges' in 'currents, or the course of rection of water movements~ in ~ither marine or freah waters? b. Chmges in absorption rates~ drainage pat- terns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? · · c. Alte~at'ic~ to the course or fl~w of flood waters~. .... -. ........... ,. d. Change in the amount of surface watcr in. any water body? e. Discharge into 's-~ac~""wate~s-~ or in any alteration of surface water quality~ in- cluding but not limited to tempera~re, .... dissolyed., 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 with- drawals, or through interc~-ption of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? .h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water .supplies? i. Exposum of people or property to water re- lated ho~ds ~uch ~s floodir~j ~ tidal w~ve~? oo Plant Lifa. Will tha proposal r~sult in: · a. Change ;In the diversity of specle~, or ~~~ of'~ ~~im of pl~ts (i~l~i~ ff~s, ~bs, gm--, crops, ~ aq~tic plmts)? b' 'R~~tim of t~ nu~e~ of my un~, rare or e~~er~ sp~i~ of plants? c.. Introductim of new species of plants'into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Recluc'tion in acr'ec~e of any agricultural' crop? · . · Animal Life. Will the proposal, result im Change in the diversity of ~peciea, or numbers' of any ~pecies of animals' (birds,' land animei~ including reptiles, fish and shellfLsh~ benthic orcjani~ c~ insect=)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, mr= or endangered =pecie~'of animals? .~_ c. Introdt~'tic~ of new specie=s of a~irnals into a~ area, or result in a barrier to the migratic~ or movement of cs~imals? · cl. Deterioration to existing fL~ or wildlife habitat? ' .. Noise. Will the proposal result in= " a. Increases in existing noise levels? b, Expo.sure of people to severe noise levels? 7, Light and Clare, Will the propo.~l produce .. · new light or glare.? 8. Land Use.. Will the proposal result in a sub- stantial alteration of the prer~..:t or planned land-use of an area? ' ~. . ~al Re~x~rce~ Will the proposal result in= a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? ' 0 o 10. b, Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable r~ml'[reGourc~ ......... .... . . A rlsk of ~n explos~ or 'the release of hazardo~ su~t~ (Including, but not 'limited .~o,. oil, pestk:ides, ~icals or rocli~la~) in the e~t of an ~i~t ~ ~ ~ltl~? P~~le int~~~ wi~ ~ ~~ r~ pl~ ~ ~ ~~ ~i~ · pl~? ". II, Pol~latlon. Will the propoaal alt.er, the location, ... dhtribution', density, or growth rate of the humm populatien of an area? 12. Ho~ing. 'WIll the propoaal affect existing hous- ing~ or create a demand for additional housing? ... 13. Trcm~mrtatla~/Ci~latlon. WIll the propoaal result im a. Generation of ~ubstantlal additional vehi~ular.'movement? .- · o b. Effects on existing parking facilitie~,..or demand for new parking? c. Substantial impact upon existing tra~por- tation ~ystern~? .......... d. Alterations to pr~ent patterns of circula- tion or movement of people and/or gooch? · Alteratior~ to waterborne, rail or air traffic? .... . f. Increase in traffic haza....rds to.motor vehic'l~"bicyclists or pedestrians? o 14. Public Service~ Will the propo~l have an effect upon, or' result in a need for new or alter.ed governmental services in any of the following areas= a. Fire protection? ,. .. b. Police protection? c. · Schools? i i i ~ i i i i iii 15. · · · d. Pcrks or other recreational facilities? · e. Maintenance'~f public facilities, including ... 'roads? Other govemm .ental ~ervice~? · F.h~~: Wi II th~ propo~l result im a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? ___ ~ . ... b. Substantial increase in demand upon exist- lng sources of energy~ or require the .cl~elop. ment. of_trow ~aurcm..of energy? Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need. for new systerr~ or substantial alterations to the following utilitie~ . , · Power or natural gas? · b. Com~ications systems? · c. 'Water? cL' Sewer'or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. So. lid waste and d ispoaal? · 17. Hu~ }~lth, Will th~ propo~l mault im ii i ii i iii · a. Creation of c~y health hazc~d or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? , '1'8. Aesth~Ics,' Will the Proposal m~lt in the · obstruction of c~y 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? · oo 0 o 0 o . . · , I~. Recreatian. Will the proposal result in an irnpc=t upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational .opportunit les? 20. CulturaJ Re~urce~ Will the proposal result in the alteration of ar the cle~ruction of a prehistoric or historic ~logical site? b. Will the praposal reault in adver~ physical or aeathetlc effecls to a prehistoric or hi~oric 'building, structure, or object? c, Does the pe~l ~ the potential to ~ .~ll ~'~~l'r~i~ ~i~l~'r~ll~I~' Y~ 21. Mm~latory Findings of Significance.. a, Does ~e"pmject have the potential. to, degrade the quality of the envirenment~ , · substantially reduce the habitat of a or wildlife species, cause a fish or wild-. life..populcrtion to-drop .... below., self sus- taining levels~ threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community~ reduce the nurr~er c~ restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important exarnple~ of the major periods of California hLstory or prehistmT? b, Does the project' have the pot..entlal to achieve short-term, to the dl~advantocje of lara3-term~ environmental goals? .(A short.-... term impc~t an the environment is one which 'occurs in a relativqly brief~ definitive period of time while Iong-te~ impocts will endure well into the future,) . , 0 c. Does the project have imp~ts which are" individUally limited, but cumulatively con- siderable? (A project may irrp~t on two 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 environment is significant.) Does the project have environmental effects .... which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings~ either direct ly or indirect Iy? .... III. Discussicx~ of Environmental Evaluation ..... ............. IV. Det~i~i~ (To be completed by the Lead .Agency) On the basis of thi~ initial av(~lucrtlon~ .... · I. find fl'~t .tl'~ ~ro~o~l pm|~-'~ ~OOL. D.I~T h~ a s~nificmt .~ff~t ~ t~ ~nvir~nt, t~m will ~t b~ a. slgnific~t ~ff~t In ~ c~ ~~~'t~ mit~atl~ m~~ ~~rib~ ~ m att~h~ ~eet h~e ~ od.d to th~ pmj~t. A NEGATIVE DEC~ATION WILL BE , ....... ,~... ~ ......... I'fl~ t~. p~'~~ P~i~' MAY h~ a si~lflcmt eff~ ~ t~' ~vir~ ~t~ ~ m ~VI~ONM~IA~ IMPACT ~~0~1 is r~uircd~ Date --I DISCUSS'tON OF ENVTRONI~NTAL EVALUATTON COND'rTTONAL USE PElleT 89-25 ~ DES'rGN REV'rEw 88-66 (KUMA(3AT) PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUPPLEMENT - The proposed project is a request. for a Conditional lJse Permit to authorize establislment of a full service carwash within the ,,Commercial as Primary Use" designation of the First Street Specifio 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 ~gency. 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. 1. E~TH - 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. ~11 work would be done in conformance with the Uniform Building Code as required by the the Building Official. 2. ~IR - The proposed project would not result in any ~egraclation to the existing air q~ality. Sources: ~QMD standards for preparing EIR documents Mitiqation Measures/Monitoring: None Required. 3. 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 D1'SCUSSTON OF ENVTRONNENT~ff., EVALUATION COND'rTTON~L USE PERHTT 89-25 ~ DESIGN REVTEW 88-66 (KuN~GAT) · Page 2 Mitiqation 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. 4. 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 requirement's of the First Street Specific Plan. Sources: Field Observations Proposed Landscaping Plans Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: None Required. 5. ANIMAL 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. 6. 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 Mitiqation 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. 7. LIGHT AND 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'r'ON OF ENV'rRONKENT~LL EV'ALUATT-ON COND'rT'rON'AL USE PEI~IT 89-25 ~LND DESTGN REVIEW 88-6;6 (KUN~G2~'I') Page 3 relation to surrounding uses since the site would not be utilized at night. Sources: City of Tustin Community Development Department Proposed Development Plans Mi. tigation Measures/Monitoring: All exterior lighting shall be arranged so not to direct light or glare onto adjacent properties. ~11 lighting shall be developed in accordance with the City,s Security Code. 8. L~ND USE - The proposed project is located within the ~Commercial as Primary Use~ designation of the First Street Specific Plan. ~ 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 Mitigat.ion Measures/Monitoring: None Required. 9. 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 Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: None Required. 10. RISK OF UPSET - The proposed project would not result in any significant risk of upset given the scale and nature of the proposed use. ~ carwash typically does not represent a significant potential of risk of upset. Sources: Orange County Fire Department City of Tustin Community Development Department DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENT~qL ~UATION CONDITIOI~qL USE PERMIT 89-25 ~ DESIGN REVIEW 88-66 (KUMAGAI) Page 4 Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: All construction shall be in accordance with applicable Building and Fire Codes which would be inspected by the the Conununit¥ Development Department and Fire Department during construction and prior to project final. 11. POPULATION - The proposed project is an infi11 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. 12. HOUSING - The proposed project is a commercial infill 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. 13. TRANS.PORT~TION ~ 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 Impac~ 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 & ~ssociates, Traffic Impact Study City of Tustin Public Works Department City of Tustin Community Development Department DISCUSSION OF ENV~rRONI~NTAL EV'ALUATTON COND'rTTO~ USE PERMIT 89-25 ~T]:) DEST(~N REVIEW 88-6;6 Page 5 Mitigation Measures/Monitorin_~: 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. 14. P.UB..LIC SERVICES- ~11 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 Meas.ures/.Monitoring: None Required. 15. E.NER~Y - 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 Mitigati. on Measures/Monitoring: None Required. 16. ..UTILIT!.,E.S- 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 Miti_~ation Measures/Mo,.nitoring: None Required. 17. ~ HE,.]~L.TH- 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 Mitiqation Measures/Monitoring: None Required. Veston )ringle _A ssociates ^._ . ............. . ........ · ................. · ' 'rRAI:'FIC 8: 'rR:~NSPOIT'rATIO~ ENGINEERING .. July 3, 1989 Mr. Henry Kumagai 19021 Canyon Road Villa Park~'CA '92667 · SUBJECT' Tustin Plaza Car Wash RECEIVED JUH 17 Dear Mr. Kumagai: This' letter summarizes our review of traffic factors related to your: o proposed'Tustin Plaza Car 'Wash project in the City of Tustin. The study was based .... upon inform'a'tioii'" prov'i'iled by you and your architect, discussion with City Staff, field studies by our staff and standard reference data. PROJECT DESCRIPTION _ imm _ L · _,, The project.consists of a car wash .with gasoline service., A total o.f .. three 'lane~ 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 Fi rs[ Street, easterly of Prospect Avenue and adjacen~ to the Post Office. In additlon to the g~s and wash lanes, seven off-street parking spaces are proposed. ... · . EXISTING CIRCULATION CONDITIONS - - -- _ :-_-- - - .,1_ ,,, u First Street is an east-west arterial wi th two lanes of traffic in each" direction and median ch4nnellzation. There is a raised median adjacent to the 'site with left turns but .no U-turns pe.m. ittad., at the'.Post Office driveway to the east. To tl~e west of the site, t~e intersection of First Street and Prospect Avenue is signalized with a two phase operation. Prospect Avenue is a north-sou~h arterial with direction plus left channelization. To the south of street narrows to provide one lane in each direction. two lanes in each First Street, the 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 purposes, At time. s,. yehicles were stopped First Street for Post Office in front of the project si 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 analyses are summarized existing volumes and ICU analyses. The ICU ... 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 {~evel of Service t2) during the PM peak hour. These are generally good traffic operational conditions, TR I P GENERAT I ON ~ ....... , ......... J__ ,~,~ Studies have been cbnducted determine trip generation this body of information, t project were obtained and are 1 2, the project is estimated occurring during.., the.. AM peaJc..ho ., by characteristics of various land uses. rip generation rates applicable t°. isted in Table 2. As indicated in government agencies and con~'ultant~s to From this Table to generate 900 daily trip ends wi th 40 ur.. ~ndl. 80 durin§ theI PM peakI hour. It should be noted that these will not all be new trips, Some will be persons shopping, that utilize First Street for purposes such as the Post Office, eating or others and will also divert to the car wash. No reduction has ....b. een..made for_.thi.s "passer by" phenom.ena.fo.r.these analyses... o. which resultS"in a conservative or worst case analysi.s. PERIOD .) Table 1, ICU SUMMARY First Street & Prospect Avenue AM Peak Hour PM peak Hour 0.61/A ... 0.61./A 0.75/C . ' 0.77/C -3- ., (1) . ICU = Intersection Capacity UtiliZation LOS = Level of Service T~ble 2 TRIP GENERATION ..i PERIOD TRIP ENDS Daily AM Peak Hour In Out 900 18 18 900 2O 2O PM Peak Hour In Oul; 4O 4O 4O (1) Trip Ends per Site Source: "San Diego Traffic Generat°rs'', Governments, July, 1988. San Diego Asso,ciation of TRIP ASS IGNMENT 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 Fi'rst Street/Prospect Avenue l. 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-l, will make U-t-urns 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, -5- ANALYSIS The AM and PM peak hour ICU analyses at the First Street/Prospect Avenue intersection were reca.lculated with project trips ad;led 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. ... lhe drive~ay §eometr~c~ ~ere al~o re¥~e~ed to determine their adequacy to accommodate traffic flow in and out of the site. , that the proposed 27 foot wide driveway could traffic. In order to provide improved operations, a 30 foot driveway width be provided. .. This review indicated · , accommodate two-way it is recommended that Based upon observations of existing conditions at the Post Of.f, ice, it is · no~: an t: i c i pa ted 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 wi th raised medians. The projected trip genera ti on from the project is not anticipated to resu'it in a significant increase in this demand for U-turns. SUMMARY · , , This s~udy has reviewed ~raffic factors rela~ed ~o ~he Proposed Tus~in Pl~z~ C~r Wash. Existing ~r~ffic conditions were quantified ~o provide bssis for :he s:udy. Es~ims~es were made of ~rips ~o be generated and the ability of the street s~.stem...t_o acconunodate these .tr. ips evaluated. · .. Consideration was also given to the si~:e access and traffic operat;ions 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 0ffice traffic project driveway location. .. queues do not extend to the 3~ The project would generate an estimated 900 daily trip 'ends with 40 occurring during the AM peak hour and 80 during l~he PM peak hour. e 5~ With the project, there is no thange Street and Prospect Avenue during the AM PM ICU increases from 0.75 to 0.77 Service C. in ICU values at First peak hour while the remaining at Level of While .the 27 foot driveway width is adequate, a wi'der driveway i s reco~unended. 6~ No significant traffic operational problems are anticipated. ~M_ITI GATI ON MEASURES ___:::_: __, , · ..... ,,~_,,__,_~__ The following is safety problems. reconunended to reduce potenti al traffic operational and The driveway should be widened from 27 feet to a minimum of 30 feet. -7- We trust that this study will be of assistance to you and the City of Tustin..in processing of this project. If yk)u have any questions or require additional information, please contact us. Respectful ly submitted, WESTON PRINGLE & ASSOCIATES Weston S. Pringl~',' P.E. Registered Professional EngineerI State of. California Numbers C16828 & TR565 WSP:hld ~890910 APPENDIX A EXPLANATION OF INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION AND LEVEL OF SERVICE o , APPEND IX A EXP.L..A. NAT!ON ..OF INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILI .Z~.TION The capacity.-o.f a...stree~--fs-nearly al~ays greater between"i'ntersections and less at: intersections. The reason for this is that; l:he 1;raffic flows continuously between intersections and only par~' of ~he time a~ intersec[ions. To study inl;ersecl;ion capacity, a technique known as Intersection'Capacity Utiliza~i'on (ICU) has been developed. ICU analysis consists of (a) determining the proportion of signal t. ime needed to serve each conflicting movement.; (b) .... summing the ~imes for ~he movements; and (c) comparing' ~he ~ol~al ~ime required to the time available. For example, if for north-so..ut;h tr.affic, the northbo, u. nd . ~raffic i.$.'l,O00.vehicles-"per .... hour";"~he southbound ~raff{~ is 800 vehicles per hour, and the capacity of either approach is' 2,000 vehicles per hour of green, ~hen the northbound ~raffic is critical and requires 1,000/2,000 or 50 percent of the signal t'ime. If for the easl:-wesl;' ~:raffic, 40 percent of the signal ~ime is required, then i~ can be seen ~ha~ ~he ICU ~s 50 plus 40, or 90 percent. When lefl:-t, urn phases exist:, they are incorporat;ed int;o the analysis. As ICU's approach 100 percent, ~he quali~y of ~raffic service approaches Level of Service (LOS) E, as defined in ~he H~i§_hwaY..C_.ap,aci.ty Manua~l_,.. Spec...ial Repor~ 87, Highway .. Reasearch Board, 1965. Level of Service is used ~o describe quality of traffic flow. Levels of Service A t.o 12 'operal;e quit:e well. Level of Service D is typically the Level of Service for which an urban s~ree~..is designed. Level of Service E is the maximum volume a facility can acco~nmodate and will resul~ in possible s~oppages of momentary dural;ion. Level of Service F occurs when a facility is overloaded and is characterized by s~op-and-§o ~raffic wi~h s~oppages of long dura[ion. A descripl:ion 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 no~ valid, ~he presumption is .t. ha~ a signal can be installed and the calculation'shows'whether the geometrics are capable of acco~nodating 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 no~ 9e~ing enough time to sal:isfy.its demand with excess ~ime existing on other moves. Capacity is often defined in terms of roadway width. However, standard lanes have ap. proximately the same capacity whether they are 11 foot or 14 foot lanes. Our dal:a indicates a typical lane, whether a through lane or left-turn lane has a capacity of approxima~el.y 1600 vehicles per lane per hour of green time. The Highway Capacity Manual found capacity. ~o be abou: 1500 vehicles per lane per hour of green for-l~hroU-gh 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 recen~ sl:udies and observations show higher capacities in the southern California area. For :his s~udy 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 Level of Servl ce Low vol umes; high speeds; speed not restricted by other vehicles; all signal cycles clear with no vehicl es wai ti ng through more than one signal cycle. .. Operating speeds beginning to be affected by 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, Operating speeds and maneuverability closely controlled by other traffic; between 11 and 30 percen~ of the signal cTcles have one or more vehicles which wail; throu§h more than one, si§hal cycle durin~ peak.~raffic periods; recommended ideal design standard. . Tolerable operating speeds; 31 to 70 percent of the signal cycles have..one or more vehicles which wait: through more than one signal cycle during.peak ~ra.f. fic-.period~; often sed as' design standard' in urban areas. Capacity; the maximum traffic volumes an inter- section can acco~m~odate; restricted speeds; 71 ~o 100 percen= of ~he signal cycles have one or more vehicl~ which wait 1;hrou§h more than one...$i.g, nal cyC]_me., dur~n~ peak ~raffic peri,gd~.._ Long queues of traffic; unstable flow; stop- pages of long duration; traffic volume and traffic speed can drop :o zero; traffic volume will be less than the voluam which occurs at Level of Service £, ICU (Intersection Capacity Utilization) at various Levels of Service versus Level of Service £ for'urban arterial streets. Nominal R~:te of ( 0.00 ,- 0.60 0.61 - 0.70 0.71- 0.80 0.81 - 0.90 0.91 .- 1.00 Not meaningful APPENDIX B . "I~<ITERSECTION CApAciTY UI:'ILIZATiON · ANALYSES ;1;'EG"FCTIOf; Cm.rh �• JTIII"MI il; F1;�E'jSIS PF0J CT : =TUS1 I!; PLn7 A CMUI ;ASN c IIN7EPV,Al. Ar, F i:t; Hfju[. I:;TERSECTIO';: PROSPUT.I 1ST ------------------------------ --•-•--___----------•--------------------------------------------------- •-------�_---_-------------- 1 ii 1 II 1 II 1 i � . 1 1 I J , ,EXIS?i S? Nor' ; '_X,{OTKR �ZX.fr.IHER' i i i i"=1ti"Erilii j �Cy;S1 %r,:�r iE}.;STII:C ;Pi;OF'u'E7 i iEY.ISTI1 ; �THEk FRGE�T ''E�:;Sil1�n ' '� Di#:En 1 '�� 1 ���• i 1 11 1 i t J :; S J ,•! � ! ; • ,. � : � ,,- : ! 1 .r• _ i l , , , , . f C1E(�T , . , r�'JJ.CT r t 1 r i , ILA! ►� , L A1,_,, , i ChFaC I I L tient. s , r ljGi_Unc i JG;. um; r i �':': ! _ 1 t �.Urc 1 V.: ; ; 1 vi C ' ' t :r -L, f rip, 1 1 I _ 1 1 �--------------i------f---------� it------ • It'--------1t------i------ „--------- ---------•--- - - - - ----•-------I�----•--•-1--i_.-------•--l--------_ii-'--------- �--li •---------i,---------,--------•---------,,---------,--i--------------------i--,---------,--i� t i lit_ i 1 i C 1�t�C i t1 �� i i' G.03 '' s:,•G^ '' : C t J 1 !i 1 1 1 1 1 �• 3 1 I t 11 s iii i ' 1! ! , G 11 1Glj� v 1� 3z4 + 11 r e t 1 - ••. t l ,.. f 1 Ir li ti G i ii Q Ii 1►�: 4 11 IJ = i w ,� • , I f � t: 1 � 1: It,CC , G„ Ci !! s C F r l ltC�1 , C 461: EL i i 1 i C 1600 ii ET ii Lr ii u= ' 11 r . + Or; O.l.�, , �.li; � C.14; ii ER G ii G i if :7 i i '' ' i A r tl fft� n i nn nn J 1 r 1 J 1 tt i 1 �� 1! l! v J j j 34UT o i 3 1 1 L1 1 1 •• u 1 �% s J 71 it 1 r r ' i !• ! 1 �' f J f 1 i . It WK 11 C. O �� C t G ii l;.`r . 1 I I ----------------------------------------------------------•-------------------'I---•------- -- ------ ---- - st r�rT-L J t tr c „----•---------_=------=•---=__----__-_____===_=====11 rrpp }jOF1n� ��tutn ��J 1tn► .��1,s� r 1 1 r �tt 1 I A - I.0 Sr�t1r .1r - , : ..`•f , l•._'r L..:s , l.•.C�!� i, - I Ltiv)H�ET FILE 1;�,rE;F�fiC�S� iSi ; :1-------------------------------------------------- r t --------- EACINrCT CF11�CAL SU - i i �� - •,'� C ' C rIG 1 • i•�.- , C. 1 I.( 1 1 Tu ''Tu1 • ---------------------------------------------------- L:'15 ► E: u:►� f � - 1+_..� r - •:•tai' CIL A:'n��_{ = i , L� , C j � .:fes l►J- L = LEFi, 1 t R - E;ISAT"==--=-------===-=-_:==----------••-----�_=---------s - I"'6.1p SIE=;nL}� IE:U i!mL = i i �I.EI , .�.�•, ! C.t 1 ; C_ _ i L:,•S = LEVEL OF SERV ICi "-------------------------------------------------Ir II ti D:l;LTES CRITICAL. P15VEME TS LOS : ! : e 11 ,, I1ITERSE 10 Is CAP•r.;1Ty U=I!-iZATiD1% AlISIS: PROJECT: TUS1I11 PLAZA- C.ARVASH. 11,111 E RVnhL : F. -I PEA` HPLIF IKIERSECIIoil: FROSFECT t IS; .------- • ;lr`�IiLyEI1T t'�1�I,T ' PROP 1 1- t^ i OPri4�• i �� 1 IcXIS1lt ,Ffc��,,.-1, --------- •------------------------ t 1 1 ; ! _ 1 1 �: -� • 1 T .r t ,-�r [� - ! !r� I;IX13 tt�G t' �K Ft-,�j�� � ! trT •r 1 It�G -•----•--• ll ,EXi� • ;1,� , 1 �- 1 CTF-��R ------ i =z .fGTH�R•l = r.r. ----------- ;E .+CTHEr:; ! r•i • ; i ! . �: f t i,Lar�ES ,LaIt' E'S I,C�'►►•KCI 1`0-A.' :ITt = , j j �•L�J�iL ' �r=u:��Nc „r•.�.•� � = , is ! ,{ , i .� 1 ,t.-r,OJEU � 1. 1 4P"(0ELT ! •r- „.U�i� 1 Ld �i Jr• 1 t 1 1 ! t 6.04 , 0.04 , 0.04 = f 1 , ! �+ 1 1 i t ,EL•� , �, 15: C.�l c. 177 i 1;; ' ` 1 t It•a� , 4 „ 19t• ; ! it �; G !� ;� ; �I.I' ; ; 0.13 • , , 1 1= 1 t ii 161:1 i 0 ii 164 ' , _ �, , i :.1I : ; , ; 0.10 t 1. EL �• 1 ,, ; ;`L.08 �. - l f ri i; ,� t i i 1b�F , G , i f l= 19E , ( i 11' G.1:' ; 0.1� ; ; G.i� i t r i. I t t, 1! .'� 01= , t l 1 1 �� v ' • i t l r �'� X56 ' 0 '1 1 t t� 11 0= 1 0 11 •�� i i " t' 1 ! 1 1 ! ' 11 :i WL( 1 11.100 11 •�� , �� - •' 1 w. 1 ! ! 1 f 11 ` v<0E 1 1 1! 1 ; 576 !! -• y t.•.�. e . �S t iti i 1 = 0.��• f.,)% 1 i i I IL -------------------------------------------------••--•---------------- -•---- - r— ICU SPREADSHEET FILE HAMc�F'F.O �•15T ' :.- •:.•L� : i �� :: 1 E tti� •�. jF,�. - i , _' :1 ..ice i 1 • ..7i3 ' 0 .'�'i • 1 r Irl 1 V.4v i 1 f I -------- __ _ - -- -- r ' - NORTHBOUND, K NO T HBOUNDF S = SOUT HE�,I�I;�: ♦. i r n- '' W t 4r.: L � SUlt� _ (i 1 l n t ..! , � 1 0 • 3, 1 G.3E ; 0 G1' L' i 11 - ----------------------------------------------- --- I I EASTRIU11139, c_ �<<,.� CLQ=-�t1:Eos L - LEF1 9 T = THROUGH, R = FIGHa 140T SIG!fi'I.IZED jCO t'nl[T ?r -------c LO = LEVEL c SERVICE It-__ If • DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEME111 LO; c ( C 11 = 1 ! tl VE3,1014 PR I NGLE AND ASSN I HT ES i s . ..i II 16 17 18 19 25 27 .. . RESOLUTION 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 resolve fol lows: . .. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows' Co That a proper applicati'on, ('Use Permit No. 89-25) has been filed on. behalf of Henry Kumagai .to establish a 5,000 square foot full servicq carwash on the property located at 240 E. First Street and described as .Assessor's Parcel No. 401-581-001. i~a't a public' hearing was duly cal.led, noticed .and held on said application on August 28, 1989. 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 workidg in the neighborhood of such proposed use, evidenced by the following findings: .- o The use applied for is not an outright permitted use within the "Commercial as Primary Use" designation of the First StPeet Specific Plan and is only authorizeU subject, to granting a conditional use permit which is a discretionory action. · The proposed use is' inconsistent wi.th the policies and objectives of the First Street Specific Plan in.that the proposed project site wou.l.d not be developed with "primary" retail uses nor provide an optimum pedestrian environmen~ as encouraged by the First Stree: Specific Plan. The proposed use would further establish and reinforce tt~e existing automotive scale and characser of First Stree~ 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 gi.ven 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 8 9 10 11 12 1'8 14 15 IG 17 18 19 20 21 22 22 27 28 Resolution No. August 28, 1989 page two 2659 II. The Plannlng Commission hereby denies Conditional Use Permit No. 89-25, a request 1;o authorize establishment of a 5,000 square foot full service carwash on the property located at 240 £. Flrst Street.' o PASSED- AND ADOPTED.. a~-a 'regulaF meetl ng of the" Tu~'tl'n P1 annl ng Commi ssi on,' held .... on the _,~.'_~$~' day of ~__~_~L~ _J-~_.. ..... 1.1_ _m _ ,1989';:. //i~,....'7 ' ~-'~NN£--PONTIOUS, Chalrman.l '..... STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) .., I, PENNI FOLEY, the undersigned, hereby certlfy that I am the Recording .. Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City.of Tust~n, California; that Resolution No. _~~.~-~) _ was duly passed and adopted at a~ular.'meeting the ~ustl. n198..~._. Planning..Commission,, held on the .~~~day, of .... ~.~.~..~.~,~:~_~_ ..~ . . · PENNI FOLEY ~ Recordl ng Secretary McCOLLOUGH .... & ASSOCIATES AgCHiTEC-i' 17500 Red Hill Avenue/Suite 230 I~vine, CA 92714 (714) 660-0264 I:AX (714) 757-0472 September I, 1989 RECEIVED City of Tustin ' ~:~EP 0 I ~It 300 Centennial Way ' ." "' Tustin, California 92680 " ' · COMM, Jj~:Y D£V£LOPMENT Subject: Conditional Use Permit 89-25 and ' BY ~' -~-_-~_~-_-_-;;:_~_-- ..... 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-'C-oun"~'il 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 date possible. / Thank you for your assistance in this matter. · , · Very truly yours, .... Henry Kumagai ATTAGHMENT B P1 ~nn i ng Comml s's i on Mi nu. August 28, 1989 Pa ge t h irt een Condi ti onal Use _Pe_rmi..t 89_-_25_. andl Des i gn Review188-66 (Kumagai.) APPLICANT/ OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: MR.'HENRY KUMAG~[-' ............. 19021 CANYON DRIVE VILLA PARK, CA 92667 240 E. FIRST STREET C-2 (CENTRAL COMMERCIAL)/FIRST STREET SPECIFIC PLAN A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS 'BEEN' PREPARED' IN CONFORMANCE CALIFORNIA. ENVIRONMENTAL qUiAI. ITY ACT. ' ........ AUTHORIZE ESTABLISHMENT OF A FULL SERVICE CARWASH WITH THE ...... Recon~endation: It is reco~ended that the Planning Con~nission either' 1) Certify thee-finlal 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 P'ost Office had been approached regarding its exPan$i°n'P'l'ans~ "h~oted that the Post; Office may not be large enough to handle t~he gro~h ~n £a~t lust~n, and they may have .an object,on to hav~n§ a car' ~ash'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 go'als and'objectives of the First Street Specific Plan relative to the findings and issues of the staff report. The City Attorney felt.that the ICom~lliS$.ion should confine the issues to the First Street Specific Plan; that they should not go out of those bounds to determine what the Post Office may do in the future. commisSioner'Kasparian asked what .the point was of sending letters to residents ~-~hin-3'0'0' 'feet i f"not~to notify people of a pending project and the possible impact. The City Attorney-replied that the factors that needed to be 'considered are those set forth in the First Street Specific Plan. Commissioner Kasparian felt that, as a Planning Commission looking at the total PiCtU're, 'it"was di'ffiEult to ignore the impact of East Tustin unless they know that there is a~future availability of land for a new postal facility; and if the PostI Office was prohibited from building facilities elsewhere, there may be a real problem. ATT. ACHMENT C Planning Co~ission Minu',.~ August 28, 1989 Pa ge fou rt een The Director noted that it was important to recognize the'need' for postal services, but relative to this application, they should consider: 1) whether this development is appropriate and feasible, and when integrated with the rest of the development on this block, contribute to the improvement of that area; and 2)' does it improve the site circulation between properties and the other goals and objectives which balance maximum dlevelopment..wit, h· clompat-~q~'ie"-use$"'a'sI required by the "Ffrst Street Specific. Plan. .. · Con~nissioner Shaheen as'ked how many cars they anticipated washin'g each day. Based upon~t~he St~ff. repc~rt,,, 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, a nd ...i nd il ~.at ed .that based .upon facillilties of this' nature 'and size, it coul~l 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 l:rips than a service station would. · ' 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 faci.l-i--ty, l-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 t-he rear~0f the property. S:aff referred the question to the applicant. · . Commissioner__ Kaspa. rian asked what the Inter~ection Capacity Utilization (ICU} figures W°uidbe;-and if it would change if this business was approved. The Director replied t~la'~l'the I~U at First and prl°spect 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 SerVi.ce "C", which presently exists in the area (Summary finding No. 4 of Traffic Study). Commi~s__$.iolnler, S.haheen 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. ' Planning C°mmission Minut August 28, 1989 Page ftfteen Dennis_McCul_lough_, project architect, noted that they are fully aware of the -C'o~mi'~ssion'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 th~ other establtshment, s..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 thro. ugh circulation was not possible. They would have liked .an entrance from the southQast, 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. C. ommiss!oner.Pont_~ous_ noted that, regardless of her decision in the matter, she felt that it Was an outstanding piece of architecture. Commissi_oner~K. asparian asked if there would be a maximum of seven {7} employees, and a~ked for a clarification of their positions; and how many cars could be in the car wash at any one time. Mr._ McCull_o. ug.h replied that the car wash was fully automated', the gas pumps were self'serVice, there would be two (2) attendants vacuuming, one {1} at cashier station (which woul.d 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'facil.li.ty at one time. · .. ~Commissi_one. r_K. asPari~an asked how two cars at one time could equal 900 cars per day; and i-f it ~Ould be-open seven {7) days per week. · . Mr~Kumagai, the owneP)I 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 o.r. 6:00 p.m. se.v. en (7:) d.ays per week. .... ' ............ . . Commissioner Le Jeune stated .that he was concerned with the numhP, r of people on site'--¥1e felt."l~hat"b'ased upon comparison ~ith other car ~ash facilities, it was not · unusual to have ten or twelve people working at one time. Commissioner Kasparian asked lif a gas station and car wash' would be subject to dif- fere~t'-s~'{ety regulations than a gas station only; and does self-serve pose any- problems. .... The Director replied that they would still have to comply withl, all regional' require- ments m 0f AQMD, vacuum" recovery', .... fire ..... depa'rtment and water control, and sanitation district for discharge of industrial waste; and that self-service would not matter, they still.have to comply with the requirements. Commission.er Kasparian asked if the number of parking spaces for seven {7) employees was laddressed; and suppose the applicant actual ly has ten employees. ., Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 1989 Pa ge s i xteen The Director replied .... that the number ..... o f employees on site was .... p'rovided by the appli- cant. Th'e 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 th~n-umber~"of employees on the site at any one time based upon the number'of parking spaces available. ~i Mr..KumAgai. replied that they could rent parking s~ces in the adjacent parking lot, if needed.- 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) gi-v-enthe pres~n't· ~o'nfiguration and that any additional employees would be contingent on the applicant securing additional parking spaces. The DirectOr· noted that she would create language for this issue, as moved. Commi_ssioner iKasparian asked i f the applicant was 1 easing or buying the property.. Mr. Kum..aga~i replied that he had purchased the land about one and one-half years ago. P_et~ Dwinger, 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 wi'll 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 approPriat-e inca '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 fronbage. He did not think it would work in that location. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that discretionary items were the most difficult for the COmmi-~Si°n t°"U~'ide' upon. However, they have' to mak'e the determinations based upon ..the F. lirst St. reet Spe~.ific.. Plan §~l$,l~..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. , " o , Comm_issioner Kas_p_a?i an concurred. P1 ~nni ng Commi ss i on Mi nut Augus~ 28, 1989 Pa ge seventeen Commissioner Pontious commented that it was a difficult decision, that she was t'~mPress-ed-with"i~he-p~sentation, but she referred the applicant to the City Council for appeal. The Director commented that the applicant has been tremendously cooperative and very resp.onsive to the igU..i..dei.!.lleS, l, ............. · .... Commissioner__Le_Jeun._e. moved, Kasparian seconde~ to deny Conditional bY the a-doption of ReSolUtion No. 2659...... M°.~.i.on carried 4,0. o o . Use Permit 89-25 NER: DAVID M LI COMPANY 230.10 LAKE REST. DR I VE UNA H ILLS 92653 MR. MELVI LILLI B. SCHMEL 40 W RST STREET IN, B2680 KE 'TH H. T, ET. AL 440 FIRST EET TUSTI :A 9268 C/0 MR L GR .D k ATION: 530 AND 6 WEST FI STREE~ ZING: PUD (G RAL IAL-PLA S FIC PLA E RO iTAL S US R~IUEST: , A NE ANCE W ) 2) E DEC HE CALI A RE ST TO ND m m DES I .ON FROM II'OF AS PR REQUEST DEVE S I F I C PLAN 3) DES ' REVIEW ,R A ITE E ION HAS B .NIA ENVIRO NTAL Q THE F T STREET PROPERTY CATiED A RY USE" TO MMERCIAL NT BONUSES URSUANT ommendati It is rec ed tha he P1 al Negativ leclarati . for np of R~so' on No. 2 Recommen by adopti f Resolutio . 2667; t rst Street ecific Plan appr luti . 2668, as bmitted or ised'. entation Daniel Fox, sociate Pla r PREPARED iR THIS PROJ IN CONFORM'J~ ACT. CIFIC PLAN ~ND USE 40 'W. FIRST 'TREET PRIMARY USE" HE FIRST ST T 5 SQUARE 'F, RETAIL ER LOCATED ing Commi ssi project to rova f Zone Chan App e Devel opmen t Desi view 89-52 Recommend cert i fi- City Council by 02 to the City nuses pursuant b~tion of, oner S asked if here was a barrier be the two s .wn on site pl . iprocal ildings; reemen with 7-11; and if asked about the barrier S ff replie hat' as :ondition o a ~ement, but pres there is wo d function a e s'il~ nd that t that would remain the pre erty. roval, t would need to-be a reciprocal a tentative agreement with 7-11; the site was no barrier, only the large Jacaranda STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS CITY OF TUSTIN ) MARY E. WYNN, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 89-139 was duly and regularly introduced, passed and adopted .at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 16th day'of 0ctober, 1989, by the following vote- AYES' COUNCILPERSONS; Kennedy, Edgar, H0esterey, Kelly, Prescott NOES: COUNCILPERSONS · None ABSTAINED' COUNCILPERSONS · None ABSENT · COUNCILPERSONS · None