Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20 - EZ Lube - PA2002-034 - 3600 East Coast HighwayFrom Ken Genser 310!395 -8191 To City Clerk Date: 09/19/2002 Time 5.23.24 AM Page 2 of 2 ?D_ _R1a�loa- MOSS & ASSOCIATES, Inc. ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE, PERMITTING AND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTATION 613 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 105, Santa Monica, CA 90401, Tel 310.395.3481, Fax 310.395.8191 By Fax September 18, 2002 Homer Bludau, City Manager City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92663 Subject: Proposed EZ Lube — 3600 E. Coast Highway Dear Homer: On behalf of our client, EZ Lube, we are withdrawing its appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the requested entitlements for this project. Unfortunately the timing of this project — at a time when EZ Lube has many pending projects in other jurisdictions — did not permit us to conduct the in -depth discourse with the Corona del Mar neighbors that they and this project deserved. You can be certain that should EZ Lube pursue another project in your city, appropriate resources will be dedicated to discourse with the community. Thank you for the courtesy you and your staff have extended to us during the pendency of this application. Throughout the entire process, the staff has been accessible and helpful, and a pleasure to work with. Sincerely, Ken Genser, Planner C Council Members - Patty Temple Jim Campbell City Clerk's Office - ..,c5 u =55c: saes ^. E- 1wORDFILE02 EZ Lube\CDM City 9-18-02 doc SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PROJECT: EZ Lube (PA2002 -034) 3600 East Coast Highway �0 4, SUMMARY: Appeal of the Planning Commission decision to deny a request to construct an automobile lubrication facility consisting of a 2,641 square -foot building with two service bays located in Corona del Mar. The application includes a request to waive three of the ten space off - street parking requirement. ACTIONS: Uphold the appeal, deny the appeal or continue the item per the applicant's request. Discussion • The project was denied by the Planning Commission on May 23, 2002 as being incompatible with surrounding uses in Corona del Mar. This item was continued from the June 25, 2002 meeting of the City Council at the request of the appellant, Ez -Lube. The continuance was granted to provide the appellant an opportunity to develop community support. The project and the Commission's action are more fully described in the June 25, 2002 staff report. The appellant has not provided any additional information in support of the appeal as of the drafting of this report. The appellant now requests that this item be continued to January 2003, although the reason for the lengthy continuance is not stated (Attachment No. 1). Staff has received additional correspondence in the form of eight e-mail messages and two letters, all in opposition to the project, since the meeting of June 25, 2002 (Attachment No. 2). Staff is concerned that the requested continuance may leave the case pending without resolution for too long, leading the community to believe the Planning Commission's denial was the final action. In addition, staff is unclear as to the purpose of the requested continuance, since no new information has been provided since the City Council hearing in June. Should the Council continue the item to January, the item should be re- noticed due to the lengthy delay, and the appellant should be required pay any additional costs associated with re- noticing. If the Council wishes to take a more final action, the appeal could be upheld or denied. If denied without prejudice, the applicant would be able to re -apply without the usual one -year wait after denial of • the project. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Hearing Date: August 27, 2002 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Agenda Item: 15 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD Staff Person: James Campbell • M NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 949 -644 -3200 (949) 644 -3200; FAX (949) 644 -3229 SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PROJECT: EZ Lube (PA2002 -034) 3600 East Coast Highway �0 4, SUMMARY: Appeal of the Planning Commission decision to deny a request to construct an automobile lubrication facility consisting of a 2,641 square -foot building with two service bays located in Corona del Mar. The application includes a request to waive three of the ten space off - street parking requirement. ACTIONS: Uphold the appeal, deny the appeal or continue the item per the applicant's request. Discussion • The project was denied by the Planning Commission on May 23, 2002 as being incompatible with surrounding uses in Corona del Mar. This item was continued from the June 25, 2002 meeting of the City Council at the request of the appellant, Ez -Lube. The continuance was granted to provide the appellant an opportunity to develop community support. The project and the Commission's action are more fully described in the June 25, 2002 staff report. The appellant has not provided any additional information in support of the appeal as of the drafting of this report. The appellant now requests that this item be continued to January 2003, although the reason for the lengthy continuance is not stated (Attachment No. 1). Staff has received additional correspondence in the form of eight e-mail messages and two letters, all in opposition to the project, since the meeting of June 25, 2002 (Attachment No. 2). Staff is concerned that the requested continuance may leave the case pending without resolution for too long, leading the community to believe the Planning Commission's denial was the final action. In addition, staff is unclear as to the purpose of the requested continuance, since no new information has been provided since the City Council hearing in June. Should the Council continue the item to January, the item should be re- noticed due to the lengthy delay, and the appellant should be required pay any additional costs associated with re- noticing. If the Council wishes to take a more final action, the appeal could be upheld or denied. If denied without prejudice, the applicant would be able to re -apply without the usual one -year wait after denial of • the project. Should the Council wish to proceed, several options are available at the conclusion of the public hearing. First, the Council can uphold decision of the Planning Commission to deny the project. This action can be implemented by adopting the draft resolution for project denial attached as is Exhibit No. 1 of the June 25, 2002 report to the City Council. A second option is to approve the project or a modified project. This alternative can be implemented by adopting the draft resolution for project approval included as an exhibit to the May 23, 2002 Planning Commission report. Finally, the Council can deny the project without prejudice allowing the applicant the ability to re -apply in the near future if they believe they have community support for the project. Submitted by: PATRICIA L. TEMPLE Planning Director Attachments Prepared by: JAMES W. CAMPBELL Senior Planner 'fw Ct-'WV Zn- 1. Continuance request to January 2003 2. Additional correspondence in opposition 3. June 15, 2002 City Council Staff Report (recycled) • • EZLube Appeal (PA2002 -034) June 25, 2002 Page 2 of 2 Bludau, Homer *-rom: Bludau, Homer ent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 10:18 AM o: 'Ken Genser' Subject: RE: PA 2002 -034 EZ Lube Ken, we will go forward with your requested continuance until January, but due to the length of the request, you need to have someone here to answer questions. There is a chance that Council would not be willing to grant your request (anything can happen), so it would be best to be prepared to be in the position to go forward with the appeal on the 27th. What i am saying is that someone needs to be here and be prepared for anything. Homer Bludau - - - -- original Message---- - From: Ken Genser [ mailto :kgensergmoss- associates.com) Sent: Monday, August 19, 2002 4:57 PM To: hbludau®city.newport- beach.ca.us Subject: PA 2002 -034 EZ Lube Mr. Bludau -- This office represents the EZ Lube, the applicant for the proposed facility at 3600 E. Coast Highway, Corona del Mar [PA 2002 -034.] As we discussed on the telephone today, EZ Lube is requesting a continuance of the hearing on its appeal of the Planning Commission's lecision on this Application, currently scheduled for the Council •ieeting of August 27, 2002, to a Council meeting in January 2003. Based on your recommendation, EZ Lube is not planning on attending the August 27th Council meeting. Please let me know if your assessment of the situation changes and EZ Lube should be present on the 27th. i appreciate your assistance with this matter, and look forward to working with City staff as we move closer to the appeal hearing. Ken Genser, Planner Moss & Associates 613 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 105 Santa Monica, California 90401 310/395 -3481 310/395 -8191 fax • 1 Weber, Todd From: Manrique Brenes [manrique_brenes @hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, Juiy 29, 2002 8:40 PM To: tweber @cit�(.newport- beach.ca.us • Subject: Vehemently opposed to EZ Lube in Corona Del As a resident and community member in Corona del Mar I am appalled that instead of taking advantage of promoting more pedestrian oriented business the City is even considering to approve the permits for an EZ in the comer of our street. It is extremely contradictory that we are trying to promote the New Vision of Corona del Mar and at the same time we are allowing eyesore entities that do not add any candor or spirit to the community. We need more little small merchants, cafes, restaurants and art galleries that will invite people to stroll down PCH, not a parking lot and a source of potential pollution to our coast line. I will do my best to be present on the upcoming meeting on the 27th to support the effort against EZ Lube. Manrique Brenes 423 Orchid Ave Corona del Mar Weber, Todd From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Council Member, Voreyer, Catherine [CVoreyer @bmfloan.com) Tuesday, July 30, 2002 9:44 PM 'tweber @city.newport- beach.ca. us' EZ LUBE - PCH and Orchid I am a resident of CDM living on Orchid Ave. I am emailing you today to strongly protest the proposed EZ Lube retail development. CDM should be striving to gain back some of its beach charm, not build yet another retail development. The traffic on Orchid is already much to busy for a residential street filled with kids. I am available to discuss this with you further at 949 - 754 -6386. Thank you. Weber, Todd From: Timr4cdmre @aol.com Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 12:33 PM To: tweber @ city.newport- beach.ca.us Subject: (no subject) We live @ 513 Orchid, & believe that the Jiffy lube on coast hwy @ the Balboa Bay club is sufficent to service our area. We are against having EZ lube @ this location. We believe that corner should be something that inhonces the neighborhood. Between Newport tire & all of Costa Mesa we have more than enough ways of servicing our cars. Thank you! Sincerely Tim Rhone & Paula • Fell /' Weber, Todd lWrom: Elizabeth Ahart pizahart@earthlink.netj ent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 8:52 PM To: City Council Subject: OPPOSITION TO EYESORE MY NAME IS ELIZABETH AHART. I LIVE ON ORCHID AVENUE, AND I AM DEFINITELY OPPOSED TO BUILDING ANYTHING ON THAT CORNER THAT WOULD CREATE AN EYESORE IN CDM AND CREATE MORE UNWANTED TRAFFIC ON PCH AND ORCHID. WE ALREADY LIVE ON ONE OF THE BUSIEST STREETS IN CDM WITH THE POST OFFICE BEING THERE. WE ALSO HAVE THE AWFUL DOMINO DRIVERS WITH NO CONSIDERATION OF THE SPEED LIMIT AND SAFETY. WE DO NOT NEED MORE AUTOMOBILES AS WELL AS THE NOISE AND POLLUTION. MY HUSBAND AND I ARE GREATLY OPPOSED TO THE JIFFY LURE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT ON THAT CORNER. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. ELIZABETH AHART Page 1 of I Weber, Todd •From: Martin Suzman Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 4:51 PM To: tweber @city.newport- beach.ca.us Subject: EZ Lube in CDM Hi, I am a resident in Corona Del Mar, living on Orchid Avenue and cannot believe we (the residents) would want an EZ Lube in CDM let alone on the corner of PCH and Orchid Avenue. I am quite sure CDM residents would rather drive inland a mile or two to get their oil changed than have an establishment of that nature in CDM. Not to mention the risk of oil spill/ waste runoff into the ocean, and how this contributes to the vision 2004 CDM I have no idea!! Surely we would rather want more sidewalk cafes, restaurants, art stores and the like....... The sad fact is that most CDM residents have new cars (less than 3 years old) and they get free oil changes from the dealerships themselves, hence EZ tube might be unsuccessful anyway ( I know I wont support them) and theyll go out of business and we'll have another empty lot on our hands. What's next, maybe we should consider a plutonium lab? How bout a strip club ? ? ?? Just some thoughts.... Martin Suzman 4231/2 Orchid Avenue Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 E Glacier Page 1 of 1 Weber, Todd From: Burch, Linda [LBurch @crowell.comj Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 10:02 AM To: tweber @city.newport- beach.ca.us Subject: Opposition to EZ Lube on Corner of Orchid and I am adamantly opposed to the addition of what will be an eyesore to Coast Highway and the Corona Del Mar Community. The charm of CDM is already being greatly diminished by the tear -down of cottage homes and the stucco monstrosities replacing them. Isn't there currently a plan in place to further the look of Corona Del Mar to that of a village? EZ Lube certainly has no place there! Is there a rush to build on this property? Was EZ Lube the first business opportunity to come along? There must be a higher caliber of business opportunity to choose from. Better yet, why not take an environmental approach. Perhaps a small park with benches or a waterfall as a solute to the CDM community would be appropriate. Does every square foot of land have to have a building on it? Linda S. Burch Iburch(a).crowell.com Weber, Todd From: Elu4nd @aol.com Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 9:20 AM To: tweber @city.newport- beach.ca.us Subject: Permit for EZ Lube in CdM I hope the City Council will deny a use permit for the property next to the Post Office in Corona del Mar. Apart from the fact that there are at least three locations providing such service here, the parking situation in and around the Post Office is presently heavy and hazardous, this location is inappropriate for this use. E. Lund, 704 Orchid Ave., • �J Weber, Todd rom: Jeff Ng (JeffNg @rothcp.com) ant: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 8:56 AM o: 'tweber @city.newport- beach.ca.us' Subject: EZ Lube I writing with regards to the proposed EZ Lube being built in Corona del Mar on PCH. As a resident of CDM, I agree that something needs to replace the closed gas station. However, I don't think that an EZ Lube is the right choice. I feel like an EZ Lube is going to devalue our proerty in the area. I also believe people in the area do not need a service like this in the area. Jeff Ng Corporate Finance Roth Capital Partners, LLC 24 Corporate Plaza Newport Beach, CA 92660 949.720.7191 949.720.7223 (fax) 949.500.3784 (mobile) Ohis email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by Assentor for compliance and the presence of computer viruses. www.assentor.com xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx■ xx■ xxxxx ■xx ■xx ■xx ■xx ■xx ■xxx ■xx ■x ■xx ■xx■ • a tkN C4 Date � L� Copies Sent To'02 JIBJ 27 A 8 :18 Mayor �Co ncil Member t� vJ i Manag FiCE af—�! CI.� p Attorney ClT', 0i�#Fit3D0O AL LUG RECEIVED 13Y PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY pF NFWPnPT BEACH a ■ AM JUN 2 7 2002 PM 71819i10111i1211�213141818 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II ra IS) ILI Y • 3000 A 1 r 1 , 1 William F. Cot6, President LL.B. - CRS - CRB - GRI July 17, 2002 RECEIBFI D '02 JUL 23 A 9 :27 OFFTE J- Ti -,E C 'f G EP,; CITY iii h - i1F0(iT SEACII Hon. Tod Ridgeway, Mayor City of Newport Beach P.O. 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Date a3�oa RE: Proposed EZ Lube 3600 E. Coast Highway CoGies Sent To: Corona del Mar, CA ayor Dear Mayor Ridgeway; �" Pncll Member _,E manager For the record: C A ey I am a 36 -year Newport Beach (Corona del Mar) homeowner. • I am a 32 -year Newport Beach (Corona del Mar) businessman/merchant. 0 I am a Corona del Mar commercial property owner. — I am on the Board of Directors of the Corona del Mar Chamber of Commerce. I am fiercely opposed to the proposed EZ Lube (PA2022 -034) for the following reasons: 1. To approve such a project would exacerbate an already over - burdened parking problem in Corona del Mar, especially in and around the site at Orchid and the Pacific Coast Highway. My office is but two short blocks away and I am pain- fully aware of the present shortage of parking in the "Village ". 2. EZ Lube as a business is simply incompatible with the pedestrian/merchant concept we have all been so involved in promoting and which presently exists in the Village. As you know, EZ Lube's stated intention if for more traffic coming into the Village which is patently contrary to the BID 2004 and that which is proposed for Corona del Mar. 3. There are already three service stations m Corona clef Mar, two of which provide the same or greater services that that which EZ Lube proposes to provide. Those stations are but 1 /10, 4/10 and % mile from the site which EZ • Lube intends to encumber. 3748 East Coast Highway • Corona del Mar, California 92625 • (949) 760 -1900 • Fax (949) 760 - 1748 " Accordingly, I am appealing to your good judgment and that of the balance of the City • Council to den EZ Lube's appeal for these reasons and those which the Planning Commission so articulately enumerated. Please contact me in the event you have any questions concerning this matter. Very t ly yours, William F. Cote, President WFC /j Xc: Hon. Steven Bromberg, Mayor Pro Tem Hon. John Heffernan Hon. Dennis D. O'Neil Hon. Gary Adams Hon. Gary Proctor Hon. Norma J.Glover • • Weber, Todd rom: Little, Richard [Richard. Little @meus.mea.com] �ent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 5:32 PM To: 'tweber @city.newport- beach.ca. us' Subject: FZ Lube @ PCH /Orchid I own a duplex in the 400 block of Poinsettia, one block away from the proposed EZ Lube. I am writing to express my opposition to this type of semi - industrial business, requiring considerable parking that is not available, in a residential neighborhood. The project clearly is contrary to the CDM beautification plan for PCH and should be rejected for the good of MM and its residents. Ez Lube is not appropriate for our community. Thank you for your consideration. Richard J. Little 416 Poinsettia Ave. Phone: 714.220.4603 Fax: 714.236.6169 ** *The information contained in this communication may be confidential and legally privileged. It is intended only for the use of the person[sj addressed above. If you are not the intended recipient, please understand that any use, distribution, publication or copying of this communication or cs contents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this ommunication in error, please return it to the sender and delete the original message and all copies from your computer system. Thank you' ** \I COUNCIL AGENDA Pao. 16 RECEp�PAR %l__ PI�.NN�ING ,,�...T „�qCH c+n o X002 AUK L � PM at9110 it IlZ ;121gt41516 • • c a�a CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Hearing Date: June 25, 2002 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Agenda Item: 2'' _ 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD Staff Person: Bill Cunningham G aoae`� NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 949 -644 -3200 (949) 6443200; FAX (949) 644 -3229 REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PROJECT: EZ Lube (PA2002-034) 3600 East Coast Highway SUMMARY: Appeal of the Planning Commission decision to deny a request to construct an automobile lubrication facility consisting of a 2,641 square -foot building with two service bays located in Corona del Mar. The application includes a request to waive three of the ten space off - street parking requirement. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Hold a public hearing and Uphold the decision of the Planning Commission, with suggested modifications, and Deny Use Permit No. 2002- 005. ALTERNATIVES: The City Council has the option to approve the project or modify the project. APPLICANT: EZ Lube GENERAL PLAN: Retail & Service Commercial ZONING DISTRICT: Retail & Service Commercial (RSC) District Introduction On May 23, 2002, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on a request by EZ Lube to establish an automobile lubrication business to be located at 3600 East Coast Highway. After taking testimony from the applicant and public, the Planning Commission took action by a vote of three to one, with two members excused, to deny the request. On June 6, 2002, an appeal was filed by the applicant. Discussion The proposed project is a new 2,641 square -foot building consisting of two bays for lubrication and incidental servicing of automobiles. The project is proposed to be located on the site of a vacant service station on the northeast comer of East Coast Highway and Orchid Avenue in Corona del Mar. The request includes a waiver of three of the ten required parking spaces. A Negative Declaration was prepared for the project. The Planning Commission denied the Use Permit based on a number of findings. Primary concerns of the Planning Commission dealt with the compatibility of the proposed use with the surrounding neighborhood, particularly as related to parking and traffic; the pedestrian nature of • Corona del Mar, including the transition of the commercial area away from automobile - related to more pedestrian- related uses; and the limitations of the project site to adequately support the use relative to its size, configuration and orientation. The minutes of the May 23rd Planning Commission meeting, including the findings for denial, are included as Exhibit No. 2. The May 23rd Planning Commission Staff Report, including Exhibits, is included as Exhibit No. 3. The applicant appealed the Planning Commission action based on four areas that they feel support the reversal of the Planning Commission action. The four areas include: 1. The Application was evaluated against standards that are neither Codes nor Policies of the City; 2. The adopted findings are not supported by evidence in the record; 3. The findings for approval of the underlying Application can be made; and 4. EZ Lube has been denied its right to due process, a fair hearing, and an impartial decision. The applicant's appeal letter and the arguments they base their appeal upon is included as Exhibit No. 4. Standards forApplication Evaluation The evaluation of the application was based upon the Zoning Ordinance, Service Station Design • Standards and General Plan. Additionally, the project was evaluated against the findings required for the approval of a Use Permit. The design of the project does not meet applicable parking requirements and setback standards of the Service Station Guidelines. Additionally, the project was found to be incompatible with and detrimental to the community based upon the facts that are articulated in the findings adopted by the Planning Commission. Findings In taking their action, the Planning Commission relied on the staff report, applicant's testimony, public testimony, and additional information presented into the record. The basis of the Planning Commission action is outlined in the Minutes and the associated Findings for Denial. The Planning Comnssion made findings relative to seven items, which included the fact that the project did not comply with the Service Station Standards and Design Guidelines (Chapter 20.80 of the Zoning Code), and that the mandatory findings required to grant a parking waiver could not be met (Section 20.66.100A.4 of the Zoning Code). Additionally, the aesthetics of the service bays and lighting were found to potentially create an objectionable condition and that the project was not necessary to serve the public's need and convenience. Seven members of the Corona del Mar community testified in opposition to the proposed use with the opinion that the project would be incompatible with the community desire to maintain and enhance the pedestrian- oriented nature of the area and that the project was not a compatible use for the area. Vision EZ Ube (PA2002 -034) • June 25, 2002 Page 2 of 4 2004, while not a design standard for the city, was presented as evidence of the general public opposition to the project. • In reviewing the record, staff has discovered that the Commission adopted a finding that was inconsistent with comments made during the Commission discussion. Commissioner Selich stated that he supported denying the project on the basis of incompatibility with the surrounding neighborhood and other undesirable characteristics of the project. He also noted that his opposition was not based on the project's impacts on noise, dust and odors, which he felt would be negligible or adequately mitigated. However, the motion made by Commissioner Selich for project denial included a statement that the project is "...found to be objectionable ... due to noise, dust, odors and other undesirable characteristics..." Based on his earlier comments, staff believes that Commissioner Selich intended to find the project incompatible with the community based upon the undesirable characteristics of the project that were identified in the staff report and the public testimony received. Therefore, staff is recommending that the City Council modify the findings for denial to eliminate the reference to objectionable noise, dust and odor. The applicant believes that because the findings for project approval can be made, that is a reason that the decision of the Planning Commission should be overturned. The ability to make affirmative findings does not compel a decision making body to make them especially with the presence of facts to support a different conclusion. Within the staff report and public testimony, facts both in support of approval and denial of the project were identified. The Planning Commission exercised its discretion in judging those facts, and found that the project benefits do not outweigh its negatives. • Due Process The applicant, in his appeal letter, states that EZ Lube was "not afforded due process, a fair hearing and an impartial decision" by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission conducted the hearing in accordance with their normal procedures -- the applicant was given an opportunity to present their project, and the floor was opened to public testimony, during which time seven Corona del Mar community members spoke in opposition to the project. While the applicant was not refused a request to rebut, the applicant was not offered an opportunity to rebut before the public hearing was closed. This fact is not sufficient to overturn the action but would support a new hearing. The appeal filed provides for a new hearing and ensures the applicant's right of due process. Correspondence Three a -mails were received prior to the Planning Commission public hearing: one from the Corona del Mar Chamber of Commerce, and two from an area resident. The three a -mails are' included as Exhibit No.1 to the Planning Commission Staff Report, which is included as Exhibit No. 3 to this report. Additional correspondence received after distribution of the Planning Commission staff report is included Exhibit No. 6. Negative Declaration • EZ Lube (PA2002 -034) June 25, 2002 Page 3 of 4 An Initial Study and Negative Declaration were prepared and circulated for public review and comment in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA • Guidelines, and City Council Policy K -3. To deny the project requires no action on the Negative Declaration. However, if the City Council determines to reverse the Planning Commission and approve the project, or if the City Council determines to approve a revised project, it is necessary to approve the Negative Declaration. The Negative Declaration is included as Exhibit No. 5. Conclusion Compatibility of a project with its surroundings is the cornerstone of evaluating any conditionally permitted use, and the appeal simply expresses a different opinion as to whether the project is compatible. In conclusion, staff believes that the appeal does not support a reversal of the Commission's action to deny the request. Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission action to deny Use Permit No. 2002 -005 by adopting the modified findings contained in the attached resolution. The City Council has the option to overtum the decision of the Planning Commission and approve the project. Should the Council decide to take this action, the findings contained in the draft resolution for project approval attached to the Planning Commission staff report should be considered. Submitted by: PATRICIA L. TEMPLE Planning Director Exhibits Prepared by: WILLIAM CUNNINGHAM • Contract Planner LZGLw v� 1. Draft City Council Resolution with Findings for Denial 2. Planning Commission Minutes of May 23, 2002, including Findings for Denial as Amended 3. Planning Commission Staff Report dated May 23, 2002, with Exhibits 4. Applicant's Appeal Letter 5. Environmental Checklist and Negative Declaration 6. Correspondence EZ Lube (PA2002 -034) is June 25, 2002 Page 4 of 4 EXHIBIT 1 • RESOLUTION NO. 2002-o__ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DENYING USE PERMIT NO. 2002 -005 (PA2002 -034) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3600 EAST COAST HIGHWAY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS, RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. An application was filed by EZ Lube, with respect to property located at 3600 East Coast Highway and described as Lots 1, 2 and a portion of Lot 3 in Block V of Tract No. 323, requesting approval of Use Permit No. 2002 -005 to allow construction of a automobile lubrication facility consisting of 2,641 square-foot building located in Corona del Mar. Included within the request is a waiver of the parking requirement of ten spaces to permit seven spaces. Section 2. A public hearing was held on May 23, 2002 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at this meeting. After considering testimony both in favor and in opposition, the Planning Commission took action to deny Use Permit No. 2002 -005. • Section 3. An appeal was filed by the applicant on June 6, 2002, which outlined the basis of appealing the Planning Commission action to deny Use Permit No. 2002 -005. Section 4. A public hearing was held by the City Council on June 25, 2002 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place the City Council considered the applicant's appeal. Evidence, both written and oral, as well as the record of the Planning Commission public hearing, was presented to and considered by the City Council at this meeting. After considering the testimony both in favor and in opposition, the City Council took action to uphold the prior Planning Commission action and to deny Use Permit No. 2002 -005. Section 5. The City Council finds as follows: The Planning Commission evaluated the project against standards which are contained within the City Zoning Code and made appropriate findings to those standards which were not met by the project. 2. The Planning Commission made findings which were supported by the testimony, staff analysis within the staff report to the Planning Commission dated May 23, 2002 and other evidence placed into the record supporting the decision to deny the project. 3. Even though service stations are permitted upon the approval of a Use Permit within the Retail • and Service Commercial (RSC) District, the Planning Commission determined that the project did not meet the development standards of the Service Station Standards and Design 5 City of Newport Beach City Council Resolution No. Page 2 of 3 Guidelines, and that the mandatory findings required to grant a parking waiver could not be • met. 4. The Planning Commission conducted the public hearing in accordance with the municipal code and the applicant was provided an opportunity to present his project and supportive evidence and documentation, and that the applicant was not denied the right to a fair hearing or an impartial decision. 5. The establishment, maintenance or operation of the proposed automobile service station use of the property will, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, is found to be objectionable and incompatible with the character of the City and its environs a to noise dust, _''__ _ _' undesirable ' ""'"'`"ties, and further that the proposed project is inconsistent with the legislative intent of this code for the following reasons: a. The project is not compatible with surrounding land uses in that it introduces an automobile- related use in an area characterized by pedestrian- oriented uses. b. There has been a trend away from automobile - related uses in the commercial districts of Corona del Mar during recent years due to the pedestrian nature of the area. C. The project would introduce views of automobile service bays and it is not possible to • screen the service bays from public view. d. The operational characteristics of the use will require that the service bay doors remain open and the intensities of the lighting within the service bays would be in excess of the light levels in Corona del Mar. e. The site development standards of the Service Station regulations of the Code as they relate to landscaping and setbacks have not been met. f. The: mandatory findings to grant a parking waiver cannot be met for this project in that the decrease in parking on the site could adversely affect surrounding parking and there currently is inadequate parking problem within the area. g. The proposed design could result in a parking problem associated with handicap parking requirements in that potential queuing of automobiles at the service bay doors could result in blocking the handicap space. h. Corona del Mar is already served by sufficient number of oil change facilities for the public convenience and necessity. • 0 City of Newport Beach City Council Resolution No. Page 3 of 3 • Section 6. Based on the aforementioned findings, the City Council hereby denies the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision and denies Use Permit No. 2002 -005. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption. Passed and adopted by the City Council of Newport Beach at a regular meeting held on the _day of 2002 by the following vote to wit: ATTEST: CTTY CLERK \� AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT, COUNCIL MEMBERS MAYOR I EXHIBIT 2 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • AND FINDINGS FOR DENIAL AS AMENDED MAY 23, 2002 • • 0 • FILE COPY City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 23, 2002 SUBJECT: EZ Lube 3600 East Coast Highway • Use Permit No. 2002 -034 Request for a Use Permit to allow construction of an automobile lubrication facility consisting of a 2641 square -foot building with two service bays located in Corona del Mar. The application includes a request to waive three of the ten space off - street parking requirement. Ms. Temple noted the additional correspondence received in the Planning Department that was distributed to the Planning Commission. Mr. James Campbell then made a slide presentation depicting the site plan, floor plan and vicinity plan. He noted the egress and ingress; elevation; service bay orientation; parking; trellis; waiting room area and nearby businesses. Commissioner McDaniel referring to page 95 of the staff report noted his concern about the Case Closure Summary of the Leaking Underground Fuel Tank Program. It seems to indicate that there is still an on going need for whoever the new property owner is. As for as the City is concerned, does the City have a concern with whatever toxic issues may remain there? Mr. Campbell noted that this letter referred to the closure of the original tanks that • were replaced earlier. The tanks that are in there today will have to go through the some procedure with the Orange County Health Care Agency overseeing the closure of the tanks and removal of any contamination found. 'We do not anticipate finding any, but they would be the lead agency to assure that proper closure of the tanks would be handled. Compliance with the Health Care Agency procedures should alleviate the concerns of any hydrocarbon contamination, if there is any on site. Public comment was opened. Ken Genzer from Moss and Associates representing the applicant noted the following: • EZ Lube stores are operated in a clean and professional manner. • The owner of the property asked EZ Lube to set up their facility on this location. • EZ Lubes draws from the local market and base their site selection on customer base within a two-mile radius. • EZ Lube has the lowest trip generation of similar uses. • A facility this size will average about 35 to 40 customers a day at maturity. This is far less than a small retail store. • EZ Lube generates almost no parking demand, because the customers stay with their cars throughout the entire process. • EZ Lube is a quiet operation with no pneumatic power tools used and with all work done in doors. • INDEX Item 3 PA2002 -034 Denied 9 City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes May 23, 2002 INDEX • Design of the facility integrates well into the Corona del Mar neighborhood. • We have made changes to the design following meetings with City staff and citizen groups. • We have looked at two other options, one is including a newsstand on the corner of Orchid and Coast Highway to further increase the pedestrian orientation of the site and the other is to lower the tower to the height of the Coco's tower. • We have looked at the findings that need to be made for approval and find them to be consistent with our intent. Rudy Alegre of Alegre and Mackenzie, architect of the project noted: • We have made improvements to the building. • We have added a trellis above the service bay, changed the style of the tower with more landscaping; benches are open to the sidewalk and a newsstand at the corner. • We read the Vision 2004 ideas and we hied to follow them as much as we could with this particular site and have included pavers, style of benches and landscaping to follow it as much as we could. Lavina Hayden, Corona del Mar resident stated her opposition to this application for the following reasons: • That Irr an extremely busy corner; traffic from PCH turns right on Orchid to • park in front of the post office or in the post office parking lot; traffic backs up to the highway; the crosswalk is used a great deal; and Rose Donuts, across from this site, is very successful with cars In and out of that area all day long. • No need for this facility; there Is a Union Station Chevron Station and Newport Tire and all do oil changes and lubes. • I go to a lot of meetings and I have never heard one person say, 'oh goody we are going to have an EZ Lube.' • We don't need it and we don't want it. The Corona del Mar Chamber and the Residents Association and the neighborhood don't want it. At Commission inquiry she expressed her opinion that this business would create more traffic than a gas station, and neither one of them are safe for that comer. Don Glasgow, business man in Corona del Mar noted his opposition: • There is no need and this does not fit into the pedestrian friendly environment. • Plenty of places to change oil already in the area. • Busy crosswalk adjacent to the site. • This is a short segment of street and is always very busy. • There is a lot of pedestrian traffic with mailboxes are all over. • The use of this property needs to be looked at on a long -term basis. • It would be wonderful to use this site for a parking lot with landscaping. • To give up three parking spaces in this neighborhood is wrong, they will • end up with seven and with six employees either poaching those spots or 10 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 23, 2002 going throughout the neighborhood. We don't need this. He then noted additional concerns with the building, lighting, reduction of landscaping and four signs. He concluded by asking that this application be denied. Val Skoro, 1601 Bayadere Terrace noted that as a member of the Corona del Mar Residents Association, not one person he has spoken to is in favor of an EZ Lube at this particular location. He endorsed the comments of the previous speakers and asked that this application be denied, as it is incompatible. Don Jacobs, 309 Poppy noted that he lives in Corona del Mar because it is a pedestrian community. It is a place where you can park your car on Friday night and walk all weekend. This application is totally against what is called for in Vision 2004 and the previous speakers have been articulate in stating why it is. I ask that you deny this application. Keith Dawson, resident of Corona del Mar noted his opposition of this application, as it is inconsistent with the Vision 2004. Keith Dugan, resident of Corona del Mar noted his agreement with the previous speakers and asked that this application be denied. • Pat Potter, resident of Corona del Mar noted her agreement with the previous speakers and asked that this application be denied. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Agajanian asked how this application violates the spirit of Vision 2004. Commissioner Selich made the following comments. He stated that Commissioner Agajanian's questions on the Vision 2004 plan. I have been a member of the Planning Commission for eight years. During that time we have denied only one use permit that I can recollect, the Auto Bistro. Continuing, Commissioner Selich stated, we usually condition the use to fit within the constraints of the property and surrounding neighborhood. That doesn't mean it can't be denied and that there aren't findings to support such an action. He then quoted from a publication called 'The Conditional Use Permit' put out by the Governor's Office of Planning and Research. It has a lot more than what is shown in our Zoning Code in terms of what some of the standards are for denying conditional use permits and things that we should take Into consideration. A lot of this is based on California case law. Our Zoning Code states that one of the standards that we have to address is the general welfare standard. According to this publication, 'California case law has established a number of fundamental • principles relating to conditional use permits. In addition to the basic uses S 11217 *3 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 23, 2002 permitted within a zoning district, a city zoning or county zoning ordinance can provide other specified uses which may be permitted after consideration and resolution by an administrative agency that the proposed use is In the best interest of public convenience and necessity and will not be contrary to the public health, morals, or welfare.' This is one of the standards that has been addressed In our staff report and I would suggest that we have heard evidence both in the staff report and frorn the public testimony that Corona del Mar is adequately served with oil change facilities. Another standard is a nuisance standard and Is again based on California case law (Snow v. City of Garden Grove), 'Any use found to be objectionable or incompatible with the character of the city and Its environs due to noise, dust, odors or other undesirable characteristics may be prohibited.' That gives us rather broad discretion to analyze the use in relationship to the character of the City and its environs. I don't think we have heard any testimony or seen any in the staff report that says we are going to have problems that are not going to be adequately conditioned in regards to noise, dust or odors. I think that other 'undesirable characteristics' Is really where we find our factual findings. With regard to the Vision 2004 plan and the existing characteristics of Corona del Mar, it is not a highway serving type of commercial business district. Corona del Mar is a residential shopping district that happens to have a major arterial with a lot of traffic that bisects it, yet it is not a highway serving district as Harbor Boulevard, 17 ", Street or Newport Boulevard are. It is a residential area and the businesses by and large there are not highway oriented. The few that are automobile related are becoming less and less over the years as the character of Corona del Mar has changed. When many of those businesses were founded this area was not fully developed with a lot of vacant lots and the businesses did not have the residential community around it. Over the years that has been going away more and more. The closing of the Shell Station is another example that the highway related businesses just could not make it there. One of the reasons we- approved the Jiffy Lube on Mariner's Mile after a lot of discussion was that it had already taken on a highway related commercial type of environment with drive -in fast food uses that have gone in the last few years and the change over of the 'marine' uses to more automobile related uses there. It is an example of where we approved one where the trend is going in the opposite direction of Corona del Mar. Here in Corona del Mar we have It going away from highway related uses and Mariner's Mile Is going in the opposite direction. The finding Is certainly there that it doesn't fit within the character of the community. It is highway related and this is a pedestrian oriented environment and those are the kind of community serving uses that the Vision 2004 plan is trying to encourage. Going beyond just the strict aspects of the conditional use permit, I think the characteristics of the site itself is not an appropriate size or location to have a quick lube facility. The Jiffy Lube facility was a 12,000 square foot lot and we approved 3 bay facilities there. Here we are trying to do a 2 bay facility on 7,000 square feet. The size, configuration and orientation of the lot is part of the reason INDEX • is U, E City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 23, 2002 why the applicant can not meet the service station standards, the lot Is wide and shallow and he can not get the building set back from the street. I believe this is the first application where we are using the service station guidelines that we spent quite a bit of time developing both in the Planning Commission as well as the City's Economic Development Committee and going on to the City Council to have a good set of guidelines to regulate the development of these types of facilities. Here is the first one and it can't even meet the standard. Given the fact of how these things are designed, as long as they stay .with the quick change business model where you drive in and out and have the waiting room adjacent to the facility, there is probably not a way to design it to fit on the site and meet our service station standards and stay with the business model that has been presented to us. One of the things that can be asked is what is this property going to be used for, it's such an odd shaped piece of property. Most of the properties are oriented on Coast Highway with deep lots that go back to the alley, so you can get circulation off the alley as well as the street. There are many uses in the Zoning Code that are permitted in this Zoning District that can go onto this property. I think you could site a 1,500 square foot building on this property and provide adequate parking for it and that is no more or no less than we find on many of the buildings in Corona del Mar right now. There Is no issue in property rights here. The property owner does have other economic uses to put on this property. It may not be of use to EZ Lube because this is the only business they are in. In terms of • the property itself, it has a wide range of permitted uses that it can go to. I know we usually discuss the proposal before we make a motion, but I am going to make one now. Motion was made by Commissioner Selich'to deny Use Permit No. 2002 -005 for property located at 3600 East Coast Highway with the findings as shown on Exhibit 4 of the staff report with the following changes' In the first paragraph of Exhibit 4 in the fifth line after the word City, insert the following language: '...is found to be objectionable and incompatible with the character of the City and Its environs due to noise dust, odors or other undesirable characteristics.' And, add an eighth reason to the seven reasons that are already there that would state, 'Corona del Mai Is already served by sufficient number of oil change facilities for the public convenience and necessity.' Commissioner Gifford noted that there are not adequate reasons to deviate from the development standards, I will be supporting the motion. Commissioner Agajanian noted his support of the motion stating the considerable amount of public testimony in opposition to the EZ Lube proposal. However, I see the proposal in front of us as being legitimate within the uses allowed in this area. It is replacing an auto related use and I think the actual driveway arrangements are better than we had with the gas station before. There are problems with traffic in the area, but I am convinced that any use we bring here, especially a • INDEX 15 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 23, 2002 1,500 square loot store with the appropriate 8 or 9 parking spaces, would generate less or more traffic than the proposed use. What it comes down to for me is whether this Is a use that is permitted. The use permit In front of us today is asking to waive three parking spaces that are required. Based upon the documentation that has been submitted with the staff report, I am fairly convinced that the amount of traffic generation at this site is going to be fairly minimal. The parking requirements can probably be accommodated within the seven spaces that are provided and furthermore, the use of this property is a reasonable use. I can find no reason to oppose it. I want to oppose it because we have a strong public sentiment working against It, but I think in the end I will have to support the project because I cannot really find a way to oppose it. Commissioner McDaniel noted that there are some things in our City that just don't fit. When it comes to'that, I try to listen to the community and the people who are close by because they have to live with it once we are done with it. This project kind of fits except there are many factors that will have to be dealt with. I am going to come down on the side of the folks who live there. This is a very highly visibility area that people come through and this project would stand out as a negative and so I will support the motion. Commissioner Mser noted his opposition to the use and the application. The use does not fit the site or the location. I agree with the comments by Commissioner Selich, this just doesn't work here. Ayes: McDaniel, IGser, Gifford, Selich Noes: Agajanian Excused: Kranzley, Tucker The findings fair denial as amended. The establishment, maintenance or operation of the proposed automobile service station use of the property will, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, Is found to be objectionable and incompatible with the character of the City and its environs due to noise dust, odors or other undesirable characteristics, and further that the proposed project is inconsistent with the legislative Intent of this code for the following reasons: The project is not compatible with surrounding land uses In that it introduces an automobile - related use in an area characterized by pedestrian- oriented uses. 2. There has been a trend away from automobile - related uses in the commercial districts of Corona del Mar during recent years due to the pedestrian nature of the area. INDEX • • • u • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 23, 2002 3. The project would introduce views of automobile service bays and it is not possible to screen the service bays from public view. 4. The operational characteristics of the use will require that the service bay doors remain open and the Intensities of the lighting within the service bays would be in excess of the light levels In Corona del Mar. 5. The site development standards of the Service Station regulations of the Code as they relate to landscaping and setbacks have not been met. b. The mandatory findings to grant a parking waiver cannot be met for this project in that the decrease in parking on the site could adversely affect surrounding parking and there currently is parking problem within the area. 7. The proposed design could result in a parking problem associated with handicap parking requirements in that potential queuing of automobiles at the service bay doors could result in blocking the handicap space. 8. Corona del Mar is already served by a sufficient number of oil change facilities for the public convenience and necessity." ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: a) City Council Follow -up - Ms. Temple reported that at the City Council meeting the Brown duplex Planning Commission determination was overturned and approved the project. b) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - none. c) Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Update Committee - Commissioner Agajanlan noted that Urban Crossroads consultant had been hired along with Austin Foust. There was a discussion regarding the survey that Is going to be used for the update and the validity of that and the cost increase that doubled. d) Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Local Coastal Plan Update Committee - Ms. Temple noted that there is a map showing the final coastal access easements available for your use after the meeting. e) Matters that a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - none. f) Matters that a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - none. 16 INDEX Additional Business 15 EXHIBIT 3 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT INCLUDING EXHIBITS MAY 23, 2002 • • • J(p • • • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Hearing Date: May 23, 2002 efi PLANNING DEPARTMENT Agenda Item: 3 _ S 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD Staff Person: Bill Cunningham NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (949) 644 -3200 (949) 6443200; FAX (949) 6443229 Appeal Period: 14 days after final action REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PROJECT: EZ Lube (PA2002 -034) 3600 East Coast Highway SUMMARY: Request for a Use Permit to allow construction of an automobile lubrication facility consisting of a 2,641 square -foot building with two service bays located in Corona del Mar. The application includes a request to waive three of the ten space off -street parking requirement. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve modify or deny Use Permit No. 2002 -005 for Property Located at 3600 East Coast Highway. APPLICANT: EZ Lube 3506 W. Lake Center Drive, Suite B Santa Ana, CA 92704 PROPERTY OWNER: LOCATION: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Richard T. Hubbard, Trustee Francis M. Hubbard Trust 2331 E. Adams Avenue Orange, CA 92897 Northeast corner of East Coast Highway and Orchid Avenue in Corona del Mar. Lots 1, 2 and a portion of Lot 3 in Block V of Tract No. 323. GENERAL PLAN: Retail & Service Commercial ZONING DISTRICT: Retail & Service Commercial (RSC) District 11 V Vacant service station (site is fenced) To the north: `y t. To the east Sub R.. Retail commercial across Coast Highway To the west: Retail commercial and restaurants across Orchid Avenue a?s:2b }-„ �uv •q% '4j YnX4 �d j 4i Cv� O , 0 ®0 Feet. VICINITY III AP Use Permit No. 2002 -005 3600 E. Coast lEghway 4? Current Development: Vacant service station (site is fenced) To the north: United States Post Office To the east Retail commercial To the south Retail commercial across Coast Highway To the west: Retail commercial and restaurants across Orchid Avenue Elm • EZ Lube CdM (PA2002 -034) May 23, 2002 Page 2 of 11 q Introduction & Background • The applicant, EZ Lube, is seeking approval of a Use Permit to allow the construction of a new automobile lubrication facility. The proposed business will consist of two service bays,.and will be limited to the lubrication, changing of oil, and installation of oil and air filters. - • • The site has been a service station since 1962. The service station was closed in 2001, and the building, which is still standing, is currently vacant and the site secured by a chainlink fence. Proiect Overview The proposed new building will consist of 2,641 square feet with a main (street level) floor and a basement. The main floor will have 1,612 square feet consisting of two service bays, work order /customer waiting area, two restrooms and three small storage rooms. The basement will consist of 1,029 square feet and will be used to access the underside of the vehicles and for storage purposes. Automobile service will be done within a completely enclosed building. The hours of operation are from 7:00 am to 7:00 pm, Monday through Friday; and from 8:00 am to 6:00 pm on Saturday and Sunday. There will be a maximum of six employees on -site at any given time. The following . table summarizes the project and Zoning Code development standards: 1 1 3 ", j)�q C YF rcc ix� ^�y.` � • w� X11 �� _�Y � t y .. • 1 .. 1b ' 1 1 I Front 0 ft. 0 1' Rear Oft. 0 Building 1 ft. 321 Floor 1 Site Area 7,128 • OOJ Parking 7 spaces •. ' Analysis The project consists of an automobile lubrication facility that limits its service to the lubrication, and changing of oil and filters. The use is different than a normal automobile repair facility in that there is no heavy engine repair, such as transmission or engine overhauling done at the site, and EZ Lube CdM (PA2002 -034) May 23, 2002 } l Page 3 of 11 I there is no use of noise generating equipment. In the past, staff has determined that similar businesses would be evaluated against the Service Station standards as the use is defined as an "automobile service station." Therefore, Section 20.80, Service Stations, was used to analyze this • project. General Plan The City's General Plan designates the site as Retail & Service Commercial. Automobile service facilities, including automobile servicing and repair, are a permitted use within this land use designation. Parking The application includes a request for a waiver of parking standards. The Code requires that the parking standard for service stations is five spaces for each service bay. The proposed lubrication facility will have two service bays, thereby requiring ten spaces for the project. Applicant is proposing seven spaces. To justify his request, the applicant submitted hourly customer counts for an existing EZ Lube at the northeast comer of Tustin Avenue and Seventeenth Street in Costa Mesa. That facility is also a two -bay operation and has the same number of employees as the EZ Lube proposed on the Corona del Mar site. According to the customer counts (included as Exhibit No. 6 to this staff report), the maximum number of customers anticipated any given hour period would be seven, with an average of approximately three. Typical operation of the facility involves the customer driving his/her car into a service bay, and waiting while the vehicle is serviced, typically a period of twenty or thirty minutes. On • very rare occasions do customers park their cars to wait for service. However, on occasion, a car may be queued at a service bay door for a short time to await a bay to be vacant. Staff has inspected the Costa Mesa EZ Lube four times at various times of the day on various days to confirm the applicant's customer counts, and the observed parking is consistent with the data supplied by the applicant. During each staff field visit, three cars were observed in the parking lot (presumably employee cars) and one or both of the service bays were in use. No queuing was observed at the service bays. In accordance with Code Section 20.66.100A.4, the following findings must be made by the Planning Commission in order to modify a parking standard: 1. The parking demand will be less than the requirement in Section 20.66.030. The actual operating characteristics of a two bay automobile lubrication facility appears to justify a parking standard less than the standard for service stations. Field observations and customer data show that the parking is utilized by employees on site, and customers' cars are parked in the service bays while the car is being serviced, or wait relative short periods of time at the service bay entry. Therefore, the seven parking spaces proposed should likely accommodate the required parking for the use. • EZ Lube CdM (PA2002 -034) May 23, 2002 Page 4 of 11 01 2. The probable long -term occupancy of the building or structure, based on its design, will not generate additional parking demand. • The building has been designed specifically for the lubrication of automobiles, and the service bay design of one -way entry and exit, is designed to accommodate a drive- through business. It is unlikely that the building would be used for a more intense or higher parking demand use. However, if the use were to change, a condition (No. 5) of the use permit approval requires that the use permit becomes null and void if the use is terminated or modified. Beyond this, staff is concerned that a conversion to other types of automobile repair beyond the lubrication and oil change operation proposed could result in an additional parking demand, because of the extended length of time required for other types of repair work. Therefore, Condition No. 5 also prohibits expansion to other types of automobile repair. Staff believes that with the recommended conditions, the foregoing finding can be made. Development Standards The development standards of the RSC District, as well as the height and floor area ratio limits have been met by the proposed development. The project is also defined as an automobile service station and as such, the project must be evaluated against Chapter 20.80 Service Stations (Exhibit No. 1). Additionally, the City adopted design guidelines for service stations, which are also attached as Exhibit No. 2. The facility differs from a typical service station in that it does not involve the dispensing of gasoline, and does not incorporate the use of gas islands and canopies. A finding of consistency with both Chapter 20.80 and the design guidelines is required for • project approval. Staff has evaluated the proposed project and concludes that the project complies with applicable standards except for landscaping and setbacks. Service Station standards require that automobile maintenance and repair be setback 18 feet from interior property lines, and 30 feet from a street property line. The plans show the structure to be built with a zero setback along the Coast Highway frontage and the north interior property line. The landscaping standards require that 150 sq. ft. of landscaping be provided at the corner and a combination of hardscape and a comer cutoff required by the Public Works Department reduce the landscaping that can be provided below this standard. • Section 20.80.060 O of the Zoning Code permits a modification or waiver of regulations for the expansion or renovation of an existing service station upon making the following findings: 1. The strict compliance with the regulations is not necessary to achieve the purpose and intent of this chapter. 2. The project possesses compensating design and development features that offset impacts associated with the modification or waiver of regulations. 3. The overall site plan and architectural design is consistent with the City of Newport Beach Design Guidelines: Automobile Service Stations and Washing. EZ Lube CdM (PA2002 -034) May 23, 2002 a� Page 5 of I I POR The purpose of Chapter 20.80 is expressed in Section 20.80.010 and indicates that service stations shall not create increased pedestrian and vehicular traffic hazards and shall not be detrimental to the ordinary maintenance, development or redevelopment of the surrounding area, • in order to promote and preserve the public health, safety, convenience, general welfare and general prosperity. Specific purposes of Chapter 20.80 are: attractive appearance of projects, safe and efficient circulation, setbacks to buffer uses from surrounding uses, regulations to ensure that visible facilities are maintained in a safe and clean manner and operational regulations to avoid negative environmental issues. Site and Architectural Design Zoning Code Section 20.80.060 sets forth the Design and Development Regulations for Service Stations. Subsection 20.80.060H states: "The site plan and architecture of the service station shall provide an attractive appearance that is compatible with and complimentary to the community and surrounding land uses and development and that is consistent with the City of Newport Beach Design Guidelines: Automobile Service Stations and Washing. " The building will be Mission design with off -white stucco and variegated red mission tile roof on the tower element. Trellis features have been included over the two parking spaces on the west side of the building, and over the outdoor customer waiting area on the east side of the building. The service bays have been oriented with openings/entrances to the east and west. While the service bays will not open directly to Coast Highway, the interiors of the bays will be seen from both Coast Highway and Orchid Avenue. All mechanical equipment will be located within a roof -top equipment well that is screened from view. In staffs opinion, the proposed building is aesthetically a well designed building. However, in making the finding relative to the provision • quoted_ above, the Commission may also consider issues discussed in following sections such as landscaping, screening and lighting. Landscaping The site plan indicates landscape planters located along the Coast Highway and Orchid Avenue frontages, and along portions of the north property boundary. A total of 1,257 square feet, or approximately 18 percent of the site will be landscaped. A landscaping plan was not submitted as part of this application; however, the site plan shows six palms to be located on site with four to be located along the Coast Highway frontage. Staff has included a condition (No. 14) that the six trees are to be Queen Palms of a with a minimum 8 -foot brown trunk height. The Service Station standards require a minimum of 150 sq. ft. of landscaping at the street comer. Applicant proposes a combination of landscaping and hardscape (stone benches and paving) at the comer which totals 266 square feet. The benches require approximately 40 square feet each, which will result in 186 square feet of landscape. In addition, the comer cutoff requested by the Public Works Department will remove approximately 40 square feet of landscaping, resulting in a total landscaped area of approximately 146 square feet. Replacing the two benches would provide the minimum required corner landscaping. However, staff believes Pz Lube CdM (PA2002 -034) • May 23, 2002 Page 6 of 11 I that the benches add a unique design feature as well as provide a benefit to pedestrians, and recommends that the benches be retained as part of the design. • Staff has concerns relative to the views from Coast Highway into the service bays. Unlike the recently- approved Jiffy Lube located in the Mariner's Mile area, traffic along the portion of Coast Highway in the vicinity of the EZ Lube project moves slower and the area is more pedestrian- oriented. Therefore, the views of the site are more critical than at the Jiffy Lube facility. The trellises along the Coast Highway frontage will provide some screening. However, staff believes that there is also a need for screening landscaping, either in the form of high shrubs or vines on the trellises. The City included a requirement for additional trees in the Jiffy Lube project in an attempt to screen the service bays, but in reviewing the site since completion of the project, the effect appears to be limited in that the service bays continue to be visible from Coast Highway. The requirement for additional landscaping will provide more screening of the service bays, but is not likely to completely screen the service bays from view. Since a landscaping plan has not been submitted as part of the application, a condition has been included (No. 21) requiring submittal of a landscaping plan prior to issuance of a building permit. Given both concerns about screening as well as line of sight relative to traffic, the condition requires approval of the landscaping plan by both the Planning Director and the City Traffic Engineer. Lighting The applicant does not propose light standards within the parking area, only wall mounted light fixtures. A condition (No. 15) has been included within the draft resolution requiring that all site • lighting be done in a manner to restrict lighting to the site and to prevent any glare and light spillage to surrounding properties. An evening inspection will be conducted by Planning Department staff prior to occupancy to ensure proper lighting. • Staff is concerned that lighting of the project could be excessive when compared to the Corona del Mar area, which is characterized by lower lighting levels. The concern relates not only to exterior site lighting intensities, but also the light from inside the service bays, since the service bay doors remain open during operating hours. The recently constructed Jiffy Lube in the Mariner's Mile area appears very bright during evening hours due to the intensity of the service bay lighting. This light intensity issue is even more of a concem at the proposed EZ Lube site due to the close proximity of residential along Orchid Avenue, more pedestrian nature of the area, and general lower intensity of illumination present in the Corona del Mar area. Staff has included a condition (No. 16) that provides the Planning Director the authority to reduce the light levels to that typically found in Corona del Mar to ensure compatibility of lighting with nearby commercial and residential areas. Neighborhood Compatibility In order to approve a Use Permit, a finding must be made that the use is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. In Corona del Mar, the business district has experienced a resurgence of economic stamina and vitality throughout the past decade, due primarily to the shopping preferences of local neighborhood residents. While the number of restaurants, EZ Lube CdM (PA2002 -034) May 23, 2002 Page 7 of 11 �3 boutiques, galleries and personal service establishments has increased, the number of automotive - related establishments has declined. In fact, in the last ten years, at least three auto- related land uses have left the commercial area of Corona del Mar -- an automobile dealership . and two service stations, one of which was on the subject property. Traffic ani3 Circulation It is proposed to remove one of the existing curb cuts/driveways located on Coast Highway closest to Orchid Avenue; reduce the width of the other driveway by twelve feet; and to relocate the Orchid Avenue driveway to be further from the comer. The Public Works Department has reviewed the plan and determined that the access will adequately serve the site, and will improve the access compared to the existing condition. Ingress and egress is proposed to be two -way from both driveways, but the access to the service bays is to be one -way, with entrance from Orchid Avenue and exit to Coast Highway. In order to ensure that cars going to the lubrication bays enter from Orchid Avenue, Condition No. 18 has been added requiring directional signs. Planning staff, however, notes a potential conflict in the event that car(s) are queued at the service bay doors; a car parked in the handicap space will be unable to back out. Beyond the site access considerations, the Public Works Department has concluded that the project will not generate traffic over the previously- existing service station or over the alternative retail commercial use of the site. Noise The proposed facility will not entail the use of compressors or pneumatic equipment, and there is no anticipated adverse noise generation by the project. Nevertheless, staff has included a • condition (No. 19) prohibiting the use of such tools and machinery. Signage Applicant is proposing four signs for the business: three wall signs and one freestanding monument sign. Two of the wall signs will be 33.75 square feet, and will be internally illuminated. One wall sign is 12 square feet and is externally illuminated. All of the wall signs are individual channel letters. The monument sign is proposed to be 18 square feet (each side) with dimensions of four feet in height (including base) and six feet in width, will be located at the Coast Highway /Orchid comer, and will be internally illuminated. The signs are consistent with the requirements of the sign regulations of the Zoning Code (Chapter 20.67). However, the City Public Works Department has reviewed the project and is requesting a condition be included requiring a ten -foot radius comer cutoff at Coast Highway /Orchid Avenue. The cutoff will require the relocation of the monument sign. Staff has included a condition (No. 13) in the draft Resolution requiring that the monument sign be relocated to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. EZ Lube CdM (PA2002 -034) • May 23, 2002 Page 8 of 11 Lot Consolidation • The project is located on the southerly portion of three lots and the Post Office is located on the northerly portion of the same three lots. The City has not processed a resubdivision of. the lots, and the description of the property submitted by the applicant appears to correspond to the lease for the previous service station use. The reconfiguration of the lots must be addressed either through a certificate of compliance or a parcel map. Condition No. 20 has been included requiring recordation of either a certificate of compliance or parcel map prior to the issuance of a building permit for the new construction of the lubrication facility. Correspondence At the time of the preparation of this staff report, three a -mails have been received in opposition to the project. The first is from the Corona del Mar Chamber of Commerce and the other two are from Paul Glowienke. The three a -mails are included in Exhibit No. 7. Summary The project includes landscaping, pedestrian benches designed for public use and building design features, such as trellises, cornices and a pitched tile roof that assists in creating an attractive site and building. These features make the project more attractive and provide a measure of compensation for the setback deviation and landscape deficiency. The architectural treatments are more in keeping with other retail commercial uses as opposed to traditional gas stations that • have metal canopies. The building has been designed to maintain the service bays to the back of the building as far from Coast Highway as possible. Finally, the Post Office building helps buffer the project form residential uses to the north. It is not anticipated that the use will generate significant traffic or parking due to the nature of the use. The use also does not generate smoke, dust, vibration or noise that could negatively impact the area. The use also provides a service to the community that ensures recycling of used motor oil. Conversely, the use does require the service bays to remain open and they are difficult to screen from public view. Lighting of the site and the service bays may be excessive when compared to the lower lighting levels present in Corona del Mar. The aesthetics of the use.due to these circumstances may be detrimental especially given the location of the use adjacent to the Corona del Mar Post Office, which is a highly used focal point of the community. Finally, the proposed automobile - related use may be incompatible with the pedestrian oriented commercial area that is Corona del Mar. • Environmental Review Staff has conducted an environmental analysis of the project and the Enviommental Checklist has been completed in accordance with the requirements of the California Envrionmental Quality Act (CEQA). Due to the fact that the site has been a service station in the past, and soil contamination has been detected associated with leaking underground fuel tanks, a Negative Declaration was prepared for the project. Within that analysis is documentation and certification from the Orange County Health Care Agency stating that the underground tanks had been removed and contaminated soil removed. Therefore, staff concluded that the project could not have a significant EZ Lube UM (PA2002 -034) May 23, 2002 Gj Page 9 of 1 I 10 effect on the enviroment, and a Negative Declaration was prepared, circulated, and necessary notices distributed in accordance with CEQA. The Negative Declaration, including the Orange County Health Agency report and certification, is included as Exhibit No. 8 to this staff report. Conclusion In order for the Commission to approve the project, it must make the finding that the project is not detrimental to the area and that any strict compliance with the development regulations for Service Stations are not necessary to achieve the purpose and intent of the Code. Additionally, the findings for the requested parking waiver must be made. If the Commission believes that the project is not detrimental to the area and that the findings for the parking waiver are supportable and deviations from the Service Station Regulations are acceptable given the circumstances of the case, the draft resolution for project approval should be considered (Exhibit No. 3). Staff believes that the findings for the parking waiver can be supported due to the operational character of the proposed use. Additionally, staff believes that the modification of the Service Station setback and landscaping standards are acceptable due to project design features. Finally, staff believes that the project can be found compatible with the area as the use is allowable in the RSC zone. The Commission has the option to approve a modified project. The Commission would adopt the resolution with revised conditions identified at the meeting. The Commission could also require more extensive building modifications. If the Commission desires to do this, it might be appropriate to continue the public hearing and direct the applicant to prepare revised architectural drawings. If the Commission believes the facts surrounding this application support a finding that the project is detrimental to the area, denial of the project is recommended. The use, with its aesthetics, the site layout, suggested parking waiver or the deviations from Chapter 20.80 related to the landscaping and building setback may prove detrimental to the area. The use requires that the two service bays be open and the bays must be lighted; which will accentuate the negative aesthetic of the bays especially during the evening. It is not possible to fully screen the bays from public views from Coast Highway and Orchid Avenue. Additionally, a vehicle related use in this area could be . considered incompatible with surrounding uses, which are dominated by restaurants, retail stores with personal services, boutiques and home furnishings which are more pedestrian oriented. Draft Findings for have been prepared for consideration and are attached as Exhibit No. 4. Submitted by: PATRICIA L. TEMPLE Planning Director Prepared by: WILLIAM CUNNINGHAM Contract Planner EZ Lube CdM (PA2002 -034) May 23, 2002 Page 10 of 11 • • • a� i Exhibits • 1. Chapter 20.80 2. Service Station Design Guidelines 3. Resolution No. 2002 -_; findings and conditions of approval 4. Findings for denial 5. Letter and project description from applicant 6. Hourly Customer Counts - Costa Mesa EZ Lube 7. Correspondence received (3 e- mails). 8. Environmental Checklist and Negative Declaration 9. Project plans • • EZ Lube CdM (PA2002 -034) May 23, 2002 �J Page 11 of 11 O EXHIBIT 1 ;CONING CODE CHAPTER 20.80 - SERVICE STATIONS • • • AY Page 20.80 -1 Service Stations CHAPTER 20.80 • 1 SERVICE STATIONS Sections: 20.80.010 Purpose 20.80.020 Use Permit Required 20.80.030 Required Findings 20.80.040 Application Contents 20.80.050 Operational Regulations 20.80.060 Design and Development Regulations 20.80.070 Accessory Uses 20.80.010 Purpose In order to promote and preserve the public health, safety, convenience, general welfare and general prosperity, it is the intent of this chapter that service stations shall not create increased pedestrian and vehicular traffic hazards and shall not be detrimental to the ordinary maintenance; development and redevelopment of the surrounding area as reflected by the General Plan, zoning regulations or specific plans approved by the City. • ' The specific purposes of this chapter are to: A. Establish locational and minimum land area requirements to insure that service stations have access to arterials and streets sufficiently improved to accommodate traffic generated from the site and that the site is of sufficient size to accommodate the service station and associated uses. B. Establish requirements for driveway approaches, vehicle access aisles, and off -street parking to insure safe and efficient internal circulation and to avoid impacts to the flow of traffic on adjacent arterials and streets. C. Establish requirements for site design, setback yards, landscaping, lighting, storage areas, utilities, and perimeter walls to enhance the appearance of the service station and to provide sufficient separation and buffering to protect adjacent residential and other land uses. D. Establish architectural and site design standards to provide an attractive appearance that is compatible with and complimentary to the community and surrounding land uses and development. E. Establish requirements to insure that areas and facilities provided for or visible to the •� general public are maintained in a safe and clean manner. 0&73M Page 20.80.2 Service Stations F. Establish operational regulations to insure that service station activities and facilities are conducted in a manner so as to avoid impacts from noise, vibration, dust, odors, glare, electromagnetic interference, and hazardous materials on adjacent land use 20.80.020 Use Permit Required Unless otherwise prescribed in the individual chapters of this code, a use permit shall be required for any new service station and for any existing service station when one or more of the following events occur: A. An expansion of 10 percent or more in floor area within any 12 month period or the cumulative expansion of more than 50 percent of floor area existing at the time of the effective date of this chapter. B. Any change in the land area on which the service station is located, whether by purchase, lease, business combination or acquisition, or similar method. C. A renovation or any other development that would cost more than 50 percent of the value of the improvements on the parcel at the time of renovation, excluding land value. D. The introduction of any of the accessory uses permitted under Section 20.80.070, or introduction of alcoholic beverage sales (see Chapter 20.89: Alcoholic Bevera Outlets), or any similar change in the operational characteristics of the service stati 20.80.030 Required Findings In addition to the findings required for use permits by Chapter 20.91, the Planning Commission shall find that the project is consistent with the purposes of this chapter and that the proposed site plan and architecture are consistent with the City of Newport Beach Design Guidelines. 20.80.040 Application Contents In addition to the application requirements contained in Chapter 20.90: Application Filing and Fees, an application for a use permit for a service station shall be accompanied by the following information, maps and plans: A. A plot plan of the property, drawn to scale, showing location of all buildings, canopies, on -site access and drives, service islands, storage facilities, planting areas, exterior lighting standards, signs, walls, parking spaces, enclosed trash areas, curb cuts and driveway approaches. Page 20.80 -3 Service Stations B. Elevations, drawn to scale, including all building and sign faces and materials, j textures and colors. • C. A grading plan, indicating how the property is to be graded and drained. ' D. A landscape and irrigation plan showing the size, location and variety of plant materials to be used, including the botanical and common plant names of each, and the location, type and design of all irrigation systems. E. A materials board (specifications and samples of type, color and texture of proposed construction materials). F. A written design concept statement identifying the significant architectural and site plan features, the reasoning behind the architecture and site plan proposed, and an explanation of how and why the architectural and site plan features were incorporated into the project design. The statement shall describe how the proposed architecture and site plan are consistent with the City of Newport Beach Design Guidelines: Automobile Service Stations and Washing. G. Such other plans, drawings and information as the Planning Director reasonably may require. 20.80.050 Operational Regulations The following operational regulations shall apply to service stations and accessory uses. A. Location of Activities. All activities and operations shall be conducted entirely within an enclosed structure, except for the following, which shall -be permitted unless otherwise conditioned by the use permit: Sale and dispensing of motor vehicle fuel. 2. Incidental, minor maintenance commonly conducted at service islands, such as dispensing of air and water, replacement of windshield wipers, fuses, and lamps, and replenishing motor vehicle fluids and lubricants. 3. Vending machines abutting a building or in a kiosk enclosed on three sides. 4. Vacuuming, hand drying and hand waxing of vehicles. B. Storage and Display Outdoor storage and display of merchandise, materials, or equipment shall be limited to the following: • os¢3M 31 Page 20.80.4 Service Stations 1. Display racks for automotive merchandise no more than 4 feet wide located at each service island. 2. Display racks for automotive merchandise located within 3 feet of the • principal building, provided such display racks are limited to 1 display rack per frontage. 3. Temporary outdoor storage and display as provided in Section 20.05.090 (M. All other outdoor storage and display shall require a use permit issued by the Planning Director pursuant to Section 20.60.105: Outdoor Storage and Display. C. Parking and Vehicle Storage. 1. Off - street parking shall be provided as specified in Chapter 20.66: Off - Street Parking and Loading. 2. Vehicles or equipment in the process of being served may be stored outside for a maximum period of 7 days. 3. The parking of vehicles and equipment for purposes. ,of sale shall be prohibited. ' 4. The: storage of rental vehicles shall not occupy any parking space provided • to meet the parking requirements of the service station or any other accessory use.. 5. No vehicles shall be parked or stored within the public right -of -way. 6. Fuel delivery trucks shall not obstruct the public right -of -way during delivery. D. Non - Automotive Retail/Food and Beverage Sales. Up to 50 square feet of net public area may be used for the display and sale of non - automotive merchandise and ready - to-eat and prepackaged food and beverages. Walls -in refrigeration units shall be_ prohibited. Exceptions. 1. Floor area used for vending machines shall not contribute to the floor area limit. 2. Accessory uses subject to the provisions of Section 20.80.070. E. Signs. Signs shall be subject to the provisions of Section 20.67.030 (D). W23M ./ 3a i 0J Page 20.80 -5 Service Stations 20.80.060 Design and Development Regulations A. Apulicability. The following design and development regulations shall apply to any new service station and to any existing service station meeting any of the criteria specified in Section 20.80.020. B. Location. All service station sites shall front on streets designated as major, primary or secondary on the City Master Plan of Streets and Highways unless the sites are part of or in conjunction with developments such as shopping centers in residential areas. C. Minimum Land Area. The minimum land area for service stations shall be 1,500 square feet of land area for each fueling space, 1,000 sgtiare feet for each service bay or washing bay, and 3.33 square feet for each square foot of gross floor area used for retail and/or food and beverage sales. D. E. Setbacks. The following setbacks shall be maintained: Access. Driveways shall be so designed and located as to ensure a safe and efficient movement of traffic on and off the site to and from the lane of traffic neatest the curb. All driveways shall be located and constructed according to the City of Newport Beach Driveway Approach Policy. 2. Driveways for service stations which are developed as part of or in conjunction with adjacent uses shall be located as part of the total circulation element of such adjacent uses. 3. On -site driveways all should be a minimum of Z5 feet for two-way traffic or 18 feet for one -way circulation. 55 Required Setback (Feet) Abutting Abutting Structure Interior a Street an Alley Service islands 20 20 20 Canopies 5 5 5 Air and water dispensers 10 10 10 Automobile washing. - maintenance and repair 18 30 30 Retail and office 0 15 10 Access. Driveways shall be so designed and located as to ensure a safe and efficient movement of traffic on and off the site to and from the lane of traffic neatest the curb. All driveways shall be located and constructed according to the City of Newport Beach Driveway Approach Policy. 2. Driveways for service stations which are developed as part of or in conjunction with adjacent uses shall be located as part of the total circulation element of such adjacent uses. 3. On -site driveways all should be a minimum of Z5 feet for two-way traffic or 18 feet for one -way circulation. 55 Page 20.80 -6 Service Stations 4. Provisions for on -site queuing lanes shall be made. 5. Queuing lanes shall not interfere with access to required parking spaces. F. 1Riti es. All utilities shall be installed underground within the exterior property lines of the site. G. Drainage. All drainage to the street shall be by underground structures to avoid drainage across City walks or drive aprons, and shall be subject to approval by the Director of Public Works. H. Site and Architectural Desitm. The site plan and architecture of the service station shall provide an attractive appearance that is compatible with and complimentary to the community and surrounding land uses and development and that is consistent with the City of Newport Beach Design Guidelines: Automobile Service Stations and Washing. L Landscavina. Area Required. A minimum of 15 percent of the site shall be landscaped with plant materials designed to provide beautification and screening. Planting areas shall include, but not be limited to, the following: a. A minimum 5 foot -wide (inside dimension) planting areas between driveway approaches. • b. A minimum of 150 square foot landscaped area provided at the intersection of two property lines at a street comer. Landscape materials shall not exceed a height of 36 inches. C. A minimum 5 foot -wide (inside dimension) planting area along interior property lines, except where openings are needed to facilitate vehicular circulation to adjacent properties. d. A minimum of 30 percent of the required landscaping shall be provided within 20 feet of the street property lines. 2. Nantity of Materials. Landscaped areas adjacent to street property lines shall be planted with a minimum of 1 tree and 3 shrubs per every 25 linear feet of street frontage. Landscaped areas adjacent to interior property lines shall be Planted with a minimum of 1 tree and 3 shrubs per every 30 linear feet. These calculations establish the minimum number of required trees and shrubs and are not meant to imply linear or equal spacing. Required trees shall be 24- inch box size, or larger. Required shrubs shall have a minimum mature ounm t• 34 Page 20.80 -7 Service Stations growth height of 18 inches and shall be a minimum of 5- gallon in size upon installation. 3. Quality of Materials. Plant materials shall be chosen for their screening qual- ities, beauty and durability. Plantings shall include a mixture of trees; shrubs and groundcovers. All plant materials shall conform to or exceed the plant quality standards of the latest edition of American Standard for Nursery Stock published by the American Association of Nurserymen, or the equivalent. 4. Street Trees. City parkway areas shall be provided with groundcover and street trees as per City standards. 5. Barriers. Planting areas adjacent to vehicular activity shall be protected by a continuous concrete curb or similar permanent barrier. 7. Irrigation. All planting areas shall be provided with a permanent underground automatic sprinkler irrigation system of a design suitable for the type and arrangement of the plant materials selected. 8. Maintenance of Landscaping. a. All landscape materials and landscaped areas shall be maintained in accordance with the approved landscape plan. • b. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and growing condition and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing and trimming. C. All landscaped areas shall be kept free of weeds and debris. d. All irrigation systems shall be kept operable, including adjustments, replacements, repairs, and cleaning as part of regular maintenance. 9. Sight Distances. Landscaping shall be located so as not to impede vehicular sight distance to the satisfaction of the Traffic Engineer. 10. Required Plans. Landscape planting and sprinkler irrigation plans and specifications shall be submitted by the applicant and approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of a building permit. J. Perimeter Walls. Service station sites shall be separated from abutting residentially -zoned property or property used for residential purposes by 6 foot high masonry or concrete wall utilizing materials similar in color, module and texture to those utilized in the building. Such walls shall be reduced to 3 feet in height within • 35 -12-r Page 20.80-8 Service Stations adjacent street setback areas. Such walls need not be installed when building walls or other acceptable walls already exist on such property lines. _ K Lim. Exterior light sources shall be shielded from view and directed away from •` adjacent properties. Luminaries shall be of a low level, indirect diffused type and shall not exceed a height of 20 feet above finished grade. L. Rest Rooms. One men's rest room and one women's rest room shall be provided during business hours for use by service station customers. All rest rooms with exterior entrances shall be located so as to be in clear view of the station's service area, cashier station, or office. M. Refuse Storage AMm. Refuse storage areas shall be enclosed by walls and integrated with the design of the service station. N. Additional Requirements. It shall be required as a condition of a use permit that the applicant provide the fuel supplier, the property owner and/or lessee each with a copy of the conditions embodied on the permit, and receive a written receipt therefor, so that there shall be no person operating the premises who is not aware of the conditions of operation. If, during any inspection of the premises, the City shall find violations of the requirements of the use permit, it shall notify both the fuel supplier and the operator of the station in order to assure compliance. ' O. Modification or Waiver of Regulations. The Planning Commission may modify or waive any of the design and development regulations contained in this section for the expansion or renovation of an existing service station upon finding that: 1. The strict compliance with the regulations is not necessary to achieve the purpose and intent of this chapter. 2. The project possesses compensating design and development features that offset impacts associated with the modification or waiver of regulations. 3, The overall site plan and architectural design is consistent with the City of Newport Beach Design Guidelines. Automobile Service Stations and Washing. 06/2"9 3� 99-' Page 20.80 -9 Service Stations 20.80.070 Accessory Uses A. Accessory Uses Permitted. The following use classifications shall be permitted as •� accessory uses to a service station, subject to the approval of an use permit or an amendment to an existing use permit pursuant to Chapter 20.91. Use Permits and Variances. 1. Convenience Markets. 2. Automobile Washing. 3. Vehicle/Equipment Repair. Limited. 4. Electronic Equipment Installation. 5. Vehicle Rentals. B. Supplementary Rem lations for Convenience Markets. The following supplementary regulations shall apply to convenience markets operated in conjunction with service stations. 1. Minimum Floor Area. The sale of food and beverages and- non - automotive merchandise shall require a minimum of 1,200 square feet of gross floor area, •exclusive of vehicle service and washing areas. 1 2. Mode of Sale. The sale of merchandise from drive -up windows shall be prohibited. 3. Signs and Displays. Signs and displays shall not obstruct the sales counter, cash register, seller and customer from view from the exterior. 4. Arcade and Game Machines. Arcade and games machines shall be prohibited. 5. Security. The Planning Commission may require the applicant to provide a security program for the.site. 6. Alcoholic Beverage Sales. See Chapter 20.89 (Alcoholic Beverage Outlets). eJ MOM 31 EXHIBIT 2 SERVICE STATION DESIGN GUIDELINES L� • Q N @6 O a� • 0 O� @ w 0 c o ac a a a� N C 3:1 O 6 @= U a) 0 d y1 C 'D C•0C i- —_p -00 0c- U DU N m E a U Q (D C O w I 0 U a W � ® W N Z y ® I W a CL Z ® C)WI >gl �O d $ 0 U (\ o U CL m mo 3 a 06 oaa I U 0 - aa)i CL �. —._2 > fn t`n o 'O L _U • W Q- 0) "'' N N-0 c N O N= a) 0)= a) a) a) 'Q c N +m. t .0 C N 0 .0 N oaa��u0 �`p')acico vvm32 Tic° U 0) U> m e U) � 0-0 CD a) o Y cmi N m .0 m 'tA a) a) 0) C to '> a) E L y m a) .N-•. N d m m N N >+ U O c t O N N to N C •' m L 'O oT.N�D�� a)°NF -ma) to r- m y Q V- a) c 7 U M O` 0 a) 7' 7 w w t v1 y T c m 3 CL p °)a) a3.0 `-0 3 �L o 0) 00016oED o mma)) V) vmn Z LL m N OL Cl) C 0) 'O O 7 c E p O U ° L U r.) C: m ! n o C ° L U m C C U a) ac ) a) > r- U) T a) p a) O tn m o T m 3: y tt "a: ° oa) °v0 L av ai mm > a) Co m c 2 N c 0)° a0 -0 C C C C m a) a) 7� U U 0 m a) N T a) -V •0 a) c Z C) C— — m 0° b 2 C U b C L C C CL m C 'C a) a) N �p L L U 2 F- ; m Co Co m O. O m 042 m 0 U) a) °? L L 3 ul CL U C -0 C '— a) o m p m a) U r ") 7 ❑ s — c_ m wc O) C c Q U) U "(1) U U .D 3 39 MA N 3 C O v. L' N O y N N >1 0 O (LO CD l9 7 ..ai O) = N 440E "' N N " L ._ N >.�LL N l0 d > > O. N N lC U 3 N� (0 ON=E N U N '- N O C N N L :Fr. U wLN, Co D p7 0 0 ca N CL CO t�lJ C > .N-' 3 EO N -zi O N U N 0 N 4) O. O 'O 0 .0 .a N C C 0 0 f6 N N C> N C 2 w. '0 (y N v C (0 N N N L 7 wflc2 C O 0 (0 F- N U C 0 0 0 0( U N > O eN+ w N N N Opp (0 N C N C L N Co l9 y 7 L L C O N C L (0 w w O >+ O V) C O W m N= 0 0 (0 CL.- IU 1C L .O N C y N 0 U 'O CL N N L N D o E v` U (6 i N d N 19 in l9 l9 N Q U N t 0 hLo .0 w N C N 7 O)L C 'O N w l9 7 ..ai L L O O 440E "' N N " L ._ N >.�LL 00 vy�vN� �'3`- N N lC U 3 (0 y O y = 7 L :Fr. U C 0 'c w (0 0 0 N CL CO t�lJ C > .N-' 3 EO N -zi O N U N 0 N 4) O. '0 cc .0 .a N C C 0 0 N N C> O)'O N U L .D O '0 C (0 C w p 0 wflc2 0 "Co N L N N y 0 0 0 0( U N U N •+ N Opp (0 a") C w f0 C N C L N Co l9 y 7 L L .+ N 0 L (0 w w O N N '+ .0 � w U E U 0 w 7 C E N N L y T O ._ '46 E N N CD C N Q 'O .O O N O N O N UJ w N O w d m l9 0,0 �g C� g� 2 "E $ s 3 s L �ggg� a • • • `C� .N 00 o U) y O U CO � E U C. o C 'y • E . .O N U 75 N L y E D D = U N C L N L N N y p 'O N N UO .N •iLC -.. '> 3 w N O U d'g N U C. � m o N o '0 w � w O >_ CD L U N a) E N m tom!) .� 3 0 3 � N CL a4) E d U N d'o C C m E N 0. O m O O m V. ' 7 a) `- o-o C D C. -p w m m O E a) d O m U N 0)= U N d r .` n T y 0 U) 0) UN N X O W C,D a)m E Op Q Ep :3 O 0 d p () C. m N m C w 70 U a) t O U C '0 U N 7 75 O N N U > O O.N.. L o N w (D ) L D %0)m 3Lm N m� 3 m ._ E U V d i O) U - N N 0 . a) C 0 00 vi O m O o a) m � N C •+NC Ca O E �N O j c6 co _� O O i N CD v - O y .0 to Q W O y C C p m 0 U N > .m. r 0 U O N ! > 0 E • L ` C +:N"> = a) a) Mm C 'w o E V y ) N C D o C 0 a O d C E y 5 O v '0.0 CL L o 0 C m C ° o N m O m m m c 3 N N US , � co V) i- o v a) � C Y o C y U D. N N= y O p V y " O m M CD Q� N a a) N >+ U -0 D 7 O 2 a) p c O Nam 3 v ai > 0 O- O) 0) m o a) O 5 p .. U) C L 'v O p +� a) 4) am a) -0 NU C L m C `) '� 0 .o a) �) a) N y m 0 0) O m c C� 0 - � 0 N a) N m C� C '"' '"' N m j o D L .0 y D N> O U m U p >a w �p Z. D a (Da)o m U Z a p U O o w N >. j a) O N Q °o =Cu m2 U N Q� 0 0 �J 1 m Q j U m i Q a m m ti w o U) ai C N - N � E U o d () y m N c L N C 0) m C v O D m '> a) N a) O :3 N U C. .L-. O U fn 'o C N � i N N m m o U N 0 O CL d U N d'o C C E N 0. O 0a)m .0 m `- o-o a) E _. a) f`6 m N d O m N 0 > w U N r .` n T CL �p0 U) U C N X O W .m N . N D Q Ep :3 O 0 d U N N m a) a)N7 o O U C '0 U N 7 75 O N N D > m L o N a) C m L D Y d V O m O C � 3 0 y m _� O O i N CD v - C U I, Co > E U to Q W ►- Cl 0 0 ql k 2 c § k e$ a2 2e'0 \- %S "a �co - c,. e', kk 2) k � �2� §2 0 22 t om] tea' �# _ »� %�� �\{ �{ £E$ \I 2 %° - EJ. CD 0 � � \ -.0 2co \\ §2£ o &f ' 0 CL \ \f )= E]\ CD M- r E c o k�� �f�> j� ]/] k M \k� 0 Co 20 to »2 CM e . -= �e $&] cc 4) % ° (D 0 �E0 -0 a) ° ck2g °k55 \ §f ;\ b- o £ E/ » & S S E ®° t�B� a >M kv °�:e 7±� fa�0 \j] k) (D ]§ V ] 7 a °S §} ] A2) (D0 2: 2§ \k M �2� � 7£ e 2� fm & _ >,E �o�o 0)0 2-m 5c� >, ca -0 22§ 7 ¥$E §22 }k2 0C3 aft �c (a %2 cc-0 Gs ƒk -.@ 'cM �'0 �,M =�Cc 0 £a® )•� 0 O > 207 - &/k -m &a /7 2 »a 222 e_t� �t0 Gf« 2 /§t F- &£ « ;f /« CL 8 r� � Ll 0 0- � 0 03 N N L U O- N .N. N Cl) N ~ m C N C N N Q 7 CL U) • U N C Z > W •C N O) N (0 �O y ❑ D w ❑ l9 � N U m C � c CL rn ° O (D ,o Q0c c y Z c D N •7 N 7 N � C ❑ l9 � � C7 N N O O. O p O V �vu) U) 0o 4 N CD `.-° m ❑ .J ❑ v o 2 m :3 m N C C 0 E C Q) 7 C U' N M U (n Q Q CO U y o ❑ Q om U 0 ui u- 03 mt 0 v a� c fD L U N N 7 O L U) Y ^c E C. .j ^r W U f0 L U N E d O Y 0 O O L T C Q 7 V 7 0 • • �L • E j C O N Q ro _N Q a C t0 V_ s a °S e P � o O_ 7 O '6 e � �N J+ O l0 j, U O N w C O O C N C D � lC C' X O C O f0 Y a E "? d 2 c_ r 0 8 2• � O'O 3 O L N y al C C aw Nm O O L O O E C_ v- m O) ` 'D C C O a)� v> w y� o E 4) D c C mL f6L N Opr- W CL F- a 7 U 0 L cc 0) O T CL O C U d L O C 'O N N N N U N N D v 5 0 L N N N 7 X ii- L O) J 'O w f6 C .0 l9 L C � C � N D r-. CO 'O N 75 a 01- N '> y D o.v C 3 O O U w N N N Q 2 C N U l9 O (0 E O L T (0 3 m L m U N L_ 'O .0 C f6 d I6 O) 0 f6 0 .D N C 0) .N N N D 'O 7 O L N m c L m O 'Yt f!1 O 'C O CL O CL C U lV 'O l0 E O I- 4- m .o .N 6 C N l9 w O N O N l9 U C U 'O 7 O L N N U 7 O N m c L m O W 45 C C 3 L 7 O N y N N w v QE cc d :3 O N C. C U 3v a) °)2 N CD N w N y O O f6 C y C w d _ 'L L .� n , >T ou a� 7 O '6 e � �N J+ O l0 j, U O N w C O O C N C D � lC C' X O C O f0 Y a E "? d 2 c_ r 0 8 2• � O'O 3 O L N y al C C aw Nm O O L O O E C_ v- m O) ` 'D C C O a)� v> w y� o E 4) D c C mL f6L N Opr- W CL F- a 7 U 0 L cc 0) O T CL O C U d L O C 'O N N N N U N N D v 5 0 L N N N 7 X ii- L O) J 'O w f6 C .0 l9 L C � C � N D r-. CO 'O N 75 a 01- N '> y D o.v C 3 O O U w N N N Q 2 C N U l9 O (0 E O L T (0 3 m L m U N L_ 'O .0 C f6 d I6 O) 0 f6 0 .D N C 0) .N N N D 'O 7 O L N m c L m O 'Yt f!1 O 'C O CL O CL C U lV 'O l0 E O I- 4- m .o .N 6 C N l9 w O N O N l9 U C U 'O 7 O L N N U 7 O N m c L m O W 45 C .O ro U i U a C m y U U Q = C O y a3 ca U t C a) N { N a7 ,� V1 U a3 p N V1 '- aE�oc°) U - ` C CD NO T ca V7 C U V) C ._ .n a3 Y_ i N Co L V1 a) a) N N aL-. O > -Do D O U cc � > V) "> � -a cc L l0 LO C V a 0) cc a) Nil • • •' Nr � O 7 a a CL cc m E m cfci v3 O a) cc c ° c cc o0) N N C- a) V) U U CL a7 co > a) co co N j. > O a) a) V O a) CD C 2 C N LO N C L t!) D O d N 0 co N E E ° v p V) ca 0) 3 �O O O O_ E O L E N U C O a) E O) > O U ca CL D E w C co B ca U C O E U d 7 0/ U ca w o v o o a) .`_- N N N N '0 O a) a) ca a) aa)) Cl) cc O a) w E O a) O co Q V O L L 3 Co a) 'ca d O N a7 a) C •.. O O N C () D a) N O f0 N L L 7 = �O ca N 3 co a7 i- C D O a) a) C (a O a) — d a) E 7 L 7 C C y N N U) N .� a O O a) L a) ca a) U a) 7 7 L (D a) U ca =3 L L C 'O L. +_+ N O 7 2 C) to to O j m a) 'O r- 0 V) a) a) a) L a) '++ v) L L L N Co N a) a3 U a) U a) U a) N ' O p O 7 ` a) O O O N C N U CL CL CL a) CO O) C d. m E a) N d cc O. cc CL cc a) ; . C a) U) 7 e.. T yj fa C T a) >. E N CL— f0 C (a CL O a) _O N a) Oap Co N U a) ( ca a) lL 'O 0 0 Q 0 J a) .0 c L3 U '� a N J = C O y a3 ca U t C a) N { N a7 ,� V1 U a3 p N V1 '- aE�oc°) U - ` C CD NO T ca V7 C U V) C ._ .n a3 Y_ i N Co L V1 a) a) N N aL-. O > -Do D O U cc � > V) "> � -a cc L l0 LO C V a 0) cc a) Nil • • •' Nr � • L J ww 0 z w 0 U w t a cM o w m a c .0 U •+�_� i N w 3 N CD� N CD O)•O N N •y C C '0 O U L U N U a w U 0 C N N � 0 C Z6 E O C 'O C N C �C CD > E� N E N •N :O 'O O N N +N' al N C C C O. N N.D N.O.. TN ° .N a N- E i-0 N Y i N 0.0 U C> O w- N w O) Q m O ^L O m N • C • m o_v d o c a m �. N v N 2 O U :3 b N y N O. Q..E N 0 N CL C O C O N C E N L C O E d C •�w . N N Nt .n m E N v N N .-' 'D d O i N C +L-. N N O C N .0 CD C '�" N O C N O• E= E p C O O N N C L 'O C 'D N N O) N 'O N O 'O O O - N N O 'C D. N N p O Q to d7 .«. O_ 'N �. O. 0.._ 'O O N> O C N C E O C C 4)4- LL N I'- E F- C O. N ❑ D 0 ql \ * - I a2$a 7 © ©E / §oj �eCL c J2 J]. v) -0 M G) a ) tl 5f 2Q. Q4)\ /. §22q. �-0C of }f beo- -2 > a8o& (2k/ oa eaek w c F of Bo &D S §a7 20=' 7/0 kk \k SD b °0: o& == /7 \D M/7% Cc 2o A \fgo f "Kfk =522e e .0 aEM e §§ § � k 0 0 � � EXHIBIT 3 • RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING USE PERMIT NO. 2002 -005 (PA2002 -034) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3600 EAST COAST HIGHWAY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS, RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. An application was filed by EZ Lube, with respect to property located at 3600 East Coast Highway and described as Lots 1, 2 and a portion of Lot 3 in Block V of Tract No. 323, requesting approval of Use Permit No. 2001 -005 to allow construction of a automobile lubrication facility consisting of 2,641 square-foot building located in Corona del Mar. Included within the request is a waiver of the parking requirement of ten spaces to permit seven spaces. Section 2. A public hearing was held on May 23, 2002 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at this meeting. • Section 3. The Planning Commission finds as follows: 1. The proposed automobile lubrication facility and the proposed conditions under which it would be operated or maintained is consistent with the General Plan and the purpose of the district in which the site is located; will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to the neighborhood of such use; and will not be detrimental to the properties or improvements in the vicinity or to the general welfare of the City for the following reasons: a. The project includes landscaping, pedestrian benches designed for public use and building design features, such as trellises, cornices, stone accents and a pitched tile roof assist in creating an attractive site and building. b. The architectural treatments of the project are more in keeping with other retail commercial uses as opposed to traditional gas stations that have metal canopies. C. The project is designed with service bays located to the back of the building as far from Coast Highway as possible. d. The abutting Post Office building helps buffer the project form residential uses to the north thereby reducing potential negative impacts to nearby residences. e. The use will not generate traffic beyond that of the previous service station. f. The use does not generate smoke, dust, vibration or noise that could negatively impact the area. g. The use provides a service to the community that ensures recycling of used motor . oil. q9 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Paee 2 of 6 2. The operational characteristics of the proposed use, including the hours of operation, are consistent • with Municipal Code requirements. Any change in the operational characteristict, including conversion of the use to a traditional vehicle repair facility, would require an amendment to the Use Permit, reviewed by the Planning Commission. 3. An Initial Study and Negative Declaration (ND) have been prepared in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K -3. The Draft ND was circulated for public comment between April 30, 2002 and May 23, 2002. No comments were received from any responsible agency, member of the community, or other interested party and no responses were prepared. 4. The contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this project. On the basis of the entire environmental review record, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact upon the environment and there are no known substantial adverse affects on human beings that would be caused. Additionally, there are no long -term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project. There are no cumulative impacts that are anticipated in connection with the project. The project has been conditioned to mitigate any adverse conditions. The prepared Negative Declaration is hereby approved. 5. The waiver of three parking spaces in this case will not, under the circumstances of the case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and is consistent with the legislative intent of Title • 20 of the Zoning Code for the following reasons: a. The parking demand will be less than the requirement in Section 20.66.030 in that the Code requirement for service stations require more parking than would be needed by a facility that restricts its use to the lubrication of automobiles only, and a parking analysis was conducted for a similar facility in the area that demonstrates that the proposed seven parking spaces will accommodate the potential parking demand for the site. b. The probable long -term occupancy of the building or structure, based on its design, will not generate additional parking demand in that the building is designed in a manner that will restrict its future use to the lubrication and minor servicing of automobiles and any change in the operational characteristics of the business will require a new use permit and analysis of the parking needs of the proposed changed use. 6. The projectt meets the development standards of the RSC District; however, it is proposed to waive the setback requirements of the Service Station Regulations. Waiver of the setbacks are permitted by Code Section 20.80.060(0) based upon the following findings: a. The strict compliance with the regulation is not necessary to achieve the purpose and intent of the Service Station regulations in that the project, even though technically classified as a service station, is limited to the lubrication and servicing of automobiles only and all work is accomplished within the building and no petroleum products are sold or dispensed outside. • 5� WEEIR City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 3 of 6 • b. The project possesses compensating design and development features that offset the impacts associated with the modification or waiver of regulations in that the building design is significantly different than a service station, consistent with other commercially designed buildings in the area, and has provided landscaping that exceeds the amount of landscaping provided in typical service stations since the number of access driveways is less than normally found in service station facilities. C. The overall site plan and architectural design is consistent with the City Design Guidelines in that landscaping has been provided along street frontages and interior property boundaries, the building has been situated on the site in a manner to orient the service bay openings away from the Coast Highway frontage, the building incorporates the use of design features such as trellises and roof features, and colors and materials have been used that are consistent with the recommendations of the Design Guidelines. 7. The project is consistent with the purposes of Chapter 20.80 (Service Stations) and the site plan and architecture are consistent with the City of Newport Beach Design Guidelines. Section 4. Based on the aforementioned findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves Use Permit No. 2002 -005, subject to the Conditions set forth in Exhibit "A." Section 5. This action shall become final and effective fourteen days after the adoption of this Resolution unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk or this action is called for review by the City Council in accordance with the provisions of Title 20, Planning and Zoning, of the Newport • Beach Municipal Code. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23rd DAY OF MAY, 2002. M Larry Tucker, Chairman BY.: Earl McDaniel, Secretary • AYES: NOES: 51 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 4 of 6 EXHIBIT "A" • CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-005 The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plan, and elevations dated January 20, 2002. 2. Use Permit No. 2001 -005 shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.91.050 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, unless an extension is otherwise granted. 3. The Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this use permit, or revoke this permit upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this approval causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 4. The applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City Building and Fire Departments. The construction plans must comply with the most recent City- adopted version of the Uniform Building Code. The construction plans must meet all applicable State Disabilities Access requirements. Adequate access and exiting must be approved by the Building Department, and approval from the Orange County Health Care Agency and South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is required prior to permit issuance. • 5. That any change in operational characteristics of the business including conversion to a traditional vehicle repair facility, change in the hours of operation, expansion in area, or other modification to the floor plan, shall require amendment to this Use Permit or the processing of a new Use Permit. 6. Should this business be sold or otherwise come under different ownership or a change in operators, any future owners, operators, or tenants shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by either the current business owner, property owner or the leasing agent. 7. A ten -foot radius comer cutoff at the corner of Orchid Avenue and East Coast Highway shall be dedicated to the approval of the Public Works Director. 8. The unused driveway approaches along East Coast-Highway and Orchid Avenue shall be removed and replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk. The curb access ramp shall be reconstructed at the comer intersection to meet current ADA requirements, and shall be to the approval of the Public Works Director. All deteriorated sidewalk shall replaced as required by the Public Works Department. All work within Coast Highway shall be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the California Department of Transportation and all work completed within Orchid Avenue shall be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the City Public Works Department. • 6 Z City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 5 of 6 • 9. The catch basin located on Orchid Avenue shall be relocated and reconstructed to the approval of the Public Works Department. A drainage study prepared by a licensed civil engineer and paid for by the applicant shall be prepared and approved by the Public Works Department to determine the correct catch basin size. Any modifications or extensions to the existing storm drain required by the drainage report shall be the responsibility of the applicant. 10. Any Southern California Edison transformers serving the site shall be located outside the sight distance planes in accordance with City Standard 110 -L. 11. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement or construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conduced in accordance with state and local requirements. There shall be no construction storage or deliver of materials within the East Coast Highway right -of -way. 12. The OCTA bus stomp on East Coast Highway shall be relocated so that it will not interfere with the proposed driveways. The new location of the bus stop shall be coordinated with the OCTA. 13. The monument sign shall be relocated to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. 14. A minimum of four Queen Palms shall be installed on the property with two of the palms located • along the East Coast Highway frontage. The palms shall have a minimum 8 -foot brown trunk height. 15. All on -site exterior lighting shall be provided in a manner so as to restrict any light and glare to the property. Exterior wall- mounted light fixtures shall be equipped with cut -off shields in order to prevent light spillage to surrounding properties and public right -of -way. Prior to final occupancy, Planning Department staff shall make an evening inspection of the property to detemiine if the lighting is in compliance with this condition, and any remediation measures to correct the lighting shall be made by the applicant. 16. Prior to final occupancy, Planning Department staff shall inspect the site during evening hours. If it is determined that the light intensity is to high, the Planning Director shall have the authority to reduce light levels to a level he/she finds compatible with the surrounding commercial and residential areas. 17. The operating hours of the business shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 am to 7:00 pm Monday through Friday, and 8:00 am to 6:00 pm on Saturday and Sunday. 18. Directional signage shall be installed directing vehicles to the lubrication bays to enter from Orchid Avenue. 19. The use of pneumatic tools and other similar noise - generating tools and equipment is prohibited at • all times. a fJ City of Newport Beach Pianning Commission Resolution No. Page 6 of 6 20. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a certificate of compliance or parcel map shall be • processed and recorded. 21. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a landscaping plan shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the Planning Director and the City Traffic Engineer. The plan shall show the species, sizes and locations of plants, and shall be developed in a manner that provides adequate screening of the service bays. C� 0 5 M • • Ll EXHIBIT 4 DRAFT FINDINGS FOR DENIAL 55 Mm EXHIBIT 4 Findings for Denial of Use Permit No. 2002 -005. • The establishment, maintenance or operation of the proposed automobile service station use of the property will, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed project is inconsistent with the legislative intent of this code for the following reasons: The project is not compatible with surrounding land uses in that it introduces an automobile - related use in an area characterized by pedestrian- oriented uses. There has been a trend away from automobile - related uses in the commercial districts of Corona del Mar during recent years due to the pedestrian nature of the area. 3. The project would introduce views of automobile service bays and it is not possible to screen the service bays from public view. 4. The operational characteristics of the use will require that the service bay doors remain open and the intensities of the lighting within the service bays would be in • excess of the light levels in Corona del Mar. The site development standards of the Service Station regulations of the Code as they relate to landscaping and setbacks have not been met. 6. The mandatory findings to grant a parking waiver cannot be met for this project in that the decrease in parking on the site could adversely affect surrounding parking and there currently is parking problem within the area. 7. The proposed design could result in a parking problem associated with handicap parking requirements in that potential queuing of automobiles at the service bay doors could result in blocking the handicap space. LA 5r0 ,l%r_T_� • EXHIBIT 5 APPLICANT'S LETTER AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION • • 51 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION USE PERMIT • Project Description 1. Approvals Requested: The Applicant requests the following approvals to construct and operate an Automobile Maintenance Facility, as indicated on the submitted plans (Sheets Al —A2): • A Use Permit ( "UP ") In the RSC -zone. tNBMC §20.15:020) • A Waiver of the Off - Street Parking Requirements to permit the provision of 7 parking spaces, instead of the 10 spaces required. jNBMC §20.66.030 & §20.66.100) 2. Project Applicant: EZ Lube is an Orange County based operator of quick automobile lubrication facilities throughout Southern California. EZ Lube's emphasis is on customer service, professionalism and cleanliness. EZ Lube uses no noise - producing power tools and recycles 98% of the materials it uses. None of the fluids used in an EZ Lube facility are regulated as hazardous materials by the State of California Environmental Protection Agency. 3, Project Description: The Applicant proposes to construct and maintain an Automobile Maintenance Facility consisting of: • 1 single story structure, 1,612 -gross sq. ft., including two automobile service bays, ancillary office space, and customer waiting area. • • 7 surface parking stalls, including 1 handicapped accessibly space. • All automobile service will be conducted within the interior of the structure. 4. Descri¢Mon of Site. This 7,128 -sq. ft. (approx.) irregularly shaped parcel at the . southeast corner of the intersection of Coast Highway and Orchid St. contains a vacant automobile service station with one pump island (two fueling lanes) and a Vehicle Repair garage. The station was continually operated as a Service Station from 1962 through 2001. 5. Environmental Remediation History: Gasoline contaminated soil was detected on the subject site in April 1996. Site remediation has been completed to the satisfaction of the Orange County Health Care Agency. The County issued a "no further action" letter on April 25, 2001; a copy is enclosed. 6. Relation to Site Owner: The site is owned.by The Francis M. Hubbard Trust (Richard T. Hubbard, Trustee.) EZ Lube has a long -term lease to develop and operate the proposed Automobile Maintenance Facility on the site. Characteristics of Operation: a) Proposed Hours of Operation: 7:30 AM to 7:00 PM Monday — Friday; 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM Saturday & Sunday. • EZ Lube Use Permit Page Moss & Associates, Int. 51�' 3600 E. Coast Highway, Newport Beach 1 of 4 Consulum b) Anticipated Customer Count: EZ Lube estimates that they will serve between 30 and 50 vehicles per day at the proposed facility. EZ Lube's average customer • count is approximately 45 vehicles per day at each facility, after about two years of operation when the business has matured. The national average customer count at a quick tube facility is 42 customers per day. C) Parking and Cueing: The Applicant will submit a parking & cueing analysis to supplement the request for a parking waiver and demonstrate the site can accommodate peak parking and queuing demands. 8. Proposed Signage: Three wall signs and one double -faced monument sign are planned for the proposed Automotive Maintenance Facility: • 9. Proposed Mitigation Measures: The Applicant propose to construct and operate an Automobile Maintenance Facility in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements. The following measures are already a part of the project description and are included to mitigate potential impacts of the proposal to a level of insignificance: a) Exterior Automobile Maintenance: Exterior automobile maintenance shall be prohibited. All work will be conducted within the interior of the structure. b) Development Standards: The,proposed project complies with all development standards for the RSC district; a parking waiver has been requested in conformance with the requirements of the Municipal Code. C) Pedestrian Orientation: The project includes the following features to enhance the Coast Highway streetscape: I. Street furniture, including benches on Coast Highway and Orchid St. will be provided. ii. The parking area adjacent to the intersection of Coast Highway and Orchid St. will be covered with a trellis. iii. The facility's office and interior customer waiting area will be located at the street front to create a retail -like appearance. iv. An outdoor waiting patio will be located at the street frontage. • EZ Lube Use Permit Page Moss &Associate Inc. c.l� 3600 E. Coast Highway, Newport Beach 2 of Consultant /y Maximum Type Location Materials Dimensions Sign Area Glass & Metal Channel Wall West Fagade 3 -ft. 9 -in. x 9 -ft. 33.75 -sq. ft. Internally Illuminated Glass & Metal Channel Wall North Fagade 3 -ft. 9 -in. x 9 -ft. 33.75 -sq. ft Internally Illuminated Wall North Fagade Metal Channel Externally Illuminated 8-in. x 18 -ft. 12 -sq. ft Double Faced North West Internally Illuminated 4 -ft. x 6 -ft. 18 -sq' ft. Monument Corner of Site Glass /Concrete Base (including base) o (excludes 25 /a base) • 9. Proposed Mitigation Measures: The Applicant propose to construct and operate an Automobile Maintenance Facility in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements. The following measures are already a part of the project description and are included to mitigate potential impacts of the proposal to a level of insignificance: a) Exterior Automobile Maintenance: Exterior automobile maintenance shall be prohibited. All work will be conducted within the interior of the structure. b) Development Standards: The,proposed project complies with all development standards for the RSC district; a parking waiver has been requested in conformance with the requirements of the Municipal Code. C) Pedestrian Orientation: The project includes the following features to enhance the Coast Highway streetscape: I. Street furniture, including benches on Coast Highway and Orchid St. will be provided. ii. The parking area adjacent to the intersection of Coast Highway and Orchid St. will be covered with a trellis. iii. The facility's office and interior customer waiting area will be located at the street front to create a retail -like appearance. iv. An outdoor waiting patio will be located at the street frontage. • EZ Lube Use Permit Page Moss &Associate Inc. c.l� 3600 E. Coast Highway, Newport Beach 2 of Consultant /y d;) Village Plan: The design of the proposed facility will complement the planned Corona del Mar "Vision 2004" plan through the inclusion of coordinated decorative paving strips, landscaping and street furniture. e;► Curb Cuts: Existing curb cut adjacent to the intersection on Coast Highways be removed. The existing cut on Orchid St. will be relocated to a location as far from the intersection as possible. Proposed Findings Suggested Findings for Automobile Maintenance Facility:. The Applicant seeks a Use Permit to construct and operate an Automobile Maintenance Facility on an RSC- zoned site. a) The proposed location of the use is in a accord with the objectives of the code and the purpo §es of the district in which the site is located, in that: i. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for Retail and Service Commercial uses, and the proposed Automobile Maintenance Facility is consistent with this designation; ii. The commercial districts are intended to provide for the service commercial uses needed by residents of the city, including uses such as Automobile Maintenance; and iii. The subject site is zoned RSC; vehicle repair is permitted in this zone, subject to the approval of a Use Permit. b) The proposed location of the Use Permit and the proposed conditions un which it would be operated or maintained will be consistent with the General PI and the purpose of the district in which the site is located; will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to the neighborhood of such use; and will not be detrimental to the properties or improvements in the vicinity or to the general welfare of the city, in that: L The proposed use is local serving; it will serve the residents and employees of the surrounding area; ii. The proposed site is not adjacent to, or separated by a street or alley from any residential parcels; the proposed operation will not adversely affect nearby residential uses; iii. The orientation of the service bays, turned parallel to Coast Highway coupled with proposed landscaping that exceeds code requirements, protects against adverse visual impacts from the public right -of -way; iv. The provision of amenities including street furniture, an outdoor waiting patio and a trellis over the parking area, along with the street presence of the proposed office area, reinforces the pedestrian- oriented character of the surrounding neighborhood; V. The project eliminates a curb cut on Coast Highway immediately south of its intersection with Orchid St. and relocates another curb cut on Orchid St. further from the intersection with Coast Highway; and • EZ Labe Use Permit Page Moss & Associates, Inc. 3600 E. Coast Highway, Newport Beach 3 of 4 Consultant A The ease of use and access to the proposed facility will encourage the public to utilize a professionally- operated oil change facility rather than • changing oil themselves, potentially polluting the environment by illegally dumping waste oil into the ground. c) The proposed use will comply with the provisions of the code, and there are no specific conditions required for the proposed use in the RSC district. 2. Suggested Additional Findings for Waiver of the Off - Street Parking Requirements: The Applicant seeks a Use Permit to waive the requirements for off - street parking to allow the provision of seven on -site parking spaces in lieu of the required ten spaces. a) The parking demand will be less than the requirement in §20.66.030 of the code, in that: L The Municipal Code does not provide specific parking standards for quick lube facilities. The parking requirements in the code assume the parking demand of a standard vehicle repair facility where customers typically drop off their cars for repair, and return later in the day to retrieve them; and ii. Typically, customers of quick tube facilities obtain service soon after their arrival at the facility and drive away in their vehicles immediately after obtaining service. Unlike a typical vehicle repair facility, customers do not drop off their cars, and there is no need to park cars for later pick -up by the customer. b) The probable long -term occupancy of the building or structure, based on its • design, will not generate additional parking demand, in that: L The proposed structure, with its drive - through service bays, has been designed for the specific needs of a quick lube'facility, and is unlikely to be suitable for another use. • HZ Lube Use Permit Page Moss & Associates, Inc, tot 3600 E. Coast Highway, Newport Beach 4 of 4 Consultant Fes% EXHIBIT 6 HOURLY CUSTOMER COUNTS - COSTA MESA EZ LUBE • • • (O a M Z LUSE #46 raffic Report or the period beginning 01/06/2002 ; rEB -14.02 2:46PM; Time, 5:11 F'M Date: Paget UNDAY 01/06/2002 01/13/2002 01120/2002 01/27/ 0 3 5 4 1 3 0 2 2 2 8 0 a IONDAY 01!07/2002 01/14/2002 01/21/2002 01/28/200e 'RAFFIC 7AM- 8AM 0 0 0 •RAFFIC :RAFFIC 8AM -• 9AM 1 1 0 RAFFIC 9AM -IOAM 5 4 2 'RAFFIC 1ORM --IIAM 3 3 1 'RAFFIC ILAM- 12NOON 3 5 3 'RAFFIC 12NOON- IPM 2 2 4 'RAFFIC IPM- 2PM 6 3 3 'RAFFIC 2PM- 3PM 5 5 3 'RAFFIC 3PM- 4PM 4 2 3 'RAFFIC 4PM- 5PM 2 3 3 'RAFFIC 5PM- 6PM 0 0 0 'RAFFIC 6PM- 7PM 0 0 0 RAFFIC SUNDAY DAILY AVERAGE COUNT: 27 DAYS OPEN: 0 3 5 4 1 3 0 2 2 2 8 0 a IONDAY 01!07/2002 01/14/2002 01/21/2002 01/28/200e 'RAFFIC ?AM- BAM 0 0 0 0 'RAFFIC 8AM- 9AM 2 0 5 2 'RAFFIC 9AM -10AM 2 2 3 1 'RAFFIC 10AM -11AM 6 2 4 3 'RAFFIC 11AM- 12NOON 1 4 3 5 'RAFFIC 12NOON- IPM 6 1 2 3 'RAFFIC IPM- 2PM 3 3 1 3 RAFFIC 2PM - 3PM 2 3 0 2 'RAFFIC 3PM- 4PM 1 6 7 2 - RAFFIC 4PM- 5PM 5 3 3 3 RAFFIC 5PM- 6PM 1 3 2 0 RAFFIC 6PM- 7PM 0 0 0 0 MONDAY DAILY AVERAGE COUNTS 28 DAYS OPEN: 4 -UE SDAY 3 - - RAFFIC 'RAFFIC 'RAFFIC "RAFFIC - RAFFIC 'RAFFIC 'RAFFIC -RAFFIC 'RAFFIC 'RAFFIC 'RAFFIC .RAFFIC • ca = =G= 7PM- OAM 8AM- 9AM 5AM-10AM IOAM -11AM 11AM- 12NOON 1cN00N- IPM IPM- 2PM 2PM- 3PM 3PM- 4PM 4PM- 5PM 5PM- 6PM 6PM- 7PM 01/08/2002 01/15/2002 01/22/2002 01/29/ 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 3 3 2 4 1 1 5 2 1 2 2 3 5 2 3 1 1 2 3 3 2 3 1 2 5 2 2 2 3 1 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 TUESDAY DAILY AVERAGE COUNTc 21 DAYS OPEN; 4 PAGE 2 02/03/2002 1 AVG COUNT c= accsz =vca 0 • 1 5 0 3 3 3 4 3 3 0 0 AVG COUNT scscsccsaas 0 2 4 3 3 3 2 4 4 2 0 AVG COUNT a 0 2 3 2 3 . 3 3 2 l I 0 m WEDNESDAY DAILY AVERAGE COUNT: 17 DAYS OPEN: 4 *HURSDAY 'RAFFIC 7AM- SAM 'RAFFIC SAM- 9AM 'RAFFIC 9AM -10AM 'RAFFIC 10AM -11AM 'RAFFIC 11AM- 12NOON 'RAFFIC 12NOON- IPM 'RAFFIC IPM- 2PM "RAFFIC cc ^PM- 3PM 'RAFFIC 3PM- 4PM RAFFIC 4PM- 5PM 'RAFFIC 5PM- 6PM 'RAFFIC 6PM- 7PM 01:/10/2002 01/17/2002 01/24/2002 01/31/ VAGt 3 02/03/2002 2 AVG COUNT 1 ' 1 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 1 0 AVG COUNT 0 0 @ 0 0 0 :RAFFIC Z LUBE #46 7 1 Time: 5:1L PM Date: raffic Report 4 3 4 3 Page: or the period beginning 01/06/2002 3 6 3 iEDNESDAY 01/09/2002 01/16/2002 01/23/2002 01/3012002 : �acmnczva= nnn===== a=¢ s==== xcncaancon= eamaxsvvsec= sama = = = = == = ='== =n 'RAFFIC 7A14- SAM I 1 0 1 'RAFFIC SAM-- 9AM 2 0 0 0 'RAFFIC 9AM -10AM @ 4 ] 3 'RAFFIC IQAM -11AM 1 1 2 2 •RAF•FIC 1IRM- 12NOON 1 3 1 1 "RAFFIC 12140014- IPM 5 3 1 2 'RAFFIC IPM- 2PM 2 2 3 1 'RAFFIC 2PM- 3PM 1 3 1 1 'RAFFIC 3PM -'4PM 5 2 1 0 'RAFFIC 4PM- 5PM{ 1 1 2 2 'RAFFIC 5PM- 6PM 1 2 1 0 'RAFFIC 6PM- 7PM 0 0 0 0 WEDNESDAY DAILY AVERAGE COUNT: 17 DAYS OPEN: 4 *HURSDAY 'RAFFIC 7AM- SAM 'RAFFIC SAM- 9AM 'RAFFIC 9AM -10AM 'RAFFIC 10AM -11AM 'RAFFIC 11AM- 12NOON 'RAFFIC 12NOON- IPM 'RAFFIC IPM- 2PM "RAFFIC cc ^PM- 3PM 'RAFFIC 3PM- 4PM RAFFIC 4PM- 5PM 'RAFFIC 5PM- 6PM 'RAFFIC 6PM- 7PM 01:/10/2002 01/17/2002 01/24/2002 01/31/ VAGt 3 02/03/2002 2 AVG COUNT 1 ' 1 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 1 0 AVG COUNT 0 0 @ 0 0 0 :RAFFIC SAM- 9AM 1 7 1 RAFFIC 2 2 2 2 4 3 4 3 a 0 I 2 0 3 3 6 3 2 0 3 3 2 1 5 ! 3 3 5 1 0 6 3 0 2 3 3 2 2 2 5 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 THURSDAY DAILY AVERAGE COUNT: 22 DAYS OPEN: 4 'RIDAY 01/11/2002 01/!8/2002 @1/25/2002 02/01 : sss= zzznssemssxczxn= ¢n¢vovvc¢¢¢¢vszcv- asnacc - - -_.x cns--=- zz -v=- 'RAFFIC 7AM- SAM 0 0 0 :RAFFIC SAM- 9AM 1 7 1 RAFFIC 9AM -10AM ! 2 2 RAFFIC IDAM -11AM 2 I ^c 3 'RAFFIC 11AM- 122NOUN 4 4 2 RAFFIC 12NOON- IPM 2 1 3 'RAFFIC IPM- 2PM 1 5 3 "RAFFIC 2PM- 3PM 2 3 2 "RAFFIC 3PM- 4PM 3 1 ?_ FRAFFIC 4PM- 5PM 2 2 1 "RAFFIC 5PM- 6PM 1 0 4 FRAFFIC 6PM- 7PM 1 0 0' 1 2 3 1 4 5 2 0 0 3 2 0 FRIDAY DAILY AVERAGE COUNT: 23 DAYS OPEN: 4 AVG COUNT 3 2 4 3 3 2 2 2 2 @ • i _ - - - -- -- �, 114 otlb 1392 EEB -14 -02 2:47PN; PAGE 418 Z LUKE #46 Tine: 5:11 PM Date: 02/0312002 raffic Report Pager 3 or the period beginning 01/06/2002 •RTURDAY 01/12/2002 01/19/2002 01/26/2002 02/02/2002 RVG COUNT .-. CC�S Y.' �. C6iC�C.CaS�C.�1f5 �G�CSCV�YS�"3CC�CC� >¢ORCSSCi96 C 3 Cb 7AM -•SAM 1 0 3 0 1 •'RAFFIC 'RAFFIC BQM- 9AM 5 3 2 3 3 'RAFFIC 9AM -10AM 2 2 3 6 3 'RAFFIC 1ORM -11AM 6 2 7 1 4 - RAFFIC 11AM- IENOON 6 8 2 4 5 'RAFFIC 12NOON- IPM 4 7 2 3 4 'RAFFIC 1PM- 2PM 4 5 3 4 4 RAFFIC 2PM- 30M 4 2 4 3 3 'RAFFIC 3PM- 4PM 5 1 2 4 3 'RAFFIC 4PM- 5PM 4 1 @ 2 2 'RAFFIC 5PM- 5PM 2 0 0 0 ] - RAFFIC 6PM- 7PM 0 @ 0 0 0 SATURDAY DAILY RVERAGE COUNT: 33 DAYS OPEN: 4 1 u • 1 e. Z LURE 1446 raffic Report 'or the period beginning 01/13/2002 IDNESDAY 'RAFFIC 7AM- SAM 'RAFFIC 8AM- 9AM RAFFIC 9AM -10AM 'RAFFIC 10AM -11AM 'RAFFIC IIAM- 12NOON 'RAFFIC IRNOON- IPM 'RAFFIC IPM- 2PM. 'RAFFIC 2PM- 3PM 'RAFFIC 3PM- 4PM 'RAFFIC 4PM - 5PM 'RAFFIC 5PM- 6PM 'RAFFIC 6PM- 7PM • ... rco-iv lL LatlYNj VAGE 718 Time: 5:18 PM Date -! 02/10/2002 Page e' 2 01/16/2002 01/23/2002 01/30/2002 02 /06 /20eq AVG COUNT 1 0 1 t 0 m 0 a 4 1 3 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 1 5 3 1 2 4 2 3 1 4 3 1 1 4 2 1 0 3 i 2 2 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 WEDNESDAY DAILY AVERAGE COUNT: 20 DAYS OPEN: THURSDAY 01/17/2002 01/24/2002 01/31/2002 02/07/2 .-RAFFIC 7AM- SAM 0 0 0 0 'RAFFIC SAM- 9AM 0 2 1 2 .-RAFFIC 9AM -10AM 1 3 0 2 "RAFFIC 10AM -13AM 2 2 4 5 TRAFFIC IIRM- 12NOON 3 0 0 2 TRAFFIC 12NOON -- IPM 3 3 6 2 TRAFFIC IPM- 2PM 0 3 3 7 TRAFFIC 2PM- 3PM 5 1 3 1 (RAFFIC 3PM- 4PM 1 0 6 4 .-RAFFIC 4PM- 5PM 2 3 3 4 (RAFFIC 5PM- 6PM 2 5 1 2 TRAFFIC 6PM- 7PM 0 0 0 1 i 4 THURSDAY DAILY AVERAGE COUNT: 25 DRYS OPEN: 4 7R1DAY 01/18/2002 01/25/2002 02/01/2002 02/08/ L 62 .� . .. 3 r R RS � Q Q R3�QOQQQQ62 Q QR2= QR=�J® (RAFFIC 7AM- SAM 0 0 1 TRAFFIC SAM- 9AM 7 1 2 TRAFFIC 9AM -10AM 2 2 3 TRAFFIC 10AM -11AM 2 3 1 (RAFFIC 11AM- 12NOON 4 2 4 (RAFFIC 12NOON- IPM 1 3 5 (RAFFIC IPM- 2F•M 5 3 2 TRAFFIC 2PM- 3PM 3 2 0 TRAFFIC 3PM- 4PM 1 2 0 (RAFFIC 4PM- 5PM 2 1 3 (RAFFIC 5PM - 6PM 0 4 2 (RAFFIC 6PM- 7PM 0 0 0 0 1 1 4 3 5 7 1 5 2 3 0 FRIDAY DAILY AVERAGE COUNT: 26 DAYS OPEN: 4 1 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 3 1 0 AVG COUNT 0 1 2 3 1 4 3 3 3 3 3 0 AVG COUNT 0 3 2 3 3 4 4 2 2 2 2 0 • : Z LURE 046 Time: 5:19 PM " raffie Report :or the period beginning 01 /13/2002 ;RTURDAY 01/19/2002 01/26/2002 02/02/2002 02/09 - : nnaasaaasanmmv�e000��bmncCeaeCe�ossaaaa ¢amaasaCeaa¢sRaatasavam 7AM- SAM 0 3 0 •RAFFIC• 'RAFFIC SAM- 9AM 3 2 3 'RAFFIC 9AM -10AM 2 3 6 'RAFFIC 10AM -IIAM 2 7 1 'RAFFIC I1AM- 12NOON B 2 4 .*RAFFIC 12NOON- IPM 7 2 3 "RAFFIC IPM- 2PM 5 3 4 'RAFFIC 2PM- 3PM 2 4 3 "RAFFIC 3PM- 4PM 1 2 4 'RAFFIC 4PM - 5PM I 0 2 'RAFFIC 5PM- 6PM 0 0 0 'RAFFIC 6PM- 7PM 0 0 0 SATURDAY DAILY AVERAGE COUNT: • Dat ®:I 02/10/.002 Page: 3 2 5 4 5 7 7 3 2 5 2 1 1 33 DAYS OPEN.: 4 AVG COUNT 1 3 4 4 5 5 4 3 3 1 0 0 0 �1� • • EXHIBIT 7 CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVE TO DATE • �I M Campbell, James From: Bludau, Homer Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 2:56 PM To: O'Neil, Dennis; Temple, Patty; Wood, Sharon; Campbell, James Subject: FW: letter to ez lube For your information. Homer ­-Original Message---- - From: Chamber Executive [ mailto :cdmchamber @earthlink.net] Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 200210:03 AM To: hbludau @city.newport- beach.ca.us Subject: letter to ez lube March 5, 2002 Moss and Associates Attn: Ken Genser 613 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 105 Santa Monica, CA. 90401 Subject: Use Permit # RA 2002 -034 E -Z Lube The Corona del Mar Chamber of Commerce would like to express our opposition on the above - requested Use Permit for 3600 East Coast Hwy., in Corona del Mar. We are in agreement with the Corona del Mar Business Improvement District's concern, and feel that the establishment of EZ -Lube will add serious safety concerns at that location. With the post office next door, as well as a very popular donut and coffee shop.on the adjacent corner, a busy pedestrian crosswalk, and bumper -to- bumper traffic most of the day, it is our opinion that this permit be denied. In addition, there is insufficient parking on site, plus a lack of off- street parking in the vicinity. It is likely that cars waiting to be serviced would impact both PCH and Orchid Avenue. This would create a negative situation that would be counter - productive to our efforts to improve our business district, and impede the traffic circulation in our neighborhoods. J Therefore, we request that this permit be denied. Yours truly, Luvena Hayton Executive Secretary to the Board • a Varin, Ginger From: Temple, Patty ant: Friday, May 17,2002 11:38 AM �u ,. Varin, Ginger, Campbell, James biect: FW: Opposition to the EZ LUBE on Orchid & PCH Please distribute to the Planning Coimmission - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Riff, Dave Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 11:26 AM To: Temple, Patty Cc: 'pglowienke @att.net' Subject: FW: Opposition to the EZ LUBE on Orchid & PCH Hi Paul -- I'll forward your e-mail along to the Planning Director for distribution to the Planning Commissioners. Dave - - - -- Original Message---- - From: pglowienke@att.net [mailto:pglowienke @att.net] Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002'11:24 AM To: DKiff @city.newport - beach.ca.us Subject: Opposition to the EZ LUBE on Orchid & PCH • Dod Morning Dave, I am entailing you to express my strong opposition to the city's intent to approve an EZ LUBE location at Orchid .& PCH. I am unable to attend the public hearing on 23 May. Please enter this eMail into the public record on my behalf. My wife and I oppose this business for three principal reasons: 1. No need - Fletcher Jones, Newport Auto Center, Chevron and Goodyear all perform the same services already 2. No desire to see it - If you drive up 17th street in COSTA MESA, you see Jiffy Lube, Grease Monkey, etc. I don't want Olde Corona del Mar to resemble Costa Mesa. 3. No Fit - The other three corners of the same intersection are a donut shop, an antique store and a florist. If this is going to be the primary crosswalk for the south end of town, I don't want all of our visitors and residents to see EZ LUBE as the spotlight business for our quiet, quaint town. I ask all council members to OPPOSE this business in Corona del Mar. I ask to DENY the use permit. Regards, Paul M. and Jillian J. Glowienke 427 Hazel Drive -orona del Mar, CA 92625 • 49.466.5800 q 1 4A rage 1 oc 1 Campbell, James From: Temple, Patty Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 2:03 PM To: Varin, Ginger, Campbell, James Subject: FW: DENY the EZ LUBE Permit Please forward to the Planning Commission. ­—Original Message-- - From: Biudau, Homer Sent: Friday, May 17, 200212:14 PM To: Temple, Patty, Wood, Sharon Subject: RN: DENY the EZ LUBE Permit ----- Original Message-- - From: Paul Glowienke [ malito: paul. glowienke @smartsystemsintl.com] Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 11:38 AM To: hbludau @city.newport- beach.ca.us Subject: DENY the FZ LUBE Permit Hello Mr. Bludau, I have sent a more detailed a Mail to Dave tiff in this same issue. I am a Mailing you because I am unable to attend the public hearing on 23 May 2002. • My wife and I STRONGLY OPPOSE the city s plan to allow the construction of an EZ LUBE location On Orchid and PCH in Corona del Mar. Please enter my opposition into the public record. I urge all committee and council members to deny the use permit. EZ LUBE belongs in Costa Mesa or Santa Ana, • Not Olde Corona del Mar. Regards, Paul Glowienke Smart Systems International 3334 E. Coast Highway # 431 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 949.673.3153 (voice) 949.673.3163 (fax) • 05/17/2002 • EXHIBIT 8 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION • 13 w EXHIBIT 9 PROJECT PLANS • 11 � OR 0 • • i Ila �► iii�i��i ;:1'17 � 1 /■ / /:: '�• -1 -it� tint SC 1 V�' ( {•�. � � ��, , .�_ �.�u7i, 1,11. NEI a -1 o — I� I �6f1��. ;, -- r 4I���iiiiiu_I�:��T \sa�<♦�� \ I 1'A2002 -074 tar UP2002 -005 F%l.nin -.1600 6. C,-St x ". FILE COPY 7� g 67272 � !&;Is ry m 7� rr u u a0 io b� e 4 �a sq 6 �f z et ary Ott §Z S mT F - m i F' S .a EZ #LURE Alegre MacKenzle.LLC Q]Q: $ O fIgT CQtlYM$aseiB MC111tEC� WN9a Piz' �0 � �' M1C Mro C MGPC LWf IpMY aNPU SPEY, f.18014T P W1L MbM M YW fA 9RU 1HPWYbiR iiapgfmffi 1( • • EXHIBIT 4 APPLICANT'S APPEAL LETTER 11 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH rZ - r E''"r 1- APPUCATION TO APPEAL DEC&ION OF THE PLANNING C9MMISSION App!!cation No Use Permit No. 2002 -0034 022 JW -6 All :43 Nara of Appellant or person nnng: EZ Lube Phone: 310/39%3481.:= T'._ CITY CLERi , t _ r0 f'EACH Address' c/o Moss & Associates, 613 Wilshire Bl., Suite 105, Santa Monica, CA 90401 Oats cl Ptanrnng Commisslon decision: May 23 20 02 Regaroing application ot: EZ Lube for (Oescripllon of aop!lcation Bled with Planning Commission) Request for Use Permit to allow construction and operation of an Automobile Maintenance Facility within a proposed 2,641 gross sq. ft. single story structure with basement, to include two service bays, customer waiting area, ancillary offices, and seven parking stalls. Reasons tv Appeal: Please see Attachment. Ken Genser, Planner, Moss & Associates • Agent for Applicant/Appellant gate June 6, 2002_ FOR OFFICE US ` I_ '2, Date Appeal'l led and Adknlstative Fee recelved: " qVVV 20D Hearing Date. An appeal shalt be scheduled for a hearing before the City Council wlthin thirty (30) days of the fifing of the appeal unless both aopfieant and appellant or reviewing body consent to a later date (NBtAc Sec. 20.95.050) cc: AppeasM 7ann" nrumizh one sat of fMftg (abets br magrg) Fao APPEALS: Municipal Code Sm 20.05.0406 Appeal Fee: $296 pursuant to Resolution No. 2001.46 adopted cn 9-26.01 (eft. 7/1/01) TM; .,h Lorp Jr a v:u .L :L•�,._. n � • V ATTACHMENT • USE PERMIT -APPEAL This appeal is filed on behalf of the Applicant, EZ Lube, Inc. to request that the City Council uphold the plain language and intent of the Newport Beach Municipal Code by overturning the Planning Commission's denial of the underlying Application. Overview: The decision of the Planning Commission to deny this Application yields results that are inconsistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code. In the following pages, we will demonstrate that: • The Project was evaluated against °wished -for" standards that are neither Codes nor Policies of the City of Newport Beach. • There is no evidence in the record to support the findings of the Planning Commission. • All of the required findings to approve the underlying Application can be made in the affirmative. • Applicant/Appellant EZ Lube has been denied its rights to due process, a fair.hearing, and an impartial decision. the City: The Draft' Minutes of the May 23, 2002 Planning Commission Meeting indicate that the Commission evaluated the underlying Application against at least three standards that have • not been adopted by the City of Newport Beach: • The Commission inappropriately relied upon Commissioner' Selich's analysis of the publication The Planner's Training Series: The Conditional Use Permit.Z This publication provides general information and an overview of case law on the Conditional Use Permit process for General Law cities. As the publication explains, the rules for Charter cities may be different, and indeed they are for the City of Newport Beach. For example, Commissioner Selich described and applied the "nuisance standard" and related case law. He concludes that this standard "gives us broad discretion to analyze the use in relationship to the character of the City and its environs." However, the Newport Beach Municipal Code does not include this standard as a basis for evaluation of Use Permits. In making the motion to adopt findings for denial, Commissioner Selich specifically noted that Corona del Mar is already served by sufficient number of oil change facilities for the public convenience and necessity. However, the Code does not include "public convenience and necessity" as a standard for evaluating Use Permits in Newport Beach. t Only draft minutes of the 5123102 Planning Commission meeting were available as of the 616/02 deadline for filing this Appeal. Furthermore, the City failed to provide a written Notice of Decision to the Applicant as required by §20.91.025.0 of the Municipal Code. • 2 State of California, Governor's Office of Planning and Research, August 1997. Appeal — EZ Lube Use Permit Page Moss & Associates, Ioe. 3600 E Coast Highway, Newport Beach I of 6 Cocsultant The Commission inappropriately considered the proposed use as incompatible with the Vision 2004 Plan. However, the Vision 2004 is a streetscape plan that establishes design standards for the public right -of -way. Although the Vision 2004 Plan obliquely • suggests design standards for private property, it does not establish standards for determining the appropriateness of a proposed use on private property. The Commission seemingly based its decision to deny the underlying Application in part because: the proposal was unpopular. However, popularity is not included in the Code as a standard for the evaluation of Use Permits. Certainly, the opinions of nearby residents must be considered in the Commission's decision making. However, the Commission has an obligation to consider this testimony only insofar as it supports or refutes the findings required by the Code. The Code does not provide for decision - making based on the popularity of the proposal. Fundamental faimess requires that projects must evaluated against adopted standards that are known to all stakeholders in advance of the proceedings. Clear standards are essential to assure the fairness of decisions delegated to planning commissions. The Commission's evaluation of the underlying Application against policies that have not been adopted by the City of Newport Beach was fundamentally unfair to EZ Lube. If the Council does not overturn the decision to deny, it would be signaling that it approves of the evaluation of applications against standards that do not officially exist, and about which project applicants had no prior knowledge. The adopted findings are not supported by evidence in the record: In denying the underlying Application, the Commission adopted a preamble and eight findings of fact. Each is • restated below with an explanation of why it cannot be rationally adopted, or why it is not related to the standards for evaluating Use Permits that are proscribed by the'Municipal Code. [Preamble] 'The establishment, maintenance or operation of the proposed automobile service station use of the property will, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and its environs due to noise, dust, odors or other undesirable characteristics, and further that the proposed project is inconsistent with the legislative intent of this code for the following reasons:" To refute this statement, we have only to look to the words of Commissioner Selich, the maker of the motion to adopt the findings. In the discussion prior to the motion, Commissioner Selich stated, "I don't think we have heard any testimony or seen any in the staff report that says we are going to have problems that are not going to be adequately conditioned in regards to noise, dust or odors "3 Inexplicably, he later requested that the preamble include the finding that the project ° ... is found to be objectionable and incompatible ... due to noise, dust, odors or other undesirable characteristics." a [i] -The project Is not compatible with the surrounding land uses in that it introduces an automobile- related use in an area characterized by pedestrianonented uses." Draft Minutes, pg. 6. Appeal — EZ Lube Use Permit 3600 E. Coast Highway, Newport Beach is Moss & Associates, Inc. Consultant The record clearly refutes this finding. The proposed EZ Lube does not introduce automobile related uses to the area. The subject site has been an Automobile Service • Station with a 2 -bay repair garage for over 50 years. Furthermore, there was unrefuted testimony" that there are other automobile related uses in the immediate area: Finally, this finding is directly contradicted by finding No. 8 (see below.) • (2j `There has been a trend away from automobile- related uses in the commercial districts of Corona del Mar during recent years due to the pedestrian nature of the area." Although this finding is factual, it is not relevant to the required findings for adoption or denial of a Use Permit as set forth in the Municipal Code. The code requires findings of compatibility with the existing community;5 there is ample evidence in the record demonstrating the existence of similar uses. • (31 "The project would introduce views of automobile service bays and it is not possible to screen the service bays from public view." The evidence in the -record clearly demonstrates the existence of service bays in the vicinity. The subject site has had visible service bays for decades; other existing automobile related facilities in the immediate area also have visible service bays. Service bay doors in the proposed project were designed to "reduce visibility from public streets" as required by the design guidelines .e Additionally, proposed condition of approval no. 21 provide additional visual mitigation, and testimony by the project Architect at the hearing introduced a design alternative that incorporated an additional screen wall and newsstand to block views of the service bays from the street. • [4] "The operational characteristics of the use will require that the service bay doors remain open • and the intensities of the lighting within the service bays would be in excess of the light levels in Corona del Mar." No evidence was introduced to support this statement. In fact, except for brief periods during the shortest days of winter, all proposed operating hours are during daylight hours when glare from the interior lighting will not be a problem. Nevertheless, proposed condition of approval no. 16 would fully mitigate any possible adverse impacts resulting from project lighting to a level of insignificance. • (51 "The site development standards of the Service Station regulations of the Code as they relate to landscaping and setbacks have not been met." As noted in the staff report to the Planning Commission, the proposed project would meet the required landscaping standards if two proposed 22tk benches were eliminated. However, the staff recommends the retention of the benches because they add "a unique design feature as well as provide a benefit to pedestrians... "7 If the City prefers, the Applicant would be willing to eliminate the benches and thereby be fully compatible with the landscape standards of the Service Station regulations. With respect to setbacks, the Code requires a 30 -ft setback for automobile service bays. The proposed project provides an average of approximately 26 -ft. from the street to the See testimony of Livina Haden and Don Glasglow, Draft Minutes, pg..4. 5 See §20.91.035.A 6 Design Guidelines, pg. 3 — last bulleted paragraph of "Site Design." • r Staff Report, 5/23102, pgs. 6 -7 Appeal — EZ Lube Use Permit Page Moss & Associates, tnc. t/ 3600 E. Coast Highway, Newport Beach 3 o1`6 Consultant bay openings. However, upon analysis, City staff "...believes the modification of the Service Station setback and landscaping standards are acceptable due to project design features." No evidence to refute this conclusion was introduced into the record. is • (6j "The mandatory findings to grant a parking waiver cannot be met for this project in that the decrease in parking on the site could adversely affect surrounding parking and there currently is a parking problem in the area." Based on four field observations of an EZ Lube facility in Costa Mesa, similar to the one proposed, and based on a 4 -week hour -by -hour customer count for that facility, City staff concluded that 7 parking spaces would be sufficient for the proposed use and the mandatory findings to grant a parking waiver could be made.g No evidence to the contrary was introduced into the record. (7) "The proposed design could result in a parking problem associated with handicap parking requirements in that potential queuing of automobiles at the service bay doors could result in blocking the handicap space." In four field observations of an EZ Lube facility in Costa Mesa, similar to the one proposed, at various times on various days, staff did not observe any queuing at the service: bays. Additionally, the Applicant provided a 4 -week hour -by -hour customer count for that similar facility to demonstrate that queuing would not occur.a No evidence to the contrary was introduced into the record. [8] "Corona del Mar is already served by a sufficient number of oil change facilities for the public convenience and necessity." As noted earlier, the Code does not include a standard of "public convenience or necessity" for evaluating use permits. Similarly, "over- concentration" is not a standard • for review. It should also be noted that this finding directlyt contradicts finding no. 1 (above.) To paraphrase the publication introduced by Commissioner Selich70, findings are important. They bridge the analytical gap between the raw evidence and the ultimate decision. If the decision is challenged, the court will examine the evidence supporting the findings to determine whether the hearing body abused its discretion when acting on a conditional use permit. Such an abuse of discretion is to be found when the agency's findings are not supported by evidence in the administrative record. As demonstrated above, the record cannot support the Commission's findings. By adopting findings without foundation, the Applicant's rights have been abridged. The findings for approval of the underlying Application can be made: The Municipal code sets forth three required findings for approval of Use Permits." As described below — and as further detailed in the 5/23/02 Staff Report — all the required findings can be made. 9 For a detailed analysis, see Staff Report, 5/23/02, pgs. 4 -5 9 See Staff Report, 5/23/02, pg. 4 10 State of California, Governor's Office of Planning and Research, August 1997, ibid. 11 § 20.91.035.A Appeal— EZ Lube Use Permit Page Moss & Associates, Inc. 3600 E. Coast Highway, Newport Beach 4 of 6 Consulmm BE 'The proposed location of the use is in accord with the objectives of this code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located." • The subject site is in the RSC zone. Service stations are specifically permitted by Use Permit in this zone. "The proposed location of the use permit and the proposed conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will be consistent with the General Plan and the purpose of the district in which the site is located; will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to the neighborhood of such use; and will not be detrimental to the properties or improvements in the vicinity or to the general welfare of the city." As described in the preceding pages, no evidence has been introduced into the record to support the claim that this project will be detrimental to the general welfare of the people or property in the surrounding community. We have carefully reviewed the spoken and written testimony. Although claims are made regarding general incompatibility, parking, traffic, pedestrian orientation, and plan compatibility, none are supported by evidence. The evidence demonstrates that the proposed use will only attract about 40 customers per day — far less than virtually any other use. The evidence demonstrates that this use will generate far less traffic and a lower demand for parking than virtually any other use. Furthermore, the evidence demonstrates that the use is quiet, and will not create dust, fumes or odors. The evidence demonstrates that the proposed use is similar to other existing uses in the immediate vicinity. The project has been designed to be visually compatible with its surroundings, and conditions have been proposed by City staff to fully mitigate any • possible adverse impacts to a level of insignificance. Although there were claims that the project was incompatible with the Vision 2004 plan, that plan does not regulate use. The proposed project is specifically permitted by the only controlling policies of the City, the General Plan and the Zoning Code. The objective CEQA analysis determined that the proposed project would not have any significant adverse impact on the neighborhood. Accordingly, we cannot find any reason to support the notion that the project will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons or property in the surrounding area. • "The proposed use will comply with the provisions of this code, including any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located." City staff determined that the project was in full compliance with the Code, with three exceptions: parking, landscaping, and setback. Waivers to these requirements are specifically permitted by the Code. "Staff believes that the finding for the parking waiver can be supported due to the operational character of the proposed use. Additionally, staff believes that the modifications of the Service Station setback and landscaping standards are acceptable due to project design features. Finally, staff believes that the project can be found compatible with the area as the use is allowable in the RSC zone. "12 No evidence contradicting the conclusion of staff was placed in the record. • 'Z Staff Report, 5/23/02, pg. 10 Appeal— EZ Lube Use Permit Page Moss & Associates, Inc. C. 3 3600 E. Coast Highway, Newport Beach 5 or6 Consultant b There is ample factual evidence in the record that the required affirmative findings can be made. There is no factual evidence to support a contrary position. decision: Due to the manner in which the public hearing was conducted and the lack of evidence to support the findings of the Commission, the rights of the Applicant have been compromised. • The Applicant's representative was only given 3- minutes13 to present the project and was not permitted the right to rebut public testimony prior to the conclusion of the hearing. Project opponents were allowed 21- minutes (3- minutes each) to present their opposition. The project was evaluated against standards about which the Applicant had no knowledge, and could not have possibly had any knowledge - the standards are neither written policies, policles that were applied to other discretionary projects in the City, or codified. These standards were not adopted policies of the City, and accordingly, there was no legal basis for their use in evaluation of the underlying Application. In addition to evaluating the application against unapproved criteria, certain "facts" were introduced to the deliberations after the conclusion of the public hearing and used as a basis for decision. The Applicant had no opportunity to comment. For example, it was stated that a previously approved quick lube facility provided for the simultaneous service of 3 vehicles on 12,000 sq. ft. of land, or 4,000 sq. ft. per vehicle. This was contrasted to the proposed project that provided for the simultaneous service of 2 vehicles on 7,000 sq. ft. of land, or 3,500 sq. ft. per vehicle. However, in actuality, the . previously approved facility provided for the simultaneous servicing of 6 vehicles, or only 2,000 sq. ft. per vehicle — far less than the proposed project. ' In conclusion: The applicant respectfully requests that the City Council overturn the decision of the Planning Commission to deny the underlying Application. To do otherwise would sanction a decision- making process based largely on popularity and not on adopted law. The decision of the Planning Commission should be overturned for the following reasons: The evidence in record supports the findings for approval; staff has provided rationale that all of the requested waivers are supportable and no evidence has been provided to the contrary. The project design is compatible, and actually enhances the pending Vision 2004 streetscape and pedestrian serving goals through the inclusion of public amenities, landscaping and paving materials that coordinate with Vision 2004. • The approval of the project will reestablish the fundamental right to a fair hearing and an impartial decision that has to date been denied the Applicant/Appellant. "The project applicant was allowed another minute or two to present project plans and alternatives. Appeal — EZ Lube use Permit Page Moss & Ass•clates, Inc 3600 E. Coast Highway, Newport Beach 6 or6 Consultant • • • Imo;- 11)M ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION 0�5 2. 3. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Project Title: EZ Lube Use Permit No 2002 -005 (PA2002 -034 Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Contact Person and Phone Number: Bill Cunningham, Planning Department (949) 644 -3200 4. Project Location: 3600 East Coast Highway Corona del Mar, CA 92625 5. Project Sponsors Name and Address: EZ Lube 3606 W. Lake Center Drive, Suite B Santa Ana, CA 92704 6. General Plan Designation: Retail & Service Commercial 7. Zoning: Retail & Service Commercial (RSC) 8. Description of Project: • • The project consists of construction of a new automobile service facility for oil changes and lubrication services on a parcel previously developed with a service station. The project will consist of a 2,641 square -foot building (1,612 square feet on the Oust floor and 1,029 square feet in a basement storagelservice area). The project includes a request for parking waiver to allow seven parking spaces — ten spaces are required by the Zoning Code. In addition, the existing service station building will be demolished and the underground gasoline storage tanks will be removed. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Current Development: Vacant service station. To the north: U.S. Post Office To the east: Retail commercial To the south: Retail commercial and restaurants across East Coast Highway To the west: Retail commercial and food uses across Orchid Avenue • c�cuusr Pag,e_� �(o A E 9. Other public agencies whose approval is required: South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) County of Orange Health Care Agency, Environmental Health Division ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a 'Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. 0 Land Use Planning ❑ Population & Housing ❑ Geological Problems ❑ Water ❑ Air Quality • DETERMINATION • C�1 Transportation/ Circulation ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Energy & Mineral Resources Cif Hazards ❑ Noise ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ Public Services ❑ Utilities & Service Systems ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Recreation I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ' I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" J L u CHMK rsr Pages 2 811 � or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. ❑ Submitted by: William Cuniiiiiham, Contract Planner Signature Date Planning Department Prepared by: William Cunningham, Contract Planner Signature Date • F:\USERS\PLMS HARED \I FORMS W EO- DEC1000KLIST.DOC • • CHECKLIST C /Page 3 �b • u • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST I. AESTHETICS. ❑ Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect ❑ on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? C) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? C) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 11. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the, maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? C) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use? III. AIR QUALITY. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Potentially Less man no Significant Significant Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ a ❑ ❑ ❑ e ❑ ❑ ❑ a ❑ ❑ ❑ 8 ❑ El . ': ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 CHECxusT Page 4yS� • CHECKLIST Page 55 A6 KIT - Potentially Potentially Less tnan No Significant significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mltigatlon Incorporated b) Violate any air quality standard or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 a substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, ❑ ❑ ❑ CI either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or tt special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Flish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? • CHECKLIST Page 55 A6 KIT • E • d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impeded the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? C) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact M ugatlon Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ H ❑ ❑ ❑ a ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ a ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 CHECKLIST Page 6 Ott ;�4 Potentially i) Rupture of a known earthquake Less than No fault, as delineated on the most Significant recent Alquist•Priolo Impact Earthquake Fault Zoning Map Impact issued by the State Geologist Mitigation for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division ❑ of Mines and Geology Special ❑ Publication 42. ❑ ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 0 iii) Seismic - related ground failure, ❑ including liquefaction? ❑ iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or t t the loss of topsoil? C) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 1•B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to Ile or propeiV. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact 0 Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑. ❑ ❑ 0 t t • ct�cxLisr Page 7 q4 2r `J • • b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? C) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites which complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Aentially Potentially Less than No gnlficent Significant Significant. Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ H ❑ ❑ ❑ H tt ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ H ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 CHECKIM Page 8 q3 ai8 VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or Interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? C) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off - site:? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of a course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off -site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood (hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ O . ❑ 0 p ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 D D D 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ D ❑ 0 Page 9 9 `{ /J • • i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? D Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? C) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? C) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the . construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ a ❑ ❑ 1' ❑ H ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 8 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ cMcxusr Page 10 q5 4, ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 1' ❑ H ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 8 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ cMcxusr Page 10 q5 4, I b) Exposure of persons to or ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? C) A substantial permanent increase in ❑ ❑ ❑ ambient noise levels in the project Vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 airport land use land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? C) Displace substantial numbers of ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? • CHECKLIST Page 11 C14 u • • XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES: a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ F?J Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ [� Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use ❑ ❑ p 0 of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? i b) Does the project include ❑ ❑ ❑ recreational facilities or require the construction of or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment ?.opportunities? XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC . Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed either individually or ❑ ❑ ❑ [] cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? CFFCKLLST Page 12 a1 8& C) Result in a change in air traffic ❑ ❑ ❑ patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due ❑ ❑ ❑ to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency ❑ ❑ ❑ access? I) Result in inadequate parking ❑ ❑ 0 capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, ❑ ❑ ❑ or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? C) Require or result iri the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ �' ❑ D 0 El 0 8 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 CHECKLIST Page 13 a� • • 11 f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient ❑ ❑ ❑ permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below seff- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major period of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) C) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. X n Al Fw- 0 J E A A J Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or.other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. CHECKLIST Pago 14 4 c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated; describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site - specific conditions for the project. SOURCE LIST 1 • The following enumerated documents are available at the offices of the City of Newport Beach, Planning Department, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92660. 1. Final Program EIR — City of Newport Beach General Plan 2. General Plan, including all its elements, City of Newport Beach. 3. Title 20, Zoning Code of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 4. Title 15, Building and Construction Code of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 5. City Excavation and Grading Code, Newport Beach Municipal Code. 6. Chapter 10.28, Community Noise Ordinance of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 7. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan 1997. 8. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan EIR;'1997. 9. Use Permit No. 2002 -005 (PA2002 -034) Application and Plans. 10. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), Map No. 06059C0062E, September 15, 1989. 11. Seisic Hazaord Zones Map, Laguna Beach Quadrangle, April 15, 1998. • CtECR Page 15 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS • The following is a discussion of potential project impacts as identified in the Initial Study /Environmental Checklist. Explanations are provided for each item. I. Aesthetics: a. No Impact. Although the site is not within a scenic vista area and does not impede views of the bay or coast, the project will modify the views of the site in that an existing older service station will be replaced by a new automobile lubrication /service drive - through facility. The service work will be performed in two service bays. Aesthetic mitigation will consist of orientation of the service bay openings to the east and west, and not to Coast Highway. In addition, landscaping and hardscaping is proposed to be installed along the Coast Highway frontage and along interior property lines. Landscaped areas will consist of 1,257 square feet, or 17.6 of the site area. Three new street trees consisting of Queen Palms are proposed to be installed within planters within the public right -of -way along Coast Highway. Park benches are proposed to be installed along Coast Highway and Orchid Avenue. The benches will be located on the private property, but will be oriented to the street and are intended for public use. The building is one story in height and the architecture is Mediterranean. A tower element is included at the Northwest corner, and total building height is 29 feet. Condition(s) will be included requiring any exterior lighting to be screened in a manner to restrict light rays to the site and to not create light and glare onto surrounding properties. The overall project aesthetics are an improvement to the views of the site. b. No Impact. See response I -a. above. No significant resources or historic buildings exist on the site. C. No Impact. • See response I -a. above. d. No Impact. The operating hours of the facility is primarily during daytime hours. Exterior site lighting is limited to wall mounted fixtures that will be equipped with shields to direct light rays downward. The site is in a commercial area and surrounded by existing commercial uses. Mitigation Measures: The building design, orientation and landscaping will provide mitigation relative to aesthetic issues. There are no significant environmental impacts and no mitigation measures are proposed or required. II. Agriculture Resources: a. No Impact. The project has been developed with a service station in-the past and the surrounding area is existing commercial uses. There are no agricultural resources on or near the site. b. No Impact. See response II -a. above. C. No Impact. • See response 11 -a. above. CHECKLST Page 16 r Mitigation Measures: There are no impacts on agricultural lands. No mitigation measures are proposed or required. III. Air Quality: • a. No Impact. The project will require the use of limited quantities of lubricants and of -based products. The site has been a service station that also included minor automobile servicing in the past. The business will require licensing from the South Coast Air Quality Management District, but no impacts are anticipated due to the very limited nature of the business. Short term impacts associated with construction equipment are mitigated through existing Building Department requirements for dust control and equipment operating standards. b. No Impact. See response III -a. above. C. No Impact. See response III -a. above. d. No Impact. See response III -a. above. e. No Impact. The business will not result in the creation of odors due to the service and products offered on site. Mitigation Measures: Short term impacts related to construction dust and vehicular fumes will be n)itigated'through the requirement*r dust control and vehicular emissions required by the City Building Code.: There will be no long term impacts associated with air quality. No mitigation measures are proposed or required. IV. Biological Resources: a. No Impact. The project is located in an existing urbanized area that has been developed'for commercial purposes and the site has been a service station. There re no significant biological resources located on the site or in the vicinity of the site. b. No Impact. See response IV -a. above. C. No Impact. The site is not located within a federally - identified wetland and will not impact any such resources. d. No Impact. The site is not located within a wildlife migratory corridor, therefore, the project will not interfere with any migratory wildlife corridors. e. No Impact. • CHECxusT Page 17 The project will not result in the removal of any street trees or other significant biological resources. f. No Impact. 0 The project.is not within an area identified on any natural habitat or conservation plan. Mitigation Measures: The'project will not adersely impact any biological resources. No mitigation measures are proposed or required. V. Cultural Resources: a. No Impact. The site and surrounding area are developed and no historical, archaeological or paleontological resources are known or are likely to exist on the site or within close proximity to the site. b. No Impact. See response V -a. above. C. No Impact. See response V -a. above. d. No Impact. See response V -a. above. Mitigation Measures: • There will be not impacts to cultural resources. No mitigation measures are proposed or required. it VI. Geology and Soils: a. No Impact. The area, as well as the entire central Orange County region, is located in an area subject to seismic activity. The proposed building is one story in height -- up -to -date structural design standards and conformance with the Uniform Building Code are likely to ensure that any seismic or other geologic occurrence will result in severe structural damage or human injury. b. No Impact. The site is located on flat terrain and is in an area of relatively stable soils. C. No Impact. See response VI -b. above. d. No Impact. See response to VI -b. above. e. No Impact. Sewers are available to the site. • ctEcxuST Page 18 �a3 W Mitigation Measures: Any mitigation associated with geology and soils will be undertaken in conjunction with existing building code regulations. No mitigation measures are proposed or required. • VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials: a. Less than Significant Impact. The business will require the use of lubricants and other oil -based automobile products. Licensing by the South Coast Air Quality Management District is required to ensure that any such products are properly used and disposed of. Condition(s) will be included requiring the proper storage, handling and disposal of all petroleum products and used oil. The project site has been a service station in the past. The underground fuel tanks were initially inspected in 1986 in conjunction with the Leaking Underground Fuel Storage Tank Program operated by the Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA). Subsequently, the old fuel tanks and contaminated soil were removed, new tanks installed, and the site was monitored by the Environmental Health Division of the OCHCA. A "Remedial Action Completion Certification" was issued for the site on April 25, 2001. The Certification and accompanying report are attached as Exhibit "A" to this initial Study and Checklist. The underground fuel tanks will be removed as part of the proposed project construction under the supervision of the Environmental Health Division. b. No Impact. See response VII -a. above. C. No Impact. The project site is not within one - quarter mile of a school. d. No Impact. See response VII -a. above. e. No Impact. The project site is not within an airport land use plan or within two miles of an airport. No Impact. See response to VII -e. above. g. No Impact. The project will not impair emergency facilities or emergency response plans. h. No Impact. The project is not in an area impacted by potential wildland fires. Mitigation Measures: • Mitigation with relation to the contaminated soil was undertaken in 1986, and a Certification issued in 2001. The underground tanks installed in 1986 in conjunction with the service station use will be removed. No mitigation measures are proposed or required. VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality: a. No Impact. • CHECKLIST Page 19 1 J� The project consists of construction of a new automobile service facility on a site previously occupied by a service station. The business will require a license from the South Coast Air Quality Management District to ensure that • any petroleum - related substances are properly transported to and from the site, stored and disposed of. The project will not adversely impact water resources or water quality. The project site is not located within a Flood Hazard area, and there will not be an increase in water runoff over previously existing conditions in that the proposed site plan provides for reduced paved/impervious surface areas. b. No Impact. The project will not increase paved areas, and will not interfere with groundwater recharge. C. No Impact. The project will not alter drainage pattens on site or within the area -- storm runoff will continue to drain to the abutting street. The project will not result in increase stormwater run -off due to the decrease in paved areas. d. No Impact. See response to VIII -c. above., e. No Impact. See response to VIII -c. above. f. No Impact. See response to VIII-a. above. g. No Impact. • See response to VIII -c. above. h. No Impact. The project is not located within a 100 -year flood hazard area. i. No Impact. See responses to VIII -c. a(Td VIII -h. above. j. No Impact. The site is not subject to seiche, tsunami or mudflow hazards due to the location, elevation and flat topography of the site. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation with respect to hydrology and water quality will be accomplished by the requirements by the AQMD and health agencies for storage and disposal of petroleum products used in the business. No mitigtion measures are proposed or required. IX. Land Use and Planning: a. No Impact. The proposed project will not result in any barriers or other physical divisions within the Corona del Mar . community. CHECxusT Page 20 , b. Less than Significant Impact. The project site is located within a highly disturbed urban area and has been developed with an automobile service station in the past. The site and surrounding area are designated for retail and commercial use by both the General Plan and the Zoning Code. A Use Permit is required for the use, which is a replacement of a previou existing similar use. With the exception of a parking waiver to allow three less parking spaces than required Wr the Zoning Code, all of the site development standards of the zone district will be complied with. The requested parking waiver will be evaluated in terms of the actual parking demand associated with the specific operational characteristics of the business, and parking waiver will be permitted only If it is demonstrated that the parking proposed is sufficient to accommodate the type of business in a manner as to not adversely impact surrounding land uses. Conditions will be included to ensure that the business operates in a manner to adversely impact surrounding businesses and land uses. C. No Impact. The project site is not located within a habitat area or will it interfere with any habitat or community conservation plan. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation to land use and planning issues is addressed by the analysis and conditions imposed by the Use Permit. No mitigation measures are proposed or required. X. Mineral Resources: a. No Impact. The project site is not located in an area of known mineral resources and will not result in the displacement of people. b. No Impact. See response X -a, above. ,� • C. No Impact. See response X -a above. XI. Noise: a. Less than Significant Impact. The project will not involve the use of pneumatic devices. However, the project will result in use of compressors in conjunction with the lubrication of automobiles and pumping of fluid petroleum products. Those compressors will be located within the structure of the building and will not generate excessive noise levels to the exterior. All equipment, including heating/ventilation/air conditioning equipment, will be required to be screened and baffled in a manner to lower noise levels generated by such equipment to a level consistent with the City's Noise Ordinance and regulations. The site is surrounded by commercial uses and a post office building. Residential exists approximately 70 feet to the north of the project site. The public street and existing buildings will also provide noise mitigation. In addition, the hours of operation of the business are proposed to be limited to daytime hours, and the project will be conditioned to prohibit deliveries and other business - related operations from occurring during early morning and late night hours. b. Less than Significant Impact. See response XI -a. above. C. No Impact. • cHEcxutt Page 21 Jbl� The project is located on a site previously used as an automobile service station, and is surrounded by existing commercial uses. d. Less than Significant Impact. • See response XI -a. above. e. No Impact. The project is not located within an airport land use plan and is not within two miles of a public or private airport. I. No Impact. See response XI -f. above. Mitigtion Measures: Mitigtion to noise related issues will be provided by required screening and baffling of all equipment. No mitigation measures are proposed or required. Xll. Population and Housing: a. No Impact. The project site has been operated as an automobile service station in the past and the proposed new use will not substantially change the character of the use, will not induce population, or result in displacement of housing or people. b. No Impact. • See response XII -a. above. C. No Impact. See response XII -a. above. XIII. Public Services: a. No Impact. The proposed use will replace an existing automobile service station and will not result in a demand for public services over what the site has required in the past. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are proposed or required. XIV. Recreation: a. No Impact. The proposed use will not result in new demands on recreational facilities. b. No Impact. See response XIV -a. above. • cte:cydjn Page 22 N� Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are proposed or required. XV. Transportation and Traffic; • a. No Impact. The site will generate traffic and parking demand; however, the demand is not expected to be an increase over the generation by the prior service station use. A parking analysis was submitted in conjunction with the application, based on a similar sized facility located near the project site. Base on that analysis, the site will generate, on average, three customers at any given time. Those customers' cars are typically accommodated within the service bays, with additional waiting customer vehichles queued at the bay door. The on -site parking is primarily for employees, which typically require up to three spaces. The traffic analysis indicates that the maximum number of customers experienced at any given time would be five, and ample parking will be available to handle that peak demand as well as employee parking. The site plan evaluation will include an analysis of driveway widths and other design standards to ensure that safe traffic movements onto and from the site can be made, and that the design can accommodate emergency vehicles. No mitigation measures are proposed or required. b. No Impact. See response XV -a. above. C. No Impact. The proposed project will not have an impact on air traffic or air traffic patterns. d. No Impact. The project will not increase hazards as a result of design features. e. No Impact. • The proposed project design has been reviewed by both the Police and Fire Departments with respect to emergency access. There will be no adverse impacts associated with emergency access. Less than Significant Impact. The application includes a request for a parking waiver to allow three less parking spaces than required by the Zoning Code. However, the Use Permit evaluation will include an analysis of the parking waiver request to demonstrate that the specific operational characteristics of the business require less parking and that the parking proposed can accommodate the potential peak parking demand on site. g. No Impact. The project will not interfere with trasportation- related or bicycle facilities. XVI. Utilities & Service Systems: a. No Impact. The project will not increase the demand for water, result in increase in sewage, result in an increase in solid wastes over the previously existing service station services exist to accommodate the proposed use. b. No Impact. See response to XVI -a. above. increase stormwater runoff, or use. Adequate supplies and • CHECKLIST Page 23 1Ub ���' C. No Impact. See response to XVI -a. above. • d. No Impact. See response to XVI -a. above. e. No Impact. See response to XVI -a. above. I. No Impact. See response to XVI -a. above. g. Less than Significant Impact. The project, during construction and upon completion, will comply with all statues and regulations relative to solid waste. All petroleum - related products will be stored, used and disposed of under required permitted requirements of the AQMD and health agencies. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are proposed or required. XVIL Mandatory Findings of Significance: a. No Impact. • The project will not degrade the quality of the environment. Conditions are included within the Use Permit process and approval requiring mitigation of potential impacts associated with noise from on -site equipment, and the delivery, storage, use and disposal of any substances classified as hazardou'; is strictly regulated and monitored by local and state agencies. • b. No Impact. The project site is in a commercial area and has been used as an automobile service station in the past. There are no cumulative impacts associated with the project when considered in conjunction with other surrounding projects or future projects. - C. No Impact. The project will not result in substantial adverse impacts to human beings. Conditions and design features have been incorporated into the project to maintain noise levels at or below City requirements, and exterior lighting will be required to incorporte shields to prevent glare and light spillage to.surrounding properties. CHECxusT Page 24 169 ke EXHIBIT "A" REMEDIAL ACTION COMPLETION CERTIFICATION LEAKING UNDERGROUND FUEL TANK PROGRAM • • CHEcicusr Page 25 1 i0 � COUNTY OF ORANGE HEALTH CARE AGENCY REGULATORY HEALTH SERVICES ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Apol 25, 2001 P ,s rs Marvin xacz MAY 0 7 2001 Equilon Enterprises -14)FU R ra- WE5TWAST P.O. Box 7899 Burbank, CA 91510-7869 Subject: Remedial Action Completion Certification t JULIETTE A. POULSON, RN, MN DIRECTOR MIKE SPURGEOH DEPUTYAGE90461REMM REGULATORY HFAUTH SERVICES ENYWKNAENTAL HEALTH 2009 EAST EDINGER AVENUE SANTA ANA. CA M7054720 TELEPHONE (7141 9 67 36 0 0 FAX (714) 9724749 EMAB: elrrtroMeskhOhcaw.oraryl9.caus Re: Underground Storage Tank (UST) Case Shell Station 3600 East Coast Hwy., Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 O.C.H.CA. Case it 86UT30 Dear Mr. Katz: This letter confirms the completion of site investigation and corrective action for the reported unauthorized release from the •underground storage tanks located at the above- descn'bed location. Thank you for your cooperation throughout this investigation. Your willingness and promptness in responding to our inquiries concerning the former release is greatly appreciated. Based on information in the above - referenced file and with the provision that the information provided to this Agency was accurate and representative of site conditions, this Agency finds that the site investigation and corrective action carried out at your underground storage tanks site is in compliance with the requirements of subdivisions (a) and (b) of Section 2529937 of the Health and Safety Code and with corrective action regulations adopted pursuant to Section 25299.77 of the Health and Safety Code and that no further action related to the petroleum release(s) at the site is required. This notice is issued pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 2529937 of the Health and Safety Code. Please contact Joyce Krall of our office at (714) 667 -3714 it you have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, ;In* Steven K. Wong, REHS, MPH Director Environmental Health Division SKW:dp Attachment: Case Closure Summary cc: Carl Bernhardt, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board SB 562 Database, State Water Resources Control Board Cleanup Fund Manager, State Water Resources Control Board Larry Honeyboume, Environmental Health ' • Michael Macey, Newport Beach Fire Department Faisal Jurdi, Newport Beach Building Department Case Closure Summary Leaking Underground Fuel Tank Program I. Agency Information [Agency Name: Orange County ity /State2p: Santa Ana, CA I esponsible staff person: Joyce 11. Case Information Care Agency I Address: Waste Date: February 21. 209 er Avenue Site Facility Name: Shell Station Site characterization complete? Yes Date approved by oversight agency: February 21, 2001 Monitoring wells installed? Yes Number. Site Facility Address: 3600 East Coast Hwy., Corona Del Mar, CA ' 1 Proper screened interval? Yes RB LUSTIS Case No.: 083000340T Lowest depth: 74.88 ft. bgs Local Case No.: LOP Case No.: 86UTSO URF Fling Date: Aquifer name: SWEEPS No. Nearest/affected SW name: Responsible Party Report(s) on file? Yes Address Phone Number Equiva Services LLC Contact: Marvin Katz Amount (include Units) P.O:'Bos 7869 Burbank, CA 91510 -7869 (949) 888 -0903 Tank No Size in Gal. Contents Closed in- Place/Removed? Date. 1 550 Waste oil Removed April 1, 1986 2 3,000 Gasoline Removed April 1, 1986 3 3,000 Gasoline Removed April 1, 1986 4 4,000 Gasoline Removed April 1, 1986 5 6,000 Gasoline Removed April 1, 1986 6 18,000 Gasoline Removed April 1, 1986 III. Release and Site Characterization Information Cause and type of release: Corrosion; a large hole in UST was observed Site characterization complete? Yes Date approved by oversight agency: February 21, 2001 Monitoring wells installed? Yes Number. 3 1 Proper screened interval? Yes Highest GW depth BGS: 67.69 ft. bgs Lowest depth: 74.88 ft. bgs Flow direction: west Most sensitive current use: This site is located approximately 1,500 ft. of the Pacific Ocean. The beneficial uses of the near shore zone, as defined by the Water quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters of California; includes industrial service supply; navigation; water contact recreation; water non - contact recreation; commercial and sports fishing; wildlife habitat; rare, threatened or endangered species; spawning, reproduction, and development; shellfish harvesting; marine habitat. Are drinking water wells affected? No Aquifer name: Is surface water affected? No Nearest/affected SW name: Oft -sRe beneficial use impacts (addressesllocations): None Report(s) on file? Yes Where is report(s) filed? 2009 E. Edinger Ave., Santa Ana, CA Treatment and Disposal of Affected Material Material Amount (include Units) Action (treatment or di sposa lldestination) Date Soil N/A Groundwater N/A This document and the related CASE CLOSURE LETTER, shall be retained by the lead agency as pad of the official site file. Revised: 4/14/94 Page I of 3 li% "T • 111. • • This document and the related CASE CLOSURE LETTER, shall be retained by the lead agency as part of the official site file. Revised: 4/14/94 Page 2 of 3 Case Closure Summary Leaking Underground Fuel Storage Tank Program Release and Site Characterization Information cont. Case #: 86UT30 Date: February 21, 2001 Maximum Documented Contaminant Concentrations - - Before and After Cleanup Contaminant Soil m Water m Contaminant Soil I ppm) Water m Before After Before I After Before After Before After TPH 5.500 5.500 0.5 <0.5 Oxygenates: 1.2 <0.01 <0.005 (gasoline) MTBE Benzene 34 34 0.0053 <O.0005 DIPE <0.002 Toluene 290 290 0.3 <0.0005 TAME - <0.002 Ethylbenzene 80 80 0.0099 <0.0005 ETBE - - - <0.002 Xylene 1 640 640 10.0717 <O.0006 TBA - - <0.05 Comments (Depth of Remedlation, etc.): Gasoline contaminated soil was first detected at this site on April 1. 1986 during the removal of the former underground storage tanks (UST). Subsequent assessment of the contamination involved the drilling and sampling of soil borings and the installation and monitoring of groundwater monitoring wells. This site is Iocated approximately 1.500 -ft. inland of the area's bluffs and ocean. Groundwater is present beneath this site at an approximate depth of 70 -ft. bgs. During assessment, all soll borings encountered bedrock conditions. At this site. contaminated soil remains in the area beneath the location of the former USTs. The bulk of contaminated soil has been assessed to be at a depth of 25-ft bgs and taper to a concentration of 0.06 ppm benzene at 55-ft bgs. Contamination was not again detected by any deeper soil samples from the assessment borings until a capillary fringe soil sample was obtained from soil boring B -12 at 80 -ft. bgs. Analysis of the 80 -ft bgs soil sample detected 0.02 ppm of benzene and 0.03 ppm of xylenes. Three groundwater - monitoring wells have been installed to assess groundwater conditions. Groundwater monitoring well B -12. installed during 1994, had been monitored for six quarters prior to being joined by the other two wells in September 1998. Groundwater conditions were then monitored quarterly by all three wells for the next six quarters. Slight levels of contamination. which are listed in the groundwater "before" table above. were initially detected in groundwater samples obtained from well B -12. However, the groundwater monitoring of all three wells for the last six quarters has consistently been non- detect for contamination (except for a single detection of 0.36 ppb of toluene). While the groundwater- monitoring program was underway. in June of 1998. dispenser island and piping upgrade activities for the existing USTs at this site were conducted. Additional contamination was detected In the soil beneath the removed dispensers. Four sofl borings were then drilled In the immediate vicinity of the dispenser Islands to obtain soil samples and assess the extent of the newly detected contamination. The soil borings extended to depths of 55-ft. bgs. The contamination was defined and limited to the top 25 ft. of soil. Benzene was detected at a maximum of 2.7 ppm (B -20 at 10 ft. bgs). MTBE was detected at a maximum of 1.2 ppm (B -17 at 20 ft. bgs). -The site's final groundwater monitoring event was conducted upon completion of this additional assessment. This site Is located along the coastal zone and does not recharge underlying drinking water aquifers. This area is classified as "low risk" as per SARW$CB's revised policy regarding leaking USTs adopted 1- 25-96. Subsurface utility vaults present in the vicinity of the station have been identified and surveyed to evaluate the possible migration and accumulation of fuel vapors from the contaminated soil into these vaults. The maximum vapor concentration detected in the survey of the subsurface vaults was reported to be 1.8 ppmv. This concentration is greatly below that required for combustion and does not pose a potential fire or explosion hazard. The contaminated soil as it remains does not present a significant risk to human health or the environment. No further corrective action is recommended. IV.Closure V. VI. Case Closure Summary Leaking Underground Fuel Storage Tank Program Case #: 86UT30 Date: February 21, 2001 Does completed corrective action protect existing beneficial uses per the Regional Board Basin Plan? Yea Does completed corrective action protect potential beneficial uses per the Regional Board Basin Plan? Yes Does corrective action protect public health for current land use? Yes She management requirements: Yes, contaminated soil remains onsite Should corrective action be reviewed if land use changes? Yes, contaminated soil remains onsite Monitoring wells decommissioned: Number decommissioned: Number Retained: List enforcement actions rescinded: Local Agency RepreseDUitiyrDat-47 j Name: Joyce Title: Hazardous Waste Specialist Signature: .i\ 5 0 t I Date: • • This document and the related CASE CLOSURE LETTER, shall be retained by the lead agency as part of the official site file. Revised: 4114M I 1 Page 3 of 3 1 01 a4 /2a /2aa1 13 :45 • IV.Closurd V. V1. L 5aytalbres REGIUML WAILX imp • rair= n'ttnz Case Closure Summary Leaking Underground Fuel Storage Tank Program Case C. BOUT30 Date: Pabrw y 21, 2M Does cornplalcd coned" adlon ptotaot ezfsYngbenefloial ueas per the Rooional Hoard Baeitt Plan? Yea Does completed cormbe acion praeotpefenWbsndbal rtes per Vw Raglww Board Baaln Plan? Yea Does corrective action protect pubk health for dwma land tru? Tea Oft management rawrarnanta: Yoe, wntamiasfsa sail rasadvi eoaa should correcove action be reviewed I land use changes? Yea, c,antand stod adl sesaeiae Omaha Monitoring wells d000mrrissioned; Nu dwzrn lsaloned: Number Retained: Ust onforcemerd ecgons roes . UU 4===, xd rbe rdeled CASE CLOSURE LMTM WH be reW=d y"1961 sae y "Pon of the orndd dM Me. Pa is d: 4/14/94 ero •a Page 3 of 3 — .. -`_. 3JNtibO jd uN-U7 t.F.iBO: TT T0. T2 dd J o�T4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ? 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.D. Box 1768 Zr Newport Beach, CA 92658.8915 c,�oat (949) 644 -3200 NEGATIVE DECLARATION • To: ®Office of Planning and Research P.O. BOX 3044 Sacramento, CA 95812 -3044 TICounty Clerk, County of Orange Public Services Division P.O. Box 238 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Public review period Name of Project: EZ -Lube Corona del Mar From: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 (Orange County) Date received for filing at OPR/County Clerk: April 27, 2002 — May 17, 2002 Project Location: 3600 East Coast Highway, Newport Beach, CA 92625 Project Description: The project consists of construction of a new automobile service facility for oil changes and lubrication services on a parcel previously developed with a service station. The project will consist of a 2,641 square -foot building (1,612 square feet on the first floor and 1,029 square feet in a basement storage /service area). The project includes a request for parking waiver to allow seven parking spaces — ten spaces are required by the Zoning Code. In addition, the existing service station building will be demolished and the underground gasoline storage tanks will be removed. Finding: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council K -3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the City of Newport Beach has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study containing the analysis supporting this finding is 0 attached �1 on file at the Planning Department. The Initial Study may include mitigation measures that would eliminate or reduce poten ral environmental impacts. This document will be considered by the decision - makers) prior to final action on the proposed project. A public hearing will be held to consider this project, held on the 23rd day of May 2002, at the hour of 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. Additional plans, studies and/or exhibits relating to the proposed project are be available for public review. If you would like to examine these materials, you are invited to contact the undersigned. If you wish to appeal the appropriateness or adequacy of this document, your comments should be submitted in writing prior to the close of the public review period. Your comments should specifically identify what environmental impacts you believe would result from the project, why they are significant, and what changes or mitigation measures you believe should be adopted to eliminate or reduce these impacts. There is no fee for this appeal. If a public hearing will be held. you are also invited to attend and testify as to the appropriateness of this document. If you have ',any questions or would like further information, please contact the undersigned at (949) 644 - 3200. y� • vv Date � as— James Ca bell, Se for Planner ►loo • • • EXHTBTT 6 CORRESPONDENCE ��1 Planning commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA. Re: Use permit #2002 -005 Dear Planning Commission, RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF Nr�typnPT 0EACH AM MAY 2 3 2002 FM 7181910111112111213141516 We are against any reduction in the required parking for the proposed EZ Lube. At 3300 East Pacific Coast Highway in Corona del Mar. Parking is difficult enough in the area. With Rose' Donuts and Ca& and Domino's Pizza Delivery directly across Orchid and of course, the Post Office. All of these businesses create enough traffic in the morning, lunch and evening times so much so that the congestion is extreme. We also believe that EZ Lube is a totally inappropriate use for the Old Corona del Mar area. With the continued mansionization and condominiums in the area, we are losing much of the charm it is valued for. and Patricia Gwin 707 Poinsettia Ave Corona del Mar CA. 92625 • 11 • ,if( K agQ 1 Vl l Campbell, James From: Andrew Torelli leatorelli @adelphia.netl • Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 10:14 PM To: Jim Campbell Subject: Jiffy Lube Dear Planning Commission, My name is Elizabeth Torelli and I live on Hazel Drive in Corona Del Mar with my husband Andrew. We moved to this specific community 8 years ago because of the charming village -like atmosphere and friendly- neighbor spirit that practically oozes from CDM. I liken it to growing up in the 50's: We enjoy knowing all of our neighbors, have each other's best interests at heart, share house keys, swap recipes, borrow eggs, go on long walks together, have block parties but respect each other's privacy and space. I am a Republican, which I bring up only because I am of the mind set that if I OWN my property, I should have a say in what I can DO with that property but only if it's not offensive to other's within my neighborhood. For that reason I wouldn't block my neighbor's view, play loud music, paint my house chartreuse, park abandoned cars on the street .... well, you get my drift. This community has a FLAVOR about it and that flavor is turning BITTER with what I see developing in town. This is NOT Newport Coast with 10,000 square foot stucco houses, beautiful though they may be when surrounded by an adequate amount of land. This is NOT Costa Mesa with 4 families living under one roof, cars parked on the lawn • and a fast food drive -thru restaurant next door blaring "May I help you ?" at midnight. This is NOT Corona with cows in the back yard. , • Please keep this clearly in mind as you reject the notion of allowing a Jiffy Lube to open on the former Shell Gas Station site! Reflect on "CDM -- Vision 2004" with the tree planting, cobblestone crosswalks, park benches and what you have been striving to achieve. We have several businesses that already service our cars (from Mercedes to Toyotas) and don't need an unsightly Jiffy Lube cluttering PCH! That's the type of business that should be (and is) on Newport Blvd. or tucked away in a strip mall by the airport. For one crummy little mile PCH is our "Main Street, Hometown. USA". or as close as we can get to it considering the flow of cars through town. Think CHARMING ARCHITECTURE, GATHERING SPOT, anything other than Jiffy Lube, OK? And while I'm at it--- please don't let other totally inappropriate abominations like the Albertson's, Honey Baked Ham and KFC renovations get past your scrutiny. Eastern seaboard, clapboard siding and Donald -Bren- Pink - Stucco aren't compatible! Somehow Laguna has been able to keep it's charming seaside look, why can't we? Thanks for hearing me out and for all you are doing to keep our community from turning into Irvine, perish the thought! Regards, Liz & Andy Torelli 949 - 922 -7841 05/23/2002 Campbell, James From: Michelle Desreux [mdesreux @uniglobetravel.coml Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 10:17 AM To: jcampbell @city .newport- beach.ca.us • Subject: Jiffy Lube in Corona del Mar Character and charm vs development and "services ". Always a tough call but someone has to do it. That someone must hear both sides and evaluate the issues and peoples concerns. The people must be willing to share their concerns so they can be properly represented. so ... here is our position on the issue and our concerns. It's pretty simple .... No to Jiffy Lube. Not appropriate commerce for Corona del Mar. Not consistent with the community 'feel". Not consistent with the °beautification plan" for the community (they are a franchise so must comply with the franchisors high- profile but not attractive signage /look etc.). Their business premise is "line them up and get them out asap "....likely to contribute to further congestion (especially during rush hour) along that section of PCH. Thank you for your representation. Michelle Desreux & Dennis Bradley 525 Hazel Dr. Corona del Mar CA 92625 • • ';Lb Campbell, James From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Mr. Campbell: JArdeII909@aol.com Thursday, May 23, 2002 11:49 AM jcampbell 0 city. newport- beach.ca.us Jiffy Lube I'm writing to'vehemently protest the planned Jiffy Lube station at Orchid Pacific Coast Highway in Corona del. Mar. This is an obnoxious land use! Furthermore., the residents of this village (and we are trying very hard to maintain the village atmosphere) are working hard to establish the sort of amenities that will continue to make this area of town an oasis amidst mindless development. If you have examined the plans for the village which are to be implemented in the next few years, I can't imagine that you would agree to move in Jiffy Lube. Please say no! Sincerely, Jean Ardell 554 Hazel Drive Corona del Mar, 949 760 6076 E CA 92625 -2535 p Earl McDaniel, Secretary Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: EZ Lube Use Permit No. 2002 -005 (PA2002 -034) and Negative Declaration xe Si2U[��L 519 Iris Avenue Corona del Mar, CA 92625 RECEIVED BY May 16,2002 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY 0P NFt4!Qt%QT REA^ AM MAY 2'0 2002 ph1 7181911011111211 i213141516 I First of all, We are against permitting EZ lube or any other automobile lubrication facility in Corona del Mar. 1 would like to point out what has been done in and to CDM in the last several years. Our intersections have become impacted because of poor planning. I would like to start with Goldenrod and Pacific Coast Highway (south of PCH). At one time the building where Brugger's Bagels is now located was a revolving door with occupants. The last one I believe was a furniture store. In the meantime, Starbucks moved into the corner store across the street. You are all familiar with Goldenrod and how it curves around and heads toward the beach. I don't know who approved of Bruegger's Bagels and then Seattle's Best Coffee, but whoever it was didn't show much forethought. Then to make matters worse, the exit off the parking lot for Brueggers was closed off. (We have lived in CDM for over 30 years and that exit was always open). Now cars that go into that small odd shaped lot cannot exit in the alley to Femleaf or Second St., but has to turn around and go out Goldenrod, right where the curve is. Now there is not a lot of space anywhere in the vicinity and a bottleneck happens. (Who would have thought ?). So now we have ruined PCH and Goldenrod. On to the next intersection, Iris Avenue, south of PCH. The Albertson's shopping center has always been busy, but now it is dangerous as well. Again, the street curves as it heads north. Across the street we have another Coffee Shop, a liquor store, a drive thru cleaners, and now Subway and of course a small, odd shaped parking lot. The driveway to get into the Albertson's center is right there as soon as one makes a turn off of PCH. Now, when you • have cars coming up Iris, and blocking this entrance you have made a very dangerou§ condition for the cars turning south off of PCH. To add to this mix is the crosswalk, which is used a lot. I am sure ' 'the Planning Commission can find a solution to the problem it helped create. There is not enough parking at that intrsection for all the businesses that are there. OK, what next in CDM. Oh yes, lets go north of the highway to Jasmine. There we have another curved street heading toward PCH. There is a parking lot. There is insufficient street parking for all the businesses and residences. And now, we have another problem. It seems people. in CDM don't know how to park their cars. If they get to within a couple feet of the curb, they think this is just fine. Well, wouldn't you know, cars are being parked on Jasmine and Coast Hwy, about 2 feet away from the curb. When you are driving down Jasmine to PCH, it looks like the car is waiting to make a right hand turn — wrong, it is parked. Now as it always happens, when a car pulls around the parked car, there is another car trying to make a right hand turn up Jasmine. This has happened to me twice in two weeks. It is another accident waiting to happen. Back to Orchid and PCH. What do you know, the street is not curved, but this will be another dangerous intersection in our small little village. As you are aware, there are many rude drivers on the road. Cars leaving EZ lube will have to ease their way onto PCH into a lot of traffic. PCH on Saturdays and Sundays is to be avoided at all costs. We use the back way into our home. Mainly, there is a huge parking problem there right now, without an EZ lube. There is NO parking, NO parking, NO parking. I realize nothing can be done now to correct the above dangerous intersections that have been allowed to happen, but I am asking you not to compound it with an EZ Labe station. 1 am familiar with the Jiffy lube station on Bristol, and having one of those in CDM just doesn't make sense at all. Ve truly yours, � • SandyNicho Cc: NB City Council to • • LA "RECEIV D AFTER AG DA 509 ?WPY A„muc PRINTED•:' o a C�udd Mm. CAn6x5 DON JACOBS AR.CIRMCI ' AU. June 23, 2002 City Council Members City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 Re: EZ Lobe appeal Dear Council Members: As a resident of Corona del Mar since 1987 I have watched with great pride as Corona del Mar has slowly become more and more of a walking community. We have such a unique community and it deserves more pedestrian oriented businesses, not less. My wife and I strongly object to the possibility that something as horrendous as an "EZ Lube" would ever be considered as an appropriate use for Corona del Mar. I attended the Planning Commission hearing to voice my objection but I am unfortunately out of town this week and am therefore limited to putting my concerns in print. In discussing the EZ Lube with neighbors we have found no one who is even slightly in favor of it Please, as responsible Council Members, listen to your constituency and DO NOT approve the EZ Lube project and destroy our community. �o om �o L 2 T C ns -y Z -Or-1 N C2 C7 A A y mC� 0 Dr l.i nx N x M m I71 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA, PRINTED:" Corona Del Mar Citizens (With in I miles of P.C.H. & Orchid) We the under signed strongly oppos the new lubrication shop proposed at 3600 Coast Hwy. for the reasons listed below: 1) The sight of automotive bays is not what Corona Del Mar citizens wants to look at from any direction. 2) The toxic fumes from fuel injector cleaners will emit into the nearby neighborhood. 3) The sound of pneumatic tool will ring out to disturb the peace of the community all day long. 4) The oil tracked into the neighborhood by cars leaving the garage will dirty the sidewalks & streets. 5) This use is not conforming to any other new use in the area, approval would start a precedence. Name Address Si na ure I 4JCA -Ih 00 l J V v'. dA- yv�-^' �iy� ■�/i(riLGi�� /lam �'I • Mac Kid 4A eoN\L- 4 IZ q C{ 12 ►l/�.�i�/�s- t,. -.-d �f Zz�/�t L/ ssd S %/"Q.. a .�n., 417, uo., /, i1�AU+l il711,�►� . M W-1 t: feii." !ice gara A011 all SI.S ullnlflSos i� Uffli�i0 Corona Del Mar Citizens 0 (With in I miles of P.C.H. & Orchid) We the under signed strongly oppose The new lubrication shop proposed at 3600 Coast Hwy. for the reasons listed below: 1) The sight of automotive bays is not what Corona Del Mar citizens wants to look at from any direction. 2) The toxic fumes from fuel injector cleaners will emit into the nearby neighborhood. 3) The sound of pneumatic tool will ring out to disturb the peace of the community all day long. 4) The oil tracked into the neighborhood by cars leaving the garage will dirty the sidewalks & streets. 5) This use is not conforming to any other new use in the area, approval would start a precedence. Name Address Signature • E Corona Del Mar Citizens (With in 17Z miles of P.C.H. & Orchid) /2 We the under signed strongly oppose the new lubrication shop proposed at 3600 Coast Hwy. for the reasons listed below: 1) The sight of automotive bays is not what Corona Del Mar citizens wants to look at from any direction. 2) The toxic fumes from fuel injector cleaners will emit into the nearby neighborhood. 3) The sound of pneumatic tool will ring out to disturb the peace of the community all day long. 4) The oil tracked into the neighborhood by cars leaving the garage will dirty the sidewalks & streets. 5) This use is not conforming to any other new use in the area, approval would start a prer°dl°nce. Address r i 3!1 �j�.i�% %fir fp i Corona Del Mar Citizens 0 (With in 8 miles of P.C.H. & Orchid) We the under signed strongly oppose the new lubrication shop proposed at 3600 Coast Hwy. for the reasons listed below: " 1) The sight of automotive bays is not what Corona Del Mar citizens wants to kook at from any direction. 2) The toxic fumes from fuel injector cleaners will emit into the nearby neighborhood. 3) The sound of pneumatic tool will ring out to disturb the peace of the community all day long. 4) The oil tracked into the neighborhood by cars leaving the garage will dirty the sidewalks & streets. 5) This use is not conforming to any other new use in the area, approval would start a precedence. 0-