HomeMy WebLinkAbout24 - PA2002-034 - EZ Lube - 3600 East Coast Highway�rE'PPOer CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Hearing Date: June 25, 2002
PLANNING DEPARTMENT Agenda Item: �q
3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD Staff Person: Bill Cunningham
°�4soaN`� NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 949 -644 -3200
(949) 6443200; FAX (949) 6443229
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 corner 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 Commission 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 Lube (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 overtum 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. 7 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 overturn 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 n
G��ilAiyw �'/�(,G9uI2G �n�yy�
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)
June 25, 2002
Page 4 of 4
EXHIBIT 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2002-
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:
1. 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.
Paae 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 due te neise dust, eders er ether undeskable ehaFaete4isfies 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.
L 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 prebler 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.
no
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:
AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS
NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS
ABSENT, COUNCIL MEMBERS
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
EXHIBIT 2
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
AND FINDINGS FOR DENIAL AS AMENDED
MAY 23, 2002
11
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 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.
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 far 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 same 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
E
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
May 23, 2002
• 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 Vislon 2004 ideas and we tried 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 is 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 Tubes.
• 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
INDEX
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 Agajanlan 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
INDEX
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 from 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, 17th 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
characterstics 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
6
INDEX
a
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
May 23, 2002 INDEX
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 Mar 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, 1 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
15
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
May 23, 2002
1,500 square foot 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 Kiser 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, Kiser, Gifford, Selich
Noes: Agajanian
Excused: Kranzley, Tucker
The findings for 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.
01
11
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.
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.
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.
INDEX
Additional Business
I5
EXHIBIT 3
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
INCLUDING EXHIBITS
MAY 23, 2002
1(0
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
fi
.. = 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD
o�4FOay�� NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658
(949) 644 -3200; FAX (949) 644 -3229
Hearing Date:
Agenda Item:
Staff Person:
Period:
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
PROJECT: EZ Lube (PA2002 -034)
3600 East Coast Highway
May 23, 2002
3
Bill Cunningham
(949) 644 -3200
after final action
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:
APPLICANT:
PROPERTY
OWNER:
LOCATION:
LEGAL
DESCRIPTION:
Approve modify or deny Use Permit No. 2002 -005 for Property Located at
3600 East Coast Highway.
EZ Lube
3506 W. Lake Center Drive, Suite B
Santa Ana, CA 92704
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
3
0 200 400 Feet.
EA &44 N
oil
�1
N
VICINITY MAP wE
s
Use Permit No. 2002 -005
3600 E. Coast Highway
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
EZ Lube CdM (PA2002 -034)
May 23, 2002
Page 2 of I I
1�
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:
��L i ?±4h a �.,.IW
�k 5 � �'o-:...Yui�•`6.�, ) F%F
T i -i .. .fr'
Rear
Oft.
0 ft.
Building Height
29 ft.
32 ft.
Floor
Site Area
7,128 •
000
Parking
7 spaces
10 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 j
Page 3 of I 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 20.66.100AA, 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
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 comer and a combination of hardscape and a corner
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 Al
Page 5 of 11
0
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 staff's 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
corner. Applicant proposes a combination of landscaping and hardscape (stone benches and
paving) at the corner 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 comer landscaping. However, staff believes
EZ Lube CdM (PA2002 -034)
May 23, 2002
Page 6 of 11
L'a
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 Manner'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
Manner'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 concern 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 and 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 corner, 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 corner 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
00
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 o£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 Enviornmental 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 Labe CdM (PA2002 -034)
May 23, 2002
Page 9 of 11
U
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:
WIILIAM CUNNINGHAM
Contract Planner
EZ Lube CdM (PA2002 -034)
May 23, 2002 a (p
Page 10 of 11
TU
Exhibits
1. Chapter 20.80
2. Service Station Design Guidelines
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 Lobe CdM (PA2002 -034)
May 23, 2002 1
Page I I of 11
EXHIBIT 1
ZONING CODE CHAPTER 20.80 - SERVICE STATIONS
AY
PrAd-
Page 20.80 -1
Service Stations
CHAPTER 20.80
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
11 general public are maintained in a safe and clean manner.
J 0623/99
a
J-9
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 uses.
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 Beverage
Outlets), or any similar change in the operational characteristics of the service station.
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.
3°
I+%
Page 20.80 -3
Service Stations
B. Elevations, drawn to scale, including all Building and sign faces and materials,
! 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:
31
Page 20.80 -
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 Bever eag 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. Walk -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).
0623199
3a
I M-
Page 20.80 -5
Service Stations
20.80.060 Design and Development Regulations
A. Applicability. 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 square 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. Setbacks. The following setbacks shall be maintained:
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
E. Access.
1. 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 nearest
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 25 feet for two -way traffic or
18 feet for one -way circulation.
_J
33
D
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. Utilities. 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 Design. 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.
I. Landscaping.
1. 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 corner. 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. Quantity 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
OnM
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.
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 LandscaninQ.
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
trimining.
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
2 �)
-,)-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 lighting. 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 Areas. 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.
06123 _>
J�O
1�'
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 Regulations 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.
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).
J
31
EXHIBIT 2
SERVICE STATION DESIGN GUIDELINES
J�
m
N
d
F
C
CL
d
E
0
m
O
�o
m
CL
,°
N
d
C
V
C
01
�N
a)
io
C
a
Q
OL
a
0
(D Cl
� C
00
Q)
O Q.
N o�tvO 3
10 U
N >
O) y
a) a) 'D r
m CD O a) _ J
0 �� ° 1° m
n oCrni =-
O O L m
a) Oo a) O E 'O
L
u- y E lV
O U U O
Q) ayrnLc
wU)i°OaNi°
O T U N
a0 -0 C C N 7 U
N ca
m ° 0 aa) aCiVt
r
V
a) o OJ C C
U) (.5 N 0 0
`a) o a ro
o CD Q ° c
I
mo ° 30
C7uUi a) O m y
O C U
MDEoU m �U
EC
E
O
w I �
O w ®
W 0
O [�
Nom' I w
o W l czu
.0 c iron
-0 yC
.9w
® - °"O
m.
E Z
:3 �I
I ' ;, 3
— —23�m >
i O U
m
Q.
:r-
75
rn
y
0
a)
J
a3 r �m
-O
U a) E U
O O N
— N
20 A
t7
a) O_ CD
w
T-0 O
� L
L O d
O C C E
O U
C w
O7 E2 y
y (D L N
O O +L+
a7 U lV
L L
t
3
`o
C
a)
E
N
Vl
j 3
O) 07
C_ C
N Q
7 ca
t 'p
y C
Q f6
C
L
ca rn
a) .fl C tq
L U a7
:2 —cu
0) :3 CL L
O
C y U
0 V1 N
y N N C
N C _-0 a7
t °in
W (D O
3 N +L O
O
U
Q) N U
> N co N
'D a U
ca _
co Q a)
Q) N
N m >.
@
C C_ O m
0
7 O O N
O
2 >1 C
... ca as �-
VJ m C
-0 a)
N ui = U
O 'O
t 0
O N
w y
C E
O_ O O
O_
t E O
OL L T V)
o C > to O w
y33�a=i
O) M O >
C C U C y
(1) — 'O a) C
CL U C •C m
O• ^w m O w
M
7
C
O
O)
y
0
a)
,r
U)
N N
W. O O
N
O)- N w
a) .N
•C .N -p
CL
d >d
a)co
N
>
O L E
C
L.: f3
O
N L,
Cc ,p O) N
E�
O
USE
OoO
`
ca
U U)
Co
y N
U)
C p a) a)
L 7
C
f0 U) f— U)
O0
U C
`'p > N
ca U
O a) CO N
O)'O ,L
U)
'p a) a) 7
C
N ca N
O N O C
cc
U
O N
.O a) O.
0-.—
C
-0.0 y C
._
O
�v nN a)
N U
LZrn
a)
7 "
0 ca
U)
a)
V) N .t= a) a)
tZ
co
Q
C
w
U
w
t
L
Q
'O a) ct
caw
mU �.N
16 ��
6
w
7 y O d
> w L L
c��ns._a�
C =+.+LL
a) to a) U
ca
fa y
O
O) .L... N N
.D Q U
C p
O Q-0
N
a) O. L
U) C W W
a) E
O
N � f6
ca
U) to O O
.O .p y
as
O)
ca U
O)'O ,L
y N co a)
C a) p E
cc 2
L O O
N
:3
C O
N fo
p 0 0
a)
U O W
CM "O R
a) C L a3
w C fo C -Fn
N ++
O- M
U c
U >.'j
cc
C
M
L p- 'p
o 7
E N
O cc
4= (Cp C
U L N E:6
ca C O
a) a) L
C
CL T V ._
O) > E N
N +• 0 .. +�
ca cc
O
O)
v ca E w
'�
U) 0� y .L.
�'' O N
m a) U-0
P
3 B
B
E �
s.l
f
I
a=
qv
MR
U)
p
N
e
)
w
O
N
C N
CD .
o Y
c
= LL
7
O«
""'
c
a)
"' m
y
7
E 'y
p
2.0
n
a)
ton U
c
E
L
..
a)
'O
N
•C
o .�
N V
a
U
U
01L
U
p
.O N
UO
p_)
a N
N
y
cm
m
oo=
m
sy
c
a)
03
mn
�0
caMn 0)
y
as
'j
a
la E
o
a) 'O
a) la
L
c
a)
� D
w°
E°
°�
:
0.
o) m
0
y o
0
o
o)
'y
y
a)
n w
0)
S
v
Zvi
c
t
0 o
0
c
o a) y
r-
0 a)
L
3 0
v
cc
n.n
o M
•0 N
E U
0
E
y y V
ca 0
y
a).o.
46 :L-
U
N
j CO
O
p
n C c
c
.o. N
X °)
Co )
(
E ou
O
CD °
D
k
U
+E'
)cp
U O
p
E
..
a) cc
(c D
N o
7 y y
0-0 O.
ca
c
V
a)
.D O E
a)
a)
•w
E
.
a
6
o
>
O c �N y
o N
a)
c
a)
E
E•
')
C y
a)
�en
+
a
C
.O.
y
Uy>
—
U
as
o
w a)
>
C C Co
p o y
Co
O
c
U
a)
CL
=u
"
V O)
E Y
� a
7
O
Q
U
°
t U
'Oa
-npt
0
w
N•O 0)
a3
•+
O >
a) o
y
°
o
2o
° L c
o�
CO
c
o y c
w
>
y.0
>
w
a)
y a)
O )
U
a)
c
y .§
' o
0
o
y 0
U a)
o
C
a
Y
wU CL
=
a) 0)
o
c
—°
o E
2
a)
O
U_ a
:
O
7
rn •-
v U)
y
o
y c >
n a
a •0
y 2
Q
=y3 w
a) .
0)
p
Ca a
N
C V
U�.n
o
dt
U
>,y
p)
aL
my W
— >
L
O
U)
O)
co
3
N ca
Ca
c
r
'v
>
C3
d
0
0 3 aci
°
a)
.O
_
y n�
0
d
a)
U 0
Q
y c
y L
,4?
>°
a��
0
�Ly
?�a
�-
m
$y
o�3
0
7 0
•°
U •a °
U 0
'�. y
o°
0
0 Ma
f6c
'r o
��..
aaa)
Z�
2vo
R >°�
y
��>
—
<.
o
co._ to
f4 as
U a3 y
Q �
Q U
W E o
I-
�
Q
❑
❑
❑
❑
C
❑
❑
❑
c9
a)
h
9
qj
m
0 O
O.
7
CL
C
a7
C
O
U
7
0
O
C
a) L
Qw0
C
•L N
O a) O
"' C
Co
y N
C a)
a) C a)
"0o
�v
V)a)a
c a
m m
a) m
� r
_
d a) a)
� m
c
)
a) > V)
2
..+
t L 0) Co
to
Q. a)
>'0 N
N
Cl. 0
N�
Co
a) )
0
N o n
co CL
E
~ C
> w a)
°) m
O
+� O
U
C
7 N
�E
C
V w
a`)
a)
a)
O E
0 a) a).- 0
w
�.0
"•' U.0
C
CM C
7
ca N
a) a)
> a)
0Q6
°
00
a) F' a)
m
CL 4—
t
m
C a) ca
'O
0 C
P 7
0 CL >
a)
'O
a7 •M .. .-
'N
C
N .0
C
p E
rL a) 0 L
d n
L
Co a
O
N
Co 0 3
a)
0 a)
C>
(1 w L
a 0 d N
L' a)
O 0) >
C N
'a
a) +L- O 0
ca
=ta0
a)a)
cv)
cma)0
C a)
C
O
U C
E
O
LL
07 CL
�` d
V) a)
? N
CL
'0
a) > a)
N a) a)
7
N
L
d
0
0 49
a)
.` >
(A
N (a .
�•O a) .
O.
20
c
C
c
3 a)
�U m
a)
a)
vv c
a iL
o 3 o ui
CO
'0 U
a1 >� O_ CO
+0' l>a
a) C L
C L
3 N
7 C 0 w,
). CD a)
w
c
C a)
a) "O
..+ O) N
O •N 7
+-� N a) 0)
O C •O a)
oO
a)v
o0
C
•� - LO
a) 'a C
w a—
d U C C
N U d
Z
N
a) a) C
a) a) :6 fl-
:3 C a)
C 3 a)
C •0^ Co O
7 a
C '0 >
N C
o a)
a) Qw >
V O a)
m.N."0
.0
7 0)E
7 as C�
a) U C
01 C O.
0) w0„ V
yoa)
U3N
I— a) .4..
N "O
N aU
L
U
Co to
a)
m _C
CD
O. 7
go
Z c
O N
0
.i
�I 3
C
O)
a)
D
ta
C
CLAM a
T
a)
L a) Y
4% L
Cc
0 o.
y
o
a)
m
C
O
N
m
d
tn-550
+y
c
o
:a
CD
4?
CL
C7
N cri
0
U
O
_m
uJ
O
C
0
w
5
O
Q
m
a
as
.-.
N
co
U)
�I 3
a)
ta
T
a)
C
O
N
C
E
a7
CL
O
C
.0
.-.
N
co
U)
O
�
O
(6
-p
(6
U
C
U
CD
a3
aI
CL
CL
CO
C
fA
O
O
O
N
N
d
C
O
C
'
U
C
O
C
rn
;n
0
a)
E
m
m
0
U
o
Q
aci
E
o
E
a
v
v
w
Q
U
f4
Q
m
U
6
W
LL.
�I 3
S
a�
E
0
L
w
v
a�
c
a�
a�
L
U
Ul
N
d
7
O
L
y
C
N
d
O'
N
@
U
t
U
N
CL
O
0
O
O
L
T
C
2
ZI
V
J
44
m
3
C
C
U
m
m
O
m
m
w
U
w
U
a
a
c
m
0
45
-Z�
a TI
p
'
c
°!
F3�
K
1 }
91
y
rzm
EEE�y "�
mar
.. 1�
� ir,
�
5
t
CYD
xk
vJ
�xTCC
}
1
Kb.
•
45
-Z�
\
J
8
\
d
k
2
]
E
k
$
\
2
\
k
§
/
c
.
I
co
0
S
D
k
§
/
;
.
a)
0-
U)
/
k
}
ca
k
)
)
9
/
&
°
k
/
c
k
2
a
ca
g
\
\
U
\
E
U)
%
2
\
/
i
E
6
k$
/
-
$
2
0
k
q
$
CO)
E
§
k
§£
%�
~
2%
f
/
)
\
\ E
k`
2f
/
°
k
a
t
\
/
e
_
I
2
a
2
2
2a
E
k
//
CO)
§\
%$
_
R
'!
\
a
0
k
\ §
§ J
Q
\
0
k
/
§ §
{ 2
\
{
.0
±
/'
2
0\
2§
c
$
7
0
£
2 £
{ ]
\
2
a
=
E
2 2
=
G
-
;
jc
±_
b
a
a)
a)
cc
2 ca
\\
B
0
(
0
§ 7
j
Z
E
$�
0 CL
A
/
\
;
m °
/ \
�
�•
\�
E-
k�
70
2
7
as
2�
}'�
/
s f
$ m
$
g
�/
c Q
e a
/*
7%
� 7
2
\
�
c k rn
U)
f�
M Co C:
e C3)
(a . 0 2
oa) u�
fb-0
—cam§
2\
co U)
-� —
a�2%«
3e`(a
U)
U) w =_�_-
k� /k/
22c
» :3
ooc-
4n&32
e
�
am
0
w
0
Z
w
O
U
w
w
v i a) a) -0
tow rn
v,o � �o•y
U)
Oro N a) O- .w+ C Cc
.y c C '0 a) U a) o
co U d w U O
V) O a) > 'O
Mm
a)
0 E
+O+ E a) O)
a1 O
O D —
rn a) c
a) 0 . N ,w 7. a)
"-'O a3 7 4) y E N
0 -0 V c > O w
Q of O O m C y
7
CO
G
Q)
Z
w
O
U
w
f—
O
Z
C" 0 00 CD o a a C f_
Cc
-o Z
w n �� a) O
Co C
E y +� C O E C N w CD
a) + �-O
N d L a F O a1
Co .-. U _L �.. a)
w 0 O .O a) a O w a)
O C a c
O O C w O_ E 5 E 0 r
•-•
to :3 N c a) C ,c 'd
a) O) O) :� -O to N -O •O
�v •— a
o0— a) a) ccoc Z�-
a) U O a) 07 co
O cc O '`- d N u1 p O Q W
L U
'—' U N a) O C a) C E O C C Co
m om r- It 5 m_ I— E F- c CL
❑ D
0
m
O
G
d
a
,E
U
m• -a�
U C CL to
C O
T t D. c
Co 7 m o
U) v •o m
c
C
cud'�m
q- —6
L E —
U •c C y
CO m N m
�w 3 8
w VJ V N
O N L
w N
E aL
_m m "+
O CL C N to
�
y U
0- 0
r_ N
O O v-
C — O �
N 2'C C
N C C f0
d y
mm
E C .. L
f6
'C l6 m y
N U
C m :3
C
e
m
Q. N � C
8�'°E
C
to N
O O O
C
O N O l6
N C p N
C C d N
co N Q
Q p•O m
O O
O C .r_
O d
(O E
O O N O
O C D =
y
or C to 0
>
L j 0 7 N
F'-M n =M
m
a "
� N
Z
z
F
J
0
r
m
W
6
O
a
4
1*31611:3 01
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:
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
OR
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Page 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 characteristics, 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 project 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.
4p
0
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.
mm
Larry Tucker, Chairman
Earl McDaniel, Secretary
5►
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Page 4 of 6
EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
USE PERMIT NO. 2002-005
1. 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 pemut, 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 constriction 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 comer 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.
`S a
Jiff'
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 determine 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.
z
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Paee 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.
54
EXHIBIT 4
DRAFT FINDINGS FOR DENIAL
�5
Erm
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:
1. 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.
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.
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.
5�0
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 Ai —A2):
• A Use Permit ( "UP ") In the RSC -zone. [NBMC 620.15:0201
• A Waiver of the Off - Street Parking Requirements to permit the provision of 7 parking
spaces, instead of the 10 spaces required. [NBMC §20.66.030 & §20.66.1001
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 accessiblg space.
• All automobile service will be conducted within the interior of the structure.
4. Description 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.
7. 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, Inc.
3600 E. Coast Highway, Newport Beach 1 of 4 Consultsm
Iffla
b) Anticipated Customer Count: EZ Lube estimates that they will serve between 30
and 50 vehicles per day at the proposed facility. EZ Luba'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 qustomer
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:
L 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.
,�ZQ
EZ Labe Use Permit Page Moss & Associates, Inc.
3600 E. Coast Highway, Newport Beach 2 of 4 Consultant
l.
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
8 -in. x 18 -ft.
12 -sq. ft
Externally Illuminated
Double Faced
North West
Internally Illuminated
4 -ft. x 6 -ft.
18-sq. 2 e
(ex 25 /o
x
Monument
Corner of Site
Glass /Concrete Base
(including base)
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:
L 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.
,�ZQ
EZ Labe Use Permit Page Moss & Associates, Inc.
3600 E. Coast Highway, Newport Beach 2 of 4 Consultant
l.
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 Highway will
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 purposes 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 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, in that:
i. 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
Uti
EZ Lube Use Permit Page Moss At Associates, Inc.
3600 E. Coast Highway, Newport Beach 3 of 4 Consultant
vi. 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 lube 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 Ifacility, and is unlikely to
be suitable for another use.
EZ Lube Use Permit Page Moss & Associates, Inc. 101
3600 E. Coast Highway, Newport Beach 4 of 4 Consultant
Lf>':
EXHIBIT 6
HOURLY CUSTOMER COUNTS - COSTA MESA EZ LUBE
m
m
rE8.14-02 2:46PM;
-{
Z LUSE #46 ` "N-- �7t Time: 5:11 PM Date:
raffic Report Page:
or the perioo beginning 01/06/2002
UNDAY 01/06/2002 01113/2002 01/20/2002 01/27/2
= sccaxc� �eaxv a•= ncx= xxac= csxcacxsx= uuazatn¢aaaaavx= ca.sca= xaaacam
RRFFIC
7AM- BRM
0
0
0 0
•RAFFIC
SAM - 9AM
1
1
0 :3
'RAFFIC
9AM -10AM
5
4
5 5
RAFFIC
1ORM -1IAM
3
3
1 4
'RAFFIC
IIAM- 12NOON
3
5
3 1
'RAFFIC
12NODN- IPM
2
2
4 3
'RAFFIC
IPM- ?PM
6
3
3 0
'RAFFIC
2PM- 3PM
5
5
3 2
- RAFFIC
3PM- 4PM
4
2
3 2
'RAFFIC
4PM- 5PM
2
3
3 2
'RAFFIC
5PM- 6PM
0
0
0 0
- RRFFIC
6PM- 7PM
0
0
0 0
SUNDAY DAILY AVERAGE COUNT: 27 DAYS OPEN: 4
IQNDAY 01/07/2002 01/14/2002 01/21/2002 01/2B/200E
.-=- aa...a sx xaac= a- oaxc_a= sot= ccv —x - -= can-- asaaxxcaa-= acccacxe= = -..cs
'RAFFIC
7AM- SAM
0
0
0
0
'RAFFIC
SAM- 9AM
2
8
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
23
- RAFFIC
'RAFFIC
IPM- 2PM
3
3
1
3
'RAFFIC
RPM- 3PM
2
3
0
2
'RAFFIC
3PM- 4PM
1
6
7
2
'RRFFIC
4PM- 5PM
5
3
3
3
'RAFFIC
5PM- 6PM
1
3
a
0
-RAFFIC
6PM- 7PM
0
0
0
0
MONDRY DRILY AVERAGE COUNT% as DAYS OPEN: 4
-UESDAY 01/08/9002 01/15/2002 01/22/2002 01/29/2
->'x=a== xcs= ====axca :==' x-. aa='"=== acca _cv= ccccxcoaoccemooca= cxxa =¢ =o
'RAFFIC
7AM- SAM
0
0
0 0
'RAFFIC
BAM- 9AM
0
2
2 3
"RAFFIC
9AM -10AM
3
2
4 1
'RAFFIC
10AM -11AM
1
5
2 1
'RAFFIC
11AM- 12NOON
2
2
3 5
"RAFFIC
12NOON- 1PM
2
3
1 1
'RAFFIC
IPM- 2PM
2
3
3 2
- RAFFIC
RPM- 3PM
3
1
2 5
'RAFFIC
3PM- 4F'M
2
2
2 3
'RAFFIC
4PM- 5PM
1
0
2 2
'RAFFIC
SPM- 6PM
1
0
2 0
TRAFFIC
6PM- 7PM
0
0
0 0
TUESDAY DAILY AVERAGE COUNT: 21 DAYS OPEN: 4
PAGE 2
AVG COUNT
0
1
5
3
3
3
3
4
3
3
0
0
AVG COUNT
•CaSSLxYiti=
0
2
0
4
3
3
3
2
4
4
2
0
AVG COUNT
0
2
3
2
3
2
3
3
2
1
1
0
(
64
-1 ✓rl
PAGE 3
Z LUSE
046
Times S:11
PM Date:IO2/03/2002
raffic
Report
Page:i
2
or the
period beginning
01/06/2002
:EDNESDAY
01/0912002
01/16/2002
01/23/2002
01 /30 /2002l
AVG
COUNT
:a aaxxaamxsmxm.x.
�acacxmaassamaaxxaaaxamasaxsamvaxasmsssa
am cxvscsssaacaxemmacc
'RAFFIC
7AM- SAM
1
1
'RAFFIC
SAM-- 9AM
2
0
0
0
I
1
- RAFFIC
9AM -10AM
0
4
1
3
2
- RAFFIC
IOAM -11AM
1
1
2
2
2
'RAFFIC
11AM- 12NOON
1
3
1
1
2
'RAFFIC
12NOON- IPM
5
3
1
2
3
'RAFFIC
IPM- PPM
2
2
3
1
2
'RAFFIC
2PM- 3PM
1
3
1
1
2
'RAFFIC
3PM - 4PM
5
2
1
0
2
'RAFFIC
4PM- 5PM
1
1
2
2
I
2
'RAFFIC
5PM- 6PM
1
2
1
0
I
I
'RAFFIC
6PM- 7PM
0
0
0
0
0
WEDNESDAY
DAILY AVERAGE COUNT:
17 DAYS
OPEN: 4
'HURSDAY
01 ✓10/24102
01117/2002 01/24/2002
01/31/2ttq
AVG
COUNT
fsmassaamaam¢
CaaC---
L-- �Caa-- CL- aa�-. amxaxxmaxaxL- xm�a- ¢am5�--- m-:�mmm:
mx C`x axi'a vmo
'RAFFIC
7AM- SAM
0
0
0
0
0
'RAFFIC
SAM- 9AM
2
0
2
1
1
RAFFIC
9RM -10RM
2
1
3
0..
2
'RAFFIC
10AM -11AM
2
2
2
4
3
'RAFFIC
IIAM- 12NOON
4
3
0
e
i
2
'RAFFIC
12NOON- IPM
0
3
3
6
3
'RAFFIC
IPM- 2PM
2
0
3
3
2
- RAFFIC
RPM- 3PM
1
5
1
3
3
'RAFFIC
3PM- 4PM
5
1
0
6
3
'RAFFIC
4PM- 5PM
0
2
3
3
2
'RAFFIC
5PM- 6PM
2
2
5
1
3
'RAFFIC
6PM- 7PM
1
0
0
0
0
THURSDAY
DAILY AVERAGE COUNT:
222 DAYS
OPEN: 4
7RIDAY
01/11/2002
0111812002 01/25/2002
02/01/2009
AVG
COUNT
xasmmsvxm_maansaaxyse=mmmmamaxama¢ae-ms=asevax-cscmx-ava¢c-mcasx----J-----------
"RAFFIC
�-
- --
7AM- SAM
0
0
0
1
0
(RAFFIC
SAM- 9AM
1
7
1
2
3
RAFFIC
9AM -10AM
1
2
2
3
2
'RAFFIC
10AM -11AM
2
2
3
1
i
2
-RAFFIC
IIAM- 12NOON
4
4
2
4
4
RAFFIC
12NOON- IPM
2
1
3
5
I
3
'RAFFIC
1PM- 2PM
1
5
3
2
3
'RAFFIC
2PM- 3PM
2
3
2
0
2
"RAFFIC
3PM- 4PM
3
1
2
0
I
2
TRAFFIC
4PM- 5PM
2
2
1
3
2
RAFFIC
5PM- 6PM
1
0
4
2
2
(RAFFIC
6PM- 7PM
1
0
FRIDAY DAILY
AVERAGE COUNT:
23 DAYS
OPEN: 4I
64
-1 ✓rl
- - - -- - • • - , n 4 7a6 1382 FEB -14 -02 2:47PM; PAGE 418
Z LUBE #46 Tine: 5:11 PM Date:002/03 /2002
raffic Report Pages 3
or the period beginning 01/0612002
ATURDAY 01/12/2002 01/19/2002 01/26/2002 02/02
x. —vxaxc svJ. � aSK�Exxx�xxGCyta}6si Sr.9gFacecv Caaosavcacs a�tlO xL- CCC6GCDs
' RAFFIC
7AM -SAM
1
0
3
RAFFIC
SAM- 9AM
5
3
2
RAFFIC
9AM -IOAM
2
2
3
'RAFFIC
IeAM -IlAM
6
2
7
- RAFFIC
IIAM- 12NOON
6
8
2
'RAFFIC
12NOON- IPM
4
7
2
- RAFFIC
IPM- 2PM
4
5
3
'RAFFIC
2PM- 3PM
4
2
4
'RAFFIC
3PM- 4PM
5
1
2
'RAFFIC
4PM- 5PM
4
1
0
'RAFFIC
5PM- 6PM
2
0
0
- RAFFIC
6PM- 7PM
0
0
0
SATURDAY
DAILY AVERAGE COUNT:
33
DAYS OPEN:
0
3
6
4
3
4
3
4
2
0
0
4
IAVG COUNT
xxvxs —vxv
1
3
3
4
5
4
4
3
3
2
1
0
H0
rco•14-4Z t:48PM; PAGE 7i8
Z LURE #46 Time: 5:18 PM Dated 02/10/2002
raffie Report Pagel 2
'or the period beginning 01/1312002
JEDNESDAY
iaamaxvscxa cvaxasmaaccx
•RAFFIC 7AM- BAM
'RAFFIC 8AM- 9AM
'RAFFIC 9AM -10AM
•RAFFIC 10AM -11AM
'RAFFIC 11AM- 12NOON
'RAFFIC IENOON- 1PM
'RAFFIC IPM- 2PM
'RAFFIC 2PM- 3PM
'RAFFIC 3PM7 4PM
"RAFFIC 4PM- 5PM
'RAFFIC 5PM- 6PM
`RAFFIC 6PM- 7PM
01/16/2002 01/23/2002 01/30/002 02/06/200 AVG COUNT
I 0
1 1
@ m
tia a
4 ]
3 1
1 2
2 3
3 1
1 S
3 1
2 4
2 3
1 4
3 1
I 4
2 1
0 3
1 2
2 5
2 i
0 0
0 0
0 1
WEDNESDAY DAILY AVERAGE COUNTS 20 DAYS OPEN: 4
THURSDAY 01/17/2002 01/24/2002 01/31/2002 02/07
sxmcxxmcaxxxxxxcxxx xxmcrxaxxsxam mamvsamvaamsxcaxxc�axccxcxxxasa
"RAFFIC
7AM- SAM
0
0
0
'RAFFIC
SAM- 9AM
0
2
1
(RAFFIC
9AM -10AM
1
3
0
"RAFFIC
IOAM -12AM
2
2
4
TRAFFIC
IIAM- 12NDQN
3
0
0
RAFFIC
12NOON- IPM
3
3
6
(RAFFIC
IPM- 2PM
0
3
3
TRAFFIC
2PM- 3PM
5
1
3
FRAFFIC
3PM- 4PM
1
0
6
FRAFFIC
4PM- 5PM
2
3
3
(RAFFIC
5PM - 6PM
?
5
1
FRAFFIC
6PM- 7PM
0
0
0
i
THURSDAY
DAILY AVERAGE COUNT:
25
DAYS OPEN:
'R I DA'Y
= aaaxaxsxccxxacxcca
CRAFFIC 7AM- BAM
(RAFFIC BAM- 9AM
(RAFFIC 9AM -10AM
(RAFFIC 10AM -11AM
(RAFFIC IIAM- 12NOON
FRAFFIC 12NOON- IPM
TRAFFIC IPM- GPM
FRAFFIC 2PM- 3PM
FRAFFIC 3PM- 4PM
(RAFFIC 4PM- 5PM
FRAFFIC 5PM - 6PM
FRAFFIC 6PM- 7PM
01/18/2002 01/25/2002 02/0112002 02
2
2
5
2
2
7
1
4
4
2
1
maamma •eaaaaaamaaaxxsamaxaaavamasma:
0 @
l @
7 1
2 1
2 2
3 1
2 3
1 4
4 2
4 3
1 3
5 5
5 3
2 7
3 2
@ 1
1 2
@ 5
2 1
3 2
0 4
2 3
@ 0
0 @
FRIDAY DAILY AVERAGE COUNT:
26 DAYS OPEN:
4
4
1
@
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
3
1
0
AV6 COUNT
rd
1
2
3
1
4
3
3
3
3
3
O
AVG COUNT
0
3
2
3
3
4
4
2
2
2
2
0
&"q
:Z LURE 1146 Time: 5119 PM Dater 02/10/2.002
.raffic Report Pager 3
or the period beginning 01/13/2002
;ATURDAY 01/19/2002 01/26/2002 02/02/2002 02/09/2,
: m= ammsa= sm== ssae= mcvsavaav= smoesaasammsmmmsasszsmsamsmamsaasaam n:
'RAFFIC, 7AM— SAM 0 3 0 2
'RAFFIC 8RM— 9AM 3 2 3 5
'RAFFIC 9AM -10AM 2 3 6 4
'RAFFIC 10RM -11AM 2 7 1 5
'RAFFIC 11AM-12NOON S 2 _ 4 7
'RAFFIC 12NOON— IPM 7 2 3 7
'RAFFIC IPM— 2PM 5 3 4 3
'RAFFIC 2PM— 3PM 2 4 3 2
'RAFFIC 3PM— 4PM 1 2 4 5
'RAFFIC 4PM— 3PM 1 0 2 2
'RAFFIC 5PM— 6PM 0 0 0 1
'RAFFIC 6PM— 7PM 0 0 0 1
i
4
AVS COUNT
3
4
4
5
IrJ
4
3
3
1
0
0
0
Z�
SATURDAY
DRILY AVERAGE COUNT:
33
DAYS OPEN.:
i
4
AVS COUNT
3
4
4
5
IrJ
4
3
3
1
0
0
0
Z�
m;
EXHIBIT 7
CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVE TO DATE
no
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
Y.
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 comer, 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
G%PA
Varin, Ginger
From:
Temple, Patty
Sent:
Friday, May 17, 2002 11:38 AM
To:
Varin, Ginger, Campbell, James
Subject:
FW: Opposition to the EZ LUBE on Orchid & PCH
Please distribute to the Planning Coimmission
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Kiff, 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
Good 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 Olds 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
Corona del Mar, CA 92625
949.466.5800
1
r) I
Page 1 of 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: Bludau, Homer
Sent: Friday, May 17, 200212:14 PM
To: Temple, Patty; Wood, Sharon
Subject: FW: DENY the EZ LUBE Permit
- - - -- Original Message-- -
From: Paul Glowienke [ mailto: paul. glowienke @smartsystemsintl.com]
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 11:38 AM
To: hbludau @city.newport- beach.ca.us
Subject: DENY the EZ LUBE Permit
Hello Mr. Bludau,
I have sent a more detailed a Mail to Dave kff 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 Intemational
3334 E. Coast Highway # 431
Corona del Mar, CA 92625
949.673.3153 (voice)
949.673.3163 (fax)
'J�P_
05/17/2002
EXHIBIT 8
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION
13
MWO
EXHIBIT 9
PROJECT PLANS
iq
0
x§
LZ
H
N
C\
Z
�Q
I'lid
I
g._
v
a�
�J
z
-- a
P.I2IIO2-034 ror UPE001405
PZ i.n4:. -.3600 E. Coast w)'.
p,C.H.
d¢R9
NEW ALLEY
UN
I �
EZJLOBE
FesraawaEOwmrs
maa�.i m uw�u +wM:�ur
a<
alr:
ovn
a
�GS�
MM
_ la
NEW ALLEY
EZJLOBE
FesraawaEOwmrs
maa�.i m uw�u +wM:�ur
a<
alr:
ovn
FILE COPY
0
n
x
I C3
Alegre MacKenzieAC
MCHRECTME ♦ PLPMMOKi
145VIA U M
WMDELREY.CA9=
MPgS FMPII) b
° rr
4 4
qR
A
S¢
4
z
:m
e<
.p
R%
a v s a °K ffi EZ�LUBE Alegre MacK ne zie.1
AFCMBCI E a PU M
]� tj A p r - FATfEEOWY,E ElIP619 N$VIA EY.CA
Z IUfl9fA pB.(IE1', CA 90192
xnE mx°x rc� •a. V nw 16 MOltrxn f9xp�R lmsII
fz
APPLICANT'S APPEAL LETTER
11
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Z r ; �i'
App!!cation No. Use Permit No. 2002 -0034 '02 JUN —6 All :43
Name of Appellant
or person Ming: EZ Lube Phone: 310/395U48T" 1 �iTY CLcRrt
T HACH
Address, cto Moss & Associates. 613 Wilshire Bl., Suite 105, Santa Monica, CA 90401
Dale of Planning commission decision: May 23 2002
Regarding application of: EZ Lube for
(Description of sop9catlen filed with Planning Commission) Request for Use Permit to allow
construction and operatiori of an Automobile Maintenance Facilitv 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 for Appeal: Please see Attachment.
, Planner, Moss & Associates
mlicant/Appellant date June 6, 2002
FOR OFFICE U
Date Appeal filed and Admtniat alive Fee received: "/ . 20D?
Heartm Date. An appeal shat( be scheduled for a hearing bafore the Ott Council within thirty (30) days of the
Ming of the appeal unless both applicant and appellant or redswing body consent to a later date (N9Nic sec.
20.95.050)
F'ameng (Furnish one act of mashg Mbels for mailing)
Fag
APPEALS: Wri)dpal Code Sec. 20.95.0406
Appeal Few. 9296 pursuant to Resolution No. 2001.48 adopted en 8.20.01 (eft. 711101)
(Qgo2s"
1
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 ip 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 Application was evaluated against standards that are neither Codes nor Policies of
the gft 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.
I Only draft minutes of the 5/23/02 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.D 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, Iac
3600 E. Coast Highway, Newport Beach t of 6 Corsul=t
• 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 fairness 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."
• (1] "The project is not compatible with the surrounding land uses in that it introduces an
automobile- related use in an area characterized by pedestrian - oriented uses."
3 Draft Minutes, pg. 6.
Appeal— EZ Lube Use Permit Page Moss & Associate; Int. V
3600 E. Coast Highway, Newport Beach 2 of 6 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.)
• [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."
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.
• [3] `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 Tecord 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.6 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.
• [5] "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 2qtk 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."
7 Staff Report, 5123102, pgs. 6 -7
Appeal —EZ Lobe Use Permit Page Moss & Associates, Inc.
3600 E. Coast Highway, Newport Beach 3 or6 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.
• (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.8 No evidence to the
contrary was introduced into the record.
(7j "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.' No evidence
to the contrary was introduced into the record.
• (81 "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 directly contradicts finding no 1
(above.)
It
To paraphrase the publication introduced by Commissioner Selich10, 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.
I ne flnaings 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.
8 For a detailed analysis, see Staff Report, 5/23/02, pgs. 4 -5
' See Staff Report, 5/23/02, pg. 4
10 State of California, Governor's Office of Planning and Research, August 1997, ibid.
" § 20.91.035.A
Appeal — EZ Lobe Use Permit Page Moss & Associates, Inc.
3600 E. Coast Highway, Newport Beach 4 of 6 Consultant
• "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, 5123102, pg. 10
Appeal— EZ Lobe Use Permit Page Moss & Associates, Inc. C` 3
3600 E. Coast Highway, Newport Beach 501`6 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, policies 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.
13 The project applicant was allowed another minute or two to present project plans and alternatives.
Appeal — EZ Lube Use Permit Page Moss & Associates, Inc.
3600 E. Coast Highway, Newport Beach 6 of 6 Consultant
EXHIBIT 5
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION
S
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
Project Title: EZ Lube Use Permit No 2002 -005 (PA2002 -034
2. - Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Newport Beach
Planning Department
3300 Newport Boulevard,
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
3. 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 Sponsor's 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 first floor and 1,029 square
feet in a basement storagetservice 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
CHECKUST
Page�
n� ate'
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
0 Transportation/
Circulation
❑ Biological Resources
❑ Energy & Mineral
Resources
R1 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. ' 0
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'
CrEcxusr
Page 2
K1
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 Cunpi ham, Contract Planner Signature Date
Planning Department
Prepared by: William Cunninghdin, Contract Planner Signature Date
P.IUSERS\PIMSHARED \tFORMS\NEO -DEC OOCKUIST.DOC
11
CHECKLST
Page 3
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 Califomia
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 Potentially Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
❑
❑
❑
0
❑
❑
❑
0
❑
❑
❑
0
❑
❑
❑
0
❑ ❑ '1 ❑ 0
❑ ❑ ❑ 0
CIEC"T
Page 4
CHECKLIST
Page 5
�6
Potentially
Potentially
Less than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
Unless
Impact
Mitigation
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,
❑
❑
❑
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
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
❑
❑
❑
[Jj
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. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c)
Have a substantial adverse effect on
p
❑
❑
i
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 5
�6
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
Mitigation
Incorporated
❑
❑
❑
0
❑ ❑ ❑ 0
❑ ❑ ❑ 0
❑ ❑ 1.' ❑ 0
❑
❑
❑
0
❑
❑
❑
0
❑ ❑ ❑ 0
ctEcxusr
Page 6
a0 ;�4
J
CHECKLIST
Page 7, y
q4
Potentially
Potentially
Less than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
Unless
Impact
Mltlgadon
-
Incorporated
i) Rupture of a known earthquake
❑
❑
❑
0
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist - Pfiolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist
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
❑
❑
❑
0
shaking?
iii) Seismic - related ground failure,
❑
❑
❑
0
including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
❑
❑
❑
0
b)
Result in substantial soil erosion or
❑
❑
❑
0
the loss of topsoil?
C)
Be located on a geologic unit or soil
❑
❑
❑
0
that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the
project and potentially result in on-
or off -ske landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?
d)
Be located on expansive soil, as
❑.
❑
❑
0
defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or
propel
e)
Have soils incapable of adequately
❑
❑
❑
0
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
❑
❑
0
❑
public or the environment through
routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials?
J
CHECKLIST
Page 7, y
q4
b)
Create a significant hazard to the
Less than
public or the environment through
Significant
reasonably foreseeable upset and
Impact
accident conditions involving the
Impact
release of hazardous materials into
Mitigation
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?
Potentially
Potentially
Less than
Significant
Significant
Significant.
Impact
Unless
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
❑
❑
❑
No
Impact
J
❑ ❑ ❑ 0
❑ ❑ ❑ 0
❑ ❑ ❑ 0
HH
❑ ❑ ❑ 0
❑ ❑ ❑ 0
CHECKLIST
Page 8
93 �
VIII.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER
❑
QUALITY.
❑
0
Would the project:
a)
Violate any water quality standards
❑ ❑
or waste discharge requirements?
b)
Substantially deplete groundwater
❑ p
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 after 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
❑
0
LJ
IN
17
N
❑
0
❑
0
❑
0
❑
0
❑
0
CHECKLIST
Page 9
aq
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?
j) 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
❑ ❑ ❑ H
❑
❑
❑
H
❑ ❑ ❑ H
❑ ❑ �' ❑ H
❑ ❑ ❑ H
❑ ❑ ❑ H
❑ ❑ H ❑
CHECKLIST
Page 10
q 5 A"
b)
Exposure of persons to or
❑
❑
0
❑
generation of excessive
groundbome vibration or
groundbome noise levels?
C)
A substantial permanent increase in
❑
❑
❑
D
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
❑
❑
o
a
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
❑
❑
D
0
people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
CHECKLIST
Page 11
a4
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?
❑
❑
❑
8
Police protection?
❑
❑
❑
D
Schools?
❑
❑
❑
C�!
Other public facilities?
❑
❑
❑
D
XIV.
RECREATION
a)
Would the project increase the use
❑
❑
❑
0
of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility
would occur or be accelerated?
b)
Does the project include
❑
❑
❑
D
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
❑
❑
❑
Ei
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
❑
❑
❑
0
cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the county
congestion management agencyfor
designated roads or highways?
CHFCxusT
Page 12
C4 1 &
C)
Result in a change in air traffic
❑
❑
❑
0
patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change
in location that results in substantial
safety risks?
d)
Substantially increase hazards due
❑
❑
❑
0
to a design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections)
or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
e)
Result in inadequate emergency
❑
❑
❑
0
access?
f)
Result in inadequate parking
❑
❑
0
❑
capacity?
g)
Conflict with adopted policies, plans,
❑
❑
❑
0
or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
XVI.
UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS.
Would the project:
a)
Exceed wastewater treatment
❑
❑
❑
0
requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
b)
Require or result in the construction
❑
❑ >
❑
0
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
❑
❑
❑
0
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
❑
❑
❑
0
available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources,
or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
e)
Result in a determination by the
❑
❑
❑
0
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?
CHECKLIST
Page 13
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
permitted capacity to accommodate
the project' s solid waste disposal
needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local ❑ ❑ [( ❑
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 self -
sustaining levels, thre&ten 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.
0
0
L
Fn-
0
0
J
0
J
Fn-
u
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.
CF EMAT
Page 14
IR
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
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.
CHECxus'r
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 II -a. above.
CHECKLIST
Page 16
L N1111
P
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 oil -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 mitigated through the requirements for
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 developeflor 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.
CHECKLIST
Page 17
The project will not result in the removal of any street trees or other significant biological resources.
f. No Impact.
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.
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.
CHECKLIST
Page 18 ,
la3 -
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. 1
e. No Impact.
The project site is not within an airport land use plan or within two miles of an airport.
I. 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 ] 9
Jn4 1��
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 pavedfimpervious 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.
I. No Impact.
See response to VIII -a. above.
g. No Impact.
See response to VIII -c. above.
�l
h. No Impact.
The project is not located within a 700 -year flood hazard area.
i. No Impact.
See responses to VIII -c. and 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.
CHECKLIST
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 previously
existing similar use. With the exception of a parking waiver to allow three less parking spaces than required by
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. 1
C. No Impact.
See response X -a above.
Xl. 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.
CHECKLIST
Page 21
16�
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.
Mitlgtlon Measures:
Mitigtion to noise related issues will be provided by required screening and baffling of all equipment. No mitigation
measures are proposed or required.
X11. 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.
CHECKLIST
Page 22
�)-) �•
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, increase stormwater runoff, or
result in an increase in solid wastes over the previously existing service station use. Adequate supplies and
services exist to accommodate the proposed use.
b. No Impact.
See response to XVI -a. above.
CFECKUST
Page 23
lcqf a�
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.
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.
XVII. 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 hazardoub 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.
CHECKLIST
Page 24
X69 �°
EXHIBIT "A"
REMEDIAL ACTION COMPLETION CERTIFICATION
LEAKING UNDERGROUND FUEL TANK PROGRAM
CHECxusr
Page 25
1j0 �
or
COUNTY OF ORANGE
g M
,
HEALTH CARE AGENCY
o9�rFOg`',Q
REGULATORY HEALTH SERVICES
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
April 25, 2001 E ri Ct W_ J?
Marvin Katz MAY 0 7 2001
Equilon Enterprises jQE NGEAE%WE8TmmT
P.O. Box 7899
Burbank, CA 91510 -7869 SAP 135200
Subject: Remedial Action Completion Certification
Re: Underground Storage Tank (UST) Case
Shell Station
3600 Fast Coast Hwy., Corona Del Mar, CA 92625
O.C.H.C.A. Case # 86UT30
Dear Mr. Katz:
JULIME A. POULSON, FIN, MN
DIRECTOR
A81E SPURGEON
DEPUTY AGENCY NRECTOR
REGULATORYIE THSERVICES
STEVEN K WONG
INTERIM DIRECTOR
ENVIRONMENTALHEALTH
MAI NGADDRESS:
2008 FAST EDNGER AVENUE
SANrAANA, CA 827054720
TELEPHONE (714) 0873800
FA%: 1714) 9720748
EMAI<: meaEh6lra.cawarge -cans
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-described 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 carved out at your
underground storage tanks site is in compliance with the requirements of subdivisions (a) and (b) of Section 25299.37 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 25299.37 of the Health and Safety Code.
Please contact Joyce Krall of our office at (714) 667 -3714 if you have any questions regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
Steven K. Wong, REHS, MPH ;Ini Director
Environmental Health Division
SKW:dp
Attachment: Case Closure Summary
cc: Carl Bernhardt, Santa Ana Regional Water Qnality 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
o e,
Case Closure Summary
Leaking Underground Fuel Tank Program
1. Agency Information Date: February 21. 2001
Agency Name: Orange County Health Care Agency
Address: 2009 East Edinger Avenue
City /State/Zip: Santa Ana, CA 92705
Phone: (714) 667 -3700
Responsible staff person: Joyce Kral!
Title: Hazardous Waste Specialist
11. Case Information
Site Facility Name: Shell Station
Site characterization complete? Yea
Date approved by oversight agency: February 21, 2001
Monitoring wells installed? Yes Number.
Site Facility Address: 3600 East Coast Hwy., Corona Del Mar, CA
Highest GW depth BGS: 67.69 ft. bgs
RB LUSTIS Case No.: 083000340T
Flow direction: west
Local Case No.:
LOP Case No.: 86UT30
URF Filing Date:
Is surface water affected? No
SWEEPS No.
Off-she beneficial use impacts (addressesilocations): None
Responsible Party
Where is report(s) filed? 2009 E. Edinger Ave.,
Santa Ana, CA
Address
Phone Number
Equiva Services LLC
Contact: Marvin Katz
Action (treatment or
d isposal/destination)
P.O.'Bos 7869
Burbank, CA 91510 -7869
(949) 888 -0903
Tank No
Size in Gal.
Contents
Groundwater
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
16,000
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? Yea
Date approved by oversight agency: February 21, 2001
Monitoring wells installed? Yes Number.
3 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 approadmately 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 nou-
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:
Off-she beneficial use impacts (addressesilocations): 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
d isposal/destination)
Date
Soil
N/A
Groundwater
N/A
This document and the related CASE CLOSURE LE17ER, shall be retained by the lead agency as pad of the official site file. Revised: 4/14194 _ J,
Page 1 of 3
Case Closure Summary
Leaking Underground Fuel Storage Tank Program
111. 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 m
Water m
Before
After
Belue
I After
Before
I After
Before
After
TPH
5,600
5,500
0.5
<0.6
Oxygenates:
1.2
<0.01
<0.005
(gasoline)
MTBE
Benzene
34
34
0.0053
<0.0005
DIPE
<0.002
Toluene
290
290
0.3
<0.0005
TAME
-
<0.002
Ethylbenzene
80
80
0.0099
<0.0005
ETBE
-
<0.002
Xylene
640
640
0.0717
<0.0008
I TBA
-
-
<0.05
Comments (Depth of Remediation, 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 located 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 soil 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 56-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 soil 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 SARW9CB's revised policy regarding leaking
USTs adopted 1- 26-96.
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.
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 2of3
f
W.Closure
Case Closure Summary
Leaking Underground Fuel Storage Tank Program Case M 86UT30
Date: February 21, 2001
Does completed corrective action protect existing beneficial uses per the Regional Board Basin Plan? Yes
Does completed corrective action protect potandal beneficial uses per the Regional Board Basin Plan? Yes
Does corrective action protect public health for current land use? Yes
Site 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:
V. Local A ens
Name: Joyce
VI. RWQCB
Date Submitted to RBI
RWQCB Representative's Name:
Title:
Signature:
Datii .
is c
71is document and the related CASE CLOSURE LETTER. shall be retained by the lead agency as pact of the official site file. Revised: 4/14/94
Page 3of3 1 ►� / ,.y
04/1b/2dg1 13:45 Sby /81b288
REGIONAL WAIhR 2AlAku
Case Closure Summary
Leaking Undergmund Fuel Storago Tank PrOoMm
Mclosure
V1.
t'AW- dL /dL
case Seurso
Data: Fabnary 21, 2001
Doee complotod comoctive aetlon xOtect eadsttngbeneficiel Wes par ft Regional Board Baain Plan? Yen
Does corrtplateG cormove &Won pmteot potanwbsrtlt" Loot perttw FIVonal Board BaM Plan? Yee
Does correct n action protest riblic Nab for durmt land use7 Tee
aft mana0oment roquiremanu: Yea. coatsminattd soil to A4M oast&
Should correalve action be reviewed it land Lea changes? 4p. �Uod soli semr ins Omaha
Monitodn0 wells deco"vnwGw nd: Nu doomwimianad
Number Flownfid:
urt sMotcemsM ec0ons weindowd-
nis docim=and ute « law 615E CLOSURE Lrr rEL ehall be nWwd b7 the lv+d aynn' u pn ord:e omda bits di . Re Ib d: 4114/94
Pap 3of3
324zRl0 AW h1NlJ.l tJliBB:LT i0. 12 tiW
a CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
(949) 644 -3200
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
To: From: City of Newport Beach
Planning Department
F-1 Office of Planning and Research 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768
P.O. BOX 3044 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Sacramento, CA 95812 -3044 (Orange County)
71 County Clerk, County of Orange
Public Services Division
P.O. Box 238 Date received for filing at OPR/County Clerk:
Santa Ana, CA 92702
Public review period: April 27, 2002 — May 17, 2002
Name of Project: EZ -Lube Corona del Mar
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 fluor 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 ❑ attached 1'.1 on file at the Planning
Department. The Initial Study may include mitigation measures that would eliminate or reduce poten tal environmental impacts.
This document will be considered by the decision - maker(s) 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 (9479) 644 - 32000. y�
(TV C_awde Date
James Ca bell, Se for Planner
►l�n
EXHIBIT 6
CORRESPONDENCE
t1
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 NFU1anPT MEACH
AM MAY 2 9 2002 PM
7i8i910111i12i11213i�1516
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 Cafe 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.
A � �- , az�
and Patricia Gwin
707 Poinsettia Ave
Corona del Mar CA. 92625
1►b
ragc t vt t
Campbell, James
From: Andrew Torelli [eatorelli @adelphla .net]
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 others 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 tittle 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. Eastem 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
,J�
05/23/2002
Campbell, James _
From:
Michelle Desreux [mdesreux @uniglobetravel.com)
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 Bracjley
525 Hazel Dr.
Corona del Mar CA
92625
1 1 �_b
Campbell, James
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Mr. Campbell:
JArde11909 @aoi.com
Thursday, May 23, 2002 11:49 AM
jcampbell @ 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
CA 92625 -2535
dal
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
519 Iris Avenue f IdJL
Corona del Mar, CA 92625 RECEIVED BY
May 16,2002 PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY C)F KIFVtQ; ^•e T r_ACH
AM MAY 2 0 2002 PM
71BI91101111121112i3i41516
First of all, We are against permitting EZ tube or any other automobile lubrication facility in Corona del Mar.
I 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 comer 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 Bmeggers 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 Fernleaf 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 can coming up Iris, and blocking this entrance you have made a very dangeroul 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 intersection 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
tube 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
tube. 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 Lube station.
I am familiar with the Jiffy tube station on Bristol, and having one of those in CDM just doesn't make sense at all.
Ve truly yours,
Sandy Nicho
Cc: NB City Council
1� 3
" €tECEIV D AFTER AGE DA 309 Poppy Avenue
PRINTED." " a wou
off} Ca Biel Mar, CA 92625
DON JACOBS ARCHITECT, AIA
June 23, 2002
City Council Members
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92658
Re: EZ Lube 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 waking 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.
r1)
t�
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
"RECEIVED AFTER AGE DA
PRINTED!% 6 a5 D;'
Corona Del Mar Citizens
(With in # miles of P.C.H. & Orchid)
We the undersigned strongly opposithe 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.
Corona Del Mar Citizens
(With in • 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 Sianature
i
�i�O�—
�ZAPMIM �-iiVAE4—
CD?r-__ -- S��_ yrld -ri !i�-
Al A
L2
.0
n
Corona Del Mar Citizens
(With in 0 miles of P.C.H. & Orchid)
'/1
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 prince.
Name Address
LID 4-2,gMrhu
,;-- w4j�
Ircm PZ94 -row 2oe A riC4d,J6R etc
VJit
(r .
}
l
I
hl
1 - - 'i -
.t
(r .
I-
Corona Del Mar Citizens
(With in 0 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 Si ono
e
+{ld,,
J i
-sic• � __,�'— �c�.`�. - `,( ; `\ ( !� i' ��4, _ �a i._ /� '�(- /.r�'(.. j•I i'
i
1-
i ,j� r
_�h s tv��d.2 L t� - ii I$ 4 qc
t ^;q