3 - COMBINED PUBLIC COMMENTS_301 325 N TUSTIN

Home Browse Search

3 1. The Project Will Not Provide a Service or Facility that Will Contribute to the General Well Being of the Neighborhood/Community. The City should deny the CUP if the proposed use would be detrimental to the general welfare or have undesirable effects in the community. (Harris v. City of Costa Mesa (1994) 25 Cal. App. 4th 963, 973; Tustin Heights Ass’n v. Board of Supervisors (1959) 170 Cal. App. 2d 619, 626.) In Harris v. City of Costa Mesa, the Court of Appeal described the “public welfare” standard as follows: “‘The concept of the public welfare is broad and inclusive. [citations omitted]. The values it represents are spiritual as well as physical, aesthetic as well as monetary. It is within the power of the legislature to determine that the community should be beautiful as well as healthy, spacious as well as clean, well-balanced as well as carefully patrolled.’ [Citations.]” (Id. at p. 741.) Similarly, in Guinnane v. San Francisco City Planning Com. (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 732, the Court of Appeal rejected the petitioner’s contention that “... the commission’s decision [was] unsupported by the findings [ ] based on the argument that the findings relate[d] exclusively to the private concerns of the neighbors (traffic, parking and visual impact) rather than the requisite public concerns of health, safety and welfare.” The Court found this argument specious, and explained that “[w]hile parking, traffic and visual impact were problems expressed by some of the neighbors, clearly they represent concerns that fall well within the domain of the public interest and welfare. [Citations.]” (Id. at p. 743.) In this case, the proposed CUP will be detrimental to existing car washes within the City, especially those in close proximity to the Project like Speedie Wash, which is located merely 1.2 miles from the Project. This in turn will be detrimental to the entire community. The Conklin’s made a substantial investment in the City of Santa Ana when they purchased both the property and business, Speedie Wash, in 2017 for their son and their future, for several million dollars. Bill Conklin is a retired prosthetist, and Karina is a stay at home mom to their 10-year-old son, Tyler, who is autistic and hearing disabled. They invested their life’s savings into Speedie Wash because they envisioned their future in the City of Santa Ana, where Karina grew up, operating Speedie Wash together, and one day enjoying it with their son as an employee there. With Speedie Wash, the Conklins are working on amazing projects that enrich their community and residents/visitors, whereby they offer full service car washes in coordination with entities like the Regional Center of Orange County and GoodWill that offer programs for disabled adults. Unfortunately, the Conklins have had to put such charitable projects on hold and focus their attention on saving their business, which is being threatened by the unnecessary new supersized express car wash at the proposed Project. Contrary to the proposed findings set forth in the proposed Resolution approving the CUP, the Project will not provide a beneficial service to persons in the community because the car wash service already exists in abundance in the City and neighborhood. First, the Project site currently has a gas station model car wash in operation (325 North Tustin). In addition, Speedie Wash, an express model