75A - PH KARA GRANT APPEAL - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

(i) That the proposed use will provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the community; and (ii) That the proposed use will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity; and (iii) That the proposed use will not adversely affect the present economic stability or future economic development of property in the surrounding area; (iv) That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in this chapter for such use; and (v) That the proposed use will not adversely affect the general plan of the city or any specific plan applicable to the area of the proposed use. Significantly, the SAMC states that the Commission "may" grant the CUP if all five elements are met, not that it "must" grant the CUP. The City chose to require conditional use permits for car washes to maintain discretion over their development. In other words, property owners do not get to build a car wash in Santa Ana on any property as a matter of right. This is.because the City recognized the need to regulate and limit the number of car washes since they can be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. Accordingly, the standard for approving conditional use permits is that all five elements enumerated above must be satisfied. The Russell Fischer Car Wash Project did not meet these five required elements. At minimum, the Project fails to meet required elements 1, 2, 3, and 5, each of which is addressed in turn below. In addition, the record in support of the Planning Commission's decision must contain substantial evidence to support its findings, and the findings must in turn support the decision and be sufficiently detailed to "bridge the analytical gap" between the raw evidence and the final decision. (Topanga Association for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 511.) As discussed at length below, the record lacks substantial evidence to support the Commission's findings that yet another massive car wash will contribute to and not adversely affect the City. Thus, the City Council should reverse the Commission's decision and deny the CUP. 4 75A-14