75A - PH KARA GRANT APPEAL - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

nothing in the September 9, 2019 Staff Report or in the record establishes that the Variance Amendment is necessary to put the property in parity with surrounding properties. There is no evidence of how any of the surrounding properties are different from 301 N. Tustin Avenue. As stated by Russell Fischer in their Application for the Variance Amendment, the purpose of the Variance Amendment is simply to allow them to put the mega car wash on this particular lot so that they can maximize their profits. This has nothing to do with special circumstances applicable to the property and everything to do with granting Russell Fischer a special privilege that is prohibited by the Municipal Code. IV. THE COMMISSION'S NOTICE OF THE HEARING ON THE PROJECT WAS INSUFFICIENT TO AFFORD AFFECTED PERSONS A FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND AND VIOLATED THE CONKLINS' RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS. The Commission did not provide notice of this Project until August 30, 2019 — only 10 days before the subject Planning Commission hearing on the Project (the "Notice"). The Notice, however, was mailed only to property owners and occupants within 500 feet of the project site, plus posting at the site and a newspaper publication. The Conklins, as well as most if not all other car wash owners in the City, were not within the notification radius and yet they will be directly and detrimentally affected by the Commission's proposed approval of the CUP allowing development of the new express car wash at the Project site. In fact, Ms. Conklin only indirectly obtained the Notice because although she had inquired to the City about this particular Project on several occasions, she was not included in the notification list. It is believed that most if not all other car wash owners, as well as numerous other affected individuals and businesses, within the City had no knowledge of the hearing before the Commission or its decision. In this case, due process protections required the Commission to provide sufficient notice that was "reasonably calculated to afford affected persons the realistic opportunity to protect their interests." (Horn v. County of Ventura, (1979) 24 Cal.3d, 605, 617.) Ten days was an insufficient amount of time for the Conklins or other affected persons to adequately prepare by way of document review, research, experts and research into the proposed Project, which completely changed from the retail and restaurant development approved by the City in November 2018,.to a supersized express car wash, that will directly and detrimentally impact Speedie Wash. The Conklins were unable to obtain documents from the City, hire experts, conduct research, and even meet with other affected business owners before this meeting. Moreover, in or about the end of June, Ms. Conklin heard a rumor in the car wash community that Russell Fisher LP was proposing to build a new, supersized express car wash on his Property. At that time, Ms. Conklin contacted the City to inquire if that was the case because the Project documents available on the City website reflected the 2018 Retail/Restaurant Project. The City informed Ms. Conklin that only the 2018 Retail/Restaurant Project was before the City. 22 75A-32