Correspondence - #17 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Alcala, Abigail From: Aaron Harrington < Sent: Monday, October 2, 2023 10:23 AM To: eComment Subject: Agenda Item #17 - 2230 N. Tustin Ave To whom it may concern, Good afternoon! My daughter currently attends kindergarten at Plumfield, the school directly next to the empty lot which is being appealed by the developer to move forward with development. Why my concern in this matter? First of all, this is a safety concern for not only my child let alone all of the other children and staff who attend the school. Also, if a conditional use permit (CUP) is required in regards to a 500 foot proximity within a school or residences, why is the Planning Commission/City Council willing to overturn a recently enacted requirement? Not only is this a hazard for the children and staff in regards to gasoline fumes but there are other chemicals affiliated with the proposed station. There are additional chemicals/lubricants vehicles need to properly function which may further hinder safety (ie. oil, transmission fluid(s), battery fluid(s) spills, etc.) which will then leak/seep into drains/gutters and could wash closer to the school. Children's safety should be priority 41, not profitability of a developer. Second, since children's safety should be the city council's main priority, why on earth build another gas station? There are 5 other gas stations within a 1/2 mile of the proposed site. Passing on the appeal with not only benefit the community as a whole but it'll cut down on traffic in the area to ensure less congestion and potential accidents. Since there is a school in this immediate area the city council should do everything in their power to limit congestion. There is already a supermarket (Stater Brothers) across the street so adding more traffic will further increase potential car accidents which could directly affect a child/family. Third, in regards to traffic/congestion of the immediate area, Santa Clara (in front of the school) is only 2 lanes. This proposed development will cause more congestion, the inability of parents to park in the small lot assigned to the school to pick up/drop off their kids and could cause further accidents in case children have to be picked up elsewhere in case the entrance is blocked by other vehicles. Also, the additional traffic will cause the public to turn into the school parking lot when said persons don't even have a child at the school. Thus, further causing more traffic issues and potential accidents. Again, children's safety should be priority 41 ! Fourth, with the extra gas station brings transient/homeless issues. Is the city content with the increased chances of transients sleeping/attempting to access the school grounds for potential assaults on school staff? Also, the safety of these children would need to be dramatically increased. Is the developer going to ensure they limit the transient/homeless persons on the gas station grounds? Of course not! This is exactly why they can't be awarded the appeal to proceed with development. Safety is tantamount to a striving society for children so this reasoning should immediately persuade the city council's decision to not allow the development of the gas station. Lastly, with the above issues I have listed we know the gas station will apply for an alcohol permit to sell it on store grounds. Since there is a supermarket and liquor stores across the street, herein lies another reason why they need to cease with building a gas station on this lot. With more alcohol always comes more problems. Drunk driving could be an issue which will lead to further accidents/concerns that parents at the school don't need to endure. Parents have the right to ensure their child is safe at their school so adding an extra burden on the school staff should be reason 41 not to grant the developer the lot to build the gas station. We as a society need to make sure our children are taken care and safety is the main issue here. Kids are the building blocks of societies and when parent's and children's safety is pushed aside for profits then we as a whole have lost value in creating a better future for our children. Again, I have listed numerous reasons why the proposed building needs to be ceased thus ensuring our children are able to learn without any limitation or additional stresses placed on the families. I am always open to businesses being built but not a gas station right next to a school when there are multiple other stations within the same vicinity. I stress you to please take the kid's and school's well being into consideration and passing on allowing the gas station to be built. Feel free to call or email if you have any questions or concerns and I appreciate your time in regards to this matter. Respectfully, Aaron Harrington (Concerned parent of kindergarten student at Plumfleld school)