Correspondence - #17 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Alcala, Abigail From: Carol Purvis < Sent: Monday, October 2, 2023 12:30 PM To: eComment Subject: Appeal Application No 2023-06 (2230 N. Tustin Ave.) Honorable Members of the Santa Ana City Council: While my intent is to be present at the City Council meeting on October 3rd, I am writing rather than speaking in the interest of time savings. My hope is that you will have read the previous correspondence presented to the planning commission and you will have seen my letter to them. My same concerns remain -- fumes, traffic, liquor, homeless, and over saturation of the business radius with fueling stations! Plumfield Preschool and Kindergarten has served the City of Santa Ana and its neighbors with quality child care while preparing young children for elementary school and life for over 50 years! It is an established business providing essential child care to the residents of the community. For those members of the Council that do not have child care needs and who may not be familiar with the child care crisis in our country, I urge you to Google Child Care Crisis in the United States to familiarize yourself with the challenges presently plaguing the industry. California has a major problem! Why would we add anything else to the already existing issue by granting a permit for a gas station which shares a property line, where only a fence separates a play yard for these children and the fumes that gas stations emit. Please understand that I am in no way opposed to the subject property being developed. It is in my best interest as the property owner to have that corner built out with a thriving business that does not emit noxious fumes or present a safety hazard (i.e. adjacent driveways on Santa Clara Ave) to the children or employees. Homelessness is a major issue in the vicinity of my property and we have had several instances of invasion of the property. We have spent several thousand dollars attempting to discourage loitering, sleeping, using electrical and water sources after business hours. However, it remains a continuing problem as evidenced just this past week again when a homeless woman requested entry during business hours. Mini - markets, especially those that sell alcohol, encourage homeless loitering. This is evidenced at the corner of 17th and Tustin Ave. Perhaps my biggest question to you is why would you grant a CUP for an ordinance that you passed in December 2022 stating that noxious fumes could not be emitted within 500' of a school or residential area, then re -addressed the issue and change the limit to 1000' in June of 2023; but now, in October, just 4 months later, override that ordinance? To my knowledge, nothing has changed -- the applicant has not presented any evidence/studies supporting a change to the research which shows negative effects on children of noxious fumes. 1