HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence - #17Orozco, Norma
From:
Steve Bowers <
Sent:
Wednesday, September 27, 2023 5:05 PM
To:
eComment
Subject:
Agenda Item # Appeal Application No. 2023-06 Appealing the Decision of the
Planning Commission to Deny Modification to Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No.
2019-41 and CUP No. 2023-03 for a New Service Station at 2230 N. Tustin Avenue
To Santa Ana Council Members,
My family and I have discussed the proposed modification to Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-41 and
Conditional Use Permit No. 2023-03 at 2230 North Tustin Avenue, Santa Ana, CA.
That corner is already one of the busiest intersections in the area, with the new restaurants
recently opened at the corner of Tustin Avenue and 17t" Avenue. With addition of a mini mart
and gas station, the access into and out of the new structure would certainly increase the risk of
accidents. The City has recently installed a new left turn light at this intersection, which helps
with the flow of traffic. Patrons of the new mini mart would potentially be waiting for busy
traffic flow west on Tustin to exit for quite some time.
There has been a mini mart and gas station at the corner of 17t" and Tustin for many years. The
addition of a new mini mart within 2 mile of the current station is a bit of over kill. Historically,
the California landscape has had gas stations/mini marts on multiple corners. Within the past 20-
30 years, that luxury has become a thing of the past.
y With the addition of more E-Vehicles on the road within the next 10-15 years under our current
Governors mandate to have E-Vehicles by 2035, the new mini mart will become a dinosaur.
There has to be a better use for the lot under consideration in this Appeal.
As a homeowner within 2 mile of the site, I concur with the vote of the Council Members on
6/26/2023. I strongly urge the Council Members to deny Appeal to Application 2023-06.
Regards,
Stephen U. Bowers
3
Orozco, Norma
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear City Council Members,
Jessica Prechtl <
Wednesday, September 27, 2023 10:20 PM
eComment
Agenda Item #17 - 2230 N. Tustin Ave
My two year old daughter attends the preschool at Plumfield neighboring the corner of Santa Clara and Tustin
Avenue. I am writing to strongly oppose the development plan to put in a gas station on the property at 2230 N.
Tustin Ave. This potential project would have significant health impacts on the growing minds and bodies of
hundreds of young people in Santa Ana. The community does not need a new gas station, especially in close
proximity to where there are five other gasstations in a 1/2 mile radius that are easily accessible (17th/Tustin,
55/17th, Tustin/Fairhaven, and 2 at Santa Clara/Grand).
That land should be used to develop something that would clearly meet a community need and promote
community health, such as a parklet with exercise equipment, an urban micro -farm or anything with open space
and trees to improve air quality. Any other developments would be fine, just please not a gas station!
Thank you,
Jessica Prechtl
Orozco, Norma
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
To Whom It May Concern:
Nikki Tichy <
Thursday, September 28, 2023 8:23 AM
eComment
Agenda Item #17 - 2230 N. Tustin Ave
AGAIN, I am writing today as a concerned parent of the Kindergarten next door to the empty lot. My children
attend the Kindergarten and I do not want my children exposed to any gas fumes. The fact that this is even up
for debate is mind boggling. Regarding fume emissions, who should we contact with concerns? Who monitors
and tracks air quality control? The school is 500 feet away. Would you allow you children to play at a gas
station? No, they stay in the car. Pumping gas takes a few minutes. My children are at school for 9 hours.
This is already a high traffic area with cars and people. If a gas station is put in by the school, I'm extremely
worried about the likelihood of homeless people, as that is a rising problem in Santa Ana already. With more
cars crowding the area, this will cause more car accidents.
Furthermore, I cannot imagine alcohol being sold within 500 feet of a Kindergarten and what type of traffic
that will bring around my kids. There's a liquor store across the street and a grocery store. We don't need
anymore near the school. There are also 5 other gas stations within % mile.
I am begging you to please not allow a gas station to be put in next door to a KINDERGARTEN where our
children play outside. We send them to this school to provide a SAFE environment. As a parent, you just want
the best for your children. A gas station is the worst business you can put 500 feet away.
Nikki 7ich4
REGIONAL OFFICE MANAGER I THE TERMITE GUY + PEST CONTROL
FREE: I PHONE: 1 FAX:
Orozco, Norma
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
To whom this may concern -
Leslie Skorheim <
Thursday, September 28, 2023 8:54 AM
eComment
Agenda Item #17 - 2230 N. Tustin Ave
I vehemently oppose a gas station being built and operated next door to Plumfield Kindergarten. It will
cause extreme health and safety issues for the children (and their families) that attend the school and will
unnecessarily impact traffic in the area.
Thank you.
Leslie Skorheim
Orozco, Norma
From: Michelle Caldwell <
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2023 8:56 AM
To: eComment
Subject: Item #17-2230 N. Tustin Ave. !No gas station next to kindergarten ! ! !
As a homeowner in Orange County CA, I am strongly against a gas station being put next to a kindergarten.
This is a huge safety hazard for many many reasons!
Regarding agenda item #17-2 230 N. Tustin Ave.
Kindly,
Michelle Caldwell
Business Development
_b 1,-m1,o„�,�.
Direct (
0 1".m,,. ,..I,,00,,o� I,--1, ,
Connect with us:
0
Privileged And Confidential Communication.
This electronic transmission, and any documents attached hereto, (a) are protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 USC §§ 2510-2521), (b) may
contain confidential and/or legally privileged information, and (c) are for the sole use of the intended recipient named above. If you have received this electronic
message in error, please notify the sender and delete the electronic message. Any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of the information received
in error is strictly prohibited.
Orozco, Norma
From: trina Andjani <
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2023 10:46 AM
To: eComment
Subject: Agenda Item #17 - 2230 N. Tustin Ave
Dear Planning Commission/City Council Members,
As a concerned parent with children enrolled in the nearby kindergarten, I am deeply unsettled by the
forthcoming gas station development near the school and residential areas. My concerns are not only
professional but also deeply personal, as they directly impact the health, safety, and well-being of my family
and others in the community. Here are my concerns:
Children's Health and Safety:
- Air Quality: The proximity to a school means that children are at risk of inhaling harmful fumes. Studies have
shown long-term exposure to such fumes can adversely affect lung development in children.
- Accidents: The nearby intersection is a high -traffic area with a history of frequent accidents. This increases
the likelihood of a catastrophic event involving the gas pumps.
- Regulation of Deliveries: Although plans indicate that deliveries are to occur after school hours, there's no
clear mechanism for enforcement.
Conditional Use Permit Requirements:
- Proximity to School and Residences: The new law mandates a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for businesses
located within 500 feet of schools or residential areas, effective December 22, 2022.
- Regulatory Oversight: Ignoring the CUP requirement would set a worrisome precedent for future projects.
Homelessness Issues:
- Safety Risks: The presence of homeless individuals at similar businesses nearby poses a safety risk to children
and families.
- Quality of Life: The influx of homelessness often requires additional policing and affects the overall quality
of life in the area.
Traffic Congestion:
- Limited Road Space: Santa Clara Avenue is only a two-lane road and can ill -afford the additional traffic.
- Intersection Safety: The entrance on Santa Clara is too close to other driveways, raising concerns about
vehicle safety and the flow of traffic.
Alcohol Sales:
- Safety Concerns: Introducing another outlet for alcohol sales could increase instances of drunk driving or
public disturbances.
- Overabundance: There are already numerous outlets for alcohol sales in the immediate area, making this an
unneeded service.
Market Saturation:
- Economic Viability: With 5 gas stations within a 1/2-mile radius, another station appears unnecessary.
- Lack of Diversification: Rather than enriching the community with a variety of services, this new addition
would only further saturate the market.
As a parent whose children's health and safety are at stake, I earnestly implore you to reconsider the merits of
this proposed gas station. Our children's well-being should be at the forefront of any development decisions,
and I urge you to make that a priority in your deliberations.
Sincerely,
Petrina Andjani
Orozco, Norma
From: Patty Gutierrez <
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2023 11:12 AM
To: eComment
Subject: Agenda Item #17 - 2230 N. Tustin Ave
Dear Planning Commission/City Council Members,
I am writing to express several reservations about the forthcoming gas station planned for construction near the
kindergarten school and residential areas. Here are the issues that need to be addressed:
1. Conditional Use Permit Requirements: A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) became mandatory as of December 22, 2022,
for any businesses situated within 500 feet of K-12 schools, public parks, or residences. The planned gas station clearly
falls into this category. Why does it appear that the Planning Commission/City Council is considering circumventing
these new rules?
2. Children's Health and Safety: Though steps have been taken to minimize fume emissions, the risk hasn't been
eliminated. How will late -night deliveries be regulated? Furthermore, given the frequency of accidents at the nearby
intersection, the risk of a vehicular incident involving the gas pumps cannot be overlooked.
3. Market Saturation: The proposed location is already surrounded by 5 gas stations within a 1/2-mile radius. What
unique value does an additional gas station bring to the community? Wouldn't it be more beneficial to focus on
attracting businesses from industries that are not already well -represented in the area?
4. Traffic Congestion: The current entrance on Santa Clara Avenue will be kept, which is near our own driveway.
Additionally, the two-lane road in front of the school will certainly experience increased traffic, affecting daily
commutes.
5. Homelessness Issues: The existing gas stations, especially the 7-11 at 17th and Tustin Ave., are already grappling with
homelessness. We have invested considerable efforts in mitigating this problem on our property, and a new gas station
with a mini market is likely to exacerbate the issue.
6. Alcohol Sales: While this isn't an immediate concern with the city, I understand that there will be an application for a
license to sell alcohol in the future. The area already has multiple outlets selling alcohol, making this an unnecessary
addition that also raises safety concerns.
Thank you for your attention to these matters. We look forward to your response.
Va y Gutierrez
ADMINSTRATIVE ASSISTANT - PEST DIVISION I THE TERMITE GUY
FREE: 1 FAX:
https://www.877termite.com/online-bill-pay
10
Orozco, Norma
From: Ariana Contreras <
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2023 11:47 AM
To: eComment
Subject: Agenda Item #17 - 2230 N. Tustin Ave
Importance: High
Dear Planning Commission/City Council Members,
I am writing to express a number of reservations about the forthcoming gas station planned for construction near the
kindergarten school and residential areas. Here are the issues that need to be addressed:
1. Conditional Use Permit Requirements: A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) became mandatory as of December 22, 2022,
for any businesses situated within 500 feet of K-12 schools, public parks, or residences. The planned gas station clearly
falls into this category. Why does it appear that the Planning Commission/City Council is considering circumventing
these new rules?
2. Children's Health and Safety: Though steps have been taken to minimize fume emissions, the risk hasn't been entirely
eliminated. How will late -night deliveries be regulated? Furthermore, given the frequency of accidents at the nearby
intersection, the risk of a vehicular incident involving the gas pumps cannot be overlooked.
3. Market Saturation: The proposed location is already surrounded by 5 gas stations within a 1/2-mile radius. What
unique value does an additional gas station bring to the community? Wouldn't it be more beneficial to focus on
attracting businesses from industries that are not already well -represented in the area?
4. Traffic Congestion: The current entrance on Santa Clara Avenue will be kept, which is in close proximity to our own
driveway. Additionally, the two-lane road in front of the school will certainly experience increased traffic, affecting daily
commutes.
5. Homelessness Issues: The existing gas stations, especially the 7-11 at 17th and Tustin Ave., are already grappling with
homelessness. We have invested considerable efforts in mitigating this problem on our property, and a new gas station
with a mini -market is likely to exacerbate the issue.
6. Alcohol Sales: While this isn't an immediate concern with the city, I understand that there will be an application for a
license to sell alcohol in the future. The area already has multiple outlets selling alcohol, making this an unnecessary
addition that also raises safety concerns.
Thank you for your attention to these matters. We look forward to your response.
Ask tme ahmt wr -Pest Ctmtrvl services!
A rLa -%,� Cc- era.,
11
TRANSACTION COORDINATOR I THE TERMITE GUY
FREE: I PHONE: 1 FAX:
12
Orozco, Norma
From: Ariana Contreras <
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2023 11:49 AM
To: eComment
Subject: Agenda Item #17 - 2230 N. Tustin Ave
Dear Planning Commission/City Council Members,
I am writing to express a number of reservations about the forthcoming gas station planned for construction near the
kindergarten school and residential areas. Here are the issues that need to be addressed:
1. Conditional Use Permit Requirements: A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) became mandatory as of December 22, 2022,
for any businesses situated within 500 feet of K-12 schools, public parks, or residences. The planned gas station clearly
falls into this category. Why does it appear that the Planning Commission/City Council is considering circumventing
these new rules?
2. Children's Health and Safety: Though steps have been taken to minimize fume emissions, the risk hasn't been entirely
eliminated. How will late -night deliveries be regulated? Furthermore, given the frequency of accidents at the nearby
intersection, the risk of a vehicular incident involving the gas pumps cannot be overlooked.
3. Market Saturation: The proposed location is already surrounded by 5 gas stations within a 1/2-mile radius. What
unique value does an additional gas station bring to the community? Wouldn't it be more beneficial to focus on
attracting businesses from industries that are not already well -represented in the area?
4. Traffic Congestion: The current entrance on Santa Clara Avenue will be kept, which is in close proximity to our own
driveway. Additionally, the two-lane road in front of the school will certainly experience increased traffic, affecting daily
commutes.
5. Homelessness Issues: The existing gas stations, especially the 7-11 at 17th and Tustin Ave., are already grappling with
homelessness. We have invested considerable efforts in mitigating this problem on our property, and a new gas station
with a mini -market is likely to exacerbate the issue.
6. Alcohol Sales: While this isn't an immediate concern with the city, I understand that there will be an application for a
license to sell alcohol in the future. The area already has multiple outlets selling alcohol, making this an unnecessary
addition that also raises safety concerns.
Thank you for your attention to these matters. We look forward to your response.
Ariana Contreras
13
Orozco, Norma
From: Jana Lichtenwalter <
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2023 12:11 PM
To: eComment
Subject: Agenda Item #17 - 2230 N. Tustin Ave
To Whom It May Concern:
As a parent of 4 children, I am completely appalled that anyone would consider putting a gas station 500 feet away
from a Kindergarten.
Has anyone thought about the crowd that will draw?
Or the rise of homeless people coming towards young children?
How about the amount of traffic around these kids?
Not to mention the toxic fumes.
How dare this even be up for discussion or vote.
Please do better and deny this.
14
Alcala, Abigail
From: Lorraine Passero <
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2023 6:59 PM
To: eComment
Subject: No gas station
I have a concern about the proximity of a gas station to a school. It is not a healthy or safe business to have in such close
proximity to children. Please take this into consideration. Sincerely yours,
Lorraine Passero
Sent from my iPhone
Alcala, Abigail
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
To whom it may concern,
Jeralyn Cottam <
Friday, September 29, 2023 3:01 PM
eComment
Agenda Item #17 - 2230 N. Tustin Ave
I am writing in to express my concern and disagreement with the proposed gas station development at 2230 N
Tustin Ave. Below is an accounting of all my concerns:
1. The proximity of a gas station to my daughters school, Plumfield Pre-school and Kindergarten. I understand
that a conditional use permit (CUP) is required for businesses requiring a regional, state, or federal permit to
discharge, handle, emit, or store regulated compounds, materials, or substances and is located within 500 ft of a
school (K-12), public park, or residence. I don't understand why this development is being considered when it is
clearly less than 500 ft from a school AND residences.
2. I believe this gas station would pose a substantial health and safety risk to our children. We all know of the
gaseos fumes that are omitted from a gas station, and this one would directly border the schools play yard. In
addition to the danger of these fumes, there are also frequent accidents in this intersection. What prevents a car
from entering the station and clipping a pump? While the risks of that may be low, I am certain you can agree
the repercussions would be grave with a school full of children near by.
3. There are 5 gas stations within approximately 1/2 mile of the proposed site (17th/Tustin, 55/17th,
Tustin/Fairhaven, and 2 at Santa Clara/Grand). How does a 5th station provide additional services to the
residents, workers, and visitors? I am not opposed to development of the site, but it should be bringing a new or
underserved industry/business to the area, not oversaturating the market.
4. Traffic impact: The existing driveway to the school is on Santa Clara will remain and I understand the gas
station will have its driveway right next to this on Santa Clara. TRaffic getting into and out of the school can
already be difficult and dangerous, and this will add to that exponentially. Increased traffic will impact the flow
of daily travel.
5. The existing gas stations in the area, in particular, the 7-11 at 17th and Tustin Ave., have major issues with
the congregation of unhoused persons. I know that Plumfield school has worked hard to protect the school , but
placing a gas station with a convenience store will most certainly increase the prevalence of the transient
population on this corner.
6. The sale of alcohol: Similar to the increase in issues that could be brought by the transient population, the
sale of alcohol right next to a school also is concerning. Currently, alcohol can be purchased at Stater Brothers,
the Liquor Store next to Stater Bros, the Mini Mart behind Starbucks, and at 7-11, it is clearly un unneeded
service in the area.
Thank you for considering these concerns,
Jeralyn Cottam
Alcala, Abigail
From: Murphy, Jennifer <
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2023 3:20 PM
To: eComment
Subject: Agenda Item #17 - 2330 N. Tustin Ave
To the Santa Ana City Council,
I am writing as a concerned member and parent in our community to express my deep reservations about the
proposed construction of a gas station in close proximity to a Plumfield Preschool and Kindergarten. I believe that
allowing such a development poses significant safety and health concerns that must be carefully considered before
any decision is made.
First and foremost, the safety of our children should be our top priority. The presence of a gas station near a
preschool and kindergarten introduces a number of potential hazards. Gas stations are known for the inherent
risks associated with fuel storage and handling, such as the possibility of leaks, fires, and explosions. These dangers
are not only a threat to the immediate vicinity but can have far-reaching consequences, affecting the safety of our
entire community.
Moreover, gas stations attract heavy vehicular traffic, including large trucks and vehicles carrying hazardous
materials. This increased traffic poses a significant danger to young children who may be walking to or from school
or playing in the area. The likelihood of accidents and injuries involving our most vulnerable citizens is greatly
increased in such a scenario.
In addition to safety concerns, there are significant health risks associated with the operation of a gas station.
Gasoline and diesel fuel emit harmful chemicals and fumes, including volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and
particulate matter, which have been linked to a range of health issues, particularly in children. Exposure to these
pollutants can exacerbate respiratory conditions such as asthma and may even contribute to the development of
long-term health problems.
Furthermore, the noise and air pollution generated by a gas station can disrupt the learning environment of the
nearby educational institutions. Young children are particularly susceptible to the adverse effects of noise
pollution, which can hinder their cognitive development and concentration.
I urge the City Council to thoroughly evaluate the potential risks and consequences of permitting a gas station to be
built in close proximity to Plumfield Preschool and Kindergarten. It is crucial that the health, safety, and well-being
of our children are given the utmost consideration in this decision -making process.
I respectfully request that you consider alternative locations for the proposed gas station that do not place our
youngest community members at risk. I also encourage the City Council to engage with experts in child safety,
environmental health, and urban planning to conduct a comprehensive impact assessment.
Thank you for your attention to this critical matter. Our community's future depends on the choices we make
today, and I trust that you will prioritize the safety and well-being of our children in your deliberations.
Jennifer Murphy
English Teacher &ASB Advisor
LEGACY
MA G. N',M T A,CAUE M,Y
Tustin, CA 92782
Alcala, Abigail
From: eliamadrigal <
Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2023 7:49 PM
To: eComment
Subject: Item # 17 - Deny Appeal
I am writing this email to you as a tax payer and property owner to DENY the appeal for a gas station that is
proposed to be built on the corner of Tustin and Santa Clara.
Major concerns as to why I believe the appeal needs to be denied:
1. Applicant is requesting 9 pump gas station be built next door to a very busy and long established preschool.
(Plumfield )
2. Concerns over vapors and the storage of gasoline / hazardous materials within 500 ft. of a school and
residential area.
3. There are 9 active gas stations within a short distance of this location.
4. The 7-11 ( gas station and mini mart ) at Tustin Ave. and 17th St. attracts the homeless. They are often
found to be under the influence and swapping stolen goods as well as working on stolen bicycles.
Many of these individuals have been observed roaming through our neighborhood at night shaking down cars
and stealing anything of value that they can find.
6. The same homeless are then spotted during the day hanging out at Portola Park which is right next to John
Muir Fundamental School.
7. We don't want to see the situation worsen with the addition of another unwanted gas station and mini mart
close to our homes. We have a beautiful neighborhood and we want to protect it.
Thank you for your support. PLEASE DENY THE APPLICANTS APPEAL.
Sent from my V rizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
Alcala, Abigail
From: Keira Gonsalves <
Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2023 7:59 PM
To: eComment
Subject: Item #17 Deny the Appeal
Deny the proposal for a gas station on Santa Clara And 17th street in Santa Ana. Especially right next to the
preschool where my son used to attend. I still live right here and do not want to have the fumes and smoke and
traffic right there.
We have too many gas stations as is.
We do not need one right there.
Thanks From Keira Gonsalves
Winston R. Covington
Chairman
Portola Park
And Meredith/ Parkwood
Neighborhood Association
Alcala, Abigail
From:
obed garcia <
Sent:
Saturday, September 30, 2023 8:34 PM
To:
eComment
Subject:
Item # 17
Deny the appeal!
We have enough local gas stations.
-Obed
Alcala, Abigail
From:
Patricia Kane <
Sent:
Sunday, October 1, 2023 3:00 PM
To:
eComment
Subject:
Item #17- deny the appeal'
Please deny the appeal to build a 9 pump gas station at South/West corner of Tustin and Santa Clara Our neighborhood
does not need the congestion and the preschool is to close for all that traffic Thank you Patricia and James Kane
Sent from my iPad
Alcala, Abigail
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
To whom it may concern,
myrna ayala <
Sunday, October 1, 2023 6:29 PM
eComment
Item #17 Deny the appeal
I support to deny the appeal for a gas station on Tustin and Santa Clara.
Thank you,
Myrna Ayala
Alcala, Abigail
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Michael K. Seeds
Santa Ana, 92705
Michael Seeds <
Sunday, October 1, 2023 8:07 PM
eComment
** Item # 17 - Deny the Appeal **
Alcala, Abigail
From:
David Kiwerski WP2AAT <
Sent:
Sunday, October 1, 2023 8:14 PM
To:
eComment
Subject:
Fwd: Item # 17 - Deny the Appeal
Dear Santa Ana Planning Commission:
It has come to our attention that the vacant lot at the intersection of Tustin Avenue and Santa Clara Avenue is
being considered for a gas station site. This would not be a good site for the station for the following reasons:
• It would interrupt the flow of traffic: Tustin Avenue narrows to two lanes just past the proposed site and
Santa Clara narrows to a single lane traveling east. Adding more cars that will need to enter and exit the
station would make merging traffic more dangerous.
• The station would intensify the heavy traffic in an already busy intersection. Drivers who are unfamiliar
with the intersection and are exiting the Stater Bros. Shopping Center are often unaware of drivers
turning right onto Santa Clara Ave. from Tustin Ave., and the same can be said about those drivers
making the right-hand turns. There is a history of traffic collisions at that corner.
• Hazardous materials are inherent to the operation of service stations. With the number of accidents
already mentioned, it would be a risk to businesses and residents alike to add the station.
• The service station would increase the amount of traffic students would face traveling to and from
school. The presence of a gas station would not only have a negative impact on the preschoolers at
Plumfield Preschool, but would also affect students attending SAUSD schools (John Muir Fundamental
and Sierra Preparatory Academy) and TUSD schools (Loma Vista, Hewes, Foothill, and
Hillcrest). There are also several private schools in the area that could also be impacted by the addition
of a filling station at that corner. Many parents elect to have their children walk to school. There are no
crossing guards at this intersection, and the addition of traffic moving in an out of a service station
would create a higher risk to students.
• The relatively recent opening of a doughnut shop and Starbucks sharing the lot with the refurbished
liquor store at the same intersection directly affected traffic patterns which would be severely
compounded by the service station.
Thank you for taking these items under consideration. We respectfully ask that you deny the appeal so that the
area will remain safe for commuters, businesses, and residents.
David and Pamela Kiwerski WP2AAT "No Microsoft, no Apple, just good old reliable Linux"
Alcala, Abigail
From: Diego Teran <
Sent: Sunday, October 1, 2023 10:13 PM
To: eComment
Subject: Deny appeal item 17 on Oct. 3
To Whom it May Concern,
As a resident of Meredith Parkwood, I ask the Santa Ana Planning Commission to deny the appeal to item 17 (proposed
gas station on Tustin Ave & Santa Clara).
There are enough gas stations in the neighborhood and I don't want my children exposed to harmful fumes.
Thank you,
Diego Teran
Santa Ana 92705
Alcala, Abigail
From:
JENNY LUCATERO <
Sent:
Sunday, October 1, 2023 10:47 PM
To:
eComment
Subject:
Item #17
Item 417 Deny appeal
Alcala, Abigail
From: Pam Hopkirk <
Sent: Monday, October 2, 2023 8:17 AM
To: eComment
Subject: Item # 17 Deny Appeal
Please deny the appeal, item 417. Plumfield Preschool is adjacent the property and has been there for years. Gas stations produce
harmful vapors which will spread to the preschool where many children attend.
A concerned citizen,
P. Hopkirk
Alcala, Abigail
From: Lenette Wardinski <
Sent: Monday, October 2, 2023 8:43 AM
To: eComment; eComment
Subject: Item #17 on Agenda - DENY the APPEAL!!!!
Please DENY this Gas Station's appeal! It has already been declined by the Planning Commission and is NOT supported by City
Staff. There are numerous reasons to decline this appeal!
Busy Intersection
Near a Child Care Facility
Etc
Lenette Wardinski
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)
Alcala, Abigail
From: Jessica Fox <
Sent: Monday, October 2, 2023 11:52 AM
To: eComment
Subject: Item # 17 - Deny the Appeal
This email is in regard of Item # 17.
I am a resident at Santa Ana. 92705. I live in the Meredith Homes track. I am writing this
email requesting a denial for the appeal of a gas station at the South/West corner of Tustin Ave and
Santa Clara (2230 N. Tustin Ave.)
I have lived in the neighborhood for 18 years and it has been a wonderful place to live most of the years. The
last couple of years we have seen so many homeless people walking around the area by Santa Clara St and
hanging out at Portola Park. This area used to be a place where I could tell my kids to walk to the park and
meet their friends. I can't any longer. There are too many homeless walking around scaring kids and
sometimes adults as well. The gas stations in the neighborhood on Grand and Santa Clara and on Tustin and
17th already attracts many homeless and people on drugs.
I urge you to please deny the appeal for the gas station at 2230 N. Tustin. It will only bring more homeless
into our neighborhood and is way too close the Plumfield Preschool.
Thank you for your time,
Jessica Lochner
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
Thank you for your service to the community and I trust you to hold your constituents,
friends, and neighbors best interest when you vote to affirm the Planning Commission
ruling to deny the Conditional Use Permit.
Sincerely,
Carol Purvis
Owner
Purvis Enterprises
N
Alcala, Abigail
From: Aleece Records <
Sent: Monday, October 2, 2023 12:57 PM
To: eComment
Subject: Agenda Item #17 - 2230 N. Tustin Ave
Dear Santa Ana City Council and Whom it may concern,
I am a concerned parent of a child who attends Plumfield School at 2112 E Santa Clara Ave. I strongly appose
the development of a gas station on the corner of Santa Clara and Tustin Ave.
My reasons are as follows:
1. The proximity of a gas station near a kindergarten school. A conditional use permit is required for businesses
requiring a regional, state, or federal permit to discharge, handle, emit, or store regulated compounds, materials,
or substances and is located within 500 ft of a school (K-12), public park, or residence. In this case, this station
is within 500 feet of both a school and residences. Effective December 22, 20222, a CUP is required! Why is
the Planning Commission/City Council willing to overturn a recently enacted requirement when the school is
well within 500 feet of the proposed site? There is a clear reason why the Planning Commission drafted the
regulation.
2. My concerns surround the health and safety of my child and the entire class. While measures will be put in
place to reduce the emissions of fumes, the risk is not zero. Deliveries will only be allowed after hours, but who
will manage that? There are frequent accidents in this intersection, what prevents a car from entering the station
and clipping a pump? Extra risks I am not willing to expose my child to.
3. There are 5 gas stations within approximately 1/2 mile of the proposed site (17th/Tustin, 55/17th,
Tustin/Fairhaven, and 2 at Santa Clara/Grand). How does a 5th station provide additional services to the
residents, workers, and visitors? Development of the site is not the issue, but it should be bringing a new or
underserved industry/business to the area, not oversaturating the market.
4. Traffic impact: The existing driveway on Santa Clara will remain. This is very close to our driveway.
Additionally, Santa Clara is 2 lanes in front of the school. Increased traffic will impact the flow of daily travel.
5. Homeless: The existing gas stations in the area, in particular, the 7-11 at 17th and Tustin Ave., have major
issues with homeless people. We have worked very hard to reduce this on our property, but a gas station with a
mini market will increase the likelihood. Again, this is a safety concern for our children.
6. The sale of alcohol: While this is not a concern with the city, as I understand it, they will apply for an alcohol
sales license in the future. Currently, alcohol can be purchased at Stater Brothers, the Liquor Store next to Stater
Bros, the Mini Mart behind Starbucks, and definitely at 7-11 (I assume all the other gas stations as well). Again,
this is a safety concern as well as an unneeded service in the area.
Please vote to oppose the installation of a gas station at this location.
Thank you
Aleece Langlois, Santa Ana resident and concerned parent.
Alcala, Abigail
From: Gabriela Morales <
Sent: Monday, October 2, 2023 1:04 PM
To: eComment
Subject: Agenda Item #17 - 2230 N. Tustin Ave
Hello,
I sent an email opposing the development of this gas station back in June, and I - like many other parents of the
school nextdoor - am surprised and displeased that this issue has returned --
I am writing in opposition to the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit for the property located at 2230 N. Tustin
Ave. The development is located within 500 feet of the school my child attends. I am opposed to this
development due to the health and safety concerns of the current and future children in the care
of Plumfield School.
Additionally, as there are 5 other gas stations within 1/2 mile radius of the proposed project, it is not bringing
new nor additional services to the area.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Best,
Gabriela (Morales) Hixson
Alcala, Abigail
From: Rigo Garcia <
Sent: Monday, October 2, 2023 1:29 PM
To: eComment
Subject: Item #17 - 2230 N. Tustin Ave Public Comment
Council Members,
I'm a resident in Ward 3 and urging you to deny the appeal of a gas station application at 2230 N. Tustin
Avenue for the following reasons:
1. The proximity to the school next door provides a safety hazards for small kids who are unaware of dangers
of an excess amount of cars that will rotate through there.
2. The emissions smell of gas and diesel will cause harm to young developing bodies. Gas spills cause a
significant public health risks, see the Johns Hopkins report below:
https:Hhub.jhu.edu/2014/10/07/gas-station-
spills/#::text=Researchers%20with%20the%20Johns%20Hopkins,larger%20issue%20than%20previousl
20thought.
Small spills at gas stations could cause
significant public health risks over time
Soill and gmuindwa eia imay Ik e iiimIpeiA illed imm e t[lain
pireviouslly undeia stood Iby dirc. ps of hu6i slipiiIIIIed at gas
stations
I�u,I�J.II�1i r t�i�
3. Traffic congestion in this area making it more difficult for parents to navigate the area.
4. Increased noise in the area will create distractions for students
5. We see more and more panhandlers, loiterers , and people who are mentally ill hang out at gas stations. They
will be within feet of young kids.
6. The height of kids are shorter than drivers can see, the amount of cars that will be around and the likelihood
of kids running out when they get out of school has the potential for great harm.
Rigo Garcia
Alcala, Abigail
From: Brooke Pilon <
Sent: Monday, October 2, 2023 1:55 PM
To: eComment
Subject: Agenda Item #17 - 2230 N. Tustin Ave
I understand there is a proposal for a gas station on the corner of Santa Clara and Tustin Ave.
I know this lot has been vacant for many years. However I do not feel it is the right spot for a gas station. The location is
too close to housing. A gas station will bring more traffic and more loitering. I get gas at the 7-11 station on 17th and
tustin and the back and side of the building is always full of unhoused people gathering.
We currently have a gas station one light to the north ( tustin and fairhaven) and one light to the south (tustin and 17th
Street). This is a tough corner as it is. Just recently a turn light was installed but before that there were many accidents
at this intersection.
This corner definitely deserves to be developed but with the right business for our neighborhood.
We ask that you take this into consideration when deciding on this property.
Alcala, Abigail
From: Dayne Scott <
Sent: Monday, October 2, 2023 4:26 PM
To: eComment
Subject: Agenda Item #17 - 2230 N. Tustin Ave.
Members of the Santa Ana City Council,
I am writing to ask for your support in upholding the June 26, 2023 City Planning Commission to deny the
modification to CUP 2019-41 and CUP 2023-03.
Plumfield School has been providing preschool and kindergarten to the families of Santa Ana for over 50 years.
It is very concerning to me that these children and their families, as well as the residents in the surrounding area,
will have their health and safety jeopardized by this development. The CUP is in an attempt to circumvent the
city ordinance that prohibits the constriction of businesses that emit noxious fumes (i.e. gas stations) within
1000 feet of a school and residences.
Plumfield School not only is within 1000 feet, but they also share a property line. Are you willing to put the
health and safety of children over allowing this station to be built?
This station would be the 6th station within a 1/2 mile radius. This does not bring a new service or industry to
our area. Santa Ana has seen a drastic increase in the unhoused population. I know that Plumfield has already
taken steps to mitigate the problems with this population, but nothing eradicates it. However, a gas station and
minimart will only exasperate this issue.
While not the current concern, alcohol sales will be inevitable at the mini mart. Do we want alcohol being sold
next to a school?
Finally, the increase in traffic to the area is of significant concern. The plans call for a driveway to be within
150 feet of the intersection of Santa Clara and Tustin Avenues. We have seen this granted to Starbucks at the
same intersection. It congests traffic in an already dangerous situation. With the addition of gas pumps, this
could be catastrophic in the event of an accident. I ask you to please consider these concerns when making your
decision. Please keep in mind the health and safety of all children and residents in the area.
My children and their peers mean everything to me and my wife. Thank you again for hearing me out and I
know you'll come to the correct verdict.
Dayne Scott
Alcala, Abigail
From: Steve Iberri <
Sent: Monday, October 2, 2023 12:27 PM
To: eComment
Subject: Agenda Item #17 - 2230 N. Tustin Ave
Hello,
My name is Steve Iberri. My wife and I have our daughter attending Plumfield preschool at 2112 E Santa Clara Ave, Santa
Ana.
Coming into the school heading west along Santa Clara, the driveway into the school is currently very congested in the
morning and evening times, around when I drop off and pick up our daughter. The left turn into the driveway is already
problematic given the other driveways in the area and the regular traffic at that time.
I have a lot of concern that a gas station added to the corner here would create dangerous traffic conditions turning into
and out of the preschool around these times. I have personally seen two accidents since March of this year at this
intersection and our daughter does not even attend preschool every weekday.
I also believe there are state code requirements on the distance required between a gas station and a facility such as a
preschool. This would literally be within a hundred feet, and I would worry that the fumes from the gas station would
cause long term issues with the kids who regularly play outside.
My understanding is the board originally voted to deny the conditional use permit to build within 500ft of a preschool,
and I request that you do the same to the appeal. There are all sorts of businesses other than a gas station that are more
suitable next to a preschool, and hardly any I can think of that would be a worse fit.
Thank you,
Steve Iberri
Alcala, Abigail
From: Dale Helvig <
Sent: Monday, October 2, 2023 6:02 PM
To: eComment; Amezcua, Valerie; Phan, Thai; Vazquez, Benjamin; Lopez, Jessie; Bacerra,
Phil; Hernandez, Johnathan; Penaloza, David
Cc: Ridge, Kristine; Carvalho, Sonia R.; Mendoza, Steven
Subject: 2023-10-02 Letter to City Council: Item 17, Deny Appeal To Build New Service Station
at 2230 N. Tustin Ave
Attachments: 2023-10-02 Letter to City Council -Item 17.pdf
See attached file.
Dale Helvig
Resident, Santa Ana
Dale Helvig
Resident, Santa Ana CA 92706
October 2, 2023
Mayor Amezcua and Santa Ana City Councilmembers
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza, 81" Floor
Santa Ana CA 92702
Subject: ITEM 17 — Adopt a Resolution To Deny Appeal Application No. 2023-06
Plumfield School has been serving preschool families for over 45 years in the Santa Ana/North Tustin
area! My two children attended this school back in the 90's at it remains near and dear to me. I can't
help but think that placing a gas station right next door will have an adverse effect on the school
operations but more importantly, the health of the children they serve.
City Council discussions earlier this year regarding crosswalks centered around the safety of the
children of Santa Ana. While different, the safety of the children is still a major concern. If this
project requires a regional, state, or federal permit to build the gas station (since it is well within 500
linear feet of a school) then it should raise a red flag to all of you.
A vote on Option 1 to adopt a resolution denying Appeal Application No. 2023-06 and upholding the
determination of the Planning Commission to deny modification to Conditional Use Permit No.
2019-41 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2023-03 is the right vote.
Protect the children of Santa Ana.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration. Stay safe, stay healthy.
Respectfully,
..
Dale A Helvig
Resident, Santa Ana
cc: Kristine Ridge, Steven Mendoza,
City Manager, Santa Ana Assist. City Manager, Santa Ana
Sonia Carvalho,
City Attorney, Santa Ana
Page 1 of 1
2023-10-02 Letter to City Council -Item 17
Alcala, Abigail
From: Kathleen Monge <
Sent: Monday, October 2, 2023 7:45 PM
To: eComment
Subject: Item #17-Deny the appeal
Dear City Council,
We are opposed to the proposed gas station at the corner of Tustin Ave and Santa Clara. This has already been
declined by the Planning Commission and we agree that this is too close to the Pre School in the next lot. Safety
to the children and their staff is a higher need than this business.
This business can also increase the panhandling and/or homeless individuals leading to more crime in the
area.
Thank you for your time.
Kathy and Joe Monge
Santa Ana 92705
Alcala, Abigail
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
To Whom it May Concern,
Candace Purvis <
Monday, October 2, 2023 8:26 PM
eComment
2230 N. Tustin Ave, Tustin, Ca 92705
I am reaching out to express my deep concerns about the proposed gas station near our children's school. Having a gas
station in such close proximity poses serious safety risks that must be addressed. The potential hazards of storing and
dispensing flammable materials in the vicinity of a school are alarming. Accidents, fuel leakage, fires, or explosions could
have devastating consequences for our children and the entire community. Furthermore, the increased traffic from the
gas station would exacerbate the already congested dropToff and pickTup areas, jeopardizing the safety of our children.
I implore you to reconsider the location and thoroughly evaluate the potential risks associated with this proposal. Our
children's safety should always be our top priority, and we must take proactive measures to protect them from
unnecessary dangers. I urge you to prioritize the wellbeing of the school community and its neighborhood when making
decisions that affect our children's lives.
Thank you for your immediate attention to this urgent matter.
Best Regards,
Candace Purvis
Alcala, Abigail
From: KT Zeich <
Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 7:43 AM
To: eComment
Subject: Agenda Item #17 - 2230 N. Tustin Ave.
Members of the Santa Ana City Council,
I am writing to ask for your support in upholding the June 26, 2023 City Planning Commission to deny the
modification to CUP 2019-41 and CUP 2023-03. Plumfield School has been providing preschool and
kindergarten to the families of Santa Ana for over 50 years. It is very concerning to me that these children and
their families, as well as the residents in the surrounding area, will have their health and safety jeopardized by
this development.
The CUP is in an attempt to circumvent the city ordinance that prohibits the construction of businesses that emit
noxious fumes (i.e. gas stations) within 1000 feet of a school and residences. Plumfield School not only is
within 1000 feet, but they also share a property line. Are you willing to put the health and safety of children
over allowing this station to be built? This station would be the 6th station within a 1/2 mile radius. This does
not bring a new service or industry to our area.
Santa Ana has seen a drastic increase in the unhoused population. I know that Plumfield has already taken steps
to mitigate the problems with this population, but nothing eradicates it. However, a gas station and minimart
will only exasperate this issue.
While not the current concern, alcohol sales will be inevitable at the mini mart. Do we want alcohol being sold
next to a school?
Finally, the increase in traffic to the area is of significant concern. The plans call for a driveway to be within
150 feet of the intersection of Santa Clara and Tustin Avenues. We have seen this granted to Starbucks at the
same intersection. It congests traffic in an already dangerous situation. With the addition of gas pumps, this
could be catastrophic in the event of an accident.
I ask you to please consider these concerns when making your decision. Please keep in mind the health and
safety of all children and residents in the area.
Thank you,
Katie Zeich
Homeowner 92705 (within walking distance)
Alcala, Abigail
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
To Whom it May Concern:
Cheryl Harrington <
October 3, 2023 8:23 AM
eComment
Agenda Item #17 - 2230 N. Tustin Ave
I am writing this email in opposition to a gas station to be developed at the above -referenced address. I am a
concerned citizen/grandparent and wish to keep our area as safe as possible for our children and residents. There
is already a significant amount of gas stations in the surrounding area. The existing driveway on Santa Clara is
extremely close to the school driveway. In that the driveway is so close, major concerns are traffic especially when
taking and picking up children at school, notwithstanding the fact that kindergartners also attend. The potential
of accidents is a risk on any road but when young children are present one must act with a conscious
regard. Other concerns: the sale of alcohol, which is not needed in this vicinity as there are already
stores/markets that sell alcohol, emission issues and homelessness. We strive to keep our children safe and this
will only add to our worry/anxiety of keeping our children safe especially when drugs and mental issues can be
involved.
In my opinion, developers build to make money and create necessities for the public. I am not saying not to
build but have all the potential risks building next to a grammar school really been considered?
Please consider these concerns.
Sincerely,
Cheryl Harrington
Alcala, Abigail
From:
(null) (null) <
Sent:
Tuesday, October 3, 2023 8:38 AM
To:
eComment
Subject:
Item #17
To whom this may concern,
My intention of this email is to request the denial of the appeal of item #17. As a long time resident, I have seen the
increase of homeless individuals in the area. They take over the local parks and shopping centers, urinating and
defecating on public sidewalks/parking lots. Gas stations and Liquor stores appear to be the meeting/hangout area for
the local homeless population and we already have plenty gas stations in the area. The homeless population often are
mentally ill as well as intoxicated and become violent and unruly. Having the elderly as well as children in my
neighborhood (which is very close proximity of the proposed gas station), makes me very nervous to see what time of
decline of the area would come with building an additional gas station. Also, with the anticipation of more residents
purchasing electric vehicles, gas stations will be in less demand.
I appreciate your time regarding this matter,
S. Jaimerena
Alcala, Abigail
From: Reveles, Natalie <
Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 10:09 AM
To: eComment
Cc: Rudy Reveles Hernandez
Subject: Agenda Item #17 - 2230 N. Tustin Ave
Hello,
We are parents who have children who attend Plumfield Pre -School. We are reaching out about the upcoming hearing
tonight to discuss the possibility of approving a gas station to be built next to the school. We have many concerns and
want to make sure our voices are being heard to help protect our children. We are AGAINST having this gas station.
In our community we have 5 gas stations within a % mile so adding another gas station directly next to our children's
school does not make sense. In putting a gas station here, we will have a surge of traffic issues, homeless increase,
crime, and a concern for the sale of alcohol adjacent to our kid's school.
The gas station on 17th and Tustin Ave. (a 7-11) down the street already has major issues with homeless people over the
last few years and our concern is adding another gas station and mini market will increase the likelihood of additional
homeless being right next door to our children's school. As parents we want the safest school for our kids and our
community leaders should be fighting for our children as well. I cannot count how many times the gas station down the
street has a police presence dealing with crime and homeless issues. We have had to deal with mental illness in some of
the homeless in our neighborhood and as an adult it is scary enough, but now the possibility of it being right next door
to our kids is terrifying. We walk our kids to school every day and the thought of having to now navigate an issue of
increased homeless and crime right next to their school is wrong. We want a safe and wonderful community for our
kids. Adding this gas station takes away safety from our kids, when all we should be doing is fighting for our youth.
Another concern we have is the sale of alcohol and tobacco next to the school. This station would be within 500 feet of
the school and would increase people trying to park on campus if the lot is full or it is inconvenient to turn into the
lot. It would also run the risk of people smoking next door to our children in school which is NOT ok to the health and
well being of our kids. Selling alcohol next door to a school runs the risk of dealing with drunks, fights, and crime right
next door to our kids. When we have 5 gas stations already as well as supermarkets and liquor stores in the area, why
do we need another place for people to buy alcohol. Protect our kids!
We are also concerned around the health and safety of the kids with the fumes from the gas station. We are sure there
will be measures put in place to reduce the emissions of fumes, but the risk is not zero. How would you feel with your
child attending school next door to these fumes, are you ok with it? On top of that a mini mart will have multiple
deliveries taking place after hours, but who will manage this? How are our children being considered in these
decisions?
Our final concern we want to bring up is the traffic issues this gas station will cause along with the increased risk of
accidents. As I mentioned we walk our kids to school and with the increase in traffic as well as possibility of more
accidents, our kid's safety again is a concern.
We hope you take all our concerns into this meeting tonight and fight for our children as if they were your own. Our
kids deserve better and there are more options of what can be done with this land. As community leaders you should
be fighting for our kids and community.
Thank you -
Natalie Reveles & Rudy Reveles
Alcala, Abigail
From: Coral Kranz <
Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 10:20 AM
To: eComment
Subject: Agenda Item #17 - 2230 N. Tustin Av
To whom it may concern,
I am writing as a parent of a child at Plumfield Preschool who is extremly opposed to a gas station going into the vacant lot. There are
children ages 2-5 at that school and being directly next to a gas station is a threat to their safety for several reasons:
1. the traffic around that light already is horrible and adding a gas station serves as more car traffic while kids are playing outside and
parents are driving with children.
2. the 7/11 gas station just a street away already attracts a rather large population of people expereinceing homlessness and I
personally would not rather bring that population of individuals close to a school. Several times in leaving the parking lot of Plumfield
my child and I have had interactions with indivuduals from this population who are intoxicated and acting erratic resulting in my car
being spit on and a cup of an unknown liquid being thrown at the window where my son sits while waiting at the light.
3. Gas stations let off harmful fumes into the surrounding area and I do not believe our children need to be exposed to any more of it
than I am sure they already do.
Please consider mine and many other parent concerns in your decision and please uphold your orgininal decision to NOT allow a gas
station in that lot.
Thank you,
Coral Kranz
Sent from Yahoo Mail. Get the app
Alcala, Abigail
From: Arnie Grenfell <
Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 10:20 AM
To: eComment
Subject: Agenda Item #17 - 2230 N. Tustin Ave
Hello,
I'm a nearby Santa Ana homeowner writing to oppose the development of a gas station at the address 2230 N
Tustin Ave for the following reasons:
1. First, building yet another gas station would not meet the needs of the community. There are so many
available gas stations already within a short distance, in more commercialized areas, where they should be.
2. Gas stations have a 24-hour business model and would bring unwanted and possibly (likely) unsafe activity
to the area. The proposed site is in close proximity to homes and apartments and is adjacent to a
preschool/kindergarten, which would be negatively impacted by blocked traffic at the intersection, fuel
emissions, late night noise, attract unhoused population (as with all the existing gas stations nearby), possible
gas spills/leaks, among many other concerns.
3. Lastly, and most important to me personally, I have children enrolled in the adjacent preschool/kindergarten.
Many of my neighbors also currently have or have had children enrolled there. This school serves kids as young
as 2 years old. I worry about the safety and health impact of the aforementioned problems in having a gas
station directly next door. These small children are also Santa Ana residents, and their health and safety at such
a vulnerable time in their lives need to be taken into account in this decision.
The addition of Bad Bakers, Starbucks, etc. on the northeast corner of Santa Clara/Tustin has been great for the
community and we appreciate what has been done there. I also saw the news about the proposed Rove EV
charging station site, and recognized how forward -thinking that decision was. I have faith that our city leaders
have in mind the best interests for Santa Ana residents, and how plans for this one site tie into the future of the
city as a whole.
Thanks for taking the concerns of your residents into consideration.
Warm Regards,
Arnie Grenfell
Santa Ana Resident
Alcala, Abigail
From: Kim Cordoba <
Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 12:08 PM
To: eComment
Subject: Item #17 - 2230 N. Tustin Ave
Members of the Santa Ana City Council,
My name is Kim Cordoba and I am the owner and director of Plumfield School located at 2112 E. Santa Clara
Ave. I am also a managing member of Purvis Enterprises, LLC which owns the property. I am writing to you
today to ask for your support in upholding the City Planning Commission's 5-2 decision to deny modification to
CUP 2019-41 and CUP 2023-03 and deny appeal 42023-06.
I have owned and operated Plumfield since 2006, however, the school has been operating at this location since
the early 1970s. We have been providing high quality early education to thousands of Santa Ana and beyond
children for more than 50 years. Our facility shares a property line with the proposed development. We not only
fall within the current (expanded in June 2023) requirement of 1000' but well within the original (December
2022) 500' CUP requirement.
For those of you who do not have young children, you may not be aware of the current shortages of childcare
and private kindergartens. Over the last several years, we have seen an increased need for care while centers
have continued to close. High costs associated with staffing, facility management, as well as a decreasing work
population, have contributed to these factors. Yet, Plumfield has remained. We continue to help put these
children on the right path to education.
When asking parents what they look for in early childhood education, their first response is overwhelming
"some place safe and nurturing." We have been that resource! When asked if they would enroll their children in
a school next to a gas station, many families have resoundingly said no. They do not feel it is safe for their
children for a multitude of reasons. When asked to elaborate on a gas station specifically next to Plumfield their
responses include:
1. Noxious fumes: we are all concerned about the effects on these young children and their developing
respiratory systems. This extends to the staff.
2. Physical Safety: Tustin and Santa Clara is an already busy intersection that sees frequent accidents. Starbucks
brought in more congestion. A gas station will only complicate that. Couple that with the current application for
McDonald's to be constructed across the street (next to Del Taco and Stater Brothers) and it's a recipe for
disaster. While we do our absolute best to protect the children in our care, they are young children who can be
unpredictable. Our driveway lends itself to being a quick spot to U-Turn. Cars fly into the driveway when they
missed their turn or don't want to go further down the street to turn around. Now, consider what a gas station
and mini -mart will add. Cars that turn onto Santa Clara to enter the station will inevitably miss the driveway
(with it being less than 150' from the intersection) and see our U-shaped driveway and quick turn into it to go
back to the station. With young children coming through our parking lot, we fear for their safety. No amount of
"right turn only" signs will prevent this.
3. Increase in the unhoused population: A minimart is a haven for the unhoused. Take a quick drive to Tustin
and 17th where the 7-11 operates. There are many unhoused individuals there. I have personally witnessed them
consuming alcohol and more. It is not a station I frequent because I feel unsafe. Now put that next to a
preschool and kindergarten. We have already spent thousands of dollars to protect our property from being used
as a sleeping spot, bathroom, stealing electricity, and more. Recently we have had unstable people come to our
door in an attempt to gain access. The sale of alcohol increases this exponentially.
4. Alcohol sales: Alcohol can be purchased in 4 locations on this corner: Stater Brothers, liquor store next door
to to Stater Brothers, The Fling (Bar), and the Minimart (next to Starbucks). Adding a 5th point of sale, next to
a preschool is insanity.
5. Value Add: There is no value being added with a gas station. This market is currently oversaturated with gas
stations. There are 5 stations within 1/2 mile radius and another 4-5 if expanded to approximately 1 mile. How
does another station help bring additional services or money into the city? People that will use this station will
be taking away from sales at the nearby stations. It will not be bringing in new customers.
These are the concerns that are brought up by families of children enrolled. My own concerns as a business
owner are bit more involved.
I have been an upstanding business owner in Santa Ana for 17 years. I survived the economic impacts of
COVID (we closed for 2.5 months only to reopen and provide care for families in the midst of the pandemic so
that they could continue to work). I went from a full school to 25% capacity and had to rebuild. We continue to
provide excellent care for young children. However, the economic impact of a gas station could be devastating.
If we were forced to close our doors, 70 children would be without care. 95% of our families are dual working
parents. Are you willing to put these children's care and their parents (most of whom live in Santa Ana) ability
to work in jeopardy?
The City Planning Commission agreed that the construction of a gas station would be detrimental to the health,
safety, and welfare of the children in our care as well as the people residing in the adjacent neighborhoods.
They further felt that it would have a negative economic impact on surrounding businesses and future economic
development. Finally, they felt that a fueling station next to a childcare facility and kindergarten, including
secondary impacts from fueling operations and fuel and convenience store deliveries will create noise and
vibration impacts on surrounding properties, primarily Plumfield School.
I ask you to please consider these findings along with the statements from current and former Plumfield
Families when making your decision.
Thank you in advance for putting the health and safety of Santa Ana's children first in my request to deny the
applicant's appeal.
Best Regards,
Kim Cordoba
Kim Cordoba
Owner/Director
Plumfield Pre -School & Kindergarten
Alcala, Abigail
From: Elena <
Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 12:47 PM
To: eComment
Subject: **ITEM#17 SA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 10/3/23
Good Afternoon Council Members,
I am writing to request your support with a DENIAL for the applicants appeal to build a 9 pump gas station and
mini mart. This gas station would be located at the Southwest corner of Tustin Ave at Santa Clara right next to
Plumfield Preschool. The health and safety concerns to the children attending the school are great. The children
would be exposed to gas fumes and exhaust fumes not to mention dangers of a fire or explosion. Residents in
and around would also be affected. My health and that of my little one.
With it would also bring more addicts and homeless with mental health issues which congregate in and around.
There is open drug use and homeless that congregate at the gas station on Tustin and 17th. This is the same
issue at the gas stations on Tustin Ave and 4th Street. You look in and around the gas stations and the freeways
there is open drug use and people passed out on the sidewalks.
There is another gas station located a couple of blocks away on Tustin and Fairhaven.
I have been a resident of the area for 18 years. I can no longer walk in the area due to safety concerns. The last
thing we need is another gas station bringing more crime and safety concerns. Please consider denying their
request.
Respectfully,
Maria E Orta
Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS
Alcala, Abigail
From: Florendo, Courtney <
Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 1:29 PM
To: eComment
Cc:
Subject: Agenda Item - #17-2230 N. Tustin Ave
Importance: High
To whom it may concern,
My child is a student at Plumfield Preschool & Kindergarten located adjacent to the empty lot on the corner of Santa
Clara and Tustin Avenue. I am aware that the conditional use permit to develop a new gas station at that location was
denied at the last Planning Commission and was grateful to learn so. I am also aware, unfortunately the developer has
appealed this decision. Although not at all opposed to the development of the vacant lot, there are many reasons as to
why I personally oppose the use of the vacant lot to be used to develop a gas station. First and foremost is the use,
emissions, and storage of potentially hazardous materials in such close proximity (500 feet) to not only my child while at
school but all the children and staff members at Plumfield School. Putting our children and the staff members in
unnecessary health risk situations just doesn't seem worth it for any business and or city. If I am not mistaken there are
regulations put in place not that long ago to avoid these types of risks so I am hopeful that the Planning Commission will
uphold those requirements and regulations. My second concern is there are 5 other gas stations within approximately
1/2 mile of the proposed site for the new gas station; I personally do not feel this location in the city is in need of
another, especially with the risks it poses small and large. My last concern is with regard to the transient traffic that is
already a concern in the nearby areas of the school. Gas stations tend to welcome transient citizens for restroom use
and alcohol/concessions. The transient population is already one of concern in and around the area that I see every
morning during drop off and would prefer that we develop the area with something other than another establishment
that is one not needed, and two will welcome such a population that is already an ongoing issue.
I appreciate the opportunity to voice my concerns to the Planning Commission and do hope that they reconsider when
reviewing the appeal of the developer. The original decision to deny their request is one of reason and safety for the
community and our children which is always appreciated!
Thank you for your time.
Thank you,
FL&r&K4 o-
Manager, Resource and Materials
HOI-Perioperative Business Services
Hoag Orthopedic Institute
Alcala, Abigail
From: Mike Ayaz <
Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 2:55 PM
To: eComment
Cc: Cruz, Yesenia; Pezeshkpour, Ali; Gomez, Pedro; Santana, Cristian; Karen Adraneda
Subject: Appeal Application No. 2023-06 2230 N. Tustin Avenue
Attachments: Exhibit 1 - CUP No. 2019-41-MOD-1 Resolution Draft - Final.pdf, Exhibit 2 - CUP No.
2023-3-NOX Resolution - Draft.pdf
Honorable City Council:
While previously provided to staff, we are attaching the only version of conditions that would allow, if approved, the
proposed gas station to operate. The conditions previously placed resolution of approval prepared by staff must be
completely removed/deleted or would be paramount to an outright denial as inclusions would make operations
impossible. This was confirmed through further deliberation and communications with the refineries and suppliers,
who were provided the specific conditions at issue and who confirmed that such conditions be completely eradicated
from any approval and/or resolution as inclusion would make it impossible to operate the proposed use. We cannot
dictate nor will refineries or suppliers agree to deliver gasoline within a specified time window as it would be both
practically and logistically impossible.
Other than the conditions which are redlined and deleted in the attached, the appellant agrees to all other conditions.
Again, any condition that will require delivery of gas or other goods to be within a specified a and limited time
frame shall render operations impossible and thus inclusion of the same would be the paramount and treated as if the
project was denied.
Please print copies of this email and the attached modified conditions supplied by the appellant for City Council
members to include in their file and review prior to tonight's hearing.
Very truly yours,
F. Michael Ayaz
bBLAKE G AYAZ
2107 N. Broadway, Suite 106 I Santa Ana, California 92706
P: I F:
E:
SERVICE OF PROCESS OR DOCUMENTS: Notice is hereby given that the transmittal of legal or other documents via email is
not recognized as proper or legal service unless there is prior written approval.
CONFIDENTIALITYNOTICE: This e-mail (including any attachments) is intended for the sole use of the individual or entity to
whom it is addressed and may contain information that is private, confidential, or protected by attorney -client or other privilege. Any
dissemination, distribution, copying, or taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this transmission, by someone other than the
intended addressee or its authorized agent is strictly prohibited. If you received this e-mail in error, please delete it from your system
without copying it and notify Blake & Ayaz, A Law Corporation, by reply e-mail, or telephone at (714) 667-7171 so that our records
can be corrected. Thank you.
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-XXX
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA APPROVING A
MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO. 2019-19 (NO. 2019-41-MOD-1) AS
CONDITIONED TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION
OF A SERVICE STATION IN THE ARTERIAL
COMMERCIAL (C5) ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2230 NORTH TUSTIN
AVENUE
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA
ANA AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds,
determines and declares as follows:
A. Fred Cohen with CJC Design, Inc., on behalf of Farz, Inc. (Applicant) and
Heinecke Gould Properties, LLC (Property Owner), is requesting approval
of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Modification to facilitate the construction of
a new service station and convenience store located at 2230 North Tustin
Avenue.
B. Santa Ana Municipal Code ("SAMC") Section 41-424.5(f) requires approval
of a CUP for service stations within the Arterial Commercial (C5) zoning
district.
C. On May 26, 2020, the City of Santa Ana Planning Commission held a public
hearing for the proposal of a new service station on the subject site. The
Planning Commission unanimously approved CUP No. 2019-41 and
Variance No. 2019-05 to allow the construction of a new service station on
the subject site.
D. The applicant is proposing modifications to the original CUP 2019-41
entitlement to allow construction of a new single -story, 2,150-square-foot
commercial building, containing a convenience store, as well as a 2,880-
square-foot fueling canopy with six fueling stations.
E. Pursuant to SAMC Section 41-638, the Planning Commission is authorized
to review and approve the CUP for this project as set forth by the SAMC.
F. On June 26, 2023, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing for CUP No. 2019-41-MOD-1.
G. The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana has considered the
information and determines that the following findings, which must be
Resolution No. 2023-XXX
Page 1 of 11
established in order to grant CUP No. 2019-41-MOD-1, for a service station,
have been established as required by SAMC Section 41-638:
1. That the proposed use will provide a service or facility which will
contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or community.
The proposed service station and convenience store will
provide a service to persons that are working or residing in the
area. The project will redevelop a vacant lot with a new building
and enhanced landscaping, which will contribute to the overall
aesthetics of the area. This will benefit the community by
allowing the construction of an additional service use and retail
building on a vacant lot that will provide additional conveniences
for residents, visitors, and employees in the vicinity.
2. 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.
The proposed site plan has been designed to not be detrimental
to the health, safety or welfare of those residing or working in
the vicinity. The fueling canopy is proposed along the
northeastern end of the site to distance it from sensitive land
uses to the west. Additionally, the location of the convenience
store adjacent to the western property acts as a physical barrier
between nearby sensitive land uses and the fueling canopy.
The closest residential land use is approximately 120 feet to the
west of the site. The service station will utilize the latest
technology related to the use to ensure safe operations of the
service station. The site will propose high -quality architecture
utilizing a combination of exterior materials and treatments to
remain aesthetically harmonious with the surrounding area.
Due to the site's location near sensitive land uses, such as the
adjacent child care facility and residential zones, conditions of
approval have been included to mitigate any effects from
vehicle idling, outdoor displays, onsite lighting, noise, vehicle
maintenance, and the installation of temporary equipment. The
service station will meet all emissions and air -quality
requirements. Finally, the Applicant is not proposing to operate
past 12.00 a.m. (midnight) in order to prevent any noise impacts
on the sensitive residential land uses.
3. That the proposed use will not adversely affect the present economic
stability or future economic development of properties surrounding the
area.
The service station will not adversely affect the economic
stability or future economic development of properties in the
surrounding area. The service station will replace an existing
Resolution No. 2023-XXX
Page 2 of 11
vacant lot and contribute to the existing local economy by
providing a commercial service to residents and visitors, as
well as generate added sales tax revenue for the City.
4. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions
specified in Chapter 41 for such use.
The proposed use complies with the regulations and conditions
in Chapter 41 including building heights, yards, parking and
landscaping. A condition of approval has been added to the
conditional use permit for a property maintenance agreement to
be recorded against the property, which will ensure that the
property and all improvements are properly maintained.
Additionally, the development will also meet sustainability
measures pursuant to the California Green Code, such as
providing solar photovoltaic panels on the roof and electric
vehicle charging stations.
5. 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.
The granting of CUP No. 2019-41-MOD-1 supports and is
consistent with several goals and policies contained in the
General Plan. Specifically, the application would be consistent
with Goals 2, 3, 4 of the Land Use Element ("LU"); Goals 1 and
3 of the Economic Prosperity Element ("EU"); Goal 4 of the
Mobility Element ("M"); Goal 1 of the Conservation Element
("CN"); and Goal 2 of the Safety Element ("S"). The project is
located within the General Commercial (GC) land use
designation, which allows for highly visible and accessible
shopping opportunities along arterial corridors and supports the
development and continued operation of recreational, cultural,
entertainment, employment, and educational opportunities near
established residential neighborhoods.
Goal 2 of the LU Element encourages a balance of land uses
that meet Santa Ana's diverse needs. The project contributes
to Goal 2 of the LU Element by providing additional services to
Santa Ana residents and visitors, thereby positively contributing
to the economic viability of the area by promoting local
spending, offering employment opportunities, and providing a
safe workplace. In addition, the applicant is making an
investment to rehabilitate the site to allow for a safe and
attractive establishment by improving the circulation
throughout.
Goal 3 encourages the preservation and improvement of the
character and integrity of the existing neighborhoods and
districts. The proposed improvements address Goal 3 of the LU
Resolution No. 2023-XXX
Page 3 of 11
Element by preserving the character of the existing commercial
area. The scale and massing of the addition is proposed to be
compatible and will maintain the current architectural style,
which includes an earth tone color palette, stone veneer,
smooth stucco finishes, canopies and trim. The project provides
a harmonious development and keeps all four corners of the
intersection harmonious aesthetically, promoting a clean and
safe environment.
Goal 4 supports a sustainable Santa Ana through
improvements to the built environment and a culture of
collaboration. The proposed project supports Goal 4 of the LU
by supporting a sustainable community by ensuring the project
has been designed and conditioned to minimize impacts onto
surrounding properties. The project will support sustainable
improvements to the built environment and encourage land use
strategies that reduce the operation impacts of the commercial
site. The reconfiguration of the site will additionally contribute to
improved living conditions and a healthier environment for the
surrounding area by developing the site in a responsible
manner.
Goal 1 of the EU Element promotes the fostering of a dynamic
local economy that provides and create employment
opportunities for all residents in the City while Goal 3 of the EU
Element encourages a business -friendly environment where
businesses thrive and build on Santa Ana's strengths and
opportunities. The proposed project will support Goals 1 and 3
of the EU and will help the applicant to enhance their business
offerings and compete with nearby service stations that offer
similar services. Moreover, by working on an improved site
design with the applicant, staff ensured that that project
provided a high level of community investment for residents,
workers, and visitors in the area.
Goal 4 of the M Element coordinates transportation planning
efforts with land use and design strategies that encourage
sustainable development and achieve broader community
goals. Goal 1 of the CN Element supports the protection of air
resources, improve regional and local air quality, and minimize
the impacts of climate change. Goal 2 of the S Element supports
the protection of residents and environmental resources from
contaminated hazardous material sites and minimize risks
associated with the use, production, storage, transport, and
disposal of hazardous materials. The proposed project will
support Goal 4 of the M Element, Goal 1 of the CN Element,
and Goal 2 of the S Element by utilizing land use, design, and
sustainable strategies to protect environmental resources and
Resolution No. 2023-XXX
Page 4 of 11
residents. The proposed site configuration contributes to
protection of local air quality and minimizes environmental
impacts associated with the business.
Section 2. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the
CEQA Guidelines, the project is exempt from further review pursuant to Section 15303 of
the CEQA Guidelines (Class 3 — New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures).
This exemption applies to the construction of small structures, which, in urbanized areas,
applies to up to four commercial buildings not exceeding 10,000 square feet in floor area
on sites zoned for such use if not involving the use of significant amounts of hazardous
substances, where all necessary public services and facilities are available, and the
surrounding area is not environmentally sensitive. The proposed structures total less than
10,000 square feet and will be served by all necessary utilities. The project site's location
does not include any environmental features indicating that it is sensitive. As such, a
Notice of Exemption, Environmental Review No. 2017-83, will be filed for this project.
Section 3. CUP-2019-41-MOD-1 shall not be effective until the City of Santa Ana
Planning Commission reviews and approves CUP No. 2023-3. If said approvals are held to
be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, or
otherwise denied, then this conditional use permit shall be null and void and have no further
force and effect.
Section 4. The Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold the City and/or
any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, authorized
volunteers, and instrumentalities thereof, harmless from any and all claims, demands,
lawsuits, writs of mandamus, referendum, and other proceedings (whether legal,
equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute
resolution procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and such
other procedures), judgments, orders, and decisions (collectively "Actions"), brought
against the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments,
agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set
aside, void, or annul, any action of, or any permit or approval issued by the City and/or
any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City) for or
concerning the project, whether such Actions are brought under the Ralph M. Brown Act,
California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning and Zoning Law, the Subdivision Map
Act, Code of Civil Procedure sections 1085 or 1094.5, or any other federal, state or local
constitution, statute, law, ordinance, charter, rule, regulation, or any decision of a court of
competent jurisdiction. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve
the legal counsel providing the City's defense, and that Applicant shall reimburse the City
for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the course of
the defense. City shall promptly notify the Applicant of any Action brought and City shall
cooperate with Applicant in the defense of the Action.
Section 5. The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana after conducting
the public hearing hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-41-MOD-1, as
conditioned in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein, for the project located
at 2230 North Tustin Avenue. This decision is based upon the evidence submitted at the
Resolution No. 2023-XXX
Page 5 of 11
above said hearing, which includes, but is not limited to: the Request for Planning
Commission Action dated June 26, 2023, and exhibits attached thereto. and the public
testimony, written and oral, all of which are incorporated herein by this reference.
ADOPTED this 26t" day of June 2023 by the following vote.
AYES: Commissioners:
NOES: Commissioners:
ABSENT: Commissioners:
ABSTENTIONS: Commissioners:
Bao Pham
Chairperson
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney
By:
-6L
John M. Funk
Chief Assistant City Attorney
CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY
I, Nuvia Ocampo, Recording Secretary, do hereby attest to and certify the attached
Resolution No. 2023-XXX to be the original resolution adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Santa Ana on June 26, 2023.
Date:
Nuvia Ocampo
Recording Secretary
City of Santa Ana
Resolution No. 2023-XXX
Page 6 of 11
EXHIBIT A
Conditions of Approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 2023-03
Conditional Use Permit No. 2023-03 for a noxious use is approved subject to
compliance, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Manager, with applicable
sections of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, the California Administrative Code, the
California Building Standards Code, and all other applicable regulations.
The Applicant must remain in compliance with all conditions listed below throughout the
life of the conditional use permit. Failure to comply with each and every condition may
result in the revocation of the conditional use permit.
1. All proposed site improvements must conform to the Development Project
Review (DP No. 2021-29) and the staff report exhibits.
2. Any amendment to this conditional use permit must be submitted to the
Planning Division for review. At that time, staff will determine if
administrative relief is available or the conditional use permit must be
amended.
3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a landscape and irrigation plan
shall be submitted for review and approval. The landscape plan shall
conform to the commercial landscape standards, Citywide Design
Guidelines and the City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. The
landscape plans shall note construction of a minimum seven (7) foot
tall perimeter wall along the west and southern property lines, except
where prohibited by driveways and required landscape setbacks, and
shall be coated with anti -graffiti coating. The landscape plan shall
include the installation of vines throughout the perimeter walls and
portions of the main building's exterior with solid voids and no fenestrations.
4. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, signs must be installed
at both driveway exits to indicate "Right Turn Only".
5. Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy, signs shall be installed,
following separate Planning Division review and approval, stating that truck
drivers shall limit idling of diesel -powered vehicles to less than five
minutes in accordance with Title 13 — Section 2485 of the California
Code of Regulations.
6. The hours of operation for the convenience store and service
station, including fuel pumps, shall be limited to between 5.00 a.m. and
12.00 a.m.(midnight), seven days per week, unless extended by
approval of a separate conditional use permit.
7. Del .iveri.es.................... of ................... goods .................... , a.n.d..................... Service's ..................... re.lated.................... to ..................... item ..s.................... sold ...................... inside ................... the
......... ..... ....... .....store.....s.. al.....................................between..............a..................................................a.............,..................with,
convenmence .�holl not occur 10.00 p.m. and 7.00 o.m.,
fuel tiv ... .s................ ...............................................s.......... .............................................................................a.................................
fool delmverme.� Immmtod to the hour. botwoon 6.00 p.m. and 10.00 p.m.,
d.a.i.ly..° Resolution No. 2023-XXX
Page 8 of 12
8. The ........... a.i.r1water.......... m.aoh.i.ne........... m.ust.......... provide ............ ,a.a........... a.ute.m.at.i.c.......... shut ....off ........... component .......... to
cease.... operation ....when ....the ...service ...s.tat.io.n. i.no.1.ud.i.ng....the ...oenv.en.ienoe...store
anal.... fu.e.l....pu.M.ps............ i.s....not ....i.n....operation,
.
9. The location of the air/water station shall be placed in an area not
prominent to the street and shall be screened to the furthest extent
possible.
10. The Applicant shall be responsible for maintaining the premises free of
graffiti. All graffiti shall be removed within 48 hours of occurrence.
11. The cash register must be visible from the street at all times and shall not
be obstructed at any time by temporary or permanent signage.
12. Window displays and racks must be kept at a maximum height of three (3)
feet including merchandise and cannot obstruct the cashier's view to the
outside.
13. A timed -access cash controller or a money drop safe capable of easily
providing the cashier the ability to quickly deposit money into it must be
installed.
14. A silent armed robbery alarm shall be installed prior to issuance of a
certificate of occupancy.
15. There shall be no coin -operated games maintained on the premises at any
time.
16. No pay telephones shall be located on the premises.
17. "No Loitering/Trespass" signs/placards shall be posted in the parking lot
area. The posted signs must conform to Penal Code Section 602.
18. The Applicant shall provide a Closed Circuit Television System approved
by the Police Department and capable of viewing and recording events
inside the premises with a resolution which will clearly identify individuals
for later identification.
19. Clearly distinguishable height markers shall be installed on the inside door
jamb of all doors used by the public to access the store. Horizontal marks,
one -inch wide by three -inches long, in different colors, and in a contrasting
color to the background, shall be placed every six inches beginning at five
feet and ending at six feet six inches.
20. To minimize light intrusion, the use of exterior lighting shall be shielded
and/or directed away from adjacent properties.
21. The utilization of outdoor speakers or similar devices onsite are prohibited.
Resolution No. 2023-XXX
Page 9 of 12
[Request for Clarification] As with all modern gas stations, each pump
has a screen equipped with a small speaker in which news and
advertisements are played. Sound is designed i be audibleonly to
the patron using the specific pump. Please clarify the conditions as
drafted does i prohibit i i `!;.
22. The use shall be conducted, at all times, in a manner that will allow the
quiet enjoyment of the surrounding neighborhood. The Applicant and/or
business owner shall institute appropriate security and operational
measures necessary to comply with this requirement.
23. At all times, the contact information for a responsible party such as an onsite
manager or property manager shall be posted in a prominent location. The
minimum information in the posting shall include the individual's name, title,
phone number, and email address, to report any onsite issues 24 hours per
day, seven days per week.
24. A copy of the conditions of approval shall be kept on premises and
presented to any authorized City official upon request.
25. The sale of alcoholic beverages shall be prohibited, unless extended by
approval of a separate conditional use permit.
26. The outdoor storage or display of boxes, equipment, materials,
merchandise, and other similar items shall be prohibited.
27. The outdoor storage, sale, or display of natural or propane gas tanks shall
be prohibited.
28. The installation of temporary mechanical equipment, tarps, or similar
structures shall be reviewed by the Planning Division.
29. The performance of vehicle maintenance such as but not limited to;
replacement of belts, hoses, shock absorbers, oil and air filters, chassis
lubrication, air conditioning servicing, wheel alignments, replacement of
brake pads, and engine tune-ups or other minor repairs shall be prohibited.
30. Truck drivers shall limit idling of diesel -powered vehicles to less than five
minutes in accordance with Title 13 — Section 2485 of the California Code
of Regulations.
32. To the extent feasible, the applicant shall install a vapor processor to
manage the pressure of the vapor in a gasoline storage tank to prevent
overpressure issues and reduce breathing emissions from the pressure/vent
valve. The vapor processors shall be certified by the California Air
Resources Board (CARB).
33. To the extent feasible, the applicant shall utilize cleanest possible equipment
during construction (e.g., all construction equipment must meet or exceed
CARB-certification standards).
Resolution No. 2023-XXX
Page 10 of 12
t4. The applicant shalil be required to conduct periodiic reviews of --
operations, to identify opportunities to upgrade or phase out older
equipment.
4,�5. A Property Maintenance Agreement must be recorded agar nist th%
property prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The agireement
wilil be subject to review and applicability by the Plainning and Building
Agency, the Community Development Agency, the Puiblic Works Agency,
and the City Attorney to ensure that the prop�eirty and alil improvements
located thereupon are properly maintained, Developer (and the owner of
the property upon which the authorized use and/or authorized
improvements are located if different from the Applicant) shall execute a
maintenance agreement with the City of Santa Ana which shall be
recorded against the property and which shall be in a form reasonably
satisfactory to the City Attorney. The maintenance agreement shall
contain covenants, conditions and restrictions relating to the following:
(a) Compliance with operational conditions ap�pliicable during any
period(s) of construction or major repair (e.g., proper screening and
z,ecuiriinig of the construction site', implementation of proper eirosion
control, dust control and noise mitigation measuire; adherence to
?,pproved project phasing etc.).
(b) Compliance with ongoing operational coniditioinis, requirements,
2ndi restrictions, as applicable (including but not Himited to hours of
*peration, security requireme�nts,, the proper storage and disposal
tf trash and debris, enforcement of the parking management plan,
.?.ndi/or restrictions on ceitain uses,
(c) Ongoing compliance with approved design and constructli
parameters, signage parameters, and restrictions as well
landscape designs, as applicable.
(d) Ongoing imaiintenanice, repair and upkeep of the property and all
improvements located t�heireupon (including but not Ilimited to
controls on the piroliferafion of trash and debris about the property,,
the proper and timely removal of graffiti, the timely maintenance,
repair aind upkeep of damaged, vandalized and/or weathered
builidiings, structures and/or improvements; the timely maintenance,
repair and uipkeep of exterior paint, pali stripling, lighting and
irrigation fixtures, walls and fencing, publicly accessible bathrooms
andi bathroom fixtures, laindscapingi and related landscape
improvements and the like, as appflcable).
(e) If Developer and the owner of the property are different (e.g., if
the Applicant is a teinaint or licensee of the property or any portion
thereof), both the Applicant and the owner of the property shall be
slignatorres to the maintenance agreement and both shall be jointly
andi s,everalily liable for compliance with its t�erms.
(f) The maintenance agreement shall further provide that any
party responsible for complying with its terms shall not assign its
ownership interest in the property or any interest in any
lease,sublease, license or sublicense, unless the prospective
assignee agrees in writing to assume all of the duties, obligations
and responsibilities set forth under maintenance agreement.
(g) The maintenance agreement shall contain provisions relating
to the enforcement of its conditions by the City and shall also
contain provisions authorizing the City to recover costs and
expenses which the City may incur arising out of any
enforcement and/or remediation efforts which the City may
undertake in order to cure any deficiency in maintenance, repair
or upkeep or to enforce any restrictions or conditions upon the
use of the property. The maintenance agreement shall
further provide that any unreimbursed costs and/or
expenses incurred by the City to cure a deficiency in
maintenance or to enforce use restrictions shall become a
lien upon the property in an amount equivalent to the actual
costs and/or expense incurred by the City.
(h) The execution and recordation of the maintenance
agreement shall be a condition precedent to the issuance of final
approval for any construction permit related to this entitlement.
Resolution No. 2023-XXX
Page 12 of 12
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-XXX
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF SANTA ANA APPROVING CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT NO. 2023-03 AS CONDITIONED TO ALLOW A
LAND USE THAT REQUIRES A REGIONAL, STATE, OR
FEDERAL PERMIT TO HANDLE, STORE, EMIT OR
DISCHARGE REGULATED COMPOUNDS, MATERIALS,
CHEMICALS, OR SUBSTANCES WITHIN 500 LINEAR FEET
OF A PUBLIC PARK, SCHOOL (K-12), OR RESIDENTIAL
ZONE IN THE ARTERIAL COMMERCIAL (C5) ZONING
DISTRICT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2230
NORTH TUSTIN AVENUE
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
SANTA ANA AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds,
determines and declares as follows:
A. Fred Cohen with CJC Design, Inc., on behalf of Farz, Inc. ("Applicant") and
Heinecke Gould Properties, LLC (Property Owner), is requesting approval
of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 2023-03 as conditioned, to allow a
land use that requires a regional, state, or federal permit to handle, store,
emit or discharge regulated compounds, materials, chemicals, or
substances within 500 linear feet of a public park, school (k-12) or
residential zones in the Arterial Commercial (C5) zoning district at 2230
North Tustin Avenue.
B. Santa Ana Municipal Code ("SAMC") Section 41-199.4(a) requires a
conditional use permit for any use that requires a permit from a regional,
state, or federal agency to handle, store, emit or discharge regulated
compounds, materials, chemicals, or substances that is located within 500
linear feet of a public park, school (K-12) as defined in section 11362.768
of the Health and Safety Code, or property used or zoned for residential
purposes.
C. On May 26, 2020, the City of Santa Ana Planning Commission held a
public hearing for the proposal of a new service station on the subject site.
The Planning Commission unanimously approved CUP No. 2019-41 and
Variance No. 2019-05 to allow the construction of a new service station on
the subject site.
D. On December 20, 2022, the City Council adopted an ordinance to require
businesses requiring a regional, state, or federal permit to handle, store,
emit or discharge regulated compounds, materials, chemicals, or
substances within 500 linear feet of a public park, school (K-12), or
residential zones to obtain a conditional use permit.
Resolution No. 2023-XXX
Page 1 of 12
E. The applicant is proposing modifications to the original CUP 2019-41
entitlement to allow construction of a new single -story, 2,150-square-foot
commercial building, containing a convenience store, as well as a 2,880-
square-foot fueling canopy with six fueling stations.
F. Pursuant to SAMC Section 41-638, the Planning Commission is
authorized to review and approve CUP No. 2023-03 for this project as set
forth by the SAMC.
G. On June 26, 2023, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing for Conditional Use Permit No. 2023-03.
H. The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana has considered the
information and determines that the following findings, which must be
established in order to grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2023-03, for a
service station and noxious use as required by SAMC Section 41-638,
have been established:
1. That the proposed use will provide a service or facility which will
contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or
community.
The proposed service station and convenience store will
provide a service to persons that are working or residing in the
area. The project will redevelop a vacant lot with a new
building and enhanced landscaping, which will contribute to
the overall aesthetics of the area. This will benefit the
community by allowing the construction of an additional
service use and retail building on a vacant lot that will provide
additional conveniences for residents, visitors, and employees
in the vicinity. For context, the two nearest service stations in
Santa Ana are located approximately 0.45-miles to the north
(Fairhaven and Tustin avenues) and approximately 0.45-miles
to the south (Tustin Avenue and 17t" Street). A third service
station is located in the City of Tustin, adjacent to the State
Route 55 freeway, approximately 0.58-miles to the southeast.
2. 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.
The proposed site plan has been designed to not be
detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of those residing or
working in the vicinity. Moreover, the use has been
comprehensively evaluated pursuant to the City's zoning
ordinance and its noxious uses ordinance, and conditions of
approval have been placed to ensure that the use limits
impacts related to the following: toxic or noxious fumes;
hazardous discharges; glare; electromagnetic disturbances;
radiation; smoke; cinders; odors; dust or waste; undue noise
Resolution No. 2023-XXX
Page 2 of 12
or vibration; or other objectionable features that are
detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare, or
that are damaging to the physical environment, neighborhood
or community.
The fueling canopy is proposed along the northeastern end of
the site to distance it from sensitive land uses to the west,
reducing the impacts from the standard sources of emissions
at service stations (i.e., service station infrastructure and
vehicles visiting service stations). Additionally, the location of
the convenience store adjacent to the western property acts
as a physical barrier between nearby sensitive land uses and
the fueling canopy. The closest residential land use is
approximately 120 feet to the west of the site. Therefore, the
recurring and predictable sources of emissions would be
limited.
Additionally, the service station will utilize the latest technology
in full compliance with State laws designed to ensure safe
operations of the service station and minimization of emissions
of fumes. Conditions of approval has been placed to ensure a
reduction in loading and breathing emissions, due to fuel
tanker truck deliveries and due to excess pressure released
from the gas station vent pipe in the form of gasoline vapor
emissions. In addition, the applicant through conditions of
approval will be required to conduct periodic reviews of
operations to identify opportunities to upgrade or phase out
older equipment.
Due to the site's location near sensitive land uses such as the
adjacent child care facility and residential zones, additional
conditions of approval have been included to mitigate any
effects from vehicle idling, outdoor displays, onsite lighting,
noise, vehicle maintenance, and the installation of temporary
equipment. The service station will meet all emissions and air -
quality requirements set by the California Air Resources Board
(CARB). In addition, the site will propose high -quality
architecture utilizing a combination of exterior materials and
treatments to remain aesthetically harmonious with the
surrounding area. Finally, the Applicant is not proposing to
operate past 12.00 a.m. (midnight) in order to prevent any
noise impacts on the sensitive residential land uses. This
includes both the fuel pumps and the convenience store.
3. That the proposed use will not adversely affect the present economic
stability or future economic development of properties surrounding
the area.
Resolution No. 2023-XXX
Page 3 of 12
The service station will not adversely affect the economic
stability or future economic development of properties in the
surrounding area. The service station will replace an existing
vacant lot and contribute to the existing local economy by
providing a commercial service to residents and visitors, as
well as generate added sales tax revenue for the City. As
detailed in Finding No. 2 in this Resolution, the use has been
designed and conditions of approval have been added to the
Conditional Use Permit to ensure the project operates in a
manner that eliminates impacts onto surrounding properties
and sensitive receptors.
4. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and
conditions specified in Chapter 41 for such use.
The proposed use complies with the regulations and
conditions in Chapter 41 including building heights, yards,
parking and landscaping. A condition of approval has been
added to the conditional use permit for a property
maintenance agreement to be recorded against the property,
which will ensure that the property and all improvements are
properly maintained. Additionally, the development will also
meet sustainability measures pursuant to the California Green
Code, such as providing solar photovoltaic panels on the roof
and electric vehicle charging stations.
5. 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.
The granting of CUP No. 2023-03 supports and is consistent
with several goals and policies contained in the General
Plan. Specifically, the application would be consistent with
Goals 2, 3, 4 of the Land Use Element ("LU"); Goals 1 and 3
of the Economic Prosperity Element ("EU"); Goal 4 of the
Mobility Element ("M"); Goal 1 of the Conservation Element
("CN"); and Goal 2 of the Safety Element ("S"). The project is
located within the General Commercial (GC) land use
designation, which allows for highly visible and accessible
shopping opportunities along arterial corridors and supports
the development and continued operation of recreational,
cultural, entertainment, employment, and educational
opportunities near established residential neighborhoods.
Goal 2 of the LU Element encourages a balance of land
uses that meet Santa Ana's diverse needs. The project
contributes to Goal 2 of the LU Element by providing
additional services to Santa Ana residents and visitors,
thereby positively contributing to the economic viability of the
Resolution No. 2023-XXX
Page 4 of 12
area by promoting local spending, offering employment
opportunities, and providing a safe workplace. In addition,
the applicant is making an investment to rehabilitate the site
to allow for a safe and attractive establishment by improving
the circulation throughout.
Goal 3 encourages the preservation and improvement of the
character and integrity of the existing neighborhoods and
districts. The proposed improvements address Goal 3 of the
LU Element by preserving the character of the existing
commercial area. The scale and massing of the addition is
proposed to be compatible and will maintain the current
architectural style, which includes an earth tone color
palette, stone veneer, smooth stucco finishes, canopies and
trim. The project provides a harmonious development and
keeps all four corners of the intersection harmonious
aesthetically, promoting a clean and safe environment.
Goal 4 supports a sustainable Santa Ana through
improvements to the built environment and a culture of
collaboration. The proposed project supports Goal 4 of the
LU by supporting a sustainable community by ensuring the
project has been designed and conditioned to minimize
impacts onto surrounding properties. The project will support
sustainable improvements to the built environment and
encourage land use strategies that reduce the operation
impacts of the commercial site. The reconfiguration of the
site will additionally contribute to improved living conditions
and a healthier environment for the surrounding area by
developing the site in a responsible manner.
Goal 1 of the EU Element promotes the fostering of a
dynamic local economy that provides and create
employment opportunities for all residents in the City while
Goal 3 of the EU promotes a business -friendly environment
where businesses thrive and build on Santa Ana's strengths
and opportunities. The proposed project will support Goals 1
and 3 of the EU and will help the applicant to enhance their
business offerings and compete with nearby service stations
that offer similar services. Moreover, by working on an
improved site design with the applicant, staff ensured that
that project provided a high level of community investment
for residents, workers, and visitors in the area.
Goal 4 of the M Element coordinates transportation planning
efforts with land use and design strategies that encourage
sustainable development and achieve broader community
goals. Goal 1 of the CN Element supports the protection of
air resources, improve regional and local air quality, and
Resolution No. 2023-XXX
Page 5 of 12
minimize the impacts of climate change. Goal 2 of the S
Element supports the protection of residents and
environmental resources from contaminated hazardous
material sites and minimize risks associated with the use,
production, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous
materials. The proposed project will support Goal 4 of the M
Element, Goal 1 of the CN Element, and Goal 2 of the S
Element by utilizing land use, design, and sustainable
strategies to protect environmental resources and residents.
The proposed site configuration of the site contributes to
protection of local air quality and minimizes environmental
impacts associated with the business.
Section 2. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and
the CEQA Guidelines, the project is exempt from further review pursuant to Section
15303 of the CEQA Guidelines (Class 3 — New Construction or Conversion of Small
Structures). This exemption applies to the construction of small structures, which in
urbanized areas applies to up to four commercial buildings not exceeding 10,000
square feet in floor area on sites zoned for such use if not involving the use of
significant amounts of hazardous substances, where all necessary public services and
facilities are available, and the surrounding area is not environmentally sensitive. The
proposed structures total less than 10,000 square feet and will be served by all
necessary utilities. The project site's location does not include any environmental
features indicating that it is sensitive. As such, a Notice of Exemption, Environmental
Review No. 2017-83, will be filed for this project.
Section 3, CUP No. 2023-03 shall not be effective until the City of Santa Ana
Planning Commission reviews and approves CUP-2019-41-MOD-1. If said approvals are
held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction,
or otherwise denied, then this conditional use permit shall be null and void and have no
further force and effect.
Section 4. The Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold the City
and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies,
authorized volunteers, and instrumentalities thereof, harmless from any and all claims,
demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, referendum, and other proceedings (whether
legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative
dispute resolution procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and
such other procedures), judgments, orders, and decisions (collectively "Actions"),
brought against the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents,
departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to
modify, set aside, void, or annul, any action of, or any permit or approval issued by the
City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City) for or
concerning the project, whether such Actions are brought under the Ralph M. Brown
Act, California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning and Zoning Law, the Subdivision
Map Act, Code of Civil Procedure sections 1085 or 1094.5, or any other federal, state or
local constitution, statute, law, ordinance, charter, rule, regulation, or any decision of a
court of competent jurisdiction. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to
Resolution No. 2023-XXX
Page 6 of 12
approve, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld, the legal counsel providing
the City's defense, and that Applicant shall reimburse the City for any costs and
expenses directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the course of the defense.
City shall promptly notify the Applicant of any Action brought and City shall cooperate
with Applicant in the defense of the Action.
Section 5. The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana, after conducting
the public hearing, hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. 2023-03 as conditioned in
Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated as though fully set forth herein for the project
located at 2230 North Tustin Avenue. This decision is based upon the evidence submitted
at the above said hearing, which includes, but is not limited to: the Request for Planning
Commission Action dated June 26, 2023, and exhibits attached thereto; and the public
testimony, written and oral, all of which are incorporated herein by this reference.
ADOPTED this 26t" day of June, 2023 by the following vote.
AYES: Commissioners:
NOES: Commissioners:
ABSENT: Commissioners:
ABSTENTIONS: Commissioners:
Bao Pham
Chairperson
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney
By.
John M. Funk
Chief Assistant City Attorney
CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY
I, Nuvia Ocampo, Recording Secretary, do hereby attest to and certify the attached
Resolution No. 2023-XXX to be the original resolution adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Santa Ana on June 26, 2023.
Date:
Nuvia Ocampo
Recording Secretary
City of Santa Ana
Resolution No. 2023-XXX
Page 7 of 12
EXHIBIT A
Conditions of Approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 2023-03
Conditional Use Permit No. 2023-03 for a noxious use is approved subject to
compliance, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Manager, with applicable
sections of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, the California Administrative Code, the
California Building Standards Code, and all other applicable regulations.
The Applicant must remain in compliance with all conditions listed below throughout the
life of the conditional use permit. Failure to comply with each and every condition may
result in the revocation of the conditional use permit.
1. All proposed site improvements must conform to the Development Project
Review (DP No. 2021-29) and the staff report exhibits.
2. Any amendment to this conditional use permit must be submitted to the
Planning Division for review. At that time, staff will determine if
administrative relief is available or the conditional use permit must be
amended.
3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a landscape and irrigation plan
shall be submitted for review and approval. The landscape plan shall
conform to the commercial landscape standards, Citywide Design
Guidelines and the City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. The
landscape plans shall note construction of a minimum seven (7) foot
tall perimeter wall along the west and southern property lines, except
where prohibited by driveways and required landscape setbacks, and
shall be coated with anti -graffiti coating. The landscape plan shall
include the installation of vines throughout the perimeter walls and
portions of the main building's exterior with solid voids and no fenestrations.
4. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, signs must be installed
at both driveway exits to indicate "Right Turn Only".
5. Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy, signs shall be installed,
following separate Planning Division review and approval, stating that truck
drivers shall limit idling of diesel -powered vehicles to less than five
minutes in accordance with Title 13 — Section 2485 of the California
Code of Regulations.
6. The hours of operation for the convenience store and service
station, including fuel pumps, shall be limited to between 5.00 a.m. and
12.00 a.m.(midnight), seven days per week, unless extended by
approval of a separate conditional use permit.
7. Del .iveri.es.................... of ................... goods .................... , a.n.d..................... Service's ..................... re.lated.................... to ..................... item ..s.................... sold ...................... inside ................... the
......... ..... ....... .....store.....s.. al.....................................between..............a..................................................a.............,..................with,
convenmence .�holl not occur 10.00 p.m. and 7.00 o.m.,
fuel tiv ... .s................ ...............................................s.......... .............................................................................a.................................
fool delmverme.� Immmtod to the hour. botwoon 6.00 p.m. and 10.00 p.m.,
d.a.i.ly..° Resolution No. 2023-XXX
Page 8 of 12
8. The ........... a.i.r1water.......... m.aoh.i.ne........... m.ust.......... provide ............ ,a.a........... a.ute.m.at.i.c.......... shut ....off ........... component .......... to
cease.... operation ....when ....the ...service ...s.tat.io.n. i.no.1.ud.i.ng....the ...oenv.en.ienoe...store
anal.... fu.e.l....pu.M.ps............ i.s....not ....i.n....operation,
.
9. The location of the air/water station shall be placed in an area not
prominent to the street and shall be screened to the furthest extent
possible.
10. The Applicant shall be responsible for maintaining the premises free of
graffiti. All graffiti shall be removed within 48 hours of occurrence.
11. The cash register must be visible from the street at all times and shall not
be obstructed at any time by temporary or permanent signage.
12. Window displays and racks must be kept at a maximum height of three (3)
feet including merchandise and cannot obstruct the cashier's view to the
outside.
13. A timed -access cash controller or a money drop safe capable of easily
providing the cashier the ability to quickly deposit money into it must be
installed.
14. A silent armed robbery alarm shall be installed prior to issuance of a
certificate of occupancy.
15. There shall be no coin -operated games maintained on the premises at any
time.
16. No pay telephones shall be located on the premises.
17. "No Loitering/Trespass" signs/placards shall be posted in the parking lot
area. The posted signs must conform to Penal Code Section 602.
18. The Applicant shall provide a Closed Circuit Television System approved
by the Police Department and capable of viewing and recording events
inside the premises with a resolution which will clearly identify individuals
for later identification.
19. Clearly distinguishable height markers shall be installed on the inside door
jamb of all doors used by the public to access the store. Horizontal marks,
one -inch wide by three -inches long, in different colors, and in a contrasting
color to the background, shall be placed every six inches beginning at five
feet and ending at six feet six inches.
20. To minimize light intrusion, the use of exterior lighting shall be shielded
and/or directed away from adjacent properties.
21. The utilization of outdoor speakers or similar devices onsite are prohibited.
Resolution No. 2023-XXX
Page 9 of 12
[Request for Clarification] As with all modern gas stations, each pump
has a screen equipped with a small speaker in which news and
advertisements are played. Sound is designed i be audibleonly to
the patron using the specific pump. Please clarify the conditions as
drafted does i prohibit i i `!;.
22. The use shall be conducted, at all times, in a manner that will allow the
quiet enjoyment of the surrounding neighborhood. The Applicant and/or
business owner shall institute appropriate security and operational
measures necessary to comply with this requirement.
23. At all times, the contact information for a responsible party such as an onsite
manager or property manager shall be posted in a prominent location. The
minimum information in the posting shall include the individual's name, title,
phone number, and email address, to report any onsite issues 24 hours per
day, seven days per week.
24. A copy of the conditions of approval shall be kept on premises and
presented to any authorized City official upon request.
25. The sale of alcoholic beverages shall be prohibited, unless extended by
approval of a separate conditional use permit.
26. The outdoor storage or display of boxes, equipment, materials,
merchandise, and other similar items shall be prohibited.
27. The outdoor storage, sale, or display of natural or propane gas tanks shall
be prohibited.
28. The installation of temporary mechanical equipment, tarps, or similar
structures shall be reviewed by the Planning Division.
29. The performance of vehicle maintenance such as but not limited to;
replacement of belts, hoses, shock absorbers, oil and air filters, chassis
lubrication, air conditioning servicing, wheel alignments, replacement of
brake pads, and engine tune-ups or other minor repairs shall be prohibited.
30. Truck drivers shall limit idling of diesel -powered vehicles to less than five
minutes in accordance with Title 13 — Section 2485 of the California Code
of Regulations.
32. To the extent feasible, the applicant shall install a vapor processor to
manage the pressure of the vapor in a gasoline storage tank to prevent
overpressure issues and reduce breathing emissions from the pressure/vent
valve. The vapor processors shall be certified by the California Air
Resources Board (CARB).
33. To the extent feasible, the applicant shall utilize cleanest possible equipment
during construction (e.g., all construction equipment must meet or exceed
CARB-certification standards).
Resolution No. 2023-XXX
Page 10 of 12
t4. The applicant shalil be required to conduct periodiic reviews of --
operations, to identify opportunities to upgrade or phase out older
equipment.
4,�5. A Property Maintenance Agreement must be recorded agar nist th%
property prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The agireement
wilil be subject to review and applicability by the Plainning and Building
Agency, the Community Development Agency, the Puiblic Works Agency,
and the City Attorney to ensure that the prop�eirty and alil improvements
located thereupon are properly maintained, Developer (and the owner of
the property upon which the authorized use and/or authorized
improvements are located if different from the Applicant) shall execute a
maintenance agreement with the City of Santa Ana which shall be
recorded against the property and which shall be in a form reasonably
satisfactory to the City Attorney. The maintenance agreement shall
contain covenants, conditions and restrictions relating to the following:
(a) Compliance with operational conditions ap�pliicable during any
period(s) of construction or major repair (e.g., proper screening and
z,ecuiriinig of the construction site', implementation of proper eirosion
control, dust control and noise mitigation measuire; adherence to
?,pproved project phasing etc.).
(b) Compliance with ongoing operational coniditioinis, requirements,
2ndi restrictions, as applicable (including but not Himited to hours of
*peration, security requireme�nts,, the proper storage and disposal
tf trash and debris, enforcement of the parking management plan,
.?.ndi/or restrictions on ceitain uses,
(c) Ongoing compliance with approved design and constructli
parameters, signage parameters, and restrictions as well
landscape designs, as applicable.
(d) Ongoing imaiintenanice, repair and upkeep of the property and all
improvements located t�heireupon (including but not Ilimited to
controls on the piroliferafion of trash and debris about the property,,
the proper and timely removal of graffiti, the timely maintenance,
repair aind upkeep of damaged, vandalized and/or weathered
builidiings, structures and/or improvements; the timely maintenance,
repair and uipkeep of exterior paint, pali stripling, lighting and
irrigation fixtures, walls and fencing, publicly accessible bathrooms
andi bathroom fixtures, laindscapingi and related landscape
improvements and the like, as appflcable).
(e) If Developer and the owner of the property are different (e.g., if
the Applicant is a teinaint or licensee of the property or any portion
thereof), both the Applicant and the owner of the property shall be
slignatorres to the maintenance agreement and both shall be jointly
andi s,everalily liable for compliance with its t�erms.
(f) The maintenance agreement shall further provide that any
party responsible for complying with its terms shall not assign its
ownership interest in the property or any interest in any
lease,sublease, license or sublicense, unless the prospective
assignee agrees in writing to assume all of the duties, obligations
and responsibilities set forth under maintenance agreement.
(g) The maintenance agreement shall contain provisions relating
to the enforcement of its conditions by the City and shall also
contain provisions authorizing the City to recover costs and
expenses which the City may incur arising out of any
enforcement and/or remediation efforts which the City may
undertake in order to cure any deficiency in maintenance, repair
or upkeep or to enforce any restrictions or conditions upon the
use of the property. The maintenance agreement shall
further provide that any unreimbursed costs and/or
expenses incurred by the City to cure a deficiency in
maintenance or to enforce use restrictions shall become a
lien upon the property in an amount equivalent to the actual
costs and/or expense incurred by the City.
(h) The execution and recordation of the maintenance
agreement shall be a condition precedent to the issuance of final
approval for any construction permit related to this entitlement.
Resolution No. 2023-XXX
Page 12 of 12
Alcala, Abigail
From:
Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 3:01 PM
To: eComment
Subject: 2230 N. Tustin Avenue, Gas Station application ITEM 17
Dear Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers;
Regarding the application that will be before you this evening for another gas station and mini mart ........... I respectfully
ask you to decline this request. I know you have already received lots of detail as to the many, many reasons to
decline this request so I won't repeat other than to say DITTO.
Santa Ana needs to be about quality of life......... as for many years it wasn't ......... this is an opportunity to do what is right
by that neighborhood. And they have come out loud and clear they don't want it or need it. Please say NO, just like
your planning commission did!
Respectfully,
Tim Rush
Wilshire Square
Tim Rush
Chief People Connector
Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices California Properties
The Maple Building, Corporate Offices
Bellflower, CA 90706-5903
(
17 Branch Sales Offices, Serving 6 Southern California Counties
Cod;fr,lrni.'t pl°al. erlies
1
Alcala, Abigail
From: Maite Sbabo <m.sbabo@icloud.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 7, 2023 1:01 AM
To: eComment
Subject: Item#17 Deny the Appeal
Hello,
Save our children! The community does not need a gas station in this specific location. The vapors and storage of
gasoline adjacent to a children's day care is horrific. Please not here.
Maite Sbabo