Laserfiche WebLink
Ocampo, Nuvia <br />From: Carol Purvis <capurvis@cox.net> <br />Sent: Monday, June 26, 2023 3:22 PM <br />To: eComments, PBA <br />Subject: 2230 North Tustin Avenue <br />I am an owner, Purvis Enterprises, LLC, of the property adjacent to the proposed <br />development. My property is a Pre -School and Kindergarden which has been utilized for <br />this purpose since 1972. <br />While I am in no way opposed to the adjacent property being developed, I have serious <br />concerns about the gas station/mini market and the toxic fumes, traffic, and alcohol <br />being sold and/or consumed on the premises. <br />I am aware that the State of California requires a CUP for the development of any type <br />of business which emits (or has the ability to emit) toxic fumes within 500 feet of a <br />school. This property is adjacent to a school with young children who play in outside <br />play areas several hours a day. I cannot help but believe this is the exact situation that <br />this requirement was intended for. How is it that just 6 months after enacting this <br />requirement, the City is willing to issue a CUP to negate what was deemed as an <br />unhealthy situation? <br />While I realize that the City has attempted to improve traffic conditions by installing a <br />left turn light at the intersection of Tustin Ave and Santa Clara, with the addition of a <br />driveway within a few feet of the intersection and 2 additional driveways (into the Stater <br />Bros/Del Taco center and my property), already a congested intersection, I cannot <br />believe that this is not asking for traffic accidents and I have major concerns for the <br />safety of my families. Please also note that you are adding additional traffic to the area <br />with the proposed McDonalds' just across the street from my property. Have traffic <br />studies been done with the addition of a service station on the subject property? I do <br />not believe that when prior traffic studies were performed this project was a factor. <br />Lastly, the issue of a mini -mart -- I have experienced considerable disruptions due to <br />homeless people using my property at night. While I recognize and sympathize with the <br />homeless situation, private property should not be jeopardized by the City allowing <br />magnet type businesses. We all recognize that substance abuse is a major cause or <br />result of homelessness. We have taken all recommended steps to discourage the use of <br />our property by this group, having spent several thousand dollars on cameras, security <br />lighting, signage, etc. The development of a mini-market/service station is a <br />magnet for this, just look at the 7/11 at Tustin and 17th! There is a mini -mart on the <br />NE corner of Santa Clara and Tustin Ave, liquor is sold in the shopping center directly <br />across Santa Clara. Why would you authorize a mini market that sells alcohol adjacent <br />to a school? The State of California Liquor Licensing Board has always supported not <br />selling liquor or consuming liquor within 300 Feet of a school. While I realize the City of <br />Santa Ana does not issue the liquor license, this is just one more example of why the <br />CUP's being requested should be denied. <br />I <br />