Item 17 - Appeal No. 2023-06 appealing Planning Commission denial of modification to CUP No. 2019-41 and CUP No. 2023-03 – New Service Station at 2230 N Tustin

Home Browse Search

City Response to Blake & Ayaz on behalf of Fred Cohen and Farzi Inc. LLC Appeal No. 2023-06 Comment 1: This comment states that the Planning Commission's decision does not support the findings required to deny a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Response 1: During the meeting, the Planning Commission verbally provided multiple findings as required by SAMC Section 41-638 to deny modification to CUP No. 2019-41 and CUP No. 2023-03. The findings presented by the commission include the following: The Planning Commission determined the proposed project was unable to support Finding No. 2 outlined in Section 41-638(a)(1)(ii) of the SAMC, 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 Planning Commission found that the proposed project could not definitively determine the environmental impact on the health of the surrounding community. Multiple General Plan goals and policies support this inability to make this finding. Goal 1 of the Conservation Element ("CN") supports the protection of air resources, improved regional and local air quality, and the reduced impacts of climate change. The proposed project will not improve local air quality as the regular operations of a service station are associated with the management of hazardous substances. Policy 1.5 of the Conservation Element encourages the study of impacts of stationary and non -stationary emission sources on existing and proposed sensitive uses, and opportunities to minimize health and safety risks as well as developing and adopting new regulations that avoid siting of facilities that potentially emit increased pollution near sensitive receptors within environmental justice area boundaries. The proposed project does not minimize health and safety risks that can contribute to increased pollution near sensitive receptors. The applicant did not submit any studies or additional information to evaluate potential impacts onto surrounding properties, including the adjacent child care facility. Technical studies such as a health risk assessment or air quality assessment were not provided with the application. Goal 2 of the Safety Element ("S") 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. Policy 2.4 of the Safety Element supports the identification of the hazardous materials and/or waste contamination prior to approval of new uses and require appropriate measures be taken to protect the health and safety of site users and the community. The proposed project will not take appropriate measures to protect the health and safety of the surrounding community. The project, including the proposed reconfiguration of the site, fails to contribute to a stronger protection of local air quality, minimizes environmental impacts associated with the business, and will be detrimental to the existing community. The Planning Commission determined the proposed project was unable to establish Finding No. 3 outlined in Section 41-638(a)(1)(iii) of the SAMC, that the proposed use will not adversely affect the present economic stability or future economic development of properties surrounding the area. The Planning Commission found that the proposed project would negatively impact the economic stability and future development of adjacent properties of the surrounding area. Specifically, the proposed project would impact the Exhibit 8 Page 1 of 4