HomeMy WebLinkAboutEmailed Comment from Steve Justus1
Gloria Harper
From:sjustus <sjustus@roadrunner.com>
Sent:Thursday, December 14, 2023 2:29 PM
To:Gloria Harper
Cc:Lisa Landau
Subject:Planning Commission hearing regarding CUP 23-4 and Variance 23-1 (beer and wine
sales at service station)
Ms. Harper,
I don’t reside in the neighborhood of College Park East, and am not fully aware of the neighborhood’s needs. However,
on its face the subject applicaƟons don’t appear to warrant approval based on applicable City Policy and Zoning
Code. Perhaps this neighborhood needs a Zoning Overlay or Special District to resolve discrepancies with City standards
if necessary to meet its needs, however otherwise I must object to the subject applicaƟons. Please make note of this
objecƟon for your file, and for consideraƟon of the Planning Commission as follows:
Despite recommendaƟons for approval cited in the Staff Report, these applicaƟons disregard important provisions of
City Policy and Zoning Code. Regardless of other instances menƟoned in the report where liquor is or can be sold within
100’ of residences or within 1000’ of parks/schools, convenience stores and service staƟons are treated in the City’s
standards uniquely different than other businesses that sell alcohol.
First, exisƟng non-conforming examples cited in the Staff Report may have been allowed before our current Policies and
Zoning Code guidance standards were adopted. The newer standards may have been adopted in order to prevent
future situaƟons of poor planning or community protest. In either case, non-conforming examples are improperly
compared with the subject applicaƟons, because new applicaƟons (such as these) are subject to exisƟng standards, not
old standards.
Second, the non-conforming examples may not be relevant in instances where a service sta Ɵon is involved, and if so
would therefore also be improperly compared.
Third, while service staƟons and convenience stores are allowed in some cases within current standards, they are
subject to numerous requirements such as those at issue in the subject CUP and Zoning variance requests. Accordingly,
any excepƟon or variance must be properly jusƟfied in light of the requirements. The requirements for distance to
residences and parks exceed the standards by a significant percentage that can’t be jus Ɵfied or miƟgated.
Finally, if City Policy and Zoning Code standards are allowed to be violated without reasonable jus ƟficaƟon, and with
excessive “stretching” of these standards, the City sets a precedent and tone of careless disregard for its governing
documents. Our General Plan and Zoning Code should be held to a high standard that leads with vision of a be Ʃer
community, not one that allows any variance or excepƟon.
Respecƞully submiƩed,
Steve Justus
Seal Beach