Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA DISTRIBUTION -ITEM 10 0 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2012-10 Public Comments Received After Agenda Distribution Mark's Q_ qp 11 tAIM From: Jeff Gallagher <ocpd44@)gmeiicom> Sent: Tuesday, November 062Ol26S0AK4 To: City Clerk; City Clerk Subject Correction to Letter ufOpposition on [UP 2012-10 Attachments: Letter of Opposition to Wilcox K4enocpdf City Clerk, ("ONP, This is o corrected version ofthe letter previously aeu1 regarding the above issue. Please remove and destroy the previous letter and replace it with this one. Thank You, _ , Jeff "Hollywood" }{136SUP SF�. E-4 USAF '72-76 Honorably Discharged, Honored to Serve Past President, Chapter 555 American Legion Riders 714-206-6398 "If you can't annoy somebody with what you write, T think there's little point in writing." Ammis. British novelist, 1971 11%52012 Jeff Gallagher The Rockhouse 415 W. Main Street Tustin, California 92780 Tustin City Council 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 9278o Ladies and Gentlemen The purpose of this letter is to oppose the application for Conditional Use Permit 2012 -10. I live on Main Street in the vicinity of the Wilcox Manor and agree with other opposition letters that have been submitted to you in that parking and traffic will be adversely impacted by the granting of this permit. As it stands, the owners of the property currently do not have a plan to mitigate parking issues and blatantly lied to the planning commission at an October meeting when they said they had a lease agreement in place. In any case, any traffic mitigation plan put into place is likely to be unenforceable by the city and would adversely affect the entire Old Town residential area. The owners have circulated a letter to their supporters and on Facebook. A copy of that letter is in the current Agenda Packet you have for this issue. That letter brags that they do not need to comply with parking issues until after the CUP is granted. This statement and the unwarranted attacks on long time residents who oppose the application, demonstrates their utter disregard for their neighbors and exposes their real disregard for Old Town Tustin and its residents. Further, I believe the city erroneously listed the CUP application as being exempt from CEQA. Although the owners of Wilcox Manor have been holding large parties and events for years, to the chagrin of many of their neighbors, it is only the fact the events were "free" that kept them from having to obtain the necessary permits. Now that they wish to run a business venture in the heart of the Old Town residential area, the city's curt dismissal of CEQA is notable. CEQA was specifically instituted for this type of issue where neighborhoods could be adversely affected by noise, traffic and waste. Clearly, the frequent appearance of 200 party -goers and their vehicles will impact the area. The Community Development Department also listed rezoning as one option. Citing the varying zones on that side of Pasadena Street, they make it appear as though the re- zoning would be appropriate when it certainly would not. Looking at the zoning for that street, it is clear that much of the property is city owned for a well. By necessity, the property was rezoned. There is also a walking trail or park on that side of the street. None of this has to do with rezoning what is inarguably a residence to business in what is clearly a residential neighborhood. Further, should the city council decide to vote on this matter, I strongly suggest Mayor John Nielsen recuse himself from all discussions and votes on this issue. His wife, Erin Nielsen, is the Executive Director of the Tustin Community Foundation, an organization that receives funding from the city and that stands to directly benefit Jeff Gallagher from the continued use of Wilcox Manor for fundraising activities (McPherson and Demoratz have threatened to stop allowing the use of the property for fundraising if the CUP does not go through). Although there may be no legal conflict of interest, there is certainly an appearance of one. More than that, Nielsen is the direct recipient of campaign contributions from the Wilcox Manor Trust as well as the applicants themselves in a cumulative amount that, coupled with his free use of the Wilcox Manor for campaign activities, would certainly raise an issue with the Fair Political Practice Commission. And, though the city appears to have no campaign contribution limits or conflict of interest codes regarding this, there is still an appearance —if not a factual- conflict should the Mayor choose to vote on this matter. Finally, in considering this application, I also urge the city council to look past the large number of so- called supporters for this CUP. Most of them are not residents of the affected area. Many represent non - profit interests outside the city and some even come from outside of Orange County. A number of residents in the area have written to support the CUP. Just as many have voiced their opposition to the matter and they deserve equal or better consideration as it is their life and lifestyle that would be drastically affected. Please make this part of the public record as this matter goes before the Tustin City Council. I urge all members to deny this application and keep the integrity of Tustin's iconic Old Town intact. Respectfully, Jeff Gallagher The Rockhouse RM City Clerk From: Jeff Gallagher <ocpd44 @gmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 05, 2012 3:21 PM To: City Clerk Subject: Letter of Opposition to Proposed CUP 2012 -10 Attachments: Letter of Opposition to Wilcox Manor.pdf 0 Attached is a letter I wish to have made a formal part of the record for the subject matter. I would appreciate it being forwarded to the individual city council members as well as being made a part of the agenda packet. Regards, Jeff "Hollywood" Gallagher K136SUP Sgt. E -4 USAF '72 -'76 Honorably Discharged, Honored to Serve www.ourtowntustin.com 714- 206 -6398 "If you can't annoy somebody with what you write, I think there's little point in writing." Kingsley Amis, British novelist, 1971 NNINNAMINNEgaw 11/5/2012 Jeff Gallagher The Rockhouse 415 W. Main Street Tustin, California 92780 Tustin City Council 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92780 Ladies and Gentlemen The purpose of this letter is to oppose the application for Conditional Use Permit 2012 -10. I live on Main Street in the vicinity of the Wilcox Manor and agree with other opposition letters that have been submitted to you in that parking and traffic will be adversely impacted by the granting of this permit. As it stands, the owners of the property currently do not have a plan to mitigate parking issues and blatantly lied to the planning commission at an October meeting when they said they had a lease agreement in place. In any case, any traffic mitigation plan put into place is likely to be unenforceable by the city and would adversely affect the entire Old Town residential area. The owners have circulated a letter to their supporters and on Facebook. A copy of that letter is in the current Agenda Packet you have for this issue. That letter brags that they do not need to comply with parking issues until after the CUP is granted. This statement and the unwarranted attacks on long time residents who oppose the application, demonstrates their utter disregard for their neighbors and exposes their real disregard for Old Town Tustin and its residents. Further, I believe the city erroneously listed the CUP application as being exempt from CEQA. Although the owners of Wilcox Manor have been holding large parties and events for years, to the chagrin of many of their neighbors, it is only the fact the events were "free" that kept them from having to obtain the necessary permits. Now that they wish to run a business venture in the heart of the Old Town residential area, the city's curt dismissal of CEQA is notable. CEQA was specifically instituted for this type of issue where neighborhoods could be adversely affected by noise, traffic and waste. Clearly, the frequent appearance of 200 party -goers and their vehicles will impact the area. The Community Development Department also listed rezoning as one option. Citing the varying zones on that side of Myrtle Street, they make it appear as though the re- zoning would be appropriate when it certainly would not. Looking at the zoning for that street, it is clear that much of the property is city owned for a well. By necessity, the property was rezoned. There is also a walking trail or park on that side of the street. None of this has to do with rezoning what is inarguably a residence to business in what is clearly a residential neighborhood. Further, should the city council decide to vote on this matter, I strongly suggest Mayor John Nielsen recuse himself from all discussions and votes on this issue. His wife, Erin Nielsen, is the Executive Director of the Tustin Community Foundation, an organization that receives funding from the city and that stands to directly benefit Jeff Gallagher from the continued use of Wilcox Manor for fundraising activities (McPherson and Demoratz have threatened to stop allowing the use of the property for fundraising if the CUP does not go through). Although there may be no legal conflict of interest, there is certainly an appearance of one. More than that, Nielsen is the direct recipient of campaign contributions from the Wilcox Manor Trust as well as the applicants themselves in a cumulative amount that, coupled with his free use of the Wilcox Manor for campaign activities, would certainly raise an issue with the Fair Political Practice Commission. And, though the city appears to have no campaign contribution limits or conflict of interest codes regarding this, there is still an appearance —if not a factual- conflict should the Mayor choose to vote on this matter. Finally, in considering this application, I also urge the city council to look past the large number of so- called supporters for this CUP. Most of them are not residents of the affected area. Many represent non - profit interests outside the city and some even come from outside of Orange County. A number of residents in the area have written to support the CUP. Just as many have voiced their opposition to the matter and they deserve equal or better consideration as it is their life and lifestyle that would be drastically affected. Please make this part of the public record as this matter goes before the Tustin City Council. I urge all members to deny this application and keep the integrity of Tustin's iconic Old Town intact. Respectfully, Jeff Gallagher The Rockhouse 2 Chad Ortlieb 195 S. Myrtle Ave Tustin, CA 92780 November 6, 2012 City of Tustin Attn: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2012-10, PARTY FACILITY AT 310 S. PASADENA AVENUE Dear Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers, Thank you for your service to your constituents and to your time and consideration of the subject application. I do not support the subject application as it is proposed and request that it be denied for any of the reasons within this letter. For the record and to establish my qualifications for your consideration of all the considerations in this letter, I have about 18 years of municipal code enforcement and planning experience. I served as an Associate Planner for the City of Tustin for about 3.5 years and am currently a Senior Planner for the City of Orange. Reasons to deny the application are as follows: I The approval authority statement in the staff report is incorrect. The zoning does not allow the proposed use. The staff report states that the City Council may consider the proposed use/application pursuant to Tustin City Code (TCC) Section 9252j2(a)(2). However the statement is incorrect. TCC Section 9252j2(a)(2) states "All uses shall be permitted in the Cultural Resources Overlay District as are authorized in the underlying Residential District." Furthermore, "The City Council may also permit other nonlisted uses which support the. purposes of the district as a conditional use following a public hearing and recommendation by the Planning Commission." (emphasis added) The project's single family residential (RI) district does not allow party facilities. But TCC Section 9233cl2. conditionally permits "party facilities including birthday party businesses" in the C2 zoning district. Therefore, the proposed use is not authorized or nonlisted because RI district omission of the "party facility" use mentioned in the C2 district means the party facility use is acknowledged by the City but not allowed in the RI district. Further bolstering the argument that the party facility use was specifically omitted from the RI district is the fact that churches are both contemplated uses and listed as conditionally permitted -uses in both the RI and C2 zone. Hence, there was careful intent 1 Chad Ortlieb 195 S. Myrtle Ave Tustin, CA 92780 2 in crafting the code by our City forbearers and the thought process envisioned should be honored by denying the application. For the record, the C2 district also conditionally permits, churches, fraternal organizations and lodges and, clubs and social halls. Given that the use is not allowed by the code, any policy created to allow the use for nonprofit events use should also be invalidated by the Council. If the council wishes to establish a policy or new code for nonprofit events, careful consideration should be given to the parameters to which the policy would apply, not just to allow unlimited events. A good start would to be basing the policy on very accurate findings linked to the Cultural Resource District. If the City has any intent to approve this use the proper application should be a General Plan Amendment(s), Zone Change to R3, Zone Text Amendment, Environmental Impact Repoli for disclosure of Citywide impacts of such uses in R3 zones and their associated off -site parking lots. 2 Contrary to the City's legal staff indications at the Planning Commission meeting, the proposed use will run the life of the land, The City and neighborhood have no idea what the future operations will look like, who will operate them, and in what manner they intend to operate them. Furthermore, the use proposes catering with many if not all events including alcoholic beverage service and there are no restrictions on the type of events (weddings, birthday parties, graduations, etc). Hence, the use could involve emotionally charged events and the addition of alcohol leverages tremendous odds during the life of the use (conceivably forever) of one day contributing to a DUI, fights, public intoxication, public urination, loud conversations, litter, patrons getting hit by cars, or worse. Furthermore, the use itself will have ramifications on noise and cause a commercial feel to the neighborhood. Given the life of the entitlement, the odds increase with time that negative effects and problems will occur in the neighborhood. The disclosures of the use required with real estate transactions could also cause a decline in property value and disincentivize others from improving their properties. 3 The fiscal impact statement of the staff report is not accurate. The use places a burden on taxpayers. For example, my personal knowledge of the French Inn, a similar operation in the City of Orange shows multiple complaints, multiple allegations of violations, multiple investigations by police and code enforcement staff, and significant involvement by planning staff. Enormous amounts of staff resources were involved in responding, investigating, and documenting the complaints.' Whether the complaints were founded in fact or not is not the significance here. The significance is that the City of Orange taxpayers collectively (as opposed to localized to the use) paid for the time and resources associated with monitoring the party facility. If the City of Tustin approves the proposed use, the odds of more applications are likely to occur, the applications would need to be approved on the same grounds as the subject application and, tremendous City resources would likely be necessary to monitor the use at great expense to the overall City taxpayers. The revenue benefit of the proposed use would likely be limited to business license taxes which will not come close to the monitoring costs the project will create. No evidence has been provided that the proposed use will have trickle-down effect on engaging revenues 2 Chad Ortlieb 195 S. Myrtle Ave Tustin, CA 92780 3 from sales or services of other businesses in the City. By approving the project, the decision may imply that the public should subsidize the use with no nexus to maintaining the historical the property. There will be no guarantee that profits from the party facility will go towards maintenance and rehabilitation efforts of the property. The historic nature of the property and district has no correlation to the proposed parties. 4 Even if the City Council disagrees with project denial reason I above, the whole of the findings for the project cannot be made. The following response correlates to the numbered findings beginning on page 13 of the staff report as follows: 1. The use is not authorized in the RI district. See denial reason i above. Furthermore, the Planning Commission recommendation was not based on accurate legal information. See legal scrutiny item one in the following table. 2. The use is not most similar to "other assembly uses such as churches, schools, parks and playgrounds." The use is listed as a party facility. See denial reason 1 above. 3. Any charity events or other events not for profit may occur on site within reason as to be defined by the City. The not for-profit uses could be terminated by the City at any time if a problem occurred based on police action and an expectation of consistent reoccurrence would not persist, The CUP causes a new entitlement that is very difficult to revoke due to evidentiary requirements, site monitoring and, staff resources. The for-profit party facility also introduces greater likelihood of a different clientele than has existed for prior events, 4. This finding can be made. 5. The staff provided argument is irrelevant because the CUP runs with the life of the land. The Council cannot assess the character of the existing owner beyond a Police Department recommendation because the character of future operators cannot be known. 6. The finding mandates that the conditions ensure compatibility of the proposed use with the surrounding uses and the Tustin City Code, Nothing can "ensure" the finding is met. Furthermore, how can a party facility be compatible with a predominantly single family residential neighborhood? 7. This finding merits further thought. 8. This finding merits further thought. 5 The Planning Commission findings and recommendation that the proposed outdoor event use supports the purposes of the CR district is inadequate. The following response correlates to the bulleted findings on page 13 of the staff report as follows: Bullet I — As the application was originally proposed, introduction of persons to Tustin's historic resources would be focused on the outside of the applicant's house. Evidence is not apparent in the record to show that fostering of knowledge, understanding, and appreciation of Tustin's past would occur to any more extent as a result of a for-profit party facility on-site. Bullet 2 — Sufficient evidence has not been provided that creates a nexus between how an outdoor party f acility would complement the historic structure and promote the identity of Old Town Tustin. 3 Chad Ortlieb 195 S. Myrtle Ave Tustin, CA 92780 Bullet 3 — Enjoyment of the property from the parties would be outdoors and primarily to those paying and/or invited. Some persons could see the historic property become a detriment via association with the party facility if problems arise. Bullet 4 — See denial reason #4 above. Bullet 5 — The use may be conditioned to reduce potential conflicts between the events and the surrounding Cultural Resource District but it could not "avoid" conflicts. Significant evidence exists to question if the project could reduce impacts in CEQA terms below a level of significance without mitigation measures (specifically noise). 6 The project is not consistent with all the purposes of the CR District as identified Jn the staff report, page 2. The below responses also seek to rebut the applicant statements included in the staff report. Please note that the applicant response numbering does not correlate exactly with page 2 of the staff report. A response correlates to each purpose statement as follows: 1. Purpose not met — The project is a use not a structure. The party facility is independent of the structure. No guarantee of preservation is part of the application. The applicants past efforts to enhance and offer tours of the home are independent of the application. 2. Purpose not met — The preponderance of the project is for parties not promotion of the City's past. Promotion of the home is allowed independent of the application. Use of the inside of the home is not part of the original application nor guaranteed via project conditions nor can future intent of the applicant be made part of the approval basis. To meet this purpose, interior use would need to be available now accompanied by a plan to encourage public knowledge, understanding and, appreciation of the City's past or the proposed use would not be allowed to occur until such parameters are met. 3. Purpose not met — The recognition of the Property and neighborhood occurs with or without the project. In my opinion, the project has actually served to divide the neighborhood. A private event does little beyond promote the event. No evidence of a preponderance of events focusing on cultural resources has been demonstrated. 4. Purpose not met - The party facility does not serve primarily to provide public enjoyment of a culturally signification neighborhood or structure to educate anyone. The enjoyment of the property would occur by the owners own initiative independent of the application if they so choose to continue undergoing tours under existing policy. No evidence has been provided to show that the CUP would preserve the home or that for profit party proceeds would go towards the home. 5. Subjective — The addition proposed for the project occurs at the rear of the property and is not the predominant view from the street. It is a stretch to determine that one accessory building enhances aesthetics and diversity of architectural appeal of the City. The existing Mills Act contract for the property is independent of the proposed CUP for outdoor parties. 6. Purpose not met — No proof has been provided that the use increases property values or offers economic and financial benefits to the City. Arguments may be made that public disclosure requirements of the use for real estate sales may actually be a detriment to property values. 7. Purpose met 4 rm Chad Ortlieb 195 S. Myrtle Ave Tustin, CA 92780 5 8, Purpose not met — The proposed "alternative land use" which is not permitted creates a conflict between the historic and cultural resource. The use introduces greater risk of noise, street parking, fights, DUls, pests and, litter in a predominantly single family residential neighborhood. Applicant efforts to preserve the property are independent of the application especially as evidence by the fact they have already been implemented. No traffic flow plan has been provided as stated in the applicant purpose statement finding. 7 The project is not consistent with the General Plan as stated on page 12 of the staff report as follows: Policy 5.5 — A party facility does not encourage restoration and rehabilitee of properties in Tustin. The use may prevent rehabilitation of surrounding properties. There is no guarantee that profits from the party facility will be used to maintain the structure. Policy 6.5 — The use does not make preservation actions, the homeowner does. The applicant has to maintain the property (and has done so) independent of the application/proposed use. Policy 6.11 — The use has no nexus to the structure. The use causes the neighborhood to be identified as a mixed use area based on the commercial nature of the use. This is a residential neighborhood. Policy 7.1 - As stated in this letter, the business license revenue from the use would not counterbalance the City resources that would likely be needed to monitor and respond to complaints of the use. Goal 10 — This is a commercial goal. Shuttles don't provide a pedestrian use. This project does not meet the intent of this goal. Policy 10.1 — The use has a party focus and purpose. It does not improve the residential focus of the policy. 8 Noise — The proposed use would be subjected to the City noise ordinance which requires uses to comply with a 55 dBA limit. Normal conversation is at 60 dBA at 100 feet away and music events are typically between 90 and 100 dBA. Although the General Plan noise contour map for the area shows noise in the range of 65-70 dBA, the properties of sound have not been analyzed for tone or the doubling properties of noise when other noise sources occur. The buffering and reverberating effects of the freeway sound wall also have not been analyzed for this project. There is a very strong likelihood that tonal or ambient noise impacts from the project will occur in violation of the TCC as a result of the project. At the very least, common sense should prevail in determining that the outdoor use can't even comply with the code for outdoor conversation and elevated speaking due to ambient noise increases would worsen the situation. It is ridiculous to think that outdoor music or entertainment for an event would have to be less than the noise of normal conversation. Hence the noise impacts of the project in violation of the TCC are alone grounds for denial. Furthermore, the increased noise impact to an off-site parking lot would also need to be analyzed resulting from increased traffic, voices, after party activities and, car lights. 9 Vector Control — Increased food service and food waste from the project will likely increase pests in the area regardless of how well residential service disposal containers are utilized. Not all food scraps are likely to be identified from the grass area where tables and chairs will be placed in the backyard and the neighborhood will likely endure additional 5 Chad Ortlieb 195 S. Myrtle Ave Tustin, CA 92780 pest control costs. At the veEy least, County Health officials should opine on the matter. Reasons CUP 2012-10 may be subject to legal scrutiny/challenge: I Misinformation by the City Attorney at the Planning Commission Meeting may have led to an uninformed Planning Commission recommendation. Specifically, the City Attorney at the meeting informed the Commission that the CUP may be tied to the applicant and terminate with the applicant's abandonment of the use. Since the Commission is required to review the application and make a recommendation to the Council, the recommendation appears based on misinformation, 2 The CEQA exemption is flawed in that the facility is not proposing like for like facilities. The City proposes a Class I exemption under Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the CEQA guidelines. This section states in part that "The key consideration is whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of and existing use." The use clearly is an expansion of the residential use to a non-permitted commercial use. An initial study and subsequent environmental document need to be prepared. 3 Since the project does not appear to be exempt from CEQA, it should have an environmental document. Indications in this letter are that the project would have potential impacts to the environment with regard to noise, community health (vector control) and, — potentially public facilities for monitoring needs of the project. 4 The legal notice and staff report project description do not include the parking lot location. The parking lot must be known and advertised so that the public that may be affected by the future parking lot are included in the mailing notice radius. 5 The parking lot is not analyzed as part of the project. The parking location lot must be fixed, disclosed and, analyzed so those affected by potential intensified use can voice their concerns as part of the hearing process. The background and surroundings of the supporting parking lot are integral to the project. Furthermore, any parking lot associated with the project should be accompanied by the parking lot owner being a co-signatory to the application since that lot will be linked to the project. At the least, the parking lot property should also be named in the CUP with a letter from the owner stating that they agree to the terms and conditions of the CUP for the public to witness. 6 The hearing date is occurring on election day, a time when many persons may be hindered from participating in the public hearing process and providing comments due to their civic duty. Furthermore, the public has had only had since after 3:00 p.m, on November 2, 2012, to provide comments in response to the City Council staff report, which has new applicant- initiated project description revisions. 7 The project description and terms were changed without benefit of a new application or, at the very least, a re-review by the Planning Commission. If the City Council has any intent to approve this project, it needs to be remanded back before the Planning Commission because TCC Section 9252j2(a)(2) requires a Planning Commission recommendation. How can you have a recommendation on the amended project? Furthermore, the change of the project description and terms creates a moving target for City staff, decision makers, and the public. An amended application should be required to go through the entire disclosure, notification, and order of review process identified in the TCC. The applicant M ro -0, Chad Ortlieb 195 S. Myrtle Ave Tustin, CA 92780 demanded changes at the final moments of the project review on short public notice bring into question who's document the resolution is. It is the people's resolution and staff's right to recommend the conditions, not the applicant's. If the applicant changes the terms of the project or voices objections they should do it at the Planning Commission and not disorient staff, the public and, the Council just prior to decision time. Additional Issues or Considerations: VA The Planning Commission staff report did not inform the public that unlimited non-profit events up to 200 persons could be had without benefit of any permit. Now the City, via the Planning Commission action and City Council staff report, appears to have opined that non-profit events may be limited. A very well defined policy, or preferably code created in accord with CEQA, should be formulated to address occasional non-profit supportive events. Perhaps temporary use of special event procedures already exist in the City Code that can be used to tier a decision from. 2 The former policy of allowing the use of the public streets for parking in support of the non-profit events appears to have been reversed. The applicant and public should have a clear indication as to when street parking can be used for non-profit events. 3 The policy issue analysis of the staff report (page 10) implies that the proposed use would be similar to other events and gatherings in Tustin and other Southern California Cities without significant disruption to the community. However, approval of the proposed use could introduce a different operational plan and target a different partygoer than the comparisons provided by staff. Furthermore, complaints received for the French Inn in the City of Orange have included reports of noise violations and public urination. Although complaints have not been received by Orange staff in the past two years, it can at least be speculative that the complaining parties have abandoned reporting complaints due to evidentiary procedural requirements necessary for citations or CUP revocation procedures. 4 The staff report (page 10) notes that "other assembly uses, such as churches, schools, parks, and playgrounds are conditionally permitted in the Single Family Residential (Rl) zoning district." The analysis then goes on to imply that the proposed use is the most similar to the aforementioned uses. However, the TCC states that the use is a party facility. The analysis also mentions mitigation measures. However, the project has been determined to be CEQA exempt. The statement of the mitigation measures goes to the argument that the project should not have received categorical exemptions. The appropriateness of the use (as a basis of CUP approval) is also linked to "the level of experience and professionalism of the operators of the assembly use." The project is completely separate from the applicant's character other than for Police Department recommendation purposes. The character of future operators is unknown. The applicant character has no nexus to the proposed use given that they could sell the property and hand the use to a subsequent operator at any time. 5_ The location of the project merits consideration. It is in a predominantly single family residential neighborhood with a cul-de-sac on each end of the street and only one access point in. Comparisons to other similar uses in other jurisdictions should be based on the same locational standards. The French Inn introduced into the record at the Planning Commission meeting is on a through street in a more dense part of town. VA " ro- Chad Ortlieb 195 S. Myrtle Ave Tustin, CA 92780 6 The citations condition for the project ranges from $100 to $500 for violations of CUP 2 conditions. If the project fundraising events raise $100,000 how would the fine be an 3 incentive to stop reoccurring violations? 7 The staff report contains a public input section. This section may not accurately disclose constituent and public sentiment of the project since many persons repeatedly accepting of the applicant's hospitality may feel obligated to sign an applicant form letter, petition, or speak on the applicant's behalf. Additionally, the project has greater Citywide implications with regard to proposed party facilities taxpayer burdens if it is approved. Persons in other reaches of the City may have oppositional voices to the project in light of such implications. Furthermore, property owners and/or residents next to the parking lot that would support the project may have an opinion on the p!o j ect as well. 8 The project is limited to a total of 200 persons, Clarification would be appreciated as to if that includes the support staff or just the guests. 9 The Planning Commission action included recommended Condition 2.22. This action is not enforceable but strongly implies the Commission's reliance on the City Attorney's false information. 10 The applicant requests removal of Planning Commission recommended Conditions 2.7 and 2.13 which would remove a requirement for event attendees to present proof of shuttle use and not require use of shuttle service. Why would the applicant object to the conditions? I I The applicant requests removal of Planning Commission recommended Condition 2.24. Why would the applicant request removal of the condition? They would still need to comply with the TCC especially when the doubling of sound and tonal properties of sound are of issue. Other options available to the Council: I You may find the a pplication was flawed and the use is not allowed. 2 You may remand the application back to the Planning Commission. 3 You may find the application lacks required analysis via the proper CEQA process and deny the application without prejudice. Thank you for your consideration of the arguments, comments, and questions within this lettter. Please deny the project. I intend to speak at the public hearing regarding my positions in this letter. I will try to present as much as I can in the 3 minutes allotted. I am requesting that you allot me additional time for summation of the content of this letter in my presentation. Regards, Chad Ortlieb H1. Ar _0110 41" M1 From: David Kozlik [mailto:idave2(5pacbell.net1 Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2012 8:06 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Wilcox Manor conditional use permit Today I attended a neighborhood meeting about the application by the Wilcox Manor Event Center for a conditional use permit that would allow them to host for - profit events in addition to the events they are already hosting. It is my understanding that this matter is pending a decision this coming Tuesday night. I was just recently made aware of the application. As discussed at the meeting today, many of the neighbors in this quiet old town community are upset with the idea of the commercialization of our residential neighborhood. The meeting was attended by Rebecca Gomez, your fellow Council Member and she took extensive notes on the expressed concerns. I would appeal to you to visit with her prior to the Tuesday meeting to be advised of our concerns and feelings on this matter. I look forward to the opportunity to speak before the council Tuesday on this matter as well. Sincerely, David Kozlik - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Robert Ridgway fmailto:seadoo92@aol.coml Sent: Monday, November 05, 2012 1:05 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Proposed CUP 2012 -10 for property at 310 S. Pasadena My name is Robert Ridgway. I own and have lived at 185 S. Myrtle Ave since 1975. When there is a large event at the subject property, traffic is continuous on Myrtle Ave. Even if they provide Valet parking or shuttle vans, many people attending the event park on Myrtle Ave. and it appears they don't start using the Valet or shuttle service until there is no parking left on Myrtle. If we are having company when there is an event, there is no parking for them near our house. They now want a CUP to dramatically increase the number of events per year, including paid events. This is a residential neighborhood and I strongly object to the disruption that the proposed commercial use of the subject property would cause. Myrtle Ave is a local residential street and gets plenty of traffic without the additional cars, catering trucks, shuttle vans, etc. that will be generated by the events. I attended the Planning Commission meeting regarding this proposal and heard a lot of positive comments from folks who had attended events at this property, but most live outside the immediate area and do not have to contend with the traffic and congestion the nearby residents are subjected to also understand that the applicant wants to increase the number of events described at the Planning Commission meeting, from 24 per year to 36 per year, which was evidently proposed after the public hearing. The owner should not be allowed to run a business from his residence at the expense of his neighbors. The additional traffic and activity will negatively impact the ambiance of the immediate neighborhood. The city should be preserving the integrity of residential property in old town, not allowing commercial use of one property to the detriment of the surrounding residents. Granting this CUP will undoubtably increase the value of the subject property. Property values of the nearby residents will probably decrease as any potential buyer who is aware of the dissruption and congestion during an event will think twice about buying here. Sincerely, Robert Ridgway L B 0 November 3, 2012 Ms. Elizabeth Binsack Director of Community Development City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Dear Elizabeth, I am a 26 year resident of Tustin. Over the past three years, I have come to know Lindburgh McPherson and Michael Demoratz through the countless charitable events they have hosted on behalf of many area non profit organizations. They have unselfishly offered the use of Wilcox Manor at no charge to the non profits. In addition to the venue, they have included all other amenities required to host a major event: tables, chairs, bars, linens, umbrellas, tableware, flatware, glassware, and in some instances food and spirits. The countless hours they spend in the organization of the events goes unnoticed by most. I understand that they have applied for a Conditional Use Permit which has been approved by the Planning Commission and will be going to the City Council for their review. I personally wholeheartedly support the City Council approving this Conditional Use Permit. This will offer city residents a beautiful and historic venue to host gatherings which is currently lacking in Tustin, and will provide for additional revenue streams to the city. I know that both Michael and Lindburgh have been very thoughtful, considerate and diligent about the entire process. The area non profits and the City of Tustin have been blessed by an that these two men do for our community. Because of their generosity and unwavering support, many non profits have saved thousands of dollars in expenses which has allowed them to maximize their efforts in support of their individual missions. There are also intangible benefits to their generosity. Through them, relationships have been fostered, many new friendships have blossomed, and organizations are actively collaborating with one another. They have made a profound impact and have had a positive effect on the entire community. Lindburgh, Michael and Wilcox Manor are a treasure and an extraordinary gift to the City of Tustin and the numerous non profits in the area! Please feel free to contact me if you need anything further. Best regards, -d"d4 Lynda Bjoin From: Chad Ortlieb jmailto:cortlieb(cbci oforange.orgl Sent: Monday, November 05, 2012 8:14 AM To: Reekstin, Scott Subject: Wilcox Manor Hi Scott, I plan to oppose the Wilcox Manor project and submit a letter to that effect. I'm sorry that I didn't contact staff prior to the PC meeting last time with advance notice. I did not intend to put staff on the spot. I had just read the staff report the night before the PC meeting. I could have put forth a better effort in contacting you the day before the meeting — again, I'm sorry. Upon further analysis of the project, I believe it increases the odds that what I will leave my son with someday may become tainted by the proposed use in our lifetime and /or his. I have to put family first. Additionally, I feel a moral obligation to share my professional knowledge of the ramifications of the proposed use to neighbors. We have a neighborhood discussion about the project with Councilmember Gomez on Saturday morning, at which time I voiced my concerns. There are a comprehensive list of challenges to the project that I plan to present in a letter to preserve legal rights in case the Council approves the project. I will take time off this afternoon to create a letter for presentation into the record tomorrow. Would staff be available meet with me towards the end of the day to hear what my arguments will be? I have to leave for a noon meeting around 11:30 today. If staff can meet, I would be appreciative if you could let me know before I leave for the day. Also, if you can meet, will you let me know who would be in attendance? Thank You e 0 From: WtamalepieCcbaol.com jmailto:Wtamalepie(cbaol.coml Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2012 10:32 AM To: jnielsonCsltustinca.org; Murray, Al; Reekstin, Scott Cc: Amante, Jerry; Gavello, Deborah; Gomez, Rebecca Subject: Re:proposed Conditional Use Permit for 310 S. Pasadena Ave, Tustin I would like to register my opposition to granting this permit for the following concerns: The area is already heavily impacted with dense residential occupancy and increased parking in that area. I do not feel allowing 10 hours a day for operation of a business of this nature in a residential area; would be in the best interests for persons living in the neighborhood or on nearby streets. It is my understand from speaking with Mr.Scott Reekstin that they are asking that the 10 pm curfew be extended to 11 pm to accomodate those leaving the property via shuttles. On several occasions neighborhood parties have gone on beyond the 10 pm curfew which has interferred with those who have to rise early to travel outside the city for jobs. Late hours of this nature also interfere with the youngsters getting proper rest before school. I oppose increasing curfew, period. I feel that should this use permit be allowed, it might well set the precedence for others requesting same permits and same increased curfew hours. We need to think about increased traffic, increased delivery trucks for those catering, delivering band equipment, etc. We have Tustin Tiller Days, Concerts and other fundraisers which also impact traffic in the area, but not 7 days a week and hours from 10am to 10pm with curfew extended to 11 pm. That is not good for our property values, getting our rest and maintaining the ambiance of Old Town Tustin. I understand from Mr. Reekstin that two shuttles are planned. How many trips would be needed for moving 200 people for each occasion. I am sure like any other business. time will be needed to build the business to accomodate 7 days of events paid or unoaid 13 hours per day. Those shuttles will be moving freely picking up passengers who leave the events early or those people not wanting to wait for the shuttles will be walking the streets to their cars. That means a possibility of increased foot traffic. Please consider my opposing this venture via e-mail. My husband passed recently after a long illness and I just do not have the heart to attend anything just now. I also want you to know that during his illness, I have registered complaints with the Tustin Police Dept due to loud parties with noisy revelers and loud music so he could get his proper rest. Everyone household has it's own schedules of one kind or another and I would hope that their needs be taken into consideration. I am sure the residents of 310 S. Pasadena could operate a business of choice somewhere besides on a crowded residential street. You will note that there is only one street allowing entry or exit for Pasadena with closed Cul de Sacs at each end. How many of the people on Pasadena especially will be limited in their own personal mobility. Also how about Emergency Vehicles trying to move throughout the neighborhood. One of the residents on Pasadena (in the house behind my own) has mentioned Tustin Police cars parking at night on the street due to the need for their presence .. Police logs should verify that information. I would hope you take into account the fact that your meeting is being held on Election Night which could eliminate some of those people attending the meeting on this issue. Thank you. Sincerely, Arlene Woodson 340 So Myrtle Ave. Tustin From: Sam Corey [mai1to:samcore02(�bgmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 9:00 PM To: Sam Corey Subject: Petition Against CUP 2012 -10 (310 S. Pasadena Ave) Hello, My name is Samuel Corey and my wife and I reside at 147 S. Myrtle Ave. Our residence is within one block of the subject residence in question. We have lived here for the past seven years. I had attended the previous public meeting regarding the the proposed conditional use permit and find it unbelievable that it was even recommended by the planning commission. I don't think a parade of the petitioner's "fan club" justifies a decision to grant their proposal. Of the eight purposes listed for the existence of the "Cultural Resource District" not one of them applies to this proposal. On the contrary, their existence is to insure the general welfare of the City's residence, of whom we are. This proposal would only increase unnecessary traffic noise on weekends, which is really the only reprieve we have from the already heavy traffic noise we get during the week, being that Myrtle is a cut through street. Not only that, but it would cause an already parking problem worse, and most likely a loitering and disturbance problem from the proposed events. As far as property values go, this proposal would definitely negatively affect the value of property within the immediate neighborhood. I speak with some credibility and back ground knowledge, previously being a State licensed residential real estate appraiser. Safety in the neighborhood is another reason to reject this proposal, especially since there most likely will be a lot of intoxicated individuals at these events. Not everyone coming to the events will abide by the supposedly off site parking facility and will eventually fill our streets. This would make it almost impossible far any other residents of this neighborhood to have any of their visitors such as family to come over because there would be no parking. Finally, this is a residential neighborhood consisting of single and multi family units. It is not a commercial zone. We live here and desire to have peace and quiet the best we can, given the crowded area of Southern California. It is a great disservice to a neighborhood when one neighbor decides to turn their house into a commercial money making venture that causes the rest of the neighborhood to suffer. This is not a mutually beneficial and carefully thought out proposal. From my perspective, this is a desperate attempt to recover from an obvious investment gone bad by overspending and overbuilding a residence that wasn't compatible with the neighborhood, at the expense of all the other neighbors. I truly hope you seriously consider the people who live in the immediate area before you consider this proposal. A better way to enhance property values, increase economic and financial benefits to the City and its inhabitants is to develop and preserve residential areas with good affordable housing, and peaceful quiet neighborhoods that will draw people to live and shop in Tustin, as we have for the last 20 years and more recently here in Old Town. We are not home owners, but renters, who 0 have a favorable place to live at a reasonable cost because of the mutually beneficial relationship we have with our landlord. We are pleased to live here as long as things do not go the way of this proposal. Sincerely yours, Samuel T. Corey Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2012 17:39:05 -0700 From: crtranch@sbcglobal.net Subject: Re: I own the property located at 135 & 137 S. Pasadena. I also own the property at 750 W. First Street where the "walk through" of Pasadena Avenue continues to First Street. My daughter and I share this office and I rent the property on Pasadena. My current tenants are threatening to move due to all the chaos on the street. I receive numerous calls regarding the limited parking, the traffic and increased walk through of "party goers ". Especially since many leave their trash on my property's lawn or curb in front of the units. Since it is at the end of the cu -de -sac, people from these events feel it is okay for them to park there. I fear that if my tenants vacate, the quality of tenant I will be able to attract will most definitely be un- desirable or not long term. This has already been a nightmare and adding paid events only ensures a definite increase of the problem. Especially since more alcohol will most likely be involved. Catering trucks etc. are unsightly on a regular basis in a residential neighborhood. I dread to think if an emergency were to occur during one of these events how any rescue unit will be able to navigate through the ever narrowing streets. Regardless of the intent to utilize a shuttle, I can attest that even now, individuals disregard that option. I have come down to try and understand my tenants complaints when they call. Although my attempts to assist them are sincere, I remain helpless in this situation. I am adamantly opposed to allowing a business in a residential neighborhood. Especially since it is a small street with a cul -de -sac on both ends. Please do not allow the destruction of what is left of our small, old town neighborhood. Thank you. Dennis Q-11MI-12 nh V 0 Petition Against CUP 2012-12 CLERY TO: Thstin City Council, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 Proposed Conditional Use Permit for the property located at 310 S. Pasadena Avenue allows the following: • Maximum. of 24 paid. outdoor events shall be allowed per calendar year Maximum of five (5) paid outdoor events shall be allowed per calendar month regardless of holiday or time of year. Maximum attendance at each paid outdoor event shall not exceed 200 people, including service provid- ers, such as caterers, musicians, photographers, ect. • Events, including set up activities, shall take place only between 10:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. • A. shuttle van of bus shall provide continuous shuttle service to and from 310 S. Pasadena Avenue and the approved off site parking beginning no later than one hour prior to the event and ending once all guests and service providers have vacated the property. For paid events with 100 guests or more, a minimum of two shuttle vans or buses shall , provide continuou s shutt le se r vice , un less otherwise ap- proved by the Director of Community Development. We, the undersigned, are opposed to CUP 2012-12 and strongly believe it will adversely affect our neighborhood in the following ways to name only a few: L) Negative impact on preserving our residential neighborhood L3Decrease the quality of life in our neighborhood L) Decrease the public safety in our neighborhood LIDecrease the property values of our homes LjSubstantially increase the traffic flow in out neighborhood LIImpede on already limited availability of street parking QSet a unwanted precedent that would allow other non-residential uses in. our residential neighborhood ALL OF THE ABOVE Additional Comments — P MAURIELLO LAW FIRM, APC A Professional Law Corporation THOMAS D. MAURIELLO* 1181 Puerta Del Sol, Ste. 120 *ALSO ADMITTED IN NJ & PA San Clemente, CA 92673 Tel: (949) 542 -3555 Fax: (949) 606 -9690 e -mail: Comm @maurlaw.com www.maurlaw.com November 2, 2012 VIA EMAIL AND US. MAIL Members of the City Counsel City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Re: Comments to Proposed Conditional Use Permit No. 2012 -10 (Expansion of uses at 310 South Pasadena Avenue) Dear Council Members: San Francisco Office 350 Sansome St., Ste. 400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel: (415) 677 -1238 Fax: (949) 606 -9690 My firm represents Tustin resident Brent Ferdig, and I am writing on behalf of Mr. Ferdig to comment on the CUP 2012 -10, which proposes an expansion of uses at 310 South Pasadena Avenue (the "Project "). The Project involves expansion of the use of the property to allow up to 24 paid events per year, involving up to 200 guests per event, in addition to fundraising events. The General Plan Land Use Designation and zoning designation of the Project property at 310 S. Pasadena is Low Density Residential and Single Family Residential (RI). The Planning Commission recommended that the City approve the Project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") based on certain categorical exemptions under CEQA. Based on our review of the record for this Project and the relevant law, we believe that the Project's environmental review is legally inadequate and we request that the Council deny the CUP unless and until an Initial Study or Environmental Impact Report is prepared. In particular, our concerns are that: the categorical exemption is not appropriate, the limited environmental analysis that has been performed does not adequately identify actual environmental impacts, and the analysis improperly defers the analysis and identification of environmental impacts. In addition to the environmental review issues, we have two procedural concerns about the City Council's handling of the Project. First, holding the vote on Election Day presents a potential scheduling conflict and hardship for voters who may wish to vote and/or otherwise participate in informal or informal election- related events on Election Night. We therefore request that the vote be continued to the next regularly scheduled Council meeting. Second, we respectfully request that the Mayor recuse himself from this vote because of a conflict of interest or at least appearance of conflict of interest as the Mayor's wife is the Executive Director of the Tustin Community Foundation, which utilizes the Project property frequently for fundraising events. >> i Members of the City Counsel Re: Comments to Proposed CUP 20122 -10 November 2, 2012 Page 2 Our concerns are detailed below. CEQA "The purpose of CEQA is to protect and maintain California's environmental quality. With certain exceptions, CEQA requires public agencies to prepare an EIR for any project they intend to carry out or approve whenever it can be fairly argued on the basis of substantial evidence that the project may have a significant environmental effect. " (Communities for a Better Environment, 103 Cal.AppAth at 106 -107 (Footnotes omitted.) The California Supreme Court has "repeatedly recognized that the EIR is the `heart of CEQA' [Citations.] `Its purpose is to inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made. Thus, the EIR "protects not only the environment but also informed self-government ...... (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1993) 6 CalAth 1112, 1123, italics added.) The CEQA Pub. Res. Code Section 15301 ("Existing Facilities ") Categorical Exemption Does Not Apply The Planning Department states that the project is exempt from CEQA review because the "existing facilities" exemption under CEQA applies. This exemption applies only where there is a proposed operation or minor alteration of existing public or private structures or facilities that involves negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination. The key consideration is whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of an existing use. See Pub. Res. Code sec. Section 21083 and 21084; Bloom v. McGurk (1994) 26 Cal.AppAth 1307. Accordingly, a project with significant cumulative impacts or which otherwise has a reasonable possibility of resulting in a significant effect does not qualify for this exemption. The Project proposes to allow up to 24 paid events per year involving up to 200 visitors per event, in addition to fundraising events. In addition, the Project proposes to implement off - site parking and a valet/shuttle bus system to ferry visitors to and from the Project site for events. The Project poses potential impacts on traffic, noise, air quality, parking and the character of the neighborhood, and these impacts have not been examined. This expansion of use is not negligible. Given the additional impacts of the Project, it cannot be stated conclusively that the Project would not have significant cumulative impacts or otherwise have a reasonable possibility of resulting in a significant effects. Therefore, this exemption is inappropriate. Members of the City Counsel Re: Comments to Proposed CUP 20122 -10 November 2, 2012 Page 3 Substantial Evidence Supports A Fair Argument That The Protect May Cause Significant Impacts An environmental impact report ( "EIR ") is required under CEQA where substantial evidence supports a "fair argument" that the Project may cause significant environmental impacts. See, e.g. No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75 ( "if a lead agency is presented with a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare an EIR even though it may also be presented with other substantial evidence that the project will not have a significant effect "); Communities for a Better Environment, 103 Cal.App.4th at 106 -107 (footnotes omitted)( "CEQA requires public agencies to prepare an EIR for any project they intend to carry out or approve whenever it can be fairly argued on the basis of substantial evidence that the project may have a significant environmental effect "). This "fair argument" standard presents a "low threshold" for requiring preparation of an EIR. See, e.g., Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal .App.3rd 296, 310. The California Supreme Court has "repeatedly recognized that the EIR is the `heart of CEQA.' [Citations.] `Its purpose is to inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made. Thus, the EIR "protects not only the environment but also informed self - government. " "' (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1993) 6 CalAth 1112, 1123, italics added. As noted above, the Project proposes to allow up to 24 paid events per year involving up to 200 visitors per event, in addition to fundraising events, and proposes to implement off-site parking and a shuttle bus system to ferry visitors to and from the Project site for events. As such, the Project may have impacts on traffic, noise, air quality, parking and the character of the neighborhood, as well as visual impacts through signage, waste removal, and other issues. The noise issue is a particular concern to surrounding residents, as the Agenda Report provides, inter alia: "Live entertainment and /or amplified sound are proposed to occur at many, if not all, of the proposed outdoor events." (p. 10.) Furthermore, the Agenda Report also states: "The applicants have proposed to provide parking at an off -site parking lot. They have made arrangements with the owner of the commercial property at 621 West First Street, and a shuttle service, to provide parking and transportation to and from the event site." (p. 10.) We understand that this statement is incorrect, as the owner of 621 West First Street has not and will not enter into such an agreement. The full scope of the above impacts is not presently known, because the potential impacts have barely been identified much less examined. Some of the statements made in support of the Project's lack of impacts are not substantiated, e.g., the comment at the Planning Commission hearing that noise in the rear of the property may not be heard at the front of the property. It cannot be concluded that these impacts will not be significant. Based on what we know about the Project, substantial evidence supports a fair argument that the Project may cause significant impacts. An EIR is thus required. NO Members of the City Counsel Re: Comments to Proposed CUP 20122 -10 November 2, 2012 Page 4 Improper De erral of Environmental Anal CEQA requires that environmental impacts be examined at the time of consideration of the project, and in general it is improper to defer analysis of impacts. See Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3rd at 307. Yet, the Project's environmental impacts in terms of parking are being deferred, in that the location of the parking lot and shuttle pickup area is not currently identified. Moreover, the Agenda Report states indicates that examination of important impacts related to parking is being formally deferred until after the Project is approved: "Because the off -site parking location and arrangements have the potential to change in the future, staff recommends through proposed Condition of Approval 2. 7 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 4207, that a parking and traffic management plan for the off -site parking lot be provided a minimum of thirty (30) calendar days prior to the first paid outdoor event that utilizes the approved off -site parking lot." (p. 10.) As the California Supreme Court has explained, environmental review must occur before the project is approved if the analysis is to be anything other than a "post hoc rationalization of a decision already made." No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 81. As a result, the parking impacts, traffic impacts, noise impacts, air quality impacts, and other impacts have not been examined. For this reason, until the location of the parking lot and shuttle pickup are determined and then analyzed in an Initial Study or an Environmental Impact Report, the Project cannot be approved. Lack ofAlternatives Analvsis That Would Be Provided in an EIR As discussed above, we believe that an EIR is legally required here as potentially significant impacts exist. If an EIR is prepared, it would continue a mandatory analysis of project alternatives, including not only a "no project" alternative, but also potential variations on this Project (including parking arrangements) that might mitigate or ameliorate the impacts that concern my client. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126. Alternatives must meet most of the project objectives and avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the project's significant impacts (CEQA Guidelines Section 15124). City Council_Meetinz Vote Scheduled for Election Da Aside from the environmental issues, we take issue with the Council holding a vote on this issue at a meeting on Election Day, a scheduling decision seems unusual if not unprecedented. Many people will be taking time out of their busy schedules to vote in local, state, and national elections that day. Some citizens will not be able to take the time off work or from family obligations to both vote and attend a Council meeting. Still other citizens will want or need to be following the elections that evening, and some may be participating in formal or informal election related events. Scheduling a Council vote on this issue on Election Day may interfere with the election process and unnecessarily interfere with the schedules of Tustin citizens. We request that the Council continue the matter to the next regularly scheduled Council meeting Members of the City Counsel Re: Comments to Proposed CUP 20122 -10 November 2, 2012 Page 5 Conflict o f Interest We understand that the Mayor's wife is the Executive Director of the Tustin Community Foundation, which utilizes the Project property frequently for fundraising events. As a result, although we are not claiming that there has been any impropriety, we do believe that it would be a conflict of interest — and certainly at a minimum would be an appearance of a conflict of interest -- for Mayor Nielsen to participate in a vote on this Project. We therefore request that the Mayor recuse himself from the vote on this issue. Conclusion Based on the above, we believe that the CEQA exemption and the environmental analysis (such as it is) are legally inadequate. We therefore respectfully ask that Council deny the CUP application for the Project and request that an EIR or, at a minimum, an Initial Study, be prepared. We also request that the Council reschedule the vote to a date other than Election Day Thank you for your consideration of our comments. We would be happy to discuss these issues further, to meet with Planning staff or the project applicant, and to answer any questions that you may have. Very truly yours, Thomas D. Mauriello cc: Mr. Brent Ferdig City Clerk g From: Brent Ferdig <BFerdig @trinity- pm.com> Sent: Monday, November 05, 2012 7:24 AM To: Brent Ferdig (bferdig @ca.rr.com) Subject: FW: Comment letter on Proposed CUP No. 2012 -10 (Expansion of uses at 310 youth Pasadena Avenue) Attachments: Tustin CUP comment Itr 1102 12 Final.pdf.pdf From: Thomas D. Mauriello [tomm @maurlaw.com] Sent: Friday, November 02, 2012 1:09 PM To: CityCouncil(abtustinca.orq Cc: Brent Ferdig; Thomas D. Mauriello Subject: Comment letter on Proposed CUP No. 2012 -10 (Expansion of uses at 310 South Pasadena Avenue) Dear Mayor and Council Members: On behalf of Tustin resident Brent Ferdig, attached please find a comment letter on the Proposed Conditional Use Permit No. 2012 -10 (Expansion of uses at 310 South Pasadena Avenue). This matter is scheduled to come before the Council on Tuesday November 6. A hard copy of the attached letter will follow by mail. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Respectfully, Tom Mauriello MAURIELLO LAW FIRM, APC 1181 Puerta Del Sol, Suite 120 San Clemente, CA 92673 Tel: (949) 542 -3555 Fax: (949) 606 -9690 Email: tomm(a_maurlaw.com Web: www.maurlaw.com San Francisco Office: 350 Sansome Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel: (415) 677 -1238 Fax: (949) 606 -9690 The preceding email message and any attachments may be confidential or protected by the attorney - client privilege, work product doctrine, or other privileges, and may be restricted from disclosure by applicable state and federal law. It is not intended for transmission to, or receipt by, any unauthorized persons. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this e -mail in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e -mail in error, please erase or destroy the message. Legal advice contained in the preceding message is solely for the benefit of the Mauriello Law Firm, APC client(s) represented by the Firm pursuant to written agreement, and may not be relied upon by any other party. 0 Internal Revenue Service regulations require that certain types of written advice incline a disclaimer. To the extent the preceding message may contain advice relating to a Federal tax issue, unless expressly stated otherwise the advice is not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used by the recipient or any other taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding Federal tax penalties, and was not written to support the promotion or marketing of any transaction or matter discussed herein. IMPORTANT NOTICE. The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be privileged and is intended for the exclusive use of the above named addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are expressly prohibited from copying, distributing, disseminating, or in any other way using any information contained within this communication. If you have received this communication in error please contact the sender by telephone or by response via mail. We have taken precautions to minimize the risk of transmitting software viruses, but we advise you to carry out your own virus checks on any attachment to this message. We cannot accept liability for any loss or damage caused by software viruses. 0 MAURIELLO LAW FIRM, APC A Professional Law Corporation THOMAS D. MAURIII.LO* *ALSO ADMITTED IN NI & PA VIA EMAIL AND U S. MAIL Members of the City Counsel City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 1181 Puerta Del Sol, Ste. 120 San Clemente, CA 92673 Tel: (949) 542 -3555 Fax: (949) 606 -9690 e -mail: tomm @maurlaw.com www.maurlaw.com November 2, 2012 Re: Comments to Proposed Conditional Use Permit No. 2012 -10 (Expansion of uses at 310 South Pasadena Avenue) Dear Council Members: San Francisco Office 350 Sansome St., Ste. 400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel: (415) 677 -1238 Fax: (949) 606 -9690 My firm represents Tustin resident Brent Ferdig, and I am writing on behalf of Mr. Ferdig to comment on the CUP 2012 -10, which proposes an expansion of uses at 310 South Pasadena Avenue (the "Project "). The Project involves expansion of the use of the property to allow up to 24 paid events per year, involving up to 200 guests per event, in addition to fundraising events. The General Plan Land Use Designation and zoning designation of the Project property at 310 S. Pasadena is Low Density Residential and Single Family Residential (RI). The Planning Commission recommended that the City approve the Project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") based on certain categorical exemptions under CEQA. Based on our review of the record for this Project and the relevant law, we believe that the Project's environmental review is legally inadequate and we request that the Council deny the CUP unless and until an Initial Study or Environmental Impact Report is prepared. In particular, our concerns are that: the categorical exemption is not appropriate, the limited environmental analysis that has been performed does not adequately identify actual environmental impacts, and the analysis improperly defers the analysis and identification of environmental impacts. In addition to the environmental review issues, we have two procedural concerns about the City Council's handling of the Project. First, holding the vote on Election Day presents a potential scheduling conflict and hardship for voters who may wish to vote and/or otherwise participate in informal or informal election- related events on Election Night. We therefore request that the vote be continued to the next regularly scheduled Council meeting. Second, we respectfully request that the Mayor recuse himself from this vote because of a conflict of interest or at least appearance of conflict of interest as the Mayor's wife is the Executive Director of the Tustin Community Foundation, which utilizes the Project property frequently for fundraising events. Members of the City Counsel Re: Comments to Proposed CUP 20122 -10 November 2, 2012 Page 2 Our concerns are detailed below. CEQA "The purpose of CEQA is to protect and maintain California's environmental quality. With certain exceptions, CEQA requires public agencies to prepare an EIR for any project they intend to carry out or approve whenever it can be fairly argued on the basis of substantial evidence that the project may have a significant environmental effect. " (Communities for a Better Environment, 103 Cal.AppAth at 106 -107 (Footnotes omitted.) The California Supreme Court has "repeatedly recognized that the EIR is the `heart of CEQA.' [Citations.] `Its purpose is to inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made. Thus, the EIR "protects not only the environment but also informed self - government. " "' (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1993) 6 CalAth 1112, 1123, italics added.) The CEQA Pub. Res. Code Section 15301 ( "Existing Facilities ") Categorical Exemption Does Not Apply The Planning Department states that the project is exempt from CEQA review because the "existing facilities" exemption under CEQA applies. This exemption applies only where there is a proposed operation or minor alteration of existing public or private structures or facilities that involves negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination. The key consideration is whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of an existing use. See Pub. Res. Code sec. Section 21083 and 21084; Bloom v. McGurk (1994) 26 Cal.AppAth 1307. Accordingly, a project with significant cumulative impacts or which otherwise has a reasonable possibility of resulting in a significant effect does not qualify for this exemption. The Project proposes to allow up to 24 paid events per year involving up to 200 visitors per event, in addition to fundraising events. In addition, the Project proposes to implement off - site parking and a valet/shuttle bus system to ferry visitors to and from the Project site for events. The Project poses potential impacts on traffic, noise, air quality, parking and the character of the neighborhood, and these impacts have not been examined. This expansion of use is not negligible. Given the additional impacts of the Project, it cannot be stated conclusively that the Project would not have significant cumulative impacts or otherwise have a reasonable possibility of resulting in a significant effects. Therefore, this exemption is inappropriate. All Members of the City Counsel Re: Comments to Proposed CUP 20122 -10 November 2, 2012 Page 3 Substantial Evidence Supports A Fair Argument That The Pro'ecl t Ma y Cause Significant Impacts An environmental impact report ( "EIR ") is required under CEQA where substantial evidence supports a "fair argument" that the Project may cause significant environmental impacts. See, e.g. No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cai.3d 68, 75 ( "if a lead agency is presented with a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare an EIR even though it may also be presented with other substantial evidence that the project will not have a significant effect "); Communities for a Better Environment, 103 Cal.App.4th at 106 -107 (footnotes omitted)( "CEQA requires public agencies to prepare an EIR for any project they intend to carry out or approve whenever it can be fairly argued on the basis of substantial evidence that the project may have a significant environmental effect "). This "fair argument" standard presents a "low threshold" for requiring preparation of an EIR. See, e.g., Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3`d 296, 310. The California Supreme Court has "repeatedly recognized that the EIR is the `heart of CEQA.' [Citations.] `Its purpose is to inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made. Thus, the EIR "protects not only he environment but also informed self-government Y g (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1993) 6 CalAth 1112, 1123, italics added. As noted above, the Project proposes to allow up to 24 paid events per year involving up to 200 visitors per event, in addition to fundraising events, and proposes to implement off -site parking and a shuttle bus system to ferry visitors to and from the Project site for events. As such, the Project may have impacts on traffic, noise, air quality, parking and the character of the neighborhood, as well as visual impacts through signage, waste removal, and other issues. The noise issue is a particular concern to surrounding residents, as the Agenda Report provides, inter alia: "Live entertainment and for amplified sound are proposed to occur at many, if not all, of the proposed outdoor events." (p. 10.) Furthermore, the Agenda Report also states: "The applicants have proposed to provide parking at an off -site parking lot. They have made arrangements with the owner of the commercial property at 621 West First Street, and a shuttle service, to provide parking and transportation to and from the event site." (p. 10.) We understand that this statement is incorrect, as the owner of 621 West First Street has not and will not enter into such an agreement. The full scope of the above impacts is not presently known, because the potential impacts have barely been identified much less examined. Some of the statements made in support of the Project's lack of impacts are not substantiated, e.g., the comment at the Planning Commission hearing that noise in the rear of the property may not be heard at the front of the property. It cannot be concluded that these impacts will not be significant. Based on what we know about the Project, substantial evidence supports a fair argument that the Project may cause significant impacts. An EIR is thus required. Members of the City Counsel Re: Comments to Proposed CUP 20122 -10 November 2, 2012 Page 4 Improper De erral of Environmental Anal CEQA requires that environmental impacts be examined at the time of consideration of the project, and in general it is improer to defer analysis of impacts. See Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Ca1.App.3r at 307. Yet, the Project's environmental impacts in terms of parking are being deferred, in that the location of the parking lot and shuttle pickup area is not currently identified. Moreover, the Agenda Report states indicates that examination of important impacts related to parking is being formally deferred until after the Project is approved: "Because the off -site parking location and arrangements have the potential to change in the future, staff recommends through proposed Condition of Approval 2. 7 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 4207, that a parking and traffic management plan for the off -site parking lot be provided a minimum of thirty (30) calendar days prior to the first paid outdoor event that utilizes the approved off -site parking lot." (p. 10.) As the California Supreme Court has explained, environmental review must occur before the project is approved if the analysis is to be anything other than a "post hoc rationalization of a decision already made." No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 81. As a result, the parking impacts, traffic impacts, noise impacts, air quality impacts, and other impacts have not been examined. For this reason, until the location of the parking lot and shuttle pickup are determined and then analyzed in an Initial Study or an Environmental Impact Report, the Project cannot be approved. Lack ofAlternatives Analysis That Would Be Provided in an EIR As discussed above, we believe that an EIR is legally required here as potentially significant impacts exist. If an EIR is prepared, it would continue a mandatory analysis of project alternatives, including not only a "no project" alternative, but also potential variations on this Project (including parking arrangements) that might mitigate or ameliorate the impacts that concern my client. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126. Alternatives must meet most of the project objectives and avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the project's significant impacts (CEQA Guidelines Section 15124). City Council Meeting Vote Scheduled for Election Day Aside from the environmental issues, we take issue with the Council holding a vote on this issue at a meeting on Election Day, a scheduling decision seems unusual if not unprecedented. Many people will be taking time out of their busy schedules to vote in local, state, and national elections that day. Some citizens will not be able to take the time off work or from family obligations to both vote and attend a Council meeting. Still other citizens will want or need to be following the elections that evening, and some may be participating in formal or informal election related events. Scheduling a Council vote on this issue on Election Day may interfere with the election process and unnecessarily interfere with the schedules of Tustin citizens. We request that the Council continue the matter to the next regularly scheduled Council meeting r Members of the City Counsel Re: Comments to Proposed CUP 20122 -10 November 2, 2012 Page 5 Conflict o Interest We understand that the Mayor's wife is the Executive Director of the Tustin Community Foundation, which utilizes the Project property frequently for fundraising events. As a result, although we are not claiming that there has been any impropriety, we do believe that it would be a conflict of interest — and certainly at a minimum would be an appearance of a conflict of interest -- for Mayor Nielsen to participate in a vote on this Project. We therefore request that the Mayor recuse himself from the vote on this issue. Conclusion Based on the above, we believe that the CEQA exemption and the environmental analysis (such as it is) are legally inadequate. We therefore respectfully ask that Council deny the CUP application for the Project and request that an EIR or, at a minimum, an Initial Study, be prepared. We also request that the Council reschedule the vote to a date other than Election Day Thank you for your consideration of our comments. We would be happy to discuss these issues further, to meet with Planning staff or the project applicant, and to answer any questions that you may have. cc: Mr. Brent Ferdig City Clerk Very truly yours, Thomas D. Mauriello To: CityCounc|<ChyCooncil@tustincm.mg^ Cc: Tinomerty^Tinemerty@ao.cnm>;bnemady^Una .nmt> Subject: Conditional Use Permit 2012-10, City Council Metting November 6th, 2012, 7pm Date: Mon, Nov 5,2025:2 pm From: Martin and Tina 8lenz 270 S. Pasadena ave, Dear Tustin City Council members, VVe live directly next door to the Applicants, Mr Demoratz and Mr, McPherson. They are good neighbors. However, oadly, we are against issuing the CUP permit. K8erbn B|enz spoke for the family against the CUP at the Planning Commission Meeting on October 8th, 2012. Our family read through the Agenda report for the City Council Meeting to be held on November 6th, 2012 with the new information received by the City since the Planning Commission meeting, Our opposition to the CUP has not changed. The following are our comments on the Applicant's proposed changes (Per Attachment "F")ho the Planning Commission Resolution 12-102, and the wording of it as approved by the Planning Commission on October Sth, 2012 1.5 Applicants request deletion of the restriction stating that three administrative Citations in one year results in the CUP being revoked or a new CUP meeting is held by the Planning Commission and/or the Tustin City council, VVe feel, that if the CUP is finally approved, this restriction should still be in the final document. This restriction gives at least some teeth to the conditions of use. The applicants fear is that vindictive complaints will cause unfair citations to be issued. The Tustin City Police Officers are trained to sort these out, as are the city Code Enforcement Officers that would be issuing any Citations incurred. We believe that the restriction should be kept in place if the CUP istobeapproved, 2.2 Applicants request that a total of 36 events, both paid and unpaid, be allowed. The Planning Commission said that 24 would be the limit for parties over 49 people and that the applicants would be able to come before the planning commission after year to nsviovv the toto/, ifitwas found that more would be needed, and all conditions had been met, more events could be added. We prefer this approach, if the CUP must be granted, 2.6 This restriction approved by the Planning Commission has no teeth. The ONLY possible way to prevent and enforce this provision would be that the City, install official "No parking at any time without permif' signs on the streets most effected by the evente, giving the residents set number ofpermits. What cost would this be to the City and residents? As it sits, anyone can legally park on the street, event or not. A sign in front of the event has no legal force of law. Event goers regularly disregard the event Valets as to the parking at the lot requirements set by the applicants, Parking issues are the major complaint against the granting of the CUP. 2.7 Applicants would like the requirement that some form of event guest ID be provided to their guests. The planning commission put this requirement inso as that event attendees would need to have their |Dgiven to them by thevaleb/shuttle drivers in order b/attend the event. No !O requirement means that anyone might be able to park in the street asthere are no requirements as to signs that the street is off limits to event parking, except in front of their own home (See restriction 2.0) Also, it's more likely that party crashers would be able io attend these events, or that more than the 200 person maximum would attend these events if no ID is required. We prefer that the restriction stay in p|ooe. per the Planning Commissions recommendations, if the CUP is approved. 2�12 Applicants request eliminating the requirements that only regular mini vans or full size vans of no more than 12 passengers be used as shuttle vehicles. They also request to eliminate the requirement that no Diesel fueled vehicles be used, and eliminating the requirement that ADA accessible shuttles be used. One last element which is wished to be removed is the three minute maximum idling requirement, The Planning Commission requested these added restrictions to lower the impact of large, Diesel powered shuttle buses idling in front of the Wilcox Manor and using the streets between the parking lot and the event would have on the neighborhood. Large vehicles parked in front of the Manor dropping off people will largely block the Southern end of Pasadena avenue, causing residents' normal traffic to back up behind the bus as it drops off or picks up passengers, Large vehicles add to the congestion on Myrtle which is rather narrow to begin with, fill� and there ioa very narrow section of Pasadena avenue directly in front of the Wi|coxmanor, Residents atthese choke points usually have vehicles parked along the street as they have limited or no extra parking due to the number of the vehicles they own, or no driveway being available. Another purpose of this restriction is so as not bm block the street for emergency response vehicles, (See section 240) ADA accessible vans should be required, At the latest event on October 27th, 2012. disabled people were allowed to park in the Applicants driveway, no real issue there in this case, but after three vehicles in total, the driveway was filled- This event was m comparatively small one, At least one of the required shuttle vehicles should be equipped with ADA ramps so that disabled people would not have to be dropped off or park directly at the event, they could use the approved parking |ot/atnuotuna. As to the idling requirement, current California Air Resources Board (CARB) requirements are that ANY commercial Diesel vehicle, over 10,000 pounds Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) can idle for no more than 5 minutes total. See CARB web site for info: One further comment isthat the shuttle van used at the latest event was using our driveway to perform three point turns, (See linked pictures below) This may have been due to laziness on the drivers pad, or it may be due that even for a 12 passenger full size van, the turn at the end of the street is too tight. The Cu|-de-Sacat the Southern end of Pasadena Ave. is usually surrounded with parked oars owned by the residents of the homes and apartments at the end of the street which makes it hard to turn there without making a three point turn. Large vehicles often need to make multiple point turns atthat end of the street hobe able ho turn around. Some trucks, due to their size, need to back up down the street. ac�|on=v|ew/&ourrent=EventShu�(�ru�|nu�urddvevx�v�nOot�7th�D1�ioo S-5 �f��hot��o�k�t��om/o|bunl�/i47�/� These issues should be addressed if the CUP is to be approved. CAR8 standards should not ba ignored, ADA requirements should not be ignored either, and in the future regulations will change, for which wording should be in the restriction that these regulations be followed as a condition of use. 2.13 Applicants wish to eliminate the restriction that mn aftendanUva|etba present to direct any guests that using the shuttle is a requirement. This restriction is present as a means to enforce the "No Event Parking on Myrtle, 2nd street, Pasadena ave., or any other city etreef' rule, (sae restriction 2.6), This rule should remain as is, if the CUP istoboapproved. 2�17 Applicants wish to eliminate the three minute idling restrictions. This restriction was put into place to lower the impact onthe immediate neighborhood. CurnantCARB rules require that any Diesel fueled commercial vehicles over 1O.UO0GVVVR cannot idle over 6 minutes. This restriction should be kept in p|aoe, or at minimum, be amended nothat all shuttle vehicles comply with any and all current and future CARB rules. (See notes on restriction 212above) 2.22 Applicants wish to eliminate the naethohon that the CUP is only applicable to the current owners, This restriction was approved by the Planning Commission because the main reason that the CUP was even approved at all was on the reputation of the current applicants. Most neighbors were completely unaware that A CUP STAYS WITH THE PROPERTY! The main reason that immediate neighbors, that we have spoken with are DK with the CUP is the fact that the reputation and generosity of the Applicants is without question. Any new owner of the property should have to repeat the complete process for a NEW CUP if the current ownership changes. This is probably the most important restriction in our opinion. 2.29 Applicants wish to eliminate the need to post the time and date of the events thirty (30) days in advance of the event. If the time is not posted, neighbors that are planning events of their own may find them to be in conflict. With no time or number of days notice required, events could be scheduled at any time after it is posted, basically no public notice requirement is the result if this change is accepted. As to the approval by the City Council mt the meeting November 0th.2012.VVefeel that ifany members of the current City Council that have benefited personally from any charitable events, political fundraisers, campaign contributions mrother direct support of their candidacy by the Applicants, Mr Demn#rahc and Mr. McPherson, in the current orpast elections should excuse themselves from the hearing concerning the issuance ofthe Conditional Use Permit 2012'10eems to avoid a conflict mfinterest. Sincerely, Martin and Tina Blemz |ttp-//niail.aot.com/')7!�0-ll2/aol-Wen-us/mail/PrintMessage.aspx 11/5/2012 I' — .— l -- eve mt I I NuvUllmn'-I VO4 I � /plif 270 S. Pasadena ave. Tustin CA "A £<»w -1 http://niail.ao1.com/37130-112/aol-6/en-us/maiI/PrintMessage.aspx 11/5/2012 http://i551.photobucket.com/albums/ii475/MartySoCal/Event,Sbuttlerusingourdrivewayon.. 11/5/22012 IDLING FOR MORE a �HAN 5 MINUTES IS PROHIBITED WITHIN CALIFORNIA'S O DERS. AS F��� PR SLEEPER BERTH TRUCKS DURING PERIODS OF SLEEP AND REST. WHY IS THERE AN IDLING LIMIT? Unnecessary idling: • Produces emissions that contribute to cancer, premature death, and other serious health problems. • Wastes fuel and contributes to global warming. WHAM` ARE THE VIOLATION PENALTIES? Fines start at $300 and can be as much as $1000 per day. Violators may also face criminal charges. 1F I CAN'T IDLE, WHAT CAN I DO ABOUT CAB COMFORT? Here is a list of some available idle reduction technologies: • Battery- Powered Auxiliary Power Systems • Fuel -Fired Heaters (restrictions apply - visa v,, _ b c for details) • Diesel- Fueled Auxiliary Power Systems (restrictions apply - visit a , for details) • Truck stop infrastructures that provide heating, cooling, electricity, andlor other services at various locations throughout California • Visit � a a c for information on these and other idle reduction technologies. ARE THERE SITUATIONS WHEN IDLING 1S ALLOWED? Yes, idling under the following situations is acceptable: • You are stuck in traffic. • When idling is necessary for inspecting or servicing your vehicle. • You are operating a power take -off device. • You cannot move because of adverse weather conditions or mechanical failure. • You are queuing (must be beyond 100 feet from any residential area). • Your truck's engine meets the optional NOx idling emission standard and your truck is located beyond 100 feet from any residential area. ® Please visa NYr _£ for a complete list of exemptions. ARE THERE RESTRICTIONS THAT APPLY TO IDLE REDUCTION TECHNOLOGIES Yes, here are some restrictions that apply: • You cannot operate a diesel - fueled auxiliary power system for more than 5 minutes if you are located within 100 ft of a residential area. • If your truck has a 2007 or newer model year engine, your diesel - fueled auxiliary power system or fuel -fired heater must meet additional equipment requirements. • Please visit c " o'dle for more information. DOES MY TRUCK NEED A NEW LABEL? A special hood label is required if: • Your truck has a 2007 or newer model year engine and you operate an engine -based auxiliary power system within California, or • Your truck's engine meets the optional NOx idling emission standard and you idle for more than 5 minutes within California. WHERE CAN I GET MORE INFORMATION? • Contact the California Air Resources Board at 1-800-END-SMOG (1-800-363-7664) • Visit Our Program 'ii.i' at- Other laws, regulations, and restrictions may apply. Nothing in this fact sheet or in the referenced regulation sections allows idling in excess of other applicable laws, regulations, and restrictions. SUBJECT: PUBLIC COMMENT ON CUP 2012 -10 Yolanda Brown of Blessed Sacrament Church in Los Angeles left a phone message instructing staff to submit her support of CUP 2012 -10 to the City Council. Ms. Brown stated that Lindburgh McPherson and Michael Demoratz have been charitable to host fundraisers for the Blessed Sacrament Church at their residence. She believes Mr. McPherson and Mr. Demoratz would greatly benefit from being able to recover a portion of the costs incurred from their charitable events through hosting paid weddings at their location. For this reason she is in support of CUP 2012 -10 for the Wilcox Manor.