Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA DISTRIBUTIONCONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2012 -101 310 SOUTH PASADENA AVENUE (WILCOX MANOR) CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA DISTRIBUTION 140�\ n REC COVED AUG 2 0 2013 OFFICE- TU37IN CITY CLERK E BROWNE AND 14261 Prospect Avenue Tustin, CA 9278o E -MAIL: browne.jillian @sbcglobal.net CELL (714) 271 -0966 1983 Originally from Auckland, New Zealand 1986 Resident of Tustin, CA 1998 Duel Citizenship, USA Married to Percy Browne, with grown family ACCREDIATIONS • FI`D Master Manager Certification • AFS Eagle Award (American Floral Society) • AIFD American Institute of Floral Designers ❑ 1988 Inducted (Worldwide Membership) ❑ 2004 Accredited Membership EDUCATOR / TEACHING / CONSULTANT- DESIGNER A to Z Wholesale Floral Supply In -House Designer /Consultant Visual Design Display PAGE 2 11 ► : : 9 �. 111 Christmas Trees /Decor Workshops /Floral Classes Designer at Shows /Workshops • 1995 -1Q97 Rogers Gardens (Fashion Island) Christmas Trees Fantasy Festival • 1998 -2004 Phil Rulloda School of Floristry Silk Classes • 1987 -2004 • Floral Schools / "Field" Classes (Fresh, Silk, Dried) • Teleflora Unit & FTD Workshops /Wedding Shows • Holiday Shows for Wholesalers • Christmas /Wedding Shows (Texas, Colorado, California) • R.O.P. Students Retail Training in Floristry PAGE 3 i :'• • 1W Ili Award Winning Designer, including Table Center Displays and Hairpieces • Las Floristas Beverly Hilton Hotel —Los Angeles • Damas de Caridad — Disneyland Hotel • D6cor of Grand International Ballroom — Disneyland Hotel • Presentation Special Program to AIFD International Symposium of Award Winning Headdress "Strictly Ballroom" —Palm Springs 1990 -1Q91 HAYMAN ISLAND RESORT Great Barrier Reef, Australia • In -House Designer at Hayman Island Resort—The Fourth of Top 20 Leading Hotels of the World with: 7 Restaurants ii Penthouses 2 Luxurious Launches x29 Designs in the Resort, Weekly PACE 4 Mss NEW ZEALAND EXOTIC FLOWERS INTERNATIONAL Owner Export /Import of Flowers from New Zealand & Australia • Trade Shows: San Francisco Los Angeles Orange County Carlsbad NEW ZEALAND DESIGNER/CONSULTANT • New Zealand Flower Council • Opening of ist Annual Ellerslie Flower Show — Auckland • Replica of the Famous Chelsea Flower Show — London Representing The New Zealand Growers Association 33Ft x 1oFt Booth 1998 -2002 "JUST FOR YOU FLORIST" TUSTIN • Original Shop Owner of Unique Boutique of Florisiry/Weddings/ Special Events /Community Celebrations PAGE 5 JILLIAN E BROAVNE AIFD 2000 HOIJ AN AMERICA "VOLENDAM" CRUISE IN THE RAIIAMAS • Designer /Consultant for the New Year's Cruise's D6cor 2002 �% • Designer /Consultant for American Designed Christmas Trees and D6cor • Wedding Program for Japanese Florists Educational 2003 SAN FRANCISCO • NADA (National Automotive Dealers Association) International Ex- hibits /Convention- Designer /Consultant LOS ANGELES • Professional Judge for Las Floristas Headdress Ball — Beverly Hilton DEL LANGDALE DESIGN STUDIO • Stage D6cor Gate Entrance Exhibit for Celebrity Foods with Melinda Lee, KFI, Radio Air Broadcast PACE 6 1 :.iTii:`'apI:\ I y �7 2004 • Celebrity Wedding of Famous Rugby Football Star and TV Pre- senter — Waiheke Island, Auckland LOS ANGELES • Professional Judge for Las Floristas Headdress Ball— Beverly Hilton "California Dreaming" PAGE 7 JII.J.TAN E BROWNE AIFD COMMUNITY AWARDS • Huntington Beach Boat Parade, Music From Around the World, "Award of Excellence" • Los Angeles Lotus Festival, Gardens From Around The World, "Japan Consulate Award" Home Tours: Jack & Jill Guild (CHOC) / Santiago Park Santa Ana / Tustin Historic Society / Christmas & Historic Homes on Parade • Events: TWCC / Tustin Chamber of Commerce / Tustin City Man & Women of The Year Award PROFESSIONAL JUDGING • FTD Top Ten • Orange County Fair Professional Florists -12 Years • Southern California Orchid Society • Naples Garden Club Long Beach -12 years • Headdress Balls /Hairpieces /Table Centerpiece Designs -8 Years COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES • TCC (Tustin Chamber of Commerce) — Ambassador • TWCC (Tustin Women in Chamber of Commerce) — Publicity • BNI (Business Network International) • CBS (Community Bible Studies)— History of the Bible PACE 8 2010 From: Jillian Browne AIFD CFD,CCF, FTD Master Manager ' Phone Number: 714- 832 -0647 E -mail: browne.jillian @sbcglobal.net Definition of Arrangements: "Aura Artistry of Flora & Fauna" Topic of Presentation: How to: Basic Designing of Flowers Bio from Jillian Browne AIFD, CFD. CCD, FTD, Jillian Browne AIFD is originally from New Zealand and has lived in Tustin since1985. She was the original owner of her business, Just For You, Florist, in Tustin. She is an Accredited Member of AIFD Institute inducted in 1988. (AIFD,CFD.) America Institute of Floral Designers (Worldwide) , Certified Floral Designer. FTD Master Manager Award, California Certified Designer CCD. She has numerous awards in the floral industry. Highlights of her career have been In -House Designer for the prestigious fourth top resort/hotel, Hayman Island Resort, on the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. For the Millennium New Year's Eve 2000, she was the head designer for Holland - America Volendam cerise ship, in the Bahamas. In 2003, she traveled to Japan, designing Christmas trees for 5 hotels, and a presentation - seminar of a Wedding Show for Japanese florists. Jillian has been an Award Winning Competitor, and Judge, for more than 25 years with Las Floristas and Damas de Caridad Headdress Balls, along with other floral industry events. For the New Zealand Flower Council of Growers, she was Designer - Consultant in the original presentation of the "Ellershe Flower Show ", a replica of the famous "Chelsea Flower Show" in London. Newport/Annual prestigious and famous Rogers Gardens Christmas Trees Festival over many years. Jillian is very active in her community with Tustin Dollars for Scholars (President 2009) since 1995. Member of Tustin Chamber of Commerce (1993) Ambassador and for a time Account Executive, Tustin Area Council for Fine Arts, and Tustin Historic Society Judge for Top 10, Orange County Fair Floral Displays since 1993. She has been involved teaching many work -shops and numerous design shows for the floral industry. Jillian is passionate about the wonderful world of "flora & fauna" in every aspect. Her desire in her golden years to continue to teach and share her knowledge to educate and share experience for anyone interested in God's garden that is all around us with creativity for every age group, young to old from backyard to exotic designs, or those whose desire only to be entertained! nno MEWED AUG 210 10 August 20, 2013 OFFICE- TUSTIN CITY CLERK To whom it may concern: We reside at 685 3m Street, Tustin, CA 92780. I am writing this letter in support of Wilcox Manor obtaining a "Conditional use permit" to hold weddings and other similar events at this historical property in Old Town Tustin. We live on the corner Of Myrtle and 3rd just 2 block away from the property at 310 South Pasadena Avenue (Wilcox Manor) and have then witnessed the owner's restore this property to its former grandeur. They have greatly improved not only its value and curb appeal but of our entire community. We have witnessed them hosting numerous charitable events over the passed 4 years raising needed funds in support of organizations for the City of Tustin and surrounding community. We are volunteer members of several of the charities that have benefitted and know directly the impact on the charity of their support Lindburgh McPherson and Michael Demoratz, the owners of Wilcox Manor have demonstrated their commitment to the community by providing their property free of charge to local charities greatly increasing the amount of money going directly to the charity. Our family fully endorses and supports their application and trust they will continue to be responsible neighbors and stewards of the property. Sara and Brandon Bi1i"dgman Y.arsenWtodard up 98 DISCOVERY IRVINE. CA 92618 -3105 949.769.6602 PH 949.769.6603 FAX G WOODARDQLARS EN WOODARD.COM August 20, 2013 Via Personal Delivery Tustin City Council members c/o Jeffrey C. Parker City of Tustin, Office of the City Clerk 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 ,` -'.Ua 20 2011 OFFICE- TUSTIN CITY CLERK Re: August 20.2013 City Council meeting: Agenda Public Hearina Item No 1 Dear Members of the City Council: I represent Tustin Residents for Appropriate Land Use ( "TRALU ") which opposes the proposed approval of a Conditional Use Permit ( "CUP ") for the Wilcox Manor residence ( "Manor "), located at 310 S. Pasadena Avenue in Tustin. The applicants propose to turn the Manor into a restaurant, night club, bar, or banquet facility 24 times throughout the year, with up to 200 people attending each event. TRALU opposes the application for the impact it will have on both the surrounding residents as well as the environment. The reasons for TRALU's opposition are set out in more detail below. Briefly, they include, but are not limited to: (1) possible changes to the project submitted by the applicants have created a new project that must go back to the Planning Commission for consideration; (2) the events allowed by the proposed CUP are not similar to conditional uses listed in the Tustin Municipal Code and there are no standards to apply to determine similarity; (3) there are no standards to determine whether a proposed project supports the purposes of Tustin's Cultural Resource District (the "District "); (4) the proposed CUP is not exempt from CEQA; and (5) the proposed CUP is not consistent with Tustin's General Plan. The Applicants' Proposed Changes Require A New Application The proposed CUP is for 24 outdoor events. The applicant has requested that the CUP be expanded to include up to 36 outdoor events, as well as a host of other proposed changes. In addition, the applicants have requested that the CUP not apply to events of fewer than 50 people, essentially allowing for an unlimited number of events of that size. The Tustin Municipal Code requires the applicant to submit an application on a form prescribed by the Planning Commission. The applicants' submitted an application for 24 outdoor events. Any change in the number of events, or exempting events with fewer than 50 people, Tustin City Council August 20, 2013 Page 2 must be resubmitted by the applicant, with the accompanying review by the Planning Commission of the new project. The Neiahborhood The Manor is located in the Single Family Residential District, RI zone, and the Cultural Resource District, CR zone. Section 9223(a) of the Tustin Municipal Code lists the uses that are allowed in the RI zone. Moreover, Section 9223(b) lists uses that may be conditionally permitted. The proposed uses for the Manor in the CUP are not listed in either Section 9223(a) or (b). Accordingly, the proposed CUP can only be approved if it is similar to other listed conditional uses. In recommending approval of the proposed CUP as a use similar to the listed conditional uses, the Planning Commission seeks to place the proverbial square peg in a round hole. Although Section 9223(b) gives the Planning Commission discretion to conditionally permit uses that are similar to the listed conditional uses (TRALU questions the legality of such discretion without specific standards to apply the discretion), the Planning Commission here stretches credulity in claiming, without any support or discussion, that turning a residence into a for -profit restaurant, night club, bar, or banquet facility is similar to the specific assembly uses listed in Section 9223(b). Those uses include: places of worship /churches, schools, parks, and playgrounds, among others. Under the Planning Commission's logic, a TGI Friday's would be similar to a listed use, as would a night club, bar, or banquet facility. It seems both absurd and without legal or any other evidence, to claim that the numerous for -profit events the Planning Commission has recommended for approval are similar to churches, schools, parks, and playgrounds that are expressly listed conditional uses. The Planning Commission's decision that the proposed use under the CUP is analogous to a proper listed use is unsupported by any analysis or evidence. Instead, the Planning Commission simply deems the new restaurant/night club/bar/banquet facility use a similar use by fiat. This arbitrary decision is contrary to both the law and the Planning Commission's obligation to make an appropriate determination that a conditional use not listed in Section 9223(b) is similar to the permitted uses of churches, parks, or playgrounds. In fact, the proposed use is more akin to the "clubs and social halls" use allowed in Section 9232(b) of the Tustin Municipal Code (commercial zone — C -1), and the "party facilities" use that is allowed in Section 9233(b) (commercial zone — C -2). The fact that those uses are specifically listed in other areas of Tustin's zoning laws, but not in R -1, shows that the City is aware that those types of uses are not appropriate for the R -1 zone. If the Council endorses the Planning Commission's unsupported claim that the proposed CUP is similar to listed uses, nothing would prevent every historic home in the District from Tustin City Council August 20, 2013 Page 3 requesting a similar CUP to allow it to have two dozen for -profit events each year. The resulting impacts on the residents and the environment would be considerable, and would threaten the very nature of Tustin's historic district that the City is purportedly trying to preserve. TRALU urges the City Council to recognize the legal and practical problems with such a decision and deny the requested CUP. Section 9252j(2) allows the Council to "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." However, Section 9252] contains no standards or other measure for the Planning Commission to determine whether a nonlisted use supports the purposes of the district. A review of the Agenda Report's purported justification for recommending approval of the CUP reveals the problem with a lack of defined standards. The Agenda Report claims that the CUP would "introduce many first -time Old Town Tustin visitors to Tustin's histori c resources which would foster knowledge, understanding, and appreciation ti Tustst past." However, there is no explanation how a for -profit wedding whose guests cannot even tour the residence supports this finding. Similarly, there is no support for how weddings and other for - profit events "complement and bring recognition to a historic resource, which would promote the identity of Old Town Tustin," as claimed in the Agenda Report. The lack of identifiable standards to determine whether to grant a nonlisted use a CUP allows for abuses of the permitting process that will threaten the very historic nature of Old Town Tustin that the Council purports to protect. If the Council approves the CUP with no standards, nothing will prevent similar applications from other historic homes, leading to the possibility of literally hundreds of for -profit events taking place in Old Town annually, with the resulting traffic, noise, and other impacts on the environment. The Agenda Report contends that the CUP approval is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") pursuant to Sections 15301 (Class 1 — Existing Facilities) and 15303 (Class 3 — New Small Facilities). Section 15301 provides that projects that consist of the "operation, repair, maintenance, Permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or ur expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination" are exempt from Tustin City Council August 20, 2013 Page 4 CEQA. As stated in Section 15301, the "key consideration is whether the ue ' 'ble or no expansion of an existing use." ect involves The CUP will allow the Manor to convert from a residence to a for -profit restaurant, night club, bar, or banquet facility 24 times during the year for up to 200 people per event. This is not a negligible expansion of an existing use, it is an entirely new use that requires appropriate CEQA review, staring with the preparation of an initial study to determine the potential impacts on the environment. The only arguable "evidence" from the City justifying the purported Class 1 exemption is simply wrong, and actually warrants the required environmental review. The agenda report claims that Section 15301 lists a restaurant that does not exceed 2,500 square feet in floor area or up to four commercial buildings not exceeding 10,000 square feet of floor area in urbanized areas. Both of these contentions are incorrect. Section 15301 exempts additions to structures (it says nothing about restaurants) as long as the addition does not exceed 2,500 square feet. Moreover, a project adding more than 10,000 square feet is only allowed if it is in an area where all public services and facilities are available to allow for maximum development permissible in the General Plan and the area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive (it says nothing about four commercial buildings). In fact, the proposed approval allows for an increase beyond the 2,500 square feet allowed by the exemption. Condition of Approval 2.1 currently limits all events only to the outdoor portion of the property. The Agenda Report states that the Council could change Condition 2.1 to allow access to the interior of the residence. The residence is listed at 3,964 square feet (Exhibit A). Allowing access to the residence would exceed the 2,500 square foot cap and the exemption would not apply. As noted above, the proposed CUP does not merely relate to the operation or minor alteration of an existing use, it creates an entirely new use. Accordingly, the exemption does not apply and proper environmental review must be conducted for the project. Section 15303 applies to the construction of new, small facilities. Assuming this applies to the proposed new bathrooms, it does not allow the new use explained above. Accordingly, Section 15303 does not exempt the entire project from CEQA review. Not only has the City failed to properly determine that the CUP project is exempt from CEQA, but it also has ignored the significant impacts the project will have on the environment. Allowing 24 for -profit events at a residence in the middle of a residential neighborhood poses several potential impacts to the environment, including noise, traffic, air quality, parking, and the impact on the historical character of the neighborhood. Tustin City Council August 20, 2013 Page 5 The impacts of the project are out of character for a residential neighborhood. In addition, the cumulative impact of two dozen for -profit events with up to 200 people and live music will be substantial on the neighborhood and the environment. For example, neighbors have complained about the noise from events previously held at the Manor. The City's respo nse in the proposed CUP is to ignore those complaints under the unsupported claim that "it is not anticipated" that the events will exceed the levels in the City's noise ordinance. Of course, the City did no actual analysis of the noise levels from Manor events to confirm if, in fact, this speculation is true. Indeed, the City apparently intends to rely on the applicants' use of an iPhone app to determine compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance. My client is not as optimistic as the City that the applicants will self - police and take measures to reduce noise levels when they exceed the City's limits. Accordingly, given that the City failed to adequately find the CUP project exempt, and given the project's potentially significant environmental impacts, particularly on noise, the City must conduct adequate environmental review, and the exemption determination is improper. The Proposed CUP Proiect Is Inconsistent With Tustin's General Plan As proposed, the CUP project is inconsistent with both the Tustin General Plan's Land Use and Noise Elements. While the Agenda Report contends that the project is consistent with Policy 5.5, 6.5, 6.11, 7. 1, and Goal 10 and Policy 10. 1, the Agenda Report contains nothing more than conclusory statements with no analysis whatsoever. Moreover, the analysis ignores other policies within the Land Use Element, as well as other General Plan elements in their entirety. The CUP project is inconsistent with the following General Plan policies': a) Land Use Element — Policy 4.1— "Mitigate traffic congestion and unacceptable levels of noise, odors, dust and light and glare which affect residential areas and sensitive receptors." As explained above, the noise levels from loud outdoor parties with and the environment. amplified music have been ignored by the City in its analysis of the impacts on the neighborhood b) Noise Element — Policy 2.3 — "Use noise/land use compatibility standards as a guide for future planning and development." The City has ignored any noise standards and the impact of the for -profit outdoor events on the neighborhood and the environment. c) Noise Element — Policy 2.4 — "Review proposed projects in terms of compatibility with nearby noise - sensitive land uses with the intent of reducing noise impacts." The City has ignored nearby noise - sensitive land uses (neighboring residences) altogether by ' Relevant portions of the General Plan, taken from Tustin's website, are attached hereto as Exhibit B for the Council's reference. Tustin City Council August 20, 2013 Page 6 conducting no analysis of the noise impacts from the events on the neighborhood and the environment. Moreover, the City has imposed no mitigation measures to reduce noise impacts, even allowing unfettered use of amplified music and entertainment up until 10:00 p.m. d) Noise Element — Policy 2.7 — "Require new commercial/industrial operations located in proximity to existing or proposed residential areas to incorporate noise mitigation into project design." The City is effectively allowing the applicants to open a restaurant, night club, bar, or banquet facility in the middle of a residential neighborhood 24 times a year, without requiring any mitigation for this new commercial operation. e) Noise Element — Land Use Compatibility Guidelines and Standards — these guidelines and standards state, "Table N -2 provides guidance for the acceptability of certain development projects within specific CNEL contours and will act as a set of criteria for assessing the compatibility of proposed land uses within the noise environment." Table N -2 states that for residential land uses in a CNEL contour of 70 dB(A) (the level for the Manor), "new development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design." The City has failed to do any required noise analysis for the proposed CUP, in violation of its General Plan. The standards and guidelines also state, "For the City to achieve noise and land use compatibility it is imperative that mitigation measures be imposed during site planning to mitigate anticipated noise impacts on affected noise sensitive land uses. The submittal of an acoustical analysis report in noise impact levels is one mechanism to evaluate proposed projects." The City has not done any analysis of the noise impacts from the proposed CUP, let alone an acoustical analysis. fl Noise Element — Non - Transportation Noise Control — this section states, "[p]eople, and noise sensitive areas, must be protected from excessive noise generated by non - transportation sources including commercial and industrial centers." The lack of any mitigation measures for the proposed CUP, which will allow amplified music at outdoor events with up to not people, fails to comply with thus requirement to protect nearby residents from excessive noise. g) At page 22 of the Noise Element, it states, "[a]pplication of the provisions of the Noise Ordinance will include: (a) requiring that any proposed development projects show compliance with the City's Noise Element and Ordinance ...." As explained above, the proposed CUP contains no requirement that the applicants show compliance with the Noise Element or Ordinance. Rather, the Agenda Report states dismissively, and without any support, that "it is not anticipated" that the events will exceed the levels in the City's noise ordinance. h) Noise Element — Noise and Land Use Planning Integration — this section states, "g. Acoustical Analysis: Acoustical analysis reports prepared by a qualified acoustic Tustin City Council August 20, 2013 Page 7 engineer will be required for new sensitive land uses within Noise Impact Areas identified in the Noise Plan." No required acoustical analysis has been prepared by the applicants as required by this part of the Noise Element. Given the significant problems with the proposed CUP, TRALU requests that the Council deny the CUP. Alternatively, TRALU requests that the Council continue any decision on the proposed CUP to conduct further study on the impacts of the CUP, particularly on noise, as required by the Tustin Municipal Code. Very truly :gory E. Woodard LARSEN WOODARD LLP Enclosures LTnP:/rnww .zw0w.com/h0medeWils/310- Pasadena - Ave - Tustin -CA -. aaraurm: 5 be" aenwooma: 5 brlp NnpM fanny: 3,954 @q It t.ct 0.4 sa a; Yar au6tl 1880 teat add: Nov 4007 far 6755,000 11mothp Ti'Pe: VM Cwr@d honr fact Save s this home I Oet update f?mar mae _ _ --- _----- DesdWaon 0If ha Nalorinl elpnYlrsrae forts CRY d Twin, Mop ban are raldwm d Chm M VVkM ane d1M Abner tan - d ar@ ally. The Propmy b under AYb Act w.brf, VWb= 5lanor a Y b MMMeNY biorm ha heeled mmrma ohor5ad@ ewnb ham ar@ pwrr Oronpe CmIty region. Moro Cooling PSMM Bsamnd Type WSJ OnV @- OMOctud, of scat Lh1v~ MMPI-o Flo"Cavednp Aft Ya Rrdread ya Moro Cw* webab See d@fa wuros Za@tlar4s _ tabs pAr" 30day dw pe ._..._..61,380,056 SJW tar updated Z@anWa $I.lmA- 61.a2m - 654,051 ....$348 .. 0811112D13 Rut Z@aarrrah f4,4071no 61.aK- 65.9Khno 497 61.06 0M1T2013 0twnr bob Pm your own estimate Jaen t7amale= Me take Zaow p dk b 947a011or10 valtes w11 rse 11.3% nok Yar, wmP@md too 11% rle@ far Tustin a • MwkL Amrp WM home@, Ihla ... more Zw*nwb I Rant Zodnwo I mare . a CZ M«.> 1 Year 5 ye@n 10 yawn E 5 homes for sale nearby. Vlaw photos e Canted blaf @pmt I rook Mko a p bowonw atMM f my home at 310 Posaarr A", Mlin, CA 94750. .am how b ePP@ar a die aped above ShNI@r Hamm for awe ... .. .. 1@69 WM0Aa m.... Par sow. $1,260,000 Sac- Scift e54a. Bodo.- L.ot- 10513 PNWw M„ Me, TUii,G Fw aW: 6975,000 93100 B@dc - W4518 gym- Lot - ee4 Peowo ar, nwry G 9z1e0 For saw 6735,000 Bac - Sglt 4412 Brha:- Lot 8404 2 of 3 8/19/2013 10:27 AM JIM Boe a IL ro: c.e Pwi e� a -. _ Jaen t7amale= n,wrp Qst"wsam IWnPUmu a CZ M«.> � tan) ateane I rook Mko a p bowonw atMM f my home at 310 Posaarr A", Mlin, CA 94750. .am how b ePP@ar a die aped above ShNI@r Hamm for awe ... .. .. 1@69 WM0Aa m.... Par sow. $1,260,000 Sac- Scift e54a. Bodo.- L.ot- 10513 PNWw M„ Me, TUii,G Fw aW: 6975,000 93100 B@dc - W4518 gym- Lot - ee4 Peowo ar, nwry G 9z1e0 For saw 6735,000 Bac - Sglt 4412 Brha:- Lot 8404 2 of 3 8/19/2013 10:27 AM environment, to the maximum extent possible, and recognize other General Plan pohdes. Policy 3.5: Hillside development should be designed to follow natural contours, where possible, and to minimize the amount of land alteration The location and design of structures and access should maximize the natural appearance of the hillside areas. Development of isolated areas which can only be reached by going through steep terrain should be discouraged. Policy 3.6: Regulate development in identifiable hazardous areas or in areas that are environmentally sensitive. Policy 3.7: Encourage the preservation and enhancement of public vistas, particularly those seen from public places. Policy 3.8: Encourage consolidation of parking and reciprocal access agreements among adjacent businesses. GOAL 4: Assure a safe, healthy and aesthetically pleasing community for residents and businesses. Policy 4.1: Mitigate traffic congestion and unacceptable levels of noise, odors, dust and light and glare which affect residential areas and sensitive receptors. Policy 4.2: Ensure a sensitive transition between commercial or industrial uses and residential uses by means of such techniques as buffering, landscaping and setbacks. Policy 4.3: Where mixed uses are permitted, ensure compatible integration of adjacent uses to minimize conflicts. Policy 4.4: Encourage the elimination of non - conforming uses and buildings. Policy 4.5: Ensure adequate monitoring of those uses which involve hazardous materials to avoid industrial accidents, chemical spills, fires and explosions. CITY OF TLMM LAND USE ELEMENT GENERAL PLAN 16 JUNE 17, 2008 Policy 2.2: Apply the state's noise insulation standards to the conver- sion of existing apartments into condominiums wherever feasible. Policy 2.3: Use noise /land use compatibility standards as a guide for future planning and development. Policy 2.4: Review proposed projects in terms of compatibility with nearby noise - sensitive land uses with the intent of reducing noise impacts. Policy 2.5: Require new residential developments located in proximity to existing commercial /industrial operations to control residential interior noise levels as a condition of approval. Policy 2.6: Require that commercial uses developed as part of a mixed -use project (with residential) not be noise intensive. Design mixed -use structures to prevent transfer of noise from the commercial to the residential use. Policy 2.7: Require new commercial /industrial operations located in proximity to existing or proposed residential areas to incorporate noise mitigation into project design. Policy 2.8: Replace a significant noise source with non -noise generating land uses when plans for future use of areas are developed. F ill CO) zaY711 W;Lei;�1t7Vr • .. • r .rr; • Sources of noise that are not related to transportation can be controlled to avoid exposure to excessive noise levels. GOAL 3: Develop measures to control non - transportation noise impacts. Policy 3.1: Implement a review process of Tustin's noise ordinance, and City policies and regulations affecting noise. Policy 3.2: Minimize the impacts of construction noise on adjacent land uses through limiting the permitted hours of activity. CITY OF TUSTIN NOISE ELEMENT GENERAL PLAN 10 JUNE 17, 2008 Areas of Special Concern Areas of special concern within the Noise Impact Area are near the I -5 and SR -55 freeways. At these locations the existing CNEL ranges from 70 to 80dB. Caltrans constructed soundwalls along these freeways as part of the freeway widening projects. These walls reduce the CNEL at the adjacent residences. Residences next to a number of major and secondary arterials in the Tustin Planning Area are also exposed to a CNEL over 65 dB. These arterials include: • Bryan Avenue • Fairhaven Avenue • Newport Avenue • Yorba Street • Browning Avenue • El Camino Real • Walnut Avenue • Edinger Street • Irvine Boulevard • Red Hill Avenue • Prospect Avenue • 17th Street • McFadden Street • Sycamore Avenue Measurements have shown that residences located next to the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) rail line are were exposed to a CNEL of about 70 dB and maximum noise levels of 78 dB(A). By the year 2010, the CNEL at the adjacent residences will increase by as much as 6 dB due to increased rail activity related to commuter rail activities along the SCRRA /CGCTA railway (Metrolink). The primary source of annoyance at these locations will be afternoon and early morning peak hour train passes. t1/: 4,1401 Table N -2 provides guidance for the acceptability of certain develop- ment projects within specific CNEL contours and will act as a set of criteria for assessing the compatibility of proposed land uses within the noise environment. Land Use Compatibility Guidelines are the basis for development of the specific noise standards presented in table N -3 which should be utilized as city policy related to new land uses and acceptable noise levels development. c1TY OF TUSTIN NOISE ELEMENT GENERAL PLAN 14 JUNE 17, 2008 For the City to achieve noise and land use compatibility it is impera- tive that mitigation measures be imposed during site planning to mitigate anticipated noise impacts on affected noise sensitive land uses. The submittal of an acoustical analysis report in noise impact levels is one mechanism to evaluate proposed projects. The incorporation of mitigation measures as described in this Noise plan and other action may enable a project to comply with exterior and interior noise compatibility guidelines and standards. Construction Standards The provisions of the State of California Noise Insulation Standards (California Administrative Code, Title 24) specifying that the indoor noise levels for multifamily residential living spaces shall not exceed 45 dB CNEL (or Ldn) due to the combined effect of all noise sources will be enforced. The State requires implementation of this standard when the outdoor noise levels exceed 60 dB CNEL (or Wit). The noise contour maps can be used to decide when this standard needs to be addressed. The code requires that this standard be applied to all new hotels, motels, apartment houses and dwellings, other than detached single family dwellings. The City will also, as a matter of policy, apply this standard to new single family developments and condominium conversion projects where feasible. The noise levels presented in Table N -2 represent exterior noise levels. The primary purpose of the noise compatibility matrix is to identify Potential conflicts between proposed land uses and the noise envi- ronment. The matrix is usually used at the General Plan or zoning level of approvals. If a project falls within Zone A or Zone B the project is considered compatible with the noise environment. Zone A implies that no mitigation will be needed Zone B implies that minor soundproofing of the structure may be needed and should be engineered before issuance of building permits. Zone C shows that substantial noise mitigation will be necessary, such as construction of noise barriers and substantial building sound insulation. However, projects in Zone C can be successfully mitigated. The project may be approved for land use and then is mitigated as necessary to achieve City standards (Table N -3) before issuance of building permits or other appropriate milestones. CITY OF TUSTIN NOISE ELEMENT GENERAL PLAN 15 JUNE 17,2W8 The most efficient and effective means of controlling noise from trans- portation systems is to reduce noise at the source. However, since the City has little direct control over source noise levels because of state and federal preemption (Le., State motor vehicle noise standards and Federal air regulations), programs should be focused on reducing the impact of the noise on the community. Cooperative efforts with state and federal offices are essential. Within the Tustin Planning Area are several transportation related noise sources including train tracks, two freeways, major arterials, collector roadways, and a commercial airport. Although MCAS Tustin closed in 1999, blimp flight operations may occur as an interim use. These sources are the major contributors of noise in Tustin. Cost effective strategies to reduce their influence on the community noise environment are an essential part of the Noise Element. CITY OF TUSTIN NOISE ELMAE TT GENERAL PLAN 16 JUNE 17, 2005 TABLE N -2 LAND USE NOISE COMPATIBILITY MATRIX CLEARLY COMPATBLE .+j... -rm.. wee uw v 9ev�ca�yr CtlM fi]fOtt StB 15131' - -. coslvlalL'mtlal maafiaa� without erry sp•cidmi••' Sbnrequ �wlq, irwdoed •r• of norawt ZOMB Pkwamrhnaifouar . s�midbsaideshkenomtpaHad +hil•dmulya3 oftlle xwi3er3duction NORMALLY COMPATIBLE tequ as wad• and nwd•d norm imuiaHm featutea iil the dmign ai• Cmm&wb 3l cmwkucam with dosedwi, m andfi•shairsupplysyswup orah'cw &wiIlnonaaEysaffux. ZONE NORMALLY LVCOMPATIBi.E Newemsbucbmos Jew bpatasd ah 1111 gawr!] 1, 1 , Ifsaew amahaetiaioe c1•vbpa>Mt des ptooeed, a d. . . amlgeie of stois• -dactlm ra"nmr ft must be wade and nwdad aoiw Or o©oo ©�aoF ln• r • ! IJ' N I 1 • • i • t IU• r i • t IG' r 00 00000! •.�..�, 00 © © ©0© •' a r• © ©©m�� ©f • ... ©O©©RON I�W,p , ©1 CLEARLY COMPATBLE .+j... -rm.. wee uw v 9ev�ca�yr CtlM fi]fOtt StB 15131' - -. coslvlalL'mtlal maafiaa� without erry sp•cidmi••' Sbnrequ �wlq, irwdoed •r• of norawt ZOMB Pkwamrhnaifouar . s�midbsaideshkenomtpaHad +hil•dmulya3 oftlle xwi3er3duction NORMALLY COMPATIBLE tequ as wad• and nwd•d norm imuiaHm featutea iil the dmign ai• Cmm&wb 3l cmwkucam with dosedwi, m andfi•shairsupplysyswup orah'cw &wiIlnonaaEysaffux. ZONE NORMALLY LVCOMPATIBi.E Newemsbucbmos Jew bpatasd ah 1111 gawr!] 1, 1 , Ifsaew amahaetiaioe c1•vbpa>Mt des ptooeed, a d. . . amlgeie of stois• -dactlm ra"nmr ft must be wade and nwdad aoiw CITY OF TUSTIN NOSE ELEMENT GENERAL PLAN 17 JUNE 17, 2DOS Noise Control At The Source The California Vehicle Code contains noise limits applicable to new vehicles at the time of manufacture and noise regulations pertaining to the operation of all vehicles on public roads. The City will provide for continued evaluation and enforcement of truck and bus movements and routes to minimize noise at the source for sensitive land uses. Regulation of traffic flow can also significantly minimize noise impacts. The State Motor Vehicle noise standards for cars, trucks, and motorcycles will be enforced through coordination with the California Highway Patrol and the Tustin Police. The City and its citizens will also participate in the planning process for John Wayne Airport. Any changes in operations or land uses within the facility that will increase noise exposures in the Planning Area will be opposed. The City will encourage implementation of procedures that will reduce noise levels in the area and will minimize the number of aircraft overflights. NON- TRANSPORTATOIN NOISE CONTROL People, and noise sensitive areas, must be protected from excessive noise generated by non - transportation sources including commercial and industrial centers. These impacts are most effectively controlled through the environmental and site plan review process by imposition of mitigation measures and the application of a City Noise Ordinance. Typical Mitigation for Industrial and Commercial Uses Consideration should be given to the control of noise in new commercial and industrial developments when noise levels would otherwise be generated that would exceed the noise level for the district in which they are located and that would adversely affect nearby projects. The following mitigation measures could be applied when reviewing these new projects: o Furnaces - Acoustically treat natural draft and/ or forced draft units and combustion air intake plena. Insulation of firing CITY OF TUSTIN NOISE ELffivUNT GENMAL PLAN 20 JUNE 17,2M Noise Ordinance The City's noise ordinance will be reviewed periodically for adequacy and changes implemented as needed to address the City's current needs. The noise ordinance will continue to be enforced to ensure that adjacent properties are not exposed to excessive noise levels from sta- tionary sources. The ordinance protects people from non- transpor- tation related noise sources such as music, construction activity, machinery and pumps, air conditioners, and truck traffic on private property. The Community Development Departmentwill act as noise control coordinator. This will ensure the continued operation of noise enforcement efforts of the City. Application of the provisions of the Noise Ordinance will include: (a) requiring that any proposed development projects show compliance with the City's Noise Element and Ordinance, (b) requiring con- struction activity to comply with limits established in the City's Noise Ordinance, and (c) requiring all City departments to comply with the state and federal OSHA noise standards, and any new equipment or vehicle purchases to comply with city, state, and federal noise standards. CITY OF TUSTIN NOISE ELEMENT GENERAL PLAN 22 JUNE 17, 2008 5. Aviation Monitoring: The City shall continue to review and report on the noise reports received concerning John Wayne Airport to identify any of the areas of the City where negative impacts exist in order to implement mitigation efforts, which could include lobbying of the FAA and related agencies for tighter restrictions on aircraft types. Responsible Agency/Department: Community Development Funding Source: City General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing Related Noise Element Policies: 1.3 -1:6 NOISE AND LAND USE PLANNING INTEGRATION 6. Compatibility Standards Application Through the Design Review process Noise Element Standards of compatibility described in Tables N -2 and N -3 of the Element will be applied to new developmentproposals and methods to mitigate anticipated impacts, such as building orientation and acoustical barriers, shall be applied to meet the standards. Responsible Agency/Department: Community Development Funding Source: Development fees Time Frame: Ongoing Related Noise Element Policies: 2.1, 2.3 -2.8 7. Noise Insulation: Interior and exterior noise levels for proposed new development shall be required to meet the California Noise Insulation Standards (Title 24 of the California Administrative Code). These standards shall also be applied to all single family developments and condominium conversion projects where feasible. Responsible Agency/Department: Community Development Funding Source: Development fees MY OF TUST V NOISE ET ffi.EIENT GENERAL PLAN 25 JUNE 17, 2008 Time Frame: Ongoing Related Noise Element Policies: 2.1, 2.2,2.5, 2.6 8. Acoustical Analysis: Acoustical analysis reports prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer will be required for new sensitive land uses within Noise Impact Areas identified in the Noise Plan. Responsible Agency/Department: Community Development Funding Source: Developer Time Frame: Ongoing Related Noise Element Policies: 2.4, 2.7 NON - TRANSPORTATION NOISE CONTROL 9. Noise Ordinance Enforcement The City will enforce its Noise Ordinance to reduce excessive noise from site- specific sources, such as construction activity mechanical equipment, landscaping mainte- nance, loud music, truck traffic, loading and unloading activities, and other sources. Responsible Agency/Department Community Development, Police Department Funding Source: City General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing Related Noise Element Policies: 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 10. Noise Ordinance Review. The City shall periodically review its Noise Ordinance, policies and regulations affecting noise sources in order to conform with changes in legislation and /or technologies. Responsible Agency/Department Community Development c(TY OF TLTsnN NOISE EL.F.d.ffi GENERAL PLAN 26 JUNE 17, 2008 Rabe, Erica From: DiLeva- Johnson, Adrianne Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 4:04 PM To: Rabe, Erica Cc: Binsack, Elizabeth; Willkom, Justina; Reekstin, Scott; Johnson, Melissa Subject: Lindburgh Correspondence Attachments: Misc Correspondence submitted by Lindburgh.pdf Hi Erica, I have attached a few additional pieces of correspondence submitted by Lindburgh. Adrianne D1Leva- Johnson, Senior Management Assistant City of Tustin, Community Development Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 (714( 573 -3106 (p) / (714( 573 -3113 (f) od i leva-io hnson @tusti nca.org Creating community through the arts FOR FINE ARTS Executive Committee President Rouen• Atceff Vice President Programs Lynda Rjoin Vice President nntD7anieaJlnne __.._,.. ._. Dr. Patricia Machado Vice President Fund Development Kathy Tarrant Viet President Uroadtyay in the Park Jae DiCorpt Secretary Scutt Cwiermy Treasurer Sharyn Sommnm Parliamentarian Diane Aust Directors Jamultan Ahelove Libby Ruckley Rtdt Covey Patti Disain Wendy Greene Nancy Ivory Mary KautTmmn Erin Kociela Simon Lcgomt Mall Lindauer Robert Machado Midis Nicalal Stephanie Stitneider Gloria Snsda Judy Wedret Advisory Committee Doag Duvcrt Mark Pilot Stuart Erthsen Barbara Foster John Garner David Wilson Dear Lindburgh and Michael, RECEIVED AUG 20 2013 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT Along with many area non profit organizations, the Tustin Area Council for Fine Arts has been the fortunate recipient of your generosity over the past few years. You have unselfishly offered our organization the use of Wilcox Manor on multiple occasions, all at no charge to TACFA. In addition to the venue, you 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 you spend in the organization of the events usually goes unnoticed As you are well aware, TACFA is a 501(c)(3) dedicated to funding and administering programs that expand the arts in the greater Tustin area and enriching the entire community. Our programs include Art Masters, Student Art Invitational, Barbara Benson Memorial Scholarships, Koncerts for Kids, Young American Workshop Scholarships, Graphic Design Workshop, and our newest program Artscapes. Our signature event, Broadway in the Park, has been serving the city of Tustin for thirteen years. We maintain a low ticket price to ensure that everyone can enjoy this uniquely American musical experience. You continue to demonstrate your commitment to our organization and to the Tustin community that we serve. Because of your steadfast and unwavering support, we have saved $35,000 in expenses for our various events, and you have been instrumental in helping us raise over $23,000 over the past three years. This has allowed us to maximize the efforts of our board members, volunteers and patrons in support of our mission in addidorrto-enab ' er fine act programs to-our . community. We are so thankful to you both for all that you do for the community. You are a treasure and an extraordinary gift not only to TACFA, but to the City of Tustin! Gratefully, Bonny Atzeff TACFA President P.O. Box 145, Tustin, CA 92781 . Tcl: 714- 518 -5519 wvnv.tacd.org TACFA is a 501 (c)(3) public benefit corporation. Tax Lt). 33 -0482957 3 � l r � � � , / ; / � . if .� �'' �' � r i / I ,,; / �i � f � / l i � � �/ �/ / d �� '� � , <� � � i i � � / � � �.. / i � : i °mss' J / r X"-e400� Az�� A,4,f,� RECEIVED AUG 20 2013 August 20,2013 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT To whom it may concern: We reside at 250 Myrtle Avenue, Old Town Tustin, CA 92780. We are writing this letter in support of Wilcox Manor obtaining a "Conditional use permit" to hold weddings and other similar events at this historical property in Old Town Tustin. We lived several houses down from 310 South Pasadena Avenue (Wilcox Manor) for 6 years and witnessed the new owners restore this property to its former grandeur. They have greatly improved not only its value and curb appeal but of our entire neighborhood. We have witnessed th em hosting numerous charitable events over the passed 5 years raising needed funds in support of organizations for the City of Tustin and surrounding community. Lindburgh McPherson and Michael Demoratz, the owners of Wilcox Manor have demonstrated their commitment to the community by providing their property free of charge to local charities greatly increasing the amount of money going directly to the charity. Our family fully endorses and supports their application and trust they will continue to be responsible neighbors and stewards of the property. Jenny and Tim Johnson t <s' � August 20, 2013 To whom it may concern: RECEIVED AUG 20 2013 COMMUNrfY DEVELOPMENT DEPT I reside at 320 South Pasadena Avenue Apt D, Tustin, CA 92780. I am writing this letter in support of Wilcox Manor obtaining a "Conditional use permit" to hold weddings and other similar events at this historical property in Old Town Tustin:, I have lived directly next door to 310 South Pasadena Avenue (Wilcox Manor) for many years and have witnessed the new owners restore this property to its former grandeur. They have greatly improved not only its value and curb appeal but of the entire neighborhood. I have witnessed them hosting numerous charitable events over the passed 5 years raising needed funds in support of organizations for the City of Tustin and surrounding community. Lindburgh McPherson and Michael Demoratz, the owners of Wilcox Manor have demonstrated their commitment to the community by providing their property free of charge to local charities greatly increasing the amount of money going directly to the charity. I fully endorse and support their application and trust they will continue to be responsible neighbors and stewards of the property. Sincerely, i Rick Peregud NEIGHBORS SUPPORT LETTERS Ana Carillo Mary & Jeremiah Castenada Rob & April Thompson Patricia de Perez & Jose Perez Margaret & Buster Graves Doug and Karen King Kaycee Howell Lori and Todd Heller Rosemary Pineda Magda and Michael Zell Jenny and Tim Johnson The Birdman Melissa and Greg Figge Frank Weight /Rick Peregud Robin and Fred Fry RECEIVED AUG 20 2013 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT 325 South Pasadena Avenue 320 South Pasadena Avenue 315 South Pasadena Avenue 275 South Pasadena Avenue 255 South Pasadena Avenue 740 West 2nd Street 180 South Myrtle Avenue 705 West Main Street 280 South Myrtle Avenue 235 South myrtle Avenue 250 South Myrtle Avenue 685 31d Street 655 West Mail Street 320 South Pasadena Avenue 250 Pacific Street RECEIVED AUG 20 2013 jxmwNrry DEVELOPMENT DEPT Free parking is available at 100 N. Tustin Avenue in Tustin Continuoussbuttleservice will beprovided to and from Wi coxManor .'There is no street parking at the venue. Rabe, Erica From: DiLeva- Johnson, Adrianne Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 10:53 AM To: Rabe, Erica Cc: Binsack, Elizabeth; Reekstin, Scott; Wilikom, Justina Subject: Correspondence Attachments: Correspondence Jillian E. Browne.pdf Ms. Browne came to the front counter and requested that her credentials be forwarded to the City Council. She is the florist who assists Wilcox Manor with their events. J on (401 2 RECEIVED AUG 20 2013 COMMUNrY DEVELOPMENT DEPT E BROWNE AIFD 14261 Prospect Avenue Tustin, CA 92750 E -MAIL: browne.jillian@sbcglobal.net CELL (714) 271 -0966 �1 1983 Originally from Auckland, New Zealand 1986 Resident of Tustin, CA 1998 Duel Citizenship, USA Married to Percy Browne, with grown family ACCREDIATIONS • FTD Master Manager Certification • AFS Eagle Award (American Floral Society) • AIFD American Institute of Floral Designers ❑ 1988 Inducted (Worldwide Membership) ❑ 2004 Accredited Membership EDUCATOR / TEACHING / CONSULTANT- DESIGNER A I A to Z Wholesale Floral Supply In -House Designer /Consultant Visual Design Display PAGE 2 JILLIAN E BROWNE AND Christmas Trees /Decor Workshops /Floral Classes Designer at Shows /Workshops .. ..A Rogers Gardens (Fashion Island) Christmas Trees Fantasy Festival ..: II. Phil Rnlloda School of Floristry Silk Classes MI: II. • Floral Schools / "Field" Classes (Fresh, Silk, Dried) • Teleflora Unit & FTD Workshops /Wedding Shows • Holiday Shows for Wholesalers • Christmas /Wedding Shows (Texas, Colorado, California) • R.O.P. Students Retail Training in Floristry PAGe 3 JILLIAN E BROWNS AND "V 63: , : : ' ' Award Winning Designer, including Table Center Displays and Hairpieces • Las Floristas Beverly Hilton Hotel —Los Angeles • Damas de Caridad — Disneyland Hotel • Decor of Grand International Ballroom — Disneyland Hotel • Presentation Special Program to AIFD International Symposium of Award Winning Headdress "Strictly Ballroom" —Palm Springs t_ Great Barrier Reef, Australia In -House Designer at Hayman Island Resort—The Fourth of Top 20 Leading Hotels of the World with: 7 Restaurants 11 Penthouses 2 Luxurious Launches 129 Designs in the Resort, Weekly PACE 4 M11MMEW .. Owner Export/Import of Flowers from New Zealand & Australia • Trade Shows: San Francisco Los Angeles Orange County Carlsbad .. NEW ZEALAND DESIGNER/CONSULTANT • New Zealand Flower Council • Opening of ist Annual Ellerslie Flower Show — Auckland • Replica of the Famous Chelsea Flower Show — London Representing The New Zealand Growers Association 33Ft x ioFt Booth "JUST FOR YOU FLORIST" TUSTIN Original Shop Owner of Unique Boutique of Floristry /Weddings/ Special Events /Community Celebrations PAGE 5 •f� HOLLAND- AMERICA "VOLENDAM" MILLENNIUM CRUISE IN THE BAHAMAS • Designer /Consultant for the New Year's Cruise's Decor • Designer /Consultant for American Designed Christmas Trees and Decor • Wedding Program for Japanese Florists Educational 200'3 SAN FRANCISCO • NADA (National Automotive Dealers Association) International Ex- hibits /Convention- Designer /Consultant LOS ANGELES • Professional Judge for Las Floristas Headdress Ball— Beverly Hilton DEL LANGDALE DESIGN STUDIO • Stage Decor Gate Entrance Exhibit for Celebrity Foods with Melinda Lee, KFI, Radio Air Broadcast PACE 6 " • 1 TI 1 ii • I 1 • Celebrity Wedding of Famous Rugby Football Star and TV Pre- senter — Waiheke Island, Auckland LOS ANGELES • Professional Judge for Las Floristas Headdress Ball— Beverly Hilton "California Dreaming" PACE 7 JILLIAN E BROWNE AIFD COMMUNITY AWARDS • Huntington Beach Boat Parade, Music From Around the World, "Award of Excellence" • Los Angeles Lotus Festival, Gardens From Around The World, "Japan Consulate Award" • Home Tours: Jack & Jill Guild (CHOC) / Santiago Park Santa Ana / Tustin Historic Society / Christmas & Historic Homes on Parade Events: TWCC / Tustin Chamber of Commerce / Tustin City Man & Women of The Year Award PROFESSIONAL JUDGING • F'ID Top Ten • Orange County Fair Professional Florists -12 Years • Southern California Orchid Society • Naples Garden Club Long Beach -12 years • Headdress Balls /Hairpieces /Table Centerpiece Designs -8 Years COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES • TCC (Tustin Chamber of Commerce) — Ambassador • TWCC (Tustin Women in Chamber of Commerce) — Publicity • BNI (Business Network International) • CBS (Community Bible Studies) — History of the Bible PAGE 8 2010 From: Jillian Browne AIFD CFD,CCF, FTD Master Manager' Phone Number: 714 - 832 -0647 E -mail: browne.jillian@sbeglobal.net Definition of Arrangements: "Aura Artistry of Flora & Fauna" Topic of Presentation: How to: Basic Designing of Flowers Bio from Jillian Browne AIFD, CFD. CCD, FTD. Jillian Browne AIFD is originally from New Zealand and has lived in Tustin since1985. She was the original owner of her business, Just For You, Florist, in Tustin. She is an Accredited Member of AIFD Institute inducted in 1988. (AIFD,CFD.) America Institute of Floral Designers (Worldwide) , Certified Floral Designer. FTD Master Manager Award, California Certified Designer CCD. She has numerous awards in the floral industry. Highlights of her career have been In -House Designer for the prestigious fourth top resort/hotel, Hayman Island Resort, on the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. For the Millennium New Year's Eve 2000, she was the head designer for Holland- America Volendam cruise ship, in the Bahamas. In 2003, she traveled to Japan, designing Christmas trees for 5 hotels, and a presentation - seminar of a Wedding Show for Japanese florists. Jillian has been an Award Winning Competitor, and Judge, for more than 25 years with Las Floristas and Damas de Caridad Headdress Balls, along with other floral industry events. For the New Zealand Flower Council of Growers, she was Designer - Consultant in the original presentation of the "Ellerslie Flower Show ", a replica of the famous "Chelsea Flower Show" in London. Newport/Annual prestigious and famous Rogers Gardens Christmas Trees Festival over many years. Jillian is very active in her community with Tustin Dollars for Scholars (President 2009) since 1995. Member of Tustin Chamber of Commerce (1993) Ambassador and for a time Account Executive, Tustin Area Council for Fine Arts, and Tustin Historic Society Judge for Top 10, Orange County Fair Floral Displays since 1993. She has been involved teaching many work -shops and numerous design shows for the floral industry. Jillian is passionate about the wonderful world of "flora & fauna" in every aspect. Her desire in her golden years to continue to teach and share her knowledge to educate and share experience for anyone interested in God's garden that is all around us with creativity for every age group, young to old from backyard to exotic designs, or those whose desire only to be entertained! RECOVEID Johnson, Melissa AUG 20 2013 From: Chad Ortlieb <amocco @sbcglobal.net> OFFICE- TUSTIN CITY CLERK Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 11:46 PM To: City Clerk Subject: Comments on CUP 2012 -10, 8 -20 -13 Council Meeting Attachments: Wilcox Manor 8 -20 -13 vl.doc; Wilcox Manor City Council Comment Letter Attachments 8- 20- 13.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Attached are comments pertaining to CUP 2012 -10 which is scheduled for the August 20, 2013 City Council Meeting. Please inform me of your receipt of the attached comment letter and associated attachments. Thank You, Chad Ortlieb j (�T (Df:-' it AC H mr-J -3 t ht Page I of 3 Lindbergh Services & Rentals Event and Set Decorator RECOWED Catering Rentals AUG 20 2013 Plates OFFICE -TUMN Cm CLERK Cutlery Glasses Votive Candles Silver Coffee Urns Punch Bowels Contact: Lindbergh Macpherson Cell phone: (626) 422 -5820 E -mail: lindmcI@yahoo.com http: / /wa-w..sagardens.com/PS/ 8/2/2013 Page 2 of') http; / /www.sagardens.com/PS/ 8/2/2013 Page 3 of 3 These photos were taken at Prince Erik Hall & Gardens in Arcadia Table was set and decorated by Lindbergh Web site will be updated soon! http: / /www.sagardens.com/PS/ 8/2/2013 � / \ D! \ 9� o a, \qR ° -2 ((� :$($ ■ ■� 710 0 0 / / J \ »� ACJ � " - To preserve the free enterprise system, to preserve and expand the potential of 2 U S T I N all business and professional enterprises, and to promote the civic cultural and CHAMBER Of COMMERCE social well being of the city of Tustin and surrounding community. RECEIVE August 15, 2012 AUG 2 3 2012 OMMLiNITY DEVELOPMENT DF-. Lindburgh McPherson Wilcox Manor 310 S. Pasadena Avenue Tustin, CA 92780 Dear Lindburgh, We wish to thank you for letting the Tustin Chamber of Commerce use your lovely facilities st Wilcox Manor for some of our events. Your being a Chamber Member is a benefit to you in that being a member, we recommend Chamber Members to our other Chamber Members and people in the public looking for a venue for their events. Our chamber is very active with many events we hold throughout the year and the use of your facilities is mutually beneficial for both of us and we look forward to many years of working together. Sincerely, Jopiahan Stone, Chairman of the Board Tustin Chamber of Commerce 700 West L" Street, Suite 7 • Tustin, CA 9Z780 • Tel 724- 5445341 U 27 CII'Y OF ORM,[GE CITY CLERK City of Orange City Clerk Department 300 E Chapman Avenue Orange; CA 92866-1508 (714) 744-5500 Request for Pulblic Records Upon receipt of a request for City records, the City shall determine within ten (10) (lays if the records are accessible and available within the City's records system and notify the citizen of such determination (Government Code Section 6250-6261). A FEE MAY BE CHARGED FOR COPIES OF ANY TYPE Requ Name Addre City: Telephone Number: Fax Number: DESCRIBE THE SPECIFIC PUBLIC RECORDS REQUESTED: FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Date of Request: Date Due: Date Citizen Notified: Number of Copies: Copy fee: Certification fee: Total NAAdmin Fonns\Ftect for pub rmdoc We make a public records acts request pursuant to Gover ment Code 6250 et seq. requesting the following documents: L) Any and all documents in an electronic form to or from Chad Ortlieb, Sr Planner City of Orange for all projects that lie has worked on, for the past 3 years. This includes any staff reports completed by Mr. Ortlieb. The term "document" is defined consistent with the Public Records /act including but not limited to, emails, drafts, letters, research, notes, and other written materials. 2.) Any and all project work that Mr.Ortlieb has been involved that has included actions related to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 3.) Any and all documents, in electronic form containing the mctadata, prepared by Chad Ortlieb related to Wilcox Manor's request for a conditional use permit in the City of Tustin. The term "document" is defined consistent with the Public Records Act including but not limited to, emails, drafts; letters, research, notes, and other written materials. 4.) The history of the use of Mr. Ortlieb's work computer Ibr any research into the Tustin Municipal Code, and other .issues .related to the California Environmental Quality Act as it pertains to tine application of Wilcox Manner for a conditional use permit and sending or receiving any emails related to the same. Please provide these documents to us in electronic format so that no copy and cost need be incurred Chad From: City Clerk <CClerk @tustinca.org> Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2013 10:09 AM To: amocco @sbcglobal.net Cc: City Clerk Subject: Public Record Request Response Attachments: Records Request - McPherson &Demoratz 11- 28- 12.pdf; Records Request - McPherson 03- 21- 13.pdf Dear Mr. Ortlieb: The City of Tustin received your request for public records on July 24, 2013. This correspondence shall serve as notification of the City's intent to comply with your request for public records pursuant to the California Government Code §6250 et seq. We reviewed your request for the following: Copies of all permits from 01 -01 -2011 to the current date which have authorized parties at 310 S. Pasadena Ave (Wilcox Manor), and Tustin City Code Sections that authorize an application process that leads to permitting of such parties. 2. City business license records for a business registered with the City of Tustin as "Lindbergh Services & Rentals ". 3. Copies of any public record request forms filed with the City of Tustin by Lindbergh McPherson and /or Michael Demoratz and /or any known legal representative or interested party on their behalf. Response to Item No. l a The City of Tustin has issued no permit(s) authorizing parties at 310 S. Pasadena Avenue issued between 01 -01- 2011 and the current date (8/1/2013). The pending Conditional Use Permit application is based on Tustin City Code Section 9252j2(a)(2), which allows nonlisted uses as a conditional use. Response to Item No. 2 ® The City of Tustin has issued no business license to Lindenberg Services & Rentals, nor to 310 S. Pasadena, nor to Lindenberg McPherson or Michael Demoratz. Response to Item No. 3 s Attached please find copies of all public record request forms (2) filed with the City of Tustin by Lindbergh McPherson and /or Michael Demoratz and /or any known legal representative or interested party on their behalf. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions. Thank you, Melissa Johnson Management Assistant City Clerk's Office 714.573.3026 The attached Public Records Request was received in the City Clerk's Office on March 21.. 2013 at 12:12 p.m. Information and/or time extension notice must be mailed no later than March 29, 2013. Please forward copy of notices mailed to requestor to the City Clerk's Office TUSTIN City of Tustin CITY OF TUSTIH City Clerk's Office 1813 MR 21 P 12. 12 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92780 Office: 714573 -3028 Fax: 714- 832 -8382 Email: cityclerk@tustinca.ory for PWic Records Your requeatwtl be processed In compNance with Me PubNo Records Act. CaNfomle Government Code f 9233. Upon a request for a copy or, napecdbn of records, the CNy shah, wdtdn 10 days from reoW.Of ft request, delarmine %eadw the request In aMte or r part. vAl be made avadablo and "prompay notify Me person ffw" the request Ot the detwmwwdm end tiu tenons lhereMnk kr cenatn cirwratancee. dre Bms Nn* prescrUnd In Ids section may be amended by written notice to tna Wreon making the ngre4 selNnp kAh ma rsswru bt the mdsnefOn and tM date on which a detemena0on is expected to be dfspetrhed. Plena note that you wdl be oantaded when the InknTw ion Is avellable for pickup andlor inspection, or the mkmwbm VA be emwled to you at your requ83L AN dXwnerd &Olcation fees an due and payable in fuN and are bred on the CWs ourrem fee resolution. 1 AM REQUESTING THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS: Ivtene 6e epeeteq l ( �000mV'PU�- -74 e 4o.lei 1 i-t duL4(wS S4-0*t�' re fvra� f exfe -iWgt I d dvC-0M V- f7-DM +h ( 0AVP��v� ,S 11Vcc -J-0"UO79 s 0" P-�s� I WOULD LINE THESE rloCUMENTS: fcheckon EMAILED r MADE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION -01 HOTOCOPIED (f.10 pw pate oohs aaMnMSe epeceed ty Iw'I u.r rows gas.or II DIGITAL CD COPY (i15 per CU br lase Ioo tope w lath vh emag Inter -Cam DATE. March 21, 2013 TO. Elizabeth Binsack, Community Development FROM City Clerk's Office SUBJECT Receipt of Public Records Request vs The attached Public Records Request was received in the City Clerk's Office on March 21., 2013 at 12:12 p.m. Information and /or time extension notice must be mailed no later than March 29, 2011 Please forward copy of notices mailed to requestor to the City Clerk's Office for Public Records Your npusstwill be processed Inc, plane with thePubib Records Act. CoWon" Government Lode 1 M3, Upon a request for a copy or4upactim of ramrds, the City shag, wdhin 10 days Gore receipt of the requast dMarmine vhwther the requst In whsle or In pa1t will be made available and " prMM nod!' Ole Demon ma" ft regaan of the deleonhOw and the reasons thwob e. in cenan draanstantm, Ors tans Omit presoibed in this section may be edendad by wriden notiee b the parson m3MV du mquu4 setarg forth the reasons for due eslarWm and Ow dare on Much a dgIanninaom is' espected to be dispatdud. Please rote that you wdt be oontsded when the intornuam is avaasbls for pUw wWor Im"&I nt ter 11u ado niallbn wig be amadad to you M your regtlsst AR doawnmd dupFkWon lass am due and payable In fug and are based on the Cdy's anent be resdution. Requested by On behalf of: Address: 1:7. Phone: Email: I AM REQUESTING THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS: (Weseebespecwc) Il j ou(- nlcv ) - r-?4 e 4.1tev k jk)c /tJdtwS S4v-M re&'d- f exfe,rvva/ C( 00 C- t)mc> 4- .C7'DM +h C RECIE ED Johnson, Melissa AUG 20 2013 From: Chad Ortlieb <amocco @sbcglobal.net> OFFICE- TUSTIN CITY CLERK Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 11:46 PM To: City Clerk Subject: Comments on CUP 2012 -10, 8 -20 -13 Council Meeting Attachments: Wilcox Manor 8 -20 -13 vl.doc; Wilcox Manor City Council Comment Letter Attachments 8- 20- 13.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Attached are comments pertaining to CUP 2012 -10 which is scheduled for the August 20, 2013 City Council Meeting. Please inform me of your receipt of the attached comment letter and associated attachments. Thank You, Chad Ortlieb Chad Ortlieb 195 S. Myrtle Ave u Tustin, CA 92780 mwED AUG 2 0 t'�Q1: OFFICE- TUSTIR CM CLERV August 20, 2013 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 of establishing my qualifications to comment on the project, I have about 19 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. I cite several reasons in this letter as to why the project is not a permitted land use, why the project is not exempt from CEQA, why the project is inconsistent with the General Plan and why many of the project findings cannot be made. However, my focused point is that the project is a not an appropriate use for a residential neighborhood for a permanent duration of time under a Conditional Use Permit. I hope that common sense will prevail and you will recognize the project as a significantly commercial use with significant impacts to a residential neighborhood. Reasons to deny the application are as follows: UNAUTHORIZED USE /OVERSTEPING OF DISCRETION 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) only allows "All uses shall be permitted in the Cultural Resources Overlay District as are authorized in the underlying Residential District." The code goes on to state that, "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 Chad Ortlieb 195 S. Myrtle Ave Tustin, CA 92780 The project's single family residential (RI) district does not allow party facilities. But the commercial section of TCC Section 9233c12. conditionally permits "party facilities including birthday party businesses" in the C2 zoning district. The C2 district also conditionally permits churches, fraternal organizations and lodges and, clubs and social halls. The RI district also allows churches. Therefore, the proposed use is not authorized or nonlisted because omission of the "party facility" use mentioned in the C2 district means the use is acknowledged by the City but not allowed in the RI district. Further bolstering this is the fact that churches are both contemplated uses and listed as conditionally permitted uses in both the Rl and C2 zone. Hence, there was careful intent in crafting the code by our City forbearers and the thought process envisioned should be honored by denying the application. The project applicants have continued to host parties between the time that this application was first continued and now. Why did the City let a use that they say requires a conditional use permit continue for a year? Given that the use is not allowed by the code, any policy or code interpretation contemplated by staff to allow the use for nonprofit events should 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 such that a defined number of nonprofit events could occur, 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. GENERAL PLAN INCONSISTENCY The City is wrong about project consistency with the cited General Plan Goals and Policies as follows: Policy 5.5 — A party facility does not encourage restoration and rehabilitation of properties in Tustin. The use may prevent rehabilitation of surrounding properties. 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 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 identifies the neighborhood as a mixed use area based on the commercial nature of the use. 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., In addition to the incorrect General Plan consistency citied by the City above, the project is not consistent with the following General Plan Goals and policies: 0J Chad Ortlieb 195 S. Myrtle Ave Tustin, CA 92780 Land Use Element Comments 1. Land Use Element, page 6 — "SUMMARY OF ISSUES, NEEDS, OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS ", "COMPATIBLE AND COMPLEMENTARY DEVELOPMENT" A statement is made that "The intermixing of land uses in some areas without adequate buffering has resulted in land use incompatibilities, such as those related to physical scale, noise, and traffic. Specific types and examples of incompatible land uses include the following:" • "commercial uses abutting residential development without adequate buffering;" Comment: The proposed event/party facility is a land use even without having to determine if it is a primary or accessory use. Clearly the project proposes an intermixing of a commercial party facility use in a residential area. The proposed events /parties with entertainment for up to 200 persons would occur outdoors in a rear yard right next to the yards and dwellings for other residences. Noise would certainly occur because adequate buffering cannot be accomplished in the 20 or less feet between the adjacent dwellings and yards. The intermixed event/party facility use would therefore be incompatible. 2. Land Use Element, page 7 — "REVITALIZATION OF OLDER COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, AND RESIDENTIAL USES AND PROPERTIES" A statement is made that "Some of the City's older residential areas are impacted by adjacent freeways, commercial and industrial land uses." Comment: The site and neighborhood are already impacted by the adjacent freeway. Addition of the commercial use with outdoor dining and entertainment for up to 200 persons would exasperate the existing freeway noise impacts. Neither the City nor the applicant has provided any concrete evidence that no additional impact would occur from the use. Hence, if the project is approved, the City will not be revitalizing an older residential neighborhood. 3. Land Use Element, page 8 — "IMPROVED CITY -WIDE URBAN DESIGN" • This section states that "Tustin's design standards for multi - family development need to be strengthened to provide for greater private and public open space, and better buffering between adjacent incompatible land uses." Comment: The project proposes to add restroom facilities which will accommodate their events /parties. The addition of the restroom facilities helps to further accommodate the incompatible event /party facility use and reduces buffering from adjacent residential uses. Hence the allowance of the new restroom facility is incompatible from the residential zoning and designated use of the site and neighborhood and is in fact detracting from improved urban design. 3 Chad Ortheb 195 S. Myrtle Ave Tustin, CA 92780 4. Land Use Element, page 12 — "LAND USE ELEMENT GOALS AND POLICIES" The statements made on page 12 of the Land Use Element include the following: • "Achieve balanced development" • `Ensure that compatible and complementary development occurs" Comment: For the above two bullets, note that the project does not achieve a balance with restroom facilities to accommodate a commercial party facility use in a residential district. • Improve city -wide urban design; Comment: For the above bullet, note the response to comment number 3 above. 5. Policy 1.1 of the Land Use Element states: "Preserve the low- density quality of Tustin's existing single - family neighborhoods while permitting compatible multi- family development to meet regional housing needs where best suited from the standpoint of current development, accessibility, transportation and public facilities." Comment: The proposed outdoor event/party facility will not help to preserve a low - density quality of the predominantly single family neighborhood. The constant parties of any size will bring about a commercial element to the neighborhood. 6. Policy 1.10 of the Land Use Element states: `Ensure that the distribution and intensity of land uses are consistent with the Land Use Plan and classification system." Comment: The project causes inconsistency with this policy in that the intensity of j the proposed party facility is not consistent with the single family residential zoning or land use designation/classification of the site or the residential zoning of the neighborhood. Furthermore, the applicant's residence is already the largest dwelling on the block and has a garage and guest house. The addition of restroom facilities will further contribute to disproportionate density and mass when compared to the averages of other residences on the street. 7. GOAL 2 of the Land Use Element states: `Ensure that future land use decisions are the result of sound and comprehensive planning." Comment: A party facility for up to 200 persons with live entertainment, dining, alcohol service, and a separate building with for restroom facilities is not sound and comprehensive planning in that it places a non - permitted commercial use in a residential neighborhood with potential for problems related to noise, traffic, parking, trash, alcohol abuse, increased need for vector control, increased density from the new restroom facilities and potential degradation of water quality from food wastes spilling on open lawn area on a site within 100 feet of a well. The proposed project does not pass a straight face test for a statement of sound planning (pun not intended but applicable). 8. Policy 2.1: Consider all General Plan goals and policies, including those in other General Plan elements, in evaluating proposed development projects for General Plan consistency. 0 Chad Ortlieb 195 S. Myrtle Ave Tustin, CA 92780 Comment: The City has focused on addressing only selective goals and policies as referenced in the Planning Commission recommendation (Resolution No. 13 -74). The consistency of the City-cited goals and policies is wrong for the reasons stated in this letter. In addition, all of the other General Plan references cited in this letter were not addressed by the City for this project and show that the project is not consistent with the General Plan. 9. Policy 2.2 of the Land Use Element states: "Maintain consistency between the Land Use Element, Zoning Ordinances, and other City ordinances, regulations and standards." Comment: Per the City's planning staff, the City Council is tasked with determining if the proposed land use is similar to other uses in the zoning district. The correct interpretation is that the use is not even allowed since party facilities are already a use identified in the commercial section of the Zoning Code and excluded in residential districts. Either way, the proposed party facility is not consistent with the General Plan as stated in this letter. Therefore, if Council concurs with staffs interpretation that the proposed party facility use is authorized, the Council still must see that the proposed use would not be compatible with the General Plan and the General Plan must prevail such that the project is denied due to inconsistency of the proposed land use with the residential neighborhood and noncompliance that would result for the character intended for the neighborhood as evidenced in the Land Use and Noise Elements of the General Plan. 10. Page 15 of the Land Use Element has a section titled "COMPATIBLE AND COMPLEMENTARY DEVELOPMENT" That section includes a paragraph stating: "Intermixing of different land uses can result in incompatibilities attributable to differences in traffic levels, noise levels, physical scale, and hours of operation. Incompatibility can also occur when the characteristics of a specific land use do not match the physical characteristics of available land (such as intensive development in hillside areas). Comment: The statement is accurate with relation to the project in that the proposed use will intermix a commercial land use in a residential neighborhood and cause incompatibility due to increased traffic (whether pedestrian, vehicle or shuttle), will increase noise due to outdoor parties with entertainment (no evidence or study has been presented to the contrary), will add density with the addition of the restroom building and will operate predominantly or frequently in the evening hours when residents are most apt to use their homes and yards. Reasons bolstering this comment are found in the applicable topic comments in this letter. 11. GOAL 3: Ensure that new development is compatible with surrounding land uses in the community, the City's circulation network, availability of public facilities, existing development constraints and the City's unique characteristics and resources. Comment: It is clear that a regularly- occurring party facility for up to 200 persons with outdoor dining, live entertainment and alcohol service is not akin to a Chad Ortlieb 195 S. Myrtle Ave Tustin, CA 92780 residential use. The use would operate akin to and as frequently (if not more often) as banquet facility located in immediate proximity in the commercial zone located at 721 W. 1St Street. 12. GOAL 4: Assure a safe, healthy and aesthetically pleasing community for residents and businesses. Comment: Anytime you increase a density of persons, increase vehicular or pedestrian traffic volume and serve alcohol, you increase the risk of compromised safety. The draw of additional persons to the neighborhood and attention to the use could also create a new target for criminal activity such as the recent wave of home burglaries in Orange County. The use could also create irresponsible actions by patrons of the events consuming alcoholic beverages. Hence there is no way to approve the use and assure a safer community. The odds fall the other direction. 13. Policy 4.1: Mitigate traffic congestion and unacceptable levels of noise, odors, dust and light and glare which affect residential areas and sensitive receptors. Comment: No mitigation is provided because the proper CEQA analysis was not conducted to provide a baseline of evidence to ensure that mitigation for traffic, noise, odor, light or glare impacts of the project would or could be implemented. The use will add more vehicle traffic from deliveries and noise will be created from outdoor parties with live entertainment. No analysis of actual noise to be created by the party was conducted by the City. Odors from food service will result and backyard lighting has not been analyzed for glare or night hue. 14. Policy 4.2: Ensure a sensitive transition between commercial or industrial uses and residential uses by means of such techniques as buffering, landscaping and setbacks. Comment: The proposed use, whether determined to be primary or accessory, is a commercial use. It is like an outdoor restaurant or night club with live entertainment. The use does not transition to adjacent residential uses. No buffering or setback considerations are made nor could they reasonably be given the immediate adjacency of residences to the project. 15. Policy 4.3: Where mixed uses are permitted, ensure compatible integration of adjacent uses to minimize conflicts. Comment: The applicant is a request to mix a commercial use with a residential use. The project does not ensure compatible integration of adjacent uses for the traffic, noise, light and glare, pest control, density, water quality, land use and safety reasons cited in this letter. 16. Policy 4.6: Maintain and enhance the quality of healthy residential neighborhoods, and safeguard neighborhoods from intrusion by nonconforming and disruptive uses. Comment: The surrounding residential neighborhood is healthy. The proposed project would be a nonconforming and disruptive use for the traffic, noise, light and glare, pest control, density, water quality, land use and safety reasons cited in this Chad Ortlieb 195 S. Myrtle Ave Tustin, CA 92780 17. Policy 5.8: Improve edge conditions and buffers between older residential neighborhoods and adjacent freeway edges and commercial and industrial uses. Comment: The project creates additional noise impacts and hence does not improve the existing noise interface of the neighborhood with the freeway. 18. GOAL 6: Improve urban design in Tustin to ensure development that is both architecturally and functionally compatible, and to create uniquely identifiable neighborhoods, commercial and business park districts. Comment: The addition of restroom facilities to support the project does not contribute to a functionally compatible neighborhood. The addition supports an outdoor commercial party facility use that is completely incompatible with a residential neighborhood for the reasons stated in this letter. 19. Policy 6.4: Preserve and enhance the City's special residential character and "small town" quality by encouraging and maintaining Tustin's low density residential neighborhoods through enforcement of existing land use and property development standards and the harmonious blending of buildings and landscape. Comment: Approval of the project would violate this policy in that the City would not be enforcing proper land use. The proposed use is not akin to a place of religious worship, a public facility, or a school. The use is more akin to a commercial party facility, restaurant, night club or entertainment venue. The use is a non - permitted, inconsistent, out of character commercial use that does not maintain a predominantly low density residential neighborhood. 20. Policy 6.6: Improve the overall quality of Tustin's multi - family neighborhoods through: a) improved buffers between multi - family residences and adjacent freeway edges, commercial and industrial uses; b) provision of usable private and common open space in multi- family projects; c) increased code enforcement; and d) improved site, building, and landscape design. Comment: The properties to the southwest of the project site are multi - family designated and occupied in a predominantly single - family residential neighborhood. The addition of traffic, noise, light and glare, pest control, density, water quality, land use and safety complications of the project do not improve the overall quality of the multi - family segment of the neighborhood. 21. Land Use Element, page 34 states: "Low Density Residential: The Low Density Residential land use designation provides for the development of low density single family dwellings and accessory buildings. Uses such as second single family structures on large lots, guest rooms, public institutional facilities, churches, schools, large family day care homes, and others, which are determined to be compatible with, and oriented toward serving the needs of low density detached single family neighborhoods may also be allowed. This designation allows a maximum of seven single family units per net acre of land. Areas within the 7 Chad Ortlieb 195 S. Myrtle Ave Tustin, CA 92780 designation can be regulated in a Zoning Ordinance with lower densities to reflect the existing character. Development in this land use category should maintain a low density character with building heights generally not exceeding 30 feet." Comment: As stated previously, the proposed project is a commercial use and is not a public institutional facility, church or school, all of which occur in a building, have parking facilities on -site, do not serve alcohol, and are generally located off of streets that do not dead -end. The project is an outdoor commercial party facility use. The code has a classification for party facilities and they are not permitted in residential districts. The proposed use does not serve the needs of low density detached single family neighborhoods. The use would serve organizations and private party facility users, not the neighborhood. In stark contrast to the "Low Density Residential" intent, Land Use Element, page 37 provides the intent of "Community Commercial' uses as follows: "The Community Commercial designation is characterized by a variety of miscellaneous retail, professional office, and service- oriented business activities, many of which are highway oriented and serve a community -wide area and population. Community Commercial uses serve local, as well as broad market areas and generally include professional and business offices, retail and commercial services, child care, restaurants, and public /institutional facilities, along with larger -scale indoor commercial uses such as department stores, furniture and appliance outlets, theaters and entertainment uses." Comment: It is clear that the project is better defined as requiring a commercial zone as evidenced by the above statement in that the project is a service- oriented business, should have access from an arterial road, serves a regional population, and is akin to a restaurant or party facility service. Circulation Element Comment 22. On page 17 of the Circulation Element under the header of "PARKING" the following statement is made: "Adequate and convenient parking facilities are an important part of the transportation amenities provided by a City. The Circulation Element therefore contains policies which ensure the provision of such amenities." GOAL 7 states "Provide for well - designed and convenient parking facilities" and Policy 7.2 states "Provide sufficient off - street parking for all land uses." Comment: The project does not provide adequate parking for the use. The facility cited as being reserved (though no evidence has been provided) only has about 42 parking spaces. The City parking requirement for restaurants is one parking space for every 100 square feet and the requirement for "Places of assembly not specified elsewhere" is "1 space for each 3 fixed seats; or if no fixed seats are provided, 1 space for every 35 sq. ft. of gross assembly area." The project does not exactly define the amount of parking that will be required to accommodate the use. However, based on the parking requirements of the Tustin City Code. It does not appear that enough parking will be available. Furthermore, the parking at an off - site location does not meet the definition of convenient. Given that we do not know P Chad Ortlieb 195 S. Myrtle Ave Tustin, CA 92780 that sufficient off - street parking will be provided for all land uses. How do we know that the off -site parking lot property owners will be willing to restrict the leases of their tenants such that businesses will not operate during the times when the events /parties are occurring for the project? How do we know that that ability exists? How do we know that the operational characteristics of off -site parking lots and their associated land uses will not change a cause concurrent use? Noise Element Comments This is a general comment serving as a preface to comments on project inconsistency with the provisions of the Noise Element. 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, potential project noise has not been analyzed for increases due to the live entertainment and up to 200 persons dining in the outdoor yard. The reverberating effects of the freeway sound wall also have not been analyzed for this project. There is a very strong likelihood that tonal or increased noise impacts from the project will occur. The noise increase would either violate the noise provisions of the TCC or the Noise Element or both 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 General Plan and/or Zoning Ordinance for outdoor conversation. It is ridiculous to think that outdoor music or entertainment for an event could be less than the noise of normal conversation. Hence the noise impacts of the project in violation of the TCC and /or Noise Element 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, and after party', activities. Use of an off -site parking lot would be an intensification of use of that lot and the intensification merits a full analysis. 23. On page 1 of the Noise Element under the title "PURPOSE OF THE NOISE ELEMENT" it states "The Noise Element of a General Plan is a comprehensive approach for including noise control in the planning process. It is a tool for achieving and maintaining environmental noise levels compatible with land use. The Noise Element identifies noise sensitive land uses and noise sources, and defines areas of noise impact. The element establishes goals, policies, and programs to ensure that Tustin residents will be protected from excessive noise." Comment: The project does not implement noise control even with restriction of operational hours or number of events. The fact is that outdoor events with live entertainment will result in uncontrolled noise because no mitigation is included such as limiting the noise level from voices, instruments, or amplified sound or installation of a sound wall, conducting the use in a building or buffering the site from adjacent residential uses. The neighborhood is already in a noise sensitive freeway adjacent area. Addition of the outdoor events and entertainment will just make the noise level higher. No evidence has been provided by the City to pro ve 7 Chad Ortlieb 195 S. Myrtle Ave Tustin, CA 92780 otherwise. The site is next to a freeway sound wall that will likely bounce sound out into the neighborhood and over other dwellings across the street or will cause a canyon effect focusing sound down the street. I have heard noise from entertainment at the project site from my property which has several residences located between me and the project. Landscaping does not have any significant effect on dampening sound. Residents will not be protected from noise increases and the project does not meet the purpose of the Noise Element. 24. On page I of the Noise Element under the section titled "California Environmental Quality Act Law and Guidelines" it states that "The State legislature adopted the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in response to a public mandate that called for a thorough environmental analysis of those projects that might adversely affect the environment. The CEQA law and guidelines describe the provisions of the law, the review procedure, and any subsequent analysis that is required. CEQA recognizes that excessive noise associated with certain types of public and private projects represents an environmental impact that must be avoided or reduced. CEQA will continue to be instrumental in ensuring that City officials and the general public assess the potentially significant noise impacts of development projects." Comment: No analysis was done to determine the extent of additional noise that the project would create. No attempt was made to avoid or reduce the noise that the project will create during the times that live entertainment will occur. A reasonable argument exists that entertainment associated with the project will occur and that the project is not exempt from CEQA and that an initial study and subsequent environmental document should have been prepared. 25. On page 6 of the Noise Element under the title "NOISE AND LAND USE PLANNING INTEGRATION" it contains a bullet that states "Noise control measures and noise - related compatibility considerations need to be included in all new land use developments." Comment: As stated before, no noise control measures were implemented during the times that live entertainment will occur. Furthermore, the project fails as a noise - related compatible use because it is an outdoor commercial party /event facility with entertainment and food service in the middle of a residential neighborhood. 26. GOAL 2: Incorporate noise considerations into land use planning decisions. Comment: In order to comply with this goal, the project will need to be rejected based on the noise considerations of the project. 27. Policy 2.1: Adopt planning guidelines that establish acceptable noise standards for various land uses throughout the Tustin Planning Area. Comment: The proper guideline /precedent that the City Council needs to establish in relation to the project is one of common sense. Outdoor party /event facilities in residential districts with regularly occurring events with live entertainment are not a 10 Chad Ortlieb 195 S. Myrtle Ave Tustin, CA 92780 proper 28. Policy 2.3: Use noise/land use compatibility standards as a guide for future planning and development. Comment: As stated in this letter the project is not a compatible use with regard to noise alone. Of particular concern is that, if approved and not challenged, the project would be a guide for similar projects throughout Old Town Tustin and maybe other areas. What would prevent a Tustin resident from applying for a party facility such as the applicant's, then bussing in a fraternal organization from Chapman University which has its own off -site parking lots, serving alcohol and providing live entertainment? Such an application would utilize the exact same findings, use the same General Plan consistency justification as the project, use the same CEQA exemptions and maintain similar operational parameters. What grounds would the City have to deny such an application? 29. Policy 2.4: Review proposed projects in terms of compatibility with nearby noise - sensitive land uses with the intent of reducing noise impacts. Comment: Residential uses are identified in the General Plan as noise - sensitive. Freeway adjacent residential uses are even more so sensitive. The outdoor party facility (project) with dining, live entertainment, and alcohol service would increase noise impacts in the neighborhood, not reduce noise impacts. All empirical evidence suggests a noise increase. The City has not provided any substantial argument that project entertainment and outdoor use noise would not be an impact. 30. Policy 2.6: Require that commercial uses developed as part of a mixed -use project (with residential) not be noise intensive. Design mixed -use structures to prevent transfer of noise from the commercial to the residential use. Comment: Approval of the project would introduce a commercial use to the site and would create a mixed use project if residential occupancy remains on the site. The project would be noise intensive and noise would transfer to adjacent residential uses. All empirical evidence suggests a noise increase. The City has not provided any substantial argument that project entertainment and outdoor use noise would not be an impact. 31. Policy 2.7: Require new commercial /industrial operations located in proximity to existing or proposed residential areas to incorporate noise mitigation into project design. Comment: Regardless of whether the use is considered a primary or secondary use, the project is an operation proposed right in the middle of a residential neighborhood. No mitigation has been incorporated into the project during its operational hours which would lessen the noise such that it would be less than or equivalent to the ambient noise level. 32. On pages 14 and 15 of the Noise Element under the header titles "LAND USE COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS" it states that "Land Use 11 Chad Ortlieb 195 S. Myrtle Ave Tustin, CA 92780 Compatibility Guidelines are the basis for development of the specific noise standards presented in table N -3 which should be utilized as city policy related to new land uses and acceptable noise levels development. For the City to achieve noise and land use compatibility it is imperative that mitigation measures be imposed during site planning to mitigate anticipated noise impacts on affected noise sensitive land uses. The submittal of an acoustical analysis report in noise impact levels is one mechanism to evaluate proposed projects. The incorporation of mitigation measures as described in this Noise Plan and other action may enable a project to comply with exterior and interior noise compatibility guidelines and standards." Comment: The project is a new land use. The site is already non - compliant with the noise standards based on freeway noise alone hence, the project is "clearly incompatible" in that the project noise will cause noise increases and no mitigation has been proposed to prevent noise increases during the operational hours of the project. 33. Page 23 of the Noise Element states, in part, a requirement for "integration of information about the existing and forecasted noise environment into land use planning decisions ". Comment: The forecast for this project — more noise. The land use planning decision is obvious, the project can't comply with the General Plan and denying the application is merited. 34. Page 26 of the Noise Element contains the following statement: "8. Acoustical Analysis: Acoustical analysis reports prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer will be required for new sensitive land uses within Noise Impact Areas identified in the Noise Plan." Comment: The project site is in a Noise Impact Area as identified in the Noise Plan. The project is a sensitive land use for the reasons stated in this letter. An acoustical analysis report was not prepared as required. 171 \1aT•7 '. 1111aL1 ►1t]I�CII.�lt+lal►LlyMi %I.aYY The findings for the project cannot be made. The following response correlates to the numbered findings beginning on page 15 of the August 20, 2013, City Council staff report as follows: 1. As stated in this letter, the use is not authorized in the Rl district. Furthermore, the Planning Commission recommendation was not based on accurate legal information. 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 Conditional Use Permit (CUP) may be tied to the applicant and terminate with the applicant's abandonment of the use. A Conditional Use Permit always runs with the life of the land and may not be terminated without very strong evidence and just cause after a revocation hearing. Since the Commission is required to review the 12 Chad Ortlieb 195 S. Myrtle Ave Tustin, CA 92780 application and make a recommendation to the Council, the recommendation appears tainted. 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 in the zoning code and that use is not permitted in residential zones. There is no other equivalent match in the zoning code for appropriately describing the project. The next closest description of the use would be restaurant, nightclub or banquet facility. The proposed project is an outdoor commercial party facility use and is not a public institutional facility, church or school, all of which occur in a building, have parking facilities on -site, do not serve alcohol, and are generally located off of streets that do not dead -end. 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. The proposed use is nothing like an occasional wedding, gathering for religious worship in a back yard or home tour. Those uses are very infrequent especially when compared to 24 events per year for up to 200 persons and now, a request for 36 events and unlimited events for up to 50 persons. Furthermore, the 24 events are likely to be concentrated during favorable weather seasons which will make the use all more intense during those times. 4. This finding can be made but the City typically requires evidence from a responding police or code enforcement officer in order to justify additional review of the CUP or imposition of additional conditions. Many of the impacts from the party facility may be fleeting moments of high noise intensity, intoxicated drivers, or street parking before the time that investigation can confirm a violation due to other police priorities. 5. In the Planning Commission staff report, 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 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. Past performance of property owners in pursuit of an entitlement does not guarantee future outcome of performance. Additionally, the nature of the parties will change for private leased functions. The character of future operators or events cannot be known. The City should not rely exclusively on the property owners to fulfill the conditions especially given statements that the owners are busy with other endeavors. They may hire someone to manage events. It is possible that they may even abandon residential occupancy of the dwelling. The City has the burden of oversight of the conditions, not to just rely on enforcement by the applicant. 6. The finding mandates that the conditions ensure compatibility of the proposed use 13 Chad Ortlieb 195 S. Myrtle Ave Tustin, CA 92780 with the surrounding uses and the Tustin City Code. Nothing can "ensure" the finding is met. The General Plan Goals, Policies, and statements referenced in this letter show that the commercial party facility use will not be compatible with the residential neighborhood. 7. The proposed outdoor commercial party facility use is for 24 events per year for up to 200 persons and now includes a request for 36 events and unlimited events for up to 50 persons. This use cannot be considered accessory. There is no mandatory requirement that the site be continued to be used as a residence. The number of events proposed equate to a mixed residential /commercial use. The project does not provide adequate parking for the use. The facility cited as being reserved (though no evidence with the staff report has been provided) only has about 42 parking spaces. The City parking requirement for restaurants is one parking space for every 100 square feet and the requirement for "Places of assembly not specified elsewhere" is "1 space for each 3 fixed seats; or if no fixed seats are provided, 1 space for every 35 sq. ft. of gross assembly area." The project does not exactly define the amount of parking that will be required to accommodate the use. However, based on the parking requirements of the Tustin City Code. It does not appear that enough parking will be available at the purported lot. Furthermore, the parking at an off -site location does not meet the definition of convenient. Given that we do not know what the terms of the parking agreement are for off -site locations, it cannot be said that sufficient off - street parking will be provided for all land uses. How do we know that the off -site parking lot property owners will be willing to restrict the leases of their tenants such that businesses will not operate during the times when the events /parties are occurring for the project? How do we know that that ability exists? How do we know that the operational characteristics of off -site parking lots and their associated land uses will not change and cause concurrent usage? Pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 9252J3.(d)(3)b. "On -site parking requirements may be waived upon the presentation to the City of a long- term lease, running with and as a condition of the business license, for private off - site parking accommodations within 300 feet of the business or activity to be served." The cited code is a commercial standard and the following question is merited: If commercial use requirements require proof of a long term lease, why is the project's commercial use in a residential district allowed without any fixed parking location? All potential parking lots are not analyzed as part of the project. The use of any other parking lots needs to be evaluated by the CUP. The parking lot locations 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 lots 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. The legal notice and staff report project description do not include the location of a future parking lot. The parking lot must be known and advertised so that the persons that may be 14 Chad Ortlieb 195 S. Myrtle Ave Tustin, CA 92780 affected by the future parking lot are included in the mailing notice radius and have an opportunity to speak regarding parking lot use intensification and potential light, noise, loitering, and trash impacts that could occur. No conditions are being placed on the off -site parking lots. 4. CULTURAL RESOURCE DISTRICT FINDINGS ARE NOT MET The Planning Commission findings and recommendation that the proposed outdoor event use supports the purposes of the CR district is wrong. The following response correlates to the bulleted findings on page 15 of the August 20, 2013 City Council staff report as follows: Bullet 1 — The application is a request for an outdoor party facility. Such a use is independent of introducing persons to Tustin's historic resources. The party events would be focused on the outside yard of the applicant's house. The outside of the house may be appreciated from the public right -of -way without the events. 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 party facility on -site. The applicant could foster knowledge of the property without a Conditional Use Permit for a party facility. Bullet 2 — Sufficient evidence has not been provided that creates a nexus between how an outdoor party facility would complement the historic structure and promote the identity of Old Town Tustin. How would an incompatible use in the neighborhood further compliment the structure? 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 property as a detriment to the historic property via association with the use if problems arise. Bullet 4 — The fiscal impact statement of the staff report is not accurate and the finding is not made. The use places a burden on taxpayers. For example uses with noise, high concentrations of people and alcoholic beverage service components typically result in 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 are typically involved in responding, investigating, and documenting the complaints. Whether the complaints are founded in fact or not is not the significance here. The significance is that the City taxpayers collectively (as opposed to localized to the use) pay for the time and resources associated with monitoring such uses as the proposed 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 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 15 Chad Ortlieb 195 S. Myrtle Ave Tustin, CA 92780 and district has no correlation to the proposed parties. 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). 5. THE PROJECT IS INCONSITENT WITH THE PURPOSE OF THE CULTURAL RESOURCE DISTRICT The project is not consistent with the purposes of the Cultural Resource District (TCC Section 9252a). A response correlates to each purpose statement as follows: 1. "Safeguard the heritage of the City by preserving neighborhoods, structures, sites and features which reflect elements of the City's cultural, architectural, artistic, aesthetic, political, social, natural and engineering heritage." Comment: This purpose is not met. The project does not safeguard or preserve the neighborhood. The project adds a commercial use to the neighborhood that changes the neighborhood character and adds the impacts stated in this letter. The project is primarily a use that involves an accessory structure to support the use. A new land use such as a party facility can't reflect heritage. No guarantee of preservation is part of the application. The applicants past efforts to enhance the property and offer tours of the home are independent of the application. 2. "Encourage public knowledge, understanding and appreciation of the City's past." Comment: This purpose is not met. The preponderance of the project is for parties associated with promotion of the site for furtherance of personal gain, not promotion of the City's past. Fostering knowledge of the home as part of the City's past 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. Even with such a plan, project impacts would remain. 3. "Strengthen civic and neighborhood pride and a sense of identity based on the recognition and use of cultural resources." Comment: This purpose is not met. The recognition of the property and neighborhood occurs with or without the project. In my opinion, the project has actually divided the neighborhood and pride associated with it. The use of the property is predominantly to groups outside the area. Hence neighborhood pride could not result. 4. "Promote the private and public enjoyment, use and preservation of culturally significant neighborhoods, structures and sites appropriate for the education and recreation of the citizens of Tustin and visitors to the City." Comment: This purpose is not met. The party facility does not serve primarily to provide public enjoyment of a culturally signification neighborhood or structure to 16 Chad Ortlieb 195 S. Myrtle Ave Tustin, CA 92780 educate anyone. Most of the events for the property have been for private enjoyment in a yard, not inside the residence. The party facility use does not preserve the property. 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. The degree of education provided about the property or from events seems secondary to the outdoor party facility project. No recreation to anyone has been established in association with the project. 5. `Enhance the visual and aesthetic character, diversity of architectural styles and aesthetic appeal of the City." Comment: This purpose is not met. The project is for a land use, not enhancement of the property. The existing Mills Act contract for the property is independent of the proposed CUP for outdoor parties. 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. 6. "Enhance property values and increase economic and financial benefits to the City and its inhabitants." Comment: This purpose is 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. Furthermore, costs from emergency responders, code enforcement investigations, staff monitoring project conditions and administrative file management costs of the project may hinder financial objectives of the City. 7. "Assure that new construction and subdivision of lots in the Cultural Resource District are compatible with the character of the district." Comment: This purpose is not met. Although the project proposes and accessory building for restrooms, the project is predominantly a new commercial party facility land use that is not compatible with the character of the district. S. "Identify as early as possible and resolve conflicts between preservation of historic and cultural resources and alternative land uses." Comment: This purpose not met. The proposed "alternative land use" is a party facility and creates a conflict between the existing historic and cultural resource and the surrounding residential uses. 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 evidenced by the fact they have already been implemented. As a general comment, if a land use can't be designated as a cultural resource pursuant to 17 Chad Ortlieb 195 S. Myrtle Ave Tustin, CA 92780 Tustin City Code Section 9252e, how can the project's party facility land use be considered as making the findings for contributing to old town? 6. THE PROPER CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ANALYSIS HAS NOT BEEN CONDUCTED The City has correctly identified the application as a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). However, the CEQA exemption is flawed in that the facility is not proposing like for like facilities. The City proposes a Class 1 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 whole of the project is not exempt under this category or any other category under Article 19 of the CEQA Statute and Guidelines. The use clearly is an expansion of the residential use to include a non - permitted commercial use that is not merely an ancillary use as evidenced by the number of events and intensity of the outdoor use. The City staff report alludes to mitigation measures yet staff has determined the project to be CEQA exempt. The statement of the mitigation measures goes to the argument that the project should not have received categorical exemptions. 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 environmental impacts with regard to the following: 1. Aesthetics /Light and Glare. The project will need light sources that comply with the illumination requirements of the code to illuminate the yard where attendees will dine and observe entertainment. The site is located near a tall freeway sound wall that blocks much of the light and glare to this alcove of the neighborhood. The event light source could present and issue with direct lighting glare or with a new night hue in the alcove of the neighborhood and impact adjacent residents. A proper illumination analysis has not been conducted and needs to be conducted. The project will intensify the use of off -site parking lots and it is anticipated that a great part of the events will occur at night. Newly introduced vehicle lights entering and exiting whatever parking lot(s) that would be used has not been and needs to be evaluated. 2. Air Quality /Odors. The project proposes catered events for food service to patrons outside of the party event. The use acts like an outdoor restaurant. The cooking and serving of food for 200 persons and resulting food waste has a potential to create odors detectable to neighbors. The adjacent freeway sound wall may have a wind focusing effect that could funnel concentrations of aromas directly to neighbors. The project site plan does not seem to identify a mechanism for waste disposal associated with the events. If food waste is allowed to set, intense odors could result. This potential impact needs to analyzed and mitigated. 3. Cultural Resource. The site is a historical resource and is in the Cultural Resource District of the City along with many other properties in the neighborhood. The new land use proposed and the precedent it will set could individually or cumulatively W. Chad Ortlieb 195 S. Myrtle Ave Tustin, CA 92780 cause a substantial adverse change to the Cultural Resource District. The following impacts to the district could occur: • Noise from the 24 parties a year with up to 200 persons (now requested for 36 events with unlimited parties with up to 50 persons) and live or amplified entertainment. • Alcohol service will be provided leading to the potential for alcohol induced incidents. • Increased vehicular and pedestrian traffic from event attendees • Potential for waste disposal issues from dining events • Potential for litter by patrons or wind dispersal at the outdoor events. • Potential for parking problems on public streets • Potential for odors • Potential for light or glare • Potential for water quality degradation due to unconfined food spillage on open lawn area where the outdoor dining is proposed • Potential for an increased need for vector control due to food availability 4. Emergency Response. The project places up to 200 persons on a site that has vehicular access by only one street. Pasadena Street has dead ends on each side. Much of the street parking at the south end of Pasadena Street where the project site leans towards is taken up by residents of the adjacent multi - family residents. Many of the multi - family residential buildings lack code required on -site parking because they were constructed prior to current codes. The heavy impact of street parking combined with the potential of site congestion due to the shuttles, non- compliant guest parking and delivery vehicles to support the event could lead to a hindered ability for emergency responders to obtain safe and timely access to the site or other neighbors. Due to these site parameters, an analysis needs to be conducted to determine if the project could impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. 5. Water Quality. The project proposes food service for up to 200 persons predominantly on an outdoor lawn area. It may be difficult to pick up all spilled food from the grounds from the events and the waste storage and removal needs of the project do not appear to be addressed. Therefore, during storm events, the project has the potential to degrade water quality standards by providing substantial additional sources fertilizer /nitrate pollution to storm water runoff. An analysis and waste management mitigation plan needs to be implemented. 6. Dam Inundation. The project site is in a dam inundation zone. The risk of site inundation from a dam break and evacuation needs of the 200 plus persons at the site have not been evaluated. A proper CEQA analysis is merited. 7. Land Use and Planning. The project proposes an outdoor commercial party facility with entertainment, dining and alcoholic beverage service use in the middle 19 Chad Ortlieb 195 S. Myrtle Ave Tustin, CA 92780 of a predominantly single - family neighborhood that is in the Cultural Resource District. No other commercial uses occur in the residentially zoned properties on the street. Given the other potential impacts that the project may have, a substantial argument exists that the project may physically divide an established community. Furthermore, as evidenced by the numerous General Plan inconsistency arguments put forth in this letter, there is more than a substantial argument that the project conflicts the City's General Plan and an impact would result. A proper CEQA analysis is merited. 8. Noise. The project proposes outdoor dining for up to 200 guests with entertainment, much of which could be amplified. 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, potential project noise has not been analyzed for increases due to the live entertainment and up to 200 persons dining in the outdoor yard. The reverberating effects of the freeway sound wall also have not been analyzed for this project. There is a very strong likelihood that tonal or increased noise impacts from the project will occur above levels existing without the project. There is a very strong argument that a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity would result and a proper CEQA analysis is merited. The noise increase would either violate the noise provisions of the TCC or the Noise Element or both 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 General Plan and/or Zoning Ordinance for outdoor conversation. It is ridiculous to think that outdoor music or entertainment for an event could be less than the noise of normal conversation. Hence the noise impacts of the project in violation of the TCC and /or Noise Element 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, and after party activities. Use of an off -site parking lot would be an intensification of use of that lot and the intensification merits a full analysis. The project does not implement noise control even with restriction of operational hours or number of events. The fact is that outdoor events with live entertainment will result in uncontrolled noise because no mitigation is included such as limiting the noise level from voices, instruments, or amplified sound or installation of a sound wall, conducting the use in a building or buffering the site from adjacent residential uses. The neighborhood is already "clearly incompatible" in a noise sensitive freeway adjacent area. Addition of the outdoor events and entertainment will just make the noise level higher and no mitigation has been proposed to prevent noise increases during the operational hours of the project. No evidence has been provided by the City to prove otherwise. The site is next to a freeway sound wall that will likely bounce sound out into the neighborhood and over other dwellings across the street or will cause a canyon effect focusing sound down the street. I 20 Chad Ortlieb 195 S. Myrtle Ave Tustin, CA 92780 have heard noise from entertainment at the project site from my property which has several residences located between me and the project. Landscaping does not have any significant effect on dampening sound. Residents will not be protected from noise increases and the project does not meet the purpose of the Noise Element. 9. Public Services. The project will have up to 200 persons at the outdoor dining and entertainment events. The use could result in an increased need of City resources for emergency responders, code enforcement investigations, staff monitoring project conditions and administrative file management. The project could generate multiple complaints, multiple allegations of violations, multiple investigations by police and code enforcement staff, and have significant involvement by planning staff. Whether the City resources would be merited in response to calls to the City is not the significance here. The significance is that the City may need resources associated with monitoring the party facility. I£ 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, equivalent City resources would likely be necessary to monitor the uses and may impact City resources. A proper CEQA analysis of potential impacts to City resources needs to be conducted. 10. Traffic. The project proposes shuttle service from undisclosed future parking areas. The time of day that the lots will draw attendee traffic could exasperate existing peak traffic congestion depending on the location and distance of the parking lots from the project site. The lot identified for use by the applicant was not analyzed for traffic flows to the lot at various times of the day, particularly peak p.m. times. It is conceivable that event/party attendees may drive to the parking lot sites during peak p.m. traffic since most events /parties will likely be in the evening with attendance beginning in the late afternoon. The parking lots to be used for the project need to be disclosed and evaluated for impacts and mitigation if needed prior to project consideration. The City's attempt to condition the applicant to produce a shuttle route or traffic management plan is inadequate and appears to be a deferral of mitigation. The analysis and mitigation needs to result after a proper CEQA analysis. 11. Utilities and Service Systems. The project proposes food preparation and alcoholic beverage service on -site for up to 200 attendees. Four restrooms are proposed to accommodate the use and washing of dishware is presumed to occur on -site. The City is proposing a condition that would require the applicant to upgrade of the site - serving sewer lateral in the event that the City finds that an upgrade is merited. The actual volume of sewage discharge needs to be analyzed now under a proper CEQA disclosure to determine if mitigation is merited to upgrade the sewer system. 12. 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 21 Chad Ortlieb 195 S. Myrtle Ave Tustin, CA 92780 22 containers are utilized. Not all food scraps are likely to be identified and the neighborhood will likely endure additional pest control costs. At the very least, County Health officials should opine on the matter after a proper CEQA analysis is conducted and all potential impacts are disclosed and formal mitigation is implemented. 7. IMPROPER OOMMMSSION OF REQURIED PLANNING COMMSSION REVIEW The applicants changed many aspects of the project between the time the Planning Commission reviewed the project and the August 20, 2013 City Council Meeting. Staff's states that the Council has the right to change or modify a project. While that may be true, the Council has not modified the project or even heard it. The applicant is the one that has modified the project with requests to delete conditions, add events, and consider improvements to accommodate inside use of the dwelling and not to commit to any fixed parking location. These non - Council initiated modifications equate to a new or significantly modified project. The City's legal staff incorrectly informed the Planning Commission that a condition could be placed on the project to could cause the use to terminate when the applicant no longer operates the business. 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 opinion. The Commission may have relied on the false information to render their recommendation. When the applicant initiated project changes are combined with the attorney error it equates to a significantly revised project that needs to be heard by the 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 project 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. 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. 8. THE PROPOSED USE IS A COMMERCIAL BUSINESS OPERATION Tustin City Code Section 3141 defines a "Business establishment" as "Any retail store, food market, theater, restaurant, service station, bar, hotel, motel, or any other establishment which is open to, and provides, the public with any goods or services." The use is open to and provides the paying or invited public with a service. It is a commercial business establishment. Why would the City want to allow a commercial business establishment in a residential zone? In addition to the party facility business, the attachment to this letter indicates via connection to the applicant name and phone number that party equipment rentals may also be a component of the proposed party facility. 9. THE PARTY FACILITY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WILL RUN WITH THE LIFE OF THE LAND 22 Chad Ortlieb 195 S. Myrtle Ave Tustin, CA 92780 Additional Issues or Considerations: Tustin City Code Section PROVISIONS" beverage sales establishments "Subject to the Planning Commission's Guidelines for Alcoholic Beverage Sales Establishments and the following criteria: (2) On -site - subject to the following minimum distance regulations (except for restaurant establishments): (a) 1,000 feet from any residentially zoned or used property; and 1,000 feet from any other existing on -site sales establishments, except for restaurant establishments or off -site sales establishments; and 1,000 feet from any place of worship, public or private school, park, playground, clinic, hospital, health care facility or convalescent home. (b) Minimum distances between on -site sales establishments, except for restaurant establishments, and residentially zoned or used property, places of worship, public or private schools, parks, playgrounds, clinics, hospitals, health care facilities and convalescent homes shall be computed by measuring the distance from the closest exterior wall of the on -site establishment to the property line of any of the above uses (whether inside or outside the City boundaries). (c) Minimum distances between on -site sales establishments and another off -site or on -site sales establishment, except for restaurant establishments, (whether inside or 23 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 of its 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. Actions of the Department of Alcohol and Beverage control are more reactive than proactive. Therefore, there would likely only be regulation after an incident occurs. 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. 10. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FINDINGS CANNOT BE MADE The project's restroom building requires a Certificate of Appropriateness pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 8252h2.b. and c. However, the findings for issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness cannot be made because the proposed bathroom addition is not harmonious with existing surroundings because the use supports the party facility use which contains the impacts or potential impacts identified in this letter and is not consistent with the General Plan. Additional Issues or Considerations: Tustin City Code Section PROVISIONS" beverage sales establishments "Subject to the Planning Commission's Guidelines for Alcoholic Beverage Sales Establishments and the following criteria: (2) On -site - subject to the following minimum distance regulations (except for restaurant establishments): (a) 1,000 feet from any residentially zoned or used property; and 1,000 feet from any other existing on -site sales establishments, except for restaurant establishments or off -site sales establishments; and 1,000 feet from any place of worship, public or private school, park, playground, clinic, hospital, health care facility or convalescent home. (b) Minimum distances between on -site sales establishments, except for restaurant establishments, and residentially zoned or used property, places of worship, public or private schools, parks, playgrounds, clinics, hospitals, health care facilities and convalescent homes shall be computed by measuring the distance from the closest exterior wall of the on -site establishment to the property line of any of the above uses (whether inside or outside the City boundaries). (c) Minimum distances between on -site sales establishments and another off -site or on -site sales establishment, except for restaurant establishments, (whether inside or 23 Chad Ortlieb 195 S. Myrtle Ave Tustin, CA 92780 24 outside the City boundaries) shall be computed by measuring the distance between the closest exterior structural walls of each use. The City has not classified the use as a restaurant and the use provides alcohol for events. It should be subject to the alcoholic beverage sales establishment procedures. The proposed use could be licensed by the ABC for up to 24 events per year. This is an on -site alcohol providing service associated with the events and would require inclusion and consideration in the proposed CUP. Findings C and D of Ordinance No. 1230 states that "Minimum distance requirements between on -site and off -site alcoholic beverage sales establishments and sensitive uses are necessary to promote orderly development and mitigate impacts typically associated with alcoholic beverage sales establishments to protect the public health, safety, and welfare." "There is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, and welfare in that future permitted and conditionally permitted alcoholic beverage sales establishments could locate near existing sensitive uses or overconentrate in areas that are not subject to distance separation regulations. The amendments are required for the immediate preservation of the public peace, safety and health of the citizens of Tustin." If Ordinance No. 1230 already acknowledges a threat from and a need to balance alcohol serving uses with adjacent sensitive uses and the need to mitigate impacts to protect public health, safety, and welfare, then why wouldn't the project be required to meet the same requirements to buffer its alcoholic beverage service component impacts from adjacent residences? 2. Parties have been occurring at the Wilcox Manor for the past several years. The number of events must have exceeded 30. These parties have been occurring with dining, entertainment and alcohol service without any City permits to conduct the uses as evidenced by the attached public records request I recently made to the City. City officials attending applicant parties have known that the events have been occurring. It has been staff s contention that so long as the number of persons in attendance does not exceed 500, and the use is for a non -profit entity, an unlimited number of events can occur and no City permits are needed. However, we now have a Conditional Use Permit application for the party facility that requests coverage for all events, non -profit and for - profit. In addition, the applicant also seeks confirmation by the City as part of the Conditional Use Permit that an unlimited amount of events may occur so long as no more than 50 persons are in attendance. The Planning Commission or City Council staff reports do not inform the public that unlimited non -profit events up to 200 persons could be had without benefit of any permit. Via the Planning Commission recommendation of project approval, it appears as if the City has determined that non -profit events may be limited. However, the events at the site continue. A very well defined policy, or preferably code created in accord with CEQA, should be formulated to address occasional non -profit supportive events. The applicant's past events should have been subject to City oversight, permits, and monitoring. 3. The former policy of allowing the use of the public streets for parking in support of the non-profit events Mears to have been reversed by inclusion of non-profit events in the 24 Chad Ortlieb 195 S. Myrtle Ave Tustin, CA 92780 25 subject CUP. Street parking appears to have been used for recent events held by the applicant between the continued Council meeting and now. The public should have a clear indication as to when street arkin can be used for non- rofit events. 4. The staff report 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 than the comparisons provided by staff. The staff report reference to other events or groups that hold events successfully is irrelevant because those events or groups either do not have a Conditional Use Permit for a significant amount of events in perpetuity or, have completely different site parameters or are not outdoor party facilities with live entertainment serving food and alcoholic beverages. 5. The staff report notes that "other assembly uses, such as churches, schools, parks, and playgrounds are conditionally permitted in the Single Family Residential (RI) 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 next similar uses would be a restaurant, nightclub or banquet facility all of which would require code compliant on -site parking, location inside a building ad location in a commercial zone. 6. 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 meetin g is on a through street in a more dense part of town. 7. The citations condition for the project ranges from $100 to $500 for violations of CUP conditions. If the project fundraising events raise $100,000 how would the fine be an incentive to stop reoccurring violations? 8. 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 project as well. 9. Page 3 of the staff report states that the site would be used for weddings. The applicant's response in "Purpose 6" on page 10 of the staff report indicates that the use is for "similar celebratory events ". In any event, the use equates to a party facility that could extend beyond weddings. 10. The staff report states that no parking would be allowed on Pasadena Avenue. What about parking on other streets such as Myrtle Ave? If the project were to be approved, event parking on Myrtle Avenue or surroundin streets needs to be prohibited, 11. 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, 25 Chad Ortlieb 195 S. Myrtle Ave Tustin, CA 92780 12. Tustin City Code Section 3235 provides exemptions for entertainment venues. The exemptions are generous and, in part, include the following: "(I)For single performers, duos, disc jockeys, or karaoke singers; (2)For the use of a radio, record, tape, compact disc player, juke box, or television receiver; (3)For the use of a piano, organ, or keyboard in any establishment; (4)For any entertainment provided for members and their guests at a private club where admission is not open to the public; (6)For entertainment conducted or sponsored by any religious organization or by any bona fide nonprofit club, society, or association, organized or incorporated for benevolent, charitable, dramatic, or literary purposes having an established membership and which holds regular meetings other than such entertainment at regular intervals, when the proceeds, if any, arising from such entertainment are used for the purposes of such club, society, or association" Given the open ended ability of any use in the City to have noise producing entertainment that would inherently frequently violate noise regulations, the intent of the ordinance and applicability of CEQA needs to be considered, especially in relation to the project. The intent of the ordinance exemptions makes the most sense when the ordinance is viewed in association with very limited event occurrences like a maximum of six times per year. Once a threshold is tripped, such as six times per year, the intent appears to be compromised and the noise impacts that could occur would merit a new land use (accessory or primary) and would merit a proper CEQA analysis for projects with new entertainment venue land uses. 13. 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? 14. The applicant requests removal of Planning Commission recommended Condition 2.24. Why would the applicant request removal of the condition? 15. The applicant originally requested to hold 24 events. Now they are seeking up to 36 events and unlimited events for groups up to 50 persons. The applicant may be attempting to provide a bartering ploy such that the Council keeps the number of events to the original request to justify project approval as opposed to the 36 events now proposed. The Council should not engage in a bartering compromise with the applicant. Even with 24 events, the project should be denied for reasons stated in this letter. 16. The applicant conducted the attached public records request with the City of Orange and submitted the results of the request as part of Attachment E to the staff report. The request cost the City of Orange thousands of dollars to produce the information. I believe that the sole purpose of the request was to discredit comments I have on the project. I believe the applicant feels that it is not right that I spend any amount of time at work regarding personal matters including the project in my neighborhood. The following facts exist in regard to the submitted records from the City of Orange: 1. The City of Orange information technology staff has verified that the comment letters in the record were not written at work. The time date stamp on the provided documents show the document was written on non-City of Orange hours. I 26 Chad Ortlieb 195 S. Myrtle Ave Tustin, CA 92780 forwarded the documents to or from my work to use my work e -mail for sending the comment letter to the City. I did not want my home e-mail on public record. 2. The City of Orange did not find disciplinary action merited. 3. The correspondence from the public record request equates to very little time in responding to comments from persons in opposition to the project. Government employees are frequently allowed to use break times for personal matters. 4. Much of the correspondence submitted from the public record request is not related to the project and relates to my day to day working responsibilities at the City of Orange. 5. A significant amount of the correspondence from the public record request shows my professionalism and demonstrates my knowledge of urban planning. 6. Some of the correspondence pertains to inquires initiated by the City of Tustin. 7. Some of the correspondence shows my consideration towards City staff. 8. One of the pieces of correspondence is a response to a City inquiry. My response shows that I initially was favorable of the project. I believe my initial favorable response reflects what many project supporters initially felt in that they, like me, have been invited to and attended past events by the applicant. At that time, I thought the events would be for very limited occasions. The operators were very nice and hospitable to a point where many in the neighborhood may have felt that they owed the applicants support for their hospitality. However, as events continued and as a Conditional Use Permit was filed to sanction the parties I felt deceived about the applicant's motives and felt that the applicant's character or the character of future unknown operators would not ensure that the formalized party facility would prevent the bevy of actual and potential impacts to the neighborhood mentioned in this letter. There have been actions of the applicant that I have seen and heard of that makes me wonder what extent they would go to continue to conduct their use. 17. Members of the City Council, staff, and persons related to or closely associated with the Council or staff has reportedly been to the applicant's events or has gathered with them for meals. One of the applicants serves or has served on a City CDGB advisory board, serves or has served in a capacity with the Tustin Community Foundation which has close ties to the City, and serves or has served on other boards or commissions that may have close ties to the City. Some of the charitable organizations which the applicants have held events for may have favor with the City or individual Council members. At a previous Council meeting, the Council was going to discuss the proposed application. Several Council members recused themselves and, in accord with public meeting procedures, straws had to be drawn to determine who could participate due to a need for a quorum despite a potential conflict of interest. Review of the project by the City and City Council in combination with the above statement brings to question whether the City Council can render an impartial decision for the project. Other options available to the Council: 27 Chad Ortlieb 195 S. Myrtle Ave Tustin, CA 92780 1 You may find the application was flawed and the use is not allowed. 2 You ma y find the findings cannot be made. 3 You may find the project inconsistent with the General Plan. 4 You may remand the a pplication back to the Planning Commission. 5 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 above. I ask that you deny the project. Sincerely, Chad Ortlieb Attachments: A. Web site connected to the applicant party supply activities B. Public record request filed by the applicant with the City of Orange C. City response to public record request filed with the City of Tustin on July 24, 2013 ffil Rabe, Erica From: Najera, Stephanie Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 7:57 AM Subject: FW: Conditional Use Permit 2012 -10 and Tustin City Council Resolution 13 -74 RECEOVED From: Tina Blenz rmaiito:tinamarty(@gol.com] AUG 20 2013 Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 8:56 PM To: CITY COUNCIL OFFICE- TUSTIN CITY CLERK Cc: Tinamarty(&aol.com Subject: Conditional Use Permit 2012 -10 and Tustin City Council Resolution 13 -74 From the Blenz family, 270 Pasadena ave. Tustin CA Dear Tustin City Council members, We have previously contacted the council about our families' opposition to the granting of the conditional use permit 2012 -10. Our opposition has not changed. We have read the packet we received August 15th, 2013 from the city clerk with Attachment G, City Council Resolution No. 13 -74 and have some questions on things that we don't feel were addressed. If this CUP is to be approved: What will the procedure be for suspected violations to be reported, and who would they be reported to? What assurances are there that reported violations will not be ignored by the city? Would a certain threshold of proof be needed for them to be acted upon? If so, what would that be? Will the city be conducting spot inspections of the events to ensure that ALL provisions of the restrictions are being followed by the applicants? Many neighbors are reluctant to "Snitch" on other neighbors, especially good neighbors like the applicants. City spot inspections would help keep the peace in the neighborhood. We did not see in the restrictions any provision that would require that the County Health Department be notified that a commercial food service would be operating at the facility. Regular and spot inspections would help satisfy us that the applicable Health Codes are being followed, not only to make sure that vermin are not breeding which would effect our next door home, but to ensure that the guests of these events are not being harmed. The City Attorney has advised the council that the Conditional Use Permit rules say that a CUP stays with the residence. Is there no legal way to change this so only the current owners will be able to utilize it? Many supportive nearby residents were and probably still are unaware that this CUP will stay with the property, not the current owners! We are confident that if it were not for the current owners' friendship with the nearby neighbors, there would be very few if any locals supporting this CUP. If the CUP is not approved, or the applicants withdraw the application or they fail to meet the requirements for startup: Will the large events be able to continue without the need for a Conditional Use Permit and /or without official restrictions in place? If large fundraising events can continue without a CUP, how will the City be able to verify that large events are not "Commercial" and are truly "Charitable" or "Fundraisers" in nature per IRS and /or State of California rules or truly just occasional large private parties that everyone is allowed to hold at their home? Thank you for your consideration, Martin and Tina Blenz Rabe, Erica From: Sent: Subject: fyi - - - -- Original Message - - - -- Najera, Stephanie Tuesday, August 20, 2013 7:57 AM FW: Proposed CUP 2012 -10 for 310 S. Pasadena From: robert ridgway [mailto:seadoo92@aol.coml Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 9:01 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Proposed CUP 2012 -10 for 310 S. Pasadena W ECEO V ED AUG 20 2013 OFFICE- TUSTIN CITY CLERK My name is Robert Ridgway. I own and have lived at 185 S. Myrtle Ave since 1975. When there is a large event at Wilcox Manor, traffic is continuous on Myrtle Ave. Even when they provide shuttle service, many people attending the event park on Myrtle Ave and don't start using the 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 residentia'. neighborhood and I strongly object to the disruption that the proposed commercial use of the 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 a Planning Commission meeting regarding this proposal and heard a lot of positive comments from folks that 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. I 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 immediate neighborhood, which includes Myrtle Ave. 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 disruption and congestion during an event will think twice about buying here. Sincerely, Robert Ridgway MAURIELLO LAW FIRM, APC 1181 Puerta Del Sol, Suite 120 San Clemente, CA 92673 Tel: (949) 542 -3555 Fax: (949) 606 -9690 Email: tomm @maurlaw.com Web: www.maurtaw.com August 19, 2013 VIA EMAIL AT CITYCOUNCILATUSTINCA.ORG AND U.S. 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: RECEQVED AUG 19 26ij3 OFFICE- TUSTIN CITY CLERK My firm represents Tustin resident Brent Ferdig. 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 "). Our comments are based on the Agenda report issued by the City on August 15 for the August 20 hearing. We believe that the Project is not in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA "), Pub. Res. Code, § §21000 et seq., and also that it conflicts with the Tustin City Code, in at least the following respects: 1. The Project conflicts with certain purposes of the Cultural Resource District 2. A "Categorical Exemption" from environmental review is inappropriate 3. Possible /likely significant environmental impacts are not identified or analyzed 4. Analysis of certain impacts (i.e., noise, parking, and traffic) is improperly deferred We therefore request that the Council deny the CUP application unless and until an Initial Study or Environmental Impact Report is prepared and the City Code issues are properly addressed. The Proiect The Project involves expansion of the use of the property to allow up to 36 nonprofit and for - profit (e.g., weddings) events per year, involving up to 200 guests per event. 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 voted to recommend approval of a version of the Project allowing up to 24 events per year, and that the applicant is seeking approval of a Project allowing up to 36 events per year. During each event, Members of the City Counsel Re: Comments to Proposed CUP 20122 -10 August 19, 2013 Page 2 two shuttle buses would operate continuously between the property and off -site parking lot(s). The City proposes to approve the Project based on a Mitigated Negative Declaration ( "MND "), thereby dispensing with the requirement of an Environmental Impact Report under CEQA. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the CUP based on the conclusion that the Project is categorically exempt based on Class 1 (existing facilities) and Class 3 (small new facilities), pursuant to Sections 15301 and 15303 of CEQA. II. The California Environmental Quality Act "The purpose of CEQA is to protect and maintain California's environmental quality. With certain exceptions, CEQA requires public agencies to prepare an EIR [Environmental Impact Report] 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 he environment but also informed self-government Y g (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1993) 6 Ca1.4th 1112, 1123, italics added.) III. The Project Does Not Comply with CEOA A. The CEQA Pub. Res. Code Section 15301 ( "Existing Facilities ") Categorical Exemption Does Not Apply The Planning Commission 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 acv'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.App.4th 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, or 36, nonprofit and for- profit events per year involving up to 200 visitors per event. In addition, the Project proposes to implement off -site parking and a 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. 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 August 19, 2013 Page 3 B. Substantial Evidence Supports A Fair Argument That The Project May Cause Significant Impacts i. The Impacts As noted above, the Project proposes to allow up to either 24 events per year (as approved by the Planning Commission) or 36 events per year (as now sought by the applicants) involving up to 200 visitors per event, 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 this single - family residential neighborhood, as well as visual impacts through signage, waste removal, and other issues. The full scope of these 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. It cannot be concluded that they 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. With respect to noise, in particular, the events may involve live and/or amplified music until 10:00 PM on Fridays and Saturdays and until 9:00 PM on Sundays through Thursdays. The conclusion in the Agenda that "it is not anticipated that the noise generated would violate the City's noise standards at the property line ...." Moreover, the Project as applied for would involve up to 2,880 shuttle trips annually, plus delivery vehicle trips (e.g., caterers, musicians, etc.), but which the agenda report nonetheless refers to as an "insignificant increase in traffic noise resulting from shuttle vans and delivery vehicles." There has been no noise study to support these conclusions nor to our knowledge any other evidence on which they are based. Thus, the conclusion will be of little consolation to neighbors who may suffer from unreasonable and significant noise from the Project if it is approved. Moreover, the reliance on policy compliance — i.e., the noise ordinance -- as a proxy for actual assessment of the noise impacts does not substitute for actual analysis of noise impacts. Policy compliance may be relevant to an impact's significance level, but it is not determinative. See, e.g. Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay v. Board of Port Commissioners (2002) 111 Cal.Rptr.2' 595 (compliance with noise policies does not necessarily assure less- than- significant noise impacts). CEQA requires a focus on impacts to the physical environment, not just policy conformance. ii. The Need for Environmental Analysis 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.AppAth 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 Members of the City Counsel Re: Comments to Proposed CUP 20122 -10 August 19, 2013 Page 4 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., Sundstrorn 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 the environment but also informed self - government. " "' (Laurel Heights hnprovement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1993) 6 CalAth 1112, 1123, italics added. iii. hnproper Deferral of Environmental Analysis CEQA requires that environmental impacts be examined at the time of consideration of the project. In general it is improper to defer analysis of impacts. Yet, the Planning Commission's analysis of this Project indicates that analysis of environmental impacts of parking are being deferred, in that the locations of the parking lot and shuttle pickup area are not fully determined. For example, the Agenda Report states that the applicants have reached agreement with the owner of a commercial property at 100 North Tustin Avenue to provide a parking area, but it does not identify how many parking spaces will be available. In addition, the Agenda Report states in part that the applicants are in negotiations with owners of two commercial properties in the vicinity to provide parking areas, but it does not identify those areas or how many parking spaces will be available, even if an agreement were to be executed (which is not yet the case, apparently). In addition, the agenda report notes that an additional 40 shuttle roundnips (or 80 one- way trips) per event. This means up to 2,880 shuttle trips annually due to the Project (40 roundtrips = 80 one -way trips x 36 = 2,880). In response to objections, the agenda report concludes that this is "insignificant when compared with the total average number of daily trips." The report does not provide any factual basis for this conclusion of insignificance, and it is difficult to fathom how this number of trips is insignificant as a matter of law or fact. This would seem to provide potentially significant impacts to noise and traffic due to the number of vehicle trips, not to mention potential impacts of numerous guests waiting in front of the event center for the shuttle vans to take them back to the offsite parking at the end of the events. Further, although a parking and traffic management plan is being required 30 days prior to the first event, because it is being deferred rather than analyzed as part of the project being voted on on August 20, there will be no public comment on such plan, there will be no way for the Council to discuss and assess such plan, and apparently the Project going forward will depend only on submission of a plan but will not depend on the quality of the data or the analysis continued therein. Given the significant hiatus for the Project since it was continued from the Council's agenda last Fall, these details should have been resolved by now and provided for public comment and for assessment by the Council. Members of the City Counsel Re: Comments to Proposed CUP 20122 -10 August 19, 2013 Page 5 In any event, as a result, the analysis of parking impacts, traffic impacts, noise impacts, air quality impacts, and other impacts are not fully and fairly presented. Until the locations and capacities of the parking lots and shuttle pickups are determined and analyzed, the Project should not be approved. iv. Lack of Alternatives Analysis That Would Be Provided in an EIR The proposal before the Council contains no consideration of alternatives, other than 24 days of use annually versus 36 days. If an EIR were prepared, it would contain an analysis of project alternatives, including not only a "no project" alternative, but also potential variations on this Project 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). IV. The Project Conflicts with Certain of the Purnoses of the Cultural Resource District As noted above, the Project site is within the Cultural Resource District (CR) and Single Family Residential District (RI) and the Project involves a nonlisted use. Pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 9252j2(a)(2), the Tustin City Council may consider a proposed nonlisted use of a property within the CR District when the use supports the purposes of the CR district. The purposes of the CR district, according to Tustin City Code Section 9252a, include, among other things, "preserving neighborhoods," "strengthen[ing] civic and neighborhood pride," and assure that new projects "are compatible with the character of the district." Because of the likely impacts of the Project, most notably the noise, traffic, parking, and aesthetic impacts, the Project in some respects is very likely to: detract from rather than preserve the character of the residential neighborhood; weaken rather than strengthen neighborhood pride; and be in conflict with rather than compatible with the character of the neighborhood. Thus, the Project conflicts with these Purposes of the Cultural Resource District and is likely therefore to have an adverse impact on the neighborhood and its residents. The CUP therefore should be denied. Finally, we are concerned about the precedent that approval of the Project may set for additional nonlisted uses in RI districts. As a practical matter, approval of this Project may make it difficult economically, politically, and /or legally for the City to refuse similar future CUP applications. V. Conclusion Based on the above, given that the Project does not presently comply with CEQA or with the Tustin City Code, we request that the Council deny the CUP application for the Project. Thank you for your consideration. Members of the City Counsel Re: Comments to Proposed CUP 20122 -10 August 19, 2013 Page 6 Very D. Maurieilo cc: City Clerk (cityclerk@tustinca.org) Scott Reekstin (sreekstin @tusiinca.org) David E. Kendig, Esq. (dkendig@wss- law.com) Brent Ferdig Rabe, Erica From: Thomas D. Mauriello <tomm @maurlaw.com> Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 9:11 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: City Clerk; Reekstin, Scott; Kendig, David; Brent Ferdig Subject: Comment letter to CUP 2012 -10 (310 South Pasadena Avenue) Attachments: 08 19 13 Ltr to Tustin Council_Final.pdf Dear City Council Members: On behalf of Tustin resident Brent Ferdig, attached please find a comment letter on the above - referenced project that will be considered at the August 20 Council meeting. Thank you for your consideration. Regards, 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 The preceding email message and any attachments may be confidential or protected by the attomey- 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. Internal Revenue Service regulations require that certain types of written advice include 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. DR- PATKICIA 15AIN MACHADO 1352 MAUNA LOA KOAD TU5TIN, CA 9z7eo -3et7 August 12, 2013 RECE' DD AUG 15 2013 OFFICE- TUSTIN CITY CLERK Dear Lindburgh and Michael, RECEIVED AUG 15 2013 COMMUNnY DEVELOPMENT DEPT I write this letter of support as you near the date of the City's hearing for your requested Conditional Use Permit ( CUP). While you are both indeed dear friends, you are also most generous, both of your personal time, and of the free donation of your home to local non - profits, private schools, and other charities. As a member of the board of two local non -profits who have profited from your generosity, I want to personally acknowledge your gifts to us. While I cannot speak on behalf of these non - profits, as the former treasurer of one, the monies generated from fundraisers held at Wilcox Manor, far exceeded what we would have normally netted because you refused to charge for the use of the venue, the rental of the tables and chairs, the use of fine dishes, stemware, silver service, and napkins. When the auction also included an evening of dining for ten people at your home, there again was no charge for the food, beverages, which included wines, all served in the items previously enumerated. That event alone funded two scholarships for local seniors in the school district. The other non-profit has had far larger affairs in the past few years with larger results. Not only did the two of you donate your home in both instances, but you also provided hors d'oeuvres, greeted the guests, and mingled and welcomed all. During the auctions there was active participation which served m increase the financial gain which supports local art projects. I realize, and empathize, with both of these groups for whom I donate many hours of my own and for whom I will continue to tog for years to come. Non - profts are legally bound to follow the State and Federal regulations for such groups, and as such, cannot risk losing this status. I understand and respect this. Therefore, many of us who sincerely appreciate your work In the Tustin community want you to know that you can count us among your supporters for these deeds. While we take a chance at personally offending other community friends with our words, it seems to me to be hypocritical to take advantage of your generosity and not take the risk of saying a public Shank you' for the personal and financial risks that you also have taken. I wish you suss in your venture, and hope that there is a way to appease both your needs for Wilcox Manor and the concerns of your local community. Patricia Bain Machado Wendy S. Greene Richard M. Greene 14291 Prospect Ave. Tustin, CA 921180, PGone: (714) 731 -7419 RvGtvs Y ems%? HIECIEFYIE10 AUG 15 20,13 OFFICE- TUSTIN CITY CLERK AUG 15 2013 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT �o -the �onorcy� �t1or Pty tY�vr�G.�, Mc.Kor �ra.T�^ Chou( 4uuleh't a+� w�ewn�oers ob �'Cutlrw �aktq Co.an��� 'lfri�s '�S Glneh�ner G�anct (ror rne..nloers a+� oK.f CAur�tr uw�t ct�Ca�11 4t1L k1n�\f t `e V o\rC4R(v At ve Ca �hvrr�\ Osc Qerin.Y kv tJ��Go+s t(�cnafC %W -Am-� ��GlA�S ov�rle�'S� �- ir��bvrt\�n �ic1'M�erSov� ctw� M�Gk�rtl 7Eir'l�0lG•� r ' Vwe- kvoo gonkAewa*e , have- grsw­-�' Kole hone bvE '►•r hea�ks kro P►LL 44-c". �••a , kVesr._ cue- LICCU( Fr n) r.eh- `aro�i�r arevpj an 'Ca�st.e+ t��� �� svrloJ++� ►++� Gnwwv�n�lnas -Nnclr haute �noV �CG�AG�nk��r7 QfrAl�rt hhrluah '3'�`e� t�:+n2S.n64.s of �+Ct �tbvlo LiUn�G�1peA, I,lh *V— Jw4d 1 • 'k�neJtc C��`r 6�CCkti '[r101i Q L� ,tsl7!!7 w� usY�..1 S bceo,nn� G w wez& r 04 rr.anQl eaF �C 0.ste>eao�k►oMs — µe�G :r+, Au" hor - P rD G►A k4we r c�omr a�wa�s •- '" La t•••c� aar�e� scarrru\ bvtnt! ''hr'�'`r hOf�\b,��kt �ttic�3rty� ha.� r.ae aLLf s4 v��2G n�`fal/l .rinfeJG� &V .'r % Cte�1°GawVy��, ��GGf� Y7''LrX1 v Our Gaee+rnv+.� "o 04' WrW, �C\r�G4e MGn O4' C\t�AC'/1 to nw�IK. Jul firvLq ,, Ours , Lzevo& A S. (A crux