HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 - - Additional Documents - 1/3/2017ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS FOR CC -2
WARRANT INFORMATION
(01/03/17)
Payment
Date
Remittance to:
Remittance
Payment
Explanation of payment
Ref.
ID:
Amount
0201189
12/09/16
LN Curtis & Sons —
0000002983
$7,496.35
What is it? chis is for the purchase of (12)
Playpipe with Shutoff
Akron nozzles used in the Fire Dept. Akron,
Nozzle tip
only has two distributors in this area which
are L.N. Curtis & Allstar Fire Equipment.
L.N. Curtis was the lowest bidder.
0201205
12/09/16
Michael C. Kimball —
0000025037
$3,570.00
What was this for? Michael Kimball
Instructor Food, Instructor
rovided Situational Awareness an
Hotel, Instructor Travel
Tactical Communications training for staf
Time, Full Day Training for
from Outreach, City Clerk, Cod
City
Enforcement, and Park & Rec staff from
NCC. This full-day training provide
articipants with tools to ensure greater
awareness of potential threats in their
respective work sites and in the field. It als
equipped them with skills to exercise verba
kills that are designed to de-escalate tens
dialogues with clients
Additional Documents for PH -2
TRAYLOR, MARIAN
From: Steven A Chan <chan.steven.a@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2017 12:25 PM
To: GREEN, BRENDA; TRAYLOR, MARIAN; FRENCH, JASMINE
Subject: PA -16-55 Documents in opposition
Attachments: Exhibit_G.PDF; HolidayRedroom010317.pdf; Exhibit C.pdf; Exhibit_B_redacted.pdf;
Exhibit_A.pdf; Exhibit_D.PDF; Exhibit_E.PDF; Exhibit_F_redacted.pdf
City of Costa Mesa
City clerks office
Hello and Happy New Year:
The attached documents are for the hearing this evening PA -16-55 Hearing on Redroom/Holiday.
Please
a) confirm receipt
b) that this is appropriate for distribution to the dais members.
thanks
Steven Chan
720 Center Street
CM 92627
Main document plus exhibits A -G, Exhibit H follows in separate email
TRAYLOR, MARIAN
From: Steven A Chan <chan.steven.a@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2017 12:25 PM
To: GREEN, BRENDA; TRAYLOR, MARIAN; FRENCH, JASMINE
Subject: Exhibit H and H additional PA -16-55 Documents in Opposition
Attachments: Exhibit_H.PDF; Exhibit_H_additioanl.PDF
City of Costa Mesa
City clerks office
Hello and Happy New Year:
The attached documents are for the hearing this evening PA -16-55 Hearing on Redroom/Holiday.
These are individual letters from parties expressing their opposition to the granting of Live entertainment to the
Redroom/Holiday establishment.
Please
a) confirm receipt
b) that this is appropriate for distribution to the dais members.
thanks
Steven Chan
720 Center Street
CM 92627
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
]d
15
16
17
173
19
20
21
72
23
24
25
26
?7
28
Center Street Neighborhood
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
Primary S Chan
Twelve Pages Total plus Exhibits A -G
IN THE COSTA MESA CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF PLANNING COMMISSION
APPLICATION PA -16-55 HOLIDAY (FORMERLY LION'S DEN AND MAISON)
Argument in support of Overturning
the Planning Commission 9-12-16
Approval of the Request for Live
Entertainment PA -16-55
January 3, 2017
City of Costa Mesa City Council
Public Hearing
Preamble
Request to Remove Applicant's
Amplified Music Use Permissions
Request to City to file violation notice of
Applicant's License Condition #2 with
the Department of Alcoholic Beverage
Control
Request for Abatement of Applicants'
Nuisance Behavior
(verbally requested at hearing 11-15-16)
Applicant, the Pange Family Trust (hereafter "Holiday") applies for a Conditional Use Permit
(hereafter "CUP") to allow live entertainment in their facility licensed by the California
Alcoholic Beverage Control (hereafter "ABC") within 10 feet of residential zoned property.
Center Street residents against Corruption (hereafter "CAC") oppose the issuance of the CUP
as conditioned and proposed, and request the City of Costa Mesa (the "City") officially notify
ABC that applicant is in violation of the License conditions, abate the nuisance in our
neighborhood, and immediately strike the allowance of any amplified entertainment at the
facility.
Lastly, CAC objects to continuing unlawful operation of the premises, which is facilitated by
the City of Costa Mesa's over-the-counter issued "Public Entertainment Permit" noise condition
Argument in Support of Denial of Application for Live Entertainment by Pange Family Trust
1
1t7
11
12
13
14
13
1 fi
3i
1S
19
21
22
23
24
25
26
"7
tied to the municipal Noise Ordinance that a) directly and improperly dilutes the State of
California's Alcoholic Beverage Control fugitive entertainment sound prohibition, and b) in so
doing presents a clash in nuisance determination resulting in enforcement fingerpointing and the
undermining of legitimate nuisance complaints.
Enforcement of Nuisance is a Police Power of the City of Costa Mesa
In one of the first local ordinances attempting to regulate the public nuisance aspects of
alcohol retailers, the city of Oakland passed the first "Deemed Approved Ordinance" in 1993.
This ordinance was challenged by local alcohol retailers up to the California Court of Appeals.'
One of the grounds used for the challenge was that local enforcement efforts were preempted by
the state's exclusive licensing authority and interfered with their grandfathered rights to sell
alcohol. The Court of Appeal rejected this argument, and noted there was no interference with
grandfathered rights because the city "retained its authority to abate nuisances..." and "that "[n]o
business—not even an alcoholic beverage sales establishment regulated by state law—has a
vested tight to conduct its business in a manner that attracts public nuisances and encourages
criminal activities near its premises." The court reasoned that the city:
"...already has this authority [to abate nuisance]—independent of [the
deemed approved] ordinance—which it may use in appropriate cases in the
proper exercise of its police power.
See Exhibit A "THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES' AUTHORITY TO REGULATE ALCOHOL
RETAILERS: Response to the Los Angeles City Office of Zoning Administration and Planning
Department pages 6-7
' City of Oakland v. Superior Court, 47 Cal. App.4" 740 (1996), review denied by the California Supreme
Court.
Argument in Support of Denial of Application for Live Entertainment by Pange Family Trust
I
The City's Nuisance Enforcement Refusal is Based on Policy
7
3 Repeated complaints by residents of the applicant's premises operated in violation of the
4 ABC Operating Conditions have been stonewalled. Various officials state a mantra that the ABC
5 "must enforce their own conditions" (see Exhibit B) These statements and conclusions originate
6 in the premise that the applicant complies with the local noise ordinance definitions of decibel
levels allowed. These allowances frustrate and thwart the ABC operating restrictions facially.
S Applicant has demonstrated clearly by their own behavior they have no intentions of complying
9
10 with the liquor license operating restrictions.. These are not facts that support a finding in support
11 of further entertainment expansion at the applicant's premises.
12 The Noise Ordinance is preempted by the ABC Operating Restrictions
13 The City of Costa Mesa issued an `over-the-counter' "Public Entertainment Permit" ("PEP)
14 to the applicant. The PEP contains conditions, one of which states that "Music volume must be
15 within the Noise Ordinance." The ABC issued license contains "Operating Restrictions', one of
16
which states "Any entertainment provided shall not be audible beyond the area under the control
17
lg of the licensee." Since the ABC has expressly prohibited fugitive entertainment sound from
19 leaving the facility, the city of Costa Mesa is preempted from regulating these aspects (audible
20 component of entertainment provided) of selling liquor at these premises. z The Operating
21 Restriction springs from Rule 61.4, a longstanding rule promulgated by the ABC.'
22 The CMPD has a duty under Section 25619 to Enforce Provisions of the ABC Act
23
The City of Costa Mesa through its police powers and under Section 25619 has a duty to enforce
�4
provisions of the ABC Act. The State Attorney General pointed out "peace officers have general
25
26 obligations that go beyond their duties to a particular agency."He states "Every peace officer is
27
28 II htti)://atcoholl2olicynid.com/t)df/Po I icy Perils pdfsee page 6
' Ralphs Grocery Co v Reimel.69 Cal 2d 17? - Cal: Supreme Coutt 1968 establishes the "strong presumption of
regularity accorded administrative rules and regulations."
Argumentin Support of Denial of Application for Live Entertainment. by Pange Family Trust
3
2
3
M
5
6
7
8
9
10
ii
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
obliged to enforce the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act and report every violator, and failure to do
so is a misdemeanor. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 25619.)^ It is clear by the applicants' own acoustical
experts' oral and written testimony, as well as the adjacent residential neighbors constant
complaints during the operating hours of the establishment, that the applicant has not contained
the audible component of entertainment provided to the area under their control. Thus it is
incumbent upon the City's police department to notify the ABC through its official channels that
the applicant is in violation of the operating restrictions upon the license. These are not facts that
support any expansion of entertainment to be provided at the establishment.
The Establishment is Interfering With Quiet Enjoyment of Adjacent Residences
The establishment violates § 13-283 of the Noise Ordinance which states :
It shall be unlawful for any person to willfully make or continue, or
cause to be made or continued, any loud, unnecessary and unusual noise which
disturbs the peace or quiet of any neighborhood or which causes discomfort or
annoyance to any reasonable person of normal sensitiveness residing in the area,
regardless of whether the noise level exceeds the standards specified in section
13-280, Exterior noise standards, and section 13-281, Interior noise standards.
The standard which may be considered in determining whether a violation of
the provisions of this section exists may include, but not be limited to, the
following:
(a)The level of noise;
(b)Whether the nature of the noise is usual or unusual;
(c)Whether the origin of the noise is natural or unnatural;
(d)The level and intensity of the background noise, if any;
(e)The proximity of the noise to residential sleeping facilities;
(f)The nature and zoning of the area within which the noise emanates;
(g)The density of the inhabitation of the area within which the noise emanates;
(h)The time of the day and night the noise occurs;
(i)The duration of the noise;
(j)Whether the noise is recurrent, intermittent or constant;
(k)Whether the noise is produced by a commercial or noncommercial activity;
and
(1)The density of the inhabitation of the area affected.
ORANGE CTY. EMPLOYEES ASSN v CTY OF ORANGE 14 Cal Ano 4th 575 - CaJ7 Court ofAppeal, 4th
Auoellate Dist., 3rd Div. 1993 at 580.
Argument in Support of Denial of Application for Live Entertainment by Pange Family Trust
4
3
4
5
6
"r
R
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(Ord. No. 97-11, § 2, 5-5-97)
The applicant is a commercial entity which has a state -imposed sound prohibition. The
"noise" is a low frequency bass that emanates from the property into and onto the adjacent
residences. The frequency is sometimes noticed as accompanied with a vibration, and is the bass
component of music entertainment that is provided in the sale of alcohol. The noise is highly
unusual (unnatural) and takes place between 9pm and 2am, when adjacent residents desire to be
sleeping peacefully. In addition to this noise, the establishment is sometimes host to raucous,
screaming, yelling crowds. When the establishment approaches the 2 a.m. closing time, these
intrusions are especially evident. Under CCR's Rule 61.4, the adjacent residences are ten feet
away. The adjacent residences are primarily single family homes and a few duplexed properties.
The background noise diminishes during the same period of 9pm to 2am.
The operation of the premises over the last five months has established a clear pattern of
conduct. See Exhibit C.
These facts do not support expansion of the establishment's activities, and the current
activity level is a nuisance and is disturbing the peace and quiet of the residential neighborhoods
to the north, west, and south of the establishment.
The Establishment has not Complied and has not Demonstrated Compliance, with
Applicable State Laws, a Proposed Condition of Approval
During the 9-12-16 Planning Commission hearing, Planning Commissioners `carved out'
proposed condition #23 on handwritten page 40, claiming "#5 covers us on the state law ."(on
handwritten page 40) Since the applicants' operations consistently allow fugitive entertainment
sound emissions from the facility, the establishment is in violation of the terms of the license, and
are selling liquor unlawfully. Any of the City's Ordinances or permitting schemes requiring the
business operate in compliance with state regulatory laws and rules has already been violated.
Argumentin Support of Denial of Application for Live Entertainment by Pange Family Trust
5
1
This does not support the issuance of a CUP for live entertainment.
V Mansion on Baker and the Surrounding Residents should be given Public Notice
3
4 If the City approves the application for live entertainment conditioned to thwart, frustrate,
S evade, or dilute the ABC operating restrictions on the applicants' liquor license, then other
6 establishments in the City similarly situated should have a similar right to apply for CUP's with
7 conditions that also contradict, frustrate, or thwart ABC Operating Restrictions. The nightclub
8 called Mansion, on Baker Street, also has similar Operating Restrictions. See Exhibit D.
9
Residents adjacent to that nightclub might also have an interest in Public Notice for this
10
I l potentially far-reaching decision.
12 Costa Brava Should be Allowed to Modify their Entertainment if Approved
13 If the City approves the application for live entertainment in contravention of the ABC
14 operating restrictions on the applicants liquor license, then other establishments in the City
15 similarly situated should have a similar right to apply for CUP's with conditions that also
16
contradict, frustrate, or thwart ABC Operating Restrictions. The restaurant called Costa Brava,
17
18 directly next door to applicants' establishments on 19th Street, also has identical Operating
19 Restrictions on containment of their audible components of entertainment. See Exhibit E.
20 Residents adjacent to that restaurant might also have an interest in Public Notice for this
21 potentially far-reaching decision.
2Z The Applicant has the Burden of Proof
23
The City of Costa Mesa Municipal Code contains Ordinance No. 13-08. At (Sec2-303(6)),
24
it states the applicant has the `burden of proof...' to support the appeal decision:
2i
a
26 If the original decision being appealed involved issuance of any
27 permit, license, or other entitlement or approval or requested some action by
28 the city, the applicant for the original decision shall have the burden of proof
Argument in Support of Denial of Application for Live Entertainment by Pange Family Trust
6
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1s
16
17
18
19
20
?1
22
23
24
25
26
to support the granting of the requested issuance, approval, or action at the
appeal.
The proof offered by the applicant does not provide any facts to support that they will not impair
the character and value of the adjacent neighborhood, or that they are not operating illegally.
These facts do not support a finding to expand entertainment at the establishment.
The Applicant's Proof is that they have not complied with State Laws
Several acoustical experts have weighed in on the premises and the intrusive base
emanating from the facility. Mike Holritz of Landrum and Brown offered this statement: "Its
probably not feasible or even possible to completely stop db bass notes from getting out of the
building, but we can meet the noise ordinance level."' . Gary Hardesty of Sound Media Fusion,
LLC. conducted a study December 3, 2016, and noted "And more noise (low frequency) was
getting out through two rear doors. ,6 It is thus indisputable that fugitive low frequency bass is and
has been emanating from the building, in direct contravention of the Operating Restrictions on
the ABC -issued liquor license.
The establishment is clearly operating in violation of the Operating Restriction of the ABC
license, hence "unlawfully." This is supported by the applicants' own actions of striving to
comply with the Costa Mesa Noise Ordinance (though in violation of the liquor license
conditions). The applicant has operated in non-compliance with the state license since they
opened, ( a period of over 5 months) as evidenced by residents' noise complaints about the
"bass." Their violation of the license terms is also evidenced by statements of their own
acoustical `experts'.
These violations have placed the applicant in violation of California Penal Code Sections
'See the City of Costa Mesa video on demand record of the September 12, 2016 Planning Commission
28 hearing at timecode 1:47:37
' See httT)://www costiniesaca Azov/lip/council/aaenda/2017/2017-01-03/PH-2-Attach-11 ndf
handwitten page 188 bullet #3.
Argument in Support of Denial of Application for Live Entertainment by Purge Family Trust
7
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
it
12
13
ld
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
11200-11207 Article 1. Unlawful Liquor Sale Abatement Law. Penal Code section 11200
provides that, "Every building or place used for the purpose of unlawfully selling, serving or
giving away any spirituous, vinous, malt or other alcoholic liquor, and every building or place in
or upon which such liquors are unlawfully sold, served or given away, is a nuisance which shall
be enjoined, abated and prevented, whether it is a public or private nuisance." And "one is
"unlawfully selling" alcoholic beverages if one is selling them out of hours, to minors, or
otherwise illegally... "' Violations of the Liquor Sale Abatement Law are grounds to overturn the
Planning Commission CUP decision of 9-12-16.
The Operation of the Premises have resulted in numerous complaints to CMPD
Since the applicant's premises opened in July 2016, numerous calls to CMPD have been
made complaining of the fugitive entertainment noise in adjacent properties. See Exhibit C.
These calls have been made on Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday nights and mornings
between the hours of 9:15 p.m. and 2:00 a.m. All of the calls are complaints of fugitive
entertainment sound prohibited on the face of the liquor license as "operating restrictions." The
ongoing non-compliance resulting in bass emanating through adjacent residential property are
grounds to overturn the Planning Commission CUP approval given on 9-12-16 to the applicant.
The Applicants' "Attorney Letter" Rebuttal
Applicant has supplied a letter written on Palmieri Tyler letterhead purporting to portray the
standing of the applicants' liquor license with the licensing authority. Please see handwritten
pages 201-202. Careful parsing of the letter is required. The letter contents prompted an exchange
with Agent Daniel Plotnik of the Santa Ana office over the contents of the letter since a verified
Accusation against the licensee for violation of the Operating Restrictions was presented to the
agency after the September 12, 2016 Planning Commission hearing. (The applicant was supplied
' People v. Schlvubach. 193 Cal. App. 4th 1132 -Cal: Couit ofAnneal.2nd Appellate Dist, 3rd Div 2011 at
1144
Argument in Support of Denial of Application for Live Entertainment by Pange Family Trust
8
I
y
a copy of the verified complaint prior to its submission to the ABC, and the applicants' attorney
3 Michael Cho was in the Santa Ana ABC office when the verified complaint was received and
q date-stamped September 21, 2016.) As can be seen in Exhibit F, the investigation triggered by the
g verified complaint continues and is open. At its most severe, the violations of the Operating
6 Restrictions of the liquor license may result in revocation of the license. This is not a fact in
7 support of approving the Planning Commission decision granting a live entertainment CUP to the
S
applicant.
9
Practices of a Small Sample of other (General Law) Cities in Southern California
10
A telephone survey was conducted with the cities of Laguna Beach, Covina, Orange, Lake
11
12 Forest, Concord, and Artesia. In this survey, the departments under whose remit similarly situated
13 circumstances was handled, were each queried as to their probable course of action in response to
19 negative impacts similar to the Holiday/Redroom and Center Street situation. The question was
15 framed as "if a state liquor license holder was the recipient of a CUP and/or a conditioned
16
municipal issued entertainment permit or like instrument, and provided entertainment within the
17
Municipal noise ordinance but in excess of an ABC -license imposed sound prohibition, and
Ig
19 generated nuisance calls from adjacent residents, how would the department handle the
20 situation." In each case, the city was approached as if an existing establishment was being
21 evaluated for acquisition, and the questions were part of due diligence.
22 In each and every case, the staff of each city stated the ABC would be brought in. Some
23
cities were much more adamant than other when confronted with `cajoling' or `persuasive' efforts''.
24
to define strong allowances for the business vis a vis the residential sector impacts, and each
25
26 city's staff made it clear that unless outside an `entertainment district' (if present), the quiet
27 enjoyment of residents was important and warranted enforcement diligently.
28 When, as in this situation when there is a clear disturbance of adjacent residents that
Argument in Support of Denial of Application for Live Entertainment by Pange Family 17ust
9
I
continues unabated, reasonable factfinders cannot justify these circumstances as grounds to ratify
2
3 the Planning Commission decision of 9-12-16.
4 The Applicants' `Public Entertainment Permit' is not in compliance with state laws
5 (Ord. No. 95-13, § 2, 9-18-95) of the Costa Mesa municipal code allows the issuance of `Public
6 Entertainment Permits' unless a number of conditions have been met. Based upon proof provided by the
7 applicants' `sound studies' which objectively show noise emissions from the facility in violation of the ABC
8 `Operating Restriction', paragraphs (d) and 0) prohibit the issuance of the PEP held by the applicant. This is
9 not a fact in support of upholding the Planning Commission decision.
10 The Applicants' noncompliance with state laws disqualifies them from a CUP
11 The City Code does not allow a business to operate that can not show compliance with all
1''
laws and the proposed use does not comply with state Operating Restrictions imposed by a state
13
Id license from the ABC. This precludes the city from issuing a CUP to the applicant, and a decision to
1{ issue the CUP in the face of a 5 month plus period of noncompliance is an abuse of discretion.
16 Who `performs' enforcement of ABC rules is not a fact in support of Upholding the Planning
17 Commission Decision made 9-12-16.
16 The determination of, consideration of, and evaluation of `who' does enforcement
19 in the form of nuisance abatement processes of the fugitive entertainment sounds, does not
7�
mitigate towards upholding the PC decision of 9-12-16. This is an open sore on the project.
�1
'} The City's deployment of `Code Enforcement' "officers" are empowered under the
22
23 Municipal Code, to issue citations of a misdemeanor level. They are expressly prohibited to be,
24 by the same ordinance, `peace officers.' Since they are not `peace officers', their obligations
25 under Section 25619 of the Regulatory Provisions of Division 9 of the Business & Professions
26 Code, are entirely discretionary and may not even exist.. They can, as they have since the
�7
Holiday/Redroom opened, turn a blind ear to the fugitive entertainment sounds. This leaves the
28
"Costa Mesa Code Enforcement can also carry this to the extreme in ignoring the expert witness
Argument in Support of Denial of Application for Live Entertainment by Pange Family Trust
10
3
4
5
6
7
R
9
10
12
13
]d
15
16
17
iS
19
20
2l
22
23
24
25
26
establishment clearly in violation of the license Operating Restrictions, and by the state of
California's definition, the adjacent neighborhood is impaired in welfare and other values.' This
is in direct contrast to the result from the opposite course of action: that of proactive enforcement
of the ABC rules and regulations. Section 25619 creates this proactivity by `peace officers' and
`district attorneys' duties. It states:
Every peace officer and every district attorney in this State shall enforce the
provisions of this division and shall inform against and diligently prosecute persons
whom they have reasonable cause to believe offenders against the provisions of this
division. Every such officer refusing or neglecting to do so is guilty of a
misdemeanor.
The fact is that the proposed conditioning by the city of the applicant, including that already approved
by the Planning Commission, strips local enforcement of the ABC Act, which expressly empowers and
obligates `police powers' in specified personnel. Code enforcement officers at the municipal level are
expressly prohibited from acting as `peace officers.' This is the ceding of police power resulting in
enforcement neglection referred to in Section 25619. While an incident of violation ignored `here or there'
may fall under the discretionary enforcement and non-use of police powers, the long-running
non -enforcement already established amounts to a deprivation of equal protections of law. Further expansion
of the entertainment provided without a track -record of enforced compliance will continue to perpetuate this.
Since this is not consitutional, these circumstances do not support upholding the Planning Commission
decision of 9-12-16.
it is NO kitchen - this is a BAR with no Food
The latest plans for the bar do not have a kitchen, which may trigger sprinkler installation.
There is no menu, and no food. This is not what was originally presented during the Maison name
phase. This is detrimental to the neighborhood and does not support ratification of the Planning
documentation provided through two separately provided sound studies that indisputably demonstrate that
?g audio components of entertainment are spilling out of the facility. Those studies are a part of the
documentation provided by the applicant.
'Exhibit C is a list from one household on Center Street logging the disruptions to daily life.
Argument in Support of Denial of Application for Live Entertainment by Pange Family Trust
11
l
3
a
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1`7
18
1/9
20
s
21 i
22
23
24
25
26
27
2$
Commission Decision of 9-12-16.
The Neighborhood Surrounding the Applicant is Overwhelmingly Against the Continued
Nuisance Operation of the Establishment
Attached as Exhibit G is the `Neighborhood Petition Against PA -16-55. These are
signatures of the neighbors in the immediate neighborhood of the Holiday/Redroom
establishment. This petition requests the city to immediately abate the project as a nuisance and
as detrimental to the neighborhood. During the Maison phase of the establishment run and
operated by the same parties (see on-line liquor license lookup provided by staff), a similar
request for nuisance abatement was made. Though no abatement proceedings occurred, the
establishment shut down for a period of 16 months from March 2015 to July 2016. The
re -opening course of conduct of the the establishment mirrors the tremendous late night negative
impacts of the establishments Spring 2015 history - a punishing bass that has disrupted the lives
of the adjacent neighborhood. The current iteration of the establishment is indistinguishable from
the Maison version. That version was denied live entertainment on June 8, 2015 at the Planning
Commission. Though there is a purported change in management, the negative impacts upon the
neighborhood is identical, and the request for a conditional use permit for live entertainment is
also much the same. These facts do not support ratification of the September 12, 2016 approval
by the Planning Commission.
Argument in Support of Denial of Application for Live Entertainment by Pange Family Trust
12
Exhibit A
THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES' AUTHORITY
TO REGULATE ALCOHOL RETAILERS:
Response to the Los Angeles City Office of Zoning Administration and Planning
Department
Prepared by:
James F. Mosher, JD and Ryan D. Treffers, JD
Prepared for:
San Fernando Valley Partnership and the Institute for Public Strategies
January 5, 2015
I. ISSUE
To what extent does the City of Los Angeles have the authority to impose and enforce
conditions on alcohol retailers that may restrict their alcohol sales and distribution
practices?
II. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The City of Los Angeles' ("City's") position that it does not have any authority to regulate
retailers' alcohol sales and distribution practices (to impose "alcohol -specific" conditions) is
based on a faulty legal analysis that relies on outdated court cases. More current case law and
legal analyses as well as accepted practices in other California cities and counties demonstrate
that the City of Los Angeles does have the authority to impose and enforce an array of
alcohol -specific conditions.
III. BASIS FOR THE CITY'S POSITION
The City's position for nearly twenty years is that it is preempted by state law from imposing
alcohol -specific conditions on alcohol retailers (such as restrictions on what types of alcohol
products can be sold). In a May 16, 1996, memorandum ("Prohibited Conditions Memo")
then -Chief Zoning Administrator Robert Janovici instructed zoning administrators to avoid
imposing any conditions on alcohol retailers that expressly regulate the sale of alcoholic
beverages.' The directive was prompted by a 1990 Superior Court writ invalidating
alcohol -specific conditions imposed on a Pacoima food market ("Pacoima decision").z The
conditions included restrictions on hours and days of sale, sale of single cans and bottles, size of
products, refrigeration of products, amount of retail floor space devoted to alcoholic beverages,
and age of clerks. The city had imposed the conditions to mitigate nuisance activities at and
surrounding the market.
The position stated in the 1996 Prohibited Conditions Memo has been recently reaffirmed in two
instances, with the first being in a January 7, 2014, Letter of Clarification issued by the Los
Angeles Office of Zoning Administration.' At issue was a voluntary operating condition agreed
to by a new Sprouts Farmers Market restricting it from selling malt liquor, fortified wine, and
single bottles of beer. The market sought clarification from the city, arguing that the product
restrictions should not include sales of craft beer in bottles in excess of 20 ounces since craft beer
should not be considered malt liquor.4 The Zoning Administrator opted to strike the condition
entirely, as directed by the Prohibited Conditions Memo, stating that it "has no direct authority to
regulate or enforce conditions assigned to alcohol sales or distribution." The Letter of
Clarification made no distinction between the Pacoima case, involving nuisance abatement
conditions imposed on a pre-existing market, and Sprouts Farmers Market, involving the
issuance of a Conditional Use Permit ("CUP") for a new business.
The City reaffirmed its position again in a letter dated January 9, 2014, from the Planning
Department to the Venice Neighborhood Council.' The Neighborhood Council had requested
clarification from the Planning Department regarding what conditions can and cannot be legally
included when approving a CUP for alcohol retailers. Citing directly both the 1996 Prohibited
Conditions Memo and Pacoima decision, the Planning Department responded that it is
preempted by state law from imposing the conditions listed in the two documents.
IV. REBUTTAL SUMMARY
Memorandum from Robert Janovici, Chief Zoning Administrator, Los Angeles City Planning Department, to All
Zoning Administrators (May 16, 1996) (on file with author),
'Pacoima Food Market v. City of Los Angeles, Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. C753794 (Peremptory
Writ ofMandate of mandate filed May 24,1990).
' Letter of Clarification from Maya E. Zaitzevsky, Associate Zoning Administrator, City of Los Angeles, to Seth
Brown, Sprouts Market, Regency Centers Corporation, and Tem Dickerhoff, CGR Development (January 7, 2014)
(on file with author).
Letter from Terri Dickerhoff, CGR Development to Maya Zaitzevsky, Office of Zoning Administration, Los
Angeles Department of City Planning (December 18, 2013) (on file with author).
' Letter from Terry P. Kaufman Macias, Managing Assistant, Land Use Division, City of Los Aneles, to Linda
Lucks, President, Venice Neighborhood Council (January 9, 20000) (on file with author).
2
The Los Angeles Office of Zoning Administration and Planning Department are incorrect in their
conclusion that it does not have any authority to impose alcohol -specific conditions on alcohol
retail outlets because their analysis:
1. Overstates the breadth of the state's alcohol licensing authority, particularly as to new
businesses subject to the City's CUP process, while ignoring more recent case law and
legal analyses that supersede and clarify the 1990 Pacoima decision;
2. Ignores the practices and progress made in other local California jurisdictions; and,
3. Fails to recognize the need for a comprehensive policy that can fully articulate and
exercise local authority, instead relying on an ad hoc strategy that undermines that
authority.
V. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
To overcome concerns of express alcohol regulation the City needs to update its legal analysis to
provide a clear statement of local authority, conduct a review of policies and practices adopted
by other California cities and counties, and assess the alcohol-related problems faced by
neighborhoods in the City. Based on these analyses and reviews, the City should formalize a
comprehensive program to reduce problems associated with alcohol retail sales. The program
should:
1. Articulate how nuisance activities are directly related to alcohol sales thus establishing a
clear nexus between local police and zoning powers and the alcohol -specific specific
sales conditions;
2. Include an alcohol -specific CUP ordinance that includes standards for determining the
number, location, type, and sales practices of new alcohol outlets designed to minimize
public health, safety and nuisance problems associated with alcohol sales;
3. Include a Deemed Approve Ordinance (DAO) that establishes public nuisance abatement
standards for pre-existing alcohol retail outlets;
4. Establish the administrative mechanism by which action can be taken against alcohol
retailers for violations of the CUP and DAOs;
5. Impose a fee paid by alcohol retailers to defray the costs associated with implementing
and enforcing the program;
6. Assign a dedicated law enforcement officer, trained in alcohol law enforcement
techniques, to administer the policy and enforce its provisions; and
Establish steps for working with the ABC Department to ensure good collaboration when
administering and enforcing the policy.
VI. LEGAL ANALYSIS
A. The City overstates the breadth of the state's alcohol licensing authority, particularly as
to new businesses subject to the City's Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process, while
ignoring more recent case law and legal analyses that supersede the 1990 Pacoima
decision.
1. Introduction
The City's position that it is preempted by state law from imposing alcohol -specific standards on
new and existing alcohol retailers appears to be based on the 1990 Pacoima decision by the
Superior Court. The decision struck down alcohol -specific conditions imposed by the Zoning
Administrator on an existing alcohol retailer as a condition of remaining open. The Pacoima
decision has been superseded by more recent court decisions and legal analyses, which clearly
give California local jurisdictions much broader authority to impose operating conditions
(including those specific to alcohol) on both new and existing alcohol retailers.
Although California state law expressly reserves the authority to license and regulate alcohol
sales, this authority is not absolute.' The foundation for local governments' ability to regulate
alcohol outlets rests on their police and zoning powers to address land use and public safety
problems. This includes the prevention and abatement of public nuisances associated with
alcohol availability and the authority to address the impact of alcohol retail outlets on public
health, safety, and welfare. State courts have affirmed that the state's licensing authority and
local government's land use authority operate concurrently based on the fundamental conceptual
difference between the two regulatory activities. As stated in a seminal 1961 case upholding a
local government's restrictions on the location of cocktail lounges:
"The essence of zoning lies in metropolitan and regional planning; it is the use
and treatment of public and private land and its appurtenances in the interest of
the community as a whole. The factors and reasons that determine the imposition
' California Constitution, Art. 20 §22 states "the State of California ... shall have the exclusive right and power to
license and regulate the ... sale ... of alcoholic beverages within the State" to the exclusion of cities and counties.
4
of metropolitan zoning are entirely different from those which control the
regulation of the consumption of liquor."'
Local governments therefore have authority to regulate alcohol outlets and alcohol sales
practices so long as the restrictions are grounded in its land use authority and police powers. The
extent of and basis for this authority varies based on whether the retail alcohol outlet is a new or
pre-existing business, as discussed below.
2. Regulation of new alcohol retail outlets.
The state legislature has explicitly prohibited the issuance of new alcohol retail licenses that
would violate a valid local zoning ordinance. The relevant statute states: "No retail license shall
be issued for any premises which are located in any territory where the exercise of the rights and
conferred b the license is contra to a valid zoning ordinance of an coup or city."'
privileges Y iY g Y county Y.>,
In the early 1980s, many California cities and counties, including Los Angeles, became
concerned about the public health and safety issues associated with the overconcentration of
alcohol outlets, particularly in urban settings.9 In response to the state's minimal limitations on
the number of alcohol licenses that could be issued, local jurisdictions began exercising their
land use powers through the enactment of CUP ordinances specific to alcohol outlets.'O Today
most local jurisdictions have CUP ordinances that limit the geographic location, type, and
number of alcohol retail outlets. Many of the CUPS also include restrictions on alcohol -specific
selling and serving practices, including those imposed on both the Pacoima Market and Sprouts
Farmers Market (see section 4 for specific examples). The ordinances routinely include findings
that establish the connection between the regulations, the mitigation of public health, safety and
nuisance problems, and the jurisdiction's land use and police powers.
This local authority is now widely accepted, and there are no successful legal challenges of a
thorough local, alcohol -specific CUP ordinance, at least at the appellate level. As expressly
required by the Legislature, and recognized by the courts, the state's authority to license a new
alcohol outlet only comes into play if the proposed outlet meets the local government's land use
requirements Alcohol -specific conditions, such as restrictions on the types of alcohol to be sold
' Floresta Inc. v City Council, 190 Cal.App.2d 599, 605 (1961).
'Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 23790.
'Wittman, F. and Shane, P., Manual for Community Planning to Prevent Problems of Alcohol Availability,
Sacramento: California State Dept of Alcohol and Drug Programs (September, 1988).
10 Id. at Appendix B: Case Studies, pp. 119-140.
in the new business, are permissible so long as the restriction is based on the local government's
land use authority. The Pacoima decision is not relevant to this issue, since it addresses
conditions imposed on a pre-existing retail outlet. The Zoning Administrator's decision to
rescind conditions placed on the Sprouts Farmers Market, a new business, is a misreading of
Pacoima and an unnecessary limitation on the City's authority to regulate new alcohol outlets.
3. Local Regulation of pre-existing (grandfathered) alcohol retail outlets
Although an important first step, CUPS have proven to be an imperfect tool. As noted above,
alcohol retail outlets in existence prior to the enactment of a city or county CUP ordinance are
exempt (or "grandfathered" or treated as "non -conforming uses"). Local governments cannot
require them to obtain a CUP and be subject to CUP conditions so long as they are continuously
open for business without substantial change in mode or character of operation. The large
majority of a locality's alcohol outlets fit this category.
In 1993, prompted by the inability to regulate existing alcohol retail outlets, the City of Oakland
enacted the first "deemed approved" ordinance (DAO).11 It exercises authority over
grandfathered outlets by requiring they receive "deemed approved" permits and established
"public nuisance standards" by which pre-existing retailers must abide in order to maintain their
permit. The ordinance gives the city the authority to close the business if violations occur. The
standards are monitored by the city through an enforcement and education program financed
with a fee paid by all the city's alcohol retailers. The public nuisance standards address land use
and public safety issues associated with alcohol sales, such as loitering, increased police calls,
noise, graffiti, and drug sales.
Alcohol retailers in Oakland challenged the ordinance on several grounds, including that the
ordinance was preempted by the state's exclusive licensing authority and interfered with their
grandfathered rights to sell alcohol. All of the claims would ultimately be rejected in a decision
by the California Court of Appeal, and the decision was left standing by the California Supreme
Court when it denied further review. 12
"Oakland, Oakland, Cal., Ordinance 11624 (1993). For a description of the Oakland ordinance and its enactment, see
Mosher, J. and Works, R., Confronting Sacramento: State Preemption, Community Control, and Alcohol -Outlet
Blight in Two Inner -City Communities. San Rafael, CA: Marin Institute for the Prevention of Alcohol and Other
Drug Problems (1994). The current ordinance is at Oakland, Cal. Planning Code ch. 17.156.
'2 City of Oakland v. Superior Court, 47 Cal. App.4" 740 (1996), review denied.
J
The Court of Appeal concluded that the ordinance did not interfere with a business's
grandfathered rights because the city retained its authority to abate nuisances and enforce its
criminal laws, stating that "[n]o business—not even an alcoholic beverage sales establishment
regulated by state law—has a vested right to conduct its business in a manner that attracts public
nuisances and encourages criminal activities near its premises."13 The court reasoned that the
city:
"...already has this authority [to abate nuisance]—independent of [the deemed
approved] ordinance—which it may use in appropriate cases in the proper
exercise of its police power. The ordinance does not create any new authority
empowering the city to halt operation of an alcoholic beverage sales
establishment premises. It merely creates an administrative mechanism that may
result in a third party taking action against the alcoholic beverage
seller—abatement by a court or license revocation by the Department of
Alcoholic Beverage Control. ,14
In other words, Oakland was exercising its zoning authority and police powers, which exist
separate from and in concert with the state's licensing authority.
Left ambiguous by the Oakland decision was the permissible reach of DAOs – to what extent can
they restrict the mode of operation in relationship to alcohol sales and service? What is not
ambiguous is the court's opinion that the purpose of an ordinance, not its impact, determines
whether it is distinct from the direct regulation of alcoholic beverage licensees.15
A separate line of cases has introduced the distinction between "direct" and "indirect"
regulations on alcohol sales, with the former being within the exclusive domain of the ABC
Department and the latter permissible by local regulation. In 2011, the Court of Appeal, Second
District, Division 3 grappled with this distinction in " a case involving an action by the Los
Angeles City Attorney under the state's Unlawful Liquor Sale Abatement Law." The City had
imposed the following conditions on Schlimbach (the owner of a pre-existing restaurant and
bar):
"Id. at 758,
Id. at 757.
"See id. at 763 —766.
6193 Cal.App.41" 1132 (2011).
11 Cal. Pen. Code § 11200-11207.
7
n Prohibit the employment of individuals who have been convicted of alcohol-related
violations;
➢ Require all employees to attend STAR training within six months of employment;
➢ Prohibit the unlawful sale or service of any alcoholic beverage to an obviously intoxicated
person;
m Require a uniformed security guard when there is live entertainment;
➢ Require the kitchen to be operational and food service available at all hours that the business
is open; and
➢ Maintain and post signs in English and Spanish that state, "PERSONS UNDER THE AGE
OF 21 AND INTOXICATED PERSONS WILL NOT BE SERVED ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGES.
Schlimbach appealed a lower court opinion claiming that the provisions were preempted by state
law and within the exclusive jurisdiction of the ABC Department.
In weighing its decision that the provisions were not preempted, the Appeals court evaluated the
relevant line of cases, stating in part (and quoting the Oakland DAO case):
"[A] city ordinance addressing nuisance problems associated with alcoholic
beverage sale establishments does not improperly regulate preexisting ...
licensees." (City of Oakland v. Superior Court (1996) 45 Ca1.App. 4th 740, 747,
53 Cal.Rptr. 2d 120.) While the ABC's exclusive right to regulate the sale and
purchase of alcohol may prevent a city from enacting " `such regulatory measures
as "restrictions as to the class of persons to whom liquors may be sold, and as to
the hours of the day and the days of the week during which places of sale may be
open," ' " it does not preempt an ordinance that "does not directly affect the
licensee's ability to sell alcoholic beverages to a willing purchaser." 18
The court reasoned that because the provisions did not restrict Schlimbach's right to sell alcohol
to a willing purchaser and were intended to prevent future problematic sales and abate nuisance
arising from them, there was no improper interference with the jurisdiction of the ABC
Department. Even the provision prohibiting sales to obviously intoxicated persons (which
clearly affects a licensee's ability to sell to a willing customer and is prohibited by state law) was
determined to be within the City's jurisdiction.
1e Id. at 1146 (emphasis added) (citation omitted).
Central to this finding, as well as those cases cited for forming the legal basis of the decision, is
the principle that a local regulation is not immediately preempted because it may have an impact
on alcohol sales. Rather, a regulation needs to be evaluated with regard to its purpose and
connection to the local jurisdiction's land use and police powers to determine whether it
improperly interferes with ABC Department authority.
The distinction between the "direct" and "indirect" regulation of alcohol is in fact artificial and
evolving over time. Clearly DAOs can affect the ability of a retailer to sell to a willing customer;
they include provisions that allow a local jurisdiction to close the business entirely if the
prohibited public nuisance activities are violated. The Schlimbach court appeared to recognize
this ambiguity when it stated that restrictions on hours and days of sale "may" be preempted, a
matter the court explicitly stated it was not addressing in its opinion.19 The crucial issue, as
illustrated in Schlimbach by its acceptance of the sales to obviously intoxicated persons
condition, is that the local jurisdiction must establish the nexus between the condition and the
abatement of public nuisances.
As discussed in Section 4, many California cities and counties have extended the reach of their
DAOs to include provisions that might previously been considered "direct" regulation of alcohol
sales (e.g., types of beverages permitted to be sold) based on the local jurisdictions'
determination that the restrictions are necessary and permissible to abate and prevent public
nuisance activities. In many instances, these conditions are placed on retail outlets after a
violation of the DAO has been determined, are issued to abate the nuisance, and serve as an
alternative to outright revocation of the DAO permit.
The Chief Zoning Administrator issued the Prohibited Conditions Memo (May 16, 1996), which
relied on the Pacoima case, prior to either the City of Oakland a Superior Court or Schlimbach
cases. The Pacoima case is clearly dated and does not reflect the evolving legal jurisprudence on
this issue. For example, the Pacoima court rejected the city's conditions related to the age of
clerks, refrigeration of products, and amount of retail floor space devoted to alcoholic beverages.
The reasoning found in the cases following Pacoima suggests these would be treated as
"indirect" regulations today, since they do not directly interfere with the retailer's ability to sell
to a willing customer. The other conditions, related to hours and days of sale, sales of single
cans and bottles, and size of products, were issued as public nuisance abatement measures.
Although California courts have not recently ruled on the permissibility of such local restrictions
19 Indeed, an earlier case had approved hours of sales restrictions applicable to certain alcohol retailers as a means to
abate nuisance activities. Korean American Legal Advocacy Foundation v. City of Los Angeles, 23 Cal.App. 376
(1994).
on grandfathered alcohol outlets, many cities and counties are now imposing similar conditions.
The evolving jurisprudence suggests that they are permissible and do not encroach on the ABC
Department's licensing authority so long as they are clearly connected to legitimate local land
use and public safety concerns.
B. The City ignores the practices and progress made in other local California jurisdictions.
The City's position ignores the successes of other jurisdictions in California with regard to
imposing alcohol -specific conditions on retailers. In the wake of City of Oakland, many other
local governments in California have enacted ordinances imposing conditions on both new and
existing retailers,20 many of which include fees paid by retailers to cover the cost of
implementation and enforcement. While these ordinances vary in scope, the purpose remains
focused on reducing nuisance activity associated with the sale of alcohol by retailers. Moreover,
the most comprehensive of these ordinances go beyond simply imposing standards that address
nuisance activity, and impose standards that directly restrict certain alcohol sales practices at new
retail outlets, and existing retail outlets to a lesser degree.
Examples of local governments in California that impose alcohol -specific conditions on alcohol
retailers include:
➢ Contra Costa County may impose restrictions on the sale of specific types of alcoholic
beverages at an existing off -sale retailer that is seeking approval to continue operations after
a violation of its DAO?
Lancaster gives its planning commission discretion to impose conditions on new retail
alcohol outlets that restrict container sizes and hours of operation.zz
➢ Hayward authorizes its planning commission and city council to impose conditions on new
retail outlets related to minimum and maximum container sizes for beer, malt liquor, wine
and distilled spirits.23 Hayward also restricts happy hour promotions in new bona fide
24
restaurants.
20 Mosher, J., Cannon, C. and Treffers, R., Reducing Community Alcohol Problems Assocaited with Alcohol Sales:
The Case of Deemed Approved Ordinances in California. Ventura County Limits, Alcohol & Drug Programs,
Ventura County Health Care Agency, (September 2009). Available at
http://ventumcountylimits.org/resource_ documentsNC_CommAleProb_l upPress_FNL.pd£
" Contra Costa County CA Code § 82.38.814.
2' Lancaster, CA Municipal Code § 17.42.080.
-'3 Hayward, CA, Municipal Code § 10-1.2760.
2'Hayward, CA Municipal Code § 10-1.2751.
10
➢ Huntington Park imposes limits on container sizes for all types of alcoholic beverages and
prohibits sales of beer and wine that exceed 14 percent alcohol content by volume. The
restrictions are applicable to all alcohol retail establishments."
➢ Montebello prohibits new off -sale retails from selling single containers of beer or wine
2e
coolers.
➢ Orange restricts employees under 21 years of age from working between 10:00 p.m. and 2:00
a.m. at new retailers with motor fuel that sell beer and wine. Additionally, at these locations
all containers of alcoholic beverages that are displayed for sale must be secured against
public access between the hours of 2 a.m. and 6 a.m., or more restrictive hours as determined
by the conditional use permit process.27
➢ Palmdale's zoning ordinance includes the following provision applicable to new off -sale
alcohol retail outlets: "For specific locations or defined geographic areas, the approval
authority may restrict alcoholic beverages by container size and type, and/or by strength of
alcohol content, where a nexus is demonstrated between such restriction and the public health
and safety. ,28
➢ Pinole restricts new retailers from selling beers or wines that have screw tops in bottles less
than 375 milliliters, unless sold in manufacturer prepackaged multi -unit quantities. Also, the
sale of liquor in a new store shall be limited to no more than 200 linear feet of display, which
shall include the use of multi -tiered shelving not to exceed 36 inches in depth.'9
San Bernardino gives its planning commission discretion to impose conditions on new retail
alcohol outlets that restrict container sizes and hours of operation."
➢ San Buenaventura (Ventura) imposes on both new and existing off -sale alcoholic beverage
establishments a prohibition on the "sale of beer or malt beverage products in bottles or cans
greater than 32 ounces in volume.""
s Huntington Park, CA Municipal Code § 9-4.203(6)(p).
Montebello, CA Municipal Code § 17.61.080(A)(7).
Orange, Cal. Municipal Code § 17.30.030.
38 Palmdale, CA Municipal Code § 92.07(F)(11).
"Pinole, CA Municipal Code § 17.59.040.
"San Bernardino Development Code § 19.06.030(2)(B), Section VIR(A).
3' San Buenaventura, CA, Municipal Code § 24.460.420.
11
➢ Santa Cruz requires that new "eating and drinking establishments" have a minimum of
fifty-one percent of their monthly gross receipts be from the sale of meals, and not include
cover or admission charges, or alcoholic beverages sales, during the same period.32
m Walnut Creek may evaluate and impose conditions on hours and days of operation before
approving a new alcohol retailer.33
Watsonville prohibits any outlet from selling malt liquors and fortified wine in large
containers; it also prohibits drive-through alcohol service and prohibits restaurants from
having distinct bar areas .14
Also commonly found in many of these CUP and DAOs are requirements that owners,
supervisors, and employees at both new and existing establishments attend responsible beverage
service training to remain in compliance.
The examples of conditions listed above should not be considered an exhaustive list. As is
described in the previous section, local governments have significant authority with regard to the
conditions they may impose on an alcohol retailer so long as they are based in their local land
use authority and the policy clearly articulates how it addresses a problem that falls within the
bounds of that authority.
The ABC Department has not only accepted this expanding use of local land use authority, in
many instances it has actively cooperated with local law enforcement to insure effective
enforcement of both local and state restrictions .3' Notable is the ABC Department's statement in
response to an inquiry by the Schlimbach court, that the conditions imposed by the City do not
interfere with its regulatory jurisdiction.
C. The City needs a comprehensive policy that fully articulates and exercises its local
authority, instead of relying on an ad hoc strategy that undermines that authority.
12 Santa Cruz, CA, Municipal Code ch. 24.12, pt. 12.
" Walnut Creek, CA Municipal Code. § 10-2.3.1211.
3a Watsonville, CA Municipal Code § 14-25.
35 See, for example, the City of Ventura's description of its collaboration with the ABC Department
httn://www.citvofventura.net/od/commtmity/abe.
12
The City clearly recognizes its zoning and police powers, as is illustrated by the authority
granted to the Zoning Administrator to approve new alcohol retailers and take nuisance actions
against all retailers through its general CUP ordinance. Additionally, the City has an ordinance
addressing nuisance abatement procedure for activity commonly occurring near alcohol outlets sc
The City, however, has taken an ad hoc approach to addressing land use problems associated
alcohol retailers — as illustrated by Pacoima Food Market and Sprouts Farmers Market cases.
While the actions in both instances came after a formalized process, it was not specific to alcohol
retailers and the conditions imposed were not linked specifically to problems associated with
alcohol retail sales.
The City's approach contrasts with the more comprehensive and carefully crafted policies and
programs taken by other local jurisdiction, which establish a nexus between alcohol sales
activities and nuisance problems and include alcohol -specific CUP and DAOs. The ordinances
set standards for determining whether new retail outlets should be permitted and if so with what
operational requirements, and standards for pre-existing retail outlets that reduce the risk of
public nuisance activities.
For the City to overcome concerns about imposing conditions on alcohol retailers, especially
those that specifically address alcohol sales, it needs to establish a comprehensive policy that
clearly articulates that its proposed actions are tied to its state -granted land use and police
powers. The policy can include the following components:
1. An alcohol -specific CUP ordinance that includes standards for determining the number,
location, type, and sales practices of new alcohol outlets designed to minimize public
health, safety and nuisance problems associated with alcohol sales;
2. A Deemed Approve Ordinance that establishes public nuisance abatement standards for
pre-existing alcohol retail outlets;
3. Establish the administrative mechanism by which action can be taken against retailers for
violations;
4. A fee paid by alcohol retailers to defray the costs associated with implementing and
enforcing the program;
5. Dedicated law enforcement personnel trained in alcohol law enforcement techniques
assigned to administer the policy and enforce its provisions; and,
6. Procedures for working with the ABC Department to ensure effective collaboration.
16 Los Angeles, Cal., Planning and Zoning Code §12.27. 1.
13
Guidance for drafting a clear and cohesive policy can be found in the Policy Briefing published
by Ventura County Limits in January 2014 titled Best Practices in Municipal Regulation to
Reduce Alcohol -Related Harms from Licensed Alcohol Outlets."
"Alcohol & Drug Prograrns, Ventura County Health Care Agency. Available at
httn'//venturacountylimits ore/resource documents/VC BestPractAIcSales Jan2014flil ndf.
14
Rule 61.4, CUP's, Zoning, and the intent of the ABC
Exhibit B
Steven A Chan _
Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 1:30 PM
Thank you. We don't have jurisdiction over ABC. They must enforce their own conditions.
ints as they relate to the matters within ourjudsdiction,
Thanks,
stCo a Mesa City Council
www.costamesaca.gov
[Quoted text hidden]
Exhibit C
Log of Holiday/Bedroom Bar Activity Since August
Log of Fugitive Audible Entertainment Prohibited by License
Date/time Agency /Action taken Weekday
Summary
08/25/16 10:40 PM CMPD ;Thursday
Called CMPD multiple times and
asked them to visit the location to
request they turn it down _ School
/night. Keeping me and the kid up
08/25/69 23:37 CMPD Thursday
Called CMPD and again requested
i
!they turn it down, and informed
them there is a noise restriction
upon the license. Can't sleep
`08!25!16 10:38 PM `—
CMPD Thursday
278-g72g
i
,
land requested theyt949-
it down,
and stated this was a school night.
The volume was not turned down.
Using white noise, room fans. Bass
still penetrates.
08/26/16 1:00 AM CMPD Friday_._
_ _.._ _. _...
Called, ..
CMPD and met with officers,
:whoinformed me according to the
Bars decibel readers, they are
within the noise ordinance., and
`that the business 'has a right to
run.' Incident number 2016091777
09/22/16 ABC ;Thursday
School night tonight. Bass is
irritating and hard to sleep through.
Filed Verified complaint with ABC
09/23/16 ABC Friday
Friday night, again bass sound is
audible on Center Street properties.
Contacted ABC 1024 pm No sleep
09/24/16 1032 PM ABC Saturday
irritatingbass
aVerynd c
crowd noise during n operating
hours of bar, contacted ABC
09/25/16 1:34 AM forwarded to ABC Sunday
Received complaint from tenant at
720 Center Street - called the bass
!'pretty loud'. Closing Crowd noise
keeping me awake.
09/29/16 til 1:40am ;ABC
ThursdayBass
is clearly a udbile in our
property. School night.
Implementing white noise, bass still
penetrating through fan sounds
09130/16 {ABC
,Friday
rContainer that was moved away-
now it is louder than ever, Louder
'than running fan and television
show. Low frequency bass
'thudding' heard along with movie
soundtrack,
1 0/1116 10:24 PM ABC
i Saturday
Clearly audible bass spillage
tonight, emailed ABC agent
49109(16, 11:01 PM CMPD
,Friday
Bass is clearly booming into our
neighborhood. Called CMPD. No
;sleep
_09/15/16, 10:50 PM !CMPD
j
School night, bass from
Thursday
entertainment Called CMPD
10/13/16, 10:13 PM CMPD
,Thursday
i Called CMPD Emailed ABC very
loud, School night. Can't sleep.
Employees of bar are in the back
parking lot and are clearly aware of
the volume
10/13/16 11:07 PM CMPD
Y__
`
:Thursday
_.._ _ .gain emailed ---
Called CMPD, a (ed the
ABC. CMPD is brushing us off, and
stated they are not enforcing
conditions imposed by the ABC,
employees in the back glad
:handing it up in the back. School
night. 11:38PM my kid is awake,
has school start time at 7:00 am,
bass is penetrating living space.
Incident 2016-14352
11/05116, 11:20 PM CMPD
Called CMPD, bass noise, called to
Saturday
complain
11/11/16, 11:10 PM CMPD
Friday
!Called CMPD, bass noise.
;Interrupting sleep
11(12/16, 12:12 AM CMPD
Saturday
Called CMPD, bass noise nonstop
�11I20/16, 1:06 AM CMPD
!Sunday
;Called CMPD, bass noise irritating
11/25/16,11:14 PM
CMPD
Friday
Called CMPD BASS from bar
incident number 2016-127287
11/27/16,12:52 AM
CMPD
,Sunday
Called CMPD BASS notes from bar
12/04/16,12:58 AM
CMPD
!Sunday
!Called CMPD bass notes from bar
pervading my property CMPD
incident number 2016-130220.
12/08116,10:02 PM
CMPD
Thursday
Called CMPD school night started
around 9:15pm
12/08116, 10:31 PM
CMPD
,Thursday
Called CMPD school night started
_ _
around 9:15pm
12/08/16, 9:27 PM
CMPD
t
r'Called CMPD school night started
around 9:15pm, filed disturbing the
peace, CMPD refuses to take
Thursday
complaint before
12/10/2016, 04.22 PM
I CMPD
Saturday
'Called CMPD, met with Lt.
!LaPointe, determined CMPD is
j responding as if Noise Ordinance
only, applies. Six neighbors met
Iwith Lt. LaPointe.
12(15(2016, 10:16 PM
=CMPD
iThursday
; Called CMPD music started 9:15
pm and could be clearly heard on
our property. By 10:15 pm, it
became much louder since the
ambient noise levels dropped.
Continued to grow in volume as
night progressed into lam hour.
Incident number 134581
12/16/16 11:23 PM
ABC
;Friday
Emailed ABC about'clearly audible
low frequency bass"
12/17/16 all night until
ABC
iSaturday
Clearly audble bass on Center
2 am
?Street
12/30(16Friday
The space behind the bards acting
like a horn. Thump bass clearly
jaudible throught the night
especially up to and after midnight.
Noise from bar in backyard
12-31-2016
clearly audible bass in backyard,
clearly audible at AutoZone fence
450ftaway
Listening Point- 275 ft away clearly
audible
Wallace Woods drive gate clearly
audible (285 feet from bar
structure)
NOV-15-2000 28:bb ASU SANTA ANA
Exhib7tD
�- BEFORE THE `—
DEPARTMENT OF ALCOHOLIC PEVERACE CON'T'ROL
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF
LIVEMORE LLC } FILE 47-513086
SHARD. CLUB )
$41 BAKER ST } REO'
COSTA MESA, CA 92626-4315 }
}
}
} I>FTITION FOR CONDITIONAL
} LICENSE
For Issuance of an On -Sale General Eating Place- License
Under the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act
WHEREAS, petitioners) has/have fled an application for the issuance of the above -referred -to liccnse(s) for the
abova-mentioned promises; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed premises is located within the immediate vicinity of a residential area; and,
WHEREAS, petitioner(s) intend to exercise privileges of the license in an exterior patio area; and,
WHEREAS, the issuance of an unrestricted license would be contrary to public welfare and morals;
NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned petitioner(s) do/does hereby petition for a conditional license as follows,
to -wit:
Sales, service and consumption of alcoholic beverages shall be permitted only between the hours of
11:00 a.m, to 2:00 a.m. the following morning daily.
2 The hours of operation shall not exceed 3:00'a.m. All activities at the site shall stop at 3:00 am.
including private functions.
The sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption off the premises is strictly prohibited.
4 The quarterly gross sales of alcoholic beverages shall not exceed the gross sales of food during the same
period, The licensee shall at all times maintain records which reflect separately the gross sale of food
and the gross sales of alcoholic beverages of the licensed business. Said records shall be kept no less
frequently than on a quarterly basis and shall be made available to the Department on demand.
The front and side door(s) shall be kept closed from 9:00 p.m. till closing times during the operation of
the premises except to allow.patron ingress, ogress, and in cases of emergency, Said door(s) not to
consist solely of a screen or ventilated security door.
Initials
ABC -172 (SIO)
NOV-is-2000 23:65 ABO SANTA ANA P.003
477513086 '
Page 2
6 There shall be no exterior advertising or sign of any Kind or type, including advertising directed to the
exterior from within, promoting or indicating the availability of alcoholic beverages. Interior displays of
alcoholic beverages or signs which are clearly visible to the exterior shall constitute a violation of this
condition.
7 The parking lot of the premises shall be equipped with lighting of sufficient power to illuminate and
make easily discernible the appearance and conduct of all persons on or about the parking lot.
Additionally, the position of such lighting shall not disturb the normal privacy and use of any
neighboring residences.
8 The petitioner(s) shall be responsible for maintaining free of litter the area adjacent to the premises over
which they have control, as depicted on the ABC -257 dated 07.20.11 and ABC -253 dated 07-20-11.
9 Valet parking (only) shall be available in the front parking lot during the hours of 6:30 p.m. to
3;00 a.m. daily,
10 Live entertainment shall be limited to solely a disc jockey.
1 I Dance floor shall be limited to no larger than a 925 square foot area. Dancing; shall be permitted on
Thursday, Friday and Saturday only, exoept for the use of private parties only, Sunday through
Wednesday.
12 Between the hours of 9;00 p.m. until 1/2 hour after closing whenever the premises is providing live
entertainment, amplified music, or dancing, the petitioner shall provide one (1) uniformed security guard
in the common area parking lot adjacent and to the east of the premises bordered by Baker Strect, and
shall maintain order therein and prevent any activity which would interfere with the quiet enjoyment of
their property by nearby residents,
13 Entertainment provided shall not be audible beyond the area under the control of the li=risec(s) as
defined on the ABC -257 dated 07.20-11 and ABC -253 dated 07-20-11.
14 The licensec(s) or an employee of the licensec(s) will be present in the patio at all times that alcoholic
beverages are being served or consumod.
This petition for conditional license is made pursuant to the provisions of Sections 23800 through 23805 of the
13usinvm and Professions Code and will be carried forward in any transfer at the applicant -premises.
Pctitioner(s) agrec(s) to retain a copy of this petition on the premises at all times and will be prepared to produce
it immediately upon the request of any peace officer.
The petitioner(s) understand(s) that any violation of the foregoing condition(s) shall be grounds for the
suspension or revocation of the liccnse(s). /� }
DA THIS ' DAY OF w � (✓��� 20�.
Applicant/Petitioner'-"-- Applicant/Petitioner
ABC.172 (5M)
TOTAL P.003
Exhibit E
BEFORE T1HE
DEPARTMENT OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN nm MArren of mm
BONILLA, Cora L. & Victor M.
727 W. 19th Street Fa.E
Costa Mesa, Ca 92627
REG.
for the issuance of an On -Sale Beer
& Wine (Pub. Eat. Pl.)
under the Alcoholic .Beverage Control Act,
PETITION FOR CONDITIONAL LICENSE
WHEREAS, petitioners have filed an application for the issuance of
the above -referred to license, for the above-mentioned premises;
and,
WHEREAS, the proposed premises and/or parking lot operated in the
conjunction therewith are located within 100 feet' of three (3)
residences; and,
WHEREAS, issuance of a license without the below described
conditions would interfere with the quiet enjoyment of the property
by nearby residents and constitute grounds for the denial of the
application under the provisions of Rule 61.4, Chapter 1, Title 4
of the California Administrative Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned petitioners do hereby petition for
a conditional license as follows, to -wit:
1. The rear doors shall be kept closed at all times during the
operation of the premises except in cases of emergency and to
permit deliveries.
2. No alcoholic beverages shall be consumed on any property
adjacent to the licensed premises under the control of the
licensee.
DATE'
WITNESS
ADC -172 (4.75)
A5L T/PETITIONER
PLICAN PETITIONER
BONILLA, Cora L. & Victor M.
727 W. 19th Street
Costa Mesa, Ca 92627
3. The petitioner shall be responsible for maintaining free of
litter the area adjacent to the premises over which he has
control.
4. There shall be no pool tables or coin-operated games maintained
upon the premises at any time.
5. There shall be no amplified music or patron dancing permitted
upon the premises at any time.
6. Entertainment provided shall not be audible beyond the area
under the control of the licensee.
7. Sales, service, and consumption of alcoholic beverages shalled
be permitted only between the hours of 10:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M.
Sunday through Thursday, and from 10:00 A.M. to 11:00 P.M.
Friday and Saturday.
DATE:
r 0 -„
WITNESS
�_PP4�ANT/PETITIONER
2.te lea,
APPLICANT/PETITIONER
mail
Holiday 719 W 19th
4 messages
Steven A Chan
Exhibit F
Steven A Chan Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 8:46 PM
To: "Plotnik, Daniel@ABC" <Daniel.Plotnik@abc.ca. gov>
Dear Agent Plotnik:
Happy Holidays.
Please review the attached pdf. It has been supplied to the city of Costa Mesa, in preparation for the January 3, 2017
hearing for their application for live entertainment at the facility. (The entire report is online at the city's website
: http://www.costamesaca.gov/ftp/council/agenda/2017/2017-01-03/PH-2.pdf )
Please see handwritten page 188, bullet 3) which states:
"The lounge had done some work at the back of the building to mitigate the noise. It was noted that some noise was
getting out through the front (not significant given the surrounding area ambient noise). And more noise (low frequency)
was getting out through two rear doors."
Agent Plotkin, this is yet another acoustical engineer study of the facility confirming that management continues to allow
audible components of entertainment outside the area under their control.
Please note that the study:
a:) takes place up to the 11pm hour (see page handwritten 191). At this time on a Saturday night, the quantity of
vehicular traffic on 19th Street is relatively much higher, and could even be considered a'high point'. As the night wears
on into the midnight and 1 and 2 am hours, the traffic drops significantly. This drops the ambient noise level so that
street noise is much quieter after the sound study was conducted. This would produce much higher levels than
measured. The music levels measured, were audible, however, and outside their facility.
b) Traveling to the residential street behind the nightclub is not indicative of entertainment noise spillage between the
back of the bar and the street. Our houses are between the two. Our Center Street houses of course provide extra
barriers to noise traveling all the way to Center Street. The distance from the back of the bar to Center Street is
approximately 200 feet. We hear the bass and other notes our houses are absorbing.
c) As stated on the sound study handwritten page 188, noise from entertainment was also emanating from the front of
the bar. As related to you in previous correspondence, apartment residents behind Autozone, at 744 W 19th Street, can
hear the bass from the bar. That distance is over 400 feet, and is unobstructed (except for a tiny photomat style kiosk).
d) The study acknowledges your licensee will meet the local noise ordinance levels. However, due to the Rule 61.4
measured 10 feet, that level of allowability significantly impairs livability of the Rule 61.4 residents.
Agent Plotnik, I am aware that enforcement requires a filing of legal proceedings by the ABC. Your licensee has included
in the pdf attached, a letter that states no enforcement proceedings are underway.
However, please note handwritten pages 201 and 202.
a) Bullet 1 speaks to ABC's purported indications that your agency :"did not indicate there was any ongoing problem,
violation or pending accusation." While this statement may be quite true, your last indication to me dated 11-16-2016
was that the 'investigation is still ongoing."
What we are concerned with is wordplay here. In the public hearing of September 12, 2016 before the planning
commission, this attorney was portrayed in the minutes as an "ABC attorney' with an implication that the ABC had
dispatched an attorney to the hearing to vouch for the licensee.
We feel we must again ask for clarification. Is the investigation still ongoing? Of course, their own attorney would be
very well capable of wordsmithing to the benefit of their client. For further example, just look at bullet 3) on handwritten
page 202 where he writes "for the record, ...I do not know of any pending action by the ABC..."
Please inform us if you have closed this investigation, or if it is still ongoing.
As I write this Thursday night, at 8:30pm, we can already hear faintly the bass coming through. It is only going to get
louder. My kid has two tests tomorrow, Latin and Science, with a lam start time. My neighbors kids are in the same
school district but are younger, It would not surprise me if they have tests on Friday as well.
Good Evening Agent Plotnik
Steven Chan
ps. if you need to be on my property to hear what we are hearing and trying to sleep through call me
PH-2-Attach-11.pdf
10796K
Plotnik, Daniel@ABC <Daniel.Plotnik@abc,ca.gov>
To: Steven A Chan
The investigation is still open and ongoing.
-Daniel Plotnik, Agent
Dept. of Alcoholic Beverage Control
From: Steven A Cha
Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2016 8:47 PM
To: Plotnik, Daniel@ABC
Subject: Holiday 719 W 19th
[Quoted text hidden]
Steven A Chan
To: 'Plotnik, Daniel@ABC" <Daniel.Plotnik@abc.ca.gov>
Have a nice day
Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 7:07 AM
Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 8:42 AM
EXHIBIT G
NEIGHBOR PETITION AGAINST PA 16-55
PETICION ISE VECINOS CONTRA PA 16-55
Nosotros los residents firmantes de Costa Mesa; instamos al dia al consejo de honor la siguiente aplicacion,
Abate esta molestia. Creemos que esto es incompatible ofensiva y perjudicial para el vecindario
We the undersigned residents of Costa Mesa urge the Honorable City Councils deny Application PA -16-55 in
its entirety and to abate the project as a nuisance. We believe that this is incompatible offensive and detrimental
to the neighborhood.
Name/Nombre
Address/ Direcci6n
Number/Street Name/Unit
N(mero /Calle No_,;bre/Unidadq
Phone/
Telefono
:>
Email:
Signature/ firma
KeyMap
S tr r}
154 W itALi AD4 9-
e
+#
t W
kg4+1 a AAC20
jt L{ri 43 0
�
• _ _
i +f f
ws
l.f':'r _ _
✓
'.f-vg/j
q � ! L y. / t /
fit'( •
I
L} c•�:'
ItlVi rl4-A vi•
'Y ""�/l Y*C i+'i
V3
S tr r}
yt
e
+#
dam-{
i 5 -
? Yf !i i
j
i +f f
t✓"' 9-./�
'.f-vg/j
q � ! L y. / t /
fit'( •
L} c•�:'
,.7i
li 4
c zs
�t P i
1 4)
CIA
IM
err
t CH,
N
L,i F I K -' i t , ' i ".{'"
Ae
January 201
�--
e
dam-{
i 5 -
? Yf !i i
j
i +f f
t✓"' 9-./�
'.f-vg/j
q � ! L y. / t /
fit'( •
L} c•�:'
,.7i
r
1' :..
J L iii l..-• �I
��
January 201
�--
I
M6,011 MMAi
Nosotros los residents firmantes de Costa Mesa, instamos al dia al consejo de honor la siguiente aplicacion.
Abate esta molestia. Creemos que esto es incompatible ofensiva y perjudicial para el vecindario
We the undersigned residents of Costa Mesa urge the Honorable City Councils deny Application PA -16-55 in
its entirety and to abate the project as a nuisance. We believe that this is incompatible offensive and detrimental
to the neighborhood.
Name/Nombre
Address/ Direccion
Phone/
Email:
Signature/ firma
KeyMap
Number/Street Name/Unit
Telefono
Numero / Calle Nombre/Unidad
��'A
�P.f 1 trot
liter
A��u�L r
—
—
A-
g�
x
r
Cil Y
_ -
�r
_
3 -
-_.
R
f (f l/ 3 qq
ff}}JJ
z`
LI
—
JrWWI
t
r
I�
November 2016
A
VILI DI em to) I I Lei NIZIMM
Nosotros los residents firmantes de Costa Mesa, instamos al dia al consejo de honor la siguiente aplicacion.
Abate esta molestia. Creemos que esto es incompatible ofensiva y perjudicial para el vecindario
We the undersigned residents of Costa Mesa urge the Honorable City Councils deny Application PA -16-55 in
its entirety and to abate the project as a nuisance. We believe that this is incompatible offensive and detrimental
to the neighborhood,
Name/Nombre
Address/ Direcei6n
Number/Street Name[Unit
Nfimero Calle Nombre/Unidad
—Phone/
Telffono
--f—maih
Signature/ firma
KeyMap
-J
—
-----
9 SI
ALY
? q-
r
C +(ryi-1 A6:/
41-1� —Iz
November 2016
Nosotros los residents firmantes de Costa Mesa, instamos al dia al consejo de honor la siguiente aplicacion.
Abate esta molestia. Creemos que esto es incompatible ofensiva y perjudicial para el vecindario
We the undersigned residents of Costa Mesa urge the Honorable City Councils deny Application PA -16-55 in
its entirety and to abate the project as a nuisance. We believe that this is incompatible offensive and detrimental
to the neighborhood.
Name/Nombre
Address/ Direcci6n
Number/Street Name/Unit
Nu'mero Calle Nombre/Unidad
Phone/
Telffono
Email:
Signature/ firma
KeyMap
C)
2,
Q( q�
-5
�C
4 4 -L44 U)
ATjV-
'71.7
Z'
762 C-,'��Yy
January 2017
' 100 01 Y` r
-
Nosotros los residents firmantes de Costa Mesa, instamos al dia al consejo de honor la siguiente aplicacion.
Abate esta molestia. Creemos que esto es incompatible ofensiva y perjudicial para el vecindario
We the undersigned residents of Costa Mesa urge the Honorable City Councils deny Application PA -16-55 in
its entirety and to abate the project as a nuisance. We believe that this is incompatible offensive and detrimental
to the neighborhood.
Name/Nombre
Address/ f)ireceion
Phone/
Email:
Signature/ firma
KeyMap
Number/Street Name/Unit
Tel6fono
Numero / Calle Nombre[Unidad
{
lip i i ,., •
i
?0..f?�
'G
4,Vvilaw
Nil
f
44
%
`%
7
r
' apt: '=
e;
— s �-
z
--
--- --i
J'jv t�t'k�
i �t �:� � � ,� J , � a �
�d
L -/I6) �)
- _ d
d .`
jdd
i{ J IA
,....
November 2016
Nosotros Ins residents firmantes de Costa Mesa, instamos al dia al consejo de honor la siguiente aplicacion.
Abate esta molestia. Creemos que esto es incompatible ofensiva y perjudicial para el vecindaric,
We the undersigned residents of Costa Mesa urge the Honorable City Councils deny Application PA -16-55 in
its entirety and to abate the project as a nuisance, We believe that this is incompatible offensive and detrimental
to the neighborhood.
Name/Nombre
Address/ Direcei6n
Phone/
Email:
Signature/ firma
KeyMap
Number/Street Name/Unit
Telffono
N(imero Calle Nombre[Unidad
1n"Z.
WA Gil
kq', CA,
q1
bO
-Lv
v\� N
I ccvAty
V al
Szl C. -
A04
XY
3 fo vu, wA
3
-
flu cf
%7
q41f
j5,
ILI
Vt e 4Y)k"
-7-
hie
L ' C
zo
Y -Az
B
EXHIBIT H
I the undersigned, urge the City Council of Costa Mesa to reject the Planning Commission
decision of 9-12-16 to approve the Holiday and Redroom bar applications for live entertainment at
their 719 W 19th Street establishment, for the following reasons (checked)
he facility is licensed by the state, and that license contains a sound -prohibition upon it which
states "Any entertainment provided shall not be audible beyond the area under the control of the
licensee." The applicant's acoustical engineer stated for the record the building cannot contain low
frequency bass sound from escaping. Since adjacent residences are within 10 feet of the facility
when using the state's statutory method of measurement, the Planning Commission decision
should be overturned.
(The city's proposed regulatory conditioning of the applicant by restricting fugitive noise from
entertainment to levels allowed in the City of Costa Mesa's Noise Ordinance levels does not
address the low frequency health -harming bass from penetrating nearby residences.
/The Costa Mesa Noise Ordinance's allowable noise standards define audible levels of sound
that the applicant stays within by the applicant's own admission. This however, places the
applicant in a position where the license may be revoked by the ABC, as stated on their license
dated 9-11-14: "Petitioner understands that any violation of the foregoing conditions shall be
grounds for the suspension or revocation of the license(s)." This does not form any reasonable
basis to award a `Conditional Use Permit' to the applicant,
he applicant is facing backlash from the neighborhood around it for exceeding the terms of it's
liquor license. Part of this backlash is in the form of a boycott. This threatens the economic viability
of the operation, hence the indemnification condition called for as a condition of approval is not
strong, and does not appear to be fair to the city.
OThe applicant has made numerous representations as to the nature of the operations, including
that the business operations will be a 'supper club', and serve 'breakfast and lunch," and even
serve "brunch." There is a total absence of a kitchen in the facility's latest provided drawings.
O The Noise Ordinance levels of decibels proposed and purported to mitigate fugitive
entertainment sound do not conform to the State -imposed condition of sound -prohibition.
Please reject the Planning Commission's decision granting live entertainment to this
establishment.
007
(Print Sign n-�ame) ( nt amed t
I the undersigned, urge the City Council of Costa Mesa to reject the Planning Commission
decision of 9-12-16 to approve the Holiday and Redroom bar applications for live entertainment at
their 719 W 19th Street establishment, for the following reasons (checked)
XThe facility is licensed by the state, and that license contains a sound -prohibition upon it which
states "Any entertainment provided shall not be audible beyond the area under the control of the
licensee," The applicant's acoustical engineer stated for the record the building cannot contain low
frequency bass sound from escaping. Since adjacent residences are within 10 feet of the facility
when using the state's statutory method of measurement, the Planning Commission decision
should be overturned.
XThe city's proposed regulatory conditioning of the applicant by restricting fugitive noise from
entertainment to levels allowed in the City of Costa Mesa's Noise Ordinance levels does not
address the low frequency health -harming bass from penetrating nearby residences.
0 The Costa Mesa Noise Ordinance's allowable noise standards define audible levels of sound
that the applicant stays within by the applicant's own admission. This however, places the
applicant in a position where the license may be revoked by the ABC, as stated on their license
dated 9-11-14: "Petitioner understands that any violation of the foregoing conditions shall be
grounds for the suspension or revocation of the license(s)." This does not form any reasonable
basis to award a 'Conditional Use Permit' to the applicant.
I _
gThe applicant is facing backlash from the neighborhood around it for exceeding the terms of it's
liquor license. Pail of this backlash is in the form of a boycott. This threatens the economic viability
of the operation, hence the indemnification condition called for as a condition of approval is not
strong, and does not appear to be fair to the city.
I
t�The applicant has made numerous representations as to the nature of the operations, including
that the business operations will be a 'supper club', and serve 'breakfast and lunch," and even
serve 'brunch." There is a total absence of a kitchen in the facility's latest provided drawings.
dXjhe Noise Ordinance levels of decibels proposed and purported to mitigate fugitive
entertainment sound do not conform to the State -imposed condition of sound -prohibition.
Please reject the Planning Commission's decision granting live entertainment to this
establishment.
Sign (Print name) date
I the undersigned, urge the City Council of Costa Mesa to reject the Planning Commission
decision of 9-12-16 to approve the Holiday and Redroom bar applications for live entertainment at
their 719 W 1 gth Street establishment, for the following reasons (checked)
&&The facility is licensed by the state, and that license contains a sound -prohibition upon it which
states "Any entertainment provided shall not be audible beyond the area under the control of the
licensee." The applicant's acoustical engineer stated for the record the building cannot contain low
frequency bass sound from escaping, Since adjacent residences are within 10 feet of the facility
when using the state's statutory method of measurement, the Planning Commission decision
should be overturned.
,ErThe city's proposed regulatory conditioning of the applicant by restricting fugitive noise from
entertainment to levels allowed in the City of Costa Mesa's Noise Ordinance levels does not
address the low frequency health -harming bass from penetrating nearby residences.
dThe Costa Mesa Noise Ordinance's allowable noise standards define audible levels of sound
that the applicant stays within by the applicant's own admission. This however, places the
applicant in a position where the license may be revoked by the ABC, as stated on their license
dated 9-11-14: "Petitioner understands that any violation of the foregoing conditions shall be
grounds for the suspension or revocation of the license(s)." This does not form any reasonable
basis to award a 'Conditional Use Permit' to the applicant.
6The applicant is facing backlash from the neighborhood around it for exceeding the terms of it's
liquor license. Part of this backlash is in the form of a boycott. This threatens the economic viability
of the operation, hence the indemnification condition called for as a condition of approval is not
strong, and does not appear to be fair to the city.
/he he applicant has made numerous representations as to the nature of the operations, including
that the business operations will be a `supper club', and serve 'breakfast and lunch," and even
serve "brunch." There is a total absence of a kitchen in the facility's latest provided drawings.
The Noise Ordinance levels of decibels proposed and purported to mitigate fugitive
entertainment sound do not conform to the State -imposed condition of sound -prohibition.
Please reject the Planning Commission's decision granting live entertainment to this
n non Hl{.. F.m..nh
I the undersigned, urge the City Council of Costa Mesa to reject the Planning Commission
decision of 9-12-16 to approve the Holiday and Redroom bar applications for live entertainment at
their 719 W 19th Street establishment, for the following reasons (checked)
I
Q The facility is licensed by the state, and that license contains a sound -prohibition upon it which
states "Any entertainment provided shall not be audible beyond the area under the control of the
licensee." The applicant's acoustical engineer stated for the record the building cannot contain low
frequency bass sound from escaping. Since adjacent residences are within 10 feet of the facility
when using the state's statutory method of measurement, the Planning Commission decision
should be overturned.
0 The city's proposed regulatory conditioning of the applicant by restricting fugitive noise from
entertainment to levels allowed in the City of Costa Mesa's Noise Ordinance levels does not
address the low frequency health -harming bass from penetrating nearby residences.
0 The Costa Mesa Noise Ordinance's allowable noise standards define audible levels of sound
that the applicant stays within by the applicant's own admission. This however, places the
applicant in a position where the license may be revoked by the ABC, as stated on their license
dated 9-11-14: "Petitioner understands that any violation of the foregoing conditions shall be
grounds for the suspension or revocation of the license(s)." This does not form any reasonable
basis to award a 'Conditional Use Permit' to the applicant.
/The applicant is facing backlash from the neighborhood around it for exceeding the terms of it's
liquor license. Part of this backlash is in the form of a boycott. This threatens the economic viability
of the operation, hence the indemnification condition called for as a condition of approval is not
strong, and does not appear to be fair to the city.
,6The applicant has made numerous representations as to the nature of the operations, including
that the business operations will be a 'Supper club', and serve 'breakfast and lunch," and even
serve "brunch." There is a total absence of a kitchen in the facility's latest provided drawings.
The Noise Ordinance levels of decibels proposed and purported to mitigate fugitive
entertainment sound do not conform to the State -imposed condition of sound -prohibition.
Please reject the Planning Commission's decision granting live entertainment to this
establishment,
'Sign (Print name) date
only Ese granted 'if the establishment is in complete core plonce;with their
Liquor License cor dgicns'
T MA0MI -ZaM
busEness Families with children have been assaulted until.2am, even on
ech60 hj hts°:..7h'is must,stop before granting them a conditional use permit
that runs' with`:the and.
1.Oppose the granting of tfie'conditional use permit, since the bars have
demonstrated they'haveno intentions of'complying with th°eir stote=issued
I'ieense. conditions:
Please,anate this.nuisance. Do not reward them for be;rlg above tfie law:
fih.anKs
...................
� 779
C --0"V rm�- / cA- !�) z4, 2L7
r $A q R /e
.:� a.... v ....� ..� 'b'
.� . . .. ..
Thidlad%a ƒRambr�t/$hu
iu rc n" o d /
�: �. ...� �:�..� .,�`,Th ,a>� x
o2sobsnuƒaƒild rh\are )
n g t P ƒp c n a d a e r l s a d e I r �eir
b/n5 Ar
\mtcr/hvuet2e
ƒar ƒWt aƒ
..� :
oghgr
at/ofƒ/cnisr s%brhu
d qd y / ' el n c / \\fit h \� ,
.. a ..
.. . :tlaeu}
v. ... .
Isenn
..... . .... . . .. . ..
.. ... ,. .� ... . , .�
des)thn+sn\ot/wƒ\mƒ&nok
,and illegally running #heir
ma
license conditians
Phase abate jhis. nufsar ce Do not reward,them fpr-,being'
tfie.law
..... .......
Thanks
rgativa`,mpact now, andare [rresponsbly and:illegally runriing'ther
that runs ewith the Lend'
iic-Onse conditraris
I the undersigned, urge the City Council of Costa Mesa to reject the Planning Commission
decision of 9-12-16 to approve the Holiday and Redroom bar applications for live entertainment at
their 719 W 19th Street establishment, for the following reasons (checked)
The facility is licensed by the state, and that license contains a sound -prohibition upon it which
states "Any entertainment provided shall not be audible beyond the area under the control of the
licensee." The applicant's acoustical engineer stated for the record the building cannot contain low
frequency bass sound from escaping. Since adjacent residences are within 10 feet of the facility
when using the state's statutory method of measurement, the Planning Commission decision
should be overturned.
GJ The city's proposed regulatory conditioning of the applicant by restricting fugitive noise from
entertainment to levels allowed in the City of Costa Mesa's Noise Ordinance levels does not
address the low frequency health -harming bass from penetrating nearby residences.
O'fhe Costa Mesa Noise Ordinance's allowable noise standards define audible levels of sound
that the applicant stays within by the applicant's own admission. This however, places the
applicant in a position where the license may be revoked by the ABC, as stated on their license
dated 9-11-14: "Petitioner understands that any violation of the foregoing conditions shall be
grounds for the suspension or revocation of the license(s)." This does not form any reasonable
basis to award a `Conditional Use Permit' to the applicant.
the applicant is facing backlash from the neighborhood around it for exceeding the terms of it's
liquor license. Part of this backlash is in the form of a boycott. This threatens the economic viability
of the operation, hence the indemnification condition called for as a condition of approval is not
strong, and does not appear to be fair to the city.
IlThe applicant has made numerous representations as to the nature of the operations, including
that the business operations will be a 'supper club', and serve `breakfast and lunch," and even
serve "brunch." There is a total absence of a kitchen in the facility's latest provided drawings,
r
l'The Noise Ordinance levels of decibels proposed and purported to mitigate fugitive
entertainment sound do not conform to the State -imposed condition of sound -prohibition.
Please reject the Planning Commission's decision granting live entertainment to this
establishment.
<r(Print name) to
I the undersigned, urge the City Council of Costa Mesa to reject the Planning Commission
decision of 9-12-16 to approve the Holiday and Redroom bar applications for live entertainment at
their 719 W 19th Street establishment, for the following reasons (checked)
-i The facility is licensed by the state, and that license contains a sound -prohibition upon it which
states "Any entertainment provided shall not be audible beyond the area under the control of the
licensee." The applicant's acoustical engineer stated for the record the building cannot contain low
frequency bass sound from escaping. Since adjacent residences are within 10 feet of the facility
when using the state's statutory method of measurement, the Planning Commission decision
should be overturned.
0"The city's proposed regulatory conditioning of the applicant by restricting fugitive noise from
entertainment to levels allowed in the City of Costa Mesa's Noise Ordinance levels does not
address the low frequency health -harming bass from penetrating nearby residences.
2The Costa Mesa Noise Ordinance's allowable noise standards define audible levels of sound
that the applicant stays within by the applicant's own admission. This however, places the
applicant in a position where the license may be revoked by the ABC, as stated on their license
dated 9-11-14: "Petitioner understands that any violation of the foregoing conditions shall be
grounds for the suspension or revocation of the license(s)." This does not form any reasonable
basis to award a `Conditional Use Permit' to the applicant.
dThe applicant is facing backlash from the neighborhood around it for exceeding the terms of it's
liquor license. Part of this backlash is in the form of a boycott. This threatens the economic viability
of the operation, hence the indemnification condition called for as a condition of approval is not
strong, and does not appear to be fair to the city.
Ofhe applicant has made numerous representations as to the nature of the operations, including
that the business operations will be a 'supper club', and serve 'breakfast and lunch," and even
serve "brunch." There is a total absence of a kitchen in the facility's latest provided drawings.
2i'The Noise Ordinance levels of decibels proposed and purported to mitigate fugitive
entertainment sound do not conform to the State -imposed condition of sound -prohibition.
Please reject the Planning Commission's decision granting live entertainment to this
establishment.
Sign (Print name) date
I the undersigned, urge the City Council of Costa Mesa to reject the Planning Commission
decision of 9-12-16 to approve the Holiday and Redroom bar applications for live entertainment at
their 719 W 19th Street establishment, for the following reasons (checked)
dThe facility is licensed by the state, and that license contains a sound -prohibition upon it which
states "Any entertainment provided shall not be audible beyond the area under the control of the
licensee." The applicant's acoustical engineer stated for the record the building cannot contain low
frequency bass sound from escaping. Since adjacent residences are within 10 feet of the facility
when using the state's statutory method of measurement, the Planning Commission decision
should be overturned.
6"The city's proposed regulatory conditioning of the applicant by restricting fugitive noise from
entertainment to levels allowed in the City of Costa Mesa's Noise Ordinance levels does not
address the low frequency health -harming bass from penetrating nearby residences.
.IPIThe Costa Mesa Noise Ordinance's allowable noise standards define audible levels of sound
that the applicant stays within by the applicant's own admission. This however, places the
applicant in a position where the license may be revoked by the ABC, as stated on their license
dated 9-11-14: "Petitioner understands that any violation of the foregoing conditions shall be
grounds for the suspension or revocation of the license(s)." This does not form any reasonable
basis to award a 'Conditional Use Permit' to the applicant.
,OThe applicant is facing backlash from the neighborhood around it for exceeding the terms of it's
liquor license. Part of this backlash is in the form of a boycott. This threatens the economic viability
of the operation, hence the indemnification condition called for as a condition of approval is not
strong, and does not appear to be fair to the dly,
,OThe applicant has made numerous representations as to the nature of the operations, including
that the business operations will be a 'supper club', and serve 'breakfast and lunch," and even
serve "brunch." There is a total absence of a kitchen in the facility's latest provided drawings.
D The Noise Ordinance levels of decibels proposed and purported to mitigate fugitive
entertainment sound do not conform to the State -imposed condition of sound -prohibition.
Please reject the Planning Commission's decision granting live entertainment to this
establishment.
ign (Print name) date
I the undersigned, urge the City Council of Costa Mesa to reject the Planning Commission
decision of 9-12-16 to approve the Holiday and Redroom bar applications for live entertainment at
their 719 W 19th Street establishment, for the following reasons (checked)
?�The facility is licensed by the state, and that license contains a sound -prohibition upon it which
states "Any entertainment provided shall not be audible beyond the area under the control of the
licensee." The applicant's acoustical engineer stated for the record the building cannot contain low
frequency bass sound from escaping. Since adjacent residences are within 10 feet of the facility
when using the state's statutory method of measurement, the Planning Commission decision
should be overturned.
ErThe city's proposed regulatory conditioning of the applicant by restricting fugitive noise from
entertainment to levels allowed in the City of Costa Mesa's Noise Ordinance levels does not
address the low frequency health -harming bass from penetrating nearby residences.
0 The Costa Mesa Noise Ordinance's allowable noise standards define audible levels of sound
that the applicant stays within by the applicant's own admission. This however, places the
applicant in a position where the license may be revoked by the ABC, as stated on their license
dated 9-11-14: "Petitioner understands that any violation of the foregoing conditions shall be
grounds for the suspension or revocation of the license(s)." This does not form any reasonable
basis to award a 'Conditional Use Permit' to the applicant,
6'The applicant is facing backlash from the neighborhood around it for exceeding the terms of it's
liquor license. Part of this backlash is in the form of a boycott. This threatens the economic viability
of the operation, hence the indemnification condition called for as a condition of approval is not
strong, and does not appear to be fair to the city.
Zfhe applicant has made numerous representations as to the nature of the operations, including
that the business operations will be a ',supper Club', and serve 'breakfast and lunch," and even
serve "brunch." There is a total absence of a kitchen in the facility's latest provided drawings.
--0-The Noise Ordinance levels of decibels proposed and purported to mitigate fugitive
entertainment sound do not conform to the State -imposed condition of sound -prohibition.
Please reject the Planning Commission's decision granting live entertainment to this
establishment.
12_1�A�
date
I the undersigned, urge the City Council of Costa Mesa to reject the Planning Commission
decision of 9-12-16 to approve the Holiday and Redroom bar applications for live entertainment
at their 719 W 19th Street establishment, for the following reasons (checked)
The facility is licensed by the state, and that license contains a sound -prohibition upon it which
states "Any entertainment provided shall not be audible beyond the area under the control of the
licensee." The applicant's acoustical engineer stated for the record the building cannot contain
low frequency bass sound from escaping. Since adjacent residences are within 10 feet of the
facility when using the state's statutory method of measurement, the Planning Commission
decision should be overturned.
eThe city's proposed regulatory conditioning of the applicant by restricting fugitive noise from
entertainment to levels allowed in the City of Costa Mesa's Noise Ordinance levels does not
address the low frequency health -harming bass from penetrating nearby residences.
CT The Costa Mesa Noise Ordinance's allowable noise standards define audible levels of sound
that the applicant stays within by the applicant's own admission. This however, places the
applicant in a position where the license may be revoked by the ABC, as stated on their license
dated 9-11-14: "Petitioner understands that any violation of the foregoing conditions shall be
grounds for the suspension or revocation of the license(s)." This does not form any reasonable
basis to award a `Conditional Use Permit' to the applicant.
0. The the economic viability of the operation is not supported by any evidence, hence the
indemnification condition called for as a condition of approval is not strong, and does not appear
to be fair to the city.
LfThe applicant has made numerous representations as to the nature of the operations, including
that the business operations will be a 'supper club', and serve 'breakfast and lunch," and even
serve "brunch." There is a total absence of a kitchen in the facility's latest provided drawings.
(2r The Noise Ordinance levels of decibels proposed and purported to mitigate fugitive
entertainment sound do not conform to the State -imposed condition of sound -prohibition.
Please reject the Planning Commission's decision granting live entertainment to this
establishment.
Sign (Print name) date
I the undersigned, urge the City Council of Costa Mesa to reject the Planning Commission
decision of 9-12-16 to approve the Holiday and Redroom bar applications for live entertainment
at their 719 W 19th Street establishment, for the following reasons (checked)
The facility is licensed by the state, and that license contains a sound -prohibition upon it which
s ates "Any entertainment provided shall not be audible beyond the area under the control of the
licensee." The applicant's acoustical engineer stated for the record the building cannot contain
low frequency bass sound from escaping. Since adjacent residences are within 10 feet of the
facility when using the state's statutory method of measurement, the Planning Commission
decision should be overturned.
he city's proposed regulatory conditioning of the applicant by restricting fugitive noise from
entertainment to levels allowed in the City of Costa Mesa's Noise Ordinance levels does not
address the low frequency health -harming bass from penetrating nearby residences.
The Costa Mesa Noise Ordinance's allowable noise standards define audible levels of sound
hat the applicant stays within by the applicant's own admission. This however, places the
applicant in a position where the license may be revoked by the ABC, as stated on their license
dated 9-11-14: "Petitioner understands that any violation of the foregoing conditions shall be
grounds for the suspension or revocation of the license(s)." This does not form any reasonable
basis to award a `Conditional Use Permit' to the applicant.
O. The the economic viability of the operation is not supported by any evidence, hence the
indemnification condition called for as a condition of approval is not strong, and does not appear
to be fair to the city.
OThe applicant has made numerous representations as to the nature of the operations, including
that the business operations will be a 'supper club', and serve 'breakfast and lunch," and even
serve "brunch." There is a total absence of a kitchen in the facility's latest provided drawings.
O The Noise Ordinance levels of decibels proposed and purported to mitigate fugitive
entertainment sound do not conform to the State -imposed condition of sound -prohibition.
Please reject
Planning Commission's decision granting live entertainment to this
ign v (Print name)
date
Fps
I the undersigned, urge the City Council of Costa Mesa to reject the Planning Commission
decision of 9-12-16 to approve the Holiday and Redroom bar applications for live entertainment
at their 719 W 19th Street establishment, for the following reasons (checked)
RI?The facility is licensed by the state, and that license contains a sound -prohibition upon it which
states "Any entertainment provided shall not be audible beyond the area under the control of the
licensee." The applicant's acoustical engineer stated for the record the building cannot contain
low frequency bass sound from escaping. Since adjacent residences are within 10 feet of the
facility when using the state's statutory method of measurement, the Planning Commission
decision should be overturned.
0 The city's proposed regulatory conditioning of the applicant by restricting fugitive noise from
entertainment to levels allowed in the City of Costa Mesa's Noise Ordinance levels does not
address the low frequency health -harming bass from penetrating nearby residences.
t� The Costa Mesa Noise Ordinance's allowable noise standards define audible levels of sound
that the applicant stays within by the applicant's own admission. This however, places the
applicant in a position where the license may be revoked by the ABC, as stated on their license
dated 9-11-14: "Petitioner understands that any violation of the foregoing conditions shall be
grounds for the suspension or revocation of the license(s)." This does not form any reasonable
basis to award a `Conditional Use Permit' to the applicant.
Cy7. The the economic viability of the operation is not supported by any evidence, hence the
indemnification condition called for as a condition of approval is not strong, and does not appear
to be fair to the city,
gThe applicant has made numerous representations as to the nature of the operations, including
that the business operations will be a `supper club', and serve `breakfast and lunch," and even
serve "brunch." There is a total absence of a kitchen in the facility's latest provided drawings.
Gl The Noise Ordinance levels of decibels proposed and purported to mitigate fugitive
entertainment sound do not conform to the State -imposed condition of sound -prohibition.
Please reject the Planning Commission's decision granting live entertainment to this
establishment.
Sign
veq I d15 �
(Print name) date
I the undersigned, urge the City Council of Costa Mesa to reject the Planning Commission
decision of 9-12-16 to approve the Holiday and Redroom bar applications for live entertainment
at their 719 W 19th Street establishment, for the following reasons (checked)
eThe facility is licensed by the state, and that license contains a sound -prohibition upon it which
states "Any entertainment provided shall not be audible beyond the area under the control of the
licensee." The applicant's acoustical engineer stated for the record the building cannot contain
low frequency bass sound from escaping. Since adjacent residences are within 10 feet of the
facility when using the state's statutory method of measurement, the Planning Commission
decision should be overturned.
9 The city's proposed regulatory conditioning of the applicant by restricting fugitive noise from
entertainment to levels allowed in the City of Costa Mesa's Noise Ordinance levels does not
address the low frequency health -harming bass from penetrating nearby residences.
c6 The Costa Mesa Noise Ordinance's allowable noise standards define audible levels of sound
that the applicant stays within by the applicant's own admission. This however, places the
applicant in -a position where the license -may -be revoked by the -ABC, as stated on their license
dated 9-11-14: "Petitioner understands that any violation of the foregoing conditions shall be
grounds for the suspension or revocation of the license(s)." This does not form any reasonable
basis to award a 'Conditional Use Permit' to the applicant.
2r. The the economic viability of the operation is not supported by any evidence, hence the
indemnification condition called for as a condition of approval is not strong, and does not appear
to be fair to the city.
OThe applicant has made numerous representations as to the nature of the operations, including
that the business operations will be a 'supper club', and serve 'breakfast and lunch," and even
serve "brunch." There is a total absence of a kitchen in the facility's latest provided drawings,
CTThe Noise Ordinance levels of decibels proposed and purported to mitigate fugitive
entertainment sound do not conform to the State -imposed condition of sound -prohibition.
Please reject the Planning Commission's decision granting live entertainment to this
establishment.
Print name) date
I the undersigned, urge the City Council of Costa Mesa to reject the Planning Commission
decision of 9-12-16 to approve the Holiday and Redroom bar applications for live entertainment
at their 719 W 19th Street establishment, for the following reasons (checked)
�i he facility is licensed by the state, and that license contains a sound -prohibition upon it which
states "Any entertainment provided shall not be audible beyond the area under the control of the
licensee." The applicant's acoustical engineer stated for the record the building cannot contain
low frequency bass sound from escaping. Since adjacent residences are within 10 feet of the
facility when using the state's statutory method of measurement, the Planning Commission
decision should be overturned.
JO I he city's proposed regulatory conditioning of the applicant by restricting fugitive noise from
entertainment to levels allowed in the City of Costa Mesa's Noise Ordinance levels does not
address the low frequency health -harming bass from penetrating nearby residences.
Z'The Costa Mesa Noise Ordinance's allowable noise standards define audible levels of sound
that the applicant stays within by the applicant's own admission. This however, places the
applicant in a position where the license may be revoked by the ABC, as stated on their license
dated 9-11-14: "Petitioner understands that any violation oft e foregoing conditions shall be
grounds for the suspension or revocation of the license(s)." This does not form any reasonable
basis to award a 'Conditional Use Permit' to the applicant.
,Z -The the economic viability of the operation is not supported by any evidence, hence the
indemnification condition called for as a condition of approval is not strong, and does not appear
to be fair to the city.
.rTha applicant has made numerous representations as to the nature of the operations, including
that the business operations will be a `supper club', and serve 'breakfast and lunch," and even
serve "brunch." There is a total absence of a kitchen in the facility's latest provided drawings.
(;rThe Noise Ordinance levels of decibels proposed and purported to mitigate fugitive
entertainment sound do not conform to the State -imposed condition of sound -prohibition.
Please rejeXth6 Planning Commission's decision granting live entertainment to this
Print name) date
I the undersigned, urge the City Council of Costa Mesa to reject the Planning Commission
decision of 9-12-16 to approve the Holiday and Redroom bar applications for live entertainment
at their 719 W 19th Street establishment, for the following reasons (checked)
0 The facility is licensed by the state, and that license contains a sound -prohibition upon it which
states "Any entertainment provided shall not be audible beyond the area under the control of the
licensee." The applicant's acoustical engineer stated for the record the building cannot contain
low frequency bass sound from escaping. Since adjacent residences are within 10 feet of the
facility when using the state's statutory method of measurement, the Planning Commission
decision should be overturned.
0 The city's proposed regulatory conditioning of the applicant by restricting fugitive noise from
entertainment to levels allowed in the City of Costa Mesa's Noise Ordinance levels does not
address the low frequency health -harming bass from penetrating nearby residences.
0 The Costa Mesa Noise Ordinance's allowable noise standards define audible levels of sound
that the applicant stays within by the applicant's own admission. This however, places the
applicant in a position where the license may be revoked by the ABC, as stated on their license
dated 9-11-14: "Petitioner understands that any violation of the foregoing conditions shall be
grounds for the suspension or revocation of the license(s)." This does not form any reasonable
basis to award a 'Conditional Use Permit' to the applicant.
O. The the economic viability of the operation is not supported by any evidence, hence the
indemnification condition called for as a condition of approval is not strong, and does not appear
to be fair to the city,
OThe applicant has made numerous representations as to the nature of the operations, including
that the business operations will be a 'supper club', and serve 'breakfast and lunch," and even
serve "brunch," There is a total absence of a kitchen in the facility's latest provided drawings.
0 The Noise Ordinance levels of decibels proposed and purported to mitigate fugitive
entertainment sound do not conform to the State -imposed condition of sound -prohibition.
Please reject the Planning Commission's decision granting live entertainment to this
establishme t.
Sign (Print narne)J date
I the undersigned, urge the City Council of Costa Mesa to reject the Planning Commission
decision of 9-12-16 to approve the Holiday and Redroom bar applications for live entertainment
at their 719 W 19th Street establishment, for the following reasons (checked)
'The facility is licensed by the state, and that license contains a sound -prohibition upon it which
states "Any entertainment provided shall not be audible beyond the area under the control of the
licensee." The applicant's acoustical engineer stated for the record the building cannot contain
low frequency bass sound from escaping. Since adjacent residences are within 10 feet of the
facility when using the state's statutory method of measurement, the Planning Commission
decision should be overturned.
(R The city's proposed regulatory conditioning of the applicant by restricting fugitive noise from
entertainment to levels allowed in the City of Costa Mesa's Noise Ordinance levels does not
address the low frequency health -harming bass from penetrating nearby residences,
&The Costa Mesa Noise Ordinance's allowable noise standards define audible levels of sound
that the -applicant stays within by the applicant's own admission. This however, places the
applicant in a position where the license may be revoked by the ABC, as stated on their license
dated 9-11-14: "Petitioner understands that any violation of the foregoing conditions shall be
grounds for the suspension or revocation of the license(s)," This does not form any reasonable
basis to award a 'Conditional Use Permit' to the applicant.
(!I. The the economic viability of the operation is not supported by any evidence, hence the
indemnification condition called for as a condition of approval is not strong, and does not appear
to be fair to the city.
'PThe applicant has made numerous representations as to the nature of the operations, including
that the business operations will be a 'supper club', and serve 'breakfast and lunch," and even
serve "brunch," There is a total absence of a kitchen in the facility's latest provided drawings.
P'The Noise Ordinance levels of decibels proposed and purported to mitigate fugitive
entertainment sound do not conform to the State -imposed condition of sound -prohibition.
Please reject the Planning Commission's decision granting live entertainment to this
establishment.
Ft t�
��ojj 9/,o2
Sign (Print name) date
I the undersigned, urge the City Council of Costa Mesa to reject the Planning Commission
decision of 9-12-16 to approve the Holiday and Redroom bar applications for live entertainment
at their 719 W 19th Street establishment, for the following reasons (checked)
(D The facility is licensed by the state, and that license contains a sound -prohibition upon it which
states "Any entertainment provided shall not be audible beyond the area under the control of the
licensee." The applicant's acoustical engineer stated for the record the building cannot contain
low frequency bass sound from escaping. Since adjacent residences are within 10 feet of the
facility when using the state's statutory method of measurement, the Planning Commission
decision should be overturned.
9/17he city's proposed regulatory conditioning of the applicant by restricting fugitive noise from
entertainment to levels allowed in the City of Costa Mesa's Noise Ordinance levels does not
address the low frequency health -harming bass from penetrating nearby residences.
PThe Costa Mesa Noise Ordinance's allowable noise standards define audible levels of sound
that the applicant stays within by the applicant's own admission. This however, places the
applicant in a position where the license may be revoked by the ABC, as stated on their license
dated 9-11-14: "Petitioner understands that any violation of the foregoing conditions shall be
grounds for the suspension or revocation of the license(s)." This does not form any reasonable
basis to award a 'Conditional Use Permit' to the applicant.
6. The the economic viability of the operation is not supported by any evidence, hence the
indemnification condition called for as a condition of approval is not strong, and does not appear
to be fair to the city.
PThe applicant has made numerous representations as to the nature of the operations, including
that the business operations will be a 'supper club', and serve 'breakfast and lunch," and even
serve "brunch." There is a total absence of a kitchen in the facility's latest provided drawings.
,0 The Noise Ordinance levels of decibels proposed and purported to mitigate fugitive
entertainment sound do not conform to the State -imposed condition of sound -prohibition.
Please reject the Planning Commission's decision granting live entertainment to this
establishment.
6—e— .7,?5�c 6 p I -
Sign (Print name) date
I the undersigned, urge the City Council of Costa Mesa to reject the Planning Commission
decision of 9-12-16 to approve the Holiday and Redroorn bar applications for live entertainment
at their 719 W 19th Street establishment, for the following reasons (checked)
(P The facility is licensed by the state, and that license contains a sound -prohibition upon it which
states "Any entertainment provided shall not be audible beyond the area under the control of the
licensee." The applicant's acoustical engineer stated for the record the building cannot contain
low frequency bass sound from escaping. Since adjacent residences are within 10 feet of the
facility when using the state's statutory method of measurement, the Planning Commission
decision should be overturned.
0 The city's proposed regulatory conditioning of the applicant by restricting fugitive noise from
entertainment to levels allowed in the City of Costa Mesa's Noise Ordinance levels does not
address the low frequency health -harming bass from penetrating nearby residences.
0 The Costa Mesa Noise Ordinance's allowable noise standards define audible levels of sound
that the'applicant stays within by the applicant's own admission. This however, places the
applicant in a position where the license may be revoked by the ABC, as stated on their license
dated 9-11-14: "Petitioner understands that any violation of the foregoing conditions shall be
grounds for the suspension or revocation of the license(s)." This does not form any reasonable
basis to award a 'Conditional Use Permit' to the applicant.
Q' The the economic viability of the operation is not supported by any evidence, hence the
indemnification condition called for as a condition of approval is not strong, and does not appear
to be fair to the city.
Othe applicant has made numerous representations as to the nature of the operations, including
that the business operations will be a'supper club', and serve 'breakfast and lunch," and even
serve "brunch." There is a total absence of a kitchen in the facility's latest provided drawings,
�O The Noise Ordinance levels of decibels proposed and purported to mitigate fugitive
entertainment sound do not conform to the State -imposed condition of sound -prohibition.
Please reject the Planning Commission's decision granting live entertainment to this
establishment.
Sign (Print name) hate
I the undersigned, urge the City Council of Costa Mesa to reject the Planning Commission
decision of 9-12-16 to approve the Holiday and Redroom bar applications for live entertainment at
their 719 W 19th Street establishment, for the following reasons (checked)
The facility is licensed by the state, and that license contains a sound -prohibition upon it which
states "Any entertainment provided shall not be audible beyond the area under the control of the
licensee." The applicant's acoustical engineer stated for the record the building cannot contain low
frequency bass sound from escaping. Since adjacent residences are within 10 feet of the facility
when using the state's statutory method of measurement, the Planning Commission decision
should be overturned.
entertainment
city's proposed regulatory conditioning of the applicant by restricting fugitive noise from
to levels allowed in the City of Costa Mesa's Noise Ordinance levels does not
address the low frequency health -harming bass from penetrating nearby residences.
,The Costa Mesa Noise Ordinance's allowable noise standards define audible levels of sound
AQ tWapplicant stays within by the applicant's own admission. This however, places the
applicant in a position where the license may be revoked by the ABC, as stated on their license
dated 9-11-14: "Petitioner understands that any violation of the foregoing conditions shall be
grounds for the suspension or revocation of the license(s)." This does not form any reasonable
basis to award a 'Conditional Use Permit' to the applicant.
^ e applicant is facing backlash from the neighborhood around it for exceeding the terms of it's
liquor license. Part of this backlash is in the form of a boycott. This threatens the economic viability
of the operation, hence the indemnification condition called for as a condition of approval is not
strong, and does not appear to be fair to the city.
AThe applicant has made numerous representations as to the nature of the operations, including
that the business operations will be a 'supper club', and serve 'breakfast and lunch," and even
serve "brunch," There is a total absence of a kitchen in the facility's latest provided drawings,
he Noise Ordinance levels of decibels proposed and purported to mitigate fugitive
�rts e notainment sound do not conform to the State -imposed condition of sound -prohibition.
ts is P-(qs tAT
Please reject the Planning Commission's decision granting live entertainment to this
establishment.
JZ
Sign
(Print name) date
I the undersigned, urge the City Council of Costa Mesa to reject the Planning Commission
decision of 9-12-16 to approve the Holiday and Redroom bar applications for live entertainment at
their 719 W 19th Street establishment, for the following reasons (checked)
C9 The facility is licensed by the state, and that license contains a sound -prohibition upon it which
states "Any entertainment provided shall not be audible beyond the area under the control of the
licensee." The applicant's acoustical engineer stated for the record the building cannot contain low
frequency bass sound from escaping. Since adjacent residences are within 10 feet of the facility
when using the state's statutory method of measurement, the Planning Commission decision
should be overturned.
0 The city's proposed regulatory conditioning of the applicant by restricting fugitive noise from
entertainment to levels allowed in the City of Costa Mesa's Noise Ordinance levels does not
address the low frequency health -harming bass from penetrating nearby residences.
e0l The Costa Mesa Noise Ordinance's allowable noise standards define audible levels of sound
that the applicant stays within by the applicant's own admission. This however, places the
applicant in a position where the license may be revoked by the ABC, as stated on their license
dated 9-11-14: "Petitioner understands that any violation of the foregoing conditions shall be
grounds for the Suspension or revocation of the license(s)." This does not form any reasonable
basis to award a 'Conditional Use Permit' to the applicant.
OThe applicant is facing backlash from the neighborhood around it for exceeding the terms of it's
liquor license. Part of this backlash is in the form of a boycott. This threatens the economic viability
of the operation, hence the indemnification condition called for as a condition of approval is not
strong, and does not appear to be fair to the city.
,®The applicant has made numerous representations as to the nature of the operations, including
that the business operations will be a 'supper club', and serve 'breakfast and lunch," and even
serve "brunch." There is a total absence of a kitchen in the facility's latest provided drawings,
0 The Noise Ordinance levels of decibels proposed and purported to mitigate fugitive
entertainment sound do not conform to the State -imposed condition of sound -prohibition.
Please reject the Planning Commission's decision granting live entertainment to this
establishment.
(Print naR4,e) date
Z_/i e>li-7
I the undersigned, urge the City Council of Costa Mesa to reject the Planning Commission
decision of 9-12-16 to approve the Holiday and Redroorn bar applications for live entertainment at
their 719 W 19th Street establishment, for the following reasons (checked)
e facility is licensed by the state, and that license contains a sound -prohibition upon it which
states
"Any entertainment provided shall not be audible beyond the area under the control of the
licensee," The applicant's acoustical engineer stated for the record the building cannot contain low
frequency bass sound from escaping. Since adjacent residences are within 10 feet of the facility
when using the state's statutory method of measurement, the Planning Commission decision
should be overturned.
Oqfe city's proposed regulatory conditioning of the applicant by restricting fugitive noise from
entertainment to levels allowed in the City of Costa Mesa's Noise Ordinance levels does not
address the low frequency health -harming bass from penetrating nearby residences.
QJbe_CcsIaJ,,de�alloik e �Ordtnanoe's allowable noise standards jeffneaudible mound
that the applicant stays within by the WpRcnt's own admissiqR_Uhis owever, places the
applicant in a position where the license ma a_,revarddlbyihe ABC, as stated on their license
dated -9-11-14: "Petitionter an st any Violation of the foregoing conditions shall be
grounds fob spension or revocation of the ficense(s)." This does not form any reasonable
from the
it's
liquor license. Part of this b@ckIqsbJs-inrtheA6hffi of a boycott. This threatens the economic viability
of the operation, -hence ' the indemnification condition called for as a condition of approval is not
--strong,'-and does not appear to be fair to the -city.
�e applicant has made numerous representations as to the nature of the operations, including
that the business operations will be a 'supper club', and serve 'breakfast and lunch," and even
serve "brunch," There is a total absence of a kitchen in the facility's latest provided drawings.
I
(he Noise Ordinance levels of decibels proposed and purported to mitigate fugitive
entertainment sound do not conform to the State -imposed condition of sound-prohibillon.
Please reject the Planning Commission's decision granting live entertainment to this
establishment.
�Sign 4rint name) date
I the undersigned, urge the City Council of Costa Mesa to reject the Planning Commission
decision of 9-12-16 to approve the Holiday and Redroorn bar applications for live entertainment at
their 719 W 19th Street establishment, for the following reasons (checked)
0 The facility is licensed by the state, and that license contains a sound -prohibition upon it which
states "Any entertainment provided shall not be audible beyond the area under the control of the
licensee." The applicant's acoustical engineer stated for the record the building cannot contain low
frequency bass sound from escaping. Since adjacent residences are within 10 feet of the facility
when using the state's statutory method of measurement, the Planning Commission decision
should be overturned.
0 The city's proposed regulatory conditioning of the applicant by restricting fugitive noise from
entertainment to levels allowed In the City of Costa Mesa's Noise Ordinance levels does not
address the low frequency health -harming bass from penetrating nearby residences. —
� The Costa Mesa Noise Ordinance's allowable noise standards define audible levels of sound
that the applicant stays within by th�Iicant's ow, mission. This however, places the
applicant In a position where the license may be revoked by the ABC, as stated on their license
dated _9-11-14: "Petitioner understands that any violation of the foregoing conditions shall be
grounds for the suspension or revocation of the license(s)." This does not form any reasonable
basis to award a 'Conditional Use Permit' to the applicant. 116--ci bo % w ovtoi��+
OThe applicant is facing backlash from the neighborhood around it for exceeding the terms of it's
liquor license. Part of this backlash is in the form of a boycott. This threatens the economic viability
of the operation, hence the indemnification condition called for as a condition of approval is not
strong, and does not appear to be fair to the city,
'The applicant has made numerous representations as to the nature of the operations, including
that the business operations will be a 'supper club', and serve 'breakfast and lunch," and even
serve "brunch." There is a1Q1aL2bseace_oLa_ki1c en �in the _faqlllity's latest provided drawir
I Vr Co c i%"VLUC bY Ve, S
6 W� It
The Noise Ordinance levels of decibels proposed and purported to mitigate fugitive
entertainment sound do not conform to the State -imposed condition of sound. -prohibition
Please reject the Planning Commission's decision granting live entertainment to this
establishment.
Sig (Print name) date
ejuilk J 4
I the undersigned, urge the City Council of Costa Mesa to reject the Planning Commission
decision of 9-12-16 to approve the Holiday and Redroom bar applications for live entertainment at
their 719 W 19th Street establishment, for the following reasons (checked)
0 The facility is licensed by the state, and that license contains a sound -prohibition upon it which
states "Any entertainment provided shall not be audible beyond the area under the control of the
licensee." The applicant's acoustical engineer stated for the record the building cannot contain low
frequency bass sound from escaping. Since adjacent residences are within 10 feet of the facility
when using the state's statutory method of measurement, the Planning Commission decision
should be overturned.
0 The city's proposed regulatory conditioning of the applicant by restricting fugitive noise from
entertainment to levels allowed in the City of Costa Mesa's Noise Ordinance levels does not
address the low frequency health -harming bass from penetrating nearby residences.
0 The Costa Mesa Noise Ordinance's allowable noise standards define audible levels of sound
that the applicant stays within by the applicant's own admission. This however, places the
applicant in a position where the license may be revoked by the ABC, as stated on their license
dated 9-11=1A: "Petitioner -understands that any -violation of the foregoing conditions- shall -be -- -
grounds for the suspension or revocation of the license(s)." This does not form any reasonable
basis to award a 'Conditional Use Permit' to the applicant.
OThe applicant is facing backlash from the neighborhood around it for exceeding the terms of it's
liquor license. Part of this backlash is in the form of a boycott. This threatens the economic viability
of the operation, hence the indemnification condition called for as a condition of approval is not
strong, and does not appear to be fair to the city.
OThe applicant has made numerous representations as to the nature of the operations, including
that the business operations will be a 'supper club', and serve 'breakfast and lunch," and even
serve "brunch," There is a total absence of a kitchen in the facility's latest provided drawings.
0 The Noise Ordinance levels of decibels proposed and purported to mitigate fugitive
entertainment sound do not conform to the State -imposed condition of sound -prohibition.
Please reject the Planning Commission's decision granting live entertainment to this
establishment,
I the undersigned, urge the City Council of Costa Mesa to reject the Planning Commission
decision of 9-12-16 to approve the Holiday and Redroom bar applications for live entertainment at
their 719 W 19th Street establishment, for the following reasons (checked)
O The facility is licensed by the state, and that license contains a sound -prohibition upon it which
states "Any entertainment provided shall not be audible beyond the area under the control of the
licensee." The applicant's acoustical engineer stated for the record the building cannot contain low
frequency bass sound from escaping. Since adjacent residences are within 10 feet of the facility
when using the state's statutory method of measurement, the Planning Commission decision
should be overturned.
O The city's proposed regulatory conditioning of the applicant by restricting fugitive noise from
entertainment to levels allowed in the City of Costa Mesa's Noise Ordinance levels does not
address the low frequency health -harming bass from penetrating nearby residences.
O The Costa Mesa Noise Ordinance's allowable noise standards define audible levels of sound
that the applicant stays within by the applicant's own admission. This however, places the
applicant in a position where the license may be revoked by the ABC, as stated on their license
dated 9-11-14: "Petitioner understands that any violation of the foregoing conditions shall be
grounds for the suspension or revocation of the license(s)." This does not form any reasonable
basis to award a 'Conditional Use Permit' to the applicant.
O. The the economic viability of the operation is not supported by any evidence, hence the
indemnification condition called for as a condition of approval is not strong, and does not appear to
be fair to the city.
OThe applicant has made numerous representations as to the nature of the operations, including
that the business operations will be a 'supper club', and serve 'breakfast and lunch," and even
serve "brunch." There is a total absence of a kitchen in the facility's latest provided drawings.
O The Noise Ordinance levels of decibels proposed and purported to mitigate fugitive
entertainment sound do not conform to the State -imposed condition of sound -prohibition.
Please reject the Planning Commission's decision granting live entertainment to this
establishment.
Sign
(Print name) date
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS FOR PH -3
DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE AD HOC COMMITTEE MEETING
December 15, 2016
These meeting minutes represent an "action minute" format. The Traffic Impact Fee Ad Hoc
Committee of the City of Costa Mesa, California met at 4:30 p.m. on Thursday, December 15,
2016.
1. Meeting was called to order.
2. ROLL CALL AND INTRODUCTIONS
Committee Members Present:
Committee Members Absent:
Staff Present:
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Bret Rosol, At -Large Member
George Sakioka, Major Developers' Representative
Kerry Smith, Small Developers' Representative
Eileen Benjamin, Chamber of Commerce Representative
Jim Righeimer, City Council Liaison
Colin McCarthy, Planning Commission Liaisoin
Walt Davenport, At -Large Member
Raja Sethuraman, Interim Public Services Director
Teresa Drain and Paul Wilkinson wished Happy Holidays.
4. OLD BUSINESS
None
5. NEW BUSINESS
1. Mr. Sethuraman provided a background on the traffic impact fees, describing briefly the
calculation methodology, to update new members. Prior committee members recognized the
significant efforts undertaken by the City staff and Committee members over the past several
years in determining the fees and the cooperation among all parties.
2. There was discussion on the recently completed General Plan Update. Mr. Sethuraman
mentioned that staff will initiate a study in early 2017 based on the new General Plan. Ms.
Drain as public comment, enquired about the Measure Y and whether General Plan requires
voter approval. Mr. Sethuraman indicated that this will be referred to City Attorney's office for
their opinion.
3. The Committee reviewed and unanimously approved the traffic impact fee account summary
as of June 30, 2016.
4. The Committee considered the current traffic impact fees of $181 per Average Daily Trip (ADT)
and the incentive program for the first 100 trips. They recommended unanimously that the
Council continue this current fees and incentive program until the new study is completed.
5. Mr. Sethuraman indicated the need to upgrade the study to also consider other improvements
such as bikeways and traffic signal synchronization as eligible items for traffic impact fees.
Committee members expressed that there has to be a "nexus" for such improvements to be
considered. Staff will set future meetings following selection of a consultant to prepare required
analysis for traffic impact fee effort. Ms. Drain as public comment suggested inclusion of a
Bikeway and Walkability Committee Member as part of the study.
[:1119d0]►TiI►,111111:11 :8 LY, l:11LT, l3:11:7L11/_1R101►Kole] 61Jil:11211 K
There were no further comments.
7. STAFF COMMENTS
There were no further comments.
8. NEXT MEETING
To be determined.
9. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m.
Submitted by:
Raja Sethuraman, Interim Director of Public Services
2
TRAYLOR, MARIAN
Subject: FW: Concerns about Jan 3rd Council Meeting Agenda items
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS FOR N13#3 AND N13#4
From: Judy Lindsay[mailto:iudylindsay@hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2017 3:08 PM
To: HATCH, THOMAS <TH0MAS. HATCH@costa mesaca.gov>
Subject: Concerns about Jan 3rd Council Meeting Agenda items
PLEASE FORWARD TO ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS
"COMMISSIONERS RELEASE FROM APPOINTMENT ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION, SENIOR COMMISSION,
AND PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION — City Manager's Office"
I agree with this consideration and hope that those presently serving are encouraged to reapply to ensure
some continuality and institutional knowledge. I have been following the agenda and minutes of the senior
center commission and feel it is no longer necessary since city staff have some history now working with the
seniors and meeting their needs. The commission is "rubber stamping" what is presented to them, and it is
costly to our city. One recent meeting was held a total of 37 minutes and had numerous city and center staff
also in attendance.
"FIRE STATION #6 AND RELATED STAFFING — City Manager's Office and Fire Department"
CMFD needs to have station 6 as an open, active station and discontinue the excessive overtime for our men
and woman that puts a burden on their health and family life.
We need to put our emergency transport vehicles back in full service and not use a private ambulance service
in lieu of highly trained, skilled, well qualified CMF members. I have no trust in a private company with
attendents with little or no background in serious health/accident needs.
I do agree with the title change for Tom Hatch, never agree wtih the change before.
Thanks for your service to our city
Judy Lindsay
26 9 Sierks St
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
(949) 722 1182
1 would appreciate an email address to send to all council members in a group, thanks.
Judy Lindsay