Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout- PH-2 - Appeal of Amendment to DR-99-22 - 12/6/2011MEETING DATE: DECEMBER 6"2011 ITEM Nl1MEIIER: II PH -2 SUBJECT.: APPEAL OF AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DR -99-22 A2 FOR EXPANDED WINTER HOLIDAY OPERATING HOURS FOR TARGET COSTA MESA 3030 A HARBORBOULEVARD DATE, NOVEMBER 22, 201'1 FROM: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION BY;: MEL :LEE, AIC'P, 'SENIOR PLANNER FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr EL LEE, {714) 754-6611 me1Jee0.costamesaca.gov RECOMMENDATION Uphold, reverse, or modify the Planning Commission's decision to approve the midnight opening of Target on Black Friday on .an annual basis and to deny Target's request to extend the currently -approved winter holiday hours. BACKGROUND: History of t'arget's More Hours On March 13, 2000, Planning Commission approved Development Review DR -99-22 to construct a 143,500 square foot Target store, a 3,420 square foot district office, and a 10,830. square foot outdoor garden center (now closed), The approved regular store hours pursuant to Condition of Approval No. 57 are 8:00 am to 10:00 pm, seven days a week. On November 13, 2000, Planning Commission approved winter "holiday hours" for Target from the day .after Thanksgiving ("Black Friday") to New Year's Day. On ,July 11, .2005, Planning Commission denied a request to allow Target to open an hour earlier during the winter holiday season period. On November 14, 2011, Planning Commission approved, in pari and subject to conditions, the applicant's request for a midnight opening on Black Friday, the day after Thanksgiving. However, Planning Commission denied the request to further extend the remaining holiday hours. The following table provides information regarding the applicant's recent request to further modify the holiday hours (DR -99-22 A2), .as well as a summary of the various store hours. PLANNING APPLICATION SUMMARY TABLE 1 Target's Winter holiday Hours (Annually) �J fferences From the Day after Thanksgiving to January I (Annually) =re Hours Corn.. Originally Approved Winter Holiday Tours DR -99-22 A) Current Holiday Hours Current Holiday Hours: ® 7:00 am to 11:00 pm — Day "after Thanksgiving (Black Friday) 7:00 am to 11:00 pm — Monday through Friday Open at 7AM (Mon -Fri only) 8:00 am to 11:00 pm — Saturday and Sunday Close by 11 PM (all days) Proposed Winter Holiday Hours Proposed by Target: Midnight Opening for Black Friday 12 pm/midnight to 11:00 pm —Day after Thanksgiving only 0 7:00 am to 12 pm/midnight — :Seven days a week thereafter Open one hour earlier (7AM) on Sat/Sun Close one.hour later (12PM) on All Days Winter Holiday Hours as determined by Planning Commission: .Action by PC: Approve Midnight Opening on 0 12 pm/midnight to 11:00 pm — Day after Thanksgiving only Black Friday, subject to conditions. 0 7:00 am to 11:00 pm — Monday through Friday thereafter 0 8:00 am to 11:00 pm — Saturday and Sunday thereafter Deny request to open one hour earlier (7AM) and one hour later (12 PM). *Current holiday hours would therefore be unchanged, excluding Black Friday. �J TABLE 2 Target Stores Regular (Nora -Holiday) Hours* Monday Friday Costa Mesa 8:00 am to ,11:00 pm. ** ..Sunday 8:00 am to 99:00 pm** 8.:00 am to 10:00 pm Huntington Beach 8:00 am to 11:00 pm 8:00 am to 11:00 pm 8:00 am to 10:00 pm Irvine - Barrance Pkwy. 8:00 .am to 10:00 pm 8:00 am to 10.00 pm 8:00 am to 9:00 pm Irvine - .Jamboree Rd.. 8:00 .am to 11:00 pm 8:00 am to 11:00 pm 8:00 am to 10:00 pm Santa Ana - Bristol St. 8:00 am to 11:00 pm 8:00 am to 11:00 pm 8:00 .am to 10:00 pm Santa Ana - E. 17th St, 8:00 am to 10:00 pm 8:00 am to 10.:00 pm 8:00 am to 9:00 pm Tustin 8:00 am to 10:00 pm 8:00 am to 10:00 pm 8:00 am to 9:00 pm *Source: Target.corn **As of November 11, 2011, Target Costa Mesa has been dosing at 10:00 pm per DR -99-22 (see page 6 of staff report discussion) APpeai of Planning Corr mission s Decision On November 21, 2011, Mr. Al Morelli submitted an appeal of the PlanningCommission's action to approve the midnight opening on Black Friday (November 25). In his attached appeal application, the appellant .expressed concerns with the Black Friday hours, changes to the original store hours as approved in Year 2000, noise impacts in residential areas, and Target's noncompliance with certain conditions of approval (Attachment 3, Appeal Application), It should be noted that while the appeal application refers to the Black Friday hours, the appeal hearing is a de novo hearing, which is not limited to the (Black Friday decision only, The de novo hearing would also consider the original proposal in its entirety, including Target's request to further extend its holiday hours during the holiday season. ANALYSIS: .fie i ovo Heafing The purpose of this report is to highlight andlor clarity the evidence in the administrative record that was presented to the Planning Commission prior to its action to approve the proposed project, Because the Planning Commission's action is not final due to the appeal, the Council's decision will affect the future holiday hours on an annual basis, including Black Friday events. 13 Other than a more current update of the code enforcement activity since the Planning Commission hearing, this report does not contain any new evidence that was not .considered by the Planning Commission nor provides .any further justification for the approval of the request, Summary in Brief —November 14, 2419 Planning Commission Meeting By a vote of 5-0., Planning Commission approved the applicant's requested hours of 12 midnight to 11:00 pm the day after Thanksgiving only, known as "Black Friday," for Target Costa Mesa on an annual basis., which is consistent with the hours for other Target stores in the region. The hours of operation of 7:00 am to 11:00 prn Mon. -:Fri., and 8,00 am to 11:00 pm Sat. ,and Sun. from the day after Black Friday to :New Year's Day as approved under OR -99-22 A remain unchanged. The basis for the Commission's decision to approve the :Black Friday hours and not approve the remaining requested hours was based on a complaint received from the appellant that Target was operating in violation of their .approved non -holiday hours of 8::00 am -10:00 prn, seven days .a week. At the hearing., Target representatives stated that for the last year :and .a half, the store was closing at 11:00 pm Monday through .Saturday (the store was :still closing .at 1.0:00 pm on 'Sundays). The Planning Commission staff report and resolution is attached to this report for reference (Attachments 5 and 6). The "unofficial until approved" meeting minutes are also attached {Attachment 4), A link to the online video of the public hearing can be found at: http llcostamesa.granicus..com/Media Player. pho'?view id=4&clip id=1814 Conditions of Approval —Black Friday Event The Commission also added two conditions of approval (condition numbers 7 and 8) that called for the closing of the driveway access from College Avenue and the creation of a 200 foot buffer zone from residential properties from 11:00 pm to 7:00 am the day of the Black Friday sale clay only in order to minimize impacts to the adjacent residential properties. They also modified condition number 4 to require additional on-site security within the parking area. The specific conditions are as follows: The operator shall install barricades to close the driveway access from College Avenue and post appropriate signage advising customers of the driveway closure during the Black Friday sale. The operator shall install barricades to provide a 200 -foot buffer zone along the northerly parking area to prevent customers from parking within the area during the Black Friday sale. The operator shall be required to provide additional on-site security within the parking area. 11 Figure A — 200 -foot buffer zone In its approval of the Slack Friday midnight opening,Commission considered the following: The Police Department .had no obiections to the proposed use. The Police Department reviewed the proposed extended hours and had no objections to the proposal, All Target stores are required to adhere to .a crowd control plan implemented by Target's corporate offices and with input from law enforcement.. The economic benefits to the .local -economy from the .Slack Friday event. Costa Mesa community will gain a benefit from the extended winter holiday hours as City residents will not :have to travel to Target stores outside of the City that open earlier I holiday sales. Other Target stores in Santa Ana and Irvine will observe the same extended holiday hours. Additionally, there would be a tangible economic benefit in terms of additional sales tax revenue to the City as a result of the extended holiday hours. Approval is subject to compliance with the 200 -foot buffer zone requirement increased on-site security detail, and closure of College avenue access. S The added conditions for the Black Friday event would minimize noise impacts to adjacent residential .areas along Shamrock Lane .and College Avenue. In its denial of the remainder of the request for extended holiday hours, Commission considered: Public comments regarding noise impacts; Issues with Target's noncompliance with existing conditions of approval. One of the primary concerns was that Target had remained open up to 11,00 pm during the nonholiday season for over a year; Target has adhered to the 10:00 pm closing time since Thursday, November 10, 2011. Onrsite :sign postings at the Target store reflect the 10:00 prn closing time (see Attachment 1).. Cocke 'nforcementAc:tivity Attached is :a supplemental memo to the Planning Commission dated November 14, 2011 regarding the historic code enforcement .activity. (Attachment '7), To reduce the amount of paper for this report, the complaints are not attached; however, copies can be made available upon request. Since the preparation of the Code Enforcement mem, two additional complaints have been received, which are currently under investigation: -1111:5.111 t Missing drainage .grates in two (2) locations and the truck height Limit rail for the College Avenue exit has been removed and is lying on the ground north of the exit. 11.120./11 Parking lot power wash (loud noise) at 7:00am, .ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED: As a de novo hearing, City Council has the following options in this case: A. Alternative A, "Uphold Commission's Action": Uphold the Commission's action by approving the Black Friday midnight opening and denying the remainder of the extended holiday hours as requested by Target (Attachment 2, Resolution A). B. Alternative B, "Upho.ld Appellant's .Request Modify the Commission's action regarding the Black Friday event by denying the midnight opening of Black Friday as requested by the appellant, Draft Resolution #B represents a complete denial of Target's request for the midnight Black Friday event and also the extended holiday hours (Attachment 2, Resolution B), C. Alternative C, "Uphold Target's Proposal':- Reverse the Commission's action by approving the applicant's request in its entirety. Draft Resolution #C represents a complete approval of Target's request for the midnight Black Friday event and also the extended holiday hours (Attachment 2, Resolution C). 0 It should be noted that, regardless of which of the above alternatives is selected by City Council„ Target could still continue to operate under their originally approved winter holiday hours per DR -99-22 A as shown in Table 1 For clarity, the following summary table provides information on the store hours based on each of these alternatives. TABLE 3 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES (A - C) Target's Holiday Hours on an Annual Basis Holiday Schedule on an Annual Basis From f to ALTERNATIVE A — "UPHOLD COMMISSION'S ACTION" UPHOLD PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION Allow Midnight Black Friday Only; No other changes to existing holiday hours. o 12 pm/midnight to 11:00 pm— Day after Thanksgiving only o 7.00 am to 1'1:00 pm —Monday through Friday, thereafter o 8:00 am to 11:00 pm — Saturday and Sunday, thereafter ALTERNATIVE B — "UPHOLD APPELLANT'S REQUEST" MODIFY THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION Appellant's request to deny any modified holiday hours. No Change in Existing Holiday Hours. o 7,00 am to 11:00 pm — Day After Thanksgiving 0 7:00 am to 11:00 pm — Monday through Friday o 8,00 am to 11:00 pm — Saturday and Sunday ALTERNATIVE C — "UPHOLD TARGET'S PROPOSAL," REVERSE THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION Applicant's request for extended holiday hours, including midnight Black Friday. o 12 pm/midnight to 11:00 pm —Day After Thanksgiving only 0 7:00 am to 12 pm/midnight— Seven Days a Week, thereafter ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The request has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and the City environmental procedures, and has been found to be exempt from CEQA under Section 15301 for Existing Facilities. If the request is denied, it is exempt from the provisions of CEQA Section 15270(a) for Projects Which Are Disapproved. 7 GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY With the recommended conditions of approval, the request will be consistent with surrounding uses, as specified in Objective LU -1F.2 of the General Plan Land Use Element. LEGAL REVIEW: The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the attached resolutions and approved them as to form. CONCLUSION: De novo literally translates to "anew," "afresh" or "a second time." A de novo hearing is essentially a- new proceeding where the proposal is presented to the City Council for final consideration. In its decision making, Council is not restricted to the evidence that was previously presented to the Planning Commission. In this case, the City Council may uphold, reverse, or modify the discretionary decision of the Planning Commission. MEL. LEE, AICP KHANH NGUY Senior Planner Interim Develo m Services Director ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map and Site Photos 2. Draft City Council Resolutions 8. Appeal Application 4. Planning Commission Minute Excerpts 5. Planning Commission Report With Attachments 6.. Planning Commission Resolution 7. Target Code Enforcement Cover Memo 8. Correspondence Received From Public DISTRIBUTION: Chief Executive Officer Interim Assistant Chief Executive Officer City Attorney Interim Development Services Director Public Services Director Transportation Services Manager City Clerk (2) Staff (4) Planning Staff (8) File (2) John Warren, AICP Pacific Land Services 2151 Salvio Street, Suite S Concord, CA 94520 Cl i Target Corporation Attn: Timothy Kindig 3030 A Harbor Boulevard . Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Target Corporation PO Box 9456 Minneapolis, MN 56440 ,Al Morelli :.3412 Geraniurn Street Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Foie: 920 311 D'R9922A2a: eandae I Date; 111.2812019 1 Time: 11:00 am I r ... I Ilk NO rL \ \ \ IQ e k n \ & 2 \ � < 7 / ¥ \ 7 C) 2 \ ■ § / 2 2 J / 0 / o \ � \ U 0 mm #« t�>yo�to>� 6/Bo25o/�7 6 } j \ \k }£ }G © » > =m _ = Q* o£ m5 en Mu Eu J ` \ 11 / \ ) . , \E \} « #�z § 0, A] §)t � k/ §a #« $ <» <E 2 a Ci :z »s 11 j ;r ��� fiy ,.�. .��$� u �k ___. � f f:: �� k a ® �a r. ;x i r J n i ..':I � 54 I '✓ a t �J� � "�"'� A I 2 , v r ,b } ch C%4 W tit • xi W 1 LL o o T n. ATTACHMENT 2 DRAFT CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS 1� RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION NO. 11- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AMENDMENT DR -99-22 A2 FOR EXTENDED ANNUAL WINTER HOLIDAY HOURS FOR TARGET COSTA MESA AS AMENDED THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, an application was filed by John Warren, authorized agent for Target Corporation, requesting approval to amend the condition of approval for Target Costa Mesa's annual operating hours from the day after Thanksgiving to New Year's Day as follows: o 12 midnight to 11:00 pm the day after Thanksgiving, and 7:00 am to 12:00 am seven days a week thereafter until New Year's Day. WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing held by the Planning Commission on November 14, 2011 with all persons having the opportunity to speak and be heard for and against the proposal, and DR -99-22 A2 was approved as amended; WHEREAS, on November 21, 2011, the Planning Commission's decision for DR -99-22 A2 was appealed by a resident; WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on December 6, 2011. BE IT RESOLVED that, based on the evidence in the record and the findings contained in Exhibit "A," the City Council hereby APPROVES DR -99-22 A2 as amended. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Costa Mesa City Council does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon the activity as . described in the staff report for DR -99-22 A2 and upon applicant's compliance with each and all of the conditions contained in Exhibit "B" as well as with compliance of all applicable federal, state, and local laws. Any approval granted by this resolution shall be subject to review, modification or revocation if there is a. material change that occurs in the operation, or if the applicant fails to comply with any of the conditions of approval. 1-7 PASSED' AND ADOPTED this 6th day of December, 2011. ATTEST: CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA INs GARY MONAHAN Mayor, City of Costa Mesa APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY STATE OF CALIFORNIA) )ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, JULIE FOLCIK, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above Council Resolution No. 11_ as considered at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the day of , 2011, and thereafter passed and adopted as a whole at the regular meeting of said City Council held on the day of , 2011, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the Seal of the City of Costa Mesa this day of , 2011 1q EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS DR -99-22 A2 A. The proposal complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(e) because: 1. Compatible and harmonious relationship between the use and site development, and use(s), and the building and site developments, and uses that exist or have been approved for the general neighborhood. Specifically, the request would be subject to applicable conditions of approval to ensure that no adverse impacts to adjacent uses and properties is created, including requiring the use be operated in a manner that will allow the quiet enjoyment of the surrounding neighborhood, and additional on-site security if requested by the Police Department. 2. Compliance with -any performance standards as prescribed elsewhere in this Zoning Code. 3. Consistency with the general plan and any applicable specific plan. 4. The planning application is for a project -specific case and is not to be construed to be setting a precedent for future development. 5. The cumulative effect of all the planning applications has been considered. B. The project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines; and the City's environmental procedures, and has been found to be exempt from CEQA under Section 15301 for Existing Facilities. C. The project is exempt from Chapter XII, Article 3, Transportation System Management, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. 9#1 .■ _ C CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DR -99-22 A2 Ping. 1. The use shall be limited to the type of operation as described in the staff report. Any change in the operational characteristics including, but not limited to, the hours of operation and additional services provided, shall require review by the Planning Division and may require an amendment to the development review, subject to either Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission approval, depending on the nature of the proposed change. The applicant is reminded that Code allows the Planning Commission to modify or revoke any planning application based on findings related to public nuisance and/or noncompliance with conditions of approval [Title 13, Section 13-29(0)]. 2. A copy of the conditions of approval shall be kept on premises and presented to any authorized City official upon request. New business/property owners shall be notified of conditions of. approval upon transfer of business or ownership of land. 3. The business shall be conducted, at all times, in a manner that will allow the quiet enjoyment of the surrounding neighborhood. The operator shall institute whatever security and operational measures are necessary to comply with this requirement. 4. The operator shall be required to provide additional on-site security within the parking area. 5. The use shall be limited to the following hours of operation on an annual basis: 12 midnight to 11:00 pm the day after Thanksgiving only, known as "Black Friday". Changes to the winter holiday hours of operation that extend the opening and closing times past the above hours shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for review. 6. All other applicable conditions of approval for DR -99-22 and its subsequent amendments shall remain in effect. Ping. 7. The operator shall install barricades to close the driveway access from College Comm. Avenue and post appropriate signage advising customers of the driveway closure during the Black Friday sale. The barricades shall be installed no later than 11:00 pm the day of the sale and shallberemoved no later than 7:00 am the day of the sale. Ping. 8. The operator shall install barricades to provide a 200 -foot buffer zone along Comm. the northerly parking area to prevent customers from parking within the area during the Black Friday sale. The barricades shall be installed no later than 11:00 pm the day of the sale and shall be removed no later than 7:00 am the day of the sale. H RESOLUTION B RESOLUTION NO. 11- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA DENYING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AMENDMENT DR -99-22 A2 FOR EXTENDED ANNUAL WINTER HOLIDAY HOURS FOR TARGET COSTA MESA THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, an application was filed by John Warren, authorized agent for Target Corporation, requesting approval to amend the condition of approval for Target Costa Mesa's annual operating hours from the day after Thanksgiving to New Year's Day as follows: o 12 midnight to 11:00 pm the day after Thanksgiving, and 7:00 am to 12:00 am seven days a week thereafter until New Year's Day. WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing held by the Planning Commission on November 14, 2011 with all persons having the opportunity to speak and be heard for and against the proposal, and DR -99-22 A2 was approved as amended; WHEREAS, on November 21, 2011, the Planning Commission's decision for DR -99- 22 A2 was appealed by a resident; WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on December 6, 2011. BE IT RESOLVED .that, based on the evidence in the record and the findings contained in Exhibit "A," the City Council hereby DENIES DR -99-22 A2. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of December, 2011. ATTEST: GARY MONAHAN Mayor, City of Costa Mesa APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY CLERK OF THE CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF COSTA MESA ,2 a. DR -99-22 A2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA) )ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, JULIE FOLCIK, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above Council Resolution No. 11_ as considered at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the day of , 2011, and thereafter passed and adopted as a whole at the regular meeting of said City Council held on the day of , 2011, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the Seal of .the City of Costa Mesa this day of , 2011 ,2.A FINDINGS A. The proposal does not comply with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(e.) because: 1. A compatible and harmonious relationship does not exist between the proposed use and existing buildings, site development, and uses on surrounding properties. 2. The proposal is not consistent with the General Plan or Redevelopment Plan. B. The Costa City Council has denied DR -99-22 A2. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080(b)(5) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15270(a) CEQA does not apply to this project because it has been rejected and will not be carried out. C. The project is exempt from Chapter XII, Article 3, Transportation System Management, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. � A RESOLUTION C RESOLUTION NO. 11- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AMENDMENT DR -99-22 A2 FOR EXTENDED ANNUAL WINTER HOLIDAY HOURS FOR TARGET COSTA MESA THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, an application was filed by John Warren, authorized agent for Target Corporation, requesting approval to amend the condition of approval for Target Costa Mesa's annual operating hours from the day after Thanksgiving to New Year's Day as follows: o 12 midnight to 11:00 pm the day after Thanksgiving, and 7:00 am to 12:00 am seven days a week thereafter until New Year's Day. WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing held by the Planning Commission on November 14, 2011 with all persons having the opportunity to speak and be heard for and against the proposal, and DR -99-22 A2 was approved as amended; WHEREAS, on November 21, 2011, the Planning Commission's decision for DR -99-22 A2 was appealed by a resident; WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on December 6, 2011. BE IT RESOLVED that, based on the evidence in the record and the findings contained in Exhibit "A," the City Council hereby APPROVES DR -99-22 A2. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Costa Mesa City Council does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon the activity as described in the staff report for DR -99-22 A2 and upon applicant's compliance with each and all of the conditions contained in Exhibit "B as well as with compliance of all applicable federal, state, and local laws. Any approval granted by this resolution shall be subject to review, modification or revocation if there is a material change that occurs in the operation, or if the applicant fails to comply with any of the conditions of approval. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of December, 2011. ATTEST: GARY MONAHAN Mayor, City of Costa Mesa APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY CLERK OF THE CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF COSTA MESA STATE OF CALIFORNIA) )ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, JULIE FOLCIK, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above Council Resolution No. 11_ as considered at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the day of , 2011, and thereafter passed and adopted as a whole at the regular meeting of said City Council held on the day of , 2011, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the Seal of the City of Costa Mesa this day of , 2011 EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS A. The proposal complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(e) because: 1. Compatible and harmonious relationship between the use and site development, and use(s), and the building and site developments, and uses that exist or have been approved for the general neighborhood. Specifically, the request would be subject to applicable conditions of approval to ensure that no adverse impacts to adjacent uses and properties is created, including requiring the use be operated in a manner that will allow the quiet enjoyment of the surrounding neighborhood, and additional on-site security if requested by the Police Department. 2. Compliance with any performance standards as prescribed elsewhere in this Zoning Code. 3. Consistency with the general plan and any applicable specific plan. 4. The planning application is for a project -specific case and is not to be construed to be setting a precedent for future development. 5. The cumulative effect of all the planning applications has been considered. B. The project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines; and the City's environmental procedures, and has been found to be exempt from CEQA under Section 15301 for Existing Facilities. C. The project is exempt from Chapter XII, Article 3, Transportation System Management, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. 3S EXHIBIT "B" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Ping. 1. The use shall be limited to the type of operation as described in the staff report. Any change in the operational characteristics including, but not limited to, the hours of operation and additional services provided, shall require review by the Planning Division and may require an amendment to the development review, subject to either Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission. approval, depending on the nature of the proposed change. The applicant is reminded that Code allows the Planning Commission to modify or revoke any planning application based on findings related to public nuisance and/or noncompliance with conditions of approval [Title 13, Section 13-29(o)]. 2. A copy of the conditions of approval shall be kept on premises and presented to any authorized City official upon request. New business/property owners shall be notified of conditions of approval upon transfer of business or ownership of land. 3. The business shall be conducted, at all times, in a manner that will allow the quiet enjoyment of the surrounding neighborhood. The operator shall institute whatever security and operational measures are necessary to comply with this requirement. 4. The operator shall be required to provide additional on-site security within the parking area. 5. The use shall be limited to the following hours of operation on an annual basis: 12 midnight to 11:00 pm the day after Thanksgiving, and 7:00 am to 12:00 am seven days. a week thereafter until New Year's day. Changes to the winter holiday hours of operation that extend the opening and closing times past the above hours shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for review. 6. All other applicable conditions of approval for DR -99-22 and its subsequent amendments shall remain in effect. 7. The operator shall install barricades to close the driveway access from College Avenue and post appropriate signage advising customers of the driveway closure during the Black Friday sale. The barricades shall be installed no later than 11:00 pm the day of the sale and shall be removed no later than 7:00 am the day of the sale. 8. The operator shall install barricades to provide a 200 -foot buffer zone along the northerly parking area to prevent customers from parking within the area during the Black Friday sale. The barricades shall be installed no later than 11:00 pm the day of the sale and shall be removed no later than 7:00 am the day of the sale. 0 ATTACHMENT 3 APPEAL APPLICATION Costa Mesa :. . 1 :M City of Costa Mesa.. AA © Appeal of Planning Co mis ton D�eci�oA/RetigaQ: 41820.00 pil Appeal of Zoning Admi �Cfd nLg IE 11; Marshal / 111 StaffD-edislon: $690.00'x',,' 4 0 iI,y' APPLICATION FOR APPEAL, REHEARING, OR REVIEW v. i•h:' ,r5.%• t:p.. 'RC:: ;.t•S Y+�; .fit:' : r..• '.L'. '(: Applicant Name* Address `, ,•,:`Z ° y•t , a' Phone , Iepresenting REQUEST FOR: ❑ REHEARING g APPEAL ❑ REVIEW" Decision of which appeal, rehearing, or review is requested: (give application number, if applicable, and the date of the Acrricinn if knnwn ) `Y4:�• .:0 .L:S :vji`•. .r•'t ...•, •.i`::}� i`:.t:r'ri,:s:i,'�fi•,. •�'i,'� •-i:. ,�i. �e'i�'r:'. i:'•:.Y .,t• •^ i.5 , ;.ire•: ,r G • Y ' (, .. .. .. .. ., , ,..: •:: :...r .2. V, .7.5.... ..:.: L• ..•.r. .. a.•.ts!t. •. ., .4'. ,. 'i.l.c.(1'"� i•t': '•3.:'•� fuv .... , .n... •: ,.. .. c •., .. ... ......,.. :r .:..... •. ......., .n. r,..; a : .. (:•:'.'tis ... .r... ... ..J .. ... ..t.. n... s...+ t N.... ,>. .,.. .. .. .. .;+:. .t M•t:r, +,. :L, :r\.•. .." .. v. rt•, ,r..r .. .:.: ,Ir. ..{ .s ..... .. ... .. .... + •:•6•+ •%y:,::� `^�j;���'i'S:; . .. .i..r. .. „r /'� ... r < ... .. .. ....i.. .. ,t : .. r r...t �.� ity., '+::1'r; �:•'.r^�•!.� s•.S . ,+ 1. J. i:. <. .. .:, .• ..r:• +". 1.ln .n•>n r ., r. r t •.. :i%:. :.l ,t • nt]..� T[:;tt ii Decision by: Rcnennc fnr tarn (actinn nnnaal_ rehearing. or review: S1 If you are serving as the agent for another person, please identify the person you represent and provide proof of authorization. *'!Review may be requested only by Planning Commission, Planning Commission Member, City Council, or City Council Member For office use only — do not write below this line SCHEDULED FOR THE CITY COUNCILIPLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF: If appeal, rehearing, or review is for a person or body other than City Council/Planning Commission, date of hearing of appeal, rehearing, or review: ' Updated July 20I1 13 I I Supplemental Document: To Support The "Appeal To DR 99-22 A211, December 6, 2011 Costa Mesa City Council Meeting.;} C=5 •a'1;a Fellow City Council: " y? ry 1' � M. I am asking you to deny the request for extended hours regarding the Target t E, gr fulP7,7` for the trust that you will make the right decision. . There is an old saying that a lie can go half way around the city while the truth is putting its shoes on ----and as for Target store, a steady drumbeat of misinformation and mischaracterization are given as often to hide the truth. So instead of asking you to apply the moral, ethical and legal to deny Target store request for modification to the original DR99-22 (land use restrictions); here are real and truthful facts for why you should DENY Target with their request. FACT: DR99-22 was recorded in the official records with the County of Orange,,on April 18, 2000. Owner (Target) as signed agreed to execute and uphold all the land restrictions. Per item 57 of conditions: "Hours of operations for the Target Store shall be limited,to between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., seven days a week'. FACT: Target management publicly acknowledged during year 2000 Planning and City Council meeting/s that they have no intention to become super Target and not to open the store beyond 10:00 PM. FACT: The Targets store at 3030 Harbor is now a Super Target, a change from the original as claimed in year 2000. That's part Target, part grocery store. Groceries are not subject to sales tax. The California Supreme Court ruled on July 13, 2007 that cities and counties can restrict development of big -box superstores in order to protect local businesses. The decision. upholds the lower court ruling that allowed city to enact an ordinance prohibiting development of retail stores larger than 100,000 square feet that use more than 5 percent of their space for grocery sales. The 3030 Harbor Target store have a total of 143,500 square feet. FACT: Per Planning Commission meeting on July 15, 2005, Target was DENIED their request to open the store at 6:OOAM. Former planning commissioner Egan clearly expressed her concerns: "As to the 6 a.m. opening, she felt it was unreasonable to impose that on the residents to the north. There is no reason they should bear that burden". Commissioner Garlich:"he felt this application was overreaching." Vice Chair Hall: "said he agrees with this denial because the residents next to this property have gone through an awful lot over the years and he saw no reason to subject them to further inconvenience". 3� FACT: the Target's management folks cannot be trusted. The record shows that Target provided false and broken promises. Here are samples of Violation and Citation: • 7/26/07- 5:45 AM Gardner blowing leafs, violation under item 30-DR99-22 • 7/26/06: 5:00 AM Noise complain, item 43 per DR99-22 • 11/22/2004, (Sunday) citation # 5751 issued for large semi truck-idling/loading by near the north neighbor area, violation under item 10, ZA-99-47. • 1/27/03 (1:OOAM-3:OOAM ) parking lot sweeper, violation, item 30 under DR -99-22 • 9/14/02 Deliveries in front of the store-citation:9 3427 FACT: Target store manager (Tim Kindig) has been the same manager since year 2000 and thus he is fully aware of the conditions and land use restriction. However, he and or his staff do not - abide by the law and have so many times violated the land use restrictions. FACT: the dollar value per each citation as given by code enforcement ranged from $75 to .$200 per incident, with the latest 11/22/11 for $300. FACT: Based on the evidence in the record (code enforcement and police records ) and find that "Target "store management has demonstrated lack of faith compliance with the terms and conditions of development agreement DR99-22 by order. FACT; During Commission Planning Nov. 14, 20011, Mr. Al Morelli (party of interest /owner of adjacent property) was given only 3 minutes to present his input. Mr. William Morelli asked the Planning Commission to yield his three minute time to A.Morelli and he was denied. However, then thereafter Target were called back to answer question, while Mr. A. Morelli was not given any opportunity for rebuttal or express clarification. FACT: for a Costa Mesa citizen at large to appeal the planning commission decision, where the citizen (not the applicant) have to pay $1,220. Such $1,220 fee is prohibitive and restrictive as most citizens cannot afford or are willing to pay. As with such, the voices of Cost Mesa citizens are mostly do not come forward. FACT: City of Costa Code of Enforcement is lacking oversight in relation to monitoring Target store. Most citations were issued after neighbors calling the city to report violation. The Code Enforcements staff does not work during night hours. Also, Police as they were often called upon, do not normally report a given violation to the code enforcement. For the record, Specific calls were to made the police over the years, however no records are shown. FACT: Regarding Target claim of being responsible corporation -March 11, 2011, Target Corporation paid California $22.5 million Settlement for Environmental Violations: Stores Illegally Dumped Pesticides and Hazardous Chemicals. The lawsuit included all 240 Target stores in the State of California. FACT: As discovered during the Planning Commission meeting, Target did violate the store operating hours during year 2010 -2011 (for a full year and hal:. The store hours are limited to 10:00 PM, where the Target violated the land use restriction by operating till 11 PM. (Refer to citation#9511). A citation fine of $150 was given for the violation that was occurring for a period longer than a year, which by the way such dollar fine is less than a CM parking dog fine violation. FACT: Mel lee — CM City Sr. Planner, met with Target staff for his 2010 bi-annual review, where he was made aware that Target was violating the store hours and he failed to report it and act on it. During year 2000, and thereafter, Mel Lee has been responsible for conducting Target Store review since year 2000. Mel lee/city review giving Target good faith finding by his report is now questionable. FACT: Holiday hours during year 2010. Target was operating till mid night 12:OOAM without authorization- The city failed to observe and report. (Refer to photo taken during this period). FACT: During the planning meeting of Nov 14, 2011, where Target claimed they were abiding by all the land restriction and rules, then a week later another violation did occur on Sunday 11/20/2011 (Refer to citation#9533) FACT: Friday morning Nov 25, 20011, Target opened the store at midnight 12:OOAM and thus violating the land use restriction regarding store hours. During the Nov 25 Friday early morning, the police (Officer N. Brown) was present at 3030 Harbor and she can testify to the record. She was informed (2:00AM) of the violation by showing her the land use restriction/hours document item 57 under DR99-22 (police case #11-12740). FACT: Per original noise study (March 2, 2000), "Parking lot noise", as claimed in the study, the homes to north to a have interior home noise level with 52 dBA. The study was based exclusively with store hours limited by 10:00PM. However, Per CM City noise ordinance, the noise cannot exceed 50dBA after 11:00. FACT: As indicated per CM review March 8, 2000 traffic generation study were not conducted claiming the proposed project is within the and below .30 maximum FAR and trip per hour guidelines. However, several years later, the CM city while applying to Measure M funding provided different data by presenting adverse impact on Harbor Blvd to support their request for funding. 04 FACT: Per evidence in the record (code enforcement and police records) "Target "store management has demonstrated lack of faith compliance with the terms and conditions. of development agreement DR99-22 by order. FACT: Per city code sec 1.345 — "All departments, officials and public employees of the city invested with the duty or authority to issue permits or licenses shall conform to the provisions of this Zoning Code and shall issue no permit or license for uses, buildings or purposes. in conflict with the provisions of this code; and any such permit or licenses issued in conflict with the . provisions of this Zoning Code shall be null and void. It shall be the duty of the development. services director to enforce the provisions of this Zoning Code "..Also, "any such permit or licenses issued in conflict with the provisions of this Zoning Code shall be null and void. FACT:. For record, written request were made to city manager concerning the ongoing and severity of violation as associated with Target and thus the City has not willing to address the null and void legal requirements, nor willing to file misdemeanor charges as required under Criminal citation. Pursuant to State Government Code Sections 36900 and 36901 FACT: Significant changes had occurred since year 2000, at 3030 Harbor location, regarding the original land development. Thus the city had failed to re -compare year 2000 former analysis to today current data. All new reviews should match and re -address the negative declaration data, CEQA, EIR and compare to the originally specified by staff reports during year 2000. FACT: Target management and city staff are compensated and paid to present their organization. However, Mr. Morelli is not paid to defend to protect his property rights. Thus Mr. Morelli efforts to deal with CM city had cost him time, money ($1,220 to appeal) and also undue hardship. Mr. Morelli asked the City Clerk for fee waiver and thus he was denied. I am asking you to deny the request for extended hours regarding the Target Store. Deny the adoption of any modifications to the original DR99-22. Also, constrain any and all future reviews to DR99 22 as it should be legally binding per agreed and recorded with the land deed use agreement for the 3030 Harbor Blvd. property. Based on the evidence and facts, Target has shown their lack of compliance. In addition, I am asking the city officials to apply the governing laws per city code Sec 13-16 (Enforcement) and file criminal charges against Target management for present and any future code violations. Al Morelli 11/26/2011 ZOO J*• t .I> Pi [4kl 6_I 40, i H•fF b � , p J [. � � �N�+ !1�)iF .", X11 1'• l ,; I ,,S S! •bt Ski._ '� t -.� -t kk'3 t • -9 i � 1 H S Ji J. 1 t + µ}4 rii <f ` �4r. S'rx..�,N i 1`�• �,f�} �r{,' . . , t , , sit a� r �►�=� }it r ,'" 7.5+- a i6 X .it ��rt iht��r }'•� .� iJ ' n" lc. •'^:. t�.�'t�+4tit}k..,.,"t, Jt la. f� y'>--t[t6s"i°nlri'.Sd.{s i1 iS: c t,i, IY`"�+-'•� r j ,, , It lir ,• +. t 't,� •., I'h 1( ` � ,� rt :-tit h'� i •hli'`. R k M I ,7 ltINam � L>s ,p��>w�t�`��� 1 ��ee„"'lV..• i �° '.`-z .ar..y, �. Ilia t�?t,�iZT � ) iJti3 S sJp �� ht Fnit'rt T �g�yC.4L�5�'-s'� ro���v"(('13'.^+�ya ''i.r t Sa (,rt*t "f5n. t,� It - •-„-,'^��r,, .3 f1; W"Mu ,+" 7s'�vr Jil tt�F JpY. w s �7fP{ )^ vF1,�1j� ff�r i t ,r cl t ifs 1 sT� tt J9 e ^L..(w]} ?>• , , ` }tj� j t L 1 Pi41` K 1��lA Cif y r4 tY llj 1. 1 i l l ,k l� of t - ? Fy. l�w'}NS- v"�1c ,-INrYlEj�i�7"�p2�'ll�t��i� 73Yi1�t 5" /YN y{iyF.� +, f T f f fir i I,.;..s � �., �'h xf,,a li�.1.s,� "'iF'x.� 7� c •; W CIVIL CITATION O 0s 511 Costa Mesa Municipal Code Violation ter Dale nma�m ❑ poi Day or the Wdak Prior Citation INTI Nome (First) Middle Last Residence Address =RD city, State Zip Code 'Driver License Number Stale Age Birth Date -Sex Hair . Eyes Height Weight Rade - l Address Of Violation j Chi Staid Zip Code Violation CMMC Seo, Violagod CMMC Sec, i Fine: S Fine: 5 , j OFFICER'S 08SERVATIONS: On the dale specified herein, the undersigned officer observed atth'e spedfied address; the following conditions: t I VIOLATION NOTICE BY: " I!]-P6rsorial Service y ❑ Mail Property Posted [] PersonCited Refused To Sign Recelpt For Cifation ❑ Violation(s) nat confmitted in my presence, certified ah Information and belief I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF'PERJURY' UNDER.THE LAWS OF THE I STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT THE FOREGOING IS 'TRUE AND CORRECT. EXECUTED ON DATE SHOWN ABOVE. VIOLATOR: Without admitting guilt, l aaltnowlad'ge having reeaivad tho•cliallon. i (.fl. �1.L1.4_t�l:S �� t��trl1.C.&h-et�•i Issuing Officer IO Number :Department THE LAW REQUIRES THAT YOU COMPLY WITH 'THIS CITATION OR CONTEST THE VIOLATION. (1) TO COMPLY v; th this citation, bortect the violation Immediately, and pay the fine Othin 30 days (see reverse side), (2) T0, CONTEST this citation, you must pay.the fine,, and request a hearing 1 wlthin 30 days (follow procedure on reverse side). if you have followed. the •procedure to'confesf -this'citation, your AdnrinNtrative Hearing will'be held e e Costa Mese City Hall,' 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, Firs tFloor,:onlhe.�daybf 20�a11:30pm. Check imat the City Clerk's office,: 2956.46 , 40 Cr 7rCITATION 009515 Costa Mesa Municipal Code Violation Ilk. N -I l \lbr Dale Time I�am Cl pm - Day of the Week PflorCltauon 'Q0-6' L bpa Oagxi Name (First) Mfddie Last Residence Address \l lin.] UQi5 CA City Stale Zip Code Driver Ucense Number State Age. Birth Dale .Sex Hair Eyes IiNghl Weight Rade �o3e� 1AJ�riz�2 L1��. . Address OfMolation city State 'Zip Coda Molalian CMMC Seo, Violation CMMCSec. Fine: S 1=1- 6M Fina: S OFFICER'S OSSERVATIONSr On the date specified herein, the undersigned officer observed at the specified address, the following conditions: T t -M Z\na �M1l.f 1. Sieh rI(L6 4.] N5'ka.1(e Z 'at2 f-4 t t,1, t,� Qm-5 An Tt'-' �32tYiG VEL VbK� 1_tv�.lT VIOLATION NOTICE BY: ❑ Personal'Service ail LJ Property_Posted ❑ Person Cited Refused To Sign Redeipt For Citation ❑ Vfolation(s) not committed in my presence, certified:oh Information, and belief I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF . CALIFORMA THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND. CORRECT, EXECUTED ON DATE SHOWN ABOVE, X VIOLATOR:' Wlthout admlttlhg gulp, I acknowledge having raeelV.ad the cited. n. C 005 f,,. U1,CUD�S L�yi'rticLc�.+rtenZ Issuing Officer ID Number Department THE LAW REQUIRES THAT YOU COMPLY WITH THIS CITATION OR CONTEST THE VIOLATION. (1) TO COMPLY with lhls citation, correct the violation Immedlatety, and pay'tha fine within 30 days (sae reverse side), (2) TO CONTEST this citation, you, must pay the fine, -and request a hearing within 30 days (follow procedure onteverse.side), 1(you have followed the procedure to contest this -tuition, you)'AdminlstrritNe. Heating will be held stJpe Caste Mes@�City Hall, .77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, FirstFloo,on-the day.or +>20A�at1:30pm. Check In at the- City Cleric's office. AT - 296"S i s 11 C staWiBlgia, UnticilvarGaae: to ation Delp TIm9 1p.am opm -Day of the Week 'Prior Citation Name (FJrsl) -'t ..2.h .0 Residanda'AdordsIf ... ew-r- 'Um city Statd - ZlpGode priveri-Ice a -Number.: Slat Rlrth Date M v .Address 0.(VWaHoq- CIN —a ja . .... ?ipjqqde VolaAcri:CMMCS..atL Fine:(3 S66., CiFFICER?s,6'asr:FkVATIO'NS't:On ip'iat:166 hb*ril;","fhi:'O"rfdd'f*tl"i dnerob6iy6d at -16 dpeclfied'addr4k, ih-d L ,VfOL-ATl6WI4dT-I*dE-bY-. IIue6l:ARtfIjjN1j&FIEKALTY OPffERJUKYUk[jI5A.7-fJE LAWS'.015THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA' 'THAT 'rHE F0REGbiWfS::TRUE* AND CORRI5dT,EXEcuTEb,0N.VATE.8HOVVN ABOVE. THE LAW REWAIES 41HIAT 100 COMPLY WITH THIS 61TAf16N :OR CONTEST: TRt*'.VIOU06Ns'(1)':-TCi"OOMPLY'- torrid fhb vloldUori��r66dfgtily,."t6.d'.'pay<th-6 rdvd-N gide),-(2) TO CONTEST thIsi.idqu,lest, a SIldiirlrfg within 3Q6y.a�'(fojIovi pidced4te-p`n riever'sio-side). dbnWf-lhWdlf6lIdri, YwjAdihlftfiulive Cosla-Vess, First Floor,, oh-thb: day 4z .... . . . . . . ............. i-----------------'----------��,-------------------�--'-------' � -_---_-_-_-----__--------_ City oF Costa Mesa, Development Services Department Assigned to: r, uoao [] �.� . ,. / Complaint Address; � � Property Owner: Phono � . � � Address; ' . | ' / i Phone: Address: ,��� Complaint Received BY: []ooumu Date: Time; _ZL- aM � owsvnovnomp)mnt: � ' �a5 t44� /(: | ' � . ' ` 12M-30 IeV, W02 „ M1 -1010 Casty Iges� - City of Costa Mesa [3Appeal of Planning Commission ed o RettIQ: 4120.00 'Appeal of Zoning Admir(0j,�pr/Tvlltin�gs�O olalj lre Marshal / 13 Staff Decision: $880.0 I ti L �7",a APPLICATION FOR APPEAL, REHEARING, OR REVIEW ; Applicant Name* Address CSS S Phone _rRepresentmg Se•.1.� +ryes',t o{e�^ .6 `� _ °`G REQUEST FOR: ❑ REHEARING 21 -APPEAL ❑ REVIEW`* Decision .of which appea); :rehearing, orreview is requested: (give application number,' if applicable, and the -date of the ' decision, if known.) :(_ : .aw.. :Gt` :.v:;•vt :[�+ : {r air01 }'� q...' :2 41( kp J' f Al V Decision by: Reasons for requesting appeal, rehearing, or review: a ..��- ' : '��•` �' ',c�� .� 2'Z.�. : �'�', S .. aye. ;"• i!" .. �' '�''s:. /� �S � ', �.I4r�. � 'aA .r/L.?';• : i~i ••J4':4•GQQ:': a•:.;i ''•tom Y�'.l :•G. ,• '�ti •:t'::hry '�.. .:;:+...��- ':;:626 �,' r• -:'x., .i••;{;,: .. S. ' ,QOM "i. a jV • •. •. ; j ;�y,'i:.:., iy ••Ov- •�.��` .0.' tsvus , ..+q M. L• " > } �� ion you represent and provide proof of authorization. Q�. , commission Member, City Council, or City Council Member ,e only — da not write below this line SCI-ANNING COMMISSION'MEETING OF: If app. .arson or body other then City Council/Planning Commission, date of hearing of appeal, Updated July 2011 A.4 W LIANWT WITH THE RICHT TO EXPWRE'THEREFORE- -S-ELL, LEASE AND REMOVE THE SAME, -BUT WJ'T . KOUT RIGHT OP -ENTRY THEREFDRE UROX. THE -SURFACE, OR V VITH*IN ,THE• MEAZURED- A DOWNWARD. PRO :V58tic' LLY M.- THE -.NA .80RF" ..TURAL SURFACE, A;$ ..RE6ERVED IN. D-EED-' RECORDED 'MARCH -3, 1 b67'*IN BOOK PA.GE. 9, OFFICIAL RECO,R'DS AND. OTHER -bEED,9 NOW, OF:RECOt) PARCEL AN: -U-MeNT. FO -R: RKJNQ., AS C: I REATED- W JNSTRUME' AN.D. - A'S -INStPUMENT N-0. 19590 NT REJC.019D�D 10 4154 PACE. 03 Cj Coda Nlir?a. CA .92628-120 Racbrded in Offioldl Reads, lboOnty of Crurigs. 'Gary G.ranyllie, ............. . . . . . . 20000'19.8233'.:11478 t.041181QO: 4. .16 D66--1 I 0.00, d.60Oldd 0.00' 641.00 '040 0-b.0 0"00 . . ..... . N.7TICE AND bEClAkATION OF' 'LAND. U'981RESTRICT.IbN 441r;e; ::DAYTON H -Ob D.8b.'N RPORATION :sQJECt Pqo u ...PERtY.- GO HARBOR BOULEVARD, CQSTA'A' M E. CA.- 926.26 L 'N' PA R -C A IN'' THE- 'CITY 05- "C.,o - ON A VAP--Fj'�F-b 'COSTA M 151�9A,' -As SHOWN AND 14 OF PARCEL MAPS 'E- cy IN THE OFF[r, F—THE -COUNTY RECORDER OF SAlD COUNTY, EXCEPT. -ALL -OIL; GAS, --HYDROCARBONS 'MINERAL ­-fA- I 'AND MINERAL RIGHTS` IN' AND UNDER 0` W LIANWT WITH THE RICHT TO EXPWRE'THEREFORE- -S-ELL, LEASE AND REMOVE THE SAME, -BUT WJ'T . KOUT RIGHT OP -ENTRY THEREFDRE UROX. THE -SURFACE, OR V VITH*IN ,THE• MEAZURED- A DOWNWARD. PRO :V58tic' LLY M.- THE -.NA .80RF" ..TURAL SURFACE, A;$ ..RE6ERVED IN. D-EED-' RECORDED 'MARCH -3, 1 b67'*IN BOOK PA.GE. 9, OFFICIAL RECO,R'DS AND. OTHER -bEED,9 NOW, OF:RECOt) PARCEL AN: -U-MeNT. FO -R: RKJNQ., AS C: I REATED- W JNSTRUME' AN.D. - A'S -INStPUMENT N-0. 19590 NT REJC.019D�D 10 4154 PACE. 03 Cj ATTACHMENT 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE EXCERPTS 4C Application No.: Site Address: Applicant: Zone: Project Planner: Environmental Determination: Description: UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APROVED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA PLANNING COMMISSION November 14, 2011 DR -99-22-A2 3030 A Harbor Blvd. Pacific Land Services. C1 Mel Lee Exempt Amend the condition of approval for Target Costa Mesa's Winter Holiday hours as follows: 12 midnight to 11 p.m. the day after Thanksgiving; and 7 a.m. to 12 a.m..thereafter until New. Year's Day. Current approved holiday hours are 7 a.m. to 11 .p.m. Mon. — Fri., and 8 a.m. to 11 p.m. Saturday and Sunday from the day after Thanksgiving to New Year's Day. Commissioners shared their concerns over the barricades proposed to be in the parking lot to prevent driving in and out of the entrance to College Avenue and parking spaces for the number of people that will be shopping there. The Commissioners also discussed possible noise issues in the parking lot during early morning and late evening hours and enough security to manage these issues. Chair McCarthy noted the metal guard height pole that was at the entrance of the parking lot to keep large commercial vehicles from entering and exiting at College Avenue was removed by ,the property owner. Senior Planner Mel Lee responded that it is a requirement of the property owner to adhere to the condition and replace the pole. Chair McCarthy also asked Deputy Attorney Bettenhausen if by approving the additional hours, would they be setting a precedent for other stores that may ask for the same time extensions? Deputy Attorney Bettenhausen responded that each decision would be based on the individual factors of each request and therefore would not necessarily be considered precedent setting. 47 UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APROVED PUBLIC COMMENTS: John Warren with Pacific Land Services agreed to conditions and expounded on the benefits of providing residents with the extra operating hours in which to shop. He responded to the Commissioners' questions as to the need for the requested extra hours which would extend until New Year's Day. Commissioner Fitzpatrick mentioned that Target had already been operating under extended hours that had not been approved by the Planning Commission, even though the store Manager had been there for 10 years and should have been aware of the requirements. Commissioner Fitzpatrick expressed that he agreed that the additional "Black Friday" hours would provide a benefit to the community, but he is disappointed that Target has not made any effort to reach out to the community and work with the residents. He also directed staff to provide notice to the Halecrest Home Owner's Association of future hearings related to Target. Chair McCarthy stated concerns with the perception in the community that Target has not been a. good corporate neighbor and that the community has lost their trust. Louise Rose, forty year resident of Costa Mesa, has family that lives behind Target. Ms. Rose supports the additional hours. She has worked for other Targets in residential areas and has never experienced issues with holiday extended hours. She believes that the extended hours will provide increased staffing hours for employees and provide additional tax revenue to the city, all of which create an economic benefit to Costa Mesa residents. Al Morelli, Costa Mesa resident, is opposed to Target's request for extended hours. He is concerned that by extending the hours, the City is rewarding Target for violating the original agreement. He has asked the Planning Commission to deny the request due to'Target's noncompliance with conditions of approval. Beth Refakes, Costa Mesa resident, also opposes granting Target the additional holiday hours. She is concerned about the noise levels and barricades which she feels will have a negative impact on the residents. She believes that Target has not been a good neighbor to the residents as evidenced by their being out of compliance with the original agreement and asks that the Planning Commission deny their request. in UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APROVED Mike Brumbaugh, a resident of the Halecrest Community, indicated that he has no position on Target's request and that decision would need to be decided by Planning Commission. He is concerned that Target did not comply with the original agreement by extending their hours beyond what was originally approved. MOTION: Approve, based on the evidence in the record and the findings contained in Exhibit "A", DR -99-22 A2 for the requested hours of 12 midnight to 11:00 pm the day after Thanksgiving only, known as "Black Friday", for Target Costa Mesa on an annual basis. The hours of operation of 7:00 am to 11:00 pm Mon -Fri., and 8:00 am to 11:00 pm Sat. and Sun. from the day after Black Friday to New Year's Day as approved under DR -99-22A shall remain unchanged. Moved by Commissioner Fitzpatrick, seconded by Vice Chair Clark. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: McCarthy, Clark, Dickson, Fitzpatrick, and Salcedo Noes: None Absent: None ATTACHMENT 5 PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS m► OSp MFS PLANNING AGENDA �] CITYnFTffk.1NT.5 `C{ D+ NOVEMBER SUBJECT: AMEND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DR -99-22 A2 FOR EXPANDED ANNUAL WINTER HOLIDAY OPERATING HOURS FOR TARGET COSTA MESA 3030 A HARBOR BOULEVARD DATE: NOVEMBER 3, 2011 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: MEL LEE, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER (714) 754-5611 (mel.leeAcostamesaca.cgov) PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project is an amendment to a previously -approved Development Review to allow the following: • Amend the condition of approval for Target Costa Mesa's annual operating hours during the winter holiday season from the day after Thanksgiving to New Year's day to allow increased opportunities for holiday shopping, as follows. Current Approved Winter Holiday Hours: o 7:00 am to 11:00 pm Mon. -Fri., and 8:00 am to 11:00 pm Sat. and Sun. from the day after Thanksgiving to New Year's Day. Proposed Winter Holiday Hours: o 12 midnight to 11:00 pm the day after Thanksgiving, and 7:00 am to 12 midnight seven days a week thereafter until New Year's Day. APPLICANT The applicant is John Warren, representing Target Corporation, the property owner. RECOMMENDATION Approve by adoption of Planning Commission resolution, subject to conditions of approval. 51 BACKGROUND Project Site/Environs Target is located within the Costa Mesa Square shopping center on the east side of Harbor Boulevard, north of Baker Street. On March 13, 2000, the Planning Commission, by a vote of 5-0, approved Development Review DR -99-22 to construct a 143,500 square foot Target store, a 3,420 square foot district office, and a 10,830 square foot outdoor garden center (since closed). Target's normal (i.e., non -holiday) hours are 8:00 am to 11:00 pm Mon -Sat, and 8:00 am to 10:00 pm Sun. On November 13,'2000, Planning Commission approved a modification to the Development Review as DR -99-22A to allow extended winter holiday sale hours from 7:00 am to 11:00 . pm, seven days a week, on an annual basis, beginning from the day after Thanksgiving through New Year's Day. The extended holiday sale hours apply to the store operating hours for customer service only and do not apply to the delivery hours for the Target store. On July 11, 2005, Planning Commission, by a vote of 5-0, denied DR -05-09, a request to allow Target to open an hour earlier (6:00 am) during the same holiday season period, citing potential adverse noise impacts to the single-family residences to the north of the property. A copy of the Planning Commission report can be found on the City website at the below link: http://www.ci.costa-mesa.ca.us/council/planninq/2005-07-111071105DR050g. pdf A copy of the Planning Commission meeting minutes can be found on the City website at the below link: http://www.ci.costa-mesa.ca.us/council/planninq/pm 050711.pdf ANALYSIS Request for extended hours The applicant has submitted a request to amend the current condition of approval for annual winter holiday sales. Typically, amendments to Development Reviews are approved at' staff level (no public hearing required); however, due to the proximity of the development to residential properties, the Commission directed staff to provide public notice for any revisions to Target's conditions of approval. According to the applicant, the trend in retail over the last several years has been to open early the day after Thanksgiving (usually referred to as "Black Friday") to meet the extra customer demand that the shopping day generates. The applicant is proposing to open 401, the store at 12 midnight the day after Thanksgiving - Friday, November 25, 2011 - which is consistent with the opening time for the other Target stores in the Southern California region. Staff Justifications for Approval Staff supports the request based on the following: • The recommended conditions of approval will ehsure the proposed use is compatible with adiacent residential.uses. The extended hours would be subject to applicable conditions of approval to ensure that no adverse impacts to adjacent uses and properties is. created, including requiring the store be operated in a manner that will allow the quiet enjoyment .of the surrounding neighborhood, and -provide additional on-site security if requested. by the Police Department. The Police Department has no obiections to the proposed use. The Police Department has reviewed the proposed extended hours and has no objections to the proposal. With regard to crowd control, all Target stores are required to adhere to a crowd control plan implemented by.Target's corporate offices and with input from law enforcement. A condition of approval also requires increased on-site security on an as needed basis if determined by the Police Department. The Costa Mesa community will pain a benefit from the extended winter holiday hours as City residents will not have to travel to Target stores outside of the City that open earlier for holidaysales. ales. Other Target stores in Santa Ana and Irvine will observe the same extended holiday hours. Additionally, there would be a tangible economic benefit in terms of additional sales tax revenue to the City as a result of the extended holiday hours. It is staff's opinion that the request, with the recommended conditions of approval, will be compatible with the other uses in the immediate vicinity. Compliance with the conditions of approval will allow this use to operate with minimal impact on surrounding properties and uses. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION If approved, the request would be exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act under Section 15301 for Existing Facilities. If the request is denied, they would be exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section:15270(a) for projects which are disapproved. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY With the recommended conditions of approval, the request will be consistent with surrounding uses, as specified in Objective LU -1 F.2 of the General Plan Land Use Element. C�z ALTERNATIVES The Commission has the following alternatives: 1. Approve the request with the recommended conditions of approval to ensure any impacts to the adjacent properties .and uses is minimized; or 2. Deny the request. Target could still continue to operate under the currently approved winter holiday hours. CONCLUSION It is staff's opinion that the request, subject to the recommended conditions of approval, will be consistent with the City's' Zoning Code and General Plan. The proposed conditions will minimize any adverse impacts to surrounding properties. Therefore, staff supports the applicant's request: — /?z/ / MEL LE , AICP CLAIRE FLYNN, P Senior Planner Acting Asst. Development Services Director Attachments: 2. Applicant's Request cc: Interim Development Services Director Deputy City Attorney City Engineer Transportation Svs. Manager Fire Protection Analyst Doug Johnson, Police Department Staff (4) File (2) John Warren, AICP Pacific Land Services 2151 Salvio Street, Suite S Concord, CA 94520 J4 , Target Corporation Attn: Timothy Kindig 3030 A Harbor Boulevard Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Target Corporation PO Box 9456 Minneapolis, MN 55440 File: Date: Time: �.y Fred Sena, PE Chris Long, RLA John Warren, AICP PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project is a minor conditional use permit to revise the operating hours for the Target Store located at 3030 Harbor Boulevard. The current approved operating hours per DR -99-22A: are as follows: "The store operating hours shall be from 7 am, to 11 pm, Monday through Friday, and from 8 am to 11 pm, Saturday and Sunday from the day after Thanksgiving through New Year's. The Carden Center shall maintain it's current operating hours." The proposed new operating hours are as follows: "The store operating hours shall be from 12:00 AM to 11:00 PM for the day after Thanksgiving and, 7:00 AM to 12:00 AM daily from the Saturday after Thanksgiving until New Year's Day." ENTITLEMENT ENGINEERING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 2151 Salvio Street • Suite S o Concord, Califomia • 94520 • (925) 680-6406. • fax (925) 680-6407 J1 Fred Sena, PE Chris Long, RLA John Warren, AICP DESCRIPTION OF JUSTIFICATION FORM In recent years, the holiday shopping season has traditionally kicked off on the day after Thanksgiving. Stores across the country have been trending toward opening their stores earlier to. meet the demand and excitement that this shopping day generates. Target is planning on opening all of their Southern California stores at Midnight on the Friday after Thanksgiving. Some of the general advertising for Target in the region will focus on the store opening hours on the day after Thanksgiving. In previous years, the Costa Mesa store did not open at the same time as other Target Stores due to the operating hour restrictions. Many guests .arrived at the Target Store in hope of an early opening on this day.. Target staff had to turn away the confused guests.. The proposed change to the operating hours will enable the store to open at Midnight with all of the other Target Stores in the region. The extra operating hour on remaining holiday season shopping days (11:00 PM to 12:00 AM) is also consistent with other Target Stores in the area. Once the holiday season is over, Target will once again resume normal operating hours. ENTITLEMENT I ENGINEERING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 2151 Salvio Street • Suite S - Concord, California • 94520 • . (925) 680-6406 • fax (925) 680-6407 CITY OF COSTA MESA Development Service Department P.O. Box 1200, Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200 PROJECT NO: DH -99-22A TO: James J. Theusch Target Corporation 1000 Nicollet Mall, TPN -12 Minneapolis, MN 55403 DATE: November 15, 2000 At the regular meeting of Costa Mesa Planning Commission held on November. 13 ,_-02 00— the above -referenced item was considered and the following action taken: Motion 1: Approved the modification based on information and analysis contained in the Planning Division staff report dated November 7, 2000 with the f oilo ing changes and additions 1) The stare ;�speatxg htaurs .shall be from 7 .a m.to 11 p :mlhda rl Pt :lay, at d m 11 a,zu . t o 11 P.M. Saturday 'a,4d. SuAdaye f -t abi 011; Thatlkogt�Plrnug'h New Y:e i s. 'The Garden Center sb-all main..a cutrant operating boYurs. (2) Additional security shall be provided in the parking lot during evening hours of operation. (5--0) Motion 2: Directed staff to notice residents within a 300 -foot radius regarding all future changes relating to the Target project. (5-0) Should you have any questions concerning the Commission's decision or -wish to appeal to the City Council, please contact your project Planner Mal Lee at 754-5949 Sincerely, Donald D. Lamm, Development Services Director cc: Mike Baxter Target Greatlands 3030 Harbor BoulevaRD Costa Mesa, CA 92626 H.A. Covert Enterprises, Inc. 111 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 2101 Long Beach, CA 90802 ATTACHMENT 6 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 5q RESOLUTION NO. PC -11- 5.3 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AMENDMENT DR -99-22 A2 FOR EXTENDED ANNUAL WINTER HOLIDAY HOURS FOR TARGET COSTA MESA, AS AMENDED. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, an application was filed by John Warren, authorized agent for Target Corporation, requesting approval to amend the condition of approval for Target Costa Mesa's annual operating hours from the day after Thanksgiving to New Year's Day as follows: o 1.2 midnight to 11:00 pm the day after Thanksgiving, and 7:00 am to 12:00 am seven days a week thereafter until New Year's Day. WHEREAS, .a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on November 14, 2011, with all persons having the opportunity to speak for and against the proposed project; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the original proposal to amend the holiday hours for Target Costa Mesa throughout. the holiday season; however, the Planning Commission limited its approval of extended holidays hours to a single day, the day after Thanksgiving; BE IT RESOLVED that, based on the evidence in the record and the findings contained in Exhibit "A", the Planning Commission hereby APPROVES DR -99-22 A2 with respect to the property described above for the requested hours of 12 midnight to 11:00 pm the day after Thanksgiving only, known as "Black Friday", for Target Costa Mesa on an annual basis. The hours of operation of 7:00 am to 11:00 pm Mon. -Fri., and 8:00 .am to 11:00 pm Sat. and Sun. from the day after Black Friday to New Year's Day as approved under DR -99-22A shall remain unchanged. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Costa Mesa Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon the activity as described in the staff report for DR -99-22 A2 and upon applicant's compliance with each and all of the conditions contained in Exhibit "B" as well as'with compliance of all applicable federal, state, and local laws. Any approval granted by this resolution shall be �0 subject to review, modification or revocation if there is a material change that occurs in the operation, or if the applicant fails to comply with any of the conditions of approval. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of November, 2011. Colin McCarthy, Chair Costa Mesa Planning Commission n STATE OF CALIFORNIA) )ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, Claire Flynn, secretary to the Planning Commission of the City of Costa Mesa, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the City of Costa Mesa Planning Commission held on November 14, 2011, by the following votes: AYES: COMMISSIONERS NOES: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS Secretary, CosteWesa Planning Commission won DR -99-22 A2 EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS A. The proposal complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(e) because: 1. Compatible and harmonious relationship between the use and site development, and use(s), and the building and site developments, and uses that exist or have been approved for the general neighborhood. Specifically, the request would be subject to applicable conditions of approval to ensure that no adverse impacts to adjacent uses and properties is created, including requiring the use be operated in a manner that will allow the quiet enjoyment of the surrounding neighborhood, and additional on-site security if requested by the Police Department. 2. Compliance with any performance standards as prescribed elsewhere in this Zoning Code. 3. Consistency with the general plan and any applicable specific plan. 4. The planning application is for a project -specific case and is not to be construed to be setting a precedent for future development. 5. The cumulative effect of all the planning applications has been considered. B. . The project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines; and the City's environmental procedures, and has been found to be exempt from CEQA under Section 15301 for Existing Facilities. C. , The project is exempt from Chapter XII, Article 3, Transportation System Management, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. 0 EXHIBIT "B" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DR -99-22 A2 Ping. 1. The use shall be limited to the type of operation as described in the staff report. Any change in the operational characteristics including, but not limited to, the hours of operation and additional services provided, shall require review by the Planning Division and may require an amendment to the development review, subject to either Zoning Administrator or Planning. Commission approval, depending on the nature of the proposed change. The applicant is reminded that Code allows the Planning Commission to modify or revoke any planning application based on findings related to public nuisance and/or noncompliance with conditions of approval. [Title 13, Section 13-29(o)]. 2. A copy of the conditions of approval shall be kept on premises and presented to any authorized City official upon request. New business/property owners shall be notified of conditions of approval upon transfer of business or ownership of land. 3. The business shall be conducted, at all times, in a manner that will allow the quiet enjoyment of the surrounding neighborhood. The operator shall institute whatever -security and operational measures are necessary to comply with this requirement. 4. The operator shall be required to provide additional on-site'security within the parking area. 5. The use shall be limited to the following hours of operation on an annual basis: 12 midnight to 11:00 pm the day after Thanksgiving only,. known as "Black Friday". The hours of operation of 7:00 am to 11:00 pm Mon. -Fri., and 8:00 am to 11:00 pm Sat. and Sun. from the day after Black Friday to New Year's Day as approved under DR -99-22A shall remain unchanged. Changes to the winter holiday hours of operation that extend the opening and closing times past the above hours shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for review. 6. All other applicable conditions of approval for DR -99-22 and its subsequent amendments shall remain in effect. Ping. 7. The operator shall install barricades to close the driveway access from College Comm. Avenue and post appropriate signage advising customers of the driveway closure during the Black Friday sale. The barricades shall be installed no later than 11:00 pm the day of the sale and shall be removed no later than 7:00 am the day of the sale. Ping. 8.. The operator shall install barricades to provide a 200 -foot buffer zone along the Comm. northerly parking area to prevent customers from .parking within the area during the Black Friday sale. The barricades shall be installed no later than 11:00 pm the day of the sale and shall be removed no later than 7:00 am the day of the sale. Cod ATTACHMENT 7 TARGET CODE ENFORCEM-ENT MEM - (0S as City of Costa Mesa Inter Office Memorandum TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: WILLA BOUWENS-KILLEEN, CHIEF OF CODE ENFORCEMENT U 7� DATE: NOVEMBER 14, 2011 SUBJECT: TARGET ENFORCEMENT Below is a summary of the Code Enforcement history for Target since the building was finaled in late 2000: Year Com plaint and occurrence . Hours of operation Employee parking @ north pl Deliveries Noise Truck idling outside of approved loading area Outdoor display Other Total 2011 1 1 1 3 2010 1 1 2009 .0 2008 0 2007 1 1 2006 1 1 2 2005 1. 1 2 2004 1 1 1 3 2003 1 2 1 2 2 8 2002 3 2 1 6 2001 1 1 2000 2 1 3 Total complaints: 30: Excluding the complaints received over the past week, the last previous noise -related complaint was registered in 2007. Target management appears to be responsive to Code Enforcement in working to.address code enforcement matters. For example, the noise -related cases were usually closed within a two to three days, although staff did continue to monitor the site for an additional time period for some of the cases. Attachment: Copies of complaints cc; Interim Development Services Director Acting Assistant Development Services Director Deputy City Attorney City Engineer Staff (4) File (2) E ATTACHMENT 8 CORRESPONDENCE -'RECEIVED FROM PUBLIC 0 Received City of Costa Mesa Development Services Department Re: Target extended hours NOV 14 2011 Planning Commissioners, My name is Louise Rose and I've lived in Costa Mesa for over 40 yrs, 6 in halecrest. Though I don't live behind Target I do have family that lives directly behind Target. I have been employed by Target for 11 years at 4 different stores as a Human Resources Executive Team Leader. In my experiences. at all 4 stores, we have never had an issue with extended hours during. the Holiday Season. I've worked in the Costa Mesa store, 2 Santa Ana stores and a store in Garden Grove. All of these stores are surrounded by single family homes and apartments. I have never experienced any complaints from neighbors in regards to traffic, increased noise or criminal activity. When we opened at 4am on Black Friday, guests began arriving and waiting in line on the Eve of Thanksgiving Day. Not once in all four stores did our guest's cause any issues for the neighbors or the police. The Guest's bring lawn chairs; TV's, phones or radios to occupy their time while waiting in lines. These lines can be very long and are always manageable. Depending on what store I was at and the time I was scheduled, I would drive to work between the hours of 12am and Sam on Black Friday. Though there were more people out than usual during these hours, I never experienced traffic. People are generally in a great mood in anticipation of shopping for great deals. The Costa Mesa Target has employed and currently employees many Halecrest, Mesa Verde and Costa Mesa residents. Even through this tough economy Target did not lay off employees. Target has been able to employee many people who were affected by layoffs. By approving Target's request, we will not only increase our Tax revenue, Target will increase current Team Member hours, as well as increase hiring. An increase in hours and staffing will be a huge economic benefit to so many residents in our community. This City of Costa Mesa (h�ce many others) can use the increased Tax Revenue. As an example of what we could lose; LY on Black Friday, my family alone spent over $400.00, most at Target. Most of this was spent at the Santa Ana store. How many other Costa Mesa residents are shopping in Santa Ana, Irvine, Newport Beach and other surrounding cities? I've communicated with many Halecrest Homeowner's, including many that live directly behind Target. The feedback I've received has been very positive towards allowing Target to extend their hours. Personally, I feel as a community if we allow the extended hours, it is a win for all concerned. Commissioners, I'm hoping that the decision at the end of Monday's meeting will be based on what is best for the community as a whole. Thank you, Louise Rose, Costa Mesa. o Received City of Costa Mesa Development Services Department Fellow Planning Commissioners: NOV 14'20,11 I stand here today asking you to deny the request for extended hours regarding the Target Store, grateful for the trust that you will make the right decision. I spent 6 month of my life during year 2000 to find a common compromise for allowing the development of the Target center at 3030 Harbor_ We were told all along that the new Target development will be much like the former FEDCO. Now, 11 years later you can compare and judge for yourself as it now not the same as the original FEDCO center. The former commission and city council worked hard to prepare and approve DR99-22, which are the binding conditions of approval for the land use development. This document represents the words of the people which have been spoken during these public hearing. Require that commercial projects abutting residential properties adequately protect the residential use from the excessive or incompatible impacts. Yet, every so often the folks at Target Store want to play with different rules and not to abide by the agreement, but the city need to be faithful to the ideals of good government, and true to founding documents. So it is noted, a DR99-22 was agreed and recorded with the County of Orange, on April 18, 2000, for the future generation of Costa Mesa. Now the folks at Target claim of crisis and ask again to change the agreement, to eliminate key conditions, a nagging demand that we need to change the rules of good moral and ethics. I'm disturbed that I even have to be here today. Now, I have to defend my family home against the Target retail baron. Time and again, I sacrificed for a better Costa Mesa. This is the journey I continue today_ But the time of protecting narrow special interests - that time has surely passed. Starhng4today with your decYszon theCiiyt}musttrebulditth trust #o abide by the original DR99 as eement as documented and recorded. Over the last 11 years, the folks at Target Store provided false and broken promises. The Planning Commission should stand strong and not to reward the folks who violate the law. The time has come to reaffirm and to carry forward that trust, passed on from the former Commissioners to you: the given promise that we .need to abide by the agreement as established under DR99-22, as it represent the citizens' voices of Costa Mesa. In reaffirming the greatness of our city, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. We do not need to have short-cuts or settling for less. Now, there are some who question to the scale of lies, deceptions and violations. Target management has short memories. For they have forgotten that by intent, they violated the DR99- 22 agreement more than once. The record/s of former violations is well documented and is clear, it has already done; As for Friday November 3, 2011; the store hours as open for 11:00 PM were (9 in violation, as given - the store hours per DR99-22, item 57 clearly state the hours of operation to be from 8:OOAM till 10:00PM. Thus a citation was issued by the Code Enforcement. The arguments that they will abide by the new changes no longer apply. Nor is the question before us whether Target store hours need to extend till mid nights while pretending that more hours will generate wealth is unmatched, but without a watchful eye, Target demand can spin out of control - and that a city cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. As for city staff report, the report does contain major errors, especially the current store operating hours. Opinions need to be supported by facts, data and'science; like noise control study, survey of neighbors, and tabulation of former citations. Plus, justification needs to include traffic impact studies, review of security measures, added police cost and to prepare CEQA and EIP, Note that more exhaust will worsen the health of residence. How about the quality of my, life and enjoyment of my own property. As for the DR99-22 agreement, it was,:prepared and documentedto assure, the.rule�of law, an agreement that should govern for generations. The Planning Commission is the keeper of this agreement. Guided by these principles once more, I ask you to deny the request for any new changes -or more -modifications. To the Management folks at Target, you need to seek a new way to move forward, to abide and respect the neighbors. To Mr. Tim Kindig — you have been the Target Store manager since year 2000; you already demonstrated corruption and deceit. You know that you are on the wrong side of history. I can no longer afford more lies from you; nor can the City of Costa Mesa consume more resources to police you. As we consider the road that unfolds before us, per the past violations as cited, Target did not abide by the original conditions of approval under DR99-22, the city of Costa Mesa need to revoke the conditions of approval for the land use as they have duties to apply the law. For the Planning Commission of Costa Mesa, in the face of moral, ethics and legal, let do the right thing- which is to deny Target Store request for extended hours. Deny the request for DR -99-22 A2 Thank you. God bless you and God bless the City of Costa Mesa. Al Morelli -11/14/2011 .7D Pr---tj ofd Ha` Fred Sena, PE Chris Long, RLA ------- John Warren, AICP DESCRIPTION OF JUSTIFICATION FORM In recent years, the holiday shopping season has traditionally kicked off on the day after Thanksgiving. Stores across the country have been trending toward opening their stores earlier to meet the demand and excitement that this shopping day generates. Target is planning on opening all of their Southern California stores at Midnight on the Friday after Thanksgiving. Some of the general advertising for Target in the region will focus on the store opening hours on the day after Thanksgiving. In previous years, the Costa Mesa store did not open at the same time as other Target Stores due to the operating hour restrictions. Many guests arrived at the Target Store in hope of an early opening on this day. Target staff had to turn away the confused guests. The proposed change to the operating hours will enable the store to open at Midnight with all of the other Target Stores in the region. The extra operating hour on remaining holiday season shopping days (11:00 PM to 12:00 AM) is also consistent with other Target Stores in the area. Once the holiday season is over, Target will once again resume normal operating hours. *Update. November 11, 2011*: The Target store has been opening from 8:00 AM, -11:00 PM for since last year according to the store. The store manager indicated that the store is unaware of any complaints or violations reported regarding the extra hour of operation prior to. a visit from code enforcement last week. Immediately upon receiving notice of the -violation, the store has changed its closing hours until 10:00 PM. The sign placard containing the store hours was removed on November 10, 2011. Target would like to request that the application be amended for a separate action be made at future planning commission meeting to allow the store to operate during the non -holiday season until 11:00PM. ENTITLEMENT ENGINEERING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 2151 Salvio Street • Suite S • Concord, California • 94520 • (925) 680-6406 • fax (925) 680-6407 .771 Fred Sena, PE N Chris Long, RLA John Warren, AICP PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project is a minor conditional use permit to revise the operating hours for the Target Store located at 3030 Harbor Boulevard. The current approved operating hours per DR -99-22A: are as follows: "The store operatinghours shall be from 7 am, to 11 pm, Monday through Friday, and from 8 am to 11 pm, Saturday -and Sunday from the day after Thanksgiving through New Year's. The Garden Center shall maintain it's current operating hours." The proposed new operating hours are as follows: "The store operating hours shall be from 12:00 AM to 11:00 PM for the day after Thanksgiving and 7:00 AM to 12:00 AM daily from the Saturday after Thanksgiving until New Year's Day." . *Update November 11, 2011* Target is requesting that the store operating hours for non -holiday hours be extended from 10:00 PM to 11:00 PM. Target would like this action to be heard at a future Planning Commission meeting. ENTITLEMENT ENGINEERING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 2151 Salvio Street • Suite S • Concord, California • 94520 • (925) 680-6406 - fax (925) 680-6407 November 6T 2®11. To: The Costa Mesa Planning Commission From: Tom & LouAnne ][McCormick Costa. Mesa, CA 92626 Ton's cell LouAnne's cell 4J1- 1 Z oCd i70> Received City of Costa Mesa Development Services Department NOV-i:'01-2011 Re: Application # DR -99-22 A2 — TARGET VIN'TER HOURS To: The Costa Mesa Planning Commission — We are extremely concerned about the ®ficial City Notice we received at the end of last week in which we were notified of Target's request to extend hours of operation. We will be -out of town the evening of 11114 and therefore.unable.to attend the hearing —please accept this Jetterin lieu of our. appearance. When Target originally negotiated with Halecrest residents they made a point of assuring all concerned that there would be no attempts to extend the hours of operation in the future since the store is bordered on three sides by residential property. (Note: Mel Lee was the City liaison and attended most of these meetings, one of which was field in our home). We are already d>ls bed by caralarms anageneral car noise in the parking lot and ANY extension of hours will directly impact our peaceful enjoyment of our home. The -cleaning crews for the parking lot area are very noisy and they would have to start even earlier each day — which will also disturb our sleep. Perhaps the management of Target shouldconsider how this request would impact its residential neighbors — we are also their customers. Please feel free to call either of us to discuss further, we have listed our phone numbers above. We are looking to The City to uphold the current Conditional Use Provisions "as is" and not grant Target the amendment, thank you for your help. Sincerely, 7 - Tom Tom McCormick date -13 LouA.nne McCormick date From: Al Morelli . Sent: Sunday, November 06, 20119:29 PM To: PLANNING COMMISSION Subject: re nov 14 meeting DR99-22 1 Public input regarding DR99-22 Thank you for your consideration Also, please note that the staff report does include a major error regarding the current store hours. Per the official DR99-22 document, item 57: "Hours of operation for the Target Store shall be limited to between the hours of 8:0OAm to 10:00PM , seven days a week Staff should and need to provide the official DR99-22 full document as recorded into the county records to be part of the meeting record. Also, item 42 and item 55 per the DR99-22 should be noted. Also, the staff need to provide a copy/s of all the code enforcement citations and tabulate all the results as issued by the city against Target store for failing to abide by the DR99-22 conditions.For the records, there were several police reports and code enforcement documents toward that regards. Also note, as per last Friday 11/4/11, the store was operating and open with hours to 11:OOPM which is in violation. Al Morelli Items for considerations .................................. The Planning Commission should investigate the city of Costa Mesa for the legality of continuous changes against the mitigated land use agreement DR99-22, lack of code enforcement, oversight for the pre agreed DR99,..-22 and the manipulation of the Environnen't'al�'Imp'act Report (EIR), all as part of Target Store land use (3030 Harbor Blvd.) development agreement. Also, the city plays with different. rules and failed to file under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as mandated by law. Any orders as recorded per DR99-22 as subject to conditions should be enforced. The original store hours as originally as adopted (year 2000), were to be governed by and shall be limited to between the hours of 8:OOAM to 10:OOPM, seven days a week. Any changes to store operating hours will impact and violate the quiet enjoyment of the surrounding neighborhood. Based on the evidence in the record and find that"Target "store management has demonstrated lack of faith compliance with the terms and conditions of development agreement DR99-22 by order. The original land use permit should be subject to revocation as there have been material changes and violations that occurred in the operation and the Target's management had failed to comply with several conditions of approval. The review finding by city staff as given are based on self generated opinion and does not 4 / r • contain actual studies nor based on scientific facts. Staff has omitted needed studies like noise impact during night hours, traffic impact studies, crowd control and security, etc. Such subjective opinion is a conflict of interest, as driven by the economic benefits in terms of increase of sales tax revenues to the city as a result of extended hours. Associated data with regards to past code violations were omitted and not presented regarding staff finding. Also, the opinion omit the neighbors reported complains over the years. While the city of Costa Mesa keep changing the land use mitigation conditions, significant impacts would occur at 3030 harbor location and for the surrounding residential neighbors, the city does not provide adequate information to determine that impacts and how it would be reduced or fully mitigated at location. Deny the current adoption of any modifications to DR99-22 and constrain any and all future reviews to DR99-22 as it should be legally binding per agreed and recorded with the land deed use agreement for the 3030 Harbor Blvd. property. 6i.et.. � t.....�;a.,:L ,M„; .rv. ,a4�t; wrt ��v'�+;_� k��t-i�4a�ii ..�49., dye...-..;. �'k v:,.'�f.. •u�v',=. LEE, MEL From: LEE, MEL Sent: Friday, November 04, 201112:09 PM To: 'John Warren' Subject: FW: CM Target store per DR99 22 From: Al Morelli [mailto:. a] Sent: Friday, November 04, 2011 11:06 AM To: LEE, MEL Cc: FLYNN, CLAIRE Subject: Re: CM Target store per DR99 22 Me: per our phone call, please note a current violation as it going on today, which is the "Exit Only to college Ave. Install height restriction bar across the Exit Only" drive on College ave to limit vehicles over 2.5 feet. Please note, that such restriction bar has been remoyed,, �Yluchys.clear�violati©n,as statedper DR99-22. The code enforcement staff should issue immediate citation. Also, I highly suggest that as part of the city staff report regarding the upcoming planning commission meeting, that all historical data and records since year 2000 should be brought back for analysis. Such analysis, should -include the original-CEQA report for comparison against today finding regarding validation of traffic, noise level and all environmental impact I strongly oppose the approval of all and new changes as legally approved for DR99-22. Thanks for your consideration. Al Morelli 11/04/2011 7