Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
- - Review of Amendment DR-99-22 A3 - 4/17/2012
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: APRIL 17, 2012 ITEM NUMBER: SUBJECT: REVIEW OF AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DR-99-22 A3 FOR EXPANDED NON -HOLIDAY OPERATING HOURS FOR TARGET COSTA MESA 3030 A HARBOR BOULEVARD DATE: APRIL 5, 2012 FROM: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION BY: MEL LEE, SENIOR PLANNER FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: MEL LEE, AICP (714) 754-5611 mel.leeAcostamesaca.gov RECOMMENDATION: Uphold or reverse the Planning Commission's decision to amend the condition of approval for Target Costa Mesa's regular (i.e., non -holiday) operating hours as follows: Originally Approved Regular (Non -Holiday) Hours: o 8:00 am to 10:00 pm, seven days a week. Revised Regular (Non -Holiday) Hours as Approved by Planning Commission: o 8:00 am to 11:00 pm, Monday through Saturday. o 8:00 am to 10:00 pm, Sunday. TABLE 1 Target Costa Mesa Hours (Annually) Originally Approved Hours DR-99-22 • 8:00 am to 10:00 pm, seven days a week Current Hours: Same, pending outcome of City Council review Originally Approved Winter Holiday Hours DR-99-22 A From Day After Thanksgiving to New Years Day: Current Hours: • 7:00 am to 11:00 pm — Monday through Friday See Below • 8:00 am to 11:00 pm — Saturday and Sunday Winter Holiday Hours as amended by Planning Commission (DR-99-22 A2 • 12 am/midnight to 11:00 pm — Day after Thanksgiving only Current Hours: • 7:00 am to 11:00 pm — Monday through Friday No Change • 8:00 am to 11:00 pm — Saturday and Sunday Requested Non -Holiday Hours by Target DR-99-22 A3 • 8:00 am to 11:00 pm, seven days a week Current Hours: Not Applicable Non -Holiday Hours as Approved by Planning Commission DR-99-22 A3 • 8:00 am to 11:00 pm, Monday through Saturday Current Hours: 8:00 am to 10:00 pm, Sunday (Current Proposal) Operating hours for other Target Stores in the area are summarized in the table below. TABLE 2 Other Target Stores Regular (Non -Holiday) Hours* Store Location Monday Through Friday Saturday Sunday Huntington Beach 8:00 am to 11:00 pm 8:00 am to 11:00 pm 8:00 am to 10:00 pm Irvine - Barranca 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 11:00 pm 8:00 am to 11:00 pm 8:00 am to 10:00 pm `Source: Target 0 BACKGROUND: History. of Target's Store 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 (i.e., non -holiday) store hours pursuant to Condition of Approval No. 57 were 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 part and subject to conditions, the applicant's request for a midnight opening on Black Friday, the day after Thanksgiving, on an annual basis. However, Planning Commission denied the request to further extend the remaining holiday hours. 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 Mr. Al Morelli, area resident that Target was operating in violation of their approved non -holiday closing time of 10:00 pm. 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 10:00 pm on Sundays). • On November 21, 2011, Mr. Morelli appealed Planning Commission's action to approve the annual midnight opening on Black Friday to City Council, which was withdrawn on January 3, 2012. • On March 12, 2012, Planning Commission approved, on a 3-2 vote, the applicant's request to extend the 10:OO pm closing time to 11:00 pm, with the exception of Sundays, on which they are required to close at 10:00 pm per Condition No. 4 (the applicant's request was to close at 11:00 pm seven days a week). The Commission also required the applicant to return to the Commission in six months to determine if the extended hours of operation may be permitted to remain in effect (Condition No. 6). • During their deliberations, the Commissioners expressed the following opinions and points of view related to Target's request: o A Commissioner expressed concerns with how Target has handled the operation of store and the outreach to the neighbors and could not support the request for extended hours. n J o A Commissioner indicated that Target had not given sufficient justification for support of the extended hours based on non-compliance of the Black Friday hours during the appeal period. o A Commissioner indicated that while he was sympathetic to the neighbor's concerns, Target's request for extended hours was reasonable and should be granted provided that better monitoring of neighbor complaints were in place, the request be required to come back to them in 6 months, and the store should still be required to close at 10:00 pm on Sunday. Request for Review of Planning Commission's Decision On March 19, 2012 a request for City Council review of the Planning Commission's approval filed by Council member Leece. The major issues regarding the applicant's request are addressed in the question and answer format below. ANALYSIS / Q&A 1. Were the originally approved hours of operation for Target negotiated between the developer and the adjacent neighbors when Target was approved in 2000? The original 10:00 pm closing time was offered by Target in 2000 and therefore reflected as a condition of approval. The 10:00 pm closing reflected the operations of Target stores in general at that time and .were not adjusted due to community concerns. Issues that were raised in a letter submitted to Target by a neighbor in 1999 included restricted hours of operation for parking lot sweepers, but not for the store itself (Attachment 7, related correspondence, letter dated August 26, 1999). Code does not restrict the business hours of retail stores in a C1 zone. Because the store hours were included a condition of approval for DR-99-22, Target is required to formally request changes to the store hours (i.e. modify the condition) and could not proceed with the extended store hours by right. 2. Can the original conditions of approval (i.e., store hours) from the 2000 Target Development Review application be amended? Concerns have been raised that the Target conditions of approval represent a "binding agreement" that cannot be modified. Code Section 13-29(p) indicates that "any approved planning application may be amended by following the same procedure and fee schedule as required for the initial approval." It should also be noted that after the Planning Commission approved Target's request for holiday hours in November 2000 as DR-99-22 A, the Commission directed that any future amendments to the hours of operation be processed as a public hearing before LI the Planning Commission to ensure surrounding neighbors are notified of the proposal and have an opportunity to .provide input. " 3. What steps, if any, has the applicant taken to address the ongoing concerns raised by the neighbors? On January 27, 2012, Mr. Morelli and Target representatives met with staff, as well as a Planning Commissioner and a Council member, to determine if Target could operate with the proposed 11:00 pm closing time in a manner that was consistent with the original provisions for minimizing impacts to adjacent residential properties. During the meeting, three additional operational restrictions were suggested to Target: Close northerly entrance doors closest to the residential properties after 10:00 pm; Reduce parking lot lighting after 10:00 pm; and Increase security after 10:00 pm if requested by the Police Department. Following the meeting, Target determined that, based on lack of complaints received during the 11:00 pm closing time previously approved for the holidays, the additional operational restrictions were not required in order to ensure any impacts to the adjacent properties and uses is minimized. After the meeting, Mr. Morelli also submitted correspondence via email which appeared to indicate that he would not support the extended regular store hours, including incorporation of the three suggested conditions (Attachment to Planning Commission Staff Report, e-mail from Mr. Morelli dated February 5, 2012 — Attachment 5). 4. Did the Planning Commission incorporate the suggested three operational restrictions described above? The Planning Commission did not add these conditions of approval to the approval. The Commission approved Target's request in part, excluding the request to extend the store hours on Sunday to 11:00 pm. The Commission modified Condition number 4 requiring a 10:00 pm closing time on Sundays (Attachment 6). The attached draft Council resolution to uphold the Commission's decision to approve the Target store hours does not include 11:00 pm closing on Sunday originally requested by the applicant. if Council wishes to approve this, Condition No. 4 would need to be modified. 5. Has the existing noise environment been studied by Target? On December 6, 2011 Target had the original noise study prepared for the project by Mestre Greve Associates re-evaluated by a new consultant (RK Engineering Group), which concluded that the extended closing time would not result in an increase in noise levels in excess of the City Noise Ordinance (Attachment to Planning Commission Staff Report, Attachment 5). On March 9, 2012, Target conducted an Per Code Section 13-29(c) (Planning Application Review Process) public notice is not required for Development Reviews (DRs). additional analysis with noise meters that indicated that the existing wall provided an appropriate noise barrier, and that the store operations complied with the City's noise ordinance (Attachment 7, related correspondence, dated March 9, 2012). 6. What steps has staff taken to address the concerns raised regarding documentation of resident complaints or calls for service? At the request of the Commission, staff prepared a summary of Costa Mesa Police Department calls for service for Target from March 1, 2010 to March 6, 2012 (Attachment 5, Supplemental Memo dated March 9, 2012). However, a resident indicated during the hearing that their complaint was not part of the summary. Future complaints received by City staff will be forwarded to the Police Department for their records and the complainant will be notified of the outcome of the specific complaint. It should be noted that, with regard to Code Enforcement complaints, these complaints are documented in the case file. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED: City Council has the following options related to this request: A. Alternative A, Uphold Commission's Action: Uphold the Commission's action by approving the extended non -holiday hours (excluding Sunday) with the additional conditions of approval as shown in the draft Council resolution. Consistent with the Commission's action, the attached draft Council resolution does not include the extended hours on Sunday. If Council wishes to approve Sunday hours, Condition No. 4 would need to be modified. B. Alternative B. Reverse Commission's Action: Deny the Commission's action approving the extended non -holiday hours. The store hours will be unchanged. The store shall be required to close at 10:00 pm, seven days a week per the original DR-99-22. For clarity, the following summary table provides information on the store hours based on each of these alternatives: t'9 TABLE 3 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES (A & B)Target's Non -Holiday Hours ALTERNATIVE A — UPHOLD COMMISSION'S ACTION This would allow the following hours: 0 8:00 am to 11:00 pm — Monday through Saturday 0 8:00 am to 10:00 pm —Sunday ALTERNATIVE B — DENY COMMISSION'S ACTION This would allow the following hours: o 8:00 am to 10:00 pm —Seven days a week 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. 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. LEGAL REVIEW: The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the attached resolutions and approved them as to form. CONCLUSION: The City Council may uphold, or reverse the discretionary decision of the Planning Commission. - Z�V4_ MEL LEE, AICP Senior Planner KHANH N�CJ Interim vdAment Services Director I ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Draft City Council Resolutions 3. Request for Review 4. Planning Commission Minute Excerpts 5. Planning Commission Report With Attachments 6. Planning Commission Resolution 7. Related Correspondence DISTRIBUTION: Chief Executive Officer Assistant Chief Executive Officer Economic Development Director Public Services Director City Attorney Transportation Services Manager City Engineer City Clerk (9) Staff (4) File (2) John Warren, AICP Pacific Land Services 2151 Salvio Street, Suite S Concord, CA 94520 Target Corporation Attn: Timothy Kindig 3030 A Harbor Boulevard Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Target Corporation PO Box 9456 Minneapolis, MN 55440 Al Morelli 3412 Geranium Street Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Tom and LouAnne McCormick 1451 Shamrock Lane Costa Mesa, CA 92626 File: CC041712DR9922A3REVIEW I Date: 4/5/12 1 Time: 9:30 AM N ATTACHMENT 1 LOCATION MAP N C City of Costa Mesa CITY OF COSTA MESA - [Created: 10/24/2011 9:54:46 AM] [Scale: 411,72] [Page: 8,5 x 11 / Landscape] Overview Map Legend Hydrado- 'Water By Nays Channel, s 0 rthn, 2010 Street ,-G-VGI3 Names .3[1110 200R ROW -ev0i3 Lines Ortho 2006 Parcel �eve13 Lines Parcels (G),20o2A seoPrisenet(peoVec,t'nc.).-(8G@)422.2605 I ATTACHMENT 2 DRAFT RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION NO. 12- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AMENDMENT DR-99-22 A3 FOR EXTENDED NON -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 regular operating hours as follows: Originally Approved Regular (Non -Holiday) Hours o 8:00 am to 10:00 pm, seven days a week. Requested Regular (Non -Holiday) Hours o 8:00 am to 11:00 pm, seven days a week. WHEREAS, a duly noticed public.hearing held by the Planning Commission on March 12, 2012 with all persons having the opportunity to speak and be heard for and against the proposal, and DR-99-22 A3 was approved as follows: Revised Regular (Non -Holiday) Hours as Approved by Planning Commission 0 8:00 am to 11:00 pm, Monday through Saturday. 0 8:00 am to 10:00 pm, Sunday; WHEREAS, on March 19, 2012, the Planning Commission's decision for DR-99- 22 A3 was called up for review by a council member; WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on April 17, 2012. BE IT RESOLVED that, based on the evidence in the record and the findings contained in Exhibit A, the City Council hereby UPHOLDS THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION AND APPROVES DR-99-22 A3 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 A3 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 13 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 17th day of April, 2012. ERIC BEVER Mayor, City of Costa Mesa ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY CLERK OF THE CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF COSTA MESA 4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA) )ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, , City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above Council Resolution No. 12_ as considered at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the day of , 2012, and thereafter passed and adopted as a whole at the regular meeting of said City Council held on the day of , 2012, 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 12012 15 DR-99-22 A3 EXHIBIT A 9i"a; R., A. The proposal complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(e) because: 1. The request is compatible and harmonious with the use and site development, and use(s), and site developments that exist or have been approved for the general neighborhood. Specifically, 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. The Police Department has reviewed the proposed extended hours and has no objections to the proposal. The original noise study prepared for the project by Mestre Greve Associates was re-evaluated by a new consultant, which concluded that the extended closing time would not result in an increase in noise levels in excess of the City Noise Ordinance. The code enforcement activity for the site has been taken into consideration and this activity is not at a level that would preclude the approval of extended hours. Specifically, until the November 2011 complaint received regarding the 11:00 pm closing time, the previous noise -related complaint received by staff was in 2007. 2. The request complies with any performance standards as prescribed elsewhere in this Zoning Code. 3. The request is consistent with the general plan and any applicable specific plan. 4. The request 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. I(_Q DR-99-22 A3 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 use shall be limited to the following hours of operation: 8:00 am to 11:00 pm, Monday through Saturday, and 8:00 am to 10:00 pm Sunday. Changes to the hours of operation that extend the opening and closing times past the above hours shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for review. 5. All other applicable .conditions of approval for DR-99-22 and its subsequent amendments shall remain in effect. Ping. 6. DR-99-22 A3 shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission no later than six Comm. months from the date of approval to determine if the extended hours of operation may be permitted to remain in effect. Council 7. The store operator shall close northerly entrance doors closest to the residential properties after 10:00 pm. Council 8. The store operator shall reduce parking lot lighting after 10:00 pm. Council 9. The store operator shall increase security after 10:00 pm if requested by the Police Department. V1 DR-99-22 A3 RESOLUTION NO. 12- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA DENYING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AMENDMENT DR-99-22 A3 FOR EXTENDED NON -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 regular operating hours as follows: Originally Approved Regular (Non -Holiday) Hours o 8:00 am to 10:00 pm, seven days a week. Requested Regular (Non -Holiday) Hours o 8:00 am to 11:00 pm, seven days a week. WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing held by the Planning Commission on March 12, 2012 with all persons having the opportunity to speak and be heard for and against the proposal, and DR-99-22 A3 was approved as follows: Revised Regular (Non -Holiday) Hours as Approved by Planning Commission 0 8:00 am to 11:00 pm, Monday through Saturday. 0 8:00 am to 10:00 pm, Sunday; WHEREAS, on March 19, 2012, the Planning Commission's, decision for DR-99-22 A3 was called up for review by a council member.; WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on April 17, 2012. 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 A3. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of April, 2012. ATTEST: ERIC BEVER Mayor, City of Costa Mesa APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA CITY ATTORNEY I DR-99-22 A3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA) )ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, ; City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above Council Resolution No. 12_ as considered at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the day of , 2012, and thereafter passed and adopted as a whole at the regular meeting of said City Council held on the day of , 2012, 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 12012 1q EXHIBIT 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 A3. 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. .99 ATTACHMENT 3 REQUEST FOR REVIEW a� L I V ` u N�saesa 0 1 t- > i t I' Y C LE_: Ffl•` City of Costa Mesa 201214AR 19 PM 3: 13 ❑ Appeal of Planning Commission Decision-$1070.00 ❑ Appeal of Zoning Administrator/Staff Decision 4670.00 &NIMR APPEAL, REHEARING, OR REVIEW Applicant !Name* Address db ; Y} IY"�� Phone Representing ' U ci .'�2 Pu REQUEST FOR, REHEARING ,APPEAL ;9,REVIEW** Decision of which appeal, rehearing, or review is requested: (give application number, if applicable, and the date of the decision, if known.) rZ Fla h 11i k? (',Owlw �s s/ a1-) �/16 C 3 -Al-P �lhv y vc' C Slam} �r l l� "l C'� d %� CI�i '� o dA71 i� cV /701) Kh 0 0'�- C 7 '4't Decision by: "Ktfi M 1-7/ 1!q (1,b%11/Ii1/SS/0A-1 Reasons for requesting appeal, rehearing, or review: loe0k' l° l r�!° �t CDr�,vi'v yL/lJP Gu/i�i i�j�LtL df 're /' va rp— •filehl�7S. De loroi eolnowf Is a/lowed �1 " �.a�a-s ' a��Psr��il�s l o stv�� 7� A6 114 MP- A�S - �J Date: �3 / / e / I v_ Signature: *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, Cit Council, or City Council Member For office use only - do not write below this line SCHEDULED FOR THE CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING 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: p') ATTACHMENT 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE EXCERPTS 5. Application No.: Site Address: Applicant: Zone: Project Planner: Environmental Determination: Description: DR-99-22 A3 3030 A Harbor Boulevard Pacific Land Services C-1 Mel Lee Exempt Amend condition of approval for Target Costa Mesa's non -holiday store hours as follows: 8:00 am to 11:00 pm, 7 days a week (8:00 am to 10:00 pm, 7 days a week currently approved). PUBLIC COMMENTS: Chair McCarthy asked staff to explain what the thought process was behind recommending the time extension when Target agreed to the 10:00 closing time originally? John Warren, with Pacific Land Services, explained the reason for the request and stated that there would be no negative impact on the City by staying open the extra hour and that the City would benefit as well as the employees who live in the City. AI Morelli, Beth Refakes, . Sarah Morelli, & LouAnn McCormick, residents, spoke in opposition to the extended hour. They felt that Target agreed to the original hours and should stick to that agreement. Their main concern was the noise that they would experience later into the night. Ms. Refakes had concerns about rewarding Target after ignoring the conditions of approval and staying open without approval. She also mentioned car alarms that go off in the parking lot at night and disturb the residents, but are not issues that could be addressed by Code Enforcement.or the Police Department. Mr. Warren, in response to the residents' complaints, stated that they have attempted to work with the residents. He reiterated that they have made several changes in response to the complaints and does not know what else they can do. No one else wished to speak so the Chair closed public comments. Chair McCarthy and Vice Chair Clark both stated opposition to the extended hours and would not support the request. They agreed that Target should not be rewarded for bad behavior and should stick to their original agreement. No one wished to speak and the Chair closed the Public comments. MOTION: Approve Planning Application DR-99-22 A3 by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution PC-12-06, based on the evidence in the record and the findings contained in Exhibit A, subject to conditions in Exhibit B with the following additional conditions:. 4. The use shall be limited to the following hours of operation: 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, and 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Sunday. Changes to the hours of operation that extend the opening and closing times past the above hours shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for review. 6. DR-99-22 A3 shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission no later than six months from the date of approval to determine if the extended hours of operation may be permitted to remain in effect. Moved by Commissioner Dickson, seconded by Commissioner Salcedo. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Dickson, Fitzpatrick, Salcedo Noes: McCarthy, Clark Absent: None �5 ATTACHMENT 5 PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS AND ATTACHMENTS au PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: MARCH 12, 2012 ITEM NUMBER: SUBJECT: AMEND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DR-99-22 A3 FOR EXPANDED REGULAR (I.E., NON -HOLIDAY) OPERATING HOURS FOR TARGET COSTA MESA 3030 A HARBOR BOULEVARD DATE: MARCH 1, 2012 FROM: PLANNING DIVISION/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION BY: MEL LEE, SENIOR PLANNER FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: MEL LEE, AICP (714) 754-5611 mel.Iee(a)costamesaca.aov 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 regular operating hours as follows: Current Approved Regular (Non -Holiday) Hours: o 8:00 am to 10:00 pm, seven days a week. Proposed Regular (Non -Holiday) Hours: o 8:00 am to 11:00 pm, seven days a week. APDI Ir`_AAIT The applicant is John Warren, representing Target Corporation, the property owner. RECOMMENDATION Approve by adoption of Planning Commission resolution, subject to conditions of approval. BACKGROUND DR-99-22 A3 Project Site/Environs Target is located within the Costa Mesa Square shopping center on the east side of Harbor Boulevard, north of Baker Street. History of Target's Store 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 were 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 part and subject to conditions, the applicant's request for a midnight opening on Black Friday, the day after Thanksgiving, on an annual basis. However, Planning Commission denied the request to further extend the remaining holiday hours. 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 Mr. Al Morelli, area resident that Target was operating in violation of their approved non - holiday closing time of 10:00 pm. 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 10:00 pm on Sundays). • On November 21, 2011, Mr. Morelli appealed Planning Commission's action to approve the annual midnight opening on Black Friday to City Council, which was withdrawn on January 3, 2012. Target's approved and proposed operating hours is summarized in the table on the next page. A copy of the November 14, 2011 Planning Commission report can be found on the City website at the below link: http://www.ci.costa-mesa.ca.us/council/planning/pa 111114.pdf DR-99-22 A3 A copy of the November 14, 2011 Planning Commission meeting minutes can be found on the City website at the below link: http://www.ci.costa-mesa.ca.us/council/planning/pm 111114.pdf PLANNING APPLICATION SUMMARY Target Costa Mesa Hours (Annually) 8:00 am to 10:00 pm, seven days a week Current Hours: Same From Day After Thanksgiving to New Years Day: 7:00 am to 11:00 pm - Monday through Friday • 8:00 am to 11:00 pm - Saturday and Sunday • 12 am/midnight to 11:00 pm - Day after Thanksgiving only • 7:00 am to 11:00 pm - Monday through Friday • 8:00 am to 11:00 pm - Saturday and Sunday 8:00 am to 11:00 pm, seven days a week ANALYSIS Request for extended hours Current Hours: See Below Current Hours: No Change Current Hours: N/A (Current Proposal) Since the end of the holiday period, the store has been closing at 10:00 pm per the current condition of approval. The applicant has submitted a request to amend the current condition of approval to allow an 11:00 pm closing, seven days a week. No change to the approved holiday hours is proposed. 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 request submitted by the applicant (Attachment 3), the request is based on the years the store has been permitted to close at 11:00 pm during the holiday period (since DR-99-22 A was approved in November 2000) without any adverse impacts to adjacent residences. Code Enforcement Activity A separate memo summarizing the history of Code Enforcement complaints related to Target was presented at the November 14, 2011 Planning Commission meeting. DR-99-22 A3 Since November 2011, the City's Code Enforcement Division received complaints that Target was violating several conditions of approval. These included: • A delivery occurring in front of the north entrance of Target; • Hours of operation extending past those approved on both a daily basis as well as on Black Friday; • Employees parking along the north property line; and • Parking lot sweeping occurring outside of approved hours. Code Enforcement was unable to confirm the complaints regarding the delivery truck location and employees parking along the north property line, as well as the later daily operating hours. However, a citation was issued for both the Black Friday operating hours and the parking lot sweeping. Once the holiday season ended, staff confirmed that the operating hours posted on Target's doors, website, and automated phone message comply with the 10:00 pm closure required by the conditions of. approval. Staff Justifications forApproval Staff supports the request based on the following: 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 (Condition No. 3). On January 27, 2012, Mr. Morelli and Target representatives met with staff, as well as a Planning Commissioner and a Council Member, to determine if Target could operate with the extended hours in a manner that was consistent with the original provisions for minimizing impacts to adjacent residential properties. During the meeting three additional operational. restrictions were suggested to Target: Close northerly entrance doors closest to the residential properties after 10:00 pm; Reduce parking lot lighting after 10:00 pm; and Increase security after 10:00 pm if requested by the Police Department. Following the meeting, Target determined that, based on lack of complaints received during the 11:00 pm closing time during the holidays, the additional operational restrictions were not required in order to ensure any impacts to the adjacent properties and uses is minimized; however, the Planning Commission may add these as conditions of approval if additional safeguards for the adjacent residents is desired. After the meeting, Mr. Morelli also submitted correspondence via email which appeared to indicate that he would not support the extended regular store hours, including incorporation of the three suggested conditions. (Mr. Morelli's e-mail dated February 5, 2012, Attachment 5). 30 DR-99-22 A3 Target also had the original noise study prepared for the project by Mestre Greve Associates re-evaluated by a new consultant (RK Engineering Group), which concluded that the extended closing time would not result in an increase in noise levels in excess of the City Noise Ordinance (Attachment 4). • The Police Department has no objections to the proposed use. The Police Department has reviewed the proposed extended hours and has no objections to the proposal. Staff has also taken into consideration the code enforcement activity for the site discussed on the previous pages, and staff believes that this activity is not at a level that would preclude the approval of extended hours. Specifically, until the November 2011 complaint received regarding the 11:00 pm closing time, the previous noise - related complaint received by staff was in 2007. As noted earlier, the Commission may impose the additional conditions of approval noted earlier if additional safeguards for the adjacent residents is desired. 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. ALTERNATIVES The Commission has the following alternatives: 1. Approve the request subject to conditions of approval to ensure any impacts to the adjacent properties and uses is minimized. The three conditions discussed on Page 4 are not included in the draft resolution because the applicant has not concurred with these conditions. Commission may choose whether or not to incorporate these conditions, 2. Deny the request. Target could still continue to operate under the currently approved non -holiday store 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. DR-99-22 A3 Gv► l�. MEL LEE, AICP CLAIRE FLYNN, AI Senior Planner Acting Asst. Development Services Director Attachments: 2. Ls,Ga•fi6R Map 3. Applicant's Request 4. Review of Target Noise Study Prepared by Applicant 5. Mr. Morelli':email dated February 5, 2012 cc: Assistant Chief Executive Officer Interim Development Services Director Deputy City Attorney City Engineer Transportation Services 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 Target Corporation Attrt",Timothy Kindig 3030 A -Harbor Boulevard Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Target Corporation PO Box 9456 Minneapolis, MN 55440 Al Morelli 3412 Geranium Street Costa Mesa, CA 92626 DR-99-22 Aldoc 02/16/12 1:58:09 PM ATTACHMENT Fred Sena, PE Chris Long, RLA John Warren, AICP DESCRIPTION/JUSTIFICATION FORM The Target Store proposed operating hours during the non -holiday season are 8:00 AM-11:00 PM daily. The store currently opens during the holiday season until 11:00 PM without impact to the community. The proposed change will enable the Target Store to be open during the non -holiday season until 11:00 PM. The extra hour of operation is not anticipated to have any negative impacts on the surrounding community. This analysis is based upon the many years of successful operation that the store has maintained for this same time period during the holiday season without complaints or impacts. The proposed extra hours will provide additional employment opportunities and the change is critical to overall store sales. ENTITLEMENT ENGINEERING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 2151 Salvio Street • Suite S • Concord, California • 94520 • (925) 680-6406 • fax (925) 680-6407 33 ATTACHMENT 4 engineering EiI3group, inc. transportation planning - traffic engineering acoustical engineering • parking studies December 6, 2011 Mr. John Warren PACIFIC LAND SERVICES, INC. 2151 Salvio Street, Suite S Concord, CA 94520 Subject: Target Noise Study Review, City of Costa Mesa Dear Mr. Warren: Introduction The existing Target Costa Mesa store has requested a change in its operating hours during the holiday season, from late November to the end of December. At the present time, they have approval to operate up to 11:00 PM and have requested to extend their operating hours to 12-midnight. There has been some concern by local residents as a result of noise issues related to the extended hours. Based upon our review of the previous noise study, it does appear that the extended hours are possible without exceeding the City's Noise Standards. RK ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. (RK) has completed a review of the previous Target Noise Study (performed by Mestre Greve Associates, 12/23/1999). This study was part of the approval process for the Target Costa Mesa store in 2000. The project site is located at 3030 Harbor Boulevard in the City of Costa Mesa. It was requested that RK review the previous noise study and detail the following: provide further insight into the project's operational impact along the northern property line and provide a simple letter outlining the findings. The City of Costa Mesa noise ordinance is specified in Figure 1 on the following page. 4000 westerly place, suite 280 newport beach, california 92660 tel 949.474.0809 fax 949. 474.0902 http://xvww.rkengineer.com Mr. John Warren PACIFIC LAND SERVICES, INC. December 6, 2011 Page 2 Figure 1 Municipal Code Stationary Noise Standards Time Noise Criteria Level (dBA) Cumulative Time Period 0 Minutes 1 Minute 5 Minutes 15 Minutes 30 minutes Symbol Lmax L2 Ls LZs Lso Daytime (7 AM -11 PM) 75.0 70.0 65.0 60.0 55.0 UJ Nighttime (11 PM - 7 AM) 70.0 65.0 60.0 1 55.0 50.0 `o- 'v Daytime (7 AM - 11 PM) 65.0 60.0 55.0 N/A N/A E, Nighttime (11 PM - 7 AM) 55.0 50.0 45.0 N/A N/A A common way of describing noise levels from stationary sources is with the percent noise level (L/,). The percent noise level indicates the noise level which is exceeded during a certain percentage of time and represents the average noise level. Findings The original noise study (12/23/99) indicates four (4) noise measurements were taken at the project site as shown in Figure 2. The noise measurements were utilized to describe the existing ambient noise environment surrounding the project site during daytime (7AM - 11 PM) hours. This review will only focus on Site 2 because it represents the residential units at the northeastern property line. Figure 2 Table 2 lxistinca Noise Measurements Site Start'Fftne Leg Lrhax L2 LX L25 1,50 L90 Liibim 1 _ 4,19 P.m, 61.9 74.2 6&5 64.5 62.0! 60.5 5U 49.7 i=rXi p,Tp. �:tj-'--- 3 5:23 p m _6 .1 92.9 70.0 65.0 581D - 53,0 5 L 0 493 4 5:41 p-m. 58.4 73A 66.5 62.5 56.5 53.5 MI 5 _49.3 (Note) The original noise study did not conduct any nighttime (11 PM - 7AM) ambient noise level measurements. All noise impact calculations assume daytime ambient noise levels. The study uses the daytime noise measurements; referenced stationary noise levels (i.e. truck delivery, loading dock, parking lot) and estimates the future noise impact onto the adjacent properties. At no time does the study utilize, a nighttime ambient noise measurement and combine that with stationary noise levels. RK: mnlRK9244. clot 3 JN:1611-2011-01 Mr. John Warren PACIFIC LAND SERVICES, INC. December 6, 2011 Page 3 2. The original noise study (12/23/99) indicates the anticipated truck delivery noise impact to the adjacent units. The highlighted segment indicates the impact during daytime conditions to the homes north of the project site as illustrated in Figure 3. Figure 3 Mestre Greve Assoolates Target Greatlands Costa Mesa Page 11 Table 3 Delivery t_ ruck/Loading Cock Noise Levels Noist Level (dBA) Source Metric Receiver Outdoor Indoor Delivery Truck Near Loading Dock (Includes 8' Barrier) Lmax Homes To East 70.1* 57.5* Delivery Truck Near Turn/College Avenue Driveway (No Barrier) Lmax Homes To East 74.8* 62.2* Refrigerator Unit L50 Homes To East 61.2* 47.5* Trash Compactor Lmax Homes To East 61.1 49.1 Trash Compactor (Target) L50 Homes To East 41.9 29.9 Trash Compactor (Typical) L50 Homes To East 48.9 35.7 Gardea Centi:+` a? iveiy Tfuck UmAx Homes 1b 140cth 72.14 t Exceeds Daytime & Nighttime Noise Standard • aceeds Nighttime No4a Standard (Note) The Garden Center at Target is non -operational. The original study (12/23/99) indicates the anticipated parking lot noise impact during daytime conditions to the adjacent residential units. The highlighted segment indicates the - impact to residential units to the northeast during daytime (7AM — 11 PM) hours as shown in Figure 4. Figure 4 Table S Parking Lot Noise Levels Noise Level (dBA) Metric Receiver Outdoor Indoor Lmax Mottles To East (AA 51.2 L50 Homes To East 52.8*° 39A I,.Imix Iir,3r=,`o.'Nilnit :'�. r 501.1111_ f Exceeds Daytime & Nighttime Noise Standard Exceeds Nighttime Noisc Standard (Note) The 68.7 dBA Lmax does not exceed both the daytime and the nighttime Lmax exterior standard set forth by the City of Costa Mesa's noise ordinance. The 51.6 dBA L50 does not exceed the daytime exterior standard. RK: mnlRK9244. do c JN: 1611-207 1 -01 Mr. John Warren PACIFIC LAND SERVICES, INC. December 6, 2011 Page 4 4. The original study (12/23/99) indicates that it is reasonable to assume that nighttime (11 PM — 7AM) parking lot activity will be at most half the peak hour. As a result, the noise level will decrease by 3 dBA; therefore, the 51.6 dBA L50 will decrease by 3 and will be 48.6 dBA L50. The parking lot noise level will not exceed the nighttime exterior noise standard. The highlighted segment indicates the statement within the original report as illustrated in Figure 5. Figure 5 Mestre Greve Aasoclates Target GMUSAds Costa Mesa Pago 13 Table 5 shows that the only rtois_,� ordina= t =t*mcs due to the parking lot activities is lht, outdoor nighttime L50 noise standard. However, the L50 noise levels calculated aze for peak hour activity. This will definitely occur during the daytitr hours (7 a.m. to 11 p.m.). The Target Stott will be open from 8 a.rh. to 10 p.m. The hours of operation for the other tenants its not currently known. It is ma4onable. to min- that nighttl parking lot activity will be at most half of the peak hour. AL d: _ adiv_rir -'evel die tnwizf LPY:CaI will to 3 Q loiv= This i'a below t'[v nightti ne qz oise skand&rd. Conclusion Based upon a review of the data and information contained in the original Mestre Greve Noise Study, it is not anticipated that the Target Store operations will exceed the City's Noise Ordinance Standards during nighttime (after 11:00 PM) conditions: Therefore, a change in store hours, during late November to the end of December from 11:00 PM to 12-midnight, is not projected to exceed the City's Noise Standards based upon the original noise study. RK is pleased to provide you with this noise review, if you have any questions regarding this letter or would like further review, please don't hesitate to contact us at (949) 474-0809. Sincerely, RK ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. Mike Dickerson, INCE Air/Noise Specialist RK: mn1RK9244. doc JN: 1611-2011-01 QApFESS� Ri kqy� CO a N.0.20285LU � r Exp.09/3o/tO * * obert Kahn �I Cl Vlu o���P Principal Op CA1, 37 Prepared For: PERKOWITZT 19 i W. Ocean Boulevard? Fluor 21 ong Reach, CA 90802 Submitted By: MESTIREGREVEAssocIATES 280 NewpoTt Center Drive suite.230 Newpod Beach, Ck 92660 949®960®0891 Fax MqW,-1925 December 23, 1999 Repout##99-193d Table Of Contents 1.0 Project Description........................................................................61 2:0 Background Information on Noise...................,,.............................1. 2.1 Noise Crrteda".Background........:............ .,...,...... ..,............. 1 .2;2 NoiseAssessrlent Metrics.. .., ••••.•••.•••••••• .2 2:3 .Noise Crifi9da'.... ... .......... .. .. . • . ,4 9 .3.1.EXi6ting:Norse-Measurements...,,:.,.. 4. 0 Potential Nois.q Impacts:. .....: .;,... ....:.7 41 Temporary Impacts ... :.7 4:2 Long Terrrt Off=Ste lrripacts 8 5 0 Mitigation Measures....... .................... ...................... ...............13 5.1 Temporary Impacts.......... ............... .................. .................... .... 13 5.2 fit=Site Impacts .............................................. 13 5 3 Iirmpacis After IVlitigation, .,.. .,. ..... ....•....... ..., . 15 APPENDIX.........................:.....,...,......................,...........I...... ,...,... ...1 G Mestre Greve Associates Target Greatlandls Costa Mesa Page 1 1 i3O: Pro jecfi Description The projecuc;tills: for the demolition': of 'the exisfing f 6dco store and: the: construction of a Target Greatlands. store with -a garden center along with another major retail. (possibly a grocery .store) and several other smaller shops. The. project 'is located near the corner of Harbor Boulevard and Baker Street in the City of. Costa. Mesa. There are residential land uses located directly adjacent to the northern boundary of the project site and across College Avenue to the east. The purpose of this study is to assess the noise impacts from the activities on the project site on the near by residences. The project calls for the of a 8' screen wall.that.run's along the northern boundary of the project. turns south -to the northeast. corner :o,f the. Target; building, The project_.also-calls: for the _construction of an 8' screen wall`near the:easternedge of the• project froii the -southeast of the Target. building. These.walis. are:shown in Exhibit X. For the purposes of this report these walls wereconsidered to be ji is, .barriers; In :orde. r to, be;effective noise barriersi the wail`s must.,:be consttvcted of:standard.masonry or concrete block, or.ar y other;material with''a-Au rface wetght of 3;5 pounds;per squarefoot: No' gaps or.openings:are pertritted. All gaps. are to be sealed; 2.0 Background Information on Noise 2.1 noise Criteria Background Sound is technically described in., tennis of the loudness (amplitude) of'the sound and frequency (pitchy- of. the sound. *The standard;:unit.of measurement.:of the loudness of:sound is'the decibel (dB).. Decibels are'based on the logarithmic scale: The logarithmic scale. compresses .the wide range in sound pressure levels to a more` usable range of numbersin a manner, semi ar to the Richter -'scale used to measure earthquakes: In terms of human'response to -noise, a sound 10 dB higher than another is judged to be .twice as loud; and: 20 dB: higher four times as loud; and. so forth. Everyday sounds normally range from 30 dB (very quiet) to I W dB (very loud). Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to sound, at all frequencies, a special frequency - dependent rating. scale has 'been..devised to relate :noise to human sensitivity. The. A -weighted dect.bel. scale OBA) performs this, compensation by discriminating against. frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity.:of fhe human ear. Community noise levels are. measured in terms of the "A -weighted decibel," abbreviated.. dBA. Exhibit 2 provides examples of various noismand their typical A-weighted.noise: level. Sound levels decrease as a function of idigtance from the'source as a,tesult'of wave divergence, atmospheric absorption and ground attenuation. As the sound wave form travels away from. the source; the goun:d energy is dispersed over a greater area, thereby dispersing the sound power of the wave. Atmospheric.absorption also influences the levels that are received by the observer. The greater the distance traveled, the greater the influence and the resultant fluctuations. The degree of absorption is a function of the frequency of the sound as well as the humidity and temperature of the air. Turbulence and gradients of wind, temperature and humidity also play a significant role in determining the degree of attenuation. Intervening topography can also have a substantial effect on the effective perceived noise levels. -TV EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS OPENING ' ~/ ^ . � | | | i�----,u--z� � . n SCREEN WALL.(P.ROJECT PROPOSED) REP � ' � , .. ' . . ' | ^ . � | | ' | \ | � . n'scREew WALL | ,xnpnsED) NOSE BARRIER/SCREEN WALL HEIGHTS ARE ` .�.�.L L----� � � � - EXHINT BARRIER Locod! SOUND LEVELS AND LOUDNESS OF ILLUSTRATWE NOISES IN WDOOR AND OUMOOR ENVIRONMBM Numbm in Parenthem are the Ae-Scold WeigMed Sound ievWs. for Oxg Nohe Evwt s dBO) SOMA pm� sPUWW '� k�mg.W Aa croft T i s Tm� RYE iY0 SY Thnms = L� ftm A C 0 50 R. Mq : 120 UNCOAWMARY Tuba FasoAkvdt *Toles Of Poww 0-mv 014 Tio L> ® wo P. RKA BoW jFW141 1W MW MTkn=cm Lmo i *1WR.m Too S*ak"T. DC-4 0 HSO 04. 100 d&A ® nTm os Lori! ftows UWCCEV Roo wa b-YA ®10 ". R0q ym m Pf4 qQ. M, oC-* 0 des® R, {fie Pless 90 cWQ 4 TW" as Lined L01A' (0� c® waah ® to R. la" Food muldaa Tam Pf"- AWpkm 11 r®MWR.PM Mazal Tcx, 40 MPH a s0 P. jtq D o0* (451 60 dBW 2 T[mAs a s Loud Dt" Trah 43 AU" a 100 ". H* uemn mibiov SoLy iaq 70 MODERATELY posmvW Cae, 65 AUH 02S R." Lhim Rmwn Muck v4a 70 dRA LOW Ffazv v 0 To R. fvom pavma x" TV•dLWC6 Vaomm Clwnw mp. 40:00 APeI {Y8 aar- dj Cmh Rev 0'b0 PL y63-m G(t am Coa ffiass L! to0>a. lacq roc ® Ili R. (A ® T* R. ► 4odWAV2wt=A so L Yaaceslmmgs 0100 F4.1 60 V4 as used 40 L L LMmn Ambl*W Smu 4i� AO d j V ®as laud 20 iisr Axxmf L of ►Aa�10 soura� R sw*ftna k c. &ana, and R. Do" Babond, 'Ovtdow PPama m ft &U*%o► w ewbown"o' Dv4i0hW by"CRY oP Lw RrVoloa, 19Y0, p.2_ 1 - Nte:trer 6�e�re.�ochte IIT A-Ween I Eo Noisy L 1. is 19- I Mestre G.revc Associa4es Target Geeatlan is Costa' Mesa Page 2 Noise has been defined .as unwanted sound .and it is known to have severaladverse .effects on people. from these .known effects of noise, criteria have been established to help protect the public health and safety and prevent disruption of certain'human activities. This criteria is based.. on such known impacts of noise on people as hearing loss, .speech interference, sleep., interference, physiological responses and annoyance. Each of these potential noise impacts on. people are briefly discussed in the following narratives: HEARING LOSS is not a concern in community noise situations of this type The. potential for noise induced hearing loss is more commonly associated with occupational;. noise .exposures tn--heavy-industry, r- very noisy work environments Noise levels in. neighborhoods, even in very, noisy airport, env rons;. is not,, sufficiently loud to. cause; hearing °loss SPEECH INTERFERENCE is one of the primary ;concerns in environmental noise problems. Normal conversational speech is in the range of 60 to 65 dBA and any noise in - this range or.louder..may interfere with speech. There are,specific. methods.:of describing speech interference as. a: .function of distance between speaker and listener and voice. level. 'SLEEP INTERFERENCE. is a major noise concem. for traffic noise., .Sleep disturbance studies.: have ;identified interior noise ,levels that. have the .potential to, cause sleep disturbance. Note that..sieep di turbance does not necessarily mean awakening from Sleep, but. can refer.to.altering;the.pattern and stages of sleep. PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSES are those measurable, effects of .noise on people: that are realized as changes in pulse rate, blood pressure,, etc. 'While .such effects can be induced and observed, the extent is not known to which these physiological responses cause harm. or are sign of harm. - ANNOYANCE is the most difficult of all noise responses to describe. Annoyance is, a: very individual characteristic and can vary widely„ from person to person What one ;;person constders tolerable;can be quite unbearable to another "of equal hearing capability.. 2.2 N;oise Assessment Meirics; The description, analysis and re in community,noise level around,;cot#imuni'ti.es:'is:rnade difficult by the complexity of human response to noise and, myriad ofnotse metrres.that'have been developed for describing noise, impacts. Each, of these met;rics.attempts- to quantify noise levels with respect to community response. Most of the metrics use the A -Weighted noise level to quantify. noise impacts on humans. A -Weighting is a frequency weighting that accounts for human sensitivity to different frequencies. Noise metrics can be divided into two categories: single event and cumulative: Single -event metrics,describe the noise levels.frorn. an individual event .such as an aircraft fly over or.perhaps. a, heavy equipment pass -by. Cumulative .metrics average, the total noise over a specific time 0 Mestre'Greve Associates Target Greatlandls Costa Mesa Page 3 pe, riod,.,which is typically I or 24-hours: for community noise prohlems. For this, type of analysis, cumulative noise.tnetrics will be :used. Several rating�scales .have been developedfor measurement of communi y noise. These account for:' :(1') the parameters of noise that have. been.ahown to contribute to the effects of "noise of tn�an; (2), the vanety .of noises found iri the environment; (3} the vanations in noise Ieveis that occty'.as`a person moves ihroughAe environment; and (4) the variations associatedwith the'time of day. They are designed to account for the known health .effects of noise .on people described previously..'Based on theseeffects, the observation has been made that the potential for a noise to impact people is dependent on the total acoustical energy content of the�noise. A"number of noise scales have been .developed to account for this observation. Two of the predominate --noise scales ait the Equivalent Noise Level (LEQ) -and the .Community' Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). These scales: are described in the following paragraphs. LEQ is the sound level corresponding to a steady-state sound level containing the same total energy as- a time varying sLgnal over a given sample period LEQ is the "energy" 7. average.noise aevel. dunng'the time period of'the sample LEQ can be measured:..€.or any f me period, but is typically measured for' I hour This 1 hour noise level can' also lie referred;to:as:the;:HourlyNois -.1 evI3NL): It;7s.:tlie.energy.-sum of:�allethe:events and. liackgiound noise.levels.that occur during.;tliat.time,period;. CNEI , 'Conununi y Noise Equivalent Del' is th'e predom tianf'rating scale, now in use. . in'daliforri a for landse.compatitaility assessment:'The CNEL scale .represents a time weighted 24=hour average noiselevel based on the A-weighted'decibel; Time weighted refers to the fact that noise ihat•occurs during certain sensitive -.time periods is penalized for occurring at :these times. The .evening time period (7 p.m. to 19 p.m.) penalizes noises by S dBA, while nighttitne(10 p::m. to�7 a.rn:) noises. are penalized by'° 10 "A. These dime periods and penalties were selected to reflect people's increased se le to noise during these`time periods. A CNEL no se'level maybe reported "as "CNEL of 60 OA;" "'60 dBA CNEL," .or simply "60 CNEL."Typical noise levels in terms of the.CNEL scale for different types of; communities.are presented in Exhibit 3:. Ldn, the day -night scale is similar to the CNEL scale except that.evening noises are not penalized. It is a measure of the overall noise experienced during an entire day. The time - weighted refers to the fact that noise that occurs during certain. sensitive time,periods is penalized for occurring -at these times. In the. Ldn scale; :those noise levels that occur during the night (1.0 pro to 7 -am) are penalized by 10 dB. This penalty was selected to attempt to account for increased"human sensitivity to. noise.ducingthe,quieter period.of a Ay, where home ande;sleep. is the most:probablactivity. L(°lo}, is a statist c'aI method of describing noise ,wh'ich :accounts for variance,in.:nnoise levels throughout a given measurernent period, L(%.) Is -a way .of `e cpressFng'a[ e noise level exceeded for a°percentage: of time in a given measurement period. For example §ince 5 minutes is 25%:of 20 minutes, L(25) is the noise"level that 'is equal to or exceeded for five minutes in a" twenty minute measurement period. It is L(%) that is used for most noise ordinance standards. For example most daytime city, state and county noise 0 EL OutdoorLocA�:',on a: 3/4 We From Toudulmn 0 Major AJrpcw,, us. & e Rowdim A06my NTPO:t at modmg wvh=oxw of wwatmg and icNve —is TYP . r( Mestte.Gt6vo Associates Target Greatlands Costa mesa, Page 4 ordinances. use an -ordinance standard of 55 dBA for 30 minutes per hour or an L(50) level of 55 dBA. In''other.'words; the n'o: isie t:ordinance states' that no noise level should exceed 55 dBA for spore: that fifty percent- of -a given period. 2.3 Noise Criteria 2.3.1 City of Costs Mesa The Costa Mesa. Noise Ordinance (Chapter XIII Noise Control -'Sections 13-277 to 13-287.), establishesexterior 'and ifif6tiot' 'noise standard's thiat protect areas that are zoned residential Table I presents the City of--Cost.a:.Mesa's-.-,Noi-seOrdinanc,e standards. The noise ordinance is designed to -control unnecessary, . excessive and annoying sounds from statio nary (non- transportation):sources such asthosenoise,sources from parking 1ots',loading docks,; etc., at the residential property line. The noise ordinance requirements can- not be, applied to mobile noise sources such as heav-y.,.ttucks .Wh ii& on -public road*Ays,., ControLuf the mobile noise sources.oapWicireads is.pre.empted -byfederal- and. State laws;,. ComintinitY hoigeleVels are measured in terms. of the "Awdig*d'decibeI," abbreviated` dBA. A corm'Tion,m6thodof characterizing .noise levels from industrial sources is with the "percent noise I' I" or. L%. The. -got se eve. ..cscribes, the noise level which is exceeded during a eve .9 certain I percentage Of the Measurement period, For example, according to the City of Cost.a.'Mesa. Noise Ordinance, the L50 : noise level represents the noise standard for a cumulativeperiod of more than thirty (30) -minutes in.any hour, or the L50 is the noise level exceeded more than -50 percent of the time and represents -the: average 'noise level. Similarly, the L25 noise level represents noise standard for. a cumulative period of more than fifteen (15) minutes in. anyhour. The L25 is the noise level- exceeded snore than 25 percent. of the time, and so forth. The City of Costa Mesa establishes exterior and interior noi'se.%,critdniafor non4ransportatioti felateft6ist which impacts adjacent pr operties. Tqperties, This-criteria.s,giv-nin terms of average L50 YP nose te-veN at the property �oundary..Greater :noise levels ,are -pefthitteddunn t4 day-(7 a.m. the. I p. t 7 a ),-asc.oxqaredAo _n. ght time. pen .1 m. Q, ari. 41 Mestre.Greve Associates Target Greatlands Costa Mesa Page 5 �nblo � CITY OF COSTA MESA NOISE ORDINANCE STANDARDS RESIDENTIAL ZONE MAXIMUM TIME NOISE NOISE LEVEL NOT TO BE EXCEEDED OF EXPOSURE METRIC 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. I I p.m. to 7 a.m. (daytime) (nighttime) EXTERIOR NOISE STANDARDS: 30 Minutes/Hour L50 15 Minutes/Hour L25 5 Minutes/Hour L8.3 1 Minute/Hour LI.7 Any period of time Lmax The Costa Mesa NOW Ordinance states that>tlie daytime noise level for a stationary. noise source rimeasured..at,a wotttdooc area of a iFesiden". al property cannotexceed 75'dBA ever.; 70:dBA-for more'than 1 minute of any hour, 65'49A. for more`than 5' minutes of any, hour,..60 dBA for more than 15 minutes of any hour, or 55 dBA for more than 30 minutes of any hour. The nighttime noise levels must be penalized by 5 :dB .to reflect the increased sensitivity to noiseoccurring. during this time period. The noise ordinance also states that the noise level for a stationary source measured at an indoor area of a residential property cannot. exceed 65 dBA ever, 60 dBA for more than I minute of any hour, and 55 dBA for more than 5 minutes of any hour.: The nighttime noise levels must be penalized by 10 dB for the indoor noise standards. In the: event that the ambient noise level exceeds .,any of the noise limit. categories, the cumulative .period applicable to that category shall be increased to reflect the ambient noise level.. The City Noise Ordinance is important because, it provides noise, levels which -are deemed to.be acceptable in. residential. areas. The Noise Ordinance is designed to control unnecessary, excessive and annoying sounds generated from .a stationary source impacting an adjacent property,, The nearest .existing.residentialAreas.w:ill. be directly adjacent tothe project's eastern and northern boundaries. Al Mestre Greve Assmclates Target Greatlands Costa Mesa Page 6 3.0 Existing Setting 3.1 Existing Noise Measurement To. determinethe existing noise environment at the proposed project ,site,, a�iibient; noise measurements:wem.niade on August:27, 1.9..9.9 between 4 00 p.m. and. ,6,30 p m..at •char locations at the perimeferof [he;pibposed.ptojectsite near.,exist%ng residentlal.areas. The;locatiins:of the noise measurement sitmare'shown- in E. ii it 1. . •The measurements weremade with a B iel & Kjaer Modular Precision Sound Level Meter, Type 22M. The systems were calibrated before and after each measurement series with calibration traceable to the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The wind speeds -during the time of measurements were light (0 to 5 miles per hour).. Fifteen. minute measurements -were- made .at each of the four measurement sites, Measurement Site 1 was set approximately 200 feetin from Harbor Boulevard along the project's northern boundary, Measurement Site 2 was located approximately :120 feet in from the eastern property line near 4he project's northern boundary. Measurement Sites 3 and 4 were located across College. Avenue.. Site 3 was located near the center of the project site. Site 4 was located approximately, 300 feet north .of Baker'. Street, Currently, there is an existing :masonry wall approximately 6feet high along the northern boundary of the project. There is also; a,masonry. wall on the projects eastern boundary along'College Avenue. There are. some breaks in this. wall for traffic ingress .and egress.. All of the homes to the north of the project site and to the east Along. ollege Avenue are single story, homes, The. noise. measurement results are given in Table 2. Tlze.measurernent results;• p presentedan terms.,of the;equivalen# noise levels:.(Leq),; max mum not a le`vels,;:minimum nose;aevels;:atrd,percentle noise levels (L%). The LSo percentile level If or example; represents the=noise:Tevels exceeded 50 percent of the. time, aitd usually re "wsei t, the ayerage ambient noise level. :The-L9.Q--noise= levels. represent- the .background noise levels `which tare exceeded 90, percerit :of the hnxe Table 2 Existing Noise Measurements Site Start Time Leg Lmax L2 L8 L25 L50 L90 Lmin 1 4` 19 p.m. 61.9 74.2 68.5 64.5 62.0 60.5 54.0 49.7 2 4:41 p.m. 51.8 67.3 58.0 55.0 510 49.5 _ 46.5 45.0 _ 3 5t23 p.m. 62.1 82.9 70.0 65.0 58.0 53.0 51.0 49.7 4 5:41 p.m. 58.4 73.1 ' 66.5 62.5 56,5 53.5 ' 5:1.5 49.31 The noise environment at,Site 'l is determined by traffic noise' on Harbor Boulevard: The noise environment at.the other sites is primarily determined by traffic noise on College Avenue and distant. traffic noise on Baker and. Harbor, To some extent light activity in -the Fedco parking lot contributed to the Boise levels at Sites 1 and 2. A semi -trailer truck was parked in the Fedco parking lot, idling, during the measurements at Sites 3 and 4. This affected the background L90 Mestre Greve Associates Target Greatlands3 Costa Mesa (Page 7 and Lmin noise levels. A few general aviation aircraft and a helwopter flew over:the-project area j during the noise measurements. The maximum noise level during the measurement at Site 1' was due to a truck in the Fedco parking lot passing, at low speed, as close as 30 feet from the measurement site. At Site 2 the maximum was due to a forklift in the Fedco parking lot. The maximum noise level during the measurement at Site 3 was due to a loud motorcycle on .College Avenue. At Site 4 the maximum noise level was due to a car on College Avenue. 4.0 Potential Noise Impacts, Potential noise impacts are` comrnonly= divided` into `two groups; temporary aft d long term. Temporary -impacts are usually associated. with rtoise;ge*ierated by construction aetivttaes. )Jong term- impacts are those .associated,with the operation of the project. 4.1 'Temporary Impacts 4.1.1 Construction Noise Construction noise represents a short term impact on ambient noise levels: Noise generated by construction equipment, including trucks, graders, bulldozers, concrete mixers and portable generators can reach high levels. Worst case examples of construction noise at:50 feet;.are-presented in Exhibit 4. The equipment directly involved in the excavation of the site as well as the trucks used to haul the dirt from the site could produce high noise levels. According to the information presented in Exhibit 4, the peak no level for most of the equipment that will be used. during the construction is 70 to 95 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. At 70 feet, construction noise may range between 67 and 92.dBA. At 100 feet, the construction noise levels may range from 64 to 89 dBA, or less. Note that these noise levels are based upon worst case conditions. Typically noise levels on the site will be less. Grading activities present .the highest:,potential for noise. impacts, For .short periods :of -time grading equipment.could operate directly adjacent to the homes along the northern property line and generate significant noise levels at these homes. However nuch,of the grading will take place away from. the:edges of the project_site, The nearest existing rear yards. could be located as close as 80 feet from'the potential building construction. At this distance;ahe construction noise levels may range from 66 to 91 dBA. The noise levels generated by construction considered to be. substantial. Mitigation measures for construction are recommended in Section 5.1 and include installation of the permanent solid noise wall along the northern property line. The noise impacts mentioned in the previous paragraphs are significantly loud and would represent short-term noise impact. It is not possible at this time to determine the exact length of time that will be needed to excavate and grade the si :� but construction activities may last several months. 4q Mestre:Gteve Associate= Tar9et Greatlands Costa Mesa Page 8 4.2 Long Term OfP=$te Impacts The proposed project will produce noise from delivery trucks, loading docks, and. trash compactors associated with operations at Target and the other -major retail, store. Of these noise sources,, the loudest tioise events associated with delivery` truck- operations 4aidfrom truck. accelerating or"decelera tin'g;'or, truck brake' squeal. Due to the short=term nature of these noise events, compliance. with the L:max_cntena is the most stringent: Therefore a maximum (Lmaz) no level 'standard, such as`that:used,`in the City of Costa Mesa Noise Ordinance, s'the most relevant and.suitable criteria for determining loading truck noise impacts. Additionally, some of the delivery trucks for the may refrigerated trucks. The operation of -'the refrigeration_ unit that cools the trailerbf the truck will be- the most critical noisezevent if it is left running while at the loading dock -area. Although the maximum_ noise levels due to refrigeration units are less than the noise levels associated with truck drive-bys;. the operation of these refrigeration units may continue .for a longer duration. • Each refrigerated delivery truck operation at_ the ;grocery store loading: docks, m. ay:exceed 30 nunutes. Therefore, :the noise :ordinance standard that would be most approprirefriger ate to apply to'these Oat' truck: operations that are. idling at.th'e I'oading:docks isahe L501et+e1: A11delvery'triiek"s except garden center. delivery will be' using the designated iuck del'very.:and . loading eomdorthat runs along fhe.:eastern perimeter of`the projeerste. '.Garden center delivery trucks` , ill :be smaller (Le,. notserni=trailers) panel trucks. These trucks will. enter the site from Harbor Boulevard riear the northern boundary of `the site and'travel directly to the garden center. FPor daytime hours<between 7`a.rrm: and 1 h p.m:, delivery -truck noise; -will be subject to the exterior Lmax liniit of 75 -dBA`atthe.:iieafest residential outdoor areas and`the interior Lrnax.limitof 65 dBA::at the nearest.residential°•mdoor.,area.. For nighttime- hours between 11 °p.m: and 7 a in , del%:�er' 'truck tidise will be subject to the, exterior Lmax limit of 70 dl3A at -;the nearest residential outdoor area and will also be subject to the'interior.Lmax limit -of 55-dBAtatthe nearest residential indoor areas. 10 Mestre Greve Associates Target Greatlands Costa Mesa Page 9 4.2.1. Delivery TrucklLoading Dock Noise Noise Daita Noise rrieasurements;have. been previously conducted by, ]k6stre Greve`Associates at 'the Knott's Berry.Farm:food processing plant loading dock. Truck noise was measured for approximately 40 trucks.as they entered.and left the:site IA maximum: noise level was noted for each arrival and departure..Noise measurements were also made of the loading and .urilIoading operations and the forklifts.. These -:measurements' confirmed that the truck arrival and departures were in fact the noise source.of most concern. That is, the noise levels associated with the truck accelerate -or decelerate or truck braking:.during arrival -and departure are the loudest:. The measurement data indicated :that the majority of truck pass-bys:have a maximum. sound levelin the range of 65 to. 75 dBA '(at.70 feet). The oudest truck:: measured was approximately 82 dBA at• 70 feet: 'The average;of the::data•was69 dBA at 70 feetwith.-a standard deviation of4S The California Motor Vehicle: Code establishes :maximum sound levels for trucks operating at speeds Tess than 35 miles per: hour :(Section. 23130): The maximum sound level established by the code is 86 dBA at 50 feet which translates to 83i dBA at 70 feet. None of the trucks measured exceeded this level. However, the loudest truck measured was very close to this limit. If a statistical normal distribution curve is fitted to the data obtained, :the frequency that trucks will exceed: certain noise limits can be predicted. :For: example, based on the data collected 1 out of every. 125 trucks thatwould use the :facility would ,be expected to exceed the motor vehiclecode standard:., Target pralects; between 6 . and.14 -large seirix trader '.tivck"deliveries per° week: ito: the store: Between S and.9 of.these will:be;from.the:Target distribudon center'and grouped 2 or'3.at a tune; There are projected tO 8 to`>l0 nedium thick and v'an deliveries'perday. A11 Target deliveries will occur,dunng:dayt me hours.. The Target store receiving dock"hours for vend©rs and local. carriers are from 8 a.m. to 12 noon: Information from 'previous, studies indicates that a grocery store can receive; between-6 to 9 semi -truck trailers per day and approximately 18 medium truck deliveries. Some of -deliveries may occur during: nighttime hours. ItAsl estimated that a maximwlm average 40 truck trips per day may be expected to service the Target and :other major retail store:.:The total estimated number of trucks is a.combination:. of medium. trucks and: heavy trucks, While an, increased number of truck trips does not necessarily meanthatthe'..trucks will. be louder-, it does increase the likelihood of a uniquely loud truck event to occur. It should be noted that.statistieally,=there is no noise level that would.not.eventually be exceeded given .a sufficient number of truck'pass-bys. Therefore; for design purposes, it was assumed that one exceedence.every other day was a reasonable design criterion. Based on the estimate of 40 truck trips per day, this means that 1 out of every 80 truck events may exceed the design noise level. In the case of this project; the nighttime indoor noise standard presents the most stringent noise levels the delivery trucks can produce. It is expected that most of the truck deliveries will. be during the day. If the loudest truck of the 80 occurs during the day it will likely hot .exceed the standard. Therefore, we would expect fewer than one exceedence every other day. .Remember that we are looking at a Lmax noise level. Typically this noise level would be reached for only a very:short period of time: 6� Mestre Greve,Assoctates Target Gresilands Costs Mean P ; . ,. . Page 10 Utilizing the noise measured data from. Knott's Berry Farm food processing plant, it was found that the deign Lmax noise level that meets the design criteria just mentioned'is an Lmax of 80:2 dBA. at70feet. Additionally., the refrigerated trucks will typically generate an .average L50 noise level of approximately 73.7 dBA at 40 feet or 6.8.8 dBA at 70 feet, .based on a noise measurement survey conducted: by Mestre Oreve Associates: (The noise measurements were taken from the'noise study, titled,. "Noise Ordinance, Assessment for the Servicecraft Corporation Warehouse Modification", October,-1993).:. As.. mentioned earlier;: the Lmax 'noise levels due; to the refrigeration. un ts-on,refrigerated. trucks. are much :less than .the Lmax:noise levels.due to truck drive bys: Another-potential=noise source atthe. loading dock area are the trash, compactors. There will be two trash compactors located in the :loading dock.area. One serving Target and the' other. serving the major retail store. Target information .states that their trash compactors produce noise levels below 50' dB,A at a,,distance of I0:0 feet ..Weasurements :made,, previously by Mestre Greve Associates have shown that;irash grgpadtors.typically operate at a:noise level of approximately 5;7 dBA.at 10040et v�tith'maximums:.up.to 64.2.dBA at 100 feet: Project Generated Noise,Ledels Table;3 shovvsahe projecied,noise:levels from del verytruck/loading dock,operationsat the most impacted residences. The nearest:property: line. of the homes to. the .east is located approximately 120 feet from the loading dock area. The nearest home is located 130 feet from the loading dock area. The project. calls for an. 8 foot high wall between the loading dock and College Avenue. This noise barrier was accounted ;for in the calculations. Exhibit 1 shows the path.that the trucks: will take from Baker Street to the loading dock. There will be aheight restriction bar, to restrict the trucks from using the -driveway at College Avenue wenter and_exit,the project site. However, this driveway will preclude construction of a noise barner:completely between the truck path and College Avenue: The landscaped,peninsula at`the driveway and -.tfie parking spaces will restrict the.trucks from traveling .c oser than 130 feet from the property line& of the res dence.s.located across College Avenue and.140 from the structure's.. The second row of Table 3 shows the patent al;maximum noise levels generated -by the:trucks at the residences- ...located across College Avenue where there .is,:qq.. bamer:at: the driveway along College Sareet.. The nearest. property iine.of homes,to.the;north is Iocated:approximate] y..40 feet from the route the garden center delivery .trucks. will: travel. The nearest home i's located approximately 60 feet from the.route. The elevation of the rear yards and building pads are approximately 2 feet lower than the parking lot elevation. The project calls for the construction of a 8 foot high wall along the northern boundary of the project: This noise barrier was accounted for in the calculations, Mestre"Greve Assoclates Target"'Greatlan0s Costa Mesa: page 11. Table 3 Delivery Truck/1_oadinq Dock N Source Delivery Truck Near Loading Dock (Includes 8" Barrier) Delivery Trick Near Turn/College Avenue Driveway (No Barrier) Refrigerator Unit Trash Compactor Trash Compactor (Target) Trash. Compactor (Typical) Garden Center Delivery Truck f Exceeds Daytime &,Nighttime Noli * Exceeds Nighttime Noise Standard DOW Metric Receiver' Lmax Homes To East Lmax Homes To East Noise Level W BA) Outdoor Indoor 70.1* 57.5* 74.8* 62.2* L50 Homes To East 61.2* Lmax Homes To East 61.1. L50 Homes To East 419 L50 Homes To East _ 48:9 Lmax Homes To North-; " 72.3 * 47.5* 49.1 29.9 35.7 60.1*- " Table 3 shows that 'the:.nighttime outdoor. and indoor Lmax noise standards will be exceeded at the: homes ;to the east due to the delivery tricks: Continued operation of the refrigerator units will result in e'xceedences" ofthe nighttime':.'outdoor L50 and''iridoor'L8 3'standiids. °Nlitigati"ori will be required for these exceedences and is prescribed in °the mitigation section 5.2. TWO also shows; that, the'niehtt ine'outdoor and indoor Lmax noise standards will be-txceeded. 'at the kornes along. the northern project boundary. However; these delivery trucks; will not operate `dunng,the ni'ghtt me hours. (l l pin to 7 a m }; Restriction of nighttime trucks along the northei boundary of therproject should is called for'hi the mitigation measui."es,. CNEL Noise Levels Associated with Delivery Truck Traffic Although the Noise Ordinance is the controlling document, some communities also like to look at noise impacts in terms of the CNEL noise scale. The noise levels in terms of the CNEL.scale due to the truck traffic on the site will be very low. Analysis indicates that the truck noise levels at the residential areas to the north will be approximately 56 dBA CNEL with no barriers. This level will be lower with the required sound walls given in the mitigation section: The noise levels in terms of the 24-hour CNEL scale atthis distance will be very low. 4.2.2 Parking Lot Activities Noise [fiats. Traffic: associated with parki"'n "fots :i not o,f suffi.cient volume to exceed community, noise standards that are "based on a time averaged scale such as the. CNEL scale. However, the instantaneous maximum sound levels generated by car door slamming, engine start-up, and car pass=bys can be annoying to nearby residents. Tire squeal may also be a problem depending on the type of parking surface. Estimates of the maximum noise levels associated with some parking tot activities are presented below and are based on limited measurements .conducted by Mestre Greve Associates (Table 4). The noise levels presented are fora distance; of 50 feet from the source, and are the maximum noise level generated. A range is given to reflect the variability of noise generated by various automobile types and driving styles. 56 Mestre Greve Associates Target Greatlands Costa Mesa Page'12 Table 4 MAXIMUM NOISE LEVELS GENERATED BY PARKING LOTS (dBA at 50 feet) .EveutY' Lmaz.: . .Door slam :60; to 70 Car..Alarm- Activa 6b. 65 :[a: 70- Engine Start-up. _ to 70 . Car pass -by- -55 to 70 Measurements indicate that :vehicles have .average SEL's (Single Event bevel.) of 69.1 dB`A entering a parking space`70.3 dBA exiting a parking space at a distance -of 50' The SEL is a measure of the total energy of an event. Using the SEL level and the number of events during a period of time the average noise .level (Leq) can be calculated for that time period. :In typical community noise environments, the Leq noise level is greater than the L50 noise level. Target estimates that during the peak- hour 990 vehicles will enter and exit their parking. Iot. If we: assume that one half of these vehicles (i.e. 445) travel in the parkinglot near the northern boundary the. resulting:.Leq.noise level would be 63.0 dBA..at 50 feet. If'we assumej that one quarter of the.,total .peak hour vehicles (i.e. 223) travel near the eastern border of the project the Leq.noise level would,be 60:..Q BA:at.:50.feet:. These levels.will,be used as;the basis.'to calculate the L50'noise..levels'-from p'arking;lot activities.. Pr je t`066 tated NoiseLevels Tahle shows the projected worst case- Oise levels at..,the residences .to the north .and to: the, east of the project site, The.neare_st: property line.of the -..homes; to the;east is:located approximately 95 feet from nearest parking spaces and 115. feet from areas of s gnificantTar"k ng.lot activity: The nearest home is located approzirr ately 20 feet farther: As''there "is'no noise bainer" along a portion of:the easternboundary, noise reduction from, a;barrier was not considered. The.nearest property: line of the homes to the north is located approximately, 5..feet from -:the nearest parking spaces and 25 feet from the areas: of significantparking lot: activity: The nearest building is located approximately 20 feet further.- The.elevationof, rear yards and building pads are approxirhately 2 feet:lower than the. -:parking I — The project includes the construction of a 10- foot screen wall along the. northern boundary: The calculations.include the effect of this barrier. Table 5 Parking Lot Noise Levels Noise Level (dBA) Metric Receiver Outdoor Indoor Lmax Homes To East 64.4 51.2 L50 Homes To East 52.8* 39.4 Lmax Homes To North 68.7 50.8 L5Q Homes To:North '51:6* 39.3. t Ex'ceeds Da:ytizne_&Nighttime Noise Standard. * Exceeds Nighttime Noise. Standard Mestre Greve Associates Target Greatlarids Costa Mesa Page 93 Table 5 shows that the only noise -ordinance exceedences due to the parking lot activities is the outdoor nighttime L50 noise standard. However, thel L50 noise levels calculated' are for peak hour activity. This will definitely occur during the daytime hours ,(7 a.m, to 11 p.m.).. The Target Store will be open from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. The hours of operation for the other tenants is not currently known. It is reasonable to assume that nighttime parking lot activity will be at most half of the peak hour. At this activity level the noise level will be 3 dB lower. This is below the nighttime noise standard. 5.0 Mitigation Measures 5.1 Temporary Impact is section of the:report deals;with possible methods.of miinirmzing1he impac T}it of d6nstruction ;noise upon the; nearby residential areas: IN to,the preliminary stage::of,the project, it is unknown exactly whatproceduresswiltbe,used.in the projedf s coristniction. For, this reason, the exact noise impact upon the nearby reside is is:also unknown. The potential .construction noise impacts on the nearby residents may be noticeable. Therefore, construction noise mitigation measures are recommended for this- project.. Several mitigation methods are recommended for this project and described below: Local Control of Construction Hours The most effective method of controlling construction noise. is through local control of: construction hours. The City of Costa Mesa has adopted noise ordinances that limit construction .activities hours to between 7 a.m. and 8 p.m. Truck Routes Truck routes in general should be steered away from, residential, areas. StockPiling Areas -should be located'.as far from the residents as possible The stocking of construction materials such ;as steel girder, aoading/u;nloading trucks and moving equipment such -as mobile cranes, can create high noise levels. This is not, intended to. apply 'to,temporary;piles of the:materials that will be used upin a,short period of time (i.e. less than 2_weeks). Stock piling. area, for this. project may not be necessary., however if necessary, the stock piling, area shouldbelocated.as far, as possible frown the: existing homes. 5.2 Off -Site Impacts Mitigation measures are required to ensure that noise levels are mitigated, to be in compliance with the noise ordinance standards. The required mitigation measures are described. below. Eastern and Northern Perimeter Wall — The project proposed 8 foot screen wall along the northern and eastern boundary will be adequate to reduce noise levels to below the daytime noise ordinance standards. The project propose 8 foot screen wall along* the eastern .boarder near the loading dock will not be adequate to reduce delivery truck maximum noise levels below the daytime and nighttime, noise ordinance standards. 55 Mestre Grebe A'ssoeMtes -, Tage! Greathnda Carta Mesa, Page 14 If nighttime deliveries to the loading -dock are a 12art.of the project .the screen wall Exhibit 1, This barrier is.required to reduce the maximum noise levels from the delivery trucks to below. the nighttime noise or standards for. the residences across College Street. However, the noise barrier cannot continue through driveway along. College Street.. This may result in some .nighttime noise.. ordinance exceedences, A noise barrier is. only effective -if it breaks line of: site between the observer and,. the noise. source. Because the wall cannot continue through the driveway, some residences will have. -direct line of -sight to a truck for a portion 'of its route to and from the -loading dock. However; the noise data used in. this study and most stringent criteria for truck operations is the maximum noise level. This typicaay .occurs for only an instant during acceleration or breaking. There is no way to tell where the trucks will be breaking -or accelerating in a way cause a maximum.noise level event while some homes have-direct'line of sitc< to the truck. Therefore; there is a. possibility that the Lrnax noise ordinance will be exceeded;at the homes across from ;the driveway opening:. However, it is difficult. to- predict,. if ezceedences .will acttially occur°or'the potential frequency of exceedences: ;For homes; with no, direct l ne of site to he trucks., outdoor `maximuiri: noise aevels will be.65. 3--dBA`and the'indoor;:maximum noise levels will be'SO.A dBA ,with the• F noise bainar. For homes r ith line. of site to°the trucks the potential outdoor maximum noiselevel will be 748 dBA and the indoor noise level will be 62.2 dBA. Y We,would highly recommendihat height of the eastern screen wall. be l 1' unless there is a great deal of confidence that nighttime deliveries will never be apart of the project. If there are: not to -be any nighttime deliveries the barrier as shown in Exhibit 1 can-be.87 high and the. -,daytime noise ordinance will not be exceeded. At this time, to eliminate potential noise ordinance_ excee'dences, nighttime (i.e. I I p.m. to 7 a.m.) deliveries to the loading dock must be restricts. If at a later date, after construction, nighttime deliveries are desired a noise study could be undertaken to measure actual delivery truck noise levels at the homes across College Street to determine the potential of nighttime noise ordinance exceedences. Nighttime:: deliveries to the Garden Center along the northern boundary must be restricted, .Reduire.Idling,-Trucks. to Turn Engines and Refrigeration Units Off All "non - refrigerated delivery trucks. shall, be required to turn' engines .off and all refrigerated: trucks shall, be require.d7 to turn engines and refrigeration units off while trucks are. waiting in;the delivery route or while loading or unloading in the 5(Q Meats Greve Anoclates Target Creatlanos Costa Mesa Page 15 � Signs nt�� informing delivery.trcks tourn .of aru en fines�andrefgeraCion usforfrigerated ck trucks) when not.in use.. Additionally'recommerided:mitigatibn measures Do not use `speed hump911Ahe:`.tiu access areas. Use signs .to :control truck and.other vehicle. speed. Use signs to limit use of horns and yelling at loading dock. No.pa"ging or radio -system at. the Target garden center or loading dock.. No door bell or audible alert at any doors along the north side ofthe'Target store or in the garden center. • .Doors.and'roll-up doors are to be closed when not in use. Restrict,noise generating maintenance activities such as parking lot sweepers and leaf blowers to non -holiday weekdays between 700 a.m. and 8.:00 p.m. • Wall. materials can: be standard masonry or concrete block; or any other material 'witfi a surface 'weight of 3.5. pounds per?;square foot. No gaps or open%ngs: are peimitted..All;: gaps are; to be sealed.: 53 Impacts After IUlitigation With`the rrutgation measures"giver► above, all applicable noisd:standards will be actueved for the noise sources analyzed. M MacPoint BARRIER PREDICTION WORKSHEET, POINT SOURCE Last Update: 7/1/49 MEj Delivery Trucks Near Loading Dock Lmax oise evel 61 80.2 d8A At 70.0 feet Critical Freq. z 5 0 z To get other noise levels, Source Elevation 8.0 Ft- Put in Distances .Dist,. dBA Noise Level at 56'1 �3,1 160 77.1 150 73.6 L20-0. --L-1 -j To get other distances, Put in'other noise levels. dBA Dist. 75 127 70 20 77 101. 67 3-1 Lot SourceBast Elevation Distance To Wall Base Of Wall QIst.To Pad bbperV46rElovation Observer Height Wall, Height Breaks LOS -B-armle-r- Reduption Noise Level (dBA) Unmitigated 0 5 70 125 0 5 Yes 70.1 0 15 D ' .135 0 5 i8.0 Yes 5.1 69.4 0 30 r1. 50 6 5 8, Yes 0 35 0 155 0 5. ao Yes 5.1 68,:2 Daytime Standard 0 5 0 5 �: 8.0 Yes 5,0` 76.1 Outdoor 0 15 0. 135 0 5 84 Yes 5. 69A i. 75 dBA 0 30 J50 0 5- 8,0 Yes 5.1 6&S 0 35 .6 .0 155 0 5 .8.0 Yes 5.1 68..2 Nighttime Standard 0 5 0. 125 0 5 11.0 Yes 12.-Il 62.8 Outdoor 0 10 '-0 -136 0 5 M01 Yes .10.4. 64A 70 dBA 0 30 :6 -150 0 5 11.0 Yes. 8.3 65.3 0 35 0 155 0 5 11.0 Yes 8.1 65.2 DG 4ime Standard 0 5 .0 135 -0 '5 8.0 Indoor 0 15 0 1.45 0 5 8.6 65 dBA 0 30 0 :160 0 5 8.0 0 35 0 1.65. 0 5 Nighttime Standard 0 5 .0 135 0 5 11,0 Indoor 0 15 0, 445; .6 5 11.0 55 dBA 0 30 0 0 5 11.0 0 35 0 5 11.6 Outdoor to Indoor Noise Reduction 12 Yes 5.0 57.5 Yes 5; 1 56.8 Yes 5.1 55.9 Yes & 1: 55.6' Yes 12.4 50A Yes 9.4 52.5 Yes 8.2 52.6 Yes 8.0 52.8 NlacPoint BARRIER PREDICTION WORKSHE" .O.QINT SOURCE Last Update: 7/1199 MRJ Nrkfng Lot Activity 1104we Lev of -7U-6F-dBA At 50.0 fleet TO gat other noise lees, Si,urce Elevation Y3 Ft Put n Dis nCds t_ Noise Level a �s 50 70.0 50 70.0 210 57.5' To get other di , Put In other noise leis. dBA Ts. 52 397 45 889 40.- 1581'; . Lot ourGe Elevation Distance 7o Wall aS8 Walt (3 . €7 a Observer Elevation server Hsi ltt a Hei ttf Peas LOS amef Reduction t► se eve dBA c mes to o ighyttime Standard 0 5 0 10 -2 5 8.0. Yes 15.3 68.7 Outdoor Lmax 0 1.Q> 0 15 -2 5 8.0 Yes_, 14.3 66.1 dBA 0 20 0 25 -2 5 8 (?_ Yes ' 13.1 E 62.4 .70 4 30 0 35 -2 5 8 0 Yes 13.4 59.I' Standard 0 5_ 0 25 -2 5 8 0 Yes 13.3 50.8 INighttime indoor Lmax u 10 0 30 -2 5 5 8 0 8.0. Yes Yes. 11.7 10.4 50.7 49.6 55 dBA 0 n 20 n .0 h 40 50 -2` . -2 . 5 : 8.6 Yes' . 9.9'° 48.1 Hors to East Nighttime. Standard 0 5 0 95 Outdoor Lmax 0 1.0 p 100 70 dBA 0 20 0 110 0 30 0 120 Nighttime Standard 0 5 0 110 Indoor Lmax 0 10 0 115 55 dBA 0 : 20 0 125 0 30 '0 135 Outdoor to IndoorAA*O Reduction. 12 Q 5._ 0--a NOc 0 0, 64.4 0 5 0.0 No- 0.0 64.0 0. 5 0.0 No 0.0 63.2 Q, 5 0.0 Na O.Q 62.4 0 " 5 0.0 Na .. ..:.. 0 0- 51.2 0 5 0.0 lVo` 04'' 50.8 p y 0-0 No: D O; 50.0 D = 0.0 No 00. ` 49.4 MacPoint BARRIER PREDICTION WORT{SHEET, POINT SOURCE' Last Update; 7/1199 MBJ m Trash Coactor liar et Standard Noise Level of 50.0 At 100.0 feet Critical r z z To get other noise levels, source Elevation 7.0 Ft Put In Distances Est. dBA Oise Level at o 0 50 56.0 50 56.0 210 43.6, To get other distances, Put in other noise levels. ate- Dist. 52 79 45 178 40 316 Lot. ouree asp Elevation Distance To Walt ase Of Wail Dist. To Pa Observer Elevation server Height Wall Height Breaks— LOS arrrer Reduction arse eve dBA Unmitigated 0 50 0 140 f 5 8.0 Yes 5.2 Daytime. Standard Outdoor 0 50 0 1.40 01 5. 8wo Yes 5.2 41.9 `55 dBA Alighttime Standard Outdoor 0 50 0 1-40 0 5 8.0 Yes .5.2 41a 50 dBA Daytime Standard Imoor. 0 50 0 140 Q 5: g;p Yes 5.2 55 daA: .Vinhttime Standard Indoor 0 50 0 140 0 5 8-0- Yes 5.2 299 15,dBA Outdoor to Indoor Noise Reduction 12 M20polni BARRIER PREDICTION WORKSHEET, POINT SOURCE Last Update; 7/1 MBJ Trash qqm+ actor Rennin Level-L50) Noise Level of 8 . At 25 0 feet Critical r z z To get other noise Ievels, ounce E evation t Put in Distances Noise Level at 50*1 si tr — 0 50 63.0 50. , 63.0. 210 50.5 Lot Source tsas► Elevation u►siance To Walt ad=w — Wall„ wa-71. a V . MM Observer Elevation Unmitigated 0 50 0 140 0. Daytime Standard Outdoor 0 50 55 dBA Nighttime Standard i40 0 Outdoor 0 50 0: 50 dBA Daytime Standard y&0 0: Indoor 0 50 p 55 dBA ' Nighttime Standard 160 0 Indoor 0 50 U r 45 dBA Outdoor to indoor Noise Reduction 12 To get other distances, Put in other noise levels. ►st. 52 177' 45 3,96; 40 T05. s5--- a Height I#eight I 5 8.0 5 8.0 5 8.0 5 8.0 5 8.0 -lea S arrfeP odSe ► e7- LOS Reduction dBA Yes 5'2 43-9 Yes 5.2 48.9 Yes . 5.2 46.9 Yes. 5 2." 35. 1✓sas 5 2 .' 35.7 MacPoint BARRIER PREoianoN WORKSHEET, POINT SOURCE Last Update: 7/1M MBJ Trash COm ct®r Lima x Oise Level of 15.2 dBA At 50.0 feet Critical r z z To get other noise levels,., Source Elevation t put its Distances Dist. oise Level at5 0 50 75.2 50 75.2 210 62.7 ource L3 asa sstanee aseOf IFF! E 1 o a Irv' He' ht To get other distances, Put in other noise levels. dBA Dist. 52 723 45 1618 40 2877 Lot Elevation To Wall Wall Observer Elevation [ ,.G. M Unmitigated 0 50 0 14.0 0 5 $,.11 Daytime Standard 140 0 5 8 0 Outdoor 0 50 0 75 dBA (a INighttime Standard Outdoor 0 50 0 140 0 5 8.0 70 dBA Daytime Standard Indoor 0 50 0 140 ;0 5 8:0 65 dBA Nighttime Standard Indoor 0 50 0 140 0 5 8.0 55 dBA Outdoor to Indoor Noise Reduction 12 Breaks Barrier poise Le LOS Reduction (dBQ Yes. 5.2 61.4 Yes 5.2 61.1 Yes 5.2 61.1 I Yes 5 2 49.1 Yes 5.2 49.1 G3 MacPoint BARRIER PREDICTION WORKSHEET, PINT SOURCE Last Update: 711/99 Ml3J Target Info -990 Vehicles in & Out at Peak Hour Assume 1/2 Go Along North Boundary Parking Lot Activity153 Assume 1/4Go Along North: Boundary s® eve Of . At 50.0 feet Cfcaffr a z To get other nolse level. FS9rce Elevation t DlsWnces Noise Level a 50 f 210 w, EL Cars In Cars Ou- 73.0 247.5 Total 98.6 495. To got other disOnces, Piet In Mher noise levels. Dist. 52 178 45 399 40 701 Lot ource asf Elevation stance To Wall Base Wall Dist. o a . Observer Elevation cver Hei ht, a Height Breaks LOS Barrier Reduction o se ave dBA Homes to NURth Daytime Standard 0 25 0 3.0 -2 5 8.0 Yes. 16.4 51.1 Outdoor 0 25 0 35; -2 5 8.0 Yes 14.5 51.6 55 dBA 0 25 0 40 -2 5 8.0 Yes 114 51.6 0 25 0 45. -2 5 8.0 Yes 12.7 51.3 Daytime Standard 25 0 45 -2 5 8.0 Yes. -12,7 39.3 Indoor L83 0 55 dBA ,Y.omee To East I Daytime Standard 0 25 0 115 0 5 0.0 No d .0 Op 52.8 Outdoor 0 25 0 115 0 5 5 0.0 0.0 No. No 0.0 52.8 52.6 55 dBA III I 0 0 25 25 0 0 115` 1 i5 U 0 5 0.0 No 0.0 52.8 Daytime Standard Indoor L813 0 25 0 135. Q $ 0.0 No Q 0 39.4 Outdoor to. Indoor Noise Reduction 12 MacPoint BARRIER PREDICTION' WORKSHEET, POINT SOURCE Last Update: 7/1/99 MBJ Truck Refrigerator Units-Runnin Noise Level o At 40.0 feet ritica r z z Td get outer noise levels, Source Elevation 7Y0 Ft Putin Distances dBA Dist. . Oise [evel at 5 0 .8 50 71.8 50 71.8 216' 59.3 To get other distances, Put in other noise levels. dBA To get other distances, Put in other noise levels. dBA --Dist. 55 52 3.44. 486. 45 1089 40 1.937'. Lot Source asi Elevation istance To Wall ase Wall ist. o a Observer Elevation server Height a Height rea s LOS arrrer Reduction arse ease dBA Unmitigated 0 5 0 95 , 0 0 5 5 8.00 8.00 Yes Yes 5:0 5:0 61.2 60.7 0 0 10 20 0 a 1, 0 110 0 5 8.00 Yes 5.1.59.8 0 30 0' t20. 0 5 8.00 Yes 51 59.1 Daytime Standard 0 5 'a 95 0 0 5 5 8.00 8.00 Yes Yes 5.0 50 61.2 60.7 Outdoor 0 0 10 20 0 0 100 110 0 5 8.00 Yes 51.. $9.8 t 55 dBA I 6 30 0 120 0 5 8.00 Yes 5.1 59.1 f Nighttime Standard 0 5 0 95., 0 5 16.00 17.00 Yes Yes 16.5 M" S11 Outdoor 0 20 0 0 1?`0' 125 0 0 -5 5 1400 Yes 12 4 51.4 50 dBA 0 35 0 ,' 130 6 5 17.00 Yes 12.1 0 40 Daytime Standard 0 5 0: 110 .6 0 5 5 8.00 8.00 Yes, Yes 5.0 5 0 47.9 47.5 Indoor 0 10 0 115 125 0 5 8.00 Yes 5.1` . 46.7 5.5 dBA 0 20 0 0 135. 0 5 8.00 Yes 5.1-:. 46.1 p 30 Nghtirme Standard 0 5 0 11 # 0 5 5 11.00 11.00 Yes Yes 9.9 8.4 43.0 44.1 Indoor 0 10 0 115 125 0 0 5 11.00 Yes 7.4. 44.4 45 dBA 0 20 0 0 135 0 5 11.00 Yes 70 '44.2 0 30 13. n 14n 0 5 11.00 Yes 6.8 44.0 Outdoor to.. Indoor Noise Reduction 12 01 MlacPorit BARRIER PREDICTION WORK SKEET, POINT SOURCE Last Update: 7/1/99 M J Garden Center DefivM Tracks At 70.0 feet Freq.z z To get other noise levels, Source Elevation t Rapt in I stan Dist. dB.A Nola Lewe at 50 83.1 50 6311 21 0 74.7 To get other distances, Put in other noise levels. s. 5 :52 1799 45 4026 4® 7163 Lot Source Elevation Distance To Wall Base tail st. o a Observer Elevation rver Height a Height Breaks LOS Barrier Reduction Noise eve dBA Daytime Standard Outdoor 0 40 0 45 -2 5 .&0 Yes 15.0 69.0 75 d6A 0 40 0 50 -2 5. 8.0 Ye"s. 12.3 70.6 0 40 0 55 -2 :5 8.0 Yes 10.6 71.7 0 40 0 65 -2 5 .8.0 Yes 8.6 72.3 0 40. 0 70 -2 5. .8.0 Yes 7..9 72.3 Daytime Standard Indoor 0 40 0 60 -2 5 8.0 Yes 9.4 60.1 65 dBA Outdoor tv I Noise Reduction 12 K MacPoint BARRIER PREDICTION WORKSHEET, POINT SOURCE Last Update: 711199 MBJ Delivery Trucks Near Turrt/Drivewa Lmax oise eve. l o , 80.2 d5A At 70.0 feet Critical re z 500 Hz ro get other noise Jovelk- Source Elevation 8.0 Ft Put in DistancBs: ^ sueBx Noise Level at 5011 5;. .166 77:1. 156 73.6 2OO 7 ,1 To get other distances; Put in other noise levels. dBA Wit. 70 227 77 10.1 67 320 Lot Source Bast. Elevation Distance To Wall. ase .. Wall st. To Pad - Observer Elevation Observer Height Wall Height Breaks LOS Barrier Reduction NolseLevel . dBA Unmitigated 0 5 0` 180 0 5 0:0 No 6.0 74,.8 Daytime.Standard. 0 5 0 130, 0' 5 0.0 No '0.0 74.8 Outdoor 75 dBA Nighttime Standard 0 5 0 130 0 :5 00 No 0:0 74:8 Outdoor 70 dBA _ Daytime Standard 0 5 0 140 0 5 6.0 No 0..0 62.2 Indoor 65 dBA Nighttime Standard 0 5 0 140 (7` 5 6.6 No ao 62.2 .Indoor 55 dBA Outdoor to.Indoor Noise Reduction 12 E ATTACHMENT 5 Page 1 of 2 LEE, MEL From: Al Morelli [, J Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2012 10:51 AM To: LEE, MEL Subject: Re: Target Meeting Follow -Up Please note our understanding for the 30030 Harbor properties has been consistent and is not subject to change. We did offer a lot of sacrifices and compromises to adapt the Target store properties and to set limits for the original land use development. Therefore, for such we do not wish to depart from the permitted DR99-22. In addition, the negative declaration or environmental impact report (EIR) as prepared by the city did not fully address the compliance aspect where Target has repeatedly ignored to comply with DR99-22 Agreements. Regarding the application for extension of store hours to 11 PM, Target Corporation can offer whatever they are willing to recommend for their given mitigation efforts. Regarding such mitigation efforts, Target Corporation need to put forward the suggestions in writing, to be included/or added as supplemental notes along with the development application. Close northerly entrance doors after 10:00 pm; Reduce parking lot lighting after 10:00 pm; Increase security after 10:00 pm. In conclusion, we do hold both the Target's management and the city's staff to abide and to enforce the entire conditions and land use restriction as recorded with the original DR99-22. On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 1:34 PM, LEE, MEL <MEL.LEE@costamesaca.gov> wrote: Mr. Morelli - Please let me know if you and/or the neighbors would support Target's request for the 11:00 pm closing time if they were to agree to comply with the items, as conditions of approval, discussed in our meeting last week below: • Close northerly entrance doors after 10:00 pm; Reduce parking lot lighting after 10:00 pm; 02/13/2012 �� Page 2 of 2 • Increase security after 10:00 pm. Thanks, Mel Lee, AICP Senior Planner City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, 92628 Ph. (714) 754-5611 Fax. (714) 754-4856 mel.leela.costamesaca.go_v_ Al Morelli Searchtec Consulting Group CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail communication and any attachments, including documents, files, or previous e-mail messages, constitute electronic communications within the scope of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2510 et seq. This e-mail communication may contain non- public, confidential or legally privileged information intended for the sole use of the designated recipient(s). The unauthorized and intentional interception, use, copy or disclosure of such information, or attempt to do so, is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful under applicable laws. 18 U.S.C. § 2511. If you have received this e- mail communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by return e-mail and delete the original e-mail from your system. 02/13/2012 (g� PLANNING COMMISSION V//. 56 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM MEETING DATE: MARCH 12, 2011 ITEM NUMBER: SUBJECT: AMEND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DR-99-22 A3 FOR EXPANDED REGULAR (I.E., NON -HOLIDAY) OPERATING HOURS FOR TARGET COSTA MESA 3030 A HARBOR BOULEVARD DATE: MARCH 9, 2011 FROM: PLANNING DIVISION/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION BY: MEL LEE, SENIOR PLANNER FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: MEL LEE, AICP (714) 754-5611 mel.Iee(aZcostamesaca.gov Attached is the following information per Commissioner Dickson's request related to Target: 1. Copies of recent Code Enforcement complaints. 2. Summary of Costa Mesa Police Department calls for service from November 25, 2011, to March 6, 2012. 3. Summary of Costa Mesa Police Department calls for service from March 1, 2010 to March 6, 2012. MEL LEE, AICP Senior Planner Attachments cc: Assistant Chief Executive Officer Interim Development Services Director Deputy City Attorney City Engineer Transportation Services Manager Fire Protection Analyst Doug Johnson, Police Department Staff (4) File (2) Gq 1253.30 rev.8102 1253-30 rev.8/02 o ��� � �.� � � � � 1� ATTACHMENT 2 G� Calls For Service to 3030 Harbor Blvd. from November 25, 2011 through March 6, 2012 Locations are those dispatched as "Target" or listing no specifc business name CFS to the location which resulted in a report and/or arrest: Location F CAD # I DR # Code Incident Type Dispo Dafie Time *Types of calls resulting in a report being taken are listed below. There were 25 RTF's taken where Target and/or no specific location were listed during the time frame documented *Call types resulting in RTF (RTF = Report Taken): COMMERCIAL BURGLARY POSSESSION OF SWITCH PETTYTHEFT RECOVER STOLEN VEHICLE IN CUSTODY SUSPICIOUS MALE FRAUD MISC MISDEMEANOR INC IDENTITYTHEFT TOWED/STORED VEHICLE THEFT REPORT TRAFFIC STOP DRUGS INVOLVED INCID HIT AND RUN ACC NOI Lor"J LV LIIG IVI.Q LI%J11 Ic,7uL Location TARGET TARGET TARGET TARGET TARGET t ... ..v .—[, -... CAD # CAD 111130079741 CAD 111215083191 CAD 120128006781 CAD 120213010776 CAD 120302015317 ........-... DR # Code BEGGAR BEGGAR BEGGAR 415 415 Incident Type BEGGING BEGGING BEGGING DISTURBANCE DISTURBANCE Dispo I UTL GOA GOA PAWC UTL Date 11/30/11 12/15/11 01/28/12 02/13/12 03/02/12 Time 16:20 20:42 19:15 15:55 13:29 TARGET CAD 111127079066 415F FAMILY DISTURBANCE -A PAWC 11/27/11 15:21 TARGET CAD 111231086836 919 KEEP THE PEACE UTL 12/31/11 18:59 TARGET CAD 120211010276 919 KEEP THE PEACE PAWC 02/11/12 13:39 TARGET CAD 120218011959 919 KEEP THE PEACE PAWC 02/18/12 9:32:52 TARGET CAD 120226014030 919 KEEP THE PEACE PAWC 02/26/12 6:48:58 TARGET CAD 111207081244 919P KEEP THE PEACE - PRO UNF 12/07/11 13:22 TARGET CAD 111130079710 PC PATROL CHECK UTL 11/30/11 14:20 TARGET CAD 111206081097 PC PATROL CHECK GOA 12/06/11 19:52 TARGET CAD 120212010534 PC PATROL CHECK UTL 02/12/12 14:36 TARGET CAD 120220012576 925 SUSPICIOUS CIRCS OR CC 02/20/12 22:13 TARGET CAD 111218083973 925 SUSPICIOUS CIRCS OR UTL 12/18/11 20:58 TARGET CAD 111125078498 925MAL SUSPICIOUS MALE UTL 11/25/11 0:32:13 TARGET CAD 11120308036 925MAL SUSPICIOUS MALE PAWC 12/03/11 13:31 TARGET CAD 120302015463 925C SUSPICIOUS PERSON IN PAWC 03/02/12 23:22 TARGET CAD 120127006595 925V SUSPICIOUS VEHICLE PAWC 01/27/12 23:46 TARGET CAD 111125078540 UNWANT UNWANTED GUEST REFUS CAN 11/25/11 8-.36:14 TARGET CAD 111216083501 UNWANT UNWANTED GUEST REFUS PAWC 12/16/11 23:24 I_ . Location CAD # DR # Code Incident Type Dispo Date Time TARGET CAD 111127079065 W911NV WIRELESS 911 CALL NO CAN 11/27/11 15:21 TARGET = 23 NO SPECIFIC LOC CAD 111213082566 586 PARKING VIOLATION CI 12/13/11 9:39:17 NO SPECIFIC LOC CAD 111222084808 586 PARKING VIOLATION CI 12/22/11 14:34 NO SPECIFIC LOC CAD 120126006180 586 PARKING VIOLATION CI 01/26/12 14:01 NO SPECIFIC LOC CAD 111229086305 586 PARKING VIOLATION CI 12/29/11 12:56 NO SPECIFIC LOC CAD 120112002715 586 PARKING VIOLATION CI 01/12/12 13:07 NO SPECIFIC LOC CAD 120216011478 586 PARKING VIOLATION CI 02/16/12 14:14 NO SPECIFIC LOC CAD 120202007993 586 PARKING VIOLATION CI 02/02/12 14:50 NO SPECIFIC LOC CAD 120223013272 586 PARKING VIOLATION CI 02/23/121 14:34 NO SPECIFIC LOC = 8 Grand Total = 31 A TT "CHMENIT 3 Calls For Service to 3030 Harbor Blvd. from March 1, 2010 through March 6, 2012 Locations are those dispatched as "Target" or listing no specifc business name CFS to the location which resulted in a report and/or arrest: Location CAD # I DR # Code Incident Type Dispo I Date Time **Types of calls resulting in a report being taken are listed below. *** There were 193 RTF's taken where Target and/or no specific location were listed during the 2 year period documented **Call types resulting in RTF (RTF = Report Taken): ***Disposition translation (Dispo): ROBBERY FOUND PROPERTY CAN = Cancelled INDECENT EXPOSURE THREAT Cl = Citaiton Issued AUTO THEFT BATTERY UTL = Unnesseary To Log RECOVER STOLEN VEHIC TRESPASSING FUR = Follow Up Report COMMERCIAL BURGLARY FOOT PURSUIT PAWC = Parry Advised, Will Comply VEHICLE BURGLARY WARRANT ARREST NRD = No Report Desired GRAND THEFT FROM VEH DISTURBANCE MALE ALARM = Alarm PETTY THEFT FROM VEH MEDICAL AID GOA = Gone On Arrival PETTY THEFT PROPERTY REPORT UNF = Unfounded THEFT MISC MISDEMEANOR INC CC = Contact Card VANDALISM -VEHICLE SUSPECT PRESENT Report To Follow Re = RTF P THEFT -CREDIT CARD SUSPICIOUS CIRCS RTFA = Report To Follow Arrest FORGED NOTES SUSPICIOUS MALE FORGERY OF CREDIT CA DUI -DRIVING UNDER TH COUNTERFEIT MONEY IN NON INJURY ACC -DRUNK FRAUD REPORT HIT & RUN PARKED VEH IDENTITY THEFT HIT AND RUN ACC NO INJ NON SUFFICIENT FUNDS HIT AND RUN ACC -PROP POSSESSION OF DANGER VEHICLE CODE VIOLATION POSSESSION OF SWITCH TC NON [NJ SELLING NARCOTICS TOWED/STORED VEHICLE 11350-DRUGS TRAFFIC STOP DRUGS INVOLVED INCID CAR STOP IN CUSTODY 30 DAY IMPOUND Fs" Location CAD # DR # Code Incident Type Dispo I Date Time CFS to the location specifically naming TAKGt I but resuitea in no report taKen: Location CAD # DR # Code Incident Type Dispo Date Time TARGET LPD110415024394 602 TRESPASSING PAWC 04/15/11 22:19 TARGET LPD100507034375 415M DISTURBANCE -MECHANIC UTL 05/07/10 4:22:32 TARGET LPD110221012324 MUNI MUNI ORDINANCE VIOLA Cl 02/21/11 14:28 TARGET LPD110628042052 MUNI MUNI ORDINANCE VIOLA _ PAWC 06/28/11 19:10 TARGET LPD111120077500 MUNI MUNI ORDINANCE VIOLA UTL 11/20/11 6:59:45 TARGET LPD100807059178 DRINK DRINKING IN PUBLIC - UNF 08/07/10 4:09:51 TARGET LPD100812060602 ILSOLI POSSIBLE ILLEGAL SOL GOA 08/12/10 17:32 TARGET LPD100904066986 ILSOLI POSSIBLE ILLEGAL SOL GOA 09/04/10 14:46 TARGET LPD110418025019 ILSOLI POSSIBLE ILLEGAL SOL PAWC 04/18/11 14:48 TARGET LPD110503028475 ILSOLI POSSIBLE ILLEGAL SOL GOA 05/03/11 18:31 TARGET LPD110703043487 ILSOLI POSSIBLE ILLEGAL SOL GOA 07/03/11 12:34 TARGET LPD110808053022 ILSOLI POSSIBLE ILLEGAL SOL PAWC 08/08/11 18:14 TARGET LPD101023079708 UNWANT UNWANTED GUEST REFUS PAWC 10/23/10 10:01 TARGET LPD110615038763 UNWANT UNWANTED GUEST REFUS CAN 06/15/11 14:13 TARGET LPD110725049468 UNWANT UNWANTED GUEST REFUS PAWC 07/25/11 17:51 TARGET LPD111125078540 UNWANT UNWANTED GUEST REFUS CAN 11/25/11 8:36:14 TARGET LPD111216083501 UNWANT UNWANTED GUEST REFUS PAWC 12/16/11 23:24 TARGET LPD110827057572 510 VEHICLES(S) RACING UTL 08/27/11 4:49:29 TARGET LPD110530034883 RAGE ROAD RAGE/RECKLESS D UTL 05/30/11 9:35:25 TARGET LPD100428032255 PDUMPS DUMPSTER FIRE CAN 04/28/10 21:12 TARGET LPD100916070101 PFINVE FIRE INVESTIGATION CAN 09/16/10 17:36 TARGET LPD110225013270 SHOTSH POSSIBLE SHOT(S) HEA UTL 02/25/11 22:51 TARGET LPD110514031009 SLEEP SLEEPER IN PARK AT N UTL 05/14/11 8:46:29 TARGET LPD101015077585 SLEEPV SLEEPER IN VEH (CMMC GOA 10/15/10 6:31:19 TARGET LPD100820062803 C5 STAKEOUT UTL 08/20/10 16:28 TARGET LPD110328020224 BEGGAR BEGGING GOA 03/28/11 14:37 TARGET LPD100504033829 BEGGAR BEGGING GOA 05/04/10 21:49 TARGET LPD100609043487 BEGGAR BEGGING GOA 06/09/10 16:13 TARGET LPD100817062018 BEGGAR BEGGING GOA 08/17/10 21:10 TARGET LPD100817062030 BEGGAR BEGGING CAN 08/17/10 22:13 TARGET LPD100913069201 BEGGAR BEGGING GOA 09/13/10 11:45 TARGET LPD100930073797 BEGGAR BEGGING GOA 09/30/10 15:23 TARGET LPD110105000870 BEGGAR BEGGING UTL 01/05/11 10:55 TARGET LPD110113002945 BEGGAR BEGGING GOA 01/13/11 16:05 TARGET LPD110118004182 BEGGAR BEGGING PAWC 01/18/11 13:47 TARGET LPD110331020890 BEGGAR BEGGING CAN 03/31/11 17:21 TARGET LPD110411023382 BEGGAR BEGGING PAWC 04/11/11 12:50 TARGET LPD110714046601 BEGGAR BEGGING GOA 07/14/11 15:32 TARGET LPD110922063839 BEGGAR BEGGING CAN 09/22/11 10:59 TARGET LPD111006067055 BEGGAR BEGGING UTL 10/06/11 21:11 Location CAD # DR # Code Incident Type Dispo Date Time TARGET LPD111007067209 BEGGAR BEGGING GOA 10/07/11 15:49 TARGET LPD111115076344 BEGGAR BEGGING PAWC 11/15/11 13:20 TARGET LPD111130079741 BEGGAR BEGGING UTL 11/30/11 16:20 TARGET LPD111215083191 BEGGAR BEGGING GOA 12/15/11 20:42 TARGET LPD120128006781 BEGGAR BEGGING GOA 01/28/12 19:15 TARGET LPD100426031558 919 KEEP THE PEACE PAWC 04/26/10 12:50 TARGET LPD110211010134 919 KEEP THE PEACE PAWC 02/11/11 22:09 TARGET LPD110624040935 919 KEEP THE PEACE UTL 06/24/11 13:01 TARGET LPD111231086836 919 KEEP THE PEACE UTL 12/31/11 18:59 TARGET LPD120211010276 919 KEEP THE PEACE PAWC 02/11/12 13:39 TARGET LPD120218011959 919 KEEP THE PEACE PAWC 02/18/12 9:32:52 TARGET LPD120226014030 919 KEEP THE PEACE PAWC 02/26/12 6:48:58 TARGET LPD110915062421 919C KEEP THE PEACE - CHI GOA 09/15/11 20:28 TARGET LPD111207081244 919P KEEP THE PEACE - PRO UNF 12/07/11 13:22 TARGET LPD111127079066 415F FAMILY DISTURBANCE -A PAWC 11/27/11 15:21 TARGET LPD100605042327 415F FAMILY DISTURBANCE -A NRD 06/05/10 15:18 TARGET LPD110630042634 FIGHT FIGHT CAN 06/30/11 22:27 TARGET LPD110630042638 FIGHT FIGHT UTL 06/30/11 22:41 TARGET LPD100413027912 415 DISTURBANCE CAN 04/13/10 18:55 TARGET LPD100912069102 415 DISTURBANCE GOA 09/12/10 19:16 TARGET LPD110821056226 415 DISTURBANCE PAWC 08/21/11 15:07 TARGET LPD120213010776 415 DISTURBANCE PAWC 02/13/12 15:55 TARGET LPD120302015317 415 DISTURBANCE UTL 03/02/12 13:29 TARGET LPD100719054104 NOISE DISTURBANCE - NOISE UNF 07/19/10 2:04:13 TARGET LPD100724055624 415BG DISTURBANCE BOYFRIEN PAWC 07/24/10 17:22 TARGET LPD110710045628 415BG DISTURBANCE BOYFRIEN GOA 07/10/11 13:19 TARGET LPD100918070606 415FEM DISTURBANCE FEMALE GOA 09/18/10 12:49 TARGET LPD100309018468 415MAL DISTURBANCE MALE CAN 03/09/10 19:13 TARGET LPD100813060868 415MAL DISTURBANCE MALE GOA 08/13/10 16:24 TARGET LPD101226094811 415MAL DISTURBANCE MALE UTL 12/26/10 11:03 TARGET LPD110105001012 415MAL DISTURBANCE MALE PAWC 01/05/11 19:05 TARGET LPD110217011351 415MAL DISTURBANCE MALE UTL 02/17/11 14:20 TARGET LPD110401021100 415MAL DISTURBANCE MALE UTL 04/01/11 15:11 TARGET LPD110615038724 415MAL DISTURBANCE MALE UTL 06/15/11 12:10 TARGET LPD111107074454 415MAL DISTURBANCE MALE UTL 11/07/11 9:40:50 TARGET LPD100912069076 415JUV DISTURBANCE -JUVENILE GOA 09/12/10 16:52 TARGET LPD111022070783 415JUV DISTURBANCE -JUVENILE PAWC 10/22/11 16:40 TARGET LPD100912069087 FU415 PRIOR 415 OCCURRING PAWC 09/12/10 17:46 TARGET LPD100613044677 SUSPEC SUSPECT PRESENT OR I FUR 06/13/10 18:48 TARGET LPD101229095510 SUSPEC SUSPECT PRESENT OR I UTL 12/29/10 18:40 TARGET LPD110702043215 SUSPECI SUSPECT PRESENT OR I RTF 07/02/11 19:32 TARGET LPD110106001156 925 1 SUSPICIOUS CIRCS UTL 01/06/11 13:37 I OQ Location CAD # DR # Code Incident Type Dispo Date Time TARGET LPD110317017807 925 SUSPICIOUS CIRCS CAN 03/17/11 21:27 TARGET LPD110606036672 925 SUSPICIOUS CIRCS UTL 06/06/11 17:15 TARGET LPD120220012576 925 SUSPICIOUS CIRCS CC 02/20/12 22:13 TARGET LPD100308018220 925 SUSPICIOUS CIRCS UTL 03/08/10 19:00 TARGET LPD110121005035 925 SUSPICIOUS CIRCS GOA 01/21/11 16:23 TARGET LPD110223012807 925 SUSPICIOUS CIRCS CAN 02/23/11 20:56 TARGET LPD110407022486 925 SUSPICIOUS CIRCS UTL 04/07/11 14:04 TARGET LPD111218083973 925 SUSPICIOUS CIRCS UTL 12/18/11 20:58 TARGET LPD100819062629 925FEM SUSPICIOUS FEMALE UTL 08/19/10 23:53 TARGET LPD100314019646 925MAL SUSPICIOUS MALE GOA 03/14/10 1:40:16 TARGET LPD100427031952 925MAL SUSPICIOUS MALE GOA 04/27/10 19:03 TARGET LPD100715053135 925MAL SUSPICIOUS MALE UTL 07/15/10 20:11 TARGET LPD100815061414 925MAL SUSPICIOUS MALE UTL 08/15/10 13:18 TARGET LPD110126006068 925MAL SUSPICIOUS MALE GOA 01/26/11 11:46 TARGET LPD110210009711 925MAL SUSPICIOUS MALE PAWC 02/10/11 11:13 TARGET LPD110215010913 925MAL SUSPICIOUS MALE GOA 02/15/11 13:32 TARGET LPD110225013208 925MAL SUSPICIOUS MALE GOA 02/25/11 16:47 TARGET LPD110511030287 925MAL SUSPICIOUS MALE NRD 05/11/11 15:06 TARGET LPD110720048202 925MAL SUSPICIOUS MALE UTL 07/20/11 20:44 TARGET LPD110912061686 925MAL SUSPICIOUS MALE GOA 09/12/11 17:49 TARGET LPD111125078498 925MAL SUSPICIOUS MALE UTL 11/25/11 0:32:13 TARGET LPD111203080364 925MAL SUSPICIOUS MALE PAWC 12/03/11 13:31 TARGET LPD100512035597 925C SUSP PERSON IN CAR UNF 05/12/10 2:21:03 TARGET LPD110220012179 925C SUSP PERSON IN CAR UTL 02/20/11 19:23 TARGET LPD120302015463 925C SUSP PERSON IN CAR PAWC 03/02/12 23:22 TARGET LPD110217011245 925V SUSPICIOUS VEHICLE UTL 02/17/11 0:03:57 TARGET LPD120127006595 925V SUSPICIOUS VEHICLE PAWC 01/27/12 23:46 TARGET LPD110815054689 CKWELF CHECK WELFARE UTL 08/15/11 10:09 TARGET LPD110303014463 PPA POLICE PUBLIC ASSIST UTL 03/03/11 15:48 TARGET LPD110707044762 PPA POLICE PUBLIC ASSIST UTL 07/07/11 8:47:42 TARGET LPD110601035376 PPA POLICE PUBLIC ASSIST GOA 06/01/11 14:14 TARGET LPD101217092845 GB GENERAL BROADCAST - CAN 12/17/10 22:06 TARGET LPD110911061438 GB GENERAL BROADCAST - UTL 09/11/11 18:03 TARGET LPD100727056340 586 PARKING VIOLATION CAN 07/27/10 14:31 TARGET LPD101026080451 586 PARKING VIOLATION UTL 10/26/10 13:03 TARGET LPD111122078022 586 PARKING VIOLATION UTL 11/22/11 13:36 TARGET LPD100614044879 PC PATROL CHECK GOA 06/14/10 13:40 TARGET LPD100713052478 PC PATROL CHECK UTL 07/13/10 12:45 TARGET LPD100731057352 PC PATROL CHECK GOA 07/31/10 14:22 TARGET LPD100813060897 PC PATROL CHECK GOA 08/13/10 18:26 TARGET LPD100830065690 PC PATROL CHECK UTL 08/30/10 16:06 TARGET LPD1009220717741 PC PATROL CHECK GOA 09/22/10 20:45 Location CAD # DR # Code Incident Type Dispo Date Time TARGET LPD101014077420 PC PATROL CHECK GOA 10/14/10 13:34 TARGET LPD110610037578 PC PATROL CHECK GOA 06/10/11 16:09 TARGET LPD110710045716 PC PATROL CHECK GOA 07/10/11 19:33 TARGET LPD111130079710 PC PATROL CHECK UTL 11/30/11 14:20 TARGET LPD111206081097 PC PATROL CHECK GOA 12/06/11 19:52 TARGET LPD120212010534 PC PATROL CHECK UTL 02/12/12 14:36 TARGET LPD100312019276 909T TRAFFIC HAZARD UTL 03/12/10 19:05 TARGET LPD100421030198 909T TRAFFIC HAZARD UTL 04/21/10 22:07 TARGET LPD100716053334 909T TRAFFIC HAZARD UTL 07/16/10 14:32 TARGET LPD100825064205 909T TRAFFIC HAZARD GOA 08/25/10 13:36 TARGET LPD110315017257 909T TRAFFIC HAZARD UNF 03/15/11 13:13 TARGET LPD110227013588 911 NVC 911 CALL NO VOICE CO CAN 02/27/11 11:34 TARGET LPD110629042309 911NVC 911 CALL NO VOICE CO CAN 06/29/11 18:07 TARGET LPD111127079065 W911NV WIRELESS 911 CALL NO CAN 11/27/11 15:21 TARGET LPD110316017464 W911 NV WIRELESS 911 CALL NO CAN 03/16/11 1527 Ir+cc 4. 3n,)n u—k - v +ham+ nnvem nn cnnr-ifir hiicinPcc Inrntinn upon dispatch: Location CAD # DR # Code Incident Type Dispo Date Time 3028 COLLEGE AV LPD101207090394 919 KEEP THE PEACE UTL 12/07/10 11:07 NO SPECIFIC LOC LPD100516036854 415 DISTURBANCE UTL 05/16/10 10:01 NO SPECIFIC LOC LPD110905059881 415 DISTURBANCE UTL 09/05/11 13:16 NO SPECIFIC LOC LPD100723055274 C5 STAKEOUT UTL 07/23/10 13:13 NO SPECIFIC LOC LPD100402024901 SS SUBJECT STOP UTL 04/02/10 18:22 NO SPECIFIC LOC LPD110708045140 925 SUSPICIOUS CIRCS UTL 07/08/11 17:20 NO SPECIFIC LOC LPD110223012691 925MAL SUSPICIOUS MALE Cl 02/23/11 12:48 NO SPECIFIC LOC LPD100603041580 925C SUSP PERSON IN CAR PAWC 06/03/10 0:29:11 NO SPECIFIC LOC LPD110620039905 925C SUSP PERSON IN CAR PAWC 06/20/11 1:38:19 NO SPECIFIC LOC LPD100924072212 911NVC 911 CALL NO VOICE CO CAN 09/24/10 14:04 NO SPECIFIC LOC LPD110530034968 BEGGAR BEGGING GOA 05/30/11 16:40 NO SPECIFIC LOC LPD110225013188 C6 OUT FOR INVESTIGATIO UTL 02/25/11 15:12 NO SPECIFIC LOC LPD100302016386 586 PARKING VIOLATION Cl 03/02/10 9:31:14 NO SPECIFIC LOC LPD100303016714 586 PARKING VIOLATION CI 03/03/10 15:01 NO SPECIFIC LOC LPD100311018908 586 PARKING VIOLATION Cl 03/11/10 14:42 NO SPECIFIC LOC LPD100318020712 586 PARKING VIOLATION Cl 03/18/10 13:13 NO SPECIFIC LOC LPD100324022374 586 PARKING VIOLATION Cl 03/24/10 14:27 NO SPECIFIC LOC LPD100325022594 586 PARKING VIOLATION Cl 03/25/10 13:58 NO SPECIFIC LOC LPD100420029739 586 PARKING VIOLATION Cl 04/20/10 10:03 NO SPECIFIC LOC LPD100422030321 586 PARKING VIOLATION Cl 04/22/10 13:20 NO SPECIFIC LOC LPD100428032175 586 PARKING VIOLATION Cl 04/28/10 15:06 NO SPECIFIC LOC LPD100429032382 586 PARKING VIOLATION CI 04/29/10 12:33 NO SPECIFIC LOC LPD100506034221 586 PARKING VIOLATION Cl 05/06/10 14:43 NO SPECIFIC LOC LPD1005190376401 586 PARKING VIOLATION Cl 05/19/10 14:39 U Location CAD # DR # Code Incident Type Dispo Date Time NO SPECIFIC LOC LPD100527039868 586 PARKING VIOLATION Cl 05/27/10 14:35 NO SPECIFIC LOC LPD100601041178 586 PARKING VIOLATION Cl 06/01/10 10:06 NO SPECIFIC LOC LPD100603041728 586 PARKING VIOLATION Cl 06/03/10 14:04 NO SPECIFIC LOC LPD100616045398 586 PARKING VIOLATION Cl 06/16/10 14:33 NO SPECIFIC LOC LID D100617045662 586 PARKING VIOLATION Cl 06/17/10 14:00 NO SPECIFIC LOC LPD100624047588 586 PARKING VIOLATION Cl 06/24/10 14:23 NO SPECIFIC LOC LPD100701049301 586 PARKING VIOLATION CI 07/01/10 13A6 NO SPECIFIC LOC LPD100720054507 586 PARKING VIOLATION Cl 07/20/10 17:02 NO SPECIFIC LOC LPD100805058677 586 PARKING VIOLATION Cl 08/05/10 14:42 NO SPECIFIC LOC LPD100812060557 586 PARKING VIOLATION Cl 08/12/10 14:26 NO SPECIFIC LOC LPD100902066389 586 PARKING VIOLATION Cl 09/02/10 14:03 NO SPECIFIC LOC LPD100923071984 586 PARKING VIOLATION Cl 09/23/10 14:47 NO SPECIFIC LOC LPD101007075660 586 PARKING VIOLATION CI 10/07/10 15:12 NO SPECIFIC LOC LPD101014077426 586 PARKING VIOLATION Cl 10/14/10 14:06 NO SPECIFIC LOC LPD101202089256 586 PARKING VIOLATION CI 12/02/10 14:15 NO SPECIFIC LOC LPD101216092477 586 PARKING VIOLATION CI 12/16/10 13:54 NO SPECIFIC LOC LPD101222093961 586 PARKING VIOLATION Cl 12/22/10 15:13 NO SPECIFIC LOC LPD101223094197 586 PARKING VIOLATION Cl 12/23/10 14:02 NO SPECIFIC LOC LPD101230095699 586 PARKING VIOLATION Cl 12/30/10 14:03 NO SPECIFIC LOC LPD110106001148 586 PARKING VIOLATION Cl 01/06/11 13:03 NO SPECIFIC LOC LPD110127006365 586 PARKING VIOLATION Cl 01/27/11 14:38 NO SPECIFIC LOC LPD110210009752 586 PARKING VIOLATION Cl 02/10/11 14:35 NO SPECIFIC LOC LPD110310016071 586 PARKING VIOLATION Cl 03/10/11 13:32 NO SPECIFIC LOC LPD110315017218 586 PARKING VIOLATION CI 03/15/11 9:48:31 NO SPECIFIC LOC LPD110407022489 586 PARKING VIOLATION Cl 04/07/11 14:11 NO SPECIFIC LOC LPD110421025629 586 PARKING VIOLATION Cl 04/21/11 14:11 NO SPECIFIC LOC LPD110426026800 586 PARKING VIOLATION Cl 04/26/11 9:55:57 NO SPECIFIC LOC LPD110428027309 586 PARKING VIOLATION Cl 04/28/11 14:15 NO SPECIFIC LOC LID D110616038983 586 PARKING VIOLATION Cl 06/16/11 14:22 NO SPECIFIC LOC LPD110616038978 586 PARKING VIOLATION Cl 06/16/11 14:07 NO SPECIFIC LOC LPD110706044670 586 PARKING VIOLATION UTL 07/06/11 19:51 NO SPECIFIC LOC NO SPECIFIC LOC LPD110707044815 LPD110721048341 586 586 PARKING VIOLATION PARKING VIOLATION Cl Cl 07/07/11 07/21/11 13:03 14:32 NO SPECIFIC LOC LPD110906060021 586 PARKING VIOLATION Cl 09/06/11 9:06:04 NO SPECIFIC LOC LPD110908060560 586 PARKING VIOLATION Cl 09/08/11 14:58 NO SPECIFIC LOC LPD110929065430 586 PARKING VIOLATION Cl 09/29/11 15:02 NO SPECIFIC LOC LPD111012068349 586 PARKING VIOLATION Cl 10/12/11 13:32 NO SPECIFIC LOC LPD111020070222 586 PARKING VIOLATION CI 10/20/11 13:39 NO SPECIFIC LOC LPD111103073592 586 PARKING VIOLATION Cl 11/03/11 14:50 NO SPECIFIC LOC LPD111110075153 586 PARKING VIOLATION Cl 11/10/11 12:36 NO SPECIFIC LOC LPD111117076808 586 PARKING VIOLATION Cl 11/17/11 14:01 NO SPECIFIC LOC LPD1 112130825661 586 PARKING VIOLATION Cl 12/13/11 9:39:17 Location CAD # DR # Code Incident Type Dispo Date Time NO SPECIFIC LOC LPD111222084808 586 PARKING VIOLATION Cl 12/22/11 14:34 NO SPECIFIC LOC LPD111229086305 586 PARKING VIOLATION Cl 12/29/11 12:56 NO SPECIFIC LOC LPD120112002715 586 PARKING VIOLATION Cl 01/12/12 13:07 NO SPECIFIC LOC LPD120126006180 586 PARKING VIOLATION Cl 01/26/12 14:01 NO SPECIFIC LOC LPD120202007993 586 PARKING VIOLATION Cl 02/02/12 14:50 NO SPECIFIC LOC LPD120216011478 586 PARKING VIOLATION Cl 02/16/12 14:14 NO SPECIFIC LOC LPD120223013272 586 PARKING VIOLATION Cl 02/23/12 14:34 NO SPECIFIC LOC LPD100726056159 PC PATROL CHECK UTL 07/26/10 19:17 NO.SPECIFIC LOC LPD110306015279 PC PATROL CHECK UTL 03/06/11 15:55 NO SPECIFIC LOC LPD110831058726 909T TRAFFIC HAZARD UTL 08/31/11 21:10 IN THE AREA OF LPD100704050132 W911NV WIRELESS 911 CALL NO CAN 07/04/10 11:47 IN THE AREA OF LPD100817061871 W911 NV WIRELESS 911 CALL NO UTL 08/17/10 9:36:26 NO SPECIFIC LOC LPD100717053770 W911NV WIRELESS 911 CALL NO UTL 07/17/10 22:26 NO SPECIFIC LOC LPD100415028465 W911NV WIRELESS 911 CALL NO UTL 04/15/10 20:18 NO SPECIFIC LOC LPD110115003435 W911NV WIRELESS 911 CALL NO CAN 01/15/11 10:31 NO SPECIFIC LOC LPD110403021637 W911NV WIRELESS 911 CALL NO UTL 04/03/11 15:17 NO SPECIFIC LOC LPD110716047123 W911NV WIRELESS 911 CALL NO CAN 07/16/11 14:06 NO SPECIFIC LOC LPD110806052494 W911NV WIRELESS 911 CALL NO UTL 08/06/11 17:44 NO SPECIFIC LOC LP D 1111230782291 W911NV WIRELESS 911 CALL NO UTL 11/23/11 11:06 0l� ATTACHMENT 6 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION DR-99-22 A3 RESOLUTION NO. PC-12-06 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA APPROVING !DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AMENDMENT DR-99-22 A3 FOR ExTENDED REGULAR (I.E., . NON -HOLIDAY) HOURS FOR TARGET COSTA MESA. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ?OSTA 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 regular (i.e., non -holiday) operating hours as follows: on Holidav) Hours: o 8:00 am to 10:00 pm, seven days a week. Reauested Reaular (Non-Holidav) Hours: o 8:00 am to 11:00 pm, seven days a WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was1held by the Planning Commission on March 12, 2012, with all persons having the opportunity to speak for and against the proposed project: BE IT RESOLVED that, based on the evidence in the record and the findings contained in Exhibit "A", the Planning Commission h respect to the property described above for 8:00 hours for Target Costa Mesa. ,.BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resol APPROVES DR-99-22 A3 with to 11:00 pm, seven days a week Mesa Planning Commission does is expressly predicated upon the activity as described in the staff report for DR-99-22IA3 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 Ithe conditions of approval. W DR-99-22 A3 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of March, ti012. Colin McCar Costa Mesa y, Cha'ir . v lanning Commission 0 • STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) )ss COUNTY OF:ORANGE ) 1, Claire Flynn, Secretary to the Planning Mesa, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resol a meeting of the City of Costa Mesa Planning the following votes: AYES: Dickson, Fitzpatrick, Salcedo NOES: McCarthy, Clark ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE Commission of the City of Costa ition was passed and adopted at ,ommission held on 3-12-12, by Secreetary, Costa Mesa Planning Commission �5 DR-99-22 A3 EXHIBIT `fA" FINDINGS 190 The proposal complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(e) because: 1.. The request is compatible and harmonious with the use and site development, and use(s), and site developments that xist or have been approved for the general neighborhood. Specifically, 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. The Police Department has reviewed the proposed 'extended hours and has no objections to the proposal. The original noise study prepared for the project by Mestre Greve Associates was re-evaluated by a, new consultant, which concluded that the extended closing time would not result in an increase in noise levels in excess of the City Noise Ordinance. The code enforcement activity for the site has been taken into consideration and this activity is not at a level that would preclude the approval of xtended hours. Specifically, -until the November 2011 complaint received rega�ding the 11:00 pm closing time, the previous noise -related complaint received py staff was in 2007. 2. The request complies with any performance standards as prescribed elsewhere in this Zoning Code, 3. The request is consistent with the general plan and any applicable specific plan. 4. The request is for a project -specific caste and is not to be construed to be setting a precedent for future developmeni'j. 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 Xll� Article 3, Transportation System Management, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. 0 EXHIBIT B CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Ping. 1. The use shall be limited to the type Any change in the operational the hours of operation and additional s Planning Division and may require subject to either Zoning Admini; depending on the nature of the prod Code allows the Planning Coma application based on findings relat( with conditions of approval [Title 13, of operation as described in the staff report. racteristics including, but not limited ,to, the �rvices provided, shall require review by the an amendment to the development review, ,trator or Planning Commission approval, osed change. The applicant is reminded that fission to modify or revoke any planning ;d to public nuisance and/or noncompliance 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 upgn transfer of business or ownership of land. 3. The business shall be conducted, al enjoyment of the surrounding nE whatever security and operational requirement. 4. The use shall be limited to the folic pm, Monday through Saturday, an( the hours of operation that extend t hours shall be submitted to the Plan 5. All other applicable conditions. of amendments shall remain in effect. 91 all times, in a manner that will allow the quiet ighborhood. The operator shall institute neasures are necessary to comply with this ving hours of operation: 8:00 am. to 11:00 8:00 am to 1 0:00pm Sunday. Changes to e opening and closing times past the above ing Commission for review. ipproval for DR-99-22 and its subsequent DR-99-22. A3 shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission no later than six months from the date of approval to determine ifthe extended hours of operation may be permitted to remain in effect S1 ATTACHMENT 7 RELATED CORRESPONDENCE mm Printer Friendly View Page 1 of 1 TROM THE DESK OF, TOM MCCORMICK 8-26-99 Mr. Jim 77jeusch 1000 Nicollette Alall Mail stop IINM1-121 Minneapolis, AN, 55403 Dear,lim, RECEIVED CITY OF COSTA MESA DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT AUG 3 0 1999 AM I,M 718191,fl,t,112,1191.11415-1G My wife anill want to take this opportunity to t tank you far the meeting that we had with your architect, A1r. !Howard Covert, Although !!award did,tY mention that he was bringing finer extra people, they were very helpful, and we were all able to jil into our living room and have a productive meeting. l.et nie start by saying that we are thrilled to have a new Target stare replacing the old, ailing Fe Ico store. 11 s a little biltersweel as Fecko was my first job out of high school 25 years ago. Bur I think most people will agree that Target will benefit our community more than Fedco, My wife Debby takes our three little girls to the Huntington Beach Target ei'my ?a1urdny. She's what I refer to as a black belt 74iget shopper. Many employees know lien• by name. 1 am going to fidlow Mr. Grimes suggestion and list In writing wine of our cn,rcerns about being neighbors, so that our conin,unicatons will remain consistent and clear: As a part of the original conditional use hermit 30 years ago, Fedco installed chains or every entrance (Except one far einergeney vehicles). The chains would go vp at 10:00 pm and come flown at 7:00 am. Al soinerime they stopped uttlizing the chains. Then in 199S, after numerous police reports and discussions with the city, they agreed to pit the chains back lip, (!'lease see altached report) This put a slop to the trucks that used to camp out an the property, many of them Willi Idling engines or refrigerated loads, not to mention .smaller vehicles, homeless people and others that have aivoken us at all hours of the night, The 405freeway is located, just one block moth of the properly line and draws extra truckers and others looking jr>r a rest stop. We are very hopeful that Target will not lake away these chains, as they have proven to he the onlysuccessfil measure taken to ensure uspeacefuil evenings. • We also discussed the new sound wall behind the Shamrock Lane residents 1, be al least ten feel in height to help will, all the new customer parking: Will, Fedco, the parking behind these residents were thefrirl1mv1 stalls from the front door entrance, which then fitced, Baker St, ,therefore they were almost never used, along Willi the dozens ofsialls behind then, staying en,ply most of the year.. With the new entrance Is http://docimagelAppXtenderlDoePrintFriendly.aspx?DataSource=DocImaging&ContextI... 03 /20/2012 Printer Friendly View Page 1 of 1 0 e Of Grealland ?'arget facing Harbor Blvd, these stalls are now much closer to the store entrance, making them much more attractive to utilize, along Willi the dozens behind themfllling tip. This wall would definitely help with the Influx of vehicles rlrivilig, parking, slamming doors, talking, car alarms, etc;. Howard and Peter mentioned that this wall would be a common wall that would eliminate our backyard wall that .stantis right next to it. All neighbors are In agreement that it would be optinnmt to keep parking off this wall, and maybe install some nice landscaping Instead. • Peter had suggested addMg additional, taller landscaping to help budPr these noises behind our residences • ►Ye discussed keeping the parking lot sweeper hours to existing hours of nor before 7'00 am and not afier 7. 00 pm. Mese vehicles are particularly noisy. • Peter and] discussed not losing our existing 'NO ?RUCK PARKING" and "NO TRUCKS STOPPING OR IDLING" signs along lire north property wall. Along with our concerns we are all excited to have a new Target within walking distance. Me want to be good neighbors, and we feel confident that a company Willi the Integrity and fine repuration as T arget will also desire a good relationship, ,so we all can ct jay being neighbors for years to come. Sincerely, �- -7t� 7am 1% McCormlok cc. Mr. John Grimes Mr klel vhr E. Lee Mr. Howard Covert Mr. Gilbert Collins Enclosure 10 http://docimagelAppXtenderlDoePrintFriendly. aspx?DataS ource=DocImaging&ContextI... 03/20/2012 From: Louanne Mccormick VII. 5a Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 3:06 PM To: mel.lee@costamesaca.gov Subject: Target Hours Hi Mel — regarding Targets latest request for extended hours: 1) As of this afternoon the Target.com website has the Costa Mesa Stores hours posted as 8:00 — 11:00! 2) We are concerned that agreeing to what previously were considered extended holiday closing hours all year long will put Target back on track to request a FURTHER extension of Holiday hours to Midnight, which for a store boarding by residences is unacceptable. 3) None of the Target stores are open until 11:00 on Sundays. I . Note: Tom and I would like to reiterate that there is no practical way to record disturbances with.the City. The reason the CUP was put into place is because common sense says that there will be ambient noise associated with a large retail store and parking lot and that reasonable limits must be in place to protect the peaceful enjoyment of the boarding residences. It is not an appropriate argument to say that because there are no complaints on record they should be able to alter the agreement — it was put in place for good reasons. We would prefer that Target closed at 9:00 each night — but we don't get our wish either. Kind regards, LouAnne R. McCormick CA DRE# 01194643 From: Jeff Gibbs VII. 5b Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 7:28 AM To: PLANNING COMMISSION Subject: Target Hours To whom it may concern: I live at 3111 Dublin St, 3 houses down from the Target parking lot. I am opposed to the extension of their hours due to increase noise and activity in their parking lot after hours. Target knew this when they came into the neighborhood, and they accepted it then. There is still a family community just outside their walls. There must be a reason the city did not allow a 11 pm close then, just as there should be now. What is next? 12 midnight close? Or will they look to be open from 6 am to 2 am? When will it stop? If someone in the city does feel it is a good idea to move forward, can you please provide the details of the economic impact to the city by Target staying open until 11 pm? What is the value of the customers that would shop between 10 and 11 pm, that we otherwise would not have in Costa Mesa. Because Target is serving neighbors, I find it hard to believe that they lose much (or any) business because they close at 10 pm. In other words, how many people are going there between 10 and 11 pm because they need a product that they must have that day, otherwise they are driving to another Target. I cannot imagine there is much of a tax revenue being driven to the city that we already do not have. Beer and wine purchases will still exist, just maybe from 7 eleven or a locally owned liquor store. Please deny Target the request for 11 pm close, have courage. Also, have courage to state that this is the last request that will be considered for a hour store extension. Thank you for the time. Jeff Gibbs From: John Warren VIL 5d Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 3:17 PM To: LEE, MEL Cc: FLYNN, CLAIRE Subject: Planning Commission Mel, Attached are some photos for the Planning Commission meeting. The photos show some of the compliance items that Target has implemented since the November Planning Commission meeting. There is a bulletin board which is prominently displayed for employees indicating where they should park their vehicles. We also have photos of the power washing operation which does not start until after 8:00 am. There are also a few photos of the Black Friday program that was implemented per the Planning Commission direction. I will send you the results of the additional noise analysis either today or tomorrow. John John Warren q3 1 'I t , L.� I From: John Warren[mailto:john@PacificLandServices.COM] Sent: Friday, March 09, 2012 1:01 PM To: LEE, MEL Cc: FLYNN, CLAIRE Subject: Planning Commission Mel, Attached is the analysis of the noise meters that were set up during the last hour of operation of the Target Store to give an indication as to what the noise levels are from normal operations of the store. As you can see, they readings are well below the City noise threshold. R.7i1111 John Warren Pacific Land Services 2151 Salvio Street, Suite S Concord, CA 94520 Ph: (925) 680-6406 Fax: (925) 680-6407 www.pacificlandserviceg.com q9 transpo],Wtion planning • traffic e'ligineering acOuaticril engineering • harking studies March 9, 2012 Mr. John Warren PACIFIC LAND SERVICES, INC. 2151 Salvio Street, Suite S Concord, CA 94520 Subject: Target (T-1293) Noise Evaluation, City of Costa Mesa Dear Mr. Warren: RK ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. (RK) has completed a noise evaluation for the Target Store T-1293. The project site is located at 3030 Harbor Boulevard in the City of Costa Mesa. It was requested that RK conduct noise measurements. along the northern property line near the existing residential units,. An eight -foot high property wall exists separating the residence to the north and the Target parking lot to the south. For this noise evaluation., three (3) noise monitoring locations were chosen and are illustrated in Exhibit.A. Location 1 is located at the northeast corner of the project site. Location 2 is located along the northern property line (in the middle). Location 3 is located near the northwest property line closest to Harbor Boulevard. The noise meter was placed approximately 15 feet from the existing eight -foot high wall (parking lot side), the duration lasted ten (1.0) minutes (short-term), and comments were made to highlight noise activities for each noise measurement. Noise monitoring occurred on March 8, 2012 starting at 8:45 PM and ending at 9:25 PM. The City of Costa Mesa's noise ordinance is specified in a table format in Figure 1. Figure 1 Municipal Code Stationary Noise Standards Time Noise Criteria Level (dBA) Cumulative Time Period 0 Minutes 1 Minute 5 Minutes 15 Minutes 30 minutes Symbol Lmax LZ LB Les Lso ° Daytime (7 AM - 11 PM) 75.0 70.0 65.0 60.0 55.0 ° w Nighttime (11 PM - 7 AM) 70.0 65.0 60.0 55.0 50.0 ° Daytime (7 AM - 11 PM) 65.0 60.0 55.0 N/A N/A v Nighttime (11 PM - 7 AM) 55.0 50.0 45.0 N/A N/A 4000 westerly place, suite 280 nee port beach, californiza 926bO tel 949.4.74.0809 fax 949A-74.0902 .hi.tpa/wwNA.i•lcengineer.com 10_0 Mr. John Warren PACIFIC LAND SERVICES, INC. March 9, 2012 Page 2 A common way of describing noise levels from stationary sources is with the percent noise level (Q. The percent noise level indicates the noise level which is exceeded during a certain percentage of time and represents the average noise level. Findings Table 1 i'ndicates the results of the noise measurements. Noise measurement results indicate the noise. levels are below the City of Costa Mesa's Noise Standards set forth in the Noise Ordinance. Noise monitoring Locations 1 and 2 indicate typical parking lot noise levels. Noise levels increase as one continues to approach Harbor Boulevard. Noise monitoring Location 3 includes parking lot noise levels but also has more traffic noise levels from Harbor Boulevard. It should be noted that the maximum noise levels were created bypass -by traffic (ke, tire noise and muffler noise) and not from parking lot noise. Tables 2, 3, and 4 compare the measured noise levels to -the City's daytime (7:00 AM — 11:00 PM) and nighttime (11:00 PM — 7:00 AM) noise ordinance. Noise attenuation from an eight -foot wall is factored into the projected noise levels. It is projected that the eight -foot wall will provide approximately seven (7) decibels (dB) of noise attenuation. The following outlines the findings: Table 2 indicates that during daytime hours the maximum noise level will be approximately 21.7 dB below the City's maximum standard and 7.1 dB below the City's L50 standard. (Please review Table 2 to compare all of the noise statistics to the City's noise ordinance.) The City's nighttime noise ordinance is illustrated as a reference. It should be noted that measured noise levels do not exceed the City's nighttime noise standard. 2. Table 3 indicates that during daytime hours the maximum noise level will be approximately 19.2 dB below the City's maximum standard and 7.0 d6 below the City's L50 standard. (Please review Table 3 to compare all of the noise statistics to the City's noise ordinance.) The City's nighttime noise ordinance is illustrated as a reference. It should be noted that measured noise levels do not exceed the City's nighttime noise standard. 3. Table 4 indicates that during daytime hours the maximum noise level will be approximately 18.3 dB below the City's maximum standard and 5.1 dB below the City's L50 standard. (Please review Table 4 to compare all of the noise statistics to the City's noise ordinance.) Noise levels are louder as a result of traffic pass -by from Harbor Boulevard. RK: mn1RK9356. doc JN: 1611-201 1-01 kd Mr. John Warren PACIFIC LAND SERVICES, INC. March 9, 2012 Page 3 RK is pleased to provide PACIFIC LAND SERVICES, INC, with this noise evaluation, if you have any questions regarding this letter or would like further review, please don't hesitate to contact us at (949) 474-0809. Sincerely, %PoEESS10 ,, RK ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. ��,�O�c�RT Kqy �L\ cr No.20285 rr Mike Dickerson, INCE Air/Noise Specialist y� CI v1\- ox c 0,0 a Attachments RK: mn/RK9356. doc 1N:1611-2011-01 Robert Kahn, P.E, Principal 1Oa Exhibits 103 Legend: O= Noise Monitoring Location N 1611-II-01(ExA) TARGET STORE (T-1293) NOISE EVALUATION, City of Costa Mesa, California Exhibit A Noise Monitoring Location engineering group, inc. 104- Tables 105, TABLE :1 Noise Level Measurements (dBA)' Measured Noise Level WBA) Site Time L eq L max L min L 2 L 8 L 25 L 50 Comments No. Started2 Can hear local traffic from 1 8:45 PM 55.3 60.3 53.6 57.8 56.7 55.7 54.9 Harbor. No other parking lot noise was present. Local traffic from Harbor and 405 fwy. A few carts can be 2 8:59 PM 55.5 62.8 51.2 60.2 57.5 56.0 55.0 heard in parking lot. No cars drove by meter. Cars starting. Local traffic from Harbor Blvd. 3 9:15 PM 57.7 63.7 51.6 62.2 60.5 58.6 56.9 Cars exit along aisles adjacent to meter. Noise measurements taken on March 8, 2012. Z Each noise measurement was taken for approximately 10 minutes at the site. j: lrktables1RK9356TB.xls IN:1611-2011-01 TABLE 2 Projected Exterior Noise Levels at North Property Line Location 1 (dBA)' Near. Northeast Corner of Parking Lot 1st Floor Adjusted Noise Levels (dBA) Distance from P/L (feet) Leq Lmax Lz L8 L25 L50 Source . Existing Ambient Measurementz 15 55.3 60.3 57.8 56.7 55.7 54.9 8 foot Wa113 <- - - -7..0 -7.0 -7.0 -7.0 -7.0 -7.0 QTotal Combined Noise Impact4 48.3 53.3 50.8 49.7 48.7 47.9 a� E City of Costa Mesa not to 't, exceed Noise Standards - - - - 75.0 70.0 65.0 60.0 55.0 ry Delta - - - - -21.7 1 -19.2 1 -15.3 1 -11.3 -7.1 1 st Floor Adjusted Noise Levels (dBA) Distance from P/L (feet) Leq Lmax L2 L8. L25 Lso Source Existing Ambient - Measurementz 15 55.3 60.3 57.8 56.7 55.7 54.9 Q 8 foot Wa113 - - -7.0 -7.0 1 -7.0 -7.0 -7.0 -7.0 2 Total Combined Noise Impact4 48.3 53.3 50.8 49.7 48.7 47.9 a� E City of Costa Mesa not to exceed Noise Standards - - - - 70.0 65.0 55.0 50:0 E60, zDelta - - - - -16.7 -14.2 -6.3 1 -2.1 ' Noise measurement performed along northern property line within Target parking lot z Refer to Table 1 for ambient measurement. 3 A seven (7) decibel (dB) attenuation factor was applied.due to the height of the wall. 4 Does not exceed the City's daytime stationary noise standard. i:1rkta b l es1RK9356TB. xls 1N:1611-2011-01 I o-1 TABLE 3 Projected Exterior Noise Levels at North Property Line Location 2 WBA)' Near Garden Center 1st Floor Adjusted Noise Levels (dBA) Distance from P/L (feet) Leq I Lmax L2 Ls L25 L50 Source Existing Ambient Measurementz 15 55.5 62.8 60.2 57.5 56.0 55.0 8 foot Walla -7.0 .-7.0 -7.0 -7.0 -7.0 -7.0 2 Total Combined Noise Qlmpact4 48.5 55.8 53.2 50.5 49.0 48.0 °J E E City of Costa Mesa not to exceed Noise Standards _ _ - - 75.0 70.0 65.0 60.0 55.0 M Delta _ _ _ _ -19.2 -16.8 -14.5 1 -11.0 -7.0 1 st Floor Adjusted Noise Levels (dBA) Distance from Source P/L (feet) Leq Lmax L2 L8 L25 1-5o Existing Ambient 2 Measurementz 15 '55.5 62.8 60.2 57.5 56.0 55.0 Q 8 foot Wa113 - - -7.0 -7.0 -7.0 -7.0 -7.0 -7.0 2 °- Total Combined Noise 1 t 1 .. v lmpact4 48.5 55.8 53.2 50.5 49.0 48.0 W E City of Costa Mesa not to :r_ exceed Noise Standards _ _ - - 70.0 65.0 60.0 55.0 50.0 z Delta - - - - -14.2 -11.8 -9.5 -6.0 -2.0 ' Noise measurement performed along northern property line within Target parking lot ` Refer to Table 1 for ambient measurement. 3 A seven (7) decibel (dB) attenuation factor was applied due to the height of the wall. 4 Does not exceed the City's daytime stationary noise standard. j:1 rktabl es1RK9356TB.x1s 1N:1611-2011-01 TABLE 4 Projected Exterior Noise Levels at North Property Line Location 3 (dBA)1 Near Harbor Boulevard 1st Floor Adjusted Noise Levels (dBA) Distance from Source P/L (feet) Le Lmax L2 L8 Les Lso Existing Ambient .. Measurementz 15 57.7 63.7 62.2 60.5 58.6 56.9 8 foot Walla - -1 -7.0 1 -7.0 1 -7.0 -7.0 -7.0 -7.0 Total Combined Noise r-. Impact 50.7 56.7 55.2 1 53.5 51.6 49.9 °J E City of Costa Mesa not to -S exceed Noise Standards _ _ - - 75.0 70.0 65.0 60.0 55.0 ro t] Delta - - - - -18.3 1 -14.8 1 -11.5 -8.4 -5.1 1st Floor Adjusted Noise Levels (dBA) Distance from Source P/L (feet) Leq Lmax L2 L8 L25 Lso Existing Ambient Measuremerif 15 57.7 63.7 62.2 60.5 58.6 56.9 Q r- 8 foot Wa113 - - -7.0 -7.0 -7.0 -7.0 .-7.0 -7.0 e_ Total Combined Noise Impact4 50.7 56.7 55.2 53.5 51.6 49.9 a� E City of Costa Mesa not to exceed Noise Standards _ _ - - 70.0 65.0 60.0 55.0 50.0 Z Delta _ _ _ -13.3 -9.8 -6.5 -3.4 -0.1 Noise measurement performed along northern property line within Target parking lot Z Refer to Table 1 for ambient measurement. 3 A seven (7) decibel (dB) attenuation factor was applied due to the height of the wall. 4 Does not exceed the City's daytime stationary noise standard. j: lrkta bles1RK9356TB.xls JN:1611-2011-01 109 Repeat, REPEAT, Repeat VII. 5f The request by the Target Company is a REPEAT request of the same, which is to change the original land use restriction and to dilute the property development agreement as approved on April 18, 2000. For that, I am re -sending (repeating) our revised input as has been submitted over the years, which is to explain the burden of having a Target store adjacent to our properties. For the record, the environmental impacts conditions as originally implied have increased over the years. Now, we have more noise, more traffic and also we have a proven demonstrated lack of compliance by Target Company at 3030 Harbor property. Revised -Supplemental Document: Re -submit; Appeal To DR 99-22 A211, December 6, 2011 Costa Mesa City Council Meeting ......................... Fellow City Council-11/26/2011- (03/09/2012 - now Planning Commission-DR99-22 A3): I am asking you to deny the request for extended hours regarding the Target Store, grateful 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: As discovered during the Planning Commission meeting, Target did violate the store operating hours. during year 2010 -2011 (for a full year and half). 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 �1C) 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, and he denied any knowledge about such violations. 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. Also, it appears that the Police department was aware of the violations for the un-authorized extended hours and thus encouraged Target Company to break the law. FACT: Holiday hours during year 2010. Target was operating till mid night 12:OOAM without authorization- The city staffs were absent and thus they failed to 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 citation495 3 3) FACT: Friday morning Nov 25, 2011, 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:OOAM) of the violation by showing her the land use restriction/hours document item 57 under DR99-22 (police case 411-12740).The city of Costa Mesa encouraged Target Company to allow them to break the law. FACT: Target management publicly acknowledged during year 2000 Planning and City Council meeting/s that they have no intention to open the store beyond 10:00 PM. For witness and facts — refer to the recorded minutes of the city council meeting during year 2000. FACT: The Targets store at 3030 Harbor is now selling grocery and alcohol, a change from the original use permit as claimed in year 2000. 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". 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 0 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 DR99-22 0 9/14/02 Deliveries in front of the store -citation # 3427 • Also, the fact, as given by the residents that several incidents and violations as occurred were not reported to the code enforcements. 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 has been irrelevant considering the punishment for breaking the law. Thus fines ranged from $75 to $500 per incident. 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 planriing 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. Per Mr. Morelli request a refund of the payment was returned and approved. 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: 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. 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 13-15 — "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 CEO and City Council concerning the ongoing and severity of violation as associated with Target, and thus the City has not been 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 and undue hardship. 113 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. 114 D lib CIVIL CITATION 009511 ° Costa Mesa Municipal Code Violation U-0c(,Zn\.t QNAQ vY n e- Date TimaliPm LJ pm Day of 010 Week Prior Citation Name (First) - + ` Middle Last k c©t�' Residence Address City State Zip Code Driver License Number State Age Birth Dale •Se>< Hair Eyes Height ( pWeeighht� pRace Address OfViolAlion city State Zip Code Violation CtM�MC Sec. Violation CMMC.Ser Fine: S , �'^' ��� Flnu: S OFFICER'S OBSERVATIONS: On the date specified herein, the undersigned officer observed at the specified address, the following, conditions: i 0 �c- o VIOLATIONS NOTICE BY: " ❑Pc sorial Seivjce ❑ Mail Property Posted ❑ Person Cited Refused To Sign Receipt For Citation ❑ Violation(s) not committed in my presence, certified on information and belief I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT, EXECUTED ON DATE SHOWN ABOVE. X VIOLATOR: Without admitting guilt, I a4hnowledge having received the citation. L(tLJ� �. �.ilctis�1:1 l� t�.1Fuh.Ceev�en � Issuing Officer 10 Number Department THE LAW REQUIRES THAT YOU COMPLY WITH THIS CITATION OR CONTEST THE VIOLATION. (1) TO .COMPLY with this citation, correct the Violation immediately, and pay the fine within 30 days (see reverse side), (2) TO CONTEST this citation, you must pay the fine, and request a hearing within 30 days (follow procedure on reverse side). if you have followed the procedure to contest this citation, your Administrative Hearing will be herd a e Costa Mesa City Hell, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, First Floor, on the day of �� 20 t� -at 1:30 pm. Check in at the City Clerk's office. 295646 11-7 C T CITATION 009515 Costa Mesa Municipal Code Violation kk- VA-16 tk iMa a.0liah Dale Time Pam C) pm Day of the Week prior Citation Name (First) Middle. Last --Il st -'�'Ju1C 1 Pk n Residence Address Clly State .Zip Code Driver License Number State Age Binh Date Sex Halr Eyes Height Weight Race 3o3n VuP���i2 dl,�)D . Address Of Violation oST:s tM.� City State Zip Code Vialalion CMMCGSec. Violation CMMC Sec, Fine: s -.P0_,_.___ Fine; 5 OFFICER'S OBSERVATIONS: On.the date specified herein, the undersigned officer observed at the specified.address, the following conditions; 4:AC�5iaa t� Z '� i2 fa t titPt'c�. 6f2� S 1__N t53 .(z V I OLATION'NOTICEBY: ❑ Personal -Service, iFlMail Property Posted ❑ Person Cited Refused.To Sign Receipt For Citation ❑ Violation(s) not committed in my presence, certified on information and belief I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT, EXECUTED ON DATE SHOWN ABOVE. X VIOLATOR: Without admitting guilt, I acknowledge havingraceived.lhe citation. C 04eO Issuing Officer ID Number Department THE LAW REQUIRES THAT YOU COMPLY WITH THIS CITATION OR CONTEST THE VIOLATION. (1) TO COMPLY 1 With this citation, correct the violation immediately, and.pay the One within 30 days (see reverse side). (2) TO CONTEST this citation, you must pay the fine, and request a hearing within 30 days,(follow procedure on reverse side). If you have followed the procedure to contest this citation, yourAdtninistrative Hearing will he held of w Costa Mesa City Hall, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, First Floor, on the day of J �"_ 20 11�.,at 1;30 pm. Check in at the City ClerWs office. 295646 i 09 "t;-R-L"CITATION 009533 Costa Mesa Municipal Code Violation t1D900 %0�+e-t Date Time V am 0 pm Day of the Week 'Prior Citation -T 1 V'jL V t tJLIt. Nano (First) Middle Last lo-s in 6 1�w1a �cuL �t> 1 b Rosidonco Address city State ZIP Coda Driver License Number State Ago Birth Date Sox Hair Eyes Height .weight Race Address Of Violation - %1�STJ,. U-kvgs' Jt G42�r 9'267-L Cory State Zip Code moo- a L�� • Violation CMMC See. Violation CMMC Sac Fine: $ Fine: S OFFICER'S OBSERVATIONS` On the date specified herein, the undersigned officer observed at th®specified address, the following condirmfIS: tti 11 !mil 'rL t�.t\ Lid^ -MC-k %Z ' .y I'G4l�`18��1%t_ iloUVYA IIL - 30 VIOLATION NOTICE BY: p Personal. service ,El mill Propeny Posted Q Person Cited Refused To Sign Receipt For Citation ❑ Violation(s) not committed in my presence, certified on information and belief I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. EXECUTED ON DATE SHOWN ABOVE. x V141,ATOR: Without admitting.gulit, I acknowledge having racatved the citation. Issuing Officer ID Number aepattment THE LAW REQUIRES THAT YOU COMPLY WITH THIS CITATION OR CONTEST THE'VIOLATION. (1) TO''COMPLY with this citation, correct the violation immediately, and pay the find within.30 days (see reverse side). (2) TO CONTEST this citation, you must pay the fine, and request a hearing within 30 days (follow procedure on reverse side). It you have followed the procedurs to contest this citation, yourAdministrativa Hearing will be hold at the Costa Mega Ciry;Hall, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, First Floor, on the _ 7 day of 20 12.rrat 130 pm. Cherk in. at the City Clerk's office. 295645 jig rao 'mrCITATION 'B 9198 Costa Mesa Municipal Code Violation Deer Time ( am Fjp �Da o traWdek PrlorCllallon , v _ Name (First) Middle last 3-�30-lA�e�23t�vb• Residence Address (�:ora-pq��� city Suite ZIP Code Driver Ucanse Number Stnin Age Birth Date Sex Hair Eyes Height Weight Race Addcess_.Of Violation 1 n city Slate 21p Code Violation CMMC.sec. Violation CMMC Sec. Fine: s _,5 • "p� Flne: $ �.,....,. OFFICER'S OBSERVATIONS: On the date specified herein, the Undersigned ofhcerrobseroed at the specified address, the following conditions: n \t I 0- F i 3L. VIOLATION NOTICE BY: E] Personal Service 0 Mail AProperty Posted ❑ Person Cited Refused To Sign Receipt For Citation Violations) not committed in my presence, certified on information anq belief I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. EXECUTED ON DATE SHOWN ABOVE. X _ VIOLATOR: WILhout admitting guilt, I acknowledge having received the citation. L.at'fr_ Issuing Officer ID Humber Department THE LAW REQUIRES THAT YOU COMPLY WITH THIS CITATION OR CONTEST THE VIOLATION. (9) TO COMPLY with this citation, correct the violation immediately, and pay the fine within 30 days (see reverse side). (2) TO CONTEST this citation, you must pay the fine, and request a hearing within 30 days (follow procedure on reverse side). it you have toilowad the procedure to contest this citation, your Administrative Hearing will be held the Costa Mes Ci Hall, 77 Fair Onv . Costa Mesa, First Floor, on Mir.1, :day of_—W.. 20 �,-et V30 pm. Check in at the City Clerk's office. 295046 This picture shows lack of compliance by Target Company as the picture was taken on 02/12/2012 at 1:15 PM ( truck parked on the red curb as such it is prohibited in the area) 03 n� Additional Input in response to city staff analysis (Mel Lee) and report -dated March 01, 2012 FACT; NO actual physical study was conducted to observe the 2012 noise area conditions: The noise study as written in defense for Target Company by RK Engineering -"Mike Dickerson", in its conclusion was based on past 1999 old data. Note; for year 2012 - NO Actual OR Current Noise study were Conducted. If so, where is the calibration certificate for the noise instruments? FACT: Adverse impact ---complaints by adjacent neighbors were reported to the police department during 2010-2011 year and thus the City failed to document and not to report them. In addition, by the virtue of lack of enforcement, most adjacent residents have given up in coming forward as they the City or Target have been ignoring the correction of the violations. FACT: Code Enforcement staffs were usually absent -Most violations as reported, were submitted by the residents rather than by city staff oversight. In -addition, Target Company refuses to show the security tapes to the code enforcement staff which to reveal the truth about the incidents as reported by the residents. FACT: the extended hours till 11:OOPM are not compatible with the adjacent residential uses. Mel Lee subjective finding and thus is contrary to the facts. Mel lee report failed to present scientific data, but rather opinions. In addition, safe guards or mitigations efforts were not presented and thus there is no assurance by Target Company to abide for the quiet and enjoyment of the surrounding neighborhood. FACT: the police department review which reveals no objection did not address police matters or crime data. For the record -where is the police report review and the analysis. FACT: why the city staff keep ignoring the need for comparative review against the original analysis as given by year 2009-2010. Why CEQA analysis was not conducted. The environmental impacts for the 3030 Harbor has increased —not decreased over the years. FACT: Target management, ackizowledged a $5000 is usually generated in sales revenue per for that extra hour --per math it is a $1.8 million is sales revenues per year --so the city can get (one) 1 percent which is $18,000 possible increase in tax revenue per given year. Using the math again —the current store hours are from 8:00 to 1OPM, which is about 14 operating hours per day, a $2.5 million dollars in anticipated sales revenue for the city. It is all about money and thus it is a classical comparison to eminent domain takes over, without just compensation. The fact, it is about enriching special interest by damaging the property value of the eight resident northerly adjacent neighbors. The on -going trend of fabrication of the facts, fueled in part by spurious city of Costa Mesa staff analysis in. which where the city self financial interest are governed- which is sales revenue- which is MONEY. FACT: the extension of hours is about MONEY and for enriching the City and Target Company -which is a conflict of interest for the city to be a judge on the merits of protecting the residence. The extension of store hour's case as presented by the folks at the Target Store, are regimentally fabricated facts nor is it as such more objectives. The Target management folks are biased in with their arguments towards their own direction. Target and the city staff keep finding arguments in order to favor their claim for enriching themselves — it is all about MONEY. In conclusion, for our family, we have been going through a lot of emotional, physical and mental stress. We have put our lives on hold during all these hearing, for which it consume time, energy and efforts. This has been on -going efforts in order to protect our property rights against the unlawful abuse of the City of Costa Mesa and the Target Corporation. In addition, we have been deprived the full benefits of having peace and enjoyment of our property. These on- going manipulation efforts to chip away by diluting the original DR99-22 land use conditions need to be stopped- the city and Target needs to conclude and abide by the original DR99-22 agreement. PERIOD. )z Page 1 of 2 LEE, MEL From: Louanne Mccormick [louanne.mccormick@camoves.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 3:30 PM To: PLANNING COMMISSION Cc: LEE, MEL; 330tom@ca.rr.com Subject: Target Hours Decision To the members of the Planning Commission: My husband and I were saddened to watch the "bad guy's" win last night in the Council Chambers. The decision amazed us after Chairman McCarthy and Vice Chair Clark so clearly understood and voiced our concerns, we are grateful that they heard us and we were feeling. confident that the Commission was heading towards denial of Target's latest request. I then ever after I carefully explained how we, the neighbors, have no mechanism to document disturbances the decision ends up to allow them the extended hours with a review in 6 months to see if any disturbance have been documented — really? Target has not had any meaningful repercussions for their blatant disregard for the CUP and the City Codes. A more effective fine schedule would have racked up a year and half of CUP hours violations — now that dollar figure might at least get their attention — but instead they got what they wanted at the expense of the neighborhood one more time. Our obvious concern is that Target, having now secured what were extended Holiday hours as their normal daily hours, will once again request to extend their Holiday hours by 2 hours a day to 7 a.m. —12 p.m. I would not put it past them to try — but I can tell you that the neighborhood is absolutely furious and sick to death of Target doing what they want when they want. If one more request comes our way we are organized and ready with petitions and we will picket if we have to. Hopefully Target will consider themselves lucky for dodging yet another bullet and leave well enough alone - but I wouldn't count on it. Kind regards, LouAnne R. McCormick CA D RE # 01194643 949.721.5423 Direct Line 949.640.3610 Fax Line 949.463.0977 Cell Your referrals are always appreciated. 03/16/2012 1 a(.Q Page 2 of 2 140 Newport Center Drive, Suite 100 Newport Beach, CA 92660 02005 Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage. Owned and Operated by NRT, Incorporated. 03/16/2012 121 From: Al Morelli [mailto:morelli4@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 9:05 PM To: Jim Fitzpatrick - Cc: HATCH, THOMAS Subject: Re: follow up re code enforcement 3030 Harbor re send --as I forgot to include the pictures. Please see attached On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 7:18 PM, Al Morelli <morelli4@gmail.com> wrote: This is a follow up regarding my comments and yours during the planning commission meeting - public comments- March 26. I do appreciate that you said, you did follow up with staff regarding bringing up the code enforcement officer while he was shopping at 3030 harbor Target store during 02/02/2012 at 1:15 PM. However, FYI- prior to your public statement, no staff from the city did follow up with me nor did communicate with me to this regards. So according to your public statement during the commission meeting., officer David Saito was shopping at Target during city business hours , using city vehicle -shopping for camera at Target at 1:15 PM. Can you please provide a receipt of such purchase along with city reimbursement expense form for his camera purchase; and a copy of his official time card. That will satisfy what I consider a follow up, and not he say, staff said. Most important, officer Saito observed a code violation per DR99-22, the truck was parked on the red curb and thus he did not act on it. I submitted 2 pictures for the record during the Planning commission meeting -- Officer Saito, as code enforcement officer, during city time and thus he did not act on something he observed--. So, here is my question to you for clarification, if future non compliance observation do happen at 3030 harbor Target, what we should be the outlook from our city employees. I trust to hear from you. Thanks for all your efforts lag Al Morelli Al Morelli Searchtec Consulting Group CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail communication and. any attachments, including documents, files, or previous e- mail messages, constitute electronic, communications within the scope of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2510 et seq. This e- mail communication may contain non-public, confidential or legally privileged information intended for. the sole use of the designated recipient(s). The unauthorized. and. intentional interception, use, copy or disclosure of such information, or attempt to do so, is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful under- applicable laws. 18 U.S.C. § 2511. If you have received. this e- mail communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by return e- mail and delete the original e-mail from your system. Al Morelli Searchtec Consulting Group CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail communication and any attachments, including documents, files, or previous e- mail messages, constitute electronic communications within the scope of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2510 et seq. This e- mail communication may contain non-public, confidential or legally privileged information intended for the sole use of the designated recipient(s). The unauthorized and intentional interception, use, copy or disclosure of such information, or attempt to do so, is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful under applicable laws. 18 U.S.C. § 2511. If you have received this e- mail communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by return e- mail and delete the original e-mail from your system. • .a a js� -+c r� .R - s f :1 � A°�; � Y v1E �� � ., - , k � A . � �`• �, gam, ,� f Jr } } •, , y � 'r` .4� �' k '' �[ »#���° � � �f � � ' ¢?}' " �j,�ds''� r"7� �� p��q�F°`.�,,n ^ . /;: y +d��tw , i:. � t-�{,;r0 �i t4�'..k • �•y�rl'�Q}j r ' i '", .,1 `1 -�• `' , '�r • .t. • -• '�`wtk;'ti:, 3 +� �, a �' j yAll yy P w l �,w. ✓P a, , ,t , • » �'+-' 'r• • s• a z� , ') j •, . �� � ' � � i'r �Ta�Ji 1'iI. ', •a Jrrll�,�t�'� pw ''I,�� �`�} ,�w. �{ '- • 't �'�.r y eJ - .a. :-� ..t. Y' �y���• tit.: f, ° �, �.. r rY ♦ .��* d.?. "� .l41 ¢ Y 1 ik t .,e n 9 { l t f s r - r wry` April 4, 2012 Repeat, REPEAT, Repeat, REPEAT, Repeat The request by the Target Company is a REPEAT request of the same, which is to change the original land use restriction and to dilute the "AGREEMENT" as approved and adopted on April 18, 2000. For that, I am re -sending (repeating) our revised input as has been submitted over the years, which is to explain the burden of having a Target store adjacent to our properties. For the record, the environmental impacts conditions as originally implied have increased over the years. Now, we have more noise, more traffic and also we have a proven demonstrated lack of compliance by Target Company at 3030 Harbor property. Revised -Supplemental Document: Re -submit; City Council Appeal to DR 99-22 AY, Fellow City Council; I am asking you to deny the request for extended hours regarding the Target Store, grateful 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 13_--� why you should DENY Target with their request. We have an official agreement and the agreement should be honored as the land use conditions are still the same. 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: As discovered during the Planning Commission meeting, Target did violate the store operating hours during year 2010 -2011 (for a full year and half). 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 Ionger 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, and he denied any knowledge about such violations. 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. Also, it appears that the Police department was aware of the violations for the un-authorized extended hours and thus encouraged Target Company to break the law. FACT: Holiday hours during year 2010. Target was operating till mid night 12:OOAM without authorization- The city staffs were absent and thus they failed to 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, 2011, 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:OOAM) of the violation by showing her the land use restriction/hours document item 57 under DR99-22 (police case #11-12740).The city of Costa Mesa encouraged Target Company to allow them to break the law. FACT: Target management publicly acknowledged during year 2000 Planning and City Council meeting/s that they have no intention to open the store beyond 10:00 PM. For witness and facts — refer to the recorded minutes of the city council meeting during year 2000. FACT: The Targets store at 3030 Harbor is now selling grocery and alcohol, a change from the original use permit as claimed in year 2000. Groceries are not subject to sales tax. The ��3 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". 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 DR99-22 • 9/14/02 Deliveries in front of the store -citation # 3427 • Also, the fact, as given by the residents that several incidents and violations as occurred were not reported to the code enforcements. 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 has been irrelevant considering the punishment for breaking the law. Thus fines ranged from $75 to $500 per incident. 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. Per Mr. Morelli request a refund of the payment was returned and approved. 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: 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 fiuzding. 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 13-15 — "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 CEO and City Council concerning the ongoing and severity of violation as associated with Target, and thus the City has not been 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 and undue hardship. 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. 13ct) Ni A 4k � y�.e'k,�4er� 1��1' I �jS1��-id{ if,4nl q ot h"i b Ar mow:} 31 1. n N r C 1 a k � w ` N'- 1 r, N I� I, F ., tt i :51^ } ' e • tr Ted GF�' I CIVIL CITATION 009511 ° Costa Mesa Municipal Code Violation Date Timelifzm ❑ pin Day or the Week Prior Citallon .. Name (First) Middle Last , Q= Q l�nujz7r Residence Address 'lIs-k\ d 0 *J o1s.S 1A" O -R D City state Zip Coda Driver License Number Slate Age Binh Date Sex Hair Eyes Height Weight Race 7)D -�p Address Or Violation City Stale Zip.Code Violation CMMC Sec. Violation CMMC Sec. Fine: $ 1'saFine: S OFFICER'S OBSERVATIONS: On the date specified herein, the undersigned officer observed at the specified address, the following conditions: aP -suek2 t_._') P. KyglVm .oF LIPW J''Ci@f1 t _ VIOLATION NOTICE BY: I `❑'Persorial Service ❑ Mail Properly Posted ❑ Person Cited Refused To Sign Receipt For Citation ❑ Violation(s) not committed In my presence, certified on information t and belief I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. EXECUTED ON DATE SHOWN ABOVE. X VIOLATOR: Without admitting guilt, I acknowledge having received the citation. Issuing Officer ID Number Department THE LAW REQUIRES THAT YOU COMPLY WITH THIS CITATION OR CONTEST THE VIOLATION. (1) TO COMPLY with this citation, correct the violation immediately, and pay the fine within 30 days (see reverse side). (2) TO CONTEST this citation, you must pay the fine, and request a hearing within 30 days (follow procedure on reverse side). If you have followed the procedure to contest this citation, your Administrative Hearing will be held e e Costa Mesa City Hail, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, First Floor, on the day _20 ' :30 pm. Check In at the City Clerk's office._ 295646 13° "CITATION 009 515 Costa Mesa Municipal Code Violation 11. N- L l l \tom 0 1. o#jh hra Date Time 13? am ❑ pm Day of the Week Prior Citation 12OAt--� L CA(/ W Pnp m k- Name (First) Middle Last Resldence.Address yI-4,j uj i 5 GA Q (1i0 City Stale Zip Code Driver License Number - .State Age .Birth Date Sex Hair Eyes Height Weight -Race _ ?)01e , N�2�ci2 d�x]D Address Of Violation COST tr�s W�� GA • �Z 671 City State Zip Code Violation CMMC Sec. Violation CMMC Sec. Fine:. 5 k=-:C)Q Fine: $ OFFICER'S OBSERVATIONS: On thedatespecified herein, the undersigned officer observed at the specified.address, the following conditions: pomh I.i►u6seci(a Z ld2tawme- Caw Q.,,o- V50 ,EO VIOLATION NOTICE BY: ❑ Personal Service Lglm-all ropertyP.osted ❑ Person Cited Refused To Sign Receipt For Citation ❑ Violation(s).not committed in my presence, certified on information and belief I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE :OF CALIFORNIA THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT, EXECUTED ON DATE SHOWN ABOVE. X VIOLATOR: Without admitting guilt; I acknowledgehaving received the citation. C Oatri Issuing Officer 10 Number Department THE LAW REQUIRES THAT YOU COMPLY WITH THIS CITATION OR CONTEST THE VIOLATION. (1) TO COMPLY with this citation, correct the violation immediately, and pay the fine within 30 days (see reverse side), (2) TO CONTEST this citation, you must pay the fine, and request a hearing within 30 days (follow procedure on reverse side). If you have followed the procedure to contest this citation, your Administrative Hearing will be held at4he Costa Mesa City Hall, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, First Floor, on the day of 5 ti 20 12�, at 1:30 pm. Check in at the City Clerk's office. 2956-46 k -CMICCITATIQN 009533 Costa Mesa Municipal Code Violation U •21 � �\ D�Sr7a 'T`c9c�i trt Data Time 'li(] am O pm Day of the Week Prior Citation -T CAxlt. Name (First) Middle Last 303 t� 1-�lPv/21�r�2J 75 Residence Address City Slats' Zip Code Driver License Number State Age Birth Date Sax Hair Eyes Height Weight Race Address Of Violation Crns-ra l► l ^S J� Gas 910—L city Slate Zip code �. Ub) Violation CMMC Sec. Violation CMMC See. Fine: $ Jam. `� 70 Fine: $ OFFICER'S OBSERVATIONS: On the date specified herein, the undersigned officer observed at the specified address, the following conditions: AR7QO4./N L h1UP1g;� VIOLATION NOTICE BY: ❑ Personal Service ❑ Mail Property Posted ❑ Person Cited Refused To Sign Receipt For Citation ❑ Violation(s) not committed In my presence, certified on information and belief 1 DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. EXECUTED ON DATE SHOWN ABOVE, X VIOLATOR:: Without admitting guiit,Iacknowledge having received tbeoitation. Cc iALLUaC, 1i L'Yf�ctflLC(1 Y1i IssuingOfficer iD Number Department THE LAW REQUIRES THAT YOU COMPLY WITH THIS CITATION OR CONTEST THE VIOLATION. (1) TO COMPLY with this citation, correct the violation immediately, and pay the fine within 30 days (see reverse side). (2) TO CONTEST this citation, you must pay the fine; and request a hearing within 30 days (follow procedure on reverse side). If you have followed the procedure to contest this citation, your Admirristrative Hearing will be held at the Costa Mgt@ City Ha11, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, First Floor, on the ,-_ day of � �L� ., 20 at 130 pm. Check in at the City Clerk's office. 29$e-49 141 A+' , tMrCITATION B 9198 Costa Mesa Munici al Code Vlolati n Date Time RFam 0p Daxojthe•W ek PrlorClletion t� Y 6 Name (First) Middle Last ,3�930 �1i4neo2 C3i✓n Residence Address fe mpi 1 ��fJ C/� `�262 G City Stale ZIP Code Driver License Number .Stale Age Birth Dale Sex Hair Eyes Height Weight Race atz�30 Address Of Violation Ob'g e\ t&ke, s A Gad Q'Z�ZG City State Zip Code '2a_�C�� Violation CMMC Sec. Violation CMMC Sec. Fine; S .Vn - C C) Fine: $ OFFICER'S OBSERVATIONS: On the dale specified herein, the undersigned officer observed at the specified address, the following conditions: p c9urLs soo- aid VIOLATION NOTICE BY: ❑ Personal Service ❑ Mail P Property Posted O Person Cited Refused To Sign Receipt For Citation El Violation(s) not committed In my presence, certified on information anq belief I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT, EXECUTED ON DATE SHOWN ABOVE. X VIOLATOR: Without admitting guilt, I acknowledge having received the citation, G O'fll� %• �lGfldts � / L7ilrFuylcen�:ri: Issuing Officer ID. Number Department THE LAW REQUIRES THAT YOU COMPLY WITH THIS CITATION OR CONTEST THE VIOLATION. (1) TO COMPLY with this citation, correct the violation immediately, and pay the fine within 30 days (see reverse side). (2) TO CONTEST this ckadon, you must pay the fine, and request a hearing within 30 days (follow procedure on reverse side). It you have followed the procedure to contest this citation, your Administrative Hearing will be held the Costa Me s Ci Hall, 77 Fair 0 ' �, 7.Costa Mesa, First Floor, on the I day of— — 20 M4-11:30 pm. Check in at the City Clerk's office. 295646 14O .n This picture shows lack of compliance by Target Company as the picture was taken on 02/12/2012 at 1:15 PM ( truck parked on the red curb as such it is prohibited in the area) 145 Additional Input in response to city staff analysis (Mel Lee) and report -dated March 01, 2012 FACT; NO actual physical study was conducted to observe the 2012 noise area conditions: The noise study as written in defense for Target Company by RK Engineering -"Mike Dickerson", in its conclusion was based on past 1999 old data. Note; for year 2012 - NO Actual OR Current Noise study were Conducted. If so, where is the calibration certificate for the noise instruments? FACT: Adverse impact ---complaints by adjacent neighbors were reported to .the police department during 2010-2011 year and thus the City failed to document and not to report them. In addition, by the virtue of lack of enforcement, most adjacent residents have given up in coming forward as they the City or Target have been ignoring the correction of the violations. FACT: Code Enforcement staffs were usually absent -Most violations as reported, were submitted by the residents rather than by city staff oversight. In addition, Target Company refuses to show the security tapes to the code enforcement staff which to reveal the truth about the incidents as reported by the residents. FACT: the extended hours till 11:OOPM are not compatible with the adjacent residential uses. Mel Lee subjective finding and thus is contrary to the facts. Mel lee report failed to present scientific data, but rather opinions. In addition, safe guards or mitigations efforts were not presented and thus there is no assurance by Target Company to abide for the quiet and enjoyment of the surrounding neighborhood. FACT: the police department review which reveals no objection did not address police matters or crime data. For the record -where is the police report review and the analysis. FACT: why the city staff keep ignoring the need for comparative review against the original analysis as given by year 2009-2010. Why CEQA analysis was not conducted. The environmental impacts for the 3030 Harbor has increased —not decreased over the years, FACT: Target management, acknowledged a $5000 is usually generated in sales revenue per for that extra hour --per math it is a $1.8 million is sales revenues per year --so the city can get (one) 1 percent which is $18,000 possible increase in tax revenue per given year. Using the math again —the current store hours are from 8:00 to 1 OPM, which is about 14 operating hours per day, a $2.5 million dollars in anticipated sales revenue for the city. It is all about money and thus it is a classical comparison to eminent domain takes over, without jilst compensation. The fact, it is about enriching special interest by damaging the property value of the eight resident northerly adjacent neighbors. The on -going trend of fabrication of the facts, fueled in part by spurious city of Costa Mesa staff analysis in which where the city self financial interest are governed- which is sales revenue- which is MONEY. FACT: the extension of hours is about MONEY and for enriching the City and Target Company -which is a conflict of interest for the city to be a judge on the merits of protecting the residence. The extensions of store hour's case as presented by the folks at the Target Store are fabricated facts or are it truly objectives. The Target management folks are biased in with their arguments towards their own direction. Target and the city staff keep finding arguments in order to favor their claim for enriching themselves — it is all about MONEY. In conclusion, for our family, we have been going through a lot of emotional, physical and mental stress. We have put our lives on hold during all these hearing, for which it consume time, energy and efforts. This has been on -going efforts in order to protect our property rights against the unlawful abuse of the City of Costa Mesa and the Target Corporation. In addition, we have been deprived the full benefits of having peace and enjoyment of our property. These on- going efforts to chip away by diluting the original DR99-22 land use 4 conditions need to be stopped. The city and Target needs to conclude and abide by the original DR99-22 land use agreement. PERIOD. � 4:1