HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem LSeptember 25, 2000
STAFF REPORT I o 0
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council '
Attention: Donald F. McIntyre, Acting City Manager
From: Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services
Subject: PUBLIC HEARING -- APPEAL OF PLANNING
COMMISSION APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT NO. 00-2, OPERATION OF A
COFFEE/DESERT HOUSE WITH A DRIVE
THROUGH WINDOW AT A PREVIOUSLY
EXISTING DRIVE-THROUGH FAST-FOOD
RESTAURANT LOCATED AT 770 PACIFIC
COAST HIGHWAY, SEAL BEACH
(CURRENTLY BURGER KING)
83131 kl a thl
After receiving all public testimony and considering the decision of the Planning Commission, the
City Council has the following options:
1) Deny the appeal and sustain the decision of the Planning Commission, subject to appropriate
terms and conditions.
2) Sustain th peal, retsm
vg the decision of the Planning Commission, not permitting the use
of th xisting 've-through window as pan of the business operation.
3) Sustain the appeal, revising the decision of the Planning Commission in accordance with
terms and conditions other than those approved by the Planning Commission regarding the
proposed drive-through coffee house.
Staff has prepared as Attachment 1, a resolution of the City Council sustaining the determination of
the Planning Commission. If the City Council determines to adopt option (1) after conducting the
AGENDA ITEM /
C:NyD uwnMCUPCUPa 2.Appa Soffa wmdwU.W`A9 ]1
Public Hearing ne: Appeal ojApproval of Conditional Use Permit 00.2
Planning Commission Resolution 00.19
770 Pacific Coast Highway (Starbucks Coffee)
City Council Swff Report
September25, 2000
public hearing, it would be appropriate to adopt that resolution. If the City Council determines to
adopt option (2) or (3), it is appropriate to revise the resolution based upon the determinations of the
City Council.
Staff will be prepared to revise the proposed City Council Resolution as determined appropriate by
the City Council upon concluding the public hearing.
BACKGROUND:
On May 17 and August 9, 2000 the Planning Commission considered the above referenced
application for Conditional Use Permit 00-2. After receiving all testimony at the public hearings
and extensive deliberations among the members of the Commission, it was the determination of
the Planning Commission to approve the application on a 5-0 vote, subject to certain terms and
conditions, through the adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 00-19.
The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 00-19 on August 23, 2000 which set forth the
findings and determinations of the Commission regarding the requested use of a drive-through
window at an existing fast-food restaurant facility (Burger King) for a proposed coffee house
(Starbucks Coffee), please refer to Planning Commission Resolution No. 00-19, for the findings
and conditions of the Planning Commission). The Planning Commission resolution imposes 21
conditions of approval for the project.
An appeal of the recommendation of the Planning Commission was filed in a timely manner, and the
matter is now before the City Council for consideration at a public hearing.
FACTS:
■ The Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings on May 17 and August 9, 2000
to consider CUP 00.2. Both written and oral evidence was submitted for the project. At the
public hearings the applicants representatives and other persons spoke in favor of and in
opposition to the request
■ After receiving all public testimony on August 9, 2000, the Planning Commission
determined to approve the requested Conditional Use Permit, subject to certain terms and
conditions, on a 5-0 vote, and requested staff to prepare the appropriate resolution for
Commission consideration on August 23, 2000.
the ba2.Apam sutr arp.t
Public Hearing re: Appeal of Approval of Candatonal Use Permit 00-2
Planning Commission Resolution 00-19
770 Pacific Coast Highway (Starbucks Coffee)
City Council Su ff Report
September 25. 2000
■ Planning Commission Resolution No. 00-19, adopted by the Conunission on August 23,
2000, set forth the findings and determination of the Commission regarding these matters.
The resolution was adopted on a 5-0 vote of the Commission.
■ An appeal of the recommendation of the Planning Commission was filed by Councilman
Yost on August 28, 2000, (See Attachment 2) and the matter is now before the City Council
for consideration at a public hearing.
DISCUSSION OF AREA OF CONCERN OF APPEAL:
As previously indicated, the appellant is appealing the Planning Commission approval of CUP 00-2.
The appellant's areas of concern are discussed in greater detail below.
The Planning Commission devoted a substantial amount of time during thein deliberations on this
application in regards to the issues of concern. Please refer to the Planning Commission Minutes of
May 17, August 9, and August 23 2000 (See Attachments D, E, and F, respectively).
For the purposes of this report, the issue of concern as set forth in the appeal (Refer to Attachment
B) will be discussed:
A. Traffic data submitted:
Staff Comment: The Planning Commission considered all of the various traffic data
submitted by the applicant and other traffic data submitted by other parties in opposition
to the request. This was a major issue of discussion among the Commission (See
Attachments D, E, and F, respectively for a review of the Commission discussion at the
various meetings of the Commission). In addition, please refer to the Planning
Commission Supplemental Staff Report of August 9, 2000 (Attachment F, pages 3-5) for
further discussion on this issue. The Commission ultimately decided to approve the
request and made specific findings relative to the traffic and trip generation issue in
Section 5(b) and Section 5(c) of Planning Commission Resolution 00-19.
The Planning Commission determined to accept the traffic analysis prepared by Linscott,
Law & Greenspan and specifically references this traffic study in the findings set forth in
Section 5 of Planning Commission Resolution 00-19. These findings of the Commission
were based upon careful consideration of the following:
the testimony and documents received at the public hearings of May 17 and August
9, 2000;
cure 2A,p SunRepon
Public Hearing re: Appeal of Approval of Conditional Use Permit 00.2
Planning Commission Resolution 00-19
770 Pacific Coast Highway (Starbucks Coffee)
City Council SraffRepon
September 25, 2000
■ the information provided in the Planning Commission Staff Report of May 17 and
August 9, 2000, including the "Trip Generation Study for the Proposed Starbucks
at 8th Street and Pacific Coast Highway, Seal Beach", prepared by Linscott, Law
and Greenspan, dated August 1, 2000; and
■ the concerns and deliberations of the Planning Commission expressed after the close
of the public hearing on August 9, 2000.
Based upon the information presented and its specific findings of fact, the Planning
Commission imposed twenty-one (21) separate conditions of approval designed to ensure
that the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and compatible with, and not
detrimental to, surrounding uses and the community in general.
B. Suitability of the site for a Starbucks:
Staff Continent: The Planning Commission considered all of the public testimony
and documentation submitted by the applicant and by other parties in opposition to the
request. This was a major issue of discussion among the Commission (See Attachments
D, E, and F, respectively for a review of the Commission discussion at the various
meetings of the Commission). The Commission ultimately decided to approve the
request and made specific findings relative to the suitability of an appropriate land use on
the subject property in Sections 5(a) through Section 5(c) of Planning Commission
Resolution 00-19.
These findings of the Commission were based upon careful consideration of the
following:
■ the testimony and documents received at the public hearings of May 17 and
August 9,2000;
■ consistency with the provisions of the Land Use Element of the City's General
Plan, which provides a "General Commercial" zoning designation for the subject
property and permits drive through restaurants subject to the issuance of a
conditional use permit.
■ the information provided in the Planning Commission Staff Report of May 17 and
August 9, 2000, including the "Trip Generation Study for the Proposed Starbucks
at 8th Street and Pacific Coast Highway, Seal Beach", prepared by Linscott, Law
and Greenspan, dated August 1, 2000; and
■ the concerns and deliberations of the Planning Commission expressed after the close
of the public hearing on August 9, 2000.
cueadzn�sunmuyon
Public Hearing re: Appeal of Approval ofCondawnal Use Permit 00-2
Plarming Commission Resolution 00-19
770 Pacific Coast Highway (Starbucks Coffee)
City Council StafjRepon
September 25, 2000
C. Suitability of the parking lot to maintain a queue and function as a parking lot:
Staff Comment: The Planning Commission considered all of the various traffic data
submitted by the applicant and other traffic data submitted by other parties in opposition
to the request. This was an issue of discussion among the Commission (See Attachments
D, E, and F, respectively for a review of the Commission discussion at the various
meetings of the Commission). In addition, please refer to the Planning Commission
Supplemental Staff Report of August 9, 2000 (Attachment F, pages 3-5) for further
discussion on this issue. The Commission ultimately decided to approve the request and
made specific findings relative to the traffic and trip generation issue in Section 5(b) and
Section 5(c) of Planning Commission Resolution 00-19.
D. Impact on surrounding traffic circulation and safety:
Staff Comment: The Planning Commission considered all of the various traffic data
submitted by the applicant and other traffic data submitted by other patties in opposition
to the request. This was a major issue of discussion among the Commission (See
Attachments D, E, and F, respectively for a review of the Commission discussion at the
various meetings of the Commission). In addition, please refer to the Planning
Commission Supplemental Staff Report of August 9, 2000 (Attachment F, pages 3-5) for
further discussion on this issue. The Commission ultimately decided to approve the
request and made specific findings relative to the traffic and trip generation issue in
Section 5(b) and Section 5(c) of Planning Commission Resolution 00-19.
The Planning Commission ultimately determined to accept the traffic analysis prepared
by Linscott, Law & Greenspan and specifically references this traffic study in the
findings set forth in Section 5 of Planning Commission Resolution 00-19. These findings
of the Commission were based upon careful consideration of the following:
■ the testimony and documents received at the public hearings of May 17 and August
9, 2000;
■ the information provided in the Planning Commission Staff Report of May 17 and
August 9, 2000, including the "Trip Generation Study for the Proposed Starbucks
at a Street and Pacific Coast Highway, Seal Beach", prepared by Linscou, Law
and Greenspan, dated August 1, 2000; and
■ the concerns and deliberations of the Planning Commission expressed after the close
of the public hearing on August 9, 2000.
C1Roo-2.Awm stnReyoe
Public Hearing re: Appeal of Approval of Conafidonal Use Permit 00-2
Plaming Commuslon Resolution 00-19
770 Pacific Coast Highway (Starbucks Coffee)
Cory Council Staff Repon
Sepiember25, 2000
Based upon the information presented and its specific findings of fact, the Planning
Commission imposed twenty-one (21) separate conditions of approval designed to ensure
that the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and compatible with, and not
detrimental to, surrounding uses and the community in general.
The Planning Commission imposed the following conditions to specifically address this
concern:
119. The City Engineer reserves the right to restrict access into parking lot from the
Alley on the West side of the property if a stacking problem begins to appear.
18. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke or modify this CUP
pursuant to Articles 25 and 28 of The Code of the City of Seal Beach if traffic -
related problems are demonstrated to occur as a result of the operation of the
drive-through window.
20. The applicant shall inform the Director of Development Services in writing of the
first business day for the subject business. During the third and fourth month of
business operation, the City shall cause a traffic monitoring program to be
conducted on the subject premises to ascertain the traffic pattern and trip
generation characteristics of the subject premises. Applicant shall reimburse the
City for all costs related to this traffic monitoring program. The report of this
traffic monitoring program shall be provided to the Planning Commission for
consideration in its review of an indefinite extension request in accordance with
the provisions of Condition 16.
21. The term of this permit shall be four (4) months, beginning the first day of
operation of the new restaurant. At the end of the initial term, the applicant may
apply to the City for an indefinite extension. The Planning Commission may grant
an extension as discussed above, provided that all Conditions of Approval have
been met and no significant police or other problems have occurred. The
applicant is hereby advised that a new application and accompanying fee must be
submitted to the City prior to consideration of any extensions."
E. Impact Starbucks would have on existing businesses:
Staff Comment: This was an issue of discussion among the Commission (See
Attachments D, E, and F, respectively for a review of the Commission discussion at the
various meetings of the Commission). The Commission ultimately decided to approve
CUPM2AypumsadraepW 6
Public Hearing re: Appeal of Approval of Conditional Use Pemtit 00-2
Planwng Commission Resolution 00-19
770 Pacific Coast Highway (Starbucks Coffee)
City Council StafReport
September25, 2000
the request and made specific findings relative to the consistency of the proposed use to
the General Plan of the City. Planning Commission Resolution 00-19, Section 5(a), sets
forth the following finding of the Planning Commission regarding consistency with the
General Plan:
"(a) Conditional Use Permit 00-2 is consistent with the provisions of the Land Use
Element of the City's General Plan, which provides a "General Commercial"
zoning designation for the subject property and permits drive through restaurants
subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit. The proposed conditional use
permit is to change the use from a drive through restaurant to a drive through
coffee house and to permit interior alterations. The use is also consistent with the
remaining elements of the City's General Plan, as the policies of those elements
are consistent with, and reflected in, the Land Use Element. Accordingly, the
proposed use is consistent with the General Plan."
F. Consistency with the general plan and Main Street Specific Plan:
Staff Comment: Refer to the discussion above regarding consistency with the
General Plan. The project location is not located within the boundaries of the Main
Street Specific Plan, and is therefore not subject to the provisions of that specific
plan. The subject property is located approximately 167.5 feet from the nearest
property within the Main Street Specific Plan.
STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
APPLICATIONS:
Under Code Sections 28-2503 and 28-2504, all conditional use permit requests must be evaluated in
light of three issues:
1) Is the use conditionally permitted in the zone;
2) Is the use compatible with the General Plan; and
3) Is the use compatible with, rather than detrimental to, surrounding uses and the
community in general.
The first issue turns on the provisions of the Code, which clearly allow for a Conditional Use Permit
for the requested use of the property (Section 28-1400(] ])(f). The second issue turns on the current
Land Use Classification of the property, which is currently designated "General Commercial' zone,
and the proposed project is a conditionally permitted use within the "General Commercial' zone.
Corro2Anwsuaraevan
Public Hearing re: Appeal of Approval ofCoruhnional Use Permit 00-2
Planning Commission Resolution 00-19
770 Pacific Coast Highway (Starbucks Coffee)
City Council SmffRepon
September 25, 2000
The last issue will turn on the Council's view of the evidence presented during the public hearing
regarding impacts to the surrounding community of the requested use of an existing drive-through
window, proposed to be relocated for a proposed conversion from a fast-food restaurant to a coffee
house at the subject property.
CITY COUNCIL OPTIONS re: APPEAL:
Once all testimony and evidence has been received by the City Council, it is appropriate for the
Council to make a final detemunadon regarding these matters.
After receiving all public testimony and considering the decision of the Planning Commission, the
City Council has the following options:
1) Deny the appeal and sustain the decision of the Planning Commission, subject to appropriate
terms and conditions.
2) Sustain the appeal, revising the decision of the Planning Commission, not permitting the use
of the existing drive-through window as part of the business operation.
3) Sustain the appeal, revising the decision of the Planning Commission in accordance with
terms and conditions other than those approved by the Planning Commission regarding the
proposed drive-through coffee house.
Staff has prepared as Attachment 1, a resolution of the City Council sustaining the determination of
the Planning Commission. If the City Council determines to adopt option (1) after conducting the
public hearing, it would be appropriate to adopt that resolution. If the City Council determines to
adopt option (2) or (3), it is appropriate to revise the resolution based upon the determinations of the
City Council.
If the determination of the City Council is to sustain the appeal and deny the requested application or
approve with revised conditions, it would be appropriate to instruct staff to revise the prepared
resolution for consideration by the City Council this evening, or on October 9, 2000, depending on
the complexity of the determined modifications, setting forth the necessary findings, as determined
appropriate by the City Council.
Cur 0o2A,od suna�n
Public Hearing re: Appeal of Approval of Conditional Use Permit 00-2
Phvudng Commission Resolution 00-19
770 Pacific Coast Highway (Starbucks Coffee)
City Council Staf%Report
September 25, 2000
NOTED AND APPROVED
� l
Y& WhiRenberg, Director Donald F. McInVjWC
Development Services Departmen Acting City Manager
Attachments: (7)
ATTACHMENT A: Proposed City Council Resolution Number _, A
Resolution of the City Council of the City of Seal Beach
Sustaining the Planning Commission Approval of CUP No.
00-2, Allowing the Change in Use from a Drive Through
Fast Food Restaurant to a Drive Through Coffee House and
Interior Alterations at 770 Pacific Coast Highway, Seal
Beach
ATTACHMENT B: Appeal by Councilman Yost, received August 28, 2000
ATTACHMENT C: Planning Commission Resolution No. 00-19
ATTACHMENT D: Planning Commission Minutes of August 23, 2000
ATTACHMENT E: Planning Commission Minutes of August 9, 2000
ATTACHMENT F: Planning Commission Supplemental Staff Report of August
9, 2000, with Attachments 1 through 5
ATTACHMENT G: Communications received by the Planning Commission
ss ++
022.Appe SURRep n
CONFIDENTIAL
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: City Attorney Quinn M. Barrow
DATE: September 20, 2000
SUBJECT: Starbucks
I. Issues
On your agenda for September 25, 2000 is a public hearing to consider the appeal
of the Planning Commission's decision to approve a conditional use permit ("CUP") for a drive-
through coffee shop located at 770 Pacific Coast Highway ("the property").
We wish to call your attention to the following issues:
1. The basis for the City's discretionary review of the project
2. The propriety of a Councilmember appealing the decision.
In addition, Councilmember Yost has requested that we research the ability of
cities to regulate "chain operations." By separate memo, we have responded to his request.
11. Facts
Starbucks (the "applicant") presented plans to the City to use the property, which
was formerly utilized by a fast food establishment, as a drive-through coffee house. The
proposed coffee house use is an automatically permitted use under the property's C-2 zoning
designation, but a drive-through facility requires a CUP. The City previously issued a CUP to
allow the drive-through facility on the site in conjunction with the fast food establishment. In
that a CUP "runs with the land," a subsequent operator enjoys all the rights and privileges
conferred by the permit unless, among other things, there is a substantial change in operation, or
an expansion of the use.
The applicant desires to change the location of the drive-through window. Based
upon the potential that such a change may create new environmental impacts (e.g., circulation or
traffic impacts), City staff determined that the proposal constituted a substantial change in
operation. The City therefore required the applicant to apply for a CUP and to submit a traffic
report.
The Planning Commission approved the application on a 5-0 vote.
CONFIDENTIAL
THIS MATERIAL IS SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY-CUENT
AND/OR THE ATTORNEY MRK PRODUCT PRIVILEGES . DO
NOT DISCLOSE THE CONTENTS HEREOF. DO NOT FILE WITH
PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE RECORDS.
S7296\0001\626746.3
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
MEMORANDUM
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers
September 20, 2000
Page 2
Councilmember Yost has appealed the decision of the Planning Commission. According to the
appeal, he is concerned about a number of issues, including traffic and the impact upon local
businesses.
III. Discussion
A. Basis for the City's Discretionary Review
As noted above, the applicant seeks to modify the location of the drive-through
window at the property. This was the basis for the City's requirement of discretionary review
through the CUP process.
If the applicant were to withdraw its request to relocate the drive-through window,
then the City technically still could require a CUP. The reason is that the previously issued CUP
for the property contained a condition requiring that all construction at the site shall be "in
substantial compliance" with the plans approved in connection with the fast food establishment,
and the applicant is proposing a number of interior modifications that are not consistent with
those plans. City staff explained this to the Planning Commission in their agenda report for the
August 9'" Commission meeting. However, staff also emphasized in that report, and we agree,
that it would be difficult to make defensible findings to support denial of a CUP that only
concerns interior remodeling. Since a new coffee house could be developed on a vacant C-2 lot
zone without any discretionary review, we doubt the City could justify refusing to allow interior
modifications to an existing C-2 zone building to accommodate a coffee house use.
In short, the basis of the City's discretionary review in this instance is the fact that
the applicant seeks to modify the drive -though window location at the property. As a practical
matter, if the applicant were to withdraw its request, or if the Council were to condition its
approval on elimination of the drive-through window, then the applicant would effectively be
entitled to proceed with its proposed coffee house use because such use is automatically
permitted on the site by the zoning ordinance.
IL Propriety of CouncilmemberAppeals
Historically, we have discouraged councilmembers from filing appeals. Every
few years, a councilmember will disagree with a decision of a lower tribunal and will file an
appeal. However, an appeal from a member of the appellate board places into question whether
the applicant will receive a fair, impartial hearing from that board.
CONFIDENTIAL
THIS M4TERIAL IS SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT
ARMOR THE ATTORNEYWORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGES . DO
NOT DISCLOSE THE CONTENTS HEREOF, DO NOT FILE WTH
PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE RECORDS.
57296\0001\626746.3
CRY OF SEAL BEACH
MEMORANDUM
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers
September 20, 2000
Page 3
In 1997, we provided to the City a memorandum recommending that the Council
adopt an ordinance creating a procedure that allows councilmembers to "call up for review" a
decision of a lower tribunal in a neutral fashion that avoids the issue of bias. Indeed, we drafted
a model ordinance for each of the cities we represent after the Cohan v. Thousand Oaks decision
(discussed below). In the model ordinance, the only justification needed for Council review of a
lower tribunal decision is that the matter has "city-wide importance, and should be considered by
the elected officials." Seal Beach has not adopted the draft ordinance.'
Set forth below is an updated version of our earlier analysis regarding the benefit
of adopting an ordinance creating a process for "Council Review"of lower tribunal decisions. As
to the present appeal, we will discuss with the appellant the issues briefed herein so that he can
decide whether he should abstain from participating in the decision.
1. Due Process Requirements for Fair Hearin¢
Appeals filed by individual councilmembers may give rise to the appearance that
the decisionmaker has pre -judged a matter, prior to considering the evidence. It is important that
Councilmembers maintain an open mind and do not take any positions, for or against an
application, until after the public hearing before the Council. The courts have explained this rule,
which stems from the Due Process clauses of the federal and state constitutions, as follows:
"A public hearing contemplates a fair and impartial hearing at which competent
evidence may be presented before a fair and impartial tribunal."
Saks & Co. v. City ojBeverly Hills, 107 Cal.App.2d 260, 265 (1951). Ser;lsoo Bullock v. City
and County of San Francisco, 221 Cal.App.3d 1072, 1091 (1990) ("Fair trial in a fair tribunal is
a basic requirement of due process"); Rosenblit v. Superior Court, 231 Cal.App.3d 1434, 1448
(199 1) ("The right to a fair procedure includes the right to impartial adjudicators"); Sinaloa Lake
Owners'Ass'n v. City ojSimt Valley, 882 F.2d 1398,1408-10 (9th Cir. 1989) (City violated
applicant's substantive due process rights). Further, if a councilmember has a personal interest
or involvement in the outcome of the matter or with any participants which precludes that
' Until the pending appeal, only one appeal has been filed by a councilmember—
Councilmember Campbell—the only member of the present Council who was on the Council in
1997. On the face of that other appeal, there was no appearance of bias and Councilmember
Campbell acted on that appeal.
CONFIDENTIAL
THIS MATERIAL IS SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT
AND/OR THE ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGES . DO
NOT DISCLOSE THE CONTENTS HEREOF, DO NOT FILE WITH
PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE RECORDS.
S7296\000M26746.3
CONFIDENTIAL
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
MEMORANDUM
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers
September 20, 2000
Page 4
councilmember from making his or her decision based on the merits of the application,
disqualification is required. Fairfield v. Superior Court, 14 Cal.3d 768 (1975); Mennig v. City
Council, 86 Cal.App.3d 341 (1978).
This rule does not preclude a councilmember from having opinions, philosophies
and strong feelings about generalized community issues or taking public positions on general
issues in the community. It also does not preclude expression of views about matters of
importance in the community, particularly during an election campaign. Fairfield v. Superior
Court, supra. Indeed, a councilmember does not have to be completely indifferent to the general
subject matter of the application to be impartial. Andrews v. Agricultural Labor Relations
Board, 28 Ca1.3d 781, 790 (1981). Opposition of neighbors to an application is a legitimate
factor in local decision making. See, e.g., Harris v. City of Costa Mesa, 25 Ca1.App.4th 963, 973-
974 (1994). The rule on disqualifying bias or prejudgment does, however, preclude a
decisionmaker from participating in the decision if that decisionmaker has demonstrated a closed
mind, with a preconceived and unalterable view of the outcome of a matter without regard to the
evidence.
To ensure that all sides benefit from a fair and impartial hearing on any matter
that comes before the Council, we urge Councilmembers to avoid making statements which
might imply a pre -hearing commitment on behalf of the City, or that a particular result is a
foregone conclusion.
In Mennig v. City Council, 86 Cal.App.3d 341, 351 (1978), councilmembers "had
become so personally embroiled in [the termination of a police chief] as to disqualify them" from
participating in the police chief s appeal from the decision by the civil service board. Thus,
Councilmembers should refrain from getting "so personally embroiled" in any matter so that
each may participate in the decision.
A more recent decision in which a councilmember was found to be biased is Clark
v. City of Hermosa Beach, 48 Cal.App.4th 1152 (1996) (writ of certiorari denied by United
States Supreme Court). In Clark, the planning commission approved a 35 -foot -high 2 -unit
condominium. Residents appealed, claiming a 35 -foot condo would deprive them of their view.
By a three -to -two vote, the city council denied the permits on the ground that the proposal was
excessive in size. The council majority included one resident who had challenged the permit
before he was elected. The owners brought an action seeking a writ of mandate and alleging a
violation of federal civil rights. The trial court granted the writ petition, directed the city to
rescind its decision and to reinstate the planning commission's approval, and awarded damages,
CH•laylH�al41�
THIS MATERIAL IS SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY�CLIENT
ANDIOR THE ATTORNEY MRK PRODUCT PRIVILEGES . DO
NOT DISCLOSE THE CONTENTS HEREOF. DO NOT FILE WITH
PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE RECORDS.
57296\0001\626746.3
CRY OF SEAL BEACH
MEMORANDUM
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembem
September 20, 2000
Page 5
attorney fees, and costs on plaintiffs' civil rights claim.
The Court of Appeal reversed and directed the trial court to issue a writ of
mandate commanding the city council to: (1) set aside its decision (2) rehear the appeal and (3)
provide plaintiffs with a fair hearing on the matter. The court held that plaintiffs were denied a
fair hearing before the council, because the protesting councilmember's participation constituted
a conflict of interest, and because the council's attempt to enact a moratorium on buildings taller
than 30 feet indicated that it was not impartial to the owners' project'
Quoting from an earlier case, the Court of Appeal stated the due process standard:
"an individual has the right to a tribunal 'which meets ... standards of impartiality.' .. .
Biased decision makers are ... impermissible and even the probability of unfairness is to
be avoided .... The factor most often considered destructive of administrative board
impartiality is bias arising from pecuniary interests of board members.... Personal
embroilment in the dispute will also void the administrative decision... , although neither
prior knowledge of the factual background which bears on a decision nor preheating
expressions of opinions on the result disqualifies an administrative body from acting on a
matter before it.... Our Supreme Court has declined to fix rigid procedures for the
protection of fair procedure rights .... but it is inconceivable to us that such rights would
not include impartiality of the adjudicators." (Applebaum v. Board ojDirectors (1980)
104 Cal.App.3d 648,657-658.)
The Clark court continued:
"The public is entitled to have its representatives perform their duties free from any
personal or pecuniary interest that might affect their judgment. Public policy forbids the
sustaining of municipal action founded upon a vote of a council member ... in any
matter before it which directly or immediately affects him or her individually.... A
'The court held that the trial court erred in reinstating the decision of the planning
commission; instead, the proper remedy was to direct the city Council to provide plaintiffs a
second, fair hearing on the matter. As to the civil rights claim, the court held that, because
plaintiffs did not have a protected property interest in the requested permits, the city did not
violate their right to procedural or substantive due process.
CONFIDENTIAL
THIS MATERIAL IS SUBJECTTO THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT
ANDIOR THE ATTORNEY WORN PRODUCT PRIVILEGES . OO
NOT DISCLOSE THE CONTENTS HEREOF, GO NOT FILE WITH
PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE RECORDS.
S7296\0001\626746.3
CONFIDENTIAL
CRY OF SEAL BEACH
MEMORANDUM
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers
September 20, 2000
Page 6
finding of self-interest sufficient to set aside municipal action need not be based upon
actual proof of dishonesty, but may be warranted whenever a public official, by reason of
personal interest in a matter, is placed in a situation of temptation to serve his or her own
purposes, to the prejudice of those for whom the law authorizes that official to act... .
[Ajn individual member ordinarily cannot vote on a matter in which that member... is
interested. If the member does, the action taken by the body ... is invalidated."
Applying these principles, the court concluded that the Clarks were deprived of a
fair hearing in large part because:
(1) One councilmember had a conflict of interest because he lived one block inland
of the Clarks and stood to benefit personally by voting against the project. His interest in
preserving his ocean view was of such importance to him that it could have influenced his
judgments In addition, his personal animosity toward the Clarks contributed to his conflict of
interest; he was not a disinterested, unbiased decisionmaker.
(2) The City exhibited bias in connection with its effort to impose a moratorium on
the construction of buildings higher than 30 feet. The measure fell one vote short of the four
votes needed and the City's 35 -foot height restriction remained in effect. Yet, shortly after the
moratorium failed, the City denied three projects (including the Clarks') involving 35 -foot
structures. According to the court:
"This sequence of events indicates that the City was attempting to do—by a majority vote
on a project -by -project basis --what the law required a four-fifths vote of the Council to
accomplish. At a minimum, this evidence establishes that the Council was not impartial
to the Clarks' project."
In sum, the Clark court concluded that the Council deprived the Clarks of a fair hearing.
3The court noted that a public official may express opinions on subjects of community
concern (e.g., the height of new construction) without tainting his vote on such matters should
they come before him. (See City of Fairfield v. Superior Court (1975) 14 Cal.3d 768, 780-781.
According to the court, the councilmember's conflict of interest arose, not because of his general
opposition to 35 -foot buildings, but because the specific project before the Council, if approved,
would have had a direct impact on the quality of his own residence.
CONFIDENTIAL
THIS MATERIAL Is SUBJECTTO THEATTORNEY-CLIENT
AND/OR THE ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGES .DO
NOT DISCLOSE THE CONTENTS HEREOF. DO NOT FILE WITH
PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE RECORDS.
S7296\0001\626746.3
CONFIDENTIAL
CRY OF SEAL BEACH
MEMORANDUM
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers
September 20, 2000
Page 7
2. Legitimacy of Appeals by Councilmembers
In Cohan v. City of Thousand Oaks, 30 Cal. App. 4th 547 (1994), the court of
appeal overturned a city council denial of a subdivision map for 170 residential units and a
neighborhood shopping center. Finding that a series of actions by the council denied the
applicant procedural and substantive due process, the court took the unusual step of reinstating
the planning commission's approval of the project.'
The Thousand Oaks City Council, responding to comments made during public
comments at a council meeting, voted to waive the notice provisions of the Brown Act and
placed on the agenda the planning commission's conditional approval of the project as an
urgency matter. After discussion, the council voted to appeal the commission's decision. Cohan
was present at the council meeting and agreed to a hearing date. Contrary to requirements of the
Thousand Oaks City Code, the council neither filed a written notice of the appeal nor specified
the grounds for appeal. At the appeal, 200 residents spoke for and against the project. The
applicant and his attorney were provided twenty minutes to rebut five hours of testimony. At the
conclusion of the hearing, the council voted to deny the project without prejudice. Six weeks
after the hearing, and after the Cohans had already filed a lawsuit in court, the council adopted a
resolution setting forth findings and announcing its decision. The Subdivision Map Act requires
written findings within seven days of a decision concerning a subdivision map and the Thousand
Oaks City Code requires an announcement of decision within 14 days of the conclusion of the
public hearing.
The Cohan appellate court stated that, viewed individually, each of the various
errors of the Thousand Oaks City Council might not be enough to invalidate the council's
decision to deny the project. However, viewed collectively, the series of errors evidenced that
the council was not fair and impartial. 30 Cal.AppAth at 561. For instance, the court found that
the deadlines in the Subdivision Map Act and Thousand Oaks City Code were directory and not
mandatory. Nonetheless,
"The Council's failure to file written findings in resolutions until after appellants had filed
4Typically, courts will remand the matter back to the city council with instructions to
conduct a fav and impartial hearing. By nullifying the council's "appeal to itself," the court
essentially took jurisdiction away from the city council, and the planning commission became
the final decisionmaker.
CONFIDENTIAL
THIS N ATERML IS SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT
AND/OR THE ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGES . DO
NOT DISCLOSE THE CONTENTS HEREOF. DO NOT FILE WITH
PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE RECORDS
S7296\0001\626746.3
CONFIDENTIAL
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
MEMORANDUM
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers
September 20, 2000
Page 8
their petition ... is one more example of the cavalier manner in which the City has
disregarded appellants' due process rights. As ... developers, appellants took the risk
that their proposed project may not be approved or, if approved, may be severely
conditioned. They may even incur the risk of a seemingly unfair decision. However,
they should not be subjected to the blatant disregard of their due process rights. The
Council simply submitted to the roar of the crowd."
Likewise, any applicant takes the risk that, after being provided a full complement
of public hearings conducted by fair, impartial boards, its project may be denied. However, like
the residents, all applicants are entitled to due process. They are entitled to fair hearings
conducted by a council composed of persons who have maintained an open mind and have taken
no positions, either for or against the applications, until after full consideration of the evidence at
the hearings.
The court of appeal in Cohan found (at 560):
"The council ignored the very laws and regulations meant to ensure fair process
concerning property development conflicts. Ironically, the Council's very attempt to
protect the due process rights of interested citizens cavalierly overrode those same rights
of the Cohans. This stands due process on its head."
The Cohan court concluded at (561):
"[T]he cumulative effect of Council's actions resulted in a violation of appellants'
substantive and procedural due process rights."
As to the appeal by the council, the court found that the appeal created at least the
appearance of a "conflict of interest." Id. at 559. However, the court did not rule on whether an
individual councilmember would be disqualified from acting on the appeal. The court stated:
"No elected individual appealed here. The Council appealed. Had a single council
member been the appellant (and complied with the municipal code), he or she might have
been disqualified but the remainder of the City Council could have voted." (at 559.)
Earlier this summer, in the case of BreakZone Billiards v. City of Torrance, 81
Cal. App. 4th 1205; 2000 Daily Journal DAR 7163 (lune 30, 2000), a different division of the
Court of Appeal addressed a variation on the scenario presented in Cohan. In BreakZone
FIDENTIAL
THIS NNTERIN.Is SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT
ANDIOR THE ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGES . DO
NOT DISCLOSE THE CONTENTS HEREOF. DONOTFILEWRH
PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE RECORDS.
S7296\0001\626746.3
CONFIDENTIAL
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
MEMORANDUM
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers
September 20, 2000
Page 9
Billiards, the issue was whether an individual member of a city council may appeal a planning
commission decision, participate in the public hearing and city council deliberations on the
appeal, and vote on that appeal.
The BreakZone Billiards case arose from a request to modify a CUP to allow
alcoholic beverage sales at and expansion of a billiard parlor. After closing the public hearing,
the Torrance Planning Commission approved the project on a four -to -one vote. A Torrance
councilmember subsequently filed a timely appeal of the decision of the planning commission's
decision. His appeal stated, "Based upon Police Department recommendation, this decision is
being appealed in order to bring the matter in front of the entire Council."
BreakZone submitted two documents to the Torrance City Clerk: (1) a "Request
for Recusal of Council Members" and (2) a "Request for Withdrawal of Appeal." The request
for recusal was based upon the fact that four councilmembers, including the appellant, had
received significant campaign contributions from the owner of the property, who was engaged in
litigation with BreakZone. ' BreakZone also asserted in its request for recusal that the
appealing councilmember had exhibited such bias by filing the appeal that he should not
participate as a decisionmaker in the matter. The request for withdrawal of appeal was based on
the fact that the notice of appeal did not comply with Torrance Municipal Code provisions
requiring a detailed statement as to the reasons for the appeal, as well as the contention that the
appellant had a conflict of interest.
'There are three principal sources of conflict of interest laws in California: (a) the
Political Reform Act (PRA) (Government Code Sections 81000 et seq.; (b) the common law
doctrine against conflicts of interest; and (c) Government Code Section 1090. In general, the
PRA prohibits officials from participating in any decision, or attempting to influence any
decision, in which they have a financial interest. Government Code Section 87103. Similarly,
under the common law doctrine, a public official must abstain from participating in matters
where the public official's private financial interest may conflict with his or her official duties.
Government Code Section 1090 precludes the City from entering into contracts in which a
member of the City Council has a financial interest. Section 1090 provides in relevant part:
"[C]ity officers or employees shall not be financially interested in any contract made by them in
their official capacity, or by any body or board of which they are members." After a lengthy
discussion, the court found that neither campaign contributions nor the other complained -of
conduct constitutes a conflict.
CONFIDENTIAL
THIS MATERIAL IS SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT
ANDIOR THE ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRMLEGES . DO
NOT DISCLOSE THE CONTENTS HEREOF. DO NOT FILE WITH
PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE RECORDS.
S7296\0001\626746.3
CONFIDENTIAL
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
MEMORANDUM
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers
September 20, 2000
Page 10
The four council members whose participation had been challenged in the request
for recusal each acknowledged receipt of campaign contributions and stated that circumstance
would not affect thew consideration of, or vote on, the application. The councilmember who
filed the appeal further stated that he had done so because of significant community concern; that
he had met with counsel for BreakZone to discuss the matter; that he had not already determined
how he would vote; and that he would give the matter a fav hearing. He also stated he intended
to hear the appeal with an open mind and make his "decision based upon the facts and the law."
After a lengthy de novo public hearing, the Torrance City Council voted
unanimously to grant the appeal and deny the application for the CUP. BreakZone then filed its
lawsuit challenging the denial on a number of grounds, including the participation by the
councilmember who filed the appeal.
As relevant here, the court phrased the issue as whether it is "fundamentally unfair
for the government official appealing the action to participate in the hearing on the appeal and
vote on that appeal?" The court concluded, based on the facts of the case, that there had been no
bias sufficient to deprive BreakZone of its right to a fair hearing. The court explained (at 1236)
that:
"To prevail on a claim of bias violating fair hearing requirements, BreakZone must
establish an unacceptable probability of actual bias on the part of those who have actual
decision making power over their claims. A mere suggestion of bias is not sufficient to
overcome the presumption of integrity and honesty." (Citation and internal quotations
omitted).
The court also emphasized that, unlike in the Cohan case, the governing municipal code
authorized members of the city council to appeal planning commission decisions.
Thus, there is no absolute rule precluding councilmembers from participating in
public hearing decisions on matters in which they have filed the appeal. However, if pre -hearing
public statements or the text of the appeal indicates a pre -determination on the issues or bias,
such councilmember-appellant should abstain from participating.
Accordingly, we recommend adoption of an ordinance creating a process for
"Council Review" of lower tribunal decisions in order to protect against an appearance of bias to
the maximum extent possible.
CONFIDENTIAL
THIS MATERIAL IS SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY.CLIENT "
ANDIOR THE ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGES .DO
NOT DISCLOSE THE CONTENTS HEREOF. DO NOT FILE WITH
PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE RECORDS.
57296\0001\626746.3
t'
City of Seal Beach, 211 8t' Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
-- ®® 562-431-2527
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Seal Beach will hold a
public hearing on Monday, September 25, 2000, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council
Chambers, 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, California, to consider the following item:
APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00-2
OPERATION OF A COFFEEMESERT HOUSE
WITH A DRIVE THROUGH WINDOW
770 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, SEAL BEACH
Appellants
Request: Appeal of the Planning Commission approval to operate a coffee/desert
house with a drive through window at an existing fast-food drive through
restaurant located at 770 Pacific Coast Highway (currently Burger King).
Environmental '
Review: This project is categorically exempt from CEQA review.
Code
Sections: 28-1300; 28-1400; 28-2503; 28-2504
Appellant: Paul Yost
Applicant: Tom Lao, TI Planning (on behalf of Starbuck's Coffee)
Owner: L & R Properties
At the above time and place all interested persons may be heard if so desired. If you challenge
the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone
else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered
to the City of Seal Beach at, or prior to, the public hearing.
DATED this 29th day of August, 2000
Joanne Yeo
City Clerk
September 25, 2000
On behalf of many concerned citizens, I appealed the planning
commission approval of CUP 00-2. I have no conflict of interest
in this issue, no personal financial interest in the issue, and I do not
live in close proximity to the site. Based on the fact that new
information was presented to the planning commission after the
close of the public hearing, and the planning commission, in its
decision, did not consider that new information, I think a de novo
pubic hearing is necessary. I cannot make a fair decision on this
issue without hearing from all sides, and listening to all pertinent
testimony. After hearing all pertinent information from all sides, I
think I can make a fair, unbiased decision.
Paul Yost
August 28a', 2000
To: Don McIntyre and members of the Seal Beach City Council
From: Paul Yost, council member
This letter is to inform you that I am appealing the Planning
Commission's approval of Starbucks application of August 23`a,
2000 to the Seal Beach City Council. My concerns include, but are
not limited to the following:
■ Traffic data submitted
■ Suitability of the site for a Starbucks
■ Suitability of the parking lot to maintain a queue and function
as a parking lot
■ Effect on the surrounding traffic circulation and safety
■ Effect Starbucks would have on existing businesses
• Consistency with the general plan and Main Street Specific
Plan
Thank You,
-Ize )� �-T—
Paul Yost
P.S. I would also like the City Attorney to look into other cities,
which have contemplated and/or passed "anti -predatory business"
ordinances and legislation. (e.g. the cities of Agua Dulce and
Santa Cruz).
Public Hearing re: Appeal oJApproval of Condinonal Use Permit 00-2
Planning Commission Resolution 00-19
770 Paces Coast Highway (Starbucks Coffee)
City Council SmffReport
September25, 2000
._ M . . lu 1 ►M
PROPOSED CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION
NUMBER A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH
SUSTAINING THE PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVAL OF CUP NO. 00-2, ALLOWING THE
CHANGE IN USE FROM A DRIVE THROUGH
FAST FOOD RESTAURANT TO A DRIVE
THROUGH COFFEE HOUSE AND INTERIOR
ALTERATIONS AT 770 PACIFIC COAST
HIGHWAY, SEAL BEACH
a,ra 2Apprai R.pW 10
Public Hearing re: Appeal of Approval of Conditional Use Permu 00-1
Planning Commission Resolution 00-19
770 Pacific Coast Highway (Starbucks Coffee)
City Council StaffRepon
September25, 2000
;7;06)Rol I(INK li)u1.3:4
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SEAL BEACH SUSTAINING THE
PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF CUP NO.
00-2, ALLOWING THE CHANGE IN USE FROM A
DRIVE THROUGH FAST FOOD RESTAURANT TO
A DRIVE THROUGH COFFEE HOUSE AND
INTERIOR ALTERATIONS AT 770 PACIFIC COAST
HIGHWAY, SEAL BEACH
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND FIND:
Section 1. On April 13, 2000, Tom Lao (the "Applicant") filed an application with
the Department of Development Services for Conditional Use Permit 00-2 for the change in use
from a drive through fast food restaurant to a drive through'coffee house, and to allow interior
alterations at 770 Pacific Coast Highway.
Section 2. Pursuant to 14 California Code of Regulations §15305 and §U(B) of the
City's Local CEQA Guidelines, staff has determined as follows: the application for CUP 00-2
for the proposed interior remodeling is categorically exempt from review pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to 14 California Code of Regulations §15301
(Minor Alterations in land Use Limitations), because the proposal involves a negligible
expansion of an existing use; pursuant to §15305 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations),
because the proposal involves a minor alteration in land use limitation and does not involve
either a property in excess of 20% slope or a change in land use or density.
Section 3 A duly noticed public hearing was held before the Planning
Commission on May 17, 2000, to consider the application for CUP 00.2. Written evidence was
submitted for or against the project, and at the public hearing members of the audience spoke
both in favor and against the proposal. The Planning Commission determined to continue the
public hearing to June 14, and subsequently determined to continue the public hearing to July 19,
2000, and then to August 9, 2000.
Curuuze;,pui suaaepon 11
Public Hearing re Appeal of Approval of Conditional Use Permit 00-1
Planning Commission Resolution 00-19
770 Pacific Coast Highway (Starbucks Coffee)
City Council SmffReport
September 25, 2000
Section 4. The Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit 00-2 subject
to 21 conditions through the adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 00-19 on August
23, 2000.
Section 5. An appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Conditional Use
Permit 00-2 was timely filed. On September 25, 2000 the City Council held a duly noticed
public hearing to consider the appeal. The Council considered all oral and written testimony and
evidence presented at the time of the public hearing, including the staff reports.
Section 6. The record of the hearings before the Planning Commission and City
Council indicates the following:
(a) On April 13, 2000, Tom Lao submitted an application for CUP 00-2 with
the Department of Development Services.
(b) Specifically, the applicant is proposing to change the use of an existing
drive through restaurant to a drive through coffee house and to undertake interior alterations on
property located in a General Commercial (C-2) zone.
(c) The subject property contains approximately 12,631 square feet. The
property is located on the South side of Pacific Coast Highway, in a General Commercial (C-2)
zone.
(d) The subject property is described as Orange County assessor's parcel
number 043-111-29.
(e) The subject property contains an existing drive-through, fast-food,
restaurant that has been in operation for approximately 6 years. Before that, the property was
utilized as a bank.
(f) The City has granted the following approvals for the property:
• Variance 94-5 for a reduction of required number of parking spaces.
• Conditional Use Permit 944 for the use of a drive through window in
conjunction with a fast food restaurant.
(g) The surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows:
Cue W2.Apm] sunRerm 12
Public Hearing re: Appeal of Approval of Conditional Use Permit 00-2
Planning Commission Resolution 00-/9
770 Pacific Coast Highway (Starbucks Coffee)
City Council Staff Report
September 25, 2000
NORTH Single Family Houses in a Residential Low Density
(RLD) Zone
WEST & EAST Businesses including the Raddison Hotel and the
Bay City Center in a General Commercial (C-2)
zone.
SOUTH various residential developments single family and
multiple family, in the Residential High Density
(RHD) Zone.
(h) An appeal of the Planning Commission determination was timely filed in
accordance with Article 29.4 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach.
Section 7. Based upon the facts contained in the record, including those stated in §6
of this resolution and pursuant to §§ 28-1400, 28-2503 and 28-2504 of the City's Code, the City
Council hereby finds:
(a) Conditional Use Permit 00-2, as conditioned, is consistent with the
provisions of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan, which provides a "General
Commercial" zoning designation for the subject property and permits drive through restaurants
subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit. The proposed conditional use permit is to
change the use from a drive through restaurant to a drive through coffee house and to permit
interior alterations. The use is also consistent with the remaining elements of the City's General
Plan, as the policies of those elements are consistent with, and reflected in, the Land Use
Element. Accordingly, the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan.
(b) The proposed drive through operation and interior alterations, as
conditioned, are consistent with surrounding residential and commercial uses, in that a restaurant
with a drive-through window has been in operation at the site for several years. A "Trip
Generation Study for the Proposed Starbucks at 8'" Street and Pacific Coast Highway, Seal
Beach", prepared by Linscott, Law and Greenspan, dated August 1, 2000, indicates the proposed
Starbucks project will cause a net decrease in traffic, corresponding to a reduction of between
149-390 daily trips, 1-26 AM peak hour trips, and 30-43 PM peak hour trips.
(c) The building and property at 770 Pacific Coast Highway are adequate in
size, shape, topography and location to meet the needs of the proposed use of the property, in
that a fast-food restaurant with a drive-through window has been in operation at the site for
several years. A "Trip Generation Study for the Proposed Starbucks at 81° Street and Pacific
cur 0o-2A;,pu] sariRq. 13
Public Nearing re: Appeal of Approval ofCotdinonal Use Permit 00-2
Planning Commission Reso/unan 0019
770 Pacific Coast highway (Starbucks Coffee)
City Council Stuf'Repon
Sepiember25, 2000
Coast Highway, Seal Beach", prepared by Linscott, Law and Greenspan, dated Amst 1, 2000,
indicates the results of the level of service analysis performed indicate that the 8 Street/PCH
intersection currently operates at acceptable LOS A. If Starbucks were developed in place of the
existing Burger King, the net reduction in traffic generated by the site will result in better levels
of service at the stop -controlled intersection during the morning and afternoon peak commute
hours.
(d) Required adherence to applicable building and fire codes ensures there
will be adequate water supply and utilities for the proposed use.
Section 8. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby approves Conditional
Use Permit 00-2, subject to the following conditions:
1. CUP No. 00-2 is approved to change the land use of the building at 770 Pacific Coast
Highway from a fast food restaurant to a coffee house; to modify the existing drive-
through window operation; and to approve an interior remodeling plan for the
existing structure. Said use is approved in substantial conformance with plans dated
March 3 and March 10, 2000, on file in the Department of Development Services.
2. The hours of operation for the coffee house shall be daily — 6:00 A.M. to 12:01 A.M.
The last customer service shall be served at 11:45 P.M. with all patrons out of the
building by 12:01 A.M. The hours of operation of the drive-through window shall be
daily — 6:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M.
3. There shall be no interior maintenance or other business related activities between the
hours of 12:30 A.M. and 6:00 A.M. of the same day. There shall be no exterior
maintenance between the hours of 12:01 A.M. and 6:00 A.M. of the same day.
4. All deliveries shall take place between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 8:00 P.M.
5. The volume of the drive-through window ordering system shall be turned down to its
lowest audible level at the southerly property line between 6:00 A.M. and 7:00 A.M.
6. The applicant shall install and maintain in operation at all times only the Horizon
drive-through ordering system or a substantially similar alternative with the approval
of the Director of Development Services.
7. The applicant remains bound by all the conditions of all previous discretionary
approvals for the property.
cueao-2Appmdsuerasym 14
Public Hearing re: Appeal of Approval of Conditional Use Permit 00.2
P/arming Commission Resolution 00-19
770 Pacific Coast Highway (Starbucks Coffee)
City Council Staff Report
September 25, 2070
8. The play area shall be removed and that area shall not be used in any manner in
conjunction with the service or operation of the Coffee House. Development plans
for this area, along with exterior color/material modifications and landscaping
improvements, shall be approved by the Department of Development Services prior
to the issuance of a building permit for the interior modifications to the existing
structure.
9. The City Engineer reserves the right to restrict access into parking lot from the Alley
on the West side of the property if a stacking problem begins to appear.
10. No video games or similar amusements shall be permitted on the premises unless a
separate conditional use permit is approved for that use.
11. Litter and trash receptacles shall be located at convenient locations inside and outside
the establishment. Operators of such establishments shall remove trash and debris on
an appropriate basis so as not to cause health problems. There shall be no dumping of
trash and/or glass bottles outside the establishment between the hours of 10:00 p.m.
and 7:00 a.m.
12. In the event staff determines security problems exist on the site, the Conditions of this
permit may be amended, under the procedures of The Code of the City of Seal Beach,
to require the provisions of additional security measures.
13. There shall be no live entertainment, amplified music, or dancing permitted within
the outdoor dining area at any time.
14. The establishment shall comply with Chapter 13D, "Noise Control', of The Code of
the City of Seal Beach as the regulations of that Chapter now exist or may hereafter
be amended. Should complaints be received regarding noise generated by the
establishment, the Planning Commission reserves the right to schedule the subject
CUP for reconsideration and may require the applicant/operator to mitigate the noise
level to comply with the provisions of Chapter 13D.
15. This CUP shall not become effective for any purpose unless/until a City "Acceptance
of Conditions" form has been signed by the applicant in the presence of the Director
of Development Services, or notarized and returned to the Planning Department; and
until the ten (10) calendar -day appeal period has elapsed.
cua ooz.AM� surtaepm 15
Public Hearing re. Appeal of Approval of Conditional Use Permit 00-1
Planning Commission Resolution 00-19
770 Pacific Coast Highway (Starbucks Coffee)
City Council SmffReport
September 15, 2000
16. A modification of this CUP shall be applied for when:
a. The establishment proposes to modify any of its current Conditions of Approval.
b. There is a substantial change in the mode or character of operations of the
establishment.
17. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke or modify this CUP pursuant
to Articles 25 and 28 of The Code of the City of Seal Beach if harm or retail -related
problems are demonstrated to occur as a result of criminal or anti -social behavior,
including but not limited to the congregation of minors, violence, public drunkenness,
vandalism, solicitation and/or litter.
18. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke or modify this CUP pursuant
to Articles 25 and 28 of The Code of the City of Seal Beach if traffic -related
problems are demonstrated to occur as a result of the operation of the drive-through
window.
19. This CUP shall become null and void unless exercised within one (1) year of the date
of final approval, or such extension of time as may be granted by the Planning
Commission pursuant to a written request for extension submitted to the Department
of Development Services a minimum of ninety (90) days prior to such expiration
date.
20. The applicant shall inform the Director of Development Services in writing of the
first business day for the subject business. During the third and fourth month of
business operation, the City shall cause a traffic monitoring program to be conducted
on the subject premises to ascertain the traffic pattern and trip generation
characteristics of the subject premises. Applicant shall reimburse the City for all
costs related to this traffic monitoring program. The report of this traffic monitoring
program shall be provided to the Planning Commission for consideration in its review
of an indefinite extension request in accordance with the provisions of Condition 16,
below.
21. The term of this permit shall be four (4) months, beginning the first day of operation
of the new restaurant. At the end of the initial term, the applicant may apply to the
City for an indefinite extension. The Planning Commission may grant an extension as
discussed above, provided that all Conditions of Approval have been met and no
significant police or other problems have occurred. The applicant is hereby advised
CUPa 2APPaiJsunaeron 16
Public Hearing re: Appeal of Approval of Conditional Use Permit 00-1
Planning Commission Resolution 00-19
770 Pacific Coast Highway (Starbucks Coffee)
City Council Staff Repon
September 25, 2000
that a new application and accompanying fee must be submitted to the City prior to
consideration of any extensions.
Section 9. The time within which judicial review, if available, of this decision must
be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure and Section
1-13 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach, unless a shorter time is provided by applicable law.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Seal Beach at a
meeting thereof held on the day of ', 2000, by the
following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers
NOES:
ABSENT: Councilmembers
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS
CITY OF SEAL BEACH )
cu MLAPrea SwrRepae 17
Public Hearing re: Appeal of Approval of Conditional Use Permit 00-2
Planning Commission Resolution 00-19
770 Pacific Coast Highway (Starbucks Coffee)
City Council Staff Report
September 25, 2000
I, Joanne M. Yeo, City Clerk of Seal Beach, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing
resolution is the original copy of Resolution Number on file in the office of the City
Clerk, passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Seal Beach, at a regular
meeting thereof held on the day of , 2000.
City Clerk
CUP IXM2Appr Sun Rq. 18
Public Hearing re: Appeal of Approval of Conditional Use Permit 00-2
Planning Commission Resolution 00-19
770 Pacific Coast Highway (Starbucks Coffee)
City Council SuillRepon
September 25, 2000
ATTACHMENT B
APPEAL BY COUNCILMAN YOST, RECEIVED
AUGUST 28, 2000
Cur 00-2.Arrim! suars�n 19
August 28h, 2000
To: Don McIntyre and members of the Seal Beach City Council
From: Paul Yost, council member
This letter is to inform you that I am appealing the Planning
Commission's approval of Starbucks application of August 23`a,
2000 to the Seal Beach City Council. My concerns include, but are
not limited to the following:
■ Traffic data submitted
■ Suitability of the site for a Starbucks
■ Suitability of the parking lot to maintain a queue and function
as a parking lot
■ Effect on the surrounding traffic circulation and safety
■ Effect Starbucks would have on existing businesses
■ Consistency with the general plan and Main Street Specific
Plan
Thank You,
Paul Yost
P.S. I would also like the City Attorney to look into other cities,
which have contemplated and/or passed "anti -predatory business"
ordinances and legislation. (e.g. the cities of Agua Dulce and
Santa Cruz).
Public Nearing re: Appeal of Approval of Conditional Use Permit 00-2
Planting Conunisnon Resolution 00-19
770 Pacific Coast Highway (Starbucks Coffee)
City Council Staff Report
September 25, 2000
ATTACHMENT C
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 00-19
c (&2nax+i swrrsepm 20
RESOLUTION NUMBER 00-19
A RESOLUTION OF
THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF SEAL
BEACH APPROVING
CUP NO. 00-2,
ALLOWING THE CHANGE IN USE FROM A
DRIVE THROUGH
FAST FOOD
RESTAURANT TO A
DRIVE THROUGH
COFFEE HOUSE
AND INTERIOR
ALTERATIONS AT 770
PACIFIC COAST
HIGHWAY, SEAL BEACH
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH
DOES HEREBY FIND AND RESOLVE:
Section 1. On April 13, 2000, Tom Lao (the "Applicant") filed an
application with the Department of Development Services for Conditional Use Permit 00-
2 for the change in use from a drive through fast food restaurant to a drive through coffee
house, and to allow interior alterations at 770 Pacific Coast Highway.
Section 2. Pursuant to 14 California Code of Regulations §15305 and
§II(B) of the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, staff has determined as follows: the
application for CUP 00-2 for the proposed interior remodeling is categorically exempt
from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to 14
California Code of Regulations §15301 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations),
because the proposal involves a negligible expansion of an existing use; pursuant to
§15305 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations), because the proposal involves a
minor alteration in land use limitation and does not involve either a property in excess of
20% slope or a change in land use or density.
Section 3. A duly noticed public hearing was held before the Planning
Commission on May 17, 2000, to consider the application for CUP 00-2. Written
evidence was submitted for or against the project, and at the public hearing members of
the audience spoke both in favor and against the proposal. The Planning Commission
determined to continue the public hearing to June 14, and subsequently determined to
continue the public hearing to July 19, 2000, and then to August 9, 2000.
Section 4. The record of the hearing of May 17 and August 9, 2000
indicates the following:
C.Wy Docum MUUISO1CUP 00.2.PC Rao(Suubua's).Aa WY38-15-00
Planning .:ommission Resolution 00-19
Conditional Use Permit 00.2
770 Pacific Coast Highway (Starbucks)
August 23, 2000
(a) On April 13, 2000, Tom Lao submitted an application for CUP 00-
2 with the Department of Development Services.
(b) Specifically, the applicant is proposing to change the use of an
existing drive through restaurant to a drive through coffee house and to undertake interior
alterations on property located in a General Commercial (C-2) zone.
(c) The subject property contains approximately 12,631 square feet.
The property is located on the South side of Pacific Coast Highway, in a General
Commercial (C-2) zone.
(d) The subject property is described as Orange County assessor's
parcel number 043-111-29.
(e) The subject property contains an existing drive-through, fast-food,
restaurant that has leen in operation for approximately 6 years. Before that, the property
was utilized as a bank.
(f) The City has granted the following approvals for the property:
• Variance 94-5 for a reduction of required number of parking
spaces.
• Conditional Use Permit 94-4 for the use of a drive through
window in conjunction with a fast food restaurant.
(g) The surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows:
NORTH Single Family Houses in a Residential Low
Density (RLD) Zone
WEST & EAST Businesses including the Raddison Hotel
and the Bay City Center in a General
Commercial (C-2) zone.
SOUTH various residential developments single
family and multiple family, in the
Residential High Density (RHD) Zone.
Section 5. Based upon the facts contained in the record, including
those stated in §4 of this resolution and pursuant to §§28-1400, 28-2503 and 28-2504 of
the City's Code, the Planning Commission makes the following findings:
(a) Conditional Use Permit 00-2, as conditioned, is consistent with the
provisions of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan, which provides a
"General Commercial" zoning designation for the subject property and permits drive
CUP 00.2PC Rem(Sn .&'s)
Plonninb %:ommission Resolution 00-19
Conditional Use Permit 00-2
770 Pacific Coast Highway (Starbucks)
August 23, 2000
through restaurants subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit. The proposed
conditional use permit is to change the use from a drive through restaurant to a drive
through coffee house and to permit interior alterations. The use is also consistent with
the remaining elements of the City's General Plan, as the policies of those elements are
consistent with, and reflected in, the Land Use Element. Accordingly, the proposed use
is consistent with the General Plan.
(b) The proposed drive through operation and interior alterations, as
conditioned, are consistent with surrounding residential and commercial uses, in that a
restaurant with a drive-through window has been in operation at the site for several years.
A "Trip Generation Study for the Proposed Starbucks at 8" Street and Pacific Coast
Highway, Seal Beach", prepared by Linscott, Law and Greenspan, dated August 1, 2000,
indicates the proposed Starbucks project will cause a net decrease in traffic,
corresponding to a reduction of between 149-390 daily trips, 1-26 AM peak hour trips,
and 30-43 PM peak hour trips.
(c) The building and property at 770 Pacific Coast Highway are
adequate in sirs, shape, topography and location to meet the needs of the proposed use of
the property, in that a fast-food restaurant with a drive-through window has been in
operation at the site for several years. A "Trip Generation Study for the Proposed
Starbucks at 81° Street and Pacific Coast Highway, Seal Beach", prepared by Linscott,
Law and Greenspan, dated August 1, 2000, indicates the results of the level of service
analysis performed indicate that the 8" Street/PCH intersection currently operates at
acceptable LOS A. If Starbucks were developed in place of the existing Burger King, the
net reduction in traffic generated by the site will result in better levels of service at the
stop -controlled intersection during the morning and afternoon peak commute hours.
(d) Required adherence to applicable building and fire codes ensures
there will be adequate water supply and utilities for the proposed use.
Section 6. Based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission
hereby approves Conditional Use Permit 00-2, subject to the following conditions:
CUP No. 00-2 is approved to change the land use of the building at 770
Pacific Coast Highway from a fast food restaurant to a coffee house; to
modify the existing drive-through window operation; and to approve an
interior remodeling plan for the existing structure. Said use is approved in
substantial conformance with plans dated March 3 and March 10, 2000, on
file in the Department of Development Services.
2. The hours of operation for the coffee house shall be daily — 6:00 A.M. to
12:01 A.M. The last customer service shall be served at 11:45 P.M. with all
patrons out of the building by 12:01 A.M. The hours of operation of the
drive-through window shall be daily — 6:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M.
CUP 00.2.PC R. (Stub.ck's)
Planning .bmmission Resolution 00-19
Conditional Use Permit 00-2
770 Pacific Coast Highway (Starbucks)
August 23, 2000
3. There shall be no interior maintenance or other business related activities
between the hours of 12:30 A.M. and 6:00 A.M. of the same day. There shall
be no exterior maintenance between the hours of 12:01 A.M. and 6:00 A.M.
of the same day.
4. All deliveries shall take place between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 8:00 P.M.
5. The volume of the drive-through window ordering system shall be turned
down to its lowest audible level at the southerly property line between 6:00
A.M. and 7:00 A.M.
6. The applicant shall install and maintain in operation at all times only the
Horizon drive-through ordering system or a substantially similar alternative
with the approval of the Director of Development Services.
7. The applicant remains bound by all the conditions of all previous
discretionary approvals for the property.
8. The play area shall be removed and that area shall not be used in any manner
in conjunction with the service or operation of the Coffee House.
Development plans for this area, along with exterior color/material
modifications and landscaping improvements, shall be approved by the
Department of Development Services prior to the issuance of a building
permit for the interior modifications to the existing structure.
9. The City Engineer reserves the right to restrict access into parking lot from the
Alley on the West side of the property if a stacking problem begins to appear.
10. No video games or similar amusements shall be permitted on the premises
unless a separate conditional use permit is approved for that use.
11. Litter and trash receptacles shall be located at convenient locations inside and
outside the establishment. Operators of such establishments shall remove
trash and debris on an appropriate basis so as not to cause health problems.
There shall be no dumping of trash and/or glass bottles outside the
establishment between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
12. In the event staff determines security problems exist on the site, the
Conditions of this pemtit may be amended, under the procedures of The Code
of the City of Sea] Beach, to require the provisions of additional security
measures.
13. There shall be no live entertainment, amplified music, or dancing permitted
within the outdoor dining area at any time.
CUP W 2.PC Res. (Slb k's) 4
PlAW% Jommission Resolution 00-19
Conditional Use Permit 00-2
770 Pacific Coast Highway (Starbucks)
August 23, 2000
14. The establishment shall comply with Chapter 13D, "Noise Control', of The
Code of the City of Seal Beach as the regulations of that Chapter now exist or
may hereafter be amended. Should complaints be received regarding noise
generated by the establishment, the Planning Commission reserves the right to
schedule the subject CUP for reconsideration and may require the
applicant/operator to mitigate the noise level to comply with the provisions of
Chapter 13D.
15. This CUP shall not become effective for any purpose unless/until a City
"Acceptance of Conditions" form has been signed by the applicant in the
presence of the Director of Development Services, or notarized and.retumed
to the Planning Department; and until the ten (10) calendar -day appeal period
has elapsed.
16. A modification of this CUP shall be applied for when:
a. The establishment proposes to modify any of its current Conditions of
Approval.
b. There is a substantial change in the mode or character of operations of the
establishment.
17. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke or modify this CUP
pursuant to Articles 25 and 28 of The Code of the City of Seal Beach if harm
or retail -related problems are demonstrated to occur as a result of criminal or
anti -social behavior, including but not limited to the congregation of minors,
violence, public drunkenness, vandalism, solicitation and/or litter.
18. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke or modify this CUP
pursuant to Articles 25 and 28 of The Code of the City of Seal Beach if
traffic -related problems are demonstrated to occur as a result of the operation
of the drive-through window.
19. This CUP shall become null and void unless exercised within one (1) year of
the date of final approval, or such extension of time as may be granted by the
Planning Commission pursuant to a written request for extension submitted to
the Department of Development Services a minimum of ninety (90) days prior
to such expiration date.
20. The applicant shall inform the Director of Development Services in writing of
the first business day for the subject business. Daring the third and fourth
month of business operation, the City shall cause a traffic monitoring program
to be conducted on the subject premises to ascertain the traffic pattern and trip
generation characteristics of the subject premises. Applicant shall reimburse
the City for all costs related to this traffic monitoring program. The report of
CUP 2.PC aero(SorE Ws)
Planning %:ommission Resolution 00-19
Conditional Use Permit 00.2
770 Pacific Coast Highway (Starbucks)
August 23, 2000
this traffic monitoring program shall be provided to the Planning Commission
for consideration in its review of an indefinite extension request in accordance
with the provisions of Condition 16, below.
21. The term of this permit shall be four (4) months, beginning the first day of
operation of the new restaurant. At the end of the initial term, the applicant
may apply to the City for an indefinite extension. The Planning Commission
may grant an extension as discussed above, provided that all Conditions of
Approval have been met and no significant police or other problems have
occurred. The applicant is hereby advised that a new application and
accompanying fee must be submitted to the City prior to consideration of any
extensions.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the
City of Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the 23rd day of
August , 2000, by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners grown. Cutuli_ Hand. Lyon and Sharp
NOES: Commissioners None
ABSENT: Commissioners Nnnn
ABSTAIN: Commissioners None
David Hood, Ph.D.
Chairman of the Planning Commission
e Whittenberg
Secretary of the Planning Commissi t
CUP 2.PC R.(Sutbuckk)
Public Hearing re: Appeal of Approval of Conditional Use Permit 00-2
Planning Commission Resolution 00-19
770 Pacific Coast Highway (Starbucks Coffee)
City Council Stall Repon
September 25, 2000
ATTACHMENT D
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 23, 2000
CIT0 2.Appe SURRepon 21
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of August 23, 2000
Chairperson Hood closed oral communications.
CONSENT CALENDAR
None.
SCHEDULED MATTERS
1. Adoption of Resolution 00-19 approving Conditional Use Permit 00-2, Starbucks
Coffee, 770 Pacific Coast Highway.
Mr. Whittenberg reported that based on the discussion of the Planning Commission
at the August 9, 2000 meeting, the Commission had directed Staff to prepare a
revised resolution reflecting the modifications to the Conditions of Approval based
upon concerned expressed during the public hearing. He stated that Staff has
attempted to address all of these issues in Resolution 00-19 and are presenting it
tonight for the consideration of the Planning Commission. He noted that the
Commission could decide to adopt Resolution 00-19 as presented, or if they believe
that some of the items are not correctly represented based on the Commission's
understanding of the issues, the Commission may direct Staff to modify the
resolution to reflect those changes deemed necessary. The Commission could also
decide upon further reflection that it does not want to approve this project and direct
Staff to return at a future date with a resolution to deny this project.
Chairperson Hood stated that as he understood the options available, technically the
Planning Commission could not consider any of the issues presented during
tonight's public comments. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that this was correct as the
item had been appropriately noticed and the public had opportunity to speak at the
public hearing and the public hearing had been closed. He stated that should the
Planning Commission decide to re -open the public hearing on this issue to receive
additional public testimony, Staff would need to re -notice the newspaper and provide
a 10 -day mail notice to all owners and occupants within 300 feet of the property.
Chairperson Hood confirmed that the public hearing tonight was not under question
as it was not noticed and it does not appear on the agenda as a public hearing item.
Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Cutuli stated that the wording of the resolution provides safeguards
against intensification of the site in going from a Burger King to a Starbucks. He
said that in particular it states that if there are any new traffic problems that arise as
a result of this business, the Starbucks drive-thru window can be closed at any time.
He stated that he believes that in fairness to Starbucks and to the community, it
would be a good idea to adopt this resolution as it is written, and if Starbucks was
lying to the community in saying that they would generate no more traffic than
City of Seat Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of August 23, 2000
Burger King, then they will basically be investing money into a drive-thru window that
will be shut down. Commissioner Cutuli stated that he believes free enterprise in a
community is very important, and he noted that Starbucks is not the only big chain
business within the City. He said that it was not right to restrict trade, and he will
vote to approve the resolution.
Commissioner Lyon said that he felt the City has enough control that if within the
4 -month review period there were any problems, the business could be shut down
altogether. He noted that he believes the Planning Commission has done a fairly
decent job of attempting to come up with all of the answers, if traffic does increase.
Chairperson Hood stated that he was a bit disturbed by the "rather startling figures"
presented during oral communications, which cannot be taken into account. He
asked the Assistant City Attorney if it turns out that traffic is insupportable, and if the
Planning Commission were to eliminate the drive-thru window, is the City liable for
any damages or breach of promise. Mr. Boga stated that the City would not be
liable. He reported that when a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is granted, it is
approved subject to conditions, and the applicant always signs an acceptance of
those conditions. He noted that if the applicant take the benefits of a permit, they
are also subject to the burdens, so they cannot come back to the City claiming that
they did not agree to any of the conditions. Mr. Boga continued by stating that if the
Planning Commission approves this resolution tonight and Starbucks is unhappy
with any of the conditions of approval, their remedy is to appeal to the City Council
before the conditions go into effect. Chairperson Hood confirmed that once the
applicant signs the Acceptance of Conditions form, they have basically waived their
right to legal recourse if the City enforces the conditions to which they have agreed.
Mr. Boga confirmed that this was correct.
MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Brown to adopt Resolution 00-19 as presented.
MOTION CARRIED: 5 — 0
AYES: Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Lyon, and Sharp
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Mr. Whittenberg advised that the adoption of Resolution No. 00-19 begins a 10 -day
calendar appeal period to the City Council. The Commissioner action tonight is final
and the appeal period begins tomorrow morning.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. Conditional Use Permit 00-7
141 Main Street
Applicant/Owner: Bob Griffith
Public Hearing re: Appeal of Approval of Conditional Use Pemtit 00-2
Planning Commission Resolution 00-79
770 Pacific Coast Highway (Starbucks Coffee)
City Council Staff Report
September 25, 2000
ATTACHMENT E
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 9, 2000
CUP 062Appeal SutTRepon 22
City of Seat Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of August 9, 2000
4. Conditional Use Permit 00-2 (Continued from Planning Commission Meeting of
July 19, 2000)
770 Pacific Coast Highway
Applicant/Owner: Tom Lao, TI Planning / L&R Properties
Request: To permit a drive-thru coffeehouse where a drive-in restaurant
currently resides.
Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution 00-
19.
Chairperson Hood provided a brief explanation to members of public of the procedure
for public hearings and how the Planning Commission makes decisions on items
presented.
Commissioner Sharp reported that although he was not serving on the Planning
Commission when Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 00-2 was first presented, he has
acquired all of the documentation on previous meetings and is very well informed of the
proceedings to this point. He stated that per the advice of the Assistant City Attorney,
he is qualified to vote on this issue tonight.
Staff Reoort
Mr. Whittenberg delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the
Planning Department.) He provided some background information on this item and
stated this application was for the continued operation of a drive-thru window for a
coffeehouse at a location currently in use as a fast food restaurant. He reported that the
proposed modification to the drive-thru window is to move the window from its current
location to a different location on the building. He cited a number of previous approvals
for the current fast food restaurant (Burger King) allowing the conversion from a bank to
the current drive-thru restaurant. He presented photographs of the drive-thru lane and
reported that the drive-thru window has been in operation for approximately 6 years.
Mr. Whittenberg noted the concerns expressed by the Commission at the meeting of
May 17, 2000, and reported responses to these concerns as follows:
Additional data needed regarding traffic patterns in the area during the day.
Response: As far as additional traffic data, Starbucks retained the firm of Linscott,
Law & Greenspan (LLG) to complete a traffic analysis and trip generation
study. A draft copy of the report was presented to Staff approximately 3
weeks ago and both Staff and the City Traffic Engineering Consultant, Mr.
Bill Zimmerman, have reviewed the report
City of Seal Seach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of August 9, 2000
2. If there were no modifications to the drive-thru window, is the CUP still required
and would this request have come before the Planning Commission?
Response: The initial approval in 1994 required a certain plan to be approved and it
indicated that if there were substantial modifications to that plan, a new
CUP must be granted. Staff has reviewed this issue with the City
Attorney's office and although the initial response by Staff was that a CUP
would not be required, after reviewing the previous conditions of approval
and evaluating the changes in the plans between the two uses, Staff has
determined that a CUP is required for the floor plan modifications to the
interior of the building. (The Director of Development Services then
provided an overview of what these modifications would entail.)
3. If the CUP could be approved without the drive-thru window and still require that a
traffic analysis be completed.
Response: Based upon the determination that the floor plan modifications do require
a CUP, the modification to the drive-thru window could be denied and still
require that a traffic analysis be completed. With the proposed
modifications to the interior of the building, however, Staff believes the
Commission would have difficulty in making appropriate findings to deny
an interior modification to the building if there is no drive-thru window.
4. Improve exterior appearance of the building and landscaping
Response: A number of meetings have been held with Starbucks regarding the
exterior of the building and landscaping, and Starbucks has indicated that
they would be willing to work with Staff to help address these concerns.
Recogniiing that the Planning Commission does not serve as a design
review board, Staff is recommending that these issues be addressed at
the Staff level. The focus would be on looking at existing building
materials and colors of the building in order to select materials and colors
to make the exterior look more up-to-date. Starbucks has also indicated a
willingness to work with Staff in improving the landscaping, primarily along
Pacific Coast Highway.
5. Evaluation of the queuing within the parking lot to service the drive-thru lane.
Response: There really is no separate lane area indicated at this time, and there
never has been so cars will stack up in the backout area of the different
parking spaces in the parking lot while waiting to get to the drive-thru
window. It is basically first-come, first -serve as to which car gets to back
out and how courteous drivers are in accommodating this. He said that
Staff anticipates that this same situation would exist in the future. The trip
generation study prepared by LLG addresses the issue of queuing based
City of Seat Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of August 9, 2000
on the concerns expressed by the Commission. (A copy of this report has
been provided to the Commission.)
6. What type of traffic patterns would change by going from a restaurant to a
coffeehouse use?
Response: The analysis provided in the trip generation study is based upon concerns
expressed by the City Traffic Engineer to attempt to evaluate the project in
a like -for -like situation instead of using nationwide averages, which is what
is usually done in a trip generation study. The Institute for Traffic
Engineers prepares a textbook with a number of trip generation studies for
a wide range of land uses. This information is used to generate
anticipated trip generation in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours on a
nationwide average basis. These numbers reflect the high numbers of
trips that would be reduced by this use as opposed to the fast food
restaurant use. The low numbers of trip reduction reflect what Staff had
suggested needed to be done to further refine the analysis by attempting
to look at existing Starbucks Coffee uses that have a drive-thru window
operation. The specific numbers and operational characteristics of this
use will not be known until the business has been in operation for a period
of time. Based upon the traffic analysis results, Staff has determined that
the coffeehouse use reflects an overall reduction of approximately 150
trips less coming in and out in a 24-hour period of time as opposed to the
Burger King use. As far as left tum movements at 8`h Street, the analysis
indicated that the maximum number of vehicles at the left turn pocket on
Pacific Coast Highway making a left tum onto 8t" Street was 2 vehicles at
any one time, which is the maximum number of vehicles that left pocket
can accommodate. The City Traffic Engineer has concluded that the
current configuration is adequate given the assumed use of the property
as generally in conformity with the average of the other 3 Starbucks
locations that were evaluated.
Mr. Whittenberg stated that the trip generation patterns as indicated in the study seem
to be fairly similar between the two uses. He noted that after reviewing the
recommendations made by LLG with both the City Engineer and the Consulting Traffic
Engineer, it was felt that there was an additional traffic study would not be warranted.
He said that the City Engineer recommends that given the projected similarity of the
uses and trip generation, the City should approve this CUP and allow the business to
open. Once the business is open, the use can be evaluated over time; primarily at the
left turn pocket and the trip generation in an out to determine if further modifications are
necessary. He explained that because Pacific Coast Highway is a state highway and is
controlled by CalTrans, it is not always possible for the City to make changes in the
street configuration to help deal with a traffic issue.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of August 9, 2000
Mr. Whittenberg stated that based upon the analysis presented, the trip generation
study, and the previous use, Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit 00-2
subject to the same conditions presented in the last staff report.
Commissioner Questions
Commissioner Lyon asked whether CalTrans had been consulted regarding this matter.
Mr. Whittenberg responded that they have not been consulted and do not have to be
consulted at this point in time. Commissioner Lyon asked if a traffic problem does arise
with this use, could CalTrans then be consulted. Mr. Whittenberg responded that
normally CalTrans will accede to the wishes of the City, but Staff cannot guarantee that
they would agree to everything the City proposes.
14Public Hearina
15
16 Chairperson Hood opened the public hearing.
17
18 Mr. Tom Lao of TI Planning introduced Cindy Freels and Robert Leviason of Starbucks.
19
20 Ms. Cindy Freels, Real Estate Manager of Starbucks, stated that the Director of
21 Development Services had addressed many of the items that she wanted to express.
22 She thanked the Commissioners for working with Starbucks and for allowing the
!�3 opportunity to present the facts regarding traffic generation. She said that Starbucks
has attempted to address all of the concerns expressed by the Commission by
25 providing the traffic study. She stated that the analysis concludes that there is no
26 intensification of traffic by the Starbucks use, as the level of service remains at A Level,
27 which is the highest level defined by the Institute of Traffic Engineers Industry. She
28 noted that Starbucks accepts all of the conditions for approval as presented by Staff.
29 Ms. Freels stated that Starbucks is very excited about being a part of community and
30 would like to create an environment that is inviting by making improvements to the
31 existing building. She said that the drive-thru window is to be moved forward 20 feet to
32 allow for more cars in the queue lane.
33
34 Mr. Robert Leviason, Real Estate Manager for Starbucks, stated that due to a
35 realignment of territories within the Real Estate Department of Starbucks, he would be
36 managing this location. He commended the Director of Development Services in his
37 presentation of the facts, and stated that he and Ms. Freels were available to respond to
38 any questions.
39
40 Mr. David Steinberg, a representative of Burger King, stated that after operating at this
41 location for 6 years, Burger King has never had any complaints of traffic or queuing
42 problems. He reported that several times the CUP for Burger King had come up for
43 review before the Planning Commission and has always been approved as a result of
44 the lack of complaints. Mr. Steinberg stated that the property has an intrinsic value
f A5 because of the drive-thru, and his job is to find another company to take the place of
Burger King. He said that the owners of the property take pride in this location, and his
Cary of Seat Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of August 9, 2000
task was to find a user that would not be antagonistic to the community and would
represent Burger King's pride and respect for the community. He reported that because
of all of the fast food restaurants along this area, he had selected Starbucks because he
thought that this would be a less intensive use and would provide something different.
He noted that most of the commentary in opposition of Starbucks has come from
competitors, rather than from residents. He questioned the tone of the commentary in
attempting to portray the creation of a dangerous environment due to traffic concerns
that have not existed in the six years Burger King has been at this location. Mr.
Steinberg reported that the reason Burger King is leaving this location is due to
realignment within the company with a substantial investment to re-image the existing
restaurants. He stated that this location is one of the outlying properties and the
company wants to use a property that is more logistically sound. He said if Starbucks
were not used, another fast food restaurant would be used, which could increase traffic
flow. He indicated that the trip generation figures, which reflect the average use for the
past two years, show that use has been down. He explained that the figures appear to
be skewed due to little or no investment in marketing this restaurant, sales traditionally
being slow during the summer months, and also to the community having been made
aware that Burger King is leaving the community.
Mr. Dan Bailey expressed his opposition stating that traffic and noise would be a major
concern, in particular during off -hours. He stated that he was not in agreement with
taking the "wait and see" approach to dealing with traffic concerns.
Ms. Debbie Edwards, a partner in the Daily Grind, stated that within 3 weeks of the
Planning Commission's request for provision of a traffic study on the proposed
Starbucks, she and her partners had provided the City with internal data on actual
transaction counts. She stated that they had also provided Staff with industry averages
from Deidrich's, the second largest specialty coffee retailer in the United States. She
said that they had performed traffic counts at the Seal Beach Burger King, and the
Santa Monica, Hermosa Beach, and Lakewood Starbucks, all of which are drive-thru
coffeehouses. Ms. Edwards stated that the data they provided was accurate and true.
She said that the data for the analysis completed by LLG was provided by Starbucks.
She said that Starbucks had also provided the Burger King transaction data. She noted
that the data had not been verified by LLG or by Staff. She stated that the data was
false, inaccurate, and misleading, and that the numbers presented by Starbucks were
inflated 303%. She questioned the use of trip generation figures from two Starbucks
drive-thrus located in hot, desert retirement communities (Cathedral City and Palm
Springs) with the Santa Monica drive-thru Starbucks, when the Hermosa Beach and
Lakewood drive-thrus are closer. Ms. Edwards explained that the Daily Grind with 267
square feet generates 222 vehicle trips per hour, and she questioned how the new
Starbucks with a 3,200 square foot location and 2,750 usable square feet could
generate only 108 vehicle trips per peak hour. She said that the figures provided by
Starbucks were based upon a 1,600 square foot coffeehouse. Ms. Edwards also noted
that at this location Starbucks has stated that it will use only 1,600 square feet of space
and "the remainder of the 3,200 square foot area will be dead space." She noted that
this 1,600 square feet of dead space were not used in the calculations provided to LLC,
City o/ Seat Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of August 9, 2000
but for the comparison with Burger King, Starbucks uses 1,600 square feet and Burger
King uses 2,750 square feet. She stated that it had taken Starbucks three months to
come up with the numbers they wanted for the results they needed, but the facts remain
that Burger King does not have 112 vehicle trips per hour, but 37; and Starbucks does
not have 1,600 square feet of usable space but 2,750. She concluded by stating that
the facts reflect that Starbucks traffic will be significantly greater than for the existing
Burger King and would have a negative affect on the surrounding neighborhood. She
recommended denial of CUP 00-2.
Ms. Chris Schreiber stated her opposition to CUP 00-2. She said that she relocated to
Seal Beach from Seattle six years ago and is well acquainted with the local
neighborhood Starbucks, which she visited most mornings. She stated that she had
observed the congestion in their parking lot and the surrounding streets, and how long it
takes them to make a latte. She said that even with the smaller population base in
Seattle, the small parking lots and long waits do create long lines and congestion in
quaint neighborhoods. Ms. Schreiber said that she could not comprehend how the
current number of parking spaces and a single drive-thru window could accommodate a
larger population base along a busy highway. She expressed her concerns over the
safety of pedestrians and school children during the peak morning hours, and also the
increase in noise levels.
Mr. Darryl Patch stated that he had visited the Starbucks in Belmont Shores at 11:00
p.m. and observed large, rather rowdy gatherings of teenagers in front of the store. He
said he had also visited the Huntington Beach Starbucks and had observed the same
scenario. Mr. Patch explained that he lives next door to Jack -In -The -Box, and if anyone
is talking outside the restaurant at night, these conversations can be overheard and can
be a nuisance. He reported that the evening before at 11:15 he had to break up 3
children who were skateboarding near his home. He stated that this occurs almost
every night, and he does not call the police, but he is realizing that if CUP 00-2 is
approved, he may have to call them every night to help show the City what will take
place when this coffeehouse opens. He said that traffic in this area is already heavy
and Starbucks will generate a tremendous amount of additional traffic. He also
expressed his concerns over late night or early morning deliveries. He cited several
examples of disturbances that he has to contend with due to the location of his home
proximal to these fast food restaurants. Mr. Patch stated that he does not have air
conditioning in his home and like the other residents of the City, he would like to enjoy
the ocean breeze; however, when his windows are open he is subject to the exhaust
from the cars in queue at both Jack -In -The -Box and Burger King. He expressed his
opposition to CUP 00-2 and recommended that closing hours be changed to 9:00 p.m.
Mr. Tom Bass stated that his home abuts Pacific Coast Highway and on numerous
occasions he has had to deal with noise from the fast food restaurants. He said that
although deliveries are prohibited between the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m., this is
not being enforced. He asked if Staff has reviewed the incidence of traffic accidents
along Pacific Coast Highway. He noted that his family will usually have to make the call
to the police department to report accidents along Pacific Coast Highway. He
10
City o/ Seat Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of August 9, 2000
recommended careful analysis of the traffic patterns and enforcement of the restrictions
on early morning or late night delivers.
Ms. Rory DeMeire, property manager of the apartment building directly behind Burger
King, stated that she was representing the tenants. She said that the drive-thru creates
excessive noise and smog emissions that prevent the tenants from enjoying a quiet and
clean environment. She reported that there is excessive traffic on 81h Street, along the
alleyway, and cutting through behind the apartment building, which is private property.
She said that although a chain has been installed to block the traffic from the alley, it is
continuously taken down by drivers wanting to access the alley to get back onto 8ht
Street. Ms. DeMeire stated that she is opposed to any restaurant or coffeehouse use at
this location as they create emission and noise problems. She questioned the traffic
analysis data presented noting that Starbucks is a very successful business. She
recommended denial of CUP 00-2.
Ms. Sue Corbin stated that this was one of the peculiar projects that came out of the
City Manager's office. She said that although Mr. Keith Till was now gone the residents
of Seal Beach would have to suffer forever. Ms. Corbin stated that she uses the left
turn pocket on Pacific Coast Highway to turn onto 8tb Street very judiciously. She
indicated that this center divider should be closed off to prevent left turns at this
location. She said that Staff had not indicated the opening time for the proposed
Starbucks. Ms. Corbin said that the residents will be fully impacted by this project. She
reported that a few days ago the City Engineer had stated that this was a defective
traffic study, and tonight Staff is indicating that everything is all right. She said that it
was unrealistic to state that the trip generations would be less for Starbucks as it would
not be practical to begin a business that would not generate significant revenues. She
said that due to noise levels it was very difficult for residents of Old Town to sleep, and
noise laws in the City are not enforced. She contended that Starbucks has totally
misrepresented their project and questioned how this CUP could be approved. She
stated that this was a total distortion of the facts. She recommended that Starbucks be
required to return before the Planning Commission with data that would include the
extra usable square footage for this location.
Ms. Linda Krueger stated that she resides behind Jack -In -The -Box and she is
concerned that when the drive-thru window is moved, it will be closer to her home and
will create more noise. She also noted that the hours of operation for the coffeehouse
have never been mentioned. She questioned when employees of the coffeehouse
would be scheduled to arrive and close up. She complained of problems with loud
noise from both customers and employees at the current Burger King and Jack -In -The -
Box locations. She expressed her objection to having a speaker box for any restaurant
that would operate at this location. Ms. Krueger stated that her family has frequently
had to call the Seal Beach Police Department (SBPD) to complain about the noise. She
reported that refrigeration trucks have made deliveries to Jack -In -The -Box at 8:00 a.m.
on Sunday mornings. She also complained of skateboarders in this area in the late and
early morning hours and invited the Planning Commissioners to visit her home on the
weekends to experience the level of noise that she and her family have to contend with.
11
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of August 9, 2000
1 Ms. Krueger stated that at 2:00 a.m. when Jack -In -The -Box is closing down, intoxicated
2 - customers will drive through creating a loud ruckus or gather in the parking lot. She
3 questioned why, with all of the noise and traffic problems created by these drive-thru
4 restaurants, the Planning Commission continues to allow them. She recommended
5 denial of CUP 00-2.
6
7 Ms. Susan Cooper, a partner with Debbie Edwards in the Daily Grind, reiterated that the
8 information that Ms. Edwards had presented disputed the information presented in the
9 Starbucks traffic analysis. She said that she believed the data they had presented was
10 convincing enough to warrant denial of CUP 00-2. She stated that if the City had
11 ordered and paid for the traffic study and requested reimbursement by the applicant, an
12 unbiased and accurate compilation of data would have maintained the integrity of the
13 studies findings, which would have been in the best interest of the firm's client, the City
14 of Seal Beach. She said that, unfortunately, the best interest of the LLG study was for
15 its client, Starbucks. She emphasized that there is a real danger posed by the amount
16 of traffic that would be generated by Starbucks. Ms. Cooper stated that this was not
17 about competition, but that the partners of the Daily Grind are genuinely concerned with
18 the dangers of the increased traffic and congestion that would occur. She stated that
19 drive-thru restaurants generate no tax dollars for the City, and the only additional
20 revenues resulting from the proposed drive-thru window will be in Starbucks' pocket.
21 She questioned whether the City should risk the additional problems associated with car
22 accidents and/or fatalities and possible litigation against the City, all for a drive-thru
03window that generates no income for the City. She noted that this was a "lose -lose
! proposition to our City." She reviewed the information presented by Ms. Edwards and
25 ended by recommending denial of CUP 00-2.
26
27 'Mr. Robert Leviason rebutted by stating that regarding the Starbucks stores used in
28 creating the traffic analysis, the Santa Monica store and the two desert stores were
29 included because Starbucks was attempting to acquire data from stores that feed off of
30 highway traffic with no other traffic generators surrounding the store. He stated that the
31 Hermosa Beach store is surrounded by a neighborhood shopping center, which is a
32 daily need traffic generator and this location does not feed solely off the traffic from the
33 arterial highway. He reported that the Lakewood store is across the street from the
34 Lakewood Mall, which is the traffic generator for that location. He stated that the store
35 in Santa Monica is a freestanding store with a drive-thru with no other generators
36 around it and feeds solely off of highway traffic, as do the Cathedral City and Palm
37 Springs stores. These stores were most similar in characteristics to the proposed store
38 at the Pacific Coast Highway and 8" Street location. Mr. Leviason also noted that
39 Starbucks and other fast food establishments draw primarily from the arterial highway
40 that fronts the store, Starbucks generally attempts to locate near an intersection. He
41 stated that the total traffic from the intersection also has to be considered. He noted
42 that the traffic from 8" Street does not contribute very much to the traffic count. He
43 explained that both the traffic counts from the arterial fronting the store and from the
44 -intersections that feed the store have to be combined to compile accurate figures. He
45 explained that the Cathedral City store is located on an intersection similar to the
J proposed Seal Beach store, and the Palm Springs store is located on Highway 111. He
12
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of August g, 2000
said that if the traffic count for both the Cathedral City and Palm Springs stores are
combined, this provides a comparable traffic count to the total traffic count at Pacific
Coast Highway and 8" Streets. Commissioner Brown asked Mr. Leviason if he could
provide these numbers. Mr. Leviason stated that he did not have the exact numbers
with him, but had some outdated information. He reported that he had attempted to
contact these two locations today to acquire the exact numbers, but was not able to
acquire this data. He said that this information could be provided to the Commission.
He then addressed how the Daily Grind with one-tenth of the floor space as the
proposed Starbucks, generates 222 cars through the drive-thru. He noted that the Daily
Grind has two drive-thru windows and does not allow the opportunity for the customer to
exit his or her car, place an order and receive it, so customers are forced to use the
drive-thru lane. He said that the proposed site for the Starbucks store has 24 parking
spaces, and half of the customers going through Starbucks will have ample opportunity
to leave their cars and place and pick up their orders inside the store without having to
go through the drive-thru. He explained that if the 222 -car figure reported by the Daily
Grind were divided in half, this would compare to the figures presented for the proposed
Starbucks.
20 Regarding the 1,600 square feet of dead space, Mr. Leviason reported that because
21B ger King had used this section for a play area for children, the City is requiring that
22 this area not be used for customer service or food preparation, and Starbucks has
93 agreed to this condition. He noted that this play area was a sales generator for Burger
King as children bring in their parents when there is a play place. He said that this dead
25 space would be used for an atrium area with a fountain and plants. He confirmed that
26 this was why only 1,600 square feet of usable space was used to compile the traffic
27 analysis data. He stated that very recently a traffic counter on the premises had
28 counted 37 cars at the existing Burger King, and that although Starbucks understands
29 that sales at Burger King have gone down recently, the analysis completed was based
30 upon the industry average of what a Burger King or fast food restaurant should be
31 generating given the usable square footage, and the average of the last 2 years of full
32 operation of the existing Burger King. He said that the operator of the Burger King has
33 made the decision to close and allow another user to come into the building and,
34 consequently, have made no further investment in this site. He stated that this was why
35 the figures are so much lower than what an average Burger King should do based on
36 the square footage or what this Burger King actually did when it was in full operation.
37
38 Mr. Leviason said that he sympathized with the concerns expressed by the residents,
39 but the property is zoned for commercial and has other uses that are zoned commercial,
40 and if Starbucks does not go in, the property with its problems is not going to go away.
41 He noted that the property is adjacent to an arterial highway that carries over 48,000
42 cars a day, and the zoning allows the use of the drive-thru. He stated that the problems
43 would continue because Burger King could then decide to make the investment to make
44 this location more profitable and generate more activity, or they could close it or sublet it
A5 and allow another fast food user to go in. He noted that if the other user does not make
any changes to the use or the floor plan, they are not required to go through the process
13
City of Seat Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of August 9, 2000
of a public hearing for approval to begin operation. He stated that any other user that
goes into that location will generate traffic and noise in their efforts to increase profits.
He said that these characteristics are not unique to Starbucks, but go along with the
zoning of the land and the surrounding uses, and the activity that goes on along Pacific
Coast Highway. He noted that Starbucks is not the creator of these problems, nor can
they solve these problems. Mr. Leviason reported that Starbucks had complied with the
request for a traffic analysis and has shown no malicious intent in attempting to
demonstrate that the uses are similar and that there will be no substantial increase in
the morning traffic and that traffic in the afternoon will actually decrease. He stated that
Starbucks accepts the conditions placed upon them by Staff, including a one-year
review period.
Commissioner Brown asked about the proposed hours of operation. Mr. Whittenberg
responded that the hours would be the same as the hours for Burger King, 6:00 a.m. to
midnight. Commissioner Brown stated that the Staff Report indicates that the hours for
the drive-thru window at other Starbucks locations are limited. He asked if this would be
the same for the proposed Starbucks. Mr. Leviason stated that Starbucks had not been
asked by Staff to limit the drive-thru hours, but if this condition is placed on the CUP
application, Starbucks will consider this request.
21 Chairperson Hood closed the public hearing.
22
93 Commissioner Comments
i
25 Commissioner Cutuli stated he has been contacted by several of his constituents
26requesting that CUP 00-2 be denied. He said that he is not a coffee drinker and he has
27 no strong feelings about Starbucks. He noted that it always appears to be a clean, neat
28 looking franchise, but may dilute the small town atmosphere of Seal Beach. He said
29 that although it might be too much competition for the other coffeehouses in town, the
30 job of the Planning Commission is to determine whether the land use meets the rules
31 'and regulations handed down by City Council. He said that the Commission does have
32 some latitude in deciding whether this entity will blend into the surrounding community.
33 Commissioner Cutuli stated that because he wants to make a decision that is the safest
34 for the community, he does have concerns about the traffic at Pacific Coast Highway
35 and a Street. He expressed his concern that the left turn pocket onto 8'h Street holds
36 only two cars. He said that the traffic concerns and the inadequacy of the numbers
37 presented by LLG in the traffic analysis do not present the prospect of little or no traffic
38 problems. He stated that he would wait to hear from the other Commissioners, but if the
39 decision were up to him, he would approve the CUP for the operation of Starbucks
40 without the drive-thru window as it currently exists.
41
42 Mr. Whittenberg interjected that for the record he would like to note that a letter was
43 received from Rory DeMeire stating her opposition to this project as proposed, and also
44 a letter from Suzanne and Brian Nelson, residents of Seal Beach, expressing their
45 opposition to the drive through window. He reported that a copy of the presentation
S prepared by Debbie Edwards would also be entered into the record.
14
City or Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of August 9, 2000
Commissioner Sharp stated that he has spent his entire working life within the retail
food industry, and he always found that competition did more for his business than non-
competition. He said that when there is competition it drives the business owner to take
better care of customers and to do a better job. He said that although he has some
concerns about traffic, Burger King has been operating fairly successfully for 6 years,
and he believes that CUP 00-2 should be granted with a review period on the drive-thru
window. If problems are reported within that review period, the Planning Commission
could decide at the hearing whether to eliminate the drive-thru window. He stated that
he did not believe the Planning Commission could deny a CUP for a location that has a
history of having a successful business operating from that site.
Commissioner Brown welcomed Commissioner Sharp back to the Planning
Commission and stated that he was in agreement with him. He stated that he believed
the primary issue was that under the current CUP there would be nothing to prevent
Burger King from starting to sell coffee exclusively. He noted that in this country we
value free enterprise and if McDonalds could have their way there would be no Burger
Kings or Jack -In -The -Box. He added that if this were the case and he could have his
way there would be no other ophthalmologist within the City of Downey. He said that if
you have a good idea, people will imitate whatyou are doing, and he believes this to be
the nature of competition and what makes a business better. Commissioner Brown
stated that both he and Commissioner Sharp had participated in the original hearings
for Burger King and at that time the Commission was unsure about having a drive-thru
window. He noted that as he recalled the residents who spoke at that public hearing
wanted the drive-thru. He said he found it very unusual that currently there is an
intense lobbying effort by a competitor against this drive-thru window. He commented
that in his tenure on the Commission this is the most intense campaign he has every
observed in this city. Commissioner Brown stated that in reviewing the traffic analysis
data, it appeared to be a mixture of "science and voodoo," and no one really knows
what the numbers will be until the business actually begins operation. He noted that
with the new Starbucks it was safe to assume that traffic would probably increase in the
morning and decrease in the afternoon. He stated that from his observations in visiting
the Daily Grind, if the line of cars is too long, customers will drive away. He commented
that the Daily Grind is an excellent operation and they make good coffee and he doesn't
believe that they need to be concerned about competition. If anything, he believes it will
help their business by increasing the amount of coffee drinkers in the City. As far as
traffic counts are concerned both Commissioners Brown and Sharp believe that they will
be relatively the same. Commissioner Brown stated that in reviewing the traffic counts it
appears to be "pretty much a wash." He recommended a shorter review period and
cutting the hours of operation for the drive-thru window. Commissioner Brown then
addressed the residents living near the Burger King location stating that although he
sympathized with their situation, this is a commercially zoned area and when living
close to a busy thoroughfare a certain level of noise and disturbance is to be expected.
He said that in this case, if Burger King has been operating at this site for 6 years and
has come up for review several times with no major complaints about traffic registered,
the Planning Commission cannot in all fairness deny this request.
is
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of August 9, 2000
Commissioner Lyon stated that he would like to see an accurate traffic count compieted
by the City, as so far there has been no tangible data produced by the City. He noted
that the only speakers who spoke in favor of the project were the representatives of
Starbucks, while the remainder of the public spoke against it. He said that the Planning
Commission needed to consider the fact that it appeared that the majority of the
members of that neighborhood were not in favor of approval of this request.
9Chairperson Hood reviewed the options for action on this item as follows:
10
11 1. To approve CUP 00-2 as presented.
12 2. Deny CUP 00-2
13 3. To approve CUP 00-2 with limitations.
14
15 He stated that the hours of operation could be limited or the hours for operation of the
16 drive-thru could be restricted after 9:00 p.m., or as the Director of Development
17 Services suggested, Staff could modify the review period from 12 months to 6 months.
18
19 Commissioner Cutuli asked if this CUP is approved with a 6 -month review period and
20 operation of this coffeehouse does create major traffic problems, what remedy would
21 Staff and/or the City Traffic Engineer present to help minimize the possibility of any
22 litigation against the City. Mr. Whittenberg responded that the Planning Commission
03 could consider the alternative of approving the application with a 6 -month review and
require that Starbucks reimburse the City for having the contract traffic engineering staff
25 conduct a monthly monitoring of the turning movements at the intersection of Pacific
26 Coast Highway and 81h Street. Mr. Whittenberg recommended rotating the monitoring
27 days to get an overview between weekend and weekday turn movements in and out of
28 the location. This information could then be presented as a part of the 6 -month review
29 along with a report from the consulting traffic engineer stating what the impacts are. Mr.
30 Whittenberg cautioned that whenever sampling at locations is done over a period of
31 time, there may be days where the worst or best activity is recorded, and there is no
32 way of determining when the worst or best days will be. He suggested that this might
33 not be the most practical approach. He stated that at this point the Planning
34 Commission would have the legal authority to either approve or deny the continued
35 operation of the drive-thru window, or impose modifications to the use of the window.
36
37 Commissioner Cutuli questioned whether any action could be taken before the end of
38 the 6 -month review period should serious traffic concerns arise. Mr. Whittenberg
39 responded that Condition No. 12 of Resolution 00.19 is a standard condition that is
40 included for all CUP applications and authorizes the Planning Commission to "revoke or
41 modify this CUP... if harm or retail related problems are demonstrated to occur as a
42 result of criminal or anti -social behavior including but not limited to the congregation of
43 minors, violence, public drunkenness, vandalism, solicitation, and/or litter." He said that
44 this condition allows the Planning Commission to bring an application back before them
�5 I at any time it any of these problems are experienced. Mr. Whittenberg recommended
i amending the language to this condition to include traffic congestion, customer cars
16
City o/ Seal Beach Planning commission
Meeting Minutes of August 9, 2000
spilling out onto the street, or increased dangerous turning movements at the
intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and 8t' Street.
Commissioner Sharp stated that he believed the Planning Commission should have the
right to limit the hours for the drive-thru window. He recommended shortening the
review period to 6 months and suggested that in consideration of the expense, and
because there might be increased traffic during the first two months of operation, that
the monthly study begin after two months in operation to acquire a more realistic count
of what the daily traffic generation would be. Commissioner Sharp recommended a 5 -
minute recess to allow the representatives of Starbucks to confer with the Commission
and Staff regarding modifying the conditions for approval.
13Chairperson Hood stated that he would prefer to continue and he recommended making
14 a motion to approve CUP 00-2 with amendments to the Resolution 00-19.
15 Commissioner Brown interjected that before a motion could be made to approve the
16 resolution with amendments, it would be appropriate to know what the amended
17 resolution states. Chairperson Hood reviewed the recommendations and asked if a
18 vote could be taken. Commissioner Cutuli stated that he would like to see a 4 -month
19 review period, because if traffic problems do arise, he does not want to see them go on
20 for 6 months. Chairperson Hood asked Staff if the 6 -month review period would begin
21 when Starbucks opens for business or as of the date of approval of the application. Mr.
22 Whittenberg reported that the review period begins when Starbucks opens for business.
03 Commissioner Brown stated that he had no objection to a 4 -month review period. He
stated that as it appears in the previous Resolution 97-44 for Burger King, he would like
25 to see the hours of operation (6:00 a.m. to midnight) added as a condition. Mr.
26 Whittenberg noted that this was covered in Condition No. 2, but if the Commission
27 would like to have the hours stated, the condition could be modified to reflect this.
28 Commissioner Brown stated that he felt the hours of operation for the drive-thru window
29 should be limited to 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. He also recommended that Condition No. 3
30 of Resolution No. 97-44 regarding limiting business-related activities between the hours
31 of 12:30 a.m. and 6:00 a.m., be included in Resolution 00-19. Mr. Whittenberg again
32 referred to Condition No. 2 of Resolution 00-19, which states, "the applicant remains
33 bound by all the conditions of all previous discretionary approvals for the property."
34 Commissioner Brown stated that he would prefer to see everything clearly spelled out.
35 He referred to Condition No. 11 of Resolution 97-44 regarding speaker volume after
36 9:00 p.m. and inquired about a new speaker ordering system that is supposed to be
37 low -noise and has the order display to prevent customers having to repeat and verbally
38 confirm their orders.
39
40 Commissioner Lyon stated that he believed that all of the new conditions should be
41 presented in writing before voting on this application. Commissioner Brown reported
42 that when substantial modifications to a resolution are made, Staff will always present
43 the modified resolution to the Planning Commission at a later meeting for final approval.
44 Mr. Whittenberg noted that when action is taken to approve a project subject to the final
A5 resolution appearing before the Planning Commission, this is usually returned as a
9 Scheduled Matter and not a Public Hearing matter.
17
City o/ Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of August 9, 2000
Mr. Whittenberg requested clarification of the time restrictions desired for the operation
of the drive-thru window. Commissioner Sharp recommended 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
Chairperson Hood inquired as to whether the recommended hours of operation for the
coffeehouse would remain 6:00 a.m. to midnight. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that these
hours could also be amended. Commissioner Brown stated that he was in agreement
with 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. hours for the drive-thru window. The Commission agreed
that the hours of operation for the drive-thru window should be 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
and 6:00 a.m. to midnight for the overall operation of the coffeehouse. Commissioner
Sharp asked if the application were approved with a 4 -month review, could the applicant
come in at the end of the 4 months to report that there have been no problems and
request that the drive-thru hours be extended. Chairperson Hood stated that at the
4 -month review the applicant could request any amendment that they would like.
Mr. Whittenberg asked to clarify the changes to be made to Resolution 00-19 as follows:
1. Change the review period to 4 months.
2. Complete a traffic study during the last two months of the 4 -month review period.
3. City Traffic Engineer provide information on a weekly basis and that Starbucks
reimburse the City for the cost of this service.
4. Drive through operating hours will be 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. daily.
5. Add Condition Nos. 2, 3, 12, and 17 as they appear in the previous Resolution 97-44
regarding the following issues respectively:
a. Hours of coffeehouse operation as 6:00 a.m. to midnight.
b. No interior or exterior maintenance or business-related activities between the
hours of 12:30 a.m. and 6:00 a.m.
c. Maintenance of a low noise speaker ordering system.
d. Deliveries limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.
Commissioner Cutuli added that the condition be included to allow for a 2 -month review
should a substantial increase in traffic problems occur to determine if the drive-thru
window needs to be closed.
Commissioner Brown noted that as indicated in the letter from Rick and Debbie
Edwards the drive through window hours for the Fountain Valley Starbucks are 5:30
a.m. to 9:30 a.m. He stated that the Hermosa Beach Starbucks also has hours posted
of 5:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m.
MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Sharp to approve Conditional Use Permit 00-2 and
direct Staff to return with amended Resolution 00-19.
MOTION CARRIED: 5 — 0
AYES: Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Lyon, and Sharp
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
18
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of August 9, 2000
1
1 Mr. Whittenberg advised that the Commission has not taken final action tonight and the
3 revised Resolution is scheduled for presentation on August 23, 2000. He stated that if
4 Resolution 00-19 is adopted, this would begin a 10 -day calendar appeal period to the
5 City Council on the final action taken by the Planning Commission at that time.
6
7 Commissioner Sharp requested a 5 -minute recess at 9:40 p.m.
8
9 The Planning Commission reconvened at 9:50 p.m.
10
11 6. Minor Plan Review 00-5
12 115 Yz - 3d Street
13
14 Applicant/Owner: Rex Hoover/ Carol F. Harty
15 Request: Addition of an approximately 203 square foot balcony to the
16 second floor of the rear building on a legal non -conforming
17 property. Specifically the applicant proposes to add a balcony
18 with posts extending to the ground on the rear apartment unit,
19 which is located on top of the garage. The property currently
20 contains 3 units and 3 parking spaces.
21
22 Recommendation: To continue to the Planning Commission meeting of August
23 23,2000.
25
26 7. Proposed Amendment to Development Agreement Section 3.1.2.7 — Project Phasing
27 (Timing of Residential Construction) and to City Council Resolution No. 4735,
28 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 15797, Condition Number 2, Prior to Issuance of
29 Building Permits Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center Project.
30
31 ApplicanVOwner: Bixby Ranch Company
32 Request: Eliminate Section 3.1.2.7 of the Development Agreement
33 (Ordinance No. 1440-A) and Condition Number 2, Prior to
34 Issuance of Building Permits, of City Council Resolution No.
35 4735 regarding Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 15797.
36 Elimination of these provisions and conditions would remove
37 the current project phasing provisions and conditions
38 regarding the required approval of interior lath or drywall
39 inspections for the commercial construction of certain
40 specified portions of Development Area A (identified as Retail
41 "A", 'B", "C", and "D") prior to issuance of building permits for
42 the residential project permitted within Development Area "D"
43 (maximum of 75 single-family homes). Elimination of these
44 provisions and conditions would permit construction of the
145 residential project permitted within department Area "D" to
i proceed prior to completion of any commercial development.
19
Public Hearing re: Appeal of Approval of Conditional Use Permit 00-2
Planning Commission Resolution 00-19
770 Pacific Coast Highway (Starbucks Coffee)
City Council Staff Report
September 25, 2000
ATTACHMENT F
PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL
STAFF REPORT OF AUGUST 9, 2000, WITH
ATTACHMENTS 1 THROUGH 5
CUP W2nvaW SwraUpn 23
August 9, 2000
STAFF REPORT - SUPPLEMENTAL
To: Honorable Chairman and Planning Commission
From: Department of Development Services
Subject: Conditional Use Permit 00-2
770 Pacific Coast Highway
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
TOM LAO, TI PLANNING
L & R PROPERTIES
770 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY (CURRENTLY BURGER KING)
C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL
TO PERMTT A DRIVE THROUGH COFFEE HOUSE WHERE A
DRIVE IN RESTAURANT CURRENTLY EXISTS
THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM CEQA
REVIEW
28-1400;28-2503;28-2504
APPROVAL, BY ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 00-19, SUBJECT TO
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, AND
AS MAY BE FURTHER REVISED BY THE COMMISSION AFTER
CONSIDERING PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
FACTS.
• On April 13, 2000, Tom Lao on behalf of TI Planning (the "Applicant") filed an application
with the Department of Development Services for Conditional Use Permit 00-2 for a drive
C.Wy DoamwmsCITCIIP00-2- Supplenti:mal PC S,aa'Rep docLL.W "MO
� l "
CUP 00-2, Planning Commission Supplemental Staff Report
770 Pacific Coast Highway - Proposed .5'tarbucks Coffee
August 9, 2000
through Coffee House to be located at 770 Pacific Coast Highway. The Coffee House will be
located in what is currently a Burger King Restaurant.
• This matter was heard before the Planning Commission on May 17, 2000, and after extensive
public input and discussion among the Commission was continued. The following areas of
concern were expressed by the Commission:
❑ Commissioner Cutuli — additional data regarding traffic patterns in this area at various
times of the day; moving queuing lane to accommodate an easier turning movement into
the drive-thrn lane; improve the exterior appearance of the building and add additional
landscaping.
❑ Commissioner Brown — necessity of CUP if there was no modification to the drive-thru
window location.
❑ Chairman Hood — can CUP be approved without the drive-thru window and have a traffic
study completed?
• Staff has met with representatives of Starbucks and discussed the traffic and physical
appearance issues several times. A traffic analysis has been prepared by a traffic engineering
firm the City has utilized to evaluate traffic impacts of several major projects within the City.
DISCUSSION
The applicant is proposing to operate a Coffee House in a space that is currently operating as a
Burger King restaurant. Originally, the property had a Bank as its tenant, and in 1994, the tenant
changed to Burger King. Part of that change included the referenced Variance and Conditional
Use Permit in the May 17, 2000 Planning Commission Staff Report to allow Burger King to
occupy the subject structure.
The primary issue of concern in this type of use change revolves around parking and traffic flow
into the site, as expressed in the concerns of the public and members of the Planning Commission
at the May 17, 2000 public hearing.
Planning Commission Concerns:
❑ necessity of CUP if there was no modification to the drive-thru window location — as
indicated in the Planning Commission minutes of May 17 (page 21), it was the initial
position of Staff that only the modification of the drive-thru window would require the
Conditional Use Permit. Based on further discussions with the Assistant City Attorney,
that position is incorrect. It is the position of the Assistant City Attorney and the
Department of Development Services that the proposed interior modifications to the
previously approved floor plan for the subject property are substantially different from the
floor plan approved for the Burger King operation, and would also require the approval of
CUP 00-2-Suppinn WPC Staff R"n
Page 2
CUP 00-2, Planning Comnassion Supplemental Staff Repon
770 Pacific Coast Highway— Proposed Starbucks Coffee
August 9, 2000
the Conditional Use Permit, Planning Commission Resolution 97-44, adopted November
19, 1997, condition 25 states:
"25. All construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans
approved through Conditional Use Permit 94-4"
In reviewing the previously approved floor plan for Burger King and the proposed floor
plan for Starbucks, the following substantial modifications are proposed by Starbucks:
❑ the creation of a "vestibule with a community bulletin board" in a portion of the
previous "playground" area, adjacent to the existing handicapped restroom facilities.
❑ Complete reconfiguration of the public seating areas and service counters.
❑ Removal of the kitchen, freezer, cooler, and dry storage areas utilized by Burger King
and the creation of new sales, backbar and workroom areas.
❑ Relocation of employee office area.
❑ can the requested modification to the drive-thru window be denied and still have a
traffic study completed? — given the above detertnination of Staff and the Assistant City
Attorney, the answer to this question would be affirmative. Since the interior remodeling,
in and of itself, is significantly different from the approved floor plan, the Commission
could require the traffic study and still determine to deny the modification to the drive-thru
window. Staff believes it would be difficult to make findings to support denial of the
proposed interior remodeling plan.
a improve the exterior appearance of the building and add additional landscaping — as
indicated previously, staff has met with representatives of Starbucks and discussed this
concern with them. The representatives of Starbucks have indicated a willingness to work
with staff on this issue, understanding the major focus of concern is regarding the exterior
color/materials of the existing structure and the exterior landscaping. Starbucks have
indicated a desire to work with staff to develop an exterior appearance enhancement
program, within reasonable cost parameters, that would be approved prior to the issuance
of the necessary building permits for the interior improvements and to the drive-thru
window. This would occur at the staff level.
❑ moving queuing lane to accommodate an easier turning movement into the drive-
thru lane — the queuing lane is essentially the drive access lane that provides access to the
on-site parking spaces. There is no formal designation of a queuing lane anticipated;
customers will maneuver into the drive-thru lane by stacking within the drive access area,
as do vehicles presently utilizing the Burger King drive thru facility. No modifications are
proposed. This issue is also discussed in the "Trip Generation Study' prepared by
Linscott, Law and Greenspan.
❑ additional data regarding traffic patterns in this area at various times of the day -
the applicant has submitted a "Trip Generation Study for the Proposed Starbucks at 8'
CLIP 00-2 - Supplemental PC Suff Report
Page 3
I
CUP 00-2, Planning Commission Supplemental StaffReporl
770 Pacific Coast Highway — Proposed Starbucks Coffee
August 9, 2000
Street and Pacific Coast Highway, Seal Beach", prepared by Linscott, Law and
Greenspan, dated August 1, 2000 (See Attachment 2). This document states:
"Our primary focus was to identify the number of vehicle trips (inbound and
outbound) that could be generated by the proposed Starbucks on a daily basis,
and during the morning and afternoon peak hours of commuter traffic. After
doing so, our intent was to compare the resultant Starbucks traffic generation
to the existing Burger King, in order to estimate the net increase in traffic that
may be caused by the conversion of Burger King into a Starbucks facility.
Briefly, we conclude that the development of the Starbucks in place of the
existing Burger King will not result in any new vehicle trips on a typical
weekday, and during the morning and afternoon peak hours of commuter
traffic. More specifically, the project will cause a net decrease in traffic,
corresponding to a reduction of 149-390 daily trips, 1-26 AM peak hour trips,
and 30-43 PM peak hour trips.i'
"As Table 1 indicates, based upon the application of standard ITE trip rates
(for fast-food restaurants with drive-thrus) to the existing 3,200 SF Burger
King (with approximately 2,750 SF of useable area), the current traffic
generated at the site is approximately 1,364 daily vehicle trips, 137 vehicle
trips during the AM commute peak hour, and 92 vehicle trips during the PM
commute peak hour."'
"Table 2 shows a similar comparison between Burger King and the proposed
Starbucks, with the one exception of the Burger King traffic generation
estimates. Rather than applying ITE trip rates to estimate Burger King's traffic
generation, as presented in Table 1, existing daily transaction data provided by
Burger King was used as the basis. It was estimated that Burger King typically
generates 10% walk-in traffic, so this adjustment was applied to the peak daily
transaction data to derive the resultant vehicular trip estimates. From the daily
vehicle trips, ITE peak hour percentages were applied to estimate Burger
King's trip generation during the morning and afternoon peak hours.
As Table 2 indicates, based upon the use of transaction information for Burger
King, the existing Burger King currently generates approximately 1,123 daily
vehicle trips, 112 vehicle trips during the AM commute peak hour, and 79
vehicle trips during the PM commute peak hour.
By subtracting the existing traffic generation for Burger King (based upon
transaction data, not ITE rates) from the new Starbucks tripmaking potential, a
"Trip Generation SmdN for the Proposed Starbucks at 8' Street and Pacific Coast Iiighway, Seal Beach",
Linscott, Law and Greenspan, June 28, 2000, pages 1 and 2.
' op. Cit., page 3.
CLIP 00.2 - SuppI..I PC SuffRry
Page 4
4
CUP 00-2, Planning Commission Supplemental Staff Report
770 Pacific Coast Highway - Proposed Starbucks Coffee
August 9, 2000
net decrease or reduction in trips could be expected, as well. More
specifically, under this scenario, the Starbucks project will cause a net
decrease in traffic, corresponding to a reduction of 149 daily trips, 1 AM
peak hour trip, and 30 PM peak hour trips.3
The use is essentially changing from a restaurant to a restaurant, though most everyone would
agree that a Coffee House has different trip generation characteristics than a fast food restaurant.
This is home out by the trip generation analysis prepared by Linscwtt, Law and Greenspan. Staff
has conducted a parking analysis of the property and found that the proposed Coffee House
(without the play area) will total 2312 square feet. This generates the demand for 24 parking
spaces on site, at a ratio of 1 space per 100 square feet of gross floor area. The property currently
has 24 parking spaces, including 1 handicapped space. The play area is proposed to be landscaped
in an atrium type of fashion, and will be unavailable for use in conjunction with the restaurant.
This was originally a condition of approval for the variance in 1994, and remains as part of this
project proposal.
In regards to traffic patterns, staff sees the left tum from Pacific Coast Highway as a potential
area of concern during peak morning hours. The "Trip Generation Study" indicates the left turn
bay from Pacific Coast Highway to Eighth Street is only large enough for 2 cars at any one time.
As requested by staff, the ""Trip Generation Study" evaluated anticipated turning movements at
this intersection location, with the study indicating:
"The queuing observations indicated that at most 2 vehicles are queued within
the existing left -tum pocket (along PCH) on the westbound approach to the 8m
Street/PCH intersection during the AM and PM commute peak time periods
(occurred on only one instance per time period). It was more common to see
only 1 vehicle queued during each peak time period. Approximately 44 feet of
storage length is provided in this pocket. Which can accommodate 2 vehicles.
Therefore, the current configuration of the left -tum lane is adequate in serving
AM and PM peak hour traffic demand under existing conditions, and with the
development of Starbucks in place of Burger King.s'
Staff is still concerned that a Coffee House may generate more turning movements from this turn
bay than did Burger King during the same time periods. However, being that the trip generation
study indicates very similar traffic and trip generation patterns when comparing the existing
Burger King use and the proposed Starbucks Coffee use, engineering staff does not feel that
additional traffic studies are justified at this time, particularly in light of the queuing analysis
prepared by Linscott, Law and Greenspan. Staff has consulted the City Engineer, and he has
indicated that it is his opinion that the best way to proceed from a traffic standpoint would be to
allow the Coffee House to begin operating and then assess if the particular operational
characteristics of the proposed use result in an increased stacking of cars within the subject left -
turn bay. There is also the issue that Pacific Coast Highway falls within the scope of Caltrans and
'Op. Cit., page 4.
'Op. Cit., page 5.
CUP 00-2-SuMleme ]PC StetrRry
Page 5
CUP 00-1, Planning Commission Supplemental Staff Report
770 Pacific Coast Highway- Proposed .Starbucks Coffee
August 9, 2000
they ultimately have the last word on issues of traffic congestion along that right of way. The
most likely solution, should the worst case scenario happen with stacking of cars in the subject
left -tum bay, could be the placement of a "no left turn" sign at this intersection (either during
certain hours or all day).
The original Conditional Use Permit was issued for the hours of 6 AM to midnight. This is also
the hours of operation proposed by the applicant for the coffee house. Staff sees no reason why
these hours should not continue.
The issue of the drive through window is also of importance. There have always been concerns
that drive through windows create additional noise and other effects. Staff would like to note that
the drive through window in this case has been in existence for 6 years now and is being moved
closer to the center of the building, in an attempt to alleviate any increased "stacking" within the
parking lot drive aisle. During the time of operation of the drive-thru window by Burger King,
the City has received no substantial complaints regarding its operation.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission, after considering all relevant testimony, written or
oral, presented during the public hearing, approve Conditional Use Permit 00-2 subject to
conditions and a twelve-month review period.
Staffs recommendation is based upon the following
Conditional Use Permit 00-2 is consistent with the provisions of the Land Use Element of
the City's General Plan, which provides a "General Commercial" zoning designation for
the subject property and permits restaurants with drive through windows subject to the
issuance of a conditional use permit. The proposed conditional use permit request is to
change the use from a fast food restaurant to a coffee house, retain and modify the
existing drive-thm window, and remodel the interior of the existing structure. The use is
also consistent with the remaining elements of the City's General Plan, as the policies of
those elements are consistent with, and reflected in, the Land Use Element. Accordingly,
the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan.
The proposed change in use is consistent with surrounding residential and commercial
uses, in that a restaurant has been in operation at the site for several years. A "Trip
Generation Study for the Proposed Starbucks at 8o Street and Pacific Coast Highway,
Seal Beach", prepared by Linscott, Law and Greenspan, dated August 1, 2000, indicates
the proposed Starbucks project will cause a net decrease in traffic, corresponding to a
reduction of between 149-390 daily trips, 1-26 AM peak hour trips, and 3043 PM peak
hour trips.
Cra'W-1-sumlemminl Pc Siea'Re A
Page 6
CUP 00-1, Planning Commission .Supplemental Staff Report
770 Pacific Coast Highway - Proposed Starbucks Coffee
August 9, 2000
The building and property at 770 Pacific Coast Highway are adequate in size, shape,
topography and location to meet the needs of the proposed use of the property, in that a
restaurant has been in operation at the site for several years. A "Trip Generation Study for
the Proposed Starbucks at 80' Street and Pacific Coast Highway, Seal Beach", prepared by
Linscott, Law and Greenspan, dated August 1, 2000, indicates the results of the level of
service analysis performed indicate that the 8's Street/PCH intersection currently operates
at acceptable LOS A. If Starbucks were developed in place of the existing Burger King,
the net reduction in traffic generated by the site will result in better levels of service at the
stop -controlled intersection during the morning and afternoon peak commute hours.
Required adherence to applicable building and fire codes ensures there will be adequate
water supply and utilities for the proposed use.
Approval of Conditional Use Permit 00-2 should be through the adoption of Resolution No. 00-
19 with the following conditions in place:
1. CUP No. 00-2 is approved to change the land use of the building at 770 Pacific Coast
Highway from a fast food restaurant to a coffee house; to modify the existing drive-thru
window operation; and to approve an interior remodeling plan for the existing structure.
Said use is approved in substantial conformance with plans dated March 3 and March 10,
2000, on file in the Department of Development Services.
2. The applicant remains bound by all the conditions of all previous discretionary approvals
for the property.
3. The play area shall be removed and that area shall not be used in any manner in
conjunction with the service or operation of the Coffee House. Development plans for
this area, along with exterior color/material modifications and landscaping improvements,
shall be approved by the Department of Development Services prior to the issuance of a
building permit for the interior modifications to the existing structure.
4. The City Engineer reserves the right to restrict access into parking lot from the Alley on
the West side of the property if a stacking problem begins to appear.
5. No video games or similar amusements shall be pennitted on the premises unless a
separate conditional use permit is approved for that use.
6. Litter and trash receptacles shall be located at convenient locations inside and outside the
establishment. Operators of such establishments shall remove trash and debris on an
appropriate basis so as not to cause health problems. There shall be no dumping of trash
and/or glass bottles outside the establishment between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00
a.m.
CUP 00-1- Supplemmlal PC Staff Rz n
Page 7
CUP 00-2, Planning Commission Supplemental Staff Report
770 Pacific Coast Highway— Proposed .Starbucks Coffee
August 9, 2000
7. In the event staff determines security problems exist on the site, the Conditions of this
permit may be amended, under the procedures of The Code of the City of Seal Beach, to
require the provisions of additional security measures.
8. There shall be no live entertainment, amplified music, or dancing permitted within the
outdoor dining area at any time.
9. The establishment shall comply with Chapter 13D, "Noise Control", of The Code of the
City of Seal Beach as the regulations of that Chapter now exist or may hereafter be
amended. Should complaints be received regarding noise generated by the establishment,
the Planning Commission reserves the right to schedule the subject CUP for
reconsideration and may require the applicant/operator to mitigate the noise level to
comply with the provisions of Chapter 13D.
10. This CUP shall not become effective for any purpose unless/until a City "Acceptance of
Conditions" form has been signed by the applicant in the presence of the Director of
Development Services, or notarized and returned to the Planning Department; and until
the ten (10) calendar -day appeal period has elapsed.
11. A modification of this CUP shall be applied for when
The establishment proposes to modify any of its current Conditions of Approval.
There is a substantial change in the mode or character of operations of the
establishment.
12. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke or modify this CUP pursuant to
Articles 25 and 28 of The Code of the City of Seal Beach if harm or retail -related
problems are demonstrated to occur as a result of criminal or anti -social behavior,
including but not limited to the congregation of minors, violence, public drunkenness,
vandalism, solicitation and/or litter.
13. This CUP shall become null and void unless exercised within one (1) year of the date of
final approval, or such extension of time as may be granted by the Planning Commission
pursuant to a written request for extension submitted to the Department of Development
Services a minimum of ninety (90) days prior to such expiration date.
14. The term of this permit shall be twelve (12) months, beginning the first day of operation of
the new restaurant. At the end of the initial term, the applicant may apply to the City for
an indefinite extension. The Planning Commission may grant an extension as discussed
above, provided that all Conditions of Approval have been met and no significant police or
other problems have occurred. The applicant is hereby advised that a new application and
accompanying fee must be submitted to the City prior to consideration of any extensions.
CIT 00-2 - SuMlemmml PC Smff kep
Page 8
CUP 00-2, Planning Compassion Supplemental Staff Report
770 Pacific Coast Highway - Proposed Starbucks Coffee
August 9, 2000
e Whittenberg
Director of Development Servic
Attachments (5):
Attachment 1: Proposed Resolution 00-19, A Resolution of the Planning
Commission of the City of Seal Beach Approving CUP No. 00-2,
Allowing the Change in Use From a Drive Through Fast Food
Restaurant to a Drive Through Coffee House and Interior
Alterations at 770 Pacific Coast Highway, Seal Beach
Attachment 2: "Trip Generation Study for the Proposed Starbucks at 8's Street
and Pacific Coast Highway, Seal Beach", Linscott, Law and
Greenspan, August 1, 2000
Attachment 3: Letter from Mr. And Mrs. Richard Edwards, lune 6, 2000
Attachment 4: Planning Commission Staff Report, May 17, 2000, with all
attachments
Attachment 5: Planning Commission Minutes, May 17, 2000
CUP OO -I . Su,I--ml PC Stiff R,om
Page 9
CUP 00-2, Planning Commission Supplemental SlaffReport
770 Pacific Coast Highway — Proposed Starbucks Coffee
August 9, 2000
Ev W IRy 113131a-wi
PROPOSED RESOLUTION 00-19, A RESOLUTION
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING CUP NO. 00-
2, ALLOWING THE CHANGE IN USE FROM A
DRIVE THROUGH FAST FOOD RESTAURANT
TO A DRIVE THROUGH COFFEE HOUSE AND
INTERIOR ALTERATIONS AT 770 PACIFIC
COAST HIGHWAY, SEAL BEACH
CUP 00-5-Su"Immvl PCS fff ReNn
Page 10
CUP 00-1, Planning Commission Supplemental Staff Report
770 Pacific Coast Highway — Proposed Starbucks Coffee
August 9, 1000
RESOLUTION NUMBER 00-19
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING CUP
NO. 00-2, ALLOWING THE CHANGE IN USE FROM
A DRIVE THROUGH FAST FOOD RESTAURANT TO
A DRIVE THROUGH COFFEE HOUSE AND
INTERIOR ALTERATIONS AT 770 PACIFIC COAST
HIGHWAY- SEAL BEACH
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES
HEREBY FIND AND RESOLVE: DRAFT
Section 1. On April 13, 2000, Tom Lao (the "Applicant") filed an application
with the Department of Development Services for Conditional Use Permit 00-2 for the change in
use from a drive through fast food restaurant to a drive through coffee house, and to allow
interior alterations at 770 Pacific Coast Highway.
Section 2. Pursuant to 14 California Code of Regulations §15305 and §H(B)
of the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, staff has determined as follows: the application for CUP
00-2 for the proposed interior remodeling is categorically exempt from review pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to 14 California Code of Regulations §15301
(Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations), because the proposal involves a negligible expansion
of an existing use; pursuant to §15305 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations), because the
proposal involves a minor alteration in land use limitation and does not involve either a property
in excess of 20% slope or a change in land use or density.
Section 3. A duly noticed public hearing was held before the Planning
Commission on May 17, 2000, to consider the application for CUP 00-2. Written evidence was
submitted for or against the project, and at the public hearing members of the audience spoke both
in favor and against the proposal. The Planning Commission determined to continue the public
hearing to June 14, and subsequently determined to continue the public hearing to July 19, 2000,
and then to August 9, 2000.
Section 4. The record of the hearing of May 17 and August 9, 2000 indicates
the following:
CUP 00-2 - Supplemmtal PC Su f ftVon
Page I I
I
CUP 00-1, Planning Commission Supplemental StafReport
770 Pacific Coast Highway -Proposed Starbucks Coffee
August 9, 1000
(a) On April 13, 2000, Tom Lao submitted an application for CUP 00-2 with
the Department of Development Services.
(b) Specifically, the applicant is proposing to change the use of an existing
drive through restaurant to a drive through coffee house and to undertake interior alterations on
property located in a General Commercial (C-2) zone.
(c) The subject property contains approximately 12,631 square feet. The
property is located on the South side of Pacific Coast Highway, in a General Commercial (C-2)
zone.
(d) The subject property is described as Orange County assessor's parcel
number 043-111-29.
(e) The subject property contains an existing drive-through, fast-food,
restaurant that has been in operation for approximately 6 years. Before that, the property was
utilized as a bank. DRAFT
(f) The City has granted the following approvals for the property:
Variance 94-5 for a reduction of required number of parking
spaces.
Conditional Use Permit 94-4 for the use of a drive through window
in conjunction with a fast food restaurant.
(g) The surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows:
NORTH Single Family Houses in a Residential Low Density
(RLD)Zone
WEST & EAST Businesses including the Raddisson Hotel and the
Bay City Center in a General Commercial (C-2)
zone.
SOUTH various residential developments single family and
multiple family, in the Residential High Density
(RHD) Zone.
Section 5. Based upon the facts contained in the record, including those stated
in §4 of this resolution and pursuant to §§28-1400, 28-2503 and 28-2504 of the City's Qgk, the
Planning Commission makes the following findings:
(a) Conditional Use Permit 00-2 is consistent with the provisions of the Land
Use Element of the City's General Plan, which provides a "General Commercial" zoning
CUPW-4-Supplenw WPCStan Repot
Page 12
x
6
4
CUP 00-2, Planning Commission Supplemental Staff Report
770 Pacific Coast Highway— Proposed Starbucks Coffee
August 9, 1000
designation for the subject property and permits drive through restaurants subject to the issuance
of a conditional use permit. The proposed conditional use permit is to change the use from a
drive through restaurant to a drive through coffee house and to permit interior alterations. The
use is also consistent with the remaining elements of the City's General Plan, as the policies of
those elements are consistent with, and reflected in, the Land Use Element. Accordingly, the
proposed use is consistent with the General Plan.
(b) The proposed drive through operation and interior alterations is consistent
with surrounding residential and commercial uses, in that a restaurant with a drive-thru window
has been in operation at the site for several years. A "Trip Generation Study for the Proposed
Starbucks at 8' Street and Pacific Coast Highway, Seal Beach", prepared by Linscott, Law and
Greenspan, dated August 1, 2000, indicates the proposed Starbucks project will cause a net
decrease in traffic, corresponding to a reduction of between 149-390 daily trips, 1-26 AM peak
hour trips, and 30-43 PM peak hour trips. DRAFT
(c) The building and property at 770 Pacific Coast Highway are adequate in
size, shape, topography and location to meet the needs of the proposed use of the property, in
that a fast-food restaurant with a drive-through window has been in operation at the site for
several years. A "Trip Generation Study for the Proposed Starbucks at 0 Street and Pacific
Coast Highway, Seal Beach", prepared by Linscott, Law and Greenspan, dated August 1, 2000,
indicates the results of the level of service analysis performed indicate that the 8' Street/PCH
intersection currently operates at acceptable LOS A. If Starbucks were developed in place of the
existing Burger King, the net reduction in traffic generated by the site will result in better levels of
service at the stop -controlled intersection during the morning and afternoon peak commute hours.
(d) Required adherence to applicable building and fire codes ensures there will
be adequate water supply and utilities for the proposed use.
Section 6. Based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby
approves Conditional Use Permit 00-2, subject to the following conditions:
CUP No. 00-2 is approved to change the land use of the building at 770 Pacific Coast
Highway from a fast food restaurant to a coffee house; to modify the existing drive-
thm window operation; and to approve an interior remodeling plan for the existing
structure. Said use is approved in substantial conformance with plans dated March 3
and March 10, 2000, on file in the Department of Development Services
2. The applicant remains bound by all the conditions of all previous discretionary
approvals for the property.
The play area shall be removed and that area shall not be used in any manner in
conjunction with the service or operation of the Coffee House. Development plans for
this area, along with exterior color/material modifications and landscaping
CIM00-2-Suppiemminl PC SW R,.
Page 13
61
1.
k
CUP 00-2, Planning Commission .Supplemental Staff Report
770 Pacific Coast Highway — Pwposed.Siarbucks Coffee
August 9, 2000
improvements, shall be approved by the Department of Development Services prior to
the issuance of a building permit for the interior modifications to the existing structure.
4. The City Engineer reserves the right to restrict access into parking lot from the Alley
on the West side of the property if a stacking problem begins to appear.
5. No video games or similar amusements shall be permitted on the premises unless a
separate conditional use permit is approved for that use.
6. Litter and trash receptacles shall be located at convenient locations inside and outside
the establishment. Operators of such establishments shall remove trash and debris on
an appropriate basis so as not to cause health problems. There shall be no dumping of
trash and/or glass bottles outside the establishment between the hours of 10:00 p.m.
and 7:00 a.m. DR w FT
7. In the event staff determines security problems seexist on the site, the Conditions of this
permit may be amended, under the procedures of The Code of the City of Seal Beach,
to require the provisions of additional security measures.
8. There shall be no live entertainment, amplified music, or dancing permitted within the
outdoor dining area at any time.
9. The establishment shall comply with Chapter 13D, "Noise Control', of The Code of
the City of Seal Beach as the regulations of that Chapter now exist or may hereafter be
amended. Should complaints be received regarding noise generated by the
establishment, the Planning Commission reserves the right to schedule the subject CUP
for reconsideration and may require the applicant/operator to mitigate the noise level
to comply with the provisions of Chapter 13D.
10. This CUP shall not become effective for any purpose unless/until a City "Acceptance
of Conditions" form has been signed by the applicant in the presence of the Director of
Development Services, or notarized and returned to the Planning Department; and
until the ten (10) calendar -day appeal period has elapsed.
11. A modification of this CUP shall be applied for when:
a. The establishment proposes to modify any of its current Conditions of Approval.
b. There is a substantial change in the mode or character of operations of the
establishment.
12. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke or modify this CUP pursuant to
Articles 25 and 28 of The Code of the City of Seal Beach if harm or retail -related
problems are demonstrated to occur as a result of criminal or anti -social behavior,
CLT M2-SuMlm nl K smeaq,on
Page 14
CUP 00-2, Planning Commission.Supplemental StaffReport
770 Pacific Coast Highway— Proposed Starbucks Coffee
August 9, 2000
including but not limited to the congregation of minors, violence, public drunkenness,
vandalism, solicitation and/or litter.
13. This CUP shall become null and void unless exercised within one (1) year of the date
of final approval, or such extension of time as may be granted by the Planning
Commission pursuant to a written request for extension submitted to the Department
of Development Services a minimum of ninety (90) days prior to such expiration date.
14. The term of this permit shall be twelve (12) months, beginning the first day of
operation of the new restaurant. At the end of the initial term, the applicant may apply
to the City for an indefinite extension. The Planning Commission may grant an
extension as discussed above, provided that all Conditions of Approval have been met
and no significant police or other problems have occurred. The applicant is hereby
advised that a new application and accompanying fee must be submitted to the City
prior to consideration of any extensions.
DRAFT
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Sea]
Beach at a meeting thereof held on the day of
2000, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
David Hood, Ph.D.
Chairman of the Planning Commission
Lee Whittenberg
Secretary of the Planning Commission
CUP W-2-SuW1==U1 PC Sufl`Re
Page 15
CUP 00-2, Planning Commission Supplemental StafjReport
770 Pactfic Coast Highway - Proposed Starbucks Coffee
August 9, 2000
ATTACHMENT 2
"TRIP GENERATION STUDY FOR THE
PROPOSED STARBUCKS AT STH STREET AND
PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, SEAL BEACH",
LINSCOTT, LAW AND GREENSPAN, AUGUST 1,
2000
CUP 00-3 - Su,,Ie wul PC SURRc wn
Page 16
E N G I N E E R S
ENGINEERS & PW4NERS a TRAFFIC, TRANSPORTATION, PARKING
1580 Corporate Drive, Suite 122 a Costa Mea, California 92626
Phone:714MI-1587 a Fax:714641-0139
August 1, 2000
Ms. Cindy Freels
STARBUCKS COFFEE CO.
17700 Newhope Street, Suite 200
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
Subject: TRIP GENERATION STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED
STARBUCKS AT 8" STREETIPACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
Seal Beach, California
Dear Ms. Freels:
As requested, Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) is pleased to submit the findings of a
trip generation study we have completed for the proposed Starbucks in Seal Beach, California. The
project will involve the conversion of the existing Burger King fast-food restaurant located on the
southwest comer of the 8" Street/PCH intersection into a Starbucks coffeehouse.
This trip generation study was developed to determine the unique trip -making characteristics of the
proposed Starbucks, whose use is not represented in the standard sources of trip generation rates
(i.e., Institute of Transportation Engineers' Trip Generation manual, or San Diego Association of
Governments' Traffic Generators).
Our primary focus was to identify the number of vehicle trips (inbound and outbound) that could be
generated by the proposed Starbucks on a daily basis, and during the morning and afternoon peak
hours of commuter traffic. After doing so, our intent was to compare the resultant Starbucks traffic
generation to the existing Burger King, in order to estimate the net increase in traffic that may be
caused by the conversion of Burger King into a Starbucks facility.
Morning and afternoon peak hour traffic counts were collected at the 8i° Street/PCH intersection in
order to evaluate the traffic operations, and perform level of service analysis, at this stop -controlled
intersection under both existing conditions and future conditions (after the conversion of Burger
King into Starbucks). In addition, queuing observations were performed at the existing westbound
left -tum lane (along PCH) of the 8' Street/PCH intersection during the AM and PM peak hours.
Philip M. Li., P.E. (flet.)
lack M. Grautto n. P.E.
William A. Law, P.E. fiter.l
Paul W. Wilkinson. P.E.
John P. Kevin& P.E.
DvAd S. 51heMn, P.E.
Pasadena .626 7962322 a San Diego - 619 299-3090 a Las Vegas - 702 451-1920 0 An LG2W8 Company
LINSCOI i
LAW &
GREENSPAN
Ms. Cindy Freels
S fARBUCKS COFFEE CO.
August 1, 2000
Page 2
Briefly, we conclude that the development of Starbucks in place of the existing Burger King will
pot result in any new vehicle tips on a typical weekday, and during the morning and afternoon
peak hours of commuter traffic. More specifically, the project will cause a net decrease in traffic,
corresponding to. s reduction of 149-390 daily vehicle trips, 1-26 AM peak hour trips, and 3043
PM peak hour trips.
Furthermore, the results of the level of service analysis we had performed indicate that the 8t°
Street/PCH intersection currently operates at acceptable LOS A. If Starbucks were developed in
place of the existing Burger King, the net reduction in traffic generated by the site will result in
better levels of service at the stop -controlled intersection during the morning and afternoon peak
commute hours.
The queuing observations indicate that at most 2 vehicles are queued within the existing left -tum
pocket (along PCH) on the westbound approach of the 8" Street/PCH intersection during the AM
and PM commute peak time periods (occurred on only one instance per time period). It was more
common to see only 1 vehicle queued during each peak time period. Approximately 44 feet of
14 storage length is provided in this pocket, which can accommodate 2 vehicles. Therefore, the
current configuration of the left -tum lane is adequate in serving AM and PM peak hour traffic
demand under existing conditions, and with the development of Starbucks in place of Burger King.
The anticipated operations of the proposed Starbucks drive-thru was also evaluated. No additional
physical mitigation measures are recommended to enhance its operational effectiveness.
Our method of analysis, findings, and conclusions are described in detail in the following sections.
It STARBUCKS TRAFFIC GENERATION
Starbucks Coffee Company provided transaction data for three existing store locations:
Lincoln/Marine (in Santa Monica), Cathedral City, and Palm Springs. Since these Starbucks
facilities all have drive-thrus and are located off a major arterial, they can be considered as
appropriate, representative facilities for estimating the tripmaking potential for the proposed Seal
Beach Starbucks. Exhibit I illustrates the results of our review of the Starbucks transaction data
from the three existing locations. It can be seen from Exhibit 1 that on a weekday, the peak
number of daily transactions occurred on a Wednesday, corresponding to 594 transactions.
Starbucks Coffee Company also provided us with Burger King transaction information. Exhibit 2
presents a comparison between the average mmrber of daily transactions for Starbucks with Burger
King. It can be seen that for every day of the week except for Wednesday, Burger King
transactions far exceed Starbucks transactions. On Wednesday, the number of daily transactions
are generally equal for Starbucks and Burger King.
Ms. Cindy Freels
STARBUCKS COFFEE CO.
August 1, 2000
Page 3
E N L I N E E R 5
Exhibit 3 illustrates the average number of Starbucks transactions on an hourly basis, derived by
applying the average hourly profile (developed from the three existing Starbucks stores, during the
busiest mid -week conditions) to the peak daily number of transactions (i.e., 594 transactions).
During the morning commute hour (designated as "peak hour of adjacent street traffic" on Exhibit
3) between 7-9 AM, Starbucks generates an average of 68 transactions. During the afternoon
commute peak hour between 4-6 PM, Starbucks generates an average of 30 transactions.
Exhibit 4 presents the number of transactions (from Exhibit 3) translated into vehicle trips. Since
transaction data includes walk-in traffic, and accounts for customer groups who arrive/depart in the
same vehicle but place separate or individual orders/transactions, it was necessary to adjust the
average number of transactions before converting them into vehicle trips. Based upon market data
for Starbucks, it was estimated that approximately 20% of the transactions could be attributed to
walk-in trips and the "multiple order" context. Therefore, the number of hourly transactions was
reduced by 20%, and then multiplied by two (to reflect one inbound, and one outbound vehicle trip
for each transaction), to estimate the number of vehicle trips for each hour. As can be seen from
Exhibit 4, on the average, Starbucks generates approximately 950 daily vehicle trips, of which 108
vehicle trips occur during the AM commute peak hour, and 48 vehicle trips during the PM
commute peak hour.
STARBUCKS VERSUS BURGER KING TRAFFIC GENERATION
Tables I and 2 present summaries of the trip generation comparison between the existing Burger
King to the proposed Starbucks.
As Table I indicates, based upon the application of standard ITE trip rates (for fast-food restaurants
with drive-thrus) to the existing 3,200 SF Burger King (with approximately 2,750 SF of useable
area), the current traffic generated at the site is approximately 1,364 daily vehicle trips, 137 vehicle
trips during the AM commute peak hour, and 92 vehicle lips during the PM commute peak hour.
Trip rates specifically for Starbucks were calculated by dividing its estimated tripmaking potential
(developed and discussed in the previous section) on a daily, AM commute peak hour, and PM
commute peak hour basis, by the average useable area of the three existing Starbucks locations
analyzed (i.e., approximately 1,560 SF). In tum, these trip rates were applied to the proposed 1,600
SF of useable area for the new Starbucks (the remainder of the 3,200 SF total gross floor area will
be "dead space" for Starbucks). Therefore, the resultant gross traffic generation estimates for the
new Starbucks constitute 974 daily vehicle lips, 111 AM commute peak hour trips, and 49 PM
commute peak hour trips.
By subtracting the existing traffic generation for Burger King from the new Starbucks tripmaking
potential, a net decrease or reduction in trips could be expected. Therefore, we conclude that the
development of Starbucks in place of the existing Burger King will not result in any new vehicle
trips on a typical weekday, and during the morning and afternoon peak hours of commuter traffic.
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
' Ms. Cindy Freels
STARBUCKS COFFEE CO.
August 1, 2000
Page 4
More specifically, the project will cause a net decrease in traffic, corresponding to a reduction of
390 daily vehicle trips, 26 AM peak hour trips, and 43 PM peak hour trips.
Table 2 shows a similar comparison between Burger King and the proposed Starbucks, with the
one exception of the Burger King traffic generation estimates. Rather than applying ITE trip rates
to estimate Burger King's traffic generation, as presented previously in Table 1, existing daily
transaction data provided by Burger King was used as the basis. It was estimated that Burger King
typically generates 10% walk-in traffic, so this adjustment was applied to the peak daily transaction
data to derive the resultant vehicular trip estimates. From the daily vehicle trips, ITE peak hour
percentages were applied to estimate Burger King's trip generation during the morning and
afternoon peak hours.
As Table 2 indicates, based upon the use of transaction information for Burger King, the existing
Burger King currently generates approximately 1,123 daily vehicle trips, 112 vehicle trips during
the AM commute peak hour, and 79 vehicle trips during the PM commute peak hour.
By subtracting the existing traffic generation for Burger King (based upon transaction data, not IM
rotes) from the new Starbucks tripmaking potential, a net decrease or reduction in trips could be
expected, as well. More specifically, under this scenario, the Starbucks project will cause a net
d$crease in traffic, corresponding to a reduction of 149 daily vehicle trips, 1 AM peak hour trip,
and 30 PM peak hour trips.
LEVELS OF SERVICE
A%ming and afternoon peak hour traffic counts were collected at the 8'" Street/PCH intersection on
]tine 1, 2000, in order to evaluate the traffic operations, and perform level of service analysis, at this
stop -controlled intersection under both existing conditions and future conditions (after the
conversion of Burger King into Starbucks).
As Table 3 summarizes, the results of the level of service analysis indicate that the 8a Street/PCH
intersection currently operates at acceptable LOS A. If Starbucks were developed in place of the
existing Burger King, the net reduction in tragic generated by the site will result in better levels of
service at the stop -controlled intersection during the morning and afternoon peak commute hours.
Ezhibits 5 and 6 illustrate the existing AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes, respectively.
Appendix A contains the detailed count sheets and LOS worksheets.
In addition, queuing observations were performed at the existing westbound left -tum lane (along
PCH) of the 81° Street/PCH intersection during the AM and PM peak hours. The detailed
E N G I N E E R$
Ms. Cindy Freels
S t ARBUCKS COFFEE CO.
August 1, 2000
Page 5
observations/results of the queuing study are provided in Appendix A, attached at the end of this
letter report.
The queuing observations indicate that at most 2 vehicles are queued within the existing left -tum
pocket (along PCH) on the westbound approach of the 8ih Street/PCH intersection during the AM
and PM commute peak time periods (occurred on only one instance per time period). It was more
common to see only 1 vehicle queued during each peak time period. Approximately 44 feet of
storage length is provided in this pocket, which can accommodate 2 vehicles. Therefore, the
current configuration of the left -tum lane is adequate in serving AM and PM peak hour traffic
demand under existing conditions, and with the development of Starbucks in place of Burger King.
DRIVE-TARU OPERATIONS
Starbucks tried to obtain direct data relating to drive-thm times from the operator of the existing
Burger King, but have been told that this data is unavailable. However, the operator indicated that
the corporate objective is a service time of 3 % minutes from the order board through the pick-up
window, and that this target is sometimes unattainable at peak hours of operation.
Starbucks Coffee, being new to the drive-thm business has no data regarding service times at
existing drive-thm locations. However, it is Starbucks intent to compete effectively with other
drive-thru coffee vendors and fast food drive -thin operators in the area for coffee customers.
Starbucks staff indicated that they would not allow the loss of sales due to an ineffective drive -thin
operation, and that Starbucks' target time is 3 minutes or less.
The proposed project location offers Starbucks the opportunity to improve its drive-thm operations
over existing Starbucks drive-thm locations in the area in several ways:
1. Movement of the pick-up window toward 8th Street will provide approximately two additional
car lengths for stacking (above what currently exists);
2. This site offers 24 parking stalls which leaves open the option of parking and walking in for the
customer;
3. The building is large enough to entertain the possibility of a new automated coffee bar
Starbucks is developing with increased and faster production capacity.
We believe that a drive-thm lane is self-regulating. That is, customers will approach the property
and evaluate whether it would be faster to enter the drive-thru, or park the car and walk in. As
stated above, Starbucks intends to operate the drive-thru lane in an efficient manner to avoid
losing customers to area competitors, and is therefore focused on delivering a service time as
good, or better than, what drive-thru customers are accustomed to, and what area competitors are
providing.
Ms. Cindy Freels
STARBUCKS COFFEE CO.
M
August 1, 2000
Page 6
ENGINEERS
Based upon the considerations described on the previous page, no additional physical mitigation
measures are recommended at this time to enhance the operational effectiveness of the proposed
Starbucks drive-thru.
Should you reed further information, or have any questions regarding this study, please call us at
(714) 641-1587.
vm truly yon,
LINSC07T, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS
Trissa (de Jeso Allen
Transportation Engineer IB
4
Attachments
rl6llu.3 DOC
YN+
E NG I N[E R5
TABLE
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES
(GROSS ESTIMATES, WITHOUT PASS -BY TRIP REDUCTION,
USING ITE RATES FOR BURGER KING)
Starbucks, Seal Beach
FR01TGGT&t,1,1 xh 8/1/00
AM
EO
PM
Peak Hour
Description -.
Daily
9u: -
OuE'
Total
Total
In
I Out
I Tolal
Burger King (existing @ 2,750 SF of Useable Area)
1,364
70
67
137
48
44
92
ITE Trip Rates Applied (vehicle trips per 1,000 SF GFA)
496.12
51%
49%
49.86
52%
48%
33.48
Starbucks (trips derived from existing locations)
950
54
54
108
24
24
48
Resultant Trip Rate @ 1,560 SF of Useable Area
608.97
50%
50%
69.23
50%
50%
30.77
(vehicle trips per 1,000 SF of Useable Area)
tarbucks (proposed @ 1,600 SF of Ustable Area)
974
56
55
111
25
24
49
Less Existing Burger King
1,364
70
67
137
48
44
92
NET ADDITIONAL TRIPS
-390
-14
-12
-26
-23
-20
43
FR01TGGT&t,1,1 xh 8/1/00
I_INSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
TABLE 2
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES
(GROSS ESTIMATES, WITHOUT PASS -BY TRIP REDUCTION,
USING BURGER KING TRANSACTION DATA)
Starbucks, Seal Beach
PROYM0 TaWmIs 7/31/00
AM
Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Description
Daily
In '
Out
Total
In
Out
Total t
Burger King (estimated from existing daily transaction data,
1,123
57
55
112
40
39
79
and ITE peak percentages)
Starbucks (trips derived from existing locations)
950
54
54
108
24
24
48
Resultant Trip Rate @ 1,560 SF of Useable Area
608.97
50%
50%
6923
50%
50%.
30.77
(vehicle trips per 1,000 SF ofUscable Area)
Starbucks (proposed @ 11600 SF of Useable Arca)
56
55
111
25
24
49
Less Existing Burger King
57
55
112
40
39
79
ff149
NET ADDITIONAL TRIPS
-1
0
-1
-15
-15
-30
PROYM0 TaWmIs 7/31/00
E N G I Ne ea
TABLE 3
INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE
AT 8TH STREETMACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
Starbucks, Seal Beach
Not,
Jai Intersection is currently stop -controlled on the minor street approaches; major street traffic is unimpeded.
The LOS reposed u based upon the application of she Highway Capacity Manual's Unsignalise l LOS Methodology,
and is based upon average delay, in seconds per vehicle, for the entire intersection.
LOS. e]s 7/31100
LEVELS OF SERVICE lial
Tang
Existing
Existing+Starbucks
Period
(with and - Bu er Kin)
(witb Burger King converted into Starbucks)
AM
LOS A
LOS A
PM
LOS A
LOS A
Not,
Jai Intersection is currently stop -controlled on the minor street approaches; major street traffic is unimpeded.
The LOS reposed u based upon the application of she Highway Capacity Manual's Unsignalise l LOS Methodology,
and is based upon average delay, in seconds per vehicle, for the entire intersection.
LOS. e]s 7/31100
E
N
�OtO�1wNNNO pNp OPmOA�mI�NNNNNNNNNNNNYOQC
(0OfD woo
AVO N3d SNOLLOVSNVNl d0'ON 3OVtl3AV
r
g
N
0
I
LL
(DwmtDm woo fopN1nN®N NInNNNNNNNNN NIA IANOQ<d
AVO V3d SNOLLOVSNYMI d0'ON 3OYN3AY
SNOI.LOVSN".L d0'ON
Nd 008
Nd 00.9
Nd 00:[
Nd 00:9
Nd OO:S
Rd 00:0
Rd WE
Rd 00:2
W
Rd DO: f
f
Rd 00:21
Wtl 00.1 t
Wtl 00:01
WV 006
WV 00:9
WV 00[
Wtl 00:9
MODS
1'
11
LL
I'
I
j
I
m
i j
Y<g1rE�
,
�
?-iiiii
� �_ ii
:.•.:�
I
1
O
.....,i
L
........ ....
y63......i
N .:: ..........
:.'.....::...........
a::::::::::.......
pp....,:::::::::::::::::.:.
I
iiii
iiiiifi:SriiT:iii:i;P.n..diiiii£klriiiriiii:
.......L
..............L......L......L..:.:
LLm
I
Q1.2
1
9: J
O w
....
t
m�8q
......
:ananasaxa.....
'iiiii
N
nW g,e
:i .. G:......i.7...:m.::::
:iFi...... %ii 23N3iii:iii :
ISI
I
u
mom=..
__ _
-
'iii MI X
ry
j
l
w
i'7,:::i::i=iii:ilii':Yiiiiiiiii::iiiii:::.........::::.::.:.:::.:::::::::::::v:_::::::::::::::::::..i:::::
---
m _:
.:.m::. ^..::.:i::::::::::ii::::i]:i.:iii.:::::::::::::.^
- ^:
O
i
o
I
j
ji
i
�w
m
::ii::iC:ii:::::_::::::::::::...........
::::..r.:';:;:
SNOI.LOVSN".L d0'ON
Nd 008
Nd 00.9
Nd 00:[
Nd 00:9
Nd OO:S
Rd 00:0
Rd WE
Rd 00:2
W
Rd DO: f
f
Rd 00:21
Wtl 00.1 t
Wtl 00:01
WV 006
WV 00:9
WV 00[
Wtl 00:9
MODS
!u
IW
HQQt7NNN��000Hi OOim EODn�IHD fODNN00 �MNN�ONO
SNOII3VSNVUI d0'ON
Nd 006
Nd 00.9
wa 00:L
Ad 00:9
Ad 00:9
Ad DD
Ad 00t
Ad OO:Z
W
Rd 00: F
Ad OWL
NY 003 t
wVOM
AV 00:6
AV 00'9
AV 00:L
AV 009
AV 009
!I
g;=
Xt
Q� O;
rl
i
n
0912
W N
I
I
I
n
y
a L
`a...........rir"r'ir,;i;ZAiSiri
--
=..._i......ii..................::i
.. o
I
-
r'n;iiii.iiiG:
I-
::::u ::.�.......
...............
sa.:'I.::::::::I:::.:::........................
..
::::::::::::....-..:::::.......:
:s:..........
lu
-
u
:. -.
I"
illi!
'II
of
�I
-
I
_
-
-
yt
_
n
C
= _=
__
Sm
I
I
I
HQQt7NNN��000Hi OOim EODn�IHD fODNN00 �MNN�ONO
SNOII3VSNVUI d0'ON
Nd 006
Nd 00.9
wa 00:L
Ad 00:9
Ad 00:9
Ad DD
Ad 00t
Ad OO:Z
W
Rd 00: F
Ad OWL
NY 003 t
wVOM
AV 00:6
AV 00'9
AV 00:L
AV 009
AV 009
'1-:
N O I N[ l R>
APPENDIX A
SoUTHLAND CAR COUNTERS
VEHICLE AND MANUAL COUNTS
I -S STREET:
STH ST.
DATE:
6/1/2000
CITY:
SEAL
BEACH
-W STREET:
PCH
DAY:
THURSDAY
PROJECT#
0524001A
NORTHBOUND
SOUTHBOUND
EASTBOUND
WESTBOUND
NL NT
NR
SL
ST
SR
EL ET
ER
WL
WT
WR
TOTAL
LANES:
0 1
0
0
1
0
2
0
1
2
0
6:00 AM
15 AM
30 AM
45 AM
7:00 AM
1 0
2
0
0
0
314
0
2
349
0
668
15 AM
2 0
3
0
0
1
364
4
3
529
0
906
30 AM
1 0
5
0
0
0
321
4
1
489
0
821
45 AM
1 0
3
0
0
4
491
2
6
525
0
1032
AM
0 0
1
0
0
2
356
2
6
443
0
810
18:00
15 AM
2 0
2
0
0
2
335
4
3
435
0
783
30 AM
4 0
1
0
0
1
251
3
6
341
0
607
45 AM
4 0
2
0
0
4
271
5
5
351
0
642
19:00 AM
15 AM
30 AM
45 AM
0:00 AM
15 AM
30 AM
45 AM
TOTAL
NL NT
NR
SL
ST
SR
EL ET
ER
WL
WT
WR
TOTAL
OLUMES =
15 0
19
0
0
14
0 2703
24
32
3462
0
6269
AM Peak Hr
Begins at
715
AM
EAR
VOLUMES
4 0
12
0
0
7
0 1532
12
16
1986
0
3569
DDITIONS:1-WAY
STOP
NORTH
SOUTHLAND CAR COUNTERS
VEHICLE AND MANUAL COUNTS
N -S STREET: 8TH ST. DATE: 6/1/2000 CITY: SEAL
BEACH
-W STREET: PCA DAY: THURSDAY
PROJECT# 0524001P
......-__=-NORTHBOUND ---==SOUTHBOUND = EASTBOUND----==WESTBOUND
PM Peak
NL
NT
NR
SL
ST
SR
EL ET
ER
WL
WT
WR
TOTAL
LANES:
0
1
0
0
1
0
2
0
1
2
0
____________________________________________________________________________
2:00 PM
15 PM
30 PM
45 PM
3:00 PM
I15 PM
30 PM
45 PM
4:00 PM
4
0
4
0
0
3
343
1
4
219
1
579
15 PM
0
0
1
0
0
7
465
3
3
319
0
798
30 PM
1
0
4
0
0
6
483
3
2
400
0
899
45 PM;
4
0
2
0
1
7
523
4
2
280
0
823
15:00 PM
0
0
7
0
0
4
507
7
7
315
1
848
15 PM
0
0
0
0
0
8
639
4
3
362
0
1016
30 PM
0
0
7
0
0
5
562
7
2
323
0
906
45 PM
0
0
5
0
0
2
680
11
3
347
0
1048
6:00 PM
15 PM
30 PM
1 45 PM
=
i6ET
TOTAL
NL
NT
NR
SL
ST
SR
EL
ER
WL
WT
WR
TOTAL
OLUMES =
9
0
30
0
1
42
0 4202
40
26
2565
2
6917
PM Peak
Hr
Begins
at
EAR
VOLUMES
0
0 19
DDITIONS:1-WAY STOP
NORTH
500 PM
0 0 19 0 2388 29 15 1347 1 3818
HCS: Unsignalized Inte ections Release 2.1d Page 1
Center For Microcomputers �IncTransportation
L=====_=====s=====__________
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets: (N -S) 8th cSt. (E -W) PCH
Major Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst...................
Date of Analysis.......... 6/12/0
Other Information......... Existing (AM)
Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection
Eastbound Westbound�i igNorthbound6 Southbound
6 L T-R--I-L T R -
L T R c:•L T R
No. Lanes
Stop/Yield
Volumes
PHF
Grade
MC'a M
SU/RV's W
CV's (8)
PCE 'a
------------
0 2 < 0
N
1532 12
1 1
0
--------------
1 2 < 0
N
16 1986 0
1 1 1
0
1.10
---------------
0 > 0 < 0
4 12
1 1
0
1.10 1.10
---------------
Adjustment Factors
0 > 0 < 0
Vehicle
Critical
Follow-up
Maneuver
Gap (tg)
Time (tf)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Left Turn Major Road
5.50
2.10
Right Turn Minor Road
5.50
2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road
6.50
3.30
Left Turn Minor Road
7.00
3.40
HCS:r'Unsignalized Inter ections Release 2.1d Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC intersection
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB
conflicting Flows: (vph)
772
993
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
563
435
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
563
435
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
0.98
0.98
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 2: LT from Major Street
WB
EB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
1544
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
254
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
254
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
0.93
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 4: LT from Minor Street
NB
SB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
3540
3534
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
6
6
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor:
0.93
0.93
Adjusted Impedance Factor:
0.93
0.93
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due,to Impeding Movements
0.91
0.91
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
--------------------------------------------------------
5
5
Intersection
Performance Summary
Avg.
95%
Flow Move Shared
Total
Queue
Approach
Rate Cap Cap
Delay
Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)(sec/veh)
(veh)
------- ------- -----
(sec/veh)
---------
-------- ------ ------ ------
NB L 4 5 >
21
528.4
3.3 F
528.4
NB R 13 563 >
SB L 0 5 >
435
. 8.4
0.0 B
8.4
SB R 8 435 >
WB L 18 254
15.3
0.1 C
0.1
Intersection Delay =
2.5 sec/veh
HCS: Unsignalized Int sections Release 2.1d Page 1
CenterForMicrocomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets (N -S) Bth St(E-W) PCH
Major Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst...................
Date of Analysis.......... 6/12/0
Other Information......... Existing (PM)
Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection
Eastbound L�Westboundi'a Northbound s Southbound
-L-- -T-- -R-- -L-- -T---R--I-L-- -T- -R-- L T R
No. Lanes
Stop/Yield
Volumes
PHF
Grade
MC's (%)
SU/RV's (%)
CV's (b)
PCE's
------------
0 2 < 0
N
2388 29
1 1
0
--------------
1 2 < 0
N
15 1347 1
1 1 1
0
1.10
---------------
0 > 0 < 0
0 19
1 1
0
1.10 1.10
---------------
Adjustment Factors
0 > 0 < 0
0
Critical
0
1
Gap (tg)
1
------------------------------------------------------------------
Left Turn Major
0
5.50
2.10
1.10
--------------
5.50
1.10
Through Traffic
Vehicle
Critical
Follow-up
Maneuver
Gap (tg)
Time (tf)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Left Turn Major
Road
5.50
2.10
Right Turn Minor Road
5.50
2.60
Through Traffic
Minor Road
6.50
3.30
Left Turn Minor
Road
7.00
3.40
1
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1d Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 1: RT from Minor Street NS SB
Conflicting Flows:
(vph)
1208
674
Potential Capacity:
(pcph)
338
631
Movement Capacity:
(pcph)
338
631
Prob. of Queue -Free
State:
0.94
1.00
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 2: LT from Major
Street
WS
EB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows:
(vph)
2417
Delay
Potential Capacity:
(pcph)
86
Movement
Movement Capacity:
(pcph)
86
(pcph)(sec/veh)
Prob. of Queue -Free
State:
0.80
(sec/veh)
---------
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 4: LT from Minor Street
NB
SB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows:
(vph)
3764
3750
Potential Capacity:
(pcph)
4
4
Major LT, Minor TH
338
11.4.
Impedance Factor:
C
0.80
0.80
Adjusted Impedance
Factor:
0.80
0.80
Capacity Adjustment
Factor
due to Impeding Movements
0.80
0.75
Movement Capacity:
---------------------------------------------------
(pcph)
3
3
----
Intersection Performance Summary
Intersection Delay - 0.3 sec/veh
* The calculated value was greater than 999.9.
Avg.
95%
Flow
Move
Shared
Total
Queue
Approach
Rate
Cap
Cap
Delay
Length
LOS
Delay
Movement
(pcph)
(pcph)
(pcph)(sec/veh)
-------
(veh)
-------
-----
(sec/veh)
---------
--------
NB
L
------
0
------
3
------
>
338
11.4.
0.1
C
11.4
NB
R
21
338
>
SB
L
0
3
>
0
*
*
F
SB
R
0
631
>
WB
L
17
86
52.1
0.7
F
0.6
Intersection Delay - 0.3 sec/veh
* The calculated value was greater than 999.9.
Southland Car Counters
Queue Study
b Uon: wasmouna k0 tum Wm akn0 PCH Data: WIDO City: S I Beam
oft St 5 PCH Day: t' Way Proja 0: 0524MO1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
S:OSam
0
4.05pm
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
5 05
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
a:l0am
0
4:1Opm
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
5:1Opm
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
S:15am
0
4:15pm
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5:15M
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
0.20am
0
4 20pm
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
5:20M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
8'I5am
0
4 25p
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5:25W
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
a:3Oam
0
A 30M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5:30M
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a.35am
1
4 35p
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
5.35pm
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
a:a0am
1
440 m
0
0
0
0
1
0
D
2
1
6 40
0
0
0
0
t
0
0
0
0
S:aSam
0
1/5M
0
0
0
o
o
0
0
1
0
5 45p
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
S: Wam
0
1'.50M
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
5:Wpm
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
t
0.55am
1
4 55
t
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
5:55pm
0
1
0
0
0
CUP 00-2, Planning Cof.anission Supplememal Staff Report
770 Pacific Coast Highway— Proposed Slarbucks Coffee
July 19. 2000
ATTACHMENT 3
LETTER FROM MR. AND MRS. RICHARD EDWARDS,
JUNE 6, 2000
CUP W-2 - Supplc=n W PC Suff Repon
Page 15
Mr. and Mrs. Richard Edwards
212 Second Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
562.598-8490
June 6, 2000
City of Seal Beach
Planning Commission
211 8"' Street
Seal Beach CA 90740
Dear Sirs
At the May 17"' Planning Commission hearing, the commissioners requested a
detailed analysis of the traffic issues regarding the Conditional Use Permit 00-2,
Starbucks request for a drive-thru window at the current Burger King site. As
concerned long-term residents of Seal Beach and experienced business owners
of multiple drive-thru coffeehouses in northern Orange County, we oppose CUP
00.2. We agree with the May 17, 2000 Planning Department Staff Report that
'coffee houses have different demands than fast food restaurants', and we
believe there will be a substantial change in mode and character of traffic which
would negatively affect the surrounding neighborhoods. Therefore, we strongly
urge the Planning Commission to deny the CUP.
BURGER KING TRAFFIC
The majority of Burger King's business is during non -commuter rush hour traffic.
According to the Seal Beach Burger King, their peak hours of operation are
between 11:30 AM and 1:30 PM. According to a traffic count' we conducted on
May 30, 2000, Burner King received an average of 21 drive-thru cars per
hour during their peak hours of operation. It is important to note that during
these hours, traffic is evenly distributed on Pacific Coast Highway (both
eastbound and westbound). Even with an average of only 21 cars per hour,
blockage was noted in the parking lot. Parked cars could not back and exit due
to cars in the queue. The cars in the alley waiting to queue blocked the alley bi-
directionally. Pictures were taken and are attached.
During commuter rush hour traffic, according to the Burger King representative at
the May 17 Planning Commission hearing, Burger King receives
approximately 5 cars per hour between 6:30 AM and 10:30 AM. (40 total
transactions, 54% of which are drive-thru). Their drive-thru traffic is so minimal
during this time period that we observed Burger King accepting product
deliveries.
Although both Burger King's and Starbucks' businesses are food related, Burger
King's business is evenly distributed throughout the day, whereas the majority of
Starbuck's business is concentrated in a shorter time period, during the morning
commuter rush hour. From a traffic standpoint, Burger King's drive-thru window
is more similar in usage to the previous tenant, Security Pacific Bank. Traffic
statistics accumulated from the drive-thru window at Washington Mutual Bank',
located across the street from Burger King substantiate this fad.
COFFEE INDUSTRY AVERAGE TRAFFIC
Industry statistics from the Specialty Coffee Association of America,
headquartered in the Long Beach World Trade Center, indicate that
approximately Bo% of all specialty coffee business occurs between SAM and
10AM (during morning rush hour). Steve Ishino, Starbucks, Director of
Development, requested in his CUP Application to the Fountain Valley Planning
Commission for a drive-thru window, for the hours of operation to be 5:30 AM to
9:30 AM. The CUP for a drive-thru window was denied. In addition, the
Hermosa Beach Starbucks drive-thru window has posted hours of operation from
5:30 AM— 9:30 AM. Starbucks uses it's drive-thru window to capture the morning
rush hour traffic.
Drive-thru coffeehouses traditionally seek locations on the 'morning side' of the
street for easy and safe access to minimize any potential negative impact on the
surrounding neighborhoods. Starbucks' proposed drive-thru location is located
on the opposite side (eastbound) of the morning traffic on Pacific Coast Highway,
Seal Beach's heaviest traffic corridor. Eastbound traffic count from 6 AM to 10
AM is 3563 and westbound traffic is 7995. The westbound traffic contains over
twice the morning traffic of the eastbound traffic. Therefore, there will be a
significant increase in westbound cars attempting to cross over Pacific Coast
Highway during rush hour to access the drive-thru.
The Daily Grind, with three northern Orange County locations in Seal Beach,
Sunset Beach and Westminster, receives approximately 100 cars per hour during
the morning rush hour'. To the best of our knowledge, there are no Starbuck's
drive-thru's located in Orange County and there are only three located in Los
Angeles County. They are located in Santa Monica, Hermosa Beach and
Lakewood.
STARBUCKS CURRENT TRAFFIC
On May 26, 2000 at 7:00 AM we observed the Santa Monica location which, at
the May 17 Planning Commission, the Starbuck's representative referred to as
being similar to the proposed Seal Beach location since it was also located on
the Coast Highway (Lincoln Blvd.). We noticed the westbound cars were
blocking Coast Highway, at commuter rush hour, while they were attempting to
cross over to the opposite side of the street to enter the drive-thru. We also
observed a continual line of eastbound cars stopped on Coast Highway, which
were blocking traffic, while they were attempting to enter the drive-thru queue.
Pictures were taken and are attached. The Santa Monica Starbuck's facility is
less than one half the size of the proposed Seal Beach facility. Because it is a
considerably smaller facility than the proposed Seal Beach location, one would
anticipate that the Seal Beach facility would receive significantly more cars during
rush hour traffic.
On June 1, 2000 we counted the cars using the drive-thru window at the
Starbuck's Lakewood location. There were 58 cars using the drive-thru between
7AM and 8AM'. During this hour, there were between 7 —12 customers queuing
for the drive thru window at any given time. This does not include walk in
customers. According to the second largest specialty coffee retailer in the United
States, the total morning transactions on heavy traffic corridors may exceed >20O
transactions Per hour. A copy of this letter has been included.
Per the city of Lakewood's Traffic Engineering Department, the total average
daily traffic (ADT), on Candlewood Ave., at the Starbuck's Lakewood drive-thru is
approximately 20 000. The ADT on Parc Coast Highway at the proposed Seal
Beach location is in excess of 42 000 cars. The proposed Seal Beach location
has over two times the traffic of the Lakewood location and one would anticipate
the proposed Seal Beach location would expect a significant increase of drive-
thru traffic over the Lakewood location.
STARBUCK' S PROJECTED TRAFFIC
Should the proposed Seal Beach Starbuck's perform as well at their drive-thru
window during the rush hour commuter traffic as the Lakewood Starbucks, which
has less than one half the average daily traffic, they would have over eleven
times more traffic generated than the current Burger King drive-thru. Should the
Seal Beach Starbuck's perform as well as their closest competitor, less than 1/8
mile away on the same street, with the same ADT, they would have more than
twenty times more traffic generated through the drive-thru lane.
The CUP for a drive-thru Starbucks in Seal Beach should be denied because the
increase in concentration of drive-thru traffic usage would cause unsafe traffic
conditions on Pacific Coast Highway during rush hour traffic by encouraging cars
to cross over a busy commuter corridor at an uncontrolled intersection. The
previous bank and current Burger King drive-thru window and parking lot were
not adequately designed to handle the potential of twenty times the volume of
traffic a Starbucks drive-thru would generate. A drive-thru Starbucks at the
current Burger King would have a negative impact on property values on Eighth
Street, Electric Avenue, Marina Drive, the residential alley and the surrounding
neighborhoods.
Sincerely,
Gc�ir#'%Y
Rick Edwards
NWII be provided upon request
�a '3 Fol t.) ,L-� u -n
Debbie Edwards
June 8, 2000
Susan Cooper
4573 Fir Avenue
Seal Beach, CA 90740
(562)594-9732
To Whom It May Concern:
I am a resident of Seal Beach and I do not support CUP 00-2. Drive-thru specialty coffee
business is unique in that its high concentration of customers occurs during the highest
concentration of morning rush hour traffic. If improperly located, a drive-thru will be
both detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood and unsafe and hazardous to motorists.
Traditionally, successful drive-thru coffee businesses, in order to have the LEAST
BPACT ON NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTS AND CITY TRAFFIC, have sought
locations based on the following four simple criteria:
1. Dual drive-thru access. Double service windows are necessary to control the
high concentration of traffic during the peak morning hours.
THE STARBUCKS' DRIVE-THRU DOES NOT MEET THIS CRITERION.
The proposed Starbucks' is n& drive-thru window cannot support the high volume of
drive-thru customers.
Additionally, its heavy walk-in traffic cannot share the resources of the parking lot
without confusion unsafe Pedestrian access and traffic congestion
2. Easy access to both directions ora heavy traffic corridor, preferably with
stop lights for ease of exit and re-entry.
THE STARBUCKS' DRIVE-THRU DOES NOT MEET THIS CRITERION.
There is no easy access without impacting neighborhood streets and alleys. There are no
stoplights to control the traffic at this dangerous curve in Seal Beach's busiest morning
traffic corridor.
3. Located in large shopping center parking lots. The drive-thru's early
morning traffic has disappeared by the time other merchants start their
business day, having little traffic impact. The parking lot is at low usage
during peak drive-thru hours.
THE STARBUCKS' DW VE-THRU DOES NOT MEET THIS CRITERION.
Their parking lot is at its highest usage during peak drive-thru hours. Walk-in customers
utilizing their parking lot will find limited parking, due to queued cars for the drive-thru
lane. Once parked, they will be unable to back out of their parking space due to queued
cars in the drive-thru lane.
4. Morning -driven drive-thru businesses seek locations on the "morning
side" of the street, the majority of the customers do not have to cross heavy
rush hour traffic to reach their destination.
THE STARBUCKS' DRIVE-THRU DOES NOT MEET THIS CRITERION.
Starbucks is located on the opposite side of the morning side of Pacific Coast Highway.
Customers must cross PCH to reach their destination, creating traffic congestion for
turning, and safety hazards for motorists as well as pedestrians, many of whom are school
children walking to McGaugh Elementary or catching the bus to Oak, McAuliff and Los
Alamitos High.
The reason there are so few drive-thru Starbucks in Southern California is that city
Planning Commissions have found that these criteria have not been safely met. For
example, the city of Fountain Valley denied Conditional Use Permit 1432 for a Starbucks
Drive-thru window on November 17, 1999. The denial was based upon traffic circulation
problems and potential to create an unsafe condition. Starbucks appealed, stating that if
the CUP for a drive-thru were not approved, they would abandon the entire project. City
Council denied the appeal, and Starbucks subsequently opened without the drive-thru.
I do not support approval of CUP 00-2 because the proposed drive-thru will adversely
change the existing use of the property (Public Hearing Application, item 9), and it will
detrimentally affect property in the vicinity (Public Hearing Application, item 10) by
creating unsafe traffic and hazardous conditions to residents and pedestrians.
Thank you.
Sinc rely,
Susan Cooper
�_ _
+; t
; .
>:d��
.,
-..
=v� t�
�`
,..�
�-�
_
�� ��
s
"�
--1
�
,.,r �"�
; .
.,
�`
,..�
�-�
_
���'-= _
(.; _
4 f_ `��
�'. t' -k
_�_�.�-�
,•�� �' :_
,�..
r �- t _
r
�• � � _
... .- _�. i�.
PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
JUNE 7,1:00 PM
BURGER KING'S PEAK HOUR OF OPERATION
PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
JUNE 8, 7:30 AM
STARBUCK'S PEAK HOUR OF OPERATION
BURGER KING
770 Pacific Coast Highway
Seal Beach
Friday, May 19 12:30 PM
LUNCH RUSH
Can in drivathru queue
block can
attempting to back out
of parking spaces.
� M1
ftgy
Is AW
f( 4 1 izr_. ( S
t Ae/�.�4e-,j a•'`�'k'yw,J.i.:�iZJ4A�",.i�
IV
FTr
t -7.1 -ii VOE
A 141.
n 6 *eY •" ��'3j•,f.��.�. sr't'�'T"' ��. `' 'tr + a. r r. ` _
rrm�
Y�i�`�x
r��,t,x
i
v JT
.rc .; ate.
'I13 Bll lglil
rYY
2 �ya• SEE •�
j ���r
10/19/1999 06:34_ 9495531165 Dit—DRICM COFrEE
October 14, 1999
ry
To whom it may cCe—o,
�{edr%cit Ceffee ... where friends gQ4i>-er-
Diedrich Coffee, Inc.'is now the second largest company in the retail Specialty Coffee
market with annual system -wide revenue of more than f I So million through 361 outlets
in 38 states and six foreign Countries. The company's primary brands will be Diedrich
Coffee coffeehouses and Gloria Ican's, the nation's leading chain of mall -based Coffee
stores.
Our company's national expamion plan calla for the addition of 1,200 to 1.500 Diedrich
coffeehouses over the next five to seven years through franchise area development
agreements with experienced. multi -unit franchise operators.
M estimation of our average store t wuactions per hour between 6:00 - 10:00 am
are 110. Our retail locations situated in Commute corridors can expect 200 or more
transactions par hour during the same time frame.
If you have any further Questions please C91 me at (949) 260-6761.
Sincerely,
'Pete Kelly
Wholesale Account Executive
' at.. lncedaaa &fie Irr . Cow". 92612
Uaabmc 916 260.16M • Pax $4 260.1610 hmo.t: MD'/%�A-*U Ma 14bd adl..6dul.Aram
Attached are traffic statistics for Pacific Coast Highway in Seal Beach, and for
Candlewood Street in Lakewood, referenced in this report.
1DCATION 00DE 05904.031
OA, INC.
TDATA SERVICES. .�..�•
WCATION - ROi{VD SEAL BEACH aro
AVERAGED W_LKS FOR - "MAY 522789 TO TOESDAY 583/89
'
TIME
ES
]b
TOTAL
TUE
EB
YB
TDTAL
12:00 - 12:15
59
40
99
12:00 - 12:15
248
262
510
493
12:15 - 12:0
59
37
96
12:15 - 12:30
256
237
236
$14
12:30 - 12:45
47
38
85
12:30 - 12:45
278
265 1047
255 990
620 2037
12:45 - 1:00
43
208
v
732
60
340
12:45 - 1:00
1:00 - 1:15
34
T7
61
1:00 - 1:15
220
247
269
467
531
1:15 - 1:30
30
1B
48
1:15 - 1:30
262
123
471
1:30 - 1:45
25
25
50
1:30 - 1:45
1:45 - 2:00
24B
211 941
260 999
471 1940
1:45 - 2:00
Z2
111
16
96
38
197
20D - 2:15
22
17
39
2:00 - 2:15
245
284
262
529
LM
2:15 - 2:30
19
9
28
2:15 - 2:30
276
664
2:30 - 2:45
16
11
27
2:30 - 2:45
- 3:00
264
3D9 1D94
30O
307 1153
616 2247
2:45 - 3:00
7
64
8
45
15
109
2:45
1B
9
27
3:00 - 3:15
330
265
595
3:00 - 3:15
14
24
3:15 - 3:30
394
255
649
3:15 - 3:30
30
7
16
3:30 - 3:45
363
293
656
3:30 - 3:45
9
44
26
93
3:45 - 4:00
415 1502
282 1095
697 2597
3:45 - 4:00
12
49
14
9
12
21
4:00 - 4:15
573
276
649
4:00 - 4:15
29
37
4:15 - 4:30
537
185
822
4:15 - 4:30
8
35
45
4:30 - 4:45
508
293
801
4:30 - 4:45
10
48
56
132
77
180
4:45 - 5:00
633 2251
277 1131
910 1382
4:45 - $:00
21
5:00 - 5:15
27
87
114
5:00 - 5:15
631
295
213
926
911
5:15 - 5:30
30
148
178
5:15 - 5:30
638
311
929
5:30 - 5:45
47
Z27
274
375
941
5:30 - 5:45
5:45 - 6:00
618
639 2426
283 1162
822 3588
5:45 - 6:00
49
153
326
788
6:00 - 6:15
96
469
565
6:00 - 6:15
544
297
841
705
6:15 - 6:3D
139
639
778
6:15 - 6:30
418
429
267
308
737
6:30 - 6:45
206
728
934
3236
6:30 - 6:45
6:45 - 7:00
300 1711
251 1123
551 2834
6:45 - 7:OD
234
675
727
2563
961
7:00 - 7:15
272
718
990
7:00 - 7:15
309
718
$37
520
7:15 - 7:30
328
689
1017
7:15 - 7:30
301
Z19
7:30 - 7:45
340
594
934
7:3D - 7:45
7:45 - 8:00
270
217 1097
197
ZDO W
467
417 1941
7:45 - 8:00
327
1267
547
2548
874
3615
9:00 - 9:15
271
505
776
8:00 - 8:15
254
192
446
449
8:15 - 6:30
Z50
462
712
8:15 - 8:30
8:30 - 9:45
255
232
194
168
400
8:30 - 8:45
717
907
418
376
1761
645
535
2668
8:45 - 9:00
202 943
149 703
351 1646
6:45 - 9:00
159
9:00 - 9:15
182
271
453
9:00 - 9:15
159
157
316
3Z2
9:15 - 9:30
183
287
470
9:15 - 9:D
165
157
318
9:D - 9:45
184
292
476
458
1857
9:30 - 9:45
9:45 - IO:OD
166
151 641
152
132 5%
2B3 1239
9:45 - 10: DO
185
734
273
1123
10:00 - 10:15
196
241
437
10:00 - 10:15
164
132
296
268
10:15 - 10:30
210
20O
410
10:15 - 10:30
134
134
210
MD - 10:45
215
237
452
10:30 - 10:45
121
89
219 993
10:45 - 11:00
213
834
203
8B1
416
1715
10:45 - 11:00
113 532
1D6 461
11:00 - 11:15
221
215
436
11:00 - 11:15
94
96
190
160
11:15 - 31:0
246
241
487
11:15 - 11:30
78
82
133
. 11:30 - 11:45
214
238
452
MD - 11:45
68
65
129 612
11:45 - 12:00
300
981
254
968
554
1929
11:45 - 12:00
57 297
72 315
TOTALS
fi,Q3I
11.051
17.062
14.482
10.574
25.056
21.625
42.138
NIT'S20.513
• «i.
C2TY OF T.auEWOOID
1994 TRAFFIC CENSUS REPORT
STREET SEGMENT VOLUME YEAR GROWTH
CANDLEWOOD ST DOWNEY/LAKEWOOD
13,976
1994
-4.994
g
15,524
1992
-3.11%
3
16,553
1990
-2.31%
17,356
1988
2.17%
16,634
1986
12.054
13,404
1984
LAKEWOOD/CLARK
- 20,371
1994
0.01%
20,367
1992
1.70%
19,699
1990
-8.39%
.3
23,671
1988
-12.64%
31,681
1986
48.54%
16,075
1984
CLARK/BELLFLOWER
12,797
1994
-3.06%
13,630
1992
2.76%
12,916
1990
-0.58%
13,068
1988
4.814
11,922
1986
-2.16%
12,461
1984
BELLFLOWER/WOODRUFF
8,161
1994
-2.71%
8,629
1992
7.42%
7,514
1990
1.52%
7,292
1988
0.78%
7,180
1986
34.254
4,261
1984
WOODRUFF/PALO VERDE
4,313
1994
-8.87%
5,243
1992
2.04%
5,037
1990
11.97%
4,064
1988
-16.66%
6,094
1986
0.31%
6,056
1984
CARSON ST U.P.R.R./PARAMOUNT
24,020
1994
-5.62%
27,064
1992
-2.58%
28,534
:990
2.65%
27,100
1988
-13.42%
37,046
1986
22.82%
25,435
1984
4
CUP 00-2, Planning Cm,�xdssion Supplemental Staff Report
770 Pacific Coast Highway— Proposed Starbucks Coffee
July 19, 2000
ATTACHMENT 4
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT, MAY
17, 2000, WITH ALL ATTACHMENTS
CUP 003 - Supplcm raal PC Suff ReNn
Page 16
N
May 17, 2000
STAFF REPORT
To: Honorable Chairman and Planning Commission
From: Department of Development Services
Subject: Conditional Use Permit 00-2
770 Pacific Coast Highway
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
TOM LAO, TI PLANNING
L & R PROPERTIES
770 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY (CURRENTLY BURGER KING)
C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL
TO PERMIT A DRIVE THROUGH COFFEE HOUSE WHERE A
DRIVE IN RESTAURANT CURRENTLY EXISTS
THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM CEQA
REVIEW
28-1400;28-2503;28-2504
APPROVAL, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AS
RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, AND AS MAY BE FURTHER REVIS ED
BY THE COMMISSION AFTER CONSIDERING PUBLIC
TESTIMONY.
FACTS
• On April 13, 2000, Tom Lao on behalf of TI Planning (the "Applicant') filed an application
With the Department of Development Services for Conditional Use Permit 00-2 for a drive
CUP 00-2. • .arming Commission Staff Report
770 Pacific Coast Highway— Proposed Starbuck's Coffee
May 17, 2000
through Coffee House to be located at 770 Pacific Coast Highway. The Coffee House will be
located in what is currently a Burger King Restaurant.
• The proposed Coffee House consists of the following major components:
- Approximately 3200 square foot building footprint of what was previously a Burger King
- Removal of the children's "play area," which consists of 884 square feet
- Addition of a solarium of interior landscaping in the play area space
- On site parking of 24 spaces
- Moving the drive through window more to the center of the building
• The subject property contains approximately 12, 631 square feet. The property is located on
the corner of 86 St. and Pacific Coast Highway in a General Commercial (C-2) Zone.
• The subject property has 117.5 feet of frontage on Pacific Coast Highway, with approximately
115 feet of frontage on 8'" St.
• The subject property contains an existing restaurant structure (Burger King) with a currently
valid Conditional Use Permit.
• The nearest residential property is located immediately adjacent to the parking lot of the
structure on 8ih St.
• The surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows:
NORTH — Single Family Houses in a Residential Low Density (RLD) Zone
WEST & EAST — Businesses including the Raddisson Hotel and the Bay City Center in a
General Commerical (C-2) zone.
SOUTH — various residential developments single family and multiple family, in the
Residential High Density (RHD) Zone.
• The subject property is considered to meet all on-site parking requirements through a
combination of on-site parking spaces and grandfathered spaces. Burger King restaurant
received a variance on the property in 1994 to recognize the deficiency in parking from what
was required at the time. At that time, restaurant uses demanded 1 space for each 75 feet of
gross floor area. Currently, the code only requires 1 space for each 100 square feet of gross
floor area. As such, the proposed Coffee House will meet all parking demands.
• The current operating hours for the restaurant are:
6:00 a.m. to 12:01 a.m.
Page 2
CUP 00-2 inning Commission StaJfReport
770 Pacific Coast Highway - Proposed Starhuck's Coffee
May 17, 2000
a The following two applications were approved for the property:
- Variance 94-5 for a reduction of required number of parking spaces.
- Conditional Use Permit 944 for operation of a drive in restaurant.
Applicant's Statement: See attached application (Attachment 3)
DISCUSSION
The applicant is proposing to operate a Coffee House in a space which is currently operating as a
Burger King restaurant. Originally, the property had a Bank as its tenant, and in 1994, the tenant
changed to Burger King. Part of that change included the above referenced Variance and
Conditional Use Permit to allow Burger King to occupy the space.
The primary issue of concem in this type of use change revolves around parking and traffic flow
into the site. The use is essentially changing from a restaurant to a restaurant, though most
everyone would agree that a Coffee House has different demands than a fast food restaurant. Staff
has conducted a parking analysis of the property and found that the proposed Coffee House
(Without the play area) will total 2312 square feet. This generates the demand for 24 parking
spaces on site, at a ratio of 1 space per 100 square feet of gross floor area. The property currently
has 24 parking spaces, including 1 handicapped space. The play area is proposed to be landscaped
in an atrium type of fashion, and will be unavailable for use in conjunction with the restaurant.
This was originally a condition of approval for the variance in 1994.
In regards to traffic patterns, staff sees the left tum from Pacific Coast Highway as a potential
area of concern during peak morning hours. The left tum bay from PCH to 81° St. is only large
enough for 3 cars at any one time. Staff feels that a Coffee House may generate more traffic turns
from this tum bay than did Burger King during the same periods. However, being that the change
in use is substantially similar to what is being proposed, staff does not feel that a traffic study is
justified. Staff has consulted the City Engineer, and he has indicated that it is his opinion that the
best way to proceed from a traffic standpoint would be to allow the Coffee House to begin
operating and then assess if there is a problem with stacking of cars along Pacific Coast Highway.
There is also the issue that Pacific Coast Highway falls within the scope of Caltrans and they
ultimately have the last word on issues of traffic congestion along that right of way. The most
likely solution, should the worst case scenario happen with stacking of cars, a "no left tum" sign
could be placed on the intersection (either during certain hours or all day).
The original Conditional Use Permit was issued for the hours of 6 AM to midnight. This is also
the hours of operation proposed by the applicant for the coffee house. Staff sees no reason why
these hours should not continue.
Page 3
CUP 00-5, inning Commission Staff Report
770 Pacific Coast Highway - Proposed Starbucks Coffee
May 17, 5000
The issue of the drive through window is also of importance. There have always been concerns
that drive through windows create additional noise and other effects. Staff would like to note that
the drive through window in this case has been in existence for 6 years now and is being moved
closer to the center of the building so as to alleviate any stacking within the parking lot.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission, after considering all relevant testimony, written or
oral, presented during the public hearing, approve Conditional Use Permit 00-2 subject to
conditions and a twelve-month review period.
Staffs recommendation is based upon the following:
Conditional Use Permit 00-2 is consistent with the provisions of the Land Use Element of
the City's General Plan, which provides a "General Commercial" zoning designation for
the subject property and permits restaurants with drive through windows subject to the
issuance of a conditional use permit. The proposed conditional use permit to change the
use from a fast food restaurant to a coffee house. The use is also consistent with the
remaining elements of the City's General Plan, as the policies of those elements are
consistent with, and reflected in, the Land Use Element. Accordingly, the proposed use is
consistent with the General Plan.
The proposed change in use is consistent with surrounding residential and commercial
uses, in that a restaurant has been in operation at the site for several years.
The building and property at 770 Pacific Coast Highway are adequate in size, shape,
topography and location to meet the needs of the proposed use of the property and the
proposed outdoor dining area, in that a restaurant has been in operation at the site for
several years.
Required adherence to applicable building and fire codes ensures there will be adequate
water supply and utilities for the proposed use.
Approval of Conditional Use Permit 00-2 should be through the adoption of Resolution No. 00-
18 with the following conditions in place:
CUP No. 00-2 is approved to change the land use of the building at 770 Pacific Coast
Highway from a fast food restaurant to a coffee house.
Page 4
CUP 00LZ _ inning Commission Staff Report
770 Pacific Cowl Highway - Proposed Stab tick's Coffee
May 17, 1000
2. The applicant remains bound by all the conditions of all previous discretionary approvals
for the property.
3. The play area shall be removed and that area shall not be used in any manner in
conjunction with the service or operation of the Coffee House.
4. The City Engineer reserves the tight to restrict access into parking lot from the Alley on
the West side of the property if a stacking problem begins to appear.
5. No video games or similar amusements shall be permitted on the premises unless a
separate conditional use permit is approved for that use.
6. Litter and trash receptacles shall be located at convenient locations inside and outside the
establishment. Operators of such establishments shall remove trash and debris on an
appropriate basis so as not to cause health problems. There shall be no dumping of trash
and/or glass bottles outside the establishment between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00
a.m.
7. In the event staff determines security problems exist on the site, the Conditions of this
permit may be amended, under the procedures of The Code of the City of Seal Beach, to
require the provisions of additional security measures.
8. There shall be no live entertainment, amplified music, or dancing permitted within the
outdoor dining area at any time.
9. The establishment shall comply with Chapter 13D, "Noise Control", of The Code of the
City of Seal Beach as the regulations of that Chapter now exist or may hereafter be
amended. Should complaints be received regarding noise generated by the establishment,
the Planning Commission reserves the tight to schedule the subject CUP for
reconsideration and may require the applicant/operator to mitigate the noise level to
comply with the provisions of Chapter 13D.
10. This CUP shall not become effective for any purpose unless/until a City "Acceptance of
Conditions" form has been signed by the applicant in the presence of the Director of
Development Services, or notarized and returned to the Planning Department; and until
the ten (10) calendar -day appeal period has elapsed.
11. A modification of this CUP shall be applied for when:
a. The establishment proposes to modify any of its current Conditions of Approval.
b. There is a substantial change in the mode or character of operations of the
establishment.
Page 5
CUP 00-2, timing Commission Staff Report
770 Pacific Coast Highway — Proposed Starbucks Coffee
May 17, 2000
12. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke or modify this CUP pursuant to
Articles 25 and 28 of The Code of the City of Seal Beach if harm or retail -related
problems are demonstrated to occur as a result of criminal or anti -social behavior,
including but not limited to the congregation of minors, violence, public drunkenness,
vandalism, solicitation and/or litter.
13. This CUP shall become null and void unless exercised within one (1) year of the date of
final approval, or such extension of time as may be granted by the Planning Commission
pursuant to a written request for extension submitted to the Department of Development
Services a minimum of ninety (90) days prior to such expiration date.
14. The term of this permit shall be twelve (12) months, beginning the first day of operation of
the new restaurant. At the end of the initial term, the applicant may apply to the City for
an indefinite extension. The Planning Commission may grant an extension as discussed
above, provided that all Conditions of Approval have been met and no significant police or
other problems have occurred. The applicant is hereby advised that a new application and
accompanying fee must be submitted to the City prior to consideration of any extensions.
Mac "Cumnns
Assistant Planner
Attachments (6):
e Whittenberg
Director of Development Services
1. Photos of Structure
2. Proposed Resolution
3. Previously approved resolutions for Variance & CUP
4. Code Sections
5. Application
6. Plans (including seating plan)
Page 6
Attachment 1
0
0
a
S4
U
c�
O
O
P-4
00
cn
O
U
ct
c
� :2..�
����w
�
� � �
\\
����4
:
�
�
� �
z
u
O
Attachment 2
RESOLUTION NUMBER 00-18
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING CUP NO. 00-2,
ALLOWING THE CHANGE IN USE FROM A DRIVE
THROUGH FAST FOOD RESTAURANT TO A DRIVE
THROUGH COFFEE HOUSE AT THE PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 770 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY. SEAL BEACH.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY FIND
AND RESOLVE:
Section 1. On April 13, 2000, Tom Lao (the "Applicant") filed an application
with the Department of Development Services for Conditional Use Permit 00-2 for the change in
use from a drive through fast food restaurant to a drive through coffee house at the property
located at 770 Pacific Coast Highway.
Section 2. Pursuant to 14 California Code of Regulations §15305 and §II(B)
of the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, staff has determined as follows: the application for CUP
00-2 for the proposed interior remodeling is categorically exempt from review pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to 14 California Code of Regulations §15301
(Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations), because the proposal involves a negligible
expansion of an existing use; pursuant to §15305 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations),
because the proposal involves a minor alteration in land use limitation and does not involve
either a property in excess of 200/c slope or a change in land use or density.
Section 3. A duly noticed public hearing was held before the Planning
Commission on May 17, 2000, to consider the application for CUP 00.2. No written evidence
was submitted for or against the project, and at the public hearing members of the audience
spoke both in favor and against the proposal.
Section 4. The record of the hearing of May 17, 2000 indicates the following
(a) On April 13, 2000, Tom Lao submitted an application for CUP 00-2 with
the Department of Development Services.
(b) Specifically, the applicant is proposing to change the use of an existing
drive through restaurant to a drive through coffee house in a general commercial (C-2) zone.
(c) The subject property contains approximately 12,631 square feet. The
property is located on the South side of Pacific Coast Highway, in a General Commercial (C-2)
zone.
(d) The subject property is described as Orange County assessor's parcel
number 043-111-29.
Planninb nmmission Resolution No -00-18
CUP 00-1- 770 Pacific Coast Highway
Starbucks Coffee
May 17, 1000
(e) The subject property contains an existing restaurant that has been in
operation for approximately 6 years. Before that, the property was utilized as a bank.
(f) The City has granted the following approvals for the property:
• Variance 94-5 for a reduction of required number of parking spaces.
• Conditional Use Permit 94-4 for the use of a drive through window in
conjunction with a fast food restaurant.
(g) The surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows:
NORTH Single Family Houses in a Residential Low Density
(RLD)Zone
WEST & EAST Businesses including the Raddisson Hotel and the
Bay City Center in a General Commerical (C-2)
zone.
SOUTH various residential developments single family and
multiple family, in the Residential High Density
(RHD) Zone.
Section 5. Based upon the facts contained in the record, including those stated
in §4 of this resolution and pursuant to §§28-1400, 28-2503 and 28-2504 of the City's Code, the
Planning Commission makes the following findings:
Conditional Use Permit 00-2 is consistent with the provisions of the Land Use
Element of the City's General Plan, which provides a "General Commercial"
zoning designation for the subject property and permits drive through restaurants
subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit. The proposed conditional use
permit is to change the use from a drive through restaurant to a drive through
coffee house. The use is also consistent with the remaining elements of the City's
General Plan, as the policies of those elements are consistent with, and reflected
in, the Land Use Element. Accordingly, the proposed use is consistent with the
General Plan.
The proposed drive through is consistent with surrounding residential and
commercial uses, in that a restaurant has been in operation at the site for several
years.
The building and property at 770 Pacific Coast Highway are adequate in size,
shape, topography and location to meet the needs of the proposed use of the
Plunnin, mmission Resolution No. 00-18
CUP 00-2— 770 Pacific Coast Highway
Srarbuck's Coffee
May 17, 2000
property and the proposed outdoor dining area, in that a restaurant has been in
operation at the site for several years.
• Required adherence to applicable building and fire codes ensures there will be
adequate water supply and utilities for the proposed use.
Section 6. Based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby
approves Conditional Use Permit 00-2, subject to the following conditions:
1. CUP No. 00.2 is approved to change the land use of the building at 770 Pacific Coast
Highway from a fast food restaurant to a coffee house.
2. The applicant remains bound by all the conditions of all previous discretionary approvals
for the property.
3. The play area shall be removed and that area shall not be used in any manner in
conjunction with the service or operation of the Coffee House.
4. The City Engineer reserves the right to restrict access into parking lot from the Alley on
the West side of the property if a stacking problem begins to appear.
5. No video games or similar amusements shall be permitted on the premises unless a
separate conditional use permit is approved for that use.
6. Litter and trash receptacles shall be located at convenient locations inside and outside the
establishment. Operators of such establishments shall remove trash and debris on an
appropriate basis so as not to cause health problems. There shall be no dumping of trash
and/or glass bottles outside the establishment between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00
a.m.
7. In the event staff determines security problems exist on the site, the Conditions of this
permit may be amended, under the procedures of The Code of the City of Seal Beach, to
require the provisions of additional security measures.
8. There shall be no live entertainment, amplified music, or dancing permitted within the
outdoor dining area at any time.
9. The establishment shall comply with Chapter 13D, "Noise Control", of The Code of the
City of Seal Beach as the regulations of that Chapter now exist or may hereafter be
amended. Should complaints be received regarding noise generated by the establishment,
the Planning Commission reserves the right to schedule the subject CUP for
reconsideration and may require the applicant/operator to mitigate the noise level to
comply with the provisions of Chapter 13D.
Planni% nmmission Resolution No.00-18
CUP 00.1— 770 Pack Coast Highway
Storbuck's Coffee
May 17, 1000
10. This CUP shall not become effective for any purpose unless/until a City "Acceptance of
Conditions" form has been signed by the applicant in the presence of the Director of
Development Services, or notarized and returned to the Planning Department; and until
the ten (10) calendar -day appeal period has elapsed.
11. A modification of this CUP shall be applied for when:
a. The establishment proposes to modify any of its current Conditions of Approval.
b. There is a substantial change in the mode or character of operations of the
establishment.
12. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke or modify this CUP pursuant to
Articles 25 and 28 of The Code of the City of Seal Beach if harm or retail -related
problems are demonstrated to occur as a result of criminal or anti -social behavior,
including but not limited to the congregation of minors, violence, public drunkenness,
vandalism, solicitation and/or litter.
13. This CUP shall become null and void unless exercised within one (1) year of the date of
final approval, or such extension of time as may be granted by the Planning Commission
pursuant to a written request for extension submitted to the Department of Development
Services a minimum of ninety (90) days prior to such expiration date.
14. The term of this permit shall be twelve (12) months, beginning the first day of operation
of the new restaurant. At the end of the initial term, the applicant may apply to the City
for an indefinite extension. The Planning Commission may grant an extension as
discussed above, provided that all Conditions of Approval have been met and no
significant police or other problems have occurred. The applicant is hereby advised that
a new application and accompanying fee must be submitted to the City prior to
consideration of any extensions.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach
at a meeting thereof held on the day of , 2000, by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners
NOES: Commissioners
ABSENT:
Plannine mmission Resolution No. 00-18
CUP 00-1— 770 Pacific Coast Highway
Slarbuck's Coffee
May 17, 1000
David Hood, Ph.D,
Chairman of the Planning Commission
Lee Whittenberg
Secretary of the Planning Commission
Attachment 3
RESOLUTION NUMBER 9740
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING AN INDEFINITE
EXTENSION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 944, COOPY
IN
PERMJTTG THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A DRIVE -Il
RESTAURANT AT 779 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, SEAL
BEACH (BURGER SING)
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY FIND
AND RESOLVE:
Section 1. On June 13. 1990, Leroy L. Store filed an application for CUP 94-
4 and Variants 945 with the Depart n vat ofDeveloprnno Services. Through CUP 944 and
Variance 945, Mr. Stone sough, approval to a abgsh a drive4hrough tewurw with Its. than
the required omdte parking a 779 Pacific Cost Highway, Seal Bead, (Burger King).
Subasqueraly, Mr. Stone sod the Maines to Cirem's Isoorpaated ('the Applicam'). D.
appka,,, is now seeking an irdeftur mention ofthe um permit as amhorVnd through
Resolution No. 9643,
Sectioo.2. Purs u! W 14 Calif Code ofRegs. j 15025(x) and k IB ofthe
City's lural CEQA Guidelines, staff has determined as follows. The application for Carditoal
Use Pent 944 u ealegaiWly exempt from review paracent to the California EnJcormemW
Quality Act pursuant to 14 Calif Code of Reps. 115303 (New Construction or Conversion of
Smsil Strvrnurnj, beuuu it involve the mnvesion of m existing ans0 structure from one use
to another and only minor modifications will be made to the exterior of the sww"e. and,
pursuant to j 1 SD61(bx3), because i can be see with cerUmty, than tars is no possibility the the
approval may, lute a significant effect on the envito t.
SMi.n 3. A duly noticed public hearing was held before the Plaraing
Commission on November 19, 1997 to consider an'udefote extension of Conditionsi Use Permit
944. At the public hewing the applicw spoke in favor ofthe request with no one speaking in
opposition,
Sadie^ 4. The record of the hearing on November 19, 1997 indicate 11e
(Wowing'
(a) On June 13, 1994, Leroy L. Stone Sled an application for CUP 94
4 and Vaiaroc 945 with the Depatmem of Dcvdopmm Services. The Pta ning Comnussion
approved the request w its August 3, 1994 mewing. The rewaurara opened in November 1995.
The Planing Comnusion grand a au (6) rrnrah extension of CUP 944 u its May 1, 1996
amusing W a twelve (12) momh extension a as November 6, 1996 reading.
(b) Through CLIP 944, the applium requested to establish a drive
through r saurary with loss than the required oo-site parking u 770 Pacific Coal Highway. Seal
Beach (Burger King). The appgcaN is also swung to add a singlt able within the dedicated play
are for dendrons pantie.
(c) The object prop" is I rwM on the nathwes exec of Pacific
Coast Highway and Eighth Strad.
(d) The ablest property is irregularly gaped with an was of 16, 977
Kluane fad. The subject property has approximately 150 rad of frontage on Eighth Street W 113
fad of frontage on Pacific Coast Highway.
(c) T1s subject property k kp lly described s'
LOU 25,27.29. 31,13 and 35, Block 207, Stanton and Lothian's Tract, 1st Additiml had the City
of Sed BeacJ� Courtly of Orumps, State of Califwrds at down on Map recorded in Book M.M.
ser, Iw l,�r�reerYs�.
Plrwq Ca uca r
gedaeu No. 07A
3, PS 29 is the Office of the County Rocorder of Said County, earept that portion of tut 35
deeded to We State of California per Deed! D:436-203 recorded Septmiber 19, 1922.
(t) The rrrou d.4 land uses and zoning dedgrutioru vee u f.0-
-
NORTH Accu Pacific Co,,, IEghwy u< wire fiunily residential uses located in the
Res.dewd IoW Density scare (RID)'
SOUTH A nrixene of rruh4fam0y and "c-&mdy residsraW uses located"' tlse
R :deraW High Density zone (RHD).
EAST
t WEST A mixnue ofnaa owro t J uses located along Pacific Coast No.y is the
General Camnerciai zone (G2).
(g) The subject btulding w constructed in 1970 and form dy housed
a bank (Security Pacific) unt0 iia closure in early 1993.
(h) L response so complaints at the Cormniuion's Apo 17. 1996
meting the applicant iruulled a taahytic emiasituu serubber on the reuaurant'a hood eymn.
Section 5, Based upon the facts contained in the record, including thou stated in
14 of this resolution, and Pursuant W 44 24-1400.21t-2503 and 284504 of the City's LWS, the
PItanJng Corrunission hereby finds as fellow:
(a) Co ditiorW Use Permit 941 is consistent with the provisions of
the land Use Eemens ofthe Gty's Gacre Plan, which provides a'ganeai commercial"
r mp&tion for the asbjees property and pends musurans and driv m restaurants subject to the
issuance of a conditional use permit. The use is also conestant with the remaining admvts of the
City's fienerJ Plan as the policies of those demrn4 vee consistent with and re9eaed K the
lAnd Use Eno nn . Accordingly, the proposed use is consistent with the GerserJ Pian.
(b) Wash the Planning Cpmuuion's twenty-six (td) conditions of
WpmvJ in place. the proposed use of the property u a driver -in rcusu ant is oompauble with
surrounding uses and will col be de nmahW n the surrounding neighborhood. Spscifica0y, the
conditions address such concerns expensed during the public hearing at We night mise, noises
—e atad with she PA speaker. the provision of rewoore and dining fadities at a0 hours the
restaurant is open to the public, hours ofoperstion ofthe business ad poking lot lighting.
Further. as an edsting un+cmrc, the style, height and bulk of the struelune u consistent with
surrounding residential and eerrnma sal uses.
(e) The building and prop' N 770 Pacific Coast Highway are
adequsu is size, dsPe, topography and location to meet the meds of the proposed use of the
property
(d) Required dhercaoe to appbrable buMing and fire codes ewre
dere in be A quue wets supply and upb'tin for the proposed use.
Sectio0 6. Based upon the foregoing, the Planning Caeurvasion hereby
approve, an indeSniu extension ofConditionul Use Permit 941. chbjen to the following
conditions:
1. CUP 0 94A is appmvd for a drive4n musur eat at 770 Pacific Coast Highway, Sol
Burn.
2. The hour, dopaation Jas be dally - 6:00 A.M. to 12:01 AM. The bus nal dao W
served u 11:30 P.M. with d patnxu out ofd4 Wilding by 12:01 A.K M saiumance
actM6c, dull be corroded by 12.30 AM. The drive4hrough window may rennin olds
send 12:01 A.M.
Page 2
Plawunp C.-
Rlalwa Na. 97-4
0. These dull be no interim maintrurrc or other business relied acti"Un bei,wom the
kaon of 12:70 AM. and 6:00 AM. of the same day. There shall be no exterior
misictimunce betweerh the bouts of 12:01 AM. and 6:00 AM. of the sora day.
a. No arid. games or sinnilar rsrsraenvhts duo be permitted en the premises.
5. A sign ofwt len than 2' x 2' aquas dull be posted and maintained ar the entrance to the
play area In a mantes, aamptabk to the Dvector of Development Swim, i dauiting that
the play area deg be for eying owomm and their children only.
6. M SSW duo be tuned off during all ren business hours. This condition my be modified
W allow Gmitd security liglning of the parking area ifdo ermined necessary by the
Dressy of Devdoptma Se rirsa. to such case, W lighting must be dread away from
residerce, and duo be shielded to prevent glare on neighboring residential properties
7. During business haat de exterior, gghting k the parking ass dull be kept as a kW so
as to provide adequate light'vig for patrons while rot unreasonably disturbing surrounding
raidentiat or commercial ars.
2. The restroom, dull main open to tha public fining all business hams.
9. The imrior dining arc, dull be open to the public during all business hour.
10. The block wall w the southerly side of the property hall be raised to eight (1) fen in
height
11. The whims on the ordering ". shall be tarred down to its to t wdhWc level alley
9:00 P.M.
12. The applicant dull install and maintain in operation at all tinea ordy the Horizon"' driv
through ordering systan or a aubaantially similar she Ltivc with the approval of the
Director ofDcwdopmap Savioea.
13. liner and trash recepuda shall be located at oonvenism location, inside ad aasidc the
evAb4limem, and elle openum of the eetabfish me t dell remove trash and debris on an
appropriate basis n as not to cause a Malth problem. There shall be w dumping of trash
arhNor glass bode outside the establishment between the hours of 30:00 P.M. W 7:00
A.M.
11. In the cusp staff carmine, that security problems exist on the site, the conditions of this
permit may be ameded udr the procedure of the Sal Bach Municipal Cade. to
require the provision ofdditiotW security mourn.
13. The property dull be mainaired gra&ti bee st all times.
16. A mwnmua of6ve (5) Vers dull be planted and maintained within the parting lot ars
Said trw Dull be a min man, of mitt of 21 inch box. The applicant dull ubrnit a
landscaping plan to the Department of De elopme t Services fa review and approval
prior w iaaarca ofa building permit for tesur improvrhwts.
17. All deg.eries dull take place beween the hour, d7:00 AM. ad 1:00 P.M.
M The establishment duo have a public tcephae Suing,
19. A M level table (table by as to cxcead 11' above boor) with up to ten (10) rasa may
be installed in the dedicated play ver for use in conjunction with childra's parties.
20. The applicant will prominently display them conditions of approval in a location within the
business's a comer area that is acceptable to the D'uector of De clopmcem Services.
Page T
YasYr
Pb "Cv w
R Ana N. 07a
2I. The •pp4imot rm.im baud by d wn htiorLL of approvY of Vvi-- 94-5.
22. This Conditiorul UK Permil Yell rat become effective fa airy IwPow -Jm an
`Acapu of Cooditioru' form h- ben, sired by the Wbin the Prererrce of the
Moom of Devdopmero Sere or starved and rewrmd W the PWwng D"rtmeot.
and wad the ten (10) dry appeW period hm dapsed.
23. A d,5c". of this CorditiaW UK Permit"be obtdmd when:
(a) The ..blidunerd pmpurea to mocuy any of its current enrditiom of
(b) There is e wbduniY ch"c in the mode w closers of operation, of the
arabGYniw.
24. The Pluwng Commuum Raervn the right to revoke m modify this Conditional UK
Penoil dairy vioWion of the approved cad bow occurs. any violetion of the Code of the
City of seal Beady unarm, m fa thou reasow rysi6d by Article 28, ad in the room¢,
specified N Artidc 25, of Chapter 28 of the rode of the Cin ot Scaj Jim
A
25. Ag cow tion YWI be in arb"dW compliance with the Pl-- approved tbuogh
Coditiosw UK Peron 94-1.
26. The appli a sha mn4 ad pumanently owntain a c&Wy6c ernissioro Krubber on the
renwrarr's hood ya. to limit rmke and odor rued by the reaawW
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPT EO by the PWodng Comrtussion of the City of SeW Brad
Y a meeting thereof held m the 19N day of Novorka. 1997 by the fogovving vote.
AYES: Cocneoo sera Brown Hood Lamont Yost
NOES. Cotmti siorws _
ABSENT: Camuuiortm
arml
F. — a
Page 4
err•
Or Ij�l
IWJ LS I I.J
DEC 14 1991
CALIFORNIA
COASTAL CoNiklle5lOt-
,OOTH COAST OISTRiC'
EXHIBIT NO. D
Application Number
5-94--20
G
rovaLs
iofg
C ri msac. slalCannWlon
RESOLUTION NUMBER u39
n 2 LS U l'i
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING VARIANCE W-5,
PERMITTING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A DRIVE-IN
RESTAURANT WITH LESS THAN THE REQUIRED ON-SITE
PARKING AT 770 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, SEAL
BEACH (BURGER KING)
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY FIND
MID RESOLVE
Section I. On June 13, 1994. Leroy L Stom (-(he Applicant) fled an
Application for CUP W4 W Variance W-5 wilh the Depanmeru of Development Services
Through CUP 94.4 and Variance 94.5, the applicant reeks approval Io establish a drive-thru
restursot with less than (he required sol -site parking at 770 Pacific Coast Hiphwry. Se.l Beach
(Burger King) The applicant is proposing to permanently dedicate a portion of the inlrrior o1'the
Wilding As an inferior play ar" for children The applicant's request is that this Portion ofths
budding not be considered as part ci gross floor area of the building for the purposes of
determining the required on mite parking
sw,yn Purwam to 14 Calif Code it f 15035(.) and E It B ol'the
City's Looal CEQA Gu)dalines. Gaff hu deHrmined u follows The application for Conditional
Use Permit 94.4 it cs iully eaempt from review pursuant to The Caldnrnia Encimnmenul
Quality Act pursuant to 14 Calif Code of Regs it 15303 (New Constmmmn or Conversion of
Small Swcmres), because it involves the conversion of an existing small structure from one uee
to another and only minor reodd<atlons will be made so the exterior of the nraoure, and.
Pursuant to S 15061(b)(3), because it cin be seen with canalnfy that there is no p nPPhll,tt that the
approval may have a significant effect on The environment
Section 3 A duly "iced Public boring was held before the Planning
Construction on July 20, 1991 to consider the apDllenion for Variance 94.5 M the pubhi, bunny
the applicant and one person spoke in favor of the request woh four (4) people apca4ng in
opposition
Sectio 4 The record of the hearing on full, 20, 19W mdlcaes the fullowmg
(a) On lune U, 1994, Lavoy L Stone filed an apptiutiun for CUP
944 W Variance 94.5 with the Department of Dryelopment Services
(b) The applicant is requesting to establish a drive-thru restaurant unit,
leu than the required on-site parking At 770 Pacific Coon Highway, Sesl Batch (Burger King
The applicant u proposing to prnnanenlly dedicate a portion of the interior ofthe building as an
interior play au for cluidren The applicant's request is that this portion of the Wilding WT M
considered As put of the gross floor esu of the building for the purposes ofdetermitunA..-
required
therequired ort site parking
(c) The subject property is located on the se ,hwest corner of Pacific
Coast Highway anal Eighth Saes.
(d) The askjst property is irregularly Roped with an area of 16, 977
square fon The subject property less approximately I so feel offroe ase on Eighth Street and 113
fed of frontage W Pacific Cues Highway
(e) The wbject progeny is legally described as
RECEH1n2r,,
DEC 1 P. 1994
CALIFORNIA
COASTAL COMMISSIOr`
-ouvl4 COAST DIST*,,-,
EXHIBIT NO. t)
Appllwtion Number
5-- Rq-269
Ci /�- prpva(S
aNlomia Coeaal Cornmbabn
YJrnq•r)ww...ww NrvAer..w f.. ra-:r
Ave.a J. /vva
Laps 25, 21, 29, )l, 77 road 75, Block 207, Stainton and Whian's Tran. 19 Addition, in the City
st Back County of Orange. Slate of California as shown on Map recorded in Book M M
2, ►g 29 in the ORse of the Courcy Recorder of Said County. escept that ponson of Lot 3%
deeded to the State orCaSfomia par Decd DASt~203 recorded September 19. 1922
(f) The aumwndin8 land uses and toning designations are as follows
NORTH Aerosa Pacific Coast Highway ve Singe family residenoal uses located in the
Residential Low Density sone (RLD)
SOUTH A rrvnure of multi -family end Single-family residential uses located in the
ResidmW High Density sone (RHD)
EAST
• WEST A moisture ormail commercial uses located along Pacific Coast Highway is the
General Commercial some (C-2)
(g) The Subject building was cownruned in 1970 end formerly housed
a bank (Security Pacifa) until its cloture in early I M5
(h) In tempore to its mailed notice for this request, the (1y h..s
received a letter from Jerome Cook, a nelghhnr at 550 Eighth Street, Semi Berth Mt (
suggests Several conditions which the Commission may wish to impose which at intended n.
prevent negative impacts on Surrounding land uses
(i) City has received three written comments responding to the noel,.
ofthe having on Variance W-5
Stoics, 5 Based ulcer rhe facts contained in the rernrd. indudmg thus, warJ to
j 4 ofthis resolution, and pursuant to 84 21.1400, 28-2500 through 28.2502 ofthe City's LCds
the Planning Commission hereby finds as follows
(a) Variance 94A is eomigmt with the prosisions of the Land Use
Emmons ofthe City's General Plan, which provides a "general commercial' designation for the
subject property and permits restaurants and drive-in restaurants Subject to the issuance ora
conditional use permit The use is also consistent with the remaining elements ofthe Cm's
Oust Plan as the policies ofthow elements ate consistent with. and reflected in. the Land L'se
Element Accordingly, the proposed use is wnvstent with the General Plan
(b) There are special property related circumstances whichthrough the
grin application ofthis Chapin, deprive the Subject property of privileges enjoyed by other
property in the nine vicinity and sone Specifically, the applicant is proposing to pernumnily
dedicate a portion ofthe restaurant's interior au as a children's play area As children will rot
drive to, She restaurant but rather will be passengers in we visiting the restaurant for dining
purposes, that is w clear correlation between the Secondary use critic building as a play area
and a requirement fou parking Further, if she proposed play area were located outside of the
building no parking requirement would be placed on the use The requirement to place the play
area outside in order to meet Parking standards, thereby requiring the demolition ofapproximatel)
1,450 quare fen ofs6e existing building, would cause a hardship on she property owner and
would provide no berefts to the public a under either nrN(to there would be approetmatny
1,600 quare fen of reroauram and 1,450 quare feet of play ares
Addiuo tally, the play ones is an accessory, but separate, use ofthe subject property which has no
parking requuunmt under the Code ofthe City of Sul Beach
(e) The growing ofthis variance would not be the greasing oft special
privilege inconsigem with either limitations on other properties in the acme vicinili and sone
Specifically, the Code of the City of Sol Bach requires one parking space for each 75 quare
— ofgroa Boor area for a drive-in restaurant and no perking requirement for a plac area 5k'hde
Page 2
t4Ywnw l'�w.ww lL'vltlxw \u VLly
.4pJ,1, IYYI
the proposed play w is rithin the building shell orthe restaurant, a is an accessory. but
separne, use to the drive-in restaunut Therefore, the restaurant provides the required on -silt
porkins for the restaurant use orthe petition) (74 paces), and the play area provides the tequired
sirs puking fe«o spaces) for the play aru star orthe property
Additionally, aher relaunnt uses eon install a play area a their Mtryrcny with no addninwl
putting raquirsm«os provided the play «ea is located outside of the building shell
NOES. Commiuiooers
ABSCNT Cunnnisunncr:
ABSTAIN
Whit a « g, Sea«eery
..' Planting Camdasion
Page 3
Anton Dahlman. Chaimtan
Planning Commission
Sgdian 6 Based Won the fortgoing. the Planning Commission hereby
Approves Variance 94-5. aubie« to the following conditions
1.
Vuianca 9&S is approved for the tuablishment afs drive-in ranurant wish lessThan tlu
`•
nap" cal parking at 770 Pacific Cast Highway. Sul Beach
I pW) l5 Jr
:.
A minimum of24 gandard Whlag spaces span be maintained an the property
DEL, , A 19Q-
3.
A minimum ata of 1,150 squus feel ofihe interior ofthe restaurant shell be permanently
muMained es a children's play area And playground marugenrtm Mice Said mAIIAVVIn"'t
®
off.on my MI be used in any way In with lir ope,alion ol the glovi ar t. it,,,
CALIFORNIA
incl ude the enrage ofresuunni related mipphes
COASTAL COk-"- r` "
=OUTN COACT Qin: r^!
d.
No aldoor sealing shall be permitted on rite propeny
S
The applicant remains bwnd by all condition. orpproch.dConApl..n:d V—Ptou,t oa.a
6
NI construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plan, p,ro,vd thi uugh
Variance 90.5
7.
This Variance hull nor Femme effective for any pow" unlesY an' Accptance or
Conditions' form has been ugned by the applicant in the prexncc of the Director of
Development Services, or notarised And murned to the Planning Department, and tinul
the ren (10) day appeal period has started
PASSED. APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Contmi>sion orthe Cny of SeA1 Beach
«a mating thereof held on the 3rd day of August. 1991 by the following vote
AYES.
Commissioners Brtiw t Campbell. Law
NOES. Commiuiooers
ABSCNT Cunnnisunncr:
ABSTAIN
Whit a « g, Sea«eery
..' Planting Camdasion
Page 3
Anton Dahlman. Chaimtan
Planning Commission
Attachment 4
S 26-1400
Zoning
S 28-1400
Article 14. General Commercial Zone is -2 zone
Seat on 28-1400 Permitted Uses. In the C-2 Zone, the following
uses only are permitted and hereinafter specifically provided and
allowed by this article:
(1) Any use permitted in either the C -D or the C-1 Zone;
(2) Automobile and boat sales;
(3) Auto repairing and tire center;
(4) Mortuaries;
(5) Gymnasiums;
(6) Furniture repair and upholstery shop;
(7) Fishing tackle shop;
(8) Retail meat storage locker;
(9) Retail or service businesses catering directly to consumers,
when interpreted by the Planning Commission as meeting the
intent of general commercial uses;
(30) Adult -Oriented Businesses, except as provided in paragraphs
(a)(i) through (a)(vi-) of Section 11E-5, and subject to the
other provisions of Chapter 11E of this Code.
(11) The following additional uses subject to the issuance of a
Conditional Use Permit:
(a) Car wash during daylight hours;
(b) Motorcycle sales or rentals;
(e) Automobile service stations (See Sec. 28-2318);
(d) Private tennis club;
(a) Billiard parlor;
(f) Drive-in Restaurant;
(g) Lumberyard/home improvement center;
(h) Rotel;
7700
(Seal Beach 17//4)
S 28-1400 seal Beach city Code S 28-1401
(i) Large collection recycling facilities as defined in
Section 28-2121.
(Ord. Mo. 948; Ord. No. 3024, 91; Ord. No. 1121, 52, 3; Ord.
1238, 94; Ord. No. 1257, 53; Ord. No. 1387)
Section 28-1401 Limitations on Permitted Uses. Lvery use
permitted shall be subject to the following conditions and
limitations:
(1) All uses shall be conducted wholly within an enclosed
building except:
(a) Automobile house trailer sales area;
(b) Boat sales;
(c) Drive-in restaurant;
(d) Parking lots;
(e) service stations, but only insofar as materials and
equipment to service automobiles are concerned;
(f) Automobile sales areas; •
(g) Commercial swimming pools used for display purposes;
(h) Lumberyard/home improvement center.
(2) Products made incident to a permitted use and manufactured
or processed on the premises shall be sold on the premises
and at retail only.
(3) All operations conducted on the premises shall not be
objectionable by reason of noise, odor, dust, mud, smoke,
steam, vibration or other similar cause.
(4) storage shall be limited to accessory storage of commodities
sold at retail on the promises.
(5) Where any property used for commercial purposes has a common
property line with property toned for residential purposes,
there shall be provided a solid masonry or concrete block
wall not less than six feet in height at such property line
except where a wall of a building is on such property line,
no separate block wall need be provided.
(Ord. No. 948; Ord. No. 1024, sl) '
(teal leach 12104) 7701
'S 28-2500 Seal Beach City Code S 28-2504
Article 25. Variances and Conditional use Permits
Section 28-2500. Variance may Be Granted. When practical
difficulties, unnecessary hardships or results inconsistent with
the general purpose of this chapter result through the strict and
literal interpretation and enforcement of the provisions hereof,
the Planning Commission shall have the authority, as an
administrative act subject to the provisions of this article, to
grant upon such conditions as it may determine such variance from
the provisions of this chapter as may be in harmony with its
general purpose and intent so that the spirit of this chapter
shall be observed, public safety and welfare secured and
substantial justice done. (Ord. No. 948)
Section 28-2501. Purpose of Variance. The sole purpose of any
variance shall be to prevent discrimination and no variance shall
be granted shared by other property in the same vicinity and
zone; provided that a variance may be granted permitting the
temporary establishment of uses necessary by reason of public
emergencies or need.
Section 2B-2502, Required Showinas for Variances. Before any
variance be granted it shall be shown that:
(1) Such variance shall not adversely affect the general plan;
(2) Because the special circumstances applicable to the
property, including size, shape, topography, location or
surroundings, the strict application of this chapter
deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other
property in the same vicinity and zone;
(1) The granting of such variance shall not constitute a grant
of special privilege inconsistent with other limitations
upon other properties in the same vicinity and zone.
(Ord. No. 946)
Section 26-2507 Conditional use Permits May Be Granted. The
Planning Commission may grant a Conditional use permit in the
case of an application for ■ use which is required to be reviewed
and conditioned prior to approval so as to insure compatibility
with surrounding uses and the community in general and the
General Plan. (Ord. No. 946)
Section 26-2504 Purpose of Conditional Use Permit. The purpose
of a conditional use permit shall be to insure proposed uses are
compatible with surrounding uses and not detrimental to the
neighborhood. (Ord. No. 946)
a90o (Leal Beach 0/92)
Attachment 5
A,19hostim fur (Ce a w
Jgr
cls U s
Ubhw U Pard
VWW.
M-01 V-i—
QPAZ. �
C
CITY OF SEAL
PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION
1
00-
i, FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Application No., A -,a -----�Date Filed:
P larn If Commission Date: Date Complete:
1. Property Address: 770
2. Applicant's Name: -T&164 LAo/-T-1
Address: rOZ5 0.
Home Phone: (Sa) 9q6 -q6&7 -
Work Phone: (5i0) 343-,44416 FAX (3 (t) 347-3434
3. Property Owners Name: L/P-Fverv4mvws
Address: 6r7 e-. vJlvs4 &vt.. 41izcv
Home Phone: (Fig) zA4 - Fz-.7
4. General Plan arid Zoning Designation: �,-7- 6ew
cwwwe,�,L
S. Present Use of Property:
6. Proposed Use of Property. :P�AVAAM� -vu;;6 AA�
Page 7
10. Describe how and if the approval of this Unclassified Use Permit would be
detrimental in any way to other property in the v do ty
11. Proof Of
Slalf is to attach here a photocopy of a picl r I.D. and a photocopy of the Gram Deed provided by the
Opplicelt
or
Spned and notarhed OmWS Affidavit to be completed and atladhed to"applarbcn.
12. Legal Description (or attach description from Title or Grant Deed):
BY
BY
Of APpi6nt) (Signature of Applicant)
' (PMR Name) (Pird Name)
31al t
—� (Date) (Date)
For Orta Uw Ony _.....
This n i o.Vy the I hr, ti (dray,,; apppfaation •nd tw d S k be Cwxounr ana Q.7V a I mnbmn to
Lhe r N the Cey of S. Beach g�,-.y tk f.. Q W an appl.ztron for ar Untlasar6a' the PwrrA Aypkmbon
(PnK None) (Sgu ) (PW Tre) took)
Page 8
Environmental Information and Checklist Forth
General Irtfomuflon
3. Name and address of Projed Contact Person:
4.
Name: SA4w, ae AlY✓G
Address:
City State: Zip:
Telephone: FAX
List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for
this project, including those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies:
5. F)dsfing zoning: C -Z. Fudsting General Plan: &&WAL Gb -H c44Z/frt-
S. Proposed use of site: W f A*WI 'DP U Zlk Ww. IW& ,'Mun_. Rl t4u
B. Estimated employment per shirt: /C
C. Estimated occuparxy.
D. Size of loading facilities:
E. Corminity benefits derived from the project
Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items
checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary).
YES NO
I20. Change in existing features or any bays, tidelands,
beaches, lakes or hills, or substantial akeration of
grand contours?
i
21.
Change in scenic views or vistas from existing
�
22.
residential areas or public lands or roads.
Change in or character of area of
—
pattern, scale general
project
23.
Significant amounts of solid waste or litter.
24.
Change in dust ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity.
25.
Change in ocean, bay, lake, stream or grand water
quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage
patterns.
2&
Substantial change it existing noise or vibration levels
in the vicinity.
27.
Site on filled land or on slope of 10 percent or more.
28.
Use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such
as toxic substances, fiammables or explosives.
Pape 13
i
u.
x.
Page 15
YES
MAYBE NO
1.
Changes In deposition «erosion o1
beach "rids, or changes In
siltation, deposition or erosion
which may modity the cannel of a
Mer «stream or the bed of the
ocean or any bay, cruel or lake?
III.
Exposure of people or property to
geologic hazards such as
earthquakes, landslides, mudslides,
Wound failure, or similar hazards?
dr.
Will the proposal result In:
a.
Substantial a@ ernbsions or
deterioration of rnbixs air quality!
iD
—.L—
b.
The creation of objeci«uble odors?
C.
Alteration of air moVMlrt, —i"
ofirruttemp ratureoWw or any change al
tle, eltthr locally «regionally!
Water. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Charges In cements. or the course or
direction of water movements, In
• elthr marine «Mesh waters?
b.
Charges in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of
surface water Mom
X
C.
Alteration to the course or flow of
food waters?
d.
Change In amount of surface water
in any water body!
e.
Discharge into surface waters, or In
any alterstlon of surface water
qualhy, Including, but not Hmlled to
temperature, dissolved oxygen or
Wrbidlty!
---l—
It.
Alteration of the direction or rate o1
flow of ground waters?
Page 15
b. Reduction of the number: of any
unique, rare or endangered species
or animals?
4 Introduction of new Species of
animals Into an area, or result In a
Darier to the migration or
mverlent of animals?
d. Deterioration to existing OCA or
wldlife hablUt?
hgicn. Will the proposal result In:
a. Increases N existing noise levels?
b. Exposure of people to server noise
levels?
Licht and Glare. Will the proposal produce
new light or glare?
Land Use. Will the proposal result In a
substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area.
Natural Resources. Will the proposal result
in:
A. Increase In the rate of use of any
natural resource?
b. Substantial depletion of any
nonrenewable natural resource?
Risk of Unset. WIII the proposal result in:
a. A risk of explosion or the release of
hazardous substances (Including,
W not limned to, oil, Pesticides,
chemicals or radiation) in the even
of an occtdent or upset conditions?
b. Possible Interference with an
emergency response plan or an
emergency evacuation plan?
Pape 17
YES MAYBE NO
IF=
m
M
Pape tg
YES
MAYBE NO
Ie.
Enem . WIII the proposal result In:
a. Um of suhatYflial amounts or fuel
or anergy?
b. Substantial mucases In demand
upon existing sources of energy, or
source doenergy?ment a now
sources a ansrpy'1
ag.
Utilities. Will the proposal result In a need
for new systems, or substantial alterations
to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
b. Communications "am$?
C. Water?
d. Hewer or septic tanks?
a. Storm water damage?
KY
It. Solid waste and disposal?
l
60.
Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazards (excluding
mental heats)?
b. Expos ra or people to potential
health hazards?
61.
Aesthetics. Will the proposal result In the
obslnckn of any scenic vLU or view open
to the public, or will the proposal result In
the creation of an aesthetically offensive
site open to public view'!
62.
Cultural Resources.
a. Will the proposal moult N the
aperstion of or ft destruction of a
prehistoric or historic archaeological
she?
p
Pape tg
YES MAYBE NO
Does the pv0dt have impacts
whloh aro Individually amhed, M
cumulatively considerable? (A
pr*d may Med two are more
separate resouross where the
Ynpact on each resource is
Natively small, but where the
Med of the total 0! Mose Impacts
on the environmerd is signtfium.)
C. Does the pro)ed have
environmental effects which will
Cause substantial adverse effect on
human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
Pape 2t
NOTE: aelore a Lead Agmy can accept th"a aMficatim as corrpbte, the appliraM mai or" tie bats
toad Ria to SscSm 659625 of Bre Goramart Code and nrbrrwl a ov ed ataterrera k6cwq
vRrether the projed ad any skerratrvea are bcated on a ate Mwch Is kxkx d m arty aim) it and aMA
aParyY any ISL
HazardousWaste and Substances Staterttent
The development project and any aRemetives proposed in this application are contained on
the lists complied pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Covenvnerd Code. Accordingly, the
project applicant is required to submit a signed statement which contains the tollowng
infomtation:
1. Name of applicant-
Street:[i4. 7jp Code:
a ....
.�
S. Phone Number.
6. Address of she (street and zip):
7. Local Agency (city/coLryty): 46&L Zw4---
9. Specify any list pLrsuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code:
10. Regulatory identification raTber.
11. Date of list:
Date: Signatue:
Applicant L4!jn Lna
Pape 23
11
MAR -23-O li•N ItOM•31L
3-3434 10, rnc3 i's
PROPERTY MEWS AFF►vtr
STATE OF CA FOMM y
CITY OF SM BEACH }
COUNTY NTY OF GRAN= )
�yya) LawRFrcf P. u,ArAa.,T�
I (tr+il
sa wr lfY p amx" an) is GKWW d" propw IV at
i7J JfA,IT'Ic C+AN t4j"�^7, JC4` 69.40, ca 10-)
powAMnN ow pmo
and to P TNM w) an %mow vie to NN d to Cb a SW assal for ptaps
Plan Revls- appkadeft The 2 ftiw5on oamtrnd In to sI -I PW
apps mbon it co, 7a b to bog d (WAOu4 W*Wwae and (ry(w) apm" or
ti3 bdo t»iOoWirn vArk- e,.-e90,AQLeV& Alai wit i• JT.tAvcAJ
, i. 64,4.• Art. fLcr-itLf , CA 1jL•( Brij) 1Mv G1)7
'L7y� Z7,ai aA � `• � A��
hY37e
CUP 00-2, Planning Cor rston Supplemental Staff Report
770 Pacific Coast Nignway — Proposed Starbucks Coffee
July 19, 2000
ATTACHMENT 5
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, MAY 17, 2000
CUP00-2. S.,[,.W PC SWf Repos
Page 17
C, F Seat Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of May 17, 2000
2000 to review more information. Commissioner Brown requested that the City
Attorney draft a position paper on "reasonable accommodation" to be provided to the
Commission to help in making their determination. Chairperson Hood stated that the
Planning Commission had no objection to making reasonable accommodation
available for individuals with physical limitations, but the Commission would like to
make sure that the City is consistent with how this policy is applied. He said that in
the long run this would make for a better policy.
Mr. Whittenberg reported that the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting
was on June 7, 2000. He stated that he would be out of town the week of June 7
and he would like to be present to address some of the issues to be discussed. He
recommended that the Planning Commission adjourn to a meeting for June 14,
2000. He stated that no additional public notice of this hearing would be provided.
MOTION by Cutuli; SECOND by Brown to continue Variance 00-3 to the adjourned
meeting of June 14, 2000.
MOTION CARRIED: 4-0
AYES: Brown, Cutull, Hood, and Lyon
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
6. Conditional Use Permit 00-2
770 Pacific Coast Highway
Applicant/Owner: Tom Lao, TI Planning
Request: To permit a drive-through coffeehouse where a drive-in
restaurant currently resides.
Recommendation: Recommend approval, subject to conditions and as further
revised by the Planning Commission after considering
public testimony. Adoption of Resolution No. 00-18.
Staff Reoort
Mr. Cummins delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the
Planning Department.) He provided some background information on this item and
stated that the drive-through coffeehouse was being proposed for the current
location of the Burger King fast food restaurant at the corner of 8t" Street and Pacific
Coast Highway. He presented photographs of the proposed location and provided a
description of the property. He stated that the property measures over 12,000
square feet and the proposed hours of operation were from 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.,
which are the current operating hours for Burger King. He described the
surrounding land uses as follows:
SOUTH: Residential housing in Residential High Density (RHD) Zone.
17
C Y Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes o/ May 17, 2000
EAST & WEST Various commercial zones in C1 and C2 Zones.
NORTH: Residential housing in a Residential Low Density (RLD) Zone
He reported that the structure on the property was originally a bank building. In
1994 this building was converted for the Burger King restaurant. He stated that the
current application for a drive-through coffeehouse requires a Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) in a General Commercial (C2) Zone. He reported that a landscaped
atrium area, which will not be used for seating for patrons, will replace the play area
currently in use. He stated that in 1994 a Variance was granted allowing 24 on-site
parking spaces and a CUP was also granted to allow for a drive-through window.
Mr. Cummins noted that the required parking was 1 parking space for every 100
square feet to equal 24 parking spaces for the building, which measures 2316
square feet. The 24 parking spaces also include 1 handicapped parking stall. He
noted that generally the Planning Commission is concerned with noise from use of a
drive-through window, but Staff has no major concerns since Burger King has used
the drive-through for approximately 6 years. He stated that Staff recommends
approval of CUP 00-2 subject to conditions, including a twelve-month review based
on the following:
1. CUP 00-2 is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan.
2. The proposed outdoor use is consistent with surrounding uses.
3. The building and property are adequate in shape, size, and topography to meet
the needs of the proposed use.
Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Brown asked if the 2316 feet excludes the atrium area. Mr. Cummins
confirmed this and stated that the actual square footage for the building is
approximately 3200 square feet.
Public Hearina
Chairperson Hood opened the public hearing.
Mr. Tom Lao of TI Planning stated that he was present as a representative of the
applicant for this CUP. He introduced Ms. Cindi Farrel, a representative of
Starbucks Coffee.
Ms. Cindi Farrell stated that Starbucks would like to provide their quality product to
the community of Seal Beach. She said that this would provide a safe and
comfortable place for the Seal Beach community. She stated that the addition of
Starbucks to this area would provide an alternative to the current present fast food
presence. She described the modifications and improvements to be made to
prepare the site for business and stated that Starbucks would be an asset 10 the
Seal Beach community. She reported that on a national level Starbucks donates
1s
C I Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes or May 17, 2000
over $4 million annually to charities and volunteers thousands of hours in community
events. She described some of Starbucks' volunteer and community involvement.
Ms. Jane McCloud stated her opposition to having Starbucks located anywhere near
Main Street or the Seal Beach Center. She said that she did not think Starbucks
should be allowed on Pacific Coast Highway as people drive into or out of Seal
Beach via Main Street. She noted that the public had opposed having a Starbucks
coffeehouse on Main Street and Pacific Coast Highway. She said there were three
coffeehouses on Main Street and the Daily Grind in the Seal Beach Center, which
adequately serve the citizens of Seal Beach. She said she feared Starbucks coming
to town, as it is predatory to existing "mom and pop" businesses. She stated that
approval of CUP 00-2 could put the existing coffeehouses out of business, as it
would be very convenient for visitors to drive-through on Pacific Coast Highway to
buy coffee. She said that small business in Seal Beach must be protected and
recommends denial of CUP 00.2.
Mr. Rick Edwards stated that he was concerned with the amount of traffic the
morning coffee crowd would generate. He reported from data he had reflecting that
the second largest chain of coffeehouses generates 200 cars per hour in traffic, as
opposed to Burger King, which generates 20 cars per hour. He stated that Pacific
Coast Highway is the largest artery in and out of Seal Beach and he did not believe
that this amount of traffic could be accommodated within a residential area. He
questioned the scale measurements for the 9 vehicles drawn on the site plan and
stated that if there were 9 vehicles lined up in the drive-through driveway, the last
car would be hanging out into 8'h Street, as has been observed before. He said that
the increased traffic makes for a very dangerous intersection and recommends
denial of CUP 00-2.
Mr. Whittenberg noted that although the site plan accurately shows the scale of 1/8
of an inch to equal 1 foot, this reduced copy of the plans makes the scale inaccurate.
Mr. Reg Clewley stated that he is in favor of allowing the Starbucks drive-through,
because it is a good project and would provide increased tax revenues for the city.
Regarding the comment made about Starbucks being predatory, he noted that the
coffeehouse business is a tough business. He stated that there could also be "mom
and pop" burger places on Main Street that could call for elimination of any other
hamburger chains within the city. He said there is enough room to accommodate
the coffeehouse and there is adequate parking. He said he does not see a problem
with having Starbucks in Seal Beach.
Ms. Debbie Edwards described the problems with driving in and out of the current
drive-through due to the 180 -degree turn. She also noted that if there are more than
8 cars waiting in queue, the parking lot is blocked and cars cannot exit. She said
that the Daily Grind in the Seal Beach Center has two drive-through windows and
there can be in excess of 8.12 cars lined up during rush hour. She stated that with
only one drive-through window at Starbucks, the line of cars would be out onto the
19
C if Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of May 17, 2000
street and blocking the parking stalls making it difficult for other cars wanting to park
in or exit these stalls. She also noted that for eastbound travelers there were two
ways of entering the parking lot: Through the front driveway or via one driveway on
the alley side of the building. She commented that the residents accessing their
garages from this alley would have a problem with cars coming through the alley to
access the drive-through in the mornings or even parking in the alley, blocking
access to Pacific Coast Highway. She explained that eastbound cars entering from
Pacific Coast Highway could create congestion by blocking the cars attempting to
turn right onto Pacific Coast from Marina Drive. Westbound traffic would have to
turn left on Main Street, right on Electric and right on 8'" Street to access the
coffeehouse, or they could attempt to tum left at 8' Street from Pacific Coast
Highway where there is no signal or stop sign. She noted that currently no left turns
into the alley are allowed and she speculated as to whether patrons of Starbucks
would honor this. She described the various routes available for exiting the parking
lot to continue eastbound or westbound along Pacific Coast Highway and stated that
this would contribute to traffic congestion within the residential areas along 8"
Street, 5t' Street, and Electric Avenue. She noted that this would also create
increased congestion along Pacific Coast Highway during the peak morning hours
and expressed her concern for the school children who cross Pacific Coast Highway
in the morning at the 12'" Street crosswalk. She stated that she was concerned that
this "morning -driven business" was being placed on the wrong side of Pacific Coast
Highway within the busiest business area of Seal Beach.
Mr. Darrell Pasch stated that when Burger King opened for business he had
concerns regarding noise from the speaker box, traffic, etc. He said that they have
been very good neighbors. He said that he was very impressed with the data
presented by Ms. Edwards as he lives next to Jack -In -the -Box and has observed
many car accidents even with the small amount of traffic at this location. He noted
that with the amount of traffic expected at Starbucks, there could be even bigger
problems with traffic accidents. He questioned Staff as to whether residents in the
neighboring apartment complex had been sent notice of this project. Mr.
Whittenberg responded that he would review the file and provide an answer. Mr.
Pasch stated that he was concerned about outdoor seating, and he did not want to
be subjected to noise from deliveries prior to 6:00 a.m. or after closing time. He
explained that there was currently a problem with delivery trucks for Jack -In -the -Box
turning into the Burger King parking lot and creating noise between 2:00 a.m. and
4:00 a.m. He stated that he would like to see the closing time for Starbucks
changed from 12:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.
Mr. Whittenberg reported for the record that a Proof of Service document is on file as
well as a list of the addresses to which the notice for this public hearing was mailed.
The list also includes the adjacent apartment complexes.
Ms. Susan Cooper stated that she had noticed how the queue cars lined up in the
drive-through lane at Burger King do block cars parked in the stalls. She said that
this creates a "traffic nightmare" in the parking lot. She noted that it is very difficult
20
C if Seat Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes Of May 17, 2000
for cars to make the sharp U -tum in the drive-through lane. She also noted that cars
entering from the all also create congestion when they are attempting to enter the
drive through lane. She also expressed her concern at patrons having to cross the
drive-through lane in order to access the entrance to the coffeehouse. She said that
although this was a great location for a bank, it is not a good location for a restaurant
or coffeehouse.
Ms. Farrel stated that she wanted to address the concerns expressed by the public.
She stated that she did not believe that the coffeehouse would generate any more
traffic than the current use as a fast food restaurant. She stated that Burger King
has been in operation for 6 years and the current queuing of cars as they enter the
drive-through to make the U-turn has not been an issue. She reported that
Starbucks is proposing to move the current drive-through window forward by about
20 feet, which will allow more room for cars in the drive-through lane. Ms. Farrel
stated that there was to be no outdoor seating and that there had been a
misunderstanding regarding the 200 -car per hour statistic. She said that the data
Starbucks has compiled reflects approximately 200 cars per business day.
Chairperson Hood closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Cutuli stated that although there were already a number of
coffeehouses in Seal Beach, he did not feel that competition from Starbucks should
be restricted. He noted that competition in this world is taken for granted and the
Planning Commission should not see this as an issue in approving this project. He
said he would like to see more data regarding traffic patterns in this area at various
times of the day. He suggested that if the queuing lane were moved closer to the
planter on the south side of the parking lot, this would make for a larger, wider curve
in the drive-through lane making it easier for cars to maneuver the U-turn of this
lane. He commented that the design for the building needed to be nicer with more
landscaping. He said he would like to see a different design before voting on this
issue.
Commissioner Brown stated that regarding the issue of competition, he agreed with
Commissioner Cutuli. He stated that if the existing coffeehouses continue to provide
quality service, there should be no reason to attempt to restrict competition from
Starbucks. He said that he did not see how the Planning Commission could deny a
business from coming to town. He confirmed with Staff whether if the CUP for the
drive-through window were eliminated, Starbucks could still begin business
operations in town. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this was correct. Commissioner
Brown also confirmed that there would be no outdoor seating, to which Mr.
Whittenberg responded that there would be none. Commissioner Brown stated that
the issue was simply whether or not to allow a drive-through window at this location.
He said he would prefer to not have the drive-through window, but since Burger King
has had a drive-through window for the past 6 years, he did not see that this should
21
C. f Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes or May 17, 2000
be a problem. He noted that the wait time at coffeehouse was no longer than the
wait at McDonalds. Commissioner Brown stated that it would be difficult to find a
reason to deny this CUP.
Commissioner Lyon stated that based on all of the comments from the public
regarding traffic, he believes that Starbucks may have a difficult time in growing the
business if traffic and turn lanes make it difficult to get into and out of the
coffeehouse parking lot. He said he was not in favor of the drive-through window.
Chairperson Hood asked Staff what types of traffic studies were completed. Mr.
Whittenberg responded that there was no formal traffic study done. He said the
application was reviewed by the City Engineering Department who looked at the
circulation issues coming in and out of this location. He referred to the Staff Report
under the Conditions of Approval, which state that the City Engineer retains the right
to evaluate the traffic circulation system, and if necessary, come back before the
Planning Commission with modifications to the traffic circulation system. He noted
that Staff can acquire traffic studies from other areas, but until the business can be
observed in operation for a period of time, no determination can be made regarding
traffic flows. He stated that another of the Conditions of Approval is that the CUP
return before the Planning Commission after 12 months of operating, but the
Commission has the option of shortening this period if they so wish.
Chairperson Hood stated that based upon many of the concerns about traffic
expressed by the public, he was wondering if there was a way to approve the CUP
without the drive-through window and have a traffic study completed at the same
time. He said that he did not believe the Commission was in favor of a 6 -month or
12 -month review, because if traffic is as bad as presented, then it would be best to
deny the CUP. Mr. Whittenberg reported that if the CUP for the drive-through
window is denied, Starbucks can still open up for business without the drive-through
leaving the City with no mechanism to require that a traffic study be done. He
suggested that Staff could modify the review period from 12 -months to 6 -months and
have a report from the Traffic Engineer completed at the City level to see if, in fact,
there are concerns that require modification to the terms of the approval of the
project. He cautioned that issues of traffic flow on Pacific Coast Highway do fall
under the jurisdiction of CalTrans, and although the City may make a request of
CalTrans, they may not be in agreement with the request.
Commissioner Brown suggested that the Commission could deny the CUP,
Starbucks could still operate without the drive-through window, and perhaps, after a
period of operation, could re -apply for the CUP. Mr. Whittenberg noted that if the
CUP were denied, the applicant could not re -apply until after one year, unless the
Commission denied the CUP without prejudice. Commissioner Cutuli stated that he
would like to have Starbucks return with traffic figures for evaluation by the
Commission. Commissioner Brown noted that this would only be helpful if the
Commission also had figures from Burger King for comparison. He asked why
Burger King would no longer be operating from this location. Mr. Whittenberg
.s:
C. 7 Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes o/ May 17, 2000
responded that Staff does not normally inquire as to why a business is closing down.
Commissioner Brown slated that it would make a difference in the Commission's
decision if Burger King were ceasing operation due to a lack of business.
Public Hearinc
Chairperson Hood re -opened the public hearing to allow only the representative from
Burger King to respond.
Mr. David Steinberg stated that the idea of changing the use for the property was
due to a transformation process for the Burger King system. He stated that his
company was attempting to consolidate the Burger King locations for more efficient
operation and to increase marketing opportunities. He noted that this location was in
one of the outlying areas and the company is attempting to relocate it to a more
operationally beneficial locale. Commissioner Brown asked if the Seal Beach Burger
King was as busy as the company would like it to be. Mr. Steinberg responded that
the reason for closing this Burger King was that their district manager had spread
the stores out too far and this makes the manager less effective. He reported that
in looking for a similar use for the property they found that the transactions in this
Burger King are very similar to what you would find at a Starbucks coffeehouse. He
noted that transaction numbers were down for all Burger King locations due to a
decrease in marketing efforts. He stated that when Burger King was at its busiest at
this location, it was busier than the proposed Starbucks is projected to be.
Commissioner Brown asked if he had numbers on the drive-through transactions
during peak hours. Mr. Steinberg responded that data on transactions is done by
business day, not peak hours, so currently they report approximately 400
transactions daily, with drive-through transactions comprising 54% of this amount.
Chairperson Hood closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Cutuli stated that he would still like to see figures from Starbucks and
more exact numbers from Burger King to help make a determination on this issue.
Chairperson Hood asked if Staff could acquire this information and perhaps have the
Traffic Engineer analyze the data. Mr. Whittenberg responded that he was not sure
that an actual traffic analysis could be completed on such short notice.
MOTION by Cutuli; SECOND by Brown to continue Conditional Use Permit 00-2 to
the adjourned meeting of June 14, 2000.
MOTION CARRIED: 4-0
AYES: Brown, Cutull, Hood, and Lyon
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
23
Public Hearing re: Appeal of Approval of Conditional Use Permit 00-2
Planning Commotion Resolution 00-/9
770 Pacific Coast Highway (Starbucks Coffee)
City Council SmfReport
September 25, 2000
ATTACHMENT G
COMMUNICATIONS RECEIVED BY THE PLANNING
Cur00.2.A,p s, Rrz m 24
August 8, 2000 ME COPY
City of Seal Beach
Planning Commission
211 8`" Street
Sea] Beach, CA 90740
Dear Sirs
The Trip Generation Study for the proposed Starbucks at the current Burger King was based on
false and misleading data, all of which was provided to Linscon Law and Greenspan (LLG) by
Starbucks. None of the traffic counts or transaction data was verified by LLG or the Sea] Beach
City Staff.
Southland Car Counters is frequently contracted by LLG to perform traffic counts and some of
thew data on PCH traffic is included in the Starbucks Report. We therefore contacted Southland
Car Counters to perform traffic counts and provide us with actual, unbiased data.
Southland Car Counters data supports the following
urger Kine Traffic
Starbucks stated actual AM peak hour vehicle trips (in and out) at Burger King were
112-137. Southland Car Counters counted 37 vehicle trips (in and out) per AM peak hour.
Southland Car Counters numbers are substantiated by the Burger King Representative at the May
17° Planning Commission Hearing and by a traffic count we conducted on May 24th The
numbers Starbucks provided to LLG and on which LLG based their findings were inflated
303%.
Starbucks Traffic
Starbucks provided transaction data from averaging three of their drive-thru locations that they
stated were representative for estimating the potential of the proposed Sea] Beach Starbucks.
The locations were Palm Springs, Cathedral City, and Santa Monica. All the projected trip
generation estimates LLG made were based on this `representative average". One can only
question why Starbucks would average two drive-thm's located in hot desert retirement
communities two hours away with the Santa Monica drive-thru when the Hermosa Beach and
Lakewood drive-thru's are considerably closer.
The proposed Sea] Beach Starbucks has an ADT (average daily traffic) of 48,000 cars. However
Cathedral City and Palm Springs have ADT's of 12,000 to 14,000, approximately'/, the traffic of
the proposed Sea] Beach facility. The Hermosa Beach Starbucks drive-thru has comparable ADT
to Seal Beach (and is located in a beach community), but its traffic numbers were not used.
Lakewood is only 10 minutes away from the Seal Beach location and even though it bas 'h the
ADT of Seal Beach, it still has twice the ADT of Cathedral City and Palm Springs. The
Lakewood data was omitted. The ADT data was provided by the Traffic Engineering
Departments of the above mentioned cities and is easily verifiable.
Starbucks used an average of their Palm Springs, Cathedral City and Santa Monica drive-thru's
to LOWER their transaction numbers. The transaction data provided by Starbucks is not
forthright in that it does not compare apples to apples. His not an accurate representative for
estimating trip -making potential at the proposed Sea] Beach location.
No car count was included in the Traffic Study of the drive-thru espresso bar located across the
street from the proposed Starbucks. This is conspicuous by its absence. With 267 SF, The
Daily Grind receives 222 vehicle trips (in and out) per peak hour. These numbers are verified by
Southland Car Counters. With a 3,200 SF footprint and 2,312 usable SF Starbucks states they
will receive only 108 vehicle trips (in and out) per peak hour. It is ludicrous to believe that
Starbucks, with 10 times the useable SF, will generate half the traffic of a local "mom and pop"
shop located across the street.
The Starbucks projected trip generation numbers used in the Traffic Study for Table I and Table
2 were based on a 1600 SF Starbucks. Starbucks states that they really will only use 1600 SF,
"the remainder of the 3,200 SF floor area will be dead space". This 1600 SF of dead space is not
used in thew calculations for projected traffic generation- For comparison with Burger King,
Starbucks used 1600 SF and Burger King used 2750 SF. One can only conclude that even with
the inaccurate Burger King transaction numbers and the manipulated and misleading Starbucks
averages, Starbucks projected traffic will still be greater than Burger King's. The only solution
was to decrease their "usable" space by 500/6 from 3,200 to 1600 SF.
Linscou Law and Greenspan concluded that the development of Starbucks in place of the
existing Burger King would result in a net decrease of traffic. This conclusion is untrue because
it was based on inaccurate Burger King data and misleading and manipulated Starbucks data.
H took Starbucks three months to come up with the numbers they wanted for the results they
needed. However the FACTS are:
• Burger King does not have 137 —112 vehicle trips per peak commute hour. They have 37.
• Starbucks does not have 1600 SF of usable space, they have 2750 SF.
• The three locations Starbucks averaged to represent their trip making potential of 108
vehicle trips per peak hour do not accurately reflect the traffic Starbucks will generate at the
Sea] Beach location.
• The drive-thru coffee shop across the street at 1/10 the size of the proposed Starbucks
receives 222 vehicle trips per peak hour and more accurately reflects the trip making
potential of the proposed Sea] Beach Starbucks.
Common sense and true, accurate straightforward facts tell us that Starbucks traffic will be
significantly greater than existing Burger King and would therefore negatively affect the
surrounding neighborhood and cause unsafe and hazardous traffic conditions on PCH, 8th St.
Electric Ave. and Marina Drive, The Planning Commission should therefore deny CUP -002.
7
OOLnNtnt�QNQ M
N
L
X c
Lu oo
Z Q
d
ui Q
� C
m y r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r
Q
(D NrQhNNr N
c
an
N
Q
Cl)
E
N
Q
Q
Q
O
=
O
HhF
k
!
G
k
§
�
$
m
�
fr
x
/\@
7)
0u
■
W
4)
)
/ƒi
�
E
CD
SOUTHLAND CAR COUNTERS
VEHICLE AND MANUAL COUNTS
N -S STREET:
8TH ST.
DATE:
6/1/2000
CITY:
SEAL
BEACH
E -W STREET:
PCH
DAY:
THURSDAY
PROJECT#
0524001P
--==SOUTHBOUND =_-==EASTBOUND ---==WESTBOUND
NORTHBOUND
NL NT
NR
SL
ST
SR
EL ET
ER
WL
WT
WR
TOTAL
LANES:
0 1
0
0
1
0
2
0
1
2
0
2:00 PM
15 PM
30 PM
45 PM
3:00 PM
15 PM
30 PM
45 PM
4:00 PM
4 0
4
0
0
3
343
1
4
219
1
579
15 PM
0 0
1
0
0
7
465
3
3
319
0
798
30 PM
1 0
4
0
0
6
483
3
2
400
0
899
45 PM
4 0
2
0
1
7
523
4
2
280
0
823
5:00 PM
0 0
7
0
0
4
507
7
7
315
1
848
15 PM
0 0
0
0
0
8
639
4
3
362
0
1016
30 PM
0 0
7
0
0
5
562
7
2
323
0
906
45 PM
0 0
5
0
0
2
680
11
3
347
0
1048
6:00 PM
15 PM
30 PM
45 PM
TOTAL
NL NT
NR
SL
ST
SR
EL ET
ER
WL
WT
WR
TOTAL
VOLUMES =
9 0
30
0
1
42
0 4202
40
26
2565
2
6917
PM Peak Hr
Begins at
500
PM
PEAK
VOLUMES =
0 0
19
0
0
19
0 2388
29
15
1347
1
3818
ADDITIONS:l-WAY
STOP
NORTH
SOUTHLAND CAR COUNTERS
VEHICLE AND MANUAL COUNTS
N -S STREET:
8TH ST.
DATE:
6/1/2000
CITY:
SEAL
BEACH
E -W STREET:
PCH
DAY:
THURSDAY
PROJECT#
0524001A
NORTHBOUND
SOUTHBOUND
EASTBOUND
WESTBOUND
NL NT
NR
SL
ST
SR
EL ET
ER
WL
WT
WR
TOTAL
LANES:
0 1
0
0
1
0
2
0
1
2
0
6:00 AM
15 AM
30 AM
45 AM
7:00 AM
1 0
2
0
0
0
314
0
2
349
0
668
15 AM
2 0
3
0
0
1
364
4
3
529
0
906
30 AM
1 0
5
0
0
0
321
4
1
489
0
821
45 AM
1 0
3
0
0
4
491
2
6
525
0
1032
8:00 AM
0 0
1
0
0
2
356
2
6
443
0
810
15 AM
2 0
2
0
0
2
335
4
3
435
0
783
30 AM
4 0
1
0
0
1
251
3
6
341
0
607
45 AM
4 0
2
0
0
4
271
5
5
351
0
642
9:00 AM
15 AM
30 AM
45 AM
10:00 AM
15 AM
30 AM
45 AM
TOTAL
NL NT
NR
SL
ST
SR
EL ET
ER
WL
WT
WR
TOTAL
VOLUMES =
15 0
19
0
0
14
0 2703
24
32
3462
0
6269
AM Peak Hr
Begins at
715
AM
PEAK
VOLUMES
4 0
12
0
0
7
0 1532
12
16
1986
0
3569
ADDITIONS:1-WAY
STOP
NORTH
Southland Car Counters
Queue Study
Lm n: VMsW d k0 Wm laity a" PCH Date: d1M CBy: Seal Beall
M Bm St 6 PCN Day: numday P,OJM K 05240001
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
5:05am
0
+
0
405M
0
+
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
5:05M
0
0
0
Baoam
0
4AOpm
0
2
0
D
0
0
0
0
1
5 1D
0
0
0
8 15a
0
0
0
4:15pm
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5:15pm
0
0
0
0
1
8:20am
1
0
4.20pm
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5:"w
a
0
0
0
0
0
+
0
0
8 25a
0
4 25p
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5 25m
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
5:30am
0
4 3Dpm
0
0
0
0
0
o
1
0
0
0
5 30p
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5:35am
4 35p
0
0
0
D
D
0
0
0
1
535M
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
5:40am
4 40p
0
0
0
0
+
0
D
0
2
1
540M
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
a45am
0
4 45
0
a
0
0
D
0
0
0
1
0
5'45M
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
S:SOam
0
4:50M
0
0
0
+
o
o
0
0
0
s:SOpm
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
5:55am
1
455pm
+
1
0
0
0
0
00
0
a
0
1
0
0
515M
1
0
0
0
Rory DeMeire
SEAL -TEN PARTNERSHIP
321 8TH. Street
Seal Beach, CA. 90790
August 7, 2000
To Whom This May Concern:
Regarding the proposed drive-thru service for Starbuck's
Coffee House that is to be located at the site of Burger
King on the corner of P.C.H. i 8th. Street in the City of
Seal Beach:
I am the manager of the 10 unit apartment complex located
directly to the rear of Burger King. The apartment building
currently houses 16 people. It is necessary that some of the
tenants use street parking. Currently the over -flow of
customers visiting Burger King that park on the street have
caused our tenants to park a fair distance from their own
homes. Additionally, the drive-thru speaker creates a noise
nuisance and smog emission odor that prohibits our tenants
from enjoying a "quiet and clean environment" for which they
are entitled. Furthermore, there is excessive traffic on
8th. Street and in the alley between 8th. and 7th. Streets
as a result of the drive-thru service. We have had to
install a chain "block" to cut off the traffic that was
using the apartment's carport drive -way as an exit from
Burger King. From the information I have received,
Starbuck's will generate an even greater parking problem as
well as create a constant drive-thru noise and air pollution
issue.
On behalf of the tenants residing at 321 8th, Street, I
plead to the Planning Department and Council of Seal Beach
that they decline Starbuck's request for the drive-thru
service that will adversely affect our tenants as well as
other surrounding residents.
Thank ypu very much for your consideration
Mgr.
(562n 596-1933
pry OF SEAL SFACH
111
Brian and Suzanne Nelson
637 SouthAme Drive, Swl Be h, California 90740 562.A93.9392
July 19, 2000
City of Seal Beach
Planning Commission
2118th Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
Dear Sirs:
As residents of Seal Beach, we are writing to express our opposition to CLIP 00.2.
Allowing a drive -thin coffee business to be opened in the current Burger King
location does not make sense. The parking lot and drive -thin lane as they now exist
are only marginally acceptable. When more than 3 or 4 cars are in the queue, parking
spaces are blocked and the traffic flow is non existent. Additionally, these cars will be
trying to negotiate through this mess onto Pacific Coast Highway during the morning
rash hour. As any resident of the area knows, trying to make a left tum across traffic at
this time of day is nearlyunpossible. Making a choice to ADD to the congestion and
create hazardous conditions for residents, visitors, and pedestrians is not a wise
decision.
Please consider these issues carefully. We strongly ask that you deny CUP 00.2.
Thank you,
Suzanne and :Nelsm
June 7, 2000
Mr. Lee Whittenberg
Planning Department
City of Seal Beach
211 8`s Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
Dear Mr. Whittenberg,
We request that this information pertinent to the CUP 00-2 Drive-Thru at the
facility located at 770 Pacific Coast Highway be included in the Planning
Commissioners' packet for their review before the June 14, 2000 meeting. We are
available to answer any questions you or the Commissioners may have.
Sincerely, /✓/,�/�l�
Susan Co pey7v� u
562.594.9732
c r� t7 FCI L.� CU C.Lq
Debbie Edwards
562.598.8490
10821 Oak Street
Los Alamitos, CA
June 7, 2000
Seal Beach City Hall
211 8`" Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing regarding the Starbucks that you are considering
on the corner of Main Street and PCH. In our small town of
Seal Beach, we have many family run or small chain coffee
shops that depend on our business to stay in business.
Many families that live in Seal Beach own these coffee
shops and would be financially hurt with this type of
competition. It could even put them out of business.
Cinnamon Productions, Sweet Jill's, the Daily Grind, just to
name a few, are our hometown coffee shops. These are the
kind of places you go to get a muffin and a coffee and read a
newspaper, or get it to go, walk down the street and watch
the sunrise. It's the kind of place that when you walk in you
know at least half of the people there. Even though you're in
a rush to get to a baseball game at McGaugh to see your
son or daughter play, you find the time to catch up with an
old neighbor or your child's kindergarten teacher.
If we added a Starbucks, all of that would be destroyed. We
would become one of the towns where no one knows their
own neighbor. Starbucks is a nation wide "fast coffee' outlet
and is even well established on the New York Stock
Exchange. We do not need, or want, that type of impersonal
mass coffee distribution at the gateway of our community.
I am one of the many citizens of our small town that believe
that a Starbucks franchise would do nothing but disrupt our
pleasant, fair community.
Another concerned citizen,
Emily Grimm
8th grader of Oak Middle School