Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 2000-09-25 I I I 9-25-00 Seal Beach, California September 25, 2000 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in special and adjourned session commencing at 6:00 p.m. with Mayor Campbell calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Campbell Councilmembers Boyd, Doane, Larson, Yost Absent: None Also present: Mr. McIntyre, Interim City Manager Ms. Yeo, City Clerk The City Attorney joined the Council in Closed Session at 6:10 p.m. Mayor Campbell read the Notice of Special Meeting for the record as follows: "Patricia Campbell, 4433 Ironwood Avenue, Seal Beach Shawn Boyd, 229 - 7th Street, Seal Beach William Doane, 1401 Skokie Road, 83-A, Seal Beach John Larson, 13741 Annandale Drive, 18-G Paul Yost, 485 Schooner Way, Seal Beach NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a special meeting of the Seal Beach City Council is hereby called for Monday, September 25th, 2000 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 211 - 8th Street, Seal Beach, California, to consider: * a personnel matter relating to the position of City Manager, and * a conference with legal counsel relating to a matter of pending litigation. DATED THIS 19th day of September, 2000. Patricia Campbell, Mayor City of Seal Beach by Joanne Yeo, City Clerk ,City of Seal Beach" CLOSED SESSION It was noted that the Council would meet in Closed Session to discuss a personnel matter relating to the position of City Manager pursuant to Government Code Section 54957 and to confer with legal counsel relating to matters of pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(c). By unanimous consent, the Council adjourned to Closed Session at 6:04 p.m. and reconvened at 7:01 p.m. with Mayor Campbell calling the meeting to order.:rhe City A:ttorney reported that the Council had discussed the' items identified on the agenda, discussed an additional item as well in that certain facts were brought to the attention of the Council after the posting of the agenda with regard to a court case that came 9-25-00 out as of this date, although that case does not involve the City of Seal Beach it does have an impact on certain matters, no action was taken, the Council received the report. Yost moved, second by Larson, to find it was necessary to add the referenced item to the Closed Session agenda. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost None Motion carried I ADJOURNMENT By unanimous consent, the meeting was adjourned at 7:04 p.m. Attest: Approved: Seal Beach, California September 25, 2000 I The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular session at 7:08 p.m. with Mayor Campbell calling the meeting to order. The members of Boy Scout Troop 642 led the Salute to the Flag. Mayor Campbell introduced the members of Troop 642 and the Scout Leader, noted that this is the oldest Scout Troop in Seal Beach, founded by Planning Commissioner Hood, and presented each with a commemorative Seal Beach pin. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Campbell Councilmembers Boyd, Doane, Larson, Yost Absent: None Also present: Mr. McIntyre, Interim City Manager Mr. Barrow, City Attorney Mr. Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Chief Sellers, Police Department Chief Cushman, Lifeguard Department Ms. Beard, Director of Recreation, Parks, and Community Services Ms. Arends-King, Director of Administrative Services Mr. Cummins, Assistant planner Ms. Yeo, City Clerk I I I I 9-25-00 APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mayor Campbell requested that Resolution Number 4839 be considered prior to the MADD Awards. Boyd moved, second by Larson, to approve the order of the agenda as revised. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost None Motion carried ANNOUNCEMENTS Councilman Boyd announced that the Chamber of Commerce is sponsoring a riverbed cleanup at Coyote Creek on November 4th, and urged that those having an interest contact the Chamber office for additional information. Councilman Yost announced the upcoming California Paralyzed Veterans 5 and 10K run on the Naval Weapons Station, believed to be in November,~nd that Emtryforms and information will be available from the Recreation Department. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. Tom Lazarak, spokesman for the American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars, expressed appreciation for making a key available to the flag pole lqcated at the Municipal pier to allow for the lowering of the Flag on certain days throughout the year, and provided the Council and staff with calendars designating those specific days. Ms. Carla Watson and Ms. Emily Allebaugh-Frazier, Chair and member of the Founders Day Committee, stated they were present to promote the City's 85th anniversary celebration with festivities consisting of a parade around the greenbelt, concerts and activities on the greenbelt, announced that space is available for additional parade participation, booths as well, the festivities to be cablecast, mentioned the major donors to the event, it is hoped the fire truck will be available to carry the City Council, and that woodies will be welcomed as the theme for the 85th is "Surf's Up." To all high school students, Ms. Seretta Fielding, Seal Beach Boulevard, announced that enrollment is now open for Long Beach Junior Crew, such experience can be beneficial to college entry, suggesting that those interested contact the high school for further information. Mr. Doug Brown, 8th Street, said he spends time on the beach daily, however is disturbed with what he finds and displayed a large bag full of debris. He suggested a contest for school children for a slogan to possibly post on a large board or wall reminding people to not toss their trash, there is tar on the jetty rocks, said the employees who are paid to clean the beach is not enough, people should spend an hour or two regularly picking up debris, if everyone picked up just one piece the beach would be clean. He suggested the boats that use the ocean should be heavily fined for dumping, claimed that he personally filled five trash cans and three bags this past weekend, everyone needs to help, and said he will return to the Council every other week until something is done. Mayor Campbell stated that the Council is aware of trash on the beach, the Council does care, Council worked hard to attain two seats for Orange County on the San Gabriel River Conservancy, one of those filled by Seal Beach, to find a way to stop the trash from coming down the River, there are two kinds of trash, what can be seen and what can not be seen. Councilman Yost said not only did Orange County secure two seats on the Conservancy, the legislation was altered so that it included environmental language, the River cleanup mentioned by Councilman Boyd is being coordinated with the Conservancy and local colleges for volunteers, a diversion project is being worked on for urban runoff, that would be a 9-25-00 diversion of storm drains into the sewer system rather than into the River which in turn would make a considerable difference in water quality, this takes many people who are aware that this is a problem to be willing to spend the money to do something about it, he too frequents the beach and is very aware of the problem. He mentioned too that the proceeds from the upcoming surf contest go to the Surfrider Foundation which is dedicated to keeping the waters clean. Councilman Boyd noted that the City received a $350,000 State grant a year ago for the purpose of beach cleanup, money for diversion and other methods are funded by that grant, it just takes considerable time. The Mayor mentioned that a diversion program would prevent debris from ending up on the beach, and Councilman Yost said had there been a diversion means at Coyote Creek into the sewer system at the time of the last sewage spill it would not have been necessary to close the beaches, explaining that to do such a program money must firstbe found as well as people who understand the importance of such a project, also, to convince the Los Angeles Sanitation District that this is a reasonable thing to do, the Orange County Sanitation District has already recognized the importance of building out the District to handle the volume of water from urban runoff. The Interim Manager mentioned that the diversion that can not be seen is the bacteria, the diversion will take care of the bacteria, not the trash, there is ten million gallons flowing during dry weather and there is no one pipe big enough in the Sanitation District system to handle that, so it will take multiple diversions if it can be done at all, if it can be done it will be and that will be a means of cleaning up what occurs at the mouth of the River. Mr. Joe palmer, College Park East, noted his American Legion membership, and mentioned a recent letter sent to staff requesting to place a monument in Eisenhower Park to honor those who have passed on in the 20th century, those that are disabled, and those left behind, it is hoped the community will be supportive so they can begin their efforts. There being no further comments, Mayor Campbell declared Public Comments to be closed. I I PRESENTATIONS RESOLUTION NUMBER 4839 - RECOGNIZING ST. HEDWIG's SCHOOL - 40th YEAR Mayor Campbell read in full Resolution Number 4839 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, HONORING AND RECOGNIZING ST. HEDWIG's SCHOOL FOR 40 YEARS OF EXCELLENCE." Yost moved, second by Boyd, to adopt Resolution Number 4839 as presented. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost None Motion carried The Mayor mentioned that her children are graduates of St. Hedwig's and the children of Dr. Yost are now students. Mayor Campbell presented Resolution Number 4839 to Ms. Fox, principal, and Mr. Russell, Vice-Principal, and praised the 40th reunion celebration that was held this past Saturday. The Resolution was accepted with appreciation, noted that a vision of the School is to graduate students who will be contributing members and leaders of the community in which they live, and it is a pleasure to see that cities and church can work together as one happy family. I I I I 9-25-00 MADD AWARDS Ms. Sandy Guiterez, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, presented the MADD Award to the Seal Beach police Department in recognition of their efforts to prevent injury and save lives the Department recently applied for and received a tri-city grant which will allow monthly checkpoints which makes the community a safer place to live. She noted that the Duce Award has been created in addition to the Century Award for one hundred or more arrests, and presented the Duce Award to Corporal John Scott for thirty-one arrests during the past fiscal year, a previous Century Award recipient, and Lindasu McDonald for fifty-nine DUI arrests in the fiscal year. MS. Guiterez, on behalf of MADD, stated to the officers that 'to all of those whom you have saved, who do not know they have been saved, who do not know you exist, MADD thanks you.' Chief Sellers expressed appreciation for the recognition by MADD, not only for drunk driving but other traffic safety programs as well, noted that for several years Corporal Scott won the Century Award however when he advanced to Corporal there was no longer as much involvement with traffic enforcement, also, announced that Officer McDonald will be starting the motor academy this next week and will become the Department's first female motorcycle officer. ~ PROCLAMATION Mayor Campbell read in full the proclamation declaring October 2nd through October 6th to be "California Rideshare Week." Larson moved, second by Yost, to so proclaim. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost None Motion carried COUNCIL ITEMS APPOINTMENTS - SEAL BEACH CABLE COMMUNICATIONS FOUNDATION Boyd moved, second by Larson, to reappoint Mr. Laird Mueller, District One, Ms. Betty Martin, District Two, Mr. Peter Anninos, District Three, Ms. Audrey Kime, District Four, and Mr. Richard Davies, District Five, to the Seal Beach Cable Communications Foundation for the full two year term ending July, 2002. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost None Motion carried SEAL BEACH BOULEVARD - RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY ZONE Councilman Boyd noted discussions over a long period of time of improvements to Seal Beach Boulevard between Pacific Coast Highway and Electric Avenue, that area considered to be blighted, no real private investment, the City is preparing to make a public investment for street improvements, storm drains, etc. that will likely be implemented in conjunction with the development of the Shore Shop property. Councilman Boyd asked that staff develop alternatives for the properties lying between Landing and Electric Avenues, at present the area is a Limited Commercial zone, it is not felt desirable to remove that zoning, however options would be desirable that would allow a property owner to improve their property such as under a Residential Overlay Zone whereby a Limited Commercial use could be replaced with residential, and so moved. Councilman Yost expressed a concern with the concept of replacing commercial with residential as that relates to the sales tax base and the other properties in the area, and if 9-25-00 staff were to look at the request all options should be considered. That is one of the reasons for proposing an Overlay Zone said Councilman Boyd, noting that the property owners have asked that something be done as they can not sell their land and would prefer a residential option to the Limited Commercial. Councilman Larson mentioned that the Planning Commission recommendation at the time of considering the Shore Shop property was that the zoning be looked at. Councilman Boyd added that implications relating to the Coastal Commission will be looked into, his intent is that there be participation of the property owners of the area, and again, he would not want to remove the existing Limited Commercial. Councilman Larson seconded the motion. I AYES: NOES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost None Motion carried CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS "E" thru "J" Mayor Campbell noted that a payment to Home Depot for strapping ties was in error and has been voided. Boyd moved, second by Larson, to approve the recommended action for items on the Consent Calendar as presented. E. Approved the waiver of reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent to the waiver of reading shall be deemed to be given by all Councilmembers after reading of the title unless specific request is made at that time for the reading of such ordinance or resolution. F. Approved regular demands numbered 29220 through 29415 in the amount of $1,660,694.42, payroll demands numbered 9274 through 9463 and 9000383 through 9000394 in the amount of $245,437.l5, and authorized warrants to be drawn on the Treasury for same. I G. Approved the minutes of the September Ilth, 2000 regular adjourned and regular City Council meetings. H. Denied the claim for damages submitted on behalf of Mary San Paolo-Jones and referred same to the City's liability attorney and adjuster. I. Accepted the resignation of Ms. Harriet Fridell as the District Five representative to the Citizens Participation Committee, and declared the position vacant for the unexpired term ending July, 2002. J. Received and filed the Monthly Investment Report for July, 2000. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost None Motion carried I HISTORICAL PRESERVATION PROGRAM The Director of Development Services noted that this item had been continued from a meeting in March until the last meeting in April, however for some unknown reason had not been included on that agenda. The Director indicated that the request is for direction as to when the Council may wish to I I I 9-25-00 consider the item, suggesting possibly during the next fiscal year budget process as there would be some fiscal impacts, or, to not pursue the matter further. The Interim Manager concurred with review during the budget process unless there is a forthcoming pressing issue. 4 Councilman Boyd moved to postpone this matter until the 2000/2001 budget review. To a question of Mayor Campbell, the Director explained that at this point the Council has officially designated two locally historic properties, the Krenwinkle and Proctor houses, in addition there is an unadopted list of properties compiled by staff based upon information gathered over the years. To the question as to whether anything may be proposed for any of the unofficial properties during the next year, the Director said that would be difficult to predict given there has been nothing proposed for the properties on the draft policy statement list since it was prepared in 1991, should something be forthcoming for any of those properties it would be presented to the Council for consideration as was the Krenwinkle and Proctor houses. Mayor Campbell said she would not want to see one of the historic dwellings torn down where the City would have no say. It was the consensus of the Council to table this matter until the next budget review. PUBLIC HEARING / RESOLUTION NUMBER 4840 - APPEAL - CUP 00-2 - 770 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY - STARBUCKS Mayor Campbell declared the public hearing open to consider the appeal of the Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use permit 00-2, Starbucks coffee house. The City Clerk certified that notice of this public hearing had been advertised and mailed as required by law, and reported no communications received for or against the matter. Councilman Yost made the statement that on behalf of concerned citizens it was he who filed the appeal of the Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Permit 00-2, that he has no conflict of interest in this issue, no personal financial interest in the issue, he does live in close proximity to the site, and 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 it is felt that a de novo public hearing is necessary, that he could not make a fair decision on the issue without hearing from all sides, listening to all pertinent testimony, and after hearing all pertinent testimony from all sides it is felt he can make a fair and unbiased decision. The Director of Development Services presented the staff report, explained that this item is an appeal of the recommendation of the Planning Commission to approve the subject request, the application is a request of Star bucks to convert the existing Burger King facility at 770 Pacific Coast Highway from an existing drive-through fast food restaurant to a proposed drive-through coffee house use, and presented three options, as set forth in the staff report, for Council consideration at the close of the public hearing. As to the background of this matter, the Director reported the Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 17th, the item was continued several times to obtain additional traffic information as requested by the Commission, a continued public hearing was held on August 9th, at that time the Commission indicated their intent to approve the request subject to conditions, directed staff to prepare the appropriate resolution which was considered on August 23rd 9-25-00 and was approved by a five to zero vote, subsequently an appeal was filed by Councilman Yost in a timely manner for this public hearing and final determination. The Director explained that this property has had a number of approvals in the past, the building initially constructed as a bank with a drive-through teller window, in 1994 the request was to change the use to the existing Burger King operation which required a variance for parking and a conditional use permit for the drive-through window for restaurant use, those approved by the Planning Commission with a number of subsequent reviews for compliance with the conditions. He displayed photos of the drive-through lane, the access to the drive-through lane from 8th Street, through the parking lot, with exit back onto 8th Street, the property is within a C-2 commercial zone as are a number of commercial properties along the Highway, noted that the Main Street Specific Plan area does not include the subject property, the property to the south of the site is Residential High Density, the immediately adjacent property is a two-story apartment structure. The Director mentioned that the appeal set forth several concerns, one was the use of traffic data relating to trip generation as a Burger King versus a Starbucks and how that could be quantified and qualified, if possible, the Planning Commission made a specific finding with regard to that issue considering the testimony at both hearings. He mentioned that the Commission did receive the trip generation study prepared by Linscott, Law, and Greenspan, the Commission received opposing traffic information at both the May and August meetings from persons who did not support approval of the project and that was considered in the Commission determinations on the project. A second concern was whether a Starbucks is suitable for the location proposed along Pacific Coast Highway, a major issue before the Commission, in response reference was made to the minutes of the Commission meetings and a number of pages of discussion in the supplemental staff report for the August 9th meeting, the Commission ultimately made a decision that the use was suitable and compatible for the area, as conditioned, and the project was determined to be consistent with the General Plan. The Director noted the third issue of concern was the queue lane for vehicles waiting in line to access the drive- through window and the impact on the existing operation of the parking lot, the Commission again made a finding that the operation of the project would be satisfactory as conditioned and would not be a detriment to the operation of the facility, the queue lane would operate as it does currently, there have been no complaints with regard to that operation over the past six years. He referred to the fourth concern relating to traffic circulation and safety primarily from intersection movements at PCH and 8th Street and at the alley between 7th and 8th Street at PCH, there was considerable discussion of this and the trip generation study at the Commission level, the Commission determined to accept the traffic information prepared by Linscott, Law, and Greenspan which indicates that the intersection of PCH and 8th Street operates at a level of service 'A', the highest of operating levels, and determined that the proposed use would continue to maintain that level of service. The Director reported that the Commission then imposed four specific conditions that relate to the City's further evaluation as to how traffic ingress and egress might be evaluated if this project were to be approved by the City council, first, that the City Engineer reserves the right to restrict access to the parking lot from the alley if that were to become a concern during the initial operation stages of Starbucks, secondly a I I I 9-25-00 I standard condition imposed by the Commission to any conditional use permit which reserves the right to bring an application back before that body should i~ cause an is~ue.or concern to any of the departments of the Clty, the CommlSSlon then imposed a condition that during months three and four of the operation of the facility that Starbucks would pay the City costs to retain a traffic engineer to monitor the operation and prepare a report to be presented tO,the Planning Commission as part of the four month reVlew of the, use of the property, this to determine that once Starbucks lS in operation that the traffic projections set forth in the traffic study are fairly accurate or if there is a problem that needs to be addressed further, the Commission approved the request subject to the 'four month review under a noticed public hearing, this would determine whether or not to grant a request for additional time for further review or grant an indefinite extension. The Director noted that concerns five and six dealt with compatibility issues with the General Plan and the Main Street Specific Plan, the Commission found that the project was consistent with the General Plan in that the property is to be general commercial use in a general commercial zone, a restaurant and coffee shop are permitted uses in that zone, and are conditionally permitted uses if there is a drive-through window, the Commission did not address the Main Street Specific plan issue because the property is not within the boundaries of that Plan therefore the goals and pOlicies do not apply to this particular property. He pointed out that the Commission made four basic findings, that the use is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan, that the use, as conditioned, is consistent with the surrounding residential and commercial uses and that a restaurant with a drive-through window has been in operation on the site for several years, that the property is adequate as to size, shape, topography, and location to meet the needs of the proposed use, also the level of service set forth in the traffic study indicates that the existing and proposed uses basically generate the same number of trips on a daily basis, the study indicates that the coffee use would generate, on a twenty-four hour daily basis, less trips overall than the current Burger King operation, basically the same number of trips in the morning however less in the afternoon. The Director reviewed the three basic findings that need to be made to either approve or deny this request, is the use conditionally permitted in the zone, in this case it is, otherwise the project would not have been a public hearing before the Planning Commission, is the use compatible with the General Plan, the determination of the Commission was that it is however the Council does have some discretion in that area keeping in mind that the General Plan and zoning are consistent for the property, this is a conditionally permitted use, evaluation of that is whether the twenty-one conditions imposed by the Commission are adequate to assure that the use is compatible, and last, is the use compatible with, rather than detrimental to, surrounding uses and the community in general, that too an issue the Council will evaluate based upon the public testimony received and the recommendation of the Planning Commission. In reviewing the options proposed to the Council, it was noted that option two would eliminate the proposed drive-through window however would not eliminate Starbucks from being able to operate the coffee shop business, and under option three additional conditions could be applied to the project. . I I I I 9-25-00 ~ith,regard to the three to four month review, Mayor Campbell lnqulred as to what would be done if the traffic monitoring shows that a problem does exist. The Director explained that four months after Starbucks opens they are required to come before the Commission for a review of their compliance with the conditions to assure that they are operating in a manner that is not detrimental to the neighborhood, if at that time, ~ased on. the ~wo,month re~iew of the traffic monitoring lnformatlon, lt lS determlned that they are operating detrimentally due to the use of the drive-through window, the Commission has the authority to not allow further use of that window, and that is a CUP decision subject to appeal to the Council. He responded also that the drive-through pickup window would move towards 8th Street by about twenty to thirty feet from the window that currently exists, the entrance to the parking area and existing window are not proposed to change, the movement of the window would merely allow a couple of additional cars in the stacking lane once the order is placed and movement is then towards the pickup window. As to access from the alley, the Director stated it is understood that some people do use the alley access however it is believed that the majority of people use the 8th Street access through the parking lot. Councilman Boyd said his understanding is that a CUP is an entitlement that runs with the land, and question why, in this case, the issue is again before the Commission and Council for a new CUP. The Director responded that the item was before the Commission because of the proposed relocation of the pick-up window, and confirmed that had Starbucks not proposed to relocate that window they would not have been required to go before the Commission. Councilman Boyd then surmised that Starbucks could then open leaving the drive-through as it currently exists, the response of the Director was that that was technically correct however it is understood that their operational workings from inside the building did not allow maintaining the existing window. Councilman Yost inquired if Starbucks would then need to abide by all of the terms of the prior CUP, the response of the Director was that they would need to comply with all of the applicable terms of the existing CUP, and to that Councilman Yost made reference to a requirement for 'a minimum of 1,450 square feet of the interior of the restaurant to be permanently maintained as a childrens play area and playground management office, said management office may not be used in any way in conjunction with the operation of the restaurant,' again asking if Starbucks would need to abide by that condition. The Director stated that the condition that they can not use the area for public seating remains a condition of the request as it currently exists, the issue then becomes is a childrens play area appropriate for a coffee house use as compared to a fast food use, that issue would need to be given further thought. Councilman Yost then asked if that did not need to be amended before the Planning Commission. Having been a member of the Planning Commission at that time, Mayor Campbell recalled that the play area was designated because the parking area was not large enough to accommodate the entire building for restaurant use. The Director confirmed that to be true, also, when the variance was granted for the Burger King use in 1994 the options were to leave that square footage as a void area, the feeling of the City was that the use is the type that accommodates families thus the play area seemed to be appropriate, whether it is appropriate to make that same type of area available for a coffee house use is a somewhat of a different issue. To the question of how many parking spaces are required, the Director advised the parking I I I I I I 9-25-00 requirements are the same for a coffee house, one space per one hundred square feet of building area, it is believed the building is 3,200 square feet, the existing parking spaces are sufficient for the remaining portion of the building used for the Burger King operation. To the statement.that the void area could not be opened for customer use due to the lack of parking, the Director noted that that is not proposed in the Starbuck's application, the area remains a non public seating area. with regard to the Planning Commission hearings, Councilman Yost inquired if there was discussion as to whether more information could have been allowed after the hearing was closed, and that it would need to be renoticed. The Director stated that did occur, the information was not part of the public hearing record before the planning Commission, what has been provided Council is the public hearing record, that is the testimony the Commission received and what they based their decision on, after the public hearing had been held and was closed, the Commission gave direction to staff to prepare a resolution of approval, then at the public comment period at the meeting of August 23rd a number of people addressed the Commission with regard to reopening the hearing, bringing forth additional information for consideration, at that time staff indicated that the Commission could do so if desired however it would require reopening of the public hearing, readvertising and renoticing the hearing, the Commission determined not to do that, and based their decision on the information they had at that time, again clarifying that the reason that was not part of the staff report was that it was outside the formal public hearing record. It was confirmed to Councilman Yost that the queue for the drive-through window goes through the parking lot, who inquired if there was discussion of the function of the parking lot. The response of the Director was that it did come up however was not a major issue of discussion, the August 9th supplemental staff report indicated that the queue line was anticipated to operate basically as it does currently, the basic location of the drive-through window is not really changing, the thought was that there may be a bit more congestion in the parking lot in the early morning hours than there might be otherwise based on the trip information provided by Linscott, Law, and Greenspan showing that the a.m. peak hours would be basically the same for both uses, and mid-day and evening hours would likely be less with a coffee house versus a restaurant use. Councilman Yost said then the configuration was left the way it exists with the exception of moving the window forward to accommodate another car or two, and asked who obtained the traffic study, the response of the Director was that it was Starbucks, once the Commission asked for additional information Starbucks contacted the City and asked for the names of firms that the City has used and have been satisfied with that do that type of work, Linscott, Law, and Greenspan was one of those, then Starbucks selected the firm. Councilman Yost asked if staff had any oversight or input into what other like businesses would have been considered as part of the trip generation study. The Director stated there was no oversight, staff did comment on a draft version of the document that was provided the City, the draft did an analysis based on nationwide trip generation studies through the Institute of Transportation Engineers, they have about a three volume set of documents on traffic studies for a whole range of land uses, staff indicated that that was likely not sufficient and requested that the analysis also include an infield analysis of existing trip generation at the current Burger King operation, that allowed Linscott, Law, and Greenspan to take 9-25-00 actual trip counts on several different days for comparison with nationwide average numbers, that the reason for the length of time between the two hearings. Councilman Boyd mentioned that the focus of this hearing is to look at the Conditional Use Permit as it relates to the drive-through, not whether or not they can come into this building. The Director confirmed that to be the basic request for consideration, the record of the Commission hearings and the supplemental staff report indicates that based on the change to the interior of the building from a fast food restaurant to a coffee house use it is also felt that the floor plan amendments proposed would also come before the City as a conditional use permit request, the reports also indicate that it would be difficult to find a way to deny a request to do an interior remodel of the building just because Starbucks is wanting to change the seating and kitchen arrangements in' that they would be removing a great deal of mechanical food preparation equipment that is not necessary for a coffee house use. I Mayor Campbell invited members of the public wishing to speak to this item to come to the microphone and identify themselves. Mr. Reg Clewley, Seal Beach, urged the Council to deny the appeal and sustain the recommendation of the Planning Commission to grant the Conditional Use Permit which pertains to the continued operation of the currently permitted drive-through window, which will again be reviewed' by the Planning Commission after four months of operation. He said this matter has little to do with the protection of local business, had the appellant been concerned with the protection of local businesses he would have called for legislation to protect super markets from the predatory practices of other markets, or the boutiques on Main Street from the KMart store planned for the Bixby project, would join others before the Coastal Commission to call for the protection of the mesa above the wetlands on the Hellman property from the predatory practices of Hellman Properties, and supported a bed and breakfast establishment, a commercial enterprise that will be more damaging to the area than the continued operation of a drive-through window. He said if the people of the City do not approve of the drive-through window then Starbucks will not operate one, just as Pavilions did not follow through with operating twenty-four hours a day despite the CUP allowing them to do so. If patrons of Starbucks buy things other than coffee the window will go away as sales will not justify keeping the window open, there is no need for the Council to burden the City with unfunded liabilities with a pronouncement that the applicant can not operate the window, the City will be sued and lose. Mr. Clewley asked that Starbucks be given an opportunity, they are entitled to operate a coffee shop. Mr. David Steinberg, Director of Development for L & R properties, owners of the subject property, also the operators of the Burger King, said this particular site has been tested, has been a Burger King for six years without traffic problems or concerns, no queuing or parking lot problems, no noise or trash problems, no adverse effect on the community, the reason for considering changing out this Burger King is because the company is consolidating its efforts and focus on a more localized area, transformation of their system mandates that, the owners are the largest independent franchisee for Burger King with one hundred forty plus sites, owning about sixty percent of the properties, and they take pride in their properties. His job was to look for a tenant that would fit this location, someone non-controversial and pose a benefit I I I I I 9-25-00 to a community, Starbucks use by its nature is a gathering spot that does not provide alcoholic beverage, it is a concept that promotes an opportunity for young people to sit and communicate with one another, as property owners his firm has oversight in the continuation of their property upkeep, Starbucks occupies a couple of their properties, they are a community minded tenant, take pride in their facility and operation, treatment of their customers, and involvement in the community, it was an opportunity to bring them here. He claimed the spearhead of anti-Starbucks development at this location is by a competitor, yet they have a right to do business in the community, his firm has the right to own a property that provides an income, it is not felt that Starbucks should not be allowed at the location because they provide competition, the entire area is fast food restaurant row, their goal is to stop the fast food restaurant look, create something different, a more pedestrian friendly kind of use. Mr. steinberg noted that the traffic study was done by someone recommended by the City, it is a reputable firm, the study reflects the sales trend, how Burger King would compare with a Starbucks, they were interactive with the City as to how the material was reviewed. If this is denied, Mr. Steinberg asked how the City would want them to use their property, would an auto shop be desired, it is a permitted use, another burger use would be the same kind of situation, the proposed use was thought to change the topography of the area, in his opinion his company and Starbucks is an asset to a community. Mayor Campbell noted that Mr. Steinberg is a representative of the owners of the property and the operators of Burger King, and inquired if the parent company of Starbucks is the same parent company of Burger King. Mr. Steinberg stated that was incorrect, and noted that during the several occasions of Planning Commission review over the six years of Burger King there have never been problems, and the desire is a continued use of the property by Starbucks. Mr. James Cook, 8th Street, stated he resides across the street from the subject location, spoke in favor of Starbucks, he would not want to see alternative uses previously mentioned across from his house. He noted that the comment that there were never problems associated with Burger King are not entirely correct as their hours of operation were always an issue during their annual CUP review. Mr. Cook stated he would support approval of Starbucks with conditions, that the striped graded area on PCH at 8th Street be removed and be made a right hand turn lane only, it is currently not safe, the hours of operation must be specified, there is no Code enforcement at night, also, there can be a drive-through window but without a speaker. With regard to hours of operation he said the neighborhood changed with the operation of Burger King in that the prior bank use hours were lO:OO a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Fridays, 3:30 p.m. on weekdays, closed on Saturday and Sunday, Burger King has been 6:00 a.m. until midnight. To an inquiry as to the hours of operation, the Director reported the business hours recommended by the planning Commission are 6:00 a.m. to 12:01 a.m. daily, the last customer service at 11:45 p.m. with all patrons out of the building at 12:01 a.m., the drive-through window operation is from 6:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m., there shall be no interior maintenance between 12:30 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. of the same day, no exterior maintenance between 12:01 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. of the same day, and no deliveries between 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. With regard to the right hand turn lane onto 8th Street, the Director mentioned that would need to be taken up with the Engineering Department, that is a CalTrans roadway, it is not 9-25-00 certain they would consider such a request, it is uncertain whether the Engineering Department has had such discussion with CalTrans. As to whether or not the left turn lane from PCH onto 8th Street could be maintained, the Director said his understanding is that the position of the Engineering Department, based upon the traffic report, is that they did not expect the traffic to be any different than it currently exists, that is one of the reasons the Commission felt it was appropriate to approve the request yet be subject to a four month evaluation once the use is in operation to verify that the projections are reasonably correct, if not the Engineering Department review would determine if further intersection modifications would be an appropriate condition. Mr. Andrew Zin, Seal Beach, stated that it is most likely the area could not get a more friendly corporate company, they allow employees to work twenty hours a week and provide benefits, there are people in this community that need such benefits, it is not known how many Main Street businesses can do that, Starbucks is supportive of anti-drunk driving programs, donate their day old bake goods and coffees to charities, their employees do environmental cleanups, financially support people in third world countries. Mr. Zin said he has followed the company for a number of years, they are a quality corporate company who cares about their employees. Mr. Robert Lebison, Development Manager for Starbucks Coffee, said he believed that staff has addressed most of the issues regarding safety and land use. Mr. Lebison said he wished to address the issue of predatory practices, reported that the owner of this Burger King approached Starbucks for this location, fact is that Burger King is winding down its operations, this particular operation is outside of a hub of several Burger Kings and makes it impractical for them to manage. This Burger King is currently running on a minimal crew with no marketing, instead of closing the business and creating an eyesore for the community, the owner felt it would be best to have Starbucks take steps to take over the building with minimum down time, Starbucks did not seek out the site, Starbucks is not in the business of displacing independent businesses, on this site the replacement is of a brand name four times the size of Starbucks, hardly an independent business, the belief that Starbucks is driving small coffee houses out of business is false, statistics show that ninety percent of small businesses fail for various reasons, further, the Specialty Coffee Association of America is quoted in U.S. News and World Report that ten years ago there were a few hundred coffee houses nationally, now there are over ten thousand, the Association credits Starbucks for playing a major role in raising awareness and creating a demand for specialty coffee houses and the resultant opportunity that that brought for many small businesses. Starbucks believes it is a different kind of company in different ways, community minded on several levels, they are the largest corporate sponsor of CARE, they have entered into a partnership with Conservation International to further develop shade grown coffee which does not require cutting of forest canopies, they have entered into an alliance with Transfair USA to establish fair trade pricing for coffee growers, have attacked the literacy in three hundred eighty-two schools in South American and African countries by funding school construction and providing supplies for children, have entered into an agreement with Magic Johnson for the development of new shopping centers, which includes Starbucks, in inner cities throughout the country, and last year in an alliance with baseball's Mark McGuire, Starbuck's Out of the Park Into the I I I 9-25-00 I Books program donated more than $250,000 to local literacy groups. Mr. Lebison stated that Starbucks takes pride in the design of their stores, try to fit each store with the community rather than try to impose a 'one fits all' plan, the Seal Beach site offers an excellent example and an opportunity to do something different because they have agreed to use only one thousand six hundred usable square feet of the existing building, that due to the issue of the play area, there is an opportunity to use that space for an artistic display, a botanical display, or one showing the process of coffee growing, roasting, and brewing, an opportunity to do something different and fitting to the community, and to enhance the drive-through side of service, consideration is being given to the installation of a separate coffee bar dedicated solely to drive-through customers. Mr. Lebison said on a local level the company donates coffees and pastries to charitable organizations and are involved in AIDS drives, the Belmont Shore facility is developing a compost program to recycle spent coffee grounds, the Lakewood facility donated coffee to the Long Beach Community College softball team, Starbucks is community minded globally, nationally, and locally, for each store opened there are between twelve to twenty partners hired, their employees are considered as partners, when they work twenty hours or more they receive full medical benefits, a 401K savings plan, a discounted stock purchase plan, and a stock options plan, they provide an opportunity for artists, for those who wish to start their own business, for seniors, and moms that want extra income, that is why Starbucks is ranked in the top one hundred companies to work for. Mr. Lebison said in 1971 there was only one Starbucks, it was in Seattle, their growth has been the result of delivering a consistently quality product, they have grown through the years without any television advertising, it has been word of mouth, Starbucks serves coffees and creates places where people can gather to read, talk, and socialize over a quality coffee drink and a comfortable atmosphere, at this location it is felt their commuter customers can be best served by offering them the option of walking in or served by a drive- through window, but they do not have to use' the drive- through. It is felt that Seal Beach has the Starbucks customer that is not yet tapped, however there are some that do not like Starbucks for their own various reasons, people are different, and they welcome diverse comments as this public hearing allows, but it is felt that this Starbucks will be welcomed by a majority of Seal Beach residents. Mr. Lebison asked that the Council weigh the value of a free enterprise system, which is the foundation of America, the decision as to what brand of coffee is poured into a consumers cup, whether it be walk up or drive up, should not be made by a government body such as a City Council, neither should it be made by Starbucks or its competitors, it should be made by the person holding the cup. Mr. Lebison said Starbucks is asking the opportunity to provide Seal Beach with another choice. Mr. Gene Vesely, Trailer Park, said as a coffee lover and as a promise to his daughters, he was present to support Starbucks provided the childrens play area remains, objected to its reference as a dead area as it is filled with children daily, if it can not be retained it should be supplemented. Ms. Sandra Rodriguez, current and previous thirty year resident, expressed her support for Starbucks, the focus of the discussion is supposed to be on the drive-through window and its relocation, this is not a discussion of predatory businesses. Mayor Campbell inquired about a rumor that Starbucks is locating in the Bixby Center, I I 9-25-00 Mr. Lebison responded he was not aware of that. At the request of the Mayor, the City Attorney confirmed that the issue of discussion is the relocation of the drive-through window, there are some interior modifications, there is some question as to whether those modifications comply with the existing CUP, however the primary reason for this hearing is the window relocation, with respect to local businesses versus national chains, that is not the issue, explaining that the City can not make a choice based on the tenant, again, the issue is the window, land use issues such as traffic and noise are what the speakers should focus on, public safety as well. I It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to declare a recess at 9:02 p.m. The Council reconvened at 9:16 p.m. with Mayor Campbell calling the meeting to order. Mayor Campbell requested that speakers direct their comments specifically to the issue. Mr. Brian Kyle, Seal Beach, said he wished to respond to prior comments, Starbucks say they are community involved, say they are not predatory, but look at Belmont Shore, they opened up one, went down a few blocks and opened another, intentionally trying to take out existing coffee shops, they are not a good neighbor, they do have a predator point of view, it was said the Burger King improves their facilities, to him it still looks like a bank, they are going out because they did not make it. The drive-through window for Burger King probably should have never been approved, the bank had a drive up window, one car in and out, the timing was different, the population has changed, the car count on Pacific Coast Highway must be at least 60,000 per day, there is an alleyway, Marina Drive, PCH, and 8th Street, even with Burger King and being careful he has nearly been in accidents at that location, he can assure there will be a problem, especially in the morning hours, although free enterprise can not be stopped, to a number of merchants this is not good, they may locate here but they do not need the drive-through, he would take pride in saying there are no such businesses in Seal Beach, now there is. Mr. Kyle said his recollection was that the Specific Plan made mention of imposing a sub-zoning to keep chain operations out of this community, this is not just Starbucks, it is what comes with them, that is what will happen, this will creep around the corner onto Main Street, they will buy off an existing business to put their operation on Main, if the desire is to keep Main Street the way it is, this needs to be dealt with. Ms. Susan Cooper, Ironwood Avenue, co-owner of the Daily Grind, said she was not present to talk about competition, free enterprise is what this country is based on, rather, another American value, honesty, real traffic implications and risks to the public safety in this town. She stated that Starbucks knew that to receive approval of their CUP they needed to show the City that there would be no negative impact from traffic as a result of their drive-through window, to do that they needed to show two sets of numbers, a very low prediction of the impact their location would have and in comparison a much higher number for the existing Burger King, they provided a traffic report to the Planning Commission with the conclusion that the Starbucks would generate less traffic than does the current Burger King, that made no sense. Ms. Cooper said they have three drive-through espresso bars in Orange County, Starbucks has none, they know what kind of traffic their three stores generate, more specifically they know the traffic that is drawn to their drive-through here on PCH just blocks from the Starbucks I I 9-25-00 I proposed location. As the report was looked at more closely it was discovered that the three Starbucks stores that were used to average the numbers for their prediction of vehicle traffic were a curious combination, Santa Monica, a beach community, but the other two were two and a half hours away in hot, desert retirement communities with a quarter the traffic that this area of PCH has, why would those desert locations be used instead of a closer location, the answer is to drive down the average to make it appear that there would be no public safety concerns with the addition of their drive-through window, the question was why did they not use Lakewood, although half the traffic count of PCH in Seal Beach it is twice the traffic count of the desert communities. Ms. Cooper said they then hired the same traffic company that Starbucks used for their report to the Planning Commission, Southland Car Counters, they were asked to perform two traffic counts at peak morning rush hour, one at Burger King and one at Starbucks, Lakewood, the numbers were referred to by a member of the Commission as an earthquake of information however could not be used in their approval of the CUP. She reported the number of vehicle trips per morning rush hour, in and out, as Burger King, forty-one, Starbucks, Lakewood, one hundred ninety-one, that is one hundred fifty more vehicle trips per hour, as to the average daily traffic, Burger King, Seal Beach, forty-two thousand, Starbucks, Lakewood, twenty thousand, half the traffic, twice as many cars go down PCH, still Starbucks, Lakewood, does one hundred fifty more vehicle trips than does Burger King, Starbucks will generate more traffic and create a public safety issue, to expect the people to believe that there will be less traffic generated by Starbucks than with Burger King is ludicrous. Ms. Cooper made mention of a gridlock situation this evening at 6:00 p.m. where she could not reach the opposite side of the street, it is a similar situation in the morning rush hour. Consider another one hundred fifty cars going in and out, crossing at the curve on PCH, a block away from the Main Street stop light and pedestrian walk where children cross for school, and a turn lane that holds two cars in queue, one can not say there is no threat to publ~c safety. Ms. Cooper asked that the Council use the unbiased and substantiated information as a basis for reversal of the Planning Commission decision to allow the Starbucks drive-through, suggesting that the problem not be allowed to happen and then try to correct it four months from now, Fountain Valley denied Starbucks, so can Seal Beach. Ms. Chris Schreiber, six year Seal Beach resident, formerly, Seattle, stated she is well acquainted with that local, small neighborhood Starbucks, and all too well acquainted with the congestion of their parking lots, surrounding streets, sidewalks, and how long it takes them to make a coffee drink, that in combination makes a long line, that made for congestion in quaint neighborhoods, frustration, and greatly diminished the safety of pedestrians. As a professional, having planned the workload for a half billion dollar company, she could not fathom how it was mathematically calculated that the current number of spaces at a single drive-through window would accommodate this large of a population base with this limited square footage of asphalt and this busy highway, could be close to an acceptable use. If the decision rests on moving the drive-through twenty to thirty feet to allow for one to two more cars, will make the CUP acceptable, mathematically and logically ,this is not enough, anyone who has been to a Starbucks knows this to be a fact. She would fear what the caffeine starved, backed up onto PCH, u-turn flipping, I I 9-25-00 zipping down the alley, and someone just cut me off commuters is going to do to the safety of the school children and pets, and to the quiet streets of this town. Ms. Schreiber asked that the temptation of corporate dollars not become more important than the sense of real community that this community has, Seal Beach being one of the last vestiges of community in Southern California, be proud of that and keep it forever. Mr. Riley Forsythe, Seal Beach, stated that the General Plan for Seal Beach is the document that dictates what should and should not occur in the City, Specific Plans that pertain to specific areas of the City fall under the umbrella of the General Plan, the creation of the Main Street Specific Plan began in 1993 and was completed and adopted in 1996, the Plan was based on information that was garnered from several public meetings and surveys mailed to twelve hundred residents and businesses. The Main Street Specific Plan includes the previous C-l zoning districts surrounding Main Street, it is important to note that the Main Street Specific Plan, while seeming somewhat restricted to Main Street just by its name, is under the umbrella of the General Plan which categorizes this entire area as the coastal section, it would be hard to argue that the subject location is not in the coastal section of the City which would then be consistent with the goal established on page five of the Land Use Element under the heading of commercial development designation stating that a Specific Plan should be developed for the coastal business district, which it has. Mr. Forsythe stated that the Specific plan includes the coastal business district and thus implements the goal of the Circulation Element of the Land Use Element of the General Plan to improve traffic circulation in the coastal section of the City, and to state that this is not an intensification of use affecting traffic is incorrect, the building was originally designed for a bank and its traffic management was engineered for that use, to intensify the use of Burger King and then to a drive-through coffee shop, which affects prime time traffic is undeniably an intensification. He noted the intersection of Marina and Pacific Coast Highway is already dangerous, pulling out from Marina Drive to turn right onto PCH requires constant monitoring of on-coming traffic, one not only must watch for on-coming traffic but those who are turning out from the Bay City Center parking lot. He said to have traffic slowing in front of Starbucks will cause attempts to navigate entry onto 8th Street and will compromise the safety of cars making that turn, the intersection is always gridlocked at prime time, this is a public safety issue that can not be ignored. Mr. Forsythe stated that the vision statement adopted with the Specific Plan reads that 'although it is recognized that an area will have businesses that both serve residents and visitors, the goal is not to have visitor serving uses overwhelm the area at the expense of the small town character,' other quotes are that 'what makes a community special is often the very same factor that causes pressure for change, the more charming a town appears the greater the demand upon the community from the outside, the need to serve the visitor brings with it new businesses that can change the character of the town.' Mr. Forsythe mentioned a recent locally shot video features the Police Chief and a youth encouraging a 'shop locally' theme, supported by the Chamber and the City, it would be a shame if the effort that went into this campaign were lost and the City turns around and ignores the effort and philosophy and accommodates a business that will force local businesses out. He mentioned also that there are cities that have adopted laws that prohibit chain stores from coming into their I I I 9-25-00 I community, he noted too that the disdain of people for Starbucks have become topics for talk shows because of their aggressiveness and over-concentration, other Orange County cities have denied their requests for drive-throughs, yet this City is welcoming them and turning a back to the locally owned businesses that hire local kids, donate generously to the community and the schools, and serve the public in a friendly manner. He said corporate Starbucks does not even know where Seal Beach is. In summary, Mr. Forsythe confirmed his concern with a predatory type business taking root in the community and driving out locally owned businesses, concern with the traffic impacts, safety of residents and their children at an already dangerous intersection, concern as well with the incompatibility and disregard of the City's General Plan and Specific Plan, those issues must be satisfied before an approval can take place and a finding must be made that this area is not in the coastal area of the City therefore not affected by the Specific Plan and therefore not affected by the vision adopted in 1996 for the City of Seal Beach. Mr. David Bird, twenty year resident/property owner, said his comments were not against Starbucks, he would be one of the first in line for a cup of coffee. Mr. Bird stated this is a great City, there is a good team running the City, the City is a business, money comes from the people, the money is managed to bring the best to the community that is possible in terms of schooling, health, and safety, his two issues are safety and liability as there is a potential danger in terms of traffic, accidents, and congestion, there is a liability that stems from traffic and traffic planning, the amounts of money spent on litigation is unbelievable as compared to the cost of a cup of coffee. To the comments that the bank was open only part time, that the Burger King is not doing well, and that Starbucks will have less traffic makes no sense, Starbucks average ticket item is probably about half that of Burger King, people going down the highway are going to make an investment in a frosty beverage, they can drink it while driving, Starbucks is not going to move into a location and have less customers on a lower ticket item than Burger King and stay in business, they are taking the location because they know they will sell so many beverages, and if he were the property owner he would look to rent the property to a rich company. Mr. Bird stated that if a drive-through is allowed from the beginning it will be very difficult to get rid of, possibly it should be looked at in terms of what kind of traffic problems are created by a stand alone operation first, before making a decision on the drive-through, why would Starbucks spend the money on a drive-through with the knowledge that in four months they may have to close it down. Ms. Jane McCloud, Balboa Drive, said she wished to clarify that it was her request to her Council representative to appeal the Planning Commission approval of this matter, that decision was made as it is an established practice that Councilmembers do make appeals. Ms. McCloud agreed with all of the concerns relating to traffic, she agreed also with free enterprise that gives people all of the opportunities they need in their field of work, however based on the purpose of the Main Street Specific Plan, expressed concern with the predatory nature of Starbucks and the decision to permit this particular major chain without protection that should be afforded the mom and pop coffee shops that preserve the character of Old Town Main Street. Noting the approval of the Main Street Specific Plan in 1996, the Plan is the long range vision for the preservation and enhancement of downtown Seal Beach, it is recognized that businesses serve I I 9-25-00 residents and visitors but not at the expense of the small town character, the greater the charm appears the greater the demand on the community to change the character of the town, a quote stating that 'chain stores bid out local uses, drive up the rents, and drive out local uses, traditional small, one of a kind stores, have trouble competing with the big box chain stores, the Main Street Specific Plan is a design to address these issues.' Ms. McCloud said after she had presented her predatory concerns at the Planning Commission discussion was brief and it was stated that competition was part of free enterprise, to that she agrees, however she also knows that nationwide news reports tell of the predatory nature of Starbucks, specifically on mom and pop businesses, and expressed her belief that any decision regarding chain stores must reflect careful consideration not only with regard to respect for fair enterprise, but also to uphold the Main Street Specific Plan and the necessary actions needed to prevent big business that will threaten and destroy similar mom and pop stores. She claimed that fast food stores are known to be user friendly, they do not threaten restaurants, but if Starbucks comes to town the future of several businesses ~ill be at great risk, nationwide reports tell that one or more of these businesses will fail and the decisions made are setting them up for demise, this can be a first step in losing what is here, it is important that the necessary steps be taken to protect them, the Main Street Plan was designed to do just that, protect the small town atmosphere by making decisions that promote mom and pop businesses that created and continuously sustain the history of Seal Beach, her feeling is that the intentions of the Main Street Specific Plan were given no consideration whatsoever with regard to Starbucks. Ms. McCloud said if it is the intention to change the Main Street Specific Plan, if the village quality of life is to become a thing of the past, her feeling is that that decision does not belong to five people on the Planning Commission nor the five members of the Council, it belongs to a vote of the residents of Seal Beach. Ms. McCloud requested that each member of the Council do the research, study, and evaluation that is necessary to uphold the current Main Street Specific Plan which also serves to protect small business entrepreneurs who are the heart and soul of this small historical village. Ms. Rose Angulo, Seal Beach, said she wished to speak to the Planning Commission action that a CUP would be granted only if it would not be detrimental to the surrounding community as a whole, and even though traffic is the main area of concern, her feeling is that the ramifications reach much further, many have raised concern with the affect that Starbucks will have on small family owned businesses, those businesses are important to the community. As a former student representative to the Board of Education, employee of a small business, and previously a large corporation she has seen how small businesses contribute to the development of students into productive, responsible citizens, this coincides with the mission statement of the Los Alamitos School District, her work experience in Seal Beach has been a continuation of the education process, skills that can not be gained from classroom lectures. Ms. Angulo spoke to the contrast between the contributions of small, family owned businesses versus large corporations such as Starbucks, personal growth as a responsible citizen that is not possible in a large corporation just by their nature, in Seal Beach the community is the central part of daily life, relationships with customers are encouraged by the business owners where in the corporation atmosphere they are only a dollar sign and the I I I I I I 9-25-00 employee is responsible only to the company, small business also encourages academic excellence where corporations are indifferent, work schedules revolve around the school schedule, small business is supportive of student events, and although the corporation offered part time employment it was on their schedule with no regard for the education schedule, jeopardizing either the employment or grades, some may argue that this is the real world however her belief is that small businesses in Seal Beach provide a transition between school and work that is a benefit to students. Ms. Angulo stated that the Council has the ability to determine the future of many family owned businesses, urged that consideration be given to what would happen if a corporation like Starbucks, that target mom and pop businesses, is allowed to come in and take over, think about the affect on students, small businesses, and the sense of community. Mr. Rick Edwards, twenty-five year resident, said his specific concern with Starbucks is the drive-through window, there has been considerable talk about traffic, counts, etc., the Lakewood Starbucks, half the traffic of PCH yet four times the trips in and out, Seal Beach would be eight times the trips. There have been thirty-one accident reports in the past fifty-one months near or on PCH at this location, would eight times that be acceptable, this information is available through the Police Department. Mr. Edwards mentioned that he heard comments with regard to noise, the window, order speaker, etc. at the Commission meetings, and reported that at one point the Starbucks representative mentioned to someone that the property is zoned C-2 therefore nothing could be done about their use, to which he asked if that sounds like a good neighbor. Mr. Lucius Martin, Crestview Avenue, an anthropology major, said a big part of the culture of Seal Beach is surfing, there are children that frequent the beach for that purpose in the early hours, expressed concern with the drive-through window and increased traffic, and encouraged the Council to think about lives and not numbers. Karen, Seal Beach resident, described her experience of being hit by a car on two occasions while riding her bike on Pacific, Coast Highway, her concern is with the increase of traffic, there have been many people speaking out against Starbucks and the drive-through window, she would object to the hours of operation as well, stated that the Council is supposed to represent the people who live in the City and keep the environment safe. Dr. David Rosenman, Seal Beach, expressed disappointment that the Planning Commission chose to not renotice a hearing before them upon having new information presented. Dr. Rosenman also stated that prior criticism of members of the public and elected officials was unacceptable. He described his personal experiences with regard to the difficulty to access Pacific Coast Highway in morning hours, if the request of the applicant is granted he predicted that in time there will be a solid curb from Main to 5th Street with no turns allowed and access to businesses in the area only through a signalized intersection, to do less would place people at risk, a risk as well with regard to financial liability as a result of potential lawsuits. Dr. Rosenman objected to the drive-through. Ms. Kristin Hazelleaf, Fir Avenue, read a piece she authored relating to a charming little town by the sea, in came Starbucks, things changed, and the charming little town was no more. Ms. Jennell Bray mentioned her employment at the Daily Grind, some months past she went to Starbucks to work, it did not make her feel good, she was merely a number, harassed, denied a break and forced to walk out, it appeared they want to be the only coffee shop. Ms. Bray said she returned to the , 9-25-00 Daily Grind and they accepted her back. Mr. Ron Bennett, Seal Beach, said when this matter came before the Planning Commission in August the Commission Chair limited the discussion to traffic, the owners of the Daily Grind spoke only to traffic issues as did the Commissioners until such time as one Commissioner changed the discussion to competition, to that Mr. Bennett relayed his personal story of opening the Bennett Coffee Company on Main Street, in searching for quality bagels and bakery goods his son inquired as to sources from the owners of the Daily Grind who shared their information with him, they went out of their way to help a direct competitor, competition is not an issue. Mr. Bennett made reference to a statement made by the representative of Burger King that instead of closing the restaurant they kept it open and merely stopped advertising and cut back on staff, however, anyone who has developed property in this town knows that had they closed and it remained as such for six months and one day they would have lost their CUP, that is why they did not close. With regard to the trip generation study, Mr. Bennett reminded that PCH handles over 42,000 vehicles per day, the Cathedral City Starbucks has l2,000, Palm Springs has 14,000, in his opinion the trip generation study was ordered, that not the fault of the company who did the study, they were told what result was wanted. Mr. Bennett questioned why a drive-through is wanted, for everything that is spent at the drive-through there is no tax coming to the City, yet if one purchases something inside the store the sales tax does come to the City, in his opinion get rid of the drive-through, let people frequent the inside of the store and pay the sales tax. Mr. Bennett expressed his belief that the project is detrimental to the City, the CUP should be denied, the sales tax is needed, it is known that Starbucks stores do more business through the drive-throughs than walk-ins, this will create a traffic problem, and it will not be possible to turn left from northbound PCH. I I Mr. Lebison said he would first like to rebut the excluded stores from the trip generation study, offered that the traffic count at PCH and 8th is approximately 48,900, 48,000 on PCH and 900 from 8th, Starbucks and businesses in general that are either in the food service business or related do not draw solely from traffic that passes the frontage of the property, they draw from intersections and clusters of traffic, therefore to compare the traffic count on PCH to Cathedral City where the store fronts one street yet close to a corner you have to add in the traffic on the cross street because the business comes from the intersection. Mr. Lebison distributed a table showing the characteristics of the five Starbucks drive-throughs, showing why Hermosa Beach and Lakewood were excluded, the columns show demographic information for one mile, daytime population for one mile, total population, daily traffic count, and additional activity generators around the site. Mr. Lebison directed attention to the daytime population, one mile radius column, the subject site 10,614, Cathedral City 13,085, daytime population for the subject site is 4,75l, Cathedral city is 2,226, total population for the subject site is 15,365, Cathedral City 16,311, total traffic at PCH/8th is 48,900, Cathedral City 47,000, the subject site is between Jack In The Box, Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, and McDonalds, the businesses adjacent to the Starbucks in Cathedral City is a Del Taco, Burger King, and Arubios Tacos. Mr. Lebison claimed that Cathedral City is the closest match to the subject site of the five locations, if the intent had been to lower the I ";;',.;.,'.- -. I, I I 9-25-00 figures they would have certainly excluded Santa Monica, yet it was included in the study, the driving characteristic that separated these sites was that this location feeds off of a commuter arterial primarily, it does not have other retail generators around it that makes consumers aware that Starbucks is there. He mentioned Hermosa Beach with a traffic count of 82,601 vehicles, intersection of PCH and Aviation, part of a Ralphs shopping center which draws people in daily, the Lakewood store is between Clark, Lakewood Boulevard, and Candlewood, Candlewood has 19,412 cars but that is not the sole source of business, Lakewood Boulevard carries 40,000 cars, Clark carries 21,000, the total is 81,000 vehicles, it is across the street from the Lakewood Mall, and he described the numerous businesses within a half mile. Mr. Lebison said the main criteria is that the subject site feeds off of a commuter arterial, that is why the high volume Santa Monica store was included with its density and its traffic, it was known that it would raise the figures but it had the criteria, Palm Springs was included however it can be shown that that traffic count is low because it is further off the intersection yet feeds off of a commuter arterial, again, Cathedral City is the closest match. Mr. Lebison said the desire of the community to preserve the local businesses is understood, also, that the subject site is outside the area of the Main Street Specific Plan therefore not subject to the requirements of the Plan. He offered his thought that the left turn onto 8th Street, the lack of stacking in the drive-through lanes, that concern, if real on the subject site, should also be real to their nearest competitor because access to their nearest competitor is through a left turn over PCH for the eastbound traffic at an uncontrolled left turn lane, they have two drive-throughs, a two car stack for their drive-throughs, therefore, if the concern for safety is real why is it so selective. There being no further comments, Mayor Campbell declared the public hearing closed. Councilman Yost inquired as to the trips per day on Marina Drive including the intersections. The Director responded that he did not have that information at this time, it would be necessary to access the last traffic counts. It was the consensus of the Council to reopen the pUblic hearing to allow rebuttal comments from the representative of Burger King and the subject property. Mr; Steinberg said he was uncertain as to what the new traffic information was that was distributed to Council, likely what came up at the last Commission meeting where there was a trip comparison of Burger King to Starbucks, if so, that was somewhat skewed. Mr. Steinberg stated that the reason the Burger King is closing is not due to lack of sales, rather transition, they are directing their focus of business into a more confined area, this store and a couple others in this region and others throughout the country are outside where the main grouping of their stores are located, that creates a difficult burden on their support staff for the operation, the district managers spend more time in their vehicles going to outlying sites such as Seal Beach, the reason for doing this at this point is that Burger King is going through a transformation process where franchisees are being required to invest considerable monies in their stores to upgrade image, marketing, etc., that would be done here if the site were closer to the other stores, it is not logistically sound for Burger King to do that, when the decision was made to put this site on the disposition list he approached the firm felt 9-25-00 to be best suited to locate there, Starbucks, at that point Burger King ceased to invest in that restaurant so there is a natural drop in business, add to that the publication of the plan to close the store which causes more drop of business, therefore the current traffic counts are not a true depiction of what their store has been doing, what they used to compare Starbucks and Burger King trips were on a more equal plane, that was when more business was being done. To the comment that the business was left open so that the CUP would not be lost, Mr. Steinberg said that was not the case, their company owns sixty percent of their properties and the managers take pride in how they keep their image, image is everything in their company, in fact they have removed large users out of a project where their company has invested more than a $l million in preparing to take that project forward, that was because they were not active in the community thus not felt to be the tenant that was wanted on their property, there are also properties where Starbucks is the tenant and it is known what kind of tenant they ,are, they were satisfied that Starbucks would represent them as a member and owner in Seal Beach to a standard befitting the community. There being no further comments, Mayor Campbell declared the public hearing closed. I The Director of Development Services reported that the traffic counts on Marina Drive between 6th Street and PCH in August, 1999 where just over five thousand trips per day, during the morning between 6:00 and 7:00 a.m. about four hundred trips, between 7:00 and 8:00 a.m. less than four hundred trips. Councilman Yost said to him this is an issue of public safety and traffic, it would not make sense to approve this and should there be a problem then disapprove it, it would make more sense to allow them to come in without the drive- through, he was also not pleased when the site changed from a bank to the Burger King, his feeling was that it was inappropriate and an intensification of use, this a further intensification, and prior to even considering the CUP he would prefer to have a neutral traffic study that is not paid for by the applicant. with regard to competition, that is desirable, he understands also that a business can not be excluded, he also understands the Main Street Specific Plan and the reasons behind it, there have been other places that have had similar issues and problems, they have been documented in the news, said he does fear for Main Street if other higher priced chains come in, that drives up the square foot rent and there has to be more business done to support a higher rent, in turn that increases traffic, density, and changes the flavor of Main Street, that is not something that a decision can be based on, but a decision can be based on safety and traffic, in his opinion the intersection of PCB, 8th, and Marina is dangerous. Councilman Yost stated his preference would be to deny the Conditional Use Permit, welcome Starbucks to the community, and if there are no problems then consider a drive-through window at a time after the four months, indicating his intent to make that motion. Councilman Doane questioned the statement relating to the payment of sales tax, at the drive-through none, inside the business yes. The Mayor indicated her belief that take out food is taxed differently than when one eats in the establishment. Councilman Yost stated again that if there is to be consideration of the CUP that a valid traffic study be obtained first from an independent company, this is major to pUblic safety and the City has been put on notice of a I I I I I 9-25-00 dangerous situation and should there be a problem at that site after being put on notice that increases liability. It was clarified to the Mayor that this location is outside the Main Street Specific Plan. The Mayor mentioned that some of the issues raised can not be given consideration, predatory practices, Starbucks has a legal right to locate there, the issue that is under consideration is the drive-through window, if they were to not change the existing window this would not be under consideration, there will likely be a Starbucks, the question is the form of window. Councilman Yost noted that the original CUP required the play area and all else. The Director mentioned that the issue of drive- through and no drive-through window was discussed at the Commission hearings, the August 9th supplemental staff report indicated that the floor plan proposed changes are significant enough to require a Conditional Use Permit, therefore there are phases of the project under consideration, one is whether or not to allow the drive- through window to be relocated, if the decision is to not allow the relocation the Council still has the right to determine if the drive-through window under a different use would cause significant issues and should be denied, the other issue is to determine whether or not the proposed interior modifications to the building for the seating area for a Starbucks as opposed to a Burger King and new food preparation area from fast food to a coffee area are acceptable, as indicated in the staff report to the Planning Commission it was felt it would be difficult to find that the interior remodeling of the building for seating and reconfiguration of the food preparation facilities would be detrimental to the community, that would be without the drive-through window, the square footage would not change from what exists, the issue then is whether or not the play area is required to remain, at present the play area is only to be utilized by customers and their children, it is presumed that if the play area is desired to continue that condition would also apply to Starbucks, also, the Council has the authority to modify that condition. Mayor Campbell asked which scenario of the drive-through windows is seen as causing the least of traffic problems. The Director noted that he is not a traffic engineer, however it would be' thought that from a mere operational characteristic if there is an additional capacity for more cars to be in line once an order has been placed that would relieve cars from being in the parking area waiting to get into the line, whether that is enough to make a significant change on the internal operations of the parking lot is unknown, that would likely not be known until the business were to open and it is seen how people will respond to a new business on that street, they may have more or less people, that could be why the Commission placed a very short review period on the project to see if that is an issue that would need to be resolved, there would then be hard data based upon actual use of the location without having to interpellate information from other locations and communities and what the ,reaction will be from people traveling Pacific Coast Highway and the residents of the community, yet as pointed out through testimony, the people of the community have a number of choices of coffee places. Councilman Yost said again it would make sense to let them open and see what the results are, noting that the coffee house in the shopping center has seven entrances and exists, two of which are signalized, two having stop signs, where Starbucks would have only one which is off of 8th Street, and he has yet to see mitigation measures in terms of what would happen with the queue of cars winding through the 9-25-00 parking lot which will then become dysfunctional, and inquired if there is any means for a car to get out of a parking stall with such a queue of cars. The response of the Director was that it will require people to be cooperative in the lot, that lot has operated similarly for six years and it is quite likely that there have been such situations during those years, the difference may be a greater number of cars I during morning hours than there have been with Burger King, the Planning Commission considered the two uses to be ' generally similar based upon the trip generation information provided them by the traffic engineer. Mayor Campbell asked if the feeling is that the relocation of the drive-through window would not have as great of impact on traffic. The Director offered that it is likely there would not be as many cars stacked into the parking lot area as there would be with the existing location of the window, it is unknown whether that would be a significant change, and again confirmed that the proposal is to move the drive-through window towards the 8th Street side of the building by about forty feet. Councilman Boyd emphasized that the issue under consideration is drive-throughs, that he has said before that he does not vote for drive-throughs, his feeling is that they are not consistent, particularly in a residential area, and even though it abuts Pacific Coast Highway there is concern for the residents on 8th Street, if he had his choice the existing drive-throughs would not be there. Councilman Boyd moved to sustain the appeal, revising the decision of the Planning Commission, not permitting the use of the proposed drive-through window as part of the business operation. Councilman Yost seconded the motion. Councilman I Larson sought clarification that Starbucks could operate with the old window and would not be subject to any of the conditions imposed. The Mayor again stated that Starbucks can not be denied to operate, if the appeal is sustained that does not deny the existing drive-through window. The City Attorney noted that if Starbucks is consistent with the existing floor plan, they can keep the existing drive-through window, that is a condition of the existing Conditional Use Permit, they would need to be in substantial compliance with all of the conditions of the existing CUP. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Yost Larson Motion carried The City Attorney advised that a resolution with findings will be presented for consideration at the next meeting. RESOLUTION NUMBER 4841 - PARCEL MAP 2000-19l - BIXBY OLD RANCH PROJECT - RESIDENTIAL / POLICE/COMMUNITY TV PARCELS The Director of Development Services presented the staff report, explained that the Parcel Map would approve reparcelization and increase of size of the lot that was set aside as part of the Bixby project for the community police substation and community television facility on property located immediately north of the shopping center, the initial approval of this lot was part of the vesting Map approval of the residential phase the size of which was 50 feet by 130 feet, there have been a number of meetings between the police, community television and Bixby people, the building has now grown in size from 6,500 square feet to approximately 22,651 square feet, therefore the parcel needs to be increased to accommodate the building footprint and parking area for that use. Mayor Campbell said she wished to bring forth a belated matter, when the Bixby project was considered I 9-25-00 I by the Airport Land Use Commission the project consisted of the shopping center and a church, the church use was then changed to residential, the configuration was changed as well, with either of these changes the project should have gone back to the ALUC, the houses should not be wrapped around the shopping center, this places them under the shorter runway and close to the end of the larger runway, who wants to purchase a $500,000 house with a Target loading dock at their backyard with noise and lights. Mayor Campbell asked that this matter be held over until it is considered by the Airport Land Use Commission for consistency with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan. Councilman Boyd asked if that is a necessary action. The Development Services Director responded that when the project came back before the Council for reapproval after the lawsuit, it did have additional environmental analysis, and he did not recall if it went back before the ALUC at that time, the Parcel Map however does nothing to change the residential area, it does increase the area for potential City use, if the residential area requires additional ALUC review that can be done as a separate matter. I Boyd moved, second by Doane, to find that Parcel Map 2000-19l is in substantial compliance with the previously approved Tentative Map, to approve Resolution Number 4841 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING PARCEL MAP 2000-191 (BIXBY OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN)," and instructed the City Engineer and City Clerk to execute said Parcel Map upon final approval as to accuracy and compliance with all required Subdivision Map Act requirements by the County of Orange Public Facilities and Resources Department. By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4841 was waived. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Doane, Larson, Yost Campbell Motion carried CITY ATTORNEY REPORT No report was presented. CITY MANAGER REPORT No report was presented. I COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilman Yost mentioned that the Hellman issue is on the Coastal Commission agenda for two weeks hence in Oceanside, this is to deed restrict the wetland area and approval of seventy homes on the bluff. Mayor Campbell recognized Ms. Nancy Beard for receiving an award from the California Parks and Recreation Society, the District Ten Coveted Leadership Award, and the Helen I. Pontius Award for outstanding professionalism, leadership, imagination, and creativity in the field of recreation and leisure services. The Mayor announced that her District newsletter was distributed this past weekend, to the mention that the City has receive~ matching funds for the paving of Lampson Avenue, half ln the spring of 2001, the other half in 2002, 70mments from residents of the area suggested that the~r streets, rather than Lampson, be done first, to that she explained that when such funds are received they can be used only for the use for which the application was made. ADJOURNMENT It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to adjourn the meeting until Monday, October 9th at 6:00 p.m. 9-25-00 / 10-9-00 to meet in Closed Session. By unanimous consent, the meeting was adjourned at 10:53 p.m. o clerk I Approved' ~(Jj)J~~/l~ AUe,t, C;}"'~?:1Lft Seal Beach, California October 9, 2000 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regul~r adjourned session at 6:00 p.m. with Mayor Campbell call1ng the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Campbell Councilmembers Doane, Yost I Councilmembers Boyd and Larson were present in the Conference Room pending the Closed Session. Absent: None Also present: Mr. MCIntyre, Interim City Manager Mr. Barrow, City Attorney Ms. Yeo, City Clerk The City Attorney advised that the public should be afforded the opportunity to speak at this time to any item listed on the agenda. There were no public comments. CLOSED SESSION The City Attorney announced that the City Council would meet in Closed Session to discuss the items identified on the agenda, an update on labor negotiations relating to the Police Officers Association and the Orange County Fire Authority pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6, and a conference with the City's real property negotiator, pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8, with regard to 201 - 8th Street, California Historic Properties, and lots 76, 77, and 78 of Lot A, Tract 15797, the easterly side of Seal Beach Boulevard from the intersection of Rossmoor Center Way, Bixby Land Company. The Council adjourned to Closed Session at 6:01 p.m. and reconvened at 7:10 p.m. with Mayor Campbell calling the meeting to order. The City Attorney reported the Council had discussed the items shown on the agenda, gave direction with regard to Item A-l and B, no other action was taken. I