HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1994-09-07
.
.
.
"
\
..,
CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA of SEPTEMBER 7, 1994
7:30 P.M. * City Council Chambers
211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, CA
Next Resolution: #94-35
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
II. ROLL CALL
ill. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
By Motion of the Planning Commission, this is the time to:
(a) Notify the public of any changes to the agenda;
(b) Rearrange the order of the agenda; and/or
(c) Provide an opportunity for any member of the Planning Commission,
staff, or public to request an item be removed from the Consent Calendar
for separate action.
IV.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
At this time, members of the public may address the Planning Commission
regarding any items within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Planning
commission, provided that NO action or discussion may be undertaken by the
Planning Commission unless otherwise authorized by law.
V. CONSENT CALENDAR
Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and are enacted by
one motion unless prior to enactment, a member of the Planning commission,
staff or the public requests that a specific item be removed from Consent
Calendar for separate action.
1. Approve Minutes of August 17, 1994.
2. Receive and File City Council Staff Report dated August 22, 1994 re: Comment
Letter on the Federal Implementation Plan (PIP).
The City of Seal Beach complies with the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990. If you require special assistance
to attend or participate in this meeting, please telephone the City Clerk's Office at (310) 431-2527 at least 48 hours
prior to the meeting.
.
.
.
Page 2 - PIaDniDg Commission Agenda for September 7. 1994
VI.
3.
Receive and File City Council Staff Report dated August 22, 1994 re: Response
to SCAQMD re: "Notice of Intent to Issue Permits to Operate - Platforms Ellen,
EUy, and Eureka (SWEPI) and Platform Edith (UNOCAL), Huntington Beach.
4.
Receive and File City Council Staff Report dated August 22, 1994 re: Notice of
Preparation - Queensway Bay Master Plan - City of Long Beach.
5.
Receive and File City Council Staff Report dated August 22, 1994 re: Seismic
Imaging Survey - Department of Interior.
6.
Receive and File Memorandum re: Dolan v. City of Tigard - U. S. Supreme
Court Decision.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
7.
Negative Declaration #94-1 [Continued from 6/8/94]
General Plan Amendment #94-1(A)&(B)
Zone Change # 94-1
Address:
Applicant:
Property Owner:
99 and 101 Marina Dr.
City of Seal Beach
Exxon Corp., Unocal Corp., and City of Seal Beach as
Lessee.
To amend the Land Use and Housing Element of the City's
General Plan to change the land use designation from Oil
Extraction (O-E) to Low Density Residential (LOR) and to
change the zoning designation from O-E to LOR on those
portions of the site currently utilized for onshore oil
separation facilities by Exxon and Unocal as Lessee and on
those portions of the site currently leased by the City of
Seal Beach and utilized for park and recreation purposes.
Request:
Resolution 94-35
Resolution 94-36
Approve Negative Declaration 94-1
Recommend City Council approval of General Plan
Amendment 94-1(A)
Recommend City Council approval of General Plan
Amendment 94-1 (B)
Recommend City Council approval of Zone Change 94-1
Resolution 94-37
Resolution 94-38
The City of Seal Beach complies with the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990. If you require special assistance
to attend or participate in this meeting, please telephone the City Clerk's Office at (310) 431-2527 at least 48 hours
prior to the meeting.
.
.
.
Pagc 3 - PIaDnmg Commis.im Agenda for Septembcr 7, 1994
8.
Variance #94-6
Address:
Applicants:
Property Owners:
Request:
Resolution 94-31
225 Main Street, Suite D
Robert Claborn & Melanie Hales
Charles & Virginia Burroughs
Approval to vary from the parking requirements of the
Service Commercial zone (C-l) for the establishment of a
hair salon in an existing 585 square feet retail building
located off Main Street in the rear of the Courtyard
Nursery complex. The proposed use will lack two (2)
parking spaces.
Approve Variance 94-6, subject to conditions in staff
report, as revised by the Planning Commission.
9. Conditional Use Permit #94-6
Address:
Applicants:
Property Owners:
Request:
Resolution 94-39
Seal Beach Shopping Center
Pacific Coast Highway
Deborah Edwards and Susan Cooper
Jerome Moss and Andrew Possell
To establish a drive-thru espresso bar within the existing
parking area of the Seal Beach Center (pavilions Center).
Approve Conditional Use Permit 94-6, subject to conditions
in staff report, as revised by the Planning Commission.
VIT. STAFF CONCERNS
vm. COMMISSION CONCERNS
IX. ADJOURNMENT
The City of Seal Beach complies with the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990. lfyou require special assistance
to attend or participate in this meeting, please telephone the City Clerk's Office at (310) 431-2527 at least 48 hours
prior to the meeting.
.
.
..
,
Page 4 - PIaDning Commission Agenda for September 7, 1994
1994 AGENDA FORECAST
SEP 21 CITY DEADLINE: . AUt) 17
CUP #92-2 @ 101 Main/SeaSide Grill/Review indefinite extension.
V AR #94-4 @ Sign application withdrawn @ Leisure World
OCT 05 CITY DEADLINE: AUa 31
OCT 19 . CITY DEADLINE: SEP 14
NOV 09 CITY DBADUNE: OCT 05
NOV 23 CI1iY DEADLINE: OCT 19
DEe 07 .
CUP #93-13
CITY DEADLINE: NOV 02
Papillon's @ 12 mos.lindef. exten. of entertainment.
DEe 21
CITY DEADLINE: NOV 16
STAFF REPORTS PENDING: NOT AGENDIZED
. ZT A #92-2 City-wide policy statement on entertainment.
. Study Session re: Proposed Newsrack Ordinance.
1he City of Seal Beach complies with the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990. lfyou require special assistance
to attend or participate in this meeting, please telephone the City Clerk's Office at (310) 431-2527 at least 48 hours
prior to the meeting.
Page 5 - PIaoning Commission Agenda for September 7, 1994
.
1995
JAN CUP #92-13/143 Main/Papillon's/12 mos entertainment
CUP #92-25/1400 PCH/Glider Inn/indefinite extension
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
ruN
ruL
AUG
SEP
. OCT
NOV
DEC
CUP #94-11600 MarinalRadisson 12 mos. ABC
Election of Chairman & Vice Chairman
.
The City of Seal Beach complies with the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990. If you require special assistance
to attend or participate in this meeting, please telephone the City Clerk's Office at (310) 431-2527 at least 48 hours
prior to the meeting.
.
.
.
-
.,
MEMORANDUM
To:
Mayor and Members of the City Council
From:
Interestro Individuals n/
Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development service~ I
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDAg;tember 7, 1994
- Agenda Items 2 through 5
Subject:
Date:
September 7, 1994
The above-referenced agenda items are not provided in the Planning Commission Agenda of
September 7, 1994, except for the Planning Commission and Staff. These items were previously
provided in the City Council Agenda Packet of August 22, 1994, and not copied again. Copies
of these staff reports are available at the Department of Development Services and at the local
libraries.
The above-referenced agenda items are:
2. Receive and File City Council Staff Report dated August 22, 1994 re: Comment
Letter on the Federal Implementation Plan (pIP).
3. Receive and File City Council Staff Report dated August 22, 1994 re: Response
to SCAQMD re: "Notice of Intent to Issue Permits to Operate - Platforms EUen,
EUy, and Eureka (SWEPI) and Platform Edith (UNOCAL), Huntington Beach.
4. Receive and File City Council Staff Report dated August 22, 1994 re: Notice of
Preparation - Queensway Bay Master Plan - City of Long Beach.
5. Receive and File City Council Staff Report dated August 22, 1994 re: Seismic
Imaging Survey - Department of Interior.
****
. D \WP51\FORMS\PCAOBNDA.MBM\LW\09-02-94
.~L
.'.
. -
. ,
'I
. ..
.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF SEPrEMBER 7, 1994
The City of Seal Beach Planning Commission met in regular session at 7:35 p.m. with
Chairman Dahlman calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chairman Dahlman
Commissioners Sharp, Law, Campbell, Brown
Also
Present:
Development Services Department
Lee Whittenberg, Director
Barry Curtis, Administrative Assistant
Joan Fillmann, Executive Secretary
Craig Steele, Assistant City Attorney
APPROV AL OF AGENDA
Commissioner Brown said his "yes" vote on this Motion would indicate his abstention from
Minutes of August 17th as he was not at that meeting.
. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Law to approve the Agenda as presented.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
5-0
Sharp, Law, Dahlman, Campbell, Brown
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Jim Caviola * 305 and 1117 Ocean Avenue. Seal Beach
Mr. Caviola stated he would like the City to initiate a program to encourage street tree planting
and maintenance on Ocean A venue. He objected to trees being removed and not replaced, to
the planting of trees without proper maintenance, to Queen palms looking like weeds, to the
south side of Ocean A venue looking awful because the property owners have removed all the
street trees and paved those areas which then become parking spaces. He felt there would not
be a problem with sidewalks lifting if the proper trees were selected. He said he would be
willing to donate $1000 to purchase ten flowering trees for two City blocks. He said this city
was designed to have a tree between every lot and there are humps between the driveways which
are painted red to indicate where a tree is supposed to be.
.
Chairman Dahlman asked Director Whittenberg which City department is responsible for tree
planting and maintenance and asked staff to report back to the Planning Commission on the
zoning laws relating to tree planting. Mr. Whittenberg said he would come back with a more
detailed report. Additionally, the City's Environmental Quality Control Board (EQCB) has been
working on an overall public street tree policy for the City. He felt it was close to going to the
.
.
.
. .
Page 2 - City of Seal Beach P1anning CamnusSIOII Minutes of 9-7-94
Chairman Dahlman asked Director Whittenberg which City department is responsible for tree
planting and maintenance? Additionally, he asked Director Whittenberg to report back to the
Planning Commission on the zoning laws relating to tree planting. Mr. Whittenberg said he
would come back with a more detailed report. Additionally, the City's Environmental Quality
Control Board (EQCB) has been working on an overall public street tree policy for the City.
He felt it was close to going to the City Council for consideration. This program would include
tree planting and replacement. Technically tree planting is not an issue the Planning
Commission would deal with because tree planting occurs on the public right-of-way and the
Commission deals with issues on private property. The EQCB will meet again on September
20th at 6:30 p.m. in City Hall.
CONSENT CALENDAR
MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Law to approve the Consent Calendar items as
presented:
1. Approve Minutes of August 17, 1994.
2. Receive and File City Council Staff Report dated August 22, 1994 re:
Comment Letter on the Federal Implementation Plan (FIP).
3.
Receive and File City Council Staff Report dated August 22, 1994 re:
Response to SCAQMD re: "Notice of Intent to Issue Permits to Operate -
Platforms Ellen, Elly, and Eureka (SWEPI) and Platform Edith (UNOCAL),
Huntington Beach.
4. Receive and File City Council Staff Report dated August 22, 1994 re: Notice
of Preparation - Queensway Bay Master Plan - City of Long Beach.
5. Receive and File City Council Staff Report dated August 22, 1994 re: Seismic
Imaging Survey - Department of Interior.
6. Receive and File Memorandum re: Dolan v. City of Tieard - U. S. Supreme
Court Decision.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
5-0
Sharp, Law, Dahlman, Campbell, Brown
. Page 3 - Cdy of Seal Beach P1annmg CamnllBBIOII Mmutes of 9-7-94
PUBLIC HEARINGS
7. Negative Declaration #94-1 [Continued from 6/8/94]
General Plan Amendment #94-1(A)&(B)
Zone Change # 94-1
Address:
Applicant:
Property Owner:
99 and 101 Marina Dr.
City of Seal Beach
Exxon Corp., Unocal Corp., and City of Seal Beach as
Lessee.
Staff Report
.
Mr. Whittenberg delivered the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department].
The City requested Commission approval to amend the Land Use and Housing Element of the
City's General Plan to change the land use designation from Oil Extraction (O-E) to Low
Density Residential (LDR) and to change the zoning designation from O-E to LDR on those
portions of the site currently utilized for on-shore oil separation facilities by Exxon and Unoca1
as Lessee and to change the land use designation from Oil Extraction (O-E) to Public Land Use
(pLU) and to change the zoning from O-E to PLU/R on those portions of the site currently
leased by the City of Seal Beach and utilized for park and recreation purposes.
Commission Comments on Staff Report
Commissioner Sharp asked if oil from the oil islands is presently being pumped to this site? Mr.
Whittenberg said no, that both Exxon and Unocal facilities are totally shut down. Unocal had
a temporary California Coastal Commission permit to ship their production through the Exxon
facility but the Exxon facility has been shut down since February 1994. Due to site problems
they have not reopened. The Sanitation District has informed the City that Unocal has
withdrawn their permit application to renew and reopen the facility. The City has not been able
to talk to people at Exxon directly but at this time is appears they are not trying to reopen that
facility. The Exxon oil lines running under City streets are being maintained in accordance with
the requirements of the State Division of Oil and Gas. To keep the lines from corroding, fluid
must be pumped through the lines. Exxon is currently pumping salt water through the lines.
Commissioner Campbell asked about the amortization period and its review. Mr. Whittenberg
said the Commission will determine the amortization period and will review it in one year at a
Public Hearing. The oil companies will provide information on the useful life of the facilities,
the capabilities to bring those systems back on line. Staff would present the Planning
Commission with recommendations on how long those companies should have to amortize out
those costs.
.
.."..
Page 4 - CiI;y of Seal Beach I'IanninB Cmll1ll881011 Mmlltes of 9-7-94
.
.
Commissioner Law asked if this process would involve court enforcement? Mr. Steele said not
necessarily because there are a number of different factors in the amortization schedule. Exxon
has indicated to staff that there's a useful life of the platform which will bear on the amortization
period. The purpose of an amortization hearing is to determine a fair period to allow the
property owner to get his economic investment out of the property. Cities hold amortization
hearings all the time.
Commissioner Law asked if Exxon will be responsible for the property's cleanup? Mr. Steele
said he assumed that would be a condition imposed on the CUP if one were granted. Mr.
Whittenberg said that at the point where any type of an oil production facility is abandoned,
certain cleanup provisions are mandated by the State; a number of different agencies would be
involved in the process.
Public Hearing
Persons Speaking in Favor of Ap.plication
Rita Strickroth * 343 Regatta Way. Seal Beach
Ms. Strickroth said the Riverbeach Homeowner's Association supports the City's action to
change the zoning at 99 Marina Drive to low density residential. She hoped the amortization
period would not be as long as the suggested fifteen years.
Ms. Strickroth asked Mr. Whittenberg if Exxon had requested to withdraw their permit from the
Orange County Sanitation? Mr. Whittenberg said yes. Chairman Dahlman said that is a
technicality, they are not operating and they cannot operate without it. Ms. Strickroth asked that
if, by withdrawing their permit, Exxon wants to ignore the finding of methane gas in the sewer?
Mr. Whittenberg said the City can't answer that question because the City has only been
informed by the Sanitation District that the application for the permit has been withdrawn.
Ms. Strickroth said Exxon has not operated at that site since January 1, 1994, when the problem
of methane gas in the sewer was found. She asked how long can Exxon be in a non-operating
state before the City would consider the site abandoned? Mr. Whittenberg said that when the
closure is due to an order from an enforcing agency, the City's normal closure requirements for
nonconforming uses may not apply. The municipal code provides that if you're shut down
because of non-compliance with another agency's provisions, once you meet those provisions
you can re-open again. If Exxon were to get the permits they would be allowed to reopen.
Assuming the Planning Commission agrees with staffs recommendations tonight, one year from
now Exxon would have to get a Conditional Use Permit to determine an amortization period and
the use of the property. Ms. Strickroth said that would mean that property could sit in a
dormant state, as the green tanks have sat in a dormant state, for a long time; Mr. Whittenberg
agreed.
. Page S - Ci1;y of Seal Beach Planning CommISSlllII Minules of 9-7-94
Chairman Dahlman asked how many units could be built on the subject site as if zoned LDR?
Mr. Whittenberg said it would depend on whether they would be using public or private streets
to provide access. Approximately 18 to 22 units on the 3.8 acres.
Ms. Strickroth asked if Unocal's green tanks could be removed as they cannot be used because
they do not meet today's standards. Mr. Whittenberg said that would be part of the hearing
process in one year. That hearing will determine the amortization for both the Exxon and
Unoca1 facilities. Unocal, as a part of that process, has obtained Coastal Commission approvals
to place their oil separation production facilities on their ocean platforms. Once that process is
completed, Unoca1 may take the green tanks down themselves without the City having to force
that issue.
John O'Neal * 395 ClipJ>er Way. Seal Beach
Mr. O'Neal said it would be nice to have the subject site a park but hoped any housing would
be compatible with the neighborhood. Chairman Dahlman said the only portion of the site to
be PLU is the existing Marina Park and no additional park is proposed. A developer would be
required to pay a fee for subdivisions that are less than fifty lots. Above fifty lots, actual
dedication of land for park facilities is required.
.
Mr. O'Neal stated he did not receive a Notice of this Public Hearing. Mr. Whittenberg said this
Public Hearing was re-Noticed by letter to residents within 300' of the subject site and published
in the local newspaper. Chairman Dahlman indicated that if necessary, the City will re-Notice
and re-publish this Public Hearing and continue this Hearing.
Persons Speaking Against this ApJ>lication
Jay Bulmash * 127 Electric Avenue. Seal Beach
Mr. Bulmash asked Mr. Whittenberg if, in order for this Zone Change to be approved, the
City's general fund would have to pay monies to Exxon and Unocal because this land can no
longer be used for oil extraction? Mr. Whittenberg said no and explained an amortization
period.
Mr. Bulmash expressed his concerns that it is unfair for Riverbeach and Bridgeport property
owners would benefit by increases in their property values while the City gets no revenues from
the oil production companies and the loss falls on the other City residents who now have to pay
a large utility tax. He wants the City and its residents to benefit from this, not a few selected
residents.
.
Chairman Dahlman asked Mr. Bulmash ifhe had any problem(s) with the Negative Declaration?
Mr. Bulmash said he has a problem with the overall plan as constructed and felt it needs further
review by the City Attorney and Planning Department staff. He said that if the City were not
. Page 6 - CIly of Seal BelIch Planning Commission Minutes of 9-7-94
anti-Exxon and anti-Unocal oil operations may resume at the site with thousands of dollars of
revenue coming to the City.
Mr. Whittenberg clarified that with what is being proposed Unocal would continue to operate
their off-shore platform. The separation of oil and salt water will be done at the platform rather
than the facility at 99 Marina Drive. The City will continue to receive all of the revenues that
are generated by that pumping of oil.
Mr. Bulmash suggested Exxon may want to use the site again and that would generate tax
revenue for the City II ... if there was not such a negative view on the City Council of driving
them out of town on a rail". Mr. Whittenberg said the City doesn't want to drive anyone out
of town on a rail, that has been made clear through this process. The City has worked closely
with Unocal and the Coastal Commission to ensure Unocal was able to get the approvals they
needed to place their facilities on the off-shore platform at tht? specific direction of the City
Council. The Exxon facility is in the position of not knowing whether their facility is worth
keeping open based on their operating expenses and the income they generate for pumping oil.
That's a corporate decision.
.
Mr. Bulmash said the City should be more friendly to business. He felt it is wrong to take
something that could or did generate income and turn it into profit for a developer(s).
There being no one who wanted to speak further, Chairman Dahlman closed the Public Hearing.
Mr. Whittenberg stated a legal Notice was published in the Sun Newspaper on August 18, 1994
and Notices were mailed on August 18th to residents within 300' of the subject site. Chairman
Dahlman called for a show of hands of those persons living withil'l 300' of the property who did
and did not receive a Notice? Several people raised their hands as not having received Notices
and no one said they did receive a Notice by mail. Mr. Steele said that on a Notice issue, if
those persons who would have contested the issue of Notice appear at the meeting anyway and
have the opportunity to participate, they are deemed to have waived the argument that they were
not provided Notice. Due process requires that we allow people Notice and an opportunity to
be heard. Since there are several people from the area, they had some notice of the Public
Hearing. He stated he was comfortable with the Notice process because the City has proof of
published Notice in the Sun and persons from the 300' radius are present.
Chairman Dahlman asked if the Commissioners wished to comment on this Notice?
Commissioner Law said Notices have been known to get stuck in the Post Office. Mr.
Whittenberg said the City Attorney has indicated the Commission is on solid ground if it wishes
to proceed however, staff might recommend a continuance to allow for re-Notice and re-
publication and hold this hearing another time. Four weeks is sufficient.
Chairman Dahlman reopened the Public Hearing for the purpose of continuing this matter.
.
.
.
.
Page 7 - City of Seal Beach PIanniJJg ConunISSIOIl Minutes of 9-7-94
MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Campbell to continue the Public Hearing on Negative
Declaration 94-1, General Plan Amendment 94-1A and 94-1B, and Zone Change 94-1 to
October 5, 1994, and instructed staff to re-Notice by mail as required by law.
MOTION CARRIES:
A YES:
5-0
Sharp, Campbell, Brown, Dahlman, Law
***
Without objection by the Commission, Chairman Dahlman called a recess at 8:15 p.m. The
meeting resumed at 8:22 p.m.
8. Variance 94-6
225-D Main Street
Staff Report
Mr. Curtis presented the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. The
applicants, Robert Clayborn and Melanie Hales, sought approval to vary from the City's parking
requirements of the Service Commercial (C-1) zone for the establishment of a hair salon (The
Ivy) in an existing 585 square foot retail building located at the rear of the Courtyard Nursery
complex. The proposed use would lack two of the required four parking spaces. Mr. Curtis
stated staff received 35 responses regarding this issue, all but two were in favor of the request
and two were from anonymous business owners who felt there are already enough hair salons
on Main Street.
Commission Comments on Staff Report
Commissioner Sharp asked Mr. Whittenberg the status of the shared parking study. Mr.
W~ittenberg said that project had to be placed on a back burner due to the delegation of other
projects. The Main Street Specific Plan will deal with this issue for Main Street but not for the
outlying areas.
Chairman Dahlman said a Variance runs with the land and it's totally unenforceable on any
subsequent owners to mandate they bicycle to work. He reviewed the State's three mandated
findings.
Commissioner Brown asked how the $3500 in-lieu parking fee is calculated? Mr. Whittenberg
said the $3500 fee has been arrived at through City Council deliberations on two different Main
Street projects. It represents an interim fee until such time as the Main Street Specific Plan is
developed. At that point, that Plan will have a formal in-lieu program and a new fee established
based on specific criteria. The City Council felt the $3500 fee is more reasonable than the $100
per space per year fee, based on the cost a person would have to spend for a piece of property
in downtown Seal Beach to put parking on it.
.
.
.
Page 8 - CI~ of Seal Beach PIamung Commissioo Minutes of 9-7-94
Public Hearine
Ms. Fillmann stated 35 responses had been received prior to this Public Hearing.
Dave Bartlett * Land Use & Planning Consultant * Huntington Beach
Mr. Bartlett stated the applicant's approached him to look at their application, which he felt is
unique because the applicant's are not developers. They are trying to open a business in an area
which, historically, has failed as a retail establishment due to lack of visibility. He explained
commercial, industrial and retail establishments do not have to provide employee parking as hair
salons must. He felt this project should be approved because (1) the two lacking parking spaces
can be made up for by the operators walking to work as they currently do at their present jobs,
(2) as business owners in Old Town, they would have access to employee stickers allowing them
them to park in lot at 8th Street and Central A venue, (3) the property owner has additional off-
site spaces in the Old Town area which he is willing to free up for use by these tenants. Mr.
Bartlett said he feels there is ample parking in Old Town via the lot at Main Street/Electric
Avenue, unrestricted 8th Street parking, and Main Street parking. He indicated half of this
establishment's business would occur between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. He stated
special circumstances can be found, a hardship does exist and the City's General Plan will not
be impacted as a result of this project. He said this project is approximately one-half of one
percent of the gross floor area of Main Street and should not be subject to the parallel process
of the Main Street Specific Plan because it's a low-level, low impact project as compared to
other Variances which have been granted for Main Street, such as Walt's Wharf at 55 spaces,
the law office at 20 spaces, Papillon's restaurant at several spaces, RI.'s pizza and Masonic
Lodge. There is a significant difference between those projects and this project, which is that
this project is very small (588 square feet) and this project has the physical ability to make up
those two parking spaces through walking to work. Because of this, this project should not be
subject to in-lieu parking fees. He noted the applicants do concur with the staff report's
suggested Conditions of Approval.
Robert Clayborn * 128 7th Street. Seal Beach
Mr. Clayborn stated he has resided in Seal Beach for the last seven years at 128 7th Street and
he plans to live there indefinitely as the property is owned by family/friends. He explained his
lease entitles him to the use of the entire garage. He has had a City business license for the last
seven years while he worked at 550 Pacific Coast Highway. He has a discerning, upper crust
clientele which expects certain amenities. He felt this site has the charm to make his clients
happy. The property owners have accepted them and the concept of this project. This proposal
will have a large retail area, which will bring tax revenues to the City.
. Page 9 - City of Seal Beach PIanniug Commission MInutes of 9-7-94
Melanie Hales * Seal Beach
Ms. Hales explained that if they felt there would be a parking problem, why would they want
to locate there as that would be professional suicide. She stated their average customer would
be there forty minutes. She stated she works on Main Street now and there is not a parking
problem.
Charles Braneka * 6441 Athena Drive. Huntington Beach
Mr. Braneka stated he knows both the applicants and has generally discussed their business plan
with them. As a present customer of theirs he felt they would bring a high value presence and
professionalism to Main Street. As a retail establishment it would add to the City.
Chuck Burroughs * 217/223/225 Main Street. Seal Beach
.
Mr. Burroughs stated he is the property owner of 225 Main Street. He developed this site
twelve years ago as the Peppermint Playhouse. He stated The Ivy would not be solely a hair
salon, but will carry fine antiques and it would be a revenue-creating business. His other tenants
have been there eight to ten years. These tenants are all in favor of this because The Ivy would
bring business to Main Street. He stated he owns the Antique Gallery with three (3) parking
spaces in the rear of which only one space is used per day. Also, he controls by lease the two
parking spaces behind the Post Office. He would be willing to release these spaces for The Ivy
to use.
Chairman Dahlman noted the staff report's spread sheet on the parking requirements for 225
Main Street --- a restaurant (Nick's Deli), a retail store (Antique Gallery), a nursery (Old Town
Gardens) and a salon (proposed The Ivy) which shows 24 parking spaces are required.
Currently the property provides six (6) of the required spaces. Of the 24 required spaces how
many are there? Mr. Curtis said Nick's Deli has 5 in-lieu spaces with 6 spaces physical
provided on-site for these uses. Chairman Dahlman said there is a shortage of 16 spaces and
if The Ivy's parking Variance is approved that would be a shortage of 18 spaces. Mr. Curtis
asked how many square feet is the Antique Gallery? Mr. Burroughs said 2200 square feet and
it has three (3) physical spaces. Mr. Curtis said that site is deficient in parking. Mr. Burroughs
said behind the Post Office there's a shop on the alley. It is now used as a shop and to store
the nursery equipment. The parking spaces belong to him via the Jones' Estate.
.
Chairman Dahlman noted the previous use in this space was an antique store. He asked how
many spaces were actually used when it was an antique store? Mr. Burroughs said Jeff
Campbell leases that from him and all of that parking belongs to the Old Town Gardens nursery.
Everybody who works on site, Judy upstairs, Lynn at Courtyard Stamper park on the street
every day. The only vehicles using the spaces are the two nursery pickup trucks and the flower
delivery car. Mr. Curtis noted the antique store, previously on this site, had one employee. The
only way to quantify this with our existing Code would be with the requirement for two parking
. Page 10 - City of Seal Beach J>Jannin& Commission Mmutcs of 9-7-94
.
.
spaces but if a comparison could be made, they did have the one employee plus customers. The
Ivy salon would have two employees plus two customers.
Commissioner Brown asked again, if of the six (6) parking spaces on site three (3) were used
by the nursery? Mr. Burroughs said they are used by the nursery and their customers. The
nursery trucks are in and out all day long.
Persons Speaking in Op.position
Bruce Stark * (No Address Given). Seal Beach
Mr. Stark said there is no in-lieu parking program in Seal Beach and there never has been such
a program. This amounts to selling a Variance for $3500. His position is that if the City is
going to sell Variances then sell them to everyone. He felt a lot of people would be willing to
pay $3500 for a Variance to use their property for a use that is not intended. The State law has
mandated findings in order to grant a Variance, one of which involves "special circumstances".
Mr. Stark said there is nothing special about this property --- not its size, shape or topography
or terrain that warrants a Variance. It's a flat property of ordinary dimensions on Main Street.
The Commission is being asked to grant a special privilege. On that site there is a restaurant,
a nursery, a rubber stamp shop, an antique shop and a boutique --- five existing businesses. In
looking at the impact report, page 18, question 41, "Will the proposal result in a substantial
alteration of the present or planned land use of an area'!" Mr. Stark said the answer should have
been "Yes" because it's an intensification. Instead the answer is "No". Numerous people have
come before the City Council and the Planning Commission saying that they are intensifying the
use of Main Street without taking adequate protection for the residents who back onto Main
Street. On page 19, question 46 on Transportation/Circulation, question (a) asks "Will the
proposal result in generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? The answer is
checked "No". This is not accurate. If there are two salon operators who see a customer every
sixty minutes for eight hours a day, that equates to 16 people per day. That is a substantial
vehicular increase. Chairman Dahlman responded that staff probably felt that was similar to the
previous number of customers of the antique store. Question 46(b) is also inaccurately
answered. The questions as "Will the proposal result in effects on existing parking facilities or
demand for new parking?" The answer is "Maybe" instead of "Yes". Chairman Dahlman said
he had a problem with this and asked for staff input on this. Mr. Curtis explained this
questionnaire is completed by the applicants and not staff. Chairman Dahlman said "Oh. This
looks like a Negative Dec". Mr. Curtis said the questions are similar. Mr. Stark said then this
doesn't help the Planning Commission as it's a self-serving document. Mr. Stark said the
bottom line is that you cannot grant a Variance if you're granting a special privilege. He said
the residents on Eighth Street have come to Planning Commission many, many times and they
don't come any more because nothing is done for them; this is a shame.
. Page 11 - Ci~ of Seal Beach Planning COIIIIDJSSIOIl Mmutes of 9-7-94
.
.
David Rosenman * 208 8th Street. Seal Beach
Mr. Rosenman stated he lives on the alley which is part of the traffic flow for this property.
The area around the nursery is already congested during the day, so there is an existing traffic
impact. He disagreed with the traffic findings are set forth in the packet. The Ivy would be an
intensification and there's nothing unusual about the site. lilt may be an attempt to do an end
run around the downtown Specific Plan ". It was his understanding that the applicant had been
advised by staff to wait until the Main Street Specific Plan was completed. The applicant
declined and wanted to apply now. He felt this project would need a Negative Declaration and
a development agreement to address the parking requirement issues. He felt this application
should be considered in an orderly fashion and after the Main Street Specific Plan is complete.
Rebuttal
Dave Bartlett reminded the Planning Commission there's no way the opening of this business
will have a negative impact or will be detrimental to the City. Regarding the required State
Variance findings, the General Plan and the zoning designation for this site are consistent with
one another so the project will not affect the General Plan. The special circumstances finding
involves the location of this site --- it's on Main Street. All of Main Street is illegal, non-
conforming parking. For example, Walt's Wharf has probably two or three parking spaces and
he has a Variance for 55 spaces. Special privileges have been granted up and down Main Street
on project significantly more intense and larger than this 588 square foot project. Again, the
two lacking spaces can be made up for and that's the difference on this project.
Chairman Dahlman said it was stated that this site represents one-half of one percent of all the
retail floor space on Main Street, is this a unique project? What's to stop the other 99th % from
requesting the same Variance? Mr. Bartlett said there is nothing to stop them from requesting
a Variance. The Variance is a tool which is part of the Code to be used when appropriate. If
a project were to come forward on the magnitude, say of BI's pizza, then the Commission might
consider a parallel process and considering that project in the context of the Main Street Specific
Plan because of its magnitude. Chairman Dahlman said that to him, a Variance is not a tool to
change the parking for everybody on Main Street one at a time. A Variance is a tool for dealing
with people who have unique problems. Mr. Bartlett agreed but felt this a very unique situation.
Commissioner Sharp said he was unfamiliar with the property's layout. Mr. Bartlett explained
that if you walk into the nursery from Main Street, this site is to the rear. Chairman Sharp
asked if the store is there now, if it's empty and does it face onto the alley? Mr. Bartlett said
the structure is there now, it's being used to store antiques for another store and it's on the alley,
without actual frontage on Main Street.
Chairman Dahlman asked how long the antique store has not been operating? Mr. Burroughs
said two months.
. Page 12 - CIty of Seal Beach Planning CommisSlIlII Minutes of 9.7-94
Commissioner Brown asked Mr. Bartlett how he was defining "special circumstance" and asked
for clarification. Mr. Bartlett said this special circumstance is related to the sites' location and
surroundings. Commissioner Brown said every other store on Main Street would be the same
and how can that be a special circumstance? Mr. Bartlett said a special circumstance can be
based on a number of item as defined in the Code, including location and surroundings. Because
of this property's location and surroundings, given there are illegal nonconforming and parking
Variances exceeding 55 spaces along Main Street. The special circumstances that would allow
the Commission to approve this project relate to the overall Main Street situation, historically,
and the special circumstance of the operators in which they can physically make up those two
spaces by not utilizing spaces on Main Street and walking to work.
Commissioner Brown asked Mr. Bartlett if he would consider this a special privilege because
other people on Main Street also have Variances? Mr. Bartlett said he would say that it would
be a special privilege not to grant this Variance, considering the other projects that have gone
through at many, many more parking spaces which cannot be made up for.
.
Chairman Dahlman asked if the applicants would be amenable to a condition whereby there is
some method of enforcement to prevent the two applicants from using parking at the site? Also,
is this Variance transferrable if The Ivy changes hands? Mr. Steele said yes, all the Conditions
of Approval for the Variance would run with the land. That's why the City Attorney's Office
suggested to Mr. Curtis that such a condition would have sub-parts or alternatives requiring the
applicants to provide alternative parking for employees, such as the applicant's own garage or
provide evidence to the Director of Development Services that alternative transportation was
being used so it's an elastic condition which can be met by other occupants of the property.
Chairman Dahlman reviewed the three alternatives set forth in the staff report, asking Mr.
Bartlett what his preference would be if the Variance had to be denied? Mr. Bartlett said in
considering denial or denial without prejudice, he would prefer a straight denial so the applicants
could appeal to the City Council.
Replying to Commissioner Brown's comments about special circumstances, Mr. Bartlett said this
particular building, being far to the rear of the property, is its special circumstance. The site
does not function well as a retail establishment because it's far to the rear of the property and .
that's why there has been a high turn-over at that site.
Chairman Dahlman asked what is the allocation of revenues is between sales versus services?
How much profit is estimated on sales and how much on services? Mr. Clayborn said it's a
guess in a service industry; there will be a 50% markup on services. There will be a large
retail area with Chuck Burrough's antiques on consignment.
.
Mr. Steele said a denial without prejudice has the same appeal rights as an outright denial. If
the Commission were to deny the application without prejudice, that would only affect the
applicant's right to come back before the Commission. The appeal right to the City Council
would be the same, whether it's with or without prejudice. Chairman Dahlman explained his
.
Page 13 - CIty of Seal Besch PJ.omnmg Commission Mmutes of 9-7-94
comment on "leaving them in limbo", noting that if they accept the straight denial alternative
they are signing a blank check, depending on what the Main Street Specific Plan says. If, after
enactment of the Specific Plan, they don't like it, they're stuck with it. Mr. Whittenberg stated
his opinion on Mr. Steele's comments by noting that if this application is a straight denial or if
it's denied without prejudice, the applicants can still file an appeal to the Council within ten
calendar days and the matter would still go to Council. By denying it without prejudice it allows
them, if they decide not to file an appeal, to come back to the City with the exact same
application within a year's time.
Chairman Dahlman closed the Public Hearing.
Commission Comments
.
Commissioner Sharp commented on the issue of special privilege. He said he had questioned
Mr. Bartlett about the site's location because the store is not on Main Street, it's on the alley.
Commissioner Sharp said the store faces the alley. It won't get any walk-in traffic unless the
people walk through the nursery, therefore any kind of a business without appointments would
fail. The businesses which directly front onto Main Street have the chance of getting customers
who are walking by. The average person wouldn't know The Ivy was in the back and it is
doubtful The Ivy could get enough signage to let people know of its existence. Therefore, he
didn't feel the Commission would be granting a special privilege and the Commission has the
right to grant such a Variance to this type use.
Chairman Dahlman rephrased Commissioner Sharp's remarks to clarify that because of the
specific location on the alley that there is uniqueness here and that a retail use with two parking
spaces would be likely to fail.
Commissioner Law said she would like to see the Variance approved with the stipulation that
the applicant's secure the parking off-site.
Commissioner Campbell asked if this application would be subject to review at a later date?
Chairman Dahlman asked if a Variance had priority over the Main Street Specific Plan? Mr.
Steele said the Planning Commission could not make the Variance subject to further review
although enforcement of the specific condition regarding parking would be subject to ongoing
review by the Director of Development Services.
.
Commissioner Campbell said this use would be about the same land use intensity as the prior
use, the antique store. Before you had one sales clerk and now you would have two operators.
Because of this new application, the City's requiring a different number of parking spaces yet
the overall intensity is supposed to be the same. She felt the intensity of the uses would be the
same and this application is getting hung up on a technicality. Mr. Whittenberg said the Code
is very specific that there one set of parking requirements for a retail use which is based on so
many spaces for so many square feet of floor area. For this use, the parking is different by
Code, and it requires one space for the operator plus one space for each chair that that operator
. Page 13 - CIty of Seal Beacb Plannmg Conumssillll Mmutes of 9-7-94
comment on "leaving them in limbo", noting that if they accept the straight denial alternative
they are signing a blank check, depending on what the Main Street Specific Plan says. If, after
enactment of the Specific Plan, they don't like it, they're stuck with it. Mr. Whittenberg stated
his opinion on Mr. Steele's comments by noting that if this application is a straight denial or if
it's denied without prejudice, the applicants can still file an appeal to the Council within ten
calendar days and the matter would still go to Council. By denying it without prejudice it allows
them, if they decide not to file an appeal, to come back to the City with the exact same
application within a year's time.
Chairman Dahlman closed the Public Hearing.
Commission Comments
.
Commissioner Sharp commented on the issue of special privilege. He said he had questioned
Mr. Bartlett about the site's location because the store is not on Main Street, it's on the alley.
Commissioner Sharp said the store faces the alley. It won't get any walk-in traffic unless the
people walk through the nursery, therefore any kind of a business without appointments would
fail. The businesses which directly front onto Main Street have the chance of getting customers
who are walking by. The average person wouldn't know The Ivy was in the back and it is
doubtful The Ivy could get enough signage to let people know of its existence. Therefore, he
didn't feel the Commission would be granting a special privilege and the Commission has the
right to grant such a Variance to this type use.
Chairman Dahlman rephrased Commissioner Sharp's remarks to clarify that because of the
specific location on the alley that there is uniqueness here and that a retail use with two parking
spaces would be likely to fail.
Commissioner Law said she would like to see the Variance approved with the stipulation that
the applicant's secure the parking off-site.
Commissioner Campbell asked if this application would be subject to review at a later date?
Chairman Dahlman asked if a Variance had priority over the Main Street Specific Plan? Mr.
Steele said the Planning Commission could not make the Variance subject to further review
although enforcement of the specific condition regarding parking would be subject to ongoing
review by the Director of Development Services.
.
Commissioner Campbell said this use would be about the same land use intensity as the prior
use, the antique store. Before you had one sales clerk and now you would have two operators.
Because of this new application, the City's requiring a different number of parking spaces yet
the overall intensity is supposed to be the same. She felt the intensity of the uses would be the
same and this application is getting hung up on a technicality. Mr. Whittenberg said the Code
is very specific that there one set of parking requirements for a retail use which is based on so
many spaces for so many square feet of floor area. For this use, the parking is different by
Code, and it requires one space for the operator plus one space for each chair that that operator
. Page 14 - City of Seal Beach PIaoniog ConUDlSSlon Mmutes of 9-7-94
has. Commissioner Campbell asked Mr. Whittenberg to explain the logic of this. Mr.
Whittenberg said the assumption is that in retail uses the customer is in and out in a shorter time
period than they are in a personal service use.
Commissioner Brown said he would vote against this application because the property is over-
built. It's already 22 parking spaces short. The owner's other properties are also short on
parking. He didn't think the Commission could find a special circumstance for the property's
being over-built. It would be a special privilege to allow them a Variance based on the fact that
they're property is already over-built. He agreed with Mr. Stark that in effect the Commission
would be selling the Variance. "We're saying, well we know you're property is over-built, we
know you don't have adequate parking but for $3500 a space we'll let you do it". He felt the
City should have a parking plan in action but we don't have one. He felt there's no real way
to enforce the owners would walk to work. He also felt the hair salon would be an
intensification of use over a retail store, explaining the hair salon could have people waiting in
line. The residents of 8th Street and people from Jack In The Box were complaining there isn't
enough parking there. He felt the best use for this property would be to make parking spaces
of it as that's what it needs. He would like to see this denied without prejudice.
.
Chairman Dahlman said he was having a hard time understanding the complete uniqueness of
this site despite Commissioner Sharp's comments. He was not convinced the other 991h % of
Main Street shops wouldn't come in for a similar Variance. If this application had been a
Conditional Use Permit, which most of the other parking fee collection mechanisms are
associated with except Walt's Wharf, he might have been in favor of it. But he could not vote
in favor of a Variance which would supersede any future planning it could be an end run around
the future Main Street Specific Plan.
Mr. Whittenberg said all of the in-lieu parking approval which have been granted by the City
have been granted as part of a Variance applications for parking specifically. Chairman
Dahlman said he knew that was the tendency before 1989 but since then that's been in minority.
Mr. Whittenberg explained BJ's needed a CUP for alcohol and a Variance for parking. All of
the in-lieu parking approvals have had a Variance involved in addition to other types of permits.
Chairman Dahlman said liThe problem is that if we give a lot of Variances, as some towns do
that, pretty soon we've written a whole new Code ... and the existing Code no longer applies
to anybody. So in a case where it's not a unique use, the correct way to solve this problem is
with something like the Main Street Specific Plan ". He agreed with Commissioner Brown in
voting against this application.
MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Law to approve Variance 94-6, including the in-lieu
parking fees of $3500 per delinquent two spaces and that it be required the affinn with the
Director of Development Services that they are not driving to work.
.
MOTION FAILED:
A YES:
NOES:
2-3-0
Sharp, Law
Dahlman, Brown, Campbell
. Page IS - CIty of Seal Beach Planning Commission Mmutes of 9-7-94
.
.
MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Dahlman to deny Variance 94-6 without prejudice.
MOTION CARRIED:
A YES:
NOES:
3-2-0
Dahlman, Brown, Campbell
Sharp, Law
Mr. Whittenberg advised the applicants that a ten calendar day appeal period to the City Council
which will begin once the Resolution has been adopted, probably by September 21st.
***
9. Conditional Use Permit #94-6
Seal Beach Shopping Center on Pacific Coast Highway
Staff Report
Mr. Curtis presented the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. The
applicants, Deborah Edwards and Susan Cooper, requested approval to establish a drive-thru
espresso bar within the existing parking area of the Seal Beach Center (Pavilions Center).
Commission Comments on Staff Report
Commissioner Campbell asked why do they need to re-stripe the lot for six compact parking
spaces if there is surplus of 144 parking spaces? Mr. Curtis said staff is concerned with the
possible loss of a parking space because of the landscaping requirement staff is recommending.
Staff felt re-striping could make up for that lost space. Chairman Dahlman felt that should be
left up to the landlord and noted he would rather park in a standard sized space. Mr. Curtis said
the Commission could determine that.
Commissioner Brown said he would like Condition of Approval #3 reworded as it's vague. Mr.
Curtis said the definition of a drive-thru restaurant was discussed at the last meeting and part of
the discussion was that the food be prepared on site. Commissioner Brown said he would prefer
to see this say IINo food is to be prepared on-sitell. Mr. Steele said the two concerns of this
condition are food preparation on-site and food consumption on-site; two conditions could be
created here.
Public Hearinl:
Ms. Fillmann stated a letter from Eric and Martha Smith, 233 15th Street, Seal Beach advising
the Commission of their support for approval of this CUP had been received [Attached].
. Page 16 - Ct~ of Seal Beach P1anmng COOll11l881011 Mmulcs of 9-7-94
Persons Speaking in Favor
Susan Cooper * 4573 Fir A venue. Seal Beach
Ms. Cooper thanked the Commission for the zoning determination they previously received. She
stated she and Debbie Edwards are local residents who pride themselves on the unique
personality of this beach community. The concept for this espresso bar is intended to
compliment the character of Seal Beach and bring tax revenue to the City.
Nancy Grgas * 211 15th Street. Seal Beach
Ms. Grgas stated she has known Debbie Edwards a long time and knows she is a hard worker
and dependable. Debbie and Susan will run a wonderful business which will be a great asset
to our business community.
Elizabeth Nago * 205 3rd Street. Seal Beach
Mrs. Nago introduced herself as a local resident and mother of five children. She humorously
said she is a tired mother these days and looks forward to being perked up with a good espresso.
.
Persons Speaking in Op.position
Mary Pitt * 1140 Coastline Drive. Seal Beach
Ms. Pitt said she is a 28-year City resident, living at the corner of Balboa Drive, Bolsa Avenue
and Coastline Drive. She said the trash and noise has steadily increased with each passing year.
She asked in which section of the shopping center this drive-thru would be built? Mr. Curtis
explained it would be by Denny's on the Pacific Coast Highway side. Ms. Pitt said that would
alleviate some of the noise at her house. She urged the shopping center to increase its trash
cleanup. Chairman Dahlman said one of this application's Conditions of Approval is that it
submit a refuse disposal plan to Director Whittenberg for approval. He asked if she had
suggestions for this plan? Ms. Pitt said she didn't have specific suggestions.
Celeste Byrd * 4800 Candleberry A venue. Seal Beach
Ms. Byrd spoke in favor of this application. She said she is an example of the type of person
who plans to drive-thru this espresso and promised not to trash the neighborhood.
Rebuttal
.
Debbie Edwards addressed the noise, trash and traffic comments which Ms. Pitt brought up.
She indicated this is a drive-thru facility, not a destination. They will not generate new traffic,
it will be pass-by traffic. There are coffee shops on Main Street to serve customers who wish
to sit or walk around. They have spoken to the property owner about the trash and they do not
.
.
.
Page 17 - City of Seal Beach PIannmg COOI1D1SSIOI1 Minutes of 9-7-94
wish to be located in a center which is badly littered. The property owner is working with their
personnel to resolve any littering issues. Regarding noise, their facility will not have a
loudspeaker and she did not anticipate additional noise being generated.
Chairman Dahlman closed the Public Hearing.
Commission Comments
MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Sharp to approve Conditional Use Pennit 94-6 with the
following changes to the Conditions of Approval:
3. There shall be no food items prepared at the subject site or sold in a manner
to be consumed on the subject site. (The original wording is deleted entirely).
6. (This condition is struck entirely and all Conditions are to be renumbered
consecutively).
7. The applicant shall submit a refuse disposal plan to the Director of
Development Services for review and approval prior to the issuance of
building pennits.
8.
The pennitted hours of operation shall be from 6:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M.
MOTION CARRIED:
A YES:
5-0-0
Brown, Sharp, Dahlman, Campbell, Law
Chairman Dahlman reminded the applicants that the approval is for one year at which time it
will be reviewed by the Planning commission.
MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Sharp to approve Resolution No. 94-39, which would
approve conditional Use Pennit 94-6 subject to the changes noted in the previous Motion.
MOTION CARRIED:
A YES:
5-0-0
Brown, Sharp, Dahlman, Campbell, Law
Chairman Dahlman explained the ten calendar day appeal period to the City Council begins
tonight.
STAFF CONCERNS
There were no staff concerns.
.....
Page 18 - City of Seal Beach PIannmg CommiSSion Mmutes of 9-7-94
COMMISSION CONCERNS
Commissioner Brown said he attended the Planning Commissioners Workshop and received a
good booklet which delineates what the Planning Commission does, how the order of business
is conducted et cetera. He said he would like to see the Planning Commission prepare a booklet
like this also.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Dahlman adjourned the meeting at 10:00 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
.~
a Fillmann
Recording Secretary
.
APPROVAL: The Planning Commission Minutes of September 7, 1994 were approved on
September co2} , 1994. ~
.
.
.
.
~
Ii
ErIc & Martha SmIth
233 75th Street
Seal Beach, CalifornIa 90740
September 6, 1994
Planning Commission
City of Seal Beach
211 8th Street
Seal Beach, California 90740
RE: Support for Application for CUP for "The Daily Grind"
Dear Planning Commissioners:
We are unable to attend your public hearing this evening. However, we would like to
express our support for the approval of the CUP application for "The Daily Grind" for
the following reasons:
1.
Our professions require us to commute to various areas of Southern California.
Before taking to the freeways, we generally stop at a local establishment to
obtain coffee. Unfortunately, parking and access to the local 7-11, the most
convenient current stop, is difficult at best. Often, we must seek other
establishments due to lack of parking, which requires additional time. Also,
coffee at the other available stops tastes worse that the coffee we make at home.
2. A drive through establishment for coffee makes good sense since it would
eliminate the need to compete for parking with other shoppers & consumers.
3. We do not believe that "The Daily Grind" would increase traffic because such
an establishment is inherently geared to serve the local residents such as us.
4. We can think of no real negative impacts that would result from approval of this
project.
I urge all of you to vote in favor of this project. We very much look forward to
having a local, convenient, gourmet coffee stop to ease our morning commutes.
~:";~4A-
Eric & Martha Smith