HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 2000-08-09
r"
.
.
.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA for August 9, 2000
7:30 p.m.
District 1 - Brian Brown
District 2 - Jim Sharp
District 3 - Len Cutuli
District 4 - David Hood
District 5 - Thomas Lyon
Department of Development Services
Lee Whittenberg, Director
Terence Boga, Assistant City Attorney
Mac Cummins, Assistant Planner
Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secretary
o
City Hall office hours are 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday and
Friday 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Closed noon to 1 :00 p.m.
o
The City of Seal Beach complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act. If you
need assistance to attend this meeting please telephone the City Clerk's Office at
least 48 hours in advance of the meeting (562) 431-2527.
o . Planning Commission meetings are broadcast live on Seal Beach TV3. They are
rebroadcast on Sunday evenings, Channel 3 at 4:00 p.m.
o Videotapes of Planning Commission meetings may be purchased from Seal Beach
TV3 at a cost of $20 per tape. Telephone: (562) 596-1404.
o Copies of staff reports and/or written materials on each agenda item are on file in
the Department of Development Services and City libraries for public inspection.
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission · Agenda of August 9, 2000
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET
The following is a brief explanation of the Planning Commission agenda
structure:
AGENDA APPROVAL: The Planning Commission may wish to change the order of the
items on the agenda.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission, only
on items not on tonight's agenda, may do so during this time period. No action can be
taken by the Planning Commission on these communications on this date, unless
agendized.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: Public Hearings allow citizens the opportunity to speak in
favor of or against agendized items. More detailed information is found in the actual
agenda attached. If you have documents to distribute, you should have enough copies
for all Planning Commissioners, City staff and the public. Please give one to the
secretary for the City files. The documents become part of the public record and will not
be returned.
CONSENT CALENDAR: Consent Calendar items are considered routine items that
normally do not require separate consideration. The Planning Commission may make
one motion for approval of all the items listed on the Consent Calendar.
SCHEDULED MATTERS: These items are considered by the Planning Commission
separately and require separate motions. These transactions are considered
administrative and public testimony is not heard.
STAFF CONCERNS: Updates and reports from the Director of Development Services
(Planning and Building Departments) are presented for information to the Planning
Commission and the public.
COMMISSION CONCERNS: Items of concern are presented by the Planning
Commissioners and discussed with staff.
All proceedings are recorded.
2
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission · Agenda of August 9, 2000
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
August 9, 2000 Agenda
I.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
II.
ROLL CALL
AGENDA APPROVAL
III.
By Motion of the Planning Commission, this Is the time to:
(a) Notify the public of any changes to the Agenda;
(b) Re-arrange 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 is 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 the Planning
Commission may undertake no action or discussion 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 a specific
item be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action.
1. Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of July 19, 2000.
2. RECEIVE AND FILE: "Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning
Agency," U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, June 15, 2000.
VI. SCHEDULED MATTERS
3. Election of Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson.
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
4. Conditional Use Permit 00-2 (Continued from Planning Commission Meeting of July 19, 2000)
770 Pacific Coast Highway
Applicant/Owner:
Request:
Tom Lao, TI Planning / L&R Properties
To permit a drive-through coffeehouse where a drive-in restaurant currently
resides.
Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution 00-19.
5. Conditional Use Permit 00-6
308 (and 310) Ocean Avenue
Applicant/Owner: Brent A. Sears / Dwight Steffensen
3
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission · Agenda of August 9, 2000
Request:
To perform a major addition/remodel to a non-conforming single-family
residence located at 308 (and 310) Ocean Avenue, Seal Beach. The
property is nonconforming due to an inadequate rear yard setback and
inadequate side yard setback on the northwesterly side of the structure.
The proposal includes the addition of 4,654 square feet, which would entail
the attachment of adjacent single family residences at 308 and 310 Ocean
Avenue.
Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution 00-25.
6. Minor Plan Review 00-5
115 Y2 - 3rd Street
Applicant/Owner:
Request:
Rex Hoover / Carol F. Harty
Addition of an approximately 203 square foot balcony to the second floor of
the rear building on a legal non-conforming property. Specifically the
applicant proposes to add a balcony with posts extending to the ground on
the rear apartment unit, which is located on top of the garage. The
property currently contains 3 units and 3 parking spaces.
Recommendation: To continue to the Planning Commission meeting of August 23, 2000.
7. Proposed Amendment to Development Agreement Section 3.1.2.7 - Project Phasing (Timing of
Residential Construction) and to City Council Resolution No. 4735, Vesting Tentative Tract Map
No. 15797, Condition Number 2, Prior to Issuance of Building Permits Bixby Old Ranch Towne
Center Project.
Applicant/Owner:
Request:
Bixby Ranch Company
Eliminate Section 3.1.2.7 of the Development Agreement (Ordinance No.
1440-A) and Condition Number 2, Prior to Issuance of Building Permits, of
City Council Resolution No. 4735 regarding Vesting Tentative Tract Map
No. 15797. Elimination of these provisions and conditions would remove
the current project phasing provisions and conditions regarding the
required approval of interior lath or drywall inspections for the commercial
construction of certain specified portions of Development Area A (identified
as Retail "A", "B", "C", and "0") prior to issuance of building permits for the
residential project permitted within Development Area "0" (maximum of 75
single-family homes). Elimination of these provisions and conditions would
permit construction of the residential project permitted within department
Area "0" to proceed prior to completion of any commercial development.
Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution 00-31.
VIII. STAFF CONCERNS
IX. COMMISSION CONCERNS
X. ADJOURNMENT
Adjourn to August 17, 2000 field trip to Centex Homes Development.
4
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission · Agenda of August 9, 2000
2000 Aaenda Forecast
AUG 23
Conditional Use Permit 00-7,141 Main Street
Conditional Use Permit 00-8, Seal Beach Blvd. & Lampson - Islands Restaurant
Site Plan Review 00-3, Seal Beach Blvd. & Lampson -Islands Restaurant
Minor Plan Review 00-5, 115 Y2 3rd Street
SEP 06
SEP 20
CUP 99-9 Faith Christian Assembly - 12-Month Review
OCT 04
OCT 18
NOV 08
NOV 22
DEC 06
DEC 20
TO BE SCHEDULED:
Q
Q
Q
Q
Study Session:
Study Session:
Study Session:
Staff Report:
Permitted Uses and Development Standards in Commercial Zones (5/6/98)
Seal Beach Boulevard (10/7/98)
Anaheim Bay Villas (10/7/98)
Undergrounding of Utilities
And Beyond
Calendar: CUP 98-6 at 12147 Seal Beach Boulevard (Yucatan Grill) Review (April 2001)
ADA Handicapped-accessible Restrooms (April 2001)
5
-
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
-
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes of August 9, 2000
Chairperson Hood called the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission
to order at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, August 9,2000. The meeting was held in the City
Council Chambers and began with the Salute to the Flag.1
ROLL CALL
Present: Chairperson Hood
Commissioners Brown, Cutuli, Lyon, and Sharp
Also
Present: Department of Development Services
Lee Whittenberg, Director
Terence Boga, Assistant City Attorney
Mac Cummins, Assistant Planner
Absent: None
AGENDA APPROVAL
Mr. Whittenberg recommended that Item No.5, Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 00-6 be
moved before Item No.4, the continued Conditional Use Permit 00-2 for Starbucks. He
stated that CUP 00-6 was simply coming before the Planning Commission for re-
approval of the project as the original CUP has expired.
MOTION by Cutuli; SECOND by Lyon to approve the Agenda as amended.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Lyon, and Sharp
None
None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Chairperson Hood opened oral communications.
None.
1 These Minutes were transcribed from audiotape of the meeting.
1
r
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
,
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of August 9, 2000
Chairperson Hood closed oral communications.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of July 19, 2000.
2. RECEIVE AND FILE: 'Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional
Planning Agency," U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, June 15, 2000.
MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Cutuli to approve the Consent Calendar as presented.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Lyon, and Sharp
None
None
SCHEDULED MATTERS
3. Election of Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson.
Chairperson Hood opened the nominations for Chairperson.
MOTION by Cutuli; SECOND by Brown to nominate Chairperson Hood.
There being no other nominations, Chairperson Hood closed the nominations for
Chairperson.
MOTION CARRIED:
A YES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Lyon, and Sharp
None
None
Chairperson Hood opened the nominations for Vice-Chairperson.
MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Lyon to nominate Vice-Chairperson Cutuli.
There being no other nominations, Chairperson Hood closed the nominations for Vice-
Chairperson.
MOTION CARRIED:
A YES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Lyon, and Sharp
None
None
2
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
.
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of August 9, 2000
PUBLIC HEARINGS
5. Conditional Use Permit 00-6
308 (and 310) Ocean Avenue
Applicant/Owner:
Request:
Brent A. Sears / Dwight Steffensen
To perform a major addition/remodel to a non-conforming
single-family residence located at 308 (and 310) Ocean
Avenue, Seal Beach. The property is nonconforming due to
an inadequate rear yard setback and inadequate side yard
setback on the northwesterly side of the structure.
The proposal includes the addition of 4,654 square feet, which
would entail the attachment of adjacent single family
residences at 308 and 310 Ocean Avenue.
Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution
No. 00-25.
Staff Report
Mr. Cummins delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the
Planning Department.) He provided some background information on this item and
stated that this application had come before the Planning Commission in 1997 and was
approved by a 4-0 vote, with one Commissioner absent. He said that the applicant
wants to build a separate structure and attach it to an existing structure that is
nonconforming due to a side yard setback. He reported that the area of the new
structure would be approximately 8,500 square feet. Mr. Cummins explained that the
current application is essentially identical to the application approved in 1997, with some
minor exceptions in the rear yard hard and softscape and switching the location of the
master bedroom from the south side to the north side of the house. He reported that
the interior dimensions of the rooms are the same as in the previous application. He
said that because no action was taken on this Conditional Use Permit (CUP) before the
one-year time limit expired, it became necessary to reapply for approval. Staff
continues to recommend approval of this item.
Commissioner Questions
None
Public Hearing
Chairperson Hood opened the public hearing.
Mr. Brent Sears, architect for the project, stated that because the applicant had other
projects pending, the time limit for CUP 00-6 had expired. He reported that the
applicant was now ready to move forward with the construction of his home and was
3
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
--
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of August 9, 2000
seeking re-approval of this project. Mr. Sears stated that he would be available to
respond to any questions from the Commission.
Ms. Joyce Kuchera stated that she is the immediate neighbor of 308 & 310 Ocean
Avenue. She asked Mr. Sears what became of the proposed 11-foot high potting shed
that was originally proposed for construction in the rear of the house. She said that the
Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R) of beachfront properties prohibits
construction in the rear yards. She stated that the Staff Report, which indicates that no
objections to this project were received, is incorrect because she had spoken to the
Director of Development Services regarding her objections to permitting this structure.
Ms. Kuchera reported that she had also spoken to the Architectural Review Committee
and they too were opposed to the construction of this potting shed. She said that had
she recognized Mr. Sears, she would have spoken to him prior to the meeting about her
objections. She requested clarification as to whether construction of the potting shed
was to be approved with the plans as neither she, nor the neighbors north of the 308 &
310 Ocean, nor the Focus Committee want this structure to be built.
Mr. Cummins responded that the accessory structure in question is shown on the south
side of the site plan and will require a separate Minor Plan Review (MPR) permit in
order to be constructed. He stated that the application for the MPR will be coming back
before the Planning Commission. He explained that CUP 00-6 was for the extension of
the house. He reported that accessory structures are allowed in the rear yard setback
of Ocean Avenue beachfront properties and can be a maximum of 150 square feet with
a maximum height of 12 feet. He said the applicant is aware of the neighbors'
concerns. Mr. Cummins noted that originally the structure was to be a fully enclosed
structure, but the applicant has since had the structure redesigned to eliminate
approximately 4-5 feet and to make it a completely open potting shed.
Chairperson Hood closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Comments
None.
MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Sharp to approve Conditional Use Permit 00-6 and
adopt Resolution 00-25.
MOTION CARRIED:
A YES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Lyon, and Sharp
None
None
Mr. Whittenberg advised that the adoption of Resolution No. 00-25 begins a 10-day
calendar appeal period to the City Council. The Commissioner action tonight is final
and the appeal period begins tomorrow morning.
4
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
4
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of August 9, 2000
4. Conditional Use Permit 00-2 (Continued from Planning Commission Meeting of
July 19, 2000)
770 Pacific Coast Highway
Applicant/Owner:
Request:
Tom Lao, TI Planning / L&R Properties
To permit a drive-thru coffeehouse where a drive-in restaurant
currently resides.
Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution 00-
19.
Chairperson Hood provided a brief explanation to members of public of the procedure
for public hearings and how the Planning Commission makes decisions on items
presented.
Commissioner Sharp reported that although he was not serving on the Planning
Commission when Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 00-2 was first presented, he has
acquired all of the documentation on previous meetings and is very well informed of the
proceedings to this point. He stated that per the advice of the Assistant City Attorney,
he is qualified to vote on this issue tonight.
Staff Report
Mr. Whittenberg delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the
Planning Department.) He provided some background information on this item and
stated this application was for the continued operation of a drive-thru window for a
coffeehouse at a location currently in use as a fast food restaurant. He reported that the
proposed modification to the drive-thru window is to move the window from its current
location to a different location on the building. He cited a number of previous approvals
for the current fast food restaurant (Burger King) allowing the conversion from a bank to
the current drive-thru restaurant. He presented photographs of the drive-thru lane and
reported that the drive-thru window has been in operation for approximately 6 years.
Mr. Whittenberg noted the concerns expressed by the Commission at the meeting of
May 17, 2000, and reported responses to these concerns as follows:
1. Additional data needed regarding traffic patterns in the area during the day.
Response: As far as additional traffic data, Starbucks retained the firm of Linscott,
Law & Greenspan (LLG) to complete a traffic analysis and trip generation
study. A draft copy of the report was presented to Staff approximately 3
weeks ago and both Staff and the City Traffic Engineering Consultant, Mr.
Bill Zimmerman, have reviewed the report
5
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of August 9, 2000
2. If there were no modifications to the drive-thru window, is the CUP still required
and would this request have come before the Planning Commission?
Response: The initial approval in 1994 required a certain plan to be approved and it
indicated that if there were substantial modifications to that plan, a new
CUP must be granted. Staff has reviewed this issue with the City
Attorney's office and although the initial response by Staff was that a CUP
would not be required, after reviewing the previous conditions of approval
and evaluating the changes in the plans between the two uses, Staff has
determined that a CUP is required for the floor plan modifications to the
interior of the building. (The Director of Development Services then
provided an overview of what these modifications would entail.)
3. If the CUP could be approved without the drive-thru window and still require that a
traffic analysis be completed.
Response: Based upon the determination that the floor plan modifications do require
a CUP, the modification to the drive-thru window could be denied and still
require that a traffic analysis be completed. With the proposed
modifications to the interior of the building, however, Staff believes the
Commission would have difficulty in making appropriate findings to deny
an interior modification to the building if there is no drive-thru window.
4. Improve exterior appearance of the building and landscaping.
Response: A number of meetings have been held with Starbucks regarding the
exterior of the building and landscaping, and Starbucks has indicated that
they would be willing to work with Staff to help address these concerns.
Recognizing that the Planning Commission does not serve as a design
review board, Staff is recommending that these issues be addressed at
the Staff level. The focus would be on looking at existing building
materials and colors of the building in order to select materials and colors
to make the exterior look more up-to-date. Starbucks has also indicated a
willingness to work with Staff in improving the landscaping, primarily along
Pacific Coast Highway.
5. Evaluation of the queuing within the parking lot to service the drive-thru lane.
Response: There really is no separate lane area indicated at this time, and there
never has been so cars will stack up in the backout area of the different
parking spaces in the parking lot while waiting to get to the drive-thru
window. It is basically first-come, first-serve as to which car gets to back
out and how courteous drivers are in accommodating this. He said that
Staff anticipates that this same situation would exist in the future. The trip
generation study prepared by LLG addresses the issue of queuing based
6
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of August 9, 2000
on the concerns expressed by the Commission. (A copy of this report has
been provided to the Commission.)
6. What type of traffic patterns would change by going from a restaurant to a
coffeehouse use?
Response: The analysis provided in the trip generation study is based upon concerns
expressed by the City Traffic Engineer to attempt to evaluate the project in
a like-for-Iike situation instead of using nationwide averages, which is what
is usually done in a trip generation study. The Institute for Traffic
Engineers prepares a textbook with a number of trip generation studies for"
a wide range of land uses. This information is used to generate
anticipated trip generation in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours on a
nationwide average basis. These numbers reflect the high numbers of
trips that would be reduced by this use as opposed to the fast food
restaurant use. The low numbers of trip reduction reflect what Staff had
suggested needed to be done to further refine the analysis by attempting
to look at existing Starbucks Coffee uses that have a drive-thru window
operation. The specific numbers and operational characteristics of this
use will not be known until the business has been in operation for a period
of time. Based upon the traffic analysis results, Staff has determined that
the coffeehouse use reflects an overall reduction of approximately 150
trips less coming in and out in a 24-hour period of time as opposed to the
Burger King use. As far as left turn movements at 8th Street, the analysis
indicated that the maximum number of vehicles at the left turn pocket on
Pacific Coast Highway making a left turn onto 8th Street was 2 vehicles at
anyone time, which is the maximum number of vehicles that left pocket
can accommodate. The City Traffic Engineer has concluded that the
current configuration is adequate given the assumed use of the property
as generally in conformity with the average of the other 3 Starbucks
locations that were evaluated.
Mr. Whittenberg stated that the trip generation patterns as indicated in the study seem
to be fairly similar between the two uses. He noted that after reviewing the
recommendations made by LLG with both the City Engineer and the Consulting Traffic
Engineer, it was felt that there was an additional traffic study would not be warranted.
He said that the City Engineer recommends that given the projected similarity of the
uses and trip generation, the City should approve this CUP and allow the business to
open. Once the business is open, the use can be evaluated over time; primarily at the
left turn pocket and the trip generation in an out to determine if further modifications are
necessary. He explained that because Pacific Coast Highway is a state highway and is
controlled by CalTrans, it is not always possible for the City to make changes in the
street configuration to help deal with a traffic issue.
7
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of August 9, 2000
Mr. Whittenberg stated that based upon the analysis presented, the trip generation
study, and the previous use, Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit 00-2
subject to the same conditions presented in the last staff report.
Commissioner Questions
Commissioner Lyon asked whether CalTrans had been consulted regarding this matter.
Mr. Whittenberg responded that they have not been consulted and do not have to be
consulted at this point in time. Commissioner Lyon asked if a traffic problem does arise
with this use, could CalTrans then be consulted. Mr. Whittenberg responded that
normally CalTrans will accede to the wishes of the City, but Staff cannot guarantee that
they would agree to everything the City proposes.
Public Hearina
Chairperson Hood opened the public hearing.
Mr. Tom Lao of TI Planning introduced Cindy Freels and Robert Leviason of Starbucks.
Ms. Cindy Freels, Real Estate Manager of Starbucks, stated that the Director of
Development Services had addressed many of the items that she wanted to express.
She thanked the Commissioners for working with Starbucks and for allowing the
opportunity to present the facts regarding traffic generation. She said that Starbucks
has attempted to address all of the concerns expressed by the Commission by
providing the traffic study. She stated that the analysis concludes that there is no
intensification of traffic by the Starbucks use, as the level of service remains at A Level,
which is the highest level defined by the Institute of Traffic Engineers Industry. She
noted that Starbucks accepts all of the conditions for approval as presented by Staff.
Ms. Freels stated that Starbucks is very excited about being a part of community and
would like to create an environment that is inviting by making improvements to the
existing building. She said that the drive-thru window is to be moved forward 20 feet to
allow for more cars in the queue lane.
Mr. Robert Leviason, Real Estate Manager for Starbucks, stated that due to a
realignment of territories within the Real Estate Department of Starbucks, he would be
managing this location. He commended the Director of Development Services in his
presentation of the facts, and stated that he and Ms. Freels were available to respond to
any questions.
Mr. David Steinberg, a representative of Burger King, stated that after operating at this
location for 6 years, Burger King has never had any complaints of traffic or queuing
problems. He reported that several times the CUP for Burger King had come up for
review before the Planning Commission and has always been approved as a result of
the lack of complaints. Mr. Steinberg stated that the property has an intrinsic value
because of the drive-thru, and his job is to find another company to take the place of
Burger King. He said that the owners of the property take pride in this location, and his
8
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of August 9, 2000
task was to find a user that would not be antagonistic to the community and would
represent Burger King's pride and respect for the community. He reported that because
of all of the fast food restaurants along this area, he had selected Starbucks because he
thought that this would be a less intensive use and would provide something different.
He noted that most of the commentary in opposition of Starbucks has come from
competitors, rather than from residents. He questioned the tone of the commentary in
attempting to portray the creation of a dangerous environment due to traffic concerns
that have not existed in the six years Burger King has been at this location. Mr.
Steinberg reported that the reason Burger King is leaving this location is due to
realignment within the company with a substantial investment to re-image the existing
restaurants. He stated that this location is one of the outlying properties and the
company wants to use a property that is more logistically sound. He said if Starbucks
were not used, another fast food restaurant would be used, which could increase traffic
flow. He indicated that the trip generation figures, which reflect the average use for the
past two years, show that use has been down. He explained that the figures appear to
be skewed due to little or no investment in marketing this restaurant, sales traditionally
being slow during the summer months, and also to the community having been made
aware that Burger King is leaving the community.
Mr. Dan Bailey expressed his opposition stating that traffic and noise would be a major
concern, in particular during off-hours. He stated that he was not in agreement with
taking the "wait and see" approach to dealing with traffic concerns.
Ms. Debbie Edwards, a partner in the Daily Grind, stated that within 3 weeks of the
Planning Commission's request for provision of a traffic study on the proposed
Starbucks, she and her partners had provided the City with internal data on actual
transaction counts. She stated that they had also provided Staff with industry averages
from Deidrich's, the second largest specialty coffee retailer in the United States. She
said that they had performed traffic counts at the Seal Beach Burger King, and the
Santa Monica, Hermosa Beach, and Lakewood Starbucks, all of which are drive-thru
coffeehouses. Ms. Edwards stated that the data they provided was accurate and true.
She said that the data for the analysis completed by LLG was provided by Starbucks.
She said that Starbucks had also provided the Burger King transaction data. She noted
that the data had not been verified by LLG or by Staff. She stated that the data was
false, inaccurate, and misleading, and that the numbers presented by Starbucks were
inflated 303%. She questioned the use of trip generation figures from two Starbucks
drive-thrus located in hot, desert retirement communities (Cathedral City and Palm
Springs) with the Santa Monica drive-thru Starbucks, when the Hermosa Beach and
Lakewood drive-thrus are closer. Ms. Edwards explained that the Daily Grind with 267
square feet generates 222 vehicle trips per hour, and she questioned how the new
Starbucks with a 3,200 square foot location and 2,750 usable square feet could
generate only 108 vehicle trips per peak hour. She said that the figures provided by
Starbucks were based upon a 1,600 square foot coffeehouse. Ms. Edwards also noted
that at this location Starbucks has stated that it will use only 1,600 square feet of space
and "the remainder of the 3,200 square foot area will be dead space." She noted that
this 1,600 square feet of dead space were not used in the calculations provided to LLC,
9
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
.43
44
-
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of August 9, 2000
but for the comparison with Burger King, Starbucks uses 1,600 square feet and Burger
King uses 2,750 square feet. She stated that it had taken Starbucks three months to
come up with the numbers they wanted for the results they needed, but the facts remain
that Burger King does not have 112 vehicle trips per hour, but 37; and Starbucks does
not have 1 ,600 square feet of usable space but 2,750. She concluded by stating that
the facts reflect that Starbucks traffic will be significantly greater than for the existing
Burger King and would have a negative affect on the surrounding neighborhood. She
recommended denial of CUP 00-2.
Ms. Chris Schreiber stated her opposition to CUP 00-2. She said that she relocated to
Seal Beach from Seattle six years ago and is well acquainted with the local
neighborhood Starbucks, which she visited most mornings. She stated that she had
observed the congestion in their parking lot and the surrounding streets, and how long it
takes them to make a latte. She said that even with the smaller population base in
Seattle, the small parking lots and long waits do create long lines and congestion in
quaint neighborhoods. Ms. Schreiber said that she could not comprehend how the
current number of parking spaces and a single drive-thru window could accommodate a
larger population base along a busy highway. She expressed her concerns over the
safety of pedestrians and school children during the peak morning hours, and also the
increase in noise levels.
Mr. Darryl Patch stated that he had visited the Starbucks in Belmont Shores at 11 :00
p.m. and observed large, rather rowdy gatherings of teenagers in front of the store. He
said he had also visited the Huntington Beach Starbucks and had observed the same
scenario. Mr. Patch explained that he lives next door to Jack-In-The-Box, and if anyone
is talking outside the restaurant at night, these conversations can be overheard and can
be a nuisance. He reported that the evening before at 11: 15 he had to break up 3
children who were skateboarding near his home. He stated that this occurs almost
every night, and he does not call the police, but he is realizing that if CUP 00-2 is
approved, he may have to call them every night to help show the City what will take
place when this coffeehouse opens. He said that traffic in this area is already heavy
and Starbucks will generate a tremendous amount of additional traffic. He also
expressed his concerns over late night or early morning deliveries. He cited several
examples of disturbances that he has to contend with due to the location of his home
proximal to these fast food restaurants. Mr. Patch stated that he does not have air
conditioning in his home and like the other residents of the City, he would like to enjoy
the ocean breeze; however, when his windows are open he is subject to the exhaust
from the cars in queue at both Jack-In-The-Box and Burger King. He expressed his
opposition to CUP 00-2 and recommended that closing hours be changed to 9:00 p.m.
Mr. Tom Bass stated that his home abuts Pacific Coast Highway and on numerous
occasions he has had to deal with noise from the fast food restaurants. He said that
although deliveries are prohibited between the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m., this is
not being enforced. He asked if Staff has reviewed the incidence of traffic accidents
along Pacific Coast Highway. He noted that his family will usually have to make the call
to the police department to report accidents along Pacific Coast Highway. He
10
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
-
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of August 9, 2000
recommended careful analysis of the traffic patterns and enforcement of the restrictions
on early morning or late night delivers.
Ms. Rory DeMeire, property manager of the apartment building directly behind Burger
King, stated that she was representing the tenants. She said that the drive-thru creates
excessive noise and smog emissions that prevent the tenants from enjoying a quiet and
clean environment. She reported that there is excessive traffic on 8th Street, along the
alleyway, and cutting through behind the apartment building, which is private property.
She said that although a chain has been installed to block the traffic from the alley, it is
continuously taken down by drivers wanting to access the alley to get back onto 8th
Street. Ms. DeMeire stated that she is opposed to any restaurant or coffeehouse use at
this location as they create emission and noise problems. She questioned the traffic
analysis data presented noting that Starbucks is a very successful business. She
recommended denial of CUP 00-2.
Ms. Sue Corbin stated that this was one of the peculiar projects that came out of the
City Manager's office. She said that although Mr. Keith Till was now gone the residents
of Seal Beach would have to suffer forever. Ms. Corbin stated that she uses the left
turn pocket on Pacific Coast Highway to turn onto 8th Street very judiciously. She
indicated that this center divider should be closed off to prevent left turns at this
location. She said that Staff had not indicated the opening time for the proposed
Starbucks. Ms. Corbin said that the residents will be fully impacted by this project. She
reported that a few days ago the City Engineer had stated that this was a defective
traffic study, and tonight Staff is indicating that everything is all right. She said that it
was unrealistic to state that the trip generations would be less for Starbucks as it would
not be practical to begin a business that would not generate significant revenues. She
said that due to noise levels it was very difficult for residents of Old Town to sleep, and
noise laws in the City are not enforced. She contended that Starbucks has totally
misrepresented their project and questioned how this CUP could be approved. She
stated that this was a total distortion of the facts. She recommended that Starbucks be
required to return before the Planning Commission with data that would include the
extra usable square footage for this location.
Ms. Linda Krueger stated that she resides behind Jack-In-The-Box and she is
concerned that when the drive-thru window is moved, it will be closer to her home and
will create more noise. She also noted that the hours of operation for the coffeehouse
have never been mentioned. She questioned when employees of the coffeehouse
would be scheduled to arrive and close up. She complained of problems with loud
noise from both customers and employees at the current Burger King and Jack-In- The-
Box locations. She expressed her objection to having a speaker box for any restaurant
that would operate at this location. Ms. Krueger stated that her family has frequently
had to call the Seal Beach Police Department (SBPD) to complain about the noise. She
reported that refrigeration trucks have made deliveries to Jack-In-The-Box at 8:00 a.m.
on Sunday mornings. She also complained of skateboarders in this area in the late and
early morning hours and invited the Planning Commissioners to visit her home on the
weekends to experience the level of noise that she and her family have to contend with.
11
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of August 9, 2000
Ms. Krueger stated that at 2:00 a.m. when Jack-In-The-Box is closing down, intoxicated
customers will drive through creating a loud ruckus or gather in the parking lot. She
questioned why, with all of the noise and traffic problems created by these drive-thru
restaurants, the Planning Commission continues to allow them. She recommended
denial of CUP 00-2.
Ms. Susan Cooper, a partner with Debbie Edwards in the Daily Grind, reiterated that the
information that Ms. Edwards had presented disputed the information presented in the
Starbucks traffic analysis. She said that she believed the data they had presented was
convincing enough to warrant denial of CUP 00-2. She stated that if the City had
ordered and paid for the traffic study and requested reimbursement by the applicant, an
unbiased and accurate compilation of data would have maintained the integrity of the
studies findings, which would have been in the best interest of the firm's client, the City
of Seal Beach. She said that, unfortunately, the best interest of the LLG study was for
its client, Starbucks. She emphasized that there is a real danger posed by the amount
of traffic that would be generated by Starbucks. Ms. Cooper stated that this was not
about competition, but that the partners of the Daily Grind are genuinely concerned with
the dangers of the increased traffic and congestion that would occur. She stated that
drive-thru restaurants generate no tax dollars for the City, and the only additional
revenues resulting from the proposed drive-thru window will be in Starbucks' pocket.
She questioned whether the City should risk the additional problems associated with car
accidents and/or fatalities and possible litigation against the City, all for a drive-thru
window that generates no income for the City. She noted that this was a "lose-lose
proposition to our City." She reviewed the information presented by Ms. Edwards and
ended by recommending denial of CUP 00-2.
Mr. Robert Leviason rebutted by stating that regarding the Starbucks stores used in
creating the traffic analysis, the Santa Monica store and the two desert stores were
included because Starbucks was attempting to acquire data from stores that feed off of
highway traffic with no other traffic generators surrounding the store. He stated that the
Hermosa Beach store is surrounded by a neighborhood shopping center, which is a
daily need traffic generator and this location does not feed solely off the traffic from the
arterial highway. He reported that the Lakewood store is across the street from the
Lakewood Mall, which is the traffic generator for that location. He stated that the store
in Santa Monica is a freestanding store with a drive-thru with no other generators
around it and feeds solely off of highway traffic, as do the Cathedral City and Palm
Springs stores. These stores were most similar in characteristics to the proposed store
at the Pacific Coast Highway and 8th Street location. Mr. Leviason also noted that
Starbucks and other fast food establishments draw primarily from the arterial highway
that fronts the store, Starbucks generally attempts to locate near an intersection. He
stated that the total traffic from the intersection also has to be considered. He noted
that the traffic from 8th Street does not contribute very much to the traffic count. He
explained that both the traffic counts from the arterial fronting the store and from the
intersections that feed the store have to be combined to compile accurate figures. He
explained that the Cathedral City store is located on an intersection similar to the
proposed Seal Beach store, and the Palm Springs store is located on Highway 111. He
12
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of August 9, 2000
said that if the traffic count for both the Cathedral City and Palm Springs stores are
combined, this provides a comparable traffic count to the total traffic count at Pacific
Coast Highway and 8th Streets. Commissioner Brown asked Mr. Leviason if he could
provide these numbers. Mr. Leviason stated that he did not have the exact numbers
with him, but had some outdated information. He reported that he had attempted to
contact these two locations today to acquire the exact numbers, but was not able to
acquire this data. He said that this information could be provided to the Commission.
He then addressed how the Daily Grind with one-tenth of the floor space as the
proposed Starbucks, generates 222 cars through the drive-thru. He noted that the Daily
Grind has two drive-thru windows and does not allow the opportunity for the customer to
exit his or her car, place an order and receive it, so customers are forced to use the
drive-thru lane. He said that the proposed site for the Starbucks store has 24 parking
spaces, and half of the customers going through Starbucks will have ample opportunity
to leave their cars and place and pick up their orders inside the store without having to
go through the drive-thru. He explained that if the 222-car figure reported by the Daily
Grind were divided in half, this would compare to the figures presented for the proposed
Starbucks.
Regarding the 1,600 square feet of dead space, Mr. Leviason reported that because
Burger King had used this section for a play area for children, the City is requiring that
this area not be used for customer service or food preparation, and Starbucks has
agreed to this condition. He noted that this play area was a sales generator for Burger
King as children bring in their parents when there is a play place. He said that this dead
space would be used for an atrium area with a fountain and plants. He confirmed that
this was why only 1,600 square feet of usable space was used to compile the traffic
analysis data. He stated that very recently a traffic counter on the premises had
counted 37 cars at the existing Burger King, and that although Starbucks understands
that sales at Burger King have gone down recently, the analysis completed was based
upon the industry average of what a Burger King or fast food restaurant should be
generating given the usable square footage, and the average of the last 2 years of full
operation of the existing Burger King. He said that the operator of the Burger King has
made the decision to close and allow another user to come into the building and,
consequently, have made no further investment in this site. He stated that this was why
the figures are so much lower than what an average Burger King should do based on
the square footage or what this Burger King actually did when it was in full operation.
Mr. Leviason said that he sympathized with the concerns expressed by the residents,
but the property is zoned for commercial and has other uses that are zoned commercial,
and if Starbucks does not go in, the property with its problems is not going to go away.
He noted that the property is adjacent to an arterial highway that carries over 48,000
cars a day, and the zoning allows the use of the drive-thru. He stated that the problems
would continue because Burger King could then decide to make the investment to make
this location more profitable and generate more activity, or they could close it or sublet it
and allow another fast food user to go in. He noted that if the other user does not make
any changes to the use or the floor plan, they are not required to go through the process
13
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of August 9, 2000
of a public hearing for approval to begin operation. He stated that any other user that
goes into that location will generate traffic and noise in their efforts to increase profits.
He said that these characteristics are not unique to Starbucks, but go along with the
zoning of the land and the surrounding uses, and the activity that goes on along Pacific
Coast Highway. He noted that Starbucks is not the creator of these problems, nor can
they solve these problems. Mr. Leviason reported that Starbucks had complied with the
request for a traffic analysis and has shown no malicious intent in attempting to
demonstrate that the uses are similar and that there will be no substantial increase in
the morning traffic and that traffic in the afternoon will actually decrease. He stated that
Starbucks accepts the conditions placed upon them by Staff, including a one-year
review period.
Commissioner Brown asked about the proposed hours of operation. Mr. Whittenberg
responded that the hours would be the same as the hours for Burger King, 6:00 a.m. to
midnight. Commissioner Brown stated that the Staff Report indicates that the hours for
the drive-thru window at other Starbucks locations are limited. He asked if this would be
the same for the proposed Starbucks. Mr. Leviason stated that Starbucks had not been
asked by Staff to limit the drive-thru hours, but if this condition is placed on the CUP
application, Starbucks will consider this request.
Chairperson Hood closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Cutuli stated he has been contacted by several of his constituents
requesting that CUP 00-2 be denied. He said that he is not a coffee drinker and he has
no strong feelings about Starbucks. He noted that it always appears to be a clean, neat
looking franchise, but may dilute the small town atmosphere of Seal Beach. He said
that although it might be too much competition for the other coffeehouses in town, the
job of the Planning Commission is to determine whether the land use meets the rules
and regulations handed down by City Council. He said that the Commission does have
some latitude in deciding whether this entity will blend into the surrounding community.
Commissioner Cutuli stated that because he wants to make a decision that is the safest
for the community, he does have concerns about the traffic at Pacific Coast Highway
and 8th Street. He expressed his concern that the left turn pocket onto 8th Street holds
only two cars. He said that the traffic concerns and the inadequacy of the numbers
presented by LLG in the traffic analysis do not present the prospect of little or no traffic
problems. He stated that he would wait to hear from the other Commissioners, but if the
decision were up to him, he would approve the CUP for the operation of Starbucks
without the drive-thru window as it currently exists.
Mr. Whittenberg interjected that for the record he would like to note that a letter was
received from Rory DeMeire stating her opposition to this project as proposed, and also
a letter from Suzanne and Brian Nelson, residents of Seal Beach, expressing their
opposition to the drive through window. He reported that a copy of the presentation
prepared by Debbie Edwards would also be entered into the record.
14
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
-
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of August 9, 2000
Commissioner Sharp stated that he has spent his entire working life within the retail
food industry, and he always found that competition did more for his business than non-
competition. He said that when there is competition it drives the business owner to take
better care of customers and to do a better job. He said that although he has some
concerns about traffic, Burger King has been operating fairly successfully for 6 years,
and he believes that CUP 00-2 should be granted with a review period on the drive-thru
window. If problems are reported within that review period, the Planning Commission
could decide at the hearing whether to eliminate the drive-thru window. He stated that
he did not believe the Planning Commission could deny a CUP for a location that has a
history of having a successful business operating from that site.
Commissioner Brown welcomed Commissioner Sharp back to the Planning
Commission and stated that he was in agreement with him. He stated that he believed
the primary issue was that under the current CUP there would be nothing to prevent
Burger King from starting to sell coffee exclusively. He noted that in this country we
value free enterprise and if McDonalds could have their way there would be no Burger
Kings or Jack-In-The-Box. He added that if this were the case and he could have his
way there would be no other ophthalmologist within the City of Downey. He said that if
you have a good idea, people will imitate what you are doing, and he believes this to be
the nature of competition and what makes a business better. Commissioner Brown
stated that both he and Commissioner Sharp had participated in the original hearings
for Burger King and at that time the Commission was unsure about having a drive-thru
window. He noted that as he recalled the residents who spoke at that public hearing
wanted the drive-thru. He said he found it very unusual that currently there is an
intense lobbying effort by a competitor against this drive-thru window. He commented
that in his tenure on the Commission this is the most intense campaign he has every
observed in this city. Commissioner Brown stated that in reviewing the traffic analysis
data, it appeared to be a mixture of "science and voodoo," and no one really knows
what the numbers will be until the business actually begins operation. He noted that
with the new Starbucks it was safe to assume that traffic would probably increase in the
morning and decrease in the afternoon. He stated that from his observations in visiting
the Daily Grind, if the line of cars is too long, customers will drive away. He commented
that the Daily Grind is an excellent operation and they make good coffee and he doesn't
believe that they need to be concerned about competition. If anything, he believes it will
help their business by increasing the amount of coffee drinkers in the City. As far as
traffic counts are concerned both Commissioners Brown and Sharp believe that they will
be relatively the same. Commissioner Brown stated that in reviewing the traffic counts it
appears to be "pretty much a wash." He recommended a shorter review period and
cutting the hours of operation for the drive-thru window. Commissioner Brown then
addressed the residents living near the Burger King location stating that although he
sympathized with their situation, this is a commercially zoned area and when living
close to a busy thoroughfare a certain level of noise and disturbance is to be expected.
He said that in this case, if Burger King has been operating at this site for 6 years and
has come up for review several times with no major complaints about traffic registered,
the Planning Commission cannot in all fairness deny this request.
15
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of August 9, 2000
Commissioner Lyon stated that he would like to see an accurate traffic count completed
by the City, as so far there has been no tangible data produced by the City. He noted
that the only speakers who spoke in favor of the project were the representatives of
Starbucks, while the remainder of the public spoke against it. He said that the Planning
Commission needed to consider' the fact that it appeared that the majority of the
members of that neighborhood were not in favor of approval of this request.
Chairperson Hood reviewed the options for action on this item as follows:
1. To approve CUP 00-2 as presented.
2. Deny CUP 00-2
3. To approve CUP 00-2 with limitations.
He stated that the hours of operation could be limited or the hours for operation of the
drive-thru could be restricted after 9:00 p.m., or as the Director of Development
Services suggested, Staff could modify the review period from 12 months to 6 months.
Commissioner Cutuli asked if this CUP is approved with a 6-month review period and
operation of this coffeehouse does create major traffic problems, what remedy would
Staff and/or the City Traffic Engineer present to help minimize the possibility of any
litigation against the City. Mr. Whittenberg responded that the Planning Commission
could consider the alternative of approving the application with a 6-month review and
require that Starbucks reimburse the City for having the contract traffic engineering staff
conduct a monthly monitoring of the turning movements at the intersection of Pacific
Coast Highway and 8th Street. Mr. Whittenberg recommended rotating the monitoring
days to get an overview between weekend and weekday turn movements in and out of
the location. This information could then be presented as a part of the 6-month review
along with a report from the consulting traffic engineer stating what the impacts are. Mr.
Whittenberg cautioned that whenever sampling at locations is done over a period of
time, there may be days where the worst or best activity is recorded, and there is no
way of determining when the worst or best days will be. He suggested that this might
not be the most practical approach. He stated that at this point the Planning
Commission would have the legal authority to either approve or deny the continued
operation of the drive-thru window, or impose modifications to the use of the window.
Commissioner Cutuli questioned whether any action could be taken before the end of
the 6-month review period should serious traffic concerns arise. Mr. Whittenberg
responded that Condition No. 12 of Resolution 00-19 is a standard condition that is
included for all CUP applications and authorizes the Planning Commission to "revoke or
modify this CUP...if harm or retail related problems are demonstrated to occur as a
result of criminal or anti-social behavior including but not limited to the congregation of
minors, violence, public drunkenness, vandalism, solicitation, and/or litter." He said that
this condition allows the Planning Commission to bring an application back before them
at any time if any of these problems are experienced. Mr. Whittenberg recommended
amending the language to this condition to include traffic congestion, customer cars
16
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of August 9, 2000
spilling out onto the street, or increased dangerous turning movements at the
intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and 8th Street.
Commissioner Sharp stated that he believed the Planning Commission should have the
right to limit the hours for the drive-thru window. He recommended shortening the
review period to 6 months and suggested that in consideration of the expense, and
because there might be increased traffic during the first two months of operation, that
the monthly study begin after two months in operation to acquire a more realistic count
of what the daily traffic generation would be. Commissioner Sharp recommended a 5-
minute recess to allow the representatives of Starbucks to confer with the Commission
and Staff regarding modifying the conditions for approval.
Chairperson Hood stated that he would prefer to continue and he recommended making
a motion to approve CUP 00-2 with amendments to the Resolution 00-19.
Commissioner Brown interjected that before a motion could be made to approve the
resolution with amendments, it would be appropriate to know what the amended
resolution states. Chairperson Hood reviewed the recommendations and asked if a
vote could be taken. Commissioner Cutuli stated that he would like to see a 4-month
review period, because if traffic problems do arise, he does not want to see them go on
for 6 months. Chairperson Hood asked Staff if the 6-month review period would begin
when Starbucks opens for business or as of the date of approval of the application. Mr.
Whittenberg reported that the review period begins when Starbucks opens for business.
Commissioner Brown stated that he had no objection to a 4-month review period. He
stated that as it appears in the previous Resolution 97-44 for Burger King, he would like
to see the hours of operation (6:00 a.m. to midnight) added as a condition. Mr.
Whittenberg noted that this was covered in Condition No.2, but if the Commission
would like to have the hours stated, the condition could be modified to reflect this.
Commissioner Brown stated that he felt the hours of operation for the drive-thru window
should be limited to 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. He also recommended that Condition NO.3
of Resolution No. 97-44 regarding limiting business-related activities between the hours
of 12:30 a.m. and 6:00 a.m., be included in Resolution 00-19. Mr. Whittenberg again
referred to Condition No.2 of Resolution 00-19, which states, "the applicant remains
bound by all the conditions of all previous discretionary approvals for the property."
Commissioner Brown stated that he would prefer to see everything clearly spelled out.
He referred to Condition No. 11 of Resolution 97-44 regarding speaker volume after
9:00 p.m. and inquired about a new speaker ordering system that is supposed to be
low-noise and has the order display to prevent customers having to repeat and verbally
confirm their orders.
Commissioner Lyon stated that he believed that all of the new conditions should be
presented in writing before voting on this application. Commissioner Brown reported
that when substantial modifications to a resolution are made, Staff will always present
the modified resolution to the Planning Commission at a later meeting for final approval.
Mr. Whittenberg noted that when action is taken to approve a project subject to the final
resolution appearing before the Planning Commission, this is usually returned as a
Scheduled Matter and not a Public Hearing matter.
17
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of August 9, 2000
Mr. Whittenberg requested clarification of the time restrictions desired for the operation
of the drive-thru window. Commissioner Sharp recommended 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
Chairperson Hood inquired as to whether the recommended hours of operation for the
coffeehouse would remain 6:00 a.m. to midnight. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that these
hours could also be amended. Commissioner Brown stated that he was in agreement
with 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. hours for the drive-thru window. The Commission agreed
that the hours of operation for the drive-thru window should be 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
and 6:00 a.m. to midnight for the overall operation of the coffeehouse. Commissioner
Sharp asked if the application were approved with a 4-month review, could the applicant
come in at the end of the 4 months to report that there have been no problems and
request that the drive-thru hours be extended. Chairperson Hood stated that at the
4-month review the applicant could request any amendment that they would like.
Mr. Whittenberg asked to clarify the changes to be made to Resolution 00-19 as follows:
1. Change the review period to 4 months.
2. Complete a traffic study during the last two months of the 4-month review period.
3. City Traffic Engineer provide information on a weekly basis and that Starbucks
reimburse the City for the cost of this service.
4. Drive through operating hours will be 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. daily.
5. Add Condition Nos. 2, 3, 12, and 17 as they appear in the previous Resolution 97-44
regarding the following issues respectively:
a. Hours of coffeehouse operation as 6:00 a.m. to midnight.
b. No interior or exterior maintenance or business-related activities between the
hours of 12:30 a.m. and 6:00 a.m.
c. Maintenance of a low noise speaker ordering system.
d. Deliveries limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.
Commissioner Cutuli added that the condition be included to allow for a 2-month review
should a substantial increase in traffic problems occur to determine if the drive-thru
window needs to be closed.
Commissioner Brown noted that as indicated in the letter from Rick and Debbie
Edwards the drive through window hours for the Fountain Valley Starbucks are 5:30
a.m. to 9:30 a.m. He stated that the Hermosa Beach Starbucks also has hours posted
of 5:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m.
MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Sharp to approve Conditional Use Permit 00-2 and
direct Staff to return with amended Resolution 00-19.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Lyon, and Sharp
None
None
18
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
4
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of August 9, 2000
Mr. Whittenberg advised that the Commission has not taken final action tonight and the
revised Resolution is scheduled for presentation on August 23, 2000. He stated that if
Resolution 00-19 is adopted, this would begin a 10-day calendar appeal period to the
City Council on the final action taken by the Planning Commission at that time.
Commissioner Sharp requested a 5-minute recess at 9:40 p.m.
The Planning Commission reconvened at 9:50 p.m.
6. Minor Plan Review 00-5
115 Y2 - 3rd Street
Applicant/Owner:
Request:
Rex Hoover / Carol F. Harty
Addition of an approximately 203 square foot balcony to the
second floor of the rear building on a legal non-conforming
property. Specifically the applicant proposes to add a balcony
with posts extending to the ground on the rear apartment unit,
which is located on top of the garage. The property currently
contains 3 units and 3 parking spaces.
Recommendation: To continue to the Planning Commission meeting of August
23,2000.
7. Proposed Amendment to Development Agreement Section 3.1.2.7 - Project Phasing
(Timing of Residential Construction) and to City Council Resolution No. 4735,
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 15797, Condition Number 2, Prior to Issuance of
Building Permits Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center Project.
Applicant/Owner:
Request:
Bixby Ranch Company
Eliminate Section 3.1.2.7 of the Development Agreement
(Ordinance No. 1440-A) and Condition Number 2, Prior to
Issuance of Building Permits, of City Council Resolution No.
4735 regarding Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 15797.
Elimination of these provisions and conditions would remove
the current project phasing provisions and conditions
regarding the required approval of interior lath or drywall
inspections for the commercial construction of certain
specified portions of Development Area A (identified as Retail
"A", "B", "C", and "0") prior to issuance of building permits for
the residential project permitted within Development Area "0"
(maximum of 75 single-family homes). Elimination of these
provisions and conditions would permit construction of the
residential project permitted within department Area "0" to
proceed prior to completion of any commercial development.
19
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of August 9, 2000
Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution
No. 00-31.
Staff Report
Mr. Whittenberg delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the
Planning Department.) He provided some background information on this item and
stated that as part of the initial approvals of the Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center Project,
there was a change in land uses proposed for the project to allow residential
development at the far north end of the property, between the shopping center and the
City of Los Alamitos. He stated that throughout the EIR process the use that had been
evaluated was for a church. He reported that during the last review by City Council it
was decided that the church use would not be allowed and a proposal was accepted to
allow for 75 single-family homes. Mr. Whittenberg stated that concerns were expressed
about the Bixby Ranch Company electing to go with a strictly residential use, leading to
the City losing some of the benefits of the project. He noted that as a result, a condition
was placed upon the approval of the Tentative Tract Map for the residential project,
which states that building permits could not be issued for the homes until certain levels
of building were completed on the commercial venture as a way to ensure that the
commercial portion of the development would also be constructed. He indicated that
the Bixby Ranch Company was now requesting elimination of that "tie-in" of the
residential component to a certain phase of completion of the commercial project. He
stated that City Council Ordinance 1440 adopting the development agreement with
Bixby Ranch indicates that the building permits could not be issued on the residential
uses until the interior lathe or drywall inspections for the commercial shopping center
areas A, B, E and F have been completed. He reported that "Retail A" is the major
tenant of the shopping center and is a 135,000 square foot Target Store. He stated that
the builders for Target have already pulled the foundation permit and are in the process
of trenching and pouring the foundation, and are within 20-30 days of obtaining the
building permit to actually begin construction of the building. He said that "Retail B" is a
57,000 square foot Ralph's Market whose representatives will appear before the
Planning Commission in September 2000 for conditional use permit consideration for
alcohol sales and to the market's 24-hour operation. He indicated that "Retail E" is the
Sav-On Drug Store previously approved by the Planning Commission and is waiting for
building permits. Mr. Whittenberg noted that "Retail F," which will be a linen and bath
store will not be coming before the Planning Commission, as it does not require any
discretionary approvals. He stated that the same provision was also added to the
Conditions for Approval for the Tentative Tract Map for the residential use so that there
would be consistency between the two approvals granted by the City.
Mr. Whittenberg stated that the basic purpose for requesting this amendment is
because the lengthy California Environmental Quality Agency (CEQA) litigation and the
referendum on the project put the commercial project behind schedule in anticipation of
the residential development. He indicated that some of the tenants initially identified
had decided that they did not want to wait through the CEQA litigation and walked away
20
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of August 9, 2000
from the project. Because of these delays, the commercial and residential deadlines for
completion have converged closer together, and the residential builders would like to
proceed with their deadlines as initially anticipated without having to wait for further
work on the commercial uses.
Mr. Whittenberg reported that in order to rule out the possibility of this amendment and
conditions of approval for the tentative map creating new environmental impacts, Staff
had to review the original CEQA analysis and then contacted the original EIR
consultants and requested that they do an analysis. He referred to the copy of the letter
from the EIR consultants included with the Staff Report, which states that the
substantial changes do not result in any basic changes in the project or create new
information not evaluated under the EIR. He stated that based upon these
recommendations from the EIR consultants, Staff has determined that the proposed
change in the phasing of the project complies with the initial CEQA analysis and does
not require additional analysis by CEQA. He explained that the conditions as originally
imposed were to ensure the development of the commercial component for the project,
and Staff feels that this issue has been addressed. He indicated that ownership of the
25-acre shopping center has been transferred to Kitchell Development, and they have
already transferred to Federated Department Stores title for the Target Store property,
with construction of the building scheduled to begin within the next 30-60 days. He
stated that as far as the plans for the rest of the shopping center, Kitchell has notified
Staff that they expect to submit all remaining construction plans to the City by October
2000. He said that by November Staff is hoping to get building permits for all of the
buildings, which total approximately 150,000 square feet of additional building space.
He reported that the projected date for opening for business is April or May 2001.
Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff had been meeting with representatives of Centex
Homes who will be the builder of the residential homes, and they have also provided
their schedule for completion, a copy of which appears in the Staff Report. He said that
Centex Homes do not anticipate applying for building permits until approximately
February 2001. He noted that with the shopping center permits tentatively scheduled
for November 2000, Staff expects the commercial site to be fairly well completed before
any construction would begin on the model homes for the residential project. Staff
presented several questions to be considered by both the Planning Commission and
City Council in making the determination to approve this amendment:
. Did delays caused by the CEQA lawsuit change the circumstances under which the
original condition was imposed?
· Is it desirable for the residential to proceed without the completion of the major
portion of the residential/commercial tenant structures?
· Is it desirable for the residential development to proceed prior to and/or parallel to
the major commercial tenant structures?
· Does the progress of the commercial development on this site make it clear that
commercial development will be completed concurrently with the residential
development?
21
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of August 9, 2000
Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff does not see any adverse effects to approval of this
request. He recommended that if the Planning Commission or City Council feel
uncomfortable in eliminating the conditions altogether, they might still want to tie in to
getting the building permit for the major store in the shopping center, which is the Target
Store. He said that Staff believes that once Target is built, other tenants will quickly be
installed. He stated that if the compressed schedule is adopted, it could benefit both
Seal Beach and Los Alamitos in reducing the length of time that residents will have to
deal with noise, dust, and other construction activities.
Mr. Whittenberg reviewed the alternatives for voting on this request as follows:
1. Vote to approve the amendment as presented.
2. Change the phasing to the issuance of the building permit for the Target Store.
3. Recommend no change to the existing provisions of the Development Agreement
and Tentative Map.
He noted that the decision of the Planning Commission tonight would not be the final
decision, but a recommendation, as this item will go before the City Council.
Commissioner Questions
Commissioner Sharp asked to view the schedule for building permits and completion of
the residential project, and questioned that the deadline of February 2001 was only 6
months away. Mr. Whittenberg explained that these permits would initially be for the
model homes and for the first phase of 15 or 20 homes. After marketing and selling the
first phase, Centex would then go on to the next phase. Commissioner Sharp asked
what the result to the schedule would be if the project were delayed until Target is
complete. Mr. Whittenberg stated that because the residential developers would not
even want to take title to the property until they know they can proceed to build, this
would probably throw the schedule off by several weeks.
Commissioner Cutuli asked what the purpose of the phasing of the project was. Mr.
Whittenberg stated that the City Council had determined that in order to prevent
construction of a residential project only, they would condition approval of the project to
ensure construction of the commercial center first. Commissioner Cutuli asked if the
commercial center and the residential project would be ready at the same time. Mr.
Whittenberg responded that this would probably be the case. He explained that once
building permits are issued, it takes approximately 5-6 months for completion of each
phase of homes.
Chairperson Hood stated that the residents of his District fear that if homes are built
along the runways of the nearby Air Force Reserve Center (AFRC), the base might
close down. He said that the residents do not want to see this happen, as this property
could then be used for further residential development. He explained the reason for
residents' fears by citing the incident when the railroad company in the City of Los
Alamitos gave up its land to the Bixby Company who then sold the property to a lumber
22
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of August 9, 2000
company or the school district. He said that this increased the fear that Bixby would
purposely build homes along the AFRC runways, the residents would then complain,
the base would close, and the land would revert to Bixby Ranch.
Commissioner Lyon asked if the tour of the Centex Homes development was still
scheduled for Thursday, August 17, 2000. Mr. Whittenberg responded that it was and
that after tonight's meeting he would discuss this with the Commissioners.
Public Hearinq
Chairperson Hood opened the public hearing.
Mr. Ron Bradshaw of the Bixby Ranch Company stated that the Staff Report accurately
provides all the information for making a determination. He stated that he wished to
emphasize that the residential component was added when the City Council approved
the ordinance in January 1999, when the Commercial Site Plan was approved. He
reiterated that the concern of the City had been whether there would be a "bait and
switch" situation because there had been a previous application for the entire property
being a residential development with a different golf course configuration. He stated
that at this point in time, the golf course is completely graded and grassed in and will
never be relocated, as there is a 30-year covenant within the development agreement
that no changes can be made during this time. He also stated that the Bixby Ranch
Company would relinquish any rights to the Armed Forces Reserve Center (AFRC)
property. Mr. Bradshaw assured the Commission that the final approvals of the Site
Plan ensure that the commercial development is moving forward as discussed. He
emphasized that the Target Store anticipates opening for business in March 2001. He
stated that Kitchell Development has submitted plans for the Ralph's Market and Sav-
On Drugs projects, and all of the intended users for the commercial development are "in
the pipeline," and should be open and operating prior to the residential development.
Mr. Bradshaw explained that when the change was made from a church use to a
residential use, the Bixby Ranch Company had no problem in agreeing to this, since a
commercial development would be more advantageous. He stated that, unfortunately
the CEQA lawsuit against the City, which was directed only at the commercial and not
the residential component, caused delays in beginning construction on the commercial
site. He explained that meanwhile the Bixby Ranch Company was seeking a
development partner for the residential side. He noted that with the subsequent appeal
of the CEQA lawsuit, this allowed ample time to secure Centex Homes as the developer
for the residential component. Mr. Bradshaw stated that Centex is ready to move
forward with grading, site work development, etc., but they cannot acquire building
permits. He said that he believes the intent and the spirit of the condition have been
met, and the City should not have any concerns regarding the commercial development
coming to completion. He stated that he believed it was important that amending the
agreement will allow all of the off-site construction work along Seal Beach Boulevard in
particular, to be completed in one phase, rather than stringing it out. He emphasized
that if Centex Homes has to wait until the beginning of 2001 to submit their plans, by
this time the commercial component will be complete. He stated that all street
23
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of August 9, 2000
improvements must be complete by early 2001 in order for the commercial tenants to
receive their occupancy permits and open for business. Mr. Bradshaw also explained
that work on the community police facility and cable facility, which are to be located on
the residential site, cannot begin until permits are issued for the entire residential site.
He stated that everyone on the developer side has demonstrated a good working
relationship with the City, and it just makes good sense to have the project proceed as
quickly as possible. He noted that this would shorten the time of physical disruption in
the traffic right-of-ways that must be modified and will provide some of the financial
funding for traffic mitigation for the Seal Beach Boulevard overcrossing. Mr. Bradshaw
stated that amendments to the development agreement are to be expected, and this
proposal is a legitimate and reasonable one that will keep the project moving forward.
Chairperson Hood asked if grading for the residential would be beginning in November,
would building permits for the Target Store be issued in November. Mr. Whittenberg
responded that it is anticipated that the building permits for Target would be available
within the next 30 days. He stated that all other building permits for the commercial site
are anticipated in November. Mr. Bradshaw interjected that he felt that this was
reasonable, and because Target would be the closest neighbor to the residential
component, he believed that it would work best to issue the building permits to Centex
before the commercial component is complete. Chairperson Hood stated that grading
for the residential would not begin until November, which would not slow down the
actual construction. Mr. Bradshaw stated that in order to meet the timeline, Centex
must own the property, and there is concern that Centex Homes may begin to question
their involvement in a situation over which they had no control. He said that in order to
begin grading plans in September, Centex Homes wants reasonable assurance that
they will be able to take title of the property and begin building in February. Chairperson
Hood stated that construction would not be slowed down if this condition were imposed
upon them. Mr. Bradshaw assured the Commission that construction would be slowed
down, because Centex would not spend the money to close the sale of the property.
Mr. Whittenberg interjected that he schedule for completion used in Staff's presentation
does not reflect the alternative to Staff's recommendation, but was prepared assuming
the Commission would approve elimination of the condition altogether, so that Centex
could close escrow on the property and acquire it now instead of waiting until after
building permits have been issued to Target. Mr. Bradshaw reiterated that the plans for
Target are in for the third set of corrections, and the building permit could be issued
before the 30-day projection. He said that at this point there should be no concerns
regarding completion of the commercial component.
Commissioner Sharp asked if title to the land has been transferred to Target. Mr.
Bradshaw responded that it has been transferred. Commissioner Sharp stated that
because the Planning Commission was strictly making a recommendation to the City
Council to amend this agreement, he believes that the Commission should approve
issuance of the building permits for the residential component. He stated that he would
like to make a motion to approve this request. Chairperson Hood explained that the
public hearing was not yet over.
24
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of August 9, 2000
Ms. Sue Corbin said that it was obvious that the Planning Commission was "just going
to roll over for Bixby." She stated that after a lengthy time of hearings culminating in a
compromise and an agreement, suddenly the Bixby Ranch Company does not want to
abide by the agreement, but wants "special rights." She exclaimed that this took a lot of
audacity. She said that due to an inadequate traffic study, which held up progression of
the development, Mr. Bradshaw now wants some kind of benefit to make up for lost
time. She commented that Mr. Bradshaw's negligence was not the City's emergency.
She alluded to Staff holding up the plan check in order to continue partaking of "very
rich lunches," which she said are provided by the contractors. Ms. Corbin stated that it
is unfair to the public to make special allowances for the Bixby Ranch Company, as
there were still no guarantees that the commercial development would be built. She
said that the plan of compromise should not be thrown out by approving this request,
and Bixby Ranch should abide by the original agreement. She noted that the City could
not just take Mr. Bradshaw's word that the commercial project would, in fact, be
constructed. She submitted her letter of objection for the record.
Ms. Janice Shackle, Project Manager for Centex Homes stated that it is their belief that
this will be a very successful project, and they are anxious to begin. She reviewed the
schedule for completion and noted that Centex is anticipating completion of the model
homes by June 2001, which is prime selling season. She stated that if Centex were
held to some of the commercial sites, this would delay their schedule for completion.
She reported that Centex will be doing some shared improvements with Target Store,
and Centex may not be willing to go forward with this until they know the completion
dates for the other commercial projects. She stated that she was available to respond
to questions.
Commissioner Lyon asked how many units would be built at a time. Ms. Shackle
reported that the homes would be built in 4-5 phases ranging from 15-20 homes per
phase for a total of 75 units altogether.
Chairperson Hood closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Comments
Chairperson Hood stated that what the Planning Commission decides really doesn't
matter since this item will be going before the City Council. He stated that removing the
conditions entirely does make sense in one way, however, keeping them also makes
sense, as the City is concerned about sales tax and otherwise has no hold over the
Bixby Ranch Company's agreement. He said that Staff's compromise is a reasonable
one that will probably be appealed after review by the City Council.
Commissioner Brown stated that he regards Target's purchase of the land as a major
commitment, and he has no doubt that the commercial project will go to completion. He
said that if the City Council has already approved this project, it makes sense for the
Planning Commission to not unduly delay progression of the project. He stated that he
25
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
t
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of August 9, 2000
had no objections to dropping this condition and to issuing the building permits to allow
Centex to proceed.
MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Sharp to Eliminate Section 3.1.2.7 of the Development
Agreement (Ordinance No. 1440-A) and Condition Number 2, Prior to Issuance of
Building Permits, of City Council Resolution No. 4735 regarding Vesting Tentatiye Tract
Map No. 15797 and to adopt Resolution 00-31.
MOTION CARRIED:
A YES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
4-0-1
Brown, Cutuli, Lyon, and Sharp
Hood
None
Mr. Whittenberg advised that the action of the Planning Commission is a
recommendation to be considered by the City Council at a future Public Hearing.
STAFF CONCERNS
Mr. Whittenberg noted for the record that the following items were provided for each of
the Commissioners:
1. Memorandum presented to the City Council on June 14, 2000, regarding the status
of contamination at the corner of Seal Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway,
which impacts the Shore Shop property.
2. The most recent issue of The Planning Commissioners Journal.
3. A legal update regarding land use law.
COMMISSION CONCERNS
Chairperson Hood noted that the Agenda Forecast did not reflect the status of the Study
on Retaining Walls. Mr. Whittenberg apologized for the omission and stated that Staff
would revisit this issue within approximately 3 months.
Chairperson Hood asked if there was a final payment made by Brief. Mr. Whittenberg
stated that he could not recall but would look into this matter.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Hood adjourned the meeting at 10:50 p.m. to the August 17, 2000 field trip
to a Centex Homes Development.
26
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
.
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of August 9, 2000
Respectfully Submitted,
Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secreta
Planning Department
APPROVAL
The Commission on September 6, 2000 approve~ the Minutes of the Planning
Commission Meeting of Wednesday, August 9, 2000. ~
27