Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout- - ZA-12-10 Attachment 2 - 5/15/2012C� n ATTACHMENT 2 DRAFT RESOLUTIONS iq i RESOLUTION NUMBER 12- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA APPROVING ZONING APPLICATION ZA-12-10 TO CONVERT AN EXISTING BUILDING INTO A DRIVE-THROUGH COFFEE SHOP AND ANOTHER FOOD USE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, an application was filed by 450 East 17th Street Associates, LLC, requesting approval of Zoning Application ZA-12-10 to convert a former credit union building containing drive-through lane that accommodated a drive -up automated teller machine into a drive-through coffee shop for Starbuck's Coffee and another food use; WHEREAS, on March 26, 2012, ZA-12-10 was approved by the Zoning Administrator; WHEREAS, on April 2, 2012 the approval of ZA-12-10 was appealed by a property owner and called up for review by a council member; WHEREAS, on April 23, 2012, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission; WHEREAS, on April 27, 2012, the Planning Commission's decision for ZA-12-10 was called up for review by a council member and appealed by a property owner on April 30, 2012; 2012. WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on May 15, BE IT RESOLVED that, based on the evidence in the record and the findings contained in Exhibit A, the City Council hereby APPROVES ZA-12-10. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Costa Mesa City Council does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon the activity as described in the staff report for ZA-12-10 and upon applicant's compliance with each and all of the conditions contained in Exhibit B as well as with compliance of all applicable federal, state, and local laws. Any approval granted by this resolution shall be subject to review, modification or revocation if there is a material change that occurs in the operation, or if the applicant fails to comply with any of the conditions of approval. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of May, 2012. ATTEST: CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA ERIC BEVER Mayor, City of Costa Mesa APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY 116 STATE OF CALIFORNIA) }ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, CHRISTINE CORDON, Acting City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above Council Resolution Number 12_ as considered at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the day of , 2012, and thereafter passed and adopted as a whole at the regular meeting of said City Council held on the day of , 2012, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the Seal of the City of Costa Mesa this day of , 2012 EXHIBIT A FINDINGS A. The information presented complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13- 29(g)(2) in that the proposed use is compatible with developments in the same general area. Granting the minor conditional use permit will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the public or other properties or improvements within the immediate vicinity. Granting the minor conditional use permit will not allow a use, density or intensity that is not in accordance with the general plan designation for the property. Specifically, staff does not anticipate any parking impacts because the parking study prepared for the project has been reviewed by the City's Transportation Services Division, and they concur with the study methodology, suggested parking rates, and the consultant's conclusions regarding adequate parking. If the remaining space is occupied by a food use, zoning approval and business license authorization shall be contingent upon validation of the parking conclusions of the parking study prepared for the project. This validation shall be in the form of real-time parking counts conducted within 180 days of the coffee shop being fully operational. Additionally, if parking shortages or other parking -related problems arise, the landlord shall institute whatever reasonable operational measures necessary to minimize or eliminate the problem. Design of the drive-through lane provides adequate vehicle queuing and circulation. The building will be remodeled with contemporary architecture to provide a positive complement to the East 17th Street streetscape. Adverse impacts to residential uses will be minimized due to the requirement that the existing landscape planter at the rear of the property (adjacent to residential) be densely re -planted with trees to provide an additional buffer for residential properties. B. The proposed project complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29 (e) because: 1. The proposed use is compatible and harmonious with uses both on-site as well as those on surrounding properties. 2. Safety and compatibility of the design of the buildings, and other site features including functional aspects of the site development such as automobile and pedestrian circulation have been considered. 3. The use is consistent with the General Plan designation because the project will not exceed the allowable General Plan intensity for the site. C. The project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and the City environmental procedures, and has been found to be exempt under Section 15301, Class 1, Existing Facilities, of the CEQA Guidelines. D. The project is exempt from Chapter XII, Article 3, Transportation System Management, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. 19 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Ping. 1. The uses shall be limited to the type of operation as described in the staff report and conditions of approval. Any change in the operational characteristics of any use including, but not limited to, the hours of operation and additional services provided, shall require review by the Planning Division and may require an amendment subject to approval by the Zoning Administrator. 2. If parking shortages or other parking -related problems arise, the business operator shall institute whatever reasonable operational measures necessary to minimize or eliminate the problem. These measures may include identifying select parking spaces for short-term parking (i.e. 30 minutes, 1 hour, etc.), reserving certain parking spaces for the other tenant, and/or any other measures as deemed appropriate by the Development Services Director. 3. The use shall be conducted, at all times, in a manner that will allow the quiet enjoyment of the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant and/or business owner shall institute whatever reasonable security and operational measures are necessary to comply with this requirement. 4. The applicant shall contact the Planning Division to arrange a Planning inspection of the site prior to commencement of the business. This inspection is to confirm that the conditions of approval and code requirements have been satisfied. 5. Prior to the grand opening of the coffee shop, the applicant shall submit an interim parking plan to the Planning Division for review and approval to ensure that adequate employee parking is available on-site or on at an authorized site through an agreement with its property owner. In addition, the plan shall indicate that employees shall be available to minimize any impacts to circulation on the adjacent streets and surrounding properties. This interim plan shall be in place for a minimum of 60 days during the "Grand Opening" and may be extended for an additional 30 days to meet customer demands as deemed appropriate by the Development Services Director. The interim plan shall be approved prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy. 6. After the Grand Opening period when the interim parking plan is no longer in place, employees of the fast food restaurant shall park on-site. Employee parking shall occur in any of the parking stalls on the property. Employee parking on the public streets fronting residential properties shall be considered a violation of the terms of approval of the minor conditional use permit. If repeated violations occur, the Development Services Director shall have the discretion to require employee parking spaces be assigned on the property, or to require other appropriate measures to ensure on-site employee parking. 7. Zoning approval and business license authorization for a proposed establishment where food and beverages are served shall be contingent upon validation of the parking conclusions of the March 1, 2012 parking K study. This validation shall be in the form of real-time parking counts conducted within 90 days of the coffee shop being fully operational. 8. The conditions of approval for ZA-12-10 shall be blueprinted on the face of the site plan as part of the plan check submittal package. 9. No modification(s) of the approved building elevations including, but not limited to, changes that increase the building height, removal of building articulation, or a change of the finish material.(s), shall be made during construction without prior Planning Division written approval. Failure to obtain prior Planning Division approval of the modification could result in the requirement of the applicant to (re)process the modification through a discretionary review process such as a minor design review or a variance, or in the requirement to modify the construction to reflect the approved plans. 10. No exterior roof access ladders, roof drain scuppers, or roof drain downspouts are permitted. 11. It is recommended that the project incorporate green building design and construction techniques where feasible. The applicant may contact the Building Safety Division at (714) 754-5273 for additional information. 12. Applicant shall work with staff to landscape the planter at the rear of the property in order to maximize the opportunity to provide a buffer for the residential properties including minimum 24 -inch box size trees, subject to review and approval by the Planning Division Director. 13. The property owner or applicant shall install bike racks for patrons and employees on the site. The bicycle racks shall be decorative in design. This condition shall be completed prior to final occupancy/start of business, under the direction of the Planning and Building Divisions. 14. The applicant shall work with staff to reconfigure the proposed outdoor patios to minimize the encroachment into the required street setback landscape planters, subject to approval by the Planning Division. 15. Transformers, backflow preventers, and any other approved above -ground utility improvement shall be located outside of the required street setback area and shall be screened upon view, under direction of Planning staff. Any deviation from this requirement shall be subject to review and approval of the Development Services Director. 16. City understands that the adjacent property may hold certain easement rights over the property that is the subject of this decision. The city is not in a position to determine the legal rights between the two parcels with respect to this easement. Accordingly, the City's approval is made expressly subject to the project being in full compliance with any existing duties, rights and obligations set forth in any easements or other encumbrances recorded against the property. Any construction initiated by applicant is performed at applicant's own risk that it may be inconsistent with existing easements and encumbrances. 20 RESOLUTION NUMBER 12- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA DENYING ZONING APPLICATION ZA-12-10 TO CONVERT AN EXISTING BUILDING INTO A DRIVE-THROUGH COFFEE SHOP AND ANOTHER FOOD USE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, an application was filed by 450 East 17th Street Associates, LLC, requesting approval of Zoning Application ZA-12-10 to convert a former credit union building containing drive-through lane that accommodated a drive -up automated teller machine into a drive-through coffee shop for Starbuck's Coffee and another food use; WHEREAS, on March 26, 2012, ZA-12-10 was approved by the Zoning Administrator; WHEREAS, on April 2, 2012 the approval of ZA-12-10 was appealed by a property owner and called up for review by a council member; WHEREAS, on April 23, 2012, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission; WHEREAS, on April 27, 2012, the Planning Commission's decision for ZA-12-10 was called up for review by a council member and appealed by a property owner on April 30, 2012; WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on May 15, 2012. BE IT RESOLVED that, based on the evidence in the record and the findings contained in Exhibit A, the City Council hereby DENIES ZA-12-10. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of May, 2012. ATTEST: ERIC BEVER Mayor, City of Costa Mesa APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY CLERK OF THE CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF COSTA MESA 21 0 STATE OF CALIFORNIA) )ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, CHRISTINE CORDON, Acting City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above Council Resolution Number 12_ as considered at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the day of 2012, and thereafter passed and adopted as a whole at the regular meeting of said City Council held on the day of , 2012, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the Seal of the City of Costa Mesa this day of , 2012 EXHIBIT A FINDINGS 0 A. The proposed project does not comply with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(e) because:. 1. A compatible and harmonious relationship does not exist between the proposed use and existing buildings, site development, and uses on surrounding properties. 2. The proposed use is not consistent with the General Plan or Redevelopment Plan. B. The information presented does not comply with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(g)(2) in that the proposed use is not compatible with developments in the same general area. Granting the minor conditional use permit will be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the public or other properties or improvements within the immediate vicinity. Granting the minor conditional use permit will allow a use, density or intensity that is not in accordance with the general plan designation for the property. C. The Costa Mesa City Council has denied Zoning Application ZA-12-10. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080(b)(5) and CEQA Guidelines' Section 15270(a) CEQA does not apply to this project because it has been rejected and will not be carried out. D. The project is exempt from Chapter XII, Article 3, Transportation System Management, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. - ,3 �l 0 J ATTACHMENT 3 REVIEW AND APPEAL REQUESTS z4 0 CITY HL_ 'L:I�i'LD CTT'i OF COSTA MESA P. O. Box 1200 C,TTY C-LEJ`', K Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200 FEF: $ APPLICATION FOR REVIEW, APPEAL OR REHEAR1i�GR 27 PPS 42 l i -1'V r f kJ fF �. t ui� ���'l A We,0 #.r Leece, Cc0rnCI VJow�a� 1 ApplicantName_ _ Address Phone Representing* REQUEST FOR: [R REVIEW** RAPPEAL REHEARING Decision of which review, appeal or rehearing is requested: ?(give number of rezone, zone exception, ordinance, etc., if applicable, and the date of the decision, if known.) I—C�r 1 2 J . 'J o I Z P-,C.l' $ to P1 Q yty, � nq wtwitS110n -lam AnPraye, 5+?tY1Q0CL0, (�D 456 l ^ / Decision by: I" _ Reasons for requesting review, appeal or rehearing: 1 Oy E +hU. In l0 Tf 6 V1-�-j host- n� AQY' t resl,aek7lks 0� Gjinrl l C) Lgoe 1. �,1 5 u p poft 56 (b ac�--6 Ind 'I po S cz,^�b l,l ` 6 r, s4-7,, ,„ For office use only — do not write below this line SCHEDULED FOR THE CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF: If review, appeal or rehearing is for person or body other than City Council/Planning Commission, date of hearing of review, appeal or rehearing: * If you are serving as the agent for another person, please identify the person you represent and provide proof of agency. Review may be requested only by City Council or City Council Member Costa Mesa/Formsl/Application for Review -Appeal -Rehearing 2-5 os -e - r u_ `1:i-i� n6t reAsoyia le - e.'to 'to e au C' E. V0110 M411 t TYa,�-�rt'v/ r 0 D2rcl ho I'lal hcurS !k_� jr Wl 0� V 1G1V1. �'C�� d t -C" U Irl (�In W 1 Gt �I�iDt� JTit II 100Gk5 J} 'ie S lC'kf If t) --Aej. P1-50. +`W a li o4TY -es `' Q�ain$t �he' CA, bri l la Street" res l8e4s 166 +fo�l Date, 9 ./' � ./J 4 . O Ci 1CV1 tJa—f'l.a l5� l� BVI Signature: Civ es. For office use only — do not write below this line SCHEDULED FOR THE CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF: If review, appeal or rehearing is for person or body other than City Council/Planning Commission, date of hearing of review, appeal or rehearing: * If you are serving as the agent for another person, please identify the person you represent and provide proof of agency. Review may be requested only by City Council or City Council Member Costa Mesa/Formsl/Application for Review -Appeal -Rehearing 2-5 (7 April 24, 2012 The Honorable City Council City ofCosta Mesa P. O. Box 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200 ®ear Esteemed Mayor and Council Members: RECT APR 2 0 2012 We are writing to ask for your help and support to appeal the decision by the Planning Commission made Monday night, April 23, 2012, that allows a drive through operation at a proposed Starbucks, with hours of operation between 6:00 a.m. —11:00 p.m., at 450 East 17th Street. We ask that you appeal the Planning Commission decision and deny this drive-through altogether. Many of our fellow residents feel this should be appealed based on the following: • Safety, • Noise, • Traffic problems, • Quality of Life for residents in the surrounding neighborhood, • Pollution/Negative environmental impact, • Negative Impact to property values. While a drive through window was in place for the former tenants, a bank and then credit union, it is not reasonable to equate the volume of traffic nor operational hours from a bank/credit union with a Starbucks. Further, the developer made promises that they may not be able to keep related to a "wall of trees" against the wall which backs up to the Cabrillo resident's property line. We support Starbucks and possibly a restaurant moving into the proposed address; but, we are strongly opposed to a drive through being permitted here for the reasons above. We ask that you appeal this Planning Commission decision as soon as possible. We have many neighbors who are willing to fight against the current planning Commission's decision and we are counting on you, our elected officials, to support us, your voting. constituents. Sincerely, vl'cl 5, wad mxn V�JNAMA,_� 04 ca b -i 110 & C05i a M eSAA" ZO April 24, 2012 The Honorable City Council City of Costa Mesa P. 0. Sox 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200 Dear Esteemed Mayor and Council Members: We are writing to ask for your help and support to appeal the decision by the Planning Commission made Monday night, April 23, 2012, that allows a drive through operation at a proposed Starbucks, with hours of operation between 6:00 a.m. —11:00 p.m., at 450 East 170 Street. We ask that you appeal the Planning Commission decision and deny this drive-through altogether. Many of our fellow residents feel this should be appealed based on the following: • Safety, • Noise, • Traff o problems, • Quality of Life for residents in the surrounding neighborhood, + Pollution/Negative environmental impact, Negative impact to property values. While a drive through window was in place for the former tenants, a bank and then credit union, it is not reasonable to equate the volume of traffic nor operational hours from a bank/credit union with a Starbucks. Further, the developer made promises that they may not be able to keep related to a "wall of trees" against the wall which backs up to the Cabrillo resident's property line. We support Starbucks and possibly a restaurant moving into the proposed address; but, we are strongly opposed to a drive through being permitted here for the reasons above. We ask that you appeal this Planning Commission decision as soon as possible. We have many neighbors who are willing to fight against the current planning Commission's decision and we are counting on you, our elected officials, to support us, your voting constituents. Sincerely, c 4 l� April 24, 2012 The Honorable City Council City of Costa Mesa P. O. Box 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200 Dear Esteemed Mayor and Council Members: We are writing to ask for your help and support to appeal the decision by the Planning Commission made Monday night, April 23, 2012, that allows a drive through operation at a proposed Starbucks, with hours of operation between 6:00 a.m. —11:00 p.m., at 450 East 17'h Street. We ask that you appeal the Planning Commission decision and deny this drive-through altogether. Many of our fellow residents feel this should be appealed based on the following: • Safety, • Noise, • Traffic problems, • Quality of Life for residents in the surrounding neighborhood, • Pollution/Negative environmental impact, • Negative impact to property values. While a drive through window was in place for the former tenants, a bank and then credit union, it is not reasonable to equate the volume of traffic nor operational hours from a bank/credit union with a Starbucks, Further, the developer made promises that they may not be able to keep related to a "wall of trees" against the wall which backs up to the Cabrillo resident's property line. We support Starbucks and possibly a restaurant moving into the proposed address; but, we are strongly opposed to a drive through being permitted here for the reasons above. We ask that you appeal this Planning Commission decision as soon as possible. We have many neighbors who are willing to fight against the current planning Commission's decision and we are counting on you, our elected officials, to support us, your voting constituents. Sincerely, A�77, y 156W,",4 - 1'4 56W, ,4- 1'4 2`� April 24, 2012 The Honorable City Council City of Costa Mesa P. O, Sox 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200 Dear Esteemed Mayor and Council Members: We are writing to ask for your help and support to appeal the decision by the Planning Commission made Monday night, April 23, 2012, that allows a drive through operation at a proposed Starbucks, with hours of operation between 6:00 a.m. --11:00 p.m., at 450 East 17�' Street. We ask that you appeal the Planning Commission decision and deny this drive-through altogether. Many of our fellow residents feel this should be appealed based on the following: • Safety, Noise, • Traffic problems, • Quality of Life for residents in the surrounding neighborhood, • Pollution/Negative environmental impact, • Negative impact to property values. While a drive through window was in place for the former tenants, a bank and then credit union, it is not reasonable to equate the volume of traffic nor operational hours from a bank/credit union with a Starbucks. Further, the developer made promises that they may not be able to keep related to a "wall of trees" against the wall which backs up to the Cabrillo resident's property line. We support Starbucks and possibly a restaurant moving into the proposed address; but, we are strongly opposed to a drive through being permitted here for the reasons above We ask that you appeal this Planning Commission decision as soon as possible. We have many neighbors who are willing to fight against the current planning Commission's decision and we are counting on you, our elected officials, to support us, your voting constituents, Sincerely, Z,7 April 24, 2012 The Honorable City Council City of Costa Mesa P. O. Sox 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200 Dear Esteemed Mayor and Council Members: We are writing to ask for your help and support to appeal the decision by the Planning Commission made Monday night, April 23, 2012, that allows a drive through operation at a proposed Starbucks, with hours of operation between 6:00 a.m. —11:00 p.m., at 450 East 17'' Street, We ask that you appeal the Planning Commission decision and deny this drive-through altogether. Many of our fellow residents feel this should be appealed based on the following: • Safety, • Noise, • Traffic problems, • (duality of Life for residents in the surrounding neighborhood, • Pollution/Negative environmental impact, • Negative impact to property values. While a drive through window was in place for the former tenants, a bank and then credit union, it is not reasonable to equate the volume of traffic nor operational hours from a banklcredit union with a Starbucks. Further, the developer made promises that they may not be able to keep related to a "wall of trees" against the wall which backs up to the Cabrillo resident's property line. We support Starbucks and possibly a restaurant moving into the proposed address; but, we are strongly opposed to a drive through being permitted here for the reasons above. We ask that you appeal this Planning Commission decision as soon as possible. We have many neighbors who are willing to fight against the current planning Commission's decision and we are counting on you, our elected off ' Is, to support us, your voting constituents. Sincerely, �4 �2 3T-" c� April 24, 2012 The Honorable City Council City of Costa Mesa P. C, Box 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 32625-1200 Dear Esteemed Mayor and Council Members: We are writing to ask for your help and support to appeal the decision by the Planning Commission made Monday night, April 23, 2012, that allows a drive through operation at a proposed Starbucks, with hours of operation between 6:00 a.m, —11:00 p.m., at 450 East 17th Street. We ask that you appeal the Planning Commission decision and deny this drive-through altogether. Many of our fellow residents feel this should be appealed based on the following: • Safety, • Noise, • Traffic problems, • Quality of Life for residents in the surrounding neighborhood, • Pollution/Negative environmental impact, • Negative impact to property values. While a drive through window was in place for the former tenants, a bank and then credit unionjt is not reasonable to equate the volume of traffic nor operational hours from a bank/credit union with a Starbucks. Further, the developer made promises that they may not be able to keep related to a "wall of trees" against the wall which backs up to the Cabrillo resident's property line. We support Starbucks and possibly a restaurant moving into the proposed address; but, we are strongly opIposed to a drive through being permitted here for the reasons above. We ask that you appeal this Planning Commission decision as soon as possible: We have many neighbors who are willing to fight against the current planning Commission's decision and we are counting on you, our elected officials, to support us, your voting constituents. Sincerely, �2G E, rG IA sr 31 April 24, 2012 The Honorable City Council City of Costa Mesa P. O. Box 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200 Dear Esteemed Mayor and Council Members: We are writing to ask for your help and support to appeal the decision by the Planning Commission made Monday night, April 23, 2012, that allows a drive through operation at a proposed Starbucks, with hours of operation between 6:00 a.m. —11:00 p.m., at 450 East 17'' Street. We ask that you appeal the Planning Commission decision and deny this drive-through altogether. Many of our fellow residents feet this should be appealed based on the following: • Safety, Noise, • Traffic problems, {duality of Life for residents in the surrounding neighborhood, 41 Pollution/Negative environmental impact, • Negative impact to property values. While a drive through window was in place for the former tenants, a bank and then credit union, it is not reasonable to equate the volume of traffic nor operational hours from a bank/credit union with a Starbucks. Further, the developer made promises that they may not be able to keep related to a "wall of trees" against the wall which backs up to the Cabrillo resident's property line. We support Starbucks and possibly a restaurant moving into the proposed address; but, We ask that you appeal this Planning Commission decision as soon as possible. We have many neighbors who are willing to fight against the current planning Commission's decision and we are counting on you, our elected officials, to support us, your voting. constituents, Sincerely, 32 April 24, 2012 The Honorable City Council City of Costa Mesa P. O. Sox 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200 Dear Esteemed Mayor and Council Members: We are writing to ask for your help and support to appeal the decision by the Planning Commission made Monday night, April 23, 2012, that allows a drive through operation at a proposed Starbucks, with hours of operation between 6:00 a.m. —11:00 p.m., at 450 East 17th Street. We ask that you appeal the Planning Commission decision and deny this drive-through altogether. Many of our fellow residents feel this should be appealed based on the following: • Safety, • Noise, • Traffic problems, • Quality of Life for residents in the surrounding neighborhood, • Pollution/Negative environmental impact, • Negative Impact to property values. While a drive through window was in place for the former tenants, a bank and then credit union, it is not reasonable to equate the volume of traffic nor operational hours from a bank/credit union with a Starbucks. Further, the developer made promises that they may not be able to keep related to a "wall of trees" against the wall which backs up to the Cabrillo resident's property line. We support Starbucks and possibly a restaurant moving into the proposed address; but, we are strongly, opposed to a drive through being permitted here for the reasons above. We ask that you appeal this Planning Commission decision as soon as possible. We have many neighbors who are willing to fight against the current planning Commission's decision and we are counting on you, our elected officials, to support us, your voting. constituents. Sincerely, u22 4C C7 S 35 April 24, 2012 The Honorable City Council City of Costa Mesa P. O. Box 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200 Dear Esteemed Mayor and Council Members: We are writing to ask for your help and support to appeal the decision by the Planning Commission made Monday night, April 23, 2012, that allows a drive through operation at a proposed Starbucks, with hours of operation between' 6:00 a.m. —11:00 p.m., at 450 East 17th Street, We ask that you appeal the Planning Commission decision and deny this drive-through altogether. Many of our fellow residents feel this should be appealed based on the following: • Safety, • Noise, • Traffic problems, • Quality of Life for residents in the surrounding neighborhood, • Pollution/Negative environmental impact, • Negative impact to property values. While a drive through window was in place for the former tenants, a bank and then credit union, it is not reasonable to equate the volume of traffic nor operational hours from a bank/credit union with a Starbucks. Further, the developer made promises that they may not be able to keep related to a "wall of trees" against the wall which backs up to the Cabrillo resident's property line. We support Starbucks and possibly a restaurant moving into the proposed address; but, we are strongly opposed to a drive through being permitted here for the reasons above. We ask that you appeal this Planning Commission decision as soon as possible. We have many neighbors who are willing to fight against the current planning Commission's decision and we are counting on you, our elected officials, to support us, your voting constituents. Sincerely, *Vl� i /eY U`r � tc< �t1,4'( 4 Sri 3q April 24, 2012 The Honorable City Council City of Costa Mesa P. O. Sox 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200 Dear Esteemed Mayor and Council Members: We are writing to ask for your help and support to appeal the decision by the Planning Commission made Monday night, April 23, 2012, that allows a drive through operation at a proposed Starbucks, with hours of operation between 6:00 a.m. —11:00 p.m., at 450 East 17'' Street. We ask that you appeal the Planning,Commission decision and deny this drive-through altogether. Many of our fellow residents feel this should be appealed based on the following: Safety, • Noise, • Traffic problems, Quality of Life for residents in the surrounding neighborhood, • Pollution/Negative environmental impact, Negative impact to property values. While a drive through window was in place for the former tenants, a bank and then credit union, it is not reasonable to equate the volume of traffic nor operational hours from a bank/credit union with a Starbucks. Further, the developer made promises that they may not be able to keep related to a "wail of trees" against the wall which backs up to the Cabrillo resident's property line. We support Starbucks and possibly a restaurant moving into the proposed address; but, we are strongly opposed to a drive through being permitted here for the reasons above. We ask that you appeal this Planning Commission decision as soon as possible. We have many neighbors who are willing to fight against the current planning Commission's decision and we are counting on you, our elected officials, to support us, your voting constituents. Sincerely, 11 4 35 April 24, 2012 The Honorable City Council City of Costa Mesa P. O. Box 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200 Dear Esteemed Mayor and Council Members: We are writing to ask for your help and support to appeal the decision by the Planning Commission made Monday night, April 23, 2012, that allows a drive through operation at a proposed Starbucks, with hours of operation between 6:00 a.m. --11;00 p.m., at 450 East 17'' Street. We ask that you appeal the Planning Commission decision and deny this drive-through altogether. Many of our fellow residents feel this should be appealed based on the following: • Safety, • Noise, • Traffic problems, • Quality of Life for residents in the surrounding neighborhood, • Pollution[Negative environmental impact, • Negative impact to property values. While a drive through window was in place for the former tenants, a bank and then credit union, it is not reasonable to equate the volume of traffic nor operational hours from a bankicredit union with a Starbucks. Further, the developer made promises that they may not be able to keep related to a "wall of trees" against the wall which backs up to the Cabrillo resident's property line. We support Starbucks and possibly a restaurant moving into the proposed address; but, we are strongly opposed to a drive through being permitted here for the reasons above. We ask that you appeal this Planning Commission decision as soon as possible. We have many neighbors who are willing to fight against the current planning Commission's decision and we are counting on you, our elected officials, to support us, your voting constituents. Sincerely, Male (0 April 24, 2012 The Honorable City Council City of Costa Mesa P. O. Box 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200 Dear Esteemed Mayor and Council Members: We are writing to ask for your help and support to appeal the decision by the Planning Commission made Monday night, April 23, 2012, that allows a drive through operation at a proposed Starbucks, with hours of operation between 6:00 a.m. —11:00 p.m., at 450 East 17'" Street. We ask that you appeal the Planning Commission decision and deny this drive-through altogether. Many of our fellow residents feel this should be appealed based on the following: • Safety, • Noise, • Traffic problems, Quality of Life for residents in the surrounding neighborhood, • Pollution/Negative environmental impact, Negative impact to property values. While a drive through window was in place for the former tenants, a bank and then credit union, it is not reasonable to equate the volume of traffic nor operational hours from a bank/credit union with a Starbucks, Further, the developer made promises that they may not be able to keep related to a "wall of trees" against the wall which backs up to the Cabrillo resident's property line. We support Starbucks and possibly a restaurant moving into the proposed address; but, we are strongly opposed to a drive through being permitted here for the reasons above. We ask that you appeal this Planning Commission decision as soon as possible. We have many neighbors who are willing to fight against the current planning Commission's decision and we are counting on you, our elected officials, to support us, your voting constituents. Sincerely, 0 April 24, 2012 The Honorable City Council City of Costa Mesa P. O. Box 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200 Dear Esteemed Mayor and Council Members: We are writing to ask for your help and support to appeal the decision by the Planning Commission made Monday night, April 23, 2012, that allows a drive through operation at a proposed Starbucks, with hours of operation between 6:00 a.m. —11:00 p.m., at 480 East 17th Street. We ask that you appeal the Planning Commission decision and deny this drive-through altogether. Many of our fellow residents feel this should be appealed based on the following: • Safety, • Noise, • Traffic problems, • Quality of Life for residents in the surrounding neighborhood, • Pollution/Negative environmental impact, • Negative impact to property values. While a drive through window was in place for the former tenants, a bank and then credit Union, it is not reasonable to equate the volume of traffic nor operational hours from a bank/credit union with a Starbucks. Further, the developer made promises that they may not be able to keep related to a "wall of trees" against the wall which backs up to the Cabrillo resident's property line. We support Starbucks and possibly a restaurant moving into the proposed address; but, we are strongly opposed to a drive through being permitted here for the reasons above. We ask that you appeal this Planning Commission decision as soon as possible. We have many neighbors who are willing to fight against the current planning Commission's decision and we are counting on you, our elected officials, to support us, your voting constituents. Sincerely, - jZ7CI-110�5 '... r4 v. f 2j / April 24, 2012 The Honorable City Council City of Costa Mesa P. O, Box 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200 Dear Esteemed Mayor and Council Members: We are writing to ask for your help and support to appeal the decision by the Planning Commission made Monday night, April 23, 2012, that allows a drive through operation at a proposed Starbucks, with hours of operation between 6:00 a.m, —11:00 p.m., at 450 East 17'' Street. We ask that you appeal the Planning Commission decision and deny this drive-through altogether. Many of cur fellow residents feel this should be appealed based on the following: • Safety, • Noise, • Traffic problems, • Quality of Life for residents in the surrounding neighborhood, Pollution/Negative environmental impact, • Negative impact to property values. While a drive through window was in place for the former tenants, a bank and then credit union, it is not reasonable to equate the volume of traffic nor operational hours from a bank/credit union with a Starbucks. Further, the developer made promises that they may not be able to keep related to a "wall of trees" against the wall which backs up to the Cabrillo resident's property line. We support Starbucks and possibly a restaurant moving into the proposed address; but, we are strongly opposed to a drive through being permitted here for the reasons above. We ask that you appeal this Planning Commission decision as soon as possible. We have many neighbors who are willing to fight against the current planning Commission's decision and we are counting on you, our elected officials, to support us, your voting. constituents. Sincerely, � 7 .r j[�r✓.l 5c6 , 1 -7 C&IqO,, Ade C&t CQ�- �Z�oi7 39 April 24, 2012 The Honorable City Council City of Costa Mesa P. 0. Box 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200 Dear Esteemed Mayor and Council Members: We are writing to ask for your help and support to appeal the decision by the Planning Commission made Monday night, April 23, 2012, that allows a drive through operation at a proposed Starbucks, with hours of operation between 6:00 a.m. —11:00 p.m., at 450 East 17th Street. We ask that you appeal the Planning Commission decision and deny this drive-through altogether. Many of our fellow residents feel this should be appealed based on the following: • Safety, • Noise, • Traffic problems, • Quality of Life for residents in the surrounding neighborhood, • Pollution/Negative environmental Impact, • Negative impact to property values. While a drive through window was in place for the former tenants, a bank and then credit union, it is not reasonable to equate the volume of traffic nor operational hours from a bank/credit union with a Starbucks. Further, the developer made promises that they may not be able to keep related to a "wall of trees" against the wall which backs up to the Cabrillo resident's property line. We support Starbucks and possibly a restaurant moving into the proposed address', but, we are strongiy opposed to a drive through being permitted here for the reasons above. We ask that you appeal this Planning Commission decision as soon as possible. We have many neighbors who are willing to fight against the current planning Commission's decision and we are counting on you, our elected officials, to support us, your voting constituents. Sincerely, %'� ✓�� 40 �� April 24, 2012 The Honorable City Council City of Costa Mesa P. O. Box 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200 Dear Esteemed Mayor and Council Members: We are wr lting to ask for your help and support to appeal the decision by the Planning Commission made Monday night, April 23, 2012, that allows a drive through operation at a proposed Starbucks, with hours of operation between 6:00 a.m. -- 91:00 p.m., at 450 East 17'h Street. We ask that you appeal the Planning Commission decision and deny this drive-through altogether. Many of our fellow residents feel this should be appealed based on the following: • Safety, • Noise, • Traffic problems, • Quality of Life for residents in the surrounding neighborhood, + Pollution/Negative environmental impact, • Negative impact to property values. While a drive through window was in place for the former tenants, a bank and then credit union, it is not reasonable to equate the volume of traffic nor operational hours from a bank/credit union with a Starbucks. Further, the developer made promises that they may not be able to keep related to a "wall of trees" against the wall which backs up to the Cabrillo resident's property line, We support Starbucks and possibly a restaurant moving into the proposed address; but, we are strongly opposed to a drive through being permitted here for the reasons above We ask that you appeal this Planning Commission decision as soon as possible. We have many neighbors who are willing to fight against the current planning Commission's decision and we are counting on you, our elected officials, to support us, your voting constituents. Sincerely, 1531 Pq n April 24, 2012 The Honorable City Council City of Costa Mesa P. 0. Box 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92628-120a Dear Esteemed Mayor and Council Members: We are writing to ask for your help and support to appeal the decision by the Planning Commission made Monday night, April 23, 2012, that allows a drive through operation at a proposed Starbucks, with hours of operation between 6:00 a.m. —11:00 p.m., at 450 East 17`x' Street. We ask that you appeal the Planning Commission decision and deny this drive-through altogether. Many of our fellow residents feel this should be appealed based on the following: • Safety, • Noise, • Traffic problems, • Quality of Life for residents in the surrounding neighborhood, • Pollution/Negative environmental impact, Negative impact to property values. While a drive through window was in place for the former tenants, a bank and then credit union, it is not reasonable to equate the volume of traffic nor operational hours from a bank/credit union with a Starbucks. Further, the developer made promises that they may not be able to keep related to a "wall of trees" against the wall which backs up to the Cabrillo resident's property line. We support Starbucks and possibly a restaurant moving into the proposed address; but, we are strongly opposed to a drive through being permitted here for the reasons above. We ask that you appeal this Planning Commission decision as soon as possible. We have many neighbors who are willing to fight against the current planning Commission's decision and we are counting on you, our elected officials, to support us, your voting constituents. Sincerely, 41 April 24, 2012 The Honorable City Council City of Costa Mesa P. O. Box 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200 Dear Esteemed Mayor and Council Members: We are writing to ask for your help and support to appeal the decision by the Planning Commission made Monday night, April 23, 2012, that allows a drive through operation at a proposed Starbucks, with hours of operation between 6:00 a.m. --11:00 p.m., at 450 East 17th Street. We ask that you appeal the Planning Commission decision and deny this drive-through altogether. Many of our fellow residents feel this should be appealed based on the following: • Safety, • Noise, • Traflfc problems, • Quality of Life for residents in the surrounding neighborhood, • PollutionfNegative environmental impact, • Negative impact to property values. While a drive through window was in place for the former tenants, a bank and then credit union, it is not reasonable to equate the volume of traffic nor operational hours from a bankforedit union with a Starbucks. Further, the developer made promises that they may not be able to keep related to a "wall of trees" against the wall which backs up to the Cabrillo resident's property line. We support Starbucks and possibly a restaurant moving into the proposed address; but, we are strongly opposed to a drive through beingpermitted here for the reasons above. We ask that you appeal this Planning Commission decision as soon as possible. We have many neighbors who are willing to fight against the current planning Commission's decision and we are counting on you, our elected officials, to support us, your voting constituents. Sincerely, �3 April 24, 2012 The Honorable City Council City of Costa Mesa P. 0. Box 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200 Dear Esteemed Mayor and Council Members: We are writing to ask for your help and support to appeal the decision by the Planning Commission made Noonday night, April 23, 2012, that allows a drive through operation at a proposed Starbucks, with hours of operation between 6:00 a.m. --11:00 p.m., at 450 East 17th Street. We ask that you appeal the Planning Commission decision and deny this drive-through altogether. Many of our fellow residents feel this should be appealed based on the following: • Safety, • Noise, • Traffic problems, • Quality of Life for residents in the surrounding neighborhood, • Pollution/Negative environmental impact, • Negative impact to property values. While a drive through window was in place for the former tenants, a bank and then credit union, it is not reasonable to equate the volume of traffic nor operational hours from a bank/credit union with a Starbucks. Further, the developer made promises that they may not be able to keep related to a "wall of trees" against the wall which backs up to the Cabrillo resident's property line, We support Starbucks and possibly a restaurant moving into the proposed address; but, we are strongly opposed to a drive through being permitted here for the reasons above. We ask that you appeal this Planning Commission decision as soon as possible. We have many neighbors who are willing to fight against the current planning Commission's decision and we are counting on you, our elected officials, to support us, your voting_ constituents, Sincerely, tet; L--7 April 25, 2012 Dear Esteemed Mayor and Council Members: We are writing to ask for your help and support to appeal and to vote against the decision by the Planning Commission made Monday night, April 23, 2012, that allows a drive through operation at a proposed Starbucks, with hours of operation between 6:00 a.m. —11:00 p.m., at 450 171h Street. We ask that you appeal the Planning Commission decision and deny this drive-through altogether. Many of our fellow residents feel this should be appealed based on the following: • Safety, • Noise, • Traffic problems, • Quality of Life for residents in the surrounding neighborhood, • Pollution/Negative environmental impact, • Negative impact to property values. While a drive through window was in place for the former tenants, a bank and then credit union, it is not reasonable to equate the volume of traffic or operational hours from a bank/credit union with a Starbucks. Further, the developer made promises that they may not be able to keep related to a "wall of trees" against the wall which backs up to the Cabrillo resident's property line. We support Starbucks and possibly a restaurant moving into the proposed address; but, we are strongly apposed to a drive throe h being permitted here for the reasons above. We ask that you do appeal and do NOT this Planning Commission decision to allow the drive through as planned as soon as possible. We have many neighbors who are willing to fight against the current Planning Commission's decision and we are counting on you, our elected officials, to support us, your voting constituents. Sincerely, L e r �5 April 25, 2012 Dear Esteemed Mayor and Council Members: We are writing to ask for your help and support to appeal and to vote against the decision by the Planning Commission made Monday night, April 23, 2012, that allows a drive through operation at a proposed Starbucks, with hours of operation between 6:00 a.m. —11:00 p.m., at 450 17th Street. We ask that you appeal the Planning Commission decision and deny this drive-through altogether. Many of our fellow residents feel this should be appealed based on the following: • Safety, • Noise, • Traffic problems, • Quality of Life for residents in the surrounding neighborhood, • Pollution/Negative environmental impact, • Negative impact to property values, While a drive through window was in place for the former tenants, a bank and then credit union, it is not reasonable to equate the volume of traffic or operational hours from a bank/credit union with a Starbucks. Further, the developer made promises that they may not be able to keep related to a "wall of trees" against the wall which backs up to the Cabrillo resident's property line. We support Starbucks and possibly a restaurant moving into the proposed address; but, we are strongly opposed to a drive through being permitted here for the reasons above. We ask that you do appeal and do NOT this Planning Commission decision to allow the drive through as planned as soon as possible. We have many neighbors who are willing to fight against the current Planning Commission's decision and we are counting on you, our elected officials, to support us, your voting constituents. Sincerely, 4 ASA�. April 25, 2012 Dear Esteemed Mayor and Council Members: We are writing to ask for your help and support to appeal and to vote against the decision by the Planning Commission made Monday night, April 23, 2012, that allows a drive through operation at a proposed Starbucks, with hours of operation between 6:00 a.m. —11:00 p.m„ at 450 171h Street. We ask that you appeal the Planning Commission decision and deny this drive-through altogether. Many of our fellow residents feel this should be appealed based on the following: • Safety, • Noise, • Traffic problems, • quality of Life for residents in the surrounding neighborhood, • Pollution/Negative environmental impact, • Negative impact to property values. While a drive through window was in place for the former tenants, a bank and then credit union, it is not reasonable to equate the volume of traffic or operational hours from a bank/credit union with a Starbucks, Further, the developer made promises that they may not be able to keep related to a "wall of trees" against the wail which backs up to the Cabrillo resident's property line, We support Starbucks and possibly a restaurant moving into the proposed address; but, we are strcngly opposed to a drive through being permitted here for the reasons above. We ask that you do appeal and do NOT this Planning Commission decision to allow the drive through as planned as soon as possible. We have many neighbors who are willing to fight against the current Planning Commission's decision and we are counting on you, our elected officials, to sup ort us, your voting constituents. Sincerely, �I 1 April 25, 2012 Dear Esteemed Mayor and Council Members: We are writing to ask for your help and support to appeal and to vote against the decision by the Planning Commission made Monday night, April 23, 2012, that allows a drive through operation at a proposed Starbucks, with hours of operation between 6:00 a.m. —11:00 p.m., at 450 17th Street. We ask that you appeal the Planning Commission decision and deny this drive-through altogether. Many of our fellow residents feel this should be appealed based on the following: • Safety, • Noise, • Traffic problems, • Quality of Life for residents in the surrounding neighborhood, • Pollution/Negative environmental impact, • Negative impact to property values. While a drive through window was in place for the former tenants, a bank and then credit union, it is not reasonable to equate the volume of traffic or operational hours from a banklcredit union with a Starbucks. Further, the developer made promises that they may not be able to keep related to a "wall of trees" against the wall which backs up to the Cabrillo resident's property line. We support Starbucks and possibly a restaurant moving into the proposed address; but, we are strongly opposed to a drive through being permitted here for the reasons above. We ask that you do appeal and do NOT this Planning Commission decision to allow the drive through as planned as soon as possible. We have many neighbors who are willing to fight against the current Planning Commission's decision and we are counting on you, our elected officials, to support us, your voting constituents. Sincerely, f Q CA- g,:�4p�/ IMA April 25, 2012 Dear Esteemed Mayor and Council Members: We are writing to ask for your help and support to appeal and to vote against the decision by the Planning Commission made Monday night, April 23, 2012, that allows a drive through operation at a proposed Starbucks, with hours of operation between 6:00 a.m. --11:00 p.m., at 450 17th Street. We ask that you appeal the Planning Commission decision and deny this drive-through altogether. Many of our fellow residents feel this should be appealed based on the following: • Safety, • Noise, • Traffic problems, • Quality of Life for residents in the surrounding neighborhood, • Pollution/Negative environmental impact, • Negative impact to property values. While a drive through window was in place for the former tenants, a bank and then credit union, it is not reasonable to equate the volume of traffic or operational hours from a bank/credit union with a Starbucks. Further, the developer made promises that they may not be able to keep related to a "wall of trees" against the wall which backs up to the Cabrillo resident's property line. We support Starbucks and possibly a restaurant moving into the proposed address; but, we are strongly opposed to a drive through being permitted here for the reasons above. We ask that you do appeal and do NOT this Planning Commission decision to allow the drive through as planned as soon as possible. We have many neighbors who are willing to fight against the current Planning Commission's decision and we are counting on you, our elected officials, to support us, your voting constituents. Sincerely, 400 GA- 128 2 �-- 49 0 April 25, 2012 Dear Esteemed Mayor and Council Members: We are writing to ask for your help and support to appeal and to vote against the decision by the Planning Commission made Monday night, April 23, 2012, that allows a drive through operation at a proposed Starbucks, with hours of operation between 6:00 a.m. —11:00 p.m., at 450 17th Street. We ask that you appeal the Planning Commission decision and deny this drive-through altogether. Many of our fellow residents feel this should be appealed based on the following: • Safety, • Noise, • Traffic problems, • Quality of Life for residents in the surrounding neighborhood, • Pollution/Legative environmental impact, • Negative impact to property values. While a drive through window was in place for the former tenants, a bank and then credit union, it is not reasonable to equate the volume of traffic or operational hours from a bank/credit union with a Starbucks. Further, the developer made promises that they may not be able to keep related to a "wall of trees" against the wall which backs up to the Cabrillo resident's property line. We support Starbucks and possibly a restaurant moving into the proposed address; but, we are strongly opposed to a drive through being permitted here for the reasons above. We ask that you do appeal and do NOT this Planning Commission decision to allow the drive through as planned as soon as possible. We have many neighbors who are willing to fight against the current Planning Commission's decision and we are counting on you, our elected officials, to support us, your voting constituents. Sincerely, April 24, 2012 The Honorable City Council City of Costa Mesa P. 0. Box 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200 Dear Esteemed Mayor and Council Members: We are writing to ask for your help and support to appeal the decision by the Planning Commission made Monday night, April 23, 2012, that allows a drive through operation at a proposed Starbucks, with hours of operation between 6:00 a.m. —11:00 p.m., at 450 Fast 17th Street. We ask that you appeal the Planning Commission decision and deny this drive-through altogether. Many of our fellow residents feel this should be appealed based on the following: • Safety, • Noise, • Traffic problems, • Quality of Life for residents in the surrounding neighborhood, • Poll utioniNegative environmental impact, • Negative impact to property values. While a drive through window was in place for the former tenants, a bank and then credit union, it is not reasonable to equate the volume of traffic nor operational hours from a bank/credit union with a Starbucks. Further, the developer made promises that they may not be able to keep related to a "wall of trees" against the wall which backs up to the Cabrillo resident's property line. We support Starbucks and possibly a restaurant moving into the proposed address; but, we are strongly opposed to a drive through being permitted here for the reasons above. We ask that you appeal this Planning Commission decision as soon as possible. We have many neighbors who are willing to fight against the current planning Commission's decision and we are counting on you, our elected officials, to support us, your voting, constituents. Sincerely, qoc April 24, 2012 The Honorable City Council City of Costa Mesa P. O. Box 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200 Dear Esteemed Mayor and Council Members: We are writing to ask for your help and support to appeal the decision by the Planning Commission made Monday night, April 23, 2012, that allows a drive through operation at a proposed Starbucks, with'hours of operation between 6:00 a.m, r-11:00 p.m., at 450 East 17th Street. We ask that you appeal the Planning Commission decision and deny this drive-through altogether. Many of our fellow residents feel this should be appealed based on the following: • Safety, • Noise, • Traffic problems, • Quality of Life for residents in the surrounding neighborhood, • Pollution/Negative environmental impact, • Negative impact to property values. While a drive through window was in place for the former tenants, a bank and then credit union, it is not reasonable to equate the volume of traffic nor operational hours from a banktcredit union with a Starbucks. Further, the developer made promises that they may not be able to keep related to a "wall of trees" against the wall which backs up to the Cabrillo resident's property line. We support Starbucks and possibly.a restaurant moving into the proposed address! but, we are strongly opposed to a drive through being permitted here for the reasons above. We ask that you appeal this Planning Commission decision as soon as possible. We have many neighbors who are willing to tight against the current planning Commission's decision and we are counting on you, our elected officials, to support us, your voting. constituents. Sincerely, z /q r14- zz 7 5`z 0 April 24, 2012 The Honorable City Council City of Costa Mesa P. O. Sox 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92626.1200 ©ear Esteemed Mayor and Council Members: 01 We are writing to ask for your help and support to appeal the decision by the Planning Commission made Monday night, April 23, 2012, that allows a drive through operation at a proposed Starbucks, with hours of operation between 6:00 a.m. —11 AO p.m., at 450 East 17'' Street, We ask that you appeal the Planning Commission decision and deny this drive-through altogether. Many of our fellow residents feet this should be appealed based on the following: • Safety, • Noise, • Traffic problems, • Quality of Life for residents in the surrounding neighborhood, • PollutionlNegative environmental impact, is Negative Impact to property values. While a drive through window was in place for the former tenants, a bank and then credit union, it is not reasonable to equate the volume of traffic nor operational hours from a bank/credit union with a Starbucks. Further, the developer made promises that they may not be able to keep related to a "wall of trees" against the wail which backs up to the Cabrillo resident's property line. We support Starbucks and possibly a restaurant moving into the proposed address; but, we are strongly opposed to a drive through being permitted here for the reasons above. We ask that you appeal this Planning Commission decision as soon as possible. We have many neighbors who are willing to fight against the current planning Commission's decision and we are counting on you, our elected officials, to support us, your voting constituents. Sincerely, r 53 April 24, 2012 The Honorable City Council City of Costa Mesa P. 0. Box 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200 Dear Esteemed Mayor and Council Members: We are writing to ask for your help and support to appeal the decision by the Planning Commission made Monday night, April 23, 2012, that allows a drive through operation at a proposed Starbucks, with hours of operation between 6:00 a.m. —11:00 p.m., at 450 East 17'�' Street. We ask that you appeal the Planning Commission decision and deny this drive-through altogether. Many of our fellow residents feel this should be appealed based on the following: • Safety, • Noise, • Traffic problems, • Quality of Life for residents in the surrounding neighborhood, • Pollution/Negative environmental impact, • Negative impact to property valves. While a drive through window was in place for the former tenants, a bank and then credit union, it is not reasonable to equate the volume of traffic nor operational hours from a bank/credit union with a Starbucks, Further, the developer made promises that they may not be able to keep related to a "wall of trees" against the wall which backs up to the Cabrillo resident's property line. We support Starbucks and possibly a restaurant moving into the proposed address; but, we are strongly opposed to a drive through being permitted here for the reasons above. We ask that you appeal this Planning Commission decision as soon as possible. We have many neighbors who are willing to fight against the current planning Commission's decision and we are counting on you, our elected officials, to support us, your voting constituents. Sincerely, c' 409- Ccr\- c-) 5+ April 24, 2012 The Honorable City Council City of Costa Mesa P. 0. Box 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200 Dear Esteemed Mayor and Council Members: We are writing to ask for your help and support to appeal the decision by the Planning Commission made Monday night, April 23, 2012, that allows a drive through operation at a proposed Starbucks, with hours of operation between 6:00 a.m. -- 11:00 p.m., at 450 East 17th Street. We ask that you appeal the Planning Commission decision and deny this drive-through altogether. Many of our fellow residents feel this should be appealed based on the following; • Safety, • Noise, • Traffic problems, • Quality of Life for residents in the surrounding neighborhood, • Pollution/Negative environmental impact, • Legative impact to property values. While a drive through window was in place for the former tenants, a bank and then credit union, it is not reasonable to equate the volume of traffic nor operational hours from a bank(credit union with a Starbucks. Further, the developer made promises that they may not be able to keep related to a "wall of trees" against the wail which backs up to the Cabrillo resident's property line. We support Starbucks and possibly a restaurant moving into the proposed address; but, we are strongly opposed to a drive through being permitted here for the reasons above. We ask that you appeal this Planning Commission decision as soon as possible. We have many neighbors who are willing to fight against the current planning Commission's decision and we are counting on you, our elected officials, to support: us, your voting constituents. Sincerely, �i17 Cc -, }C 1XL April 24, 2012 The Honorable City Council City of Costa Mesa P. O. Box 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200 Dear Esteemed Mayor and Council Members: We are writing to ask for your help and support to appeal the decision by the Planning Commission made Monday night, April 23, 2012, that allows a drive through operation at a proposed Starbucks, with hours of operation between 6:00 a.m. -11:00 p.m., at 460 East 17th Street. We ask that you appeal the Planning Commission decision and deny this drive-through altogether. Many of our fellow residents feel this should be appealed based on the following: Safety, • Noise, Traffic problems, Quality of Life for residents in the surrounding neighborhood, • Pollution/Negative environmental impact, Negative impact to property values. While a drive through window was in place for the former.tenants, a bank and then credit union, it is not reasonable to equate the volume of traffic nor operational hours from a bank/credit union with a Starbucks. Further, the developer made promises that they may not be able to keep related to a "wall of trees" against the wall which backs up to the Cabrillo resident's property line. We support Starbucks and possibly a restaurant moving into the proposed address; but, we are strongly opposed to a drive through being permitted here for the reasons above. We ask that you appeal this Planning Commission decision as soon as possible. We have many neighbors who are willing to fight against the current planning Commission's decision and we are counting on you, our elected officials, to support us, your voting. constituents. Sincerely, - -� bb April 24, 2012 The Honorable City Council City of Costa Mesa P. O, Box 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200 Dear Esteemed Mayor and Council Members: We are writing to ask for your help and support to appeal the decision by the Planning Commission made Monday night, April 23, 2012, that allows a drive through operation at a proposed Starbucks, with hours of operation between 6:00 a.m. —11:00 p.m., at 450 East 17th Street. We ask that you appeal the Planning Commission decision and deny this drive-through altogether. Many of our fellow residents feel this should be appealed based on the following: Safety, Noise, Traffic problems, • (duality of Life for residents in the surrounding neighborhood, • Pollution/Negative environmental impact, [legative impact to property values. While a drive through window was in place for the former tenants, a bank and then credit union, it is not reasonable to equate the volume of traffic nor operational hours from a bank/credit union with a Starbucks. Further, the developer made promises that they may not be able to keep related to a "wall of trees" against the wall which backs up to the Cabrillo resident's property line. We support Starbucks and possibly a restaurant moving into the proposed address; but, we are strongly opposed to a drive through being permitted here for the reasons above We ask that you appeal this Planning Commission decision as soon as possible. We have many neighbors who are willing to fight against the current planning Commission's decision and we are counting on you, our elected officials, to support us, your voting. constituents. Sincerely, A��, u� C'Js>�q 44OaO4 Gq- �z - Lc - y- 63;7 —gle 7 April 25, 2012 Dear Esteemed Mayor and Council Members: We are writing to ask for your help and support to appeal and to vote against the decision by the Planning Commission made Monday night, April 23, 2012, that allows a drive through operation at a proposed Starbucks, with hours of operation between 6:00 a.m. —11:00 p.m., at 450 17th Street, We ask that you appeal the Planning Commission decision and deny this drive-through altogether, Many of our fellow residents feel this should be appealed based on the following: • Safety, • Noise, • Traffle problems, • Quality of Life for residents in the surrounding neighborhood, • Pollution/Negative environmental impact, • Negative impact to property values. While a drive through window was in place for the former tenants, a bank and then credit union, it is not reasonable to equate the volume of traffic or operational hours from a bank/credit union with a Starbucks. Further, the developer made promises that they may not be able to keep related to a "wall of trees" against the wall which backs up to the Cabrillo resident's property line. We support Starbucks and possibly a restaurant moving into the proposed address; but, we are stronaly opposed to a drive through being permitted here for the reasons above. We ask that you do appeal and do NOT this Planning Commission decision to allow the drive through as planned as soon as possible, We have many neighbors who are willing to fight against the current Planning Commission's decision and we are counting on you, our elected officials, to support us, your voting constituents. Sincerely, 58 April 24, 2012 The Honorable City Council City of Costa Mesa P. 0. Box 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200 Dear Esteemed Mayor and Council Members: We are writing to ask for your help and support to appeal the decision by the Planning Commission made Monday night, April 23, 2012, that allows a drive through operation at a proposed Starbucks, with hours of operation between 6:00 a.m. —11:00 p.m., at 450 East 17'' Street. We ask that you appeal the Planning Commission decision and deny this drive-through altogether. Many of our fellow residents feel this should be appealed based on the following: • Safety, • Noise, Traffic problems, • Quality of Life for residents in the surrounding neighborhood, • Pollution/Negative environmental: impact, Negative impact to property values. While a drive through window was in place for the former tenants, a bank and then credit union, it is not reasonable to equate the volume of traffic nor operational hours from a bankforedit union with a Starbucks. Further, the developer made promises that they may not be able to keep related to a "wall of trees" against the wall which backs up to the Cabrillo resident's property line. We support Starbucks and possibly a restaurant moving into the proposed address; but, we are strongly opposed to a drive through being permitted here for the reasons above. We ask that you appeal this Planning Commission decision as soon as possible. We have many neighbors who are willing to fight against the current planning Commission's decision and we are counting on you, our elected officials, to support us, your voting. constituents. April 24, 2012 The Honorable City Council City of Costa Mesa P. O. Box 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200 Dear Esteemed Mayor and Council Members: We are writing to ask for your help and support to appeal the decision by the Planning Commission made Monday night, April 23, 2012, that allows a drive through operation at a proposed Starbucks, with hours of operation between 6:00 a.m. — 91:00 p.m., at 450 East 17'' Street. We ask that you appeal the Planning Commission declsion and deny this drive-through altogether. Many of our fellow residents feel this should be appealed based on the following: • Safety, • Noise, • Traffic problems, • Quality of Life for residents in the surrounding neighborhood, • Pollution/Negative environmental impact, • Negative impact to property values. While a drive through window was in place for the former tenants, a bank and then credit union, it is not reasonable to equate the volume of traffic nor operational hours from a bank/credit union with a Starbucks. Further, the developer made promises that they may not be able to keep related to a "wall of trees" against the wall which backs up to the Cabrillo resident's property line. We support Starbucks and possibly a restaurant moving into the proposed address; but, we are strongly opposed to a drive through being permitted here for the reasons above. We ask that you appeal this Planning Commission decision as soon as possible. We have many neighbors who are willing to fight against the current planning Commission's decision and we are counting on you, our elected officials, to support us, your voting, constituents. Sincerely, April 24, 2012 The Honorable City Council City of Costa Mesa P. O. Box 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200 Dear Esteemed Mayor and Council Members: We are writing to ask for your help and support to appeal the decision by the Planning Commission made Monday night, April 23, 2012, that allows a drive through operation at a proposed Starbucks, with hours of operation between 6:00 a.m, —11:00 p.m., at 450 East 17'h Street. We ask that you appeal the Planning Commission decision and deny this drive-through altogether. Many of our fellow residents feel this should be appealed based on the following: • Safety, • Noise, • Traffic problems, • Quality of Life for residents in the surrounding neighborhood, • Pollution/Negative environmental impact, • Negative impact to property values. While a drive through window was in place for the former tenants, a bank and then credit union, it is not reasonable to equate the volume of traffic nor operational hours from a bank/credit union with a Starbucks. Further, the developer made promises that they may not be able to keep related to a "wall of trees' against the wall which backs up to the Cabrillo resident's property line. We support Starbucks and possibly a restaurant moving into the proposed address; but, we are strongly opposed to a drive through being permitted here for the reasons above. We ask that you appeal this Planning Commission decision as soon as possible. We have many neighbors who are willing to fight against the current planning Commission's decision and we are counting on you, our elected officials, to support us, your voting constituents. Sincerely, of -T's, 2.35'0 C"AreVPk� �- �00 �Ats , I (,k �tZ�Z7 April 24, 2012 The Honorable City Council City of Costa Mesa P. d, Sox 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200 Dear Esteemed Mayor and Council Members: We are writing to ask for your help and support to appeal the decision by the Planning Commission made Monday night, April 23, 2012, that allows a drive through operation at a proposed Starbucks, with hours of operation between 6:00 a.m. –11:00 p.m., at 450 East 17th Street. We ask that you appeal the Planning Commission decision and deny this drive-through altogether. Many of cur fellow residents feel this should be appealed based on the following: • Safety, • Noise, Traffic problems, • (duality of Life for residents in the surrounding neighborhood, Pollution/Negative environmental impact, • Negative impact to property values. While a drive through window was in place for the former tenants, a bank and then credit union, it is not reasonable to equate the volume of traffic nor operational hours from a bank/credit union with a Starbucks. Further, the developer made promises that they may not be able to keep related to a "wall of trees" against the wall which backs up to the Cabrillo resident's property line. We support Starbucks and possibly a restaurant moving into the proposed address; but, we are strongly opposed to a drive through being permitted here for the reasons above. We ask that you appeal this Planning Commission decision as soon as possible. We have many neighbors who are willing to fight against the current planning Commission's decision and we are counting on you, our elected officials, to support us, your voting. constituents. Sincerely, " 2- 5174 -- 5174 m %t 12 4- Z--7 April 24, 2092 The Honorable City Council City of Costa Mesa P. a. Box 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1200 Dear Esteemed Mayor and Council Members: We are writing to ask for your help and support to appeal the decision by the Planning Commission made Monday night, April 23, 2012, that allows a drive through operation at a proposed Starbucks, with hours of operation between 6;00 a.m. —11:00 p.m., at 450 East 17t�' Street. We ask that you appeal the Planning Commission decision and deny this drive-through altogether. Many of our fellow residents feel this should be appealed based on the following: • Safety, • Noise, • Traffic problems, • Quality of Life for residents in the surrounding neighborhood, • Pollution/Negative environmental impact, • Negative impact to property values. While a drive through window was in place for the former tenants, a bank and then credit union, it is not reasonable to equate the volume of traffic nor operational hours from a bank/credit union with a Starbucks. Further, the developer made promises that they may not be able to keep related to a "wall of trees" against the wall which backs up to the Cabrillo resident's property line. We support Starbucks and possibly a restaurant moving into the proposed address; but, We ask that you appeal this Planning Commission decision as soon as possible. We have many neighbors who are willing to fight against the current planning Commission's decision and we are counting on you, our elected officials, to support us, your voting. constituents. Sincerely, ,J 9Z���z.� C; 1893 Parkview Circle Costa Mesa, CA 92627-4536 Phone: (949) 642-2841 email: rnamaliliC@pacbell.net April 26, 2012 City Council of the City of Costa Mesa P.O. Box 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200 To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: We are writing to ask for your help and support to reverse the decision by the Planning Commission made Monday night, April 23, 2012, that allows a drive-through operation at a proposed Starbucks, with hours of operation between 6:00 a.m. —11:00 p.m., at 450 17"' Street. We ask that you reverse the Planning Commission decision and deny the drive-through aspect of the proposed business. Many of our fellow residents feel this should be appealed based on the following: • Safety, • Noise, • Traffic problems, • Quality of Life for residents in the surrounding neighborhood, • Pollution/Negative environmental impact, • Negative impact to property values. While a drive-through window was in place for the former tenants, a bank and then credit union, it is not reasonable to equate the volume of traffic or operational hours from a bank/credit union with a Starbucks. Further, it now appears that the developer may not be able to keep its promise to plant a "wall of trees" against the wall that abuts the Cabrillo residents' property lines. We support Starbucks and possibly a restaurant moving into the proposed address; but, we are strongly imposed to a drive through beimpermitted here for the reasons above.. We ask that you reverse this Planning Commission decision and deny the drive-through at this location. Many neighbors who vehemently oppose the Planning Commission's decision and are counting on you, our elected officials, to support them, your voting constituents. Very truly yours, Eleanor Egan and Tom E an W� 25 April 2012 The Honorable City Council City of Costa Mesa P.O. Box 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200 Dear Esteemed Mayor and Council Members: RE'C`D A� I am writing to ask for your help and support to appeal the decision by the Planning Commission made Monday night, 23 April 2012 that allows a drive through operation at a proposed Starbucks, with hours of operation between 6:00 am --11:00 pm, at 450 East 17th Street. 1 ask that you appeal the Planning Commission decision and deny this drive-through altogether. As a frequent user of 17th Street, I feel the already unsatisfactory traffic flow will be negatively impacted by a "string of cars" extending onto 17th Street waiting for their morning coffee. I support a Starbucks and possibly a restaurant moving into the proposed address; but, am strongly opposed to a drive through being permitted here for the reasons above. I ask that you appeal this Planning Commission decision as soon as possible. Since , i m A. Tassio 1500 Antigua Way Newport Beach, CA 92660 WAT; m le SB42512 65 April 26, 2012 Dear Costa Mesa Mayor Erik Bever and Council Members: I am writing to ask for your help and support to appeal and to vote against the decision by the Planning Commission made Monday night, April 23, 2012, that allows a drive through operation at a proposed Starbucks, with hours of operation between 6:00 a.m. -11:00 p.m., at 450 17th Street. I ask that you appeal the Planning Commission decision and deny this drive-through altogether, Many of our fellow residents feel this should be appealed based on the following: • Safety, • Noise, • Traffic problems, • Quality of Life for residents in the surrounding neighborhood, • Poll utionfhlegative environmental impact, • Negative impact to property values. While a drive through window was in place for the former tenants, a bank and then credit union, it is not reasonable to equate the volume of traffic or operational hours from a bank/credit union with a Starbucks, Further, the developer made promises that they may not be able to keep related to a "wall of trees" against the wall which backs up to the Cabrillo resident's property line. Local resisdents support Starbucks and possibly a restaurant moving into the proposed address; but we are stroma opposed to a.drive throes being permitted here for the reasons above. I stand with the residents who will be directly impacted by your decision and ask that you do appeal and do NOT support this'Planning Commission decision to allow the drive through at this location, We have many neighbors who are willing to fight against the current Planning Commission's decision and we are counting on you, our elected officials, to support us, your voting constituents. 2184-C Miner Street Costa Mesa, CA 92627 KAR RECD APP 2 3 2012 April 19, 2012 Councilmember Wendy Leece P. 0. Box 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200 Dear Ms. Leece: Our family resides right behind Morri's flowers and very close to the Little Knight. Somehow we weren't informed about the potential drive through project in the former Teacher's Credit Union. Please don't allow another bar or food service establishment to back-up to our neighborhood. We recently completed major improvement to our back yard to enjoy the warm summer evenings. I don't see this as a positive addition to the area. Sincerely, YWWAA_��­- Vicky and Darren Wadman cc: Via e-mail Planning Commission 0 Ulu IV EL) CITY TY C L. E E K Costa Mesa City of Costa Mesa 2012 APR 30 Pfd 2: 49 Appeal of Planning Commission Deoislon/Rehearing: $1,220.00 Sri Appeal of Zoning Administrator/ Building Official / Fire Marshal 1 Ell Staff Decision: $690.00 APPLICATION FOR APPEAL, REHEARING, OR REVIEW Applicant Name* -1T—ZA� Address e Phone Pdg-',i'/-Zest' Representing REQUEST FOR: ❑ REHEARING M'APPEAL ❑ REVIEW** Decision of which appeal, rehearing, or review is requested: (give application number, if applicable, and the date of the decision, it known") 1/1 ppoom L VZ a n�� �� / f�Li2-A) - i 2- -/a Y5 -e) c i 7� '5 wee 4-j Decision by: Reasons for requesting appeal, rehearing, or review: *if you are serving as the agent for another person, please identify the person you represent and provide proof of authorization. *`Review may be requested only by Planning Commission, Planning Commission Member, City Council, or City Council Member For office use only — do not write below this line SCHEDULED FOR THE CITY COUNCIUPLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF: If appeal, rehearing, or review is for a person or body other than City Council/Planning Commission, date of hearing of appeal, rehearing, or review: El Updated July 2011 n �J Background For 30 years, both 450 and 462 E. 17th Street have had low demand banking institutions and other low demand activities. In 1982, the two property owners recognized that 462 E. 17tH Street needed access over 450 E. 171h Street and an ingress -egress and parking easement over 450 E. 17th Street was granted to 462 E. 17th Street by document recorded as Instrument No. 82-297213 of Official Records of Orange County. According to the easement, ingress and egress is granted through a 20 -foot wide strip and the grant also includes the use of three specific parking spaces on 450 E. 17th Street. The limits of said easement are shown on the attached copy of the proposed grading plan for 450 E. 17th Street. Current Proposal The applicant for 450 E. 17th Street, Burnham USA, is proposing to convert a bank with drive through into a coffee shop with drive through while converting the remaining building square footage into future restaurant use. The applicant provided a traffic study that concludes there will be three surplus parking spaces with these uses. Grounds for Appeal The following issues have not been satisfactorily resolved and it is hereby requested the City withdraw its approval of zoning application ZA-12-10; 1. The owner of 450 E. 171h Street has never offered the owner of 462 E. 171h Street a modification to the existing access and parking easement, therefore, if the development is approved in its current configuration, 462E. 176 Street tenants will not be able to park in the area specified in the easement and there will be a planter blocking use of the ingress lane. No resolution of this issue has been proposed. 2. Of critical importance, the current site plan causes all of the following ingress -egress activities to simultaneously occur in the same area, thereby causing a "confluence" of conflicting vehicle movements: a. Two-way ingress and egress in the 20 -foot wide easement. b. Cars and delivery trucks entering the 450 E. 17th Street site -crossing to the left through the egress lane to enter angled parking. c. Cars and delivery trucks backing out of the angled parking spaces through the egress lane. d. Cars in the drive through lane queue standing and occupying the middle of the confluence area. e. Cars and delivery trucks entering and exiting 462 E. 171h Street in this same confluence area in the limited area allocated for this use. This is the only means of ingress and egress for cars and other vehicles to access the parking area for 462 E. 171h Street. 3. With the expected traffic generated from the applicant's proposed food service establishments, which have high traffic volumes, it is likely there will occur a standstill condition and an inability to maneuver. 4. The traffic study does not address the confluence area, which is a critically important consideration for continuing successful use of each parcel. S. Fire department access and response time is of concern because of the. impact of the confluence area., 6. There is also the possibility that a change of use for 362 E. 1711, Street will increase the demand on the ingress -egress easement and confluence area, Whereas 350 E. 171h Street is considering a more upscale and active use, the use and traffic study should include parallel improvements to 462 E. 17ti, Street. 7. There is the possibility that the standstill condition will cause cars and delivery trucks to wait on 171h Street until space occurs for ingress. `7U 1It i'�ARKIH(,7 Nal` PIza Poi,�D Nxmt4 17T""5r �. ca. R. �a•- a�7� t 'ONI-Y M �. 15qg-P-95 Fop- o� ctit�ft��y� 4-C.2 G . j7r4 s%r ScCIO Nrd— uCt4^ V- AtiF—EA ') i 4K �h t � IMj 1 ( 0178Rd) 133LUS HIZ6 ATTACHMENT 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE EXCERPTS �12 2. Application No.: Site Address: Applicant: Zone: Project Planner: Environmental Determination: �1 ZA-12-10 450 East 17th Street 450 East 17th Street Associates, LLC C1 Mel Lee Exempt Description: The applicant is proposing Minor Conditional Use Permit ZA-12-10 to convert a former credit union building containing drive-through lane that accommodated a drive -up automated teller machine into a drive- through coffee shop for Starbuck's Coffee and another food use. The Zoning Administrator's approval of ZA-12-10 was appealed by a property owner (Toby Walker) and called up for review by a council member (Wendy Leece). There was a request from the Appellant to continue this item to the Planning Commission meeting of May 14, 2012. Commissioner Dickson recused himself due to a conflict of interest. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Rob Hamers, representing Appellant Toby Walker, asked to continue the item for the Planning Commission meeting of May 14, 2012. Applicant Bryon Ward, Burnham Ward Properties, stated that to postpone the decision would put their project in jeopardy. He expressed that Mr. Walker's concerns are civil in nature and not Planning Commission matters. Jaime MacCleod, resident, requested ' that the Commission move the item to the May 14, 2012 meeting. Katie Arthur, resident, also requested that the item be continued to May 14, 2012 meeting. Deputy Attorney Bettenhausen explained that easement rights disputed by Mr. Walker are not deliberations that the Planning Commission has the authority to make; however, they can speak about the traffic issues that may be related. -�3 MOTION: Hear item number ZA-12-10 tonight and not postpone it to the May 14, 2012 meeting. Moved by Vice Chair Clark, seconded by Commissioner Fitzpatrick. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: McCarthy, Clark, Fitzpatrick, Salcedo Noes: None Absent: None Recused: Dickson Bryon Ward, applicant, explained the purpose and intent of the project, and agreed to comply with the conditions of Exhibit B. With regard to noise, Mr. Ward indicated that Starbucks will use the AVC (Adjustable Volume Control) technology in the order board. Paul Wilkinson from Linscott, Law and Greenspan, Engineers, indicated that the traffic circulation was appropriate. Rob Harriers, representing Appellant Toby Walker, expressed his concerns about cars backing up in the egress -ingress lanes and the circulatory flow of the traffic. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Beth Refakes stated her concerns about traffic backing up along 17th Street and the parking lot noise late at night caused by Starbucks customers. Katie Arthur indicated that she is happy that the building is going to be used for business but she is strongly opposed to a drive-through because of car noise, pollution, and traffic. She also disapproved the proposal to plant ficus trees. Jaime MacLeod agreed with Katie's comments and expressed the same sentiments. No one else wished to speak and the Chair closed public comments. Bryon Ward and Paul Wilkinson responded to the public comments, after which, Rob Hamers expressed his concerns about ingress - egress point at the main drive. Staff and Commissioners discussed about providing landscaping, including 24 -inch box size trees, at the rear of the property to alleviate the residents' concern of noise. -74 ` I 1 MOTION: Approve Planning Application ZA-12-10 by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution PC -12-11 based on the evidence in the record and the findings contained in Exhibit A, subject to conditions in Exhibit B with the following changes to conditions: 7. Zoning approval and business license authorization for a proposed establishment where food and beverages are served shall be contingent upon validation of the parking conclusions of the March 1, 2012 parking study. This validation shall be in the form of real-time parking counts conducted within 90 days of the coffee shop being fully operational. 12. Applicant shall work with staff to landscape the planter at the rear of the property in order to maximize the opportunity to provide a buffer for the residential properties including minimum 24 -inch box size trees, subject to review and approval by the Planning Division Director. 16. City understands that the adjacent property may hold certain easement rights over the property that is the subject of this decision. The city is not in a position to determine the legal rights between the two parcels with respect to this easement. Accordingly, the City's approval is made expressly subject to the project being in full compliance with any existing duties, rights and obligations set forth in any easements or other encumbrances recorded against the property. Any construction initiated by applicant is performed at applicant's own risk that it may be inconsistent with existing easements and encumbrances. Moved by Vice Chair Clark, seconded by Commissioner Salcedo. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: McCarthy, Clark, Fitzpatrick, Salcedo Noes: None Absent: None Recused: Dickson '755 ATTACHMENT 5 PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS AND ATTACHMENTS 7� PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: APRIL 23, 2012 ITEM NUMBER: ; VI. 2 SUBJECT: APPEAL AND REVIEW OF ZONING APPLICATION ZA-12-10 MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DRIVE-THROUGH COFFEE SHOP 450 EAST 17TH STREET DATE: APRIL 12, 2012 FROM: PLANNING DIVISION/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION BY: MEL LEE, SENIOR PLANNER FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: MEL LEE, AICP (714) 754-5611 mel.lee@costamesaca.gov PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is proposing Minor Conditional Use Permit ZA-12-10 to convert a former credit union building containing 'a drive-through lane that accommodated a drive -up automated teller machine into a drive-through coffee shop for Starbucks Coffee and another food use. The Zoning Administrator's approval of ZA-12-10 was appealed by a property owner and called up for review by a council member. APPLICANT The applicant is 450 East 17th Street Associates, LLC, who is also the owner of the property. RECOMMENDATION Uphold, reverse, or modify the Zoning Administrator's approval by adoption of Planning Commission resolution, subject to conditions. 17 PLANNING APPLICATION SUMMARY Location: 450 East 17th Street Application: ZA-12-10 Request: Convert a former credit union building containing drive-through lane that accommodated a drive -up automated teller machine into a drive-through coffee shop for Starbuck's and another food use. SUBJECT PROPERTY: SURROUNDING PROPERTY: Zone: C1 North: R1, single-family residences General Plan: General Commercial South: Across East 17 St., C1, commercial uses Lot Dimensions: 126 FT x 300 FT East: C1, commercial uses Lot Area: 35,317 SF West: C1, commercial uses Existing Development: Credit union building, drive-through lane, and surface parking DEVELOPMENT STANDARD COMPARISON Development Standard Required/Allowed Proposed/Provided c Lot Size: Lot Area 12,000 SF 35,317 SF Floor Area Ratio (FAR): EE2 .20 Stories/30 FT 16 2 Stories/28 FT, 10 IN BuildingHeightEE Setbacks (Building) ) Front East 17 Street) 20 FT 15 FT (1 Side (left/right) 15 FT/0 FT 25 FT/46 FT Rear 58 FT 170 FT Parking: 38 40 Standard 1 2 Handica TOTAL 39 2) 42 Spaces Bike Racks NA 1 (Proposed Drive -Through h Lane Len th 160 FT Min. 160 FT Not Applicable or No Requirement. he�property is legal nonconforming. er shared arkin stud see staff re ort discussion .A Status Exem t, Class Action Plannin Commission MTAI we BACKGROUND Project Site/Environs The property is located on the north side of East 17th Street, between Tustin Avenue and Irvine Avenue, and contains a 5,800 square -foot building (formerly Schools First Federal Credit Union) and 30 on-site parking spaces. The building has an existing 154 - foot deep drive-through lane that accommodated a drive -up automated teller machine (since removed). The property is zoned C1 (Local Business District) and has a general plan land use designation of General Commercial. Minor,Conditional Use Permit ZA-92-10 On March 26, 2012, the Zoning Administrator approved a Minor Conditional Use Permit for a future 2,356 square -foot coffee house with the parking demand and traffic characteristics of a Starbucks Coffee Shop ("coffee shop") with drive-through service. According to the applicant, the remaining portion of the building, approximately 2,185 square feet, has been allocated for a future restaurant tenant use (a specific tenant has not been identified) bringing the total net area to 4,541 square feet. An existing 1,250 i square -foot second floor mezzanine within the building will be removed as part of the building remodel-. Outdoor .patios are also proposed. The applicant also proposes remodeling the exterior of the building with contemporary architecture. A shared parking analysis dated March 1, 2012, was prepared for the project by Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers (LLG), a copy of which is attached to this report (Attachment 5). A shared parking analysis is a tool to identify peak parking demand in multi -tenant commercial centers. In some cases, depending on the different mix of land uses, it may show a lower parking requirement compared to straight "Code -required" parking requirements. This parking study analyzed 2,356 square feet of the building being occupied with a drive through coffee- shop and the balance of the building (2,185 square feet) being occupied by a food service tenant. In this case, required parking was calculated based on a scenario wherein both spaces are occupied by eating and drinking establishments, which is consistent with the applicant's proposed use of the property. Under the assumption that the building is fully leased and occupied, the study concludes that, based on the proposed mix of uses, there would be a surplus of 3 parking spaces (39 spaces required; 42 parking spaces provided) during the PM peak times on the weekdays and weekends. The study concluded that there would be adequate parking. A condition of approval was included requiring that approval for a second food use in the building was contingent upon validation of the parking conclusions of the March 1, 2012 parking study with real-time parking counts conducted within 180 days of the coffee shop being fully operational (Condition no. 7). The existing drive through is set back approximately 140 feet from the nearest single-- family residences to the north (rear), which is separated by an existing masonry block wall at least six feet in height and an existing 14 -foot wide landscape planter, where the existing mature trees were recently removed. A condition of approval was included !lq requiring this landscape planter to be densely re -planted with trees minimum 24 -inch box I size and other landscape materials (Condition no. 12). While this landscape area will not buffer noise as effectively as the existing block wall, it will also provide an effective visual barrier from the abutting residences, therefore, minimizing any adverse impacts to the adjacent residences. On April 2, 2012, an appeal was filed b� Toby Walker, an adjoining property owner of the commercial property at 462 East 17' Street. A request for review was also filed by Council member Leece (Attachment 3). ANALYSIS Appeal and Review of Zoning Application ZA-12-10 Issues Raised in the Appeal: sMP cbe able to a ark in the area s ecified in the easement and (here will be a will nbt planter blocking use of the egress lane. No resolution to this issue has been proposed. . Response: Private property easements that exist between property owners are not regulated by the City's Zoning Code; therefore, the City has no authority over how this easement is utilized between the owners. However, it should be noted that on page 2 of the parking study prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers (LLG) for the proposed project, a copy of which is attached to this report, discusses the existing easement and the necessity to make available up to three parking spaces for use of tenants and visitors for the 462 East 17th Street property, which is reflected in the design of the parking area for the proposed project. 2. Issue Of critical importance the current site plan causes all of the followinaIggress- e ress activities to simultaneously occur in the same area thereby causing a confluence of conflicting vehicle movements. Response.- The design of the drive-through lane, parking areas, and other vehicle circulation areas was reviewed by the Transportation Services Division, which confirmed the project as designed meets or exceeds all applicable requirements. 3. Issue With the expected traffic generated from the applicant's proposed food service establishments which have high traffic volumes it is very likely_ there will occur,a standstill condition and an inability to maneuver. Response: See response to number 2 above. 4. Issue The traffic study does not address the confluence area which is a critically important consideration for continuing successful use of each parcel. 80 Response: The applicant is having LLG prepare a response to this item, which will be forwarded to the Commission once it is received by staff (see email Attachment 4). 5. Issue: Fire Department access and response time is of concern because of the impact of the confluence area. Response: The project was reviewed by Fire Prevention, which confirmed the project as designed meets or exceeds all applicable requirements. 6. Issue: There is also the possibility that a chane of use for 462 East 17" Street will nnnPt tonna nm'_ Whprpps 7. study should include parallel improvements to 462 East 17 Street. Response: As of this date a specific project or change of use for the 462 East 17th Street property has not been identified by the appellant or submitted to the City. ResQonse: See response to number 2 above. Issue raised in the Request for Review: 1. Issue: I would like to pull this decision for review due to the fact there were five opposed. Perhaps we can address some of their concerns. Response: The developer has indicated that they have been working with the adjacent residential neighbors to address their concerns, which will be forwarded to the Commission once it is received by staff (see email Attachment 4). ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION If the project approval is upheld by the Commission, the project would be exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act under Section 15301 for Existing Facilities. If the project is denied, it would be exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15270(a) for projects which are .disapproved. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY With the recommended conditions of approval, the use will be consistent with surrounding uses, as specified in Objective LU -1 F.2 of the General Plan Land Use Element. ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following alternatives: 1. Approve the project, subject to the recommended conditions of approval. 2. Deny the project. If the project were denied, the applicant could not submit substantially the same type of application for six months. CONCLUSION The Zoning Administrator concluded that the proposed project, with the recommended conditions of approval, will not create adverse impacts to surrounding properties or uses. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the project. 641 ` .MEL LEE, AICP WILLA BOUWENS-KILLEEN, AICP Senior Planner Zoning Administrator Attachments: -4 ==D #t F i:tn@-Gemmis-sian=R olutons~ 3. Appeal and Review Request 4. Applicant's Email Response 5. Approval Letter for ZA-12-10 and Exhibits, r6----Oer es a e�ae ReseWed -7off_ cc: City Council (5) Chief Executive Officer Assistant Chief Executive. Officer Economic Development Director Interim Development Services Director Deputy City Attorney City Engineer Transportation Services Manager Fire Protection Analyst Staff (4) File (2) Toby Walker P.O. Box 8083 Newport Beach, CA 92658 450 East 17th Street Associates, LLC 1100 Newport Center Drive, ##150 Newport Beach, CA 92660 David Harris 455 Cabrillo Street Bob Small 465 Cabrillo Street Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Ardy Hurst 451 Cabrillo Street Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Jaime & Stephen MacLeod 461 Cabrillo Street Costa Mesa, CA 92627