HomeMy WebLinkAbout- - ZA-12-10 Attachment 7 - 5/15/2012ATTACHMENT 7
CORRESPONDENCE
i5q
Page 1 of 1
LEE, MEL
From: DNGARUS@aol.com
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 4:31 PM
To: sthorp@burnhamusa.com
Cc: LEE, MEL; goathillredneck@netzero.net
Subject: 450 E.17th St, Costa Mesa, CA.
Mr. Thorp,
You and I have not met, and I was out of town until today, but I am involved with
my neighbor, Mr. David Harris, and share his concern regarding the property that
you intend to develop at 450 E.17th Street, in the city of Costa Mesa. I own the
residence located at 465 Cabrillo, and, as I stated previously, I share Mr. Harris's
concern with your proposed development of this property.
To begin with, I do not feel that we were given adequate forewarning of this
proposed development, and since the apparent cutoff date is April 2nd, this
coming Monday, we are, apparently, out of luck.
I have read your response to Mr,. Lee, the Senior Planner for the City of Costa
Mesa, and there are several things that I would very much like to point out to you.
In your response to Mr. Lee, you state that you are doing your best to address the
neighbor's concerns. If that is, in fact, so, then know this; your initial response
regarding Mr. Harris's concern over the location of the trash enclosure, you state
that your intention is to heavily landscape the exterior wall of the enclosure to
create an additional buffer, and that you will not consider relocation of the
enclosure. If this does not perform adequately, and I doubt that it will, and if it
turns out to be a health hazard due to rodent infestation, and homeless
occupancy, we intend to bring legal proceedings against Burnham USA, and the
City of Costa Mesa. We will proceed in the same manner if the performance of
your intended order post, and it's location, do not live up to expectations. In other
words, Mr. Thorp, our intention is to hold you to your promises, and it is my
sincere hope that you intend to keep each and every one of them, because, as
residents of the adjacent properties, we are the ones that will have to live with the
results.
Sincerely,
Robert Small
465 Cabrillo Street
Costa Mesa, CA. 92627
03/30/2012
Page 2 of 3
Subject: RE: 450 E 17th ST
Mel,
Rest assured, we have taken all of these matters into account and we are doing our best to address the
neighbor's concerns. Please see my responses below in RED. If you have any other questions, please feel free to
call me at anytime.
Best regards,
Steve
Stephen K. Thorp
Executive Vice President
Burnham USA Equities, Inc.
1100 Newport Center Drive, Suite #150
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Phn: (949) 760-9150
Fax: (949) 760-0430
Eml: sthorp(@burnhamusa.com
This electronic transmission, and any documents attached hereto, (a) are protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 USC §§ 2510.2521), (b)
may contain confidential information, and (c) are for the sole use of the intended recipient named above. If you have received this electronic message In error,
please notify the sender and delete the electronic message. Any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of the information received in error Is
strictly prohibited.
It is understood that this email and any response hereto or any oral or written communication or any document which may be sent by or on behalf of either party to
the other shall not have any binding effect on either party. Further, such understanding shall nullify any claim that either party or its representatives or agents is
obligated to perform any act or expend time, money or effort based on this communication.
From: LEE, MEL[mailto:MEL.LEE@costamesaca.gov]
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 10:01 AM
To: Stephen Thorp
Cc- Bryon Ward; BOUWENS-ICLLEEN, WILLA
Subject: FW: 450 E 17th ST
Stephen
I know we discussed the items raised by Mr. Harris (neighbor behind the project), but if you could provide written
confirmation that would be great.
Thanks,
Mel Lee, AICP
Senior Planner
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, 92628
Ph. (714) 754-5611 Fax. (714) 754-4856
mel.lee costamesaca. ov
From: BOUWENS-KILLEEN, WILLA
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 9:53 AM
To: LEE, KASAMA
Cc: 'goathillredneck@netzero.net'
Subject: 450 E 17th ST
Hi, Mel,
David Harris came to the counter this morning; he resides behind 450 E 17th St. Some of his concerns were not
i0-
03/30/2012
March 28, 2012
Willa Bouwens-Killeen, AICP
Zoning Administrator, City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
RE: 450 E. 17`h Street
Why did I not receive the information sent to the other neighbors on Cabrillo Street about the Coffee
Shop wanting to become a part of 17' Street? After all, it will effect me more than any other person on
this street. My place backs up directly in back of the property in question. From what I gather, this is a
done deal and we have nothing to say about it. As I stated in my first letter to you, when we bought our
place there was nothing at 45017th Street. Did we think twice about residential sitting right next to
business? No! Forty years ago I doubt if there was any zoning in Costa Mesa. I rather doubt it the way
the city has progressed.
Some business like the bank was good for that location. Business during the day and quiet at night.
Please keep me informed!
Sincerely,
/ r
Arabelle (Ardy) Hurst
451 Cabrillo Street
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
1�4
i � / /'f, r< J _ 'o r ,r r .a rs .c ,,� ;.i ..✓� .rsr y f3 n' �� _ � a �.r.v.� „5 cr r i r i= I ��:✓ r,��,
..d....�.��.�.�'�,�...u...�,�.: tr _s`mi%f `iizF- _.I_�f...:..:,F�+''..�✓f �.?.s :f "''�:..r 4 y ��':./ _.,�. -� . ,+�1�� - ......�-.,�. 1' _,�.�n=:.'
J...�-1
A , 4V� h6 e a/-, -CM o OIA } i�`►� _ _....._....... .............. .... —-------
---
1�0 VN
% fi.
1�.er�5..._.L fl
...-.....__._.--- _.__._.._........._.._.............._.............................................................. _.... _...___---.................... ......_...... :.............. ................_.._._._...._.........___...__.._.............................
.................. �_� .. 1o�V..--._.,_........................... ..... .................... _........... ... _-_..... ...... . _____ _ ___.._....... .....
w..._.................... -.......... .................
GIT Y OF COSTA MESA
CALIFORNIA 92626 P. O. BOX 1200
FROM THE OFFICE OF PUBLIC SERVICES/ENGINEERING DIVISION
September 13, 1979
The Honorable City Council
City of Costa Mesa
Post Office Box 1200
Costa Mesa, Ca 92626
Re: Alley N/0 17th Street between Irvine Avenue and Tustin Avenue: Petition
of Cabrillo Avenue property owners.
Recommendations: Design and construct a gravity storm drain system then abandon
existing alley dedications back to property owners.
Dear Council Members:
The City adopted a precise plan for the subject alley in 1965(See Exhibit A).
Since that time the City has only acquired one additional piece of dedication,
leaving approximately 500 of the alley undedicated and the entire alley unimproved.
In 1969 some of the commercial property owners which front on 17th Street,
petitioned the City to create an assessment district to improve the alley. The
purpose of the alley was to provide the commercial properties with rear access to
their businesses and alleviate the existing drainage problem. A feasibility study
was done at that time by a private engineering firm. The Public Services Department
then recommended the enclosed Study B(Exhibit B). The estimated cost of this
alternative in 1970 was about $86,000.00. At current prices an assessment district.
would now cost appr!aximately $175,000.00. Sometime in 1970 the project was
apparently dropped, possibly due to a lessening of interest by the property owners
when they discovered the potential price tag of the project. Also, due to the
grade differential and a row of large Eucalyptus trees any alley would be unable to
provide access to the residential property owners. Their only benefits would be
the cleanup of the area and a solution to their drainage problem.
Of the items mentioned in the Cabrillo Street Residents petition, we believe the
drainage problem to be the mdst serious concern. The commercial properties fronting
on 17th Street drain most of their land to the rear of their lots. Over the years,
as the commercially zoned properties developed, the runoff toward the potential
alley continued to increase. This coupled with the fact that even though some of
the developments were required to install sump pumps at the rear of their properties,
they have not been maintained causing serious flooding problems for the residents on
Cabrillo Street.
Our departments current policy (Exhibit C) is to not encourage the construction
of new alleys and if feasible, abandoning excess alley dedications back to the
property owners. If the drainage problem could be resolved this would seem to be
an ideal instance for abandonment. Our maintenance forces have no legitimate access
to the portions of the alley we own due to lack of dedication by the properties at
either Tustin Avenue or Irvine Avenue. If we abandon the alley dedications back to
the commercial property owners all maintenance responsibilities would then clearly
be theirs.
77 FAIR DRIVE 1 /^(714) 754-5323
March 19, 2012
Ms. Willa Bouwens-Killeen, AICP
Zoning Administrator
City of Costa Mesa, California
77 Fair Drive
P. O. Box 1200
Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200
Re: Application No. ZA-12-10
450 E. 17"' Street
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
Dear Ms. Bouwens-Killeen:
VIA HAND DELIVERY
(deceived
City of Costa Mesa
Development Services Department
MAR 2 0 2012
My first reaction is more fast food with the associated problems is the last thing 17th Street
needs, not to mention behind my house and upwind.
Allow me to point out some of my concerns with any possible scenario, besides and including,
8 a.m. to 5 p.m. office or other logical retail use.
Noise: Obviously, the thought of "May 1 fake your order please" starting at 6:00 a.m. is not
something that I find attractive. A line of idling cars, trucks, motorcycles, etc. with exhaust
systems spewing and radios playing will add to the standard noise, smoke and dirt already
provided by 17"' Street traffic. Daily customers are unknowing and uncaring of adjacent
properties' quality of life. The current location of the trash containers is also of concern. It
seems human nature precludes any thought of slamming gates and trash container lids to be
annoying. Time of day is irrelevant to hourly employees and the homeless. Annoying odors
and pests are certainly something else to be considered. After hours building and parking lot
maintenance is frequently accomplished at the contractor's convenience, typically after 11:00
p.m. and before 6:00 a.m. Since all trees have been eliminated behind the 8 foot wall behind
my house and along Morri's Flowers property line, there is nothing to attenuate wind, noise and
dirt carried by prevailing winds. Wind driven loose trash, ending up in my backyard is already
an issue.
Lighting: The loss of trees obviously is an issue as regards to parking lot lights (typically on
from dusk to dawn) and visual privacy considerations.
In closing, I leave you with these thoughts. How would you protect your quality of life and
largest investment? How could any planning and zoning authority even consider allowing food
service or a saloon behind and upwind, from a long pre-existing residential area? The
precedent has been set, but that doesn't make it acceptable. I realize there are existing rules
and regulations, regarding these issues. However, enforcement is typically not a priority. It is
my hope that all issues in question, can be worked out before, and not after the fact.
Sincere ,
David Harris
455 Cabrillo Street
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
cc: Melvin E. Lee, AICP, Senior Planner
�I have serious reservations to whether I would be able to ag with Mr. Thorp's assessment,
in his letter to you dated February 15th of this year, that his proposed use of the property would
not be detrimental to the surrounding properties in the area.
There are several things that need to be kept in mind when deciding what type of business will
ultimately be in this location. When the Credit Union was there, they did not have a great deal
of traffic on a daily basis, a situation that will be quite the opposite with a retail food court type
of operation, which encourages a great deal of daily vehicular traffic of all kinds, as well as
additional foot traffic.
Again, I am in favor of improvement of the existing buildings at this location, but not at the
expense of theighborhood that I, and my neighbors, live in.
My 46NO00
Bob
465 Cabrillo Street
Costa Mesa, CA. 92627
I i I
Page 2 of 2
Mel — Thanks for taking the time to meet with me yesterday. I have had a chance to review the site map re the
above application and would like to find a convenient time to comeback and visit with you once more. There are
several things that adversely impact my property next door. I am available at your convenience to discuss them.
Thanks - Toby
Toby Walker
PO Box 8083
Newport Beach, CA 92658
(949) 644-7058 T
(949) 271-2387 F
1-74
03/20/2012
BURNHAMIWARD
P R O P E R T I E S
April 20, 2012
Mr. Melvin Lee
Mr. Colin McCarthy
Mr. Sam Clark
Mr. Robert L. Dickson Jr.
Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick
Mr. Edward Salcedo, Jr.
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
RE: 450 E. 17th Street
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
Gentlemen,
949.760.9150 1100 Newport Center Drive, Suite 150
949.760.0430 fax Newport Beach, CA 92660-6297
VIA E-MAIL ONLY
I am writing in follow up to Mr. Walker's request to postpone the hearing from this Monday, April 23`d
to Monday, May 14th. We strongly oppose any such accommodation from Staff or the Planning
Commission to grant an extension for this matter. If this matter is not heard on Monday, April 23`d as
scheduled and a decision rendered, our pending lease with our tenant and our entire project will be put
in jeopardy. This item has been calendared for weeks now as a result of Mr. Walker's appeal, and it is
important that the hearing proceed as planned.
It is important for you to understand that the matters raised by Mr. Walker in his appeal have nothing to
do with the City of Costa Mesa, but are rather civil matters between two adjacent landowners. More
particularly, the issue at hand is in regards to a non-exclusive easement that exists on our property. For
the record, our plans for the property take this non-exclusive easement (along with our respective
responsibilities to one another) into account, and they fully maintain the rights afforded to both
properties. It is our belief that Mr. Walker is using the City to advance a hidden agenda in order to hold
up our process to extort something from us in return.
Mr. Walker's appeal reflects his "personal opinions", however dubious, and provides no technical data
for those "personal opinions". Mr. Walker's last minute request for an extension, lack of technical data
to support "his opinions", and his overall strategy to use the City to advance his self -interests on a
matter that does not even involve the City, gives us reason to believe this delay is solely to serve his
personal agenda. Nevertheless, we have gone to great lengths, and spent considerable time and money
with professional consultants, to address and refute his allegations in an effort to facilitate a timely
decision on this matter. Having said that, you will see by our well prepared responses that we have
i-75
Mr. Melvin Lee
City of Costa Mesa
February 20, 2012
Page 2 of 2
addressed each one of Mr. Walker's claims and provided the appropriate technical data to support our
position.
In summary, if the City entertains this extension, this entire project will be unable to meet the deadlines
required and the project will be jeopardized. It is an important enough matter to us that our entire
team cancelled personal travel plans in order to be present at this coming Monday's Planning
Commission meeting and worked diligently and at great expense to be prepared in time for this
Monday's meeting, so as not to put this project at jeopardy.
We strongly urge the City to see this for what it is and continue hearing the matter as scheduled. Thank
you for your understanding.
Best regards,
450 E. 17`h St. Associates, LLC
By: Burnham -Ward Properties LLC
Bryon Ward
B W/st
cc: Scott Burnham (via e-mail)
Stephen Thorp (via e-mail)
VI. 2c
From: Katie Arthur
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 8:34 AM
To: PLANNING COMMISSION
Subject: Starbucks - 17th Street
Dear Planning Commission: I do not support a drive through of any kind on 17th Street, especially one
that will back up to residential property ....i.e.: a proposed drive through in the 400 block.
The Cabrillo Street residents already have a LOT of noise/pollution to deal with (including from Little
Knight, etc.). I've been told that the proposed location may also have a restaurant which could also pose
more issues (will there be a liquor license, will traffic back up onto 17th, etc.)?
I'm fine w/ Starbucks or a restaurant going into the proposed location —just not a drive through.
Thank you,
Katie Arthur
Costa Mesa, CA
ff�
04/23/2012
0
�i
V[. 2d
From: Eastside Neighbors
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 1:15 PM
To: PLANNING COMMISSION
Subject: Starbuck's Drive Thru, 450 E. 17th St.
RE -Application ZA-12-10
Esteemed Commissioners,
We are writing as Eastside residents and on behalf of our neighbors on Cabrillo street and their
concerns regarding the proposed drive-thru for the new Starbuck's at 450 E. 17th..
Our concerns are as follows:
1) Noise emitted from the drive-thru;
2) Pollution from the exhaust of the cars using the drive-thru;
3) Traffic back up on 17th.
While we welcome a new Starbuck's and restaurant to the area we question the need for a drive-
thru. We are also deeply concerned about the negative environmental impacts listed above.
We respectfully request that the Planning Commission remove the drive-thru option as we feel
the negative aspects outweigh the positive aspects.
We thank you in advance for your consideration on this matter.
Sincerely,
Steve Cortesy and Syndy Neyland-Cortesy
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
04/23/2012
From: RODELIUS, SHARON
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 3:50 PM
To: JULIAN, SORAYA
Subject: FW: Drive thru Starbucks on 17th Street
Importance: High
Hi Soraya: Please forward to Planning Commissioners. Thanks
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 3:41 PM
To: RODELIUS, SHARON
Subject: FW: Drive thru Starbucks on 17th Street
I am going to send some others your way and ask you to please forward to planning
commissioners for tonight, thanks.
Wendy Leece, Member
Costa Mesa City Council
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200
wleecePci, costa -mesa, ca, us
714-754-5328
From: Vicki Wadman [mailto:vswadman@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Mon 4/23/2012 1:02 PM
To: MONAHAN, GARY; SEVER, ERIC; MENSINGER, STEPHEN; RIGHEIMER, JIM; LEECE, WENDY
Subject: Drive thru Starbucks on 17th Street
City Council,
Our family resides at 447 Cabrillo St and even though we back up to 17th Street the
noise level, as of now, is not too bad. We recently redid our backyard and my husband,
kids and I love sitting outside enjoying the afternoons and evenings. We do NOT want
the noise and potential hazard of a business like the drive the Starbucks/restaurant that
may be opened in the 400 block of 17th Street.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter,
Vicki Wadman
�1a
04/23/2012
0
From: RODELIUS, SHARON
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 3:51 PM
To: JULIAN, SORAYA
Subject: FW: [BULK] NO ON THE THE STARBUCKS DRIVE THRU
Importance: Low
Soraya: Please forward to Planning Commissioners. Thanks Sharon
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 3:43 PM
To: RODELIUS, SHARON
Subject: FW: [BULK] NO ON THE THE STARBUCKS DRIVE THRU
Importance: Low
to PC
Wendy Leece, Member
Costa Mesa City Council
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200
wleece(a)ci, costa -mesa. ca. us
714-754-5328
From: forbrats@gmaii.com on behalf of Bunker Hill
Sent: Mon 4/23/2012 6:12 AM
To: LEECE, WENDY
Subject: [BULK] NO ON THE THE STARBUCKS DRIVE THRU
NO MORE STARBUCKS,
WENDY PLEASE DO NOT SUPPORT THE PROPOSED DRIVE THRU ON 17TH ST.
Regards,
Bunker A Hill
ri
04/23/2012
V1, a7�
A
From: Katie Arthur [kaarthur@ca.rr.com]
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 3:53 PM
To: PLANNING COMMISSION; RODELIUS, SHARON
Subject: FW: Starbuck's Drive Thru, 450 E. 17th St.
RE - Application ZA-12-10
Dear Planning Commissioners:
I have concerns regarding the proposed drive-thru for the new Starbuck's at 450 E. 17th.
My concerns are as follows:
1) Noise emitted from the drive-thru;
2) Pollution from the exhaust of the cars using the drive-thru;
3) Traffic back up on 17th.
While we welcome a new Starbuck's and restaurant to the area we question the need for a
drive-thru. We are also deeply concerned about the negative environmental impacts listed
above. I know that some of you have focused on "green" (which we think is great, by the
way) but a drive through seems to be anything but "green."
We respectfully request that the Planning Commission remove the. drive-thru option as we
feel the negative aspects outweigh the positive aspects.
We thank you in advance for your consideration on this matter.
Sincerely,
Katie Arthur
400 Cabrillo St.
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
M
04/23/2012
From: Herb Netal [hnetal@citizen-systems.com]
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 4:12 PM
To: PLANNING COMMISSION
Subject: Starbuck's Drive Thru, 450 E. 17th St.
RE - Application ZA-12-10
Dear Commissioners,
I am writing as an Eastside resident and on behalf of my neighbors on Cabrillo street and
their concerns regarding the proposed drive-thru for the new Starbuck's at 450 E. 17th.
Our concerns are as follows:
1) Additional noise emitted from the drive-thru;
2) Pollution from the -exhaust of the cars using the drive-thru;
3) Traffic back up on 17th.
While We welcome a new Starbuck's and restaurant to the area we question the need for a
drive-thru. We are also deeply concerned about the negative environmental impacts listed
above.
We respectfully request that the Planning Commission remove the drive-thru option as we
feel the negative aspects outweigh the positive aspects.
We thank you in advance for your consideration on this matter.
Sincerely,
Herb Netal
400 Cabrillo ST.
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
f
04/23/2012
0141 1J1 Z U 1 Z U4: 4.7 1 1
osta Mesa who will be here long after. the people from big business set up sliop
Please listen to the people of C
and leave!
If Starbucks were only asking for a coffee shop, I would riot contest. it. They arit
w`a. drive-through with car's
and radios going fro)n 6:00 a.m, to 1.1:00 p.m., This is eoi�.xpletel.y not the right place for this type of
business, Our bedroom, windows (open in the summer.) is directly in back of this I,ocati,on. There is n.o bul:fer.
in between.
I checked out their facility at the comer of. Adam.s and Brookhurst. It was a noisy and busy place.
After a variance is granted and it proves too much., what is our alternati.ve7 Move? Please turn. down. the
e
drive-tl�rouglal This i.s my ..%first request in the 40 years I have .lived here.
Ardy Hurst.
451. Cabrillo Street
Costa Mesa, CA. 92627
949-642-6849
iB3
Page 1 of 2
LEE, MEL
From: DNGARUS@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 8:53 AM
To: kaarthur@ca.rr.com
Cc: goathillredneck@netzero.net; LEE, MEL; sthorp@burnhamusa.com; LEECE, WENDY;
wolfemama@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Starbucks on 17th
Hi Katie,
I went along with their proposal for several reasons;
When Dave Harris and I met with Byron Ward and Steve Thorp from the company
that is developing the property (Burnham USA), they gave us their assurance that
they would do their level best to be a good neighbor, and it is my belief that they
are sincere. At the time, if you read the letter that Dave Harris and I signed, it
states, specifically, that we would not appeal their development, providing, of
course, that they lived up to their part of the agreement. If, for any reason, they do
not follow through, you can bet that they will hear from me directly, and I already
informed them that if they did not perform as promised, that I would do my level
best to bring legal proceedings against both them, and the City of Costa Mesa.
Although Dave and I both agreed not to appeal their project, they still have a
major hurdle to.get over as the gentleman that owns the Wendy's property, Mr.
Toby Walker, has appealed the development project, on the grounds that since
his property and the proposed development share a common driveway, and he
feels that it will create a traffic problem. He may be right, he may be wrong, I don't
know, but Burnham indicates that they have done an in depth study, and that it
won't constitute a problem.
Believe me when I say that I share your concern with the quality of life on our
street, and I want the place where we live to be a quiet and comfortable
environment for all of us, and I suppose I am naive enough to believe Mr.Thorp
and Mr. Ward when they told Dave and I that they were willing to do whatever
necessary to be good neighbors, and I think that they will live up to their end of the
bargain, because they don't want the ensuing legal battle if they don't.
The other thing, and please believe me when I say that I thought about this quite a
bit before I decided not to appeal this project, I believe the end result will be a
good addition to 17th Street, insofar as it will be a clean, modern, and up to date
building that will be far superior than what is there now. The old Credit Union
building, which is currently vacant, is sitting there, unused and deteriorating, and
is rapidly becoming an eyesore. Chantelle Wolfe brought up a good point, insofar
as if the old Credit Union building's property was cleaned up, maybe, just maybe,
it would give Morri's Flowers an incentive to clean up their property, which is a real
eyesore at the moment.
Mr. Ward and Mr. Thorp, let me re-emphasize, gave us their assurances that they
would do whatever necessary to be a good neighbor, and that includes controlling
1��
04/24/2012
Page 2 of 2
the noise level emanating from their development, up to, and including, the
parking lot maintenance, trash collection, delivery trucks, etc, in addition to any
noise generated as a direct result of their development.
As far as the issue of the trees, I can only go by what Mr. Ward and Mr. Thorp
agreed to when Dave and I met with them, if it turns out that they can't, or won't,
put the trees in to block the noise and lights from. the parking area, then that will
change the whole ball game, because my decision, and I believe Dave's, hinged
on that as a major contingency.
In any event, I guess the next move is to see how it all plays out. As always, I am
most interested in your thoughts with regard to anything that makes Cabrillo Street
a better place to live.
Bob
In a message dated 4/23/2012 9:05:28 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, kaarthur@ca.rr.com writes:
Hi Bob: I was surprised to hear that you agreed to the Starbucks/drive through going in on 17th. I
went to Planning Commission meeting tonight and spoke against it for the following reasons:
. Noise —the car noise alone ought to be enough to drive anyone on your side of the street crazy;
are you aware the hours of operation are 6 a. m. —11:00 p.m.?
. Pollution
. Traffic — the traffic WILL back up onto 17th and that is going to be a "cluster" (to use Jamie
MacCloud's word;).
Also — I believe you signed under a "gentlemen's" agreement but we found out tonight that they
probably cannot plant large trees in the very back against the wall that abuts your property, that would
block odors, noise, light, etc. They will be moving forward anyway...
The only chance to stop this is if one of the City Council appeals it. The only chance we have for that
is for Wendy Leece. All other Councilmen are tied very closely with developers and it's all about the
money. And... the Councilmen appointed the Planning Commissioners.
Anyway... I think it's a bad thing for our street and our property values. I'm not opposed to Starbucks
going in ... just do not think we should permit a drive through that will be operational from 6:00a .m. —
11:00 P.M.
Katie
M1
04/24/2012
Page 1 of 4
LEE, MEL
From: Chantelle Wolfe [wolfemama@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 7:10 AM
To: DNGARUS@aol.com
Cc: kaarthur@ca.rr.com; goathillredneck@netzero.net; LEE, MEL; sthorp@burnhamusa.com; LEECE,
WEN DY
Subject: Re: Starbucks on 17th
Good morning,
Katie asked me about my experiences with living behind Wendy's fast food chain
for years. Here is my take on the new Starbucks and living off of 17th Street.
Thank you all, for keeping the communication open and civil. I love that we all care
so much for our neighborhood!
Chantelle
Good morning,
I have now lived behind Wendy's for 22 years. Wow...
We have had issues that needed to be taken up with CMPD, property owerns and
the city.
But issues were resolved and it has been a wonderful 6+ year stretch without any
major issues.
Here is what we have dealt with over the years.
1. The parking lot has been the biggest issue by far. These parking lots are not
easily seen from 17th Street. They make perfect hang out spots for teens and
adults. Just hanging out in their cars. So, laughter or car radio noises are
common. More so in the summertime when you have your windows open.
This has been an issue for all parking lots in the 400 block of 17th. A group of
us met with city and PD ... concerns were vented... action was taken and no
more groups hanging out in the lots. The property owner posted signs back in
the lot. Reminding people that they are in a residential neighborhood, please
be quiet. One time, Kevin went back there around 1opm.. flashed a fake badge
and told the kids he was a DA and he was going to press charges ... you never
saw kids hop in their cars so fast...LOL. Very nice!
2. We have not only Wendy's but we had Dietrict's Coffee House. That outdoor
patio situation was an issue at first. But with talks to the owners of
Dietrict's.... their night time entertainment was brought indoors. Very nice!
3. We then had the Napa Valley Pasta restaurant. Same issues with weekend
entertainment and staff making noise in the parking lot. Contacted property
owner and that too quickly ended. Very nice!
4. The volume of the order board was the smallest of all our concerns. One call
and they replaced the speaker with a noise reducing model and haven't heard
an order in years. Even on hot summer nights. Very nice!
04/27/2012
C , Page 2 of 4
5. One time a few years back..... Wendy's had this grand idea to keep the drive
thru open till tam. Ahhh, I don't think so! LOL That was a very easy argument
to argue. Squashed that one easily and they only operate till llpm.
6. Trash and delivers are never made before lam.
7. I would say .... once every few years or so .... Some work order gets messed up
and the Pressure Washer guy will try to clean Wendy's in the middle of the
night. Trust me, they don't like it when that happens. They get this scary
housewife in her pjs and hair all askew yelling at them in her slippers. LOL
That hasn't happened in years though. I scared them I think ..... hehehehehehe.
8. We have humongous trees behind our house. This really helps with noise
issues. They are our trees. We keep them thick.
9. Elevation of the parking lot was an. issue. The LaGrandeur's were the first to
raise their brick wall by nearly 3 feet. We did the same a few years after them.
We did it without a permit and were call on it a few years ago. I took pictures
of the 4 foot elevation difference and presented that to the judge. Case closed
we are allowed to keep our fences. This is a huge huge huge help on noise
control. Maybe developer can add onto all those neighboring fences?
So in closing ... None of these things are earth shattering. None of these things were
unchangeable. Yes, it took time and effort. But living up against a
busy business oriented street we knew when we purchased our home it would
always be something we dealt with. Heck we even have an animal hospital behind
our homes. That is a bigger pain the butt than any Wendy's or coffee house or
restaurant. Seriously!
I do not feel the Starbuck's will negatively impact my home value. I think a
renovation on that property is a good thing. I think it will be a much needed boost
for that wore -down section of 17th street. I don't think there will be a backup of
traffic onto 17th street. There is a huge amount of real estate from curb to the drive
thru line. I never and I mean never see a back up of drive thru-ers at Wendy's.
Improvements! New companies ! Yes!
Dave mentioned to me that Starbuck's corporate is looking to test market selling
beer and wine in some So Cal locations. I looked it up online and yes they are. I
don't like that idea a whole bunch. But if this new location want to add
a liquor licence they will need to apply and then they will send out notice to all of us
again with that little white postcard. That is something I would like to get more info
on and possibly protest.
And while we don't know what other restaurant might go into the 2nd space ..... we
will view that when it comes up. Can't argue about something that isn't even there
yet.
Chantelle Wolfe
475 Cabrillo ST.
04/27/2012
Page 3 of 4
Peace, Love & Happiness!!!
Peace, Love & Happiness!!!
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 8:52 AM, <DNGARUS ta,ao1.com> wrote:
Hi Katie,
I went along with their proposal for several reasons;
When Dave Harris and I met with Byron Ward and Steve Thorp from the company
that is developing the property (Burnham USA), they gave us their assurance that
I they would do their level best to be a good neighbor, and it is my belief that they
are sincere. At the time, if you read the letter that Dave Harris and I signed, it
states, specifically, that we would not appeal their development, providing, of
course, that they lived up to their part of the agreement. If, for any reason, they do
not follow through, you can bet that they will hear from me directly, and I already
informed them that if they did not perform as promised, that I would do my level
best to. bring legal proceedings against both them, and the City of Costa Mesa.
Although Dave and I both agreed not to appeal their project, they still have a major
hurdle to get over as the gentleman that owns the Wendy's property, Mr. Toby
Walker, has appealed the development project, on the grounds that since his
property and the proposed development share a common driveway, and he feels
jthat it will create a traffic problem. He may be right, he may be wrong, I don't know,
but Burnham indicates that they have done an in depth study, and that it won't
constitute a problem.
Believe me when I say that I share your concern with the quality of life on our
street, and I want the place where we live to be a quiet and comfortable
environment for all of us, and I suppose I am naive enough to believe Mr.Thorp
and Mr. Ward when they told Dave and I that they were willing to do whatever
necessary to be good neighbors, and I think that they will live up to their end of the
bargain, because they don't want the ensuing legal battle if they don't.
The other thing, and please believe me when I say that I thought about this quite a
bit before I decided not to appeal this project, I believe the end result will be a good
addition to 17th Street, insofar as it will be a clean, modern, and up to date building
that will be far superior than what is there now. The old Credit Union building,
which is currently vacant, is sitting there, unused and deteriorating, and is rapidly
becoming an eyesore. Chantelle Wolfe brought up a good point, insofar as if the
old Credit Union building's property was cleaned up, maybe, just maybe, it would
give Morris, Flowers an incentive to clean up their property, which is a real eyesore
at the moment.
Mr. Ward and Mr. Thorp, let me re-emphasize, gave us their assurances that they
would do whatever necessary to be a good neighbor, and that includes controlling
the noise level emanating from their development, up to, and including, the parking
04/27/2012
Page 4 of 4
lot maintenance, trash collection, delivery trucks, etc, in addition to any noise
generated as a direct result of their development.
As far as the issue of the trees, I can only go by what Mr. Ward and Mr. Thorp
agreed to when Dave and I met with them, if it turns out that they can't, or won't,
put the trees in to block the noise and lights from the parking area, then that will
change the whole ball game, because my decision, and I believe Dave's, hinged
on that as a major contingency.
In any event, I guess the next move is to see how it all plays out. As always, I am
most interested in your thoughts with regard to anything that makes Cabrillo Street
a better place to live.
Bob
In a message dated 4/23/2012 9:05:28 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, kaarthur@ca.rr.com writes:
Hi Bob: I was surprised to hear that you agreed to the Starbucks/drive through going in on 17th. I went
to Planning Commission meeting tonight and spoke against it for the following reasons:
Noise — the car noise alone ought to be enough to drive anyone on your side of the street crazy;
are you aware the hours of operation are 6.a.m. —11:00 p.m.?
Pollution
Traffic — the traffic WILL back up onto 17th and that is going to be a "cluster" (to use Jamie
MacCloud's word;).
Also — I believe you signed under a "gentlemen's" agreement but we found out tonight that they
probably cannot plant large trees in the very back against the wall that abuts your property, that would
block odors, noise, light, etc. They will be moving forward anyway...
The only chance to stop this is if one of the City Council appeals it. The only chance we have for that is
for Wendy Leece. All other Councilmen are tied very closely with developers and it's all about the
money. And... the Councilmen appointed the Planning Commissioners.
Anyway... I think it's a bad thing for our street and our property values. I'm not opposed to Starbucks
going in ... just do not think we should permit a drive through that will be operational from 6:00a .m. —
11:00 P.M.
Katie
04/27/2012
i