LB Development Services recommends drive-thru approval
Agenda released for May 5 Planning
Commission includes a staff report with mistakes,
mis-informs, minimizations and misrepresentations
The Agenda for the May 5th
Planning Commission meeting that includes the Del Taco drive-thru item was
released by email today (4/29) by the city. Shortly before the city release, Councilman
Daryl Supernaw released the agenda in his weekly newsletter with links to the
agenda and the staff report. (See links below).
The LB Development Services (LBDS)
Staff Report in the agenda includes mistakes, mis-informs, minimizations and misrepresentations.
The Staff Report begins with a
recommendation from the LBDS staff to the Palnning Commission to approve the project's drive-thru.
The first reference in the staff
report to the site's neighborhood location is at the at the end of the first
paragraph in the "DISCUSSION" portion. The report states: "The site abuts other
CCA-zoned sites to the north, south and east, but is near residential
zones. The closest residential property
is a single family home located 60 feet away, across Abbeyfield."
How "near" are the "near residential zone"? Sixty
feet.
The "located 60 feet away, across Abbeyfield" is just
the beginning of the neighborhood "residential
zones" with dozens of single family homes, duplexes and triplexes within
200 feet of the site on Abbeyfield, Daggett and Montair streets. That 60 feet is
literally the width of Abbeyfield. The Staff Report fails to identify that Abbeyfield
is a residential side street and this sentence intimates that the home
60' away is the only impacted home.
On page two of the staff
report, the second paragraph states that the drive-through lane provides that the
queuing of the cars is along Bellflower
Blvd. It
fails to mention that by arranging the drive-through that way, all of the
current entrances from Bellflower
Blvd. (plus one of two from Abbeyfield) are closed.
No direct street access will exist to the property from Bellflower.
The second paragraph also states
that the pick-up window is also located on the buildings west-side "enabling motorists to exit the drive-through
lane onto Bellflower Boulevard."
That is incorrect.
According to the Staff Report's Exhibit
B architect's site and landscaping plans (see link below) -the drive-through
lane exits into the small service alley for the parking lot
of the Los Altos Market Center South and the Los Altos Professional
Building. To exit onto Bellflower
( south only) would require a tight hard right radius turn out of the drive into
the alley- then an immediate right onto Bellflower. For a large vehicle, that will take some maneuvering.
The current Shell Gas Station's
driveway now merges into the alley allowing cars exiting the parking lot a wide
area for right turns onto Bellflower
while cars are entering the alley. That driveway would be gone forcing cars and
large vehicles to make a wide right out of the drive-through blocking incoming
cars making a right into the alley from southbound Bellflower and cars trying to exit the
parking lots behind the retail and professional buildings.
The Staff Report continues with the
statement that the applicant changed the hours from 24 hours to 21 hours "due
to significant community opposition". It fails to note that the 3 hour change came the
day after the neighborhood meeting arraigned by Councilman Supernaw and the "significant
opposition" at that meeting was to the whole drive-through
concept.
In the fourth paragraph on page
two, the Staff Report states:
"The sites layout will
function in a manner that separates the restaurant drive-through traffic from residential traffic to the degree
possible"
The phrase "to the degree
possible" is telling. The impact of the drive-through plan is to
force direct street access from a residential 60' wide street- not the major boulevard.
In order for any northbound traffic to enter the site- vehicles must make a
left onto Abbeyfield then a right into the drive-through. To travel North on Bellflower
will require that cars exit onto Abbeyfield for the traffic light to make a
left onto Bellflower. Abbeyfield is one of the few streets in
Long Beach that
has speed bumps the length of the street because with its traffic light, Abbeyfield
is main exit and entrance for residents of the neighborhood.
Exhibit D ignores LBMC
"Not Adjoin" mandate
The Staff Report's Exhibit D "Conditional Use Permit
Findings" tries to fit the plan with the requirements mandated in the Long
Beach Municipal Code (LBMC).
Exhibit D states that the LBMC directs
the Planning Commission not to approve a Conditional Use Permit unless the
findings of LBMC 21.25.506 are found to be true.
Item #3 in Exhibit D tries to find
that the development meets this mandate
from the LBMC:
THE SITE SHALL NOT ADJOIN OR ABUT
A RESIDENTIAL USE DISTRICT
Unlike the beginning of the Staff
Report, in Exhibit D, Item #3 the staff does acknowledge the adjacent residential
zone, but ignores the LBMC "NOT ADJOIN" residential mandate
with verbal gymnastics that conflict with the report's earlier "residential zone" explanations.
Item #3 states:
"The subject site does not
abut a residential use nor does it abut a residential use district" .
Never addressing the additional LBMC
mandate of "NOT ADJOIN" residential, the NEXT sentence continues:
"However, because there is a
residential zone diagonally across the street from the subject site, the drive-through
lane was located on the farthest side of the site...in order to separate it
from the residential uses as much as possible and minimize any potential impacts."
Yep...the However!
Yes that "residential
zone diagonally across the street" (a
mere 60' away) and the "residential uses" are to be protected from the "drive-through
lane".
 |
| Adjacient Residential Zone 60 feet away looks out to Del Taco 's only street access at planned drive-thru enterence |
How much protection for the "residential zone"?... "as
much as possible"
Of course this is "to
minimize any potential impacts." That's right minimize impacts to the "residential zone".
Of course, no where does the LBMC cited state
that the project is allowed to "minimize any potential
impacts" to mitigate the mandate that the "SITE" "NOT ADJOIN" residential use.
The staff cited potential impacts are clearly spelled out in Item #2 of
Exhibit D where similar language is used-along with the description of
what the sites potential impacts they want "minimize" are : noise and light:
"The building and drive-through
lane were specifically oriented to locate the drive-through lane operation away
from the residential property and placed
closest to Bellflower Blvd.
to minimize the potential of any noise or light impacts."
Once again- "minimize
the potential" . But this time the Staff spells it out what needs
to be minimized: "noise or light impacts."
All of the above impacts the adjacient neighborhood's "QUALITY OF LIFE"- which happens to be another LBMC mandate.
Item #2 in Exhibit D the Staff
Report tries to find that the development meets these mandates from the LBMC:
THE PROPOSED USE WILL NOT BE
DETRIMENTAL TO THE SURRONDING COMMUNITY INCLUDING PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY OR THE
GENERAL WELFARE, ENVIORMENTAL QUALITY OR QUALITY OF LIFE.
Earlier in Exhibit D, Item
2 the residential zone is as
acknowledged to be "adjacent to the
subject site" . Item 2 states : "
However there is a residential zone adjacent to the subject site located
diagonally across Abbeyfield."
The LBMC is clear, the "SITE" shall not "ADJOIN" a "RESIDENTIAL USE DISTRICT".
The LBMC clearly addresses the whole
property with the word "SITE"-
not just part of the site (ie drive-through) that has potential impacts
on an adjoining residential zone.
The LBMC clearly uses two words about residential areas: ADJOIN (close) and ABUT (next to). The Staff Report acknowledges that "there
is a residential zone adjacent to the subject site".
Item #2 further states that "The project was designed to
minimize potential impacts on surrounding properties from the operation of the
drive-through lane for the fast food restaurant."
The position of the drive-through
was the only place they could place it. The developers original plans were rejected because of the placement of the
drive-through.
The final drive-through placement
forces two of the three exits and entrances to the site to be from the alley
that currently serves the parking lots of
the Los Altos Professional Building
and the Los Altos Market
South Center. The
drive-through placement also forces the only direct street access to be from a
60' wide residential street.
Clearly the drive-through placement
does not meet the LBMC safety, general welfare or quality of life mandates.
Item #2 in Exhibit D further
states "the subject site does not
abut a residential use nor does it abut a residential use district". The technicality of the word "abut"
is to touch the next property. While true the site property does not
technically "touch" (abut) residential property, it is across the street from the residential or as
the Staff Report states on the first page it "is near residential zones" . Again, those "residential zones" begin
across a 60' residential street.
"Near", "adjoin" "adjacent", "diagonally"-
take your pick of Staff Report words. These words in the Staff Report clearly mean this plan violates the LBMC mandate :
THE SITE SHALL NOT ADJOIN OR ABUT
A RESIDENTIAL USE DISTRICT
LINKS:
