Planning commission roadblock stops Hermosa Beach Starbucks’ drive-through
by Dan Blackburn
A Starbucks with a drive-through proposed for Second Street and Pacific Coast Hwy. in Hermosa Beach didn’t get much love Tuesday. The city’s Planning Commission voted unanimously to deny the controversial plan after hearing from hundreds of dissenting residents.
Frank Kavanaugh, the owner of the property, was seeking a conditional use permit to allow the construction on the site of the former Felder’s Automotive. He told Easy Reader in a text message following the vote, “We will be discussing this decision over the next several weeks.” Options include appealing the denial to the City Council, or revising, and resubmitting plans that satisfy the planning commission’s objections.
The proposed Starbucks would be the fourth in Hermosa Beach. The 1.3 square mile town has a drive-through Starbucks in the Trader Joe’s parking lot on Pacific Coast Hwy., a Starbucks in the downtown, and one in the Vons market.
According to city officials, more than 220 emails — all but 6 from opponents of the project — were received prior to the meeting. Another two dozen people spoke directly to the commissioners at Tuesday’s meeting, via Zoom. At least two residents reminded commissioners that there has been no issue since the 2016 oil debate that commanded as much public interest.
Kavanaugh’s company, Fort Ashford, presented plans calling for demolition of the existing structure and construction of a new, 1,300-square-foot building with a 550-square-foot outdoor dining patio. It called for a drive-through feature, which all of the commissioners found disturbing.
Commissioner Stephen Izant said the drive-through “as designed is an accident waiting to happen.”
Numerous speakers noted that project proponents had failed to provide data on air pollution from idling vehicle exhaust emissions.
City staff found the project was exempt from restrictions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), something City Attorney Patrick Donegan said was “a judgment call.”
Donegan said the decision to classify the proposed project as “exempt” from CEQA regulations was made “because of the unusual circumstances which exist.” He did not elaborate.
Commission Chair Marie Rice lauded the public participation in the issue and noted, “We do pay attention to the comments we receive. The interested parties on this item were vigorous, robust, and vibrant.”
Explaining his vote for denial of the CUP application, Izant said, “The applicant has not demonstrated to my satisfaction that [methods proposed] to control sound will not have a major impact on surrounding residents, and thus I can’t support this at this time.”
Commissioner David Pedersen noted what he called “a lot of community energy around it. I think the architect did the best he could with what is a very tough location. The drive-through is very problematic so I won’t support this permit. The owner might come back with something that might work.”
Commissioner Rob Saemann opined, “It would be very difficult to get in and out of that place. I support Starbucks but with its current design I cannot support this.”
Commissioner Peter Hoffman added, “The only part of this that is under our jurisdiction is the drive-through. Without that, none of this would have been on the table tonight. But we don’t approve projects that are inherently problematic in terms of enforcement. This drive-through does not work.”
Rice said she agreed “with everything that my colleagues have said. I found [the design] extremely, extremely problematic. This plan doesn’t even look like it will work on paper.”
City staff will prepare a resolution of denial of the conditional use permit on the drive-through for the March meeting.
Community Development Director Ken Robertson told the commission that the denial resolution “is just a formality. There are no additional steps necessary for residents to take.” ER