SR-508-000 (120)
~
,5"E?$-OOO
GS:SES:DA:JH 4/7/88
Council Meeting: April 26, 1988
Santa Monica,
,...B
califo~f~a2 61988
TO:
Mayor and City Council
.?-
\
-......'
FROM: city staff
SUBJECT: Public Hearing on Assessments of Costs to Repair Damaged
Sidewalks, Driveways and Curbs (SR-88-109)
Introduction
This report requests that the City Council hold a public hearing for
the assessment of costs to repair damaged sidewalks, driveways and
curbs at various locations within the City.
It is recommended that
the city council adopt the attached Resolution confirming the
assessment of costs.
Background
On March 29, 1988, the City Council set a public hearing for April 26,
1988, on the assessment of costs to repair damaged sidewalks,
driveways and curbs within the city of Santa Monica. Notices were
sent on April 15, 1988 to property owners informing them of the public
hearing in accordance with the legal requirements of Chapter 22 of the
Improvement Act of 1911.
BUdget/Financial Impact
This assessment district will generate revenues to the City over the
next two years in the amount of $2, 861. 00. Any unpaid assessments
will be placed on the FY1988-1989 property tax bill.
I-B
APR 2 6 1988
J
Street, 1226 Hill street, 1206 Hill street, 1347 Hill street, and
2210 La Mesa Drive.
A hearing must be held pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 22,
Sections 5600 to 5630, of the Streets and Highways Code of the
State of California. A Resolution setting the public hearing for
March 8, 1988, is attached.
BUdget/Financial Impact
The financial analysis, which will indicate total revenues to be
derived from this assessment district over the next two years,
will be presented to City council at the time of public hearing.
Recommendation
It is recommended the City Council adopt the attached Resolution
setting a public hearing for March 8, 198B, on the assessment of
costs of the subject sidewalk repairs.
Prepared by:
stan Scholl, Director of General services
Desi Alvarez, City Engineer
Jean Stanley Higbee, Administrative Analyst
Resolution for Adoption
Attachment:
(SWSETI07)
RESOLUTION NO.
(CITY COUNCIL SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA MONICA CONFIRMING THE REPORT OF THE
SUPERINTENDENT OF STREETS REGARDING REPAIRS TO
DAMAGED SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS AND CURBS (SR-88-109)
WHEREAS, the Superintendent of Streets of the City of Santa
Monica, pursuant to Sections 5600-5630 of the Streets and Highways
Code, commenced proceedings to cause the repair of damaged sidewalks,
driveways and curbs in the City of Santa Monica at 533 Ashland Avenue,
426 Ashland Avenue, 421 Ashland Avenue, 520 Ashland Avenue, 648
Ashland Avenue, 1210 4th Street, 2015 Oak Street, 655 Ashland Avenue,
644 Ashland Avenue, 636 Ashland Avenue, 622 Ashland Avenue, 648 Ozone
street, 659 Marine Street, all within the City of Santa Monica; and
WHEREAS, sixty days after said order was served, the work had
not been completed by the owners or persons in possession of the
affected properties, and the Superintendent of Streets caused the work
to be done; and
WHEREAS, the Superintendent of streets gave notice as required
by Section 5616 of the Streets and Highways Code~ and
WHEREAS, the Superintendent of Streets did file with the City
Council of the city of Santa Monica a report of repairs and costs as
required by section 5617 of the streets and Highways Code; and
WHEREAS, upon the day and hour fixed for hearing by Resolution
Number 7586 (CCS), the City Council of the City of Santa Monica heard
and passed upon the report of the Superintendent of streets together
\.
SECTION 3. All protests or objections must be in writing
and filed with the City Clerk on or before the time set for the
hearing of the protests and objections.
SECTION 4.
The superintendent of Streets is hereby
directed to mail notices, in the manner and form prescribed by
law, of the costs of repair and of the adoption of this
Resolution to all persons owning real property affected by the
sidewalk assessment repair program, whose names and addresses
appear on the last equalized assessment roll for the City taxes
or as known to the City Clerk.
SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption
of this Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall
be in full force and effect.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~~
ROBERT M. MYERS
City Attorney
~i(~~
'v'
(
(
. I
1540 2nd Street
Development Review Attachment
Page Eight
-:.,-...........'!. ..:. __ a.-J"W'--j'~...P_ -=-_-.-0-
~""'- -iIJ(~--..........""'-.I-
drive throug4 facility.
Use objectives and policies are governed by Land
for the Downtown Frame area, and these objectives and
by the drive through facility.
First, the Objective expressed in Section 1.3 is to "support the
greatest concentration of activity" in the Downtown Core and Frame areas.
Policies expressed in Section 1.3.1 encourage "uses and activities which
create activity in both the daytime and evening hours." Policies expressed
in Section 1.3.2 state that the Downtown area should be a primary location
for commercial use, includ~ng "uses that serve out of tov.'n visitors and
uses that encourage street activity after normal business hours."
In applicable Policy Section 1.3.4, the language dist~nguishes between
the Down Core and the Downtown Frame areas, and it notes with specif~c
reference to the Downtown Frame area that planners should require
"pedestrian oriented des~gn features for all ground floor street frontage.1t
in contrast to more stringent restrictions for the Downtown Core area. In
the Core area. for instance. street frontage should be "active pedestr~an
use." rather than be only equipped w~th "design features.to
Addition of a restaurant dr1ve through facility wil1 meet all of the
requirements of these objectives and policies, and it will help further the~.
For example, the neighborhood normally becomes empty after business and
commercial hours. and the drive through addition will increase activity
at that time and after dark. as encouraged in Sect10ns 1.3.l and 1.3.2.
It will also help attract out of town visitors.
In addition. although Sect~on 1.3.4 motivates planners to require
"pedestrian oriented des1gn features," it does not require them to be exclus1ve
features. If it did, the two motels. the auto repair garage. and other
developments in the Downtown Frame might have to be abandoned. There
would be no way to justify the automobile oriented and based neighborhood.
w1~n respect to the restaurant, it currently has the most pedestrian
design or!ented features in the neighborhood. and these features will not
be affected by the drive through facility. But after hours activity and
out o~ town visitor activity will be helped and encouraged.
The project very much conforms to Land Use Element Objectives and
Policies under the Downtown Section 1.3. and it enhances them as well.
Use Element Section 1.3
policies will be enhanced
~
. ,
(
(
':: ............".~...l
1540 2nd Street
Development Review Attachment
Page Nine
In the Downtown area. the Land Use Element plan features urban design
that will cause the Downtown Core and Frame to be the focus of day and night
activity. Its aim is t.o "encourage a sense of human scale and pedestn.an
......t w-I4"""'.............
character." and it 1s recommended that the city Tequire "pedestrian oriented
design qualities" be featured in the Downtown Frame area. But again, it does
not require that these qualities be exclusive. If it did. many current developments
would have to be terminated in the Colorado and Second Street area.
Human scale and pedestrian oriented design qualities are featured
now at the restaurant at 1540 2nd Street, although they are not featured at
many adjacent properties. And. as discussed previously. the qua11t1es w111 not
change with the addition of a well landscaped, hidden, no~se suppressed drive
through facil1ty located on current park1ng lot space.
After installation of the drive through facility. the restaurant w111
still rema1n pedestrian oriented. the only pedestr~an oriented developnent
in the automobile based and or~ented neighborhood. Pedestrian access
and other features will rema~n the same. Land use and urban design object1ves
and reco~endat1ons will st1ll be followed.
Finally. there will be appropriate conformance w1th Zon1ng Ordinance
standards. including requ~rements for C-3 co~ercial areas, as modified
by the C-4 Use Perm1t, such as restrictions on S1gns, height. and yard frontage.
The appl1cation for Development Rev1ew should be approved. The add1~1on
of a well landscaped. hidden, n01se suppressed dr~ve through facility at
1540 2nd Street will readily conform to height. bulk. use. and deS1gn requirements
for the Downtown Frame area as indicated in the Santa Monica Land Use Element plan.
and it will conform with proper Zoning Ordinance provisions.
The addition will also be consistent with the requirements of Ordinance
1321. compatible with the automobile oriented neighborhood, retain current
pedestrian oriented features and appeal, be accommodative for pedestrian and
automobile traffic. and have adequate health and safety features.
A drive through facility will increase availability of interior pedestrian
service. increase after hours activity and safety. and aid out of town
visitors. while 1t retains the green. grassy oasis ambiance and newly
remodeled interior of the attractive restaurant it will accompany.
.,
(
(
,. '.
I
\ f~ ..
l
PLAN~ING ~~D ZONING DIVISION
"
......~.. _'If'...;....
,
Community and Economic Development Department
USE PE~~IT APPLICATION
1540 2nd Street
ATTACHMENT
DESCRIBE IN DETAIL how the proposed use and improvements are to be designed
and operated so as to be 1) compatible with eX1sting uses in the neighborhood
and 2) non-detrimental to neighboring properties. res1dents, and bus1nesses:
During the past ten years, ~on1ng author1ties have den1ed several
requests for approval of a drive through addition to the restaurant located
at 1540 2nd Street 1n Santa Mon1ca. These past refusals have been based
upon assumptions and grounds that are no longer vaild in 1987. It is t1me
to take a fresh look at the situat10n.
For example, since the in1t1al den1a1 in 1976. the restaurant itself
has been bU1lt. Other new bU1ld1ngs have been constructed 1n the area,
and the physical nature of the neighborhood has changed. New noise
suppression technologies have been implemented. And the area surrounding
the restaurant ha~ become automob1le oriented, not pedestrian or1ented, due
to the nature of the location and due to the preferences of Santa Monica .
residents.
Look at the neighborhood. All of the properties 1n the area are
automobile based: Two motels; an auto repair garage; one very large,
multi-story Mall parking garage; the RAND Corporation parking lot; the
Santa Monica Freeway; several commercial developments that rely on valet
parking. Most of the landscaping in the neighborhood 1S done in concrete.
On the other hand, constructed before some of the other build10gs
were even approved and built, the restaurant is now the only green, grassy
oasis in the concrete area. Well managed, operating since 1977, with a
recently and very expensively remodeled interior din~ng area, it has become
the only important contributor to pedestrian traffic in the immediate
neighborhood. All other important projects are primarily automob11e based.
As discussed below, approval of a hidden, well landscaped, noise
suppressed drive through facility will not change this pedestrian orientation
(
(
. '
I .
, .
1540 2nd Street
Use Permit Attachment
Page Two
.....- -"~-.;.-
or involvement. In fact~ it can be expected to increase pedestrian interest,
since customer service lines will be shorter, more grassy spaces will be
added. and current access will not be any different.
In addition~ to deny the type of facility planned might even be
considered discriminatory in 1987, in the light of the basic automobile
orientation of the area and the newly planned RAND Corporation multi-story
parking garage to be located across the street.
To provide a more detailed perspective, the discussion that follows
considers a br2ef history of project applications, the phys~cal nature
of Lhe area around the restaurant. and findings about ne~ghborhood use
compatib~lity and about non-detr~mental effects on the ne1ghborhood,
residents, and bUs1nesses.
As the facts and f1ndings ~nd~cate, approval for a Use Perm~t
should be granted. The well landscaped, hidden, and noise suppressed
drive through fac1l1ty will be compat1ble with existing neighborhood uses,
and it will be non-detrireental to ne~ghbor~ng propert~es, residents, and
businesses. As it has been designed, and as ~t w~ll be operated. 1t will
maintain the ambience of the neighborhood, help pedestr~an walk in custoners,
not affect residents, offer additional serv~ces for neighborhood businesses.
~~and _be of benefit to the people of Santa Mon1ca and to outs~de v1sitors.
An Historical Perspect1ve
- -
- ......------
--~
~~-- ~en an initial request for approval was submitted w~th plans for
T"- --'- __
~the restaurant in 1976. it was den~ed because the expressed 1ntent of zoning
_... ___;;r -
----p1anner~--was to keep the entue neighborhood Ilpedestrian oriented" and
-to-keep therestaurant from becoming "automobile dependent."
In addition to these objections, there also ~as reliance on one single
objecting letter. The letter stated that the writers were "appalledll by
the "vast" amount of parking that might be necessary to service the
restaurant, and they voiced honest concern about traffic, ecology, and
-
the "garish architectural style and plastic atmosphere on which fast
food se~ms to thrive.1I
The writers added that "McDonald's are exceedingly ugly. and would
be intrusive and out of character in the C-3 zone," and they called
attention to a McDonald's restaurant located in Westwood Village: "This
~
.'
(-
(
I
1540 2nd Street
Use Permit Attachment
Page Three
.;...... -
is a successful operation which is totally dependent upon pedestrian
traffic and which seems to function well without golden arches."
At that time. it should be noted. the restaurant had not been
constructed. the indoor Santa Monica Mall and its multi story parking
garage had not been constructed. and other automobile oriented developments
in the neighborhood had not been approved.
According to the files. a second verbal or written request for zoning
approval was made in 1985. and it was again denied. This time the reasons given
were the Downtown pedestrian orientation of the Santa Mon~ca General Plan.
specifically Land Use Elempnt Policy 1.3.4; the Traffic Engineer1s reservations
about queing; potential no~se issues; and that s1ngle 1976 Ob]ect1ng letter.
These past issues are not very appropr~ate 1n 1987. F~rst, propert1es
in the neighborhood are now automobile based and or~ented. as d1scussed
above. The restaurant is the maJor pedestr1an or1ented development. and
that fact will not change with the add~t~on of a drive through facility.
Well landscaped. hidden by a seven foot wall. uS1ng no~se suppress10n dev~ces.
the drive through add1tion can be expected to have l~ttle 1mpact on
ne~ghborhood uses. bus1nesses. or res~dents.
Second, this time traff1c pattern arrange~ents have been 1nformally
approved by Ray Davis, Santa Mon1ca Traffic Eng1neer. Mr. Davis requ~red
-...
six to ten important changep in the appl~cant's or1g~nal bluepr1nts. and
the applicant has accepted all of them as helpful.
Third. the applicant plans to address any potential noise problems
directly, reducing the noise levels by use of noise suppression dev~ces
and by a seven foot wall. It also is committed to spend up to $5,000
working with a consultant such as BB~ Laborator1es. Inc. See the
information enclosed about BBN Laboratories. Inc. as an example.
Fourth, as to "ugliness" and "garishnesstl: the restaurant has
not become the lIugly" element in the nE'ighborhood. Just the reverse has
occurred. It has become a green. flower filled oasis. with its grassy
landscaping and sparkling. newly remodeled interior. The rest of the
automo~ile based neighborhood has been landscaped in concrete. Addition
of the planned hidden. well landscaped. noise suppressed drive through
facility will not change this fact, nor will it change the amb~ence of the area.
-:
.'
(-
(
.
, ,
I
1540 2nd Street
Use Permit Attachment
Page Four
.~""'''''''II''
Today. the restaurant represents excellence in the neighborhood.
and the applicant plans to maintain that quality after a drive through
addition is built. including the expensively remodeled interior and the
green, grassy landscaping.
Fifth. compare the restaurant at 1540 2nd Street with the McDonald's
located in Westwood. as suggested by the letter writers in 1976. Those
early fears have been completely unfounded. The Westwood McDonaldts has
"golden arches." 1s dreary. and is often empty. while the Santa Monica
restaurant richly sparkles inside, and it is steadily busy.
Sixth. early fears about "vast" parking requirements were premature.
The restaurant has only a relatively small parking lot. especially when
compare to the large. multi story Mall parking garage and the RAND Corporation
parking lot facilities located across the street.
Even the writers, as reasonable. thoughtful people, would readlly
note that the fears expressed in 1976 have not mater~al~zed. and that the
results have been very different and very posLtive.
,
As it is clear, the franchisee appl~cant does care about the ne~ghborhood,
about it's restaurant. and about the expressed concern of planners and
the people of Santa Mon1ca. It ~~ll ma~nta~n the same care and respect
for the addition of a drive through facility.
The Physical Environment
Although the neighborhood was to have developed w~th a pedestrlan
orientation during the past ten years. it actually has become 8utomob1le
based. As mentioned preViously. the restaurant is surrounded by two motels;
an auto repair garage; one very large, multi story Mall parking garage;
the RAND Corporation parking lot; the Santa Monica Freeway; and several
commercial developments that rely on valet parking. Most of the landscaping
around these projects is concrete.
In the early morning and after dark. moreover. almost all of the
traffic in the area arrives by automobile, due to pedestrian fears about
safetYl due to the closing of businesses and offices. and due to the
reIDoteness of entertainment facilities. Nearby stores and commercial
establishments all close by 9:00 p.m. on weekdays and by 6:00 p.m. on
weekends.
.'
, . .
__~ _ ft
(
?
i
~
1540 2nd Street
Use Permit Attachment
Page Five
It is unlikely that plans to add 3.000 additional movie seats to
the Broadway part of the Mall will change this situation or will add any
pedestrian traffic. since most people will not walk several blocks at
night after dark through the area to eat at the restaurant.
In the automobile oriented neighborhood. the restaurant remains
the main pedestrian design oriented attraction. and the drive through
facility will not change that fact. Furthermore. as an express~on of
confidence that pedestrian traffic will continue to grow, during the
past year the applicant has invested approximately $200.000 to remodel
the inter10r, providing a sparkling. inviting dining area.
But the restaurant also has a substantial automob~le based c11entele,
in addition to its walk in customers. Many of these customers stop, enter and
order inside, and then take purchases out, creat~ng long custo~er lines
and mak1ng no~se opening and closing car doors 10 the process.
The addition of the landscaped, hidden, noise suppressed dr~ve
through facility will serv~ce many of these drive in take out customers,
reducing inside service lines and providing more room for pedestrian walk
in traffic.
N01se levels too should be improved, because people w~ll be
remaining in their cars. although, as noted ~n the Noise Element of
the General Plan. bus and other transportation noise probably exceeds
the ambient noise,at the restaurant in any case.
Because of the nature of the planned fac~lity, pedestrian attract~on
and access will be maintained. and even more grassy space will be added.
The restaurant will remain a centerpiece in the ne1ghhorhood.
Discussion of Findings
1. The proposed use and improvements will be des1~ned and operated
so as to be compat~ble with existing uses ~n the neighborhood.
In reality today. the restaurant at 1540 2nd Street stands as a
grassy oasis in an automobile oriented neighborhood. As discussed previously,
other properties in the area are automobile based: Two motels, an auto
-
repair garage; the large. multi story Mall parking garage; the RAND
Corporation parking lot; the Santa Monica Freeway; and several commercial
developments that rely on valet parking. Host of the landscaping is done
~ch r'YIcnt L
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION
PROJECT
NUMBER: OR 397, ZA 5233-U
LOCATION: 1540 Second Street
APPLICANT: Lardas Management
REQUEST: To add a drive-through facility to an existing
McDonalds Restaurant.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
11/16/87
Date.
x
Approved based on the following findings and
subject to the conditions below.
Denied.
other.
VOTE
Ayes:
Nays:
Abstain:
Absent:
Pyne
Farivar, Hecht, Kechur, Perlman
Nelson
Lambert
I hereby certify that this statement of
accurately reflects the final determination
Commission of the City of Santa Monica.
Official Action
of the Planning
signature
date
print name and title
STDR397
DM:nh
12/01/87
- 1 -