SR-12-A (29)
/
~(J?--&t7t
./~
ir1ri 4 ;;7
~
f
C/ED:SF:AS:nh
Council Mtg: July 14, 1987
Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and City council
l;z-A
AUG 1 1 1981
FROM: city Staff
SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of Development
Review 379, 2902 Pico Boulevard and 2247 29th street,
Demolition of Existing Vacant Single-Family Home on an
R2A Lot to Allow 9,000 Sq. Ft. of Additional Parking for
the Adjacent McDonald's Restaurant. Applicant/
Appellant: McDonald's Corporation.
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the city Council deny the appeal of
the applicant and deny Development Review 379 for the demolition
of a vacant single-family home to permit additional parking for
the adjacent McDonald's restaurant.
The Planning commission
denied the project by a 4-0 vote on May 18, 1987. The applicant
is appealing that decision (Attachment A) .
BACKGROUND
The 9,000 sq.ft. parking lot addition is proposed for a 60' x
150 I R2A site on the east side of 29th Street adjacent to the
McDonald's restaurant located at the southeast corner of Pico
Boulevard and 29th street in the pico Corridor Land Use District.
The proposed parking lot would increase the number of parking
spaces for the restaurant from 23 to 39 spaces. No restaurant
expansion is proposed. Ingress and egress will continue to be 12-ff
AUG 1 1 1987
limited to pico Boulevard. Landscaped strips as well as concrete
block walls would be constructed to screen the parking lot from
"'
- 1 -
-/,;It
)Jdl141981
.. ;'
the adj acent residences. The proposal also includes replacing
the existing speaker boxes with a menu board containing the
speaker inside the board. A more detailed project description is
provided in the May 18, 1987 Planning commission staff report
(Attachment B). The Planning Commission's statement of Official
Action is contained in Attachment c.
The applicant originally filed for approval of this parking lot
in 1982. The Planning Commission denied the application in that
it would reduce the availability of residential uses, be
inconsistent with Ordinance 1220, and would further expose
surrounding residences to commercial activity.
The proj ect was administratively denied in 1985, directing the
applicant to file for Development Review. In December, 1986 the
proj ect was again before the Planning Commission. Motions to
both approve and deny the project failed and the project received
a technical denial. A more detailed background history is
contained in Attachment B.
Sunset Park Associated Neighbors (SPAN) has opposed this plan
since 1982. On April 6, 1987 SPAN adopted a resolution stating
their opposition to the parking lot expansion and to any other
commercial project that intrudes into the surrounding residential
neighborhood.
ANALYSIS
A number of concerns were raised by the Planning commission at
the December, 1986 public hearing. Although the project is
- 2 -
...
consistent with the R2A zoning, the Commission felt that
additional trash enclosures and trash pick-up needed to be
provided, delivery hours limited, the decible level of the
speaker system limited and that on-site parking for employees
should be specified in order to mitigate the impact of the fast
food use and expanded parking lot on the neighborhood. None of
these concerns were addressed by the applicant at the May 18
hearing.
The Commission found at the May 18 hearing that the project was
incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood in that the
parking lot would intrude more deeply into the residential
neighborhood than the surrounding commercial uses. The parking
lot expansion f which would increase parking beyond the Code
requirements f could potentially allow future expansion of the
restaurant.
The Commission further found the proposal to be inconsistent with
Land Use Element Obj ecti ve 1.2, which encourages "compatibili ty
of adjacent land uses, with particular concern for protecting
residential neighborhoods. II In addition, the parking lot
expansion is inconsistent with pOlicy 1.2.4 which requires
limiting, controlling or otherwise mitigating the impact of a
fast food use on the surrounding neighborhood. Essentially, the
parking lot expansion would allow McDonald's to more easily
accommodate patrons, thereby increasing the activity at the
restaurant and increasing the impact of the use on the
surrounding residences.
- 3 -
~
COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
In acting on this appeal the City Council may: 1) deny the appeal
and deny Development Review 379 with the findings contained in
the May 18, 1987 Planning commission staff report or with such
other findings as it deems appropriate; 2) uphold the appeal and
approve the project with such findings and/or conditions as it
deems appropriate; 3) otherwise approve, conditionally approve or
deny the project as it deems appropriate.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendations presented in this report do not have a budget
or fiscal impact.
RECOMMENDATION
staff respectfully recommends that the city Council deny the
appeal and deny Development Review 379 with the findings
contained in the May 18, 1987 Planning commission staff report.
Prepared by: Amanda Schachter, Assistant Planner
Suzanne Frick, Principal Planner
city Planning Division
Community and Economic Development Department
Attachments: A. Letter of Appeal by McDonald's corporation.
B. May 18, 1987 Planning Commission staff Report.
C. May 18, 1987 Planning Commission statement of
Official Action.
D. Project Plans.
SF:AS:nh
PC/CCDR379
06/23/87
- 4 -
A+J.o.-chl'Y1eYl+ A
~
NE:W YORK OFFICI(
330 PwtADISON AVEliuE
IIlIItW ....ORK NEW VORl< 100r7
1,2l.i!) 3:10..S000
T[l.E:< -4Z3913
C:A9L.E: HO-lholJANG
tE:~ECOP'1 E:q Iz.2J &1IS1 Z314
SHEA & GOULD
CITY OF St:. -.- ~r.teHf,~~" 'NCWO'NO ..RO.US,O..... COR"OR..nONS,
CITY Pl A~~~, :~8~fiQ~UE OF THE STARS-SUITE: 500
"87
MAY 19
LOS ~llI.GELES. CALIFORNIA 90067
P4.JI
C2131277'1000
"'-BAN'f Ol'"F CE
UI W....S...HNGTOfrll Avt:....UE
AL!lAtr.ry NEW YO"''' 12:2'10
~'8l oft.4.'9-332"O
TE~COPIER ISI8) 4Q9-5BIZ
W"'SHINGTO"'. be OFF'ICE
1827 K STA ~ET N W.
WASttINGYO..., a C 20008
(202) 833.9850
CADL..1t ""RGO
TEL~COPI ER' ~2'02) 833 IDei!
TELEX 910490-2597
C....SLE'SMEGOU
TELECOPIER 12131 553-4647
BR"'DENTON O~F"ICIE:
130' SUtT+i .AV':N UE wES"t
.R....OENTON. FLOlillQJ&. 3.J50S
18\3\ 747-3025
MIAMI OF'FICE:
801 BRICKELL AVI!NUIt
..........1 ~L.ORIDA 33131
13051 372 2000
""I.IECOPIER UQ51 372--205&
LONDON
3'7 PA~I( STAIt(T
LONDON WIY 3HG EHGLA""IO
0'......93..85J3
TEI-e:x Z61iJ1488
May 19, 1987
Ms. Suzanne Frick
Principal Planner
Santa Monica Planning Dept.
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: McDonald's, 2902 West Pico Bouleva!d, Santa Monica
Dear Suzanne:
On behalf of McDonald's, I hereby appeal the decision
of the Plann1ng Comm1ssion to the City Council. Enclosed herein
is a oheck, payable to the Clty of Santa Monica in the amount
of $75.00.
Thank you for your cooperation in th~s matter.
Very ~urs,
~?
Douglas R. R1ng
of SHEA & GOULD
Attorney for McDonald's
DRR: sr
Ene.
(
(
A -I+a..cJ, n.1 en+ -17 A
CITY PLANNING DIVISION
Community and Economic Development Department
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 18, 1987
TO: The Honorable Planning Commission
FROM: R. Ann Siracusa, Director of Planning
SUBJECT: DR 379, C4, R2A, Demolition of Existing Vacant
Single-Family Home on an R2A Lot to Allow 9,000 Sq.Ft.
of Additional Parking for the Adjacent McDonald's
Restaurant.
Address: 2902 Pica Boulevard
2247 29th street
Applicant: McDonald's Corporation
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The subject property is composed of a 19,650 sq. ft. C4 parcel and
a 9,000 sq. ft. R2A parcel located on the southwest corner of pico
Boulevard and 29th Street. Surrounding uses consist primarily of
single-family homes along 29th street and 30th street and one-
and two-story general commercial uses along Pica. A convalescent
home is located on the west side of 29th street across from
11cDonald' s. A bvo-story apartment building on 30th street is
located to the east, adjacent to the R2A lot.
Zoning District:
C4, R2A
Parcel Area:
19,650 Sq.Ft. (C4), 9,000 Sq.Ft. (R2A)
PROPOSED PROJECT
McDonald's Restaurant proposes to expand their existing surface
parking facility by 9,000 sq. ft. by demolishing a vacant
single-family home located at 2247 29th street. The restaurant
currently has 23 parking spaces; 3 existing spaces will be
removed and 19 additional spaces will be provided for a total of
39 parking spaces. One handicapped parking space is included.
No restaurant expansion is proposed. Ingress and egress will
remain limited to Pico Blvd. The 3 ft. high wall located along
29th street will be continued along the R2A lot's frontage. A 6
ft. high concrete block wall will be constructed along the south
and east side of the R2A lot and the east side of the C4 lot. A
10 ft. wide landscaped strip will be located at the parking lot's
southern edge. A 20 ft. wide landscaped strip planted with trees
will be located at the west side, and a 19' -6" wide strip also
planted with trees will be located at the lot's east side. In
- 1 -
~~. ~-........
(
(
addition, a new menu board, with the speaker located inside the
board, will replace the existing speaker boxes.
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
The proposed project is consistent with the Municipal Code and in
conformity with the General Plan as shown in Attachment A.
CEQA STATUS
This project is categorically exempt from the prov~s1ons of CEQA,
Santa Monica Guidelines for Implementation, Class 1(1).
ANALYSIS
Background
The McDonald's Corporation originally filed for an Interim
Development Review (DR 081, Change of Use, Dwelling to Commercial
Parking Lot) and for a Parking Variance (Z.A. 4546) in 1982.
Although at that time the Municipal Code permitted parking on R2A
lots, an Interim Development Permit was required for the change
of use from residential to parking. The Variance was necessary
to permit parking in the front setback.
This plan proposed locating a driveway on 29th Street and
provided only a 6 ft. landscaped buffer at the south end of the
lot. It did not include landscaping at the western end, walls
around the perimeter of the lot, and trees to additionally screen
the parking from the residences.
The Planning Commission denied the application on June 7, 1982 in
that it would reduce the availability of residential uses and be
inconsistent with Ordinance 1220, and would further expose
surrounding residences to commercial activity.
In 1983 the McDonald1s Corporation filed an Interim Development
Permit and a Conditional Use Permit (DR 129, CUP 335) for a 645
sq. ft. addition to the restaurant to accommodate restrooms, a
walk-in freezer and a larger take-out booth. The application was
approved with specific conditions imposed to control littering
and employee parking on the residential streets (Attachment B) .
In 1985 the McDonald's Corporation filed an Administrative
Approval application (AA 204) to use the R2A lot for parking.
These plans eliminated the driveway on 29th street and provided
additional landscaping as well as the concrete block perimeter
wall. AA 204 was denied, directing the applicant to file for
Development Review.
The Planning Commission reviewed the application in December 1986
(DR 345). This plan was fundamentally identical to the current
application with the exception of a 611 wider landscaped buffer at
the parking lot's east side. This has been narrowed to
accommodate wider parking stalls as required by Parking and
Traffic.
- 2 -
-I -"' .......~.....,....
..
(
(
A motion to deny the project in that the physical location of the
parking lot was not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood,
that the parking lot would allow commercial activity to intrude
more deeply into the residential neighborhood, and that
additional parking could permit expansion of the restaurant
failed.
A second motion to approve the project with additional conditions
on trash enclosures, delivery hours, specified on site parking
for employees and limiting the decibel level of the loud speaker
also failed. Since neither motion received a majority, the
project was automatically denied.
Analysis
As noted, the project is essentially unchanged from the previous
proposal. The applicant has not revised the plans to comply with
the Planning commission I s concerns regarding assigned employee
parking, trash enclosures, littering and the noise level of the
speaker boards.
Sunset Park Associated Neighbors (SPAN) has opposed this plan
since the initial application. At their General Membership
meeting on April 6, 1987 SPAN adopted a resolution stating the~r
opposition to this plan or any other expansion that intrudes into
the surrounding residential neighborhood. (Attachment C)
The project is inconsistent with Land Use Element Objective 1.2
which encourages "compatibility of adjacent land uses, with
particular concern for protecting residential neighborhoods" and
with Policy 1.2.4 which requires limiting, controlling or
otherwise mitigating the impact of a fast food use on the
surrounding neighborhood.
Conclusion
As proposed the project is not compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood and imposes further commercial intrusions into the
residential area.
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that DR 379 be denied with the
following findings:
FINDINGS
1. The physical location and placement of proposed structures on
the site are incompatible and do not relate harmoniously to
the surrounding sites and neighborhoods in that the parking
lot would intrude Inore deeply into the residential
neighborhood than the surrounding commercial uses and that
the parking lot could potentially allow future expansion of
the restaurant.
- 3 -
.
-#
c
(
2. The proposal is inconsistent with the objectives and policies
of the Land Use Element in that the parking lot expansion
increases rather than mitigates the impact of the existing
fast food use on the surrounding neighborhood.
Prepared by: Amanda Schachter, Assistant Planner
AS:nh
DR379
05/04/87
- 4 -
.....
. .. It
(
(
ATTACHMENT A
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
Land Use
Category Municipal Code Element Project
Permitted Use Parking Lot/ Same as Parking Lot
Low Density Municipal Code
MUlti-Family
Residential
Height 2 stories/30' Same as
Municipal Code
Setbacks
Front yard 20' Same as 20'
Municipal Code
Sideyard 5' Same as 10'
Municipal Code
Rearyard 15' Same as 19'-6"
Municipal Code
Parking 13 spaces Same as 39 spaces total
(l/every Municipal Code (19 new spaces)
5 seats)
- 5 -
- .......
. .........
[
(
ATT ACH M E.J\jT B
CITY PLk'rnING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF SANTA HONICA
M E M 0 RAN D U ~
DATE: May 16, 1983
TO: Honorable Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Staff
SG3JECT: DR 129 and C.U.F. 335, 2902 Pico Blvd., Additions
to McDonald's Restaurant, C4.
This staff report serves as an addendum and update to the
February 7, 1983, staff report on this project.
Background. A public hearing was held on this item at the
February 7, 1983,Planning Commission rneet1ng. During the
hearing, concerns were ralsed 1n regard to n01se, 11tter, employee
parking on residential streets, traffic congestlon, and lack of
parking lot screening. The Commission voted to defer action on
this case untl1 solutlons to the sound and litter problems, an
enforceable employee parking program, and parking lot screening
along 29th Street were addressed in a resubmittal.
Analysis. The applicant has submitted a revised proposal in
response to the noted concerns. While the proposals will not
solve all of the proble~s, staff believes that the mitigating
steps, along with staff conditlons, will reduce the existing
problems and be of benefit to the surrounding neighborhood.
Recommendation. It is respectfully recommended that Development
Revlew 129 and Conditional Use Permit 335 be approved with the
following f1ndings and condit1ons:
Findings.
1. The development is consistent with the flndings and purpose
of Ordinance 1251.
2. The proposed plans comply with exist1ng regulations contalned
in the Municipal Code.
3. The existing and/or proposed r1ghts-of-way for both pedestrlan
and automob11e trafflC wlll be adequate to accommodate the ant~clpated
results of the proposed development including off-street parking
facilities and access thereto.
4. The existlng and/or proposed pub11c and/or prlvate health
and safety facillties (includlng, but not limlted to, sanltatlon,
sewers, storm drains, flre protection devlces, protectlve serVlces,
and public ut111ties) wl11 be adequate to accommodate the antic1pated
results of the proposed development.
- .. ..~~~~~ ~
.
f /
~
(
-2-
(
5. The proposed development will not prejudice the ability
of the City to adopt a revised land use element.
6. The proposed use and location are in accordance with
good zoning practice, in the public interest and necessary in
order that substantial justice be done.
Conditions. (These conditions supercede those in the February 7,
1983, staff report.)
1) That a modified exterior sound system be installed as
proposed in the February 24, 1983, l~tter from Daniel Grossberg
of A to Z Sound Service, Inc. and the March 31, 1983, letter
from Richard Ward of McDonald's corporation. (on file)
2) That the hours of operation of the drive-through window
be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. seven days a week.
3) That McDonald's employees police for litter twice each
business day on the south side of Pico Blvd. from 28th Street to 30th
Street and on both s~des of 29th Street south from Pico Blvd. at
least one-half the distance to Pearl street.
4) That McDonald's employees use McDonald's parking facilities
and not park on-street.
5) That the Arch~tectural Review Board review the need for
and the practicality of park~ng lot screening along Pica Blvd. and
29th Street as part of the required architectural review of the
project.
6) That the restaurant and parking area be operated in such
a way as to not be detrimental to the public health, safety or
welfare.
7) Under Resolution Number 6385(CCS), a development fee of
$525.35* would be required in connection with the approval of this
project. The City of Santa Monica is currently enjoined from
enforcing the provis~ons of such resolution relating to fees.
If the City of Santa Monica prevails in the case of United
~rotherhood of Carpenters and Joinders of America, ~t al~ v. City
of Santa Monica, et al., Los Angeles Super~or Court, Case
NUmber WEe 069227, such fee (or any lesser fee required by any
subsequently adopted ordinance) shall be due and payable with~n
90 days of the date that C~ty of Santa Monica 1S no longer
subject to such ~nJunct1on.
*This is computed as a 1.5% Arts and Social Services Fee based
on 645 sq.ft. of Type IIIN construction at $54.30 per sq.ft.,
totaling $525.35.
Respectfully submitted,
~J~
Richard Mills
Assistant Planner
RM:nh
-~