SR-402-001 (34)
L/tJz,-C/o /
~.A
FES 2 j 1988
CjED:SF:DM
council Mtg: February 23, 1988
Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning commission Denial of Development
Review 397 and Zoning Administrator Use Permit 5233-U,
1540 Second Street. Addition of a Drive-Through Lane
and 240 Square Feet of Floor Area To An Existing
Mc Donald I s Restaurant. Applicant \Appellant: Lardas
Management, Inc.
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the City Council deny the appeal of
the applicant and deny Development Review 397 and Zoning
Administrator Use Permit 5233-U for the construction of a
drive-through lane and a 240 square foot addition to an existing
McDonalds Restaurant. The Planning Commission denied the project
by a 4-1 vote, with one abstention and one absence, on November
16, 1987. The applicant is appealing that decision.
BACKGROUND
The drive-through addition is proposed for an existing McDonald1s
Restaurant on the northwest corner of Colorado Boulevard and
Second Street in the Downtown Frame Land Use District. The
drive-through would replace a row of parking along the west side
of the existing restaurant. Two hundred and forty square feet of
floor area would be added to accommodate the drive-through
windows and cashiers booths.
The addition would include the
construction of a block wall between the proposed drive-through
lane and the existing parking lot.
No other alterations are
- 1 -
~.A
FEB 23 1988
proposed for the exterior or interior of the recently remodeled
restaurant.
The proposed project would result in the loss of twenty parking
spaces. Of the remaining forty spaces, ten would be compact and
one would he handicap. Parking requirements would still he met.
Existing points of ingress and egress would remain and no
alterations are proposed for the overall circulation pattern of
the parking lot. A parking plan has been approved by the
Department of Parking and Traffic. The city's Traffic Engineer's
comments regarding on-site circulation are noted below. He has
raised concerns about turning movement conflicts between the
drive-through and access driveways. Hours of operation of the
proposed drive-through would be the same as the existing
restaurant; 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight, seven days a week.
The proposed proj ect was denied by the Planning Commission at
their meeting of November 16,1987. The Commission's denial was
based on inconsistencies with the C3 zoning requirements and Land
Use Element policies. The Commission also expressed concerns
regarding excess noise and traffic that could potentially be
generated by a drive-through addition. The applicant
subsequently appealed the Commission's denial based on the
contention that the drive-through would not create excess traffic
congestion or produce an increase of noise. Furthermore, the
applicant has stated that there are many other traffic dominated
uses in the area and to deny his application would be to treat
his property unfairly.
- 2 -
The applicant originally proposed a drive-through with the
initial application for construction of the restaurant in 1976.
At that time the Planning commission approved the restaurant with
the condition that the drive-through portion of the plan be
eliminated. Since the opening of the restaurant in 1977, the
applicant has made several inquiries to staff regarding the
feasibility of adding a drive-through facility. In response to
each inquiry, staff has informed the applicant of the potential
problems associated with a drive-through lane at the subject
location. Most recently, in May of 1985, staff informed the
applicant that the only mechanism by which they could pursue
their proposal would be to submit for Planning Commission
consideration of a Development Review and a Zoning Administrator
Use Permit.
ANALYSIS
The Planning Commission found at the November 16 meeting that the
proposed project was inconsistent with the Land Use Element for
the Downtown Frame Land Use District. Specifically, Land Use
Element Policy 1. 3.4 states that in the Downtown areas, uses
should ".. .be active pedestrian oriented (shop fronts, cultural
activities, cafes, and other uses catering to walk-in traffic) in
order to promote pedestrian activity at the ground floor.
The Planning Commission also found that the addition of a
drive-through at the subject location would be inconsistent with
the C3 section of the Municipal Code. One of the original
conditions of approval allowing McDonald's to develop the site in
1977 was fl... that the drive-through portion of the operation
- 3 -
shall be eliminated and all sales and services shall be conducted
entirely within an enclosed building in accordance with C3
regulations."
The intent of the original approval for McDonald I s appears to
have been centered around the pedestrian use of the restaurant
rather than a drive-through operation. The subject restaurant is
located in a sensitive pedestrian oriented area of the City.
Given the sitets close proximity to such pedestrian oriented
activities as Santa Monica Place, Third Street Mall, Santa Monica
Pier, and Palisades Park, it is important that the restaurant
continue to cater to a pedestrian based clientele. Furthermore,
to allow a drive-through at this time would be inconsistent with
the original approval for the restaurant granted in 1977.
In addition to the aforementioned inconsistencies with the
Municipal Code and the Land Use Element, the Planning Commission
also expressed concerns related to the site layout, increased
traffic congestion and noise. Specifically, the drive-through
addition and buffer wall could result in the creation of "blind
corners" and conflicting traffic flow. Furthermore, the length
of the drive-through lane does not appear sufficient to
accommodate vehicles waiting in line which may cause queuing
problems and blockage of through traffic lanes. In addition to
the problems associated with traffic flow, the proximity of the
drive-through lane to the dining room entrance could create a
hazard for pedestrians entering and exiting the building.
- 4 -
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the council deny the appeal
and deny Development Review 397 and zoning Administrator Use
Permit 5233-U with the findings contained in the November 16,
1987 Planning Commission staff report.
Prepared by: David Martin, Assistant Planner
Suzanne Frick, Principal Planner
Planning Division
Community and Economic Development Department
Attachments: A.
B.
C.
Letter of Appeal by Rosario Perry.
Nov. 16, 1987 Planning Commission staff Report.
Nov. 16, 1987 Planning Commission statement of
Official Action.
Project Plans.
D.
DM:
PC/CCDR397
01/14/88
- 6 -
1\T \ V't.,...l \1 nCllT n
LAW OfFICES Of
ROSARIO PERRY
A PllOffSSlONAl COIlPOAATlON
1t- 121261
CITY OF S.A~'T A MONIC;:
CITY PL AN~ -< II'TJl -
OCEAN AVENUE I..A.W OFFICES
1333 OCEAN AVENUE
SANTA MONICA CALIFORNIA 90401
(213) 394-9831
.87 NaV 30 P 4 :44
November 30, 1987
Re: Appeal of Planning Corr~i~~ion ~[proval
of Dl? .397,1560 2nd Street, Santa l~or..ica, CA
City of Santa Monica
Pl.tn~ing Starf/Department
!6C5 11<.1in Street
frnta Monica, California 90401
Dear Staif:
On behalf of gr. N~ck LdrdaG, 0rprator/Owner of the
MacDonal~'s restaurant located at 2nd and Colorado, ! wish
to file an appeal frOl:1 the Planning Con,mission I s decision of
~onday, November 16, 19B?
We are oppealing the Planning Comm~ssion'E r~pia] of
11r. Lardas t s application for a drive-through hecause we feel
tr~t the drive-through will not cr~ate excess traff~c con-
gestion nor w~ll it produce an increased level of r.oise from
the site.
The traffic p~an arC' overall design of the drive-
through conforIt1s to the requirements of the present zonizig
use. There are llIany other trdffic donanGlteG ut.ct" ip tl:e
nC.:ighborhoods surrounding lv~acDonuld' S dnd to deny his appl i-
cc~ion would be to treat his property untairly. Under Sec-
tl.ClI! 9146A5, the City is required to pE'rmi t the drive-
through if adequate protectton~ car. be provided to make said
drive-throu~h cc~pntible with the uses in the C-3 aibLrict.
The application filed by Mr. Lardas has adequately addressed
~hp potential problems createu by such a drive-through and
tt:~1-'f' fore sheuld be approved.
Fe~~\4 subrritted,
ROSARIO PE~~
PF:BB
Fr.closure (check)
CLIN6A/LARDAS~lJ2
~~
AttC\c..hmc.t1t tS
.
" ~f
'.
(
"
(
713
,~(....,...... -
CITY PLANNING DIVISION
Community and Economic Development Department
,,~~~~~--!.~{..
",. ~.........:"'7-~-
\~~~~~--"' -
M E M 0 RAN 0 U M . >, -~.~... -. ,,t_:<..,..- ,- ~ - = . .
DATE: November 16, 1987
TO: The Honorable Planning Commission
--...-.,~ FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: OR 397, ZA 5233-U, To Allow a Drive-Through Lane and
Addition of 240 Sq. Ft. to an Existing McDonalds
Restaurant for Drive-Through Windows and Cashier
Booths.
Address:
Applicant:
1540 Second street
Lardas Management, Inc.
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The subj ect property is an existing McDonalds restaurant on a
37,500 sq.ft. parcel located on the northwest corner of Colorado
Avenue and Second Street. Surrounding uses consist of the two
story Pacific Sands Motel to the north (C3), the Holiday Inn
Hotel across Colorado Avenue to the south (C3), Santa Monica
Place across Second Street to the east (C3), and a two and three
story, mixed use, retail/office/residential building across Ocean
Court alley to the west (C3).
Zoning District:
C3
Land Use District:
Downtown Frame
Parcel Area:
150' X 250' = 37,500 sq.Ft.
PROPOSED PROJECT
The applicant requests to add a drive-through facility to an
existing McDonalds Restaurant. The drive-through would replace a
row of parking along the west side of the existing restaurant.
Two hundred and forty square feet of floor area would be added to
accommodate the drive-through windows and cashier booths. The
addition would also include a block wall between the proposed
drive-through lane and the existing parking lot. No other
alterations are proposed for the exterior or interior of the
existing restaurant which has recently been remodeled.
There are currently sixty parking spaces on site. The proposed
drive-through would result in the loss of twenty spaces. Of the
remaining forty spaces, ten would be compact and one would be
handicap.- Existing points of ingress and egress would remain and
no alterations are proposed for the overall circulation pattern
- 1 -
f)
(
(
of the parking lot. A parking plan has been approved by the
Department of Parking and Traffic. Hours of operation of the
proposed drive-through would be the same as the existing
.". , restaurant - 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight, seven days a week.
~~,~-- . -
--:.-~~- ~
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
The proposed project is inconsistent with the Municipal Code.
The use is not a permitted use specifically identified in the C3
zone. Therefore a Use Permit, under Section 9l46A5 (SMMC) would
be required to allow a C4 use in the C3 zone. Furthermore, the
use is not a permitted use specifically identified in the
Downtown Frame District of the Land Use Element. Therefore the
Planning Commission would have to find that the proposed use is
consistant with the General Plan. A Development Review is
required under Ordinance 1321 to determine if the use is
appropriate in the Downtown Frame.
CEQA STATUS
This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA,
City of Santa Monica Guidelines for Implementation (Class 1.5).
FEES
The project is not subject to any development fees.
ANALYSIS
The proposed project is located in the Downtown Frame Land Use
Element district.
The addition of a drive-through to the existing McDonalds
restaurant would not be consistant with the policies and
objectives of the Land Use Element for this particular district.
Specifically, Land Use Element policy L 3.4 states that in the
Downtown Areas" uses should ".. .be active pedestrian oriented
(shop fronts, cultural activities, cafes, and other uses catering
to walk-in traffic) in order to promote pedestrian activity at
the ground floor".
In reviewing the case history on this project, staff finds that
one of the original conditions of approval allowing McDonalds to
develop this site in 1977 was tI...that the drive-through portion
of the operation shall be eliminated and all sales and services
shall be conducted entirely within an enclosed building in
accordance with C3 regUlations".
The intent of the original approval for McDonalds appears to have
been centered around the pedestrian use of the restaurant rather
than a drive-through operation. The subject restaurant is
located in -a sensitive pedestrian oriented area of the City.
Given the site's close proximity to such pedestrian activites as
Santa Monica Place, Third Street Mall, Santa Monica Pier, and
Palisades Park, it is important that the restaurant continue to
cater to a pedestrian based clientale. Furthermore, to allow a
- 2 -
..
(
(
I
drive-through service at this time would be inconsistent with the
original approval for the restaurant granted in 1977.
In addition to the above mentioned concerns, the proposed
~~':.'~'---'--modifications appear to present potential problems in regard to
"_._ _site layout and design. Specifically, the drive-through addition
and buffer wall may result in the creation of IIblind corners" and
conflicting traffic flow. Furthermore, the length of the
drive-through lane does not appear sufficient to accommodate
vehicles waiting in line which may cause queueing problems and
blockage of through traffic lanes. In addition to the problems
. associated with traffic flow, the proximity of the drive-through
to the dining room entrance could create a hazard for pedestrians
entering and exiting the building.
RECOr-IMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the Planning Commission
denies DR 397 and ZA 5233-U with the following findings:
FINDINGS
1. The development is inconsistent with the findings and pur-
pose of Ordinance 1321 as set forth below.
2. The physical location and placement of proposed structures
on the site are incompatible with and do not relate harmo-
niously to surrounding sites and neighborhoods in that the
Downtown Frame Land Use Element encourages uses that are
pedestrian oriented in order to promote pedestrian activi-
ty. Furthermore the C3 zoning regulations state that all
sales and services shall be conducted entirely within an
enclosed building.
3. The existing and/or proposed rights-of-way and facilities
for both- pedestrian and automobile traffic will be inade-
quate to .accommodate the anticipated results of the pro-
posed development including off-street parking facilities
and access thereto in that the existing parking currently
appears to be insufficient at peak operating hours and the
existing two-way traffic flow, combined with the proposed
drive-through could result in potential hazards for
pedestrians as well as motorists.
4. The existing and/or proposed public and/or private health
and safety facilities (inClUding, but not limited to,
sanitation, sewers, storm drains, fire protection devices,
protective services, and public utilities) will be inade-
quate to accommodate the anticipated results of the pro-
posed development.
S. The proposed development is inconsistent with the General
Plan of the city of Santa Monica and the Zoning Ordinance
i~ that the project will not conform to the height, bulk,
use and urban design policies for the Downtown Frame as
specified in the Land Use Element of the General Plan and
- 3 -
"
(
(
will not conform to the appropriate C3 standards contained
in the Zoning Ordinance.
_~~~~"- .....~L~
Prepared by:
David Martin, Assistant Planner
OM: nh
DR397
11/09/87
Attachments: A. Letter from Applicant Regarding Use Permit
Application.
B. Letter from Applicant Regarding Development
Review.
C. Letter from Steve Graham dated 9/9/87.
D. Findings and Determination Dated 7/26/76 on
ZA 245-U.
.
- 4 -
(
(
PLfu~NI~G CO~rnISSION
~ ..c.:-;~TP':-:._~__..-.o=-~ _
APPLICATIO~{ FOR DEVELOP~1ENT REVIEW
... A~t~~.....~~ : *"-~ -;
1540 2nd Street
ATTACHMENT
I __...... ..,.j,~"
~~'~~~How the proposed use and improvements will meet the required findings specified
-in the attached "Development Review/Site Review Submission Requ1rements."
During the past ten years. zoning authorities have denied several
requests for approval of a drive through addition to the restaurant
located at 1540 2nd Street in Santa Mon~ca. These past refusals have
been based upon assumptions and grounds that are no longer valid in 1987.
It is time to take a fresh look at the situation.
For example. S1nce the init~al den1a1 in 1976. the restaurant
itself has been bu~lt. Other new buildings have been constructed in the
area, and the physical nature of the ne1ghborhood has changed. New noise
- .
suppression techno1og1es have been implemented. And the area surrounding
the restaurant has become automobile or1ented. not pedestrian or1ented.
due to the nature of the location and to the preferences of Santa Mon1ca
res1dents.
Look at the'neighborhood. All of the propert1es 1n the area are
automob1le based: Two motels; an auto repa1r garage; one very large,
multi-story Mall parking garage; the R}u~D Corporat1on parking lot;
the Santa Monica Freeway; several commercial developments that rely
on valet parking. Most of the landscaping in the neighborhood is done
in concrete.
On the other hand, constructed before some of the other buildings
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 dining area. it has
become the only important contributor to pedestrian traffic in the
immediate neighborhood. All other important projects are primarily
automobile based.
As discussed below, approval of a hidden, well landscaped, noise
suppressed drive through facility will not change this pedestrian
(
(
. .
1540 2nd Street
Development Review Attachment
Page Two
......:='_..............~.: ...-
orientation or involvement. In fact, it can be expected to increase
pedestrian interest, since customer lines will be shorter, since more
grassy spaces will he added, and since 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, the basic pedestrian design orientation of
the restaurant, and the newly planned ~~ Corporation multi-story
parking garage to be located across the street.
To provide a more detailed perspective. the discussion that follows
considers a brief history of project applications, the physical nature
of the area around the restaurant, and f1ndings under Development ReV1ew
examination.
As the facts and find1ngs ind1cate, approval should be granted. The
well landscaped, hidden, and n01se suppressed drive through facility w111
meet the objectives and polic1es of the General Plan and Land Use Element;
maintain the ambiance of the ne1ghborhood and its attractiveness to out of
town vis1tors; help pedestrian walk in customers; and be of benefit to
the people of Santa Mon1ca.
An Historical Perspect1ve
When an initial request for approval was subm1tted with plans for
the restaurant in 1976, it was denied because the expressed intent of
zoning planners was to keep the entire neighborhood "pedestr1an or1ented"
and to keep the restaurant from becoI'ling "automobile dependent."
In addition to these objections. there also was reliance on one
single objecting letter. The letter stated that the writers were "appalled"
by the "vast" amount of parking that m~ght be necessary to serV1ce the
restaurant, and they voiced honest concern about traffic. ecology, and
the "garish architectural style and plastic atmosphere on which fast
food seems <10 thrive."
The writers added that '~cDonald's are exceedingly ugly, and
would b; intrusive and out of character in the C-3 zone," and they
called attention to a McDonald's restaurant located in Westwood V1llage:
'~his is a successful operation which is totally dependent upon pedestrian
(
(
. .
1540 2nd Street
Dev~lopment Review Attachment
Page Three
~
--- ,-"....-.>, --? -traffic 'and which seems to function well without golden arches. II
- --'------At that time. it should be noted. the restaurant had not been
built. 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 Monica
General Plan, specifically Land Use Element Policy 1.3.4; the Traff1c
Engineer's reservations about queing; potential noise issues; and that
single 1976 objecting letter.
These issues are not very appropriate in 1987. First. properties
in the neighborhood are now automobile based and oriented, as discussed
above. The restaurant 1s the major pedestr1an oriented development, and
that fact will not change with the add1tion of a dr1ve through facility.
Well landscaped, hidden by a seven foot wall. using noise suppression
devices, the drive through addition can be expected to have little
impact on neighborhood pedestrian orientation. In fact, because
customer serV1ce lines will be shorter after add1tion of the fac1lity,
as discussed below, more pedestr1ans will want to come to the restaurant.
Second, this time traf~ic pattern arrangements have been informally
approved by Ray Dav1s, Santa Monica Traff1c Engineer. Mr. Dav1s required
six to ten important changes in the app11cant's orig1nal blueprints, and
the applicant has accepted all of them as helpful.
Third. the applicant plans to address any potent1al n01se problems
directly, reducing the noise levels by use of noise suppression dev1ces
and by a seven foot wall. It is also comm1tted to spend up to $5,000
to hire a consultant, such as BBN Laborator1es. Inc., if required by
excessive noise levels. See the information enclosed about BBN Laborator1es,
Inc., as an example. The applicant will comply with all Santa Monica n01se
code regulations.
Fourth-, as to "ugliness" and "garishness": the restaurant has not
become the "ugly" element in the neighborhood. Just the opposite has
occurred. It has become a green, flower filled oasis. w1th its grassy
landscaping and sparkling, newly remodeled interior. The rest of the
automobile based neighborhood has been landscaped in concrete. Addition
.... o:-..=.......~~_~_ ,. r
(
(
. I
1540 2nd Street
Development Rev~ew Attachment
Page Four
of the planned, hidden, well landscaped. noise suppressed drive through
facility will not change this fact, nor will it change the ambience
of the area.
Today. the restaurant represents excellence in the neighborhood, and
~.~~~,;~.~~,the applicant plans to maintain that quality after a drive through addition
1s built. includlng 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 McDonald's has
"golden arches," is dreary, and it is often empty. while the Santa Mon~ca
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
compared to the large, multi-story Mall park~ng garage and the RAND Corporat~on
parking lot facilitles located across the street.
Even the wrlters. as reasonable and thoughtful people. would
readily note that the fears expressed in 1976 have not mater~allzed.
and that the results have been very different and very positive.
As it is clear. the franchlsee applicant does care about the
neighborhood, about its restaurant. and about the expressed concerns of
planners and the people of ,Santa Monica. It will maintaln the same
care and respect for the addition of a drive through facility.
"
. .
~
The Physical Environment
Although the neighborhood was to have developed with a pedestrian
orientation during the past ten years, it actually has become automobile
based and oriented. 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; ind several commercial developments that rely on valet park~ng.
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 safety. due to the closing of businesses and offices.
~
- .o::..c::~~-- -=- .Pr;,-
(
(
, ,
1540 2nd Street
Development Review Attachment
Page five
and due to the remoteness 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.
It is unlikely that plans to add 3,000 additional movie seats to the
"c_..-.:-.:.-~ Broadway part of the Mall will change this situation or add any pedestrian
traffic. since most people will not walk several blocks at night in the 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 facil~ty
will not change that fact. Furthermore. as an expression of conf1dence that
pedestrian traffic will continue to grow. during the past year the applicant
has invested approximately $200,000 to remodel the interior. providing a
sparkling. invit1ng dining area.
But the restaurant also has a substant1al automobile based clientele.
. '
.., --
in addition to ~ts walk in customers. Many of these customers stop. order
ins1de, and then take purchases out, creating long customer l1nes and mak~ng
noise opening and clos1ng car doors in the process.
The addit10n of a landscaped, hidden, noise suppressed drive through
facility will service many of these drive in take out customers, reduc1ng
inside service lines and providing more room for pedestr1an walk ~n traffic.
Noise levels too should be improved, because people will be rema~n~ng
in their cars, although, as noted in the Noise Element of the General Plan.
bus and other transportation noise probably exceeds the ambient n01se at
the restaurant in any case.
Because of the nature of the planned fac1lity, pedestrian des1gn
orientation and access will be mainta1ned. and even more grassy space will
be added. The restaurant will continue to remain a centerp1ece in the neighborhood.
Discussion of Findings
1. Th: proJect is consistent with the findings and purpose of Ordinance 1321.
The apparent purpose of the ordinance is to insure that development
continues to be consistent with the General Plan while planning and zoning
regulationB are under review. Under sections 2(d) and (4). it specifies
interim procedures that require an application for Development Review in this
(
(
. .
1540 2nd Street
Development Review Attachment
Page Six
~;!~......~-....;..."'''"",- ...-
case. Findings of fact roust be given in accord with sections (c) (I)
through (c)(7). These are addressed below.
To avoid duplication. since requirements given in Section (4) are
the same as those given on the Development Review Application. an appropriate
_~~.._~~~~~discuss10n will follow according to the Application format. and as will
become evident. the addition of a hidden. well landscaped noise suppressed
drive through facility will certainly be consistent with the findings and
purpose of the ordinance.
2. The structure of the facility will be compat1ble with and
relate harmoniously to surround1ng s1tes and ne1ghborhoods.
. ~
Today. instead of being the "garish" place feared by some planners
in 1976, the restaurant at 1540 2nd Street is the major green, grassy oasis
in an otherwise concrete, automobile based area. The neighborhood is
a commercial one, and it is almost empty after business and store
hours have ended. Even people visiting the beach and the Ocean Park area
normally arive by automobile, and they too usually depart by dark.
The drive through fac1l1ty, hidden by a landscaped seven foot wall,
noise suppressed, and located on current parking lot space, will not change
the area or its ambiance. Instead, it will add more grassy space.
Traffic flow is expected to remain the same, and pedestrian access to
the restaurant-Yill not be'changed. There m~ght be somewhat more activity
after dark, but that activity is an object1ve of the Land Use Elewent for
the Downtown FraMe area.
3. Rights of Way and Facilities for pedestrian and automob11e traffic
will accomModate the results of the proJect.
According to the plans submitted. drive through facil1ty traff1c w1ll enter
on 2nd Street and depart on Colorado Avenue, and all traffic must turn r1ght
onto Colorado.
According to the Circulat10n Element, both Colorado Avenue and 2nd Street
are important arteries, and they are supposed to accommodate at least
31,000 cars per day, much more than is normally expected at that location.
B;cause most of the expected drive through addition automobile traffic
1s exp~cted to be from current customers during busy hours, or from additional
customers during quiet after dark hours, normal traffic patterns are not
(
(
. I
1540 2nd Street
Development Review Attachment
Page Seven
~T~~~~~_~_-expected to be affected. Parking spaces will be limited to forty.
"
· __~a-:....~:-.:,::, _ "1c Ray Davis, Santa Monica Traffic Engineer, has examined the proposed
project plans, and he has informally approved them after requiring
six to ten significant changes. The applicant has accepted all of those
modifications as very helpful.
~ .....:;..t-...It<:J.-...--.(4....
--a(o~....",",""" - Facilities for pedestrians are expected to become more available after
the drive through facility is completed, since the interior of the restaurant
will be less crowded as customer service lines shorten. and as more take
out customers use the drive through addition. There will be no changes
in pedestr1an access to the restaurant.
4. Adequate Health and Safety facilities will accompany the drive
through addlt~on as needed, lncludlng san1tatlon, utl11tles, f1re
protect10n devlces, etc.
All necessary health and safety facilities required to meet Santa Monlca
code requ1rements wll1 be prov1ded by the applicant.
Trash pick up will be provided around the facil1ty at least tW1ce
per day.
Custoner safety will be increased in the late evenlng and early morning
hours, because many customers will not have to leave their cars for serVlce.
The offic~ of the City Attorney has been consulted about the drive
through facility~ and members of his staff have informally noted that
they do not object to the addition.
5. The proposed drive through facility is consistent with the General
Plan and with the Zonlng Ordinance, in that it conforms to the
height, bulk, use, and urban des~gn policies for the land use
district as speclfied in the Land Use Element and 1n that it conforms
to the appropriate standards conta~ned in the Zon~ng Ordlnance.
The project is located in the Downtown Frame 1n a commercial area zoned
in the C-3 category.
There-will be no significant changes in height or bulk when the drive
through facility is added, and the building contours will continue to
..
present their "human scale" elements. Street frontage will continue offering
"pedestrian scale" features. The restaurant now offers both of these attributes,
and there will be no change with the hidden, noise suppressed, well landscaped
(
(
. I
I
1540 2nd Street
Development Review Attachment
Page Eight
-;.~! ~~....._ a.--....--iIIoo-V"-~_..~ ~
drive through facility.
Use objectives and policies are governed by Land Use Element Section 1.3
for the Downtown Frame area, and these objectives and policies will be enhanced
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 commercl.al use, including "uses that serve out of town v1sitors and
uses that encourage street activity after normal business hours."
In app11cable Policy Section 1.3.4. the language distinguishes between
the Down Core and the Downtown Frame areas. and it notes with specif1c
reference to the Downto~~ Frame area that planners should require
"pedestrian oriented design features for all ground floor street frontage."
in contrast to more stringent restr1ctionsfor the Downto~~ Core area. In
the Core area. for instance, street frontage should be "act1ve pedestrian
use," rather than be only equlpped with "design features."
Addition of a restaurant drive through facility wlll meet all of the
requirements of these objectives and po11cies. and it w11l help further theo.
For example. the neighborhood normally becomes empty after bus1ness and
commercial hours. and the drive through addition wlll increase activity
at that time and after dark. as encouraged 1n Sect10ns 1.3.1 and 1.3.2.
It w11l also help attract out of town visitors.
In addition. although Section 1.3.4 motivates planners to require
"pedestrian oriented design features." it does not require them to be exclusive
features. If it did, the two motels. the auto repair garage, and other
developments in the Downtown Frame mlght have to be abandoned. There
would be no way to justify the automobile or1ented and based ne1ghborhood.
Wl~n respect to the restaurant, it currently has the most pedestrian
design or!ented features 1n 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.
, ,
(
(
--:. ..."""...... -:;,.. t.. ~
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 to "encourage a sense of human scale and pedestrian
~ _At --1r-..f ....To,..........rn
character." and it is recommended that the city require "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 d1scussed previously, the qualities w1ll not
change with the addition of a well landscaped, hidden, noise suppressed dr1ve
through facility located on current parking lot space.
After installation of the drive through faci11ty. the restaurant w~ll
still rema10 pedestr1an oriented, the only pedestrian or1ented development
in the automobile based and oriented ne~ghborhood. Pedestrian access
and other features will remain the same. Land use and urban design obJect~ves
and recommendat1ons will still be followed.
Finally. there will be appropriate conformance w1th Zon~ng Ordinance
standards, including requirements for C-3 commercial areas, as modified
by the C-4 Use Perm1t. such as restrictions on signs. height. and yard frontage.
The application for Development Review should be approved. The addition
of a well landscaped, hidden, n01se suppressed drive through facility at
1540 2nd Street will readily conform to he~ght, bulk, use. and des1gn requ~rements
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 to~~
visitors, while it retains the green, grassy oasis ambiance and newly
remodeled interior of the attractive restaurant it will accompany.
.,
(
(
.,.~.
\,..: r
j
PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION
r'
....-.~ - lot" .w.
Community and Economic Development Department
USE PERMIT 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 existing uses in the ne~ghborhood
and 2) non-detrimental to neighboring properties, residents, and businesses:
During the past ten years. zoning author1ties have den1ed several
requests for approval of a drive through add1tion to the restaurant located
at 1540 2nd Street in Santa Mon1ca. These past refusals have been based
upon assumpt10ns and grounds that are no longer va11d in 1987. It is time
to take a fresh look at the sltuat10n.
For example. S1nce the 1nitial den1al in 1976, the restaurant itself
has been bU1lt. Other new buildings have been constructed 1n the area,
and the physical nature of the neighborhood has changed. New n01se
suppression technologies have been implemented. And the area surrounding
the restaurant has become automobile oriented, not pedestrian oriented. due
to the nature of the location and due to the preferences of Santa Mon1ca .
res1dents.
Look at the neighborhood. All of the propert1es in the area are
automobile based: Two motels; an auto repair garage; one very large.
multi-story Mall parking garage; the RAND Corporation park1ng lot; the
Santa Monica Freeway; several commercial developments that rely on valet
parking. Most of the landscaping in the neighborhood is done 1n concrete.
On the other hand. constructed before some of the other bU11d1ngs
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 expens1ve1y remodeled interior din1ng area. it has become
the only important contributor to pedestrian traffic in the immediate
neighborhood. All other important projects are primarily automobile based.
As discussed below, approval of a hidden. well landscaped, noise
suppressed drive through facility will not change this pedestrian orientation
(
(
. '
, ,
, 4 .
1540 2nd Street
Use Permit Attachment
Page Two
tt
~"'iIIIr._ _- -.....
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 mlght even be
considered discriminatory in 1987, in the light of the basic automobile
orientation of the area and the newly planned RAND Corporatlon multi-story
parking garage to be located across the street.
To provide a more detailed perspective, the discussion that follows
conslders a brief history of project applicatlons, the physical nature
of ~he area around the restaurant, and flndlngs about neighborhood use
compatibility and about non-detrimental effects on the neighborhood,
residents, and businesses.
As the facts and flndings indlcate, approval for a Use Permit
should be granted. The well landscaped, hidden, and nOlse suppressed
drive through facl11ty w1ll be compatible wlth eXlstlng nelghborhood uses,
and it wll1 be non-detrimental to nelghborlng propertles, residents, and
businesses. As it has been deslgned, and as it wlll be operated, 1t will
maintain the ambience of the nelghborhood, help pedestrlan walk in customers,
not affect residents, offer addltlonal serVlces for neighborhood buslnesses,
~~and _be of.benef~t to the people of Santa Monlca and to outslde visitors.
An Historical Perspective
~~-- Vhen an initial request for approval was submltted wlth plans for
.,-L _
~tbe restaurant in 1976, it was denied because the expressed intent of zoning
-, --
-c-planners was to keep the ent1re neighborhood "pedestrlan oriented" and
- to....keep the~restaurant from becoming "automobile dependent."
In addition to these objectlons, there also was reliance on one s1ngle
objecting letter. The letter stated that the writers were "appalled" 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 sef!ms to thrive. II
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
(
(
, ,
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 zon~ng
approval was made in 1985. and it was again denied. This time the reasons given
were the Downtown pedestrian orientation of the Santa Monica General Plan,
specifically Land Use Element Policy 1.3.4; the Traff~c Engineer's reservat10ns
about queing; potential n01se issues; and that single 1976 object1ng letter.
These past issues are not very appropr1ate 1n 1987. First, properties
in the neighborhood are now automob11e based and or1ented, as discussed
above. The restaurant is the major pedestrian or1ented development, and
that fact w111 not change with the addition of a dr1ve through fac11ity.
Well landscaped, hidden by a seven foot wall, uS1ng n01se suppreSS10n dev1ces,
the drive through addition can be expected to have 11ttle impact on
neighborhood uses, businesses. or res1dents.
Second. this t1me traffic pattern arrange~ents have been informally
approved by Ray Davis, Santa Mon1ca Traffic Eng1neer. Xr. Davis requ1red
six to ten important changes in the applicant's orig1nal 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 devices
and by a seven foot wall. It also is COIT~1tted to spend up to $5,000
working with a consultant such as BB~ Laboratories. Inc. See the
information enclosed about BBN Laboratories, Inc. as an example.
Fourth. as to "ugliness" and "garishness": the restaurant has
not become the "ugly" element in the n('~ghborhood. Just the reverse has
occurred. It has become a green. flower filled oasis. with its grassy
landscaping and sparkling, newly remodeled inter1or. The rest of the
automo~11e 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 ambience of the area.
.'
l ' ,
.'
... ;:.~..._M"''''
-.
(
(
1540 2nd Street
Use Permit Attachment
Page Four
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 McDonald's has
"golden arches," is 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 pr'"""'ture.
The restaurant has only a relatively small parking lot, especially when
compare to the large, multi story Mall park~ng garage and the RAND Corporation
parking lot facilities located across the street.
Even the writers, as reasonable, thoughtful people, would readily
note that the fears expressed in 1976 have not mater~alized, and that the
results have been very different and very positive.
As it is clear, the franchisee applicant does care about the ne1ghborhood.
about it's restaurant, and about the expressed concern of planners and
the people of Santa Monica. It w111 ma1nta1n the same care and respect
for the addition of a drive through facility.
The Physical Environment
Although the neighborhood was to have developed with a pedestrian
orientation during the past ten years, it actually has become automobile
based. As mentioned previously, the restaurant is surrounded by two motels;
an auto repair garage; one very large, multi story Mall park1ng 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 automob1le, due to pedestrian fears about
safety, due to the closing of businesses and offices. and due to the
rewoteness 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.
. .'
L'
, .
~ _~ ...... 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 expression of
confidence that pedestrian traffic will continue to grow, during the
past year the applicant has invested approximately $200,000 to remodel
the interior, providing a sparkling, inviting dining area.
But the restaurant also has a substantial automob~le based clientele,
in addit10n to its walk in customers. Many of these customers stop, enter and
order inside, and then take purchases out, creating long customer lines
and mak1ng noise opening and closing car doors in the process.
The addition of the landscaped, hidden, noise suppressed drive
through fac1lity w111 serV1ce many of these drive in take out customers,
reducing ins1de service lines and providing more room for pedestrian walk
in traffl.c.
N01se levels too should be improved, because people will be
remaining in their cars, although, as noted in the Noise Element of
the General Plan, bus and other transportat1on n01se probably exceeds
the ambient noise, at the restaurant in any case.
Because of the nature of the planned facility, pedestrian attract10n
and access will be maintained, and even more grassy space will be added.
The restaurant will remain a centerpiece in the ne1ghborhood.
Discussion of Findings
1. The proposed use and improve~ents will be des1~ned and operated
so as to be compat1ble w1th existing uses 1n 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 p~operties 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. Most of the landscaping is done
~cl1 Mcnt C.
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION
PROJECT
NUMBER: DR 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.
Approved based on the following findings and
subject to the conditions below.
x
Denied.
Other.
VOTE
Ayes:
Nays:
Abstain:
Absent:
Pyne
Farivar, Hecht, Mechur, 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 -