Loading...
SR-402-001 (43) C/ED:SF:DM Council Mtg: Santa Monica, ~.A fiQ e ) 1~&6 WAR 2 9 1988 Cal iforni'a LfIY2- -00/ February 23, 1988 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 McDonald's 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. _~ ? ~ lQR~ 1MR291~ 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 be handicap. parking requirements would still be 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 If.. .be active pedestrian oriented (shop fronts 1 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 ".. .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'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 site's 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 - Concerns regarding potential traffic problems have also been expressed by the City's Traffic Engineer. Such concerns are related to potential problems associated with the proposed drive-through in conjunction with the existing two-way traffic flow of the parking lot. As proposed, traffic exiting the drive-through lane would be in direct conflict with traffic entering the parking lot off of Colorado Boulevard. Furthermore, vehicles waiting in line to order could potentially block parking spaces and back-up onto Second Street. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION In acting on this appeal, the City Council may: 1) 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 or with such 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 recommendation presented in this report does not have any budget or fiscal impact. - 5 - 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. OM: PC/CCDR397 01/14/88 - 6 - ~ttoLJvncnt fit LAW OFFICES Of ROSARIO PERRY A ~ COIIPORA1lOIII ~ 121ZfS CITY OF S~ J'T A. MOtil~;' CITY PL AN~, ': r,rrt( ~ OCEAN AVENUE LAW OFfICES 1333 OCEAN AVENUE SANTA MONICA, CAlIFORNIA 90401 (213) 394-9831 .87 NOV 30 P 4 :44 November 30, 1987 Rc: Appeal of Planning Corr~i~~ion Approval of DN 397, 1560 2nd Street, Santa ~onica, CA Citv of Santa Monica PLlil:1ing Stal:ilDepartroent 1CC5 11c..lin Street f~nta Monica, California 90401 Deo.r Staff: On behalf of Mr. N1Ck Ldrduc, 0rpratcr!Owner of the Macnon~l~'s re~taurant located at 2nd a~d Colorado, I wish to file an appeal frCl:1 ti1D Plannlng Con'mission' s decisior. cf ~onday, November 16, 19P7. ~e are QPpeal~ng the Planning Comm~ss~on'z e~~ia] of 11r. Lardas I s application for a drive-through because we feel trat the drive-through will not cr~~te excess traffic con- gestion nor will it produce an increased level of r.cise from the site. \ The traf~ic p~c..n aT'~ overall design of the drive- through conforros to the requirements of the present zon11,g use. There &re mc.ny other trdffic domJ.nilteCl us::cr iTl tre r.cighborhoods surrounding frjacDonald r S dnd to deny his appli- c~tion would be to treat his property untairly. Under Sec- t10Il S146AS, the City is required to pearroit the drive- through if adequate prot~cticne car. be provided to make said drive-throu~h r~~atible with the uses in the C-3 01&lrJ.ct. The application filed by Mr. Lardas has adequately addressed ~h~ potential problems createu by such a drive-through and .....b,,!."(' f(lre shculd be approved. Ref::::~ subIri tted, ROSARIO PERR~ PF':BB Frclosure (check) CLIN6A/LnRDAS#1/2 A1t~Gh rY\Cfl+ '"B ~~ ~ 1 ~ ( ( 76 CITY PLANNING DIVISION Community and Economic Development Department . -~-\o-~...... ,.~ ..........-~.::.~:~-~ ~~~~~~-~ - MEMORANDUM ~-I""" _.....~ .. -" . ....i"_-;....;- .. 'I-~~~~... DATE: November 16, 1987 TO: The Honorable Planning Commission SUBJECT: Planning Staff DR 397, ZA 5233-U, To Allow a Addition of 240 Sq. Ft. to Restaurant for Drive-Through Booths. Drive-Through Lane and an Existing McDonalds Windows and Cashier --_......- FROM: 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: Land Use District: C3 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 al terations are proposed for the exterior or interior of the existing restaurant which has recently been remodeled. There are c~rrently 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 - ~ ", .. ( ( 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 proj ect is in cons istent with the Municipal Code. The use is not a permitted use specifically identified in the C3 zone. Therefore a Use Permit, under section 9146A5 (SMMC) would be required to allow a C4 use in the C3 zone. Furthermore, the use 1s 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 proj ect is located in the Downtown Frame Land Use Elenent 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 1. 3.4 states that in the Downtown Areas,. uses shquld ".. .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 "...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 requlationsll. 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 - . ( ( 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 "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 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. RECOMMENDATION It is respectfully recommended that the Planning commission denies DR 397 and ZA 5233-U with the following findings: FINDINGS l. 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 puilding. 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. 5. 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. _4~--""'~""'''' -....... 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~NING COMMISSION .. W"'_'::;'~"'~Joo~,:",-- __...__~ _ II r .I 'S- -.. - ~ APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMEKT REVIEW .. ..~:::~, .;.. - 'l1---t'" 1540 2nd Street ATTACHMENT ." ~~ ~ --...."'" .....-J,...t\- A~~.~.'I'''~rRo~ the proposed use and improvements ~il1 meet the required findings spec1fied in the attached "Development Rev1-ew/Site Review Subm1-ssion Requ~rements." During the past ten years. zoning authorit1es have den1ed several requests for approval of a drive through addition to the restaurant located at 1540 2nd Street in Santa Monica. These past refusals have been based upon assumptions and grounds that are no longer va11d 10 1987. It is time to take a fresh look at the s1tuation. For example, since the in1tial den1al in 1976. the restaurant itself has been bU11t. Other new build1ngs have been constructed in the area. and the phvsical nature of the neighborhood has changed. ~ew noise . . . suppression techno1og1es have been implemented. And the area surrounding the restaurant has become automob11e oriented, not pedestrian or1ented. due to the nature of the location and to the preferences of Santa Monica residents. Look at the 'neighborhood. All of the properties in the area are automob11e based: Two motels; an auto repair garage; one very large. multi-story Mall parking garagej the RAND Corporation paTk~ng lot; the Santa Monica Freeway; several commercial developments that rely on valet parking. Most of the landscaping in the ne1ghborhood is done in concrete. On the other hand. constructed before some of the other bU11dings 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, Doise suppressed drive through facility will not change this pedestrian ( ( . I 1540 2nd Street Development Review Attachment P age Two .. .._--.~-~ '- orientation or involvement. In fact. 1 t can be expected to increase pedestrian interest. since customer lines will be shorter. since more grassy spaces will be 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 deta1led perspective. the discuss10n that follo~s cons1ders a brief h1story of proJect applications. the physical nature of the area around the restaurant. and findings under Development Rev1ew ~ --.-.. ...... -A;:; _ examination. As the facts and f1nd1ngs indicate. approval should be granted. The well landscaped. h1dden. and n01se suppressed drive through facility w111 meet the objectives and policies of the General Plan and Land Use Element; maintain the ambiance of the ne1ghborhood and lts attractiveness to out of tow~ visitors; help pedestrian walk in customers; and be of benef~t to the people of Santa Monica. An Historical Perspective When an initial request for approval was submltted with plans for the restaurant in 1976. it was denled because the expressed intent of zoning planners was to keep the entire neighborhood "pedestr1an oriented" and to keep the restaurant from becordng "automobile dependent. 11 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 might be necessary to service the restaurant. snd they voiced honest concern about traffic. ecology. and the "garish architectural style and plastic atmosphere on wh1ch fast food seems ~o 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 Village: '7his is a successful operation which is totally dependent upon pedestrian _r_...,..~.... ( ( . . 1540 2nd Street Development Review Attachment Page Three -traffic 'and which seems to function well without golden arches." -~, '--At that time, it should be noted. the restaurant had not been built, the indoor Santa Monica Mall and 1ts 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 vas made in 1985, and it was again denied. This time the reasons given were the Downtown pedestrian orientation of the Santa Monica General Plan, specif1cally Land Use Element Policy 1.3.4; the Traffic Eng1neerts 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 autornob1le based and oriented, as discussed above. The restaurant is the major pedestrian oriented development, and that fact will not change with the addition of a drive through fac1l1ty. Well landscaped, hidden by a seven foot wall, using n01se suppression dev1ces, the dr1ve through add1tion can be expected to have l1tt1e impact on neighborhood pedestrian orientat10n. In fact, because customer serv1ce lines will be shorter after add1t1on of the fac1lity, as d1scussed belo~. more pedestrians will want to come to the restaurant. Second, th~s time traf~ic pattern arrangements have been informally approved by Ray Davis. Santa Monica Traffic Engineer. Mr. Dav1s required six to ten important changes in the applicant's original blueprints, and the applicant has accepted all of them as helpful. Third. the applicant plans to address any potent1al noise problems directly, reducing the noise levels by use of noise suppression devices and by a seven foot wall. It is also committed to spend up to $5,000 to hire a consultant. such as BBN Laboratories, Inc., if required by excessive noise levels. See the information enclosed about BB~ Laboratories, Inc.. as an example. The applicant will comply with all Santa Monica noise 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, with its grassy landscaping and sparkling, newly remodeled interior. The rest of the automobile based neighborhood has been landscaped in concrete. Addition ( ( . . 1540 2nd Street Development Review Attachment Page Four .....L.o~...-L~~~ ;r. ~ 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 __4....J~r ...~...~................ 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." 1s dreary. and it is often empty, wh1.le 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 co~pared to the large. multi-story Mall parking garage and the RAKD Corporat1.on parking lot facilit1.es located across the street. Even the writers, as reasonable and thoughtful people. would readily note that the fears expressed in 1976 have not mater1.al1.zed. and that the results have been very d1.fferent and very pos1.tive. As it is clear, the franchisee appl1.cant does care about the neighborhood, about its r~9taurant. and about the expressed concerns of planners and the people of Santa Mon1.ca. It will mainta1.n the same care and respect for the addition of a dr~ve through facility. The Physical Environment Although the neighborhood was to have developed w1.th 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 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 safety. due to the closing of businesses and offices, . ~ ..~;.!.J-.-- o!. ...~" ( ( . . I 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 . ~ --...-..~ -.~.~-~ 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 facility will not change that fact. Furthermore. as an express~on of conf1dence that pedestrian traffic will continue to grow, during the past year the appl~cant has invested approximately $200,000 to remodel the interior. prov1d~ng a sparkling. inviting d~ning area. But the restaurant also has a substantial automobile based clientele. , ~-... -, ~ in add~tion to ~ts walk in customers. Many of these customers stop, order inside. and then take purchases out. creating long customer lines and mak1ng noise open~ng and closing car doors in the process. The addition of a landscaped, h~dden. noise suppressed dr~ve through fac~l~ty w~ll service many of these dr~ve in take out customers, reduc1ng inside service lines and providing more room for pedestrian walk in traff~c. Noise levels too should be improved, because people w~ll be remain~Dg in their cars. although, as noted in the N01se Element of the General Plan, bus and other transportation noise probably exceeds the ambient no~se at the restaurant in any case. Because of the nature of the planned facility. pedestr~an design orientation and access will be maintained, and even more grassy space will be added. The restaurant will continue to remain a centerpiece 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 regulations 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 2"-: '.~""""''''- -~ ""-- case. Findings of fact must be given in accord with sections (c) (1) 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 -~~~~~discussion 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 -: J r..--:, purpose of the ordinance. 2. The structure of the facility will be compatible with and relate harmoniously to surroundin~ S1tes and ne1~hborhoods. Today. instead of being the "gar1shtt place feared by some planners in 1976. the restaurant at 1540 2nd Street is the maJor green. grassy oasis in an otherw1se concrete, automob11e based area. The neighborhood is a commercial one. and it is almost empty after business and store hours have ended. Even people visit1ng the beach and the Ocean Park area normally arive by automobile, and they too usually depart by dark. The drive through facil~ty. 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 w1ll add more grassy space. Traffic flow is expected to remain the same. and pedestrian access to the restaurant-will not be-changed. There m1ght be somewhat more act1vity after dark. but that activity is an objective of the Land Use Element for the Downtown Frame area. 3. Riehts of Way and Facilities for pedestr1an and automobile traffic will accommodate the results of the project. According to the plans subm1tted, drive through facility traffic will enter on 2nd Street and depart on Colorado Avenue. and all traffic must turn T1ght onto Colorado. According to the Circulation 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 add1tion automobile traffic is expected to be from current customers during busy hours. or from additional customers during quiet after dark hours, normal traffic patterns are not ( ( . . 1540 2nd Street Development Review Attachment Page Seven _rr~~~~r_cexpected to be affected. Parking spaces will be limited to forty. " .. ___",,"~ - Ray Davis. Santa Monica Traffic Engineer, has exarnined the proposed project plans, and he has informally approved them after requiring six to ten significant changes. The applicant has accepted all of those ~ ~odifications as very helpful. ...._.~...1t'~~4~ ~~~~~ _. 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 pedestrian access to the restaurant. 4. Adequate Health and Safety facilities will accoopany the dr1ve through add1tion as needed, 1nclud1ng san1tat10n, ut1l1t1es, f1re protect10n devices. etc. All necessary health and safety facilities required to meet Santa Monica code requirements will be provided by the applicant. Trash pick up will be provided around the facility at least tW1ce per day. Customer safety will be increased in the late evening and early morn~ng hours, because many customers will not have to leave the1r cars for serV1ce. The offic~of the City Attorney has been consulted about the dr1ve through facility, and members of h1S staff have informally noted that they do not obJect to the addit10n. 5. The proposed drive throu~h facility is consistent with the General Plan and yith the Zon1ng Ord1nance, in that it conforms to the height. bulk. use, and urban design polic1es for the land use ~istrict as specified in the Land Use Element and in that it confo~s to the appropriate standards conta1ned in the 20n1n$ Ord1nance. The project is located in the Downtown Frame in a commercial area zoned in the C-3 category. There-will be no significant changes in height or bulk when the dr1ve 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 viII be no change with the hidden, noise suppressed, well landscaped;