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;