SR-402-001 (45)
C/ED:SF:DM
Council Mtg:
Santa Monica,
~"A
tJJ 2 J 1991
2 9 1981
California
L!02--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
~ l) ~rJB
MAR ~ 9 19b9
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 project 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 I 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 "... 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 I 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 ci ty I 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. Letter of Appeal by Rosario Perry.
B. Nov. 16, 1987 Planning commission Staff Report.
C. Nov. 16, 1987 Planning Commission Statement of
Official Action.
D. Project Plans.
DM:
PC/CCDR397
01/14/88
- 6 -
I\ttOLhmcnt t\
LAW OFFICtS OF
ROSARIO PERRY
A PROFESSIONAl COIlPORAnON
'f\: 1112r3
CITY OF SP i A MONtC:-
CITY Pl ANft; . ' nrn( :-
OCEAN AVENUE LAW OFFICES
1333 OCEAN AVENUE
SANTA MONICA. CALIFORNIA 90401
(213) 394.9831
"87 NOV 30 P 4 :44
November 30, 1987
Pe: Appeal of Planning Corr~i~cion Approval
or DR 397, 1560 2nd Street, Sdnta ~onica, CA
City of Santa Monica
p!.uming Stat f/Department
l6C5 l1uin Street
rEnta Monica, California 90401
Dear Staff:
On behalf of gr. Nick Ldruu5, 0rprator/Owner of the
MacDon~l~'s reGtaurant located at 2nd a~d Colorado, r wish
to file an appeal frOl:1 the Plann1ng Commission's decibion cf
~onday, November 16, 19P7.
We are QPpealing the Planning Comrn~ss~on's f~ria] of
11T. Lardas's application for a drJ.ve-through because we feel
trat the drive-through will not create excess traffic con-
gestion nor w~ll it produce an increased level of ncise from
the site.
The traf:ic p:!.o.n apc overall design of the drive-
through conforros to t:he requirements of the present ZOnl.hg
use. There &l"e Inc..ny other trdffic domJ.nateC: U€€f." ifl tte
neighborhoods surrounding ~iacDon,J.ld IS dnd to deny his appli-
cc~ion would be to treat his property unta~rly. Under Sec-
t:~CJri 9146A5, the City is required tC' pE'nnit the drJ.ve-
through if adequate prot~ctton~ car. be provided to wake said
drive-thr0u~h cc~putible with the uses in the C-3 a1bLr~ct.
The application filed by Mr. Lardas has adequately nddressed
~h~ potentJ.al problems createu by such a drive-through and
t~~~pfore should be approved.
"e~~\r subrritted.
ROSARIO PE~~
PF:EB
Fr.closure (check)
CLIN6A!LARDAS4l/2
A1tC\chmcnt '6
"
~,
r
(
713
......,......~ .....
CITY PLANNING DIVISION
Community and Economic Development Department
. - -~\i~~~ ""f...
.. ~ ........----.----
..-- - -
~~s:1.:;,;;~~~ - ~ _
~~~...~--,..-
:....-....:t, -. "" .. ..
MEMORANDUM
...-:<.-~- -......... -=.
.:'---;-... -.. ~~~ !;: :;I-~~
DATE: November 16, 1987
TO: The Honorable Planning Commission
....-~". FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: DR 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 subject 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
DOY-Into,.....n 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 windm-ls and cashier booths. The
addition would also include a block wall bebleen 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 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 -
~.
(
(
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
._ . ~estaurant - 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight, seven days a week.
_, ~.r-#~--
_....~~"J:...
~ - -...~~...
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 prov~s~ons 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 1.3.4 states that in the
Downtown Areas,. uses shquld II... 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 floorll.
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 regulationsll.
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
-t'<io~....o""-<= - . modifications appear to present potential problems in regard to
5ite 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.
~ : -.I' Jo - ..
RECOMMENDATION
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.
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 Do~mtown 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
DM: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~NISSION
... ........~~~+.~ ""':-~-- - ~--=-~ -
APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPHENT REVIEW
i: .... ~
...~~~~ ~ ,,~ - r~- -
1540 2nd Street
ATTACH.'1ENT
,. -
I .no.. ... ..e.'i. __*,=
~-'~~How the proposed use and improvements will meet the re~uired findings specified
in the attached "Development Review/Slte Review Submission Requirements."
During the past ten years. zonlng authorities have denied several
requests for approval of a drive through addition to the restaurant
located at 1540 2nd Street in Santa Monlca. These past refusals have
been based upon assumptlons and grounds that are no longer valld ln 1987.
It is time to take a fresh look at the Sltuation.
For example. since the lnitial denial in 1976, the restaurant
itself has been built. Other new buildings have been constructed in the
area. and the physical nature of the ~eighborhood has changed. New noise
suppresslon technologles have been implenented. And the area surrounding
the restaurant has become automobile orlented, not pedestrlan oriented.
due to the nature of the location and to the preferences of Santa Monica
resldents.
Look at the nelghborhood. All of the propertles ln the area are
automobl1e based: Two motels; an auto repalr garage; one very large,
multl-story ~~ll parking garage; the ~,D Corporatlon park1ng lot;
the Santa Monlca Freeway; several commercial develop~ents 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 bu~ldlngs
were even approved and built, the restaurant is now the only green, grassy
oasis 1n the concrete area. Well managed, operatlng 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
automoblle based.
As discussed below. approval of a hidden. well landscaped. noise
suppressed drive through facility w111 not change this pedestrian
(
(
, .
1540 2nd Street
Development Rev~ew Attachment
Page Two
~ ~ -_"'f1lII...~L~--: ......
orientation or involvement. In fact, it 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
~""=\vM:,"",~"'" - ~
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 RAND Corporation multi-story
parking garage to be located across the street.
To provlde a more detailed perspective, the discuSSlon that follows
considers a br~ef h~story of project applicat~ons, the physical nature
of the area around the restaurant, and findlngs under Development Rev~ew
examination.
As the facts and flndlngs lndlcate, approval should be granted. The
well landscaped. hldden. and nOlse suppressed dr~ve through faci11ty wlll
meet the objectlves and policles of the General Plan and Land Use Element;
malnta1n the amblance of the nelghborhood and its attract1veness to out of
town visitors; help pedestrian walk in customers; and be of beneflt to
the people of Santa Monlca.
An Historical Perspectlve
When an in~tial request for approval was sub~ltted with plans for
the restaurant in 1976. it was denled because the expressed intent of
zoning planners was to keep the entire neighborhood "pedestrian or~ented"
and to keep the restaurant from bec0111ing "autamoblle dependent. II
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, and they voiced honest concern about traffic, ecology, and
the "garish architectural style and plastic atmosphere on whlch fast
food seems 'to thrive."
The writers added that '~1cDonald'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 1n Westwood V~llage:
"This is a successful operation which is totally dependent upon pedestrian
(
(
, ,
1540 2nd Street
Development Review Attachment
Page Three
_~_,~"_~h traffic 'and which seems to function well without golden arches."
--, ~-~t 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.
.....~o;.~
According to the files, a second verbal or written request for
zoning approval was made in 1985, and it was again denied. Th1s time the
reasons given were the Downtown pedestrian orientation of the Santa Monica
General Plan, spec~fically Land Use Element Policy 1.3.4; the Traffic
Eng1neer's reservations about queing; potential noise issues; and that
s1ng1e 1976 objecting letter.
These issues are not very appropriate in 1987. F1rst, propertles
in the neighborhood are now automobile based and oriented, as discussed
above. The restaurant is the major pedestrlan orlented develop~ent, and
that fact will not change with the addition of a drive through facllity.
Well landscaped, hidden by a seven foot wall, using nOlse suppression
devices, the dr1ve through add1tion can be expected to have Ilttle
impact on nelghborhood pedestrian orientat1on. In fact, because
customer service lines will be shorter after addit~on of the fac11lty,
as discussed below, more pedestrians wll1 want to come to the restaurant.
Second, this time traf~ic pattern arrange~ents have been informally
approved by Ray Davis, Santa Monica Traff1c Engineer. Mr. Dav1s required
six to ten 1mportant changes in the applicant's or1g1nal bluepr1nts, and
~
~-,
the applicant has accepted all of them as helpful.
Third~ the applicant plans to address any potent1al noise problems
directly, reducing the n01se levels by use of nOlse suppression devices
and by a seven foot wall. It is also comm1tted to spend up to $5,000
to hire a consultant, such as BB~ Laboratories, Inc., if required by
excessive noise levels. See the infornation enclosed about BB~ Laborator1es,
Inc., as an example. The app11cant will comply w1th all Santa Mon1ca noise
code regulations.
Fourth-, as to "ugliness" and "garishness": the restaurant has not
become the "ugly" element in the neighborhood. Just the Oppos1te has
occurred. It has become a green, flower filled oasis, with lts grassy
landscaping and sparkling, newly remodeled interior. The rest of the
automobile based neighborhood has been landscaped in concrete. Addition
._"O:""~!t-t~..-~-~
(
(
. .
1540 2nd Street
Development Review 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 ne1ghborhood, and
- . ,>"....
~. _04>.'0<".........., the applicant plans to maintain that quality after a drive through add1tion
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 1n 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 Monica
restaurant richly sparkles inside. and it is stead11y busy.
Sixth, early fears about "vast" parking requirements were premature.
The restaurant has only a relatively small park1ng lot, espec1ally when
compared to the large. mult1-story Mall park1ng garage and the Rill~D Corporat1on
parking lot faC11ities located across the street.
Even the writers, as reasonable and thoughtful people, would
readily note that the fears expressed in 1976 have not materialized,
and that the results have been very d1fferent and very posit1ve.
As it is clear~ the franchisee appl1cant does care about the
neighborhood, afrout its restaurant. and about the expressed concerns of
planners and the people of Santa Mon1ca. It w111 maintain the same
care and respect for the add1tion of a drive through fac11ity.
- ~.. -:~ ~
The Phys~cal Environment
Although the neighborhood was to have developed w1th a pedestr1an
orientation during the past ten years, it actually has become automob11e
based and oriented. As mentioned previously, the restaurant is surrounded
by two motels; an auto repair garage; one very large. mult1-story Mall
parking garage; the Rfu~D Corporation park1ng lot; the Santa Monica
Freeway; and several commerc1al developments that rely on valet parking.
Most oj 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.
~
(
(
. ,
1540 2nd Street
Development Review Attachment
Page five
- .r;~r-..-I;......,,~..
~-
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 veekends_
It is un11kely that plans to add 3,000 additional movie seats to the
"-~~~~Broadway part of the Mall will change th1s 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 expression of confidence that
pedestr1an traffic wlll continue to grow, during the past year the app11cant
has 1nvested approximately $200,000 to remodel the interior, provlding a
sparkling, invit1ng dining area.
But the restaurant also has a substantial automoblle based clientele,
in addition to its walk in custo~ers. Many of these customers stop, order
ins1de, and then take purchases out, creatlng long customer llnes and mak1ng
n01se openlng and clos1ng car doors 1n the process.
The addition of a landscaped. hldden, noise suppressed drlve through
facility will serV1ce many of these drive in take out customers, reduclng
inside service lines and providing more room for pedestrlan walk in traff1c.
Noise levels too should be improved, because people w11l be remainlng
in their cars, although, as noted 1n the Noise Element of the General Plan,
bus and other transportation nOlse probably exceeds the ambient nOlse at
the restaurant in any case.
Because of the nature of the planned faci11ty, pedestrian 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 whlle planning and zoning
regulations are under reviev. Under sections 2(d) and (4), it specifies
interim procedures that require an application for Development Review in this
(
(
. I
1540 2nd Street
Development Review Attachment
Page Six
..:;;:' ~d-.;...~--- ". ~
case. Findings of fact must be given in accord with sections (c) (1)
through (c)(7). These are addressed below.
To avoid dup11cation. 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 find1ngs and
purpose of the ordinance.
2. The structure of the facility will be co~pat1ble with and
relate harmon1ously to surrounding 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, automob1le based area. The neighborhood 1S
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 autonobile, and they too usually depart by dark.
The drive through fac1l1ty, hidden by a landscaped seven foot wall,
n01se suppressed. and located on current parking lot space, w1ll not change
the area or its amb1ance. Instead, it w11l add more grassy space.
Traffic flow is expected to rema1n the same. and pedestr1an access to
the restaurantCwill not be changed. There might be somewhat more act1v1ty
after dark. but that act1vity is an Ob]ect1ve of the Land Use Element for
the Downtown Frame area.
3. Rights of Way and Fac1lities for pedestrian and automob1le traff1c
will accommodate the results of the proJect.
According to the plans subm1tted. dr1ve through facility traff1c w1ll enter
on 2nd Street and depart on Colorado Avenue. and all traff1c must turn right
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.
.
Because most of the expected drive through addition automobile traffic
is expected to be from current customers during busy hours. or from additional
customers during quiet after dark hours. no~al traffic patterns are not
(
(
. J
1540 2nd Street
Development Review Attachment
Page Seven
_r~~~~~ -.-expected to be affected. Parking spaces will be limited to forty.
_:-::~',.~ ;:_ ~ 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 appllcant has accepted all of those
modifications as very helpful.
... .......~1"~....tt~ or-
--~_)t~~.- Facilities for pedestrians are expected to become more available after
the drlve 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 facllities will accompany the drive
through addition as needed, lncludlng sanltatlon, utl1itles. fire
protection devlces, etc.
All necessary health and safety facilities requlred to meet Santa Monlca
code requlrements will be provided by the applicant.
Trash pick up will be provided around the facility at least tWlce
per day.
Customer safety will be increased in the late evenlng and early ~ornlng
hours, because many customers will not have to leave thelr cars for serVlce.
The office of the Cit~ Attorney has been consulted about the drive
through facility, and members of his staff have lnformally noted that
they do not object to the additlon.
5. The proposed drive through facility is consistent with the General
Plan and wlth the Zonlng Ordinance, in that it conforns to the
hei~ht. bulk, use, and urban design pol~cles for the land use
district as spec if led in the Land Use Ele~ent and 1n that it confOrMS
to the approprlate standards contaloed in the Zonlog Ordlnance.
The project is located in the Downtown Frame in a corrnercial 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
Itpedestrian scale" features. The restaurant now offers both of these attributes.
and there will be no change with the hidden, noise suppressed, well landscaped
(
(
, I
1540 2nd Street
Development Review Attachment
Page Eight
~ """~~ ;:;. -~ I:.'--.....,..~~~- "__"
drive througQ 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 tlsupport the
greatest concentration of activity" in the Downtown Core and Frame areas.
Policies expressed in Section 1.3.1 encourage "uses and activ1ties which
create activity in both the daytime and evening hours." Policies expressed
in Section 1.3.2 state that the Do~~to~~ area should be a pr1mary location
for commercial use, including "uses that serve out of to~'Il vis:l.tors and
uses that encourage street activ1ty after normal business hours."
In applicable Policy Section 1.3.4. the language distinguishes between
the Dow~ Core and the Downtown Frame areas, and it notes with spec:l.f1c
reference to the DO~'Iltown Frame area that planners should require
"pedestrian oriented design features for all ground floor street frontage,"
in contrast to more stringent restr1ct10ns for the Downtov.'!). Core area. In
the Core area, for instance, street frontage should be "act1ve pedestrian
use," rather than be only equipped with "design features."
Addition of a restaurant dr1ve through facility will meet all of the
requirements of these objectives and policies, and 1t w1ll help further then.
For example, the ne1ghborhood normally becomes empty after business and
commercial hours, and the drive through addition will 1ncrease activ1ty
at that time and after dark, as encouraged in Sections 1.3.1 and 1.3.2.
It will also help attract out of town V1s1tors.
In addition, although Section 1.3.4 motivates planners to requlre
"pedestrian oriented design features,1t it does not require them to be exclus~ve
features. If it did, the two notels, the auto repa:l.r garage, and other
developments in the Downtown Frame m:l.ght have to be abandoned. There
would be no way to justify the automobile or1ented and based neighborhood.
Wl~n respect to the restaurant, it currently has the most pedestrian
design or~ented features in the neighborhood, and these features w11l not
be affected by the drive through facility. But after hours activity and
out or 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.
. \
(
(
~ ..-........... ---~
1540 2nd Street
Development ReVlew 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 pedestrl.an
-'-I "V"r\o~.~""""'"
character," and it is recDmmended that the city require "pedestrian orl.ented
design qualities" be featured in the Downtown Frame area. But agal.n, it does
not require that these qualities be exclusive. If it dld, many current developments
would have to be terml.nated in the Colorado and SecDnd Street area.
Human scale and pedestrian orl.ented design qualities are featured
now at the restaurant at 1540 2nd Street, although they are not featured at
many adjacent properties. And, as discussed prevlously, the quall.ties wl.II not
change wlth the addition Df a well landscaped, hldden, nOl.se suppressed drlve
through facility located on current parklng IDt space.
After installation of the drlve through facl11ty, the restaurant wll1
still remain pedestrian oriented, the only pedestrlan orlented development
in the autornoblle based and oriented nel.ghborhood. Pedestr1an access
and other features will remaln the same. Land use and urban deslgn objectives
and reCOMmendations will still be followed.
Finally, there will be approprl.ate conformance with Zonlng Ordlnance
standards, including requirements for C-3 coremercial areas, as modifled
by the C-4 Use Permit, such as restrlctlons on slgns, helght. and yard frontage.
The appllcation for Development Revlew should be approved. The addltion
of a well landscaped, hidden, noise suppressed drlve through facillty at
1540 2nd Street will readily conform to helght, bulk, use, and design requirements
for the Downtown Frame area as ind2cated in the Santa ~onica Land Use Element plan,
and it will conform with proper Zoning Ordinance prov1sions.
The addition will also be consistent with the requlrements of Ordinance
1321, compatible with the automobile oriented neighborhood, retaln current
pedestrian oriented features and appeal, be acconmodative for pedestrian and
automobile traffic, and have adequate health and safety features.
A drIve through facllity will increase availability of interior pedestrlan
service, increase after hours activity and safety, and aid out of town
visitors, while it retains the green, grassy oasis ambiance and newly
remodeled interior of the attractive restaurant it will accompany.
.'1
(
(
... t.
. 11 r
J
PLAN~ING AND ZONING DIVISIO~
"
...........-y ~
Community and Economic Development Department
USE PEfu~IT APPLICATIO~
1540 2nd Street
ATTACHHENT
DESCRIBE IN DETAIL how the proposed use and improvements are to be designed
and operated so as to be 1) compatible with eXlstlng uses III the nelghborhood
and 2) non-detrlmental to nel~hboring propertles. resldents. and businesses:
During the past ten years. zonlng authoritles have denled several
requests for approval of a drlve through addition to the restaurant located
at 1540 2nd Street in Santa Honica. These past refusals have been based
upon assumptions and grounds that are no longer vaild in 1987. It is tlme
to take a fresh look at the situatlon.
For example. since the inltlal denlal in 1976. the restaurant ltself
has been built. Other new bU1ld1ngs have been constructed 1n the area.
and the physical nature of the nelghborhood has changed. Xew nOlse
suppression technologies have been implemented. And the area surrounding
the restaurant has become automobile orlented, not pedestrian orlented. due
to the nature of the location and due to the preferences of Santa Monlca -
residents.
Look at the neighborhood. All of the propertles in the area are
automobile based: Two motels; an auto repalr garage; one very large.
multl-story Mall parking garage; the RAND Corporation parking lot; the
Santa Monica Freeway; several commerclal developments that rely on valet
parking. Most of the landscaping 1n the neighborhood is done ln 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 dinlng area. it has become
the only important contributor to pedestrian traffic in the inmed1ate
neighborhood. All other important projects are primarily automobl1e based.
As discussed below, approval of a hidden. well landscaped. naise
suppressed drive through facility will not change this pedestrian orientation
(
(-
l'
I .
/
1540 2nd Street
Use Perm~t Attachment
Page Two
,f
"f--~:- ~.
or involvement. In fact. it can be expected to increase pedestrian interest.
since customer service lines will be shorter. more grassy spaces will be
added. and current access will not be any different.
In addition. to deny the type of facility planned might even be
considered discriminatory in 1987. in the light of the basic automobile
orientation of the area and the newly planned R&~D Corporation multi-story
parking garage to be located across the street.
To provide a more detailed perspective, the discussion that follows
considers a brlef history of proJect applications, the physical nature
of che area around the restaurant. and findings about nelghborhood use
compatibility and about non-detrlmental effects on the nelghborhood,
residents, and businesses.
As the facts and f2ndings lnd2cate, approval for a Use Perm2t
should be granted. The well landscaped, hidden, and nOlse suppressed
drive through facillty w~ll be compatlble wlth eXlstlng nelghborhood uses,
and it will be non-detrlwental to nelghborlng propert2es, resldents. and
businesses. As it has been deslgned, and as it wlll be operated, It will
malntain the ambience of the neighborhood, help pedestrlan walk in custoners,
not affect residents, offer additlonal serVlces for nelghborhood businesses,
_.and__be of_benefit to the people of Santa Xonlca and to outslde visltors.
An Historical Perspectlve
..._;--~....-
=~-- ~en an initial request for approval was submltted wlth plans for
r-
~~~~~est:urant in 1976, it was den led because the expressed intent of zonlng
-'planners 'was to keep the entlre ne~ghborhood "pedestrian orlented" and
- tcj""keep the'-restaurant from becoming "automobile dependent."
In addition to these objectlons, there also was rellance on one single
obJecting letter. The letter stated that the writers were "appalled" by
the "vast" amount of parking that might be necessary to serVlce the
restaurant, and they vOlced honest concern about trafflc, ecology, and
-
the "garish architectural style and plastic atmosphere on which fast
food seems to thrive."
The writers added that uMcDonald'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: r~hlS
.'
(-
(
,/
1540 2nd Street
Use Permit Attachment
Page Three
. ,~. - ....
is a successful operation which is totally dependent upon pedestrian
traffic and which seems to function well without golden arches."
At that time, it should be noted. the restaurant had not been
constructed, the indoor Santa Monica Mall and its multi story parking
garage had not been constructed, and other automobile oriented developments
in the neighborhood had not been approved.
According to the files, a second verbal or written request for zoning
approval was made in 1985, and it was again denied. This t1me the reasons given
were the Downtown pedestrian or1entat1on of the Santa Monica General Plan,
specifically Land Use Element Policy 1.3.4; the Traff1c Eng1neer's reservat10ns
about queing; potential n01se issues; and that s1ngle 1976 Ob]ect1ng letter.
These past 1ssues are not very appropr1ate 1n 1987. F1rst, propert1es
in the ne1ghborhood are now automob11e based and or1ented, as discussed
above. The restaurant is the major pedestrian or1ented development, and
that fact will not change with the add1t1on of a dr1ve through fac111ty.
Well landscaped, hidden by a seven foot wall, uS1ng n01se suppress~on deV1ces.
the dr1ve through add1t1on can be expected to have l~ttle 1mpact on
neighborhood uses, bus1nesses, or resldents.
Second, thlS time traff1c pattern arrangements have been 1nformally
approved by Ray Davis, Santa Monlca Trafflc Eng1neer. }[r. DaV1S requ1red
six to ten impo~tant changes in the appllcant's orig1nal bluepr1nts, and
the applicant has accepted all of them as helpful.
Thlrd, the applicant plans to address any potential n01se problems
directly, reducing the noise levels by use of nOlse suppression devlces
and by a seven foot wall. It also is committed to spend up to $5,000
working with a consultant such as BB~ Laborator1es; Inc. See the
information enclosed about BBN Laboratories, Inc. as an example.
Fourth, as to "ugliness" and "gar1shness": the restaurant has
not become the "ugly" element in the nf'ighborhood. Just the reverse has
occurred. It has become a green, flower filled oasis, with its grassy
landscaping and spark11ng, newly remodeled inter1or. The rest of the
automobile 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.
.'
(
(
, .
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
lIgolden arches,1I is dreary, and is often empty, while the Santa Monica
restaurant richly sparkles inside, and it is steadily busy.
Sl.xth, 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 parking garage and the RAND Corporation
parking lot facilities located across the street.
Even the WT1ters. as reasonable. thoughtful people, would read11y
note that the fears expressed 1n 1976 have not materl.all.zed, and that the
results have been very different and very positive.
As it is clear, the franchisee applicant does care about the nel.ghborhood,
about it I S restaurant, and about the expressed concern of planners and
the people of Santa Monl.ca. It will ma~ntal.n the same care and respect
for the addltion of a drive through facility.
The Physical Environflent
Although the neighborhood was to have developed with a pedestrl.an
orientation during the past ten years, it actually has become automobl.le
based. As mentioned previously, the restaurant is surrounded by two motels;
an auto repair garage; one very large, multi story Mall parking garage;
the FUU~D Corporatl.on parking lot; the Santa Monl.ca Freeway; and several
commercial developments that rely on valet parkl.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, 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.
.'
, '
"
~ -~ ......
(
.?
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 wlll add any
pedestrian traffic, since most people will not ~alk 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 sparkllng. inviting dining area.
But the restaurant also has a substantial autoIDob11e based clientele.
in addltion to its walk in customers. Many of these customers stop, enter and
order inslde, and then take purchases out, creatlng long customer lines
and making noise opening and closlng car doors ln the process.
The addition of the landscaped, hldden. noise suppressed drlve
through facility wlll serVlce many of these drive 1n take out customers,
reducing inslde service lines and providlng more room for pedestrlan walk
in traffic.
Noise levels too should be improved. because people wl11 be
remaining in their cars, although, as noted in the ~Olse Elenent of
the General Plan, bus and other transportatlon noise probably exceeds
the ambient noise. at the restaurant ln any case.
Because of the nature of the planned fac1lity, pedestrlan attract10n
and access w1ll be mainta1ned, and even more grassy space will be added.
The restaurant will remain a centerplece in the nelghborhood.
Discussion of Findings
1. The proposed use and improvements w11l be desl~ned and operated
so as to be compatlble w1th eX1sting 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 prev1ously,
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 1s done
krtctch YVlcrrt L
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.
x
Approved based on the follo~ing findings and
subject to the conditions below.
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 -
- ~~~