ITEM 7-B
Council Mtg: June 16, 1992
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Text Amendment 90-004 to Allow Drive-Through Service at
an Existing Fast Food Establishment in the C3 (Downtown
Commercial) District
Applicant: Nick Lardas
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the City Council deny the applicant's
request for a text amendment to conditionally permit
drive-through service at existing fast food establishments in the
C3 (Downtown Commercial) District. The Planning Commission has
recommended that the City Council approve the applicant's
request.
BACKGROUND
Chronology
In 1976, the Planning Commission approved the construction of the
McDonald's Restaurant at Second Street and Colorado Avenue with
the condition that the proposed drive-through portion of the
operation be eliminated. The Planning Commission felt that the
downtown should be a pedestrian oriented area and that a
drive-through facility was not an appropriate use.
In November of 1987, while the previous Zoning Ordinance was in
effect, the Planning Commission reviewed a Development Review and
Zoning Administrator Use Permit application filed by Lardas
Management to allow the construction of a drive-through at the
restaurant. On November 16, 1987, the project was denied by the
Commission based on inconsistencies with the C3 zoning
requirements and Land Use Element policy. The Commission also
expressed concern regarding noise and traffic that could
potentially be generated by a drive-through. The City Council
upheld the Commission's denial on appeal.
When the City Council adopted the current Zoning Ordinance on
August 9, 1988, it specifically prohibited drive-through
establishments in the C3 District, consistent with General Plan
language defining the Downtown Frame area as pedestrian-oriented.
In October of 1990, Nick Lardas, an independent franchisee who
leases the parcel at 1540 Second Street from the McDonald's
Corporation, applied for Text Amendment 90-004 to revise
Subchapter 4I (C3 Downtown Commercial District) to allow
drive-through establishments with the issuance of a Conditional
Use Permit.
Planning Commission Recommendation
On April 1, 1992, a public hearing was held before the Planning
Commission regarding proposed Text Amendment 90-004. After a
careful review of the staff report recommending denial
(Attachment A), a presentation by the applicant, and public
testimony in favor of the proposal, the Commission voted 5 to 2
in favor of a motion recommending that the City Council approve
the Text Amendment to Subchapter 4I (C3 Downtown Commercial
District) as follows (new text in boldface):
Section 9018.4(p) [Conditionally Permitted Uses] Drive-in,
drive-through, and fast-food restaurants provided at least
one of these uses existed on the site at the effective
date of this Chapter, and provided that conversion to a
drive-through use requires less than a 50% remodel of the
existing structure.
Section 9018.5(c) [Prohibited Uses] Drive-in,
drive-through, and fast food restaurants if none of these
uses existed on the effective date of this Chapter, and if
conversion to a drive-through use requires over a 50%
remodel of the existing structure.
The Commission made this recommendation based on the findings
that the proposal is consistent with the General Plan and is
necessary to protect the public health, safety, and general
welfare, as shown in the Statement of Official Action contained
in Attachment B. The Commission expressed a concern that a
drive-through is necessary to maintain patron safety due to
persons loitering at the McDonald's at 1540 Second Street, which
is the only property which would qualify for a drive through
under the language of the proposed text amendment. In addition,
one Commissioner expressed a concern that it would be inequitable
to continue the prohibition of drive-through establishments in
the downtown area given that valet parking has been permitted in
the C3 District at non-fast food restaurants.
ANALYSIS
General Plan Consistency
Staff maintains that the proposed text amendment should be denied
because it is inconsistent with General Plan goals regarding the
pedestrian orientation of the Downtown area, air quality and
traffic circulation.
The Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE) of the General Plan
contains several passages stating that pedestrian-oriented
features are to be encouraged both city-wide and particularly in
the Downtown area. Policy 1.3.4 states that, "in the Downtown
Frame area, [the City shall] require pedestrian-oriented design
features for all ground floor street frontage." Furthermore,
page 66 of LUCE states that "the prime urban design aim for
Downtown is to encourage a sense of human scale and pedestrian
character."
The applicant's McDonald's franchise is located at the corner of
Second Street and Colorado Avenue in the Downtown Frame area (the
C3 District), immediately across the street from the Downtown
Core area (the C3C District) to the east. This is a particularly
sensitive, pedestrian-oriented site within close proximity to
such pedestrian activity centers as the Santa Monica Pier, the
Third Street Promenade, Santa Monica Place, and Palisades Park.
The applicant argues that the Second Street McDonald's, as the
only business which will be affected by the proposed amendment,
is an appropriate location for a drive-through restaurant and
will not affect the pedestrian orientation of the subject
building's street frontage. This argument does not address the
negative impact on pedestrians which would result from a
continual stream of idling vehicles and from vehicles entering
and exiting the site. Clearly, a drive-through would be in
conflict with the "human scale and pedestrian character"
suggested for the Downtown area within the General Plan.
By allowing drive-through restaurants as a conditionally
permitted use, the proposed text amendment may have an impact on
air quality. Policy 4.1.4 of LUCE states that the City shall
support measures by the South Coast Air Quality Management
District to reduce air pollution from transportation sources. In
order to determine the air quality impacts of the proposal, staff
requested that the applicant prepare an air quality study
(Attachment G). This study, prepared by Terry A. Hayes
Associates (Hayes), concludes that the net increase in emissions
by a drive-through at the McDonald's site, when compared with
emissions generated from the existing walk-in restaurant, would
be negligible and well within SCAQMD thresholds.
Staff asked the City's air quality consultant, JHA Environmental
Consultants (JHA), to review the Hayes study (Attachment C).
The City consultant found fault with several of the applicant's
basic assumptions for worst case analysis, including mixing
height, wind speed, atmospheric stability, temperature, and
background concentrations.
JHA found that the proposal may be inconsistent with Measure
M-G-7 of the Air Quality Management Plan, which proposes that
local governments and the SCAQMD "eliminate excessive curb
idling" by 1994. Specifically, Measure M-G-7 states that "the
District would adopt and enforce the three-minute idling limit as
a transportation control measure. Local governments would share
in the enforcement of this measure." (Attachment D.)
The Hayes study finds that, based on a spot survey of local
drive-throughs and a study done by the City of Phoenix, the
average idling time for vehicles waiting for service in
drive-through lanes is approximately 2 minutes and 30 seconds.
However, as JHA points out, Measure M-G-7 establishes a maximum
(not average) threshold of three minutes idling time. The
applicant has not provided information indicating the maximum
idling time.
The applicant hired another consultant, Robert Crommelin and
Associates, Inc., to prepare a traffic study analyzing the
impacts of a drive-through at the McDonald's site (Attachment F).
The study concludes that the change would have a "non measurable"
impact on traffic at all intersections analyzed (Colorado/ Ocean,
Ocean/ Broadway, Colorado/ Second, Broadway/ Second).
A fundamental assumption of the applicant's traffic study is that
"driving customers tend to carpool when a drive-thru window is
available thus reducing overall vehicular traffic" for a total
reduction of 400 trips per day (pg. 5). The City Parking and
Traffic Engineer reviewed the traffic study and found that the
basic methodology of the study is sound. However, the City
Parking and Traffic Engineer could not confirm the assumption
that the total number of trips would be reduced with the addition
of a drive-through window at the existing McDonald's.
Public Safety
The applicant, members of the public, and the Planning Commission
have suggested that a drive-through is necessary to protect the
safety of Second Street McDonald's patrons. In other words,
there is a contention that it is unsafe for patrons to exit their
automobiles, walk across the parking lot and enter the restaurant
on foot.
According to the Santa Monica Police Department, most of the 50
calls for service received in 1991 by the Santa Monica Police
Department from the Second Street McDonald's were
homeless-related. Of these 50 calls, 13 were offenses, including
two aggravated assaults, three calls were for vandalism, and one
was a bomb threat. An "offense" by law enforcement standards
constitutes an activity which may lead to an arrest. The
non-offense calls for service in 1991 included such incidents as
disturbances of the peace, drunkenness, and trespassing which do
not result in an arrest or investigation.
Staff understands that a relatively moderate level of criminal
activity (as it is characterized by the Santa Monica Police
Department) and the presence of homeless persons may create fear
among some McDonald's patrons. However, staff does not believe
that the establishment of a drive-through at the Second Street
McDonald's is an appropriate response to either the fear of crime
or actual crime. Drive-through capacity would probably reduce
fear of crime rather than the number of crimes committed.
An analysis of crime statistics related to drive-through uses was
conducted by staff. The analysis indicates that between January
1, 1991 and April 29, 1992, four offenses were committed at the
Jack-in-the-Box located at 2025 Lincoln Boulevard and four
offenses were committed at the Taco Bell located two blocks to
the south on Lincoln Boulevard. The drive-through capacity of
the Jack-in-the-Box and the lack of a drive-through at the Taco
Bell apparently had no impact on the total number of crimes
committed at either site.
Public Access
The applicant maintains that a drive-through is necessary to
allow a maximum ease of access for McDonald's patrons who are
elderly or disabled or who may have young children in car seat
restraints. While it may be true that drive-through capacity
increases ease of access for these groups, staff does not believe
it therefore follows that drive-through capacity should be
conditionally permitted for commercial establishments. The
subject business is currently accessible to any disabled person,
elderly person, parent or child who is capable of exiting a
vehicle.
Economic Concerns
The applicant maintains that the proposed Text Amendment is
"essential to maintaining the economic viability of the existing
restaurant." Staff contends that it is unsound planning practice
to approve a Text Amendment so as to allow the applicant to
increase the profitability of one business. The Zoning
Ordinance's required findings for a Text Amendment do not include
any mention of economic hardship.
Conclusion
The applicant has implied that the Council should make the
code-required finding that "the public health, safety, and
general welfare require the adoption of the proposed amendment"
based on concerns regarding public safety, public access, and
"economic viability." While staff understands that public safety
and public access are important issues, staff does not believe
that, in this instance, these concerns warrant a Text Amendment
to conditionally permit drive-throughs in the C3 District.
Furthermore, the issue of the business's "economic viability"
does not appear to have a bearing on the City's public health,
safety or general welfare.
The proposed Text Amendment would conditionally permit a use that
was specifically prohibited when the current Zoning Ordinance was
adopted. While the construction of a drive-through would still
be subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit, staff
feels that it would be inconsistent with established City policy
and the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the General Plan to
approve the proposed Text Amendment. Staff's fundamental
objection is that the proposal contradicts the basic goal, as
outlined in the General Plan, of promoting a pedestrian-oriented
downtown area. Secondarily, it appears to contradict General
Plan objectives and policies relating to traffic circulation and
SCAQMD consistency.
Drive-through establishments are Conditionally Permitted Uses in
the C4 (Highway Commercial) District, where the General Plan
intends to allow "businesses and services oriented to automobile
access." This distinction in purpose statements leads staff to
believe that drive-through facilities are not appropriate in the
C3 District, where the General Plan clearly calls for
pedestrian-oriented uses and design features as opposed to
auto-oriented uses. For this reason, staff recommends that the
Council deny the applicant's request.
Public Notification
Because this proposal is not site-specific, no radius map,
signage or mailing notification is required. A legal notice was
published in The Outlook. Staff notified the Neighborhood
Support Center of the Council hearing date on May 26, 1992.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendation presented in this report does not have any
budget or fiscal impact.
RECOMMENDATION
Although the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Text
Amendment, staff respectfully recommends that the Council deny
the applicant's request based on the following findings:
1. The proposed amendment is inconsistent in principle with
the goals, objectives, policies, land uses, and programs
specified in the adopted General Plan, in that it is
inconsistent with Land Use and Circulation Element
Policies 1.3.4 and 4.1.4 and Objective 3.3.
2. The public health, safety, and general welfare does not
require the adoption of the proposed amendment, in that
the capability of adding drive-through facilities within
the pedestrian-oriented Downtown Core area and in close
proximity to the highly pedestrian-oriented Downtown Core
area could contribute to adverse health effects resulting
from increased levels of vehicular idling and noxious
emissions in the vicinity, and in that allowing
drive-through capacity is not a recognized crime control
measure.
If the Council decides to approve the requested Text Amendment,
it should adopt the findings contained in the Planning
Commission's Statement of Official Action.
Prepared By: D. Kenyon Webster, Planning Manager
Drummond Buckley, Assistant Planner
Planning Division
Land Use and Transportation Management Department
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Planning Commission Staff Report
B. Statement of Official Action by Planning Commission
C. Review of Air Quality Study by JHA Environmental Consultants
D. SCAQMD Policy M-G-7
E. Correspondence
F. Traffic Study
G. Air Quality Study by Terry A. Hayes Associates