Tag Cloud
Saturday, May 18, 2013
Proposed McDonald's draws criticism from some community members
by Amy Wong, published on August 4, 2011 at 11:59 PM
Storyline: current stories
Loading images
A review of the proposed McDonald’s site on Second Avenue and Stockton Boulevard by the Community Development Department for the city of Sacramento has found no evidence that the restaurant would significantly impact the environment.
However, some community members argue that the the environmental findings and the traffic study, reported in the Mitigated Negative Declarative released Aug. 1 does not tell the whole story about the health and traffic impact a McDonald’s would have on the Oak Park neighborhood.
“I understand that McDonald’s does provide healthy choices if you choose to go down that route. I don’t think we ought to tell people what they can and cannot eat,” said Sam Allen, co-chair of the Oak Park Neighborhood Land Use Committee. “It’s a personal choice, and so I am hands-off in that sense. But as far as the zoning and the land use, it isn’t compatible with an education health corridor.”
The site of the proposed McDonald’s is directly across the street from the Richard and Annette Cancer Survivor Park and the UC Davis Medical Center where a pediatric endocrinology clinic is located along with a fertility and dentistry clinic.
The area along Stockton Boulevard is also home to other fast food chain restaurants including Jack in the Box, Taco Bell, Burger King and Subway. There are also local restaurants in the area include Boon Boon Cafe, Luigi’s, Loving Hut, Louie’s and Stockton Grill and Burgers.
McDonald’s has proposed a double drive-thru restaurant for Second Avenue and Stockton Boulevard site. According to the California Development Department, the plan includes a 3,897 square-foot restaurant with approximately 90 fixed seats, 30 parking stalls and approximately 11,500 square feet of landscaping.
The project calls for the construction of approximately 80 linear feet of 6 feet high masonry block wall to separate the commercial zone from the residential zone.
The hours of the proposed McDonald’s would run from 5 a.m. - 11 p.m. Monday - Thursday. On Fridays - Sundays, the drive-thru hours would be extended until 1 a.m.
The McDonald’s is also expected to employ 25-30 people, according to the Mitigated Negative Declarative.
“This is what might divide some of the community. It will provide jobs for our high school kids. That’s a big thing that we want in Oak Park,” Allen said.
Dr. Charlene Hauser started the Healthy Development for Oak Park neighborhood group and has been leading the campaign against the proposed McDonald’s on Second Avenue and Stockton Boulevard.
“You can also imagine as a homeowner in the neighborhood that you would be worried about the value of your house plummeting if the view from your living room is suddenly a drive-thru fast-food restaurant,” said Hauser
, who owns a home along Second Avenue.
“Drive-thru’s in general are not good in a neighborhood like Oak Park because it is an under-served, low-income, ethnically diverse area that is subject to disparities when it comes to health (access). Fast foods just exacerbate the situation for the population of Oak Park,” Hauser said.
The Oak Park Neighborhood Association voted recently to oppose the building of a McDonald’s based strictly on land use issues. Allen has been enlisted to draft the letter of opposition for the project, based on land use criteria. He said it should be released by the end of the week.
The Neighborhood Association and the Land Use Committee put the plan through their land use matrix as a way of evaluating all land use projects that go through Oak Park. A score of 1 is the lowest a project can receive and 4 is the highest score.
The project score card takes into consideration transit orientation, appropriate traffic levels, pedestrian access and amenities, bicycle infrastructure, energy efficiency, water efficiency, potential for providing local jobs and health food production.
For the complete list of the project score card criteria, click here.
“That way there’s no willy-nilly - ‘Oh I like this, and no I don’t like this.’ We wanted a very objective way of looking at projects that were going to be proposed in Oak Park. We put this proposed McDonald’s through this matrix, and it scored a 1.2 out of a possible 4,” Allen said.
Allen said the subject of a possible McDonald’s is a topic of extreme debate in the Oak Park community. The City Planning Commission will take up the issue in September in the City Council chambers downtown.
Editorial Note: Corrections have been made to this story after it was published. The incorrect information has been struck out and the correct information has been added.
Flag Article As:
Conversation Express your views,
debate, and be heard with those in your area closest
to the issue.
Leave a Comment
The lot has been vacant for *years*. No commerce other than Golden Arches wants to take a chance there. Beggars, choosers, and all that.
I laugh at nanny-state busybodies like Charlene Hauser, who apparently is on a jihad against fast food.
“You can also imagine as a homeowner in the neighborhood that you would be worried about the value of your house plummeting if the view from your living room is suddenly a drive-thru fast-food restaurant.” Because a vacant lot just boosts your property values so much. Even a surplus of vacant foreclosed homes is better than that.
but maybe in your free market world you see things differently. maybe i can build a rendering plant next to your house.
As for zoning regulations, McDonald's passes already as Panera Bread does. This is simply ideological obstructionism.
Take a look...
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=95818+restaurants&hl=en&ll=38.551054,-121.456471&spn=0,0.000546&sll=38.559278,-121.497784&sspn=0.001267,0.002183&fll=38.551213,-121.456694&fspn=0.000426,0.000546&t=h&z=21&layer=c&cbll=38.551054,-121.456471&panoid=Bfbg3woKcChQwC-s1JXmfw&cbp=12,351.1,,0,4.77
If the McDonalds deal falls through, I was thinking that corner might be a good location for a check-cashing / pot dispensary enterprise.
If a shiny new McDonald's could only rate a measly 1.2 on this matrix, then I am sure my little enterprise (sans drive-thru) will get a much better score.
Those might require separate buildings however. I lthink it is illegal to have liquor at the pole dancing places, let alone medical pot.
But you still need to mention "Tea Bagger" and "hillbilly" to get the full credit. And extra credit if you can somehow tie in George Bush.
But Sacramentans also have a right to question why an area that struggles to deliver its share of property tax and sales tax revenue to the city would be telling a developer of garbage strewn lots to go away.
When the owner of the empty lot allowed it to be used as heavy equipment staging area, what score did that receive on the mysterious "Land Use Matrix". Higher than 1.2?
Ben, yes neighbors have the right to oppose what goes in their neighborhood, but they need to be balanced in their opposition and not have a narrow view.
Sometimes I think this kind of debate is unnecessarily polarized. Clearly if the question is about rezoning then there is a public aspect. However, I don't think that neighbors always get to choose the retailers near them and the question needs to be about the overall regional plan and not just the neighborhood itself.
Let's accept that much of what McD's sells isn't the greatest, most nutritious food - but in a depressed neighborhood, where there probably isn't a Trader Joe's on every corner, McD's might also represent the cheapest source for salads without, as Michelle Obama might say, having to ride three city buses to buy lettuce.
Also, for parents struggling to afford the cost of their children's medical care across the street (for example), and perhaps with other young children in tow, it does represent a very affordable place to eat out - whether everybody else enjoys it or not.
This is the month for input. All interested parties - Pro & Con - should submit comment now! Comments will be accepted thru August 31. Don't be left out of the conversation. Here & There!
and lower educated demographic. On the other hand being across the street from the cancer center would be sadly ironic. Also I'm a supporter of progressive socialism -the larger you become the more you pay and the more you are regulated and the smaller you are the more deregulated and less taxed you are. I'm for added tax for international chains in order give local entrepreneurs a better chance. Studies prove that communities with higher percentages of local businesses are better off socially and economically. On the other hand in this economy how many local entrepreneurs have the means to build a restaurant building from scratch? It's a poor choice for a McDees but what are you going to do? Realize that some day it too will be replaced.
For the record, a day trader is an investor, but not a proprietor or partner.
That said, not every small business has the same level of risk and franchises have mush lower risk than other start-up small businesses.
Of course, all of that may be obscuring the issue - for you it seems the nuts and bolts of ownership and management are not the question, but rather how grounded a business is in the neighborhood. There is no question that franchises are meant to be copies of themselves and are not unique to any location. That is part of the concept behind the business model.
Seems like the neighborhood should really focus on what I would think is the biggest issue with the proposal.... a double lane drive thru operating late at night, along with loud stereos, fights, additional traffic on 2nd Ave etc. They probably can't kill the drive thru (like the LPCA did for the original Broadway McDonalds, which was torn down shortly thereafter)... but organized opposition could probably convince McDonalds to focus it on the Stockton Blvd side of the property, include appropriate fencing etc.
Are you really asking us to consider that a McDonalds should be opposed for health reasons, but only when located in a low income area?
You seem to be implying that the poor should not have the free will to make their own decisions about where to eat lunch... a restriction not applicable to the affluent.
You do realize that sounds incredibly paternal and condescending? What next... a plantation owner to watch over all of the poor, for their own good?
and of course hold me to the same standard if I start going into bbbbmer mode on someone around here.