Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Drive Thru Regulations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Glendale council weighs options for drive-thru rules after broad public opposition to new sites
Summary
Council debated whether to pursue a conditional use permit (CUP) framework or citywide development standards to regulate new drive-thrus after heavy public comment about proposed In-N-Out and other locations; staff will return with comparative materials and the previously drafted CUP ordinance for further consideration.
The Glendale City Council heard hours of public comment and a staff presentation about how to regulate new drive-thru businesses, focusing public concern on a proposed In-N-Out near Pacific and Burchett and on existing sites where queuing has spilled into alleys and public rights-of-way.
Staff presented analysis developed with a traffic consultant showing varied trip-generation profiles and suggested tiered queuing standards (examples: tier 1 & 2 smaller sites; tier 3 major fast-food generators with a 550-foot queuing recommendation). Staff warned a single, citywide minimum (for lot size or queuing length) could preclude virtually all future drive-thrus; they described the CUP process as a more “scalpel-like” tool that allows location-specific conditions and enforcement remedies.
Scores of residents said a drive-thru on Pacific at Burchett would overwhelm narrow local streets, hamper emergency response access, produce noise and light impacts, and increase air pollution. Several speakers cited traffic backups at existing Glendale locations (notably an In‑N‑Out on Harvey Drive) as precedent for neighborhood impacts. Others called for a full moratorium on new drive-thrus or for strict limits near residences, schools and transit corridors.
Council members asked staff detailed questions about tiers, queue lengths, alleys used for private queuing, and enforcement options. Staff said the previously drafted CUP ordinance from August 2024 is available and could be brought back quickly for introduction and adoption if the council desires; by contrast, drafting and mapping new citywide development standards would require more study and an estimated four to six months for analysis, public hearings and code changes.
After discussion, the council directed staff to bring back the CUP ordinance and a comparative analysis of the CUP approach versus development-standard options (including suggested queue distances, buffer distances from residences, and a minimum lot-size concept). A councilmember asked staff to include the draft ordinance and a timeline; staff noted the CUP path would allow more immediate recourse when conditions are not met, while the development standards path would be more prescriptive but take longer to implement.
No ordinance was adopted at the meeting and no immediate moratorium was reimposed. Staff and city attorneys said enforcement of existing rules (for example, removing cones that private businesses place in public alleys) remains an option, but that many enforcement approaches take repeated citations before stronger remedies are available. Councilmembers urged staff to return with clear options, including how standards would treat residential adjacency, schools, hospitals, and emergency access.
Next steps: staff will return with the previously drafted CUP ordinance and a comparative packet with draft development-standard options and analysis; if the council elects the CUP, staff estimated a shorter timeline to implement than for citywide code changes. Meanwhile, any applications filed under current code continue to be processed under existing zoning and standards.
