Decision Is Delayed on Simi Valley McDonald’s : Neighborhoods: The proposal is sent back to city planners after residents warn of increased traffic, noise and litter.

McDonald’s means more than just hamburgers to some Simi Valley residents.

The golden arches also evoke images of traffic, litter, noise and crime in their neighborhood.

After a three-hour hearing during which these and other concerns were voiced by dozens of angry residents, the City Council decided late Monday to put off a decision on whether to allow a McDonald’s restaurant at the northwest corner of Yosemite Avenue and the Simi Valley Freeway.

The council, which deadlocked 2 to 2 on the development, sent the proposal back to the Planning Commission for a re-examination of nearby residents’ concerns. Councilman Bill Davis, who lives near the proposed restaurant, abstained.

McDonald’s Corp., which has an option on the project site owned by Casden Properties, wants to build a 4,680-square-foot restaurant with drive-through service. The restaurant would be the only commercial enterprise in the area.

McDonald’s spokeswoman Sandra Ayers told city officials Monday that the project meets all the city’s development and environmental guidelines. She argued that the project would create jobs and generate sales tax revenue.

“We believe our project will be an appropriate and attractive addition to the neighborhood,” she said.

But Citizens for a Safe and Scenic Simi Valley complained that the restaurant would increase traffic by an estimated 3,000 vehicle trips a day. They said it would also generate noise, litter and possibly attract gang members to their neighborhood.

Perhaps worst of all, the restaurant and its 25-foot sign would be the first thing motorists heading west on the Simi Valley Freeway would see as they enter the city, said Eileen Gordon, leader of the group.

“The very character of Simi Valley would be changed forever,” Gordon said. “Instead of saying, ‘Welcome to Simi Valley’ to all the visitors of the prestigious Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, it will be, ‘Welcome to McDonald’s, may I take your order, please?’ ”

Shirley Israel said she recently moved to Simi Valley from the South Bay area because it seemed to be a well-planned community.

“Coming out here was a breath of fresh air,” said Israel, who lives in the exclusive Indian Hills subdivision next to the project site. “It’s like living in the country. To build a McDonald’s restaurant here would not be fair.”

William S. Smolen, vice president of Casden, angered some Indian Hills residents when he suggested that their attitudes and opinions about the project were elitist. Casden is the chief developer of the Indian Hills subdivision, where house prices start at about $225,000.

Resident John Chavez said homeowners resent the insinuation that, because they paid more money for their homes, they did not have a right to be concerned about their neighborhood.

“Being concerned about how the neighborhood is going to look in a few years is not elitist, it’s just being concerned,” Chavez said.

Some residents expressed support for the restaurant, saying it would create jobs.

After the hearing, Mayor Greg Stratton and City Councilman Michael Piper said they would not support the development. Stratton said that although the project site is zoned for commercial development, a special-use permit would be needed because the restaurant would offer drive-through service.

He said that because a special operating permit is needed, special considerations have to be made, including taking into account the concerns of nearby residents.

“I find it very difficult to tell people that they will have to put up with an intrusion into their neighborhood just so that we can have another fast-food restaurant,” he said.

But Councilwomen Judy Mikels and Sandi Webb said they felt that Casden had every right to sell its property to the McDonald’s Corp. to develop a restaurant.

“I will always uphold a property owner’s rights,” Mikels said. “We have got to play by the rules. That property is not going to remain free and wild forever.”

Unable to reach agreement on the development, the council decided to send the proposal back to the Planning Commission. Once the panel has considered the residents’ concerns about traffic, the project will return to the City Council for a decision.