SR-080988-5B
S-.6
4-2--A
..............
.....
C/ED: SF :AS
Council Mtg:
Vc~"-o07
Ji'rJ g 1 13"
Santa Monica, californ1a
June 211 1988
AUG 9 1988
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City staff
SUBJECT: Appeal of a Planning commission Denial of conditional
Use Permit 502 to Change the Operating Hours of the
Previously Approved 75 Seat Restaurant. Applicant:
Eugene & Associates, Inc.. Appellant: Councilmember
David Finkel.
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the city council deny the appeal and
uphold the Planning commission's denial of Conditional Use Permit
502 to permit a change in the operating hours of the previously
approved 75 seat restaurant in the retail/restaurant/museum
development currently cornpleting construction at 2435 Main
street. The Planning commission denied the request by a 7-0 vote
on April 20, 1988.
The applicant also requested an on-sale
general alcohol license; the Commission only approved a beer and
wine license. This issue is not under appeal.
Areas of concern
included the change in the overall restaurant concept and, given
the location of the restaurant on residentially zoned property,
the approval of late evening operating hours before the
restaurant is in operation.
councilmember David Finkel is
appealing the decision.
BACKGROUND
This restaurant is one component of the retail/restaurant/museum
proj ect approved by the Planning commission in 1985. At that
- 1 -
S... 12-A
AUG 9 1988 Il\iU [ 1 J.1tt.
..
.......
time the intent was to provide an informal restaurant that would
attract museum patrons, area office workers, Main street shoppers
and surrounding residents. As stated in the original Conditional
Use application, the restaurant would be "informal in character,
serving moderately priced food as well as beer and wine, but no
hard liquor." The restaurant would, therefore, be encouraged to
become a neighborhood meeting place. The Planning Commission
found that the restaurant use would complement the entire Edgemar
Development, operating as a component of the museum/retail
facility. since the restaurant is located on the R3 portion of
the property and is immediately adj acent to residential uses
along Second Street, the evening hours of operation were limited
to 9:30 p.m. on Sunday through Thursday and to 11 p.m. on Friday
and Saturday. The restaurant would open at 8 a.m. to include
breakfast service. These restrictions were specifically included
to ensure that the business would not disturb the neighboring
residents.
The applicant has now requested that the restaurant operating
hours be amended to eliminate morning meal service and to expand
the evening hours. At the time the original approval was
received a seating plan for the restaurant was not available,
therefore, alcohol service was not requested. The applicant then
decided to apply for a full bar rather than just a beer and wine
license. However, only a beer and vline license was approved;
this decision is not being appealed. The current proposal would
extend the evening hours to 11:30 p.m. on Sunday through Thursday
and to 12:30 a.m. on Friday and Saturday. Patrons would be
- 2 -
...........
allowed to stay at the restaurant for up to a half hour after
closing while all restaurant employees would leave within an hour
after closing. Morning hours would be changed to 11: 30 a.m.
Monday through Friday and 10 a.m. on weekends.
The restaurant seating layout includes a 25 seat counter at the
center of the restaurant surrounded by tables and chairs to
accommodate 50 patrons. The applicant has removed a 12 foot long
stand-up bar and two tables with no bar stools per a special
condition added by the Planning Commission.
In their denial of the project, the Planning Commission concurred
with staff that the previously approved operating hours were
more appropriate to the original concept of a neighborhood
serving restaurant. Approving the amended request and extending
the evening operating hours would change the character of the
restaurant, making it a destination in itself rather than a
component of the museum complex. In addition, the Commission
believed it was inappropriate to amend the operating hours before
the restaurant opened in that it was impossible to determine if
the restaurant operator would or would not be a considerate
neighbor.
ANALYSIS
The appellant's letter does not state any specific reasons for
the appeal. The applicant has submitted additional material
expanding upon the statements made at the. Planning Commission
hearing where it was explained that the change in the operating
hours was necessary in order to attract a quality tenant. The
- 3 -
"-
restaurant opening time of 8 a.m. is not early enough to
accommodate breakfast patrons, and the 9:30 p.m./ll p.m. closing
time would severely restrict the amount of evening meal service
and become a financial hardship. The applicant noted that
through meetings with the surrounding neighbors it is evident
that their primary concern is noise. In response to these
concerns the applicant agreed to: 1) locate all restaurant
parking in the subterranean garage and utilize a parking
attendant during the restaurant's operating hours; 2) permit
restaurant deliveries and trash pick-up only between the hours of
a a . m. and 5 p. m.; and 3) insul ate the trash receptacles to
eliminate noise generated by the opening and closing of the
containers; 4) permit alcoholic beverages only with meal service.
In addition, the applicant has submitted a noise study
(Attachment E) which determined that buses are the dominant noise
in the area. However, it also notes that "people conversation"
attracts more attention than other noise factors, although it is
usually masked by other background noise.
The applicant has also stated that the Commission's denial was
based on the assumption that the original hours were determined
through a series of negotiations between the neighbors and that
the Commission believed that other restaurants would accept the
restricted hours. The Commission's denial, however, was based on
their determination that a restaurant located in a residential
zone immediately adjacent to and across the street from
residential uses should have hours that are more restrictive than
a restaurant in a commercial zone. As shown in transcripts from
- 4 -
.....
the 1985 Planning commission meeting (Attachment E) this was one
of the primary concerns in the original approval. At that time,
the Commission took issue with the location of the restaurant use
on residentially zoned property and, therefore, felt limited
hours would be appropriate. The commission also noted that,
since this is a mixed use proj ect with potential restaurant
patrons generated by the museum and retail uses, the restaurant
should not need to depend on late evening traffic; restricted
hours should not be a financial hardship.
In their discussion on April 20, 1988, the commission noted that
at the time of the original approval in 1985 the restaurant
concept was highly controversial. The overriding concern has not
been and cannot be eliminated the restaurant is located in
the residentially zoned portion of the property. The Commission
agreed that while many of the neighbor's concerns regarding
noise created by patrons and employees in the parking lot could
be addressed, at this point, since the restaurant is not open,
the operator has not been able to demonstrate that they will be
good neighbors. The Commission suggested that the operator
return with this request after the restaurant has been in
operation at least a year. In addition, the Commission did not
accept the argument that the limited hours represented an
economic hardship in that financial figures were not presented to
support this point.
In response to
required that:
consumption of
other neighborhood
1)stand-up bars be
alcoholic beverages
concerns, the
prohibited; 2 )
on the outdoor
commission
dining or
patio be
- 5 -
prohibited; 3) trash pick-up be restricted to Main street; 4)
free valet parking be provided and that valet parking from the
street curb be prohibited; and 5) a filtering system to reduce
restaurant odors shall be reviewed by the Building and Safety
Division.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommenda tion presented in this report does not have any
budget or fiscal impact.
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the Council deny the appeal
and deny CUP 502 with the finding and conditions contained in
the April 20, 1988 Planning Commission statement of Official
Action.
Prepared by: Amanda Schachter, Associate Planner
Suzanne Frick, Principal Planner
Paul Berlant, Planning Director
Planning Division
Community and Economic Development Department
Attachments: A. Letter of Appeal by Councilmember David Finkel
B. April 20, 1988 Planning Commission Staff Report
C. Planning Commission statement of Official
Action
D. Supplemental Information From Applicant
Submitted For Planning Commission
E. Supplemental Information From Applicant
Submitted For city council
AS/
PC/CCCUP502
06/06/88
- 6 -
A1t~MA.-v1-+ A:
,
t,,( :._
tiikN~FA MONICA
.88 MAY lOP 2 :37
1685 MaIn Street, Santa Monica, Callforma 90401
(213) 458.8201, CounCIl Office
(213) 458.8182. Busmess Office
DAVID B FINKEL
Mf'mber of The City CounCIl
May 10, 1988
Plannlng Department
C~ty Hall
1685 Main Street
Santa Monlca, CA 90401
Re: Appeal of CUP SaQ
DR 452
I wlsh to appeal the Plannlng Commission deC1S1on of
April 20, 1988 regardlng the CUP 520 and DR 452 for
2435 Maln Street., Santa Mon~ca, Cal~fornla.
_ /IJ
~jft-[r?~~
1;;4-(~uL
DAVID B. FINKEL
DBF:s
-
1t~19S
~mevH- b
CITY PLANNING DIVISION
Community and Economic Development Department
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 20, 1988
TO: The Honorable Planning Commission
FROM: Planning staff
SUBJECT: CUP 502
Address:
Applicant:
2435 Main street
Eugene & Associates, Inc.
SUMMARY
Action: To extend the hours of operation of the previously ap-
proved 75 seat restaurant and to permit an on-sale general al-
cohol license.
Recommendation: Denial
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The subject property is a 50,000 sq. ft. parcel located on the
east side of Main street between Ocean Park Boulevard and Hol-
lister Avenue having a frontage of 250 feet along Main street and
250 feet along Second street. The Main street frontage is zoned
CM2 while the Second street frontage is zoned R3. Surrounding
uses consist of commercial uses to the north, south, and west
(CM2) and one, two, and three story single and mUlti-family
residential uses to the east along Second street.
zoning Districts: CM2, R3
Land Use Districts: Main street Commercial, Medium Density
Residential
Parcel Area: 50,000
PROPOSED PROJECT
The applicant is proposing to extend the operating hours of the
previously approved 75 seat restaurant located in the Edgemar
Development project currently completing construction. The res-
taurant is one component of the mixed use retail/office/museum
project approved by the Planning commission in 1985. At that
time the hours approved for the restaurant were Sunday through
Thursday 8 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. and Friday and Saturday 8 a.m. to 11
p.m. The proposal would extend the evening hours to 11:30 p.m.
- 1 -
on Sunday through Thursday and to 12:30 a.m. on Friday and Satur-
day. Morning hours would be changed to 11:30 a.m. Monday through
Friday and 10 a.m. on weekends. In addition, the applicant is
requesting approval of an on-site full bar liquor license. The
seating layout includes a 25 seat counter at the center of the
restaurant surrounded by tables and chairs to accommodate 50
patrons. In addition, a 12 foot long stand-up bar and two tables
with no bar stools are located at the front of the restaurant
just north of the entry.
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
As part of the approval of the project, the Planning Commission
approved Conditional Use Permit 370 to permit a commercial use to
extend into residentially zoned property. The restaurant is lo-
cated in the residential portion of the lot, adjacent to Second
Street.
CEQA STATUS
This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA,
Santa Monica Guidelines for Implementation Class 1(1).
FEES
This project is exempt from the Housing and Parks Mitigation Pro-
gram contained in the adopted Land Use and Circulation Element.
ANALYSIS
Background
At the time the restaurant was approved, the intent was to pro-
vide an informal restaurant that would attract museum patrons,
area office workers and residents as well as Main Street shop-
pers. The restaurant was found to be a use that would complement
the entire Edgemar Development project, operating as a component
of the museum/retail facility. In that the restaurant is located
on the R3 portion and adj acent to Second Street, the hours of
operation were limited to ensure that the business would not be
obnoxious to the neighboring residents. Alcohol was not antici-
pated at the time the approval was granted.
Neighborhood Concerns
planning staff has met with neighboring residents regarding the
proposed project and they expressed the following concerns. Ex-
tending the operation hours would reduce the hours that the
neighborhood would be free from noise created by patrons in the
parking lot and employees taking out trash. Further, concern was
expressed regarding the vent on Second Street, which provides
fresh air to the subterranean parking facilities. This vent might
have to operate later in the evening given the extended hours of
operation. The original approval was for a community oriented
restaurant that would serve as a focal point for museum users and
neighbors. As proposed, with later operating hours and a full
- 2 -
alcohol license, the restaurant separates itself from the museum
complex and encourages late evening patrons who might not intend
to have meal service. Neighbors also have general concerns
regarding restaurant odors. In addition, residents believe it is
inappropriate to extend the operating hours of a restaurant that
is not yet open since it is unclear at this time if the operator
will or will not be a considerate neighbor.
Extension of operating Hours
Although the applicant may be able to address many of the above
concerns, Planning staff believes that the previously approved
operating hours are more appropriate to the originally approved
restaurant concept. operating hours for Main street restaurants
vary, however, most restaurants close between 10:30 p.m. and 11
p.m. Approval of the proposed extension of hours would change
the character of the restaurant, making it a destination in it-
self rather than a component of the museum complex. Should the
Planning commission determine that the applicant can mitigate the
neighbors' concerns and that the proposed operation is desirable
at this location, findings and conditions would need to be made.
Conditional Use Permit For Alcohol Service
Within a 500t radius of the site there are two restaurants with
on-sale general spirits licenses and one business with an off-
sale general spirits license. Just outside the 500' radius there
is one restaurant with a beer and wine license and two res-
taurants with general spirits licenses. Based on the 1980 cen-
sus, there is a residential population of approximately 500 per-
sons within a 500' radius of the project. The Alcohol Beverage
Control guidelines state that an over concentration of alcohol
outlets may occur if the area has more than one establishment
with an on-sale license for each 800 residents. Planning staff
does not feel that these guidelines are appropriate in this case
since the project is located in one of the busy commercial dis-
tricts in the City. In addition, the majority of alcohol outlets
are restaurants where food, not alcohol is the primary business.
Planning staff, however, recommends that a beer and wine license,
rather than a full alcohol license, be approved. A beer and wine
license is consistent with the neighborhood serving character of
the original restaurant concept. A full alcohol license would
further encourage late night patrons who intend to order al-
coholic beverages rather than meal service.
Conclusion
The proposal is inconsistent with the original approval in that
the extension of operating hours and the on-site general alcohol
license would further intrude the commercial activity into the
residential area and would change the neighborhood serving, muse-
um supported concept of the restaurant. Therefore, staff cannot
recommend approval.
- 3 -
RECOMMENDATION
Planning staff respectfully recommends that the planning commis-
sion deny the request of extended operating hours and an on-site
general alcohol license and approve a beer and wine license with
the following findings and conditions.
EXTENSION OF OPERATING HOURS FINDING
1. The proposed use is incompatible with the existing and
potential uses within the general area in that extending
the operating hours would further intrude the commercial
activity into the residentially zoned property and would
disrupt the residential quality of the surrounding neigh-
borhood, and that the restaurant would no longer simply
complement the museum development but rather become an
independent focus.
ALCOHOL OUTLET FINDINGS
1. The proposed use and location are in accordance with good
zoning practice / in the publ ic interest, and necessary
that substantial justice be done in that the use is of a
type specifically encouraged by the Land Use Element of
the General Plan, incorporating a neighborhood as well as
visitor serving commercial use which, with limited
operating hours and limited to a beer and wine license,
will not adversely affect the adjoining neighborhood.
2. The proposed use is compatible with existing and potential
uses within the general area; traffic or parking
congestions will not result; the public health, safety,
and general welfare are protected; and no harm to
adjacent properties will result in that the use is
permitted in the CM2 Zoning District and will complement
the surrounding retail and museum uses.
The welfare of neighborhood residents
adversely affected in that there is no
project from Second street.
4. The new alcohol license will not contribute to an undue
concentration of alcohol outlets in the area in that this
will be a full service restaurant where food will be
served during all hours of operation
3.
will not be
access to the
5. There will be no detrimental effect on nearby
residentially zoned neighborhoods considering the distance
of the alcohol outlet to residential buildings, churches,
schools, hospitals, playgrounds, parks, and other existing
alcohol outlets in that the restaurant is not located in
an area with a large concentration of schools or churches,
its hours of evening peak use will not coincide with
school or church hours and the conditions of approval will
minimize the potential effects on adjacent properties.
- 4 -
ALCOHOL OUTLET CONDITIONS
1. The restaurant shall not serve beer and wine in the bar
area after midnight but may continue to sel1 alcoholic
beverages in the dining area.
2. Parking lot illumination shall be provided and maintained.
3. The owner shall prohibit loitering in the parking area and
shall control noisy patrons leaving the restaurant.
4. The primary use of the premises shall be for sit-down meal
service to patrons.
5. In order to maintain the primary use of the premises for
sit-down meal service, patrons shall not be permitted to
use the bar unless they are waiting to be seated for meal
services.
6. The premises shall maintain a kitchen or food-serving area
in which a variety of food is prepared and cooked on the
premises.
7. The premises shall serve food to patrons during all hours
the establishment is open for customers.
8. Seating arrangements for sit-down patrons shall not exceed
75 seats and the numbe.r of total seats shall not be
expanded by more than 10% unless approved by the Director
of Planning
Prepared by: Amanda schachter, Associate Planner
Attachments: A. Radius Map
B. Applicant's Operation Plan
C. Letters of Opposition
D. statement of Official Action, CUP 370
E. Project Plans
CUP502
AS:nh
03/22/88
- 5 -
-I 01
<-1 co ~
- r'
.:' L :,.
== ~\ -r
","
1- >
... nr"---
<;? 'I
~~
..
....
~
..
,.
- --IK' -
Ol<'
"
~
w,------- - ---or,-
",...-ll ~ ,
----O(t'"
!:! ~
.<1
, '^
r.-
11 .
oil
\I:
,
lilT
!::!
:;;
JZ
..,
,
"'t--!iI
9
-.
.......;
!! 1><1
,~ zon · ..
II 1$
It
... :,
109i:
H:lV3g ,
,
.',
2 It
~
,
1:
.& c' t"
~..,.~
-~~~
-
. -
t'
1I
,
'" ;I-! '"
.. 5i1 ~ ::I: !Ill. r
:!/ ~
'" _J
" }nl~d '5
c' ""
>< ,,"" .... .~1 a$i( ...~
:!! P. ~~ -
.~ - r V" ,= r
, ;j
. "'
,a, ;"(.
!l,'F'" .
,..~ e;!
. ;.- H
::: .:f; ".y
D ,LM ill"W
-} 'f; t
.,;;;.,.. 0# /'
u I.. ~ :;
'Iii it
~fj't~I ~ I
~ rho). ~
'? "I......::>1'!J4'
6 ",.... - -' ~
~r~j~,iM) ,3~V, , j'" ',' ,""",' ,.,t.~V~:'
(~ ,r ~ Z j; I ,I ! { - ~'J! : J t 1 :~"..
~j~"r ;:'l. 0 I., .1. 1~'",;, fE6'-: .".1~1",lo4. , ~
~ :-~'i: !:"- ~ i iI' ,~,1. ~~I, ~~.;1:11)':';'_.~1;~~1~;'; >
~ ~ ',-,-~~.1 Q 1 r I It.' J, \: 'J I ! I ~I-
r ~'f~ J g ~ -.; ~j~l ~JI~, '" .!': (.~~I~"::!. ~vl~~J ';:~I~'~;
m ~ 1Il ~~ " " I I i". - j -I 1 1 -
k '..i'r: ~ ]NI . Hj"ClO~S'O;N:[ ::" ~
)f1 i c :, ! ~ i:I] . '11' 11 ~;~~I; i"" 9' f'~ ~LL~~ri:: ~ /
~'~~;';"J" . ":. I' ~ ::'" ^,,,,~ -I.... ~... ~ " .....
I ~ I I .' ~-i ~I- .....1-.._-. ;: -.:r
_/_., . I' ,......tvt .....-. r ,,~...... : <? A
~'I ;,' ~j iJ I. ~ ,.,~. ,'i~lI 'II~U~ ~ ;~ a: f/;
~ ~ . - -'".j'J- ":1 - ~I :"1=1"','" :!IY- - ''''I{~' I
" ii ':,?Z 1:,- 1-" .~~~\. "11 ~I~!~ ~~c::~J
0, 0:('1 -= ~. Il 3"" '~31S1110H';" ~ .. ~
~ J I~'.::,' - ;~_.,-~~.
: c.-1 ~I' ~; :i I~ ",J. r;........'. J'lt I. ~ 'l~ il~ >~!([;. \Jf:~: ~~~ w
r -I CL..J-:r-~-~ t;!r . ,., l · I ~,r' '1~ ..' -€~'l =0 - j- ':1 ?i
l:~~r}-(_-M II 11-;- _-J'; ,; j';::d :~~\ '~l1.\;I...:,~~, I
_~ ~ ~; _ Il _ ~'-->V/~ .\ I ~ _ I ~ r ~~9 ~ ,
-l--....-,...-=t-'=~ +-- t:--.- - )' ~ - I~' . 'f ~l N \J;I"" 1 - Z
I I . '"r~- j' ~ - ...' y ~~, "n 0 ('
. I I ~ - · .~. ~ ~ Ire f>t. ~ c(
'-__ J '-__ "'.
, .. ~ "j ft J~'I": l'~' .. ; ~ ]Nar:N~l:l;lS :; ~~
__ v 1 t,.. . :. - .
-r....,.. 'f -. r I J
. ,0.. i' v ~ 1 ' " \. \'"""; ,_I . I ·
,~~C:t~'>r" I ~ :;,,-=~! g]I'; J~~' ~
J L ~ ~l ~ ~"ll~l..l~ 'S:,.
_ _ I ,'.... 1)~'Lu:!.'E~~ I ~ · ~
'l
~
e
c::::
~
~
r
,..A ~
~'v;,
S
8
l' ~ I,'l'\.I ,':: ~..... -
-i:- [:(1 vr-- D -=- ....1~I:.
- ~~- ~r: -;~~ -:m- r:
-;:;:----;;;' b! --1~ It;-,;:- ,c:-
_ _..--._ ()~ _,to ..
~ ~ I~ ... ~ ~ -- '-:
c LL.J I'r;: r~ ~ "'" 0
___ - "-~- Z
~<< '.1; } ~ ~ IJi - 0
~ ~: or.-wjj~frt: = ~
.-b -:7~-= ;::--u-:;. U1
r-~Q ~..-.
rn[rl~~l~r~>[l'o; ~~ ~
_, N ....LI..I..n~ ,.a-x' ~
flA" ~ ~. ~ ~- at-r
lO~"lLJ,: "",,1 J--:- ; r
~J
p 3nN3Nt
o
0<
oJ
.r(
J:"
,..., :
.~
LJ
~
- "ii,~"-
. . ~ __ __ __ tfJ c.
r~
. ....~:) ..J
~,
I.
I
:
, ..
:'
l~l --
.
':"'i
'" '" I.'
. - .
,---0'1'"; ': ~I" ~?
-- 0;, - - ((If})
.D I............ ...
J
ii.-- :t-
I. ,
, H-J
C.:
I ..I.. - :;;
, ...
""YitlON St
~"':: a- ,"'''r
-:: ):1 ~ - ~ ~ "' ::
~I ~ - '!' -~--...G;:
-~I ...---t... -::..~"il:...
~ 'I '"
....1J~--_ - S V't
_ :~ ~r-I' .~ .:.::
_ _ .11']0 "....
1"'-'" I ~.
.... "io;-R -....~ - ~:;;~
..,....;:! I. ,,~.,:f
~ ... ;;-Y.' (~ ~,t ~
..- ~ ~ - ;, l- -1..d::
::
.... .
'lft. '(' --~~-
....~-:.-.rf-..., ~-.
.... nlj-,..,. ,;I---~-~-
, ....
- f.-':--~
r-~- -..... --I'II)--.,..~.
llJ'It~ DI)I - ~ ....."11!! - ~...
I 0 ~6
~~31SI1'OH <>
~
.'
., ~ ., ~t---~~i _.1
'::: ~ ': '- --<",- , rc~
~\ - r-: --, :I~
:;-O~ r-i....~{'\ ~l
::::
";IT" -
..... .-
..:;;, :"
....
~ ~<
~ ~r
~
CliP .s;o:L
~
~~~
fh ~-
~~
.
. .
:= :
3
~
.
-
Q
!
.....
:;.
""
'"
>
r.
A4\n. ~W\~n-\- :e
MANATT, PHEL.PS, ROTHE.NBERG 5. P~J.L..J...IPS
... "'A"TNlE"."I~ IliIIICLUl:Il NO ~lIt~'IIpIIUD""""'Cc:~'~Ji-':T[~~ 0 N' r~ ~
\JlltUr::,. r,-r""e
A.TTORNE'r':serr~ I -,
C""",,"i:I'LI' .. W-..",..~ r"
""'OMAS :J- ~E~ .
ALAN' flOTJoltN.i"'J"
L. LI.~""IL...-~t"
.~h1~"" Jil~'T"'l:lIt t
-N"LLIE " SA."NlS.
"'"CHAtL ollII"'-':IIIII."
..Os.E;"'" ""IOIlQCEK I..
!...I[~."'... IIIICIiII[i....
-:;E~AGt ~v 0 K Erll'''''
GCA~O"" "" ..,..........
......1It(: !HTEIN..
!;j C.....RO ~t:~ "i.iQUST.
.....0..... r S""l.,lAm...
1!Io.....I... .....LL..
....11'.. ~ ..,U....".E:q,.
~"'-IIID- I- ..AC.O.SOl-'K....
~["",I!:III! ... .llI""TI:IIIIIIO
L~ 511'ECl-oTt
"~:I!!IEW" L "\JIII"""-t
S"'[~"'iEN 0 GAt[,"II!I~AG ~
... Li.-IAIII S .RUhl51'EN..
~1J...",w l' Q.v~\II'S1L.~R...
S.EVE:N 101 GCL;-BEAQ t
_ WA"'-HE. ....LEXA...OlA..
...eM. SC"'WlUiI'Tl..
HOWARO M ....U..'Ei
:..&.....l!;kC.r: J .L.,.I.K1
0"""0... ..-'511.......
AOIPt oJ I\iQIEL-
T"1oI0TH"l' M T1otCIfNTON
"Q.EfIT It: HI""ERFELO
c,l.V'':; tJ.,SDN
fJooQIWIA.!i . EYAH'S- .....-
!!USAN a.,........
LAUIIIENCt... "'I.lII.JftIlS
AIhI ... TItUI:III t
THDMAS ~ Jl:I..IH!t..
CATHE"'I<I'I __ -co~y
.t=-.II'O L. ..UI!h.IN"
SUSAfIlI.J TWQY
II't-EII' 11II "'["I.UI!Q
"Ie........;).. MLJ; t
ANDREW IMIUN~
.....IJL'"" ..........NQ
0..." ~L G ..I!:U......A'
PiQhllIS " .....~...-so....
,..eH..,EI. I!: "IIL;.S..
IItO!lEI:IT... "".IoGtFt4'
~\....J"...Jl..M'E.
.J M'C......EL ....~-ELi.--
JuO...... I:I! ..O~........
W'Ll.I"'a.t C Ot..CJ..(~
....OOY I. 3qAl'l.....
....'LI.. . ~E;CH1'
G'E.GAGL .. .t.l..'FIEL,,"
OAI,I':;t . CJfl.JMPACIICVI -'1IiI!
ICLL.C" . llillIS'..",
III.t.RK lot UST.......
~A.kE.J CfIttJM~"C:fC('"
€....ZA8ETJo1 WATSC!H
OV;: R ~.'!KM
eRUiC::E CJ S......~ER
CAf11~IN!:", ...........
-'II:....,,~.,.... IoIAHD~
113~5 WEST OI..YM"IC; BOUI..EV"flIC
1..0S ANGELES CAI..1F~'A ~e-6
o 3 .-jO
. . ~
~IIoIJiEUI .ONG
GA'L, "NDER!ljQN
... t;.....Eo.L A.Io-H-:)NV
QOVGI",.&;!,-E ...AV M
I(AT"'U(H HEItNAIlIII ,.dJilJoUtA"
5......III...'OI[J,.LL..
Cool"'" H -...cw~*,
'1011["'.. ~TT
S,...E'4.... r $0111.1,.
CI'tIlll-I'" c.a~ON
:1.,.,0,...,,0...
LAWIlIEIrtCl:. ':;;U"CHG
::l.AJtI: .....O...OW'$Il.
~!.III!III E I.l";,.I&"'. SI-IO...
.....,.,.CI.....T 11'I ."L~W*N
SA.AAo..- S",'T..,
0[.......5. I'IIIJlHIlS
L "D" L.. L,OAI)M
"PHOMAS l S........IOtU-
RONAI,..; II -U1lOV51tY
Jl,.lNIf .....,l.fGSTCN ....-..1.---0......
WIll. AM CU.N A:;l-0A5
..........I"U;.SC"I;;II
MIII'5T Nt. .L.A.l;I(WQOD
C....D15TO.....IU! q, "'O$~
MICPlAn. T ....."'"IEA
rED .. lof"I.~-o.ti.-
t..IU II: aITfA...
HAHl;Y" SC:H~E'DDt
"E:I'IE"D~ WI',t,o/'IoIE _Oto-NS:jJf
~~... _.::;_T
~"'E"''''' DAviS
u~c. .....I:tA.O..-yO
~'" S IIC5E:"'8tRG
Ot"'N'S" ..E.A.......;,tt
GtOIllGE LEN fIICSE.
""DC~ .. ~""'ItS
....O..N _y CU:-C
AMtHOh...... -~..U~
.,;oi-"~ { sc:O....
.IIIOo-NC!' ;:. G'L"'OP[
T VALFl;I,O ANOi:ASO...
,J......I:S III "CRC"'IT~
.IL......,.. 1I 1lI0SE
.""....Io..$TE"vt... N-'--;[~
t...III,J"'(.1... S;:Uil!.ANd
....C.......I:.i,. 'Or f-D1..:s.
"""''''1E5 A. 8tll"'ST( 1"1"
C-Llti-N ....TO...
JO............. ...O~..O...
::2A.V'O L IUI:IG
.....:>4N l01I "'NTOe
:JIAN';'" LI'''''.E;Ft
TELE"HONE 12'31 312-4000
TIILl:x ..So8.3 C".LlII: 104.,,T UIII
",1,:11. 'Z"JI 31-2-4"'1'.
WoI.S-NrNCll'OIt g c; O"F~a
IZoo l'\I-EW ....A..II"!i...~...:I[ Avr: ... kilt
wAS...IfIlGTO.... 0 C ZOO.J.e
12021 4e3.....,oO
Apr1l 6, 1988
Q.p =av.SIEL
oo"oU..o..... F T2Gt:III"L::lI.
"AIrI".J""'NIE.I..IUIO~
OIJIIII pI'"'L.1: NO
6423-030
tN.c....~ a... ';lIS...... ~ 0.'-
COL;"...... ...r.c CA'- ..a........ ...IIt.
"M(:"".EJII 0'- C':,iTIII'CT QLI'
CC1LU...'.... .....
-1I41:.....1E.1Il! or V.ltG.NIA .....
~E.S MEMacll'!!. 0'" OL.."GItN'a .....
t. ~O"C.S"OHAL C:OII!~"'ATIO""
BY MESSENGER
Mr. Paul Berlant
Director of Planning
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, Californla 90401
Re:
CUP Application 502
2435 Main Street
Dear Mr. Berlant:
This law firm represents Eugene & Associates, the
applicant for the above-referenced conditional use permit for
alcohol service. As you know, our client has participated in
several meetings with the neIghboring residents to discuss this
project. This letter will provide you and the Planning Division
staff with some additional information concerning the proposed
restaurant and will respond to concerns raised by the resIdents
at those meetings.
The current application seeks approval for the service
of alcohol at the restaurant and the extension of evening hours
of operation which are currently limited under the conditions of
approval for the premises approved in February, 1985 (DR 253, CUP
370, ZA 4831-Y, EIA 773). The neighbors have raised certain
issues regarding the impact of the proposed restaurant operation.
We believe that all concerns raised by the neighbors
can be addressed by conditions placed on the restaurant operation.
MANATT PHELF'S, ROTHENBERG 5. PI-IIL.LIF'S
Mr. Paul Berlant
_ March 24, 1988
Page 2
Hours of Operatlon. The application requests clos1ng
times of 1 a.m. Sunday through Thursday and 2 a.m. Friday and
Saturday. Due to neighborhood concerns, these requested hours
are now reduced to 11:30 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and 12:30
a.m. Friday and Saturday. These hours are standard and minimum
for a full-service flrst-quality restaurant. Similar hours are
kept by the app11cant's other restaurants, Chaya Brasserle and
Flags.
The appllcant is willing to give up the early morning
breakfast hours presently allowed at the premises. The applicant
proposes to open for business at 11:30 a.m. Monday through Friday
and 10 a.m. on Saturday and Sunday. This will ensure that the
resldential neighbors are not disturbed in the morning hours.
Presently the restaurant is allowed to have employees and
deliveries on the site as early as 7 a.m. The applicant will
ensure that all deliveries to the restaurant, including trash
collection, occur between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m.
Noise from Parklng Lot. The residents have expressed
concern that noise from the surface parklng lot wil1 disturb them
during the proposed extended evening hours. The applicant will
ensure that no customers use the surface parking lot after 9 p.m.
At that time, a parking attendant will direct all restaurant
customers to the subterranean park~ng. The parking attendant
will also ensure that no disturbances are created on the surface
parking lot by customers or cars. At all other times, signage
WLll indicate that restaurant parking is located in the
subterranean park1ng area.
The applicant be11eves that thLS parking system LS
preferable to a curb-side valet parking system. The valet system
wlll stl1l necessitate the driving of cars through the surface
lot to the underground lot. The curb-side system will mean that
restaurant customers are actually further from the restaurant
when they leave their cars and must walk across the courtyard to
the restaurant. These customers, we believe, could create more
noise than customers entering the restaurant from the underground
garage by elevator directly to the restaurant entrance.
The use of subterranean parking by restaurant customers
wlll be a substantial improvement to the neighborhood over the
currently permitted operation. The current approval allows the
restaurant to operate until 9:30 p.m. weekdays and 11 p.m. weekends
and to utilize the surface parking lot. This means customers could
be leaving the restaurant as late as 10:30 p.m. weekdays and
midnight on weekends and congregating in the surface parking lot.
The proposed change in hours of operation will also ensure that
the surface parking lot is not used by restaurant customers in
the early morning.
MANATT, PHELPS, ROTHENBERG & PHILLIPS
Mr. Paul Berlant
March 24, 1988
-Page 3
Noise from Fan. The residents have expressed concern
that the late n~ght use of the underground parklng lot will produce
nOlse from the ventilation system fan. ThlS fan lS acoustlcally
lnsulated with a concrete housing and was sized and selected with
a velocity range which is acceptable according to good englneering
standards. This fan should not produce obJectlonable nOlse levels.
However, by adjustments, the velocLty of the fan can be flne-tuned
should noise become an issue. Additionally, if necessary, further
sound reduction can be aChieved by adding sound traps or sound
attenuators to the eXlstLng insulation. However, such sound
reduction devices are not normal for an exhaust system of this
size and are usually only used on much larger machines.
The owner of the project is willlng to work with the
City and the residents to reduce the velocity of the fan or to
further insulate the fan to ensure that its operatlon does not
disturb nelghbors at any t1me of the day, if necessary.
Currently there 1S no control under the project
conditions over the fan and ventilation system nOlse. There is
nothlng 1n the proJect approval to prevent the fan from operating
twenty-four hours a day.
Noise from Trash Containers. The residents have
expressed concern about the possible nOlse from the outdoor trash
conta1ners. The applicant will use only plastic trash receptacles
and, if necessary, the rims of the containers w~ll be specially
insulated with dampening materials to eliminate nOlse.
The appl1cant will also ensure that all trash collection
occurs during normal business hours between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
Odors from Cook~n9' The residents have expressed the
fear that cooking odors will disturb them. In the experience of
the applicant, odors from a restaurant of this size are not
normally bothersome or strong. In addition, all odors wlll be
vented through the roof and will be directed upwards by the
mechanical screens on the roof. It is highly unllkely that odors
vented in this manner w~ll be objectionable to residents. The
applicant does not anticipate any problems with odors, but is
willing to work with the City and the residents if odors are
offensive at any time of the day.
The addition of later hours of operation will not
increase the number of hours the neighborhood is exposed to any
cooking odors. As stated above, the restaurant wlll not be open
for breakfast. The grill in the kitchen will be closed at 11 p.m.
on weekdays and 11:30 p.m. on weekends. After this time, customers
may only order beverages and cold prepared food, such as salads
and desserts. Therefore, the cooking hours will only be extended
MANAiT, PHELPS. ROTHENBERG & PHILLIPS
Mr. Paul Berlant
March 24, 1988
Page 4
by one-half hour on the weekends and one and one-half hours on
weekdays. This increase wl11 be more than mitigated by the absence
of breakfast cooking odors in the early morning hours.
City Revlew. The current conditions of approval for
the premlses contain protections to ensure that neither the
restaurant nor any other tenants cause disturbances or problems
in the neighborhood. Condition No. 8 of the current approval
requires that the operation "at all times be conducted in a manner
not detrimental to surrounding propertles or residents by reason
of odors, lJ.ghts, noise, activlties, parking or other actlons."
This condition provides the City with a mechanism to monltor and
control the operations of the restaurant, and the restaurant
applicant pledges that this condition wl1l be met at all tlmes.
As the residents know, the applicant is extremely
concerned about being a good neighbor. He has already met several
tlmes with the resldents from the area to hear their concerns.
He is commltted to ensuring that the restaurant is an asset to
the neighborhood, just as his other restaurants, Chaya Brasserie
and Flags, are. The appllcant has operated another restaurant,
La Petite Chaya, in a residential nelghborhood without complaint.
He has made himself personally known to the neighbors and wlll
always be available to promptly respond to any complaints.
Change of Restaurant Concept. Some residents have
complained that the proposed extension of hours constitutes a
change from the origlnal concept for the proJect and the
restaurant. The existing project approval already allows a
restaurant at the slte to be open from 8 a.m. until 9:30 weeKdays
and until 11 p.m. weekends. This project was deslgned to contaln
many diverse elements and at the time of original project approval
not all aspects of the proJect had been finalized and none of the
tenants had been selected. The proJect is now being "fine-tuned~
with a speclfic tenant lmprovement. The resldents now have the
beneflt of knowing exactly who the restaurant operator will be
and have the opportunity to meet him and observe his other
restaurants.
The operator believes that the restaurant cannot be
successful without the ability to serve alcohol and remain open
beyond the presently permitted hours. The location of the
restaurant at the back of the site away from the street frontage
will make it difficult to attract customers unless the restaurant
is of the type and quality to maintaln a clty-wide reputation.
The restaurant is essential to the viability of this
project as a whole. Without the extension of hours and the alcohol
permlt the restaurant wlll not succeed. This restaurant must
MANATT PHELPS, ROTHENBERG & PHILLIPS
Mr. Paul Berlant
March 24, 1988
> page 5
compete with others ~n the neighborhood wh~~h stay open late and
serve alcohol.
The adjustment of the present approval to include the
later hours and the alcohol perm1t may be a change from the
original concept, but it is not a change wh~ch wil1 adversely
impact the nelghborhood in any way. It is a change which will
ensure that the project is a success and an asset to the commun~ty.
parkin9. Concern has been expressed that the change in
the restaurant hours and the serving of alcoholic beverages could
affect the parking demand calculated for the proJect. It should
be recalled that when the proJect was orIginally approved, only
80 on-site parking spaces were proposed, with supplemental capacity
across Main Street 1n Lot 11. Both the City and Coastal Commission
approved the project with provisions for valet parking In the
alsles. Subsequently, the project was modified to increase on-
site parkIng capacity to 105 spaces with no substantive changes
in project floor area or uses. The restaurant's service capacity
is still limited by its seating capacity of 75 seats. This
limitation exists whether or not alcoholic beverages are served,
and therefore, this part of the subject request could not have
meaningful implicatians for the restaurant's parking demand.
The request for longer restaurant hours will have little
or no effect on the City's original conclusions regarding project
parking demand. During peak dinner hours on weekends, a 7S-seat
restaurant of the sort proposed in a freestanding location would
be expected to generate demand for 40 to 50 parking spaces,
assuming no walk-in trade. GIven this restaurant1s nelghborhood
orientation and Main Street setting, 25% walk-in would not be
surprising. During the extended weekend hours (11:00 p.m. -
12:30 a.m.). peak demand would normally falloff 20 to 30 percent
so that restaurant demand during that period would be between 21
spaces to 40 spaces. During these later hours, there would be
virtually no demand associated with the other project uses.
Consequently, less than one-half of the on-site capacity of 105
spaces is likely to be utilized during these later hours, with no
resulting adverse off-s1te effects.
MANATT PHEL.PS, ROTHENBERG & PHILl.IPS
Mr. Paul Ber1ant
March 24, 1988
Page 6
I hope this ~nformation will be helpful to you in your
review of this app11cation. If you have any further questions,
please call me at (213) 312-4149.
~~.~~~
Clare Bronow-ski
Manatt, Phelps,
Rothenberg & Phillips
cc: Amanda Schachter