SR-5-A (25)
5-A
LUTM:CPD:
pcjccalp
COUNCIL MEETING: March 31, 1992
, .nY v lSg2
Santa Monica, C~lifornla
TO:
Mayor and city Council
FROM:
city Staff
SUBJECT: Recommendation To Establish An Alcohol Policy For the
Santa Monica pier
INTRODUCTION
In response to Planning commission concerns, the pier Restoration
Corporation (PRC) has developed an alcohol policy specifically
for the Pier. The policy was reviewed by the Planning Commis~~n
on March 25, 1992. Attached to thfs staff report is the pier
Restoration Corporation I s "Alcohol Beverage Service Policy
statement" as presented to the Planning commission. In order to
address the pier issues in a comprehensive manner, the pier
alcohol policy has been scheduled for Council review at the same
meeting where the council will discuss the pier development
project.
This report provides a brief analysis of the proposed alcohol
policy in relation to the Planning Commission's previous actions
on alcohol issues and the approved Third street Promenade Outdoor
Dining standards.
- 1 -
11~'{ 5 ,~\';.
5~A
ANALYSIS
As proposed by the PRC, the alcohol policy appears to address
most of the concerns expressed in the past by the Planning
Commission in relation to alcohol issues. Proposed policies
number one and two prohibit "off-salelt sales of alcohol and
restrict future food tenants with counter pick-up sales and
common seating areas from obtaining alcohol licenses. These two
policies ensure that alcohol sales will be limited to
fUll-service, sit-down restaurants. Proposed policy number three
states that outdoor dining service of alcohol shall only be
permitted at full-service restaurants and alcohol shall only be
served when food is also available. This policy is consistent
with the Outdoor Dining Standards approved for the Third street
Promenade which limit outdoor alcohol sales to full-service
restaurants. The Promenade outdoor dining standards also allow
alcohol sales only when food is being served, but go one step
further and prohibit sales after 11:00 P.M. While this
restriction seems appropriate on the Promenade where nearby
residents may be affected by outdoor noise, it does not seem
necessary on the Pier.
Proposed policy number four relates to the design of the outdoor
dining area. Specifically, the policy requires a minimum 5' tall
patio enclosure. The Promenade outdoor dining standards limit
the height of patio enclosures to 3'6". The height limit imposed
for the Promenade is an attempt to maintain the outdoor dining
- 2 -
areas as a continuation of the public space. The Pier, however,
is a different situation and a 5' tall enclosure may be
beneficial in securing the outdoor area.
Furthermore, the
weather situation on the Pier may warrant the higher enclosure.
Proposed policies number five through ten relate to the operation
of the alcohol outlets in terms of employee training and
compliance with Conditional Use Permit conditions of approval and
Alcohol Beverage Control restrictions.
These policies, such as
the requirement that non-alcoholic beverages be available and
that the cost of food and non-alcoholic beverages be applied
towards
any minimum purchase
requirement,
are conditions
typically included in the Planning commission standard conditions
of approval. Other standard conditions of approval that may be
considered include the following:
-Alcohol shall not be served in disposable containers such
as disposable plastic or paper cups.
-No more than 35% of gross revenue shall be from alcohol
sales. Restaurant operators shall maintain records of
such sales, which shall be provided upon request to the
city of Santa Monica and/or the Alcohol Beverage Control.
-Information
be placed on
more, and
beverages.
regarding a "designated driver" program shall
menus, shall be available to groups of two or
shall provide for free, non-alcoholic
Consistent with what we believe to be Council direction, the
first four policies relate to pier specific issues which have a
time consideration to them.
Al though the proposed PRe pol icy
also addresses the more "generic" issues contained in policies
- 3 -
five through ten, staff suggests that consideration of these
policies be dealt with at the same time as the city-wide alcohol
policy is considered. This "tiered" approach was directed by the
council in order to allow PRC tenant negotiations to proceed, yet
not prejudice future consideration of an alcohol policy.
The issue of the number of outlets is addressed by reference in
the PRe proposed policy in that a table indicating number and
type of outlets and seating capacity is attached to the written
policy. At this time, the PRe proposes nine outlets - seven
existing or approved and two in lease negotiations. Total number
of seats is 2,108 with 1,274 seats inside and 834 outside. The
PRe wishes to defer any discussion of additional future outlets
until it is decided if any, or what type, of future development
may occur on the pier. As the cover letter from the PRC to the
Planning Commission indicates, future potential development is
now considered to be more modest than was previously envisioned
when the "Central Plaza" included six restaurants which could
have requested alcohol licenses. As was noted at the Planning
commission hearing on March 25th, one or both of the "outlets"
under negotiations wi th the PRe may need more than one ABC
license (depending on the type of operation at each "outlet").
Staff views each business or location as an "outlet" for which a
CUP is necessary. More than one ABC license may be addressed as
a CUP at one location although the number of seats would be
limited to the numbers listed above.
- 4 -
Planning staff spoke with Police Chief James Butts and Sergeant
Walter Hard, who is in charge of the Police detail assigned to
the Santa Monica Pier, regarding the proposed alcohol policy.
They indicated that the proposed policy seemed to cover most of
their concerns. Regarding hours of operation and closing time,
the Police Department did not have significant concerns about
establishments on the pier being open until 2:00 A.M., although
shorter hours of operation typically result in fewer disturban-
ces.
The number of Police personnel in the field decreases at
3:00 A.M. and the number of Harbor Patrol personnel decreases at
4:00 A.M. Therefore, a full complement of security personnel are
on duty at the latest allowable closing time.
In regard to al-
cohol sales on the pier in general, the Police stated that the
majority of alcohol problems on the Pier and in the vicinity
result from people who buy alcohol at an off-sale location and
bring it to the pier or the beach, rather than people who consume
alcohol in pier restaurants.
Planning Commission Action
The Planning commission met March 25, 1992 to discuss the
proposed Pier alcohol policy. The Commission could not come to
decision on the proposed number of outlets and number of seats
proposed for the Pier.
During the discussion, individual
Planning Commissioners made the following comments:
o The limits proposed are arbitrary numbers. The concen-
tration standard should be set by developing a formula based on
- 5 -
number of seats, geographic location of the outlet, and square
footage of outlets.
o Limits cannot be set until police crime statistics are
provided and the council decides to study the issue in a rational
way.
o There is no way to develop a standard for the Pier. The
City must decide what is acceptable and ensure that the pier is
managed in an effective manner.
o The PRC should be allowed to move forward with the pro-
gram that is proposed.
On the issue of the proposed pOlicy recommendations, the Planning
Commission only took action on the first four policies.
They
deferred action on the remaining policies until the citywide Al-
cohol Policy is developed. The following outlines the Planning
Commission action on the first four policies:
o Policy 1. PRC language: "No "off-sale" license shall
be permitted." The Planning Commission approved the policy as
written.
o Pol icy 2. PRC language: "Future tenant lease
agreements shall allow no alcoholic service of any kind for food
or other operations with only counter pick-up service or common
area seating for food and beverage consumption. (Current lease
agreements that allow counter beer and wine service will be
phased out as tenants are either incorporated into future
facilities or are discontinued)." The Planning Commission
approved the policy as written with the recommendation to delete
the parenthetical sentence that states ll(Current lease agreements
that allow counter beer and win service will be phased out as
tenants are either incorporated into future facilities or are
discontinued").
o Policy 3. PRC language: "outdoor dining patios that
include alcoholic beverage service shall only be allowed at full
service restaurant locations. Alcoholic beverage service at
these outdoor patios shall only be allowed during hours of opera-
tion when food service is provided." The Planning Commission
modified the language to read: "Dining venues that include al-
coholic beverage service shall only be allowed at full service
restaurant locations. Alcohol shall only be served when food is
available. " The Planning Commission also requested the PRC and
staff to develop a definition for "full service restaurant". For
- 6 -
purposes of this policy, staff recommends using the definition of
restaurant found in the Zoning Ordinance which states: II Any
building, room, space, or portion thereof where food is sold for
consumption on site. A restaurant does not include incidental
food service." Staff would add the following to this definition.
"Incidental take out service may be part of the operation of a
full service restaurant. Additionally, a full service restaurant
may include an outdoor dining area where food service is
provided" .
o Policy 4. PRe language: "Patios must be adequately
secured to prohibit contact with non-patrons, and door security
must be provided at all times during hours when alcoholic
beverages are being served." The Planning Commission approved
the policy as written.
o The Planning Commission recommended the inclusion of
one additional policy, Policy 5, which would state: " Preserve
affordable dining establishments that provide alcohol service."
conclusion
At this time, staff believes that the seven existing and/or ap-
proved and two proposed outlets will not create a problem of over
concentration of outlets.
The pier is a regional recreational
attraction, is visited by almost three million people annually,
has historically been a place which included food and alcoholic
beverage service, and has been planned to continue to accommodate
such uses. In addition, police field staff believe that if and
when there is a problem caused by consumption of alcoholic
beverages, the source of the problem is not the on-sale es-
tablishments on the pier, but people bringing beverages to the
pier form off-sale locations.
With regard to policies one
through four proposed by the PRe, staff believes they adequately
address the first "tier" of concerns regarding the pier. Poli-
cies five through ten should be addressed in the context of the
- 7 -
overall City alcohol policy. New policy number 5 suggested by
the Planning Commission is also consistent with the Council's
"tiered" approach.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendations contained in this report do not have any bud-
get or financial impact.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the city Council adopt policies one
through four and five (new number five as recommended by the
Planning commission) and defer action on the remaining policies
until such time as the City-wide alcohol policies are approved by
council. In addition, staff recommends the Council approve the
concentration of nine alcohol outlets as identified in the PRe
policy.
Prepared by: Paul Berlant, Director of LUTM
Suzanne Frick, Planning Manager
Attachments: 1.
2.
3.
Letter from PRC dated 01/22/92
Letter from PRC dated 01/22/92
PRC Alcoholic Beverage Service Policy statment
- 8 -
I
I
I
I
I
- I
I
I
j
I
I
L
.~. ,
.'t...~~
~Mtnu~
vPier Restoration Corporation
"
.C-' ,-,.....-::
-'- .... .--'
DATE:
January 22, 1992
TO:
Paul Berlant, Planmng Director
John Gilchrist, Executive Director 9&1
Santa Monica Pier Alcoholic Beverage Servlce Polley
FROM;
SUBJECT:
Regarding the Planning CommIssion decision as to whether or not to agendize IS~:Jes
for the February 5 meeting regarding PIer Alcoholic Beverage Service number of
outlets etc., it IS our understanding that the City Council and the PRC have expressed
concern that delaying consIderation of aU aspects of the Pier Policy until City-wide
Pohey is determined will hamper current lease negotiations, and therefore timely
development of the Pier program.
We are concerned specifically with the number of outlets to be established on the Pier,
barriers and access determinations for outdoor dining areas intended to serve alcohol,
operational guidelines for these outdoor areas which are unique to the Pier and
mdoor/outdoor hours of operation, all of which are necessary to be a part of lease
agreements.
The more extensive and detailed issues of enforcement, employee education and
general polley which are properly generic to all seIVlce City-wide can be adopted later
as rules and regulations applIed to all tenants, existing and future, at the Pier.
I hope this is useful in helping your deliberations with the Planning Commission.
200 Santa MOnIca PIer · Santa Momca · Cahforma 90401 · (213) 458-8900 · Fax (213) 393-1279
~/Vkru~
Pier Restoration Corporation
,
I
I Date:
I
I To:
I
I From:
!
j Subject:
January 22, 1992
Paul Berlant, Planning Director
10hn Gilchrist, Executive DiJector *' tl
Sanla Monica Pier Alcoholic ~e ~ Policy
At its January 22, 1992 meeting, the Pier R~~!!mation Corporation Board of Directors
provided additional clarification on the Pier Alcohol Beverage Service Policy.
It is the Board I s understanding that delaying consideration of certain aspects of the Pier
Alcohol Policy until City. wide Policy is determined is indeed hampering current lease
negotiations. Negotianons have halted on one major project until these issues are
resolved, and another lease nearing completion may be placed at risk as well.. ~ithout
timely resolution, the time hne of Pier development will be set back.
J
I
I
I
I
i
I
l
L200 Santa Monlca'Fter" Santa MonICa" California 90401 "(213) 458-8900 "Fax (213) 393-1279
~Ivtmt~
Pier Restoration Corporation
DATE: January 23, 1992
TO: The Honorable planning Commission
FROM: P~er Restoration Corporation
SUBJECT: Recommendation to City council for Adoption of an
Alcoholic Beverage service Policy statement for the
Santa Monica pier
This report and request for adoption of policy will be submitted
to the Santa Monica city council in form as follows:
INTRODUCTION
This report transmits the pier Restoration corporation f s (PRC)
Alcoholic Beverage service Policy for the Santa Monica Pier and
recommends that the city Council adopt this policy_
-
BACKGROUND
On October 9, 1991, the Board of Directors of the Santa Monica
pier Restoration Corporation adopted the attached policy
establishing requirements for pier tenants regarding the service
of alcoholic beverages.
The policy particularly addresses
outdoor patio areas and limits the total number of outlets for
both full service and limited beer and wine licensing_
As part of its review of the Pier I s development plans, the PRe
Board began examining the issue of alcohol outlets and service in
May, 1990.
The development guidelines that resulted from the
public workshops called for a large number of restaurants, cafes
and nightclubs and although the PRC I S development plan did not
--
200 Santa Momca PIer · Santa Monica · Califorma 90401 · (213) 458-8900 · Fax (213) 393-1279
l.nc 1 ude as many outlets, the Board felt 1. t was time to exanll.ne
the number, the type, the locat~on and the appropriateness of
each.
Since the PRC was then involved in the beginnings of lease
negotiat~ons with new developers, the tim~ng allowed the results
of Board decisions to be included in the leases.
In September,
1990, the PRC Board decided to eliminate alcohol sales from any
food establishment that utilized common seating with other food
establishments.
In this way, the anticipated problem of
unsupervised patrons carrying alcohol out to public areas would
be eliminated.
As a result of further deliberations on the
issue, the Board banned alcohol sales in the Fun Zone development
area on December 5, 1990. It was felt that alcohol in this area
,.
....
was not necessary qi ven the fact that this was a concentrated
location of family amusements, and other areas of the Pier would
provide the hulk of food and beverage services.
At that same
meeting, the Board. reviewed recommendations from the Police
Department and included each of those recommendations in the
policy attached.
At the August 14, 1991 Board meeting, a detailed pier alcohol
policy was approved by the Board.
It contained a list ot 15
operations that would be permitted to obtain either full service
or beer and wine alcohol licenses.
The Board also recommended
that the Pier should be evaluated separately from the City-wide
alcohol policy.
2
The pier development plan has existed s~nce the workshops l.n
1982-B3, long before alcohol outlets became an 1ssue 1n the city.
That development plan spent many years being refined and is now
in the process of implementation. Based on this foundation of
work and representations, private developers have been selected,
have ~nvested funds and have calculated revenue and operational
projections.
Although the Pier is located in the City of santa Monica, it has
always been viewed as a regional facility. City-wide limits
cannot apply to such a facility if it is to be successful. Since
hour l~mits on outdoor alcoholic beverage service was being
considered for other areas of the City, the Board added a
specific Pier statement to that policy. Pier facilities with
outdoor areas would be permitted to sell alcohol beverages during
all hours they were permitted to serve indoors in accordance with
their ABC licenses. It was felt that the proposed pier alcoholic
beverage service policy contained sufficient rules and
regulations regarding the design and service of alcohol in
outdoor areas to provide adequate safeguards discouraging rowdy
and uncontrolled late hour actions observed in other areas of the
city. Existing restaurants with the ability to serve alcohol in
the outdoor areas on the Pier have demonstrated good conduct in
operating within the time limits set by ABC licensing. It was
also noted that unlike any other area in the City, the City is
the Landlord for all Pier establishments and has the ability to
3
go as far as terminating a lease if a tenant v~olates pier or ABC
rules and re9ulat~ons regarding alcohol sales or service.
This issue was discussea a final time at the October 9, 1991
Board meeting. At that time, the Board reduced the number of
establishments that would be permitted to maintain an ABC license
from fifteen to twelve. This was done in an effort to be
responsive to community concerns, as well as in recognizing that
this minimum number of outlets on the Pier is necessary to the
success of the pier development.
On December 11, 1991, the PRC Board determined to drop from the
Pier development program the then currently planned Central Plaza
because of significant impacts determined by the Pier
Env~ronmental Impact Report. The Central Plaza included six of
the twel ve licensed establishments proposed in the full
development program, three replacing existing fast food tlbeer and
wine only" licenses and three new licenses. Future plans for the
area of the pier to have been occupied by the central Plaza will
undoubtedly be more modest and mayor may not include
consideration by the PRe Board to include requesting relocation
of existing licenses or any new licenses in this area of the
Pier.
4
RECOMMENDATION
Pier Restorat~on Corporat~on respectfully recommends that the
City council adopt the Alcoholic Beverage Service Policy
statement for the Santa Monica Pier.
Attachments A: Alcoholic Beverage Service Policy statement for
the Santa Monica Pier
B: pier Lessee Letter
(11pC:1 921PR.C)
5
ATTACHMENT A
A~TACI-!~~?'-J':' "A t.
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE SERVICE POLICY FOR THE SANTA MONICA PIER
The followmg alcohohc beverage service pohcy for the PIer includes rules and regulauons for
Pier tenants and a detemllnauon of the number and type of alcohohc beverage hcenses to be
penmtted on the Pier:
1. No .off-sale" license shall be permitted.
2. Future tenant lease agreements shall allow no alcohohc service of any land for
food or other operations Wlth only counter pick-up service or common area seating for food
and beverage consumptlon. (Current lease agreements that allow counter beer and wme
service will be phased out as tenants are either incorporated into future facilities or are
discontinued.)
3. Outdoor dmmg patios that include alcoholIc beverage sel"Vlce shall only be
allowed at full seIVlce restaurant locations. Alcoholic beverage service at these outdoor pauos
shall only be allowed during hours of operation when food semce is provided.
4. Panos must be adequately secured to prohibit contact with non-patronst and
door security must be provided at all times during hours when alcoholic beverages arc being
served.
Specifically the design of outdoor patio enclosures shall be no less than five foot in height and
constructed In,.i manner that does not allow access other than by controlled doorways.
No standmgt counter or stool seating shall be allowed. Table service only.
5. Establishments must post and stnclly enforce capacity limits in all areas serving
alcoholic beverages.
6. Estabhshments must prOVide suffiCient personnel to check the age I.D. of every
person, and staff must be schooled in a designated dnver program.
7. Establishments must conduct fannal staff traIning sessions in the proper sales
and service of alcoholic beverages at least once every six months.
8. Establishments must abide by all the rules and regulations of the State Alcoholic
Beve~ges Control Board including but not limited to hours of operation.
9. In establishments where beer and wine are sold, non-alcoholic beer and wine
selections must be available and must be hsted on menus and! or menu boards, or othetWlSC
displayed, In a similar manner to the alcoholic beverage selections.
10. Food and non-alcoholic beverages must be applied towards any mmimum
purchase requll'emeI!t.
- 1 -
CURRENT & PROPOSED PIER FACn.lTIES TO INCLUDE THE SERVICE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES
350 300
,,'S 8't 415
530 IDZS' -I,m 715
~ 1J.7+
~
The development of additional commercial area on the Pier has not at this time been determined. as to
whether or not addItional alcoholic beverage service licenses will be requested. This potential has been
greatly minInuzed by proceeding with the Pier Development Projcct as described in the current EIR
alternative wIthout the proposed Central Plaza.
EXISTING FACIl-JTIES
Sauare Foo~ge
-Full ServICe"
Total Insid~ Outside
Boathouse Restaurant 5,790 4,224 1,566
Crown and Anchor 3,925 3,238 960
Santa Monica Pier Cafe (June 1992) 6.788 3.415 3.373
Totals: 1.6,503 10,877 5,899
Beer 4l Wme Only:
SeaVlew Seafood
* Amencan Grill
*Jacks
*Surf View
3,300 2,510 790
1,813 inside only
1,000 outside only
2.192 1.278 914
Totals: 8,305 5,601 2,704
F ACn..1TIES IN NEGOTIATION
Full Service:
Ashgrove
Sinbad's
6,350 5,820
10.502
Totals: 16,852 5,820
530
.
FuruRE F ACll..ITIES
Seann!:!:
Total Inside Outside
332 226 106
144 96 48
318 92 226
794 414 380
115 77 38
36 inside only
58 outside only
8Q ~2 48
289 145 144
50
260
310
~?t
*These facilities will be removed when the Pier amusement area and the 5mbad I s projects begin construction.
If temporary locations are then provided, square footage and seating capacities IS shown here will be revised.
(plOnlc2JPRC)
"=
- 2 -
ATTACI-IMENT B
.'
November 1, 1991
Santa Mon~ca C~ty Council
Santa Monica Pla~~~q Commission
City RaIl
Santa Mon~ca, ~ 90401
Dear Cour-c~l anc C~ss~on Members:
We understand that ~~e C~ey Council and Planninq Commiss~on
are currently engaged in the develooment of a comDrehensive
City-w~de l~quor pol~cy and, w~thin~that overall framework,
a s?ecif~c l~quor pol~cy for the Santa Monica P~er.
Since everY bus~ness on the P1er w~ll be materially a=fec~ec
by such poi~c~es, we want to assist you by any means possible
~n the effort. Hav~ng been on the Pier for ~ny years and
lookinq forward to many more years on the Pier, we a.ce
naturally especially concerned with the P~er policy, and,
we believe, possessed of part~cular knowledge and experience
wh~ch can be useful in your deliberations. That ~s to say,
we know the P1er and its visitors intimately and want only
the best for both.
We Understand tha.t any Pier l~quor policy must be compatible
and consistent with the broader City pol~cy, but, at the
same tU1e, it mus't reflect the unique character of the Pier
anc respond to the unique needs of its patrons. We are also
very sensitive to bo't:h the health and public safety issues
and would not favor any measures which would, even inadvertantly,
threa ten ei ther . - At the same tUl1e, we are realists. .Many
people enjoy beer, wine and/or liquor with their food --
whether a b~mhurqer or a full-course meal, and expect it
to be available -- especially in recreational/entertainment
fac~lities. Most such people dr~nk in moderation and cause
no trouble for themselves or others. We trust tha:l: neither
the City nor the Pier liquor pol~cy will work to deprive
the moderate majority 1n order to control the immoderate
minority.
We believe that the Pier Restoration Corporation's liquor
service pol~cy addresses the various issues intelligently.
We aqree that there should be no Roff-saleR licenses issued
on the Pier and no alcoholic beverages served in or consumed
in commons areas. Alcoholic beverage serv1ce should be
combined with food serv~ce. Outdoor patios should be seeured.
Capacity limits should be st=~ctly observed and, of course,
ID checks should be mandatory. Designated driver, sales
and se:vice training for staffs in restaurants ~d cafes wh~ch
SANTA MONICA PIER LESSEES ASSOCIATION
201 Santo MoniC: Pier, Sante McnlC:c, CA 90401 (21 J) 395.,t 141
page two
"
sell alcohol~c beverages 1S ce:ta~nly reasonable. We ~~ow
c= no res~au=an~ anywhere which c~==ently 1ns~S~s t=a~
~n~um pu=chases cons1st wholly of alcoho11c beverages
anc would not aoorove anv such deman~ en t~e P~e=_
- - ~
We would also cooperate ~~ any effort to reduce 0= el~~~a~e
problems of alcohol abuse on ~~e P1er anc ~~ouqhou~ ~e
C1ty. We would hope for a concu:rent effort 1n the rest of
the City because, a.t the moment, we have more t=ouble w~t~
patrons who bring alcoholic beverages ~hey've pur=hase~
elsewhere onto t~e P1er and/or people who a=r1ve o~ ~he
P1e= 1n va=~ous stages of intox~cat1on than we do W~~~
pat=ons of restau=ants anc cafes wh~=h serve beer, w~~e ar.d/c=
l~quor on the P1er. As te~ants of the C1ty, members of 'the
P1er comcun1ty and hosts and hostesses, as it were, to
everyone who comes to the P1er, Pier restaurant anc cafe
operators understand that their pr~ary responsibility is
to see that evervone who comes to the P1er has a good t~e
anc that no one ibuses his own health or the heal~~ and
safety of others. We are not merely concer~ee w1th t~e ~age
of the P1er cut w~~~ the rea~~ty_ If it is not a happy,
healthy place, we will all ult~ately fail.
The P~er is the Cityrs lead1ng landmark, pr~ry attraction
and, as been said by some of you, ~the soul of Santa Monica.~
It is also the reqionrs last pleasure pier and one of ~~e
few sites wnere people of modest means can enJoy ~~e~selves.
It has been here longer than most, if not all of us, and,
chances are it will still be here when all of us are qone.
Almo.?t ev~ryone has a special memory of the Pier and almost
everyone' in the Cl. ty has a special stake i:l it. When the
City Council voted to demol~sh it in 1973, the people of
Santa Monica moved ;1m!'ll!dl.iltely to prese:ve it for all time,
and when storms destroyed much of it in 1983, the people of
Sa~ta Mon~ca restated their commitment to preserve it and
to restore it. It is, in all ways, unique, and any Pier policy,
includ1nq a liquor policy, must recognize its ~niqueness,
takl.nq pa.ins not to d'm~nish or alter it in anyway.
As important, the Pl.er should not be punished or made the
scapegoat for problems in other parts of the City. We have
read much L'l the media recently about the nnl'!'lner of liquor
outlets in the City as a whole, and in the Bayside Oist=ic~
in par~icular. According to the media, 216 liquor per.ci~s have
been q~anted in the C1ty in the last six years. A recent
survev showed that there are 66 li~or outlets wl.thin ~~e
Bayside District, or 8,599 seats, some not even ope~ for
business yet. According to th~s same su--vey, there are 585
seats in five out~ets in Santa Monica Place alone.
The Pier story, like the P1er itself, is quite different.
Before the storms of 1983, the=e were ten.restaurant~ and
cares on the P~er. Some were lost in the sto~. Some, such as
Moby's Ooc~ closed after the storms. Today, there are two
full se~ice res~aurants, se~Jing bee=, w~ne and l1quor, fc~=
cafes serv~ng beer and w~~e, and one ca=e wh~ch se:ves no
page ~~~ee
alcohol~c beve=ages a: a:l, 0= a ~o~al 0= s~x places se~r~~~
alcohol. One addL~~onal =~~l se~r~ce res~au=a~~, ~~e Sa=~a
Mon~ca P~e= Cafe, will open soor.. ~JO ade~~~onal fu:: se~~~ce
res~au=a~~s -- :~e Ash Grove anc S~~~ads -- are ~~ lease
nego~~a~~ons W~~~ ~~e C~~y.
In other words, the nnmner of ex~sti~g l~quor outle~s on
the Pier has rema~ned =ore 0: less s~a:~c -- eve~ .as other
a.reas of the City have seen a quantum lea? ~n nnmhore= of
outlets. As sig~~f~cant, sa.ic ou~lets on ~~e P~e= have not
materially ~c=ea.sed, bu~ the ~~e= 0= P~e= V~S~~o=s has
escalate~ d:amat~cally ~n the last couple 0= yea=s. In
1989, an est~tec 1.9 m~llion people came to the P~e=.
Last year, that nuche= rose to ~ e~t~~ated 2.5 ~ll~on.
In the f~=st ten Mon~~s of ~~~s year, we've had an est~a~ee
2,885,000 Vl.sJ.tors -- 1.nspite of an U-"1usually cool s'l.1tmr1er
and the recession.
In order to se~le its additional v1.sitors, the Pier must be
permittee to add ~~ese aed1.t~onal facil~~~es, as t~ey comple~2
the~~ lease negot~ations, and to ma~~ta~n exist~ng facili~i2s.
We are Dot suqgest~~q a radical inc=ease L~ l~quo= outlets,
much less a relaxation of cu=rent poli~J, but ra:he: that
~~e restorat~on, as desc=ibed countless t~es, be permitted
to proceed without undue en~~mnerances, ~ut with pe:haps
one si~i=icant alterat~on. The oriqinal redevelopment plan
included a Cent:al Plaza w~th two large full-ser~ice res-
tau=ants a:~ four large bee: & winp. cazes an~ restau:ants.
The EnviFonmental Impact Report suqqests ~~at the Plaza
1.5 too large and would generate too much t:a==ic for area
Lnte=sections. Then, too, some residents feel ~t is just
too much. Though we understand alternate EIRs are bei=lg con-
sidered, if the Central Plaza is ultLmately eliminated,
4 current Pier tenants will be left Ln l~mbo. The operators
of Clara. I s, Jack IS, Surfview and the lune=ican Grill were all
to be given an oppo~unity to apply for space Ln the Cent:al
P la%a. Now, we fear, they may be lost in the shuf:le and
t.b.at wou~d be unfortunate for them and the Pier.
All four are small. They have a total of less than 200 seats.
Three of the four sell beer anc wine. All serve such things
as h~mkurqersr cotton candy, smooth~es, home-cade potato
ch~ps -- Pier food, ~ o~~er wor~s -- cafeteria style.
~l four operators are devoted to the P~er and have been here
fo: some ti=e. All serve Pier vis~tors who can't afford
the full-service restau=~~ts or who s~ply want to g=ab a
snack. We would urge that every efior~ be made not to lose
them in 1:he shuffle, but ra ther t..~a. t the need for them and
their fare be reflected i~ any Pier liquor policy -- especially
since the Central Plaza may be moeified or elimi~ated.
These little cafes with thei: P~e= food a~e a vieal part of
~~e whole P~er scene, popular wit~ Pie~ visitors and of a
p~ece wi~~ t~e Pier itself. Just as the P~er needs full-
serv~ce =estaurants, it needs t~ese small, in:o~al bu=qe=
and eot~Qn candy cafes, too..
page fou.='
It ~sn't =easonable or even log~cal fo= people to cla~
~~at ~~e ~~e= 0= alcohol~c beve=aqe outle~s on the P~e=
ac~ual anc ~n ~~e works -- exceecs ftthe needs of the
ne~q~~c=hood." In actual~t7, the pie= ftne~gr~or~oocn
~ncluces v~=~uallv ~~e ent~e Los ~~geles bas~n, and always
has. Cha=les I.D.-Loof= who was awa=ded a ==anch~se by
the C~ty ~n 1916 to build the pleas~=e p~e=, wrote at
the t~e, expla~ning h2S choice of Santa Mon~ca, ftA.~ ~~:se-
=ent pier at ~~2S locat~on would att=act the most profitable
crowd of pleasure seekers,. and went oc to note its access~-
b~lity from all parts of Los Ar.geles. I~ 1983, the Pie=
Task Force, wh~ch was compr~sed 0: res~dents, echoed Loo:='s
sent~ents: "The P~e= literally has some~~~ng for everyone
of all ages, ~ncomes, races, ~deoloq~es: t~e lnat~ve' ~~
ba~~2nq su~t and thongs, the f~ly group from South Cent=al
or Eas~ Los Angeles, the camera laden tour~st, the busL~ess-
su~ted Rand Corporation execut~ve at l~~ch.ft
There are, then, at last count, 2.8 m~ll~on people 2n the
p~e~ "ne~gr~orhood,ft and two full-se:v~ce restaura~~5 and fou=
beer and wine cafes in that contex~ car. hardly bee~ seen
as excessive.
From Looff's time onward, alcohol~c oeveraqes have always
been seen as part of the Pier picture. In :act, the 250
people who attended the pier Taskforce workshops in 1982
concluded that the existing ten restaurants and cafe should
be au~ented by the renovation and t=ans=ormation of Sinbacs
into a cabaret-nightclub, an enlarqement of the Port Cafe,
and an additional three new restaurants, plus pushcarts.
Then the storms came and now ten years later if we retain
wha~ is here now and add only what 25 already in the works,
excludinq the apparently doomed Central Plaza, we will
still remain well below the recommendat~ons or those
CJ.tizens.
It has been cIea: from the beqim~inq that food and d=i.nk
are i=teqral to the Pierrs character and success. It is,
arter all, a pleasure p~er and food and dr~ are as
central as amuseme:ts, rJ.des, games and its spectacula:
se~tinq to Pier visitors' pleasure. In FY 1989-90, the last
year for which we have complete DT1mners, total PJ.e= sales
were $5,133,017. Of that sue $2.6 million derived from
sales of food and drink. The P~er's only purpose is pleasure
and it has always offered its patzons a diverse ~i~ of
pleasures -- pastoral, recreat10nal and soc~al, Wh1Ch ~s
why it attracts such a diver~e m2X of people -- )oqqers,
fisher.=en, strollers, cyclists, child:en, teen-agars,
families and older people, merry-qo-round and btmper car
riders, qame players, beach people, tourists from around
the wo=ld, student photographe=s and film makers and sun-
set afficiar.does, amonq others. And many of those people
enjoy eating and d=inking when they're here. Some enJoy
cotton candy 0: chur:os or a soft drink. Others enJoy fresh
sea:ood. Others enJoy W1~e ~r drinks a~d a full meal.
The P~e= has always of:ered 1ts patrons a full range 0=
food and dr1nk and i= it is to co~t~~ue to se=ve 1ts pat=or.s
paqe f'J..ve
~~ must con~J..nue to offer a full range.
J
.
We recogn~ze tha~ ~~e P~er J..s, f~rs~ and foremost, a
rec=ea~onal facJ..1J..~Y for all aqes anc we see the sales
0: alcohol~c beverages as onlv one elemen~ in the full
=ec=eat~onal spect--um. Ae the-same tJ..me, we bel~eve tha:
a respons~le, res?ons~ve a~c workable pier lJ..quor polJ..cy
must ack.~owledqe the nee~s and w~shes of both P~er pa~ons
and cafe/restaura~t operators. While the maJority of ?~er
pa~rons does not consume alcoholic beveraqes, a substantial
m~nority does, and so alcoholic beverages should be
avaJ..lable to them J..n at~actJ..ve, relaxec and ~ar~ee set~J..nqs
from a s~le cafe patJ..o to a st=ikJ..ng restaurant ~~te=~or.
We have no desJ..re to catch up, as it were to BaysJ..de, but
we do want to maJ..ntaJ..n a reasonable level of well-run liquor
outlets anc a variety of settinqs and price ranges to meet
the tastes and needs of all PJ..er patrons. Any dim'~ution of
outlets or related restr~ctions would d~nish our abilJ..ty
to satisfy our patrons.
Perhaps, in a perfect world, no one would want to drink any-
t..l].J..ng sconge: than water, but our world is anything but
perfect and people do drink beer, wine and l~quor and find
J..t pleasurable and the business of the Pier is pleas~re,
and therefore there will always be Pier patrons who not only
want but expect WUle, beer and l~quor w]. th their food.
The probl~m~ of excessive l~quor outlets in other parts of
the City, as outl.ined in the media and at various meetJ.nqs,
do not exist on the Pier and therefore should not lead to
suddenly restrictive policies on the PJ..e:.
As operators of businesses on the City's most cherished
landmark, we have very special responsibi~ities to the
Pier, the people of Santa Monica and Pier patrons. Bavinq
suffered ~~~ouqh the hard times, the '83 storms and the
restoration process, each of us has or is in the process
of makJ.nq a significant investment in the Pier's future.
The pier isn't just a business to us, it's a way of ~ife.
We love the Pier and bel~eve in it and its maqic:. "!'hat
magic can't be planned or leq~slated, it can only be
recoqni:ed, respected, enJoyed and preserved. We urge you
to do everythinq in your power to preserve it. Wine, beer
and liquor aren' t the basJ.s for the maqic, but they have
certainly been integral to the Pier's long, proud past and
its promisi~g present -- whether you believe in magic or
money.
Sincerely yours,
Q- -~~ ~~~~
- -
Ronald Risch, President