SR-11-A (49)
..
II-A
LUTM: CPO:
pcjccalp
COUNCIL MEETING: March 31, 1992
rlJ.lK ~ 1 1992
santa Monica, California
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 (PRe) has developed an alcohol policy specifically
for the Pier. The policy was reviewed by the Planning Commission
on March 25, 1992. Attached to this staff report is the pier
Restoration Corporation's ItAlcohol 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 -
I I-A
MAR J 1 199Z
^ !'
......,.,.. . ..
< ~
J. A .-
. 'If.\
t , '#
ANALYSIS
..
AS proposed by the PRe, 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-salell 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 limi ted 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
!1-11
:t · I
- 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:
-Aloohol 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.
Although the proposed PRe policy
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 IItiered" approach was directed by the
council in order to allow PRe 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 with the PRC may need more than one ABC
license (depending on the type of operation at each floutlet").
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 -
r 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
resul t 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.
P1anninq 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 PRe 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. tI The Planning Commission approved the pol icy as
written.
o Policy 2. PRe language: II 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 "(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. PRe language: "0utdoor 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. II 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. If The Planning Commission also requested the PRC and
staff to develop a definition for nfull service restaurant". For
- 6 -
purposes of this policy, staff recommends using the definition of
restaurant found in the Zoning Ordinance which states: "Any
building, room, space, or portion thereof where food is sold tor
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. PRC 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. II 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. Letter from PRe dated 01/22/92
2. Letter from PRe dated Ol/22/92
3. PRe Alcoholic Beverage Service Policy Statment
- 8 -
J
>>
-~
.
~Ivkm~
Pier Restoration Corporation
DATE: January 23, ~992
TO: The Honorable Plann~ng commission
FROM: Pier ~estoration Corporation
SUB3ECT: Recommendation to City council for Adopt~on 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:
:j:NTRODUCTION
This report transmits the Pier Restoration corporation's (PRC)
Alcoholic Beveraqe service Policy for the santa Monica Pier and
recommends that the city council adopt this policy.
....
BACKGROUND
On October 9, L99L, 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's development plans, the PRC
Board beqan examining the issue of alcohol outlets and service in
May, L990.
The development guidelines that resulted from the
public workshops called for a large number of restaurants, cafes
and nightclubs and al though the PRe' s development plan did not
:>-
200 Santa Monica Pier. Santa Momca. Califorma 90401 · (213) 458-8900. Fax (213) 393-1279
l.nc::lude as many outlets, the Board felt ~t was time to examl.ne
the number, the type, the locatl.on and the appropriateness of
each.
Since the PRC was then involved in the beginn~n9s of lease
negotiations with new developers, the timing allowed the results
of Board decisions to be included in the leases.
Ln 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 Oecembe~ 5, L990. It was felt that alcohol in this area
-
was not necessary given the fact that this was a concentrated
location of family amusements, and other areas of the Pier would
provide the bulk of food and beverage services.
At that same
meeting, the Board reviewed recommendations from the Police
Department and included each ot those recommendations in the
policy attached.
At the Auqust 14, 1991 Board meeting, a detailed pier alcohol
pOlicy was approved by the Board.
It contained a list ot 1S
operations that would De permitted to obtain either tull 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 P~er development plan has eXl.sted Sl.nce the workshops l.n
1982-83, long before alcohol outlets became an issue in 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 invested 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 limits on outdoor alcoholic beverage service was being
considered for other areas of the City, the Board added a
spec if ic 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. Existinq 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 I the City is
the Landlord for all Pier establishments and has the ability to
".
;-
3
go as far as terminat1ng a lease if a tenant violates pier or ABC
rules and regulations regarding alcohol sales or service.
This issue was discussed 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 l1cense
from fifteen to twelve.
This was done in an effort to be
responsive to co..unity 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 PRe Board determined to drop from the
, Pier development program the then currently planned Central Plaza
because
of
s.iqnificant
impacts
deterlllined
by
the
Pier
-
Environmental Impact Report.
The Central Plaza included six of
the twel ve licensed establishments proposed
in the full
development proqram, three replacing existing fast food "beer 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 m.ore 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
Pler Restorat~on corporation respectfu1ly 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
(~ 192IPRC)
....
~
s
A~T.Zl.CE~:?'\ ':'
11-.- "
M
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE SERVICE POLICY FOR THE SANTA MONICA PIER
The followmg alcoholIc beverage servIce policy for the PIer includes rules and regulal10ns for
PIer tenants and a determmanon of the number and type of alcohohc beverage hcenses to be
permitted on the PIer:
1. No .off-sale- license shall be pennitted.
2. Future tenant lease agreements shall allow no alcohohc seMce of any land for
food or other opeI3.tIons with only counter pIck-up seIVlce or common area seating for food
and beverage consumpnon. (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 dining patios that include alcoholic beverage seI'Vlce shall only be
allowed at full service restaurant locations. Alcoholic beverage service at these outdoor patios
shall only be allowed during hours of operation when food service is provided.
4. Patios must be adequately secured to prohibit contaCt with non-patrons, and
door secunty must be provided at all times dunng hours when alcoholic beverages are being
served.
Specifically the design of outdoor patio enclosures shall be no less than five foot in height and
constructed lJ1.J manner that does not allow access other than by controlled doorways.
No standing, counter or stool seating shall be allowed. Table service only.
5. Establishments must post and strictly enforce capacity limits in all areas serving
alcoholic beverages.
6. Establishments must provide suffiCIent personnel to check the age I.D. of every
person, and staff must be schooled in a designated driver program.
7. Establishments must conduct formal staff training sessions in the proper sales
and service of alcoholic bevemges at least once every six montbs.
8. Establishments must abide by all the rules and regulations of the Srate Alcoholic
Bevc~es 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 listed on menus and/or menu boards, or otherwise
displayed, in a similar manner to the alcoholic beverage se1ect1ons.
10. Food and non-alcoholic beverages must be applied towards any mintmum
purchase requirement.
-....
- 1 -
'C- 1." ~~
',- --.
~/l4fm4~
;- VPier Restoration Corporation
I
DATE:
January 22t 1992
TO'
Paul Berlant, Planning Director
John Gilchrist, Executive Director ~
Santa Momca Pier Alcoholic Beverage Service Policy
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Regarding the Planning Commission decision as to whether or not to agendize iss:Jcs
for the February 5 meeting regarding Pier Alcoholic Beverage Service number of
outlets etc., it is our understanding that the City Council and the PRe have expressed
concern that delaying cooS1deIation of all aspects of the Pier Policy until City-wide
Pohcy is determined will hamper current lease negotiations, and therefore timely
development of the P1er program.
We are concerfloo specifically with the number of outlets to be established 00 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 policy which are properly generic to all service City-wide can be adopted later
as rules and regulations applied to all tenants, existing and future, at the Pier.
I
I
J
-J
I hope this is useful in helping your deliberations with the Planning Commission.
I
L200 Santa MOnica-PIer · Santa MONca · Cah~m.. 90401 · (213) 458-8900. Fax (213) 393-1279
~. -
",..
~~'a--
Pier Restoration Corporation
Date:
January 22, 1992
Paul Berlant, Planning Director
101m Gilchrist, :Executive DiRC:tor if L-\.
Santa Monica Pier Alcoholic ~ serl Policy
To:
From:
Subject:
At its lanuary 22, 1992 meeting, the Pier Restoration Corporation Board of Directors
provided additional clarification on the Pier Alcohol Beverage Service Policy.
It is the Board I s undCi'~Ulnding that delaying consider.ation of certain aspects of the PIer
Alcohol Policy until City-wide Policy is determined is indeed hampering current lease
negotiations. Negotiations have halted on one major project until these issues are
resolved, and another lease nearing completion may be placed at risk as well. ~thout
timely resolution, the time line of Pier development will be set back.
-!
-..
- 200 Santa Monica Pier · Santa Mornca. California 90401 · (213) 45s..a900. Fax (213) 393-1279
page :fou:
I~ ~s~'~ :easonable 0: eve~ loq~cal fo~ people to c:a~
~~a~ ~~e ~~e= 0= alcohol~c beve:aqe ou~le~s on the p~e=
aC~1Jal a..'"'le L"'l t.;.e works - exceeds .. the neec.s 0 f the
ne~gr~c=hoce.N I~ ac~ual~~71 the P~e= "ne~gr~orhooGn
~~cludes v~=tually ~~e ent~e Los Angeles bas~n, anc. always
has. Cha=les I.D. Loof= who was awa=de~ a ==a~ch~se by
the C~ty J.:l 1916 1:0 build the pleasu:e p~e=, W:ote at
the t:.~e, expla.1.ninc; hi.s choice of Sant.a Monica, "A."1 alOIUse-
ment pier at this locat~on would att=a.ct. the most profitable
crowd of pleasure seeke:s,. and went on to nete ~ts aceess~-
bilit? fram all pa~s of Los Ar.geles. I: 1983, the P~e:
Task Ferce, wh~c~ was compr~sed 0: res~dents, echoec. Loof='s
sent~ents: "The P.1.e: literally has some~~~~; for eve:yone
of all ages, ~ncomes, races, ideologies: tbe lnat~ver ~~
ba~q su.1.~ and thongs, the family q=oup from South Cent=al
or East Los Anqeles, the camera laden tour~st, the busi~ess-
suited Rand Corporation eXecut~ve at lunch.ft
The:e a:e, then, at last count, 2.8 ~ll~on people in ~~e
p~e: "ne~qhborhooe,ft and two full-se=v~ce restaurar.ts anc. fo~=
bee: and w:.ne cafes in that context car. hardly bee:. seen
as excessive.
-.
From Looff's time onward, alcoholic beve:ages have always
been seen as pa.-t of the Pier picture. In fact, the 250
people who attended the Pier Taskforce workshops in 1982
concluded that the existinq ten restau:ants and cafe shoulc
be au~ented by t.~e renovation and t=ansfor=ation of Sinbacs
into a ca.ba.re.t-ni.ght:lub, an enlargement of the Port. Cafe,
and an additional three new restaurants, plus pushcarts.
Then the sto:cns came and now ten years la.ter if we retain
what is he:e now anc. add only what is already in the works,
excluding the apparently doomed Central Plaza, we will
still r~~~~ well below the recommendations of those
ci.Uzens.
~
It has been clear from the beqi"~inq that feod and d:~
are i:teqral to the Pier's character and success. It is,
a.fte: al.l, a pleasure pier and food and ciri.nk are as
central as amus~e~ts, rides, games and its spectacula:
settinq ~o Pier visitors' pleasure. In FY 1989-90, the last
year for w~ch we have complete n~m~~rs, total Pier sales
were $5,133,017. Of that sum $2.6 million derived from
sales of food and dr~. The Pier's only purpose is pleasure
and it has always offered its pa~ons a d~verse mL~ of
pleasures -- pastoral, recreational and social, whi.ch is
why it attracts such a diverse mix of people -- joqgers,
f~5her.=en, strollers, cycl~sts, child:en, teen-agars,
families and older people, merry-go-round and bm:per car
riders, qame players, beach people, tourists fram around
the wo=ld, student phot:.oqraphe=s and film ~akers and sun-
se~ ~fficiandoes, amQn~ others. And many of ~~ose people
enjoy eatinq and d=i~kinq when they're here. Some enJoy
cotton candy or chu==os or a soft drink. Others enjoy fresh
sea~ood~ Others enJoy wi~e or d=~nks a~e a full meal.
The P~e= has always of=ered-its pat:ons a full range of
food and d=~nk and i: i~ is to cont~~ue to se:ve ~ts pat:ons
page five
it mus~ con~~ue to offer a :ul~ range.
.
,
We recogn~%e tha~ ~~e P~e= ~s, f~=s~ anc foremost, a
rec=ea~onal fa~~l~~y fo: a~l ages ar.c we see the sales
0: aleohol~c beverages as only one element L~ the full
=ec=ea~~onal s~ec~=um. At the same t~e, we Del~eve tbat
a respons~le,-res?ons~ve a=~ workable P~er liquo: pol~cy
must acknowledge the needs and wishes of both. Ploer pa;ons
and cafe/restaura~t operators. While the maJority of ?ier
patrons does not consume alcoholic beverages, a substantial
m~nority does, and so alcoholic beverages should ce
avai~able to them in att=act~ve, relaxec and var~ec sett~ngs
f=o~ a sLmple ca=e patio to a strikin~ restaurant interior.
We have no deSlore to catch up, as lot were to Bayside, but
we do want to ma~tain a reasonable level of well-run ~iquor
outlets and a varl.ety of sett.1.nqs and prJ.ce ra.nqes to meet
the tastes and needs of all Pier patrons. Any ~;m;"ut~on of
outlets or related restrictions would diminish our ability
to satJ.sfy our patrons.
Perhaps, in a perfect world, no one would want ~o drink any-
th~~g st=onqer than water, but our world is any~hing but
perfect and people do dr:in1c beer, wine and l~quor and find
it pleasurable and the business of the Pier is plear~e,
and therefore there will always be pier patrons who not only
want bu.t expect W1.:le, beer a.nd liquor with their food.
-..
The probl..m~ of excessive liquor outlets in other parts of
the City, &s outlined in the medi.a and a:t: various meetings,
do not exist on the Pier and therefore should not lead to
suddenly restrictive policies ou the Pier.
As operators of businesses on the City's most cherished
landmark, we have very special responsibilities to the :
Pier, the people of Santa Monica and Pier pa~ns. &avinq
suffered ~h~ouqh the hard t~es, the '83 sto~ &Dd the
restoration process, each of us has or is in the process
of m~~~"g a significant ~vestment in the Pier's fu~ure.
The pier isn't just a business to us, it's a way of ~ife.
We love the Pier and believe in it and its magic. That
magic can't be planned or legislated, it can only be
recoqnized, respected, enjoyed and preserved. We urqe you
to do everything in your power to preserve it. Wine, beer
and liquor aren' t the bas~s for the maqi.c, but they have
certain~y been ~tegral to the Pierts lonq, proud past and
its pr~sin9 present -- whether you believe in maqic or
money.
Sincerely yours,
_~ -~~ Z~.~
Ronald Risch, President
~
page two
.'
5e~1 alcohol~c beverages ~s ce~a~nly reasonable. We L~OW
0= no res~au:an~ anywhe:e vhich cu==ently ~ns~s~s ~~a~
~n~um p~=hases cons~st wholly 0= alcohol~c beve=ages
and would not app=ove any such dema-~e on ~~e P~e=_
-.
We would also COODe:ate ~ any e==c=~ :0 =ecuce 0= el~~na~2
problems of alCOhol abuse on ~~e P~e= anc ~~o~ghcu~ the
C~ty. We would hope for a coneu=rent effort ~n the rest of
the C1.ty because, at the DtOt:1ent, we have more cauble wJ.t~
pat:ons who br~nq a~coholic beverages ~~eylve purchasec
elsewhere onto ~~e P~er and/or people who a==~ve o~ the
P~e= ~n va=1.CUS s~qes of intox~cat~on than ~e do W~~
pat:="ons of resta~ants and ca.fes w~ch se=ve beer, W'::.~e. anc./o=
l~quor on the P~er. As tenants of the C~ ty, members of t..'le
P~er camcun~ty and bosts and hostesses, as it were, to
everyone who comes to the P~er, Pier restaurant and cafe
operators understand that the1.r pr~ry responsLoility LS
to see that evervone who comes ~o the Pier has a qooc t~e
anc ~~at no one ibuses his own health or the heal~~ anc
safetv of others. We are not merelv conce~ec w~th t~e ~age
0: th~ Pier but with the reality. if it ~s not a happy,
healthy pla.ce, we will all ult~tely fail.
The Pier is the City's leading lan~=k, primary att:action
and, as been said by same of you, Rthe soul of Santa Monica.R
It is also the region's last pleasure pier and one of the
few sites where people 0: modest means can enJoy ~~emselves.
It has been here lonqer than most, if not all of us, and,
chances are it will sti~l be here when all of us are gone.
Almqpt everyone has a special memory of the pier and almost
everyone. in the CJ.ty has a specia.l stake i:1 it. When the
City Council voted to demol~sh it in 1973, the people of
Santa Monica moved im!ft~c.iately to prese::ve it for all time,
and when storms destroyed much of it in 1983, the people of
Sa..:lta Monica resta.ted thei: co~; ment to preserve it and
to restore it. It is, in all ways, un~que, and any pier poliey,
ucl udJ.ng a. liquor policy, must recognize its uniqueness,
taking pains not to dimin1sh or alter it L~ anyway.
~
As important, the Pier should not be punished or made the
sca.peqoa.t for problems in other parts of the City. We have
read much in the media recently about the nt~~er 0 f liquor
outlets in the City as a whole, and in the Bayside Dist:ic~
in particula.r. According to the media, 216 liquor pe:::dts have
been q:anted in the CLty in the las~ six yea:s. A recent
survev showed tha~ there are 66 ll.c:nlor outlets wJ.thin the
Bayside District, or 8,599 seats, some not even open for
business yet. Accordin; to this same survey, there are 585
seats in five out~ets in Santa Monica Place alone.
The pier story, like the Pier itself, is quite different.
Be:ore the storms of 1983, there were ten.rastaur~~t~ and
cafes on the P ~e: . SO%:le we:e lost L..,. the s tOr:D5. Some f .such a.s
Moby's Doc~ closed after the storms. Toaay, ther~ are two
full se~ice restau:ants, s~~Jing beer, w~~e and ll.~uor, fou=
cafes 5erv~nq bee: and w~~e, and one ca=e which se=ves no
paS'e ~~....ee
a~coholLc beve=ages a~ a~l, or a ~o~a: 0= s~x places se~:~~~
alcohol. One acd~=~onal =~ll se:v~=e res~au=a~~, ~~e Sa~~a
Mon~=a Pier Cafe, w~ll open saoc. ~NO ad~~~~onal :~l: se~~~=e
=es~a~=a~~s -- ~~e Ash Grove anc S~~acs -- are ~~ lease
nego~~a~~ons w~~~ ~~e C~~y.
In other words, the ~~mher of e~is~i~~ l~quor outle~s on
the Pier has rema~~ed core 0= less s~at~c -- eve~ ~s o~e=
a:ea.s of the CJ.~y have seen a. qua.r..~:u:u lea? in ntlm~e= 0:
outlets. As signi=~cant, said outle~s on ~~e P~e= have not
materia.1ly ~c=easee, bu~ the ~~~~er of P~e= V~S~~o=s has
escalatec c:ama~cally ~n the last couple 0= years. In
1989, an es~~m~~ee 1.9 million people came to the P~e=.
Last yea.:, that nn1!'lher rose to an est.=....nated 2.5 mill.l.on.
In the :~=st ten months of this year, we've had an est~atec
2,985,000 v~s~tors inspite of an ~~usually cool summe=
and the recess~on.
,
In order to se~le ~ts additional visitors, the P~e= must be
permitted to add these addit10nal facil~~ies, as ~~ey comple~e
the~r lease neqotiations, and to mai~ta~n exist~nq fac~lit~es.
We are not suggesting a rad1cal increase L~ liquo= outlets,
much less a relaxa~ion of curre:t poli~J, but ratne= that
the res~oration, as described countless times, be permitted
to proceed without undue encumberances, but w~th pe=haps
one significant alterat~on. The or~qL~al redevelopment plar.
included a Cent=al Pla%& w~th two large full-service res-
tau=~ts ~~ four larqe bee: , win~ ca:es an~ restaurants.
The Envi.;:'o:unen:tal Impact Report suqqests ~'la t the Plaza
is teo large and would generate too much t:a=:ic for area
intersections. Then, too, some residents feel it is just
too much. Though we understand a.lterna1e EIRs are bei:lq con-
sidered, ~f the Central Plaza is ult~tely eliminated,
4 current Pier t~n~nts will be left in l~o. The operators
of Clara's, Jack's, Surfv~ew and the Ame=ican Grill were all
to be qiven an opportunity to apply for space in the Central
Plaza. Now, we fear, they may be lost in the shuffle and
that would be unfortunate for them and the Pier.
AJ.l four are small. They have a tota.l of less than 200 seats.
Three of the four sell beer and wine. All serve such thinqs
as h~m~urge=s, cotton candy, smoo~ies, home-cade potato
chips -- Pier food, in other wores -- cafeteria s~yle.
~l four operators are devoted to the P~er and have been here
for some time.. All serve Pier visitors -wh.o can' t afford
the full-service restau=a...~ts or who simply want to g=al:I a
snack. We would urqe that every effort be made not to lose
them in the shuffle, but. rather tha.t the need for t:b.e.m and
their f&:e be reflected i~ any Pier liquor policy -- especially
since ~e Central Plaza mav be modified or eliM;~ated.
These little cafes with the4r P~e: food are a vi~al part of
~~e whole Pier scene, popular wit~ Pier visi~ors and of a
piece with t.~e Pie: itself. Just as the P~er needs full-
service restaurants, it needs ~~ese small, i~=o~l burqe:
and cottQn candy cafes, too.,
CURRENT & PROPOSED PIER FACIT.ITIES TO INCLUDE THE SERVICE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES
350 300
t;'IS "" 415
530 IOU -i~6n 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 beveIage service licenses will be requested. This potential has been
greatly mininuzed by proceeding with the Pier Development Project as descnbed in the current EIR
alternative without the proposed Central plan!.
EXISTING FACILITIES
Square Footae-e
Full Servlce'
Total Inside Outside
Boathouse Restaurant 5,790 4,224 1,566
Crown and Anchor 3,925 3,238 960
Santa Momca Pier Cafe (June 1992) 6.788 3.415 3.373
Totals: 1.6,503 10,877 5,899
Beer & 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
-~
FACILITIES IN NEGOTIATIO~
Full Service:
Ashgrove -...
Sinbad's
6,350 5,820
10.502
Totals: 16,852 5,820
530
FuTuRE F ACILlTlES
Seating
Total Inside Outside
332 226 106
144 96 48
318 92 22Q
794 414 380
115 77 38
36 inslde only
58 outside only
80 32 48
289 145 144
50
~60
310
~3-t
-These facilities will be removed when the Pier amusement area and the Sinbad I s projects begin construction.
If temporary locations are then provided, square footage and scating capacities 8 shown here will be revised.
(p1C...k2IPRC)
~
- 2 -
"
Novembe: 1, 1991
Santa Monica C~ty Council
Santa Monica Planning Comm~ssicn
CJ.ty Ba~1.
Santa Monica, ~ 90401
Dear Council and Co~~ss~cn Members:
We understand that the Ciey Council and PlanniDq CommissJ.on
are currently engaged in the develooment of a comDrehensJ.,ve
Cl.ty-wide l~quor policy and, w1.'tiu.n- that overall f:amewo:k,
a specific liquor pol~ey for the Santa Monl.ca P~e=.
-~
since eve=v business on the P~er will be mate:~ally affec~ec
by such poiicies, we want to assist you by any means possible
1.n the effort. Raving been on the Pier for many years and
looki.nq forward to many more years on the P i.er, we ace
naturally especially concerned with the Pier policy, and,
we believe, possessed of pa.-ticular knowledge and experience
whJ.ch can be useful J..n your delibera.tions. That l.S to say,
we know the Pier and its visitors in't'l ft'lllltely and want only
the best for both.
We iinderstand that any Pl.er l1.quor pelicy JI1Ust be compatible
and consistent with the broader City policy, but, at the
same tJ.me, it must reflect. the unique character of the Pier
and. respond t.o the unique needs of its patrons. We are also
ve~ sensitive to both the health and pub11c safety issues
and would net. favor any meaSlll"es which would., even inadvertantly,
threaten either.' At the same b.me, we are realists. Many
people enj oy beer, WU1e and/or liquor with 'Cheir foed -
whether a h~mhurqer or a full-eourse meal, and expect it
to be available -- espeeially in recreat.ional/entertainment.
.facilities. Most such people drink in moder&tian and cause
n.o trouble for themselves or others. We trust that. neither
the City nor the Pier liquor policy will work to deprive
the moderate majority in order to control the ;mmnderate
mJ.nority.
"'"
We believe that the Pier Restoration Corpora.tionls liquor
service pol1cy addresses the various issues intelligent.ly.
We aqree that there shoul.d be no .off-sale. licenses issued
on the pier and no aleoholic beveraqes served in or consumed
in commons areas. ~coholic beveraqe service should be
combined with food serv~ce. Outdoor patios should be secured.
Capacity l~its should be str1ctly observed and, of course,
ID checks should be mandatory. Designat.ed driver, sales
and service traininq for st.affs in restaurants and cafes wh~ch
~
SANTA. MONICA PIER LESSEES ASSOCIATION
201 Scnta Monica Pier, Santa Mcnrcc, CA. 90..:&01 (21 J) 395..4141