Loading...
SR-11-C (7) c}i': SM' sm Santa Monica, California October 12, 1982 TO: FROM. Mayor and City Council City Staff SUBJECT: Request of Boathouse Hosts Inc to expand the Boathouse Restaurant at 301 Santa Monica Pier. Introduction This report concerns a request by the Boathouse Hosts Inc. to construct a two story 1,472 square foot addition to the west side of the existing Boathouse Restaurant on the Santa Monica Pier. Background This request is the second attempt by the Boathouse Hosts Inc. to expand the City owned restaurant building on the Santa Monica Pier. The earlier expansion request was con- ditionally approved by the City Council in ~farch 1981. As a condition of approval, the Council, at the recommendation of the staff, required an increase in the percentage rent schedule from eight percent (8%) to ten percent (10%) of gross sales during the option terms 1983 to 1998. The Boat- house lease term of 1978 to 1983 includes three five year options In addition to an increase in the percentage rent- al, the Boathouse was required to demolish and remove the existing public wooden stairway and instead construct a concrete walkway These conditions were rejected by the Boathouse Hosts Inc. and the expansion plans were abandoned. II-C .oCT 1 ~ 1Sa2 J/C OCT 1 2 1982 CM: SM: sm page 2 Santa Monica, California October 12, 1982 Mr. DeSimone, owner and Mr. Crozat, manager of the restaurant, have been working with City Staff and various Commissions since June 1982 in an attempt to again obtain approval of the expansion of this City owned building. Messrs. DeSimone and Crozat propose the following 1) Completing the expansion in accordance with all require- ments of City and State agencies at no expense to the City. 2) Continuing with their present lease with no change in terms or conditions No recapture is requested. 3) Withdrawal of conditions imposed by previous Council approval. City and State Approvals Because of the location of the Boathouse Restaurant, it has been necessary to obtain the approval of four local and two state bodies. Landmarks Commission approved the addition with one change by a five to one vote at their August 17. 1982 meeting. The attached plans reflect that change. The Pier Restoration and Development Task Force unanImously agreed that the Boathouse Hosts Inc. plans were consistant with the Pier Guidelines at their August 31, 1982 meeting. CM , SM. sm page 3 Santa Monica, California October 12, 1982 The Planning Commission approved the addition by a four to one vote at their September 19, 1982 meeting. The Architectural Review Board unanimously voted for con- ceptual approval at their September 15, 1982 meeting but asked Mr. Crozat to return after reworking the eave line. This has been done and is scheduled for review at the ARB meeting of October 6, 1982. The State Coastal Commission has issued permit #P-79-5964 (5-8l-457-E) for the addition This permit expires Oct- ober 27, 1982 if work has not begun by that time. The State Department of Parks and Recreation approved both the addition and the sale of alcoholic beverages in the portion of the addition to be built on state beach land Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the proposed addition for the following reasons: 1) The Boathouse Restaurant building is a City owned build- ing. The Boathouse Hosts Inc. proposeSto improve the property at no cost to the City. 2) The expansion will result in an increase of approximately thirty six percent (36%) square footage of floor space and will generate an additional $15,000.00 lease revenue per year to the City. CM SM-sm !>age 4 Santa Monica, California October 12, 1982 3) Messrs. DeSimone and Crozat are responsible lessees with a good local reputation and a large number of regular customers. prepared by: Susan Mullin Pier Manager NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING ON lh~ APPEAL FROM THE DETElli'HNATION OF THE SANTA MONICA CITY LAND}UffiKS COR~ISSION ON AN APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE CITY'S LAllDMARKS ORDINANCE. OFFICIAL NOTICE is hereby given that the Santa Monica City Council will hold a Public Hearing on September 28, 1982 on an appeal from the City Landmarks Commisskon's approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for ~he construction of an extension to the restaurant at 301 Santa Monica Pier, Santa Monica. Appeal is on the basis of the application for the Certificate and the information and testimony presented do not Justify a determination that the criteria in Section 96l1.A of the Municipal Code would be met. TIME and PLACE of the PUBLIC HEARING is as follows: Tn-IE: TUESDAY, OCTOBER 12, 1982 at 7:30 P.M. PLACE: COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, ROOM 213 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California Any interested person may appear in person or by agent and-be heard. Written communication may be addressed to the C~ty Council at the above address. Plans of the propos~d development are available for review ~n the City Clerk's office,_Santa Monica City Hall. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SA.:.'TTA MONICA BY: GINNY PICCOLO, Acting City Clerk Publish Once: Saturday, September 30,1982 Purchase Order NO. 53118 APPROVED AS TO FORII1: ~\,1A.~ Rc;>bert ~L }lyer{J C~ty Attorney . . 1t/;2~aoy 12-B: JACKS ON THE PIER LEASE: Presented was the request of Keun H. Choi to address tho Council regarding renewal of Jacks on the Pier lease. Mr. Chol, representing Jacks on the Pier, requested extension of their lease. Councilmember Rhoden moved to request staff to return to Council with a ten-year lease for Jacks on the Pier similar to other such leases; further, staff to return with recommendations as to other types of percent- age increases that could be considered for lessees besides the CPI{Consumer Price Index) The motion failed for lack of a second. Mayor Pro Tempore Vannatta Goldway moved to direct staff to negotiate with Mr. Choi for a new long-term lease for Jacks on the Pier ~taPting July 1st and return to CouncIl wIth mutually agreeable terms. Second by Councilmember Rhoden. I Councilmember Rhoden moved to hear members of the public for three minutes each. Second I by Mayor Pro Tempore Vannatta Goldway. The motion was approved by unanimous vote. Walter Schwartz spoke in favor of the Pier paying for itself. (Councilmember Scott entered at 12:15 P.M.) I Discussion was held. Councilmember Jennings moved a substitute motion the first meeting in May 1981 a discussion regarding ways to deal with : do not have long-term leases as well as the question of a master lessee Included in the motion was the request of Councilmember Reed that staff Tease conditions. Second by Councilmember Reed. Discussion was held. motion was approved by the following vote: to agendize for Pier lessees who for the Pier. report on ex i stl. The substitute Council Vote: Affirmative: Councilmembers Jennings, Reed, Scott and Mayor Bambrick ___ _ --L Negative: Councilmembers Vannatta Goldway and Rhoden .. MINUTES OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 24, 1981 >'5~ <(', '"G1' ~ . . llECEI\'!D J"'.CKS ON THE PIER OFF!CF U;:;' ,.~.~ 264 Santa Honica Pier C' -.' ''::'1'"'' Santa l...tonka, California 90405 /',"7..., r? ff8 J' ~lWtf~/8!, 1981 --f- D The City Council c/o The City Manager Santa Monica City Mall Santa iAonlca, C.t, 90401 UNr., 'c....i it. :;ALlf fEB 2 4 198t Dear Mayor and City Council: At the time of acquiSitIOn of Jack's On The Pier, we negotiated for remodeling With the City Staff. They stated at that time that they would extend our lease at the time or completion or remodeling. FollOWing our extensive remodeling, for which we spent 5130.000 in good faith, \\'e ,"gain approached the City Staff for l'ene\Val and extension or our lease. At that time, March 5, 1979, we asked for the extension or our I ease -- and -- rece I ved no response to the request. On August 14, 1979, The Beach Comber (gift shop) and Surf V I ew Care, who remodeled at the same time we dId, received their extended leases, \'(e felt then, and still believe, our lease should have been extended at that same time, for we too had met all requirements of the City Staff. 4ddltional written request was made of the City Staff for the City CounCil's cognizance 0'1 October 9, 1979, In which we requested extension - and, again - no reply was forthcom I n9. On June 2. 1980, we again appealed to you In writing for an extensior> of the lease. In June, 1980 we attended a City CounCil t.Aeetlng. At that time, we were Informed that the ne\v Property Manager, Mr. David Shlery, would talk With us, ~Ve met with "1\1". Shlery, diSCUSSing the situation. :-;e stated he would recommend giVing us our new lease. Because he was extreMely busy, \"e had to wait LI rlore months. In December 1980, Mr. Shlery told us, "The City Councilmen said, 'No more lease until further notice'." We reel thIS IS most unJusl and unreasonable. since \Vfo acted In good faith. :>,t thiS time, WE haVE Many repairs to rnake (repainting outside of building, refloorlng, and other refurbishment, as well as repair a leaking roof. These things must be done. Hm',ever, until such time as the City Council sees fit to renew our lease for 10 years, uS you did for the 1\'/0 other bUSinesses previously mentIOned, we do not feel we should obligate ourselves for these repairs. Our minimum rent is unreasonably high. \'Je enclose a copy of a letter dated June 2. 1980, as an explanation. We request that you revi ew our minimum rental and adjust rent accordingly. \'Je request your immediate action on thiS matter. Sincerely, 1<,~",17 '- .I /2-8 Frs 2 4 1981 a;f<'S C'.,j ''-,E PIER WI Sant~ 1"'~o'1jca Pier Santa Monica, Cai:'ornia 90405 . JtJne 2, 1980 The City Co~nciJ -/0 Th~ City ManagL-r Santa M~nicc City Mall Sa:-tta Monica, Califol"nia 90401 Dear Mayor and City Council: In anticipation of the possibill.y or our minimum rental again being i.,c.~eased, based on the C.P.I., we ',vlsh to Plake the foll?wir.g comment~. If the minimum rental were to be raised at the predicted inc:"eased C. P.I . it would constitute approxfmatl"ly a 40% increase in our minimu;">1 ~er;:at i'l th~ pa!>! 2 years. We feel th,s is unreasonuble and inflationary. Th;s situation of our unreasonably high minimum rentan has been caused by a number of circumstances and we wish to concern ourselves with the main ones in this letter. First, we wish to state that we have increased our volume in spite of Ihe c;ly substantially decreasing ;>d.!es!ria..., traffic no.\I from our- locatIon by the ktroductio'1 of gates, signs and walkways designed to keep people from wl'Iktn9 in the p'3r'dng lot driveway. In Ihls manner pedeSci'ldrl tr3ffic has been diverted away from o'.r focation. Sec('ndly, and by far the most irvnportant factor aHE"cting our minimum rental, is the possible increase in our minimum rental being based upon the C. P.I. This theory a<;;sumes that if the C.P.t. 1'1creases, our prices will also increase, thus our total sales volume should corresporchgly increase. This in fact does not occur. We have of cou.se, raisec prices in thE" ~st t\'\'o years only to find more people \',ill then Purc.''.Ise lower priced iLeITIS. I"or- example, we are now selling a larger percentage of 90ft hOot dogs than $4.00 seafGod plates. The public awarenes:, or the present costs of food limits our ability ~D raise prices. The C,p.l. h'.ls Deen crit'clzed fror.: ",any sources as an 'ndex of consumer cost of living. Ir'e main reason for the '"119(1 i"c.r"':;:~e!' '" C,p.l. has beel" tf1e hiS!' cost of housi1ig, iin..rcing 3r>d fuel. ActJally in tile last few months the C.~ .1. on .an c.nr:C1a! baSIS has increasE"d by il~pr:>"""1ately 18%. However, food items (upon which our prices are primarily ba!'>ec) have actually decreased 6% and the public is iJ...are of this decline. As a result of the problems stated a,=,ove, we are requesting an adjuslment of our minimum rental. We siilcere!y ~el ieve that ri:,ther than using the C.P.I . as the basis of adjusting our minimum re..tal, that a more equitable method would be to base the annual minimum rental on 90S, of :'1e average of the previous 2 year!; sales volume. In no Woy d? we antIcipate rne c;ty losing any revef1ue by thiS cdjustment. Our 50le purpose is to keep our ref\tal within the percentages agreed upon in our lease. J"herefore. we respectfully recuest perMission to address Ihe Council on this rratter at your eaortiest pOSSIble con'Jen'ence. Sincerely yours, Keun H. Choi and J. Jack Rosenfeld . P.S.: Please reference our letters to you dated: Od. 9, 1979 and Mar. 5, 1979. . . ClT'( OF SANTA MONICA C ALIFO l~?\IA - Cay Cierk 1685 Mam Street. Santd !\Iomed, Ca 90c!Ol Telephone (213) 393-9975 February ]8, 198] George ~. Kalmanson M.D. 220 23rd Street Santa Monlca, CA 90402 Dear Dr. halmanson: Your request to address the CIty CounCI] has bepn pldceJ on the agenJ,1 [or the neeting to be he lJ on Feul ual Y 24, J ~81. Please plan to attend the above meeting lf YOU wlsh to partlclpate ln the dIScussIon. Sincerely, {l'--vc /1uilltlk L- Ann H. Shale Cltv Clelk Attachment: -Clty Council Agend~ , . . ;f't/Z-aoy Il-E: GLADSTONE'S 4-FISH ON SANTA MONICA PIER: Presented was a request for dis- cussion on the request of Robert Mor~is for an extension of his Coastal Permit relating to his lease on the Pier. The staff report was presented. Robert Morris spoke on his own behalf to request extension. Discussion was held. Councilmember Rhoden moved to direct staff to communicate to the California Regional Coastal Commission that it is not our intention to extend this lease once it expires, that the lessee has communicated to us hIS int~ntion not to perform th~ lease on at least one occasion, and that we would look favorably on a denial of his coastal extension; and that information also be com- municated to the lessee in a written letter. The motion failed For lack of a second. Mayor Pro Tempore Vannatta Goldway discussed formulation of a motion to direct the Mayor to communicate to the Coastal Commission that Mr. Mords has indicated that Gladstone's I 4-Fish is not opening there, that the permit as it now stands is not necessarily the !. same as they approved prevIously, and further that the City Council is concerned this ! this extension does not Just facilitate a paper transaction that allows a sale of the ! lease; that we would 1 ike to see in art exrertsion some assurance of performance by the : I party. Councilmember Rhoden requested that the motion not include the phrase about facilr 'I itating paper transfers since we cannot reasonably withhold that permission. During diS-1 cu~sion of a motion, Mayor Bambrick suggested the letter state what we understand the facts to be; that is, the lessee has indicated on one Qccasion that he did not intend to 1 ,perform. Further diSCUSSion was held, including participation by Mr. Morris who requestea 'extension to September T, 1981. : Councilmember Scott moved that the matter be continued. The motion failed for lack of a second. Councilmember Rhoden moved that a letter be written as suggested by Mayor Bambrick, stating what Mr. Morris wi II agree to, which is that the lessee agrees to a specific per-i formance clause of Sept.ember- 1, 1981, at which time the -lease and the Coastal Commission : permit will terminate if there has rtot been performance which includes the renovations land the restaurant being built. Second by Mayor Pro Tempore Vannatta Goldway. The I motion was approved by the following vote: I I J Counci I Vote. Unanimously approved 4-0 Absent: Councflmembers Jennings and Reed MINUTES OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING January 27, 1981 11.-- /',) C' .-^ ~ . /" r:." \)1t J.. J Q ~ - ItAU or CAlIrO.H'" . . //~ EDMUND e "~~I~ ~''M'81 px ~-'- -. '" / CALIfORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SOUTH COAST REGIONAL COMMISSION ... E OCE"N IOIILr.."Ie> SU'f! "~7 .0 IOl IdO lONG Ir"CH CAIIIOIN'" _01 1213- J90 SOT' 171.1'" 06" January 19, 1981 t .. . NOTICE or PUBLIC HEARI~G ! Pursuant ~v c~der of ~he California Coastal Cor.rnission.:notic~ of public hearing is hereby given. .:: Said public hearing is scheduled on the February 2, 1981 *** as subr.itted by Agenda for application for permit. number Robert Morris/Gladstone's 4 F~sh PE-80-3835 The subiectlreQuest is to per~it Extension of permit granted on 7-13-79 for remova or two deteribrated ::;LLucLuLe::; cqJI:-'LUX. 40 .teaL::; ulu. ctnd construction of an 8100 sq ft restaurant facility The section of the pier on wh~ch the project would be developed is in very poor condition _~nd is physically separated from the main portion of the pier. As part of the project, the applicant will renovate this portion of the pier Recommendation ~s for a one year extension of this permit. at 444 Santa Monica Pier Santa Mon~ca, Ca Said agenda public hearings ~ill commence at 9 00 a m. on February 2, 1981 at Torrance City Council Chambers 3031 Torrance Elvd , Torrance, Ca. During which time all persons either favoring or opposing the application will be heard. Testimony should be related to issues addressed by the California Coastal Act of 1976. Any ~~itten corres- pondence regarding the application should be directed to this office prior to the hearing date. t AlI" interested individuals who wish additional information may Con- tact this office. ~S\;y M. J. rpe er Execut ve Director *** FOR APPLICANT ONLy..... 90PY OF THIS NOTICE IS TO BE POSTED ON SUBJECT PROPERTY 3678 liE' JAN 2 7 198i , .. . . 5T A IE OF CALI FORNIA EDMUND G BROWN JR I Governor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SOUTH COAST REGIONAL COMMISSION 1166 E OCEAN IlOULEVARD, SUITE 3107 POBOX 1450 LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90801 (213) 590-5071 (714) 8-46 0648 @ NOTICE AGENDA HEARINGS: Although the attached agenda hearing items are sched- uled for today, the Commission cannot ensure that it will be able to complete all the hearing items today. As noted, the hearings are sched- uled to commence at 9:00 a.m. No time certain can be ascertained for anyone item nor will the Commission normally deviate from the order of the agenda. PRESENTATION TIME: For consent calendar items applicants and opponents will be given five minutes to present their case. For individual hear- ings--those in favor of the project including applicants will have a collective time of ten minutes to support the application, likewise, opponents, collectively, will have ten minutes to oppose the application. The applicant will have five minutes to rebutt those in opposition to the application. Testimony should be related to the regional and state- wide issues addressed by the California Coastal Act of 1976. COMMISSION CONTINUATION HEARINGS: Applications not heard on this date, due to the inability to complete the agenda, will be rescheduled. Each applicant will be notified as to the day, time, and place of hearing for applications on today's agenda that are not heard. CONTINUATION OF AGENDA IT~1S: Applicants may request a continuation of their scheduled hearing as follows: A. Request (in writing) to Commission office by the close of working hours on Wednesday prior to the scheduled hearing date. B. Request on the day of the hearing and prior to the commencement of the hearing, to the Commission for continuation C Upon completion of the public hearing and prior to Commission voting the applicant may request continuation for voting only. APPEALS AND PERMIT ISSUANCE: All permits approved or denied may be appealed by the applicant or aggrieved parties to the State Commission. Appeals must be received in the State Commission office within ten work- ing days after the Regional Commission action. Therefore, no approved permits will be issued by the Regional Commission until the ten-working- day period has expired. (Note: An aggrieved party is anyone who files a written objection with the Commission prior to the hearing or who appears before the Commission to oppose the application.) Parties desiring to submit appeals may obtain appeal forms at the Regional Commission office at 666 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 3107, Long Beach. Public records on this agenda are available for inspection at the meeting or in the COMnission office prior to the hearing day. 41778 , " i '. ~ - ~ t-" . CITY of! SANTA MONICA CALIFOR~IA 301 OFFICE OF THE eIT'! "IA\".-\..-;ER 393.9975, ed >Lb~ 16.3." ,\1aln Street. Santa Homoa. Cahlotma 90...01 Certif,ed - Return Receipt Requested January 19, 1981 Mr. Robert Morr,s MOR Food, Inc. 20L6 Broad\'lay Santa Monica, Californi~ 90404 Dear Mr. Morris' In view of your express repud,ation on November 3, 1980, of your obligation to perform the terms of your lease, I am concerned about the basis for your requested Coastal Perm,t extension. In order to clarify this situation, I have placed the subject on the agenda for the City Counc,l meetlng to be held ,n the C,ty Councll Chambers, located at City Hall, 1685 Maln Street, Santa Mon,ca, Cal,fornla 90401, on January 27; 1981 beglnning at 7:30 p.~. I would urge you to be present at t~e January 27th meet,ng in order to d,scuss the matter with the C,ty Council. Should you have any questions or w,sh clarifica~n, please contact me at your earl,est convenIence. Ve~tru.'y rours~ 'r. ~ , / t t" (' , .', ~ .'. ~ , UtJ L" . -,,'H~\ ( V., CHARLES KENT McCL~IN City Manager --- cn1:dvlT' cc: Mayor & City Counc,l C,ty Attorney Dlrector, AdM,nistrat,ve Serv,ces Dlrector, South Coast Reglonal Coastal Commission ..