SR-12-B (11)
t/o'Z-- (}{) i
1:2-:g
1AN 2 7 1987
FEB 3 1987
Santa Monica, California
C/ED: RAS
Council Mtg: January 27, 1987
5-/1
FEB 1 0 1981
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City staff
SUBJECT: Recommendation To Deny Development Review Permit 320-B
and Conditional Use Permit 410-B For Modification Of
Approved Development Review And Conditional Use Permits
For A 120-Seat Restaurant with Liquor License.
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the City Council deny Development
Review Permit 320-B and Conditional Use Permit 410-B for
modification of approved Development Review Permit 320 and
Conditional Use Permit 410 for a 120-seat restaurant with liquor
license located at 1721 Broadway.
BACKGROUND
On May 5/ 1986/ the Planning Commission approved Development
Review Permit 320 and Conditional Use Permit 410 for a 120-seat
restaurant and associated retail food market to be located in an
existing building on the northwest corner of Broadway and 18th
Street.
On October 7, 1986, applications for a Development
Review Permit and Conditional Use Permit were filed by the
applicant, Elizabeth Burns, for modifications to the project.
The item was scheduled for a public hearing on January 5, 1987
(See staff report, Attachment A), and that hearing was continued r Ll
to a special meeting on January 12 , 1987 (See staff report,;J" "
t. th d' of FEB 1 0 19~
Attachment B). At the January 12, 1987 mee 1ng, on e a Vlce
the City Attorney regarding a possible conflict of interest by
- 1 -
/2- 8
~ 2 ~ \~,~
f
Elizabeth Burns (Attachment C), the Planning commission voted to
take no action on the application and forward it to the City
Council. Therefore, these applications are being forwarded to
the city council for public hearing and action.
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The subject property is a 30,000 sq. ft. parcel located on the
north side of Broadway between 17th and 18th Streets, having a
frontage of 150 I on Broadway, 200 I on 18th street and 200 I on
17th Court alley. Surrounding uses consist of one and two-story
mUlti-family residential to the north (R2), two-story retirement
housing to the west (C4), an automobile storage lot and one-story
residential to the east (C4 and R2), and a Masonic Hall and
preschool across Broadway to the south (C4).
The project is in the C4 zone district and designated in the Land
Use Element as Broadway Mixed-Use District.
PROPOSED PROJECT
On May 5, 1986, the Planning Commission approved Development
Review Permit 320 and Conditional Use Permit 410 for a 120-seat
restaurant and associated retail food market to be located in an
existing building on the northwest corner of Broadway and 18th
Street (See staff report, Attachment D). The Conditions of
Approval (See Statement of Official Action, Attachment E)
required that the restaurant and market be an integrated use,
that the primary use of the restaurant be for sit-down meal
service to patrons, and that there be no separate bar area or
separate bar seating intended primarily for drinks-only service.
- 2 -
The applicant is requesting to modify the conditions of this
earlier approval to allow the restaurant and market to be
independent uses, to move the market from the side of the
building (where it extended from Broadway to the rear parking
lot) to the rear of the building, and to provide a l3-seat
cocktail bar in the restaurant. Subsequent to the filing of this
application, the applicant's representative has submitted a
letter indicating that the area identified for "cocktails" on the
plans shall be used for dining, juice, coffee and cocktails and
states that it has always been the applicant's intent to serve
food at the bar (Attachment F).
As in the approved plans, approximately 300 sq. ft. of floor area
would be added to the existing building. The total number of
combined restaurant and bar seats would not change from the
number approved.
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
The proposed modification remains consistent with Municipal Code
requirements, as set forth in the May 5, 1986 Staff Report. The
modification, however, is inconsistent with Land Use Element
Policy 1,6.3 limiting commercial development in the Broadway
Mixed-Use District to neighborhood commercial uses. The Land Use
Element Glossary specifies that the only restaurants that qualify
as neighborhood commercial uses are those having 50 seats or
less.
ANALYSIS
The subject 120-seat restaurant and market were approved by the
- 3 -
commission on May 6, 1986, specifically as an "integrated use,"
with the requirement that "the restaurant shall not remain in
operation unless a retail food market is maintained in operation
in the area indicated on the submitted plans." In the approved
plan, primary access to the restaurant was through the market
area (See Attachment G for approved floor plan). The proposed
redesign, however, separates the restaurant and food market
operations completely making them, in staff's opinion, no longer
integrated.
As noted in the original project staff report, restaurants over
50 seats do not constitute a neighborhood use. The project was
unique, however, given the special nature of the combined
restaurant and market operation, particularly because the market
faced the Broadway street frontage and access to the restaurant
was through the market. Based on this, staff supported the view
that the specific design and inter-relationship of the uses
resulted in a neighborhood use, the 50-seat restaurant maximum
notwithstanding. In other neighborhood commercial districts, the
commission has confirmed its support of the 50-seat limitation,
most recently in using this standard as one of its denial
findings on DR 357, the Chinese restaurant at 2901 Ocean Park
Boulevard. As a result, staff cannot now support the proposed
project redesign creating an independent 120-seat restaurant
operation.
Regarding the proposed general liquor license, on May 5, 1986,
the Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit allowing the
sale of alcoholic beverages to restaurant patrons. Specific
- 4 -
conditions were imposed requiring that there "shall be no
separate bar area or separate bar seating intended primarily for
drinks-only service. II No new circumstances have occurred since
the May determination to justify a change in this condition.
Although the applicant states that the intent of the separate bar
area designated on the proposed plan (Attachment H) is intended
for meal service, such a physical arrangement generally is not
consistent with established Planning Commission practice to deny
such uses in neighborhood commercial areas. steps to assure the
limitation of separate bars is especially appropriate in
preserving and protecting the character of the Broadway Mixed-Use
District, where future uses are limited to residential and
neighborhood commercial uses. The operation of a neighborhood-
oriented restaurant does not include the need or provide the
justification for a separate bar area where patrons may typically
consume alcoholic beverages without dining in the establishment.
The number of parking spaces and parking lot access and
circulation have not been changed from the previous plan. Floor
areas by use are substantially the same as before, although the
market's retail area has been reduced from 4,684 sq.ft. to 4,310
sq. ft. and an open front terrace area of approximately 250 sq. ft.
has been provided for landscape purposes along Broadway.
Conclusion
The proposed modifications are inconsistent with the concept
approved by the original Development Review and Conditional Use
Permit, and inconsistent with the Land Use Element policies
- 5 -
governing uses and development in the Broadway Mixed-Use
District.
BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT
The recommendation presented in this report does not have a
budget or fiscal impact.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff respectfully recommends that the City Council deny DR 320-B
and CUP 410-B and adopt the findings contained in the January 5,
1987 Planning Commission staff report.
Prepared by:
R. Ann Siracusa, Director of Planning
Planning Division
Community and Economic Development Department
Attachment:
Attachment A - January 5, 1987 Staff Report
Attachment B - January 12, 1987 Revised Staff
Report
Attachment C - Legal Opinion Re: Possible Conflict
of Interest by Elizabeth Burns
Attachment D - May 5, 1986 Staff Report
Attachment E - Statement of Official Action, May
5, 1986
Attachment F Letter from Applicant's
representative
Attachment G - Floor Plan approved May 5, 1986
Attachment H - Proposed Floor Plan
RAS
Burns
01/15/87
- 6 -
-
-
e
ATTACHMENT A
CITY PLANNING DIVISION
Community and Economic Development Department
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
January 5, 1987
TO:
The Honorable Planning Commission
FROM: R. Ann Siracusa, Director of Planning
SUBJECT: DR 320-B, CUP 410-B, Modification of Approved
Development Review and Conditional Use Permit for
l20-Seat Restaurant with Liquor License.
Address:
Applicant:
1721 Broadway
Elizabeth Burns, DBA Bob Burns Restaurants
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The subject property is a 30,000 sq. ft. parcel located on the
north side of Broadway between 17th and 18th Streets, having a
frontage of 150' on Broadway, 200' on 18th street and 2001 on
17th Court alley. Surrounding uses consist of one and two-story
multi-family residential to the north (R2), two-story retirement
housing to the west (C4), an automobile storage lot and one-story
residential to the east (C4 and R2), and a Masonic Hall and
preschool across Broadway to the south (C4).
Zoning District:
C4 District
Land Use District:
Broadway Mixed-Use District
Parcel Area:
150' X 200'; 30,000 Sq.Ft.
PROPOSED PROJECT
On May 5, 1986, the Planning Commission approved Development
Review Permit 320 and Conditional Use Permit 410 for a 120-seat
restaurant and associated retail food market to be located in an
existing building on the northwest corner of Broadway and 18th
Street. It was required that the restaurant and market be an
integrated use, and that there be no separate bar as part of the
restaurant. This hearing is on a request to modify the
conditions of this earlier approval to allow the restaurant and
market to be independent uses, to move the market from the side
of the building (where it extended from Broadway to the rear
parking lot) to the rear of the building, and to provide a
13 -seat cocktail bar in the restaurant. As in the approved
plans, approximately 300 sq. ft. of floor area would be added to
the existing building. The total number of combined restaurant
and bar seats would not change from the number approved. The May
- 1 -
e
5, 1986, Staff Report
attached for reference.
and statement of Official
(Attachments A and B)
Action are
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
The proposed modification remains consistent with Municipal Code
requirements, as set forth in Attachment A of the May 5, 1986,
Staff Report.
The modification, however, is inconsistent with Land Use Element
Policy 1.6.3 limiting commercial development in the Broadway
Mixed-Use District to neighborhood commercial uses. The Land Use
Element Glossary specifies that the only restaurants that qualify
as neighborhood commercial uses are those having 50 seats or
less. (See Analysis Section for discussion.)
CEQA STATUS
Categorically Exempt, Class 1, Santa Monica Guidelines For
Implementation.
ANALYSIS
e
Background
The subject 120-seat restaurant and market were approved by the
Commission on May 6, 1986, specifically as an II integrated use, II
with the requirement that lithe restaurant shall not remain in
operation unless a retail food market is maintained in operation
in the area indicated on the submitted plans. II In the approved
plan, primary access to the restaurant was through the market
area. (See Attachment C for approved floor plan.)
As noted in the original project staff report, restaurants over
50 seats do not constitute a neighborhood use. The project was
unique, however, given the special nature of the combined
restaurant and market operation. Based on this, staff supported
the view that the specific design and inter-relationship of the
uses resulted in a neighborhood use, the 50-seat restaurant
maximum notwithstanding. In other neighborhood commercial
districts, the commission has confirmed its support of the
50-seat limitation, most recently in using this standard as one
of its denial findings on DR 357, the Chinese restaurant at 2901
Ocean Park Blvd.
As a result, staff cannot now support the proposed project
redesign creating an independent 120-seat restaurant operation.
e
Regarding the proposed general liquor license, on May 5, 1986,
the Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit allowing the
sale of alcoholic beverages to restaurant patrons. Specific
conditions were imposed deleting any separate bar area or bar
seating. No new circumstances have occurred since the May
determination to justify a change in this condition.
- 2 -
e
The inel usion of a separate bar area within the restaurant is
inconsistent with established Planning commission practice to not
approve such uses in neighborhood commercial areas. This is
especially appropriate in preserving and protecting the character
of the Broadway Mixed-Use District, where future uses are limited
to residential and neighborhood commercial uses. The operation
of a neighborhood oriented restaurant does not include the need
or provide the justification for a separate bar area where
patrons may typically consume alcoholic beverages without dining
in the establishment.
The number of parking spaces and parking lot access and
circulation have not been changed from the previous plan. Floor
areas by use are substantially the same as before, although the
market's retail area has been reduced from 4,684 sq. ft. to 4,310
sq. ft. and an open front terrace area of approximately 250 sq. ft.
has been provided for landscape purposes along Broadway.
Conclusion
The proposed modifications are inconsistent with the concept
approved by the original Development Review and Conditional Use
Permit, and inconsistent with the Land Use Element Policies
governing uses and development in the Broadway Mixed-Use
District.
RECOl<n'fENDATION
e It is respectfully recommended that DR 320-B and CUP 410-B be
denied, based on the findings below:
FINDINGS
1. The modifications proposed are inconsistent with the findings
and purpose of Ordinance 1321 as set forth below and as
discussed in this staff report.
2. The proposed modifications are inconsistent with the Land Use
Element of the General Plan in that:
a. Land Use Element Policy 1.6.3 specifies that the new
commercial uses in the Broadway Mixed-Use District shall
be neighborhood commercial uses. The Land Use Element
Glossary specifies that restaurants having more than
50-seats are not neighborhood commercial uses.
b. The proposed separation of the restaurant and market
eliminates the special neighborhood-oriented nature of the
project as previously approved by the Planning commission.
e
c. The relocation of the market to the rear of the building,
wi th no Broad\vay sidewalk frontage further reduces the
pedestrian and neighborhood orientation of the project.
3. The inclusion of a separate bar area within the restaurant is
inconsistent with established Planning commission practice to
- 3 -
e
e
e
4.
not approve such uses in neighborhood commercial areas. This
is especially appropriate in preserving and protecting the
character of the Broadway Mixed-Use District, where future
uses are limited to residential and neighborhood commercial
uses. The operation of a neighborhood oriented restaurant
does not include the need or provide the justification for a
separate bar area where patrons may typically consume
alcoholic beverages without dining in the establishment.
This denial relates to the requested modifications only and
does not invalidate the previous approvals granted under DR
32:0 and CUP 410. This act ion does not preclude reasonabl e
use of the subject property.
Prepared by: Richard Mills, Associate Planner
RM:nh
DR320B
12/23/86
- 4 -
tit
e
e
, .
ATTACHMENT B
REVISED STAFF REPORT
CITY PLANNING DIVISION
Community and Economic Development Department
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 12, 1987
TO: The Honorable Planning Commission
FROM: R. Ann Siracusa, Director of Planning
SUBJECT: DR 320-B, CUP 410-B, Modification of Approved
Development Review and Conditional Use Permit for
120-Seat Restaurant with Liquor License.
Address:
Applicant:
1721 Broadway
Elizabeth Burns, DBA Bob Burns Restaurants
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The subject property is a 30,000 sq. ft. parcel located on the
north side of Broadway between 17th and 18th streets, having a
frontage of 150' on Broadway, 200 I on 18th street and 200' on
17th Court alley. Surrounding uses consist of one and two-story
mUlti-family residential to the north (R2), two-story retirement
housing to the west (C4), an automobile storage lot and one-story
residential to the east (C4 and R2), and a Masonic- Hall and
preschool across Broadway to the south (C4).
zoning District:
Land Use District:
C4 District
Broadway Mixed-Use District
Parcel Area:
150' X 200'; 30,000 sq.Ft.
PROPOSED PROJECT
On May 5, 1986, the Planning Commission approved Development
Review Permit 320 and Conditional Use Permit 410 for a 120-seat
restaurant and associated retail food market to be located in an
existing building on the northwest corner of Broadway and 18th
street. It was required that the restaurant and market be an
integrated use, that the primary use of the restaurant be for
sit-down meal service to patrons, and that there be no separate
bar area or separate bar seating intended primarily for
drinks-only service. This hearing is on a request to modify the
conditions of this earlier approval to allow the restaurant and
market to be independent uses, to move the market from the side
of the building (where it extended from Broadway to the rear
parking lot) to the rear of the building, and to provide a
13-seat cocktail bar in the restaurant. As in the approved
- 1 -
e
plans, approximately 300 sq. ft. of floor area would be added to
the existing building. The total number of combined restaurant
and bar seats would not change from the number approved. The May
5, 1986, staff Report and statement of Official Action are
attached for reference. (Attachments A and B)
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
The proposed modification remains consistent with Municipal Code
requirements, as set forth in Attachment A of the May 5, 1986,
Staff Report.
The modification, however, is inconsistent with Land Use Element
Policy 1.6.3 limiting commercial development in the Broadway
Mixed-Use District to neighborhood commercial uses. The Land Use
Element Glossary specifies that the only restaurants that qualify
as neighborhood commercial uses are those having 50 seats or
less. (See Analysis section for discussion.)
CEQA STATUS
Categorically Exempt, Class 1, Santa Monica Guidelines For
Implementation.
ANALYSIS
e
Background
The subject 120-seat restaurant and market were approved'by the
Commission on May 6, 1986, specifically as an "integrated use,"
with the requirement that lithe restaurant shall not remain in
operation unless a retail food market is'maintained in operation
in the area indicated on the submitted plans." In the approved
plan, primary access to the restaurant was through the market
area. (See Attachment C for approved floor plan.) The proposed
redesign, however, separates the restaurant and food market
operations completely making them, in staff's opinion, no longer
integrated.
As noted in the original project staff report, restaurants over
50 seats do not constitute a neighborhood use. The project was
unique, however, given the special nature of the combined
restaurant and market operation, particularly because the market
faced the Broadway street frontage and the access to the
restaurant was through the market. Based on this, staff
supported the view that the specific design and
inter-relationship of the uses resu1 ted in a neighborhood use,
the 50-seat restaurant maximum notwithstanding. In other
neighborhood commercial districts, the Commission has confirmed
its support of the 50-seat limitation, most recently in using
this standard as one of its denial findings on DR 357, the
Chinese restaurant at 2901 Ocean Park Blvd.
e
As a result, staff cannot now support the proposed project
redesign creating an independent 120-seat restaurant operation.
- 2 -
e
e
e
Regarding the proposed general liquor license, on May 5, 1986,
the Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit allowing the
sale of alcoholic beverages to restaurant patrons. Specific
conditions were imposed requiring that there "shall be no
separate bar area or separate bar seating intended primarily for
drinks-only service. II No new circumstances have occurred since
the May determination to justify a change in this condition.
The plans submitted by the applicant include re'ference to a
separate bar labeled "cocktails" within the restaurant,
substantially in the same location as that approved in the
original plan. This is inconsistent with established Planning
Commission practice to not approve such uses in neighborhood
commercial areas. There is no indication on the plans or in the
application regarding the proposed use of that area in relation
to food service. Steps to assure the limitation of separate bars
is especially appropriate in preserving and protecting the
character of the Broadway Mixed-Use District, where future uses
are limited to residential and neighborhood commercial uses. The
operation of a neighborhood oriented restaurant does not include
the need or provide the justification for a separate bar area
where patrons may typically consume alcoholic beverages without
dining in the establishment.
The number of parking spaces and parking lot access and
circulation have not been changed from the previous plan. Floor
areas by use are substantially the same as before, although the
market's retail area has been reduced from 4,684 sq. ft. t9 4,310
sq.ft. and an open front terrace area of approximately 250 sq. ft.
has been provided for landscape purposes along Broadway.
Conclusion
The proposed modifications are inconsistent with the concept
approved by the original Development Review and Conditional Use
Permit, and inconsistent with the Land Use Element Policies
governing uses and development in the Broadway Mixed-Use
District.
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that DR 320-B and CUP 41Q-B be
denied, based on the findings below:
FINDINGS
1.
The modifications proposed are inconsistent with the findings
and purpose of Ordinance 1321 as set forth below and as
discussed in this staff report.
The proposed modifications are inconsistent with the Land Use
Element of the General Plan in that:
2.
a. Land Use Element Policy 1.6.3 specifies that the new
commercial uses in the Broadway Mixed-Use District shall
be neighborhood commercial uses. The Land Use Element
- 3 -
'1
.
.
.
ATTAcm1ENT C
MEMORANDUM OPINION NUMBER 86-95
DATE:
December 31, 1986
TO:
Peggy Curran, Director of CED
Ann siracusa, Director of Planning and Zoning
FROM:
Robert M. Myers, City Attorney
Laurie Lieberman, Deputy city Attorney
SUBJECT:
Possible Conflict of Interest by Elizabeth Burns
Upon receipt of the Notice of Public Hearing on DR 320-B
and CUP 410-B for the proj ect located at 1721 Broadway, this
office informed you that we would be unable to approve such
notice until issuing an opinion on whether Elizabeth Burns has a
conflict of interest with regard to this matter. The problem
arises because Ms. Burns is both a Planning Commissioner and the
owner/applicant for various permits. state law prohibits a
commissioner from being financially interested in any contract
made by the commissioner or the body of which the person is a
member.
ANALYSIS
A, Conflict of Interest.
State law regulating conflicts of interest is contained in
the Political Reform Act of 1974, Government Code section 8700 et
seq. r and in Government Code Section 1090. Government Code
Section 87100 specifically provides:
No public official at any level
of . . . local government shall make,
participate in making or in any way
attempt to use his official position to
influence a governmental decision in which
he knows or has reason to know he has a
financial interest.
Government Code section 87103 sets forth the four basic
elements establishing this conflict of interest:
(1) The official must have a financial
interest of the type described in section
87103, subdivisions (a)-(d); (2) the
effect of the governmental decision on the
official's financial interest must be
reasonably foreseeable; (3) the
foreseeable effect of the governmental
decision on the official's financial
- 1 -
..
. ;
interest must be material; (4) the
foreseeable effect of the governmental
decision on the official's financial
interest must be distinguishable from its
effect on the public generally. Consumers
Union of united states, Inc. v. California
Milk Advisory Board, 82 Cal. App. 3d 433,
443-44, 147 Cal. Rptr. 265, 271 (1978).
.
The common law has developed a broader prohibition against
conflicts of interest than is provided by statute, The common
law prohibits pUblic officials from acting in their official
capacity in any matter in which they might have a private
interest which might conflict with their public duties. See 58
Ops. Att'y Gen. 345, 355 (1975); Terry v. Bender, 143 Cal. App.
2d 198, 206, 300 P.2d 119, 125 (1956). The objective of conflict
of interest laws is not only to prohibit actual conflicts but
also to avoid the appearance and potential for conflicts of
interest. United States v. Mississippi Valley Generatinq
Company, 364 U.S. 520, 548-49 (1961); stiqall v. City of Taft, 58
Cal. 2d 565, 569-70,375 P.2d 289, 292,25 Cal. Rptr. 441, 4~4
(1962).
City
interested
capacity,
Government
officers are prohibited from being financially
in any contract made by them in their official
even if such participation is merely advisory.
Code Section 1090 states in relevant part:
e
Members of the Legislature, state,
county, district, judicial district, and city
officers or employees shall not be
financially interested in any contract made
by them in their official capacity, or by any
board or board of which they are members.
Nor shall state, county, district, judicial
district, and city officers or employees be
purchasers at any sale or vendors at any
purchase made by them in their official
capacity.
See city Charter section 1302; People v. Sobel, 40 Cal. App. 3d
1046, 1053, 115 Cal. Rptr. 532, 536 (1974).
California courts have applied this provision to contracts
where the public officer was found to have an indirect interest,
Thomson v. Call, 38 Cal, 3d 633, 645, 699 P.2d 316, 322, 214 Cal.
Rptr. 139, 146 (1985), and have included members of city boards
and commissions wi thin the meaning of "officers. 11 ci ty Council
of City of San Dieqo v. McKinley, 80 Cal. App. 3d 204, 145 Cal.
Rptr. .461 (1978). When a violation of the section has been
found, the courts have not hesitated to evoke broad remedies,
treating any contract entered into by the officer as void.
Th om son v. Call, s u Dr a , 38 C a 1 . 3 d at 64 6 , n . 15 , 699 P . 2 d at
322, 214 Cal. Rptr. at 146; Government Code Section 1092.
.
As the California Supreme Court stated:
- 2 -
-= -r... ~VQ- .6"~~ :::... "~l:.='""t:~-
"
.
California courts have consistently held
that the public officer cannot escape
liability for a section 1090 violation
merely by abstaining from voting or
participating in discussions . .. Mere
membership on the board or council
establishes the presumption that the
officer participated in the forbidden
transaction or influenced other members of
the council . .. Similarly, the full
disclosure of an interest by an officer is
also immaterial, as disclosure does not
guarantee an absence of influence. To the
contrary, it has been suggested that
knowledge of a fellow officer's interest
may lead other officers to favor an award
which would benefit him. Thomson v. Call,
38 Cal. 3d 633, 650, 699 P.2d 316, 326,
214 cal. Rptr. 139, 149 (1985) (citations
omitted) .
As with the common law and Government Code Section 87100,
Section 1090 is transactional in nature. It prohibits officials
from entering into contracts so as to prohibit Itself-dealingll but
it does not prohibit them from holding public office. 67 Ops.
Cal. Atty. Gen. 7, 10 (1984).
.
Section 1302 of the city Charter contains a similar
prohibition against City officials having any financial interest
in contracts, stating:
.
No member of the city Council shall be
financially interested, directly or
indirectly, in any contract, sale or
transaction to which the City is a party and
neither shall any city official or employe be
interested in any contract, sale or
transaction to which the city is a party and
which comes before said official or employe,
or the department of the City with which he
is connected, for official action. Any such
contract or transaction in which there shall
be such an interest shall become void at the
election of the Coi ty , when so declared by
resolution of the City Council.
No member of the city Council, City
official or employe shall be deemed to be
financially interested, within the meaning of
the foregoing provisions, in any contract
made with a corporation by reason of the
ownership of stock in such corporation unless
said stock owned by himn shall amount to at
least three (3%) per cent of all the stock of
such corporation issued and outstanding. No
Ci ty councilman or member of any board or
- 3 -
_ __ _____ L..r~_ ~ ------'-=--~~__=...._:;.-_ _...:::-_-~--~~ - ~_~ - _- __ - -
. ~
.
commission shall vote on or participate in
any contract or transaction in which he is
directly or indirectly financially interested
whether as a stockholder of the corporation
or otherwise. If any officer of the City,
during the term for which he was elected or
appointed, shall so vote or participate, or
shall be financially interested as aforesaid,
upon conviction thereof, he shall forfeit his
office.
section 1701 of the city Charter provides that violation of
any provision of the Charter is a misdemeanor. Thus, violation
of Section 1302 of the City Charter could subject Ms. Burns to
criminal prosecution. In addition, if she were convicted of a
misdemeanor for violating Section 1302, Ms. Burns would forfeit
her position as a Planning commissioner. Given the severity of
the consequences for violating either Government Code Section
1090 or City Charter section 1302, it is incumbent upon the City
Attorney's office to provide cautious legal advice in connection
with this matter.
B. Contracts and Govern~ent Code Section 1090.
.
In analyzing the impact of Section 1090 on Ms. Burns, two
questions must be addressed: (1) Is a Conditional Use Permit or
Development Review Permit a contract?; and (2) Even if a
Conditional Use Permit or Development Review Permit is a
contract, does Government Code Section 1090 encompass contracts
of this sort? (Hereinafter, the term "conditional use permit" is
used to refer to both development review per~its and conditional
use permits.)
1. Is a Conditional Use Permit a contract?
Any resolution to this question is susceptible to
challenge, since legal authorities on the subject provide
contradictory interpretations. While, on the one hand, a
conditional use permit clearly satisfies the traditional
requirements of a contract, at the same time, it contains
manifestly different elements which would appear to distinguish
it from an ordinary contract.
In discussing the nature and elements of contracts in
general, Witkin states:
.
A contract is an agreement to do or not
to do a certain thing. Civil Code Section
1549. It gives rise to an obligation or
legal duty, enforceable in an action at law.
civil Code Sections 1427, 1428. (See Rest.,
Contracts sections 1-4: U.C.C. 1201(3) (11); 1
Corbin Section 3; 1 Williston 3d Section 1:
17 Am.JUr.2d, Contracts section 1.)
- 4 -
.
.
e
It is essential to the existence of a
contract that there should be: 1: Parties
capable of contracting; 2. Their consent; 3.
A lawful obj ect; and, 4. A sufficient cause
or consideration. (Civil Code section 1550;
see Rest., Contracts Section 19.)
See 1 B.E. Witkin, S~mmary of California Law, Contracts at 29.
A conditional use permit appears to be a contract. The two
parties to the contract are the City, represented by the Planning
Commission and the applicant/owner. Mutual consent is present in
that the Commission consents to allow the use of the property and
the applicant consents to the conditions placed on the permit.
The lawful object is the right to put the property in question to
the requested use. The conditions to which the applicant agrees
in order to obtain the consent of the Commission represent
consideration.
What is the appropriate remedy to be invoked in the event
that the the terms of a conditional use permit are being
violated? Is the "agreement" enforceable by an action at law?
In the event that the City has reason to suspect that the terms
of the permit are being violated, the agreement/permit is clearly
revocable administratively, following a noticed due process
hearing. Whether the terms of the permit could be enforced in an
action at law would vary with the situation.
On the other hand, a conditional use permit differs in a
number of ways from what is traditionally thought of when
speaking of a 11contract. II The City has adopted a General Plan
and a Zoning Ordinance which prescribe the allowable uses to
which a person may put their property in a given zone. In order
to build or develop a property, certain permits must be obtained
from the city. Certain permits may be obtained administratively,
i.e., Planning Commission approval is unnecessary. A conditional
use permit is one of the types of permits which requires Planning
Commission approval.
The standards to which a project must conform in order for
an applicant to obtain a conditional use permit are established
by ordinance. Application of the standards, however, involves
some exercise of discretion. A property owner must make an
application to the Planning commission for a permit. She does
not have a unilateral right to the permit nor does she have the
ability to negotiate as does a party to an ordinary contract.
The Planning commission can deny the permit or it can grant it
upon certain conditions. The commission need not negotiate these
conditions; in theory, the Planning Commission decides
unilaterally under what conditions the criteria set forth in the
General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance will be met. It then
grants the conditional use permit. If the owner does not want to
or cannot operate within those conditions, the owner will
presumably not make use of the permit.
- 5 -
.
As part of the process of defining the conditions which
will be attached to a development permit in a particular
instance, the Planning Commission may decide to utilize
additional contractual instruments to assure compliance with
conditions, such as Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions
("CC&Rs") or deed restrictions. Both CC&Rs and deed restrictions
are recordable and enforceable contracts. CC&Rs which might be
applicable to a commercial development include parking
requirements; easements for public purposes; provisions for
garbage and refuse collection; adequate provisions for
maintenance, repair and upkeep; and architectural restrictions.
Memorandum Opinion Number 84-62, issued on September 17, 1984,
addresses the use of CC&Rs in the development context in greater
detail.
Unlike in a contractual situation, the City does not have
the power to enforce an unused permit. In a situation where a
permittee does not construct the project for which the person has
received city approval, the City's remedy is generally speaking,
not to seek damages or specific enforcement (as would be the case
where an ordinary contractual relationship was present), but
rather to revoke the permit. Furthermore, the City has the power
to modify the terms of the permit unilaterally where necessary to
promote the public interest.
In light of the many differences between ordinary contracts
and licenses and permits, I-IcQuillin, a noted but nevertheless
dated municipal law authority, states:
.
The general rule is that a license or
permit is not a contract and of itself
creates neither contract nor property rights.
Nor does or can a license or permit create a
franchise or a monopoly. It does not
ordinarily restrict the municipality from
granting similar licenses or permlts to
others. It is merely a temporary permit to
do what otherwise would be unlawful, and is
not a property right in any constitutional
sense, and hence it is usually revocable or
modifiable.
See 9 E. J.-IcQuillin, The Laltl of Hunicipal Corporations, Hunicipal
Licenses and Permits at p. 32. See also Ex parte Carlson, 87
Cal. App. 584, 262 P. 792 (1927).
.
The determination as to whether or not a conditional use
permit is a contract involves a judgment call. Although there
are undeniable differences between ordinary contracts and
licenses and permits, a court might conclude that a conditional
use permit does constitute a legal contract. To conclude
otherwise would mean that the Planning Commission would be
deprived of the authority it ordinarily possesses when
considering other projects, i.e., to impose conditions by way of
CC&R or deed restriction. The Planning commission could not
render any decision that would involve entry into a contract
- 6 -
.
without causing a violation of Government Code Section 1090 and
City Charter Section 1302.
On the other hand, despi te the substantial similarities
between contracts and conditional use permits and development
review permits, some of which are discussed above, a court might
nevertheless conclude that such permits are not contracts.
Accordingly, given the lack of judicial authority with
regard to this question and our inability to predict what a court
would do if confronted wi th such question I we are unable to
arrive at a definitive conclusion as to whether conditional use
or development review permits are contracts.
2. If a Conditional Use Permit is a contract, is it within
the scope of Government Code section lOgO?
.
Assuming arguendo, that a conditional use permit is a
contract, the issue which must be addressed involves whether it
is the type of contract which the legislature intended to
prohibit when it adopted Government Code Section 1090. The cases
in which this section has been interpreted by the courts involve
contractual agreements between the legislative body and one of
its members wherein the subject member owns a property which is
being purchased by or sold to the legislative body (Thomson v.
Call, 38 Cal. 3d 633, 699 P.2d 316, 214 Cal. Rptr. 139 (1985)),
leases property to the City directly (City of Imperial Beach v.
Bailey, 103 Cal. App. 3d 191, 162 Cal. Rptr. 663 (1980)), or
contracts directly with the City to provide ~ervices
(Fraser-Yamor Aqency v. Del Morte, 68 Cal. App. 3d 201, 137 Cal.
Rptr. 118 (1977). These types of contracts differ from
Commissioner Burns' situation in that she seeks the city's
permission to develop her own property, not to perform services
for or otherwise enter into financial transactions with the city.
The city permission she seeks is arguably not the same as the
City agreement which a party would be seeking if contracting with
the City regarding City-owned land or services to be provided to
the City and thus is not answered by existing case law.
The legislature has enacted an express exception to section
1090 for subdivision of lands. Government Code Section 1091.1
provides:
.
The prohibi tion against an interest in
contracts provided by this article or any
other provision of law shall not be deemed to
prohibit any officer or member of any public
board or commission from subdividing lands
owned by him or in which he has an interest
and which subdivision of lands is effected
under the provisions of Division 2
(commencing with Section 66410) of Title 7 of
the Government Code or any local ordinance
concerning sUbdivisions; provided, that (a)
said officer or member of such board or
commission shall first fully disclose the
- 7 -
.
nature of his interest in any such lands to
the legislative body having jurisdiction over
the subdivision thereof, and (b) said officer
or member of such board or commission shall
not cast his vote upon any matter or contract
concerning said subdivision in any manner
whatever.
This section recognized that certain contracts involving
subdivisions should not be subject to the prohibition contained
in Section 1090. For Commissioner Burns, this Section poses the
question of whether the Legislature intended to limit exceptions
to Section 1091.1 or whether room for other exceptions exists.
If no other exceptions are permitted, then a CUP is a contract
and the City and Commissioner Burns cannot enter into it while
she is a Commissioner. If other exceptions are allowed, then no
such bar exists.
.
The language of Government Code Section 1090 did not address
the question of whether various land use permits are intended to
be brought within its scope. The subsequent adoption of
Government Code Section 1091.1 appears to have recognized this
ambiguity. However, in doing so, the legislature was very
specific about the type of contract which it intended to exempt
from coverage, i. e., contracts involving subdivision of land.
It appears to this office that had the legislature intended to
exempt other types of land use permits, such as variances or
conditional use permits, it would have done so expressly, as it
did for subdivisions in Section 1091.1.
It is a rule of statutory construction that while courts
will follow the literal expresslon of the law, they will do so
only to the extent that it is in harmony with legislative intent.
In Government Code Section 1090 et seq., there are two
conflicting intents. One is to Closely monitor actual and
potential conflicts of interests and to preclude all contracts
between city officials and the City. The other intent, as is
contained in Section 1091.1, is to exempt situations in which
application of the rule of no contract is too harsh. Through
Section 1091.1, the legislature recognized that there are
agreements which may be literally "contracts II which nonetheless
should not fall within the prohibition of Section 1090.
Government Code Section 1090 was clearly designed to prevent
actual dishonesty and abuse of position as well as any appearance
of impropriety on the part of elected officials. Section 1090
attempts to remove the possibility that a Commissioner or
Councl1member will use his or her position to influence, either
directly or indirectly, an official decision of the body on which
that person serves. While the legislature may not have intended
to prevent members of legislative bodies from developl.ng their
property during their term of office, a restriction on the
ability of such members to do so would appear to be the only way
to achieve the primary purpose of the legislature.
.
- 8 -
.~
.
e
.
To read implicit exceptions into the law is not the role of
the City Attorney's office: it is the function of the judiciary.
To find that Commissioner Burns I application for a conditional
use permit does not run afoul of the Section 1090 prohibition
would be to deprive the public of its right to have a Planning
Commission decision on a particular permit application, free of
the undue influence (whether direct or indirect, apparent or
real) which results when a commissioner's application for a land
use permit is reviewed by the Commission on which that person
sits. While this office appreciates the dilemma that
Commissioner Burns faces, interpreting Section 1090 to exclude
conditional use permits from its reach does not appear to be
consistent with the legislative intent on the face of Government
Code Sections 1090 and 1091.1.
RECOMMENDATION
Although we are unable to definitively conclude whether the
Planning commission can act on commissioner Burns t application
for a conditional use permit without causing a violation of the
letter and spirit of Government Code section 1090 as well as
Section 1701 of the City Charter, a practical solution to the
problem is to refer Ms. Burns I application to the City Council
for action. Section 1090 prohibits a member of a board from
being financially interested in a contract made by them with a
board of which that person is a member. Since Ms. Burns is not a
Ci ty council member, she may contract with the city Council by
way of conditional use permit or otherwise, without violating
state or local contract prohibitions. We therefore r~commend
that the Planning commission refrain from taking any action so
that Commissioner Burns' application for conditional use permit
can be reviewed and a determination made by the City Council.
cc: Planning commission
- 9 -
e
e
e
ATTACHMENT D
CITY PLANNING DIVISION
Community and Economic Development Department
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
May 5, 1986
TO:
The Honorable Planning commission
FROM:
R. Ann Siracusa, Director of Planning
SUBJECT: DR 320, CUP 410, 120-Seat Restaurant with Liquor
License.
Address:
Applicant:
1721 Broadway
Elizabeth Burns, DBA Bob Burns Restaurants
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The subj ect property is a 30,000 sq. ft. parcel located on the
north side of Broadway between 17th and 18th streets, having a
frontage of ISO' on Broadway, 200' on 18th street and 200' on
17th Court alley. Surrounding uses consist of one and two-story
multi-family residential to the north (R2), two-story retirement
housing to the west (C4), an automobile storage lot and one-story
residential to the east (C4 and ~2), and a Masonic Hall and pre-
school across Broadway to the south (C4).
Zoning District: C4 District
Land Use District: Broadway Mixed-Use District
Parcel Area: 150' x 200'; 30,000 sq.ft.
PROPOSED PROJECT
The project consists of 1) a change of use from offices and meat-
processing to a 108 seat restaurant with a 12 seat bar and 2) the
remodeling and reopening of a full-service market which has been
closed since November 1, 1985. A Type 47 On-site General Liquor
License is requested for the restaurant. This would be in addi-
tion to the Type 20 Off-Site Beer and Wine license currently held
by the market. The existing parking lot would be restriped to
provide 53 parking spaces, an increase of eight from the current
45 spaces. Thirty-six percent of the new spaces would be compact
size. All spaces would be separately accessible.
The existing buildings would be maintained. Three hundred and
thirty-two sq. ft. of floor area would be added by enclosing a
paved loading area at the front of the building adjacent to the
alley.
- 1 -
e
e
e
The restaurant is proposed to be operated in conjunction with the
market. In addition to food service, the owners "plan to teach
nutritional importance, cooking trends, and new ideas for food
preparation and presentation." (See Attachment B for the appli-
cant's detailed operational description of the business.)
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
The proposed project is consistent with Municipal Code and
General Plan requirements (see Attachment A). The proposed On-
site general liquor license is subject to approval of a Condi-
tional Use Permit.
CEQA STATUS
Categorically Exempt.
ANALYSIS
The proposed new restaurant use and market remodeling are located
within an existing commercial building (except for a minor addi-
tion) . The market and restaurant are physically inter-related
with public access to the restaurant via the market area. Each
use occupies roughly the same amount of floor area in the build-
ing, with shared use of some food storage space.
Restaurants up to 50 seats and markets generally constitute
neighborhood oriented uses. Beyond a certain size, however, res-
taurants may depend on - and service - a wider market base. The
pico Neighborhood Association sponsored a neighborhood meeting on
the project to review its neighborhood impact and has indicated
no opposition. Given the special nature of the integrated uses
proposed, staff supports the view that this specific project con-
stitutes a neighborhood Use. A condition of approval specifical-
ly links the two uses and prohibits the expansion of the res-
taurant into the market area or the provision of more than 120
restaurant seats.
However, Staff cannot support the inclusion of a separate bar
area within the restaurant. All recent approvals for restaurants
with liquor licenses have specifically precluded the establish-
ment of a separate bar area. This is especially appropriate in
preserving and protecting the character of the Broadway Mixed-Use
District where future uses are limited to residential and neigh-
borhood commercial uses. The operation of a neighborhood market
and restaurant should not include the need for a separate bar
area.
Parking adequacy is of some concern. While the project meets
Code requirements, an all new project with the same uses would
need eight more parking spaces (61 VS. 53 provided). However,
with the mix of uses having differing peak hours, parking demand
may be less than otherwise would be the case.
- 2 -
e
Conditional Use Permit for On-Sale General Liquor License
The market presently has a Type 20 Off-site Beer and Wine
License. The requested Type 47 On-site General Liquor License
would allow the service of a full range of alcoholic beverages in
the restaurant. As noted above, staff recommends deletion of the
12 seat bar area but would support expansion of the total res-
taurant seating to 120 seats.
The site is across Broadway from a child care center/pre-school
and across 17th Court alley from a large retirement home. Within
a three block radius are three restaurants with a Type 41 On-site
Beer and Wine license and one with a Type 47 On-Site General
license:
Distance
Type Restaurant Name Address From Site
41 Alamigo 1820 Broadway 1 block
La Munchies ? blocks
41 2021 Broadway , 3
41 Cafe Santa Monica 2042 Broadway" 3 blocks
47 Back on Broadway 2024 Broadway 2 blocks
e Conclusion
e
With deletion of the separate bar area, the proposed uses of the
existing building I subj ect to appropriate conditions regulating
the type and extent of the uses and establishing hours of opera-
tion, would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and
consistent with the Broadway Mixed-Use District policies in the
Land Use Element of the General Plan.
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that DR 320 and CUP 410 be ap-
proved with the following findings and conditions:
Development Review Findings
1. The development is consistent with the findings and pur-
pose of Ordinance 1321 as set forth below.
2.
The physical location and placement of proposed structures
on the site are compatible with and relate harmoniously to
surrounding sites and neighborhoods in that the building
is existing, except for a proposed 332 sq. ft . addition
along the west Broadway frontage; the building is 100'
from residential uses to the north: the adjacent retire-
ment home is buffered from the use by an alley and a lack
of public access openings along the west side of the sub-
ject building: and parking lot screening and landscaping
will be provided.
- 3 -
e
The existing and/or proposed rights-of-way and facilities
for both pedestrian and automobile traffic will be ade-
quate to accommodate the anticipated results of the pro-
posed development including off-street parking facilities
and access thereto in that the office, retail and res-
taurant uses complement each other with differing hours of
peak use and the expectation of combined use of both the
market and restaurant by a reasonable percentage of users:
parking meets Code requirements for the pre-existing uses
and for the new restaurant use; approximately seven addi-
tional parking spaces are provided beyond those required;
and employee parking will be provided on site.
4. The existing and/or proposed public and/or private health
and safety facilities (including, but not limited to,
sanitation, sewers, storm drains, fire protection devices,
protective services, and public utilities) will be ade-
quate to accommodate the anticipated results of the pro-
posed development.
3 .
5. The proposed development is consistent with the General
Plan of the city of Santa Monica and the Zoning Ordinance
in that the project will conform to the height, bulk, use
and urban design policies for the Broadway Mixed-Use Dis-
trict as specified in the Land Use Element of the General
Plan and conform to the appropriate C4 District standards
contained in the Zoning Ordinance.
e
Conditional Use Permit Findings
6. The proposed use and location are in accordance with good
zoning practice, in the public interest, and necessary
that substantial justice be done in that
7. The proposed use is compatible with existing and potential
uses wi thin the general area; traff ic or parking
congestion will not result; the public health, safety, and
general wel fare are protected; and no harm to adj acent
properties will result in that the sale of liquor will be
regulated to be integrated into the operation of the
restaurant; the building parking lot entrance is lOa' away
from residential uses to the north and 120' from the
retirement home to the west; and market and restaurant
hours will not extend beyond the hours of 8:00 a.m. to
11:00 p.m.
8. The welfare of neighborhood residents will not be
adversely affected as set forth above.
9.
The change in the license will not contribute to an undue
concentration of alcohol outlets in the area in that there
are only four other restaurants in a three block radius
with On-Site liquor licenses with only one of these having
a Type 47 On-site general liquor license.
e
- 4 -
10.
e
There will be no detrimental affect on nearby
residentially zoned neighborhoods considering the distance
of the alcohol outlet to residential buildings, churches,
schools, hospitals, playgrounds, parks, and other existing
alcohol outlets in that the sale of liquor will be
regulated to be integrated into the operation of the
restaurant; the building parking lot entrance is laO' away
from residential uses to the north and 120' from the
retirement home to the west; and market and restaurant
hours will not extend beyond the hours of 8: 00 a.m. to
11: 00 p.m. and in that the conditions for approval will
minimize the potential affect on the adjacent residential
uses.
Conditions
1. Plans for final design, landscaping, screening, trash en-
closures, and signage shall be subject to review and ap-
proval by the Architectural Review Board.
Minor amendments to the plans shall be subject to approval
by the Director of Planning. An increase of more than 10%
of the square footage or a significant change in the ap-
proved concept shall be subj ect to Planning Commission
Review. Construction shall be in substantial conformance
with the plans submitted or as modified by the Planning
Commission, Architectural Review Board or Director of
Planning.
3. The rights granted herein shall be effective only when
exercised within a period of one year from the effective
date of approval. Upon the written request of the appli-
cant, the Director of Planning may extend this period up
to an additional six months.
2.
e
4. The applicant shall comply with all legal requirements
regarding provisions for the disabled, including those set
forth in the California Administrative Code, Title 24,
Part 2.
5. The parking lot shall be striped, screened and landscaped
in conformance with Sec. 9127.J.l and Sec. 9129.F.7
(SMMC) .
6. Final parking lot layout and specifications shall be sub-
ject to the review and approval of the Parking and Traffic
Engineer.
7. Refuse areas, storage areas and mechanical equipment shall
be screened in accordance with Sec. 9127J.2-4 (SMMC).
Refuse areas shall be of a size adequate to meet on-site
need.
e
8.
A 5 to 6 foot solid masonry wall shall be provided along
property lines which abut residential property in accor-
dance with Sec. 9127.1 (SMMC).
- 5 -
9.
The operation shall at all times be conducted in a manner
not detrimental to surrounding properties or residents by
reason of lights, noise, activities, parking or other
actions.
e
10. No noise generating compressors or other such equipment
shall be placed adjacent to neighboring residential
buildings.
11. A security plan shall be approved by the Chief of Police
prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
12. street trees shall be maintained, relocated or provided as
required in a manner consistent with the city's Tree Code
COrd. 1242 CCS), per the specifications of the Department
of Recreation and Parks and the Department of General Ser-
vices. No street tree shall be removed without the ap-
proval of the Department of Recreation and Parks.
13. Street and/or alley lighting shall be provided on pUblic
rights-of-way adjacent to the project if and as needed per
the specifications and with the approval of the Department
of General Services.
14.
Any outdoor lighting shall be shielded and/or directed
away from adj acent residential properties, with any such
lighting not to exceed 0.5 foot candles of illumination
beyond the perimeter of the subject property.
e
15. This determination shall not become effective for a period
of twenty days from the date of determination or, if ap-
pealed, until a final determination is made on the appeal.
16. Hours of operation of the market and restaurant shall not
extend beyond the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.
17. On-site parking shall be made available without cost to
building customers and employees.
18. Parking lot illumination shall be provided and maintained.
19. The owner shall prohibit loitering in the parking area and
shall control noisy patrons leaving the restaurant.
20. The primary use of the restaurant premises shall be for
sit-down meal service to patrons. There shall be no
separate bar area or separate bar seating.
21. The restaurant shall occupy that portion of the building
specified in the submitted plans and shall not expand into
the market area. No more than 120 restaurant seats shall
be provided on the premises.
e
22.
This action shall apply only to the specific type of
integrated use described herein or as modified with the
written approval of the Director of Planning. Any
- 6 -
e
e
e
23.
substantial change in the method or mode of operation of
the restaurant and/or market shall be subject to the
approval of the Director of Planning.
The premises shall maintain a kitchen or food-serving area
in which a variety of food is prepared and cooked on the
premises.
24.
The premises shall serve food to patrons during all hours
the restaurant is open for customers.
25. Restaurant take-out service only shall be allowed
incidental to the primary sit-down restaurant use.
26. No dancing or live entertainment shall be permitted on the
premises.
27. Final plans for any changes to exterior design,
landscaping, trash enclosures, and/or signage shall be
subject to review and approval by the Architectural Review
Board.
Prepared by: Richard Mills, Assistant Planner
RM: nh
DR320
5-1-86
- 7 -
e
ATTACHMENT A
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
The project, as conditioned, is consistent with Land Use Element
Policy 1.6.3 regarding commercial uses within the Broadway Mixed-
Use District. Fifty percent of the subject block is currently in
residential uses. The project will not alter this percentage.
Land Use
Category Municipal Code Element Project
Permitted Use Retail, Office, 50% of block Restaurant/
Restaurant Neighborhood Market
Commercial
Height 6 stories, 90' 1 story/25, 2 stories
Commercial (exist. )
F.A.R. 3.3 1. 0 for 0.53
Commercial
Rear Setback 11' lOa'
e Parking 46 53 (incl. 19
Spaces (analysis compact)
below)
Present 50% Minimum 50%
Block
Residential
Of the 46 required parking spaces, 33 (72%) will be standard size
spaces. Seven additional compact spaces plus a loading space
will be provided. If the project were all new construction, 61
parking spaces would be required (based on 1 space per 300 sq. ft.
office and retail area and 1 space per 5 restaurant/bar seats).
PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND SQUARE FOOTAGE BY USE
Existing/ Required Parking
Use Previous Proposed For Proposed (1)
Office 6,644 2,934 5.9
Market 5,856 4,684 9.4
Restaurant 5,170 (2) 24.0
e Food Storage Included 2,118 4.2
Above
- 8 -
Restrooms/ Included 1,207 2.4
e Other Above
Meat Packing 3,710
Adjustment -761 Included
for Walls/ Above
Equip.
Totals
15,449
15,781
(45.9) = 46
(1) Parking required on existing uses when use was established
(e.g., 1 space per 500 sq.ft. for 1964 offices, market and
food storage) parking for new uses per current standards
(e.g. 1 space per 5 restaurant/bar seats).
(2) Restaurant area includes332 sq. ft. addition in west front
corner of building.
e
e
- 9 -
f-
\.
(-
f2..-.:.J. 'i (22--1 ~ ~
"T'\P<-c..\-\M~ ..... B \1
cf- toI\Q.'{ 5) l<1ae.
<;"fI',F F ~
. .
JA).IES W LU~SFORD
1 "''''D ",.,F' (O.......CLTA...T
--
171i..! Bl~Y",\; "A\\'[..I: .\."\.].'\,jUi-
"'A'iT... '1-10;>:[( A (A <)040,
.:H3' '39.l157~
April 22, 1986
R. Ann SIracusa, Director of Planning
CIty PlannIng DivIsion
Santa Monica CIty Hall Rm 212
1685 MaIn Street
Santa Monica, Ca. 90401
Re: 1721 Broadway, DR 320
Dear Ann,
In response to your AprIl 17th request for supplemental
informatIon on ElIzabeth Burns' proposed restaurant/market at
1721 Broadway, the following is respectfully submItted.
e
Background. Bob Burns Restaurants,Inc. own the NWly corner of
18th and Broadway containing theIr corporate offices, a marginal
meat cuttIng operatIon and a 20 year old market. Last sprIng
they learned they were losing the market operator and were unable
to attract a replacement. In July, cognizant of the market's
importance to the neighborhood, they notified the PlannIng
DivisIon of their Intent to try and keep the market open by
running it themselves rather than allow it to close.
Unfortunately, they found it to be more than they could handle
and had to close It on November 1st, leaving most of the PICO
Neighborhood and part of the Mid-City area without local grocery
serVIces wIthin walkIng distance for the first tIme In hIstory.
Determined to keep a market in the neighborhood If possIble,
ElIzabeth Burns conceIved of a combInatIon restaurant/market
WhICh would allow them to combine their experience and
knowledge of restaurant operations with the community's need
for a food market. The restaurant would help support the market
and the food market would augment the restaurant. The restaurant
would have a relaxed atmosphere and offer a varied menu of
fresh seasonal foods, pleasantly served in a clean, organized
enVIronment at affordable prices. The market, In addItIon to
the usual meat, daIry, produce, bakery, deli and grocery lInes,
would offer unIque and unusual Items WhICh would interest people
VIsItIng the restaurant. The two together could be successful
where the market alone had not been.
e
In November she communIcated her concept to the PlannIng office
and In December filed formal applIcations to replace their
offIces and the meat cuttIng operatIon wIth a 120 seat restaurant
operated In conJunctIon with the renovated market. The 74 space
attendant parking plan orIgInally prroposed was subsequently
rejected by Traffic in favor of a 52 space non-attendant plan.
1
r
'-
(
e
The applIcatIon was origInally supposed to be heard In March,
then AprIL and now May. The plan was approved by Mid-CIty
NeIghbors in December and by the PICa NeIghborhood ASSOCIation
in March. At the neighborhood meeting on March 12th, parkIng,
traffic, employment, hours of operation, alcoholIc beverages,
food and restaurant prIces, market needs, water pressure,
minority and local hiring practIces and nOIse were all dIscussed
to everyone's satisfaction. Everyone, including the owners,
neIghbors and community representatIves want to see the market
re=opened and the propery restored to productIve use.
It must be recognIzed however, that while Mrs. Burns remains
sincerely dedicated to retaining the market, her resources are
not unlimited and the extended proceSSIng perIod has placed a
severe strain on her ability to keep the property vacant in the
hope that her plans will be eventually approved. It appears at
this pOInt that unless someone other than the neighbors and
neIghborhood organizations get behind her, she WIll be left WIth
no alternatIve but to seek some different tenant.
In answer to your specIfc questIons regardIng the proJect:
e
1. The degree to WhICh the restaurant and marl<et are
~perationally lInked?
The restaurant and market are architecturally but not
operationally lInked. Both may be patronIzed independently.
Anyone may utILIze the market WIthout patronIZIng the restaurant
or may take advantage of the restaurant WIthout patronIZIng the
market.
2. Whether_~1Y2J<;al na trans would vi SIt one or bo th uses on each
viSIt?
It is anticipated that most restaurant patrons WIll VISIt the
market, but most market patrons WIll not usually VISIt the
restaurant. The market plans to offer InterestIng and unIque
food Items in addItion to the regular meat, daIry, produce,
bakery, deli and grocery lInes. Hours of operation will be
slightly dIfferent for each, the market open from 8 A.M.to
8 P.M. whIle the restaurant WIll operate from 11 A.M. to 11 P.M.
3. Whether classes,
held and, If so, the
of these?
No regularly scheduled classes, workshops or presentatIons are
contemplated. Mrs. Burns felt that because of the many new
foods and food products comIng on the market, occaSIonal
demonstrations of new food items, products, cooking techniques
and nutritIonal instructIon would be of Interest and benefit
to the communIty. Such product demonstrations are a regular
occurance in most markets and department stores and are regarded
as a normal business practice. No additional parking would
be generated by such demonstrations WhICh would be held only
during off-hours when the restaurant IS empty.
workshops, or presentatIons will be
SIze, frequency, and locatIon
e
2
(
(
e
4. The reason/need for the requested general on-oremise
~
liquor license.
The general on-premise lIcense IS essential to the success of
the restaurant which IS necessary to the success of the market.
The serving of alcoholIc beverages as part of the restaurant
operatIon was fully and extensIvely dIscussed with the neIghbors
and there was general consensus that such sales were not
objectionable.
5. How parkIng spaces wIll be desIgnated for customers and/or
~m'ployees?
Employees will use parking spaces nearest the alley, 10 of
which wIll be designated for employees InitIally. The number
may be raIsed or lowered later depending on need.
6. ~n estImate of how many of the 40 peak hour employees
wIll drIve to work and where they will park?
It IS estimated that fewer than 10 of the peak hour employees
will drive to work and they will park in the designated
employee parking spaces. As indIcated in the initial
applicatIon, Mrs. Burns has agreed to work with the PICa
NeIghborhood Association's employment referral program and much
of the new employment will be of neighborhood orIgIn WIth a
consequent reductIon In the number of employees who need to
drive. Experience at the existIng Bob Burns Restaurant In Santa
Monica substantiates the low number of employees who drive,
relying instead on public transit. The avaIlabilIty of good
public transit on both Santa MonIca Boulevard and 20th Street
is one of the advantages of the proposed location.
e
7. A brIef analysis of the adequacy of the on-site parkin9
in terms of the antiCIPated demand for oarking.
The approved 52 parkIng spaces are eith~r at or only slIghtly
less than the current code requIrement and with the relatIvely
few employees driVIng WIll be adequate although not excessive.
The applIcatIon orIgInally proposed an attendant-operated
parking plan WIth as many as 74 spaces which would have been
more than adequate, but the 52 spaces allowed should be
quite acceptable. It is certaInly abundant for the market, and
peak restaurant use WIll occur only during low volume hours
for market patrons.
I hope this gIves you a better pIcture of the proJect and Its
Importance to the neighborhood. It IS an imaginative and
Inovative approach to a communIty need In which Mrs. Burns
WIll be at conSIderable rIsk. Should you wish additIonal
information or detaIls please let me know.
Sincerely,
.~~
3
, ..
iJnh ~uru!l ltr!lttt~aut
e
1721 Broadway, Santa Monica, Califorma 90404
Post Office Box 1979, Santa Monica, California 90406
(213) 829-0093
November 7, 1985
City Hall
Department of Community and Economic Development
Planning and Zoning Division
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, Ca. 90401 - 3295
Attention: Suzanne Frick
e
We would like to submit a business concept to redevelop the
property at 1721 Broadway.
A permit for a market is already in existence and we would like
to establish a restaurant in conjunction with the market for
this location. Both the market and the restaurant would have a
relaxed atmosphere and offer goods at affordable prices. The
menu would be varied, conslsting of only fresh seasonal foods,
pleasantly served in a clean, organized environment.
We plan to teach nutritional importance of foods, together with
cooking trends, and new ideas for food preparation and presenta-
tion. This would establish a neighborhood market and restaurant
that will also provide a learning environment for awareness of
quality and more healthful eating habits.
Local people would also benefit through our hiring practices.
Our industry hires more minorities, women and unskilled labor
than any other industry in our country. In 1985 the industry's
sales have been prOJected to reach 23.4 billion dollars and
employing 12.9 million people. Future growth for 1986 is ex-
pected to grow at a considerable rate. We will continue to de-
velop unskilled labor into highly skilled labor for this growing
industry. These goals will be achieved by an established company
with proven business commitments and success in the Santa Monica
area.
As you are aware, parts of Broadway have been deteriorating and
this project will encourage other property owners to improve and
clean up their properties. Some changes have already occurred
and we will continue to be part of the improvement of Broadway
and our city.
e
tJ'naCQT r=t' ,Ol'\..r::; A. .::.r"""Ilfl....~ .. ~~.....n II....... 0
e
e
e
,
..
(
r
'-
pg.2
The one great advantage to this redevelopment program is that
we are owner/operators. This places us in a unique position.
We have the opportunity to offer more competitive prices to
the public because of our lower overhead. We have always made
quality our priority~ fairness to all employees, and job se-
curity to many local residents. Our success in this area can
be attributed to the high standards maintained over the years.
This new venture will extend these principles to an even great-
er number of people.
Our building borders have been established for many years. We
have adequate parking and will not rely on street parking for
the restaurant.
The proposed development will be a much needed compliment to
our neighborhood, providing increased employment and a service
for which there is a need. We are an integral part of the
neighborhood fabric, and will continue to be conscious of the
residential environment that already exists.
Sincerely,
~~
Elizabeth Burns
(
\.
\
~
Iz--JI~/8t;;;
e
if'
LAND USE ANALYSIS
Restaurant Addltion
1721 Broadway
Santa MonIca
e
--
December 1985
James W. Lunsford
Land Use and Planning Consultant
1782 Bryn Mawr Avenue
Sdnla Monica CA 90405
e
..
...
;-
j
'\.
e
CONTENTS
.
SIte DescriptIon
ZonIng
ExistIng Development
ConstructIon Dates
Parking by Construction Date
Current Parking Requirements
surroundIng Land Uses
PrOject DescrIptIon
e
Employment
Traffic
ParkIng
ZonIng ComplIance
Land Use Element Compliance
Planning Approvals Required
ConditIonal Use PermIt Requirements
Project Benefits
e
(
,
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
5
5
6
l~
(
e
LAND USE ANALYSIS
SITE. The property consists of a 30,000 sq. ft. site at the
northwest corner of Broadway and 18th Street in the central
sectIon of Santa MonIca with 150' of frontage on Broadway and
200' of frontage on 18th Street. It is legally descrIbed as Lots
I,J,K and L, Block 157, Town of Santa Monica.
ZONING. The sIte IS all in the C4 Highway Commercial District.
EXISTING DEVELOPMENT. The sIte is presently developed with a two
story, 16,210 sq.ft. commercial building and 15,000 sq. ft. of
paved parkIng. The building is divided into a 5856 sq. ft. market,
2,934 sq. ft. of second story offices and 7,420 sq. ft. devoted to
combinatIon corporate offices and meat processing for the owners.
e
The parkIng lot is presently striped for approximately 45 spaces,
virtually all of which are unused due to the gradual decline in
patronage of the market which has now been temporarily closed
pendIng renovatIon and change of management. Another 5 to 6 spaces
are presently supplied by two former loading zones no longer used
because of a reductIon in the amount of meat-cuttIng conducted
on the premIses.
CONSTRUCTION DATES. The building is composed of an orIgInal
7,420 sq.ft. portion bUIlt in 1949 and the 5,856 sq.tt. market
and 2,934 sq. ft. of 2nd floor offices added In 1964.
REQUIRED PARKING BY CONSTRUCTION DATE. Based on construction
dates of the two separate portions, the bUIldIngs would require
a total of 26 parking spaces as follows:
OrIginal BuildIng, 1949/1950
7420 sq.ft. @ 1 space per 1000 sq. ft.
=
8
Q I ',\~';.:2\ t.
Add 5856' Market and 2934' offices, 1964
8790 sq.ft. @ 1 space per 500 sq.ft.
::
18
Total 26
PARKING BY CURRENT REQUIREMENTS. Present parking standards
would require a total of 74 spaces as follows:
5856 sq.ft. market @ 1 per 150 sq. ft.
;;;;;
39
10,354' offices/meat=cuttlng @ 1 per 300' ;;;;; 35
e
Total
74
1
(
(-
ADJACENT ~ND SURROUNDING LAND USES, Development in the immedIate
area IS divided between residentIal and commercial uses. Present
Land Use In Block 157 IS 54% CommercIal and 46% ResIdentIal. This
statistIc however, does not effectively portray the actual extent
to whIch the majorIty of commercial uses in the neighborhood are
dominated by automotIve related uses.
e
Calculation of commercial land use in the immediate vIcinity
shows fully 65% of the 32 lots devoted to non-resIdentIal
purposes are In automotive related uses.
Lots
3 1/3
8
21
e A'-'TO
5 ALE: S t-
oJl
~\"'v r
\\I~""
f(' I-
Y
~-- Z
O'..D....b HblXli. III
UI
-<,pV I-
o~t' l
'7'
~5' 1>1
....
/
1>1
R~TIfl.b',....Nr
ttOV.slN(;.- Ul
RF:'5\)JFNlIAL
Sc.t<lJOf...
,'~r5~p~"",'ftA.&...-
e
.
Uses
%
Schools, ChIld Care
10%
Markets, Cafe, Barber, Office,
Synagogue, Hall, Beauty Shop
25%
AutomobIle Sales, SerVIce,
Repairs, storage, Gas Station
SA NTA
I~VTO SALo;.s
TNR.l"r SHOP
...;\",V
<;"y,">
<;.'
-r-t.
R:ETJRFMErH
I--IO"s;rNG-
B R 0 A
Fl~~IO"'NT''''''''
AUTO r>.E/,A Iil-.
Rj;:S rLlI>l'<rrAl-
65%
MONIC.A
13 I- V 0-
(".A~ 51.AT,,,... I
!-
.n
Of> Auro
5ALE.S
ALlTOI"\OftllF.:
SALE'~ "5E~UI<'~ I r
,.... t'"
z t
" p.v'
w A;,\f> '(\ It
~\p." III ~'" ~..J
,() "Q III
~.. l- (-~ ~.. r
S,9 ~ q.
q..i. I W
i"
l.!I Z
PARKING-
WULE Sf A T([Ir611r
2 III Z
Of~I<''''S NF-"" CA~ t"I'>Rtc I ~I G--
I'fp;oT /'1A1IKl'r
f(lo<:8UII'Ur ST('JP"'~e: A<JTU "c P,llIR.
)
..... 1S(l' ./
D wA Y
~.... j ..CAFE.lR,"~I"
DU...... $CPl ODl- """
Ri:Slo.:irur'/J L- I2r;J~o~,...rtll (.
fll!:SrO(:NnJLl..... OFf'"I<.ES SCHOOL
P.D.JACt"NT
L ^ N D
USE 5
2
(-
(
e
PROJECT PROPOSED. The project proposed involves establishment
of a 120 seat restaurant in a portion of the bUIlding now In use
for offices and meat processing, plus up-grading the present
parking from 50 to 74 spaces. No additional floor space or
parking area will be added. The restaurant will occupy floor
space Within the eXisting bUilding and the increased
parking will be accomplished by means of attendant parking. No
demolition, displacement or alteration of land uses will occur.
The restaurant will be operated in conJunction with the market
and both will have a relaxed atmosphere and offer goods at
affordable prices. The menu would be varied, consistIng of
only fresh seasonal foods, pleasantly served In a clean,
organized environment. Additionally, the owners plan to teach
the nutritional Importance of foods, together With cooking
trends, and new Ideas for food preparation and presentation.
This will establIsh a neighborhood market and restaurant that
will also provide a learning environment for awareness of
quality and more healthful eating habits.
e
EMPLOYMENT. The proposed proJect will Significantly increase
employment and employment opportunities for local people. The
restaurant Industry hIres more mInorities, women and unskIlled
labor than any other Industry in the country. The applIcants
are an established company wlth proven business commitments and
success in Santa Monica. It is their intention to work closely
WIth local community organizations providIng employment
referral services.
It IS proJected that current on-site employment Will be Increased
by more than 400% WIth the proposed proJect.
Current Employment
PrOJected Emplorment
Market
6
Market
24
Offices
6
OffIces
10
Meats
6
Restaurant
40
Total
IB
Total
74
EMPLOYMENT
Up410%
e
~/#A
3
e
e
e
(
(
TRAFFIC. DiscuSSIon wIth TraffIc Engineering indIcates no serIOUS
areas of concern. Trip generatIon for the market 15 estImated at
725 per day (125 trIpS per 1000 sq. ft.) and for the restaurant at
281 (2.34 trIpS per day per seat). A more complete evaluatIon
will be provided by a regIstered traffIC engineer.
PARKING. As part of the restaurant and market renovatIon,
oft-street parkIng WIll be increased by 64% to meet current code
reqUIrements. This will be accomplished by Implementing attendant
parkIng to accomodate 74 spaces on-SIte In lieu of the present
50. The attendant parking system will also prOVIde addItional
security and convenience and is sometImes necessary to
dIscourage poachIng by patrons and employees of other bUSInesses.
i
~
~'i
~,
:;'1
jd
?f
1
,
1(\
>:::
~i
,
-~
Requ ired ParkIng
5856 sq . ft. market @ 1 per 150' = 39
120 seat restaurant @ 1 per 5 seats = 24
2934 sq. ft. offIces @ 1 per 300' = 10
Total 73
-
\i-;.r .
. 'II)'
~-,
'>!
\.. I'~ I
f .
... :.. r
~
. -1 .. . I
r -.!./
_ .-0'
;ili-
~
'.'}
iii
IJ
~
u)
'v,
....
i.] I
'I - - ,
~
II,
~
I)
~
~
II)
lq~
~1 tJ
~--~-- ~-
tt \
',", ...
, ----or-
1
e
Vt
=rf
~~
rti
___ _I!
.
ItJ
.
~
P
ill--
!.\)
l...
..,
---- ~ -
~
!n t
~ !
- 'J i
:9: .
-t~l '
~
\J)
- -(
I I
I ~ I I;i
I ........ I ......
i---- -----+- ---
"
"
,
I
I
r-
)1
L
~.
lJ
\.)
'" ~t
~:
\'l~
'-:~4.......::)4..--
~
~
~
l
U
'I
Q..
e
l"
u
~
~
o
IJ
\' . ;, .
~ -
:20 .:JQ/...e
~
.~
-----
p
@,""'C:/
'Ft~J
.
-,1
J;
i -
1
4
.
t-
U1
I
r
z
,.11
IU
I-
e
~
u
(
(
e
ZONING COMPLIANCE. The market, office and proposed restaurant
are all permitted uses under the eXlstlng C4 zoning. The status
of the meat processing operatIon IS less clear. It could well be
argued that without retail sales It is more correctly an Ml use
and is, consequently, non-conforming. As indicated, the current
uses are all non-conformlnq in regard to present parklng
requirements.
LAND USE ELEMENT COMPLIANCE. The Land Use Element adopted
In 1984 calls for this portion of Broadway to be resldential,
hut provIdes for neighborhood commercial uses either when mixed
with residential uses or In separate proJects when the maJority
of use on a block IS reSIdential. EXIsting commercial uses must
be removed within 25 years from the adopotlon of revised zonlng
standards but may be extended by condItIonal use permit.
The Land Use Element limlts neighborhood commercial development
to 1.0 F.A.R. (Floor Area Ratio). Present F.A.R. is 0.58 and Will
remain the same.
Inasmuch as the market and restaurant are clearly neighborhood
commercial uses, F.A.R. is substanlially below that permitted
and the block IS evenly dlvlded between residential and commercial
uses, the proposed change of use appears to be In full compliance
With poliCy 1.6.3 of the Land Use Element.
e
PLANNING APPROVALS REQUIRED. Present Santa Monica regUlations
require a Variance for attendant parking, a Conditional Use Permit
for a restaurant with more than 50 seats or serving alcoholic
beverages, and a Development PermIt under the InterIm Development
Procedures currently in effect.
USE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS. The CIty Plannlng Commisslon can
approve a Conditional Use Permit where they find that:
The proposed use and location are in accordance
with good zoning practice.
- In the publiC interest.
- Necessary In order that substantial Justice
be done.
With suffICient conditIons to assure that:
- The use IS compatIble with the eXisting and potential
uses WIthIn the general area.
- TraffIC and parking congestion will not result.
- The publiC health, safety and welfare are protected.
e
- That no harm to adJacent propertIes will result.
5
(
f~
{
-
PROJECT ~ENE~ITS
Evaluation of its potential economic contributions to the
community and the absence of negatIve Impacts on ad]ace':lt
properties, indicates that the proposed restaurant use IS
consistent the requirements for approval of a ConditIonal Use
Permit in that:
1. It IS in substantIal accordance with both the adopted
Land Use Element and existIng zonIng.
2. Employment opportunIties will be Increased by 400%, much
of which will be of more dIrect benefIt to local
resIdents than would be many alternatIve uses.
3. Off-street parkIng wIll be Increased by 56% to full code
compliance, eliminatIng the current defICIency.
4. It adds a pOSItive neighborhood and community service
WhICh Will enhance the existIng market, Increase Its
economIC potentIal and thereby assure its continued
operatIon.
e
5. PrOVIdes addItional neighborhood serVIng commercIal
actIVIty In an area heaVILy domInated (65%) by
automotive related uses.
6. AccomplIshes th~se benefIts WIthout dIsplacement or
loss of any reSIdentIal land or any increase in
commercIal area.
e
,6
e
e
e
ATTACH11ENT E
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION
PROJECT
NUMBER: DR 320, CUP 410
LOCATION: 1721 Broadway
APPLICANT: Elizabeth Burns
REQUEST: 120-Seat Restaurant with Liquor License
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
5/5/86
Date.
x
Approved based on the following findings and
subject to the conditions below.
Denied.
other.
Development Review Findings
1. The development is consistent with the findings and pur-
pose of Ordinance 1321 as set forth below.
2. The physical location and placement of proposed structures
on the site are compatible with and relate harmoniously to
surrounding sites and neighborhoods in that the building
is existing, except for a proposed 332 sq.ft. addition
along the west Broadway frontage; the building is 100'
from residential uses to the northi the adjacent retire-
ment home is buffered from the use by an alley and a lack
of public access openings along the west side of the sub-
ject buildingi and parking lot screening and landscaping
will be provided.
The existing and/or proposed rights-of-way and facilities
for both pedestrian and automobile traffic will be ade-
quate to accommodate the anticipated results of the pro-
posed development including off-street parking facilities
and access thereto in that the office, retail and res-
taurant uses complement each other with differing hours of
peak use and the expectation of combined use of both the
market and restaurant by a reasonable percentage of users:
parking meets Code requirements for the pre-existing uses
and for the new restaurant usei approximately seven addi-
tional parking spaces are provided beyond those required;
and employee parking will be provided on site.
3.
- 1 -
4.
e
The existing and/or proposed public and/or private health
and safety facilities (including, but not limited to,
sanitation, sewers, storm drains, fire protection devices,
protective services, and public utilities) will be ade-
quate to accommodate the anticipated results of the pro-
posed development.
5. The proposed development is consistent with the General
Plan of the city of Santa Monica and the zoning Ordinance
in that the project will conform to the height, bulk, use
and urban design policies for the Broadway Mixed-Use Dis-
trict as specified in the Land Use Element of the General
Plan and conform to the appropriate C4 District standards
contained in the zoning Ordinance.
Conditional Use Permit Findings
6. The proposed use and location are in accordance with good
zoning practice, in the public interest, and necessary
that substantial justice be done in that
7.
e
The proposed use is compatible with existing and potential
uses within the general area; traffic or parking
congestion will not result; the public health, safety, and
general welfare are protected; and no harm to adjacent
properties will result in that the sale of liquor will be
regulated to be integrated into the operation of the
restaurant; the building parking lot entrance is 100' away
from residential uses to the north and 120 I from the
retirement home to the west i and market and restaurant
hours will not extend beyond the hours of 8: 00 a.m. to
11:00 p.m.
8. The welfare of neighborhood residents will not be
adversely affected as set forth above.
9. The change in the license will not contribute to an undue
concentration of alcohol outlets in the area in that there
are only four other restaurants in a three block radius
with On-Site liquor licenses with only one of these having
a Type 47 On-Site general liquor license.
10.
e
There will be no detrimental affect on nearby
residentially zoned neighborhoods considering the distance
of the alcohol outlet to residential buildings, churches,
schools, hospitals, playgrounds, parks, and other existing
alcohol outlets in that the sale of liquor will be
regulated to be integrated into the operation of the
restaurant; the building parking lot entrance is lOa' away
from residential uses to the north and 120' from the
retirement home to the west; and market and restaurant
hours will not extend beyond the hours of 8: 00 a. m. to
11:00 p.m. and in that the conditions for approval will
minimize the potential affect on the adjacent residential
uses.
- 2 -
Conditions
--
1.
Plans for final design, landscaping, screening, trash en-
closures, and signage shall be subject to review and ap-
proval by the Architectural Review Board. Addi tional
landscaping such as planters or landscape strips shall be
provided along both street frontages of the building, sub-
ject to the approval of an Encroachment Permit, if and as
needed. The Board shall ensure that parking lot screening
and landscaping (required by Condition 5) is substantial
enough to create a significant landscape buffer and pleas-
ing appearance around and within the parking lot.
2. Minor amendments to the plans shall be subject to approval
by the Director of Planning. An increase of more than 10%
of the square footage or a significant change in the ap-
proved concept shall be subj ect to Planning Commission
Review. Construction shall be in substantial conformance
with the plans submitted or as modified by the Planning
Commission, Architectural Review Board or Director of
Planning.
3. The rights granted herein shall be effective only when
exercised within a period of one year from the effective
date of approval. Upon the written request of the appli-
cant, the Director of Planning may extend this period up
to an additional six months.
e
4.
The applicant shall comply with all legal requirements
regarding provisions for the disabled, including those set
forth in the California Administrative Code, Title 24,
Part 2.
5. The parking lot shall be striped, screened and landscaped
in conformance with Sec. 9127.J.l and Sec. 9l29.F.7
(SMMC) .
6. Final parking lot layout and specifications shall be sub-
ject to the review and approval of the Parking and Traffic
Engineer.
7. Refuse areas, storage areas and mechanical equipment shall
be screened ln accordance with Sec. 9127J.2-4 (SMMC).
Refuse areas shall be of a size adequate to meet on-site
need.
8. A 5 to 6 foot solid masonry wall shall be provided along
property lines which abut residential property in accor-
dance with Sec. 9127.I (SMMC).
9.
e
The operation shall at all times be conducted in a manner
not detrimental to surrounding properties or residents by
reason of lights, noise, activities, parking or other
actions.
- 3 -
10.
No noise generating compressors
shall be placed adjacent to
buildings.
or other such equipment
neighboring residential
e
11. A security plan shall be approved by the Chief of Police
prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
12. street trees shall be maintained, relocated or provided as
required in a manner consistent with the City's Tree Code
(Ord. 1242 CCS), per the specifications of the Department
of Recreation and Parks and the Department of General Ser-
vices. No street tree shall be removed without the ap-
proval of the Department of Recreation and Parks.
13. street and/or alley lighting shall be provided on public
rights-of-way adjacent to the project if and as needed per
the specifications and with the approval of the Department
of General Services.
14 . Any outdoor I ighting shall be shielded and/ or directed
away from adjacent residential properties, with any such
lighting not to exceed 0.5 foot candles of illumination
beyond the perimeter of the subject property.
15. This determination shall not become effective for a period
of twenty days from the date of determination or, if ap-
pealed, until a final determination is made on the appeal.
It
16.
Hours of operation of the market and of restaurant service
shall not extend beyond the hours of 8: 00 a. m. to 11: 00
p.m.
17. On-site parking shall be made available without cost to
building customers and employees, with appropriate parking
lot signage to so indicate.
18. Parking lot illumination shall be provided and maintained.
19. The owner shall prohibit loitering in the parking area and
shall control noisy patrons leaving the restaurant.
20. The primary use of the restaurant premises shall be for
sit-down meal service to patrons. There shall be no
separate bar area or separate bar seating intended
primarily for drinks only service.
21. The restaurant shall occupy that portion of the building
specified in the submitted plans and shall not expand into
the market area. No more than 120 restaurant seats shall
be provided on the premises.
e
- 4 -
e
e
e
22.
This action shall apply only to the specific type of
integrated use described herein or as modified with the
written approval of the Director of Planning. The
restaurant shall not remain in operation unless a retail
food market is maintained in operation in the area
indicated on the submitted plans.
23. The premises shall maintain a kitchen or food-serving area
in which a variety of food is prepared and cooked on the
premises.
24. The premises shall serve food to patrons during all hours
the restaurant is open for customers.
25. Restaurant take-out service only shall be allowed
incidental to the primary sit-down restaurant use.
26. No dancing or live entertainment shall be permitted on the
premises.
27. Final plans for any changes to exterior design,
landscaping, trash enclosures, and/or signage shall be
SUbject to review and approval by the Architectural Review
Board.
Improvements to the alley, including speed bumps, shall be
installed at the expense of the applicant if required by
the Director of General services upon review of pertinent
safety factors.
29. SUbject to the approval of the Parking and Traffic
Engineer, the compact parking spaces adjacent to the 18th
Street parking lot entrance shall be made perpendicular to
the aisle to allow for additional landscaping.
28.
30. The front addition at the southwest corner of the building
shall be set back at least 18" from the Broadway property
line to allow for additional landscaping and increase
visibility at the intersection of the alley and Broadway.
VOTE
Ayes:
Nays:
Abstain:
Absent:
Perlman, Hecht, Israel, Farivar, Hebald-Heyrnan
None
None
Kirshner, Shearer
- 5 -
e
e
e
I hereby certify that this statement of
accurately reflects the final determination
Commission of the city of Santa Monica.
p~ (), t1JJt
signature
t2(CWW2D A MrUS
print name and title
Official Action
of the Planning
7jlf jb&
date
A9;; r$Tlf~T r'ZA- NL.)F1<-
RM: nh
stdr320
6-5-86
- 6 -