SR-400-004-14
PCD:SF:JT:AS:
F:\PLAN\SHARE\COUNCIL\STRPT\2003\03TA-001 Arcade Standards.doc
Council Mtg: September 23, 2003 Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Ordinance for Introduction and First Reading Amending the Santa Monica
Municipal Code Modifying Section 9.04.12.090 (Performance Standards for
Game Arcades). Applicant: George Gordon Enterprises, Inc.
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the City Council introduce for first reading an ordinance to
modify the performance standards specified in the Zoning Ordinance (SMMC Section
9.04.12.090) that are required for the operation of game arcades, a use that is only
permitted in particular areas within the Residential-Visitor Commercial (RVC) Zoning
District. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment applies to the sub-sections
regulating noise attenuation, provision of bicycle racks, adult supervision/surveillance,
and eating and drinking on the premises. The proposed ordinance is contained in
Attachment A.
BACKGROUND
Game arcades are permitted, subject to Performance Standards Permit (PSP) approval,
in two locations only within the RVC zone: the Santa Monica Pier and the Promenade
(Ocean Front Walk). The Code only allows a PSP to be issued if the proposed project
complies precisely with the standards set forth in SMMC Section 9.04.12.090. Adopted
in 1988, the purpose of the standards is to ensure that the noise and activity associated
with game arcades does not adversely impact surrounding uses. Existing arcades were
1
required to comply with the standards and obtain a PSP within one year of the
Ordinance adoption.
Members of the public living, owning property, operating a business or working in Santa
Monica may initiate an amendment to the Santa Monica Municipal Code Zoning
Ordinance. The applicant, George Gordon Enterprises, operates the Playland Arcade
on the Santa Monica Pier, an arcade that has been in business since 1950. According
to Business License records, the Playland Arcade is the only licensed game arcade in
the City of Santa Monica. The applicant was previously denied a PSP based on non-
compliance with some of the PSP requirements. The proposed ordinance amendment
is intended, in part, to address these non-compliance issues. The Game Arcade
standards were last amended in January 2000 to allow game arcades on the Santa
Monica Pier to operate until 2:00 a.m. daily.
The applicant proposed text amendments that would have eliminated the provision
governing the maximum number of arcade games per floor area, replaced the
requirement of a raised dais with a more general requirement of adult supervision,
exempted existing arcade buildings from soundproofing, exempted game arcades from
providing bicycle racks, and allowed the consumption of food and non-alcoholic drinks
within arcades. Staff agreed with some of the applicant’s proposed revisions, rejected
others and proposed additional modifications.
2
There are no conflicts between the proposed ordinance amendment and restrictions in
the Playland Arcade’s current lease agreement with the City of Santa Monica. Thus, no
changes would be necessary to their lease agreement should the City Council adopt the
proposed ordinance amendment. The Playland Arcade will have to obtain a
Performance Standards Permit once a decision has been made regarding this proposed
text amendment application.
ANALYSIS
Proposed Ordinance
The proposed ordinance would amend the game arcades performance standards
pertaining to noise attenuation, adult supervision, eating and drinking in arcades, and
the provision of bicycle racks, and would simplify the standards by combining sub-
sections with similar intent related to noise and supervision.
The proposed ordinance establishes a new sub-section on “Noise Attenuation.” This
provision requires an arcade to be constructed to achieve a minimum sound
transmission class (STC) of 50 between the arcade and adjacent uses that share a
common wall or floor-ceiling assembly in order to buffer the arcade’s vibrations from
neighboring tenant spaces. For further regulation of noise, compliance with the City’s
Noise Ordinance is required. As a result, existing subsections (m) regarding outdoor
music and (g) regarding soundproofing would be eliminated as these issues are now
addressed under Noise Attenuation.
3
The Code currently requires that an adult supervisor be located on “a raised dais so
positioned as to be able to readily observe all arcade and game machines and all areas
of business.” This standard is intended to ensure that operations are observed at all
times from a perspective that allows an overview of the entire premises in order to
provide supervision of minors in the facility. A second section requires the presence of
an adult supervisor or two if the arcade contains more than 40 machines. In order to
simplify and clarify the requirements, the proposed sub-section combines the existing
subsections (e) regarding a raised dais and (l) regarding adult supervision, and adds the
flexibility of an alternative provision for surveillance through a video camera monitoring
system, which the standards do not currently permit. Subsequent to the Planning
Commission hearing, staff conferred with the Santa Monica Police Department and
developed provisions to ensure that a video camera monitoring system installed to meet
this requirement is as effective as a raised dais for surveying arcade activity. The
additional language requires that the system be monitored from a location that is visible
from the arcade floor and requires posting signs indicating use of video camera
surveillance so that it functions as a deterrent to criminal activity. Staff has also added
a requirement to obtain the Police Department’s approval of the system. With these
provisions, staff believes that a video camera monitoring system is equivalent to
provision of a raised dais in the arcade.
The proposed ordinance modifies Subsection 9.04.12.090 (n) on “Eating, Drinking and
Smoking” by removing prohibitions on food and non-alcoholic beverages in arcades.
Smoking and alcoholic beverages would continue to be prohibited. Staff agrees with
4
the applicant that the decision to allow eating or drinking on the arcade premises should
be left to the arcade owner, based on operational and business considerations.
Prohibiting food and non-alcoholic drinks inside the arcade does not serve the City’s
purpose in regulating game arcades.
Finally, the amended game arcade standards would clarify the bicycle rack requirement
by specifying that a bicycle rack must provide the capacity to park four bicycles adjacent
to the arcade building. Currently, this standard is not specific as to how many bicycle
racks are needed, but rather states that the number should be adequate to meet
patrons’ needs. Therefore, this modification establishes a clear standard that is
consistent with the Zoning Ordinance bicycle requirement for new commercial
structures. Furthermore, as arcades are businesses that generally attract youth who
may arrive on bicycle, staff believes that this standard is appropriate and should not be
waived for Pier arcade locations. The bicycle rack location is clarified to require racks to
be placed adjacent to the arcade building and not on the public sidewalk. Since the Pier
is not a typical street with sidewalks, staff interprets that the deck area at the side of the
arcade building is not sidewalk; bicycle racks installed at this location would comply with
this standard.
Planning Commission Action
The Planning Commission considered the proposed ordinance amendment at its June
4, 2003 meeting. The Commission recommended that City Council amend Section
9.04.12.090 as proposed by staff with the following modifications:
5
?
Remove sub-section (c)(3) regarding outdoor music, relying on the preceding sub-
section that references compliance with the Noise Ordinance;
?
In sub-section (g), clarify that the requirement for bicycle racks is one rack that
holds four bicycles, rather than four bicycle racks;
?
Combine sub-sections (e) and (k), which both regulate supervision of the arcade;
?
Add a provision regarding a clearance area for patrons playing on arcade
machines in addition to the 44-inch minimum aisle width required by the Fire
Department.
Staff does not concur with the Commission’s last recommendation regarding additional
standing area. Due to the nature of arcades, where games of slightly different size may
replace other games on an on-going basis, it would be very difficult to monitor the width
of the playing area beyond the minimum aisle width, which is monitored by the Fire
Department. Secondly, it would be difficult to determine the proper measurement to
impose. The amount of area needed for safety and comfort to play a game depends on
the particular game or machine. Further, it is in the arcade owner’s interest to provide
sufficient room in order to facilitate the comfort of patrons to encourage them to play.
Such is the case with the Playland Arcade, where aisle widths are generally wider than
the minimum and measure 10 feet or more along the main aisles according to plans on
file. Staff believes that the existing performance standard (d) restricting the maximum
number of machines based on the arcade’s floor area, along with ADA requirements
and the Fire Department’s standards for aisle width, will ensure that arcades provide
sufficient room for patron comfort and safety.
6
All other recommendations of the Planning Commission are incorporated in the
proposed ordinance.
General Plan Land Use Element Compatibility
The City’s General Plan Land Use Element (LUE) contains policies and objectives for
the Oceanfront Special District aimed at encouraging visitor-serving uses like arcades to
“take advantage of the special potential of this prime opportunity area as a revenue
generator.” Game arcades are popular and low-cost entertainment options that
contribute to the City’s role as a regional recreation center, consistent with Objective
1.1. At the same time, Policy 1.2.4 of the LUE identifies video arcades as a use that
should be limited either through control of number or location, due to concerns
regarding compatibility with adjacent land uses, with particular concern for protecting
residential neighborhoods. The proposed ordinance continues to ensure that the Santa
Monica beachfront and Pier remain child-friendly environments through incorporating
more updated security and supervision standards and continuing to prohibit smoking
and drinking in arcades. Furthermore, the proposed language regarding noise
attenuation aligns game arcade standards with the City’s overall regulation of noise
through its Noise Ordinance and ensures that construction will incorporate
soundproofing technology that mitigates the arcade’s impacts on uses sharing a
common wall or ceiling.
Conclusion
7
The current standards for game arcades do not adequately address the specific
situation of game arcades on the Santa Monica Pier and are not flexible enough to
incorporate the technology available today for security and supervision. The proposed
amendments would achieve the objectives of the General Plan Land Use Element and
serve the purpose and intent of the game arcades performance standards effectively in
all areas of the RVC Zoning District in which they are allowed.
CEQA STATUS
The project is categorically exempt (Class 5) from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to
Section 15305(a) of the State Implementation Guidelines in that the project involves a
minor alteration in the land use limitations on parcels which have a slope of less than
20% and does not result in any change in land use or density in that the project
proposes a secondary, accessory land use which would not change or intensify the
primary permitted on-site land use.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
Pursuant to Municipal Code Sections 9.04.20.22.050, notice of the public hearing was
published in the “California” section of the Los Angeles Times newspaper at least ten
consecutive calendar days prior to the hearing. Notice of the hearing was also sent to
all neighborhood organizations, the Planning Commission, City of Los Angeles, and
posted on the City’s Web Site. A copy of the notice is contained in Attachment B.
8
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendation presented in this report does not have any budget or fiscal impact.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council hold a public hearing and introduce for first
reading the ordinance included in Attachment A.
Prepared by: Suzanne Frick, Director
Jay M. Trevino, AICP, Planning Manager
Amanda Schachter, Principal Planner
Kimberly Christensen, AICP, Senior Planner
Elizabeth Bar-El, AICP, City Planning Division
Planning and Community Development Department
Attachments:
A. Proposed Ordinance
B. Notice of Public Hearing
C. Planning Commission Staff Report dated June 4, 2003
D. Planning Commission minutes dated June 4, 2003
9
ATTACHMENT A
Proposed Ordinance
10
f:\atty\muni\laws\barry\03TA-001-1.doc
City Council Meeting 9-23-03 Santa Monica, California
ORDINANCE NUMBER ____ (CCS)
(City Council Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
AMENDING SECTION 9.04.12.090 OF THE SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR GAME ARCADES
WHEREAS, game arcades are permitted in two locations within the Residential-
Visitor Commercial (RVC) Zoning District, namely, the Santa Monica Pier and the
Promenade (Ocean Front Walk); and
WHEREAS, game arcades are permitted in these locations subject to a
Performance Standards Permit (PSP); and
WHEREAS, Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.12.090 establishes the
standards that an arcade must meet to obtain a PSP; and
WHEREAS, these standards were adopted to ensure that the noise and activity
associated with game arcades do not adversely impact surrounding uses and govern
such areas as required supervision, maximum number of machines, hours of operation,
noise, and food and beverage consumption; and
WHEREAS, the proposed ordinance would amend provisions of Section
9.04.12.090 related to noise attenuation, provision of bicycle racks, adult
supervision/surveillance, and eating and drinking on the arcade premises; and
11
WHEREAS, on December 16, 2002, George Gordon Enterprises, the operator
of an arcade on the Santa Monica Pier, filed an application for a text amendment which
would have eliminated the provision governing the maximum number of arcade games
per floor area, replaced the requirement of a raised dais with a more general
requirement of adult supervision, exempted existing arcade buildings from
soundproofing, exempted game arcades from providing bicycle racks, and allowed the
consumption of food and non-alcoholic drinks within arcades; and
WHEREAS, staff agreed with certain of the applicant's proposed revisions,
rejected others, and proposed additional modifications; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the applicant's proposed text
amendment and staff's recommended text amendment at public hearings conducted on
June 4, 2003; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council
approve staff's proposed text amendment with certain modifications; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on this proposed text
amendment on September 23, 2003; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment is consistent in principle with the goals,
objectives, policies, land uses, and programs specified in the adopted General Plan,
namely General Plan Land Use Objective 1.1 and Policy 1.2.4 in that the General Plan
intends for the Oceanfront District to allow visitor-serving uses like arcades to “take
advantage of the special potential of this prime opportunity area as a revenue
generator,” subject to standards that will ensure that these uses do not impact other
commercial uses or residential uses, which are also permitted and encouraged in this
12
zone and in that the proposed amendments to the standards regarding noise
attenuation and supervision facilitate the operation of an entertainment/visitor serving
use in a district intended to serve the City’s tourist population while continuing to ensure
adequate protection for residential and commercial uses in the vicinity; and
WHEREAS, the proposed standards as amended are also consistent with these
General Plan objectives and policies in that they continue to ensure that the Santa
Monica beachfront and Pier remain a child-friendly environment and they improve
regulation of a use that is a popular and low-cost entertainment option that fulfills the
City’s role as a regional recreation center and in that the proposed standards continue
to limit the locations in which game arcades are permitted to ensure compatibility with
adjacent land uses with particular concern for protecting residential neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, the public health, safety, and general welfare require the adoption of
the proposed amendment in that this amendment to the performance standards for
game arcades is designed to protect the public health, safety and general welfare by
establishing standards by which game arcades may operate that ensure that game
arcades do not impact other commercial or residential uses permitted in this zoning
district,
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
13
SECTION 1. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.12.090 is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Section 9.04.12.090 Game arcades.
The noise and loitering commonly associated with
game arcades tend to decrease compatibility with adjacent
and surrounding uses. In order to mitigate the impacts of this
use on other land uses, specific location limitations,
development standards, and provisions shall be imposed on
arcades and video machines. The following performance
standards shall apply to game arcades.
Applicability.
(a) Arcades shall be permitted only in
the RVC District with approval of a performance standards
permit and only in the following two locations: on the Santa
Monica Pier and fronting on the Promenade. A performance
standards permit shall also be required for existing arcades
at such a time as those arcades apply for City permits for
expansion or remodeling or any other development requiring
a permit from the City or within one year of the date of
adoption of this Chapter.
Number of Machines.
(b) Four or fewer arcade or
game machines shall be permitted in any commercial
14
business. More than four arcade or game machines for any
commercial business constitutes an arcade which shall be
subject to the standards and provisions in this Section.
Noise Attenuation Requirements Structures.
(c)
(1) All structures Any arcade building or tenant space
shall be constructed to achieve a minimum sound standard
transmission class coefficient (STC) sound rating of 45-50
between the arcade and any adjacent use that shares a
common wall or floor-ceiling assembly.
(2) All arcades shall comply with the City’s Noise
Ordinance, Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 4.12.
Maximum Number of Machines.
(d) The number of
arcade or game machines shall not exceed one machine per
each thirty square feet of floor area.
Deleted:
Raised Dais
Adult Supervision/Surveillance.
(e) An adult
supervisor shall be located on a raised dais so positioned as
to be able to readily observe all arcade and game machines
and all areas of business. All arcade and game machines
and all areas of the business shall be readily observed at all
times by an adult supervisor of the arcade either by direct
observation from a raised dais or through a video camera
monitoring system approved by the Santa Monica Police
Department with cameras positioned so that the supervisor
15
can observe all areas of the arcade simultaneously on a
multi-screen monitor. If a video camera monitoring system is
utilized, it shall be installed so that the monitoring supervisor
is visible from the main arcade area and a sign shall be
displayed at all entries to the arcade informing patrons that a
video monitoring system is in use. In addition to the required
supervision from a raised dais or video camera monitoring
system, an adult supervisor shall be present in the main
arcade area at all times that the arcade is open. If the
number of arcade and game machines exceeds forty, there
shall be two such adult supervisors present in the main
arcade area.
Lighting.
(f) The arcade shall be fully and
adequately lighted for easy observation of all areas of the
premises.
Walls.
(g) The walls of the arcade shall be
soundproofed to absorb the noise generated by the arcade
and game machines.
Bicycle Racks.
(g) (h) Bicycle A bicycle storage rack
Deleted:
storage racks
accommodating a minimum of four (4) bicycles shall be
maintained adjacent to the arcade building and off the public
sidewalk to adequately accommodate bicycles utilized by
arcade patrons.
16
Restrooms.
(h) (i) Each arcade shall provide at
least one public restroom accessible to the disabled.
Telephones.
(i) (j) At least one public telephone
shall be provided at each arcade.
Hours of Operation.
(j) (k) The hours of operation
shall be limited to between eight a.m. and ten p.m., every
day of the week, except that game arcades on the Pier
existing as of December 14, 1999 may operate Monday
through Sunday from eight a.m. to two a.m.
Deleted:
(k)(l) Adult
Supervision. An adult supervisor
shall be present at all times during
hours of operation and if the number
of arcade and game machines
Noise.
(m) No amplified music shall be audible on
exceeds forty, there shall be two adult
supervisors present at all times during
hours of operation.
the exterior of the premises.
Smoking, Eating, and Drinking.
(k) (n) No alcoholic
beverages, food, drink or cigarettes shall be sold or
consumed on the premises and there shall be no smoking
within the arcade. Appropriate notification shall be displayed
within the premises.
Litter.
(l) (o) The premises shall be continuously
maintained in a safe, clean and orderly condition.
Abandonment.
(m) (p) A legal nonconforming arcade
that is closed continuously for a period of one year shall be
declared abandoned. To resume operation, the abandoned
17
arcade must obtain a performance standards permit in
accordance with this Section.
SECTION 2. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices
thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such
inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary
to effect the provisions of this Ordinance.
SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this
Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any
court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would
have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause,
or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion
of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 4. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage
of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the
18
official newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become
effective 30 days from its adoption.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
MARSHA JONES MOUTRIE
City Attorney
19
ATTACHMENT B
Notice of Public Hearing
20
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE SANTA MONICA CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Ordinance for Introduction and First Reading
RVC Zoning District City Wide
APPLICANT: George Gordon Enterprises, Inc.
A public hearing will be held by the City Council to consider the following request:
Ordinance for introduction and first reading modifying Santa Monica Municipal Code
(SMMC Section 9.04.12.090) regarding the performance standards for game arcades,
including the maximum number of games permitted, the requirement to provide a raised
dais for observation, noise attenuation, provision of bicycle racks, adult supervision
requirements, and prohibition of food and drink within the arcade.
DATE/TIME: TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2003, AT 6:45 p.m.
LOCATION: City Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, Santa Monica City Hall
1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California
HOW TO COMMENT
The City of Santa Monica encourages public comment. You may comment at the City
Council public hearing, or by writing a letter. Written information will be given to the City
Council at the meeting.
Address your letters to: City Clerk
Re: 03TA-001
1685 Main Street, Room 102
Santa Monica, CA 90401
MORE INFORMATION
If you want more information about this project or wish to review the project file, please
contact Elizabeth Bar-El, AICP, Associate Planner, at (310) 458-8341, or by e-mail at
elizabeth-bar-el@santa-monica.org. The Zoning Ordinance is available at the Planning
Counter during business hours and on the City’s web site at www.santa-monica.org.
The meeting facility is wheelchair accessible. For disability-related accommodations,
please contact (310) 458-8341 or (310) 458-8696 TTY at least 72 hours in advance. All
written materials are available in alternate format upon request. Santa Monica Big Blue
Bus Lines numbered 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 serve City Hall.
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65009(b), if this matter is
subsequently challenged in Court, the challenge may be limited to only those issues
raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence
delivered to the City of Santa Monica at, or prior to, the public hearing.
21
ESPAÑOL
Esto es una noticia de una audiencia pública para revisar applicaciónes proponiendo
desarrollo en Santa Monica. Si deseas más información, favor de llamar a Carmen
Gutierrez en la División de Planificación al número (310) 458-8341.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
JAY M. TREVINO, AICP
Planning Manager
F:\PLAN\SHARE\COUNCIL\NOTICES\03TA-001 Arcade Standards.doc
22
ATTACHMENT C
Planning Commission Staff Report dated June 4, 2003
23
PCD:JT:AS:KC:LBE:
F:\PLAN\SHARE\PC\STRPT\03\03TA-001 Arcade standards.doc
Planning Commission Mtg: June 4, 2003 Santa Monica, California
TO: The Honorable Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: Text Amendment 03TA-001
Address: RVC Zoning District City Wide
Applicant: George Gordon Enterprises, Inc.
INTRODUCTION
Action: Amend Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.12.090 regarding the
performance standards for game arcades.
Recommendation: Recommend Council amend SMMC Section 9.04.12.090 as modified
by staff.
Permit Streamlining Expiration Date: Not applicable to text amendments.
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Text Amendment would apply to all properties in the RVC – Residential-Visitor
Commercial Zoning District
Zoning District: Residential-Visitor Commercial (RVC) District
Land Use District: Oceanfront Special District
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant has requested an amendment to modify six of the performance standards
specified in SMMC Section 9.04.12.090 that are required for the operation of game
arcades, a use that is only permitted in the Residential-Visitor Commercial (RVC)
Zoning District. The applicant has requested to revise these standards to ensure
consistency with Fire Department requirements regarding the maximum number of
games allowed; to eliminate the requirement of a raised dais for observation; to clarify
the adult supervision requirement, to exempt existing buildings from the requirement to
absorb noise through soundproofing of walls; to modify the placement a bicycle rack for
24
game arcades on the Santa Monica Pier; and to allow consumption of food and non-
alcoholic beverages within game arcades. The applicant was previously denied a
Performance Standards Permit for their business at 350 Santa Monica Pier based on
the non-compliance of their business, Playland Arcade, with some of these
requirements.
CEQA STATUS
The project is categorically exempt (Class 5) from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to
Section 15305(a) of the State Implementation Guidelines in that the project involves a
minor alteration in the land use limitations on parcels which have a slope of less than
20% and does not result in any change in land use or density in that the project
proposes a secondary, accessory land use which would not change or intensify the
primary permitted on-site land use.
IMPACT ON HISTORIC RESOURCES
The proposed text amendment would not have any impacts on historic resources as it
addresses only standards for operation. Each individual application that involves
exterior modifications at a game arcade located on a designated Landmark parcel
would be reviewed for its impacts to the historic resource.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65804, notice of the public hearing for the Text
Amendment was published in the “California” Section of the Los Angeles Times
newspaper at least ten consecutive calendar days prior to the hearing. Notice of the
public hearing was also sent to all neighborhood organizations, and posted on the City’s
Web site. A copy of the notice is contained in Attachment A.
ANALYSIS
Background
Game arcades are permitted, subject to Performance Standards Permit approval, in two
locations only within the RVC zone: the Santa Monica Pier and the Promenade (Ocean
Front Walk). The Code only allows a Performance Standards Permit to be issued if the
proposed project complies precisely with the standards set forth in SMMC Section
9.04.12.090. The first paragraph of that section states as follows:
“The noise and loitering commonly associated with game arcades tend to
decrease compatibility with adjacent and surrounding uses. In order to
mitigate the impacts of this use on other land uses, specific location limitations,
development standards, and provisions shall be imposed on arcades and
video machines.”
25
The Game Arcade special standards (Attachment D) were established to ensure
compliance with this purpose. Existing arcades were also required to meet the
standards and obtain a Performance Standards Permit within one year of the April 1988
Zoning Ordinance adoption.
The applicant, George Gordon Enterprises, operates the Playland Arcade on the Santa
Monica Pier, an arcade that has been in business since 1950. According to Business
License records, the Playland Arcade is the only licensed game arcade in the City of
Santa Monica. The arcade building was destroyed in the Pier storm in the 1980’s. In
1991 a building permit was issued to rebuild an arcade structure on the same footprint.
Subsequently, in 1997, in response to concerns about gang activity on the Pier, the City
investigated Pier uses and became aware that the arcade owners had never applied for
a PSP and that the arcade’s late hours of operation did not comply with the adopted
game arcade standards. City staff brought this to the arcade owner’s attention. In
December 1998, the applicant filed a text amendment application to amend the
permitted operating hours for game arcades on the Pier. Although staff informed the
applicant regarding compliance with other performance standards, the text amendment
application focused only on resolving concerns about the hours of operation. The
amendment was approved in January 2000, allowing the Playland Arcade, as a pre-
existing game arcade on the Pier, to operate until 2:00 a.m. daily.
PSP 02-001 was filed on February 11, 2002, and was denied. The subject Text
Amendment was filed on December 16, 2002. A new Performance Standards Permit
application will be required upon completion of the Text Amendment that complies with
the regulation in effect upon conclusion of the amendment process.
Zoning Text Amendment
The text amendment application addresses three of the standards established in
Section 9.04.12.090 that the Playland Arcade PSP application did not comply with,
specifically subsections (e) “Raised Dais,” (g) “Walls” and (n) “Smoking, Eating and
Drinking.” The applicant has additionally requested to change other subsections with
which the Arcade currently complies. The following summarizes the applicant’s
proposals, together with staff’s analysis. Attachments B and C include the applicant’s
proposed text amendment and staff’s recommended amendment language.
1. Removal of the maximum number of arcade games allowed.
Subsection (d) of the Game Arcade standards states that the maximum number of
machines may not exceed one machine per 30 square feet of floor area. The applicant
proposes to eliminate the specific ratio and instead reference compliance with “Fire and
Building Code standards regarding aisle ways and egress to all exits.”
26
Staff conferred with the City’s Fire Department and Building Division regarding the
standards that would apply to game arcades. The Building Code does not specify a
minimum floor area per machine. The regulation of the site would be limited to a
requirement to provide 44-inch minimum aisle widths, clearance at required exits and
compliance with ADA standards.
In a traditional game arcade, the requirement to provide a minimum ratio of 30 square
feet per machine may be redundant when taken together with the Building Code,
because the size of traditional game machines and the required aisle width would
generally result in compliance with this minimum. In the review of 02PSP-001, the
Playland Arcade was found to have over 50 square feet per machine. However, the
newly emerging cyber cafés are considered by Zoning Code definition to be game
arcades if they have more than 4 machines (computers) and are thus also subject to the
Game Arcade standards. As computers take up smaller areas, more than one per 30
square feet could likely fit into the cyber café’s floor area and still comply with Building
and Fire Codes. Considering recent impacts of these uses in other cities, it is not
desirable to modify this standard and allow more crowded cyber café establishments in
the RVC zone.
Staff recommends maintaining the existing language of Subsection (d).
2. Replacing the requirement for a raised dais with more general language regarding
adult supervision.
The Code currently requires that an adult supervisor be located on “a raised dais so
positioned as to be able to readily observe all arcade and game machines and all areas
of business.” This standard is intended to ensure that operations are being observed at
all times from a perspective that allows an overview of the entire premises in order to
provide supervision of minors in the facility. This would relate directly to the perceived
impact of game arcades and the intent of the standards. The applicant proposes to
eliminate Subsection (e) and address the concern by requiring the adult supervisors
already required in Subsection (l) to generally position themselves to observe the
premises, but without specifying an overview location.
Staff agrees that the raised dais is not necessarily the best or only method for
observation of activities. However, the overview from a higher vantage point gives
supervisors the ability to see many more areas at one time. This is particularly true if
there are only two adult supervisors on the premises and a large number of arcade
games. Staff recommends amending this subsection to allow flexibility, permitting
installation of either a raised dais or a video camera system, with cameras positioned so
as to allow a supervisor to observe all areas of the arcade at one time on a multi-screen
monitor.
3. Exempting existing game arcade buildings from the requirement to absorb noise
through soundproofing.
27
The applicant proposes to add an exception to the language of Subsection (g) such that
“structures and buildings in place prior to the enactment of this section, the building and
construction of which the city approved for use as a game arcade” would not have to be
soundproofed to absorb noise generated by the arcade and its game machines. The
intention is that this would apply to the Playland Arcade, which has long been in
operation as a game arcade.
Staff is sympathetic to the concept that noise standards at the Pier may be determined
differently from noise standards elsewhere in the City. However, staff disagrees with
the applicant’s approach and proposed language because it is ambiguously worded.
Additionally, the applicant’s proposed language may not comply with the noise
standards (SMMC Chapter 4.12 and the General Plan Noise Element) and may not
resolve their inability to comply with all the PSP standards. Moreover, the City will soon
be considering amendments to its Noise Ordinance, to which the arcade should remain
subject to. Arcades should be held subject to the same noise standards as the other
businesses around them.
The current game arcade standards include three subsections that relate to noise
impacts: (c) Structures, (g) Walls and (m) Noise. The three are somewhat overlapping
as they all aim to ensure that the arcade’s noise is absorbed within the building and
does not constitute a nuisance to neighboring uses or to adjacent public areas, such as
the sidewalks and street. Staff proposes language eliminating subsections (g) and (m),
and renaming subsection (c) “Noise Attenuation Requirements,” combining and revising
these sections to achieve the purpose of regulating noise impacts while ensuring
consistency with other City noise regulations.
Staff has conferred with the City’s Noise Ordinance consultant to clarify the “STC”
performance standard and proposes a revision to make it more appropriate for the use.
The current standard could only be met by solid wall construction with no windows.
Such dark, closed-in arcades would be undesirable and would not meet the City’s
pedestrian-oriented design standards. This type of construction would also be contrary
to the Pier Design Guidelines, which encourage development of a unique environment
with ease of access and interaction with the ocean and beachfront environment. The
proposed approach sets a standard requiring arcade structures to comply with a
minimum sound transmission class (STC) sound rating of 50 between adjacent uses
that share a common wall or floor-ceiling assembly. This construction standard would
protect adjoining uses but recognize that an arcade may emit some noise towards the
pier or boardwalk. However, since game arcades are restricted by location to two
places within festive and generally noisy atmospheres, some emission of noise is
acceptable.
Staff is not recommending alteration of the language requiring that amplified music is
not audible on the exterior of the arcade premises.
28
4. Exempting game arcades on the Santa Monica Pier from the requirement to provide
a bicycle rack.
The applicant proposes amending Subsection (h) of the Game Arcade standard
regarding bicycle racks to add the words “except for those bicycle racks on the Santa
Monica Pier which are maintained by the City Of Santa Monica.”
As arcades are businesses that generally attract youth who may arrive on bicycle, this
standard should not be waived for Pier arcade locations. However, upon further review
of this standard, staff agrees that the language could be clarified. As it currently stands,
this standard is not specific as to how many bicycle racks are needed, but rather states
that the number should be adequate to meet patrons’ needs. This makes it difficult to
determine whether a project complies. Staff proposes to clarify that a minimum of four
bicycle racks should be required and that they should be adjacent to the structure as
well as off of the public sidewalk. As the Pier is not a typical street with sidewalks, staff
has interpreted that the deck area at the side of the arcade structure is not sidewalk,
and bicycle racks installed at this location would comply with this standard.
5. Allowing consumption of food and non-alcoholic drinks within game arcades.
The applicant wishes to be able to continue selling candy and drinks from vending
machines on the premises. This conflicts with Subsection (n) Smoking, Eating and
Drinking. This subsection addresses the primary concern of these regulations regarding
crowding around game arcades. Certainly, the ban on smoking in the arcade (which is
also prohibited by State law) and drinking of alcoholic beverages, which requires a State
license and would be an incompatible accessory use, directly address this concern.
However, prohibiting eating and drinking non-alcoholic beverages in the arcade does
not serve this purpose because it forces patrons to go outside the arcade for snacks,
possibly causing greater impacts to surrounding uses. An arcade owner may wish to
prohibit eating or drinking to protect the machines from damage but that does not
necessitate the mandate established by this ordinance. Staff agrees with the
applicant’s proposed language regarding this subsection.
General Plan Land Use Element Compatibility
The City’s General Plan Land Use Element (LUE) contains policies and objectives for
the Oceanfront Special District aimed at encouraging visitor-serving uses like arcades to
“take advantage of the special potential of this prime opportunity area as a revenue
generator.” Game arcades are popular and low-cost entertainment options that
contribute to the City’s role as a regional recreation center, consistent with Objective
1.1. At the same time, Policy 1.2.4 of the LUE identifies video arcades as a use that
should be limited either through control of number or location, due to concerns
regarding compatibility with adjacent land uses, with particular concern for protecting
residential neighborhoods. Consistent with this policy, the current performance
standards for game arcades limit location to the Pier and beach Promenade, as noted
above, and the proposed amendments do not affect these restrictions. The
29
recommended game arcade standards continue to ensure that the Santa Monica
beachfront and Pier remain child-friendly environments (Objective 1.1) through
incorporating more updated standards for security and supervision and through
continuing to prohibit smoking and drinking in arcades. Furthermore, the proposed
language regarding noise attenuation aligns game arcade standards with the City’s
overall regulation of noise through its Noise Ordinance and ensures that construction
will incorporate soundproofing technology that mitigates the arcade’s impacts on uses
sharing a common wall or ceiling.
Conclusion
The current standards for game arcades do not adequately address the specific
situation of game arcades on the Santa Monica Pier and are not flexible enough to
incorporate the technology available today for security and supervision. Staff generally
agrees with the applicant that there is a need to amend the Code. However, staff does
not support the applicant’s proposal in its entirety because it has not considered larger
issues of the text amendment’s impact on future game arcade proposals in the RVC
Zoning District. Staff recommends alternative amendments that would better meet the
objectives of the General Plan Land Use Element and serve the purpose and intent of
the game arcades performance standards effectively in all areas of the RVC Zoning
District in which they are allowed.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council
amend SMMC Section 9.04.12.090 with the proposed language included herein as
Attachment C, based on the following findings:
TEXT AMENDMENT FINDINGS
1. The proposed amendment is consistent in principle with the goals, objectives,
policies, land uses, and programs specified in the adopted General Plan in that
the General Plan intends for the Oceanfront District to allow visitor-serving uses
like arcades to “take advantage of the special potential of this prime opportunity
area as a revenue generator,” subject to standards that will ensure that these
uses do not impact other commercial uses or residential uses, which are also
permitted and encouraged in this zone. The proposed amendments to the
standards regarding noise attenuation and supervision facilitate the operation of
an entertainment/visitor serving use in a district intended to serve the City’s
tourist population while continuing to ensure adequate protection for residential
and commercial uses in the vicinity. The proposed standards as amended are
consistent with General Plan Land Use Element Objective 1.1 in that they
continue to ensure that the Santa Monica beachfront and Pier remain a child-
30
friendly environment and they improve regulation of a use that fulfills the City’s
role as a regional recreation center. The proposed standards continue to limit
the locations in which game arcades are permitted to ensure compatibility with
adjacent land uses with particular concern for protecting residential
neighborhoods, consistent with Objective 1.2.4.
2. The public health, safety, and general welfare require the adoption of the
proposed amendment in that this amendment to the performance standards for
game arcades is designed to protect the public health, safety and general
welfare by establishing standards by which game arcades may operate that
ensure that game arcades do not impact other commercial or residential uses
permitted in this zoning district.
Prepared by: Elizabeth Bar-El, AICP, Associate Planner
City Planning Division
Planning and Community Development Department
Attachments:
A. Notice of Public Hearing
B. Applicant’s Proposed Text Amendment
C. Staff’s Recommended Text Amendment
D. Existing Code Section SMMC Section 9.04.12.090
E. Performance Standards Permit 02-001 (denied)
31
Attachment C
RECOMMENDED TEXT AMENDMENT: PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR GAME
ARCADES
Added text underlined. Deleted Text and Renumbering in Strikethrough.
Section 9.04.12.090 Game arcades.
The noise and loitering commonly associated with game arcades tend to decrease
compatibility with adjacent and surrounding uses. In order to mitigate the impacts of this
use on other land uses, specific location limitations, development standards, and
provisions shall be imposed on arcades and video machines. The following
performance standards shall apply to game arcades.
Applicability.
(a) Arcades shall be permitted only in the RVC District with approval
of a performance standards permit and only in the following two locations: on the Santa
Monica Pier and fronting on the Promenade. A performance standards permit shall also
be required for existing arcades at such a time as those arcades apply for City permits
for expansion or remodeling or any other development requiring a permit from the City
or within one year of the date of adoption of this Chapter.
Number of Machines.
(b) Four or fewer arcade or game machines shall be
permitted in any commercial business. More than four arcade or game machines for any
commercial business constitutes an arcade which shall be subject to the standards and
provisions in this Section.
Noise Attenuation Requirements Structures.
(c)
(1) All structures Any arcade building or tenant space shall be constructed to
achieve a minimum sound standard transmission class coefficient (STC)
sound rating of 45-50 between the arcade and adjacent uses that share a
common wall or floor-ceiling assembly.
(2) All arcades shall comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance.
(3) No amplified music shall be audible outside of the premises.
Maximum Number of Machines.
(d) The number of arcade or game machines
shall not exceed one machine per each thirty square feet of floor area.
Raised Dais or Video Camera Installation.
(e) An adult supervisor shall be
located on a raised dais so positioned as to be able to readily observe all arcade and
game machines and all areas of business. All arcade and game machines and all areas
of the business shall be readily observed at all times by a supervisor of the arcade
either by direct observation from a raised dais or through a video camera system with
cameras positioned so that the supervisor can observe all areas of the arcade
simultaneously on a multi-screen monitor.
Lighting.
(f) The arcade shall be fully and adequately lighted for easy observation
of all areas of the premises.
Walls.
(g) The walls of the arcade shall be soundproofed to absorb the noise
generated by the arcade and game machines.
32
Bicycle Racks.
(g) (h) Bicycle A minimum of four (4) bicycle storage racks shall be
maintained adjacent to the arcade building and off the public sidewalk to adequately
accommodate bicycles utilized by arcade patrons.
Restrooms.
(h) (i) Each arcade shall provide at least one public restroom
accessible to the disabled.
Telephones.
(i) (j) At least one public telephone shall be provided at each arcade.
Hours of Operation.
(j) (k) The hours of operation shall be limited to between eight
a.m. and ten p.m., every day of the week, except that game arcades on the Pier existing
as of December 14, 1999 may operate Monday through Sunday from eight a.m. to two
a.m.
Adult Supervision.
(k) (l) An adult supervisor shall be present at all times during
hours of operation and if the number of arcade and game machines exceeds forty, there
shall be two adult supervisors present at all times during hours of operation.
Noise.
(m) No amplified music shall be audible on the exterior of the premises.
Smoking, Eating, and Drinking.
(l) (n) No alcoholic beverages, food, drink or
cigarettes shall be sold or consumed on the premises and there shall be no smoking
within the arcade. Appropriate notification shall be displayed within the premises.
Litter.
(m) (o) The premises shall be continuously maintained in a safe, clean and
orderly condition.
Abandonment.
(n) (p) A legal nonconforming arcade that is closed continuously for
a period of one year shall be declared abandoned. To resume operation, the
abandoned arcade must obtain a performance standards permit in accordance with this
Section. (Prior code § 9050.9; amended by Ord. No. 1964CCS § 3, adopted 1/11/00)
33
ATTACHMENT D
Planning Commission Minutes dated June 4, 2003
34
M I N U T E S
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
WEDNESDAY, June 4, 2003 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7:00 P.M. ROOM 213, CITY HALL
1. CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:11 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Commissioner Hopkins led the Pledge of
Allegiance.
3. ROLL CALL:
Present: Barbara Brown
Darrell Clarke, Chairperson
Julie Lopez Dad
Arlene Hopkins
Jay P. Johnson
Kelly Olsen [arrived at 7:20 p.m.]
Absent: Geraldine Moyle
Also Present: Elizabeth Bar-El, AICP, Associate Planner
Kimberly Christensen, AICP, Senior Planner
Kyle Ferstead, Commissioner Secretary
Paul Foley, Senior Planner
Suzanne Frick, Director of Planning / PCD
Bruce Leach, Associate Planner
Kevin McKeown, City Council Liaison
Barry Rosenbaum, Senior Land Use Attorney
Amanda Schachter, Principal Planner
Jay M. Trevino, AICP, Planning Manager
4. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT:
Ms. Frick gave the Director’s Report. Ms. Frick reported that the City Council
reviewed Planning and Community Development Department priorities at their
Budget Session on May 28, 2003, and the discussion will be continued when the
Budget is adopted on June 17, 2003. In other City Council news, Ms. Frick
reported that the Council will be reviewing the Outdoor Dining Standards, an
appeal on 1544 Seventh Street, and a landmarks appeal on the Marisol
Restaurant on June 10, 2003. On June 24, the City Council will be holding public
hearings on Architectural Review Board (ARB) Noticing requirements and an
35
appeal on 1243 Franklin Street. Ms. Frick reported that in July, the City Council
th
will be hearing an appeal on 808 Wilshire Boulevard (July 8) and a proposal for
proactive Conditional Use Permit monitoring by Code Enforcement. Further, Ms.
Frick reported that the following dates have been set for Commission public
hearings: June 18, July 2, July 16 and August 6, 2003.
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Consent Calendar
5-A. Commissioner Dad made a motion to approve the minutes for May 7, 2003, as
submitted. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion, which was approved by
voice vote. Commissioner Brown abstained from the vote. Commissioners Moyle
and Olsen were absent.
6. STATEMENTS OF OFFICIAL ACTION:
Consent Calendar
6-A. Conditional Use Permit 02-021, Performance Standards Permit 02-009, Variance
02-024, 101 Broadway.
Commissioner Dad made a motion to approve the Statement of Official Action as
submitted. Commissioner Hopkins seconded the motion, which was approved by
voice vote. Commissioner Brown abstained from the vote. Commissioners Moyle
and Olsen were absent.
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
7-A. Text Amendment (03TA-001),
RVC Zoning District City Wide. Modify Santa
Monica Municipal Code (SMMC Section 9.04.12.090) to amend the performance
standards for game arcades regarding the maximum number of games
permitted, the requirement to provide a raised dais for observation, noise
attenuation, provision of bicycle racks, adult supervision requirements and
prohibition of food and drink within the arcade. [Planner: Elizabeth Bar-El, AICP]
APPLICANT: George GordonEnterprises, Inc.
Chair Clarke asked the Commissioners to make their disclosures. Senior Land
Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that ex parte communication disclosures are not
required for non-quasi-judicial hearings.
Associate Planner Elizabeth Bar-El gave the staff report.
Commissioner Johnson asked staff about the operating hours for the game
arcade. Ms. Bar-El stated that the game arcade is open until 2:00 a.m., which is
consistent with Code.
Commissioner Johnson asked staff if there have been any noise complaints from
adjacent residents. Ms. Bar-El stated that the business must comply with the
City’s Noise Ordinance. Ms. Frick added this includes the current and proposed
36
versions of the Noise Ordinance and that noise levels are required to be reduced
later in the evening.
Commissioner Johnson asked staff about the nature of complaints and police
calls associated with this business. Ms. Bar-El stated that she is unaware of any
such complaints or police calls. She suggested that Resource Management
personnel may be able to respond to that question.
Commissioner Johnson asked staff about the 44-inch minimum aisle width
specified in the staff report and if this is consistent with other businesses. Ms.
Bar-El stated that the 44-inch minimum aisle width is a condition from the Fire
Department.
Commissioner Johnson asked staff about soundproofing game arcades and how
the standards are set. Ms. Frick stated that this part of the Noise Ordinance
addresses sound emanating from the establishment, not inside the
establishment.
Commissioner Brown asked staff why two of the recommendations were not
combined, specifically those dealing with adult supervision and subsection (k).
Ms. Bar-El stated that they are separated due to existing code language, but
could be combined. Commissioner Brown suggested that the combination would
streamline the text.
Commissioner Hopkins commented on the revised text, subsection (c-1) and (c-
2), and asked what a “STC of 50” means. Ms. Bar-El stated that this figure was
arrived at in consultation with the noise consultant and should prevent vibrations
from being heard through adjoining walls (above, below or beside).
Commissioner Hopkins asked staff if it would be possible to verify if “low bass
notes” will be inaudible. Ms. Frick stated that the Noise Ordinance pertains to no
amplified music being audible outside the building and only addresses noise, not
vibrations. Commissioner Hopkins commented that low wavelengths travel
farther and should be taken into account. Ms. Frick stated that this should be
captured by the STC. Ms. Bar-El stated for the record that the noise consultant
was well aware of the types of noises produced by a game arcade.
Commissioner Johnson asked staff if they contacted adjacent business owners
and neighbors regarding noise issues. Ms. Bar-El answered in the negative and
stated that the Text Amendment applies to all game arcades, not just the current
game arcade.
Commissioner Olsen reminded those present of a police situation that occurred
in 1998 adjacent to the game arcade. Ms. Bar-El stated that the Police
Department did not have many comments on this application. Commissioner
Olsen asked if the Police Department was supplied with plans. Ms. Bar-El stated
37
that they were asked for their input, but not given plans because no plans were
submitted for the Text Amendment. City Council Liaison McKeown stated for the
record that the police situation had nothing to do with the game arcade.
Commissioner Hopkins asked about the current aisle widths which range from 4
½ feet to 11 feet. Ms. Bar-El concurred with the stated widths and stated that the
Fire Department requirement is for a minimum aisle width of 44-inches. She
further stated that the applicant has proposed to remove the maximum number of
arcade machines and comply with the Fire Department requirements, however
the staff report does not agree with this proposal.
Chair Clarke asked about the bicycle rack issue. Ms. Bar-El stated that the
current game arcade is required to have storage space (a rack) for four bicycles.
The applicant’s representative and attorney, Sal Sirna, was present to discuss
the application.
Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Sirna about the 44-inch aisle widths, which he
feels would be too narrow to pass by. Mr. Sirna stated that the Code sets the
minimum aisle width, however the actual aisle widths at the game arcade are
much wider.
Ms. Frick stated for the record that the default aisle width is set by Fire Code at
44-inch minimum width, however the Commission can identify an alternate width
for the Text Amendment.
Commissioner Olsen asked the applicant if they are clear on the request for one
machine per 30 square feet of floor area. Mr. Sirna answered in the affirmative.
The following members of the public addressed the Commission on the Text
Amendment: Ellen Brennan, Joe Natalie, Reyna Alvarez, Jayani Moore, Jennifer
Argenti, Rosana Alvarez, and Elana Buegoff [Pier Leasing Agent] of the City’s
Resource Management Department.
Commissioner Hopkins commented that there is a disconnect between what Ms.
Buegoff states as the noise levels on the Pier and adjacent to the game arcade
and what the public stated. Ms. Buegoff stated that there needs to be a balance
between vendors and the arcade and her experience has been that noise
compliance does happen, then over time the noise volume goes up.
Commissioner Hopkins stated that “noise creep” is non-compliance and the
lessee is responsible. She also stated that the noise standard is 45 db, not 81 db
inside the building.
Commissioner Olsen asked Ms. Buegoff what time of day the sound readings
were taken. Ms. Buegoff stated that they were taken at approximately 2:00 p.m.
38
on January 29, 2003. Commissioner Olsen commented that this time was not
“normal” or prime time for Pier activities.
Commissioner Olsen asked Ms. Buegoff about the bicycle rack issue, specifically
about her comment that there is “no demand” for the racks and how this would
be determined. Ms. Buegoff stated that the current bicycle racks on the Pier are
under utilized.
Chair Clarke questioned the proposal that no audible amplified music be audible
beyond the building. Ms. Frick stated that the business operator will need to find
a way to comply with this provision. She added that public testimony has
indicated that the arcade noises are audible a long way from the Pier.
The Commission discussed the term “amplified” and whether game arcade
machines had volume controls or were preset. Ms. Frick stated that “amplified” is
defined as having a volume control device. Chair Clarke expressed the opinion
that this definition needs to be redefined.
The applicant’s attorney spoke in response to the public comment.
Commissioner Brown asked Mr. Sirna if his client understands the Commission’s
focus that no amplified music be audible outside the arcade building. Mr. Sirna
stated that he does not agree a machine with volume control should be included
in the definition, rather that this should apply to a machine hooked-up to an
additional device to amplify the sound.
Commissioner Brown asked Mr. Sirna if he believes staff’s interpretation is
irrelevant. Mr. Sirna stated that, in his opinion, the Text Amendment language is
ambiguous on amplified music and needs to be clarified. He also stated that he
would encourage non-enforcement of the volume control language. Lastly, Mr.
Sirna reminded the Commission that the Pier is an “entertainment zone.”
Commissioner Dad stated that the definition of amplified music rests with the City
Council and Planning Commission. She asked Mr. Sirna if there is a way for his
client to comply. Mr. Sirna stated that he wants a clarification or briefing by staff
for an interpretation of “amplified” and that he is not prepared to discuss noise
issues at this time.
Commissioner Dad asked Mr. Sirna if his client can comply with the City’s Noise
Ordinance, either the current ordinance or the proposed one. Mr. Sirna stated
that his client, George Gordon Enterprises, will comply with all City Ordinances
and that his client has been in business at this location for 50 years. He also
stated that it is the Commission’s duty to write a Text Amendment without
ambiguity.
39
Commissioner Olsen took exception to Mr. Sirna’s comment that the process has
been “derailed” by the Commission and that such a statement is a gross
mischaracterization. He stated that this is a policy meeting, not a quasi-judicial
hearing, and that public testimony has revealed that the existing game arcade is
in gross violation. He further stated that focusing on the term “amplified” is clever,
however there is evidence that excessive noise does emanate from the arcade.
Lastly, Commissioner Olsen expressed his resentment over Mr. Sirna’s
characterization of certain members of the public as “eggshells.”
Commissioner Brown asked Mr. Sirna if game arcade machines have volume
controls. Mr. Sirna stated that some do, but not all.
Commissioner Brown asked Mr. Sirna if machines can be ordered with volume
controls or if they just “come as they come.” Mr. Sirna stated that most are
standardized and made without reset options.
Chair Clarke commented on the issue of amplified music, which is not to exceed
45 dba beyond the building and that the ambient noise level has been recorded
at 65 dba. He asked Mr. Sirna if he would like to comment on those issues. Mr.
Sirna stated that the Playland Arcade is in a unique position being on the Pier
and surrounded by the ocean and other Pier uses, such as the Pacific Park
amusement park.
Chair Clarke asked Mr. Sirna how his client will achieve the significant noise
reduction specified in the Text Amendment. Mr. Sirna stated that George Gordon
Enterprises believes the 45 db is unreasonable due to its unique location on the
Pier and adjacent to Pacific Park.
Chair Clarke asked if arcade machines can have their volumes turned down low.
Mr. Sirna stated that if the recommendation is for a specific db, this may impact
other businesses on the Pier as well.
Commissioner Johnson asked if the applicant would be willing to work with City
Staff and adjust the placement of louder noise producing game machines to the
rear of the business. Mr. Sirna answered in the affirmative.
Chair Clarke closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Olsen recommended that the standards be phrased in a way that
is understandable to all. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that this is
a Text Amendment, not a specific business, and the standards will be applicable
to the entire zone.
Commissioner Johnson commented that the Text Amendment is silent on the
issue of minimum aisle width, but does cite allowable square footage per
machine. Ms. Frick stated that the issue was raised because the applicant
40
requested the elimination of the provision for a maximum number of machines,
which would effect the aisles and egress for the building. She further stated that
staff denied this request.
Commissioner Olsen commented that there appears to be two main issues: the
aisle width and Noise Ordinance compliance. He stated that a policy statement is
needed. For the first issue, Commissioner Olsen expressed the opinion that a
minimum estimated width needs to be established for this type of use. For the
second issue, Commissioner Olsen stated that any music or noise that is
amplified should be prohibited.
Commissioner Hopkins commented on her background in space planning and
explained how the dedicated square footage for machines was achieved and
how this can be used in conjunction with aisle width minimums.
Chair Clarke expressed the opinion that there does not appear to be a problem
with aisles widths and it is a non-issue for the Text Amendment.
Ms. Bar-El stated that she has reviewed the current floor plans and the aisle
widths vary from 4 ½ feet to 11 feet in width and the business currently has more
than 30 square feet per machine. She also expressed the opinion that aisle
widths are not a problem. Commissioner Olsen expressed his opinion that staff is
incorrect that there is no problem because the Text Amendment is for all game
arcades, not just the Playland Arcade. He stated that the minimum required aisle
width does not reflect reality.
The Commission discussed the aisle width and square footage issue in more
detail. Ms. Frick suggested that the Commission make their intent clear to staff
and the appropriate language will be inserted into the Text Amendment when it
goes to City Council for review.
Commissioner Johnson commented on the issue of amplification and noise
emanating from the building.
Commissioner Dad commented on ambient noise levels and the draft Noise
Ordinance criteria. She stated that the Commission should want a noise standard
for interior noise as well, and perhaps age limitations for access to game arcades
as suggested by members of the public.
Chair Clarke expressed agreement with Commissioner Dad’s suggestions except
for the last one, which he felt would be problematic. City Council Liaison
McKeown agreed that the age limitation would be problematic.
Commissioner Brown asked staff if there is any ability by the City to regulate
interior noise levels. Ms. Frick stated this would be covered under performance
standards. Commissioner Olsen suggested that this issue would be better
41
handled in the draft Noise Ordinance public hearing when professionals in the
field are available for questioning. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum
expressed agreement with Commissioner Olsen and stated that these are very
complex issues and some of them were not analyzed by staff.
Commissioner Brown asked that when this Text Amendment moves on to City
Council that the ambiguous language regarding amplification be removed.
The Commission discussed ambient noise levels on the Pier, including noise
from carnival rides and the game arcade.
Commissioner Brown asked about measuring sound levels and ambient noise
levels. Ms. Frick explained stated that the procedure would be to measure the
ambient noise level, then measure the noise source and analyze the difference.
She noted that this is a specialized case because of the nature of the Pier and
various types of noise producing machines both inside and outside the game
arcade. Lastly, Ms. Frick stated that the Pier is a carnival atmosphere with street
performers and Pacific Park.
Commissioner Johnson expressed the opinion that the Text Amendment should
move forward to City Council if it includes the comments and concerns made by
the Commission. He stated that the game arcade is an asset to the community,
despite the noise issue.
Chair Clarke made a motion to move the Text Amendment forward to the City
Council with staff’s recommendation and with the following additions: (1) on page
2, there will be spaces for bicycle racks in addition to City supplied bicycle racks;
(2) that game arcades will comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance; (3) in
subsection (d) the minimum 44-inch clearance shall be “clear space;” and (4)
remove #3, “no amplified music” and let it be dealt with under the Noise
Ordinance.
There was consensus on the issues cited by Chair Clarke. Commissioner
Hopkins asked about the default noise level at the property boundary being 45 db
per the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Frick explained the Code provision for noise
measurements (page 458, section 3) for all commercial properties. She noted
that the prohibited noises include loud speakers and bells. Senior Land Use
Attorney Rosenbaum stated for the record that the noises cited are not before the
Commission this evening and cannot be addressed specifically in the Text
Amendment.
Following some more discussion on noise levels, Commissioner Brown asked
that the two subsections (e) and (k) be combined for City Council review. There
was consensus on this request.
Commissioner Olsen asked that the “music section” be removed and restated to
include all noise.
42
Commissioner Hopkins requested that following the reworking of the Text
Amendment language, the Pier Restoration Corporation (PRC) be given a
chance to review the document prior to City Council review. Commissioner Olsen
stated that the Commission recommends the adoption of the Text Amendment to
the City Council and the PRC can review it at that time.
Commissioner Hopkins seconded the motion.
The motion was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Brown, Clarke, Dad, Hopkins, Johnson, Olsen; NOES: Moyle.
[The Commission took a break from 9:54 p.m. to 10:15 p.m.].
8. DISCUSSION:
Public Input Permitted
8-A. Lantana South and Lantana East Development Agreement Concept Plan for
3030 Olympic Boulevard (Lantana East) and 3131 Exposition Boulevard
(Lantana South). [Planner: Bruce Leach]
Associate Planner Bruce Leach gave the staff report.
Chair Clarke asked why a Development Agreement is being proposed instead of
a regular submittal and what are the trade-offs and benefits of a Development
Agreement. Mr. Leach sated that a Development Agreement is a contractual
process between the City and a Developer which results in the City’s ability to
negotiate and accept community benefits from the Developer that would be
outside the normal scope of other development permits.
Commissioner Johnson commented that the Developer’s prior application
revealed major negative traffic impacts on the adjacent neighborhood. He asked
if this potential has been explored with the new proposal. Mr. Leach stated that
the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) stated that a reduced size project would
also negatively impact traffic in the neighborhood. He suggested that the
neighbors make their comments during public testimony.
Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Leach about the potential traffic impact and
how it is quantified. Mr. Leach stated that, at this point, the Development
Agreement is in the initial stages and no traffic analysis has been done.
Mr. Doug Holte of Hines Development made a presentation on the proposed new
project and Development Agreement.
43
Commissioner Johnson asked where the 22,000 square foot reduction has been
made. Mr. Holte stated that the front building on Exposition Boulevard has been
eliminated and is now slated to be an accessible garden area and the third floor
has been setback back from Exposition Boulevard.
Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Holte if the new proposal will result in less
employees and vehicle trips. Mr. Holte answered in the affirmative and stated it is
estimated that this will result in 10-12% reduction in vehicle trips.
Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Holte if alternate parking spaces have been
considered. Mr. Holte stated that this has not been considered, however parking
on the site has been reconfigured. He also stated that it difficult to find
commercial financing for the project if parking is not provided on-site.
Commissioner Johnson expressed concern with the control of various
intersections by the City of Los Angeles. Mr. Holte stated that Hines
Development is working with the Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LA-
DOT) and has already paid for upgrades to the intersection of Olympic Boulevard
and Bundy Drive [which includes the increase of two northbound lanes and one
southbound lane]. He further stated that construction and restriping has recently
been completed on Centinela Avenue, which should alleviate some of the traffic
problems on Centinela Avenue.
Commissioner Olsen commented on the differences between the original
submission and the Development Agreement proposal. He asked Mr. Holte why
the Commission should recommend this proposal move forward. Mr. Holte stated
that the Commission should consider the totality of the community benefits.
Commissioner Hopkins asked Mr. Holte to elaborate on the “green” qualities of
the proposed project. Mr. Holte explained the proposal in some detail, including
his company’s history of using “green” innovations such as permeable paving
and bio-swales for storm water run-off.
Commissioner Brown asked Mr. Holte if there has been discussion with the
neighborhood regarding traffic impacts prior to this public hearing. Mr. Holte
stated that several meetings have been held and initially the two parties were
talking “past each other.” Later meetings have studied possible alternatives for
the problem of “cut-through” traffic, but no consensus has been reached. He
noted that conditions on Centinela Avenue have changed since the prior
submission and public hearing. Lastly, Mr. Holte stated that focus groups have
been meeting since February of this year and more listening is being done.
The following members of the public addressed the Commission: Ken Ward,
Marcia Zimmer, Linda Sullivan and Michael Tarbet.
44
Mr. Holte spoke in response to the public comment. Mr. Dick Fleaner of L. D.
King Engineers, a consultant hired by both the neighborhood group and Hines
Development, also commented on traffic issues.
Commissioner Olsen commented that the EIR consultant failed to identify
neighborhood traffic impacts. Mr. Fleaner responded that the personal approach
is often missing in EIRs.
Commissioner Olsen commented on the neighborhood traffic discussion from the
Lantana public hearing and asked where traffic would go if it was blocked from
the neighborhood. Mr. Fleaner stated that drivers number one goal is to reach
the I-10 freeway as soon as possible, usually by way of the Centinela Avenue on-
ramp. He commented that three options were presented to the neighborhood
group, including ways to make the neighborhood less desirable for cut-through
traffic.
Commissioner Hopkins commented on the first Lantana development hearing
and the revelation of the existing traffic congestion in the neighborhood. She also
commented on shifting to other transit options. Mr. Fleaner stated that concepts
have been presented regarding Centinela Avenue, however more research is
needed to see if the options are viable and, if they are, they will be presented to
the City for consideration. Additionally, Mr. Fleaner stated that he has only been
working with the two groups (neighbors and Hines Development) for a little over
a month. Mr. Holte added that Hines Development is seeking input from the
Commission and the input will be added to Mr. Fleaner’s scope of work.
Chair Clarke thanked Mr. Holte and Mr. Fleaner for their presentations.
Commissioner Olsen commented on the Development Agreement process and
the developer’s presentation. He expressed pleasure that some of the neighbors
had come to the hearing and expressed their opinion on the process. He then
discussion the positives and negatives of the project, including that the proposed
development will still add more vehicle trips to the area. He concluded by saying
that no compelling argument has been presented to change his mind on not
proceeding with the Development Agreement.
Commissioner Brown asked a procedural question of staff. She asked what
happens if the Commission expresses interest in proceeding with the
Development Agreement and the developer continues to meet with neighborhood
residents, but other residents do not support the new plans. Ms. Frick stated that
all residents of the neighborhood will be informed of the situation and plans. She
stated that it is envisioned that the developer and neighborhood will work
together with staff to present a series of measures, to identify neighborhood
concerns and smooth out problems through a public process. Ms. Frick
expressed her hope that there will be more benefits than alleviation of traffic
impacts and that the focus should be “big picture,” i.e. whole community benefits.
45
Commissioner Olsen commented that in the 1990s a traffic plan was developed
for Sunset Park through two neighborhood groups and many public hearings,
however when the City Council met to hear this proposal both groups withdrew
their support of the plan. Ms. Frick stated that this is essentially correct, however
it was a scaled back version of the plan that was approved to the City Council
and included new stop signs between Twenty-Third Street and Centinela Avenue
along Pearl Street and speed humps on Twenty-Eighth Street. She also stated
that the City has not participated in the Lantana plan and that the City would not
support traffic diversions for that neighborhood.
Commissioner Dad commented that initiation of the Development Agreement
process does not guarantee approval at the Commission level. She stated that
until the process is started, the City will not know what it is looking at in terms of
benefits and traffic impacts. She expressed the opinion that it would be
worthwhile to begin the process as the site will eventually be redeveloped
regardless. She stated that fresh traffic numbers are a must for this project.
Commissioner Dad made a motion to forward a recommendation to City Council
that a Development Agreement process begin using new traffic counts (counted
close as possible to the public hearing date).
Chair Clarke seconded the motion. He commented on the “good faith effort”
being made by the developer in working with the neighbors. He then commented
on the ancillary benefits possible with the project and that they should be able to
expand their facility. Chair Clarke expressed the opinion that a residential
component would not fit into this project. He also commented on the issue of
traffic impacts. He then concluded his comments by saying that this development
has everything the Commission would like to see in a project.
Commissioner Dad commented that she would like to see an effort made to
recruit residents to the facility and to look into a TDM Plan. She also commented
that she likes the proposal for a park on the edge of the project which could be
used by neighbors.
Commissioner Johnson commented that this has the potential to be a “world
class” project. He also commented on the 60 year Development Agreement Saint
John’s Hospital has with the City, which raises the question of duration for the
Lantana Development Agreement. Commissioner Johnson also commented on
traffic issues and improvements being made in the area. Lastly, Commissioner
Johnson commented that he likes this “front-loaded approach” to the
development process.
Commissioner Hopkins commented on the jobs/housing balance in the City. She
also commented on the great development team for this project and their
innovative solutions. She stated she is very hopeful for this development.
46
Commissioner Olsen presented his “negative thoughts” on the process, which he
opined is a “recipe for failure.” He commented that he heard this evening that the
traffic consultant met the prior evening with three property owners and they were
given hope of solving traffic problems in their neighborhood. Then, he stated, that
staff has already stated they will not implement such recommendations. Lastly,
Commissioner Olsen reminded the Commission that the prior project application
was denied outright by the Commission and now they are considering moving
forward when the proposal is for only a 10% reduction in size. Commissioner
Dad stated that she wants the Development Agreement moved forward because
of the prior proposal. Commissioner Olsen countered that the Lantana EIR noted
that there will be significant traffic impacts even if the project was reduced by
40%. He expressed the opinion that new traffic count numbers will not show
fewer traffic impacts on the neighborhood.
Commissioner Olsen asked staff about the Code section on Development
Agreements, which states that Development Agreements will be reviewed
annually by the City Council for compliance. He asked if this has been done. Ms.
Frick stated that this is on the Priority List, however it is not on the list for the next
fiscal year. She noted that the City Council will be discussing this at their Budget
Hearings on June 17, 2003.
Commissioner Brown thanked staff for the background given in the staff report.
The motion was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Brown, Clarke, Dad, Hopkins, Johnson; NOES: Olsen; ABSENT: Moyle.
8-B. Discussion and adoption of a policy prohibiting ex parte meetings and other
forms of lobbying Commissioners by interested parties outside of public view for
quasi-judicial items that appear before the Commission, to establish rules and
procedures for the transmittal of written materials and e-mails from interested
parties regarding quasi-judicial items and give direction to staff to prepare
language to amend the Commission rules to carry out these policies. Requested
by Commissioners Johnson and Olsen via e-mail on August 27, 2002. Continued
from May 21, 2003.
ACTION: Continued to July 9, 2003.
8-C. Discussion on the merits and practicality of initiating a text amendment to
eliminate the sign code and all rules and regulations related to signs. Requested
by Commissioner Olsen via e-mail on January 28, 2003. Continued from May 21,
2003.
ACTION: Continued to July 9, 2003.
8-D. Discussion on developing guidelines requiring open courtyards for projects that
are situated on more than one lot in multi-family residential districts. Requested
47
by Commissioner Olsen via e-mail on February 20, 2003. Continued from May
21, 2003.
ACTION: Continued to July 9, 2003.
8-E. Discussion on developing a process regarding traffic guidelines/traffic analysis
per concerns of neighborhood organizations. Requested by Commissioner Dad
via e-mail on February 26, 2003. Continued from May 21, 2003.
ACTION: Continued to June 18, 2003.
8-F. Request of Commissioners Dad, Moyle and Olsen to discuss forwarding a letter
to the City Council asking that the Council initiate a Management Audit of the
Planning Department by an outside firm. Requested by Commissioner Olsen via
e-mail on May 5, 2003. Continued from May 21, 2003.
ACTION: Continued to June 18, 2003.
8-G. Discussion on the definition of “minor” versus “substantial” remodel and potential
text clarification. Requested by Commission Johnson on May 21, 2003.
ACTION: Continued to July 9, 2003.
8-H. Discussion of the appropriate standards for commencement of planning permit
revocation proceedings and the applicable constitutional provisions. [Staff: Barry
Rosenbaum]
ACTION: Continued to July 9, 2003.
9. COMMUNICATIONS:
9-A. Planning Commission Case List
9-B. Cumulative Projects List
10. FUTURE COMMISSION AGENDA ITEMS:
Following Discussion Item 8-A, the Commission expressed their frustration that
they can never get to their discussion items. They discussed adding a meeting
date for discussion items only. First, they elected to hold a Special Meeting on
July 9, 2003, for discussion items only. Secondly, they elected to have the June
18, 2003 meeting being at 6:00 p.m. with two Discussion Items being placed at
the front of the agenda. The two items are 8-E and 8-F.
11. PUBLIC INPUT:
None.
48
12. ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 12:05 a.m. on Thursday, June
5, 2003.
49