SR-402-001
PCD:SF:JT:AS:KC:JL:f:\plan\share\council\strpt\00app065.doc Santa Monica, California
Council Mtg: September 26, 2000
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Appeal 00-065 of Planning Commission Denial of Conditional Use Permit
99-040 to Allow the Establishment of a Nightclub, Construction of
Basement Level Service Bar, Dance Floor, Floor Plan Modifications and
Consideration of Revised Floor Plans Subsequent to the Planning
Commission’s Determination That Includes the Construction of a Second
Floor Level Office and Storage Area for an Existing Restaurant/Billiard
Hall at 1410 Third Street Promenade Applicant/Appellant: Herb Astrow,
Yankee Doodles, Property Owner: Tucker Management, LLC.
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning
Commission’s denial of Conditional Use Permit 99-040 for the establishment of a
nightclub and construction of basement level service bar, dance floor and modifications
to the basement and Promenade level floor plans for an existing restaurant/billiard hall
at 1410 Third Street Promenade.
BACKGROUND
Site Location
The subject property is a 7,500 square foot parcel located on the west side of the Third
Street Promenade between Broadway and Santa Monica Boulevard having a
Promenade frontage of 50 feet. Surrounding uses are retail and restaurant oriented
businesses including an existing billiard/nightclub restaurant (Gotham Hall). The
surrounding properties are all similarly zoned BSC-1 (Bayside Commercial District).
1
Existing on-site is a 15,000 square foot restaurant/billiard hall with a first floor and
basement level each at 7,500 square feet.
Original Project Design
The application denied by the Planning Commission proposed to convert the basement
level of the existing Yankee Doodles restaurant/billiard hall to a nightclub with a
dedicated lounge and dining area, a 400 square foot dance floor and a new 360 square
foot walk-up service bar. The proposed basement floor plan displaced over 50% of the
existing pool tables, an air hockey table, two foosball tables and an arcade game.
Several new dining tables were proposed adjacent to the dance floor and bar that would
accommodate 38 additional seats. A heavy drapery was proposed within the front third
of the basement level floor plan to minimize noise and isolate the nightclub activity from
the rest of the restaurant and billiard hall areas. A new office area and improved
restroom facilities were also proposed on this level. The primary entrance/egress door
at the Promenade level was redesigned and 16 seats added to the outdoor dining area.
The eight existing pool tables on the Promenade level would remain leaving a total of 12
pool tables available to customers as opposed to the 28 currently on-site. No change to
the hours of operation (6:00am – 2:00am, 7 days a week) or modification to the existing
liquor license were proposed.
Revised Project Design
The revised floor plan is intended to address the concerns raised at the Planning
Commission meeting and to reinforce the applicant’s contention that the primary use of
2
the establishment is that of an upscale restaurant with incidental entertainment. The
revised floor plan includes an expanded kitchen, storage and restroom facilities; fewer
pool tables and no skill games; a relocated basement level service bar; a slightly
reduced basement level dance floor (345 square feet); increased indoor and outdoor
seating area; façade modifications; a new elevator; wider stairs; and, a second story
addition. The new second level floor area, approximately 1,400 square feet, serves as
an office, storage and refrigeration area. The addition represents a minor increase in
floor area bringing the site floor area ratio (FAR) to 2.18, which is below the permitted
3.0 FAR. The applicant indicates in a letter dated July 31, 2000, that the second story
addition is needed to accommodate the expanded kitchen and dining areas. As a result
of the increased seating area, 79 seats have been added from the previous request,
which exceeds the amount permitted under the existing entitlements by 31 chairs. In
total, 365 seats are proposed, 64 of which are located outdoor adjacent to the
Promenade, 50 are bar seats and the remainder, 251 seats, serve the indoor dining,
lounge and billiard seating area. There is no change to the existing hours of operation or
alcohol license.
Table 1 Comparison Showing Existing, Proposed and Revised Project Information
Existing Original Revised
CUP Actual Proposal Proposal
Seating
Bar Seats * 35 50 49 50
Outdoor Dining 47 36 34 64
Indoor Dining 86 72 142 158
Indoor Billiard Seating 166 111 51 40
Lounge 0 0 10 53
Total Seating 334 269 286 365
Pool Tables
32 28 12 10
Skill/Arcade Games
Not specified 11 7 0
Dance Floor (sq. ft)
0 400 345
3
Basement
Level Bar (sq. ft.)
0 0 360 295 +/-
Promenade
Level Bar (sq. ft.) **
550 +/- 550 +/- 550 +/- 550 +/-
Alcohol License **
Type 47 Type 47 Type 47 Type 47
Hours Of Operation **
6am – 2am 6am – 2am 6am – 2am 6am – 2am
7-days a week 7-days a week 7-days a week 7-days a week
Floor Area
15,000 15,000 15,000 16,366
* Actual seating does not comply with existing CUP
** No change proposed
Planning Commission Action
At its April 5, 2000, meeting, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to
consider the applicant’s request. The Planning Commission’s determination was based
upon findings that address the over concentration of similar uses, the potential impacts
of overcrowding, the intensification of alcohol-related activity and based upon the goals
and objectives of the Bayside District Specific Plan and the importance of maintaining
the existing balance of land uses on the Promenade. Further, comments received from
the Police Department regarding a nightclub use's potential to intensify activity in the
area was a significant land use concern.
The City’s desire to maintain a balance of uses on the Promenade that cater to citywide
residents and visitors is identified in the Bayside District Specific Plan. The Plan
encourages pedestrian-oriented design and uses that promote both daytime and
evening activity. Policy statements in the Plan provide for a concentration of retail uses
and other complementary uses such as restaurants, cultural facilities and housing. The
current mix of land uses in the District is the result of the City’s implementation of the
Bayside District Specific Plan and maintaining that balance continues to be a primary
goal. Therefore, when reviewing the subject application for consistency with the Bayside
4
District Specific Plan, the Planning Commission expressed concern that the proposed
project may disrupt the balance of uses by de-emphasizing the dining component of the
restaurant and creating a destination-oriented nighttime activity. In addition, the
changes would reduce the pedestrian-oriented nature of the Promenade by attracting
destination oriented customers and would serve to exacerbate problems related to
overcrowding and impact parking and traffic congestion. An increase in patron activity
and alcohol consumption is contrary to the goals and policies of the District and would
detract from the integrity and character of the pedestrian-oriented environment.
APPEAL ANALYSIS
The appellant states in the appeal application that the Planning Commission erred in its
determination to deny the subject Conditional Use Permit. Nevertheless, revised plans
were submitted to respond to comments the applicant received from the Planning
Commission, which is accompanied by a letter that addresses General Plan conformity,
parking and security issues raised in the staff report dated April 5, 2000. Staff’s review
of the revised plan finds that the project is conceptually similar to the original proposal in
terms of the introduction of a nightclub use and basement level bar, but modifications to
the internal circulation, floor plans and changes to the exterior of the building is a
departure from the plans that were reviewed by the Planning Commission. The Bayside
District Corporation, although contacted for the previous submittal, has not to staff’s
knowledge had an opportunity to comment on the more recent modifications. Staff is
further concerned that the proposed plan lacks sufficient detail to verify area
calculations, occupancy load and general code compliance. Given that the project has
5
remained conceptually similar to the application reviewed by the Planning Commission,
staff continues to support the analysis and findings the Planning Commission adopted in
its denial of the CUP amendment.
Staff maintains that the revised plans do little to address the Planning Commission’s
stated concerns, but rather serve to reinforce those issues raised by the Commission.
Although the applicant indicates that the intent of the dance floor/entertainment area is
to provide a venue for private parties, banquets and bar mitzvahs, the layout of the
basement level floor plan emphasizes the importance and prominence of the dance
floor, which is supported by a walk-up service bar on this level. The applicant provides
examples of entertainment-related activities that may occur at the site, which include a
jazz night, ballroom dancing, country and western night and comedy events. Based on
the information provided by the applicant and the revised floor plans, staff does not
support the notion that the proposed dancing/entertainment activity is merely an
ancillary activity.
Even with the proposed revisions, staff anticipates an increase in patron activity and
alcohol consumption, which is contrary to the goals and policies of the District and
would detract from the integrity and character of the pedestrian-oriented environment.
Such a change in use would further exacerbate negative impacts related to
overcrowding, parking and circulation problems, and diminish the pedestrian-oriented
nature of the Promenade and intensify the alcohol-serving component of an existing
establishment. Similarly, comments from the Police Department concerning increased
6
occupancy, alcohol sales and the potential for patrons to congregate in the alley and
Promenade raised further concern about the project’s compatibility to adjacent business
owners and nearby residents. A detailed discussion of the proposed project and issues
related to land use compatibility and compliance with the Bayside District Specific Plan
is provided in the attached Planning Commission staff report (Attachment A). Findings
are also included at the conclusion of this report documenting the specific grounds for
denying the subject request.
Conclusion
The introduction of a nightclub component and related construction of the basement
level service bar at the subject site will significantly diminish the nature of the
establishment as a bona-fide restaurant and potentially disrupt the mix and balance of
uses currently enjoyed on the Promenade. Therefore, staff is recommending denial of
the appeal and approval of the Planning Commission’s denial.
CEQA STATUS
The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Class 1,
Section 15301 (a)(e)(1) of the State Implementation Guidelines in that the project
involves a request to convert a portion of the basement level of an existing
restaurant/billiard hall to a nightclub and to allow the construction of a new service bar
and dance floor, which involves minor alterations to an existing private structure and no
expansion of use beyond the existing facility.
7
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9.04.20.20.080, within 30 days after the subject
application was deemed complete, the applicant posted a sign on the property stating
the following information: Project case number, brief project description, name and
telephone number of applicant, site address, date, time and location of public hearing,
and the City Planning Division phone number. It is the applicant's responsibility to
update the hearing date if it is changed after posting.
In addition, pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9.04.20.22.050, notice of the public
hearing was mailed to all owners and residential and commercial tenants of property
located within a 500 foot radius of the project at least ten consecutive calendar days
prior to the hearing. Notice was also given to all neighborhood groups, the Bayside
District Corporation, the Chamber of Commerce, individuals who provided written and
oral correspondence, and published in the Our Times section of The Los Angeles Times
and posted on the Department’s Internet web page. A copy of the notice is included with
the staff report (Attachment B).
The Bayside District Board of Directors reviewed the applicant’s original proposal on
February 24, 2000, and indicated their support of the project in a correspondence to
Planning Commission, which is included with Attachment A.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendation presented in this report does not have any budget or fiscal impact.
8
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council deny Appeal 00-065 and uphold the Planning
Commission denial of Conditional Use Permit 99-040 based upon the following findings:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS
1. The proposed use would impair the integrity and character of the district in which
it is to be established or located, in that introducing a nightclub use and a 360
square foot service bar to an existing restaurant/billiard hall would significantly
increase the occupancy of the existing use and change the nature of the
establishment into a destination use that is likely to exacerbate problems
currently experienced in the district related to overcrowding, parking and traffic
congestion. The proposed nightclub use is well represented on and around the
Promenade and approval of such use would disrupt the balance and character of
existing uses the encouraged by the Bayside Specific Plan. A walk-up service
bar would further impair the integrity and character of the Bayside District in that
it would significantly increase the alcohol-serving component of the existing
establishment and diminish the primary use of the restaurant/billiard hall
business.
2. The proposed use is not consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the
General Plan in that the adoption of the Bayside District Specific Plan
encourages a mix of uses that serve daytime and evening Bayside District
residents, City-wide residents as well as tourist and visitors to the City. Bayside
District Specific Plan General Objective 3.2 identifies the type of uses
encouraged on or near the Promenade as retail, restaurants, cultural facilities
and other complimentary uses. Introduction of the nightclub component of the
project would disrupt the balance of uses that exists on the Promenade and
construction of the walk-up service bar would significantly increase the alcohol-
serving component of the existing establishment and diminish the primary use of
the restaurant/billiard hall business.
3. The proposed use would be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety,
convenience, or general welfare in that the proposed project is inconsistent with
the Bayside District Specific Plan which, through the goals, policies and
objectives, protects the community interest and general welfare by encouraging a
mix of uses that serves all aspects of the community for both daytime and
evening visitors. The proposed use further intensifies the alcohol-related
component of the existing restaurant and introduces a nightclub use that is
already well represented on and around the Promenade.
9
4. The proposed use will result in an over concentration of such uses in the
immediate vicinity, within 600 feet, in that five existing establishments already
offer nightclub and entertainment uses and alcohol-related establishments are
available throughout the District.
ALCOHOL OUTLET FINDINGS
1. The proposed use will adversely affect the welfare of neighborhood residents in a
significant manner in that the proposed nightclub use and walk-up service bar
would alter the character of the existing restaurant/billiard hall use upsetting the
balance of uses in the Bayside District and significantly increasing the occupancy
and alcohol-serving component of the existing establishment.
2. The proposed use in not compatible with existing and potential uses within the
general area in that the existing business and surrounding uses are oriented
toward pedestrian activity and that the introduction of a new walk-up service bar
and introduction of a nightclub would remove some of the available on-site dining
opportunities, increase the availability of alcohol and significantly increase the
occupancy of the existing establishment. Such changes to the mode and
operation of the business would attract destination-oriented customers, increase
problems typically associated with such uses including overcrowding and impacts
to parking and traffic congestion and reduce the pedestrian-oriented nature of the
Promenade thereby rendering the proposed project incompatible with the
adjacent uses.
3. The public health, safety and general welfare are not protected by the proposed
project in that the proposed use further intensifies the alcohol-related component
of the existing restaurant and introduces a nightclub use that is already well
represented on and around the Promenade.
4. The objectives of the General Plan are not secured in that the proposed project is
inconsistent with the Bayside District Specific Plan, specifically General Objective
3.2 which identifies the type of uses encouraged on or near the Promenade as
retail, restaurants, cultural facilities and other complimentary uses. The proposed
nightclub and alcohol intensification is not a complimentary use and is a use that
is already well represented in the Bayside District.
Prepared by: Suzanne Frick, Director
Jay Trevino, AICP, Planning Manager
Amanda Schachter, Principal Planner
Kimberly Christensen, AICP, Senior Planner
Jonathan Lait, AICP, Associate Planner
Planning and Community Development
10
Attachments:
A. Planning Commission staff report, dated April 5, 2000
B. Planning Commission Statement of Official Action, dated April 5, 2000
C. Planning Commission Minutes, dated April 5, 2000
D. Appeal Statement
E. Notice of Public Hearing
F. Vicinity Map and Photographs of Surrounding Properties
G. Revised Project Plan includes previous floor plan drawings
11