Loading...
SR-402-001 (7) ATTACHMENT C Planning Commission Minutes, Dated March 21, 2001 Planning Commission March 21, 2001 M I N U T E S REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA WEDNESDAY, March 21, 2001 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. ROOM 213, CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:18 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Loui led the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. ROLL CALL: Present: Barbara Brown Darrell Clarke Jay P. Johnson Julie Lopez Dad Anthony Loui Geraldine Moyle Kelly Olsen, Chairperson Also Present: Kim Christensen, AICP, Senior Planner Kyle Ferstead, Commission Secretary Suzanne Frick, Director of Planning/PCD Susan Healy Keene, AICP, Senior Planner Tony Kim, Assistant Planner Bruce Leach, Associate Planner Kevin McKeown, City Council Liaison Bobby Ray, AICP, Senior Planner 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 forthcoming scheduled Commission meetings are set for the following dates: April 5, April 18, May 2 and May 16. Commissioner Johnson asked for an energy crisis update including any creation of task forces and preparedness of emergency services. City Council Liaison McKeown stated that the Fire Department is prepared for any emergency. Commissioner Johnson expressed concern that during Monday’s rolling blackouts 2 Planning Commission March 21, 2001 the California Incline traffic signal was out, as were other traffic signals in the City. Ms. Frick stated that there is a multi-level effort to address this and other situation between various City departments including Fire, Police, Environmental and Public Works Management and Planning and Community Development. Commissioner Johnson asked if additional information is available to the public or if there is a name of a public information person citizens can contact. Ms. Frick stated that information is updated daily on the City’s website and includes links to various sites dealing with the power crisis, information on Stage Three Alert declarations and emergency medical needs information. She also suggested contacting the City’s Emergency Operations Center chief, Ellen McNeill and stated she would supply the appropriate telephone number later in the evening. City Council Liaison McKeown stated for the record that the Police Department has a non-intervention policy for malfunctioning traffic signals. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 8-A. Conditional Use Permit 00-0151251 Third Street, , BSC-1 (Bayside Commercial) District. Application to amend the conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit 99-007, which approved a Type 47 alcohol license for the Gaucho Grill restaurant. The amendments to CUP 99-007 involve the reconfiguration of the previously approved floor plan with the addition of 33 seats and the addition of a 96 square foot outdoor dining area (11 seats) to the previously approved floor plan and includes the sale and dispensing of alcoholic beverages in conjunction with food service within the new outdoor dining area. A total of 135 seats are proposed including 116 dining seats, 8 counter dining seats, and 11 outdoor dining seats. Applicant: Adolpho Suaya/Gaucho Grill. (Planner: Tony Kim) Following the staff report, Commissioner Brown asked why the restaurant was operating with 135 seats. Mr. Kim stated this violated the approval. Commissioner Moyle questioned staff about a reference on page three of the staff report which states 91 seats were approved with CUP 99-007, but a different plan was built. She asked if the current applicant is to legitimize the extra 44 seats that are in the built plan and which increase the seating capacity by 70%. Mr. Kim stated that Commissioner Moyle’s assessment is essentially correct including the addition of patio seating. Commissioner Moyle asked about the proposed number of seats. Mr. Kim stated that 136 total seats are proposed and 124 seats are existing. Commissioner Dad asked for the number of seats that were built, not a reconfigured number. Mr. Kim stated that the existing seating plus the proposed outdoor seat equals 136 seats. 3 Planning Commission March 21, 2001 Commissioner Loui commented that the plans show that some seats are built-in (booths) and some are not. He asked if the seats were added after initial approval. Mr. Kim stated that, as far as staff could determine, the current seating plan is what was initially built in 1999. Commissioner Johnson asked for clarification on the original application. Mr. Kim explained that the restaurant has been at this location prior to the complete demolition and rebuilding of the building in 1999. Chair Olsen asked the Commissioners to make their disclosures regarding this application. Six of the Commissioners had nothing to disclose. Commissioner Dad disclosed that she took a walk down the Third Street Promenade the week prior to the hearing and happened to notice employees setting up tables for food service in front of the restaurant. The applicant’s representative, Alain Bally, 700 South Flower Street, Los Angeles, was present to discuss the application. One member of the public, Arthur Harris, 1431 Ocean Avenue, Santa Monica 90401, was present to discuss the application. Mr. Bally responded to issues raised by Mr. Harris. Commissioner Brown asked Mr. Bally how he represents the applicant. Mr. Bally stated that he is a consultant. Commissioner Brown asked Mr. Bally if his client had understood that his restaurant was approved for only 99 seats in 1999. Mr. Bally stated that his client has maintained a restaurant at this site for many years with outdoor dining and alcohol service. Commissioner Brown asked Mr. Bally how many seats had been in the prior restaurant. Mr. Bally stated he believed there were approximately 91 seats. Commissioner Brown surmised that, based on the information given, that the applicant had intended to build the additional seats, which she called “outrageous.” Mr. Bally agreed that this was not well thought out by the applicant. He also stated that the additional seating was not realized until approximately four hours before the previously scheduled public hearing date. Commissioner Dad asked Mr. Bally about the tables she observed being set-up outside last week. Mr. Bally stated that he advised his client not to do that. 4 Planning Commission March 21, 2001 Commissioner Johnson asked for the date of the Certificate of Occupancy. Mr. Bally stated that the Certificate of Occupancy was issued shortly after the CUP was granted. Commissioner Johnson commented on the plans included in the packet which were dated July 1999. He asked if the restaurant had been operating with the additional seating for one and a half years without any Code Enforcement. Mr. Bally stated that there has been no enforcement action to his knowledge. Commissioner Clarke commented that plans dated July 16, 1999, appear to be the current seating plan. Mr. Bally stated that the date on the plans is incorrect and that the original plans were dated February 15, 1999, and showed the 99 seats. Chair Olsen closed the public hearing. Commissioner Moyle asked if the seats are numbered on the 91-seat plan. Mr. Kim stated that they are not numbered. Chair Olsen asked for the number of seats requested on the application, which is signed by the applicant. Ms. Keene stated that the application dated February 16, 1999, requests 80 dining seats and 11 bar seats for a total of 91 seats and the application was typed. Commissioner Moyle asked what blue print the Building Inspector used to sign-off on the Certificate of Occupancy if what was approved by CUP was a 91-seat floor plan. She also asked about the number of booths and/or fixed seating in the 99-seat plan. Lastly, she made an analogy using the Rose Café in Venice which adds seating on week-ends to accommodate the most people possible. Commissioner Clarke asked for clarification on when restaurant final sign-offs are usually done, before or after furnishings installed. Ms. Keene stated that furniture must be installed as the number of seats must be counted by the Building Inspector in order to sign-off. She also stated that she can not confirm what the Building Inspector saw and that person no longer works for the City. Commissioner Brown asked the following questions: what difference does this hearing make; what options are available for the Commission; and would an estoppels order be in order. Ms. Frick stated that first it must be evaluated whether the CUP can be amended or modified at this time; then findings must be determined. She stated that an estoppels can always be inserted since the 1999 CUP approval was clearly for 91 seats. Commissioner Brown asked if the prior CUP approval has weight in the matter. Ms. Frick stated first the Commission must look at what was approved in the 1999 CUP, but can only consider whether to approve the modification or not. 5 Planning Commission March 21, 2001 There was a discussion regarding what was approved for the restaurant and what was built and installed. Chair Olsen stated that the 1999 application asked for and was granted 99-seats, but actually installed more seats; therefore he can not make the findings to grant the current request. Commissioner Brown asked if the applicant would be required to remove the unapproved seats if the current application is not approved. Ms. Frick stated that applicant would be required to remove the seats down to 91 seats. Commissioner Brown commented on whether it would be possible to allow the outdoor dining request, but not the additional interior seating, for a total of 102- seats. Commissioner Clarke commented that the removal of chair and tables is easy to accomplish. He asked staff about the allowable density for restaurant seating in this general location. Ms. Keene stated that 135 seats with 11 outside would not be an unreasonable request for this location. She also stated that if this current request is not granted, then reconfiguration of the seating to the previously approved seating plan would be required. Commissioner Clarke asked what type of analysis is performed to evaluate the number of seats in a restaurant. Ms. Keene stated that there are no density thresholds for restaurants and staff generally reviews adjacent uses to the subject site. Commissioner Clarke asked about restaurant spaces on the Promenade. Ms. Keene stated that two former restaurant spaces (Charley Temmel’s and Remi Restaurant) are becoming retail spaces. Commissioner Johnson asked staff why this application is before the Commission. Ms. Keene stated that it is at the applicant request to add outdoor/patio dining and increase the indoor seating. She stated that there has been no enforcement action for this site, nor any complaints. Commissioner Dad noted that the Statement of Official Action for the prior CUP cited plans dated November 30, 2000. Ms. Keene explained the various dates being used and stated that the item was renoticed to the public for accuracy. Commissioner Loui asked for clarification that the plans before the Commission are actually the existing floor plan. Ms. Keene stated that is true, except for the outdoor dining seating. 6 Planning Commission March 21, 2001 Commissioner Clarke asked if there is any penalty if the Building Inspector erred. Ms. Frick stated that the Building and Safety set of plans need to be reviewed, as well as the Final Inspection record. She stated that this will be done if the Commission denies the CUP. Commissioner Johnson made a motion to deny the CUP. Commissioner Moyle seconded the motion. Chair Olsen expressed his support of the motion. Ms. Frick asked that the Commission direct staff to the appropriate findings for denial. She suggested findings beginning on page seven of the staff report be made in the negative. Commissioner Moyle stated that Condition #9 on page eleven covers the issue and can be customized to respond to the current violation. The conditions reads as follows: Validity of Permits: 9. In the event permittee violates or fails to comply with any conditions of approval of this permit, no further permits, licenses, approvals or certificates of occupancy shall be issued until such violation has been fully remedied. Ms. Frick noted that the condition allows the applicant to remedy the situation, which he is doing now. Chair Olsen disagreed. Commissioner Moyle stated for the record that in her estimation the staff report does not show the applicant’s desire to remedy the violation, which are sufficient grounds to deny the request. She stated that she strongly feels the denial of the application will inform the applicant of the Commission’s feeling on this matter. Commissioner Dad stated that she totally agrees with Commissioner Moyle. She stated that the restaurant has been in violation of their 1999 CUP and have intensified the use as evidenced by the placing of tables in the patio last week prior to the hearing on the current application. She stated that using Condition #9 as the basis of the denial is good. Commissioner Clarke agreed that Condition #9 is very complete and very clear. An attempt was made to cite other findings, however the Commission agreed that Condition #9 was adequate. Also discussed was the issue of the correct number of seats, which was determined to be 91-seats per the 1999 CUP. The motion was restated to include Condition #9 as the basis for the denial. 7 Planning Commission March 21, 2001 The motion to deny was approved by the following vote: AYES: Brown, Clarke, Dad, Johnson, Loui, Moyle, Olsen. The Commission took a break from 9:40 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.] [ 12. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 p.m. 8