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