SR-12-19-2000-6F
0F
PCD:SF:JT:AS:KC:JL:f:\plan\share\council\stoas\00APP070 & 00APP072.doc DE.e 1 9 2000
Council Mtg: December 19, 2000 Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Certification of the Statement of Official Action for Appeals 00-070 and 00-
072 of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit 99-045
to Allow the Issuance of a Type 48 (On-Sale General Public Premises)
Alcohol License for an Existing Legal Non-Conforming Establishment that
is Currently Operating as a Nightclub with a Type 42 (On-Sale Beer and
Wine Public Premises) Alcohol License Located at 814 Broadway
Applicant: Suite Events, LLC, Club Sugar, Appellants: Kelly Olsen (00-
070) and Suite Events (00-072), Property Owner: Kayvan Naimi
INTRODUCTION
This staff report transmits for City Council certification the Statement of Official Action
for Appeals 00-070 and 00-072 of the Planning Commission's approval of Conditional
Use Permit 99-045 to allow the issuance of a Type 48 alcohol license for an existing
legal non-conforming nightclub.
On October 10, 2000, the City Council unanimously adopted a motion overturning the
Planning Commission's determination and denying appeals 00-070 and 00-072. The
City Council's decision was based upon the findings contained in the attached
Statement of Official Action
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendation presented in this report does not have any budget or fiscal impact.
(oF
DEe 1 9 2000
UO!P'V' lepwo JO luawalelS :luawlj:::>en'V'
luawdolaAao f\l!Unww08 pue 6u!UUeld
Jauueld aleposs'V' 'd81'V' 'l!el uelHeuor
JaUUeld Jo!uas 'd81'V' 'uasualsP48 f\lJaqW!)i
Jauueld ledpuPd 'Jal4:::>e4:::>S epuew'V'
Ja6eueV\l 6u!UUeld 'd81V 'OU!AaJl f\er
JopaJ!O ')j:::>p~ auuezns :f\q paJedaJd
'UO!P'V'
lep!JJ.O JO luawalelS palj:::>elle 8ljl aAoJdde IPun08 f\l!8 aljl leljl papuawwo:::>aJ S! II
NOll VON3V\1V\1083~
'aJnpnJlS alB^!Jd 6uns!xa UB
jO uO!lBJado aln Ol UO!lBJalIB JOU!W B SlUasaJdaJ Jonb!l jO
UO!ldwnsuo:> al!S-uo MOIIB Ol asua:>!1 10Llo:>IB 6u!lS!Xa aLll
apBJ6dn ollSanbaJ aLlllBLll U! sau!lap!nE) UO!lBlUawaldwl
alBlS aLll jO ~Of:g ~ uo!pas '~ SSBI8 olluBnsJnd (V038)
PV Al!lBnO lelUaWUOJ!^U3 e!uJOj!le8 aLll jO SUO!s!^oJd
aLll WOJj ldwaxa AIIB:>p06alB:> S! pafoJd pasodoJd aLll :snl V lS V038
'asua:>!I1040:>IB
(saS!WaJd :>!Iqnd aU!M pUB Jaas aIBS-UO) lP adAl B 4l!M
qnpl46!U e se 6uneJado AllUaJJn:> S! lB4l lUaW4s!lqelsa
6U!WJOjUO:>-UOU IB6al 6u!lS!Xa UB JOj asua:>!1 1040:>IB
(sa:>eld :>!Iqnd IBJauaE) ales-uo) gp adAl e jO a:>uenss!
a4l MOlle a4l Oll!wJad asn IBUO!l!PU08 B JOj UO!lB:>!IddV :lS3n03C1
Jauueld alepossv 'd81V 'l!Bl ueLlleuor :C13NNVld 3SV8
(OLO
-ddVOO) uaslO Alla)i pUB (lLO-ddVOO) 8ll 'SlUa^3 al!ns :SlNVll3ddV
8ll'SlUa^3 al!ns :lNV81lddV
ABMpeOJS p~g :N011V80l
9PO-66 l!WJad asn leuO!l!pU08 :C13SV\lnN 3SV8
.L~3rO}ld
Mva!UOH V)ueS
jO AI!)
NOIJ.:>"
'''1:>1:1:10 :10 J.N3W3J." is
ll8Nn08 All8
V81NOV\l V1NVS ;:10 All8
C
~e
CITY COUNCIL ACTION
October 10. 2000 Date.
Approved based on the following findings and subject to the
conditions below.
x
Denied CUP 99-045
Other,
EFFECTIVE DATE OF ACTION:
October 10.2000 Conditional Use Permit 99-045
Following a public hearing held on October 10, 2000, the City Council denied the
appeals and overturned the Planning Commission's approval of CUP 99-045 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 the request to upgrade the existing Type
42 alcohol license to a Type 48 alcohol license for an existing nightclub, based
on the evidence and public testimony presented at the public hearing, would
exacerbate problems associated with the existing alcohol-related use. The City
Council finds that the request to upgrade the alcohol license will increase
customer patronage to the site and amplify existing problems related to noise
from the nightclub, club patrons, and automobile-related disturbances; increase
late night commercial intrusions into nearby residential neighborhoods as club
patrons park or return to parked vehicles on residential streets; and, result in
increased trash distributed around the subject site, in the alley and around
adjacent properties.
2 The proposed use would not be compatible with existing and permissible land
uses within the district and the general area in which the proposed use is to be
located, in that the subject nonconforming nightclub has a well 'documented
history of complaints related to noise from the nightclub and club patrons, parking
and trash problems. Given that these impacts will be exacerbated with the
approval of the Type 48 alcohol license and that the club operator has not
demonstrated that the nightclub can be operated in a manner that is compatible
to the adjoining residential uses, the proposed application is not compatible with
existing and permissible land uses within the district and the general area.
2
3, The physical location or placement of the use on the site is not compatible with
and does not relate harmoniously to the surrounding neighborhood, in that the
existing legal non-conforming nightclub has an extensive history of complaints
associated with the nightclub operation related to music and bass vibrations,
noisy club patrons, automobile noise, parking and patron intrusions into nearby
residential neighborhoods and club-related litter. Based on the evidence and
public testimony presented at the hearing, which documented existing
incompatible issues related to noise from intoxicated nightclub patrons, vehicle
and music disturbances, the City Council determined that the proposed
application and anticipated impacts associated with requested Type 48 alcohol
license would further degrade the relationship between the nightclub and
surrounding uses.
4. The proposed use is not consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the
General Plan, in that the subject use has a well documented history of noise,
trash, parking and other nightclub-related impacts that exist at the subject site.
The proposed application to upgrade the alcohol license will further exacerbate
the nightclub-related impacts to nearby residential properties, which is
inconsistent with Objectives 1.1 and 1.2 of the City's Land Use Element of the
General Plan, which seek to protect the quality of life in all residential
neighborhoods and ensure compatibility of adjacent land uses.
5. The proposed use would be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety,
convenience, or general welfare, in that the proposed entitlement to modify the
existing beer and wine alcohol license to include liquor sales would exacerbate
existing problems at the site related to noise from the nightclub, club patrons,
vehicle noise, litter and commercial intrusions into the existing residential
neighborhoods and is inconsistent with Objectives 1.1 and 1.2 of the City's Land
Use Element of the General Plan, which seek to protect the quality of life in all
residential neighborhoods and ensure compatibility of adjacent land uses.
ALCOHOL OUTLET FINDINGS
1 The proposed use would adversely affect the welfare of neighborhood residents
ina significant manner in that granting the requested Type 48 alcohol license will
result in additional commercial (nightclub-related) intrusions into residential
neighborhoods, exacerbate problems associated with increased customers,
particularly with respect to noise from the nightclub, club patrons and automobile
noise.
2. The proposed use would detrimentally affect nearby neighborhoods considering
the distance of the alcohol outlet to residential buildings, churches, schools,
hospitals, playgrounds, parks, and other existing alcohol outlets in that the
request to expand the alcohol outlet entitlement to serve liquor and the impacts
3
generated by the proposed license would exacerbate problems related to noise,
parking, trash and worsen the subject nightclub's incompatibility with nearby
residential uses.
3. The proposed use is not compatible with existing and potential uses within the
general area in that the existing legal non-conforming nightclub located within an
existing one-story commercial structure has poor sound attenuating features and
inadequate on-site parking and refuse containment, which contribute to impacts
of the subject use to nearby residential neighborhoods. Based on the evidence
and public testimony presented at the hearing, the expanded alcohol license
would further deteriorate the conditions at the site by encouraging more patrons
to frequent the nightclub and subsequently increase the noise, trash and parking
problems currently experienced by residential neighbors.
4. Traffic and parking congestion would result from the proposed use in that the
request to upgrade the alcohol license at the subject nightclub would result in
increased customer patronage at a site that has inadequate on-site parking and
inconsistent valet service resulting in club patrons increasingly parking in
residential neighborhoods that is already negatively impacted by the nightclub.
5. The public health, safety, and general welfare are not protected in that the
proposed entitlement to modify the existing beer and wine alcohol license to
include liquor sales would exacerbate existing problems at the site related to
noise from the nightclub, club patrons, vehicle noise, litter and commercial
intrusions into the existing residential neighborhoods and is inconsistent with
Objectives 1.1 and 1.2 of the City's Land Use Element of the General Plan, which
seek to protect the quality of life in all residential neighborhoods and ensure
compatibility of adjacent land uses.
6. Harm to adjacent properties would result in that the request to upgrade the
alcohol license will increase customer patronage to the site and amplify existing
problems related to noise from the nightclub, club patrons, and automobile-
related disturbances; increase late night commercial intrusions into nearby
residential neighborhoods as club patrons park or return to parked vehicles on
residential streets; and, result in increased trash distributed around the subject
site, in the alley and around adjacent properties.
VOTE
Ayes:
Genser
Nays:
Abstain:
Absent:
Bloom, Feinstein, Holbrook, McKeown, O'Conner, Rosenstein, and Mayor
4
9
~OP'lLOddV'OO ~ OLOddV'oO\seOlS\I!~UnO~\aJeLlS\Ueld\:l
alea )jJa18 Al!8 '.H::lV'M31S 'lI\J V'1C:lV'lI\J
'e~!uolI\I etues JO ~!:> alH JO I!~uno:> ~!:> alft JO UOneu!wJatap
leu!J alft St~alJaJ ~lateJn~~e uon~" le!~!.uo JO tuawatetS S!lft telft ~!tJa~ ~qaJal\ I
'0 ~0'9 ~. ~ uo!pas ap08 ledp!unll\J olluensJnd Al!8 aLll Aq paldope uaaq sell UO!s!^oJd
L1~!L1M '9'1760 ~ UO!paS saJnpa~oJd 1!^!8 JO ap08 Aq pauJa^05 S! lLl5nos aq lsnw uo!spap
S!L1l JO Ma!^aJ lep!pnf L1~!L1M U!L1l!M aW!l aLll 'a~ueu!pJO 5u!uoZ pue a^!SUaLlaJdw08
e~!uoll\J elues JO Al!8 aLll Japun leadde JaLllJnJ Ol pafqns lOU Uo!spap leU!J e S! S!L1l JI
38110N
'aJnpnJlS ale^!Jd 6u!lS!Xa ue
JO UO!leJado aLll Ol UO!leJalle JOU!W e SlUasaJdaJ Jonb!l JO
UO!ldwnsuo~ al!S-UO MOlle Ol asua~!1 10Llo~le 6u!lS!Xa aLll
apeJ6dn ollSanbaJ aLllleLll U! sau!lap!n8 UO!lelUaWaldwl
alelS aLll JO ~0€9 ~ uo!pas '~ ssel~ ollUensJnd ('v'03~)
P'v' Al!leno lelUaWUOJ!^U3 e!uJoJ!le~ aLll JO SUO!s!^oJd
aLll WOJJ ldwaxa Alle~!J06ale~ S! pafoJd pasodOJd aLl1. :sn1. 'if 1.S 'if03~
'asua~!IloLlo~le
(saS!WaJd ~!Iqnd aU!M pue Jaas ales-uo) (;17 adA1. e L1l!M
qnplLl6!u e se 6u!leJado AllUaJJn~ S! leLll luawLls!lqelsa
6u!wJoJuo~-uou le6al 6u!lS!Xa ue JOJ asua~!1 10Llo~le
(sa~eld ~!Iqnd leJaua8 ales-uo) B17 adA1. e JO a~uenss!
aLll MOlle aLll Oll!WJad asn leuo!l!Puo~ e JOJ UO!le~!ldd'v' :1.S3n03~
Jauueld aleposs'v' 'd~I'v' 'l!el ueLlleuOr :~3NN'v'ld 3S'v'~
(OLO
-dd'v'OO) uaslO Alia)! pue ((;LO-dd'v'OO) ~ll 'SlUa^3 al!ns :S1.N'v'll3dd'v'
~ll 'SlUa^3 al!ns :1.N'v'~lldd'v'
AeMpeOJS 17~B :NOI1.'v'~Ol
9170-66l!WJad asn leuo!l!puo~ :~3SV\lnN 3S'v'~
1::>3rO~d
m'to)!UOW .lUUS
jO ,Ill)
NOI.L~"
1"1~1.::I:l0 .::10 IN311\131" IS
c
.........
ll~Nno~ ^1.I~
'v'~INOV\l 'v'1.N'v'S .:10 ^1.I~
CITY COUNCIL ACTION
October 10, 2000 Date,
Approved based on the following findings and subject to the
conditions below.
x
Denied CUP 99-045
Other.
EFFECTIVE DATE OF ACTION:
October 10,2000 Conditional Use Permit 99-045
Following a public hearing held on October 10, 2000, the City Council denied the
appeals and overturned the Planning Commission's approval of CUP 99-045 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 the request to upgrade the existing Type
42 alcohol license to a Type 48 alcohol license for an existing nightclub, based
on the evidence and public testimony presented at the public hearing, would
exacerbate problems associated with the existing alcohol-related use. The City
Council finds that the request to upgrade the alcohol license will increase
customer patronage to the site and amplify existing problems related to noise
from the nightclub, club patrons, and automobile-related disturbances; increase
late night commercial intrusions into nearby residential neighborhoods as club
patrons park or return to parked vehicles on residential streets; and, result in
increased trash distributed around the subject site, in the alley and around
adjacent properties.
2. The proposed use would not be compatible with existing and permissible land
uses within the district and the g~neral area in which the proposed use is to be
located, in that the subject nonconforming nightclub has a well documented
history of complaints related to noise from the nightclub and club patrons, parking
and trash problems. Given that these impacts will be exacerbated with the
approval of the Type 48 alcohol license and that the club operator has not
demonstrated that the nightclub can be operated in a manner that is compatible
to the adjoining residential uses, the proposed application is not compatible with
existing and permissible land uses within the district and the general area.
2
3. The physical location or placement of the use on the site is not compatible with
and does not relate harmoniously to the surrounding neighborhood, in that the
existing legal non-conforming nightclub has an extensive history of complaints
associated with the nightclub operation related to music and bass vibrations,
noisy club patrons, automobile noise, parking and patron intrusions into nearby
residential neighborhoods and club-related litter. Based on the evidence and
public testimony presented at the hearing, which documented existing
incompatible issues related to noise from intoxicated nightclub patrons, vehicle
and music disturbances, the City Council determined that the proposed
application and anticipated impacts associated with requested Type 48 alcohol
license would further degrade the relationship between the nightclub and
surrounding uses.
4. The proposed use is not consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the
General Plan, in that the subject use has a well documented history of noise,
trash, parking and other nightclub-related impacts that exist at the subject site.
The proposed application to upgrade the alcohol license will further exacerbate
the nightclub-related impacts to nearby residential properties, which is
inconsistent with Objectives 1.1 and 1.2 of the City's Land Use Element of the
General Plan, which seek to protect the quality of life in all residential
neighborhoods and ensure compatibility of adjacent land uses.
5. The proposed use would be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety,
convenience, or general welfare, in that the proposed entitlement to modify the
existing beer and wine alcohol license to include liquor sales would exacerbate
existing problems at the site related to noise from the nightclub, club patrons,
vehicle noise, litter and commercial intrusions into the existing residential
neighborhoods and is inconsistent with Objectives 1.1 and 1.2 of the City's Land
Use Element of the General Plan, which seek to protect the quality of life in all
residential neighborhoods and ensure compatibility of adjacent land uses.
ALCOHOL OUTLET FINDINGS
1 The proposed use would adversely affect the welfare of neighborhood residents
ina significant manner in that granting the requested Type 48 alcohol license will
result in additional commercial (nightclub-related) intrusions into residential
neighborhoods, exacerbate problems associated with increased customers,
particularly with respect to noise from the nightclub, club patrons and automobile
noise.
2. The proposed use would detrimentally affect nearby neighborhoods considering
the distance of the alcohol outlet to residential buildings, churches, schools,
hospitals, playgrounds, parks, and other existing alcohol outlets in that the
request to expand the alcohol outlet entitlement to serve liquor and the impacts
3
generated by the proposed license would exacerbate problems related to noise,
parking, trash and worsen the subject nightclub's incompatibility with nearby
residential uses.
3, The proposed use is not compatible with existing and potential uses within the
general area in that the existing legal non-conforming nightclub located within an
existing one-story commercial structure has poor sound attenuating features and
inadequate on-site parking and refuse containment, which contribute to impacts
of the subject use to nearby residential neighborhoods. Based on the evidence
and public testimony presented at the hearing, the expanded alcohol license
would further deteriorate the conditions at the site by encouraging more patrons
to frequent the nightclub and subsequently increase the noise, trash and parking
problems currently experienced by residential neighbors.
4, Traffic and parking congestion would result from the proposed use in that the
request to upgrade the alcohol license at the subject nightclub would result in
increased customer patronage at a site that has inadequate on-site parking and
inconsistent valet service resulting in club patrons increasingly parking in
residential neighborhoods that is already negatively impacted by the nightclub.
5. The public health, safety, and general welfare are not protected in that the
proposed entitlement to modify the existing beer and wine alcohol license to
include liquor sales would exacerbate existing problems at the site related to
noise from the nightclub, club patrons, vehicle noise, litter and commercial
intrusions into the existing residential neighborhoods and is inconsistent with
Objectives 1.1 and 1.2 of the City's Land Use Element of the General Plan, which
seek to protect the quality of life in all residential neighborhoods and ensure
compatibility of adjacent land uses.
6. Harm to adjacent properties would result in that the request to upgrade the
alcohol license will increase customer patronage to the site and amplify existing
problems related to noise from the nightclub, club patrons, and automobile-
related disturbances; increase late night commercial intrusions into nearby
residential neighborhoods as club patrons park or return to parked vehicles on
residential streets; and, result in increased trash distributed around the subject
site, in the alley and around adjacent properties.
VOTE
Ayes:
Genser
Nays:
Abstain:
Absent:
Bloom, Feinstein, Holbrook, McKeown, O'Conner, Rosenstein, and Mayor
4
NOTICE
If this is a final decision not subject to further appeal under the City of Santa Monica
Comprehensive and Zoning Ordinance, the time within which judicial review of this
decision must be sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedures Section 1094.6, which
provision has been adopted by the City pursuant to Municipal Code Section 1.16.010.
I hereby certify that this Statement of Official Action accurately reflects the final
determination of the City Council of the City of Santa Monica.
--'~~.~~
t
MARIA M. STEWART, ~ty Clerk
\dj~IIIP
Date J
f:\plan\share\council\stoas\00APP070 & 00APP072.doc
5