ITEM 11-A
COUNCIL MEETING: March 31, 1992 Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Recommendation To Establish An Alcohol Policy For the
Santa Monica Pier
INTRODUCTION
In response to Planning Commission concerns, the Pier Restoration
Corporation (PRC) has developed an alcohol policy specifically
for the Pier. The policy was reviewed by the Planning Commission
on March 25, 1992. Attached to this staff report is the Pier
Restoration Corporation's "Alcohol Beverage Service Policy
Statement" as presented to the Planning Commission. In order to
address the Pier issues in a comprehensive manner, the Pier
alcohol policy has been scheduled for Council review at the same
meeting where the Council will discuss the Pier development
project.
This report provides a brief analysis of the proposed alcohol
policy in relation to the Planning Commission's previous actions
on alcohol issues and the approved Third Street Promenade Outdoor
Dining Standards.
ANALYSIS
As proposed by the PRC, the alcohol policy appears to address
most of the concerns expressed in the past by the Planning
Commission in relation to alcohol issues. Proposed policies
number one and two prohibit "off-sale" sales of alcohol and
restrict future food tenants with counter pick-up sales and
common seating areas from obtaining alcohol licenses. These two
policies ensure that alcohol sales will be limited to
full-service, sit-down restaurants. Proposed policy number three
states that outdoor dining service of alcohol shall only be
permitted at full-service restaurants and alcohol shall only be
served when food is also available. This policy is consistent
with the Outdoor Dining Standards approved for the Third Street
Promenade which limit outdoor alcohol sales to full-service
restaurants. The Promenade outdoor dining standards also allow
alcohol sales only when food is being served, but go one step
further and prohibit sales after 11:00 P.M. While this
restriction seems appropriate on the Promenade where nearby
residents may be affected by outdoor noise, it does not seem
necessary on the Pier.
Proposed policy number four relates to the design of the outdoor
dining area. Specifically, the policy requires a minimum 5' tall
patio enclosure. The Promenade outdoor dining standards limit
the height of patio enclosures to 3'6". The height limit imposed
for the Promenade is an attempt to maintain the outdoor dining
areas as a continuation of the public space. The Pier, however,
is a different situation and a 5' tall enclosure may be
beneficial in securing the outdoor area. Furthermore, the
weather situation on the Pier may warrant the higher enclosure.
Proposed policies number five through ten relate to the operation
of the alcohol outlets in terms of employee training and
compliance with Conditional Use Permit conditions of approval and
Alcohol Beverage Control restrictions. These policies, such as
the requirement that non-alcoholic beverages be available and
that the cost of food and non-alcoholic beverages be applied
towards any minimum purchase requirement, are conditions
typically included in the Planning Commission standard conditions
of approval. Other standard conditions of approval that may be
considered include the following:
-Alcohol shall not be served in disposable containers such
as disposable plastic or paper cups.
-No more than 35% of gross revenue shall be from alcohol
sales. Restaurant operators shall maintain records of
such sales, which shall be provided upon request to the
City of Santa Monica and/or the Alcohol Beverage Control.
-Information regarding a "designated driver" program shall
be placed on menus, shall be available to groups of two or
more, and shall provide for free, non-alcoholic
beverages.
Consistent with what we believe to be Council direction, the
first four policies relate to Pier specific issues which have a
time consideration to them. Although the proposed PRC policy
also addresses the more "generic" issues contained in policies
five through ten, staff suggests that consideration of these
policies be dealt with at the same time as the City-wide alcohol
policy is considered. This "tiered" approach was directed by the
Council in order to allow PRC tenant negotiations to proceed, yet
not prejudice future consideration of an alcohol policy.
The issue of the number of outlets is addressed by reference in
the PRC proposed policy in that a table indicating number and
type of outlets and seating capacity is attached to the written
policy. At this time, the PRC proposes nine outlets - seven ex-
isting or approved and two in lease negotiations. Total number
of seats is 2,108 with 1,274 seats inside and 834 outside. The
PRC wishes to defer any discussion of additional future outlets
until it is decided if any, or what type, of future development
may occur on the Pier. As the cover letter from the PRC to the
Planning Commission indicates, future potential development is
now considered to be more modest than was previously envisioned
when the "Central Plaza" included six restaurants which could
have requested alcohol licenses. As was noted at the Planning
Commission hearing on March 25th, one or both of the "outlets"
under negotiations with the PRC may need more than one ABC
license (depending on the type of operation at each "outlet").
Staff views each business or location as an "outlet" for which a
CUP is necessary. More than one ABC license may be addressed as
a CUP at one location although the number of seats would be
limited to the numbers listed above.
Planning staff spoke with Police Chief James Butts and Sergeant
Walter Hard, who is in charge of the Police detail assigned to
the Santa Monica Pier, regarding the proposed alcohol policy.
They indicated that the proposed policy seemed to cover most of
their concerns. Regarding hours of operation and closing time,
the Police Department did not have significant concerns about
establishments on the Pier being open until 2:00 A.M., although
shorter hours of operation typically result in fewer disturban-
ces. The number of Police personnel in the field decreases at
3:00 A.M. and the number of Harbor Patrol personnel decreases at
4:00 A.M. Therefore, a full complement of security personnel are
on duty at the latest allowable closing time. In regard to al-
cohol sales on the Pier in general, the Police stated that the
majority of alcohol problems on the Pier and in the vicinity
result from people who buy alcohol at an off-sale location and
bring it to the Pier or the beach, rather than people who consume
alcohol in Pier restaurants.
Planning Commission Action
The Planning Commission met March 25, 1992 to discuss the
proposed Pier alcohol policy. The Commission could not come to
decision on the proposed number of outlets and number of seats
proposed for the Pier. During the discussion, individual
Planning Commissioners made the following comments:
o The limits proposed are arbitrary numbers. The concen-
tration standard should be set by developing a formula based on
number of seats, geographic location of the outlet, and square
footage of outlets.
o Limits cannot be set until police crime statistics are
provided and the Council decides to study the issue in a rational
way.
o There is no way to develop a standard for the Pier. The
City must decide what is acceptable and ensure that the Pier is
managed in an effective manner.
o The PRC should be allowed to move forward with the pro-
gram that is proposed.
On the issue of the proposed policy recommendations, the Planning
Commission only took action on the first four policies. They
deferred action on the remaining policies until the Citywide Al-
cohol Policy is developed. The following outlines the Planning
Commission action on the first four policies:
o Policy 1. PRC language: "No "off-sale" license shall
be permitted." The Planning Commission approved the policy as
written.
o Policy 2. PRC language: "Future tenant lease
agreements shall allow no alcoholic service of any kind for food
or other operations with only counter pick-up service or common
area seating for food and beverage consumption. (Current lease
agreements that allow counter beer and wine service will be
phased out as tenants are either incorporated into future
facilities or are discontinued)." The Planning Commission
approved the policy as written with the recommendation to delete
the parenthetical sentence that states "(Current lease agreements
that allow counter beer and win service will be phased out as
tenants are either incorporated into future facilities or are
discontinued").
o Policy 3. PRC language: "Outdoor dining patios that
include alcoholic beverage service shall only be allowed at full
service restaurant locations. Alcoholic beverage service at
these outdoor patios shall only be allowed during hours of opera-
tion when food service is provided." The Planning Commission
modified the language to read: "Dining venues that include al-
coholic beverage service shall only be allowed at full service
restaurant locations. Alcohol shall only be served when food is
available." The Planning Commission also requested the PRC and
staff to develop a definition for "full service restaurant". For
purposes of this policy, staff recommends using the definition of
restaurant found in the Zoning Ordinance which states: "Any
building, room, space, or portion thereof where food is sold for
consumption on site. A restaurant does not include incidental
food service." Staff would add the following to this definition.
"Incidental take out service may be part of the operation of a
full service restaurant. Additionally, a full service restaurant
may include an outdoor dining area where food service is
provided".
o Policy 4. PRC language: "Patios must be adequately
secured to prohibit contact with non-patrons, and door security
must be provided at all times during hours when alcoholic
beverages are being served." The Planning Commission approved
the policy as written.
o The Planning Commission recommended the inclusion of
one additional policy, Policy 5, which would state: " Preserve
affordable dining establishments that provide alcohol service."
Conclusion
At this time, staff believes that the seven existing and/or ap-
proved and two proposed outlets will not create a problem of over
concentration of outlets. The Pier is a regional recreational
attraction, is visited by almost three million people annually,
has historically been a place which included food and alcoholic
beverage service, and has been planned to continue to accommodate
such uses. In addition, police field staff believe that if and
when there is a problem caused by consumption of alcoholic
beverages, the source of the problem is not the on-sale es-
tablishments on the pier, but people bringing beverages to the
pier form off-sale locations. With regard to policies one
through four proposed by the PRC, staff believes they adequately
address the first "tier" of concerns regarding the pier. Poli-
cies five through ten should be addressed in the context of the
overall City alcohol policy. New policy number 5 suggested by
the Planning Commission is also consistent with the Council's
"tiered" approach.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendations contained in this report do not have any
budget or financial impact.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt policies one
through four and five (new number five as recommended by the
Planning Commission) and defer action on the remaining policies
until such time as the City-wide alcohol policies are approved by
Council. In addition, staff recommends the Council approve the
concentration of nine alcohol outlets as identified in the PRC
policy.
Prepared by: Paul Berlant, Director of LUTM
Suzanne Frick, Planning Manager
Attachments: 1. Letter from PRC dated 01/22/92
2. Letter from PRC dated 01/22/92
3. PRC Alcoholic Beverage Service Policy Statment