Planning Commission Approves Recommendations to Stem Restaurant Exodus

By Olin Ericksen
Staff Writer

May 24 – The Planning Commission unanimously signed off last week on a series of recommendations hoped to stem the exodus of restaurants driven from the Third Street Promenade by burgeoning rents, but balked when it came to giving up power over alcohol permits.

Following the recommendations hammered out by the Promenade Uses Task Force, the board on Wednesday voted 6 to 0 to, among other things, allow signage for upper-level eateries, increase incentives for outdoor dining and update the Downtown’s outmoded cinemas.

But when it came to alcohol permits, the commissioners proposed a compromise that would allow them to retain oversight, rather than allow planning staff to review the items administratively.

“Why would we be giving something away that is so important, which is public process,” said Commissioner Julie Lopez-Dad. “I continue to think we should do things out in the open, so the public can comment.”

Under the commission’s proposed change, alcohol permits would be placed on the consent calendar and be voted on without debate or public input unless a commissioner pulls it from consent or a member of the public asks to speak.

Out of all the proposed changes, streamlining the alcohol permit process could have the greatest impact on a restaurant’s bottom line because beer, wine and spirits can legally account for as much as 35 percent of its profits, according to Planning Commission Chair Darrell Clarke

That point was not lost on food and beverage consultant Rykk Mesure, who attended the meeting on behalf of several Promenade business owners.

“The planning commission missed an opportunity here,” Mesure said in an interview after the recommendation was approved for City Council consideration.

The task force recommendation would have “cut the red tape” even further by allowing a zoning administrator, rather than the commission, to review each case, Mesure said.

Mesure said his clients wait longer and spend several thousand more dollars navigating the alcohol permit process in Santa Monica than in surrounding communities.

“I’m going to tell my clients that nothing really happened tonight that helps their situation,” said Mesure, “It seems to me they just shuffled the cards instead of doing something different.”

Placing alcohol permits on the consent calendar means that planning staff -- who are already understaffed and inundated by paperwork -- will still have to prepare a report for commissioners, although it will be less comprehensive.

“Planning staff would still have to make reports to us,” said Clarke, “but at least they wouldn’t be of term paper length on the issue any longer.”