> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.smdp.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# Additional booze flow in Bayside is sobering thought
- URL: https://www.smdp.com/additional-booze-flow-in-bayside-is-sobering-thought/
- Published: 2004-02-27T16:00:00.000Z
- Updated: 2026-10-23T03:52:36.000Z
- Author: Bill Bauer
- Tags: Opinion, Downtown, #archive-import

Next Wednesday evening, the Santa Monica Planning Commission will consider text amendment changes to the zoning ordinance, municipal code and Bayside District Specific Plan — which will make it easier for downtown restaurants to sell alcohol.

The recommendations, originally drawn up by the blue ribbon Promenade Uses Task Force, were approved last April by the Board of Directors of the Bayside District Corp., the city-subsidized, nonprofit corporation responsible for overseeing the downtown commercial area.

While some of the recommended changes seem to be steps in the right direction towards keeping the Third Street Promenade and the downtown Bayside District fresh, diverse and attractive, others are self-serving and don’t protect the public interest.

Presently, restaurants desiring to serve alcohol — either with full bar or beer and wine only — have to obtain what is known as a “Conditional Use Permit” from City Hall and a license from the state Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. Some of the text amendment changes are designed to eliminate public review of alcohol CUP applications in order to reduce “regulatory hurdles for restaurants wishing to open or expand on the Promenade.”

Alcohol CUPs are now granted by the Planning Commission (or the City Council if an appeal is filed) in open public hearings. The changes call for alcohol service in the Bayside District to be approved administratively (behind closed doors) when a restaurant owner agrees to a standard set of 19 conditions compiled by city staff. One problem is that the conditions are general and broad, not site-specific. In other words, all of Bayside alcohol outlets would have the exact same set of rules.

These standards, typical of most Bayside CUP conditions, include only serving alcohol to customers intending to purchase food, outlawing sale for consumption off-premises, limiting alcohol sales to 35 percent of the gross revenue and limiting hours of beverage service to 9 a.m. to midnight, Sunday through Thursday and 9 a.m. to 1 a.m., Friday and Saturday. A CUP would be required only when a business wants a change of conditions.

But, here’s the rub. A restaurant needs only to agree to abide by these standards in writing to sell alcohol. So, after a wink and a nod, a business permit is granted and conditions are forgotten. Being that enforcement is virtually nonexistent, it’s like a free ticket to Disneyland.

I like a pint of good ale from time to time, but I think it’s a bad idea to eliminate all public comment on the privilege (note that I said “privilege,” not “right”) of dispensing alcoholic beverages.

For example, a couple of years ago, if it weren’t for public input at a Planning Commission hearing and later at a City Council appeal, numerous code violations by the Gaucho Grill on the Promenade would have been “ignored” by city staff and their request for an alcohol CUP would have been gladly approved.

Once granted to an address, permission to sell alcohol never goes away. You can bet the many property owners on the Bayside board who backed the changes are fully aware that an alcohol license enhances property values.

“Alcohol drives the city’s economic engine” is a City Hall mantra. With that in mind, there’s no question that staff wants to muzzle citizen input and make obtaining an alcohol CUP a slam dunk. City Hall has rarely revoked an alcohol CUP even in light of flagrant violations. In fact, it seems City Hall does everything in its power to ensure that alcohol flows unencumbered.

In 2002, there were 356 licenses to sell alcohol in Santa Monica. It’s the third highest concentration of alcohol licenses in California. Since then, the city has signed off on about two dozen more alcohol CUPs.

It’s no coincidence that we have a high number of alcohol-related crimes here. One-third to 40 percent of the Santa Monica Police Department’s arrests every year are for alcohol related offenses. From 1996 through 2000, the number of arrests for being drunk in public ranged from 1,924 to 1,078 annually. The corollary is that the easier it is to acquire alcohol in a community, the more problems such as crime, alcohol-related vehicular accidents and alcoholism occur. This is especially visible with our high transient population — a large percentage of which are serious substance abusers.

You can address the Planning Commission on this issue on, March 3, at 7 p.m. in City Council Chambers, City Hall, 1685 Main St. Read the staff report: Agenda item 8-C available on line. (Bill Bauer is a long-time Santa Monica resident and a freelance writer.)

*Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on February 27, 2004.* [Read the original PDF.](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/smdp%5Fbackissues/022704.pdf?ref=smdp.com)