Meeting Time: May 21, 2019 at 7:00pm PDT
The online Comment window has expired

Agenda Item

7. REPORT 19-0312 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT 18-3 AND PARKING PLAN AMENDMENT 18-2 - A REQUEST TO EXPAND AN OUTDOOR DINING AREA BY 774 SQUARE FEET, CLOSING AT 11:00 PM DAILY, AND DEACTIVATING AN EQUIVALENT AREA OF INDOOR RESTAURANT SPACE AND TO PROVIDE TANDEM PARKING WITH VALET SERVICES IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING LATE-NIGHT ON-SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL ESTABLISHMENT (SLATER'S 50/50 RESTAURANT) AT 3-11 PIER AVENUE, AND DETERMINATION THAT THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). (Community Development Director Ken Robertson) Applicant: Michael Nakhleh Slater's Restaurant Group, Inc. 466 Foothill Boulevard, #356 La Canada, CA 91011 Owner: S&P Parent LLC c/o Bolour Associates 8383 Wilshire Boulevard #920 Beverly Hills, CA 90211

  • Default_avatar
    Chris Kelleher 29 days ago

    It appears this project is not exempt from CEQA and violates the CA Coastal Act section 30251. Slater's expansion proposal includes awnings, lights and building an obtrusively high wall in the existing parking lot. This will significantly block the public's right to an ocean view from the public plaza and Beach Drive. The development must comply with the CA Coastal Act: which states “...development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas...”

    I support the expansion of this restaurant into the parking lot, but with the elimination of: any wall over 2 feet high; umbrellas; and/or outdoor heaters as they would interfere with the protected public beach view. A canvas awning is proposed and this should be evaluated as to not block the protected view.

    The proposed 42" high concrete wall along The Strand will obstruct the protected public ocean view. This wall should be reduced to 24", or if any higher than that should be transparent non-fading plastic. A suggestion that an even higher transparent plexiglass be installed up to 6 feet high to satisfy the police department should not be approved in any permit. Plexiglass fades over time and a better alternative should be used. Faded plastic will block the protected view. The barrier at neighboring Hennessey's is an example of faded plastic. The result, one can no longer see those travelling along The Strand causing a safety hazard as accidents have happened. Fortunately that faded wall does not block the ocean view as this proposed one would.

    The proposal includes up to 19 umbrellas and outdoor heaters. These should be eliminated in the proposal. Also, the proposed planter should not block the protected views.

    An inward swinging gate is proposed to enter from The Strand and this should be seriously analyzed as it may further interfere with cycling and fast moving traffic on The Strand causing more congestion and thus a potential safety hazard. If the gate is proposed, it should be closed and not used during high traffic times.

  • Default_avatar
    Dean francois 30 days ago

    in my recent correspondence, i wanted to correct the section of the coastal act referenced. it is 30251

    ARTICLE 6. Development [30250 – 30255]
    ( Article 6 added by Stats. 1976, Ch. 1330.)


    30251.
    The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural land forms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. New development in highly scenic areas such as those designated in the California Coastline Preservation and Recreation Plan prepared by the Department of Parks and Recreation and by local government shall be subordinate to the character of its setting.
    (Added by Stats. 1976, Ch. 1330.)