c) REPORT 19-0409 CITY COUNCIL REVIEW AND RECONSIDERATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO APPROVE 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)
While I am pleased that the staff report has suggested that the applicant is agreeable to amending the CUP to only place an umbrella at a table when a customer requests it and remove the umbrella when the customer has finished and keep it out of sight, the recommendation from staff is ambiguous.
The recommendation is that City council adopt the resolutions sustaining
the planning commission's decision. It does not mention the addition of the umbrella policy. In order to ensure accuracy of this decision, the motion should be to adopt the planning commission's decision with the modification of the use of the umbrellas.
P 3 of the staff report clearly states that this issue has been addressed and staff has added a conditional approval requiring that the use of the umbrellas are only upon customer request.
The staff report is flawed in that on P 3 it states in item #1...There is not an unobstructed ground to sky view now.... There is in fact an unobstructed ground to sky view when cars are not parked there and above the cars when they are are parked there.
Item # 2. is incorrect as well. It states that ...umbrellas are commonly used on outdoor patios on an intermittent basis.... This proposal is not on an existing outdoor patio. This proposal is on an existing parking lot. The report also states that ... umbrellas do not create a solid view barrier that would block public views.... This is incorrect. In fact the reason that the issue is being brought before you is because there exists some concern that umbrellas do interfere with public views.
P 6 of the staff report regarding CEQA, the report is flawed in that it states "Given that the lot is already used for cars and that umbrellas are common at outdoor dining areas in the vicinity, staff and the Commission did not find that there any unusual circumstances that would take this project out of...CEQA exemption"...This is flawed and inaccurate. The commission did not discuss the issue of the umbrellas as they were advised that it dealt with the coastal act and it was outside their jurisdiction. IN FACT SOME COMMISSIONERS DID EXPRESS CONCERN THAT THE UMBRELLA ISSUE COULD BE MODIFIED.
In summary, I request that the city council determine that umbrellas do impact public views, and adopt the planning commission's recommendation with the addition of the new agreed to policy using umbrellas. Something also needs to be done with flaws in the staff report as noted above. It is a disservice to the public to have reports such as this, especially when we deliberate on the future development proposal on this site. It is important to protect these views now so we can better have a smaller more tolerable development proposal when that proposal comes before you.
Dear mayor and city council
While I am pleased that the staff report has suggested that the applicant is agreeable to amending the CUP to only place an umbrella at a table when a customer requests it and remove the umbrella when the customer has finished and keep it out of sight, the recommendation from staff is ambiguous.
The recommendation is that City council adopt the resolutions sustaining
the planning commission's decision. It does not mention the addition of the umbrella policy. In order to ensure accuracy of this decision, the motion should be to adopt the planning commission's decision with the modification of the use of the umbrellas.
P 3 of the staff report clearly states that this issue has been addressed and staff has added a conditional approval requiring that the use of the umbrellas are only upon customer request.
The staff report is flawed in that on P 3 it states in item #1...There is not an unobstructed ground to sky view now.... There is in fact an unobstructed ground to sky view when cars are not parked there and above the cars when they are are parked there.
Item # 2. is incorrect as well. It states that ...umbrellas are commonly used on outdoor patios on an intermittent basis.... This proposal is not on an existing outdoor patio. This proposal is on an existing parking lot. The report also states that ... umbrellas do not create a solid view barrier that would block public views.... This is incorrect. In fact the reason that the issue is being brought before you is because there exists some concern that umbrellas do interfere with public views.
P 6 of the staff report regarding CEQA, the report is flawed in that it states "Given that the lot is already used for cars and that umbrellas are common at outdoor dining areas in the vicinity, staff and the Commission did not find that there any unusual circumstances that would take this project out of...CEQA exemption"...This is flawed and inaccurate. The commission did not discuss the issue of the umbrellas as they were advised that it dealt with the coastal act and it was outside their jurisdiction. IN FACT SOME COMMISSIONERS DID EXPRESS CONCERN THAT THE UMBRELLA ISSUE COULD BE MODIFIED.
In summary, I request that the city council determine that umbrellas do impact public views, and adopt the planning commission's recommendation with the addition of the new agreed to policy using umbrellas. Something also needs to be done with flaws in the staff report as noted above. It is a disservice to the public to have reports such as this, especially when we deliberate on the future development proposal on this site. It is important to protect these views now so we can better have a smaller more tolerable development proposal when that proposal comes before you.
Thank you