Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you, I would like to call to order the June 10th, 2026 meeting of the Manhattan Beach Planning Commission. For participants of the meeting on Zoom, including applicants and members of the public, we will mute your microphone until we call on you to speak. When you are speaking, please silence any audio on your device to avoid feedback. Furthermore, since not all participants are attending via video, please always announce your name prior to speaking so that the audio participants can follow who is speaking. Commissioner Traeger, would you like to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance? Sure.

Ready? Begin. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. May we have roll call, please?

We may. Commissioner Schechter?

Present.

Commissioner Cimac? Here. Commissioner Traeger?

Here.

Commissioner Sistos?

Here.

Chair Hackett?

Here. Next is the approval of the agenda for today's meeting. This is the time for the Planning Commission to notify the public of any changes to the agenda. Commissioners, are there any questions to the agenda? No. Okay. Do I have a motion to approve?

Motion to approve the agenda.

I'll second. Okay. I think we have to do it on our vote cast. Okay. I have a motion from Commissioner Traeger, a second from Vice Chair Sistos. Please vote on the screen in front of you. Oh, here's the vote cast. There you go.

Commissioner Cimac, you were not present at the last meeting. Oh, this is the approval of the agenda.

I'm going to abstain to the next one.

Motion passes 5-0.

Thank you. This is the time now for public comments. Members of the public may speak on any item within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Planning Commission that is not on the agenda. Each speaker is limited to three minutes. There will be a timer on the screen. If you would like to provide public comments from your seat, please inform the meeting clerk or raise your hand. Staff will provide a handheld microphone to ensure your comments are heard. Is there anyone who wishes to speak? Okay. Do we have anyone on Zoom who wishes to speak?

There are no participants on Zoom at this time.

Thank you. Next is the approval of the minutes for the May 27, 2026 meeting. Commissioners, are there any comments or questions on the minutes? Look at the ones who are present. I have none. Is there a motion to approve?

I'll motion to approve the minutes from our last meeting.

Okay. And is there a second? I have a motion to approve from Vice Chair Sistos and a second from Commissioner Traeger. Please vote on the screen in front of you and abstain if you are not here.

Motion passes 3-0-2.

Okay, thank you. The next item is for the reorganization of the Planning Commission. I'll turn this over to Planning Manager Finestone for an introduction.

Thank you, Chair Hackett. I appreciate that. So, pursuant to section 2.44130 of the Manhattan Municipal Code, the Chair and Vice Chair of the Planning Commission are appointed for one-year terms, typically at the first meeting in June each year. Customarily, the vice chair is appointed as the chair and the commissioner who has served the longest without being the chair is appointed as the new vice chair. Following the vacancy of the chair position earlier this year, Chair Hackett was appointed as the chair because she was currently serving in the vice chair role at that time. Former Commissioner Ngoko was selected as the vice chair at that time because he was the commissioner with the longest tenure since being chair. With the conclusion of Commissioner Ngoko's term at the end of May, the vice chair position is currently vacant. Because Chair Hackett has only served in the role of chair for a few months, staff recommends that she be reappointed as chair through May of next year. And as the commissioner with the longest tenure without being chair, staff recommends that Commissioner Sistos be appointed as vice chair.

Okay, thank you very much. Commissioners, do we have any questions on the reorganization? Okay. If reappointed as chair, I will serve in that role. Commissioner Sisto, if appointed as vice chair, will you serve in that role? I will. Okay. I will entertain a motion to confirm the staff recommendation for the planning commission chair and vice chair positions. I have a motion from Commissioner Cimac and a second from Commissioner Traeger. Please vote on the screen in front of you.

Motion passes 5-0. And if you now just give me a moment, I'm going to update a nameplate.

Okay.

Thank you.

Let me know when you're ready to continue. Okay, great. The next item is a one-year review of a use permit amendment that allowed the expansion of an existing eating and drinking establishment, including second-story outdoor dining in conjunction with the on-site sales and service of alcohol, beer, wine, and distilled spirits, and live entertainment located at 309 Manhattan Beach Boulevard, an associated environmental determination finding the project categorically exempt from further review pursuant to CEQA. Before I request a report from city staff, I would like to ask if any commissioners have had any ex parte communications to disclose related to the item. Ex parte communications would include meeting with the applicant or any other interested parties to hear about the project or concerns and if commissioners have visited the project site. So do we have any ex parte communications or visits? I have visited the project site for dinner. Okay. Thank you.

I have visited the project site multiple times.

Thank you. I have also been to the project site. I have not been to the second story, but I have been to the project site.

And I've only been to the first floor, so not the project site at issue.

Okay.

I passed by it on my way. There you go. That's it. I've never been inside. I apologize. I've got to support local businesses. Okay.

There you go. All right. So at this time, maybe we have a staff report.

Yeah, thank you, Chair Hackett. At this time, I'd like to invite up Associate Planner Tari Kavangawa. She'll be making the presentation on this item.

Good afternoon. Can you hear me?

It's not lit up, though. Oops.

Afternoon Planning Commissioners. My name is Tari Kavangwa and I am the project planner for the agenda item before you today for this public hearing. The purpose of today's hearing is to conduct a one year review of a use permit amendment that allowed the expansion of an existing restaurant located at 309 Manhattan Beach Boulevard. In February of this year, the applicant submitted a request to allow their existing restaurant, Esperanza, to continue operating under expanded hours for the second story. They are currently in a one-year trial period where they can utilize those hours, but in order to continue using them beyond the trial period, a public hearing to conduct a one-year review was required to consider that request. The trial period is scheduled to conclude tomorrow, June 11th. In 2019, the subject site was approved for a use permit amendment to allow a major remodel of the then existing ground floor restaurant. That planning entitlement served to supersede or replace the previous use permit from the 1980s. The applicant for today's request is Esperanza, and they began operating in 2021. In 2024, the site was approved for a use permit amendment and coastal development permit to expand their operations from the first floor to also occupy the second story of the building. And that expansion included the sales and service of alcoholic beverages which included beer, wine, and distilled spirits. And it also included live entertainment and an outdoor dining patio facing Manhattan Beach Boulevard. This slide here provides an overhead view of the project site in the neighborhood context. As you can see, the main entrance is located along Manhattan Beach Boulevard, and that is also where both of their outdoor patios are oriented towards. This slide provides a brief overview of the site's current operations. The existing use is eating and drinking establishment or restaurant. It's currently two stories and Esperanza occupies both floors. As you can see, the first floor and second floor both have interior space as well as outdoor dining areas. They have a type 47 ABC license. And then the hours of operation for the first floor are not proposed to be changed during today's conference. Hearing the hours under discussion are for the second story. So to summarize from the 2024 use permit amendment hearing, the applicant's initial request that they submitted for the second story hours were 4 p.m. to midnight daily. Staff recommended that the indoor hours be the same as above, so 4 p.m. to midnight, but that the outdoor patio have staggered operating hours and close at 10 p.m., And that 10 PM close for the patio reflected the working recommendations of the city's outdoor dining task force at the time, which the city council did eventually adopt. The next few slides provide some additional context about the property. This first slide shows the approved site plan and a copy of the approved plans are attached to the staff report. This shows the approved first floor plan which required some changes to meet code requirements in order to have the second story expand the restaurant use. This is the transition floor between the first and second levels, and then this is the second floor plan. And then to the right side, you can see the outdoor dining patio, and to the left is the interior of the restaurant. And then this just shows the exterior of the restaurant. On the left is the front along Manhattan Beach Boulevard, and on the right is the rear of the property along the alley. So essentially we wanted to summarize the difference between the operating hours that the applicant is requesting to continue using after the one year trial period that they're currently operating under versus the original hours that staff had recommended for approval at the hearing in 2024. So if the planning commission were to approve their request to keep the expanded hours, The indoor hours would be 4 p.m. to 2 a.m. daily to match the first story as they currently are. And then the patio would be 4 p.m. to 11 p.m. daily. If they were to not have their request approved, the hours... that were approved in the use permit from 2024 without that expansion of hours would be 4 p.m. to midnight for the interior and then 4 p.m. to 10 p.m. daily for the patio. Okay. In preparing for this one year review, staff considered three areas of focus. The first was consultation with code enforcement staff. We also consulted with our colleagues in the police department to obtain a list of calls for service. And then the third was to consider the conditions of approval that currently regulate the use and operations of the site. And those conditions overall relate to operations of the restaurant, noise, refuse, the service of alcoholic beverages, and live entertainment. City staff conducted a site visit in late May and we observed two compliance related items. The first was that there were outdoor speakers on the second story patio mounted to the wall of the building and facing Manhattan Beach Boulevard. There is a condition in the 2019 approval that says there are no amplified sound permitted and then condition in the 2024 use permit amendment so there's to be no outdoor speakers at the patio so those speakers will need to be removed and then the second observation related to refuse enclosure Due to the expansion to the second story, a second new trash enclosure was required to bring the site into compliance. Prior to that, the one existing refuse enclosure was non-compliant for the site. Staff observed that the new enclosure was being used for miscellaneous storage. NOT FOR THE REQUIRED REFUSE CONTAINERS THAT WERE DUE TO THE EXPANSION OF USE. SO THAT WOULD NEED TO BE RETURNED TO ITS APPROVED CONDITION AND THE APPROVED PLANS ATTACHED TO THE STAFF REPORT SHOW THE LOCATION OF THE ENCLOSURE AND IDENTIFIED THE REFUSE CONTAINERS. The staff also reviewed the applicant's request with respect to CEQA, or the California Environmental Quality Act. It qualifies for one categorical exemption, which is section 15301, or existing facilities. And that allows for the negligible expansion of use for an existing restaurant, such as an existing restaurant that is currently operating under expanded hours being permitted to continue operating under those same hours. Therefore, no additional environmental review is necessary. For today's hearing, we provided public notification in a few ways. We mailed a hearing notice to property owners within 500 feet of the site. We published an ad in the Beach Reporter. We also posted the notice at City Hall and other city facilities. And we received one public comment, which is attached to the staff report. Staff's recommendation is that the Planning Commission conduct the public hearing, consider the applicant's request to continue operating under the expanded hours for the second story, and if warranted, provide direction to staff to revise conditions in the existing approvals that regulate the site's operations. That concludes my presentation. I'm available for any questions. The applicant is also here and would like to provide a short statement. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Do we have any questions of staff at this time, commissioners?

Could you explain the process by which a business gets into compliance once you've found deficiencies, and from that point, whether there are follow-up on the city's part?

Sure, so typically our approach is to notify the applicant of the deficiencies. So I did contact the applicant after the observations made during the site visit and let them know about the outdoor speaker condition as well as the refuse and closer not being used as required and let them know that those speakers would need to be removed and the refuse and closer would need to be returned to its approved condition and for its approved use. So they would need to make those changes. Staff would conduct a follow-up site visit, and that would be how we would verify that they did correct those compliance issues.

Thank you.

Are there other establishments nearby with similar use that have outdoor patios? And if so, what are their closing times?

I don't have a list in front of me, but the staff report that is linked to this one from 2004 had a list of other establishments with ABC licenses, so if our planning manager.

This was uniquely the second floor patio, so that's what made this different.

Yeah, I know we do have a record of that. I'm pulling that up right now, so if you guys want to continue with the discussion, I'll come back to that.

I also know the answer from the last time staff did this report, but we can wait for you to answer if you want.

By all means, go for it.

The kettle is right next door. It's 24 hours. They have the I can't confirm if they actually do use the outdoor seating area, but they are permitted. Hennessy's next door is open until I believe 1.30 or 2 a.m. The only restrictions they have on their outdoor patio usage is if there's a live event. That was like the statement that was used. And in that situation, so I'm not sure if that's a band or like a big thing going on, then it's restricted to 10 or 10.30, I think. I'm going back from the last meeting.

Do you happen to remember if it was a live event or amplified music?

Live event, or that was the term that was used at the last meeting.

So variety of establishments downtown. We've got a list here that's downtown eating and drinking establishments with alcohol matrix on that. And some of it does specify whether there's outdoor patios, some of it doesn't. I'm trying to glance through real quickly. Looks like for Hennessy's, no outdoor dining after 10 p.m. when entertainment performs. So it sounds like that's live entertainment. For, let's see. And I do agree or recall that the kettle does have the authorization to be 24 hours. I think when we looked into that, I think at that point, Vice Chair Sistos was chair, and when we were talking about it, we called them up, and they don't actually operate it, if my recollection is correct.

They're able to, but they don't, and that's the same for these operating hours where we said they are able to go until 2 a.m. to be consistent with other bars and restaurants in the area, but they were choosing to close at midnight.

Great. Go ahead. Oh, I just have a... I have one of my questions, but I don't want to stop either of you if you have questions.

So questions, could you just clarify for some of the conditions that we set forth in 2024? So for example, like did that six foot high glass panel, was that installed as we discussed? And then is there a way to verify whether the noise... was within the city's noise ordinance because that was one of the other conditions. But I don't know whether that's something that was checked after this went into place.

Sure, so the six foot panel that was recommended by the acoustic consultant and is one of the conditions was installed. Staff verified that prior to issuing a certificate of occupancy last year. I also verified it during the site visit that it still remains. And then for the noise ordinance, you would need a device to check the decibel level. That isn't a tool community development staff currently has to check that type of compliance on a regular basis.

So if a noise complaint comes forward to the city, how is it addressed as far as knowing whether or not it falls within the noise ordinance or falls outside of it?

I mean, our code enforcement department would, I guess, open up and investigate a situation where there was noise and just, I guess, verify against standards in our code. I think there's some qualitative standards in our code as well. So, yeah, that's... But we have not opened a code in case regarding noise on this site at this point.

Okay, I remember that an acoustic study was completed at the time when the initial request was brought forward.

Correct, and that consultant provided recommendations. Those recommendations were incorporated into the conditions of approval. But there has not been staff initiated regular testing to check the noise level of restaurants in downtown per se.

Okay, thank you.

Do you have a question, please?

Does noise ordinance vary by time of day?

I would need to look at the code section for the noise ordinance.

I can say that it does vary by time of day. There's a daytime limit and a nighttime limit. And then there's a kind of caveat that if ambient noise exceeds those limits, ambient is kind of what drives the noise limitation there. And In addition, I think there's I'm trying to remember, but I believe there's some leeway that you're permitted a slight bit above the ambient level. So that's what we would be looking at. And I think really the way that the code enforcement action, if any, at this point would work would be related to. it' s a reasonable person test of sorts that has language in the noise ordinance talks about certain qualitative Dealing with noise regulations is a little bit of a challenge without having a certified noise or acoustical specialist on staff. We don't have a, other than what you can download on your smartphone, we don't have a noise meter that's been calibrated, certified, et cetera. So having to do something like that would place a burden on staff that we're not currently equipped to deal with.

Just one other quick question on the conditions. So it says that the windows and doors on the second floor should have a sound transmission class rating of at least 30. Was that verified as well, like what the doors and windows that were installed? So if they were to pull those closed, that they would have the appropriate SDC rating sound-wise?

That would have had to been, we would have looked at that as part of the building permit process, so I would presume.

So that would have needed to have been confirmed in order to get the building permit. Okay, so that condition, which is 10, is met.

I will say I've not directly looked at it myself, but that's the process we would utilize in assuming, considering that the building permit was issued, it can be assumed that we did check that compliance.

Okay.

Were there any noise complaints in the last year?

So the list of calls for service is attached to the staff report. So the noise-related concerns were about alarms. They weren't related to patrons at the business.

Okay. So the speakers... were outside in violation of a condition, but there were no noise complaints. Correct. Okay.

With the exception of the resident who wrote in. So we had one resident comment. Yeah, Burton. Right. But that was the only complaint. But they didn't actually call the state. But that was...

a letter written in response to this agenda item. It wasn't done when the complaint occurred, right?

Correct.

The other question I had, I'm a little confused. 10 o'clock, 11 o'clock? It's 11 o'clock in the one-year trial, but I saw somewhere it was 10 o'clock.

Yes.

So how did we get to 11 o'clock?

So typically when staff brings an item to the Planning Commission for consideration, we prepare a draft resolution, which has a summary of the project under consideration, but also proposed conditions of approval. It's within the Planning Commission's discretion to amend those conditions as they discuss the project, and if they're going to approve it, they can change the draft conditions that staff has brought forth. So condition number nine in the 2024 approval were the hours that staff was recommending the Planning Commission approve that project under those terms. So that was the 10 p.m. close for the patio to match the Outdoor Dining Task Force's working recommendations at the time. And then through discussion, the planning commission offered a one year trial period for the second story hours to align more closely with the first story. But there was still a staggered closing time for the patio. So the first floor is allowed to operate until 2 AM daily. The interior of the second story was permitted during this trial period to operate until 2 AM daily, excuse me. but they offset the patio to close earlier than 2 a.m., and that trial period allowed them to operate until 11 p.m. daily on the patio currently.

I recall when this came before us, the outdoor dining task force had been working on coming up with a set of maybe not rules, but suggestions to go before council, but nothing had been ratified or codified yet. What ultimately was the hour that was put before council that was put into code?

The updated outdoor dining ordinance that council adopted approved a 10 PM close and end of operations for outdoor dining.

So if this were to stay at 11, is it legal non-conforming? Is it?

It's legal because the use permit is a discretionary planning entitlement and that is regulating the operation specifically for this site.

Okay. Okay. And then on a go-forward basis, taking this one out of it, just talking generally, if something comes before the planning commission or council, is it codified that it's 10 p.m.? Is that like a recommendation? Yeah.

So the outdoor dining ordinance was adopted, so that is the standard set of regulations that if you are approved for outdoor dining, that would be the set hours, unless you had a planning entitlement that had different hours of operation. Okay.

Is that first floor considered indoor or outdoor? Because it's...

Open. It's a combination. There is what you could call fully enclosed interior space, and then there is an outdoor patio. But that first floor is an older establishment, so that entitlement from the 80s that was replaced by the one from 2019 carried over those same operating hours of the 2 a.m. close. So that first floor, indoor and outdoor, has the same closing time. They're not staggered like the upstairs.

Got it. So that basically superseded the outdoor dining task force. It more predated. Predated. Yeah. And did the outdoor dining task force specify between first floor and second floor or they just have 10 o'clock?

Specifically for second floor outdoor dining, it's limited to 10 p.m., meaning service has to stop at 10 p.m. So it's specific to second story.

Did they have a directive for the first story?

I don't recall off the top of my head if they assigned something to first story. Planning Manager Feinstein is verifying.

Actually, I'm waiting for – I've got my senior planner, Jaehee Yoon, who's – who's the one who led up the outdoor dining task force. I'm waiting for a message for her, so give us a minute. We'll follow up on that one. Got it. Thanks. You have 10 p.m. across the board for all outdoor dining.

And so to clarify, an establishment can come forward to the Planning Commission, and if they have some business reason or some other reason why they would ask for the patio to be open beyond 10 p.m., that's something that still would fall within the discretion of the Planning Commission to decide, or the new ordinance supersedes the Planning Commission's discretion on hours.

The Planning Commission would still have discretion over the operating hours because the planning entitlement would be regulating the use of the site. So that could be something the Planning Commission considers the request, which could be later than what the Algernon Task Force had approved through City Council's ordinance. It would be under the discretion of the Planning Commission whether or not to approve something that aligns with the Outro Dining Task Force recommendations that were adopted or to approve the applicant's request or something different. Okay, thank you.

In this outdoor dining group, was there any distinction between outdoor dining on private property versus outdoor dining in the public right-of-way? And how does that relate to that 10 o'clock curfew or deadline or what?

So there was discussion. There's different regulations and guidelines that have been established for public versus private. However, the time that's established, it is consistent for both. It's 10 o'clock for whether it's private or public.

Can you give us some clarification, please, on the violations with respect to the speakers and the refuse, whether they're in current violation or they've been resolved?

As of the site visit on May 29th, they were in violation. The applicant team is here, so I would let them answer about the current status when they come to make their statement.

If we don't have any more questions of staff at this time, all right. Thank you so much, Tori. All right, we will now open the public hearing. We will start with the applicant followed by public comment and end the hearing with an opportunity for the applicant to provide a rebuttal if they so choose. Does the applicant have a presentation or wish to speak? Yes. Thank you. Please come down to the microphone down here. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Commissioner and Chairs. First thing I would like to address is the two violations have both been fixed. I have pictures of both speakers taken down as well as the trash area. If you guys would like to see these. We were using the trash area as linen storage, and we had found a spot for the excess trash cans in between the kettle and us on the sidewalk there. But we have no problem putting them back where they were supposed to be. And yes, we had added speakers for ambient dining, background noise upstairs. It was flat up there. There was no music, no... People kept asking, guests complained, so we had to add some speakers. We've obviously taken them down. Like you guys have heard, we have not had any noise complaints whatsoever. And we have not received any calls for service besides false alarms. Some of you guys were asking about the times why we asked for 11 in the first place versus 10. Really, you have to offer a two-hour dining experience. Those of you that have visited our restaurants or go out to eat often, we would have to sit our last table at 7.30, 8 o'clock, and have everyone off the patio by 10. Giving us 11 PM gives us a little bit more time. Someone can have an 8.30 reservation, a 9 o'clock reservation. By no means are we trying to create a party upstairs. We're just trying to do what's best for the city, create a popular dining space. And one thing that we've discussed is Jim Burton's letter. We've obviously seen that. And the base traveling down the street was definitely not from the speakers upstairs. And for a little peace of mind for the residents, and for the commissioners and chairs. We're even willing to give up our entertainment upstairs. We've never had a DJ upstairs, we've never had a band upstairs, any kind of amplified music whatsoever. Yeah, just background music inside and that's it. We're just trying to create a dining experience and social gathering. You got anything else? Thank you.

Do we want to ask questions of the applicant at this time, or do we want to allow other members of the public to speak?

It's at your discretion if there are questions that you'd like to ask the applicant for clarification in the same manner that you asked Steph. Okay. You can do that, and then you can provide an opportunity. You can close the public hearing, have your deliberation, and then if there is a need to ask any further questions of the applicant, you can reopen the hearing to bring them back forward.

Okay, thank you. Do we have any questions of the applicant at this time? Do you have a question? No. I have a question. When you had originally come before us, you had said that the original use or how you saw that being used the most was more for private parties. And then, of course, obviously having the option on slower nights or if someone's not renting out a space on a Wednesday night to allow overflow for dining. What has turned into the actual use of that space? Would you say it's mostly... bar usage or private reservations?

It's mostly dining. I would say probably 75 to 80%, you know, dining. And then there are some private parties for buyouts, but you know, The amount of revenue that you make on a Saturday evening by seating that with regular tables throughout the night, to have someone to buy out that Saturday night, it would have to be significantly above that amount that you would already make to make it make sense and also not discourage and make your regular dining guests upset. So I would say 80% to 90% regular dining and then maybe 10 to 20% buyouts at this point in time. But I will say all the buyouts are 90%, 95% of them are graduations or birthdays or events with food. We don't do just bar buyouts where it's just alcohol. They wouldn't be able to even hit the minimum that we're discussing by doing it that way.

Right.

Thank you. If you do have a buyout on the second floor, would you then have DJ or amplified music for that?

No, and we have not done that ever. And they ask every time. We haven't done it. But we do tell them afterwards they can join us downstairs.

Do we have any questions for the applicant?

Could you remind me how much indoor seating is available? If I remember, there was like a big table and a bar. There wasn't a lot of space for dining at the indoor space upstairs.

Well, yeah, that's kind of one of our problems. We have that big table. We have the bar.

And then I think there's 48 total seats, I believe. Is there just a big table and the bar?

Yes. Yeah. So most of our dining setup is out on the patio.

Can you give us an idea of how, on a regular weekday, a regular weekend, how much of it is occupied on the outdoor patio?

We've been doing really good, and people actually, that's their first choice. So it's usually, it's full at some point every night.

Do we have any more questions for the applicant at this time? Okay, now I will, thank you very much. Thank you. Do we have any other members in the public who would wish to speak? Thank you.

I'll be brief because I feel like some of this has been addressed already, which is great. I still want to go on record, if I may. Hello, council members, staff members. So, before I start, I just want to highlight that we really enjoy Esperanza's restaurant, food, entertainment, all of that. In fact, it's our 26th anniversary and we're celebrating there tonight. We'll be on the second floor for the first time, which should be interesting. I can report back if you like on that. I'm here to go on record about the sound level because we live across the street from Jim Burton and we share the alley with Noah's Bagels, so that's where we're located. On weekends, the sound level is, in my view at least, shocking. It's not just the bass, though the bass sounds really good. But the sound level is extremely high in that I can hear all of the music all of the lyrics, everything. It's as though I've got a sound system in the house. And I'm not exaggerating. It's quite loud. I don't have to struggle to hear what song is on. Sometimes I sing along. But it's quite loud. And the only reason it's a concern is because you can hear it through most of the house. And if I actually go out on the Illini in the back of our house, I hear it perfectly. I mean, every bit of it. And it just gives me... It makes me concerned about where is the city heading, because this sounds like, to me at least, like a nightclub. And I just never got the impression that we were about nightclubs, necessarily. It's sort of like the It's a Wonderful Life movie. Have you seen that, anybody? Anybody? Yeah, so in there, he comes back to Bedford Falls. when the angel brings him to show him how life would be if he were not around. And he walks up Main Street and it's just all music and excitement and lights and all that. And I hope that's not where the city is heading. So I think we really need to think about where do we want to take this city and what do we want to allow? Because if that continues and then there's more of it, it's a different city than I know. And that's it. Other than that, other than the sound level, it's a great place, wonderful food, and I recommend everyone go. We've also, by the way, attracted, I'm just going to mention this on my wife's behalf, we've also attracted, for some reason, some very intoxicated people to our house. We've had the police over twice. One came to our front door and rang the bell, and I thought it was the police, and like an idiot, I opened the door. And it's a guy. It's shocking. And then just a few months ago, there was an individual who found himself trapped between our house and the neighbor's. Now, it may not have been from your restaurant, but I'm just saying that it's all part of the same story where things are changing. And this person, unfortunately, this was just like two months ago, I think, right? This person got into the side of our house between two doors and then couldn't figure out how to get out. And we kept on jumping and making noise, and he cut himself, bleeding. Police came. Neighbors came out. So, yeah, so the sound level is the big thing. It sounds like some of it may have been addressed with these outdoor speakers, which is terrific, so it remains to be seen, but we'll come back if it's not.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Jill Lampkin, Chamber of Commerce. I just realized you have new commissioners, and I haven't met a lot of you. So nice to meet you. Thank you for your service. I am here a year later to speak about these guys. I actually was shocked when I opened the packet and I saw the police report and I saw all the writing. I was like, oh no, I'm going to be back going, oh, this is terrible. And I went, oh, smoke alarm, smoke alarm. I'm like, yay. I've actually had the police called to my house during this period for me being too noisy on the patio. So I am shocked that it is, that has gone as well as it has. I also served on the very painful 14 or 17 13 month outdoor dining commission and getting to the point where there was general consensus about what time was reasonable took a lot. We had downtown residents, we had residents from all over the community, we had businesses, we had everything you can imagine on this committee intentionally, right? So that everyone's views were recognized. And the limit that we came to as a group and decided was very fair and reasonable was 10. We know there are exceptions where other people are going later. And I appreciate the fact that you guys gave them a little bit of leeway with that because it does give them an extra seating at night, which is great. I would love to see it continue at 11. to not have any sound complaints. I mean, I just think that is amazing that that's the case. Mr. Burton's letter actually describes the property. I believe that is yours. Is that correct? Which I thought was interesting that he wrote the letter instead of the resident. But it's...

It's his. It's his. It's his property.

It shows the three-story property is what it talks about. So... I know where you live. But I so I just wanted to make sure that like the letter as it came in as a complaint is one thing. But having this go on for a year and not having a single time that the police had to respond for noise, I feel like is. an incredible accomplishment for something on the second floor, especially during a trial period. So just wanted to give you my feedback. We want to help our businesses succeed, and this is one of those ways. And like I said, the outdoor dining committee came up with all of these rules, which are, you know, I think being upheld fairly. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other members from the public that wish to speak? Any participants on Zoom?

There are no participants on Zoom.

Okay. Okay. I will now close the public hearing.

If we don't have any questions for the... Oh, yes.

Sorry. Applicant, if you would like an opportunity for a rebuttal, please come down.

I just want to say I appreciate you guys coming down. And the last thing we want to do is cause noise at your house. So that's good information. Thank you. One thing I did want to mention is if those folks are hearing noise, it's most likely from the bottom, not from the top. And then, you know, we have other neighbors and stuff that play live entertainment and loud music as well. So I just kind of wanted you guys to know that. And then I don't know if there's anything else you wanted to add.

No, no. Yeah, thanks for your comments. I live in Manhattan Beach as well on 21st Street. I walked here. I own a house in the north end as well. Last thing I want is anybody in this community to be bummed out with what we're trying to do here. And like he said, yeah, this has to be a downstairs problem, which we will address, but it has nothing to do with the upstairs. Thank you.

Chair, may I ask him a question? Yes. I think I heard you say that as a concession, if the hours were to continue forward from the one year, that you would eliminate the possibility of live music on the second floor, but I want to make sure I heard that correctly.

Yes, correct.

Okay.

Thank you. So it's already one of the conditions that it's not allowed to have live entertainment, amplified sound, and speakers in any of the outdoor dining area. And then it's only live entertainment on the second story shall be permitted indoor only and limited to no more than five musicians or vocalists. So if they were to have live entertainment, the patio doors and windows should be closed. That's in the conditions. So I don't necessarily think that that...

I thought I heard them say, though, that they would not have live music even indoors on the second floor. That's correct.

I'm willing to give it up upstairs completely.

I don't think that's going to make a difference in the sound if the doors and windows are closed as the conditions outline. It's happening inside with the doors closed, but thank you.

Okay. At this point, I will now close the public hearing. Now is the time for commissioners to discuss and provide direction to city staff. So who would like to kick us off?

I feel one of the comments made was the fact that they have been open during this trial period with these extended hours and there haven't been any noise complaints. That seems consistent with the police record and that the only items were there was a health complaint. health emergency and some other unrelated things. So I agree that I think the trial's gone great, and I have no problem with them continuing at the same hours, even though I know that the staff recommendation was I think the 10 o'clock, take the 11 to 10, and take the 2 to 12, I believe was the staff recommendation. But I have no problem with them continuing at the existing hours. Okay.

Before I go on to other commissioners for questions, I did go back and rewatch the hearing just because it was a while ago. I wanted to make sure I fully understood. So if you guys want me to give you sort of a summary as to how we got to the hours that we got to, I'm happy to do that right now, even though typically I like to have everyone else speak first. Okay. So there were three matters brought before the Planning Commission. It was ultimately looking at the noise assessment, looking into outdoor dining hours and then looking into parking. That's what was brought at the October 2024 hearing. We got a noise assessment from John Laverde. He was the acoustical analyst. He specifically focused on the second floor in his analysis. He looked at everything from like the floors in place, the barriers, the distance from the street, the neighboring bars, how much ambient noise that created, and noise attenuation like the clear plastic glass, the doors that would be put on place. It was a very, very thorough noise assessment at that time. Obviously, the outdoor speakers were not permitted. And then, so I think the noise assessment that was done, we were able to get comfortable with. the parking was either met or exceeded. I know that's not before us right now, but that was before us. And then ultimately, we were talking about the hours. That was the bulk majority of what the meeting was focused on. And granted, we were all doing this under the umbrella. We knew it would be a trial period so that we would be able to revisit this matter. Staff had recommended 10 p.m. outside. They had asked for until 12 p.m. indoors. And while it's not typical that then we go above and beyond, I think their reasoning before it at one point they said was they just didn't want to over-ask. But when the commission really sat down and we started thinking about how this actually works for the business. Because while it's obviously our duty to appease the residents, we also wanna make sure it's a business friendly environment so that our businesses succeed. We heard the reasoning with, you wouldn't be able to see anyone at 8.30 and get them out by 10. So ultimately, I think that really weighed into our decision to extend the hours to 11 p.m. for the outdoor portion. That we also had the benefit of having a commissioner who had also served on the outdoor dining task force. He, at that time, had said how they got to 10, but in this specific incident, he didn't think a lot of, like, that reasoning applied, and that 11 p.m. he was also comfortable with. Not to put it all on him. Again, it was all, we were all discussing it as a group. And then as far as indoor, you know, they had asked for 12. there was a lot of conversation about this shuffle that would be happening. Okay, they want to close the patio at 10. Okay, then we shove everyone indoors. Okay, then that closes at 12. So shove everyone downstairs. And we actually did have the conversation of, okay, so are you taking, you know, of course I know there's a capacity requirement, etc., But are you taking all of these people who are enjoying the restaurant and now they're all being crammed into the first floor and you have like even more amplified noise or you have a rowdier environment simply because people just weren't ready to end their night and they thought the whole establishment was opened until 2.00. That was how we got to the extended hours indoors. Again, this was all under the umbrella of we will have the opportunity to revisit this if the neighbors aren't happy, if residents aren't happy. But that was a good chunk of the reasoning as to how we actually extended the hours to better suit what was happening on the first floor.

And to clarify, they, I believe, are only open until midnight, but in order to prevent them from having to come before the planning commission again, if they wanted to be open from midnight to 2 a.m., we allow the maximum amount of timing that is consistent with other bars and restaurants in the area so that they wouldn't need to come back again and say, oh, actually, we wanted to extend it. So it was a consistency piece. One of the conditions does state that the First and second floor should operate as one restaurant. So it made sense to match what was on the first floor with the second floor for the indoor section. And then the outdoor, we had a lot of discussion around that timing. And I think at the end of the day, it was to provide the additional, you know, the ability for that additional late seating on the patio.

So Friday and Saturday, I think they are open until 2.

So they have the ability to be open seven days a week until two if they want to. And this was allowing consistency between the indoor upstairs and the indoor or the whole downstairs area.

So I guess they're taking advantage of that two days a week currently.

Okay. I just wanted to give that summary. Now, do we have any other? Commissioner? Yes, please.

It seems to me that... We're trying to solve a problem that doesn't have a problem. There's no noise complaints. I sympathize with the neighborhood. I know when my kids were teenagers, they'd have parties at our house and we would leave and police usually showed up. But that's another story. So, but is there any, I mean, I was trained as an engineer, so I'm looking at this room. Are there any physical solutions? And I'm thinking acoustic sound barriers. But if it's not a problem, then you don't need to do it.

I mean, I feel like... We don't know where the sound is coming from, right? We don't know if it's coming from Hennessy's or Kettle or Esperanza or one of the other 25.

We do know that it's not coming from the second floor, and the second floor is the only thing we're discussing today. So if we need to revisit what's happening on the first floor with amplified sound, I think that's a different conversation. Today is only to decide the second floor.

That would be my point, is that we have a pretty narrow issue before us, and it's just the hours of operation on the second floor. And I deeply sympathize with the adjacent residents, but that's something that needs to be addressed as to the volume of the live music.

Well, but if they're committing, first of all, if there's been no noise complaints and they're committing to not have live entertainment... upstairs, what's the problem? I mean, that's kind of the way I look at it. In my own logical way, I'm cursed with an analytical mind, I apologize. But it seems that, I mean, and it becomes a financial issue for you guys, because you want to maximize that space and have people enjoy the restaurant, so. I don't see a problem that we need a solution for.

There were quite a few. They did the acoustical analysis coming in and then there was quite a bit of attenuation measures that were put in place at the time because there was so much concern about this and how much the noise would carry. I think the removal of the second floor speakers, they shouldn't have been there in the first place. They've already removed those. I'm not concerned by what happens inside with the doors and windows closed, with the sound transmission class rating of at least 30 on those doors and windows. If they close the doors, I don't think there's going to be, the sound is not going to be a problem. I do think there's a problem with the sound coming from all of the downstairs, you know, establishments that have patios facing out. But I do think that's a different discussion than what's before us today. And certainly, residents shouldn't be hearing the lyrics to a song if they're living many blocks away. But again, I'm not sure if that's coming from culture, that's coming from Hennessy's. So I also, I think to the residents, you know, comment about the type of city we're becoming and not wanting to come, you know, move into this sort of nightlife type of environment. I think Esperanza is an establishment that is moving in the direction that we want Manhattan Beach to go. And Esperanza, as many of you may recall, replaced Sharks Cove. So I think that the overall atmosphere and the overall environment that's been created via Esperanza is certainly not something that I'm concerned about long term for the dynamics of Manhattan Beach.

I would also encourage the residents if it is an ongoing problem to, if you do call it in, at least then the city can be better informed if there is an establishment on there that is violating the noise ordinance. It allows them to take action that doesn't have to involve coming before the planning commission. I believe that's something they can act upon almost immediately. Like all of my fellow commissioners, we completely hear your concern, but we also have to focus on the matter before us. And I will second Vice Chair Sisto's comment that I appreciate the applicant's offer to remove that. And I don't really feel strongly about it one way or another, but I don't think it's what's... I don't think it's creating an issue. You haven't gotten noise complaints called in and... Yeah, I just don't think it's necessary if it's a nice added part that you have.

There are conditions including ensuring that you're inside the city's noise ordinance. If this is an ongoing issue for the residents and for downtown, I do think maybe it's worth the investment and maybe it's a, you know, a contracted acoustical specialist or something like that, that you can bring in just on an as needed basis and potentially having a noise meter. I know it creates extra work, but if this becomes an ongoing issue, I think those are some possible solutions that the city could employ in order to help, you know, alleviate some of the concerns because we do have a condition that says that the noise emanating from the property should be within the limits prescribed by the noise ordinance, but there's no way to, measure that, it's a little bit hard to enforce that condition. That condition is in place for every establishment in Manhattan Beach, not just Esperanza, but that's in there.

If I could just add to that, there are a list of criteria under noise disturbances in that code section that code enforcement does use to enforce. So we can enforce on restaurants that are creating a noisy environment. I mean, this specifically talks about us being able to evaluate the level of noise. the intensity of that noise. So yes, we can enforce at this point.

So I think then back to what Chair Hackett suggested, I would definitely call that in. If it has to be every Friday and Saturday night, it has to be every Friday and Saturday night. And then it gets on the docket, it gets on the level of visibility there. I think for the leadership of Esperanza, if you can take a look at your first floor, because I think that's probably what's causing the problems. In the conditions the speakers should be facing inside the like interior towards the inside. It could just be a volume issue, I don't know, but I think you've gotten the feedback from the residents. You know because you haven't had amplified sound on the second floor that it's not coming from there, so it's likely a first floor issue. Perhaps if you take a few steps there, make sure your speakers are, the volume's appropriate, they're facing the right direction, and then the complaints still come, maybe it's coming from Hennessy's, maybe it's coming from culture, right? And again, that could be a bigger conversation to have. I think with regards to the second floor, I think that To Chair Hackett's point, when we made this decision a year ago, we did not have the guidelines of the outdoor dining. So I think the only question is, do we continue with the 11 p.m., with now there being a formal recommendation, or I wouldn't call it ordinance, recommendation in place for outdoor dining to end at 10 p.m.? So that, I think, is the only point at issue, is do we go counter to what the task force has recommended and what council has adopted at a 10 p.m. close. Personally, I understand the challenge and the seating. And from my perspective, I want to give businesses the opportunity to thrive because if businesses thrive, that's the only way for our city to thrive. And so I think if it makes a difference between being able to have a seating and not have a seating, I'm still in favor of allowing it to go until 11 p.m. But I do think that there's a bit of inconsistency open there. That's probably the decision point that we have for today.

So I'm going to put a historical perspective on this. When I moved to Manhattan Beach, and maybe one or two of you in the room will appreciate this, but there was a, where the Strand House is now, there was a bar called La Paz. And if you went down there, okay, one gentleman. If you went down there Even in the middle of the day, but in the evening, they were playing music, people, a young crowd. That was the loudest you could hear all the way up the street, just one little bar. So Manhattan peaches got tamed since La Paz.

No, it's good. I, too, follow up on your comment and in the context of your comment. I'm okay with We know how much work went into the Outdoor Dining Task Force to come up with that 10 p.m. I think it's because they had to take into consideration when they came up with a blanket number that you have certain restaurants, specifically along Highland, that are abutting residential pockets. Obviously, Manhattan Beach Boulevard is very close to residential areas, but it is one of the more commercial streets in the city. And so... the idea that a restaurant knows, okay, 10 p.m. is the typical cutoff unless I want to go before the planning commission and ask for the extension. I, too, to keep them competitive with the other restaurants in the area, it doesn't sound like that big of a difference, but when it says, oh, okay, you can no longer sit someone at 8.15 and you're losing a large amount of seating and business, That is difficult for a business. We know how hard it is to pay the rent or the property bills in Manhattan Beach. So I'm in favor of keeping it 11 p.m. outside, you know. knowing that the Outdoor Dining Task Force, the commentary that we had received from some of the members was they don't think it's an issue. Even at that time, they knew they were leaning towards 10, and they still recommended 11 p.m. for this matter. So that is how I personally am getting comfortable with leaving it at 11.

This is my first meeting, and I'm agreeing with the chair.

My independent opinion is I'm very persuaded by the lack of noise complaints. I mean, that was the purpose of the one-year trial period, and they succeeded. So to curtail their hours now seems to be punishing a success.

I know there was that acoustic survey done. Is there any way of finding where the problem is? Because it seems like the problem isn't on the second floor of this restaurant. It's somewhere else. But that's beyond the scope of this.

It is. That's a much larger issue that relates to not whether it's first floor or second floor of this property, but which property or properties or Is it the fact that it's an accumulation of multiple properties that are creating noise? But it's not something specific to the current ask, and it's not something that can be addressed through this current item here.

I would say as a side note, if the resident is hearing the lyrics and they wanted to take a walk over to Manhattan Beach Boulevard and determine which establishment those lyrics were coming from, that would be the way of doing that.

Was it Eagles, Pink Floyd, Simon & Garfunkel?

It was sort of like 70s. It was a mix. So it's a party sound. Okay.

And I think, you know, to build onto the comments that have already been made, specifically the noise complaint that was coming was more from the bass, right, and more from that sound, which, again, wasn't coming from the second floor of Esperanza. So that also helps me to get comfortable with it.

Okay. Do you have another question or comment? Okay. So does staff require any further direction from us because this is a one-year review versus... Do we need to make a motion?

Right. So at this point, I think where we're at is we understand that the commission is... interested in us bringing back a resolution or a modified resolution basically allowing the current trial hours to be made permanent. It sounds like there's some desire or some lack of desire, which it might be good for some clarification on as far as no music inside. I know that the applicant had offered it. It sounds like the two commissioners who spoke on that unless I missed someone else, but at least two of the commissioners mentioned that probably not necessary. It's not going to really make any difference. I'll wait for the noise coming by outside to cease. So beyond that, the only thing we would need is if you can provide us that guidance. If there's more than two commissioners, if three commissioners are of the mindset that it's not worth changing that condition to prohibit the indoor music, and then the only other thing we'd want a motion to continue this item to a future date and considering that it's likely going to be a very simple report staff would recommend that the item be continued until The first meeting in July, I believe that is on, let's see, July 8th.

Given that their permit expires tomorrow.

That would be the other part of the motion I was going to get to, is that you would also authorize them to continue current operations until the item is brought back.

Okay. I think Vice Chair Sistos and then I'm the other commissioner who made my comment on the indoor live music. Does anyone have any further comment or concern about the live indoor music on the second floor?

So as I understand it, it's just live music, right? Not...

The way the code reads is live music, entertainment is live music or DJ.

So it's allowance for. Whether they do it or not, I don't know. And then the Ordinance, or the resolution, the conditions, I'm pulling that back in front of me right now. It reads... Bear with me, my computer's freezing up. There we go. So it says, live entertainment, amplified sound, and speakers are prohibited on the outdoor dining area. And then... It states, as far as live entertainment on the second story shall only be permitted indoor and limited to no more than five musicians and or vocalists. Patio doors, windows closed when live entertainment is occurring. And then gives that STC sound transmission class rating. So it basically allows indoor up to five musicians and or vocalists.

So I think the question is just do we allow them to continue with that resolution as written with up to five people or they have volunteered to? remove music entirely if we require, but I personally would not want to require that.

I think that's sufficient. We've got that direction from at least three of the commissioners that gives us that. I see a nod of the head on at least one of the others.

I'm comfortable that if the door is being closed and the doors are in compliance with restricting the noise, then they can continue.

Right, so at this point then I think what we would need is a motion to recommend continuing the item until the July 8th meeting and allowing the applicant to continue with the trial period hours until that meeting.

And direct staff to return with a resolution with the amend conditions of rule.

So we would need a continuation just to make changes to the resolution. Is that the suggestion or can we, cause all we're doing is removing one condition and then changing the hours of our operation and condition number nine. Yeah.

The, because the current request before you tonight does not involve a decision and doesn't, that wasn't publicized and as that and the agenda doesn't include that, uh, that's where we need to definitely have something.

Thank you.

Okay.

Do I have a motion? OK, I'm going to try this. I motion to allow the applicant to extend this trial period through until our next planning commission meeting to ask staff to come back with a proposed resolution that we can vote on that would encompass the current suggestion to allow them to continue with the existing hours.

Did we miss anything? I'm trying to recall. I think that was- That's it.

Let them keep going with the trial period, and then staff will come back with a resolution that we can vote on.

Right, and then the continuation would be not- And to continue the matter to the next meeting. It wouldn't be until the next meeting. It would be until the meeting on July 8th, because it takes us a little bit to get it together. So July 8th is- To continue the matter to the July 8th meeting. Thank you.

Can you hit the motion on the vocast? Okay. Do we have a second? Okay, we have a motion from Commissioner Traeger and a second from Commissioner Schechter.

Everyone please vote on your screen.

Motion passes 5-0.

Thank you very much. All right. Okay, do we have any director or staff updates?

Yeah, there's a couple things I wanted to mention. First off, Lauren Bradley, our prior administrative assistant in the planning division, has left the city. So at this point, Elia here has been sitting in, as he has in the past. But Raven Dennis, who's behind me, she is going to be acting in the admin assistant role for the time being. So coming in July, she'll start sitting in the seat here and serving in that role. So I'd like to welcome her to the team. She's been with the city for close to a year now, but just getting involved in the planning side of things. Quick update on one of the items that was before you guys, I think a year ago or so. It's 877 Manhattan Beach Boulevard. It's the property where the office building next door had requested to do outdoor kind of employee patio, cafeteria, lunch area. So they've broken ground on that work at this point. I think that started in April. And then the other thing I wanted to bring to not just the planning commission's attention, but to bring to the attention of the public at large, we have been informed through the year or through the past few months of various rogue actors sending emails that purport to be on behalf of the city, whether it hadn't been with regard to anything coming from Manhattan Beach until today. We'd seen some, I've seen things where cities have even alerts on their websites, on their homepages saying, you know, fraud alert, phishing emails, impersonating city officials for permit payment. going out so if there is anything that anyone receives please note that we would never be asking for wire transfer or anything like that and it's recommended that they contact the city via phone or email to an individual rather than replying to anything that might come through to confirm whether it is legitimate we did receive something or an applicant received something today so we were made aware of that and I don't know how widespread the problem is at this point, but it was directed to an applicant, so it doesn't seem like it was a mass send an email to every single person in town, but just something to be aware of for everyone.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I just want to welcome Commissioner C. Mack and Commissioner Schechter to the commission. Thank you for volunteering your time.

Thank you. We're excited to have all of you. Are there any planning commission items? Okay, do we have a tentative agenda for the June 24th meeting?

We do. We've got two items tentatively scheduled there. One is a use permit amendment related to a new tenant, a new restaurant that's going to be going into Metlox. It's for an alcohol license for them. I know a couple months ago, or within the last year or so, we did already approve a master use permit amendment there to allow additional restaurant space. This is specific to the alcohol service at this restaurant. And then we'll also be having a study session regarding signs and benches in the public right-of-way and the CD, so the commercial downtown and the commercial north end C&E zones. That's something that had been directed through the city council for us to look into, and we'll be providing an update to the commission and seeking some feedback from the commission on that on the 24th.

Okay, great. Thank you. All right. In that case, we are adjourned to the June 24th, 2026 Planning Commission regular meeting at 3 p.m. Thank you.