Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I would like to call to order the June 24th, 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, because 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 Simak, would you like to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance? I sure would. Okay, fantastic.

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 very much. May we have roll call, please?

Commissioner Schecter? Commissioner Schecter is absent today. Commissioner Simak? Here. Commissioner Traeger?

Here.

Vice Chair Sistos?

Here.

Chair Hackett?

Here.

Thank you.

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 changes or questions to the agenda?

No.

No?

No.

Okay, is there a motion to approve the agenda? And please use your screen in front of you on the vote cast. Okay, I have a motion from Vice Chair Sistos and a second from Commissioner Traeger. Please vote on the screen in front of you.

Motion passes 4-0.

Thank you. Moving on to public comments. This is the time 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'd 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? Is there anyone on Zoom who wishes to speak?

Nobody on Zoom has indicated they would like to speak.

Okay, thank you. Next is the approval of the minutes for the June 10th, 2026 meeting. Planning Manager Finestone, I understand that staff has a recommendation to modify the draft minutes.

Correct, thank you, Chair Hackett. The item in the minutes for public hearing item, I think it was item number three from the June 10th meeting related to Esperanza. The action that was taken is misidentified. It states the motion was made by Commissioner Traeger, seconded by Commissioner Schechter to continue the public hearing to a future date based on staff recommendation provided during discussion. That should be revised to read to continue the public hearing to the July 7th, I'm sorry, to the July 8th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting. So that would be a recommendation staff has to include in any motion to approve the minutes.

Okay, fantastic. Commissioners, are there any other questions or comments?

No. No?

Okay, is there a motion to approve the minutes including the modifications suggested by Planning Manager Feinstone? Okay, I have a motion from Commissioner Simak and a second from Vice Chair Sistos. Please vote on the screen in front of you.

Motion passes 4-0. Fantastic.

Okay, the next item on the agenda is the consideration of a master use permit amendment to allow on-site sales and service of beer and wine in conjunction with food service at a proposed eating and drinking establishment, including a new outdoor dining patio located at 451 Manhattan Beach Boulevard, Suite B102, an associated environmental determination finding the project categorically exempt from further review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. 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 this item, ex parte communications would include meeting with the applicant or other interested parties to hear about the project or concerns, and if commissioners have visited the project site. I'll kick off by saying I walk by the site very regularly, almost daily. Anyone else?

I have none.

Okay. Nope.

None.

Okay. All right. May we have a staff report?

Thank you, Chair Hackett. I'd like to introduce Tari Kavangwa, Associate Planner. She'll be making the presentation for this item.

Good afternoon, Planning Commissioners. My name is Tyree Cubengua, and I am the project planner for this agenda item before you today. It is for a master use permit amendment for a new restaurant located at 451 Manhattan Beach Boulevard, which is the Metlox property. In January of this year, an application was submitted for a master use permit amendment with two requests. For an ABC license for on-site beer and wine service, as well as to allow outdoor dining hours until 11 PM daily. 11 PM is later than the current approvals currently allow for the Metlox property. And for this project, the restaurant use of eating and drinking establishment is permitted by right, which I will expand on in the next few slides. In 2002, a Master Use Permit Amendment, or Master Use Permit, excuse me, and a Coastal Development Permit were approved for the original METLOX commercial development. And it also established size limitations for allowable land use categories of the property and operational conditions for certain uses. Since then, there have been several amendments that approve changes for individual tenant spaces as well as for the overall property. The most recent one was in 2025, which was a master use permit amendment and a coastal development permit. It allowed an increase in restaurant space and more flexibility in the amount of other land uses at the site. It did not approve any new buildings or expansions of existing buildings. And prior to this, Metlox was added square footage limit for restaurants based on the Nick's and Petro's tenant spaces. And because of this, today's request does not consider whether or not the restaurant use should be allowed at the tenant space because the approval from last year already allowed for more restaurant uses in the future beyond the current two of Nick's and Petro's. So the overall Metlox property is primarily located at the intersection of Manhattan Beach Boulevard, Valley 13th, and Morningside. It is surrounded by other commercial uses to the south and west. It's bounded by public and semi-public uses to the north, and then open space to the east with some residential beyond that across Valley Ardmore. The specific tenant space that we're talking about today has its frontage along Manhattan Beach Boulevard and it's located on the first floor of the Metlox development. The project site is in the downtown commercial zoning district and in area district three. It's general plan land use is also downtown commercial. And that land use designation allows for other commercial uses such as restaurants or eating and drinking establishments, office and retail. As I mentioned earlier, the request before the Planning Commission today has two parts. It's whether to allow new beer and wine on-site sales and service for the restaurant, as well as whether or not to allow outdoor dining hours beyond 10 PM. This table provides a brief overview of some project details. For example, the existing tenant space was formerly Lemonade. That tenant space is being divided in two, and the applicants would be taking a portion of that tenant space with the entrance along Manhattan Beach Boulevard. And they are also proposing a new outdoor patio, which would also be along Manhattan Beach Boulevard. The staff report provides a more detailed analysis of two considerations that are before you today. A master use permit amendment is required to allow on-site sales and service of alcohol. And then if the request is approved, they will also be required to obtain an ABC license to allow that service within the tenant space and also at the outdoor dining patio. And then the second consideration is the outdoor dining patio hours. The master use permit amendment that was approved last year, when it allowed for more future restaurant uses, also set some general operational conditions for new outdoor dining areas that would come in the future. And one of those was to set hours of operations for outdoor dining areas to end at 10 p.m. The applicant's request is to be allowed to operate until 11 p.m., which is one hour beyond that. The approval from last year was informed by the then working recommendations of the city's Outdoor Dining Task Force, And the city council in December adopted an outdoor dining ordinance, which did include a 10 PM close for outdoor dining areas. And for that reason, a use permit amendment is required to allow operating hours beyond the 10 PM that were approved in last year's use permit amendment. So the reason that staff's recommendation differs from the applicant's request is being informed by the Adjutant Task Force recommendations and the adopted ordinance by council, and it is consistent with the approval from last year for the overall property. So attached to the staff report were project plans for reference. This site plan provides an overhead view of the tenant space and shows its relationship to the rest of the property. And it's outlined in that darker black dashed line. And then you can see the footprint of the outdoor dining patio to the right of where you see that little door. And there's a call up, but I'm not sure if you can see that. But the outdoor dining patio is proposed to be in line with the building just to the west. And then there was also a proposed floor plan included that shows the indoor and outdoor seating areas. The patio is to the right, and then you see the indoor seating more to the left. And then this exterior elevation shows the entrance of the tenant space, and they proposed to have the patio covered with a trellis. The proposed project was reviewed for compliance with applicable regulations, including the Manhattan Beach General Plan, the Manhattan Beach Local Coastal Program, as well as the downtown design guidelines. In order to approve a use permit amendment, certain findings must be made. That the proposed use is in accordance with existing land use entitlements, that it's not detrimental to the public health safety and welfare, that it complies with governing regulations in the LCP, and that it wouldn't have any adverse impacts to surrounding properties. The traffic division and police departments also reviewed the proposed project and they did not raise any concerns. The project was analyzed with respect to its applicability to the California Environmental Quality Act or CEQA. And it qualifies for a categorical exemption for existing facilities. And the addition of an alcohol license or say expanded operating hours are considered a negligible expansion of existing use. And therefore it's exempt from CEQA and no further environmental review is necessary. Public notification was completed with respect to all applicable standards. A hearing notice was mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the site. An ad was published in the Beach Reporter. They were also posted at City Hall and other city facilities. And to date, no written public comments have been received. Staff's recommendation is that the Planning Commission conduct the public hearing and adopt the resolution approving the master use permit amendment and the CEQA exemption. That concludes my presentation. I'm available for any questions. The applicant team is also here and available for questions, and they'd also like to make a short statement. Thank you.

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

This may be for staff or for the applicant, but if I look at the plans that there's approximately 17 seats on the outdoor dining patio, could you confirm the capacity and the plan for how many seats will be on that patio? There's 17 on here, but that doesn't necessarily.

I'll let the applicant team answer that.

And then I was curious for, and you may not know this off the top of your head, but for Shade Hotel that has a patio that is fairly close to residential, have there been any noise, any complaints in the past from residents that are on sort of that opposite side of Valley Ardmore where it's sort of similar in position to where this restaurant would be as far as being closer to residential?

Right, like the side of the patio being adjacent to residential with Valley Ardmore in between. I'm not sure about Shade Hotel specifically, since we didn't look into any code enforcement complaints or calls for service to the police department, since that wasn't the one under consideration. Okay. So I don't have that answer off the top of my head. That's okay.

And to confirm, I'm looking at the chart, so their rooftop deck is open until 10 o'clock, and then their terrace is open until 11 o'clock daily. That's just based off of this. downtown eating and drinking establishments matrix.

Yeah, that's what the table says. That would be the information we've got available.

Correct, yeah. The rooftop deck has hours until 10 p.m. daily, and their zinc terrace is 11 p.m. daily.

Their alcohol hours are different for the rooftop, but the alcohol hours are the same for the terrace.

Correct.

11 p.m. and 11 p.m.

And the rooftop deck alcohol service out of the unit to 9 p.m. And they have to close at 10 p.m. the deck. Okay.

Thank you.

Do any of the other commissioners have any questions? Staff at this time? I don't have the chart in front of me. How late is Nick's, you said, is open until 11 Saturday through Thursday and midnight Friday, Saturday?

Nick's doesn't designate the outdoor patio part. So some of them do and some of them don't. So that's just Nick's hours.

Nick's and Petro's, I guess, their outdoor dining. What are they, just as the other two restaurants in Metlox? So in the staff report, let me find the section.

Oh, yeah, it was in the staff report. Yeah.

So NICS has hours from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. Sunday through Thursday, 6 a.m. to midnight Friday and Saturday, and then Petros, which has their own master use permit amendment, 6 a.m. to midnight on Sunday through Thursday, and then 6 a.m. to 1 a.m. Friday and Saturday.

So it's the same for indoor and outdoor? I believe that's what it said on there.

Yeah, so basically if we list one range of hours, it's the same for indoor and outdoor. If we separate it and specifically say indoor, outdoor, then that separates it. But they just have differences based on the day of the week.

I do not believe at this time we have any more questions for staff, so okay. Thank you very much. I will now open the public hearing. We will start with the applicant followed by public comment and at the end of the hearing with an opportunity for the applicant to provide a response if they so choose. Does the applicant have a presentation or wish to speak?

Just a short verbal presentation, if you don't mind. Excuse me. Brett Engstrom here on behalf of the applicant, Sonia Toscano, planning on opening a new restaurant right in the neighborhood. First off, I'd like to thank planning staff. She worked very hard on this, diligent. The staff report was wonderful and thorough. We appreciate all the hard work. A little more about Sonia Toscano, an experienced and well-regarded hospitality group. Started off with two childhood friends who met while growing up in Tuscany. Sounds like something out of a movie. They now operate multiple locations in New York and Southern California. The closest ones here are Santa Monica and The Grove. The restaurant will move into the old lemonade space, so it is not a new use for that particular space, just a slight variation. We're actually taking less square footage than lemonade had, a little over 1,500 square feet, I believe, and a little increase on the patio, but it's still a reasonable size, and I think it adds to the village feel of the downtown area. I do not think it distracts from that. The restaurant will operate with a type 41 license, which allows beer and wine for onsite consumption in conjunction with a bonafide eating establishment. This restaurant type requires that food be freshly prepared on site at all hours of operation and that a menu of food items be available. A little more about the hours of operation. We have requested 8.30 to 11 p.m. daily. We think that's still reasonable with the downtown area and fits in well with other uses in the neighborhood. We agree with the conditions produced by our fine planner. 99% are wonderful except for the closing time on the patio. We would like to get 11 p.m. if possible. We think it's appropriate for a few reasons. There are other locations or other operations in the neighborhood that have a later closing time, 11 p.m. or greater, including two onsite that have later operating hours than even we are requesting. One hour extension from 10 p.m. to 11 p.m. does not sound drastic. What that does is allows us to seat patrons. If we close at 10 p.m., we're not seating anyone past 9.15. In the middle of summer, it's still light out at 9.15. It seems a little, a waste, a waste to not operate that patio full capacity and keep those patrons from the availability of a fine dining operation like that. There's also, there are residents across Valley and Ardmore. Anybody who drives down Valley now, it's probably three times as busy as it was four or five years ago. I don't know what you guys experience on a day-to-day basis, but every time I come down the street, there's traffic all the time. I don't think a fine dining operation and the patio will be heard above that traffic. So even though there are neighbors on the far side, we're still dealing also with the Vaughn's parking lot, which is busy at all hours of operation. So with those items in mind, I think that one-hour extension for the patio use is reasonable, and I would love to get your support of that project if possible. And I'm available for any questions you have.

Thank you.

Do we have any questions? Do you want to start with your question for the applicant? Yes, if you could just confirm the number of seats you have planned for that.

22 seats.

22, okay.

I should have started with that, just to save time.

And that's the max occupancy for that? Okay.

Do any other commissioners have a question?

Yeah. Your other restaurant, I looked your restaurant up on the website. Yes. And it didn't have anything about dining. It was just all imported Italian products. will you have that same arrangement at this location?

Great question. This location will have more on-site dining as the main focus, but there will be a small retail area where a patron could grab a bag of freshly made pasta or sauce and take back to enjoy at the house. So the main focus will be the on-site dining, but there will be a small retail area for those that want to grab it and run home to make it.

As a follow-up to that, you're applying for a beer and wine license. Will you also sell wine at that retail?

That was not in our original business plan, no. Okay. That should have been brought up in the beginning of the application. It's a great idea, but that's not in our business plan.

Thank you. That's all I have.

Thank you. No questions. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you very much. You'll have an opportunity to address any questions that maybe come up from the audience.

Of course. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you very much. Are there members of the audience who wish to speak on this item? As a reminder, speakers should be registered with the speaker host, and each speaker is limited to three minutes. If you'd 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 on this item?

Good afternoon, Commissioners. It's like two weeks in a row that we've been here. Jill Lampkin, Chamber of Commerce. Nice to see you all again. This will be quick. Obviously, this is very similar to what we were discussing at the last meeting. That extra turn of tables is super important. But I think this location in particular is important. John Tolkien and I have been talking about this for years in particular because that's a gateway coming into the community Particularly with rights being vacant right now and sure Hackett. I know you walk by almost daily I do as well and that's that's really tough on the entire that entire business center to have a you know, kind of a key piece of real estate that's empty, anything that we can do to activate that space for more hours of the day. So, you know, from morning until evening is positive, not just for that one particular business, but for all of the businesses in the area. And so I just wanted to make sure that we are keeping that in mind as well. Thanks.

Thank you. Do we have any other members in the audience who wish to speak on this matter?

Thank you. permission and staff members, thank you for taking this item up. I'm John Tolcomb of the Metlox LLC. I'm just available to make any comments. Our goal with that property after Beehive left, and if you were here for the city council meeting on our master use permit amendment, Dana McFarlane, who owns rights in Beehive, said, like, really, we need to bring food uses up on that corner to help activate it. Sonia Tuscan, I think, is a great use. I mean, what they do, they are kind of a market cafe. I mean, the... On-site dining is a bigger part, but they do premium, they wholesale premium Italian products throughout the country. And so when you go there, you'll really enjoy the quality of their food. It's amazing. So anyway, if there's questions for me, I'm available.

Do you have another tenant planned for the Beehive space at this time or not yet?

We're finalizing a lease for the Beehive space, yes.

The lemonade was separated, so there's also another retail space now that's going to be coming.

It's a gelato. Bacio Delatte gelato should be opening, I think, in the next week. And I think the quality that they've done, which you'll see when you go by there, is similar to what these guys are going to do. I mean, they actually came in together. They're Italian friends. I was going to say that in terms of the hours, we're encouraging you guys to consider that. I think there are conditions in the use permit that if there's any issue with noise, even if it's within any hours, it will be addressed by us and our tenant so that the neighbors are in favor of it and we're not creating a nuisance.

Have there been any issues that you're aware of in the past with sound related to any of the outdoor dining?

I mean, I think a long time ago, you know, 20 years ago when Shade opened, there's a history of their entry door having issues. Nothing at Petro's, nothing at Nick's, nothing that I've heard of. And I'm surprised there are no comments. I would assume that some neighbor would have comments. And we've tried to be a good neighbor and...

Up to this point, it's been sort of in the center, right, facing inward, and now we have Great White coming, which is, that's a much larger patio than this one is, so I think it's to be determined kind of what the impact is going to be of having the restaurants facing outward as opposed to interior into Matlock.

I mean, I think you're right. Shea does have a little of that zinc patio there, but, and thank God there hasn't been an issue there. I feel it's the same way. I mean, their use, I mean, you'll see when you go out there and I do believe there's teeth in the permit that allow you guys to come back in, and if there's an issue, shut it down or modify it and make sure that it doesn't continue. And we're supportive of that. I think we've been at Matlock's a good neighbor and a great amenity for the community, and in order for us to continue, we need to be empathetic to people around the property. Thank you.

Thank you. Do any other members in the audience wish to speak? Do we have any participants on Zoom? Sorry, I'll wait a second. Any participants on Zoom?

No participants on Zoom. Okay.

Would the applicant like to, there's really no questions that came up, I guess.

They're really excited about coming to town, so I think it'd be a fine addition to the payment.

Okay, thank you very much. So at this point, I'll close the public hearing, and now is the time for Commissioner deliberations. Let's start with Commissioner Traeger. Do you have any questions or comments at this time?

I don't have any questions. I would be in favor of allowing the 11 o'clock daily closing time. I don't think this establishment lends itself to a rowdy patron base or use. I don't think there are any residential homes close enough nearby. The homes across from Valley and Ardmore... I do think that the kind of general ambient noise and the noise of the traffic would cover up any noise from 20 people sitting on the patio, as well as the grocery across the street. So I know this is different from Nicks and Petros that face the courtyard, but I personally don't have any issue with them selling beer or wine with food or closing at 11 o'clock daily.

Thank you very much. Do you have any questions at this time?

No, I welcome an Italian restaurant in a town because I enjoy Italian food. Just a personal observation. And I concur with the 11 o'clock alcohol time frame. So I support the resolution and application.

Great, thank you.

Vice Chair Sistos, do you have any comments or things you want to talk about?

Yeah, I have a couple other questions. So there is in the second condition, this is for city staff. So it says sound attenuation measures shall be incorporated into the final outdoor patio design and be approved by the community development director prior to issuance of a building permit. So I just wanted to get some more specifics around what that may look like. I am generally in favor and I also am, more sensitive to it being closer to residential. And I do anticipate with the addition of this plus Great White that we're going to get some complaints from the surrounding neighbors on the noise. I am more concerned about Great White because that was 70 plus people on that patio. This is only 20. But I would like to see some more specificity around the sound attenuation because I think that's a good thing to start off on the right foot to say, okay, what can we do, especially on the eastern border of that patio to prevent the sound from carrying to the neighborhood?

Sure. The outdoor dining ordinance, when City Council adopted it, they also adopted guidelines. In those guidelines, there were sound attenuation design guidelines and suggestions. When you're looking at those, there's some basic design guidelines of how you could minimize sound, how you could help address the things you're talking about. Nothing specific about their design is particular to the east side. Their outdoor patio design has an overhead trellis and there are planters on the east and west side to act as a barrier because of the alcohol service. And then on the south side, on the MBB side, there's a railing that extends out a little bit past the trellis. But in terms of materials, they're using wood, which is in the design guidelines. They have furniture that looks like it's to be upholstered, and that's one of the guidelines. They suggest things like, I mentioned using materials like wood, if you're using, you can use reflective surfaces that are more harsh for things like planters. So say like concrete or plaster, that's fine for the planters that they have proposed. And then, They talk about if you have an overhead structure, how can you help try to contain sound that way? And it says you can use wood materials with things like post beams that are fastened or anchored to the floor assembly so that trellis would be affixed to the ground so that it's not moving around. So those are some examples of the sound attenuation measures that are shown in the design that they've presented.

Okay. And then there was some reference to, you know, should there be an issue can be revisited, like similar to how we just revisited Esperanza location. So I would just want to ensure maybe we do something similar and or ensure that there's some process by which, because what I wouldn't want is for residents to, you know, file noise complaints or whatever it is through the, police department, and then I wouldn't want to put a financial burden on a resident to have to come forward to the commission and pay whatever fee in order for this to come back up as another topic. So if there's some mechanism or way we can create a process by which if we do get complaints from residents, it's not a financial burden for them to come forward and say that and then have us revisit it at the commission level.

Yeah, absolutely. That makes sense. Thank you, Vice Chair. So there are provisions in our municipal code that discuss the ability for the Planning Commission or City Council to call an item back based on nuisance violations. So if that does become an issue and we do get a significant number of complaints through code enforcement or PD, we can always do that and bring something back. We don't necessarily need to have a scheduled one-year out follow-up if the commission desires to do that. But by all means, that's your purview. But generally, I believe that there is already that allowance and that exists within our municipal code.

And there is a condition in the draft resolution number four that says at any time Planning Commissioner or City Council can review the use permit amendment for the purpose of revocation or modification, and that at that time they could decide whether or not any conditions need to be amended. So there is that. It mimics what's in our municipal code, but it's in the resolution as well.

Is there a number that qualifies as significant amendments? as far as the number of complaints?

It's really a case-by-case situation.

Okay, I'm just trying to provide some assurance for the residents there that there is a course of action for them to take if it does become a problem. Understood. Okay. Thank you.

Can I ask a follow-up question? By what avenue would we find out if there was a number of complaints?

So if someone is, you know, if there are a significant number of complaints coming through, the Planning Division staff will be made aware. We don't have a standard process of report out to the Planning Commission on that. If there are significant concerns and a neighbor is feeling like their concerns are not being adequately addressed, they have the ability to come and speak to the Planning Commission, speak to the City Council to have that issue at least aired in public.

Yeah, I guess my concern, again, is like twofold with both new restaurants, both having outdoor patios, both being allowed to be open till 11. I just think that it is going to create some sound issues for the neighbors to the south and the neighbors potentially to the east. However, we've allowed Great White to go to 11. You know, we have allowed a lot of other establishments to go to 11. I think it may help, and I don't know if Senior Planner... Jihee Yoon is not here today, but I know she was on the outdoor dining task force. I'm struggling a bit with the outdoor dining task force and the city council adopting the 10 p.m. and then us saying 11 p.m. So I don't know if there's context that the city could provide on how they got to the 10 p.m. And if each time someone comes forward and says, can we go past 10 p.m.? And we're looking at it rationally and saying, yes, let's go past 10 p.m., but we're going counter to what at this point the city's, recommendation is for closing at 10 PM. So it may help to have some additional context on that time.

Sure, yeah. I attended majority of the outdoor dining task force meetings, so we got some understanding and background there. The concern was really based on that compatibility issue. If we set a standard that is 10 o'clock, that is, okay, you're allowed to do 10 o'clock, no question, go for it. Beyond that, there are provisions that do allow, through the Planning Commission, the ability to go there, to go later through a use permit. But to do it by right is where we drew that 10 o'clock line. And based on the fact that those provisions were adopted less than a year ago, that's where staff is still of the mindset that it's appropriate to continue to make recommendation for 10 o'clock, as we did for Esperanza, as we did for Great White, as we're doing again tonight.

And the condition in last year's use permit amendment about the 10 p.m. close for new outdoor dining patios does have some language saying that to go beyond that you need to do a use permit amendment for that request to be considered. Yeah.

And I do recall, and this came up also with our discussion two weeks ago, again, having the 10 p.m. deadline also helped serve as like a catch-all because think of how many restaurants there are along Highland, specifically like a budding residential on Porto and a budding residential right around like Bill's, Uncle Bill's Pancake House and right now. And so I think the idea was obviously if you have a resident right next to a property. It's something that we want to go stricter and then people be able to have the ability to come before us and ask for more leniency. And one of the things, and our fellow commissioners will learn, that we've sort of watched happen over the past couple of years is certain things be taken away from the planning commission and us wanting to be able to still have say to make sure the neighborhood still feels represented. So I think 10 p.m. acts as like a good trigger of, hey, if you want to go forward with that, many of you will not, then you have to go before the planning commission and that also allows them to sort of hear these matters, make sure the residents feel heard. I personally, the fact that no residents wrote in, I agree. You never want to be reactive versus proactive and obviously Great White and everything happening with some of the surrounding restaurants being open until 11 might contribute to just general noise. Uh, I go back to any restaurant. I want them to feel that they're able to be competitive, especially with how expensive it is to rent in downtown Manhattan beach. Um, so all of their neighbors and I don't want to say competitors, but other options for residents to eat at or non-residents to eat at are open until 11, if not later. Um, especially because 22 seats, it's not much, but it's a good portion of the total number of seats that can be seated in that restaurant. I'm inclined to approve applicant's request of 11 p.m., knowing that there are ramifications if there's a lot of noise and that the public does have an ability to come before the commission if that turns into a problem. And then also in that same line of thinking, I'm inclined to approve the alcohol permit as all of the other neighboring restaurants have that ability as well.

Yes, please.

Yeah, I think the 11 o'clock time frame, both applicants last meeting basically said we need that time so we can have two seatings or a late seating. And I think that's a very rational approach to creating that 11 o'clock time frame. So I'm supportive of it because no one wants to leave a restaurant too early, especially on Valentine's Day and other romantic holidays.

Absolutely. With the caveat that if the request does come before us, that line of logic, at least for me personally, won't always work if it is right next to someone's residential or someone's house or something like that.

Also, I would be concerned if the Italian football team, soccer team, made the World Cup and this restaurant was open, then the noise issue just would amplify. But unfortunately, they didn't make the cut. I'm sorry, I'm sure there's an Italian in the audience that probably hates me now.

Are you comfortable with the path forward? If we were to call up city staff at some point and say, hey, out of curiosity, maybe it's not significant in your eyes, out of curiosity, have you gotten any noise complaints now about that? I don't know if it would necessarily be specifically about this restaurant, but about Metlox. Is that something readily available that you can share with us?

I mean, not on the spot, but we can get that together and get back to you within a week or so probably on that kind of thing. Yeah.

Has there been any complaints from that Matlock complex noise complaints?

Not that I'm aware of since the early days when they first opened. I think there were some concerns, some issues with shade with the hotel there and their rooftop bar and maybe their front bar. I don't remember exactly. I wasn't around here at that point, but I do know that there had been some noise concerns there, but generally over the last number of years, nothing that we've been made aware of. I think to part of the extent as I think it was Vice Chair Sistos was saying that the existing outdoor dining areas are oriented towards the interior courtyard, not necessarily towards the streets.

I don't see in here, and maybe I'm just not seeing it closely, but I think the addition of no amplified sound, no speakers on the patio, things that we put in place for Esperanza for their second floor patio, I don't see it. a lot of that in here. I'd like to maybe add some of that because the residents that were complaining in our last meeting, it was more around the base and the music coming through. So again, this may not be an issue for this restaurant, but I think if we can put some of the things in place, I feel a little more comfortable if we can put some more specifics in. So then we're really just worrying about the sound of the voices and we're not worrying about music, live music. There were a lot of different conditions on the ESPRO. It was like live music was a factor, the amplified sound, the speakers they took off the patio. I don't know what the other commissioners think of some of those type of mitigating factors. Sure.

I would be completely open to that. I mean, we could also ask the applicant if that's... I can understand just the nature of the applicant's business. It wouldn't necessarily have been something to think to put in there, but if it's no issue to them, do we want to ask the applicant if that would be an issue for them to have no amplified speaking or amplified speakers?

Well, I would just want to know, is our speakers or amplified music part of their plan currently for the patio? No.

There have not been any requests for that. Typically, I mean, that's a common condition that is on other approvals for properties. I would need to double check the original METLOX approvals to see if there's already a condition about that because when you have an original use permit and then you do amendments over time, unless they say that the original is superseded or being replaced by future ones, The original and all the amendments since still regulate the property. So say Petros has their own master use permit amendment, but they still have conditions they're subject to under the original METLOX entitlement. So I would want to double check to see if there's already a provision in some of the existing entitlements that were probably that already addressed the speakers, but that's a standard condition we place on other resolutions. So it's not out of the question if we were to put it in this one and it's duplicating something that's already in one of the overall that wouldn't be creating a conflict. So there are some conditions that mimic that, like the planning commission or council's ability to call back and review the conditions, that's replicated in previous entitlements too. So it's an option for the commission to ask us to add that.

And then do you recall if we did a one-year review for Great White? I feel like we talked about that. We do have a one-year review. Yeah, because I was concerned about that and the size of that patio. I don't know that we would necessarily need to do that in this case. And I think Planning Manager Finestone is indicating that it's not necessary to have a one-year review set on the calendar.

There's still an ability to come back to Planning Commission if issues arise. Thanks.

Okay, so that's it. I think maybe they are in the master use permit and that's fine, but I would say if we could add a few more of those things to ensure that we're being mindful of the nearby residential.

May I ask the applicant to come down and we can ask if that is something that you would be agreeable to. We're talking about outdoor speakers not being permitted on the patio. Specifically, is there anything else you can?

I think amplified sound is usually in there as well. Not having a musician out on the patio playing.

No musicians, no live entertainment, no dancing. That should have gone without saying. So I apologize. I would have brought that up earlier. My only question about the speakers is because it is located right on a busy boulevard, it gets really busy and loud there. Maybe a speaker at an early hour might be nice to set ambiance, but it would never run past 10 p.m. or even 9.30. Would something along those lines make you feel better? I think I'd rather hear a little Italian guitar than a than a Honda that needs a tune-up going by. But if we don't run it late, then I want to make sure that your concerns are addressed as well. And then it would be similar to if we were operating until 10 p.m. and closing and there's no speakers out there past that time. I want to make sure I can get to the heart of what you're... Yeah, I think that's... Yeah. Yeah.

We heard a similar thing two weeks ago, and we were concerned. There were residents that came forward specifically concerned about amplifying the speakers.

That sounds like a big place. How big was this?

Well, what is happening is it's the overall sound that's coming from downtown Boulevard, right? It's not even any one. We weren't able to identify. The resident wasn't sure which one, but what's happening is as we add more and more, the overall sound is going to continue to go up.

Understood. Totally understand. It's a wonderful community. I appreciate you guys trying to protect it.

Thank you.

What was the role we put forward for Esperanza? Not last meeting. Prior to, we just had no amplified sound, period. There was not like a time. On the second floor, correct. On the second floor.

No outdoor amplified sound, period. And orientation of speakers facing inward on the second floor. That kind of thing. The difference between these two, Esperanza, it's a second floor outdoor dining that has more sound carry, I guess I would say. Though on the flip side, this is across the street from a parking lot instead of another structure that would serve to attenuate some of the sound before it gets to residential areas. You know, there's pluses and minuses on each of them, each side you look at. But the, you know, I do have the condition that we put on Esperanza available that we can add to this if you'd like regarding no amplified sound or no amplified sound outdoors beyond a certain time or however you want to do that. We can add that into a, you can add that into a motion that can provide some language to that effect.

Do you happen to remember if there were any amplified sound conditions for great white?

I don't believe we had they had so much sound attenuation because they're such a large outdoor dining area. It's like 70% of the restaurant is outdoors. I don't know, I don't want to, Adam, can you recall if with Great White, if we had a no amplified? I don't recall. I know it's very.

Yeah, I don't recall that. Tari was just pointing out to me that the outdoor dining guidelines do say no amplified sound outdoors.

Okay.

That I think is, I don't know that there's a carve out like there is for the closing time where the planning commission can approve a use permit or an amendment to use permit to allow a change in the hours total as we are with, as they've requested with the 11 o'clock versus 10. I don't believe there's a carve out in the guidelines or the code that allows that request for the amplified sound issue.

So it's amplified sound the same as outdoor speakers as two separate items?

Same thing.

It's the same thing, okay. amplified music.

And again, Great White is coming before us a year after, so if it does turn out that that's an issue, we could always remove that. I'm inclined to go with the Outdoor Dining Task Force recommendations. I know that we might be straying with regard to one hour, knowing that we had multiple people on the Outdoor Dining Task Force sort of give us the frame of thinking behind that 10 p.m. cutoff, but I am inclined to... rely upon their guidance for no outdoor amplified sound. Does the applicant have another comment they would like to make?

I would love to introduce Mr. Santoni. I'm going to butcher his first name. I'll let him tell you.

Hi, everyone. Let me introduce myself. I'm Cesare. I'm the director of hospitality for St. Toscano. Honestly, I can't wait to open this location because I love this city. When I moved to Santa Monica, when we opened there, three years ago and actually I see a lot of similarities between Santa Monica and this beautiful neighborhood. In Santa Monica, when we opened in 2023, we had residentials that were afraid about us making noise, but actually we never heard or we never got any single complaint, even if we have a bigger patio with 90 seats and we have amplified music outside. For us, having amplified sounds outside would help because of the environment, not the energy that the place can give you. Especially if you get inside and you hear the music, you see a good ambience and everything, and then you get outside and that stops. The music that we usually play is jazz music because we come from the coast of Tuscany, so we like the relaxing environment, the relaxed energy that is not pumping, and that's why we don't serve spirit. We applied for wine and beer, Italian wine and beer, so not just Italian food, but even wines and beers. And honestly, I know that it comes from me, but Trust me that even in all the other locations, and we have five as of today, we never had a single complaint because of the noise. Probably it's because of our clientele. It's what we do. We're more a lifestyle cafe, and the name tells you everything. We also have lounges in the other patios that we have. And trust me, that noise, it's not going to be a problem for that. I understand your concern that, you know, I've been on the street since you have Great White. I know Great White. Actually, they're friends of us, and I believe that they make more noise than what we do. They play different kind of music, and we only play jazz music in order to have, you know, the environment where you have that. a meal there with your family. It's more, I would say, a background music than music in order to party or make noise. I don't know if you have any questions for me.

Any questions? No. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Nice to meet you.

They have five locations. Manhattan Beach is very unique. But if they have five locations, they've never had a noise complaint.

I feel like we should honor the outdoor task force guidelines with the no amplified music. But that said, if it's something that the applicant can do or is in their purview, I would encourage them to come back maybe in a year and ask for that amplified sound. of approval or amendment, and that point we'll have Great White open, we'll have all these other establishments open, we can reconsider the music based on the feelings at the time. But otherwise I'm still in favor of allowing the resolution with the 11 o'clock daily operations and the beer and wine permit.

Yes, please come down.

Chair Hackett, if you can reopen the public hearing.

Oh, I'm reopening the public hearing at this point. Thank you.

I appreciate that. We're having this dialogue about outdoor dining and music, and I think even the term amplified sounds to me like a guy with a guitar and an amp making noise. I think ambient music in some of these places that's very light and soft, some Italian music in your Italian restaurant, should be okay. And I think there is real teeth in the ability for somebody to complain. If we do get complaints, they'll come and address it. And maybe it's certain decibels. I'm not an expert with sound. But it's very light, because people want to eat and talk to one another. That's the type of establishment they have. It's not a bar. They don't have full alcohol like Great White. I just want to have you guys consider that, because it does add the ambience of these places. It's an Italian place with an outdoor cafe, and then you want to hear Italian music outside. And even if a guy was playing an acoustic guitar very lightly, how wonderful would that be to activate the plaza out there in Medlocks? The other thing is it's self-regulating. We have the right in our lease. If they're disruptive to an adjoining tenant to shut them down. So we're not going to let it happen as the landlord because we have other people that go, wait a second, what's going on here? And we have issues with that even, you know, health clubs in our buildings where somebody's got a noise on for fitness class. You have to shut it down immediately because it's impacting the ability for other people to operate. So it's somewhat self-regulating within our project. I just think, I don't know, I wasn't at all the task force meetings. I was at some of them, and I don't want to question what they were saying, but I do think there's a big difference between seriously amplified music, a club atmosphere, and a restaurant with ambient music, and I just want you guys to consider that, and then maybe you bring it back and a few months, you know, or if there's a, if there's one complaint, bring it back. Maybe that's the condition to control it instead of just shutting them down out of the gate.

Thank you.

Planning manager, fine stone. Do you know, is it even, I don't even know if this is even within our purview.

So actually I was, as you were, uh, having the conversation in it as, uh, as, uh, Jonathan was speaking, Mr. Tolkien was speaking there. I was looking at the guidelines and they do actually allow for, the only strict prohibition in there is for outdoor, is for live entertainment or amplified sound on the second floor outdoor dining areas. So it is within the purview of the Planning Commission if you would like to make a, impose a condition one way or another on that.

Sorry, so the outdoor dining task force was only speaking to second story.

Correct.

In terms of not allowing amplified sound.

Yeah, the guidelines have a section regarding amplified sound and entertainment, and it says that amplified sound and live entertainment are allowed in ground floor outdoor dining areas subject to permits pursuant to MBMC Chapter 4.20, which is amusements, dances, and cafe entertainment, and 5.48, which is noise regulations.

And is that something that the applicant has... requested a permit for in their application or in their planning?

Not that I'm aware of. No, not at this point. So if no condition is placed on the project that prohibits outdoor amplified sound, hypothetically it could be dealt with and obtained outside of this hearing. If a condition is placed on the project that allows it straight out, they would still need to obtain that type of amplified sound permit pursuant to Chapter 4.20.

That would be a separate topic that would come before the commission.

That's not a planning commission item. That's not a planning commission item.

They would just get a permit?

If there's a condition that you place on it that would have restrictions and that those still govern, but there is an opportunity and a path forward for them.

Do I have to close the public hearing at this point?

Yes.

I'm closing the public hearing at this moment.

I guess regardless of what we do, I would say ending any sound at 10 p.m. is reasonable, especially, I mean, which I think was part of what the original guidelines were. So regardless of what other permits they want to pull on outdoor sound, that was the applicant's suggestion, and I think that makes logical sense as well. Also, if there's an opening between the indoor and outdoor, then whatever sound is playing indoor will also carry to the outdoor. It's not like there's gonna be no music coming.

But then in light of what Adam just said, even having an hourly cutoff for the sound, doesn't that sort of open up that matter? Whereas right now, if we remain silent on it,

Well, I think they could get a permit, but if we said only until 10 p.m. Right now they can't do it at all because they don't have a permit. They could come in and get a permit, but if we said not past 10 p.m., then I think that would supersede what it says in the permit.

The permit would be conditioned such that it could not go beyond. And I don't know what the provisions in Chapter 4.2 are off the top of my head, but I would venture to guess that they are probably limiting things to the... I would assume 10 p.m. is kind of a standard that we typically see. We can look that up, and if you give us just a moment as we're talking, maybe we can get that info here.

I'll look to my fellow commissioners. I'm pretty inclined to just approve it. with the extended hour to 11 p.m., but everything else remaining the same. Knowing that there are ramifications in place, obviously you don't want to have to force that upon someone to go and create a process, but this location and this particular applicant does not strike me as what will be the problem child in that entire area.

But we are, what we approve for this location also carries forward into the future for any future establishment in that space as well.

Right, the entitlement runs with the land, so should they leave and someone else come in, the same conditions would apply. I did look at the information in the municipal code regarding hours of operations for a, what do they call it, a group entertainment permits. What it states is that shall abide by hours of operation and entertainment as set forth in the permit, meaning this permit, and then it states, however, if the permit is utilized in conjunction with a use permit or other discretionary permit issued by the Planning Commissioner Council, the permit shall observe any hours of operation and entertainment as set forth in the use permit or discretionary permit as it may be amended from time to time.

And that's, are we still talking, that still includes outdoor, just jazz music playing on a speaker? Is it also included in that, not just a live speaker, acoustic musician or something like that? Okay. Okay. So then I would say we should set the 10 p.m.

Okay.

Because.

I'm not, you know, I'm not. overly passionate about one way or another. I think you've created the ambiance. If the music turns off from 10 to 11, I don't think, I also don't think traffic is so overwhelming at that time that the patrons will feel like someone's flipped a switch. So I'm not overly passionate one way or another. If the rest of the commission is comfortable with the 10 p.m. cutoff or amplified sound, music, etc., whatever the term is, I'm also comfortable to vote in that direction.

I would make a motion unless somebody wants to keep. OK. Do you agree with that?

Yeah.

OK. Are we? OK. So it appears we are ready for a motion. Excellent. Please kick us off.

Chair Hackett, if I may, prior to doing that, I'd like to just get together some modifications to what may be proposed. So once you kind of state the motion, if you can then give me and the city attorney a five-minute recess so we can make sure we've got the information accurate. We'll read that back into the record prior to your taking a vote on anything.

Okay, fantastic.

I would move to adopt the resolution as written, but with the addition of two modifications to include the end of operating hours to be 11 p.m. daily, and with the second modification of if the applicant were to get a use permit for amplified noise, that that... noise would not run past 10 p.m. Fantastic. Do I have a second?

Is that for the entire restaurant or just the outdoor?

Outdoor.

Just for the outdoor.

Yes, the modified, the amplified sound cut off of 10 p.m. for the outdoor patio.

Okay.

So I have a motion from Commissioner Traeger, so she'll hit the button, and a second from Commissioner Simak. And then at this point, may I have a five-minute recess so that you may, sorry, a five-minute recess so that you may coin the termage as needed.

Perfect. Appreciate that. We'll reconvene at 4.12.

Thank you so at this time are we able to move forward with the motion as proposed or do we have to read the new language into the record right so I'm going to read a few things into the record as far as either revisions to or additional.

and then that will be up to the original motion maker to accept those amendments and the person who made that second to again second that. But let me start by providing the language. First, there are a few minor revisions to some of the findings that are in the draft resolution. That is Section 8 of the draft resolution. The second finding for the second paragraph, it would be amended to read, when taken together, the requested physical and operational changes from the previous operators of the tenant space as described above, which is the addition of on-site beer and wine service, including a new outdoor patio, and then the new language would be operating until 11 p.m., do not result in significant intensification and so on. So that would be the modification in that finding. In the next finding, number three, we would be looking at adding to the very end of the finding, let's see, this was... to the end of the first paragraph. So the first paragraph, and I'll note when the change occurs, but states, the applicant proposes to change the use of the tenant space to an eating and drinking establishment, which is permitted under the existing land use entitlements for the overall commercial development. per LCP sections A16020 and A84100, and the existing land use entitlements, allowing a new alcohol license for the proposed project and modifying the existing conditions of approval to do so do not require a use permit amendment, as does allowing the outdoor dining hours beyond 10 p.m. So that last part, as does allowing the outdoor dining hours beyond 10 p.m., that's the additional language there. And then the finding number four, the second paragraph on that one would be revised to read, the project is limited to the onsite sale and service of beer and wine and the expansion of outdoor dining areas until 10 p.m. is the new language for our land use, which is eating and drinking establishment that is permitted to occur at the subject site, et cetera, et cetera. So those are some of the three revisions to the findings. And as far as the conditions that would be required, that would be amended, the condition number, existing condition number nine has proposed, and I shouldn't say existing, so, and let me, I'm looking at the wrong thing here. Operational condition number 10. is the one that speaks to hours of operation. It is proposed to be modified to read the hours of operation for the eating and drinking establishment at suite B102, which is the subject suite, shall be limited to 8.30 a.m. to 11.00 p.m. daily, including both indoor and outdoor operations. And then there would be an additional condition added, which would state, amplified sound and speakers may be permitted until 10 p.m., subject to the issuance of a Class 1 entertainment permit. So those are the amendments that staff would recommend if the Planning Commission wants to go down this road.

Sorry, so the second and third item you mentioned, you mentioned 10 p.m. both times? Yes.

One of them is related to the outdoor dining hours in total, and if I said 10 p.m., I intended to say 11 p.m., I apologize. It sounds like I did by the chuckles all around the room. So the outdoor dining hours in general are 11 p.m. with amplified sound and speakers shutting off at 10 p.m., also still subject to an outdoor dining, I'm sorry, to an amplified sound permit.

Okay, Commissioner Trigger, are you comfortable with those changes as proposed? Yes. Okay. And so does your motion still stand?

With the new language, yes.

Yes. Okay. So just vote on the screen.

Motion passes 4-0.

Fantastic. Thank you. The next item is a study session to discuss proposed code amendments related to portable signs and benches adjacent to the commercial business in the coastal zone. May we have a staff report at this time?

Absolutely. Thank you, Chair Hackett. Again, at this point, I'd like to invite up Associate Planner Jonathan Macy. He'll be making the presentation on this item.

Good afternoon, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Jonathan Macy. I'm an associate planner with the Community Development Department. The item before you is a study session to consider code amendments related to portable signs and benches. The City Council directed staff to initiate code amendments to address portable signs and benches, both on public and private property, and to stay enforcement related to existing benches and signs that are currently not permitted to be located in those spaces. Additional direction included that these code amendments would only apply to commercial areas in the coastal zone, or area districts three and four, that staff should collaborate with the business community, that specific parameters should include size, height, depth, applicability of standards such as ADA standards in the building code, and requirements including insurance, and that staff should consider adding guidelines for other items in the public right-of-way such as dog bowls, planters, etc. So the existing regulations for properties within the coastal zone include both provisions in the Manhattan Beach Local Coastal Program and the Municipal Code. The provisions are largely the same. Because it's in the coastal zone, the changes must be reflected in the Local Coastal Program. The properties in question include north end commercial or CNE zone properties, local commercial or CL zone properties at the intersection of Marine and Highland, and downtown commercial or CD zone properties. So the applicable regulations include chapter 736060, which is general permit conditions for encroachment permits, which include the requirement for insurance. Additionally, general encroachment standards provided in Section 150 related to the private use of the public right-of-way, which are intended to ensure consistent design between properties, compliance with general standards, including safety standards, and compatibility with other public spaces beyond the encroachment areas. Additionally, long-term commercial use encroachment permits governed by Section 170 generally requires City Council review for any commercial use of public property. However, there are certain exceptions that are subject to the Community Development Director's review and approval. Those exceptions include sidewalk dining, building projections such as eaves and roof access or other elements. Moving to applicable regulations on private property applicable to signs, section 050 of the city's sign code, chapter 1072, provides a menu of sign options and design standards, including types of signs that are allowed, the maximum allowed sign area, and so forth. Additionally, Section 070 outlines specifically prohibited signs, which at the moment includes portable and offsite signs. Chapter 1060080 outlines a permit process specific to outdoor facilities, which includes the allowance of benches on private property. This is specifically intended for queuing for restaurants or other retail businesses. And also there's a section of Chapter 7.24 related to benches along public ways, which is largely not utilized, outdated, and is excluded from the city's local coastal program because it predates the adoption of the local coastal program. Also, the chapter largely is focused on bus stops and more or less isn't very applicable to the sorts of benches the business community is looking for. Community outreach at the direction of City Council included reaching out to the Downtown Business and Professionals Association, or the DBPA, the City Chamber of Commerce, and the North Manhattan Beach Business Improvement District, or North MBBID. In those meetings, staff heard that the business community desired simple, easy to understand code provisions with some flexibility to allow for uniqueness among businesses. Additionally, on top of outreach to the business community, staff conducted a community survey, which was open for just over two weeks and resulted in just under 500 responses. The survey included questions relating to items on public property, but also items on private property. The responses relating to the questions about public property largely showed concern for the narrow sidewalks we already have in the downtown and north Manhattan Beach areas, clutter, and a need for safety if the city does allow for any additional items on public property. Additionally, comments relating to private property were far less concerned when it came to limiting the amount of items as the general assumption made by the comments is private property is private property. So, proposed amendments include changes to Title VII, specifically general standards for encroachment permits, which would include regulations about the permitted locations that portable signs could be allowed. a term of the permit that would be issued to business owners, so the life of the permit. You'd get a permit for a year. You'd have to renew it each year. And that these permits would be non-transferable. If a business closes and a new business takes their place, that new business would have to obtain a whole new permit. Additionally, section 170, we would add portable signs as an exemption from city council review to streamline the process. So instead of having to go to a public hearing before city council, businesses could submit an encroachment permit and it would be reviewed and approved by the community development director. And changes to private property regulations include changes to the sign code, specifically adding portable signs as a permitted sign type. specifically in the coastal zone, so only area districts three and four. So it would be in the second half of the sign menu, currently in the sign code. And we would add regulations clarifying the applicability of other standards. So not only are there standards describing the maximum height, area, but also that other codes, including the California Building Code and ADA standards also apply. So one recommendation by staff includes a limitation on the number of signs, specifically that a business may have either a portable sign or a pedestrian sign, but not both. And that either a portable sign or pedestrian sign may be located on public or private property, but not both. So a pedestrian sign would always be on private property, but a portable sign could be on either public or private. But the idea is you'd only get one sign. and it could only be in one of those two locations. This primarily stems from the community outreach we received during the survey process. Again, a majority of the comments about the public right-of-way and the questions the city asked, there was a large response that sidewalks are already too cluttered visually, but also as people walk down downtown or North MB, they often run into hazards And so allowing additional items would pose even more concern. Additionally, we would remove portable signs from the prohibited sign section of the code, which would allow businesses to add portable signs on private property or in the right of way. During our outreach to the business communities of the city, there was a desire for some flexibility in the sign code beyond what we're doing in this code amendment process to allow portable signs. What we heard from the business community was not everyone can utilize portable signs. Though it's a good idea, it may not benefit all businesses. However, because city council direction was specific, to portable signs and that code amendments should only relate to portable signs and benches. Staff is not proposing any amendments beyond that specific request. However, Planning Commission can direct staff to expand the scope of the code amendments to address the concerns raised by the business community. So the application process for portable signs, if it's on private property, business would be required to submit for a sign permit. if it's on public property, a sign permit, and an encroachment permit. And in both cases, it's ministerial staff level only. There'd be no public hearing process required for either. So to the benches part of the request from city council, based on staff's research into the subject, because of the limited area of sidewalks in the city's downtown and north area, Benches simply are not feasible in a majority of locations near commercial businesses, specifically because of things like topography, but also just because there are too many items already there. Specifically as it relates to topography, ADA requirements and the building code require a certain slope maximum. So if a street is too steep, you're pretty much It's pretty much impossible to accommodate a bench that complies with both ADA and building code unless you were to redesign that street. So I think per the building code at ADA, there's a maximum in some cases of 5% and in other cases 2%. And thinking about Manhattan Beach Boulevard or Rosecrans, those are pretty much entirely above those maximums. So the entire street is almost ineligible from installing a bench unless there were major steps towards redeveloping that to create space for benches. Additionally, the sidewalks in these spaces of town are already narrow, so a bench alone has to be a certain depth, has to have a certain area clear, on top of the minimum path of travel that's required for a sidewalk. So generally, per ADA requirements and the building code, a sidewalk has to be minimum 48 inches clear of obstructions, and a bench in some cases, also has to be 48 inches at minimum to accommodate the depth of the bench, but also space in front of the bench that has to be clear. So that alone is 8 feet. And in some cases, the sidewalk isn't even 8 feet. So specifically, like in North Manhattan Beach, most of the sidewalks are average 4 to 6 feet, maybe 8 feet in some locations. But the general approach from staff was if City council direction was to make procedures streamlined, straightforward, simple to accommodate what the business community was asking for. If changes to the code would amount to only a few benches being able to be approved, then it simply is not feasible or realistic to build out a process that only a few businesses could take advantage of. Instead, the argument staff is making is that the city is better equipped to install more benches in the downtown and in the north area of town. Given certain standards that ADA and the building code require, the city is more capable to make changes to the right of way if possible to accommodate more benches. If you think about certain intersections in the downtown where the city has historically created space for landscaped areas, whether it's the intersection between MBB and Manhattan Ave or elsewhere in town, the city could similarly create space for benches. And that's something a business generally couldn't do. And even if they wanted to, that bench would likely not end up anywhere near their business. It would end up somewhere far away from their business. So for that reason, staff isn't recommending any changes as it relates to current regulations for benches. What this means is if a business owner wants a bench in the right of way, they can still apply to have a bench in the right of way. What that looks like is just an encroachment permit subject to City Council review. City Council may approve or deny such a request, but that is the current process that would stay in place for public property. For private property, A business would be required to obtain an Outdoor Facilities Permit, but the bench in its entirety would have to be on private property. So these are some of the dimensional requirements of benches that I was mentioning, specifically from ADA and California Building Code. So as you can see, there's a minimum depth for the bench, a minimum width, area next to the bench that also extends to some area in front of the bench. as well as a certain height for the bench. It needs a back. So the collective provision of standards that a bench must comply with is far beyond, I think, the capability or need of a business. And more often than not, as we've discussed, it's not feasible to fit a bench in front of a business without making major changes to the right-of-way. So this is sort of a sectional view of what we're talking about. So there's the minimum 48 inch path of travel in the middle. On the left is what's called a furniture zone in the downtown and North MB. This is largely taken up by trash cans, fire hydrants, parking meters. So from back of curb, the width of the sidewalk includes the furniture zone, the path of travel, and then any remainder space closer to private property. And so when we're talking about sidewalk width that we're working with and where things can fit, this is the area that we're working with. So if there's already landscaping in front of your business, if there's already parking meters, if there's already bike locks, that is space that has already been given to something else that's taken up by something else and so is removed from the remaining space that you have to work with. So because the study session is not a project pursuant to CEQA or the California Environmental Quality Act, staff determined that there's no environmental review necessary for the study session. Public outreach for the study session included a courtesy notice published in the Beach Reporter and also staff notified interested parties including anybody who had submitted comments to previous city council meetings related to this issue. So in conclusion, staff requests that the Planning Commission discuss the proposed amendments and direct staff to either schedule a public hearing or report to City Council that no changes are recommended at this time. That concludes my report. Staff is present should you have any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Do any of my fellow commissioners have any questions of staff at this time? I do.

Please. So what is the distance from the actual building exterior outward that is still considered private property? Or does it actually end at the building facade itself?

So it depends business to business. More often than not, speaking specifically about, let's say, the downtown, Most properties don't have any space between the facade and where the sidewalk begins. There are some cases where businesses have a bit of a break in the frontage. They have sort of a punch out where they may accommodate items, but more often than not, the reality is there's no space.

Okay, so then the door, like if it swings outward, would swing into public property, right? There isn't like a two feet or whatever kind of a buffer that would account for...

In some cases, businesses do have a punch out for things like access. That may not be the case for all businesses. But that being said, entrances into a business are subject to different ADA and building code requirements that in some cases are even more strict than the requirements we've already talked about.

That clarifies. And so you mentioned that not every business can have a portable sign. Could you elaborate on that and why that wouldn't be possible?

Yeah. So part of the outreach that we did with the business community, we asked, based on the recommendation that you've given to City Council and the direction that we've received, here is the scope of the amendments that we're looking at. This was before staff had prepared any sort of amendments, so this was early in the process. And I think in some cases, businesses are located on a second floor, located on the interior of a property in a courtyard. And the way that the portable sign code as proposed to set up, each business gets at least one portable sign, assuming you don't have a pedestrian sign. So everyone would have access to a portable sign. However, because a business frontage is so limited, if you have, let's say, eight tenants and a 30-foot frontage, which isn't entirely uncommon, that's 30 feet that eight businesses have to utilize or fight over. given the size of a portable sign, it's likely all eight businesses won't be able to fit in that space. At least that's the information that the business community shared with us, is that it's likely all businesses won't be able to fit portable signs in the right of way. And so based on that, they shared some other ideas, or shared some general desires that the sign code be more permissible, that the sign code be more flexible to allow more creativity among businesses. But given council direction, the proposed amendments are limited to just portable signs.

And then what initiated the discussion around benches? How did that give some context to how the project came before us?

Yeah, so the background in the staff report sort of talks about post the pandemic, Lots of businesses sort of utilized the right of way or space in front of their business to place items, whether it be signs, benches, dog bowls, planters. Now, years after the pandemic, the general consensus that there's too much in the right of way became so great that city council made a motion to talk about it at a city council meeting. And the sort of focus of that discussion came down to benches and signs. Whether because the business community wanted those two specific items in general or because the community was more interested in those two items is sort of unclear. But based just on the community outreach that we did, those were the two sort of top items that were identified. Other things like Dog bowls were sort of secondary to those two items, portable signs and benches.

So it was specifically that businesses were interested in adding additional benches, but then does that necessitate a review of all benches and ADA compliance of the rest of the benches in the city?

So there's the benches the city has installed, and then there are the benches that are out there now that the city did not install. Those benches aren't permitted. So those are the benches that we're talking about is a bench that somebody placed in front of their business or in the right of way that they felt

So are the benches that the city has placed, are those in question as far as ADA compliance because regulations have changed over the years and they may have been placed 30 years ago and without the same restrictions? Or are we not really talking about the city benches?

That is possible, but the discussion, those are based on CIP projects that were done in the past and Not necessarily what we're looking at right now. What we're kind of looking at is the ability to place new benches in the public right-of-way. And in this instance, because it is something that the businesses have asked for. This kind of came about as a result of the, as John was saying, the kind of proliferation of items in the right of way and the concern with regard to clutter and obstructions. So initially staff through the code enforcement department went and started providing notices of violations and there was some pushback from the business community as would be expected and at that point the city council instructed us to look into the issue and they instructed us also to stay enforcement of any existing benches, signs, et cetera in the right of way for the time being while we go through this process. So the benches and signs that are out there that have been placed out there by business owners or property owners without permits, those are not The idea here is not to figure out how to allow things in addition to that. It's how to allow those, period, or not allow them, period. So those have not been grandfathered in. They're just enforcement state for the time being. Okay.

Thank you.

Would it be accurate to say basically during COVID a bunch of people put a bunch of stuff out and it kind of went, we just allowed it to happen and now we're reassessing the whole situation?

Maybe, I wasn't around here during that stage, but I think that's fairly common in a lot of cities that that was the result.

Okay, so the focus is what businesses can put outside and on their facade.

Correct, because the things that are in the right of way, the city places are done typically through a CIP project that the engineering division within Public Works. They have plans, specs drawn, and everything that identify and ensure that new projects that come in are meeting standards and requirements for accessible path, etc.

So presumably there are benches out in the public area that may not have these proper encroachment permits right now and there may be benches in the private area that may not have the applicable permits as well.

That's correct.

I have a question going back to the signs. So If you can have both a portable and a pedestrian sign and neither of those things are encroaching, is that still an issue under this new language? Is it either or, even if nothing is encroaching?

Yes, it would be either or. So even if both theoretically were on private property, you'd have to pick one.

Okay. And then... If you only have one, but it is encroaching, you need an encroachment permit. Correct. You're not just by right, okay.

I believe you said you're limiting the number of signs and you have to choose whether it's portable or pedestrian. But then if it's portable or pedestrian, does that mean you, okay, so maybe you'd have portable but multiple or pedestrian but multiple, but only one category. Or you're only allowed one sign.

You're only allowed one period, yeah.

Okay. The portable signs are typically the name of the business though, right? Or are we talking about a larger marketing type of a sign that would substitute for the physical sign on the ground?

Yeah, portable sign. Well, a sign is defined as anything that advertises a business or draws attention to a business. So I think some of the comments that we received that were shared with the commission mentioned that a portable sign could be dynamic, non-static. So you change the face to advertise things like specials, holidays.

But that is in addition to the actual name sign of the business.

you would still have a business ID sign on the front of it. That's separate. That's separate from this, yeah. And by pedestrian sign, that's a blade sign, basically, the perpendicular sign.

Okay. I think what some of the businesses were saying, and correct me if that's not what you interpreted, but I think they were saying that the blade sign or pedestrian sign was they were calling it wayfinding or business identification versus the portable or A-frame was their way of, they were saying like talking to you, trying to get you to come inside, or we have a special or something else versus like wayfinding and identification.

Yeah, for a clarifying point, the pedestrian sign, when we're talking about it, is typically, I think, at minimum eight feet off of grade. So it's typically above a door or above a wall sign. So you may see it walking down the street, maybe not when you're immediately next to the business, versus a portable sign is on the ground, typically an A-frame, but sort of lower in your periphery, I guess.

Just to better understand the city's logic, and I know we still have to open up the public hearing, but if the pedestrian sign is perpendicular, it's eight feet up, it's not like... I mean, we have a lot of tall people in this town, but that's pretty up there. I don't think anyone's at issue of running into that. What sort of was, is it the visual clutter of it? But what was the logic behind, if you have that, the portable. That's the pedestrian. Sorry, the pedestrian sign. If you have the pedestrian sign. I'm having a hard time understanding the logic that went into including that.

The biggest motivation was the responses that we got from the community outreach. The number one identified problem with anything in the right of way was clutter. Both visual and physical, people are tripping over stuff. Both a pedestrian sign and a portable sign, if you're walking down the sidewalk, even if a pedestrian sign is on private property, doesn't project at all. It's still visually in the corridor of the pedestrian path of travel. And so that does contribute to the sort of visual clutter that the community had concerns about. So that was the main driver for staff's recommendations.

Okay. In terms of, because there were comments about like wardrobe racks and things like that, but it's not really within the scope, but is there some way we could address that?

So it was included as part of City Council's initial direction to staff and part of the stay on enforcement. It was part of the initial discussion. There are some businesses that had previously placed outdoor retail in the right of way. Based on the outreach that we received from the community, And the comments that we received from the business community, the focus was sort of limited to benches and portable signs as the major asks, I guess, or where we could focus our attention. Given that the right-of-way is limited in size and we can't make everything fit, staff felt we had to narrow down scope to things that sort of satisfy what the business community was asking for, but also are palatable to what the community is willing to accept in the right of way. So those are the things we focused on. So at the moment, outdoor display of retail is not permitted in the right of way. It can be permitted on private property without facilities permits. So the same process for a bench, but you need a permit to do so.

OK. So all those, once enforcement begins again, clothing stores that have wardrobe racks outside or juice places that have tables with samples of all their juices and things like that would then either have to get a permit or be fined.

So one of the exceptions to the stay on enforcement that council directed to staff was specific to outdoor retail. Council said that is not included in the stay on enforcement. So any outdoor display outside has to get pulled onto private property and you need a permit for it. Okay, and that's happening currently? Everything else, there's a stay on enforcement. Outdoor display was the only thing that was not covered by the state.

Okay.

And today you just need direction on whether or not we would want to have a public hearing at a future date to discuss this and provide a recommendation to the city council.

It's a study session, so you could provide comments on the recommended code amendments. You could provide additional direction. So if you wanted to add additional changes to the signed code, you could direct staff to do such. That would be within the scope of the direction that you could give to it.

Thank you.

Do we have any more questions of staff before we open the public hearing? It's just a study session.

Yeah. Who, uh, on the bench, public comments, sorry, on the bench issue. Um, who pays for that city?

So it would depend, I think as requested by the business community, a process and where a business could install a bench would be at cost. The business would be held responsible for payment. However, per staff direction, if the city is the one to install more benches, that would be captured if on public property, excuse me, through a CIP budget. So the city would pay for it.

So if the business requests a bench, they have to pay for it? And if the city in their CIP program says we want to put five benches in this area, that's on the city?

Correct. Okay.

And if the private entity requests the bench and pays for it, I'm sure they have to get necessary permits. Do we charge that business for the use of that plot of land where the bench is?

Yeah, so within that same section for permit conditions, it does say long-term commercial use of the right-of-way is subject to sort of rent payment per the city's fee schedule so that they would have to pay for the use of the right-of-way.

So it wouldn't be a gift of public funds. We would actually... I just went through this training. That's why I'm trying to... See, I did listen, Dave. So we would have a monthly or annual payment for the use of that right away?

At the moment, yes. Okay.

So part of this process would... that any addition of a bench did meet ADA requirements? Is this part of what we're discussing? So the benches, so essentially go through and say if the benches that are currently in place in order for them to stay would need to meet like all these requirements you're showing for measurements of space and everything.

Correct. So after assuming these code amendments get adopted, enforcement begins again. Anything in the right-of-way that's currently unpermitted unpermitted would be notified that they need a permit for the items they have in the right of way. And during the permit process, staff would confirm they meet code requirements. So that would include ADA and building code standards. Okay.

And maybe I can provide a little clarification on that as well. If it's, because the because the conditions out in the field are such that it makes it extremely challenging in most locations to actually be able to provide benches in any form that meet ADA requirements and other clearances, et cetera. The intent of staff was not to provide any type of regulations that address that. And it would go through a standard encroachment permit process if someone wanted to provide a bench in the right of way that goes through city council. But it's not providing a streamlined path to get somewhere where 90, 95, I don't know what the percent, but where a huge majority of businesses wouldn't be eligible for.

And do the same ADA building code requirements apply if it's a portable bench, like if it's not a permanent structure?

One of the requirements per ADA and the building code is that it's permanently affixed.

Okay. You can't have something you take in after a business operation like that.

Okay.

And just to provide a little context, I mean, in the field with the slopes on Manhattan Beach Boulevard, um, There's just no way to meet ADA requirements in those existing benches in the field. There is not a possibility to meet ADA.

Do we have any more questions of staff before we open it up to public comment?

Sorry, one last question. No, of course. The signs with the limit of one and portable or pedestrian, you said, is that on private property or public? Well, I guess the pedestrian would have to be on private because it's fixed to your building, but the portable, is that regardless of whether it's on public or private?

Correct. So in any case, you'd be limited to one sign, whether it be on public or private, In the case of a portable sign, you're still limited to one. So it's not one on public, one on private. It's one period of this either portable or pedestrian sign type. You're still allowed wall signs. So anything in your window or on your facade is subject to different standards. But portable or pedestrian, you'd be allowed one period.

I then have a follow-up question. Private property, I'm thinking of like Metlox, the interior corridor, that's not in consideration here because there's no public sidewalk. Or yes, that is in consideration. Like in that corridor, you can't have pedestrian and portable?

The corridor is still technically private property. The areas that we're really focusing on are businesses that front on a sidewalk that then has a street subsequent to it. So, METLOX is sort of unique in that, where there's the larger property. The outside, like along MBB or Morningside, would be subject to the same standards because that is the true start of the right-of-way. But on the interior of the courtyard, they'd be subject to private property standards.

Okay. Which is still one sign. Which is still one sign.

Still one portable sign per tenant, yes. Okay.

Unless we recommended something different. Yeah. And then is there anything that indicates that it needs to be as close as possible or touching the building, right? Because you see these signs get farther and farther out into the, right? So we're talking about public right away. You're saying it starts at the building wall, right? But is there anything that says it needs to be as close to the building as possible to stay out of the way of pedestrian flow?

The recommended design standards are not specific on that part. The standards say that you have to maintain minimum clearance, that you need to meet ADA and building code requirements. So you could place a sign directly adjacent to the frontage of the business. or you could place a sign further out towards where the parking meters are.

That may be something to consider as an addition, is to say it should be as close as, you know, whatever that is, because a pedestrian sign would be coming out from the building, right? So similarly, you could say if you're going to have, you know, one of the portable signs, it has to be, like, not in the middle of the traffic path or something like that.

In a lot of cases, the traffic path actually does run directly adjacent to the building with trees, bike racks closer to the curb, and that is a more logical place to place the portable sign versus directly adjacent to the building where you're within that tiled area where people are walking.

Okay, I think we're all set on questions right now. I'm sure we'll have more when we hear public comments. Okay, I will now open the floor for public comments. Are there members of the audience who wish to speak on this item? As a reminder, speakers should be registered with the speaker host, and each speaker is limited to three minutes. 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 on this item at this time?

Good evening, almost. Kelly Stroman, Executive Director for Downtown Manhattan Beach Business and Professional Association. Okay, let's talk signs first and clutter. If you want to define clutter, it wasn't necessarily defined in the survey. It was in comments. In a utopian society, there would be nothing on the sidewalks. There would be no signs, no plants, no tables, no benches. No dog bowls, no parking meters, anything, and that would remove all that clutter. That'd be kind of boring. We don't agree that an A-frame sign appropriately designed and placed appropriately out of the walk path And a simple blade sign that is small hanging from the top, a pedestrian sign hanging from the top of a building adds clutter to a sidewalk. I think all in when you add bikes and bike racks and there's so much there. And these signs mean a lot to these businesses. They add a lot of value. particularly announcing sales, you know, an author event, you know, simply a welcome to the public. They're very, very important and they represent a currency to those businesses. In due time, your parking meters and all the visual clutter signs, no offense Eric, Love you. All the parking signs, no parking here and there and times, that's a lot of clutter. Those are soon going to be removed and go to the kiosk. So you're going to be freeing up the sidewalks a little bit. So I really encourage you to allow both pedestrian blade signs and A-frame signs. as called out, not in the pathway. Regarding benches, I understand ADA rules and the importance for that. I also understand that the need for a bench comes in many ways, shapes, and forms, and disabilities come in many ways, shapes, and forms. And there's often people who simply need to sit down to catch a breath. Maybe it's a parent or somebody sitting outside a store while their loved one shops inside. I think there needs to be further investigation and thought on how we can have benches in downtown Manhattan Beach particularly since we all talked and this kind of came back. We removed all the rolling racks. There's a few offenders every now and then. They've been scolded appropriately by myself and code enforcement but I think the bench conversation needs to be more thoroughly vetted and perhaps we can find a way to continue to allow the benches until council and maybe staff weigh in more down the road too. Thank you.

Good afternoon again, or evening. Oh, it is evening now. Jill Labkin, Chamber of Commerce. I'm going to try and hit a couple of high points here. You guys got my letter. You know kind of how we feel. Kelly and I, I think, both have a different interpretation of what Council asked. Council's direction in our mind was the words that kept coming up were, come up with simple and common sense codes to make this possible. To give you an idea, real estate A-frame signs are allowed anywhere in town. That's what our code says. They can be on any sidewalk, on any planter. That's in the code. So if that's not visual clutter, how are these signs different from that? And what council was asking for, in our opinion, was a way that we can allow this to happen. And so to have this come back framed as, oh, well, we decided that that's not the way that it should be and it should also be limited because people have blade signs. The amount of signage was never even a part of that conversation. So that was very surprising to us as well. The third thing is in terms of the common sense. I sent you two photographs this morning. This kept me up all night honestly reading all this which is crazy. I got up this morning and I went back to one of the first emails that when this became kind of a hot topic and it was what was in front of the creamery where they used to have the tables and chairs And then what was happening, they actually, they had a permit for that because for some reason they've been extended an outdoor dining permit. That's for what, and it's appropriate. I'm not saying it's not appropriate, but they had an outdoor dining permit. Those tables and chairs were allowed to be there. They paid their permits, all of that. But they kept getting like feedback that because they were tables and chairs, the chairs would get moved by kids and strollers and everything and would impede the sidewalks. So instead, they thought, well, let's be responsible. Let's go out and replace those with very high end, expensive, nice benches that stay against the wall, stay within their permitted area. And they were cited because their permit was for tables and chairs versus benches. And that's the kind of common sense that I'm talking about is there's gotta be a way that we can work around things that work within the community. We understand no one ever said let's give up our ADA requirements. The thoroughfares that we need to have, that width of sidewalk, no one's saying that we shouldn't have that. Is there a way? I mean, I have read, I'm not an expert, but I have read that there are exceptions. If the sidewalk itself is too steep to meet an ADA compliant, that is not ADA compliant, that there are ways to install benches on those sidewalks. I'd like us to discuss this a little bit more because it is so, so vital to the business community, particularly now that the parking meters are going to be coming out. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Do we have any other members of the public that wish to comment on this matter? Are there any participants on Zoom?

It's been indicated to me that there may be some participants on Zoom that want to give comment. If there are any participants on Zoom that would like to give comment, please send a message to the meeting host. We'll give you 30 seconds to one minute to indicate as such. Patrick, I'm going to unmute you at this time. Please give your comment.

Thank you. I appreciate you opening this up so I can chat. I sent some information, but first I want to start with the ADA. My understanding and my research says the ADA is not applicable to standalone outdoor benches. So all this ADA stuff I think needs to be looked at with a much closer eye. And I would challenge anyone to find some case law with an outdoor bench that doesn't meet ADA. And that seems to be a big reason why we're not even chatting about benches. Certainly I've sent information about the benches and we have to get past the 88 thing first. So I would propose that we delay this a little bit so we make sure that we're on the correct legal grounds to discuss this.

Thank you very much. Do we have any way of knowing, is the chat shut off? Do we have any way of knowing if there are other participants on Zoom? Or can we see if they're logged in?

The chat is enabled.

Okay.

Nobody else has sent a message at this time.

Okay. Okay. Then at this time, we will close the public comment section. And now is the time for commissioners to discuss and provide direction to city staff. I will kick us off and say that I am... With the signs, especially if they're not encroaching and it's on private property, I'm having a hard time getting comfortable with just like the hard line rule of only one sign permitted. I can appreciate the visual clutter comment. Obviously there are certain towns that are very strict about those things. That's why you could see a store where their sign looks the same everywhere and then all of a sudden you're in this town and they have a very minimal sign, right? Because a town is so committed to visual clutter. I'm not weighing one way or another. I'm just having a hard time with this hardline rule when it feels like there are strong arguments to be made both ways. And regarding the benches, I'm just excited to hear what my fellow commissioners have to say on that, just because I can appreciate, again, both sides, which is probably the purpose of a public hearing.

Could city staff address the comments around the ADA requirements for outdoor benches if that's a known topic just so we know and it just helps to have a baseline or do we need to postpone the discussion?

I'm looking to folks in either my public works department or engineering that would be able to speak to us. Hold on just a moment.

Jean-Alesko Scott, principal civil engineer with the Public Works Department. Which part of the question? Could you repeat the question that you want?

Yes, could you clarify whether ADA requirements are applicable to outdoor benches and whether there's any distinguishing factors between whether it's private property or public right of way?

No, distinguishing factors. So ADA applies to everything in the public right-of-way, and ADA applies to private property as well. Benches with the PRO-RAG, which is in the public right-of-way, On that one, it states that 50% of benches in a grouping are to be ADA compliant. So that ends up a grouping. If you have a one, that's the entire bench has to be ADA compliant. If you have four benches in a grouping, it would be two.

So what constitutes a grouping?

In a singular location. So you can't kind of, it'd be... Within a singular space, like if it's at the top of MBB, like at Valley, and then you go all the way down, that's not considered a grouping. It would be in that singular space, like only on the top.

Like a block is too big or not necessarily? Or like one side of the road, you would have maybe like a... Or is it each business individually?

No. You'd have to... maybe every 200 feet or something like that. There's not actually like a distinguished markings. We have in the 200 feet, I would take you for the spacing I need for passing. So every 200 feet, I actually don't, I can't have 48 inches in the sidewalk. I have to have a 60, 60 passing area. So if I apply it that way towards the grouping, it'd be every 200 feet, it would be a grouping.

On one side of the road, essentially, right?

Essentially on one side of the road. Okay.

I do thank you very much.

I don't think we have any more questions for you at this time. I agree with you. I mean, just to sort of reiterate, I agree with you on private property. I don't think there, I think it's, if you are lucky enough to have an outcropping or a jet out that is considered private, I think you can, you should be able to do with it what you want on private property. the public right-of-way is where it gets tricky, and there's a lot of that. Of course.

When you say private property, so does that mean with the Metlox example, understanding it's a unique situation, but does that mean that Metlox gets to decide, like the owner of the landlord would then decide the sign policy for their own tenants then?

In the private property,

Right, within the courtyard, essentially.

So we're talking about the new Italian restaurant, or we're talking about Great White, or something that part is out on the... Right, but within the courtyard, basically.

And they still have to be compliant to make sure that the pathways... I imagine private property still has to be compliant, that the pathways are available 48 inches, whatever it is. But... I'm going back more to the visual clutter of it all. If a business has both a portable sign and a pedestrian sign, I keep flipping them, pedestrian sign and a portable sign, and they're not encroaching on anything, and it's within private property, I'm of the mindset of, I don't really believe we should tell them one way or another.

So as I understand it, city council says we want signs. You figure out a common sense way of doing it. Is that right? I think that's it.

At a 10,000-foot level, that's probably it.

But then you did this survey where 300 to 400 or 500 people commented on questions and on the sign issue and I went I didn't go through all of them because they there was a pattern and the pattern was no no no hell no no no hell no that's only like 15. but there's like two and they cited uh don't block foot traffic tripping wind could blow the signs over safety aesthetics was a big one visual pollution, lack of enforcement, proper placement, potential litigation. And I think the most one that hit me was a small town feel, we want that small town feel. If you put signs all over, it becomes, I think somebody said Clearwater Beach, never been there, but, or Santa Monica, I've been there. Okay, so if the council wants to listen to the business community, they should also want to listen to the public. And to me, it seems like If they want signage, we should guide them. My opinion is that I think private property, that's there, so the pedestrian signage, I'm not for it because it still has visual pollution, but all the other issues go away, like tripping, wind, et cetera. But I still think the most important thing is just the aesthetics of it. Because you could have different signs. You could have one guy that likes the Grateful Dead and he does a tie-dye sign. And somebody likes classical Renaissance art and has a Renaissance sign. I don't know if there'll be a standard or is that part of this discussion. Is there a standard for how that sign looks? So there's a, I guess the question is do we want a common feel, a common aesthetic, or do we want just kind of mechanical standards? Two feet by four feet, et cetera. So that's kind of, you know, you're looking for some opinion, direction, and to me it seems like on private property. It's cool. In fact, I drove down Manhattan Boulevard in front of Hennessy's. There's banners, Modelo, Negra, and World Cup stuff. That's a sign, right? That's a banner. which is a sign, right? So I guess, are we gonna start restricting businesses from how much signage they have? I'm opposed to signage in public right-of-way. I'm not opposed to signage on private property if it's done tastefully and if there's some standardization of the aesthetics. On the bench issue, I'm the senior member of this planning committee by age, not by longevity on the committee. And some of the comments that were in that survey were, I like a place to just rest my bones. It seems like it was from elderly people. So I think strategically positioning benches would be good. The downside of that, as some of the comments made, were homeless, vagrancy, skateboarders. Those are like the three. I guess the first two are kind of the same. And so if there's a way we can... design benches so skateboarders don't fly off of them, and enforce, I don't want to say bums, but homeless people, vagrants. That would be ideal. I don't know what the answer is. I'm just presenting the features of the bench design and the bench issue. So that's my two cents worth.

Yeah, with the benches, I just don't know how we go around ADA or building code and open ourselves up to any form of liability with that. I mean, if there is ADA or building code applicable to these benches, it is what it is.

No, what I'm understanding from what we heard before is that as long as you have some logical grouping that's every 200 feet, not every bench has to be ADA. You have to have certain benches that are ADA compliant, but then there can be others in that grouping that are not. And so I don't think...

So in practice, though, either... one business would have to find a way to make their bench compliant or you'd have to happen to have like one place along the sidewalk and then that business would have to want to put out the bench and pay for the permits and everything else and then the others around it could take advantage but until that happens kind of all the benches would have to be cleared until one goes through that. So I don't, you almost can't legislate that. Like it's, if someone, you know, if you happen to be near a neighbor that wants to pay for their, like, then I guess you get lucky.

If there is one that's with already exists, that's within 200 feet of your business, then you are now free to apply for an encroachment permit and allow a bench to be outside of your property. If there's not, then you, you either have to have an ADA compliant one or or you have to wait until another business within 200 feet has it, right? I mean, I think it's completely possible to be able to do that. As far as the design, I mean, there are ways you can design if it's an armrest or something that's in the middle where you, you know, I mean, if you're worried about how the benches are being used.

What does an ADA bench, ADA compliant bench look like?

It's essentially the spacing to allow someone in a wheelchair to be able to access it, and then it has to be a certain width in the back.

Well, if they're in a wheelchair, they are already sitting down, so they don't need a bench.

Is that, I mean... Well, it's the grade of the sidewalk. Like, it can't be like this. It's got to be like this. It's got to be four feet this way, two feet this way, and da-da-da. So if you're, like, it isn't just when in a wheelchair. It could be someone using a cane or other assisted walking device or... A walker, yeah. Yeah, assisted, like an animal, a guide animal or something else.

So I can start by saying this is sort of the bare minimum a bench needs to be to be considered ADA compliant.

So 30 inches on either side or just on one side to be able to access it? So just one side?

I guess it would depend if it's in a grouping, but both sides.

So the 30 inches is a companion, like a companion area for the person that might be in the wheelchair? But on one side? One side.

On one side. Yes. Okay. Like a parking spot. Okay.

And there's 48 inches clear in front of that as well. But if there is a desire for us to continue to investigate the ADA applicability, because ADA is pretty complex. I mean, we can go back. We do have contract ADA consultants, and we can dissect this even more and come back with something. But I mean, in our review of this, it's going to be difficult to comply with ADA requirements It is the public right of way, so the city has the responsibility for maintaining and complying with federal law. So that's where staff is coming with its initial recommendation. But of course, if we get direction to go back and ADA regulations and the applicability, we can.

Yeah, I certainly would. It sounds like that's a big ask with a big desire. To your point at the very beginning, MBB Boulevard just may not be possible at all. Or it could be that up at the top by the Metlox area, maybe it's level enough there, you could have one there, and then you're allowed 200 feet I mean, there could be possibilities, so I would say certainly it seems like a strong demand.

Yeah, and since there's such limited spots where there appears to be possibilities, that's why we're suggesting that this is something that might be best addressed through the CIP. And I'll just note that the city does have money sort of identified in the future years towards improvements, and I think it might be maybe a million dollars. Yeah. Yeah. So, you know... That's where, you know, the staff recommendation is coming from on.

And I think, I mean, I agree with the, like, if we need to, we open it up, we're now going to do a study, and this is going to take six months to a year, that this is a really long, we don't want to make it a really long, drawn-out process. So I think there were some of what I was hearing in the comments is, you know, can we have, like, an interim solution, which I think is reasonable, right, in the interim between now and when we get to a final resolution. you know, a final solution. So that's something to consider, especially if we're hearing that not every bench needs to be compliant.

Well, there's a stay of enforcement until we would have that public hearing and then before it would go. So that is sort of the solution. Right. So that they will just continue to exist.

I am fine with the staff recommendation of no change regarding the benches and making everyone go through the ADA and CBC requirements.

Yeah, I think the ask then is just can we get a little more granular to potentially look at groupings such that would allow some non-ADA benches in the mix of ADA? And we could say maybe like all of Maynard Beach Boulevard is out, right? So now we're looking at Highland and Highland we say all of Highland is out because the sidewalks are already not wide. I don't think it would be a huge effort to go through and say are there particular areas where we could accommodate an ADA and then from there what does that grouping look like within 200 feet just to see what the possibilities are.

So one thing, just kind of a little clarification, Marjana did actually send me a message. The 200-foot number that she threw out there was based on what's necessary for a 60-by-60-inch area that allows for two wheelchairs to pass each other. That was a number that is utilized in the ADA regulations for work in the right-of-way. What is it? I don't know exactly what that public right of way, AG, whatever that stands for. But there's not a specific number as far as how far apart benches are to be considered a grouping. So we can talk further with accessibility experts that we have on contract to see if we got any more guidance on that or if there's anything in case law or statute or anything. But at this point, I think referencing that 200 feet as a standard, I don't think we're comfortable being there yet.

So whatever that grouping is, right? If it's 200 feet, if it's 100 feet, whatever it is, I think exploring that to potentially open up the options for more benches, I think, is a reasonable ask. And then I think, too, to my fellow commissioners' other point, I think that looking into... like some aesthetic design standards, I think is certain, you know, I would certainly be in favor of that. I think if that means we say, you know, they need to be made of natural materials, they need to be either wood or they need to be metal, you know, the big white plastic ones, I don't prefer those either. I mean, I do think they're eyesores, so.

Are you talking about pedestrian or portable?

I am talking about portable. I think the blade signs would, you know, yeah, they're not going to be, Those are more likely to be made out of metal or something substantial. I don't know if people are thinking of adding plastic signs. So anyway, I think something like that would get to some of this design standard concern. I think we're going to be fairly split, not as a commission, but as a community, as to yay or nay on the signs overall. I don't know what that comes down to. Ultimately, I think city council will have to make a decision on whether or not to allow them at all. It sounds like that wasn't even the direction that they weren't saying not at all, but it was more around how much and then what standards to put in place.

So if we were to, because the point of this study session is to say either we think it's important to schedule a public hearing or we like it, go forward to city council. My impression is that we're saying a public hearing is probably appropriate based on the feedback. Is that... a correct interpretation from my fellow commissioners?

So a public hearing is required. Is required regardless. Regardless, so it's a matter of...

So it's just commentary before the public hearing.

Right, what potential, you know, we're listening to the input that the Planning Commission has at this point on the draft regulations as they've been proposed. We'll be incorporating whatever that input is. We'll take that into consideration when we bring back potential amendments as part of a public hearing.

Okay, wrapping our hands around the ADA. Requirements for benches. Somehow looking in, I don't know if it's polling the public again, but maybe looking into some sort of way to address visual clutter without necessarily, maybe just some better way to address visual clutter or aesthetic elements regarding signage. I think our...

two general themes of thought or schools of thought yeah schedule i'm just imagining every business with their business sign their blade sign and their a-frame and there are a lot of businesses in a very small sidewalk and yeah um personally i'm against the a-frames entirely i think you have your business sign maybe you have a way finding i think that's plenty um but That's just my personal thought.

It certainly would be an issue if every single business had an A-frame all the way down. Yeah, and they have a right to.

Yeah. I think it's a lot. I don't think we need them. I think all that stuff needs to come off the sidewalk. Yeah, the private space, I see what you're saying. I do have trouble just envisioning every business in Matlock's having an A-frame out in front of it, but With it being a private space, I do want to respect that. I think it should be up to the landlord in some way. But on the public, certainly, if it is allowed, I think it should be in that furniture zone. But again, just imagining every business with an A-frame out in front of it, I just think it's unnecessary.

Yeah, so I think that between the survey feedback on private and our feedback on private, I think we're coming to a consensus around not requiring, you know, not having... the same requirements for something that's placed on private property versus the public right-of-way. And then within the public right-of-way, I think we need to just get some standards in place that make sense.

And with private, maybe even looking into private abutting a sidewalk and a street versus private obviously people are walking through, but that's not like a public, it is a public right of way running through, through Metlox because there is, what is that considered?

It's just a path of travel. Okay. Including the fountain and everything in the middle, that courtyard, all of that interior space at Metlox is all private?

It's technically private property. Okay.

Okay.

And is that the only corridor that sort of meets that? No. Okay. So I think even private could be like further looked into in terms of... Would this apply to the village, Manhattan Village?

This is limited to just the coastal zone. So it's primarily downtown. North Manhattan Beach, and then there's the small grouping of commercial properties at Marine and Highland that's also in the coastal zone.

So if you have a pedestrian sign, it's perpendicular to the building, right? And it extends over the sidewalk, say eight feet high, whatever. So when you protrude a sign into public right-of-way, I mean, what's the... the regulations or the requirements for that, does the city then have to approve it?

Yeah, projections are allowed. It's currently, you'd have to get an encouragement permit subject to community development director review and approval.

But if it's a flat sign against the wall, then it's all on private property?

It's just a sign. Okay.

So, sorry, on the private piece, I would say I do think they can be subject to the same, if we decide on certain aesthetic design standards, like the signs need to be made out of metal or they need to be made out of wood or something like that, I think that that could apply. But as far as the number... Signs and that type of thing. I think if you're talking about either like you've got a jut out that's private or whatever it is that it should be up to that landlord or up to that.

If I can provide some extra information on that bit. Part of the direction from city council was to keep things fairly simple, basic, and allow for diversity in design. And that was also a request from the business community was a loud difference in materials, how the signs would look. So the initial focus of the code amendments was keep it simple, just a height, maximum size type things, but general material would be up to the business owner, assuming it stays where it's supposed to and is clear of the minimum clearances.

I guess what I'm trying to solve for is I'm hearing a couple of my fellow commissioners say that they don't want the signs at all. So if we get to a place where it's like we're making a vote and it's like we don't want A-frame signs at all, then I think it's worth considering, like, are there certain aesthetic design standards that we can put in place, understanding that, yes, it's going to cramp the creative style. We're not going to have the Grateful Dead design sign. But it's a difference between that versus no A4A signs at all. I think that probably businesses would be like, okay, let's make it out of metal and wood, if that's the difference between having them or not. So I'm trying to come up with different options that sort of satisfy both parties that I'm looking for. reducing clutter plus allowing the businesses to be expressive.

Yeah, I think we're on the same page. I mean, we want it to look clean, simple. But still, I think one of the comments was we want innovation and artistic signs. We don't want somebody to go get a palette put it together and with a paintbrush paint. Sale tonight, free margaritas or whatever.

But it is also, I mean, for perspective, we are talking about the public right-of-way. An argument can be made that the public right-of-way should just be clear and a business is operating their business with their storefront and inside of their business. So if they want to, They can put a bench inside of their store for patrons, spouses to sit while they're shopping. So there is an argument to be made that really if we wanted to clear the space in the public right away, an argument could be made that we don't allow signs in the public right away. So I don't think we're in that place, but I do think that's worth more discussion around how the public space should be used in the context of marketing for businesses. I think there's more to be discussed for sure. Do you need more specific direction from us on any of the particular topics? I feel like we've given a lot of input.

Yeah, I think more specific direction would help us a lot. I don't think we're at the point where we could come back with code language, but we could have an additional study session, but sort of direction would be very helpful on both the portable signs, pedestrian signs, and the benches.

When you say direction, at some point I think someone said they're looking for information on size, height, depth, insurance requirements, ADA, then about the portal signs, someone mentioned location, term, non-transferable, all that. Is that the kind of specifics that you want us to get into, or is this trying to reach a consensus on yes or no portable, yes or no pedestrian, like what would be helpful? What kind of information?

So for example, pedestrian signs at the moment, the only thing that's proposed as an amendment is to limit the number in relation to portable signs, whether on private property or public property from that specific business. If the commission wants to explore additional code amendments related to pedestrian signs, that would be direction that you could provide to us, and we could give you some information on what that would look like.

So the proposal now is that you could have one or the other on public or private. I think our feedback has been on private. We're not gonna, I don't think that we're in a position that we should regulate that. On public, do we have any thoughts on whether the one, I mean, is that what we should be limiting? one or the other, or is there something else, if that's what you're asking? And I would, I mean, I would say what I've heard is this idea of there being some aesthetic design standard. I don't know that the quantity, what do you think about the quantity?

I guess, If you're in favor of the portable, is that in lieu of the pedestrian? Like, does anybody have an issue with having a pedestrian sign no matter what, whether you have a portable or not?

I don't want to discount the comments about visual clutter and people thinking that it does add to the visual clutter. I don't think personally it's ever had that effect in my eyes of the pedestrian sign that is affixed to the building adding to visual clutter. I can appreciate when you're on these tight little sidewalks, it is kind of nice to be able to sort of look down the sidewalk and see like, okay, there's where I'm trying to go. I've also, I don't think I've ever personally in town seen, I'm imagining there's some permitting process for that. They have to get it approved. I've never seen a pedestrian sign that struck me as particularly out of character or, I mean, it has some difference from its neighbors. So I'm not really, I don't really consider them, and this goes back to, both Jill and Kelly's comments, I don't necessarily think of them as competing with one another. So my opinion is sort of the pedestrian signs, whatever the town's been doing, they've been doing a great job. I have to believe that so many of the comments received from the public are really catering more to when you just look down the sidewalk, that kind of visual clutter of having to navigate around it.

Yeah. I mean, I think I agree. These were public comments, so hopefully it's okay that I used AI to summarize them, because they're public comments. But I mean, by count, the number one most frequently mentioned thing was sidewalk clutter, pedestrian obstruction, ADA wheelchair, disability. So these are all things that to me really discuss, when I say right away, I mean actual transportation across the sidewalk. I don't personally have an issue with the pedestrian sign, whether or not you have an A-frame. I think the A-frame issue to me is completely separate. I am fine with every business having the right to have a pedestrian sign.

So you're saying that the A-frame, the portable signs are the issue? For me personally, yes. I think that's what we've heard.

And I think that's something that so far we're in agreement on is rather than having one or the other than them just being two separate. Some people like the A-frames, some people don't like the A-frames, but it seems like everyone is okay with the pedestrian sign.

Just to clarify, the pedestrian sign is different from the name sign of the business. This is a marketing sign.

It's like a wayfinding. Is that inherent in it?

Yeah, it's what other cities would consider a blade sign, so something projecting out from the side of the building. Okay. that is easily identifiable by a pedestrian walking down the sidewalk so you don't have to be right next to it looking to your left or your right.

So it doesn't include the signage in Hennessy's, for example. That's sort of like banner temporary signage. That's not also clumped into pedestrian signage.

I don't recall what that looks like, but take a look.

And it can't be lit up, right, where there's restriction on it. There's no lighting. It's almost like a banner, right, or it's a sign, but it's not a lit up at night sign in the same way that the name sign would be lit.

Right. There are limitations in the existing sign code about it has to be non-illuminated, certain height above the finish grade. Okay.

Yeah, and I think what we're hearing from the representatives of the building, of the business community, is that they would like to have both. Right, of course. What we're hearing is from the survey and from the feedback thus far that we've gotten is that most of the issue is coming from the frame signs, less so from the pedestrian. I don't think it's a... I'm agreeing. I don't think it's the number. It's not like one or the other. It could just be that the community would rather have these pedestrian signs and not have the A-frame signs. I don't know. We're not at a place to make a determination of that.

And I know you want specific feedback. I think it's more just the A-frame signs. I think the only matter at issue is, but I'm not inherently opposed to A-frame signs. I don't love when they're encroaching in sidewalks and people are having to stop flow of traffic because people have to walk around them. if somehow they're able to be in that area that is private property, I could be influenced, like have both your signs. Sure. You know?

Yeah. And I think we've gotten to that point. Yeah. Private property is the private property. Yeah. And there's so few examples of that.

Yeah. I'm really thinking like if you're going down on B Boulevard or you're on Highland or. Yeah.

Yeah. So I'm hearing that independent, right now we've got sort of like the idea of them being connected. You get one or the other. You're okay with that being just independent. We have regulations for the blade signs. And then we discussed the issue of the A-frame signs separately from that.

And then, you know, we had that, like, the one day a month where we, like, have the sidewalk sales. Is that still, like, how is that where we're allowing? And it could be maybe the A-frame signs become more of a, like, it's not a permanent thing, but it's temporary. It's certain. I don't know. I'm just brainstorming at this point. But, you know, something like once a month. I mean, the sidewalk events are a permitted special event. Permitted special event. Yeah. Yeah.

That would be independent of this. So if you get a permit for a portable sign through these code amendments, that would be separate from the approval for that special event. I see.

I just want more public feedback on like A-frame signs specifically, because we know how the businesses feel about them. I completely appreciate the argument of that is for a special thing going on that day. Here's a special cocktail we have, a special latte we have. Here's a sale that's going on. I can appreciate that that's separate, but I'm interested to hear the general public's feedback when you're giving them like, what are your thoughts on A-frame signs?

I mean, the reason we're here is, I mean, we were provided direction from council on, there was a general comfort level with the idea of that and developed simple, straightforward regulations with it. So that's why we've had this point in the process. Yeah.

When you say general comfort level, like, I guess, what do you mean? Because how does that jive with the comments, the, you know, 270 responses to this? comment to this question?

I mean, the surveys came out after the council. Okay. Yeah.

You're saying council wasn't supported?

Yeah, yeah. And I was just saying sort of the genesis of this whole discussion was the fact that there was an enforcement action, and then that enforcement action was stayed, and then the direction was to work on developing some sort of set of regulations for this. Got it.

Yeah. Um, yeah, I mean, I would love to hear the public comments as well. I mean, if, if I had to make a guess, I think they're going to go like this because 300 people commented. Um, and I'm guessing there's going to be a lot of businesses saying we need the marketing. And I think there's going to be a lot of people saying, I think it's in my way. Uh, cause if they didn't think it was in their way, they probably wouldn't come to the meeting to speak out on behalf of a frames for other people. Um, it's just my guess, but yeah, I mean, either way, it sounds like we need to have the hearing. So we will, and we'll hear what, what people have to say. Um, I'm all in favor of every business being successful and I want Manhattan Beach to be successful and all of that. I just don't think that as a retail tenant, I don't think you have a right to the sidewalk being your billboard.

I just don't think that's part of your retail space that you're... Do you feel that we've provided you with adequate direction at this time? I don't know if we can...

I mean, I can try to summarize that. I mean, my understanding is you're talking about us working a little bit more on the regulations with the blade signs independent of the A-frames. We can also, yeah, we'll take another look at you know, what we've done on the A-frames and provide any additional information we can on that. And then as far as the benches go, we will go back and talk to our ADA expert, maybe provide a little more context, and also talk with Public Works a bit about what would a CIP mean for this. So, and we can come back with that information, but I don't think we're at the point where we can draft up a set of regulations yet, but I think we're at the point where we can maybe make some progress on the three topics.

And who should propose the size limitations, the height, depth, all of that?

I mean, we've got that in there right now for the A-frames, are you talking about?

Or for the pedestrian signs. So does the city currently have your sign needs to be this size?

Yes, we do. Those are the proposed code amendments. They include specifics about, for example, max height of portable signs. It's three and a half in the right-of-way and four feet in... on private property. That would, that's one of the standards that we recommended.

Got it.

So, potentially clarifying direction. If you want signs taller, that could be a direction that you give. I think there were some comments about aesthetics. At the moment, there's no recommended language about materials. If you wanted specific materials prohibited or allowed, that would be something that you could recommend. Those are the sorts of standards that We're looking to build that through the study session and public hearing process.

But isn't it self-regulating the aesthetics? Hennessy's would put up a pub-looking sign where Esperanza's may be more Moorish, Spanish kind of sign. It seems you've got to leave it up to the business to kind of design it to fit their theme of their restaurant or business.

And that's what the current recommendation allows for. It's basically just... provide a free and clear space for people to walk and then a max height and sign area.

So the other idea would be for the A-frames that there's a certain width requirement in order to have an A-frame. The sidewalk has to be a certain width, right? Just so that we're not, I mean, it gets so jammed in the summer. I mean, people coming in both directions and it could be that just, we just say, you know, the sidewalk has to be X width. you know, with before we allow any frame. I don't know if that would be another.

Yeah, no, I think that's actually probably the easiest way too.

So, I mean, there's other things, you know, things that we can brainstorm different ideas, but that would be one way to kind of say, okay.

If I can add, based on the current code amendments, that minimum is 48 inches.

Okay, and then how much of our sidewalk space meets that requirement? Do you have any idea? Yeah.

So I think what John was saying is that the sidewalk requirement is 48 inches. But I think what I'm hearing from you, Vice Chair, is that you're looking for a minimum width from face of curb to property line that could accommodate.

Like the furniture space, quote unquote, cannot be in such a way that if someone slightly moves it, it's immediately encroaching upon a 48 inches.

And that's partly why my first question that I asked was, you know, where does the property line, right? And it could be maybe we say it's within 12 inches, 24 inches or something from the property.

One thing I would say is if we're looking at putting together standards for where within the right-of-way the sign could be, it should be focused on areas that already have obstructions so that you're not creating additional obstructions to have to weave through, right? So i.e. in the furniture zone, that's where you've already got trash cans and landscaping and bike racks and things like that versus putting it immediately adjacent to the building frontage which kind of encroaches into what people I think at this stage see as the sidewalk.

During the stay are the portable signs required to be in the furniture zone or are they currently allowed to just be anywhere because it's the stay?

The stay and enforcement is just no enforcement for benches and signs so

as long as you meet an accessible path.

And the caveat to that was they should be for benches that were previously there before council directions.

So the state, Ryan Heiss, building official, the state enforcement is for benches and signs that don't encroach in the ADA or the clear space of the walking path specifically. So if there's a safety hazard or if there's an encroachment into the clear space of the established sidewalk, then we would enforce.

Thank you.

I'll step in as well. My name is Eric Zandvliet, the City Traffic Engineer. With regard to the right-of-way width, it includes many things. As you know, of course, from the curb to the front of the property could be parking meters, trees, a furniture zone, benches, whatever it is. Sidewalks move around a lot depending on what's in the way. There's also planter areas that have been created in the downtown that are wider than the normal width of the street. There's also some areas that are partly public and partly private that are up against the building. There's no one single measurement that you can use for any of that. Many of our streets in downtown are eight feet wide. Some of them are 10 feet wide. Some of them are 12. Some of them are 5. So some places would not be allowed to have an A-frame sign at all because there just isn't enough space. In the north end, it's even worse. So North Manhattan Beach, some of those sidewalks are 3 feet wide. And so we don't have the ability to offer that to everybody with regard to where we could place a portable sign. Thank you.

Okay. Okay. So I believe at this time we're moving on from this item. Sounds good. Okay. Thank you guys very much. Okay. Moving on to director and staff updates.

Great. Thank you. CHAIR HACKETT. SO I DO HAVE A COUPLE THINGS I WANTED TO NOTE. FIRST OFF, I WANTED TO LET YOU GUYS KNOW AND ALSO THANK ELIA. TODAY IS THE LAST MEETING HE'S GOING TO BE ATTENDING. HE'S MOVING ON, BUT HE'S BEEN A GREAT ASSET TO THE DEPARTMENT HERE, AND WE'RE GOING TO SORELY MISS HIM. SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME WITH US, ELIA. And then the other thing I wanted to mention is the open house that we've got coming up for Project Pulse. So it's a community open house to look at the conceptual design preview of what our architectural consultant has come up with based on the input received and the feedback that came in through the design charrettes at the end of May. So they're synthesizing that input and that kind of feedback and creating some conceptual designs for potential projects at both the Lot 3 site and 400 MBB. So we will be holding a community open house to display that work. It'll be on Wednesday, July 15th from 6 to 8 PM over in the Jocelyn Center here. So that's coming up in a few weeks, and we invite everyone to join us for that.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Are there any updates on any of the ROD projects at this time?

I can put that together for you for an upcoming meeting. I don't have anything in front of me right now. But I can say nothing has been issued at this point.

Okay. Thank you very much. Do we have any Planning Commission items from any of our commissioners at this time? Does not look like it. Do we have a tentative agenda for our July 8th meeting?

We do, yes. We've got two things on the agenda. One of them will be the Esperanza item that will be coming back before you. Primarily just to provide the resolution for you to make a determination decision on. The other is a policy issue as well. We have put together a set of minor code amendments we're dealing with as an omnibus code amendment. This is something that other cities deal with on a regular basis. It's kind of a... list of, you know, the planning division creates a, has a table of all these different code amendments we see as potentially necessary. Some of them are very simple, low-hanging fruit. Adding a definition, changing an internal reference, citing a different government code section, things like that. So we're going to be moving forward on an annual basis with providing an omnibus update for various pieces of information. The intent is that it is very, very low, there's not a lot of policy determination or policy direction that's necessary as part of this. It's really a lot of cleanup stuff. So if anything is the type of policy issue that we feel would require a study session or some of that, it's not appropriate for an omnibus. So what we'll be bringing in a couple weeks is just a series of about 10 or 12 different code issues that we've identified as needing to be addressed, nothing significant, but just start of our annual cleanup efforts for our zoning code. So that'll be coming to you. It won't be a study session. It'll actually be a public hearing with a request for a recommendation to council on it.

Okay. Thank you very much. All right. So with that, we are adjourned to the Wednesday, July 8th, 2026 Planning Commission regular meeting at 3 o'clock p.m.