Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Call to order the 10/08/2025 meeting of the Manhattan Beach Planning Commission. For participants of the meeting on Zoom, including applicants and members of the public, we will mute your microphone until we call on you to speak. When you are speaking, please silence any audio on your device to avoid feedback. Furthermore, since not all participants are attending via video, please always announce your name prior to speaking so that the audio participants can follow who is speaking. Commissioner Takashiki,

would you like to read up lead us in the pledge to the flag? Certainly.

Ready? Again.

Of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice are all.

Thank you. May we have roll call, please?

Yes. Commissioner Takashiki? Here. Commissioner Sistos? Here. Commissioner Ngoko? Present. Vice chair Hackett? Here. Chair Dilavue? Chair Dilavue is absent today.

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

And then a second. Yes. Okay. I have a motion from commissioner Ngokoo and a second from commissioner Sistos. Please vote on the screen in front of you.

Motion passes four zero. Next

we're moving on to 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. Is there anyone who wishes to speak?

Is there anyone on Zoom that wishes to speak?

There's nobody on Zoom at this time.

Okay. Next is the approval of the minutes for the 08/27/2025 meeting. Commissioners, are there any comments or questions on the minutes?

I would just like to make a comment that the transcripts from our meetings are now available on the website in addition to the video. So if anyone would like greater detail on what was discussed during the meetings, then the minutes now don't provide a lot of detail. So there's additional detail available if you wanna look back at past meetings.

I don't have

any changes to the minutes.

Okay. Great.

Thank you very much for that. Alright. Is there a motion to approve?

Okay.

I have a motion from Commissioner Sistos and a second from Commissioner Ngogo.

Thank you. Oh, please vote on the screen in front of you. Motion passes four zero. The next item is the planning commission's consideration of code amendments related to the city's long term outdoor dining development. Is there a staff report?

Yes, thank you. At this time, I'd like to invite up senior planner, Jay Hee Yoon, she'll be making the presentation tonight or this afternoon. Thank you.

And Planning

Thank you, Vice Chair

Commissioners. I'm Jae Hee Yoon, Senior Planner and item before you is to consider code amendments related to the city's long term outdoor dining program development. As way of background, the city's temporary outdoor dining program began in June 2020 in response to indoor operation restrictions that were imposed due to COVID. And by August 2021, the City Council directed staff to pursue work plan item to seek a long term solution as the focus gradually shifted to what could be in a post pandemic era. In February 2023, the city's temporary outdoor dining program came to an end.

And by May 2023, the city's outdoor dining task force meetings kicked off with 15 meetings conducted where the meeting agenda, minutes and PowerPoint slides are available on the city's outdoor dining webpage. During the course of the program development, the city conducted two community workshops, the first in October 2023 and the most recent one taking place in January. Between September 2023 and March 2025, staff prepared five status update reports before the city council to provide them with updates that came out of the task force meetings and seek direction. And from the most recent status update report in March, they directed staff to initiate code amendments to reflect current outdoor dining operations that have since changed with COVID and also to codify some of the recommendations that came out of the task force meetings. And, in May, the Planning Commission conducted a study session to go over the proposed amendments.

The amendment scope is limited to the following sections and chapters of the existing municipal code and local coastal program. The sidewalk dining ordinance is in Chapter 7.36. Private property outdoor dining is regulated by Section 10 sixty-eighty or A60-eighty of the local coastal program and vehicle loading provisions can be found in Chapter fourteen point zero one and fourteen point four four. While the study session covered all the sections and chapters to provide you with a full picture of the proposed amendments, the Planning Commission's purview is limited to the outdoor facility section of the code as well as the recommendations to the City Council. At the study session, the Planning Commission largely agreed upon all the provisions listed here with the exception of whether a use permit should be required for alcohol service in private property outdoor dining areas.

And staff has prepared three options for the Planning Commission's consideration as it relates to alcohol service. The first being that a use permit should be required, which is the current practice when a new alcohol license is being proposed or there is a change in the alcohol license type. The second is allowing alcohol service by right, therefore, not requiring a use permit. And the last option is requiring a less owner's discretionary review process compared to the current use permit we have in place. The first option requiring a use permit is further broken down into two alternatives.

The first being that it would apply to all eating and drinking establishments, which is consistent with the sidewalk dining ordinance that is proposed with the PPIC's input. And the other alternative is requiring use permits only when it operates into the night or is within a certain distance to residential uses, which requires sensitive, review and project specific conditions, if any. The next option is allowing by right, which is consistent with the original recommendation that came out of the task force meetings and is also consistent with the practice we've had in place since COVID that allowed alcohol relief without requiring use permits in outdoor dining areas due to state bills such as AB twelve seventeen. However, this is set to expire in July 2026. And there is another bill AB five ninety two to extend this into the future.

And if it is signed into law, it will provide the alcohol relief until January 2029 and the associated parsing waivers will become waived indefinitely. The last option is requiring a less onerous discretionary review process by allowing a streamlined process with project specific conditions that can be imposed at the director level. However, currently the city does not have a process in place for such reviews and would require broader land use considerations to establish relevant standards and hence, it's not recommended at this time. Switching gears as part of the long term program development, we envision creating a user friendly manual for outdoor dining with design and operational standards. And the images that you see are snapshots of some of the draft guidelines that we have prepared as part of the agenda packet.

The guidelines currently are divided into two separate sections, one for private property outdoor dining and another that includes sidewalk dining regulations. And the reason in splitting the two is because the coastal zone requires local coastal programs to be certified by the Coastal Commission in order to take effect. And since private property applies citywide, it could take effect immediately after the council adopts the ordinance. However, the sidewalk dining, which only applies to the coastal zone, will become effective after we sure we're sure

able to to

brief Directors

that

provide Board

be presented to you at our next meeting on October 22 with the city's responses to the comments. The public notice for today's hearing was published and posted on the city's web page and various city locations and the, one public comment was received, which was part of the amended, packet. And we do want to emphasize that the proposed amendment is an accumulation of extended and extensive public outreach efforts with the 15 outdoor dining task force meetings that were open to the public, the five city council status update reports, two community workshops and participation in the twenty twenty three Hometown Fair. Next step, staff recommends that the Planning Commission provide direction on the alcohol service provision to finalize the draft ordinance and continue the public hearing to October 22 to consider adopting resolutions recommending the proposed amendments to the City Council. And upon City Council adoption, the city will submit the LCP amendments to the Coastal Commission for certification in order for the ordinance to take effect in the coastal zone.

This concludes staff's presentation and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

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

No.

So regarding I know there was there was some public comment and some concern around the distance of outdoor dining areas above the Ground Floor of 15 feet not seeming like quite enough space from a residential unit. Is that something that we would discuss today, or is that not are you not soliciting feedback from the commission on that particular item?

We are open to any feedback you would like to provide us with. And since we haven't finalized the initial study and negative declaration, we will consider your input as well.

Maybe you could start with just some context of how you all came to that how the outdoor dining task force came to that number and whether or not that's something I'm sure you all have spent way more time thinking and talking about it than we have as a commission, but I'd just be interested to hear how you got to that number and thinking about the implications for for those businesses who may be adjacent to residential.

We looked at I remember we had more than two meetings on this subject matter alone. We looked at other jurisdictions that had second floor outdoor dining regulations to see what their regulations were when it comes to the distance from residential uses. The most that we found was that it was 12 feet or 15 feet away. But when we're looking at how the residential and the commercial uses abut each other, it was a thorough study of whether they're diagonally across, immediately across, what the existing street width is or the alley width is. And we came to the conclusion that 15 feet would be an adequate buffer where it doesn't discourage too many opportunities for 2nd Floor outdoor dining.

And because we have other measures in place like having the sound attenuation guidelines in place and also requiring barriers when it is abutting a residential use, we thought, at least from my recollection, the task force seemed like we had enough mitigation measures to appease the concerns that would come out of the residential community.

From my recollection, the 15 feet came about because we weren't talking about open space from budding residential. So if you look at a, say, restaurant on Highland in North Manhattan Beach, The idea was that the service areas would be in the first 15 feet the abutting the residential side of things so that the seating is more than 15 feet away. Because if there's going to be 2nd Floor outdoor dining, they're going to require space for their servers.

I could see where I mean, a restaurant would want to put their seating as close to the

To the street side.

Street side as possible. Correct. Is that something that was I didn't see that specifically notated on the placement of the service. Is that something that would be a guideline or as part of

sound Part of the guideline, yes. There are three tiers of different design strategies, and one of them is placing the noise receptors, you know, at a certain distance as much as possible using materials that are more sound absorbing and preventing materials such as glass or reflective materials should be discouraged. So there are these three different tiers and depending on the location, the nature of and the character of the business, different strategies would be encouraged to be implemented as part of their design.

So for businesses that are on say on the West Side Of Highland, the idea was that their outdoor dining on the 2nd Floor would be street facing rather than beach facing because that side abuts the residential side. So we had a lot of discussions about whether that was fair or unfair depending on whether there's not a fixed or

now they're facing either direction they're facing residential, right, on Highland in particular because even if you're facing the street then there's residential behind.

Behind the commercial on the other side? Correct.

Right. Mhmm.

But one of the guidelines is strictly to have a barrier if it is abutting a residential, so there wouldn't be any direct facing at all.

So what type of what do mean by

A barrier could be a wall or a decorative fence, so you're not exposed directly to the source of the noise.

Right. Yeah. It's more just about the sound carrying, and I know we've had these conversations especially with downtown as, like, as you continue to add more and more on. Like, the more outdoor dining spaces you have, the louder it will become, like, overall, like, sort of ambient degree. So Mhmm. Okay. But it sounds like 15 feet is the most reasonable sort

of Yes. Number to get you focused.

Look at. Yeah. Okay. Mhmm. That was my primary question. And then I think we just need to discuss alcohol service. Any other

questions? No.

Okay. Further questions for staff at this time. Okay. I will now open to the public hearing. 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, and there will be a timer on the screen. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak? Thank you.

Hi, George Kaufman, downtown resident. I was one of the signers of the public comment that you referenced. First, think that it's inappropriate for a member of the task force to be deliberating on this issue. I think basically they end up being an advocate for the proposal which impinges on their impartiality here with all due respect. Common sense dictates that 15 feet is ridiculous in proximity to residential uses and we'll just give us an example of shade, remember shade with the zinc lounge that people were complaining about noise across Valley Yardmore.

Now was it critical which way it faced? I don't think so. Mean it's it's and even and even if it was critical at that that point we're talking about distance of you know, obviously multiples of many multiples of 15 feet. It doesn't seem to make any sense. I think when the city council previously considered this in 2000 nineteen 2nd Floor dining, They voted four to one to limit it to a particular area where there was very little residential proximity, Highland and Manhattan Beach Boulevard, Manhattan Avenue and Manhattan Beach Boulevard basically.

Esperanza for example, which now has rooftop dining is in the area that the city council contemplated. They also they voted four to one for that January 2019. They also another aspect of it is that this the current proposal does not require any use permit. So it's completely a staff decision is my understanding. Somebody can correct me if I'm wrong.

They were they they certainly required a use permit at that time for for this sort of use even in even in the restricted area that they were talking about. I think, you know, while the attitude towards outdoor dining has become more liberal, let's say, There's no need to open a Pandora's box to allow outdoor dining throughout the downtown area and certainly not 15 feet from residences much less without even a use permit proceeding. And I guess I won't speak today to the negative declaration, that's another hearing, is that correct? Okay. So I just and I think you know, all of this can I go a little bit longer since I'm the only one?

Since I'm one of the only ones? Unfortunately,

yeah I think we have to wrap it up three minutes.

Okay. Alright. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Hello.

I'm Jonathan Tolkien, Manhattan Beach resident, also the city's partner at the Metlocks development. I respect the gentleman, the resident's comments, and I do think that there's sufficient code law in place right now for nuisances. So I think anyone who operates any business who's creating a nuisance would be a problem, whether it's indoor or outdoor. So with that said, my whole thing is make it as easy as possible to support and encourage creativity and uniqueness downtown. What makes Downtown Manhattan Beach very special is we have these amazing entrepreneurs like the Simsses, Zistles, the retailers are down here that have one off uses that we want them to be able to do very unusual things throughout the downtown, provided they don't impact residents and neighbors and visitors in terms of widths and whatnot.

It feels like some of the provisions of what you guys have here in front of you are a little bit more restrictive, and I'd like to encourage that not to be the case, like even terms like immediately adjacent. I don't know what that means compared to adjacent. I feel like the beauty of what you have here with outdoor dining is you're not really talking about major fixed improvements. You have the ability within the code to revoke somebody's permit or modify it. Maybe there's a period of time that you evaluate what they're doing.

Things like umbrellas and planners are needed, especially if there's alcohol and you're needing to create a barrier. I think my whole thing is encourage creativity, respect the residents in terms of noise and other things. The 15 feet upstairs, I don't understand it myself. It could be less than that, it could be more than that, it just depends on what the people are doing up there. Amplified music, the same thing.

Like I think why wouldn't you let somebody do minor music that isn't heard and doesn't impact other businesses or residents. So I I think you have Adam and his team here that are capable of evaluating situations on a case by case basis. I would really encourage that. Got about fifty three more seconds. In terms of like the alcohol permit requirement, if they have a license inside, I don't see why you would need to have them go through.

I'm against the discretionary approval, make it really easy, encourage creativity, umbrellas, anything that could be needed that would enhance our experience as the guest. I mean, what makes the downtown special is the kind of beach ethos that reflects all of us who live here. And so we don't wanna homogenize downtown. We wanna encourage special things to happen. I'm trying to do that with tenants at Metlocks, and it's a balancing of interests. Anyway, alcohol, mentioned that same thing with trash and parking. Like, honestly, let's not let that be an impediment for people to do things that will bring us downtown. That's it. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi. My name is Eva Bertrand. I've lived in Manhattan Beach for about four years now. I moved out here when outdoor dining was a big thing and people loved it. But I just think a big thought is also the revenue that the city sees from this. It adds more jobs to all of the businesses from bus areas to back of house to everything that you would need from servers and everywhere else beyond that. And I feel like in today's job market, we'd also like to see that. As much as gentleman last just spoke, he said that it really does help add a little bit more to the city, adds more vibrance, brings a lot more people out to the area. It brings a lot more people down from downtown and just brings more people in to see what Manhattan Beach is. We do have a beautiful area out here, and I know people do worry about the how much sound it makes and how loud it can be.

But I do think by adding plants and umbrellas and things like that, I can really mitigate it and really just add everyone to a big community out here because that's where we are. Anyway, that's all I had to say. Thanks, guys.

Hello. My name is Kathy Knoll and I'm the owner of Uncorked Wine Shops on Manhattan Avenue. And I wanted to speak to the three options that staff presented regarding the use permit. I am urging you to not make an arduous process of us reinventing the wheel as the previous gentleman spoke and said we already go through a a use permit for the inside for alcohol. We also, during COVID, had to go through an ABC process to be approved for the catering authorizations for outside outside door and dining.

And as they're making it permanent, I just went through this in Hermosa because I have a business in Hermosa. We just made it permanent our outdoor patio there. They did a whole review of our ABC license. So they're their own entity and they actually Trump City because they did put on some stricter restrictions on our business than the city had for the outdoor dining. So I don't think you need to reinvent the wheel on the ABC if there's alcohol being served outside because the ABC will cover that.

And also, with rising rents and right now we've had both of our businesses where landlords have passed away and the kids have taken over or they have sold the buildings. So rents are rising. So we are trying to survive in this business climate and be creative and be especially with new revenue streams and this outdoor dining has been a lifeline for us. So I just again urge that you make it as easy as possible for the city process of keeping the outdoor dining and as much outdoor dining as possible, not eliminating the seating. What we have right now is working.

So, you know, it's not broken. Why fix it? And I've sat in several of those task force meetings, and everyone of them was always unanimous as far as wanting to keep outdoor dining. It was just the logistics of how to do it. It was gonna be the walk streets. It was going to be expanding the sidewalks. Everybody wants outdoor dining. So let's make it easy and help the businesses to be able to make this process as seamless as possible. Thank you so much.

Hi. I'm Jeanie Jencin. Just like with the ADUs, people don't do what we think they're gonna do. So just be careful of that, and I know that they have music two blocks away from me and I can hear it. I live in East Manhattan, takes me half an hour to forty five minutes to get down to downtown.

So you do have to take in consideration parking and all these things that they're talking about because I won't even be able to use it. And the other thing is there's new things being developed. My kid's a baby engineer. You have solar panels, you have, you know, heat, light, sound, mitigations from houses, and you have to make sure the outdoor dining upstairs doesn't, you know, put $20,000 into making your house energy efficient and realizing that it doesn't work because there is outdoor dining. It just keeps changing and you guys have to have some place in the process to make sure that you can handle the rapidly changing technology.

And like there's dead zones too. I don't know if gonna it's affect any of the dead zones. Like I can go by penny cap and there's a dip and I get nothing. I can't use my phone, can't use my computer. So sorry.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Kelly Stroman, executive director for Downtown Manhattan Beach. Thank you for hearing this item today. I think maybe if it's appropriate in this setting, we could show more detail as to what the outdoor dining is currently and what it can be going forward. I think there might be a misconception with some of the public that this is going to return to what it was kind of during the pandemic in the street and with outdoor dining everywhere, which is not the case.

And I know that there's a there's several different graphs and maps of areas that have been identified by staff that can have that have the width of the sidewalk or whatever to be able to do this. I think that might be very helpful if appropriate today. I also I know from my group, one of the concerns is in certain areas, are four tops. There's two tops. In certain areas, four top is there's space for that.

So I think careful evaluation and not just eliminating that possibility of a four top, but looking at it very carefully with width of the sidewalk and also looking at the width of the sidewalk and making sure that we're not requiring too much, more than we already do, based on, of course, ADA and keeping the sidewalk safe, for the public. And I agree with I think it was John mentioned and Kathy to hopefully not require a use permit with the businesses to be able to have outdoor dining. That's a very onerous process, very expensive, and they already have been through quite a bit also. So thank you very much.

Thank you. Do we have any other members in the audience that wish to speak? We have any, participants on Zoom?

We have no participants on Zoom at this time. Okay.

So I will now close the public hearing, and then we will begin commissioner deliberations. Does anyone have an initial comment or question? So for clarity, I think that the noise declaration and the later report will probably be extremely informative and maybe at that point address I don't wanna disregard everyone's comments, but maybe at that point address the 15 foot issue. Question for staff is does the, assessment specifically look into that 15 foot amount or distance?

In the response for the final ISND, we will include additional context on how we got to that 15 feet and how we will try to mitigate through other measures as well through the guidelines adopted.

So could you clarify for someone who did wanna open an outdoor a second Floor or above ground patio, like, what would that process be? Like, would there be a review process? Would that come forward? Or we're we're building this in such that it wouldn't come before the planning commission if we include it in here?

If there are any deviations from the current proposed language, it would require a planning commission review. Otherwise, it will be at the staff level and depending on the operations and the character of the establishment. We'll look at the sound attenuation guidelines and see what kind of measures is recommended in order to move forward.

Okay. And then regarding the one public comment that we received around City Council providing some direction on there being a specific geography, specific streets or specific geographies. Did you all look at it in that level of detail to say, we're talking about down Manhattan Beach Boulevard and Manhattan Avenue in downtown, like, that may be one thing that's easy. However, if it's, you know, a random business that's on Highland that's has residential on both sides, like, maybe we would look at that differently. Did you look at it to that degree of detail?

We looked at it in very, very detailed maps, particularly in downtown and North Manhattan Beach because that's where a lot of the outdoor dining has occurred during COVID and currently as well. And looking at all the constraints that are required to have 2nd Floor outdoor dining such as having adequate parking available to trash enclosures, that's going to be a very challenging hurdle that the establishments would need to overcome. And that's why the process is being proposed as ministerial or trying to be more business friendly in a manner that goes beyond the physical constraints that they would have to overcome.

So regarding the third option that you said is not the preferred option, could you go back to the three? Because that one, I think, was one that we came up with. It still seems like a good idea, but I don't know what would be involved on the staff side in order to

Currently, we this would essentially be something like a minor use permit process. It'll have similar findings as a regular use permit that comes before the planning commission, but the decision will be made at the director level. We would be able to impose project specific conditions depending on the character and the operations. As mentioned, the streamlining comes from the fact that the director can make the decision when it's time to make that decision rather than waiting to schedule the hearing for the public hearing. But since we don't have this codified in our current municipal code, we'll have to go through the process of seeing what land use implications or additional findings, if any, would need to be made.

And this is in itself another process that will require staff time and resources.

But if we did do the option one, then that would be even more time and resources in addition to time and resource of the commission and of the public. Right? So even though it's more, it's still less than if it were a full use use permit required.

I think that if I may, I believe that what Senior Planner Yoon is kind of alluding to is the work effort that it will require to actually create the type of lower level discretionary review, not necessarily the review of each individual project. So we a lot of cities have processes for a minor use permit where they've got either a director level or a zoning administrator typically serves as a senior member of staff who serves in that role. And the process is very similar for other cities where there is a public hearing held, it's just before a different body being that zoning administrator, director, whatever it is. But it allows that flexibility as Senior Planner Yoon was saying to schedule the hearing when it's ready instead of making sure that there is the ability to get on to a planning commission agenda and the time it takes to do that. The other thought or the other thing that I should note is that we at this point are not sure what that lower level discretionary review would be.

It could be the process that I kind of laid out or it could be something different than that and we'd have to really analyze that and see what implications as miss Yoon said that that would have on other land use actions that the city would be considering in the future.

Thank you. That's helpful. I wonder as we transition to our next topic and thinking about setbacks and those types of things, I I feel like we've had a similar type of recommendation of, like, is there something like this that we could do regarding those types of projects that may want to be constructed. So it it may be worthwhile if there's perhaps if there's more than one topic that could be covered under this type of streamlined process.

Right. And that's I mentioned, that's what other cities have for, you know, it covers a slew of different things that are not quite of the level that those jurisdictions believe require a planning commission review decision. But they do believe that it requires or that it is appropriate to have some sort of public meeting in order to address those. So it could be a list of different items or uses.

Okay. Thank you. Could you put back the one with each of the three, just so that we're that one, yes.

The comment made by Kathy Nolan regarding, during COVID, if you wanted to have outdoor dining, you had to go through certain sort of catering license and that being something that's still in place. Is that would that naturally be triggered for anyone who wants to bring outdoor alcohol service now that we're no longer in the, quote, unquote, pandemic time? Is is that a secondary review process that just would happen triggered by the option to if we were to allow by right?

I believe so since you would have to have approval from the ABC.

I

call it beverage control.

ABC licenses what they call a premises which in typically their applications include a site plan and or floor plan that show the area where someone can serve and consume alcohol and that process needs to be addressed in those that premises needs to be updated regardless of what our process might be.

Okay. And that process do they look into I mean I have no idea what that process necessarily looks like. Do they look into things like crowding onto the sidewalk? I mean are they is there a lot of overlap between what we're addressing right now and?

Yes and no. It really depends over the years ABC has kind of changed what their emphasis and their focus is. A lot of the issue is that ABC has limited staff and ability to actually get out and see things in action. So if there's not conditions that the city has on something, we don't have the authority to basically impose or to regulate follow-up on and enforce ABC conditions directly. We could report out to ABC, but if it's not a condition of the approval through planning or something contained in our municipal code, then we wouldn't be able to go and cite or something of that

sort. Okay. Okay. Do we have any other comments?

I feel like I'm no closer to a decision between the options. I'm curious what the other commissioners think about this. My general preference is for the one that is not recommended at this time. And I'm wondering if there isn't some way well, I should start with Option two, which I disagree with this idea of sort of handing it over to the ABC to decide. At the time, I wasn't even considering the enforcement issues that are raised by staff, which I think sort of knock out that option for me altogether.

One is onerous. Option three doesn't really the infrastructure doesn't really exist as yet. I'm curious what the other commissioners think in terms of making this process easier for people who for our businesses in town that already have a used permit for their the main part of their business. How do we add this on in a way that is not punitive for them to or difficult onerous as it is. Is there some option that I haven't imagined yet?

I think it's option three, Yeah. It's the problem. I agree with you. I mean, I'm I'm in alignment with you where I feel like, you know, requiring these permits seems like a lot of time, a lot of work, a lot of expense for something that and we've approved and gone through a lot of these use permits. Right? We've done a lot of these for for alcohol service. So Right. I'm not in favor of option one, especially because you're talking about inside of one establishment. And if you're serving Correct. Inside, it makes logical sense to serve outside.

However, the option two of just letting it all go through also seems not quite right either because I think it's good to have some type of a process to discuss and have it be an open dialogue and not just a by right, like, this is gonna happen regardless because there could be something interesting in the location or something unique. And I think that, you know, to allow and honor both the residents and the businesses who are both trying to, like, peacefully exist. I think it's important to have some type of review process in there. So that leads me back to

the I guess I have a question for staff, which is our decision on today on one of these options. How does that fit into the broader timeline of these code amendments advancing?

Whatever comes out of today's meeting will be part of the final draft version on October 22 with the resolutions that you will be recommending to the city council.

So it would come back to us October 22 then it would go forward to city council?

Yes, as planned. And

is that city council, is it already agendized for them?

Tentatively, yes. For November.

For November. Okay. So it's an aggressive timeline. Okay.

I do want to note that option one had two alternatives. Okay. Where it could be applied to all establishments or could be limited to certain establishments based on the operation or the distance to residential uses. So maybe option one b might be something you would like to consider as well.

And if I could just speak from experience in places that have had discretion versus non discretionary decision making. The distance and hours are used commonly in other places in order to sort of decide that on a certain area, you would have discretion. If I could also speak to delegating the discretionary authority to staff, sometimes that might be problematic because people are used to hearing bodies making decisions on findings in sort of an open format. So if you wanted to go down the discretionary path, might not want to delegate that to a hearing officer. And then the other thing about option two is you might want to look at it as you look at the ordinance and the restrictions in the ordinance, the restrictions in the guidelines including the sound attenuation guidelines and if you see those restrictions as sort of appropriately boxing in the use, You can always add to those restrictions or certain people have asked to alleviate some of those restrictions.

That's a way to look at, know by right isn't just handing it to them. They have to do it within the regulatory framework that's called out in those three documents.

Could you talk us through an example, a hypothetical example of a business that currently has an alcohol license indoor pursuing option 1A. So is this for sidewalk dining or is it for 2nd Floor outdoor dining? Take us through all how that would work.

So everything that comes out of the planning commission is limited to the private property outdoor dining areas that could be Ground Floor, that could be 2nd or third floor outdoor dining decks as well.

Right. Private property.

Private property. Correct. So today

We're not dealing with

sidewalk With sidewalk dining areas or public right of way, it's purely private property. Whether it's courtyard, Ground Floor, 2nd or 3rd Floor. If they have an existing use permit that allows for alcohol service. That's purely for indoors. But if they do want to have outdoor dining areas with alcohol service, with option a one a, they would have to apply for a use permit, come before the planning commission for a public hearing.

Option one b would be if they operate into late into the night or if they're in close proximity to a residential use, then that is when they would come before the planning commission with a public hearing. But if it's a cafe on the Ground Floor, they don't operate into the night, they're more than a certain distance from residential uses, they can still serve the alcohol during their business hours, whether it's during brunch, but they wouldn't come before for a use permit.

So if we were to choose option 1B, we could set limitations like businesses that close at 10:00. There was a lot of discussion during the task force about certain corners, right, where we were talking about Walk Street corners, corners where potentially there are two, three or four locations that might have I don't think there are any four is actually, now that I think about it, but potentially where you would have multiple outdoor dining at an intersection. And keeping in mind that all of this is based on the businesses that are there currently, which can change at any time. So is there any way that we would how would we define that location? Like here it's saying, the location as a certain distance from residential uses.

What would that number be? What's the recommendation?

We can reference what we use in our current proposed ordinance when it comes to hours of operation, private property, outdoor dining must conclude by 10PM

Mhmm.

Unless they're more than a 150 feet away from residential uses. So that could we could still use the same threshold since that came out of the task force recommendations.

Right.

Or if there is another magic number that you had in mind, we can also consider that

as I just wanted to remember what that number was. Yes. Commissioners, what do you think of that option?

So option one b, if you're not within those restrictions, you're by right. If you already have it indoors than outdoors, you have the by right. If you're not

within those restrictions two is by right regardless. And option one

Okay. Option one b says limits the applicability depending upon

Yes.

Hours of operation location.

Mhmm. So if

you are an establishment that you don't have long hour, whatever we determine those restrictions will be

Mhmm.

Then you are by right. Yes. Okay. Yes.

But they still have to go through a use permit process with us.

Only Only asking for something outside of the parameters that we provided. Correct. They would not have to apply they would not all have to apply

They would not not all establishment would have to go through the process.

Okay. You would only have to apply for a use permit if you were asking. It's similar to how we we see things today, which is if they're asking to go beyond 10PM, if they're asking Right. To be a closer distant. Mhmm. I mean, I'm comfortable with the option one b. I I would like to consider putting the upper floor requests into this category as well, second or third floor patios.

Anything above ground above the ground level.

Yeah. To your point, it doesn't sound like there's gonna be a flood of

applications No.

For that.

But

No. Because of the physical restrictions, it's very difficult for us to see applications come forward. I

mean, think that's a nice blend of what we're talking about because the businesses that are in the areas where the residents are not immediately impacted, it's by right. Yeah. Here and if the restrictions were it's not and, they're separated by ors. Right? Mhmm. So you want longer hours of operation or you just have longer hours of operation. The location, a 150 feet. Did the dining task force I imagine a lot of thought went into a 150 feet. Okay. So using that, I think adding I like your suggestion of adding the 2nd Floor.

It doesn't sound like not to split the baby, but I know that we've gone back and forth, and you hear a lot of competing ideas from the public, which we're so appreciative of. But that allows it to be not too restrictive while still having a clean process in place and not forcing you guys to come up with a brand

new process.

And it still gives us the grounds to enforce?

Yes. That's correct. So the 150 feet from residential uses requiring a use permit if it's on the 2nd Or 3rd Floor outdoor dining. In terms of the hours of operation, would you like to follow the current standards of 10PM?

Sure.

I mean, I feel like the task force has already done a lot of work to get to the numbers that they've gotten to.

So Just a couple of years.

Reinvent some of those numbers at this stage.

If I can also just ask one piece of information for clarification from yourself, Commissioner Sistos. When you were speaking of the idea of allowing certain things for Ground Floor, not for Upper Floor, would that be to apply the requirement for a use permit to anything above the 1st Floor? Or is it that, that becomes one of those stipulations that you need to for it's only applicable if you're above 1st Floor or this or that, right? Okay. So it'd be one of the stipulations within c. I'm sorry, within b. Do you all think?

It would be one of the ors, or not. Right. Because because it would be caught by a certain distance from residential.

Like, the 2nd Floor of for example, the 2nd Floor of Esperanza would not be caught by any of these previous. No. Would I'm trying to think of where that would like, I'm at I'm trying to think of an actual location where that would happen. Sure. They're not within a 150 feet. They don't have extended hours but they have a 2nd Floor.

I believe when we looked at the was it, the Great White location where Pitfire used to be that was more than 150 feet from any adjacent residential that was not on an upper floor. And I think that they were looking at 11PM, not 10PM. So that would have been one trigger here, but the other two triggers wouldn't qualified

there.

So the or location, the distance from residential, that that would be a 150 feet? Because we're also talking about this, like, 15 feet for the upper third second or third Floor patio.

Yes. That is whether 2nd or third Floor outdoor dining could be allowed or not. And not really related to the alcohol service.

The 150 feet from residential pretty much restricts it to the center of downtown. You're surrounded by other commercial properties. It doesn't apply to North Manhattan Beach at all. Like, there's no place where you can have that that distance from residential.

So anything anyone who wanted to add a an outdoor dining patio to somewhere in El Porto would get flagged for a use permit Mhmm. Because they would be within a 150 feet of residential. Okay.

With regard to alcohol? Yes. Yes. Well, and then obviously. Yes.

The other part of that is private property dining in front so if a setback if a building is set back far enough from the street line, right, beyond the sidewalk, That's the private property outdoor dining that they're allowed to do. That would be bound by the same alcohol service restrictions.

So then I guess the question would be, does does option one b as it's currently stated encompass everything without addressing any concern that we have? Like does that include anything that we would want to see come through as a use permit? Seems like the answer is yes,

but I think certainly anything after 10:00 and then sort of our hard stop for things. I guess the question is, does the rest of the commission have confidence in the radius of 150 feet from residential?

So this would state that any outdoor dining that is within a 150 feet of residential would then require this permit?

In order to have alcohol service, yes.

In order to have alcohol service, yes.

I don't have a good sense for the number of, you know, commercial properties we're talking about here, but I'm comfortable with this. I just don't know if this then makes it very challenging for every business in El Porto or every business on, you know, the South Side South, you know, South Manhattan Avenue. Like, you know, there's a lot of Right. Non downtown residential areas Sure. That are adjacent or very close to residential. But I think I'm comfortable with this. What do you think?

I'm comfortable. I'm trusting that your downtown task force.

Don't go with mine.

You you spent, you know, an oramut time to try to protect the interest of the businesses. So I assume that the distances they came up wasn't gonna create total pandemonium among the business owners, all re having to reapply for Mhmm. Use permits. So I'm comfortable with the results that, you know, that that group that I don't know how many people get on that task force, but I'm sure that Of the untamed people that We're discussing and all the alternates. It seems like it would get flushed out if it was going to create Chaos in the the in business community, and I don't feel like it.

I think one of the things that we discussed in the task force was that in practice, there aren't that many locations that this really applies to in the future. One of the things that came up on the first day was I had asked the question, what if we do nothing? At the rate of obsolescence of our commercial properties and the rate of rebuilding to modern standards, what point would we have new build restaurants that have outdoor dining that is built according to the standards that we've already established outside of this, right? And that's only a few years away. So this is really a bridge measure to get us to that point where hopefully future investors and business owners come in and develop new properties.

But going back to it, there really aren't that many locations. Think, you know, when we specifically looked at Highland in in North Manhattan Beach, there are very few restaurants that would choose the option to go with a second Floor outdoor dining and the construction costs and everything associated with that. So if you're confident that this protects the downtown residents as well as that provides opportunity for entrepreneurship and innovation with the downtown businesses, I think that's the way to go.

If I may add additional context for private property outdoor dining for the past three plus years, we've had four private property outdoor dining permits. So it's very few and far between.

But I think to commissioner Gokul's point, as time goes on and as more properties are developed, like, look at something like Great White who just changed their that particular spot from a very small amount outdoor to almost entirely outdoor dining. So we can definitely see it definitely see it evolving in that direction as time goes on. So I think it's good to have

But those new builds will have to come before Mhmm. Well, our successors are. Mhmm. Or my successor, at least.

Based on everything we've heard, are are we prepared to make a motion, or do we have any further comments and or questions?

I think we should ask staff. Do you have so having a step we are moving forward with option 1B are there other decisions that we need to make to get to be ready

for the This is the only outstanding item that we need to finalize.

Then I guess if unless commissioners had objections to anything else that's in the draft.

And for clarification for the audience, it sounds like the October 22 hearing will better address the noise matter that was raised at which point we can sort of re raise the comments made by the audience and address them at that time. And

then we clarify that the fifth the 2nd Or 3rd Floor outdoor dining would be captured the review of that would be captured within the location element of one b?

Yes. Yeah.

I think I'm good. Okay.

So if I may at this point what I would like to request that the commission do and through the Chair or Vice Chair is to reopen the public hearing so we can continue that to the following meeting that we're scheduling for the twenty second and then to recommend or request a motion amongst your peers to continue the public hearing until that date.

Okay.

I'm requesting a motion to continue the public hearing to re I'm reopening the public hearing at which point I would like to request a motion from my peers to continue the public comment.

Public

hearing. Public hearing on October 22 Correct. 2025. I have a motion from Commissioner Ngoco and a second from Commissioner Sistos. Please vote.

Okay. Motion passes.

Motion passes, four zero.

Alright. And now at this point, can we please have a motion on the matter at hand? Nope. That was just for public hearing or that was

That was the intent today was to get that direction from the commission, continue the meeting or continue the Understood. Hearing until the next We're good.

Thank you very much. Okay. All right. The next item is the Planning Commission's consideration of the Zone Text amendments related to accessory structure rear yard setback requirements. Is there a staff report at this time?

There is. Thank you, Vice Chair Hackett. At this time, I'd like to invite up associate planner Maricel Guillen. She'll be making the presentation on this item.

Thank you, Chair and members of the Planning Commission. My name is Marie Stella Guillen, Associate Planner. This afternoon, we'll be conducting a public hearing on the proposed amendments to the Manhattan Beach municipal code related to accessory structures in the rear yard setback requirements for single family zones. The city council held a meeting in June 2024 and another in February 2025 where they discussed and directed staff to explore alternative rear yard setback regulations for accessory structures. The Planning Commission conducted two study sessions in June and August 2025 where the Commission discussed potential alternative accessory structure regulations, heard public comments and directed staff to come back with amended code language.

Staff was directed to bring back code language to amend the existing governing regulation which allows accessory structures in rear yards with zero side or rear setbacks. This existing regulation is codified in MBMC section ten fifty two-fifty D relation to property lines as shown on this slide. Based on the input received at the recent study session, the Planning Commission's directives can be summarized in these five items. The following five directives and how they have been addressed will be discussed in the following slides. The proposed amendments to MBMC section ten five two zero five d are shown in red underline.

The format is the breakdown the proposed code amendments based

on

the five Planning Commission directives. First, have regulation scope. The blue box shown on states the new provisions are applicable to the single family zones in area districts one and two. Area Districts 1 And 2 make up the vast majority of the city and primarily consist of single family residential zones. The planning commission directed staff to explore the possibility of exempting smaller shed like structures.

So the new proposed provisions are only applicable to structures which require a building permit. The second commission directive was to amend the setback provisions for accessory structures. That language highlighted in the blue box directly addresses this request. The proposed amended code language eliminates the zero foot rear yard setback allowance for accessory structures and requires a minimum three foot setback with exceptions that would allow zero foot setbacks for lots abutting an alley or a commercial zone. As noted in the previous slide, accessory structures which do not qualify for a building permit such as the small shed with no electrical or plumbing components would be exempt from the new setback provisions.

To better depict these new setback standards, the following diagrams have been prepared. Each diagram shows the minimum 10 foot building separation requirement and the hatch blue line represents the rear yard setback. For non alley lots, newly proposed accessory structures or in addition to an existing accessory structure must comply with a minimum three foot rear and side setback. For alley lots with non garage accessory structures, newly proposed accessory structures or in addition to an accessory structure may maintain a zero foot setback along the rear property line, but must comply with a minimum three foot side setback. For lots directly, sorry.

For alley lots with a detached garage accessory structure, a newly proposed detached garage or an addition to a garage must comply with a five foot minimum rear setback for vehicle backup requirements and maintain a three foot side setback. For lots directly abutting a commercial zone, accessory structures may be built along a side and or rear property line if the property line directly abuts a commercial zone. The third Planning Commission directive was to retain the existing review process so that new accessory structures will remain subject to administerial review. To reduce the impact from the increase in the number of legal non conforming accessory structures due to the new setback requirements, staff is recommending exempting legal non conforming accessory structures from a minor exception as long as the non conforming exterior portions of an accessory structure are within the required setbacks and are not altered. After review of the proposed language, staff is recommending that a small amendment be stated into the record in order to clarify no exterior portion of the accessory structure that occupies a required setback is altered unless the alterations eliminate the nonconformity.

Two other Planning Commission directives were to retain the existing 10 foot building separation requirement. This requires no code amendments. The last directive was to amend or add new definitions as necessary. Additional consideration for proposed definitions will be included as part of the city's effort to implement certain housing element programs in the coming months that require miscellaneous amendments throughout the MVMC and the Manhattan Beach local coastal program. The city has reviewed the proposed code amendments for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act or CEQA and has determined that the zone of text amendments are exempt from CEQA pursuant to the following sections.

Therefore, the proposed code amendments are exempt from further review under CEQA. A public notice was published in the Beach reporter on 09/25/2025 and the meeting agenda was emailed to all interested parties. No public comments were received. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and adopt resolution number PC 25 dash 10 recommending City Council approval of MBMC text amendments. This concludes staff's presentation. We're available to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

Do we have any commissioner questions at this time?

No. No?

I do.

You do? I do. Okay. Yes, please.

Thank you for your presentation. It was actually we have had several study sessions on this. I feel like we you've done a very nice job of sort of condensing down all of our input and putting it in a very clear clear presentation. So thank you for doing that and organizing our thoughts as well. So a couple of things, and these these may just be review or things that I don't remember.

So specifically, when we looked at the non garage accessory structures and keeping those at the property line at zero foot, I can't remember why. I know we talked about so the garage has to have a five foot setback. Mhmm. But can you just remind me why we can why we allowed the zero foot? Is it because they it's already there's so many structures that already exist at zero foot? I know we talked a bit about visibility and backing out and those types of things, so I just can't remember

Right. So for garages, they have minimum clearances that they need to meet. And so typically, the minimum is gonna be five, anywhere between five and seven and a half. The thought with proposing a zero foot setback for non garage accessory structures is that there's already fences or other structures that are already aligned in alley. And so the logic there was the impact to neighbors at the rear property line would be minimized. However, to maintain those side property setback at three feet would be appropriate.

Okay. Thank you for refreshing my memory. And there was some height, what was the height of the there was some fence height that we had determined, you know, that would have impacted any visibility if you were to go above. I'm thinking more of you going up

on the Yes, I mean, street the code currently allows fences at least six feet in height.

Six feet. Okay.

Or up to six feet in height already. And unless you drive in a car that doesn't fit in any type of a garage, you're gonna be able to you're not gonna be able to see over that fence regardless.

Got it. Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. I knew we had talked about it. I just couldn't remember. And then so when I'm looking through the the verbiage, there's, like, section d and you get to exceptions, and there's, like, now number one and number two. Right? So could you speak to number one? Because that looks like that was there already, and I'm just trying to make sure I fully understand

that scenario where it can be between zero and three feet? It's similar verbiage to subsection d above. It's just stating that a fence must be at a zero property line or a three foot property line. Okay. So that that language is already existing in our code. Right. It was just a reorganization by putting one and two as exceptions to the main clause, which is the d relation to property lines.

I think maybe the wording is a little confusing because it says maybe between zero and three as opposed to saying maybe either zero or three feet in that sentence?

So if I'm reading this correctly, I think what it's getting at is if you've got a fence or a wall that is let's say a foot or two from your property line and not immediately on it that you can build your accessory structure immediately adjacent to that. Where this applies is going to be in area districts 3 And 4 and on multi family zone properties. So two is really the item two here, D2 is clearly what's carving out all the changes that will apply to the single family zones that we've been concerned about today.

Okay, thank you. And then I do wanna clarify. So if we exempt smaller accessory structures, ones that do not require a building permit from these revised setback standards that ADUs cannot still be built at a zero foot setback on those footprints? Because that was something we had a lot of discussion about being able to build an ADU on top of an existing footprint, but we're talking about, like, a shed or something that is below the level of a building permit. I just wanna ensure that if we include that, that we then someone can then come back and say I had a, you know, a 10 by two pad there for my shed, now I'm gonna build an AV there.

Sure. I would say that a building permit memorializes a location of a structure. So whereby if a planner were to go into a permit history for that said property, they would go in and say, look at the site plan for what was permitted at that site and at that point we can determine an appropriate location for that ADU. So I would say having a building permit memorializes the location of that accessory structure whereby a shed put in without permits, there's no real way to sort of track the history of that structure.

In addition, if I can add the maximum size of a structure that could be built without a building permit is 120 square feet, which is my understanding below the size of an efficiency unit, thus efficiency unit being the smallest of what you can do with an ADU.

I believe it was 400 square feet, but when we discussed it, there was some discussion around like having any footprint there, even if it was small would then enable

k.

No. Okay. Not necessarily. Okay.

Thank you. I just wanna make sure we capture that because that was one of the main reasons why we were talking about this. I think that was is that

that would create the situation sort of demonstrated in this first image. We have, like, the tiny little one fifty, and then someone could build off of it. But any new existing structure would then have to be subject to the three foot setback?

This slide in front of you here? That's correct.

The left side. Right. So the footprint of that a 120 square foot, whatever it was, could continue to exist, but then they couldn't actually bring Mhmm. The additional Right.

Oh, that's right. It was the additional.

Right? It would just be, like, this little extra corner on top of Okay. Okay. Okay.

Okay.

And then just for the sake of clarification because the two c was just a little bit challenging to read, especially for a layperson. We've talked about this a lot. So if you could just explain that construction value. If you could just explain section c, I think, into the record, that'd be helpful for those who are less familiar with that one.

I actually add to that question just so you can you don't have to take two stops at it? So in your slide, you have, after the last comma, provided that no exterior portion of the accessory structure, which again sort of comes to that first slide, like the image where you have the existing accessory structure and then the proposed improvement. Because my question is, I was under the impression that if you're going above that 50% valuation, I know it's a complicated thing, we'll appreciate you explaining it to us to the best of your ability. I know it's a very complicated calculation. I was under the impression that anything you're doing that's increasing that valuation above that 50% would require the new setback.

But now we're saying so long as you're not touching the exterior part, you can continue to leave that portion, not have to pull it into the new requirements of the code if it exceeds

Without a minor exception permit.

Okay.

So to address both of your your questions, I would say let me go back to the provision c here. So the logic behind creating this subsection c is with the elimination of the zero foot setback will have an increase of legal non conforming accessory structures in the single family zones, primarily related to setbacks, the zero foot setback. So this provision is trying to alleviate some sort of processing of the minor exception to alleviate some of the constraints of going through a minor exception as well as the legal nonconforming provisions of our code by allowing an applicant to as long as they maintain the walls, the exterior portions of their existing accessory structure, they would be allowed to do an expansion. However, that expansion would need to comply with the current provisions I. E.

The three foot side and rear set backs or whatever it may be if it's related to an alley or commercial. And then that would be a way where they would still be able to maintain their legal non conforming structure without having to go through the minor exception, but if they were to remove or alter any of those walls, they would either they would be subject to the legal non conforming provisions and potentially a minor exception if the design were to alter those non conforming walls of the accessory structure.

Okay. I guess the the question that I have is you have your existing accessory structure, You're not touching it. You're you're adding an expansion that now has the three foot setback. You do everything within your power to not trigger that 50% calculation.

In this circumstance, the 50% valuation, as long as you're not touching the walls, you don't need to worry about the 50% valuation with this Right. With this clause.

What I'm

saying is

you have something from 1980. Okay? You're not touching it. You're doing your expansion. That's the first part of my question. Now that is not aging, right, at the same pace as the brand new addition that you've just added. Now you have to go touch the exterior walls, but that's now part of one sort of unit that you've created. Is that now later triggering is that sort of the workaround? Like, hey. Just wait a few months and then do the exterior walls of the original structure. I know that I I I'm putting on my developer cap, and I'm like, well, that's how I would get around it. Sorry. That's No. It's helpful. No.

It's Is that's that's sort of the only caveat that I don't know if this is anticipating. I'm not asking for you guys to come up with language on the spot. I'm just that.

Is there some way to protect for that? Right.

There are certain provisions that I believe in the minor exception code section, but maybe Maricela or one of the other staff members can correct me if I'm wrong. I believe it has a certain time limitation between when you do one addition that might trigger the need for a minor exception or and then you have to wait sixty months or so, I don't know remember what it is, to do a second addition, so it would be considered a cumulative addition and you would be looking at triggering that 50% when you get to the point of needing to do the existing area. Now I'm not 100% sure that language is correct. I believe that's how it really is laid out and I think our building official has something to add as well.

Ryan Hines, building official. Some of those questions will be addressed in the building code itself depending on how much work is done. Sometimes building code requires the existing portion be altered. And then for the building code, it's three years. So you'd have to wait three years to do the additional work.

Okay.

Not a few months.

Okay. So three years to do the additional work and and it's no longer part of that 50% calculation? It's a brand new calculation itself. After three years, it starts over?

Correct. Okay.

But keep in mind that's the building code separate from the planning code you're talking about.

Okay. And

I I did just get confirmation from one of my staff members. It is sixty months.

Okay.

So five years planning side.

So does that that's my question, but then I do think we should probably talk about that a little bit. My question's been answered, but I'd be interested to hear if that changes either of your opinions.

So if I may, I think prior to getting into the commission deliberation

Yes, of course.

Sorry. At this point we can accept any questions from the commission staff can address, but before getting into that deliberation we should accept the public testimony.

Yes. Just one more question. So can you build up on top of this existing nonconforming structure?

Talking about ADUs? Mhmm. ADUs would be allowed under our current code to be built directly above a detached garage up to 26 feet a night. So not it would just be the garage provisions where you would be and you would have to be setback. So with the garage off of an alley, typically there's gonna be a minimum of a five foot setback. If you were to have an EDU on top, it would need at least a minimum of a four foot side and rear setback. And, again, it would be limited to detached garages only.

Okay. So you cannot build an ADU on top of an existing exact accessory structure?

Non garage. Non garage. Okay. Okay.

Those are all my questions.

Okay. Any more questions for staff at this time? Okay. I will now open the public hearing. 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, and there will be a timer on the screen. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak? Are there any individuals on Zoom that wish to speak?

We have nobody on Zoom at this time.

Okay. So I will now close the public hearing and move on to commissioner deliberations.

Do you have thoughts on Yeah.

So so, I mean, so it'd be three years for the building code, five years for planning commission or per planning department to be able to make those improvements. I imagine those are timelines that a ton of thought was put into, so I'm not trying to undo that. Right? There's obviously a lot of thought that goes into, like, that 50% calculation and allowing sufficient time to pass so that people aren't finding all of these crazy workarounds. And I know in our last meeting, all of a sudden having a legal nonconforming property, you don't want people to, you know, feel like they've completely lost the value of that property back there and not as it ages.

It's just gonna be something that they're ultimately going to lose, or if the three foot setback just materially changes the value of their property. So I think it's probably the best language. I think everyone did a fantastic job putting it forward. But, yeah, I I can still see the the workaround that may continue to happen. It does give me some pause putting myself in the position of the homeowners abutting these properties.

But, yeah, I just wanted to better understand sort of the loophole. We have very clever developers, architects in this town who find workarounds where they can. It's our town to develop. So I don't have any suggestions to changing the language. I just wanted to

point out that there's

Yeah. Does anyone else have any concerns? I mean, it's a real concern. I don't know how to better address it, but I'd be open if anyone here has a better idea.

I'm not sure that my concern for that is with developers so much as it is with relatively new property owners who are looking to improve their properties over time. Developers will build according to the newest potential customer aesthetics and the building standards that we put in place, which will require them to scrape everything and stay within our setback guidelines. So really, you're talking about the people who maybe have owned their property less than ten years and are looking to make improvements over time. I think we've done the best to restrict the effects on their neighbors and and on the density, the appearance of density throughout. I think staff did a wonderful job of of translating our deliberations into clear and concise text amendments.

I really appreciate that. And I think I'm pretty I'm comfortable moving forward with the text amendments as they were presented to us.

I agree. It's been a long I mean, I feel like we've spent a lot of time talking about it, and I think that I agree. It's it's been a very this is a very good, compilation of all of our input and thoughts on the topic. And I think we've addressed all of the different angles here with the exception maybe that but it's captured in the either three year or five year right out piece.

And if I could, if the commission does move forward with making a motion to recommend approval here, if you could make sure that you note that the additional word exterior as presented by staff during the presentation. If you can make sure that you recommend that that be included there so that c would the last sentence of more or less, I guess, just the last couple lines of c would read provided that no exterior portion of the accessory structure that occupies, etcetera.

And I think we can be proud. We took into consideration a number of the public's comments from the last meeting pushing for that three foot setback. I agree. I'm happy with where it's landed. Are we prepared to make a motion? I'm done with broadcast.

I guess I have a question for statics. Before making the motion here, one of us have to does the motion maker have to state that?

The addition of the

The addition of as amended or?

Correct. What I would do is I would state that you would like to make a motion recommending approval of staffs or of the proposed code language as included with the resolution with the addition of the word exception I'm sorry, with the addition of exterior as noted.

Are you requesting to make the motion? You're requesting me, I believe. You may speak.

Thank you. Okay. Thank you. So I move that we approve the resolution as written with the amendment to Section nine one involving the insertion of the word exterior.

It's 2C. 2C?

2C. Sorry, 9. D2C. 9 D2C? It's not 9. It's just D2

c. It's D two C.

So it's ten fifty two zero five o d two c. Do I need to restate that? I

think we're good. We're good. Okay.

Oh. That's it.

And now you have to hit the motion button.

I did. Okay. Okay.

There we go. Okay.

We hit it at the same time.

We have a okay. We have a motion from commissioner Ongoco and a second from commissioner Sistos. If everyone could please vote on their screens.

Motion passes four zero.

Okay. Now we are moving on to director and staff updates. Craig, do we have any updates at this time?

Yeah. Thank you, vice chair Hackett. So there are a couple of things I wanted to mention. First, I know, he's spoken at the meeting and he introduced himself to you folks individually prior to the meeting. But I did want to give you an opportunity to formally welcome our new Community Development Director, Masa Alkire.

He's been with us about a month almost, I think right about now. And he's been a great asset to our team and look forward to having his guidance for both the division and the commission and the community moving forward. So wanted to formally introduce him. And in addition, I had a couple of items that I just wanted to note the projects and policy work that commission has addressed or considered in the past few months. Has to the housing element zoning text amendments that came before you several months ago and then went through council.

They are currently with the California Coastal Commission for their consideration. They were formally accepted as a complete application couple of weeks ago. So we are working through that with them. The project pulse that's been happening that's the work effort to identify and address issues or potential land uses for 400 MBB in Lot 3. We've been moving through community outreach on that and had a booth at the Hometown Fair with a significant number of displays and got a lot of valuable feedback there.

We'll also be doing a booth at the farmers market coming up over the next couple of months, think two times a month from now through December. And then one other item just to give you guys a heads up as I know we've discussed previously some of the rod projects that are coming our way. We did receive building plans for the Fry's property. So we've got an application in for that now. We're going to be sending out a courtesy notice to neighbors in the vicinity later this week or next week I believe.

And it project is proposed at two seventy three units, 55 I believe of those will be affordable to people qualifying as either low or very low income. And the structure is going to be two buildings attached basically, one of them seven stories, one of them 10 stories. And so that's currently under review.

That's all I got today. Thank you.

Thank you. Do any of our commissioners have any planning commission items?

I don't have an item. I just wanna thank planning staff for the hometown fair booth that I know that I was nagging you about. But it looked well attended, and I appreciate you guys meeting the public.

Fantastic.

Do we have a tentative agenda for October 22?

We do. At this point, it's the item that you had, continued to that meeting.

Okay. Fantastic. Can I have a motion to adjourn to the next regularly scheduled meeting on 10/22/2025? I have a motion from commissioner Ngoko and a second from commissioner Toshiki.

Motion passes four-zero. We are adjourned.