Second floor outdoor dining considered
The City Council on Tuesday night rejected nearly all of the California Coastal Commission’s 27 modification of its proposed Downtown Specific Plan but reconsidered a ban on second-floor outdoor dining that the plan had included.
The council approved a set of ordinances that will effectively replace the Specific Plan, which the city has worked towards since 2013 in an attempt to address “concerns that offices and banks were encroaching on the downtown’s ground-floor tenant spaces traditionally occupied by retailers, restaurants, and services,” according to the final draft.
The plan was adopted in 2016 but fell under the jurisdiction of the Coastal Commission, the state agency tasked with protecting public access to the California coast. After a two year wait — and a cost of $1.4 million to the city in preparing the plan — the commission on August 9 voted to require vast changes. Many of those changes touched on topics not even contemplated in the plan, including a requirement that the city allows short-term vacation rentals.
Councilperson David Lesser said the council was already considering revisions to that ban but that the commission insistence on “allowing short-term rentals in a way our community is just not ready to support at this time” represented an assault on local control.
“We are where we should be as a city,” Lesser said. “I deeply regret what the Coastal Commission has done here…. The Coastal Commission has, I think, overreached.”
The ordinances the council approved are intended to curtail office use downtown by requiring use permits for bank or business office use, as well as for retail stores larger than 1,600 sq. ft. But in a 4 to 1 vote, with Mayor Steve Napolitano in opposition, the council eliminated the ban on second story dining.
Councilperson Nancy Hersman suggested that second story dining could be considered on a case-by-case basis.
“I’m just not a big fan of banning things when we have other ways to approach them,” Hersman said. “I think the use permit is a good way to approach these kinds of things.”
Hersman said there are also ways to reduce noise and other concerns downtown area residents have expressed about upstairs dining.
“We need to understand and appreciate downtown residents, but I just think we have to look at our city as a whole,” Hersman said.
A few downtown residents spoke against allowing any second story outdoor dining.
“I think the reality is no small town, and no small village has upper tier outdoor dining…. There is no doubt noise will project dramatically from the second story,” said resident Neil Leventhal.
“Please, in your consideration of the viability of downtown area, don’t ignore the viability of residents who also live in that area,” said Martha Andriani. “The mixed-use should be seen as a positive element of our city…. It just makes my head spin because I don’t see us taking a stand here. We want it prohibited because there is no way to contain the nuisances.”
But restaurateur Ron Newman noted that the city already has outdoor dining downtown with Simmzy’s, Hennessey’s, and the Strand House, the latter which includes second story dining. He said it has not been problematic.
“It depends on the operator,” Newman said. “You approach each operation one at a time. As far as the problem of noise, that’s up to code enforcement to control that…. It kind of sets us behind [other cities], not being able to put together something nice, where there’s a view and people want to eat and enjoy. This doesn’t mean putting in wild bars or anything like that.”
Kelly Stroman, executive director of the Downtown Manhattan Beach Business and Professional Association, said including upstairs dining as subject to the use permit process didn’t mean such use would necessarily proliferate. She urged the council to consider each restaurant on a case-by-case basis.
“It just shouldn’t be a blatant ban on outdoor dining like this,” Stroman said.
Downtown resident Jackie May said the area used to be “dimestores and drug stores but now it’s all bars.” She said community residents in the many meetings that shaped the downtown plan expressed clear opposition to second story outdoor dining.
“They don’t want a loud, crazy downtown, like Hermosa Beach,” May said. “Ron Newman owns several bars down there, right?”
Newman owns Baja Sharkeez, Palmilla Cocina y Tequila, and Tower 12 on Hermosa’s Pier Avenue.
Councilperson Steve Napolitano defended Newman’s establishments. “Tower 12 is a great place,” he said. “I did a video there, a two-minute review.” But he also argued that the council should adopt the ban that was included in its proposed Specific Plan and revisit the upstairs dining issue in a year.
“Because I think the dust just needs to settle a little bit on this,” he said. “In fact, we need dust. It’s just been moving too much for too long. We really just need a timeout on this.”
Councilperson Amy Howorth said waiting a year “would just prolong the pain” and require residents to attend more meetings in the future.
“I don’t know if it’s a great idea for an outright ban because people’s habits change, whether shopping less [downtown] and going online… If they want to go out, dining outside is a legitimate thing,” Howorth said. “It doesn’t have to be a wild, raucous thing.”
“You say it’s prolonging the pain,” Napolitano said. “So instead, you are bringing the pain right now.”
Councilperson Richard Montgomery said a one year ban was the equivalent of a two-year ban, due to how city processes move, and that he likewise opposed an outright prohibition. He also noted that residents fervently opposed the outdoor dining at the Strand House when it was built less than a decade ago “because it was going to ruin downtown forever.”
“What happened?” he asked. “It was built…and how many people moved out of town because of the Strand House?”