CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH OUTDOOR DINING STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH MEMO 1 City of Manhattan Beach Outdoor Dining Program
Stakeholder Outreach Summary
June 2024
Introduc�on
Moore Iacofano Goltsman, Inc. (MIG) and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) conducted interviews between December 2023 and April 2024 with key stakeholders represen�ng Ea�ng & Drinking Establishments (E&D), Food & Beverage Sales (F&B), retail, and other businesses, as well as residents.
The par�cipants either operated a business or resided in and around Downtown and North Manhatan Beach, areas which will be most impacted by the long-term outdoor dining program. The stakeholder interview discussions were based on a set of pre-determined ques�ons developed by the consultant team and the City of Manhatan Beach (City) staff, focused on the following topics:
A. General feedback on the temporary outdoor dining program between June 2020 and February 2023 B. Fiscal impact of the temporary outdoor dining program on businesses (including non-E&D)1 C. Sugges�ons or concerns in developing the long-term outdoor dining program D. Comments related to parking, alterna�ve modes of transit, and service vehicle loading/unloading
Ten stakeholder interviews were conducted, as follows:
December 19, 2023 Downtown E&D Large Business
(Slay Hospitality Group, Simms Restaurants2)
January 3, 2024 Downtown E&D Small Business (Culture Brewing, Uncorked) January 3, 2024 Downtown/North Manhatan Beach Small Business (Bella, Two Guns Espresso, El Porto Laundry)
January 12, 2024 Resident Group 1 (Downtown residents)
January 12, 2024 Resident Group 2 (Non-Downtown/North Manhatan Beach residents) January 22, 2024 North Manhatan Beach Business
(Baja Sharkeez3, Paradise Bowls, Café Wild)
January 25, 2024 Chamber of Commerce
January 25, 2024 Downtown Retailers (Katwalk, Dacha)
February 26, 2024 Resident Group 3 (North Manhatan Beach residents) April 9, 2024 North Manhatan Beach Business Improvement District (Sloopy’s)
EPS was involved in four of the group interviews with a total of 10 businesses to beter understand the fiscal impacts that were experienced by individual businesses, as well as to ask ques�ons that will assist in developing the long-term outdoor dining program’s fiscal impact analysis. A summary of findings by EPS can be found beginning on page 13.
1 Fiscal impact discussions were limited to businesses only 2 Two representa�ves, each managing different establishments within Simms Restaurants, par�cipated in the interview
3 The business owner also provided input on their Downtown establishment, Esperanza
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH OUTDOOR DINING STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH MEMO 2 Most businesses interviewed fell under E&D which par�cipated in the temporary outdoor dining program. However, there were several other types of businesses interviewed as shown in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1: Types of business owners/representa�ves interviewed
It should be noted that this memo summarizes specific quotes from individuals who par�cipated in the interviews, which have been edited for clarity and brevity, and are not the opinion of the consultant team nor City staff.
General Findings
Below is a summary of key findings derived from the stakeholder interviews with the business and residen�al communi�es:
• The temporary outdoor dining program increased the visibility of businesses and brought in new customers during the pandemic that was not exclusive to E&D. • Outdoor dining created a sense of community and enhanced livelihood of streets throughout Manhatan Beach.
• Businesses are seeking assurance that once the long-term outdoor dining program is implemented, it is here to stay without various modifica�ons so they may invest in outdoor dining with certainty.
• Most par�cipants want to have outdoor dining that adheres to baseline standards to ensure a level of quality and a unified look throughout the City. However, flexibility in decora�ng the outdoor dining area should be allowed to give each individual business an opportunity to customize.
• Parking has always been an issue in and around Downtown and North Manhatan Beach. Some experienced nega�ve impacts from the loss of parking during the temporary outdoor dining program but most felt that there could be other solu�ons provided to ease parking challenges (e.g., more bike facili�es, shutle service from larger parking areas, short-term parking spaces to help retail or take-out businesses).
• There were loca�ons with too much sidewalk conges�on during the temporary outdoor dining program. Hence, people would like to see sidewalks widened or sidewalk conges�on addressed to allow for beter pedestrian access at loca�ons with high pedestrian traffic, narrow sidewalks, and a concentra�on of outdoor dining areas.
• Considera�on should be given to u�lize walk streets, when possible, to reduce the impact on street parking and sidewalks.
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH OUTDOOR DINING STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH MEMO 3 Themes
Ques�ons for each stakeholder group were cra�ed to provide an opportunity for each par�cipant to provide their unique perspec�ve, knowledge, and ideas regarding the temporary outdoor dining program and the long-term outdoor dining program currently being developed. This sec�on provides overall themes which emerged from the various interviews, along with feedback received relatedto each theme.
Temporary Outdoor Dining Program
1. BENEFITS
a. Summary: The temporary outdoor dining program added livelihood to the street and created more of a sense of community through increased ac�vi�es and visibility in the right-of-way. In addi�on, it provided opportuni�es to dine while taking in scenic views and helped increase foot traffic to other businesses. By doing so, it helped restaurants and retailers alike stay afloat during the pandemic and many saw that the loss of parking from temporary dining decks was worthwhile.
b. Business Community Input
i. Created a sense of community and dynamic environment for visitors that is more walkable and welcoming
ii. Added vibrancy and made the town seem alive and engaged iii. Provided a fantas�c opportunity to take advantage of where we are geographically to dine by the ocean
iv. Increased exposure and social scenes, which do not happen when everyone is ea�ng indoors (i.e., foot traffic increased which helped support smaller retailers and businesses that did not have outdoor dining)
v. A game changer for restaurants with small indoor space vi. Increased dining capacity was a posi�ve to businesses vii. Originally thought that it would only help select businesses and was apprehensive about shortage of parking; but now feels the opposite
viii. Thought the amount of lost parking spaces due to dining decks was worth it for the liveliness and extra business that it brought into the area ix. Only heard posi�ve things from nearby businesses and the community; it was a net posi�ve experience
x. Except for the look and feel of a couple dining decks in the right-of-way, felt that it was successful since it saved businesses
xi. Gave people a place to patronize a business, enjoy outdoors, and watch the sunset xii. Everyone opted to dine outdoors even on a cold day and the older popula�on preferred outdoor sea�ng
xiii. Allowed customers that were not comfortable ea�ng indoors a great alterna�ve xiv. Noted that many people were disappointed when the temporary outdoor dining program ended
c. Residen�al Community Input
i. Provided an opportunity to create a sense of community in a posi�ve way with a more fes�ve feeling
ii. Appreciated the op�on to eat outside because indoor dining can get too loud; it also felt safe and comfortable
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH OUTDOOR DINING STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH MEMO 4 iii. Really enjoyed outdoor dining and went out to eat more o�en during the temporary outdoor dining program than had done previously
iv. Welcomed the fact that restaurants had more sea�ng available for patrons
2. CONCERNS
a. Summary: Concerns evolved around temporary dining decks, traffic, parking, conges�on, pest control, trash, equity, drainage, and aesthe�cs.
b. Business Community Input
i. There were safety concerns with traffic, impacts to street drainage, increased rodents or biohazards collec�ng under the dining decks
ii. Delivery trucks were parking on residen�al streets because they could not park in front of businesses with dining decks
iii. Parking spaces taken up by dining decks were impac�ul in one way or another iv. Larger vehicles had trouble naviga�ng around the temporary dining decks v. Parking and traffic are constant issues, however, do not feel that there is a difference between pre-COVID, during COVID, and post-COVID era
vi. Pest control and trash have been issues with or without the temporary outdoor dining program
vii. There were different degrees of atrac�veness and quality of the outdoor dining spaces; some restaurants were willing to spend while others were not viii. It helped some but hurt some businesses; could be done differently with the long-term program
c. Residen�al Community Input
i. It was unpleasant at �mes because of the conges�on created by outdoor dining when they were too cramped and close to crowded sidewalks
ii. It was way too narrow to get past restaurants in certain loca�ons, especially north of Rosecrans Ave. where accessibility is already a challenge iii. Disliked si�ng within proximity to vehicles while dining outdoors iv. Parking seemed to be more challenging but did not affect them because they chose to walk, ride bike, or rideshare
v. Parking, trash, and other impacts were not no�ceable in North Manhatan Beach vi. Some outdoor dining areas were not atrac�ve
vii. The experience of on-street outdoor dining is not the same as that on private property, which is preferred; against the idea of allowing priva�za�on of public spaces
Return of Outdoor Dining
1. LONG-TERM OUTDOOR DINING
a. Summary: Many establishments supported the effort due to the several benefits they experienced during the temporary outdoor dining program. Special considera�on should be given to certain aspects of the program to benefit everyone.
b. Business Community Input
i. Retailers saw the posi�ve benefit of outdoor dining and want it back because they are now struggling
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH OUTDOOR DINING STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH MEMO 5 ii. Restaurants are interested in par�cipa�ng in the long-term outdoor dining program because the temporary outdoor dining was successful for their business(es); however, it will depend on the cost and �meline of implementa�on
iii. The long-term outdoor dining program should posi�vely impact the overall business community; not just E&D
iv. While some businesses did not par�cipate in the temporary outdoor dining program, they are interested to see what the long-term program would be like v. Take the best parts of the temporary outdoor dining program and implement them in a permanent way that also addresses issues and concerns raised vi. Would like to see outdoor dining con�nue within reason (e.g., no street closures) vii. In support of outdoor dining program that does not affect parking viii. Taking up on-street parking is acceptable if it is used for outdoor dining and not for public uses as it may atract unwanted crowds
ix. Prefer u�lizing street parking spaces for outdoor dining that caters to numerous people rather than for a parked car for a handful of people
x. Elimina�ng parking spaces is acceptable if there is other value added in some way xi. One business was an opponent of the temporary outdoor dining program due to parking issues and the fact that they would not be able to par�cipate in the long-term program because their business is not an E&D
xii. Concerned with short-term impacts from poten�al construc�on with widening sidewalks over the long-term benefits it may have
xiii. A different approach should be taken for North Manhatan Beach since a program that affects parking is not going to be successful
xiv. Sidewalk dining that does not remove parking spaces or reduce street width is the only op�on that would work in North Manhatan Beach
xv. Several offered to review proposed program guidelines and provide feedback
c. Residen�al Community Input
i. There is a large group of residents that enjoyed outdoor dining and supports the effort as it brought addi�onal business to local restaurants and improved foot traffic in front of retail
ii. Use this opportunity to consider how all the outdoor space can be beter used; not exclusive to outdoor dining
iii. The program should have the flexibility to adapt and shi� under various circumstances without having to re-create another one in the future
iv. Consider addi�onal parking to accommodate parking demand from the long-term outdoor dining program
v. Beter u�lize space currently designated for vehicles by priori�zing pedestrians with wider sidewalks
vi. Noise and foot traffic complaints are not new nor always �ed to outdoor dining
Parking & Traffic
1. PARKING
a. Summary: The loss of on-street parking nega�vely impacted certain businesses and residents. For others, parking in Manhatan Beach has always been a challenge and the temporary outdoor dining program did not create any new challenges, emphasizing that parking is available if sought out.
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH OUTDOOR DINING STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH MEMO 6 b. Business Community Input
i. Parking is not an issue as people can easily find parking mid-week and when many large events shut down streets and parking, people s�ll find a way to make it to Downtown ii. There will always be a constraint on parking in beach communi�es and there will never be enough parking available; there will be more people using it if there is more parking provided and elimina�ng a few on-street spaces will not greatly impact overall parking iii. Impacts to parking was minimal since temporary outdoor dining decks occupied a few out of thousands of public parking spaces
iv. Parking structures are available and usable more o�en than street parking; have not heard a lot of people complaining about finding parking in structures v. Lack of parking does not affect business as much since people find a way to park and get around
vi. The long-term outdoor dining program should minimize its impact on traffic/parking while allowing pedestrians to safely pass along sidewalks vii. Parking shortage is exacerbated in the summer and is the number one complaint they receive
viii. Parking spaces eliminated in the vicinity to accommodate outdoor dining severely impacted their business and hence, does not want to lose any more parking along Manhatan Beach Blvd. and Manhatan Ave.
ix. Due to limited parking, staff o�en park further and walk, bike or get dropped off; businesses cannot provide parking to their staff because the lotery system is limited in spaces available
c. Residen�al Community Input
i. Outdoor dining did not really impact parking issues since you can never get parking where you would like; there was no no�ceable change in parking since the temporary outdoor dining areas were removed
ii. Some loca�ons always have parking available such as Metlox if you are willing to look; Metlox should be adver�sed beter as a parking solu�on since it o�en has more capacity iii. People do not realize how much parking is available in structures and they complain when spots are eliminated from the street
iv. Do not see removal of street parking spaces as a nega�ve because there is parking available elsewhere
v. Will advocate to use parking spaces that cater to more people instead of cars vi. Felt that finding parking was impossible during the temporary outdoor dining program vii. Visitors take up parking all day to stay at the beach
2. SHORT-TERM PARKING SPACES
a. Summary: Designated short-term parking could poten�ally help businesses that cannot take part in the long-term outdoor dining program.
b. Business Community Input
i. There will be a posi�ve impact by changing parking signage in certain areas for fast turnover businesses such as dry cleaners and coffee shops
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH OUTDOOR DINING STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH MEMO 7 ii. Felt that their customers needed more than 15-20 minutes of parking for take-out service, but there is a charge to the business to change parking restric�ons4
c. Residen�al Community Input
i. Designated short-term parking for retail businesses can be a helpful tool
3. BIKE/SCOOTER
a. Summary: Bikes are becoming more popular where more bike lanes and facili�es will be helpful in poten�ally avoiding conflict with both automobiles and pedestrians. In addi�on, more bike parking facili�es should be provided that do not impact sidewalk conges�on.
b. Business Community Input
i. Have seen a lot of cycling to local restaurants
ii. Good op�ons for bike and scooter parking are limited and the exis�ng loca�ons are o�en on congested sidewalks
iii. Would like to see more alterna�ve modes of transporta�on and the infrastructure to support that
iv. Any parking spaces removed should consider being replaced with alterna�ves like bike parking
c. Residen�al Community Input
i. E-bikes and rideshare are becoming more popular
ii. Want more bike lanes to be provided (not necessarily on every street) to avoid conflict with automobiles and pedestrians, including safety features for bikes iii. Provide more opportuni�es for a healthier community where people can walk and bike more o�en than driving and parking
4. SHUTTLE SERVICE
a. Summary: Previous shutle service in Downtown was great and helped alleviate parking issues.
b. Business Community Input
i. Downtown shutle service was great when it was ac�ve; should be re-introduced in Downtown and North Manhatan Beach and also serve east of Sepulveda Blvd ii. Consider shutle service that takes people from parking structures or other high-parking areas into Downtown
c. Residen�al Community Input
i. Shutle service would alleviate some parking issues, especially those going to the beach
5. RIDESHARE/DELIVERY PICK-UP
a. Summary: Rideshare is used by customers but there is limited space for drivers to temporarily park when picking up food or wai�ng on passengers.
4 Clarifica�on note from staff: There is no charge to change the parking restric�ons in front of a business; however, the City will determine whether or not to approve a change requested by the business based on the best interest of the en�re city.
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH OUTDOOR DINING STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH MEMO 8 b. Business Community Input
i. Many customers use rideshare to get to des�na�ons
ii. Rideshare vehicles take up 2-3 parking spaces while wai�ng on passenger pick-up and there are limited parking/loading areas for drivers
c. Residen�al Community Input
i. Taking rideshare to Downtown is safer
6. DELIVERY TRUCKS & LOADING HOURS
a. Summary: Vehicle loading ac�vi�es appeared to be an issue with or without outdoor dining, mainly due to the lack of consistency in delivery �me/loca�on, but also non-E&D deliveries throughout the day. Some loading ac�vi�es block alleys, which create noise issues that nega�vely affect nearby residents. A restric�ve loading hour provision may nega�vely impact businesses or be infeasible as they have litle to no control over delivery hours.
b. Business Community Input
i. It is difficult to manage deliveries in congested areas ii. Delivery companies are not delivering on �me and businesses o�en have litle to no control over it
iii. Has received complaints from residents nearby when deliveries occur iv. Delivery and loading trucks create traffic issues
v. Heard related concerns in North Manhatan Beach since the streets are narrower with delivery trucks stopping in the road
vi. Unaware of concerns related to traffic build-up during loading/unloading ac�vi�es vii. It may not be feasible to create loading hours that are too restric�ve since it may impact what �me the crew needs to be there to receive orders which can affect labor costs viii. Most deliveries occur in the morning hours, as early as 5am ix. The bigger challenge is the Amazon trucks and deliveries that have frequent stops where needed, and everyone must find a way around them. Would like to see more regula�ons for these types of deliveries such as designated loading zones, pick-up points, and lockers
x. Would like to see designated areas for deliveries rather than parking in an alley in front of a garage or trash receptacles/enclosures
c. Residen�al Community Input
i. Appears to mainly affect Downtown residents, regardless of outdoor dining program ii. The impact is greatest in the alleys where they block access or are double parked on streets
iii. There are no no�ceable impacts from vehicle loading as delivery trucks are all over town including places that are not E&D
iv. Consider limi�ng the hours of delivery and have beter enforcement mechanism
Conges�on & Noise
1. SIDEWALK CONGESTION
a. Summary: Sidewalks were too congested and were hard to navigate due to outdoor dining ac�vi�es in the right-of-way. Welcomed the thought of widening sidewalks to allow for improved pedestrian access.
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH OUTDOOR DINING STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH MEMO 9 b. Business Community Input
i. Use of sidewalks for pedestrians should also be considered ii. Conges�on is worse where sidewalks are narrow and outdoor dining is ac�ve
c. Residen�al Community Input
i. Has seen improvements since the temporary outdoor dining program came to an end, but encroachment in certain areas with sidewalk dining are s�ll congested ii. Some outdoor dining areas take up too much sidewalk space and make it hard to walk by without being in a single-file line
iii. Would like to see the sidewalks expanded and obstruc�ons removed that are in the way of traffic flow
iv. Parking meters should be removed as it adds to the conges�on v. There were bad examples of bussing/wai�ng across the sidewalk to the dining deck, which are undesirable
2. TRASH/NOISE
a. Summary: Trash and noise pollu�on do not seem to have increased with or without outdoor dining, but there were percep�ons of noise and trash being associated with restaurant uses.
b. Business Community Input
i. Downtown resident associa�ons have complained about concerns over extra trash, noise, and more people.
c. Residen�al Community Input
i. Downtown in general is unclean on busy weekends
ii. A lot of restaurants are close to residences, and some are very noisy iii. Trash has always been an issue and there were no no�ceable changes witnessed whether with or without the temporary outdoor dining program iv. Noise and foot traffic are not �ed to outdoor dining; the restaurant uses have always been there
v. Did not experience people litering and being loud from outdoor dining
Outdoor Dining Infrastructure & Design
1. AESTHETICS & DESIGN
a. Summary: Would like to see more uniformity in the outdoor structures and have safety priori�zed, with businesses being able to have some crea�vity and flexibility.
b. Business Community Input
i. Ensure outdoor structures are of high-quality
ii. Have some uniformity that can be affordable for those who cannot invest as much but also the ability to stand out for crea�vity
iii. Design more in line with the character of Manhatan Beach while allowing op�ons to choose from for different businesses
iv. Would like to see permanence (i.e., no wood structures that are “temporary”) so establishments can factor it in their business plans
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH OUTDOOR DINING STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH MEMO 10 c. Residen�al Community Input
i. Priori�ze aesthe�cs and safety with a cohesive look
2. DECK STRUCTURE
a. Summary: The temporary decks were neither visually atrac�ve nor uniform. Business owners mostly built cost-effec�ve decks because of the uncertainty with the longevity of the program, and several had to be replaced/repaired during the temporary outdoor dining program.
b. Business Community Input
i. Went with most cost-effec�ve op�on because they were unsure how long they could have it up
ii. Want to see uniformity and a plan to make them look organized and beau�ful; there should be some kind of regula�on
iii. There were some that were designed and built well, while others were not
c. Residen�al Community Input
i. Disliked dining decks due to being cramped from �me to �me and too close to crowded sidewalks
ii. Did not like the old-style decks on Manhatan Beach Blvd. as they were not visually atrac�ve
iii. There should be a permanent solu�on instead of dining decks
3. DESIRABLE FEATURES
a. Summary: Features that par�cipants would like to see included are beter sidewalk access, similar rules between indoor and outdoor areas, solu�ons to electrical sources, and ways to store outdoor furniture.
b. Business Community Input
i. Have the same opera�ng hours as indoors
ii. Provide solu�ons to close outdoor dining opera�ons without having to remove/lock up every item
iii. Allow connec�ng electrical sources from the building iv. Enable use of umbrellas and heaters
v. Allow alcohol service in outdoor dining areas; not just limited to indoors vi. Expand the sidewalks and provide beter sidewalk access
c. Residen�al Community Input
i. Parking spaces could be u�lized for outdoor dining, if it is not a temporary solu�on ii. Prefer outdoor dining on private property over public right-of-way iii. Roo�op dining is a good idea, but need to consider noise impacts to neighbors
Long-Term Outdoor Dining
1. PROGRAM FEES
a. Summary: The current fee is seen overall as reasonable but there are concerns about smaller businesses being unable to afford it and the upfront costs associated with outdoor dining.
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH OUTDOOR DINING STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH MEMO 11 b. Business Community Input
i. The current use fee of $3/sf is reasonable; any more could become difficult to manage ii. Consider a scalable encroachment fee depending on the business, as smaller establishments cannot as easily implement and pay for improvements as larger ones iii. It is reasonable to charge use fees but would like to know what the fee is used for (e.g., infrastructure and sidewalk build-out)
iv. For businesses, they need to consider not only the upfront cost of building an outdoor dining area, but also how the business will not want to reinvest if the program has the chance of disappearing/changing
2. LENGTH OF PERMIT
a. Summary: Businesses want certainty on the length of the permit validity to determine necessary investments and permit renewal should be available.
b. Business Community Input
i. Permits should be valid for at least 2-3 years to recoup the upfront cost of construc�on/investment
ii. It should be for perpetuity once the permit is pulled, unless the business violates rules iii. Should be able to renew every year unless they violate rules, which will help make it more permanent and manage their opera�ng plans
iv. Need to specify if the permit is transferable to new ownership since it affects the price and value of the business
3. OUTDOOR DINING SEATING CAPACITY
a. Summary: The maximum capacity of outdoor dining should be �ed to the space available and in addi�on to indoor capacity.
b. Business Community Input
i. Businesses should be allowed to maximize seats if the City is charging a use fee ii. Would like an addi�on to dining capacity as a whole iii. Maximum occupancy should be guided by the Fire code iv. Standardize sea�ng capacity by how many parking spots are being eliminated v. Capacity should be �ed to the available outdoor space vi. Restaurant kitchens are not built for a significant increase in serving capacity, so there is a sweet spot on how much restaurants can expand
4. LIMITATION ON PARTICIPATING BUSINESSES/LOCATION
a. Summary: If there is adequate space allowed by zoning in front of a business, then outdoor dining should be available to those businesses with considera�on to parking availability. On the other hand, there was also concern on public spaces becoming private property in perpetuity.
b. Business Community Input
i. There should be no maximum cap on businesses that can par�cipate if they are willing to invest and make it work
ii. There should be no limits and any E&D should be able to have outdoor dining iii. Everyone should have the op�on to u�lize space in front of their business
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH OUTDOOR DINING STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH MEMO 12 iv. Ensure that the right-of-way outdoor dining space is ac�vated most of the �me if it is u�lized by a business
v. Some benefits should be provided for businesses that are unable to have outdoor dining areas
vi. Should be in places where they would not have to build out structures for outdoor dining
vii. Having one whole block of dining felt safer instead of a combina�on of parking and dining decks
viii. Prefer outdoor dining decks in parking spaces instead of widened sidewalks due to concerns over logis�cs, cost, and construc�on
ix. More important to know how many parking spaces will be taken away rather than the maximum number of businesses who can par�cipate in the program x. Opposed to the idea of public spaces for people to sit and eat that are not �ed to a specific restaurant
xi. Outdoor dining decks should not be allowed in front of other businesses as it can nega�vely impact their business due to lack of available parking xii. Conceptual plan needs to include a wide range of other E&D such as Hook & Plow, the Strand House, and Uncorked
c. Residen�al Community Input
i. Outdoor dining should be allowed where dining is permited in the base zoning district ii. There should be no restric�ons and would like to see it come back the way it was during the temporary outdoor dining program
iii. Instead of dining decks, seek permanent solu�ons for outdoor dining that allow more room to walk and dine even though there will be less parking available iv. Consider how to manage busy intersec�ons such as Highland Ave. and Manhatan Beach Blvd. which can get congested when looking at outdoor dining loca�ons v. Prefer to see a mix of indoor/outdoor dining area within private property parameters; opposed to outdoor dining areas in right-of-way because it was too crowded vi. Concerned that the outdoor dining areas in the right-of-way will be given to restaurants in perpetuity and eventually become private property
5. WALK STREET
a. Summary: Walk streets that are conducive to outdoor dining, would be a good op�on to explore, and a way to address loss of on-street parking spaces.
b. Business Community Input
i. Should be u�lized, especially when not adjacent to residen�al uses such as Uncorked ii. Benefits include minimizing impact on sidewalks and preserving on-street parking; a win-win situa�on
c. Residen�al Community Input
i. Some, but not all, are conducive to outdoor dining on walk streets
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH OUTDOOR DINING STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH MEMO 13 Fiscal Impact Analysis Focus Outreach Findings (By EPS) Both small and large businesses were interviewed with larger E&D groups with up to four restaurants.
The largest of the restaurants was over 4,000 SF with over 80 indoor seats, and more than 80 employees, likely genera�ng over $10 million in annual revenue. On the other end of the spectrum, smaller businesses do just over half a million dollars in revenue per year, with fewer than 10 employees.
Most businesses were in opera�on before the pandemic, including some opera�ng for over 15 years, but at least two had opened orreplaced a preexis�ng business since 2020. Most business hours for E&D ranged from 8am to 10pm, though with some closing at midnight or later, especially on the weekends.
Some E&D were only open from 4pm on weekdays, while others were only open in the mornings and closed in the a�ernoon.
General Themes
Businesses were enthusias�c about the temporary outdoor dining program’s success and eager for a permanent program to be implemented.
• The temporary outdoor dining program was widely praised by businesses that par�cipated in the stakeholder interviews for its economic benefits. In addi�on, they noted it made the environment more walkable and welcoming, which was popular with customers. • Business owners that par�cipated in the program benefited from their botom line by double digit percentage points, and nearby non-par�cipa�ng businesses noted posi�ve symbio�c impacts for their sales as well.
• One non-par�cipa�ng business, however, was far less suppor�ve and spoke strongly about the challenges of the program, especially parking for their take-out customers during mid-day hours. • Other business owners conceded that on-going efforts would be required to mi�gate certain impacts on non-par�cipa�ng businesses and nearby residents.
Businesses are concerned that the long-term outdoor dining program is taking too long to develop, and businesses are losing customers to neighboring ci�es. • Business owners from mul�ple interviews pointed out that nearby beach communi�es like Hermosa Beach have already cleared the path for permanent outdoor dining opera�ons. • They expressed that outdoor dining helped them survive the pandemic and is now something that customers are looking for, which will help them stay compe��ve with neighboring ci�es that provide outdoor dining opportuni�es.
• One business owner noted that some diners s�ll do not feel comfortable ea�ng indoors, especially older patrons.
• One business owner was par�cularly unhappy with the lengthy process that the City is taking to establish the long-term outdoor dining program that would be helpful to businesses and the City.
Outdoor dining drives addi�onal sales but also creates benefits beyond economic impacts. • Business owners that par�cipated in the program consistently reported an increase in sales. • Across mul�ple interviews, they also noted advantages like a “dynamic environment for people that are visi�ng”, “a net posi�ve impact in terms of culture”, “a relaxing/coastal vibe”, and that it “lit up” certain areas of the city.
• Several business owners also noted their own personal, posi�ve experience as a local resident and patron of other businesses.
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH OUTDOOR DINING STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH MEMO 14 Revenue and Cost Themes
A number of ques�ons were prepared to understand the impact of the temporary outdoor dining program on business revenue, as well as the cost of par�cipa�ng in the program. All par�cipants in the program said that they were able to generate addi�onal revenue through program par�cipa�on, and most specifically noted that revenue declined a�er the end of the program. For those that shared sales informa�on, they es�mated about $100,000 to $400,000 in addi�onal annual revenue per parking space occupied for dining decks.
Outdoor dining strongly benefits sales for par�cipa�ng restaurants. • All par�cipa�ng E&D reported addi�onal sales from outdoor dining and many noted nega�ve sales impact a�er the temporary outdoor dining program ended, with both small and large businesses ci�ng figures around 30 to 35 percent.
• One large E&D saw a reduc�on of $800K in annual sales (or up to $200 or more per indoor square foot per year) a�er the temporary outdoor dining program came to an end. • In line with these findings, most of the E&D that could currently have sidewalk dining do so by providing such outdoor dining area. They also reported that it has become an integral part of their business model and are able to pay the high rents in Manhatan Beach.
Businesses incurred a range of upfront and maintenance costs. • While some large businesses spent $50,000 to $65,000 to build high-quality decks on sloped streets, other smaller businesses were able to work with a small contractor to build a basic outdoor dining space at a cost under $2,000 on flat streets.
• Large businesses had more specific data on on-going maintenance costs (excluding labor to operate addi�onal seats), no�ng expenses of $1,200-1,500/month for cleaning, landscaping maintenance, and up to $1,000/month for propane hea�ng in the winter. • The dining decks themselves required repair or replacement at �mes due to graffi� or rain.
Timing and type of visits have changed since the pandemic. • Large E&D businesses noted that there is much less late-night business a�er 8:30pm, which they atributed to fewer people going out to a performance or similar ac�vity and planning to have dinner a�erwards.
• The typical dinner rush has currently shi�ed earlier to around 6:30pm. • They also noted that more people working from home and not visi�ng restaurants has a huge impact on lunch hour sales.
• They pointed out that outdoor dining has helped them make up for this lost revenue.
Program Parameters
Businesses want to par�cipate in the program but have some concerns about the build-out costs, opera�ng restric�ons, and length of permits.
• Most were concerned about fees and upfront costs of crea�ng a high-quality outdoor dining environment, unless a period of 2-3 years of opera�ons is guaranteed for businesses to recoup their investments.
• There was near unanimous consensus that some restric�ons on or uniformity in the design, or look and feel, of outdoor dining spaces would be good. Some noted that structures in the temporary outdoor dining program looked great while others did not. However, several par�cipants were worried about overly prescrip�ve rules that could be expensive and cost prohibi�ve for small businesses.
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH OUTDOOR DINING STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH MEMO 15 • Large businesses expressed a desire to be able to have a structure or enclosure that can be closed up and secured at night without having to move their furniture in and out aso�en at the end of the day. They noted that under the current sidewalk dining program, they must remove tables and chairs every night off the right-of-way and cannot use umbrellas, heat lamps, or flower pots.
Businesses are generally willing to accept program costs and terms similar to the City’s exis�ng sidewalk dining and other programs.
• Business owners across mul�ple interviews generally felt that the $3/sf charge for sidewalk dining was fair and would be reasonable for a permanent outdoor dining program. • One owner pointed out that, at a minimum, it should be less than the $7 to $11/sf that businesses are paying in rent.
• One owner who pays $5/sf for indoor space noted that more than $3/sf for outdoor space could be difficult to manage
• They are also generally suppor�ve of rules on uniformity that ensure outdoor dining spaces are atrac�ve with plants, similar colors, and/or structures.
Business owners believe the program should be widely open to businesses without limita�ons and governed instead by interest and available space.
• Businesses noted that most restaurants are ul�mately limited by their kitchen size in terms of how many addi�onal customers they can accommodate.
• Some suggested that outdoor dining should be limited to the space in front of an individual restaurant, and that some restaurants may get more space than others depending on available configura�ons.
• Some suggested permits be similar to sidewalk encroachment permits (i.e., renewable annually), while others suggested it mirror a liquor license where permit length is indefinite as long as there are no viola�ons (e.g., in terms of opera�ng hours), or that it runs with the land, similar to a Use Permit.
• Large businesses asked that outdoor dining hours align with indoor restaurant hours, if possible, to minimize opera�onal challenges and guest frustra�ons.
Other
Parking is a challenge that remains to be managed.
• One business noted that the loss of mid-day parking nega�vely impacted their business (especially take-out service), which was frustra�ng since many outdoor dining spaces were empty at that �me of day.
• Similar concerns were heard by others, though they were alleviated through implemen�ng short- term parking spaces in front of retail businesses.
• Most business owners do not have dedicated employee parking, and many purchase a limited number of permits from the City.
• Employees use a combina�on of Metro/bus, bike, and even skateboard; others park on non- metered streets further from the businesses.
• One establishment entered into a shared parking agreement with a religious ins�tu�on last summer to provide parking opportuni�es to staff but was rarely used. • Most businesses did not express concern over the use of a small number of on-street spaces for outdoor dining, given the popularity of rideshare and that they represent a small frac�on of the en�re parking inventory in Downtown.
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH OUTDOOR DINING STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH MEMO 16 Sidewalk conges�on should be considered.
• Mul�ple businesses pointed out the challenges associated with servers crossing over busy sidewalks to their customers that cause conflicts with pedestrians. • Some businesses pointed out that narrow sidewalks and conges�on are already an issue in certain loca�ons.
• Some expressed support for reconfigura�on of the right-of-way to support implementa�on of the long-term outdoor dining program.
Opportuni�es for addressing traffic and mobility.
• Large businesses recalled the benefits of the former Downtowner shutle. • Mul�ple businesses stated that bikes and e-bikes have become increasingly popular. • Businesses in North Manhatan Beach in par�cular noted that there is a need to provide beter non- car parking op�ons, including bikes, scooters, and golf cart parking. • They noted that bike parking should be placed so as not to worsen sidewalk conges�on in busy loca�ons with narrow sidewalks.