Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Outdoor Dining topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Gardena planning commission revisits outdoor‑dining rules; parking and setbacks drive debate
Summary
Staff asked the commission whether to draft an ordinance expanding outdoor dining in zones that allow restaurants. Commissioners agreed on the goal but debated parking requirements, whether furniture must be portable, limits for street frontages and use of common plaza space; staff will prepare draft ordinance language for a future meeting.
Joanne Burns, assistant community development director, reopened the commission’s prior study session on outdoor dining and asked whether staff should prepare draft ordinance language allowing outdoor dining in zones that permit restaurants.
Burns said the city currently allows outdoor dining in its commercial‑residential (CR) and mixed‑use overlay zones but that the Gardena Municipal Code lacks objective development standards for outdoor dining. She asked the commission to weigh key issues: parking requirements, furniture (portable versus permanent), hours and noise near residences, and whether to allow alcohol service in approved outdoor areas when an existing CUP for alcohol already exists.
On parking, Burns reviewed the city’s current restaurant parking rule: “a minimum of 1 parking space for 100 square feet of floor area with a minimum of 10 parking spaces per restaurant.” She presented alternative approaches for existing shopping centers that are undersupplied with parking: exempting a small number of tables from additional parking requirements (for example a maximum of two tables/ six chairs), or using a metric such as one parking space per a given number of outdoor chairs.
Commissioners emphasized practical tradeoffs. Several members said portable furniture (to be stored indoors after hours) reduces long‑term maintenance and nuisance risk; others noted that plazas and larger sidewalks with abundant parking could qualify for a streamlined administrative review while marginal sites should continue to require conditional use permits. One commissioner suggested evaluating plazas on a site‑by‑site basis, using a parking‑capacity test to determine whether each center could accommodate a modest number of outdoor tables without creating knock‑on parking impacts.
Members discussed concerns about safety on sidewalks abutting high‑speed thoroughfares and the need to preserve pedestrian access and ADA circulation. The commission reiterated earlier direction from 2023 that outdoor dining be limited to private property (not the public right of way) and not within required setbacks from street frontages that abut traffic corridors.
On process, Burns said staff would prepare draft language and several options for the commission’s review at a future meeting. "I can go ahead and prepare some draft language and some options for the commission to take a look at at the next go around," Burns said. The commission did not adopt an ordinance at this meeting but directed staff to return with recommended development standards and a potential matrix to apply different review levels (administrative vs. CUP) based on site characteristics.
The discussion began when Burns presented the item (topic start SEG 985) and concluded when the commission moved on to the director’s report (topic finish SEG 2011).
