City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
542 of 630
File Number: 25-0117
least 30 days written notice before the adjustment takes effect. This mechanism helps the City respond quickly to rising costs while maintaining financial stability in the Water Fund.
DISCUSSION:
In the fall of 2024, Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. was engaged to conduct the FY 2025 pass-through rate calculation to ensure compliance with the resolution and cost recovery objectives.
The FY 2025 Pass-Through Rate Calculation Report from Raftelis (attachment) shows increases in MWD Tier 1 water purchases and capacity costs. It also demonstrates decreases in West Basin fixed service charges and Water Replenishment District groundwater extraction costs. These changes, along with revised water production assumptions, resulted in an adjusted wholesale water cost of $6,647,353 for FY 2025, up from the previously projected $6,009,349 .
To recover this difference, a $0.38 per ccf pass-through adjustment is proposed. This adjustment would be applied uniformly across all customer classes and is calculated to bridge the gap between projected and actual costs. Under State law and in conformance with the City’s Proposition 218 process, the City Council is authorized to enact this pass-through increase by adoption of Resolution No. 25-0046.
Looking forward, with the Peck Reservoir Treatment Plant now in operation, the City’s reliance on imported water is expected to decrease. This will help reduce future costs. However, new rate revenue is needed for the Water and Sewer funds to meet operational needs, complete necessary capital projects, and ensure the long-term solvency of both funds. Although the City still has two years of water rate increases and three years of sewer rate increases already adopted, these increases have proven to not be sufficient in meeting all these needs.
Therefore, staff requests City Council direction to conduct new rates studies for both funds.
Updating the water and sewer rate studies together is both a logical and practical step that supports efficient planning and coordination across both enterprise funds. It reduces redundancy in outreach and analysis, provides a clearer framework for evaluating combined impacts on customers, and ensures that rate adjustments reflect a comprehensive view of system needs.
Given the interrelated nature of these utilities, syncing the studies will help streamline decision-making.
If directed to proceed with new rate studies, staff anticipates this work will take approximately six months to complete. Thereafter, the results of the studies along with new proposed rates would be presented to the City Council for review. If the City Council determines that new rates should be implemented, another Proposition 218 process would then commence.
PUBLIC OUTREACH:
If City Council adopts Resolution No. 25-0046, staff will issue written notice of the pass-through rate adjustments to all customers during the week of May 12, 2025, in compliance with Government Code §§ 53755 and 53756. The rate increase will not go into effect until July 1, 2025, satisfying requirements that noticing must occur at least 30 days before implementation.
Notices will be included in regular water billing statements and mailed to record property owners where required. This communication will ensure transparency and help maintain the City’s ability
City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
543 of 630
File Number: 25-0117
to enforce liens if necessary.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The City has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the activity is not a “Project” as defined under Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. Thus, no environmental review is necessary.
LEGAL REVIEW:
The City Attorney has reviewed this report and determined that no additional legal analysis is necessary.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution No. 25-0046
2. FY 2025 Pass-Through Rate Calculation Report
3. PowerPoint Presentation
City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
544 of 630
RESOLUTION NO. 25-0046
A RESOLUTION OF THE MANHATTAN BEACH CITY
COUNCIL ADOPTING AN AUTOMATIC RATE
ADJUSTMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025-26 THAT PASSES
THROUGH INCREASES IN WHOLESALE WATER COSTS
PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 53756
WHEREAS, on June 7, 2022, pursuant to its Resolution No. 22 -0079, the City Council approved water rates for the five year period commencing November 1, 2022, including automatic adjustments to offset changes in wholesale water rates as authorized by Government Code Section 53756; and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) supplies treated potable water to West Basin Municipal Water District, a regional water wholesaler that delivers the water directly to the City through a connection to the regional distribution system; and
WHEREAS, the City purchases the imported water at wholesale rates, which includes fixed and volumetric charges; and
WHEREAS, the City’s 2022 Water Rate Study included cost projections based on expected wholesale rate and water volumes, but the actual MWD charges for Fiscal Year 2024-2025 exceeded the projections and the City purchased more imported water than planned due to the delay of the Peck Reservoir Treatment Plant becoming fully operational; and
WHEREAS, as a result , the City’s expenses associated with water purchases for Fiscal Year 2024-2025 exceeded those anticipated in the 2022 Water Rate Study; and
WHEREAS, the City ’s consultant, Raftelis Financial Consultants , prepared a Fiscal Year 2025 Pass -Through Rate Calculation Report, dated March 17, 2025 (“Report”), on file in the office of the City Clerk, for the purpose of calculating a pass through rate for Fiscal Year 2025-2026 to recover the difference between the assumed and wholesale water purchase costs; and
WHEREAS, as set forth in the Report, the Fiscal Year 2025-2026 pass through rate is $0.38 per ccf (centum cubic feet ; I ccf is equal to 748 gallons ) to be applied uniformly across all customer classes; and
WHEREAS, the Fiscal Year 2025-2026 pass through rate will take effect on July 1, 2025 , provided that the City provides notice of the rate adjustment pursuant to Government Code Section 53755(a) not less than 30 days prior to July 1, 2025.
City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
545 of 630
NOW, THEREFORE, THE MANHATTAN BEACH CITY COUNCIL HEREBY RESOLVES, FINDS AND DETERMINES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Pass through Rate. The City Council hereby adopts the pass through rate of $0.38 ccf for Fiscal Year 2025 -2026. Subject to complying with the notice requirement in Section 2, the 2025 -2026 pass through rate shall be effective on July 1, 2025.
SECTION 2. Notice of 2025-26 Pass Through Rate. Staff is hereby directed to provide notice of the 2025 -26 pass through rate pursuant to subdivision (a) of Government Code Section 53755 not less than 30 days before the effective date of adjustment.
SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution.
ADOPTED on May 6, 2025.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
_________________________________
AMY THOMAS HOWORTH
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
LIZA TAMURA
City Clerk
City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
546 of 630
City of Manhattan Beach
FY 2025 Pass-Through
Rate Calculation
FINAL REPORT / March 17, 2025
City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
547 of 630
227 W. Trade Street, Suite 1400, Charlotte, NC 28202
www.raftelis.com
March 17, 2025
Mr. Jeffrey Page
Utilities Director
City of Manhattan Beach
1400 Highland Ave.
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Subject: FY 2025 Pass-Through Rate Calculation
Dear Mr. Page:
Raftelis is pleased to provide this Water Pass-Through Rate Calculation Report to the City of Manhattan Beach. The purpose of the calculation was to develop a pass-through rate for FY 2025 to recover the difference between previously assumed wholesale water purchase costs and actual wholesale water purchase costs.
It has been a pleasure working with you and we appreciate the support provided during the course of this engagement.
Sincerely,
Steve Gagnon Nick Kennedy
Project Manager Staff Consultant
City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
548 of 630
1 Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................... 3
1.1. Study Overview ..............................................................................................................3
2. Assumptions ................................................................................. 3
2.1 Wholesale Water Rates and Charges ............................................................................3
2.2 Water Production Assumptions by Source ...................................................................4
2.3 Imported Water Purchase Assumptions .......................................................................5
3. Pass-through Calculations ........................................................... 6
4. Impact on Rates ........................................................................... 8
4.1 Customer Bill Impacts ....................................................................................................8
4.2 Rate Survey ......................................................................................................................9
4.3 Total Pass-through Rate Revenue ............................................................................... 10
City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
549 of 630
2 Tables
Table 1: 2022 Rate Study Assumed Wholesale Rates ................................ ................................ ............. 4 Table 2: Actual Wholesale Rates ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 4 Table 3: Water Production Assumed in 2022 Rate Study ................................ ................................ ......... 5 Table 4: Updated Water Production Assumptions ................................ ................................ .................... 5 Table 5: Imported Purchased Water Volumes in the 2022 Water Rate Study ................................ ........... 5 Table 6: Projected Imported Purchased Water Volumes ................................ ................................ .......... 6 Table 7: 2022 Rate Study Water Purchase Costs ................................ ................................ .................... 6 Table 8: Updated Water Purchase Costs ................................ ................................ ................................ . 6 Table 9: MWD Capacity Charge Based on Actual Wholesale Charges ................................ .................... 7 Table 10: Pass-Through Rate $/ccf ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 7 Table 11: Projected Revenue Collected Through Pass-Through Rate ................................ ................... 10
Figures
Figure 1: Single Family Residential Customer Bill Impacts ................................ ................................ ....... 8 Figure 2: Commercial Customer Bill Impacts ................................ ................................ ........................... 9 Figure 3: Residential Bi-Monthly Bill Comparison to Nearby Agencies ................................ ................... 10
City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
550 of 630
3 Introduction
1.1. Study Overview
The City of Manhattan Beach engaged Raftelis in late 2024 to calculate a water pass-through rate for the Fiscal Year (FY) ending in 2025.
Raftelis previously conducted a Water Cost of Service and Rate Design Study (Rate Study) for the City in 2022. This Rate Study estimated the City’s total cost of purchased water based on wholesaler rates and charges and estimated volumes. The City has two sources of water;
1) imported water from the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) purchased through the West Basin Municipal Water District (WBMWD), and
2) groundwater which is replenished (purchased) through the Water Replenishment District of Southern California (WRD).
The 2022 Rate Study projected wholesale rates and charges from both these wholesalers and assumed a certain volume of water would be purchased from each. These assumptions were used to calculate the total cost of purchased water in the 2022 Rate Study.
Not only did the actual cost of water from the MWD surpass estimates, but the City also bought more imported water than anticipated due to the timing of the groundwater treatment plant going into service. The goal of the pass-through calculations is to calculate a rate, called a pass-through rate, that would pass-through the difference between projected water purchase costs from the 2022 Rate Study and water purchase costs based on known wholesaler charges. MWD rates increased more than anticipated in the 2022 Rate Study as discussed below.
2. Assumptions
2.1 Wholesale Water Rates and Charges
The 2022 Water Rate Study projected the below future wholesale charges. Actual MWD charges surpassed the projections used in the study. The pass-through rate is based on the difference between the rate study projected water purchase costs and water purchase costs calculated using actual MWD rates and charges. The wholesaler rates and charges include:
1. MWD Tier 1 Volumetric Rate
2. MWD Capacity Charge ($/Cubic feet per second (cfs))
3. West Basin Fixed Service Charge
4. Water Replenishment Rate (WRD)
Table 1 shows the wholesale water rates based on the 2022 rate study.
City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
551 of 630
4 Table 1: 2022 Rate Study Assumed Wholesale Rates
Line
No. Prior Rates FY 2025
1 MWD Non-Interruptible Tier 1 Volumetric Rate
2 Jul - Dec $1,615
3 Jan - Jun $1,677
4 MWD Capacity Charge ($/cfs) $10,484
5 West Basin Fixed Service Charge $435,289
6 Water Replenishment Rate (WRD) $454
Table 2 shows the actual wholesale water rates and charges established by wholesalers. As shown, the MWD rates are higher than anticipated.
Table 2: Actual Wholesale Rates
Line
No. Actual Rates FY 2025
1 MWD Non-Interruptible Tier 1 Volumetric Rate
2 Jul - Dec $1,708
3 Jan - Jun $1,899
4 MWD Capacity Charge ($/cfs)
5 Jul - Dec $9,605
6 Jan - Jun $11,933
7 West Basin Fixed Service Charge $289,067
8 Water Replenishment Rate (WRD) $437
2.2 Water Production Assumptions by Source
Table 3, lines 1 and 2, show the percentage of City water purchased by source assumed in the 2022 Rate Study. The total volume produced, in line 7 of each table, is the estimated volume for FY 20251 based on updated assumptions.
As shown by comparing Tables 3 and 4, the City expected to obtain more groundwater than they did, due to the timing of the groundwater treatment plant going into service. Lines 4 and 5 of each table, show the volume of water in acre-feet (AF) and are derived by multiplying the total water produced in acre-feet by the percentages in lines 1 and 2. The total water production shown in lines 6 and 7 is the water produced in AF and centum cubic feet (ccf) under updated assumptions. Both tables use a revised estimate of water production instead of the previously assumed water production from the 2022 Rate Study. FY 2025 assumes a 7% water loss. This means that the City must produce 7% more water than it sells to customers due to system water loss. The actual volume sold is 7% less than shown. Table 4 shows the (revised) updated water
1 The 2022 Water Rate Study assumed a higher volume of water was sold. Calendar year 2024 was a relatively “wet year” and calendar year 2023 was the wettest year on record. Using updated volume assumptions for FY 2025 instead of the volumes assumed in the 2022 Rate Study creates a slightly lower pass-through.
City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
552 of 630
5 production by source. As shown, the City anticipates purchasing less groundwater in FY 2025 compared to the 2022 Rate Study.
Table 3: Water Production Assumed in 2022 Rate Study
Line
No. Prior Assumptions FY 2025
1 Imported Water 74%
2 Groundwater 26%
3 Water Production
4 Imported 3,042 AF
5 Groundwater 1,081 AF
6 Total Water Production AF 4,123 AF
7 Total Water Production ccf2 1,670,246
Table 4: Updated Water Production Assumptions
Line
No. Updated Assumptions FY 2025
1 Imported 80%
2 Groundwater 20%
3 Water Production
4 Imported 3,298 AF
5 Groundwater 825 AF
6 Total Water Production AF 4,123 AF
7 Total Water Production ccf2 1,670,246
2.3 Imported Water Purchase Assumptions
The MWD volumetric rates change halfway through each fiscal year (they change with each calendar year), as shown in Tables 1 and 2. This affects the City’s total water purchase costs. The percentage purchased in each part of the fiscal year is based on historical water use data and is applied to the total imported water volume as shown in Tables 5 and 6. The volumes shown for FY 2025 in Tables 5 and 6 are used to calculate the MWD volumetric water purchase costs. Tables 5 and 6 show the prior Rate Study and updated volume assumptions used to calculate MWD water purchase costs, respectively.
Table 5: Imported Purchased Water Volumes in the 2022 Water Rate Study Line
No.
Imported Purchased
Water Volume
(West Basin)
% of Water
Used in Period
Shown
FY 2025
1 Jul - Dec 57% 1,725 AF
2 Jan - Jun 43% 1,317 AF
3 Total Imported Water 3,042 AF
2 1 AF is equal to 325,829 gallons. 1 ccf is equal to 748 gallons.
City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
553 of 630
6 Table 6: Projected Imported Purchased Water Volumes
Line
No.
Imported Purchased
Water Volume
(West Basin)
% of Water
Used in Period
Shown
FY 2025
1 Jul - Dec 57% 1,870 AF
2 Jan - Jun 43% 1,428 AF
3 Total Imported Water 3,298 AF
3. Pass-Through Calculations
The wholesaler water purchase costs for the 2022 Rate Study and updated purchase costs based on actual wholesaler charges and updated volumes are explained below. Comparing Table 7 and Table 8 shows that the City will spend approximately $647k more than anticipated on water purchases.
1. Line 1 of Tables 7 and 8 show the MWD Water Purchase cost calculated by multiplying the MWD Tier 1 Volumetric rates shown in lines 2 and 3 of Tables 1 and 2 by the corresponding imported purchased water volume in lines 1 and 2 of Tables 5 and 6.
2. Line 2 of Table 7 shows the MWD Capacity Charges under Rate Study assumptions calculated by multiplying the MWD Capacity Charge ($/cfs), shown for Rate Study assumptions in line 4 of Table 1, by a 3-year peak average of 8.5 cfs. We have not shown these calculations in a table, but they are the same as the capacity charges described in item 3 below and shown in Table 9.
3. Line 9 of Table 9 shows the actual MWD capacity charge calculated by taking the sum of the MWD Capacity Charges for July – December and January – June.
4. Tables 7 and 8 show the prior Rate Study water purchase costs and updated water purchase costs in line 5 of each table, respectively. The difference is the total cost recovered from the pass-through rate.
Table 7: 2022 Rate Study Water Purchase Costs
Line
No. Water Purchase Costs Based on 2022 Rate Study Assumptions FY 2025 1 MWD Tier 1 Water Purchases $4,994,017
2 MWD Capacity Costs $89,115
3 West Basin Fixed Service Charge $435,289
4 WRD Groundwater $490,928
5 Water Purchase Costs Based on 2022 Rate Study $6,009,349
Table 8: Updated Water Purchase Costs
Line
No.
Water Purchase Costs Based on Actual Wholesale Rates FY 2025 1 MWD Water Purchases $5,906,402
2 MWD Capacity Costs $91,537
3 West Basin Fixed Service Charge $289,067
4 WRD Groundwater $360,347
5 Water Purchase Costs with Actual Wholesale Rates $6,647,353
City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
554 of 630
7 Table 9: MWD Capacity Charge Based on Actual Wholesale Charges Line
No. Updated Capacity Cost Calculation FY 2025 Calculation 1 MWD Capacity Charge ($/cfs)
2 Jul - Dec $9,605
3 Jan - Jun $11,933
4 5 3-Year Average Peak (cfs) 8.5
6 7 MWD Capacity Charge for Jul - Dec $40,821 Line 2 * Line 5 ÷ 2 8 MWD Capacity Charge for Jan - Jun $50,715 Line 3 * Line 5 ÷ 2 9 Total MWD Capacity Charge ($/cfs) $91,537 Line 7 + Line 8
5. The West Basin Fixed Service Charge, shown in line 3 of Tables 7 and 8, is a fixed wholesaler amount. There are no calculations for this charge.
6. The WRD Groundwater purchase (replenishment) costs are calculated by multiplying the Water Replenishment Rate shown in line 6 of Table 1, and line 8 of Table 2 by the corresponding total groundwater volumes shown in line 5 of Tables 3 and 4.
Table 10 shows the final pass-through calculation. The total Rate Study and updated water purchase costs in lines 1 and 5 are divided by the Rate Study and updated volumes in lines 2 and 6 to calculate a unit rate for each. The difference between the two unit rates is the pass-through rate. The pass-through rate is the rate required for FY 2025 to recover the difference between projected Water Rate Study water purchase costs and updated water purchase costs.
Table 10: Pass-Through Rate $/ccf
Line No. Difference in Water Purchase Costs FY 2025
1 Rate Study Purchased Water Costs $6,009,349
2 Rate Study Purchased Water Volume 1,670,246
3 Previous Unit Rate $/ccf $3.60
4 5 Updated Purchased Water Costs $6,647,353
6 Updated Purchased Water Volume 1,670,246
7 New Unit Rate $/ccf $3.98
8 9 Pass-Through Rate $/ccf per Fiscal Year $0.38
City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
555 of 630
8 4. Impact on Rates
4.1 Customer Bill Impacts
Figure 1 and Figure 2 show sample bi-monthly bills for Single-family (SFR) and Commercial customer classes using the most common meter size for each class and a range of water use to provide sample impacts for customers at different levels of water use.
Figure 1: Single Family Residential Customer Bill Impacts
City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
556 of 630
9 Figure 2: Commercial Customer Bill Impacts
4.2 Rate Survey
Figure 3 shows a comparison of sample SFR bi-monthly bills with nearby water agencies. All bills are calculated based on a 3/4” water meter and bi-monthly water use of 20 HCF which is the average SFR use in FY 2020. Actual average current use is likely a little lower. Many factors affect the cost of serving water and while rate surveys are common, the specifics discussed below need to be understood before drawing conclusions about rates or the efficiency of purveyors. Items affecting the cost to serve water include:
1. Tax and other sources of revenue – some agencies receive tax revenue, substantially lowering the revenue required from rates
2. Water sources – agencies who buy more imported water usually pay more for water compared to purveyors who pump groundwater or have other sources of local water
3. Topography – agencies with a hilly terrain will incur costs to pump water compared to agencies with flat topography
4. System reinvestment – deferred investment in rehabilitation projects will keep rates low compared to agencies that are investing in their system
5. Age – newer systems are often in better shape than older systems and require less repair
6. Size – smaller systems often have a higher cost per customer since they lack economies of scale
City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
557 of 630
10 Figure 3: Residential Bi-Monthly Bill Comparison to Nearby Agencies
4.3 Total Pass-through Rate Revenue
Table 11 shows the total projected pass-through rate revenue for all customers. This calculation is done by multiplying the assumed water use, shown in Tables 3 and 4, by the $0.38 pass-through rate. The result shows the revenue estimated to be collected from the $0.38 pass-through rate if implemented for a full fiscal year.
Table 11: Projected Revenue Collected by Pass-Through Rate Time Period Water Use
(ccf)
Pass-Through Rate
($/ccf) Projected Pass-Through Revenue
12 months 1,670,246 $0.38 $638,004
City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
558 of 630
City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
559 of 630
•
•
•
•
City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
560 of 630
•
•
•
City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
561 of 630
•
•
•
City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
562 of 630
•
•
•
•
City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
563 of 630
•
•
•
City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
564 of 630
•
•
•
City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
565 of 630
City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
566 of 630
City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
567 of 630
City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
568 of 630
Agenda Date: 5/6/2025
TO:
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
THROUGH:
Talyn Mirzakhanian, City Manager
FROM:
Michael Codron, Interim Community Development Director
Adam Finestone AICP, Planning Manager
Tari Kuvhenguhwa, Associate Planner
SUBJECT:
Discuss and Provide Direction to Staff Regarding Interim Uses of the City’s Recent Real Property Acquisition Located at 400 Manhattan Beach Boulevard (Minimal Budget Impact) (Interim Community Development Director Codron).
(Estimated Time: 15 Mins.)
DISCUSS AND PROVIDE DIRECTION
_________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council discuss the proposed interim uses for the City’s recent real property acquisition located at 400 Manhattan Beach Boulevard and provide direction to staff.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
Direct fiscal impact associated with the proposed interim use of the property at 400 Manhattan Beach Boulevard is limited to costs of approximately $5,000 associated with installation of bicycle racks on the site. Additionally, indirect positive fiscal impact would be realized through increased parking revenue at metered spaces that become available when permit holders park in non-metered spaces at 400 Manhattan Beach Boulevard. The amount of this revenue is estimated to be between $12,675 to $25,350 per month.
BACKGROUND:
On April 15, 2025, the City of Manhattan Beach closed escrow on a property located at 400 Manhattan Beach Boulevard (Property). The Property consists of three parcels (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 4179007016, 4179007004, and 4179007005) and is approximately 16,570 square feet (0.38 acres) in size. It is occupied by a vacant commercial building (formerly U.S.
City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
569 of 630
File Number: 25-0181
Bank) with a surface parking lot and three former drive-thru ATM lanes.
Upon the City taking possession of the Property, it was noted that the parking lot was being used by the public because there had been no oversight of the lot since the former tenant vacated the property. Until direction is provided by the City Council as to the interim use of the lot, staff has taken immediate action to restrict the lot for use by commercial parking permit holders. More information on this action is provided in the Discussion section below.
DISCUSSION:
The Property is located in Area District III and is zoned Downtown Commercial (CD), with a General Plan land use designation of Downtown Commercial. The Property is on the southeast corner of Manhattan Beach Boulevard and Morningside Drive and is within the non-appealable portion of the City’s Coastal Zone.
Section A.16.020 of the Manhattan Beach Local Coastal Program (LCP) identifies land uses that are permitted in the CD zoning district, either by-right or subject to a use permit. Included in that list are a variety of public and semi-public, commercial, and temporary uses, including commercial parking facilities, which are permitted subject to a use permit.
Commercial parking facilities are defined in LCP Section A.08.050 as “[l]ots offering short-term or long-term parking to the public for a fee. Provision of off-site parking for the purpose of fulfilling a parking requirement…shall not solely constitute a commercial parking facility use.” Commercial parking permits are issued for use by merchants and their employees and constitute parking necessary to fulfill a parking requirement. Thus, allowing City-owned properties to be utilized as additional locations for the City-operated commercial parking permit program is consistent with the LCP and is considered a by-right use. Furthermore, a Coastal Development Permit is not required because the commercial parking permit program is an existing component of the City’s Parking Management Program for the Coastal Zone. Adding the Property to the list of locations where the existing permit program can be utilized would not trigger the need for a Coastal Development Permit.
At this time, the parking lot has been restriped to provide 26 spaces, including use of the drive-through ATM lanes that are not in-use. Using the lot as a temporary commercial parking permit lot provides additional parking spaces for permit holders, thus freeing up public parking spaces in other overflow commercial parking permit lots where public parking for a fee is already a permitted use. This will assist in alleviating the temporary loss of public parking spaces that resulted from the demolition of Parking Lot 3.
Additionally, the Property presents an opportunity to provide additional bicycle parking in downtown. The provision of bicycle parking has been identified as part of the outdoor dining program work effort as a parking strategy to address parking demand downtown. Staff has identified the lawn in front of the existing parking lot on the Property (along Manhattan Beach Boulevard) as a prime location for bicycle parking. Staff is requesting City Council direction to pave a portion of the lawn area and install bicycle racks. Staff anticipates being able to install ten bicycle racks, which would accommodate 20 bicycles, including electric bicycles.
City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
570 of 630
File Number: 25-0181
CONCLUSION:
Staff is seeking City Council direction on interim uses for the recently acquired property at 400 Manhattan Beach Boulevard. At this time, staff has taken immediate action to provide indirect revenue-generating use of the property by allowing its use as a temporary parking lot for the City’s existing commercial parking permit program, thus freeing up paid parking spaces elsewhere downtown. Staff is requesting City Council authorization to continue this interim use and to install bicycle racks on the site, as described above, until a permanent use is determined based on a thorough public engagement campaign. Should the City Council wish to use the Property in another manner at this time, staff will bring back additional options for the Council’s consideration.
PUBLIC OUTREACH:
Formal public notice is not required for this item; however, the item was included in the agenda for this meeting, which was posted in accordance with the law.
As part of a larger effort to determine the future uses of City-owned property downtown, City staff will conduct a community meeting on May 21, 2025, to gather initial input from the public on potential permanent uses for both the Property and Parking Lot 3. Additional public meetings are anticipated to inform the City Council’s ultimate decision as to future permanent uses for both properties.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The City has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and has determined that the project qualifies for a Class 1 categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) and Class 11 categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15311 (Accessory Structures) of the State CEQA Guidelines. The request consists of utilizing an existing, surface parking lot for an existing commercial parking permit program and the installation of limited bicycle racks as accessory structure(s) at the existing property. Thus, no further environmental review is necessary.
LEGAL REVIEW:
The City Attorney has reviewed this report and determined that no additional legal analysis is necessary.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. PowerPoint Presentation
City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
571 of 630
LOCATION MAP
400 MANHATTAN BEACH BOULEVARD
City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
572 of 630
City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
573 of 630
•
City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
574 of 630
•
•
City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
575 of 630
City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
576 of 630
City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
577 of 630
•
City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
578 of 630
•
City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
579 of 630
•
•
City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
580 of 630
•
•
•
▪
▪
City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
581 of 630
•
City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
582 of 630
City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
583 of 630
City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
584 of 630
Agenda Date: 5/6/2025
TO:
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
THROUGH:
Talyn Mirzakhanian, City Manager
FROM:
Liza Tamura, City Clerk
Martha Alvarez, Assistant City Clerk
SUBJECT:
Agenda Forecast (City Clerk Tamura).
INFORMATION ITEM ONLY
_________________________________________________________ DISCUSSION:
The subject matter below is anticipated to appear on future City Council Agendas. It’s important to note that the information being provided is tentative, subject to change and is listed for planning purposes only. Agendas for City Council Meetings are finalized and posted 6 days prior to the meeting date.
CEREMONIAL
· Presentation of a Certificate of Recognition to Maia Rocha from Mira Costa High School for Being of 30 High School Seniors to be Awarded $50,000 STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) Scholarship from Southern California Edison. · Presentation of Certificates of Recognition to Pacific Elementary School for Being Honored with the Prestigious Recognition of being a California Distinguished School Award and a Certificate of Recognition to Ms. Hutchinson from Mira Costa High School as Teacher of the Year.
· Pledge - Pacific Elementary School.
· Presentation of a Plaque to Outgoing Boards and Commissioners. · Public Safety Recognition: a) Police Detective, Daniel Brandt as Police Officer of the Year; Background Investigator, Michelle Arellano as Police Professional Staff of the Year; and *** as Firefighter of the Year; b) Medal of Valor Recipients.
CONSENT
· City Council Minutes (City Clerk Tamura).
City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
585 of 630
File Number: 25-0160
· Financial Reports (Acting Finance Director Bretthauer). · Consideration of Approval of the Fiscal Year 2025-2026 City Work Plan (City Manager Mirzakhanian).
· Consideration of a Public Safety Camera System (PSCS) Policy (City Manager Mirzakhanian).
· Consideration of the Re-Appointment of Joe Ahn of Northrop Grumman to the South Bay Workforce Investment Board’s Manhattan Beach Business Private Sector Seat (City Clerk Tamura).
· Consideration of a Resolution Awarding Two Agreements to HF&H Consultants, LLC for the Following: a) SB 1383 Compliance Assistance (0WR4 Grant Funded) and b) SB 1383 Compliance Assistance (City Paid) (Public Works Director Lee). · Consideration of a Resolution Awarding Two Professional Services Agreements to H F & H Consultants, LLC: a) Work to be Paid for by the SB1383 Local Assistance Grant, Cycle 4, to Assist with the City’s Compliance with SB1383 (OWR4 Grant Funded; and b) Perform Work from the SB1383 Gap Analysis to Assist with the City’s Compliance with SB1383 (City Paid) (Public Works Director Lee).
· Consideration of a Resolution Approving Amendment No. 2 to the Professional Services Agreement with Pacific Harbor Medical Gorup, Inc. to Provide Professional Medical Services at a Cost Not-to-Exceed $274,000 (Human Resources Director Jenkins). · Consideration of a Resolution Approving Amendment No. 2 to the Professional Services Agreement with the Law Offices of Angel Ho, Inc. to Conduct Independent Investigations of Confidential Matters at a Cost Not-to-Exceed $300,000 (Human Resources Director Jenkins).
· Consideration of Accepting as Complete the Manhattan Village Senior Villas ADA Pathway Project (No Budget Impact) (Public Works Director Lee).
PUBLIC HEARING
· Conduct Public Hearing to Consider Adopting New Refuse Rates for Residential and Commercial Solid Waste Collection Services, Effective July 1, 2025, Through June 30, 2030 (Public Works Director Lee).
· Hearing to Consider Placing a Lien on the Property at *** for Nuisance Abatement Cost (City Attorney Barrow).
GENERAL BUSINESS
· Presentation of the Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Proposed Operating Budget (Acting Finance Director Bretthauer).
· Presentation of the Proposed Five-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Through Fiscal Year 2029-2030 (Public Works Director Lee). · Annual Boards and Commissions Appointments (If Needed) (City Clerk Tamura). · Consideration of LoveMB Foundation Memorandum of Understanding; and a) Approval of the LoveMB Memorandum of Understanding (MOU); b) Authorize the City Manager to Sign the Agreement; c) Approve Four Fundraising Projects; and d) Designate a Councilmember for the LoveMB Board Council Representative (Parks and Recreation Director Leyman).
City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
586 of 630
Agenda Date: 5/6/2025
TO:
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
THROUGH:
Talyn Mirzakhanian, City Manager
FROM:
Mark Leyman, Parks and Recreation Director
Michael Codron, Interim Community Development Director
SUBJECT:
Commission Minutes:
This Item Contains Minutes of the following City Commission Meetings:
a) Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 27, 2024 (Interim Community Development Director Codron)
b) Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 25, 2024 (Interim Community Development Director Codron)
c) Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting Minutes of January 27, 2025 (Parks and Recreation Director Leyman)
d) Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting Minutes of February 24, 202 (Parks and Recreation Director Leyman)
e) Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 26, 2025 (Interim Community Development Director Codron)
f) Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 12, 2025 (Interim Community Development Director Codron)
g) Cultural Arts Commission Meeting Minutes of March 17, 2025 (Parks and Recreation Director Leyman)
h) Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting Minutes of March 24, 2025 (Parks and Recreation Director Leyman)
i) Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 26, 2025 (Interim Community Development Director Codron)
j) Parking and Public Improvements Commission Meeting Minutes of March 27, 2025 (Interim Community Development Director Codron).
INFORMATION ITEM ONLY
City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
587 of 630
File Number: 25-0194
_____________________________________________________________________ The attached minutes are for information only:
1) Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 27, 2024 2) Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 25, 2024 3) Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting Minutes of January 27, 2025 4) Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting Minutes of February 24, 2025 5) Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 26, 2025 6) Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 12, 2025 7) Cultural Arts Commission Meeting Minutes of March 17, 2025 8) Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting Minutes of March 24, 2025 9) Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 26, 2025 10) Parking and Public Improvements Commission Meeting Minutes of March 27, 2025
City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
588 of 630
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Manhattan Beach City Hall
November 27, 2024
The City of Manhattan Beach Planning Commission regular meeting of November 27, 2024, was CANCELLED due to no agenda items being scheduled.
The next meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for December 11, 2024 at 3:00 p.m.
City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
589 of 630
City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
590 of 630
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Manhattan Beach City Hall
December 25, 2024
The City of Manhattan Beach Planning Commission regular meeting of December 25, 2024, was CANCELLED due to no agenda items being scheduled.
The next meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for January 8, 2025 at 3:00 p.m.
City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
591 of 630
City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
592 of 630
City of Manhattan Beach Parks and Recreation Commission January 27, 2025
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
Monday, January 27, 2025
4:00 PM
Location: Zoom and City Council Chambers, City Hall
1400 Highland Avenue
A. CALL TO ORDER – Chair Allen called the meeting to order at 4:00 pm.
B. PLEDGE TO THE FLAG
C. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Zimbalist, Schreiner, Komatinsky, Doran, Vice Chair Windes, Chair Allen
Absent: Jacobson
Others present: Parks and Recreation Director Mark Leyman, Senior Recreation Manager (SRM) Melissa McCollum,, Senior Management Analyst (SMA) Linda Robb, Recording Secretary Rosemary Lackow
D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – November 25, 2024
It was moved and seconded (Windes/Komatinsky) to approve the November 25, 2024 minutes as submitted; motion passed 6-1 by voice vote (Jacobson absent) E. CEREMONIAL - None
F. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION (3-Minute Limit)
Lee Barr commented that he appreciates the work done by the Commission but urges that the Commission push forward to get projects done more quickly.
G. GENERAL BUSINESS
1. 24/0226.01 Work Plan Items Discussion
a. Parks Master Plan – Commissioner Schreiner updated that the committee has been meeting with management staff with a focus on Section 5 – “The Plan”, pages 32 – 51 and expressed appreciation for the work being done by the whole committee including Commissioners Komatinsky and Windes.
SRM McCollum presented a quick update via a PowerPoint presentation that outlined the committee’s preliminary r ecommendations would like to receive input from the whole Commission. The slides summarized several projects categorized by 1) Progress made since 2020 (completed projects), 2) Projects proposed to be kept or added (differentiated by quick wins, mid-range and long term), and, 3) Next steps, a timeline.
SRM McCollum emphasized that in general, the intent of the subcommittee and staff i n City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
593 of 630
City of Manhattan Beach Parks and Recreation Commission January 27, 2025
updating the Plan, i s to update existing facilities as opposed to a dding new additional facilities, as has been reflected in community input (with the exception of a new aquatics facility and exploring the acquisition of the Adventureplex in Marine Park). She noted that it has been determined that there are no additional sites in the city to create more facilities for “four legged friends” and two possible areas (6 th/Aviation, Voorhees/Rowell) are proposed to be removed from the Plan.
The next steps in updating include updating information such as demographics, graphics and photos identifying maintenance needs and replacement schedules and possible funding sources. The subcommittee is coordinating with the Staff Strategic Plan Facilities Work Group to make sure recommendations are comprehensive and realistic and aligned.
The committee hopes to have the updated plan in place by July 1, 2025, after completing further Commission review and obtaining community input.
Input from committee members was invited.
Commissioner Windes clarified that the committee is not opposed to more dog parks, rather, they found that two potential park sites in the Plan (Voorhees/Rowell and 6th/Aviation) are infeasible: Voorhees/Rowell site is too small, after considering utility equipment locations, and the 6 th Street site, for public safety, is too close to very busy Aviation Boulevard and has little or no parking.
Commissioner Komatinsky complimented the presentation and requested a copy of the Power Point slides be sent to the Commission and made accessible to the public.
SRM McCollum suggested that, similar to the Begg pool modernization study, a link can be provided on the Parks and Recreation webpage that provides access to the current Plan, status reports and proposed plan updates and related information.
It was decided that the commission hear public comment and then have a discussion on the initial information provided.
Chair Allen called for public comment.
Ken Wiener, resident and former Parks and Recreation Commissioner commented: the LoveMB nonprofit foundation, is now fully functional; the bus tour of park facilities as held for the existing PMP resulted in observations leading to ideas and proposals that formed the basis of the master plan . He urged the Commission to keep the updated Plan a relevant and living document that reflects what is needed to be worked on and possible funding which now might be LoveMB.
Bruce Greenberg, resident and former Parks and Recreation Commissioner suggested:
1) to aid future updates, add an Appendix that lists all projects being removed with an explanation; and 2) the committee reconsider retaining, not removing the “Acquiring the Armory Land” project from the long-term projects, due to the Armory site’s high strategic importance and in recognition that in the long term, the States’s position and interest could change.
City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
594 of 630
City of Manhattan Beach Parks and Recreation Commission January 27, 2025
The Commission briefly discussed.
Commissioner Komatinsky endorsed the suggestion to add an Appendix as suggested listing removed projects; Commissioner Windes agreed with having an Appendix and also endorsed the suggestion to retain the project to explore acquisition of the National Guard Armory land.
Commissioners Doran and Zimbalist did not have any specific issues at this time, feel it is going in the right direction. Commissioner Zimbalist likes the idea of highlighting the plan update project with information on the City website.
SRM McCollum indicated that the PowerPoint presentation will be emailed to the Commission and encouraged the Commission to keep reviewing the information and contact either Commissioner Schreiner or her if any issues come up.
b. Pay ‘N Play Outreach – Vice Chair Windes updated: O n December 7 th a community meeting was held at the site; the 2-hour meeting attracted 15 persons notably from soccer user groups who indicated preference for a futsal court with priority for city clubs and residents. The online survey was provided to meeting attendees and in advance mailed to homeowners near the park, hand-delivered to nearby homes, posted at the Pay N’ Play building and adjacent dog park, and broadcast through the city’s social media. The survey – now officially closed had 909 responses, the vast majority from city residents and in an age range of 18-54. The highest preferences were: futsal court (689 votes), pickleball court (165 votes), playing field (85), basketball court (82), open space (66) expanded dog run (64) mini roller hockey rink (64), tennis court (50) and various other uses (40) for a food truck area, mobile library, jump house, trampoline, garden, batting cage and yoga studio).
Commissioner Winders noted that th e project is already designated as a CIP funded project and the funding will be considered by council this April.
Chair Allen called for commission comment.
Commissioner Windes commented that the space could be big enough for a tennis court and only the existing Pay ‘N Play structures (not basketball courts) will be demolished (timeline tbd). Director Leyman clarified that the existing dog run may remain, or possibly relocated and n ow is the time to brainstorm all ideas for reuse of the site ; All commissioners ae encouraged to bring ideas to the next meeting. Staff will provide a more comprehensive report with design options and from there a recommendation will be developed. Commissioner Windes commented that there is a space in the southwest portion of the park that might be feasible to relocate , possibly enlarge, the existing dog run.
Chair Allen called for public comment.
Bruce Greenberg requested clarifications . Staff responded: r egarding timeline , the Commission will refine the options and decide on a recommendation in February and March and the Council will consider the recommendation in April. Although the survey is City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
595 of 630
City of Manhattan Beach Parks and Recreation Commission January 27, 2025
officially closed there will be more opportunity for public input during Commission and Council discussions.
c. Polliwog Park Dog Run
Director Leyman gave a brief update, re minding that this project will be done in -house by the city workforce, with a budget not to exceed $50,000. The project will be presented to city council next Tuesday (February 4) and then to the school board on February 5th.
He described the expected reconfiguration, and removal or relocation of storage sheds which will result in a clear line -of-sight through the area. The removal of trees in the dog run area (if any) is still to be determined.
Chair Allen called for public comment. There were no persons wanting to speak.
H. STAFF ITEMS
City Council Recap and Parks and Recreation Department Updates • New City Art Exhibit: Director Leyman reported that the opening last Friday at the Art Center of “The Ripple Effect” exhibit was well attended; will close March 30th.
• New Pilot Parks and Recreation registration program: Director Leyman introduced a new pilot online Parks and Recreation reservation program, soon to be launched on a limited basis. The program is a customized product of Kaizen Labs and is very intuitive and user friendly . SMA Robb not ed that as a pilot, the program will be limited to reservations for only racket court activities such as pickleball and tennis. The existing Active Network reservations for court racket sports will shut down 1/31, with the new Kaizen Labs system starting reservations on February 3.
The City’s contract with Kaizen Labs for the pilot will go to the end of 2025 after which the department will evaluate and decide next steps. The city’s contract for Active Network will run until for the end of 2027 for the remainder of the activities. Staff will be posting flyers and publicizing on city social media. People with current court reservation accounts can now go into the system and create new accounts and existing accounts will be migrated to the Kaizen Labs system.
SMA Robb and Director Leyman responded to questions and handed out a flyer with a QR link to the pilot program and encouraged the commissioners to access the system, become familiar, create an account and report any issues to staff. Although this represents a change, staff feels the reservation system will be greatly simplified and be very user - friendly.
I. COMMISSION ITEMS
Older adult Program Update – Commissioner Schreiner reported on the November Senior Advisory Committee meeting including a detailed report s by Councilmember Franklin on the November election results, Parking Lot 3; and various committee member reports including fundraising (e.g. Bingo) and older adult activities.
School District Update – Commissioner Komatinsky called for and the Commission City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
596 of 630
City of Manhattan Beach Parks and Recreation Commission January 27, 2025
observed a moment of silence to acknowledge the recent tragic passing of Mira Costa student Ford Savela. Commissioner Zimbalist commented on the many compliments received about the response initiated by the Mira Costa student body to help those suffering from the fires and noted that city schools have been enrolling displaced students.
Student Update – None
Commissioner Komatinsky asked for a report on the status of the tree project in Polliwog Park.
Director Leyman noted that a Polliwog tree report will be provided at a future meeting; the sculpture Egrets in Flight which has been damaged by a maintenance vehicle has been moved a short distance away and is scheduled for repair.
Commissioner Windes clarified that the Polliwog Park bandshell replacement project is being recommended to be removed from the Park Master Plan due to concerns from nearby community owners.
J. ADJOURNMENT
At 5:11 pm it was moved and seconded (Komatinsky/Zimbalist) to adjourn to the meeting of February 24 at 4:00 pm; motion passed unanimously by voice vote.
City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
597 of 630
City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
598 of 630
City of Manhattan Beach Parks and Recreation Commission February 24, 2025
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
Monday, February 24, 2025
4:00 PM
Location: Zoom and City Council Chambers, City Hall
1400 Highland Avenue
A. CALL TO ORDER – Chair Allen called the meeting to order at 4:00 pm.
B. PLEDGE TO THE FLAG
C. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Zimbalist, Schreiner, Komatinsky, Doran, Vice Chair Windes, Jacobson, Chair Allen
Absent: None
Others present: Parks and Recreation Director Mark Leyman, Senior Recreation Manager (SRM) Melissa McCollum, Senior Management Analyst (SMA) Linda Robb, Recording Secretary Rosemary Lackow, City Engineer Katherine Doherty, PE ENV SP D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – January 27, 2025
It was moved and seconded (Komatinsky/Windes) to approve the January 27 , 202 5 minutes with one change on page 5, last paragraph before Adjournment, strike “property” (owners) and replace with “community” (owners); motion passed unanimously by voice vote.
E. CEREMONIAL - None
F. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION (3-Minute Limit) - None
G. GENERAL BUSINESS
1. Parks and Recreation Capital Improvements Projects Update The Commission received a PowerPoint presentation from City Engineer (CE) Katie Doherty, updating the Commission on the FY 2025 – 2029 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Ms. Doherty summarized 15 projects, including funding and status, for 11 active projects and 4 future programmed projects as well as recently completed CIP projects that are related to the Parks and Recreation Department. Planning for the next 5 -year CIP (2026 – 2030) has started with a public feedback survey (currently active), presentations at Planning and Parking and Public Improvement Commissions in April, and review and approval by City Council May-June.
CE Doherty and Director Leyman received input and responded to Commissioner questions regarding several projects including but not limited to : Scout House City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
599 of 630
City of Manhattan Beach Parks and Recreation Commission February 24, 2025
rebuild, Aquatics Facility, Storm Drain Infiltration Project (28 th Street at Bruce’s Beach Park), Mariposa Fitness Station Equipment Replacement, pour -in-place resurfacing (various) and others. Regarding the Mariposa Fitness station, it was suggested that Engineering consider keeping the overall design “old school” to promote use by the older population while also bringing the station into compliance with the ADA. Concerns regarding e-bike parking, especially near the upper schools were raised as a possible new CIP project, as this is a significant issue.
Action items resulting from the discussion include:
Marine Avenue Park Directional signage: concerns were raised regarding a need for directional signage for the skate park and dog run, Director Leyman noted that the city way -finding sign program is still being finalized but will evaluate interim solutions.
Rainbow crosswalk MBB near the pier: Commissioner Windes noted she has submitted a service request via Manhattan Reach regarding needed repairs. CE Doherty will check on this.
2. 24/0226.01 Work Plan Items Discussion
a. Parks Master Plan – Commissioner Schreiner reported that the committee has updated the 2020 Master Plan with current U.S. census data. The committee is done with one part of the Plan, two more remain to be done. Senior Recreation Manager McCollum noted various ways the Parks and Re creation webpage has been updated to inform and engage residents ; she will work with other staff to see if the link can be made more prominent and encouraged the Commission to view the webpage and provide input. Commissioner Komatinsky suggested a small flagged link be placed on the main city page; SRM McCollum will discuss with the city’s communication team.
Commissioner Zimbalist asked whether the Commission could still suggest new projects such as studying e -bike parking. SRM McCollum stated that while it is not too late, the committee is focused getting projects already on the plan completed. Director Leyman and SRM McCollum responded, respectively , that comments on this suggestion can be submitted to staff who could forward them to a city team already looking at e-bike parking (led by City Traffic Engineer Eric Zandlvliet), and this does not preclude the Commission from considering e-bike parking when reviewing specific park facility projects. Commissioner Komatinsky emphasized that regardless as to whether e-bike parking is in the park master plan or not, she feels a community conversation should be started on how to address this issue.
Chair Allen called for public comment; none received.
City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
600 of 630
City of Manhattan Beach Parks and Recreation Commission February 24, 2025
b. Pay ‘N Play Outreach – Commissioner Windes reiterated the breakdown of the over 900 responses received through the city survey. The next step will be to look at some site maps to get a sense of what facilities wi ll fit in the available space, with a futsal court being a primary survey preference, with consideration for secondary uses (pickleball, playing field, basketball) and keeping a dog run (which may be relocated).
Action item: staff will request to provide the committee a to-scale map/overlay of the area of the existing Pay ‘N Play area including dog park – up to the walkway and basketball area. The Committee will meet and discuss a recommendation for the next meeting.
Chair Allen called for public comment; none received.
c. Polliwog Park Dog Run – Director Leyman updated: the Public Works Department is working on a project timeline that will, when ready, be discussed with the school district. Regarding trees: he has met on site with the city arborist, and existing trees have been determined to be an invasive species and will be removed a nd replaced , funded through the Polliwog tree removal project. In response to a suggestion about having a n early morning community dog walk, Director Leyman noted that this has been looked into in the past, but did not go forward due to liability issues; however, could be considered if an alternate model came forward.
Chair Allen called for public comment; none received.
H. STAFF ITEMS
City Council Recap and Parks and Recreation Department Updates Director Leyman reported
• Last weekend: Little League opening day and 5k at American Martyrs • Spring classes, spring/summer camp registration opens March 3rd for city residents • New Kiln ribbon cutting: March 3, 2:30 p.m.
• Pilot Parks and Recreation registration program (racket sports only): SMA Robb updated: the new system will launch March 10; currently a 24 -hour reservation system is not in place (everything starts at 6 a.m.) but this can be explored for the future. The Kaizen Labs contract runs through end of 2025 • Court resurfacing: SRM McCollum reported: Tennis courts 1 and 2, Live Oak Park have just been resurfaced and 3 -6 are scheduled for this week. At Man hattan Heights: pickleball court lines wil l be added the week of March 3 rd to the second court similar to what was done to the first court as this was a clear preference in an opinion survey wherein responses were received from 900+ persons . Also, a multi-year court resurfacing program has been developed to manage re-surfacing for all city courts, including those at Mira Costa and the middle school . When completed, including modifying for multiple uses , the city will have a total of 17 pickleball courts (compared to only 2 currently) and 18 tennis courts. Since the city City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
601 of 630
City of Manhattan Beach Parks and Recreation Commission February 24, 2025
has limited space to develop recreation, multi-use solutions make sense. The City has arranged with Mira Costa to move some of the programming to the high school while city courts are being resurfaced,
I. COMMISSION ITEMS
Older Adult Program Update – Commissioner Schreiner reported on the January Senior Advisory Committee (SAC) m eeting including a report by Council Member Franklin covering several topics (possible amendment of waste contract specific to landfill diversion requirements, low-income housing requirements, utility undergrounding) and various SAC social, educational and fundraising events . The SAC’s showcase “Acting Out ” will be produced in the fall and towards that end the city is working to improve sound equipment at Joslyn.
Student Update – Commissioner Jacobson reported that Mira Costa PTA member parents are partnering with parents of new students from the Palisades fire area and the city student commissioners are forming a networking club.
School District Update: Commissioner Komatinsky noted:
• The district is in the early planning stage for budgeting, including implementing the new school bond measure passed last November. Although that was successful, the district is looking at cutting costs and unfortunately there will be some layoffs (pink slips due by 3/15).
• Manhattan Beach schools have welcomed 182 public school students - mostly high school and a few elementary students displaced by the Palisades fire area and American Martyrs has welcomed 70 who have been displaced by its “sister school” also affected by the Palisades fire.
• The Mira Costa boys basketball team will be competing for the southern section CIF championship.
J. ADJOURNMENT
At 5:31 pm it was moved and seconded (Zimbalist/Windes) to adjourn to the meeting of March 24 at 4:00 pm; motion passed unanimously by voice vote. “
City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
602 of 630
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of
February 26, 2025 Page 1 of 6
MANHATTAN BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 26, 2025
A. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Manhattan Beach, California was held in a hybrid format (Zoom and in person, City Council Chambers, 1400 Highland Avenue) on the 26th day of February, 2025. Chair Sistos called the meeting to order at the hour of 3:01 p.m.
B. PLEDGE TO FLAG
C. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Tokashiki, Ungoco, Hackett, Chair Sistos
Absent: Vice-Chair Dillavou
Others Present: Ryan Heise, Acting Community Development Director Adam Finestone, Planning Manager
David Snow, Assistant City Attorney
Britny Coker-Moen, Environmental Programs Administrator Maricela Guillean, Associate Planner
Tatiana Maury, Agenda Host
D. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
A motion was made and seconded (Ungoco/Tokashiki) to approve the agenda with no changes.
Roll Call:
Ayes: Commissioners Tokashiki, Ungoco, Hackett, Chair Sistos Noes: None
Absent: Vice-Chair Dillavou
Abstain: None
Agenda Host Maury announced the motion passed 4-0.
E. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION – None
F. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
02/26/25-1. Regular Meeting – January 22, 2025
Chair Sistos called for any changes; seeing none, it was moved and seconded ( Hackett/Tokashiki) to approve the minutes as submitted.
Roll Call:
Ayes: Commissioners Tokashiki, Ungoco, Hackett, Chair Sistos City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
603 of 630
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of
February 26, 2025 Page 2 of 6
Noes: None
Absent: Vice-Chair Dillavou
Abstain: None
Agenda Host Maury announced the motion passed 4-0.
G. PUBLIC HEARINGS
02/26/25-2. Consider and Provide Recommendation to the City Council on the Proposed Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP)
Chair Sistos announced the item and requested a staff report.
Planning Manager Adam Finestone introduced Environmental Programs Administrator Britny Coker-Moen who presented the staff report, providing an overview of the CAAP and making herself available for questions.
Chair Sistos invited the commission to ask questions of staff . Commissioners asked, and staff responded to, questions regarding the following topics:
- Staffing and other resources necessary to achieve the greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals - Scope of community outreach (minimal and virtual)
- Reverse-engineering of measures necessary to achieve greenhouse gas reduction target - Flexibility in implementation of specific actions
- Relative importance of GHG reduction measures compared to other City priorities - Potential conflict between on-road transportation strategies and parking needs - Funding available for implementation of programs
- What projects/programs have been completed and what is ongoing - How far our GHG reduction goals go compared to State mandates - Prioritization of projects/programs to best address local concerns
Chair Sistos invited public comment.
Steve Packwood , resident, commented on community outreach, funding, and on -road transportation concerns related to potential population increase.
Chair Sistos invited Commission discussion.
Commissioner Tokashiki expressed his support for the goals outlined in the report but was hesitant with the absence of a cost analysis.
Chair Sistos asked for more information to be provided regarding the status of the projects and programs identified in the CAAP. Specifically, what has been accomplished, what is ongoing, and what is remaining, as well as what is or is not budgeted.
City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
604 of 630
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of
February 26, 2025 Page 3 of 6
Commissioner Hackett noted her concern that the CAAP includes too many programs without enough concrete examples of what needs to be accomplished. She also expressed a need to identify costs associated with the proposed projects.
Commissioner Ungoco expressed his concern that the goals in the CAAP do not go far enough and appear to have regressed compared to when they were initially identified. He believes the community needs to push for implementation of the goals and hold the City Council accountable to achieve goals they previously established.
Chair Sistos emphasized the need to prioritize implementation based on the City’s needs, favoring infrastructure investment, and noting that excessive heat is not an issue for the City, whereas flooding and stormwater drainage are. She identified the minor impact of a small city like Manhattan Beach when compared to the county, and identified nearby pollution sources (Chevron refinery, wastewater treatment plants, LAX). She also questioned what we are doing in comparison to other cities.
All commissioners expressed overall support for the strategies identified in the CAAP, but were concerned that it did not provide sufficient information to implement the programs within it , primarily related to prioritization and cost . Acting Community Development Director Heise stated that the goal of the report is to provide guidance to the City Council for future decision making, and that it is not intended to provide the level of detail necessary to identify costs for specific projects/programs.
Commissioner Hackett asked, if passed, when the report will be presented to City Council, in which Planning Manager Finestone established it would be sometime in April 2025.
Chair Sistos and Commissioner Ungoco expressed their hope for more community presence and input in future meetings.
Commissioner Ungoco asked if there were any deadlines for action which the Commission should be aware of . Environmental Programs Administrator Coker-Moen stated that there are no mandatory deadlines.
After further discussion, it was moved and seconded ( Hackett/Ungoco) that the Planning Commission forward the CAAP to the City Council for approval with an executive summary addressing the following items:
1. Prioritization of projects
2. Summary of what projects have been implemented, what is ongoing, and what is outstanding, as well as what has and has not been budgeted
3. Comparison of where projects/programs meet vs. exceed state mandates
4. Cost estimates for projects/programs
5. Establishment of task force or other body to conduct community outreach on an ongoing basis
Roll Call:
Ayes: Commissioners Tokashiki, Ungoco, Hackett, Chair Sistos City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
605 of 630
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of
February 26, 2025 Page 4 of 6
Noes: None
Absent: Vice-Chair Dillavou
Abstain: None
Agenda Host Maury announced that the motion passed 4-0.
02/26/25-3. Consideration of Zone Text Amendments to the Manhattan Beach Municipal Code and Manhattan Beach Local Coastal Program to Implement Programs in the Housing Element
Chair Sistos announced the item and asked for a staff report.
Planning Manager Adam Finestone introduced Associate Planner Maricela Guillean who presented the staff report, providing an overview of the proposed zone text amendments and making herself available for questions.
Chair Sistos opened the floor up to Commissioner questions.
Commissioners requested clarification regarding decision-making authority for Planned Development Permits (PDPs) and discussed the notification radius for PDP approval.
Chair Sistos opened the public hearing.
Steve Packwood, resident, noted concerns related to traffic, parking, and public safety, and impacts on current and future infrastructure requirements.
Chair Sistos closed the public comment and opened the floor to Commission discussion.
Commissioner Hackett asked if impacts of future development were being considered and addressed, in which Planning Manager Finestone stated that a fee study is under way to address potential impacts and will be presented to City Council in the coming months.
Commissioner Ungoco noted that the removal of an appeal provision for PDPs r epresents a significant departure from the Commission’s intent. Commissioners Tokashiki and Hackett concurred with Commissioner Ungoco’s statement.
Chair Sistos stated that she had hoped there would be more members of the public in attendance.
She noted her concern with some of the provisions contained in the draft zone text amendments but acknowledged that the City was bound by State law and recommended that the public contact their state assemblyman and senator to express their concerns.
Chair Sistos provided an overview of California Housing Law. She explained that approving the code amendments today are necessary to put the City in compliance with their Housing Element commitments. She also discussed the Residential Overlay District (ROD), which has already been approved and implem ented. She stressed that this will impact future development in the City, and reiterated that state law supersedes City development standards. Development projects that qualify under the Density Bonus Law will be permitted to waive city development standards City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
606 of 630
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of
February 26, 2025 Page 5 of 6
for height, setbacks and other standards. She indicated there are three ways for residents to stay informed about these ROD projects going forward:
1. on the City’s ROD website (https://www.manhattanbeach.gov/departments/community- development/planning-and-zoning/zoning-development-regulations/residential-overlay- district);
2. during Director’s Items at Planning Commission meetings; and,
3. public notice notifications mailed to property owners within 500 feet of a development site.
Furthermore, there will be a community forum on April 9, 2025 from 6 -9 p.m. at the Joslyn Center (1601 N Valley Drive) for the community to voice their concerns and ask questions.
It was subsequently moved and seconded (Ungoco/Tokashiki) that the City Council adopt the draft Resolution, recommending that the Council: (a) approve zone text amendments to the Manhattan Beach Municipal Code (MBMC) and Manhattan Beach Local Coastal Program (MBLCP); and (b) adopt the Second Addendum to the previously adopted Negative Declaration (ND) prepared for the 6th Cycle Housing Element in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Roll Call:
Ayes: Commissioners Tokashiki, Ungoco, Hackett, Chair Sistos Noes: None
Absent: Vice-Chair Dillavou
Abstain: None
Agenda Host Maury announced that the motion passed 4-0.
H. DIRECTOR’S ITEMS
Planning Manager Finestone shared the following updates:
1) The City has tentatively scheduled a community forum on April 9, 2025 to discuss the Residential Overlay District (ROD) and to allow the public to voice their questions/concerns about potential projects that are set to be in the ROD; and, 2) Great White (401 Manhattan Beach Boulevard) has started construction.
I. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS
Commissioner Ungoco asked staff about fire resistant building standards and Acting Community Development Director Heise stated that the California Building Standards Codes, which include both building and fire codes, have been adopted by the City.
Commissioner Hackett asked for information regarding “parking pads,” referring to the new signs that went up in the Sand section. Acting Community Development Director Heise stated that parking pads are parking spaces on public property adjacent to private residential lots, and noted that information will soon be provided on the City’s website.
City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
607 of 630
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of
February 26, 2025 Page 6 of 6
J. TENTATIVE AGENDA – March 12, 2025
K. ADJOURNMENT
At 5:12 p.m. it was moved and seconded ( Ungoco/Hackett) to adjourn the meeting to 3:00 p.m., Wednesday, March 12, 2025. The motion passed 4-0 by roll call vote.
City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
608 of 630
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of
March 12, 2025 Page 1 of 5
MANHATTAN BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 12, 2025
Teleconferencing Vice-Chair Dillavou, 8111 Douglas Avenue, Dallas, TX 75225 Teleconferencing Commissioner Tokashiki, 50 Canyon Boulevard, Mammoth Lakes, CA 93546
A. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Manhattan Beach, California was held in a hybrid format (Zoom and in person, City Council Chambers, 1400 Highland Avenue) on the 12th day of March, 2025. Chair Sistos called the meeting to order at the hour of 3:01 p.m.
B. PLEDGE TO FLAG
C. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Tokashiki (remote), Ungoco, Hackett, Vice-Chair Dillavou (remote), Chair Sistos
Absent: None
Others Present: Ryan Heise, Acting Community Development Director Adam Finestone, AICP, Planning Manager
David Snow, Assistant City Attorney
Johnathon Masi, Associate Planner
Tari Kuvhenguhwa, Associate Planner
Tatiana Maury, Agenda Host
D. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
A motion was made and seconded (Hackett/Ungoco) to approve the agenda with no changes.
Roll Call:
Ayes: Commissioners Tokashiki, Ungoco, Hackett, Vice-Chair Dillavou, Chair Sistos Noes: None
Absent: None
Abstain: None
Agenda Host Maury announced the motion passed 5-0.
E. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION – None
F. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
03/12/25-1. Regular Meeting – February 26, 2025
Chair Sistos requested additional clarifying language to be added to the second Public Hearing agenda City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
609 of 630
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of
March 12, 2025 Page 2 of 5
item (02/26/25-3), specifically noting public notice protocols for future Residential Overlay District (ROD) sites. Seeing no other changes from the other Commissioners, it was mov ed and seconded (Ungoco/Hackett) to approve the minutes as with revisions requested by Chair Sistos.
Roll Call:
Ayes: Commissioners Tokashiki, Ungoco, Hackett, Vice-Chair Dillavou, Chair Sistos Noes: None
Absent: None
Abstain: None
Agenda Host Maury announced the motion passed 5-0.
G. PUBLIC HEARINGS
03/12/25-2. Consideration of a Use Permit Amendment to allow off -sale of distilled spirits in addition to the existing allowance for off-sale beer and wine, and to allow the business to open one hour earlier (5:00 a.m. – 12:00 a.m. daily) than previous permitted (6:00 a.m. – 12:00 a.m. daily) in conjunction with the operation of an existing service station and convenience store (Arco/ampm) located at 1002 Manhattan Beach Boulevard, and associated environmental determination finding the project is exempt from further r eview pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. (Planning Case Nos. PE-23-00118/UP-24-00027)
Chair Sistos announced the item and asked if the Commissioners had any ex parte communications. Confirming there are none, Chair Sistos requested a staff report.
Planning Manager Finestone introduced Associate Planner Johnathon Masi who presented the staff report, providing an overview of the project, and making himself available for questions.
Commissioners asked and Associate Planner Masi answered questions regarding the type and volume of alcohol that will be sold behind the register and operating hours.
Commissioner Ungoco asked how credible the use of AI chat boxes are as legal arguments, in which Assistant Attorney David Snow replied that it is evidence that is in the record and up to the Commissioners’ discretion to weigh in on the credibility and factor into their decision.
Seeing there were no other questions from the Commissioners, Chair Sistos opened the public hearing.
Brandon Strauss, from Srour & Associates spoke on behalf of the applicant, presenting a brief history and outlining the requested conditions, asking the Commission to eliminate condition 14, which addresses service levels for refuse and the construction of a new trash enclosure. Mr. Straus stated that the sale of distilled spirits will result in a negligible increase in cardboard waste and that constructing a new trash enclosure will cost tens of thousands of dollars which will offset the business benefit of selling distilled spirits.
City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
610 of 630
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of
March 12, 2025 Page 3 of 5
Kyle Ransford, the applicant, provided a brief background of the site and touched on small business challenges.
Vice Chair Dillavou asked if the gas pump hours of operation act independently of the convenience store, in which Mr. Ransford stated that per state law gas pumps are only open when there is an employee on-site.
Commissioners reiterated questions regarding the volume and location of distilled spirits and hard liquor in the store and operating hours, in which Mr. Ransford answered.
Vice Chair Dillavou asked staff to reiterate the Use Permit Amendment conditions approved for Chevron located at 3633 North Sepulveda Boulevard in Resolution No. PC 24 -04 to foster consistency between local service stores. Mr. Ransford stated he would like the conditions to mirror those of Chevron.
Resident Char Brykalski voiced her opposition to the Use Permit, listing multiple grocery stores nearby that sell already sell alcohol and stating her opposition to the proposed change in operating hours.
Resident Jane Franklin also voiced her concerns, specifically related to noise and visitors playing soccer with open containers of alcohol in the parking lot during the day.
Chair Sistos closed the public hearing and invited Commission discussion.
Commissioners deliberated on operating hours and local convenience stores that have ABC/Type 21 licenses.
Commissioner Hackett asked about the allegation of visitors playing soccer with open containers of alcohol in the service station’s parking lot, in which Mr. Ransford stated he has no knowledge of open containers of alcohol being consumed at his business.
Chair Sistos asked and Mr. Ransford answered questions related to parking.
Chair Sistos and Commissioner Hackett asked for clarification on the trash enclosure component of the use, in which Associate Planner Masi responded that with the approval of the Use Permit, trash is expected to increase and that the existing trash enclosure does not comply with current standards, although it is legally non-conforming.
Vice Chair Dillavou revisited his question asking about the conditions approved in Resolution No.
PC 24-04 to keep the proposed conditions of approval consistent with what the Commission approved for Chevron. Planning Manager Finestone listed the conditions.
Chair Sistos stated that she would like to see more active management on the site, specifically with the backside of the business, and requested adding a condition for noise.
Commissioners held an extensive discussion on operating hours, trash enclosure, and alcohol licensing.
City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
611 of 630
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of
March 12, 2025 Page 4 of 5
Chair Sistos reopened the public hearing.
Mr. Ransford stated that he is open to shifting the hours of operation to open earlier but is hesitant about closing an hour earlier, as discussed by Commissioners.
Resident Char Brykalski expressed her concerns with lighting and approving the alcohol license, and Jane Franklin asked for clarification on the operating hours in the previous decades.
Chair Sistos closed public hearing and reopened Commissioner discussion.
Vice Chair Dillavou asked staff on their proposal for the trash enclosure component of the Use Permit, and Assistant City Attorney Snow confirmed that it is a code requirement. Acting Community Development Director Heise provided the option for the applicant to work with the Public Works Department to possibly modify the trash container(s) and pick-up schedule to lower cost; however, the drain and fire sprinklers are mandated due to triggered stormwater issues.
The Commission compared Chevron’s resolution to the proposed conditions for approval.
Chair Sistos called for a brief recess at 4:58 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 5:11 p.m.
Planning Manager Finestone stated the proposed conditions of approval along with amendments discussed during Commission deliberations.
After further discussion, a motion was made and seconded (Hackett/Ungoco) that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution approving the Use Permit Amendment, subject to revised conditions, and finding the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Roll Call:
Ayes: Commissioners Tokashiki, Ungoco, Hackett, Vice-Chair Dillavou, Chair Sistos Noes: None
Absent: None
Abstain: None
Agenda Host Maury announced that the motion passed 5-0.
03/12/25-3. Consideration of a Use Permit Amendment to allow for the on -site sale and service of distilled spirits in addition to the existing beer and wine sales and service in conjunction with food service at an existing eating and drinking establishment located at 1209 Highland Avenue (The Rockefeller), and associated environmental determination finding the project is exempt from further review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. (Planning Case Nos. PE-24-00189/UP-24-00032)
Chair Sistos announced the item and asked if the Commissioners had any ex parte communications. Confirming there are none, Chair Sistos requested a staff report.
City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
612 of 630
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of
March 12, 2025 Page 5 of 5
Planning Manager Finestone introduced Associate Planner Tari Kuvhenguhwa who presented the staff report, providing an overview of the project, and making herself available for questions.
Seeing no questions from Commissioners, Chair Sistos opened the public hearing.
The applicant, Chris Bredesen, shared challenges the establishment has been facing without the proposed Use Permit.
Agenda Host Maury confirmed there was no public comment, in-person or via Zoom.
Chair Sistos closed the public hearing.
Vice Chair Dillavou expressed his support for the applicant and establishment , and Commissioner Ungoco stated that the Commission needs to support restaurant operators to remain competitive in an increasingly competitive space. Chair Sistos and Commissioner Tokashiki concurred.
A motion was made and seconded (Ungoco/Hackett) that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution approving the Use Permit Amendment, subject to conditions, and finding the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Roll Call:
Ayes: Commissioners Tokashiki, Ungoco, Hackett, Vice-Chair Dillavou, Chair Sistos Noes: None
Absent: None
Abstain: None
H. DIRECTOR’S ITEMS
1. The ROD Community Forum has been officially scheduled for April 9, 2025, at 6 p.m. at the Joclyn Center (1601 North Valley Drive).
I. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS
1. Chair Sistos asked to revisit the provision of plaques for historically designated properties.
J. TENTATIVE AGENDA – March 26, 2025
K. ADJOURNMENT
At 5:44 p.m. it was moved and seconded ( Ungoco/Hackett) to adjourn the meeting to 3:00 p.m., Wednesday, March 26, 2025. The motion passed 5-0 by roll call vote.
City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
613 of 630
City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
614 of 630
Manhattan Beach Cultural Arts Commission
March 17, 2025
1 CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
MINUTES OF THE CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION
March 17, 2025
Location: Manhattan Beach City Council Chambers
and Teleconference by Commissioner Tokashiki
1400 Highland Avenue. Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
and Hybrid (remote/Zoom)
A. CALL TO ORDER
Vice Chair Karger called the meeting to order at 4:01 p.m.
B. PLEDGE TO THE FLAG
C. ROLL CALL
Present: Colmey, Patterson, Chair Tokashiki (remote), Torrey, Padnos, Vice Chair Karger
Absent: None
Staff present: Senior Recreation Supervisor (SRS) Eric Brinkman, Senior Management Analyst (SMA) Linda Robb, Cultural Arts Supervisor (CAS) Randy Niessen, Recording Secretary Rosemary Lackow
D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – February 19, 2025
It was moved and seconded (Tokashiki/Patterson) to approve the February 19, 2025 minutes as submitted; motion passed by voice vote: 6-0.
E. CEREMONIAL - None
F. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION (3-Minute Limit) - None
G. GENERAL BUSINESS
1. Work Plan Item Discussion
a. Utility Box Beautification – Phase III. SRS Brinkman updated: the RFP will remain open until March 31st; so far: 12 youth, 55 adult submission s. At its next meeting, the Commission will review submittals and develop recommendations to city council.
b. Murals. SRS Brinkman updated: only one mural (3D shark at the civic center parking lot) remains to be installed. That work will start in April and complete in May.
c. Sculpture Garden. Project remains paused.
d. New Art Initiatives
i. Public Art Brochure : CAS Nessen distributed a prototype of the brochure that has graphics differentiating between the east and west sides of the city . The Commission thanked staff for the brochure, complimented it and suggested the following: 1 ) add a few small icons as landmarks , without making too visually cluttered (e.g. ocean, pier, MBB, etc.); 2) make street lines thicker and/or City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
615 of 630
Manhattan Beach Cultural Arts Commission
March 17, 2025
2 consistent for both east and west ; 3) re-number artwork locations to that 1 -11 becomes 1-29 (west side) and 12-40 becomes 30-40 (east side) – consistent with users opening the brochure like a book, flipping the title page to the left . Chair Tokashiki could announce the brochure at a city council meeting during “community announcements”.
ii. Poet Laureate. (Patterson, Colmey, Padnos) Commissioner Patterson noted the committee added language on page 1 of the Prospectus to reflect the Arts Master Plan. Commissioner Patterson also introduced Deb Henderson, who has been requested by the MB Poetry Circle to serve as the voice of the Poetry Circle for this project.
Vice Chair Karger expressed concern that the scope of the project may be too much for the first 2- year term. She suggested that the adult poet laureate have fewer requirements but more creative freedom, and with commensurately reduced compensation, and to hold off on the student laureate position. Chair Tokashiki and Commissioner Colmey stated their agreement. Commissioner Torrey questioned whether by reducing the scope the city would still be able to attract high quality candidates.
CAS Niessen noted that as currently written with only three beach cities mentioned for eligibility, he feels it will be challenging to get sufficient quality candidates. He believes that casting the net wider than South Bay and having good compensation may be key to finding the right person. He emphasized that this call for artists is about giving an opportunity to someone who is an expert in poetry who can advance the art form in the community ; also questioned the purpose of the requirement for being a resident for a minimum of 3 years.
Commissioner Patterson explained that she kept the student poet laureate position in because she feels it’s very important to involve the youth of the community and feels the requirements for the student will not be too demanding (a couple events and assisting the adult Poet Laureate) and that there is no monetary compensation.
The Commission discussed whether to include a student laureate position at the launch of the first term (either in the first or second year) and how prescriptive the description and responsibilities should be of the adult poet laureate. It was noted that there is a poetry club at Mira Costa.
Commissioner Colmey suggested that for the first two years, to have only a few specific requirements with the goal that the Poet Laureate would create a collaborative pathway with the community.
CAS Niessen believes the Poet Laureate should have some ability to develop a vision for the program because if the city’s description and requirements are too specific this could act as a deterrent for good candidates.
Commissioner Patterson suggested simply changing paragraph “A” so that, instead of requiring four original pieces of work based on 4 out of 5 specified programs, reduce the number to less than 4 with flexibility in the number of events/programs (e.g. suggest 2 out of 5, or 3 out of 5 etc.). She believes the same type of flexibility can be provided the Student Poet Laureate.
The question of the Student Poet Laureate was again discussed; whether to keep for two years or introduce in the second year after a collaborative community pathway is established in the first year.
City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
616 of 630
Manhattan Beach Cultural Arts Commission
March 17, 2025
3 Commissioner Padnos commented that he could see both sides, i.e. to not include in the first year or first two years, but he also does not see a downside to keeping the student laureate in that he feels that the requirements are low.
Deb Henderson, Manhattan Beach Poetry Circle believes that initially the candidacy should be local, perhaps to the South Bay community which she feels is sufficiently diverse. She suggests in the first year to not have a specified student laureate, but incorporate a youth voice through the Poet Laureate – by working with the student poetry group. She believes the key element is to be able to identify a person who can present work that showcases the community but also reach a diverse group of people.
Commissioner Patterson called for direction on the student laureate.
CAS Niessen noted that in the case of El Segundo, which did not have a student laureate position, the library staff mostly managed the poet laureate program and believes it required a significant commitment of time.
Vice Chair Karger suggested reducing the number of events down to two, with a menu of suggestions, with Juneteenth removed as it outside of the city official events. She also suggests taking out the student laureate position due to the possible significant impact on staff time.
SRS Brinkman suggested that there are two issues: the goals and the scope of work. He feels that the goals should be more clearly defined which will better inform the scope of work.
Chair Tokashiki commented that it is important to not only come up with big picture goals but also address how the program will be managed. Commissioner Patterson feels a main goal is to have a Poet Laureate that is the voice of the entire community, all ages.
The Commission briefly discussed the concepts of broad goals, vs. specific tasks. The Commission came to a consensus that the subcommittee will meet and develop broad goals and bring those back to the full Commission, and from there the scope of work will be decided in the Prospectus.
CAS Niessen will look for the description of the El Segundo Poet Laureate position but emphasized that the broad goals may not be complicated. He advised looking at the highlighted wording in the current prospectus draft for goal language (e.g. “To express and celebrate Manhattan Beach’s unique people, culture and environment.”) e. Memorial for the Fallen - SRS Brinkman updated. The committee walked potential sites to examine their viability including compliance with ADA. The next step will be to engage with the Public Works and Community Development departments to gain more understanding regarding ADA and structural issues, which will, in turn, inform the project budget. After that, the APPC will be formed to obtain community input. The subcommittee has been tasked to develop a project summary to include the artwork goals and project description and then solicit members of the APPC. An update will be presented at the April meeting.
H. STAFF ITEMS
Cultural Arts Division updates: SRS Brinkman reported:
City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
617 of 630
Manhattan Beach Cultural Arts Commission
March 17, 2025
4 • Staffing: A new senior recreation leader, Michelle Shanahan, has been hired to oversee the ceramics studio operation; there is a recruitment for two part time positions at the Art Center. • Bruce’s Beach artwork: the RFQ is open until April 21st; the APPC will meet on April 23 to review applications; m arketing materials regarding will be emailed to the Commissioners who are encouraged to pass info on to artists.
• Exhibitions: “Ripple Effect’ closes March 30; next exhibit, artist Keith McGruder, specializing in trompe l‘oeil 3D art, opens April 18. The annual community exhibit will follow Keith Magruder starting with application window opening in April.
PATF budget update - SRS Brinkman reported (approximately) • Total trust fund: 1.7 mil (approx.)
• Allocated: $914,000 (approx.)
• Un-allocated: $789,000 (approx.)
City Council updates: SRS Brinkman/SMA Robb reported:
• SMA Robb reported that C ity Council recently reviewed its special event fee waiver policy (previously waivers consistently approved every five years). The council approved the legacy fee waivers for 2 years and directed staff to look at revamping how the waivers are reviewed, with the possibility that the approvals return to a 5-year cycle. A total of $480,000 in fees is waived. • Board and Commission interviews: the council has adopted a speed system where candidates have 2 minutes to interview before the council.
I. COMMISSION ITEMS - None
J. ADJOURNMENT
At 5:31 p.m. it was moved by the Vice Chair; seeing no objection, it was ordered to adjourn the meeting to 4:00 pm, April 21, 2025
City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
618 of 630
City of Manhattan Beach Parks and Recreation Commission March 24, 2025
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
Monday, March 24, 2025
4:00 PM
Location: Zoom and City Council Chambers, City Hall
1400 Highland Avenue
A. CALL TO ORDER – Chair Allen called the meeting to order at 4:01 pm.
B. PLEDGE TO THE FLAG
C. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Zimbalist, Schreiner, Doran, Vice Chair Windes, Jacobson, Chair Allen
Absent: Komatinsky
Others present: Parks and Recreation Director Mark Leyman, Senior Management Analyst (SMA) Linda Robb, Recording Secretary Rosemary Lackow.
D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – February 24, 2025
It was moved and seconded (Windes/Doran) to approve as submitted; motion passed 6- 0-1 by voice vote. (Komatinsky absent)
E. CEREMONIAL - None
F. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION (3-Minute Limit) - None
G. GENERAL BUSINESS
1. 25/0324.01 Pay N Play Repurposing Discussion
Director Leyman briefly noted he had no further updates other than today it is requested that the Commission discuss and provide thoughts on options. He noted that an accessway between Pay ‘N Play and storage facilities must be maintained.
Commissioner Windes led discussion.
Commissioner Zimbalist, upon visiting a futsal court in Hawthorne reported that , for various reasons, doesn’t think it translates to the Manhattan Beach situation.
Dimensions of futsal courts and type of surface were discussed and compared to the graphic provided of the Manhattan Beach site (105‘by 52’).
It was noted that Councilmember Franklin has suggested that the dog park be re- City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
619 of 630
City of Manhattan Beach Parks and Recreation Commission March 24, 2025
located. Director Leyman informed that, per council direction, the Commission can hold off on discussing the issue of a possible library use until after a needs assessment has been completed (ordered by City Council).
Discussion continued as to what uses can be put inside a futsal court during the day when kids are not around to use (for older adults). It was pointed out that there is enough room adjacent to the futsal court for other activities.
Options identified for the futsal court area or area adjacent were discussed with it noted that it depends on the associated costs:
• Open air dedicated futsal court
• Futsal court with posts supporting roof (for various uses) • Futsal and roller hockey
• Classes/activities: (yoga, tai chi, etc.)
Director Leyman pointed out that the repurposed area can be open to the entire community as well as open to user groups with reservations. It was also discussed that certain park facilities (e.g. L ive Oak Park) have fields/courts that are locked down during the day during seasonal times and for security (very dependent on field and use).
Director Leyman directed that the commission subcommittee meet prior to the next meeting in April so that the Commission can come up with specific options for City Cou ncil consideration in June. After the A pril meeting , at which the Commission will consider various options such as : desired court dimensions; surface materials; perimeter treatments; and input regarding older adult activities after meeting with Kari Bell – then staff will come up with cost estimates to provide to City Council.
Demolition of the existing building (not yet formally authorized) will be addressed after the library needs assessment study is completed. A community meeting on the needs assessment is expected to be scheduled soon. Summarizing, Director Leyman is looking for , from the commission, a vision of a specific design and possible programming.
It was moved (Zimbalist) and seconded (Doran) that Commissioner Zimbalist join the Pay ‘N Play subcommittee; motion unanimously approved. It was clarified that the subcommittee includes Windes, Doran and now Zimbalist. A meeting with Older Adults Supervisor Bell will be arranged with the subcommittee.
2. 25/0324.02 Work Plan Items Discussion
a. Parks Master Plan – Commissioner Schreiner reported noting that the subcommittee spent a lot of time on Page 5 of the plan. Upon noticing that the City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
620 of 630
City of Manhattan Beach Parks and Recreation Commission March 24, 2025
City website has a wonderful updated map of public art – they will meet with SRM McCollum to discuss changing their direction. Commissioner Schreiner will contact SRM McCollum.
b. Polliwog Park Dog Run – Director Leyman updated: the parks and recreation aquatics team storage materials are being moved to a new Tuff Shed; and a new sign with a project timeline has been installed. Working with the school district, messaging will posted for the public notifying that the dog run will close 3/31 through early May when the project will be completed. A grand re -opening will be scheduled.
H. STAFF ITEMS
City Council Recap and Parks and Recreation Department Updates Director Leyman reported
• Spring class es and s pring/summer camp registration opened; total revenue $520,000 so far.
• Live Oak Park: 6 tennis courts have been resurfaced and net posts repainted; Manhattan Heights: pickleball lines have been painted for dual use; and other courts repaired as needed. For all fields, courts: lighting has been checked and bulbs replaced. (Manhattan Village, Begg field, Marine sports complex, and Marine Avenue Park soccer fields).
• LoveMB non -profit: the MOU is being finalized; expected to come before City Council in a month or two.
• May meeting date will need to be discussed (Memorial Day accommodation). May 21st was decided on.
I. COMMISSION ITEMS
Older Adult Program Update – Commissioner Schreiner reported on the last SAC meeting. Among topics discussed: new walking group; audio problem in Joslyn Center now fixed; new older adults Lyft service augmenting Dial-A-Ride for medical appointment – starting in July and Rotary Club philanthropic project.
Student Update – Commissioner Jacobson reported on Mira Costa happenings including Scholar Quiz, Model UN competition, and “Random Acts of Kindness Week."
School District Update: On behalf of Commissioner Komatinsky, Commissioner Windes reported regarding Scholar Quiz and that former Commissioner Greenberg has been accepted and will join his brother (a senior) at Dartmouth.
J. ADJOURNMENT
At 5:04 pm, it was moved and seconded (Windes/Schreiner) to adjourn to the meeting of April 28 at 4:00 pm; motion passed unanimously by voice vote.
City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
621 of 630
City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
622 of 630
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Manhattan Beach City Hall
March 26, 2025
The City of Manhattan Beach Planning Commission regular meeting of March 26, 2025 , was CANCELLED due to no agenda items being scheduled.
The next meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for April 9, 2025 at 3:00 p.m.
City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
623 of 630
City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
624 of 630
Parking and Public Improvements Commission
Minutes of March 27, 2025 Page 1 of 3
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
PARKING AND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS COMMISSION
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
March 27, 2025
A. CALL TO ORDER:
The regular meeting of the Parking and Public Improvements Commission (Commission) of the City of Manhattan Beach, California was held in hybrid format (Zoom Call and in person at City Hall, 1400 Highland Avenue. Manhattan Beach, CA 90266) on March 27, 2025 at the hour of 4:01pm.
B. PLEDGE TO FLAG
C. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners O’Neill, Marcy, Kirschenbaum
Absent: Commissioner Balla, Chair DaGiau
Staff Present: Ryan Heise, Acting Community Development Director Erik Zandvliet, Traffic Engineer
Clerks: Carianne Chavez, Agenda Host
D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
03/27/25-1 Regular Meeting – January 23, 2025
MOTION: It was moved and seconded (Kirschenbaum/O’Neill) to approve the minutes without corrections.
AYES: O’Neill, Kirshenbaum, Acting Chair Marcy
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Balla, Chair DaGiau
E. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION (3-minute Limit)
Acting Chair Marcy opened Audience Participation.
Jim Burton expressed his concerns regarding parking and visibility issues in Downtown. He also shared his concerns regarding safety issues of the parking spaces on Valley Drive and Manhattan Beach Boulevard.
Acting Chair Marcy closed Audience Participation.
F. GENERAL BUSINESS
03/27/25-2 Election of Vice-Chair
MOTION: It was moved and seconded (Kirschenbaum/O’Neill) to nominate Commissioner Marcy as Vice-Chair.
AYES: O’Neill, Kirschenbaum, Acting Chair Marcy
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Balla, Chair DaGiau
03/27/2025-3 Neighborhood Meeting to Discuss Gelson’s Area Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan Initial Findings
Traffic Engineer Zandvliet summarized the staff report. He stated that in 2014, the City approved the development of Gelson’s Shopping Center. One of the conditions of approval was for the developer to City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
625 of 630
Parking and Public Improvements Commission
Minutes of March 27, 2025 Page 2 of 3
contribute $75,000 towards the study and implementation of a Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan.
Traffic counts were conducted prior to construction in 2018, and additional traffic counts were conducted recently. He further explained that traffic volumes generally decreased in this area except for an increase in traffic volumes at 8th Street, Larsson Street, and 6th Street due to their proximity to Gelson’s Shopping Center. Spot speed surveys were conducted, and it was determined that excessive speeding was not found to be prevalent within the study area. In addition, it was determined that there were no locations with recurring collisions within the study area. He explained that the purpose of this meeting is to receive feedback from the Commissioners and the public. Staff will evaluate the feedback received and recommend potential traffic calming measures at a future Parking and Public Improvements Commission Meeting.
Acting Chair Marcy opened public comment.
Michael Hamilton shared his concerns regarding the intersection of Sepulveda Boulevard and 8th Street.
He suggested adding striping on 8th Street to let drivers know that there is the option of two lanes.
Dennis Sullivan stated that he is the manager at Gelson’s and shared his support for adding striping on 8th Street. He acknowledged that people often turn left out of the Gelson’s parking lot even though it is prohibited.
Henry Schwake shared his concerns regarding delivery trucks entering Gelson’s parking lot and how they often block traffic.
Acting Chair Marcy closed public comment.
Commissioner Kirschenbaum asked about the status of the bank next to Gelson’s.
Acting Chair Marcy opened public comment.
Dennis Sullivan stated that interior remodel is complete and the contractor is awaiting final inspections for the J.P. Morgan Chase Bank. He also shared his concerns regarding delivery trucks turning right onto 8th Street from Sepulveda Boulevard and mentioned that Gelson’s management ha d a conversation with the delivery truck drivers when they turn right onto 8th Street.
Acting Chair Marcy closed public comment.
Commissioner Kirschenbaum shared his support for striping two eastbound lanes on 8th Street. He also suggested adding sharrows on 8th Street to remind drivers that the street is shared by vehicles and bicycles.
He asked about the potential impact of the senior living facility. Traffic Engineer Zandvliet stated that staff expects a potential increase in pedestrian crossings since Gelson’s is the nearest grocery store to the Sunrise facility. He explained that staff does not expect an increase in vehicular volume since Sunrise is an assisted senior living facility. Acting Community Development Director Heise clarified that Sunrise is a memory care and end-of-life care facility.
Commissioner O’Neill asked Commissioner Kirschenbaum for clarification on adding striping on 8 th Street. Commissioner Kirschenbaum stated that without the striping, cars are not aware that can be two lanes. Commissioner O’Neill asked if there is enough room on 8 th Street to add striping without having to remove some of the sidewalks. Traffic Engineer Zandvliet explained that Cal Trans has a requirement that lanes must be at least 12 feet wide and there is not enough room to have three 12-foot-wide lanes on 8th Street. He stated that one of the Gelson’s conditions of approval was to dedicate land to future street widening for three 12-foot wide lanes.
Acting Chair Marcy opened public comment.
Michael Hamilton stated that if the City decides to dedicate one lane on 8 th Street to left turns, the light should have a left turn arrow and then turn to a green light to allow for better traffic flow.
Acting Chair Marcy closed public comment.
Acting Chair Marcy asked how many more feet are needed to turn 8 th Street into 3 lanes. Traffic Engineer Zandvliet stated that about three feet is needed to widen the street and allow for three travel lanes.
Discussion followed.
Acting Chair Marcy asked about the possibility of updating the restrictions for turning left out of Gelson’s parking lot to no left turns during peak hours only. Traffic Engineer Zandvliet stated that staff would need to conduct traffic counts to determine how many cars turn left out of Gelson’s.
City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
626 of 630
Parking and Public Improvements Commission
Minutes of March 27, 2025 Page 3 of 3
OTHER ITEMS
03/27/2025-4 Staff Updates
Traffic Engineer Zandvliet provided the following staff updates on the following items:
• The Aviation Boulevard Pedestrian Enhancement Project has not moved forward in the City of Redondo Beach.
• The petition for resident permit parking restrictions on Peck Avenue between Gates Avenue and Curtis Avenue has been granted.
o A work order has been submitted to install No Parking Signs between 8:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M.
o Letters were sent to eligible residents to obtain their resident parking permit • City Council approved the Parking and Public Improvements Commission’s recommendations to implement all traffic calming measures proposed by the Traffic Engineer on Valley Drive between 1st Street and 10th Place.
o Temporary crosswalks and walkways have been installed on the north side of 6 th Street until the project begins.
o A speed awareness sign has been ordered and will be installed near 5th Place. o A speed limit sign has been installed at 10th Street. o Flashing stop signs have been installed on 6th Street at Valley Drive and on 6th Street at Ardmore Avenue.
Acting Chair Marcy asked about the status of the Wayfinding Sign Project. Traffic Engineer Zandvliet explained that Public Works contractor has installed parking wayfinding signs at City Parking Lots in Downtown, Bruce’s Beach, and North End. He stated that directional wayfinding signs have not moved forward at this time.
Commissioner Kirschenbaum asked if the parking space could be removed at Valley Drive and Manhattan Beach Boulevard. Traffic Engineer Zandvliet stated that the parking space will be removed. 03/27/25-5 Commissioner Items
Commissioner Kirschenbaum asked if there are any agenda items for the April Parking and Public Improvements Commission Meeting. Traffic Engineer Zandvliet stated that the Capital Improvements Program will be discussed at the April meeting.
G. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 4:58p.m. to the Parking and Public Improvements Commission Regular Meeting on April 24, 2025 at 4:00p.m. at the City Hall Council Chambers (1400 Highland Ave. Manhattan Beach, CA 90266) and via ZOOM Call.
City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
627 of 630
City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
628 of 630
Agenda Date: 4/30/2025
TO:
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
THROUGH:
Talyn Mirzakhanian, City Manager
FROM:
Michael Codron, Interim Community Development Director
SUBJECT:
Recent Planning Commission Quasi-Judicial Decisions: Consideration of a Use Permit to Allow the Operation of a Food and Beverage Sales Use with Off-Sale of Beer and Wine, in Conjunction with an Ancillary Eating and Drinking Establishment Use with On-Sale Beer and Wine Located at 1121 Artesia Boulevard (The Butchery) (Interim Community Development Director Codron).
INFORMATION ITEM ONLY
_____________________________________________________________________ On April 23, 2025, the Planning Commission considered the item described below.
Consideration of a Use Permit to allow the operation of a food and beverage sales use with off-sale of beer and wine, in conjunction with an ancillary eating and drinking establishment use with on-sale beer and wine located at 1121 Artesia Boulevard (The Butchery).
On January 30, 2025, the Community Development Department received an application requesting a use permit to allow the operation of a food and beverage sales use with off-sale of beer and wine, in conjunction with an ancillary eating and drinking establishment use with on-sale beer and wine, located at 1121 Artesia Boulevard. On April 23, 2025, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request. After receiving a report from City staff, and testimony from the applicant, the Planning Commission voted 3-0-2 (Sistos and Hackett absent) to approve the use permit as recommended by staff and found the project exempt from further environmental review pursuant to CEQA.
Link to the Planning Commission Staff Report:
<https://www.manhattanbeach.gov/home/showdocument?id=56545&t=638805613864298217> Pursuant to Manhattan Beach Municipal Code Section 10.100.020, Planning Commission quasi-judicial decisions will be reviewed by the City Council if two Councilmembers each file a
City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
629 of 630
File Number: 25-0219
Council review form within 15 days of the decision or if the decision is appealed by a member of the public.
City Council Meeting
May 6, 2025
630 of 630