Manhattan Beach City Council
December 16, 2025

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Table of Contents
iCity of Manhattan Beach True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

T ABLE OF C ONTENTS
Table of Contents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii List of Figures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Purpose of Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Overview of Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Statistical Significance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Organization of Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Disclaimer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 About True North . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Quality of Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Overall Quality of Life. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Question 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 What Do You Like Most About Manhattan Beach? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Question 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Changes to Improve Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Question 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 City Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Overall Satisfaction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Question 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Specific Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Question 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Differentiators of Opinion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Safety. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Question 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Spending Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Question 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Library . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Question 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Rideshare Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Question 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Short-Term Vacation Rentals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Support or Oppose Short-Term Rentals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Question 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Question 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Likely to Rent Out Property during Events. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Question 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Project Pulse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Question 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Local Governance & Customer Service. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Perceptions of City Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Question 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Contact with City Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 6 Question 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Rating City Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Question 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Satisfaction With Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Question 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Background & Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Table of Contents
iiCity of Manhattan Beach True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Questionnaire Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Programming & Pre-Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Sample, Recruiting & Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Margin of Error due to Sampling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Data Processing & Weighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Rounding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Questionnaire & Toplines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 List of Tables
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 iii
City of Manhattan Beach
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

L IST OF T ABLES
Table 1 Rating Manhattan Beach by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Table 2 Rating Manhattan Beach by Years in Manhattan Beach, Home Ownership Status & Child in Hsld (Showing % Excellent) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Table 3 Rating Manhattan Beach by Age & Gender (Showing % Excellent) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Table 4 Rating Manhattan Beach by Ethnicity & Employment Status (Showing % Excellent) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Table 5 Changes to Improve City of Manhattan by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Table 6 Satisfaction with City Services by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Table 7 Satisfaction with City Services by Overall Sa tisfaction With City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Table 8 City Spending Priorities by Age (Showing % High Priority) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Table 9 City Spending Priorities by Ethnicity & Ge nder (Showing % High Priority) . . . . . . . . 21 Table 10 City Spending Priorities by Home Ownership Status, Child in Hsld & Overall Satisfaction (Showing % High Priority) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Table 11 City Spending Priorities by Distri ct Area & Coastal Zone (Showing % High Priority). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Table 12 Library Spending Priorities by Age (Showing % High Priority) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Table 13 Library Spending Priorities by Ethnicity & Gender (Showing % High Priority). . . . . . 23 Table 14 Library Spending Priorities by Home Ownership Status, Child in Hsld & Overall Satisfaction (Showing % High Priority) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Table 15 Library Spending Priorities by Dist rict Area & Coastal Zone (Showing % High Priority). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Table 16 Project Pulse Redevelopment Options by Ag e (Showing % High Priority). . . . . . . . . 33 Table 17 Project Pulse Redevelopment Option s by Ethnicity & Gender (Showing % High Priority). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Table 18 Project Pulse Redevelopment Opti ons by Home Ownership Status, Child in Hsld & Overall Satisfaction (Showing % High Priority). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Table 19 Project Pulse Redevelopment Opti ons by District Area & Coastal Zone (Showing % High Priority) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Table 20 Agreement With Statements by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Table 21 Agreement With Statements by Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Table 22 Agreement With Statements by Ethnicity & Perception of City Safety . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Table 23 Agreement With Statements by Home Ownership Status & Overall Satisfaction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Table 24 Agreement With Statements by Years in Manh attan Beach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Table 25 Agreement With Statements by District Area & Coastal Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Table 26 Perception of City Staff... by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Table 27 Demographics of Sample by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 List of Figures
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 iv
City of Manhattan Beach
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

L IST OF F IGURES
Figure 1 Rating Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Figure 2 Like Most About City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Figure 3 Changes to Improve City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Figure 4 Overall Satisfaction by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Figure 5 Overall Satisfaction by Ye ars in Manhattan Beach, Ethnicity & Gender . . . . . . . . . . 13 Figure 6 Overall Satisfaction by Age, Child in Hs ld & Home Ownership Status. . . . . . . . . . . 13 Figure 7 Overall Satisfaction by Satisfaction With Communication, District Area & Coastal Zone. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Figure 8 Satisfaction with City Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Figure 9 Opinion of City Safety by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Figure 10 Opinion of City Safety by Years in Manhattan Beach & Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Figure 11 Opinion of City Safety by Ethnicity, Gender, Child in Hsld & Home Ownership Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Figure 12 Opinion of City Safety by Overall Satisf action, District Area & Coastal Zone. . . . . . 18 Figure 13 City Spending Priorities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Figure 14 Library Spending Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Figure 15 Interest in Low-Cost Rideshare Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Figure 16 Interest in Low-Cost Rideshar e Services by Years in Manhattan Beach, Ethnicity & Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Figure 17 Interest in Low-Cost Rideshare Services by Age, Child in Hsld & Home Ownership Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Figure 18 Interest in Low-Cost Rideshare Servi ces by Perception of City Safety, Overall Satisfaction, District Area & Coastal Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Figure 19 Support Allowing Limit ed Short-Term Rentals During World Cup & Olympics. . . . . 26 Figure 20 Support Allowing Li mited Short-Term Rentals During World Cup & Olympics by Years in Manhattan Beach, Ethnicity & Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Figure 21 Support Allowing Li mited Short-Term Rentals During World Cup & Olympics by Age, Child in Hsld & Home Ownership Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Figure 22 Support Allowing Li mited Short-Term Rentals During World Cup & Olympics by Perception of City Safety, Overall Satisfaction, District Area & Coastal Zone . . . 27 Figure 23 Support Short-Term Rentals After Le aning Additional Safety Services Paid by Taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Figure 24 Support Short-Term Rentals Afte r Leaning Additional Info by Years in Manhattan Beach, Ethnicity & Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Figure 25 Support Short-Term Rentals After Le aning Additional Info by Age, Child in Hsld & Home Ownership Status. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Figure 26 Support for Short-Term Rentals After Leaning Additional Info by Perception of City Safety, Overall Satisfaction, District Area & Coastal Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Figure 27 Likely to Rent Property During Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Figure 28 Likely to Rent Property During Events by Years in Manhattan Beach, Ethnicity & Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Figure 29 Likely to Rent Property During Events by Age, Child in Hsld & Home Ownership Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Figure 30 Likely to Rent Property During Events by Perception of City Safety, Overall Satisfaction, Coastal Zone & District Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Figure 31 Project Pulse Redevelopment Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Figure 32 Agreement With Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Figure 33 City Staff Contact in Past 12 Months by Stud y Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Figure 34 City Staff Contact in Past 12 Months by Years in Manhattan Beach & Age . . . . . . . 36 Figure 35 City Staff Contact in Past 12 Months by Ethnicity, Child in Hsld, Home Ownership Status & Gender. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 List of Figures
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 vCity of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure 36 Contact City Staff in Past 12 Months by Overall Satisfaction, District Area & Coastal Zone. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Figure 37 Perception of City Staff... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Figure 38 Satisfaction With Communication by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Figure 39 Satisfaction With Communication by Years in Manhattan Beach, Ethnicity & Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Figure 40 Satisfaction With Communication by Age, Child in Hsld & Home Ownership Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Figure 41 Satisfaction With Communication by District Area, Coastal Zone & Overall Satisfaction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Figure 42 Maximum Margin of Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Introduction
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 1
City of Manhattan Beach
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I NTRODUCTION
Located along the coastal edge of Los Angeles County, the City of Manhattan Beach is home to an estimated 34,051 residents.1 Incorporated in 1912 as a General Law city, Manhattan Beach’s team of full- and part-time employees provides services through more than a dozen depart- ments, agencies, and programs, including the City Attorney’s office, City Clerk’s office, City Man- ager’s office, Community Development, Environmental Stability, Finance, Fire, Human Resources, Information Technology, MBtv, Parks & Recreation, Police, and Public Works.

As part of its commitment to provide high qual ity services and facilities that meet the varied needs of its residents, the City of Manhattan Beach engages its residents on a daily basis and receives regular feedback regarding issue, po licy, and performance matters. Although these informal feedback mechanisms are a valuable source of information for the City in that they pro- vide timely and accurate information about the opinions of specific residents, they do not neces- sarily provide an accurate picture of the commu nity as a whole. For the most part, informal feedback mechanisms rely on the resident to initiate the feedback, which creates a self-selection bias. The City receives feedback only from thos e residents who are motivated enough to initiate the feedback process. Because these reside nts tend to be those who are either very pleased or very displeased regarding a particular topic, thei r collective opinions are not necessarily repre- sentative of the City’s resident population as a whole.

PURPOSE OF STUDY The motivation for the current st udy was to design and employ a methodology that would avoid the self-selection bias noted above and thereby provide the City with a statistically reliable understanding of its residents’ satisfaction, priorities, and concerns as they relate to services, facilities, and policies provided by the City. Ultimately, the survey results and analyses presented in this report provide City Council and staff with information that can be used to make sound, strategic decisions in a variety of areas including service improve- ments and enhancements, measuring and tracking internal performance, planning, budgeting, policymaking, and community engagement.

To assist in this effort, the City selected True North Research to design the research plan and conduct the study. Broadly defined, the study was designed to:
• Identify key issues of importance for residents, as well as their perceptions of the quality of life in Manhattan Beach;
• Measure residents’ overall satisfaction with th e City’s efforts to provide municipal services, and their satisfaction with a variety of specific services; • Gather opinions on specific topics including pu blic safety, short-term vacation rentals, Proj- ect Pulse, budget priorities, and customer service;
• Determine satisfaction with the City’s communication with residents; and • Collect additional background and demographic data that are relevant to understanding res- idents’ perceptions, needs, and interests.

1. Source: State of California, Depart ment of Finance, E-1 City/County Population Estimates, January 2025.

Introduction
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 2City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY A full description of the methodology used for this study is included later in this report (see Methodology o n p a g e 4 2 ) . I n b r i e f , t h e s u r v e y w a s administered to a random sample of 588 adults who reside within the City of Manhattan Beach.

The survey followed a mixed-method design that employed multiple recruiting methods (email, text, and phone) and multiple data collecti on methods (phone and online). Administered between September 29 and October 6, 2025, the average interview lasted 18 minutes.

This is not the first public opinion survey conducted for the City by True North. In fact, similar studies have been implemented in prior years dati ng back to 2004, with the most recent com- pleted in 2021. That said, the design of the surve y questionnaire, recruiting protocols, and data collection methodologies were all updated in 202 1, resulting in a methodological break in the survey time series. For this reason, only results from 2021 forward are displayed in this report.

STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE Many figures and tables in this report present the results of questions asked in 2025 alongside the results found in the 2021 survey for identical questions.

In such cases, True North conducted the appropri ate tests of statistical significance to identify changes that likely reflect actual changes in public opinion between the prior survey (2021) and the current (2025)—as opposed to being due to chance associat ed with selecting two samples independently and at random. Differences betw een the two studies are identified as statistically significant if we can be 95% confident that the differe nces reflect an actu al change in public opinion between the two studies. Statistically si gnificant differences within response categories over time are denoted by the † symbol which a ppears in the figure next to the appropriate response value for 2025.

ORGANIZATION OF REPORT This report is designed to me et the needs of readers who prefer a summary of the findings as well as those who are interested in the details of the results.

For those who seek an overview of the findings, the section titled Key Findings is for you. It pro- vides a summary of the most important factual findings of the survey in a Question & Answer for- mat. For the interested reader, this section is followed by a more detailed question-by-question discussion of the results from the survey by topic area (see Table of Contents ), as well as a description of the methodology employed for collecting and anal yzing the data. And, for the truly ambitious reader, the questionnaire used for the interviews is contained at the back of this report (see Questionnaire & Toplines on page 45), and a complete set of crosstabulations for the survey results is contained in Appendix A.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS True North thanks the City of Manhattan Beach for the opportu- nity to conduct the study and for contributing valuable input during the design stage of this study. The collective experience, insight, and lo cal knowledge provided by city representatives and staff improved the overall quality of the research presented here.

DISCLAIMER The statements and conclu sions in this report are those of the authors (Dr. Timothy McLarney and Richard Sarles) at True North and not necessarily those of the City of Manhattan Beach. Any errors and omissions are the responsibility of the authors.

Introduction
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 3City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ABOUT TRUE NORTH True North is a full-service survey research firm that is dedicated to providing public agencies with a clear understanding of the values, perceptions, priorities, and concerns of their residents and customers. Thro ugh designing and implementing scientific sur- veys, focus groups, and one-on-one interviews, as well as expert interpretation of the findings, True North helps its clients to move with confidence when making strategic decisions in a variety of areas—such as planning, policy evaluation, per formance management, establishing fiscal pri- orities, passing revenue measures, and developing effective public information campaigns.

During their careers, Dr. McLarney (President) and Mr. Sarles (Principal Researcher) have designed and conducted over 1,500 survey research studies for public agencies—including more than 500 studies for California municipalities and special districts.

Key Findings
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 4
City of Manhattan Beach
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

K EY F INDINGS
As noted in the Introduction, this study was designed to prov ide the City of Manhattan Beach with a statistically reliable understanding of its residents’ opinions, satisfaction, and priorities as they relate to services, facilities, and policies provided by the City. As such, the findings of this study can provide the City with information needed to make sound, strategic decisions in a vari- ety of areas including performance management, planning, establishing budget priorities, and community engagement.

Whereas subsequent sections of this report are devoted to conveying the detailed results of the survey, in this section we attempt to ‘see the forest through the trees’ and note how the survey results answer key questions that motivated th e research. The followin g conclusions are based on True North’s interpretations of the results, as well as the firm’s experience conducting similar studies for government agencies throughout the State.

How well is the City per-
forming in meeting the
needs of Manhattan
Beach residents?
Manhattan Beach residents continue to be quite satisfied with the City’s overall efforts to provide services. When asked to rate the City’s overall performance in providing municipal services, 87% of residents surveyed in 2025 indicated that they were either very (40%) or somewhat (47%) sat- isfied with the City’s performance. Overall satisfaction remained remark- ably consistent over the past fo ur years, changing by just one percentage point. Moreover, the high level of satisfaction exhibited by respondents as a whole was genera lly echoed across resident sub- groups, with at least eight-in-ten residents in nearly all subgroups reporting satisfaction (see Overall Satisfaction on page 12).

The strong level of satisfaction expressed with the City’s performance in general was also mirrored in residents’ assessments of the City’s perfor- mance in providing most specific se rvices, with the highest satisfaction scores assigned to the City’s efforts to remove graffiti (98% very or somewhat satisfied), pr ovide fire protection and prevention services (97%), provide emergency medical se rvices (97%), provide special events such as concerts in the park and holiday fireworks (94%), and maintain public athletic fields (94%). Further, the majority of respondents were very satisfied with the City’s efforts in each of these areas.

Of the 23 services assessed in both 2021 and 2025, only two registered statistically significant changes. There were statistically significant declines in satisfaction with the City ’s efforts to address bike safety and e-bikes (-12%) and provide services an d programs for seniors (-9%). Each of the other 21 services remained statistically consistent from 2021 to 2025 (see Specific Services on page 14).

How do residents view
the quality of life in
Manhattan Beach?
The City’s performance in providing municipal services has also contrib- uted to an exceptional quality of lif e for residents. Nearly all residents surveyed (96%) rated the quality of life in Manhattan Beach as excellent or good, with the majority saying it is excellent (54%). The overall quality Key Findings
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 5City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
of life rating tracked closely with 2021 (+2%), and the positive sentiment was widespread across a host of resi dent subgroups based on length of residence, home ownership status, age, employment status, and other demographics (see Overall Quality of Life on page 8). Residents also feel extremely safe in their city, with 94% of respondents indicating that Man- hattan Beach is a safe place to live . While overall safety was stable from 2021 to 2025 (+1%), residents were much more likely to rate the City as very safe in 2025 (+15%, see Safety on page 17).

The City also gets high marks from residents as a place to raise a family (88% excellent or good), as a place to recreate (84%), and as a place to shop and dine (79%). Although opinions regarding Manhattan Beach as a place to retire (59%) and work (43%) were somewhat mixed, it should be noted that approximately one-thir d of respondents (34%) were also unsure how to rate the City as a pl ace to work. There was a statistically significant decline (-12%) on the latter dimension from 2021 to 2025, driven by an increase in responses of unsure/prefer not to answer when rating Manhattan Beach as a place to work.

When asked what they liked most abou t living in Manhattan Beach, the small town feel/charmi ng beach community vibe was the top response (21%), followed by its proximity to the ocean and beach (16%), the com- munity and its friendly people and family atmosphere (14%), the City’s safety/low crime rate (13%), and its low density development/single fam- ily homes (10%). To quote one resident: Everything - the people, the res- taurants, the ocean, the pier, the ma ll, the retail stor es, the weather... and another sums it up by saying: I enjoy the community of Manhattan Beach! And to underscore this point, it must be noted that when asked about changes that city government could make to improve Manhattan Beach, the most common response was that they could not think of any- thing to change or that no changes were needed (13%).

How is the City per-
ceived with respect to
customer service and
governance?
Underlying the positive ratings the City receives for specific service areas is the day-to-day customer service provided by city staff. Indeed, staff at the City of Manhattan Beach are often the “face” of the City for residents who are using city facilities, participating in various programs or events, or in need of assistance from the City on any number of matters. Close to half (46%) of respondents indicated that they had been in contact with Manhattan Beach staff at least once during the 12 months prior to the interview, and approximately nine-in-t en of those respondents indicated that staff members were very or somewhat professional (95%), accessible (92%), and helpful (88%). Staff contact and ratings were statistically con- sistent from 2021 to 2025 (see Contact with City Staff on page 36).

Regarding perceptions of local gove rnment, the City was rated highest with regard to resident trust (72% agreed with the statement I trust the City of Manhattan Beach ), followed by being responsive to residents’ Key Findings
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 6City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
needs (64%), listening to residents when making important decisions (57%), and managing its finances (45%). Agreement across the items was statistically consistent from 2021 to 2025 (see Perceptions of City Gov- ernment on page 34).

Where should the City
focus its efforts in the
future?
In addition to measuring the City’s current performance, a primary goal of this study was to look forward and identify opportunities to adjust services, improve facilities, and/or refine communications strategies to best meet the community’s evolving needs and expectations. Although residents are generally satisfied with the City’s performance (as described above), there is always ro om for improvement. Below we note some of the areas that present the best opportunities in this regard.

Considering respondents’ verbatim answers regarding what city govern- ment could do to make Manhattan Beach a better place to live (see Changes to Improve Manhattan Beach on page 10), the performance rat- ings they assigned to a wide variety of services (see Specific Services on page 14), the manner in which resi dents prioritize among a variety of projects and programs that could receive funding in the future (see Spending Priorities on page 19), and other relevant questions, the topics of addressing bike safety and e-bike s, enforcing traffic laws, enforcing animal control laws, street and side walk repair/maintenance, improving park maintenance and amenities, repairing/upgrading the City’s sewer and wastewater systems, and addressing parking issues stood out as the key areas of opportunity and interest for residents.

It is also important to keep in mind that although these areas represent opportunities to improve resident satisfaction, the City should not over- steer. Indeed, the primary takeaway from this study is that the City does many things very well, and the emphasis should be on continuing to per- form at that high level in those areas. The vast majority of residents were pleased with the City’s efforts to provide services, programs, and facili- ties and have a favorable opinion of the City’s performance in most areas. The top priority for the City should thus be to do what it takes to maintain the high quality of services that it currently provides.

How well is the City com-
municating with Man-
hattan Beach residents?
Keeping up with the challenge of communicating with residents has been difficult for many public agencies in recent years. As the number of information sources and channels ava ilable to the public have dramati- cally increased, so too has the diversity in where residents regularly turn for their information. Not only have entirely new channels arisen to become mainstream and nearly ubiquitous (e.g., social media), within these channels there exists a proliferation of alternative services. To add to the challenge, residents’ preferences for information sources are also dynamic, subject to change as new services are made available while oth- ers may fade in popularity, making thorough, effective communication a moving target for public agencies.

Key Findings
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 7City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

With this context in mind, the City of Manhattan Beach appears to be doing a solid job communicating with residents. Overall, 81% of respon- dents indicated they were satisfied with the City’s efforts to communi- cate with residents through newsletters, the Internet, social media, and other means, with the remaining respondents either dissatisfied (12%) or unsure or unwilling to share their opinion (7%). Moreover, the City has improved in this area over the past fo ur years. Driven by an increase in the percentage of residents who were very satisfied (+8%), overall satis- faction with city-resident communication was significantly higher in 2025 than 2021 (+6%).

What are residents’
views on allowing short-
term vacation rentals
during the Olympics and
World Cup?
When the topic of allowing limited sh ort-term vacation rentals on a tem- poary basis to accommodate incr eased demand when the 2026 FIFA World Cup and the 2028 Summer Olym pics come to Los Angeles was presented to residents, 58% indicated that they strongly (28%) or some- what (30%) supported the idea. After being informed that the City will need to provide additional public sa fety services for security and emer- gency medical during the Olympics and World Cup and that the taxes generated by short-term vacation rentals will help cover these additional costs, support increased to 66% (+8%). Thirty-two percent (32%) remained opposed to the City allowing residents to rent their properties on a short-term basis during the ev ents and 2% were unsure or declined to state. If they City allowed short-term vacation rentals for the Olympics and World Cup, 12% of residents anti cipated the would rent their prop- erty (see Short-Term Vacation Rentals on page 26).

Quality of Life
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 8
City of Manhattan Beach
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Q UALITY OF L IFE
The opening series of questions in the survey was designed to assess residents’ top of mind per- ceptions about the qualit y o f l i f e i n t h e C i t y o f M a n h a t t a n B e a c h , a s w e l l a s t h e i r i d e a s o n changes that city government could implement to make the community a better place to live, now and in the future.

OVERALL QUALITY OF LIFE At the outset of the survey, residents were asked to rate the City of Manhattan Beach on a number of key dimensions including overall quality of life, as a place to raise a family, and as a place to work, using a five-point scale of excellent, good, fair, poor, or very poor. As shown in Figure 1 below, residents shared the most favorable opinions of the overall quality of life in the City (96% excellent or good), followed by Manhattan Beach as a place to raise a family (88%), as a place to recreate (84%), and as a place to shop and dine (79%).

Although opinions regarding Manhattan Beach as a place to retire (59%) and work (43%) were somewhat more mixed, it should be noted that approximately on e-third of respondents (34%) were also unsure how to rate the City as a pl ace to work. There was a statistically significant decline on the latter dimension from 2021 to 2025 (-12%), driven by an increase in responses of unsure and prefer not to answer (see Table 1).

Question 2 How would you rate: _____? Would you say it is excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor?
FIGURE 1 RATING MANHATTAN BEACH
TABLE 1 RATING MANHATTAN BEACH BY STUDY YEAR
† Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2021 and 2025 studies.

53.7 51.6

46.2 35.1

29.7 16.6

42.6 35.9

37.7 43.8

29.1 25.9

3.6 7.2

8.2 17.8

16.4 16.7
1 1
3 7.6

6.6 1
2 1
5 15.1

33.5 6
0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0 1 0 0
The overall quality of life in
Manhattan Beach
Manhattan Beach as a place
to raise a family
Manhattan Beach as a place
to recreate
Manhattan Beach as a place
to shop and dine
Manhattan Beach as a place
to retire
Manhattan Beach as a place
to work
% Respondents
Excellent Good Fair Poor Very poor N ot sure/Prefer not to answer 2025 2021
Manhattan Beach as a place to raise a family 87.4 83.7 +3.8 The overall quality of life in Manhattan Beach 96.3 94.5 +1.8 Manhattan Beach as a place to recreate 84.0 85.1 -1.2
Manhattan Beach as a place to retire 58.8 60.2 -1.5
Manhattan Beach as a place to shop and dine 78.9 81.4 -2.5 Manhattan Beach as a place to work 42.4 54.3 -11.9†
Study Year Change in
% Excellent + Good
2021 to 2025
Quality of Life
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 9City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

For the interested reader, tables 2-4 show how ratings of excellent for each dimension varied by years in Manhattan Beach, home ownership status, presence of a child in the home, age, gender, ethnicity, and employment status. In general, new residents (less than 5 years), those renting their home in the City, respondents with a child in their household, residents under 55 years of age, those who identified their ethnicity as mixed or other, and respondents employed part-time were the most likely to rate the overall quality of life in Manhattan Beach as excellent.

TABLE 2 RATING MANHATTAN BEACH BY YEARS IN MANHATTAN BEACH, HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS & CHILD IN HSLD (SHOWING % EXCELLENT)
TABLE 3 RATING MANHATTAN BEACH BY AGE & GENDER (SHOWING % EXCELLENT) TABLE 4 RATING MANHATTAN BEACH BY ETHNICITY & EMPLOYMENT STATUS (SHOWING % EXCELLENT) WHAT DO YOU LIKE MOST ABOUT MANHATTAN BEACH? The next question in this series asked residents to identify what th ey like most about Manhattan Beach that the city government should make sure to preserve in th e future. This question was posed in an open- ended manner, thereby allowing residents to ment ion any aspect or attribute that came to mind without being prompted by—or rest ricted to—a particular list of options. True North later reviewed the verbatim responses and grouped them into the categories shown in Figure 2 on the next page.

Among the specific responses offered, the City’s small-town feel and charming beach community vibe was the topic mentioned most often (21%), followed by the beach and ocean (16%), the com- munity and its friendly people and family atmo sphere (14%), the City’s safety/low crime rate (13%), and its low density development/single family homes (10%). Approximately 6% were unsure or unable to offer a specific aspect of Manhattan Beach that they would like preserved in the future.

Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more Own Rent Yes No
The overall quality of life in Manhattan Beach 66.7 50.8 50.2 50.1 52.5 60.0 58.8 53.1 Manhattan Beach as a place to raise a family 59.1 55.1 62.8 45.9 50.3 57.1 65.2 45.8 Manhattan Beach as a place to recreate 52.3 38.7 53.5 44.4 45.1 48.7 55.2 41.6 Manhattan Beach as a place to shop and dine 42.5 32.7 41.4 31.7 35.0 35.2 36.5 34.8 Manhattan Beach as a place to retire 34.0 30.6 36.7 26.6 27.8 34.8 25.1 34.6 Manhattan Beach as a place to work 19.3 13.1 22.6 15.2 17.3 16.0 19.2 16.0 Child in Hsld (QD3)Years in Manhattan Beach (Q1)
Home Ownership
Status (QD4)
18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Male Female The overall quality of life in Manhattan Beach 59.2 55.4 55.2 56.1 51.1 49.1 54.8 54.9 Manhattan Beach as a place to raise a family 53.3 45.7 57.3 53.1 50.4 48.7 54.9 49.8 Manhattan Beach as a place to recreate 57.0 39.3 40.6 52.6 47.4 46.6 45.9 47.5 Manhattan Beach as a place to shop and dine 45.5 45.5 32.5 34.1 30.3 34.3 33.6 37.4 Manhattan Beach as a place to retire 43.7 50.3 29.2 20.5 19.6 32.2 32.8 27.6 Manhattan Beach as a place to work 8.2 15.6 16.1 13.5 20.7 20.0 19.7 14.2 Age (QD1) Gender (QD2)
Latino/
Hispanic
Asian
American
Caucasian/
White
Mixed/
Other Full time Part time
Home-
maker Retired Other
The overall quality of life in Manhattan Beach 56.1 49.1 54.1 64.2 57.7 65.7 47.1 46.0 49.5 Manhattan Beach as a place to raise a family 67.1 50.2 49.0 70.4 55.3 62.0 53.6 43.3 50.7 Manhattan Beach as a place to recreate 53.9 38.7 45.6 64.1 48.1 45.9 55.2 42.6 43.2 Manhattan Beach as a place to shop and dine 37.9 32.7 36.3 30.3 38.5 23.7 41.8 29.0 42.5 Manhattan Beach as a place to retire 35.2 32.8 29.1 34.7 31.2 24.6 19.3 37.9 26.5 Manhattan Beach as a place to work 18.2 14.4 16.8 18.7 17.4 16.6 20.5 18.7 10.2 Ethnicity (QD6) Employment Status (QD5)
Quality of Life
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 10City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Question 3 What do you like most about the City of Manhattan Beach that should be preserved in the future?
FIGURE 2 LIKE MOST ABOUT CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
CHANGES TO IMPROVE MANHATTAN BEACH The next question in this series asked residents to indicate the one thing that city government could change to make Manhattan Beach a better place to live. Question 4 was presented in an open-ended manner, allowing residents to mention any change that came to mind without bei ng prompted by, or restricted to, a particular list of options. True North later reviewed the verbatim responses and grouped them into the cat- egories shown in Figure 3 on the next page.

Approximately 13% of respondents could not think of a desired change (9%) or stated flatly that no changes are needed (5%). Among the specific changes desired to make Manhattan Beach a better place to live, addressing parking issues (12%), enforcing traffic and e-bike laws (11%), and limiting growth and development (10%) were the most commonly mentioned, followed by improving public safety and increasing the polic e presence (9%) and preserving/supporting out- door dining (6%). All other improvements were mentioned by fewer than 5% of respondents.

Table 5 on the next page shows the top five response categories from 2025 alongside 2021, and reveals that four of the five suggested improvements were common to both studies (although in different order).

21.0 16.2

14.3 12.8

9.5 8.3

8.2 7.8

5.9 5.7

5.6 4.8

4.0 3.8

3.2 2.9

2.2 2.1

2.0 1.9

5.8 5.4
0 5 10 15 20 25
Small town feel, charming beach community
Beach, ocean
Community, friendly people, family atmosphere
Public safety, low crime rate
Low density development, single family homes
Schools, education
Cleanliness, appearance, beauty of City
Parks, rec facilities
Community events, activities
Walkability of commercial, residential areas
The Strand, pier
Not sure / Cannot think of anything
Open space, greenbelt
Outdoor shops, dining options
Local businesses, downtown area
Fire, Police services
Lack of homelessness
Relaxed, casual lifestyle
Environment, nature
Bike lanes
Historical places
Improve, maintain roads, sidewalks, streets
% Respondents
Quality of Life
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 11City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

In 2025, limiting growth and development increased in saliency (from 6th in 2021 to 3rd in 2025) and no changes/everything is fine dropped from fourth place in 2021 to seventh place in 2025.

Question 4 If the city government could change one thing to make Manhattan Beach a better place to live now and in the future, what change would you like to see? FIGURE 3 CHANGES TO IMPROVE CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
TABLE 5 CHANGES TO IMPROVE CITY OF MANHATTAN BY STUDY YEAR

11.9 11.1

10.4 9.3

8.6 5.6

4.5 3.9

3.8 3.5

3.5 3.2

2.8 2.8

2.7 2.6

2.6 2.5

2.5 2.3

2.2 2.2

1.9 1.9

1.8 1.7

1.6 3.4

3.7 2.1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Address parking issues
Enforce traffic, e-bike laws
Limit growth, development
Improve public safety, more police presence
Not sure / Cannot think of anything
Preserve, support outdoor dining
No changes needed / Everything is fine
Improve bike lane safety
Provide more affordable housing
Reduce traffic congestion
Add, improve parks, rec facilities
Improve City planning, development
Attract variety of less expensive restaurants, shops
Reduce cost of living
Improve, maintain infrastructure
Improve walkability, sidewalks
Improve government leadership, communication
Improve, provide more dog parks, dog friendly spaces
Address homeless issues
Underground utilities
Encourage, support diversity, address inequity
Reduce taxes, fees
Increase, support small businesses
Reduce tourism
Preserve City history, small-town feeling
Beautify City, cleanliness, landscaping
Provide more activities, events for all ages
Improve quality of education
Improve public transit
Improve traffic signage, lights
% Respondents
2025 2021
Address parking issues Not sure / Cannot
think of anything
Enforce traffic, e-bike
laws
Improve public safety,
more police presence
Limit growth,
development Address parking issues
Improve public safety,
more police presence
No changes needed /
Everything is fine
Not sure / Cannot
think of anything
Enforce traffic, e-bike
laws
Study Year
City Services
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 12
City of Manhattan Beach
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C ITY S ERVICES
After measuring respondents’ perceptions of the quality of life in Manhattan Beach, the survey next turned to assessing their opinions about the City’s performance in providing various munic- ipal services.

OVERALL SATISFACTION The first question in this seri es asked respondents to indicate if, overall, they were satisfied or dissatisfied with the job the City of Manhattan Beach is doing to provide city services. Because this question does not reference a specific program, facility, or service and requested that the respondent consider the City’s performance in general, the find- ings of this question may be regarded as an overall performance rating for the City.

As shown in Figure 4, nearly nine-in-ten Manhattan Beach residents (87%) indicated they were either very satisfied (40%) or somewhat satisfied (47%) with the City’s efforts to provide munici- pal services. Less than one-in-ten residents reported that they were dissatisfied (9%), whereas 4% were unsure or unwilling to share their opinion. Satisfaction remained consistent from 2021 to 2025.

Question 5 Next, I would like to ask a series of questions about services provided by the City of Manhattan Beach. Generally speaking, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the job the City of Manhattan Beach is doing to provide city services?
FIGURE 4 OVERALL SATISFACTION BY STUDY YEAR
The next two figures display how residents’ opinions about the City’s overall performance in pro- viding municipal services varied by years in Manhattan Beach, ethnicity, gender, age, presence of a child in the household, home ownership status, satisfaction with city-resident communication, and geographic area of residence. The most striking pattern in the figures is that the high levels of satisfaction exhibited by re spondents as a whole (see Figure 4 above) were generally echoed across resident subgroups. The only subgroups to report satisfaction levels under 80% were those dissatisfied or unsure about their satisfaction with the City’s efforts to communicate with residents through newsletters, the Internet, social media, and other means (54% and 71%, respectively), Latino/Hispanics (74%), and residents 25 to 34 years of age (79%).

39.5 48.4

2.63.8 2.8

39.5 47.4

7.56.8 1.9
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
2025 2021
Study Year
% Respondents
N ot sure/Prefer
not to answer
Very
dissatisfied
Som ewhat
dissatisfied
Som ewhat
satisfied
Very satisfied
City Services
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 13City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FIGURE 5 OVERALL SATISFACTION BY YEARS IN MANHATTAN BEACH, ETHNICITY & GENDER FIGURE 6 OVERALL SATISFACTION BY AGE, CHILD IN HSLD & HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS FIGURE 7 OVERALL SATISFACTION BY SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION, DISTRICT AREA & COASTAL ZONE

32.6 27.5

42.7 58.3

39.7 40.6

41.0 59.5

45.5 35.1

46.5 48.9

32.237.444.2
Very
satisfied

57.6 47.3 57.6

49.8 Smwt
satisfied

35.4 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more Latino/
Hispanic
Asian
American
Caucasian/
Wh it e
Mixed or
other
Male Fem ale
Years in Manhattan Beach (Q1) Ethnicity (QD6) Gender (QD2) % Respondents

30.1 41.0 48.2

35.7 35.9

51.0 57.6 43.9

45.8 48.7 49.1

41.2 Very
satisfied

41.3 39.1

49.4 37.6
Smwt
satisfied

40.0 51.7

43.5 39.8
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Yes No Own Rent Age (QD1) Child in H sld (QD3) Home Ownership Status
(QD4)
% Respondents

42.1 35.0 33.0 41.2

45.0 49.8 51.1

46.4 40.3

22.7 2.4
Very
satisfied

46.3 51.6

48.0 48.1
Smwt
satisfied

46.8 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Satisfied Dissatisfied Not sure SE: Hill
Section, Mira
Costa
NE: Tr ee
Section,
Manhattan &
Liberty
Village
W: Sand
Section
Yes No
Satisfaction With Comm unication (Q18) District Area Coastal Zone % Respondents
City Services
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 14City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SPECIFIC SERVICES Whereas Question 5 addressed the City’s overall performance, Ques- tion 6 asked respondents to rate the job the City is doing providing each of the specific services shown in Figure 8 on the next page. The order of the items was randomized for each respondent to avoid a systematic position bi as, and they are sorted from high to low in the figure based on the combined percentage of respondents who were either very or somewhat satisfied with the City’s efforts to provide the service.2 For ease of comparison across services, only respondents who provided an opinion (either satisfied or dissa tisfied) are included in the figures—those who did not share an opinion were removed from this analysis. The percentage who offered an opin- ion and were included in this analysis is shown in brackets to the right of each service label.

Thus, for example, among the 81% of responde nts who expressed an op inion about the City’s efforts to remove graffiti, 65% were very satisfied and 33% were somewhat satisfied.

At the top of the list, respondents were most satisfied with the City’s efforts to remove graffiti (98% very or somewhat satisfied), provide fire protection and prevention services (97%), provide emergency medical services (97%), provide special events such as concerts in the park and holi- day fireworks (94%), and maintain public athletic fields (94%). Further, the majority of respon- dents were very satisfied with the City’s efforts in each of these areas.

At the other end of the spectrum (bottom of Figure 8 on next page), respondents were less satis- fied with the City’s performance in addressing bike safety and e-bikes (41%), enforcing traffic laws (61%), and enforcing animal control laws such as leash-laws and waste cleanup (67%).

Table 6 on the next page displays the percentag e of respondents who we re satisfied with each service by study year. From 2021 to 2025, there were statistically significant declines in satisfac- tion with the City’s efforts to address bike safety and e-bikes (-12%) and provide services and programs for seniors (-9%). Each of the other 21 services remained statistically consistent.

2. Given the large number of services tested, a split sa mple approach was utilized (i.e., respondents were divided into two groups and each group was asked to rate approximately half of the items).

City Services
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 15City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Question 6 For each of the services I read, please tell me how satisfied you are with the job the City is doing to provide the service. Are you sati sfied or dissatisfied with the City's efforts to:
_____, or do you not have an opinion?
FIGURE 8 SATISFACTION WITH CITY SERVICES
TABLE 6 SATISFACTION WITH CITY SERVICES BY STUDY YEAR
† Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2021 and 2025 studies.

65.3 74.2

63.8 67.2

50.1 45.8

52.0 41.9

47.6 49.6

43.7 43.2

41.6 39.0

39.7 31.3

46.9 30.7

35.1 29.5

31.8 28.6

11.9 32.5

23.1 33.2

26.7 43.4

44.8 37.5

47.0 40.2

37.8 42.5

42.3 43.5

44.8 43.9

49.7 31.4

45.0 37.4

41.8 35.0

31.9 28.9 26.5

22.2 27.8

16.4 20.8

15.4 15.2

16.3 12.7

14.8 11.9

8.8 7.7

7.2 3.9

4.4 1
2 1

6.1 9.0

8.1 11.7
3 2
2 1
1 6.1
4 5.7
3 6.5

3.7 2
3 2
3 32.6

17.3 5.4

12.4 6.7

8.8 2.8
1 0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0 1 0 0
Remove graffiti [81%]
Provide fire protection and prevention services [89%]
Provide emergency medical services [79%]
Provide special events such as concerts in the park and holiday fireworks [97%] Maintain public athletic fields [79%]
Keep public buildings, parks and facilities clean and attractive [98%] Provide a variety of recreation programs for all ages [91%] Protect the environment [79%]
Maintain sewer and storm drain sy stems [84%]
Maintain parks and open spaces [100%]
Provide services and programs for seniors [48%]
Provide after-school programs and diversion programs for youth [52%] Prepare the City for emergencies [68%]
Provide a variety of public art [82%]
Provide cultural and arts opportunities [84%]
Maintain and repair local streets and roads [99%]
Maintain a low crime rate [98%]
Address homelessness [88%]
Provide neighborhood police patrols [87%]
Preserve the City’s small, beach-town character [97%]
Enforce animal control laws such as leash-laws and waste cleanup [87%] Enforce traffic laws [91%]
Address bike safety and e-bikes [95%]
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Very satisfied Somewhat satisfied Somewhat dissatisfied Very dissatisfied 2025 2021
Address homelessness 75.7 69.2 +6.5
Maintain and repair local streets and roads 80.9 74.6 +6.3 Protect the environment 88.8 83.8 +5.0
Provide neighborhood police patrols 72.5 69.9 +2.6
Remove graffiti 97.8 96.2 +1.6
Maintain public athletic fields 93.5 92.4 +1.1
Provide a variety of public art 83.8 83.0 +0.8
Provide fire protection and prevention services 97.2 96.5 +0.7 Provide special events such as concerts in the park, holiday fireworks 94.0 93.7 +0.3 Enforce animal control laws such as leash-laws and waste cleanup 66.8 67.4 -0.6 Provide cultural and arts opportunities 83.6 85.0 -1.4
Maintain a low crime rate 78.3 79.8 -1.5
Provide emergency medical services 97.0 98.6 -1.6
Keep public buildings, parks and facilities clean and attractive 90.6 92.9 -2.3 Preserve the City’s small, beach-town character 71.2 74.3 -3.1 Provide after-school programs and diversion programs for youth 85.5 89.1 -3.6 Maintain parks and open spaces 87.4 91.1 -3.7
Maintain sewer and storm drain systems 87.8 91.9 -4.1
Provide a variety of recreation programs for all ages 89.5 94.6 -5.1 Prepare the City for emergencies 85.1 91.6 -6.5
Enforce traffic laws 60.5 68.5 -8.0
Provide services and programs for seniors 86.2 94.8 -8.6† Address bike safety and e-bikes 40.8 52.8 -12.0†
Study Year Change in %
Very + Smwt
2021 to 2025
City Services
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 16City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

DIFFERENTIATORS OF OPINION For the interested reader, Table 7 displays how the level of satisfaction with each specific service tested in Question 6 varied according to residents’ overall performance ratings for the City (see Overall Satisfaction on page 12). The table divides residents who were sati sfied with the City’s overall performance into one group and those dis- satisfied into a second group. Also displayed is the difference between the two groups in terms of the percentage who indicated they were satisfie d with the City’s efforts to provide each ser- vice tested in Question 6 (far right column). Fo r convenience, the services are sorted by that dif- ference, with the greatest differentiators of opinion near the top of the table.

When compared with their counterparts, those satisfied with the City’s overall performance in providing city services were also more likely to express satisfaction with the City’s efforts to pro- vide each of the specific services tested in Question 6.

However, with only a few percentage points separating the vast majority of items in Table 7 (and less than 15% separating the first item from the one in the middle of the list), no specific services stood out as primary differentiators of opinion. That said, satisfied and dissatisfied residents dif- fered most with regard to the City’s efforts to preserve the City's sma ll, beach-town character, provide after-school programs and diversion programs for yout h, provide neighborhood police patrols, provide services and programs for senior s, and maintain a low crime rate (>35% differ- ence between satisfied and dissatisfied residents).

At the other end of the spectrum, there was much less difference between the two resident groups regarding their satisfaction with the City’s efforts to enforce animal control laws such as leash-laws and waste cleanup, remove graffiti, prepare the City for emergencies, provide emer- gency medical services, and maintain public athl etic fields (<10% diffe rence in ratings between satisfied and dissatisfied residents).

TABLE 7 SATISFACTION WITH CITY SERVICES BY OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH CITY Very or somewhat
satisfied
Very or somewhat
dissatisfied
Preserve the City’s small, beach-town character 74.8 34.8 39.9 Provide after-school programs and diversion programs for youth 90.6 52.8 37.8 Provide neighborhood police patrols 75.5 38.2 37.2
Provide services and programs for seniors 90.5 53.5 36.9 Maintain a low crime rate 81.8 46.2 35.6
Enforce traffic laws 63.3 29.4 33.9
Provide a variety of recreation programs for all ages 92.9 60.4 32.5 Provide cultural and arts opportunities 86.2 55.6 30.6
Maintain sewer and storm drain systems 89.9 63.1 26.8
Protect the environment 91.2 65.7 25.5
Keep public buildings, parks and facilities clean and attractive 92.6 67.3 25.3 Address homelessness 78.5 53.2 25.3
Maintain and repair local streets and roads 82.1 64.8 17.3 Address bike safety and e-bikes 42.3 25.0 17.3
Provide a variety of public art 86.6 71.1 15.5
Provide special events such as concerts in the park and holiday fireworks 95.0 82.1 12.9 Provide fire protection and prevention services 99.0 87.1 11.9 Maintain parks and open spaces 88.2 77.2 10.9
Maintain public athletic fields 94.1 86.6 7.5
Provide emergency medical services 97.7 90.2 7.4
Prepare the City for emergencies 85.5 79.7 5.8
Remove graffiti 97.8 96.7 1.2
Enforce animal control laws such as leash-laws and waste cleanup 65.7 65.1 0.7 Satisfaction With
City's Overall Performance (Q5) Difference Between
Groups For Each
Service
% Respondents Satisfied With Each Service
City Services
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 17City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SAFETY Ensuring the personal safety of residents is the most basic functi on of local govern- ment. It is important to keep in mind, of course, that public safety is as much a matter of percep- tions as it is a matter of reality. Regardless of actual crime statistics, if residents don’t feel safe then they will not enjoy the many cultural, recreational, and shopping opportunities available in the City of Manhattan Beach that will enhance their quality of life.

Overall, 94% of respondents indicated that they feel Manhattan Beach is a safe place to live, with 62% describing it as very safe. Conversely, 6% of re sidents reported that the City is either a very unsafe (1%) or somewhat unsafe (5%) place to live (see Figure 9). When compared with 2021, the overall safety rating (very + somewhat) remained consistent (1% difference). However, there was a strengthening of sentiment, with a statisticall y significant increase in responses of very safe (+15%) and a corresponding decrease in somewhat safe ratings (-14%).

Question 7 Overall, how safe is the City of Manhattan Beach as a place to live? Would you say it is very safe, somewhat safe, somewhat unsafe, or very unsafe? FIGURE 9 OPINION OF CITY SAFETY BY STUDY YEAR
† Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2021 and 2025 studies.

Figures 10-12 display perceptions of safety by a host of demographic characteristics. Across nearly every subgroup, approximately nine-in- ten residents perceived Manhattan Beach to be a safe place to live. The one notable exception to this pattern occurs among those who were gen- erally dissatisfied with the City’s overall efforts to provide muni cipal services (77% safety rating among respondents in this subgroup).

47.8 45.6

0.6 62.4†

32.0†

5.0 5.4

0.9 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
2025 2021
Study Y ear
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Very unsafe
Som ewhat
unsafe
Som ewhat safe
Very safe
City Services
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 18City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FIGURE 10 OPINION OF CITY SAFETY BY YEARS IN MANHATTAN BEACH & AGE FIGURE 11 OPINION OF CITY SAFETY BY ETHNICITY, GENDER, CHILD IN HSLD & HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS FIGURE 12 OPINION OF CITY SAFETY BY OVERALL SATISFACTION, DISTRICT AREA & COASTAL ZONE

83.0 64.4

55.7 61.4

45.8 10.5 7.4

31.3 37.4 32.2

49.6 87.2Very
safe

70.8 66.5 58.6 59.0
Smwt
safe

24.6 35.334.0

28.1 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Years in Manhattan Beach (Q1) Age (QD1)
% Respondents

69.3 63.9 64.1

54.4 80.1

27.0 36.4 31.3 31.1

38.7 17.8

84.8 63.5

52.2 Very
safe

60.4 57.6

40.8 31.9

15.2 Smwt
safe

28.5 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Latino /
Hispan ic
Asian
American
Caucasian /
White
Mixed or
other
Male Female Yes No Own Rent
Ethnicity (QD6) Gender (QD2) Child in Hsld (QD3) Home Ownership Status (QD4)
% Respondents

60.6 62.3

31.5 31.0 32.2

66.059.6

36.3 Very
safe

64.9 62.9

40.3 35.3 29.8
Smwt
safe

31.5 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Satisfied Dissatisfied SE: Hill Section,
Mira Costa
NE: Tr ee Section,
Manhattan &
Liberty Village
W: Sand Section Yes No
Overall Satisfaction (Q5) District Area Coastal Zone
% Respondents
Spending Priorities
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 19
City of Manhattan Beach
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

S PENDING P RIORITIES
It is often the case that residents’ desires for public facilities and programs exceed a city’s finan- cial resources. In such cases, a city must prioritize projects and programs based upon a variety of factors, including the preferences and needs of residents. Questions 8 and 9 were designed to provide Manhattan Beach with a reliable measure of how residents, as a whole, prioritize a vari- ety of projects, programs, and improvements to which the City could allocate resources in the future. The format of the questi ons was straightforward: after informing respondents that the City does not have the financial resources to fund all of the services and projects that may be desired by residents, respondents were asked whether each project sh own in Figure 13 (city- wide) and Figure 14 (library specific) should be a high, medium, or low priority for future city spending—or if the City should not spend money on the project at all.

Question 8 The City of Manhattan Beach has limited financial resources to provide the services and programs desired by residents. Because it can't fund every service, program and project, the City must set priorities. As I read each of the following items, please indicate whether you think the City should make the item a high priority, a medium priority, or a low priority for future city spending. If you feel the City should not spend any money on this item, just say so. Please keep in mind that not all of the items can be high priorities.

FIGURE 13 CITY SPENDING PRIORITIES

62.4 37.5

42.6 29.2

37.7 25.6

15.2 27.4

9.4 8.3

6.5 29.8

49.0 36.5

47.4 26.1

34.3 40.4

24.0 29.9

30.7 26.9

21.3 18.4

7.3 5.0
0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0 1 0 0
Fix potholes and repair and improve city streets and sidewalks Improve the maintenance of parks, park amenities incl restrooms, sports courts, dog runs
Repair and upgrade the City’s sewer and wastewater systems Restore and enhance nature areas
Redesign public spaces to allow for outdoor dining areas Reconstruct and improve the City’s swimming pool - Begg Pool Renovate, improve Live Oak Park facilities, incl Ceramics Studio, tennis, racquet courts, REC Program activity space
Provide low-cost, on-demand rideshare services so residents can v isit restaurants, shops, business areas in City without hav ing to park a vehicle
Renovate and improve the Joslyn Community Center
Renovate and improve the Manhattan Heights Community Center Renovate and improve the Manhattan Beach Art Center
Create a Manhattan Beach Historical Museum to preserve and store historical documents
Replace the Pay ‘N’ Play at Marine Avenue Park with open space, with the possibility of also adding a futsal court
% Respondents
High priority Medium priority
Spending Priorities
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 20City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The projects and programs are sorted in Figure 13 and Figure 14 from high to low based on the percentage of respondents who indicated that an item was at least a medium priority for future city spending. Among the projects tested in Qu estion 8, fixing potholes and repairing and improving city streets and sidewalks was assigned the highest priority (92% high or medium pri- ority), followed by improving the maintenance of parks and park amenities including restrooms, sports courts, and dog runs (87%), repairing and upgrading the City’s sewer and wastewater sys- tems (79%), and restoring and enhancing nature areas (77%).

At the other end of the spectrum, fewer than a th ird of residents felt th at replacing the Pay 'N' Play at Marine Avenue Park with open space, with the possibility of also adding a futsal court (25%), creating a Manhattan Beach Historical Museum to preserve and store historical documents (29%), and renovating and impr oving the Manhattan Beach Art Ce nter (32%) should be a high or medium priority for city spending.

Tables 8-11 show how the percentage who rated each item as a high priority varied across Man- hattan Beach subgroups, with th e top three items within each ca tegory highlighted in green to ease comparisons.

TABLE 8 CITY SPENDING PRIORITIES BY AGE (SHOWING % HIGH PRIORITY) 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Fix potholes and repair and improve city streets and sidewalks 51.6 60.8 67.2 55.3 61.0 71.3 Repair and upgrade the City’s sewer and wastewater systems 39.1 39.8 42.8 41.4 41.4 47.9 Redesign public spaces to allow for outdoor dining areas 29.8 54.8 46.8 34.7 39.7 20.1 Improve the maintenance of parks and park amenities including restrooms, sports courts, and dog runs 31.5 34.3 56.5 39.2 31.0 26.5 Restore and enhance nature areas 37.6 30.7 30.2 25.1 33.6 25.9 Provide low-cost, on-demand rideshare services so residents can visit restaurants, shops, business areas in City without having to park a vehicle 55.8 43.7 25.3 19.2 24.5 22.4 Reconstruct and improve the City’s swimming pool - Begg Pool 23.2 6.9 30.9 41.0 24.1 18.8 Renovate, improve Live Oak Park facilities, incl Ceramics Studio, tennis, racquet courts, REC Program activity space 14.7 8.9 20.5 20.8 13.9 9.3 Renovate and improve the Joslyn Community Center 14.4 11.9 8.9 4.6 7.0 14.6 Renovate and improve the Manhattan Heights Community Center 5.2 9.6 16.2 6.3 3.9 6.2 Create a Manhattan Beach Historical Museum to preserve, store historical documents 13.0 15.7 5.2 3.0 9.0 5.1
Replace Pay ‘N’ Play at Marine Avenue Park with open space, with possibility of also adding a futsal court 5.2 3.7 12.0 10.3 4.0 1.2 Renovate and improve the Manhattan Beach Art Center 15.6 2.0 5.4 3.8 7.2 2.8 Age (QD1)
Spending Priorities
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 21City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TABLE 9 CITY SPENDING PRIORITIES BY ETHNICITY & GENDER (SHOWING % HIGH PRIORITY) TABLE 10 CITY SPENDING PRIORITIES BY HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS, CHILD IN HSLD & OVERALL SATISFACTION (SHOWING % HIGH PRIORITY)
Latino/
Hispanic
Asian
American
Caucasian/
White
Mixed/
Other Male Female
Fix potholes and repair and improve city streets and sidewalks 63.2 67.8 60.5 69.7 56.4 68.6 Repair and upgrade the City’s sewer and wastewater systems 48.4 45.3 41.3 44.9 37.1 48.6 Redesign public spaces to allow for outdoor dining areas 47.9 31.6 37.4 39.9 36.5 38.3 Improve the maintenance of parks and park amenities including restrooms, sports courts, and dog runs 40.7 39.7 35.7 40.0 35.6 40.1 Restore and enhance nature areas 43.0 20.9 27.6 37.9 27.4 31.5 Provide low-cost, on-demand rideshare services so residents can visit restaurants, shops, business areas in City without having to park a vehicle 39.4 19.0 28.7 5.1 23.1 31.7 Reconstruct and improve the City’s swimming pool - Begg Pool 27.6 19.7 25.6 34.4 21.9 29.6 Renovate, improve Live Oak Park facilities, incl Ceramics Studio, tennis, racquet courts, REC Program activity space 28.9 13.7 13.5 23.2 13.4 16.5 Renovate and improve the Joslyn Community Center 12.2 4.2 9.0 19.3 8.4 10.7 Renovate and improve the Manhattan Heights Community Center 15.7 4.5 6.4 23.8 8.3 8.6 Create a Manhattan Beach Historical Museum to preserve, store historical documents 3.7 7.2 6.3 14.4 6.9 7.5
Replace Pay ‘N’ Play at Marine Avenue Park with open space, with possibility of also adding a futsal court 10.6 3.4 7.0 2.6 7.8 5.1 Renovate and improve the Manhattan Beach Art Center 8.7 9.2 4.2 0.0 4.2 5.9 Ethnicity (QD6) Gender (QD2)
Own Rent Yes No Satisfied Dissatisfied
Fix potholes and repair and improve city streets and sidewalks 63.7 62.0 55.8 66.8 64.4 51.0 Repair and upgrade the City’s sewer and wastewater systems 41.6 47.8 39.0 46.0 43.1 41.1 Redesign public spaces to allow for outdoor dining areas 32.2 49.2 40.1 36.8 37.6 41.0 Improve the maintenance of parks and park amenities including restrooms, sports courts, and dog runs 32.9 48.8 43.7 34.3 37.8 35.2 Restore and enhance nature areas 27.1 32.8 24.6 32.4 30.1 26.1 Provide low-cost, on-demand rideshare services so residents can visit restaurants, shops, business areas in City without having to park a vehicle 22.5 39.7 24.6 30.2 27.7 25.4 Reconstruct and improve the City’s swimming pool - Begg Pool 25.4 26.3 40.1 17.2 27.2 17.7 Renovate, improve Live Oak Park facilities, incl Ceramics Studio, tennis, racquet courts, REC Program activity space 12.5 19.5 20.0 11.2 15.4 12.3 Renovate and improve the Joslyn Community Center 8.3 10.5 9.9 9.0 10.0 6.1 Renovate and improve the Manhattan Heights Community Center 7.4 10.1 11.6 6.1 8.7 6.0 Create a Manhattan Beach Historical Museum to preserve, store historical documents 6.4 9.5 3.5 9.5 8.0 2.5
Replace Pay ‘N’ Play at Marine Avenue Park with open space, with possibility of also adding a futsal court 5.9 7.9 10.9 4.0 7.1 3.8 Renovate and improve the Manhattan Beach Art Center 3.0 7.7 3.2 6.3 5.1 1.3 Home Ownership
Status (QD4) Child in Hsld (QD3) Overall Satisfaction (Q5) Spending Priorities
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 22City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TABLE 11 CITY SPENDING PRIORITIES BY DISTRICT AREA & COASTAL ZONE (SHOWING % HIGH PRIORITY) LIBRARY Turning now to library facilities and services, expanding programs, activities, and events for children was assigned the highest priori ty (68% high or medium priority), followed by expanding programs, activities, and events for teens (64%) and expanding programs, activities, and events for adults (52%). At the other end of the spectrum, just one-in-seven residents (14%) felt that adding a new library should be a high or medium priority for ci ty spending (see Figure 14 on next page).

For the interested reader, tables 12-15 show how the percentage who rated each library item as a high priority varied across Manhattan Beach subg roups, with the top three items within each category highlighted in green to ease comparisons.

SE: Hill
Section,
Mira Costa
NE: Tree
Section,
Manhattan
& Liberty
Village
W: Sand
Section Yes No
Fix potholes and repair and improve city streets and sidewalks 57.6 67.0 61.3 60.4 62.9 Repair and upgrade the City’s sewer and wastewater systems 38.9 42.4 46.9 48.4 41.1 Redesign public spaces to allow for outdoor dining areas 33.8 36.0 44.1 45.5 35.7 Improve the maintenance of parks and park amenities including restrooms, sports courts, and dog runs 37.5 32.9 44.0 45.8 35.4 Restore and enhance nature areas 25.4 30.3 31.9 37.3 27.1 Provide low-cost, on-demand rideshare services so residents can visit restaurants, shops, business areas in City without having to park a vehicle 28.3 28.4 25.1 22.0 28.8 Reconstruct and improve the City’s swimming pool - Begg Pool 25.4 30.7 18.8 18.0 27.6 Renovate, improve Live Oak Park facilities, incl Ceramics Studio, tennis, racquet courts, REC Program activity space 8.5 15.7 21.6 19.7 14.0 Renovate and improve the Joslyn Community Center 8.2 9.2 10.8 9.8 9.3 Renovate and improve the Manhattan Heights Community Center 10.9 7.6 6.4 4.5 9.2 Create a Manhattan Beach Historical Museum to preserve, store historical documents 11.1 5.2 6.0 3.4 8.3
Replace Pay ‘N’ Play at Marine Avenue Park with open space, with possibility of also adding a futsal court 4.4 9.8 4.1 3.7 7.2 Renovate and improve the Manhattan Beach Art Center 3.0 6.6 4.9 4.7 5.0 District Area Coastal Zone
Spending Priorities
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 23City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Question 9 The City of Manhattan Beach has money set aside to improve local library facilities and services. Because it has limited funding, however, the City must set priorities. As I read each of the following items, please indicate whether you think the City should make the item a high priority, a medium priority, or a low priority for the future. If you feel the City should not spend any money on this item, just say so. Please keep in mind that not all of the items can be high pri- orities.

FIGURE 14 LIBRARY SPENDING PRIORITIES
TABLE 12 LIBRARY SPENDING PRIORITIES BY AGE (SHOWING % HIGH PRIORITY) TABLE 13 LIBRARY SPENDING PRIORITIES BY ETHNICITY & GENDER (SHOWING % HIGH PRIORITY)

27.7 21.0

15.6 11.8

11.7 7.1

4.9 6.5

6.8 4.6

39.9 42.5

36.8 31.2

28.8 25.6

25.8 22.6

16.8 9.7
0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0 1 0 0
Expanding programs, activities, and events for children Expanding programs, activities, and events for teens
Expanding programs, activities, and events for adults
Repairing and improving the current Manhattan Beach Library facility Expanding hours of service
Providing additional study rooms
Preserving and improving access to the City’s Historical Collection Expanding the Manhattan Beach Library Speaker Series
Building and operating a cultural library on the east side of Manhattan Beach
Adding a new library
% Respondents
High priority Medium priority
18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Expanding programs, activities, and events for children 61.7 35.0 41.2 21.6 14.7 18.3 Expanding programs, activities, and events for teens 37.4 22.3 28.5 17.8 17.8 13.8 Expanding programs, activities, and events for adults 36.8 21.0 19.2 9.3 8.4 16.3 Repairing and improving the current Manhattan Beach Library facility 18.7 25.5 14.8 6.0 5.5 9.8 Expanding hours of service 26.9 16.6 15.9 4.8 8.7 10.3
Providing additional study rooms 29.1 17.6 9.0 2.0 2.9 1.4 Building and operating a cultural library on the east side of Manhattan Beach 26.0 13.3 7.3 2.4 4.1 4.2 Expanding the Manhattan Beach Library Speaker Series 19.7 8.4 5.7 6.8 2.1 6.3 Preserving and improving access to the City’s Historical Collection 10.2 5.9 6.0 2.7 6.4 2.5 Adding a new library 13.9 8.9 5.0 2.4 3.2 2.3
Age (QD1)
Latino/
Hispanic
Asian
American
Caucasian/
White
Mixed/
Other Male Female
Expanding programs, activities, and events for children 57.6 26.2 22.7 52.0 28.3 28.0 Expanding programs, activities, and events for teens 33.1 19.4 18.3 37.0 20.6 22.3 Expanding programs, activities, and events for adults 17.4 9.7 14.3 43.1 13.2 17.7 Repairing and improving the current Manhattan Beach Library facility 19.1 13.5 10.7 11.8 8.6 15.1 Expanding hours of service 9.6 12.3 12.0 13.0 13.9 10.0 Providing additional study rooms 10.4 6.1 6.8 7.0 5.1 8.6 Building and operating a cultural library on the east side of Manhattan Beach 7.0 2.2 8.0 2.9 6.4 7.3 Expanding the Manhattan Beach Library Speaker Series 9.8 5.9 5.4 17.3 5.8 7.5 Preserving and improving access to the City’s Historical Collection 4.6 2.9 4.9 6.9 6.3 3.8 Adding a new library 6.7 5.7 4.0 0.0 3.2 5.7
Ethnicity (QD6) Gender (QD2)
Spending Priorities
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 24City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TABLE 14 LIBRARY SPENDING PRIORITIES BY HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS, CHILD IN HSLD & OVERALL SATISFACTION (SHOWING % HIGH PRIORITY)
TABLE 15 LIBRARY SPENDING PRIORITIES BY DISTRICT AREA & COASTAL ZONE (SHOWING % HIGH PRIORITY) RIDESHARE SERVICES The last question in this seri es asked respondents about their household’s level of interest in using a city provided low-cost, on-demand rideshare service to enable residents to visit restaurants, shops, th e beach, and key destinations in the City without having to park a vehicle.

Question 10 The City of Manhattan Beach is exploring the idea of offering low-cost, on-demand rideshare services so residents can visit restaurants, shops, the beach, and key destinations in the City without having to park a vehicle. Would you or others in your household be very inter- ested, somewhat interested, or not interested in using this service? FIGURE 15 INTEREST IN LOW-COST RIDESHARE SERVICES
Residents were evenly split on the idea, with 32%
saying their household would be very interested in
utilizing such a service, 32% were somewhat inter-
ested, and 33% said their household would not be
interested. The remaining 3% were unsure.

Figures 16-18 present household interest by
demographic subgroups of respondents. Newer
residents (<10 years), non-Asians, women,
respondents under 35 years of age (and especially
25 to 34), and renters were the most likely to be
very interested.

Own Rent Yes No Satisfied Dissatisfied
Expanding programs, activities, and events for children 23.0 37.1 37.4 22.5 29.7 10.6 Expanding programs, activities, and events for teens 15.9 32.3 26.4 18.8 22.0 11.3 Expanding programs, activities, and events for adults 11.6 23.0 10.3 18.5 16.2 11.8 Repairing and improving the current Manhattan Beach Library facility 9.1 16.5 11.1 11.8 12.0 6.4 Expanding hours of service 7.5 17.8 9.3 12.7 11.8 13.5
Providing additional study rooms 5.2 10.0 11.1 4.6 7.3 5.6 Building and operating a cultural library on the east side of Manhattan Beach 4.9 9.3 3.3 9.1 6.3 11.8 Expanding the Manhattan Beach Library Speaker Series 4.3 9.9 6.7 6.6 6.6 3.4 Preserving and improving access to the City’s Historical Collection 4.1 6.2 3.3 5.6 5.5 0.0 Adding a new library 3.3 5.7 4.5 3.9 4.5 3.8
Home Ownership
Status (QD4) Child in Hsld (QD3) Overall Satisfaction (Q5) SE: Hill
Section,
Mira Costa
NE: Tree
Section,
Manhattan
& Liberty
Village
W: Sand
Section Yes No
Expanding programs, activities, and events for children 29.1 30.2 22.8 21.0 29.5 Expanding programs, activities, and events for teens 22.4 22.3 17.7 16.4 22.2 Expanding programs, activities, and events for adults 13.7 17.5 14.8 12.2 16.4 Repairing and improving the current Manhattan Beach Library facility 15.9 10.1 9.7 12.5 11.6 Expanding hours of service 9.2 13.1 12.3 9.9 12.1
Providing additional study rooms 6.3 7.2 7.9 8.2 6.8
Building and operating a cultural library on the east side of Manhattan Beach 9.9 7.3 3.0 3.0 7.8 Expanding the Manhattan Beach Library Speaker Series 4.3 7.5 7.3 9.4 5.7 Preserving and improving access to the City’s Historical Collection 7.6 3.7 3.7 3.4 5.3 Adding a new library 4.6 6.7 1.6 1.1 5.5
District Area Coastal Zone
Very interested

31.8 Somewhat
interested

31.5 Not sur e

3.2 Not interested

33.4 Spending Priorities
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 25City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FIGURE 16 INTEREST IN LOW-COST RIDESHARE SERVICES BY YEARS IN MANHATTAN BEACH, ETHNICITY & GENDER FIGURE 17 INTEREST IN LOW-COST RIDESHARE SERVICES BY AGE, CHILD IN HSLD & HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS FIGURE 18 INTEREST IN LOW-COST RIDESHARE SERVICES BY PERCEPTION OF CITY SAFETY, OVERALL SATISFACTION,

DISTRICT AREA & COASTAL ZONE

41.4 28.6 28.4

38.2 19.9

32.8 36.3

27.5 36.8

23.0 24.1

31.8 30.3

34.2 30.4

35.2 33.8

29.6 34.0

44.2 36.3

27.8 44.0 33.1

28.5 36.3 30.7

3.5 1.6 3.2 3.6 3.7 2.0 3.7 0.0 2.4 2.9

36.7 40.3

19.5 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more Latino /
Hispanic
Asian
American
Caucasian /
Wh ite
Mixed or
other
Male Fem ale
Years in Manhattan Beach (Q1) Ethnicity (QD6) Gender (QD2) % Respondents
Not su r e
Not
interested
Som ewhat
interested
Very
interested

55.7 32.8 26.6 24.2 25.8 31.0 34.1

25.4 49.5

26.5 31.1

27.0 38.5 33.5

30.4 32.3

32.2 29.7

17.8 34.0

41.0 35.5 35.2 36.7 30.7

38.8 19.7

2.1 5.4 1.7 5.5 1.9 2.9 3.6 1.1

39.6 31.3

29.1 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Yes No Own Rent Age (QD1) Child in Hsld (QD3) Hom e Ownership Status
(QD4)
% Respondents
Not su r e
Not
interested
Som ewhat
interested
Very
interested

28.1 32.4 28.5 29.8 35.4 29.1 28.8 32.6

23.3 31.3 31.5 36.3 31.9

25.8 26.7

32.8 44.2

33.4 33.3

31.1 29.7

40.9 41.0

31.4 3.2 4.4 2.8 6.7 2.8 2.9 4.2 3.5 3.2

32.1 32.0

32.7 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Safe Unsafe Satisfied Dissatisfied SE: Hill
Section, Mira
Costa
NE: Tr ee
Section,
Manhattan &
Liberty
Village
W: Sand
Section
Yes No
Perception of City Safety
(Q7)
Overall Satisfaction (Q5) District Area Coastal Zone
% Respondents
Not su r e
Not
interested
Som ewhat
interested
Very
interested
Short-Term Vacation Rentals
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 26
City of Manhattan Beach
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

S HORT -T ERM V ACATION R ENTALS
The City of Manhattan Beach currently prohibits short-term rentals outside of the Coastal Zone.

However, with major international events like the 2026 FIFA World Cup and the 2028 Summer Olympics coming to Los Angeles, the City is considering temporarily allowing limited short-term vacation rentals to accommodate increased dem and. The next section of the survey gathered residents’ opinions on the topic, including whether they support this te mporary change as well as their likelihood of renting their property during one of the events.

SUPPORT OR OPPOSE SHORT-TERM RENTALS After informing resi dents that short- term rentals would only be allowed for a coup le weeks before and after each event and that appropriate regulations would be in place, approx imately six-in-ten respondents (58%) indicated that they strongly (28%) or somewhat (30%) supported the idea. Forty percent (40%) of respon- dents were opposed to the City allowing residents to rent their properties on a short-term basis during the World Cup and the Su mmer Olympics and two percent were unsure or preferred not to answer (Figure 19).

Question 11 Short-term rentals are banned in the City, outside of the Coastal Zone (residential areas near the Strand). The 2028 Summer Olympics and 2026 FIFA World Cup will be held in Los Angeles. The City is considering allowing limited short-term vacation rentals on a temporary basis for these events - for 2-3 weeks prior to and 2 weeks after each event - with certain regula- tions and restrictions. In general, would you support or oppose the City allowing residents to rent their properties on a short-term basis during these events? FIGURE 19 SUPPORT ALLOWING LIMITED SHORT-TERM RENTALS DURING WORLD CUP & OLYMPICS Figures 20 through 22 on the next page displa y respondents’ level of support for short-term vacation rentals during the 2026 FIFA World Cup and 2028 Summer Olympics by years in Man- hattan Beach, ethnicity, gender, age, presence of a child in th e home, home ownership status, perception of city safety, overall satisfaction, an d geographic area of residence. With the excep- tions of residents who view the City as unsafe (44% support) and Asians (48%), the majority of respondents in every subgroup su pported the idea of allowing short-term rentals during the Olympics and World Cup.

Strongly
support

27.8 Somewhat
support

30.4 Somewhat
oppose

11.5 Strongly
oppose

28.2 Not sure/Prefer
not to answer

2.0 Short-Term Vacation Rentals
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 27City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FIGURE 20 SUPPORT ALLOWING LIMITED SHORT-TERM RENTALS DURING WORLD CUP & OLYMPICS BY YEARS IN

MANHATTAN BEACH, ETHNICITY & GENDER
FIGURE 21 SUPPORT ALLOWING LIMITED SHORT-TERM RENTALS DURING WORLD CUP & OLYMPICS BY AGE, CHILD IN

HSLD & HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS
FIGURE 22 SUPPORT ALLOWING LIMITED SHORT-TERM RENTALS DURING WORLD CUP & OLYMPICS BY PERCEPTION OF

CITY SAFETY, OVERALL SATISFACTION, DISTRICT AREA & COASTAL ZONE

33.0 25.0 27.8 34.4 29.6 25.5

33.1 22.6

32.9 21.9 32.4

29.8 Strongly
support

26.9 39.0 35.0

24.3 Smwt
support

30.6 32.6

33.118.6
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more Latino /
Hispanic
Asian
American
Caucasian /
Wh ite
Mixed or
other
Male Fem ale
Years in Manhattan Beach (Q1) Ethnicity (QD6) Gender (QD2) % Respondents

27.2 18.1

34.9 24.1 27.0 31.5

28.7 33.7

33.0 30.3

32.2 29.1
Strongly
support

31.0 19.4

35.4 34.2
Smwt
support

30.0 28.328.6

34.7 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Yes No Own Rent Age (QD1) Child in Hsld (QD3) Home Ownership Status
(QD4)
% Respondents

25.9 29.8 27.1 27.2 28.0

33.8 32.6

23.9 24.8

31.9 29.928.021.9
Strongly
support

28.2 22.5

30.3 34.6Smwt
support

30.9 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
Safe Unsafe Satisfied Dissatisfied SE: Hill
Section, Mira
Costa
NE: Tr ee
Section,
Manhattan &
Liberty Village
W: Sand
Section
Yes No
Perception of City Safety (Q7) Overall Satisfaction (Q5) District Area Coastal Zone % Respondents
Short-Term Vacation Rentals
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 28City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

As a follow-up, responden ts were informed that the City will need to provide additional public safety services for security and emergency medical during the Olympics and World Cup and that the taxes generated by short-term vacation rental s will help cover these additional costs. After learning this information, support increased to 66% (+8%), whereas 32% remained opposed to the City allowing residents to rent their properti es on a short-term basis during the events and 2% were still unsure or declined to state.

Question 12 During the Olympics and World Cup, the City of Manhattan Beach will need to pro- vide additional public safety services for secu rity and emergency medical. The taxes generated by short-term vacation rentals during this period will help cover the costs of providing additional public safety services. Knowing this, would you support or oppose the City allowing residents to rent their properties on a short-term basis during these events? FIGURE 23 SUPPORT SHORT-TERM RENTALS AFTER LEANING ADDITIONAL SAFETY SERVICES PAID BY TAXES The majority of respondents in every subgroup indi-
cated support for short-term vacation rentals after learn- ing that the taxes generated would pay for the extra
public safety services needed during the events. Support was highest among residents who have lived in Manhat-
tan Beach less than 15 years, Latino-Hispanic respon-
dents, men, residents under 55 years of age, those with a child in the home, renters, respondents who view the
City as a safe place to live, respondents in the southeast area of the City, and those who live outside the coastal zone (figures 24 -26).

FIGURE 24 SUPPORT SHORT-TERM RENTALS AFTER LEANING ADDITIONAL INFO BY YEARS IN MANHATTAN BEACH,

ETHNICITY & GENDER
Strongly
support

32.9 Somewhat
support

33.1 Not sure/Prefer
not to answer

2.0Strongly
oppose

21.1 Somewhat
oppose

10.9 41.6

28.0 33.2

41.5 35.5 30.7

31.3 32.2

34.0 22.9 34.4

32.7 27.7

43.942.1Strongly
support

35.9 25.4

29.2 34.2
Smwt
support

36.6 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more Latino /
Hispanic
Asian
American
Caucasian /
White
Mixed or
other
Male Female
Years in Manhattan Beach (Q1) Ethnicity (QD6) Gender (QD2) % Respondents
Short-Term Vacation Rentals
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 29City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FIGURE 25 SUPPORT SHORT-TERM RENTALS AFTER LEANING ADDITIONAL INFO BY AGE, CHILD IN HSLD & HOME

OWNERSHIP STATUS
FIGURE 26 SUPPORT FOR SHORT-TERM RENTALS AFTER LEANING ADDITIONAL INFO BY PERCEPTION OF CITY SAFETY,

OVERALL SATISFACTION, DISTRICT AREA & COASTAL ZONE
LIKELY TO RENT OUT PROPERTY DURING EVENTS The last question in this sec- tion asked respondents whether they would rent out their Manhattan Beach property on a short- term basis during the Olympics and World Cup if the City lifted the restriction. As shown in Fig- ure 27 on the next page, 12% of residents indicate d that they would likely rent their property, 64% said they would not, 21% were unsure, an d 3% preferred not to answer. By subgroups, approximately one-in-four Latino/Hispanic respondents (27%) and those who felt that the City of Manhattan Beach was an unsafe place to live (25%) indicated that they would likely rent their property during the events (see figures 28-30 on next page). Respondents living in the west sand section of the City were also more likely to answer in the affirmative than those living in an east- ern area of Manhattan Beach (17% vs. 10%).

31.1 21.2

38.7 30.7 32.0 36.9

32.0 36.2

36.5 32.2 32.2

36.4 Strongly
support

29.6 32.2

40.2 39.1
Smwt
support

35.7 31.429.8

36.9 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Yes No Own Rent Age (QD1) Child in Hsld (QD3) Hom e Ownership Status
(QD4)
% Respondents

30.0 36.8 30.5 33.2 32.8

43.7 29.2

27.1 26.4 34.8
Strongly
support

33.6 20.5

33.7 27.8
Smwt
support

33.1 38.233.0

32.9 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
Safe Unsafe Satisfied Dissatisfied SE: Hill
Section, Mira
Costa
NE: Tr ee
Section,
Manhattan &
Liberty Village
W: Sand
Section
Yes No
Perception of City Safety (Q7) Overall Satisfaction (Q5) District Area Coastal Zone % Respondents
Short-Term Vacation Rentals
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 30City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Question 13 If the City were to allow short-term vacation rental s during the Olympics and World Cup, are you likely to rent your Manhattan Beach property on a short-term basis during these events?
FIGURE 27 LIKELY TO RENT PROPERTY DURING EVENTS
FIGURE 28 LIKELY TO RENT PROPERTY DURING EVENTS BY YEARS IN MANHATTAN BEACH, ETHNICITY & GENDER Yes

11.8 No

64.1 Not sure

21.0 Prefer not to
answer

3.1 26.7

7.3 11.0

9.3 9.9

12.9 15.7

13.9 12.5

9.7 0
5 10
15 20
25 30
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more Latino /
Hispan ic
Asian
American
Caucasian /
White
Mixed or
other
Male Female
Years in Manhattan Beach (Q1) Ethnicity (QD6) Gender (QD2) % Respondents Who Will Likely Rent
Property During Olympics, World Cup
Short-Term Vacation Rentals
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 31City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FIGURE 29 LIKELY TO RENT PROPERTY DURING EVENTS BY AGE, CHILD IN HSLD & HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS FIGURE 30 LIKELY TO RENT PROPERTY DURING EVENTS BY PERCEPTION OF CITY SAFETY, OVERALL SATISFACTION,

COASTAL ZONE & DISTRICT AREA

8.6 5.0

13.9 10.0 11.0

12.512.5

19.7 18.6

9.1 0
5 10
15 20
25 30
18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Yes No Own Rent Age (QD1) Child in Hsld (QD3) Home Ownership Status
(QD4)
% Respondents Who Will Likely Rent
Property During Olympics, World Cup

12.7 11.5

9.6 9.6

17.2 11.0

25.1 11.8

16.9 0
5 10
15 20
25 30
Safe Unsafe Satisfied Dissatisfied Yes No SE: Hill
Section, Mira
Costa
NE: Tr ee
Section,
Manhattan &
Liberty Village
W: Sand
Section
Perception of City Safety (Q7) Overall Satisfaction (Q5) Coastal Zone District Area % Respondents Who Will Likely Rent
Property During Olympics, World Cup
Project Pulse
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 32
City of Manhattan Beach
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

P ROJECT P ULSE
In the Spring of 2025, city staff initiated a planning effort called Project Pulse to coordinate syn- ergistic redevelopment of two of its downtown properties: the Parking Lot 3 site (Morningside Drive and 12th Street) and 400 Manhattan Beach Boulevard (formerly US Bank).

Question 14 of the survey presented respondent s with a variety of r edevelopment options cur- rently being considered by the Ci ty and asked them to indicate whether each should be a high, medium, or low priority for the community. As shown in Figure 31 below, approximately six-in- ten residents viewed a parking structure (65% hi gh or medium priority), open space or park (60%), and commercial development like Metlox with retail shopping and restaurants (57%) as at least a medium priority for the community. More over, four-in-ten cited a parking structure as a high priority.

Among the options being considered, residents assi gned much lower priority levels to a visitor center (12%), private social club (13%), and hotel (19%).

Question 14 The City of Manhattan Beach is exploring redevelopment of two of its properties in Downtown: the Parking Lot 3 site on Morningside Drive and 400 Manhattan Beach Boulevard (formerly US Bank), which are both across from Metlox. The City has started a community out- reach campaign to explore future land uses an d would like to know your opinion on the redevel- opment options currently being considered. As I read the following options, please indicate whether you think it should be a high, medium, or low priority for the community.

FIGURE 31 PROJECT PULSE REDEVELOPMENT OPTIONS
Tables 16-19 on the following page display th e percentage of residents who viewed each rede- velopment option as a high priority by a variety of demograp hic subgroups, with the top three preferences highlighted in gree n for each subgroup. All respondent subgroups agreed that a parking structure and open spac e/park were top priorities, an d commercial development was also a top priority for nearly all subgroups. Th e exceptions include respondents 25 to 35 years

39.3 27.1

21.4 10.4

12.7 5.4

5.4 2.9

25.5 32.9

35.9 27.9

14.5 13.9

7.7 9.4
0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0 1 0 0
Parking structure
Open space/park
Commercial development like Metlox with retail shopping and restaurants
Cultural arts and community space
Multi-family residential housing
Hotel
Private social club
Visitor center
% Respondents
High priority Medium priority
Project Pulse
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 33City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
of age, renters, and respondents dissatisfied wi th the City’s overall performance who placed a higher priority on multi-family residential hous ing, and residents 18 to 24 years of age who viewed cultural arts and community space as a top priority.

TABLE 16 PROJECT PULSE REDEVELOPMENT OPTIONS BY AGE (SHOWING % HIGH PRIORITY) TABLE 17 PROJECT PULSE REDEVELOPMENT OPTIONS BY ETHNICITY & GENDER (SHOWING % HIGH PRIORITY) TABLE 18 PROJECT PULSE REDEVELOPMENT OPTIONS BY HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS, CHILD IN HSLD & OVERALL SATISFACTION (SHOWING % HIGH PRIORITY)
TABLE 19 PROJECT PULSE REDEVELOPMENT OPTIONS BY DISTRICT AREA & COASTAL ZONE (SHOWING % HIGH

PRIORITY)
18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Parking structure 33.1 30.1 54.4 40.6 31.1 38.3
Open space/park 36.4 37.5 36.2 26.4 19.0 16.6
Commercial dev like Metlox, w/ retail shopping, restaurants 17.4 21.6 32.5 27.2 14.8 10.4 Multi-family residential housing 24.9 24.6 17.4 11.7 7.7 2.1 Cultural arts and community space 31.7 12.1 15.4 3.9 11.2 4.5 Hotel 5.2 1.7 2.8 9.4 7.5 4.5
Private social club 6.7 10.1 6.0 6.4 4.2 1.1
V i s i t o r c e n t e r 5 . 50 . 03 . 63 . 94 . 80 . 9 Age (QD1)
Latino/
Hispanic
Asian
American
Caucasian/
White
Mixed/
Other Male Female
P a r k i n g s t r u c t u r e 4 6 . 53 9 . 63 8 . 54 3 . 43 4 . 34 5 . 3 Open space/park 39.3 32.2 24.1 20.9 23.6 30.1
Commercial dev like Metlox, w/ retail shopping, restaurants 24.8 22.2 20.6 33.6 24.4 18.7 Multi-family residential housing 23.4 11.5 11.3 17.4 12.4 12.7 Cultural arts and community space 20.9 12.1 9.1 6.0 9.3 11.6 Hotel 10.8 3.3 5.1 7.1 6.1 4.3
Private social club 9.7 4.1 4.7 11.8 4.6 6.4
Visitor center 9.0 5.3 0.9 6.0 3.2 2.9
Ethnicity (QD6) Gender (QD2)
Own Rent Yes No Satisfied Dissatisfied
P a r k i n g s t r u c t u r e 3 7 . 54 2 . 84 5 . 13 6 . 24 0 . 63 1 . 7 Open space/park 24.7 28.6 33.5 22.6 26.6 32.1
C o m m e r c i a l d e v l i k e M e t l o x , w / r e t a i l s h o p p i n g , r e s t a u r a n t s 2 0 . 22 4 . 52 7 . 51 7 . 72 2 . 41 5 . 3 Multi-family residential housing 6.4 24.6 13.9 12.3 12.2 16.7 Cultural arts and community space 7.6 13.5 9.8 11.5 10.3 7.6 Hotel 4.9 6.1 4.6 5.9 5.6 6.0
Private social club 5.5 5.2 7.9 4.3 5.5 4.4
Visitor center 2.1 3.6 4.2 2.5 3.3 0.9
Home Ownership
Status (QD4) Child in Hsld (QD3) Overall Satisfaction (Q5) SE: Hill
Section,
Mira Costa
NE: Tree
Section,
Manhattan &
Liberty Village
W: Sand
Section Yes No
Parking structure 40.8 40.2 36.5 36.0 40.2
Open space/park 21.7 30.4 28.1 26.5 27.2
Commercial dev like Metlox, w/ retail shopping, restaurants 19.5 22.6 21.9 20.6 21.6 Multi-family residential housing 15.4 11.0 12.2 6.8 14.3 Cultural arts and community space 9.3 11.0 10.7 6.9 11.3 Hotel 3.8 3.8 9.3 7.5 4.9
Private social club 1.9 5.6 8.7 9.3 4.3
Visitor center 3.2 3.2 2.3 1.1 3.4
District Area Coastal Zone
Local Governance & Customer Service
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 34
City of Manhattan Beach
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

L OCAL G OVERNANCE & C USTOMER

S ERVICE
Although much of the survey focused on residents’ satisfaction with the City’s efforts to provide specific services, the City of Manhattan Beach also recognizes there is more to good governance than simply providing satisfactory services. Do re sidents perceive that the City is responsive to their needs and listens to them when making important decisions? Do residents feel that staff serves their needs in a professional and helpful manner? Do residents trust the City of Manhattan Beach? Answers to questions like these are as important as service or policy-related questions in measuring the City’s performance in meeting residents’ needs. Accordingly, they were the focus of the next section of the survey.

PERCEPTIONS OF CITY GOVERNMENT The first question in this series was designed to measure how residents perceive the City re garding its responsiveness to residents’ needs, management of funds, and tendency to listen to residents when making important decisions, as well as their trust of the City in general. For each of the statements shown on the left of Figure 32, respondents were asked if they agreed or di sagreed with the statemen t. Seven-in-ten resi- dents agreed with the statement I trust the City of Manhattan Beach (72%) and approximately six-in-ten agreed that The City is responsive to residents’ needs (64%) and that The City listens to residents when making important decisions (57%). Just under half of residents (45%) agreed that The City manages its finances well—although it should be noted that nearly one-third of respon- dents (33%) were also unsure how to rate the City on this dimension. Agreement across the state- ments was statistically consistent from 2021 to 2025 (see Table 20).

Question 15 Next, I'm going to read you a series of statements about the City of Manhattan Beach. For each, I'd like you to tell me whether you agree or disagree with the statement.

FIGURE 32 AGREEMENT WITH STATEMENTS
TABLE 20 AGREEMENT WITH STATEMENTS BY STUDY YEAR

21.8 17.2

15.0 10.0

50.4 46.9

42.4 35.1

12.3 14.1

17.2 15.8

8.0 9.9

6.3 9.3

13.8 15.5

32.7 6.2
0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0 1 0 0
I trust the City of
Manhat tan Beach
The City is responsiv e to
residents’ needs
The City listens to
residents when making
important decisions
The City manages its
finances well
% Respondents
Strongly agree Somewhat agree Som ewhat disagree Strongly disagree DK/NA 2025 2021
I trust the City of Manhattan Beach 72.2 66.9 +5.3
The City listens to residents when making important decisions 57.4 55.9 +1.5 The City is responsive to residents’ needs 64.1 65.5 -1.4 The City manages its finances well 45.1 47.2 -2.0
Change in
% Strongly + Smwt
2021 to 2025
Study Year
Local Governance & Customer Service
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 35City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Tables 21-25 show how agreement with each statement varied by respondent age, ethnicity, per- ceived safety in the City of Manhattan Beach, home ownership status, overall satisfaction, years in Manhattan Beach, and geography. In general, residents who have lived in Manhattan Beach for less than 5 years or between 10 and 14 years, La tino/Hispanic respondents, renters, residents satisfied with the City’s overall performance, and those who feel safe in Manhattan Beach reported higher levels of agreement (strongly + somewhat) with the statements when compared to their respective counterparts.

TABLE 21 AGREEMENT WITH STATEMENTS BY AGE
TABLE 22 AGREEMENT WITH STATEMENTS BY ETHNICITY & PERCEPTION OF CITY SAFETY TABLE 23 AGREEMENT WITH STATEMENTS BY HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS & OVERALL SATISFACTION TABLE 24 AGREEMENT WITH STATEMENTS BY YEARS IN MANHATTAN BEACH TABLE 25 AGREEMENT WITH STATEMENTS BY DISTRICT AREA & COASTAL ZONE 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older I trust the City of Manhattan Beach 81.9 60.1 79.4 81.1 67.1 66.7 The City is responsive to residents’ needs 66.1 57.3 70.4 62.4 67.1 60.7 The City listens to residents when making important decisions 69.7 50.7 60.1 61.3 59.4 51.1 The City manages its finances well 50.3 43.9 47.8 41.1 47.7 45.1 Age (QD1)
Latino/
Hispanic
Asian
American
Caucasian/
White
Mixed/
Other Safe Unsafe
I trust the City of Manhattan Beach 71.8 78.6 71.5 78.5 74.3 37.2 The City is responsive to residents’ needs 75.5 59.1 64.6 59.8 65.2 44.7 The City listens to residents when making important decisions 73.9 51.3 56.4 62.0 58.9 32.9 The City manages its finances well 54.5 46.7 43.8 48.3 46.4 23.7 Ethnicity (QD6)
Perception of City
Safety (Q7)
Own Rent Satisfied Dissatisfied
I trust the City of Manhattan Beach 70.4 78.7 77.7 31.0 The City is responsive to residents’ needs 63.4 69.3 70.0 20.5 The City listens to residents when making important decisions 53.6 68.0 63.2 13.9 The City manages its finances well 43.8 48.2 50.4 7.9
Home Ownership
Status (QD4)
Overall
Satisfaction (Q5)
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more
I trust the City of Manhattan Beach 83.1 76.8 87.8 64.3 The City is responsive to residents’ needs 75.8 61.8 75.3 58.3 The City listens to residents when making important decisions 69.7 51.0 67.6 52.6 The City manages its finances well 49.9 41.0 56.0 42.4
Years in Manhattan Beach (Q1)
SE: Hill
Section,
Mira Costa
NE: Tree
Section,
Manhattan &
Liberty Village
W: Sand
Section Yes No
I trust the City of Manhattan Beach 74.2 71.7 70.8 73.4 71.9 The City is responsive to residents’ needs 69.0 61.1 62.9 61.0 64.9 The City listens to residents when making important decisions 60.5 55.9 56.3 54.6 58.2 The City manages its finances well 46.9 43.1 46.2 45.5 45.0 District Area Coastal Zone
Local Governance & Customer Service
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 36City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CONTACT WITH CITY STAFF Residents were next asked if they had been in contact with City of Manhattan Beach staff in the past 12 months. Figure 33 below presents the findings of this question and shows that 46% of residents in dicated they had contact with city staff during the 12 months preceding the interview, which is virtually unchanged from 2021. Respondents at least 35 years of age, Caucasians, and residents with a child in the household were the most likely to report having been in contact with city staff in the year prior to the interview (see figures 34 to 36).

Question 16 In the past 12 months, have you been in contact with staff from the City of Man- hattan Beach?
FIGURE 33 CITY STAFF CONTACT IN PAST 12 MONTHS BY STUDY YEAR FIGURE 34 CITY STAFF CONTACT IN PAST 12 MONTHS BY YEARS IN MANHATTAN BEACH & AGE

46.5 48.6

46.3 48.7

5.0 4.9
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
2025 2021
Study Y ear
% Respondents
Not sure
No contact with
City staff
Yes, co ntact
with City staff

25.0 25.2

54.1 49.4 51.1 51.2

47.0 42.7

49.5 44.4
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Years in Manhattan Beach (Q1) Age (QD1)
% Respondents With Staff
Contact in Past 12 Months
Local Governance & Customer Service
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 37City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FIGURE 35 CITY STAFF CONTACT IN PAST 12 MONTHS BY ETHNICITY, CHILD IN HSLD, HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS & GENDER
FIGURE 36 CONTACT CITY STAFF IN PAST 12 MONTHS BY OVERALL SATISFACTION, DISTRICT AREA & COASTAL ZONE RATING CITY STAFF Presented only to residents who had been in contact with city staff in the past 12 months, Question 17 asked responden ts to rate staff on three dimensions: helpful- ness, professionalism, and accessibility. The findings of this question are presented on the next page in Figure 37. As shown in the figure, Manhattan Beach city staff received high marks on each dimension of customer service tested. Ninety-five percent (95%) of residents with staff con- tact felt that city staff members were professi onal, 92% said they were accessible, and 88% con- sidered staff to be helpful. Although staff ratings trended higher from 2021 to 2025, none of the changes reached the threshold for statistical significance (Table 26 on next page).

51.5 43.8

48.9 44.8 44.4

48.8 34.4

39.0 50.3

42.0 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
Latino /
Hispanic
Asian
American
Caucasian /
White
Mixed or
other
Ye s No Ow n Re nt Male Female
Ethnicity (QD6) Child in Hsld (QD3) Home Ownership Status (QD4)
Gender (QD2)
% Respondents With Staff
Contact in Past 12 Months

45.8 46.6 46.247.4 46.2

41.7 50.2
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 Satisfied Dissatisfied SE: Hill Section,
Mira Costa
NE: T ree Section,
Manhattan &
Liberty Village
W: Sand Section Y es No
Overall Satisfaction (Q5) District Area Coastal Zone
% Respondents With Staff
Contact in Past 12 Months
Local Governance & Customer Service
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 38City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Question 17 In your opinion, was the staff at the City very ___, somewhat ___, or not at all ___.

FIGURE 37 PERCEPTION OF CITY STAFF...

TABLE 26 PERCEPTION OF CITY STAFF... BY STUDY YEAR
SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION The importance of a city’s communication with its residents cannot be overstated. Much of a city’s success is shaped by the quality of infor- mation that is exchanged in both directions, fr om the city to the community and from the com- munity to the city. This study is just one exam ple of Manhattan Beach’s efforts to enhance the information flow to the City to better understand the co mmunity’s concerns, perceptions, and needs. Some of Manhattan Beach’ s many efforts to communicate with its residents include its newsletters, timely press releases, social media posts, MBtv, YouTube channel, and its website.

Accordingly, Question 18 asked Manhattan Beach residents to report their satisfaction with city- resident communication. Overall, 81% of respon dents indicated they were satisfied with the City’s efforts to communicate with residents through newsletters, the Internet, social media, and other means. The remaining respondents were eith er dissatisfied with the City’s efforts in this respect (12%), unsure of their opinion (6%), or unwilling to share their opinion (1%).

Driven by an increase in the percentage of residents who were very satisfied (+8%), overall satis- faction with city-resident communication was significantly higher in 2025 than 2021 (+6%).

60.4 46.3 48.1

34.1 45.5 40.3

10.9 0.8 2.3 0.7

5.94.7 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Professionalism Accessibility Helpfulness
Q17 Perception of city staff . . .
% Respondents With Staff
Contact in Past 12 Months
Not sure
Not at all
Som ewhat
Very
2025 2021
Helpful 88.4 85.0 +3.5
Accessible 91.8 88.5 +3.3
Professional 94.5 92.6 +1.9
Change in
% Very + Smwt
2021 to 2025
Study Year
Local Governance & Customer Service
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 39City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Question 18 Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the City's efforts to communicate with residents through newsletters, the Internet, social media, and other means? FIGURE 38 SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION BY STUDY YEAR † Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2021 and 2025 studies.

The following three figures displa y how satisfaction with the City’s efforts to communicate with residents varied across a number of demographic subgroups. With the exception of residents who were dissatisfied with the City’s performance overall, at least three- quarters of residents expressed satisfaction with the City’s communication efforts. It is also noteworthy that the new- est residents (<5 years), respondents with a child in the household, renters, and those satisfied with the City’s overall performance were among the most satisfied subgroups with respect to the City’s communication efforts.

FIGURE 39 SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION BY YEARS IN MANHATTAN BEACH, ETHNICITY & GENDER

24.4 50.4

3.5 6.4 8.5

31.9†

48.9 8.0

11.3 4.2
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
2025 2021
Study Y ear
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure
Very dissatisfied
Som ewhat
dissatisfied
Som ewhat
satisfied
Very satisfied

24.1 25.2 33.4

48.6 27.7

36.9 58.4 50.1

47.7 37.5

50.9 47.8
Ver y
satisfied

48.8 29.5 29.6 26.5
Smwt
satisfied

44.0 49.1

54.751.3
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more Latino /
Hispanic
Asian
American
Caucasian /
White
Mixed or
other
Male Female
Years in Manhattan Beach (Q1) Ethnicity (QD6) Gender (QD2) % Respondents
Local Governance & Customer Service
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 40City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FIGURE 40 SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION BY AGE, CHILD IN HSLD & HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS FIGURE 41 SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION BY DISTRICT AREA, COASTAL ZONE & OVERALL SATISFACTION

29.4 32.0 31.3 34.0 26.3

46.3 48.5 48.3 54.7 44.3 51.6

41.3 28.234.934.6
Ver y
satisfied

36.5 43.4 47.0 57.3
Smwt
satisfied

41.8 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Yes No Own Rent Age (QD1) Child in Hsld (QD3) Home Ownership Status (QD4) % Respondents

31.2 35.5

6.9 50.0 51.0

31.5 34.236.327.9
Ver y
satisfied

32.9 52.0 42.0 44.7
Smwt
satisfied

51.3 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
SE: Hill Section,
Mira Costa
NE: Tree
Section,
Manhattan &
Liberty Village
W: Sand Section Yes No Satisfied Dissatisfied
District Area Coastal Zone Overall Satisfaction (Q5)
% Respondents
Background & Demographics
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 41
City of Manhattan Beach
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

B ACKGROUND & D EMOGRAPHICS
TABLE 27 DEMOGRAPHICS OF SAMPLE BY STUDY YEAR
Table 27 presents the key demo-
graphic information collected during
the survey by study year. Although
the primary motivation for collecting
the background and demographic
information was to provide a better
insight into how the results of the
substantive questions of the survey
vary by demographic characteris-
tics, it was also a means to ensure
that the resulting sample matched
the profile of Manhattan Beach’s
adult resident population on key
characteristics according to the lat-
est Census estimates.
2025 2021
Total Respondents 588 560
Q2 Years in Manhattan Beach
Less than 5 20.5 16.6
5 to 9 13.5 15.9
10 to 14 9.9 14.5
15 or more 56.0 52.9
Prefer not to answer 0.1 0.1
Age (QD1)
18 to 24 5.4 5.6
25 to 34 13.6 11.4
35 to 44 20.8 18.8
45 to 54 21.6 23.5
55 to 64 19.0 17.6
65 or older 19.1 20.2
Prefer not to answer 0.5 2.9
Gender (QD2)
Male 48.8 51.7
Female 49.1 46.0
Non-binary 0.4 0.0
Prefer not to answer 1.8 2.3
Child in Hsld (QD3)
Yes 36.6 37.9
No 58.1 58.3
Prefer not to answer 5.4 3.8
Home Ownership Status (QD4)
Own 64.2 66.8
Rent 29.7 29.2
Prefer not to answer 6.1 4.0
Employment Status (QD5)
Full-time 54.7 55.9
Part-time 9.3 6.1
Student 3.7 3.3
Homemaker 5.9 6.1
Retired 18.5 21.2
In-between jobs 3.1 1.9
Prefer not to answer 4.9 5.4
Ethnicity (QD6)
Latino / Hispanic 9.8 6.6
Asian American 14.1 11.0
Caucasian / White 67.0 69.1
Mixed or other 6.1 5.3
Prefer not to answer 3.0 7.9
District Area
SE: Hill Section, Mira Costa 31.0 N/A
NE: Tree Section, Manhattan & Liberty Village 40.1 N/A
W: Sand Section 28.9 N/A
Coastal Zone
Yes 20.6 N/A
No 79.4 N/A
Study Year
Methodology
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 42
City of Manhattan Beach
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

M ETHODOLOGY
The following sections outline the methodology used in the study, as well as the motivation for using certain techniques.

QUESTIONNAIRE DEVELOPMENT Dr. McLarney of True North Research worked closely with the City of Manhattan Beach to develop a qu estionnaire that covered the topics of interest and avoided many possible source s of systematic measurement e rror, including position-order effects, wording effects, response-category effect s, scaling effects, and priming. Several ques- tions included multiple individual items. Because asking items in a set order can lead to a sys- tematic position bias in responses, the items were asked in a random order for each respondent.

Some questions asked in this study were presen ted only to a subset of respondents. For exam- ple, only respondents in contact with city staff in the past 12 months (Question 16) were asked about their experiences with staff (Question 17). The questionnaire included with this report (see Questionnaire & Toplines on page 45) identifies the skip patterns used during the survey to ensure that each respondent received the appropriate questions.

PROGRAMMING & PRE-TEST Prior to fielding the survey, the questionnaire was CATI (Computer Assisted Telephone In terviewing) programmed to assist interviewers when conduct- ing the telephone interviews. The CATI program automatically navigates the skip patterns, ran- domizes the appropriate question items, and alerts interviewers to certain types of keypunching mistakes should they happen during the interview. The survey was also programmed into a pass- code-protected online survey application to allow online participation for sampled residents. The integrity of the questionnaire was pre-tested internally by True North and by dialing into random homes in the City prior to formally beginning the survey.

SAMPLE, RECRUITING & DATA COLLECTION A comprehensive database of Manhat- tan Beach households was utilized for this study, ensuring that all households in Manhattan Beach had the opportunity to be selected to part icipate in the survey. Once selected at random, contact information was appended to each record including email addresses and telephone num- bers for adult residents. Indivi duals were subsequently recruit ed to participate in the survey through multiple recruiting methods. Using a combination of email and text invitations, sampled residents were initially invited to participate in the survey online at a secure, passcode-protected website designed and hosted by True North. Each individual was assigned a unique passcode to ensure that only Manhattan Beach residents who received an invitation could access the online survey site, and that the survey could be completed only one time per passcode. Email reminder notices were also sent to enco urage participation among those wh o had yet to take the survey.

Following a period of online data collection, True North also placed telephone calls to land lines and cell phone numbers of sampl ed residents that had yet to pa rticipate in the online survey or for whom only telephone contact information was available.

Telephone interviews averaged 18 minutes in length and were conducted during weekday eve- nings (5:30PM to 9PM) and on weekends (10AM to 5PM). It is standard practice not to call during the day on weekdays because most working adults are unavailable and thus calling during those hours would bias the sample. A total of 588 completed surveys were gathered online and by tele- phone between September 29 and October 6, 2025.

Methodology
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 43City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

MARGIN OF ERROR DUE TO SAMPLING The results of the survey can be used to esti- mate the opinions of all adult residents in the City. Because not every adult resident of the City participated in the survey, however, the results have what is known as a statistical margin of error due to sampling. The margin of error refers to the difference between what was found in the survey of 588 adult residents for a particular question and what would have been found if all of the estimated 25,524 adult residents
3 had been interviewed.

Figure 42 provides a plot of the maximum margin of error in this study. The maximum margin of error for a dichotomous percentage result occurs when the answers are evenly split such that 50% provide one response and 50% provide the al ternative response. For this survey, the maxi- mum margin of error is ± 4.0% for questions answered by all 588 respondents.

FIGURE 42 MAXIMUM MARGIN OF ERROR
Within this report, figures and tables show how responses to ce rtain questions varied by demo- graphic characteristics such as length of residence and age of th e respondent. Figure 42 is thus useful for understanding how the maximum margin of error for a percentage estimate will grow as the number of individuals asked a question (or in a particular subgroup) shrinks. Because the margin of error grows exponentially as the sample size decreases, the reader should use caution when generalizing and interpreting the results for small subgroups.

DATA PROCESSING & WEIGHTING Data processing consisted of checking the data for errors or inconsistencies, coding and recoding responses, categorizing verbatim responses, and preparing frequency analyses and cross-tabulations. Where appropriate, tests of statistical signif- icance were conducted to evaluate changes in responses between the 2021 and 2025 studies.

The final data were weighted to balance the sample by key demographics according to Census estimates.

3. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Americ an Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. 588 Respondents
± 4.0%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 Sample Size (Number of Respondents)
Margin of Error
Methodology
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 44City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ROUNDING Numbers that end in 0.5 or higher are rounded up to the nearest whole num- ber, whereas those that end in 0.4 or lower are rounded down to the nearest whole number.

These same rounding rules are also applied, as needed, to arrive at numbers that include a deci- mal place in constructing figures and charts. Occasionally, these rounding rules lead to small discrepancies in the first decimal place when co mparing tables and figures for a given question.

Due to rounding, some figures and narrative include numbers that sum to slightly more or less than 100%.

Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 45
City of Manhattan Beach
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Q UESTIONNAIRE & T OPLINES

True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 1
City of Manhattan Beach
Community Opinion Survey
Final Toplines (n=588)
October 2025
Section 1: Introduction to Study
Hi, may I please speak to: _____. Hi, my name is _____ and I’m calling from TNR on behalf of the City of Manhattan Beach. The City is conducting a survey of residents about important issues in Manhattan Beach and would like to get your opinions.

If needed: This is a survey about important issues in your community. I’m NOT trying to sell anything and I won’t ask for a donation.

If needed: Your answers to the survey will be confidential.

If needed: The survey should take about 12 minutes to complete.

If needed: If now is not a convenient time, can you let me know a better time so I can call back?
If needed: TNR is an independent public opinion research firm. TNR was hired by the City to design and conduct the survey.

Section 2: Quality of Life
I’d like to begin by asking you a few questions about what it is like to live in the City of Manhattan Beach.

Q1 How long have you lived in the City of Manhattan Beach? 1 Less than 1 year 4%
2 1 to 4 years 17%
3 5 to 9 years 14%
4 10 to 14 years 10%
5 15 years or longer 56%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%
Q2 How would you rate: _____? Would you say it is excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor? Always ask A first, then randomize
remaining items
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Very poor
Not sure
Prefer not to
answer
A The overall quality of life in Manhattan
Beach 54% 43% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0%
B Manhattan Beach as a place to raise a
family 52% 36% 7% 1% 0% 4% 0%
C Manhattan Beach as a place to work 17% 26% 17% 7% 1% 31% 2% D Manhattan Beach as a place to retire 30% 29% 16% 8% 2% 14% 1% E Manhattan Beach as a place to shop and
dine 35% 44% 18% 3% 0% 0% 0%
F Manhattan Beach as a place to recreate 46% 38% 8% 1% 1% 5% 1% Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 46City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

City of Manhattan Beach Community Opinion Survey October 2025 True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 2

Q3
What do you like most about the City of Manhattan Beach that should be preserved in the future? Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below. Categories.

Small town feel, charming beach
community 21%
Beach, ocean 16%
Community, friendly people, family
atmosphere 14%
Public safety, low crime rate 13%
Low density development, single family
homes 9%
Parks, rec facilities 8%
Cleanliness, appearance, beauty of City 8%
Schools, education 8%
The Strand, pier 6%
Walkability of commercial, residential areas 6%
Community events, activities 6%
Not sure / Cannot think of anything 6%
Open space, greenbelt 5%
Outdoor shops, dining options 5%
Fire, Police services 4%
Local businesses, downtown area 4%
Relaxed, casual lifestyle 3%
Lack of homelessness 3%
Historical places 2%
Bike lanes 2%
Environment, nature 2%
Improve, maintain roads, sidewalks, streets 2%
Q4
If the city government could change one thing to make Manhattan Beach a better place to live now and in the future, what change would you like to see? Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below. Categories.

Address parking issues 12%
Enforce traffic, e-bike laws 11%
Limit growth, development 10%
Improve public safety, more police presence 9%
Not sure / Cannot think of anything 9%
Preserve, support outdoor dining 6%
Provide more affordable housing 4%
Reduce traffic congestion 4%
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 47City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

City of Manhattan Beach Community Opinion Survey October 2025 True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 3
Improve bike lane safety 4%
No changes needed / Everything is fine 4%
Encourage, support diversity, address
inequity 3%
Attract variety of less expensive
restaurants, shops 3%
Improve City planning, development 3%
Improve government leadership,
communication 3%
Underground utilities 3%
Address homeless issues 3%
Improve walkability, sidewalks 3%
Reduce cost of living 3%
Improve, maintain infrastructure 3%
Add, improve parks, rec facilities 3%
Improve, provide more dog parks, dog
friendly spaces 3%
Reduce taxes, fees 2%
Improve public transit 2%
Beautify City, cleanliness, landscaping 2%
Increase, support small businesses 2%
Improve quality of education 2%
Provide more activities, events for all ages 2%
Preserve City history, small-town feeling 2%
Improve traffic signage, lights 2%
Reduce tourism 2%

Section 3: City Services
Next, I would like to ask a series of questions about services provided by the City of Manhattan Beach.

Q5
Generally speaking, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the job the City of Manhattan Beach is doing to provide city services? Get answer, then ask: Would that be very (satisfied/dissatisfied) or somewhat (satisfied/dissatisfied)? 1 Very satisfied 39%
2 Somewhat satisfied 47%
3 Somewhat dissatisfied 7%
4 Very dissatisfied 3%
98 Not sure 3%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 48City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

City of Manhattan Beach Community Opinion Survey October 2025 True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 4

Split Sample for Q6. Sample A receives items A-L, Sample B receives items M-W.

Q6
For each of the services I read, please tell me how satisfied you are with the job the City is doing to provide the service.

Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the City’s efforts to: _____, or do you not have an opinion? Get answer. If ‘satisfied’ or ‘dissatisfied’, then ask: Would that be very (satisfied/dissatisfied) or somewhat (satisfied/dissatisfied)? Randomize
Very
satisfied
Somewhat
satisfied
Somewhat
dissatisfied
Very
dissatisfied
Not sure
Prefer not to
answer
A Enforce traffic laws 26% 29% 20% 16% 8% 0%
B Provide neighborhood police patrols 31% 33% 18% 6% 13% 0% C Provide emergency medical services 50% 26% 1% 1% 20% 1% D Prepare the City for emergencies 28% 30% 8% 2% 32% 0% E Maintain sewer and storm drain systems 40% 34% 5% 5% 14% 1% F Maintain parks and open spaces 50% 38% 9% 4% 0% 0%
G Provide special events such as concerts in
the park and holiday fireworks 65% 26% 4% 2% 2% 1%
H Provide a variety of recreation programs for
all ages 48% 34% 7% 3% 8% 0%
I Provide services and programs for seniors 21% 21% 4% 3% 50% 2% J Protect the environment 33% 37% 7% 2% 21% 0%
K Provide cultural and arts opportunities 33% 37% 11% 3% 15% 1% L Maintain a low crime rate 46% 31% 15% 6% 2% 0%
M Provide fire protection and prevention
services 66% 20% 1% 1% 11% 0%
N Enforce animal control laws such as leash-
laws and waste cleanup 28% 30% 24% 5% 13% 0%
O Maintain and repair local streets and roads 31% 49% 16% 3% 1% 0% P Remove graffiti 53% 26% 1% 1% 18% 1%
Q Maintain public athletic fields 39% 34% 3% 2% 21% 1%
R Address homelessness 27% 40% 14% 8% 11% 1%
S Keep public buildings, parks and facilities
clean and attractive 45% 44% 7% 2% 2% 0%
T Preserve the City’s small, beach-town
character 29% 40% 16% 12% 3% 0%
U Provide a variety of public art 32% 37% 12% 1% 17% 1% V Provide after-school programs and
diversion programs for youth 22% 22% 6% 1% 47% 1%
W Address bike safety and e-bikes 11% 27% 25% 31% 5% 0% Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 49City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

City of Manhattan Beach Community Opinion Survey October 2025 True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 5

Q7 Overall, how safe is the City of Manhattan Beach as a place to live? Would you say it is very safe, somewhat safe, somewhat unsafe, or very unsafe? 1 Very safe 62%
2 Somewhat safe 32%
3 Somewhat unsafe 5%
4 Very unsafe 1%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%

Section 4: Spending Priorities
The City of Manhattan Beach has limited financial resources to provide the services and programs desired by residents. Because it can’t fund every service, program and project, the City must set priorities.

Q8
As I read each of the following items, please indicate whether you think the City should make the item a high priority, a medium priority, or a low priority for future city spending. If you feel the City should not spend any money on this item, just say so.

Please keep in mind that not all of the items can be high priorities.

Here is the (first/next) one:_____. Should this item be a high, medium or low priority for the City – or should the City not spend any money on this item? Randomize
High priority
Medium
priority
Low priority
Should not
spend money
Not sure
Prefer not to
answer
A Reconstruct and improve the City’s
swimming pool – Begg Pool 26% 34% 25% 7% 7% 0%
B Fix potholes and repair and improve city
streets and sidewalks 62% 30% 7% 0% 0% 0%
C Renovate and improve the Joslyn
Community Center 9% 30% 37% 12% 11% 1%
D Renovate and improve the Manhattan
Heights Community Center 8% 31% 38% 11% 12% 0%
E Renovate and improve the Manhattan Beach
Art Center 5% 27% 45% 13% 10% 0%
F
Renovate and improve Live Oak Park
facilities, including the Ceramics Studio,
tennis and racquet courts, and REC
Program activity space
15% 40% 32% 7% 6% 0%
G
Replace the Pay ‘N’ Play at Marine Avenue
Park with open space, with the possibility of
also adding a futsal court
6% 18% 34% 19% 22% 1%
H Restore and enhance nature areas 29% 47% 17% 5% 1% 0% I
Improve the maintenance of parks and park
amenities including restrooms, sports
courts, and dog runs

38% 49% 10% 2% 1% 0%
J Redesign public spaces to allow for outdoor
dining areas 38% 26% 25% 10% 1% 0%
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 50City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

City of Manhattan Beach Community Opinion Survey October 2025 True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 6
K
Create a Manhattan Beach Historical
Museum to preserve and store historical
documents
7% 21% 45% 23% 2% 0%
L Repair and upgrade the City’s sewer and
wastewater systems 43% 37% 10% 2% 9% 0%
M
Provide low-cost, on-demand rideshare
services so residents can visit restaurants,
shops, and business areas in the City
without having to park a vehicle
27% 24% 27% 19% 2% 0%
Q9
The City of Manhattan Beach has money set aside to improve local library facilities and services. Because it has limited funding, however, the City must set priorities.

As I read each of the following items, please indicate whether you think the City should make the item a high priority, a medium priority, or a low priority for the future. If you feel the City should not spend any money on this item, just say so. Please keep in mind that not all of the items can be high priorities.

Here is the (first/next) one:_____. Should this item be a high, medium or low priority for the library – or should no money be spent on this item?

Randomize

High priority
Medium
priority
Low priority
Should not
spend money
Not sure
Prefer not to
answer
A Expanding programs, activities, and events
for children 28% 40% 18% 6% 8% 0%
B Expanding programs, activities, and events
for teens 21% 42% 21% 7% 8% 0%
C Expanding programs, activities, and events
for adults 16% 37% 33% 9% 5% 0%
D Expanding the Manhattan Beach Library
Speaker Series 6% 23% 40% 21% 9% 0%
E Expanding hours of service 12% 29% 33% 16% 11% 0%
F Providing additional study rooms 7% 26% 35% 21% 11% 0% G Repairing and improving the current
Manhattan Beach Library facility 12% 31% 35% 17% 6% 0%
H Building and operating a cultural library on
the east side of Manhattan Beach 7% 17% 35% 36% 5% 0%
I Preserving and improving access to the
City’s Historical Collection 5% 26% 43% 21% 6% 0%
J Adding a new library 5% 10% 33% 48% 5% 0%
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 51City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

City of Manhattan Beach Community Opinion Survey October 2025 True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 7

Q10
The City of Manhattan Beach is exploring the idea of offering low-cost, on-demand rideshare services so residents can visit restaurants, shops, the beach, and key destinations in the City without having to park a vehicle.

Would you or others in your household be very interested, somewhat interested, or not interested in using this service?
1 Very interested 32%
2 Somewhat interested 32%
3 Not interested 33%
98 Not sure 3%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%

Section 5: Short-Term Vacation Rentals
Q11
Short-term rentals are banned in the City, outside of the Coastal Zone (residential areas near the Strand).

The 2028 Summer Olympics and 2026 FIFA World Cup will be held in Los Angeles. The City is considering allowing limited short-term vacation rentals on a temporary basis for these events – for 2-3 weeks prior to and 2 weeks after each event – with certain regulations and restrictions.

In general, would you support or oppose the City allowing residents to rent their properties on a short-term basis during these events? Get answer, then ask: Would that be strongly (support/oppose) or somewhat (support/oppose)? 1 Strongly support 28%
2 Somewhat support 30%
3 Somewhat oppose 12%
4 Strongly oppose 28%
98 Not sure 2%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%
Q12
During the Olympics and World Cup, the City of Manhattan Beach will need to provide additional public safety services for security and emergency medical. The taxes generated by short-term vacation rentals during this period will help cover the costs of providing additional public safety services.

Knowing this, would you support or oppose the City allowing residents to rent their properties on a short-term basis during these events? Get answer, then ask: Would that be strongly (support/oppose) or somewhat (support/oppose)? 1 Strongly support 33%
2 Somewhat support 33%
3 Somewhat oppose 11%
4 Strongly oppose 21%
98 Not sure 2%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 52City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

City of Manhattan Beach Community Opinion Survey October 2025 True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 8
Q13
If the City were to allow short-term vacation rentals during the Olympics and World Cup, are you likely to rent your Manhattan Beach property on a short-term basis during these events?
1 Yes 12%
2 No 64%
98 Not sure 21%
99 Prefer not to answer 3%

Section 6: Project Pulse
Q14
The City of Manhattan Beach is exploring redevelopment of two of its properties in Downtown: the Parking Lot 3 site on Morningside Drive and 400 Manhattan Beach Boulevard (formerly US Bank), which are both across from Metlox. The City has started a community outreach campaign to explore future land uses and would like to know your opinion on the redevelopment options currently being considered. As I read the following options, please indicate whether you think it should be a high, medium, or low priority for the community.

Here is the (first/next) one:_____. Should this item be a high, medium or low priority for these sites – or should this option not be a priority?

Randomize

High priority
Medium
priority
Low priority
Should not
be a priority
Not sure
Prefer not to
answer
A Parking structure 39% 26% 21% 13% 2% 0%
B Commercial development like Metlox with
retail shopping and restaurants 21% 36% 23% 18% 2% 0%
C Cultural arts and community space 10% 28% 28% 31% 3% 0% D Hotel 5% 14% 40% 39% 2% 0%
E Multi-family residential housing 13% 15% 22% 48% 2% 0% F Open space/park 27% 33% 23% 15% 2% 0%
G Private social club 5% 8% 29% 56% 1% 0%
H Visitor center 3% 9% 40% 45% 2% 0%

Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 53City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

City of Manhattan Beach Community Opinion Survey October 2025 True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 9

Section 7: Local Governance & Customer Service
Q15
Next, I’m going to read you a series of statements about the City of Manhattan Beach.

For each, I’d like you to tell me whether you agree or disagree with the statement.

Here is the (first/next) one: _____. Do you agree or disagree, or do you not have an opinion? If agree or disagree, ask: Would that be strongly (agree/disagree) or somewhat (agree/disagree)?
Randomize
Strongly
agree
Somewhat
agree
Somewhat
disagree
Strongly
disagree
Not sure
Prefer not to
answer
A The City is responsive to residents’ needs 17% 47% 14% 8% 14% 0% B The City manages its finances well 10% 35% 16% 6% 32% 1% C The City listens to residents when making
important decisions 15% 42% 17% 10% 15% 1%
D I trust the City of Manhattan Beach 22% 50% 12% 6% 9% 0% Q16 In the past 12 months, have you been in contact with staff from the City of Manhattan Beach?
1 Yes 46% Ask Q17
2 No 49% Skip to Q18
98 Not sure 3% Skip to Q18
99 Prefer not to answer 2% Skip to Q18
Q17 In your opinion, was the staff at the City very _____, somewhat _____, or not at all _____.

Read one item at a time, continue until all items are read.

Randomize
Very
Somewhat
Not at all
Not sure
Prefer not
to answer
A Helpful 48% 40% 11% 0% 0%
B Professional 60% 34% 5% 1% 0%
C Accessible 46% 45% 6% 2% 1%
Q18
Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the City’s efforts to communicate with residents through newsletters, the Internet, social media, and other means? Get answer, then ask: Would that be very (satisfied/dissatisfied) or somewhat (satisfied/dissatisfied)? 1 Very satisfied 32%
2 Somewhat satisfied 49%
3 Somewhat dissatisfied 8%
4 Very dissatisfied 4%
98 Not sure 6%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%

Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 54City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

City of Manhattan Beach Community Opinion Survey October 2025 True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 10
Section 8: Background & Demographics
Thank you so much for your participation. I have just a few background questions for statistical purposes.

D1 In what year were you born? Year coded into age categories shown below. 18 to 24 5%
25 to 34 14%
35 to 44 21%
45 to 54 22%
55 to 64 19%
65 or older 19%
Prefer not to answer 1%
D2 What is your gender?
1 Male 49%
2 Female 49%
3 Non-binary <1%
99 Prefer not to answer 2%
D3 Do you have one or more children under the age of 18 living in your household? 1 Yes 37%
2 No 58%
99 Prefer not to answer 5%
D4 Do you own or rent your residence in Manhattan Beach? 1 Own 64%
2 Rent 30%
99 Prefer not to answer 6%
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 55City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

City of Manhattan Beach Community Opinion Survey October 2025 True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 11

D5
Which of the following best describes your employment status? Would you say you are employed full-time, part-time, a student, a homemaker, retired, or are you in-between jobs right now?
1 Employed full-time 55%
2 Employed part-time 9%
3 Student 4%
4 Homemaker 6%
5 Retired 18%
6 In-between jobs 3%
99 Prefer not to answer 5%
D6 What ethnic group do you consider yourself a part of or feel closest to? Read list if respondent hesitates
1 Latino/Hispanic 10%
2 Asian American -- Korean, Japanese,
Chinese, Vietnamese, Filipino or other
Asian
14%
3 Caucasian/White 67%
4 African-American/Black 3%
5 American Indian or Alaskan Native <1%
6 Pacific Islander <1%
7 Middle Eastern 1%
8 Mixed Heritage 2%
98 Other <1%
99 Prefer not to answer 3%
Those are all of the questions that I have for you! Thanks so much for participating in this important survey! This survey was conducted for the City of Manhattan Beach

Post-Interview & Sample Items
S1 District Area
1 Southeast (Hill Section, Mira Costa) 31%
2 Northeast (Tree Section, Manhattan &
Liberty Village) 40%
3 West area (Sand Section) 25%
4 Northwest area (North Sand Section) 4%
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 56City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

City of Manhattan Beach Community Opinion Survey October 2025 True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 12

S2 Coastal Zone
1 Yes 21%
2 No 79%

Survey Results: Rentals
 Survey Info - This survey was sent on behalf of the City of Manhattan Beach to the FlashVote community for Manhattan Beach, CA.

These FlashVote results are shared with local ofcials
321
Total Participants
276 of 554 initially invited (50%)
45 others
Margin of error: ± 6%
Applied Filter:

All Responses
Participants for
lter:
319
Started:

Dec 8, 2025 11:30am PST
Ended:

Dec 10, 2025 11:36am PST
Target Participants:

All Manhattan Beach
Q1 Currently in Manhattan Beach, short term property rentals (less than 30 days) are only allowed in the “Coastal Zone” which is the area from the beach to (typically) about 5 to 7 blocks inland.

Prior to reading this, which best describes what you thought about short term rentals in Manhattan Beach?
(319 responses)
Response Time (ho…
1 9 17 25 33 41 49
0 100
200
Options Votes(319)
I thought they were allowed anywhere 18%(57)
I thought they were not allowed anywhere 39%(124)
I knew they were allowed in the Coastal Zone and not anywhere else 33%(104) Not Sure/Other 11%(34)
Q2 Which of the following potential nuisances from short term rentals are you most concerned about, if any? (You can choose up to FOUR)
(299 responses)
Responses for "Other":

Options Votes(299)
Loud noises from groups of people assembling or partying late at night 81%(241) Excessive cars parked along the roads or blocking access 67%(199) Garbage cans overowing and/or left out for multiple days at a time 25%(76) Uncomfortable or negative interactions with short term renters 36%(107) Solid waste/trash piled up in someone’s yard 9%(27)
Excessive/loud dog barking 7%(22)
Loss of local neighborhood feel/vibe 52%(154)
Other: 15%(46)
None
Removal of long term housing stock
Fewer long-term rentals available for residents
Lawlessness due to vacationers who don’t care about the community people that don't live here not being accountable or neighborly Higher rent prices for long term residents because landlords make more money with AirBNBs Safety. Anyone can pay to short term rent but safety would be a huge concern.

Damage to surrounding areas
They're not short term renters they're hotel guests & residental neighborhoods are not for hotels none
rent increasing due to shortage
I thought short term renters had to be here for at least a month. Haven't noticed any problems.

We have had loud and bad mannered renters near us. People peeing of balcony and behaving badly I am strongly against any short term rentals because it signicantly affects our quality of life.

None
Not concerned
Ban them entirely! This is an awful use of exisiting housing infrastructure. We have enough hotels! Nothing
I don't have any concerns.

Renters using other residents trash cans
Increasing property values from short-term rentals. Drives up property value and long-term rent rat It prevents long-term rentals/housing, forcing apartments in backyards on Oak Crime issue
Loss of long-term housing for locals which is the actual impact of Airbnbs in the neighborhood.

Trash/debris in yard/neighborhood
loss of permanent housing units; and increased prices due to lower supply of housing units.

Short term makes your neighbors home "in action" every weekend vs occasionally termshort
concernlong
housing
neighborhood
rentals
renters
safety
rent
loss
increasedhotel
residents
property
people
community
neighbors
due
home
useaffects
hasn
problem
bad
area
turn
shortage
trash
value
prices
airbnbs
ownersrespect make
Housing shortages
Parties and drunks overowing into my property
It hasn't been a big problem in the neighborhood...

Unsavory people not respecting our quiet community
Why only coastal area
this hasn't affected me
Businesses buying property to turn into short term rentals No Concerns
Perhaps not as many going inland.

Most importantly is the loss of our community .As a parent I would be concerned about the safety du None
Do not want any lming tik tok, reality etc.

I am not concerned
None of the above
Safety
Our town being destroyed by owners turning their homes into short term rentals.

Lack of respect for neighbors and neighborhood
Only encourages part time owners with loss of neighborhood Q3 Which of the following potential benets from short term rentals benets are most important to you, if any? (You can choose up to FOUR)
(291 responses)
Responses for "Other":

Options Votes(291)
Properties are better maintained 13%(39)
Weekdays are quieter when properties are empty 5%(16)
More tax revenue for the City 41%(120)
More visitors will help support local/small businesses 42%(122) The impacts of tourism are spread out 8%(23)
People have less expensive options to stay as visitors 16%(48) I don't care about any of these 36%(105)
Other: 13%(38)
It may help older home owners afford their properties.

Not interested in renting my little place.

We don't need more housing or more people.
there are no bensts except for the city whcih gets revenue Retired MB residents or those close to retirement can earn income from their homes It would be nice if family and friends visiting had AirBNB options on MB.

ADUs help newer homeowners pay their mortgages; older homeowners have place for adult children property owner's rights to let
I believe homeowners should retain the option to rent their properties if nancial circumstances r As a resident, I do not want short term rentals in my city.

Nothing
Benets retiree property owners
Nice way for locals to earn income.

Few nice and reasonably priced hotels in the South Bay, near the beach.

Nothing good comes of it-hurts the community
The beach should be accessible to everyone.
income for me/my neighbors, places for my friends to stay when they come to visit Opportunity for cute Bed and Breakfast’s to spring up
Options for family / friends to stay in the City when they visit. Visitors stay in Lawndale Help property owners make money
I don’t like short term rentals.

We have an affordable housing crisis in the city. Short-term rentals add to this.

We are in the 200 blk & rent our home 30days+ & no issues. neighbor does ST & a ton of issues Nothing is good for local neighbors.

Not good for the community
Increased property values and rental income to owners
Ability for me to potentially earn income through renting my house once I retire. propertyrental
ownerincome
citytermshort resident
benefithomerent
option
nothing
good
friends
nice
earn help
retire
place
house
neighbor
mb
visit
stay
community
money
beach
make
local
come
wantvisitorsvalue
mightaffordhomeownersfamily
older
No benets
None of these bring me value!
More options and easier for visitors with kids
There are NO benets
No benet for most of the residents. Very irresponsible to expand the number of rentals when we ha Private property owners can choose what best to do with their properties without government input.

I might want to do it for World Cup snd olympics
would prefer ZERO short term rentals in all of MB
I might make money
Q4 With the World Cup coming to Los Angeles in 2026 and the Olympics/Paralympics in 2028, the City is considering whether to temporarily allow short term rentals citywide during those events – roughly June/July 2026 and July/August 2028.

When it comes to temporary citywide short term rentals during these events, which of the following are TRUE for you, if any? (Choose all that apply) (284 responses)
Responses for "I think":

Options Votes(284)
I plan to stay in town during one or both of these events 75%(213) I plan to leave town during one or both of these events 7%(20) I would consider renting my property during one or both of these events 23%(66) I would not consider renting my property during one or both of these events 55%(156) I generally support the idea of temporary citywide short term rentals during these events 50%(141) I generally oppose the idea of temporary citywide short term rentals during these events 33%(94) I would support short term rentals being allowed in more places in Manhattan Beach year round 24%(67) I would oppose short term rentals being allowed in more places in Manhattan Beach year round 44%(124) I think: 6%(18)
Telling people how to use their own property is not right. Too many NIMBYS. Why consider this only that if short term allowed the residents not just renters need to see a benet ie water bill Not sure yet. Makes sense for people to be able to rent their homes if they wish to.

Let's not make our city into a rental city. What a horrible idea.

Hotels exist for a reason.

Also need to consider additional criteria or increased monitoring to avoid issues The allowable 30-day rental period (non-short term) allows anyone to rent their property.

Parking is already a challenge for residents and guests. Trafc is a nightmare now! We should try short term rentals on a temporary basis and then evaluate how they go to decide We need to keep inventory open for residents. There is a risk people will be displaced tough issue. would think if people want the risk and income, its only a short window for both event Short term rentals cause housing shortages for people who work and need to live near MB I think the surge during this specic period would cause the need for additional police + parking OK for these events only; require proper vetting and nancial security as long as we control the noise, people should be allowed to rent their units. too much energy on 2 2 week events...lets focus on larger issues We have hotels for a reason.

Once you allow it people will continue to do it even if it is illegal peopleallowneed
shortrental
termrent
event
issue
residents
riskconsider
reasonlet
make
think hotels
property
parking
additional
cause
period
Q5 Any other comments or suggestions about short term rentals in Manhattan Beach? (97 responses)
It’s already super expensive to rent here. Why remove more housing stock? You’re not building anymore. communications about current rental rights for short term rentals as I don’t really know what they are Why only consider for Olympics and World Cup? Seems like the city is trying for another money grab. If you had approved with strong guidelines and licensing you would be way in front of this. Now you are again late to the game and going to blow it.

I have experienced them and am not a fan. It breaks apart the community and hurts our quiet, safe community. We live too close to one another to have people we don’t know looking into our house! The city not enforce the codes on the books now, why allow more chaos in the city? Short term rental are short sighted, the city only sees revenue but has no plan for parking enforcement or code enforcement or police enforcement. No to short term rentals I am concerned about safety, noise, trash, etc. I have an older (1948) and have never considered renting as I only have a 2 bd, 1 bth but if the price is right, who knows.

I support year-round STRs throughout MB and believe any nuisances that result should be handled on a per-property basis and the city shouldn’t punish all STR owners for the acts of a few.

The underground project in El Porto is a disgrace. Please someone do something about it. I also miss the outdoor dining. I thought this was coming back. I send people to Hermosa all the time because we have no outdoor dining options Kudos to the City for thinking about this. Although we don't intend to rent during the World Cup and Olympics, it would be an opportunity for MB folks that might need it to make a few dollars.

Nothing good will come from further overcrowding in MB.

Short term rentals reduce the housing supply making housing more expensive.

Unless these people are really bad at it is really hard to feel comfortable being next-door to someone in a three bedroom house and they bring in 10 people
City of MB… quit being so grouchy!
only a temporary accommodation makes sense. too many absentee owners already. town loses character with so many homes vacant or used like hotels
From experience: A developer listed a house as an STR during the lengthy design and permitting process. Every Friday a different group arrived with everything needed for a weekend party hang. It was a total disruption to the street and the neighborhood. We did not buy our homes in a business district or next to be near a hotel. The 30-day minimum has been a good compromise. I do not support waiving it during the Olympics or World Cup.

I don't see short term rentals being nearly as big a nuisance as are teardowns. We've lived here ten years our neighborhood is a perpetual construction zone; noise, dirt, trucks, trafc parking problems. We are at the mercy of exploitive developers who are scooping up smaller older homes and replacing them w absurdly expensive mansions. The character of this community is truly under Individual Responses AI-Generated Summary
rentalshort
termcity
allowresidents
beach
homehouse
park
make
community
neighborhood
manhattan
people
noise
time
property
local
way
oppose
like
mb
yearthink
live
events
good
owner
support
already
rent
neighbor
limitrenter
want
issue
long
enforce
familyfeel
zone
areahotel
option
period
go olympics place
business
assault. Habitable homes should not be allowed to be converted to rubble and hauled away; that's an irresponsible environmental disaster--completely unnecessary. Why not limit how much bigger a structure can get over what's on the lot already? Why not require rehab rather than teardown when practicable? I hope the City Council will look at this. Every neighbor I talk to feels the same! Parking on sidewalks and pedestrians being pushed to roads are unacceptable I believe the city’s intentions are good; however, a 30-day minimum rental requirement is not workable for many homeowners and raises a civil-liberty concern. Property owners should have the ability to rent their homes if needed. That said, a temporary trial period— perhaps six months—with clear guardrails, enforcement, and penalties could provide a fair way to evaluate the true impact on the community before making a permanent decision.

Strongly opposed to SHORT TERM rentals in our city. Why do we have to put up with this in the Sand Section? This is HORRIBLE for our neighborhoods and NOT GOOD for permanent residents. What are we thinking? In general, I am opposed to short-term rentals as they decrease access to permanent housing in the city, erode the community feel, and create issues with parking. Long-term neighbors tend to be responsive and create mutually benecial relationships (pull each others trash in/out, take packages in, communicate openly about parking/noise) and that is lost when owners have short-term rental investments with people staying that have no investment in the long term success of a neighborhood. With a lack of access to hotels in the south bay, short term rentals near downtown may make sense to support city income and local businesses, but I am very opposed to expanding it to the rest of the city.

Don't cave to the vocal minority who want to tap their homes for additional revenue streams.

Manhattan Beach is more desirable than surrounding South Bay cities because it has larger single family properties without a lot of rentals. Please do not allow any short term rentals as it will impact the quality of life of the residents. I understand landlords may want this, but the residents who live here should be prioritized. Thank you It's just a money grab for the city. No real benet to the residents.

I think STRs are a good option for MB.

Most of the time rentals were not an issue....but it might for health and safety purposes, be appropriate to place a limit / cap on how many occupants are permitted to stay overnight in a rental at any one time, but also in placing such a limit it must be coupled with enforcement when excesses occur or its meaningless. (perhaps a proportionate ne as the City opposed on false alarms on central station alarms systems). When I was living on 44th Street as a renter, there were a few excessive occupancies...where say 10+ people in a two bedroom which also did occasionally cause parking issues for residents who don't have a dedicated garage or apron to park on. I was fortunate, had dedicated parking but some folks on the street had parking issues.

I live next to one in the coastal zone and nothing has done more to diminish my quality of life than when actual neighbors left and got replaced by a nonstop rotation of people who can’t park, scream at all hours and have zero respect for the neighborhood I oppose them in general as they negatively impact the cost of rentals for long terms tenants.

I support the fact that short term rentals bring in more business but they tend to crowd over the streets/ pier area so it's an inconvenience for the locals who live around the area. Maybe allow it on certain parts of the year so it is not always crowded/noisy/etc By only making them available in the coastal zone, it only opens high-priced rentals for wealth visitors. More areas, not right on the beach, would provide more options to my family when visiting other than crappy hotels along PCH. That said, limiting to not full-time rentals is critical (say 30-90 days/year), without that restriction, property values may increase too much because of short-term rental income and we would be priced out of the neighborhood (either as a long-term renter or home buyer).

Get a new city manager
Keep Manhattan Beach for residents.

The benet of short term rentals by the beach is that families could visit and go to the beach without driving and using up parking spaces.
1) Contrary to Howorth's statement, the City does not exist to allow people to maximize prots from their personal residences. 2) Concerns with possible "slippery slope" allowing such rentals for other events/periods. 3) I believe folks can rent their residence for 30 days and not fall within the short-term rental prohibitions. So people can still rent within the Code, but not to the degree that would fall subject to short-term rental provisions. 4) Knowing the faces of who should be in your neighborhood, how to treat your neighbors knowing you are going to be there for a while, and knowing who is going in and out of houses is important.

My view is short term rentals have a net negative impact on the quality of life for full time residents. People visiting for relatively short periods of time are on average much less likely to care about discourteous behavior towards residents. Also, the city’s infrastructure, particularly certain streets, are already over-stressed as it is.

Short term rentals not good for our community
Disallow period.

As a long time renter in Manhattan beach, I oppose all short term rentals because it simply Drives up the price for long-term renters and limits availability of affordable living options
I am completely against allowing short term rentals in Manhattan Beach. I wish they weren’t allowed here at all.

I think STRs will happen regardless of city policy. So allowing the practice but being more transparent about it could provide benets to the homeowners, renters, City and neighbors.

Is there some way the city could develop and successfully enforce “family friendly” rules and restrictions on short term rentals so residents do not have deal with loud parties? Would a noise ordinance (ie, 10 pm cut off) be legally enforceable? They should not be allowed—period.

There are many benets of short term rentals and the city and residents could benet from a more open policy. Home Exchange and programs for temporary housing for consultants, doctors, displaced residents (re, construction etc) etc. These opportunities can bring additional customers to local businesses.

As long-term renters, it has been a constant struggle to nd housing in Manhattan Beach. This issue is magnied due to so many homes being allocated to short-term vacation rentals. Several otherwise workable options were only available for partial year, furnished-only leases due to the summer months being so lucrative for investors. Locals need stable, long-term housing!! Decrease, don't increase ST rentals please!
they should be allowed city wide or not at all. the concentration in the coastal zone makes this area into a short term rental zone. spreading out the short term rental option will make the city more uniform with tenants.

Wishbone of these surveys had been sent out to residents before allowing all the multi unit building on sepulveda which will destroy our property values and cause excessive congestion.

There should be no short term rentals in MB at any time We already have too many 2nd homes that are vacant most of the time. A neighborhood thrives on residents! Residents, residents, residents!!!
With the current shortage of housing in So Cal, I think short term rentals should be banned.

It will get out of hand very quickly.
i generally prefer visitors stay in established facilities. overall not a fan at all of short term as it makes your neighbors home "Always On" every weekend vs occasionally when owner or longer term renter. We do 30day+ and no issues (most are 30-90 days), we are in 200blk and could ST but no way would i do that to our home or neighbors
Generally oppose short term rentals everywhere, I would consider it for these major events as housing will be scarce.

Overall I am opposed to short term rentals in Manhattan Beach as I would like to maintain the feeling of small beach town USA because local residents live in town all year round instead of having short term rentals to different people weekly.

It should not be allowed to anywhere in Manhattan Beach in any condition.

I think it is great to give residents the opportunity to rent their homes to visitors for these special large events. It's a win/win for the homeowner, the city, the businesses and the visitors.

I am opposed to short term rentals
Make sure these ridiculous new dense developments cannot do short term rentals! I feel that it's currently done properly but I have been following what is happening in Laguna Beach with short term rentals and non- locals destroying the area. It's not like that now in Manhattan Beach and it would be a shame if it turned out that way.

Denitely support during World Cup, Olympics. It’s only a bad thing if there are too many short term rentals outside of those events.

Don’t want to negatively impact the local rental prices, which are already high.

Please eliminate short term rentals in all of MB.

Parking and noise are my main concern.

In general I support short term rentals, however, no increase during the olympics. The bigger issue is allowing high density housing without height limits or enough parking. Example the new building at Rosecrans and Highland will have insufcient parking and will thus overow into the neighborhood. The City Council appear to roll over and do nothing about it...

I like how the city of Palm Springs manages Airbnbs / short term rentals. If there are any noise complaints from the neighbors, the house is issued with a $200 or $400 ne and a warning. If the noise continues and the police are called again, then the short term tenants are immediately kicked out of the property. Having strict rules in place helps dissuade poor behavior.

As part of the rental agreement people should be made aware of the local noise ordinances. Those ordinances should be vigorously enforced.

I'm divided. I think it would be good for the local economy. I certainly don't want loud parties and lots of drunk people and trash right next to my home. I don't want to be unable to park or go to a restaurant during those events, but I think that would happen either way with hotels and etc.

Generally against them as they alter the nature of the community. OK with an exception for special events like these, as long as the renters and their guests are properly vetted and nancial security is provided for any damage to public facilities. Perhaps also consider a fee for any expected increase in police services.

Should not be allowed anywhere in MB. MB is our home for families not a commercial enterprise.

One way or the other it should be the same for all MB not just an area!!! This is good governance. See if a limited, tactical change in this rule makes sense to the community. Thank you.

Short term rentals can be the catalyst for visitors to discover and experience our beautiful city... many of which end up returning year after year or purchasing a property. The shop and eat in the businesses which helps economically in many ways.

Allow them 100% of the time city wide effective Jan 1 2026 Short term rentals should not be allowed in residential zones. They are a commercial use and incompatible with residential neighborhoods. Visitors should stay in hotels.

Its ok to continue with short term rentals allowed in the sand section only I have lived in Manhattan Beach for over 45 years. I understand change/ growth are necessary for us as homeowners. What I do not support is the loss of a generational community and the feeling of entitlement that has come with this growth.

City Council should also spend more time on helping our little town ght the large residential developments that are being planned.

Our trafc is already a gridlock. I'm disappointed in what City Council has done to ght this. My area near Rosecrans is already so heavily trafcked and HighRose isn't even complete! We will have no parking due to the allowance of this far under-parked (and too large) of a project. I'd like to see the City work to protect our area. These developments will ruin our town. Look at Santa Monica.

Please allow well regulated, temporary short term rentals for world events.

Parking Permits for Residents in the beach
Absolutely opposed to expanding STR in any way. Americans and Californians are in the middle of a housing crisis and it is irresponsible to remove more housing units off the market. STR erode and eventually ruin residential communities.

Our family really enjoys short-term rentals when traveling domestically or abroad. It would be hypocritical to oppose them here.

The overwhelming majority of short terminals are to families is traveling. The fear that every short terminal is going to be a party is completely overblown. They should be allowed throughout the city.

I would suggest that if the city allows short-term rentals that they regulate it based upon complaints. Another words; if the city receives more than a certain number of complaints (3?) their permit would be revoked.

They ruin a community. Imagine having them on both sides of your house. And imagine if you had small children. Horrible idea. Keep MB the great place it is….no short term rentals.

If people in the zones now allowed decide they don't support it, I would want the program ended.

I think it should be allowed for up to 3-4 months a year. That way we would keep the neighbourhood feel and at the same time give the homeowners the opportunity to make extra money and pay for the high property taxes.

I like the idea of the City hosting events during these events and if that means allowing short term rentals for a limited time, I'm all for it. Thanks!
Let private owners decide what is in their best interest. If the city wants to impose a noise disturbance ne when tenants get out of line, the City should impose a substantial ne. This will get property owners to charge a large deposit, lay out the rules, etc. If the tenant breaks the rules for a city imposed ne, their deposit can be used.

An ability to resolve problems caused by rentals that cause recurring complaints..

I think short term rentals in the coastal zone are just ne I travel extensively worldwide and have experienced how detrimental short term rentals are to communities. I don't want that to happen to my home community.

I understand some owners might want to take advantage of the two special events. There will likely be a demand for short term rentals and insufcient hotel space to meet the demand. Allowing short term rentals throughout the city year round will detract from the close community nature of the various neighborhoods of Manhattan Beach.

Just keep the noise ordinance in place
Just keep the noise ordinance in place
I'm so confused as to why manhattan beach is so concerned with locals renting their homes out for the olympics. Our town doesn't need this stream of revenue for a 4 week period. Manhattan Beach is already experiencing signicant overcrowding. Local residents make up a dense population on their own, and the steady increase in tourism is adding even more pressure to our limited space and resources.

Short term rentals destroy the neighborhood
Short term rentals are around my area, nothing is done when neighbors complain of loud noise and music late into the night and we’re far from the coast!
Allowing only the wealthiest property owners by the beach to rent their properties seems discriminatory.

Additional survey reports
(c) Copyright 2013-2025 Governance Sciences Group, Inc., Patent pending