TO:
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
THROUGH:
Talyn Mirzakhanian, City Manager
FROM:
Ryan Heise, Acting Community Development Director
Adam Finestone, Planning Manager
Maricela Guillean, Associate Planner
SUBJECT:Title
Conduct a Public Hearing for Consideration of Introducing an Ordinance Amending Title 10 of the Manhattan Beach Municipal Code and Chapter A of the Manhattan Beach Local Coastal Program to Implement Five Programs Outlined in the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element, and Adopting a Resolution Authorizing City Staff to Submit Ordinance No. 25-0004 to the California Coastal Commission to Incorporate Said Amendments into the Local Coastal Program (No Budget Impact) (Community Development Heise).
(Estimated Time: 1 Hr.)
A) CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARING
B) INTRODUCE ORDINANCE NO. 25-0004
C) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 25-0028
Body
_________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a public hearing and introduce an ordinance to amend the Manhattan Beach Municipal Code and the Manhattan Beach Local Coastal Program to implement five programs outlined in the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element, and to adopt a resolution authorizing staff to submit said ordinance to the California Coastal Commission to incorporate said amendment into the Local Coastal Program.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
On September 23, 2022, the Manhattan Beach City Council amended the Manhattan Beach General Plan by adopting the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (Housing Element). The Housing Element includes a number of programs designed to facilitate additional housing opportunities in the City. Several of these programs require amendments to the Manhattan Beach Municipal Code (MBMC) and Manhattan Beach Local Coastal Program (MBLCP). To implement these programs and ensure consistency with the General Plan, the proposed Ordinance aims to implement five programs outlined in the Housing Element. Specifically, zone text amendments to the Manhattan Beach Municipal Code (MBMC) and the Manhattan Beach Local Coastal Program (MBLCP) related to Accessory Dwelling Units, streamlining multi-family housing development, density bonus, and lot consolidation incentives. Implementation of the Housing Element and programs contained within it is mandatory under State law to avoid, among other things, penalties, litigation, loss of permitting authority, and potential revocation of a certified Housing Element.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
There are no fiscal implications associated with the recommended action.
BACKGROUND:
State law requires each local jurisdiction to update its Housing Element every eight years. In September 2022, the City Council adopted the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element. In July 2023, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) certified the Housing Element, affirming that the final version is in compliance with State housing laws. The certified Housing Element contains a series of programs that must be implemented during the 6th Cycle planning period (2021-2029) to further the goals stated in the document and maintain its certified status.
The purpose of the proposed zone text amendments outlined in this report are part of the City’s obligation to implement, in part, the following Housing Element programs:
• Program 1: Accessory Dwelling Units
• Program 3: Affordable Housing Streamlining
• Program 11: Density Bonus
• Program 16: Lot Consolidation Incentive
• Program 18: Multifamily Residential Development Standards and Streamlining in the Mixed-Use (CL, CD, and CNE) Commercial Districts
•
A summary of the programs and the amendments proposed to implement them is provided in the Discussion section of this report.
The Planning Commission conducted two public study sessions (July 24 and December 11, 2024) to discuss the proposed zone text amendments. At those sessions, Commissioners voiced the following concerns:
- The Planning Commission expressed its desire to retain review authority where possible; accordingly, Site Development Permits (SDPs) will continue to be reviewed by the Planning Commission.
- The Planning Commission requested that they be the first decision-making body to consider appeals of administrative decisions related to density bonus projects and projects requiring Precise Development Plans (PDPs). Because density bonus projects and PDPs are intended to be ministerial in nature, no revisions were made to provide this authority to the Planning Commission. Additionally, upon further review of the draft code language, staff determined that an appeal process for density bonus projects and PDPs is inconsistent with the purpose of ministerial review. As such, the appeal process for these application types has been removed from the draft language in its entirety.
- The Planning Commission requested staff identify a process by which the public can be made aware of projects that do not require discretionary review or public hearings. In response, a stipulation has been included in the PDP provisions requiring that a Notice of Decision would be sent out to properties within a 500-foot radius from the project site.
On February 26, 2025, a duly noticed public hearing was conducted before the Planning Commission to consider a resolution to recommend City Council approval of the proposed MBMC and MBLCP amendments. At the hearing, the Planning Commission expressed their disappointment with the removal of any appeal process for density bonus and PDP projects, however understood the obligation the City has to implement the Housing Element programs. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending the MBMC and MBLCP as proposed by Staff.
DISCUSSION:
Intent of Code Amendments
Since 2017, numerous bills have been signed into law by the State legislature that provide HCD with greater authority to address the State’s housing crisis. This includes the authority to review the City’s actions to implement Housing Element programs within the timeframes specified in the certified Housing Element. As such, implementation of the adopted Housing Element programs in a timely manner is required pursuant to State law to avoid, among other things, penalties, litigation, loss of permitting authority, and potential revocation of a certified Housing Element.
The objectives of the five Housing Element programs being addressed through the current set of amendments to the MBMC and the MBLCP are outlined below:
Housing Element Program 1: Accessory Dwelling Units
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) help meet the City’s housing need for households of all income levels. To ensure the City complies with the objectives set forth in Program 1, the ADU Ordinance must be updated to conform with recent amendments to State law. The ADU Ordinance was last amended in 2021 and was submitted to the California Coastal Commission (CCC) for review. In March of 2021, the CCC provided the City an incomplete notice requesting additional information due to subsequent amendments to state ADU law. In an effort to comply with Program 1, the ADU Ordinance is proposed to be repealed and replaced in its entirety.
Housing Element Program 3: Affordable Housing Streamlining
The intent of Program 3 is to eliminate discretionary reviews and ensure a streamlined, administrative review process through a PDP for projects with six or more units that qualify for a density bonus under State law. The PDP process was created in order to implement programs contained in the 4th Cycle Housing Element (2008 - 2013). However, the process was codified with discretionary findings required, inconsistent with the intent of creating an administrative process to streamline affordable housing development. By amending the code as proposed, the requirement for the City to make discretionary findings and the ability to apply conditions of approval will be removed to ensure PDP permit processing is ministerial and based on objective development standards. Market rate multifamily housing projects of six or more units that are not eligible for a density bonus under State law will continue to be reviewed through the SDP process because the objective of Program 3 is specific to affordable housing projects.
Housing Element Program 11: Density Bonus
State law requires that local jurisdictions adopt a Density Bonus ordinance that is consistent with Government Code Section 65915. As such, the intent of Program 11 is to amend the City’s Density Bonus ordinance to ensure consistency with State requirements.
Housing Element Program 16: Lot Consolidation Incentive
To incentivize affordable housing development on small sized lots, the City’s current lot consolidation incentive will be expanded to include 69 sites identified in Appendix E (Sites Analysis and Inventory) of the Housing Element. For those parcels, the incentive will provide a five percent base density increase when two or more parcels are consolidated into a single building site with a combined parcel size between 0.30 acres to 0.49 acres. This expands upon existing incentives for consolidation of parcels resulting in single building sites of 0.5 acres or more.
Housing Element Program 18: Multifamily Residential Development Standards and Streamlining in the Mixed-Use (CL, CD, and CNE) Commercial Districts
To minimize constraints to the development of affordable housing in three commercial mixed-use zones (CL, CD, and CNE), the application process will eliminate Use Permit requirements and allow a streamlined, non-discretionary review of density bonus projects with six or more units through a PDP. Additionally, the SDP process will replace the Use Permit process for market-rate multifamily housing projects that are not eligible for a density bonus under State law. To achieve this, amendments are required to ensure multifamily residential and mixed-use projects in the aforementioned zones will be reviewed for conformance with new objective development standards that do not reduce the intensity of land use or reduce the site’s residential development capacity, rather than deferring to High-Density Residential (RH) standards.
Draft Code Amendments
The proposed amendments to the MBMC and MBLCP clarify, refine, and supplement existing regulations in the following chapters to meet the intent of the Housing Element program objectives:
• MBMC Chapter 10.12/MBLCP Chapter A.12 (Residential Districts)
• MBMC Chapter 10.16/MBLCP Chapter A.16 (C Commercial Districts)
• MBMC Chapter 10.74 (Accessory Dwelling Units)
o Creation of MBLCP Chapter A.74 (Accessory Dwelling Units)
• MBMC Chapter 10.84/MBLCP Chapter A.84 (Use Permits, Variances, Minor Exceptions, Precise Development Plans and Site Development Permits)
• MBMC Chapter 10.94/MBLCP Chapter A.94 (Affordable Housing Density Bonus and Incentive Program)
• MBMC Chapter 10.100 (Appeals and Council Review)
• MBLCP Chapter A.96 (Coastal Development Permit Procedures)
Proposed amendments to the MBLCP are similar in nature to those contained in the MBMC, as the provisions generally mirror each other. However, there are chapters contained in one document that are not included in the other. Additionally, new regulations that are applicable to either the MBMC or the MBLCP, but not both, have been added solely to their respective chapters.
A high-level summary of the revisions to the various chapters is provided below, and a strikethrough/underline copy of the proposed amendments can be found in this report as Attachment B.
A. MBMC Chapter 10.12 and MBLCP Chapter A.12 (Residential Districts)
1) Clarifies that PDPs will be processed through an administrative (nondiscretionary) application
Ø The proposed amendment clarifies that PDPs are subject to an administrative non-discretionary review process.
2) Adds a five percent base density bonus increase for lot consolidations that occur on sites identified in the Housing Element
Ø To encourage affordable housing development on smaller lots, a lot consolidation incentive will apply to 69 sites listed in Appendix E of the Housing Element. This incentive expands upon existing provisions that provide lot consolidation density bonuses when two or more parcels are consolidated into a single building site. The current provisions require a minimum combined parcel size of 0.5 acres to qualify for the density bonus; for the sites identified in Appendix E of the Housing Element, the amendment would reduce the minimum combined parcel size to qualify for the density bonus to 0.3 acres and provide a base density increase of five percent to those parcels. This increase in density is designed to better support the creation of affordable housing on smaller parcels.
B. MBMC Chapter 10.16 and MBLCP Chapter A.16 (C Commercial Districts)
1) Eliminates Use Permits for multifamily residential and mixed-use developments in CL, CD, and CNE zones
Ø All multi-family residential and mixed-use developments that qualify for a density bonus will be subject to a PDP. The removal of the Use Permit requirement streamlines the approval process for affordable housing projects, directly supporting Programs 3 and 18 of the Housing Element.
Ø All market-rate multi-family and mixed-use developments will be subject to an SDP, which is a permit requiring review and approval by the Planning Commission.
2) Amends the land use regulation table for clarity regarding mixed-use development
Ø Residential components will be permitted through either a PDP or SDP process depending on whether the project qualifies for a density bonus.
Ø Commercial portions of a mixed-use project may require a Use Permit depending on the regulations for the specific commercial use being proposed.
3) Creates objective development standards that will apply to multi-family residential and mixed-use developments in CL, CD, and CNE zones
Ø Objective development standards are based on existing standards applicable to the RH and Commercial zoning districts. These standards are designed to maintain development capacity without adversely affecting adjacent properties. For example, mixed-use development standards in the CL, CD, and CNE zones relax setback requirements compared to those in the RH zone but incorporate standards such as a daylight plane setback which applies to buildings over 20 feet in height.
Ø An amendment is proposed to adjust the CL zone lot size requirements based on the Area District in which the site is located to ensure development capacity is not reduced.
4) Includes references to development standards applicable to the ROD that also pertain to mixed-use projects in the CL and CG zones
Ø The commercial land use regulations are updated to specify that ROD development standards are outlined in Chapter 10.50. This amendment corrects an inadvertent omission at the time the ROD ordinance was adopted. This change is reflected only in the MBMC, as ROD is not applicable in the Coastal Zone.
C. MBMC Chapter 10.74 (Accessory Dwelling Units)
1) Updates existing ordinance to be consistent with State ADU law
Ø This chapter will be repealed and replaced in its entirety to align with State ADU law.
Ø Existing State law prohibits cities from denying permits to legalize unpermitted ADUs built before January 1, 2018, unless corrections are necessary for public health or safety reasons. AB 2533 expands this prohibition to include Junior ADUs, extends the construction cutoff date to January 1, 2020, and modifies the exception by requiring corrections to comply with building standards under the Health and Safety Code.
Ø SB 1211 amends existing state law to prohibit cities from requiring replacement parking when an uncovered parking space is demolished for or replaced by an ADU. The bill also increases the number of detached ADUs allowed on lots with existing multi-family dwellings to up to eight or as many as the primary dwelling units, whichever is fewer, while keeping the limit at two ADUs for lots with proposed multi-family dwellings. The provision to increase the number of detached ADUs on multi-family lots may not have a significant impact on Manhattan Beach, as the City's lot sizes are generally small, with multiple units often grouped in a single building to maximize the available space. Lastly, SB1211 confirms that the categories of ADUs that must be approved ministerially through a building permit only may not be subject to any objective development or design standard that is not explicitly authorized by the relevant State law provision.
Ø The amendments include the creation of MBLCP Chapter A.74 to allow the review of ADUs in the Coastal Zone.
D. MBMC Chapter 10.84 and MBLCP Chapter A.84 (Use Permits, Variances, Minor Exceptions, Precise Development Plans and Site Development Permits)
1) Clarifies the intent, decision-making authority, review processes for PDPs
Ø The intent of the PDP is amended to clarify that PDPs aim to encourage multi-family residential developments of six or more units that qualify for a density bonus through an administrative non-discretionary review.
Ø The PDP procedural requirements are amended to ensure eligible projects are processed ministerially (Director-level decision) using objective development standards with no public hearing requirements. However, in consideration of the Planning Commission's discussion at the December 11, 2024, meeting to increase the community’s awareness, a Notice of Decision will be mailed to properties within a 500-foot radius of the project site.
Ø Specifies that the Director’s decision on a PDP is final and not subject to appeal.
Ø As proposed, PDP projects within the Coastal Zone will require a CDP, which will be streamlined as “Minor Development” as defined in MBLCP Chapter A.96.
As a policy, staff will present an informational item to the Planning Commission twice a year on all PDP approvals, including each March or April during the Housing Element Annual Progress Report. In addition, information related to PDP projects will be posted on the City’s Planning website. This policy is intended to keep the Planning Commission and public informed on current PDP projects in the pipeline.
2) Supplements the SDP findings with the same objective development standards in MBMC Chapters 10.12 and 10.16/MBLCP Chapters A.12 and A.16. that are applicable to PDPs and clarifies the parameters of the discretionary authority for the decision-making body.
Ø This amendment provides a clear, objective framework for how projects are reviewed. SDP projects must comply with all zoning and building ordinances, including the applicable physical development standards outlined in the updated residential and commercial development regulation tables in MBMC Chapters 10.12 and 10.16/MBLCP Chapters A.12 and A.16.
3) Amends provisions related to application requirements to ensure code language is consistent with current submittal requirements
Ø Application requirements outlined in the respective chapters of the MBMC and MBLCP will largely be deleted as the existing requirements do not match the materials that are required for a complete review of an application. The proposed language allows for a more flexible and clear provision stating submittal requirements will be provided on prescribed City handouts and forms. This provides the City flexibility to alter the submittal requirements based on new state laws or internal policies in the future.
4) Clarifies extension procedures for approved projects
Ø PDP projects will not be eligible for extensions pursuant to the MBMC and MBLCP, though extensions authorized by State law will apply. All other discretionary projects can request up to two one-year extensions, to ensure projects are completed in a timely manner.
E. MBMC Chapter 10.94 and MBLCP Chapter A.94 (Affordable Housing Density Bonus and Incentive Program)
1) Updates existing ordinance to be consistent with state Density Bonus law
Ø This chapter will be repealed and replaced in its entirety to align with State Density Bonus Law provisions.
Ø Significant revisions include allowing up to an 80 percent density bonus for 100 percent affordable developments, providing clear provisions for senior affordable housing developments, and clarifies the decision procedures.
Ø The amendments include the creation of a density bonus application to provide clarity in the permitting process.
Ø Specifies that the Director’s decision on a density bonus request is final and not subject to appeal.
F. MBMC Chapter 10.100 - Appeals and Council Review
1) Clarifies the review and decision-making procedure for PDP and density bonus applications
Ø This chapter is amended to clarify that decisions on PDP applications and projects subject to Chapter 10.94 are made by the Community Development Director whose decision will be final.
G. MBLCP Chapter A.96 (Coastal Development Permit Procedures)
1) Creates a new subsection to process Coastal Development Permits (CDP) in a manner that will be applicable to projects that require streamlined reviews pursuant to State law
Ø The newly created subsection states that all projects required to be processed ministerially under state law are considered Minor Development, subject to a Director-level decision. The Minor Development fulfills the goal of streamlining projects by waiving coastal hearings unless requested by an interested party. The proposed amendment aligns with the Housing Element program's goal to streamline and incentivize affordable housing production.
Ø Minor Development projects must still comply with the Coastal Act and its review criteria, while adhering to objective development standards. This new subsection also provides flexibility to apply to other State-mandated ministerial projects such as ADUs.
California Coastal Commission
Staff has engaged with the CCC on the proposed code amendments to solicit their input and guidance on implementing the Housing Element programs in the Coastal Zone. A copy of the draft LCP amendments was sent to the CCC for their review. In response, the CCC provided comments primarily related to the proposed ADU and Density Bonus ordinances and requested that the draft ADU ordinance be reviewed by HCD prior to local adoption and submittal to the CCC. Staff has reached out to HCD on this matter and has not received any feedback as of this writing. Verbiage has been included in the draft ordinance to address the CCC comments. Should the City Council take the recommended action, staff will forward the adopted ordinance to the CCC for their review and incorporation into the LCP.
General Plan, MBMC, and MBLCP Consistency
Staff has determined that the proposed zone text amendments are consistent with the City’s General Plan, MBMC Title 10 (Planning and Zoning), and the MBLCP in that they uphold, and do not hinder, the purpose, goals, and policies of those documents.
Specifically, the proposed zone text amendments serve to implement programs in the
Housing Element that incentivize and streamline housing development; protect and promote public health, safety, and general welfare; and further the overarching policies pertaining to residential development in the Coastal Zone.
CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a public hearing and adopt Ordinance No. 25-0004, approving zone text amendments to the MBMC and MBLCP, and adopting a Second Addendum to the previously adopted Negative Declaration (ND) prepared for the 6th Cycle Housing Element in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act. In doing so, five programs in the City’s Housing Element will be implemented, as required by State law.
PUBLIC OUTREACH:
A notice related to this public hearing was emailed to all interested parties who were part of the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update process, posted on the City website, at City Hall and other City locations, and published in The Beach Reporter on March 6, 2025. As of the writing of this report, staff has received no comments.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
On March 22, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 22-0014, adopting an ND for the 6th Cycle Housing Element (Originally Adopted HE). The ND, prepared in accordance with Section 15070-15075 of the State CEQA Guidelines, evaluated the environmental impacts of the policy document and determined that the Housing Element would not have a significant impact on the environment.
On September 23, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 22-0137, adopting amendments to the 6th Cycle Housing Element in response to HCD's review of the document. At the time, an addendum (First Addendum) to the adopted ND was prepared in accordance with Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines as the amendments involved only minor technical changes or additions.
A Second Addendum to the adopted ND (Attachment C) has been prepared for the proposed zone text amendments in accordance with Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines to evaluate the potential environmental impacts that may occur. As detailed within the Second Addendum, adoption of the zone text amendments implementing five programs of the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element would not result in any potentially significant environmental impacts. Specifically, there are no changes proposed to the certified 6th Cycle Housing Element, and there are no substantial changes in the circumstances under which the proposed zone text amendments will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the previously adopted ND or First Addendum due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects. In addition, there is no "new information of substantial importance" related to the proposed zone text amendments, as defined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3). Therefore, conditions set forth in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15612 are not present and the Second Addendum satisfies the CEQA requirements.
LEGAL REVIEW:
The City Attorney has reviewed this report and determined that no additional legal analysis is necessary.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Ordinance No. 25-0004
i. Exhibit “A” - Second Addendum to the Negative Declaration Prepared for the Sixth Cycle Housing Element
ii. Exhibit “B” - Manhattan Beach Municipal Code Text Amendments
iii. Exhibit “C” - Manhattan Beach Local Coastal Program Text Amendments
2. Resolution No. 25-0028
3. Proposed MBMC and MBLCP Text Amendments (Redline Version)
4. 6th Cycle Housing Element (Web-Link Provided)
5. Negative Declaration and First Addendum (Web-Link Provided)
6. Planning Commission Staff Reports (Web-Link Provided)
7. PowerPoint Presentation