TO:
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
THROUGH:
Talyn Mirzakhanian, City Manager
FROM:
Michael Codron, Interim Community Development Director
Ryan Heise, Building Official
Adam Finestone, Planning Manager
SUBJECT:Title
Consideration and Introduction of an Ordinance to Amend Title 9 of the Manhattan Beach Municipal Code Related to Construction Regulations and California Code of Regulations Title 24 (No Budget Impact) (Interim Community Development Director Codron).
(Estimated Time: 15 Mins.)
A) CONSIDER RECOMMENDED OPTIONS FOR AMENDING TITLE 9 OF THE MANHATTAN BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
B) INTRODUCE ORDINANCE NO. 25-0008
C) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 25-0112
D) SET 2nd READING AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE FOR SEPTEMBER 16, 2025
Body
_________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council review options, introduce Ordinance No. 25-0008 and set a second reading and adoption for the September 16, 2025, City Council Meeting.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
There are no fiscal implications associated with the recommended action.
BACKGROUND:
Chapter 9.44 of the Manhattan Beach Municipal Code (MBMC) establishes construction rules for all projects which are issued a building permit by the Community Development Department. These rules are regularly enforced by City's building inspectors and code enforcement officers. Prior to commencement of construction activities on a project site, a pre-construction meeting is held between City staff and the contractor to review these rules to help ensure compliance throughout the construction phase of the project. Additionally, the City invites neighbors of the project, property owners, and other interested parties to these meetings to improve communication and help increase accountability.
Over the past several years, the State has enacted a wide array of legislation intended to increase housing supply. One strategy used to achieve this goal has been to limit the authority of local jurisdictions to exercise discretion when considering housing projects. This is accomplished, in part, by requiring certain housing projects to be permitted by-right, meaning that they are not subject to environmental review, and project-specific conditions cannot be applied. The result of this streamlining effort is that the City is only allowed to apply strictly objective standards to these projects, which must be established in the MBMC in order to be applied during the building permit process.
Because project-specific conditions cannot be applied to projects at time of approval, an update to the City's construction rules is proposed to ensure that the most common requirements for new construction can be applied to projects that do not undergo environmental review and are not subject to a discretionary review process such as a conditional use permit or subdivision. This is particularly important in relation to projects developed in the City's Residential Overlay District (ROD), which are eligible for waivers and concessions from development standards contained in the City's zoning code (Title 10 of the MBMC), including height, setbacks, parking, and other standards. While applications for ROD projects have just started to come in, City staff has discussed potential projects with a number of developers, and all of them are significantly taller than what could otherwise be developed under the City's standard zoning regulations.
The proposed MBMC amendments are primarily intended to protect neighbors from the impacts of construction, such as noise, dust, falling objects, and parking impacts. While the City already has a list of construction rules in place, the additional rules proposed are intended to help improve conditions for properties adjacent to large construction projects and provide guidance to developers to facilitate housing development.
DISCUSSION:
On June 30, 2025, California enacted Assembly Bill (AB) 130, which includes provisions that prohibit cities and counties from modifying residential building standards except under very specific circumstances. AB 130 states that from October 1, 2025, to June 1, 2031, amendments at the local level may not be adopted that affect residential development. As such, in order to be implemented, any amendments made by the City must be filed with the Building Standards Commission and adopted by September 30, 2025. Local amendments that are adopted as of that date may continue to be adopted under the triennial building code adoption cycle, including the forthcoming adoption of the 2025 editions of the California Codes.
Due to the high volume of construction in Manhattan Beach, there is a heightened impact on adjacent properties and residents. Generally, larger projects require review and approval by the City's Planning Commission, and project-specific Conditions of Approval (COA) may be added to reduce the impacts on surrounding properties. Through review of Conditions of Approval applied to various projects in the past, and in consideration of existing City and State policies, City staff from multiple divisions including Planning, Building, Code Enforcement, Traffic, and the Fire Department, have provided input on the proposed MBMC amendments.
City staff has identified the following seven recommended provisions for incorporation into the MBMC. All have been included in draft Ordinance No. 25-0008.
Option #1: Require Phase 1 Environmental Assessment on specified projects
Add Section 9.44.022 - Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment as defined in Section 78090 of the Health and Safety Code, shall be provided by the applicant for projects meeting any of the following requirements:
-Projects greater than 10,000 square feet in gross area as defined in Title 10
-Projects with subterranean parking that accommodates at least 20 vehicles
-Projects on properties greater than one half acre in size
-Projects greater than 40 feet in height, as measured by MBMC Section 10.60.050
-Projects on sites that currently or previously included any of the following activities:
* Automotive services (including sales, repair, fueling, washing, storage, etc.)
* Agricultural uses and nurseries (as a primary use only)
* Use or storage of hazardous materials
* Outdoor storage of materials
* Industrial uses
-Project sites identified on any list prepared pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5
If a recognized environmental condition is found, the applicant shall provide a preliminary endangerment assessment, as defined in Section 78095 of the Health and Safety Code, prepared by an environmental assessor to determine the existence of any release of a hazardous substance on the site and to determine the potential for exposure of future occupants to significant health hazards from any nearby property or activity.
If a release of a hazardous substance is found to exist on the site, the release shall be removed or any effects of the release shall be mitigated to levels required by current federal and State statutory and regulatory standards before the local government issues a certificate of occupancy.
If a potential for exposure to significant hazards from surrounding properties or activities is found to exist, the effects of the potential exposure shall be mitigated to levels required by current federal and state statutory and regulatory standards before the local government issues a certificate of occupancy.
PRO:
-Ensures environmental hazards at proposed development site are addressed prior to disturbing the site.
CON:
-Possible additional cost and time required to obtain report and address conditions found.
Option #2: Expand Construction Management Parking Plan requirement to Commercially zoned properties in Area Districts I and II, in addition to the existing requirement for all properties in Area Districts III and IV.
Modify 9.44.040(A)
The contractor or owner shall prepare and submit a Construction Management and Parking Plan ("CMPP") in accordance with City requirements for work requiring demolition, grading, or building permits within Area Districts III and IV and for Commercially zoned properties in Area Districts I and II, and in conjunction with plan check submittal or a rough grading permit application, whichever occurs first. The CMPP must describe the manner in which potential construction traffic and parking impacts will be mitigated. No demolition or construction may commence until such time that the CMPP has been approved by the Director or his or her designee.
PROS:
-Ensures contractor addresses the parking impact on large or physically constrained construction sites prior to construction commencing.
-Provides the ability to reduce parking impacts to adjacent neighbors and neighborhoods.
-Typically required as a Condition of Approval (COA) on a project that requires Planning Commission review/approval. By codifying it, the requirement becomes applicable regardless of whether a project undergoes discretionary review.
CONS:
-Some construction sites have limited parking availability. May require off-site parking locations and shuttles.
Option #3: Add Juneteenth to the list of Construction Holidays.
Modify 9.44.030 - Construction hours and prohibited days
B. There shall be no construction activity on Sundays or on City-recognized holidays, including the following:
1. New Year's Day.
2. Martin Luther King Jr's Day.
3. Presidents' Day.
4. Memorial Day.
5. Juneteenth.
6. Independence Day.
7. Labor Day.
8. Columbus Day.
9. Veterans Day.
10. Thanksgiving Day.
11. Friday after Thanksgiving.
12. Christmas Day.
PROS:
-One additional day without construction disturbances for residents throughout the City.
CONS:
-One additional day that contractors may not work towards completion, may cause delays on projects.
Option #4: Require Construction Management Parking Plan to be posted on jobsite fence.
Add section to 9.44.040
The CMPP must be posted on the fence adjacent to the Public Right-of-Way during all phases of construction when a construction fence is present.
PROS:
-Clearly visible CMPP for monitoring and enforcement by Code Enforcement and Community Service Officers
-Provides reminder to General Contractor, Subcontracts and all workers at each construction site where a CMPP is required.
-Codifies the existing Manhattan Beach policy
CONS:
-Additional signage to be posted on the construction fence.
Option #5: Require construction sound barriers between residential properties and specific projects.
Add Section 9.44.023 - Construction Sound Barriers
Section 9.44.023(A)
Construction sound barriers meeting the requirements in Section B below shall be provided for projects on sites which are immediately adjacent to residentially zoned properties and have any of the following conditions:
-Projects greater than 10,000 square feet of gross area as defined in Title 10
-Projects with subterranean parking that accommodates at least 20 vehicles
-Projects on properties greater than one half acre in size
-Projects greater than 40 feet in height, as measured by MBMC Section 10.60.050
Section 9.44.023(B)
Construction sound barriers required for projects having any of the conditions identified in Section A above shall be at least 12 feet in height, measured from the grade that provides maximum protection for the adjacent residential property, and have a sound transmission class (STC) rating of at least 32. Said sound barriers shall be provided along any property line that is shared with a residentially zoned property and along the first 10 feet of any property line that is approximately perpendicular to property line(s) shared with residentially zoned property.
Exceptions:
* The provisions in Sections A and B above shall not apply to projects where alternate sound attenuation measures have been approved through any entitlement approval and/or as required as mitigation pursuant to an adopted Environmental Impact Report or Mitigated Negative Declaration.
* Construction sound barriers exceeding 12 feet in height may be installed subject to mutual authorization of a project proponent and the adjacent residential property owner.
PROS:
-Provides sound attenuation between residential projects and construction sites
-Additional benefit is reducing dust migration and protecting objects from falling into adjacent properties
-Typically required as a Condition of Approval (COA) on projects that require Planning Commission review/approval. By codifying it, the requirement becomes applicable regardless of whether a project undergoes discretionary review.
CONS:
-Additional cost and construction time required to design and install sound barriers on project sites.
Option #6: Require a thicker wall conduit or other non-corrosive conduit type for all exterior mounted conductors used for solar and other installations.
Add 9.12.080 - Amend Electrical code section 358.12 - Uses not permitted (EMT)
Conduit installed completely on the exterior of the building shall be contained in galvanized rigid steel conduit or other approved conduit.
NOTE:
According to California Health and Safety Code Section 17958.7, the City Council must find specific, local needs to support amendments to building standards that are more restrictive than the State-adopted model codes. These findings are included in Draft Resolution 25-0112 (attached). If the City Council adopts the ordinance and resolution at the 2nd reading, the documents will be filed with the California Building Standards Commission.
PROS:
Codifies long standing policy in Manhattan Beach due to salt air causing damage to thinner walled metallic conduit.
CONS:
Not typical for other areas of the State for solar installations and other exterior conduits.
Option #7: Add Definition of major addition to require current California Building Standards code requirements on large scale projects.
Add to 9.01.070 and 9.03.055- Definitions sections of MBMC
ADDITION. An extension or increase in floor area or height of a building or structure. Also, major demolition, which includes the removal of framing members or interior or exterior wall or ceiling coverings for the purpose of extending the life span of the building as determined by the Building Official, shall be considered a new building.
PROS:
-Returns missing definition which existed in code cycles prior to 2022. Omitted in error from the 2022 Code Cycle adoption ordinance.
-Requires projects that are performing a large amount of work meet all the fire / life safety codes and all other code requirements of a new construction project.
CONS:
-Requires additional design and construction costs to comply.
CONCLUSION:
The seven recommended provisions have been included in draft Ordinance 25-0008. Any modifications requested by the City Council will be incorporated into the ordinance for introduction at this Council Meeting. Second reading, adoption of Ordinance 25-0008, and adoption of Resolution No. 25-0112 must take place on September 16, 2025, in order to meet AB 130 filing requirements.
PUBLIC OUTREACH:
Formal public notice is not required for this item; however the item was included in the agenda for this meeting, which was posted in accordance with the law. Additionally, City Staff distributed an email to the City of Manhattan Beach Construction email list notifying the recipients of this item and the City Council meeting date. A second reading is also required before final adoption of the Ordinances. Staff is recommending that the City Council set the second reading on September 16, 2025. The item will be included in the agenda for the September 16, 2025 meeting and posted in accordance with the law.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The City has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the project qualifies for a Class 8 categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15308 (Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment) of the State CEQA Guidelines because the project consists of proposed amendments to the Manhattan Beach Municipal Code to require analysis of environmental conditions and implementation of measures intended to reduce impacts to the environment. Thus, no further environmental review is necessary.
LEGAL REVIEW:
The City Attorney has reviewed this report and determined that no additional legal analysis is necessary.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Ordinance 25-0008
2. Resolution 25-0112