TO:
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
THROUGH:
Talyn Mirzakhanian, City Manager
FROM:
Masa Alkire, AICP, Community Development Director
Adam Finestone, AICP, Planning Manager
Jaehee Yoon, AICP, Senior Planner
Maricela Guillean, Associate Planner
SUBJECT:Title
Consideration and Introduction of an Ordinance Amending Section 10.52.050(D) of the Manhattan Beach Municipal Code Related to Accessory Structure Rear Yard Setback Requirements (No Budget Impact) (Community Development Alkire).
(Estimated Time: 30 min.)
A) CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARING
B) INTRODUCE ORDINANCE NO. 25-0012
Body
_________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a public hearing and, after receiving public comment and closing the public hearing, introduce an ordinance to amend the Manhattan Beach Municipal Code (MBMC) Section 10.52.050(D) related to accessory structure rear yard setback requirements in the single-family residential (RS) zone.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
There are no fiscal implications associated with the recommended action.
BACKGROUND
At the June 18, 2024, City Council meeting, the City Council requested a future agenda item to discuss the City’s existing rear yard setback requirements for accessory structures in the RS zone. The concern stemmed from provisions that allow accessory structures in rear yards with zero side or rear setbacks. This existing regulation is codified in MBMC Section 10.52.050(D) (Relation to Property Lines), as provided in part below:
An accessory structure, any portion of which is located within a required rear yard, shall be located on a rear or interior side property line, or shall be not less than three feet (3′) from said property line(s).
For the purpose of this report, rear yard setbacks for accessory structures in the rear yard of a property shall be assumed to mean both the rear and interior side yard unless specifically stated otherwise.
On February 4, 2025, staff presented the agendized item before the City Council for discussion and was directed to further explore alternative setbacks and their implications with the Planning Commission’s input.
On June 11, 2025, and August 27, 2025, the Planning Commission conducted study sessions to discuss the item in length. The information considered by the Planning Commission included, but was not limited to, the following:
• Background information on the purpose and history of the rear yard setback regulations
• Development patterns throughout the City shaped by the existing regulations
• Implications of eliminating the zero-foot setback allowance
• Concerns related to privacy, fire safety, and access due to the zero-foot setback allowance
• Exploration of potential alternative rear yard setbacks, building separation standards, application processing procedures, and amendments to definitions
On October 8, 2025, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing and unanimously approved Resolution No. PC 25-10 (Attachment 2), recommending the City Council adoption of proposed MBMC amendments related to rear yard accessory structure setbacks.
DISCUSSION:
Planning Commission Input
The proposed zone text amendments were drafted based on direction from the Planning Commission’s at the two study sessions, which is summarized below:
1. Regulation Scope:
° Limit the proposed amendments to be applicable only in the single-family residential zone within Area Districts I and II, where zero-foot setback accessory structures are most common. As both Area District I and II are outside the Coastal Zone, no amendments to the Manhattan Beach Local Coastal Program (MBLCP) are necessary.
° Exempt smaller accessory structures from the revised setback standards.
2. Application Process:
° Retain the existing review process so that new accessory structures will remain subject to ministerial reviews.
° Add code language to exempt legal nonconforming accessory structures from a Minor Exception (director-level discretionary review) as long as the nonconforming portions of the accessory structure that are within the required setbacks are not altered.
3. Building Separation:
° Retain the existing 10-foot building separation requirement between structures. No code amendments related to building separation were required, as the status quo would be maintained.
4. Setbacks:
° Eliminate the existing zero-foot rear yard setback allowance for accessory structures and require a minimum three-foot setback with exceptions that would allow zero-foot setbacks on lots abutting an alley or a commercial zone.
Proposed Zone Text Amendment
The draft amendments to the MBMC are shown below with an illustrative diagram attached (Attachment 4) to provide visual guidance. Bold, italicized, and underlined text represent proposed additions (example) and strikethrough text represents proposed deletions (example).
10.52.050 Accessory structures.
D. Relation to Property Lines. An accessory structure, any portion of which is located within a required rear yard, shall be located on a rear or interior side property line, or shall be not less than three feet (3′) from said property line(s) (See Section 10.64.110(C); Aisle Dimensions, for exceptions applicable to detached alley-accessed garages). Building projections within the required setback area as prescribed in this section are permitted in accordance with Section 10.60.040; Building projections into required yards or open space.
Exceptions:
1. Where a fence, wall, or retaining wall is located on an interior side or rear property line, the setback for an accessory structure to the property line may be between zero and three feet (3′), providing there is zero clearance between said fence, wall or retaining wall and accessory structure.
2. RS zoned properties located in Area Districts I and II: All accessory structures that require a building permit must comply with front and side yard setbacks, and any portion of an accessory structure located in the rear yard setback shall be at least three feet (3’) from side and rear property lines.
a. Street-alley lot. Detached accessory structures other than garages may be located on a rear property line, or shall be not less than three feet (3’) from said property line. See Section 10.64.110(C); Aisle Dimensions, for standards applicable to detached alley-accessed garages.
b. Accessory structures may be located on a side and/or rear yard property line if said property line immediately abuts a commercial district.
c. An accessory structure that is nonconforming only because of its setback from the side and/or rear property lines may be enlarged or altered regardless of the estimated construction cost to determine the fifty percent (50%) valuation per Section 10.68.030(E), provided that no exterior portion of the accessory structure that occupies a required setback is altered unless the alteration eliminates the non-conformity.
As drafted, the zero-foot setback provision would be eliminated for detached accessory structures in the rear yard of single-family residentially zoned properties in Area Districts I and II in most instances. Instead, a minimum three-foot setback would apply to all new accessory structures, and to additions to existing accessory structures that would become legal nonconforming. Detached garages accessed off an alley would continue to comply with the aisle dimension standards outlined in MBMC Section 10.64.110(C), which typically requires a minimum five-foot setback from the rear property line to ensure adequate visibility, safety and access. In addition, the new provisions would establish a carve-out for accessory structures that do not require a building permit, which would apply to structures no larger than 120 square feet with no plumbing or electricity at the property line.
Two exceptions to the minimum three-foot setback requirement are proposed that would allow a zero-foot side and/or rear setback. Specifically, lots with a rear property line abutting an alley may construct accessory structures other than garages along the rear property line as long as the minimum three-foot interior side yard setbacks are met. Similarly, accessory structures may be built along the side and/or rear property lines if said property lines directly abut a commercial zone.
Another exception proposed is related to existing accessory structures that would become legal nonconforming as a result of the proposed amendments. Currently, improvements to legal nonconforming accessory structures exceeding 50 percent of the structure’s valuation must go through the Minor Exception provisions of the MBMC (Section 10.84.120), which allows for “alterations and additions (enlargements) to existing, smaller legal nonconforming structures” through a Director-level discretionary review process without public hearings. As proposed, legal nonconforming accessory structures are exempt from the 50 percent valuation criteria used for a Minor Exception, provided that any exterior portion of the structure within the required setbacks is not altered. In doing so, legal nonconforming accessory structures would be able to remain as-is when renovated or built to comply with the proposed regulations.
CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends that after conducting a public hearing, the City Council introduce Ordinance No. 25-0012, amending MBMC Section 10.52.050(D), to update regulations pertaining to accessory structure rear yard setback requirements.
PUBLIC OUTREACH:
A public notice for this meeting was emailed to all interested parties and published in The Beach Reporter on October 23, 2025. As of the writing of the report, staff has received no public comments.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The City has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the zone text amendments are exempt from CEQA pursuant to Sections 15301 (Existing Facilities) and 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the State CEQA Guidelines because projects constructed in reliance upon the proposed code amendments would consist of demolition, addition, and the construction of small accessory structures on single-family residential lots. In addition, Section 15305 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) of the State CEQA Guidelines applies to the project because the average slope of the City’s Area Districts I and II, where the proposed amendments will be limited to, are less than 20 percent and the proposed amendments represent a minor change to existing development standards which do not result in changes to land use or density. Therefore, the proposed project is exempt from further review under CEQA.
LEGAL REVIEW:
The City Attorney has reviewed this report and determined that no additional legal analysis is necessary.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Ordinance No. 25-0012
2. Resolution No. P.C. 25-0010
3. Proposed MBMC Zone Text Amendments (Redline Version)
4. Accessory Structure Diagrams
5. City Council Meeting Staff Report (February 4, 2025) (Web-Link)
6. Planning Commission Meeting Staff Report (June 11, 2025) (Web-Link)
7. Planning Commission Meeting Staff Report (August 27, 2025) (Web-Link)
8. Planning Commission Meeting Staff Report (October 8, 2025) (Web-Link)
9. PowerPoint Presentation