Manhattan Beach Community Opinion Survey '25 Report v1T

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

T ABLE OF C ONTENTS

Table of Contents.

List of Tables

List of Figures.

Purpose of Study

Overview

Acknowledgements

L IST OF T ABLES

Table1Rating

Table2Rating

Table3Rating

Table4Rating

Table5Changes

Table6Satisfaction

Table7Satisfaction

Table8City Spending

Table9City

Table10City

Table11City

Table15Library Spending Priorities by District Area & Coastal Zone (Showing % High Priority).

Table16Project Pulse Redevelopment Options by Age (Showing % High Priority).

Table17Project Pulse Redevelopment Options by Ethnicity & Gender (Showing % High Priority).

Table18Project Pulse Redevelopment Options by Home Ownership Status, Child in Hsld & Overall Satisfaction (Showing % High Priority).

Table19Project Pulse Redevelopment Options by District Area & Coastal Zone (Showing % High Priority)

Table20Agreement With Statements by Study Year

Table21Agreement With Statements by Age

L IST OF F IGURES

Figure1Rating

Figure2Like

Figure4Overall

Figure5Overall

Figure6Overall

Figure7Overall

Figure8Satisfaction with City Services.

Figure9Opinion

Figure10Opinion

Figure11Opinion of

Figure12Opinion

Figure16Interest in Low-Cost Rideshare Services by Years in Manhattan Beach, Ethnicity & Gender

Figure18Interest in Low-Cost Rideshare Services by Perception of City Safety, Overall Satisfaction, District Area & Coastal Zone

Figure19Support Allowing

Figure20Support Allowing Limited Short-Term Rentals During World Cup & Olympics by Years in Manhattan Beach,

Figure21Support Allowing Limited Short-Term Rentals During World Cup & Olympics by Age, Child in Hsld & Home Ownership Status.

Figure23Support Short-Term Rentals After Leaning Additional Safety Services Paid by Taxes

Figure24Support

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 departments, agencies, and programs, including the City Attorney’s office, City Clerk’s office, City Manager’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 quality 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, policy, and performance matters. Although these informal feedback mechanisms are a valuable source of information for the City in that they provide timely and accurate information about the opinions of specific residents, they do not necessarily provide an accurate picture of the community 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 those residents who are motivated enough to initiate the feedback process. Because these residents tend to be those who are either very pleased or very displeased regarding a particular topic, their collective opinions are not necessarily representative of the City’s resident population as a whole.

PURPOSE OF STUDY The motivation for the current study 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 improvements 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 the City’s efforts to provide municipal services, and their satisfaction with a variety of specific services;

•Gather opinions on specific topics including public safety, short-term vacation rentals, Project 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 residents’ perceptions, needs, and interests.

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

OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY

A full description of the methodology used for this study is included later in this report (see Methodology on page 42). In brief, the survey was 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 collection 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 dating back to 2004, with the most recent completed in 2021. That said, the design of the survey questionnaire, recruiting protocols, and data collection methodologies were all updated in 2021, 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 appropriate 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 associated with selecting two samples independently and at random. Differences between the two studies are identified as statistically significant if we can be 95% confident that the differences reflect an actual change in public opinion between the two studies. Statistically significant differences within response categories over time are denoted by the † symbol which appears in the figure next to the appropriate response value for 2025.

ORGANIZATION OF REPORT This report is designed to meet 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 provides a summary of the most important factual findings of the survey in a Question & Answer format. 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 analyzing 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 opportunity to conduct the study and for contributing valuable input during the design stage of this study. The collective experience, insight, and local knowledge provided by city representatives and staff improved the overall quality of the research presented here.

DISCLAIMER The statements and conclusions 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.

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. Through designing and implementing scientific surveys, 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, performance management, establishing fiscal priorities, 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.

K EY F INDINGS

As noted in the Introduction, this study was designed to provide 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 variety 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 the research. The following 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 performing in meeting the needs of Manhattan Beach residents?

How do residents view the quality of life in Manhattan Beach?

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%) satisfied with the City’s performance. Overall satisfaction remained remarkably consistent over the past four years, changing by just one percentage point. Moreover, the high level of satisfaction exhibited by respondents as a whole was generally echoed across resident subgroups, 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 performance in providing most specific services, with the highest satisfaction scores assigned to 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 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 and programs for seniors (-9%). Each of the other 21 services remained statistically consistent from 2021 to 2025 (see Specific Services on page 14).

The City’s performance in providing municipal services has also contributed to an exceptional quality of life 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

How is the City perceived with respect to customer service and governance?

of life rating tracked closely with 2021 (+2%), and the positive sentiment was widespread across a host of resident 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 Manhattan 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-third of respondents (34%) were also unsure how to rate the City as a place 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 about living in Manhattan Beach, the small town feel/charming beach community vibe was the top response (21%), followed by its proximity to the ocean and beach (16%), the community and its friendly people and family atmosphere (14%), the City’s safety/low crime rate (13%), and its low density development/single family homes (10%). To quote one resident: Everything - the people, the restaurants, the ocean, the pier, the mall, the retail stores, 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 anything to change or that no changes were needed (13%).

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-ten of those respondents indicated that staff members were very or somewhat professional (95%), accessible (92%), and helpful (88%). Staff contact and ratings were statistically consistent from 2021 to 2025 (see Contact with City Staff on page 36).

Regarding perceptions of local government, 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’

Where should the City focus its efforts in the future?

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 Government on page 34).

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 room for improvement. Below we note some of the areas that present the best opportunities in this regard.

Considering respondents’ verbatim answers regarding what city government could do to make Manhattan Beach a better place to live (see Changes to Improve Manhattan Beach on page 10), the performance ratings they assigned to a wide variety of services (see Specific Services on page 14), the manner in which residents 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-bikes, enforcing traffic laws, enforcing animal control laws, street and sidewalk 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 oversteer. Indeed, the primary takeaway from this study is that the City does many things very well, and the emphasis should be on continuing to perform at that high level in those areas. The vast majority of residents were pleased with the City’s efforts to provide services, programs, and facilities 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 communicating with Manhattan 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 available to the public have dramatically 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 others may fade in popularity, making thorough, effective communication a moving target for public agencies.

What are residents’ views on allowing shortterm vacation rentals during the Olympics and World Cup?

With this context in mind, the City of Manhattan Beach appears to be doing a solid job communicating with residents. Overall, 81% of respondents indicated they were satisfied with the City’s efforts to communicate 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 four years. Driven by an increase in the percentage of residents who were very satisfied (+8%), overall satisfaction with city-resident communication was significantly higher in 2025 than 2021 (+6%).

When the topic of allowing limited short-term vacation rentals on a tempoary basis to accommodate increased demand when the 2026 FIFA World Cup and the 2028 Summer Olympics come to Los Angeles was presented to residents, 58% indicated that they strongly (28%) or somewhat (30%) supported the idea. After being 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 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 events 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 anticipated the would rent their property (see Short-Term Vacation Rentals on page 26).

Q UALITY OF L IFE

The opening series of questions in the survey was designed to assess residents’ top of mind perceptions about the quality of life in the City of Manhattan Beach, as well as their ideas on 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 one-third of respondents (34%) were also unsure how to rate the City as a place 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?

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 they like most about Manhattan Beach that the city government should make sure to preserve in the future. This question was posed in an openended manner, thereby allowing residents to mention any aspect or attribute that came to mind without being prompted by—or restricted 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 community and its friendly people and family atmosphere (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.

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

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

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 being prompted by, or restricted to, a particular list of options. True North later reviewed the verbatim responses and grouped them into the categories 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 police presence (9%) and preserving/supporting outdoor 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).

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

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

TABLE 5 CHANGES TO IMPROVE CITY OF MANHATTAN BY STUDY YEAR

Study Year

20252021

Address parking issues

Enforce traffic, e-bike laws

Limit growth, development

Improve public safety, more police presence

Not sure / Cannot think of anything

Not sure / Cannot think of anything

Improve public safety, more police presence

Address parking issues

No changes needed / Everything is fine

Enforce traffic, e-bike laws

% Respondents

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 municipal services.

OVERALL SATISFACTION

The first question in this series 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 findings 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 municipal 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 providing 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 respondents 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%).

FIGURE

5

OVERALL

SATISFACTION

BY YEARS IN MANHATTAN BEACH, ETHNICITY & GENDER

City Services

SPECIFIC SERVICES Whereas Question 5 addressed the City’s overall performance, Question 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 bias, 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 dissatisfied) are included in the figures—those who did not share an opinion were removed from this analysis. The percentage who offered an opinion and were included in this analysis is shown in brackets to the right of each service label. Thus, for example, among the 81% of respondents who expressed an opinion 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 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.

At the other end of the spectrum (bottom of Figure 8 on next page), respondents were less satisfied 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 percentage of respondents who were satisfied with each service by study year. From 2021 to 2025, there were statistically significant declines in satisfaction 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 sample approach was utilized (i.e., respondents were divided into two groups and each group was asked to rate approximately half of the items).

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 satisfied or dissatisfied with the City's efforts to: _____, or do you not have an opinion?

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 systems [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%]

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.

DIFFERENTIATORS OF OPINION

For the interested reader, Table 7 displays how the level of satisfaction with each specific service te sted 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 satisfied with the City’s overall performance into one group and those dissatisfied into a second group. Also displayed is the difference between the two groups in terms of the percentage who indicated they were satisfied with the City’s efforts to provide each service tested in Question 6 (far right column). For convenience, the services are sorted by that difference, 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 provide 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 differed most with regard to the City’s efforts to preserve the City's small, beach-town character, provide after-school programs and diversion programs for youth, provide neighborhood police patrols, provide services and programs for seniors, and maintain a low crime rate (>35% difference 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 emergency medical services, and maintain public athletic fields (<10% difference in ratings between satisfied and dissatisfied residents).

SAFETY Ensuring the personal safety of residents is the most basic function of local government. It is important to keep in mind, of course, that public safety is as much a matter of perceptions 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 residents 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 statistically 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 generally dissatisfied with the City’s overall efforts to provide municipal services (77% safety rating among respondents in this subgroup).

City Services

S PENDING P RIORITIES

It is often the case that residents’ desires for public facilities and programs exceed a city’s financial 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 variety of projects, programs, and improvements to which the City could allocate resources in the future. The format of the questions 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 shown in Figure 13 (citywide) 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

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 visit restaurants, shops, business areas in City without having 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

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 Question 8, fixing potholes and repairing and improving city streets and sidewalks was assigned the highest priority (92% high or medium priority), 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 systems (79%), and restoring and enhancing nature areas (77%).

At the other end of the spectrum, fewer than a third of residents felt that 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 improving the Manhattan Beach Art Center (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 Manhattan Beach subgroups, with the top three items within each category highlighted in green to ease comparisons.

TABLE 8 CITY SPENDING PRIORITIES BY AGE (SHOWING % HIGH PRIORITY)

LIBRARY Turning now to library facilities and services, expanding programs, activities, and events for children was assigned the highest priority (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 city 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 subgroups, with the top three items within each category highlighted in green to ease comparisons.

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 priorities.

FIGURE 14 LIBRARY SPENDING PRIORITIES

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

TABLE 12 LIBRARY SPENDING PRIORITIES BY AGE (SHOWING % HIGH PRIORITY)

TABLE 13 LIBRARY SPENDING PRIORITIES BY ETHNICITY & GENDER (SHOWING % HIGH PRIORITY)

TABLE 14 LIBRARY SPENDING PRIORITIES BY HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS, CHILD IN HSLD & OVERALL SATISFACTION (SHOWING % HIGH PRIORITY)

Expanding

OwnRentYesNoSatisfiedDissatisfied

Expanding programs, activities, and events for teens15.932.326.418.822.011.3

TABLE 15 LIBRARY SPENDING PRIORITIES BY DISTRICT AREA & COASTAL ZONE (SHOWING % HIGH PRIORITY)

RIDESHARE SERVICES The last question in this series 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, the 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 interested, 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 interested, 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.

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 demand. The next section of the survey gathered residents’ opinions on the topic, including whether they support this temporary change as well as their likelihood of renting their property during one of the events.

SUPPORT OR OPPOSE SHORT-TERM RENTALS

After informing residents that shortterm rentals would only be allowed for a couple weeks before and after each event and that appropriate regulations would be in place, approximately six-in-ten respondents (58%) indicated that they strongly (28%) or somewhat (30%) supported the idea. Forty percent (40%) of respondents were opposed to the City allowing residents to rent their properties on a short-term basis during the World Cup and the Summer 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 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?

FIGURE 19 SUPPORT ALLOWING LIMITED SHORT-TERM RENTALS DURING WORLD CUP & OLYMPICS

Figures 20 through 22 on the next page display respondents’ level of support for short-term vacation rentals during the 2026 FIFA World Cup and 2028 Summer Olympics by years in Manhattan Beach, ethnicity, gender, age, presence of a child in the home, home ownership status, perception of city safety, overall satisfaction, and geographic area of residence. With the exceptions of residents who view the City as unsafe (44% support) and Asians (48%), the majority of respondents in every subgroup supported the idea of allowing short-term rentals during the Olympics and World Cup.

Short-Term Vacation Rentals

As a follow-up, respondents 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 rentals 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 properties 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 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?

FIGURE 23 SUPPORT SHORT-TERM RENTALS AFTER LEANING ADDITIONAL SAFETY SERVICES PAID BY TAXES

The majority of respondents in every subgroup indicated support for short-term vacation rentals after learning 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 Manhattan Beach less than 15 years, Latino-Hispanic respondents, 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).

Short-Term Vacation Rentals

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

Short-Term Vacation Rentals

LIKELY

TO RENT OUT

PROPERTY DURING EVENTS

The last question in this section asked respondents whether they would rent out their Manhattan Beach property on a shortterm basis during the Olympics and World Cup if the City lifted the restriction. As shown in Figure 27 on the next page, 12% of residents indicated that they would likely rent their property, 64% said they would not, 21% were unsure, and 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 eastern area of Manhattan Beach (17% vs. 10%).

Question 13 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?

FIGURE

27 LIKELY TO RENT PROPERTY DURING EVENTS

Short-Term Vacation Rentals

FIGURE 28 LIKELY TO RENT PROPERTY

FIGURE 30 LIKELY

Short-Term Vacation Rentals

P ROJECT P ULSE

In the Spring of 2025, city staff initiated a planning effort called Project Pulse to coordinate synergistic 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 respondents with a variety of redevelopment options currently being considered by the City 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-inten residents viewed a parking structure (65% high 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. Moreover, four-in-ten cited a parking structure as a high priority.

Among the options being considered, residents assigned 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 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.

FIGURE 31 PROJECT PULSE REDEVELOPMENT OPTIONS

Tables 16-19 on the following page display the percentage of residents who viewed each redevelopment option as a high priority by a variety of demographic subgroups, with the top three preferences highlighted in green for each subgroup. All respondent subgroups agreed that a parking structure and open space/park were top priorities, and commercial development was also a top priority for nearly all subgroups. The exceptions include respondents 25 to 35 years

of age, renters, and respondents dissatisfied with the City’s overall performance who placed a higher priority on multi-family residential housing, 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

TABLE

18

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 residents 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 regarding 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 disagreed with the statement. Seven-in-ten residents 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 respondents (33%) were also unsure how to rate the City on this dimension. Agreement across the statements 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

Tables 21-25 show how agreement with each statement varied by respondent age, ethnicity, perceived 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, Latino/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

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 indicated 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 Manhattan Beach?

FIGURE 33 CITY STAFF CONTACT IN PAST 12 MONTHS BY STUDY YEAR

34 CITY STAFF CONTACT IN PAST 12 MONTHS BY YEARS IN MANHATTAN BEACH & AGE

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 respondents to rate staff on three dimensions: helpfulness, 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 contact felt that city staff members were professional, 92% said they were accessible, and 88% considered 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).

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

FIGURE

37 PERCEPTION OF CITY STAFF...

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 information that is exchanged in both directions, from the city to the community and from the community to the city. This study is just one example of Manhattan Beach’s efforts to enhance the information flow to the City to better understand the community’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 cityresident communication. Overall, 81% of respondents 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 either 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 satisfaction with city-resident communication was significantly higher in 2025 than 2021 (+6%).

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 display 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 newest 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

B ACKGROUND & D EMOGRAPHICS

TABLE 27 DEMOGRAPHICS OF SAMPLE BY STUDY YEAR

Table 27 presents the key demographic 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 characteristics, 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 latest Census estimates.

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 questionnaire that covered the topics of interest and avoided many possible sources of systematic measurement error, including position-order effects, wording effects, response-category effects, scaling effects, and priming. Several questions included multiple individual items. Because asking items in a set order can lead to a systematic position bias in responses, the items were asked in a random order for each respondent.

Some questions asked in this study were presented only to a subset of respondents. For example, 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 Interviewing) programmed to assist interviewers when conducting the telephone interviews. The CATI program automatically navigates the skip patterns, randomizes 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 passcode-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 Manhattan Beach households was utilized for this study, ensuring that all households in Manhattan Beach had the opportunity to be selected to participate in the survey. Once selected at random, contact information was appended to each record including email addresses and telephone numbers for adult residents. Individuals were subsequently recruited 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 encourage participation among those who 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 sampled residents that had yet to participate 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 evenings (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 telephone between September 29 and October 6, 2025.

MARGIN OF ERROR DUE TO SAMPLING

The results of the survey can be used to estimate 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 residents3 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 alternative response. For this survey, the maximum margin of error is ± 4.0% for questions answered by all 588 respondents.

Margin of Error

01002003004005006007008009001000110012001300140015001600

Sample Size (Number of Respondents)

Within this report, figures and tables show how responses to certain questions varied by demographic characteristics such as length of residence and age of the 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 significance 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 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.

ROUNDING Numbers that end in 0.5 or higher are rounded up to the nearest whole number, 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 decimal place in constructing figures and charts. Occasionally, these rounding rules lead to small discrepancies in the first decimal place when comparing 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%.

Q UESTIONNAIRE & T OPLINES

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

Prefer not to answer

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

A The overall quality of life in Manhattan Beach

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

Beach, ocean

Community, friendly people, family atmosphere

Public safety, low crime rate

Low density development, single family homes

Parks, rec facilities

Cleanliness, appearance, beauty of City

education

The Strand, pier

of commercial, residential areas

events, activities

Not sure / Cannot think of anything

Open space, greenbelt

Outdoor shops, dining options

Fire, Police services

Local businesses, downtown area

Relaxed, casual lifestyle

places

nature

Improve, maintain roads, sidewalks, streets

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

Enforce traffic, e-bike laws

Limit growth, development

Improve public safety, more police presence

Not sure / Cannot think of anything

Preserve, support outdoor dining

Provide more affordable housing

Reduce traffic congestion

Section 3: City Services

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

A Enforce traffic laws

B

C

F

G Provide special events such as concerts in the park and holiday

H Provide a variety of recreation programs for all ages

I Provide services and programs for seniors

J

L Maintain a low

M

N Enforce animal control laws such as leashlaws and waste cleanup

O Maintain and repair local streets and roads

P Remove graffiti

Q Maintain public athletic fields

S Keep public buildings, parks and

T Preserve the City’s small, beach-town character

U Provide a variety of public art

V Provide after-school programs and diversion programs for youth

W Address bike safety and e-bikes

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?

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?

A Reconstruct and improve the City’s swimming pool – Begg Pool

B Fix potholes and repair and improve city streets and sidewalks

C Renovate and improve the Joslyn Community Center

D Renovate and improve the Manhattan Heights Community Center

E Renovate and improve the Manhattan Beach Art Center

F Renovate and improve Live Oak Park facilities, including the Ceramics Studio, tennis and racquet courts, and REC Program activity space

G Replace the Pay ‘N’ Play at Marine Avenue Park with open space, with the possibility of also adding a futsal court

H Restore and enhance nature areas

I Improve the maintenance of parks and park amenities including restrooms, sports courts, and dog runs

J Redesign public spaces to allow for outdoor dining areas

K Create a Manhattan Beach Historical Museum to preserve and store historical documents

L Repair and upgrade the City’s sewer and wastewater systems

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

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.

Q9

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

B Expanding programs, activities, and events for

C Expanding programs, activities, and events for adults

D Expanding the Manhattan Beach Library Speaker Series

E

H Building and operating a cultural library on the east side of Manhattan Beach

I Preserving and improving access to the City’s Historical Collection

J Adding a new library

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

interested

Section 5: Short-Term Vacation Rentals

Short-term rentals are banned in the City, outside of the Coastal Zone (residential areas near the Strand).

Q11

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

2 Somewhat support

Q12

99 Prefer not to answer

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

2 Somewhat support

3 Somewhat oppose

4 Strongly oppose

98 Not sure

99 Prefer not to answer

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?

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?

B Commercial development like Metlox with retail shopping and restaurants

Section 7: Local Governance & Customer Service

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.

Q15

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

A The City is responsive to residents’

B

C The City listens to residents

I trust the City of

Q16 In the past 12 months, have you been in contact with staff from the City of Manhattan Beach? 1 Yes

Ask Q17 2 No

Skip to Q18

Skip to Q18

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

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)?

Very satisfied

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.

D2 What is your gender?

D3 Do you have one or more children under the age of 18 living in your household?

D4 Do you own or rent your residence in Manhattan Beach?

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?

D6 What ethnic group do you consider yourself a part of or feel closest to? Read list if respondent hesitates

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

& Sample Items