Commission previews Sepulveda safety plan and new parking rules

Parking rules are changing block by block.

At the Manhattan Beach Parking and Public Improvements Commission, staff said City Council has already approved the city’s parking management study and that implementation has begun. The consultant is finishing the final report, which staff described as a roadmap for downtown and North Manhattan Beach. Staff then walked commissioners through the next visible change: two new permit parking zones in the Tree Section, after residents petitioned and the petitions were validated.

The new zones will bring posted signs on Oak Avenue, 30th Street, a short stretch of Sepulveda Boulevard near 33rd Street, and nearby areas staff identified during the presentation. The rule is straightforward: two-hour parking except permit, in effect 24 hours a day. Commissioners focused on what that means overnight, when spillover parking and late-night traffic can be harder to manage.

Staff said a broader Sepulveda Boulevard safety package is next. About 40 strategies covering pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle safety are scheduled for City Council review on May 5. Commissioners asked whether late-night enforcement may do more than street design alone, and whether speed cameras could be an option. Staff said enforcement during critical hours matters, but infrastructure works around the clock, including turn restrictions, signal timing changes, and medians. Staff added that speed cameras remain limited to a state pilot program, though the city is already buying speed feedback signs to track when speeding is worst.

The city’s next five years of construction planning came into view. Staff presented the proposed FY 2026/2027 to FY 2030/2031 capital improvement program, laying out project categories, funding sources, timelines, and the major work now on the schedule.

Commissioners used the discussion to press on the mechanics. They asked how staff forecasts projects over several years, how appropriations work once projects are listed, and what happens when money is restricted to certain uses. The questions stayed practical: how the plan gets built, how flexible it is, and how much of it can actually move on time.

The commission’s message was simple. Members urged faster delivery, more proactive checks on aging infrastructure, and regular reviews so priorities do not sit unchanged for years. No one spoke during public comment on the item, so the discussion stayed between commissioners and staff as the proposed program moved through its review stage.