Manhattan Beach City Council
February 4, 2022

Policy I
-

1.4:

Work
with neighboring communities, other South Bay cities, the state and other agencies to develop regional solutions to transportation problems that are regional in nature, and to mitigate impacts of devel
opment in neighboring communitie
s that impact the City.

Policy I
-

1.5:

Support Dial
-
A
-
Ride or other para
-
transit systems for the senior and disabled members
of the community.

Policy I
-

1.6:

Require property owners, at the time of new construction or substantial remodeling to dedicate land for public improvement
s such as roadways, wider sidewalks and/or bicycle lanes, as appropriate and warranted by the project.

Policy I
-

1.7:

Improve multi
-
modal connections to transit facilities, especially to the Metro Green

Line stations.

Policy I
-

1.8:

Improve multi
-
modal conn
ections between the portions of the City east and west of Sepulveda Boulevard.

Policy I
-

1.9:

Consider implementing a development impact fee program to collect funds from developers constructing new

projects. Such fees would fund "fair
-
share" costs of mobil
ity improvement projects
required to mitigate project impacts.

Policy I
-

1.10:

Promote car
-
sharing and neighborhood electric vehicles as important means to reduce traffic congestion and further pr
omote climate action projects.

Policy I
-

1.11:

Allow for flex
ible use of public rights
-
of
-
way to accommodate all users, while maintaining
safety standards.

CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / FINAL

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

162

JANUARY 2022

Policy I
-

1.12:

Integrate the financing, design and construction of pedestrian facilities and improvements
with street projects wher
e feasible at the same time as

improvements for vehicular circulation.

Goal I
-
2:

Move commuter traffic through the City primarily on arterial streets and collector streets, as appropriate, to protect other streets fro
m the intrusion of cut
-
through traffic
.

Policy I
-

2.1:

Utilize the Nei
ghborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) tools to mitigate neighborhood intrusion by cut
-
through
traffic and

improve conditions for pedestrians and bicyclists.

Policy I
-

2.2:

Monitor all major intersections and arterial streets and pursue capital projects as needed to minimize traffic diversion into local streets, improve pedestrian and bicycle conditions to keep traffic moving efficiently.

Policy I
-

2.3:

Minimize vehicular acc
ess for new developments on local residential streets, and in locations with high pedestrian and bicycle activity, and design access and egress to avoid traffic intrusion on local streets to the maximum extent possible.

Policy I
-

2.4:

Require property owner
s, at the time new construction is proposed, to either improve abutting public right
-
of
-
way to its full required width per the street master plan or to pay in -
lieu fees for
improvements, as appropriate.

Policy I
-

2.5:

Encourage the use of Intelligent Transp
ortation Systems (ITS), such as advanced traffic
signalization, motorist information, advanced transit, advanced emergency vehicle access, and intelligent parking systems, as well as other appropriate communication technologies, to efficiently and safely m
ove tra
ffic.

Policy I
-

2.6:

Review on
-
street parking in neighborhoods adjacent to commercial areas where neighbors request such
review and

develop parking and traffic solutions for those neighborhoods adversely impacted by spillover parking and traffic.

Po
licy I
-

2.7:

Monitor and minimize traffic, parking and truck loading issues associated with construction activities.

Policy I
-

2.8:

Carefully review commercial development proposals with regard to parking, loading and planned ingress/egress, and enforce rest
rict
ions as approved. Pol
icy I
-

2.9: Comprehensively review
downtown merchant and other parking permits including valet parking to ensure effective utilization of existing parking capacity.

Policy I
-

2.10:

Protect and enhance on
-
street public parking includi
ng identifying appropriate motorcycle,
small car, electric vehicle and bike corral parking opportunities.

Policy I
-

2.11:

Develop a new multi
-
modal level of service methodology that includes:



Emphasis on pedestrian and bicycle access and
circulation



Support for reduced vehicle miles traveled



Maintenance

of appropriate emergency vehicle access and response time

CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / FINAL

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

163

JANUARY 2022

Goal I
-
3:

Ensure adequate parking and loading facilities are available to support both residential and commercial needs while reduc
ing adverse parking and traffic impacts.

Policy I
-

3.1:

Periodically review existing Downtown and North Manhattan Beach parking and loading needs and implement solutions as needed to address deficiencies.

Policy I
-

3.2:

Periodically evaluate the adequacy of
parking codes in light of land use and parking demand
to ensure rightsized parking facilities are provided.

Policy I
-

3.3:

Review development proposals to ensure potential adverse parking impacts are minimized or avoided, and pedestrian and bicycle circulation are not negatively impacted.

Policy I
-

3.4:

Encourage joint
-
use and off
-
site parking where appropriate and develop pro
cedures and
templates for use in shared parking arrangements.

Policy I
-

3.5:

Require private development to provide public
on street

parking in the public right
-
of
-
way
according to Public Works standards in compliance with the street master plan.

Policy I
-
3 .6:

Consider emergency vehicle access needs when developing on -
street parking and other public
right
-
of
-
way development standards.

Policy I
-

3.7:

Work to preserve on
-
street parking within beach areas.

Policy I
-

3.8:

Encourage the school district and private

schools to promote active modes of transportation
for stu
dents and emplo
yees as a means of reducing peak
-
hour traffic.

Policy I
-

3.9:

Work with the school district and private schools to improve pedestrian and bicycle routing and safety around schools. Foc
us pedestrian access to the elementary schools and
bicycle and
pedestria
n access to the middle and high schools.

Policy I
-

3.10:

Discourage parking associated with schools, particularly at Mira Costa High School, within surrounding neighborhoods.

Policy I
-
3 .11:

Work with the school district and private schools to address high traffic volumes during the morning and afternoon peak school hours and improve drop -
off and pick
-
up circulation.

Policy I
-

3.12:

Continue to support and enhance Safe Routes to School pro grams such as Walking School
Bus, walk audits, c
lassroom safety instr
uction and promotional events

CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / FINAL

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

164

JANUARY 2022

3.1 7
.3

Environmental Impacts

Potentially
Significant
Impact

Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No Impact

XV
I
I.

TRANSPORTATION

–

Would the project:

a)

Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or
policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle, and
pedestrian facilities?

b)

Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision

(b)?

c)

Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

d)

Result in inadequate emergency access?

a)

Would the project conflict
with a program
,

plan, ordinance
,

or policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?

Less Than Significant Impact
.

F
uture development associated with implementation of the HEU

would
be expected to generate more multi
-
modal trips tha
n conventional development.

I
n

addition, the
HEU is
required to be in

compliance with the Mobility Plan of the General Plan,
which has goals and policies such
as providing a balanced, safe, and efficient multi
-
modal transportation system; routing commuter
traffic
primarily on

arterial a
nd collector streets, as appropriate, to protect other streets from the intrusion of cut -
through traffic; and ensuring that adequate parking and loading facilities are available to support both residential and commercial need
s while reducing adverse parking and traffic impacts.

The HEU identifies that the City has the existing capacity to accommodate 377

new residential

dwelling

units. Through a future rezoning program, capacity for an additional 479

units would be identified. The
rezoning effort will include the evaluation of p
otential traffic impacts related to increased transportation system demands associated with specific

future residential projects
, and mitigation
measures would be
adopted as necessary, in conformance with CEQA

to address these larger scale Citywide impacts
. The
HEU

in and of itself
would
not
conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting a lternative
transportation.

Although the HEU would provide for an eventual rezoning program, allowing for higher density residential development than is currently allowed for in the City, the development anticipated by the HEU would occur primarily on urba
n and semi
-
urban infill sites and consist primarily of multifamily and mixed -
use
development, and would likely not require a significant overhauls of existing transportation infrastructure.

However, this is not one of the discretionary actions being undert aken at this time.

As such,
the HEU would
result in a less than significant impact on transportation, and no mitigation is required.

CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / FINAL

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

165

JANUARY 2022

b)

Would the project conflict
or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b) ?

Less Than
Significant Impact
.

and of
Although the HEU would provide for an eventual rezoning program, allowing for higher density residential development than is currently allowed for in the City, the development anticipated by the HEU would occur primarily on urban

and semi
-
urban infill sites and consist primarily of
multifamily and mixed
-
use development, and would likely not require a significant overhauls of existing transportation infrastructure. However, this is not one of the discretionary actions being underta ken at this
time.

Potential traffic impacts related to increased transportation system demands associated with specific future residential projects would be assessed
at the programmatic level at such a time that the rezoning program is being considered
,
co
nsist
ent

with local and state guidelines. Mitigation measures would be adopted as necessary, in conformance with CEQA.

Future development projects implemented following the
adoption of the rezoning program would more than likely qualify for streamlining an d/or an exemption
under CEQA, consistent with State and local laws encouraging the development of housing, especially affordable housing, on infill sites.

Based on the above, the
HEU

would result in a less than significant impact
related to CEQA Guidelines

Section 15064.3
,

and no mitigation is required.

c)

Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

Less Than Significant Impac
t
.

Potential traffic impacts related to increased transportation system demands associated with specific future residential projects , including the planned rezoning program,

would be assessed at the time the projects are actually proposed and would be
consist
ent

with local and
state guidelines. Mitigation measures would be adopted as necessary, in conformance with CEQA. The HEU as a policy document

would not increase hazards
due to design feature
s

or incompatible uses
.

Although the HEU would provide for an eventual rezoning program, allowing for higher density residential development than is currently allowed for in the City, the development anticipated by the HEU would occur

primarily on urban and semi
-
urban infill sites and consist primarily of multifamily and mixed -
use
development, and would likely not require a significant overhauls of existing transportation infrastructure.

However, this is not one of the discretionary ac
tions being undertaken at this time
.

As such
, the HEU would
result in a less than significant impact on transportation ,

and no mitigation is required.

d
)

Would the project result in inadequate emergency access?

Less Than Significant Impact
.

The
City’s
General Plan contains specific goals and polices to maintain effective and high
-
quality emergency response services for the community, including cooperating with other South Bay jurisdictions to maintain an up
-
to
-
date regional emergency response system; di
sseminating
information to residents, businesses, and schools on preparing for and responding to natural disasters; and ensuring that all street signs and street numbers are visible and legible to minimize emergency response time.

Although the HEU would pr
ovide for an eventual rezoning program, allowing for higher density residential development than is currently allowed for in the City, the development anticipated by the HEU would occur primarily on urban and semi
-
urban infill sites and consist primarily o
f multifamily and mixed
-
use
development, and would likely not require a significant overhauls of existing transportation infrastructure.

However, this is not one of the discretionary actions being undertaken at this time .

As such,

the HEU would
result in a

less than significant impact on transportation
,

and no mitigation is required.

CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / FINAL

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

166

JANUARY 2022

3.1 7
.4

References

Caltrans. 2020. Transportation Impact Study Guide, Vehicle Miles Traveled -
Focused. Accessed November 1,
2021.
https://dot.ca.gov/
-
/media/dot
-
media/programs/t
ransportation
-
planning/documents

/sb
-
743/2020
-
05 -
20 -
approved
-
vmt
-
focused
-
tisg
-
a11y.pdf.

County of Los Angeles. 2021.

A County VMT (Total and Per Capita) by City (2016)
. Accessed October 5, 2021.
https://data.lacounty.gov/Transportation/LA
-
County
-
VMT
-
Total
-
and
-
Per
-
Capita
-
by
-
City
-
2016
-
/tb57
-
43ih
.

SCAG. 2020. Connect SoCal: 2020
–
2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy.

Accessed March 24, 2021. https://scag.ca.gov/connect
-
socal.

3. 1
8 Tribal Cultural Resources

3.1 8
.1

Environmental

Sett
ing

Prehistoric Setting

Evidence for continuous human occupation in Southern California spans the last 10,000 years. Various attempts to parse out variability in archaeological assemblages over this broad period have led to the development of several cult
ural chronologies; some of these are based on geologic time, most are based on temporal trends in archaeological assemblages, and others are interpretive reconstructions.

Ethnographic Setting

The history of the Native American communities prior to the mid -
1700s has largely been reconstructed through
later mission
-
period and early ethnographic accounts. The first records of the Native American inhabitants of the region come predominantly from European merchants, missionaries, military personnel, and explore rs. These brief,
and generally peripheral, accounts were prepared with the intent of furthering respective colonial and economic aims and were combined with observations of the landscape. They were not intended to be unbiased accounts regarding the cultura
l structures and community practices of the newly encountered cultural groups. The establishment of the missions in the region brought more extensive documentation of Native American communities, though these groups did not become the focus of formal and i n
-
depth ethnographic study until the
early twentieth century
(Bean and Shipek 1978; Geiger and Meighan 1976; Harrington 1935; Sparkman 1908; Boscana 1846)
.The principal intent of these researchers was to record the precontact, culturally specific practices, ideologies, and languages that had survived the destabilizing effects of missionization and colonialism. This research, often understood as “salvage eth
nography,” was driven by the understanding that traditional knowledge was being lost due to the impacts of modernization and cultural assimilation. Alfred Kroeber applied his “memory culture”
approach by

recording languages and oral histories within the re
gion

(Kroeber 1925)
. Ethnographic
research by Dubois, Kroeber, Harrington, Spier, and others during the early twentieth century seemed to indicate that traditional cultural practices and beliefs survived among local Native American communities.

It is impo
rtant to note that even though there were many informants for these early ethnographies who were able to provide information from personal experiences about native life before the Europeans, a significantly large proportion of these informants were born af
ter 1850
(Heizer and Nissen 1973)
; therefore, the do
cumentation of
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / FINAL

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

167

JANUARY 2022

pre
-
contact, aboriginal culture was being increasingly supplied by individuals born in California after considerable contact with Europeans. As Robert F. Heizer
(1978)

stated, this is an important issue to note when examining these ethnographies, since considerable culture change had undoubtedly occurred by 1850 among the Native American survivors of California. This
is a particularly important consideration for studies focused on tribal cultural resources

(TCRs), where concepts of “cultural resource” and the importance of traditional cultural places are intended to be interpreted based on the values expressed by prese
nt
-
day Native American representatives and may vary from
archaeological values
.

3.1 8
.2

Regulatory Setting

Federal

National Historic Preservation Act

The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) is the United States’ official list of districts, sites, buildings,
structures, and objects worthy of preservation. Overseen by the National Park Service, under the U.S. Department of the Interior, the NRHP was authorized under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended. Its listings en
compass all National Historic Landmarks, as well as historic areas administered by the National Park Service.

The National Park Service’s guidance for the evaluation of historic significance were developed to be flexible and to recognize the accomplishment
s of all who have made significant contributions to the nation’s history and heritage. The criteria are designed to guide state and local governments, federal agencies, and others in evaluating potential entries in the NRHP. For a property to be listed in or determined eligible for listing, it must be demonstrated to possess integrity and to meet at least one of the following criteria:

The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is present in district
s, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and
:

A.

That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or

B.

That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or

C.

That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or

that represent a significant and distinguishable
entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or

D.

That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Integrity is defined in
the National Park Service’s
National Register Bulletin
,
How to Apply the National Register
Criteria
”

as “
the ability of a property to convey its significance
.”

To be listed in the NRHP, a property must not only
be shown to be significant under the NRHP criteria, but it also must have

integrity” (
NPS 199
0 ).

NRHP guidance
further asserts that properties be completed at least 50 years ago to be considered for eligibility. Properties completed fewer than 50 years before evaluation must be proven to be “exceptionally important” (considerat ion
criteria G) to be considered for listing.

CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / FINAL

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

168

JANUARY 2022

A historic property is defined as “any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or

eligible for inclusion in, the NRHP maintained by the Secretary of the Interior. Thi s term includes artifacts, records,
and remains that are related to and located within such properties. The term includes properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization and that meet the NRHP criteria” (Title 36 Code of Federal Regulations Sections 800.16[i][1]).

State

California State Assembly Bill 52

Assembly Bill (AB) 52 of 2014 amended PRC Section 5097.94 and added PRC Sections 21073, 21074, 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3, 21083.09, 21084.2,

and 21084.3. AB 52 established that Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) must be considered under CEQA and also provided for additional requirements for the lead agency to consult with Native Americans. Public Resources Code Section 21074 describes a TCR as a

site, feature, place, cultural landscape,
sacred place, or object that is considered of cultural value to a California Native American Tribe and that is either:



Included

or determined to be eligible for

inclusion on

the California Register of Historical Resources or a local historic register; or



A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence

(including the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe
),

to be significant pursuant
to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1.

AB 52 formalizes the lead agency
–
tribal consultation process, requiring the lead agency to initiate consultation with California Native American groups that are
traditionally and culturally affiliated with the
w land areas under City
jurisdiction
, including tribes that may not be federally recognized. Lead agencies are required to begin consultation prior to the release of a negative declaration, mitigated negativ e declaration, or environmental impact report.

Section 1 (a)(9) of AB 52 establishes that “a substantial adverse change to a tribal cultural resource has a significant effect on the environment.” Effects on TCRs should be considered under CEQA. Section 6 of AB 52 adds Section
21080.3.2 to the PRC, which states that parties may propose mitigation measures “capable of avoiding or substantially lessening potential significant impacts to a tribal cultural resource or alternatives that would avoid significant i mpacts to
a tribal cultural resource.” Further, if a California Native American tribe requests consultation regarding project alternatives, mitigation measures, or significant effects to tribal cultural resources, the consultation shall include those topic
s (PRC Section 21080.3.2[a]). The environmental document and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program (where applicable) shall include any mitigation measures that are adopted (PRC Section 21082.3[a]).

Senate Bill 18

The Local and Tribal Intergovern
mental Consultation process, commonly known as Senate Bill (SB) 18 was signed into law September of 2004 and took effect March 1, 2005. SB 18 refers to PRC Section 5097.9 and 5097.995, which defines cultural places as:



Native American sanctified cemetery place of worship, religious or ceremonial site, or sacred shrine

(PRC Section 5097.9).



Native American historic, cultural, or sacred site that is listed or may be eligible for listing in the California Register of Histo
ric Resources pursuant to Section 5024.1, including any historic or prehistoric ruins, any burial ground, any archaeological or historic site (PRC Section 5097.993).

CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / FINAL

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

169

JANUARY 2022

SB 18 established responsibilities for local governments to contact, provide notice to, re fer plans to, and
consult with California Native American tribes that have been identified by the NAHC and if that tribe requests consultation after local government outreach as stipulated in Government Code Section 65352.3. The purpose of this consultatio
n process is to protect the identity of the cultural place and to develop appropriate and dignified treatment of the cultural place in any subsequent project. The consultation is required whenever a general plan, specific plan, or open space designation is

proposed for adoption or to be amended. Once local
governments have sent notification, tribes are responsible for requesting consultation. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65352.3(a)(2), each tribe has 90 days from the date on which they receive notifi
cation to respond and request consultation.

In addition to the requirements stipulated previously, SB 18 amended Government Code Section 65560 to “allow the protection of cultural places in open space element of the general plan” and amended Civil Code Sec tion 815.3
to add “California Native American tribes to the list of entities that can acquire and hold conservation easements for the purpose of protecting their cultural places.”

California Environmental Quality Act

As described further below, the followi
ng CEQA Statute and Guidelines are of relevance to the analysis of archaeological, historic, and tribal cultural resources:



PRC Section 21083.2(g) defines “unique archaeological resource.”



PRC Section 21084.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a) define “ historical resources.” In addition,
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b) defines the phrase “substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource”; it also defines the circumstances when a project would materially impair the significance
of an historical resource.



PRC Section 21074(a) defines “tribal cultural resources.”



PRC Section 5097.98 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e) set forth standards and steps to be employed following the accidental discovery of human remains in any locatio n other than a dedicated ceremony.



PRC Sections 21083.2(b)
-
(c) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 provide information regarding the mitigation framework for archaeological and historic resources, including examples of preservation -
in
-
place
mitigation meas
ures; preservation in place is the preferred manner of mitigating impacts to significant archaeological sites because it maintains the relationship between artifacts and the archaeological context, and may also help avoid conflict with religious or cultura l values of groups associated with the
archaeological sites.

More specifically, under CEQA, a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it may cause “a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource” (PRC Sectio n 21084.1; 14 CCR
15064.5[b]). If a site is either listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR, or if it is included in a local register of hist oric
resources or identified as significant in a historical resources survey (meeting the requirements of PRC Sec tion
5024.1[q]), it is a historical resource and is presumed to be historically or culturally significant for purposes of CEQA (PRC Section 21084.1; 14 CCR 15064.5[a]). The lead agency is not precluded from determining that a resource is a historical resou
rce even if it does not fall within this presumption (PRC Section 21084.1; 14 CCR 15064.5[a]).

CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / FINAL

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

170

JANUARY 2022

A “substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource” reflecting a significant effect under CEQA means “physical demolition, destruction,
relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired” (14 CCR 15064.5[b][1]; PRC Section 5020.1[q]). In turn, the significance of an historical resource is

materially impaired
when a project (14 CCR 15064.5[b][2]):



Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibil ity for, inclusion in
the California Register; or



Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to Section 5020.1(k) of the PRC or its

identification in an historical resources survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the PRC, unless the public agency reviewing the effects of the project establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the resource is not historically or cu
lturally significant; or



Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the California Register as deter
mined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA.

Pursuant to these sections, the CEQA inquiry begins with evaluating whether a project site contains any historical

resources, including tribal cultural

resources, then evaluates whether that project will cause a

substantial adverse
change in the significance of a historical resource such that the resource’s historical significance is materially impaired.

If it can be demonstrated that a project will cause damage to a unique archaeological resource, the lead agenc y
may require reasonable efforts be made to permit any or all of these resources to be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state. To the extent that they cannot be left undisturbed, mitigation measures are required (PRC Section 21083.2[a]
-
[c]).

P
RC Section 21083.2(g) defines a
unique archaeological resource

as an archaeological artifact, object, or site
about which it can be clearly demonstrated that without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets
any of the following criteria:



Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information.



Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or

the best available example
of its type.



Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.

Impacts to non
-
unique archaeological resources are generally not considered a significant environmental impact (PRC Section 21083.2[a]; 14 CCR 15064.5[c][4]). However, if a non -
unique archaeological resource qualifies as a
TCR (PRC Sections 21074[c] and 21
083.2[h]), further consideration of significant impacts is required.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 assigns special importance to human remains and specifies procedures to be used when Native American remains are discovered. These procedures are detailed

in PRC Section 5097.98.

CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / FINAL

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

171

JANUARY 2022

California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98

California law protects Native American burials, skeletal remains, and associated grave goods, regardless of their antiquity, and provides
for the sensitive treatment and disposition of those remains. California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that if human remains are discovered in any place other than a dedicated cemetery, no further disturbance or excavation of the site or n
earby area reasonably suspected to contain human remains shall occur until the county coroner has examined the remains (Section 7050.5(b)). PRC Section 5097.98 also outlines the process to be followed in the event that remains are discovered. If the corone r determines or has
reason to believe the remains are those of a Native American, the coroner must contact NAHC within 24 hours (Section 7050.5(c)). NAHC will notify the “most likely descendant.” With the permission of the landowner, the most likely descen
dant may inspect the site of discovery. The inspection must be completed within 48 hours of notification of the most likely descendant by NAHC. The most likely descendant may recommend means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human
remains, and items associated with Native Americans.

3.1 8
.3

Environmental Impacts

Potentially
Significant
Impact

Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No Impact

XV
I
II.

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically
defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:

a)

Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or i
n a
local register of historical resources as
defined in Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k), or

b)

A resource determined by the lead agency,
in its discretion and supported by
substantial
evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision
(c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1
?

In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resource
s

Code
Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the signifi
cance of the resource to
a California Native American tribe
.

CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / FINAL

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

172

JANUARY 2022

Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, de fined in
Public Resources Code s
ection 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:

a
)

Listed or e
ligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as de
fined in Public Resources Code s
ection 5020.1(k)
; and/or

b
)

A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be
significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 ?

In
applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency sh
all consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe ?

Less Than Significant Impact
.

It is not expected that TCRs would be disturbed as a result of implementation of the HEU, which in and of itself, does not require any constr uction activities and is merely
the adoption of a policy document. Furthermore, Manhattan Beach is virtually built out, and the potential for uncovering TCRs during any construction activity is considered remote (City of Manhattan Beach 2003).

Since the H
EU is a policy document, consisting of a housing program; no actual development is proposed as part of the HEU. Therefore, its adoption would not, in and of itself, produce environmental impacts.

Implementation of the programs contained in the HEU would ac commodate future development required
to meet the City’s
6 th

Cycle RHNA allocation
. The HEU would not change or alter state or federal policies to

protect tribal cultural resources. Potential environmental impacts to TCRs are location -
specific and cannot
b
e assessed in a meaningful way until the location of a project site is known. At such time as a development proposal is considered, that project would be subject to adopted development guidelines/standards, tribal consultation if required by tribes, and an
y impacts identified with the development project would be addressed through mitigation measures specific to the impact. As such, the HEU would result in less than significant impacts to tribal cultural resources, and no mitigation is required.

Pursuant to

California Assembly Bill (AB) 52 and Senate Bill (SB) 18, the City contacted th re
e Native
American individuals and/or tribal organizations

on August 4, 2021:



Andrew Salas, Chairperson, Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians, Kizh Nation



Kenneth Kahn, Tribal C
hairman, Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians



Joseph Ontiveros, Cultural Resources Director, Sobaba Band of Luiseño Indians

The
Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians
, responded on
August

9, 20201, and again on
August

23, 2021
,

stating that the Elders’ Council requested no further consultation on the HEU
but requested to be notified
of any changes in scope, or if supplementary literature reveals additional information. No further
communication was received by the
Santa Ynez Band

of Chumash Indians, or any other Native American
individuals and/or tribal organizations contacted on August 4, 2021.

CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / FINAL

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

173

JANUARY 2022

3.1 8
.4

References

Bean, Lowell J., and Florence C. Shipek. 1978. "Luiseño." In Handbook of North American Indians: Volume 8,
California
,

edited by Robert F. Hiezer, 550
-
563. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Boscana, Gerónimo. 1846.

Chinigchinich: a historical account of the origin, customs, and traditions of the Indians and the missionary establishment of St. Juan Capistrano, Alta California
. London: Dodo Press.

City of Manhattan Beach. 2003. Final Environmental Impact Report, Manhattan Beach General Plan. Accessed October 29,2021.

Geiger, Maynard, and Clement W. Meighan. 1976. As the padres saw them: California Indian life an d customs as
reported by the Franciscan Missionaries 1813
-
1815. Santa Barbara: Santa Barbara Mission Archive Library.

Harrington, John P. 1935. Fieldwork among the Indians of California. In: Explorations and Fieldwork of the Smithsonian Institution in 1934
, pp. 81
-

84. Washington, DC. 1985 John P. Harrington Papers.

Heizer, Robert F., and Karen M. Nissen 1973.

The human sources of California ethnography
. Berkeley: University
of California Archaeological Research Facility.

Heizer, Robert F. 1978. "Introduction." In
Handbook of North American Indians
, edited by Robert F. Heizer, 1
-

6. Washington: Smithsonian Institution.

Kroeber, Alfred J. 1925.

Handbook of the Indians of California.

Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78. D
over
Publications, Inc., New York.

3. 1
9 Utilities and Service Systems

3.1 9
.1

Environmental Setting

The City’s current service area
, as determined by the City’s Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) (2017) ,

covers
approximately 3.9 square
miles,

and encompasse
s
the majority of the City of Manhattan Beach. The City maintains the local water distribution, sewage collection, and storm drain systems. Water is purchased from wholesale providers, and the City is responsible for storage and distribution. Sewage collec ted in laterals and City trunk lines flows into regional lines maintained by the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County

(City of Manhattan Beach 2003)
. With regard to flood
control, City storm drains direct runoff into major County -
owned channels and o
ther facilities maintained by the Los
Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW)

(
City of Manhattan Beach 2003)
.

Manhattan Beach obtains water from three sources: (1) Metropolitan Water District (MWD) treated surface water from Northern California
and the Colorado River

Basin
, which is provided to the City by the West Basin Municipal Water District

(WBMWD)

and represents over
80 %

of the local water supply; (2) groundwater extracted by City -
owned and operated wells; and (3) reclaimed water supplied f or landscape irrigation from the West Basin Municipal
Water District. Manhattan Beach owns the right to pump 3.8 million gallons per year of groundwater from the West Coast Basin. Imported water flows to Manhattan Beach via 45 -
inch MWD line in Manhattan Be
ach Boulevard. (City
of Manhattan Beach 2003).

Over the past ten years, the City’s total water demands (including potable and recycled water) have ranged from 4,887 acre feet per year (AFY) to 5,896 AFY, with an average of 5,312 AFY.

CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / FINAL

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

174

JANUARY 2022

The City’s water
system consists of pump stations, storage reservoirs, an elevated storage tank, water supply wells, a settling basin, and approximately 112 miles of distribution pipelines

(City of Manhattan
B
each 2003)
. Given that
the

built
-
out nature of the City accommodates a very modest level of growth, these facilities will likely
not require
any substantial expansion to meet long term needs

(City of Manhattan Beach 2003)
. The City’s efforts focus on
maintenance and replacement as n
eeded. Pursuant to the Water Master Plan, the City replaced the deteriorating roof of the Peck Reservoir in 2000, extending the reservoir’s life by approximately 25

years (City of Manhattan
Beach 2003)
.

Wastewater treatment in the City is managed by the Lo
s Angeles County Sanitation Districts and
treated at the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant. In 2015, the total volume of wastewater collected form the City’s service area
was

3,340
-
acre

feet

(City of Manhattan Beach 2017)
.

Like most counties throughout t
he state, Los Angeles County is currently experiencing extreme drought conditions (NOAA/NIDIS 2021). In response to continued drought conditions, MWD’s Board of Directors declared a Water Supply Alert in August 2021, calling for consumers and businesses to

voluntarily reduce their water use and help
preserve the region’s storage reserves (City of Manhattan Beach 2021a). This declaration came less than a day after the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation declared a first
-
ever shortage in the Colorado River Basin (City

of Manhattan
Beach 2021a, BOR 2021). As a result, the City’s treated imported water supplies from MWD, through WBMWD, could be impacted during a multi
-
year drought or other conditions which limit MWD from delivering sufficient water supplies to all of its

member agencies, and consequently to the City (City of Manhattan Beach 2021a). The MWD has indicated that its supplies from the Colorado River will not be impacted in 2022 but may be impacted in 2023 and more likely in 2024, if the drought continues (City

of Manhattan Beach 2021a).

The City is in the process of preparing and updating their 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) to be in compliance with the UWMP Act (California Water Code Section 10610) and the Water Conservation Bill of 2009 (SBX7
-
7) (Ci
ty of Manhattan Beach 2021a).

The 2020 UWMP also
incorporates the City’s Water Shortage
Contingency Plan

(WSCP)
, which details how the City responds in the event of a declared water emergency or water shortage conditions
. According to the draft
2020
UWMP
,
the
City
has
reviewed its historical water demands to
determine the projected water demands and water supply reliability

and
determined that the City is able to provide
sufficient water supplies to meet the projected water demands of its customers, includi ng during a five consecutive
year drought period (City of Manhattan Beach 2021a
)
.
)
.
)
.

3.1 9
.2

Regulatory Setting

Federal

Clean Water Act

The federal Clean Water Act, United States Code, Title 33, Sections 1251 et seq. requires that wastewater be treated pri
or to being discharged to waters of the United States. The Clean Water Act is described in further detail in Section
3 .10, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this
ND
.

State

Porter
-
Cologne Water Quality Control Act

In California, the State Water Resources Control Board and nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) are responsible for implementing the Clean Water Act and the California Porter -
Cologne Water Quality Co
ntrol Act
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / FINAL

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

175

JANUARY 2022

(Porter
-
Cologne Act). The Porter
-
Cologne Act authorizes the State Water Resources Control Board to implement programs to control polluted discharges into
S
tate
waters. In compliance with the Porter
-
Cologne Act, the nine
RWQCBs establish the waste
water concentrations of a number of specific hazardous substances in treated wastewater discharge.

Sanitary Sewer General Waste Discharge Requirements

On May 2, 2006, the State Water Resources Control Board adopted a General Waste Discharge Requirement ( Order
No. 2006
-
0003) for all publicly owned sanitary sewer collection systems in California with more than one

mile of
sewer pipe. The order provides a consistent statewide approach to reducing sanitary sewer overflows by requiring public sewer system oper
ators to take all feasible steps to control the volume of waste discharged into the system in order to prevent sanitary sewer waste from entering the storm sewer system, and to develop a Sewer System Management Plan. The General Waste Discharge Requirement s also requires that storm sewer overflows be
reported to the State Water Resources Control Board using an online reporting system.

Chapter 727, Statutes of 2005
–

Water and Sewer Service Priority

Chapter 727, Statutes of 2005 (SB 1087) establishes process es to ensure the effective implementation of
Government Code Section 65589.7
, the statue requiring preparation of the housing element component off a General Plan
. This statute requires local governments to provide a copy of the adopted housing element to water
and sewer providers. In addition, water and sewer providers must grant priority for service allocations to proposed developments that include
residential dwelling

units affordable to lower
-
income households.

Regional/Local

Water Quality Control Plan
s (Basin Plans)

The Porter
-
Cologne Act, Section 13000, directs each RWQCB to develop a water quality control plan (Basin Plan) for all areas within its region. The Basin Plan is the basis for each RWQCB’s regulatory program. The City

is within
the purview
of the Los Angeles RWQCB (Region 4), and future development facilitated by the HEU must comply with applicable elements of the Basin Plan for Region 4. The Basin Plan gives direction on the beneficial uses of S
tate
waters, describes the water quality that
must be maintained, and provides programs necessary to achieve the standards established in the Basin Plans.

City of Manhattan Beach Master Plans

Wastewater

System Master Plan (2010)

The objective of the Wastewater Master Plan is to evaluate the City’s sewer collection system to provide a framework
for undertaking the construction of new and replacement facilities for the service area in an efficient and cost effective manner. It is designed to aid the City in meeting some of the requirements of t he Statewide General Waste
Discharge Requirements issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board in 2006.

Water Master Plan (2010)

The purpose of the Water Master Plan (WMP) is to periodically evaluate the City’s water system and provide a f
ramework for undertaking the construction of new and replacement facilities for serving the water supply and CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / FINAL

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

176

JANUARY 2022

distribution needs in an efficient manner. The WMP report presents the methodology, analyses, findings, and recommendations of a comprehensive stud
y of the City’s potable water system and describes the water system supplied by the West Basin Municipal Water District.

Draft
20 20

Urban Water Management Plan (20
21 )

The
City

is a water supplier and is required to prepare an Urban Water Management Plan ( UWMP) in accordance
with the California Urban Water Management Planning Act (UWMP Act) (
California Water Code Section 10610
) and
t
he Water Conservation Bill of 2009 (SBX7
-
7)

The Act requires every “urban water supplier” to prepare and adopt a Plan, periodically review its Plan at least once every five years and make any amendments or changes which are indicated by the review. Pursuant to California Water Code Section 10617, a n “Urban Water Supplier” is defined as
a
supplier
, either publicly or privately owned, providing water for municipal purposes either directly or indirectly to more than 3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 acre -
feet of water annually. The primary o
bjective of the
UWMP Act is to direct urban water suppliers to evaluate their existing water conservation efforts and, to the extent practicable, review and implement alternative and supplemental water conservation measures. The UWMP Act is directed primar
ily at retail water purveyors where programs can be immediately affected upon the consumer.

The City

is in the process of preparing and updating the 2020
UWMP (City of Manhattan Beach 2021).

Projected
population in the City’s service area is based on proje ctions obtained from SCAG’s 2020
-
2045 RTP/SCS (City of
Manhattan Beach 2021). The SCAG data incorporates demographic trends, existing land use, general plan land use policies, and input and projections from the Department of Finance and the U.S. Census Bur eau.

City of Manhattan Beach General Plan

Goal I
-
7:

Maintain and protect a reliable and
cost
-
effective

water supply system capable of adequately meeting
normal demand and emergency demand in the City.

Policy I
-

7.1 :

Periodically evaluate the entire water supply and distribution system to ensure its continued adequacy, reliability, and safety.

Policy I
-

7.2:

Ensure that all new development or expansion of existing facilities bears the cost of providing adequate water service to meet the increased demand which it generates.

Policy I
-

7.3:

Educate the public in the importance of water conservation and require ne w development to
comply with local and state codes for water conservation.

Policy I
-

7.4:

Support expanded use of reclaimed water.

Policy I
-

7.5:

S
upport the exploration of the feasibility of desalinated seawater as a reliable potable water source.

Goal I
-
8:

Maintain a sewage system adequate to protect the health and safety of all Manhattan Beach residents and businesses.

Policy I
-

8.1:

Evaluate the sewage disposal system periodically to ensure its adequacy to meet changes in demand and changes in types of
waste.

CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / FINAL

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

177

JANUARY 2022

Policy I
-

8.2:

Ensure that all new development or expansion of existing facilities bears the cost of expanding the sewage disposal system to handle the increased load, which they are expected to handle.

Goal I
-
12:

Protect the quality of the environme
nt by managing the solid waste generated in the community.

Policy I
-

12.1:

Encourage maximum recycling in all sectors of the community, including residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, and the construction industry.

Policy I
-

12.3:

Encourage th
e maximum diversion of construction and demolition materials.

3.1 9
.3

Environmental Impacts

Potentially
Significant
Impact

Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No Impact

X
IX
.

UTILITIES AND SERVICE

SYSTEMS

–

Would the project:

a)

Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of wh
ich could
cause significant environmental effects?

b)

Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during
normal, dry, and multiple dry years?

c)

Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may
serve the project that it has
adequate
capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s
existing commitments?

d)

Generate solid waste in excess of State or
local standards, or in excess of the
capacity of
local infrastructure, or
otherwise impair the attainment of solid
waste reduction goals?

e)

Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?

CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / FINAL

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

178

JANUARY 2022

a)

Would the project require
or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects ?

Less Than Significant Impact
.

Pursuant to Chapter 727, Statutes of
2005 (SB 1087) the City is
required to deliver its adopted Housing Element and any amendments thereto to local water and sewer service providers. This legislation allows for coordination between the City and water and sewer providers when considering appro
val of new residential projects. The City is the direct provider of water, sewer, and storm drain maintenance. As such, the City will internally coordinate with the Public Works Department for review and consideration when reviewing new residential project s. Program 2
4 , Priority Services, of
the proposed HEU would require coordination with the City of Manhattan Beach Public Works Department to ensure that adopted policies prioritize water and sewer allocation for affordable housing development facilitated
by the HEU.

All
existing capacity
parcels selected in the HEU sites analysis were reviewed for any known environmental constraints, sewer and water capacity, and dry utilities. The sites included in the existing sites inventory all
have

access to existing
sewer and water capacity, dry utilities, and are not constrained by known site -
specific or environmental constraints that would limit development.

Potential

sites in the CG and PD
Districts that require an overlay or rezoning to permit residential uses wer e also included in the site analysis
based on the Adequate Sites Program included in the
HEU

required to address a RHNA shortfall.

While some
potential

sites for rezoning do not meet the underutilized criteria

(particularly related to
inappropriate zoning
)
, any
future

rezoning

or residential
development facilitated by the HEU w
ould require
further review under CEQA, which would include a requirement to determine if the project would require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded wat er, wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities.

Goals and policies provided for in
the General Plan also explicitly require the City to plan for and have the capacity to respond to fluctuatin g
levels of utilities demand.

For example,
Goals I
-
8 and Policies I
-
8 -
1 and I
-
8 -
2 of the General Plan

require
that the City maintain a sewage system adequate to protect the health and safety of all Manhattan Beach residents. This includes
conducting periodic evaluation of the sewage disposal system to ensure its adequacy to meet changes in demand, as well as ensuring that all new development or expansion of existing facilities bears the cost of expanding the sewage disposal system to handle

the increased load
.

Further, Goal I
-
7 mandates the p
rovision of a reliable and cost effective water supply system capable of adequately meeting normal demand and emergency demand
w
hile Polic
y

I
-

7.2 require
s

periodic evaluation
of the entire water distribu
tion system, and would ensure
that all new development or expansion of existing
facilities bears the cost of providing adequate water service to meet the increased demand which it generates

(City of Manhattan Beach 2003).

These
goals and
policies are suppo
rted and facilitated by the
MBMC

requirements, as per the General Plan.

The HEU is a policy document, consisting of a housing program; no actual development
is proposed as
part of the update. Therefore, its adoption would not, in and o
f
itself, produce environmental impacts.

Implementation of the programs contained in the
HEU
would accommodate

future

development
required to meet the City’s
6 th

Cycle RHNA allocation
. The development anticipated by the HEU would
occur primarily on infill sites already served by well
-
established utilities service systems and are
unlikely to require expansion of existing systems or the construction of new systems. However, project level

review
of future development anticipated by the HEU,
as required under CEQA
,

would ensure that
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / FINAL

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

179

JANUARY 2022

all impacts to the existing utilities facilities are less than significant. The HEU would not change or alter policies related to utilities and system services.

Therefore, impacts

from the
HEU

would be less than
significant, and no mitigation is required
.

b
)

Would the project have sufficient
water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple

dry years
?

Less Than Significant Impact
.

The City’s water supply sources include treated groundwater through the West Coast

Basin

(WCB)
, treated imported water purchased from MWD through WBMWD, and recycled

water supplies from WBMWD

(City of Manhattan Bea
ch 2021a)
. The City’s main source of water supply is
purchased

imported water from MWD through WBMWD

(City of Manhattan Beach 2021a).

As discussed
above in Section 3.1
9 .
1 , Environmental Setting, the

Bureau of Reclamation declared a first
-
ever
water
shortage in the Colorado River Basin

(BOR 2021).

The
MWD has indicated that its supplies from the
Colorado
R
iver will not be impacted in 2022 but may be impacted in 2023 and more likely in 2024, if the drought continues (City of Manhattan Beach 2021a).

As
such,
i
mported water supplies

to the City, through
WBMWD,
may be impacted in the event MWD implements its
Water Supply Allocation Plan (WSAP)

due to
a water supply

shortage.

The WSAP provides a means of equitably

providing reduced water supplies to each
of

MWD’s member agencies for up to 10 levels

of reduction representing up to a 50
%

reductio
n (City of
Manhattan Beach 2021a). Among other things, the WSAP would i mplement higher rates for increased use
among its

member
agencies, including the WBWMD and by ex
tension, the City (City of Manhattan Beach
2021a).

In the event the WSAP is implemented

by the MWD
, the City has prepared a Water Shortage
Contingency Plan (WSCP) in tandem with the 2020 UWMP update (City of Manhattan Beach
2021a). The

City’s plan for wate
r usage during periods of shortage is designed to

incorporate six standard water
shortage levels corresponding to progressive ranges from

up to 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50
% s
hortages and
greater than a 50
%
shortag
e (City of Manhattan Beach 2021a). A full listin
g of all the restrictions and
prohibitions associated with each shortage level is provided in Section 8.4.1 of the City’s draft 2020 UWMP (
City of Manhattan Beach 2021a). The WSCP also includes permanent water conservation measures related to landscaping i
rrigation, cleaning and car washing, decorative water features, eating and drinking establishments, hotels, and commercial establishments (City of Manhattan Beach 2021a).

As discussed above, imported water from the MWD is not the City’s sole water supply s ource.

The City

also

extracts water from the Silverado aquifer of the
WCB, where it has an

adjudicated right of

approximated
1,130

AFY
.

In addition, t
he
WCB

Judgment
,
amended in September 2014
,
allows up to an additional
10,000 acre
-
feet of
emergency pumping over a four (4) month period in the

WCB

under specified
conditions
, which must be shared across all
p
arties of the WCB Judgment, including the City.

I
n

addition to
groundwater, t
he City has
purchased fr
o
m the WBMWD and
supplied recycled w
ater to customers for non
-
potable irrigation uses since

1995

(City of Manhattan Beach 2021a).

The City has

coordinated the
preparation of its 2020
UWMP

with WBMWD
, and
will continue to

coordinate with WBMWD and take
advantage of opportunities to expand rec
ycled water

facilities throughout its borders to allow for
optimization of recycled water use within the

City

(City of Manhattan Beach 2021a
)
.

T
he City
has also
adopted a revised Water Conservation
Ordinance,
which is

actively enforced during
drought situations and specifies water conservation

requirements. Enforcement includes patrolling to
educate customers and if necessary,

issuing warnings and citations for violations. All citations and violations are reported

annually

(City of Manhattan
B
each 2021a).

A
ccording to the draft 2020 UWMP, the
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / FINAL

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

180

JANUARY 2022

City has determined that
it is

able to provide sufficient water supplies to meet the projected water demands of its customers, including during a five consecutive year drought period (City of Manhattan Bea ch 2021a)
.

Ultimately, the

HEU is a policy document, consisting of a housing program; no actual development
is
proposed as part of the update. Therefore, its adoption would not, in and of
itself, produce environmental
impacts. Implementation of the program
s contained in the
HEU
would accommodate
future
development
required to meet the City’s
6 th

Cycle RHNA allocation
. The development anticipated by the HEU would occur
primarily on infill sites already served by well
-
established utilities service systems and

is
unlikely to require
expansion of existing systems or the construction of new systems. However, project level review as required under CEQA

would ensure that all impacts to the existing utilities facilities are less than significant. The HEU would not c
hange or alter policies related to utilities and system services

and the City would therefore
have sufficient water supplies for the project and reasonably foreseeable future development pursuant to the project.

Therefore, impacts

from the
HEU

would be les
s than significant, and no mitigation is required
.

c)

Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?

Less

Than Significant Impact.

The City owns, operates, and maintains
its

local
wastewater

collection

and pumping system. Collected effluent is treated at the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP)

in

th
e
City of

Carson, operated by the
Los Angeles County Sanitation District
s

(LACSD)
. According to the General
Plan, the collection system
adequately
serves the City. The City has undertaken a complete inspection of the entire system via videotaping, and priorities for line replacement have been established to ensure long -
term reliability (City of Manhattan Beach 2003).

In 2015, LACSD’s JWPCP
had

a trea
tment capacity of
approximately
400
million gallons per day

and the total volume of wastewater collected form the City’s service area was
3,340
-
acre

feet
, or approximately 2,981,759 gallons per day
(City of Manhattan Beach
2017), which represent
ed

less tha
n 1%

(or approximately

0 .75%
)

of
the
total
JMPCP
capacity.
13 As such,
it is unlikely that the
increased demand on the wastewater system associated with 774
required RHNA
units would have a
substantial impact, given that the City’s historic total annual generation represents only
a small fraction of the treatment provider’s total capacity (

0.75 %).

13 The total collected wastewater from the City was converted from 3,340 acre feet per year to gallons per day by multiplying th e
volume over time value by 893, resu
lting in
2 ,
981
,
759

acre feet per year. The acre feet value was then divided by the total capacity of the JWPCP to arrive at .75%.

CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / FINAL

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

181

JANUARY 2022

The HEU is a policy document, consisting of a housing program; no actual development
is proposed as part
of the update. Therefore, its adoption would not
, in
and of
itself, produce environmental impacts.

Implementation of the programs contained in the
HEU
would accommodate
future
development required
to meet the
City’s
6 th

Cycle RHNA allo
cation
. The development anticipated by the HEU would occur primarily on infill sites already served by well
-
established utilities service systems and are unlikely to require expansion of existing systems or the construction of new systems. However, project level review as required under CEQA would ensure that all impacts to

the existing utilities facilities
, including facilities maintained
by the wastewater treatment provider,

are less than significant. The HEU would not change or alter policies related to
wastewater treatment systems or services
. Therefore, impacts

from the

HEU

would be less than
significant, and no mitigation is required.

d
)

Would the project
generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals
?

Less Than Significant
Impact
.

Goal

I
-
12 of the
City’s
General Plan mandates
the City protect

the quality
of the environment by managing the solid waste generated in the community

(City of Manhattan Beach
2003)
. This mandate is suppor
ted by Policies I
-
12 .
1 and

I
-
12 .3
, which encourage maximum recycling in all
sectors of the community, including residential developments, and encouraging maximum diversion of construction and demolition materials
.

The HEU is a policy document, consisting
of a housing program; no actual
development

is proposed as part of
the update. Therefore, its adoption would not, in
and of
itself, produce environmental impacts. Implementation
of the programs contained in the
HEU
would accommodate
future
development required to meet the City’s
6 th

Cycle RHNA allocation
. The development anticipated by the HEU would occur primarily on infill sites already served by well
-
established utilities service systems and are unlikely to require expansion of existing s ystems or
the construction of new systems. However, project level review as required under CEQA would ensure that all impacts to the existing utilities facilities, including waste management facilities, are less than significant. The HEU would not change o
r alter policies related to waste management system services. Therefore, impacts

from
the
HEU

would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

e
)

Would the project comply
with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and re
gulations related to solid waste?

Less Than Significant Impact
.

The HEU is a policy document, consisting of a housing program; no actual development

is proposed as part of the update. Therefore, its adoption would not, in

and of
itself, produce
environmen
tal impacts. Implementation of the programs contained in the HEU

would accommodate
future
development required to meet the City’s
6 tth

Cycle
RHNA allocation
. The development anticipated by the
HEU would occur primarily on infill sites already served by well -
established utilities service systems
which

are unlikely to require expansion of existing systems or the construction of new systems

(City of Manhattan
Be
ach 2003)
.

Any future development projects facilitated by the HEU

would
be required to
comply with
all
applicable federal,
State
, and local regulations to avoid potential impacts related to the solid waste

facilities
, and project level review as required u
nder CEQA would ensure that all impacts to the existing utilities facilities, including
solid waste

facilities, are less than significant.

Approval of the
HEU

itself, as a
policy document, would not change these regulations, and would not provide any goals , policies, or
programs that would result
in incompliance with
the
applicable regulatory environment
. Therefore, impacts

from the
HEU

related
solid waste
would be less than significant
,

and no mitigation is required.

CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / FINAL

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

182

JANUARY 2022

3.1 9
.4

References

BOR (U.S
.

Bureau of R
eclamation). 2021.

Reclamation announces 2022 operating conditions for Lake Powell and Lake Mead
.

August 16, 2021. Accessed October 7, 2021. https://www.usbr.gov/newsroom/#

/news
-
release/3950
.

City of Manhattan Beach. 20

03. City of Manhattan Beach General Plan. Accessed October 3, 2021. https://www.manhattanbeach.gov/departments/community
-
development/planning
-
zoning

/general
-
plan/final
-
general
-
plan
.

City of Manhattan Beach. 2017. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. Accessed

October 3, 2021.
https://www.manhattanbeach.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/34878/636547389049430000 .

City of Manhattan Beach. 2021a. 2020 Urban Water Manage ment Plan (Draft). Accessed October 7, 2021.
https://www.manhattanbeach.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/48186/637698204957230000 .

City of Manhattan Beach 2021b. Notice of Public Hearing: 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and Water Shortage Contingency

Plan. Accessed October 7, 2021.
https://www.manhattanbeach.gov

/Home/Components/News/News/4957/43
.

NOAA (National Oceanic
and

Atmospheric Administration)/ NIDIS (National
Integrated Drought Information
System
)
. 2021.

Current U.S. Drought Monitor Condition
s for California
. Accessed October 7, 2021.
https://www.drought.gov/states/california
.

3. 20

Wildfire

3. 20
.1

Environmental Setting

Per
Cal
ifornia Government Code
Section 51177
A
,

a wildfire is an
unplanned, unwanted wildland fire

(i.e. a fire that
originates in a non
-
built environment)
, including unauthorized human
-
caused fires, escaped wildland fire use
events, escaped prescribed fire
events
, and all other wildland fires where the objective is to extinguish the fire .

A
wildland
-
u
rban interface

(WUI)

is an area where urban development is
adjacent or in clos
e

proximity

to open space
or “wildland” areas

(FEMA 2021). CAL FIRE has mapped areas of significant fire hazards in the State
, which
recognizes area
s

prone to
wildfire

hazards. According to the City’s General Plan, due to the City’s built out nature and urbanized adjacent communities, u
rban fires represent the sole fire threat in
the City
.

3. 20
.2

Regulatory Setting

Federal

Federal Response Plan

The Federal Response Pla
n of 1999 is a signed agreement among 27 federal departments and agencies, including the American Red Cross, that provides the mechanism for coordinating delivery of federal assistance and resources to augment efforts of state and local governments overwhe lmed by a major disaster or emergency; supports
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / FINAL

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

183

JANUARY 2022

implementation of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Act, as well as individual agency statutory authorities; and supplements other federal emergency operations plans developed to address sp ecific hazards.

The Federal Response Plan is implemented in anticipation of a significant event likely to result in a need for federal assistance or in response to an actual event requiring federal assistance under a presidential declaration of a major dis
aster or emergency (County of Los Angeles 2014).

State

California Health and Safety Code Section 13000 et seq.

State fire regulations are set forth in Section 13000 et seq. of the California Health and Safety Code, which include regulations concerning buil
ding standards (as also set forth in the California Building Code [CBC] noted below), fire protection and notification systems, fire protection devices such as extinguishers and smoke alarms, high -
rise
building and
childcare

facility standards, and fire su
ppression training. The State Fire Marshal enforces these regulations and building standards in all
S
tate
-
owned buildings,
S
tate
-
occupied buildings, and
S
tate
institutions
throughout California.

California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 2

The State of
California provided a minimum standard for building design through the 2019 CBC, which is located in Part 2 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. This part incorporates by adoption the 2018

International
Building Code

of the

International Code

Council

with necessary California amendments.

It is generally adopted on
a jurisdiction
-
by
-
jurisdiction basis, subject to further modification based on local conditions. Commercial and residential buildings are plan
-
checked by local city and county buildi
ng officials for compliance with the CBC. Typical
fire safety requirements of the CBC include the installation of sprinklers in all high -
rise buildings; the establishment
of fire resistance standards for fire doors, building materials, and particular types

of construction; and the clearance
of debris and vegetation within a prescribed distance from occupied structures in wildlife hazard areas.

California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 9

Part 9 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations refers to the 2019 California Fire Code, which contains fire
-
safety
-
related building standards referenced in other parts of Title 24. This code is preassembled with the 2000 Uniform Fire Code of the Western Fire Chiefs Association. This part incorporates by adoption

the 2018

California
Fire Code

of the International Code Council with necessary California amendments.

California Public Resources Code Sections 4201
–
4204

This section of the California
Public Resources Code was amended in 1982 to require the California Department of Forestry to classify all State Responsibility Areas (SRAs) into fire hazard severity zones (FHSZs). The purpose of this code is to provide classification of lands within SRAs

in accordance with the severity of fire hazard present for the purpose of identifying measures to be used to retard the rate of spreading and to reduce the potential intensity of uncontrolled fires that threaten to destroy resources, life, or property.

CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / FINAL

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

184

JANUARY 2022

St
ate Responsibility Area Fire Safe Regulations (Title 14 Natural Resources, Department of Forestry and Fire Protection)

These regulations constitute the basic wildland fire protection standards of the California Board of Forestry. They have been prepared an
d adopted for the purpose of establishing minimum wildfire protection standards in conjunction with building, construction, and development in SRAs. Title 14 mandates that the future design and construction of structures, subdivisions, and developments in an SRA provide for basic emergency access and
perimeter wildfire protection measures.

Local/Regional

Fire Hazard Severity Zones

According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) (2021) while most of California is subject to
some degree of fire hazard, there are specific features that make some areas more hazardous. CAL FIRE is required by law to map areas of significant fire hazards based on fuels, terrain, weather, and other relevant factors. These designations, referred to
as Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ), mandate how people construct buildings and protect property to reduce risk associated with wildland fires. The maps were last updated in 2007 -
2010. They are currently being updated to incorporate improved fire science,

data and mapping techniques. The
proposed Fire Hazard Severity Zone maps denote lands of similar hazards where the state has financial responsibility for wildland fire protection, known as state responsibility area or SRA, and will be available for review

and public comment. It is anticipated that in late 2020 or 2021 CAL FIRE will produce Fire Hazard Severity Zone maps for the areas of California where local governments have financial responsibility for wildland fire protection, known as Local Responsibil
ity Area or LRA. Per law, only lands zoned as Very High Fire Hazard Severity are identified within local responsibility areas (CAL FIRE 2021a)
.

Local

City of
Manhattan

Beach General P
l
an

T
he following General Plan goals and policies are applicable to the HEU related to wildland fires.

Goal CS
-
1:

Minimize the risks to public health, safety, and welfare resulting from natural and human caused hazards.

Policy CS
-

1.1:

Prepare and
disseminate information to residents and

businesses on preparing for and
responding to natural

disasters and threats to public safety.

Policy CS
-

1.2:

Encourage and assist the school district in teaching

children annually to respond
appropriately in an

emer
gency and to threats to personal safety.

Policy CS
-

1.3:

Ensure that public and private water distribution and

supply facilities have adequate
capacity and reliability

to supply both everyday and emergency fire
-
fighting

needs

Goal CS
-
3:

Maintain a high leve
l of City emergency response services.

Policy CS
-

3.1:

Support the continued active enforcement of the building and fire code.

CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / FINAL

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

185

JANUARY 2022

Policy CS
-

3.3:

Inform all residents of the requirements for visible and clearly legible street numbers to minimize the response t
ime of emergency personnel.

Policy CS
-

3.4 Ensure that street signs are legible and easy to find by both emergency response personnel and the general public.

Policy CS
-

3.5:

Review the City’s emergency equipment and shelters periodically to ensure that they are
adequate to meet the needs of changing land uses and development and types of disasters.

Policy CS
-

3.6:

Review the location, size, and equipment at each designated emergency shelter periodically to ensure that the City will be able to accommodate all p eople likely to need shelter in the event of
a disaster.

Policy CS
-

3.7:

S
upport the use of the best available equipment and facilities to ensure safety that meets the changing needs of the community.

Policy CS
-

3.9 Continue to upgrade the quality of emergen
cy response through continued education and
training of emergency response personnel.

Policy CS
-

3.10:

Strive to reduce emergency response time

3. 20
.3

Environmental Impacts

Potentially
Significant
Impact

Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No Impact

XX.

WILDFIRE

–

If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:

a)

Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?

b)

Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and
thereby expose project occupants to,
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or
the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?

c)

Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads,
fuel breaks, emergency water sources,
power lines or other utilities) that may
exacerbate fire risk or that may
result in
temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?

CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / FINAL

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

186

JANUARY 2022

Potentially
Significant
Impact

Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No Impact

d)

Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff,
post
-
fire slope instability, or drainage
changes?

a)

Would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan
;

b)

Due to
slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, would the project exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire
;

c
)

Would the project
require the installat
ion or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines
,

or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment ; and/or

d
)

Would the
project
expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post
-
fire slope instability, or drainage changes?

No Impact
.

B
ased on the CAL FIRE’s Fire Hazard Severity Zones maps
(CAL FIRE 2021), the City, is not
located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ). As such,
risk of wildlife fires

is essentially non
-
existent
. Additionally, the HEU is a policy document
an
d adoption would not, in and of itself, result in negative environmental impacts. implementation

of the
programs contained in the HEU would accommodate future development required to meet the City’s RHNA
allocation
. However, given that no portions of the C
ity lie within VHFHSZ, no impacts would occur.

3. 20
.4

References

CAL FIRE (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection). 2021 a. Fire Hazard Severity Zone.
https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/wildfire
-
planning
-
engineering/wildfire
-
prevention
-
engineering

/fire
-
hazard
-
severity
-
zones
.

CAL FIRE 2021
b
. Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. Accessed October 2, 2021. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/.

City of Manhattan Beach. 2003. General Plan. Adopted 1988. Updated 2003. Accessed October 2, 2021. https://www.manhattanbeach.gov/departments/community
-
development/planning
-
zoning

/general
-
plan/final
-
general
-
plan
.

FEMA (Fede
ral Emergency Management Agency). 2021. Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). Accessed October 5, 2021. https://www.usfa.fema.gov/wui/.

CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / FINAL

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

187

JANUARY 2022

3. 2
1 Mandatory Findings of Significance

Potentially
Significant
Impact

Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorpor
ated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No Impact

XX
I
.

MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

a)

Does the project have the potential to
substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below self
-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, substantially
reduce the number or restrict the range of a
rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of th
e major
periods of California history or prehistory?

b)

Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable”

means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects
.
)

c)

Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?

a)

Does the project have the potential to
substantially
degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self -
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially
reduce the nu
mber or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

Less than Significant Impact
.

As discussed in Section 3.4, Biological Resources, of this IS/ND, the

City
is completely developed and does not support sensitive vegetation, sensitive wildlife species, or sensitive habitat. Additionally, the no area of the City functions as a corridor for the movement of native or migratory wildlife. All future activities

associated with the HEU would be conducted in the highly urbanized environment of the
City
. Construction noise
related to projects accommodated by the HEU
ha
v
e

the
potential to disturb nesting birds potentially nesting in the trees and vegetation. However , these impacts
would be temporary in nature and would
address via compliance with the MBTA, which protects all migratory birds, including their eggs, nests, and feathers.

Further, a
s described in Section 3.5 of this IS/ND,
the
City

does not support any ex
amples of major periods in California prehistory. However, the City does
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / FINAL

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

188

JANUARY 2022

contain
a number of

notable historic features, such as the Manhattan Beach State Pier , and historic
residences such as Scott House and 2820 Highland Avenue .

These feature
s

would be pr
otected via
compliance with existing
S
tate, and local regulations, including relevant CEQA statues and guidelines.

A
s

discussed throughout
this IS
/ND, the HEU is a policy document and adoption of the HEU alone would not produce environmental impacts. Alth
ough implementation of the programs contained in the HEU would accommodate

future

development required to meet the City’s
6 th

Cycle
, the
HEU
does not identify, describe,
promote, entitle, or permit any particular residential development project. While a re zoning program is
identified within the HEU, the actual rezoning of property within the City to accommodate RHNA allocations would occur at a future date and is not one of the discretionary actions being undertaken at this time.

As
such, after compliance w
ith the existing regulatory environment applicable to cultural and biological resources, the
HEU

would not substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife popula tion to drop below self
-
sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory. Impacts would be less than
significant, and n
o mitigation is required.

The HEU does not change the allowed densities or type of development that may occur within the City at this time. The act of adopting the HEU does not, therefore,

have the potential to result in environmental
impacts, either limited or cumulative,

affecting habitat; plant or animal communities; rare, endangered or threatened species; or historic resources. As discussed in Sections 3.1 through 3.19 of this IS/ND, im pacts
associated with the adoption of the HEU would either result in no impacts or less than significant impacts.

As such, the HEU would not substantially degrade the quality of the environment, reduce habitat, cause habitat population decline, threaten pl
ant and animal communities or substantially reduced the range of a species, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California’s history or prehistory.

Therefore, impacts from the HEU would be less than significant, and no mitigation is req uired.

b
)

Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects
.
)

Less than Significant Impact
.

The HEU would not result in potentially significant project -
level impacts.

As discussed throughout this IS/ND, the HEU is a policy document and adoption of the HEU alone would
not produce environmental impacts. Although implementation of the programs contained in the HEU would accommodate future development required to meet the City’s 6 th

Cycle RHNA allocation
, the HEU does not
identi
fy, describe, promote, entitle, or permit any particular residential development project. While a rezoning program is identified within the HEU, the actual rezoning of property within the City to accommodate RHNA allocations would occur at a future date an d is not one of the discretionary actions
being undertaken at this time.

All reasonably foreseeable future
cumulative
development in the City would be subject to the same land use and environmental regulations that have been described throughout this docu ment. Furthermore, all
development projects are guided by the policies identified in the City’s General Plan and by the regulations established in the
MBMC
. Therefore, compliance with applicable land use and environmental regulations w
ould ensure that environmental effects associated with
the accommodation of future housing
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / FINAL

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

189

JANUARY 2022

development

would not combine with effects from reasonably

foreseeable future development

in the City
to cause cumulatively considerable significant impacts. Cumulat ive impacts would therefore be less than
significant. No mitigation is required.

c
)

Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

Less than Significant
Impact
.

As detailed throughout this IS/ND, the HEU in and of itself would not exceed any significance thresholds or result in significant impacts in the environmental categories typically associated with indirect or direct effects to human beings, such as aesthetics, air quality, hazards and
hazardous materials, noise, public services, or transportation. The HEU does not change the allowed densities or type of development that may occur within the City at this time. The act of adopting the HEU does not, the
refore, have the potential to result in environmental impacts, either limited or cumulative,

affecting human beings. As discussed in Sections 3.1 through 3.20 of this IS/ND, impacts associated with the adoption of the HEU would either result in no impacts or less than significant impacts. As such, the HEU
would not have environmental effects causing substantial adverse effects on humans, impacts from the HEU would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / FINAL

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

190

JANUARY 2022

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

13562

191

JANUARY 2022

4 Preparers

4. 1

List of Preparers

Dudek

Nicole Cobleigh
,
Project Manager

Samantha Robinson, Environmental Planner

Jennifer Reed
, Air Quality Service Manager

Ian

McIntire, Air Resources Specialist

CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE /

INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

192

JANUARY 2022

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page | E-27 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix E: Sites Analysis

Figure 4. Sites to Accommodate Lower-Income Shortfall and Buffer Path: \\dudek.int\data\GISData\Projects\j1356201\DOCUMENT\CEQASOURCE: City of Manhattan BeachPotential Sites to Accommodate Lower-Income ShortfallIS/NDManhattan Beach Housing Element UpdateFIGURE CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE /

INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

194

JANUARY 2022

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Path: \\dudek.int\data\GISData\Projects\j1356201\DOCUMENT\SOURCE: City of Manhattan Beach FIGURE 2.3-1Area District MapIS/ND Manhattan Beach Housing Element Update CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE /

INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

196

JANUARY 2022

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

AVENUE

STREETAVENUEAVENUEAVENUEAVENUEAVENUEAVENUETENNYSON
STREETSANTACRUZ6THPENNEKAMPSTREETSTREETSTREET27TH STREETSTREETSTREETAVENUEGRENA DA CTCATA LINACTL AGUNA CT.M AIN RE C.AREASA NTAROSACORDOB ACT.CAYME N CTM ARINCTROSECRANS 11TH10TH9TH8TH6THSTREETSTREETSTREETSTREETSTREETSTREETSTREETSTREETAVEAVEAVEAVEMARINEAV EN UEMARINEPRIVA TE STRE ET RHCLRMPSPSPSMIRA COSTAHIGH SCHOOLPENNEKAMPSCHOOLRHCGRS-D7RSRSPSPSRMCGOSPDCGCGCLOSMA NHATTAN HEIGHTSPARKCGPSPSRHRH-D2RHCGOSLARSSONSTREETPAR KRMRSOSCLCLCGCGPSRSCENTER SCHOOLMANHATTANBEACH MIDDLESCHOOLROBERT E. BEGGSCHOOLMEADOW SSCHOOLPOLLIW OGPARKPSPSPSPSOSRMRHRHOSIPPDPDOSOSRSRPDCCCGMANHATTAN VILLAGE MALLGOLFCOURSERSCMAN HATTAN VILLAGEFIELDMARINE AVENUEPARKMARINE SPORTS COMPLEXRSRSRHRMRS-D4RS-D4RS-D6RS-D6RS-D4RSRSCRS-D1PSOSPSRM-D1RMOSRHRHRSCNE-D5CNEGRANDVIEWSCHOOLLADERASCHOOLSAN DDUNEPARKNATIONAL GUARDARMORYPUBLICWORKSYARDOSCULIACANPARKPSCLRMRS-D3LIVE OAKPARKOSAREA IIICIVIC CENTERPSRHCDPSRHRMRSROBINSONELEMENTARYSCHOOLPS AREA IVAREA IIAREA ISPACE PARK DRWARFIELDAVE DUFOURAVEBAAT ANRDFARRELLAVEER NESTAVEPERRYAVEPLAN TAVEROBIN SONAVEGRAHAMAVECITY OF REDONDO BEACHCITY OF HERMOSA BEACHGOULD AVE30TH ST CITY OF EL SEGU NDORALEIGHSTUDIOSTRW5th Street (Priv ate)Camino Cardinell (Priv ate)CityReservoirPD CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACHZONING DESIGNATIONS·
Map Adopted by Ordinance Number 2057 on August 3, 2004. Adoption Incoporates the Following Preceding Ordinances: 2038, 2025, 2019, 2012, 1988, 1935, 1899, 1848, 1832, 1779. It Also Incorporates the Following Amendments: 2062, 2105.Information shown on these maps are derived from public records that are constantly undergoing change. The City does not guarantee the positional or the Thematic accuaracy of the GIS data.0 0.25 0.50.125MilesAppealable AreaManhattan Beach Coastal Zone Zoning Designations & OverlaysArea District Boundaries
05/03/2019
Residential DistrictsResidential Planned DevelopmentRPDResidential Senior CitizenRSCCommercial DistrictsLocal CommercialCLCommunity CommercialCCDowntown CommercialCDD2- Design Review-11th StreetResidential High DensityRHResidential Medium DensityRMD1- Design Review-Rosecrans AvenueD8- Design Review-Sepulveda CorridorD8- Design Review-Sepulveda CorridorGeneral CommercialCGNorth End CommercialCNED5- Design Review-North End CommercialOther DistrictsPlanned DevelopmentPDIndustrial ParkIPPublic and Semi-PublicPSOpen SpaceOS D3-Design Review-Gaslamp NeighborhoodD4-Design Review-Traffic Noise Impact AreaResidential Single FamilyRSD1-Design Review-Rosecrans AvenueD6- Design Review-Oak AvenueD7- Design Review-Longfellow DriveD8- Design Review-Sepulveda Corridor Existing ZoningZoningManhattan Beach Housing Element UpdateFIGURE 2.3-2 Path: \\dudek.int\data\GISData\Projects\j1356201\DOCUMENT\CEQASOURCE: City of Manhattan Beach CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE /

INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

198

JANUARY 2022

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

FIGURE 3.

Path: \\dudek.int\data\GISData\Projects\j1356201\DOCUMENT\CEQASOURCE: City of Manhattan BeachExisting Land UseIS/ND Manhattan Beach Housing Element Update CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE /

INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

200

JANUARY 2022

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE /

INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

201

JANUARY 2022

ATTACHMENT A

Notice of Intent Comment Letter

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment.”
STATE OF CALIFORNIA------- CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY Gavin Newsom, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 7 – Office of Regional Planning
100 S. MAIN STREET, MS 16
LOS ANGELES, CA 90012
PHONE (213) 266-3562
FAX (213) 897-1337
TTY 711
www.dot.ca.gov
Making Conservation
a California Way of Life.

December 17, 2021
Talyn Mirzakhanian
City of Manhattan Beach
Community Development
1400 Highland Avenue
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
RE: City of Manhattan Beach
Housing Element Update 2021-2029
SCH # 2021110408
GTS # 07-LA-2021-03779
Dear Talyn Mirzakhanian:

Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the above referenced Draft Initial Study (IS). The project would amend the City of Manhattan Beach General Plan by replacing the current Housing Element with the proposed 2021-2029 Housing Element. The Housing Element Update will further the goal of meeting the existing and projected housing needs of all family income levels and provide evidence of the City’s ability to accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Allocation of 774 housing units through the year 2029 . The Housing Element Update site inventory does not require zoning changes; however, a future rezoning program may be needed for additional housing needs required by HCD. The City of Manhattan Beach is the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The project covers the City of Manhattan Beach, which includes the State facility SR-1. From reviewing the Draft IS, Caltrans has the following comments:

Senate Bill 743 (2013) has codified into CEQA law and mandated that CEQA review of transportation impacts of proposed development be modified by using Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as the primary metric in identifying transportation impacts for all future development projects. You may reference the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) for more information:
http://opr.ca.gov/ceqa/updates/guidelines/
We encourage the Lead Agency to evaluate the potential of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies and Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) applications in order to better manage the transportation network, as well as transit service and bicycle or pedestrian connectivity improvements.

Caltrans supports the use of TDM measures to decrease VMT. Implementing TDM strategies aligns with Caltrans’s mission is to provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California’s economy and livability.

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment.”
Talyn Mirzakhanian
December 17, 2021

For additional TDM options, please refer to the Federal Highway Administration’s Integrating Demand Management into the Transportation Planning Process: A Desk Reference (Chapter 8). This reference is available online at:
http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop12035/fhwahop12035.pdf Caltrans looks forward to reviewing the CEQA documents of future housing developments that emerge from these plan and program updates, and collaborating with the City of Manhattan Beach on identifying TDM strategies to limit VMT from these future projects.

If you have any questions about these comments, please contact Diana DeGroot, the project coordinator, at [email protected], and refer to GTS # 07-LA-2021-03779.

Sincerely,

MIYA EDMONSON
IGR/CEQA Branch Chief
cc: Scott Morgan, State Clearinghouse