Final Negative Declaration — Manhattan Beach City Council, February 4, 2022 (part 1 of 2)

Fi
nal Negative Declaration
City of
Manhattan Beach
General Plan Amendment:
6th Cycle Housing
Element Update
JANUAR
Y 2022
Prepar
ed for:

CIT

Y OF MANHATTAN BEACH
1400 H
ighland Avenue
Manhattan Beach, California 90266
Contact: Talyn Mirzakhanian, Planning Manager
Prepared by:
38 North Marengo Avenue
Pasadena, California 91101
Contact: Nicole Cobleigh

Printed on 30%
post
-
consumer recycled material.

13562

iii

JANUARY 2022

Table of Contents

SECTION

PAGE

Acronyms and Abbreviations

................................
................................
................................
................................
...........

vii

1 Introduction

................................
................................
................................
................................
..........................

1 1.1

Project Overview

................................
................................
................................
................................
.....

1 1.2

California Environmental Quality

Act

Compliance

................................
................................
................

1 1.3

Project Planning Setting

................................
................................
................................
.........................

1 2

Project Description

................................
................................
................................
................................
...............

3 2.1

Background

................................
................................
................................
................................
.............

3 2.2

Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA)

................................
................................
.....................

3 2.3

RHNA App
roach

................................
................................
................................
................................
......

5 2.3.1

Vacant and Underutilized Sites

................................
................................
................................

5 2.4

Housing Plan

................................
................................
................................
................................
........

10 2.5

Scope of Analysis

................................
................................
................................
................................
.

22 2.6

References

................................
................................
................................
................................
...........

22 3

Initial Study Checklist
................................
................................
................................
................................
........

24 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

................................
................................
................................
..............

29 Impact Evaluation Methodology and Assumptions

................................
................................
...........

30 3.1

Aesthetics

................................
................................
................................
................................
............

31 3.1.1

Environmental Setting

................................
................................
................................
...........

31 3.1.2

Regulatory Setting

................................
................................
................................
.................

32 3.1.3

Environmental Impacts
................................
................................
................................
..........

36 3.1.4

References

................................
................................
................................
.............................

40 3.2

Agriculture and Forestry Resources

................................
................................
................................
...

40 3.2.1

Environmental Setting

................................
................................
................................
...........

40 3.2.2

Regulatory Setting

................................
................................
................................
.................

41 3.2
.3

Environmental Impacts
................................
................................
................................
..........

42 3.2.4

References

................................
................................
................................
.............................

43 3.3

Air Quality

................................
................................
................................
................................
.............

44 3.3.1

Environmental Setting

................................
................................
................................
...........

44 3.3.2

Regulatory Setting

................................
................................
................................
.................

44 3.3.3

Environmental Impacts
................................
................................
................................
..........

47 3.3.4

References

................................
................................
................................
.............................

53 3.4

Biological Resources

................................
................................
................................
...........................

53 3.4.1

Environmental Setting

................................
................................
................................
...........

53 3.4.2

Regulatory Setting

................................
................................
................................
.................

54 3.4.3

Environmental Impacts
................................
................................
................................
..........

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

JANUARY 2022

3.4.4 References

................................
................................
................................
.............................

62 3.5

Cultural Resources

................................
................................
................................
..............................

62 3.5.1

Environmental Setting

................................
................................
................................
...........

62 3.5.2

Regulatory Setting

................................
................................
................................
.................

63 3.5.3

Environmental Impacts
................................
................................
................................
..........

69 3.5.4

References

................................
................................
................................
.............................

71 3.6

Energy

................................
................................
................................
................................
..................

72 3.6.1

Environmental Setting

................................
................................
................................
...........

72 3.6.2

Regulatory Setting

................................
................................
................................
.................

73 3.6
.3

Environmental Impacts
................................
................................
................................
..........

75 3.6.4

References

................................
................................
................................
.............................

78 3.7

Geology and Soils

................................
................................
................................
................................

79 3.7.1

Environmental Setting

................................
................................
................................
...........

79 3.7.2

Regulatory Setting

................................
................................
................................
.................

81 3.7.3

Environmental Impacts
................................
................................
................................
..........

86 3.7.4

References

................................
................................
................................
.............................

90 3.8

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

................................
................................
................................
................

90 3.8.1

Environmental Setting

................................
................................
................................
...........

90 3.8.2

Regulatory Setting

................................
................................
................................
.................

91 3.8.3

Environmental Impacts
................................
................................
................................
..........

95 3.8.4

References

................................
................................
................................
.............................

97 3.9

Hazards and Hazardous Materials

................................
................................
................................
.....

98 3.9.1

Environmental Setting

................................
................................
................................
...........

98 3.9.2

Regulatory Setting

................................
................................
................................
.................

99 3.9.3

Environmental Impacts
................................
................................
................................
........

108

3.9.4 References

................................
................................
................................
...........................

111

3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality

................................
................................
................................
.............

111

3.10.1 Environmental Setting

................................
................................
................................
.........

111

3.10.2 Regulatory Setting

................................
................................
................................
...............

113

3.10.3 Environmental Impacts
................................
................................
................................
........

120

3.10.4 References

................................
................................
................................
...........................

124

3.11 Land Use and Planning

................................
................................
................................
.....................

124

3.11.1 Environmental Setting

................................
................................
................................
.........

124

3.11.2 Regulatory Setting

................................
................................
................................
...............

127

3.11.3 Environmental Impacts
................................
................................
................................
........

131

3.11.4 References

................................
................................
................................
...........................

132

3.12 Mineral Resources

................................
................................
................................
............................

132

3.12.1 Environmental Setting

................................
................................
................................
.........

132

3.12.2 Regulatory Setting

................................
................................
................................
...............

133

3.12.3 Environmental Impacts
................................
................................
................................
........

134

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

JANUARY 2022

3.12.4 References

................................
................................
................................
...........................

135

3.13 Noise

................................
................................
................................
................................
..................

135

3 .13.1

Environmental Setting

................................
................................
................................
.........

135

3.13.2 Regulatory Setting

................................
................................
................................
...............

136

3.13.3 Environmental Impacts
................................
................................
................................
........

139

3.13.4 References

................................
................................
................................
...........................

141

3.14 Population and Housing

................................
................................
................................
....................

142

3.14.1 Environmental Setting

................................
................................
................................
.........

142

3.14.2 Regulatory Setting

................................
................................
................................
...............

143

3.1 4.3

Environmental Impacts
................................
................................
................................
........

145

3.14.4 References

................................
................................
................................
...........................

146

3.15 Public Services and Recreation

................................
................................
................................
........

147

3.15.1 Environmental Setting

................................
................................
................................
.........

147

3.15.2 Regulatory Setting

................................
................................
................................
...............

148

3.15.3 Environmental Impacts
................................
................................
................................
........

151

3.15.4 References

................................
................................
................................
...........................

153

3.16 Recreation

................................
................................
................................
................................
..........

153

3.16.1 Environmental Setting

................................
................................
................................
.........

153

3.16.2 Regulatory Setting

................................
................................
................................
...............

153

3.16.3 Environmental Impacts
................................
................................
................................
........

154

3.16.4 References

................................
................................
................................
...........................

156

3.17 Transportation

................................
................................
................................
................................
...

156

3.17.1 Environmental Setting

................................
................................
................................
.........

156

3.17.2 Regulatory Setting

................................
................................
................................
...............

157

3.17.3 Environmental Impacts
................................
................................
................................
........

164

3.17.4 References

................................
................................
................................
...........................

166

3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources

................................
................................
................................
..................

166

3.18.1 Environmental Setting

................................
................................
................................
.........

166

3.18.2 Regulatory Setting

................................
................................
................................
...............

167

3.1 8.3

Environmental Impacts
................................
................................
................................
........

171

3.18.4 References

................................
................................
................................
...........................

173

3.19 Utilities and Service Systems

................................
................................
................................
............

173

3.19.1 Environmental Setting

................................
................................
................................
.........

173

3.19.2 Regulatory Setting

................................
................................
................................
...............

174

3.19.3 Environmental Impacts
................................
................................
................................
........

177

3.19.4 References

................................
................................
................................
...........................

182

3.20 Wildfire

................................
................................
................................
................................
...............

182

3.20.1 Environmental Setting

................................
................................
................................
.........

182

3.20.2 Regulatory Setting

................................
................................
................................
...............

182

3.20.3 Environmental Impacts
................................
................................
................................
........

185

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

JANUARY 2022

3.20.4 References

................................
................................
................................
...........................

186

3.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance

................................
................................
................................
.

187

4 Preparers

................................
................................
................................
................................
.........................

191

4.1 List of Preparers

................................
................................
................................
................................

191

FIGURES

Figure 2.2
-
1 Potential Sites to Accommodate Lower
-
Income Shortfall

................................
...............................

193

Figure 2.3
-
1 Area District Map

................................
................................
................................
...............................

195

Figure 2.3
-
2 Existing Zoning

................................
................................
................................
................................
...

197

Figure 3.1
-
1 Existing Land Use

................................
................................
................................
..............................

199

TABLES

2.3 -
2 Total RHNA Compared to Credits and Capacity Identified ................................
................................
.................

9 3.13
-
1 Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments

................................
................................
.......

137

TTACHMENTS

Notice of Intent Comment Letter

13562

vii

JANUARY 2022

A
cronyms and Abbreviations

Acronym/Abbreviation

Definition

Assembly Bill

ADA

Americans with Disabilities Act

ADU

Accessory Dwelling Unit

AMI

Area Median Income

BMP

Best Management Practice

CAA

Clean Air Act

CalGEM

California Geology Energy Management Division

CARB

California Air Resources Board

CBC

California Building Code

CCA

California Coastal Act

CCC

California Coastal Commission

CDBG

Community Development Block Grant

CDOC

California Department of
Conservation

CDFW

California Department of Fish and Wildlife

CDMG

California Division of Mines and Geology

CERCLA

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

CEQA

California Environmental Quality Act

CGS

California
Geologic Society

City

City of Manhattan Beach

CMP

Congestion Management Program

CNEL

Community Noise Equivalent Level

CWA

Clean Water Act

DACs

Disadvantaged Communities

DTSC

Department of Toxic Substances Control

EIR

Environmental Impact
Report

FAR

Floor Area Ratio

FEMA

Federal Emergency Management Agency

FMMP

Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program

FTA

Federal Transportation Administration

GHG

Greenhouse Gas

GPA

General Plan Amendment

HCD

Housing and Community
Development

HCP

Habitat Conservation Plan

HEU

Housing Element Update

HRC

Housing Rights Center

Initial Study

JADU

Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit

LACDPW

Los Angeles County Department of Public Works

LCP

Local Coastal Program

LOS

Level of Service

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

viii

JANUARY 2022

Acronym/Abbreviation

Definition

MBTA

Migratory Bird Treaty Act

MBUSD

Manhattan Beach Unified School District

MTA

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

MWD

Metropolitan Water District

MWELO

Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance

NAHC

Native American Heritage Commission

NRCS

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Negative Declaration

NPDES

National Pollution Discharge Elimination System

OPR

Governor’s Office of Planning and Research

PCH

Pacific Coast Highway

Planned
Development District

RCRA

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

RHNA

Regional Housing Needs Assessment

RTP/SCS

Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy

RWQCB

Regional Water Quality Control Board

SCAB

South Coast Air Basin

SCAG

Southern California Association of Governments

Senate Bill

SBCCPOG

South Bay Cities Council of Governments

SCAB

South Coast Air Basin

SCAQMD

South Coast Air Quality Management District

SMARA

Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975

SWPPP

Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans

SWRCB

State Water Resources Control Bard

TCAC

California Tax Credit Allocation Committee

TCR

Tribal Cultural Resource

TDSP

Transit District Specific Plan

TMDL

Total Maximum Daily Load

USDA

United States Department of Agriculture

UWMP

Urban Water Management Plan

VHFHSZ

Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone

VMT

Vehicle Miles Traveled

WBMWD

West Basin Municipal Water District

WSAP

Water Supply Allocation Plan

WSCP

Water Shortage
Contingency Plan

13562

1 JANUARY 2022

1 Introduction

1.1 P
roject

Overview

The purpose
of
the
Housing Element Update (HEU)

is
to provide an update to the
Housing Element
of the

City of

Manhattan
Beach
’s
(City
’s
)
General Plan. The intent of the

HEU

is
to address the comprehensive housing needs of the City. State law requires jurisdictions to update their Housing Element every eight

years to outline their existing and projected housing
needs, to discuss barriers to providing that housing, and to propose actions to address housing needs and barriers.

The
programs
proposed in the
HEU

are intended

to be implemented over
an

eight
-
year planning
horizon

(2021
-
2029).

1.2 California Environmental Quality
Act

Compliance

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a statewide environmental law described in California Public Resources Code, Sections 21000
et seq.,

applies to most public agency decisions to carry out, authorize, or approve actions that have the potentia
l to adversely affect the environment. The overarching goal of CEQA is to protect the physical environment. To achieve that goal, CEQA requires that public agencies identify the environmental consequences of their discretionary actions and consider alterna
tives and mitigation measures that could avoid or reduce significant adverse impacts when avoidance or reduction is feasible. It also gives other public agencies and the public an opportunity to comment on the information. If significant adverse impacts ca nnot be avoided, reduced, or mitigated to below a level of significance, the public agency is required to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) and balance the project’s environmental concerns with other goals and benefits in a statement of overridi ng considerations.

The City’s Community Development Department directed and supervised the preparation of this Initial Study (IS)/

Negative Declaration (ND). Although prepared with assistance from the consulting firm Dudek, the content contained
within and the conclusions drawn by this IS
/ND

reflect the independent judgment of the City.

Th
e IS/ND
was made available for public review between November 24, 2021 and December 27, 2021.

1.3 P
roject

Planning Setting

Dudek, under the City’s guidance, prep
ared the project’s Environmental Checklist (i.e., IS) per CEQA Guidelines Sections 15063
–
15065. The CEQA Guidelines include a suggested checklist to indicate whether a project would have an adverse impact on the environment. The checklist is found in Secti on 3 of this document. Following the
Environmental Checklist, Sections 3.1 through 3.21 include an explanation and discussion of each significance determination made in the checklist for the project.

For this IS/ND, the following four possible responses to

each individual environmental issue area are included in the checklist:

Potentially Significant Impact

Less
-
than
-
Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated

Less
-
than
-
Significant Impact

No Impact

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

2 JANUARY 2022

The checklist and accompanying explanation of checklist

responses provide the information and analysis necessary to assess relative environmental impacts of the project. In doing so, the City will determine the extent of additional environmental review, if any, for the project.

The IS/ND was made available for

public review between November 24, 202
1 and December 27, 2021.

One
comment letter was received from the Ca
lifornia Department of Transportation on December 17, 2021 (Attachment A
, Notice of
Intent

Comment Letter
).

No revisions to the IS/ND are
required in response to public comments received
during the circulation of the Draft IS/ND.

13562

3 JANUARY 2022

2 P
roject

Description

The HEU proposes an update to the City of Manhattan Beach’s (City’s) General Plan. Under t he HEU, the General
Plan would be amended with updates to the Housing Element, as detailed below.

2.1 Background

Since 1969, the State of California has required all local governments to adequately plan to meet the housing needs of everyone in the communit
y. California’s local governments meet this requirement by adopting housing plans as part of their “general plan.” The law mandating that housing be included as an element of each jurisdiction’s general plan is known as “housing
-
element law.”

The
HEU

repre
sents the City’s effort in fulfilling the requirements under State Housing Element
law. The California
State Legislature has identified the attainment of a decent home and suitable living environment for every Californian as the State’s major housing goal
. Recognizing the important role of local planning and housing programs in the pursuit of this goal, the Legislature has mandated that all cities and counties prepare a Housing
Element
as part of the comprehensive General Plan.

Pursuant to State law, the

Housing Element
must be updated periodically according to statutory deadlines. The proposed
Housing Element Update (
HEU
)

covers the planning period of October 15, 2021 to October 15, 2029.

State Law requires that the
Housing Element
include the following
components:



An evaluation of the efficacy of the previous Housing Element’s progress in plan implementation and appropriateness of the goals, policies, and programs.



An analysis of the City’s population, household, and employment base, and the characteristics of the
housing stock.



A summary of the present and projected housing needs of the City’s households.



A review of potential constraints to meeting the City’s identified housing needs.



An evaluation of Fair Housing to identify
disproportionate housing needs.



A statement of the Housing Plan to address the identified housing needs, including housing goals, policies, objectives, and programs.

The
City’s
Housing Element
is being updated at this time in conformance with the 2021 -
2029

update cycle for
jurisdictions in the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region. The HEU

builds upon the other
General Plan elements and is consistent with the policies set forth by the General Plan, as amended. As portions of the Gener
al Plan are amended in the future, the Plan (including the Housing Element) will be reviewed to ensure that internal consistency is maintained.

2.2 Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA)

The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HC D) is required to prepare a Regional
Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) for each Council of Governments in the State that identifies projected residential
dwelling

units (“units”)

needed for all economic segments based on Department of Finance population CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / FINAL

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

4 JANUARY 2022

esti
mates. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is the Council of Governments for Los
Angeles County

(County)
(as well as Ventura
, Riverside
, Orange, San Bernardino, and Imperial Counties) and
allocates to the six counties and 191 cities a
nd the unincorporated
C
ounty areas their fair share of the total RHNA
housing needed for each income category. Each local government must demonstrate that it has planned to accommodate all of its regional housing need allocation in its Housing Element. The

City has been assigned a
6 th

Cycle
RHNA
allocation

(RHNA allocation) of

774

units for the 2021
–
2029 Housing Elemen
t (proposed Housing
Element)
, broken down as follows:
487 lower income units
,
155

moderate income units, and
132

above
-
moderate
income units

In addition to accommodating the RHNA allocation, the City will provide sites with the capacity to accommodate an additional 73 units to
comply with the

lower
-
income “buffer”

requirement

ensuring that enough
capacity remains throughout proposed Housing Ele
ment’s eight year planning period to provide adequate housing. 1 Because the City does not have large swaths of land available for development, there are no opportunities to identify new housing capacity on undeveloped lands. With no vacant sites, the Cit y’s housing capacity is identified in the
form of underutilized sites that are most suitable for redevelopment. To accommodate the RHNA allocated 774 units and the 73 lower
-
income buffer units (buffer units), the City prepared an analysis and inventory of sites within
City limits that are suitable for residential development during the planning period

(
Program 2, Adequate Sites).

After
calculating the City’s current capacity via the sites analysis, the City determined there was existing cap acity to
accommodate a total of
377
units (including lower
-
, moderate
-
, and above
-
moderate
-
income units). However, the
City also determined that there exists a shortfall of
406

units for the lower
-
income RHNA category, plus the need to
accommodate a
n additional 73 unit lower
-
income buffer, for a collective shortfall of
479

units.

To accommodate the remaining lower
-
income RHNA allocation, the City has identified potential sites to be made available to accommodate residential uses appropriate for l ower
-
income households within three years and 120
days from the beginning of the proposed Housing Element’s eight -
year planning period, which is referred to as the
Adequate Sites

Program
.
2 As proposed in
Program
2 of the HEU detailed below, the City will establish an “overlay” which is a regulatory planning tool that creates
places special provisions or makes particular allowances over an
existing base
zoning district

in order to guide development within a specif
ic area. The Adequate Sites Program 2
overlay proposed as part of the HEU would encompass approximately a minimum of 20. 3 acres of the potential
sites identified in Figure 2.2
-
1 and would permit residential uses at a minimum of 20 dwelling units per acre

within
the General Commercial (CG) and Planned Development (PD) districts to accommodate the RHNA shortfall of 406

lower
-
income units. In accordance with current State housing law requirements, the sites would allow 100% residential use and require res
idential use to occupy at least 50% of the floor area in a mixed -
use project.

Furthermore, through implementation of Program
1 8

of the HEU, and to further incentivize affordable housing in the City, the City will remove the discretionary requirements f or multifamily housing in the Local Commercial (CL),
Downtown Commercial (CD), and North End Commercial (CNE) zones, meeting the minimum requirements for a density bonus as detailed in Program
11 . The City will review and amend the
Manhattan Beach Municip
al Code
(
MBMC
)

to permit residential uses in the CL, CD, and CNE zones without requiring approval of a use permit and all projects that utilize the State density bonus will be eligible for streamlined approvals.

In addition to further
discussion of the HEU

programs themselves, the proceed
ing

section(s) will also provide more detail in regards to
the methodology by which realistic development capacity was determined and summarizes the approach utilized

1 The capacity to accommodate an additional “buffer” of approximately

15%
of the total 487 lower
-
income RHNA allocation
(approximately 73 units)
is

recommended by HCD to ensure sufficient capacity exists to accommodate the RHNA

allocation

throughout the
eight year
planning period and comply with the provisions of Senate Bill (SB
-
)
166 (2017
). SB
-
166 r
equires a city,
county, or city and county to ensure that its housing element inventor y
can accommodate its share of the regional housing need
throughout the planning period
.

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

5 JANUARY 2022

for the identification of sites selected for rezoning

(
Section 2.3, RHNA Approach
)

The underutilization of existing
sites, paired with programs identified in the HEU and outlined below will ensure that the City can realistically meet the RHNA targets at all income levels during the proposed Housing Element’s

eight
-
year planning period.

2.3 RHNA Approach

State law requires that jurisdictions demonstrate in the Housing Element
that the land inventory is adequate to
accommodate that jurisdiction’s share of the regional growth. The development of the sites invent ory started with
the non
-
vacant sites that were identified by the City based on
field work and onsite planning efforts (i.e., site visits, visual surveys, and on
-
the
-
ground analyses),
staff knowledge of existing conditions
,

and development interests
expres
sed by property owners and developers. Then a series of GIS analyses were conducted to identify additional vacant and non
-
vacant sites in the City within the land use categories that are zoned to allow for residential
development

(i.e.,

medium and high

den
sity residential zones and certain mixed
-
use commercial districts)

identified
by their land to improvement ratio, age of buildings, existing use, proximity to resources and existing infrastructure, and other data indicating possible constraints to developm ent feasibility.

2.3.1 Vacant and Underutilized Sites

State law requires each jurisdiction to include a land inventory to identify specific sites that are suitable for residential development and to demonstrate that sufficient land is available to provide

adequate housing capacity
to meet the RHNA for each income level. As part of
the sites analysis
, the City and consulting team had to identify
specific sites that are suitable for residential development to determine whether there are sufficient sites to a
ccommodate the City’s regional housing need in total and by income category .

It was determined early in

the
analysis

process
that vacant sites within the City are
nearly

nonexistent, which was verified using the Tax Assessor
land use codes. Local governmen
ts with limited vacant land resources may rely on non
-
vacant and underutilized
residential sites to accommodate their RHNA. Although HCD’s Housing Element

Site Inventory Guidebook
(Government Code Section 65583.2) states that a “nonvacant site’s existing u se is presumed to impede additional
residential development,” the City’s opportunities for residential development depends on underutilized sites due to the lack of vacant land.

Although some parcels identified have vacated uses, or are largely undeveloped , per
HCD’s definition of vacant sites, all sites identified are considered non -
vacant.

Determining which non
-
vacant sites
are underutilized and have the strongest potential for redevelopment can help identify ideal areas for accommodating new housing thro
ugh redevelopment.

T
he methodology for identifying and prioritizing underutilized sites was largely based on the following factors:



Building Age

Buildings more than 30 years old
. Building age is also a major factor influencing property valuation and land

value. The age of housing is often an indicator of housing conditions. In general, housing that is 30 years or older is considered an older building as it may begin to need costly repairs.



Undervalued

An assessed improvement to land value ratio less than 1 .
3 Improvement values
less than
1 are an indicator for developers that the site has redevelopment potential as the assessed value of the land is greater than the assessed improvement value.

3 Most counties, including the County of Los
Angeles, tax their parcel owners based on the value of the land contained within the parcel boundaries, as well as the value of any improvements (e.g., buildings, parking lots, gardens, etc.) built upon that parcel. T he ratio of
the improvements’ value to
the land value is referred to as the improvement to land value ratio. For example, a parcel where the value of improvement (e.g., a single family residence) is equal to the land value, the improvement to land value ratio would be equal

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

6 JANUARY 2022



Underbu
ilt
-

Commercially zoned sites where the current floor area ratio (FAR) compared to the maximum allowable FAR is less than 100%
. This indicator helps identify opportunity sites from a redevelopment perspective as the

land is considered to be underbuilt.



Re
source Access
-

Within TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas, defined by HCD and the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) as areas whose characteristics have been shown by research to support positive economic, educational, and health outcomes for lower -
income households.



Local Knowledge
–

City knowledge of property owner interest to sell or of developer interest to redevelop was utilized to identify non
-
vacant sites regardless of the fac
tors listed above.

The sites identified as underutilized include a mix of underutilized uses such as par king lots, automotive repair
shops, office spaces and restaurants with large surface car lots, and single -
family residential lots zoned for
commercial and allowing multifamily and mixed
-
use developments. The underutilized sites are not known to have been o
ccupied in the past five years with lower
-
income housing and have existing access to water, sewer, and dry utilities. In addition, online mapping tools
–
including Google Earth, Google Maps, and Los Angeles County Office of the Assessor Property Assessment I
nformation System
–
as well as City knowledge and

field verification of the
current projects under various stages of planning, review, and/or implementation, and development interest in certain areas of the City, were used to verify underutilized status and existing uses. Table 2.3
-
1, Underutilized Site
Capacity, provides a summary of existing capacity units identified by income category.

Table 2.3
-

1. Underutilized Site Capacity

Lower
-
Income Units

Moderate
-
Income Units

Above Moderate
-
Income Units

Total Units

24 158

19 201

Source:

City of Manhattan
Beach

(2022)

Zoning and Land Use Designations

The sites
identified as having the
existing
capacity to
accommodate

the
City’s

6 th
Cycle RHNA allocation
are located
within
five

existing
zoning
designations
:

Medium
-
Density Residential (RM) zone, in only Area District
III
; High Density
Residential (RH) zone in all Area Districts

(I
-
IV)
; and the Local Commercial (CL), Downtown Commercial (CD), and
North End
Commercial (CNE) zones in all Area Districts. Figure 2.3 -
1, Area District Map, shows the location of the
four Area Districts

in the City
, while Figure 2.3
-
2, Existing Zoning
,

provides a map of the City’s existing zoning.

zones must be consistent with the goals and policies outlined in the ir

corresponding designations. The
applicable
General
P
lan
designations and

provisions are
discussed in further detail in Section 3.11, Land Use and Planning.

Lower
-
Income Sites Inventory

In accordance with
Housing Element
law (Government Code Section 65583.2[c][3]), the City’s default density for accommodating capacity for lower
-
income units (322 very

low
-
income units and 165 low
-
income units) requires
zoning that
permits

a minimum of 30

dwelling units (
du
)

per acre
,

as the City is considered a metropolitan

to 1. If the improve
ments value is higher than the land value, the ratio is greater than one, while a ratio of less than one implies that the value of the land is less than the value of the improvements and would therefore be considered undervalued.

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

7 JANUARY 2022

jurisdiction.

The project identified five zones with the required minimum densities to accommodate lower -
income
housing:

in Area District III
, RH, CL, CD, and
CNE

in all Area Districts
.

Underutilized sites in the higher density
zones were generally included in the
sites analysis

as lower
-
income sites
.

Government Code Section 65583.2(c) requires, as part of the analysis of available sites, a local government to demo
nstrate that the projected residential development capacity of the sites identified in the HEU

can realistically be
achieved. This realistic capacity may use established minimum densities to calculate the housing unit capacity

or
development trends
. As a c
onservative estimate of capacity calculations, the
sites analysis

estimated realistic capacity
is 20
dwelling units
per acre. However, while the realistic capacity for lower -
income sites is low compared to the
maximum allowable densities in the
five identi
fied

zones (32.3 to 51.2
dwelling units
per acre), with high land values
and limited vacant land available in the City, it is expected that property owners will strive for densities closer to the maximums.

Although the City has five zones which
permit a minimum of 30 dwelling units,

it is detailed under State guidance
that sites that are too small or too large may not facilitate developments of this income level. Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(2)(A)(B) requires that sites identified for lower -
income units be limited to 0.5 to 10 acres. T
he
median

parcel size
within the five permissible zones
is approximately 0.06 acres

(City of Manhattan Beach 202
2 )
.

Therefore, opportunities for identifying contiguous and underutilized parcels that can

reasonably be expected to be
consolidated as one site are
limited.

The
s
ites analysis

identified three sites that have the capacity to accommodate lower
-
income housing. All three sites were identified on parcels considered underutilized. Further, these si tes are
not considered to have an impediment to development, and their

current uses are reasonably assumed to be
discontinued through the
g proposed Housing Element's

eight
-
year planning period (2021
-
2029).

In
addition

to the
identification of suitable underutilized parcels, the

project has also incorporated pipeline projects
4 and projected
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) development into its analysis for all applicable RHNA categories, including

lower
-
income

categories
.

Ultimately,
after calculating the
City’s current
and projected

capacity under existing conditions,
it was determined that
the City has

the existing capacity to support
81 lower
-
income units, resulting
i
n

a deficit or
shortfall of
406

units for the l
ower
-
income RHNA categories.

Moderate
-
Income
Sites Inventory

Sites inventoried at the moderate
-
income level were identified in the RM, RH, and commercially zoned districts permitting
multifamily

and mixed
-
uses (CL, CNE and CD).

Twenty
-
four

sites were identified within approximately

5. 11
-
acres throughout the City.

Although the minimum acreage
criterion

does

not apply to these moderate
-
income
sites, there were limited sites available when con
sidering the underutilized methodology previously described. The general uses included commercial, retail, and some older residential uses. Most of the buildings were built before 1970
. Some
had uses that were recently vacated.

In total, the land inventory

of curre
nt and projected capacity

accommodate
s

16 3

moderate
-
income units in areas zoned
RM, RH, CL, CD, CNE and CNE
-
D5,

which is enough to
accommodate the City’s 6th Cycle RHNA allocation for moderate -
income units and a buffer to ens
ure capacity
throughout the
Housing Element’s eight
-
year planning period (2021
-
2029)
.

4 The pipeline projects
applicable to the lower
-
income RHNA categories are expected to receive Certificates of Occupancy with the eight year 6
th

Cycle planning period.

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

8 JANUARY 2022

Above Moderate
-
Income Sites Inventory

Sites with luxury units or above moderate
-
income units as planned for the residential development in the pipeline were
identified as having the capacity to accommodate the majority of the above moderate -
income sites. While
most of the units are accounted for through pipeline development expected to be completed during the planning period, there were 11 additional sites
, to
taling

0 .74 acres identified to accommodate the remaining above moderate
-
income units. The underutilized sites identified for the above moderate -
income RHNA were identified in
the RM, RH and commercially zoned districts permitting multifamily and mixed -
use
s (CD and CNE). The existing
uses on the sites identified include office spaces, restaurants, and single -
family residences located in older
buildings, as well as parking lots and empty parcels.

In total, the sites inventory identifie
d

sufficient capacity
to accommodate 133 above moderate
-
income units, which
is enough to accommodate the City’s
6 th

Cycle RHNA for above moderate
-
income units.

Accessory Dwelling Units

The
HEU

may satisfy its RHNA requirement through methods alternative to the identification of

sites. One such
methodology is through an analysis of the expected number of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs) to be developed within the planning period .

The number of ADUs and JADUs that can be
credited toward p
otential development must be based on the following factors:



ADU and JADU development trends since January 2018



Community need and demand for ADUs and JADUs



Resources and incentives available to encourage their development



The availability of ADUs and JADU
s for occupancy



The anticipated affordability of ADUs and JADUs

Recent changes to legislation governing the development and provision of ADUs and JADUs have sparked growth in these types of units in cities across California, including Manhattan Beach. Wh ile only three ADUs were permitted
and constructed in the City between 2017 and 2019, the City has more recently issued 11 permits for the construction of these units from January 2020 to October 2021, with 22 additional ADU permit applications currently u
nder review. Because ADU and JADU legislation has been revised several times since 2017, providing increased opportunities for the development of housing, it is expected that development trends will continue in an upward trajectory. Based on SCAG projectio
ns, of the total 83 ADUs that are projected to be built during the planning period, 14 are estimated to be affordable to very
-
low
-
income households, 36 to low
-
income households, five to
moderate
-
income households, and 28 to above moderate
-
income households
.

Current Development

Two development projects in the pipeline are seeking entitlements, or have prospective development expected to be built within the planning period. One of the

projects is a multifamily residential project, and the other is a mixed -
use project, both of which will be redevelopment projects on non -
vacant parcels.

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

9 JANUARY 2022

The Verandas Project is located at 401 Rosecrans Avenue and 3770 Highland Avenue and consists of 73 a bove
moderate multifamily
units

and
six

very low
-
income units on two abutting parcels with a total acreage of 1.02 acres and a density of approximately 77.8 units per acre.

The 1701
–
1707 Artesia is mixed
-
use project consisting of 649 square feet of commerc
ial space and 14

units,
including
one

very low
-
income unit. The site is approximately 0.3 acres and developed at a density of approximately

46.6 units per acre.

In total, 93 units are part of planned, approved, or prospective projects expected to be built within the planning period, that are counted toward meeting the City’s
6 th

Cycle RHNA allocation
. Based on affordability restrictions, the
projects are anticipat
ed to provide a total of seven lower
-
income

units
, and 86 above moderate
-
income units. There
are several other projects in the City with residential

dwelling

units, such as single
-
unit developments, that have not
been included in this sites analysis which
are expected to be completed during the
planning period
.

Summary of Capacity to Accommodate RHNA

Based on the inventory of available sites, underutilized sites, the potential for ADUs and JADUs, and

existing
,

planned
, proposed, or in progress

development projects, Table 2
.3
-
2 presents the total RHNA compared to credits
and capacity identified through the preparation of the
HEU
.

Table

2.3 -

2. Total RHNA Compared to Credits and Capacity Identified

Category

Total Units

Lower
-
Income
Units

Moderate
-
Income
Units

Above Moderate
-
Income Units

RHNA

774

487

155

132

Underutilized Site
Capacity

(No New Units)

201

24 158

19 Vacant Site Capacity

0 0

Pipeline Residential
Development Credited
Toward RHNA

93 7

0 86

Projected Accessory
Dwelling Units

83 50

5 28

Total
s

377

81 163

133

Capacity Deficit (
-
)
/

Surplus
(+)

—

406

+
8 +1

Source:

City of Manhattan Beach

(202
2 )

As shown in Table

2.3 -
2, the City has a deficit or shortfall of
406

units for the lower
-
income RHNA category. To
accommodate the remaining lower
-
income RHNA
-
allocated units
, the City has identified potential sites in the
General Commercial (CG) and Planned Development (PD) Zoning Districts that could be

made available to
accommodate residential uses appropriate for lower
-
income households within three years and 120 days from the beginning of the planning period (October 15
, 2021). Through implementation of Program 2 of the
HEU

(discussed
in Section 2.4 Housing Plan, of this
ND
), the City will establish an overlay
, within the required timeframe,

that
encompasses a minimum of 20.
3 acres of these sites to accommodate

the shortfall of lower
-
income units. In
addition, the City will also rezone and identify sites within the overlay (approximately 3.65 acres total) to CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / FINAL

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

10 JANUARY 2022

accommodate a buffer of at least 15% (approximately 73 lower -
income units) as recommended by HCD to ensur
e
sufficient capacity exists to accommodate the RHNA throughout the planning period.

2.4 Housing Plan

As required by State
Housing Element

law, the
HEU

includes a Housing Plan to facilitate and encourage the provision of housing consistent with the RHNA al
location. The goals, objectives, policies, and implementing programs of the Housing Plan emphasize: methods of encouraging and assisting in the development of new housing for all income levels; providing and maintaining adequate capacity to meet the housin g need; removing government constraints
to development, where feasible and legally possible; conserving and improving existing housing; providing increased opportunities for home ownership; reducing impediments to fair housing choice; and monitoring and pr
eserving units at risk of converting from affordable to market rate. The Housing Plan also includes numerous policies to better guide decisions and achieve desired outcomes related to the development, improvement, preservation, and maintenance of housing.

The following is a summary of the key programs that would be included in the City’s proposed HEU
. Many of these
are a continuation
or modification
of programs from the previous 2013
–
2021 Housing Element.

Program 1:

Accessory Dwelling Unit
s

Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) help meet the City’s housing needs for all income levels and provide a housing resource for older adults, students, and extremely low
-
, very low
-
, low
-

and moderate
-
income households. After
passage of State ADU laws effectiv
e January 1, 2017, and January 1, 2020, the City applied State standards in evaluating ministerial applications for ADUs and has adopted ordinances consistent with State law. The City will continue to apply regulations from Chapter 10 of the
MBMC
, known as

the Planning and Zoning
Code
, that allow
accessory units by right in all residential or mixed
-
use zoning districts (zones) in accordance with State law.

The Housing Element may satisfy its RHNA requirement through methods alternative to the identification of sites. One such methodology is through an an
alysis of the expected number of ADUs and JADUs to be developed within the RHNA projection period. The full analysis in Appendix E, Sites Analysis and Inventory, used the trends in ADU construction since January 2018 to estimate new production; however, th is only accounts for the effect of new laws without taking into account the local program the City will adopt to incentivize and promote the creation of ADUs, and the recent ADU Ordinance adopted in January 2021. Based on the local incentives, ADU and JADU

trends since January 2018, recent
sharp upward trends in 2021, and permits currently under City review, a conservative estimate of the number of units to be produced under this approach is an average of 10 ADUs each year during the projection period (see Appendix E
of the HEU
for the full Accessory Dwelling Unit Projection analysis).

The Community Development Department reviews and approves ADU entitlements and tracks the timely review of ADU applications and building permits issued. The Community Developm ent Department collects data annually on
planning entitlements and building permits for ADUs for the Housing Element Annual Progress Report, and will continue to do so per the ADU projection assumptions in the Sites Inventory (see Program 19, No Net Loss, for
objectives and timelines tied to ADU monitoring).

Under Assembly Bill (AB) 671 (2019), local agencies must include a plan in their Housing Element to incentive and promote the creation of ADUs that can be offered at affordable rent for very low -
, low
-
,

or moderate
-
income households.

As such, a primary objective of this Accessory Dwelling Unit Program is to promote the development of housing units CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / FINAL

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

11 JANUARY 2022

for lower
-
income persons or households. To comply with AB 671 and support the goal of permitting an average of 10
ADUs annually, including ADUs affordable to extremely low -
, very low
-
, low
-
, and moderate
-
income households, the
Community Development Department will develop tools to streamline the approval process and market ADU construction. These public engageme
nt and information tools may include information packets on the entitlement process, a dedicated web page including a step
-
by
-
step guide of the entitlement process, preparation of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) for distribution at the planning counter o r community meetings, and other engagement tools.

As part of Program 19, No Net Loss, the City will review the ADU trends to date at the planning cycle mid -
point (by
November 2025), and determine if the City is on track to achieve the annual average goal of 10 building permits
issued for ADUs. If the City is not on track and there is not an appropriate buffer of sites to make up for the difference as fully explained in Program 19, the Community Development Department will further review and develop additio nal
incentives and review and reallocate existing staffing resources as needed to achieve its goal. Additional incentives may include direct outreach mailings to property owners, technical assistance, and financial assistance.

Program 2:

Adequ
ate Sites

As fully analyzed in

the

sites analysis
, the City has a remaining lower
-
income RHNA of
406

units for
project’s eight
-
year

planning period. The City will establish an overlay district that encompasses a minimum of 20. 3 acres of sites
in the
General Commercial (
CG
)

and
Planned Development (
PD
)

d
istricts to accommodate the remaining lower
-
income RHNA of
406

units.

The acre
age needed is assumed using a realistic capacity of 20 dwelling units per acre,
based on the minimum density requirements outlined below.

Pursuant to State law, the
over
lay district’s standards adopted as part of the
Adequate Sites
P
rogram to
address the
RHNA shortfall
will

adhere to the following components

of Government Code sections
65583.2(h) and (i)
:



Sites must accommodate 100
%

of the shortfall for very low
-

and low
-
income units.



Sites must allow a minimum of 16 units per site.



Sites must
permit a minimum of 20 dwelling units per acre.



Sites must allow 100% residential use and require residential use to occupy at least 50% of the floor area in a mixed
-
use project.



Sites must permit owner
-
occupied and rental multifamily uses by right pursuan
t to Government Code
Section 65583.2(i) for developments in which 20% or more of the units are affordable to lower -
income households.

The allowable densities for residential redevelopment in the overlay district will range from a minimum density of 20 dwel
ling units per acre, consistent with State law, to a
maximum
density
of at least 30 dwelling units
per acre.

The

City
will
ensure that the development standards
that result from the planning process will be carefully crafted such that they will not prevent

or prohibit the provision to
facilitate development at the
maximum densities allowed
under the overlay.

Any residential development standards in the overlay district will not preclude the minimum densities or requirements of State law outlined above, crea ting the opportunity for several hundred residential units on sites that previously only permitted commercial uses.

As reflected in
the sites analysis
, each site identified as a
potential site for the Adequate Sites Program’s overlay has the capacity to ac commodate at least 16 units and will
be available for development in the planning period where water, sewer, and dry utilities can be provided.

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

12 JANUARY 2022

In addition, the City commits to rezoning an additional 3.65 acres

of sites

to provide an additional buffer of
a
pproximately
15 percent more capacity than required for lower
-
income sites, as recommended by HCD. T
he City
will ensure that the sites are rezoned at densities deemed appropriate

to accommodate housing for lower
-
income
households

as defined by Government C
ode Section 65583.2(c)(3)(B)
. This
will provide a buffer of at least 73 units
of multifamily housing
.

Program 3:

Affordable Housing Streamlining

T
he City
currently
allows concurrent processing of all discretionary applications for a project, thereby streamlining the development process.

The City will continue to offer concurrent processing of all discretionary applications for a project and inform developers of the o
pportunity for concurrent processing.
.

T
he City has a streamlining process
in place specifically for multif
amily housing
in residential zon
es. Multifamily housing developments in residential
zones (
Medium
-
Density Residential District [RM], High
-
Density Residential District [RH],
and
Residential Planned
Development District [RPD]
) with fewer than six units are permitted by
-
right.

Projects with six units or more that
qualify for a density bonus under State law are permitted subject only to a Precise Development Plan approved by the Director.

To further assist in the development of housing for extremely low -
, very low
-
, low
-
, and mod
erate
-
income
households, the City provides an affordable housing streamlined approval process in accordance with State requirements for qualifying development proposals that provide affordable units under SB 35 streamlining.

The City annually reports on af
fordable housing streamlining applications in the
Housing Element

Annual
Progress Report. The City will revise internal permitting procedures to ensure that staff has clear procedures for responding to proposals for SB 35 streamlining and for prioritizing qualifying SB 35 housing developments
consistent with State law.

Program 4:

Affordable Senior Housing Preservation

This program is concerned with ensuring that the current affordability of the

Manhattan Village Senior Villas

project
,
located at 1300 Park V
iew Avenue,

is being maintained. While the project’s affordability agreement with the City does not expire and the components of affordability are preserved via a deed restriction that runs with the land, the City should make contact with the owners of the

Manhattan Village Senior Villas and continue to monitor and enforce affordability throughout the planning period. In addition, the City should identify qualified affordable housing developers and local non
-
profits as potential purchasers/managers of affor
dable
units

as a proactive measure.

Program 5:

Americans with Disability Act (ADA) Improvements Program

The City will ensure the Manhattan
Village
Senior Villas ADA Pathway Project is completed by 2022 to increase accessibility for older adults and people

with disabilities in the City. Following completion of the Senior Villas ADA Pathway Project, the City will utilize future CDBG funds for additional ADA -
improvements focused on bringing
existing, non
-
compliant ramps into ADA
-
compliance at various location
s throughout the City, as identified by the
Public Works Department. These improvements will increase accessibility for people with disabilities throughout

the City.

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

13 JANUARY 2022

Program 6:

Annual Progress Reports

The City will continue to report annually on the City's

progress toward its
eight
-
year RHNA housing production targets
and toward the implementation of the programs identified in the Housing Element. Further, the City will identify and prioritize State and local surplus lands available for housing development affordable to lower
-
income households
and report on these lands annually through the
Housing Element

Annual Progress Reports (AB 1255, 2019; AB
1486, 2019; AB 879, 2017).

Program 7:

By
-
Right Development

The City will allow developments by
-
right pursuant t
o Government Code section 65583.2(i) when 20
%

or more of
the units are affordable to lower
-
income households on sites identified in the sites analysis to accommodate the lower
-
income RHNA allocations that were previously identified in past housing elements

in accordance with the
specifications of Government Code Section 65583.2(c) and Housing Element law.

Program 8:

Code Compliance

The City will continue to ensure building safety of residential buildings through enforcement of building codes on a compliance and proactive building
-
permit issuance basis, and through referrals to the County of Los Angeles Environmental Health Division for rental housing enforcement conditions/inspections. In addition, the City will ensure its website remains up to dat
e with code enforcement and substandard housing resources.

Program 9:

Countywide Affordable Home Ownership Program

The
Home Ownership
Program (HOP) is administered by the Los Angeles County Development Authority (LACDA).

This program provides funding to lo
w
er
-
income households looking to purchase a home through down payment and closing costs assistance

for s
ingle
-
f
amily
h
omes,
c
ondominiums, and
t
ownhomes
.

The
HOP

loan provides a second
mortgage loan for first
-
time homebuyers with an assistance amount of up
to $85,000, or 20

percent

of the purchase
prices, whichever is less
, and
offers 0

percent

interest loans
.

Participant’s income must not exceed 80 percent of
the County Median Income based on the number of persons in the household. Properties must be locate
d in cities
participating in the
HOP
, which includes
Manhattan Beach
.

The City will advertise program availability

on the City's
website

and
at the
planning counter.

Program 10:

Countywide Affordable Rental Housing Development

This program is administered by the Los Angeles County Development Authority (LACDA). This program provides financial assistance to developments located in cities participating in the Los Angeles Urban County Program, including the City of Manhattan Beach.

This program supports new construction and acquisition/rehabilitation projects that create new Special Needs and affordable rental housing units, and the creation of permanent Special Needs housing units in projects throughout the County of Los Angeles.

Projects funded through this program are expected to help combat homelessness, meet the housing needs of their communities, provide local economic development opportunities during construction, and assist in the alleviation of any local blighting condition
s. This program provides financial and technical assistance to acquire sites, develop affordable rental housing, and acquire and rehabilitate affordable rental housing. Technical assistance and funding for pre
-
development activities may also be provided fo
r nonprofit housing developers participating in specific projects. The funds are made available as low
-
interest long term loans. Funds for the program are administered CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / FINAL

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

14 JANUARY 2022

through a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) issued by LACDA. All units developed uti lizing these resources are
made available to households earning less than 50% of the median area income.

The City will advertise the availability of this additional source of funds to support in the development of rental housing. Program availability will
be advertised on the City's website and at the planning counter.

Further, the City will increase coordination and collaboration with the LACDA to promote Manhattan Beach as a City that supports affordable housing development and as an ideal candidate for t he allocation of funding for affordable
housing.

Program
11 :

Density Bonus

Government Code Section 65915 requires that a jurisdiction adopt a local Density Bonus Ordinance consistent with State law. To satisfy this requirement, the City will review and am end the local Density Bonus Program Ordinance
to ensure consistency with State requirements, including the provision of a bonus for student affordable housing, senior housing, and permitting up to an 80% bonus for 100% affordable developments ( as provided

in Appendix C,
Constraints and Zoning Analysis
, of the

HEU
).

Program
12 :

Developer Outreach and Transparency

The City will actively work with the development community to identify ways that lower -
income housing may be
provided
, inc
luding housing for extremely low
-
income households and those with special housing needs
. The City
will educate developers as to how density bonus regulations and lot consolidation incentives could be used to facilitate the dev
elopment of affordable housing, including those for extremely low -
income, very low
-
income, and
low
-
income households. Another outreach effort will inform the development community and property owners as to development opportunities for accessory dwelling u
nits.

The City will maintain current information on the City's website that is applicable for housing development project proposal requirements, including a current schedule of fees, exactions, applicable affordability requirements, all Planning and Zonin
g Ordinance
s, development standards, and annual fee reports or other relevant financial reports, consistent with the requirements of AB 1483 (2019).

Program 1
3 :

Energy Conservation and Energy Efficiency Opportunities

Under the City's adopted Environmental

Work Plan priorities, adopted Strategic Plan goals, and in compliance with State and General Plan mandates, the City is creating a Climate Resiliency Program, called Climate Ready Manhattan Beach (Climate Ready MB). The Climate Ready MB program includes c ompleting a Sea Level Rise
Vulnerability Assessment; creating a Climate Action and Adaptation Plan; and updating the City’s Local Coastal Program
-
Land Use Plan, Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, and General Plan.

In addition, the City has adopted the 2019 Cali
fornia Green Building Standards Code which includes energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, and material conservation and resource efficiency standards to encourage sustainable development and reduce residential and nonresidential building en ergy use. The City
anticipates State Green Building Codes being updated in the next two years, at which point the City will also update City regulations as detailed in Program
31 .

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

15 JANUARY 2022

Program 1
4 :

Fair/Equal Housing Program

Government Code Section 65580 asse
rts that the availability of housing is of vital statewide importance, and the early attainment of decent housing and a suitable living environment for every Californian is a priority of the highest order.

Governments and private sectors should work cooper
atively to expand housing opportunities and accommodate housing needs in California. Furthermore, designating and maintaining a supply of land and adequate sites suitable, feasible, and available for the development of housing sufficient to meet the locali ty’s housing need for all income
levels is essential to achieving the State’s housing goals. As such, Program 1 4 , Fair/Equal Housing Program

is
designed to promote equal housing opportunities in Manhattan Beach. The City recognizes the effect that discrim
ination has in limiting housing choice and equal opportunity in renting, selling, and financing housing.

In
accordance with Government Code Section 8899.50 (b)(1), the City administers its programs and activities relating to housing and community developme
nt in a manner to affirmatively further fair housing, and takes no action that is materially inconsistent with its obligation to affirmatively further fair housing.

The City contracts with the Housing
Rights Center (HRC), a nonprofit
organization that helps educate the public about fair housing laws and to investigate reported cases of housing discrimination. HRC provides free services including landlord tenant counseling, outreach and education, and discrimination investigations. The
City offers fair housing information and referrals upon request.

The City will continue referral services and contracting fair housing services with HRC and will work to provide this information as well as providing links to additional fair housing resourc es on the City website.

In
addition,
the City will
take
steps to

affirmatively further fair housing during the planning period .

Other additional steps
the City will take
to
further fair
housing

effort
s

during th
e

planning period include
:

supporting and par
ticipating in the
Regional

Analysis

of
Impediments to Fair Housing
Choice
;

promoting

compliance with housing discrimination
law
by developing
informational

fliers for developers
;

and
developing a process

that prompts the consideration of fair housing in th
e
planning
decision process.

Program 1
5 :

Housing Choice Voucher Program

An important element of the City’s strategy in providing housing opportunities for extremely low -
income and low
-
income households is the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program, a program offering tenant -
based assistance
subsidized by the Federal governme
nt for very low
-
income families, seniors, and persons with disabilities. The Los Angeles County Development Authority subsidizes the balance of the monthly rent in direct payments to the owner through funding received by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The City will continue to
participate in LACDA program, coordinate with the Redondo Beach Housing Authority and publicize availability of Section 8 rental assistance for households in the City by enhancing the City’s website with informa tion.

Program 1
6 :

Lot Consolidation Incentive

The City

already

provides an additional density bonus incentive under Section 10.12.030 of the Municipal Code

above and beyond what is permitted under State law for multifamily residential developments meeting

the minimum
requirements for a density bonus.

I
n accordance with MBMC Section 10.12.030, multifamily developments meeting the minimum requirements are currently granted a 5 percent base density increase when two or more parcels are consolidated into a si
ngle building site for a combined parcel size between 0.50 acres to 0.99 acres through the existing lot consolidation bonus incentive. However, to specifically incentivize affordable housing, including housing for extremely low
-

and very low
-
income househo
lds, reach the City’s housing target for the 6th
Cycle planning period
,

and incentivize small lot development, the City will expand the current lot consolidation CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / FINAL

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

16 JANUARY 2022

incentive for sites that have been identified
via Program
2 , Adequate Sites
.
5 Sites identifie
d in the
“
Sites Inventory
”

will be granted a 5 percent base density increase when two or more parcels are consolidated into a single building site for a combined parcel size between 0.30 acres to 0.49 acres.

In addition,
The City will continue to facilitat
e
consolidation and development of small parcels
. These facilitation measures will include but are not limited to:
creating increased publicity and
awareness; providing assistance to affordable housing developers

in identifying
potential opportunities for
lot consolidation; and e
xpedit
ing
processing and waiv
ing

fees for lot consolidations
processed concurrently with other planning entitlements for affordable housing developments.

Program
17 :

Manufactured Housing

State law requires that the City’s
Planning and Z
oning
C
ode

permit manufactured housing in the same manner and
in the same zone(s) as conventional single
-
family dwellings in zones that permit single
-
family dwellings (Government
Code Section 65852.3). To
comply with State law, the City will amend the
Planning and Zoning Ordinance

to clarify
that manufactured housing is treated as a single
-
family dwelling and is permitted in all of the same zones and same manner as other single
-
family structures, including
in commercial or mixed
-
use zones.

State law
also
requires that cities and counties allow mobile home parks (including condominium and cooperative parks) on all land planned and zoned for residential land use; provided, however, that a use permit may be
required (Government Code Section 65852.7). To comply with State law, the City will amend the Municipal Code to permit mobile home parks on all land zoned or planned for residential land uses. In addition, the City will enforce mobile home park replacement

and relocation requirements in accordance with State law (Government Code Section 65863.7)
.

Program 1
8 :

Multifamily Residential Development Standards and Streamlining in the Mixed -
Use (CL, CD, and CNE) Commercial Districts.

Multifamily housing developmen
ts in the CL, CD, and CNE
d
istricts are currently permitted
through
approval of
a conditional use permit. To further incentivize affordable housing in the City ,

the City will remove the
discretionary requirements for multifamily housing in the CL, CD, and CNE zones meeting the minimum requirements for a density bonus
. The City will review and amend the Municipal Code
to permit residential
uses in the CL, CD, and CNE zones without requiring approval of a use permit and all projects that utilize the State density bonus will be eligible for streamlined approvals.

In addition, under Chapter 10.16, Commercial Districts, of the MBMC, portions of a building intended for
residential use in a mixed
-
use project or purely residential development
s

in mixed
-
use zones are currently
subject to the High
-
Density Residential District
residential
standards in Chapter 10.12, Residential Di
stricts,
of the MBMC. To minimize constraints to the development of affordable housing, including housing for extremely low
-

and very low
-
income households, the City will adopt development standards for multifamily residential and mixed
-
use projects in the

three commercial mixed
-
use zones (CL, CD, and CNE) instead of
deferring to the High
-
Density Residential standards, which

are subject to voter approval for certain
amendments to residential development standards.
6 The City will ensure that the adopted sta
ndards for

5 Specific p
arcel details
for sites included
in the expansion
of the current lot consolidation
incentive progr
am
can be found within
Tables 7, 8, 9, 15, and 16
of

Appendix E, Sites Analysis and Inventory, of
the HEU.

6 In accordance with Section 10.12.0030, Property development regulations: RS, RM, and RH district, the property development standards for the
residential zoning districts, RS, RM and RH, shall not be amended to increase the standards for maximum height of structures or maximum buildable floor area, or to reduce the standards for minimum setbacks, minimum lot dimensions or

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

17 JANUARY 2022

residential and mixed
-
use projects do not reduce the intensity of land use
7 or reduce the site’s residential
development capacity, consistent with the Housing Crisis Act of 2019. Through this process, the City will implement
Program 20
,
O
bjective
D
esign
S
tandards
, through the development of objective design standards .

Program 1
9 :

No Net Loss

The City will utilize their development permit database to monitor development activity, proposed rezones, and identified c
apacity to ensure adequate remaining capacity is available to meet any remaining unmet share of the RHNA for all income levels throughout the entirety of the planning cycle, consistent with no -
net
-
loss requirements
as required under SB 166 (2017). The City

will develop and implement a monitoring procedure pursuant to Government Code Section 65863 and will make the findings required by that code section if a site is proposed for development with fewer units or at a different income level than shown in the pr
oposed
Housing Element.

As part
of Program 2, Adequate Sites, the City

will rezone
to provide an additional buffer of
approximately
15 percent
more capacity than required for lower
-
income sites, as recommended by HCD. This
will ensure that sufficient
capacity exists
within the City
to accommodate the RHNA throughout the planning period; however, i f at any time
during the planning peri
od, a development project results in fewer units by income category than identified in the sites
analysis
for that parcel and the City cannot find that the remaining sites in the HEU

are adequate to
accommodate the remaining RHNA by income level, the City will within 180 days identify and make available
additional adequate sites to accommodate the remaining RHNA.

Furthe
r,

as outlined in Program 1,
Accessory
Dwelling Unit
s
, the

City will check the annual ADU trends at the planning cycle mid -
point (October 15
, 2025)
,
I
f the
City finds that the ADU production does not keep pace with the ADU assumptions toward the RHNA, and that there is not an appropriate buffer of sites remaining to account for the deficit of projected lower -

or moderate
-
income
ADUs, the City
will
identify additional sites within six months
. If the City finds that the ADU production does not keep pace with the ADU assumptions, the City will also review and

streamline permitting procedures
and review and
reallocate

existing staffing resources as

needed to achieve its goal

(see Program 1
, Accessory Dwelling Unit
s,

above
for further
details)
.

Program
20 :

Objective Design Standards

The City will increase transparency and certainty in the development process through objective design standards.

Any new design standards developed and imposed by the City shall be objective without involvement of personal or subjective judgement by a publ
ic official and shall be uniformly verifiable by reference to the City's regulations in accordance with the requirements of the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330, 2019) and related S
tate housing law.

Program
21 :

Older Adults Programs

The City provides va
rious services for the special needs of older adults so that they may remain in the community.

The older adults of the community regularly rely on these resources for services and programming. The Older Adults

minimum lot area per dw
elling unit, unless the amendment is first submitted to a city -
wide election and approved by a majority of
the voters.

7 In accordance with State law, “reducing the intensity of land use” includes, but is not limited to, reductions to height, den sity, or
floor area ratio, new or increased open space or lot size requirements, new or increased setback requirements, minimum fronta ge
requirements, or maximum lot coverage limitations, or any other action that would individually or cumulatively reduce the sit e’s

residential development capacity.

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

18 JANUARY 2022

Program provides services to predominantly low
er
-
income older adults, including those with extremely low -
incomes,
and provides some services for residents with disabilities (all ages).

This program is operated by a part
-
time Older Adults Program Manager who is contracted through the Beach Cities Heal
th District and the City of Manhattan Beach Fire Department. At any given time, the Older Adults Program may assist up to 100 older adults, of whom 70 percent are
lower income
. Other existing City services falling under the
purview of Program 23 include:
providing funds for social service groups serving older adults, including the Salvation Army’s Brown Bag Food Program, Care Management for Manhattan Beach Seniors, and South Bay Adult Care Center; providing
temporary technical assistance to older adults by

helping older adults with changes resulting from
the Clean Power Alliance program
; and to continue supporting the City’s Parks and Recreations Department’s older adults programs such as softball leagues drama, poetry, and fitness classes.

Finally
, the Ci
ty
recently approved an

a
ssisted
l
iving project for older adults in 2021, consisting of 95 rooms (115 total beds), a facility kitchen,
and
common areas (foyer, parlor, bistro, private dining room, general dining rooms, activity rooms, and staff rooms)
.

The

project w
ill

include 64 assisted living rooms and 31 memory care rooms for Alzheimer’s patients and individuals with memory loss.

The project is expected to be completed and increase
assisted living opportunities for older adults in the City during the 6 t
h

Cycle planning period.

Program 22
:

Parking Reductions

Large parking lots associated with religious institutions provide opportunities for partnerships that facilitate the development of housing for
vulnerable populations. The City will make Municipal Code revisions to identify a process by which parking requirements can be reduced for religious institutions in exchange for housing development (AB 1851).

The City currently provides reduced parking req
uirements consistent with AB 2345 (2020) for housing
developments that qualify for a density bonus pursuant to State density bonus law. To identify opportunities for additional parking reductions for residential multifamily housing, the City will complete a parking study for
sites that are zoned to allow residential development outside of the Coastal Zone. This may include, but not be limited to, reduced parking minimums for studio and 1 -
bedroom multifamily units, reduced parking
requirements for residentia
l uses in areas that are walking distance from resources and amenities, flexibility in parking requirements for affordable and mixed
-
income developments, as well as reductions in exchange for public amenities.

Program
23 :

Preserving Housing Capacity

Sect
ion 10.12.030 of the
MBMC

establishes standards to avoid “mansionization.” These provisions

act to
discourage construction of overly large dwellings that are out of scale with the surrounding

n
eighborhood. These
provisions
include increased setback and open space requirements for new

single
-
family residences. In addition to
issues of scale, the large dwellings are also more costly,

and lead to increased pressure to demolish modest
dwellings in favor of lavish structures

affo
rdable only to the most affluent. In an effort to incentivize multifamily housing while

continuing to disincentivize “mansionization,” the City provides an exception for minimum and

maximum lot sizes for multifamily housing with three (3) or more dwelling units in accordance

with Section

10.12.030.k of the MBMC.

The City also provides an exception to a lot merger of parcels for existing religious assembly and public or private school uses, when the site is used as a single building site under Secti on 11.32.090
of the MBMC.

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

19 JANUARY 2022

The maximization of lot standard
s
helps

prevent consolidation of lots for the purpose of developing large, single dwelling unit
.

However, under Section 10.52.050.F of
the MBMC
, property owners in residential zones may develop
cont
iguous separate lots as one site without requiring a lot merger, with only detached accessory structure(s) on one or more of the lots, which includes guest houses

(including ADUs and JADUs)
, garages and parking areas, and
pools. For development standards,
with the exception of the parking calculation, the lots are treated as separate.

This presents property owners with the opportunity to buy adjacent lots with existing unit(s) for the purpose of demolishing the unit(s) and developing only detached accessory

structure(s), ultimately reducing the City’s overall
housing stock
.

To mitigate the loss of dwelling units through demolition and to conserve the existing housing stock, the City will amend the Municipal Code to eliminate provision 10.52.050.F from the M unicipal Code such that all parcels
operating as one site will need to be consolidated and therefore be subject to existing maximum lot size requirements.

Further, while the City incentivizes lot consolidation for multifamily residential developments (
Prog
ram 1
6, Lot Consolidation Incentive
)
, the City will refrain from approving any merger that would result in a net loss in residential capacity and conflict with the no net loss provisions of SB 330 (Program 2 6 Replacement
Requirements
).

Program 2
4 :

Prior
ity Services

T
he City will internally coordinate with the Public Works Department for review and consideration when reviewing new residential projects.

The City’s current Urban Water Management Plan acknowledges the requirements and includes the projected
water use for single
-
family and multifamily housing needed for lower
-
income households. The Community
Development Department will coordinate with Public Works to ensure that proposed developments which include housing affordable to lower
-
income households,

including extremely low
-

and very
-
low income, are prioritized for the
provision of water and sewer services. Internal coordination will further support the prioritization of water and sewer services for future residential development, including units affo rdable to lower
-
income households.

Program 2
5 :

Reasonably Accommodate Housing for Persons with Physical and Developmental Disabilities

In an effort to proactively remove ambiguities that may impose extra hurdles for people with disabilities, the City will amend
its
reasonable accommodation procedures

(Chapter 10.85 of the Municipal Code)

to remove
discretionary referrals to the Planning C
ommission and the requests shall be reviewed and may be granted solely by the
Community Development Director
. In addition, the City will develop materials and outreach methods to increase public awareness and ease of access to policies, programs and proces ses addressing
reasonable accommodation.

Program 2
6 :

Replacement Requirements

The City will mandate replacement requirements

pursuant to
the requirements as set forth in Government Code
S
ection 65915, subdivision (c)(3)

on sites identified
in the Sites In
ventory (
see

the
Electronic Housing Element Site
Inventory Form

included as
Exhibit A

of
Appendix E, Sites

Analysis and Inventory
, of the HEU)

and

consistent with
the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 and related state housing law for proposed housing development s on sites that
currently have residential uses, or within the past five years have had residential uses that have been vacated or demolished, that are or were subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / FINAL

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

20 JANUARY 2022

affordable to p
ersons and families of low or very low income, subject to any other form of rent or price control, or occupied by low
-

or very low
-
income households.

Program 2
7 :

Solar Panel Incentives

Solar panels may be used on roofs of residential and commercial structures to generate electricity that is either transmitted to the grid

or stored in batteries on
-
site. The existing height limits in Manhattan Beach ensure rooftop solar units would not eventually be subject to shade and shadow, which would render them ineffective. To successfully promote the

use of alternate energ
y, the City has subsidized permitting fees for solar panels since 2008. The current permit fee for solar panels is $100.00. The City’s fee incentives resulted in 800 solar permits issued during the 5th Cycle Planning Period. The City will continue to promo te and incentivize alternate energy
through permit subsidies for solar panels.

Program 2
8 :

Specialized Housing Types to Assist Persons with Special Needs

Employee Housing

If the
City’s Planning and Z
oning
C
ode

is ever amended to add a zoning district that permits agricultural uses, the City will make corresponding municipal code amendments related to agricultural workers and current employee housing requirements consistent with
the State Employee Housing Act (S
ection 17000 et seq. of the Health and
Safety Code)

to assist in the production of this special housing type to serve lower -
income households, including
extremely low
-
income households.

Emergency Shelters

Emergency shelters serve those experiencing homeles
sness, including extremely low
-
income households and those
with special housing needs.

The
City will amend the
MBMC

to ensure that parking requirements for emergency
shelters accommodate the staff working in the shelter and do not require mor e parking than other residential or
commercial uses within the same zone (AB 139, 2019).

Supportive Housing

State law provisions have recently been modified to require approval of supportive housing that meets the specified requirements of State law as a u
se by right in zones where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted, including nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses (AB 2162). Additionally, no minimum parking may be required for units occupied by supportive housing residents if the developmen t is located within 0.5 miles of a public transit
stop (Government Code Section 65915). The City will amend the MBMC

to comply with current State law.

This
amendment will provide additional housing opportunities for lower -
income households, i
ncluding extremely low
-
income housing and those with special housing needs.

Low
-
Barrier Navigation Centers

Low
-
Barrier Navigation Centers are housing first, low
-
barrier, service
-
enriched shelters focused on moving people
into permanent housing that
provides temporary living facilities while case managers connect individuals experiencing homelessness to income, public benefits, health services, shelter, and housing. The MBMC does not currently define Low Barrier Navigation Centers; therefore, it also does not identify zoning districts in which this use
is permitted. As such, t
he City will amend the
MBMC

to permit the development of Low Barrier Navigation Centers CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / FINAL

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

21 JANUARY 2022

that meets the requirements of State law as a use by
-
right, without requiring a discretiona
ry action, in mixed
-
use
and non
-
residential zones that permit multifamily uses (AB 101).

This use will increase opportunities to serve those
experiencing homelessness, including extremely low
-
income households and those with special housing needs.

Residen
tial Care
Facilities

Residential Care Facilities serving seven or more persons, referred to as Residential Care, General in the MBMC, is classified as a public and semipublic use under Section 10.08.040 -

Public and Semipublic Use Classifications of
the MB
MC. As such, these facilities are conditionally permitted uses requiring a Use Permit in the PS (Public and Semi
-
Public) zone. Further, the City facilitates additional opportunities for development of Residential Care, General by permitting these facilitie
s in two additional zoning categories (residential and commercial), including the RH, RPD, RSC, and CG, subject to a Use Permit.

Due to the complexity associated with Residential Care Facilities, the necessary infrastructure, and requirements tied to stat
e licensing, opportunities to remove the discretionary permit are limited. However, under this program,
the City will mitigate any constraints that may be posed by a Use Permit for Residential Care Facilities by making the approval process more predictable

and transparent. Currently, Residential Care, General facilities are subject to the broader findings for all Use Permits outlined in Section 10.84.060 -

Required Findings, of the MBMC. The
City will amend the Zoning Code to include findings specific to Us e Permits for Residential Care, General (serving
seven or more persons) facilities. The City will ensure the findings are objective and improve certainty in the development approval process to better facilitate the production of Residential Care Facilities

to serve the needs
of the community.

Program 29:

Support for Those Experiencing Homelessness

Under this program, the City will
continue to

implement the
policies and actions

of
its Five
-
Year Plan to Address
Homelessness in Our Community to continue
addre
ss
ing

the needs of its residents experiencing homelessness for affordable housing and

housing

navigation services. The City will also continue regional coordination in partnership with the Cities of Redondo Beach and Hermosa Beach and seek additional fundi ng sources with the South Bay
Beach Cities for continued homeless services. Further, the City will continue to

educate the community on various
resources in the South Bay

and ensure the resource guide for those experiencing homelessness is kept up to date and available on the City’s website.

Program
30 :

Surplus Lands

The City will identify and prioritize local surplus lands available for housing development affordable to lower -
income
households and report on these lands annually through the H
ousing Element

Annual Progress Reports in
accordance with the requirements of
AB 1486 (2019).

If the City identifies any public land that they intend to declare as surplus land at any point, the City will
send notices about available, surplus local public land to

HCD,
local public entit
ies

within the jurisdiction where the surplus l
ocal land is located
, and a
ny
d
evelopers who have
notified HCD of their interest in developing affordable housing on surplus local public land

in accordance with the
requirements
set forth in the Surplus Land Act (Government Code Section 54220 -
54234
).

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

22 JANUARY 2022

Prog
ram
31 :

Water Conservation and Green Building Standards

Section 7.44.020 of the
MBMC

addresses water conservation and provides for permanent water conservation measures and drought restrictions. In addition, water conservation requirements apply to 100% of projects that the
City approves. Water conservation requirements are built into Title 9, via the Green Building Code, and Title 10 via State MWELO requirements.

The City has adopted the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code, and a dditionally requires the
following measures:



Insulating hot water pipes to minimize energy loss.



Using caulk and insulation that are formaldehyde
-
free or contain low VOC (volatile organic compounds).



Pre
-
plumb water piping and sensor wiring to the roof for

future solar water heating.



Use duct mastic on all duct joints and seams to minimize energy loss.



Install "Energy Star" bath fans vented to the outside.



Energy efficient water fixtures.

The City anticipates State Green Building Codes being updated in the next two years, at which point the City will
also update City regulations.

2.5 Scope of Analysis

The project being evaluated within this document is the HEU, which is a policy document that conceptualizes how the City will provide the capacity for a total of 774 housing uni ts, as assigned by SCAG during the 6th Cycle RNHA,
during the period of 2021 through 2029. Under existing conditions, the City has the capacity to accommodate 377

dwelling units; as such, the City is required to identify how it will provide the capacit y for an additional
479

dwelling
units (
406

units plus an additional buffer of 73 units).

The HEU includes programs that conceptualize how the City will ultimately provide the capacity for these additional 479

dwelling units.

No development is currently proposed under the HEU; however, implemen tation of the HEU is designed to facilitate
construction of 774 new units throughout the City. Additionally, the HEU includes programs that support the existing and future residents of the City, including future rezoning (Program 2). Given the developed an d built out nature of
the City, new housing units constructed throughout the City may ultimately qualify for one or more categorical exemptions under CEQA (such as Class 3, Small Structures or Class 32, Infill Development Project), exemption under CEQA, co
nsistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, or for CEQA Streamlining and with State laws to promote the development of infill affordable housing (Programs 7,
11 and
1 8
). As appropriate the below analysis
addresses the potential physical
impacts associated with implementation of the HEU.

2.6 References

City of Manhattan Beach. 2003. General Plan. Adopted 1988. Updated 2003. Accessed September 17, 202 1 .
https://www.manhattanbeach.gov/departments/community
-
development/planning
-
zoning

/general
-
plan/final
-
general
-
plan.

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

23 JANUARY 2022

City
o
f Manhattan Beach. 2022.
6 th

Cycle
Housing Element Update (HEU). Accessed January 5, 2022.

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

24 JANUARY 2022

THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

25 JANUARY 2022

3 Initial Study Checklist

1. P
roject

title:

City of Manhattan Beach General Plan Amendment:
6 th

Cycle Housing Element Update

2. Lead agency name and address:

City of Manhattan Beach

1400 Highland Avenue

Manhattan Beach, California 90266

3. Contact person and phone number:

Talyn
Mirzakhanian, Planning Manager

310.802.
55 1
0 4.

P
roject

location:

City
wi
de

5. P
roject

sponsor’s name and address:

City of Manhattan Beach

1400 Highland Avenue

Manhattan Beach, California 90266

6. General plan designation:

Not
a
pplicable for
a
doption of
a Housing Element

Update

7. Zoning:

Not
a
pplicable for
a
doption of
a Housing Element

Update

8. Description of project. (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or
off
-
site features necessary for its implementation. Attach a dditional
sheets if necessary):

The purpose of the
HEU

is to provide an update to the Housing Element of the City’s General Plan.

The HEU

involves an amendment to the General Plan in order to adopt, as required by State Law, an updated Housing Element. The intent of the
HEU

is to address the comprehensive housing needs of the City. State law requires jurisdictions to update their Housing El
ements every eight years to outline their existing and
projected housing needs, to discuss barriers to providing that housing, and to propose actions to address housing needs and barriers. The programs proposed in the HEU are intended to be implemented ove r an
eight
-
year planning horizon (2021
-
2029).

See
S
ection 2 for a detailed project description.

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

26 JANUARY 2022

9. Surrounding land uses and setting (Briefly describe the project’s surroundings):

The City of Manhattan Beach (City) is located in the southwest portion of Lo s Angeles County (County) along
the Pacific Ocean, approximately 19 miles southwest of Downtown Los Angeles. The City is bordered by the City of El Segundo and the
Chevron Oil Refinery
to the north, the cities of Redondo Beach and Hawthorne to the east, th
e City of Hermosa Beach to the south, and the Pacific Ocean to the west. The City is almost entirely built out and contains vegetation that is ornamental.

The City is made up primarily of low density, single
-
family residential development, designated in t
he Land
Use Element as Low Density Residential and zoned as RS. Medium and high -
density residential areas (RM
and RH zones) extend eastward from the City’s coastline and comprise much of the City’s LCP planning area. Other land use types include commercial
, mixed
-
use, industrial, parks and open space, and public
facilities
.

Zoning districts potentially impacted by the HEU include: the Medium -
Density Residential (RM)
zone, in only Area District 3; High Density Residential (RH) zone in all Area Districts; the

Local Commercial
(CL), Downtown Commercial (CD), and North End Commercial (CNE) zones in all Area Districts; the Planned Development (PD) zone: and, the General Commercial (CG) zone.

10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, fi nancing approval, or
participation

agreement):

Approval from
the
California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation p
ursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation
that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.
?

Note:

Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the pot ential for delay and conflict in the environmental
review process. (See Public Resources Code section
21080
.3.2.) Information may also be available from
the California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per Public Resources Code sectio n
5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that Public Resources Code section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.

Pursuant to

California Assembly Bill (AB) 52 and Senate Bill (SB) 18, the City contacted three Native American individuals and/or tribal organizations on August 4, 2021:



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



Kenneth Kahn,
Tribal Chairman, 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’ C
ouncil 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 CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / FINAL

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

27 JANUARY 2022

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.

(
For further discussion, s
ee Section

3.1 8
, Tribal Cultural Resources
).

Environmental Factors Potentially Affected

The environmental factors checked below would be
potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics

Agriculture and
Forestry Resources

Air Quality

Biological Resources

Cultural Resources

Energy

Geology and Soils

Greenhouse Gas
Emissions

Hazards and Hazardous
Materials

Hydrology and Water Quality

Land Use and
Planning

Mineral Resources

Noise

Population and
Housing

Public Services

Recreation

Transportation

Tribal Cultural Resources

Utilities and Service Systems

Wildfire

Mandatory Findings
of

Significance

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

28 JANUARY 2022

Determination
(To be
completed by the Lead Agency)

On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECL
ARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revi
sions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a signif
icant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless
mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the ear
lier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the pro
posed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have

been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Signature

Date

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

29 JANUARY 2022

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is
adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on pr
oject
-
specific factors as well as general standards (e.g.,
the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -
specific screening analysis).

All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -
site as wel
l as on
-
site, cumulative
as well as project
-
level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whethe
r the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentia lly Significant Impact” entries when the
determination is made, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required.

“Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced
an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from “Earlier A nalyses,” as described
in (5) below, may be cross
-
referenced).

Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063( c)(3)(D). In this
case, a brief discussion should identify the following:

Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.

Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of
and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.

Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “
Less T
han Significant
W
ith

Mitigation Measures
Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site
-
specific conditions for the project.

Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate int
o the checklist references to information sources for
potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances) .

Reference to a previously prepared or outside
document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement

is
substantiated.

Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.

This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; howe ver, lead agencies
should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected.

The explanation of each issue should identify:

The significance criteria or threshold, if an
y, used to evaluate each question; and

The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

30 JANUARY 2022

Impact Evaluation Methodology

and Assumptions

Based on information available to the City

at the time of preparation of this
ND
, the following sections

evaluate

the
6 th

Cycle Housing Element
’s

reasonably foreseeable direct and indirect impact on the environment.

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 itself, produce environmental impacts. Implementation of the programs contained in the document would accommodate development required to meet the City’s 6 th

Cycle RHNA
a
llocation
,
which demonstrates a need for land appropriately zoned to facilitate the additional required units
. While
a rezoning program is identified within the proposed Housing Element, the actual rezoning of property within the City to accommodate RHNA w
ould occur at a future date and is not one of the discretionary actions being undertaken at this time. Although implementation of the programs contained in the document would facilitate residential development required to meet the City’s
6 th

Cycle RHNA all
ocation
, any proposed

land use changes
would follow the adoption of the
proposed
HEU

and would be subject to future environmental review, as required, under CEQA
,

once sufficient information is

made

available
.

All future projects would be required to adhere to
relevant development standards and design guidelines contained in the Planning and Zoning Ordinance

and other
applicable regulatory
requirements
governing the nature and quality of development

within the C
ity
.

While underutilized parcels have been identified to accommodate 377

RHNA category
units
, the parcel locations
for the bulk of the units required to fulfill the City’s lower -
income category obligations have yet to be determined.

To meet a capacity

deficit of approximately
406

lower
-
income units, through Program 2, the City has identified potential sites in the
CG, PD
, RM and RS zoning districts to be made available to accommodate residential uses appropriate for lower
-
income households within th
e approximate three
-
year planning horizon.

Most of the qualifying
sites were identified under the same criteria detailed in Sections 2, Project Description, for underutilized sites appropriate to accommodate development affordable to lower -
income household
s; however, there are some sites
which do not meet the underutilized criteria outlined under Section 2 but have been selected as there is interest to develop these sites or it is assumed that the overlay would create developer interest as these sites have not
previously allowed for residential development. Figure

2.2 -
1, Potential Sites to Accommodate Lower
-
Income
Shortfall, shows sites selected as having the potential for additional capacity to accommodate the City’s remaining RHNA allocation for lower
-
inco
me units, including a buffer to ensure sufficient capacity throughout the planning period. Ultimately however, only a fraction of the sites identified in the proposed HEU will ultimately be selected for overlay or rezone. As such, it would be inappropriate

for this
ND to conduct a site
-
specific level of analysis, as
consideration of impacts resulting from development of all of the potential sites identified would significantly overestimate the HEU’s impact on the environment.

Due to the programmatic
nature

and phased implementation
strategy
of the
proposed
Housing Element
,

it is
anticipated that the
HEU

as currently described
would not

result in
a
significant
impact
to the environment.

The
analysis conducted in this
ND

recognizes that over half of the sites
potentially

affected

have yet to be identified
,
and that

implementation of any overlay or rezon
ing program
would trigger additional CEQA

review

and
the
corresponding

program level
analysis, which would

in
-
turn

be required to assume
the
maximum build out
made
allowable by the proposed zone change
(s)
.

In addition,

many
future development facilitated by the HEU
—
i
ncluding
development as part of the rezoning program
—
would
qualify as

“
infill
” as defined in Section 21
061.3 of CEQA.

As
infill, certain
projects
may be eligible for existing or proposed

streamlining

efforts

and/or

a categorical exemption

(CE)

under CEQA
. However, as with any “project” level development, the precise nature of review required would be assess
ed

by the City

on a case
-
by
-
case basis, and
certain

projects accommodated by the HEU
would still require
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / FINAL

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

31 JANUARY 2022

project level CEQA review

and be subject to discretionary approval
. In addition, regardless of whether the review
process is discretionary or ministeri
al,
any

project
proposed in the City would
still
be subject to all applicable
ordinances, policies, and standards

in effect as of the date of th
e developer agreement.

T
he City
’s
existing
s
treamlining process
es

specify

that

m
ultifamily housing developments in residential zones
(Medium
-
Density Residential District [RM], High
-
Density Residential District [RH], and Residential Planned Development District [RPD]) with less than six units are permitted to be developed
by
-
right

and

are therefore
ministerial and exempt from CEQA.

In addition, p
rojects with six units or more that qualify for a density bonus under State law are permitted subject only to a Precise Development Plan reviewed and approved by the City , which
is
similarly

a m
inisterial process

exempt from CEQA. F
urther
,
and as detailed above in Programs 3,
11 ,

and
18 ,
approval of the HEU would result
in more project types qualifying for

these existing streamlining processes

and
would

likely
facilitate additional
measures

incentivize
multifamily development within the Cit
y, such as the
elimination

existing

discretionary review requirements in favor
of more streamlined
administrative review

processes
.

In
addition, at the State level
the California Legislature
has recently passed

a large volume of laws
related to housing
.

These laws include
Senate

Bill (SB) 9 (by
-
right duplexes), SB 10 (allowing
jurisdictions to

upzon
e

for up to ten units

in certain locations
)
,

SB 290 (which reforms th
e State Density Bonus Law)
,

and SB 478, which
limits floor area ratio (FAR) and lot coverage standards that limit multifamily housing. This trend of
laws aimed at
addressing

the Stat
e
’s
housing affordability crisis is

expected to continue into the 2022 leg
islative session

and
beyond and

will likely result in the facilitation of fu
rther

streamlining efforts

and removal of “barriers” to
development (including
discretionary

review

requirements
).

H
ousing developed under the existing capacity within the City would likely fall under the
existing and/or proposed
State

and local streamlining programs and ultimately, upon completion of the rezoning program, projects processed in the future would also lik
ely be eligible for streamlining or an exemption under CEQA.

However
, the

pre
determined
criteria for selection that was applied to all existing and potential capacity sites identified in the HEU serves to
promote
residential
development only in zones
that
have been previously screened for suitability to accommodate housing
.

Further, the

precise
language of the
HEU
p
rograms

and
associated
MBMC
regulations

would

generally

allow for a
streamlined review process

only
under a
limited and
defined set of
circumstances
,
where the

primary
objective

is the achievement of

measurable progress towards meeting the City’s
6 th

Cycle RHNA allocation
, as
required by State law.

In addition,
when unique situations

present themselves, housing projects
wou
ld likely

undergo a more comprehensive environmental review
, where
any impacts identified with the project would be
addressed through mitigation specific to the impact.

3.1 Aesthetics

SETTING

3.1.1 Environmental Setting

to the north
, the cities of Redondo Beach and Hawthorne to the east, the City of Hermosa Beach to the south, and the Pacific Ocean to the west. The City is almost entirely built out and contains vegetation that is ornamental. Despite dense urbanization, there are a nu mber of scenic resources in the
City as well as in the broader Los Angeles County, including mountains, foothills, ridgelines, forests, deserts, beaches, and coastlines. Scenic resources visible throughout the City include the elevated terrain of the Santa

Monica Mountains to the north, San Gabriel Mountains to the north/northeast, and, most predominantly, the City’s CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / FINAL

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

32 JANUARY 2022

two miles of beach frontage to the west (City of Manhattan Beach 2003). Additionally, Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) bisects the City in a north/
south direction. PCH is a Caltrans facility, also known as State Route 1, which connects the coastal cities of Los Angeles County to other coastal communities in northern and southern California. While certain extents of PCH provide opportunities to view t
he coastline, there are no coastal views accessible where the highway (i.e., Sepulveda Boulevard) traverses the City. The City also has designated “walk streets” which are defined in the
MBMC

as “dedicated public streets which have been close
d to vehicular traffic” (City of Manhattan Beach
2001). Walk streets primarily run east to west throughout the coastal zone, traversing through medium and high -
density residential neighborhoods and providing beach access to the public (City of Manhattan Be ach 2003).

3.1.2 Regulatory Setting

Federal

There are no federal regulations pertaining to aesthetics and scenic resources that would apply to the HEU
.

State

California Scenic Highway System

Created by the California State Legislature in 1963, the Calif ornia Scenic Highway Program includes highways designated by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) as scenic. The purpose of the program is to protect the scenic beauty of California highways and adjacent corridors through conservation and

land use regulation.

California Code of Regulations

Title 24
–

California Building Standards Code

Title 24, California Building Standards Code, consists of regulations to control building standards throughout the state. The following components of Title
24 include standards related to lighting:

Title 24, Part 1
–

California Building Code / Title 24, Part 3
–

California Electrical Code

The California Building Code (Title 24, Part 1) and the California Electrical Code (Title 24, Part 3) stipulate minimum li
ght intensities for pedestrian pathways, circulation ways, parking lots, and paths of egress.

Title 24, Part 6
–

California Energy Code

The California Energy Code (CEC) (Title 24, Part 6) stipulates allowances for lighting power and provides lighting control requirements for various lighting systems, with the aim of reducing energy consumption through efficient and effective use of lighting equipment. Section 130.2 sets forth requirements for Outdoor Lighting Controls and Luminaire Cutoff requ
irements. All outdoor luminaires rated above 150 watts shall comply with the backlight, up light, and glare (BUG) ratings in accordance with IES TM -
15 -
11, Addendum A,
and shall be provided with a minimum of 40
%

dimming capability activated to full on by mo
tion sensor or
other automatic control. This requirement does not apply to streetlights for the public right of way, signs, or building facade lighting.

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

33 JANUARY 2022

Section 140.7 establishes outdoor lighting power density allowances in terms of watts per area for ligh ting
sources other than signage. The lighting allowances are provided by the Lighting Zone, as defined in Section 10
-
114 of the CEC. Under Section 10
-
114, all urban areas within California are designated as Lighting Zone 3. Additional allowances are provid
ed for Building Entrances or Exits, Outdoor Sales
Frontage, Hardscape Ornamental Lighting, Building Facade Lighting, Canopies, Outdoor Dining, and Special Security Lighting for Retail Parking and Pedestrian Hardscape.

California Coastal Act of 1976

The Cal
ifornia Coastal Act (California Public Resource Code sections 30000 et seq.) was enacted by the State Legislature in 1976 to provide long
-
term protection of California’s 1,100
-
mile coastline for the benefit of current
and future generations. The Coastal Co
mmission, in partnership with coastal cities and counties, plans and regulates the use of land and water in the coastal zone. Development activities, which are broadly defined by the California Coastal Act (CCA) to include (among others) construction of bu ildings, divisions of land, and activities that
change the intensity of use of land or public access to coastal waters, generally require a coastal permit from either the Coastal Commission or the local government. The Coastal Act requires local government s (15 coastal counties
and 59 cities) to create and implement Local Coastal Programs (LCPs) that incorporate policies to protect, enhance
and restore environmentally sensitive habitats, including intertidal and nearshore waters, wetlands, bays and estuarie
s, riparian habitat, certain wood and grasslands, streams, lakes and habitat for rare or endangered plants or animals, as well as the scenic beauty of coastal landscapes and seascape .

L
ocal

City of Manhattan Beach General Plan

The following goals and policies from the City’s General Plan relate to aesthetics and aesthetic impacts.

Goal CR
-
4:

Preserve the existing landscape resources in the
City and

encourage the provision of additional
l
andscaping.

Policy CR
-

4.1:

Protect existi
ng mature trees throughout the City

and encourage their replacement with
specimen

trees whenever they are lost or removed
.

Policy CR
-

4.4:

Review the tree ordinance to consider its

application citywide
and to determine

the need
to

strengthen tree
preservation criteria.

Policy CR
-

4.5:

Discourage the reduction of landscaped open

space and especially the removal of

trees
from

public and private land.

Policy CR
-

4.6:

Prepare lists of appropriate landscaping materials

for the
climate and

encourage

reside
nts
and

businesses to use them.

Goal LU
-
1:

Maintain the low
-
profile development and
small
-
town

atmosphere of Manhattan Beach.

Policy LU
-

1.1:

Limit the height of new development to three stories where the height limit is thirty feet, or to two stories where

the height limit is twenty
-
six feet, to protect the privacy of adjacent properties, reduce shading, protect vistas of the ocean, and preserve the low -
profile image of the community.

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

34 JANUARY 2022

Goal LU
-
3:

Achieve a strong, positive community aesthetic.

Policy LU
-

3.1:

Continue to encourage quality design in all new construction.

Policy LU
-

3.2:

Promote the use of adopted design guidelines for new construction in Downtown, along Sepulveda Boulevard, and othe
r areas to which guidelines apply.

Policy LU
-

3.6 :

Encourage the beautification of the
walkstreets
, particularly through the use of landscaping
.

Goal LU
-
4:

Preserve the features of each community neighborhood, and develop solutions tailored to

each
neighbor
hood’s unique characteristics.

Policy LU
-

4.1:

Protect public access to and enjoyment of the beach while respecting the privacy of beach residents.

Policy LU
-

4.4:

Encourage the preservation and enhancement of unique residential homes and buildings throughou
t Manhattan Beach to preserve the culture and history of the City.

Policy LU
-

4.5:

Encourage measures that recognize and work to protect buildings, landscaping, and other features important to the City’s history.

Policy LU
-

4.6:

When public improvements are
made, they should preserve and maintain distinctive
neighborhood characteristics.

Goal LU
-
5:

Protect residential neighborhoods from the intrusion of inappropriate and incompatible uses.

Goal LU
-
7:

Continue to support and encourage the viability of the
Downtown area of Manhattan Beach.

Policy LU
-

7.6:

Recognize the unique qualities of mixed
-
use development and balance the needs of both
commercial and residential uses.

Housing Element (2021)

T
he
proposed Housing
E
lement

includes goals and policies to enhan
ce the aesthetic quality of neighborhoods and
housing environments

including the following:

Policy 3.1:

Eliminate potentially unsafe or unhealthy conditions in existing residential

developments.

Program
8 :

E
nsure building safety of residential
buildings through enforcement of

building codes
on a compliance and proactive building
-
permit issuance basis, and through

referrals to the
County of Los Angeles Environmental Health Division for rental housing

enforcement
conditions/inspections.

Program
2 3
:

Amend the MBMC to eliminate provision 10.52.050.F such that all parcels operating as one site would be subject to existing maximum lot size requirements. This would help d
eter
“mansionization” or
construction of overly large dwellings that are out of
scale with
the surrounding neighborhoods
.

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

35 JANUARY 2022

Manhattan Beach Municipal Code

Section 7.36.150, Encroachment standards

This section requires avoidance of any obstruction to neighboring residents’ scenic vistas and views caused by built structures, landscaping
design, or otherwise. This section also

includes
design
provisions
for private and public
structures (including private residences, fences, retaining walls, etc.) adjacent to

City designated walk streets
.
8 Chapter 7.48
–

Coastal Zone

Within the City's coa
stal zone, as defined in Division 20 of the Public Resources Code and in Chapter 2.

of the
certified Local Coastal Plan (LCP), all development, including changes in availability of public access and/or public parking, require a coastal
development permit (CDP) and are governed by the provisions of Chapter 2.A and Division 20 of the Public Resources Code. Chapter 7.36, Encroachment Permit, is part of the City’s certified LCP.

Planning and Zoning Ordinance

(Title 10)

The Planning and
Zonin
g Ordinance

sets forth requirements and design standards for base and

overlay districts, as
well as site specific requirements
applicable to residential districts. This includes provisions related to appropriate exterior building materials, height, buildin
g and lost size requirements, establishing contingency fees to maintain the aesthetic quality

of condominiums,

and general compatibility and design standards
for
projects

within
residential areas
so as
to
foster convenient, harmonious, and workable relatio
nships among land uses.

In particular
Section 10.60.121(D) sets forth performance standards for glare that apply to all land uses, Section 10.52.020 prohibits metallic finishes on the exterior walls of all structures and Section 10.64.170 ensures that adeq uate
lighting is provided for safety will also protecting residential uses from undue glare.

Tree Preservation

Chapter 7.32, Tree, Shrub, and Plant Regulations

Chapter 7.32 establishes regulations for trees, shrubs, and plants located on sidewalks, median s, or elsewhere in
the public right of way. This chapter sets forth measures related to proper selection of species, conditions of protected status,
preservation,
required permits and fees, and other general provisions related to care, maintenance, and ove
rall aesthetic quality trees, shrubs, and plants

in public spaces.

Section

10.52.120
,

Tree preservation and restoration in residential zones, Area Districts I and II.

Regulations provided for in the Section 10.52.120 are designed

to preserve and enhance t
he existing
healthy

tree

canopies on individual residential properties as well as the overall neighborhood .

The design of
residences, including grading, driveways, walkways, patios, utilities and right -
of
-
way improvements,
are required to
consider and acco
mmodate existing healthy protected

trees
, as reasonably feasible.

For the purposes of this
section a “protected

tree
" is defined as: any species of

tree
, (excluding deciduous fruit
-
bearing

trees

and
Washingtonia

species palms) the trunk of which is located at least partially within the required front yard or street side yard (on corner lots) of a site, with a trunk diameter of twelve inches (12 ″) or greater or multiple trunks totaling
twelve inches (12
″) in diame
ter or greater at a height of four and one
-
half feet (4.5
′) from existing grade; and any
replacement

tree

required.

8 A “walk street” is defined in the Manhattan Beach Municipal Code as any street where vehicular use is prohibited.

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

36 JANUARY 2022

City of Manhattan Beach Local Coastal Program

The Manhattan Beach Local Coastal Program (LCP), which has been certified by the California Coastal Commission,
is the basic planning tool used by Manhattan Beach to guide development in the coastal zone. The LCP contains the foundation policy for future development and protection of coastal resources. The LCP specifies appropriate location, type
, and scale of new or changed uses of land and water. The LCP contains a designation in the Zoning Map and measures to implement the plan. Prepared by the City, this program governs decisions that determine the short
-

and long
-
term conservation and use of
coastal resources. While the LCP reflects the unique characteristics of Manhattan Beach, the LCP must also be consistent with the CCA

goals and policies. The
CCA

requires consistency
between the LCP and General Plan. Section 30500.1 of the CCA

provides tha
t an LCP is not required to include
housing policies and programs. However, Section 30007 states that local governments are not exempt from meeting requirements of state and federal law with respect to providing low -

and moderate
-
income housing or other
ob
ligations related to housing. In those circumstances where an issue is addressed by both the LCP and General Plan, the terms of the LCP would generally prevail, including as it applies to general development aesthetics, views, and scenic vistas

(City of Ma
nhattan Beach 2003)
.

3.1.3 Environmental Impacts

Potentially
Significant
Impact

Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No Impact

AESTHETICS

–

Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project :

Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista?

Substantially damage scenic
resources
,

including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?

In non
-
urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character or
quality of public views of the site
and its
surroundings? (Public views are those that
are experienced from publicly accessible
vantage point). If the project is in an
urbanized area, would the project conflict
with applicable zoning and other regulations
governing scenic quality?

Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

37 JANUARY 2022

Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?

Less Than Significant

Impact
.

Sc
enic vistas generally refer to views of expansive open space areas or other natural features, such as mountains, undeveloped hillsides, large natural water bodies, or coastlines, that are accessible from public vantage points, such as public roadways and p arks. Less commonly, certain
urban settings or features, such as a striking or renowned skyline, may also represent a scenic vista. A substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista would occur if the HEU

would significantly degrade the scenic
landscape as vi
ewed from public roads or other public areas.

The City’s topography consists of rolling hills, which affords public vistas of the two -
mile long sandy shore
coastline as well as the expansive backdrop of the Pacific Ocean and horizon line. As previously di scussed,
the HEU consists of a policy document update, and adoption of the HEU alone would not produce environmental impacts. Because all the qualifying sites under consideration for increased development intensity and intervening development are within ex
isting urban and semi
-
urban built
-
out areas, the HEU is
not anticipated to have a substantial adverse effect on scenic vistas within the City. Further, there are a variety of existing regulatory processes that would serve to minimize any potential impacts related to future
residential development facilitated by the Housing Element. Several sections provided for in the Planning and Zoning Ordinance (Title 10 of the
MBMC
) regulate physical development by controlling not only the appearance of ne
w residential development, but also the placement of new development, so as to create housing that is “harmonious” within the context of the surrounding houses and neighborhood (refer to Regulatory Setting, above).

MBMC

Section 7.36.150
appli
es to certain private improvements in the public

righ
t
-

o
f
-
way

(e.g., r
etaining walls,
staircases
, landscaping
) i
n order

to avoid obstructions to
public
scenic
vistas and views.

In addition, all development taking place within the LCP boundary area would b e subject
to additional provisions set forth in the City’s LCP, which identifies the location, type, densities, and other ground rules for development in the coastal zone, including the provision to enhance and protect the scenic beauty of coastal landscap
es (City of Manhattan Beach 2003). Compliance with provisions of the Planning and Zoning Ordinance as well as the CCA and LCP would be ensured through the City’s development review and building permit process.

A
dditionally, a
ccording to the City’s General
Plan EIR, there are no officially designated scenic vistas in the City. However
,
the Land Use Element of the General Plan includes several goals and policies aimed at minimizing potentially adverse
view

impacts, including Policy LU
-

1.1 which limits the hei
ght of new
development to two or three stories to “protect vistas of the ocean”.

A number of other
General Plan
goals
and polices listed above in the Regulatory Setting
section
above
would also serve to minimize potential
impacts by preventing
degradation of existing vistas and promoting actions that would make existing scenic vistas more accessible
, such as Goal 4 and Policy LU
-

4.1 .

Ultimately, p
otential aesthetic
-
related impacts are location specific and cannot be assessed in a meaningful way
until the location of a project site
s

are

known

and the development planned on those sites is defined
.

While the

future

rezoning program
, which would be undertaken as an action separate from the adoption of the HEU,

would allow for greater intensities than

previously permitted in certain areas of the City, the
existing regulatory setting

and
the infill locations selected as part of
HEU

sites analysis
would ensure that
future potential

impacts to scenic vistas associated with
adoption of the
HEU

would be les
s than significant.

Additionally, approval of the
HEU

itself
, as a policy document update, would not provide any goals, policies, or programs that would significantly degrade the scenic resources

of the City. Furthermore, the
HEU

includes goals and policie
s to enhance
the aesthetic quality of
neighborhoods and housing environments,
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / FINAL

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

38 JANUARY 2022

such as
eliminating potentially unsafe or unhealthy conditions in existing residential development s

(Policy

3.1 ),
implementing a
renewed effort to
enforce building code complianc
e

of
existing and proposed
residential housing

(Program
8 )
,

and continuing to deter construction of overly large dwellings that are out of scale with the surrounding neighborhoods

(Program
23 )
.

Therefore, impacts

to scenic vistas

would be
less than significant

and n
o mitigation is required.

Would the
project substantially damage scenic resources
,

including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

No Impact
.

As discussed above under Regulatory Setting, the California Scenic Highway Program includes
highways designated by Caltrans as scenic
.

There are currently no designated state scenic highways or eligible state scenic highways in the City of Manhattan Beach. The nearest eligible scenic highway, Route 1, runs from Route 187 near the

City of Santa Monica (approximately 6
.38

miles northwest of the Project
site), to Route 101 near El Rio in Ventura County. The nearest officially designated State

scenic highway,
Route 27 near the Topanga State Park, is located approximately 13 miles nort hwest of the Project site
(Caltrans 20
21 ). Due to distance, intervening terrain, and intervening development, the HEU

would not be
visible from the eligible
S
tate scenic segment of Route 1 nor the officially designated S
tate scenic highway
segment of Route

27 , and no impacts would occur.

In non
-
urbanized areas, would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly acces
sible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?

Less Than Significant Impact
.

California Public Resources Code Section 21071 defines an “urbanized area” as “(a) an incorporated city that meets either of the following criteria: (1) Has a population of at least 100,000 persons, or (2) Has a population of less than 100,000 persons if t he
population of that city and not more than two contiguous incorporated cities combined equals at least 100,000 persons.”
As previously discusse
d
, the project would be required to comply with existing State
and local
regulations and

would be
consistent

wi
th the General Plan Goals and Policies
governing
scenic quality. This includes consistency with
Goal
LU
-
4, to preserve the features of each community
neighborhood, and develop solutions tailored to each neighborhood’s unique characteristics. In addition,
p
rovisions of the
Planning and Zoning Ordinance

regulate physical development by controlling
not only the appearance of new residential development, but also the placement of
new development,
so as to ensure aesthetic compatibility
.

In addition,
sites ident
ified within the LCP Boundary
, including
the currently proposed
Verandas at 401 Rosecrans Avenue

project
, would be
required to comply with
LCP and CCA

regulations
,
including the provision to protect the scenic
qualities
of coastal landscapes

(City of Manhattan Beach 2003).

According to the General Plan Community Resources Element (2003), trees on
both public and private
property provide tremendous value, aesthetic and otherwise, to all City residents , and the
City is committed
to preserving e
xisting trees and expanding the urban forest by replacing damaged or dying trees and planting new trees. In addition, the Community Resources Element states that well -
maintained landscaping
can beautify property, adding character and uniqueness to private and public areas.

As such, the City’s
General Plan includes several Goals and Policies related to the preservation and maintenance of trees and landscaping, including Goal CR
-
4 which requires that new development proposals preserve existing CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / FINAL

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

39 JANUARY 2022

landscape resou
rces in the City, and encourages the provision of additional landscaping (see Regulatory Framework for specific General Plan Policies related to landscaping and tree preservation). In addition, the City’s
MBMC

establishes regulations for tree
s, shrubs, and plants located on sidewalks, medians, or elsewhere in the public right of way
(
Chapter

7.32, Tree, Shrub, and Plant Regulations), as well as measures to
preserve and enhance the existing healthy tree canopies on individual residential proper ties and
neighborhoods

in Areas 1 and 3 (Section 10.52.120, Tree preservation and restoration in residential zones, Area Districts I and II).

The
project

would
not, in and of itself, result in impacts

scenic resources or visual character, and
would
not

conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.

As discussed, a
ll future
rezoning
efforts

or residential development projects
would

require
program

or project
-
specific
env
ironmental evaluation

determine that any potential impacts are less than significant.

In addition,
p
otential aesthetic
-
related impacts are location specific and cannot be assessed in a meaningful way until the project site
parcels are

confirmed

and the
development planned on th
ose sites is defined
.

Therefore,
no significant impact would result from implementation of the HEU

with respect to the degradation of the
existing visual character and
/
or quality of the site
,

and impacts would be less than significant
. No mitigation
is req
uired.

Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

Less Than Significant Impact
.

Lighting is of most concern when it
has the potential to
spill over or
trespass fro
m a
project

site onto sensitive surrounding land uses, such as residential properties, resulting in a potential nuisance
. E
xtraneous glare is associated with the use of highly reflective building materials (glass, steel etc.).

The
proposed
HEU

will not, in and of itself, create sources of substantial light or glare that adversely affect views.

The
future
rezoning program would

occur

in an urbanized context

and be
evaluated separately at the time when parcels for rezoning are fully identified .

As described in Threshold 3.1(c), while
the HEU consists of a policy document update that is not anticipated to produce environmental im
pacts,
the City has identified qualifying sites within the CG, PD, RM, and RS zones that could be included in the future rezoning effort and would therefore allow for greater densities
than are currently allowed. However, as discussed, the implementation o f any overlay or rezoning effort
would require future CEQA review and discretionary approval.

The

adoption of the HEU

would
ultimately
encourage additional
development
in certain preidentified areas
throughout the
City
; however, the City’s

Planning and
Zoning Ordinance

(Title 10 of the
MBMC
) contains
provisions intended to limit adverse light and glare impacts.

Section 10.60.121(D) sets forth performance
standards for glare that apply to all land use
s
, while Section 10.52.020 prohibits meta
llic finishes on the
exterior walls for all structures (other than accessory structures) within residential areas
. In addition,
Section 10.64.170
regulates exterior lighting, and is intended to ensure that adequate lighting is provided for personal and tra
ffic safety while also protecting nearby residential uses from undue glare. Provisions of this section include required shielding, height restrictions, and maximum acceptable levels of illumination within range of residential uses.

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

40 JANUARY 2022

Ultimately, p
otential
l
ight and/or glare
related impacts are location specific and cannot be assessed in a meaningful way until the location of a project site is known

and the
development planned on those sites is
defined
. At such time that a development proposal is considered t hat project will be subject to adopted
development guidelines/standards, and any impacts identified with the development project will be addressed through mitigation measures specific to the impact. In addition, all future projects would be required to com
ply with applicable
MBMC

standards
which
would further reduce the potential for significant
impacts
.

As such, and with compliance with
applicable
City
and
S
tate
regulations, the
HEU

would have a
less than significant impact regarding the creation of a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area
, and
n
o mitigation is required.

3.1.4 References

Caltrans (California Departmen
t of Transportation). 2021. California State Scenic Highway System. Accesses September 17, 2021.
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer

/index.html?id=2e921695c43643b1aaf7000dfcc19983.

City of Manhattan Beach. 2001. Manhattan Beach Municipal Co de. Revised and republished 2001. Accessed
September 19, 2021.
https://library.municode.com/ca/manhattan_beach/codes

/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=MANHATTAN_BEACH_CALIFORNIAMUCO .

City of Manhattan Beach. 2003. General Plan. Adopted 1988. Updated 2003. Accesse d September 17, 202
1 .
https://www.manhattanbeach.gov/departments/community
-
development/planning
-
zoning

/general
-
plan/final
-
general
-
plan
.

3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources

3.2.1 Environmental Setting

Mapped Important Farmland

The California Department of Conservation (CDOC) and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) classify agricultural lands into five categories: Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, Fa
rmland of Local Importance, and Farmland of Local Potential. Non -
farmlands are
classified as Grazing Land, Urban and Built
-
Up Land, Other Land, or Water. The City of
Manhattan Beach

classified
as Urban and Built
-
Up land by the CDOC

Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program (FMMP)
,
defined as land used
for residential, industrial, commercial, construction, institutional, public administrative purposes, railroad yards, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment plants, water con trol structures, and other
development purposes. This classification also includes vacant and nonagricultural land which is surrounded

by
urban development and is less than 40 acres

(CDOC 2021a, 2021b)
.

Forests

Forest land is defined as “land that can support 10
-
percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, bi
odiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits” (California Public CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / FINAL

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

41 JANUARY 2022

Resources Code Section 12220[g]). Timberland is defined as “land…which is available for, and capable of, growing a crop of trees of any commercial species used to produce lumber and other forest products, including Christmas
trees” (California Public Resources Code Section 4526). Pursuant to these definitions, there are no forests, forest land, or timber land in the City of Manhattan Beach
.

3.2.2 Regulatory Setting

Federal

There are no federal regulations
pertaining

to farmland and forestry resources that would apply to the HEU
.

State

State Farmland

Mapping and Monitoring Program

The goal of the state FMMP is to provide consistent and impartial data to decision makers for u se in assessing
present status, reviewing trends, and planning for the future of California’s agricultural land resources. FMMP produces Important Farmland Maps, which are a hybrid of resource quality (soils) and land use information.

Agricultural land is
rated according to soil quality and irrigation status; the best quality land is called Prime Farmland. The maps are updated every 2 years with the use of a computer mapping system, aerial imagery, public review, and field reconnaissance. Data are also rele
ased in statistical formats
—
principally the biennial California
Farmland Conversion Report.

California Land Conservation Act (Williamson Act)

The Williamson Act provides tax incentives to retain prime agricultural land and open space in agricultural use, w
hich subsequently slows its conversion to urban development. The Williamson Act requires a 10 -
year contract
between the County and landowners who enter into contracts with local government for long -
term use restrictions
on qualifying agricultural and open
space land. In accordance with the contract, the land must be taxed based on its agricultural use rather than its full market value. The overall purpose of the Williamson Act is to protect agricultural lands and open space.

Local

As there is no farmland,
forestland, or timberland within City of Manhattan Beach, there are no local regulations

related to agriculture

forestry resources
that
would apply to the
HEU
.

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

42 JANUARY 2022

3.2.3 Environmental Impacts

Potentially
Significant
Impact

Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No Impact

II.

AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES

–

In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dep t.

Conservation as an o
ptional model to use
in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Depart
ment of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment
project

and the Forest Legacy Assessment project;
and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air
Resources Board. Would the project:

Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California
R
esources Agency, to non
-
agricultural use?

Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract?

Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of,
forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 51104(g))?

Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non
-
forest use?

Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non
-
agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non
-
forest u
se?

Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on
the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non
-
agricultural use?

No Impact
.

As discussed above,

the City of Manhattan Beach is classified entirely as Urban and Built -
Up
land by the

CDOC FMMP
,

and

there is no
Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance identified within the City’s boundaries. (DOC 2021 a
).

Therefore,
implementation

of the HEU
would not result in the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland , or Farmland of Statewide
Importance

to non
-
agricultural use
,
and no impact would occur
.

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

43 JANUARY 2022

Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?

Impact.

The City of
Manhattan Beach
has no

zoning for a
gricultural use and no

land subject to a
Williamson Act contract.

While the

City does have a limited about of designate
d

open space,
none
of this
land
is zoned for agricultural use. Further,

the
HEU

does not propose any changes to lands currently
zoned

as
Open Space

(OS)

by the City’s
Zoning Designations map
(City of
Manhattan Beach

2 004
). Therefore,
the
HEU

would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract . The
HEU

would
therefore have no impact.

Would the projec
t conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Governmen t Code section 51104(g))?

No Impact
.

As previously discussed, there are no parcels within the City that are zoned as forest land or timberland. Additionally, there is no forest land or any land that is designated for the purposes of conserving forest land within the City. Therefore, the
HEU

w
ould have no impact on forest or timberland.

Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -
forest use?

No Impact
.

There

are no parcels within the City that are zoned as forest land .

Additionally, there is no
forest land or any land that is designated for the purposes of conserving forest land within the City.

Therefore, the
HEU

would
not result in the loss of forestland or

conversion of forest and to non
-
forest use,
and no impact would occur.

Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non
-
agricultural use or conver
sion of forest land to
non
-
forest use?

No Impact
.

While there is no
forestland or
land zoned for agricultural use

within the City,
there is a limited
amount of designated
O
pen
S
pace. The
HEU

does not propose to make any changes to parcels currently zoned
O
pen Space (
O
S)
.

As such,
the
HEU

would not involve
changes that could result in the conversion of
Farmland to non
-
agricultural uses or forest land to non
-
forest use
.

No impact would occur.

3.2.4 References

CDOC (California Department of
Conservation). 2021a. California Important Farmland Finder. Accessed September 23, 2021. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/

CDOC. 2021b. Important Farmland Mapping Categories and Soil Taxonomy Terms. Accessed September 23, 2021. https://www.conser
vation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Documents/soil_criteria.pdf

City of
Manhattan Beach
, 20
04 .

City of Manhattan Beach Zoning Designations (Map).

Adopted
August

200

4. Accessed September 23, 2021.
https://www.manhattanbeach.gov/home/showpublisheddocument

/76/6373646440
90270000

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

44 JANUARY 2022

3.3 Air Quality

3.3.1 Environmental Setting

Ambient air quality is generally affected by climatological conditions, the topography of the air basin, the type and amounts of pollutants emitted, and, for some pollutants, sunlight.

T
he
City is

locate
d within South Coast Air Basin
(SCAB). Topographical and climatic factors in the SCAB create the potential for high concentrations of regional and local air pollutants. This section describes relevant characteristics of the air basin, types of air pollutan ts, health
effects, and existing air quality levels.

The SCAB includes the non
-
desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties, and all of Orange County, and is within the jurisdictional boundaries of the South Coast Air Quality Mana gement District (SCAQMD).

Criteria air pollutants are defined as pollutants for which the federal and S
tate
governments have established
ambient air quality standards, or criteria, for outdoor concentrations to protect public health. The federal and S
tate
standards have been set, with an adequate margin of safety, at levels above which concentrations could be harmful to human health and welfare. These standards are designed to protect the most sensitive persons from illness or discomfort. Pollutants of

concern include ozone (O
3 ), nitrogen dioxide (NO
2 ), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide
(SO
2 ), particulate matter equal to or less than 10 microns in aerodynamic diameter (PM 10 ), particulate matter equal
to or less than 10 microns in aerodynamic diameter

(PM

2.5 ), and lead (Pb). In California, sulfates, vinyl chloride, hydrogen sulfide, and visibility
-
reducing particles are also regulated as criteria air pollutants.

3.3.2 Regulatory Setting

Federal

Federal Clean Air Act

The federal Clean Air Act passed in

1970 and last amended in 1990, forms the basis for the national air pollution control effort. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for implementing most aspects of the Clean Air Act, including the setting of National Ambient Air Q uality Standards (NAAQS; federal standards) for major
air pollutants, hazardous air pollutant (HAP) standards, approval of state attainment plans, motor vehicle emission standards, stationary source emissions standards and permits, acid rain control measur es, stratospheric O
3 protection, and enforcement provisions. Federal standards are established for criteria pollutants under the Clean Air Act, which are O
3 , CO, NO
2 , SO
2 , PM
10 , PM

2.5 , and lead.

The federal standards describe acceptable air quality
conditions designed to protect the health and welfare of the citizens of the nation. The federal standards (other than for O 3 , NO
2 , SO
2 , PM
10 , PM

2.5 , and those based on annual
averages or arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once per year. Fed eral standards for O
3 , NO
2 , SO
2 ,
PM
10 , and PM

2.5 are based on statistical calculations over 1
-

to
3 -
year

periods, depending on the pollutant. The
Clean Air Act requires the EPA to reassess the federal standards at least every 5 years to determine whether a
dopted standards are adequate to protect public health based on current scientific evidence. States with areas that exceed the federal standards must prepare a state implementation plan that demonstrates how those areas will attain the standards within man
dated time frames.

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

45 JANUARY 2022

The federal Clean Air Act delegates the regulation of air pollution control and the enforcement of the federal standards to the states. In California, the task of air quality management and regulation has been legislatively granted to
Ca
lifornia Air Resources Board (
CARB
)
,

with subsidiary responsibilities assigned to air quality management districts and air pollution control districts at the regional and county levels.

State

California Clean Air Act

The federal Clean Air Act delegates the regulation of air pollution control

and the enforcement of the NAAQS to the
states. In California, the task of air quality management and regulation has been legislatively granted to CARB, with subsidiary responsibilities assigned to air quality management districts and air pollution contro l districts at the
regional and county levels. CARB, which became part of the California Environmental Protection Agency in 1991, is responsible for ensuring implementation of the California Clean Air Act of 1988, responding to the federal Clean Air Act, a
nd regulating emissions from motor vehicles and consumer products.

CARB has established California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), which are generally more restrictive than the NAAQS. As stated previously, an ambient air quality standard defines the

maximum amount of a pollutant
averaged over a specified period of time that can be present in outdoor air without harm to the public's health. For each pollutant, concentrations must be below these relevant CAAQS before a basin can attain the correspondin g
CAAQS. Air quality is considered “in attainment” if pollutant levels are continuously below the CAAQS and violate the standards no more than once each year. The CAAQS for O 3 , CO, SO
2 (1
-
hour and 24
-
hour), NO
2 , PM
10 , and PM

2.5 and visibility
-
reducing part
icles are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded.

Toxic Air Contaminants

The State Air Toxics Program was established in 1983 under AB 1807 (Tanner). The California toxic air contaminant (TAC) list identifies more

than 700 pollutants, of which carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic toxicity criteria have been established for a subset of these pollutants pursuant to the California Health and Safety Code. In accordance with Assembly Bill (AB) 2728, the
S
tate list includes
the (federal) HAPs. Furthermore, in 1987, the Legislature enacted the Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act of 1987 (AB 2588) to address public concern over the release of TACs into the atmosphere. In 2000, CARB approved a comprehensive Die sel Risk Reduction Plan to
reduce diesel emissions from both new and existing diesel -
fueled vehicles and engines. The regulation would result in an 80% decrease in
Statewide

diesel health risk in 2020 compared with the diesel risk in 2000. Other Airborne T
oxic Control Measures that reduce diesel emissions, including In -
Use Off
-
Road Diesel
-
Fueled Fleets (13 CCR 2449
et seq.) and In
-
Use On
-
Road Diesel
-
Fueled Vehicles (13 CCR 2025).

Regional/Local

South Coast Air Quality Management District

(SCAQMD)

The SCAQMD

is the regional agency responsible for the regulation and enforcement of federal, S
tate
, and local air
pollution control regulations in the SCAB, where the project site is located. The SCAQMD operates monitoring stations in the SCAB, develops rules and re
gulations for stationary sources and equipment, prepares emissions inventory and air quality management planning documents, and conducts source testing and inspections. The SCAQMD’s Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs) include control measures and strategi es to be implemented to
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / FINAL

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

46 JANUARY 2022

attain
S
tate
and federal ambient air quality standards in the SCAB. The SCAQMD then implements these control measures as regulations to control or reduce criteria pollutant emissions from stationary sources or equipment.

The most
-
re
cently adopted AQMP is the 2016 AQMP (SCAQMD 2017), which was adopted by the SCAQMD governing board on March 3, 2017. The 2016 AQMP is a regional blueprint for achieving air quality standards and healthful air. The 2016 AQMP addresses criteria air pollutan
t emissions from ocean
-
going vessels, which are considered
federal sources, and includes emissions associated with marine vessels and engines in the baseline year and future forecasts. The 2016 AQMP’s overall control strategy is an integral approach relyin g on fair
-
share emission
reductions from federal,
S
tate
, and local levels. The 2016 AQMP is composed of stationary and mobile source emission reductions from traditional regulatory control measures, incentive -
based programs, co
-
benefits from
climate progra
ms, mobile source strategies, and reductions from federal sources (SCAQMD 2017). These control strategies are to be implemented in partnership with CARB and the EPA.

Potentially Applicable Rules

Emissions that would result from stationary and area sources during construction and operation be subject to SCAQMD rules and regulations. The SCAQMD rule applicable to construction of residential
dwelling
units within the
City
may include the following:

R
ule 403:

Fugitive Dust.

This rule requires fugitive dust sources to implement best available control measures for all sources to ensure all forms of visible particulate matter are prohibited from crossing any property line. SCAQMD Rule 403 is intended to r
educe PM
10 emissions from any transportation,
handling, construction, or storage activity that has the potential to generate fugitive dust (SCAQMD 2005
).

South

Coast Air Basin Attainment Designation

(SCAB)

Pursuant to the 1990 federal Clean Air Act amendme
nts, the EPA classifies air basins (or portions thereof) as “attainment” or “nonattainment” for each criteria air pollutant, based on whether the NAAQS have been achieved.

Generally, if the recorded concentrations of a pollutant are lower than the standard , the area is classified as
“attainment” for that pollutant. If an area exceeds the standard, the area is classified as “nonattainment” for that pollutant. If there is not enough data available to determine whether the standard is exceeded in an area, the area
is designated as “unclassified” or “unclassifiable.” The designation of “unclassifiable/attainment” means that the area meets the standard or is expected to be meet the standard despite a lack of monitoring data. Areas that achieve the standards after

a nonattainment designation are re
-
designated as maintenance areas and must have
approved Maintenance Plans to ensure continued attainment of the standards. The California Clean Air Act, like its federal counterpart, called for the designation of areas as

“attainment” or “nonattainment,” but based on CAAQS
rather than the NAAQS.

The SCAB is designated as a nonattainment area for federal and state O 3 standards and federal and
S
tate
PM

2.5 standards. The SCAB is designated as a nonattainment area for state PM 10 standards; however, it is designated as
an attainment area for federal PM
10 standards. The SCAB is designated as an attainment area for federal and state CO standards, federal and
S
tate
NO
2 standards, and federal and
S
tate
SO
2 standards. While the SCAB
has been
designated as nonattainment for the federal rolling
three
-
month average lead standard, it is designated attainment for the
S
tate
lead standard (CARB 2020; EPA 2021).

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

47 JANUARY 2022

Southern California Association of Governments

(SCAG)

SCAG is the regional planni
ng agency for Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Imperial Counties and serves as a forum for regional issues relating to transportation, the economy, community development, and the environment. SCAG serves as the federally designa ted metropolitan planning organization
for the Southern California region and is the largest metropolitan planning organization in the United States.

On September 3, 2020, SCAG’s Regional Council voted to approve the Connect SoCal (2020 –
2045
Regional
Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (

RTP/SCS
)
). The Connect SoCal is a long
-
range visioning
plan that balances future mobility and housing

needs with economic, environmental and public health goals.

Connect SoCal charts a path toward a more mobile, sustainable and prosperous region by making connections between transportation networks, between planning strategies and between the people whose

collaboration can
improve the quality of life for Southern Californians. Connect SoCal embodies a collective vision for the region’s future and is developed with input from local governments, county transportation commissions, tribal governments, non
-
prof
it organizations, businesses and local stakeholders within the counties of Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura (SCAG 2020).

City of Manhattan Beach General Plan

The following goals and policies related to air quality are applicable to the HEU.

Goal CR
-
6:

Improve air quality.

Policy CR
-

6.1:

Encourage alternative modes of transportation, such as walking, biking, and public transportation, to reduce emissions associated with automobile use.

Policy CR
-

6.3:

Cooperate with the

South Coast Air Quality Management District and Southern California Association of Governments in their efforts to implement the regional Air Quality Management Plan.

Policy CR
-

6.4:

Cooperate and participate in regional air quality management planning, pr ograms, and
enforcement measures.

3.3.3 Environmental Impacts

Potentially
Significant
Impact

Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No Impact

III.

AIR QUALITY

–

Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:

Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of
the applicable air quality plan?

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

48 JANUARY 2022

Potentially
Significant
Impact

Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No Impact

Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non
-
attainment under
an applicable fe
deral or state ambient air
quality standard?

Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?

Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to

odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?

Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

Less Than Significant Impact.

The

HEU is a policy document for future actions that would occur within
the SCAB, which includes the non
-
desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties, and all of Orange County, and is within the jurisdictional boundaries of the SCAQMD .

The SCAQMD administers the AQMP for the SCAB, which is a comprehensive document outlining an air pollution control program for attaining all CAAQS and NAAQS. The most recent adopted AQMP is the 2016 AQMP (SCAQMD 2017), which was adopted by the SCAQMD Go
verning Board in March 2017.

The 2016
AQMP represents a new approach, focusing on available, proven, and cost -
effective alternatives to
traditional strategies while seeking to achieve multiple goals in partnership with other entities promoting reductions in greenhouse gases (GHGs) and

toxic risk, as well as efficiencies in energy use, transportation, and goods movement (SCAQMD 2017).

The SCAQMD has established criteria for determining consistency with the currently applicable AQMP in Chapter 12, Sections 12.2 and 12.3, in the SCAQMD C
EQA Air Quality Handbook.

The purpose of a
consistency finding is to determine if a project is inconsistent with the assumptions and objectives of the regional air quality plans, and, thus, if it would interfere with the region’s ability to comply with fed eral and
state air quality standards. The
relevant
criteria are as follows

discussed
below

(SCAQMD 1993):

Consistency Criterion No.
1:

The project will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or co
ntribute to new violations, or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards of the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP.

The HEU is a policy document and adoption will not directly result in short -
term construction or long
-
term
operat
ional emissions. In addition, future residential projects would be required to demonstrate that they would
not conflict with the applicable SCAQMD AQMP
,

and potential project
-
specific short
-

and long
-
term
impacts to air quality would be assessed at the tim
e the projects are proposed. Furthermore, future
development that is envisioned within, yet not permitted directly by, the HEU would be subject to federal, State, and local ambient air quality standards. Therefore, the HEU would not conflict with Consisten cy
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / FINAL

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

49 JANUARY 2022

Criterion No. 1 because it would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, cause or contribute to new violations, or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards of interim emission reductions spe
cified in the AQMP.

Consistency Criterion No.
2:

The project will not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP or increments based on the year of project buildout and phase.

The SCAQMD primarily
uses

demographic growth forecasts for various socioeconomic categories (e.g., population, housing, employment by in
dustry) developed by the SCAG for its RTP/SCS

to develop the
emission inventory for the 2016 AQMP (SCAQMD 2017).

The RTP/SCS’s forecasts are in turn

based on
general plans for cities and counties in the SCAB.
9 The SCAG 2016 RTP/
SCS and

associated Regional

Growth Forecast are
also
generally consistent with the local plans
.

Therefore
, the 2016 AQMP is generally
consistent with local government plans

through is use of information in SCAG’s RTP/SCS.

The City has been assigned a RHNA of 774 units for the 2021 –
2029 Housing Element which consists 332
very
-
low
-
income units, 165 low
-
income units, 155 moderate income units, and 132 above
-
moderate
income units (SCAG 2021). This level of growth is consistent with the General Plan, and the
HEU is intended
to

conform with the 2021
-
2029 update cycle for jurisdictions in the SCAG region.

Therefore, the
HEU

will
not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP or increments based on the year of project buildout and phase.

Th
e

HEU

does not conflict with the AQMP and would not increase population growth beyond what is forecasted in the most recently adopted AQMP
.

Based

on the considerations presented for the two criteria,

the HEU will not conflict with or obstruct the
implemen
tation of the 2016 AQMP
,

and

impacts relating to the
HEU
’s potential to conflict with, or obstruct
implementation of, the applicable AQMP would be less than significant.

Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criter ia pollutant for which the
project region is non
-
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?

Less Than Significant Impact.

The
HEU
is a policy document and as such does not propose specific development projects, but facilitates density needed to accommodate the
6 th

cycle RHNA

allocation
. Because specific projects are not known at
this time

and the HEU merely identifies potential capac
ity for future units that could be constructed
, the
City cannot assess the specific impacts of development in qualitative terms. All future
housing development
projects

built under the HEU

would
be subject to the policies listed above,
and if unique circum
stances are
present such that future housing development was not allowed by -
right or eligible for streamlining or a
CEQA exemption, would undergo project specific environmental review.

9 Information necessary to produce the emission inventory for the SCAB is obtained from the SCAQMD and other governmental
agencies, including
the California Air Resources Board (
CARB
)
,

Caltrans
, and SCAG. Each of these agencies is responsible for
collecting data (e.g., industry growth factors, socioeconomic projections, travel activity levels, emission fact ors, emission
speciation profile, and emissions) and developing methodologies (e.g., model and demographic forecast improvements) required to generate a comprehensive emissions inventory. SCAG incorporates these data into their Travel Demand Model for esti
mating/projecting vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and driving speeds. SCAG’s socioeconomic and transportation activities projections in their 2016 RTP/SCS are integrated in the 2016 AQMP (SCAQMD 2017
).

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

50 JANUARY 2022

Nonetheless, it is acknowledged that f
uture development associated with the
HEU

could result in an
increase in criteria pollutants during construction activities, such as excavation and grading, and operational activities, which could also contribute to the nonattainment status (O 3 , PM
10 ,
and PM

2.5 ) of the
SCAB.

Fugitive dust emissions would result from land clearing, grading operations, and construction equipment operations over the unpaved project site. Combustion emissions, such as NO x

and PM
10 , are
most significant when using large dies
el
-
fueled scrapers, loaders, bulldozers, haul trucks, compressors, generators, and other types of equipment. All future projects built under the HEU

would be required to
comply with all regional and local regulations such as with SCAQMD Rule 403 to control

dust emissions
during any dust
-
generating activities.

Regarding potential operational impacts, proposed future development , which
would be

residential in
character,
would not result in a significant long
-
term impact to air quality. The
HEU
anticipates po
pulation
and housing growth consistent with the Land Use Element as well as regional plans to accommodate growth
based on household size and dwelling unit potential for this planning period , which, as described above, is
in turn consistent with the assumpt
ions in the 2016 AQMP.

Most projects facilitated by the
HEU
would be
small in nature and would not be expected to exceed the SCAQMD emission thresholds .

In addition,
projects
that are proposed under the
HEU
would

be subject to the policies listed above,
and if unique circumstances
are present such that future housing development was not allowed by -
right or eligible for streamlining or a
CEQA exemption, would undergo project specific environmental review .

Furthermore, the HEU has policies
and programs desi
gned to promote infill development, encourage mixed use, promote housing within walking or biking distance of employment or school, and encourage downtown housing close to jobs, services, government, recreation, and more.

The
Community Resources Element of

the City’s General Plan

also

contains policies to ensure air quality impacts are reduced, as follows:

Policy CR
-

6.1:

Encourage alternative modes of transportation, such as walking, biking, and public transportation, to reduce emissions associated with aut omobile use.

Policy CR
-

6.3:

Cooperate with the South Coast Air Quality Management District and Southern California Association of Governments in their efforts to implement the regional Air Quality Management Plan.

Policy CR
-

6.4:

Cooperate and participate i
n regional air quality management planning, programs, and enforcement measures.

As stated above, the
HEU

is a policy document and as such does not propose specific development projects.

T
he
HEU

would not
result in a cumulatively considerable net increase o
f any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non
-
attainment
.

Therefore, potential air quality impacts would be less than significant.

Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

Less Than
Significant Impact.

The
HEU
does not propose specific development plans

and merely
identifies how the City will go about providing the capacity for a total of 479

new units between 2021 and
2029
; therefore, potential air quality impacts
including potential sensitive receptors are unknown at this time. However, future development is expected to be primarily infill development, which could potentially be located in close proximity to other residences, schools, and/or parks

and
would be subj
ect to policies
and standards presented by SCAQMD, as well as the General Plan and MBMC

for construction standards
regarding air quality.

Additionally, CARB has published the
Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / FINAL

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

51 JANUARY 2022

Community Health Perspective

(
CARB 2005), which identifies certain types of facilities or sources that may emit substantial quantities of
toxic air contaminants (
TACs
)

and therefore could conflict with sensitive land
uses, such as “schools and schoolyards, parks and playgrounds, daycar e centers, nursing homes, hospitals,
and residential communities.”

The facilities or sources
that may emit substantial quantities of TACs
include
the following:



High
-
traffic freeways and roads



Distribution centers



Rail yards



Ports



Refineries



Chrome plating

facilities



Dry cleaners



Large gas dispensing facilities.

The
Air Quality and Land Use Handbook

is a guide for siting of new sensitive land uses, but it does not mandate specific separation distances to avoid potential health impacts.

CARB recommends that sensitive
receptors not be located downwind or in proximity to such sources to avoid potential health hazards. The HEU

is focused on development of housing and
would
not

include any of the previously listed land uses
that may emit subs
tantial quantities of TACs.

The greatest potential for TAC emissions
would be diesel particulate matter

(
DPM
)

emissions from heavy
equipment operations and heavy
-
duty trucks during

the future residential development’s construction
activities

and the associated potential health impacts to sensitive receptors. According to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, health risk assessments (which determine the exposure of se
nsitive receptors to toxic emissions) should be based on a 30 -
year exposure period for the maximally
exposed individual receptor; however, such assessments should also be limited to the period/duration of activities associated with the project.

As previous
ly discussed, specific projects are not identified and the HEU is a policy document
,
adoption will not result in direct short
-
term construction emissions
.

Furthermore,
future residential development

would
also
not require the extensive operation of heavy
-
d
uty diesel
construction equipment

and diesel trucks
, which
are

subject to a CARB Airborne Toxics Control Measure to
reduce DPM emissions.

The SCAQMD recommends a localized significance threshold (LST) analysis to evaluate the potential of localized air qu
ality impacts to sensitive receptors in the immediate vicinity of a project from construction and operation; however, an operational LST analysis is only applicable to land uses with on -
site emission
sources and is generally not applicable to residential l and uses as they do not include substantial on
-
site
sources of localized emissions.

In addition, t
he LST methodology was developed to be used as a tool to assist lead agencies to analyze localized impacts associated with project -
level impacts. However, the

LSTs
are applicable to projects at the project
-
specific level and are not applicable to regional projects, such as the HEU, as specific projects have not been identified at this time.

Therefore, neither a construction nor an
operational LST analysis is re
commended or provided herein.

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

52 JANUARY 2022

Localized carbon monoxide (CO) impacts or CO hotspots can be associated with heavily congested intersections. In 2007, the SCAQMD was designated in attainment for CO under both the CAAQS and NAAQS as a result of the
steady decline in CO concentrations in the SCAB due to turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of control technology on industrial facilities; therefore, the potential for CO hotspots in the SCAB is steadily decreasing . The SCAQMD conducted CO modeling for
the 2003 AQMP
10 for the four worst
-
case intersections in the SCAB. At the time the 2003 AQMP was prepared, the intersection of Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue was the most congested intersection in Los Angeles C
ounty, with an average daily traffic volume of about 100,000 vehicles per day; however, the peak modeled CO 1hour concentration was estimated to be 4.6 while the CAAQS is 20 ppm. Similarly, the maximum 8
-
hour CO concentration was 3.4 ppm at the Wilshire Bo
ulevard and Veteran Avenue in 2002,
while the CAAQS is 9.0 ppm.

Accordingly, CO concentrations at congested intersections would not exceed the 1 -
hour or 8
-
hour CO CAAQS
unless projected daily traffic would be at least over 100,000 vehicles per day. Becaus e the HEU is a
policy

document and does not include specific development, it would not increase daily traffic volumes at any study intersection to more than 100,000 vehicles per day; therefore, a CO hotspot is not anticipated to occur and associated impact
s would be less than significant.

Regarding health effects associated with criteria air pollutants, health

effects associated with O
3 include
respiratory symptoms, worsening of lung disease leading to premature death, and damage to lung tissue ;
health eff
ects associated with NO
x
include lung irritation and enhanced allergic responses; health effects associated with CO

include chest pain in patients with heart disease, headache, light -
headedness, and
reduced mental alertness; and health effects associated w ith particulate matter (PM
10 ) include premature
death and hospitalization, primarily for worsening of respiratory disease (CARB 2021). Because the HEU is a policy document, it is not directly anticipated to generate construction or operational criteria air

pollutant
emissions or potential associated health effects.

Therefore, the HEU would not expose students, faculty, children, elderly and other sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions from these sources. As such, impacts would be less than significant

Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?

Impact.

The
HEU
is a policy document
identifying how the City will go about providing adequate capacity for the future provision of
479

new units,
and adoption will not, in itself, result in environmental impacts.

No odors would be generated by adopting this policy document; as such, no im pacts would occur.

10 SCAQMD’s CO hotspot modeling guidance has not changed since 2003.

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

53 JANUARY 2022

3.3. 4

References

CARB (California Air Resources Board). 2005.

Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health
Perspective
. April 2005.

Accessed August 2016. http://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/landuse.htm.

CARB. 2020. “Area Designation Maps/State and National.” Last updated October 2020. http://www.arb.ca.gov

/desig/adm/adm.htm
.

CARB. 20
21 . “Common Air Pollutants.”

https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/common
-
air
-
pollutants.

City of Manhattan Beach. 2021. Manhattan Beach Powered by 100% Green, Renewable Energy. Accessed October 28, 2021.
https://www.manhattanbeach.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/48048

/637691230191730000.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2021. “Regio n 9: Air Quality Analysis, Air Quality Maps.” Last updated June 10, 2021. http://www.epa.gov/region9/air/maps/.

SCAG (Southern California Association of Governments). 2020.

The 2020
–
2045 Regional Transportation
Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy of the
Southern California Association of Governments, Connect SoCal.

https://www.connectsocal.org/Documents/Adopted/fConnectSoCal -
Plan.pdf.

SCAG. 2021. SCAG 6
th

Cycle Final RHNA Allocation Plan. Accessed September 13, 2021. https://scag.ca.gov/sites

/main/files/
file
-
attachments/6th
-
cycle
-
rhna
-
final
-
allocation
-
plan.pdf?1625161899

SCAQMD (South Coast Air Quality Management District). 1993.

CEQA Air Quality Handbook
.

SCAQMD. 2017.
2016 Final Air Quality Management Plan.

3.4 Biological Resources

3.4.1 Environmental Setting

Manhattan Beach is a built
-
out urban community. There are no riparian habitats, wetlands, or other sensitive habitat conservation areas within the
C
ity (City of Manhattan Beach 2003a). Inland environmentally sensitive areas

in the Cit
y

are generally zoned and protected as parklands (City of Manhattan Beach 2003b). However, the City has two miles of beach frontage and
40 acres of recreational beach area
. A

significant portion of the
City is within
the
City and
S
tate designated coastal z
one, wherein impacts to coastal resources are always of concern (
C
ity of Manhattan Beach 2003b).

Policies

governing land use in the coastal zone constrain residential development to some extent, but
they
are necessary to support
the Local Coastal Plan (
LCP
)

and
California Coastal Act (
CCA
)

policies
, described
below
, including the protection, enhancement and restoration of costal environmentally sensitive habitats, such as
intertidal and nearshore waters and habitat for rare or endangered plants or animals ( City of
Manhattan Beach 2003b).

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

54 JANUARY 2022

3.4.2 Regulatory Setting

Federal

Endangered Species Act

The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) of 1973 provides legislation to protect federally listed plant and animal species. Impacts to listed species resulting from t
he implementation of a project would require the responsible agency or individual to formally consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) to d etermine the extent of impact
to a particular species. If the USFWS or NOAA Fisheries determine that impacts to a federally listed species would likely occur, alternatives and measures to avoid or reduce impacts must be identified. The USFWS and NOAA Fishe
ries also regulate activities conducted in federal critical habitat, which are geographic units designated as areas that support primary habitat constituent elements for listed species.

Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972

Under Section 404 of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (also referred to as the Clean Water Act [CWA]), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) oversight, has authority to regulate activities that result in discharge of dredg
ed or fill material into wetlands or other “waters of the United States.” Perennial and intermittent creeks are considered waters of the United States if they have a “significant
nexus” to traditional navigable waters, interstate waters, or territorial sea s.

In achieving the goals of the CWA, the
USACE seeks to avoid adverse impacts and to offset unavoidable adverse impacts on existing aquatic resources.

Any discharge of dredged or fill material into jurisdictional wetlands or other jurisdictional “waters o f the United
States” would require a Section 404 permit from the USACE prior to the start of work. In 2008, the EPA and USACE, through a joint rulemaking, expanded the Section 404(b)(1) guidelines to include more comprehensive standards for compensatory mi
tigation. These standards include ensuring that unavoidable impacts subject to regulation under the CWA are replaced to promote no net loss of wetlands. Typically, when a project involves impacts to waters of the United States, the goal of no net loss of w
etlands is met by compensatory mitigation; in general, the type and location options for compensatory mitigation should comply with the hierarchy established by the USACE/EPA 2008 Mitigation Rule (in descending order): (1) mitigation banks; (2) in -
lieu fee

programs; and (3) permittee
-
responsible
compensatory mitigation. Also, in accordance with Section 401 of the CWA, applicants for a Section 404 permit must obtain water quality certification from the appropriate Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) . The
USACE, RWQCB, and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) typically take jurisdiction over wetlands that exhibit three parameters: suitable wetland hydrology, hydric soils, and hydrophytic vegetation. The RWQCB will also consider features w
ith saturated, anaerobic
-
condition wetlands.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 protects all migratory birds, including their eggs, nests, and feathers.

The MBTA was originally drafted to put an end to the comm ercial trade in bird feathers, popular in the latter part of the 1800s. The MBTA is enforced by the USFWS, and potential impacts to species protected under the MBTA are evaluated by the USFWS in consultation with other federal agencies.

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

55 JANUARY 2022

State

California
Endangered Species Act

The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) ensures legal protection for plants listed as rare or endangered and wildlife species formally listed as endangered or threatened. The CDFW also maintains a list of California Species of
Special Concern (SSC). SSC status is assigned to species that have limited distribution, declining populations, diminishing habitat, or unusual scientific, recreational, or educational value. Under

S
tate
law, the CDFW is
empowered to review projects for th
eir potential to impact special
-
status species and their habitats. Under the
CESA, the CDFW reserves the right to request the replacement of lost habitat that is considered important to the continued existence to CESA
-
protected species.

California Fish an
d Game Code

California Fish and Game Code (CFGC) Section 2081 provides for when the CDFW is authorized to issue permit to take a species listed as endangered, threatened, or candidate or a rare plant if the take is incidental to an otherwise lawful activi
ty. CFGC Section 3511 includes provisions to protect fully protected species, such as: (1) Prohibiting take or possession “at any time” of the species listed in the statute, with few exceptions; (2) stating that no provision of this code or any other law s
hall be construed to authorize the issuance of permits or licenses to “take” the species; and (3) stating that no previously issued permits or licenses for take of the species “shall have any force or effect” for authorizing take or possession. The CDFW is

unable to authorize incidental take of fully protected
species when activities are proposed in areas inhabited by those species. Sections 3503 and 3503.5 of the CFGC state that it is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, with

occasional exceptions. In
addition, Section 3513 states that it is unlawful to take or possess any migratory bird as designated in the MBTA or any part of such migratory birds except as provided by rules and regulations under provisions of the MBTA. Under

CFGC Section 1603, the CDFW is responsible for conserving, protecting, and managing California’s fish, wildlife, and native plant resources. To meet this responsibility, the law requires any person, State or local government agency, or public utility prop
osing a project that may impact a river, stream, or lake to notify the CDFW before beginning the project. If the CDFW determines that a project may adversely affect existing fish and wildlife resources, a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement is required.

A Streambed Alteration Agreement lists the CDFW
conditions of approval relative to a HEU and serves as an agreement between the City and CDFW for a term of not more than 5 years for the performance of activities subject to this section.

Native Plant Protection Act

The CDFW also has authority to administer the Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) (CFGC Section 1900 et seq.). The NPPA requires the CDFW to establish criteria for determining if a species, subspecies, or variety of native plant

is
endangered or rare. Under NPPA Section 1913(c), the owner of land where a rare or endangered native plant is growing is required to notify the department at least 10 days in advance of changing the land use to allow for salvage of the plant(s).

Porter
-
Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1987

The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and each of the nine local RWQCBs, collectively referred to as the California Water Boards, has jurisdiction over “waters of the State,” which are defined as any su rface water or
groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the S
tate
pursuant to the Porter
-
Cologne Water
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / FINAL

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

56 JANUARY 2022

Quality Control Act (California Water Code Division 7) (Porter -
Cologne Act). The SWRCB has issued general Waste
Discharge Requireme
nts (WDRs) regarding discharges to “isolated” waters of the State (Water Quality Order No. 2004
-
0004
-
DWQ, Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements for Dredged or Fill Discharges to Waters Deemed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to be Outside of Fe deral Jurisdiction [General DWRs]). The local
RWQCB (in this case, the Central Coast RWQCB) implements this general order for isolated waters not subject to federal jurisdiction and is also responsible for the issuance of water quality certifications pursu ant to CWA Section
401 for waters subject to federal jurisdiction.

California Coastal Act

The

California Coastal Act (California Public Resource Code sections 30000 et seq.) was enacted by the State Legislature in 1976 to provide long
-
term protection of California’s 1,100
-
mile coastline for the benefit of current
and future generations. The Coasta
l Commission, in partnership with coastal cities and counties, plans and regulates the use of land and water in the coastal zone. Development activities, which are broadly defined by the CCA

to include (among others) construction of buildings, divisions of

land, and activities that change the intensity
of use of land or public access to coastal waters, generally require a coastal permit from either the Coastal Commission or the local government. The Coastal Act requires local governments (15 coastal countie s and 59
cities) to create and implement Local Coastal Programs (LCPs)

that incorporate policies to enhance and protect
sensitive
coastal resources.

Local

City of Manhattan Beach General Plan

The following goals and policies from the City’s General Plan r elate to
biological resources, and biological resources

impacts.

Goal
CR
-
4:

Preserve the existing landscape resources in the City and encourage the provision of additional landscaping.

Policy CR
-

4.1:

Protect existing mature trees throughout the City and e ncourage their replacement with
specimen trees whenever they are lost or removed.

Policy CR
-

4.4:

Review the tree ordinance to consider its application citywide and to determine the need to strengthen tree preservation criteria.

Policy CR
-

4.5:

Discourage
the reduction of landscaped open space and especially the removal of trees from public and private land.

Policy CR
-

4.6:

Prepare lists of appropriate landscaping materials for the climate and

encourage residents
and businesses to use them.

Goal CR
-
5:

Conser
ve and protect the remaining natural resources in Manhattan Beach.

Policy CR
-

5.1:

Employ principles of a sustainable environment in the development, operation, and maintenance of the community, emphasizing the importance of respecting and conserving the na
tural resources.

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

57 JANUARY 2022

Manhattan Beach Municipal Code

Tree Preservation

Chapter 7.32, Tree, Shrub, and Plant Regulations

Chapter 7.32
establishes regulations for trees, shrubs, and plants located on sidewalks, medians, or elsewhere in the public right of way. This chapter sets forth measures related to proper selection of species, conditions of protected status, preservation, required pe
rmits and fees, and other general provisions related to care, maintenance, and overall aesthetic quality trees, shrubs, and plants in public spaces.

Section 10.52.120, Tree preservation and restoration in residential zones, Area Districts I and II.

Regula
tions provided for in the Section 10.52.120
(Tree Ordinance)
are designed to preserve and enhance the
existing healthy

tree

canopies on individual residential properties as well as the overall neighborhood. The design of residences, including grading, driv
eways, walkways, patios, utilities and right
-
of
-
way improvements, are required
to consider and accommodate existing healthy protected

trees, as reasonably feasible. For the purposes of this section a “protected

tree" is defined as: any species of

tree, (ex
cluding deciduous fruit
-
bearing

trees

and
Washingtonia

multiple trunks totaling
twelve inches (12
″) in diameter or greater at a height of four and one
-
half feet (4.5
′) from existing grade; and any
replacement

tree

required.

The Tree Ordinance requires any person desiring to remove or relocate one or more prot
ected trees must obtain a Tree Permit from the Community Development Department’s Planning Division.

I
n

addition, replacement trees are required for any protected tree removed.

City of Manhattan Beach Local Coastal Program

The LCP contains the foundation p
olicy for protection of coastal resources. Prepared by the City, this program governs decisions that determine the short
-

and long
-
term conservation and use of coastal resources. While the LCP reflects the unique characteristics of Manhattan Beach, the LCP

must also be consistent with the Coastal Act
goals and policies. The Coastal Act requires consistency between the LCP and General Plan. In those circumstances where an issue is addressed by both the LCP and General Plan, the terms of the LCP should prevai l.

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

58 JANUARY 2022

3.4.3 Environmental Impacts

Potentially
Significant
Impact

Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No Impact

IV.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

–

Would the project:

Have a substantial adverse effect,
either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or
by the California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlif
e Service?

Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or
regional
plans, policies, regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

Have a substantial adverse effect on state
or federally protected
wetlands (including,
but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means?

Interfere substantially with the movement
of

any n
ative resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or

impede the use of native wildlife
nursery

sites?

Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or or
dinance?

Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation pl
an?

Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies,

or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

Less Than Significant Impact
.

The
HEU

would not have a substantial adverse effect on special
-
status
species because the
sites identified as appropriate for accommodating the City’s 6 th

Cycle RHNA allocation
,
consisting

entirely of urban and semi
-
urban underutilized parcels,
are
disturbed, dev
eloped, and lack
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / FINAL

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

59 JANUARY 2022

suitable habitat for special
-
status species. The potential for any known sensitive species to occur on any parcel
s

identified in the sites analysis as being suitable to accommodate the City’s 6 th

Cycle RHNA
allocation
is very lo
w. In addit
ion, for sites located within the LCP area boundary, the CCA

and the LCP are

designed to protect sensitive areas from development, including the protection, enhancement,

and
restoration of environmentally sensitive habitats,
such as
habitat for rare or end
angered plants or animals
.

Any future development under the HEU within the LCP area boundary will be required to comply with applicable LCP and CCA requirements.

T
he
HEU

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

is propo
sed as part
of the update. Although the policies and objectives of the HEU

facilitate

residential development to meet
the City’s
6 th

Cycle RHNA allocation
,

t
he
HEU

would not alter any local, regional, State, or Federal biological protection
standards, nor would they alter the City’s existing general plan policies related to protection and preservation of sensitive biological resources
.

The HEU would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on an
y candidate, sensitive, or special status species.

Therefore,
the
HEU

would have a less than significant impact on biological resources ,

and no mitigation is required.

Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other

sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

Less Than Significant Impact
.

The HEU would not have a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitats or other sensitive natural communities identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, by California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) because, as
per the City of Manhattan Beach General Plan EIR (2003) there are no riparian habitats or other sensitive habitat conservation areas in the City. Vegetation throughout the City consists primarily of ornamental plantings that do
not constitute a sensitive natural community. Several underutilized parcels identified in the HEU sites analysis are located within the LCP area boundary, where impacts to sensitive coastal resources are of particular concern. However, the CCA, LCP and Gen eral Plan have been designed to protect
sensitive areas from development, including the protection, enhancement and restoration of environmentally sensitive habitats and habitat for rare or endangered plants or animals. Other environmentally sensitive area
s outside of the LCP area boundary are generally zoned and protected as parklands (City of Manhattan Beach 2014). Additionally, General Plan Goal CR -
5 and Policy CR
-

5.1 would
require the programs proposed in the HEU to conserve and protect the remaining na tural resources in the
City and employ principles of a sustainable environment in the development, and maintenance of the community, emphasizing the importance of respecting and conserving the natural resources.

T
he
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 document would accommodate development required

to
meet the City’s
6 th

Cycle RHNA allocation
. Future residential development to meet the RHNA allocation is expected to be located on infill sites within urbanized areas where little or no native vegetation exists and where little potential exists for the

occurrence of sensitive species habitat, riparian habitat, a sensitive natural community, federally protected wetlands, or wildlife corridors or nursery sites.

The HEU would not
have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community.

As such,
the
HEU would have a less than significant impact on biological resources, and no mitigation is required.

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

60 JANUARY 2022

Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on
state or
federally protected wetlands (including, but
not limite
d to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

No Impact
.

The HEU would not have a substantial adverse effect on state of federally protected wetlands because there are no wetlands located within the City (City of Manhattan Beach 2003b). The HEU would not alter any local, regional, state, or Federal biological pr otection standards, nor would it alter the existing
General Plan, LCP, or CCA policies related to protection and preservation of sensitive biological resources.

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

Cycle RHNA allocation. Alth
ough the policies and objectives of the HEU facilitate housing, any new housing would have to comply with all current biological preservation policies, standards, and regulations. The proposed HEU does not encourage housing or development to be located wit hin wetlands,
riparian areas, or any other type of sensitive habitat areas. Therefore, the HEU would have no impact on state or federally protected wetlands.

Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory

fish or
wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

Native

Resident

or Migratory fish

No Impact.

The parcels identified in the HEU’s sites analysis as having pot ential to accommodate the
City’s 6
th

Cycle RHNA allocation do not support any waters of the United States, waters of the State, or wetlands under the jurisdiction of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, or any associated riparian habitat under the jur
isdiction of CDFW (City of Manhattan Beach 2003b). As such, no impact to any migratory fish would occur.

Native
Resident Wildlife Species

Less Than Significant Impact.

The City is located within an urban and semi
-
urban area that is highly
disturbed, conta
ins numerous buildings, and, although partially located within the LCP boundary area, does not contain any major bodies of water or undisturbed open space areas that could contain or support habitat for native resident wildlife species. The City cannot be characterized as an undisturbed open space
area which could potentially support native wildlife species. Thus, the HEU would have a less than significant impact on native resident wildlife species, and no mitigation is required.

Migratory Wildlife Species

Less Than Significant Impact.

The
City

is located in an urban area that contains numerous buildings, which would likely discourage stops by substantial numbers of migrating birds. However, the City does

contain trees and shrubs that may support nesting sit
es for migratory wildlife bird species during nesting
season. Nesting activity typically occurs from February 15 to August 31 (January 15 to August 31 for raptors). Disturbing or destroying active nests is a violation of the MBTA. In addition, nests and eg gs are
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / FINAL

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

61 JANUARY 2022

protected under Fish and Game Code Section 3503, and the removal of vegetation during the nesting season is considered a significant impact due to potential effects on active nests. Any future development facilitated by adoption of the
HEU

and
requi
ring
removal

of trees

or shrubs during nesting season, would
be required to comply with the MBTA. Compliance
would
require
that,
prior to any vegetation removal
activities during the nesting season, a biological monitor would conduct a preconstruction nesting bird
survey
. If nesting bird surveys are conducted prior to any ground -
disturbing activities, and none are present,
impacts to nesting birds are not expected.

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 itself, produce environmental impacts. Implementation of the programs contained in the document would accommodate development required to meet the City’s 6 th

Cycle RHNA al
location
. Future residential development to meet the RHNA allocation is expected to be located on infill sites within urbanized areas where little or no native vegetation exists and where little potential exists for the occurrence of established native res ident or migratory wildlife corridors or nurseries.

And any future development would be required to comply with S
tate and federal requirements related to
migratory birds.

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

W
ould the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

Less Than Significant Impact.

Under the existing conditions, the
areas identified in the

HEU

sites
analysis as

having potential to accommodate the City’s
6 th

Cycle
RHNA allocations
consist of underutilized
urban and semi
-
urban sites with
paved surfaces and buildings surrounded by
existing

development
.

Landscaping
in these areas consists primarily

of
discontinuous

areas of ornamental

groundcover,

trees,

and shrubs
. Any tree removal required by
future residential
development facilitated by
HEU

programs would
be required to comply with

MBMC

tree preservation policies, including Chapter 7.32, Tree, Shrub, and Plant Regulations, which establishes regulations for trees, shrubs, and plants located on sidewalks, medians, or elsewhere in the public right of way, as well as the City’s Tree Ordinanc e (Section 10.52.120), which
requires tree removal permits and replacement of protected tree species.

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 document would accommodate development required to meet the City’s 6 th

Cycle RHNA allocation. Future residential development to meet the RHNA allocation is e xpected to be located
on infill sites within urbanized areas and would not alter any local, regional, State, or Federal biological protection standards, nor would the HEU adoption alter the City’s existing policies or ordinances protecting biological resou
rces. Therefore, the HEU would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Any impacts to biological resources would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Would the project conflict with the pr
ovisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

No Impact.

The HEU involves the adoption of a policy document which would not conflict with the pr
ovisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state HCP because there are no designated HCPs or natural community conservation plans within the City (CDFW 2021). As such, no impacts would occur.

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

62 JANUARY 2022

3.4.4 References

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2021.

Conservation Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan Boundaries.

Updated September 2021. Accessed October 29, 2021. https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/bios/

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

City of Manhattan Beach. 2003
b
. General Plan. Adopted 1988. Updated 2003. Accessed September 17, 202 1 .
https://www.manhattanbeach.gov/depart
ments/community
-
development/planning
-
zoning

/general
-
plan/final
-
general
-
plan.

City of Manhattan Beach. 2014. City of Manhattan Beach Housing Element (2013 -
2021). Accessed October 29, 2021.

3.5 Cultural Resources

3.5.1 Environmental Setting

Manhattan Beach
’s modern history began in 1888, when the first railroad spur (now Veterans Pa rkway) connected
Redondo Beach Wharf to Downtown Los Angeles (City of Manhattan Beach 2003a, 2003b).

The City's most notable
historic feature is the Manhattan Beach State Pier. The pier was originally constructed in 1901 and referred to as the

“old iron pi
er.” The original pier was destroyed by a storm in 1913 and rebuilt in 192

0. The 1920 pier

was
designed by City Engineer A.L. Harris
. The roundhouse at the end of the pier was first constructed in 1922 , which
was considered a highly innovative design featu
re with helped mitigate wave and storm surge impacts (California State Parks 2021). However, s
eawater and annual storms damaged the pier severally in 1940 and again in 1980.

The landmark was again reconstructed in 1956 and refurbished in 1990. It survives as Southern California’s oldest
remaining example of early reinforced concrete pier construction, and as a California State Historical Monument (No. 1018, Manhattan Beach State Pier) (City of Manhattan Beach 2003 a
, 200
3b
)
.

Other prominent historical struct
ures include

several residential landmarks. Scott House, constructed in 1960 along the Strand, is an International style duplex currently listed under the California Register of Historical Resources

(CRHR)
, while
the residence located at
2820 Highland Aven
ue has been designated
as a local historical
landmark, in accordance with Chapter 10.86 of the Planning and Zoning Code. Other residential properties of historical interest include several
cottages located in neighborhoods mainly in the western portion of the
community, which were
originally

built as summer vacation homes in the early
1900s

(City of Manhattan Beach
2003b, 2018
)
, however, these cottages have not been recognized in any official capacity (Arroyo Resources 2018; City of Manhattan Beach 2019; OH
P 2010).

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

63 JANUARY 2022

3.5.2 Regulatory Setting

Federal

National Register of Historic Places

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 (NHPA) as amended. Its listings encompass all National Historic Landmarks and historic areas administered by the Nati onal Park Service.

The National Park Service’s guidance for the evaluation of historic significance were developed to be flexible and to recognize the accomplishments 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. To be listed in or determined eligible for listing in the NRHP, a property must be demonstrated to possess integrity and t
o meet at least one of the following criteria (36 CFR, Section 60.4):

The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integ rity of location, design, setting, materials,
workmanship, feeling, and association and
;

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

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

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 w
hose components may lack individual distinction; or

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 Re gister
Criteria” as “the ability of a property to convey its significance.” Id.

at 44To 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 1990). NRHP guidance further s
tates that properties generally must be at least 50 years of age to be considered for eligibility.

Properties completed less than 50 years before evaluation must be proven to be “exceptionally important” (criteria consideration G) to be considered for list
ing.

A historic property is defined as follows (36 CFR 800.16[i][1]):

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. This term includes artifacts, records, and remains that are related to and located w
ithin 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.

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

64 JANUARY 2022

Sectary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Prop erties

The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards are a series of concepts focused on maintaining, repairing, and replacing historic materials, as well as designing new additions or making alterations. They function as common -
sense
historic preservation pri
nciples that promote historic preservation best practices. There are four distinct approaches that may be applied to the treatment of historical resources:



Preservation focuses on the maintenance and repair of existing historic materials and retention of a

property’s form as it has evolved over time.



Rehabilitation acknowledges the need to alter or add to a historic property to meet continuing or changing uses while retaining the property’s historic character.



Restoration depicts a property at a particula
r period of time in its history, while removing evidence of other periods.



Reconstruction recreates vanished or non
-
surviving portions of a property for interpretive purposes.

The choice of treatment depends on a variety of factors, including the property ’s historical significance, physical
condition, proposed use, and intended interpretation. The Guidelines provide general design and technical recommendations to assist in applying the Standards to a specific property. Together, the Standards and Guideline s
provide a framework that guides important decisions concerning proposed changes to a historic property.

Secretary's Standards for Rehabilitation

The following 10 Standards for Rehabilitation are used to determine if a project is in conformance with the S
tandards for a rehabilitation. To be in conformance, a project must be consistent with the historic character of the structure(s) and, where applicable, the district in which it is located. The following Standards are to be applied to specific rehabilitati
on projects in a reasonable manner, taking into consideration economic and technical feasibility:

1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and i
ts site and environment.

2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided.

3. Each property shall be recognized as a phys
ical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken.

4. Most properties change over time; those chang
es that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved.

5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved.

6. Deteriorated
historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, mate
rials. Replacement of missing features shall be
substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence.

7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structu
res, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible.

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

65 JANUARY 2022

8. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken.

9. New additi
ons, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property
and its environment.

New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would
be unimpaired.

State

California Register of Historical Resources

In California, the term “historical resource” includes but is not limited to “any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which is
historically or archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California” (California Public Resources Code, Section 50

20.1[j]). In 1992, the California Legislature established the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) “to be used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify the state’s historical resources and to indicate what propert ies are to be protected, to the extent prudent
and feasible, from substantial adverse change” (California Public Resources Code, Section 5024.1[a]). The criteria for listing resources in the CRHR were expressly developed to be in accordance with previously

established criteria
developed for listing in the NRHP and are enumerated below. According to California Public Resources Code, Section 5024.1(c)(1
–
4), a resource is considered historically significant if it (i) retains “substantial integrity,” and (ii) m
eets at least one of the following criteria:

Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage.

Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.

Embodies th
e distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values.

Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory o r history.

To understand the historic importance of a resource, sufficient time must have passed to obtain a scholarly perspective on the events or individuals associated with the resource. A resource less than 50 years old may be considered for listing in

the CRHR if it can be demonstrated that sufficient time has passed to understand its historical importance (see 14 CCR 4852[d][2]).

The CRHR protects cultural resources by requiring evaluations of the significance of prehistoric and historic resources. Th
e criteria for the CRHR are nearly identical to those for the NRHP, and properties listed or formally designated as eligible for listing in the NRHP are automatically listed in the CRHR, as are S
tate
landmarks and
points of interest. The CRHR also includes

properties designated under local ordinances or identified through local historical resource surveys.

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

66 JANUARY 2022

California Environmental Quality Act

As described further below, the following CEQA statutes and CEQA Guidelines are of relevance to the analysis of arch
aeological, historic, and tribal cultural resources:



California Public Resources Code, Section 21083.2(g), defines “unique archaeological resource.”



California Public Resources Code, Section 21084.1, and CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5(a), define “histori
cal 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 a
historical resource.



California Public Resources Code, Section 21074(a), defines “tribal cultural resources.”



California Public Resources Code, 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 location other than a dedicated cemetery.



California Public Resources Code, Sections 21083.2(b) and (c), and CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.4, provide information regarding the mitigation framework for arch aeological and historic resources, including
examples of preservation
-
in
-
place mitigation measures. Preservation in place is the preferred manner of mitigating impacts to significant archaeological sites because it maintains the relationship between artifa
cts and the archaeological context and may also help avoid conflict with religious or cultural values of groups associated with the archaeological site(s).

Historical Resources

Under CEQA, a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it ma y cause “a substantial adverse
change in the significance of an historical resource” (California Public Resources Code, Section 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 reg ister of historic
resources or identified as significant in a historical resources survey (meeting the requirements of California Public Resources Code, Section 5024.1[q]), it is a “historical resource” and is presumed to be historically or culturally sign
ificant for purposes of CEQA (California Public Resources Code, Section 21084.1; 14 CCR 15064.5[a]). The lead agency is not precluded from determining that a resource is a historical resource even if it does not fall within this presumption (California Pub
lic Resources Code, Section 21084.1; 14 CCR 15064.5[a]).

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 resou rce or its immediate
surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired” (14 CCR 15064.5[b][1]; California Public Resources Code, Section 5020.1[q]). In turn, CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5(b)(2), states that t
he significance of an historical resource is materially impaired when a project:

1. Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its i nclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in
the California Register of Historical Resources; or

2. Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resour
ces pursuant to section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or its identification in an historical resources survey meeting the requirements of section 5024.1(g) CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / FINAL

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

67 JANUARY 2022

of the Public Resources Code, unless the public agency reviewing the effects of the project

establishes by
a preponderance of evidence that the resource is not historically or culturally significant; or

3. Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical signi
ficance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources as determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA.

Pursuant to these sections, the CEQA inquiry begins with evaluating whether a project site contai ns any historical
resources, then evaluates whether the project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource such that the resource’s historical significance would be materially impaired.

Relationship with the
Secta
ry of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties

Under the California Code of Regulations, w
here
a project has been determined to conform with the
Secretary of
the Interior’s
Standards

for the Treatment of Historic Properties
, the project’s impact on historical resources would
be considered mitigated to below a level of significance and, thus, not significant (14 CCR 15126.4[b][1]). In most cases, a project that demonstrates conformance

with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards is categorically exempt from CEQA (14 CCR 15331), as described in the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15126.4[b][1]):

Where maintenance, repair, stabilization, rehabilitation, restoration, preservation, conservation

or
reconstruction of the historical resource will be conducted in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing His toric Buildings (Weeks and Grimmer
1995), the project’s impact on the historical resource shall generally be considered mitigated below a level of significance and thus is not significant.

As discussed above in Section 3.5.2, Regulatory Settings, t he Secre
tary of the Interior’s Standards are a series of
concepts focused on maintaining, repairing, and replacing historic materials, as well as designing new additions or making alterations. They function as common
-
sense historic preservation principles that pro
mote historic
preservation best practices.

The Standards encourage historic resources be approached with the basic objectives of preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, or reconstruction.

The choice of treatment depends on a variety of
factors, includin
g the property’s historical significance, physical condition, proposed use, and intended interpretation. The Guidelines provide general design and technical recommendations to assist in applying the Standards to a specific property. Together, the Standards

and Guidelines provide a framework that guides important decisions concerning proposed changes to a historic property.

Unique Archaeological Resources

If it can be demonstrated that a project would cause damage to a unique archaeological resource, the lea d agency
may require that 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 (California Public R
esources Code, Sections 21083.2[a], [b], and [c]).

California Public Resources Code, 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 merel y adding to the
current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

68 JANUARY 2022

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

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 ar
chaeological resources are generally not considered a significant environmental impact (California Public Resources Code, Section 21083.2[a]; 14 CCR 15064.5[c][4]). However, if a non -
unique archaeological resource qualifies as Tribal cultural resource (Cal ifornia Public Resources Code,
Sections 21074[c] and 21083.2[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 Americ
an remains are discovered. These procedures are detailed in California Public Resources Code, Section 5097.98.

Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code

Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code states that it is a misdemeanor t o knowingly disturb a
human grave. In the unlikely event that human graves are encountered, work should halt in the vicinity and the County Coroner should be notified immediately. At the same time, an archeologist should be contacted to evaluate the situat
ion and grave. If the human remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the Coroner must contact the NAHC within 24 hours of identification.

Local

City of Manhattan Beach General Plan

The following goal and policies within the City’s General Pl an are related to cultural resources:

Goal LU
-
4:

Preserve the features of each community neighborhood, and develop solutions tailored to

each
neighborhood’s unique characteristics.

Policy LU
-

4.4:

Encourage the preservation and enhancement of unique residential homes and buildings throughout Manhattan Beach to preserve the culture and history of the City.

Policy LU
-

4.5:

Encourage measures that recognize and work to protect buildings, landscaping, a nd other
features important to the City’s history.

Policy LU
-

4.6:

When public improvements are made, they should preserve and maintain distinctive neighborhood characteristics.

Manhattan Beach Municipal Code

Chapter 10.86, Historic Preservation

The purpose of the Chapter 10.86 (Historic Preservation Ordinance) is to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare by providing for the identification, protection, enhancement, perpetuation, and use of improvements, buildings, structures, obje
cts, sites, and features that represent the City's architectural, cultural, social, historical, and political heritage. A main component of the ordinance is to preserve diverse and significant CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / FINAL

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

69 JANUARY 2022

architectural styles and property types, safeguard the City's h eritage and small
-
town beach atmosphere by
encouraging the identification, recognition, and protection of landmarks representing significant elements of the City's history and culture, and adopting incentives that promote the preservation and rehabilitatio n of historic
properties. Regulations include establishing conservation districts, inventorying and establishing criteria for dedication of historic resources, maintaining a historic register, requiring certificates of appropriateness, and enforcing penalt
ies for ordinance violations. As provided, in Section 10.86.070(D), sites in the City are eligible for dedication as historic landmarks and/or if they have yielded or have the potential to yield information important to the prehistory or history of the cit
y, region,
S
tate, or nation.

3.5.3 Environmental Impacts

Potentially
Significant
Impact

Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No Impact

CULTURAL RESOURCES
–

Would the project:

Cause a
substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource
pursuant to §15064.5?

Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?

Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of
formal

cemeteries?

Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant
to

§
15064.5?

Less Than Significant Impact.

As discussed

under Environmental Setting
, the City's most notable a
historic feature is the Manhattan Beac
h State Pier
, which is designated as a

California State Historical
Monument (No. 1018, Manhattan Beach State Pier) (City of Manhattan Beach 2003a, 2003b).

California
State Historical Monuments are buildings, structures, sites, or places that have been dete rmined to have
statewide historical significance
.

The Manhattan Beach State Pier is also listed in the CRHR (see Section

3.5 .2
, Regulatory Settings).

The
CRHR protects cultural resources by requiring evaluations of the significance of prehistoric and histo
ric
resources.

The City’s other notable historical structures include Scott House, an International style duplex, which is also listed in the CHRH. In addition, the residence located at 2820 Highland Avenue has recently been designated as a local historic
al landmark by the City, in accordance with Chapter 10.86 of the Planning and Zoning Code, which would require any adjacent projects acquire a Certificate of Appropriateness from the City in order to break ground on construction. Finally, the City ‘s histo rical resources include several coastal
residential cottages, which were originally built as summer vacation homes in the early 1900s (City of Manhattan Beach 2003b, 2018, however, these cottages are not recognized or protected as historic resources in any

official capacity (Arroyo Resources 2018; City of Manhattan Beach 2019; OHP 2010).

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

70 JANUARY 2022

The City has long been committed to the maintenance and preservation of its residential neighborhood (City of Manhattan Beach 2014
.
)
. This commitment

would not change as a

result of adoption of the HEU.

The City’s General Plan, as well as the HEU, aims to preserve and maintain residential neighborhoods and to protect residential neighborhoods from the intrusion of incompatible and character -
changing uses,
including any
prot
ecting any
structure, residential or otherwise, of noted
historical

or cultural significance.

Preservation of the City’s historic resources is further upheld via required conformance with Chapter 10.86, Historic Preservation, of the
MB
MC
, which aims to safeguard the City's heritage and small -
town beach
atmosphere by encouraging the identification, recognition, and protection of landmarks representing significant elements of the City's history and culture.

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 document wo uld
facilitate

development required to meet
the City’s
6 th

Cycle RHNA allocation
. While new housing could be constructed on sites containing historic

resources,
the existing regulatory framework would ensure that all impacts to historic resources from futu
re
development
are less than significant.

The HEU would not change or alter policies to protect and/or review historic
resources

and would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of historical resources.

Therefore, impacts
would be

less
than
significant,

and no mitigation is required.

Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?

Less Than Significant Impact.

According to Chapter 10.86, Historic Preservation
, of the
MBMC
,

“prehistory”
refers to the period in history prior to the advent of written records, revealed through archaeological and paleontological discoveries and analysis. As provided, in Section 10.86.070(D), sites in the City a
re eligible for dedication as historic landmarks if they have yielded or have the potential to yield information important to the prehistory or history of the city, region, state, or nation.

In addition to local protections, and pursuant to the California

Public Resources Code, if it can be
demonstrated that a project would cause damage to a unique archaeological resource, the lead agency may require that 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 (California Public Resources Code, Sections 21083.2[a], [b], and [c]).

The City is virtually built out and does not contain any known archaeological

or paleontological resources

(City of Manhattan
B
each 2003b)
. As such, the potential for uncovering significant resources during any construction activity is considered remote, given that no such resources have been discovered during past development and
that all new development facilitated by the HEU would occur on previously developed sites

(City of Manhattan
B
each 2003b).

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 document would facilitate development required to meet the City’s
6 th

Cycle RHNA allocation
. In the unlikely even
t

that new
housing accommodated by the HEU
would ultimately be constructed on sites containing archeological resources, project level review as
required under CEQA

would ensure that all impacts to these resources are less than significant. The HEU CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / FINAL

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

71 JANUARY 2022

would not change or

alter policies to protect and/or review
archaeological resources and would not cause
a substantial adverse change in the significance of archaeological resources. Therefore, impacts would be
less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

c
)

Would t
he project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal

cemeteries?

Less Than Significant Impact.

Manhattan Beach is virtually built out, and the potential for uncovering significant cultural resources during any construction activity, including the discovery of human remains outside of formal cemeteries, is considered remote (City of Manhattan Beach 2 003b). Therefore, it is not
expected that human remains would be disturbed as a result of implementation of the HEU. However, the possibility of encountering human remains exists. In the unexpected event that human remains are unearthed during future const
ruction activities facilitated by the HEU, impacts would be potentially significant.

In the unlikely event that human remains are inadvertently encountered by future residential development accommodated by the adoption of the HEU, such resources would be t reated in accordance
with
State
and local regulations that provide requirements with regard to the accidental discovery of human remains, including California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, and the
California Code of Regulations Section 15064.5(e). Project level review , as
individual development projects are identified,

as required under CEQA would ensure that all impacts to these human remains are less than significant. The HEU would not change or a lter policies to protect and/or
review historic resources. Therefore
, the
HEU

would not disturb any human remains
, impacts would be less
than significant, and no mitigation is required.

3.5.4 References

Arroyo Resources. 2018. Historic Resource Identification Form, Local Nomination, 2820 Highland Avenue, Manhattan Beach.
https://cms6ftp.visioninternet.com/manhattanbeach/commissions/planning_commission

/2018/20180926/20180926
-

4.pdf. Accessed November 18, 2
021.

California State Parks. 2021. Office of Historic Preservation (Los Angeles County). Accessed October 30, 2021. http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21427

City of Manhattan Beach. 2003a. General Plan. Adopted 1988. Updated 2003. Accessed September 17, 2020 .
https://www.manhattanbeach.gov/departments/community
-
development/planning
-
zoning

/general
-
plan/final
-
general
-
plan.

City of Manhattan Beach. 2003b. Final Environmental Impact Report, Manhattan Beach General Plan. Accessed October 29,2021. https://www.manh
attanbeach.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/48342.

City of Manhattan Beach. 2014. City of Manhattan Beach Housing Element (2013 -
2021).
https://www.manhattanbeach.gov

/home/showpublisheddocument/16921/635434710882970000?_ga=2.267205064.753363365.16297578 00 -
2 51228080.1629141140. Accessed October 29, 2021.

City of Manhattan Beach. 2018. City of Manhattan Beach Mobility Plan. Updated 2018. Accessed October 29, 2021. https://www.manhattanbeach.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/36671/636645874385670000

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

72 JANUARY 2022

City of Manha
ttan Beach. 2019. First Historic Landmark Application
—
2820 Highland Avenue.
https://www.manhattanbeach.gov/departments/community
-
development/planning
-
zoning/current
-
projects
-
programs/historic
-
preservation. Accessed November 18, 2021.

NPS (National Park Se
rvice). 1990. National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB -
15_web508.pdf. Accessed
November 17, 2021.

OHP (California State Parks Office of Historic Preser
vation). 2010. State Historic Resources Commission 2009 Annual Report. https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1067/files/2009%20annualreport.pdf. Accessed November 18, 2021.

3.6 Energy

3.6.1 Environmental Setting

Electricity

According to the U.S. Energy Informati
on Administration (EIA), California used approximately 25,379 gigawatt hours of electricity in 2019 (EIA 2020a). By sector in 2019, commercial uses utilized 46% of the S
tate’s
electricity,
followed by 35% for residential uses, and 19% for industrial uses.

Electricity usage in California for differing land
uses varies substantially by the type of uses in a building, type of construction materials used in a building, and the efficiency of all electricity
-
consuming devices within a building.

Clean Power Allian
ce (CPA) provides electricity to the City. CPA began operations in 2017, with the City joining in December 2017. CPA serves over three million people and provides 100% Green Energy more than any other electricity provider in the country.

Thirty
-
two communi
ties across Los Angeles and Ventura counties have opted for clean power through CPA. The City of Manhattan Beach homes and businesses transitioned to 100% renewable energy beginning October 2021 (City of Manhattan Beach 2021).

Natural

Gas

According to the California Energy Commission (CEC), California used approximately 20,748 million therms 11 of natural
gas in 2020 (EIA 2020b).

The Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) provides the City with natural gas service.

The territory serviced

by SoCalGas encompasses approximately 20,000 square miles and more than 500 communities. In the California Energy Demand mid
-
energy demand scenario, natural gas demand is projected to have an annual growth rate of 0.03% in SoCalGas’s service territory. As

of 2019, approximately 4.2 billion cubic
feet per day were used in SoCalGas’s service area per year (California Gas and Electric Utilities 2020). This amount is approximately equivalent to 4.18 billion thousand British thermal units (kBTU) per day or 41.8

million therms per
day. Over the course of a year, the available capacity would therefore be 9.1 billion therms per year, which is well above the existing and future anticipated natural gas demand in the area serviced by SoCalGas.

11 One therm is equal to 100,000 BTU or 100 kBTU.

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

73 JANUARY 2022

Petroleum

According to t
he CEC, California used approximately 27.8 billion gallons of petroleum in 2019 (EIA 2020c). This equates to a daily use of approximately 76 million gallons of petroleum. By sector, transportation uses utilize approximately 85.4% of the
S
tate’s
petroleum,
followed by 10.9% from industrial, 2.6% from commercial, 1.0% from residential, and 0.01% from electric power uses (EIA 2020c). In California, petroleum fuels refined from crude oil are the dominant source of energy for transportation sources. Petroleum us
age in California includes petroleum products such as motor gasoline, distillate fuel, liquefied petroleum gases, and jet fuel. California’s March 19, 2020, stay -
at
-
home order resulted in an
unprecedented drop in travel across all modes, with an accompanyi ng drop in fuel demand. Demand for gasoline
decreased 45% in April 2020
—

the lowest demand level since 1968 (CEC 2020).

3.6.2 Regulatory Setting

Federal

Federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act

In 1975, Congress enacted the Federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act, which established the first fuel economy standards for on
-
road motor vehicles in the United States. Pursuant to the act, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is responsible for establishing additional vehicle standards. In 2 012, new fuel economy standards
for passenger cars and light trucks were approved for model years 2017 through 2021 (77 FR 62624 –
63200).

Fuel economy is determined based on each manufacturer’s average fuel economy for the fleet of vehicles available for sa
le in the United States.

Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007

On December 19, 2007, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) was signed into law. In addition to setting increased corporate average fuel economy standards for motor veh icles, the EISA includes the following
other provisions related to energy efficiency:



Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) (Section 202)



Appliance and Lighting Efficiency Standards (Sections 301 –
325)



Building Energy Efficiency (Sections 411
–
441)

This federal legi
slation (the RFS) requires ever
-
increasing levels of renewable fuels to replace petroleum (EPA 2017). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is responsible for developing and implementing regulations to ensure that transportation fuel sold in the United
States contains a minimum volume of renewable fuel. The RFS program regulations were developed in collaboration with refiners, renewable fuel producers, and many other stakeholders.

State

SB 100

SB 100 (2018) increased the standards set forth in SB 350. Th e bill establishes that 44% of the total electricity
sold per year to retail customers in California be secured from qualifying renewable energy sources by December 31, 2024, with that number increasing to 52% by December 31, 2027, and 60% by December 31, 2030. SB 100
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / FINAL

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

74 JANUARY 2022

states that it is the policy of the state that eligible renewable energy resources and zero -
carbon resources supply
100% of the retail sales of electricity to California. This bill requires that the achievement of 100% zero -
carbon
electricity
resources do not increase the carbon emissions elsewhere in the western grid and that the achievement not be achieved through resource shuffling.

California Building
Standards

Part 6 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations was established in 197 8 and serves to enhance and regulate
California’s building standards. Part 6 establishes energy efficiency standards for residential and non -
residential
buildings constructed in California to reduce energy demand and consumption. Part 6 is updated periodic ally to
incorporate and consider new energy efficiency technologies and methodologies. The 2019 Title 24 standards are the currently applicable building energy efficiency
standards and

became effective on January 1, 2020. The 2019
Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards would further reduce energy used and associated GHG emissions compared to prior standards. In general, single
-
family residences built to the 2019 standards are ant
icipated to
use approximately 7% less energy due to energy efficiency measures than those built to the 2016 standards; once rooftop solar electricity generation is factored in, single -
family residences built under the 2019 standards would
use approximately

53% less energy than those under the 2016 standards (CEC 2018). Nonresidential buildings built to the 2019 standards are anticipated to use an estimated 30% less energy than those built to the 2016 standards (CEC 2018).

State Vehicle
Standards

In response

to the transportation sector accounting for more than half of California’s carbon dioxide emissions, AB 1493 was enacted in 2002. Assembly Bill (AB) 1493 required CARB to set GHG emissions standards for passenger vehicles, light
-
duty trucks, and other veh
icles determined by the
S
tate
board to be those whose primary use is
noncommercial personal transportation in the state. The bill required that CARB set GHG emissions standards for motor vehicles manufactured in 2009 and all subsequent model years. The 200 9 through 2012 standards resulted
in a reduction in approximately 22% of GHG emissions compared to emissions from the 2002 fleet, and the 2013 through 2016 standards resulted in a reduction of approximately 30%.

In 2012, CARB approved a new emissions
-
contr
ol program for model years 2017 through 2025. The program combines the control of smog, soot, and global
-
warming gases with requirements for greater numbers of zero -
emissions vehicles into a single package of standards called Advanced Clean Cars. By 2025, when the rules would be
fully implemented, new automobiles would emit 34% fewer global -
warming gases and 75% fewer smog
-
forming
emissions (CARB 2011).

Sustainable

Communities Strategy

The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008, or SB 37 5, coordinates land use planning,
regional transportation plans, and funding priorities to help California meet its GHG emissions reduction mandates.

As codified in California Government Code Section 65080, SB 375 requires metropolitan planning organizatio ns
(e.g., Southern California Association of Governments) to include a Sustainable Communities Strategy in their regional transportation plan. The main focus of the Sustainable Communities Strategy is to plan for growth in a fashion that will ultimately re
duce GHG emissions, but the strategy is also part of a bigger effort to address other development issues, including transit and vehicle miles traveled (VMT), which influence the consumption of petroleum
-
based fuels.

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

75 JANUARY 2022

Regional/Local

City of Manhattan Beach G
eneral Plan

The
following goals and policies related to energy are applicable to the HEU.

Goal CR
-
5:

Conserve and protect the remaining natural resources in Manhattan Beach.

Policy CR
-

5.1:

Employ principles of a sustainable environment in the
development, operation, and
maintenance of the community, emphasizing the importance of respecting and conserving the natural resources.

Policy CR
-

5.3:

Encourage water conservation, including landscaping with drought -
tolerant plants, use of
reclaimed water,

and recycling of cooling system water, in all development.

Policy CR
-

5.5:

Support expanded use of reclaimed water.

Policy CR
-

5.6:

Encourage drainage designs which retain or detain stormwater run -
off to minimize volume
and pollutant concentrations.

Policy
CR
-

5.7:

Encourage the use of energy
-
saving designs and devices in all new construction

and reconstruction.

Policy CR
-

5.8:

Encourage utilization of “green” approaches to building design and construction, including use of environmentally friendly
interior improvements.

Policy CR
-

5.10:

Encourage and support the use of alternative fuel vehicles, including support of charging or “fueling” facilities.

Policy CR
-

5.11:

Support sustainable building practices.

3.6.3 Environmental Impacts

Potentially
Signi
ficant
Impact

Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No Impact



VI. Energy
–

Would the project:

Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during project
construction or operation?

Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan
for renewable energy or energy efficiency?

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

76 JANUARY 2022

Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation ?

Less Than Significant Impact.

Future development
envisioned
under the
HEU
would increase the
demand for electricity, natural gas, and petroleum during both construction and operations.

Energy use
during construction associated with new development projects under the HEU
is anticipated to be in the
form of fuel consumption (e.g., gasoline and diesel fuel) to operate heavy equipment, light -
duty vehicles,
machinery, and generators for ligh
ting. In addition, temporary grid power may also be provided to construction trailers or electric construction equipment. Energy use during the construction of individual projects would be temporary in nature, and equipment used would be typical of constru ction projects in the
region. In addition, construction contractors would be required to demonstrate compliance with applicable CARB regulations that restrict the idling of heavy
-
duty diesel motor vehicles and govern the accelerated
retrofitting, repowerin
g, or replacement of heavy
-
duty diesel on
-

and off
-
road equipment.

Construction activities associated with development under the HEU
would be required to utilize fuel
-
efficient equipment consistent with State and federal regulations and would comply with State measures
to reduce the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy. In addition, individual projects would be required to comply with construction waste management practices to recycle 65 %

of construction
and demolition debris pe
r Chapter 5.26 of the City Code (City of Manhattan Beach 2017). Developers would be required to complete the Construction and Demolition Waste Management Plan and Construction Management and Parking Plan forms and use City
-
approved haulers to remove mixed
construction debris.

Long
-
term operation of new development projects under the
HEU
would require electricity and natural gas
service to power internal and exterior building lighting, and heating and cooling systems. As previously discussed, given the alrea
dy built
-
out nature of the City and lack of substantial vacant land, future residential projects that may be are expected to be located on infill sites, which would be already served by energy providers. The
HEU
would also prioritize future development pro
jects close to high quality transit
areas and existing commercial/retail, recreational, and institutional land uses, which would reduce trip distances and encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation such as bicycling and walking. This would he
lp reduce new development projects consumption of petroleum.

New development projects under the
HEU
would be subject to the energy conservation requirements of the California Energy Code (Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations, California’s

Energy Efficiency
Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings), the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen, Title 24, Part 11 of the California Code of Regulations). The California Energy Code provides energy conservation standards
for all new and renovated commercial and residential buildings constructed in California. This Code applies to the building envelope, space -
conditioning systems, and water
-
heating
and lighting systems of buildings and appliances and provides guidance on co nstruction techniques to
maximize energy conservation. Minimum efficiency standards are given for a variety of building elements, including appliances; water and space heating and cooling equipment; and insulation for doors, pipes, walls, and ceilings. The

Code emphasizes saving energy at peak periods and seasons and improving the quality of installation of energy efficiency measures. CALGreen sets targets for energy efficiency; water consumption; dual plumbing systems for potable and recyclable water; dive rsion of construction waste from
landfills; and use of environmentally sensitive materials in construction and design, including eco -
friendly
flooring, carpeting, paint, coatings, thermal insulation, and acoustical wall and ceiling panels. Future projects
built under the
HEU
would promote energy efficiency and renewable energy through CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / FINAL

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

77 JANUARY 2022

implementation of General Plan policies such as CR
-

5.1, CR
-

5.3, CR
-

5.7, CR
-

5.8, and CR
-

5.10 in addition
to
HEU
Program 1
3 , which encourage
s energy conservation and energy eff
iciency, as well as Program 2
7 ,
which encourages the use of solar panels by providing incentives . These measures would require new
construction to have buildings that meet

and

incorporate energy
-
saving designs and green building
techniques, the promotion of electric vehicle infrastructure, and encourage the use of alternative energy sources such as from solar.

Based on the above information, the
HEU
would not result in potentia
lly significant environmental effects
due to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy and would not be inconsistent with existing energy standards. Therefore, impacts from the HEU would be less than significant, and no mitigation is
required.

Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?

Less Than Significant Impact.

Private electrical and natural gas utility companies provide service to customers in the City of Manhatt
an Beach. Implementation of the
HEU

could result in new housing that
addresses the City’s
6 th

Cycle RHNA allocation

and the City’s policies supporting affordable and workforce housing. The rezoning of the opportunity sites would accommodate high density, infill, and mixed -
use
development located in an urbanized area. The power exists to these sites due to previous use a nd/or
surrounding urban development. Furthermore, new development projects proposed under the HEU

would
comply with the most current Title 24 California Building Code/Code of Regulations (2019), CAL Green Code, California Green Building Standards Code, and

2019 energy standards at the time of building
construction, as amended by the State of California. Projects would also be required comply with all current Title 24 energy requirements.

In addition to being subject to the aforementioned Statewide regulato ry requirements, any future housing
accommodated by the HEU would be subject to goals and policies provided in the City’s General Plan, particularly Goal CR
-
5 and associated policies, which require that proposed projects conserve and protect the remaining
natural resources of the City. This Goal facilitates the expanded use of renewable energy and efficiency, as required by Policies 5.3 and 5.5 (encouraging water conservation and increased reliance on reclaimed water), and Policies 5.7 and 5.8 (encouraging “green building” practices, and the use of energy
saving designs and devices in all new construction and redevelopment). Further, Policy 5.10 (encouraging the use of alternative fuel vehicles including support of charging or “fueling” facilities), would co ntribute to
any additional residents accommodate by the HEU decreasing their dependence of high energy fossil fuels.

During both construction and operation of the future projects would comply with all state regulations related to solid waste generation, s
torage, and disposal, including the California Integrated Waste Management Act, as amended. During construction, all waste generated would be recycled to the maximum extent possible Therefore, the
HEU

would not obstruct a
S
tate or local plan for renewable
energy or energy
efficiency and

would result in less than significant impacts associated with energy.

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

78 JANUARY 2022

3.6.4 References

California Gas and Electric Utilities (Southern California Gas Company, Pacific Gas & Electric Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company,

Southwest Gas Corporation, City of Long Beach Gas & Oil Department, and Southern California Edison Company). 2020.
2020 California Gas Report
. 2020. Accessed October 28,
2021.
https://www.socalgas.com/sites/default/files/2020
-
10/2020_California_Gas_Report_Joint_

Utility_Biennial_Comprehensive_Filing.pdf.

CARB (California Air Resources Board). 2011. “Facts About the Advanced Clean Cars Program.” Revised November 9, 2011. Accessed

February 2019.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog

/factsheets/advanced_clean_cars_eng.pdf.

CEC (
California Energy Commission)
. 2018. 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards
–

Frequently Asked
Questions. March 2018. Accessed May 2019.
https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files

/2020
-
03/Title_24_2019_Building_Standards_FAQ_ada.pdf.

CEC. 2020. 2020 Integrated Energy Policy Re
port. CEC
-
100
-
2020
-
001
-
V1
-
CMF. March 23, 2021. Accessed
October 2021.
https://www.energy.ca.gov/data
-
reports/reports/integrated
-
energy
-
policy
-
report

/2020
-
integrated
-
energy
-
policy
-
report
-
update.

City of Manhattan Beach. 2017. City of Manhattan Beach Code of Ordinances, Chapter 5.26 Construction and
Demolition Debris Waste Reduction and Recycling Requirements.

City of Manhattan Beach. 2021. Press Release: Manhattan Beach Powered by 100Percent Green, Renewable Energy.

EIA. 2020a. “State Electricity Profiles

–

California Electricity Profile 201p”. November 2, 2020. Accessed October 2019. https://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/california/index.php.

EIA. 2020b. “Natural Gas Consumption by End Use.” Accessed October 2021. https://www.eia.gov/dnav

/ng/ng_cons_sum_
a_EPG0_VC0_mmcf_a.htm
.

EIA. 2020c. “California State Profile and Energy Estimates –

Table F16: Total Petroleum Consumption Estimates,
2017.” Accessed October 2021.
https://www.eia.gov/state/seds/data.php?incfile=/state/seds/sep_fuel

/html/fuel_use_pa.html&
sid=US&sid=CA.

EPA. 2017. “Overview for Renewable Fuel Standard.” Last updated June 7, 2017. Accessed February 2019. https://www.epa.gov/renewable
-
fuel
-
standard
-
program/overview
-
renewable
-
fuel
-
standard.

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

79 JANUARY 2022

3. 7

Geology and Soils

3.7.1 Environmental Setting

Topograph
y

Topographically, the City consists of a variety of slopes and level surfaces. Elevations within the City

range from sea
level at the ocean to 240 feet in the southern neighborhoods. The land adjacent to the beaches slopes up, reflecting the sand

dunes that used to encompass this area of the City and creating a shallow ridge, while the remaining properties have subtle slopes (City of Manhattan Beach 2003a).

Soils

Manhattan Beach lies within the Los Angeles Basin geological region

(City of Manhatta
n Beach 2003a)
. Geologic
formations underlying the city consist largely of
nonmarine (inland) and marine (coastal) alluvial lake, playa, and terrace deposits, which are

characterized by sandy and clay
-
like soils

(
CGS

2010, City of Manhattan Beach 2003a).

T
hese types of soils present a low level of risk in terms of landslides or slope failure

(City of Manhattan Beach
2003a)
.

Seismic Hazards

Active Faults

Areas with seismic (earthquake) hazards are identified by earthquake fault zones as established by the A lquist
-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Act of 1972. The California Geological Survey (CGS; formerly the California Division of Mines and Geology [CDMG]) classifies faults as active, potentially active, or inactive according to standards developed for implemen
tation of the Alquist
-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Act. A fault that has exhibited surface displacement within the Holocene Epoch (the last 11,000 years) is defined as active. A fault that has exhibited surface displacement during Quaternary time (i.e., wi
thin the past 1.6 million years) but that cannot be proven to have moved or not moved during Holocene time is defined as potentially active.

According to the City’s General Plan
(2003) there are no known
active
Alquist
-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones
in the
City
, however, the City does lie
directly
above a known thrust fault
,
12 and is
less than 50
-
miles away from the

San Andreas
Fault, a 400
-
mile northwest
-
southeast running fault capable of producing earthquakes with a magnitude of 8 or greater on the Richter

scale
(C
ity of Manhattan
B
each

2003
b
).

Numerous other fault lines have been identified in Southern California that could also have a significant impact on Manhattan Beach. These faults include Newport -
Inglewood, Whittier, Chatsworth,
Hollywood, Los Alamit
os, and Palos Verdes (
City of Manhattan Beach

2003
b
)
.

Surface Fault Ruptures

Surface rupture involves the displacement and cracking of the ground surface along a fault trace. Surface ruptures are visible instances of horizontal or vertical displacement, o r a combination of the two, typically confined to a
narrow zone along the fault. Surface rupture is more likely to occur in conjunction with active fault segments where earthquakes are large, or where the location of the movement (earthquake hypocenter) is

shallow. The Alquist
-

12 The
Compton Thrust Fault
does not rupture all the way up to the surface; it is "buried" under the uppermost layers of rock in the earth’s crust (City of Manhattan Beach 2003a) This type of fault is not recognized on the
Seismic Hazard Zone Map

as a fault
hazard zone (CDOC 2021).

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

80 JANUARY 2022

Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972

(the Act)

regulates development near Holocene
-
active faults to address
the hazard of surface fault rupture. This Act requires the State Geologist to establish regulatory zones (known as Alqui
st
-
Priolo Special Study Fault Zones) around the surface traces of Holocene -
active faults and to issue
appropriate maps (CGS 2018). The
City
is not located within an Alquist
-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (
City of
Manhattan Beach 2003a, 2003b
, CGS 2021
). As such, the potential for surface rupture due to fault displacement beneath the
City

is considered very low

(City of Manhattan Beach 2003b)
.

Groundshaking

Groundshaking (or seismic shaking) caused by fault movement during an earthquake has the potential to result in
the damage or destruction of buildings, infrastructure, and possible injury or loss of life. Groundshaking may occur as a result of movement along a fault located within the city or along a more distant fault. The intensity of ground
shaking in a particular area is dependent on several factors, including the earthquake magnitude, the distance from the epicenter, the duration of strong ground motion, local geologic conditions, and the fundamental period of the structure. Groundshaking c
an also trigger secondary seismic phenomena, such as liquefaction, lateral spreading, seismically induced settlement and slope instability, tsunami and seiche, and other forms of ground rupture and seismic responses.

Manhattan Beach is subject to ground sh
aking in the event of a major seismic
event, as is most of Southern California (City of Manhattan Beach 2003a) .

Liquefaction

Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which the strength and stiffness of a soil is reduced by earthquake shaking. Soils transform from a

solid to a liquid state as a result of rapid loss of sheer strength and increased pore water pressure induced by earthquake vibrations.

According to the Seismic Hazard Zones Map, Venice Quadrangle, an area where liquefaction has
occurred,

or conditions in
dicate a potential occurrence within Manhattan Beach is limited to a strip of coastal sands along the ocean (City of Manhattan Beach 2003a) . None of the existing of potential parcels
identified as having the capacity to accommodate the City’s 6 th

Cycle RHN
A allocation
are located on
a
liquefaction

hazard zone

(CDOC
2021
)
.

Landslide Hazards

Landslides are fast, downward movement of earth and rock materials. Some landslides are caused by the infiltration of water into unstable material. Other landslides are earthquake
-
induced landslides consisting of rock
falls and debris flow. Areas with the potential for earthquake -
induced landslides generally occur in areas of previous landslide movement, or where topographic, geological, geotechnical, and subsurface water

conditions indicate a
potential for permanent ground displacement.

Manhattan Beach lies within the Los Angeles Basin geological region and
is
underlain with
d
eposits characterized

sand
and clay
-
like soils
. These soil types

present a low level of risk
i
n terms of landslides or slope failure

(City of Manhattan Beach 2003a).

The

Seismic Hazard Zones Map, Venice
Quadrangle, identifies a small portion of land in the northwest corner of

the city that experienced previous landslide
movement or local conditions

indicate a potential ground

displacement occurrence.

(City of Manhattan Beach
2003a), however, the
areas identified in the sites analysis as having the potential to accommodate the City’s 6 th

Cycle RHNA allocation
are

not underlain by a landslide hazard zone (CDOC
2021
)
.

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

81 JANUARY 2022

3.7.2 Regulatory Setting

Federal

Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act

In October 1977, the U.S. Congress passed the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act to reduce the risks to life and property from future ea
rthquakes in the United States through the establishment and maintenance of an effective earthquake hazards reduction program. To accomplish this goal, the act established the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program. This program was substantially am ended in November 1990 by the National
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Act, which refined the description of agency responsibilities, program goals, and objectives.

The mission of
th
e National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program includes improved und erstanding,
characterization, and prediction of hazards and vulnerabilities; improved building codes and land use practices; risk reduction through post
-
earthquake investigations and education; development and improvement of design and construction techniq
ues; improved mitigation capacity; and accelerated application of research results. The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Act

designates the Federal Emergency Management Agency as
the lead agency of the program and assigns several planning, coo rdinating, and reporting responsibilities. Other
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Act agencies include the National Institute of Standards and Technology, National Science Foundation, and the U.S. Geological Survey .

State

Alquist
-
Priolo Earthq
uake Fault Zoning Act

The Alquist
-
Priolo Act (California Public Resources Code [PRC] Sections 2621 –
2630) was passed in 1972 to
mitigate the hazard of surface faulting to structures designed for human occupancy. The main purpose of the law is to prevent th
e construction of buildings used for human occupancy on the surface trace of active faults. The law addresses only the hazard of surface fault rupture and is not directed toward other earthquake hazards. The Alquist -
Priolo Act requires the State Geologist
to establish regulatory zones known as Earthquake Fault Zones around the surface traces of active faults and to issue appropriate maps. The maps are distributed to all affected cities, counties, and state agencies for their use in planning efforts. Before a project can be permitted in a designated
Alquist
-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, cities and counties must require a geologic investigation to demonstrate that proposed buildings would not be constructed across active faults.

The
Alquist
-
Priolo
Act also re
quires the State Geologist to compile maps delineating earthquake fault zones and to submit maps to all affected cities, counties and state agencies for review and comment.

As referenced in
Threshold

a(i)
of
Section 3.
1 .3,
Environmental Impacts
,

Special Pu
blication 42 has been the vehicle by which the State
Geologist, through the California Geological Survey

(previously th
e

Division of Mines and Geology
)
, has informed
affected agencies
. The objectives of
Special Publication 42 include:

1. To promote uniform and effective statewide implementation of the evaluation and mitigation elements of the Alquist
-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act.

2. To assist affected parties in the evaluation and mitigation of surface fault rupture hazard for projects

within
designated Earthquake Fault Zone

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

82 JANUARY 2022

Maps utilized in this
ND to determine earthquake fault and liquification zones

are
digitized and georeferenced
versions of the
maps pr
ovided
in

Special
Publication

42 (
Revised
2018).

Seismic Hazards Mapping

Act

The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1990 (PRC Sections 2690 –
2699.6) addresses earthquake hazards from non
-
surface fault rupture, including liquefaction and seismically induced landslides. The act established a mapping program for areas that have the p
otential for liquefaction, landslide, strong ground shaking, or other earthquake and geologic hazards. The act also specifies that the lead agency for a project may withhold development permits until geologic or soils investigations are conducted for speci fic sites and mitigation measures are incorporated into plans to reduce hazards associated with seismicity and unstable soils.

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit

In California, the State Water Resources Control Board administers regul ations promulgated by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (55 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 47990), requiring the permitting of stormwater -
generated
pollution under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). In turn, the State Wa ter Resources Control
Board’s jurisdiction is administered through nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards. Under these federal regulations, an operator must obtain a General Construction Permit through the NPDES Stormwater Program for all construction activities with ground disturbance of
one
acre or more. The General Construction Permit requires the implementation of best management practices (BMPs) to reduce sedimentation into surface waters and to control erosion. One element of compliance with the N
PDES permit is preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that addresses control of water pollution, including sediment, in runoff during construction.

The Manhattan Beach Public Works
Department enforces NPDES requirements, which are ad
opted as part of the
MBMC
.

California Building Standards Code

The California Building Code (CBC) has been codified in the California Code of Regulations (CCR) as Title 24, Part

2. Title 24 is administered by the California Building Standards Commission, which, by law, is responsible for coordinating all building stan
dards. Under
S
tate
law, all building standards must be centralized in Title 24 or those standards are not enforceable. The purpose of the CBC is to establish minimum standards to safeguard the public health, safety, and general welfare through structural s trength, means of egress facilities, and general stability, by regulating and controlling the design, construction, quality of materials, use and occupancy, location, and maintenance of all building and structures within its jurisdiction. As indicated prev iously, the CBC is updated and
revised every 3 years. The 2019 version of the CBC became effective January 1, 2020. It is anticipated that the HEU

would use the most current CBC at the time of building permit issuance. The 2019 edition of the CBC is based on the 2018 International Building Code, published by the International Code Conference.

Chapters 16 and 16A of the 2019 CBC include structural design requirements governing seismically resistant construction, including factors and coefficients used to es tablish seismic site class and seismic occupancy category for the soil/rock at the building location and the proposed building design. Chapters 18 and 18A include the requirements for foundation and geotechnical soil investigations, and geohazard reports ( Section 1803A);
excavation, grading, and fill (Section 1804A); damp
-
proofing and water
-
proofing (Section 1805A); allowable load
-
bearing values of soils (Section 1806A); the design of foundation walls, retaining walls, embedded posts and poles (Section 1807
A); foundations (Section 1808A); and design of shallow foundations (Section 1809A) and deep foundations (Section 1810A). Chapter 33 of the 2019 CBC includes requirements for safeguards at work sites to ensure stable excavations and cut or fill slopes (Sect
ion 3304).

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

83 JANUARY 2022

Construction activities are subject to occupational safety standards for excavation and trenching, as specified in the California Safety and Health Administration regulations (CCR Title 8) and in Chapter 33 of the CBC. These regulations specify

the measures to be used for excavation and trench work where workers could be exposed to unstable soil conditions. Any future development accommodated as a result of approval and implementation of the HEU would be required to employ these safety measures
during excavation and trenching.

California Environmental Quality Act

Paleontological Resources

The CEQA Guidelines require that all private and public activities not specifically exempted be evaluated against the potential for environmental damage, incl
uding effects to paleontological resources. Paleontological resources, which are limited, nonrenewable resources of scientific, cultural, and educational value, are recognized as part of the environment under these state guidelines. This study satisfies pr oject requirements in accordance with CEQA (13 PRC,
2100 et seq.) and Public Resources Code Section 5097.5 (Stats 1965, c 1136, p. 2792). This analysis also complies with guidelines and significance criteria specified by the Society for Vertebrate Paleonto logy (SVP 2010).

Paleontological resources are explicitly afforded protection by CEQA, specifically in Section VII(f) of CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, the “Environmental Checklist Form,” which addresses the potential for adverse impacts to “unique paleontological resource[s] or site[s] or … unique geological feature[s].” This provision covers fossils of signal importance
–

remains of species or genera new to science, for example, or fossils exhibiting features not previously recognized for a given a
nimal group
–

as well as localities that yield fossils significant in their abundance, diversity, preservation, and so forth. Further, CEQA provides that generally, a resource shall be considered “historically significant” if it has yielded or may be likel
y to yield information important in prehistory (PRC 15064.5 [a][3][D]).

Paleontological resources would fall within this category. The PRC, Chapter 1.7, sections 5097.5 and 30244 also regulates removal of paleontological resources from state lands, defines

unauthorized removal of fossil resources
as a misdemeanor, and requires mitigation of disturbed sites.

Regional and Local

City of Manhattan Beach General Plan

The
Community Safety Element of the General Plan recognizes that seismic and geologic hazards p resent a variety
of risks to the residents of the City. Goals and policies applicable to g
eology and
s
oils include:

Goal CS
-
1:

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

Policy CS
-

1.4:

Minimize

the potential damage to structures and loss of life that may result from an earthquake.

Policy CS
-

1.5:

Require that new developments minimize stormwater and urban runoff into drainage facilities by incorporating design features such as detention basins, o n
-
site water features, or other strategies
”

Policy CS
-

1.8:

Participate in Federal, State, and local earthquake preparedness and emergency response programs.

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

84 JANUARY 2022

Goal CS
-
3:

Maintain a high level of City emergency response services

Policy CS
-

3.1:

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

Policy CS
-

3.3:

Inform all residents of the requirements for visible and clearly legible street numbers to minimize the response time 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 people likely to need shelter in the event of
a disast
er.

Policy CS
-

3.7:

Support 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 emergency response through continued education and training of emergency response personnel.

Policy CS
-

3.10:

Strive to reduce emergency response time

Manhattan Beach Municipal Code

Section 5.36.130
,

Connection to sewers where provided mandator
y

I
n

accordance with
Section 5.36.130, any development proposed
in the vicinity of the public sewer system is
prohibited from constructing,
maintaining,

or using a cesspool, septic tank, or any other means of disposal of sewage on any premises in the City.

At this time, public sanitary sewer connections would be availa ble and required
for any development accommodated as a result of HEU implementation.

Title 9, Building Regulations

Chapter 9.01, Building Code

The Building Code for the City includes Section 9.01.010, Adoption of the 2019 California Building Code

(CBC)
, which incorporates by reference the rules, regulations, provisions, and conditions set forth in the 2019
CBC
, including the Appendices F, J, and O and Standards (including Chapter/Section 1, Division 2; Chapter 31B
and

excluding all other Appendice
s). The California Building Code, together with provisions set forth in Chapter 9.01 of the
MBMC

would

apply to the construction, alteration, improvements, enlargement, replacement, demolition,
or
conversion

any

buildings or structu
res

in the within the City.

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

85 JANUARY 2022

Section 9.01.110, General Structural

Design Provisions
, of this chapter
requires minimum standards for
structural seismic

resistance established primarily to reduce the risk

of life loss or injury. This section also
requires sit
e
-
specific

stability studies for hillside development.

Chapter 9.03, Residential Code

The Residential Code for the City includes Section 9.03.010, Adoption of California Residential Code

(CRC)
,
which incorporates by reference the rules, regulations, provisions, and conditions set forth in the 2019 CRC
, including Chapter 1, Division 2 and Appendices J, K, Q, T, and V.

Title 10, Planning and Zoning

Section 10.80.010
–

Building, grading, and demolit
ion permits

In accordance with Section 10.80.101, no building, grading, or demolition permit would be issued to any HEU

unless the City’s Director of Community Development determined that each new or expanded use or structure complied with all of the requi
rements set forth in the
MBMC
, including, by reference, provisions
and requirements of both the CBC and CRC.

Title 11, Subdivisions

Title 11
regulates

and control
s

the design and improvement of subdivisions
, including residential subdi
visions,

and
ensures consistency with the City
’
s
G
eneral
Plan
.

Section 11.20.120
,
Soils/geology report.

The requirements set forth by Section 11.20.120 of Title 11 are as follows
:

The applicant shall submit a preliminary soils and/or geology report, prepared by a civil engineer
and/or geologist, registered in the State, based upon adequate test borings, for every subdivision for which a final map is required. The preliminary soils and/or geology report shall be submitted to the City Engineer for revie
w. The City Engineer may require additional information or reject the report if it is found to be incomplete, inaccurate or unsatisfactory. The preliminary soils and/or geology report may be waived if the City Engineer finds that sufficient knowledge exist s as to the
soils qualities of the soils of the subdivision.

In the event the preliminary soils report indicates the presence of critically expansive soils, or other soils problems which, if not corrected, could lead to structural defects, a soils investig ation of each lot
or parcel in the subdivision shall be required and must be performed by a civil engineer registered in the State who shall recommend the corrective action which is likely to prevent structural damage to each structure proposed to be const
ructed in the area where such soils problem exists.

In the event the preliminary soils report indicates the presence of rocks or liquids containing deleterious chemicals which, if not corrected, could cause construction materials such as concrete, steel, a nd
ductile or cast iron to corrode or deteriorate, a soils investigation of each potentially affected lot or parcel in the subdivision shall be required and must be performed by a civil engineer registered in the State who shall recommend the corrective ac
tion which is likely to prevent structural damage to each structure proposed to be constructed in the area where such soils problem exists.

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

86 JANUARY 2022

The subdivision or any portion thereof where such soils problems exist may be approved if it is determined that the
recommended action is likely to prevent structural damage to each structure to be constructed and that the issuance of any building permit shall be conditioned to include this recommended action in connection with the construction of each structure involve d.

A note shall be placed on the final map stating that a geology and/or soils report has been prepared in conjunction with the
subdivision or

stating that the geological and/or soils report has been waived pursuant to subsection A of this section.

This section requires

submission of a

preliminary soils and/or
geology report, prepared by a civil engineer and/or
geologist
, registered in the
s
tate
, based upon
adequate test borings, for every subdivision for which a final map is required. This requirement is set
forth in order to prevent structural damage to any proposed occupied structure(s) due to seismic activities, including ground shaking, land
slides, and/or
liquefaction
.

3.7.3 Environmental Impacts

Potentially
Significant
Impact

Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No Impact

VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS

–

Would the project:

Directly or
indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
as delineated on the most recent
Alquist
-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State
Geologist for
the area or based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.

ii)

Strong seismic ground shaking?

iii)

Seismic
-
related ground failure, including
liq
uefaction?

iv)

Landslides?

Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss
of topsoil?

Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as
a result of the project, and potentially result
in on
-

or off
-
site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collap
se?

Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18
-
1 -
B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial direct or
indirect risks to life or property?

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

87 JANUARY 2022

Potentially
Significant
Impact

Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No Impact

Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?

Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?

Would the project
directly or indirectly cause
potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist
-
Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

Less Than Significant Impact.

The City is n
ot located within an Alquist
-
Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zone (City of Manhattan Beach 2003a, 2003b. CGS 2010); however, the City does lie directly above a known thrust fault and is less than 50
-
miles away from the San Andreas Fault. As the thrust fault is bur
ied under the uppermost layers of rocks in the earth’s crust, the potential to directly or indirectly cause or exacerbate existing fault rupture risks within the City is considered very low (City of Manhattan Beach 2003b). Continued compliance with existin g building codes and standards,
including the MBMC requirement for proposed development projects to prepare a geotechnical report and/or soils investigation (Section 11.20.120), would be required.

Therefore, the HEU would
not directly or indirectly cause p
otential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving the rupture of a known earthquake fault.

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

Cycle RHNA allocation. Future residential devel
opment
to meet the RHNA allocation is expected to be located on infill sites within urbanized areas and would not alter any local, regional, State, or Federal geological protection standards, nor would the HEU alter the City’s existing policies or ordinanc
es protecting or establishing building code
standards or seismic safety requirements. The HEU does not directly or indirectly the risk of loss, injury or death due to the rupture of a known earthquake fault. Therefore, impacts would be less than significan
t, and no mitigation is required.

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

88 JANUARY 2022

ii)

Strong seismic ground shaking?

Less Than Significant Impact.

Manhattan Beach is subject to ground shaking in the event of a seismic event, as is most of Southern California. However, continued compliance with Community

Safety Element policies, as well as existing building codes and standards, including those outlined in the CBC and
MBMC
, would ensure that impacts from ground shaking will be minimized (City of Manhattan Beach 2003a). Therefore, the HEU woul
d not directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking.

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

Cycle RHNA allocation.

Future residential development
to meet the RHNA allocation is expected to be located on infill sites within urbanized areas and would not alter any local, regional, State, or Federal geological protection standards, nor would the HEU alter the City’s exis
ting policies or ordinances protecting or establishing building code standards or seismic safety requirements. The HEU does not directly or indirectly the risk of loss, injury or death due to the ground shaking. Therefore, impacts would be less than signif icant, and
no mitigation is required.

iii)

Seismic
-
related ground failure, including liquefaction?

Less Than Significant Impact.

According to the Seismic Hazard Zones Map, Venice Quadrangle, an area where liquefaction has occurred or conditions indicate a

potential occurrence within the
City is limited to a strip of coastal sands along the ocean, where no habitable structure s

are
permitted (City of Manhattan Beach 2003a). As such, the HEU does not directly or indirectly result in loss, injury or death due
to seismic
-
related ground failure, including liquefaction. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

iv)

Landslides?

Less Than Significant Impact
.

T
he soils underlying the
City

present a low level of risk in terms
of landslides or slope failure (City of Manhattan Beach 2003a). While there are a few scattered pockets of landslide prone areas within the City (CGS 2010), none underlie

any
sites identified in
the HEU as being approp
riate to accommodate the City’s
6 th

Cycle RHNA allocation
, therefore
future
development
would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides.

Would the project re
sult in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

Less Than Significant Impact
.

The
HEU

does not propose specific development plans for new
residential
dwelling
units at this time. Therefore, components
associated with future development efforts res
ulting from
the additional capacity accommodated for by the HEU
—
such as amount of grading, excavation, vegetation
removal, etc.
—

are

currently
unknown. If a
future
project proposes to disturb more than
one
acre of soils, it is
required to prepare a
SWPPP,

which includes BMPs for erosion and sedimentation control. BMP examples CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / FINAL

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

89 JANUARY 2022

generally include an effective combination of erosion and sediment controls, which include barriers such as silt fences, hay bales, drain inlet protection, gravel bags, etc. Exi sting vegetation should be preserved as much
as possible. Future development of units that is facilitated by adoption of the HEU

would be subject to these
conditions for a construction permit
, even under conditions of streamlined development.

Would the

project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on
-

or off
-
site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?

Less Than Significant I
mpact.

Manhattan Beach lies within the Los Angeles Basin geological region (City of Manhattan Beach 2003a). Geologic formations underlying the City consist largely of alluvial deposits, which are characterized by sandy and clay
-
like soils (CGS 2010, City o
f Manhattan Beach 2003a). These
types of soils present a low level of risk in terms of landslides or slope failure (City of Manhattan Beach 2003a). The City is not underlain by a known liquefaction or landslide hazards zone (CDOC 2021). The HEU would not b
e located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the HEU and would not result in on
-

or off
-
site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. Therefore, impacts due to unstable geolo
gical units or soils would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -
1 -
B of the Uniform Building
Code

(1994), creating substantial
direct or indirect
risks to life or
property?

Less Than Significant Impact
.

For all future development accommodated as a result of implementation of the HEU, existing Municipal and Building Code requirements would be applied to regulate building quality and structural integrity.

In addition,

t
he
soils underlying the
City

have low to very low expansion potential
(UC Davis 2012, USDA 2021). As such, there would not be a substantial direct or indirect risk to life or property related to the shrinking and swelling of soils supporting buildings, r oads, and other infrastructure.

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

Cycle RHNA allocation. Although implementation of the programs contained in the HEU would facilitate residential development required to meet the City’s 6 tth

Cycle RHNA allocation,
any proposed land use changes would follow the adoption of the proposed HE U and would be subject to
future environmental review, as required under CEQA once sufficient information is made available. All future projects would be required to adhere to relevant development standards and design guidelines contained in the Planning a
nd Zoning Ordinance and other applicable regulatory requirements governing the nature and quality of development within the City. Therefore, impacts from expansive soils would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Would the project ha
ve soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?

No Impact
.

In accordance with Section 5.36.130, any development proposed in the vicinity of the public
sewer system is prohibited from constructing, maintaining, or using a cesspool, septic tank, or any other means of disposal of sewage on any premises in the City. At this time, public sanitary sewer connections would be available and

required for any development accommodated as a result of HEU implementation .

As such, no septic tanks would be
permitted,

and

no impacts

would occur
.

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

90 JANUARY 2022

Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique g eologic
feature?

Less Than Significant Impact.

The City is virtually built out and does not contain any known paleontological resources (City of Manhattan Beach 2003b). As such, the potential for uncovering significant resources during any
construction activity is considered remote, given that no such resources have been discovered during past development and that all new development facilitated by the HEU would occur on previously developed sites.

As such
, the
HEU

would result in less than
significant impacts
associated with
unique paleontological or geological resources, and no mitigation is required.

3.7.4 References

CGS (California Geological Survey). 2010. Geologic Ma
p

of California. Accessed October 29, 2021.
https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/ngm
-
bin/pdp/zui_viewer.pl?id=28737
.

CGS. 2018. Earthquake Fault Zones, A Guide for Government Agencies, Property Owners/Developers, and Geoscience Practitioners for Assessing Fault Rupture H
azards in California. Revised 2018. Accessed
October

27, 202
1 . https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Documents/SP_042.pdf.

CDOC (California Department of Conservation). 2021. Earthquake Hazards Zone Application. Accessed October 30, 2021. https://maps.conser
vation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/.

California State Parks. 2021. Office of Historic Preservation (Los Angeles County). Accessed October

30, 2021.
http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21427

City of Manhattan Beach. 2003a. General Plan. Adopted 1988. Updated 2003. A ccessed September 17, 2020.
https://www.manhattanbeach.gov/departments/community
-
development/planning
-
zoning

/general
-
plan/final
-
general
-
plan.

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

29,2021.

USDA (United States Department of Agriculture). 2021. Web Soil Survey. Area of Interest CA696. Accessed October 2, 2021. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx.

UC Davis (University of California, Davis). 2021. Linear Exte nsibility Percent. Accessed October 2, 2021.
https://casoilresource.lawr.ucdavis.edu/gmap/help/defn
-
linear
-
extensibility.html.

3. 8

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

3.8.1 Environmental
Setting

Climate change refers to any significant change in measures of climate ( e.g., temperature, precipitation, or wind
patterns) lasting for an extended period of time (i.e., decades or longer). The Earth
’
s temperature depends on the
balance between energy entering and leaving the planet’s system , and many factors (natural and huma
n) can cause
changes in Earth’s energy balance. The greenhouse effect is the trapping and buildup of heat in the atmosphere CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / FINAL

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

91 JANUARY 2022

near the Earth’s surface (the troposphere). The greenhouse effect is a natural process that contributes to regulating the Earth’s te
mperature, and it creates a livable environment on Earth. Human activities that emit additional GHGs to the atmosphere increase the amount of infrared radiation that gets absorbed before escaping into space, thus enhancing the greenhouse effect and causing

the Earth’s surface temperature to rise.

Global climate change is a
cumulative impact; a project
contributes to

this impact through its incremental contribution combined with the cumulative increase of all other sources of GHGs. Thus, GHG impacts are reco gnized exc
lusively as cumulative
impacts (CAPCOA 2008).

A GHG is any gas that absorbs infrared radiation in the atmosphere; in other words, GHGs trap heat in the atmosphere. As defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 38505(g) for purposes of a dministering many
of the state’s primary GHG emissions reduction programs, GHGs include CO 2 , methane (CH
4 ), nitrous oxide (N
2 O),
hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, and nitrogen trifluoride (see also CEQA Guidelines Section 15364.5
).

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change developed the global warming potential (GWP) concept to compare each GHG’s ability to trap heat in the atmosphere relative to another gas. The reference gas used is CO 2 ; therefore,
GWP
-
weighted emissions ar
e measured in metric tons (MT) of CO
2 equivalent (CO
2 e). Consistent with CalEEMod
Version 2016.3.2, this GHG emissions analysis assumed the GWP for CH 4 is 25 (i.e., emissions of 1 MT of CH
4 are
equivalent to emissions of 25 MT of CO
2 ), and the GWP for N
2 O is 298, based on the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC 2007).

3.8.2 Regulatory Setting

Federal

Clean Air Act

There is currently no federal overarchi
ng law specifically related to climate change or reductions in

GHG
emissions.

However, u
nder the Obama administration, the EPA

had been developing regulations under the Clean
Air Act
that seek to reduce GHG emissions
.

The regulations cover GHG emissions fr
om sources such as motor
vehicles, transportation fuels, new and existing power plants, the oil and gas sector, and municipal landfills.

EPA
also adopted a Mandatory Reporting Rule and Clean

Power Plan

in August 2015
. Under the Clean Power Plan,
EPA issued

regulations to control CO
2 emissions from new

and existing coal
-
fired power plants.

Previously, in May
2010, EPA set GHG emission thresholds to define when permits under the New Source Review Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Operating P
ermit programs are required for new and existing industrial facilities. As discussed below, the EPA and the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)

work in
coordination to enable the production of clean vehicles through GHG emission reductio ns and improved fuel use.

Federal Vehicle Standards

The EPA and
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)

announced a joint final rule to establish a
national program consisting of new standards for light
-
duty vehicles model years 2012 through 2016 (April 2010) that is intended to reduce GHG emissions and improve fuel economy. The EPA approved the first -
ever
national
GHG emissions standards under the Clean Air Act, and NHTSA approved Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (75 FR 25324 –
25728), which became effective on July
6, 2010 (75 FR 25324
–
25728). In Au
gust 2018, EPA and NHTSA proposed to amend certain fuel economy and CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / FINAL

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

92 JANUARY 2022

GHG standards for passenger cars and light trucks and establish new standards for model years 2021 through 2026. The 2018 proposal would increase U.S. fuel consumption by about half a mill ion barrels per day (2
–
3 %

of
total daily consumption, according to the Energy Information Administration) and would impact the global climate by 3/1000th of 1°C by 2100 (EPA and NHTSA

2018).

On September 27, 2019, the EPA and NHTSA published the Safer Affordable Fuel
-
Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule
Part One: One National Program (84 FR 51310), which became effective November 26, 2019. The Part One Rule revokes California’s authority to set its own GHG emissions standards and set zero -
emission vehicle man
dates in
California. On March 31, 2020, the EPA and NHTSA issued the Part Two Rule , which

sets CO
2 emissions standards
and corporate average fuel economy standards for passenger vehicles and light -
duty trucks for model years 2021
through 2026. On January 2
0, 2021, President Joe Biden issued an EO on Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis, which includes review of Part One Rule by April 2021 and review of the Part Two Rule by July 2021 (The White House

2021).

State

EO S
-
3 -
05 EO S
-
3 -
05 (June 2005) established the following statewide goals: GHG emissions should be reduced to 2000 levels by 2010, GHG emissions should be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020, and GHG emissions should be reduced to 80% below 1990 l
evels by 2050.

AB 32

In furtherance of the goals established in EO S
-
3 -
05, the Legislature enacted AB 32 (Núñez and Pavley). The bill is referred to as the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (September 27, 2006). AB 32 provided initial direct
ion on creating a comprehensive multiyear program to limit California’s GHG

emissions at 1990
levels by 2020, and initiate the transformations required to achieve the state’s long -
range climate objectives
.

One specific requirement of AB 32 is for CARB to
prepare a “scoping plan” for achieving the maximum
technologically feasible and cost
-
effective GHG emission reductions by 2020 (Health and Safety Code Section 38561(a)), and to update the plan at least once every 5 years. In 2008, CARB approved the first s coping plan:

The
Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan: A Framework for Change

(
Scoping Plan
).

In December 2017, CARB adopted the
2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update
(Second Update)

(CARB 2017).

The Scoping Plan recommends strategies for implementation at the S
tatewide
level to meet the goals of AB 32, SB 32,
and the EOs; it also establishes an overall framework for the measures that will be adopted to reduce California’s GHG emissions. A project
is considered consistent with the statutes and EOs if it meets the general policies in reducing GHG emissions in order to facilitate the achievement of the S
tate’s
goals and does not impede attainment of those goals. As discussed in several cases, a given
project need not be in perfect conformity with each and every planning policy or goal to be consistent. A project would be consistent if it will further the objectives and not obstruct their attainment.

SB 32 and AB 197

SB 32 and AB 197 (enacted in 2016) a
re companion bills. SB 32 codified the 2030 emissions reduction goal of EO B
-
30 -
15 by requiring CARB to ensure that statewide GHG emissions are reduced to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. AB 197 established the Joint Legislative Committee on Climate Change P olicies, consisting of at least three
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / FINAL

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

93 JANUARY 2022

members of the Senate and three members of the Assembly, in order to provide ongoing oversight over implementation of the
State’s
climate policies. AB 197 also added two members of the Legislature to the CARB Board as
nonvoting members; requires CARB to make available and update (at least annually via its website) emissions data for GHGs, criteria air pollutants, and TACs from reporting facilities; and requires CARB to identify specific information for GHG emissions red
uction measures when updating the Scoping Plan.

Title 24, Part 6

Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations was established in 1978 and serves to enhance and regulate California’s building standards. While not initially promulgated to reduce GHG emissi ons, Part 6 of Title 24
specifically established Building Energy Efficiency Standards that are designed to ensure new and existing buildings in California achieve energy efficiency and preserve outdoor and indoor environmental quality. These energy efficie
ncy standards are reviewed every few years by the Building Standards Commission and the California Energy Commission (CEC) (and revised if necessary) (California Public Resources Code, Section 25 406
[b][1]). The 2019
Title 24 standards are the currently
applicable building energy efficiency
standards and

became effective on
January 1, 2020. The 2019 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards further reduce energy used and associated GHG emissions compared to prior standards.

Title 24, Part 11

In
addition to the CEC’s efforts, in 2008, the California Building Standards Commission adopted the nation’s first green building standards. The California Green Building Standards Code (Part 11 of Title 24) is commonly referred to as California’s Green Build
ing Standards (CALGreen)

and establishes minimum mandatory standards and
voluntary standards pertaining to the planning and design of sustainable site development, energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code requirements), water conservation , material conservation, and interior air
quality. The CALGreen standards took effect in January 2011 and instituted mandatory minimum environmental
performance standards for all ground
-
up, new construction of commercial, low
-
rise residential and state
-
own
ed
buildings and schools and hospitals.

State Vehicle Standards (AB 1493 and EO B
-
16 -
12)

AB 1493 (July 2002) was enacted in a response to the transportation sector accounting for more than half of California’s CO
2 emissions. AB 1493 required CARB to set GH
G emission standards for passenger vehicles, light
-
duty trucks, and other vehicles determined by the state board to be vehicles that are primarily used for noncommercial personal transportation in the state. The bill required that CARB set GHG emission sta ndards for
motor vehicles manufactured in 2009 and all subsequent model years. CARB adopted the standards in September 2004. EO B
-
16 -
12 (March 2012) required that state entities under the governor’s direction and control support and facilitate the rapid co
mmercialization of zero
-
emissions vehicles. It ordered CARB, CEC, California Public Utilities Commission, and other relevant agencies to work with the Plug -
in Electric Vehicle Collaborative and the California
Fuel Cell Partnership to establish benchmarks t
o help achieve benchmark goals by 2015, 2020, and 2025. On a statewide basis, EO B
-
16 -
12 established a target reduction of GHG emissions from the transportation sector equaling 80% less than 1990 levels by 2050.

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

94 JANUARY 2022

Advanced Clean Cars Program and Zero
-
Emissio
ns Vehicle Program

The Advanced Clean Cars Program (January 2012) is a new emissions -
control program for model years 2015
through 2025. The program combines the control of smog
-

and soot
-
causing pollutants and GHG emissions into a
single coordinated packag
e. The package includes elements to reduce smog
-
forming pollution, reduce GHG
emissions, promote clean cars, and provide the fuels for clean cars (CARB 2012). To improve air quality, CARB has implemented new emission standards to reduce smog
-
forming emissi
ons beginning with 2015 model year vehicles.

It is estimated that in 2025, cars will emit 75% less smog -
forming pollution than the average new car sold today.

To reduce GHG emissions, CARB, in conjunction with the EPA and the NHTSA, adopted new GHG standar ds for
model year 2017 to 2025 vehicles; the new standards are estimated to reduce GHG emissions by 34% in 2025.

The Zero
-
Emissions Vehicle Program will act as the focused technology of the Advanced Clean Cars Program by requiring manufacturers to produce
increasing numbers of zero
-
emissions vehicles and plug
-
in hybrid electric
vehicles in the 2018 to 2025 model years.

Regional/Local

South Coast Air Quality Management District

Air districts typically act in an advisory capacity to local governments in esta blishing the framework for
environmental review of air pollution impacts under CEQA. This may include recommendations regarding significance thresholds, analytical tools to estimate emissions and assess impacts, and mitigations for potentially significant
impacts. Although air districts will also address some of these issues on a project -
specific basis as
responsible agencies, they may provide general guidance to local governments on these issues (SCAQMD 2008).

The SCAQMD has recommended numeric CEQA signif
icance thresholds for GHG emissions for lead agencies to use in assessing GHG impacts of residential and commercial development projects; however, these thresholds were not adopted.

City of Manhattan Beach General Plan

The following goals and
policies related to GHG emissions are applicable to the HEU.

Goal I
-
12:

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

Policy CR
-

12.3:

Encourage the maximum diversion of construction and demolition materials.

Goal CR
-
5:

Conserve and protect the remaining natural resources in Manhattan Beach.

Policy CR
-

5.1:

Employ principles of a sustainable environment in the development, operation, and maintenance of the community, emphasizing the importance of respecting an d conserving the
natural resources.

Policy CR
-

5.3:

Encourage water conservation, including landscaping with drought -
tolerant plants, use of
reclaimed water, and recycling of cooling system water, in all development.

Policy CR
-

5.5:

Support expanded use of r
eclaimed water.

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

95 JANUARY 2022

Policy CR
-

5.6:

Encourage drainage designs which retain or detain stormwater run -
off to minimize volume
and pollutant concentrations.

Policy CR
-

5.7:

Encourage the use of energy
-
saving designs and devices in all new construction and
reconstru
ction.

Policy CR
-

5.8:

Encourage utilization of “green” approaches to building design and construction, including use of environmentally friendly interior improvements.

Policy CR
-

5.10 :

Encourage and support the use of alternative fuel vehicles, including support of charging or
“fueling” facilities.

Policy CR
-

5.11:

Support sustainable building practices.

Goal CR
-
6:

Improve air quality.

Policy CR
-

6.1:

Encourage alternative modes of transportation, such as walking, biking, and public transportation, to reduce emissions associated
with automobile use.

Policy CR
-

6.4:

Cooperate and participate in regional air quality management planning, programs, and enforcement measures.

Climate Action Plan

The City of Manhattan Beach and the South Bay Cities Council of Governments published the Cit y of
Manhattan
Beach Climate Action Plan (CAP) in 2017, which established goals and policies that incorporate GHG reduction measures into community and municipal operat
ions. The CAP included 2005 and 2012 inventories of community and municipal GHG emission
s and set GHG reduction targets of 15% below 2005 levels by 2020 and 49% below 2005 levels by 2035. The CAP contains goals and measures that cover sectors such as land use and transportation, energy efficiency, solid waste, urban greening, and energy gener ation and storage (City of Manhattan Beach 2017).

However, the CAP did not undergo CEQA review and was not adopted in a public process and is created to help develop a Qualified Climate Reduction Strategy under CEQA. Therefore, the CAP is not a qualified G HG reduction
plan as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5. Additionally, the City is in the process of creating a Climate Action and Adaptation Plan, which will build on the existing CAP.

3.8.3 Environmental
Impacts

Potentially
Significant
Impact

Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No Impact

VIII.

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

–

Would the project:

Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may
have a
significant impact on the environment?

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

96 JANUARY 2022

Potentially
Significant
Impact

Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No Impact

Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases?

Would the project generate
greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

Less Than Significant Impact.

The
HEU
is a policy document, consisting of a housing program; no actual development or rezoning is proposed as part of the update. Therefore, its adoption would not, in itself, produce
greenhouse gas emissions.

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

Cycle RHNA allocation
. Future development of
residential dwelling

units under the
HEU
could result in an increase in GHG emissions during construction which are primarily associated with us
e of off
-
road construction equipment, vendor trucks, and worker
vehicles, and operational activities, which includes motor vehicle trips, landscape maintenance equipment operation, energy use (natural gas and generation of electricity consumed by a propose d development
project), solid waste disposal, and generation of electricity associated with water supply, treatment, and distribution and wastewater treatment. However, future development must be consistent with the General Plan and with regional plans tha
t are based on the land use pattern of the General Plan.

Furthermore, future development as a result of the
HEU
would occur in developed areas of the
City
where
public services and infrastructure are currently provided. Existing regulations that would app ly to any
future residential development, including the California Green Building Standards Code and California’s Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, would substantially reduce GHG emissions associated with future projects. Given the already bui
lt
-
out nature of the City and lack of substantial vacant land, future residential projects that may be developed to meet the RHNA requirement are expected to be located on infill sites where pedestrian
-

and transit
-
oriented development is highly feasible a
nd would be
encouraged. Such development should reduce the number of new vehicle trips typically associated with residential projects and, thus, would help reduce GHG production resulting from the combustion of fossil fuels for transportation purposes. Bec
ause specific project details are not known at this time, the City cannot assess the specific impacts of development in qualitative terms. Any impacts identified for an individual project built under the
HEU
would be addressed through the project approval
process,
including design review, environmental review, and mitigation measures specific to any impacts determined to be potential for that project.

Goals and policies from the General Plan Community Resources Element, as presented above, are designed to h
elp reduce GHG emissions in a wide range of actions. As stated earlier the City is also working on the development of a Climate Action and Adaptation Plan that will contain actionable programs to help with GHG reductions in a variety of sectors. Developmen
t under the
HEU

will also have electricity provided by
CPA, which would provide 100% renewable energy to all residents within the City, thus reducing GHG emissions. The Housing Element Update also includes policies that would help reduce future projects CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / FINAL

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

97 JANUARY 2022

energy consumption such as
Program 1
3 , which encourages energy conservation and energy efficiency, as well as Program 2
7 , which encourages the use of solar panels by providing incentives .

These measures
would require new construction to have buildings th
at meet incorporate energy
-
saving designs and green
building techniques, the promotion of electric vehicle infrastructure, and encourage the use of alternative energy sources such as from solar.

Based on the above information, the
HEU

would result in less
than significant impacts associated with GHG
emissions. No mitigation required.

Would the project generate conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

Less Than Significan
t Impact
.

The
HEU
does not propose specific development plans for new
residential dwelling units

at this time. As previously discussed, future development built under the HEU
would
likely
generate GHG emissions during construction through the use of petroleum -
fueled
construction equipment and worker vehicle trips to and from construction sites while the operation of future developments would
likely
generate GHG emissions through the use of
electricity and natural gas,
vehicle trips of occupants, waste generation, water use, and wastewater generation. In addition, project components (e.g., VMT) for future
residential dwelling
units is unknown.

However,
impacts

to GHG
emissions

related to the
accommodation of an additional
479

dwelling units

would

largely be
addressed
via required discretionary CEQA review of the pending

rezoning effort(s), which would incorporate

mitigation measures specific to any impacts determined to be
significant.

Future development of
residential
units that is facilitated by adoption of the
HEU
would be subject to all
S
tate and local
regulations (e.g., Climate Action and Adaptation Plan) reg arding GHG emissions. Therefore,
the
HEU

is
consistent
with applicable plans, policies, or regulations aimed at reducing such GHG emissions , any
impacts

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

3.8.4 References

CAPCOA (California Air
Pollution Control Officers Association. 2008.

CEQA and Climate Change: Evaluating and
Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act.

January 2008.

CARB. 2012. California Air Resources Board Approves A
dvanced Clean Car Rules. January 27.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/newsrel/newsrelease.php?id=282.

CARB. 2017. The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update. January 20. Accessed January 2017. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2030sp_pp_final.pdf.

CEC (Californ
ia Energy Commission). 2018.
2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards.

Accessed November 2019.
https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020
-
03/Title_24_2019_Building_Standards_FAQ_ada.pdf
.

City of Manhattan Beach. 2017. Climate Action Plan. Accessed October 2021.

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

98 JANUARY 2022

EPA. 2017.

Carbon Pollution Standards for Cars and Light Trucks to Remain Unchang ed Through 2025
. January
13, 2017. https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/carbon
-
pollution
-
standards
-
cars
-
and
-
light
-
trucks
-
remain
-
unchanged
-
through
-
2025.

EPA and NHTSA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traf
fic Safety Administration). 2016. EPA and NHTSA Adopt Standards to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Improve Fuel Efficiency of Medium
-

and Heavy
-
Duty Vehicles for Model Year 2018 and
Beyond. August 2016. https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P100P7NL.PDF? Dockey=P100P7NL.PDF.

EPA and NHTSA. 2018. The Safer Affordable Fuel
-
Efficient 'SAFE' Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021
-
2026
Passenger Vehicles and Light Trucks. Proposed Rule August 2018. Accessed May 2019. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR
-
2018
-
08 -
2 4/pdf/2018
-
16820.pdf.

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007.

IPCC Fourth Assessment Synthesis of Scientific
-
Technical
Information Relevant to Interpreting Article 2 of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change .

The White House. 2021.

Executive Order on Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis. January 20.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing
-
room/presidential
-
actions

/2021/01/20/executive
-
order
-
protecting
-
public
-
health
-
and
-
environm
ent
-
and
-
restoring
-
science
-
to
-
tackle
-
climate
-
crisis/

3. 9

Hazards and Hazardous Materials

3.9.1 Environmental
Setting

As defined in Chapter 6.95 of Division 20 of the California Health and Safety Code, Section 25501(o), a hazardous material is “…any
material that, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment. Hazardous ma
terials include, but are not limited to, hazardous substances, hazardous waste, and any material which a handler or the administering agency has a reasonable basis for believing that it would be injurious to the health and safety of persons or harmful to t he environment if released into the
workplace or the environment.”

California Government Code Section 65962.5 requires the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) to compile, maintain, and update specified lists of hazardous material release s ites. The CEQA Guidelines (California
Public Resources Code, Section 21092.6) require the lead agency to consult the lists compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 to determine whether
a

project

and any alternatives are identified on or near
on
e or more hazardous materials release sites. The lists are collectively referred to as the “Cortese List” after the legislator who authored the legislation. Any future housing project proposed within City would be subject to PRC Section 21092.6 which would

re
quire both

review of Cortese List databases and analysis of findings to be included in the designated
CEQA documentation.

According to the Manhattan Beach General Plan,
many businesses in
the City
, including dry

cleaners and gas
stations, can handle and transport hazardous materials. In addition, two “archive” sites in the City

have been
identified as Superfund sites under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / FINAL

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

99 JANUARY 2022

(CERCLA)
;

however,

according to the
US
EPA, these sites no longer pose an immediate or long
-
term risk to human
health or the environment and further remedial action is planned for these sites under the Superfund Program

(City
of Manhattan Beach 2003)
.

The Manhattan Village
residential area was previously an oil field that had large oil storage tanks. The area has a vapor recovery system which captures and recovers dilute volatile organic compounds and other hazardous air pollutants. Industrial uses in the adjacent
C
ity of El

Segundo may
affect

Manhattan Beach residents, including the
Chevron Oil Refinery and the El Segundo Generation Site

(City of Manhattan Beach 2003)
.

The Manhattan Beach Fire Department Fire Prevention Division participates in a local hazardous materials p rogram
through a joint agreement with the Los Angeles County Fire Department. Division responsibilities include cleanup of spills, leaks, and illegal dumping, and monitoring hazardous materials within businesses in Manhattan Beach

(City of Manhattan Beach
2003)
.

3.9.2 Regulatory Setting

Federal

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Title 40 USC, Chapter 1, Subchapter I, Parts 260
-
265
–

Solid Waste Disposal Act/ Federal Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976

The Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended
and revised by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), establishes requirements for the management of solid wastes (including hazardous wastes), landfills, USTs, and certain medical wastes. The statute also addresses program administration; impl ementation and delegation to the
states; enforcement provisions and responsibilities; and research, training, and grant funding. Provisions are established for the generation, storage, treatment, and disposal of hazardous waste, including requirements addr
essing generator record keeping, labeling, shipping paper management, placarding, emergency response information, training, and security plans.

Title 40 USC, Chapter 1, Subchapter I, Part 273
–

Universal Waste

This regulation governs the collection and man
agement of widely generated waste, including batteries, pesticides, mercury
-
containing equipment, and bulbs. This regulation streamlines the hazardous waste management standards and ensures that such waste is diverted to the appropriate treatment or recycl ing facility.

Title 40 USC, Chapter 1, Subchapter C, Part 61
–

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants, Subpart M
–

National Emission Standard for Asbestos

This regulation established National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant s (NESHAP) and names
asbestos
-
containing material (ACM) as one of these materials. ACM use, removal, and disposal are regulated by USEPA under this law. In addition, notification of friable ACM removal prior to a proposed demolition project is required by
this law.

Title 42 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 116
–

Emergency Planning and Community
Right
-
to
-
Know Act

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

100

JANUARY 2022

The Emergency Planning and Community Right
-
to
-
Know Act (EPCRA) provides for public access to information about chemical hazards. The EPCRA

and its regulations included in Title 40 U.S.C. Parts 350 -
372 establish four types of
reporting obligations for facilities storing or managing specified chemicals: emergency planning, emergency release notification, hazardous chemical storage reporting re
quirements, and toxic chemical release inventory. USEPA maintains a database, termed the Toxic Release Inventory, which includes information on reportable releases to the environment.

Title 15 USC, Chapter 53, Subchapter I, Section 2601 et seq. –

Toxic Sub
stances Control Act of 1976

The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 empowers USEPA to require reporting, record -
keeping, and
testing, as well as to place restrictions on the use and handling of chemical substances and mixtures. This regulation phas
ed out the use of asbestos and ACM in new building materials and also sets requirements for the use, handling, and disposal of ACM as well as for lead
-
based paint (LBP) waste. As discussed above, USEPA has
also established NESHAP, which govern the use, rem
oval, and disposal of ACM as a hazardous air pollutant and mandate the removal of friable ACM before a building is demolished and require notification before demolition. In addition to asbestos, ACM, and LBP requirements, this regulation also banned the ma nufacturing of polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) and sets standards for the use and disposal of existing PCB -
containing equipment or materials.

Regional Screening Levels (RSLs)

The federal EPA provides regional screening levels for chemical contaminants to provide comparison values for
residential and commercial/industrial exposures to soil, air, and tap water (drinking water). RSLs are available on the EPA’s website and provide a screening level calculation tool to assist risk assessors, remediation project

managers, and others involved with risk assessment and decision -
making.

RSLs are also used when a site is initially
investigated to determine if potentially significant levels of contamination are present to warrant further investigation. In California, t
he Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Human and Ecological Risk Office (HERO) incorporated the EPA RSLs into the HERO human health risk assessment. HERO created Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) Note 3, which incorporates HERO recommendations and DTSC
-
modified screening levels
(DTSC
-
SLs) based on review of the EPA RSLs. The DTSC
-
R
SL should be used in conjunction with the EPA RSLs to
evaluate chemical concentrations in environmental media at California sites and facilities.

U.S. Department of La
bor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Title 29 USC, Part 1926 et seq.
–

Safety and Health Regulations for Construction

These standards require employee training; personal protective equipment; safety equipment; and written procedures,
programs, and plans for ensuring worker safety when working with hazardous materials or in hazardous work environments during construction activities, including renovations and demolition projects and the handling, storage, and use of explosive
s. These standards also provide rules for the removal and disposal of asbestos, lead, LBP, and other lead materials. Although intended primarily to protect worker health and safety, these requirements also guide general facility safety. This regulation als
o requires that an engineering survey is prepared prior to demolition.

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

101

JANUARY 2022

Federal Response Plan

The Federal Response Plan of 1999, as amended in 2003

is a signed agreement among 27 federal departments and
agencies, including the American Red Cross, that (1) p
rovides the mechanism for coordinating delivery of federal assistance and resources to augment efforts of state and local governments overwhelmed by a major disaster or emergency; (2) supports implementation of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Em ergency Act, as well as
individual agency statutory authorities; and (3) supplements other federal emergency operations plans developed to address specific hazards. The Federal Response Plan is implemented in anticipation of a significant event likely to r
esult in a need for federal assistance or in response to an actual event requiring federal assistance under a presidential declaration of a major disaster or emergency.

State

California Unified Program for Management of Hazardous Waste and Materials

Califo
rnia Health and Safety Code (HSC), Division 20, Chapter 6.11, Sections 25404 -

25404.9
Sections
–

Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program

Under the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), the Department of T oxic Substances Control (DTSC)
and Enforcement and Emergency Response Program (EERP) administer the technical implementation of California’s Unified Program, which consolidates the administration, permit, inspection, and enforcement activities of several e
nvironmental and emergency management programs at the local level (DTSC 2019). Certified Unified Program Agencies (CUPAs) implement the hazardous waste and materials standards. This program was established under the amendments to the California HSC made by

SB 1082 in 1994. The programs that make up the Unified
Program are:



Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act (APSA) Program



Area Plans for Hazardous Materials Emergencies



California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) Program



Hazardous Materials
Release Response Plans and Inventories (Hazardous Materials Business Plans, or HMBPs)



Hazardous Material Management Plan (HMMP) and Hazardous Material Inventory Statements (HMIS)



Hazardous Waste Generator and On
-
site Hazardous Waste Treatment (Tiered Permi
tting) Program



Underground Storage Tank Program

The CUPA for the
City

is the

LACFD working jointly with the Manhattan Beach Fire Department

Hazardous Waste Management

Title 22 CCR, Division 4.5
–

Environmental Health Standards for the Management of Hazardo us Waste

In the State of California, the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) regulates hazardous wastes. These regulations establish requirements for the management and disposal of hazardous waste in accordance with the provisions of the Californ
ia Hazardous Waste Control Act and federal RCRA. As with federal requirements, waste generators must determine if their wastes are hazardous according to specified characteristics or lists of wastes.

Hazardous waste generators must obtain identification nu mbers; prepare manifests before transporting waste off
-
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / FINAL

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

102

JANUARY 2022

site; and use only permitted treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. Standards also include requirements for record keeping, reporting, packaging, and labeling. Additionally, while not a federal r equirement, California requires
that hazardous waste be transported by registered hazardous waste transporters.

In addition, Chapter 31
–

Waste Minimization, Article 1
–

Pollution Prevention and the Hazardous Waste Source
Reduction and Management Review of

these regulations require that generators of 12,000 kilograms/year of typical, operational hazardous waste evaluate their waste streams every four years and, as applicable, select and implement viable source reduction alternatives. This Act does not apply

to non
-
typical hazardous waste, including
ACM and PCBs, among others.

Title 22 California HSC, Division 20, Chapter 6.5
–

California Hazardous Waste Control Act of 1972

This legislation created the framework under which hazardous wastes must be managed in

California. It provides
for the development of a state hazardous waste program (regulated by DTSC) that administers and implements the provisions of the federal RCRA program. It also provides for the designation of California -
only hazardous wastes
and dev
elopment of standards that are equal to or, in some cases, more stringent than, federal requirements. The CUPA is responsible for implementing some elements of the law at the local level.

Human Health Risk Assessment Note 3
–
DTSC
-
Modified Screening Levels
(DTSC
-
SLs
)

HHRA Note Number 3 presents recommended screening levels (derived from the EPA RSLs using DTSC -
modified exposure
and toxicity factors) for constituents in soil, tap water, and ambient air.

The DTSC
-
SL should be used in conjunction with the
EPA RSLs to eval
uate chemical concentrations in environmental media at California sites and facilities.

Environmental Cleanup Levels

Environmental Screening Levels

Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) provide conservative screening levels for over 100 chemicals found at sites
with contaminated soil and groundwater. They are intended to help expedite the identification and evaluation of potential environmental concerns at contaminated sites. The ESLs were developed by San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board;

however, they are used throughout the state. While ESLs are not intended to establish policy or regulation, they can be used as a conservative screening level for sites with contamination. Other agencies in California currently use the ESLs (as opposed to

RSLs). In general, the ESLs could be used at any site in the State of California, provided all stakeholders agree
.

In Dudek’s recent experience, regulatory agencies in the southern California region use ESLs as regulatory cleanup levels. The ESLs are not generally used at sites where the
contamination is solely related to a leaking underground storage tank (LUST); those sites are instead subject to the Low
-
Threat Underground Storage Tank Closure Policy.

California Integrated Waste Management Board

Title 14

CCR, Division 7, Chapter 8.2
–

Electronic Waste Recovery and Recycling Act of 2003

This regulation sets requirements regarding the use and disposal of hazardous substances in electronics. When discarded, the DTSC considers the following materials manufact ured before 2006 to be hazardous waste: cathode
ray tube devices, liquid crystal display (LCD) desktop monitors, laptop computers with LCD displays, LCD televisions, plasma televisions, and portable DVD Players with LCD screens.

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

103

JANUARY 2022

Occupational Safety and Hea
lth

Title 8 CCR
–

Safety Orders

Under the California Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1973, the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (CalOSHA) is responsible for ensuring safe and healthful working conditions for California worker s.

CalOSHA assumes primary responsibility for developing and enforcing workplace safety regulations in Title 8 of the CCR. CalOSHA hazardous substances regulations include requirements for safety training, availability of safety equipment, hazardous substa
nce exposure warnings, and emergency action and fire prevention plan preparation.

CalOSHA also enforces hazard communication program regulations, which contain training and information requirements, including procedures for identifying and labeling hazardo us substances.

In Division 1, Chapter 4, Subchapter 4
–

Construction Safety Orders of Title 8, construction safety orders are listed and include rules for demolition, excavation, explosives work, working around fumes and vapors, pile driving, vehicle and
traffic control, crane operation, scaffolding, fall protection, and fire protection and prevention, among others.

Asbestos and Air Quality

Enforcement of the NESHAP Regulation, HSC Section 39658(b)(1)

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is responsibl e for overseeing compliance with the federal Asbestos National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) in Los Angeles County. The Asbestos NESHAP Program enforces compliance with the federal National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) regulation
for asbestos and investigates all related complaints, as specified by HSC Section 39658(b)(1). Of the 35 air districts in California, 16 of these districts do not have an asbestos program in place. In these "non -
delegated" di
stricts, a
demolition/renovation notification is required for compliance with the Asbestos NESHAP. (This notification is not equivalent to a permit.) CARB reviews and investigates the notifications. The program also administers two annual statewide asbesto
s NESHAP task force meetings for air districts and US EPA to facilitate communication and enforcement
continuity and

assists US EPA in training district staff to enforce the asbestos NESHAP.

Contractors State License Board

The California Department of Cons
umer Affairs Contractors State License Board manages the licensing of asbestos abatement contractors.

Lead
-
Based Paint

The California Department of Public Health enforces lead laws and regulations related to the prevention of lead poisoning in children, pr
evention of lead poisoning in occupational workers, accreditation and training for construction -
related
activities, lead exposure screening and reporting, disclosures, and limitations on the amount of lead found in products.

Accredited lead specialists are

required to find and abate lead hazards in a construction project and to perform lead -
related construction work in an effective and safe manner. The specific regulations are as follows:

California Health & Safety Code Sections 124125 to 124165

Declared ch
ildhood lead exposure as the most significant childhood environmental health problem in the S
tate
.

Established the Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program and instructed it to continue to take steps necessary to reduce the incidence of childhood lead e
xposure in California.

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

104

JANUARY 2022

California Health & Safety Code Sections 105275 to 105310

Reaffirmed California's commitment to lead poisoning prevention activities; provided CDPH with broad mandates on blood lead screening protocols, laboratory quality assurance, identification
,

and management of lead exposed
children, and reducing lead exposures.

California Health & Safety Code Section 105250

Establishes a program to accredit lead
-
related construction training providers and certify individuals to conduct lead
-
related construction activities.

California Civil Code Section 1941.1; California Health & Safety Code Sections 17961, 17980, 124130, 17920.10, 105251 to 105257

Deems a building to be in violation of the State Housing Law if it contains lead hazards
and

requires local
enforcement agencies to enforce provisions related to lead hazards. Makes it a crime for a person to engage in specified acts related to lead hazard evaluation, abatement, and lead -
related constructions courses, unless
certified or accre
dited by the Department. Permits local enforcement agencies to order the abatement of lead hazards or issue a cease and desist order in response to lead hazards.

California Civil Code Sections 1102 to 1102.16

Requires the disclosure of known lead
-
based pai
nt hazards upon sale of a property.

California Education Code Sections 32240 to 32245

Implemented a lead poisoning prevention and protection program for California schools for a survey to ascertain risk factors that predicted lead contamination in public s chools. The survey was completed in 1998. Findings of the survey are under Materials and Products.

California Labor Code Sections 6716 to 6717

Provides for the establishment of standards that protect the health and safety of employees who engage in lead -
re
lated construction work, including construction, demolition, renovation, and repair.

California Health & Safety Code Sections 116875 to 116880

Requires the use of lead
-
free pipes and fixtures in any installation or repair of a public water system or in a f acility
where water is provided for human consumption.

California Health & Safety Code Sections 105185 to 105197

Establishes an occupational lead poisoning prevention program to register and monitor laboratory reports of adult lead toxicity cases, monitor
reported cases of occupational lead poisoning to ascertain lead poisoning sources, conduct investigations of take
-
home exposure cases, train employees and health professionals regarding occupational lead poisoning prevention, and recommended means for lead

poisoning prevention.

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

105

JANUARY 2022

California Building Standards Commission

Title 24 of the CCR
–

California Building Standards Code

The California Building Standards Code is a compilation of three types of building standards from three different sources:



Building st
andards that have been adopted by state agencies without change from building standards contained in national model codes;



Building standards that have been adopted and adapted from the national model code standards to meet California conditions; and



Build
ing standards, authorized by the California legislature, that constitute extensive additions not covered by the model codes that have been adopted to address particular California concerns.

Among other rules, the Code contains requirements regarding the st orage and handling of hazardous materials.

The Chief Building Official at the local government level (i.e., City of Manhattan Beach
) must inspect and verify
compliance with these requirements prior to issuance of an occupancy permit.

California
Building Code
–

Chapter 7A

This chapter of the California Building Code establishes minimum standards for buildings located in any Fire Hazard Severity
Zone

within
State Responsibility Areas

or any Wildland
-
Urban Interface
Fire Area

to resist the intrusion of
flames or burning embers projected by a vegetation fire.

California State Fire Marshal

Title 19 CCR, Division 1, Chapter 10
–

Explosives

This regulation addr
esses the sale, transportation, storage, use, and handling of explosives in California.

Requirements for obtaining permits from the local Fire Chief having jurisdiction and blasting guidelines (such as blasting times, warning devices, and protection of adj
acent structures and utilities) are also explained in Chapter 10 of Title 19.

California Emergency Services Act

Under the Emergency Services Act (California Government Code, Section 8550 et seq.), the State of California developed an emergency
response plan to coordinate emergency services provided by federal, state, and local agencies. Rapid response to incidents involving hazardous materials or hazardous waste is an integral part of the plan, which is administered by the Governor’s Office of E mergency Services. The Office of Emergency Services
coordinates the responses of other agencies, including the EPA, California Highway Patrol, Regional

Water Quality
Control Boards, air quality management districts, and county disaster response offices.

C
alifornia Accidental Release Prevention Program

Similar to the EPA Risk Management Program, the California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) Program (19 CCR 2735.1 et seq.) regulates facilities that use or store regulated substances, such as toxic or

flammable
chemicals, in quantities that exceed established thresholds. Under the regulations, industrial facilities that handle hazardous materials above threshold quantities are required to prepare and submit a hazardous materials business CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / FINAL

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

106

JANUARY 2022

plan (HMBP) to

the local CUPA via the California Environmental Reporting System. As part of the HMBP, a facility is further required to specify applicability of other state regulatory programs. The overall purpose of CalARP is to prevent accidental releases of regulated

substances and reduce the severity of releases that may occur. The CalARP Program meets the requirements of the EPA Risk Management Program, which was established pursuant to the Clean Air Act Amendments.

California Dig Alert

CA Government Code 4216

In a
ccordance with CA Government Code 4216.2, an excavator planning to conduct an excavation shall notify the appropriate regional notification center of the intent to excavate between two

and
fourteen

calendar days prior to
excavation activities. When the exc
avation is proposed within 10 feet of a “high priority subsurface installation”, which includes high pressure natural gas and petroleum pipelines, the operator of the high priority subsurface installation shall notify the excavator of the existing of the i nstallation and set up an onsite meeting to determine
actions required to verify location and prevent damage to the installation. The excavator shall not begin excavating until the onsite meeting is complete.

Regional and Local

South Coast Air Quality Mana
gement District

Rule 1403: Work Practice Requirements for Asbestos

SCAQMD Rule 1403 governs work practice requirements for asbestos in all renovation and demolition activities.

The rule includes requirements for asbestos surveying, notifications, ACM remov al procedures, schedules, handling
and clean
-
up procedures, and storage, disposal, and landfill requirements for waste materials. All operators are also required to maintain records and use appropriate labels, signs, and markings.

City of Manhattan Beach
General Plan

The City’s General Plan includes the following goals and policies related to hazards and hazardous materials:

Goal CS
-
1:

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

Policy CS
-

1.8:

P
articipate in Federal, State, and local earthquake preparedness and emergency response programs.

Goal CS
-
2:

Protect residents from hazardous materials and the hazards associated with the transport of such materials.

Policy CS
-

2.1 :

Continue to encourage and support the enforcement of
s
tate and
f
ederal environmental
and pollution control laws.

Policy CS
-

2.2:

Continue to support and encourage
s
tate and
f
ederal efforts to identify existing or previously
existing hazardous waste generato
rs or disposal sites and monitor disposal of all wastes and contamination of their sites.

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

107

JANUARY 2022

Policy CS
-

2.3:

Continue to monitor underground emissions and associated hazards in Manhattan Village and in other areas adjacent to industrial uses.

Policy CS
-

2.4:

Pr
omote the routing of vehicles carrying potentially hazardous materials along t
ransportation
corridors that reduce public exposure to risk. Cooperate with regional agencies in developing such routing systems.

Policy CS
-

2.6 :

Develop and support an educationa
l program to assist small users (individuals and
households) to dispose of small quantities of hazardous materials.

Policy CS
-

2.7:

Continue to monitor the potential environmental risks posed by industrial users in the City and adjacent jurisdictions, and
actively work with State, Federal, and other agencies to prevent and mitigate any accidents

Goal CS
-
3:

Maintain a high level of City emergency response services.

Policy CS
-

3.2:

Cooperate with other jurisdictions in the South Bay area to maintain an up
-
to
-
date
emergency response system for the region.

Manhattan Beach Municipal Code

Chapter 5.76, Liability for Costs of
Response

to
Hazardous Waste

Substance

Spills
, Releases, and
Other Incidents

This chapter establishes liability for
reimbursement of the City's expenses incurred in connection with corrective action necessitated by violations of the hazardous waste and substance control laws.

Section 10.60.120(D) Hazardous and
e
xtremely
h
azardous
m
aterials.

The use, handling, storage,
and transportation of hazardous and extremely hazardous materials shall comply with the provisions of the California Hazardous Materials Regulations (California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4 ).

Section 14.48.030, Parking of vehicles transporting

hazardous material.

This section of the
MBMC

contains regulations related to the transportation of a hazardous material or substance as identified in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulation (CFR). Key components of this section include the requirement that all vehicles transporting Title 49 waste

or substances must be attended at all times by its driver or a qualified representative of the motor carrier that operates it. The vehicle cannot be parked on any highway, highway shoulder, street, alley, public way or public place, or within five

feet of

the traveled portion thereof, within
a residential zone or within 1,000 feet of any school or within 300 feet of any bridge or tunnel, except for brief periods when mechanical or equipment failure or disablement or malfunction of the vehicle, or the neces sities of
operation require the vehicle to be parked and make it impractical to park the vehicle in any other place.

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

108

JANUARY 2022

3.9.3 Environmental Impacts

Potentially
Significant
Impact

Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than
Significan
t
Impact

No Impact

IX.

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

–

Would the project:

Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?

Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment?

Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one
-
quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?

Be located on a site that is included on a

list
of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment?

For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the project
result in a safe
ty hazard or excessive noise
for people residing or working in the project
area?

Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?

Expose people or structures, either direct
ly
or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires?

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

109

JANUARY 2022

Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

Less Than Significant Impact
.

Demolition and construction activities associated with future housing development facilitated by the
HEU

could require transport of hazardous materials (e.g., asbestos -
contai
ning materials, lead
-
based paint, and/or contaminated soils)
; however, this would be evaluated on a
case
-
by
-
case basis
.

Numerous federal, State, and local requirements exist that require strict adherence to specific guidelines regarding the use, transport
ation, and disposal of hazardous materials.

These requirements

would apply
to
those transporting, using, or disposing of hazardous materials , and would include: the

RCRA, which
provides the cradle to grave regulation of hazardous wastes; CERCLA, which regu lates closed and
abandoned hazardous waste sites; the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, which governs hazardous materials transportation on U.S. roadways; IFC, which creates procedures and mechanisms to ensure the safe handling and storage of hazardo
us materials; Title 22, which regulates the generation, transportation, treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous waste; and Title 27, which regulates the treatment, storage and disposal of solid wastes.

Furthermore, residential development sites within

the
City

are not expected to transport, use, store, or
dispose of substantial amounts of hazardous materials, with the exception of common residential -
grade
hazardous materials such as household cleaners and paint.

If needed, the City provides an annual
h
azardous waste collection program, where residents would be allowed to dispose of household hazardous waste free of charge at the Community Hazardous Waste Collection Facility in Redondo Beach (City of Manhattan

Beach 20
03).

Additionally, approval of the HEU, as a policy document, would not change these regulations and would not provide any goals, policies, or programs that would significantly increase the exposure of hazardous materials to the public and the environment. Ther
efore, the HEU does not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Would the project create

a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

Less Than Significant Impact
.

Please see

Threshold 3.9(a)
, above
. The HEU

is a policy document, and
therefore, adoption would not, in itself, result in potential impacts from hazards and hazardous material that may endanger residents or the environment. Implementation of the HEU

would also not result in the
routine use, transpo
rt, or disposal of hazardous materials or generate significant quantities of hazardous materials. As such, impacts related to transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials 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

110

JANUARY 2022

Would the pr
oject emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one
-
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

Less Than Significant Impact
.

Please see

Threshold 3.9(a)
, above
. The HEU is a policy documen
t, and
therefore, adoption would not, in itself, result in potential impacts from hazards and hazardous material that may endanger residents or the environment. Implementation of the HEU

would also not result in the
routine use, transport, or disposal of h
azardous materials or generate significant quantities of hazardous materials. As such, impacts related to
the emission of hazardous materials within one
-
quarter mile of an
existing or proposed school

would be less than significant, and no mitigation is req uired
.

Would the project be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

Less
Than Significant Impact
.

All sites of future residential projects will be evaluated using appropriate databases including the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)
EnviroStor database
which, pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, l
ists Federal Superfund, State Response, Voluntary
Cleanup, School Cleanup, Hazardous Waste Permit, and Hazardous Waste Corrective Action sites. The potential impacts related to any listed hazardous materials sites associated with any specific future reside
ntial projects will be assessed at the time the projects are actually proposed.

Additionally, the HEU is a policy document and adoption would not

itself, result in negative environmental
impacts. However, implementation of the programs contained in the do cument will accommodate future
development required to meet the City’s 6
th

Cycle RHNA allocation. 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 and is not one of the discretionary actions being undertaken at this time. As such, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

F
or a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been ad opted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive
noise
for people residing or working in the project area?

No Impact.

T
he City is located more than two miles away from the Los Angeles International Airport
, the
closest airport to the City
. No private airstrip is located within or adjacent to Manhattan Beach. As such, no
impacts would occur
.

Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted eme rgency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?

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 juris
dictions to

maintain an up
-
to
-
date regional emergency response system; disseminating 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 a
nd legible to minimize emergency response time

(City of Manhattan Beach 2003).

The HEU is a policy document identifying how the City would provide

additional

capacity for the future construction of

479

units
, which would be constructed on infill sites
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / FINAL

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

111

JANUARY 2022

given the developed nature of the City. As such, with the addition of future residences, there would be an increased demand for services, but no construction would occur such that the HEU would impair implementa
tion of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response or evaluation plan. No physical impacts would occur.

g
)

Would the project expose
people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death invol
ving wildland fires
?

No Impact.

According to the City’s General Plan EIR, there are no wildlands in Manhattan Beach. As such, there would be no potential to expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury
or death involving wildland fires. No impact would occur.

3.9.4 References

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

/general
-
plan/final
-
general
-
plan.

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

3. 10

Hydrology and Water Quality

3.10.1 Environmental Setting

Surface Water

Santa Monica Bay Water
shed Area

The
majority of City land
is located within t
he Santa Monica Bay Watershed
area, which
covers approximately 177
square mile
s of Los Angeles County. The watershed drains in
to the Pacific Ocean and includes the Dominguez
Channel.

Other m
unicipalities that fall within the boundaries of this Watershed Area include Carson, Los Angeles, Torrance, Los Angeles County, Gardena, Redondo Beach, Inglewood, Rancho Palos Verdes, El Segundo, Lomita, Lawndale, Rolling Hills Estates, Hermosa Beach, Roll
ing Hills, Compton, Hawthorne, and Palos Verdes Estates

(LACDPW 2021). The City is generally classified as being the South Santa Monica Bay Watershed which is highly urbanized, consisting of approximately 76% built environment and 16% open space (LACDPW 20 05).

Dominguez

Watersheds

According to the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Work, (2021b) t he Dominguez Watershed is located
within the southern portion of Los Angeles
County

and encompasses approximately 133 square miles of land and water. Appro
ximately 81
%

of the watershed or 93
%

of the land is developed. Residential development covers nearly 40 %

of the watershed, and another 41
%

is made up by industrial, commercial and transportation uses. With a population of nearly 1 million, considerable dem
ands are made on infrastructure and services within the watershed.

Water supply is
limited,

and the majority of water use is from imported sources. Parkland and open space are in short supply and generally are deficient

(LACDPW 2021).

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

112

JANUARY 2022

Water Quality

Existi
ng, potential or intermittent beneficial uses for the Santa Monica Bay, where stormwaters from the City are discharged and for the underlying groundwater basins in the City ( West Coast Basin
) include:
navigation (NAV);
Water Recreation (REC
-
1, REC
-
2);
comm
ercial and sport fishing (COMM); marine habitat (MAR); wildlife habitat (WILD);
spawning, Reproduction, and/or early development (SPWN); and shellfish harvesting (SHELL)( EWMP 2018)
.

Under Clean Water Act Section 303(d), the State of California is required to develop total maximum daily loads
(TMDLs), which define how much of a specific pollutant/stressor a given water body can tolerate and still meet relevant water quality standards. TMDLs have been established for impaired water bodies in throughout Califo rnia.

Including
the Santa Monica Bay Beaches, and the Santa Monica Bay (EWMP 2018). High priority pollutants

with
established TMDL
s

in the beaches and
the B
ay and include dry and wet weather bacteria, trash/debris, Dichloro
-
diphenyl
-
trichloroethane (DDT)

a
nd
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (
PCB) (EWMP 2018)
.

Storm Drainage

Stormwater runoff flows directly into the City’s storm drain system via street gutters and other inlets, and this flow in turn discharges into the County

of Los Angeles

flood control network, which ultimately drains into the Pacific Ocean

(City of Manhattan Beach 2003a)
. The Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW) maintains the regional storm drain system, including two major pump ing

plants (Polliwog Pond
and Johnson Street) in the City
(City of Manhattan Beach 2003a). With regard to capacity, the established system is adequate to handle most stormwater runoff. However, during unusually heavy storm events, the system can become overwhelmed .

The Federal Wate
r Pollution Control Act prohibits the discharge of any pollutant to navigable waters from a point source unless the discharge is authorized by a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.

Manhattan Beach participates in the NPDES permi
t program via a partnership consisting of the County, all cities within the County and the County Flood Control District (City of Manhattan Beach 2003a). Polliwog Park contains storm drainage facilities to help reduce pollutants entering the storm drain sy stem, which also has the added
benefit of recharging groundwater
supplies. The City has also installed several storm water filtration devices called continuous deflective separation (CDS) units at strategic locations throughout the City (City of Manhattan Beach
2003a). The CDS units are designed to capture and retain sediments, floatable and settleable trash and debris before the runoff enters the ocean. Stormwater passes through the CDS system and returns to the storm drain system, while debris and coarse
sediments are retained and settled into a sump where they can be collected and hauled away (City of Manhattan Beach 2003a).

Groundwater

According to the West Basin Municipal Water District (2021) ,

t
he West Coast Groundwater Basin (Basin) underlies
160 squa
re miles in the southwestern part of the Los Angeles Coastal Plain in Los Angeles County, including the City of Manhattan Beach. The Basin extends southwesterly along the coast from the Newport -
Inglewood Uplift to
the Santa Monica Bay. The Basin provides g
roundwater to approximately
11 cities and unincorporated areas of Los
Angeles County. This average annual production is roughly 52,000 Acre -
feet (AF), which accounts for 20% of total
retail demands (WBMWD 2021)
. Basin groundwater within the City is extract
ed by City owned and operated wells
(City of Manhattan Beach 2003b). The City is allowed to pump approximately 3.8 million gallons per year (City of Manhattan Beach 2003b)
.

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

113

JANUARY 2022

Flooding

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provides flood hazard and r isk data to help guide mitigation
actions. Flood mapping is an important part of the National Flood Insurance Program, as it is the basis of National Flood Insurance Program regulations and flood insurance requirements.

The land area east of the beach

is n
ot
located within a FEMA
-
designated Special Flood Hazard Area and is designated as Zone X (an area of minimal flooding potential)
. However, the sandy beach area, where
non
-
habitable development
exists
, is designated as AE,
which is defined as a h
igh
-
risk a
reas have at least a 1% annual chance of
flooding (County of Los Angeles 2021a,
2021b).

3.10.2 Regulatory Setting

Federal

National Flood Insurance Program

The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 mandate FEMA to evaluate
flood hazards. FEMA provides flood insurance rate maps for local and regional planners to promote sound land use and floodplain development, identifying potential flood areas based on the current conditions. To delineate a flood insurance rate
map, FEMA conducts engineering studies referred to as flood insurance studies. Using information gathered in these studies, FEMA engineers and cartographers delineate Special Flood Hazard Areas on flood insurance rate maps.

Clean Water Act

The Clean Water
Act (CWA) (33 USC 1251 et seq.), as amended by the Water Quality Act of 1987, is the major federal legislation governing water quality. The objective of the CWA is “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s wa
ters.” Key sections of the act are as follows:



Sections 303 and 304 provide for water quality standards, criteria, and guidelines. Under Section 303(d) of the CWA, the State of California is required to develop a list of impaired water bodies that do not meet
water quality standards and objectives and establish TMDLs for each pollutant/stressor.



Section 401 (Water Quality Certification) requires an applicant for any federal permit that proposes an activity that may result in a discharge to waters of the U nited States to obtain certification from the state
that the discharge will comply with other provisions of the act. As there are no federal jurisdictional waters within the areas identified in the sites analysis as having potential to accommodate future r esidential
development, no water quality certification under CWA Section 401 would be required.



Section
406

establishes NPDES, a permitting system for the discharge of any pollutant (except for dredged or fill material) into waters of the United States
. This permit program is administered by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs), which have several programs that implement individual and general permits related to construction activiti es,
municipal stormwater discharges, and various kinds of non -
stormwater discharges. State and regional
water quality related permits and approvals, including NPDES permits, are discussed below.



Section 404 establishes a permit program for the discharge o f dredged or fill material into waters of the
United States. This permit program is jointly administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S.

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

114

JANUARY 2022

Environmental Protection Agency. As there are no federal jurisdictional waters within the areas identi fied
in the sites analysis as having potential to accommodate future residential development, the HEU, or future development pursuant to the HEU, would not require a permit under CWA Section 404.

Numerous agencies have responsibilities for administration and enforcement of the CWA. At the federal level this
includes the USEPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. At the State level, with the exception of tribal lands, the Cal/EPA and its sub
-
agencies, including the SWRCB, have been delegated primary respon sibility for administering
and enforcing the CWA in California.

Federal Antidegradation Policy

The Federal Antidegradation Policy (40 CFR 131.12) requires states to develop statewide antidegradation policies and identify methods for implementation. Pursuant to the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), state antidegradation policies and implementation m
ethods shall, at a minimum, protect and maintain (1) existing in -
stream water uses;
(2) existing water quality where the quality of the waters exceeds levels necessary to support existing beneficial uses, unless the
S
tate
finds that allowing lower water qu
ality is necessary to accommodate economic and social
development in the area; and (3) water quality in waters considered an outstanding national resource.

State

Porter
-
Cologne Water Quality Act (California Water Code)

The Porter
–
Cologne Act (codified in t
he California Water Code, Section 13000 et seq.) is the primary water quality control law for California. Whereas the CWA applies to all waters of the United States, the Porter –
Cologne Act applies
to waters of the State, which includes isolated wetlands an d groundwater in addition to federal waters. This act is implemented by the SWRCB and the nine RWQCBs. In addition to other regulatory responsibilities, the RWQCBs have the authority to conduct, order, and oversee investigation and cleanup where discharges

or threatened
discharges of waste to waters of the State could cause pollution or nuisance, including impacts to public health and the environment.

The act requires a “Report of Waste Discharge” for any discharge of waste (liquid, solid, or otherwise) to

land or
surface waters that may impair a beneficial use of surface or groundwater of the state. California Water Code Section 13260 subdivision (a) requires that any person discharging waste or proposing to discharge waste, other than to a community sewer

system that could affect the quality of the waters of the state, to file a Report of Waste Discharge with the applicable RWQCB. For discharges directly to surface water (waters of the United States), an NPDES permit is required, which is issued under both

S
tate
and federal law. For other types of discharges, such as waste discharges to land (e.g., spoils disposal and storage), erosion from soil disturbance, or discharges to waters of the
S
tate
(such as groundwater and isolated wetlands), waste discharge re quirements (WDRs) are required and
are issued exclusively under state law. WDRs typically require many of the same BMPs and pollution control technologies as required by NPDES
-
derived permits.

California Antidegradation Policy

The California Antidegradation Policy, otherwise known as the Statement of Policy with Respect to Maintaining High Quality Water in California, was adopted by the SWRCB (State Board Resolution No. 68 -
16) in 1968.

Unlike the Federal Antidegradation Policy,
the California Antidegradation Policy applies to all waters of the CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / FINAL

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

115

JANUARY 2022

State
(e.g., isolated wetlands and groundwater), not just surface waters. The policy states that whenever the existing quality of a water body is better than the quality established in indi vidual Basin Plans, such high quality
shall be maintained, and discharge to that water body shall not unreasonably affect present or anticipated beneficial use of such water resources.

California Toxics Rule

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has est
ablished water quality criteria for certain toxic substances via the California Toxics Rule. The California Toxics Rule established acute (i.e., short -
term) and chronic (i.e., long
-
term)
standards for bodies of water, such as inland surface waters and encl osed bays and estuaries, that are designated
by each RWQCB as having beneficial uses protective of aquatic life or human health.

NPDES and WDR Permits

NPDES and WDR programs regulate construction, municipal, and industrial stormwater,

and non
-
stormwater
d
ischarges under the requirements of the CWA and the Porter –
Cologne Water Quality Control Act. The Construction
Stormwater Program is administered by the SWRCB, while the Municipal Stormwater Program and other WDRs are administered by the Los Angeles RWQCB.

The Manhattan Beach Public Works Department enforces NPDES requirements, which are adopted as part of the
MBMC
.

Construction General Permit (SWRCB Order 2009
-
0009
-
DWQ, as amended)

Pursuant to CWA Section
406
(p), requiring regulations for

permitting of certain storm water discharges, the SWRCB has issued a statewide General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity and Land Disturbance Activities (Order No. 2010
-
0014
-
DWQ, adopted by the SWRCB on November 16, 20
10, and effective
February 14, 2011).

Under this Construction General Permit, discharges of storm water from construction sites with a disturbed area of one or more acres are required to either obtain individual NPDES permits for storm water discharges or

be covered
by the Construction General Permit. Coverage under the Construction General Permit is accomplished by completing and filing permit registration documents, which include a Notice of Intent and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), prior
to the commencement of construction activity. SWPPPs incorporate erosion control, sediment removal, and construction waste management control measures during construction, site stabilization measures in the short
-
term post
-
construction period, and may iden
tify BMPs for post
-
construction land use.

Dischargers must file a Notice of Termination when construction is complete and final stabilization has been reached or ownership has been transferred. The discharger must certify that all state and local requirem ents have
been met in accordance with this Construction General Permit. For construction to be found complete, the discharger must install post
-
construction storm water management measures and establish a long -
term
maintenance plan.

California Water Plan

R
equired by the California Water Code Section 10005(a), the California Water Plan, prepared by the California Department of Water Resources, is the state government’s strategic plan for managing and developing water resources statewide for current and futur
e generations and provides a framework for water managers, legislators, and the public to consider options and make decisions regarding California’s water future. The California Water CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / FINAL

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

116

JANUARY 2022

Plan, which is updated every five years, presents basic data and informa tion on California’s water resources,
including water supply evaluations and assessments of agricultural, urban, and environmental water uses to quantify the gap between water supplies and uses. The California Water Plan also identifies and evaluates exist ing
and proposed statewide demand management and water supply augmentation programs and projects to address the state’s water needs.

The goal for the California Water Plan Update is to meet California Water Code requirements. This plan received broad supp
ort among those participating in California’s water planning, and is a useful document for the public, water planners throughout the State, legislators, and other decision -
makers.

California Green Building Standards Code

The California Green
Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code), Part 11 of the California Building Standards Code (Title 24) is designed to improve public health, safety, and general welfare by using design and construction methods that reduce the negative environmental impact o f development and to encourage sustainable construction practices. The CALGreen Code provides mandatory direction to developers of all new construction and renovations of residential and non
-
residential structures with regard to all aspects of design and c onstruction, including, but not
limited to, site drainage design, stormwater management, and water use efficiency. Required measures are accompanied by a set of voluntary standards designed to encourage developers and cities to aim for a higher standard of

development.

California Building Code

Pursuant to California Government Code Section 50022.2, the California Building Code, 2019 Edition, published at Title 24, Part 2, of the California Code of Regulations, including Appendices F, J , and O, and Standards

((including
Section 1, Division 2; Chapter 31B and excluding all other Appendices),

has been adopted by reference into the
MBMC

(Section 9.01.010)
, subject to the amendments, additions and deletions set forth in Chapter 9.01, Building
Code.

Sustainable Groundwater Management Act

The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) was signed into law in 2014. SGMA requires governments and water agencies of high
-

and medium
-
priority groundwater basins to halt overdraft and bring groundwater basin s
into balanced levels of pumping and recharge. Under SGMA, these basins should reach sustainability within 20 years of implementing their sustainability plans. For critically overdrafted basins, sustainability should be achieved by 2040. For the remaining

high
-

and medium
-
priority basins, 2042 is the deadline for achieving sustainability.

Through SGMA, the California Department of Water Resources provides ongoing support to local agencies through guidance, financial assistance, and technical assistance. SG MA empowers local agencies to form Groundwater
Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) to manage basins sustainably and requires those GSAs to adopt Groundwater Sustainability Plans for crucial groundwater basins in California.

Regional and Local

Water Quality Con
trol Plan, Los Angeles Region

The California legislature has assigned the primary responsibility to administer and enforce statutes for the protection and enhancement of water quality, including the Porter –
Cologne Act and portions of the CWA, to the
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / FINAL

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

117

JANUARY 2022

SWRCB

and its nine RWQCBs. The SWRCB provides state
-
level coordination of the water quality control program by establishing statewide policies and plans for implementation of state and federal regulations. The nine RWQCBs throughout California adopt and impleme
nt Basin Plans that recognize the unique characteristics of each region with regard to natural water quality, actual and potential beneficial uses, and water quality problems. The Los Angeles RWQCB is responsible for the protection of the beneficial uses o f waters within the coastal watersheds of
Los Angeles and Ventura counties
.

The Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region, Basin Plan for the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties (Los Angeles RWQCB Basin Plan) designates beneficial us es, establishes water quality objectives,
and contains implementation programs and policies to achieve those objectives for all waters addressed through the plan (California Water Code Sections 13240
–
13247) (LARWQCB 2014). The Los Angeles RWQCB Basin Plan must conform to the policies set forth in the Porter
-
Cologne Act as established by the SWRCB in its state water policy. The Porter
-
Cologne Act also provides the RWQCBs with authority to include within their basin plan water discharge prohibitions applicabl
e to particular conditions, areas, or types of waste. The Los Angeles RWQCB Basin Plan is continually being updated to include amendments related to implementation of TMDLs of potential pollutants or water quality stressors, revisions of programs and polic ies within the Los Angeles RWQCB Region, and
changes to beneficial use designations and associated water quality objectives.

Municipal Stormwater Permit (Los Angeles RWQCB Order No. R4 -
2012
-
0175
-
A01, as
amended), NPDES Permit No. CAS004001

The Waste Discha
rge Requirements for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Discharges Within the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles County, except those discharges originating from the City of Long Beach MS4 (MS4 Permit) covers 88 cities and most of the unincorporate d areas of Los Angeles County. Under the MS4 Permit,
the Los Angeles County Flood Control District is designated as the Principal Permittee. The Permittees are the 88 Los Angeles County cities and Los Angeles County. Collectively, these (including the City

of Los Angeles) are the “Co
-
Permittees.” The Principal Permittee helps to facilitate activities necessary to comply with the requirements outlined in the MS4 Permit but is not responsible for ensuring compliance of any of the other Permittees.

The Los Angeles RWQCB adopted WDRs for MS4 discharges within the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles County on June 18, 1990 (Order No. 90
-
079; NPDES Permit No. CA0061654). The WDRs were later amended on December 13, 2001 (Order No. 01
-
182; NPDES Permit No.

CAS004001, as amended). The current MS4 Permit (Order No. R4 -
2012
-
0175; NPDES Permit No. CAS004001) was adopted on
November 8, 2012 and

became effective on
December 28, 2012.

The MS4 Permit contains effluent limitations, receiving water limitations, minimu m control measures, and TMDL
provisions, and outlines the process for developing watershed management programs, including the Enhanced Watershed Management Program (EWMP). The MS4 Permit incorporates the TMDL waste load allocations applicable to dry
-

and w
et
-
weather as water quality
-
based effluent limitations and/or receiving water limitations.

The MS4 Permit adopts low
-
impact development (LID) principles and requires development and redevelopment projects to incorporate stormwater management strategies wit h goals to mitigate the impacts of increased runoff
and stormwater pollution as close to its source as possible. LID promotes the use of natural infiltration systems, evapotranspiration, and the reuse of stormwater. The goal of these LID practices is to re move nutrients, bacteria,
and metals from stormwater while also reducing the quantity and intensity of stormwater flows. Through the use of various infiltration strategies, LID is aimed at minimizing impervious surface area. Where infiltration is not feasi ble,
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / FINAL

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

118

JANUARY 2022

the use of bioretention, rain gardens, green roofs, cisterns, and rain barrels that will store, evaporate, detain, and/or treat runoff may be used.

Beach Cities Enhanced Water Management Program

Following adoption of the MS4 NPDES Permit, the Cities
of Hermosa Beach, Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach
and Torrance, together with the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD), collectively referred to as the Beach Cities Watershed Management Group (WMG) agreed to collaborate on the development of a n Enhanced
Watershed Management Program (EWMP) for the Santa Monica Bay (SMB) and Dominguez Channel Watershed areas within their jurisdictions. The EWMP is intended to facilitate effective, watershed -
specific Permit
implementation strategies in accordance
with Permit Part VI.C. Watershed Management Program. (EWMP 2018).

The EWMP identifies watershed
-
specific water quality priorities outlines specific strategies, control measures and best management practices (BMPs) necessary to achieve water quality targets

(including Water Quality Based
Effluent Limitations [WQBELs] and Receiving Water Limitations [RWLs]); and conducts quantitative analyses to support target achievement and Permit compliance.

City of Manhattan Beach General Plan

The following General Plan g
oal
s

and polices are related to hydrology and water quality:

Policy LU
-

2.4:

Support appropriate stormwater pollution mitigation measures.

Goal CS
-
3:

Maintain a high level of City emergency response services.

Policy CS
-

3.2 :

C
ooperate with other jurisdictions in the South Bay area to maintain an up -
to
-
date
emergency response system for the region.

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
-

3.9 Continue to upgrade the quality of emergency response through continued education and training of emergency

response personnel.

Goal I
-
9:

Maintain a storm drainage system that adequately protects the health and safety and property of Manhattan Beach residents.

Policy I
-

9.1:

Evaluate the size and condition of the storm drainage system periodically to ensure its ability
to handle expected storm runoff.

Policy I
-

9.2:

Evaluate the impact of all new development and expansion of existing facilities on storm runoff
and

ensure that the cost of upgrading existing drainage facilities to handle the additional runoff is pai
d for by the development which generates it.

Policy I
-

9.3:

Support the use of storm water runoff control measures that are effective and economically feasible.

Policy I
-

9.4:

Encourage the use of site and landscape designs that minimize surface runoff by minimizing
the use of concrete and maximizing the use of permeable surface materials.

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

119

JANUARY 2022

Policy I
-

9.5 :

Support appropriate storm water pollution mitigation measures.

Policy I
-

9.6 :

Discourage new development below street level in order to avoid flooding on pub lic and private
property in areas subject to flooding.

Manhattan Beach Municipal Code

Chapter 5.84
-
Stormwater and Urban Runoff Pollution

Chapter 5.84 requires compliance with the Federal Clean Water Act, the California Porter -
Cologne Water Quality
Control

Act, and the

Municipal

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit by:

Reducing pollutants in storm water discharges to the maximum extent practicable;

Regulating illicit connections and illicit discharges, thereby reducing the level of

contamination of storm
water and urban runoff into the

Municipal

Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) of the City of Manhattan Beach (City) and;

Regulating non
-
storm water discharges to the MS4.

The intent of this chapter is to ensure the future
health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City and of the receiving waters of the County of Los Angeles and surrounding coastal areas to provide the City with the legal authority necessary to implement and enforce the requirements contained

in 40 CFR § 122.26(d)(2)(i)(A
-
F) and in
the

municipal

NPDES permit to the extent that they are applicable in the City, to control discharges to and from those portions of the

municipal

storm water system (MS4) over which the City has jurisdiction as requi red by the

municipal

NPDES
permit, and to hold dischargers to the MS4 accountable for their contributions of pollutants and flows.

Section 7.44.020, Permanent water conservation measures.

Section 7.44.020 of the
MBMC

addresses water conservat
ion and provides for permanent water conservation
measures and drought restrictions. In addition, it established that water conservation requirements apply to 100% of projects that the City approves.

City of Manhattan Beach Master Plans

Wastewater

System M
aster 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
-
effectiv
e

manner. It is designed to aid the City in meeting some of the requirements of the 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 framework for undertaking the construction of new and replacement facilities for serving the water supply and distribution needs in an efficient ma
nner. The WMP report presents the methodology, analyses, findings, and recommendations of a comprehensive study of the City’s potable water system and describes the water system supplied by the West Basin Municipal Water District.

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

120

JANUARY 2022

2015 Urban Water Managem
ent Plan (2017)

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) which was established in 1983. The Act requires every “urban wate
r 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, an “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 objective of the UWMP Act is to dire ct 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 primarily at retail water purveyors where

programs can be immediately affected upon the consumer.

3.10.3 Environmental Impacts

Potentially
Significant
Impact

Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No Impact

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

–

Would the project:

Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or ground
water quality?

Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the project
m
ay impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?

Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or
river or through the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which would:

result in substantial erosion or
siltation
on
-

or off
-
site;

ii)

substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on
-

offsite;

iii)

create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems
or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff; or

iv)

impede or redirect flood flows?

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

121

JANUARY 2022

Potentially
Significant
Impact

Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No Impact

In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones,
risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation?

Conflict with or obstruc
t implementation of
a water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?

Would the project violate any water
quality standards or waste discharge requirements

or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or ground water quality
?

Less Than Significant Impact
.

The City has numerous safeguards in place related to water quality and safe discharge
requirements The Federal Water Pollution Control Act prohibits the discharge of any pollutant to navigable waters from a point source unless the discharge is authorized by a NPDES permit. Manhattan Beach participates in the NPDES permit program via a partn ership consisting of the
County

and the County Flood Control District (City of Manhattan Beach 2003 a
).

T
he City has
establish
ed
holding ponds and drainage facilities to help reduce pollutants entering the storm drain.

The City has also installed CDS units
in strategic locations around the City. Stormwater passes through the CDS system and returns to the storm drain system, while debris and coarse sediments are retained and settled into a sump where they can be collected and hauled away (City of Manhattan Be ach
2003a). These established practices would help ensure that any future development facilitated by the HUE would not have an adverse impact on water quality.

All demolition, relocation and/or construction phases of future housing development would be su bject to
compliance with applicable local, regional, state and federal regulations designed to protect water resources, including those regulations requiring implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs), preparation of SWPPPs, and submittal of Erosio
n Control Plans in compliance with NPDES provisions.

Consistency with this regulatory framework would adequately ensure that such impacts would be avoided or reduced to less than significant
.

The HEU is a policy document, consisting of a housing program d esigned to assist the City in implementing
its RHNA allocation. Therefore, adoption of this update would not, in and of
itself, produce environmental
impacts. However, implementation of the programs contained in the documents would accommodate future
devel
opment required to meet the City’s
6 th

Cycle RHNA allocation
. Future residential development
that would qualify to

meet the RHNA requirement are expected to be located on infill sites in urbanized areas and the City has procedures and regulations in place to ensure that there would be no significant
impacts associated with hydrology and water quality. As such, impacts 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

122

JANUARY 2022

Would the project substantially
decrease groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin ?

Less Than Significant Impact
.

Groundwater within the City is extracted by City owned and operated wells. The City is allowed to pump approximately 3.8 million gallons per year of groundwater form the West Coast Basin.

As
outlined in the City’s General Plan EIR, all future developments are required to comply with
applicable state and local regulations that concern groundwater recharge, including the MBMC

(
City of
Manhattan Beach 2003b). Additionally, the City’s Polliwog Park contains storm drainage facilities to help reduce

pollutants entering the storm drain system.

Following rain events
, water from the surrounding area
flows into the park where it is held before being pumped into the storm drain system. One of the benefits of holding the water in the park is that some of t
he water is absorbed into the ground, recharging the
groundwater basin. Pursuant to Los Angeles County NPDES permit requirements, new construction projects are implementing similar measures to remove pollutants from runoff

(City of Manhattan Beach 2003a)
.

As
such, future development envisioned within the HEU would not adversely affect groundwater .

The HEU is a policy document, consisting of a housing program designed to assist the City in implementing its RHNA allocation. Therefore, adoption of this update would not, in
and of
itself, produce environmental
impacts. However, implementation of the programs contained in the documents would accommodate

future

development required to meet the City’s
6 th

Cycle RHNA allocation
. Future residential development
that w
ould qualify to meet the RHNA requirement are expected to be located on infill sites in urbanized areas and the City has procedures and regulations in place to ensure that there would be no significant impacts associated with groundwater or groundwater rec
harge. Impacts would be less than
significant,

and
no mitigation is required.

Would the project substantially
alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the ad dition of impervious surfaces, in a manner
which would:

R
esult in substantial erosion or siltation on
-

or off
-
site
;

ii)

S
ubstantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on
-

or offsite
;

iii)

C
reate or

contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff ; and/or

iv)

I
mpede or redirect flood flows?

Less Than Significant Impact
.

Future
residential development accommodated by the adoption of the HEU would infiltrate stormwater in accordance with all applicable regulations, as described under Threshold

3.10 (
a
)
, and would continue to outflow into the existing storm drain system. No naturali zed drainages or
creeks would be affected.

As such, impacts 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

123

JANUARY 2022

The HEU is a policy document, consisting of a housing program designed to assist the City in implementing its RHNA allocation. There
fore, adoption of this update would not, in and of itself, produce environmental impacts. However, implementation of the programs contained in the documents would accommodate development required to meet the City’s
6 th

Cycle RHNA allocation
. Future residen
tial development that
would qualify to meet the RHNA requirement are expected to be located on infill sites in urbanized areas and the City has procedures and regulations in place to ensure that there would be no significant impacts associated with hydrolo
gy and water quality. Additionally, the parcels identified in the HEU sites analysis as having the potential to accommodate the City’s
6 th

Cycle RHNA allocation
consist of previously developed
underutilized sites in urban and semi
-
urban locations throughou
t the City.

In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation
?

Less Than Significant Impact
.

Due to its topography and location, Manhattan Beach is not subject to seiches or mud flows. As t
he City is
coastal and
located
adjacent to

the Pacific Ocean, in the event of a
tsunami, the beach area of the City may be inundated depending on the magnitude of the event .

Large
tsunamis can travel at speeds exceeding 600 miles per hour, and the length, from crest to crest, may be
60 miles or more. Yet the height of a tsunami, from trough to crest, may only be a few inches or feet. The threat for tsunamis in California can be considered relatively low given the low recurrence frequencies from these phenom
ena. However, the threat of a seismically induced undersea landslide off the Southern California coast exists. Because locally generated tsunamis provide little time for warning, the City’s General Plan includes provisions
to mitigate the impacts of natura
l hazards, including flooding due to a tsunami,
within

Goal CS
-
3 (and Policies CS
-

3.2, 3.5, 3.7, and 3.9
).

These policies require that the City
m
aintain a
high level of City emergency response services
,

c
ooperate with other jurisdictions in the South
Bay area to
maintain an up
-
to
-
date emergency response system

for the region
,

periodically r
eview the City’s emergency
equipment and shelters

to ensure adequacy
,

and continue to upgrade the quality of emergency response through education and training of per
sonnel (City of Manhattan Beach 2003b).

These

goals and policies
would

help
ensure that the City maintains a high level of City emergency response services

in the event of
flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche
.

The HEU is a policy document and adoption will no
t, in
and of
itself, result in environmental impacts. However,
implementation of the programs contained in the document will accommodate

future

development required
to meet the City’s
6 th

Cycle RHNA allocation
. While a rezoning program is identified within

the
HEU
, the actual
rezoning of property within the City to accommodate
the City’s
6 th

Cycle
RHNA allocations would occur at a
future date and is not one of the discretionary actions being undertaken at this time. As such, impacts related to release of po
llutants due to inundation would
continue to be subject to the same regulations and guidance.

Therefore,

impacts would
be less than significant
,

and no mitigation is required.

Would the project
conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan
?

Less Than Significant Impact
.

As previously discussed

under Threshold 3.10
(
a
)
,

future projects
constructed following adoption of

the
HEU

would comply with applicable water quality regulatory
requirements, including implementation of a SWPPP,
and
stormwater BMPs, which would minimize
potential off
-
site surface water quality impacts and contribute to a reduction in water quality impacts .

The
HEU also includes Program
31 , which
would
facilitate

review
of

the
MBMC

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

124

JANUARY 2022

techniques that would improve water efficiency and consider opportunities above and beyond State requirements. Program
31 would also facilitate amending the
MBMC
, as
needed, to conform to future
amendments or updates to State Green Building Standards.

The HEU is a policy document, consisting of a housing program designed to assist the City in implementing its RHNA allocation. Therefore, adoption of this update would no t, in and of itself, produce environmental
impacts. However, implementation of the programs contained in the documents would accommodate future development required to meet the City’s
6 th

Cycle RHNA allocation. Future residential development
that would qua
lify to meet the RHNA requirement are expected to be located on infill sites in urbanized areas. The environmental effects of construction and operation this will be evaluated at the time individual projects are proposed in a manner that would ensure that applicable water quality control plans or
sustainable groundwater management plans not obstructed. As such, impacts from the HEU would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

3.10.4 References

City of Manhattan Beach. 2003a. General Plan.

Adopted 1988. Updated 2003. Accessed September 17, 2020. https://www.manhattanbeach.gov/departments/community
-
development/planning
-
zoning

/general
-
plan/final
-
general
-
plan.

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

EWMP (Beach Cities Enhanced Watershed Management Program). 2018. Enhanced Watershed Management Program for the Beach Cities Watershed Management Area (Santa Monic a Bay and Dominguez Channel
Watersheds). Accessed October 2, 2021.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/losangeles/water_issues

/programs/stormwater/municipal/watershed_management/beach_cities/BeachCities_EWMP_

March%202018.pdf.

LACDPW (County of Los Angeles Dep
artment of Public Works). 2021. South Santa Monica Bay Watershed Area.

Accessed

October 3, 2021. https://safecleanwaterla.org/south
-
santa
-
monica
-
bay
-
watershed
-
area/.

LACDPW. 2005. Total Maximum Daily Loads Regulations in the County of Los Angeles. Accessed

October 2, 2021.
http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/bc/035787_TMDLLetter10.05.pdf

West Basin Municipal Water District. 2021.

West Coast Groundwater Basin
, Accessed October 5, 2021.
https://www.westbasin.org/water
-
supplies/groundwater/west
-
coast
-
groundw
ater
-
basin/
.

3.1 1

Land Use and Planning

3.11.1 Environmental Setting

The City is located in the southwest portion of the
County

of Los Angeles

along the Pacific Ocean, approximately 19
miles southwest of Downtown Los Angeles. The City is bordered by El Segundo and the Chevron Oil Refinery

to the
north, Redondo Beach and Hawthorne to the east, Hermosa Beach to the south, and the Pacific Ocean to the west.

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

125

JANUARY 2022

The City is made up of
five

distinct neighborhoods which are grouped into "planning areas" that reflect the City's unique and varied environment (City of Manhattan Beach 2003). These planning areas are as follows:

Beach Area:

This area contains
most of the City's multi
-
family rental housing. Lots in this area are small
with generally less than 3,000 square feet, and parking for residents and visitors is in short supply. The General Plan calls for the maintenance and enhancement of the "Village” a tmosphere within the downtown
commercial district. The City’s goal is to promote the preservation of the small specialty retail and service activities that serve both visitors to the beach and local residents while also encouraging mixed -
used
residential/c
ommercial development.

Hill Section:

This area consists primarily of single
-
family residential development, with commercial and
higher
-
density residential development limited to Sepulveda Boulevard and Manhattan Beach Boulevard.

The City's General Plan pro
motes the maintenance of single
-
family neighborhoods. Higher
-
density, multiple
-
family residential development is directed to those parcels located on either side of Manhattan Beach Boulevard, which is already developed with a mix of commercial and multifam ily residential uses.

East
-
Side/Manhattan Village:

This includes all the City's land area located east of Sepulveda Boulevard, and a large proportion of the City's commercial and residential uses are within this area. The City's land use policy calls for
the preservation of the existing character of the residential neighborhoods located in the areas. Medium
-
and high
-
density residential development is located along Manhattan Beach Boulevard, Artesia Boulevard, and in areas adjacent to Manhattan Intermediate

and Meadows schools, which are
designated exclusively for multiple
-
family residential development. Manhattan Village includes a substantial amount of regional commercial and office development as well as a significant number of condominium units.

Tree Sec
tion:

This is the portion of the City located to the east of Grand Avenue and northwest of Valley Drive. The area will remain almost exclusively single
-
family residential under the policies contained in
the General Plan. A small portion of the area adjacen
t to Sepulveda Boulevard is designated for
commercial uses.

El Porto:

This area was formerly the unincorporated community of El Porto and is located north of 38th Street between the
Pacific O
cean and the City of El Segundo. The area is developed with a mi x of residential
and commercial uses. El Porto has the highest residential development intensities found in the City. The General Plan protects the mix of multi
-
family and commercial development presently existing in this area.

As
shown

in
Figure 3.1
--
1, E
xisting Land Use, and Figure 2.3
-
2, Existing Zoning
, the City is primarily low density,
s
ingle family residential, designated in the Land Use Element as Low Density Residential and zoned as RS. Medium and high
-
density residential areas (RM and RH zones) ex
tend eastward from the City’s coastline and comprise much of the City’s LCP planning area. Other land use types include commercial, mixed -
use, industrial, parks and open
space, and public facilities.

In accordance with the City’s
Planning and Z
oning
C
ode, the
HEU
identified five zones
where it would be appropriate to locate future RHNA allocated dwelling units: Medium -
Density Residential (RM)
zone, in only Area District 3; High Density Residential (RH) zone in all Area Districts; and the Local Commercial (CL),
Downtown Commercial (CD), and North End Commercial (CNE) zones in all Area Districts. Figure 2.3 -
1, Area District
Map
, shows the location of the four City Area Districts
.

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

126

JANUARY 2022

The
Planning and
Z
oning
C
ode is the primary tool for implementing
the General Plan, including as it applies to land
use policy and applicable land use designations (City of Manhattan Beach 2030). As such, the RM, RH, CL, CD, and CNE zones must be consistent with the goals and policies outlined in their corresponding desi gnations. Applicable
designations are discussed in further detail below:

Medium Density Residential
:

The Medium Density Residential category allows single
-
family homes,
duplexes, and triplexes, including condominiums. Multifamily housing with four or more units may be
permitted subject to discretionary review and provided compatibility with surrounding development can be assured. Development densities may range from 11.6 to 32.3 units per acre. Other permitted uses include parks and recreation facilities, p
ublic and private schools, public safety facilities, and facilities for religious assembly, consistent with
Planning and Z
oning
C
ode requirements, which may require discretionary review (City of Manhattan Beach 2003).

High Density Residential
:

The High D
ensity Residential category accommodates all types of housing, and specifically housing development of a more intensive form, including apartments, condominiums, and senior housing. Residential projects may be constructed at a density of up to 51.3 units p er acre. Other
permitted uses include parks and recreation facilities, public and private schools, public safety facilities, and facilities for religious assembly, consistent with
Planning and Z
oning
C
ode requirements, which may
require
discretionary review (City of Manhattan Beach 2003).

Downtown Commercial
:

The Downtown Commercial land use category applies only to the Downtown area, an area of
approximately
40 blocks that radiate from the intersection of Manhattan Beach Boulevard and Ma
nhattan Avenue. Downtown provides locations for a mix of commercial businesses, residential uses, and public uses, with a focus on pedestrian
-
oriented

low
-
intensity commercial businesses that serve Manhattan
Beach residents and visitors. Multifamily reside
ntial projects can be developed in accordance with the
development standards for the High
-
Density Residential designation. The height limit in this district ranges from 26 feet to 30 feet depending on location.

Local Commercial
:

The Local Commercial land u
se category provides areas for neighborhood
-
oriented,
small
-
scale
professional

offices, retail businesses, and service activities that serve the local community.

Permitted uses are generally characterized by those which generate low traffic volumes, have l imited
parking needs, and generally do not operate late hours. Residential uses can be developed at densities consistent with the High
-
Density Residential designation. The height limit is 30 feet (City of Manhattan
Beach 2003).

North End Commercial
:

Proper
ties designated North End Commercial lie at the north end of the City, along Highland Avenue and Rosecrans Avenue between 33rd and 42nd Streets. Commercial uses are limited to small
-
scale, low intensity neighborhood
-
serving service businesses, retail store
s, and offices. Restaurant
and
entertainment

establishments are permitted only where zoning regulations can adequately ensure compatibility with residential uses. The maximum permitted FA
R

is 1.5:1. Residential uses can be
developed at densities consistent

with the High Density designation with a height limit of 30 feet (City of
Manhattan Beach 2003).

In addition to the appropriately zoned and designated parcels identified in the sites analysis, the HEU also propose s

a
future
rezoning program to facilitate
additional housing needs

required by HCD
. The zoning districts included in
the rezoning would be
limited

to the

Planned Development District (PD) and the General Commercial District (CG).

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

127

JANUARY 2022

The rezoning program, to be refined and implemented o
ver

an approximately three
-
year planning horizon, would
allow for residential
uses
where
they are

not currently allowed and would increase permitted residential densities.

The existing uses for the CG and PD are described below.

General Commercial District
:

T
he purpose of the GC district is to provide opportunities for the full range of retail and service businesses deemed suitable for location in Manhattan Beach, including businesses not permitted in other commercial districts because they attract heavy vehic ular traffic or have certain adverse
impacts; and to provide opportunities for offices and certain limited industrial uses that have impacts comparable to those of permitted retail and service uses to occupy space not in demand for retailing or services
. T
he CG currently requires
the

issuance of a use permit for proposed mixed
-
use developments,
which is considered a nonconforming use per the
MBMC

Section 10.12.020.

Typically, all CG
districts

are
within the

CG land use designation

(City of Man
hattan Beach 2001
)
.

Planned
Development

District (PD)
:

An essential element of the PD is to establish a procedure for the development of parcels of land in order to reduce or eliminate the rigidity, delays, and inequities that otherwise would result from application of zoning standards and procedures designed primarily
for small
parcel ad hoc development
.

Although General Plan designations within the PD includes Parks/Open Space, the sites
that could potentially undergo

rezoning within the PD area are within parcels designated as Manhattan Village Commercial, a

regional serving commercial district

(City of Manhattan Beach 2001).

Manhattan Village
:

The Manhattan Village Commercial category applies to properties that lie within the Manhattan Village Mall area and are subject to discretionary approval requirements.

Commercial uses in
Manhattan Village are generally regional
-
serving, including shopping centers, large department and specialty stores, and entertainment and restaurant establishments. The maximum FA R

is 1.5:1

(City of
Manhattan Beach 2003).

Many of the areas identified in the sites analysis for potential rezoning

are located within the CG zones along
Sepulveda Boulevard. Sepulveda Boulevard is the only State Highway in Manhattan Beach. As a major transportatio
n corridor for the South Bay region, Sepulveda Boulevard also functions as a commercial corridor. With the heavy traffic volumes and associated noise impacts, adequate buffering of the residential uses behind Sepulveda
Boulevard from such impacts is import
ant. The scale and character of commercial development along Sepulveda Boulevard is also
an important community concern. In response to these issues, the City adopted the Sepulveda Boulevard Design Guidelines to provide a framework for future development a long this corridor

(City of
Manhattan Beach 1999
, 2003
)
.

3.11.2 Regulatory Setting

Federal

There are no federal regulations related to land use and planning relevant to the HEU
.

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

128

JANUARY 2022

State

State Planning Law and Complete Streets Act

State planning law (Califo
rnia Government Code Section 65300) requires every city and county in California to adopt a comprehensive, long
-
term general plan for the physical development of the jurisdiction and of any land outside its boundaries that, in the planning agency's judgmen
t, bears relation to its planning (sphere of influence). A general plan should consist of an integrated and internally consistent set of goals and policies grouped by topic into a set of elements and guided by a jurisdiction
-
wide vision. State law requires

that a general plan address seven elements
or topics (land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, noise, and safety), but allows some discretion on the arrangement and content. Additionally, each of the specific and applicable requirements i n the state
planning law should be examined to determine if there are environmental issues within the community that the general plan should address, such as hazards or flooding.

The Housing Element is one of the required elements of the General Plan. This

Sixth Revision to the Housing
Element complies with the California Government Code, beginning at Section 65583.

California Coastal Act of 1976

that incorporate
policies to protect,
enhance and restore
environmentally sensitive habitats, including intertidal and nearshore waters, wetlands, bays and estuaries, riparian habitat, certain wood and grasslands, streams, lakes and habitat for rare or endangered plants or animals, as well as
the scenic beauty of coastal landscapes and seascape.

Regional/Local

Southern California Association of Governments

The City is a member of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), which is the designated Metropolitan Planning Organizati
on for the region. SCAG is required to update its Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy every 4 years, which puts all member jurisdictions on a schedule to update their Housing Elements every 8 years. SCAG is required to develop a f
inal Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) methodology to distribute existing and projected housing need for the
6 th

Cycle RHNA allocation for each jurisdiction, which will cover the planning period October 2021 through October 2029. Following extensive

feedback from stakeholders during the proposed
methodology comment period and an extensive policy discussion, SCAG’s Regional Council voted to approve the Draft RHNA Methodology on November 7, 2019 and provide it to the State Department of Housing and Com munity
Development for their statutory review. On January 13, 2020, the State Department of Housing and Community Development completed its review of the draft methodology and found that it furthers the five statutory objectives of RHNA, and on March 5, 20
20, SCAG’s Regional Council voted to approve the Final RHNA Methodology (SCAG 2020). On March 4, 2021, SCAG’s Regional Council adopted the
6 th

Cycle Final RHNA Allocation Plan.

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

129

JANUARY 2022

The HEU includes an update to the City’s Housing Element and associated compone nts to meet the RHNA
requirements approved by SCAG.

City of Manhattan Beach Local Coastal Program

The
Local Coastal Program (
LCP
)
, which has been certified by the California Coastal Commission, is the basic planning tool used by Manhattan Beach to
guide development in the coastal zone. The LCP contains the foundation policy for future development and protection of coastal resources , including the establishment, to the extent
possible, of urban/
rural boundaries

and directing new housing and other dev
elopment into areas with adequate
services to avoid wasteful urban sprawl and leapfrog development.

The LCP specifies appropriate location, type,
and scale of new or changed uses of land and water

and

contains a designation in the
Planning and Zoning
Ordin
ance
. Prepared by the City, this program governs decisions that determine the short -

and long
-
term
conservation and use of coastal resources. While the LCP reflects the unique characteristics of Manhattan Beach, the LCP must also be consistent with the CCA

goals and policies. The CCA requires consistency between the LCP and General Plan. Section 30500.1 of the CCA provides that an LCP is not required to include housing policies and programs. However, Section 30007 states that local governments are not exemp t from meeting requirements of
S
tate
and federal law with respect to providing low
-

and moderate
-
income housing or other obligations related to
housing. In those circumstances where an issue is addressed by both the LCP and General Plan, the terms of the L
CP would generally prevail, including as it applies to general development aesthetics, views, and scenic vistas (City of Manhattan Beach 2003).

Sepulveda Boulevard Development Guidelines

The City regulations for Sepulveda Boulevard development are primari ly contained within Chapters 10.16
(Commercial Districts), 10.64 (Parking), and 10.52 and 10.60 (Miscellaneous) of the MBMC
. The
z
oning districts
found within the Sepulveda Corridor are CG, CC,
and
Single
-
Family Residential with the Oak Avenu
e Commercial
Overlay (RS
-
D6). The guidelines are intended to encourage certain desirable elements to be included within development projects on the corridor. They are to be used as a supplement to the Planning and Z
oning
C
ode
requirements during discreti
onary project reviews.

City of Manhattan Beach General Plan

The Land Use Element of the General Plan provides the following goals and policies potentially relevant to the HEU

(City of Manhattan Beach 2003).

Goal LU
-
1:

Maintain the low
-
profile development and small
-
town atmosphere of Manhattan Beach.

Policy LU
-

1.1:

Limit the height of new development to three stories where the height limit is thirty feet, or to two stories where the height limit is twenty
-
six feet, to pr
otect the privacy of adjacent properties,
reduce shading, protect vistas of the ocean, and preserve the low -
profile image of the community.

Policy LU
-

1.2 :

Require the design of all new construction to utilize notches, balconies, rooflines, open space, set
backs, landscaping, or other architectural details to reduce the bulk of buildings and to add visual interest to the streetscape. Also referred to as the Bulk and Volume Ordinance (No.

2032).

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

130

JANUARY 2022

Goal LU
-
2:

Encourage the provision and retention of private land
scaped open space.

Policy LU
-

2.1:

Develop landscaping standards for commercial areas that unify and humanize each district.

Policy LU
-

2.2:

Preserve and encourage private open space on residential lots citywide.

Policy LU
-

2.3:

Protect existing mature trees
throughout the City, and encourage their replacement with specimen trees whenever they are lost or removed

Policy LU
-

2.4:

Support appropriate stormwater pollution mitigation measures.

Goal LU
-
3:

Achieve a strong, positive community aesthetic.

Policy LU
-

3.1 :

Continue to encourage quality design in all new construction.

Policy LU
-

3.2:

Promote the use of adopted design guidelines for new construction in Downtown, along Sepulveda Boulevard, and other areas to which guidelines apply.

Goal LU
-
4:

Preserve the features of each community neighborhood, and develop solutions tailored to

e
ach
neighborhood’s unique characteristics.

Policy LU
-

4.1:

Protect public access to and enjoyment of the beach while respecting the privacy of beach residents.

Policy
LU
-

4.2:

Develop and implement standards for the use of

walkstreet encroachment areas and other
public
right of
-
way area

Policy LU
-

4.3:

Continue to allow use of the public landscaped area of

the Strand for limited private
landscaping purposes.

Policy LU
-

4.4 :

Encourage the preservation and enhancement of unique residential homes and buildings throughout Manhattan Beach to preserve the culture and history of the City.

Policy LU
-

4.5:

Encourage measures that recognize and work to protect buildings, landscaping, and other
features important to the City’s history.

Policy LU
-

4.6:

When public improvements are made, they should preserve and maintain distinctive neighborhood characteristics.

Goal LU
-
5:

Protect residential neighborhoods from the intrusion of inappropria te and incompatible uses.

Policy LU
-

5.1:

Require the separation or buffering of residential areas from businesses which produce noise, odors, high traffic volumes, light or glare, and parking through the use of landscaping, setbacks, or other technique.

Policy LU
-

5.2:

Work with all commercial property owners bordering residential areas to mitigate impacts and use

appropriate landscaping and buffering of residential neighborhoods.

Policy LU
-

5.7:

Recognize the unique qualities of mixed
-
use
areas and

balance

the needs of both the
residential and

commercial uses.

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

131

JANUARY 2022

Goal LU
-
7:

Continue to support and encourage the viability of the Downtown area of Manhattan Beach.

Policy LU
-

7.6 :

Recognize the unique qualities of mixed
-
use development and balance the needs of bot
h
commercial and residential uses.

3.11.3 Environmental Impacts

Potentially
Significant
Impact

Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No Impact

XI.

LAND USE AND PLANNING

–

Would the project:

Physically divide an established community?

Cause a significant environmental
impact

due to a conflict with any land use
plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?

Would the project physically divide an established community?

Less Than Significant Impact
.

Existing underutilized parcels throughout the City have been identified to accommodate
377
RHNA allocated
residential dwelling units

in the RM, RS, CL, CD, and CNE zones. In
addition, to meet a capacity deficit of approximately
406

lower
-
income units, as well as 73 additional
“buffer” low in come units, the City has identified potential sites in the CG, PD, RM, and RS districts to b e
made available to accommodate residential uses appropriate for lower -
income households (i.e., through a
rezoning program) within the mandated three
-
year planning horizon.

The proposed rezoning areas for additional housing would encourage infill developm ent in areas with
existing infrastructure, rather than continuing sprawling land use patterns. These changes would not introduce radically different land uses into neighborhoods, propose new street patterns, or otherwise divide these areas. In addition, si
tes where existing or potential capacity has been identified to accommodate future housing are dispersed throughout the previously identified seven City zoning district and would not result in a large
-
scale grouping of residential developments. As such, th e HEU would not physically divide
an established community. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulatio
n adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

Less Than Significant Impact
.

The California Government Code requires that a General Plan prepared by a local government contain an integrated, internally consistent set of goals,

policies, and programs. The
structure of the

Housing Element, as well as the

HEU
, which is one of the required elements within a General Plan,

is built on the same foundation upon which all other elements of the plan were formed. In addition, the HEU goal
s complement those found in the other elements of the General Plan. Cohesive housing policies that are appropriate to Manhattan Beach were designed through this coordination.

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

132

JANUARY 2022

The RHNA is mandated by State Housing Law as part of the periodic process of upd ating local housing
elements of the General Plan (SCAG 2020). SCAG is required to develop a RHNA for existing and projected housing needs for each jurisdiction, which covers the planning period of October 2021 through October 2029. The City is required to
ensure the availability of residential sites at adequate densities and with appropriate development standards to accommodate its fair share of the RHNA set forth by SCAG.

The HEU is a policy document that would update the General Plan to meet state Housin g Element law. As
described in Threshold 3.11(a), while the HEU is a policy document that is not anticipated to produce environmental impacts, the future rezoning effort included within the HEU would allow for greater densities than currently allowed withi
n the City to accommodate the City’s
6 th

Cycle RHNA allocation. As a result, the
HEU would be consistent and would meet the goals of the SCAG’s Connect SoCal, the 2020 –
2045
RTP/SCS, which is a long
-
range visioning plan that balances future mobility and hou sing needs with
economic, environmental, and public health goals. The future rezoning effort would encourage new development and redevelopment on infill parcels within urban and semi -
urban areas of the PD, CG, RS,
and RM zoning districts. In addition, impl
ementation of any overlay or rezoning program would trigger additional CEQA review and the corresponding program level analysis, which would in -
turn be required to
assume the maximum build out made allowable by the proposed zone change(s) .

Therefore, impac
ts
related to compatibility between the
HEU

and applicable plans adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects would be less than
significant
,

and no mitigation is required.

3.11.4 References

City of Manhattan Beach. 1999.

Sepulveda Boulevard Design Guidelines. Accessed October 30, 2021. https://www.manhattanbeach.gov/Home/ShowDocument?id=83.

City of Manhattan Beach. 2001. Manhattan Beach Municipal Code. Revised and republished 2001. Accessed September 19, 2021.
https://library.municode.com/ca/manhattan_beach/codes

/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=MANHATTAN_BEACH_CALIFORNIAMUCO .

City of Manhattan Bea
ch. 2003. General Plan. Adopted 1988. Updated 2003. Accessed September 17, 2020. https://www.manhattanbeach.gov/departments/community
-
development/planning
-
zoning

/general
-
plan/final
-
general
-
plan.

SCAG

(Southern California Association of Governments)
. 2020.

The 2020
–
2045 Regional Transportation Plan

/Sustainable Communities Strategy of the Southern California Association of Governments, Connect SoCal. https://www.connectsocal.org/Documents/Adopted/fConnectSoCal -
Plan.pdf.

3.12 Mineral Resources

3.12.1 Environ
mental Setting

According to the Department of Conservation’s Mineral Lands Classification map, the City is within the Mineral Resources Zone
-
3 within the
San Fernando Valley Production
-
Consumption Region, which is characterized as areas
containing mineral
deposits of significance, which cannot be evaluated from available data (DOC 1979). Ordinarily, classification of a mineral deposit as MRZ
-
2a or MRZ
-
2b by the State Geologist will constitute adequate evidence CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / FINAL

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

133

JANUARY 2022

that an area contains significant mineral depos
it
;

however, due to the highly built out nature of the City, c urrent on
-
site land uses do not allow for oil/mineral extraction
.

The City’s Manhattan Village district occupies an area that was once devoted to extensive industrial uses, including a Chevron o
il field (City of Manhattan Beach 2003a). However, the oil resources have been extracted, and there are no longer active wells in the City (City of Manhattan Beach 2003a, 2003b). Other than the defunct oil field, there are no known mineral resources of sig
nificant value within the City (City of Manhattan Beach 2003b).

3.12.2 Regulatory Setting

Federal

There are no applicable federal policies or regulations related to mineral resources.

State

Surface Mining and Reclamation Act: California Public Resources C ode, Sections 2710 et seq.

The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA) is the primary regulator of onshore surface mining in the state. It delegates specific regulatory authority to local jurisdictions. The act requires the State Geologist (Cali fornia
Geological Survey) to identify all mineral deposits within the State

and to classify them as (1) containing little or no
mineral deposits; (2) containing significant deposits; or (3) deposits identified, but further evaluation is needed; (4) containing geologic information that does not rule out either the presence or abse nce of mineral deposits. Lands are
designated MRZ
-
1,
-
2,
-
3, or
-
4, respectively. Local jurisdictions are required to enact specific procedures to guide mineral conservation and extraction at particular sites and to incorporate mineral resource management policies into
their general plans. A particular concern of

State
legislators in enacting SMARA was the premature loss of minerals and protection of sites threatened by development practices that might preclude future mineral extraction.

Mineral Resource Cl
assification

The California Geological Survey Mineral Resources Project provides information about California’s nonfuel mineral resources. The Mineral Resources Project classifies lands throughout the state that contain regionally significant mineral resou
rces as mandated by SMARA. Nonfuel mineral resources include metals such as gold, silver, iron, and copper; industrial metals such as boron compounds, rare -
earth elements, clays, limestone, gypsum, salt, and
dimension stone; and construction aggregate incl
uding sand, gravel, and crushed stone. Development generally results in a demand for minerals, especially construction aggregate. Urban preemption of prime deposits and conflicts between mining and other uses throughout California led to passage of SMARA, which requires all cities and counties
to incorporate in their general plans the mapped designations approved by the State Mining and Geology Board.

The classification process
involves
the determination of P
-
C region boundaries based on identification of

a
ctive
aggregate operations (Production) and the market area served (Consumption). The P -
C regional boundaries are
modified to include only those portions of the region that are urbanized or urbanizing and are classified for their aggregate content. An aggr
egate appraisal further evaluates the presence or absence of significant sand, gravel, or stone deposits that are suitable sources of aggregate. As previously noted, the classification of these mineral resources is a joint effort of the
S
tate
and local gov
ernments and requires that the State Geologist classify the mineral resources area as one of the four MRZs, a Scientific Resource Zone, or an Identified Resource Area.

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

134

JANUARY 2022

As part of the classification process, an analysis of site -
specific conditions is utiliz
ed to calculate the total volume
of aggregates within individually identified Resource Sectors. Resource Sectors are those MRZ -
2 areas identified
as having regional or statewide significance. Anticipated aggregate demand in the P -
C region for the next 50 y
ears
is then estimated and compared to the total volume of aggregate reserves identified within the P -
C

region.

California Geologic Energy Management Division

The California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM), formerly the Division of Oil, Gas, a nd
Geothermal Resources, oversees the drilling, operation, maintenance, and plugging and abandonment of oil, natural gas, and geothermal wells, while working to help California achieve its climate change and clean energy goals. CalGEM publishes regular geo
graphic information system data that includes updates to well locations and status, oil field boundaries, lease boundaries, and district boundaries.

CalGEM also regulates the drilling,
operation, and permanent closure of energy resource wells (CDOC 2021
).

Local

There are no applicable federal policies or regulations related to mineral resources.

3.12.3 Environmental Impacts

Potentially
Significant
Impact

Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No Impact

XII.

MINERAL RESOURCES

–

Would the project:

Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to
the region and the residents of the state?

Result in the loss of availability of a locally
-
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan?

Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?

No Impact
.

Manhattan Village occupies an
area that was once devoted to extensive industrial uses, including a Chevron oil field

(City of Manhattan Beach 2003a)
. The oil resources have been extracted, and
there are no longer
active wells in the City.

Other than the defunct oil field, there
are no
known mineral
resources of significant value within the City

(City of Manhattan Beach 2003b)
. Due to the
built
-
out nature
of the City and the lack of available mineral
resource
s
, the City has no General Plan or
MBMC

policies
governing extraction of mineral resources.

As such, no impact would occur.

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

135

JANUARY 2022

Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other l and use plan?

No
Impact
.

There are no locally important mineral resource recovery sites operating on or adjacent to the
City

(CDOC
2021
)
. Although Manhattan Village occupies an area that was once a

Chevron oil field, the oil
resources have been extracted,
and there are no longer active
wells in the City (City of Manhattan Beach,
2003b).

Other than the defunct oil field, there are no known mineral resources of significant value within the City (City of Manhattan Beach 2003b).

As such, there are no locally im
portant resources recovery sites
t
hat would be lost due to residential development facilitated by the HEU (City of Manhattan Beach 2003b )
,
and no impact would occur
.

3.12.4 References

CDOC (California Department of Conservation)
.2021.

CalGEM GIS WellFinder. Accessed October 29, 2021.
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder/#/
-
118.40446/33.88608/14
.

C
DOC
.

1979. Generalized Aggregate Resources Classification Map, Special Report 143 Plate 2.1. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs
/Documents/Publications/Special
-
Reports/SR_143
-
MLC
-
Report02.pdf
City of Manhattan Beach. 2003a. General Plan. Adopted 1988. Updated 2003. Accessed September 17, 2020.
https://www.manhattanbeach.gov/departments/community
-
development

/planning
-
zoning/general
-
plan/final
-
general
-
plan.

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

3. 13

Noise

3.13.1 Environmental Setting

The City recognizes that the ocean and coastal zone draw many residents and visitors and that the sounds
associated with these areas, including crashing waves
and
shorebirds,

are

a valuable resource worth protecting.

Excessive
noise from

traffic,

business

and

industrial

operations,

construction,

and concentrated activities can be
disruptive and erode the

quality of
the City’s

community.

As such, the City strives to
substantially reduce noise and
its impacts within the urban

environment, with a focus on
protecting residential

neighborhoods,

schools,

and

similar

noise
-
sensitive

uses

(City of Manhattan Beach 2003a)
.

In Manhattan Beach, vehicular traffic represents the primary noise source

(City of Manhattan Beach 2003a)
.

Major
transportation
-
related noise s
ources include Sepulveda Boulevard, and arterials and collectors such as Rosecrans Avenue, Aviation Boulevard, Artesia Boulevard, Marine Avenue, Manhattan Beach Boulevard, Manhattan Avenue, Highland Avenue, and Valley/Ardmore. Vehicular traffic along colle ctor streets that traverse residential
neighborhoods, such as Valley Drive/Ardmore Avenue, Highland Avenue, and Manhattan Avenue, also impact residents living along these routes (City of Manhattan Beach 2003a). St ationary sources include industrial and
com
mercial sources, particularly those emanating from the adjacent City of El Segundo, such as the El Segundo Generating Station and the Chevron Oil Refinery, as well as aircraft noise, construction noise and general neighborhood noise (City of Manhattan Beac
h 2003a)
.

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

136

JANUARY 2022

3.13.2 Regulatory Setting

Federal

Federal Transit Administration

In its
Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

guidance manual, the FTA recommends a daytime
construction noise level threshold of 80 dBA L
eq

over an 8
-
hour period (FTA 2018)
when detailed construction noise
assessments are performed to evaluate potential impacts to community residences surrounding a project. Although this FTA guidance is not a regulation, it can serve as a quantified standard in the absence of such noise limit s at
the state and local jurisdictional levels. In this case, the County does enumerate noise and vibration level limits; thus, FTA guidance is merely informative with respect to noise assessment for purposes of the HEU.

State

Government Code Section 6530
2(g)

California Government Code Section 65302(g) requires the preparation of a Noise Element in a General Plan, which shall identify and appraise the noise problems in the community. The Noise Element shall recognize the guidelines adopted by the Office of

Noise Control in the State Department of Health Services and shall quantify, to the extent practicable, current and projected noise levels for the following sources:



Highways and freeways



Primary arterials and major local streets



Passenger and freight on
-
line railroad operations and ground rapid transit systems



Aviation and airport
-
related operations



Local industrial plants



Other ground stationary noise sources contributing to the community noise environment

California General Plan Guidelines

The Californi
a General Plan Guidelines, published by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), provides guidance for the acceptability of specific land use types within areas of specific noise exposure. Table

4.13 -
3 presents guidelines for determining accep
table and unacceptable community noise exposure limits for various land use categories. The guidelines also present adjustment factors that may be used to arrive at noise acceptability standards that reflect the noise control goals of the community, the pa rticular community’s sensitivity
to noise, and the community’s assessment of the relative importance of noise pollution. OPR guidelines are advisory in nature. Local jurisdictions, including the
City of Manhattan Beach
, have the responsibility to set speci
fic noise
standards based on local conditions.

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

137

JANUARY 2022

Table 3.13
-

1. Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments

Land Use Type

Community Noise Exposure (CNEL)

Normally
Acceptable
1 Conditionally
Acceptable
2 Normally
Unacceptable
3 Clearly
Unacceptable
4 Residential
-
low density, single
-
family, duplex, mobile homes

50 –
60 55
–
70 70
–
75 75
–
85 Residential
–

multiple
-
family

50 –
65 60
–
70 70
–
75 70
–
85 Transit lodging
–

motel, hotels

50 –
65 60
–
70 70
–
80 80
–
85 Schools, libraries, churches,
hospitals, nursing homes

50 –
70 60
–
70 70
–
80 80
–
85 Auditoriums, concert halls,
amphitheatres

50 –
70 NA

65 –
85 Sports arenas, outdoor spectator
sports

50 –
75 NA

70 –
85 Playgrounds, neighborhood parks

50 –
70 NA

67.5 –

77.5 72.5
–
85 Golf courses,
riding stables, water
recreation, cemeteries

50 –
70 NA

70 –
80 80
–
85 Office buildings, business
commercial and professional

50 –
70 67.5
–

77.5 75
–
85 NA

Industrial, manufacturing,
utilities, agriculture

50 –
75 70
–
80 75
–
85 NA

Source:

OPR 2017.

Notes:

CNEL =
community noise equivalent level; NA = not applicable

1 Normally Acceptable: Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirement s.

2 Conditionally Acceptable: New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features have been included in the design. Conventional construction,

but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning, will normally suffice.

3 Normally Unacceptable: New construction or development should be discouraged. If new construction of development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the
noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise -
insulation features must be
included in the design.

4 Clearly Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally not be undertaken.

California Code of Regulations Title 24

The State of
California has adopted noise standards in areas of regulation not preempted by the federal government. State standards regulate noise levels of motor vehicles, sound transmission through buildings, occupational noise control, and noise insulation. State re gulations governing noise levels generated by individual motor vehicles and occupational noise control are not applicable to planning efforts, nor are these areas typically subject to CEQA analysis. State noise regulations and policies applicable to the HE
U

include Title 24 requirements
and noise exposure limits for various land use categories.

The 2019 California Building Code (CBC, Part 2, Title 24, Section 1204.6, California Code of Regulations) stipulates “interior noise levels attributable to exterior
sources shall not exceed 45 dB in any habitable room. The noise metric shall be either the day
-
night average sound level (L
dn
) or the community noise equivalent level (CNEL)” (ICC 2019).

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

138

JANUARY 2022

Local

City of Manhattan Beach General Plan

The Noise Element of the
General Plan provides the following goals and policies potentially relevant to the HEU (City of Manhattan Beach 2003).

Goal N
-
1:

Provide for measures to reduce noise impacts from transportation noise sources

Policy N
-

1.1:

Use proven methods of reducing the transmission of traffic noise onto adjacent noise -
sensitive land uses (e.g., residences, schools, medical facilities).

Policy N
-

1.2:

Ensure the inclusion of noise mitigation measures in the design of new roadway projects in Manhattan Beach.

Policy N
-

1.3:

Reduce transportation noise through proper design and coordination of vehicle routing

Policy N
-

1.4:

Ensure the effective enforce
ment of City, state, and Federal noise levels by all appropriate City divisions.

Policy N
-

1.5:

Work with appropriate agencies to mitigate impacts from existing and proposed aviation operations.

Policy N
-

1.6:

Work with surrounding jurisdictions and other ag
encies to mitigate noise impacts
.

Goal N
-
2:

Incorporate noise considerations into land use planning decisions.

Policy N
-

2.1:

Establish acceptable limits of noise for various land uses throughout the community.

Policy N
-

2.2:

Ensure acceptable noise levels
near residences, schools, medical facilities, and other noise -
sensitive areas.

Policy N
-

2.3:

Establish standards for all types of noise not already governed by local ordinances or preempted by State or Federal law.

Policy N
-

2.4:

Encourage acoustical design

in new construction.

Policy N
-

2.5:

Require that the potential for noise be considered when approving new development to reduce the possibility of adverse effects related to noise generated by new development, as well as impacts from surrounding noise gen
erators on the new development.

Policy N
-

2.6:

Work with businesses in surrounding jurisdictions to manage noise impacts on City residents and businesses.

Goal N
-
3:

Minimize the impact of non
-
transportation noise sources.

Policy N
-

3.1 :

Monitor and update t
he Noise Ordinance (Chapter 5.48, Noise Regulation) to mitigate noise conflicts.

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

139

JANUARY 2022

Policy N
-

3.2:

Enforce the Noise Ordinance.

Policy N
-

3.3:

Minimize impacts associated with single
-
event noise activities.

Policy N
-

3.4:

Recognize in the Noise Ordinance that nighttime noise levels create a greater sensitivity than do daytime noise levels.

Policy N
-

3.5:

Encourage jurisdictions, including cities,
and other agencies to require compliance with
the City of Manhattan Beach Noise Ordinance where activities affect Manhattan Beach residents and businesses.

Policy N
-

3.6:

Monitor and minimize noise impacts associated with construction activities on residential neighborhoods.

Manhattan Beach Municipal Code

Chapter 5.48, Noise Regulations

The
purview

of Chapter 5.48 is to maintain and preserve the quiet atmosphere of the City, to implement programs aimed at retaining ambient noise levels, and to mitiga
te noise conflicts. This includes establishing interior and exterior noise standards, establishing appropriate hours for noise generating activities, and establishing criteria for the issuance of noise permits.

Section 9.44.030, Construction hours and pro
hibited days.

As part of Chapter 9.44, Construction Rules, this section dictates that construction activity shall occur only between 7:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays, and between 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Section 9.44.030 also prohibits const
ruction activities on Sundays and on City recognized holidays.

3.13.3 Environmental Impacts

Potentially
Significant
Impact

Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No Impact

XIII.

NOISE

–

Would the project result in:

Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the vicinity of the project in excess of
standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards
of other agencies?

Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

140

JANUARY 2022

Potentially
Significant
Impact

Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No Impact

For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or
working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?

Would the project result in
generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess
of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applica
ble standards of other agencies
?

Less Than Significant Impact
.

Development pursuant to the HEU has minimal potential to expose residents to noise levels in excess of regulatory standards.

The General Plan recognizes that vehicular
traffic represents the primary undesirable noise source in the City (City of Manhattan B each 2003a). Any

future development
facilitated
by the

HEU adoption would be required
to comply

with regulations set
forth by the
MBMC

(
Chapter 5.48, Noise Regulations)
, the General Plan Noise Element goals and policies,
and all other applica
ble
State
and federal regulatory requirements.

Construction would be subject to
additional requirements set forth in Chapter 9.44, Construction Rules, of the
MBMC

including limiting
construction hours to between 7:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on wee kdays, and between 9:00 a.m. to 6:00
p.m. on Saturdays and prohibiting construction on certain holidays.

Any future
development

project
(s)
,
including the
future
rezoning effort, would be required to undergo the appropriate level of CEQA review, which would take into consideration impacts related transportation, including any transportation noise impacts.

Other provisions related to traffic noise have been incorpor ated into the Design Overlay District
policies. The City has established eight Design Overlay Districts which establish development standards specific to the unique needs of each Overlay District. For example, in Overlay Districts D1 and D4, where traffic
related noise
is
of particular concern, higher fences are permitted to mitigate traffic noise impacts.

Policies such as this
could
help

mitigate any future transportation noise impacts resulting from future

development.

The
HEU

is a policy document,
ou
tlining the framework for the City’s

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 document would a ccommodate
future
development required to meet the City’s
6 th

Cycle RHNA allocation
. The majority of such development
is expected to be located on infill sites. Adherence to the City's Noise Ordinance and compliance with General Plan Noise Element
p
olices
would ensure that any increases

in noise levels
, both temporary and
permanent, would result in less than significant impacts ; as such, no mitigation is required
.

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

141

JANUARY 2022

Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

Less Than Significant Impact
.

Residential uses typically do not generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. However, demolition and construction associated with new housing could result in impacts related

to groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. For example, demolition and construction activities could generate vibration through the use of drills, jackhammers, pile drivers, operation of compressors and generators, cement mixing, and general tr uck idling.

However, the
City has policies that would ensure that groundborne vibrations and groundborne noise levels

were
minimized.

Per the City’s Community Development Department, activities that have the potential to cause significant groundborne vibra
tions
--
including pil
e drivers/hammer/vibration installation methods,
and/or
pile extraction
—
are not permitted
unless specifically pre
-
approved by the
City’s Building
Officia
l (City of
Manhattan Beach 2020).

In addition,
Policy

N
-

3.6 requires that a project

monitor and minimize noise
impacts associated with construction activities in residential neighborhoods , while
Section 10.60.120 of
the MBMC dictates that no use,
activity,

or process can produce vibrations that are perceptible at the property lines of a
site.

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
itself, produce environmental impacts.

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

Cycle RHNA allocation
. The majority

of such development is expected to be
located on infill sites and away from
vibration s
ensitive low
-
density residential areas. Adherence
to Chapters

5.48 and 9.44 of the
MBMC

and compliance with General Plan Noise Element
p
olices would ensur
e that
any noise vibration increases, both temporary and permanent, would result in less than significant impacts within
the
City
; as such, no mitigation is required
.

c
)

For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land us e plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels ?

No Impact.

Manhattan Beach is not located with
in an airport land use plan, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, or within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The Los Angeles International Airport, located approximately four miles to the north, is identified as a stationary noise

source impacting residents
in the City (Manhattan Beach 2003a, 2003b). However, associated noise levels are generally not considered excessive and usually do not impact daily activities in the City (City of Manhattan Beach 2003b).

As such, the HEU will ha
ve no impact as it relates to airports and noise.

3.13.4 References

City of Manhattan Beach. 2003a. General Plan. Adopted 1988. Updated 2003. Accessed September 17, 2020. https://www.manhattanbeach.gov/departments/community
-
development/planning
-
zoning

/general
-
plan/final
-
general
-
plan.

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

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

142

JANUARY 2022

City of Manhattan Beach. 2020. Shoring Requirements Community Development Requirements. https://www.manhattanbeach.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/220/637581428309330000 .

Accessed November 22, 2021.

ICC (International Code Council). 2019. California Building Code. Accessed October 1, 2021. https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/chapter/15426/
.

OPR (State of California Office of Planning and Research). 2017. State Planning Guide lines.

3. 14

Population and Housing

3.14.1 Environmental Setting

Population

Manhattan Beach had a population of 35,058

residents

in 2021. Manhattan Beach grew very slowly during the
2000s, having grown less than 4% from 2000 to 2010

(
City of Manhattan
B
each

2021
)
. Most of the growth that
has recently occurred has
c
onsisted of density increases on existing parcels through demolition and replacement of existing

homes. From 2010 to 2021, the City’s population remained stable, but with a slight decrease by about

0.22%. This is in contrast with the County, which grew by 3.14% between 2000 and 2010, and an

additional 2.3%
from 2010 to 2021

(
City of Manhattan
B
each 2021
)
. As an essentially

built
-
out city, there continues to be few
opportunities for growth, exce
pt through redevelopment/infill

on existing parcels
.

Housing

According to the California Department of Finance’s Population and Housing estimates, there were 15,043 housing units in Manhattan Beach in 2021, an increase of approximately 5% from 2012 ( City of Manhattan
B
each 2021
.

Of the total housing stock in 2020, the majority, or 77%, were

single
-
family detached units, and 23%
were

multifamily units. Mobile homes comprised the remaining 0.1%. From 2012 to 2021, the City had an increase of 111 single
-
family units and a decrease of 24 multi
-
family units due to the replacement of existing duplexes with single
-
family residential structures that include at least one accessory dwelling unit.

Employment

Housing needs are influenced by employment characteris
tics. Significant employment opportunities within a city can increase demand for housing in proximity to jobs. Manhattan Beach has 17,006 workers living within its borders (
City of Manhattan
B
each 2021
). In 2019, the largest industry to employ residents of

Manhattan Beach was the
Management, Business, Science, and Arts occupations industries, accounting for 69.8% of the labor force ( City of
Manhattan
B
each 2021
). Employment is an important factor affecting housing needs within a community. The jobs availabl
e in each employment sector and the wages for these jobs affect the type and size of housing residents can afford, and as such, employment and projected job growth have a significant influence on housing needs during the HEU’s
6 th

Cycle planning
period (2021
-
2029).

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

143

JANUARY 2022

Jobs
/
Housing Balance

A jobs/housing balance is a ratio that indicates the number of available jobs in the City compared to the number of available housing units. The ratio is one potential indicator of a community’s ability to reduce co mmuter traffic and
overall vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by maintaining a balance between employment and housing in close proximity (e.g., within the City limits)
. SCAG uses the jobs
-
housing balance as a general tool for analyzing where people work, where t
hey live, and how efficiently they can travel between the two.

T
he jobs
-
housing balance for
the City

would
divide the reported 201
8 jobs number (
16,138
) by the reported 201
9 housing stock number (
13,427
)

(
City of
Manhattan
B
each 2021
), resulting in an ex
is
ting jobs
-
housing balance
of

1.2 .

As a comparison,
Los Angeles County
as a whole

has an average job
-
housing balance of 1
.
43 . Per the
Los Angeles County General Plan, one of the most
cited studies of jobs
-
housing balance recommends 1.3 to 1.7 as the range f
or an ideal jobs
-
housing balance (County
of Los Angeles 2014, Ewing 1996)
. As such, the City can be considered to have

a slightly less than ideal
jobs/housing ratio
.

3.14.2 Regulatory Setting

Federal

T
h
ere are no applicable federal policies or regulations

related to housing and population.

State

Government Code Section 65580 et seq.

Government Code Article 10.6. Housing Elements, Section 65580, declares that the availability of housing is of vital statewide importance, and the early attainment of decent h ousing and a suitable living environment for every
Californian, including farmworkers, is a priority of the highest order. Governments and private sectors should work cooperatively to expand housing opportunities and accommodate housing needs in California . Furthermore,
designating and maintaining a supply of land and adequate sites suitable, feasible, and available for the development of housing sufficient to meet the locality’s housing need for all income levels is essential to achieving the
S
tate’s
housing goals and the purposes of this article.

Regional

Regional Growth Management Policies: Southern California Association of Governments

SCAG is recognized by the state and federal governments as the regional planning agency for the six -
county south
co
ast region that includes Los Angeles County. In 2004, SCAG adopted a voluntary regional growth strategy known as the Compass Blueprint. SCAG’s Compass Blueprint is an advisory or voluntary plan that promotes mixed -
use
development, better access to jobs, co
nservation of open space, public/private partnerships, and user -
fee
infrastructure financing, improving the capacity and efficiency of movement of goods, reducing vehicle miles traveled, improving air quality, improving housing availability and affordabili ty, renovating urban cores, and creating
over 500,000 high
–
paying jobs.

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

144

JANUARY 2022

Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy

In 2020, the Regional Council of SCAG adopted the 2020
–
2045 RTP/SCS to increase mobility for the region’s
residents and vi
sitors (SCAG 2020). Furthermore, the 2020
–
2045 RTP/SCS commits to reducing emissions from
transportation sources to comply with SB 375, improving public health, and meeting the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The SCS envisions combining transportat ion and land use elements in order to achieve
emissions reduction targets set by the California Air Resources Board (SCAG 2020). The 2020 –
2045 RTP/SCS
includes population, jobs, and housing forecasts up to 2045.

Regional Housing Needs Allocation

The SCAG R
egional Council adopted the Connect SoCal (2020
-
2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable
Communities Strategy) on September 3, 2020.

A
s part of Connect SoCal, SCAG assigns a number of housing units that the
City

is required to plan for in the eight
-
ye
ar Housing Element cycle. That number of units is called the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), and it is broken down by income category, ensuring that all economic groups are accommodated.

The
City’s

existing inventory of residential sites is insu
fficient to accommodate
the 774

units in its RHNA for 2021
-
2029
, which includes 487 lower
-
income units, 155 moderate
-
income units, and 132 above moderate
-
income units

(SCAG 2021)
. As such, as part of the
HEU
, the
City

proposes a

rezoning
program
to accommo
date its RHNA gap.

While potential sites have been identified as part of the HEU’s sites analysis, the precise
locations and parcels are
still to be determined
and will need to undergo further review
. The City will refine and implement the rezoning
program

over a three year and 120 day planning horizon, as provided by Government Code Section 65583(c)(1)(A).

The
6 th

Cycle RHNA allocation plans for a total housing production need of 774

units for the
City
.

City of Manhattan Beach Housing Element

The Housing
Element is one of seven mandatory elements of the City’s General Plan. The Housing Element provides an overview of demographics, household, housing stock, economic, and regulatory factors affecting housing development and affordability within the City. The

Housing Element sets forth a series of goals and implementing policies to address a variety of housing issues, including identifying vacant and underutilized sites to accommodate the City’s
6 th

Cycle RHNA allocation, discussed above. The HEU is an update to the Housing Element for the
6 th

Cycle RHNA.

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

145

JANUARY 2022

3.14.3 En
vironmental Impacts

Potentially
Significant
Impact

Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No Impact

XIV.

POPULATION AND HOUSING

–

Would the project:

Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?

Displace substantial numbers of
existing

people or housing, necessitating
the construction of replacement
housing

elsewhere?

Would the project induce
substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

Less Than Significant Impact
.

Implementation of the programs contained in the HEU would help to accommodate development required to meet the City’s 2021 –
2029
6 th

Cycle RHNA allocation. Under the
RHNA allocation, the City is required to provide the zoned capacity to accommodate the dev elopment of at
least 774 units using various land use planning strategies. It has been determined that the City’s inventory of residential sites will be insufficient to accommodate future housing needs, resulting in a deficiency of 406

lower
-
income unit
s. As such the HEU identifies a rezoning program in the HEU to accommodate its RHNA gap. While the HEU consists of a policy document update, which is not anticipated to produce environmental impacts, the rezoning program as part of the HEU would allow for greater densities than
currently allowed within the City’s PD and CG zones and will be further evaluated when the parcels to be rezoned are fully identified.

While the HEU does not propose development at this time, the HEU would facilitate additional popul ation
growth through the
provision
of
housing within the City
. However, the HEU does not require new construction
or expansion of existing roadway infrastructure (e.g., new roads)

as all identified sites would be located on
underutilized infill development

sites. Additionally, according to the HEU,
methodologies utilized to identify
general areas
where the

rezoning program

may be implemented

took into account accessibility to existing
infrastructure and utilities.

Further, all existing sites identified in t
he HEU as having the potential to
accommodate future residential development
are in areas

appropriately zoned to support such
development and the accompanying increase in population, which was planned

and accounted for in
existing

General Plan.

Further, an
y future rezoning efforts facilitated as a result of HEU implementation would be required to undergo the appropriate level of programmatic review, as required by CEQA, which
would take into consideration the direct and indirect impacts related to populatio n

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

146

JANUARY 2022

any necessary program specific mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate
any potentially significant
impacts.

Therefore, the HEU is not expected to result in extension of roads or infrastructure .

The HEU would be aligned with
the dwelling unit needs and increased population as projected SCAG’s Connect SoCal, the 2020
–
2045 RTP/SCS
.

Additionally, approval of the HEU
in and of
itself, as a policy
document update, would not change these forecasts and would not provide any goals, po licies, or programs
that would significantly increase the dwelling unit and population projections by SCAG. Therefore, the HEU would not induce unplanned substantial population growth. I mpacts

regarding

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

Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

Less Than Significant Impact
.

As described in Threshold

3.13 (
a
)
, while the
H
EU

consists of a policy
document update that is not anticipated to produce environmental impacts, the rezoning program as part of the
HEU

would allow for greater densities than are currently allowed within the City
.

However, t
he rezoning
program would not
displace a substantial number of existing people or housing; rather, it would facilitate an increase in housing supply, as discussed above
, on underutilized infill sites throughout the City
.

Therefore, implementation of the
proposed HEU

would have a less
-
than
-
significant impact
, and no

mitigation is required
.

3.14.4 References

City of Manhattan Beach. 2003. General Plan. Adopted 1988. Updated 2003. Accessed September 17, 2020. https://www.manh
attanbeach.gov/departments/community
-
development/planning
-
zoning

/general
-
plan/final
-
general
-
plan.

City of Manhattan Beach. 2021. Housing Element Update.

LAC (County of Los Angeles). 2014. County of Los Angeles 2035 General Plan. Accessed October 3, 2021. https://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/upl/project/gp_2035_deir.pdf .

Ewing, Reid. 1996. Best Development Practices: Doing the Right Thing and Making Money a t the Same Time.

Chicago: Planners Press.

SCAG (Southern California Association of Governments). 2021. SCAG RHNA Allocation Plan. Adopted March 2021.

Revised July 2021. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file -
attachments/6th
-
cycle
-
rhna
-
final
-
allocation
-
p
lan.pdf?1625161899
.

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

147

JANUARY 2022

3. 15

Public Services

and Recreation

3.15.1 Environmental Setting

Fire Department

Manhattan Beach’s Fire Department

provides fire protection services to the City and has

daily suppression staffing
typically consists of eight Firefighter
s/Paramedics, plus one Battalion Chief who operates out of two stations.

Emergency response is handled by two engines, a Paramedic rescue ambulance, and the Battalion Chief Fire Station 1 is located adjacent to City Hall, and Fire Station 2 is Located at 1 400 Manhattan Beach Boulevard. The
Department responds to emergency incidents within an average time of four minutes and thirty seconds.

Police

The Manhattan Beach Police Department provides safety and emergency response services and engages in community
programs and educational activities. The Department is also generally able to respond to high priority calls in under two and a half minutes. The response time is within the Department’s response time goals.

Parks

They City Park system consist of neighborh
ood parks, community parks, and school grounds for which the City and Manhattan beach Unified School
District maintain joint user agreements. The City owns, operates, and maintains eleven parks primarily designed and used for active recreation. Joint -
use a
greements for use of school grounds and
play areas provide residents with additional recreational facilities, particularly athletic fields. The North Porto area, which has no local parks, has immediate access to the beach.

Although Manhattan Beach is well
served by parks, overuse has been an increasing issues for residents who live adjacent to parks
;

however, per the General Plan
,

t
he City is actively taking measures to address these
concerns
.

Schools

The Manhattan Beach Unified School District (MBUSD) operates all public schools located in Manhattan Beach.

MBUSD operates eight schools, including five elementary schools (K -
5), one middle school (6
-
8), and one high
school (9
-
12). Other facilities include

an adult school, transition school site, and several child development centers.

In addition to educational services, school facilities provide recreation opportunities for all residents of the City.

Schools and parks
make up approximately 28% of the City’
s park and open space.

State Beach and the “Strand”

The State Beach and the two
-
mile Strand provide recreational opportunities to residents of Manhattan Beach and people living throughout the southland. These resources help define Manhattan Beach and contr ibute significantly
to its attractive living environment. Amenities include volleyball courts, biking and walking paths, play areas, and public parking. The County of Los Angeles, Department of Beaches and Harbor manages these improvements. The pier is own
ed by the State of California and leased to the City of Manhattan Beach.

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

148

JANUARY 2022

3.15.2 Regulatory Setting

Federal

National Fire Protection Association

The National Fire Protection Association recommends that fire departments respond to fire calls within six

minu
tes
of receiving the request for assistance 90% of the time. These time recommendations are based on the demands created by a structural fire. It is crucial to attempt to arrive and intervene at a fire scene prior to the fire spreading beyond the room of o
rigin. Total structural destruction typically starts within eight

to 10 minutes after ignition.

Response time is generally defined as 1 minute to receive and dispatch the call, one

minute to prepare to respond
to the fire station or field and
four

minutes
(or less) travel time.

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 building standards (as
also set forth in the California Building Code), fire protection and notification systems, fire protection devices such as extinguishers and smoke alarms, high -
rise building and
childcare facility standards, and fire suppression training. The State Fire Ma rshal enforces these regulations and
building standards in all State
-
owned buildings, State
-
occupied buildings, and State institutions throughout
California.

California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 2 and Part 9

Part 2 of Title 24 of the California Co
de of Regulations refers to the California Building Code, which contains complete regulations and general construction building standards of S
tate
adopting agencies, including
administrative, fire and life safety, and field inspection provisions. Part 2 wa s updated in 2019 to reflect changes
in the base document from the Uniform Building Code to the International Building Code. Part 9 refers to the California Fire Code, which contains fire
-
safety
-
related building standards referenced in other parts of Title

24. This
code was revised in January 2019 with a change in the base model/consensus code from the Uniform Fire Code series to the International Fire Code.

California Public Resources Code, Section 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. The purpose of this code is to provide classification of lands within SRAs in accordance with the s everity 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.

California
Government

Code
66000

According to California Government Code 66000, a qualified agency, such as a local school district, may impose fees on developers to compensate for the impact that a project will have on existing facilities or services. The State CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / FINAL

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

149

JANUARY 2022

of California legisl
ature passed Senate Bill (SB) 50 in 1998, which inserted new language into the Government Code (Sections 65995.5
-
65995.7), which authorized school districts to impose fees on developers of new residential construction in excess of mitigation fees authorize d by Government Code 66000. School districts must
meet a list of specific criteria, including the completion and annual update of a School Facility Needs Analysis, in order to be legally able to impose the additional fees.

California

Government Code Secti
on 65995

California Government Code Section 65995 (the Leroy F. Green School Facilities Act of 1998) set base limits and additional provisions for school districts to levy fees to help fund expanded facilities to house new pupils that may be
generat
ed

by
development projects. Sections 65996(a) and (b) state that such fees collected by school districts provide full and complete school facilities mitigation under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). These fees may be adjusted by the district over

time as conditions change.

Government

Code Section 66477

The Quimby Act (Government Code Section 66477), enacted in 1975, creates a framework that allows cities and counties to provide parks for growing communities. The Quimby Act authorizes jurisdictions

to adopt ordinances
that require parkland dedication or payment of in
-
lieu fees as a condition of approval of residential subdivisions.

The Quimby Act also specifies acceptable uses and expenditures of such funds, such as allowing developers to set aside
land, donate conservation easements, or pay direct fees for park improvements.

2019
California

Fire Code

The California Fire Code (24 CCR Part 9) establishes regulations to safeguard life and property against hazards of fire, explosion, or dangerous condit
ions in new and existing buildings, structures, and premises. The Fire Code also establishes requirements intended to provide safety and assistance to firefighters and emergency responders during emergency operations. The provisions of the Fire Code apply to the construction, alteration, movement,
enlargement, replacement, repair, equipment, use and occupancy, location, maintenance, removal, and demolition of every building or structure throughout the State of California. The Fire Code includes regulations regarding fire
-
resistance
-
rate construction, fire protection systems such as alarm and sprinkler systems, fire service features such as fire apparatus access roads, means of egress fire safety during construction and demolition, and wildland -
urban
interfac
e areas.

Local

Manhattan Beach Municipal Code

Section 1.20.070
,
Public
facilities

The City may require that areas of real property within the subdivision be reserved for parks, recreational facilities, fire stations, libraries or other public uses subject

to the provisions of Section 66479 of the Subdivision Map Act.

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

150

JANUARY 2022

Section 11.20.100 Park and recreation dedications and fees

As a condition of approval of a tentative map, the subdivider/applicant must dedicate land, pay a fee in lieu thereof, or a combinat
ion of both, at the option of the City, for park and recreational purposes at the time and according to the standards and formulas contained Chapter 11.20, Dedications, of the MBMC
.

Section 3.16.010
-

Adoption of 2019 California Fire
Code.

This section
adopts

the 2019 Edition of the California Fire Code, by reference, as the official Fire Prevention Code of the City of Manhattan Beach, including Appendices B, C, and O,

and as amended by Section 3.16.020,
Fire Code Amendments.

City of M
anhattan Beach General Plan

The following goals and policies within the City’s General Plan pertain to public services:

Goal CR
-
1:

Maintain a park, recreation, and open space system that provides a variety of recreational opportunities accessible to all residents and meets the needs of all residents.

Policy CR
-

1.1:

Promote the acquisition of properties for the purpose of conversion to
parks and open
space areas to meet the needs of City residents.

Policy CR
-

1.2:

Encourage the development of quality commercial recreation facilities on both privately held and City owned land under long
-
term lease or concession agreements.

Policy CR
-

1.3 :

Acquire properties that are subject to flooding during heavy storms for the purpose of converting them to open space and park facilities, when feasible to do so.

Policy CR
-

1.5:

Accept and actively seek out the donation of private residential properties

for the
development of strategically located pocket parks and similar open space.

Goal CR
-
3:

Maintain relationships with educational institutions, as they represent a cornerstone of the community

Policy CR
-

3.1:

Work with the Manhattan Beach Unified School District to continue joint -
use agreements of
City and school district facilities for arts and recreation programs.

Policy CR
-

3.2:

Emphasize crime prevention education in local public and private schools.

Goal C
S
-
3:

Maintain a high level of City emergency response services.

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
-

3.7:

Support 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 emergency response through continued education and training of e
mergency response personnel.

Policy CS
-

3.10:

Strive to reduce emergency response time

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

151

JANUARY 2022

Goal CS
-
4:

Maintain a high level of police protection services.

Policy CS
-

4.1:

Recognize the importance of calculating the daytime population in determining emergency se
rvice needs.

Policy CS
-

4.2:

Support the development and continued updating of public education programs on safety.

Policy CS
-

4.3:

Encourage the formation and continued education of Neighborhood Watch groups to assist the police in crime prevention and det
ection.

Policy CS
-

4.4:

Work with Los Angeles County Department of Beaches to ensure adequate police protection and emergency services to visitors and residents using the City’s beaches.

Policy CS
-

4.5:

Continue to upgrade the quality of police personnel thr ough continued education, training,
and proactive recruiting efforts
.

Policy CS
-

4.6:

Support proactive measures to enhance public safety, such as use of increased foot or bicycle police patrols.

Policy CS
-

4.7:

Strive to reduce police response time.

3.15.3 E
nvironmental Impacts

Potentially
Significant
Impact

Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No Impact

XV.

PUBLIC SERVICES

Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service

ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Fire protection?

Police protection?

Schools?

Parks?

Other public facilities?

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

152

JANUARY 2022

Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governm ental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Fire protection
;

Police protection
;

Parks
;

Schools
; and/or

Other public facilities?

Less Than Significant Impact
.

T
he City has provisions to mitigate for the impacts of new residential development on public services, including fire and police protection, schools, parks, and other services and
utilities. For example, Section 1.20.070 provides that the

City

may require that areas of real property within
a

subdivision be reserved for parks, recreational facilities, fire stations, libraries ,

or other public uses. In
addition, fees are charged by the City to defray the cost of providing public services and facilities to new developments, including residential developments accommodated by the proposed HEU.

The City

also
has
a requirement to pay

water and sewer fees to ensure that these services will be available to serve new developments.

Required developer impact fees for parks are accommodated per t
he Quimby Act
, which

authorizes
jurisdictions to adopt ordinances that require parkland dedicati on or payment of in
-
lieu fees as a condition
of approval of residential subdivisions. The Quimby Act also specifies acceptable uses and expenditures of such funds, such as allowing developers to set aside land, donate conservation easements, or pay direct fees for park improvements. Dedications and in lieu park fees are reinforced in Section 11.20.100 (Park and recreation dedications and fees) of the
MBMC
. For single
-
family or condo developments, $1,817 per
dwelling unit is assessed for

park purposes in accordance with the

MBMC

and
Quimby Act.

School District
fees are required to mitigate for the potential addition of school aged children moving into the MBUSD a
result of new residential development. The fees paid to the MB USD for residential development amount to
$3.79 per square foot

(City of Manhattan Beach 2021).

The ultimate
development facilitated

by the adoption of the HEU

would be located on infill development
parcels throughout the
City and

would not
require

any extensions of service areas.

The
HEU
, therefore,
would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilit ies, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services listed above.

This
HEU

would not change or impact s
tandards, policies,
programs,

and regulations in place that ensure
adequate provision of public services. Based on the above, the HEU

would have a less than significant
impact
related to

public services
, and no mitigation is required
.

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

153

JANUARY 2022

3.15.4 References

Cit
y of Manhattan Beach. 2021. Developer Impact Fees Community Development.

Accessed

October 2, 2021.
https://www.manhattanbeach.gov/home/showdocument?id=42983 .

3.1 6

Recreation

3.1 6
.1

Environmental Setting

Parks

They City Park system consist of neighborhood p
arks, community parks, and school grounds for which the City and Manhattan
B
each Unified School District maintain joint user agreements. The City owns, operates, and maintains 11 parks primarily designed and used for active recreation. Joint -
use agreements

for use of school grounds and
play areas provide residents with additional recreational facilities, particularly athletic fields. The North El
Porto
area, which has no local parks, has immediate access to the beach.

Although Manhattan Beach is well
served by parks, overuse has been an increasing issue for residents who live adjacent to parks; however, per the General Plan, the City is actively taking measures to address these concerns.

State Beach and the “Strand”

The State Beach and the two
-
mile Str
and provide recreational opportunities to residents of Manhattan Beach and people living throughout the southland. These resources help define Manhattan Beach and contribute significantly to its attractive living environment. Amenities include volleyball c ourts, biking and walking paths, play areas, and
public parking. The County of Los Angeles, Department of Beaches and Harbor manages these improvements. The pier is owned by the State of California and leased to the City of Manhattan Beach.

3.1 6
.2

Regulato
ry Setting

Federal

There are no federal regulations related to recreation that would apply to the HEU .

State

Government

Code Section 66477

The Quimby Act (Government Code Section 66477), enacted in 1975, creates a framework that allows cities and countie
s to provide parks for growing communities. The Quimby Act authorizes jurisdictions to adopt ordinances that require parkland dedication or payment of in
-
lieu fees as a condition of approval of residential subdivisions.

The Quimby Act also specifies accept
able uses and expenditures of such funds, such as allowing developers to set aside land, donate conservation easements, or pay direct fees for park improvements.

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

154

JANUARY 2022

Local

Manhattan Beach Municipal Code

Section 1.20.070, Public facilities

The City may require that areas of real property within the subdivision be reserved for parks, recreational facilities, fire stations, libraries or other public uses subject to the provisions of Section 66479 of the Subdivision Map Act.

Section 11.20.100
Park and recreation dedications and fees

As a condition of approval of a tentative map, the subdivider/applicant must dedicate land, pay a fee in lieu thereof, or a combination of both, at the option of the City, for park and recreational purposes at the t ime and according to
the standards and formulas contained Chapter 11.20, Dedications, of the MBMC
.

City of Manhattan Beach General Plan

The following goals and policies within the City’s General Plan pertain to public services:

Goal CR
-
1:

Ma
intain a park, recreation, and open space system that provides a variety of recreational opportunities accessible to all residents and meets the needs of all residents.

Policy CR
-

1.1:

Promote the acquisition of properties for the purpose of conversion to parks and open space
areas to meet the needs of City residents.

Policy CR
-

1.2:

Encourage the development of quality commercial recreation facilities on both privately held and City owned land under long
-
term lease or concession agreements.

Policy CR
-

1.3:

A
cquire properties that are subject to flooding during heavy storms for the purpose of converting them to open space and park facilities, when feasible to do so.

Policy CR
-

1.5:

Accept and actively seek out the donation of private residential properties for the
development of strategically located pocket parks and similar open space.

3.1 6
.3

Environmental Impacts

Potentially
Significant
Impact

Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No Impact

XV
I
.

RECREATION

a
)

Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

155

JANUARY 2022

Potentially
Significant
Impact

Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No Impact

b
)

Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?

Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerat ed?

Less Than Significant Impact.

While the HEU has the potential to accommodate a higher capacity of housing (resulting in a relative increase in permanent residents placing demands upon existing recitational facilities), t
he City has provisions to mitiga
te for the impacts of new residential development on recreational services. For example, Section 1.20.070 provides that the City may require that areas of real property within the subdivision be reserved for parks, recreational facilities, fire stations, l ibraries
,

or other public uses. In
addition, fees are charged by the City to defray the cost of providing recreational
facilities to new
developments, including residential developments accommodated by the proposed HEU.

Required
developer impact fees for p
arks are
required by the City
per the Quimby Act, which authorizes jurisdictions
to adopt ordinances that require parkland dedication or payment of in -
lieu fees as a condition of approval
of residential subdivisions

(City of Manhattan beach 2021)
. The Quim
by Act also specifies acceptable uses
and expenditures of such funds, such as allowing developers to set aside land, donate conservation easements, or pay direct fees for park improvements. Dedications and in lieu park fees are reinforced in Section 11.20.
100 (Park and recreation dedications and fees) of
the MBMC
.

The HEU is a policy document, and adoption of the HEU alone would not produce environmental impacts.

The HEU consists of an updated housing program for which no actual development is proposed. 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 and is not one of the discretionary actions being undertaken

at this time
. As such, t
he HEU,

would not result in
an increase use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that there are substantial physical
deterioration of the facility
. This
HEU

would not change or impact st
andards, policies,
programs,

and
regulations in place that ensure adequate provision of
recreational services and facilities
. Based on the
above, the HEU would have a less than significant impact , and no mitigation is required
.

Does the project include rec
reational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

Impact
.

As discussed above in Threshold

3.16 (a), t
he City has provisions to mitigate for the impacts
of new residential development on
recreational facilities
, including

Section 1.20.070
,

requiring that

areas
within a subdivision be reserved for parks, recreational facilities, or other public uses. In addition, per the
Quimby
A
ct, the City requires
developer
s to pay impact fees to offset the impacts of an increase in new permanent residents.

Dedications and in
lieu park fees are reinforced in Section 11.20.100 (Park and CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / FINAL

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

156

JANUARY 2022

recreation dedications and fees) of the
MBMC
. For single
-
family or condo developments, $1,817 per
dwelling unit is assessed for park purposes in accordance with the MBMC

and Quimby
Act.

Ultimately, t
he

HEU involves the adoption of the

HEU
, which

is a policy document would not, in
and of

itself, result in
environmental impacts

or result in the need for new or expanded recreational facilities.

As such,

impacts
to recreational facili
ties would occur
.

3.1 6
.4

References

City of Manhattan Beach. 2021. Developer Impact Fees Community Development. Accessed October 2, 2021. https://www.manhattanbeach.gov/home/showdocument?id=42983 .

3. 1
7 Transportation

3.1 7
.1

Environmental Setting

CEQA Section 15064.3(a) established
vehicle miles travelled (
VMT
)

as the most appropriate measure of
transportation impacts. The subdivision (a) defines VMT as “the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project.” The term “automobile”
refers to on
-
road passenger vehicles, specifically cars and light
trucks. For land use projects and plans, such as the
HEU
, based on the predominant use, the following VMT
efficiency metrics and method of estimation can be used:



Total VMT per Service Popul
ation: The total VMT to and from all zones in the geographic area are divided by the total service population to get the efficiency metric of VMT per service population. The total service population is the sum of the number residents and the number of empl oyees.



Residential (Home
-
based) VMT per capita: All home
-
based auto vehicle trips are traced back to the
residence of the trip
-
maker (non
-
home
-
based trips are excluded) and then divided by the population within the geographic area to get the efficiency met
ric of home
-
based VMT per capita (or per resident).



Employment (Home
-
based work) VMT per employee: All auto vehicle trips between home and work are counted, and then divided by the number of employees within the geographic area to get the efficiency metri
c of home
-
based work VMT per employee.

According to the County of Los Angeles modelled VMT by City (2016) the City of Manhattan B
each has an average
per capita VMT of 24.27 (per person per year) (County of Los Angles 2021) .

The City is within the County’s

South Bay Planning Area for regional transportation.

This area is served by portions
of

Interstate 405

(
I
-
405
)
,
Interstate 110 (
I
-
110
)
,

Interstate

105 (
I
-
105
)
,
State Route 91 (
SR

91 )
, and
State Route
47 (
SR

47 )
. The main north
–
south highways include Vermo
nt Avenue, Hawthorne Boulevard (SR
-
107), and La
Cienega Boulevard. East
–
west highways and secondary highways include Torrance Boulevard, Manhattan Beach Boulevard, and Sepulveda Boulevard.

As previously discussed, Sepulveda Boulevard is the only State High way in
Manhattan Beach. As a major transportation corridor for the South Bay region, Sepulveda Boulevard also functions as a commercial corridor for the City and supports heavy traffic volumes.

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

157

JANUARY 2022

3.1 7
.2

Regulatory Setting

Federal

There are no applicable fede
ral regulations related to transportation that would apply to the HEU.

State

Senate Bill 743

On September 27, 2013, Governor Brown signed SB 743, which became effective on January 1, 2014. The purpose of SB 743 is to streamline review under the CEQA proces s for several categories of development projects, including the development of infill projects in transit priority areas, and to balance the needs of congestion management with statewide goals related to infill development, promotion of public health throu gh active transportation, and
reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. SB 743 adds Chapter 2.7, Modernization of Transportation Analysis for Transit Oriented Infill Projects, to the CEQA Statute (California Public Resources Code, Section 21099). Sectio n
21099(d)(1) provides that aesthetic and parking impacts of a residential, mixed -
use residential, or employment
center project on an infill site within a transit priority area shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment. In addition, SB

743 mandates that alternative metric(s) for determining impacts relative to transportation shall be developed to replace the use of level of service (LOS) in CEQA documents.

In the past, environmental review of transportation impacts focused on the delay

that vehicles experience at
intersections and on roadway segments, which is often measured using LOS. Mitigation for impacts on vehicular delay often involves increasing capacity such as widening a roadway or the size of an intersection, which in turn ind uces
more vehicular travel and greater pollutant emissions. Additionally, improvements to increase vehicular capacity can often discourage alternative modes of transportation such as biking, walking, and transit. SB 743 directed the Governor’s Office of Pl
anning and Research (OPR) to develop an alternative metric(s) for analyzing transportation impacts in CEQA documents. The alternative shall promote the state’s goals of reducing GHG emissions and traffic -
related air pollution by promoting the development o
f a multimodal transportation system and providing clean, efficient access to destinations. Under SB 743, it was anticipated that the focus of transportation analysis would shift from vehicle delay (and LOS) to VMT within transit
-
priority areas (i.e., area
s well served by transit).

Pursuant to SB 743, OPR released the draft revised CEQA Guidelines in November 2017, recommending the use of VMT for analyzing transportation impacts. Additionally, OPR released updates to the Technical Advisory on Evaluating Tra
nsportation Impacts in CEQA (OPR 2018) to provide guidance on VMT analysis. In this Technical Advisory, OPR provides its recommendations to assist lead agencies in screening out projects from VMT analysis and selecting a significance threshold that may be
appropriate for their particular jurisdictions. While OPR’s Technical Advisory is not binding on public agencies, CEQA allows lead agencies to “consider thresholds of significance
…
recommended by other public agencies, provided the decision to adopt those t hresholds is supported
by substantial evidence” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7[c]).

Senate Bill 375

The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (Sustainable Communities Act; SB 375) supports the state’s climate action goals to reduce
GHG emissions through coordinated transportation and land use planning with the goal of more sustainable communities. Under the Sustainable Communities Act, the California Air CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / FINAL

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

158

JANUARY 2022

Resources Board sets regional targets for GHG emissions reductions from passenge r vehicle use. In 2010, the
California Air Resources Board established targets for 2020 and 2035 for each region covered by one of the state’s Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs). The California Air Resources Board will periodically review and updat e
the targets, as needed.

Each of California’s MPOs must prepare a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) as an integral part of its Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The SCS contains land use, housing, and transportation strategies that, if implemented, would allow the region to meet its GHG emission reduction targets. Once adopted by the MPO, the RTP/SCS guides the transportation policies and investments for the region. California Air Resources Board must review the adopted SCS to confirm an
d accept the MPO’s determination that the SCS, if implemented, would meet the regional GHG targets. If the combination of measures in the SCS would not meet the regional targets, the MPO must prepare a separate alternative planning strategy to meet the tar gets. The alternative planning strategy is not
a part of the RTP.

The Sustainable Communities Act also establishes incentives to encourage local governments and developers to implement the SCS or the alternative planning strategy. Developers can get relief

from certain CEQA requirements
if their new residential and mixed
-
use projects are consistent with a region’s SCS (or alternative planning strategy) that meets the targets (see California Public Resources Code, Sections 21155, 21155.1, 21155.2, 21159.28).

Statewide Transportation Improvement Program

The California 2010 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program, approved by the U.S. Department of Transportation in October 2009, is a multi
-
year,
S
tatewide
, intermodal program of transportation projects th
at is
consistent with the statewide transportation plan and planning processes, metropolitan plans, and Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The Statewide Transportation Improvement Program is prepared by Caltrans in cooperation with the MPOs and t
he regional transportation planning agencies. The Statewide Transportation Improvement Program contains all capital and noncapital transportation projects or identified phases of transportation projects for funding under the Federal Transit Act and Title 2 3 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
including federally funded projects.

The California Department of Transportation

As the owner and operator of the state highway system, Caltrans implements established state planning priorities in all functional plans
, programs, and activities. Caltrans coordinates and consults with local jurisdictions when proposed local land use planning and development may impact S
tate
highway facilities. Pursuant to Section
21092.4 of the California Public Resources Code, for proje cts of
S
tatewide
, regional, or area
-
wide significance, the
lead agency shall consult with transportation planning agencies and public agencies that have transportation facilities that could be affected by the
HEU
.

Caltrans Draft Transportation Impact Stud
y Guide and Safety Review (Caltrans 2020) replaced the Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (Caltrans 2002). Per the 2020 Transportation Impact Study Guide, Caltrans’ primary review focus is VMT, replacing LOS as the metric used in CEQA tran sportation analyses (Caltrans 2020).

Caltrans recommends use of OPR’s recommended thresholds and guidance on methods of VMT assessment found in OPR’s Technical Advisory (OPR 2018) for land use projects. In addition to VMT, the 2020 Transportation Impact St
udy Guide states that it may request a targeted operational and safety analysis to address a specific geometric or operational issue related to the state highway system and connections with the state highway system.

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

159

JANUARY 2022

Local/
Regional

Southern
California Association of Governments Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy

SCAG develops the RTP, which presents the transportation vision for Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Imperial, Riverside, and Ventura counties. SB 375 w
as enacted to reduce GHG emissions from automobiles and light trucks through integrated transportation, land use, housing and environmental planning. Under the law, SCAG is tasked with developing an SCS, an element of the RTP that provides a plan for meeti ng emissions reduction targets set
forth by the California Air Resources Board. The SCS outlines the plan for integrating the transportation network and related strategies with an overall land use pattern that responds to projected growth, housing needs, c hanging
demographics, and transportation demands. The SCS focuses the majority of new housing and job growth in high -
quality transit areas and other opportunity areas in existing main streets, downtowns, and commercial corridors, resulting in an improved j
obs
-
housing balance and more opportunity for transit
-
oriented development. This overall
land use development pattern supports and complements the proposed transportation network that emphasizes system preservation, active transportation, and transportation

demand management measures.

The 2016 RTP/SCS identifies priorities for transportation planning within the Southern California region, sets goals and policies, and identifies performance measures for transportation improvements to ensure that future projec ts
are consistent with other planning goals for the area (SCAG 2016). The Regional Transportation Improvement Programs, also prepared by SCAG based on the RTP, lists all of the regional funded/programmed improvements within the next 5 to 7 years. To qualif
y for CEQA streamlining benefits under SB 375, a project must be consistent with the RTP/SCS.

The 2020
–
2045 RTP/SCS, also known as Connect SoCal, is a long
-
range visioning plan that builds upon and
expands land use and transportation strategies establishe d over several planning cycles to increase mobility
options and achieve a more sustainable growth pattern. It charts a path toward a more mobile, sustainable, and prosperous region by making connections between transportation networks, between planning str ategies, and
between the people whose collaboration can improve the quality of life for Southern Californians (SCAG 2020). The SCAG Regional Council adopted Connect SoCal on September 3, 2020.

For SCAG member jurisdictions, the
6 th

C
ycle Housing Element p
lanning period extends from 2021 to 2029. As part
of Connect SoCal, SCAG assigns a number of housing units that the County is required to plan for in the eight
-
year
Housing Element cycle. That number of units is called the Regional Housing Needs Assessmen t (RHNA), and it is
broken down by income category, ensuring that all economic groups are accommodated. If a jurisdiction cannot show that there are enough sites to address the housing need, the jurisdiction is required to develop a rezoning program. The r
ezoning ensures that there are enough sites with sufficient densities to address the housing need identified through the RHNA.

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Metro is the county
-
level transportation planning and public transporta
tion operating agency that was created by
the State of California to set policy, coordinate, plan, fund, build, and operate transit services and transportation programs throughout Los Angeles County. Metro supports the transportation improvement programs o f the 88 cities
and 16 municipal transit operators within the County, as well as Los Angeles’s paratransit provider, Access Services, and its regional commuter rail service provider, Metrolink. Metro is also responsible for the preparation of the Long -
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / FINAL

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

160

JANUARY 2022

Rang
e Transportation Plan and the Short
-
Range Transportation Plan (SRTP). The current Long
-

and Short
-
Range
Transportation Plans are the 2020 Long
-
Range Transportation Plan and the 2014 Short
-
Range Transportation Plan.

The transportation plans include all majo
r transit and highway projects (partially or fully funded), existing programs and policies, and new policies and initiatives required to achieve Metro’s regional goals.

Congestion Management Plan

The Congestion Management Plan (CMP) is a program adopted b y the State Legislature and approved by the State
voters in 1990 through Proposition 111.

T
he CMP was created for the following purposes:



To link land use, transportation, and air quality decisions;



To develop a partnership among transportation decisionma kers on devising appropriate transportation
solutions that include all modes of travel; and



To propose transportation projects which are eligible to compete for state gas tax funds.

The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) is resp onsible for preparing the County’s CMP.

The MTA is required by State law to monitor local implementation of all CMP elements. Local jurisdictions are required to monitor arterial congestion levels, monitor transit services along certain corridors, and impl ement an
adopted trip reduction Refer to the Circulation section of the Infrastructure Element ordinance and land use analysis program. In addition, a key CMP component is the deficiency plan through which jurisdictions track and report their local develop
ment activity as “debits” and transportation improvements as “credits.” Jurisdictions must maintain an annual positive balance of credits over debits to be in conformance with the CMP.

Los Angeles County Measures R and M

Measures R and M are half cent sal
es tax measures for Los Angeles County to finance new transportation projects and programs and accelerates many of those already in the pipeline –

everything from new rail and/or bus rapid
transit projects, commuter rail improvements, The Los Angeles Count y Metropolitan Transit Authority rail system
improvements, highway projects, improved countywide and local bus operations, and local city sponsored transportation improvements. Measure R and Measure M were approved by the minimum two -
thirds vote in the
Nov
ember 2008 election and November 2016 election
,

respectively. The highway, bus and rail projects identified in the Measures respective expenditure plans are spread throughout Los Angeles County. In addition, each of the individual cities and unincorporated

areas within Los Angeles County will receive a share of the revenue to use at their discretion for local transportation needs. There are three Metro funded transit projects in the South Bay region; the Crenshaw/LAX Transit Corridor Project, the Airport Me tro Connector 96th Street Transit Station, and the South Bay Green Line Extension. The South Bay Cities Council of Governments (SBCCOG) administers a sub fund to improve local and regional highways including those that serve Manhattan Beach .

City of Manha
ttan Beach General Plan

The General Plan “Mobility Plan” for the City of Manhattan Beach seeks provide for a balanced, multi -
modal
transportation system for the movement of people and goods within, to and from the City. In keeping with S
tate
and
Federal laws and regulations, the
Mobility Plan states that a balanced system is required, and that it must meet the needs of all users including motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, children, persons with disabilities, seniors, movers of commercial goods and users of public transportation.

The

Mobility Plan places an emphasis on non
-
motorized
modes of transportation (bicycling and walking) as well as implementing streets that serve the mobility of all users CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / FINAL

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

13562

161

JANUARY 2022

by providing high quality pedestrian, bicycling, and transit access to all destinati ons throughout the
C
ity
, as
appropriate, and design streets to be inviting places for all users, with beauty and amenities.

Pursuant to the SCAG’s RTS/SCS, “mobility” refers to the movement of people, goods ,

and resources within or
beyond a city or region
.

The following goals and policies from the Mobility plan would apply to the HEU.

Goal I
-
1:

Provide a balanced, safe, and efficient multi
-
modal transportation system that serves the mobility needs of
all community members, including

children, seniors, and

the disabled.

Policy I
-

1.1:

Review the safety and functioning of the street system on a regular basis to identify problems and develop solutions.

Policy I
-

1.2 :

Improve street signage citywide, to enhance safety, visibility, and ensure street signs are not

obstructed.

Policy I
-

1.3:

Encourage the development of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plans for all major developments or facility expansions to encourage ride
-
sharing and other improvement
s, thereby
reducing vehicle trip
s.

Manhattan Beach City CouncilFebruary 4, 2022

Manhattan Beach City Council
February 4, 2022