A-2 - TI Tenant Improvement / Addition to a
Restaurant
TI - All Others
Tenant Improvement / Addition to any type of
occupancy that does not qualify as an arena,
theater, institution or restaurant.
Note: Building Official and Community Development Director have the discretion to charge time and materials for any project considered outside the scope of the projects listed above.
U - New Utility / Miscellaneous Structure
Shell (Cold) - New Shell Building consisting only of foundation and empty structure.
A (Other than A-2) -
TI
Tenant Improvement / Addition to a Religious
Institution, Arena, Theater, etc.
R-3 - New* Custom Single-Family Home
S-1 - New Low Hazard Warehouse / Parking Garage
S-2 - New Moderate Hazard Warehouse / Parking
Garage
35 *** Plan check and permit fees calculated through this study are in relation to requirements imposed by the California Building Code (CBC). The CBC dictates the types of development projects and applications, which require different permits. The plan check and inspection fees are to review those projects and applications to ensure conformance with those building code requirements.
Exhibit A Continued -
CITYWIDE USER FEE SCHEDULE (NON ‐ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RELATED) CITYWIDE USER FEE SCHEDULE (NON ‐ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RELATED) ‐ ADOPTED FEBRUARY 18, 2020 FIRE Category Description Additional Information Current Fee
ADOPTED FEE
EFFECTIVE
MARCH 18, 2020
20‐001 Initiative Petition Processing $ 200.00 200.00$ 20‐002 Candidate Processing $ 25.00 25.00$
20‐003 Candidate Statement Process a candidate statement for publication electronically or in voter guide per California Election Code Section 13307. Bi‐Annual (10 or less) Actual Cost Actual Cost 20‐004 Regular Copies 0.10$ 0.10$
20‐005 Election Documents 0.10$ 0.10$
20‐006 Archive Retrieval Actual Cost Actual Cost
20‐007 Copy Service Making a copy of an audiotape, CD, DVD, or PDF file. Tape / CD / DVD / PDF $ 7.00 8.00$ 20‐008 Lobbyist Registration Process registration for lobbyist. $ 14.00 30.00$ 20‐009 First Check 53.00$ 25.00$
20‐010 Subsequent Check 53.00$ 35.00$
20‐011 Business License Identification
Decal 4.00$ 5.00$
20‐012 Custom 40.00$ 40.00$
20‐013 Existing 20.00$ 25.00$
20‐015 ‐ No Charge for handicapped, disabled or seeing eye dogs. All Ot hers 52.00$ 48.00$ 20‐016 ‐ Late Penalty of 20% per month not to exceed 100%. Duplicate Tag 4.00$ 4.00$ FINANCE FEES
Return Check & Insufficient
Funds Fee
Re‐processing of checks or other payments due to insufficient funds. [California Civil Code Section 1719]
Issue a decal when a business license requires the use of a vehicle on request.
Custom License Listing Request Providing a unique listing of customized business and animal licensing information.
CITY CLERK
A formal notice of intent to circulate an initiative petition for a municipal measure. [California Election Code Section ‐ 9202(b)]
Pr
ocess a candidate for office in the City not to exceed $25. [California Election Code Section ‐ 10228] Reproduction Service Making a copy of a City document upon request. [Per City Resolution 6302]
Based upon request, retrieve an archived document per box pickup, delivery, and re‐file in storage. Direct cost to cover contractor costs
21.00$ 20‐014
Dog Licenses
Licensing of animals within the City Limits.
‐ 50% discount for seniors 62+ with income under $10,000. Spayed / Neutered 20.00$ NOTE: ALL OTHER FEES NOT DEFINED IN THIS TABLE ARE BASE D ON FULLY BURDENED RATES AND ARE EXECUTED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CITY MANAGER Page 20 CITYWIDE USER FEE SCHEDULE (NON ‐ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RELATED) ‐ ADOPTED FEBRUARY 18, 2020 FIRE Category Description Additional Information Current Fee
ADOPTED FEE
EFFECTIVE
MARCH 18, 2020
20‐017 Sepulveda Blvd. 300.00$ 372.00 $ 20‐018 All Other 277.00$ 325.00 $
20‐019 Pass‐through
(only City access no support) 809.00$ 662.00 $ 20‐020 Repeat or Legacy
(with no major changes) 809.00$ 977.00 $ 20‐021 New (or with major changes) 809.00$ 1,417.00$ 20‐022 Motion Picture 489.00$ 528.00 $ 20‐023 Still Photography 178.00$ 208.00 $ 20‐024 Amplified Sound Permit 227.00$ 183.00 $ 20‐025 Review of a request to sell firearms within the City New 1,012.00$ 944.00 $ 20‐026 Renewal of a request to sell firearms within the City. Renewal 234.00$ 242.00 $ 20‐027 Block Party Permit 50.00$ 50.00 $ 20‐028 Weapons Discharge Permit 601.00$ 603.00 $ COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
20‐029 Registration of new property alarms within the City. New 55.00$ 57.00 $ 20‐030 Annual renewal of Alarm System Permits already registered within the City. Renewal 25.00$ 29.00 $
20‐031 Alarm School 64.00$ 91.00 $
PARKS AND RECREATION FEES (NON‐PROGRAM / ACTIVITY RELATED) Banner Installation Hanging a banner across the public right‐of‐way at the request of a private party.
Special Events Application Processing a request for a special event within the City.
Film Permits ‐ Application Review an application for a motion picture or still photography, which takes place in the City.
Alarm System Permit
As‐needed class providing education and best practices for alarm system users who have had "false alarm" incidents. Completion forgives one invoice per year
POLICE FEES
Reviewing a Request to use amplified sound in a non‐commercial area.
Retail Firearm Permit
Review an application for a block party.
Review an application for a weapons discharge permit within the City.
NOTE: ALL OTHER FEES NOT DEFINED IN THIS TABLE ARE BASE D ON FULLY BURDENED RATES AND ARE EXECUTED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CITY MANAGER CITYWIDE USER FEE SCHEDULE (NON ‐ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RELATED) ‐ ADOPTED FEBRUARY 18, 2020 FIRE Category Description Additional Information Current Fee
ADOPTED FEE
EFFECTIVE
MARCH 18, 2020
TECHNICAL SUPPORT
20‐032 Fingerprint Card / Live Scan 19.00$ 23.00 $ 20‐033 Providing a Police audio recording upon request. Audio 58.00$ 96.00 $ 20‐034 Providing a police video recording upon request. Video 131.00$ 213.00 $ 20‐035 Police Record Clearance Letter 43.00$ 56.00 $ 20‐036 Providing copies of police photographs on request. Per Photo / P age 5.00$ 6.00 $ 20‐037 Providing copies of police photographs on a CD upon request. Per CD 9.00$ 13.00 $ 20‐038 Data Research and Release 105.00$ 119.00 $ 20‐039 Special Business ‐ DOJ Check 913.00$ 1,159.00$ 20‐040 Police Reports Producing a copy of a police report upon request. [Per City Resolution 6302] Per Page 0.10$ 0.10 $ JAIL OPERATIONS
20‐041 Booking Fee 259.00$ 266.00 $
PARKING
20‐042 Collection and release of vehicles impounded by the City. Lot Re lease (at tow‐yard) 118.00$ 137.00 $ 20‐043 Collection and field release of vehicles impounded by the City. Field Release (on‐street) 47.00$ 54.00 $ 20‐044 Vehicle Inspection / Correction 26.00$ 27.00 $ 20‐045 Boot Removal 109.00$ 183.00 $
20‐046 Handicap Violation Waiver
Admin Fee 25.00$ 32.00 $
Fingerprint a person on a card or process a live scan fingerprint. This is the City's charge in addition to any DOJ fees.
Digital Reproduction
Impound Vehicle Release
Inspect vehicle and sign‐off citation for correctable violation.
Installation and removal of a parking boot, due to non‐payment of 5 or more parking citations.
Processing of repeated handicap violation waivers for citations issued to individuals with a handicapped placard. No charge for the first waiver.
Research and prepare clearance letter for individuals requesting the service.
Police Photos ‐ Film & Digital
Research and compilation of data in police records upon request.
Processing an individual who is involved in the operation of certain special businesses, which involves checking that individual against the DOJ's records.
Process an individual under arrest for booking.
*Plus additional County Fees
NOTE: ALL OTHER FEES NOT DEFINED IN THIS TABLE ARE BASE D ON FULLY BURDENED RATES AND ARE EXECUTED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CITY MANAGER CITYWIDE USER FEE SCHEDULE (NON ‐ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RELATED) ‐ ADOPTED FEBRUARY 18, 2020 FIRE Category Description Additional Information Current Fee
ADOPTED FEE
EFFECTIVE
MARCH 18, 2020
ANIMAL SERVICES
20‐047 Pick up of dead animals for relinquishment on request. Dead 107.00$ 118.00 $ 20‐048 Pick up of live animals for relinquishment on request. Live Anim al 213.00$ 236.00 $ 20‐049 Animal Quarantine Inspection 267.00$ 295.00 $ 20‐050 0‐2,000 SF 223.00$ 232.00 $
20‐051 2,000‐10,000 SF 223.00$ 349.00 $ 20‐052 10,000+ SF 223.00$ 465.00 $
20‐053 Complex Building Actual Cost Actual Cost
20‐054 3‐10 units ‐$ 232.00$
20‐055 11‐20 units ‐$ 349.00$
20‐056 20+ units ‐$ 465.00$
20‐057 High Rise 782.00$ 813.00 $
20‐059
Review, inspect, and issue a permit for an event that will have one or more operational permits as defined by the Califrnia Fire Code, Section 105.6
Minor Event 279.00$ 290.00 $
20‐060
Review, inspect and issue a permit for an event that consumes the time and resources of the fire department, based on the judgement of the Fire Marshal
Major Event 476.00$ 560.00 $
Animal Relinquishment
Inspection of a home and re‐checks when an animal is required to be quarantined.
FIRE
Fire Code Annual Permits /
State Mandated Fire
Inspections
Review, inspect and issue an annual permit based on the business operation as defined by the California Fire Code, Section 105.6, and occupancy classifications as determined by the California State Fire Marshal
Operational & State Mandated
Multi‐Family Dwelling Units
20‐058
Issue a fire code permit for a soundstage involving a major review and inspection. (Per Soundstage)
[Current fees collected by agreement. ]
Soundstage 6,667.00$ 6,667.00 $
Fire, Temporary Permit
NOTE: ALL OTHER FEES NOT DEFINED IN THIS TABLE ARE BASE D ON FULLY BURDENED RATES AND ARE EXECUTED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CITY MANAGER CITYWIDE USER FEE SCHEDULE (NON ‐ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RELATED) ‐ ADOPTED FEBRUARY 18, 2020 FIRE Category Description Additional Information Current Fee
ADOPTED FEE
EFFECTIVE
MARCH 18, 2020
20‐061
Review, inspect and issue a permit for an individual operation under the California Fire Code, Section 105.6 with specific start and end times
One Time Permit 279.00$ 290.00 $
20‐062
A temporary permit may require a Fire Safety Officer to stand by during the course of the permit, as determined by the Fire Marshal.
Staffing by the Fire Department for a major event
City Staff support Costs at Fully
Burdened Rate/hour Actual Cost Actual Cost
20‐064 0‐2,000 SF 276.00$ 220.00 $
20‐065 2,000‐10,000 SF 404.00$ 335.00 $ 20‐066 10,000+ SF 828.00$ 451.00 $
20‐067 Complex Building Actual Cost Actual Cost
20‐068 Plan Check 164.00$ 482.00 $
20‐069 Inspection 220.00$ 307.00 $
20‐070 Plan Check 288.00$ 482.00 $
20‐071 1‐50 heads 276.00$ 365.00 $
20‐072 51‐100 heads 499.00$ 597.00 $
20‐073 101+ heads 723.00$ 829.00 $
20‐074 Plan Check 220.00$ 482.00 $
20‐075 0‐2,000 SF 220.00$ 307.00 $
20‐076 2,000‐10,000 SF 332.00$ 423.00 $ 20‐077 10,000+ SF 555.00$ 655.00 $
Fire Annual Business
Inspection
Providing an annual fire and life safety inspection of a business with the City.
**No Charge for first two inspections
20‐063 Fire Re‐Inspection
Reinspection of an Annual Business Inspection or Temporary Permit **Per hour
**No charge for first two inspections.
223.00$ 232.00 $
Fire Residential Sprinkler Review a plan and inspect a residential fire sprinkler system for conformity with fire code requirements.
Fire Commercial Sprinkler Review a plan and inspect a commercial fire sprinkler system for conformity with fire code requirements.
Inspection:
Fire Alarm System Review a plan and inspect a fire alarm system for conformity with fire code requirements.
Inspection:
Fire, Temporary Permit
NOTE: ALL OTHER FEES NOT DEFINED IN THIS TABLE ARE BASE D ON FULLY BURDENED RATES AND ARE EXECUTED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CITY MANAGER CITYWIDE USER FEE SCHEDULE (NON ‐ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RELATED) ‐ ADOPTED FEBRUARY 18, 2020 FIRE Category Description Additional Information Current Fee
ADOPTED FEE
EFFECTIVE
MARCH 18, 2020
20‐078 Plan Check 276.00$ 504.00 $
20‐079 Inspection 443.00$ 539.00 $
20‐080 Fire Solar System ‐ Variance
Review
Review of solar system for variance from fire code. Variance may not be granted. Cost applies regardless of outcome Per review request ‐$ 140.00$ 20‐081 Fire Expedited Review Request to process plan check in an expedited manner (includes 2 rechecks). Per request ‐$ 687.00$ 20‐082 Fire Revision Revision after a permit has been issued. Revision ‐ per revisio n Actual Cost Actual Cost 20‐083 Ambulance transport with advanced life support.
[Per Resolution 6262] ALS
20‐084 Ambulance transport with basic life support.
[Per Resolution 6262]
BLS (Service provided by McCormick
Ambulance)
ADMINISTRATIVE
20‐319
Assist residents with the daily rental of barricades without and with flasher, 8ft. In length, delineators, 18 inch cones and temporary no parking cardboard signs for block parties. This permit includes two 8' Street Closure Barricades.
Block Party Package 26.00$ 36.00 $
20‐320 Assist residents with the daily rental of delineators, 18 inch cones and temporary no parking cardboard signs for moving purposes. Moving Package ‐ Standard 30.00$ 40.00 $ Fire Protection System
Review a plan and inspect a fire protection system for conformity with fire code requirements, including items such as Hood / Suppression, Medical Gas System, Underground Fire Service Line, Underground Storage Tank, Above Ground Storage Tank, Private Fire Hydrant, etc.
Ambulance Transport
Current LA County Rate
Current LA County Rate
Barricade Rental
PUBLIC WORKS FEES
NOTE: ALL OTHER FEES NOT DEFINED IN THIS TABLE ARE BASE D ON FULLY BURDENED RATES AND ARE EXECUTED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CITY MANAGER CITYWIDE USER FEE SCHEDULE (NON ‐ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RELATED) ‐ ADOPTED FEBRUARY 18, 2020 FIRE Category Description Additional Information Current Fee
ADOPTED FEE
EFFECTIVE
MARCH 18, 2020
20‐321 Barricade Rental (Cont.,) *Includes the price of the delineators and signs. Moving Package ‐ Deluxe 45.00$ 51.00 $ CIVIL ENGINEERING
20‐322 Final Tract Map Review
Reviewing the final tract map to determine extent to which it complies with appropriate code requirements.
**Map Copy Deposit of $500
Application 748.00$ 852.00 $
20‐323 Review a request for a new or relocated utility pole. Standard 2,091.00$ 2,397.00 $ 20‐324 Review a request for a new or relocated utility pole requiring PPIC review. PPIC Review 2,614.00$ 3,001.00 $
20‐325 Simple Projects (Under $100k) ‐$ 60.00$ 20‐326 Moderately Complex Projects ($100k‐
$500k) ‐$ 81.00$
20‐327 Complex Projects (Greater than $500k) ‐$ 100.00$ TREES
20‐328 Dead / Dying Tree 322.00$ 100.00 $ 20‐329 Removal / Replacement 481.00$ 100.00 $ 20‐330 Protection 352.00$ 100.00 $
20‐331 Removal in Public Right‐of‐Way 210.00$ 100.00 $ 20‐332 Private Property 65.00$ 83.00 $ 20‐333 In Public ROW 65.00$ 138.00 $
UTILITIES
20‐334 Commercial SUSMP Review 776.00$ 846.00 $ 20‐335 Installation 97.00$ 241.00 $
20‐336 Move 77.00$ 145.00 $
Review of a commercial stormwater mitigation plan for compliance with national and local stormwater standards.
Temporary Water Meter
Rental
Install or move a temporary 3" fire hydrant meter at a construction site. **Meter deposit of $1,500 required.
New / Relocate Utility Pole
Online Bid and Proposal
Service Fee for Capital Projects
and (Public Construction)
Service fee associated with setting up, loading digital plans, specifications and other bidding documents on‐line to facilitate bid submittal online by contractors.
Tree Permit ‐ Private Property Remove, replace, or protect a tree on private property under the terms of the Tree Ordinance.
Tree Trimming Permit Review and inspect tree trimming request.
NOTE: ALL OTHER FEES NOT DEFINED IN THIS TABLE ARE BASE D ON FULLY BURDENED RATES AND ARE EXECUTED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CITY MANAGER CITYWIDE USER FEE SCHEDULE (NON ‐ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RELATED) ‐ ADOPTED FEBRUARY 18, 2020 FIRE Category Description Additional Information Current Fee
ADOPTED FEE
EFFECTIVE
MARCH 18, 2020
20‐337 Field or bench calibration of a water meter upon a request by a resident or business. 5/8' ‐ 1" meter 250.00$ 355.00 $ 20‐338 **Charges are refundable if meter is running fast. 1.5"+ meter 327.00$ 433.00 $ 20‐339
Turning on water service after water service has been turned off to a residence or business for contractor to work on water system or for non‐payment of water bill.
**$15 collection for payment in the field.
Monday ‐ Thursday
8:00 am ‐ 4:30 pm 47.00
$
154.00$
20‐340 ***5% Penalty on unpaid water bills (per Resolution 5726). After hours, weekends, or holidays 218.00$ 369.00$ 20‐341 Installation of new water meter upon request 3/4" ‐ 1" meter 71.00$
96.00$
20‐342 **Ma
terial costs not included 1" ‐ 2" meter 122.00$ 164.00$ 20‐343 Greater than 2" meter Actual Cost Actual Cost
20‐344 Initial Inspection 200.00$ 193.00$ 20‐345 Follow‐up Inspection 109.00$ 139.00$ 20‐346
Clean Bay Restaurant
Inspection for Stormwater
Permit Compliance
204.00$ 221.00$
20‐347 Waste Management Plan 252.00$ 280.00$ Review & processing of the plan and weight tickets for any demolition or remodel over $100,000 in value for its waste management impact.
Water Meter Test
Water Service Turn‐On
Water Meter Installation
Inspection
F.O.G. & Clean Bay Restaurant
Inspections
Annual inspection of kitchen equipment/fixtures and Best Management Practices for compliance with stormwater and wastewater regulation compliance.
Annual inspection of kitchen equipment / fixtures and best management practices for compliance with stormwater regulation compliance.
**Plus additional County Fees
NOTE: ALL OTHER FEES NOT DEFINED IN THIS TABLE ARE BASE D ON FULLY BURDENED RATES AND ARE EXECUTED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CITY MANAGER Other Fees
Variable Rate Service
Category Current
Deposit New Deposit
Est.
Annual
Volume
Development Agreement $6,000 $20,000 * 1
Specific Plan $6,000 $20,000 * 1
Specific Plan Amendment $10,000 $20,000 * 0
General Plan Amendment $10,000 $20,000 * 1
Zoning Text Amendment $10,000 $20,000 * 0
Zoning Map Amendment $10,000 $20,000 * 1
Environmental Impact
Report Review $10,000 $20,000 * 1
Neighborhood Overlay
District $10,000 $20,000 * 0
Street Name Processing Processing a request to name a street. Minimum Deposit - Actual Cost $1,490 $5,000 * 0 Actual cost of providing the service
includes time and material (fully burdened
rates).
Review a request to change the regulations established by zoning maps. Minimum Deposit - Actual Cost Actual cost of providing the service
includes time and material (fully burdened
rates).
Review of an Environmental Impact Report of a proposed development. Minimum Deposit - Actual Cost Actual cost of providing the service
includes time and material (fully burdened
rates).
Review an application for new development standards for a specific neighborhood at the request of all the property owners in the affected area. Minimum Deposit - Actual Cost Actual cost of providing the service
includes time and material (fully burdened
rates).
Reviewing an application and making recommendations regarding proposed amendments to a specific plan for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council. Minimum Deposit - Actual Cost Actual cost of providing the service
includes time and material (fully burdened
rates).
Reviewing an application and making recommendations regarding proposed amendments to the City's comprehensive general plan to the Planning Commission and City Council. Minimum Deposit - Actual Cost
Actual cost of providing the service
includes time and material (fully burdened
rates).
Review an application to amend the text of the municipal code involving zoning. Minimum Deposit Actual cost of providing the service
includes time and material (fully burdened
rates).
PLANNING
Review an application for a development agreement to determine special conditions on a project and provide for future improvements with City Council approval. Minimum Deposit - Actual Cost Actual cost of providing the service
includes time and material (fully burdened
rates).
Review an application for a specific plan, and make comments and revisions as necessary for a development project. Minimum Deposit - Actual Cost
Actual cost of providing the service
includes time and material (fully burdened
rates).
VARIABLE RATE SERVICE
Description Source
* Note: This proposed deposit is the minimum amount and may be increased pursuant to an agreement approved by the City Manager or City Attorney Proposed 2015 User Fees OTHER FEES 22 of 24
Page | D-1 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Table of Contents
1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 3 2 Regional Analysis of Impediments ........................................................................................................ 4 3 Housing Element Outreach ................................................................................................................... 4 4 Assessment of Fair Housing .................................................................................................................. 5
4.1 Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach ..................................................................................... 5
4.1.1 Findings, Lawsuits, Enforcement Actions, Settlements, or Judgments Related to Fair Housing or Civil Rights .......................................................................................................................... 5
4.1.2 Compliance with Fair Housing Laws ...................................................................................... 6
4.1.3 Other Resources .................................................................................................................... 6
4.2 Segregation and Integration ......................................................................................................... 7
4.2.1 City Boundary and Geography .............................................................................................. 7
4.2.2 Race and Ethnicity ................................................................................................................. 9
4.2.3 Household Income .............................................................................................................. 16
4.2.4 Familial Status ..................................................................................................................... 21
4.2.5 Persons with Disabilities ..................................................................................................... 27
4.2.6 Neighborhood Segregation ................................................................................................. 29
4.3 Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty ................................................................. 31
4.4 Racial Concentrations in Areas of Affluence ............................................................................... 33
4.5 Patterns Over Time ..................................................................................................................... 36
4.5.1 Mortgage Loan Access ........................................................................................................ 36
4.5.2 Demographic Trends ........................................................................................................... 40
4.5.3 Poverty ................................................................................................................................ 43
4.6 Access to Opportunity ................................................................................................................. 46
4.6.1 Education ............................................................................................................................ 48
4.6.2 Economic ............................................................................................................................. 50
4.6.3 Transportation .................................................................................................................... 54
4.6.4 Environment ........................................................................................................................ 57
4.6.5 Persons with Disabilities ..................................................................................................... 61
4.7 Disproportionate Housing Needs and Displacement Risk .......................................................... 62
4.7.1 Substandard Housing .......................................................................................................... 63
4.7.2 Overcrowding ...................................................................................................................... 65
4.7.3 Housing Affordability .......................................................................................................... 68
4.7.4 Displacement ...................................................................................................................... 74
4.7.5 Homelessness ...................................................................................................................... 77
4.8 Summary of Fair Housing Issues ................................................................................................. 77 5 Sites Inventory .................................................................................................................................... 78 6 Identification and Prioritization of Contributing Factors .................................................................... 79
6.1 Prioritization of Contributing Factors and Actions Designed to Meaningfully Address Contributing Factors ............................................................................................................................... 79
Page | D-2 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Figures
Figure 1. City Map ......................................................................................................................................... 8 Figure 2. City Majority Race (2018) ............................................................................................................. 11 Figure 3. City Racial Demographics (2018) ................................................................................................. 12 Figure 4. City Racial Demographics (2010) ................................................................................................. 13 Figure 5. Regional Racial Demographics ..................................................................................................... 14 Figure 6. Diversity Index .............................................................................................................................. 15 Figure 7. City Median Income (2015-2019) ................................................................................................ 18 Figure 8. City Median Income (2010-2014) ................................................................................................ 19 Figure 9. Regional Median Income ............................................................................................................. 20 Figure 10. Population Living Alone ............................................................................................................. 23 Figure 11. Population Living with a Spouse ................................................................................................ 24 Figure 12. Children in Married-Couple Households .................................................................................... 25 Figure 13. Children in Single-Headed Households ...................................................................................... 26 Figure 14. Population with a Disability ....................................................................................................... 28 Figure 15. Neighborhood Segregation ........................................................................................................ 30 Figure 16. Regional R/ECAPs and High Segregation and Poverty ............................................................... 32 Figure 17. Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence .................................................................................. 34 Figure 18. Regional Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence ................................................................... 35 Figure 19. 1930s Home Owners’ Loan Corporation Map ........................................................................... 38 Figure 20. Predominant Population – White Majority Tracts ..................................................................... 39 Figure 21. Diversity Index (2010) ................................................................................................................ 41 Figure 22. Diversity Index (2018) ................................................................................................................ 42 Figure 23. Poverty Status (2010-2014) ....................................................................................................... 44 Figure 24. Poverty Status (2015-2019) ....................................................................................................... 45 Figure 25. Opportunity Map ....................................................................................................................... 47 Figure 26. Access to Education ................................................................................................................... 49 Figure 27. Economic Opportunity ............................................................................................................... 52 Figure 28. Jobs Proximity ............................................................................................................................ 53 Figure 29. Access to Transportation ........................................................................................................... 55 Figure 30. Regional Access to Transportation ............................................................................................ 56 Figure 31. Opportunity for Environment .................................................................................................... 59 Figure 32. CalEnviroScreen 3.0 ................................................................................................................... 60 Figure 33. Substandard Housing ................................................................................................................. 64 Figure 34. Overcrowding ............................................................................................................................. 66 Figure 35. Severe Overcrowding ................................................................................................................. 67 Figure 36. Homeowner Cost Burden (2015-2019) ...................................................................................... 70 Figure 37. Homeowner Cost Burden (2010-2014) ...................................................................................... 71 Figure 38. Renter Cost Burden (2015-2019) ............................................................................................... 72 Figure 39. Renter Cost Burden (2010-2014) ............................................................................................... 73 Figure 40. Displacement Map ..................................................................................................................... 75 Figure 41. Displacement Typology .............................................................................................................. 76
Page | D-3 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing 1 Introduction
Fair housing occurs when individuals of similar income levels in the same housing market have the same range of housing choice available to them regardless of their characteristics as protected under local, State, and Federal laws. Fair housing choice occurs when citizens pursuing housing options are free from discrimination on the basis of race/ethnicity, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability—hereinafter referred to as “protected characteristics”—by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, California Government Code Section 65008, and other State and Federal fair housing and planning laws. In 2018, Assembly Bill 686, Housing Discrimination: Affirmatively Further Fair Housing, amended Sections 65583 and 65582.2 of the California Government Code to require a public agency to administer its programs and activities relating to housing and community development in a manner to affirmatively further fair housing.
From freeway expansion to discriminatory housing loan practices, historically underserved communities across the nation have experienced decades of housing disinvestment and infrastructure underinvestment, leaving many communities with higher rates of air pollution, poverty, unemployment, educational attainment, and health risks. 1 State and Federal laws, such as the Fair Housing Act, have established pathways for local jurisdictions to create more diverse and equitable communities, but reversing decades of discriminatory policies at all levels of the public and private sectors is complex, and many challenges to equitable development remain. The General Plan Housing Element must affirmatively further fair housing by first identifying segregated living patterns and barriers to fair housing, then identifying potential sites for affordable housing in areas of opportunity and implementing programs that aim to replace segregated living patterns and transform racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty. Ensuring that sites for housing, parti cularly units available for lower -income households, are located in high -resource areas, rather than concentrated in areas of high segregation and poverty, requires jurisdictions to plan for housing with regards to the accessibility of various opportunitie s, including jobs, transportation, good education, and health services.
This appendix serves as an assessment of fair housing practices pursuant to California Government Code Section 65583(c)(10) in the City of Manhattan Beach (City). Housing Elements are required to include the following:
• A summary of fair housing issues in the jurisdiction and an assessment of the jurisdiction’s fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity.
• An analysis of available Federal, Sta te, and local data and knowledge to identify integration and segregation patterns and trends; racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty ; disparities in access to opportunity ; and disproportionate housing needs within the jurisdiction, including displacement risk.
• An assessment of the factors that contribute to the fair housing issues identified in the analysis.
1 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, April 2021. California Department of Housing and Community Development.
Page | D-4 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing • An identification of the jurisdic tion’s fair housing priorities and goals, giving highest priority to the greatest contributing factors that limit or deny fair housing choice or access to opportunity, or negatively impact fair housing or civil rights compliance. • Measurable strategies and actions to implement the fair housing priorities and goals in the form of programs to affirmatively further fair housing. 2 Regional Analysis of Impediments
The City is committed to affirmatively furthering fair housing choice and promoting equal housing opportunity in accordance with the requirements of Federal and State fair housing law. To achieve this, the City participates in the regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice for the Community Development Commission and the Housing Authority of the County of Los Angeles (HACoLA ) and works to remove these impediments. The Analysis of Impediments identifies impediments to fair housing choice, contributing factors, and goals for overcoming the barriers that have been identified as contributing to fair housing issues pertaining specifically to the “Urban County” and the areas served by the HACoLA (“service area”).2 These impediments are in relation to the following fair housing issues:
• Segregation and integration
• Racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty
• Disparities in access to opportunity
• Disproportionate housing needs
• Discrimination or violations of civil rights laws or regulations related to housing Relevant portions of the regional Analysis of Impediments have been incorporated into th is assessment of fair housing for the City’s General Plan Housing Ele ment to complement the analysis and identify contributing factors, strategies, and actions, where applicable. 3 Housing Element Outreach
The City has been able to enhance the types and levels of community engagement due to s ignificant strides in technology in recent years. Past engagement may have had fewer forms of media, meaning that public meetings were the primary media, with surveys and stakeholder interviews and other types of engagement taking a secondary role. Public meetings may have occurred during only one specific time and offered in a language not understood by a significant portion of the community , resulting in people unable to attend and/or participate. Virtual meetings could also be inaccessible if individuals did not have reliable internet.
Engagement related to the Housing Element has attempted to be comprehensive while in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Community engagement and outreach has been solely done in English, because the majority of the population (98 percent per 2019 Census data) comes from an English -only-speaking household or speak English “very well.” Opportunities for public participation are typically advertised in
2 http://web.mit.edu/afs/athena.mit.edu/org/f/fairhousing/plans/CA_LACounty_AI_volume-i.pdf.
Page | D-5 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing two local newspapers that are popular and well-read, in addition to advertising the events on the City’s social media platforms and City website. Please refer to Appendix F, Community Engagement Summary, for a full summary of outreach materials and outreach conducted as part of the Housing Element update. 4 Assessment of Fair Housing
4.1 Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach
This section provides information on the organizations that provide fair housing services to providers and consumers of housing, as well as the nature and extent of fair housing complaints received by the fair housing provider within the service area.
Fair housing services available in the service area include outreach and education, complaint intake, and testing and enforcement activities. Organizations that provide fair housing services include the following:
• U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) • California Department of Fair Employment and Housing
• Housing Rights Center (HRC)
• Housing Authority of the County of Los Angeles (HACoLA) • Fair Housing Council of Orange County
The City contracts with the HRC for fair housing and mediation services , and provides fair housing information and referrals upon request . The HRC, which primarily operates in Los Angeles County, receives multi-year grants from HUD to conduct testing in areas where statistics point to discrimination, specifically, persistent housing discrimination based on race, national original, familial status, and disability. The organization also provides resolution for housing discrimination, including mediation and litigation services. HACoLA provides online resources on its website, such as links to various organizations, including HUD, HRC, and advocacy groups, as well as relevant policy documents.
For the region Los Angeles –Long Beach–Anaheim, the Fair Housing Council of Orange County provides similar services to HACoLA’s , and additionally provides low -cost advocacy, mediation, individual counseling, and comprehensive community education.
4.1.1 Findings, Lawsuits, Enforcement Actions, Settlements, or Judgments Related to Fair Housing or Civil Rights
Data collected from 2008 through 2016 shows that the most common basis for complaints in the service area were for disability, familial status, and race , according to the Regional Analysis of Impediments. Of the 2,610 complaints logged from 2008 to 2016, 57 percent were determined to have no cause and 21.6 percent were deemed successfully settled. In recent history, the City has not been involved in any lawsuits related to fair housing, and the City has no ongoing litigation in terms of housing rights or civil rights violations. According to HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, from 2013 through 2021, there were seven inquiries in the City. Of the seven inquiries, two were related to familial status and five
Page | D-6 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing were documented as “none.” The inquiries filed were determined have “no valid basis ” or “failure to respond.”
The HRC provides the City with quarterly reports of direct services, discrimination inquiries and cases, tenant and rental-owner services, and demographics reporting for the fiscal year (July through June). An average of 12 persons were provided services related to general housing and discrimination from the July 2014 to June 2015 fiscal year through the July 2020 to June 2021 fiscal year. Over the last seven fiscal years, the median number of discrimination cases reported was one. Tenant and rental-owner services provided in the City over the last 7 years were related to late fees, lease terms, substandard housing conditions,3 security deposits, and other issues. Approximately 78 percent of callers or person s seeking services from the HRC were in -place tenants , and 15 percent were rental owners or management companies. Similar to cases reported in the Regional Analysis of Impediments , the most common complaint in the City was for issues related to accommodations for people with physical and mental disabilities. The City has been successful in addressing general housing and discrimination issues , as 56 percent of reported inquiries were resolved; 20 percent were addressed through mediation and legal aid provided by the HRC; and other cases related to substandard housing conditions were addressed by the City’s Building and Safety and Code Enforcement Departments, and the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Health.
4.1.2 Compliance with Fair Housing Laws
The City is compliant with State fair housing laws , and administers programs and activities relating to housing and community development in a manner to affirmatively further fair housing , including the State’s Density Bonus Law (California Government Code Sections 65915–65918), Housing Element laws, the definition of family, the California Employee Housing Act, and Reasonable Accommodation Procedures. Local fair housing law implemented by the City includes procedures and standards set forth under Section 10.88.070 of the Manhattan Beach Municipal Code for the conversion of existing multifamily rental housing to condominiums. Such conversions may significantly affect the balance between rental and ownership housing within the City, such as reducing the variety of individual choices of tenure, type, price, and location of housing; increas ing overall rents; decreas ing the supply of rental housing for all income groups; and displacing individuals and families . As such, the City sets forth requirements, including tenant notification, notification of a right to purchase, tenant purchase discounts, and relocation expenses. Special provision is also made for lifetime leases for non-purchasing older adult tenants or tenants with a medical disability. In addi tion, low- and moderate-income tenants and those with children are provided with an extended relocation period. In evaluating requests for condominium conversions, the City’s Planning Commission must consider the impact of tenant displacement, with emphasis on existing low- and moderate-income tenants.
4.1.3 Other Resources
The following resources are available to the City’s residents:
3 “Substandard housing” problems/conditions as defined by the U.S. Census include households without hot and cold piped water, a flush toilet, and/or a bathtub or shower, and/or households with kitchen facilities that lack a sink with piped water, a range or stove, or a refrigerator.
Page | D-7 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Stay Housed LA County: The COVID-19 pandemic has cost people their jobs and livelihoods. This has left an estimated one-third of households in Los Angeles County unable to make rent and facing losing their homes. In response, Stay Housed LA County is a tenant assistance program that provides free legal services to tenants facing eviction during the COVID-19 public health crisis.
CA COVID-19 Rent Relief – Housing Is Key: This program helps income-eligible households pay rent and utilities for past-due and future payments. The Federal Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 provides funding to support the program and tenant (renter) protection laws signed by Governor Newsom.
Los Angeles County Mortgage Relief Program : This County of Los Angeles (County) program includes a relief fund that provides grants of up to $20,000 for qualified property owners, plus expanded foreclosure prevention counseling services.
Housing Rights Center: Housing counselors are available to answer questions about tenant/rental-owner rights and obligations, includi ng topics like security deposits, evictions, repairs, rent increases, harassment, and more. Conversations with housing counselors are confidential, and can help residents find the resources they need.
4.2 Segregation and Integration
Patterns of segregation have been commonly linked to poorer life outcomes related to income, housing equity, educational attainment, and life expectancy, according to research from the University of California, Berkeley (UC Berkeley) .4 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housi ng (AFFH) involves overcoming patterns of segregation t o foster inclusive communities. This section will analyze segregation and integration patterns in the City relating to race and ethnicity, household income, familial status, persons with disabilities, and neighborhood segreg ation using the AFFH Data and Mapping Resources from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).
4.2.1 City Boundary and Geography
The City is located within the southwestern coastal portion of Los Angeles County in what is commonly referred to locally as the “South Bay” area. The City is generally bound by Rosecrans Avenue to the north, Aviation Boulevard to the east, Artesia Boulev ard to south, and the Pacific Ocean to the west . Abutting cities are the City of El Segundo to the north, City of Hawthorne and portions of the City of Redondo Beach to the east, and portions of City of Redondo Beach and City of Hermosa Beach to the south. Figure 1, City Map, provides an overview of the City’s planning areas that reflect the City’s unique and varied environment. For a description of the distinct planning areas, refer to Appendix B, Needs Assessment.
Major thoroughfares running east/west in the City include Rosecrans Avenue, Marine Avenue, Manhattan Beach Boulevard—which also serves as a dividing street between the City’s northern and southern areas— and Artesia Boulevard. Major thoroughfares running north /south in the City include Highland Av enue, Sepulveda Boulevard —which also serves as a dividing street between the City’s eastern and western areas—and Aviation Boulevard.
4 Menedian, S., and S. Gambhir. 2018. “Racial Segregation in the San Francisco Bay Area.” Othering & Belonging Institute, UC Berkeley. https://belonging.berkeley.edu/study-finds-strong-correlations-between-segregation-and-life-outcomes-sf-bay-area.
Page | D-8 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Figure 1. City Map
Page | D-9 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
4.2.2 Race and Ethnicity
The population within the City is primarily White . Approximately 73 percent of City residents are non - Hispanic White. The percentage of Hispanic people residing in the City is 8 percent. The Asian population, at 13 percent, represents the largest non-Hispanic minority.
Figure 2, City Majority Race (2018), shows that all of the tracts in the City are populated by a majority of White persons with a “Predominant” gap of greater than 50 percent . There are no other races or ethnicities that form a majority in the City which is reflective of the aforementioned population make up., To further analyze race/ethnicity population trends, Figure 3, City Racial Demographics (2018), shows the percent of the total non -White population by Census block group. Census block groups east of Pacific Avenue make up 21 percent to 40 percent of the total non-White population in the City. Block groups west of Pacific Avenue make up a non-White population of less than or equal to 20 percent. One block group in the southeast corner of the City, along Artesia Boulevard, makes up a higher percentage of non- White population (41 percent to 60 percent). While the tract indicates a predominant White majority, analysis at the block group level in this area indicates that the Asian population is represents the second largest racial group living in this area. When comparing the median income in this block group to the City’s median income, there were no significant changes with the block group median income at $130,000 which is in line with the City’s median income at $153,023. This area is made up of 65 percent of owner-occupied households. Comparison of tenure by race revealed that while 66 percent of White households were owner occupied, 100 percent of Asian households own a home in this block group. Therefore, there are no other indicators such as income constraints, quality of housing, or other socioeconomic demographics that would indicate a fair housing issue as it relates to the population of Asian persons living in this area of the City.
Figure 4, City Racial Demographics (2010), which illustrates the percent of the total non-White population by Census block group in 2010, patterns over time show that the non -White population of the City increased significantly by 2018. In 2010, more than half of the Census block in the City made up less than 20 percent of the total non -White population in the City and by 2018 block groups in the eastern and southeastern part of the City make up 21 percent to 40 percent of the total non-White population in the City. This shows pattern s over time where previously majority -White neighborhoods are becoming increasingly non-White. At a regional scale, including the South Bay and some Gateway Cities5 areas, the City is among the areas with the lower population of non-White persons, as shown in Figure 5, Regional Racial Demographics . This may indicate a regional influence on the City in regard to changing demographics.
Generally, the average racial composition and number of people of different races or ethnicities in neighborhoods differs depending on location. To further examine this, this assessment relies on a calculation of the diversity index, which summarizes racial and ethnic diversity. The diversity index shows the likelihood that two persons, chosen at random from the same area, belong to different race or ethnic groups. Diversity index data is available at the block group level and ranges from 0 (no diversity) to 100
5 “Gateway Cities” locally refers to a crescent of land along the southeast edge of Los Angeles County, bordering nearby Orange County, that encompasses 27 cities, including Compton, Long Beach, South Gate, and Lynwood. For a full list of cities, see Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation at https://laedc.org/wtc/chooselacounty/regions-of-la-county/gateway-cities/.
Page | D-10 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (complete diversity). Figure 6, Diversity Index, indicates that the City has low diversity, and particularly lower diversity on the western side (west of Sepulveda Boulevard), and moderate (40–55, 55–70) diversity index scores east of Sepulveda Boulevard and in the southeast corner of the City. At a regional scale, other South Bay cities east of the City have higher diversity, with block groups scoring a diversity index of greater than 85.
For regional assessments, areas with a shade of light gray indicate no data is available. The area shaded light gray north of the City, outside of City boundaries, in Figures 3 and 5, is the location of the Chevron refinery.
Page | D-11 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Figure 2. City Majority Race (2018)
Page | D-12 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Figure 3. City Racial Demographics (2018)
Page | D-13 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Figure 4. City Racial Demographics (2010)
Page | D-14 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Figure 5. Regional Racial Demographics
Page | D-15 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Figure 6. Diversity Index
Page | D-16 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
4.2.3 Household Income
Discriminatory housing practices of the past , such as redlining, restrictive zoning, urban renewal, and steering, while illegal today, have led to a disproportionate gap in household wealth based on race and ethnicity, especially between Black and White households. 6 Fair housing choice can be impacted by relationships among household income, household type, race/ethnicity , and other factors that create misconceptions, biases, and differential treatments. Because household income is also one of the most important factors for determining a househ old’s ability to balance housing costs with other basic life necessities, this section will analyze median household income and identify any patterns of income and racial segregation at the local and regional levels.
Figure 7, City Median Income (2015-2019), shows the varying median income levels in the City , and indicates that most households have a median income greater tha n the 2020 State median inco me of $87,100. As a point of comparison, t he City’s median household income is $153,023 , and the County median household income is $68,004 . Households with median incomes greater than $125,000 are located throughout the City but make up the majority in the central and southern areas of the City.
Households with a median income of less than $1 25,000 but greater than $87,100 are loca ted in the northern areas of the City . One block group in the northwest corner of the City, near Highland Avenue and 36th Street, indicates a median income of less than $87,100 but greater than $55,000. When compared to the previous five years as shown in Figure 8, City Median Income (2010 -2014), household median income throughout the City has generally been greater than $100,000, indicating little change over time. However, the household median income ha s been decreasing to less than the 2020 State median income in small pockets of neighboring cities.
Local knowledge attributes the geographical location of this area and the housing stock as contributing factors to this pocket of households with a lower median income when compared to the rest of the City.
The area has a high renter population at 53 percent while the City average is 32 percent. This is likely due to the housing stock in this area as it is made up of 48 percent multifamily housing, compared to the City level housing stock at 19 percent multifamily units. As such, this area is more affordable relative to the other areas of the City where more people own their homes and/or rent single family homes. Local knowledge of the area also identifies its location just south of the Los Angeles International Airport which makes this area attractive to younger professionals who work in the aerospace and related industries which are usually younger individuals with a single income. And therefore, have uniq ue shared living situations as many people who are flight attendants or hold similar jobs often sublet or temporary rent units.
A regional comparison of t he median income of $ 78,833 of this area shows that it is greater than the County’s median income by over $7,000 (2020 County median income $71,358). Therefore, while the median income is low, it is only relative to the greater median income groups found in the City. While at a regional level of comparison, the median income is line with median income of households in the County. There are no other race or similar socioeconomic characteristics that have been identified as a contributing factor to a lower median income in this area of the City.
6 https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/reports/2019/08/07/472617/systemic-inequality-displacement-exclusion-segregation/
Page | D-17 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Although there are no major local patterns of income segregation , the City has a high number of moderate- to above moderate-income households when compared to the South Bay and Gateway Cities areas, as shown in Figure 9, Regional Median Income. Figure 9 indicates a clear separation of income groups between the coastal and relative inland cities. East of the City, cities such as Lawndale and Torrance have a mix of incomes and a greater population of lower-income households. At a regional level, there is a spatial trend in some areas that have a high concentration of non-White populations and lower-income households (see Figure 7 and Figure 9).
Page | D-18 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Figure 7. City Median Income (2015-2019)
Page | D-19 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Figure 8. City Median Income (2010-2014)
Page | D-20 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Figure 9. Regional Median Income
Page | D-21 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
4.2.4 Familial Status
Familial structures can impact the care of children, type of housing needed, financial needs, and more.
For example, s ingle-parent households generally require more support for childcare than married or cohabitating couples, which can impact the jobs available to parents, income levels, and the amount of support afforded to children. Large families also have a special set of obstacles, such as fewer options or access to adequately sized and affordable housing. According to the HCD, past exclusionary zoning policies have led to discriminatory effects on protected characteristics such as race, disability, and familial status.7 Family structure has evolved over time in the United States, with fewer couples marrying and cohabitation occurring more often. Families with children, especially those who are renters, may face discrimination or differential treatment in the housing market. For example, some rental owner s may charge larger households a higher rent or security deposit. And according to a 2016 study by HUD, compared to households without children, households with children were shown slightly fewer units and were commonly told about units that were slightly larger, and as a result, slight ly more expensive to rent. 8 Therefore, this section will analyze patterns or trends of segregation or integration related to familial status at the local and regional levels.
Figure 10, Population Living Alone, indicates that there is a low percentage of the population 18 years and older in households living alone at the tract level. The majority of the City, and region, shows less than 20 percent of the population 18 years and older living alone. There is one tract in the northwest corner of the City known as “El Porto” where approximately 40 percent to 60 percent of the population lives alone.
It can be expected that the population living alone is a lower percentage as the cost of living in the region is unfeasible for many with single incomes. The development history and geography of the El Porto area are two contributing factors identified by local knowledge that explain the higher population of persons 18 years or older living alone. While the City incorporated in 1908, the El Porto area remained part of Los Angeles County unincorporated until approximately 20 years ago (~2002); therefore, development was influenced by development standards set forth by the County and remnants of the County ’s regulations are visible today through the built environment. A range of housing types and units were developed in this area; the housing stock varies and is made up of 71 percent multifamily housing, 3 percent of which includes multifamily housing with 10 or more units, and the remaining 29 percent are single family units.
When compared to the City th e inverse is true where the housing stock is made up of 81 percent single family units, 19 percent multifamily units of which 18 percent of multifamily hous ing have 10 or more units. With relatively affordable housing options, single income, typically, younger individuals are able to afford rent in this area and are less likely able to finance a purchase of a home. This is supported by age and tenure trends in this area as the median age is 34.8 years and over 50 percent of the population are between 22-44 years old and a renter population of 48 percent. The rest of the City houses older age groups and families with age range from 44 to 45 years old and higher median age varying from upwards of 41 years old and has an average renter population of 32 percent.
The geographical location of this area coupled with housing stock characteristics make this area more attractive for young professionals as the area is near the Los Angeles International Airport, and the
7 https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/docs/affh_document_final_4-27-2021.pdf 8 https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/HDSFamiliesFinalReport.pdf
Page | D-22 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing growing technology and aerospace industries established in Playa Vista , El Segundo, and surrounding areas. There is no other income related, race, or similar socioeconomic characteristics that have been identified as a contributing factor to the population living alone in this census tract. While the City is creating opportunities for a range of housing types including affordable housing in other areas of the City through Program 2 and other programs in the Housing Element, the City cannot influence geographical preferences for people who want a short commute to work.
In contrast, Figure 11, Population Living with a Spouse, shows the majority of tracts within the City have approximately 60 percent to 80 percent of its population 18 years and older who live with a spouse. When compared to the region, the City is one of the few cities that have a percent of populat ion 18 years or older living with a spouse that is over 60 percent. Similarly, most coastal cities have a proportion of the population 18 years or older living with a spouse that is 40 percent to 60 percent. However, less than 40 percent of the population of inland and Gateway cities are 18 years and over live with their spouse. Figure 12, Children in Married-Couple Households, and Figure 13, Children in Single-Headed Households, show the percentage of children in married-couple and single-headed households at the tract level. Figure 12 indicates that most of the tracts in the City and coastal cities have high percentages, 60 percent to 80 percent and greater than 80 percent, of children in married -couple households, and cities east of the coastal areas have lower (20 percent to 40 percent) and moderate (40 percent to 60 percent) percentages of children in married-couple households. Figure 13 indicates that the majority of the City has less than or equal to 20 percent of children who live in single-headed households; other coastal cities show a similar trend, and cities to the east indicate low (20 percent to 40 percent) to moderate (40 percent to 60 percent) percentages of children in single-headed households, with pockets of higher percentages (60 percent to 80 percent) in Inglewood and Playa del Rey–Westchester, located north of the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX).
Page | D-23 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Figure 10. Population Living Alone
Page | D-24 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Figure 11. Population Living with a Spouse
Page | D-25 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Figure 12. Children in Married-Couple Households
Page | D-26 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Figure 13. Children in Single-Headed Households
Page | D-27 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
4.2.5 Persons with Disabilities
Persons with disabilities can often experience discrimination in the housing process, or difficulties navigating certain dwelling units or areas. Fair housing choice for persons with disabilities can be compromised based on the nature of a person’s disability. Disability types include individuals with hearing, vision, cognitive, ambulatory, self-care, or independent living difficulties. Persons with physical disabilities may face discrimination in the housing market because of the need for home modification s to improve accessibility or other forms of physical assistance. Persons with developmental disabilities or mental disabilities includes cerebral palsy, epilepsy, autism, and other conditions related to intellectual disability.
Persons with a mental disab ility may also face discrimination in the housing market because of stigma around mental disabilities . For example, rental owners may refuse to rent to tenants with a history of mental illness. Another example of housing discrimination is neighborhood opposition to public or private facilities, which impacts people with developmental disabilities seeking a community residential facility.
According to California Welfare and Institution s Code Section 4900 (e), a “facility” means a public or private facility, program, or service provider providing services, support, care, or treatment to persons with disabilities, even if only on an as -needed basis or under contractual arrangement. This includes a hospital; a long-term health care facility ; a community living arrangement for people with disabilities, including a group home; a board and care home; an individual residence or apartment of a person with a disability where services are provided; a day program; a juvenile detention facility; a homeless shelter; a facility used to house or detain persons for the purpose of civil immigration proceedings ; and a jail or prison, including all general areas, as well as special, mental health, or forensic units.
According to population disability data available through the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, 5 -Year Estimates, 2015–2019, the percent of the population with a disability, including a developmental disability, is less than 10 percent throughout the City , with no specific area of concentration, as seen in Figure 14, Population with a Disability . An analysis of patterns over time for those with a disability shows that the 2010-2014 Census data also reflects less than 10 percent of the City’s population across all tracts of the City has a disability, indicating no change over the 9-year period.
This is a fairly low number compared to the region, where the population with disabilities can be up to 20 percent in inland South Bay and Gateway Cities. According to Appendix B, the most common disability in the City for ages 5 to 17 is cognitive disability, accounting for 1.2 percent of that population. Among the population ages 18 to 64, cognitive disability was also the most common disability, followed by visual disability. In the 65 and o lder age category, the most common disability was independent living at 12.8 percent, followed by a hearing disability at 10 percent, and ambulatory disability at 9.9 percent. Please see Appendix B for disability classifications. At a regional scale, abutting cities also have 10 percent or less of their population with a disability. The City of Torrance and other cities to the east have a higher population, of 10 percent to 20 percent; tracts in Inglewood and Westmont have a relative high population, with a disability at 20 percent to 30 percent.
Page | D-28 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Figure 14. Population with a Disability
Page | D-29 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
4.2.6 Neighborhood Segregation
Typologies in Figure 15, Neighborhood Segregation, identify which racial or ethnic groups have more than 10 percent representation within the given tract. Figure 15 shows that the majority of the City is occupied by an Asian–White population, and areas to the northwest and southwest of the City are occupied by a mostly White population. There are no diverse tracts identified in the region; however, to the east of the City, the map indicates there are various races/ethnicities, such as Black, White, Asian, or Latinx, making up 10 percent or more of the tract’s population . A “3 Group Mix,”9 displayed as a light shade of pink in the figure, indicates that there is a mix of three races/ethnicities, and a “4 Group Mix ,” displayed as a darker shade of pink , indicates there is a mix of four races/ethnicities. The mix of race and ethnicity in these groups may vary from the aforementioned racial/ethnic groups. Although there a re pockets of mixed races, such as Latinx–White, to the south, east, and north of the City, the map also indicates there is a large Black–Latinx community to the east, specifically in the Inglewood and Westmont areas.
9 “Mix” of races indicates there are three or four racial/ethnic groups that have more than 10 percent representation within the given tract.
Page | D-30 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Figure 15. Neighborhood Segregation
Page | D-31 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
4.3 Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty Racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs) are neighborhoods with concentrations of both poverty and singular races or ethnicities. These are generally Census tracts with a majority of non- White residents and a poverty rate of 40 percent-plus, or three times the average tract poverty rate for the County. In addition to highlighting historic discrimination, R/ECAPs also have lower economic opportunity in the present day. In the City, there are no R/ECAPs or areas of high segregation and poverty at the tract level, as determined by California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) opportunity areas mapping analysis of 2021. Figure 16, Regional R/ECAPs and High Segregation and Poverty, shows that R/ECAPs and areas of high segregation and p overty are prevalent east of the City in the Gateway Cities region.
Page | D-32 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Figure 16. Regional R/ECAPs and High Segregation and Poverty
Page | D-33 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
4.4 Racial Concentrations in Areas of Affluence
In contrast to R/ECAPs, racially concentrated areas of affluence (RCAAs) are those areas with higher incomes and concentrations of White residents. These are areas where 80 percent or more of the population is White, and the median household income is $125,000 or more. The RCAA mapping data is not available in the HCD AFFH Data Viewer mapping tool. Therefore, the analysis uses Census data and selected 2019 American Community Survey estimates to identify block groups that meet the RCAA criteria.
As shown in Figure 17, Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence, there are several block groups west of Sepulveda Boulevard that are considered an RCAA. The RCAA in the City is generally bound by Rosecrans Avenue to the north and Duncan Avenue to the south ; the western and eastern boundarie s vary throughout. South of Manhattan Beach Boulevard, the RCAA is generally bound by Pacific Avenue to the east and the Pacific Ocean to the west. North of Manhattan Beach Boulevard and south of Marine Avenue, the RCAA is generally bound by Palm Avenue to the east and N. Valley Drive to the west. North of Marine Avenue and south of Rosecrans Avenue, the RCAA is generally bound by Flournoy Road to the east and Ocean Drive to the west. Local land use decisions that may have contributed to R CAAs includes the lack of regulations that historically allowed for mansionization of homes in the City. Mansionization occurs when large homes replace historically small homes, on consolidated and standard sized lots, appearing out of scale and result in an impression of unrelieved building bulk, screening out light and air and dwarfing existing standard sized buildings in a neighborhood. The consolidation of lots for mansionization has created an inefficient use of land for homes that can only be afforded by affluent households , diminishing capacity in already low-density areas. Program 23, Preserving Housing Capacity, details the City’s efforts to avoid further mansionization.
At a regional scale, some coastal cities, such as Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach, and Palos Verdes Estates, also have block groups that meet the RCAA criteria (see Figure 18, Regional Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence). Areas north of the City, near Beverly Hills and West Hollywood , also have RCAA block groups. The location of households with a median income of $125,000 or more along the California coast can be attributed to high land and building costs, as they are among the highest in the country.10 According to the California Legislature’s Nonpartisan Fiscal and Policy Advisor, Legislative Analyst’s Office , California’s coastal areas are building housing at a rate lower than the demand for housing, which is also contributing to high housing costs. The high cost of living in the City, and along the coast, may indicate why there is a concentration of residents with higher incomes.
10 https://lao.ca.gov/reports/2015/finance/housing-costs/housing-costs.aspx
Page | D-34 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Figure 17. Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence
Page | D-35 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Figure 18. Regional Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence
Page | D-36 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
4.5 Patterns Over Time
4.5.1 Mortgage Loan Access
A key aspect of fair housing choice is equal access to credit for the purchase or improvement of a home.
Lending policies and requirements related to credit history, current credit rating, employment history , and the general character of applicants permit lenders to use a great deal of discretion, and in the process, can deny loans even though the prospective borrower would have been an acceptable risk.
Like many regions throughout the United States, Los Angeles County has a history of excluding non-White people from the housing market through practices such as mortgage redli ning. Mortgage redlining is a mapping exercise practiced in the 1930s by the Federal government’s Home Owners’ Loan Corporation that was used to guide mortgage-lending desirability in residential neighborhoods based on the racial and ethnic demographics of an area’s population. Local real estate developers and appraisers assigned grades of A through D to residential neighborhoods that indicated the following:11 • A (Best): Always upper - or upper -middle-class White neighborhoods that the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation defined as posing minimal risk for banks and other mortgage lenders, as they were “ethnically homogeneous” and had room to be further developed. • B (Still Desirable): Generally, nearly or completely White, U.S.–born neighborhoods that the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation defined as “still desirable” and sound investments for mortgage lenders.
• C (Declining): Areas where the residents were often working class and/or first- or second- generation immigrants from Europe. These areas often lacked utilities and were characterized by older building stock.
• D (Hazardous): These areas often received this grade because they were “infiltrated” with “undesirable populations ,” such as Jewish, Asian, Mexican, and Black families. These areas were more likely to be close to industrial areas and to have older housing.
Mortgage redlining made it difficult for people of color to access loans for homeownership because banks refused to lend to areas with the lowest grade. According to Home Owners’ Loan Corporation maps from the 1930s , the western portion of the City was considered to be “Declining” with a C grade , and the southern and eastern boundaries were identified as “Hazardous,” or D grade (see Figure 19, 1930s Home Owners’ Loan Corporation Map). Studies link parts of cities historically labeled as Declining or Hazardous to have lower rates of economic mobility t han those labeled as Best or Still Desirable. 12 However, this relationship is not applicable in the City because it has high access to opportunity (see Section 4.6, Access to Opportunity ). Furthermore, present-day median home values in the City are relatively high , at $2,923,949, according to the Zillow Home Value Index from August 2021 . The median home value has increased 12.3 percent since the previous year (2020). While Figure 19 shows that the area may have once been more diverse especially in those areas with a grade of D , today, there is a high concentration of White persons as shown in Figure 20, Predominant Population - White Majority Tracts. The exclusion of
11 https://dsl.richmond.edu/panorama/redlining/#loc=5/36.457/-88.242&adview=full&text=intro 12 https://www.upforgrowth.org/news/legacy-redlining-lives-today-through-exclusionary-zoning
Page | D-37 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing access to home mortgages may have left many households displaced by households that had access to funds for homeownership without the need for loans, which could explain the majority of the White population in all tracts across the City . Additionally, when compared across the region, those tracts in cities along the coast have higher concentrations of White populations. Coastal communities are often more desirable and housing prices tend to be higher. The City also has a large percentage of households with moderate- and above moderate-incomes, relatively higher than most areas in the region (see Figure 9), and parts of the City are considered to be an RCAA, as identified in Figures 17 and 18.
Page | D-38 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Figure 19. 1930s Home Owners’ Loan Corporation Map
Page | D-39 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Figure 20. Predominant Population – White Majority Tracts
Page | D-40 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
4.5.2 Demographic Trends
According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey 2019 data, the total population in the City is 35,058, which has remained stable, but with a slight decrease by about 0.22 percent from 2010 to 2021. Los Angeles County, in comparison, has grown 2.3 percent from 2010 to 2021. The racial and ethnic composition of the City differs from the County in that a lowe r proportion of City residents are Hispanic/Latino or other racial minorities. Approximately 73 percent of City residents are non -Hispanic White, contrasted with 26 percent for the County as a whole. The percentage of Hispanics residing in the City, at 8 percent, is significantly lower than that of the County, with 48 percent Hispanic/Latinx. Asians, at 13 percent, represent the largest non-Hispanic minority in the City. Appendix B provides additional data and analysis of the demographic patterns within the City.
Figure 21, Diversity Index (2010) , shows the diversity index of the City by Census block group in 2010.
Block groups east of Sepulveda Boulevard have a diversity index of 40 to 55, and an area to the southeast has a higher index of 55 to 70. Block groups west of Sepulveda Boulevard have the lowest diversity. In 2018, as shown in Figure 22, Diversity Index (2018) , diversity in the City increased. Specifically, along Rosecrans Avenue where the diversity index is now 40 to 55 and in the southeast where it is 55 to 70 between Artesia Boulevard and 8th Street. As evident by data and maps discussed in Section 4.2.2, Race and Ethnicity , patterns over time indicate that the population of cities east of Manhattan Beach are becoming increasingly diverse and non-White. At the City scale, this can clearly be seen at the fringes of the eastern borders of the City. It can be expected that this pattern of increased diversity will continue over time.
Page | D-41 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Figure 21. Diversity Index (2010)
Page | D-42 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Figure 22. Diversity Index (2018)
Page | D-43 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
4.5.3 Poverty
Figure 23, Poverty Status (2010-2014), provides the poverty status as a percent of total population in the City by Census tract. Poverty accounts for less than 10 percent of the City and surrounding areas, with the exception of a tract in the northwest of the City near Highland Avenue which is 10 percent to 20 percent of the total population. According to the most recent ACS Census d ata as shown in Figure 24, Poverty Status (2015-2019), all tracts within the City have less than 10 percent of the total population with poverty status, indicating that poverty is not a primary concern for the City. Across the ten-year span, it can be assumed that the poverty status in the City will remain stable over time. Poverty trends are similar across coastal cities in the region where poverty increases further east. Income at the regional scale is further detailed in Section 4.2.3.
Page | D-44 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Figure 23. Poverty Status (2010-2014)
Page | D-45 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Figure 24. Poverty Status (2015-2019)
Page | D-46 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
4.6 Access to Opportunity
Lower-income housing and racially segregated communities are disproportionately impacted by a combination of locational factors , such as proximity to landfills, freeways, industrial areas, and other toxins and pollutants. Recent studies have shown that the distribution of affordable housing has been disproportionately developed in minority neighborhoods with poor environmental cond itions and high poverty rates, thereby reinforcing poverty concentration and racial segregation in low -opportunity and low-resource areas.13
Affordable housing in high -opportunity/high-resource areas provide low-income residents access to resources such as quality schools, employment, transportation, low poverty exposure, and environmentally healthy neighborhoods. Research indicates that among various economic and social factors, being in proximity to certain amenities can encourage positive critical life outcomes.14 There has been an increased focus in deconcentrating poverty and promoting affordable housing in high opportunity areas. This trend is evident in the states’ allocation of Low-Income Housing Tax Credit dollars—the primary subsidy that is available for developing and preserving affordable housing. To allocate these credits, the California Housing Finance Agency develop ed a scoring system. In recent years, the scoring system has been adjusted to promote investment in affordable housing in areas with ac cess to opportunity in the context of other affordable needs. Several agencies, including HUD and the HCD, in coordination with the California TCAC, have developed methodologies to assess and measure geographic access to opportunity (including education, p overty, transportation, and employment) in areas throughout California. The Opportunity Map created by the California TCAC and HCD (using data from 2020) is used to identify areas in the region with characteristics that are shown by research to support pos itive economic, educational, and health outcomes for low-income families, particularly long-term outcomes for children. “High Resource” areas are those areas, according to research, that offer low -income children and adults the best chance at economic adva ncement, high educational attainment, and good physical and mental health. The primary function of the California TCAC is to oversee the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program, which provides funding to developers of affordable rental housing. The Opportunity Map plays a critical role in shaping the future distribution of affordable housing in areas with the highest opportunity.
Figure 25, Opportunity Map, identifies the entire City as “Highest Resource”—a composite score that is created from scoring access to opportunity in relation to education, economic development, and the environment. As such, affordable and publicly owned housing can be distributed in virtually any area within the City . Figure 25 indicates that coastal ci ties have a composite score of “Highest Resource.” However, toward the east , including Gateway Cities and some South Bay areas, cities have “High” composite scores, and inland areas toward downtown Los Angeles have “Moderate” and “Low” resource scores.
The following sections will review access to opportunity in relation to education, economic development, environment, and transportation, and access to opportunities for persons with disabilities at a local and regional scale.
13 https://www.povertylaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/environmental_justice_report_final-rev2.pdf 14 Freddie Mac and the National Housing Trust. 2020. Spotlight on Underserved Markets: Opportunity Incentives in LIHTC Qualified Allocation Plans. https://www.sahfnet.org/sites/default/files/uploads/resources/opportunity_incentives_in_lihtc_qualified_allocation_plans.pdf
Page | D-47 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Figure 25. Opportunity Map
Page | D-48 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
4.6.1 Education
The TCAC Opportunity Area Access to Education analysis considers math and reading proficiency standards, high school graduation rates, and student poverty rates. Figure 26, Access to Education, shows that the City has more positive education outcomes, or a score of greater than 0.75. According to the Los Angeles County Office of Education, the Manhattan Beach Unified School District is responsible for public education in the City. There is one preschool, five eleme ntary schools, one middle school, and one high school in the district. Areas of the City along the coast and in the northern portions do not have available data in Figure 26, however local knowledge indicates that there are two schools along the coast and two schools in the northeastern section of the City . Those areas with the highest educational outcomes correlate with those areas of the City that are most diverse and where there are higher concentrations of children in married couple households.
GreatSchools.org is an online resource that compiles local data on ratings from students, families, and staff to provide performance feedback for schools and quality ratings for review by current and prospective students, producing an overall rating for schools based on aspects of education such as equity, college preparedness, and variety in educational opportunity. Local data shows that Mira Costa High School is rated above average (9/10) according to GreatSchools.org. The median elementary school rating for the district is 9/10, with four schools rated 9/10 and one rated 7/10. The Manhattan Beach Unified School District has strong parental , community, and corporate support through Parent Teacher Associations, volunteering, and en dowments from the Manhattan Beach Education Foundation.
According to the Manhattan Beach Education Foundation website, the foundation is a community-driven fundraising organization that supplements State funding for programs that inspire learning, enrich teaching, and promote innovation and academic excellence in the public schools of Manhattan Beach.
At a regional level, coastal cities score in the more positive education outcomes range , and other South Bay and Gateway Cities areas to the east score in the less positive outcomes (less than 0.25) and moderate outcomes (0.25 to 0.50, 0.50 to 0.75) categories. The most concentrated area of less positive outcomes is in Westmont and the eastern areas of Inglewood, which are located northeast of the City. Areas north of the City that indicate less positive outcomes are the locations of LAX and the Chevron refinery.
Page | D-49 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Figure 26. Access to Education
Page | D-50 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
4.6.2 Economic
According to recent Census data, approximately 70 percent of the City’s working residents were employed in management and professional occupations. A low percentage of workers ( less than 5 percent) were employed in service -related occupations such as waiters, waitresses, and beauticians. Blue collar occupations, such as machine operators, assemblers, farming, transportation, handlers , and laborers , constituted less than 5 percent of the workforce. In the Southern California Association of Governments region, approximately 34.2 percent of working residents were employed in management and professional occupations, followed by sales at 22.8 percent.
Figure 27, Economic Opportunity , shows the region ’s access to economic opportunity considering the following indicators: poverty, adult education, employment, job proximity, and median home value. The City, along with other coastal cities , have a “more positive” TCAC Opportunity Area economic outcome score (greater than 0.75) , and South Bay cities to the east have varying scores , including some tracts scoring less than 0.25, or “less positive” outcomes. Most Gateway Cities have a greater number of tracts indicating less-positive outcomes when compared to cities in the South Bay and Westside,15 with the exception of the location of LAX and the Chevron refinery.
According to recent Census data, about 93 percent of employed City residents worked in Los Angeles County, but only 23 percent of all workers were employed within City limits. Additionally, local data shows that approximately 30 percent of Manhattan Beach residents in the workforce, work in the City of Los Angeles, while approximately 8 percent work in Manhattan Beach and nearly 8 percent in El Segundo. Approximately 67 percent of Manhattan Beach residents in the workforce earn more than $3,333 per month. Access to economic opportunity in terms of proximity to jobs is shown in Figure 28, Jobs Proximity. Figure 28 indicates that the City is in proximity to jobs and has an index score of greater than 80 (closest proximity) in the central and northern areas, and the southern boundary of the City has an above-moderate score of 60 to 80. The coastal cities, with the exception of Palos Verdes Estates, and other South Bay and Gateway Cities areas indicate closest proximity to jobs. Key industries in the South Bay are in aerospace, technology, global communications, medicine, military, and business application.
In recent years, Westside and South Bay cities have seen an increase in startup and technology companies—such as Hulu, Postmates, Snapchat, and Google—establishing their headquarters or an office in the cities of Santa Monica, Playa Vista, Venice, and El Segundo. In addition to the aforementioned industries, other key industries in Los Angeles County include fashion, apparel, and lifestyle; food manufacturing; advanced transportation; information technology; trade and logistics; and marketing, design, publishing.16
While the City has positive economic outcomes and close job proximity relative to other South Bay cities, a regionally scaled map provides context as to why this is. Better economic outcomes may correlate to higher median income, areas with significant White populations, and where non-single or married-couple households are prominent. This juxtaposes the lower economic outcomes of eastern South Bay, Westside, and Gateway Cities where much of the population have a lower household median income, are significantly non-White, and are single income. Job proximity bears no correlation to the
15 “Westside” is a local term used to reference cities generally west of downtown Los Angeles. For a full list of cities, see https://laedc.org/wtc/chooselacounty/regions-of-la-county/westside/. 16 Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation; https://laedc.org/industries/overview/.
Page | D-51 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing previously described factors as it varies across all incomes, demographics, and households. The City just so happens to be within range of LAX, where much of the jobs in the region are located near, making it more desirable for economic reasons.
Page | D-52 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Figure 27. Economic Opportunity
Page | D-53 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Figure 28. Jobs Proximity
Page | D-54 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
4.6.3 Transportation
Access to consistent, efficient, and varied modes of transportation is important, especially for persons without access to a personal vehicle. Figure 29, Access to Transportation, displays various modes of transportation, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and “High Quality Transit Areas” in the Southern California Association of Governments’ jurisdiction. The majority of the pedestrian and bicycle paths are found in the western area of the City, near the beach areas. Bus services connect the areas north and south, as well as east and west along the main commercial corridors. The nearest light rail line operates outside of the City’s boundaries in El Segundo and Lawndale. The northeastern corner of the City, which is made up of commercial uses, falls within a High-Quality Transit Area due to its proximity to the Green Line. Figure 30, Regional Access to Transportation, displays where Manhattan Beach is connected to surrounding areas, including key areas of employment such as Torrance to the southeast and Los Angeles, El Segundo, and Playa Del Rey to the north. Regional transit options offer high access to employment opportunity for those without a vehicle, including lower-income households that may not be able to afford a vehicle and those that physically may not be able to drive. Local data shows that that approximately 30 percent of Manhattan Beach residents in the workforce, work in the City of Los Angeles, while approximately 8 percent work in Manhattan Beach and nearly 8 percent in El Segundo.
Approximately 42 percent of Manhattan Beach residents in the workforce travel less than 10 miles for work. Various modes and options for transportation vary throughout the region. Pedestrian and bicycle options are mainly found near recreational areas and along beaches. Public transit and high-quality transit areas correlate to areas with lower median income, single income households, and are located far from jobs. The City has few transit options; however, it can be inferred that residents with higher median income are more likely to own personal vehicles or are located near amenities and jobs.
Page | D-55 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Figure 29. Access to Transportation
Page | D-56 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Figure 30. Regional Access to Transportation
Page | D-57 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
4.6.4 Environment
Access to a clean and healthy environment plays an important role in maintaining adequate quality of life.
Air pollution, water quality, access to open spaces, and vegetation are among the environmental factors that are weighted in different health indices that attempt to show levels of environmental quality. Figure 31, Opportunity for Environment , shows the opportunity for access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods. As shown in Figure 31, the southern area of the City is considered to be in a more positive TCAC Opportunity Area outcome range (0.75 –1). The tract in the northwest area indicates moderate environmental outcomes (0.5 –0.75), and the northeast area indicates less -positive environmental outcomes (less than 0.25). The coastal areas have high er environmental outcome scores , with the exception of LAX, the Chevron refinery, and their surrounding neighborhoods. At a regional scale, areas east of the City generally score in the moderate to above -moderate positive environmental outcomes.
Tracts that a but a highway or are made up of industrial or manufacturing uses, such as portions of Torrance, score in the less -positive outcomes range . There may be a tradeoff between positive environmental outcomes and close job proximity. When comparing the environmental opportunity map to Figure 28, Jobs Proximity , areas that are furthest from jobs tend to have better environmental opportunity. Economic hubs like LAX and Torrance have less positive environmental outcomes, which may explain why northern tracts of the City that are closer to LAX may have a less positive score. Environmental outcomes have little influence on factors like income, household, and demographics as Inglewood and Coastal cities both have positive environmental outcomes despite having differing socio -economic characteristics.
Figure 32, CalEnviroScreen 3.0, indicates that the majority of the City ranks in the 1 to 10 percentile range, meaning that residents have low exposure to pollutants. The southeastern area of the City ranks in the 15 to 20 percentile , which is also considered a low score. Some specific factors that are particularly detrimental to residents of this areas as identified by CalEnviroScreen are the following:
• Fine Particulate Matter: Particulate matter, one of six U.S. E nvironmental Protection Agency criteria air pollutants, is a mixture that can include organic chemicals, dust, soot, and metals. These particles can come from cars and trucks, factories, wood burning, and other activities. Fine particle pollution has been shown to cause many serious health effects, including heart and lung disease.
• Toxic Releases: Facilities that make or use toxic chemicals can release these chemicals into the air. People living near facilities may breathe contaminated air regularly or if contaminants are released during an accident. The local area with the relative ly higher exposure to pollutants has a Toxic Release Percentile of 79. The following are nearby toxic release facilities:
▪ Chevron Products Co Division of Chevron USA Inc.
▪ Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems
• Hazardous Waste: Waste created by commercial or industrial activit ies contains chemicals that may be dangerous or harmful to health. Only certain regulated facilities are allowed to treat, store , or dispose of this type of waste. These facilities are not the same as cleanup sites. Hazardous waste includes a range of different types of waste, such as used automotive oil and highly toxic waste materials produced by factories and
Page | D-58 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing businesses. The local area with a relatively higher exposure to pollutants has a Hazardous Waste Percentile of 74. The following are nearby generators of hazardous waste:
▪ Air Products Manufacturing Corporation
▪ Honeywell El Segundo Site
▪ Target Store T0199
▪ West Basin Municipal Water District DBA Edward C Little Water Treatment Other health indicators to consider when analyzing access to environmental opportunity include access to healthy food choices and access to medical services. Local data identified three census tracts in the City where up to 22.7 housing units per tract located east of Ardmore Avenue and south of Manhattan Beach Boulevard, as well as north of Ardmore Avenue and east of Bell Avenue are receiving benefits from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Low food access was also identified for these tracts based on a half mile demarcation to the nearest supermarket and vehicle access. Local data also indicates that the City has poor access to medical services such as hospitals, with the exception of local clinics. The nearest hospitals are located in the cities of Hawthorne and Torrance and are located more than a mile away from the City’s outer boundaries.
Page | D-59 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Figure 31. Opportunity for Environment
Page | D-60 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Figure 32. CalEnviroScreen 3.0
Page | D-61 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
4.6.5 Persons with Disabilities
Trends related to persons with disabilities, including local and State analysis of prevalence of disabilities by type and age group , are included in Appendix B. The Needs Assessment also covers services that are offered for persons with disabilities. Some common zoning barriers for persons with disabilities include the following:
• Reasonable Accommodation Procedure
▪ Common issues with reasonable accommodation procedures include excessive findings of approval, burden on applicants to prove the need for exception, application costs, and discretionary approvals.
• Family Definition
▪ Family definitions in zoning or other land use –related documents can directly impact housing choices for persons with disabilities, particularly regarding group home situations , which are commonly u sed by persons with disabilities.
Regulating the numbe r of people or requiring occupants to be related can be common elements in family definitions that create barriers. • Excluding Residential Care Facilities
▪ Excluding residential care facilities or subjecting these homes to a Conditional Use Permit in single-family zones acts as a barrier to housing choice for persons with disabilities.
• Spacing Requirements
▪ Excessive spacing requirements between group homes or community or residential care facilities can directly impact the supply of housing choices for persons with disabilities.
• Unit Types and Sizes
▪ The lack of multifamily housing or zoned capacity for multifamily housing and a variety of sizes , from efficiency to four or more bedrooms , can constrain the ability of persons with disabilities to live in a more integrated community setting. • Lack of By-Right Zoning for Supportive Housing17
▪ By-right zoning for supportive housing can result in more objective processes that are less likely to discriminate or have the effect of discriminating against persons with disabilities.
The City provides a reasonable accommodations procedure according to St ate law. Furthermore, the Manhattan Beach Municipal Code’s definition of “family” is in compliance with State requirements, as it does not require a certain relationship among the members, nor does it limit the size or specify other characteristics. Therefore, the definition of “family” does not constrain or limit development of residential
17 “Supportive housing” means housing with no limit on length of stay that is occupied by the target population and that is linked to an on-site or off-site service that assists the supportive housing resident in retaining the housing, improving their health status, and maximizing their ability to live and, when possible, work in the community (Government Code 65582).
Page | D-62 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing care facilities or other specialized housing for unrelated individuals or those with disabilities or special needs. “Supportive Housing” under the Manhattan Beach Municipal Code is considered a residential use and is subject to the same regulations and procedures that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone. A potential barrier for persons with disabilities is access to multifamily housing, as there is a lack of variety of housing types in the City. According to California Department of Finance 2019 Population and Housing Unit Estimates , 77.2 percent of housing units in the City are single-family residential detached or attached , 16.3 percent are two- to four-unit multifamily, and 6.4 percent are multifamily with five or more units . Approximately 400 acres of land are zoned to allow for multifamily development, and 1,497 acres are zoned to allow for single-family residential. Although multifamily is permitted in most zones that allow residential uses , most of these zones also allow for single -family residential. R efer to Appendix C , Constraints and Zoning Analysis , for a detailed summary of zones, allowable uses, and development standards. The Single-Family Residential Zoning District (RS), which does not allow for multifamily development, accounts for 73 percent of the 1,497 acres zoned to allow for single-family residential . U nder HCD’s guidance , Zoning Barriers for Persons with Disabilities, zoning capacity for multifamily residential is considered a barrier for multifamily development. Previously shown in Figure 14, Population with a Disability, areas with increasing percentage of population with a disability are located to the east near Gateway Cities and Southeast Los Angeles. This correlates to areas where there is more diversity, median household income is lower, and where single -income households are common. As a result, the lower percentage of population with a disability in the City may be due to multiple factors which could include the high cost of housing, a lack of opportunities for those with disabilities, or higher incomes may correlate to better medical care which could decrease the likelihood of having a disability, among other factors.
4.7 Disproportionate Housing Needs and Displacement Risk Homeownership is one of the largest assets for most households in the United States , and, for many households, provides a significant opportunity to build wealth. Over generations, many households have used wealth gained through homeownership to send their children to college or invest in other opportunities, creating access to more wealth. One of the most prevalent consequences of residential segregation is the intergenerational inaccessibility of homeownership .18 According to the Census, 9,344 households (69.6 percent) in the City were owner-occupied in 2019, and 4,083 units (30.4 percent) were renter-occupied. The homeownership rate within the City is higher than the County’s homeownership rate of 45.8 percent, and the renter-occupancy rate is lower than the County’s rate of 54.2 percent.
Generally, persons with protected characteristics, including minority households, and renter households are more likely to experience higher rent burdens and poor housing conditions, such as lack of plumbing or kitchen facilities, or to experience overcrowding. These populations also have an increased ris k of displacement and/or homelessness. Although the City has high ownership rates and a small population of minority households, this section assesses disproportionate housing needs, including displacement risk, with a focus on people with protected charac teristics.19 Disproportionate housing needs are based on
18 Disparities in Wealth by Race and Ethnicity in the 2019 Survey of Consumer Finances, 2020. https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/disparities-in-wealth-by-race-and-ethnicity-in-the-2019-survey-of-consumer-finances- 20200928.htm.
19 “Protected Characteristics” under the Fair Housing Act includes race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, and disability.
Page | D-63 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing factors such as cost burden and severe cost burden, overcrowding, homelessness, and substandard housing conditions.
4.7.1 Substandard Housing
White, non -Hispanic households across the region and in each ju risdiction are the least likely to experience housing problems , and Black and Hispanic households experience housing problems at the highest rates. Substandard housing problems include households without hot and cold piped water, a flush toilet, and/or a bathtub or shower, and households with kitchen facilities that lack a sink with piped water, a range or stove, and/or a refrigerator. Figure 33, Substandard Housing, shows the percent of all households with any of the four severe housing problems identified in HCD AFFH mapping tool:
• Lack of a complete kitchen
• Lack of complete plumbing
• Severely overcrowded
• Severely cost burdened
Figure 33 indicates that less than 20 percent of total households in the City have any of the four severe housing problems. Abutting cities to the north and south also have less than 20 percent of all households with substandard housing. The map indicates that cities to the east have higher percentages of households that experience any of the four severe housing problem s, specifically in the 20 percent to 40 percent category, and some have 40 percent to 60 percent of households experiencing substandard housing problems.
Page | D-64 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Figure 33. Substandard Housing
Page | D-65 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
4.7.2 Overcrowding
Residential crowding is used to reflect demographic and socioeconomic conditions. Immigrant communities, low -income families, and renter -occupied households are more likely to experience overcrowding.20 Overcrowding is defined by the U.S. Census Bureau as a housing unit occupied by more than one person per room. A severely overcrowded household is defined as having more than 1.5 persons per room. In this definition , “room” includes living rooms, dining rooms, and bedrooms, but does not include the kitchen or bathrooms. In the City, the percent of overcrowded and severely overcrowded households is less than or equal to 8.2 percent (see Figure 34, Overcrowding, and Figure 35, Severe Overcrowding). The region has a similar pattern of overcrowding and severe overcrowding, where the coastal cities experience low percentages and the cities to the east experience higher percentages. The areas of Westmont, Willowbrook, and Compton, as well a s other cities in the Gateway Cities area, experience higher percentages of overcrowding (Figure 34).
20 https://data.chhs.ca.gov/dataset/housing-crowding
Page | D-66 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Figure 34. Overcrowding
Page | D-67 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Figure 35. Severe Overcrowding
Page | D-68 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
4.7.3 Housing Affordability
According to the Federal government, rental housing is considered “affordable” if the people living there pay no more than 30 percent of their income for housing (rent or mortgage). As identified in Appendix B, approximately 84 percent of lower-income renter households and 55 percent of lower-income owner occupied households overpay for housing . Approximately 70 percent of moderate -income renter households and 51 percent of moderate -income owner-occupied households overpay for housing .
Approximately 15 percent of above moderate -income renter households and 18 percent of above moderate-income owner households overpay for housing. This indicates that lower -income households are disproportionately burdened by the cost of housing, especially lower-income renters.
Although the median household income in the City is $153,023, the average salary for jobs in the City is $67,947. Persons who work in the City may not be able to live in the City since the cost of living is relatively high when compa red to the region. According to the Zillow Home Value Index , August 2021 estimates , the median home value in the City is $2,923,949. The median rent for a one-bedroom unit is $2,410, for a two-bedroom unit is $3,090, for a three-bedroom unit is $4,110, and for a four-bedroom unit is $4,480.21 The Fair Market Rent 22 for the Los Angeles–Long Beach area is relatively lower than rent in the City; for the 2021 fiscal year, a one-bedroom unit was estimated at $1,605, a two-bedroom unit was estimated at $2,058, a three-bedroom unit was estimated at $2,735, and a four-bedroom unit was estimated at $2,982.
Moderate- and above-moderate-income households are also cost burned.
The high cost of living in the City can be seen in Figure 36, Homeowner Cost Burden (2015-2019), with tracts indicating 20 percent to 40 percent and 40 percent to 60 percent of owner households whose mortgages are more than 30 percent of the median household income. The highest level of homeowner overpayment in the City is located in the western boundary, abutting the coast, and the northeast corner.
As evident by Figure 37, Homeowner Cost Burden (2010-2014), homeowner overpayment was the same for the previous five years. Although homeowner payment was higher for the general region. This indicates that the City is stable with regard to homeowner mortgages. The City, as well as many other coastal cities have a lower percentage of owner households whose mortgages are more than 30 percent of the median household income when compared to the region. Areas closer to South Los Angeles and Gateway Cities bear a higher burden as overpayment by homeowners may reach more than 60 percent and up to over 80 percent.
Renters in the Ci ty have varying percentages of the cost burdened population (Figure 38, Renter Cost Burden 2015-2019). The southeastern, central, and northwestern areas of the City experience 20 percent to 40 percent cost burden; in the northeastern area renters experience the highest level of cost burden in the City at 40 percent to 60 percent. The lowest percent of renter households who experience overpayment, less than 20 percent of households, is located in the southwestern area of the City abutting Hermosa Beach. Coastal cities’ homeowner and renter households face similar trend s, and cities to the east indicate a higher percentage of households experiencing homeowner and renter overpayment. As shown in Figure 39, Renter Cost Burden (2010-2014), renter households who experience overpayment
21 https://patch.com/california/manhattanbeach/rent-estimates-manhattan-beach-area 22 The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)-formulated Fair Market Rent (FMR) schedule serves as a guide for the maximum rents allowable for those units receiving Section 8 assistance. HUD uses the Consumer Price Index and the Census Bureau housing survey data to calculate the FMRs for each area.
Page | D-69 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing was nearly the same as the previous five years with the cost burden increasing or decreasing in different tracts throughout the city. Patterns over time show that renter households who experience overpayment is less than the previous five years for the region. In comparison to the region, renters in the City have a low-cost burden relative to inland cities where cost burden can exceed 60 percent. This may be attributed to the pattern of wealth commonly associated with coastal cities in Los Angeles and across the state.
Page | D-70 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Figure 36. Homeowner Cost Burden (2015-2019)
Page | D-71 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Figure 37. Homeowner Cost Burden (2010-2014)
Page | D-72 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Figure 38. Renter Cost Burden (2015-2019)
Page | D-73 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Figure 39. Renter Cost Burden (2010-2014)
Page | D-74 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
4.7.4 Displacement
Displacement is generally caused by disinvestment, new investment, or natural disasters. Gentrification, or the influx of capital and higher-income residents into working-class neighborhoods, is often associated with displacement, which occurs when housing costs or neighborhood conditions force people out and drive rents so high that lower-income people are excluded from moving in. The population is not vulnerable to displacement driven by investment or disinvestment.
According to the Urban Displacement Project, a research collaboration between UC Berkeley and the University of California, Los Angeles, the City is considered “Stable/Advanced Exclusive” (see Figure 40, Displacement Map). The criteria for “Stable/Advanced Exclusive” is as follows:
• High-income tract in 2000 and 2018
• Affordable to high or mixed high-income in 2018
• Marginal change, increase, or rapid increase in housing costs Coastal cities fall into the following displacement typologies : Stable Moderate/Mixed Income, At Risk of Becoming Exclusive, Becoming Exclusive, and Stable/Advanced Exclusive. Other cities in the South Bay and Gateway Cities experience a mix of Stable Moderate/Mixed Income and At Risk of Becoming Exclusive, with pockets of Stable/Advanced Exclusive; however, the predominant displacement typology, specifically in the Inglewood, Gardena, Compton, and South Gate areas , are Low -Income/Susceptible to Displacement, followed by Advanced Gentrification, Early/Ongoing Gentrification, and At Risk of Gentrification. A list of the displacement typology and corresponding criteria can be found in Figure 41, Displacement Typology.
Disaster-Driven Displacement
As any coastal City is susceptible to sea level rise which may lead to temporary or long-term displacement due to a natural disaster. However, the City is actively taking several preventative sea level rise measures to mitigate the potential for disaster driven displacement of residents. There is no existing lower-income housing nor have there been any sites identified in the Appendix E within the coastal zone. Manhattan Beach has a long history of environmental leadership, policy, and stewardship, both as a community and as a city government. 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).
Through the Climate Ready MB program , the City recently completed Sea Level Rise Risk, Hazards, and Vulnerability Assessment, in which findings indicate that coastal hazards are not expected to directly impact any residences in the city, roads or major infrastructure during the study’s planning horizon which extends to the year 2100.
The completed Sea Level Rise Risk, Hazards, and Vulnerability Assessment is informing the development of the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan, and related Local Coastal Program–Land Use Plan updates. To protect the City’s coastline and infrastructure and comply with State mandates, the City is also identifying other local climate change impacts that could occur. As outlined in the Climate Ready MB program (see Program 13, Energy Conservation and Energy Efficiency Opportunities ) the City will develop strategies to increase the community’s resilience to climate change impacts and cut carbon emissions.
Page | D-75 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Figure 40. Displacement Map
Page | D-76 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Figure 41. Displacement Typology
Page | D-77 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
4.7.5 Homelessness
The 2020 point-in-time data estimated that there more than 63,000 (sheltered and unsheltered) people experiencing homelessness in Los Angeles County. As of the 2020 survey, there were an estimated 15 unsheltered people experiencing homelessness in the City. The number has declined by approximately 46 percent since 2019, where the City had 22 people that were unsheltered. Of those unsheltered in 2019, approximately 11 were sleeping in vehicles, 8 were Hispanic or Latino persons, 13 were between the ages 25 and 54 years, and 16 identified as male. In 2018, the City calculated 41 unsheltered people, indicating that the number has declined greatly over the last few years. Additional analysis on those experiencing homelessness in the City and resources that are available to support this population is included in Appendix B, Needs Assessment.
Generally, households that experience higher rent burdens, poor housing conditions, and an increased risk of displacement are at greater risk of experiencing homelessness. When compared to the region, Manhattan Beach has lower rates of substandard housing, overcrowding, and is at a low risk of displacement. While there are moderate rates of household overpayment for both renters and homeowners in the City, overpayment is relatively low when compared to the region.
4.8 Summary of Fair Housing Issues
The following is a list of key conclusions and potential impediments that may exist in the City based on the fair housing issues identified in this assessment of fair housing:
• Racial Demographics: The racial composition of the City is primarily non-Hispanic White and is not racially diverse when compared to the region. Approximately 73 percent of City residents are non-Hispanic White; 19 percent of the population is Asian; and 8 percent of residents identify as Hispanic. At a regional level , the City is not considered to be integrated.23
• Median Household Income: The median household income is $153,023 , which is 239 percent of the County median in come of $68,004. Although there are no wealth segregation trends in the City, a t a regional level, there is a relatively large wealth gap between the City and County.
• Housing Affordability: Of the renter -occupied lower-income households, about 83 percent spent more than 30 percent of their income on rent. Of the total 13,535 households in the City, approximately 29 percent were housing cost burdened. • Variety of Housing Types: The City does not have a diverse housing supply because the share of all single-family units in the City is approximately 77.2 percent, higher than the
61.7 percent share of single -family units in the Southern California Association of Governments region.
23 Integration generally means a condition in which there is not a high concentration of persons of one particular race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or having a disability or a particular type of disability when compared to a broader geographic area.
Page | D-78 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing 5 Sites Inventory
State law, Government Code Section 65583.2(a), requires that the sites identified in a sites inventory be analyzed with respect to the AFFH analysis to determine if the designation of sites serves the purpose of replacing segregated living patterns with balanced living patterns and transforming R/ECAPs into areas of opportunity. Through the various goals, policies, and programs present within the Housing Element, adequate sites should accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Allocation in a manner that affirmatively furthers fair housing. The State requires sites identified as lower-income units to be in a zone that permits the City’s default density24 of 30 dwelling units per acre and be at least 0.5 acres in size . Some of the challenges in identifying sites in the City include lack of vacant land, lack of underutilized land, small parcel sizes, and limited overall land zoned to allow for 30 dwelling units per acre.
The majority of the City’s land zoned for residential uses is zoned as Single-Family Residential (RS), which does not meet the default density of 30 dwelling units per acre as required by State law. In addition, provisions in Section 10.12.030 of the City’s Planning and Zoning Ordinance do not allow the City to amend development standards related to increased density in residential zones without Citywide voter approval (refer to Appendix C). However, portions of the City’s Medium -Density Residential (RM) Zoning District and all of the City’s High-Density Residential (RH) and three Commercial Zoning Districts permitting mixed use and residential development (North End Commercial [CNE], Local Commercial [CL], and Downtown Commercial [CD]) meet the required default density.
As such, the City was able to identify select sites in the existing mixed-use commercial (CL and CNE) and High-Density Residential (RH) zones meeting the default density requirements . To accommodate the remaining lower-income Regional Housing Needs Allocation, the City has identified additional sites that will be made available within 3 years and 120 days from the beginning of the planning period as part of Program 2, Adequate Sites, of the Housing Element. Refer to Appendix E, Sites Analysis and Inventory, for a detailed description of the methodology.
The sites selected in Appendix E affirmatively further fair housing. All Census tracts in the City are shown on the 2020 Tax Credit Allocation Commission Opportunity Map and proposed 2021 Map as areas of highest resource or high resource. As such, sites selected to accommodate lower -income housing are considered to have access to resources. No part of the City is designated as an area of high segregation.
As previously described, the City is primarily non -Hispanic White, with approximately 73 percent of the total population; there is no concentration of other racial or ethnic groups in the City that would constitute a highly similar and segregated area, and, as a consequence, the designated sites will not incre ase segregation in the City. Because the City has identified adequate sites to accommodate the moderate- and above moderate -income Regional Housing Needs Allocation , no rezone program in the Housing Element is needed for the City’s moderate- or above moderate-income Regional Housing Needs Allocation for the planning period. The selected sites are located throughout the City, and lower-income sites are in areas with high median household income , which will improve conditions and create mixed-income neighborhoods with high access to resources and improve the quality of life for all residents. The selected
24 “Default Density” per Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(3)(B) allows local governments to use “default” density standards deemed adequate to meet the appropriate zoning for lower-income units.
Page | D-79 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing sites for all income levels, coupled with the programs in the Housing Element incentivizing development in the City , will improve condi tions related to substandard housing and displacement by creating opportunities for an increased supply of affordable and market-rate housing in the City. 6 Identification and Prioritization of Contributing Factors An analysis of the contributing factors to fair housing is used to inform the strategies employed by the Housing Element for Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing. The key issues identified through analysis can be found in Section 4.8, Summary of Fair Housing Issues . Although the City benefits from low rates of poverty, high household median income, and access to educational and economic opportunities, some households may suffer from housing discrimination that is prompted by land use and zoning practices , high housing costs , reluctance for change, and poor outreach. The abundance of single -family housing stock in combination with high income households creates a barrier for diverse housing opportunities suitable for lower income households, disabled persons, and racial and ethnic minorities. Trends have resulted in residential segregation and causes the City to be less diverse than the region in regard to wealth and demographics. To better meet the needs of the population, the City will provide fair housing opportunities that will improve access to resources, provide upward mobility, and allow for an integrated community, especially for populations that have historically and currently face discrimination.
6.1 Prioritization of Contributing Factors and Actions Designed to Meaningfully Address Contributing Factors
The following lists and prioritizes those factors that contribute to fair housing issues in Manhattan Beach and includes the City’s priorities for addressing impediments to fair housing issues:
1. Land Use and Zoning. Land use and zoning is a key contributing factor for the lack of diversity in the types of housing available. An increase in the diversity and supply of the City’s housing stock can help to increase opportunities for lower -income households, those with disabilities, and increasing options for a more diverse population. The City is largely single -family residential, which is a low-density housing type and historical mansionization of single properties has further reduced existing densities in neighborhoods . Per HCD’s guidance on zoning barriers for persons with disabilities, the lack of a variety of housing types and zoning capacity for multifamily development in the City is considered a barrier because the majority of land permitting residential uses is currently zoned as Single-Family Residential (RS), which aims to provide opportunities for single-family residential land use in neighborhoods. The City has resources in place for persons with disabilities such those identified in Program 21, Older Adults Programs which include Dial-a- Ride transportation services, arts and crafts as well as other physical and social clubs through the City’s Parks and Recreation Department. The City is also providing temporary technical assistance to older adults by helping older adults with changes resulting from the Clean Power Alliance program, an electricity supply provider offering renewable energy at competitive rates to the community, and with managing changes to their energy bills. Additionally, the City has a reasonable accommodation request process to accommodate special needs and allow for supportive housing in all residential zones . Programs in the Housing Element, such as Programs
Page | D-80 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing 18, Multifamily Residential Development Standards and Streamlining in the Mixed-Use (CL, CD, and CNE) Commercial Districts , the City will further facilitate affordable housing development through the removal of discretionary requirem ents when a development utilizes the Density Bonus program. Through Program 25, Reasonably Accommodate Housing for Persons with Physical and Developmental Disabilities, the City will amend existing reasonable accommodation procedures and will promote the availability of this program through outreach. Through Program 28, Specialized Housing Types to Assist Persons with Special Needs , the City will increase development opportunities for Emergency Shelters, Supportive Housing, and Low -Barrier Navigation Centers , creating pathways to long-term solutions for extremely low -income households and those experiencing homelessness. Additionally, Program 28 will increase the variety of housing types and facilitate the development of multifamily housing for employee housing for agricultural workers.
The Adequate Sites Program, Program 2, of the Housing Element, will increase available land in the City that permits 100 percent multifamily residential uses, set a minimum density requirement of 20 units per acre, and allow by -right development for developments in which 20 percent or more of the units are affordable to lower -income households, increasing available capacity and opportunities for an increased variety of housing types . Program 1 of the Housing Element will incentivize the development of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior ADUs, and specifically promote the creation of ADUs that can be offered at an affordable rent for extremely low-, very low-, low-, or moderate-income households. Through the Density Bonus Program, Program 11 of the Housing Element , the City will implement needed updates to its Density Bonus Ord inance, consistent with State law, and offer a streamlined approval process for projects that qualify for a density bonus (see Program 18 of the Housing Element for details). Through the removal of discretionary requirements for multifamily housing, the City will minimize constraints to the development of affordable housing. In addition, as part of Program 16, Lot Consolidation Incentive, the City provides an additional density bonus incentive under Section 10.12.030 of the Manhattan Beach Municipal Code above and beyond what is permitted under State la w for multifamily residential developments meeting the minimum requirements for a density bonus to further incentivize development of affordable housing. The City will continue to offer the lot consolidation incentive throughout the 6 th Cycle to further fa cilitate multifamily residential developments, especially those offering affordable housing opportunities. These programs are the City’s priorities for addressing the lack of variety in housing types and will increase diversity among the City’s housing stock.
These programs aimed to address land use and zoning will increase the City’s housing stock and variety of housing types, creating new opportunities for increased diversity in household income and household demographics.
2. Voter Initiatives. Voter initiatives is a key contributing factor for the lack of diversity in the types of housing available. While t he City has not experienced formidable opposition to the development of affordable housing in its neighborhoods, voter initiatives that prevent changes to many existing development regulations contribute to the lack of diversity in housing types . Due
Page | D-81 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing to an existing voter initiative, development regulations in the RS, RM, and RH residential zoning districts cannot be amended to increase the standar ds for maximum height of structures or maximum buildable floor area, or to reduce the standards for minimum setbacks, minimum lot dimensions, or minimum lot area per dwelling unit, unless the amendment is first submitted to a Citywide election and approved by a majority of the voters. According to HCD’s AFFH guidance, this is considered a measure that limits housing choices. The voter initiative is a unique barrier to the production of housing in the City; therefore, the City has committed to the following programs that will allow them to meet their housing needs despite this barrier.
As noted in the Sites Inventory (Appendix E), vacant land is extremely scarce in the City, and adequate sites for lower-income housing, based on Housing Element law criteria, are currently limited. Therefore, Program 2, Adequate Sites , of the Housing Element would increase the availability of parcels zoned to allow sufficient density to accommodate the economies of scale needed to produce affordable housing as required by State law, and specifically incentivize lower- income housing development. The ADU Program will also aim to increase density in residential and mixed-use zones by incentivizing the development of ADUs and junior ADUs, which recent development trends have proven to effectively increase housing opportunities in the City. Due to limitations attributed to the existing voter initiative, the City has committed to programs to attenuate this barrier to a variety of housing types by increasing residential opportunities within commercial zones . Residential development is currently allowed in the following commercial zones: CL, CD, and CNE. Through Program 18, Multifamily Residential Development Standards and Streamlining in the Mixed-Use (CL, CD, and CNE) Commercial Districts, the City will amend its Zoning Co de to adopt a streamlined approval process and development standards for multifamily residential and mixed-use projects in those commercial zones. This program will further incentivize and provide additional opportunities for multifamily development, especially where affordable housing is provided. Through Program 14, Fair/Equal Housing Program, the City is committed to provide outreach and education to help the community understand the benefits of multifamily housing and several other fair housing topics as part of the South Bay Sustainable Housing Development Education Program . The program will include a series of educational workshops (Housing Education Forums) to encourage informed discussions regarding residential density and design that support a range of sustainable and affordable housing options and help decision makers, stakeholders and community members understand optimal ways to meet regional housing needs.
These programs will address land use and zoning constraints caused by the voter initiative, increasing the City’s housing stock and variety of housing types, creating new opportunities for increased diversity in household income and household demographics.
3. Affordable Housing. The lack of affordable housing is a key contributor to the high cost of housing and is likely a contributor to the lack of racial and ethnic diversity in the City. Further, while the median household income of existing residents is high within the City, there are few opportunities for lower -earning households across the region to move into the City, creating a sense of exclusivity. The lack of affordable housing contributes to the high household income of the area,
Page | D-82 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing as there are few opportunities for lower -income earn ing households to enter the area. High housing costs have contributed to the areas identifie d as RCAAs because a higher income is needed to afford living in the City. This is a State-wide issue along the coastal cities in California.
The City is incentivizing housing development by identifying adequate and viable sites to make available and accommodate affordable housing in the next 8-year planning period . Program 1, Accessory Dwelling Units, of the Housing Element incentivizes the development of ADUs that can be offered at an affordable rent for very low-, low-, or moderate-income households; Program 2, Adequate Sites, would allow for increased opportunities for affordable housing in the General Commercial (CG) and Planned Development (PD) zones, which have previously not allowed residential uses ; Program 12, Developer Outreach and Transparency, provides developer outreach, s uch as regulatory education, and updates on local and State incentives for development; Program 18, Multifamily Residential Development Standards and Streamlining in the Mixed-Use (CL, CD, and CNE) Commercial Districts creates residential development standards and a streamlined approval process for multifamily and mixed-use projects in the CL, CD, and CNE commercial zones; and Program 16, Lot Consolidation Incentive, provides an additional density bonus for multifamily projects that qualifies for the State density bonus in exchange for lot consolidation. The City will continue to participate in the Section 8 housing voucher program , which provides rental assistance , and through Program 15, Housing Choice Voucher Program , the City is committing to bette r connect residents to County, State, Federal , and other housing assistance resources. Through Program 28, Specialized Housing Types to Assis Persons with Special Needs, the City will implement amendments to its zoning code to increase flexibility in regulations, creating increased opportunities for the development of employee housing, supportive housing, emergency shelters, and low -barrier navigation centers. As part of the Housing Element, these programs will further incentivize and provide additional opportunities for housing affordable to very low, low -, and moderate-income households, and those with special needs.
These programs will increase the supply of affordable housing and remove barriers to affordable housing for lower -income households, includin g extremely low -income households and those with disabilities, increasing opportunity for upward mobility and access to resources.
4. Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach Capacity. The City recognizes the importance of educating residents and developers to reduce housing discrimination in the City. Although County and regional fair housing resources are available, the City only currently provides fair housing information and referrals upon request. Therefore, many residents and developers are not aware of available resources. Through Program 14, Fair/Equal Housing Program, the City will continue to support and participate in the Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice in coordination with the County’s Community Development Commission and HACoLA to continue identifying fair housing issues in the City; promote compliance with housing discrimination laws by developing a handout for developers to be made aware of fair housing advertisement material related to the sale or rental of housing pursuant to Government Code 12955, which prohibits such materials from indicating a preference or limitation based on a protected classification; and provide links to fair housing resources, including developer handout materials, on the City’s website. Further, the City will administer all programs and
Page | D-83 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing activities related to housing and community development in a manner to affirmatively further fair housing by developing a process that prompts the consideration of fair housing in the decision process. This process could include a requirement to have a statement of fair housing consideration on all decision letters or staff reports, whichever is applicable. Additionally, through Program 25, Reasonably Accommodate Housing for Persons with Physical and Developmental Disabilities, the City will remove potential barriers for people with disabilities, including persons with developmental disabilities, related to requests for reasonable accommodations, and in accordance with current fair housing laws and conduct outreach to promote reasonable accommodation procedures.
Through these programs the City will address issues related to land use and zoning, voter initiatives, affordable housing, and fair housing enforcement and outreach to improve the supply, affordability, and variety of housing types, increasing access to resources, opportunities for upward mobility, and allowing for a more diverse community through increased opportunities for populations that have historically and currently face discrimination.
Page | E-i City of Manhattan Beach Appendix E: Sites Analysis and Inventory Appendix E: Sites Analysis and Inventory
Table of Contents
1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1 2 Regional Housing Needs Allocation ...................................................................................................... 2 3 Vacant and Underutilized Sites Methodology and Assumptions ......................................................... 3
3.1 Process Overview .......................................................................................................................... 3
3.2 Sewer, Water, and Environmental Constraints ............................................................................ 8
3.3 Density and Affordability Assumptions ......................................................................................... 8 4 Existing Capacity ................................................................................................................................. 12
4.1 Lower-Income Sites ..................................................................................................................... 12
4.2 Moderate-Income Sites............................................................................................................... 20
4.3 Above Moderate-Income Sites ................................................................................................... 25 5 Planned, Approved, and Prospective Projects .................................................................................... 28
5.1 Verandas – 401 Rosecrans Avenue ............................................................................................. 28
5.2 1701–1707 Artesia ...................................................................................................................... 28
5.3 Summary of Residential Projects in Pipeline .............................................................................. 29
5.4 Accessory Dwelling Unit Projection ............................................................................................ 29 6 Summary of Capacity to Accommodate the RHNA ............................................................................. 31 7 Sites Identified for Adequate Sites Program ....................................................................................... 38
7.1 Sites to Accommodate Lower-Income Shortfall and Buffer ....................................................... 38 8 Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................... 50
Page | E-ii City of Manhattan Beach Appendix E: Sites Analysis and Inventory Tables
Table 1. City of Manhattan Beach Regional Housing Needs Allocation 2021–2029 .................................... 2 Table 2. Current Project Examples by Underutilized Sites Selection Criteria ............................................... 6 Table 3. Underutilized Site Capacity Summary ............................................................................................. 7 Table 4. Development Trends ..................................................................................................................... 11 Table 5. Lower-Income Units Density Assumptions by Zone ...................................................................... 11 Table 6. Moderate- and Above Moderate-Income Units Density Assumptions by Zone ........................... 12 Table 7. Example Site .................................................................................................................................. 16 Table 8. Lower-Income Sites Identified ...................................................................................................... 17 Table 9. Moderate-Income Sites Identified ................................................................................................ 23 Table 10. Above Moderate-Income Sites Identified ................................................................................... 27 Table 11. Pipeline Residential Development Credited Toward 6th Cycle RHNA ........................................ 29 Table 12. Accessory Dwelling Unit and Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit Development Trends ................. 30 Table 13. Estimated Affordability of Projected ADUs 2021–2029 .............................................................. 31 Table 14. Summary of Residential Capacity Compared to 6th Cycle RHNA City of Manhattan Beach, June 30, 2021 through October 31, 2029 ........................................................................................................... 33 Table 15. Residential Overlay District (ROD) Sites to Accommodate the Shortfall .................................... 46
Figures
Figure 1. Northwest Sites Identified ........................................................................................................... 35 Figure 2. Western Sites Identified ............................................................................................................... 36 Figure 3. Central and Southeast Sites Identified ......................................................................................... 37 Figure 4. Residential Overlay District (ROD) Sites to Accommodate the Shortfall ..................................... 49
Page | E-1 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix E: Sites Analysis and Inventory 1 Introduction
As provided under California State law (Government Code Sections 65583[a][3]), a General Plan Housing Element must include an inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites that can be developed for housing within the planning period, and nonvacant sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the local Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) at all income levels. As further detailed in the following discussion, every local jurisdiction is assigned a number of housing units representing its share of the State’s housing needs for an 8-year planning period. The City of Manhattan Beach’s (City) housing need for the 6th Cycle (8-year planning period [2021–2029]) consists of 774 total units, including housing at all income levels.
This appendix of the Housing Element contains an analysis and inventory of sites within City limits that are suitable for residential development during the planning period. State law requires a land inventory that relies largely on vacant sites, and if a City is relying on nonvacant sites, findings must be provided to demonstrate that the existing use does not constitute an impediment to additional residential development. However, the City is completely built-out, meaning that vacant sites are nearly nonexistent (further discussed in Section 3.1). Furthermore, the lack of supply in vacant land currently available in the City is not something that the City can directly control. The City can only incentivize and promote redevelopment within the City, which is the intent of several Housing Element programs, such as Programs 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 11, 16, 18, 19, 22 and 30. Although State law (Government Code Section 65583.2) presumes existing uses to be an impediment to additional residential development, because of the built out nature of the City, most development projects are on infill sites. Furthermore, with the booming housing market in California, the median home price in the City rose to $2,923,949 as of August 2021, giving developers a large financial incentive to pursue redevelopment opportunities on nonvacant sites in the City.
As presented in this analysis, through the Sites Analysis for the 2021–2029 planning period, the City has identified capacity for 365 total units through underutilized sites, projected accessory dwelling units (ADUs), and pipeline projects, which are expected to receive Certificates of Occupancy within the planning period. The City has an adequate supply of land to accommodate the City’s RHNA of 132 above moderate- income and 155 moderate-income units. The City has identified existing capacity to realistically accommodate 75 lower-income units through underutilized sites, projected ADUs, and pipeline projects. To meet the remaining RHNA for lower-income units, the City commits to Program 2, Adequate Sites, of the Housing Element, and has identified areas to increase capacity in the City to not only meet its housing need, but to ensure adequate capacity throughout the planning period through a generous buffer for additional lower-income sites that exceeds the City’s RHNA (see Section 7, Sites Identified for Adequate Sites Program). As of March 2023, the City implemented Programs 2 and 7 of the Housing Element through adoption of an overlay zoning district, designated as the “Residential Overlay District” (ROD), which addressed the City’s shortfall of sites in accordance with State law.
In conjunction with the sites identified for the Sites Inventory, the Housing Element programs will further support new development on sites identified at and above the corresponding capacity established for the respective sites. This Sites Analysis and Inventory describes the City’s housing target for the 6th Cycle planning period (6th Cycle); provides an overview of the methodology for identifying underutilized sites; breaks down the methodology by which realistic development capacity was determined; identifies existing capacity for all RHNA income categories; evaluates development that is currently underway, which counts toward the City’s housing need; details the expected number of ADUs to be developed within the planning period; and summarizes the approach used for the identification of sites selected for the ROD or Adequate Sites Program of the Housing Element.
Page | E-2 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix E: Sites Analysis and Inventory 2 Regional Housing Needs Allocation
Pursuant to State law, each jurisdiction in the State has a responsibility to accommodate a share of the projected housing needs in its region. The process and methodology of allocating regional housing needs to individual cities and counties is conducted through an assessment of the region’s housing need, and the unit count allocated to cities and counties results in the RHNA. The RHNA is mandated by State housing law as part of the periodic process of updating local Housing Elements of General Plans, and the total number of units for each region is provided by the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The RHNA quantifies the need for housing within each jurisdiction during specified planning periods.
As part of the assessment and allocation process, each council of governments must develop a methodology that determines each jurisdiction’s RHNA as a share of the regional determination of existing and projected housing need provided by HCD. Each jurisdiction’s RHNA is broken down by income category, ensuring that all economic groups are accommodated. The methodology generally distributes more housing, particularly lower-income housing, near jobs, transit, and resources linked to long-term improvements of life outcomes, and must further state objectives, including affirmatively furthering fair housing.
The City’s share of regional housing need was determined by a methodology prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) as part of its Final Regional Housing Needs Assessment Allocation Plan, adopted in March 2021 and updated June 2021. In accordance with the Final RHNA Allocation Plan, the City must plan to accommodate 774 total housing units for the projection period beginning June 30, 2021 and ending October 15, 2029. This is equal to a yearly average of approximately 93 housing units. The 774 total units are split into four RHNA income categories (very low, low, moderate, and above moderate). Table 1, City of Manhattan Beach Regional Housing Needs Allocation 2021–2029, provides the City’s RHNA by income category. Of the 774 total units, the City must plan to accommodate 322 units for very low-income households, 165 units for low-income households, 155 units for moderate- income households, and 132 units for above moderate-income households.
Table 1. City of Manhattan Beach Regional Housing Needs Allocation 2021–2029 Income Category Units Percent of Total
Very Low-Income 322 41.6%
Low-Income 165 21.3%
Moderate-Income 155 20%
Above Moderate-Income 132 17.1%
Total 774 100%
Page | E-3 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix E: Sites Analysis and Inventory As shown in Table 1, the City must accommodate 774 total housing units from 2021 to 2029. To ensure that adequate capacity is maintained in the City throughout the 6th Cycle, additional capacity above and beyond the RHNA assigned to the City has been identified in this analysis. In accordance with State requirements, the City will monitor the housing capacity identified in the Sites Inventory throughout the planning period to maintain sufficient capacity for the remaining RHNA at all income levels. 3 Vacant and Underutilized Sites Methodology and Assumptions State law requires each jurisdiction to include a land inventory to identify specific sites that are suitable for residential development and demonstrate that sufficient land is zoned to provide housing capacity that is adequate to meet the RHNA for each income level. This section of the Sites Analysis and Inventory describes the methodology used to calculate the housing capacity on all vacant and nonvacant developable land within the City limits that is zoned to allow for housing and available to develop within the Housing Element planning period.
3.1 Process Overview
The Sites Analysis was completed using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) mapping software with multiple data sets to identify potentially available housing sites, largely depending on SCAG’s annual land use parcel-level dataset (ALU v.2019.2) available from SCAG’s open GIS data portal, last updated in June 2021. SCAG’s land use dataset provides extensive parcel-level data, including existing land uses, mainly based on 2019 Tax Assessor records.1 The City is nearly completely built-out, meaning that vacant sites are nearly nonexistent, which was verified using the Tax Assessor land use codes. Local governments with limited vacant land resources may rely on nonvacant 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 use 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 in this analysis are considered nonvacant. Further, all sites zoned for residential development in the City are already developed with residential units. Therefore, this Sites Analysis depends on those underutilized sites within City limits that are zoned to allow for residential development identified by their land-to-improvement ratio, age of buildings, existing uses that may preclude development, proximity to resources and existing infrastructure, and other data indicating possible constraints to development feasibility. In addition to analyzing the existing uses on each parcel and their redevelopment potential, the 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.
• Under Valued – An assessed land-to-improvement (LTI) ratio less than 1. Improvement values less than 1 is an indicator for developers that the site has redevelopment potential as the assessed value of the land is greater than the assessed improvement value.
1 Source of 2019 existing land use: SCAG_REF – SCAG’s regional geospatial datasets; ASSESSOR – Assessor’s 2019 tax roll records; CPAD- California Protected Areas Database (version 2020a; accessed September 2020); CSCD – California School Campus Database (version 2018; accessed September 2020); FMMP – Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program’s Important Farmland GIS data (accessed September 2020); MIRTA – U.S. Department of Defense’s Military Installations, Ranges, and Training Areas GIS data (accessed September 2020).
Page | E-4 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix E: Sites Analysis and Inventory • Underbuilt – Commercially zoned sites where the current floor area ratio compared to the maximum allowable floor area ratio is less than 100 percent. Current floor area ratio is calculated dividing the building square by the parcel size and is expressed as a decimal. This indicator helps identify opportunity sites from a redevelopment perspective as there is land is considered to be underbuilt when the current floor area ratio is less than the floor area ratio permitted under the development standards.
• Resource 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. • Existing Use – On the ground research informed the selection of sites to ensure that existing uses can realistically be redeveloped within the planning period. This includes knowledge of existing long-term leases and existing known vacancies.
• Local Knowledge – City knowledge of property owner interest to sell or of developer interest to redevelop was utilized to identify nonvacant sites regardless of the factors listed above.
3.1.1 Underutilized Sites Analysis and Factor Selection Validity Table 2, Current Project Examples by Underutilized Sites Selection Criteria, highlights various redevelopment projects and the applicable redevelopment factors for each project as it relates to the sites inventory selection criteria. The redevelopment project examples included in Table 2, include recently approved or completed redevelopment projects in Manhattan Beach and in surrounding cities, as well as sites in Manhattan Beach with expressed developer or property owner interest in redevelopment. The sample of nonvacant sites with prior existing uses from recently completed, approved, and likely redevelopment projects in Table 2 demonstrate the trends in current housing projects and serve to validate the factors used to identify and prioritize underutilized sites in this Sites Analysis.
As shown in Table 2, 15 of the 19 projects included meet all of the applicable underutilized sites selection criteria. The remaining 4 projects are near the thresholds identified in the criteria detailed above, or meet most of the selection criteria.
Completed or Approved Projects in Manhattan Beach –
Recently completed or approved projects in Manhattan Beach meet all of the criteria, except for one recently completed project example. However, while the project example, a recently redeveloped duplex in Manhattan Beach located at 120 4th St (APN 4180-022-015), had an LTI ratio of 1.65, which is just slightly above the threshold of 1, it still met the building age criteria, which is an indicator for major repairs that are likely to result in redevelopment. Therefore, this redevelopment project serves as an example of how projects meeting most of the criteria, or that are near the thresholds identified still serve to validate the factors used to identify underutilized sites based on recently completed or approved projects in the City.
The recently approved Verandas project is also included in the analysis to support the criteria used to identify and prioritize sites likely to redevelop. The Verandas project (detailed in Section 5.1) will provide 73 above moderate-income residential units and 6 very low-income units. The two parcels that make up the site both have LTI ratios well below the threshold of 1 at LTI ratios of 0.30 and 0.52; buildings that are more than 30 years old (built in 1970 and 1977); and low FARs of 0.21 and 0.51, indicating the site is underbuilt. A second recently approved project known as the Artesia project (detailed in Section 5.2), also validates the factors used for identifying redevelopment potential based on the underutilized sites criteria, as the parcels are well below the threshold of 1 for the LTI Ratio, the building age is greater than 30 years old, and the existing residential and retail uses are not an impediment to redevelopment. As shown in Table 2, there are Page | E-5 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix E: Sites Analysis and Inventory two recently completed or approved projects in the City that include an affordability component (i.e., Verandas and Artesia Project); therefore, the analysis also includes project examples from surrounding cities with similar development trends to further support the validity of the factors utilized to identify and select underutilized sites.
Completed or Approved Projects in Surrounding Cities –
Recently completed or approved project examples from surrounding cities that were included in Table 2 all include affordable residential units. Three of the examples are located in Redondo Beach and one is located in El Segundo. The various project examples meet the underutilized criteria as they have low LTI ratios; low FARs; and had buildings that were 55 years or older. These projects further support the validity of utilizing the criteria above to identify and prioritize underutilized sites that can be realistically expected to redevelop within the planning period.
Sites with Developer Interest in Manhattan Beach -
Three sites in the City with developer or property owner redevelopment interest are included as example projects in Table 2. One of the examples sites that has received property owner interest to redevelop is the Residence Inn. While the project example is an outlier in this analysis as it meets the least number of criteria, the site has a low FAR and given the performance status of the current motel use, the property owner has indicated a strong interest to redevelop the site into a multifamily residential use. The site previously did not permit residential uses as it is not permitted by the underlying General Commercial (CG) zoning district; however, the site is located in the new ROD which allows residential uses, and exemplifies how as part of the implementation of Program 2 (Adequate Sites), the City is creating new opportunities for multifamily housing. The remaining sites in this subsection meet the underutilized criteria as shown in Table 2.
Existing Uses
The existing uses of the various project examples in Table 2 include single-family residences, motels, department stores, parking lots, commercial retail corners and strip malls. Similarly, as detailed in Section 4, Existing Capacity, the nonvacant sites identified to accommodate the RHNA include a similar mix of existing underutilized uses, such as dilapidated parking lots, automotive repair shops, office spaces and restaurants with large surface car lots, and single-family residential units in commercial zones where multifamily and mixed-uses are also permitted. Therefore, as validated by recent redevelopment examples and market conditions, the existing uses do not constitute an impediment to development or preclude redevelopment of residential or mixed-use development, including inclusion of affordable units. The underutilized sites identified in the Sites Inventory are not known to have been occupied in the past 5 years with housing for lower-income residents. Nonetheless, the City will mandate replacement requirements pursuant to those set forth in Government Code Section 65915, subdivision (c)(3) on sites identified in the Sites Inventory through Program 26, Replacement Requirements, of the Housing Element. In addition, online mapping tools—including Google Earth, Google Maps, and Los Angeles County Office of the Assessor Property Assessment Information System—as well as City knowledge of the current projects in the pipeline and development interest in certain areas of the City were used to verify underutilized status and existing uses. Table 3, Underutilized Site Capacity Summary, provides a summary of existing capacity units identified by income category.
Page | E-6 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix E: Sites Analysis and Inventory Table 2. Current Project Examples by Underutilized Sites Selection Criteria Project Name Address/APN Previous
LTI Ratio
Previous
Building Age
Previous FAR Resource Access Existing/
Previous Use
Notes
Completed or Approved Projects in Manhattan Beach
Verandas
401 Rosecrans Ave and 3770
Highland Ave
4137-010-31;
4137-001-027
0.30;
0.52 1970;
1977
0.21;
0.51 Highest Resource
Event Space
Offices
73 above moderate-income
multifamily residential units and
6 very low-income units.
Artesia Project 1701-1707 Artesia Blvd.
4163-008-023;
4163-008-024
0.15;
0.24 1943;
1953
0.15;
Unknown
Highest Resource
Vacated retail store
Single Family
residence
Pipeline project, 14 residential
units, including 1 very low-
income unit.
-- 2709 Manhattan Blvd.
4176-030-008 0.72 1930 n/a Highest Resource Duplex Residential redevelopment -- 428 24th St
4177-009-028 0.24 1962 n/a Highest Resource SFR Residential redevelopment -- 1450 12th St
4166-009-004 0.6 1966 n/a Highest Resource Quadplex Residential redevelopment -- 1446 12th St
4166-009-005 0.6 1966 n/a Highest Resource Quadplex Residential redevelopment -- 120 4th St
4180-022-015 1.65 1920 n/a Highest Resource Duplex Residential redevelopment -- 3009 Manhattan Ave
4176-027-017 0.53 1926 n/a Highest Resource SFR Residential redevelopment -- 124 6th St
4180-026-014 0.18 1990 n/a Highest Resource SFR Residential redevelopment -- 2604 Alma Ave
4177-013-009 0.18 1940 n/a Highest Resource Duplex Residential redevelopment -- 323 25th St
4177-015-015 0.11 1947 n/a Highest Resource SFR Residential redevelopment -- 409 30th St
4176-014-014 0.38 1938 n/a Highest Resource SFR Residential redevelopment Completed or Approved Projects in Surrounding Cities
Galleria
Redevelopment,
Phase I
4082-019-013;
4082-019-045
0.33 0.30
1960
1950 0.6 Highest Resource Department store
Grocery store
300-unit development approved
in mixed-use project (at least
30 of units will be affordable)
Page | E-7 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix E: Sites Analysis and Inventory Table 2. Current Project Examples by Underutilized Sites Selection Criteria Project Name Address/APN Previous
LTI Ratio
Previous
Building Age
Previous FAR Resource Access Existing/
Previous Use
Notes
219 Avenue I
Townhomes
219 Avenue I,
Redondo Beach
7511-007-038
1.17 1968 Unknown Highest resource Commercial retail 12-unit mixed use project (2 affordable units)
The Moonstone 716 S. Pacific Coast
Highway, Redondo Beach
7508-025-008
0.34 1940 0.41 Highest Resource Motel
Project Homekey
20-unit permanent supportive
housing (hotel conversion)
Pacific Commons 4139-025-103
4139-024-059
0.03 0.16 N/A Unknown Highest Resource Hotel parking lots 263 units (29 low income- and
3 very low-income units), and
11,252 square feet of retail.
Sites with Developer Interest in Manhattan Beach
Project Name Address/APN LTI Ratio Building Age Previous FAR Resource Access Existing Use Notes Residence Inn 1700 N Sepulveda Blvd.
4166-023-016 6.39 2013 0.04 Highest Resource Motel Developer interest received Shopping Center 1133 Artesia Blvd.
4168-012-036 0.76 1960 0.21 Highest Resource
Corner shopping
center Developer interest received
Frys 3600 N Sepulveda Blvd.
4138-020-056 1.49 1978 Unknown Highest Resource
Vacated big box
retail store Developer interest received
Table 3. Underutilized Site Capacity Summary
Lower-Income Units Moderate-Income Units Above Moderate-Income Units Total Units 18 152 19 189 units
Page | E-8 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix E: Sites Analysis and Inventory
3.2 Sewer, Water, and Environmental Constraints
Environmental and infrastructure constraints cover a broad range of issues affecting the feasibility of residential development. All parcels included in the Sites Inventory were reviewed for any known environmental constraints, sewer and water capacity, and dry utilities. The sites included in the inventory have all been designated for residential development, have access to existing sewer and water capacity and dry utilities, and are not constrained by known site-specific or environmental constraints that would limit development. Land suitable for residential development must be appropriate and available for residential use in the planning period. As such, the sites were also reviewed according to their development standards and regulations, as well as recently approved or built residential projects in the same zones where housing is an allowed use. Sites in the General Commercial (CG) and Planned Development (PD) Districts that require an overlay or rezoning to permit residential uses were also included in the Site Analysis based on the Adequate Sites Program included in the Housing Element required to address an RHNA shortfall. See Section 7, Sites Identified for Adequate Sites Program, for details.
3.3 Density and Affordability Assumptions
Government Code Section 65583.2(c) requires, as part of the analysis of available sites, the local government to demonstrate that the projected residential development capacity of the sites identified in the Housing Element can realistically be achieved. The following subsections provide an analysis of the realistic capacity assumptions per income level identified in zones allowing for residential uses.
3.3.1 Lower-Income Units
Realistic capacity may be determined by utilizing established minimum densities to calculate the housing unit capacity or utilizing factors such as development trends of existing or approved residential developments at a similar affordability level in the City. The City does not have established minimum densities in the City; therefore, the Sites Inventory develops the realistic capacity for lower-income sites in residential zones by analyzing:
• Development Trends
• Residential development in commercial zones
• Local knowledge
As a conservative estimate of capacity calculations, the Sites Analysis estimates realistic capacity is 20 dwelling units (du) per acre for the City’s Medium-Density Residential (RM) zone in Area District III, and for the High Density Residential (RH), Local Commercial (CL), Downtown Commercial (CD), and North End Commercial (CNE) zones in all Area Districts (I through IV) for sites identified to accommodate the City’s lower-income RHNA (see Table 5, Lower-Income Units Density Assumptions by Zone). The RM zone in Area District III and RH, CL, CD, and CNE zones in Area Districts I through IV are analyzed for lower-income units as these zones meet the City’s default density of 30 dwelling units per acre (See Section 4.1, Lower-Income Sites for more details).
Development Trends
Table 4, Development Trends, includes an analysis of residential and mixed-use development projects from 2019 and 2020, and prospective projects. Recent development examples shown in Table 4 indicate that an average of 90 percent of the maximum density was achieved in residential and commercial zones. Furthermore, of the recent developments, 2/3 of the projects achieved 100 percent of the Page | E-9 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix E: Sites Analysis and Inventory maximum capacity. Since most development in the City has been for moderate- and above moderate- income housing units, the analysis also considers two planned projects which include an affordability component. A project located at 401 Rosecrans Avenue known as Verandas includes a total of 79 units with 73 above moderate-income units and 6 very low-income units. And a project located at 1701 – 1707 Artesia which includes a total of 14 residential units, 13 of which are for above moderate-income households and 1 affordable to very low-income households. The Verandas and 1707 – 1707 Artesia projects achieved 152 percent and 117 percent of the maximum density allowed under each respective zone (see Section 5, Planned, Approved, and Prospective Projects for more details).
Residential Development in Commercial Zones
Another factor informing the realistic capacity for lower-income units is the potential for mixed-use projects and nonresidential development in zones that allow 100 percent nonresidential development (CL, CD and CNE zones). The City has not received any interest or application for 100 percent commercial projects since 2020. As such, a comprehensive review of development trends was also analyzed to capture the potential for nonresidential development to inform the realistic capacity. The aforementioned 1701 – 1707 Artesia, is a recent planned residential multifamily development project in the City. This project is located in the CL zone which is a mixed-use zone that allows 100 percent nonresidential development. As detailed in Section 5.2, 1701-1707 Artesia, while the project originally included a commercial component, given the high cost of land and market demands, the commercial component was removed and the project was approved as 100 percent residential with 14 units in order to remain profitable for the developer. The CL zone in Area District I allows for a maximum 43.6 dwelling units per acre; however, utilizing a density bonus as permitted under State law, the project achieved a density of 46.6 dwelling units per acre. The project was able to exceed the maximum permitted density, achieving 117 percent of the maximum density permitted.
The Verandas project is located in the CNE zone, Area District III which allows a mix of uses and maximum density of 51.2 dwelling units per acre. Although the site allows for the development of nonresidential uses and is located in an area where mixed-use development is commonplace, the development is 100 percent residential and does not include a mixed-use or commercial component.
Furthermore, the developer used incentives including a density bonus as permitted under State law and a density bonus provided through the City’s lot consolidation incentive. Therefore, the project achieved a density of 79 dwelling units per acre, greatly exceeding the 51.2 dwelling units per acre permitted by the zone, achieving 152 percent of the maximum density.
Local Knowledge
The examples provided coupled with local knowledge of developer interest for residential development in the City support the likelihood of 100 percent residential development in zones that allow for 100 nonresidential development. It should be noted that only one lower-income site is identified in a zone that allows for nonresidential uses identified Table 8, Lower-Income Sites.
The realistic capacity for lower-income sites of 20 dwelling units per acre is relatively low considering that the aforementioned zones allow up to a maximum density of 32.3 to 51.2 dwelling units per acre.
As is later detailed in Section 4.1, the Sites Inventory was able to identify existing capacity for two sites adequate for lower-income capacity. Only of the sites identified in Table 8,Table ID 1 is located in a commercial zone (CL), Area District I, which permits a maximum capacity of 43.6 dwelling units per acre (see Section 4.1 for site details). A realistic capacity of 20 dwelling units per acre is approximately 45.8 Page | E-10 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix E: Sites Analysis and Inventory percent of the maximum density allowed in the CL and RH zone, Area District I (Table ID 1 and 2). Given the high cost of land, most developers are motivated to achieve the maximum height and densities permitted on the typical small lots in the City, therefore, a realistic capacity of 20 dwelling units is a conservation approach and provides a generous buffer of the number of units calculated toward the lower-income RHNA. Additionally, the site identified as Table ID 1 was previously identified as a nonvacant site in the 5th Cycle Housing Element and is subject to Program 7, By-Right Development, which allows developments by-right pursuant to Government Code Section 65583.2(i) when 20 percent or more of the units are affordable to lower-income households. Additional incentives for residential development include the State density bonus (Program 11, Density Bonus), which has been used on various projects in the City, the City’s lot consolidation incentive (Program 16, Lot Consolidation Incentive) which allows for an additional density bonus beyond what is permitted under State law. The two sites identified in Table 8 (Table ID 1 and 2) total 18 units at a realistic capacity of 20 du per acre not including additional capacity and density they may achieve through the maximum permitted density of
43.6 du per acre and the aforementioned incentives which go above and beyond what is permitted under State law. Given recent development trends in the City, it is evident that developers are utilizing these incentives to increase and develop residential projects at densities above what is permitted under either the Zoning Code or General Plan.
In conclusion the realistic capacity of 20 dwelling units per acre considers the development trends over the last three years at 90 percent capacity achieved, planned projects with affordable housing units achieving at least 117 percent of the maximum capacity, planned development and developer interest in response to market demand for residential development including in mixed-use zones which allow for 100 nonresidential development, and high maximum densities allowed per zone. Therefore, the realistic capacity is a very conservative assumption as it is below 50 percent of what is allowed per the base zones and considers the potential for commercial development on mixed-use sites by providing a generous buffer in the calculation. With high land values and limited vacant land available in the City, it is expected that property owners will strive for densities closer to or above the maximums.
Page | E-11 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix E: Sites Analysis and Inventory Table 4. Development Trends
APN Address Zone
Area
District Acres
Max Units
Under Zone
Units
Permitted
Percent
Capacity
Achieved
Date
Permit
Issued
4176030008 2709 Manhattan Blvd RH II 0.058 2.97 2 100% Jul-20 4175023013 3405 Bayview Dr RH III 0.04 2.04 1 50% 30-Sep-19 4179026014 117 13th St RH III 0.045 2.30 1 50% 2-Dec-19 4177009028 428 24th St RM III 0.031 1.00 1 100% 19-Mar-19 4166009004 1450 12th St RH II 0.161 7.013 4 57% 23-Oct-19 4166009005 1446 12th St RH II 0.16 6.96 4 67% 23-Oct-19 4180022015 120 4th St RM III 0.062 2.00 2 100% 1-May-19 4164001021 1843 11th St RH-D2 I 0.1492 3.58 3 100% 29-Jul-19 4176027017 3009 Manhattan Ave RH III 0.031 1.58 1 100% 9-Oct-19 4175023014 3400 Manhattan Ave RH III 0.08 4.09 2 50% 28-Aug-19 4180026014 124 6th St RM III 0.06 1.93 1 100% 30-Sep-19 4177013009 2604 Alma Ave RM III 0.08 2.58 2 100% 28-Aug-19 4177015015 323 25th St RM III 0.06 1.93 1 100% 23-Jul-19 4176014014 409 30th St RM III 0.0403 1.30 1 100% 7-Aug-19 — 401 Rosecrans Blvd CNE III 1.02 52.27 79 152% In process — 1701–1707 Artesia Blvd CL I 0.30 12 14 117% In process Total – – 2.37 99 119 90% –
APN = Assessor’s Parcel Number
Table 5. Lower-Income Units Density Assumptions by Zone Area
District
Maximum Density (units per acre) Realistic Density (units per acre) Medium Density
Residential Zone (RM)
High Density
Residential (RH)*
Medium Density
Residential Zone (RM)
High Density Residential
(RH)*
I — 43.6 per acre — 20 per acre
II — 43.6 per acre — 20 per acre
III 32.3 per acre 51.2 per acre 20 per acre 20 per acre IV — 51.2 per acre — 20 per acre
Source: City of Manhattan Beach
* CL, CD, and CNE zones are subject to the development standards in the RH zone and applicable Area District.
3.3.2 Moderate- and Above Moderate-Income Units
Sites identified to accommodate the City’s moderate- and above moderate-income RHNA have been calculated assuming a conservative 80 percent of the maximum permitted density in the respective zone. Development trends from 2019 and 2020, and prospective projects indicate that 90 percent of maximum capacity was achieved (see Table 4, Development Trends). Most of these projects were for moderate- and above-moderate units—with recent planned developments which include an affordable housing component. Therefore, it is assumed that a buffer is provided through this conservative estimate of capacity. Parcel size is also considered in this analysis, as the average parcel size in zones that allow residential uses is approximately 0.09 acres and the median parcel acreage is 0.06. Since parcel sizes are very small, as demonstrated in Appendix C, Constraints and Zoning Analysis – 2.1.3 Development Standards, most developers use the maximum density allowed to increase their return on Page | E-12 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix E: Sites Analysis and Inventory investment and maximize development potential. The realistic capacity at 80 percent of the maximum capacity is also supported by recent development trends it indicates that developers are using City incentives to increase their density maximums above what is permitted in the base zone. For example, Verandas is a residential development which provides 73 units affordable to above moderate-income households and 6 units to lower-income households (see Section 5.1 for details). While the base zone CNE, Area District III, allows for up to 51.2 dwelling units per acre, through State density bonus and lot consolidation incentives, the developer was able to increase development by 27 units (152 percent capacity achieved). As is later detailed in Section 4.2, Moderate Income Sites and 4.3, Above Moderate- Income, sites identified in Table 9, Moderate-Income Sites Identified, and Table 10, Above Moderate- Income Sites Identified, were selected in the residential and mixed-use zoning districts (CL, CD, and CNE).As was previously discussed in Section 3.3.1, Lower-Income Units, residential developments in the City on nonresidential zones were able to achieve or exceed the maximum density allowed and did not include a commercial component as market trends and local knowledge from developer inquiries and current planned development projects in the City indicate there is a strong interest for developing 100 percent residential in order for the project to be financially feasible. Nevertheless, the potential for nonresidential development on mixed-use zones sites is considered in the realistic capacity for moderate- and above moderate-income sites. The realistic capacity considers average parcel size, local knowledge of developer interest for residential development, development trends at 90 percent capacity (2/3 of which achieved at least 100 percent of the maximum), and residential incentives such as Program 11 and Program 16 which allow for densities above what is permitted under the Zoning Code or General Plan. Table 4 provides a full list of development trends and corresponding densities in the City.
Table 6, Moderate- and Above Moderate-Income Units Density Assumptions by Zone, provides an overview of the maximum and realistic capacity for each residential zone considered in the Sites Analysis for the moderate- and above moderate-income RHNA.
Table 6. Moderate- and Above Moderate-Income Units Density Assumptions by Zone Area
District
Maximum Density (units per acre) Realistic Density (units per acre) Single-Family
Residential
Zone (RS)
Medium Density
Residential Zone
(RM)
High Density
Residential
(RH)*
Single-Family
Residential
Zone (RS)
Medium Density
Residential
Zone (RM)
High Density
Residential
(RH)*
I 5.8 per acre 11.6 per acre 43.6 per acre 4.6 per acre 9.3 per acre 34.8 per acre II 9.5 per acre 18.9 per acre 43.6 per acre 7.6 per acre 15.2 per acre 34.8 per acre III 25.6 per acre 32.3 per acre 51.2 per acre 20.5 per acre 25.8 per acre 41 per acre IV — — 51.2 per acre – – 41 per acre
Source: City of Manhattan Beach
* CL, CD, and CNE zones are subject to the development standards in the RH zone, and applicable Area District. 4 Existing Capacity
4.1 Lower-Income Sites
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 per acre because the City is considered a metropolitan jurisdiction. The City has five zones that permit densities of 30 dwelling units per acre or greater: the RM zone, in only Area District III; RH zone in any Area District; and the CL, CNE, and CD zones, which are subject to the development standards for multifamily housing in the RH zone.
Page | E-13 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix E: Sites Analysis and Inventory Although there are many zones that permit the default density considered adequate for lower-income units, the Sites Inventory was only able to identify existing capacity for 18 units on 2 sites. There are no vacant parcels available in the City that can accommodate lower-income units. As such, with a complete deficiency of vacant land in the City, the City must rely on nonvacant sites for lower-income capacity, as an alternative to rely on vacant land simply does not exist. Furthermore, the lack of vacant land is not something that the City can directly control. The City can only incentivize and promote redevelopment within the City, which is the intent of several programs in the Housing Element. A thorough processes overview of the methodology for selection nonvacant sites identified in the Sites Inventory is detailed in Section 3, Vacant and Underutilized Sites Methodology and Assumptions. This section will provide an overview of the challenges and limitations the City experienced in identifying lower-income sites compliant with State law including size of sites and existing uses on nonvacant parcels, followed by a site level analysis.
4.1.1 Size of Sites and Lot Consolidation
State guidance indicates that sites that are too small or too large may not facilitate developments affordable to lower -income households. Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(2)(A)(B) requires sites identified for lower-income units be limited to 0.5 to 10 acres. To meet the minimum acreage, a site may include two or more smaller parcels that have a realistic potential to be consolidated and developed into one site. In selecting sites for lower-income units, given the criteria, the City experienced various limitations and challenges identifying sites that met the size criteria.
Challenge #1 – Parcel Size
As previously mentioned, although the City has five zones that permit a minimum of 30 dwelling units per acre, the median parcel size of land zoned to accommodate residential uses is approximately 0.06 acres. The small parcel size creates a second challenge which is to identify enough contiguous parcels that are identified as underutilized and have existing uses that are not considered an impediment to redevelopment, further detailed below.
Challenge #2 – Contiguous Underutilized Parcels for Consolidation As the median parcel sizes are very small, to achieve a 0.5-acre site size, assuming the median size of
0.06, over 8 parcels which meet the underutilized sites criteria would need to be consolidated to meet the acreage requirements. Therefore, opportunities for identifying contiguous and underutilized parcels that can reasonably be expected to be consolidated as one site are limited. Sites smaller than 0.5 acres are deemed inadequate to accommodate development for lower-income housing unless evidence or recent trends can prove otherwise. As shown in Table 4, 15 of the 16 development projects over the last 3 years have been located on sites smaller than 0.5 acres, which is reflective of the average parcel size in the City being far below 0.5 acres. Although not all of the projects built in the last 3 years have included an affordable housing component, it can be assumed, based off these trends and existing opportunities for small site development, that developer interest in building housing affordable to all income levels on sites smaller than 0.5 acres will continue into the 6th Cycle. Furthermore, a recent planned development, 1701 – 1707 Artesia, has an affordable housing component and is built on a 0.30-acre site.
This small site combined two parcels, with different ownership, to achieve the 0.30 acres. Therefore, this site supports the assumption that lower-income sites in the City will be developed on sites smaller than
0.5 acres. The two sites identified do not meet HCD’s minimum acreage criteria and are just under 0.5 acres (see Table 8) at 0.49 and 0.46 acres, and are considered adequate for lower-income development Page | E-14 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix E: Sites Analysis and Inventory based on the median parcel size in the City, development trends on small sites, and planned projects with affordable housing built on consolidated sites less than 0.5 acres.
Further, a study of current properties on the market zoned for multifamily development in the City and surrounding cities including Redondo Beach, Hermosa Beach, and El Segundo, revealed that the median parcel size for multifamily development lots is 0.06 acres. Lot acreages ranged from 0.03 acres to 0.17 acres. A notable multifamily development on the market located in El Segundo, included a 31-unit development on a 0.13-acre lot, a lot much smaller than has been identified to accommodate the lower- income units identified in Table 8 which are just under the 0.5 acres threshold. Through market trends, as demonstrated in Appendix C, Constraints and Zoning Analysis – 2.1.3 Development Standards, developers use the maximum density allowed to maximize development potential given the high cost of land and small parcel size. Through this analysis and development trends, it is clear available properties have small parcel sizes and can be assumed that development for lower-income sites will be built on sites smaller than 0.5 acres and developed at densities higher that the realistic capacity of 20 dwelling units per acre given the median parcel size in the City and high cost of land as developers will use the maximum density allowed to increase their return on investment and maximize development potential.
The following subsections below (4.1.3.1 - 4.1.3.2) provide site specific details of how the City will ensure small sites can adequately accommodate the lower-income RHNA.
The sites inventory only identified two sites with existing capacity to accommodate lower-income units for a total of 18 units at a realistic capacity. One of the sites includes the consolidation of two parcels, therefore, the analysis also considers the likelihood that this site can realistically be consolidated (Table ID 1). Since most parcels in the City are small, it can also be assumed that developers will consolidate parcels, as is supported by recent planned projects, Verandas and 1701 – 1707 Artesia, which include consolidated parcels.
Solution #1 – Incentivizing Consolidation
In response to the challenge #1 and #2 discussed above, the City also provides several incentives to encourage and facilitate the development of lower-income housing through various programs. Through Program 16, the City provides an additional density bonus in exchange for lot consolidation on sites greater than 0.5 acres, and sites greater than 0.3 acres that are identified to accommodate the RHNA in the Sites Inventory. Again, this incentive was utilized by Verandas planned development project to increase their density. And as part of Program 16 the City will also assist affordable housing developers in identifying opportunities for lot consolidation using the City’s GIS system and property database.
Through Program 11, developers may also increase their density in exchange for affordable housing, pursuant to State law. The following subsections below (4.1.3.1 - 4.1.3.2) provide site specific details of how the City will ensure sites identified for consolidation can adequately accommodate the lower- income RHNA.
4.1.2 Nonvacant Parcels
The City relies on nonvacant sites for lower-income capacity, as an alternative to rely on vacant land simply does not exist. Furthermore, the lack of vacant land is not something that the City can directly control. Therefore, in selecting sites to accommodate lower-income units, the City was limited to identifying sites that were underutilized per HCD criteria and methodology identified in Section 3. The City identified two sites as having the capacity to accommodate lower-income housing on parcels considered to be underutilized. As previously mentioned, there are no available vacant parcels in the Page | E-15 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix E: Sites Analysis and Inventory City and all residential zoned land in the City is already developed with residential uses. Therefore, in selecting sites for the lower-income RHNA, the Sites Analysis considered the factors listed under Section
3.1, Process Overview. As demonstrated by the redevelopment examples in Table 2, these factors are applicable to identifying underutilized sites as validated by the trends in current redevelopment housing projects in the City and in the surrounding area. The factors include building age, specifically, buildings more than 30 years old. Building age is a major factor influencing property valuation and land value as 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. The second factor is identifying sites that are undervalued, specifically, with an assessed land-to-improvement (LTI) ratio less than 1. Improvement values less than 1 is an indicator for developers that the site has redevelopment potential as the assessed value of the land is greater than the assessed improvement value. The third factor is underbuilt sites, this specifically identified commercially zoned sites where the current floor area ratio compared to the maximum allowable floor area ratio is less than 100 percent. This indicator helps identify opportunity sites from a redevelopment perspective as this land is considered to be underbuilt. The fourth factor is resource access which looks at 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. Lastly, sites were identified utilizing City local knowledge of property owner interest to sell or of developer interest to redevelop.
The two sites selected in Table 8, are likely to be developed for lower-income RHNA as the existing structures are not considered an impediment to development due to their current uses, building age, current conditions indicating a likely need for substantial repairs, and low LTI ratios as described above.
Only one of the sites includes two parcels with the realistic potential for consolidation: site identified as Table ID 1. Based on recent trends for projects in the pipeline, which include the redevelopment of underutilized parcels consolidated into one project site (see Section 5, Planned, Approved, and Prospective Projects), it is reasonable to assume that the site identified as Table ID 1 can be consolidated as one site. Similar to the projects in the pipeline, the uses on these lots are underutilized, and programs in the Housing Element provide incentives for lot consolidation. For example, Program 16, provides an additional density bonus above and beyond what is permitted under State law and includes provisions for the City to assist affordable housing developers in identifying opportunities for lot consolidation. The existing Manhattan Village Senior Villas located at 1300 Parkview Avenue, and the future Verandas Project located at 401 Rosecrans Avenue and the 1701–1707 Artesia Project are examples of residential projects developed on multiple parcels that include units affordable to very low-, low-, and moderate-income households. The Verandas Project and 1701–1707 Artesia Project are further detailed in Section 5 and are credited toward the 6th Cycle planning period RHNA. The following subsections below (4.1.3.1 - 4.1.3.2) provide site specific details of how the City will ensure existing uses can adequately accommodate the lower-income RHNA.
4.1.3 Analysis of Impediments to Development on Underutilized and Nonvacant Sites Since there are no vacant parcels in the City, a common challenge was finding sites with existing uses that would not be considered an impediment for development of lower-income units. Specifically, identifying sites with existing residential uses which would yield a great amount of net new units. As previously mentioned, residentially zoned land in the City is already developed with residential uses.
From a high-level overview there appears to be many contiguous parcels that could potentially accommodate lower-income units. However, when calculating the realistic capacity at 20 dwelling units Page | E-16 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix E: Sites Analysis and Inventory per acre, many parcels yielded negative or 0 net new units. Meaning that identifying these sites is not feasible as the units would only be replaced. Many parcels yielded low or negative net new units due to small parcel sizes and/or existing residential units built at higher densities. Table 7, Example Site, provides an example of one of the major and common challenges in identifying lower-income sites that meet both HCD’s criteria and yield enough net new units to be considered feasible from a redevelopment perspective. This is particularly important when identifying lower-income sites because existing uses cannot be an impediment to development. While the parcels in the example site can be consolidated to meet the acreage criteria, only five net new units are yielded when accounting for the existing 19 units and their current tenants—likely rendering the site unfeasible from an affordable housing development perspective.
Table 7. Example Site
Assessor’s Parcel Numbers Acres Uses Existing Units Net New Units 4167-014-017
4167-014-016
4167-014-015
4167-014-014
0.56 Four quadplexes 19 5
To ensure net new units when identifying existing capacity for redevelopment across all income levels in the City and in compliance with Senate Bill 330 (2019), the approach used was to focus on parcels with commercial uses that permit residential development because those generally yielded a higher number of units. And as previously discussed in Section 3.3.1, development trends in the City indicate residential properties developed on commercial zoned properties typically achieve the maximum density. Only one site (Table ID 1) is located in a zone that allows for 100 percent nonresidential development. The City has not received any interest or applications for 100 percent commercial projects since 2020.
Additionally, feasibility of this site is supported by recent development trends as discussed in the realistic capacity analysis for lower-income units in Section 3.3 as findings indicate that there is strong developer and market demand for residential only development. And although two planned development projects are located in mixed use zones that allow for 100 percent residential, both are only including a residential component as the applicants have expressed the need to exclude any commercial components as the development would not be financially feasible. Again, the realistic capacity also considers the development on residential properties on commercially zoned parcels by greatly underestimating the maximum development potential.
Many of the parcels were also filtered out because their existing uses were considered an impediment to development (e.g., well-known franchises) because it was not foreseen that the nature of the business would discontinue within the planning period. However, the two underutilized sites ultimately selected for accommodating the lower-income RHNA have existing uses that are not considered an impediment to development, and their current uses are reasonably assumed to be discontinued during the planning period. The following subsections below (4.1.3.1 - 4.1.3.2) provide site specific details of how the existing uses are not an impediment to lower-income RHNA. Table 8, Lower-Income Sites Identified, details the underutilized sites identified as appropriate to accommodate the lower-income RHNA and expected net new units based on the realistic capacity assumptions, and net new units based on the maximum capacity allowed on the site which could be increased if the applicant qualifies for the State density bonus and additional incentives offered by the City through the Programs in the Housing Element and current efforts to incentivize development.
Page | E-17 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix E: Sites Analysis and Inventory Table 8. Lower-Income Sites Identified
Table
ID APNs Consolidated
Site Letter Address Zone Area
District Acres Existing Uses Net New
Units
Maximum
Units
Allowed
1 4170-026-003*
4170-026-004* A
1026–1030
Manhattan
Beach Blvd.
CL I 0.49
Remax offices, stand-alone
building with a surface parking lot
(APN 4170-026-003, LTI ratio
0.30, built 1953) and two-story
stand-alone vacated Pilates
studio with surface parking lot
(APN 4170-026-004, LTI ratio
0.38, built 1964).
9 21
2 4163-024-028 N/A 1535 Artesia
Blvd. RH I 0.46
Masonic Center with surface
parking lot (LTI ratio 0.97, built
1963).
9 20
Total — — — — — 0.96 — 18 41
Notes: Parcels with an asterisk (*) are nonvacant parcels identified in the 5th Cycle Housing Element.
APN = Assessor’s Parcel Number; LTI = land-to-improvement
4.1.3.1 Suitability of Nonvacant Sites - Site 1
Site 1, labeled as “Table ID 1,” is composed of two parcels, owned by a private individual/entity, reasonably expected to be consolidated into one site with a total acreage of 0.49 and 9 net new units located along Manhattan Beach Boulevard. Manhattan Beach Boulevard has a mix of existing uses, including commercial; retail; offices spaces; and residential units such as duplexes, condos, and apartments. Both parcels are zoned as CL zone which is one of three mixed use zones in the City.
One of the parcels currently has a vacated two-story building with a surface parking lot that was previously a Pilates studio (APN 4170-026-004). The use is not considered an impediment to development as the building is vacated, and the building is considered older, built in 1964, and undervalued as it has an LTI ratio of 0.38.
The second parcel, APN 4170-026-003, is an irregularly shaped stand-alone building occupied by REMAX real estate agency with surface parking in the rear. This use is also not considered an impediment to development as the need for traditional office spaces is decreasing as a result of increased telecommuting opportunities due to the Coronovirus-19 pandemic. Therefore, there is a strong possibility that the use may be vacated during the planning period.
This site is feasible for redevelopment for the following reasons:
• Adequate Parcel Size: This site achieves an acreage of 0.49 which is just below the threshold and is considered adequate to accommodate lower-income units. • Maximum Unit Potential: The site can achieve 21 units considering the maximum capacity which is well over the 16 unit minimum threshold required for certain programs and funding sources for affordable housing development.
• Parcel Characteristics: The two parcels are abutting and being identified as a single site for consolidation. The orientation and characteristics of the parcels are prime for consolidation as they both have standalone buildings are oriented toward the property line abutting the street and feature adequate sized surface parking lot areas to the rear of the parcel. Additionally, the building in one of the parcels (APN 4170-026-004) only occupies 1/3 of the lot area.
Page | E-18 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix E: Sites Analysis and Inventory • Consolidation Potential: While the two parcels do not share common ownership, the feasibility of consolidation is supported by planned development in the City which includes a consolidation component regardless of ownership (see Section 5.1 and5.2 for details). • Incentives for Consolidation: The City is also providing incentives for lot consolidation to improve redevelopment certainty during the planning period. Utilizing the consolidation density bonus through Program 16 does not preclude the project from also utilizing density bonus permitted under State law. Development trends in the City indicate a strong utilization of density bonus and additional incentivizes to maximize development potential as lot size are very small in the City.
• Building Age: The buildings are considered underutilized, and the uses are expected to discontinue within the planning period as the buildings are over 58 years old or older and are beginning to need major repairs (see analysis in Section 3.1). • Existing Uses: There are no residential uses on this site. Existing uses on the lots include a REMAX agency office and a vacated Pilates studio which are not considered essential nor a deterrent to redevelopment and are considered marginal. The uses can be expected to discontinue through the planning period as is evident by the current vacancy status, and as validated by recent redevelopment trends and market conditions detailed in Section 3.1. • LTI Ratio: The LTI ratios was also analyzed to determine the potential for redevelopment. With a low LTI ratio of 0.30 and 0.38, it can be expected that this site will draw developer interest as the assessed value of the land is greater than the assessed improvement value, meaning there is a higher return on investment (see analysis in Section 3.1). • Underbuilt: The FAR underbuilt calculation applies to this site as it is commercially zoned. As described in Section 3.1, to identify “underbuilt” parcels, the current building square footage is divided by the maximum building square footage permitted under the development code. For example, if the building square footage is 2,500 square feet and the maximum buildable floor area is 5,000 square feet, the building is utilizing 50 percent of the allowable FAR. Where FAR, expressed as a decimal is less than 1.0, sites were considered underbuilt. The FAR numbers are provided on a parcel by parcel basis in Exhibit A. Both parcels on this site include FAR at or below 31 percent.
• Permit Trends in Mixed Use Zones: The City has not received any interest or application for 100 percent commercial projects since 2020. Market trends through pipeline projects also support the development of this site as residential as recent applications which initially included a commercial component have been revised and/or are in the process of being revised to remove the commercial component as the developer has noted the residential component is the most financially feasible.
• Bonus Incentives: Qualifying projects under State density bonus for inclusion of very low- and low-income units coupled with additional lot consolidation incentives create the potential for this site to achieve 32 maximum units.
Again, through Program 16, the City is facilitating lot consolidation on this site by providing density incentives for sites identified in the Sites Inventory greater than 0.3 acres. And as is evident in planned development projects (Section 5.1 and 5.2) developers are utilizing any qualifying incentive to maximize the development potential of site. Further both parcels have been previously identified as nonvacant sites in the 5th Cycle, therefore, an additional incentive is available on this site through Program 7 which again allows by-right development when 20 percent of the units proposed are affordable to lower- Page | E-19 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix E: Sites Analysis and Inventory income households. Considering the nature of the underutilized sites, and factors described above, the site is prime for redevelopment. Through programs and incentives in the housing element, the City is ensuring the site can realistically be developed for lower-income households.
4.1.3.2 Suitability of Nonvacant Sites – Site 2
Site 2, labeled as “Table ID 2,” is a square-shaped single parcel, owned by private individual/entity, with a standalone building oriented toward the northside of the property. The parcel, APN 4163-024-028, is currently the location of the Beach Cities Masonic Center with a large surface parking lot on the southern area of the lot. The site is located along Artesia Boulevard and is surrounded by multifamily residential uses along Artesia Boulevard, and single-family residential housing to the rear of the property north of the property line. This site is feasible for redevelopment for the following reasons:
• Adequate Parcel Size: This site is 0.46 acres which is just below the threshold and is considered adequate to accommodate lower-income units.
• Maximum Unit Potential: The site can achieve 20 units considering the maximum capacity which is well over the 16-unit minimum threshold required for certain programs and funding sources for affordable housing development.
• Parcel Characteristics: The orientation and characteristics of the parcels including surrounding residential uses are conducive to residential redevelopment on this site. The building is oriented toward the rear of property line and features a large surface parking lot toward the property line abutting the street. Additionally, the building only occupies less than 1/2 of the lot area. • Building Age: In addition to being identified as an underutilized site, the building is over 59 years old and is beginning to need major repairs (see analysis in Section 3.1). • Existing Uses: There are no residential uses on this site. The existing use on the lot is fraternal organization is not a franchise nor an essential business and is considered marginal. Therefore, the use is not a deterrent to redevelopment as the use can be expected to discontinue through the planning period.
• LTI Ratio: The LTI ratio was also analyzed to determine the potential for redevelopment. With a low LTI ratio of 0.97, it can be expected that this site will draw developer interest as the assessed value of the land is greater than the assessed improvement value, meaning there is a higher return on investment as the site is undervalued (see analysis in Section 3.1). • Bonus Incentive: Qualifying projects under State density bonus for inclusion of very low- and low-income units coupled create the potential for this site to achieve 30 maximum units.
Again, the conditions of the building and parking lot are in need of repair. Additionally, while there is no known local knowledge of developer interest on this site itself, the site located in an area of the City where there is both developer and property owner interest to redevelop and sell property. These sites include the planned residential project detailed in Section 5.2, which is located one block east of Site 2, and, the second area identified as redevelopment interest includes a commercially zoned area west of Site 2, on the northeast corner of Sepulveda Blvd. and Artesia Blvd.
Site 2 does not require lot consolidation but is considered an adequate size site and is one of the only residential parcel of such size found in the City at 0.46 acres when compared to the median parcel size in the City is 0.06 acres. Nonetheless, through programs in the Housing Element the City is facilitating potential development on this site. For example, through Program 11, the project may qualify for a density bonus pursuant to the requirements under State law. Through Program 12, Developer Outreach and Transparency, the City will work with the development community to identify ways that lower- Page | E-20 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix E: Sites Analysis and Inventory income housing may be provided and will educate developers as to how density bonus regulation could be used to facilitate the development of affordable housing.
4.1.4 Sites Identified in Previous Housing Elements
Per Government Code Section 65583.2(c), a nonvacant parcel identified in a previous planning period cannot be used to accommodate the lower-income RHNA unless the parcel is subject to a program in the Housing Element to allow residential uses by-right for housing developments in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower-income households. As described in the site-specific analysis in the section above, the City has identified two nonvacant parcels (Assessor's Parcel Number 4170-026- 003, and 4170-026-004. See Table ID 1 in Table 8) to accommodate lower-income units that were previously identified in the 5th Cycle Housing Element. Therefore, the subject site (Table ID 1 in Table 8) is subject to Program 7, of the Housing Element for previously identified sites per State law.
4.2 Moderate-Income Sites
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). Although the minimum acreage criterion does not apply to these moderate-income sites, there were limited sites available when considering the underutilized methodology previously described (building age, undervalued, and underbuilt) in Section 3.
Nonvacant Sites Methodology
The underutilized sites were selected based on the methodology described in Section 3.1 as there is a complete deficiency of vacant land. The City relies on nonvacant sites for moderate-income capacity, as an alternative to rely on vacant land simply does not exist. Furthermore, the lack of vacant land is not something that the City can directly control. Therefore, in selecting sites to accommodate moderate- income units, the City was limited to identifying sites that were underutilized per HCD criteria and methodology identified in Section 3.1, as previously mentioned.
Suitability of Nonvacant Sites
A total of 23 sites were identified on nonvacant parcels considered underutilized with a total of 152 net new units. Of the 23 sites, 10 sites include the potential for consolidating parcels. The sites which include multiple parcels were selected as such due to the similar conditions of the abutting parcels including undervaluation, building age, and underbuilt. The sites identified to accommodate the moderate-income sites (Table 9) are feasible for redevelopment for the following reasons:
• Past and Recent Development Trends – The examples provided in Table 2 of recent redevelopment projects on nonvacant sites by underutilized sites selection criteria in the City and surrounding cities validate the factors utilized to identify and prioritize underutilized sites in this analysis (see Section 3.1).
• Parcel Characteristics: The orientation and characteristics of the parcels are prime for redevelopment as more than 1/2 of the sites include parcels with a surface parking lot which have no existing structure.
• Redevelopment Trends on Sites with Existing Residential Uses: While only 1/3 of the sites have existing residential uses, most are underutilized and can accommodate a greater density of units. Local knowledge supports the redevelopment of sites with existing residential uses as 92 percent of residential projects in the City include the demolition of prior residential uses/units.
Page | E-21 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix E: Sites Analysis and Inventory • Existing Uses, Including Parking: None of the sites identified include a use that is considered a constraint to development such as a franchise business, most sites identified include as a retail or office space and are considered marginal. As shown in the analysis of recent redevelopment projects in Section 3.1.1 and validated by the redevelopment trends in current housing project in Table 2, similar existing uses were not an impediment to redevelopment. No public parking lots have been identified the sites inventory. No structures on the property have permanent uses, and have marginal uses which can be expected to discontinue through the planning period. None of the sites identified with parking lots are publicly owned and/or are used for access to the beach. Therefore, the redevelopment of the identified underutilized parking lots would not result in decreased public access to parking. Further there is no lease agreement that would prevent these sites from redevelopment. There are no structures or significant improvements on the sites that significantly add to the value of the property (see analysis in Section 3.1 and project examples in Table 2).
• Building Age: All of the buildings identified on the sites are older than 51 years with the newest building identified built in 1971 and the oldest in 1923 and are beginning to need major repairs.
The median building age of the sites identified in 1952. Therefore, the sites have a strong feasibility for redevelopment potential (see analysis in Section 3.1 and project examples in Table 2).
• Consolidation Potential: Due to the small parcel size in the City, with a median on 0.06 acres, only 1/3 of the sites identified include the consolidation of parcels in order to maximize development potential. While parcels may or may not share common ownership, the feasibility of consolidation is supported by planned development in the City which provides include a consolidation component regardless of ownership (see Section 5.1 and 5.2 for details). • Consolidation Certainty: To increase redevelopment certainty the City is extending their lot consolidation program (Program 16) to sites identified in the housing element which provides an additional density bonus for a site consolidating parcels into one 0.3-acre-site or greater.
Approximately 1/3 of consolidates sites meet the acreage criteria for this program. • LTI Ratio: The LTI ratios were also analyzed to determine the potential for redevelopment. The median LTI ratio is 0.32, it can be expected that these sites will draw developer interest as the assessed value of the land is greater than the assessed improvement value, meaning there is a higher return on investment (see analysis in Section 3.1 and project examples in Table 2). • Underbuilt: The FAR underbuilt criteria applies to 18 commercially zoned sites. As described in Section 3.1, to identify “underbuilt” commercial parcels, the current building square footage is divided by the maximum building square footage permitted under the development code. For example, if the building square footage is 2,500 square feet and the maximum buildable floor area is 5,000 square feet, the building is utilizing 50 percent of the allowable FAR. Where building FAR, expressed as a decimal, is less than the maximum permitted FAR for the parcel, sites were considered underbuilt (see analysis in Section 3.1 and project examples in Table 2).
The FAR numbers are provided on a parcel-by-parcel basis in Exhibit A. Note: Underbuilt residential parcels are analyzed through net new capacity. • Condition of Structures: A visual analysis of the structures in the City was conducted to select sites that were likely in most need of repair in the coming years. Note, the City has special circumstances as property values are high and sites are adequately maintained. Therefore, condition of the building is not a reliable factor in determining the redevelopment potential.
Page | E-22 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix E: Sites Analysis and Inventory Other factors including existing uses, building age, LTI ratio, and FAR are more accurate factors to determine a sites redevelopment potential and have been considered in the selection of sites. • Market Trends: There is a high market demand for residential development in the City.
Approximately 2/3 of the site are located in a zone that allows for 100 percent nonresidential development; however, through communications with developers of current planned projects, applicants have noted they have opted out of including a commercial component as the residential portion of the project is the most profitable. • Permit Trends in Mixed Use Zones: The City has not received any interest or application for 100 percent commercial projects since 2020. Market trends through pipeline projects also support the development of this site as residential as recent applications which initially included a commercial component have been revised and/or are in the process of being revised to remove the commercial component as market demand for residential uses is greater. • Maximum Density: Given the high cost of land and recent development trends, most developers are motivated to achieve the maximum height and densities permitted on the typical small lots in the City, the sites maximum potential is also considered in the selection of sites.
Through Program 16 of the Housing Element, the City is supporting the consolidation of these sites as it incentivizes lot consolidation by providing a density bonus for sites greater than 0.3 acres identified in the Sites Inventory.
Again, general uses of the sites identified included commercial, retail, and some older residential uses.
Uses such as franchises were filtered out of the sites inventory. The Sites Inventory analysis focused on selecting sites which showed a visual need for repair, were undervalued, older buildings and have a vacated status or an existing use that is considered marginalized and expected to be discontinued in the planning period. Most of the buildings were built before 1970, and the average LTI ratio is 0.38. Again, many of the buildings visually appear to be in need of repair, and some had uses that were recently vacated. Table 9, Moderate-Income Sites Identified, lists the underutilized sites identified to meet the moderate-income RHNA, a description of the existing uses, and expected net new units based on the realistic capacity assumptions and maximum units allowed per the maximum density identified on Table
6. Page | E-23 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix E: Sites Analysis and Inventory Table 9. Moderate-Income Sites Identified
Table
ID APNs Consolidated
Site Letter Address Zone Area
District Acres Existing Uses Net New
Units
Maximum
Units
Allowed
3 4164016002
4164016003
4164016001
B Manhattan Beach/Harkness CL I 0.34
Stand-alone building with a vacated commercial space (APN 4164016002, LTI ratio 0.70, built 1952); stand-alone building with a vacated office space (APN 4164046003, LTI ratio 0.26, built 1952); mixed-use lot with a commercial building built in 1952; one residential unit building built in 1954 (APN 4164016001, LTI ratio 0.20). 11 13
4 4164016010 N/A 1716 Manhattan Beach Blvd CL I 0.11 Stand-alone real estate office (LTI ratio 0.15, built 1955). 4 4 5 4170010014 N/A 939 Manhattan Beach Blvd CL II 0.09 Two-story beauty salon (LTI ratio 0.19, built 1958). 3 3 6 4170011015
4170011014 C Walnut/Manhattan Beach CL II 0.20
Law office with surface parking (APN 4170011015, LTI ratio 0.50, built 1952); stand-alone dentistry office with surface parking (APN 4170011014, LTI ratio 0.69, built 1964).
6 8
7 4170011010
4170011011
4170011012
D Poinsettia/Manhattan Beach CL II 0.29
Stand-alone tax attorney office with surface parking (APN 4170011010, LTI ratio 0.64, built 1963); two-story real estate agent office with surface parking (APN 4170011011, LTI ratio 0.42, built 1948); vacated stand- alone building and large surface parking (APN 4170011012, LTI ratio
0.002, built 1958).
10 12
8 4170023007 N/A 828 Manhattan Beach Blvd CL I 0.17 Stand-alone dermatology office with surface parking lot (LTI ratio 0.42, built 1971). 7 7
9 4163009020 N/A 1633 Artesia Blvd RH I 0.30 Single-family residence with one exiting residential unit (LTI ratio 0.15, built 1950). 9 12
10 4170025010
4170025008
4170025009
E 916–920 Manhattan Beach
Blvd. CL I 0.36
Single-family residence (APN 4170025010, one existing unit, LTI ratio
0.12, built 1941); two-story insurance agent office with surface parking (APN 4170025008, LTI ratio 0.92, built 1978); triplex (APN 4170025009, three existing residential units, LTI ratio 0.24, built 1949). 9 11
11 4179004001 N/A 1216 Highland Ave CD III 0.15 Stand-alone two-story building with a chiropractor office, real estate agent office, and surface parking lot (LTI ratio 0.35, built 1946). 6 7 12 4179020012
4179020001
4179020013
F Manhattan Ave/Manhattan
Beach Blvd. CD III 0.11
Stand-alone clothing retail store (APN 4179020012, LTI ratio 0.27, built 1947); ice cream shop (APN 4179020001, LTI ratio 0.40, built 1940); stand-alone gift shop (APN 4179020013, LTI ratio 0.09, built 1923). 4 4
13 4179028001 N/A 1419 Highland Avenue CD III 0.08 Irregular-shaped stand-alone building with a real estate agency office and abutting angled surface parking (LTI ratio 0.31, built 1956). 3 4 14 4175024023 N/A 3515 Highland Avenue CNE-
D5/RH III 0.093 Stand-alone hair salon with a small surface parking lot (LTI ratio 0.98, built 1965). 3 4
15 4137009058 N/A 4005 Highland Avenue CNE IV 0.13 Stand-alone vacated gym with small surface parking (LTI ratio 0.79, built 1970). 5 6
Page | E-24 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix E: Sites Analysis and Inventory Table 9. Moderate-Income Sites Identified
Table
ID APNs Consolidated
Site Letter Address Zone Area
District Acres Existing Uses Net New
Units
Maximum
Units
Allowed
16 4170009800 N/A 953 Manhattan Beach Blvd. CL II 0.59 Telecommunications office building with large surface parking lot (built 1960). 20 25
17 4166009008 N/A 1426 12th Street RH II 0.24 Duplex (two existing units, LTI ratio 0.31, built 1942). 6 8 18 4166010006 N/A 1324 12th St. RH II 0.16 Single-family residence (one existing unit, LTI ratio 0.27, built 1953). 4 5 19 4166010008 N/A 1314 12th St RH II 0.16 Single-family residence (one existing, LTI ratio 0.32, built 1956). 4 5 20 4170024008
4170024009 G 852 Manhattan Beach Blvd
848 Manhattan Beach Blvd CL I 0.19
Mixed-use lot with two stand-alone buildings: the building abutting Manhattan Beach Blvd. is a tax preparation office, the second building has one existing residential unit (APN 4170024008, LTI ratio 0.24, built 1952); stand-alone vacated office building (APN 4170024009, LTI ratio
0.41, built 1940).
5 6
21 4170014008
4170014009 H 1441–1445 Poinsettia Ave CL II 0.16
Single-family residence, detached unit (APN 4170014008, LTI ratio
0.30, built 1928); single-family residence, detached (APN 4170014009, LTI ratio 0.03, built 1940).
3 4
22 4166008016 N/A 1451 12th St RH II 0.17 Duplex (two existing residential, LTI ratio 0.60, built 1954). 4 5 23 4170008027
4170008028 I 1011–1019 Manhattan Beach
Blvd. CL II 0.39
Design studio (APN 4170008027, LTI ratio 0.14, built 1963); stand-alone restaurant with large surface parking lot (APN 4170008028, LTI ratio
0.44, built 1952).
13 17
24 4175017007
4175017009 J 3514 Highland Ave
3520 Highland Ave CNE-D5 III 0.08
Stand-alone two-story insurance agency office with surface parking (APN 4175017007, LTI ratio 0.81, built 1965); commercial building with a spa (APN 4175017009, LTI ratio 0.88, built 1936).
3 4
25 4163008038 N/A 1711 Artesia Blvd. CL I 0.31 Graphic design office, permanently closed beauty salon that is vacated, surface parking lot (LTI ratio 0.39, built 1959). 10 13 Total — — — — — 4.84 — 152 187
APN = Assessor’s Parcel Number; LTI = land-to-improvement; N/A = not applicable
Page | E-25 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix E: Sites Analysis and Inventory
4.3 Above Moderate-Income Sites
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; see Section 5, Planned, Approved, and Prospective Projects, for full details.
While most of the units are accounted for through pipeline development expected to be completed during the planning period, the sites identified to accommodate the remaining above moderate-income RHNA are listed in Table 10, Above Moderate-Income Sites Identified. Per HCD criteria, none of the sites identified for above moderate-income are considered vacant, therefore the City relied on nonvacant underutilized sites.
Nonvacant Sites Methodology
The underutilized sites were selected based on the methodology described in Section 3.1. The Sites Analysis identified existing capacity for 11 sites, a total of 19 units for the above moderate-income RHNA. Specifically, identified in the RM, RH, and commercially zoned districts permitting multifamily and mixed uses (CD and CNE). The sites identified to accommodate the above moderate-income sites (Table 10) are feasible for redevelopment for the following reasons:
• Past and Recent Development Trends – Examples of recent redevelopment projects on nonvacant sites in the City and surrounding cities validate the factors utilized to identify and prioritize underutilized sites (see Section 3.1 and project examples in Table 2). • Parcel Characteristics: The orientation and characteristics of the parcels are prime for redevelopment as more than 1/2 of the sites include parcels with a dilapidated surface parking lot which have no existing structures.
• Redevelopment Trends on Sites with Existing Residential Uses: Only 2 sites (out of 11) have an existing single-family residential use both of which are underutilized, built before 1950, and can accommodate a greater density of units. Considering 92 percent of residential project include demolition of the previous residential use it is evident these sites are feasible for redevelopment. These permits include sites that were redeveloped from one unit to two or more units.
• Existing Uses, Including Parking: None of the sites identified include a use that is considered a constraint to development such as a franchise business. Existing uses on sites (not including the 2 sites with a residential use and 2 sites with empty parking lots) include retail, restaurant or office spaces; however, the uses are considered marginal and can be expected to discontinue during the planning period (see analysis in Section 3.1 and project examples in Table 2). None of the sites identified with parking lots are publicly owned and/or are used for access to the beach.
Therefore, the redevelopment of the identified underutilized parking lots would not result in decreased public access to parking. Further there is no lease agreement that would prevent these sites from redevelopment. There are no structures or significant improvements on the sites that significantly add to the value of the property. • Building Age: Sites with existing buildings include structures are older than 30 years. The newest building identified was built in 1989 and the oldest in 1924 and are beginning to need major repairs. The median building age of the sites identified in 1950s. Therefore, the sites have a strong feasibility for redevelopment potential (see analysis in Section 3.1).
Page | E-26 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix E: Sites Analysis and Inventory • LTI Ratio: The LTI ratios were also analyzed to determine the potential for redevelopment. The median LTI ratio is 0.07, it can be expected that these sites will draw developer interest as the assessed value of the land is greater than the assessed improvement value, meaning there is a higher return on investment (see analysis in Section 3.1). • Underbuilt: The FAR underbuilt criteria apply to 8 sites as they are commercially zoned. As described in Section 3.1, to identify “underbuilt” commercial parcels, the current building square footage is divided by the maximum building square footage permitted under the development code. For example, if the building square footage is 2,500 square feet and the maximum buildable floor area is 5,000 square feet, the building is utilizing 50 percent of the allowable FAR. Where building FAR, expressed as a decimal, is less than the maximum permitted FAR for the parcel, sites were considered underbuilt (see analysis in Section 3.1). The FAR numbers are provided on a parcel by parcel basis in Exhibit A. Note: Underbuilt residential parcels are analyzed through net new capacity.
• Condition of Structures: A visual analysis of the structures in the City was conducted to select sites that were likely in most need of repair in the coming years. Note, the City has special circumstances as property values are high and sites are adequately maintained. Therefore, condition of the building is not a reliable factor in determining the redevelopment potential.
Other factors including existing uses, building age, LTI ratio, and FAR are more accurate factors to determine a sites redevelopment potential and have been considered in the selection of sites. • Market Trends: There is a high market demand for residential development in the City. The majority of sites are located in a zone that allows for 100 percent nonresidential development; however, through communications with developers of current planned projects, applicants have noted they have opted out of including a commercial component as the residential portion of the project is the most profitable.
• Permit Trends in Mixed Use Zones: The City has not received any interest or application for 100 percent commercial projects since 2020. Market trends through pipeline projects also support the development of this site as residential as recent applications which initially included a commercial component have been revised and/or are in the process of being revised to remove the commercial component as market demand for residential uses is greater. • Maximum Density: Given the high cost of land and recent development trends, most developers are motivated to achieve the maximum height and densities permitted on the typical small lots in the City, the sites maximum potential is also considered in the selection of sites. • Lot Consolidation: None of the sites identified include multiple parcels for consolidation.
Again, the existing uses on the sites identified include office spaces, restaurants, and single-family residences located in older buildings that appear in need of repairs, as well as dilapidated parking lots and empty parcels. None of the sites are identified require lot consolidation. Through Program 20, Objective Design Standards, the City will increase transparency and certainty in the development process through objective design standards.
Page | E-27 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix E: Sites Analysis and Inventory
Table 10. Above Moderate-Income Sites Identified
Table ID APN Address Zone Area
District Acres Uses Net New
Units
Maximum
Units
Allowed
26 4179004005 315 12th St CD III 0.06 Surface parking lot (LTI ratio 0.01) 2 3
27 4179022029 1213 Manhattan
Avenue CD III 0.03
Stand-alone dentistry
office (LTI ratio 0.51,
built 1924)
1 1
28 4179028025 1409 Highland
Avenue CD III 0.074
Stand-alone real estate
office (LTI ratio 0.27,
built 1989)
3 3
29 4137010006 3917 Highland
Avenue CNE IV 0.04 Surface parking lot (LTI
ratio 0.02) 1 2
30 4137008057 41st/Highland CNE IV 0.06 Surface parking lot (LTI ratio 0.006) 2 3
31 4175016005 316 Rosecrans Ave CNE III 0.06
Stand-alone restaurant
(LTI ratio 0.08, built
1939)
2 3
32 4137002016 Highland Ave/38th Pl CNE IV 0.04 Empty parking lot (LTI ratio N/A) 1 2
33 4137010022 Porto/Ocean RH IV 0.03 Empty parking lot (LTI ratio N/A) 1 1
34 4179014013 815 Manhattan Ave CD III 0.06
Office building, clothing
store, and furniture
store (LTI ratio 0.26,
built 1972)
2 3
35 4166008007 1407 12th St RH II 0.12
Single-family residence,
one existing unit (LTI
ratio 0.08, Built 1956)
3 4
36 4166008002 1416 15th St RM II 0.17
SFR, 1 existing unit
(LTI ratio 0.42, Built
1954)
1 2
Total – – – 0.74 – 19 27
Page | E-28 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix E: Sites Analysis and Inventory 5 Planned, Approved, and Prospective Projects
There are two development projects in the pipeline, one of which was recently approved by City Council on January 19, 2023 (Resolution No. 23-0014), known as the Verandas project, and a ministerially approved project located at 1707-1707 Artesia. These pipeline projects are multifamily residential projects, both of which will be redevelopment projects on nonvacant parcels. There are a number of other projects in the City with residential units, such as single-unit developments, that have not been included in this Sites Inventory but are expected to be completed during the planning period.
In addition to the pipeline projects, ADUs projected to be constructed during the planning period may be credited toward capacity to accommodate the RHNA. The following sections provide a description of pipeline projects and ADU projections for the planning period.
5.1 Verandas – 401 Rosecrans Avenue
The Verandas project recently approved in January 2023 is located at 401 Rosecrans Avenue and 3770 Highland Avenue on two abutting parcels with common ownership, a total acreage of 1.02 acres, and a density achieved of approximately 77 units per acre. Although the base zone, CNE in Area District III, allows for a maximum density of 51.2 dwelling units per acre, the project was able to achieve a density 152 percent over the maximum permitted. The project is using a density bonus permitted under State law, in addition to a 10 percent bonus through the City’s lot consolidation incentive (Program 16). As such, the project consists of 73 above moderate-income multifamily residential units and 6 very low- income units. The project is a redevelopment site replacing an event venue previously known as Verandas Beach House located in the northwest area of the City along Highland Avenue and Rosecrans Avenue. As previously mentioned, the site is located in the CNE zone which allows commercial uses, mixed-use, and multifamily residential uses. This area of the City includes a mix of retail, office, and residential uses along Highland Avenue, and primarily residential uses along Rosecrans Avenue.
However, the site is being developed as fully residential without a commercial component. Additional project details by underutilized sites selection criteria are provided in Table 2.
5.2 1701–1707 Artesia
The 1701–1707 Artesia Project was ministerially approved in December 2022 as a multifamily development project in the CL zone, Area District I, consisting of 14 residential units, including 1 very low-income unit. This project will redevelop the site on two parcels, under separate ownership, replacing a closed antique shop and a detached single-family residence located along the southern border of the City along Artesia Boulevard, at the northeast corner of south Redondo Avenue and Artesia Boulevard. The consolidated site is approximately 0.3 acres and developed at a density of approximately 46.6 units per acre. While the base zone permits a maximum of 43.6 per acre, the project achieved a 117 percent of the maximum permitted density by utilizing a density bonus as allowed under State law. While the project initially included a commercial component, the applicant updated the project to a 100 percent residential development as market demand for residential uses is greater.
Additional project details by underutilized sites selection criteria are provided in Table 2.
Page | E-29 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix E: Sites Analysis and Inventory
5.3 Summary of Residential Projects in Pipeline
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 6th Cycle RHNA. Based on affordability restrictions, the projects are anticipated to provide a total of seven very low-income units (included under lower-income units in Table 11), and 86 above moderate-income units. The projects summarized above are listed in Table 11, Pipeline Residential Development Credited Toward 6th Cycle RHNA.
Table 11. Pipeline Residential Development Credited Toward 6th Cycle RHNA Project
Lower-Income
Units
Moderate-
Income Units
Above Moderate-
Income Units
Total Units Credited
Toward 6th Cycle RHNA
Verandas – 401 Rosecrans Ave. 6 — 73 79
1701–1707 Artesia Blvd. 1 — 13 14
Totals 7 — 86 93
Source: City of Manhattan Beach
RHNA = Regional Housing Needs Allocation
5.4 Accessory Dwelling Unit Projection
The Housing Element 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 ADUs and junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs) to be developed within the RHNA projection period. The number of ADUs and JADUs that can be credited toward potential 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 JADUs 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 units in cities across California, including Manhattan Beach. The City is entirely built out and urbanized, and ADU and JADU production is an ideal strategy for producing needed housing while capitalizing on existing infrastructure, such as water and sewer. Additionally, this is often a strategy that is more easily accepted by stakeholders who may be resistant to change because these units provide a form of “unseen” density that is palatable to many.
Although from 2017 to 2019 only three ADUs were permitted and constructed in the City, the City issued 15 ADU permits in 2021, and in the first half of 2022 alone (January through June 2022) the City permitted 18 ADUs and an additional four ADU permit applications received in July 2022 are currently under review. Not accounting for permit applications currently under City review or the second half of 2022, an average of 12 ADUs were permitted per year between 2020-2022. Table 12, Accessory Dwelling Unit and Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit Development Trends, details recent ADU and JADU development in the City.
Page | E-30 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix E: Sites Analysis and Inventory Table 12. Accessory Dwelling Unit and
Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit Development Trends
Year Permitted Units
2017–2019 3
2020 3
2021 15
2022 to date (January-July 2022) 181
Average for 2020-2022 12 Per Year
Source: HCD Housing Element Implementation and APR Data Dashboard, 2021
1. This number does not include the four ADU applications submitted in late July 2022 that are currently under City review as of August 1, 2022).
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. This is evident by the number of applications received and permits issued for ADUs in 2021 and 2022 to date (August 2022). Between January 2021 through July 2022, the City received a total of 27 ADU applications. Five of those 27 applications were permitted in 2021 and 18 of those 27 applications were permitted in 2022 (note that the remaining 10 permits issued in 2021 correspond to applications received prior to 2021. See Table 12 for total permits issued). The remaining four of the 27 applications were received during the second half of July 2022 and are therefore still being processed as of August 2022.
An Interim ADU Ordinance was in place through 2020 in accordance with updated State laws, and in January 2021, the City Council adopted the City’s local ADU and JADU Ordinance that is currently in place. The City’s ADU Ordinance, adopted in January 2021, contains provisions that go beyond those set forth in State law, as follows:
• Consistent with State law, the City permits one ADU and one JADU per lot. Alternatively, to offer more flexibility, the City permits two ADUs on a lot with a proposed or existing single- family dwelling.
• The City permits ADUs for existing multifamily dwelling units, consistent with State law. In addition, the City permits one ADU on a lot with a newly constructed multifamily development.
As of July 2022, 18 ADUs have been permitted in 2022 and four ADU permit applications are in review.
To account for this increased potential, this Sites Analysis used the upward trends and sharp increase in ADU construction since January 2019 to estimate new production; however, this only accounts for the effect of new laws without local incentives, such as the public engagement and informational tools to streamline the approval process and market ADU construction that will be implemented as part of Program 1, Accessory Dwelling Units , of the City’s Housing Element, and the recent ADU Ordinance adopted in January 2021. Based on the local incentives, ADU and JADU trends since January 2019, recent upward trends in 2021 and 2022, and permits currently under City review, a conservative estimate of the number of units to be produced under this approach is 10 units each year during the 6th Cycle RHNA projection period (June 30, 2021 – October 15, 2029), for a total of 83 units.
In addition to calculating the expected number of ADUs and JADUs to be developed within the projection period, the Sites Inventory must calculate the anticipated affordability of ADUs and JADUs to determine which RHNA income categories they should be counted toward. To facilitate the ADU affordability assumptions for jurisdictions, SCAG conducted the Regional Accessory Dwelling Unit Page | E-31 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix E: Sites Analysis and Inventory Affordability Analysis.2 As part of the analysis, SCAG conducted a survey of rents of 150 existing ADUs from April through June 2020. Efforts were made to reflect the geographic distribution, size, and other characteristics of ADUs across counties and subregions. For example, Los Angeles County is separated into two categories, Los Angeles County I and Los Angeles County II, to better account for the disparities in housing costs between coastal and inland jurisdictions.
SCAG concluded that 23.5 percent of ADUs were affordable to very low-income households. Based on these assumptions, 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, 5 to moderate-income households, and 28 to above moderate-income households. Table 13, Estimated Affordability of Projected ADUs 2021–2029, shows the assumptions for ADU affordability based on the SCAG survey for Los Angeles County II.3
In coordination with the updated policies and programs in the Housing Element and the City’s ongoing efforts to promote the development of ADUs and JADUs, it is likely that these units will be produced at a much higher rate. The programs of the Housing Element aggressively promote and incentivize the production of ADUs and JADUs.
Table 13. Estimated Affordability of Projected ADUs 2021–2029 Income Level Percent of ADUs Projected Number of ADUs
Very Low-Income 17% 14
Low-Income 43% 36
Moderate-Income 6% 5
Above Moderate-Income 34% 28
Total 100% 83
Source: SCAG Regional Accessory Dwelling Unit Affordability Analysis, 2020 ADU = accessory dwelling unit
6 Summary of Capacity to Accommodate the RHNA
The City of Manhattan Beach is an urbanized community in the South Bay area of Los Angeles County.
Due to the built-out nature of the City, small parcel sizes, and high-density build out in parcels adequately zoned for lower-income units, the availability of adequate sites is limited. The City identified capacity for housing through underutilized sites that meet zoning density requirements, have older structures, and have an assessed LTI ratio of less than 1. The underutilization of these sites paired with the programs of the Housing Element such as programs 1, 7, 11, 16, and 20 will ensure that the City can realistically meet the RHNA targets at all income levels for the 6th Cycle, and provide additional sites for a buffer, ensuring that capacity remains throughout the Housing Element planning period.
Table 14, Summary of Residential Capacity and Credit Toward RHNA, shows the breakdown of all existing capacity, projected ADUs, and credits to be counted toward the RHNA, and compares these numbers to the City’s assigned 6th Cycle RHNA. As shown in Table 14, the City had a total capacity for 75 lower-income units, 157 moderate-income units, and 133 above-moderate income units within the residential pipeline of projects, underutilized sites, and through the expected number of ADUs and JADUs. The lower-income RHNA was not met through this current capacity, as there was a shortfall of
2 https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/adu_affordability_analysis_120120v2.pdf?1606868527 3 The survey separated Los Angeles County into two categories. Los Angeles County I includes the City of Los Angeles, Las Virgenes‐Malibu, South Bay cities, and Westside cities, and Los Angeles County II includes all other Los Angeles County jurisdictions. The affordability assumptions for Los Angeles County II are reflected in this Sites Inventory.
Page | E-32 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix E: Sites Analysis and Inventory 412 units; however, as of March 2023, the City implemented Program 2, Adequate Sites, of the Housing Element to accommodate the shortfall. The City established a Residential Overlay District (ROD) that encompasses approximately 42 acres to accommodate the shortfall, which did not previously permit residential uses. The 42 acres is more than double the minimum of 20.6 acres of land needed to accommodate the lower-income RHNA shortfall based on the minimum density requirements of the Adequate Sites Program; however, as noted, the City identified additional acreage. As such, based on the minimum density permitted of 20 dwelling units per acre, the ROD provides a new, additional capacity of approximately 836 residential units in the City, with a maximum capacity of approximately 2,535 dwelling units. The ROD increases the capacity well over the remaining need of412 units of housing appropriate to accommodate lower-income households, providing a large buffer of sites (as detailed in Section 7) complying with the provisions of Senate Bill 166 (2017). (See Appendix C for additional details regarding development standards in the ROD.)
Page | E-33 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix E: Sites Analysis and Inventory Table 14. Summary of Residential Capacity Compared to 6th Cycle RHNA City of Manhattan Beach, June 30, 2021 through October 31, 2029 Category Total Units Lower-Income
Units
Moderate-
Income Units
Above
Moderate-
Income Units
RHNA 774 487 155 132
Underutilized Site Capacity
(Net New Units) 189 18 152 19
Vacant Site Capacity 0 0 0 0
Pipeline Residential Development
Credited Toward RHNA 93 7 0 86
Projected Accessory Dwelling
Units 83 50 5 28
Total Capacity (Net New Units) 365 75 157 133
Total Capacity Deficit (-) OR
Surplus (+) — –412 +2 +1
RHNA = Regional Housing Needs Allocation
Page | E-34 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix E: Sites Analysis and Inventory Figure 1, Northwest Sites Identified, shows the Veranda planned project, identified on the legend as Pipeline Development Sites, and sites identified for all income levels. area is locally known as El Porto, near Rosecrans Avenue and Highland Avenue. As previously discussed in Section 5.1, the Verandas project includes two parcels consolidated as one site which is shown on the map. Figure 2, Western Sites Identified, shows sites selected near Manhattan Beach Boulevard and Highland Avenue, as well as areas west off Sepulveda Boulevard. Figure 3, Central and Southeast Sites Identified, shows the 1701– 1707 Artesia Project, which as previously discussed in Section 5.2, includes two consolidated parcels, and other identified sites along Artesia Boulevard and other southern sites, as well sites along Manhattan Beach Boulevard, generally east of Sepulveda Boulevard.
Page | E-35 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix E: Sites Analysis and Inventory
Figure 1. Northwest Sites Identified
Page | E-36 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix E: Sites Analysis and Inventory
Figure 2. Western Sites Identified
Page | E-37 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix E: Sites Analysis and Inventory
Figure 3. Central and Southeast Sites Identified
Page | E-38 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix E: Sites Analysis and Inventory 7 Sites Identified for Adequate Sites Program
After calculating the City’s current capacity on underutilized sites, pipeline projects to be credited toward the RHNA, and projections for ADUs, the City had a deficit or shortfall of 412 units for the lower- income RHNA category. To accommodate the remaining lower-income RHNA throughout the planning period and provide a generous buffer, the City identified sites in the General Commercial (CG) and Planned Development (PD) zoning districts to form the Residential Overlay District (ROD) (see Table 15, Residential Overlay Sites to Accommodate the Shortfall).
Through implementation of Program 2, the City adopted the necessary rezoning to address the shortfall and meet the requirements of and be in compliance with State law. In March 2023, the ROD was established, amending the Zoning Map and Code, inclusive of objective development standards that allow by-right multifamily residential development. The ROD encompasses approximately 42 acres to accommodate the shortfall with a minimum density of 20 dwelling units per acre and a maximum density of 60 dwelling units per acre. At the minimum capacity of 20 dwellings per acre, the ROD provides a new, additional capacity of approximately 836 units, providing a buffer of approximately 55 percent of additional capacity beyond the RHNA.
7.1 Sites to Accommodate Lower-Income Shortfall and Buffer To accommodate the remaining lower-income RHNA and the lower-income buffer sites, the ROD creates additional residential capacity to permit residential uses at a minimum of 20 dwelling units per acre as required per State law (see Program 2 in the Housing Element for program components and requirements, as well as Appendix C for ROD development standards). As detailed in Section 4, Existing Capacity, there are various limitations and challenges identifying sites adequate for lower-income RHNA units that meet HCD criteria Citywide, including size of sites, as well as unavailability of vacant sites, and availability of residential sites which yield positive net new units. Further, due to an existing voter initiative, development regulations in the RS, RM, and RH residential zoning districts cannot be amended to specifically 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 minimum lot area per dwelling unit, unless the amendment is first submitted to a Citywide election and approved by a majority of the voters. However, the ROD is located outside the coastal zone, as well as outside of the RS, RM, and RH districts, so the voter initiative requirements do not apply to the sites in the ROD.
Table 15, Residential Overlay District Sites to Accommodate the Shortfall, identifies sites within the CG and PD zones that are included within the ROD to address the lower-income shortfall and lower-income buffer sites. The City has identified a surplus of over 55 percent of the units required to accommodate the RHNA and lower-income units. This analysis includes a thorough review of individual sites most likely to redevelop through the underutilized criteria described in Section 3.1.The following section provides a description of the methodology identified in Section 3.1 including the underutilized sites selection criteria and the factors validated in Section 3.1.1 and Table 2, which were also utilized to identify sites to accommodate the lower-income shortfall and buffer sites.
7.1.1 Nonvacant Sites Selection Methodology
The City relies on nonvacant sites for lower-income capacity as an alternative to rely on vacant land simply does not exist. Furthermore, the lack of vacant land is not something that the City can directly control. Therefore, in selecting sites to accommodate lower-income units the City was limited to
Page | E-39 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix E: Sites Analysis and Inventory identifying sites that were underutilized per HCD criteria. Similar to the methodology for selecting underutilized sites in Section 3.1, the methodology for identifying and prioritizing underutilized sites for the ROD included analyzing the existing uses on each parcel and was largely based on the following factors:
• Past and Recent Development Trends – Examples of recent redevelopment projects on nonvacant sites in the City and surrounding cities (as detailed in Section 3.1 and in Table 2 by underutilized sites selection criteria), validate the factors below that were utilized to identify the underutilized sites.
• Undervalued – An assessed land-to-improvement (LTI) ratio less than 1. Improvement values less than 1 is an indicator for developers that the site has redevelopment potential as the assessed value of the land is greater than the assessed improvement. However, sites with an LTI greater than 1 are also identified in the overlay for sites where there is developer interest, and as it is assumed that that the overlay would increase the value of the land as these sites have not previously allowed for residential development (see analysis in Section 3.1 and project examples in Table 2).
• Under Built – Commercially zoned sites where the current floor area ratio compared to the maximum allowable floor area ratio is less than 100 percent. Current floor area ratio is calculated dividing the building square by the parcel size and is expressed as a decimal. This indicator helps identify opportunity sites from a redevelopment perspective as there is land is considered to be underbuilt when the current floor area ratio is less than the floor area ratio permitted under the development standards (see analysis in Section 3.1 and project examples in Table 2).
• Building Age – Buildings more than 30 years old. Building age is also a major factor influencing property valuation and land value. In general, a building that is 30 years or older is considered older as it may begin to need costly repairs (see analysis in Section 3.1 and project examples in Table 2).
• Resource 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 (see analysis in Section 3.1 and project examples in Table 2). • Size of Sites. –Sites that meet or could be consolidated to the acreage criteria of 0.5 per HCD’s recommendation for lower-income unit development.
These initial factors were used to narrow the selection of sites within the City to allow for a more informed approach to selecting sites. The analysis in Section 3.1 supports the validity of these factors used to effectively prioritize underutilized sites likely to redevelop based on past and current redevelopment trends on nonvacant sites and sites with developer or property owner interest to redevelop. Following the selection of sites through the above-mentioned data-driven approach, sites were then further narrowed down through on-the-ground research that looked at:
• Potential to consolidate sites
• Redevelopment feasibility of the existing use
• Known developer interest that has been revealed through developer discussions with City staff This included the use of online mapping tools, including Google Earth and Google maps, as well as City knowledge of the current projects in the pipeline and development interest in certain areas of the City.
Page | E-40 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix E: Sites Analysis and Inventory These methods were used to verify building vacancies and the underutilized status of existing uses. The methodology was developed to align with current trends in the City. Table 15 provides the context of each site, including the acreage, potential units, and a description of existing uses, and notes if the site has developer interest or property owner interest to sell. The City is experiencing increased development interest in the areas identified for future development, and multiple inquiries regarding potential housing projects are received on a monthly basis. Through the process of updating the Housing Element, there have been workshops and outreach to developers and property owners (see Appendix F, Community Engagement Summary for details on outreach).
7.1.2 Existing Uses
An on-the-ground analysis of identified ROD sites indicate that the existing uses will not impede residential development. There are no known existing leases or deed restrictions that would perpetuate the existing use or prevent redevelopment on sites identified on Table 15. Additionally, the existing uses identified in Table 15 are similar to the examples used to demonstrate the trends in current redevelopment housing projects included Table 2. Such uses include parking lots, motels, department stores, commercial strips and corners, standalone retail stores, and other service establishments typical of commercially zoned parcels. Therefore, as validated by recent redevelopment examples and market conditions previously detailed in Section 3.1.1, the existing uses identified for sites in Table 15 do not constitute an impediment to development or preclude redevelopment of residential or mixed-use development.
As part of the analysis and identification of the ROD sites, the City confirmed vacated uses, and underutilized sites by conducting site level analysis of the conditions of the buildings, structures, and general property area which indicate dilapidation and/or poor maintenance. While there is one site identified in Table 15, which is considered a brownfield site, through Program 12, the City is committing to working with the development community to identify ways that lower-income housing can be provided and connecting developers to funding sources available for this such sites such as the State Brownfield Funding (see Program 12 in the Housing Element). The majority of the sites are selected from the CG zone which does not currently allow for residential uses. Therefore, in selecting sites, existing residential components were not a factor impacting the potential for residential development on the sites. In the PD zone, sites are largely underutilized as the parcels are larger, ranging from 4 to 7 acres and contain commercial or office building with large, underutilized parking lots. Many of the sites selected include structures that are older with some vacated uses or marginalized uses that can be expected to discontinue within the planning period and are therefore good candidate for redevelopment. In conversation with property owners, the City has documented an increasing interest to sale commercial corner lots and commercial strips along Sepulveda Boulevard. As previously mentioned, the City has no vacant land, therefore, development will occur on infill sites.
7.1.3 Development Trends in the City and Surrounding Cities The City has conducted an analysis of development trends to inform the selection of sites that will form the rezone overlay. According to development trends since 2018, the City has permitted 14 residential building permits for single-family and multifamily housing ranging from 1 to 4 units (see Table 4). These developments are located in zones that permit residential development. As such the City analyzed development trends in the City of El Segundo, Hermosa Beach, and Redondo Beach, as they are coastal cities and have similar land use characteristics as the City. The analysis revealed similar residential development trends of single-family homes, 2-unit condominiums, and few developments of 3 units or
Page | E-41 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix E: Sites Analysis and Inventory more. In the study, it was found that all cities are seeing a recent increase in developer interest for larger multifamily housing developments and mixed-use development, particularly in the City of El Segundo and Redondo Beach.
Specific to the City, as noted in Table 4 and detailed in Section 5, there are two planned multifamily residential development projects, a 79-unit residential project and a 14-unit multifamily residential project, both of which are located along corridors with both residential and commercial uses and are zoned as commercial. Although mixed-use developments in the City of Redondo Beach and El Segundo are also located along commercial corridors, the City has not received any interest or application for 100 percent commercial projects since 2020.
Market trends through aforementioned pipeline projects also support the development of sites on mixed use zones as fully residential as recent applications which initially included a commercial component have been revised and/or are in the process of being revised to remove the commercial component as market demand for residential uses is greater. These planned development trends reveal a recent increase in development of residential housing in coastal cities. Specifically, along commercial corridors as they have larger parcels than parcels zoned for residential development.
Some of the sites identified as part of the ROD include identification of various parcels consolidated to create one site. The City identified multiple contiguous parcels when reasonably expected to be consolidated into one site. For example, the parcels had similar characteristics, the parcels were part of a larger area (i.e., same shopping center). Sites that include multiple parcels have also been selected as such to ensure compliance with HCD site size criteria. As previously discussed, both planned development projects in the City include lot consolidation; and while the Verandas project consolidated parcels under the same ownership, 1701 – 1707 Artesia Project was able to consolidate parcels under separate ownership. Examples of consolidation sites in the City have typically included two parcels, and sites selected for the ROD also identify sites with 3 or more parcels. Therefore, the City also analyzed project trends in surrounding cities to support the selection of sites and found a redevelopment project in the City of Redondo Beach similar in nature with the characteristics of consolidated sites selected for the ROD. The project includes consolidation of 6 parcels to form a 1.26-acre site for proposed mixed-use residential and commercial use. These examples support the consolidation of sites regardless of ownership.
Since development trends for affordable housing in the City are limited, the City looks to its ADU trends to forecast what can be expected with housing development during the planning period. For example, the City saw very little ADU applications since 2017, received 3 from 2017-2019, 3 in 2020, and saw a sharp increase in 2021. This is directly related to legislative changes which encourage and facilitate the development of ADUs. As such, the City expects to see an increase in more intensive infill housing development as a result of new State legislation and through the implementation of programs included in the Housing Element which facilitate the production of affordable housing. Through Program 19, the City is committing to developing a methodology to track and monitor all development activity to inform remaining capacity need to meet the City’s RHNA.
7.1.4 Market Conditions
Housing market conditions are also an important factor in determining the feasibility of residential development on nonvacant sites. The City conducted a market study to inform the feasibility of sites selected to be included as part of the rezone overlay. The study found that there is a limited amount of
Page | E-42 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix E: Sites Analysis and Inventory available land on the market zoned for residential and mixed-use developments. According to Realtor.com the median home value in Manhattan Beach is $3.1 million which is similar to what other real estate websites such as MB Confidential, Redfin, Zillow, and LoopNet are reporting. Current properties on the market zoned for multifamily development in the City and surrounding cities including Redondo Beach, Hermosa Beach, and El Segundo, revealed that the median parcel size for multifamily development lots is 0.06 acres. Lot acreages ranged from 0.03 acres to 0.17 acres. A notable multifamily development on the market located in El Segundo, included a 31-unit development on a 0.13-acre lot.
Small parcel sizes may be contributing to the lack of larger multifamily developments built in the City and surrounding cities as discussed in the previous section.
Another market condition analyzed is the cost of construction. Construction costs depend on the type of construction for example the national average for Type I or II multifamily is $148.82 to $168.94 per square foot and Type V Wood Frame multifamily is $113.88 to $118.57 per square foot and consider hard cost for materials and land value, and soft costs which includes permitting fees (see Appendix C, Constraint and Zoning Analysis for details). Further, a study of the costs of affordable housing production in California revealed that between 2016 and 2019, the costs to develop a new affordable unit under the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program increased from $425,000 per unit to more than $480,000 per unit. Coastal cities in California have among the highest land value and building costs in the country which likely exceed the aforementioned national average per square-foot and LIHTC affordable per unit calculations. Therefore, local market conditions related to high land value and construction costs coupled with the limited supply of available and developable land in the City indicate that nonvacant sites selected for the ROD are prime for more intensive, compact, and infill development, including redevelopment and reuse of sites. A main component of securing financing from a lender is directly related to the demand of such development. And as this analysis shows, there is a large demand for housing in the City and along coastal communities. The sites selected for the ROD are financially feasible as the parcels are much larger than what is currently available in the City. A study of the land zoned for CG indicates the median parcel size is 0.21, which is much larger when compared to the median parcel size for zones that allow for multifamily development which is 0.06. As such, the sites selected for the rezone overlay will draw developer interest as there is currently a lack of viable available land for residential development in the City. Sites selected for the ROD were selected along commercial corridors limited to CG and PD zones due to the Citywide voter initiative that applies to the RS, RM, and RH zones as previously discussed. As previously mentioned, there is an increasing demand along commercial corridors as they have larger parcels than parcels zoned for residential development.
Therefore, in addition to selecting sites where market conditions show the direction of redevelopment opportunities, the sites also comply with the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) opportunity mapping methodologies by identifying capacity for affordable housing near resources such as transit, jobs, grocery stores, and other community resources. Since the primary function of the California TCAC is to oversee the LIHTC program, which provides funding to developers of affordable rental housing, many affordable housing developments are often also located near commercial corridors as these areas typically have the highest access to resources.
7.1.5 Availability of Regulatory and/or other Incentives The City is supporting the development of housing on sites selected to accommodate the RHNA shortfall through various regulatory and financial incentives. Through implementation of Program 2, the ROD standards must permit at least 16 units per site at a density of at least 20 dwelling units per acre; allow 100 percent residential use and require residential use to occupy at least 50 percent of the floor area in
Page | E-43 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix E: Sites Analysis and Inventory a mixed-use project; and permit owner-occupied and rental multifamily uses by-right pursuant to Government Code Section 65583.2(i) for developments in which 20 percent or more of the units are affordable to lower-income households. Again, the realistic capacity is based on the minimum dwelling units per acre outlined by State law; however, this does not preclude developers to build at the maximum capacity identified in the ROD which allows up to 60 dwelling units per acre.
Additionally, through Program 11, the City is committing to updating the Density Bonus Ordinance to ensure it is consistent with future amendments to State law. The City supports the density bonus incentives permitted under State law and to further incentivize affordable units, multifamily projects in residential districts that qualify for a density bonus are eligible for a streamlined approval process through Program 3, Affordable Housing Streamlining and Program 18, Multifamily Residential Development Standards and Streaming in the Mixed-Use Commercial Districts (see Housing Element programs for details). Through Program 12, the City will actively work with the development community to identify ways that lower‐income housing may be provided, including 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 development of affordable housing, including those for extremely low-income, very low-income, and low-income households.
To support sites identified as consolidated sites with multiple parcels, the City provides an additional density bonus incentive under Section 10.12.030 of the MBMC above and beyond what is permitted under State law for multifamily residential developments meeting the minimum requirements for a density bonus. The additional density incentive is granted in exchange for lot consolidation, see Program 16 for details. Through Program 24, Priority Services, the City is committing to coordinate with Public Works to ensure that proposed developments that include housing affordable to lower-income households, including extremely low- and very low-income households, 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 affordable to lower-income households. Through programs in the housing element and identification of adequate sites for the ROD, the City is ensuring there is capacity to accommodate the lower-income shortfall.
7.1.6 Site Feasibility
A total of 33 sites were identified as having the potential to accommodate the City’s lower income RHNA shortfall of 412 units through the ROD. Building on the analysis above, this section provides a summary highlighting key features that were considered and contribute to the sites’ feasibility for redevelopment including:
• Past and Recent Development Trends – Examples of past and current redevelopment projects on nonvacant sites in the City and surrounding cities, and sites with developer or property owner interest for redevelopment of nonvacant sites, validate the factors utilized to identify and prioritize underutilized sites in this analysis (see Section 3.1 and Table 2). • Adequate Parcel Size: All of the sites achieve a minimum acreage of 0.5 units which meets the threshold to be considered adequate to accommodate lower-income units. There are no large sites (greater than 10 acres).
• Developer interest: There are 5 sites with developer and/or property owner interest (Table ID 10, 28, 29, 30, 31) to redevelop the site within the planning period. Several property owners have also contacted the City regarding participating in the overlay effort.
Page | E-44 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix E: Sites Analysis and Inventory • Existing Uses, Including Parking: None of the sites identified include a use that is considered a constraint to development such as a franchise business, most sites identified include a retail or office space. None of the sites are in the Coastal Zone. Uses are marginal and can be expected to be discontinued through the planning period. None of the sites identified in Table 15 with parking lots are publicly owned and/or are used for access to the beach. Therefore, the redevelopment of the identified underutilized parking lots would not result in decreased public access to parking. Further there is no lease agreement that would prevent these sites from redevelopment. There are no structures or significant improvements on the sites that significantly add to the value of the property. Additionally, as shown in the analysis in Section
3.1 with example redevelopment projects analyzed in the City and surrounding cities in Table 2, the nonvacant sites had existing uses similar to those sites identified in Table 15. • Regional Coordination for Housing Development: The City is participating in the South Bay Cities Council of Governments (SBCCOG) Housing Roadmap which is studying the reuse of commercial corridor areas to develop tools incentivizing potential for redevelopment into sustainable affordable housing with zero emission mobility options, and identify commercial properties – strip arterials, regional malls, office buildings, and industrial parks. Through this program, the City will further support the redevelopment of these sites through tools identified in the study.
• Consolidation Potential: Approximately 1/3 of the sites identify several parcels for consolidation into one site. Due to the small parcel size in the City, the CG zones have median parcel size of
0.21 acres; therefore, a little under half of the sites identified include the consolidation of parcels in order to maximize development potential. While parcels may or may not share common ownership, the feasibility of consolidation is supported by planned development in the City which provides include a consolidation component regardless of ownership (see Section 5.1 and 5.2 for details).
• Consolidation Certainty: To incentivize the potential for consolidation the City is increasing redevelopment certainty through additional density bonus through Program 16. All consolidated sites qualify for the incentive. Projects utilizing the additional bonus are still able to apply for an additional density bonus under State law. Development trends in the City indicate a strong utilization of density bonus and additional incentivizes to maximize development potential as lot size are very small in the City.
• Building Age & Repair Needs: The buildings are considered underutilized, and the uses are marginal and can be expected to discontinue within the planning period as the buildings are over 32 years old or older and are beginning to need major repairs as verified through a visual analysis of the buildings (see analysis in Section 3.1). • Underbuilt: All of the sites included in the ROD are considered underbuilt. As described in Section 7.1.1, Nonvacant Sites Methodology, to identify “underbuilt” commercial parcels, the current building square footage is divided by the maximum building square footage permitted under the development code. For example, if the building square footage is 2,500 square feet and the maximum buildable floor area is 5,000 square feet, the building is utilizing 50 percent of the allowable FAR. Where building FAR, expressed as a decimal, is less than the maximum permitted FAR for the parcel, sites were considered underbuilt (see analysis in Section 3.1). The FAR numbers are provided on a parcel by parcel basis in Exhibit A. Note: Underbuilt residential parcels are analyzed through net new capacity.
Page | E-45 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix E: Sites Analysis and Inventory • Condition of Structures: A visual analysis of the structures in the City was conducted to select sites that were likely in most need of repair in the coming years. Note, the City has special circumstances as property values are high and sites are adequately maintained. Therefore, condition of the building is not a reliable factor in determining the redevelopment potential.
Other factors including existing uses, building age, LTI ratio, and FAR are more accurate factors to determine a sites redevelopment potential and have been considered in the selection of sites (see analysis in Section 3.1).
• Market Trends & Capacity Contingency: Sites included in the ROD may still remain as a commercial use as permitted by the base zoning district and the requirements outlined in Program 2 are applicable when the site is redeveloped, such as requiring the residential use to occupy at least 50 percent of the floor area in a mixed-use project. Although market and permit trends coupled with local knowledge demonstrate a demand for residential projects, the ROD identifies additional capacity (more than the 20.6 required acres) in Table 15 to ensure that sufficient capacity exists to accommodate lower-income units throughout the planning period.
This additional capacity considered the possibility of sites that may include commercial uses or may not include 100 percent affordable units.
• Permit Trends in Mixed Use Zones: The City has not received any interest or application for 100 percent commercial projects since 2020. Market trends through pipeline projects also support the development of this site as residential as recent applications which initially included a commercial component have been revised and/or are in the process of being revised to remove the commercial component.
• Bonus Incentives: Qualifying projects under State density bonus for inclusion of very low- and low-income units coupled with additional lot consolidation incentives create the potential for this site to achieve 32 maximum units.
Figure 4, Residential Overlay District Sites to Accommodate the Shortfall, shows sites in the ROD to accommodate the remaining RHNA needed for lower-income units, including a buffer to ensure sufficient capacity throughout the planning period.
Page | E-46 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix E: Sites Analysis and Inventory Table 15. Residential Overlay District (ROD) Sites to Accommodate the Shortfall Table
ID APNs Consolidated
Site Letter Zone Area
District Acres
Lower Income
Units (Minimum
Capacity at 20
du/acre)
Lower Income
Units (Maximum
Capacity at 60
du/acre)
Existing Uses
1 4169006006
4169006005
4169006007
A CG I 0.53 10 31
Two-story office building for MB real estate agency with a surface parking lot to the rear (APN 4169006006, LTI ratio 0.37; built 1977). Small commercial strip with three stand- alone buildings including a Pilates studio, hair salon, photography studio. State Farm real estate agent office, law office, tanning studio (APN 4169006005, LTI ratio 0.14, built 1954; APN 4169006007, LTI ratio 0.66, built 1987).
2 4173027026
4173027022
4173027021
4173027020
4173027019
4173027024
4173027027
B CG II 1.13 23 67
Five one-story standalone buildings. A smog check shop (APN 4173027026, LTI ratio
1.05, built 1989). Picture frame shop (APN 4173027022, LTI ratio 0.0003, built 1947) with parking lot (APN 4173027021). Medical offices, including a dermatology, hearing, facial plastic and ENT surgery (APN 4173027019, LTI ratio 3.08, built 1969) and parking lot (APN 4173027020). Standalone building and surface parking lot with an animal hospital, vacated massage spa, and a postal center (APN, 4173027027, LTI ratio 0.21, built 1974). Standalone building and surface parking lot with a secondhand store (APN 4173027024, LTI ratio 0.41, built 1948).
3 4171013041
4171013036
4171013030
4171013034
4171013029
4171013039
C CG II 0.82 17 49
One-story building, same-day COVID-19 testing clinic and vacated spa (APN 4171013036, LTI ratio 0.99, built 1954). Nail salon, coreolgy pilates studio, sports bar, and dermatology and laser center (APN 4171013041, LTI ratio 0.5, built 1961). Printing Office (APN 4171013034, LTI ratio 0.22, built 1947). Real estate group office, and acting studio (APN, 4171013039, LTI ratio 0.54, built 1957). Vacated Enterprise Rent-A- Car (APN 4171013030, LTI ratio 0.34, built 1957) with a parking lot (APN 4171013029, LTI ratio 0.004).
4 4171014034
4171014035
4171014020
4171014021
D CG II 0.66 13 39
Auto repair and tire shop with surface parking (APN 4171014034, LTI ratio 0.66, built 1968). Auto service and repair shop with surface parking (APN 4171014035, LTI ratio
0.30, built 1972). Two-story building with an attorney office (APN 4171014020, LTI ratio
0.33, built 1923) and surface parking associated with attorney office (APN 4171014021, LTI ratio 0.003, built 1950).
5 4170006019
4170006018
4170006017
4170006022
4170006015
4170006028
4170006027
4170006013
E CG II 0.97 19 56
Stand-alone shipping and mailing store with surface parking (APN 4170006019, LTI ratio 0.26, built 1965). Stand-alone marketing agency (APN 4170006018, LTI ratio 0.06, built 1950). Duplex with two existing residential units (APN 4170006017, LTI ratio 0.22, built 1949). Two-story commercial building with a sports bar and office spaces with a large surface parking lot (APN 4170006022, LTI ratio 0.39, built 1964). Stand-alone commercial building with a tailor and insurance agency office with surface parking (APN 4170006015, LTI ratio 0.26, built 1955). Ingress and egress to surrounding uses (APN 4170006028, LTI ratio N/A). Auto service shop (APN 4170006027, LTI ratio and built N/A). Veterinarian office (APN 4170006013, LTI ratio 0.34, built 1948). 6 4170007021
4170007022
4170007017
4170007016
F CG II 0.50 9 30
Stand-alone mattress store with surface parking (APN 4170007021, LTI ratio 0.43, built 1947). Self-service car wash with surface parking (APN 4170007022, LTI ratio 0.42, built 1965). Auto repair shop with surface parking (APN 4170007017, LTI ratio 0.19, built 1949). Hair salon and pet salon with surface parking (APN 4170007016, LTI ratio
0.38, built 1949).
7 4167015034 CG I 0.65 13 39 Church building with large surface parking lot (LTI ratio 0.80, built 1966).
Page | E-47 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix E: Sites Analysis and Inventory Table 15. Residential Overlay District (ROD) Sites to Accommodate the Shortfall Table
ID APNs Consolidated
Site Letter Zone Area
District Acres
Lower Income
Units (Minimum
Capacity at 20
du/acre)
Lower Income
Units (Maximum
Capacity at 60
du/acre)
Existing Uses
8 4170037001
4170037002 G CG I 0.50 9 30
Stand-alone commercial with an ice cream shop, spa, and restaurant (APN 4170037001, LTI ratio 0.40, built 1956). Surface parking (APN 4170037002, LTI ratio
0.014).
9 4167026012
4167026011 H CG I 0.51 10 30
Corner lot with a one-story paint store and large surface parking (APN 4167026012, LTI ratio 0.87, built 1955). Two-story office building with a hair salon, plant services office, advertising office, and limousine services office (APN 4167026011, LTI ratio 0.43, built 1968).
10 4169014048
4169014016
I CG I 0.62 12 37
Stand-alone garden center (APN 4169014048, LTI ratio 0.33, built 1974). Garden center store (APN 4169014016, LTI ratio 0.27, built 1954). The property owner has interest to be included in the overlay to permit residential uses.
11 4167023013
4167023032 J CG I 0.65 13 39 Stand-alone cleaners with surface parking (APN 4167023013, LTI ratio 0.05, built 1941). Auto repair shop (APN 4167023032, LTI ratio 0.13, built 1964). 12 4168025011
4168025010
4168025009
4168025008
K CG I 0.68 13 40
Pet supply store (APN 4168025011, LTI ratio 0.46, built 1980). Auto repair shop (APN 4168025010, LTI ratio 0.20, built 1953). Large surface parking associated with auto repair shop (APN 4168025009, LTI ratio 0.04). Two-story commercial building with a fraternity office and closed yarn shop (APN 4168025008, LTI ratio 0.75, built 1952). 13 4164003027
4164003022
4164003030 L CG I 0.66 12 38
Small commercial strip with pizza shop, liquor store, and laundromat (APN 4164003027, LTI ratio 0.52, built 1984). Small commercial strip with a camera repair shop, tailor, and nail salon (APN 4164003022, LTI ratio 0.39, built 1972). Single-family residence (APN 4164003030, LTI ratio 0.49, built 1957).
14 4164002032
4164002001 M CG I 0.68 13 40
Cleaners, smoke shop, and sports bar (APN 4164002032, LTI ratio 0.19, built 1957).
One-story commercial building with a banner store, edible arrangements shop, auto parts store, and tutoring service office (APN 4164002001, LTI ratio 0.24, built 1953). 15 4170027001
4170027003
4170027023
N CG I 0.50 9 30
Two-story stand-alone building with an insurance agency office and nail salon (APN 4170027001, LTI ratio 1.49, built 1948). Surface parking lot (APN 4170027003, LTI ratio
0.06). Stand-alone restaurant (APN 4170027023, LTI ratio 0.15, built 1992). 16 4167026014
4167026015
4167026016
O CG I 0.51 10 30
Surface parking lot (APN 4167026014, LTI ratio 0.002). One-story stand-alone commercial building with a dentistry and foot specialist office (APN 4167026015, LTI ratio 0.61, built 1944). Auto repair shop with surface parking (APN 4167026016, LTI ratio 0.13, built 1970).
17 4163008046 N/A CG I 0.86 17 51 Stand-alone office building for an insurance agency with large surface parking lot (LTI ratio 3.37, built 1969).
18 4165024033 N/A CG II 0.51 10 30 Corner lot gas station (LTI ratio 0.12, built 1990). 19 4166020030 N/A CG-D8 II 0.68 13 40 Office and commercial building with large surface parking lot, including a sporting goods store, hair salon, and other office spaces (LTI ratio 0.19, built 1961). 20 4138018022 N/A PD II 5.14 102 308 Five story stand-alone office building with a large surface parking lot (LTI ratio 3.31, built 1982).
21 4166019026 N/A CG-D8 II 0.67 13 40 Car wash service (LTI ratio 0.51, built 1972).
Page | E-48 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix E: Sites Analysis and Inventory Table 15. Residential Overlay District (ROD) Sites to Accommodate the Shortfall Table
ID APNs Consolidated
Site Letter Zone Area
District Acres
Lower Income
Units (Minimum
Capacity at 20
du/acre)
Lower Income
Units (Maximum
Capacity at 60
du/acre)
Existing Uses
22 4173032034 N/A CG II 0.68 13 40
Commercial lot with two stand-alone building s. One building has multiple tenants , including a pizza franchise, massage spa, sushi restaurant, bakery, and jewelry store.
The second building is a vacated office space. There is a large surface parking lot (LTI ratio 0.57, built 1983).
23 4166020034 N/A CG-D8 II 2.93 58 175
Commercial center with a bicycle store, bagel stop, restaurant, sports apparel store, market, bank, and theatre company and large surface parking lot (LTI ratio 0.62, built 1955).
24 4171013043 N/A CG II 0.71 14 42 Small commercial strip and surface parking lot with a bank, lighting store, fitness store, and nail shop (LTI ratio 1.57, built 1980).
25 4170037023 N/A CG-D8 I 0.5 10 30 Commercial retail building with a dry cleaners, Pilates studio, salon, hair studio, florist, restaurant, and personal fitness training gym (LTI ratio 0.54, built 1969). 26 4167028036 N/A CG-D8 I 0.86 17 51 Small commercial building with a café and two restaurants with a large surface parking lot (LTI ratio 0.42, built 1960).
27 4168013014 N/A CG-D8 I 1.5 29 90 Commercial building with a dental office, pizza restaurant, insurance office, driving school, and a large surface parking lot (LTI ratio 0.57, built 1976). 28 4168012034 N/A CG I 0.83 16 49
Stand-alone commercial building with a large surface parking lot with an eating establishment, donation center, and sandwich shop. There is redevelopment interest on this site (LTI ratio 1.63, built 1961).
29 4168012029 N/A CG I 0.89 17 53 Stand-alone bank with surface parking. There is redevelopment interest on this site. (LTI ratio 0.71, built 1964).
30 4168012036 N/A CG I 2.67 53 160
Shopping center with redevelopment interest. Composed of three stand-alone buildings with multiple tenants and large surface parking lot. Tenants include a fitness center, cleaners, tanning salon, spa, print and ship center, nutrition store, fast-food restaurant, and vacant tenant spaces (LTI ratio 0.76, built 1960).
31 4138018045 N/A PD II 4.79 95 287
Stand-alone five-story commercial building with a gym, coworking offices, and a parking garage with property owner interest to be included in the overlay for redevelop of site. (LTI ratio 1.93, built 1982).
32 4138020056 N/A CG-D8 II 3.29 65 197 Large, vacated stand-alone building with developer interest (LTI ratio 1.49, built 1978).
33 4166023016 N/A CG-D8 II 4.46 89 267 Residence Inn hotel has begun to experience a downturn trend condition and there is developer interest to redevelop into multifamily units.
Total – – – – 42.42 836 2,535
APN = Assessor’s Parcel Number; du/acre = dwelling units per acre; LTI = land-to-improvement; N/A = not applicable
Page | E-49 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix E: Sites Analysis and Inventory
Figure 4. Residential Overlay District (ROD) Sites to Accommodate the Shortfall
Page | E-50 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix E: Sites Analysis and Inventory 8 Conclusions
Bound by Rosecrans Avenue to the north, the Pacific Ocean to the west, Redondo Beach and Hermosa Beach to the east and south, the City has developed to the edges of its boundaries. Because the City is nearly entirely built-out and does not have large swaths of land preserved for open space or conservation, there are little to no opportunities to identify new housing capacity on undeveloped lands.
The City’s housing capacity is identified in the form of underutilized sites that are most suitable for redevelopment. The underutilization of these sites, in combination with their location in high-resource areas and paired with the following programs of the Housing Element, will ensure that the City can realistically meet the RHNA targets at all income levels during the Housing Element planning period:
• Through Program 1, Accessory Dwelling Units, the City will stay current and amend the ADU Ordinance if needed to conform to future amendments to State law, and develop public engagement and informational tools to streamline the approval process and market ADU/JADU construction, including ADUs affordable to lower- and moderate-income households, to achieve an annual average goal of 10 building permits issued for ADUs. • Through Program 2, Adequate Sites, the City will establish a new overlay zoning district to create the opportunity for several hundred residential units on land that historically only allowed purely commercial uses. As reflected in the previous section, each site identified as a potential site for the Adequate Sites Program’s overlay has the capacity to accommodate residential units with a minimum density of 20 dwelling units per acre and will be available for development in the planning period where water, sewer, and dry utilities can be provided. This program has been implemented with the adoption of the Residential Overlay District (ROD) in March 2023. • Through Program 3, Affordable Housing Streamlining, the City will continue to offer concurrent processing of all discretionary applications for a project and inform developers of the opportunity for concurrent processing. To minimize constraints to the development of affordable housing that may result from discretionary permitting procedures, the City will amend the Zoning Code to ensure Precise Development Plan applications are subject only to an administrative non-discretionary approval process.
• Through Program 7, By-Right Development, the City will allow developments by-right pursuant to Government Code Section 65583.2(i) when 20 percent or more of the units are affordable to lower-income households on sites identified in the Sites Inventory to accommodate the lower- income RHNA that were previously identified in past Housing Elements. This program has been implemented by including the two previously identified parcels (zoned Local Commercial (CL) as part of the Residential Overlay District adopted in March 2023. • Through Program 12, Developer Outreach, the City will actively work with the development community to identify ways that lower‐income housing may be provided, including 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 development 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 about development opportunities for ADUs. • Through Program 16, Lot Consolidation Incentive, the City will continue to provide an additional density bonus incentive which goes above and beyond what is permitted under State Law. The
Page | E-51 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix E: Sites Analysis and Inventory program will also be amended to provide lot consolidation bonus incentives for sites identified in the Sites Inventory to support the consolidation of small sites 0.3 acres or greater. • Through Program 19, No Net Loss, the City will use its development permit database to monitor development activity, proposed rezones, and identified capacity 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 State law.
• Through Program 22, Parking Reduction in Exchange for Housing at Religious Institution, the City will make Zoning Code revisions to identify a process by which parking requirements can be reduced for religious institutions in exchange for housing development. • Through 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 Housing Element Annual Progress Report in accordance with the requirements of State law.
Further details on these programs can be found in the Programs section of the Housing Element.
HCD’s Sites Inventory Form is provided as Exhibit A, below.
Table A: Housing Element Sites Inventory, Table Starts in Cell A2 For Los Angeles County jurisdictions, please format the APNs as follows: 9999-999-999 Jurisdiction Name Site Address/Intersection 5 Digit ZIP Code
Assessor Parcel
Number
Consolidated
Sites
General Plan
Designation
(Current)
Zoning
Designation
(Current)
Minimum
Density
Allowed
(units/acre)
Maximum
Density
Allowed
(units/acre)
Parcel Size
(Acres)
Existing
Use/Vacancy Infrastructure Publicly-Owned Site Status
Identified in
Last/Last Two
Planning Cycle(s)
Lower Income
Capacity
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Above
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Total Capacity Optional Information1 Optional Information2 Optional Information3 MANHATTAN BEACH 1535 ARTESIA BLVD 90266 4163-024-028 High Density ResidenRH, Area District 1 0 46.6 0.46 Educational/institutionYES - Current NO - Privately-Owne dAvailable Not Used in Prior Hou 9009 LTI Ratio 0.97 Built 1963 Masonic Center with surface pa MANHATTAN BEACH 1030 MANHATTAN BEACH BLVD 90266 4170-026-003 A (Local Commercial) CCL, Area District 1 0 46.6 0.36 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owne dAvailable Used in Prior Housing 7007 LTI Ratio 0.30 Built 1953 Remax Offices, stand- alone bu MANHATTAN BEACH 1026 MANHATTAN BEACH BLVD 90266 4170-026-004 A CL CL, Area District 1 0 46.6 0.13 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owne dAvailable Used in Prior Housing 2002 LTI Ratio 0.95 Built 1964 Two-story stand-alone vacated P MANHATTAN BEACH 1633 ARTESIA BLVD 90266 4163-009-020 HDR RH, Area District 1 0 43.6 0.34 Residential YES - Current NO - Privately-Owne dAvailable Not Used in Prior Hou 0909 LTI Ratio 0.15 Built 1950 Single Family Residence (SFR) , MANHATTAN BEACH 1451 12TH ST 90266 4166-008-016 HDR RH, Area District 2 0 43.6 0.17 Residential YES - Current NO - Privately-Owne dAvailable Not Used in Prior Hou 0404 LTI Ratio 0.61 Built 1954 Duplex, 2 MANHATTAN BEACH 1426 12TH ST 90266 4166-009-008 HDR RH, Area District 2 0 43.6 0.24 Residential YES - Current NO - Privately-Owne dAvailable Not Used in Prior Hou 0606 LTI Ratio 0.31 Built 1942 Duplex, 2 MANHATTAN BEACH 1324 12TH ST 90266 4166-010-006 HDR RH, Area District 2 0 43.6 0.16 Residential YES - Current NO - Privately-Owne dAvailable Not Used in Prior Hou 0404 LTI Ratio 0.27 Built 1953 SFR, 1 MANHATTAN BEACH 1314 12TH ST 90266 4166-010-008 HDR RH, Area District 2 0 43.6 0.16 Residential YES - Current NO - Privately-Owne dAvailable Not Used in Prior Hou 0404 LTI Ratio 0.33 Built 1956 SFR, 1 MANHATTAN BEACH 1711 ARTESIA BLVD 90266 4163-008-038 CL CL, Area District 1 0 43.6 0.3 Residential YES - Current NO - Privately-Owne dAvailable Not Used in Prior Hou 0 10 0 10 LTI Ratio 0.39 Built 1959 Graphic design office, hair fitnes MANHATTAN BEACH 1716 MANHATTAN BEACH BLVD 90266 4164-016-010 CL CL, Area District 1 0 43.6 0.11 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owne dAvailable Not Used in Prior Hou 0404 LTI Ratio 0.11 Built 1955 Stand-alone real estate office MANHATTAN BEACH 953 MANHATTAN BEACH BLVD 90266 4170-009-800 CL CL, Area District 2 0 43.6 0.59 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owne dAvailable Not Used in Prior Hou 0 20 0 20 LTI Ratio 0 N/A Telecommunications office build MANHATTAN BEACH 939 MANHATTAN BEACH BLVD 90266 4170-010-014 CL CL, Area District 2 0 43.6 0.09 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owne dAvailable Not Used in Prior Hou 0303 LTI Ratio 0.20 Built 1958 Two-story beauty salon MANHATTAN BEACH 828 MANHATTAN BEACH BLVD 90266 4170-023-007 CL CL, Area District 1 0 43.6 0.17 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owne dAvailable Not Used in Prior Hou 0606 LTI Ratio 0.43 Built 1971 Stand-alone dermatology office MANHATTAN BEACH 4005 HIGHLAND AVE 90266 4137-009-058 CNE CNE, Area District 3 0 51.2 0.13 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owne dAvailable Not Used in Prior Hou 0505 LTI Ratio 0.79 Built 1970 Stand-alone vacated gym with s MANHATTAN BEACH 1216 HIGHLAND AVE 90266 4179-004-001 (Downtown CommercCD, Area District 3 0 51.2 0.15 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owne dAvailable Not Used in Prior Hou 0606 LTI Ratio 0.35 Built 1946 Stand-alone two-story building w MANHATTAN BEACH 1419 HIGHLAND AVE 90266 4179-028-001 CL CD, Area District 3 0 51.2 0.08 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owne dAvailable Not Used in Prior Hou 0303 LTI Ratio 0.29 Built 1956 Real estate agency MANHATTAN BEACH 1756 MANHATTAN BEACH BLVD 90266 4164-016-002 B CL CL, Area District 1 0 43.6 0.11 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owne dAvailable Not Used in Prior Hou 0404 LTI Ratio 0.70 Built 1952 Stand alone building with vacat e MANHATTAN BEACH 1750 MANHATTAN BEACH BLVD 90266 4164-016-003 B CL CL, Area District 1 0 43.6 0.11 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owne dAvailable Not Used in Prior Hou 0404 LTI Ratio 0.27 Built1952 Stand alone building with vacat e MANHATTAN BEACH 1762 MANHATTAN BEACH BLVD 90266 4164-016-001 B CL CL, Area District 1 0 43.6 0.11 Mixed Use YES - Current NO - Privately-Owne dAvailable Not Used in Prior Hou 0303 LTI Ratio 0.21 Built 1952 Mixed use lot with a commercia l MANHATTAN BEACH 917 MANHATTAN BEACH BLVD 90266 4170-011-014 C CL CL, Area District 2 0 43.6 0.09 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owne dAvailable Not Used in Prior Hou 0303 LTI Ratio 0.70 Built 1964 Dentistry with surface parking MANHATTAN BEACH 921 MANHATTAN BEACH BLVD 90266 4170-011-015 C CL CL, Area District 2 0 43.6 0.1 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owne dAvailable Not Used in Prior Hou 0303 LTI Ratio 0.51 Built 1952 Law office with surface parking MANHATTAN BEACH 901 MANHATTAN BEACH BLVD 90266 4170-011-010 D CL CL, Area District 2 0 43.6 0.1 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owne dAvailable Not Used in Prior Hou 0404 LTI Ratio 0.65 Built 1963 Stand-alone tax attorney office w MANHATTAN BEACH 909 MANHATTAN BEACH BLVD 90266 4170-011-012 D CL CL, Area District 2 0 43.6 0.09 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owne dAvailable Not Used in Prior Hou 0303 LTI Ratio 0 Built 1958 Two-story real estate agent offi c MANHATTAN BEACH 905 MANHATTAN BEACH BLVD 90266 4170-011-011 D CL CL, Area District 2 0 43.6 0.09 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owne dAvailable Not Used in Prior Hou 0303 LTI Ratio 0.42 Built 1948 Vacated stand alone building a n MANHATTAN BEACH 910 MANHATTAN BEACH BLVD 90266 4170-025-010 E CL CL, Area District 1 0 43.6 0.12 Residential YES - Current NO - Privately-Owne dAvailable Not Used in Prior Hou 0303 LTI Ratio 0.13 Built 1941 Single family residence, 1 MANHATTAN BEACH 920 MANHATTAN BEACH BLVD 90266 4170-025-008 E CL CL, Area District 1 0 43.6 0.12 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owne dAvailable Not Used in Prior Hou 0303 LTI Ratio .93 Built 1978 Two-story real estate agent offi c MANHATTAN BEACH 916 MANHATTAN BEACH BLVD 90266 4170-025-009 E CD CL, Area District 1 0 43.6 0.12 Residential YES - Current NO - Privately-Owne dAvailable Not Used in Prior Hou 0303 LTI Ratio 0.25 Built 1949 Triplex with 3 existing residenti a MANHATTAN BEACH 212 MANHATTAN BEACH BLVD 90266 4179-020-012 F CD CD, Area District 3 0 51.2 0.03 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owne dAvailable Not Used in Prior Hou 0202 LTI Ratio 0.28 Built 1947 Retail clothing store MANHATTAN BEACH 1120 MANHATTAN AVE 90266 4179-020-001 F CD CD, Area District 3 0 51.2 0.03 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owne dAvailable Not Used in Prior Hou 0101 LTI Ratio 0.40 Built 1940 Ice cream shop MANHATTAN BEACH 208 MANHATTAN BEACH BLVD 90266 4179-020-013 F CL CD, Area District 3 0 51.2 0.03 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owne dAvailable Not Used in Prior Hou 0101 LTI Ratio 0.10 Built 1923 Stand-alone gift shop MANHATTAN BEACH 852 MANHATTAN BEACH BLVD 90266 4170-024-008 G CL CL, Area District 1 0 43.6 0.09 Mixed Use YES - Current NO - Privately-Owne dAvailable Not Used in Prior Hou 0202 LTI Ratio 0.24 Built 1952 Mixed-use lot with two stand-al o MANHATTAN BEACH 848 MANHATTAN BEACH BLVD 90266 4170-024-009 G CL CL, Area District 1 0 43.6 0.09 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owne dAvailable Not Used in Prior Hou 0303 LTI Ratio 0.42 Built 1959 Stand-alone vacated office buil d MANHATTAN BEACH 1141 N POINSETTIA AVE 90266 4170-014-009 H CL CL, Area District 2 0 43.6 0.05 Residential YES - Current NO - Privately-Owne dAvailable Not Used in Prior Hou 0101 LTI Ratio 0.10 Built 1940 SFR, detached, 1 MANHATTAN BEACH 1145 N POINSETTIA AVE 90266 4170-014-008 H Medium Density Resi CL, Area District 2 0 43.6 0.11 Residential YES - Current NO - Privately-Owne dAvailable Not Used in Prior Hou 0202 LTI Ratio 0.27 Built 1928 SFR, detached, 1 MANHATTAN BEACH 1011 MANHATTAN BEACH BLVD 90266 4170-008-027 I CL CL, Area District 2 0 43.6 0.19 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owne dAvailable Not Used in Prior Hou 0606 LTI Ratio 0.14 Built 1963 design studio office MANHATTAN BEACH 1019 MANHATTAN BEACH BLVD 90266 4170-008-028 I CNE CL, Area District 2 0 43.6 0.2 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owne dAvailable Not Used in Prior Hou 0707 LTI Ratio 0.44 Built 1952 restaurant with large surface pa MANHATTAN BEACH 3520 HIGHLAND AVE 90266 4175-017-007 J CNE CNE-D5, Area Distri c 0 51.2 0.04 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owne dAvailable Not Used in Prior Hou 0202 LTI Ratio 0.81 Built 1965 Stand-alone two-story insuranc e MANHATTAN BEACH 3514 HIGHLAND AVE 90266 4175-017-009 J CNE CNE-D5, Area Distric 0 51.2 0.04 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owne dAvailable Not Used in Prior Hou 0101 LTI Ratio 0.88 Built 1936 Commercial building with a spa MANHATTAN BEACH 3515 HIGHLAND AVE 90266 4175-024-023 CNE CNE-D5/RH, Area Di s 0 51.2 0.09 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owne dAvailable Not Used in Prior Hou 0303 LTI Ratio 0.98 Built 1965 Stand-alone hair salon with a s m MANHATTAN BEACH 1416 15TH ST 90266 4166-008-002 MDR RM, Area District 2 0 18.9 0.17 Residential YES - Current NO - Privately-Owne dAvailable Not Used in Prior Hou 0011 LTI Ratio 0.43 Built 1954 SFR, 1 MANHATTAN BEACH 1407 12TH ST 90266 4166-008-007 HDR RH, Area District 2 0 43.6 0.12 Residential YES - Current NO - Privately-Owne dAvailable Not Used in Prior Hou 0033 LTI Ratio 0.07 Built 1956 SFR, 1 MANHATTAN BEACH 316 ROSECRANS AVE 90266 4175-016-005 CNE CNE, Area District 3 0 51.2 0.06 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owne dAvailable Not Used in Prior Hou 0022 LTI Ratio 0.08 Built 1939 Stand-alone restaurant MANHATTAN BEACH HIGHLAND AVE/38TH PL 90266 4137-002-016 CNE CNE, Area District 4 0 51.2 0.04 Parking YES - Current NO - Privately-Owne dAvailable Not Used in Prior Hou 0011 LTI Ratio 0 N/A Empty parking lot MANHATTAN BEACH EL PORTO ST/OCEAN DR 90266 4137-010-022 HDR RH, Area District 4 0 51.2 0.03 Parking YES - Current NO - Privately-Owne dAvailable Not Used in Prior Hou 0011 LTI Ratio 0 N/A Empty parking lot MANHATTAN BEACH 41ST ST/HIGHLAND AVE 90266 4137-008-057 CNE CNE, Area District 4 0 51.2 0.06 Parking YES - Current NO - Privately-Owne dAvailable Not Used in Prior Hou 0022 LTI Ratio 0.01 Built 1966 Surface parking lot MANHATTAN BEACH 3917 HIGHLAND AVE 90266 4137-010-006 CNE CNE, Area District 3 0 51.2 0.04 Parking YES - Current NO - Privately-Owne dAvailable Not Used in Prior Hou 0011 LTI Ratio 0.02 Built 1957 Surface parking lot MANHATTAN BEACH 315 12TH ST 90266 4179-004-005 CD CD, Area District 3 0 51.2 0.06 Parking YES - Current NO - Privately-Owne dAvailable Not Used in Prior Hou 0022 LTI Ratio 0.01 Built 1965 Surface parking lot MANHATTAN BEACH 815 MANHATTAN AVE 90266 4179-014-013 CD CD, Area District 3 0 51.2 0.06 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owne dAvailable Not Used in Prior Hou 0022 LTI Ratio 0.26 Built 1972 Office building, clothing store, a n MANHATTAN BEACH 1213 MANHATTAN AVE 90266 4179-022-029 CD CD, Area District 3 0 51.2 0.03 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owne dAvailable Not Used in Prior Hou 0011 LTI Ratio 0.52 Built 1924 Stand-alone dentistry office MANHATTAN BEACH 1409 HIGHLAND AVE 90266 4179-028-025 CD CD, Area District 3 0 51.2 0.07 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owne dAvailable Not Used in Prior Hou 0033 LTI Ratio 0.27 Built 1989 Stand-alone real estate office MANHATTAN BEACH 0
MANHATTAN BEACH 0
Exhibit A
Table B: Candidate Sites Identified to be Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Need, Table Starts in Cell A2 For Los Angeles County jurisdictions, please format the APNs as follows: 9999-999-999 Jurisdiction Name Site Address/Intersection 5 Digit ZIP Code
Assessor Parcel
Number
Very Low-
Income Low-Income Moderate-
Income
Above
Moderate-
Income
Type of Shortfall Parcel Size
(Acres)
Current General
Plan Designation Current Zoning
Proposed General
Plan (GP)
Designation
Proposed Zoning
Minimum
Density
Allowed
Maximum
Density
Allowed
Total Capacity Vacant/
Nonvacant
Description of
Existing Uses Infrastructure Optional Information1 Optional Information2 MANHATTAN BEACH 503 N SEPULVEDA BLVD 90266 4169-006-006 Capacity captur e 3 0 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.15 CG CG CG ROD 20 60 3 Non-Vacant Commercial YES ‐ Current A LTI ratio 0.37; Built 1977 MANHATTAN BEACH 407 N SEPULVEDA BLVD 90266 4169-006-005 Capacity captur e 4 0 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.23 CG CG CG ROD 20 60 4 Non-Vacant Commercial YES ‐ Current A LTI ratio 0.14; Built 1954 MANHATTAN BEACH 509 N SEPULVEDA BLVD 90266 4169-006-007 Capacity captur e 3 0 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.15 CG CG CG ROD 20 60 3 Non-Vacant Commercial YES ‐ Current A LTI ratio 0.67; Built 1987 MANHATTAN BEACH 2909 N SEPULVEDA BLVD 90266 4173-027-026 Capacity captur e 4 0 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.19 CG CG CG ROD 20 60 4 Non-Vacant Commercial YES ‐ Current B LTI ratio 1.06; Built 1989 MANHATTAN BEACH 2809 N SEPULVEDA BLVD 90266 4173-027-020 Capacity captur e 2 0 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.09 CG CG CG ROD 20 60 2 Non-Vacant Parking YES ‐ Current B LTI ratio 0.06; Built 1969 MANHATTAN BEACH 2905 N SEPULVEDA BLVD 90266 4173-027-022 Capacity captur e 2 0 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.09 CG CG CG ROD 20 60 2 Non-Vacant Commercial YES ‐ Current B LTI ratio 0; Built 1947 MANHATTAN BEACH 2809 N SEPULVEDA BLVD 90266 4173-027-019 Capacity captur e 4 0 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.19 CG CG CG ROD 20 60 4 Non-Vacant Commercial YES ‐ Current B LTI ratio 3.09; Built 1946 MANHATTAN BEACH 2701 N SEPULVEDA BLVD 90266 4173-027-024 Capacity captur e 2 0 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.09 CG CG CG ROD 20 60 2 Non-Vacant Commercial YES ‐ Current B LTI ratio 0.42; Built 1948 MANHATTAN BEACH 2705 N SEPULVEDA BLVD 90266 4173-027-027 Capacity captur e 7 0 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.39 CG CG CG ROD 20 60 7 Non-Vacant Commercial YES ‐ Current B LTI ratio 0.22; Built 1974 MANHATTAN BEACH 2809 N SEPULVEDA BLVD 90266 4173-027-021 Capacity captur e 2 0 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.09 CG CG CG ROD 20 60 2 Non-Vacant Parking YES ‐ Current B LTI ratio 0.06; Built 1969 MANHATTAN BEACH 2401 N SEPULVEDA BLVD 90266 4171-013-041 Capacity captur e 4 0 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.19 MU CG MU ROD 20 60 4 Non-Vacant Commercial YES ‐ Current C LTI ratio 0.51; Built 1961 MANHATTAN BEACH 2405 N SEPULVEDA BLVD 90266 4171-013-036 Capacity captur e 2 0 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.1 CG CG CG ROD 20 60 2 Non-Vacant Commercial YES ‐ Current C LTI ratio 0.99; Built 1954 MANHATTAN BEACH 2301 N SEPULVEDA BLVD 90266 4171-013-030 Capacity captur e 4 0 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.19 CG CG CG ROD 20 60 4 Non-Vacant Commercial YES ‐ Current C LTI ratio: 0.34; Built 1957 MANHATTAN BEACH 2317 N SEPULVEDA BLVD 90266 4171-013-034 Capacity captur e 1 0 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.05 CG CG CG ROD 20 60 1 Non-Vacant Commercial YES ‐ Current C LTI ratio 0.54; Built 1957 MANHATTAN BEACH 2301 N SEPULVEDA BLVD 90266 4171-013-029 Capacity captur e 2 0 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.09 CG CG CG ROD 20 60 2 Non-Vacant Commercial YES ‐ Current C LTI ratio 0; Built 1957 MANHATTAN BEACH 2309 N SEPULVEDA BLVD 90266 4171-013-039 Capacity captur e 4 0 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.2 CG CG CG ROD 20 60 4 Non-Vacant Commercial YES ‐ Current C LTI ratio 0.22; Built 1947 MANHATTAN BEACH 1701 N SEPULVEDA BLVD 90266 4171-014-034 Capacity captur e 4 0 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.24 CG CG CG ROD 20 60 4 Non-Vacant Commercial YES ‐ Current D LTI ratio 0.66; Built 1968 MANHATTAN BEACH 1721 N SEPULVEDA BLVD 90266 4171-014-020 Capacity captur e 2 0 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.09 CG CG CG ROD 20 60 2 Non-Vacant Commercial YES ‐ Current D LTI ratio 0.33; Built 1923 MANHATTAN BEACH 1725 N SEPULVEDA BLVD 90266 4171-014-021 Capacity captur e 2 0 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.09 CG CG CG ROD 20 60 2 Non-Vacant Parking YES ‐ Current D LTI ratio 0; Built 1950 MANHATTAN BEACH 1717 N SEPULVEDA BLVD 90266 4171-014-035 Capacity captur e 5 0 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.24 CG CG CG ROD 20 60 5 Non-Vacant Commercial YES ‐ Current D LTI ratio 0.31; Built 1972 MANHATTAN BEACH 1505 N SEPULVEDA BLVD 90266 4170-006-017 Capacity captur e 2 0 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.09 CG CG CG ROD 20 60 2 Non-Vacant Residential, 2 YES ‐ Current E LTI ratio 0.23; Built 1949 MANHATTAN BEACH 1509 N SEPULVEDA BLVD 90266 4170-006-018 Capacity captur e 2 0 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.09 CG CG CG ROD 20 60 2 Non-Vacant Commercial YES ‐ Current E LTI ratio 0.06; Built 1950 MANHATTAN BEACH 1413 N SEPULVEDA BLVD 90266 4170-006-015 Capacity captur e 6 0 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.28 CG CG CG ROD 20 60 6 Non-Vacant Commercial YES ‐ Current E LTI ratio 0.26; Built 1955 MANHATTAN BEACH 1501 N SEPULVEDA BLVD 90266 4170-006-022 Capacity captur e 2 0 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.1 MU CG/RS-D6 MU ROD 20 60 2 Non-Vacant Commercial YES ‐ Current E LTI ratio 0.4; Built 1954 MANHATTAN BEACH 1405 N Sepulveda Blvd 90266 4170-006-028 Capacity captur e 1 0 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.09 CG CG CG ROD 20 60 1 Non-Vacant Commercial YES ‐ Current E LTI ratio 0 MANHATTAN BEACH 1401 N SEPULVEDA BLVD 90266 4170-006-013 Capacity captur e 2 0 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.1 CG CG CG ROD 20 60 2 Non-Vacant Commercial YES ‐ Current E LTI ratio 0.34; Built 1948 MANHATTAN BEACH 1405 N Sepulveda Blvd 90266 4170-006-027 Capacity captur e 2 0 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.09 CG CG CG ROD 20 60 2 Non-Vacant Commercial YES ‐ Current E LTI ratio 0 MANHATTAN BEACH 1601 N SEPULVEDA BLVD 90266 4170-006-019 Capacity captur e 2 0 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.09 CG CG CG ROD 20 60 2 Non-Vacant Commercial YES ‐ Current E LTI ratio 0.27; Built 1965 MANHATTAN BEACH 1213 N SEPULVEDA BLVD 90266 4170-007-016 Capacity captur e 2 0 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.1 CG CG CG ROD 20 60 2 Non-Vacant Commercial YES ‐ Current F LTI ratio 0.38; Built 1949 MANHATTAN BEACH 1309 N SEPULVEDA BLVD 90266 4170-007-022 Capacity captur e 3 0 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.19 CG CG CG ROD 20 60 3 Non-Vacant Commercial YES ‐ Current F LTI ratio 0.43; Built 1965 MANHATTAN BEACH 1301 N SEPULVEDA BLVD 90266 4170-007-017 Capacity captur e 2 0 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.09 CG CG CG ROD 20 60 2 Non-Vacant Commercial YES ‐ Current F LTI ratio 0.19; Built 1949 MANHATTAN BEACH 1315 N SEPULVEDA BLVD 90266 4170-007-021 Capacity captur e 2 0 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.1 CG CG CG ROD 20 60 2 Non-Vacant Commercial YES ‐ Current F LTI ratio 0.43; Built 1947 MANHATTAN BEACH 917 N SEPULVEDA BLVD 90266 4170-037-001 Capacity captur e 6 0 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.32 CG CG CG ROD 20 60 6 Non-Vacant Commercial YES ‐ Current G LTI ratio 0.41; Built 1956 MANHATTAN BEACH 1048 10TH ST 90266 4170-037-002 Capacity captur e 3 0 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.17 CG CG CG ROD 20 60 3 Non-Vacant Parking YES ‐ Current G LTI ratio 0.01; Built 1969 MANHATTAN BEACH 708 N SEPULVEDA BLVD 90266 4167-026-012 Capacity captur e 6 0 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.34 CG CG CG ROD 20 60 6 Non-Vacant Commercial YES ‐ Current H LTI ratio 0.88; Built 1955 MANHATTAN BEACH 1116 8TH ST 90266 4167-026-011 Capacity captur e 4 0 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.17 CG CG CG ROD 20 60 4 Non-Vacant Commercial YES ‐ Current H LTI ratio 0.44; Built 1968 MANHATTAN BEACH 201 N SEPULVEDA BLVD 90266 4169-014-016 Capacity captur e 2 0 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.09 CG CG CG ROD 20 60 2 Non-Vacant Commercial YES ‐ Current I LTI ratio 0.27; Built 1954 MANHATTAN BEACH 207 N SEPULVEDA BLVD 90266 4169-014-048 Capacity captur e 10 0 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.53 CG CG CG ROD 20 60 10 Non-Vacant Commercial YES ‐ Current I LTI ratio 0.34; Built 1974 MANHATTAN BEACH 200 N SEPULVEDA BLVD 90266 4167-023-013 Capacity captur e 6 0 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.28 CG CG CG ROD 20 60 6 Non-Vacant Commercial YES ‐ Current J LTI ratio 0.05; Built 1941 MANHATTAN BEACH 222 N SEPULVEDA BLVD 90266 4167-023-032 Capacity captur e 7 0 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.37 CG CG CG ROD 20 60 7 Non-Vacant Commercial YES ‐ Current J LTI ratio 0.14; Built 1964 MANHATTAN BEACH 224 S SEPULVEDA BLVD 90266 4168-025-008 Capacity captur e 4 0 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.17 CG CG CG ROD 20 60 4 Non-Vacant Commercial YES ‐ Current K LTI ratio 0.75; Built 1952 MANHATTAN BEACH 204 S SEPULVEDA BLVD 90266 4168-025-011 Capacity captur e 3 0 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.17 CG CG CG ROD 20 60 3 Non-Vacant Commercial YES ‐ Current K LTI ratio: 0.47; Built 1949 MANHATTAN BEACH 208 S SEPULVEDA BLVD 90266 4168-025-010 Capacity captur e 3 0 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.17 CG CG CG ROD 20 60 3 Non-Vacant Commercial YES ‐ Current K LTI ratio 0.21; Built 1953 MANHATTAN BEACH 210 Sepulveda Blvd 90266 4168-025-009 Capacity captur e 3 0 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.17 CG CG CG ROD 20 60 3 Non-Vacant Commercial YES ‐ Current K LTI ratio 0.04; Built 1952 MANHATTAN BEACH 975 N AVIATION BLVD 90266 4164-003-027 Capacity captur e 6 0 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.34 CG CG CG ROD 20 60 6 Non-Vacant Commercial YES ‐ Current L LTI ratio 0.53; Built 1984 MANHATTAN BEACH 909 N AVIATION BLVD 90266 4164-003-022 Capacity captur e 3 0 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.16 CG CG CG ROD 20 60 3 Non-Vacant Commercial YES ‐ Current L LTI ratio 0.40; Built 1969 MANHATTAN BEACH 1853 9TH ST 90266 4164-003-030 Capacity captur e 3 0 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.15 CG CG CG ROD 20 60 3 Non-Vacant Residential, 1 YES ‐ Current L LTI ratio 0.50; Built 1952 MANHATTAN BEACH 1853 10TH ST 90266 4164-002-032 Capacity captur e 7 0 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.34 CG CG CG ROD 20 60 7 Non-Vacant Commercial YES ‐ Current M LTI ratio 0.20; Built 1957 MANHATTAN BEACH 1075 N AVIATION BLVD 90266 4164-002-001 Capacity captur e 6 0 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.34 CG CG CG ROD 20 60 6 Non-Vacant Commercial YES ‐ Current M LTI ratio 0.25; Built 1953 MANHATTAN BEACH 1021 N SEPULVEDA BLVD 90266 4170-027-001 Capacity captur e 3 0 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.13 CG CG CG ROD 20 60 3 Non-Vacant Commercial YES ‐ Current N LTI ratio 1.50; Built 1948 MANHATTAN BEACH 1048 11TH ST 90266 4170-027-003 Capacity captur e 3 0 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.17 CG CG CG ROD 20 60 3 Non-Vacant Commercial YES ‐ Current N LTI ratio 0.05; Built 1959 MANHATTAN BEACH 1015 N SEPULVEDA BLVD 90266 4170-027-023 Capacity captur e 3 0 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.19 CG CG CG ROD 20 60 3 Non-Vacant Commercial YES ‐ Current N LTI ratio 0.16; Built 1992 MANHATTAN BEACH 600 N SEPULVEDA BLVD 90266 4167-026-014 Capacity captur e 4 0 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.17 CG CG CG ROD 20 60 4 Non-Vacant Commercial YES ‐ Current O LTI ratio 0; Built 1961 MANHATTAN BEACH 1117 6TH ST 90266 4167-026-016 Capacity captur e 3 0 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.17 CG CG CG ROD 20 60 3 Non-Vacant Commercial YES ‐ Current O LTI ratio 0.14; Built 1970 MANHATTAN BEACH 1111 6TH ST 90266 4167-026-015 Capacity captur e 3 0 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.17 CG CG CG ROD 20 60 3 Non-Vacant Commercial YES ‐ Current O LTI ratio 0.61; Built 1944 MANHATTAN BEACH 1440 ROSECRANS AVE 90266 4138-018-022 Capacity captur e 102 0 0 Shortfall of Sites 5.14 MV PD MV ROD 20 60 102 Non-Vacant Commercial YES ‐ Current LTI ratio 3.31; Built 1982 MANHATTAN BEACH 1500 ROSECRANS AVE 90266 4138-018-045 Capacity captur e 95 0 0 Shortfall of Sites 4.79 MV PD MV ROD 20 60 95 Non-Vacant Commercial YES ‐ Current LTI ratio 1.93; Built 1982 MANHATTAN BEACH 700 S AVIATION BLVD 90266 4163-008-046 Capacity captur e 17 0 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.85 CG CG CG ROD 20 60 17 Non-Vacant Commercial YES ‐ Current LTI ratio 3.38; Built 1969 MANHATTAN BEACH 1865 MANHATTAN BEACH BLVD 90266 4165-024-033 Capacity captur e 10 0 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.5 CG CG CG ROD 20 60 10 Non-Vacant Commercial YES ‐ Current LTI ratio 0.12; Built 1990 MANHATTAN BEACH 2100 N SEPULVEDA BLVD 90266 4166-020-030 Capacity captur e 13 0 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.67 CG CG-D8 CG ROD 20 60 13 Non-Vacant Commercial YES ‐ Current LTI ratio 0.20; Built 1961 MANHATTAN BEACH 2414 N SEPULVEDA BLVD 90266 4166-019-026 Capacity captur e 13 0 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.67 CG CG-D8 CG ROD 20 60 13 Non-Vacant Commercial YES ‐ Current LTI ratio 0.52; Built 1972 MANHATTAN BEACH 3001 N SEPULVEDA BLVD 90266 4173-032-034 Capacity captur e 13 0 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.68 CG CG CG ROD 20 60 13 Non-Vacant Commercial YES ‐ Current LTI ratio 0.57; Built 1983 MANHATTAN BEACH 1800 N SEPULVEDA BLVD 90266 4166-020-034 Capacity captur e 58 0 0 Shortfall of Sites 2.93 CG CG-D8 CG ROD 20 60 58 Non-Vacant Commercial YES ‐ Current LTI ratio 0.63; Built 1955 MANHATTAN BEACH 2001 N SEPULVEDA BLVD 90266 4171-013-043 Capacity captur e 14 0 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.71 CG CG CG ROD 20 60 14 Non-Vacant Commercial YES ‐ Current LTI ratio 1.57; Built 1980 MANHATTAN BEACH 1126 10TH ST 90266 4167-028-036 Capacity captur e 17 0 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.86 CG CG-D8/RM CG ROD 20 60 17 Non-Vacant Commercial YES ‐ Current LTI ratio 0.43; Built 1960 MANHATTAN BEACH 901 N SEPULVEDA BLVD 90266 4170-037-023 Capacity captur e 10 0 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.5 CG CG-D8 CG ROD 20 60 10 Non-Vacant Commercial YES ‐ Current LTI ratio 0.54; Built 1969 MANHATTAN BEACH 500 S SEPULVEDA BLVD 90266 4168-013-014 Capacity captur e 29 0 0 Shortfall of Sites 1.5 CG CG-D8 CG ROD 20 60 29 Non-Vacant Commercial YES ‐ Current LTI ratio 0.57; Built 1976 MANHATTAN BEACH 1145 ARTESIA BLVD 90266 4168-012-034 Capacity captur e 16 0 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.83 CG CG CG ROD 20 60 16 Non-Vacant Commercial YES ‐ Current LTI ratio 1.64; Built 1961 MANHATTAN BEACH 700 S SEPULVEDA BLVD 90266 4168-012-029 Capacity captur e 17 0 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.89 CG CG CG ROD 20 60 17 Non-Vacant Commercial YES ‐ Current LTI ratio 0.71; Built 1964 MANHATTAN BEACH 1133 ARTESIA BLVD 90266 4168-012-036 Capacity captur e 53 0 0 Shortfall of Sites 2.67 CG CG CG ROD 20 60 53 Non-Vacant Commercial YES ‐ Current LTI ratio 0.77; Built 1960 MANHATTAN BEACH 1130 MANHATTAN BEACH BLVD 90266 4167-015-034 Capacity captur e 13 0 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.65 CG CG CG ROD 20 60 13 Non-Vacant Educational/institutio nYES ‐ Current LTI ratio 0.80; Built 1966 MANHATTAN BEACH 3600 N SEPULVEDA BLVD MANHA T 90266 4138-020-056 Capacity captur e 65 0 0 Shortfall of Sites 3.29 CG CG-D8 CG ROD 20 60 65 Non-Vacant Commercial YES ‐ Current LTI ratio 1.49; Built 1978 MANHATTAN BEACH 1700 N SEPULVEDA BLVD 90266 4166-023-016 Capacity captur e 89 0 0 Shortfall of Sites 4.46 CG CG-D8 CG ROD 20 60 89 Non-Vacant Hotel/motel YES ‐ Current LTI ratio 6.3; Built 2013 1 Page | F-i City of Manhattan Beach Appendix F: Community Engagement Summary
Appendix F: Community Engagement Summary
Table of Contents
1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1
2. City Council Meetings ........................................................................................................................... 1
2.1 City Council Meeting 1 .................................................................................................................. 1
2.2 City Council Meeting 2 .................................................................................................................. 2
3. Stakeholder Workshop ......................................................................................................................... 2
3.1 Interactive Poll .............................................................................................................................. 2
4. Planning Commission Meeting ............................................................................................................. 3
5. Hometown Fair ..................................................................................................................................... 3
6. Public Comments .................................................................................................................................. 4
7. Presentation Materials ....................................................................................................................... 11
Page | F-1 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix F: Community Engagement Summary
1. Introduction
The City of Manhattan Beach (City) conducted a robust public outreach program that engaged a broad spectrum of the community and stakeholders. Engagement related to the Housing Element update has attempted to be comprehensive while in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Stay-at-home orders of 2020 and 2021 provided the City with opportunities to explore new avenues for public engagement and increased access for those who are traditionally not involved in the planning process. Outreach and formal engagement activities were held virtually across a variety of platforms. Community engagement and outreach was solely done in English. While this is assumed to not be a linguistic barrier to participation for the City’s population (98 percent of the po pulation per 2019 Census data com es from an English -only- speaking household or speak English “very well” ), the City is aware of local and regional demographic changes and will continue to monitor the need for any linguistic services in future outreach endeavors.
Feedback collected throughout the public outreach program was used to inform the goals, policies, a nd programs of the Housing Element and ensure that the City maintains the quality of life for residents and visitors enjoy while planning for future housing needs.
All public meetings were promoted via the City’s three social media platforms (Facebook, Twitte r, and Instagram), the City’s website, which has translation services available, printed and emailed mailers, including a comprehensive stakeholder list, and newspaper ads . Meetings were noticed at least 9 days prior to the event. Social media content for each meeting was , on average , displayed over 21,000 instances, reaching more than 11,200 individuals. By promoting the outreach events via digital and print methods, the City was able to reach a large portion of the population , including low-income residents, renters, and other groups often left out of the formal planning process. The following outreach activities were conducted to engage stakeholders and inform development of the Housing Element.
2. City Council Meetings
2.1 City Council Meeting 1
The first presentation to the City Council occurred on August 24, 2021. The meeting was promoted via the City’s three social media platforms (Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram), the City’s website, which has translation services available, printed and emailed mailer s, including a comprehensive stakeholder list which includes the Chamber of Commerce, seniors club, Homeowners Association (HOA), local organizations which represent various groups including lower -income groups, and individuals to ensure all income groups are represented in the data and throughout the development of the Housing Element.
Council members were presented an introduction to the Housing Element update process; background data, including income category levels ; and a brief discussion on the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation of 774 units. The Mayor and Council Members responded to the presentation and offered their perspectives.
City staff received feedback from City Council noting the lack of vacant land in the City, which presents a challenge to opportunities for new housing development. Other feedback included the need for density bonus programs to incentivize the production of affordable housing by private developers. City staff provided additional detail on the City’s existing, streamlined development process in certain zones, which
Page | F-2 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix F: Community Engagement Summary
will be carried over to the updated Housing Element. A recording of the City Council meeting is available on the City’s website.
2.2 City Council Meeting 2
The second presentation to City Council occurred on September 21, 2021, at 6:00 p.m. Again, the meeting was promoted via the City’s social media platforms, the City’s website, which has translation services available, printed and emailed mailers, including a comprehensive stakeholder list which as previously mentioned includes the Chamber of Commerce, senior s group, individuals, and organizations which represent lower-income groups and people experiencing homelessness, to ensure all income groups are represented in the data and throughout the development of the Housing Element. Staff presented a n overview of the Housing Elements process; progress completed to date, including the Review of 5th Cycle Housing Element, Needs Assessment, and Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis; and an overview of existing conditions in Manhattan Beach as it pertains to the Housing Element update process. Staff also presented on State regulatory mandates , including Senate Bill 35, Assembly Bill 101, and A ssembly Bill 671, and policy development. Staff also provided an overview of the Sites Analysis and Inventory process.
City Council asked for clarification on the how building year is used to identify redevelopment opportunities, asked about accessory dwelling unit regulations, and commented on the potential for duplexes in areas zone d for single-family homes. A recording of the City Council meeting is available on the City’s website.
3. Stakeholder Workshop
A stakeholder workshop occurred on August 31, 2021, and allowed interested parties to be engaged in a more formal setting where they learned about the Housing Element background and purpose , existing conditions and data, the project process and scope, and the next steps. Similar to noticing for previous meetings, the workshop was promoted via the City’s social media platforms, the City’s website, which has translation services available, printed and emailed mailers, including a comprehensive stakeholder list which includes organizations representing lower-income groups and people experiencing homelessness, to ensure all income groups are represented in the data and throughout the development of the Housing Element. The workshop was held during a weekday evening, outside of traditional working hours, and streamed live via Zoom to facilitate participation from local non -profits, community leaders, and the public. This workshop was also available via a call -in number to ensure persons without internet access could join. Participants present included residents, property owners, and employees who work within the City. Community members asked questions related to housing development opportunities and mixed uses in commercial zones ( General Commercial [CG] District, North End Commer cial [CNE], and Downtown Commercial [CD]). A recording of the stakeholder meeting is available on the City’s website.
3.1 Interactive Poll
During the stakeholder meeting, attendees were asked to participate in a poll, which led to feedback from the community to gauge their priorities and identify areas where they would like to see future growth accommodated. Seven individuals submitted responses to one or more questions. The poll indicated that participants highlighted housing affordability and availability of rental units as the most urgent housing
Page | F-3 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix F: Community Engagement Summary
needs in the City. When asked what barriers are slowing the building of more diverse and affordable housing, participants noted lack of available land and development costs. The attendees suggested increasing density, mixed -use, and more hou sing along commercial corridors as the best strategies to satisfy the City’s 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation.
4. Planning Commission Meeting
A Planning Commission meeting occurred on September 15, 2021. The meeting was promoted via the City’s so cial media platforms, the City’s website, which has translation services available, printed and emailed mailers, including a comprehensive stakeholder list which as previously mentioned includes the Chamber of Commerce, senior groups, individuals, and orga nizations which represent lower -income groups and people experiencing homelessness, to ensure all income groups are represented in the data and throughout the development of the Housing Element. Planning Commission members were provided with an overview of the Housing Element, including its purpose and required components, and outreach efforts to date as well as upcoming events. An introduction to the Sites Inventory, goals, polices, and programs was also presented by City staff.
Following the presentation, public attendees and Planning Commissioners were invited to engage in an open discussion. Commissioners asked for clarification on the approval process. Concern ov er incentivizing residential development along major commercial corridors was voiced. A recommendation of allowing mixed-use along these commercial zones was mentioned in response. Furthermore, Planning Commissioners noted concern over increased height , which would adversely impact view corridors.
Greater density along Aviation Boulevard, Rosecrans Ave nue, and Manhattan Beach Boulevard was recommended, along with encouraging smaller units, such as accessory dwelling units. More clarification related to the Sites Inventory was provided through discussion. A member of the public commented that more than 70 percent of the City is zoned to allow low-density, single-family detached units, therefore restricting the potential capacity of higher -density developments. This member of the public suggested that staff look at the potential of allowing duplex and triplex units in residential zones outside of the major corridor. The term “built -out” previously used by a Planning Commissioner to describe the density and planning capacity of the City was criticized as being subjective. More members of the public supported this notion. Another member of the public voiced a concern regarding the ability to accommodate a number of parking spaces per townhome based on the current requirements of the City. A member of the Planning Commission clarified that the requirements for parking may be less stringent, as they are dictated by State law and not the City’s regulation if a density bonus project is, in fact, proposed.
5. Hometown Fair
City staff was present at an informational booth at the Hometown Fair on October 2, 2021. The Hometown Fair is organized by the community in partnership with the City and provides a platform for local businesses, entrepreneurs, artists, and local non -profits to connect with the community. Community members are also provided a platform to promote their civic cause and connect with other community members, both individuals and businesses. During the Hometown fair, fliers promoting the forthcoming public review period were distributed to the public. City staff were also available to answer any questions regarding the Housing Element update process and fielded high -level inquiries about the process in
Page | F-4 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix F: Community Engagement Summary
general. Through the Hometown fair, the City was able to include all members of the community including of various races and ethnicities, and ensure that all persons, including lower -income groups, had an opportunity to connect with City staff, learn about the Housing Element update, and be able to provide feedback on the upcoming public review draft.
6. Public Comments
The Housing Element 6th Cycle Public Review Draft was posted to the City’s website on October 20, 2021 and ended on November 19, 2021. In addition to posting the public review draft to the City’s website, the draft was also ad vertised through the local newspaper, the City’s social media platforms, a notice informing stakeholders was posted at City Hall, and hard copy of the draft was also available at City Hall.
An email to interested parties , which includes organizations that represent lower -income groups and people experiencing homelessness, was also sent to notify them of the availability of the public review draft. As mentioned in Section 5, Hometown Fair, above, the City also held an informational booth prior to the release of the public review draft where City staff distributed noticing fliers. Staff also answered questions about the Housing Element and provided an overview of the purpose of the Housing Element to prepare residents for the public review draft. Since outreach throughout the update of the Housing Element has been comprehensive in reaching all members of the community, including lower -income groups, the public review draft noticing methods was able to reach a wide-range of community members.
Four public comments were received during the public review period. The general nature of the comments include misinterpretation of comments received during a public workshop included in Appendix F ; regarding the unfeasible sites identif ied for low -income housing in Appendix E ; compliance with Affirmatively furthering fair housing as it relates to, identifying site capacity to satisfy the City’s RHNA by encouraging mixed-used development, city-wide election requirements, efforts to integrate single family neighborhoods and racially concentrated areas of affluence, and lack of protection against air and noise pollution along Pacific Coast Highway, Sepulveda Blvd., and Manhattan Beach Blvd. Public comments also provide notes and questions regarding various goals and programs included in the Housing Element.
The City has made a diligent effort to correct, address, and incorporate feedback provided, and information requested in the public comments in the Housing Element. The comments from the four comment letters received (see comment letter 1 through 4 attached) are included in Table 1, Public Comment Summary, which provides a response and a summary of the changes made to the Housing Element.
Page | F-5 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix F: Community Engagement Summary
Table 1. Public Comment Summary
Table ID Comments Response/ Changes Made
Refer to public comment letter – Comment Letter 1
1 Quick clarification: On page F-2 and F-3, there is a section referring to public comments: "A member of the public mentioned that while the City is built-out," That member of the public was me. I did say MB is a low density city, but I didn't say MB was "built-out". I said the term "built-out" has no official definition or designation, and the claim that MB is "built-out" is highly subjective and not very convincing, especially considering MB is +70% zoned for single family detached homes which greatly restricts the potential capacity for more homes.
Also, I don't mean to speak for this person, and you can check the transcript, but I think that "Another member of the public voiced concern over parking regulations and traffic impacts resulting from multifamily housing and increase d densities." is incorrect as well. That member of the public was expressing concern that the city's excessive parking requirements are inhibiting the development of townhomes. I don't think their comment was implying townhomes have a significant negative effect on parking or traffic.
Appendix F has been updated to correct the intent of the public comments received during the public meetings.
Page | F-6 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix F: Community Engagement Summary
Refer to public comment letter – Comment Letter 2
2 Please provide a rationale for including Goal 3: Provide a safe and healthy living environment for City residents and the policies associated with the goal (pg4), Program 10: Energy Conservation and Energy Efficiency Opportunities (page 15), program 27: Water Conservation and Green Building Standards (pg31).
It talks about the city's sustainability program but why is it included in this document? Is it required or was it requested to be included by someone? Also why would this document suggest that the city go beyond state required energy requirements?
Also how will increasing the cost of housing increase the housing stock, in fact the rate of new housing will decrease?
The Draft Housing Element simply references the City’s efforts related to encouraging the use of alternate energy, resource efficiency, and other green building regulations to demonstrate our commitment to “Goal 3” of the Housing Element, which is to provide a safe and healthy living environment for City residents. I’ll note that the current (5th cycle) Housing Element includes the same goal. This goal does not in any way dictate specific actions on green building or energy-related regulations; rather it demonstrates that housing is interlinked with these broader policies that do, in turn, impact the health and safety of our residents. These general policies in the Housing Element do not conflict with Council’s specific actions and direction (past or future) on the matters. To further clarify the comment about considering opportunities above and beyond State requirements, this relates to specific standards within the Green Building Code that are customized for local implementation, which is how the code in effect today was adopted for certain regulations. The Housing Element does not suggest or propose the increase cost of housing will increase the housing stock.
Page | F-7 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix F: Community Engagement Summary
Refer to public comment letter – Comment Letter 3
3 "Manhattan Beach's Housing Element finds that there are inadequate sites for low income housing. It therefore proposes to rezone various ""sites"" for low income housing, listed on p E-23 to E-26. But these ""sites"" are not sites; they are collections of parcels with various ownerships. Consider Site 5, listed on p E-23 (See original comment or reference page number).
This is all the parcels on a city block that face Highway One, no fewer than nine parcels, with, presumably, nine different ownerships. There's a duplex, a two story sports bar, a marketing agency, and a veterinarian's office. A potential low income builder would have to obtain rights to all nine of these parcels, parcels with, apparently, ongoing uses, in order to build a meager 21 units. There is no way any builder would think this was feasible, particularly when they would only be allowed to build 21 units on the resulting site.
This is just one example of many. Site 2 has eight parcels. Site 3 has 7 parcels.
Site 9 has 5 parcels.
Manhattan Beach needs to supply substantial evidence to support the idea that these parcels could be feasibly be consolidated. If there is no such evidence, these ""sites"" need to be replaced with sites that would be feasible. " The Sites Inventory has been modified to include a clear analysis of lot consolidation efforts in the City and examples of consolidated sites in surrounding cities to support consolidated sites identified in the existing capacity and overlay district. The average and median parcel sizes in the City are considered small and it can be expected that developers will consolidate multiple parcels in order to develop larger multifamily developments and will also likely develop more units than identified as calculations at 20 dwelling units per acre are considered the minimum.
Appendix E, sections 4.1.1, 5.1 and 5.2 have been revised to include a more thorough analysis of consolidated sites in the City, including consolidated sites with multiple parcel ownership. Additionally, Program 16, in the Housing element also supports consolidation of sites. A site feasibility study given market and development trends has been included in under section 7.1 of Appendix E.
Page | F-8 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix F: Community Engagement Summary
Refer to public comment letter – Comment Letter 4
4a Hello, I'm a Manhattan Beach resident.
I appreciate all the hard work that went into the housing element draft so far, including navigating the many requirements from state agencies. I think we all want a swift and efficient approval from HCD. That being said, I have some comments on aspects which are keeping this draft from compliance and risk HCD rejection:
First, an excerpt from the AFFH memo:
“Affirm “Affirmatively” furthering fair housing” means taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics.
Specifically, affirmatively furthering fair housing means taking meaningful actions that, taken together, address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity, replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity, and fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws. The duty to affirmatively further fair housing extends to all of a public agency’s activities and programs relating to housing and community developmentatively furthering fair housing” means taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating disc.
The City understands the need for and is committed to its duty to affirmatively further fair housing.
Page | F-9 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix F: Community Engagement Summary
4b 1) Focusing almost entirely on mixed-use development with little history or evidence of significant results.
Similar to most other South Bay cities, MB is apparently focusing mostly on encouraging mixed-use development to satisfy RHNA requirements. The problem though, is that Manhattan Beach has made similar changes in the past (as noted i n the draft) yet has permitted few mixed-use residential developments, and an even smaller subset of those have actually been built. Please include real world evidence in the draft that demonstrates how these further changes will result in a significantly increased likelihood of mixed-use development. This evidence should include the times and places that the city made contact with local developers to get their input on what would make such development viable.
Development of larger multifamily development and affordable housing in the City and surrounding cities has been limited; therefore, the Housing Element relies on available development trends, including planned projects, and market conditions to support the feasibility of residential infill development on sites identified to accommodate the RHNA shortfall.
Appendix E, Section 7, has been revised to include a more thorough analysis. The comment mistakenly notes that the City is relying on mixed- use development to satisfy RHNA requirements, while the sites will allow for mixed-use type of development, similar to other zones in the City, the overlay will allow 100% residential development and require at least 50 % of residential development through Program 2, Adequate Sites. The City is incentivizing residential development on these sites through programs in the housing element. The comment notes that few mixed-use residential developments have been permitted and less have been built despite previous City efforts; however, the City does not have control over what is developed but is responsible for ensuring there is capacity in the City.
Nevertheless, the City can incentive development through regulatory and financial incentives which are expanded on in Appendix E, section 7. 4c 2) MBMC Section 10.12.030 (city-wide election requirement) is not a valid reason to be out of compliance with AFFH. In fact, that covenant is itself a violation of AFFH.
As stated in the AFFH memo, a fair housing issue is a condition in a geographic area of analysis that restricts fair housing choice or access to opportunity. The statute mentioned on page 36 is precisely that kind of condition. There needs to be a plan included in the housing element to amend those kinds of "rules", it shouldn't be used as an excuse to avoid further changes. It's also unclear what "preserve residential neighborhoods" mean exactly. Preserving from what? The AFFH memo lists “voter initiatives that restrict multifamily housing developments, rezoning to higher density, height limits or similar measures that limit housing choices” as an example of common zoning and land use barriers to AFFH.
As analyzed and explained in Appendix C of the Housing Element, the city- wide election requirements included in Section 10.12.030 of the MBMC do not restrict multifamily housing developments and are not considered a constraint to development.
In accordance with Government Code Section 65583, the housing element shall consist of an identification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs and a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, financial resources, and scheduled programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing. Programs in the Housing Element, such as Program 4, 23, and 26, aim to preserve the existing housing stock, including the existing affordable housing stock and existing housing capacity.
Page | F-10 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix F: Community Engagement Summary
4d 3) No effort has been made to integrate any single family neighborhood, including the racially concentrated areas of affluence.
As noted in the draft, Manhattan Beach has staggering levels of both racial and class-based segregation. At the same time, the percentage of single family zoning is high even for the South Bay region. I'm not sure how you can acknowledge this reality in the draft yet do absolutely nothing to address it. These kinds of land use policies, which dominate MB, contribute significantly to the cost of housing by constraining supply.
Although Appendix D does note that Manhattan Beach has staggering levels of both racial and class-based segregation, the comment does not note that this has been identified as a regional issue. The City is limited to changes to reverse these patterns within City boundaries which several programs of the housing element aim to reverse. With regard to integrating single-family neighborhoods including radically concentrated areas of affluence (RCAA), it should be noted that HCD criteria for adequate zones for lower-income RHNA limit the Sites Analysis to identify any lower- income units within Single-family, low-density zones, which includes some of the RCAA identified in Appendix D. The City has added new programs which are tied to County resources and programs to contribute to reversing these segregation patterns at a regional level.
4e 4) No protection against air pollution and noise pollution along PCH/Sepulveda and Manhattan Blvd.
Only allowing multifamily residences along high traffic corridors is not a practice that should continue for obvious reasons. Manhattan Beach's own city planning guide recognizes the disruption caused by air/noise pollution, and has attempted to ameliorate in the past with physical infrastructure (The Oak Avenue Overlay District). Single family homeowners should not have exclusive access to fresh air.
This should be addressed in the draft.
In conclusion, this draft is well-meaning and better in many ways than the drafts of other South Bay cities (looking at you, Hermosa and Redondo). But in its current state, its obviously attempting to take the path of least resistance by avoiding any changes to the 77% of the city which is composed of highly exclusionary and segregated neighborhoods. There's so many unaddressed issues (reforming the city-wide election requirement, etc). Until a serious attempt is made to address those, I feel it's inadequate and risks being rejected by HCD.
The Housing Element Update is a policy document, consisting of a housing program, and its adoption would not, in itself, result in specific development or construction at this time. A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project analyzes Air Quality, pursuant to CEQA. Any project under CEQA would be subject to additional analysis as required by CEQA.
Page | F-11 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix F: Community Engagement Summary
7. Presentation Materials
The following sections provide an overview and copies of the presentation materials used during the City Council meetings, Planning Commission meeting, stakeholder workshop, the Hometown Fair, and results from the interactive poll.
City of Manhattan Beach Appendix F: Community Engagement Summary
7.1 City Council Meeting 1
The City Council presentation occurred on August 24 , 2021. A copy of the PowerPoint used for the presentation is provided as Exhibit A. The PowerPoint provided a detailed description regarding what a Housing Element entai ls, and a brief overview of how the City is assigned its Regional Housing Needs Allocation.
1 Manhattan Beach Housing Element Update
PRESENTED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AUGUST 24, 2021 2 What is a Housing Element?
A set of goals, policies, and actions that address the housing needs of all current and anticipated residents at all income levels over eight-years (2021-2029)
EXHIBIT A
3 What is the purpose of the Housing Element?
Identify barriers to housing
production
Identify housing needs
Identify programs and actions to
meet the needs
Identify sites available for housing
Facilitate housing production on
sites identified
Housing Action Plan
Development
Barriers
Available Land
and Financial
Resources
Housing
Needs
Development
Barriers
a
Resources
4 What does the data show?
Changing Population
• Changing Needs
• Older adults
Affordability
• Housing Overpayment
• Median Sale Price
Housing Options
• Housing Supply
5 What does the data show?
1970-1980
New
Unit1 Per
1.74 Persons
Added
1990-2000
New
Unit1 Per
4.52 Persons
Added
2010-2018
New
Unit1 Per
3.32 Persons
Added
6 How many housing units does Manhattan Beach have to pplan for?
Imperial, 15,933
Orange, 183,861
Riverside, 167,351
San Bernardino,
138,110
Los Angeles, 812,060
Ventura, 24,452
Imperial
Orange
Riverside
San Bernardino
Los Angeles
Ventura
Counties in SCAG Region
Los Angeles
812,060
Manhattan Beach, 774
Los Angeles Manhattan Beach
Housing
Units774
7 5th Cycle RHNA Progress
Data Reported 2014-2020
0 0
0 419
419
10 6
7 15
38 322
165
155
132
744
VERY LOW LOW MODERATE ABOVE
MODERATE
TOTAL
Units Permitted 5th Cycle RHNA Allocation 6th Cycle RHNA Allocation 5th Cycle
Average
Units
Permitted
Per Year = 60
6th Cycle
Average Units
Permitted Per
Year Needed
= 90
8 Housing Element Components
Housing Needs Assessment
Fair Housing Analysis
Development Constraints and Barriers
Sites Analysis and Inventory
88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888 Goals, Policies, and Programs
9 Barriers to Development
Governmental Environmental & InfrastructureMarket
Land Use Controls
Development Standards
Permitting Procedures
Site Improvements
Land Costs
Availability of Vacant Land
Labor & Construction Costs
Availability of Financing
Geological Hazards
Flood & Fire Hazards
Water Supply and Service
Sewer Service
10 Regulations Incentives
Pathways to Development
T ools in the T oolbox
11 Policy Framework
Housing Policy
Considerations
Increase
Access to
Quality
Housing
Prevent
Displacement
and Enhance
Quality of Life
Improve and
Preserve
Housing for All
Income Levels
Produce a
Diverse Range
of Housing
Types to Align
with the Local
Need
12 Timeline
Task Date
Project Kick-Off July 29, 2021
Prepare Housing Element Draft August 2 – September 10, 2021 Stakeholder Engagement August 31, 2021
City Council Study Session September 21, 2021
Planning Commission Study Session #1 September 22, 2021 Optional Study Session #2 October 2021
Submit Draft to HCD October 1, 2021
Public Review Period October 11 – November 25, 2021
Public Hearings (PC and CC) January – February
Adoption Deadline February 12, 2022
13 Thank you!
Additional questions
or comments?
Contact us at:
[email protected]
City of Manhattan Beach Appendix F: Community Engagement Summary
7.2 City Council Meeting 2
The City Council presentation occurred on September 21 , 2021. A copy of the PowerPoint used for the presentation is provided as Exhibit B. The PowerPoint provided an update on work completed to date, as well as an overview of the Sites Inventory process.
Manhattan Beach Housing Element
Update
City Council September 21, 2021
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
2 Overview
Project Overview
Barriers to Development
Sites Analysis01
02 04
Policy Framework Discussion and Q & A03
05 06
Next Steps
EXHIBIT B
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
3 What is a Housing Element?
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
4 2021 Income Limits
Los Angeles County Area Median Income (AMI): $80,000*
*This is the AMI for a four-person household.
Income Level % AMI Range Income Limit HCD-Adjusted Income Limit Very Low <50% AMI <$40,000 <$59,100
Low 50% -80% AMI <$64,000 <$94,600
Moderate 80% - 120% AMI <$96,000 <$96,000
Above Moderate >120% AMI >$96,000 >$96,000
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
5 What is the purpose of the Housing Element?
• Identify housing needs
• Identify barriers to housing
production
• Identify programs and actions to
meet the needs
• Identify sites available for housing
• Facilitate housing production on sites
identified
Remember - Neither the City, County, nor private landowners are required to build the number of units planned for in the Housing Element.
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
6 What does the data show?
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
7 What does the data show?
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
8 How many housing units does Manhattan Beach have to plan for?
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
9 5th Cycle RHNA Progress
Data Reported 2014-2020
Incomee Level 4th Cyclee
(2005-2013))
RHNA
5thh Cyclee
((2013-2021))
RHNA
6th Cyclee
(2021-2029))
RHNA
Permittedd
SSincee 2014
Very-Low 236 10 322 0
Low 149 6 165 0
Moderate 160 7 155 0
Above
Moderate
350 15 132 419
Total 895 38 774 419
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
10 Housing Element Components
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
11 What are the barriers to development?
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
12 Framing Our Policies
Step 1: Review of 5th cycle goals (what to carry forward, what needs modification)
¾Goall 1 - Preserve existing neighborhoods- carry policies forward with minor modifications
¾Goall 2 - Provide a variety of housing opportunities- requires modification and updating
¾Goall 3 - Provide a safe and healthy living environment for City residents – carry forward
¾Goall 4 - Encourage the conservation of energy in housing – carry forward
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
13 Framing Our Policies
Step 2: Development of new policies for 6th cycle
¾SBB 355 - Amend internal procedures and zoning code to include SB 35 streamlining in permitting processes and procedures.
¾ABB 1763/SBB 22633 - Review and amend its local Density Bonus Program Ordinance to ensure consistency with State requirements.
¾ABB 6711 - Adopt an ordinance that incentivizes affordable ADUs ¾ABB 1011 - Amend zoning code to allow low barrier navigation centers ¾ABB 18511 - Amend the zoning code to identify a process by which parking requirements can be reduced for religious institutions that would eliminate religious- use parking spaces in exchanged for housing developments
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
14 Sites Analysis - State Requirements
• Adequate Lower-Income Unit Zone
• Has an Improvement-to-Land Ratio (IL Ratio) less than or equal to 1 • Building was built before 1970-1990
• Site is greater than or equal to 0.5 acres
• Realistic Capacity at 20 du/acre
(Net Units are greater than or equal to 1)
• Given that more than 50% of our capacity will be from non-vacant land, sites for the lower income capacity will need to be supported with evidence that the existing use is not an impediment (no sites with large chains/essential uses)
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
15 Existing Lower-Income Capacity Identified
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
16 Preliminary Lower-Income Capacity Analysis
Lower-
Incomee
Units
Very-low:: 322
Low:: 165
Underutilizedd sites
CGG Zone:: 599 acres
PDD Zone:: 211 acres
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
17 Zoning Map
1992
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
18 Adequate Sites Program Components
i. Permit multifamily uses by right for projects in which 20% or more units are affordable for lower-income households.
ii. Permit the development of at least 16 units per site. iii. Permit a minimum of 20 dwelling units per acre.
iv. If more than 50% of the lower-income sites are zoned to allow mixed- uses, all lower-income sites designated for MU must:
a) Allow 100% residential and
b) Require at least 50% of floor area to be residential c) Rezone shall occur within 3 years and 120 days from beginning of planning period (10/15/21)
Program Requirements
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
19 Comments received included:
¾Explore opportunities along:
• Aviation Blvd.
• Manhattan Beach Blvd.
• Rosecrans Ave.
¾Explore allowing duplexes and triplexes in certain single-family neighborhoods
¾Explore allowing more ADUs than the State allows
¾Concerns with commercial corridors
Planning Commission Study Session
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
2 0
Next Steps
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
21 OPEN DISCUSSION
AND
Q & A
22 Thank you!
Additional questions
or comments?
Email: T alyn Mirzakhanian
[email protected]
City of Manhattan Beach Appendix F: Community Engagement Summary
7.3 Stakeholder Meeting
A stakeholder meeting was held on August 31, 2021, that allowed interested parties to be engaged in a more formal setting where they learned about the planning process, the components of the Housing Element, and the importance of their role in development of the Housing Element. A copy of the PowerPoint used for the presentation is provided as Exhibit C.
1 Manhattan Beach Housing Element Update
STAKEHOLDER MEETING 5:30PM – 7:00PM AUGUST 31, 2021
2 Overview
Project Overview
Barriers to Development
Next Steps02
03 05
Policy Framework
Interactive Poll & Discussion
04 06
Zoom Overview01
1 2
EXHIBIT C
3 Zoom Overview01
4 Before we get started
Full screen view is recommended for optimal viewing.
To make the meeting full screen, double-click the meeting window or click the button in the upper-right corner of the Zoom window.
This meeting is being recorded
and will be available on the City’s
website.
If you have issues using Zoom
software please use the Chat tool
for technical help.
3 4
5 Before we get started
Everyone joining the meeting will be “video off” and muted by default. Panelists will be “video on” for the duration of the presentation. There will be a discussion period at the end of the presentation. You may use the Raise Hand feature to talk.
You may use the Chat feature throughout the presentation.
STEP 1
STEP 2
6 Before we get started
What is your favorite aspect of living
in Manhattan Beach?
5 6
7 Project Overview02
8 What is a Housing Element?
A set of goals, policies, and actions that address the housing needs of all current and anticipated residents at all income levels over eight‐years (2021‐2029) required by the State.
7 8
9 What is the purpose of the Housing Element?
Identify housing needs
Identify barriers to housing
pr
oduction
Identify programs and actions to
meet the needs
Identify sites available for housing
Facilitate housing production on
sit
es identified
Housing Action Plan
Development
Barriers
Available Land
and Financial
Resources
Housing
Needs
Remember ‐ Neither the City, County, nor private
landowners are required to build the number of units
planned for in the Housing Element.
10 What does the data show?
1970-1980
New
Unit1 Per
1.74 Persons
Added
1990-2000
New
Unit1 Per
4.52 Persons
Added
2010-2018
New
Unit1 Per
3.32 Persons
Added
9 10
11 What does the data show?
Changing Population
• Changing Needs
•O l d e r adults
Affordability
•H o u s i n g Overpayment
•M e d i a n Sale Price
Housing Options
•H o u s i n g Supply
12 2021 Income Limits
Income Category % AMI Range Income Limit 2021 State Income Limits (Adjusted)
Very Low <50% AMI <$40,000 <$59,100
Low 50% ‐ 80% AMI <$64,000 <$94,600
Moderate 80% ‐ 120% AMI <$96,000 <$96,000
Above Moderate >120% AMI >$96,000 >$96,000
Los Angeles County Area Median Income (AMI): $80,000*
*This is the AMI for a four‐person household.
11 12
13 How many housing units does Manhattan Beach have to plan for?
Imperial, 15,933
Orange, 183,861
Riverside, 167,351
San Bernardino,
138,110
Los Angeles, 812,060
Ventura, 24,452
Imperial
Orange
Riverside
San Bernardino
Los Angeles
Ventura
Counties in SCAG Region
Los Angeles
812,060
Manhattan Beach, 774
Los Angeles Manhattan Beach
Housing
Units774
14 5th Cycle RHNA Progress
Data Reported 2014-2020
5th Cycle
Average
Units
Permitted
Per Year = 52
6th Cycle
Average Units
Permitted Per
Year Needed
= 96
Income Level 4 th Cycle (2005‐
2013) RHNA
5th Cycle (2013‐
2021) RHNA
6th Cycle (2021‐
2029) RHNA
Permitted Since
2014
Very‐Low 236 10 322 0
Low 149 6 165 0
Moderate 160 7 155 0
Above Moderate 350 15 132 419
Total 895 38 774 419
13 14
15 Housing Element Components
Housing Needs Assessment
Fair Housing Analysis
Development Constraints and Barriers
Sites Analysis and Inventory
Goals, Policies, and Programs
16 Barriers to
Development03
15 16
17 What are the barriers to development?
Governmental Environmental & InfrastructureMarket
Land Use Controls
Development Standards
Permitting Procedures
Site Improvements
Land Costs
Availability of Vacant Land
Labor & Construction Costs
Availability of Financing
Geological Hazards
Flood & Fire Hazards
Water Supply and Service
Sewer Service
18 Policy Framework04
17 18
19 •V a l u e s and direction
Goals
•S t a t e m e n t s that guide decision‐making
to implement the goals and overarching
vision
Policies
•S p e c i f i e d conditions that are
measurable steps toward
achieving goals
Objectives
• Procedures, programs,
or techniques that carry
out the policies
Programs
20 Framing Our Policies
Housing Policy
Considerations
Increase
Access to
Quality
Housing
Prevent
Displacement
and Enhance
Quality of Life
Improve and
Preserve
Housing for All
Income Levels
Produce a
Diverse Range
of Housing
Types to Align
with the Local
Need
19 20
21 Policy Examples
Policy: Provide adequate sites to facilitate the development of a diverse range of housing that fulfills its r
egional housing needs, including low-, moderate- and higher-density single-family attached/detached units
and multiple-family units.
Policy: Facilitate the development of housing through the removal of local regulatory constraints, especially
for housing that serves lower-income households and those with special needs. Policy: Implementation practices that prevent displacement and discrimination through enfor
cement of existing requirements.
22 Interactive Poll05
21 22
23 Interactive Poll
24 Next Steps06
23 24
25 Next Steps
Ta s k D a t e
Stakeholder Meeting T oday
Prepare Draft Housing Element In Progress
Planning Commission (PC) Study Session #1 September 15, 2021 City Council (CC) Study Session September 21, 2021
Optional PC Study Session #2 October 2021
Public Draft Review Period October 11 – November 25, 2021 Public Hearings PC: January - February 2022
CC: January - February 2022
26 Open Discussion06
25 26
27 Thank you!
Additional questions
or comments?
Email: T alyn Mirzakhanian
[email protected]
Next meeting:
Planning Commission
Study Session #1
Sept. 15th - 3pm
27 City of Manhattan Beach Appendix F: Community Engagement Summary
7.4 Interactive Poll Results
The results from the interactive poll conducted during the stakeholder meeting on August 31, 2021 , are shown in Exhibit D.
Poll Report
Report Generated: 9/1/2021 8:59
Webinar ID Actual Start Time Actual Duration (minutes) Topic 920 6696 8694 8/31/2021 17:10 93 Manhattan Beach Housing Element Stakeholder Meeting # User Name User Email Submitted Date/Time Question Answer 1 l p [email protected] 8/31/2021 18:02 What do you feel are the barriers to building more diverse, affordable housing in Manhattan Beach?
Lack of available land
2 Barbara
Siegemund-
k
[email protected] 8/31/2021 18:02 What do you feel are the barriers to building more diverse, affordable housing in Manhattan Beach?
Cost of development (including
cost of land);Community support
f d l
3 Margaret Bailey [email protected] 8/31/2021 18:02 What do you feel are the barriers to building more diverse, affordable housing in Manhattan Beach?
Cost of development (including
cost of land)
4 JULIE
TOMANPOS
[email protected] 8/31/2021 18:02 What do you feel are the barriers to building more diverse, affordable housing in Manhattan Beach?
Cost of development (including
cost of land);Community support
f d l
5 brandon Straus [email protected] 8/31/2021 18:02 What do you feel are the barriers to building more diverse, affordable housing in Manhattan Beach?
Lack of available land;Cost of
development (including cost of
l d) f
6 l p [email protected] 8/31/2021 18:03 Manhattan Beach is required to plan for 774 additional housing units. What do you think is the best strategy for accommodating these homes? Other (Please provide additional
information in the Chat)
7 Barbara
Siegemund-
k
[email protected] 8/31/2021 18:04 Manhattan Beach is required to plan for 774 additional housing units. What do you think is the best strategy for accommodating these homes? Increase mixed-use
opportunities;Increase density (e.g.
ll ll b ld h
8 Margaret Bailey [email protected] 8/31/2021 18:04 Manhattan Beach is required to plan for 774 additional housing units. What do you think is the best strategy for accommodating these homes? Increase housing opportunities
along commercial corridors
9 Michael
Donahue
[email protected] 8/31/2021 18:03 Manhattan Beach is required to plan for 774 additional housing units. What do you think is the best strategy for accommodating these homes? Increase density (e.g. allow taller
buildings with more housing units)
10 Zac Dean [email protected] 8/31/2021 18:03 Manhattan Beach is required to plan for 774 additional housing units. What do you think is the best strategy for accommodating these homes? Increase mixed-use opportunities
11 JULIE
TOMANPOS
[email protected] 8/31/2021 18:04 Manhattan Beach is required to plan for 774 additional housing units. What do you think is the best strategy for accommodating these homes? Increase housing opportunities
along commercial corridors
d
12 brandon Straus [email protected] 8/31/2021 18:04 Manhattan Beach is required to plan for 774 additional housing units. What do you think is the best strategy for accommodating these homes? Increase housing opportunities
along commercial corridors
d
13 l p [email protected] 8/31/2021 18:00 What do you feel are unmet housing needs in Manhattan Beach? I do not feel there are unmet housing needs
14 Barbara
Siegemund-
k
[email protected] 8/31/2021 18:00 What do you feel are unmet housing needs in Manhattan Beach? Diversity in housing stock e.g., duplexes, apartments, granny
fl / l h
15 Margaret Bailey [email protected] 8/31/2021 18:00 What do you feel are unmet housing needs in Manhattan Beach? General housing affordability 16 Michael
Donahue
[email protected] 8/31/2021 18:01 What do you feel are unmet housing needs in Manhattan Beach? Availability of rental units 17 JULIE
TOMANPOS
[email protected] 8/31/2021 18:01 What do you feel are unmet housing needs in Manhattan Beach? Diversity in housing stock e.g., duplexes, apartments, granny
fl / l h
18 l p [email protected] 8/31/2021 17:58 What is your top priority for new housing? Other (Please provide additional information in the Chat)
19 Barbara
Siegemund-
k
[email protected] 8/31/2021 17:58 What is your top priority for new housing? Affordability 20 Margaret Bailey [email protected] 8/31/2021 17:58 What is your top priority for new housing? Other (Please provide additional information in the Chat)
21 Michael
Donahue
[email protected] 8/31/2021 17:58 What is your top priority for new housing? Affordability 22 JULIE
TOMANPOS
[email protected] 8/31/2021 17:58 What is your top priority for new housing? Ownership options Poll Details
EXHIBIT D
City of Manhattan Beach Appendix F: Community Engagement Summary
7.5 Planning Commission Meeting
The Planning Commission presentation occurred on September 15, 2021. A copy of the PowerPoint used for the presentation is provided as Exhibit E. The PowerPoint provided a detailed description regarding what a Housing Element entai ls, and a brief overview of how the City is assigned its Regional Housing Needs Allocation.
0DQKDWWDQ%HDFK+RXVLQJ(OHPHQW8SGDWH
3/$11,1*&200,66,210((7,1*
30 6(37(0%(5
2YHUYLHZ
3URMHFW2YHUYLHZ
%DUULHUVWR'HYHORSPHQW
6LWHV$QDO\VLV
3ROLF\)UDPHZRUN 'LVFXVVLRQDQG4 $
1H[W6WHSV
EXHIBIT E
:KDWLVD+RXVLQJ(OHPHQW"
ƐĞƚŽĨŐŽĂůƐ͕ƉŽůŝĐŝĞƐ͕ĂŶĚĂĐƚŝŽŶƐƚŚĂƚĂĚĚƌĞƐƐƚŚĞŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ ŶĞĞĚƐŽĨĂůůĐƵƌƌĞŶƚĂŶĚĂŶƚŝĐŝƉĂƚĞĚƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐĂƚĂůůŝŶĐŽŵĞůĞǀĞůƐ ŽǀĞƌĞŝŐŚƚͲLJĞĂƌƐ;ϮϬϮϭͲϮϬϮϵͿƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚďLJƚŚĞ^ƚĂƚĞ͘
,QFRPH/LPLWV
/ŶĐŽŵĞ>ĞǀĞů йD/ZĂŶŐĞ /ŶĐŽŵĞ>ŝŵŝƚ ,ͲĚũƵƐƚĞĚ/ŶĐŽŵĞ>ŝŵŝƚ sĞƌLJ>Žǁ фϱϬйD/ фΨϰϬ͕ϬϬϬ фΨϱϵ͕ϭϬϬ
>Žǁ ϱϬйͲϴϬйD/ фΨϲϰ͕ϬϬϬ фΨϵϰ͕ϲϬϬ
DŽĚĞƌĂƚĞ ϴϬйͲϭϮϬйD/ фΨϵϲ͕ϬϬϬ фΨϵϲ͕ϬϬϬ
ďŽǀĞDŽĚĞƌĂƚĞ хϭϮϬйD/ хΨϵϲ͕ϬϬϬ хΨϵϲ͕ϬϬϬ
>ŽƐŶŐĞůĞƐŽƵŶƚLJƌĞĂDĞĚŝĂŶ/ŶĐŽŵĞ;D/Ϳ͗ΨϴϬ͕ϬϬϬΎ
ΎdŚŝƐŝƐƚŚĞD/ĨŽƌĂĨŽƵƌͲƉĞƌƐŽŶŚŽƵƐĞŚŽůĚ͘
:KDWLVWKHSXUSRVHRIWKH+RXVLQJ(OHPHQW"
,GHQWLI\KRXVLQJQHHGV
,GHQWLI\EDUULHUVWRKRXVLQJ
SURGXFWLRQ
,GHQWLI\SURJUDPVDQGDFWLRQVWR
PHHWWKHQHHGV
,GHQWLI\VLWHVDYDLODEOHIRUKRXVLQJ
)DFLOLWDWHKRXVLQJSURGXFWLRQRQ
VLWHVLGHQWLILHG
,ŽƵƐŝŶŐĐƚŝŽŶWůĂŶ
ĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ
ĂƌƌŝĞƌƐ
ǀĂŝůĂďůĞ>ĂŶĚ
ĂŶĚ&ŝŶĂŶĐŝĂů
ZĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ
,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ
EĞĞĚƐ
ZĞŵĞŵďĞƌͲEĞŝƚŚĞƌƚŚĞŝƚLJ͕ŽƵŶƚLJ͕ŶŽƌƉƌŝǀĂƚĞ
ůĂŶĚŽǁŶĞƌƐĂƌĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚƚŽďƵŝůĚƚŚĞŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨƵŶŝƚƐ
ƉůĂŶŶĞĚĨŽƌŝŶƚŚĞ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ
ůĞŵĞŶƚ͘
:KDWGRHVWKHGDWDVKRZ"
ŚĂŶŐŝŶŐWŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ
ͻ ŚĂŶŐŝŶŐEĞĞĚƐ
ͻ KůĚĞƌĂĚƵůƚƐ
ĨĨŽƌĚĂďŝůŝƚLJ
ͻ ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐKǀĞƌƉĂLJŵĞŶƚ
ͻ DĞĚŝĂŶ^ĂůĞWƌŝĐĞ
,ŽƵƐŝŶŐKƉƚŝŽŶƐ
ͻ ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ^ƵƉƉůLJ
:KDWGRHVWKHGDWDVKRZ"
1HZ
8QLW 3HU
3HUVRQV
$GGHG
1HZ
8QLW 3HU
3HUVRQV
$GGHG
1HZ
8QLW 3HU
3HUVRQV
$GGHG
+RZPDQ\KRXVLQJXQLWVGRHV0DQKDWWDQ%HDFKKDYHWRSSODQ IRU"
/ŵƉĞƌŝĂů͕ϭϱ͕ϵϯϯ
KƌĂŶŐĞ͕ϭϴϯ͕ϴϲϭ
ZŝǀĞƌƐŝĚĞ͕ϭϲϳ͕ϯϱϭ
^ĂŶĞƌŶĂƌĚŝŶŽ͕
ϭϯϴ͕ϭϭϬ
>ŽƐŶŐĞůĞƐ͕ϴϭϮ͕ϬϲϬ
sĞŶƚƵƌĂ͕Ϯϰ͕ϰϱϮ
/ŵƉĞƌŝĂů
KƌĂŶŐĞ
ZŝǀĞƌƐŝĚĞ
^ĂŶĞƌŶĂƌĚŝŶŽ
>ŽƐŶŐĞůĞƐ
sĞŶƚƵƌĂ
ŽƵŶƚŝĞƐŝŶ^'ZĞŐŝŽŶ
>ŽƐŶŐĞůĞƐ
ϴϭϮ͕ϬϲϬ
DĂŶŚĂƚƚĂŶĞĂĐŚ͕ϳϳϰ
>ŽƐŶŐĞůĞƐ DĂŶŚĂƚƚĂŶĞĂĐŚ
+RXVLQJ
8QLWV
WK &\FOH5+1$3URJUHVV
'DWD5HSRUWHG
5th Cycle
Average
Units
Permitted
Per Year = 52
6th Cycle
Average Units
Permitted Per
Year Needed
= 96
/ŶĐŽŵĞ>ĞǀĞů ϰ ƚŚ LJĐůĞ;ϮϬϬϱͲ
ϮϬϭϯͿZ,E
ϱƚŚLJĐůĞ;ϮϬϭϯͲ
ϮϬϮϭͿZ,E
ϲƚŚ LJĐůĞ;ϮϬϮϭͲ
ϮϬϮϵͿZ,E
WĞƌŵŝƚƚĞĚ^ŝŶĐĞ
ϮϬϭϰ
sĞƌLJͲ>Žǁ Ϯϯϲ ϭϬ ϯϮϮ Ϭ
>Žǁ ϭϰϵ ϲ ϭϲϱ Ϭ
DŽĚĞƌĂƚĞ ϭϲϬ ϳ ϭϱϱ Ϭ
ďŽǀĞDŽĚĞƌĂƚĞ ϯϱϬ ϭϱ ϭϯϮ ϰϭϵ
dŽƚĂů ϴϵϱ ϯϴ ϳϳϰ ϰϭϵ
+RXVLQJ(OHPHQW&RPSRQHQWV
,ŽƵƐŝŶŐEĞĞĚƐƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚ
&Ăŝƌ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐŶĂůLJƐŝƐ
ĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŽŶƐƚƌĂŝŶƚƐĂŶĚĂƌƌŝĞƌƐ
^ŝƚĞƐŶĂůLJƐŝƐĂŶĚ/ŶǀĞŶƚŽƌLJ
'ŽĂůƐ͕WŽůŝĐŝĞƐ͕ĂŶĚWƌŽŐƌĂŵƐ
:KDWDUHWKHEDUULHUVWRGHYHORSPHQW"
'ŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚĂů
ŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůΘ/ŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞDĂƌŬĞƚ
/DQG8VH&RQWUROV
'HYHORSPHQW6WDQGDUGV
3HUPLWWLQJ3URFHGXUHV
6LWH,PSURYHPHQWV
/DQG&RVWV
$YDLODELOLW\RI9DFDQW/DQG
/DERU &RQVWUXFWLRQ&RVWV
$YDLODELOLW\RI)LQDQFLQJ
*HRORJLFDO+D]DUGV
)ORRG )LUH+D]DUGV
:DWHU6XSSO\DQG6HUYLFH
6HZHU6HUYLFH
)UDPLQJ2XU3ROLFLHV
6WHS
5HYLHZRIWK F\FOHJRDOV
ZKDWWRFDUU\IRUZDUGZKDWQHHGV
PRGLILFDWLRQ
¾ Goal 1 - Preserve existing neighborhoods- carry policies forward with minor modifications
¾ Goal 2 - Provide a variety of housing opportunities- requires modification and updating
¾ Goal 3 - Provide a safe and healthy living environment for City residents – carry forward
¾ Goal 4 - Encourage the conservation of energy in housing – carry forward
6WHS
'HYHORSPHQWRIQHZSROLFLHVIRUWK F\FOH
¾ 6% $PHQGLQWHUQDOSURFHGXUHVDQG]RQLQJFRGHWRLQFOXGH6% VWUHDPOLQLQJLQSHUPLWWLQJSURFHVVHVDQGSURFHGXUHV
¾ $%6% 5HYLHZDQGDPHQGLWVORFDO'HQVLW\%RQXV3URJUDP 2UGLQDQFHWRHQVXUHFRQVLVWHQF\ZLWK6WDWHUHTXLUHPHQWV ¾ $% $GRSWDQRUGLQDQFHWKDWLQFHQWLYL]HVDIIRUGDEOH$'8V ¾ $% $PHQG]RQLQJFRGHWRDOORZORZEDUULHUQDYLJDWLRQFHQWHUV ¾ $% $PHQGWKH]RQLQJFRGHWRLGHQWLI\DSURFHVVE\ZKLFKSDUNLQJ UHTXLUHPHQWVFDQEHUHGXFHGIRUUHOLJLRXVLQVWLWXWLRQVWKDWZRXOGHOLPLQDWH UHOLJLRXVXVHSDUNLQJVSDFHVLQH[FKDQJHGIRUKRXVLQJGHYHORSPHQWV )UDPLQJ2XU3ROLFLHV
6LWHV$QDO\VLV5HTXLUHPHQWV
$GHTXDWH/RZHU,QFRPH8QLW=RQH
+DVDQ,PSURYHPHQWWR/DQG5DWLR
,/5DWLR
OHVVWKDQRUHTXDO
WR
%XLOGLQJZDVEXLOWEHIRUH
6LWHLVJUHDWHUWKDQRUHTXDOWRDFUHV
5HDOLVWLF&DSDFLW\DWGXDFUH
(Net Units are greater than or equal to 1)
*LYHQWKDWPRUHWKDQRIRXUFDSDFLW\ZLOOEHIURPQRQ YDFDQWODQGVLWHVIRUWKHORZHULQFRPHFDSDFLW\ZLOOQHHGWREH VXSSRUWHGZLWKHYLGHQFHWKDWWKHH[LVWLQJXVHLVQRWDQ LPSHGLPHQW
QRVLWHVZLWKODUJHFKDLQVHVVHQWLDOXVHV
&DSDFLW\,GHQWLILHG
2SSRUWXQLWLHVIRU$GGLWLRQDO&DSDFLW\
&DSDFLW\$QDO\VLV
>ŽǁĞƌͲ/ŶĐŽŵĞ
hŶŝƚƐ
3URJUDP5HTXLUHPHQWV
Adequate Sites Program Components
L 3HUPLWPXOWLIDPLO\XVHVE\ULJKWIRUSURMHFWVLQZKLFKRUPRUHXQLWVDUHDIIRUGDEOH IRUORZHULQFRPHKRXVHKROGV
LL 3HUPLWWKHGHYHORSPHQWRIDWOHDVWXQLWVSHUVLWH LLL 3HUPLWDPLQLPXPRIGZHOOLQJXQLWVSHUDFUH
LY ,IPRUHWKDQRIWKHORZHULQFRPHVLWHVDUH]RQHGWRDOORZPL[HGXVHVDOOORZHU LQFRPHVLWHVGHVLJQDWHGIRU08PXVW
D
$OORZUHVLGHQWLDODQG
E
5HTXLUHDWOHDVWRIIORRUDUHDWREHUHVLGHQWLDO
F
5H]RQHVKDOORFFXUZLWKLQ\HDUVDQGGD\VIURPEHJLQQLQJRISODQQLQJSHULRG
1H[W6WHSV
7DVN 'DWH
6WDNHKROGHU0HHWLQJ $XJXVW
3UHSDUH'UDIW+RXVLQJ(OHPHQW ,Q3URJUHVV
&(4$$QDO\VLV² ,601' 6HSWHPEHU² 'HFHPEHU
3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQ
3&
6WXG\6HVVLRQ 7RGD\
&LW\&RXQFLO
&&
6WXG\6HVVLRQ 6HSWHPEHU
2SWLRQDO3&6WXG\6HVVLRQ 2FWREHU
3XEOLF'UDIW5HYLHZ3HULRG 2FWREHU² 1RYHPEHU 3XEOLF+HDULQJV 3&
-DQXDU\ )HEUXDU\
&&
-DQXDU\ )HEUXDU\
23(1',6&866,21
$1'
4 $
7KDQN\RX
$GGLWLRQDOTXHVWLRQV
RUFRPPHQWV"
(PDLO
7 DO\Q0LU]DNKDQLDQ
KHXSGDWH#PDQKDWWDQEHDFKJRY
1H[WPHHWLQJ
&LW\&RXQFLO
6WXG\6HVVLRQ
6HSWVW SP
City of Manhattan Beach Appendix F: Community Engagement Summary
7.6 Hometown Fair
City staff attended the Hometown Fair on October 2, 2021. A copy of the flier that was distributed at the information booth is provided as Exhibit F.
The City is updating its Housing Element!*
Stay tuned for the release of the Draft Housing
Element, which will be available for public
review mid-October through the end of
November.
STAY INFORMED!
Sign up on our Housing Element Update Interested Parties list by sending an email to
[email protected]
or view our webpage for updates and information:
www.manhattanbeach.gov/6thcycle
WE WANT YOUR INPUT!
6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
www.manhattanbeach.gov/6thcycle
*The Housing Element is one of the State-mandated Elements of a General Plan, and it is required to be updated every eight years and certified by the State Department of Housing and Community Development. The Housing Element analyzes
community housing needs in terms of affordability, availability, adequacy, and accessibility, and describes the City's strategy and programs to address those needs.
EXHIBIT F
1 From: Talyn Mirzakhanian <[email protected]> on behalf of HE Update 2021 <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2021 11:53 AM
To:
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Public comments incorrect
From: Zac Dean <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2021 8:46 PM
To: HE Update 2021 <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public comments incorrect
CAUTION: This Email is from an EXTERNAL source. Ensure you trust this sender before clicking on any links or attachments.
Hello, MB resident here. Thanks for all your work on the housing element.
Quick clarification: On page F-2 and F-3, there is a section referring to public comments: "A member of the public mentioned that while the City is built‐out,"
That member of the public was me. I did say MB is a low density city, but I didn't say MB was "built-out". I said the term "built-out" has no official definition or designation, and the claim that MB is "built-out" is highly subjective and not very convincing, especially considering MB is +70% zoned for single family detached homes which greatly restricts the potential capacity for more homes.
Also, I don't mean to speak for this person, and you can check the transcript, but I think that " Another member of
the public voiced concern over parking regulations and traffic impacts resulting from multifamily housing and increased densities." is incorrect as well. That member of the public was expressing concern that the city's excessive parking requirements are inhibiting the development of townhomes. I don't think their comment was implying townhomes have a significant negative effect on parking or traffic.
To help protect you r priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
MB Logo
HE UPDATE 2021
[email protected]
The City of Manhattan Beach continues to care about your health and safety. The Citizen Self Service (CSS) Online Portal is available for City permit and planning applications and inspections. Most Community Development services are available online and various divisions can be reached at (310) 802‐5500 or Email during normal City business hours.
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH 1400 Highland Avenue Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Office Hours: M‐Th 8:00 AM‐5:00 PM | Fridays 8:00 AM‐4:00 PM | Not Applicable to Public Safety Reach Manhattan Beach Here for you 24/7, use our click and fix it app Download the mobile app now
1 From: Phillips Lee <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2021 5:37 PM
To: HE Update 2021
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 6th Cycle Housing Element Update
CAUTION: This Email is from an EXTERNAL source. Ensure you trust this sender before clicking on any links or attachments.
Please provide a rationale for including Goal 3: Provide a safe and healthy living enviro nment for City
residents and the policies associated with the goal (pg4) Program 10: Energy Conservation and Energy Efficiency Opportunities (page 15) program 27: Water Conservation and Green Building Standards (pg31) It talks about the city's sustainability program but why is it included in this document? Is it required or was it requested to be included by someone? Also why would this document suggest that the city go beyond state required energy requirements? Also how will increasing the cost of housing increase the housing stock, in fact the rate of new housing will decrease?
Thanks
Lee
1 From: Anne Paulson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2021 4:59 PM
To: HE Update 2021
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Manhattan Beach Draft Housing Element: The "Sites" are not sites Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This Email is from an EXTERNAL source. Ensure you trust this sender before clicking on any links or attachments.
To whom it may concern:
Manhattan Beach's Housing Element finds that there are inadequate sites for low income housing. It therefore proposes to rezone various "sites" for low income housing, listed on p E‐23 to E‐26. But these "sites" are not sites; they are collections of parcels with various ownerships. Consider Si te 5, listed on p E‐23:
This is all the parcels on a city block that face Hi
ghway One, no fewer than nine parcels, with, presumably, nine different ownerships. There's a duplex, a two story sports bar, a marketing agency, and a veterinarian's office. A potential low income builder would have to obtain rights to all nine of th ese parcels, parcels with, apparently, ongoing uses, in order to build a meager 21 units. There is no way any builder would think this was feasible, particularly when they would only be allowed to build 21 units on the resulting site.
This is just one example of many. Site 2 has eight par cels. Site 3 has 7 parcels. Site 9 has 5 parcels.
Manhattan Beach needs to supply substantial evidence to support the idea that these parcels could be feasibly be consolidated. If there is no such evidence, these "sites" need to be replaced with sites that would be feasible.
Sincere
ly,
Anne Paulson
1 From: Zac Dean <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2021 11:50 PM
To: HE Update 2021
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Housing Element comment: Current draft not in compliance with AFFH and other issues CAUTION: This Email is from an EXTERNAL source. Ensure you trust this sender before clicking on any links or attachments.
Hello, I'm a Manhattan Beach resident.
I appreciate all the hard work that went into the housing element draft so far, including navigating the many requirements from state agencies. I think we all want a swift and efficient approval from HCD. That being said, I have some comments on aspects which are keeping this dr aft from compliance and risk HCD rejection:
First, an excerpt from the AFFH memo:
“Affirm“Affirmatively
furthering
fair
housing” means
taking
meaningful
actions,
in
addition
to
combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics.
Specifically, affirmatively furthering fair housing means taking meaningful actions that, take n
together, address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity, replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity, and fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws. The duty to affirmatively further fair housing extends to all of a public agency’s activities and programs relating to housing and community development.atively furthering fair housing” means taking meaningful actions, in addition to
combating disc
1) Focusing almost entirely on mixed-use development with little history or evidence of significant results.
2 Similar to most other South Bay cities, MB is apparently focusing mostly on encouraging mixed‐use development to satisfy RHNA requirements. The problem though, is that Manhattan Beach has made similar changes in the past (as noted in the draft) yet has permitted few mixed‐use residential developments, and an even smaller subset of those have actually been built. Please
include real world evidence in the draft that demonstrates how these further changes will result in a significantly increased likelihood of mixed‐use development. This evidence should include the times and places that the city made contact with local developers to get their input on what would make such development viable.
2) MBMC Section 10.12.030 (city‐wide election requirement) is not a valid reason to be out of compliance with AFFH.
In fact, that covenant is itself a violation of AFFH.
As stated in the AFFH memo, a fair housing issue is a condition in a geographic area of analysis that restricts fair housing choice or access to opportunity. The statute mentioned on page 36 is precisely that kind of condition. There needs to be a plan included in the housing element to amend those kinds of "rules", it shouldn't be used as an excuse to avoid further changes. It's also unclear what "preserve residential neighborhoods" mean exactly. Preserving from what?
3) No effort has been made to integrate any single family neighborhood, including the racially concentrated areas of affluence.
As noted in the draft, Manhattan Beach has staggering levels of both racial and class‐based segregation. At the same
time, the percentage of single family zoning is high even for the South Bay region. I'm not sure how you can acknowledge this reality in the draft yet do absolutely nothing to address it. These kinds of land use policies, which dominate MB, contribute significantly to the cost of housing by constraining supply.
4) No protection against air pollution and noise pollution along PCH/Sepulveda and Manhattan Blvd.
Only allowing multifamily residences along high traffic corridors is not a practice that should continue for obvious reasons. Manhattan Beach's own city planning guide recognizes the disruption caused by air/noise pollution, and has attempted to ameliorate in the past with physical infrastructure (The Oak Avenue Overlay District). Single family homeowners should not have exclusive access to fresh air. This should be addressed in the draft.
In conclusion, this draft is well‐meaning and better in many ways than the drafts of other South Bay cities (looking at you, Hermosa and Redondo). But in its current state, its obviously attempting to take the path of least resistance by avoiding any changes to the 77% of the city which is composed of highly exclusionary and segregated neighborhoods.
There's so many unaddressed issues (reforming the city‐wide election requirement, etc). Until a serious attempt is made to address those, I feel it's inadequate and risks being rejected by HCD.