The Manhattan Beach City Council on Tuesday night voted 3-2 to turn down the
Highrose/Verandas project, with Mayor Steve Napolitano surprising the gathered crowd with his "No" vote.
Napolitano was joined by Councilmembers Suzanne Hadley and Joe Franklin in voting "No" on the project, while Hildy Stern and Richard Montgomery voted in support of the project.
The Highrose/Verandas project was to be a 96,217 square-foot, four-story multifamily residential
structure at Highland and Rosecrans. The structure had proposed 79 units, six of which would be set aside for "very low income" households. It has drawn vocal opposition from many residents, who have said that it would take away from the small-town character of the El Porto neighborhood and make traffic and parking issues significantly worse.
However, Napolitano said that his final decision came down to what he said would be an "adverse impact" to health and safety of potential residents due to the proposed development's proximity to the neighboring Chevron refinery in El Segundo. The refinery has been shown to be a major polluter of the region, he said, and there is no feasible way to mitigate the risks as long as the refinery is operating. "Something will go there [in the Highrose/Verandas space] sometime; there will be traffic, there will be other impacts, but it shouldn’t be housing," he said.
However, as Napolitano acknowledged, whether the city voted "yes" or "no" on the project, legal challenges are sure to follow either way.
The developer had not responded to a request for comment as of press time.
A Legal Fight Needs "A Leg to Stand On"
In his remarks, Napolitano rejected the "simplistic notions of some that we could deny this project simply because a lot of people don’t like it, or it doesn’t fit in with the character of our town, or it doesn’t fit in with our small-town atmosphere and low-profile development."
"While all of those things may be true, and I wish we could deny it based on those things, courts don't care about what we feel or what we like, they care about the law, and the law doesn’t allow for that in this case," he said. "People are lining up to sue us, and that’s fine... but not if we don’t have a leg to stand on. To deny this project because a lot of people don’t like it is like bringing a spoon to a knife fight. It just does not work. We need a legally defensible reason to deny this project."
Napolitano acknowledged that many people had cited AB 2011 - new legislation that overrides ministerial review (a simple up or down vote of whether it meets guidelines) of affordable housing developments located within 3,200 feet of a refinery. However, AB 2011 only applies to state review, and the city's rules on ministerial review would still apply, he said. (Plus, the AB 2011 provisions would not be applicable retroactively, given that AB 2011 will go into effect at the beginning of 2023.)
Nevertheless, he said, the concerns that AB 2011 raised about the health and safety of living in close proximity to a refinery bolstered the city's ability to claim that there was a "specific, adverse impact" to health and safety for the project, thus giving the city what he considered a legal opportunity to deny the project.
Concerns Raised About Legal Challenges
In their votes in support of the Highrose/Verandas project, both Montgomery and Stern raised concerns about a costly legal battle that the city might not be able to win.
Montgomery blasted the idea that "fighting the state" on the project would actually be helping the residents. The city scrupulously set aside $20 million in reserves to prepare for the next recession, he said. "All that money we’ve saved all that time is in our pockets, there for the next recession. Do you want to blow all that money on a case you know you will lose, just to 'send Sacramento a message'?"
"I cannot in good conscience agree, after going through the last recession, to spend all of that money on a case we cannot win," he added, noting that losing a case like this could result in the state taking over the city's permitting process for developments.
Stern said that a phrase that council members heard time and time again was, 'Do the right thing.'
"We are doing the right thing," she said. "We’re all residents - long term residents of Manhattan Beach, and we all live here for that same reason that we love our small town community. We look at this project, and we say this doesn’t really look like the aesthetics of the North Manhattan Beach area. I agree with that. But when we are elected to do the right thing for our community that means we spend our time wisely to consider the negative consequences and find solutions and be more than just reactionary. We’re doing our research, we’re seeking our expert input, and listening to our community and upholding the law. We have been directed as to exactly what that law is. This project, as explained to us, fits clearly within the law."
Stern went on to add that she considered calls to defy state law "a complete dereliction of my duty as your elected official" and that she did not want to see city officials "pick and choose" what laws they want to follow. "I would never lead the city in that way," she added.
City Had Rejected Previous Appeals
Project Verandas used state
"density bonus laws", which allow developers to request waivers from
development standards, such as setback and height requirements, when
they incorporate affordable housing into a project. Under these terms,
the Verandas project qualified for a streamlined,
administrative, non-discretionary review.
Draft renderings of the proposed Highrose project, as provided by Withee Malcolm Design Studio.
Despite
vocal opposition to the project by an active group of residents, the project
had moved through various stages of approval over the past several months, with city officials saying
that the project met the appropriate requirements for this kind of
housing development.
In June, Manhattan Beach's Planning Commission
voted unanimously to uphold the Community Development Director's
approval of the Verandas project, turning down four appeals from members of the community.
At
its August 16 meeting, the City Council had a chance to evaluate five
formal appeals filed by residents. City staff walked council members
through a
presentation in which they outlined reasons for rejecting each of the
five appeals. The council heard hours of discussion on the topic, then
voted to continue the discussion before making a final vote.
In September, the city of Manhattan Beach
issued a statement to "clarify the project proposal, review process, and standard of review."
The
statement effectively attempted to refute widely circulated points
opposing the Verandas project. The city declared that the project:
1) Is a multi-family residential project, not a hotel, or short-term lodging;
2)
Is in the Coastal Zone and therefore regulated by the Local Coastal
Program, which allows such plans through a streamlined permitting
process;
3) Is not an
SB 35 project;
4)
Is exempt from CEQA (environmental review) because it is subject to the
ministerial review process (and two environmental site assessments have
been done even though not required).
5) Has had
two environmental assessments
that found that there were no conditions detected on the site that pose
a threat to the
environment and/or human health and that "the [Chevron] Refinery is not
considered to represent a significant environmental concern to the
site."
City staff also released a lengthy
point-by-point rebuttal to numerous public comments made against the
project. That rebuttal can be seen on that
City Council meeting agenda, under Item 2, "City Responses to Additional Public Comments."
The issue was set for a vote in September, but was
abruptly withdrawn from the agenda, according to a statement from the city, "to address
residents’ concerns and questions, and consider legal options."
Tuesday night's vote is an official "no" for the project, which sets up an array of lawsuits that have been threatened by housing groups and the state.
Environmental Assessments Had Been Conducted
Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments
(ESAs) were performed by Citadel EHS, an environmental, health, safety
and sustainability consulting firm. The ESAs outlined the current and
historical uses of the proposed Highrose/Verandas site in order to determine if these uses had
impacted the soil or groundwater beneath a property, and whether these
impacts posed a threat to human health and/or the environment.
The ESAs
documented that the property was never part of the Chevron site.
Furthermore, the ESAs included a subsurface investigation that involved
soil samples and review of relevant databases.
The Phase I and Phase II
ESAs concluded that there were no conditions detected on the site that
posed a threat to the environment and/or human health. Based upon the
Phase I and Phase II ESAs, Citadel EHS concluded that “the [Chevron]
Refinery is not considered to represent a significant environmental
concern to the site at this time.”
