Planning Commission Turns Down Appeals on Highrose/Verandas Project
Jun 10, 2022 03:55PM ● By Jeanne Fratello
Manhattan Beach's Planning Commission has voted to unanimously uphold the Community Development Director's approval of the 79-unit Highrose/Verandas project, turning down four appeals from members of the community.
View of the proposed Project Verandas from Rosecrans, via the developer
The developer has requested waivers for:
Notices about the project were mailed on January 6 to property owners and residents within 100 feet of the perimeter of the subject parcel.
The permits for the proposed Highrose El Porto / Verandas project
at 401 Rosecrans Avenue and 3770 Highland Avenue in Manhattan Beach
received approvals from Manhattan Beach's community development
department back in March, which paved the way for an appeals process to begin. Four appeals were filed on behalf of residents.
In denying the appeals at its June 8 meeting, planning commission members said that although they had heard community opposition, their hands were essentially tied because the development meets all legal requirements that they were tasked with reviewing.
"We have to work with what we’re given," said Gerry Morton, a member of the Planning Commission. "I’ve looked for ways in which this [project] does not comport with the law, and I have yet to find any. I can’t personally vote in any way except to reject the appeal and support the director’s approval of the project."
Commissioner Jim Dillavou concurred. "Normally what would happen is we would have a similar dialogue, but get into the details of project, and incorporate more community feedback. That’s what the community clearly wants, and that's what we want, so I think it’s safe to say we're all sitting a very in frustrated position."
Dillavou continued, "[However] the developer has done nothing wrong whatsoever, other than to do exactly what they’re supposed to do. They colored between the lines; they developed a project that is legal... I don’t think anyone’s wrong, and this is a super unique situation. The only thing we could do here is potentially set the city up for significant litigation by deciding not to follow the law, which is just painful, expensive, and a waste of everybody’s time and money because this issue has been litigated a number of times and has been upheld repeatedly. We can try to puff our chests out and say, 'We’re Manhattan Beach and we’re different, and we’re not going to follow the rules because we don’t have to,' but after two years of fighting that, I think we’d lose one way or the other."
Anyone may file an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to the
City Council within 15 days of the Planning Commission’s decision. (Click on the link, choose "Apply," and then search for "Appeal of Planning Entitlement.") An appeal costs $500. All appeals on this issue must be received by 5:00 p.m. Thursday June 23, 2022.
Manhattan Beach's Associate Planner Ted Faturos told MB News that since no one has filed an appeal so far, so there is no date certain for if/when this
item will go before City Council.
The Verandas project (formerly referred to as the Highrose project)
is a new 96,217 square-foot, four-story multifamily residential
structure, containing 79 rental dwelling units, six of which will be set
aside for “very low income” households.
The project has drawn criticism
from El Porto and North Manhattan neighbors for its size, as well as
the implications for parking and traffic on the surrounding area.
However, the developer has offered responses to concerns with an FAQ
about the development and its impact. Among them, the developer notes
that the project is estimated to add up to 203 more parking spaces to
the public than are currently available. (That includes adding more
parking spaces underground than what is required for the new building,
plus freeing up parking that had previously been reserved for the former
Verandas and Tradewinds tenants.)
A full timeline of the project and comments received by the city can be found here.
Four Appeals Denied
Four independent appeals were filed by Don McPherson, Susan Bales and Richard MacKenzie, George Bordokas, and Andrew Ryan.
The appeals raised a number of topics, including building height, parking spaces, procedural questions, and health and safety issues.
The McPherson and Bales/MacKenzie appeals, for instance, called on the Planning Commission to conduct an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project.
To that question, the city responded in a staff report that it has determined that CEQA (the California Environmental Quality Act) does not apply to "ministerial" projects (a project such as this one that requires only
conformance with a fixed standard or objective measurement and requires
little or no personal judgment by a public official), and therefore an Environmental Impact Report is not required.
As to a question about a waiver granted to allow the building a maximum height of 50 feet, the staff report concluded: "The applicant has provided substantial evidence to demonstrate that the requested waiver of the 30-foot height limit is reasonable, and not granting the waiver would have the effect of physically precluding the construction of the development with the associated density bonus."
Other appeals were similarly dismissed, largely on account of the "ministerial" process and the fact that the commission simply needs to assess whether the project follows applicable law.
Project developer Frank Buckley told the commission, "There’s been frustration over the fact that this project was subject to a specific entitlement path that did not require a public hearing or hearings and therefore resulted in less outreach that would be typical."
However, Buckley added, the developers have made "good faith efforts" to reach out to the community, including various meetings and outreach efforts, plus a website with an FAQ about the project. The developers are listening to concerns and making reasonable efforts to incorporate comments from residents into the design, he said.
"We’re very pleased with feedback we have received from the various folks we have met with. They've appreciated that we did not take full advantage of the state density bonus law allowances - the building could have been larger - and they've appreciated that we are quality developers who intend to hold the property long term."
Verandas Project Uses Density Bonus Laws
The project is proposed on two contiguous lots, 401 Rosecrans Avenue
and 3770 Highland Avenue, which are proposed to be merged into a single
43,549 square-foot parcel to accommodate the project.
The project proposes demolition of a banquet facility (Verandas) and multi-use commercial building (Tradewinds Village) and subsequent construction of a 96,217 square-foot multi-family residential building with 79 rental dwelling units.
The project proposes demolition of a banquet facility (Verandas) and multi-use commercial building (Tradewinds Village) and subsequent construction of a 96,217 square-foot multi-family residential building with 79 rental dwelling units.
The 79 dwelling units would include:
- 21 studio apartments,
- 11 one-bedroom apartments,
- 40 two-bedroom apartments, and
- 7 three-bedroom apartments.
The apartments range in size from 512 square
feet to 1,727 square feet, comparable to standard rental units
throughout Manhattan Beach. Six of the 79 dwelling units will be set aside for
“very low income” households. The remaining 73 dwelling units will be
market-rate dwelling units.
View of the proposed Project Verandas from Rosecrans, via the developerFor fiscal year 2021, “very low
income” is defined as $59,100 for a family of four, or $41,400 for an
individual, within the greater Los Angeles area.
The project proposes two floors of subterranean parking, containing a
total of 127 automobile parking spaces, seven motorcycle parking
spaces, and 27 bicycle parking spaces.
The developer is utilizing State Density Bonus Laws, which allow developers to exceed the maximum density requirements as specified in a city’s zoning code if certain criteria are met, like setting aside a certain percentage of the total units in the project aside for very low-income occupants. In addition, State Density Bonus laws allow developers to request waivers from development standards, like setback and height requirements.
- maximum buildable floor area,
- maximum number of stories,
- maximum height, and
- setback for portions of the structure with walls greater than 24 feet in height.
If no State Density Bonus laws were used, a
total of 51 units would be allowed on the site, and a the maximum
buildable floor area would be a total of 74,033 square feet. However,
the project exceeds the minimum required number of automobile parking
spaces under the State Density Bonus laws, which would be 103
parking spaces.
Notices about the project were mailed on January 6 to property owners and residents within 100 feet of the perimeter of the subject parcel.
SB 35 Requires City to Add More Units
The
State of California has been changing laws over the past several years
to encourage the building of more housing, including increasing density
within areas that are already developed.
Many people are familiar with the most recent changes, contained in SB 9 and SB 10, the first of which effectively ended single-family zoning to encourage lot splits, duplexes and other development within areas that now feature only single-family homes. (A good explainer of SB 9 and the other laws leading up to it is in this analysis on MB Confidential: "The End of SFR Zoning in Manhattan Beach.")
According to the city, the Verandas project is not an SB 9 project, which deals with individual residential lots. (SB 10 does not apply either; it allows jurisdictions in urbanized areas to adopt voluntary zoning ordinances that permit up to ten residential units on a single parcel within certain areas.)
Many people are familiar with the most recent changes, contained in SB 9 and SB 10, the first of which effectively ended single-family zoning to encourage lot splits, duplexes and other development within areas that now feature only single-family homes. (A good explainer of SB 9 and the other laws leading up to it is in this analysis on MB Confidential: "The End of SFR Zoning in Manhattan Beach.")
According to the city, the Verandas project is not an SB 9 project, which deals with individual residential lots. (SB 10 does not apply either; it allows jurisdictions in urbanized areas to adopt voluntary zoning ordinances that permit up to ten residential units on a single parcel within certain areas.)
A
regular multi-year planning process known as the Regional Housing
Needs Assessment makes suggestions for cities and regions as to how many
new housing units are needed. In 2017, a new law (SB 35) threatened
cities that don't meet their targets by allowing for more housing,
including affordable housing, with a forced-approval process down the
road for new development.
The latest
Regional Housing Needs Assessment process declared that Manhattan Beach
must make way to add 774 total units by 2029. The City Council has reluctantly approved an outline proposing how it would meet that requirement.
City
officials confirmed to MB News that that
the affordable units proposed as a part of the Verandas project, if
constructed, would get credited toward Manhattan Beach's state-mandated,
lower-income housing requirements.
