City Council Moves to Continue Highrose/Verandas Discussion
Aug 17, 2022 11:50AM ● By Jeanne Fratello
More than five hours into a meeting that was dominated by the Highrose/Verandas issue, the Manhattan Beach City Council voted to move further discussion on the project to its next meeting on September 6.
"There's so much information we've heard pro and con," said Manhattan Beach City Councilmember Richard Montgomery, who urged the council to table the conversation as the clock neared midnight on Tuesday. "Bad decisions occur late at night."
Montgomery's motion to continue the discussion was approved 3-2, with Councilmembers Suzanne Hadley and Joe Franklin voting no. Moments earlier, Hadley and Franklin had announced their respective decisions to vote "no" on the project.
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.
Despite
vocal opposition to the project by a large number of residents, the project has
moved through various stages of approval, with city officials saying
that their hands are tied due to state laws regarding this kind of
housing development.
Most recently, in June, Manhattan Beach's Planning Commission voted unanimously to uphold the Community Development Director's approval of the 79-unit Highrose/Verandas project, turning down four appeals from members of the community.
At Tuesday night's meeting, the City Council heard voluminous public comment from residents and nonresidents, both pro and con on the project.
The council also had a chance to evaluate five formal appeals filed by residents. However, city staff walked councilmembers through a presentation in which they outlined reasons for rejecting each of the
five appeals.
City staff has recommended affirming the Planning
Commission's decision to approve the project given that the project follows all applicable rules and laws.
The "Least Impactful of Anything That Could Be Built There"
At the meeting, the developer also had an opportunity to present a rebuttal to the points laid out in the residents' appeals. During his rebuttal, developer Frank Buckley said that the project had been hampered by misinformation and false claims on social media and elsewhere.
Buckley also said that his firm did "exhaustive" research about potential uses for the currently vacant space. Ultimately, he said, the city could have this "thoughtful" multi-family development created by local residents, or potentially see a larger commercial development with far greater traffic implications.
"I have no regrets about this project. I think it’s absolutely the least impactful of anything that could be built there," said Buckley.
An alternative use case study presented by Buckley showed that a multi-family residential development would have the least traffic impact (578 estimated daily trips) and require the fewest number of parking spaces (103 required spaces, needing two levels of underground parking). A Metlox-type commercial development would have the highest traffic impact (2515 estimated daily trips) with the greatest number of required parking spaces (600 required spaces, needing eight levels of underground parking), he said.
Pursuing Legal Challenges?
Meanwhile, City Attorney Quinn Barrow told councilmembers that he was not aware of instances of a city suing the state over State Density Bonus Laws, the laws that are being used to permit this development. These density bonus laws allow developers to exceed the maximum density
requirements as specified in a city’s zoning code if certain criteria
are met, such as setting aside a certain percentage of the total units in
the project aside for very low-income occupants.
The idea of taking the issue to court rather than accepting the project as recommended is one that has held strong appeal to opponents of the Highrose/Verandas project.
At the meeting, Councilmember Suzanne Hadley announced that she would be voting no on the project, after having heard from "thousands" of residents expressing their opposition.
Hadley added that she did not want to waste city money on litigation, but that she had been convinced by residents that that's where they wanted their money to be spent - on taking the issue to court and fighting to preserve the city's character.
"I remain unconvinced that this is settled law. I will only be forced to build this project by a judge," she said. "I do think we should get this into the courts and let our residents know we’re not just rolling over."
The discussion, and presumably a final vote on the issue, will take place at the next City Council meeting on September 6.
