The Manhattan Beach City Council will take up the hotly contested Project Verandas apartment building proposal at its meeting on Tuesday night.

No matter whether the city votes "yes" or "no" on the project, the decision may not mark the end of the debate, with possible legal battles following the decision either way.

Previously, 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.

City staff has also recommended that the full City Council approve the project. Those on the city staff and Planning Commission who have studied the project have said that it is subject only to "ministerial review," i.e. an up or down vote with the only consideration being whether or not it follows applicable rules.

At its August 16 meeting, the City Council had a chance to evaluate five formal appeals filed by residents. City staff walked councilmembers through a presentation in which they outlined reasons for rejecting each of the five appeals.

And notably, last week 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 the City Council meeting agenda, under Item 2, "City Responses to Additional Public Comments."

City staff did not respond to MB News requests for comment on what next steps would be if the City Council votes "no" on the project.

Meanwhile, multiple housing groups have reached out to the city in support of the project, reminding them of their obligation to approve the project under the law, and in at least one case stating an intent to take the case to court if the City Council votes "no." 

One letter to the city from Californians for Homeownership noted that in recent years there have been a number of successful lawsuits against municipalities to force them to abide by state housing laws. 

Notably, in 2021, the Orange County Superior Court ruled that city of Huntington Beach violated the Housing Accountabiity Act by going against the recommendation of city staff and rejecting a 48-unit condominium project. Following the decision, the city agreed to pay $600,000 in attorney's fees to Californians for Homeownership and two other organizations.

Another letter received by the city of Manhattan Beach from the Building Industry Legal Defense Foundation was more direct: "We stand ready to pursue legal action in support of this matter, should it become necessary," read the organization's letter.

At the same time, opponents of the project have been active on social media and elsewhere calling for a "no" vote on the issue.

Opponents have objected to the project on traffic, crowding, aesthetic, and environmental grounds. Additionally, the project has further mobilized those who want to challenge state laws that override local zoning.

Would opponents also pursue legal action if the City Council gives a "yes" vote? "Everything is on the table for us if the project is approved," a spokesperson for Chill the Build told MB News.

At the August 16 City Council meeting, Councilmembers Joe Franklin and Suzanne Hadley both expressed an intent to vote "no" on the project. 

Franklin told MB News that he could not disclose how he would vote in advance of the discussion. However, regarding the latest statement from the city, he said, "I will take all this additional information under consideration before I make my final decision."

Similarly, Hadley said, "I'm keeping an open mind for September 6 in case the city attorney, staff, my colleagues, and/or the applicant bring substantive new information or changes to the project."

However, Hadley added, she was comfortable with her August 16 statement of intent to vote "no" on the project.