Statistically speaking, there must be some people in Manhattan Beach who support a series of large new residential development projects currently under consideration by the city.

But at a forum hosted by city officials April 9, no such voices were in evidence, and opposition seemed to be universal from a boisterous, overflow crowd at the Joslyn Center.

Even city staff who presented at the forum seemed apologetic, repeatedly noting that their "hands are tied" by a series of state laws that permit large new housing projects that generally exceed the city's standards for size, height and density. 

One project, for instance, now said to be the furthest along in planning, is proposed for two lots along Sepulveda, at 2301 North Sepulveda Blvd. It would rise to 7 stories tall (75 feet), providing 38 units of housing, with 8 low-income, 3 "moderate" income, and 27 "market rate." The 75-foot height is allowed despite city zoning that caps most buildings on Sepulveda at 40 feet. 

 

As specific projects such as that one were described in detail at the forum, many residents reacted forcefully to the scale of the proposed developments.

"I'm appalled just like everyone else here tonight on what we're learning," East Manhattan resident Helena Burke said, "and kind of scared of what's happening in the town I grew up in... The state can do anything they want."

"We've lost all control over our local zoning," said another resident who identified himself as a resident of Oak Avenue. "The state has come in and said you can build a skyscraper without parking, and the city can do nothing about it."

Residents who came to the event hoping to learn how to stop some of the large developments instead heard over and over that attempts to stop the projects would be fruitless at best, and risky to the city at worst. 

'Residential Overlay District' Specifies Locations for New Housing on Commercial Sites

The recent public forum was held to explain the rules and processes under the "Residential Overlay District (ROD)," a state-mandated zoning change adopted by Manhattan Beach in March 2023.

Within the ROD, explained Adam Finestone, Planning Manager for the city, certain commercial properties may be developed as multifamily housing. (For a PDF of Finestone's slide deck, click here.)

The "overlay" is essentially a map that specifies sites where current zoning would be overridden if a property owner wishes to submit plans for certain kinds of housing projects. (Click here for the full city zoning map.)

Most of the commercial sites where new housing could be built are located along Sepulveda and Rosecrans, with a smattering along Artesia Blvd. and Aviation. 

Finestone said there are 34 sites in total, totaling approximately 43 acres. He noted that the state "does not allow for us to concentrate all of the housing units in any specific location, or specific area. Statute actually states that we have to identify sites throughout the community."

The state has a series of requirements for sites to qualify for the ROD, including the "likelihood of redevelopment" – meaning, the city's map had to be in some measure realistic, so that opening the door to new development in this manner might actually result in some projects being proposed and built. 

City staff described an arduous 2 1/2 year process of identifying sites and getting required state approvals, to keep the city in compliance with state mandates.

As described by city representatives, to date, three major housing projects taking advantage of the ROD have seen preliminary plans submitted, and all happen to be on Sepulveda at the north end of the city. 

Besides 2301 N. Sepulveda, city officials revealed that a project at 3600 North Sepulveda – the site of the old Fry's Electronics store – would consist of 10 stories and contain 285 units of housing. Another project at 2705 N. Sepulveda would contain 48 units, and could rise to 18 stories.

City staff explained that builders have incentives to submit preliminary plans and start the process for potential developments, as it could be difficult for the city to impose changes on their plans later, even if some state or local policies change. But just because a preliminary plan is submitted does not mean the project ultimately will be constructed.

Once a ROD project is proposed, if the builder does want to obtain permits, the plans are "required to be processed through a ministerial, streamlined review process," Finestone said. "There can be no discretion involved. It's the determination that you meet code requirements, you get a permit. And the city is obliged to approve them if that's the case." 

"There is an unlimited number of waivers," he added. "Applicants are entitled to whatever number of waivers that they need to develop their projects." 

Finestone also noted that ROD projects are exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which is frequently used to delay or derail other kinds of developments.

State Laws and Mandates Behind Housing Push and Bigger Projects

Large proposed housing projects facing the city now are a result of a series of state laws and mandates. And there isn't much room to push back, according to Michael Codron, interim director of Community Development, who said the state's orientation is "empowering home builders."

"The state has specifically identified local opposition to housing as a roadblock to its housing policy and economic development efforts," Codron said. 

Therefore, the state "has made every effort to strip decision-making authority from local officials, in an effort to increase housing production." 

"Our ability as a city to modify housing projects is limited," Codron said, "and we know that that is a great source of frustration for residents in the neighborhoods."

There are at least four types of laws and policies intertwined to force Manhattan Beach's hand on housing development. 

First, there is the 8-year housing "cycle," under which the state requires each city to create a master plan for residential development known as the Housing Element. Many cities were shocked by mandates in the most recent cycle. Manhattan Beach got new state-mandated targets to develop 774 additional residential units, with at least 487 "lower-income" units. (The current cycle runs through 2029.)

City council enacted the latest state-required Housing Element "reluctantly" by a vote of 3-2 in in March 2022, with each member voting "yes" saying their votes were "under protest."

Manhattan Beach was then required by the state to create the ROD map and associated rules to show where new housing development could take place, to implement the Housing Element. Those policies were adopted in March 2023.

A third factor is the Housing Accountability Act, updated in 2017, which Finestone said "places limitations on cities’ discretion when considering specific housing projects."

Propelling the new proposals for large developments is the long-standing Density Bonus Law (dating to 1979), which allows developers to seek waivers of certain local rules when a portion of their projects include affordable housing.

Legal changes to the Density Bonus Law were passed after Manhattan Beach enacted both its Housing Element and ROD. 

Those changes, contained in AB 1287, took effect in 2024, and allow much larger projects than previously. Whereas builders once could add 50% more units to their projects than normally allowed, after designating a portion as "affordable," now they can add 100% more units – making them double the size that would have been allowable.

Finestone, the Planning Manager, noted, "While we did expect ... Density Bonus would be taken advantage of for ROD projects, we didn't expect the change that would allow it to increase the density that much. That is something that was unknown to us at the time that we had the Housing Element adopted and the ROD created."

Residents Near Proposed Projects Among Opponents Speaking Out

The public comment period featured more than 20 speakers, and plenty of strong statements and emotion.

 

East Manhattan resident Helena Burke said, "Our population has not changed in Manhattan Beach in 60 years. We’ve been roughly 35,000, give or take. We have to remind Sacramento that we are not Manhattan, New York – we are Manhattan Beach, California. We are a small town, and we need to keep it as a small town."

A resident asking for ways to oppose the building plans called the state laws and policies a "total disaster. It's going to ruin the character of this town, and a lot of other towns."

Another resident said, "I feel a little bit of gaslighting coming from our own city leaders. We could have said no. And it was mixed with city council, but you voted it through."

A husband and wife who live near the 2301 Sepulveda project said they have four young children and expect that they'll be strongly impacted where they live.

Ryan Tucker said, "It feels like myself and my neighbors, we’re the lambs being led to slaughter, which sucks."

Elizabeth Tucker said, "I have four children under 9. It will not be safe for them to play in my backyard. I cannot rent my house, I cannot sell my house, I cannot leave. So I have to stay, but it’s not safe," demanding some kind of answer from city staff.

Another speaker urged research on the broader impacts, asking, "What’s going to be the infrastructure cost that will be passed along to all Manhattan Beach residents? ... We need numbers... And maybe then we can get city council to start reacting to the residents' needs, as compared to the developers'."

More than one speaker asked a version of one commenter's question to the city officials at the forum: "Do you guys want to fight?"

Resident William Becker said, "I hold city council personally responsible for abandoning our community and really letting us down... When Governor Newsom and the California State Legislature tells me to do something, my first response isn’t to do it. My first response is to question it, and then fight it if it’s wrong."

Opponents Suggest Lines of Attack to Stop Projects 

Codron, the interim development director, had opened the meeting by stating, "The goal is to listen and then act to reduce the consequences of large projects, where possible."

The staff – and all five city council members, who attended but did not speak – certainly got an earful after Codron's charge, including suggestions of multiple angles from which to attack the new developments. 

Might the city require a traffic study before approving projects?

Could the city require a builder "proforma" financial analysis as a condition of permitting the project?

Could Manhattan Beach "exchange" its new-housing obligations with another city?

Is there federal property nearby that could be developed with housing to meet Manhattan Beach's requirements?

Could Manhattan Beach become a "charter city" to avoid the state mandates?

Could the city require all of the "affordable" housing within the new projects to be for senior citizens only?

Might the city issue a blanket "pause" on the controversial projects while awaiting changes in state law?

Is there a way for residents to "band together" to urge President Donald Trump to sign an executive order that would stop the projects?

The answer city staff gave to most of these questions was a clear "no," based on their understanding of the law and court cases to date.

One question about using "historic" designations to halt development in some locations seemed to interest city staff.

"We have looked at any way we can think of" to slow or stop some of the proposals, Finestone said. "We are definitely open to ideas and suggestions from the community. Historic designations are some things we can consider."

One concrete proposal from a resident was to "amend our residential overlay map" to effectively remove "specific sites that most people feel more strongly about than others."

Diana Varat with the city attorney's office said, "Revising the map would mean opening up the Housing Element, and having to revise the Housing Element in addition to the [ROD] ordinance."

Such a process, Varat explained, could take the city out of compliance with state law. "If you don’t have a certified Housing Element," she said, "you get 'builder's remedy' projects." 

The "Builder's Remedy" law allows developers to come into a city and build virtually any kind of housing, anywhere, without regard to city zoning, as a "punishment" for the city failing to provide for development through its Housing Element and ordinances. 

Hermosa Beach is reckoning with a proposed 50-foot-tall, 5-unit building in the 3400 block of Hermosa Avenue, in an area that normally caps buildings at 30 feet. City staff advised that the project should be approved due to the "Builder's Remedy" law, because the application was filed during a time when Hermosa did not have a certified Housing Element. (The city now does have certification.) 

Are Changes to State Laws Possible? 

Varat from the city attorney's office said, "The emotion that we see here tonight is not unique to this community. And so I think there is a moment in the state to try and find a better balance between the production of housing, and the concerns that communities are raising."

From left to right: Diana Varat, from the city attorney's office; Talyn Mirzakhanian, city manager; and Michael Codron, interim community development director.

Varat held out hope that residents in Manhattan Beach and other cities might contact elected officials to seek changes in the laws.

Asked specifically if the city is trying to make changes, City Manager Talyn Mirzakhanian said, "Yes, we are doing everything that we can, and even volunteering to write amendments to the code for them to consider." 

Mirzakhanian said the city is trying "to see if there’s a way to get some amended legislation, particularly for [the] Density Bonus Law... We are working closely with anyone we can to try to do that."

Chloe Tachibana, field representative for Assembly Member Al Muratsuchi, told the audience, "We understand your frustration. We hear you, and we are really frustrated as well."

Tachibana said Muratsuchi "knows Manhattan Beach very well, he understands the unique character of Manhattan Beach and its residents, and ... is a huge proponent for local control," so that cities "are able to make decisions on developments that impact residents directly."

Tachibana offered to meet with neighborhood groups to consider "creative solutions."

Former Mayor Russ Lesser, speaking from the public comment microphone, said, "The city council has taken some flak tonight. I don't think that’s appropriate. Their hands are tied. All of them oppose what’s going on. It's our state legislature that is the problem."

Lesser seconded an earlier suggestion by realtor Ray Joseph that people get behind a group proposing a ballot measure effort that would prioritize cities' control over zoning, rather than state mandates. 

Former Redondo Beach Mayor Bill Brand had brought the same group to the attention of the Manhattan Beach City Council in 2023, although so far, the group has failed to meet its goals of reaching the Nov. 2022 and Nov. 2024 ballots. In 2024, it spent $159,963 and ended with $16,505 cash on hand, according to state filings. 

Former Mayor Wayne Powell made a similar suggestion, for the city to work with the League of California Cities on a ballot initiative "to either rescind or amend the Density Bonus Law, and replace it with something that’s not a one-size-fits-all solution that serves no one."

Videos of the hearings are posted on YouTube here (Part 1) and here (Part 2).