by Mark McDermott
Over the past month the City Council has twice deliberated over a set of five state-imposed code amendments that will streamline processes related to affordable housing projects, accessory dwelling units, Density Bonus waivers, and the easing of lot consolidation restrictions in order to encourage more residential building.
The code-amending ordinances were a formality, in a sense, since the City has already been forced to comply with those state dictates in order to enact its Housing Element, which is another, overarching state requirement that compels municipal zoning to accommodate more housing.
But it was a formality with teeth. Planning Manager Adam Finestone told the council at the outset of its April 1 meeting that failure to adopt the ordinances could lead to a decertification of the Housing Element, which would allow the state’s department of Housing and Community Development to take over all permitting processes in Manhattan Beach.
“We are already overdue on these code amendments,” Finestone said.
“They were due two years ago. And the longer you wait, the more the likelihood is that HCD starts to not give you the grace that they’ve been giving you. They have the authority to decertify our Housing Element, which would mean that we would lose any of our permitting authority. So they could come in and say, ‘Alright, we’re the ones that are going to be issuing permits. You have no say over what happens.’…I’ve seen and heard stories about cities who have had their Housing Element revoked, or don’t have a Housing Element in place yet, and it’s a legal matter that those cities deal with, but it’s not pretty.”
Councilperson Nina Tarnay asked City Attorney Quinn Barrow if any city had succeeded in legal challenges to the state’s imposition of housing requirements.
“Not yet,” Barrow said.
Barrow later suggested anyone wondering about the consequences of flouting state law Google the words, “builders remedy,” which he said would be among the repercussions of a decertified Housing Element or blocking projects that meet state requirements.
“Developers come in, under the builders’ remedy, and build whatever they want,” Barrow said. “And so it’s hard to believe, but it’s much worse.”
The upshot is that housing developments that qualify under state law will no longer even reach the City Council but be approved administratively by city staff in order to hasten building. Public input is not a part of this process.
“The state has taken away our ability to get public input,” said Mayor Pro Tem David Lesser, later adding that the council is facing blowback from its residents. “Because the public is used to, when they get a notice they live within 500 feet of a project, that they’re able to provide some input on the project. So I think there’s a disconnect in either we’re not doing our job, or the state is not doing its job in explaining the different world order now. And we as a council are blamed for these ministerial decisions that we have no role in anymore.”
There was plenty of public input regarding the code amendments, and even more regarding another state requirement that was not directly related, the Residential Overlay Districts (ROD) that the City was required to adopt that will allow large residential projects in commercial areas such as Sepulveda Boulevard and Rosecrans Avenue. Projects that will add over a 1,000 new units are already in planning processes along those two corridors, including a 14-story development on Rosecrans and a 7-story development on Sepulveda.
Residents from Oak Avenue, which is just behind the 7-story development, implored the council to help stymy the project.
Manny Alcantara Jr. said he and his family have lived on Oak since 1991 and as he and his wife enter their golden years they are shocked to suddenly confront a huge development in their back yard.
“I sincerely believe that it would affect all of us, especially our family, adversely, and seriously,” he said. “ We’re all concerned about it, myself, all of my neighbors.” Alcantara said Rosecrans is a better option for such developments. “Perhaps it would be more profitable to all the parties concerned if they have unfettered access and less resistance from the local yokels like us to try and stop them. I think the infrastructure probably is better serving them for the larger structures along Rosecrans. I believe it’s all ready for them to build….I want to say that, you know, I’d like Manhattan Beach to remain the city that I came to in ‘91. I’d like my children to grow old here, or my great grandchildren.”
Ryan Tucker, another resident from Oak, said he has four young children who will be adversely impacted. “They live in our backyard, which is now going to be a construction zone for two years, with stuff flying into our yard. Who knows what?” he said. Tucker said he’s visited with city staff, who have been friendly but unable to help him. “How do I make sure my kids are safe? Nobody has an answer for me. So it just seems like there’s a lack of cohesion and lack of planning about what’s about to hit us.” Tucker also questioned why the City was conducting a town hall on the issue on April 9. “And I get it, these five elements are not what the ROD is. But for you guys to say, ‘Look, we need to pass this tonight, and enjoy your meeting on the ninth. There’s nothing we can do for you but you can chat about it’ — that just feels disingenuous. I think those of us on Oak are lambs being led to slaughter. I don’t know where all the council members live, if you’re down on the walk streets in the Sand Section, but it just seems like we’ve been sacrificed for those in maybe a preferred location in the city. Which is very frustrating.”
Councilperson Joe Franklin suggested that residents impacted by projects let the developers themselves know that they will face opposition.
The irony, the cynical irony, of all this, is these developers want to come and put in their big developments in this city because it’s such a wonderful place to live, and what made it that way is our local zoning,” Franklin said. “So we meet with the developers, we let them know what kind of pushback they’re going to get. There are things that we can do. As residents, get involved, and we’ll see what we can do here on council to support all of you.”
Mayor Amy Howorth said she understood residents’ frustrations, but reiterated that the City had to follow state law.
“That’s what the majority decided. But in coastal communities, where we are so densely packed, it really impacts us,” she said. “We don’t have room. We don’t have places to expand. So a lot of us in coastal communities felt that it was sort of a blanket solution that was applied without consideration of how we actually live … .So, I’m sorry. I don’t have easy answers, and it’s really appropriate for you to come up and be mad at me. I mean, this is the only avenue you have.”
Tarnay said that it was clear that the residents, as well as council, want local control. She asked residents, like staff, to seek creative solutions to arrive at this goal. But she also noted that as a resident herself, she observed the consequences in 2023 when the City initially fought a Density Bonus project, Project Verandas, which included a $50 million lawsuit from the developer, two other lawsuits from housing advocacy groups who have legal standing in such matters due to the law, and threats from the state Attorney General’s office.
“I know it’s frustrating for residents, and we are trying to find solutions, but I think turning on each other isn’t going to get it done,” she said. “Because at the end of the day, we have to work towards getting the message to the state that we want to work with them to get more affordable housing. We do have a housing shortage. But our town has very specific parameters that we can build on, and so we need to have them listen to us, and still add the necessary housing.”
Lesser said the state has usurped the council’s ability to ensure that projects fit the character of the community.
“I’ve asked myself the question, what is the role of city councils in an era where the state has clawed back the jurisdiction over permitting and building these large scale residential projects?” he said. “What is our role? We get to be the targets of angry residents that are justifiably angry because they had not been aware that, beginning in about 2017, these housing laws were weaponized and our authority has been removed.”
The council passed the ordinances in a 4-1 vote, with Franklin in opposition. Lesser registered his reluctance and noted he entered city politics as a planning commissioner two decades ago in order to help fight back against large development.
“If we don’t do this, we face worse perils as a city,” Lesser said. “We face tens of millions of dollars of liability exposure where every other city that has fought this office has lost. We don’t have $50 million extra laying around. This has a direct impact on our operating funds to the extent you support your police, your fire services, and the operation of your city government. This is too large of an exposure….. If we don’t proceed, it’s hard to believe, but we’ll face much larger projects.” ER
Seems like the solution is at Aviation & Marine – the old government building sitting there empty for at least a decade now – it has lots of square footage, parking and green space. It would convert nicely to apartments and be a lot less costly than building new from the ground up –