HOUSING ELEMENT City Council considers defying CA law requiring more housing
by Mark McDermott
The Manhattan Beach City Council was presented with a plan Tuesday to meet state mandates for the creation of 774 new housing units within the city, just 12 days before the adoption of such a plan is required by state law. But the Council took the unusual step of continuing the matter to a closed session on Friday, in anticipation of possible litigation for non-compliance.
Councilmember Steve Napolitano said the Council could not abide by the state mandate while faithfully serving the interests of Manhattan Beach.
“This is a decision that’s going to impact our city for the long term more than anything else we’re going to make a decision about,” Napolitano said. “This isn’t about opposition to affordable housing. It’s about density and local control, and nothing less from the character of our cities is at stake. With that, at the risk of having the housing police come after us — a risk I am more than willing to take right now — I would move we defer this decision until after scheduling a closed session to discuss potential litigation and explore all options regarding this theft of local control.”
The Council unanimously supported the motion. Councilperson Joe Franklin said he ran for election three years ago precisely to oppose the state’s incursions on local control. He described the planning effort, called the Housing Element Update (HEU) a “charade” and Sacramento “criminal” for making cities go through the process.
“There’s plenty of affordable housing. It’s just not in California. It’s just not at the beach,” Franklin said. “This is a fantasy, trying to push against market forces. We all moved here. I lived in so many non-Manhattan Beach-like places before I got here, gaining experience, saving my money, investing my money, hoping I could find a place like this. And when I did, you know, barely being able to get in and to scrape by. That story is told over and over and over again. And now your reward is they’re going to build 20-story, affordable housing buildings because Sacramento, they look at you and they go, ‘Well, that’s not fair.’ Well, lots of things in life are not fair. But you can go to where the housing is affordable. You can go to where you can make a living wage and afford a home. You’re just not going to do it in a place like Manhattan Beach, California.”
The City is required to update its Housing Element every eight years. This version of the HEU, which was due last October, but has a 120-day grace period, is intended to cover housing needs through 2029. Through coordination with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), the City was assigned the number of additional housing units necessary at different income levels in order to accommodate its fair share of anticipated population growth during that planning period. This allocation is known as the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). The RHNA allocation for Manhattan Beach included 332 very low income units, 165 low income, 155 moderate income, and 132 above moderate income units. Through its Housing Element, the City must show that its zoning allows enough building capacity for the RHNA goals to be met.
City staff, which began work on the Housing Element last July in a process that included public input via workshops and study sessions and eventual approval by the Planning Commission, was able to find capacity mainly through underutilized sites — usually, older buildings viable for redevelopment. The greatest difficulty was finding areas large enough to be suitable for high density, lower income housing. Staff was able to identify sites for only 81 of the 487 total low income units needed. This required the creation 20.3 acres of zoning “overlay” zones that would increase allowable densities at different commercial sites throughout the city, including such high profile parcels as the the Fry’s store location on Rosecrans Avenue, and several other commercial areas along both Rosecrans and Sepulveda.
“The City will also rezone a selection of residential sites to allow for the development of higher density, lower-income residential units,” the staff report said.
Franklin praised staff for its hard work but said the results left him baffled.
“This reads like a science fiction novel,” he said. “I was wondering where I was.”
Hadley said the entire effort contained the whiff of contempt emanating from Sacramento for places like Manhattan Beach. She squarely blamed the Democratic party and the supermajorities it owns in the California legislature.
“We have one party. They will build more housing. They will jam it into communities that don’t want it,” Hadley said “They will strip away local control. I always tell residents who write to me, Sacramento would like nothing more than to run the whole state out of Sacramento. They do not think communities like Manhattan Beach are smart enough, competent enough, kind enough, or moral enough to run our own city. It’s just a fact. They don’t like us.”
Mayor Hildy Stern, although voting with her colleagues to take the matter into closed session, defended the idea underlying the Housing Element and its needs assessment.
“I don’t want to get into this political discussion about who we’re going to vote for. We have something we have to solve now,” Stern said. “We have a housing crisis in California. Let’s be clear about that…So, let’s not forget that when we are saying, ‘We have no responsibility here. This is somebody else’s responsibility.’ We do have a responsibility. We are a city with housing, and we have a responsibility to assist with housing issues and address the housing crisis.”
Public testimony largely opposed the proposed Housing Element. Local Realtor Ray Joseph said the overlay zones threaten the very fabric of Manhattan Beach.
“If you’re going to allow 50 and 60-foot tall buildings in downtown Manhattan Beach, this will destroy all property values in and around downtown Manhattan Beach and also in other areas through town,” Joseph said. “We need to be very careful about what goes in and where these zoning overlays are put into place. I talked to a [city] planner this last week, and they could not tell me whether or not somebody in a single family house could tear down their house, put in a low income [development] and then go up 40 to 50 feet. They could not tell me where these properties could go anywhere in town…And it’s very concerning because as a Realtor, I can no longer tell people, ‘Oh, no, they can’t build up and block your view…’ It’s like, ‘Oh, who knows? Anything goes… I mean, that will destroy entire neighborhoods…This is very scary and can destroy our community.”
Resident Zac Dean said that not having affordable housing can also destroy a community and urged the council to create more such capacity.
“It should be done not just because the state is requiring it, but because it’s the right thing to do ethically and morally,” Dean said. “We can’t have an entire city that’s for the super-rich. It’s not sustainable, and that’s not ethical. I think that middle class and working class families all deserve to have a chance to have homeownership here. Manhattan Beach is currently inclusive if you can afford a $4 million house, otherwise, not not so much… I’ve seen friends, neighbors move away due to the high housing costs, and that really affects my quality of life a lot more than an apartment building being built would negatively affect it.”
Cities that fail to update their Housing Element by February 12 run the risk of litigation, and losing the authority to issue residential, and non-residential permits; and ineligibility for grant funding. Napolitano acknowledged the risk the City runs if it ignores the deadline, but was not daunted.
“I want to make clear, I’m unconcerned about the February 12 deadline,” he said. “Others have a concern. I am not concerned. Are there consequences at some point? I am sure they are. Are they going to happen February 13? I don’t think so.” ER