To MB Residents,
MBStrong received several emails from residents in response to the Highrose letter we published written by the Two Retired Guys. See the Two Retired Guys letter [HERE]. Below we published five letters from residents for your review.
City Council received hundreds of letters from residents opposing Highrose and Council is slated to make a decision on the project tonight.
Meeting Tuesday, 9/6/22 begins at 6:00 PM.
Attend in person: 1400 Highland Ave.
Attend via Zoom: [Click Link Here].
Give a 2 min. public comment during the meeting.
Watch on TV: Channel 8 (Spectrum), Channel 35 (Frontier).
~MBStrong
LETTERS FROM 5 RESIDENTS:
Dear MB Residents,
The Highrose project is currently on the minds of many of us. After reading the letter posted on MBStrong’s recent newsletter from Two Retired Guys, we again need to insist that our city council take all appropriate actions necessary to conduct independent impact studies which will help the city defend itself if future lawsuits are brought against the city.
I hear comments from our city officials telling us that nothing can be done, “our hands are tied.” Well, our voices as residents can not be silenced. Don’t let developers come into our community and usurp our local zoning codes and ordinances.
The most important thing you can do today is to join me at Tuesday’s City Council meeting and speak up while our voices are still being heard. City Council is poised to take a vote to approve or deny the Highrose project.
Email Manhattan Beach City Council citycouncil@manhattanbeach.gov
-Frank Chiella, Manhattan Beach Resident
Dear MBStrong,
So much common sense! City Council just needs to follow your (Two Retired Guys) lead!! Why knuckle under to Sacramento or the developer? It’s easier, no doubt, but certainly not in the best interest of our community and citizenry. We’ve all worked diligently to protect this wonderful city from interlopers who are driven by personal greed and political theater! Perfect example: Bruce’s Beach debacle!! Bless all of you (at MBStrong) for being there for us and keeping us informed. We continue to share your posts with friends and neighbors to keep getting the word out.
-Best regards, Long, Long Time Residents
Dear MBStrong,
It isn’t even a question of fighting the state. The regulations passed by CA do NOT require approving Highrose. The Planning Department has gone beyond its authority and approved much more than the state requirements.
-Dan Stern, Former Mayor
Dear Residents,
After reading Mr. McDermott’s recent article in the 9/1/22 Easy Reader titled, “Project Verandas Decision Looms for City Council,” Chill The Build was hoping the article would have included some important details that would further educate both residents and City Council members on this important issue.
Unfortunately, he failed to discuss the overwhelming opposition’s views as well as deficiencies in the developer’s environmental studies. He also did not discuss the legal defects with the “our hands are tied” refrain from some on the City Council, which does not reflect the legislature’s presentation of AB 2011 awaiting Governor Newsom’s signature into law.
When it becomes law, AB 2011 will, for the first time, acknowledge that creating affordable housing next to a refinery is inherently unsafe. It establishes that any new affordable housing project within 3200 feet of a refinery is not “ministerial” and that appropriate review should be done by the City, such as a full environmental study.
Sacramento touts this as a monumental breakthrough among the legislature, the governor, labor unions, and environmental groups as AB2011 recognizes the historic social injustice of developing low-income projects next to environmental hazards (such as refineries and active oil wells) in which black and brown historically disadvantaged people have been shoved into for decades.
The 3200 feet setback is the product of California environmental justice advocates who have sought to right this historic wrong – particularly those of Asian, Latinx, and African-American descent who survived the 2012 explosion at the Chevron refinery in Richmond, California.
The proposed HighRose project is literally next door to the El Segundo refinery – not just 3200 feet away. MB residents are overwhelmingly opposed to HighRose and disappointed at the lack of a full-throated defense of the city and residents’ views by some City Councilmembers and City Attorney. Some like Mayor Napolitano worry about the city being sued by the developer, the state, or environmental groups.
This is not about whether AB2011 applies or does not apply to HighRose. The imminent passage of AB2011 gives City Council the ability to oppose HighRose and call for appropriate environmental review. By applying the concept behind the 3200 feet setback in such opposition, the City would be in alignment with State policy, labor unions, and environmental and social justice advocates. There is power behind such alignment – the test now is whether Mayor Napolitano, Richard Montgomery, or Hildy Stern has the courage to stand with the residents of Manhattan Beach, the State, and its allies to oppose the HighRose project.
Furthermore, where is the legal analysis of what might happen if the City approved a project that actually perpetuates the social injustice that AB 2011 and the State and environmental justice groups intend to address?
-MB Residents at Chill the Build. See our website chillthebuild.com.
Dear Residents,
I read the article in MBStrong’s Newsletter by the Two Retired Guys AND the statement published by City Council. I wrote a response letter to Council and submitted an excerpt to MBStrong as follows.
My hope is that on 9/6/22 City Council will vote to table the current resolution on the agenda to approve the Highrose project in favor of passing a motion to re-examine the City's rights and obligations to protect MB in every way possible under the law to avoid adverse impacts by simply complying with all laws, including City Ordinance No. 13-0006 itself.
This decision on Highrose will set the precedent for years to come after this Council is long gone.
In order to fulfill its sworn duty, City Council must vote "No for Now" on Highrose in order to gather the independent evidence necessary to ensure the City and its residents are protected to the fullest extent of the law. And this requires written reports of their findings per State law 65915 (d)(1), Subsection (4) which states: "The city, county, or city and county shall bear the burden of proof for the denial of a requested concession or incentive."
Why wouldn't the city take advantage of these protections, at a minimum to obtain every possible assurance to avoid an environmental disaster by allowing a developer to dig a very large, 45' deep hole adjacent to a refinery and petrochemical storage facility that might expose an environmental hazard to the air, groundwater, or nearby beaches and ocean?
The City's press release says an Environmental Site Assessment was performed but fails to make note that an "assessment" falls far short of protections afforded by a full-blown EPA "study."
In addition to the health risk from exposure of hazardous material to air, beaches, ocean, and groundwater to unsafe levels, the City of MB will undoubtedly be stuck with the cost to mitigate and clean up the hazardous material because the LLC that owns the property will have a fiduciary duty to protect its members by seeking protection under bankruptcy laws.
The press release argues that the City is only allowed to perform an "administrative non-discretionary" review, referred to as a "ministerial review" because Highrose includes 6 affordable housing units.
That is simply not correct and for those of you interested in the law, the evidence of this conclusion is shown below.
City Ordinance No. 13-0006 requires City Council to follow federal law and state law, which "governs" per the ordinance. And state law 65915 allows the City to perform normal "discretionary" type of due diligence that is needed to protect the City's General Plan and zoning laws, as illustrated below.
FEDERAL LAW requires full compliance with rules and regulations of the ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AGENCY (in this case that requires a comprehensive environmental STUDY, which goes far beyond the limited "assessment" provided by the developer so far.
STATE LAW governs and it requires full compliance with 3 sections of state law, as follows:
CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT - The City Council’s press release incorrectly states that Highrose is exempt from compliance with the requirements of our Local Coastal Program according to the City's ordinance, but "state law governs" per the ordinance if there is a conflict with city law.
According to a January 2021 article written by Jon Goetz and Tom Sakai of the law firm Meyers Nave entitled "Guide to the California Density Bonus Law,'" "State legislation in 2019 requires the "density bonus" to be administered in the Coastal Zone in a manner that is consistent and harmonized with the California Coastal Act. This legislation overturns a 2016 appellate court ruling, Kalnel Gardens, LLC v. City of Los Angeles, which found that a proposed housing project that violates the Coast Act as a result of a density bonus could be denied on that basis. The court in Kalnel Gardens held that the Density Bonus Law is subordinate to the Coastal Act, but the language in the new legislation attempts to strike a balance between the state goals of promoting housing and protecting the coast."
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) -The City's press release contains a misleading statement that "The city has determined that, pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21080 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15268, the project is exempt from CEQA's typical environmental review requirements because it is subject to a ministerial approval process." The City is taking the position that the project is exempt because it qualifies for exemptions as a density bonus project.
However, a January 2021 article by the law firm Goetz and Sakai states "...there is no specific density bonus exemption from the CEQA," under state law, which governs, therefore, the developer is required to file with the state for a specific exemption that might or might not be approved under CEQA guidelines versus the city making its own private determination.
STATE LAW 65915 - City Ordinance 13-0006 states that projects like Highrose that quality for a "density bonus" by providing affordable housing units shall be "pursuant to "Chapter A.94" which refers to State Law 65915, Chapter 10.94.
And Section 10.94.010 (a)(1)(d)(1) provides the city with the right to conduct a normal level of due diligence to protect our City's zoning laws and General plan, as follows:
If per Subsection (B), "The concession or incentive [density bonus] would have a specific, adverse impact, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5, upon public health [environment] and safety [increase in traffic will block police, fire and medical equipment when the first 2 minutes can mean the difference between life and death] or the physical environment or any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low-income and moderate-income households."
Or if per Subsection (C), "The concession or incentive would be contrary to state or federal law." [Such as the need to comply with state coast laws and environmental laws as well as federal laws of the Environment Protection Agency that is imperative for this site because it is surrounded by an urban center, a highly populated, dense neighborhood, and a nearby oceanfront and the developer plans to dig a very large 45' deep hole immediately adjacent to a hundred-year-old oil refinery and storage facility.]
-Proponent of using the law to defend MB
About MBStrong…
WHAT SAY YOU MB? MBStrong2021@gmail.com
Our subscribers are MB residents from moderate Democrats to conservative Republicans.
Add MBStrong.substack.com to your email contact list to keep our emails out of your spam folder!
MBStrong is not a political group or a campaign arm for candidates, measures, or bonds. We do not collect money or spend money on campaigns. We love our city and simply provide a free, informative Newsletter on issues that most impact MB.