To MB Residents,
Below is an article from the folks at Chill the Build. They are a group of our Manhattan Beach neighbors (bipartisan) who were concerned enough to take action on the Highrose project and get behind Andrew Ryan’s appeal.
Join our neighbors tonight at the City Council meeting to oppose the Highrose project.
~MBStrong
Call to Action:
Tell the City Council to Remand for CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act)!
Oppose Highrose by attending the City Council meeting tonight with many of our MB neighbors.
When: Tuesday, 8/2/22
Time: 6:00
Where: City Hall 1400 Highland
Give a 3-min public comment on why you oppose the Hghrose project
email City Council [HERE].
Wear a BLUE t-shirt!
Attend via Zoom [HERE].
Get all the information about Highrose at our website chillthebuild.com
Stop Highrose
by Chill the Build chillthebuild.com
Highrose is a proposed massive 4-story, 79-unit luxury apartment building spanning 2 parcels that could potentially house 144 people at the Verandas / Tradewinds property next to the Chevron oil refinery in El Porto. The project will include 127 parking spaces for cars.
Is this the right project for Manhattan Beach? Is building on land previously used for oil and gas drilling and that hasn’t been developed since 1971, before environmental laws were enacted, safe for residents?
We do need more housing and low-income housing in California, and we support that. But should that housing be at the expense of current residents’ health, safety, and well-being when there are alternative locations that are available for development to meet the needs?
Look beyond the glossy sales pitch and more housing message and you’ll find cause for concern. The only hope we have of stopping or downsizing this project is to be vocal and tell our Council to pursue all avenues available to us.
Proponents, and the City to some extent, have been putting out the rumor that “Highrose is a done deal” and therefore trying to suppress vocal opposition. That is wrong!
Many residents, especially those living in the area, oppose this project. A change.org petition [link here] has 3,500 signatures opposing this project.
New State density laws usurp city authority by giving developers a way to override local zoning and even bypass environmental review in many cases. We believe this is NOT the case for MB, because the laws make exceptions for property believed to have environmental issues. The City MUST remand for CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) in order to protect residents from potential harm from this project.
Five appeals to the project have been filed for City Council to consider in upcoming City Council meetings. We must voice our opposition to this project or State laws will override our health, safety, and lifestyle.
Many residents oppose Highrose with the primary reasons being traffic concerns, parking, its massive size, and most importantly, environmental and health concerns.
Is this a done deal?
No! The developer and other proponents claim nothing can be done. That is not true.
Is the City Council fulfilling its mission with this project?
Council’s mission statement:
“Our mission is to provide excellent municipal services, preserve our small beach town character, and enhance the quality of life for our residents, businesses, and visitors.”
Our City’s small town charm is being threatened by a massive structure that would fit better in a more urban neighborhood near mass transit.
A massive apartment building spanning 2 combined parcels that exceed the max height by 20’ does not preserve the small beach town character.
The City Council will vote on August 16 and will determine whether allowing Highrose to be built is abiding by its mission statement or not.
What are the traffic concerns?
Traffic generated by approximately 100+ cars at rush hour will contribute to an already congested intersection and emergency evacuation route, creating more gridlock and increasing commute times.
The traffic study touted by the developer is based on inaccurate assumptions and estimates only 35-42 additional cars will be added during peak hours. The study concluded that the 144 residents living in an apartment building would generate less traffic than the current event space called Verandas which operated primarily on weekends.
We disagree.
We are a car-centric community and few people living in a luxury apartment will use the bus. How can the area absorb this influx of traffic at peak times when the previous use was a venue used primarily on weekends for events such as weddings?
We need a real-world study that includes a car count study specific to the location, not based on national averages for estimated use.
What are the parking concerns?
A 79-unit building would not ordinarily be allowed at the HighRose location if the density bonus law didn’t exit. However, if it was allowed, it would be required to have 176 parking spaces. This project is only putting in a total of 127 parking spaces. That’s a difference of 49 parking spaces.
Since the Highrose location is not near any transit center locations, we are convinced we will have a situation of too many cars and not enough parking spaces in the North Manhattan Beach (El Porto) area as a result of this proposed project.
What about Coastal Access?
Everyone familiar with the El Porto location understands that parking in the area is very difficult for current residents and visitors. Taking into consideration these added residents, and the guests that may visit, is this project now taking away beach visitors’ ability to park?
The City Council again is likely to see yet another clash with the Coastal Commission laws denying access to beach visitors because an overreaching law from the state is allowing this excessive building, in an area already denser than anywhere else in Manhattan Beach.
So in addition to remanding this project for CEQA (California Environment Quality Act), they must also remand for Free Coastal Access.
Are environmental concerns being mitigated before construction?
Contrary to what the developer and the City would have you believe, the laws make an exception for developments that are deemed to have potential environmental issues.
The City has discretion in this area. Do you think developing the property next to an oil refinery justifies the need for a full environmental study? The City must remand for CEQA.
What is the history of “floating petroleum” at the site?
Chevron reported to the California EPA in September 2019 that there is a history of “floating petroleum” in the groundwater, it is not safe and SHOULD NOT BE DISTURBED. This is a key component to opposing Highrose!
The Chevron property does NOT contain a barrier that prevents floating petroleum from moving onto the Highrose property.
What happened in 1985 when a housing development uncovered methane?
Residents might recall in 1985 when the Manhattan Village was built and there was an issue with methane discovered after the project was constructed. The LA Times notes that the developer probably could have saved money had they done a study prior to construction rather than paying to mitigate the problem afterward.
Why run that risk with this project? Why not perform a full environmental analysis by an independent party before one shovel hits the dirt and City Council smiles at the groundbreaking ceremony?
If not, will the neighborhood begin to refer to the project as the Highrose Hazard?
The Phase 1 study the developer touts is based on old data.
Does the law allow a full environmental study if there is reason to believe the property may be comprised?
Yes. Yet the City and developer ignore this even though the property was once used for oil and gas exploration, sits next to an old underground oil pipeline, has floating petroleum under or nearby, and other environmental concerns.
Isn’t developing property next to an oil refinery enough reason to remand for CEQA?
Can we challenge state laws that are clearly overreaching?
We have a court system that allows us to challenge overreaching laws. Cities from Carmel to San Diego are lining up to test the laws in court, either by suing or supporting a ballot measure in 2024.
Why hasn’t the City brought forth our options to sue the state over laws that could compromise our health and safety? Why hasn’t the current City Council supported the 2024 ballot efforts?
Sign up on OurNeighborhoodVoices.com [HERE] to support a 2024 ballot measure.
What was the intention of the density laws?
Voters were told that the intention of the laws was to encourage developers to build near mass transit centers and to increase density in sprawling communities.
Will contaminated groundwater leak into the ocean?
We know HighRose, as proposed, plans to dig two stories down for a subterranean parking structure and is likely to build even further down for support structures. This will disturb the ground and could cause draining groundwater with floating petroleum into our city storm drains. This could intrude into nearby properties and create a serious threat to public health.
Common sense would dictate these facts as presented would warrant any reasonably responsible governing leader to require an environmental or CEQA study. However, it is clear that it might be more convenient for Council to listen to the City Attorney who might not have exhausted his resources in understanding the environmental issues at stake here with regard to the safety of residents in Manhattan Beach.
Did the recent earthquake impact the site?
On June 3, at about 5 am, we Manhattan Beach residents felt the familiar rumble of an earthquake. Google 2.6 Earthquake El Segundo and Youtube, you’ll find a video regarding this earthquake and you’ll see the epicenter is near the property in the existing Chevron parking lot.
That should give anyone pause about any past environmental phase 1 study that was performed and its current accuracy.
Will the apartment building reduce or increase crime in the area?
The developer claims crime in the area will be reduced. How?
One could counter argue that 144 luxury apartment renters and a parking garage full of cars, motorcycles, and bicycles could attract more attention from criminals.
Tell City Council to “Remand for CEQA.”
For more information on the project and to review the 5 appeals go to the city’s website [HERE].
~Your neighbors at Chill The Build
About MBStrong…
We are MB residents bringing common sense, not politics, to the conversation.
What say you, Manhattan Beach? MBStrong2021@gmail.com
Since our start a year and a half ago, we have remained true to our mission to serve our fellow residents by publishing a newsletter that brings information on issues critical to our MB community and let the voice of the residents be heard by publishing their letters and comments.
We started with 100 readers and now have grown to over 5,400 MB residents reading MBStrong’s newsletter. This is largely due to residents finding MBStrong a noncombative outlet to voice their opinion and make a difference in our community.
