Will Highrose be approved by MB City Council on Tuesday?
Resident group leads the opposition and 5 Appeals submitted by individual residents.
THE HIGHROSE FIASCO
by MBStrong
The laws coming out of Sacramento have usurped local zoning laws in every CA City. It’s a classic example of one level of government flexing its muscle over another level of government and it’s precisely the reason our courts were originally formed.
We have stated for months that the City of MB must protect its citizens by exercising its Constitutional right to use the courts to push back on State legislation that violates our local zoning laws.
Click below to read our previous Newsletter on Highrose and the courts.
But our City Council has shown no willingness to protect our city from this unconstitutional overreach, in fact, they appear as either surrendering laydowns or willing participants. All Councilmembers have been giving “pat answers” to residents to avoid taking action (e.g., “If you don’t like the State laws, write Sacramento,” “Elections have consequences,” or worse yet, “We can’t do anything”).
For about 10 months, from spring of 2021 to January 2022, not one City Council member informed residents about the plans submitted in City Hall to develop the monstrous Highrose project in the densest neighborhood in MB. In fact, residents never did learn about it from City Council; rather the news about Highrose came from news released by City Hall last January that Highrose was going to be approved by the MB Planning Department in short order based on state laws that bypass MB zoning laws.
Immediately the public scrambled to make their voice known through emails to City Council that they were not happy with Councilmembers remaining silent for so many months and asking them to fight to uphold local zoning laws. City Council had the obligation to immediately inform the residents about Highrose and the impact it will have on our community. Council’s silence left the residents very limited time to file formal appeals about the project.
Despite Council’s lack of engagement, 5 separate individual residents did get a formal appeal filed in time against the construction of Highrose. These 5 Appeals must be publically reviewed by Council and that will occur at Tuesday’s City Council meeting. However, the recommendation on the Agenda to Council by City Manager, Bruce Moe to “affirm the decision of the Planning Commission” raises a red flag that perhaps hearing the Appeals is simply a formality and Council intends to continue to heal to the State overreach.
In what appears as an attempt to quiet residents’ outrage about Highrose, City Council passed resolutions stating it doesn’t agree with some of the state laws. But their written resolutions ring hallow when taking legal action would actually demonstrate a seriousness to protect the City and its residents.
But the coup-de-grace was during these many months while residents have been asking City Council to uphold our zoning laws, not one Councilmember responded with truthful and revealing key facts from the past: in June 2013, every aspect of our zoning and planning laws were amended to comply with state initiatives to allow for building housing that has a greater impact on density, traffic, parking, public health and safety, environmental issues, etc.
Will our City Attorney drop this shoe on Tuesday and conclude there is nothing City Council can do to stop Highrose due to this 2013 ordinance? This certainly would be an attempt to shut down objections from residents, and at the same time, try to give Councilmembers a pass on taking legal action against the State.
BUT, WHAT RESIDENTS NEED TO KNOW is the 2013 ordinance does not give Council carte blanche to ignore local zoning laws, in fact, it allows Council to require independent studies to ensure a project does NOT have an “adverse impact” on the community.
Council has a clear obligation to utilize the rights and protections afforded by the 2013 ordinance to assure residents that Highrose will not cause an “adverse impact” on our City or residents. This will require INDEPENDENT research studies to be engaged by City Council and paid for by the developer regarding the “adverse impact” on public health and the physical environment from digging near the Chevron property and the “adverse impact” on the traffic and parking in this neighborhood.
Current studies by the developer are NOT independent. In fact, their traffic study says the project will improve traffic. And the environmental study is not current and it ignores many facts stated below by the Chill the Build group, such as the site was used to drill for oil in the past.
Why weren’t City Councilmembers transparent with residents about the 2013 ordinance instead of hiding behind a bogus statement that they could not talk about Highrose because it might impact their decision on Tuesday’s meeting? Will our City Attorney claim that impact studies by the developer have satisfied the 2013 ordinance and there is no “adverse impact” to the city or to the residents?
WHAT DO YOU SAY, MB RESIDENTS? What assurances has Council provided you that Highrose will not have an “adverse impact” on the health and safety or the traffic and parking in our City?
Attend the City Council meeting in person or on Zoom:
Meeting Date: Tuesday, August 16, 2022
Meeting begins: 6:00 PM
In-person location: 1400 Highland Ave.
Mayor Napolitano has placed Highrose on the Agenda as item #15, which places it very late in the evening. A 3-minute Public Comment can be made just before the Highrose project is up for discussion by Council, OR you can give a 2-minute Public Comment near the beginning of the meeting. This can be done in person or on Zoom.
You can write a public comment on item #15 by clicking [Here]. The deadline is 5 PM Tuesday.
You can read the 5 appeals to the Highrose project [Here]. Go to item #15.
Many MB residents have formed an opposition group called Chill the Build which has created a very informative website for all MB residents. Click [Here] to see their website and link to City Council email addresses.
Read the article by Chill the Build below.
~MBStrong
MBStrong2021@gmail.com
The Health and Safety of our residents must be first.
The following article was written by MB residents at ChillTheBuild.com
Manhattan Beach City Council will hear appeals and make a decision regarding the strongly opposed Highrose building project this Tuesday, August 16.
If you are not familiar, Highrose is a massive, 96,000 sq. ft. housing development project proposal slated to have 79 units, with an unprecedented height of 50 feet (4 floors), with a two-floor subterranean garage.
This project will break ground on soil that has gone undisturbed for approximately 50 years and it shares a border with one of the oldest and largest refineries.
Will the city’s moral compass spin out of control as residents express credible concerns for health and safety due to the project’s location? Or will City Council hear the concerns of residents and take action to avoid a potential catastrophe?
The health and safety of residents transcend political party lines.
The city needs to slow this down for the health and safety of its residents and either force an unbiased, inclusive environmental study and/or create a commission to review the existing facts and take necessary action, ensuring the health and safety of both residents and the ocean.
A summary of the document, “Highrose: A Path to Safety First,” was prepared by CHILLTHEBUILD.com. It was emailed to each Manhattan Beach City Council member along with a legally intensive document that was created with the assistance of paid outside land use counsel.
The summary outlines a path City Council members should consider when deciding the appeals for the Highrose project. The full document can be viewed at CHILLTHEBUILD.com under the section “HighRose Development Project.” Please read the summary posted below.
Who is Chill The Build?
Manhattan Beach neighbors formed a non-political, bipartisan group because they love their community and have many serious concerns regarding the proposed Highrose project. The grassroots organization has come to realize it is not alone. Over 3600 people have signed a petition against this project and hundreds have used the CHILLTHEBUILD.COM website to reach out and express their opposition to elected officials.
Are You Opposed to Highrose? Here is the Call to Action:
Show up to the Aug 16 City Council meeting wearing dark blue to show your
opposition to the Highrose project. Residents need to make an appearance to make an impact.
Speak Up at the Aug 16 City Council meeting by giving your opinion (2
minute time limit) about Highrose during public comments at the beginning of the meeting. For example, you can ask City Council to take pause, create a commission to review the complex facts, and make recommendations to City Council, or remind City Council that health and safety concerns
should be the highest priority of a city leader.
You can write to City Council members and share your concerns TODAY, as this issue will be decided this Tuesday, Aug 16th. ChillTheBuild.com website has a tool that makes it easy for you to write the City Council. Your letters go on the city record.
Tell everyone you know to write or attend the meeting. Every resident can make a difference. Tell your friends and make your voice heard.
Hold candidates and incumbents running for City Council in November accountable on this issue. Will we hear from them at the August 16th City Council meeting? MB candidates need to earn your vote and show they will represent you. Falling silent or not standing with residents is unacceptable. Based on the number of letters and comments in past City Council meetings, residents overwhelmingly oppose this project.
When someone tells you this is a done deal, remind them that health and safety are top priorities for city leaders. There are laws at the federal and state levels that exist to ensure our safety. This is not a done deal.
-by Chill The Build
The following Summary was sent to City Council by Chill The Build:
“HIGHROSE: A PATH TO SAFETY FIRST”
Chill The Build supports new housing in Manhattan Beach. However, environmental health and safety must be the priority to protect current residents as well as new residents we welcome to our community.
The City has not fully assessed the risk to health and safety for residents and therefore cannot fulfill its mission to reasonably protect residents as required by both state and federal laws. CEQA is only one part of the environmental law review process. The City’s role is substantive when it comes to the health and safety of residents and the environment based on laws such as the California Health and Safety Code, Cal-EPA, and others.
Property that is next to and was previously used by an oil refinery is a complex environmental location. While proponents of this project tout there are no health and safety issues with the site, they offer no valid proof. One cannot prove there are or are not health and safety issues without a thorough and valid assessment of the property for this specific development’s parameters.
Historically, Manhattan Beach has encountered numerous environmental health and safety issues with other development on land previously used for oil-related activities. Manhattan Village was built on top of oil storage tanks and methane gas was discovered after construction in 1985.
That same year, potentially explosive levels of gasoline-type hydrocarbons were discovered in El Porto and along The Strand. While these have since been mitigated, there is no evidence that the Highrose property would not encounter such problems.
Given this site was paved over in 1971 and developed for an above ground structure prior to environmental laws being enacted, the City must conduct a review of the environmental risks irrespective of CEQA in order to protect the health and safety of its residents.
The Phase I and II report submitted by the developer provides a distorted review of the property and may have exacerbated problems with the site. The report’s flaws misstate the nature and severity of the risks.
Buried within the 684 pages is the recommendation to test the property for methane as well as benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, and other hazardous petroleum constituents, some of which are present in groundwater in concentrations nearly an order of magnitude higher than permissible levels, prior to any future development, while many pages are devoted to trivial and potentially misleading information.
While most studies are valid for up to 180 days, this report is based on data from 5 years ago. The report relies on information initially gathered for bank loan purposes for the former owner, not for the development of a massive 4-story structure requiring excavating the land for a 2-story underground parking structure.
No other properties in the vicinity have required such deep excavation. Also, given the property is in a seismically active area and there are no barriers to prevent vapors or known toxic liquid from moving underground, the report should be considered invalid for evaluating this project.
There are core issues demanding review by the City and are not simple “check the box” matters. It is unjust to create low-income housing on land that has legitimate environmental concerns, especially since those units will most likely be in locations bearing the most risk from vapor migration dangers.
Regardless of Density Bonus Laws (DBL), the City has an obligation to protect residents’ health and safety. The DBL do not address health and safety issues and is an area not discussed in cases where DBL has been upheld. The DBL clearly did not anticipate a set of circumstances encouraging development next to a large refinery in an area with a history of volatile substances causing health and safety issues.
The City Planning Commission used a policy of encouraging affordable housing above environmental concerns that could lead to health and safety issues.
Reasons the City Council should reverse the decisions:
the project approval violates CEQA and therefore the decision should be discretionary
CEQA should not be conflated with other environmental reviews
CEQA is only one part of the environmental law review
the developer could be misleading and confusing people about what CEQA does and ignoring other laws that are used to protect the health and safety of a city’s residents and environment.
In addition, the project has at least two serious coastal impacts, including the risk of contaminated groundwater running into the storm drain and insufficient parking that puts coastal access in jeopardy. The property does not own the public parking areas next to it, so there is no guarantee those public spaces will continue to be available long-term.
The Manhattan Beach City Council should reverse the Planning Commission's decision and not approve the project at this time until health and safety concerns emanating from the challenging environmental conditions of the site are fully vetted in order to protect the health and safety of its residents.
Given the potential material misrepresentations or omissions provided by the developer, the City should at least be entitled to have the information validated, clarified, and proven to not mislead.
In the alternative, if reversal is not possible, the City Council should create a commission that includes representatives of the residents and fully examine the health and safety, and environmental risks associated with the project. The commission’s findings can help create a path forward that could result in an outcome that avoids costly litigation and potential investigations.
-by Chill the Build
Residents who have submitted Appeals to Highrose:
Donald McPherson
Robert Schendel
George Bordokas
Mark Burton
Andrew Ryan
See all 5 Appeals to the project [Here]. Go to item #15.
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.
