Highrose El Porto / Project Verandas

Print Feedback

Font Size: + -

PLEASE REFRESH THE PAGE IF YOU HAVE ACCESSED THIS LINK BEFORE AS THE CONTENT IS CONTINUOUSLY UPDATED

CONTRACTOR'S CONTACT INFO:

The contact person for the primary contractor leading construction activity at the site is Michael Jaboury, and can be reached at (310) 645-9565.

Plans for Highrose El Porto / Project Verandas Development

The Facts of the Highrose/Verandas Project

***COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S

TIMELINE - PUBLIC COMMENT - FAQs

TIMELINE

August 27, 2020- Applicant applies for Preliminary Planning Review.
March 4, 2021- Applicant applies for (PE-21-00015) for a Coastal Development Permit (CDP-21-00015), Tentative Parcel Map (SUBDIV-21-00002), and Precise Development Plan (PDP-21-00001).
January 6, 2022- The project application is deemed complete.
January 6, 2022- The public notice for the project is mailed.
March 29, 2022- The Community Development Director issues a decision on the project.
April 11, 2022- The Community Development Director's decision is appealed by three separate appellants: Donald McPherson (APPEAL-22-00006), Susan Bales and Richard MacKenzie (APPEAL-22-00007), and George Bordokas (APPEAL-22-00008).
April 13, 2022- The Community Development Director's decision is appealed by a fourth appellant, Andrew Ryan (APPEAL-22-00009).
April 13, 2022- Deadline for filing appeals of the Community Development Director's decision to the Planning Commission. All appeals must be received and paid for by 5:00 p.m.. Please see "What is the appeal process for this project?" below for instructions on how to file an appeal.
June 8, 2022- The Planning Commission considered the four appeals of the Community Development Director’s decision at the Commission's scheduled meeting. The Planning Commission affirmed the Community Development Director's approval of the project.
June 17, 2022- The Planning Commission's decision is appealed to the City Council by Donald McPherson (APPEAL-22-00010).
June 21, 2022- The Planning Commission's decision is appealed to the City Council by Ronald Schendel (APPEAL-22-00011).
June 22, 2022- The Planning Commission's decision is appealed to the City Council by George Bordokas (APPEAL-22-00012).
June 23, 2022- The Planning Commission's decision is appealed to the City Council by Mark Burton (APPEAL-22-00013) and Andrew Ryan (APPEAL-22-00014).
June 23, 2022- Deadline for filing appeals of the Planning Commission's affirmation of the Community Development Director's approval of the project to the City Council. All appeals must be received and paid for by 5:00 p.m..
August 16, 2022- The City Council considered the five appeals of the Planning Commission's affirmation of the Community Development Director's approval of the project and did not reach a decision at their meeting. The City Council continued the item to the September 6, 2022 City Council meeting. The staff report for the August 16th City Council meeting was posted to the City's website.
September 6, 2022- The City Council was scheduled to consider the continued item at their September 6, 2022 meeting. The staff report for the September 6th City Council meeting has been posted to the City's website, as has the City Council meeting agenda which has information on how to participate in the meeting. Due to the significant public interest in the Highrose/Verandas project, the Mayor has removed the item regarding the Highrose/Verandas project from the September 6 City Council agenda, in order to further address residents’ questions and concerns.
October 18, 2022- The City Council voted to deny the project. Video of the City Council's deliberations on the project has been posted to the City's website. The staff report for the October 18th City Council meeting is also available on the City's website, as is the City Council meeting agenda.
Assembly Bill 2011 (Incorporated at the October 18, 2022, City Council Meeting)
Senate Bill 1137
January 19, 2023- The City Council voted to approve the project by adopting Resolution No. 23-0014. The video of the City Council’s deliberations from their January 19^th meeting has been posted to the City’s website and is available for viewing. To jump to the Council deliberation portion of the meeting where each Councilmember explains their reasoning behind their vote, fast forward to the 2:31:15 timestamp. The staff report for the January 19th City Council meeting is also available on the City's website, as is the City Council meeting agenda.
January 2024- Demolition of the site's structures is expected to start.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Public comment received between January 6, 2022 and January 19, 2022

Public comment received on January 20, 2022

Public comments received between January 20, 2022 and January 24, 2022

Public comments received between January 25, 2022 and January 28, 2022

Public comments received between January 29, 2022 and February 1, 2022

Public comments received between February 2, 2022 and February 6, 2022

Public comments received between February 7, 2022 and February 17, 2022

Public comments received between February 18, 2022 and March 28, 2022

Public comments received between March 29, 2022 and May 25, 2022

Public comments received between May 26, 2002 and June 3, 2022

Public comments received between June 4, 2022 and June 8, 2022

Public comments received between June 9, 2022 and August 10, 2022

Public comments received between August 10, 2022 and August 16, 2022

Public comments received between August 17, 2022 and August 31, 2022

Public comments received between August 31, 2022 and September 6, 2022

Public comments received between September 7, 2022 and October 11, 2022

Public comments received between October 11, 2022 and October 18, 2022

Public comments received for the January 19, 2023 City Council Meeting

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Subsequent to the August 16, 2022 City Council meeting, the City received questions relating to a variety of topics. This updated Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) webpage is intended to provide the community with answers to those questions. Due to the volume on information, topics are presented in the following general categories.

Project Overview

Where is the project located and what is being proposed?

The project is proposed on two contiguous lots, 401 Rosecrans Avenue and 3770 Highland Avenue, which are proposed to be merged into a single 43,648 square-foot parcel to accommodate the project. The project proposes demolition of a banquet facility (Verandas) and multiuse commercial building (Tradewinds Village building) and subsequent construction of a 96,217 square-foot multifamily residential building with 79 rental dwelling units. The developer is utilizing a density bonus pursuant to State law, inclusive of waivers and concessions.

The 79 dwelling units would include 21 studio apartments, 11 one-bedroom apartments, 40 two-bedroom apartments, and seven three-bedroom apartments. The apartments range in size from 512 square feet to 1,727 square feet, comparable to standard rental units throughout the City. Six of the 79 dwelling units will be set aside for “very low income” households, with the remaining 73 dwelling units being market-rate dwelling units.

The project proposes two floors of subterranean parking, containing a total of 127 automobile parking spaces, seven motorcycle parking spaces, and 27 bicycle parking spaces. The minimum required number of parking spaces for the project under State Density Bonus laws is 103 parking spaces.

The applicant's Master Application inclusive of owner contact information has been posted to the City's website.

How can I get in touch with the developer/contractor?

The contact person for the primary contractor leading construction activity at the site is Michael Jaboury, and can be reached at (310) 645-9565.

Is the land where the City-owned parking lot (Lot 4) at the northeast corner of Highland Avenue and Rosecrans Avenue being demolished and being incorporated into the project?

Lot 4 is not being demolished or affected by the project. All public parking spaces at Lot 4 would remain. A wall/fence located on the project site is being proposed between the development and Lot 4.

Site Plan

What is the exact unit mix of the 79 units and average square footage of each?

Unit Type	Total Number (includes affordable)	Number Affordable	Average Unit Size
Studio	21	2	512 sq ft
1 BD	11	1	792.3 sq ft
2 BD	40	3	1,095 sq ft
3 BD	7	0	1,394.6 sq ft
Total	79	6	---

A public comment references a “forty-foot retainer wall” allowed by a waiver.

The applicant does not propose a forty-foot retaining wall for the project.

Has the applicant indicated who will manage the property?

[Applicant] No, we are in process of interviewing property managers.

If so, who is it?

[Applicant] N/A.

What is the relationship, if any, of the property manager to the applicant?

[Applicant] No relationship, property manager will in all likelihood be an independent third party property manager. We don’t self-manage any of our properties currently.

Will there be a permanent onsite Manager? If so, what are the hours of operation.

[Applicant] Yes, this is required for projects of this size. Hours of Operation TBD.

If approved, how will construction be regulated?

All construction activities in Manhattan Beach are required to adhere to a set of construction rules, which shall be posted on-site throughout the course of the project. These rules include construction hours, regulation of debris dumping, maintenance of CAL/OSHA safety measures, parking and traffic regulations, etc. As a part of construction plan review, contractors must submit necessary traffic control and parking plans to ensure that construction worker parking, equipment drop-offs, loading areas, and staging areas are arranged in a manner that does not compromise public safety or usability of the sidewalk or roadways.

Project Specifics: On-Site Parking

Is the project providing enough parking?

Pursuant to State density bonus law (Californian Government Code Section 65915), a city cannot require a vehicular parking ratio, inclusive of parking for persons with a disability and guests, that exceeds the following ratios:

A. Zero to one bedroom: one onsite parking space.
B. Two to three bedrooms: one and one-half onsite parking spaces.
C. Four and more bedrooms: two and one-half parking spaces.

Based on these requirements, the minimum required number of parking spaces for the project under State Density Bonus laws is 103 parking spaces. Comparatively, a market-rate, non-density bonus, 79-unit multi-family project (which would not be allowable on the site) subject to the City's parking requirements would require 176 parking spaces.

The project proposes two floors of subterranean parking, containing a total of 127 automobile parking spaces, seven motorcycle parking spaces, and 27 bicycle parking spaces. Note that the parking lot to the north of the project site, is not a part of the project; therefore, those spaces will not be eliminated. The City parking structure to the west is also not a part of the project; therefore, those spaces will not be eliminated.

Of the parking spaces provided, how many are tandem?

66 standard sized, non-tandem spaces
48 standard sized tandem spaces (aka 24 sets of two-car tandem spaces)
13 compact, non-tandem spaces
127 spaces total

7 motorcycle parking spaces have also been provided.

How are the tandem parking spaces assigned for this project?

Tandem spaces must be assigned in a way that only one unit may use the two tandem spaces. As explained below, tandem spaces are permitted by the Municipal Code and Local Coastal Program for residential projects, and staff’s role in reviewing a project is limited to ensuring compliance with these regulations.

Does the city allow tandem parking spaces for residential projects when the permitting process does not involve a density bonus or precise development plan? If not, why not?

The City’s Municipal Code and Local Coastal Program allow for tandem parking in residential projects, regardless of whether a project relies on a density bonus or precise development plan. Staff frequently sees tandem spaces proposed in a wide variety of residential projects, with the tandem spaces primarily used to meet minimum parking requirements.

Which unit types will be assigned tandem parking spaces?

[Applicant] Tandems will be assigned to the 2 and 3 bedroom units.

Project Specifics: Traffic and Off-Site Parking

Is a traffic analysis required?

Although a traffic analysis is not required by state and local regulations for this application, the applicant voluntarily commissioned a traffic engineering firm (Linscott, Law, & Greenspan) to conduct a traffic analysis for the proposed project in response to some community concerns related to traffic. The traffic analysis states that the proposed residential use will generate fewer daily trips than the existing commercial land uses. The City's Traffic Engineer conducted an independent peer review of the analysis and concurred with the findings. Furthermore, the traffic analysis shows, as confirmed by the City’s Traffic Engineer, that the proposed residential use will generate fewer daily trips than other potential land uses that could be developed on the site, including general office use, medical office use, and shopping center uses.

Will the project create the need for the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of the proposed project’s driveway and Rosecrans Avenue?

The City Traffic Engineer has determined that the project driveway on Rosecrans Avenue would not meet minimum criteria for State and Federal traffic signal warrants. Daily and peak hour volumes are too low to justify stopping the main street traffic flow, and the nearby traffic signal at Highland Avenue provides sufficient gaps with good sight distance for drivers to enter the street from the project driveway. There is no history of traffic collisions that would be remedied by a traffic signal. The installation of an unwarranted traffic signal increases the number of conflicts at the intersection and potential for rear-end type collisions. Also, a new traffic signal only 280 feet away from an existing traffic signal would increase overall vehicle delay, air pollution, and travel time.

Can the applicant at any time apply for a Residential Parking Permit zone surrounding the property?

A residential parking permit program would not be permitted in the El Porto area because it falls inside the Coastal Zone, which requires all public parking to remain available to everyone equitably.

The Applicant has indicated they have a lease from Chevron for additional parking spaces at the north end of the building.

Exactly how many parking spaces are included?

[Applicant] We intend to re-stripe the lot once the Verandas project is developed, and it should result in 150 spaces +/-.

What are the terms of the parking space lease, specifically the length of the lease and the termination terms? When is the parking space lease from Chevron due for renewal?

[Applicant] Chevron has been leasing the parking lot to the owner of Verandas for decades (since the 70s). They typically enter into either a 5 or 10 year leases w/ the right to terminate on 30 days notice. We have a 5-year lease. It’s worth noting that if the Chevron lot were to become unavailable, the current commercial uses would place more demand on the City parking garage, and street parking, than the proposed residential development.

Are these leased parking spaces controlled by the applicant at all times?

[Applicant] Yes.

Affordable Housing

How is "very low income" defined?

The US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) calculates the median family income for the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale, CA area, and then defines “Very Low Income” in relation to the median family income.

For fiscal year 2021, HUD has calculated that the median family income for the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale, CA area to be $80,000, with the “very low income” determined to be $59,100 for a family of four, or $41,400 for an individual. More information regarding income limits can be found on the California Department of Housing and Community Development's (HCD) website.

How many years must the six very low income units remain affordable before they can be rented at a market rate rent?

State density bonus law states that the six units set aside as "very low income" units are subject to a recorded affordability restriction of 55 years.

What are the pro forma rents for each of the apartment types? Will the applicant share this information with the City?

[Applicant] For market rate units, we have yet to engage an independent third party property manager, but once engaged, will defer to them for further guidance on pricing. Based on research using www.apartments.com, market-rate rental units in nearby coastal cities are ranging from $2,500-$7,500, depending on number of bedrooms. The affordable units of course are capped and regulated, and range from $650 to $1,050 depending on unit type.

Which agency manages the very low income rentals?

As mentioned above, the applicant has indicated that a property management company will manage all units.

How much will the very low income tenant pay per month and how much is paid by the housing agency? What is the total rent received by the applicant?

As mentioned above, specific rents have not been determined yet. Furthermore, rents are directly linked to the income levels for tenants and therefore, may vary.

How often do they inspect the units?

All affordable housing projects shall be subject to an affordable housing agreement (between the property owner and the City) conforming to the provisions of Section A.94.050(D) of the Manhattan Beach Local Coastal Program, which shall be recorded as a covenant on the title to the Property. In the case of rental housing developments, the affordable housing agreement shall provide for the following conditions governing the use of target units during the use restriction period:

a. The rules and procedures for qualifying tenants, establishing affordable rent rates (based on HUD formulas and HUD criteria), filling vacancies, and maintaining target units for qualified tenants.
b. Provisions requiring owners to verify tenant incomes and maintain books and records to demonstrate compliance with this chapter.
c. Provisions requiring owners to submit an annual report to the City, which includes the name, address, and income of each person occupying target units, and which identifies the bedroom size and monthly rent or cost of each target unit.

What process would need to take place to convert the apartment building to a condo type building where buyers could purchase individual units?

MBMC Chapter 10.88 and MBLCP Chapter A.88 have strict guidelines and procedures for condominium conversions, which include obtaining approval of a Use Permit to convert rental housing to condominiums. The Use Permit would have to be accompanied by a Tentative Tract Map, which is subject to the State Subdivision Map Act and Title 11 (Subdivisions) of the Municipal Code. If a condo conversion is pursued in the future, and approved by the City, this would not change the requirement to provide the affordable units.

Review and Approval Process

What is the approval process for this project?

Based on State law and the City’s Municipal Code, the affordable housing component of this project subjects the application to a ministerial (non-discretionary) process, which means that the decision is made at the staff level (i.e. Director’s decision) and based solely on compliance with applicable regulations. No public hearing is required for staff level decisions.

The Community Development Director issued a decision on the project on March 29, 2022.

Is the project subject to discretionary review?

Pursuant to State and local regulations, the utilization of density bonus law and the incorporation of affordable housing qualify the project for a streamlined, administrative, non-discretionary Precise Development Plan review, which subjects all components of the application to a ministerial review process.

Staff conducts a ministerial review of the project for compliance with Municipal Code requirements and applicable State law, but the City has no authority to conduct a discretionary review process. Furthermore, administrative non-discretionary projects are not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), therefore environmental review is not required. State law does require expeditious processing of density bonus projects; in compliance with this requirement, the City’s administrative non-discretionary process for density bonus projects has been in place since 2013.

What is the difference between a "discretionary" review and a "ministerial" review?

Section 15357 (Discretionary Project) of the State CEQA Guidelines defines "discretionary" as follows:

Discretionary project means a project which requires the exercise of judgment or deliberation when the public agency or body decides to approve or disapprove a particular activity, as distinguished from situations where the public agency or body merely has to determine whether there has been conformity with applicable statutes, ordinances, regulations, or other fixed standards. The key question is whether the public agency can use its subjective judgment to decide whether and how to carry out or approve a project.

Section 15369 (Ministerial) of the State CEQA Guidelines defines "ministerial" as follows:

“Ministerial” describes a governmental decision involving little or no personal judgment by the public official as to the wisdom or manner of carrying out the project. The public official merely applies the law to the facts as presented but uses no special discretion or judgment in reaching a decision. A ministerial decision involves only the use of fixed standards or objective measurements, and the public official cannot use personal, subjective judgment in deciding whether or how the project should be carried out…”

Does the ministerial process for reviewing these types of projects come from the City's own laws?

Yes, the streamlined non-discretionary process (i.e., ministerial) process is in the City’s locally-adopted Local Coastal Program (LCP), in Chapter A.94 of the Local Implementation Plan.

Does the project’s location in the Coastal Zone make it ineligible for the streamlined, non-discretionary process?

No. Since the project site is in the Coastal Zone, the City’s Local Coastal Program regulates it. The Local Coastal Program (certified by the Coastal Commission) states that Precise Development Plans are intended to encourage the development of affordable housing through a streamlined permitting process. Projects that qualify for a density bonus pursuant to Chapter A.94 are processed using an administrative, non-discretionary Precise Development Plan (and associated applications). A.84.010 of the Local Coastal program (LCP) states that Precise Development Plans are intended to encourage the development of affordable housing through a streamlined permitting process. Projects that qualify for a density bonus pursuant to Chapter A.94 shall be eligible for an administrative, non-discretionary Precise Development Plan.

A public comment has stated that “pursuant to the Manhattan Beach Municipal Code, the development is discretionary with a conditional use permit required.” Why is the project subject to a Ministerial Review process?

The City’s 5th cycle Housing Element and Section A.84.010 of the LCP require an administrative non-discretionary Precise Development Plan process for a density bonus project pursuant to Chapter A.94 of the LCP. This streamlined permitting process is specifically outlined in the General Plan and LCP as an incentive to encourage the development of affordable housing.

The Highrose Project is subject to a Precise Development Plan and associated entitlements. Precise Development Plans are required for residential developments that qualify for a density bonus, which by definition include affordable housing. Pursuant to the City’s General Plan, the City’s Local Coastal Program, and State regulations, the utilization of density bonus law and the incorporation of affordable housing qualify the project for a streamlined, administrative, non-discretionary Precise Development Plan review, which subjects all components of the application to a ministerial review process. The ministerial review process requires staff to approve a project if the project complies with applicable, objective provisions of the General Plan, the City’s zoning and building ordinances, State and local subdivision requirements, the Manhattan Beach Local Coastal Program, and State density bonus law.

Does the City have discretion to require the applicant to (1) construct less than the proposed 79 units, or (2) alter the proposed unit mix?

Local and State regulations allow the applicant to propose up to 79 units on the site. The City cannot require the applicant to construct fewer than 79 units; nor can the City require that the applicant alter the proposed unit mix (i.e., the number of studios, one-bedroom units, etc.).

What is the appeal process for this project?

Per MBLCP A.96.160, anyone may file an appeal of the Community Development Director's decision to the Planning Commission within 15 days of the Director's decision. Furthermore, anyone may file an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council within 15 days of the Planning Commission’s decision.

Were any appeals of the Community Development Director's decision filed?

The Community Development Director's decision was appealed by four separate appellants.

Donald McPherson filed APPEAL-22-00006

Susan Bales and Richard MacKenzie filed APPEAL-22-00007

George Bordokas filed APPEAL-22-00008

Andrew Ryan (APPEAL-22-00009)

The Planning Commission considered the four appeals of the Community Development Director’s decision at the Commission's scheduled meeting on June 8, 2022. The Planning Commission affirmed the Community Development Director's approval of the project.

Have any appeals of the Planning Commission's decision been filed?

The Planning Commission's decision has been appealed by five independent appellants. The City Council considered the five appeals of the Planning Commission's affirmation of the Community Development Director's approval of the project at their August 16, 2022 meeting and did not reach a decision. The City Council continued the item to the September 6, 2022 City Council meeting. The staff report for the August 16th City Council meeting was posted to the City's website.

The City Council was scheduled to consider the continued item at their September 6, 2022 meeting. The staff report for the September 6th City Council meeting has been posted to the City's website, as has the City Council meeting agenda which has information on how to participate in the meeting. Due to the significant public interest in the Highrose/Verandas project, the Mayor has removed the item regarding the Highrose/Verandas project from the September 6 City Council agenda, in order to further address residents’ questions and concerns.

The City Council voted to deny the project. Video of the City Council's deliberations on the project has been posted to the City's website. The staff report for the October 18th City Council meeting is also available on the City's website, as is the City Council meeting agenda.

Donald McPherson filed APPEAL-22-00010

Ronald Schendel filed APPEAL-22-00011

George Bordokas filed APPEAL-22-00012

Mark Burton filed APPEAL-22-00013

Andrew Ryan filed APPEAL-22-00014

Environmental/CEQA Questions

Is the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)?

Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Project is exempt from CEQA environmental review. The City has reviewed the Highrose Project for compliance with CEQA. 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. Although not legally required, Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments and a trip generation study have been prepared.

Were Environmental Site Assessments Conducted?

Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs) were performed by Citadel EHS, an Environmental, Health, Safety and Sustainability consulting firm. The ESAs outlined the current and historical uses of the site in order to determine if these uses have impacted the soil or groundwater beneath a property, and whether these impacts pose a threat to human health and/or the environment. The ESAs documented that the property was never part of the Chevron site. Furthermore, the ESAs included a subsurface investigation. After taking soil samples and reviewing relevant databases, the Phase I and Phase II ESAs concluded that there were no conditions detected on the site that pose a threat to the environment and/or human health. Based upon the Phase I and Phase II ESAs, Citadel EHS concluded that “the [Chevron] Refinery is not considered to represent a significant environmental concern to the Site at this time.”

In addition, the applicant is responsible for complying with federal, state, and local environmental and public health regulations prior to and during construction activity, as well as meeting requirements for building, demolition, and grading permits. These regulations pertain to all construction projects.

State and Local Density Bonus Regulations

What role do State Density Bonus regulations and the City’s Affordable Housing Density Bonus and Incentive Program play in the project?

State Density Bonus laws (California Government Code Sections 65915 – 65918) include a range of incentives for developers to incorporate affordable housing into their residential developments. Among other things, State Density Bonus laws allow developers to exceed the maximum density requirements as specified in a City’s zoning code if certain criteria are met, like setting aside a certain percentage of the total units in the project aside for very-low income occupants. In addition, State Density Bonus laws allow developers to request waivers from development standards, like setback and height requirements. Furthermore, the utilization of density bonus law and the incorporation of affordable housing qualify the project for a streamlined, administrative, non-discretionary Precise Development Plan review, which subjects all components of the application to a ministerial review process.

The City’s Municipal Code (MBMC Chapter 10.94 and MBLCP Chapter A.94) mirror State Density Bonus laws by allowed for similar waivers and concessions from development standards in order to build affordable housing projects in the City.

What waivers and concessions has the developer requested under State Density Bonus laws, MBMC Chapter 10.94, and MBLCP Chapter A.94?

As allowed under State law and local regulations, the developer has requested waivers for the following development standards: (1) buildable floor area; (2) height requirements; (3) number of stories; (4) side-yard setback requirement for proposed electrical transformer only; and (5) rear and side setback requirements for building walls over 24-feet in height.

As allowed under State law and local regulations, the developer has requested a concession for the maximum height of a wall/fence within the setbacks.

Does the City's density bonus law ordinance allow the City to grant waivers and concessions for qualifying density bonus projects?

Waivers and concessions are in both the State and local laws, but again, the local ordinance is outdated.

What is the law that allows the 10% lot consolidation bonus?

The City’s Local Coastal Program - specifically, sections A.12.030 and A.12.030(T) - allows for density bonus projects to be granted a “lot consolidation bonus incentive when two or more parcels are consolidated in a single building site…”, with a 10% base density bonus increase allowed for combined parcels greater than or equal to one acre.

When did the City first adopt the streamlining policies for density bonus projects? What was the State’s role in the adoption of these policies?

During the previous Housing Element cycles (4th – 2008-2013, and 5th – 2014-2021), State Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) required these changes in order to certify the City’s Housing Elements. Therefore, the City’s adopted and certified Housing Elements require that projects with affordable housing be allowed a streamlined, non-discretionary process (i.e., ministerial) called a Precise Development Plan.

While the policies were included in the 5th Cycle Housing Element, those policies were actually first in the 4th Cycle Housing Element. This 4th cycle Housing Element was due in 2008, but the City did not adopt the final Housing Element until January 15, 2013. The 5th Cycle Housing Element was adopted on February 4, 2014, containing the same policies (certified by HCD on 2/24/2014).

Why is the developer relying on State density bonus laws when the City's own density bonus ordinance allows for the same result?

The City’s current density bonus ordinance is outdated; therefore, the State legislation currently supersedes the local ordinance in places where the City’s density bonus regulations are in conflict with the State density bonus regulations, except as otherwise provided by state law. Pursuant to the first provision in the Section A.94.010.A of the City’s LCP:

A.94.010. General Affordable Housing Provisions
A. State Law Governs. The provisions of this chapter shall be governed by the requirements of Government Code Section 65915, as that statute is amended from time-to-time. Where conflict occurs between the provisions of this chapter and State law, the State law provisions shall govern, unless otherwise specified. The intent of the following regulations is to ensure that, to the maximum extent feasible; the requirements of Government Code Section 65915 are implemented in a manner consistent with the land use policies and zoning ordinance provisions set forth in the certified Local Coastal program

When was the current iteration of Chapter A.94 of Manhattan Beach’s LCP adopted/certified by the California Coastal Commission?

This iteration of the LCP Code section officially became law in June 2015 when it obtained certification from the California Coastal Commission (CCC). City Council adopted it on July, 2, 2013, then re-adopted with revisions from the CCC on March 17, 2015, prior to the CCC’s certification.

A public comment claims that “the fifth waiver duplicates the concession.”

This is incorrect: the fifth waiver requests a reduction of rear and side setbacks for the building walls, whereas the requested concession would allow the retaining wall within the front setback to exceed the maximum wall height requirement of 42-inches.

How many units would be allowed on the site if State Density Bonus laws and the City’s Affordable Housing Density Bonus and Incentive Program were not utilized? How did the City determine the number of units allowed when State Density Bonus laws are utilized?

Per MBMC 10.16.030 (A), MBLCP A.16.030 (A), MBMC 10.12.030, and MBLCP A.12.030, a total of 51 units would be allowed on the site if no State Density Bonus laws were utilized.

To determine the number of units allowed when State Density Bonus laws are utilized, the following calculations were made:

	Number of Units	Number of Units Rounded Up*
Base Density (lot size/850)	51.23	52
Base Density + 10% Lot Consolidation Bonus (LCB)	57.2	58
Base Density + LCB + 35% Density Bonus for Very-Low Income Housing	78.3	79
Total Units Allowed per Density Bonus Laws		79
*State law requires that fractions of units (i.e. 51.23) be rounded up to the nearest whole unit.

How much Buildable Floor Area (BFA) would be allowed on the site if State Density Bonus laws and the City’s Affordable Housing Density Bonus and Incentive Program were not utilized?

Per MBMC 10.16.030 (A), MBLCP A.16.030 (A), MBMC 10.12.030, and MBLCP A.12.030, a total of 74,033 square feet of BFA would be allowed on the site if no State Density Bonus laws were utilized.

A public comment states that “the development’s proposed height and mass at the site is contrary to the low-profile development commitment in both the City’s General Plan and Local Coastal Program. Specifically, the development does not maintain a small-town feel that preserves the unique characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood; the development does not safeguard picturesque vistas of the ocean; the development does not maintain the low-profile development and small-town atmosphere; and the development does not limit height to two stories and does not preserve our low-profile image.”

Density Bonus laws, inclusive of waivers and concessions, supersede local height limits. Furthermore, the General Plan Housing Element policies specifically encourage high-density, multi-family development and application of density bonus regulations on CNE-zoned sites.

A public comment states that “since the development is not located on a site in a residential zone but in the North End Commercial Zone on two lots that have been, and were intended to be, commercial uses only, the development is not eligible for the streamlined, ministerial approval process. Just imagine 4-Story Luxury Apartments being built where Ponchos is located. All four corners of the intersection of Highland Avenue and Rosecrans Boulevard are zoned commercial, and they were all intended to remain zoned for commercial uses.”

This statement is incorrect. Current and historic versions of the General Plan and Code (LCP & Municipal Code) allow residential uses in commercial zoning districts, specifically the CNE zone.

What is the largest Multi Family apartment complex in the City of MB, how many units are there and where is it located? What is the largest Multi Family apartment building closest to the subject property? How many units does it have?

Address	Proximity to Project	No. of Units	Lot Acreage	Density (dwelling units/acre)
401 Rosecrans Ave (Project)	0 feet	79	1.002	78.8
3803 Crest Dr.	+/- 100 feet	4	0.04	100
3814 Highland Ave	+/- 177 feet	8	0.08	100
3608 The Strand	+/- 757 feet	11	0.21	52.3
3400 N Valley Dr.	+/-5,283 feet	48	0.99	48.5
1300 Parkview Ave (Manhattan Village Senior Villas)*	+/- 7,069 feet	104	3.7	28.1

* Largest multi-family complex in the City

At the August 16, 2022 City Council meeting, the developer made a comment that “if the city turned him down, he could “reapply or sell it to another investor” who might apply for “a taller building with more units.” Is that scenario possible?

The City does not restrict a property owner from selling their property, therefore, they are able to sell it. Any property owner, or authorized agent/applicant, can also reapply for a different project. The “different” project, if using the same State and local density bonus provisions. could request a taller building with more units,. The review process would be the same review process as the currently project – non-discretionary administrative/ministerial process. This would also allow for waivers and concessions.

Would there be height restrictions?

Just like with the current project, they would be able to go as high as they need to accommodate 87 standard units (mix would be up to them). This would potentially increase the height in those parts of the building that are currently fewer than four stories and/or could require a fifth story.

Would there be a cap on the number of units? And more affordable units too?

The State density bonus law allows for up to a 50% density bonus if the development provides 15% very-low income units, which would result in 87 units, of which 8 would need to be affordable.
Would there be a cap on the number of units? And more affordable units too?

Under what conditions and time frame could this developer or a new owner reapply?

Prior to any decision, the applicant is able to withdraw and reapply at any time. If an application is disapproved, then the applicant cannot submit the same project within one year of the date of the denial. (A larger project would not be considered the same project, so they could submit prior to one year.)

Other State Housing/Land Use Laws

What are Assembly Bill (AB) 2011 and Senate Bill (SB) 1137 and what effect do they have on the review of this project?

AB 2011 - AB 2011 proposes a State-wide streamlined non-discretionary review for certain residential projects (affordable or mixed income projects that also ensure all construction workers earn prevailing wages and receive health benefits). Proposed Projects that are within 3,200 feet of a facility that actively extracts or refines oil or natural gas are not eligible to take advantage of the State-level non-discretionary review process. (They would be directed to whatever process they otherwise would be required to undertake.) If applied to Verandas, it means that Verandas would not be able to use the AB 2011 State-level streamlined non-discretionary process. Instead, they would use the local process (which also happens to be a streamlined non-discretionary review process). AB 2011 does not change the City’s local review process.

SB 1137 - SB 1137 regulates the operator of new/re-drilled wells. Operators wishing to submit notices of intention of new/re-drilled wells have to provide a health inventory, and State Department of Gas and Geologic Resources (DOGGR) will be restricted from approving these wells within 3,200 feet of sensitive receptors, which include homes. SB 1137 does not regulate where homes can go.

Is this a "SB 9" project?

No, this project does not utilize SB 9. More information on the City's actions on SB 9 can be found on our website.

Is this a "SB 35" project?

The project is not a Senate Bill (SB) 35 project. SB 35, and its procedures and requirements, simply do not apply to the Highrose Project.

Does the adoption of the 6th Cycle Housing Element impact the process or decision for this project?

No. This project is subject to ministerial review pursuant to current State and local regulations already in effect. The adoption of the 6^th Cycle Housing Element has no impact on the processing of this application, nor would it impact the decision.

A public comment states that “the 15 -bill housing package adopted in 2017, including the density bonus bill, was intended to replace the discretionary conditional use permit process with a ‘streamlined, ministerial review process’. The problem the California legislature was trying to fix were the delays caused by Planning Commissions and City Councils with the discretionary conditional use permit hearing process. Time and again, deserving low-income housing projects with completed EIRs were denied CUPS by Planning Commissions and City Council’s.”

As described in the staff report and above, the City’s local Precise Development Plan process deems this project administrative and non-discretionary in both the General Plan and LCP, and thereby ministerial in nature, exempting the project from CEQA. The process was adopted in 2013-5, long before the 2017 State regulations.

In the event of any differences between the answers to these Frequently Asked Questions and the agenda reports, the information in the agenda reports prevail.

Free viewers are required for some of the attached documents.
They can be downloaded by clicking on the icons below.

Word Viewer