Public Comments Received from August 17, 2022 - August 31, 2022 — Manhattan Beach City Council, September 6, 2022

Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Katherine E Mcclain <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2022 12:20 PM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Residents against HighRose Development EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Honorable City Councilmembers:

As you know, our low-profile character is special, it is why many of us choose to call Manhattan Beach home. So, that is why I am OPPOSED to the HighRose/Verandas project and urge you to stand-up and protect our local zoning laws.

A 4-story 79 unit apartment complex at the corner of Rosecrans and Highland Ave is an outrageous, out-of- character proposal, and a dangerous answer to the State’s “Density Bonus” law needs. A HighRose overbuild will set a precedent and threaten the future of our city and residents.

HighRose will create gridlock at a major intersection, and the lack of appropriate parking for its residents and visitors will further compound the problem. And with Chevron and NRG on its property lines, a full CEQA analysis should be mandatory. So many environmental and safety concerns demand attention.

Please do the right thing, demonstrate political courage, raise every good faith legal argument available, act as our leaders to safeguard the City’s general welfare on behalf of the residents of our special community.

Sincerely,
Katie McClain
A concerned resident
NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are prohibited from sharing, copying, or otherwise using or disclosing its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments without reading, forwarding or saving them. v.173.295 Thank you.

Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Martha Alvarez, MMC
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2022 12:14 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: FW: Comment to CC related to Highrose: FW: FYI Attachments: Screensho.jpg; IMG_9950.jpg; IMG_9951.jpg; IMG_9952.jpg; IMG_9953.jpg From: Frank Buckley <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2022 9:53 AM
To: Ted Faturos <[email protected]>
Cc: Carrie Tai, AICP <[email protected]>; Talyn Mirzakhanian <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] FYI
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Please send to City Attorney and City Council, as this is the barrage of social media posts that I’m faced with every single day. All falsehoods, that create hysteria, and are misleading the public in to believing you, the Planning Staff have done something wrong, or illegal, as well as the develope r, somehow not complying. And then City Councilmembers base their decisions on the un‐informed citizens.

Thank you.

Frank L. Buckley | Director – Real Estate
Marlin Equity Partners | Operations Group
338 Pier Avenue | Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
T: 310.744.6307 | M: 310.251.8864
[email protected] | www.marlinequity.com
DRE# 01986956
NOTICE: This e‐mail message and any attachments are intended solely for the use of the intended recipient, and may contain information that is confidential, privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not permitted to read, disclose, reproduce, distribute, use or tak e any action in reliance upon this message and any attachments, and we request that you promptly notify the sender and immediately delete this message and any attachments as well as any copies thereof. Delivery of this message to an unintended recipient is not intended to waive any right or privilege. Marin Operations Group, Inc
. is neither qualified nor authorized to give legal or tax advice, and any such advice should be obtained from an appropriate, qualified professional advisor of your own choosing.

Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Martha Alvarez, MMC
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2022 12:13 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] 4-Story, 79-Unit STR Luxury Apartments Attachments: Section 15268 - Ministerial Projects.pdf; Day v. City of Glendale.pdf From: Mark Burton <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 6:22 AM
To: Steve Napolitano; Richard Montgomery; Joe Franklin; Hildy Stern; Suzanne Hadley Subject: [EXTERNAL] 4‐Story, 79‐Unit STR Luxury Apartments EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Honorable Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem and Councilmembers: As you know, it is sometimes a good idea to step back from advocacy and reflect practically, using your common sense. Here are my comments in that regard:

1. It is obvious that this is an STR project dressed up as a low income residen tial project.

2. It is obvious that this project is directly adjacent to a 100 year old oil refinery, a known polluter.

3. It is obvious that any STR or residential project will be within the 3200 feet of any oil refinery buffer zone that the State is contemplating for all housi ng projects. In plain English, you don't build housing projects close to oil refineries.

4. It is obvious that an Environmental Impact Report will be required prior to building any project at this site.

5. It is obvious that the most judicious and practical path forward for an EIR is for Counc il to remand this application with direction to complete an EIR.

6. It is obvious that if the City doesn't require an EIR, then a Court will order you do so. This path forward to an EIR is a waste of time, money and effort for all concerned...and, embarrassing to a City that has a history of pr
otecting the environment and the health and safety of its residents.

7. It is obvious that your Staff and City Attorney are biased and not providing you with all the information you need. Here are just two examples: 1. Council has not been provided with Section 15268, Ministerial P
rojects, of the Official California Code of Regulations; and, 2. Council has not been provided with developers' original application for STRs (i.e. Use Permit Application/Proposed Mixed Use Development/Hotel Use with STRs).

Although there are other common sense comments I could provide, I think I'll stop now and let you reflect using your common sen
se.

Thank you for your public service and all the work you do for our community. Although I might not agree with some of your decisions, I do agree that you are a devoted, hard working group of public servants.

Kind regards, Mark
Docket No. 45720Court of Appeal of California, Second District, Division Two Dayv.City of Glendale
51 Cal.App.3d 817 (Cal. Ct. App. 1975) • 124 Cal. Rptr. 569Decided Sep 30, 1975 Docket No. 45720.

September 30, 1975.

FLEMING, J.

Appeal from Superior Court of Los AngelesCounty, No. NC C5824G, David N. Eagleson,Judge. *818818

COUNSEL
Jones Jones and Arthur T. Jones for Plaintiffs andAppellants.

Evelle J. Younger, Attorney General, Robert H.O'Brien, Assistant Attorney General, Nicholas C.Yost and Norman N. Flette, Deputy AttorneysGeneral, as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffsand Appellants.

Richard W. Marston, City Attorney, and Frank R.Manzano, Senior Assistant City Attorney, forDefendant and Respondent.

Melby Anderson, Henry Melby, MonteleoneMcCrory and Michael Maroko for Real Parties inInterest and Respondents. *819819

OPINION
John and Gertrude Day, residents of the City ofGlendale, appeal the denial of a writ of mandatesought to compel respondent city to amend itsenvironmental guidelines and require an environmental impact report as a condition forissuance of a grading permit to real-parties-in-interest Kirst-MacDonald-Hensler, a joint venture. (1) Real-parties-in-interest Hensler andMacDonald own 70 acres of undeveloped land inthe San Raphael Hills of Glendale adjacent to thesite of a proposed state highway. They joined withothers to form the joint venture that won the statecontract to construct the proposed highway. InMarch 1974 respondent City of Glendale issued agrading permit authorizing the joint venture to fillcanyons on the Hensler and MacDonald land with1,556,000 cubic yards of material to be excavatedin the highway construction project. The permitalso authorized grading *820 and movement of343,000 cubic yards of material to be cut from aridge to form a notch — 420 feet wide at the top,70 feet wide at the bottom, and flanked by one-to-one grade slopes cut from 100 to 200 feet —which would permit the extension of an adjacentGlendale street into the leveled Hensler andMacDonald land. 820
Although city guidelines did not requirepreparation of an environmental impact report(EIR) for a grading permit, an EIR was presentedwith the application for the permit. In theirpetition the Days contended that the cityguidelines should have required an EIR, that thesubmitted EIR inadequately evaluated theenvironmental significance of the grading projectand of available alternatives, that the city allowedinsufficient time for citizen comments on the EIR,and that it failed to independently evaluate theproject, all in violation of the California 1 Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). (Pub.Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) CEQA appliesto discretionary projects approved by publicagencies but does not apply to ministerial projectsof a similar nature (§ 21080). The trial court foundthat issuance of a grading permit was for aministerial project and concluded that CEQA didnot apply. The critical issue on appeal is whetherissuance of the grading permit was for adiscretionary or ministerial project within themeaning of CEQA. 1 1All further statutory references are to the
Public Resources Code.

CEQA does not define the term ministerial.Instead, section 21083 requires the Secretary ofthe Resources Agency to adopt guidelines forinterpretation by public agencies of CEQA,guidelines which must include criteria for orderlyevaluation of projects and for preparation ofenvironmental impact reports consistent withCEQA. Section 21082 requires public agencies, inturn, to adopt their own guidelines and proceduresconsistent both with CEQA and the guidelines ofthe secretary.

At the time the city issued the grading permit, theSecretary of the Resources Agency had adoptedthe following guidelines (Cal. Admin. Code, tit.14, div. 6):
"15073. Ministerial Projects. Ministerial projectsare exempt from the requirements of CEQA, andno EIR is required. The determination of what is`ministerial' can most appropriately be made bythe particular public agency involved based uponits analysis of its own laws, and it is anticipatedthat each public agency will make suchdetermination either *821 as a part of itsimplementing regulations or on a case-by-casebasis. It is further anticipated that the followingactions will, in most cases, be ministerial innature. 821
"(a) Issuance of building permits.
"(b) Issuance of business licenses.
"(c) Approval of final subdivision maps.
"(d) Approval of individual utility serviceconnections and disconnections. "In the absence of any discretionary provisioncontained in local ordinance, it shall be presumedthat these four actions are ministerial. Each publicagency may, in its implementing regulations orordinances, provide an identification oritemization of its projects and actions which aredeemed ministerial under the applicable laws andordinances." Glendale in turn adopted its ownguidelines (Environmental Guidelines andProcedures of the City of Glendale):
"Section 10. Ministerial Projects.
"The following are ministerial projects under theordinances of the City of Glendale and do notrequire the preparation of an EIR:
"A. Issuance of building permits.
"B. Issuance of business licenses.
"C. Approval of final subdivision maps.
"D. Approval of individual utility serviceconnections and disconnections. "E. Issuance of grading, fill, and excavationpermits." (Italics added.) Respondent and real-parties-in-interest contendthat the state, through CEQA and its guidelines,has delegated to local agencies the prerogative todetermine which projects are ministerial and henceexempt from the requirements of CEQA.Glendale, they argue, deems grading permitsministerial, and consequently CEQA does notapply. This argument, if *822 valid, wouldeviscerate CEQA, a result clearly not intended bythe Legislature. The applicability of CEQA cannotbe made to depend upon the unfettered discretionof local agencies, for local agencies must act inaccordance with state guidelines and theobjectives of CEQA. Their actions must alsoreflect the stated intent of enabling legislation: "Itis the intent of the Legislature that all agencies of 822
2 Day v. City of Glendale 51 Cal.App.3d 817 (Cal. Ct. App. 1975) the state government which regulate activities ofprivate individuals, corporations, and publicagencies which are found to affect the quality ofthe environment, shall regulate such activities sothat major consideration is given to preventingenvironmental damage." (§ 21000, subd. (g).) But, it is argued, issuance of a grading permit wasfor a ministerial project in this instance, whetheror not CEQA gives local agencies absolute powerto determine which projects are ministerial. We donot agree. State guidelines implementing CEQA,in consonance with standard legal formulation (seeJohnson v. State of California, 69 Cal.2d 782, 788[ 73 Cal.Rptr. 240, 447 P.2d 352]; People v.Department of Housing and CommunityDevelopment, 45 Cal.App.3d 185, 192 [ 119Cal.Rptr. 266]) offer these definitions:
"15024. Discretionary Project. Discretionaryproject means an activity defined as a projectwhich requires the exercise of judgment,deliberation, or decision on the part of the publicagency or body in the process of approving ordisapproving a particular activity, as distinguishedfrom situations where the public agency or bodymerely has to determine whether there has beenconformity with applicable statutes, ordinances orregulations. "15032. Ministerial Projects. Ministerial projectsas a general rule, include those activities definedas projects which are undertaken or approved by agovernmental decision which a public officer orpublic agency makes upon a given state of facts ina prescribed manner in obedience to the mandateof legal authority. With these projects, the officeror agency must act upon the given facts withoutregard to his own judgment or opinion concerningthe propriety or wisdom of the act although thestatute, ordinance, or regulation may require, insome degree, a construction of its language by theofficer." The Glendale Municipal Code, chapter 23,governs the issuance of grading permits by the cityengineer. The code imposes many technical and clearly ministerial requirements. But it alsoimposes many requirements *823 that arediscretionary. Important for our purposes are thefollowing:
823
— after visual inspection of the grading site thecity engineer may require submission ofgeological and soil reports with recommendationsregarding the effect of geological and soilconditions on the proposed development, andthose recommendations approved by the cityengineer must be incorporated in the grading plan(§§ 23-15(b) and (c)); — the city engineer may impose regulations withrespect to access routes to hillside grading projects"as he shall determine are required in the interestof safety precautions involving pedestrian orvehicular traffic" (§ 23-16(f)); — in granting the permit the city engineer mustattach such conditions as may be necessary toprevent creation of hazard to public or privateproperty (§ 23-16(g)(5)); — and if the city engineer determines that the landarea for which grading is proposed is subject togeological or flood hazard to the extent that noreasonable amount of corrective work caneliminate or sufficiently reduce the hazard topersons or property, he must deny the gradingpermit (§ 23-18).

The foregoing, patently, are discretionary itemswithout fixed standards or objective measurementsand require the exercise of judgment, deliberation,and decision by the city engineer. At bench, thecity engineer did exercise his discretion byattaching numerous conditions to the issuance ofthe grading permit. (2) CEQA must be interpreted to afford the fullestpossible protection to the environment within thereasonable scope of statutory language. ( Friendsof Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors, 8 Cal.3d247, 259 [ 104 Cal.Rptr. 761, 502 P.2d 1049].) Aproject of mixed ministerial-discretionarycharacter, as was the grading permit here, should 3 Day v. City of Glendale 51 Cal.App.3d 817 (Cal. Ct. App. 1975) BEACH, J.
be treated as a discretionary project. As was saidin People v. Department of Housing andCommunity Development, 45 Cal.App.3d 185, 194[ 119 Cal.Rptr. 266], ". . . . CEQA draws a linebetween purely ministerial and entirelydiscretionary projects but does not mention thosehaving both characteristics. Statutory policy, notsemantics, forms the standard for segregatingdiscretionary from ministerial functions. . . .CEQA is to be interpreted to `"afford the fullestpossible protection to the environment *824 withinthe reasonable scope of the statutory language."' . .. So construed, section 21080 extends CEQA'sscope to hybrid projects of a mixed ministerial-discretionary character; doubt whether a project isministerial or discretionary should be resolved infavor of the latter characterization." 824
Moreover, the discretionary-ministerialdesignation of a project is not necessarilydeterminative of its environmental impact. We donot believe the Legislature intended to excludefrom the ambit of CEQA any project involving, ashere, cut, movement, and fill of massive sectionsof earth. All parties agree that the grading projectwill have a significant effect on the environment.The issuance of the grading permit is the onlypoint at which the environmental impact of theproject may be publicly considered beforemountains are moved and 70 acres of canyon arefilled.

We note that appellants did not request a staypending determination of this appeal, and werecognize that appropriate remedies to correctsubstantial error and abuse of discretion may belimited by physical realities. Yet even if thegrading project planned by real parties in interesthas been entirely completed, the cause must beremanded to the trial court for resolution ofappellants' objections to the content of the EIRand their objections to Glendale's guidelines.Under the provisions of CEQA those affected bythis major land-moving project are entitled to afull review of its environmental impact.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause isremanded for further proceedings in accordancewith this opinion.

Roth, P.J., concurred.

I dissent.

The majority declares that "the critical issue onappeal is whether issuance of the grading permitwas for a discretionary or ministerial projectwithin the meaning of CEQA." I respectfullydisagree for I believe that a more fundamentalissue and one dispositive of this case is: "Is theordinance of the City of Glendale unconstitutionalor clearly violative of any statutory prohibition?"In my view no constitutional infirmity and noviolation of any statutory prohibition has beendemonstrated by appellant or amicus curiae. *825825 The basic fundamental law, Public ResourcesCode section 21080, clearly provides that CEQAshall apply to discretionary projects not toministerial projects. In the (admittedlynonexclusive) listing of discretionary projects,section 21080, subdivision (a), does not includethe issuance of a grading permit. The statuteauthorizes and provides that guidelines shall beestablished and adopted by the Resources Agencyof California. The guidelines thus adopted by theResources Agency, 14 California AdministrativeCode, section 15032, lists projects which in mostinstances will be deemed ministerial. Again thelist is not exclusive and the issuance of a gradingpermit is not listed. The guidelines state:
1 2
1Unless otherwise indicated all section
references are to Public Resources Code.
2As stated in the brief of the Attorney
General, "The version of Assembly Bill
889 reported out by the Senate Committee
on Governmental Organizations did define
ministerial projects to include the issuance
of grading and building permits. (A.B. 889,
as amended November 16, 1972.)
4 Day v. City of Glendale 51 Cal.App.3d 817 (Cal. Ct. App. 1975) However, in the final version of Assembly
Bill 889 the reference to grading and
building permits as being `ministerial' in
nature was deleted. (A.B. 889, as amended
November 29, 1972.) Two inferences may
be drawn from this fact. One is that the
Legislature considered the grading and
building permits as neither wholly
ministerial or wholly discretionary. The
other is that the Legislature intended that
the decision whether the issuance of
building and grading permits was a
ministerial or a discretionary act should be
left to the decision of each `agency' either
on a case-by-case basis or by adoption of
an all-inclusive rule."
". . . The determination of what is `ministerial' canmost appropriately be made by the particularpublic agency involved based upon its analysis ofits own laws. . . . Each public agency may, in itsimplementing regulations or ordinances, providean identification or itemization of its projects andactions which are deemed ministerial under theapplicable laws and ordinances." (Cal. Admin.Code, tit. 14, § 14:15073.) The public agency, the City of Glendale, thereforeby the combined operation of statutes andadministrative guidelines is not prohibited but infact authorized to designate what other "projects"are ministerial acts. The city declared by itsmunicipal ordinance that the issuance of a gradingpermit is a ministerial act. (Glendale Mun. Code,1964, as amended pt. 2, § 10(E).) 3 3That there is no difference between an
"act" such as issuing a building or grading
permit — (giving a piece of paper) and a
"project" as a physical activity culminating
in physical change to the environment, was
at least implied in Friends of Mammoth v.

Board of Supervisors, 8 Cal.3d 247, at page
265 [ 104 Cal.Rptr. 761, 502 P.2d 1049],
and unquestionably determined in Bozung
v. Local Agency Formation Com., 13
Cal.3d 263, at 279 [ 118 Cal.Rptr. 249, 529
P.2d 1017].

The net effect is that the act of the City ofGlendale passed an ordinance which it was notprohibited from doing and which was *826 contemplated by the guidelines written by thelegislatively appointed agency. That exercise of itslegislative power is not because of any delegationof authority to the City of Glendale by theLegislature as its subservient agency underCEQA, but because of the city's constitutionalauthority to do so under its charter of 1921. 826
4 4We judicially notice the Charter of the City
of Glendale.

I agree with the majority that the act of gradingespecially of the scope and magnitude involved atbench is clearly an activity or project which has adirect effect on the environment. I further agreethat the decision of whether or not to issue thisparticular grading permit viewed by any commonsense standards does involve the exercise ofjudgment and discretion. The majority correctlylists some of the facts illustrating this. I think thatreason and wisdom align themselves with themajority in determining that such grading is asignificant amount of work and it affects theenvironment and the issuance of a grading permitfor work of this magnitude requires discretion. Itwould be better if the ordinance did not say that itis merely a ministerial act. But, as I understand thedoctrine of separation of powers, that decision isnot ours to make. The Legislature has nowhere inCEQA forbidden the City of Glendale or any othermunicipality to decide by the legislative processwhat is ministerial. The Legislature could have, bypreempting the field of decision with clarity oflanguage, or perhaps by not predicatingapplication of CEQA upon considerations ordeterminations of ministerial versus discretionaryconduct or activity. But, "wisdom or folly," it didso. What the state Legislature has constitutionallyenacted and what a municipality has thereby beenpermitted to supplement by its constitutionallyvalid enactment are matters of legislative notjudicial concern. 5 Day v. City of Glendale 51 Cal.App.3d 817 (Cal. Ct. App. 1975) Perhaps the acts of the secretary of the ResourcesAgency under the delegation provided for insection 21082 or the acts of the Office of Planningand Research under the delegation provided for insection 21083, may well be the subject of properscrutiny under the standards of Government Codesection 11374. (See Eisenberg's W. House v. St.Bd. Equal., 72 Cal.App.2d 8 [ 164 P.2d 57];Desert Environmental Conservation Assn. v.Public Utilities Com., 8 Cal.3d 739 [ 106 Cal.Rptr.31, 505 P.2d 223].) But the review of an adjudication or of a factfinding process of an administrative agency is notbefore us. The Legislature may properly entrustthe task of filling in the details of its statutoryscheme to an *827 administrative agency. Whilethe City of Glendale may be an "agency" for thepurposes of designating persons or entities towhom CEQA refers that is not to say that it is an"agency" within the meaning of quasi-judicial/quasi-legislative administrative agenciesgoverned by Government Code section 11374.Thus the problem before us is not one where "Anunconstitutional delegation of power occurs whenthe Legislature confers upon an administrativeagency the unrestricted authority to makefundamental policy determinations." (Italicsadded.) ( Clean Air Constituency v. CaliforniaState Air Resources Bd., 11 Cal.3d 801, 816 [ 114Cal.Rptr. 577, 523 P.2d 617]; Morris v. Williams,67 Cal.2d 733 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 689, 433 P.2d 697].)By way of illustration, People v. Department ofHousing and Community Development, 45Cal.App.3d 185 [ 119 Cal.Rptr. 266], isdistinguishable on this basis. 827
People v. Department of Housing and CommunityDevelopment, supra, did not involve the act of acoordinate branch of government. There the act inquestion was one by the State Department ofHousing having the obligation of acting upon anapplication for issuance of a mobile home parkbuilding permit. The court there determined thatissuance of the permit had both characteristics anddetermined that CEQA applied. In reaching that conclusion the court did not superimpose itsdetermination over that of, and contrary to, thedecision of a legislative and coordinate branch ofgovernment.

The first part of our inquiry appears to me to be:"Did the City of Glendale have the fundamentalpower to pass such law?" If so, the second part ofour inquiry should be: "Is it constitutionally infirmas violative of a constitutionally protected right?"If not, then we cannot strike down or limit thestatute or reconstruct it because of, or to suit, ourideas of legislative purpose.

The majority opinion attacks the content of theGlendale municipal ordinance. The holding ineffect says: "Issuance of a grading permit is soclearly (or at least so often) a discretionary act(reasonable minds cannot differ) that you,Glendale, simply cannot say to the contrary." Inmy view that result or effect, exceeds the scope ofour authority even if in our opinion the ordinanceis unsound and not helpful to the achievement orthe purpose of the fundamental statute, CEQA.

What was said in Lockard v. City of Los Angeles,33 Cal.2d 453 [ 202 P.2d 38, 7 A.L.R.2d 990],about the review of another municipal ordinance isapposite here. *828828 "In considering the scope or nature of appellatereview in a case of this type we must keep in mindthe fact that the courts are examining the act of acoordinate branch of the government — thelegislative — in a field in which it has paramountauthority, and not reviewing the decision of alower tribunal or of a fact-finding body. Courtshave nothing to do with the wisdom of laws orregulations, and the legislative power must beupheld unless manifestly abused so as to infringeon constitutional guaranties. The duty to upholdthe legislative power is as much the duty ofappellate courts as it is of trial courts, and underthe doctrine of separation of powers neither thetrial nor appellate courts are authorized to `review'legislative determinations. The only function ofthe courts is to determine whether the exercise of 6 Day v. City of Glendale 51 Cal.App.3d 817 (Cal. Ct. App. 1975) legislative power has exceeded constitutionallimitations. As applied to the case at hand, thefunction of this court is to determine whether therecord shows a reasonable basis for the action ofthe zoning authorities, and, if the reasonablenessof the ordinance is fairly debatable, the legislativedetermination will not be disturbed. [Citations.]" (Lockard v. City of Los Angeles, supra, at p. 461-462.)5 5I acknowledge that decisions of recent
years have taken much wind out of the
sails of this pilot ship of judicial conduct.

However, I deem it still seaworthy.

Where statutory ambiguity prevails andconstruction is needed, there is no question butthat the court performs its proper function toconstrue and explain words. Here, however, theLegislature did not leave the determination ofministerial versus discretionary projects for thecourts alone to determine. By the processexplained above, intentionally or unintentionallythe Legislature left an opening in this regard withthe possibility that it would be filled by the act ofthe municipal legislative body. That a municipalordinance might assist in the creating of a law thefundamental outlines of which are established bythe Legislature is not prohibited. The municipalcouncil is a coordinate branch of the government.The problems posed by the case at bench illustratethe fact that the present statutory scheme iswobbly and badly in need of major repair. In aneffort to assist in strengthening the statutorystructure the majority and other cases woulddiscard semantics in favor of statutory policy asthe guiding light for the court's reasoning and thecourt's decision. The words of People v.Department of Housing and CommunityDevelopment, supra, 45 Cal.App.3d 185, 194, arequoted: "Statutory policy, not semantics, forms thestandard for segregating discretionary fromministerial functions." The majority continues"moreover the discretionary-ministerialdesignation of a project is not necessarily *829 determinative of this environmental impact." I
agree with this second observation butunfortunately the Legislature has used that verystandard to determine the applicability of CEQA.Maybe the Legislature did not intend that all actsshould be determined as one or the other but thewords are clear "This division shall not apply toministerial projects proposed to be carried out orapproved by public agencies." (§ 21080, subd.(b).) 829
The majority indicates that the argument, thatlocal agencies have the prerogative to determinewhich projects are ministerial and hence exemptfrom the requirements of CEQA, "if valid wouldeviscerate CEQA, a result clearly not intended bythe Legislature." The majority indicates thattherefore the actions of local agencies must reflectthe stated intent of the enabling legislation. It isprecisely because of the possible result envisionedby the majority, that the statutory scheme needscorrection. That is however a legislative task.Even if the provision of the act did notaffirmatively authorize, nothing prohibits the cityfrom making laws which it deems implement thestatute. In seeking to answer the problems in thisarea the courts cannot ignore rules of judiciallimitations in considering legislative acts. Theobjective of CEQA and the intent of theLegislature reaches far and sweeps broadly. Itdrastically affects long honored and establishedrules of ownership of property.

Where the exercise of police power is such that itsignificantly and drastically makes new inroadsupon constitutionally protected rights of privateownership of property, that effect is as equallyimportant a consideration for the court as is anynoble purpose of the legislation. Thatconsideration should persuade the court that insuch case rescue from the unexpected andundesired effects of its own statutory scheme isthe Legislature's own job. 6 6Is not all legislation presumably aimed at a
worthy purpose?
7 Day v. City of Glendale 51 Cal.App.3d 817 (Cal. Ct. App. 1975) Justice Sullivan in his scholarly dissent in Friendsof Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors, 8 Cal.3d247, said at page 286 [ 104 Cal.Rptr. 761, 502 P.2d1049]: "I, as well as the majority, am conscious ofthe profound need to improve and maintain thequality of California's environment [citation], butsettled principles of statutory construction cannotbe set aside by the judiciary in order to achievethat high purpose." That *830 statement relative toprinciples of statutory construction, appliesequally well to principles of scope of judicialpower. 830
I would affirm the judgment of the superior court.

A petition for a rehearing was denied October 28,1975, and the petition of the real parties in interestand respondents Kirst-MacDonald-Hensler for ahearing by the Supreme Court was deniedNovember 25, 1975. Clark, J., was of the opinionthat the petition should be granted. *831831
8 Day v. City of Glendale 51 Cal.App.3d 817 (Cal. Ct. App. 1975) Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15268
Section 15268 - Ministerial Projects
(a) Ministerial projects are exempt from the requirements of CEQA. The determination ofwhat is "ministerial" can most appropriately be made by the particular public agencyinvolved based upon its analysis of its own laws, and each public agency should make suchdetermination either as a part of its implementing regulations or on a case-by-case basis.(b) In the absence of any discretionary provision contained in the local ordinance or otherlaw establishing the requirements for the permit, license, or other entitlement for use, thefollowing actions shall be presumed to be ministerial:(1) Issuance of building permits. (2) Issuance of business licenses.
(3) Approval of final subdivision maps.
(4) Approval of individual utility service connections and disconnections. (c) Each public agency should, in its implementing regulations or ordinances, provide anidentification or itemization of its projects and actions which are deemed ministerial underthe applicable laws and ordinances.(d) Where a project involves an approval that contains elements of both a ministerial actionand a discretionary action, the project will be deemed to be discretionary and will be subjectto the requirements of CEQA.

Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 14, § 15268
Note: Authority cited: Section 21083, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section 21080(b)(1), Public Resources Code; Day v. City of Glendale, 51 Cal. App. 3d 817.

1. Change without regulatory effect amendingNote filed 10-6-2005 pursuant to section 100,title 1, California Code of Regulations (Register 2005, No. 40). 1 Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Martha Alvarez, MMC
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2022 12:13 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Planning Commissions - How is Highrose project going through without a traffic / environmental study?
From: Ryan Turner <[email protected]>
Date: August 29, 2022 at 10:11:54 PDT
To: List - Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Planning Commissions - How is Highrose project going through without a traffic / environmental study?
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

To whom it may concern,
As a 20 year resident on Manhattan Beach, I am shocked the Highrose project is even being considered. Our city upholds the strictest building codes and permits which has kept our community one of the best places to live. My wife and I do not see a single reason why our city needs to approve and allow this huge project in our neighborhood. I’m all for building housing but a 79 unit 4 story building in this section of our town makes zero sense. Currently, the traffic and parking in North Manhattan Beach is at it’s limit and what traffic and environmental studies have been done to see how this would effect the current residents.

This is pure greed and I’m ashamed the city council has not taken these appeals filed against Highrose and stopped the project.

This project moving forward will only lead to more greed developers to find loopholes in our cities planning and exploit our quiet neighborhood. Please do the right thing and stop this development at this size from moving forward. Why can’t the developers make a 26 unit building with 6 low income units? And if they cannot agree to a smaller building (under 4 stories), then let’s find a better use for this land than cramming a city block of people on a tiny plot of land.

Thank you,
Ryan Turner
642 Rosecrans Ave

Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 5:46 PM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Residents against HighRose Development EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Honorable City Councilmembers:

As you know, our low‐profile character is special, it is why many of us choose to call Manhattan Beach home. So, that is why I am
OPPOSED to the HighRose/Verandas project and urge you to stand‐up and protect our local zoning laws.

A HighRose overbuild will set a precedent
and threaten the future of our city and residents.

HighRose will create gridlock at a major intersection, and the lack of appropriate parking for its residents and visitors will further compound the problem. And with Chevron and NRG on its property lines, a full CEQA analysis should be
mandatory. So many environmental and safety concerns demand attention.

Sincerely,

A concerned
resident

Sent from my iPhone
Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 3:37 PM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Residents against HighRose/Veranda Development EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Honorable City Councilmembers:

Voters set height restrictions in the 80's just so something like this wouldn't happen.

HighRose/Veranda is a dangerous answer to the State’s “Density Bonus” law needs. This overbuild will set a precedent and threaten the future of our city and residents.

Sincerely,

Bobby McCue
A concerned and agitated resident

Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Carolyn Powers <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 2:01 PM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Burton "On MB Government"
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Council members,

I have been a long‐standing resident of Manhattan Beach for 40 years. I reside here because of the quaintness of our town and the clean beaches we offer visitors.

Manhattan Beach has always been a beautiful and prideful community demonstrated yearly by its loyal residents. We support our emergency services, local businesses, and schools. However, I cannot and will not support this monstrosity of a Residential building. Not only does it not fit in with our beach community, but it will also be an absolute eye sore. It will cause more traffic congestion and, therefore, more pollution.

In addition, the way this building was “approved” is an insult to the people of Manhattan Beach. They knew we would not vote to allow this building, so they backdoored the process and thought they could get away with it. I will not stand for this political trickery.

I vehemently
oppose the building of this structure and stand with the citizens of Manhattan Beach. We will fight to stop this, and we hope you stand with us!

Sincerely,
Carolyn Powers

Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Laurie Giery <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 1:50 PM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] I oppose Highrose
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

I oppose the Highrose project.

Laurie Giery lifetime resident of Manhattan Beach.
1140‐2nd St

Sent from my iPhone
Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Kelly Nick <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 11:11 AM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] We oppose the Highrose Project
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

City Council Members,
For many reasons- aesthetics, environmental impact, traffic, and a general anathema to the town being built up with high rises, we are writing to voice opposition to the proposed Highrose building on Highland and Rosecrans.

Thank you for your consideration.

Kelly Gallagher Nick
Jack Nick
1808 Manzanita Lane
MB, CA. 90266
Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Regina Kodimer <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 7:37 AM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Verandas project, I am very opposed to this project. Please do all you can to cancel this project. Regina Kodimer, 213 20th Street, EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Sent from my iPad
Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Sharon Curto <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2022 10:26 PM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Highrose-I disapprove
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Sent from my iPhone
Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Charles Schacht <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2022 7:25 PM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Do not build the 79-UNIT "BEHEMOTH OF A BUILDING" EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Do not allow this building to be built (79‐UNIT "BEHEMOTH OF A BUILDING")

All people I talked with in El porto do not want this. It will be an eye sore and cause traffic and parking problems.

Please stop the build.

Regards,

Charles Schacht
310‐415‐6563
[email protected]
www.charlesschacht.com

Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2022 7:16 PM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Residents against HighRose Development EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Honorable City Councilmembers:

A HighRose overbuild will set a precedent
and threaten the future of our city and residents.

HighRose will create gridlock at a major intersection, and the lack of appropriate parking for its residents and visitors will further compound the problem. And with Chevron and NRG on its property lines, a full CEQA analysis should be
mandatory. So many environmental and safety concerns demand attention.

Sincerely,

Tim Greenler

Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: debra consani <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2022 6:00 PM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Highrose Project
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

To the City Council:

I object to the HIghrose Project. It will create gridlock at that corner and the lack of adequate parking being built for this Project will seriously impact the flow of traffic in that area and negatively affect parking and traffic flow in the surrounding residential neighborhood.

I am deeply concerned that a CEQA has not been mandated by our City since the property sits on land that very well could be contaminated and hazardous to the entire neighborhood and construction staff workers. Low income housing is not exempt from CEQA or the EIR process. It's incredibly disturbing that those issues have not been addressed or forced by our City Planning Department.

In addition, the Highrose units will be used for short term rentals which in NO WAY helps ease the housing problems that the State is trying to remedy.

Finally, let's face the fact that this project does not fit within our community in terms of the sheer size of it. I am not opposed to low income housing but there has to be a better, smaller space that can be used in some other area.

Please VOTE NO and consider the oath you took to protect our community.

Thank you,

Debra Consani
Resident
Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Margot Farris <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2022 5:58 PM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] High rise unit on Verandahs site
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Council:

I vehemently oppose the pending construction of the 78 unit apartment building on Rosecrans and Highland. It is already a very congested area with traffic, it will
be a nightmare when construction starts. Which will continue when 78 new families move in. Our beach community is so fragile, why do we want to make it worse? Not to mention how unhealthy to live/build beside a refinery!

This is a cute little beach town. A large complex does not belong here. East where there is more space is a much better location for a project this size. This is not Miami Beach! Please don’t let this happen!!

Margot Farris
425 31 st Street
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
310‐706‐5965

Sent from my iPhone
Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Michael Ward <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2022 5:36 PM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Proposed high rise at Highland & Rosecrans EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

This is in opposition to the above proposed developement that would not just change the skyline but also introduce extraordinary density issues affecting community safety.

Vote no!
Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: sue cutler <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2022 5:25 PM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] No to the 4 story High Rose Project in north Manhattan Beach EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Council Members,

Please count me among the many, many Manhattan Beach citizens who are adamantly opposed to the HighRose project. It’s environmental impact would be scary and it is totally out of character in this low profile city. As our city council I hope I can count on you to act on the wishes of the community you work so hard to serve.

Thanks in advance for your consideration.

Sue Cutler
1736 Nelson Ave.

Manhattan Beach, 90266

Sent
from my iPad
Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Peter Landecker <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2022 5:06 PM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Verandas Project
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Council Member,

I am strongly against approval of the Verandas Project for the following reasons:
1) The project seems to be represented as Residential rather than Short Term Rentals.
2) There seems to have been an inadequate environmental impact study. 3) In a coastal commission area, a tall building is out of character and objectionable.
4) It conflicts with the City of Manhattan Beach key value of low population density.

Peter Landecker
1736 Nelson Avenue
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: John Adair <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2022 4:30 PM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] opposition to highrise
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Council,

I OPPOSE THE PROPOSED FOUR-STORY HIGHRISE LUXURY APARTMENTS AT HIGHLAND AVENUE AND ROSECRANS BOULEVARD.

John Adair
305 20th Street
Manhattan Beach, CA
(310) 878-7659
Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: sharon stienstra <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2022 4:11 PM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Four story apartment
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Please don’t do that. Figure something out. More congestion and so many people living that close to the ocean will be good for no one or the ocean.

Thanks,

Sharon Stienstra
1520 Gates Avenue
MB

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Tom Bourke <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2022 3:43 PM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] High Rose, please no.

EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Please vote no on High Rose

Thomas K. Bourke
Law Office of Thomas K. Bourke
413 Ingleside Drive
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
P. 213-623-1092
C. 213-700-3606
F. 213-623-5325
E. [email protected]

Sent from AOL Desktop
Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Janice Champion <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2022 2:50 PM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please reject the Highrose Project
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Council Members,
I have lived in Manhattan Beach for more than 40 years. I have seen increases in density, especially traffic density. The Highrose Project will obviously exacerbate that problem. I worry about gridlock. I worry about more foot traffic around an already crowded beach area.

I also think the 4-story project is not in character with our beach town. It will be too visible. It will be too dense.

Please deny the permit for the Highrose Project,

Sincerely,

Janice Champion
229 15th Street
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
(310)-545-3442
Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Ken Thompson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2022 1:57 PM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Verandas Hirose short term rentals
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Council
I'm adamantly opposed to Verandas project. Due misrepresentation of project as Residential when Short Term Rentals are it's hidden Agenda
Kenneth Thompson
720 13th Street
Manhattan Beach, Ca

Don't let aging get you down. It's too hard to get back up again! Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Erin McCarthy <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2022 1:55 PM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Highrose apartments
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi there,

I just saw the email from Mike Burton about the apartments and, as a resident of Manhattan Beach for 24 years, would be very sad to see this major development to the sand section. Our low key scale is so rare these days and this could set the tone for further high-rise corporate development. Hope some folks are pushing on opposing this!

Thanks,
Erin
--
Erin McCarthy
Business Analyst at McKinsey & Company
Harvard College Class of 2020
310-213-5234
[email protected]
Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2022 1:45 PM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Highrose
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Council Member

I would like for you to vote NO on the Highrose project. If this action causes a lawsuit, I am in favor of spending my tax dollars to defend the City. We must at all costs protect our small-town charm and neighborhoods.

Steve De Baets
Manhattan Beach resident
310-480-1529 c
Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Erin Brewster <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2022 1:23 PM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Highrose project
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Council members,
As a homeowner in the North MB area and a member of greater MB, I do not support the HighRose Project. The shear size and increase
in residents to the North MB area will negatively impact all of us who already live in the area and already deal with the congestion in and around Highland and Rosecrans. We need locally owned shops and restaurants, not more people to further congest this small community that is already busting at the seems. Please stop this project.

Sincerely,
Erin Brewster
217 31st St.

Sent from my iPhone
Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: peter Gentry <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2022 1:21 PM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Rosecrans Development
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear council members,

I am a life long MB resident for the last 50 years and continue to live in North MB with my wife and son. My mother still lives in town, my brother David and his family live here, and my in-Iaws moved 4 doors down several years ago. I/we are very much opposed to the proposed apartment development on the corner of Rosecrans and Highland.

These are my reasons I feel this project should not be allowed.

1) 4 stories?! We have nothing like this and it will set a dangerous precedent for future projects in our community. It could open the doors for taller structures and more density. Any project in our town should comply with current zoning laws and be congruent with our neighborhood. If this is allowed other developers will use it to argue they should be allowed to build similar structures. What if Vons closes shop and the new owners want to build a 6 or 8 story complex downtown?

We all love our small town feel, this is why so many people from the Westside of LA have moved here, we are not Santa Monica. Let's keep it that way.

2) The high density project will significantly increase traffic along a very busy commuter route backing up traffic not only on the intersection but all along Highland into Hermosa Beach. That intersection is also quite busy on weekends and during the summer. Why add fuel to the fire.

3) the property should be used for other reasons. Retail, restaurants, park...something that adds to the North Manhattan Beach community.

4) the developers have already tried to circumvent review by the community by including an insignificant number of low income units. Since the developers only motivation for the development is greed, the only reason to include less profitable low income units was to sneak this by our community our local government.

They have already shown that they do not have our community in their interests and can not be trusted. This is a bad group to do business with.

5) we have lots of small apartments in North Manhattan, more so than any other area except perhaps Manhattan Beach Blvd but none of them are of this size, height, and magnitude. This project is not consistent with our community and should not be allowed.

Think of the long term impact such a project will have on our community. We can fight Sacramento's nearsighted out touch mandates and find other ways to deal with their draconian measures. It seems many other communities similar to ours up and down the state also do not appreciate Sacramento's mandates. Perhaps we could all fight together to preserve our towns.

Thanks,

Peter Gentry
310-802-9181

Get Outlook for Android
Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Mark Abramson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2022 12:50 PM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Highrose
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

I am a resident and business owner in Manhattan Beach and I oppose the Highrose project at Highland and Rosecrans. Please do what the residents want.

Mark E. Abramson
A Professional Law Corporation
1600 Rosecrans Ave.,
Media Center, 4
th Floor
Manhattan Beach, California 90266
(O) (310) 321‐7657
(C) (310) 245‐8174
(F) (310) 321‐7810
[email protected]

Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2022 11:58 AM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] high rose project
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

This city does not need this project.. Please vote it down. Thank You Vincent O'Donnell MB resident Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Megan Pfaff <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2022 11:42 AM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Opposition to HighRose apartment building on Highland and Rosecrans EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Please receive this email as a formal opposition to the HighRose apartment building on Highland and Rosecrans. As a long time resident and as an individual who was raised in this beautiful community, I am opposed to this development for it’s impact on low‐profile character and it’s environmental impact.

Thank you,
Megan Pfaff
Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: RICHARD BRANDES <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2022 11:26 AM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] The behemoth development
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Do everything possible to block this insane 4-story development. You weren't elected just to do easy things.

Dick Brandes
Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Melinda Beswick <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2022 11:06 AM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Opposition to the 4 Story High Rose Project EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Council Members:

I am writing in opposition to the 4 Story High Rose Project. I have been a resident of Manhattan Beach since the summer of 1983. My husband
and i chose to move into Manhattan Beach because of its friendly neighborhood vibe when we relocated from the East Coast that year. While there have been many changes to that vibe since we moved here, none of these changes brought with them the problems that will come with approval and development of the High Rose Project.

I won’t go into all the negatives associated with this project as I am going to hope that you are all well aware of these as they have been repeatedly addressed in the many letters to the editor in local newspapers and throughout the local
social media networks.

I ask that you represent the citizens who elected you to your current positions on the Council and work diligently to ensure that the High Rose Project is not allowed to progress toward implementation.

Sincerely,

Melinda D. Beswick
1729 Pacific Avenue
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Teddy Sears <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2022 10:29 AM
To: List - City Council
Cc: Milissa
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Opposition to Highrose
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello,
I am a 17 year resident of Manhattan Beach and my wife is a 20 year resident. We strongly oppose construction of the new Highrose complex until, at minimum,
the appropriate environmental impact report is thoroughly completed.

We have been shocked at the speed this project has been moving and we humbly ask you to please slow down, do the right thing for your longtime residents, and get this right (if it is to be built at all). What’s the rush?Thank you.

Sincerely,
Teddy and Milissa Sears

Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Matt Haydis <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2022 10:08 AM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] I Oppose the Proposed Four-Story Luxury Apartments EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Please accept this email as my opposition for the Four-Story Highrose Luxury Apartments at Rosecrans and Highland.

--
Matt Haydis
310-889-8409
Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Ryan Turner <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2022 10:06 AM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Highrose Housing Project
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

To whom it may concern,

As a 20 year resident on Manhattan Beach, I am shocked the Highrose project is even being considered. Our city upholds the strictest building codes
and permits which has kept our community one of the best places to live. My wife and I do not see a single reason why our city needs to approve and allow this huge project in our neighborhood. I’m all for building housing but a 79 unit 4 story building in this section of our town makes zero sense. Currently, the traffic and parking in North Manhattan Beach is at it’s limit and what traffic and environmental studies have been done to see how this would effect the current residents.

The Highrose project has no purpose and will add nothing to our community. If it were about building low income
housing in the area then there are much better places than in North MB. The developer clearly is not trying to help the housing crisis by only offering 6 units of the 79 units. This is pure greed and I’m ashamed the city council has not taken these appeals filed against Highrose and stopped the project.

This project moving forward will only lead to more greed developers to find loopholes in our cities planning and exploit our quiet neighborhood. Please do the right thing and stop this development at this size from moving forward. Why
can’t the developers make a 26 unit building with 6 low income units? And if they cannot agree to a smaller building (under 4 stories), then let’s find a better use for this land than cramming a city block of people on a tiny plot of land.

Thank you,
Ryan Turner
642 Rosecrans Ave
Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Andre Oviedo <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2022 9:06 AM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 4 story building
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

I completely oppose a 4 story building in Manhattan Beach. We changed the law several years ago to a 3 story only. I am sure we can get the support
as we did before that did not want a 4 story building on 33rd and Highland Ave. This is not Santa Monica. Thank you.

Sent from my iPhone
Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Linda Maul <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2022 9:06 AM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Rose highland apt
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

To whom it concerns,

I am so surprised that the council is considering approving the apt structure on Rosecrans.

First of all the traffic impact will be significant. The Rosecrans /Highland intersection is a disaster as it is….

I understand the need for affordable housing. But you are truly disillusioned if you believe this project is the answer. As presented the minimal units that will be considered “affordable” do not represent the true nature of the project.

Clear representation of the project and input from the residence is necessary before final approval.

Thank you,
Linda Maul

Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Brittany Junod <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2022 9:05 AM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Oppose new high rise
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi,
I’m a proud Manhattan Beach resident for over 12 years. What was once a charming beach town is now becoming a full time construction zone of new construction houses.

I ask to not allow the planned 70+ unit building on Rosecrans to be built.

Please preserve what appeal and authenticity this town has left.

Thank you,
Brittany Junod

Sent from my iPhone
Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Rob Casanova <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2022 8:59 AM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Highrose Project
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Council,
I will start this email with please do what’s right for our small beachside community. We are not LA or Santa Monica or Long Beach. Those areas are the areas that the residents you represent chose to avoid by seeking residency here.

This development proposed is a 4-Story, 79 Unit Luxury Apartment building that will literally dwarf all other two story commercial and residential buildings in that area. It is completely out of character and repugnant to overarching low-profile development theme in our General Plan and our Local Coastal Program. Our low-profile character defines us as a community. It is one of the reasons why we are such a great community. It’s worth fighting for!

I will state that the Phase 1 that was presented is rudimentary at best. A complete Phase 2 study w an adequate number of soil and air samples test including borings need to be completed by a reputable firm such as AEI environmental. A phase 1 is no where near satisfactory a basis for a project adjacent to a large oil refinery such as Chevron.

A prior City Council thought it was important to ban the use of plastic bags to protect our environment. More importantly, they had the resolve to defend that ban in litigation all the way to the Supreme Court where they won. In that spirit, our residents expect you to deny this project to protect our low-profile character, all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary! Why not invest in protecting our low-profile character? And you will win in court! Here’s why.

Shockingly, this development is not even eligible for the density bonus “streamlined, ministerial approval process”. That’s right. The statute and guidelines are crystal clear that a site located in the coastal zone is not eligible, nor are sites located within sensitive areas such as the wetlands, a hazard waste site, within a very high fire hazard severity zone, and several other locations. Maybe a discretionary conditional use permit process is in order? Furthermore, since this development is in the North End Commercial zone, it may not be eligible as well, since the site must be in residential zone, and these two parcels are not. As we know, the intersection of Highland and Rosecrans has all four corners zoned commercial. It is vitally important to our El Porto and North MB residents that these four corners be for commercial uses.

SB 35, the density bonus statute, was part of a package of 15 low-income housing bills.

In discerning the legislature intent and meaning of these bills, you need to ask two questions: What is the problem the legislature was trying to fix? And how did the legislation fix the problem?

Here’s the problem the legislature was trying to fix.

After an application for a low-income housing project was processed by City staff and an EIR was completed, that low-income housing project needed to go through a purely discretionary conditional use permit process for approval before a Planning Commission and City Council causing substantial delays with many worthwhile low income housing projects being denied for one reason or another, and in many instances no good reason at all, “despite the absence of adverse environmental impacts”.

Here's how the legislation was able fix the problem.

The Legislative Counsels’ Digest for SB 35 and the statute provide: “This bill would authorize a development proponent to submit an application for a multifamily housing development…that is subject to a streamlined, ministerial approval process…and not subject to a conditional use permit.”

The fix was simple. The Legislature scuttled the discretionary conditional use permit process and substituted in a new “streamlined, ministerial approval process” to the alleviate the delays and mischief caused by Planning Commissions and City Councils.

Importantly, SB 35, and the package of 15 low-income housing bills did not establish an exemption from CEQA requirements, including completing an EIR, for low-income housing projects.

If you exercise good common-sense judgment, you will know that this Governor and this Legislature would never exempt low-income housing projects throughout the State from CEQA and the EIR process. With many low-income housing projects being in poor, disadvantaged communities, it would be discriminatory to do so. These communities are already disproportionality impacted by environmental, safety and health challenges.

SB 35 and the package of bills do in fact exempt certain projects from CEQA, but not low-income housing projects. For instance, the statutes specifically exempt BART leases and improvements and a scoping consultation for projects in the geographic area of any California Native American Tribe for instance.

In analyzing SB 35 and the package bills it would be a serious and fatal flaw to conflate the density bonus phrase “streamlined, ministerial approval process” with the CEQA Regulations phrase “ministerial project”. A process is not a project. Examples of a “ministerial project” are the issuance of building permits, the issuance of a business license, or approval of final subdivision maps, the approval of individual utility service connections and disconnections. Obviously, this 4-story, 79-unit, Behemoth of Building is of quite a different character. Under CEQA Regulations and existing case law, CEQA must be interpreted to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment. All you must really do is ask “Will the project have a significant impact on the environment?”. The answer is ABSOLUTLEY YES.

In fact, in all of Manhattan Beach, I can’t think of two parcels of land more environmentally and safety challenged than these two that are directly downslope from 100-year-old oil storage tanks, with high voltage transmission lines directly above and a large natural gas line directly adjacent. Can you say Methane? It would be negligent, maybe grossly negligent to not do an EIR.

Like the Council that banned plastic bags, our residents need you to deny this permit and remand the matter back to the CDD Director with direction to complete an EIR and you need to do it with the resolve to defend your action in litigation all the way to the California Supreme Court, if necessary.

It's simply the legal thing to do, and it’s the right thing to do.

I urge you to stand with our residents, not with the State and developer!

In closing please don’t force me to run against you all in the next City Council election. My neighbors and colleagues have urged me to do so. I remain confident in our current city council and their ability to do the right thing.

Best,
Rob Casanova
Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Mary Pierson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2022 8:59 AM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Mark Burton Aug 16 statement
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

I fully support 100% of his statement. Additionally as I've written to some of you already, the traffic density in the North End is already overwhelming our narrow Highland Avenue.

Why would you, as elected representatives of this community, allow this project to go forward? All I can think is that you are not willing to fight the developer, and that you are hiding behind a state bill intended for social justice purposes not the enrichment of a developer and surely not the destruction of the MB local character.

Sincerely,
Mary Pierson
417 Marine Place
Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Lyle Maul <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2022 8:52 AM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Opposition to high-rise apt on Rosecrans EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

I am a 50 year resident of Manhattan Beach and strongly opposed to the 4 story apartment project proposed for Rosecrans. It is out of character for the city and proposed in a high risk location. Stand up to the developers and state and do whats best for our city.

Lyle Maul

Sent from Mail for Windows

Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Mark Pfaff <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2022 8:48 AM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 4 story highrose project
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

To whom it may concern at the City of MB,

We oppose the Highrose project.

Regards,
Mark Pfaff
MB Resident
Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Robbie Atkinson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2022 8:47 AM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] High rose
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

I have been a homeowner and resident in the North End for over 55 years. The possibility of allowing the Highrose development is unconscionable to me. The impact on this end of town would be unbearable. How is it that the Coastal Commission is not involved?

Sent from my iPhone
Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Faith Backus Lyons <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2022 6:23 PM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Highrose Project
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Council: I want to register my husband's and my support for the project. Don't let the NIMBY's kill this opportunity to increase our housing stock with a project that will have very little impact on residents.

I do want to suggest that the City use whatever power it has to increase the number of affordable units to 20%.

This is standard for such projects and the developer will still make a reasonable return.

Thank you,

Faith Lyons

--
Faith Backus Lyons
(310) 266-3205
Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Dr. Dale Murnane <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2022 12:47 PM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Project Verandas from Dr. Dale Murnane EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

To ALL Honorable City Council Members,

I write to you, appalled, at the threats you received from Manhattan Beach "land owners", if you choose, for the 'Good of the Whole', to approve Project Verandas.

I walked the Strand before I left town and observed their dirty, sun bleached, cracking homes with apparent mold, signs protesting City Council and wordy signs to prohibit a dog from peeing (and worse) on their 2'x1.5' spot of dirt, referred to as a 'garden'.

Their female bodied children (or grandchildren?) were walking around clad in 'almost nothing' and one gave me a double middle finger when she allowed her large dog to approach my Working Service Dog when my back was to them as I was gazing at the sea.

When my dog alerted me, I turned and told her she shouldn't let her dog approach a Working Service Dog, for future reference; that comment earned me the double middle finger.

I saw young (male-bodied) exhausted surfers climbing from the beach up through the sand and as they started their weary ascent up the street, my heart and memories traveled back in time. Carrying their surfboards tucked under their arm was a delight and erased, if only for a moment, the other visuals.

I hope the threats from "land owners" stop for you and I hope your meeting scheduled for September 6th ends way before midnight; I also wish you luck!

I enjoyed watching you work with Dignity,
Respectfully,

Dr. Dale A. Murnane

Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Benjamin Banner <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2022 10:57 PM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Build Housing in Manhattan Beach!
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Honorable Manhattan Beach Councilmembers:

The cost of living in this area is out of control; especially in Manhattan Beach. I was recently taken aback by the "Not In My Backyard" (NIMBY) advocates' push to further suppress housing and drive up housing costs by rallying landowners to oppose the HighRose development.

I'm a junior engineer who graduated just over a year ago and moved to California to work for the aerospace industry. I can barely afford to live here, and I may well have to head back east to someplace with a more realistic cost of living if nothing improves. As it stands now, I see little future for myself in this area because the residential costs are worse than anywhere else I've lived in the country. If I didn't love my job, I'd have already left. But I do, so I'm e‐mailing you...the first time I've e‐mailed my local elected officials.

It's easy to see why housing costs are out of control. South Bay localities have been pushed to oppose any and all new housing by existing homeowners. Rather than efficient use of land, this area is completely downzoned, leaving the working class to commute long distances or take on
a large amount of roommates to pool resources and afford a single family home to rent at great cost. The development opposition advocates talk about maintaining the "character" of an area (a dog whistle if I've ever heard one) while abusing CEQA (as was seen recently up in Berkeley, nearly denying hundreds of admitted students admission) in an effort to further drive up their property values and keep out those they don't want living next door. Who is going to be left to buy those properties down the road? Young professionals, service industry workers, and many others are all being priced out of the area.

I am a resident of Manhattan Beach. I work in Manhattan Beach. I vote here. I pay taxes here. I want the supply of housing in Manhattan Beach increased.

I am FOR the Highrose El Porto/Project Verandas development, and I urge you to stand in support of this project to
increase the supply of available housing, as well as any other projects that increase the affordable and/or market‐rate housing supply that come across your desks, before the situation in South Bay gets any worse.

Sincerely,

Ben Banner
[email protected]
Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Jessica Doran <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2022 9:22 PM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Project Verandas
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers,
As a longstanding homeowner in north Manhattan Beach, I’ve seen much change over the years. One of the most negative changes I’ve seen is the density of neighborhoods which among many unfortunate outcomes includes a lack of parking in neighborhood areas accompanied by too many cars racing around these narrow streets.

As I listened to the City Council meeting this week, I was hopeful that this outrageous proposal of a huge apartment complex would be easily voted as a “no” all around. It’s bad for our community on so many levels.

I ask you to please consider what residents here want and need. The small‐town feel is what drew me here. We cannot handle any more density. It’s already too much.

I miss the crime free neighborhood I once had. I miss the fact that no one can visit me by car because my street parking is always full.

Our low‐profile character is special, it is why many of us have chosen to call Manhattan Beach home. So, that is why I am OPPOSED to the HighRose/Verandas project and urge you to protect us.

A 4‐story 79 unit apartment complex at the corner of Rosecrans and Highland Ave is an outrageous, out‐of‐character proposal, and a dangerous answer to the State’s “Density Bonus” law needs. A HighRose overbuild will set a precedent and threaten the future of our city and residents.

HighRose will create gridlock at a major intersection, and the lack of appropriate parking for its residents and visitors will further compound the problem. And with Chevron and NRG on its property lines, the risk of toxicity and pollution to our area and local storm drains is just too much. There are so many environmental and safety concerns that demand attention.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Jessica Doran
468 33rd street

Manhattan Beach, CA
702.806.3913

Sent from my iPhone
Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: N. Mostafavi <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2022 9:18 AM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Residents against HighRose Development EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Honorable City Councilmembers:

A HighRose overbuild will set a precedent
and threaten the future of our city and residents.

HighRose will create gridlock at a major intersection, and the lack of appropriate parking for its residents and visitors will further compound the problem. And with Chevron and NRG on its property lines, a full CEQA analysis should be
mandatory. So many environmental and safety concerns demand attention.

Sincerely,

Newsha Mostafavi

A concerned resident
Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Alex Gayner <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2022 6:33 AM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Opposition to Verandas/Highrose Project EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

As a long time resident of North Manhattan Beach, I wanted to write to the full council once again and express our opposition to the approval and completion of the
Verandas/Highrose project.

Allowing a developer to take advantage of a loophole that will fundamentally change North Manhattan Beach for the worse would be a fundamental fracture to the foundation of the city council. We count on your leadership and commitment to protect our community..

We all know the majority of Manhattan Beach opposes this project and there is a very simple reason for that. It is a direct manipulation of California’s new High Density Housing laws.

I no way is Manhattan Beach prepared to accommodate the increase in traffic, trash, lack of parking and speeding that will come with this.

I implore the 3 members of the council that are not willing to fight this project to walk the streets of our town and listen to the residents and their message. This must not be allowed to happen..

This is a defining moment for unity in the council and what we stand for as a town.

Alex Gayner
560 Rosecrans Ave
Manhattan Beach, CA

Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Nancy Edwards <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 9:45 PM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] We oppose the huge development project on Rosecrans at the verandas site
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Nancy Edwards
Charles Parker
425 32nd Street
310‐963‐0413

Sent from my iPhone
Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Mike Romagnoli <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 2:09 PM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Opposition to Verandas/Highrose Project EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

As a Manhattan beach resident for over 15 years and soutbay for over 25, I can’t tell you how disappointed I am at the lack of willingness to fight this
initiative we are currently demonstrating as a city. I would like to thank those that are standing up to an initiative we all know will only have a negative impact on our community in the long term in exchange for the short term financial opportunity tearing down the fabric of this community will surface for those in the business of real estate development. A “we shouldn’t fight because we will lose” mentality is clearly driven by those that are not putting the city’s best interest first but their own best interest first and foremost. If there is a loophole into this approval there is a loophole out and the court system represents an ideal place to invest time and energy to subtract from the profitability of this project for the investors and developers…once the profitability diminishes their desire to move forward will simultaneously.

In my opinion, the city’s number 1 goal should
be to delay this initiative by any means necessary…it is the only way to preserve what most of us came here for above and beyond padding our own pockets by developing irresponsibly.

Thank you.

Mike Romagnoli.

Sent from my iPhone
Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Rudkin, George H <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 11:40 AM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Highrose
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Opposing Highrose project as it stands. Let the lawsuits come. Stick to local zoning and maintain the character of the community, please.

Regards
George Rudin
Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: dave young <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 9:06 AM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Opposition to Verandas/Highrose Project EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Born and raised in MC. This is going to fundamentally change North MB, in a bad way. Putting 79 new “low- income” apartments on Rosecrans and Highland is going to do nothing to improve traffic, congestion, crime or property values.

It’s a loophole that the contractor is attempting to take advantage of under California’s new High Density Housing laws. In short, they’re getting to avoid all the normal zoning laws, environmental impact laws, building requirements and application processes that everyone else in the city / county have to deal with and which the City has traditionally used to create uniformity in MB.

Basically, this local construction company is getting to put a giant high density apartment complex on the beach where it would never normally have been allowed. All they have to do is designate 7 of the units as low income and they get to sell/rent the balance for triple what they could collect if they had to build it near the 405 where it wouldn’t violate City, County and Coastal Commission rules. It’s a scam and we the residents of North Manhattan/Manhattan will have to deal with the fallout.

3 of the 5 council members aren’t willing to fight the state on it. 2 are. This is my message to everyone I speak to in MB. Not a good look for the council members who are suppose to be looking after the city.

Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Tracee Farrell <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 8:22 AM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fw: Oppose the Highrose development EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Good morning City Council,
Resending my February email regarding the need to oppose the Highrose project for Richard and Steve. MB must join in litigation with other coastal cities and similar communities who are opposing this illegal state law.

Sincerely,
Tracee Farrell
Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS
Begin forwarded message:

On Friday, February 4, 2022, 10:41 AM, Tracee Farrell <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear City Council, et al,
Council should be doing everything in its power to oppose the Highrose development. The City of Manhattan Beach should be doing everything in its power to push back against this state overreach into local zoning and control issues.

This development would have a devastating impact on our local community. Traffic and parking in the area, which are already bad, would be significantly negatively impacted. The increased density in an already overpopulated area would be extremely detrimental to the quality of life of the residents and North Manhattan Beach business environment. A large, multi dwelling development like this in this area is out of place, violates MB building ordinances, and will forever change the look and feel of our small town beach community.

Council and the City should not succumb to these state laws simply because they have already been passed. There must be push back and resistance. There must be education by means of litigation, if necessary, to show Sacramento what a devastating effect this would have in cities like ours. This is not a situation where there is a one size fits all solution. The State, with these short sighted regulations, cannot be allowed to fundamentally change the character and culture of a City that already has a density problem and require that local laws be overridden or excepted. It’s shocking that this has even gotten this far along in the process. How is it possible that our Planning Commission is recommending this? How is it possible that the Planning Commission has determined that the adoption of this plan and this particular development could not have a significant effect on the environment? Please stop this.

Sincerely,
Tracee & Mike Farrell
Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Fawn Schanz <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 10:48 PM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Residents against HighRose Development EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Honorable City Councilmembers:

A HighRose overbuild will set a precedent
and threaten the future of our city and residents.

HighRose will create gridlock at a major intersection, and the lack of appropriate parking for its residents and visitors will further compound the problem. And with Chevron and NRG on its property lines, a full CEQA analysis should be
mandatory. So many environmental and safety concerns demand attention.

Sincerely,

A concerned
resident

Fawn A. Schanz
Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Jan Karl <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 9:38 PM
To: List - City Council
Cc: Jan Karl; Jan Karl
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Project Verandas
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers,

As a longstanding homeowner in north Manhattan Beach, I’ve seen much change over the years. One of the most negative changes I’ve seen is the density of neighborhoods which among many unfortunate outcomes includes a lack of parking in neighborhood areas accompanied by too
many cars racing around these narrow streets.

I ask you
to please consider what residents here want and need. The small‐town feel is what drew me here. We cannot handle any more density. It’s already too much.

I miss the crime free neighborhood I once had. I miss the fact that no one can visit me by car because my street parking
is always full.

Our low‐profile character is special, it is why many of us have chosen to call Manhattan Beach home. So, that is why I am OPPOSED to the HighRose/Verandas project and urge you to protect us.

A 4‐story 79 unit apartment complex at the
corner of Rosecrans and Highland Ave is an outrageous, out‐of‐character proposal, and a dangerous answer to the State’s “Density Bonus” law needs. A HighRose overbuild will set a precedent and threaten the future of our city and residents.

HighRose will create gridlock at a major intersection, and the lack of appropriate parking for its residents and visitors will further compound the problem. And with Chevron and NRG on its property lines, the risk of toxicity and pollution to our area and local storm drains is just too much. There are so many environmental and safety concerns that demand attention.

Thank you.

Most sincerely,

Jan Karl
421 34
th Street
Manhattan Beach, CA
310‐993‐4311

Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: STEPHANIE COHEN <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 9:05 PM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] High Rose Development
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

To Whom It May Concern:

I am 100% against this new apt. complex being built in the chosen location. I’ve lived in MB for 34 years and used to live

on 36th Street, very close to where the proposed complex will be. I’m glad, at this point, that I live elsewhere in MB.

While it may be legal to build at Highland and Rosecrans, it certainly is not SMART. We live in a small town w/ some shady past dealings (Bruce’s Beach, the land that Mira Costa stands on, etc.). You can see I am a liberal, humanistic, resident, and even I think that corner is the wrong place to put a 4 story apt. building with 4 low‐income units.

I’m not philosophically opposed to low income housing in MB.

However, to put in 4 units and call it low income housing, is ridiculous. We all know what it costs to live in our beautiful town‐food, gas, land, transportation, parking, etc., etc.

I’m a single, educator, living here. I KNOW why there are no other single teachers, counselors, school psychologists or speech language pathologists living in this town except me.

There is no way that jamming in a 78 unit building to that patch of land and offering 4 lucky families housing in it, is going to have ANY impact on the shortage of affordable housing in L.A. County or specifically in MB. If you really want to
offer affordable housing in our town, have some of the businesses and developers donate some land on Sepulveda (like across from Skechers) and put a BIG building in, with tons of parking, a playground, a pool and a tutoring center so kids can access what they need to thrive.

I understand that the city isn’t run on dreams; it’s run on money. But placing the proposed apt. at Rosecrans and Highland is a ridiculous use of that land which will result in crazier than usual parking and traffic woes, will be detrimental to
the businesses across the street on Rosecrans and especially on the west side of Highland and based upon what I’ve read, it will create some likely needless exposure to toxic chemicals by tearing up the ground. And to say there will be no visitor parking is simply unrealistic.

This may
be a LEGAL plan but it certainly is NOT a well thought out addition to our community nor will it be beneficial to the few families that are supposed to benefit from its uniqueness. Bottom line? The developer should be stopped. Legal doesn’t make it smart, ethical or beneficial.

Stephanie Cohen

East Manhattan Beach
Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Candis Duke <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 3:48 PM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] New Rosecrans project
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear council members…
Thank you for your service and your care. I am very concerned about the new project and especially the impact it will have on our environment and our traffic.

I ask you each to download the plume app and begin watching our air quality. Our air quality is a problem even right next to the ocean because of not only the airport but Chevron and our traffic.

We have lately been running over 100 which is unsafe for everyone!! To add to it And make it worse makes absolutely no sense.

In addition I don’t know if any of you drive to or from the west side during traffic hours but Vista Del Mar is always backed up. Remember when the council person turned it into only two lanes with parking instead of four-lanes?(obviously that was short-lived). I imagine the traffic will be similar to that if we allow this new project. I do not understand how COUNCIL is excepting the studies that have been provided that’s far as evidence that we won’t be severely negatively impacted.

Please… I asked the city Council think carefully and do what you have been elected to do, to protect all of us and our city and our lifestyle here.

I do not think we should have this project here at all. But if need be, Perhaps there is an alternate site where a project like this could be built with less impact, that is inland at the edge of East Manhattan Beach and not down here in the middle of such immense traffic.

I understand why developer want to do it because the ROI/income /value/cost will be insane.

Do not allow the State to override our local zoning laws.

1. City Council should deny the developer's current building permit application that uses privileges afforded by State legislation that circumvents City zoning and planning laws.

2. Council should encourage the developer to resubmit his application without utilizing state legislation and to abide by our City zoning laws.

3. Council should be transparent and fully inform the residents about how the current building plans conflict with MB's carefully thought through zoning laws.

4. It is clear that a comprehensive environmental STUDY is needed to assure everyone that digging down 45' deep on this property to add a parking structure is not going to cause an environmental disaster, like releasing toxic fumes into the air, causing oil deposits to flow into the groundwater or the nearby ocean water and beaches. The developer’s use of an outdated and very limited environment "assessment" does not comply with our local zoning requirements.

5. If the City is sued by the developer, Council needs to have the same resolve to stand up for our laws as they did some years ago when the City was sued over our ordinance banning plastic bags. The City stood by its decision to ban plastic bags and took the case to the highest court in CA and won. The Courts are where we stand up for our City, lest we be swallowed up by the State or County.

6. Unless the City takes a stand now against the overreach by State legislation, developers will swarm MB with similar plans. Approving Highrose is approving State legislation and all future similar projects circumventing our local laws.

Candis Duke

Sent from my IPhone
Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Michael Fairchild <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 1:23 PM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Opposition to Verandas/Highrose Project EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

I wanted to take a quick moment to again make clear to the full council that - as a longtime resident of Manhattan Beach living in close proximity to the proposed Verandas / Highrose project – we are very much opposed to its completion.

I will not take up your time reiterating ALL of the many reasons that the vast majority of residents believe this is the wrong project in the wrong location at the wrong time. But will say that this is a defining moment for the city and the council. The decisions made on this issue will certainly shape the way your constituents view your role as leaders, and the support (or lack thereof) that you will receive in the future.

Throwing our hands in the air and saying this is a fight we (probably) can’t win is not and excuse for doing nothing.

Michael Fairchild
469 34th Street
Manhattan Beach, CA

From: Jan Karl <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2022 7:24 PM
To: Steve Napolitano; Suzanne Hadley; Joe Franklin; Richard Montgomery; Hildy Stern Cc: Jan Karl; Jan Karl
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Project Verandas/Highrose

I ask you to please consider what residents here want and need. The small‐town feel is what drew me here. We cannot handle any more density. It’s already too much.

I miss the crime free neighborhood I once had. I miss the fact that no one can visit me by car because my street parking is always full.

Our low‐profile character is special, it is why many of us have chosen to call Manhattan Beach home. So, that is why I am OPPOSED to the HighRose/Verandas project and urge you to protect us.

HighRose will create gridlock at a major intersection, and the lack of appropriate parking for its residents and visitors will further compound the problem. And with Chevron and NRG on its property lines, the risk of toxicity and pollution to our area and local storm drains is just too much. There are so many environmental and safety concerns that demand attention.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Jan Karl
421 34th Street
Manhattan Beach, CA
310‐993‐4311

Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Ulrich, Laurel A <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 12:37 PM
To: List - City Council
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: [EXTERNAL] HighRose Pending Development
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

City Council Members:

We highly disapprove of the HighRose pending development. We strongly oppose the State and Developer attempting to railroad this City into ignoring our Cities zoning laws with this property. Clearly, the Developer is using a limited environment assessment that is outrageous given the fact that the Chevron plant is within feet of the development which could have a horrific impact to the community, ocean and beaches and engage the city in huge lawsuits. How can this development not have a full traffic study as the development will impact the traffic flow of the whole SouthBay. Manhattan Beach put Gelsons through years and years of traffic and environmental studies yet we seem to be letting this developer, CA and Janice Hahn railroad our City into a development that will bring us lawsuits, environmental irreversible damage, traffic snarls and accidents impacting the residents and future developments that will change the make-up of this city forever. Please protect this City that you are supposed to be protecting and representing and stop protecting the CA current political leaders instead. If you vote for this development, you are clearly overlooking our local laws.

Laurel, Vance, Juliette and Ryan Ulrich

********************************************************************** This e-mail, including any attachments that accompany it, may contain information that is confidential or privileged. This e-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it was intended to be addressed. If you have received this e-mail and are not an intended recipient, any disclosure, distribution, copying or other use or
retention of this email or information contained within it are prohibited.

If you have received this email in error, please immediately reply to the sender via e-mail and also permanently
delete all copies of the original message together with any of its attachments from your computer or device.
**********************************************************************

Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: KATHERINE CHAMBERS <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 12:32 PM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] I oppose Highrose development
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Do not allow the State to override our local zoning laws.

1. City Council should deny the developer's current building permit application that uses privileges afforded by State legislation that circumvents City zoning and planning laws.

2. Council should encourage the developer to resubmit his application without utilizing state legislation and to abide by our City zoning laws.

3. Council should be transparent and fully inform the residents about how the current building plans conflict with MB's carefully thought through zoning laws.

As a 25 year Manhattan Beach resident, Please deny the Highrose project.

Thank you,
Kadie Chambers
224 20th street, Manhattan Beach

Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: BARRY FORMAN <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 12:24 PM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] HIghrose Project
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

I am a resident of Manhattan Beach. I have read arguments opposing the project as is and am personally opposed to the project .

Barry J Forman

Sent from my
iPhone
Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Bruce Kuch <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 8:53 AM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] HighRose Development
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Honorable Councilmembers:

Please enforce local building requirements.

Bruce & Pam Kuch
1440 8th Street
714 519‐5985
Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Jim Dillavou <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 8:36 AM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Highrose / Planning vs. Policy
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Good morning,

My Planning Commission vote to approve the Highrose project was, I believe, correct from a pure city planning standpoint. However, from a policy standpoint, my vote would have been different. As the arbiters of policy for our City, I thank you for the extensive time and thought you have put into this important policy decision.

Sincerely,
Jim Dillavou
Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Rory O <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 8:11 AM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] I (and many) grow tired the Councils disregard from the Majority EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

City Council Members,

As reminder, you are the servants "of the People". Yes, you were elected but, several of you may not return as Council members so, it seems easy for you to "hit and run". There many arguments against the Highrose build. Manhattan already is crammed tight enough. Why are you concerned with what "self- serving" Developers think or want. We are the residents that have to live here after they have ruined North-End and walk away..

Do not allow the State to override our local zoning laws.

1. City Council should deny the developer's current building permit application that uses privileges afforded by State legislation that circumvents City zoning and planning laws.

2. Council should encourage the developer to resubmit his application without utilizing state legislation and to abide by our City zoning laws.

3. Council should be transparent and fully inform the residents about how the current building plans conflict with MB's carefully thought through zoning laws.

Thank You,
Rory & Marie O'Brien
1808 Walnut Ave

Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Beverly Mitchell <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 7:34 AM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Highrose
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

I am Against this project. Please protect our City. Thank you.

Sent from my iPhone
Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: ERIC GRAY <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 7:10 AM
To: List - City Council
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] HIghrose Project
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Council Members,

After serving on the Chevron Community Advisory Panel for 5 years, I can assure you that there is every reason to require a thorough environmental impact study
on the site for the proposed Highrose development.

The refinery has over 100 years of stored pollution in the soil it rests on, and is very close to our groundwater source including drinking water. Any significant construction, such as an underground parking structure, so close to the refinery has the
potential to release toxins in the surrounding area or ocean.

At a minimum, it is your duty as a Council to vet this issue thoroughly.

Further, I disagree with the State of CA totally overriding our local zoning laws. It is taxation without representation in my view. Therefore, I encourage the
Council to stand up to this over‐reach of State authority. If not now, when? When the State has mandated the 6th or 7th “densification” project?

Regards,

Eric Gray
Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Ki and Anne Filek <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 6:31 AM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] High rise project
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Circumventing local laws is making a mockery of them. The high rise project doesn’t make sense in this crowded environment This opens the door to future circumvention of our laws

Mr Filek
--
Anne and Ki Filek
[email protected]

Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 6:17 AM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Vote NO
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Please don't allow the state to rule our city...we don't need their money. No to Rosecrans developement period.

Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Susan Swerdloff <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2022 10:24 PM
To: List - City Council
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: HighRose/Verandas Project
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

From: Susan Swerdloff [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2022 6:27 PM
To: '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>
Subject: HighRose/Verandas Project

Honorable City Council members:

As a longstanding homeowner and resident in Manhattan Beach, and a parent of a child who attended MBSD, I’ve seen much change over the years. One of the most negative changes I’ve seen is the density of neighborhoods which among many unfortunate outcomes includes a complete lack of parking in neighborhood areas, too many cars racing around these narrow streets, accidents, near misses, and increased crime.

While I understand there is a shortage of affordable housing in California, and Los Angeles County, I urge you to consider voting against populating our City with large apartment complexes. As I listened to the City Council meeting this week, I was hopeful that this outrageous proposal of a huge apartment complex at Rosecrans and Highland, an already heavily
trafficked and congested area, would be easily voted down by City Counsel, members.

I urge you to consider what residents here want and need. The small- town feel is what drew many of us here. We cannot handle any more density, more traffic and more people. It’s already too much and the current infrastructure is already dated and in disrepair.

Our low-profile character is special, it is why many of us choose to call Manhattan Beach home. We gave invested in our schools to maintain our Real Estate values and increased density would diminish our values and would encourage many to stop investing in the City and our schools. So, that is why I am OPPOSED to the HighRose/Verandas project and urge you to protect us.

A 4-story 79 unit apartment complex at the corner of Rosecrans and Highland Ave is an outrageous, out-of-character proposal, and a dangerous answer to the State’s “Density Bonus” law needs. A HighRose overbuild will set a precedent and threaten the future of our city and residents. It will create gridlock at an already challenging corner. Have you driven thru that area at rush hour? Maybe you should.

I urge you to do the right thing for the City of MB and not for your political careers. Please vote down this project and do not set this precedent.

Thank you, Most sincerely,
Susan Swerdloff
325 1st Street
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
[email protected]
310-350-2939

Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Jim Pickett <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2022 7:19 PM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Opposed to HighRose
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Suzanne and Richard,

It is very pleasing to have you two respond on a beautiful Saturday afternoon. An unexpected response.

Jim Pickett

On Sat, Aug 20, 2022 at 3:00 PM Jim Pickett <[email protected]> wrote:

As a 40+ year resident and property owner in Manhattan Beach, I am very opposed to the HighRose development as currently proposed. Our home is very near the intersection of Highland and Rosecrans and we believe that we, along with the majority of our community, including El Porto residents, would be negatively impacted.

W. J. Pickett

Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: john berryman <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2022 5:13 PM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RESIDENTS AGAINST HIGHROSE DEVELOPMENT !!! EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Honorable City Councilmembers:

A 4-story 79 unit apartment complex at the corner of Rosecrans and Highland Ave is an outrageous, out-of-character proposal, and a dangerous answer to the State’s “Density Bonus” law needs. A HighRose overbuild will set a precedent and threaten the future of our city and residents.

Sincerely,

JOHN BERRYMAN
413 NINTH PL
MANHATTAN BEACH CA 90266
A concerned resident

Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Jim Pickett <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2022 3:01 PM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Opposed to HighRose
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

W. J. Pickett

Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Dennis M. Dillon <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2022 1:51 PM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] No to 79 unit, 4-story building in MB! EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Council Members,

I have lived in the northwest side of Manhattan Beach for 27 years and I am shocked that a 79 unit, fifty-foot-tall apartment building is even under consideration in our neighborhood. It is far too big, too tall and would require a huge number of parking stalls, all of which would lead to more traffic at Highland and Rosecrans which is already a too busy. Allowing this development would be detrimental for all of the people of Manhattan Beach, but especially for those of us at the north end of town who frequent the intersection. The intersection would forever be a traffic nightmare, not only during the construction of this monstrosity, but forever after, with hundreds of additional cars and pedestrians coming and going every day. To build any development more than a fourplex should require an EIR and detailed traffic study to determine just how bad the traffic would be. You should also consider that this is a Tsunami escape route and people will be killed because of the traffic backup should this development go through. And finally, this property backs up to the Chevron plant which adds numerous environmental, health and safety issues to this proposed development.

I urge you to do whatever needs to be done to stop this atrocity before it gets any further. I understand that there will be costs involved but we need to do whatever it takes to save our city and our way of life. I will certainly vote against any council members who do not fight to keep this from being built in Manhattan Beach.

Regards,

Dennis Dillon
440 30
th St.

Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
310.600.3457
[email protected]
Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Robert Tepper <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2022 10:32 AM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Highrose apartments
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

As a resident of Manhattan Beach and a 47 year resident of The South Bay, I am opposed to the building of this property.

Please stop it, it does not fit into out beach community.

Robert Tepper
1405 Pine

--
Robert
Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Roger Bondelli <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2022 11:58 PM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Behemoth Bldg. at Rosecrans and Highland MB EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

I am a 45 year Manhattan Beach resident and oppose that building on Rosecrans and highland. 4 stories tall is insane there! The tallest it should be allowed is 2
stories if at all.

Sent from my iPad
Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Celeste Sheres <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2022 9:11 PM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Overdevelopment
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

As a resident of Manhattan Beach for many years I am opposed to the development project being proposed in el Porto.

It is unnecessary and will destroy the uniqueness of
our beach community. The community is a small community and we have already seen a large increase in crime and traffic. A development such as this will only make the situation worse. It is unfortunate that we as a city have even entertained such an idea and for many reasons it is extremely unfair to the surrounding residents. I feel very saddened that the profits of the developers have somehow become more important than the well‐being of our community. It is truly shameful and I hope you will consider withdrawing the request for development. Sincerely Sheres

Sent from my iPhone
Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2022 8:48 PM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Residents against HighRose Development EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Honorable City Councilmembers:

A HighRose overbuild will set a precedent
and threaten the future of our city and residents.

HighRose will create gridlock at a major intersection, and the lack of appropriate parking for its residents and visitors will further compound the problem. And with Chevron and NRG on its property lines, a full CEQA analysis should be
mandatory. So many environmental and safety concerns demand attention.

Sincerely,
Joel Garber

A concerned resident

Sent from my iPhone
Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Jason Goldwater <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2022 5:48 PM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Highrose Project @ Verandas
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Please be advised that our household is vehemently opposed to this project not only because of its 4-story height, which is way out of character for MB, but also because of environmental concerns that could arise from digging in that area next to Chevron.

I’m addition, the traffic it would create (however positive for our business at 35th & Highland) seems as if will create a daily fiasco.

As residents who can see this piece of land from our window, it scares us.

🙏 — Jason & Bree Goldwater
Jason Goldwater
Partner/Creator/CEO

Direct: 415.747.1565

HUMAN LANDSCAPERS®
His/Hers Waxing Shops

P: 855.WAX.BUSH
W: bikiniwaxing.com
IG: human_landscapers
Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Kathy Ford <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2022 2:13 PM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Highrose Apartments
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

As a long time resident of Manhattan Beach I am opposed to this project and ask that the Council not vote for it. Our city is becoming overbuilt and doesn’t
need more large overbuilt structures so that we’re surrounded by concrete.

Please vote NO.

Thank you!
Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Bill Frash <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2022 1:46 PM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Massive Condo Development
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

The Frash family is 100% opposed to this crazy idea. - Bill Frash, 3605 Pacific Ave, Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Lu Hearlson <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2022 12:53 PM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Proposed 4 story residence on Rosecrans EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Sir:

I am writing as a TAX PAYING RESIDENT that this project that’s being pushed through by a special agenda is NOT LEGAL!! I scrapped my whole life to
live in this magnificent city, in a 1200 sq ft condo! I do not live on the strand or anywhere close but I TREASURE my neighborhood and city for its BLUE ZONE quality of life! To build this monster building goes AGAINST EVERYTHING the City of Manhattan Beach PRIDES it self in protecting! If you want low housing then go to a neighborhood that can build to that zone! Don’t we all want to live in a quality city like ours that’s paid for through high taxes paid by hard working people and businesses! Go build your government backed monstrosity in a different neighborhood! The impact on the traffic is bad already! More cars, more people and those people will sublet to more people and more cars, I think you can hear concerned citizens voices‐Let’s Keep Manhattan in the Blue Zone.

Thank you,
Luanne Hearlson
14 year resident

Sent from my
iPhone
Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Loralie Ogden <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2022 12:55 PM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] HighRose
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello,

I read with interest the Easy Reader recap of the Council meeting this week. God bless you for fighting the good fight. As much as I do not want to see this density, I think there's little we can do except change the laws in Sacramento! I'm also afraid that what Frank Buckley said may be true about the next guy wanting to build more. Damned if you do and Damned if you don't. I think stringing it out as long as possible and hoping that the ballot initiative to repeal this nonsense law passes. I saw that the Venice residents fought and won against something like this.

Thank you for your service!

Loralie Ogden
456 32nd street
Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Tania Thiele <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2022 11:51 AM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Residents against HighRose Development EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Honorable City Councilmembers:

A HighRose overbuild will set a precedent
and threaten the future of our city and residents.

HighRose will create gridlock at a major intersection, and the lack of appropriate parking for its residents and visitors will further compound the problem. And with Chevron and NRG on its property lines, a full CEQA analysis should be
mandatory. So many environmental and safety concerns demand attention.

Sincerely,
Tania Thiele

29th street, Manhattan Beach

Sent from my iPhone
Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Colton Forth <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2022 9:26 AM
To: List - City Council
Cc: Brad FORTH; Mommy Life
Subject: [EXTERNAL] MB Resident - Obejction to Rosecrans Apartment Building EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello,

Hope this finds you well. My name is Colton Forth and I have been a Manhattan Beach citizen for the past 10 years living on 20th street with my family, and have recently purchased my own home on 15th street.

I am reaching out to express my disapproval of the 79 unit complex being proposed to be built on Rosecrans on Highland. As a small coastal beach town, this project cuts against what makes Manhattan Beach special and will have adverse effects on all residents currently living and paying taxes here. This influx of population will put further strain on our local infrastructure and result in excessive traffic backups, overcrowded streets, and more. There are no other buildings near the water that exceed 2 stories, and for good reason. A 4 story building in that location is utterly out of character.

Given the proximity of this proposed development to the Chevron plant, digging up the soil also poses serious health risks to nearby residents. These risks need to be fully evaluated by a non biased party.

I am hoping you as the city council listens to the wishes of your residents, as the vast majority of current owners in Manhattan Beach feel the same way I do.

Regards,
Colton

Colton Forth
Phone: 310-424-8087
Juke Audio - President
Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Lisa Handelman <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2022 8:43 AM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Behemoth of Building
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello,

As a 25 year resident of MB and a South Bay native, I am against the scale of this development in the proposed location as I believe it would negatively impact the community with it's density and the inevitable traffic issues that would arise.

Thank you,
Lisa Handelman
NW Tree Section
Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Ty Ward <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2022 8:11 AM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 12 year MB sand section resident strongly opposes the 4-Story "Behemoth of a Building"
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

MB City Council please come back to reality & understand clearly that this VERY SMALL "Signature California" beach town is not proper ground for 4 level structures and esp not for a whopping 79 units. Not even at the Rosecrans & Highland location.

Strong Oppose.

Thanks

--
Ty Ward
DRE #01914552
Palm Realty Boutique
1419 Highland Ave
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
[email protected]
310.968.5641
Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Steve Gaffney <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2022 12:03 PM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Residents against HighRose Development EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Honorable City Councilmembers:

A HighRose overbuild will set a precedent
and threaten the future of our city and residents.

HighRose will create gridlock at a major intersection, and the lack of appropriate parking for its residents and visitors will further compound the problem. And with Chevron and NRG on its property lines, a full CEQA analysis should be
mandatory. So many environmental and safety concerns demand attention.

Sincerely,

Steve Gaffney

A concerned resident
Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Elise Johnson <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2022 11:03 AM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] I'm in favor of Highrose. Here's why.

EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi Council,
If Facebook is an accurate barometer, I may be the only person in MB in support of the development on Highland and Rosecrans. 😁
But here I am; a proud YIMBY.

The fact is that CA has not developed enough new housing to support demand. The data on this is well established. Supply is low, so rents are high.

For too long, California cities, including MB, have failed to keep up with our growing population and have expected "somewhere else" to be the place new housing is built.

Manhattan Beach needs to build UP - and not just those 3 or 4 story single family homes adjacent to Highrose in the Grandview neighborhood, but multi-family units that include (gasp) "low income" apartments.

Manhattan Beach needs to be part of the solution to California's housing crisis.

And yes, in my backyard too.

In YIMBYism,
Elise

Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Alexander Anderson <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2022 10:18 PM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Residents against HighRose Development EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Honorable City Councilmembers:

A HighRose overbuild will set a precedent
and threaten the future of our city and residents.

HighRose will create gridlock at a major intersection, and the lack of appropriate parking for its residents and visitors will further compound the problem. And with Chevron and NRG on its property lines, a full CEQA analysis should be
mandatory. So many environmental and safety concerns demand attention.

Sincerely,

Alexander Anderson

A concerned resident
Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Ronald Schendel <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2022 7:06 AM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Appeal clarification
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Steve Napolitano, Mayor
City Council members

I wish to clarify a point that I believe may have been misunderstood in my appeal presentation.

My position is that
65915. (e) (1) requires a waiver when construction of 79 units is precluded by code such as height limitation. It does not require such a waiver just because developer wants larger units.

For example, does anyone really think the law allows for a developer to propose a project with all 3 bedroom units and require a height waiver for 2 or 3 extra floors? That is certainly not my reading of the law.

However, this does not mean developer can only build smaller units or in our case 79 singles. He still has the option of building any mix of units he wishes. Obviously, with larger units in the mix, the total units that can be built without the waiver would be reduced.

The allowed 79 units is a maximum, not a requirement, and is not intended to limit the developer’s options.

Manhattan Beach City CouncilSeptember 6, 2022

Manhattan Beach City Council
September 6, 2022