Road to Future of Manhattan Beach Follows a Divisive Path

“Your net worth is very possibly going to be significantly reduced....”

“Several charming single-family Manhattan Beach neighborhoods are in imminent danger of going condo!!!”

“Your residential property is at risk.”

“A small vocal minority is trying to take away your property rights and destroy the General Plan.”

Flyers bearing such warnings have circulated throughout Manhattan Beach in the last year as residents and business people try to shape the course of development in the city.

The City Council has been holding public hearings since August on a proposed general plan to replace the current plan, adopted in 1967. A general plan outlines development goals within a city. Once it is passed, zoning laws are supposed to be changed to conform with the plan, according to state law.

Most city officials say the proposed plan simply recognizes how the city has developed in recent years. But opponents say the city could become overdeveloped if the proposed plan is adopted and current development trends continue.

Last Hearing Set Tuesday

The City Council plans to hold its last public hearing on the general plan on Tuesday and hopes to adopt a new plan by Nov. 24.

Revising the general plan has been under way for nearly three years. The Planning Commission held hearings on a consultant’s proposal for seven months before sending it to the council in June with recommendations.

The hearings, described as tense and emotional, have been tearing the community apart, some officials and residents said.

“I see anger and I see resentment and that isn’t what I think Manhattan Beach should be about,” said Mayor Pro Tem Larry Dougharty. “I don’t know what to do to combat it. You don’t see a lot of that healthy dialogue about what can we do, what ordinances should we change.”

He said he understands that some people are emotional about the general plan since it affects what they can do with their properties. “This is people’s biggest investment in their lives; they have the right to be emotional,” he said.

But he and others said that some slow-growth advocates have been selfish, especially when requesting that the council downzone the property of others. “People have built up private expectations of what they feel their property is worth, and I don’t think it’s up to the council to take away those expectations,” Dougharty said.

Dougharty, City Manager David J. Thompson and other city officials said that erroneous and misleading information has been circulating through the community and has confused residents about what the proposal would do in terms of housing density, population and intensity of development.

Community Development Director Terry Stambler-Wolfe said the objective of the proposed general plan is “not to completely redevelop the plan and change the city, but to get it in conformance with what the city is today.”

Population Scaled Down

The 1967 plan permitted more intense development in the city than has occurred. For example, the maximum population expected under the proposed general plan would be 39,711, while the current plan’s maximum is 53,565 and existing zoning laws allow 44,373. The city’s current population is about 33,500.

Councilwoman Jan Dennis said the proposed population is acceptable, but that the new plan would allow too much growth in employment and daytime population. The proposed general plan would allow the city’s number of jobs to go from about 9,700 in 1980 to more than 21,700 in the year 2000.

“That is a phenomenal increase for the structure of the town, the traffic, our utilities, our fire (department), our police.”

The maximum number of housing units allowed would be 15,740 under the proposed general plan, compared to 22,347 under the current plan and 18,274 under existing zoning laws. Commercial square footage allowed would be reduced to 2.8 million under the proposal, from 9.7 million under the current plan, and industrial square footage would be reduced to 2 million from 3.3 million. (Figures for existing land use are not available, but actual development is less than the proposed new maximums.)

Plan Not ‘Pro-Growth’

“If someone were to look at these numbers, they’d have to come to the conclusion that it’s not a plan that (is) pro-growth,” Stambler-Wolfe said. “In fact, it’s a lot more restrictive than what the city has been operating under for years--for decades.”

Many officials said that Manhattan Beach is already close to being completely developed, and not everyone will build up their properties to the maximum limits allowed.

But despite the information that the city provides, including selling copies of the proposed general plan, residents are still confused about what the proposal would allow, many officials said.

“I’ve lived in Manhattan Beach for quite some time and I have never seen so much reaction without checking things out,” said Councilwoman Connie Sieber. “There’s a lot of presumption.”

‘Completely Erroneous’

Mayor Bob Holmes agreed and said he has been frustrated “by misconceptions and misinformation” that he said have characterized the general plan hearings. “There have been comments and statements made that are just completely erroneous.”

As an example, he said, he has been asked about “the widening of 2nd Street” from two to four lanes, although that has never been considered by the city and is not part of the plan.

People are incorrectly saying that the proposed general plan would greatly increase the density and population in Manhattan Beach and are “throwing around numbers that charitably are exaggerations and uncharitably are inflammatory and misleading,” Holmes said.

“I think that RAMB (Residents Assn. of Manhattan Beach) has to take a lot of responsibility for exaggerated and inflammatory statements that (are) intended to mislead the residents about what the city would look like under the proposed general plan. I think in many cases, it’s purposeful,” he said.

Member Disagrees

Donna Meisenholder, an association member, disagreed.

“I think there is clarity coming out of RAMB, not bad information,” she said. “The general plan is bulky and it’s very difficult to understand for the layman.”

People who do not understand the complex document, or are too busy to delve into it in detail, can turn to the association for answers, she said.

Meisenholder organized a group of residents east of Sepulveda Boulevard between 2nd and 11th streets. The association, which contends that the plan would allow too much undesirable growth and lead to additional traffic and parking problems, gets its information from the proposed and current general plans and supporting documents, city records, officials and other cities, according to Christine Allen, association president.

She declined to say how many members the association has or how many people do research for the group. She denied that her group has ever purposefully given out erroneous information.

“There is a real honest attempt on our behalf to make sure our information is accurate,” Allen said.

Some residents said that city officials blame bad information because they do not want to answer difficult questions.

“Is it bad information because people are asking questions and somebody has to come up with some answers?” Meisenholder asked. “People are getting up to the podium and asking uncomfortable questions and holding the council accountable.”

Residents Frustrated

Many residents have been frustrated by council or commission members who have gotten bogged down in technicalities when answering community members’ questions or complaints, Meisenholder said.

“We can only get up there with what we feel,” she said. “ . . . I don’t like playing politics when I have something to say, I just want to say it.”

Councilman Gil Archuletta agreed that most residents are well informed, and credited the residents’ association with providing good information.

“For the most part we have a very informed community and I think that some know that general plan better than some council members,” he said. “ . . . I think the problem is that those council members don’t agree with the residents so they try and attack them and say they’re not informed.”

But Councilwoman Sieber accused Archuletta and Dennis of giving erroneous or misleading information to the community and promoting the “pro-development” label that some residents have attached to Sieber, Dougharty and Holmes.

Deny Bad Intentions

Archuletta and Dennis denied that they ever provided bad information intentionally.

“It makes me very sad that one of my compatriots would make that statement to the press,” Dennis said. “It doesn’t matter who it is. I do my homework. I work very, very hard and if they feel asking questions is misleading, that’s too bad.”

The Manhattan Beach City Council is often split 3 to 2, with Archuletta and Dennis on one side of an issue and the other three on the opposing side. Sieber, however, is considered the swing vote.

The terms of Holmes, Archuletta and Dennis expire in March, and how they vote on the plan could affect the next election. All three said they are unsure if they will run again.

For now, the proposed general plan is getting the bulk of their attention. Dennis said she would like to see the plan be more specific than the proposal currently and set limits on height, setbacks and other development standards so they could not be changed easily.

Standards Established

Those standards are usually established by zoning laws, which can be changed by a City Council vote. To amend the general plan, the Planning Commission and the council would have to hold public hearings, and variances could not be granted without amending the plan.

The other council members said the standards should be set in the zoning ordinances, although Archuletta said the general plan needs to further restrict what could be done under those laws.

“The general plan is not as important as the zoning and the development standards that follow,” Dougharty said, “and that’s where we should be spending our time, not on the general plan. But it’s hard, because we’re all caught up in this political turmoil.”