Manhattan Beach Will Vote on Growth Limits

Ray Golik calls them “scrapers,” the aging beach cottages that sit on small lots near the ocean and sell for the not-so-small sum of $350,000 or more.

In Manhattan Beach, as in other communities where property values have soared in recent years, people have been buying the homes, “scraping” them off and building bigger ones.

Golik, a planning commissioner since 1986, fears that approval of a growth-control initiative on the June 7 ballot would take away the right of hundreds of property owners to build the types of homes they want.

‘Bottom Line’

The measure would remove the parcels from the city’s so-called “beach area,” where structures can be built to a maximum height of 30 feet, and impose the same 26-foot height limit that covers most other properties in the city.

“It will essentially mean you can’t build a decent home in that area,” said Golik, co-chairman of Neighbors Opposed to Proposition E, one of two political action committees formed to defeat the measure. “That is the bottom line.”

Proposition E supporters do not agree. Judging from newer homes that have been built in the affected area, they contend, property owners could still construct reasonably sized, attractive homes or duplexes at 26 feet.

They argue that the initiative, which also would place various restrictions on commercial development, is needed because city leaders have failed to control excessive development.

“It’s a fair document, a first step” toward limiting development, said Steve Alexander, co-spokesman for the Neighborhood Protection Initiative Committee, the group that drafted the measure and gathered the necessary signatures to place it on the ballot.

‘Grass-Roots Effort’

“We are part of a larger grass-roots effort throughout the state,” Alexander said, referring to growth-control movements that have sprung up elsewhere.

The City Council in March voted to put Proposition E on the county’s June 7 ballot after the initiative’s backers missed the deadline to put it before voters in the city’s April 12 municipal election.

In that election, incumbents Gil Archuletta and Jan Dennis, the only two council members who expressed support for the measure, were defeated. Councilman Bob Holmes was reelected, while Patricia Collins and Steve Barnes were also elected. All three oppose the initiative.

Council members argue that many of the development concerns voiced by Proposition E backers will be addressed in coming months as the Planning Commission and City Council revise zoning ordinances as part of the community’s General Plan process. The General Plan outlines the city’s development goals.

“We are going to tighten up (the ordinances) when we get to the public hearings,” Holmes said.

The initiative would prohibit commercial parking lots in residential areas and require developers to include above-ground parking structures when calculating a building’s total square footage. At present, parking structures are not included in the total square footage permitted under city zoning regulations.

Lowered Height Limits

The measure also would impose a 26-foot height limit on most new commercial buildings, except at the Manhattan Village mall. The main impact would be on Sepulveda Boulevard, a major commercial thoroughfare, where a 30-foot limit has been in effect.

Although proposition opponents say placing more restrictions on commercial development is unnecessary, they have focused their criticism on the provision to shrink the beach area.

At present, the area is defined as all property west of Valley Drive and Bell Avenue. The initiative redefines it as properties west of Highland and Alma avenues and Crest Drive--a move that would affect more than 1,600 properties by forbidding the owners to build higher than 26 feet.

Those opposed to the initiative argue that since 1941, the city has allowed property owners in the area to build to a height of 30 feet because many of the lots are only 30 feet by 90 feet.

Although it would still be possible to build a three-story home within the 26-foot height limit, it could become more costly because of added excavation costs, opponents say.

Restricting Diversity

Initiative critics also say that in a community that prides itself on its architectural diversity, a 26-foot height limit could restrict the design of some homes by forcing owners to put flat roofs on their buildings. Property values could be harmed, they argue.

Opponents also say that homes removed from the beach area that are already higher than 26 feet would be reclassified as legal but nonconforming properties. Hence, owners would be denied the right to rebuild their homes to their previous heights if they were destroyed by fire or earthquake.

“It’s unfair and significantly takes away property rights for no good purpose,” Holmes said. “There is simply no logical basis for carving up the traditional beach area.”

Bruce Ponder, the other spokesman for the Neighborhood Protection Initiative Committee, said the provision to remove the properties from the beach area is aimed at curtailing the overdevelopment of residential lots in the area, particularly by developers with no vested interest in the community.

“The incentive is to max out every square inch in terms of height,” Ponder said. “You walk up and down the street and you have these lovely beach cottages and then this humongous 30-foot-tall building.”

Ponder said his group’s own study has shown that 89% of the homes located in the affected area are one- or two-story structures, and their average height is 19 feet. About 9% of the lots in the area have three-story buildings on them, while 2% of the lots are vacant, he said.

“This is a charming, low-profile area that has not yet been built up and out,” Ponder said.

Initiative opponents say they expect to spend close to $10,000 to defeat Proposition E, nearly three times the amount the measure’s supporters say they plan to spend. Pointing to the defeat of Archuletta and Dennis in last April’s election, they predict the measure will be defeated.

“The people of Manhattan Beach will not arbitrarily take property rights from a large segment of residents without giving them a public hearing,” said Steve Mitchell, who heads Residents Opposed to Proposition E.

Both Ponder and Alexander said they do not believe the outcome of April’s election portends defeat for Proposition E. That election, both said, centered on Archuletta and Dennis and their history of clashing with other council members on a variety of issues.