 |
|||||
|
Photo by Beverly Baird. Metlox cookie jar courtesy of Bonnie Beckerson, President, Manhattan Beach Historical Society.
by John Tawa
Remember when the word "Metlox" conjured up images of the pottery factory in downtown Manhattan Beach adjacent to the railroad running through town? Those images began to fade in 1976 when the Metlox Potteries Company went out of business after 49 years in the city. They faded further still in 1991 when the long vacant buildings were demolished and the site cleaned up from the harmful contaminants that infected the soil.
Nowadays, for most Manhattan Beach residents, Metlox represents a fight to supply a vision for the future of their city. Only that vision differs from resident to resident, group to group.
The proponents of Measure 2000-A, the Metlox public space initiative that goes to the voters Tuesday, advocate open space or other public uses for the property. They contend that any commercial development on the three-acre site would further congest an already congested and traffic-challenged downtown and give in to what they claim is a development-oriented city council more interested in filling city coffers than meeting the needs of residents. And they fear an influx of non-residents to the downtown would transform the small-town village atmosphere and negatively affect their quality of life.
Measure 2000-A opponents counter that a mixed use commercial development is what belongs at the gateway to the city and would help revitalize a downtown that residents have largely abandoned. Parks and open space are wonderful and should be supported, they say, just not at the busy corner of Manhattan Beach Boulevard and Valley Drive. Besides, a town square accompanying a mixed use development would provide an open space area for residents of all ages to walk through, sit in and enjoy. They also believe in and trust the process of government, from the 1995-96 Downtown Strategic Action Plan to the numerous public hearings on Metlox, and are convinced that the process will produce the best possible use of Metlox for the city.
How the city got here
Since as early as September, 1992, the city council had been considering the purchase of Metlox. The purchase became reality in 1997 and 1998, when the city bought the site in two separate transactions totaling $5.5 million.
The purpose for purchasing Metlox was to control development on it. Under current building codes, a developer could have placed a project on the site of up to 200,000 square feet. The purchase also ended sparring with private developers, who sought to place condominiums on the southern portion of the site. A council moratorium on residential building downtown was declared in February, 1995 and remained in effect for one year.
Two years prior to purchasing Metlox, a Downtown Strategic Action Plan for the city was commissioned. What to do about Metlox was one key component. The 500 citizens who participated were presented with three options. One option was the city's purchase of Metlox for public or civic uses. The preferred strategy was private development of the property.
In July 1998, after the purchase was complete, the council approved a Vision Statement for the Metlox site consistent with the results of the 1995-96 Downtown Strategic Action Plan. A gateway to downtown that oriented well to the rest of the downtown and civic center was desirable. A small hotel, complementary retail, restaurants and office space were favored. Big box retail, national chains, movie theaters, grocery stores, or other regional draws were not.
Five months later, the council unanimously selected Tolkin Group to develop Metlox. Tolkin Group was selected from 20 developers who initially expressed interest in the project and three development finalists. Its initial project, first presented in September 1998, included 120,000 feet of commercial space, with retail stores and restaurants consisting of more than half, and 59,000 square feet of public open space. Parking would be under ground.
After numerous public forums and brainstorming sessions with city staff and civic center architects, Tolkin Group presented a revised project to the Planning Commission in June, 1999. The project, which now consisted of 142,000 square feet of commercial development, had a larger inn and more office space than initially proposed and included a fine arts cinema to activate a 10,000 square foot town square. Restaurants remained a large component of the plan, but retail uses were diminished.
Despite Planning Commission approval, the city council rejected the plan as too big in August 1999, amid a groundswell of opposition to the proposal. The council asked Tolkin Group for a project that was less dense and more responsive to community needs.
Further project refinements brought Tolkin Group before the council in October, 1998 with three alternatives. They included the original 142,000 foot plan; a 90,000 foot project with no cinema, two restaurants, a 40-room inn, a 40,000 square-foot town square and underground parking; and a 60,000-square-foot project with less retail, a smaller inn, less open space and surface parking.
Without approving any project, the council voted to commission an Environmental Impact Review (EIR) of a project no greater than 110,000 square feet. The council reached its decision by taking the largest project and excluding the H20 site, the cinema and office space north of 13th Street.
Three weeks later, after public outcry over the council's actions, the council reduced the largest project under study by the EIR to 90,000 square feet. A 60,000-square-foot project, open space alternative and no project alternative also would be studied.
In January, 1999, Residents for a Quality City submitted a petition to re-zone Metlox for public use only, culminating a six-month petition drive. Over 8,500 signatures were gathered. The petition would allow parks and recreation facilities, cultural arts and government buildings and parking, but no commercial or residential uses.
In March, 1999, after Los Angeles County determined that the petition contained sufficient signatures to qualify for a special election, the city council set June 6 as the date voters would decide whether to re-zone Metlox for public use only.
Proponents and opponents share their views
In April, a group called Residents for Yes on 2000A joined Residents for a Quality City in promoting the public space initiative. Both groups seek to preserve the village character of the downtown, oppose its further commercialization and the traffic impacts it would generate.
"Our quarrel mainly is this 90,000 foot development will bring a substantial increase in traffic, pollution and numbers of people visiting the downtown area," explained Bill Eisen of Residents for a Quality City. "We just don't need that type of thing down here. We do have a need for additional public space, such as for example, a library or performing arts center."
"Residents should vote yes if they want to keep the small town ambience of Manhattan Beach and the peace and quiet and family-oriented community that we've come to enjoy," added Bob Caldwell of Residents for Yes on 2000A. "If we have a shopping mall/hotel complex in the heart of our city, it will destroy the character of our city."
The groups differ somewhat in their vision for Metlox. Residents for Yes on 2000A advocate a walking plaza on the southern portion of the site, with the northern portion remaining as a parking lot with 155 spaces. Residents for a Quality City don't advocate any particular public use, just a non-commercial one.
"A walking plaza would beautify the entry to our downtown and our civic center," Caldwell said. "There's nothing wrong with beauty instead of concrete madness in that area."
The 1.4-acre plaza would have a variety of 80 trees, 400 shrubs, flower gardens and intertwining paths over grassy knolls.
"It would not have benches, it would not have picnic tables, it would not have bathrooms," he explained, saying it was designed specifically not to draw outsiders. "It to me spells oasis, but not large enough to bring in outsiders."
Caldwell proposed paying for installation of the park from funds from state parks initiative Proposition 12. Maintenance of the park could come from revenues generated from the Metlox parking lot.
Caldwell added that had he been involved when the petition was drafted, he would have pushed to narrow its focus from public use to open space.
"The Metlox site is probably one of the last remaining open spaces available to the city," he explained. "I believe the residents of our community deserve open space whenever possible."
Residents Against Rezoning, a group formed to oppose the initiative, Manhattan Beach Residents for a Small Town Downtown, the Downtown Manhattan Beach Business and Professional Association, the Manhattan Beach Chamber of Commerce have all joined the city council in opposing Measure 2000-A . A park on Metlox is inappropriate, they contend, and the city would be well served to wait for the EIR before determining Metlox's fate. To decide otherwise simply limits choices.
"We want the best for the community and that's why we're voting 'No,'" said Helene Lohr of Residents Against Rezoning. "If you vote no, you will keep your options open on what can be done to the Metlox site. Otherwise, you limit your options to taxpayer-funded projects only."
"Our group's goal is to maintain the vibrancy of our downtown and its success," added Marika Bergsund of Small Town Downtown. "The best use is a mixed-use development of no more than 55,000 square feet, with small-scale commercial along Manhattan Beach Boulevard and public use on the back two-thirds of the site. That would provide a great completion to our downtown without attracting outside crowds."
Bergsund said that her group advocates greenery, just not on a busy commercial street.
"Our position is that the open space is better right next to the expanded civic center, in front of a library, and behind the commercial district," she explained. "It would be nice to choose your books and be able to come out and have a nice, grassy plaza to hang out with our kids. To us, that's where you put your green open space."
Lohr and Bergsund conceded that a mixed use commercial development on Metlox would add to the traffic congestion downtown, but contended that any use of the site would have some impact.
"The only use that will attract no additional cars is a hole in the ground," Bergsund asserted. "So, assuming that we'll have something more inspiring than a hole in the ground, Small Town Downtown's feeling has always been that a small commercial development will give us the benefits we all can enjoy that make it a worthwhile tradeoff."
"What is the better use of the site?" added Lohr. "To draw people who are not going to add to the vitality of the town, or to draw people who are?"
The city council does some rethinking
Since the EIR for a project not greater than 90,000 square feet was commissioned in November, at least three of the five councilmembers have publicly stated their support for a project smaller than 90,000 feet.
"As far as public input goes, I think it's clear that 90,000 feet is too big," said councilmember Steve Napolitano. "I think it's clear that smaller is better. I've worked for eight years to protect our small town atmosphere and low profile development. Any decision regarding Metlox, I'll do the same."
"I know it will be significantly smaller than 90,000 square feet," added councilmember Joyce Fahey. "I'm not about to do anything other than improve our hometown."
"I feel that the size of the project should be smaller than the 90,000 square feet being addressed in the EIR," explained Mayor pro tem Walt Dougher. "I don't have any trouble with 60,000 square feet."
Even councilmember Linda Wilson, who favored the larger project because it provided a return to the city, was rethinking her position.
"Would I vote the same way if I knew then what I know now?" she asked. "I may."
"I believe that the size of the project is much less relevant to the impact of that site than the proposed uses," she added. "A 40-room bed and breakfast would provide less negative impact on that site than a 10,000 square foot bar/restaurant."
Mayor Tim Lilligren, who said his view on Metlox has not changed since November, agreed.
"I put the emphasis on usage and the impacts of those uses," he explained. He said that he would consider a project smaller than 90,000 square feet, depending on how the uses were placed.
"If it uses up the entire site and the city is paying for underground parking, I'd find it difficult to justify," he said. "If it doesn't have a return tot he city, why do it?"
Parking remained a big issue for the council. Lilligren said that whatever the outcome of 2000-A, he expected Metlox to have a parking component to it. Wilson hoped that the parking would be placed underground.
"If you surface park, it reduces the useable park-like open space that is in the proposed project," she said. "There might be some justification for the city to subsidize some of the underground parking, if the project only supported surface parking, because of the visual benefit, just as we supported buying that site to control the development."
All of the councilmembers opposed the creation of a park.
"I'm really opposed to the idea of a park," Fahey said. "I think we have an extraordinary number of parks in our city, given our size and population. I am in favor of giving life to the parks we have and making them more useful for our own residents.
"I don't think a park downtown would in any way benefit our residents or our downtown businesses. It would create traffic problems that we cannot at this time accommodate. It would have the potential to create public safety issues. I don't want this to become a police state. I don't want police to have to drive homeless from the park and keep gang members away from our downtown."
"If there's a park out there, specific thought should be given to its usage," Napolitano said. "If the intent of 2000-A is to create a park, any park that's built there has to consider whether it's going to be a draw to the outside. It's on a very visible street going down to the beach. It's going to be very inviting to people to stop there."
The council also agreed that financial return no longer was a prime consideration on what to place on the site.
"I've said from the beginning that the issue is controlling the development and deciding what the people want out there," Napolitano said. "It has not been to try and become a great revenue generator. It's obvious that it won't be."
"It was always our intent to have a return on that investment because we used the $5.5 million we'd set aside for the police and fire," Wilson explained. "I have subsequently come to realize that this site is more important to a lot of people in this town than building a police and fire facility. If Metlox doesn't generate a stream of revenue or it does need subsidizing, it would take away funds we could use for other projects. It doesn't mean we couldn't do that. It just means that other projects would have to be put on the back burner."
"I think we can afford it," Lilligren added, "but people have to understand that every dollar we have to spend on Metlox means a dollar less to spend on parks that are appropriately placed or the Strand. We won't go broke, but is it where we want to put our money? I just don't know."
The developer weighs in
Conspicuously absent from the Metlox debate has been Tolkin Group. The developer hasn't donated any money to the campaign, nor has it participated in any forum.
"Our feeling is that it is something the community needs to make a decision on," said Tolkin Group president Jonathan Tolkin.
Tolkin emphasized that the current 90,000 foot project comprised almost 50 percent open space, with an upscale town square.
"Residents may be getting something better than a park," he said.
If the council wants a project smaller still, Tolkin said his company would be receptive to the idea.
"We're open to coming up with a plan that meets the goals of the council," he said. "One of the things we all really need to understand are the impacts. What does it mean to be one foot bigger or one foot smaller. That's what we'll know when the EIR is done."
The EIR
The draft EIR will be available to the public the second week of June, said Community Development Director Richard Thompson. A review period follows, during which people may submit comments to the city. Those comments become part of the EIR.
"Based on those comments, the document itself might be changed or amended," Thompson said. "After that period, the final EIR gets prepared and it goes to the Planning Commission and then the city council for final review and adoption."
Thompson said he expected the city council to see the final EIR in August or September, after summer traffic counts have been taken.
There will be several public hearing before the Planning Commission and city council before the EIR is certified. The council also is not obligated to adopt it. They can seek more information.
"Most importantly, approving the EIR does not approve the project," Thompson stressed.
"I believe in the public process and would like the public to believe in the public process," Wilson said. "It has made a better project as a result and it will continue to be refined and be better."
Parting shots
Caldwell: "We're the Riviera of the South Bay and why? Because the residents have held down commercialization of our city. We're the one little lone bastion that fights commercialization. I think it belongs on Sepulveda or on the Rosecrans corridor. Not in the heart of our downtown."
Eisen: "I hope as many people as possible turn out, so we can have a true consensus of what Manhattan Beach residents want. I really feel sorry for the residents if this initiative doesn't pass because it will result in a substantial increase in traffic along Manhattan Beach Boulevard."
Lohr: "I think a walking plaza could become a regional draw. People coming into town are going to see a park there. The word gets out that there's a park there. If you don't like the beach, there's some place to go that's by the beach without having to go to the beach."
Bergsund: "We are looking to do something that would add to our existing downtown. What we don't want is a huge, new shopping attraction where people will go out of their way to come."
Napolitano: "I'm concerned that the proponents of Measure 2000-A want to create something to avoid, in the fear of attracting more traffic. I don't think that is why we build parks."
Wilson: "The public should realize that Metlox is as important to the present city council as to the public. If it wasn't important, we wouldn't have bought it in the first place. It was always our intent to control the development." ER