CC SR 20211102 06 - Legislation Update and 2022 Platform
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 11/02/2021
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Regular Business
AGENDA TITLE:
Consideration and possible action to receive a report on the 2021 legislative session and
the City’s 2022 Legislative Platform.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Receive and file a status report on the legislative bills the City Council took a
position on during the 2021 legislative session;
(2) Adopt Resolution No. 2021-__, thereby approving the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
2022 Legislative Platform; and
(3) Direct Staff to issue the platform to the City’s elected officials and publish the
platform on the City’s network.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: McKenzie Bright, Administrative Analyst
REVIEWED BY: Karina Bañales, Deputy City Manager
APPROVED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, City Manager
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. Draft Resolution No. 2021-__, a resolution adopting the City’s 2022
Legislative Platform (page A-1)
B. Draft City of Rancho Palos Verdes 2022 Legislative Platform (page B-1)
BACKGROUND:
Pursuant to City Council Policy No. 29, the City Council monitors bills under consideration
by the state, and will take a position on a bill, depending on its potential impact to the City,
Peninsula or South Bay. Over the last two legislative sessions, the City Council has taken
a particular focus on bills that have the potential to erode local land use authority and
local control.
1
CITYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
The 2021 legislative session ended on September 10 and the Governor had until October
10 to take action on bills sent to him. During the 2021 legislative session, the City Council
took a position on 21 bills, eight of which were passed to the Governor’s desk.
Additionally, on July 6, 2021, the City Council adopted a Housing and Local Land Use
Legislative Platform to respond to a series of housing bills that would erode local control.
Tonight, staff is providing the City Council with a status update on the bills it took a position
on, as well as establishing a legislative platform for the upcoming 2022 legislative session.
DISCUSSION:
Status Update on the 2021 Legislative Session
The following provides a brief summary of the 21 bills the Council took a position on .
Complete bill information, including copies of letters sent by the City to state
representatives, is available at rpvca.gov/LegislationCorner.
Bills the Governor Signed the City Council Supported:
• AB 361 (Chapter 165, Statutes of 2021) allows cities to continue utilizing
teleconferencing during declared states of emergency. The City Council
supported this bill.
• AJR 2 (Chapter 142, Statutes of 2021) issues a request to the US Congress and
the US EPA to take all measures necessary to prevent further damage to
California’s citizens, wildlife, and natural resources by the DDT waste dumped in
the waters near Santa Catalina Island. The City Council supported this bill.
Bills the Governor Signed the City Council Opposed:
• AB 215 (Chapter 342, Statutes of 2021) authorizes the California Department of
Housing and Community Development (HCD) to appoint or contract with other
counsel if the Attorney General declines to represent the department in a lawsuit
against a city. The City Council opposed this bill.
• SB 9 (Chapter 162, Statutes of 2021) requires ministerial approval of lot splits and
duplexes in single-family zoning. The City Council opposed this bill. Additional
information on this bill is detailed later in this report.
• SB 10 (Chapter 163, Statutes of 2021) allows cities to upzone by ordinance in
transit-rich and urban infill sites. The City Council opposed this bill. Additional
information on this bill is detailed later in this report.
Bills the Governor Vetoed:
• AB 339 would allow cities to have call-in and internet public participation at all City
Council meetings and would require jurisdictions with populations greater than
250,000 to provide such meetings in addition to in -person public comment. The
City Council supported this bill and the Governor vetoed the bill. However, the
2
Governor signed AB 361, which allows legislative bodies to continue to utilize
remote/virtual platforms for meetings during declared states of emergency or
where gathering in person would risk public health or safety of attendees. The City
did not take a formal position on AB 361 but supported the bill’s intention of
allowing remote/virtual meetings, for the benefit of enhanced transparency. AB 361
is currently applicable and a resolution implementing a hybrid virtual meeting
platform for the City Council and Planning Commission meetings appears on the
Council’s agenda on a monthly basis.
• SB 556 would have required cities to make street light poles, traffic signal poles,
utility poles, and support structures available to telecommunications providers. The
City Council opposed this bill and the Governor vetoed the bill.
Bills That Failed to Pass the Legislature that the City Council took a Position On:
• AB 377: the City Council opposed this bill, related to limited local land use
authority for stormwater permits, but it was gutted and amended to instead issue
reporting requirements for water boards.
• AB 500 would repeal the Coastal Commission’s oversight of development in the
coastal zone and would require local governments within the coastal zone to adopt
streamlined permitting procedures for ADUs in the coastal zone. The City Council
opposed this bill.
• AB 989 would create a state appeals board that could overturn local governments’
denial of certain housing projects. The City Council opposed this bill.
• AB 1053 would reduce the quorum requirement for LA County city selection
committees to one-third of all member cities. The City Council supported this bill.
• AB 1251 would require a public health order issued in LA County to be based on
data from each Service Planning Area. The City Council supported this bill.
• AB 1258 would subject final regional housing need (RHNA) plans to judicial
review. The City Council supported this bill.
• AB 1295 would prohibit cities or counties from entering into a residential
development agreement in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). The
City Council commented on this bill.
• ACA 7 would amend the State Constitution to require certain local land-use
controls and zoning regulations remain within incorporated communities when in
conflict over general laws. The City Council supported this bill.
• SB 12 would impose significant fire hazard planning responsibilities on local
governments and requires cities and counties to make specified findings on fire
standards prior to permitting development in the VHFHSZ. The City Council
opposed this bill.
• SB 55 would prohibit the creation or approval of a new commercial or residential
development in a VHFHSZ unless strategies are met. The City Council opposed
this bill.
• SB 63 would make multiple changes in state law related to fire prevention efforts,
including expanding the area where fire safety building standards apply. The City
Council opposed this bill.
3
• SB 210 would require that data collected by an ALPR camera be deleted after 24
hours unless it is on a hot list. The City Council opposed this bill.
• SB 262 would require bail to be set at $0 for all offenses except, among others,
serious or violent felonies, violations of specified protective orders, domestic
violence, sex offenses, and driving under the influence. The City Council opposed
this bill.
• SB 809 would allow cities and counties to exchange land for RHNA shares for
compensation for the development of that land. The City Council supported this
bill.
It should be noted that many of the above-mentioned bills may be taken up again during
the next legislative cycle. The 2022 legislative session will begin on January 3, 2022.
Thus, Staff recommends receiving and filing the above legislative update for 2021.
Rancho Palos Verdes 2022 Legislative Platform
Many cities and other organizations that frequently take positions on federal and state
legislation adopt an annual legislative program or platform. Legislative platforms outline
policy statements regarding legislative and regulatory issues that are of interest to the
organization and are likely to come forward during the legislative session.
On July 6, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2021-31, adopting the City’s
Housing and Local Land Use Legislative Platform. The Housing Platform was in response
to the housing crisis and recent increase in housing/local land use legislation proposed
by the California Legislature that had the potential to erode local control. Staff is
recommending the City Council consider adopting a broader 2022 Legislative Platform,
as drafted (see Attachment B), which includes a Housing and Land Use Appendix
detailing the information from the existing platform.
The 2022 Legislative Platform outlines the City’s policies on the following components:
• Housing and Local Land Use
• Public Safety
• Community Services
• Environmental Quality
• Government Transparency and Effectiveness
• Appendix A: Housing and Local Land Use Legislative Platform
The 2022 Legislative Platform consolidates the positions the Council has taken on a
variety of bills and is designed to provide City Staff, as well as the City’s federal and state
legislative delegation, with general guidance on legislative and regulatory issues of
interest and concern to the City Council. The Legislative Platform will also inform
organizations with an advocacy presence in Washington and Sacramento, such as the
League of California Cities, California Contract Cities Association, and South Bay Cities
Council of Governments of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council’s legislative interests.
The Platform will assist Staff in communicating about legislative and regulatory issues of
4
interest and concern and will enable Staff to quickly act in the event an issue of direct
impact to the City requires immediate attention.
The primary purpose of the Platform is to help guide Staff in monitoring bills of interest to
the City. It is Staff’s intention that all bills of interest will be brought before the City Council
in accordance with City Council Policy No. 29 for a formal position. If a bill requires
immediate attention, the City Council shall be notified of the City’s intention to send a
letter, signed by the City Manager, expressing the City’s proposed position. The bill will
be brought before the City Council at its next meeting to adopt a formal position, as
indicated by a letter signed by the Mayor.
If acceptable, Staff recommends adopting the attached Resolution thereby approving the
City’s 2022 Legislative Platform.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Peninsula Housing and Local Land Use Lobbyist
The Cities of Rancho Palos Verdes, Rolling Hills, and Palos Verdes Estates are
evaluating the results from a joint request for proposals (RFP) for a lobbyist to represent
the cities’ housing and land use positions to the state and advise the cities on positions
to take. The City of RPV’s Housing and Local Land Use Legislative Platform was used in
the RFP to outline the cities’ position. If all three cities agree to the proposed contract
terms, the joint contract will come before the City Council for approval. One or more of
the cities have expressed concerns over the cost and need for a joint lobbyist, at this time
considering many of the housing bills we opposed have passed, and they may decide not
to move forward. Staff from the three cities are meeting on Thursday, November 4 to
discuss these options. Should one or more of the cities decline participating in the joint
contract, it is unlikely it will continue to move forward as a lobbyist representing the
Peninsula. The City Council may then choose to move forward independently.
Senate Bill Nos. 8, 9 and 10 Analyses from the City Attorney’s Office
The City Attorney’s Office has prepared an analysis of SB 8, 9, and 10. The City Council
did not take a position on SB 8 and opposed SB 9 and 10. Governor Newsom signed all
three bills and will take effect on January 1, 2022. The City Attorney’s Office is preparing
what legal options the City has, which will come before the City Council at a future
meeting.
I. Senate Bill 8 – Extension and Amendment of Senate Bill 330
SB 8 is essentially an extension and modification of SB 330, also known as the
Housing Crisis Act of 2019, which took effect on January 1, 2020. SB 330
implemented several measures aimed at streamlining the appr oval process for
housing development projects and increasing housing production, including the
following:
5
a. It created the preliminary application process, which allows housing developers to
lock in the development standards applicable to a housing project by filing a pared -
down “preliminary application.” Subject to limited exceptions, cities must consider
housing development applications based on the general plan, zoning, and
subdivision standards that were in place on the date the completed preliminary
application was submitted.
b. It limited cities to a total of five hearings to consider approval of a housing
development application after the application is deemed complete.
c. It placed limits on the criteria cities could use when determining if a housing
application was complete.
d. It prohibited “affected cities” from enacting any development policy, standard, or
condition that would have the effect of reducing the intensity of the land use of a
parcel where housing is an allowable use below what was allowed under the city’s
policies and ordinances in effect on January 1, 2018.
SB 330 was previously set to expire on January 1, 2025. SB 8 has now extended the
applicable term of SB 330 until January 1, 2030.
SB 8 also modifies or clarifies several provisions of SB 330, including the following:
a. SB 330 allows cities to apply standards to housing projects that were adopted after
the preliminary application was submitted in a few situations, including when the
housing project has not commenced construction within 2 ½ years following the
date the project received final approval. SB 8 extends this time period to 3 ½ years
for affordable housing projects (as defined in Government Code Section
65589.5(o)(2)(D)(i)).
b. SB 8 clarifies that “hearing,” for purposes of the 5-hearing limitation in Government
Code Section 95905.5, includes (i) appeals, except for appeals of a legislative
approval such as a general plan or zoning amendment, and (ii) a “meeting related
to [Government Code] Section 65915.” Government Code Section 65915(d) and
(e), part of California’s density bonus law, allow the developer to request a
“meeting” with a city to discuss development incentives and concessions, or other
reductions of development standards. Such a meeting now counts toward the 5-
hearing limit.
c. As described above, SB 330 prohibits affected cities from reducing the intensity of
land use (for parcels where housing is an allowable use) below what was in effect
on January 1, 2018. However, there is an exception when the city “concurrently”
changes the standards applicable to other parcels so that there is no net loss in
residential capacity. SB 8 clarifies that this exception includes actions by the
legislative body through the initiative process, and also clarifies the meaning of
“concurrently” in different situations. (See changes to Gov. Code § 66300(i).)
6
d. SB 330 requires developers to provide relocation benefits to existing tenants when
a housing development project will require the demolition of occupied or vacant
“protected units” (essentially, rent-controlled units or units with affordability
covenants) and a right of first refusal of a comparable unit in the new housing
development at an affordable rent or sale price. SB 8 places limits on these
requirements. For more details, see revisions made to GC Section 66300(d).
II. Senate Bill 9 – Ministerial Approval of Two Units and Lot Splits
SB 9 requires the ministerial approval of two units on parcels in a single -family zone
and the ministerial approval of lots splits for parcels in a single-family zone, subject to
certain requirements. A separate section (C) is provided below to address how ADUs
and JADUs are handled under SB 9. Section (D), below, addresses how SB 9 relates
to HOAs and CC&Rs. SB 9 also amends requirements in the Subdivision Map Act
regarding the initial duration of all tentative maps. These amendments are discussed
in section (E), below.
A. Ministerial Approval of Two Dwelling Units (Gov. Code § 65852.21):
SB 9 requires cities to ministerially approve two residential units on a single parcel
in a single-family residential zone, without discretionary review or hearing, if the
proposed development meets certain requirements. This includes both a proposal
for two new units and a proposal to add one new unit to a parcel with one existing
unit.
a. Requirements for Approval
In order to qualify for ministerial approval, a proposed residential development
must meet the following requirements:
i. The subject parcel must be located in a city that includes some portion of
either an “urbanized area” or an “urban cluster,” as designated by the U.S.
Census Bureau. Notably, the parcel itself is not required to be in the
urbanized area or urban cluster.
ii. The subject parcel must meet the requirements in Government Code
Section 65913.4(a)(6)(B)-(K). Essentially, the parcel may not be located in
or on: (1) prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, or land zoned
or designated for agricultural protection or preservation by an approved
local ballot measure; (2) wetlands; (3) a very high fire severity zone, as
determined by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection,
unless the site has been excluded from the specified hazard zones by a
local agency or the site has adopted fire hazard mitigation measures
pursuant to existing building standards or state fire mitigation measures
applicable to the development; however, state law requires that such
building standards are implemented for every new structure, effectively
allowing SB 9 development in the City’s very high fire severity zones; (4) a
hazardous waste site; (5) a delineated earthquake fault zone, as determined
7
by the State Geologist; (6) a special flood hazard area subject to inundation
by the 100-year flood, as determined by FEMA; (7) a regulatory floodway,
as determined by FEMA; (8) land identified for conservation in an adopted
natural community conservation plan; (9) habitat for protected species; or
(10) land under a conservation easement.
iii. The proposed housing development must not require the demolition or
alteration of any of the following types of housing: housing restricted to
affordable rent by a covenant, ordinance, or other law; housing subject to
any form of rent or price control; or housing that has been occupied by a
tenant in the last three years.
iv. An owner of residential property on the parcel must not have exercised the
owner’s rights under Government Code Section 7060 et seq. to withdraw
accommodations from rent or lease within 15 years before the date that the
development proponent submits an application.
v. The proposed development must not allow the demolition of more than 25%
of existing exterior structural walls, unless: (i) allowed by a local ordinance
or (ii) the site has not been occupied by a tenant in the last three years.
vi. The parcel must not be located in a historic district or property included in
the State Historic Resources Inventory, or on a site designated as a city or
county landmark or historic property or district pursuant to a city or county
ordinance.
b. Development Standards
A city may impose objective zoning, subdivision, and design review standards
on these residential developments. Objective standards are standards that
involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly
verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion
available and knowable by both the applicant or development proponent and
the public official prior to submittal, and includes only such standards as are
published and adopted by ordinance or resolution by a loca l jurisdiction before
submission of a development application. However, the following limitations
apply (many of which are similar to the limitations on development standards
for ADUs):
i. Size. The city cannot impose any standards that would have the effect of
physically precluding the construction of up to two units or that would
physically preclude either of the two units from being at least 800 square
feet in floor area.
ii. Setbacks. The city cannot require a more restrictive setback for an existing
structure or a structure constructed in the same location and to the same
dimensions as an existing structure. In all other situations, the city may
require a setback of up to 4 feet from the side and rear lot lines.
8
iii. Connected Units. The units may either be detached from one another or
connected, so long as the units meet building code safety standards and
are sufficient to allow separate conveyance.
iv. Parking. The city can require up to one off-street parking space per unit,
except that a city cannot impose any parking requirements if either: (i) the
parcel is located within a half-mile walking distance of a high-quality transit
corridor or a major transit stop (see definitions in Public Resources Code
Sections 21155 and 21064.3), or (ii) there is a car share v ehicle located
within one block of the parcel.
v. Wastewater. For residential units connected to an onsite wastewater
treatment system, the city may require a percolation test completed within
the last 5 years, or, if the percolation test has been recertifie d, within the
last 10 years.
c. Grounds for Denial
Notwithstanding the requirement for ministerial approval, a city may deny a
proposed housing development project if the building official makes a written
finding based upon a preponderance of the evidence, that the proposed
housing development project would have a specific adverse impact, as defined
Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(2), upon public health and safety or the
physical environment, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily
mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact.
d. No Short-Term Rentals
Cities must prohibit rental of any unit created under this law for a term of 30
days or less. This can be done through a covenant recorded on the property,
as is commonly done with ADUs.
e. Annual Housing Element Report
Units constructed pursuant to this law must be included in the city’s annual
housing element report. (See Gov. Code § 65400(a)(2)(I).)
f. Charter Cities and Coastal Act
This law applies to general law and charter cities. This law does not supersede
the Coastal Act, except that a city is not required to hold public hearings for
coastal development permit applications for lot splits under this law.
g. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Adoption of an ordinance to implement this law (Government Code Section
65852.21) is not a project for purposes of CEQA and is therefore not subject to
CEQA review.
B. Ministerial Approval of Lot Split (Government Code § 66411.7):
SB 9 also requires cities to ministerially approve a parcel map for a lot split, if the
lot split meets certain requirements.
9
a. Requirements for Approval
In order to qualify for ministerial approval, the parcel map must meet the
following requirements:
i. The map can only create two parcels.
ii. Neither new parcel may be smaller than 40% of the lot area of the original
parcel being divided. Furthermore, neither new parcel shall be smaller than
1,200 square feet, except that the city may adopt a smaller minimum lot size
that will be subject to ministerial approval.
iii. The parcel being divided must be in a single-family residential zone.
iv. The parcel being divided must be located in a city that includes some portion
of either an “urbanized area” or an “urban cluster,” as designated by the
U.S. Census Bureau. Notably, the parcel itself is not required to be in the
urbanized area or urban cluster.
v. The parcel being divided must meet the requirements in Government Code
Section 65913.4(a)(6)(B)-(K). (See explanation in Section A.a.ii, above.)
vi. The proposed lot split must not require the demolition or alteration of any of
the following types of housing: housing restricted to affordable rent by a
covenant, ordinance, or other law; housing subject to any form of rent or
price control; or housing that has been occupied by a tenant in the last three
years.
vii. The parcel being divided must not be located in a historic district or property
included in the State Historic Resources Inventory, or on a site designated
as a city or county landmark or historic property or district pursuant to a city
or county ordinance.
viii. The parcel being divided must not have been established through a prior lot
split under this law.
ix. Neither the owner of the parcel being divided nor any other person act ing in
concert with the owner shall have previously subdivided any adjacent parcel
under this law.
x. The lot split must conform to all applicable requirements of the Subdivision
Map Act, except as otherwise expressly provided by this law.
b. Development Standards
A city may impose objective zoning, subdivision, and design review standards
on parcels created by a lot split under this law. However, the following
limitations apply (many of which are similar to the limitations on development
standards for ADUs):
10
i. Size. The city cannot impose any standards that would have the effect of
physically precluding the construction of two units on either of the resulting
parcels or that would result in a unit size of less than 800 square feet.
ii. Setbacks. The city cannot require a more restrictive setback for an existing
structure or a structure constructed in the same location and to the same
dimensions as an existing structure. In all other situations, the city may
require a setback of up to 4 feet from the side and rear lot lines.
iii. Easements. The city may require easements for the provision of public
services and facilities.
iv. Access to Right-of-Way. The city may require that the new parcels have
access to, provide access to, or adjoin the public right -of-way.
v. Parking. The city can require up to one off-street parking space per unit,
except that a city cannot impose any parking requirements if either: (i) the
parcel is located within a half mile walking distance of a high -quality transit
corridor or a major transit stop (see definitions in Public Resources Code
Sections 21155 and 21064.3), or (ii) there is a car share vehicle located
within one block of the parcel.
c. Other Requirements and Limitations
The following additional requirements and limitations also apply:
i. Residential Uses Only. The city must require that only residential uses are
allowed on a new parcel created by this law.
ii. No Dedications or Offsite Improvements. The city may not require
dedications of right-of-way or the construction of off-site improvements as a
condition of approving a lot split under this law.
iii. Owner Occupancy. The city must require an applicant for a lot split under
this law to sign an affidavit stating that the applicant intends to occupy one
of the housing units as their primary residence for a minimum of three years
from the date of the approval of the lot split. However, this requirement
does not apply if the applicant is a community land trust or a qualified
nonprofit corporation. No other owner-occupancy requirements may be
imposed.
iv. No Short-Term Rentals. Cities must prohibit rental of any unit created under
this law for a term of 30 days or less. This can be done through a covenant
recorded on the property, as is commonly done with ADUs.
v. Non-Conforming Zoning Conditions. Cities cannot require the correction
of non-conforming zoning conditions as a condition of approval of a parcel
map under this law.
11
d. Grounds for Denial
Notwithstanding the requirement for ministerial approval, a city may deny a
proposed lost split under this law if the building official makes a written finding
based upon a preponderance of the evidence, that the proposed housing
development project would have a specific adverse impact, as defined
Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(2), upon public health and safety or the
physical environment and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily
mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact.
e. Annual Housing Element Report
The number of applications for lot splits under this law must be included in the
city’s annual housing element report. (See Gov. Code § 65400(a)(2)(I).)
f. Charter Cities and Coastal Act
This law applies to general law and charter cities. This law does not supersede
the Coastal Act, except that a city is not required to hold public hearings for
coastal development permit applications for lot splits under this law.
C. Accessory Dwelling Units Under SB 9:
Subject to certain requirements, cities are usually required to ministerially approve
applications for accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior accessory dwelling units
(JADUs) on residential lots. However, SB 9 makes a few exceptions to this rule.
a. New Parcels Created by Lot Split Under SB 9. Cities are not required to permit
more than two units on any parcel created by a lot split under SB 9. (See Gov.
Code § 65852.21(f) & 66411.7(j).) For purposes of this law, “unit” includes
ADUs and JADUs.
For example, imagine the owner of a lot created two new parcels through an
SB 9 lot split, and built one single-family home on each new parcel. Under
normal circumstances, the city would be required to approve an application for
both an ADU and a JADU on each of those parcels (resulting in 3 units on each
parcel). However, under SB 9, the city only has to approve either an ADU or a
JADU, but not both (for a total of 2 units).
As a variation of this example, imagine the owner of a lot created two new
parcels through an SB 9 lot split, and built 2 single-family homes on each new
parcel, using the authority provided by SB 9. In this circumstance, each parcel
already has 2 units on it, so the city is not required to permit either an ADU or
a JADU on either parcel.
b. Parcels With Two Units, But Not Resulting from a Lot Split Under SB 9 . If the
owner of a parcel builds two units on the parcel using the authorization in SB
9, but does not split the lot, then standard ADU/JADU law applies to that
parcel. SB 9 does not create an exception to ADU/JADU law in this
circumstance. Consequently, up to 4 units (including ADUs and JADUs) could
be built on such a parcel.
12
D. Homeowners Associations (HOAs) and CC&Rs:
SB 9 does not place any limits on the ability of a homeowners association or other
private parties to prohibit lot splits or prohibit more than one primary dwelling unit on
each lot. Effective January 1, 2020, the state legislature prohibited provisions i n
CC&Rs and other deed restrictions that effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the
construction or use of an ADU or JADU on a single-family lot. (See Gov. Code §
4751.) However, so far, no such provision has been adopted prohibiting HOAs and
private parties from limiting the implementation of SB 9. In other words, if an HOA
amended its CC&Rs to prohibit lot splits or to prohibit more than one primary dwelling
unit per parcel, it currently appears that this requirement would be valid.
E. Initial Duration of Tentative Maps:
SB 9 also makes amendments to Government Code Section 66452.6, regarding the
initial duration of tentative maps. Under current law, an approved tentative map has
an initial life of 24 months, except that a city may extend the in itial life up to 12
additional months, for a total of 36 months. Under SB 9, cities may now allow tentative
maps to have an initial life of 48 months.
III. Senate Bill 10 – Enables Upzoning Where Otherwise Limited
*Note: There is at least one current lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of SB 10,
so the future of this bill is uncertain.
SB 10 (codified at Government Code Section 65913.5) allows a city council to override
any local density controls – including restrictions enacted by local initiative – in order
to re-zone a parcel for up to 10 residential units per parcel, subject to certain
limitations.
a. Location of Parcels. This law is limited to parcels in “transit-rich areas” and “urban
infill sites,” as defined. Furthermore, it does not apply to parcels located in a very
high fire hazard severity zone, as determined by the California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection, unless the site has adopted fire hazard mitigation
measures pursuant to existing state standards or state fire mitigation measure s
applicable to the development. Similar to the SB 9 exemption, such standards must
be adopted by law for new developments, so SB 10 also functionally applies to
parcels located in a very high fire hazard severity zone.
b. Limitation for Open-Space, Parks, and Recreation Land. This law does not allow
a city council to override any local restriction enacted or approved by a local
initiative that designates publicly owned land as open-space land (as defined in
Government Code Section 65560(h)), or for park or recreation purposes.
c. Procedural Requirements. When adopting a zoning ordinance pursuant to this
law, a city must comply with the following requirements:
i. The ordinance must include a statement that the ordinance is adopted
pursuant to this law and must clearly demarcate the areas that are being
rezoned.
13
ii. The city council must make a finding that the increased density authorized by
the ordinance is consistent with the city’s obligation to affirmatively further fair
housing, pursuant to Government Code Section 8899.50.
iii. If the ordinance overrides any zoning restriction established by a local
initiative, the ordinance may only take effect if adopted by a two-thirds vote of
the members of the city council.
d. CEQA.
i. Zoning Ordinance. An ordinance adopted pursuant to this law does not count
as a “project” for CEQA purposes and is therefore not subject to CEQA review.
ii. Development Project. This law also establishes CEQA requirements for
projects developed on a site that is rezoned pursuant to this section, but they
are too complicated to be helpfully summarized. Please refer CEQA questions
to the City Attorney’s office.
e. Additional Limitations. An ordinance adopted pursuant to this law cannot reduce
the density of any parcel. Furthermore, if the density of a parcel is increased under
this law, the city council cannot subsequently reduce the density of the parcel.
f. Partial Sunset Clause. Zoning ordinances enacted under this law must be
adopted before January 1, 2029, but ordinances enacted under this law may be
effective beyond January 1, 2029.
IV. Options for Responding to These Bills
The response that a city will have to these new laws will vary for city to city
depending on each city’s approach to housing issues. However, here are a few
possible responses to consider:
a. SB 8. No actions are needed in response to SB 8, other than to be aware of
the revisions to the SB 330 requirements and act in compliance with them.
b. Actions to Encourage Development of Housing. If a city wants to make it easier
to develop housing, the city can do all or some of the following:
i. Adopt an ordinance decreasing the allowable size of a new parcel resulting
from a lot split. (See Section II.B.a(ii) of this memo.)
ii. Adopt more lenient standards for when existing walls may be demolished
as part of project placing two units on a lot. (See Section II.A.a(v) of this
memo.)
iii. Revise the city’s subdivision ordinance to allow tentative maps to have an
initial life of 48 months. (See Section II.E of this memo.)
14
iv. Consider upzoning an otherwise restricted property pursuant to SB
10. However, please consult with our office regarding the status of current
litigation concerning SB 10. (See Section III of this memo.)
c. Actions to Maximize Local Control of Housing and Limit Utilization of SB 9.
i. Adopt Objective Development Standards. In order to preserve maximum
local control, cities should review the city’s current zoning, subdivision, and
design review standards applicable to single-family homes, duplexes, and
lot splits, and ensure that these are objective and cover all of the issues the
city is concerned about. Standards that are not objective will not be
enforceable, if challenged. If revisions are necessary, these revisions
should be made as soon as possible, as SB 9 goes into effect on January
1, 2022.
Objective standards are defined as: “standards that involve no personal or
subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by
reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and
knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public
official prior to submittal. These standards may be embodied in alternative
objective land use specifications adopted by a local agency, and may
include, but are not limited to, housing overlay zones, specific plans,
inclusionary zoning ordinances, and density bonus ordinances.”
ii. Limit on Size of SB 9 Unit. Perhaps the most important objective
development standard cities should consider adopting is a limit on the size
of units created under SB 9 or units on parcels that result from an SB 9 lot
split. The smallest limit cities may set is 800 square feet per unit. Strict
limits on size may discourage utilization of SB 9 because the size limit may
make the units undesirable or economically infeasible to develop.
iii. Fire Hazard Severity Zones and Other Restricted Locations . Cities should
review what portions, if any, of their cities are within restricted zones, which
are excluded from SB 9. Perhaps most pertinently, these areas include high
and very high fire hazard severity zones and historic districts. Notably, the
fire zone exception does not apply if the site has adopted fire hazard
mitigation measures pursuant to existing state standards or state fire
mitigation measures applicable to the development. Therefore, as all new
development is required to follow California State Building Codes, which
include fire standards and mitigation measures, SB 9 does apply to any new
developments in the very high fire zones in the City. (See Section II.A.a(ii)
and Section II.B.a(v) of this memo for a full list of exempt locations.)
d. Update Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. Eventually, cities may wish to
update their zoning and subdivision ordinances, including but not limited to
permitted uses in single-family zones and lot split requirements, to
incorporate SB 9 requirements. However, SB 9 will preempt any
15
inconsistencies in local codes, so there is no need to have these changes
in place by January 1, 2022.
e. CC&Rs and Other Deed Restrictions – Private Option. City residents
concerned about these laws, and who live in housing tracts with HOAs, may
wish to work with their HOAs to amend the CC&Rs governing to tract to
prohibit lot splits and more than one primary dwelling on each
parcel. Residents that do not live in developments with HOAs may still be
able to enter into restrictive covenants with their neighbors including the
same prohibitions. However, this will require private action and is outside
of city control. Furthermore, city residents should seek private legal advice
about the legality of such covenants and restrictions.
CONCLUSION:
In response to the increasing advocacy efforts of the City on behalf of residents, and to
memorialize the City’s positions, Staff recommends the City Council adopt the attached
resolution (Attachment A) thereby approving, as drafted or with revisions, the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes 2022 Legislative Platform (Attachment B). The platform could also
be used to provide a future lobbyist a summary of the City’s positions to inform their
advocacy efforts.
ALTERNATIVES:
In addition to the Staff recommendation, the following alternative actions are available for
the City Council’s consideration:
1. Identify revised language to add to the legislative platform.
2. Do not adopt Resolution 2021-__ thereby maintaining the City’s Housing and
Local Land Use Legislative Platform but not memorializing the City’s position
on other areas of interest and/or concern.
3. Take other action, as deemed appropriate.
16
Resolution No. 2021-__
Page 1 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. 2021-__
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA,
ADOPTING THE CITY’S 2022 LEGISLATIVE
PLATFORM
WHEREAS, the City Council has an interest in weighing in on state, federal, and
regional legislative issues that impact the City and its residents; and
WHEREAS, the Council annually takes action on numerous legislative proposals
brought forward throughout the year; and
WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes is committed to maintaining and
enhancing a high quality of life and safety for all residents; and
WHEREAS, on August 4, 2020, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted
Resolution No. 2020-46, expressing opposition to proposed planning and zoning
legislation that usurps local control and imposes unfunded mandates, and expressing
support for actions to further strengthen local democracy, authority and control; and
WHEREAS, on July 6, 2021, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution
No. 2021-31, adopting the City’s Housing and Local Land Use Legislative Platform; and
WHEREAS, the City Council continues to take an active advocacy role on a variety
of topics, including housing and local land use legislative policies, proposed by the State
Legislature.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes does
hereby resolve as follows:
Section 1: The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein
by reference.
Section 2: The City Council hereby adopts and approves the City’s 2022
Legislative Platform attached and incorporated herein by this reference, as the official
legislative policy of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Section 3: The 2022 Legislative Platform will be used to guide legislative advocacy
including position letters on proposed legislation.
A-1
Resolution No. 2021-__
Page 2 of 2
Section 4: The City Clerk shall certify to the passage, approval, and adoption of
this resolution, and shall cause this resolution and its certification to be entered in the
Book of Resolutions of the City Council of the City.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THE 2nd DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021.
___________________________
Eric Alegria, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________
Teresa Takaoka, City Clerk
State of California )
County of Los Angeles ) ss
City of Rancho Palos Verdes )
I, Teresa Takaoka, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the
above Resolution No. 2021-__ was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said
City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on November 2, 2021.
________________________
Teresa Takaoka, City Clerk
A-2
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
2022 LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM
DATE ADOPTED: Resolution No. 2021-__ on November 2, 2021.
PURPOSE
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes’ 2022 Legislative Platform (Platform) outlines the policy
positions of the City Council on current issues which directly or indirectly impact the City.
This Platform serves as a guideline to actively pursue pending legislation through
monitoring and communications activities and is primarily based upon positions
previously adopted by the City Council.
The City looks forward to working with regional, state, and federal partners to best serve
residents. The statements outlined in the Platform represent the City’s general position
on legislative and regulatory issues of interest and concern.
1. HOUSING AND LOCAL LAND USE
A. Oppose legislation that usurps local control and erodes the City’s authority to
control its own affairs. Support actions which further strengthen local democracy,
authority, and control. The City’s Housing and Local Land Use Legislative Platform
is incorporated herein by reference (see Appendix A).
B. Support policies or programs that allow city and state collaboration on housing
production, alongside sustainable transportation, broadband deployment, and
other key infrastructure areas to support our communities. Support state grants or
programs which provide funds to cities and/or developers to encourage affordable
housing development.
C. Oppose legislation that penalizes a city or local government if the units identified
in the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) are not constructed. Oppose
legislation that proposes to convert RHNA from a planning process to a production
standard.
D. Support legislation that preserves local authority to manage public rights -of-way
including the appearance and aesthetics of equipment placed within them.
E. Support legislation that preserves local authority to zone and plan for the
deployment of telecommunications infrastructure in public rights-of-way.
F. Oppose legislation that diminishes the authority of local jurisdictions to process
permits and enforce building codes or mandates the manner of enforcement.
B-1
CITYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
2022 Legislative Platform
Page 2
G. Oppose legislation that seeks to limit or eliminate municipal authority to regulate
street or sidewalk vendors.
H. Support legislation and administrative actions that protect the ability for a local
jurisdiction to preserve open space in and around a local government’s jurisdiction.
I. Support legislation and administrative actions that provide state and federal
funding for major public works projects such as the Portuguese Bend Landslide
Remediation Project.
2. PUBLIC SAFETY
A. Support legislation that enhances emergency preparedness, resiliency and public
safety.
B. Support legislation that strengthens and enforces legal protections for all
individuals who are victims of crimes.
C. Support measures that provide funding to local agencies for training, effective
disaster preparedness, sheriff’s station infrastructure, fire department
infrastructure, and emergency planning.
D. Support legislation, regulations, or administrative actions ensuring all cities,
including contract cities, have equal access to public safety funding.
E. Support legislation which maintains law enforcement’s ability to utilize automatic
license plate reading (ALPR) cameras as an investigatory tool.
F. Support legislation to accelerate the development and implementation of
enhanced electrical utility infrastructure, including undergrounding of utility
equipment that ensures reliable utility service and public safety and prevents the
use of public safety power shutoffs.
3. COMMUNITY SERVICES
A. Support legislation and local, state and federal programs that employ evidence-
based best practice strategies to reduce the number of people experiencing
homelessness by preventing homelessness for those at risk; providing emergency
and transitional housing; expanding permanent affordable housing ; and promoting
self-empowerment through counseling, job training, and other supportive services.
B. Support legislation and local, state, and federal programs that reduce the number
of people experiencing homelessness by promoting mental health and substanc e
abuse services; providing emergency and transitional housing; expanding
permanent affordable/supportive housing; and promoting self-empowerment
B-2
2022 Legislative Platform
Page 3
through counseling, job training, and other supportive services for those who suffer
from mental health issues and/or substance abuse.
4. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
A. Support legislation, regulations, or administrative actions to remediate the harmful
effects of dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT) and other chemicals in coastal
waters, especially near Santa Catalina Island and the Palos Verdes Peninsula.
B. Support legislation that provides rebate programs, tax credits, and other financial
incentives that encourage property owners to invest in water efficient systems and
landscaping and energy efficiency and renewable energy systems.
5. GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS
A. Support legislation that grants full cost reimbursement to local agencies by the
state and federal government for all mandated programs.
B. Support legislation that ensures the retention of existing local revenue sources,
including the City’s share of property taxes, sales and use taxes, transient
occupancy taxes, etc.
C. Support legislation that will enhance revenue for cities.
D. Support legislation that allows for the continued use of teleconferencing platforms
to continue holding hybrid public meetings outside of a declared state of
emergency. Hybrid meetings increase access to public meetings and encourage
greater transparency.
E. Support legislation or public health orders that consider regional factors when
determining public health needs within Los Angeles County.
F. Oppose legislation that would prohibit or limit local governments’ ability to contract
out for the provision of services.
B-3
2022 Legislative Platform
Page A-1
APPENDIX A:
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES HOUSING AND
LOCAL LAND USE LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM
DATE ADOPTED: Resolution No. 2021-31 on July 6, 2021.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In response to the housing crisis and recent legislation proposed by the California
Legislature:
• The City of Rancho Palos Verdes opposes proposed planning and zoning
legislation that usurps local control and imposes unfunded mandates.
• The City supports actions to further strengthen local democracy, authority, and
control.
• The City would support housing policies which include funded mandates or
create funded programs such as Local Early Action Planning (LEAP) and
Regional Early Action Planning (REAP) to assist local planning efforts.
• The City would support policies that provide incentives to cities such as
additional tax revenue or tax breaks and policies which grant concessions to
existing policies for adoption of pro-housing policies.
• The City would support policies or grants directed toward developers to
incentivize the creation of affordable housing.
• The City would support policies which expand programs such as Project
Homekey, which repurpose existing buildings into an affordable housing option.
• The City would support policies and programs which provide social services and
mental health services to help unhoused persons be eligible for, acquire, and
maintain affordable housing.
• The City would support policies or programs that allow city and state
collaboration on housing production, alongside sustainable transportation,
broadband deployment, and other key infrastructure areas to support our
communities.
BACKGROUND
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes is located on the Palos Verdes Peninsula in Los
Angeles County, California, and incorporated in 1973. The City is primarily comprised of
residential zones and open space, is nearly entirely located within a Cal Fire-designated
Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ), and is partially located in the state-
B-4
2022 Legislative Platform
Page A-2
designated coastal zone. Moreover, approximately 1,200 acres of the City is within the
Portuguese Bend Landslide complex, the largest and fastest moving landslide in North
America.
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes recognizes that California is in the middle of a housing
crisis. Housing stock cannot meet present demand and lack of affordable housing makes
existing stock cost prohibitive. The Legislature has an apparent focus on passing laws
which aim to mitigate the housing crisis through rescission of local land use authority and
oversight to streamline the process of constructing additional units. These laws create a
one-size-fits-all approach that fail to consider local authority and essential local oversight,
including constraints faced by local agencies such as infrastructure limitations.
The City is committed to maintaining and enhancing a high quality of life and safety for all
residents as reflected in its General Plan, updated as of 2018. Local land use authority is
essential to ensuring that all new developments are suitable and safe for our community,
and to allow the City and developers to work together to find the most mutually beneficial
arrangement for all residents in the City.
Development within the City faces a number of unique challenges. Despite this, the City
has a vibrant and well-planned mix of residential, commercial, and industrial uses.
There are 8,274 acres of land within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. The City has
determined that 1,710 acres (or 20%) of land are not suitable for development. These
include Natural Environment/Hazard Areas which are lands designated as “Hazard,”
“Open Space Hillside” and “Open Space Preserve” by the Land Use Element.
The areas designated “Hazard” possess extreme physical constraints, such as active
landslide1, sea cliff erosion hazard, and extreme slopes of 35 percent and greater.
The areas designated “Open Space Hillside” are subject to extreme physical constraints
and are maintained as open space, with very light -intensity uses permitted, such as
landscaping, agriculture, passive recreational activities, and very minor structures, for the
protection of the public health, safety, and welfare.
The areas designated “Open Space Preserve” encompass the City’s Palos Verdes Nature
Preserve, which is approximately 1,400 acres of permanent open space. The City’s
Preserve is enrolled in the State’s Natural Communities Conservation Plan and the
Federal Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP) and is encumbered with restrictions,
held in perpetuity, for the preservation and protection of natural resources and habitat.
1 The Portuguese Bend Landslide is one of the largest and most active landslides in the country and
encompasses over two of the City's roughly 14 square miles, moves at a rate between hundredths of an
inch per year and tens of feet per year. This movement is especially noticed by motorists, cyclists and
pedestrians who travel along Palos Verdes Drive South. The City continuously maintains a safe roadway
through the area at a cost of about a half million dollars per year. An above-ground sewer trunk line is in
jeopardy of failing with land movement that has the potential to cause a significant environmental
catastrophe due to its close proximity to the Pacific Ocean.
B-5
2022 Legislative Platform
Page A-3
Residential activities are the major land use in the City , with existing and proposed
residential uses encompassing approximately 5,500 acres (66.5% of the total land area).
The predominance of residential use and related density ranges is based on several
factors: the ability of residential activity to produce low environmental stress, the
geographic location of the community with no major transportation facilities, the geology
of the site, lack of market potential for any major commercial development, and need for
support facilities to meet the community’s demand.
As such, it is vital that local control be maintained to ensure public health and safety. One-
size-fits-all legislation with ministerial review requirements cannot take into account the
unique geographic, geologic, and infrastructure constraints required for a project to be
successful and to maintain or enhance public safety.
RECENT LEGISLATIVE POSITIONS
On August 4, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2020-46 expressing
opposition to proposed planning and zoning legislation that usurps local control and
imposes unfunded mandates and expressing support for actions to further strengthen
local democracy, authority, and control. It furthermore declares that, should the state
continue to pass legislation that attacks local municipal authority, control and revenue,
the City of Rancho Palos Verdes will support actions such as a ballot measure that would
limit the state’s ability to control local activities and strengthen local democracy and
authority.
The City has registered its strong opposition to the current practice of the Legislature of
proposing and passing multitudes of bills that directly impact and interfere with the ability
of cities to control their own destiny through use of zoning authority that has been granted
to them.
While the City appreciates the work of the Legislature to propose policies intended to
mitigate the housing crisis, sweeping and ministerial measures cannot properly assess
their impact on individual communities and their general plans. Streamlined ministerial
approval may be a preferred housing solution for the Legislature, but such development
may have significantly detrimental effects on public health and safety. The City is
concerned that increasing density by-right will not allow sufficient oversight of
infrastructure to ensure that capacities can meet increased residential populations.
In local land use planning and zoning, many factors must be considered. The City must
maintain its local land use authority to ensure that all developments meet all safety
standards and that related traffic changes do not have undue influence on egress paths
in the event of an evacuation, particularly within the VHFHSZ and the Portuguese Bend
Landslide complex, and with considerations for limitations on existing infrastructure.
B-6
2022 Legislative Platform
Page A-4
In general, the City has supported housing legislation which seeks to increase local
oversight and flexibility, such as Assemblymember Muratsuchi’s Assembly Constitutional
Amendment No. 7 which would amend the State Constitution to require certain local la nd
use controls and zoning regulations remain within incorporated communities when in
conflict with general laws.
The City has opposed legislation that erodes local land use authority, such as Senator
Atkins’ SB 9, which would require ministerial approval of lot splits and duplexes in single-
family residential zoned areas. The City is deeply concerned that bills such as SB 9, which
would potentially quadruple density in single-family zoning by-right would have
detrimental effects on the City’s infrastructure capacity, particularly in the event of an
emergency. Increasing density without the ability for the City to properly plan for it will
negatively impact public safety in a community like Rancho Palos Verdes, and its
residents’ quality of life.
One-size-fits all laws inherently fail to consider the needs of individual communities and
their general plans. Furthermore, the current practice of mandating streamlined local
processes does nothing to address encouraging actual affordable development of those
properties. The Legislature should consider bills that incentivize affordable developments
and provide local agencies the ability to zone for such developments. The tone of recent
bills, such as making it easier to build an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) on a property,
does not guarantee that it will be sold below market rate , thereby affordable. In fact, it
appears ADU’s are being rented above market rates throughout Los Angeles or being
used for other uses than housing (i.e. gyms, studios, pool cabanas, etc. because of State-
mandated relaxed zoning laws). Upzoning parcels is likely to increase the value of the
underlying land, which then makes new construction unnecessarily more expensive and
over time, raises the values and rents throughout the neighborhoods, making affordable
housing even less likely to be built.
The current legislative preference for by-right approvals in favor of increasing density,
fails to consider the nuances in individual communities, potentially risking public safety,
and does nothing to inherently promote affordable housing, which is vital to recover from
the housing crisis and is the purported aim of this approach.
POTENTIAL LEGISLATIVE SOLUTIONS
The City is supportive of legislation which seeks to preserve local land use authority and
flexibility, giving choices and incentives to cities. Ultimately, the City would support
legislation which would allow local governments to adopt proposed legislation if the
requirements are suitable in their individual jurisdictions. Local planning departments
have the knowledge and skills to prepare creative solutions to the housing crisis that best
serve their communities. By-right zoning legislation undermines their ability to exercise
the city’s local land use authority and problem-solve based on their city’s unique
geographic, geologic, and infrastructure constraints, but with state support, they have the
capacity to help alleviate the housing crisis.
B-7
2022 Legislative Platform
Page A-5
The City would additionally continue to support legislation that provides financial
assistance to implement new directives, or programs similar to Local Early Action
Planning (LEAP) and Regional Early Action Planning (REAP) that provide funding to help
cities accelerate housing production. The City would also support legislation that provides
incentives to cities, such as additional tax revenue or tax breaks. Unfunded mandates are
a financial burden to cities which make them difficult to implement successfully.
The Legislature may also consider adopting policies which grant concessions to cities
based on adoption of pro-housing policies. For example, if a city were to utilize their local
land use authority to upzone a certain amount of land in a commercial corridor, they could
be exempt from policies such as requiring ministerial app roval of ADUs. This will further
local land use flexibility and grants additional incentives to local governments to adopt
pro-housing policies. The City is supportive of legislation that increases land use flexibility
such as regional trust and/or trade policies, similar to Senator Allen’s SB 809.
The City would also support legislation aimed at developers to encourage sustainable,
cost-effective development of affordable housing in safe locations across the state .
Legislation which seeks to expand existing programs such as Project Homekey, or similar
programs that repurpose existing buildings or underutilized commercial property (i.e.
surface parking lots or single-story shopping centers) into affordable housing are also
viable solutions. Additionally, the Legislature should consider policies and programs
which provide social services and mental health resources to help unhoused persons be
eligible for, acquire, and maintain affordable housing.
Cities have the tools, knowledge, and policies in place to continue to plan and develop
innovative solutions to mitigate the housing crisis: solutions that best serve the city and
the residents. If, for example, a city observes that there seems to be a surplus of parking
spaces in shopping centers, they could re-zone the land to be mixed-use residential. The
city may also determine that they could lower their parking requirements in certain areas
due to traffic patterns and/or location of transit. When cities are allowed to keep their local
land use authority, they will continue to plan and develop new solutions that address their
specific constraints, and the state could reward cities for taking such actions with
additional tax revenue or tax breaks or policy concessions.
Regional housing needs and legislation increasing density must be balanced by local
capacity assessments including traffic conditions, sewer conditions, school district
capacity, ingress/egress capacity, and water supply, among others. Legislation should re-
focus efforts toward developing programs for cities and state collaboration on housing
production, alongside sustainable transportation, broadband deployment, and other key
infrastructure areas that can support our communities.
CONCLUSION
During recent legislative sessions, the City has opposed planning and zoning legislation
that usurps local control and imposes unfunded mandates. The City was founded to
protect local authority and to preserve the character of Rancho Palos Verdes. Local
B-8
2022 Legislative Platform
Page A-6
oversight of planning and zoning is essential to ensure that every development is suitable
and safe for the community, to protect the health and safety of all residents.
The City is supportive of policies which strengthen local democracy, authority, and
control. The City would additionally consider supporting policies which include funded
mandates, legislation aimed at developers to encourage creation of affordable housing,
the expansion of programs such as Project Homekey, and the creation of programs to
improve social and mental health services for unhoused persons.
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes looks forward to working with the Legislature to have
an open dialogue about viable solutions to the state’s housing crisis, while maintaining all
residents’ high quality of life.
B-9