CC RES 2025-011 RESOLUTION NO. 2025-11
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES THEREBY DENYING AN APPEAL
AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
DETERMINATION THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT WHICH
INCLUDES 482 RESIDENTIAL UNITS (1,173,927 SQUARE FEET)
DOES NOT QUALIFY FOR SB35/423 MINISTERIAL REVIEW OR
THE EXEMPTION FROM CONSISTENCY WITH THE CITY'S
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION OR ZONING SET FORTH IN
GOVERNMENT CODE, SECTION 65589.5(D)(5) THEREFORE
REQUIRING THE FOLLOWING LAND USE ENTITLEMENTS:
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE, CERTIFICATE
OF COMPLIANCE, MAJOR GRADING PERMIT, VARIANCE,
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW
AS REQUIRED BY THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL
CODE TO CONSIDER THE PROPOSED PROJECT, AS
DESCRIBED HEREIN, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5323
IRONWOOD STREET (CASE NO. PLZC2024-0002).
WHEREAS, on January 22, 2024, the Applicant/Appellant, Verde Estates Inc.
submitted a Preliminary Application, proposing 482 units (385 market rate and 97
affordable units, i.e. 20% of the total units) comprised of 641,193 square feet of building
area. At the time of this submittal the City was still in the process of revising its Housing
Element and had not adopted a Housing Element that was in substantial compliance with
state housing laws, according to the Department of Housing and Community
Development ("HCD"); and,
WHEREAS, on February 7, 2024, after the required seven-day posting and
circulation of the document, the City submitted the final revised Housing Element to the
HCD for its formal review; and,
WHEREAS, on February 13, 2024, the City commenced the Tribal Consultation
process pursuant to Government Code Section 65913.4, commonly known as SB 35
(Gov't Code § 65913.4(b)); and,
WHEREAS, on March 14, 2024, HCD staff sent an email to the Director indicating
that HCD has no further comments regarding revisions to the Revised Housing Element;
and,
WHEREAS, on April 5, 2024, the HCD provided a letter to Staff detailing that the
Housing Element addressed most of the statutory requirements but cannot be found in
full compliance until the City has completed the.Zone Amendments required to implement
certain programs in the Housing Element; and,
01203 0049/1049858 1
Resolution No 2025-11
Page 1 of10
WHEREAS, on April 16, 2024, the City Council adopted a revised Housing
Element containing modifications requested by the HCD. On that date, the City Council
111
also adopted as an urgency measure an ordinance to establish the Mixed-Use Overlay
Zone and the Residential Overlay Zone and to rezone two properties. This urgency
ordinance, which became effective immediately upon its adoption, served to rezone the
necessary properties to implement the revised Housing Element. Accordingly, the City
had adopted a housing element that is in substantial compliance with the applicable state
housing element laws; and,
WHEREAS, on April 18, 2024, the Applicant submitted a Preliminary Application,
proposing 482 units (385 market rate, 97 affordable units) comprised of 1,173,927 square
feet; and,
WHEREAS, on May 12, 2024, the Applicant emailed staff for clarification on the
SB35 submittal checklist; and,
WHEREAS, on May 15, 2024, Staff emailed the Applicant, noting that the Tribal
Consultation was still in progress and to provide a list of questions in writing regarding the
submittal requirements; and,
WHEREAS, on May 20, 2024, the Applicant noted that the Preliminary Application
was submitted on April 171 [sic] and therefore the 30-day deadline for the City to notify
any affiliated Tribes had now passed. Additionally, the Applicant inquired about the
requested format for the application submittal; and,
WHEREAS, on May 21, 2024, Staff emailed the Applicant inquiring if the
Preliminary Application submitted April 18 was a new application or a modification to the
existing Preliminary Application; and,
WHEREAS, on May 22, 2024, the Applicant emailed Staff noting the April 18 was
a new Preliminary Application and Staff emailed the Applicant to confirm if the earlier
Preliminary, Application was being withdrawn and replaced with the April 18 application;
and,
WHEREAS, on May 23, 2024, the Applicant confirmed via email the Preliminary
Application dated January 22 was withdrawn; and,
WHEREAS, on June 3, 2024, the Applicant emailed Staff requesting to use the
Preliminary Application submitted January 22; and,
WHEREAS, on June 5, 2024, Staff provided a letter to the Applicant via email,
stating the Applicant withdrew the Preliminary Application dated January 22, per
Applicant's correspondence provided on May 23 and due to the new Preliminary
1 The email from the Appellant submitting the new Preliminary Application was actually dated April 18,
2024
Resolution No 2025-11
Page 2 of 10
Application being significantly different with regard to the square footages for each
building; and,
WHEREAS, on June 7, 2024, the Applicant emailed Staff requesting that the
Preliminary Application submitted April 18 be considered a modification to the January 22
Preliminary Application, along with supplemental information; and,
WHEREAS, on June 12, 2024, HCD provided a letter to Staff confirming that the
City's Housing Element adopted April 16, 2024, and completed actions (Zoning
Amendments to Increase Housing Development Potential) met the statutory requirements
as described in the April 5, 2024 HCD letter, and therefore is in substantial compliance
with State Housing Element Law; and,
WHEREAS, on July 2, 2024, the Applicant met with staff at the public counter. Staff
noted that the Tribal Consultation was still in progress; and,
WHEREAS, on July 11, 2024, the Applicant emailed Staff regarding requesting the
status of the Tribal Consultation and Staff emailed the Applicant that the Tribal
Consultation was still in progress. Staff noted that should the Applicant wish to submit an
application prior to the conclusion of the Tribal Consultation, the project would be
processed per the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code. Staff
provided a project fee statement and relevant submittal materials. Staff noted that
following the conclusion of the tribal consultation, should it be determined that the
proposed project meets all SB35 requirements, the pertinent fees would be refunded;
and,
WHEREAS, on July 15, 2024, the Applicant emailed Staff noting the project was
based on SB35/423 and Housing Accountability Act Builder's Remedy, therefore certain
planning entitlements and discretionary reviews would not be required. The Applicant
provided an updated copy of the fee statement with strikethrough for the fees they felt
were not applicable; and,
WHEREAS, on July 18, 2024, Staff provided a letter to the Applicant reiterating
that the Preliminary Application submitted on January 22 was withdrawn and resubmitted
as a new Preliminary Application on April 18. Staff noted that at the time of the April 18
submission, the City had adopted Housing Element that was substantially compliant with
housing element law, thus the project does not qualify for Builder's Remedy protection.
Additionally, the project does not qualify as an SB 35 project, as it is not compliant with
the General Plan and Zoning Code. Staff noted the Applicant can submit the project for
review by the Planning Division, pending payment of the unedited City invoice provided
on July 11, 2024; and,
WHEREAS, on July 29, 2024, the Applicant emailed staff requesting to appeal the
decision outlined in the July 18, 224 correspondence; and,
Resolution No. 2025-11
Page 3 of 10
WHEREAS, on August 5, 2024, Staff provided the Applicant via email instructions
to process the appeal; and,
WHEREAS, on August 8, 2024, Staff received a timely written Appeal Letter with
fee from the Applicant/Owner at 5323 Ironwood Street; and,
WHEREAS, on August 19, 2024, Staff provided a letter to the Applicant/Appellant
via email, noting Staff is in receipt of the filed Appeal; and,
WHEREAS, on August 27, 2024, the Applicant/Appellant provided a letter via email
with supplemental Appeal information; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC,)
§17.80.050(C), an appeal hearing before the Planning Commission shall be set within 90
days of the filing of the appeal, or no later than November 6, 2024; and,
WHEREAS, on September 12, 2024, pursuant to RPVMC §17.80.090, a public
notice announcing the Planning Commission's consideration of the appeal on October 8,
2024, was provided to the Applicant/Appellant, property owners within a 500-foot radius
of the project site, interested parties and published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News;
and,
WHEREAS, on September 25, 2024, the Applicant/Appellant requested a link to
pay the invoice dated July 10, 2024; and,
WHEREAS, on September 30, 2024, the Applicant/Appellant provided a letter via
email with supplemental Appeal information; and,
WHEREAS, on October 1, 2024, Staff provided the link for payment via email and
the Applicant/Appellant paid the fee for consideration of the required project applications.
However, the appeal request was not withdrawn; and,
WHEREAS, on October 8, 2024, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed
public hearing to consider the appeal, at which time all interested parties were given an
opportunity to be heard and present evidence. The Planning Commission denied the
appeal without prejudice thereby upholding the Community Development Director's
determination; and
WHEREAS, on October 21, 2024, Staff received a timely written Appeal Letter with
fee from the Applicant/Owner at 5323 Ironwood Street; and
WHEREAS, on October 25, 2024, Staff provided the Applicant/Appellant a letter
via email acknowledging Staff received the filed Appeal; and
I
Resolution No 2025-11
Page 4 of 10
WHEREAS, pursuant to RPVMC §17.80.050(C), an appeal hearing before City
Council shall be set within 90 days of the filing of the appeal, staff schedule the appeal
for February 18, 2025; and
WHEREAS, on October 29, 2024, Staff issued a letter of incompleteness for Case
No. PLZC2024-0002; and
WHEREAS, on November 3, 2024, the Applicant/Appellant requested via email to
place the application for Case No. PLZC2024-0002 on hold until the appeal process
conclude; and
WHEREAS, on November 15, 2024, Staff provided the Applicant/Appellant a letter
via email noting the project review can be placed on hold till such time the Appeal is
finalized providing a new resubmittal deadline of March 20, 2025; and
WHEREAS, on January 30, 2025, pursuant to RPVMC §17.80.090, a public notice
announcing the City Council's consideration of the appeal on February 18, 2025, was
provided to the Appellant, property owners within a 500-foot radius of the project site,
interested parties and published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News; and
WHEREAS, on February 18, 2025, the City Council held a duly noticed public
hearing to consider the appeal, at which time all interested parties were given an
opportunity to be heard and present evidence.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE
AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by
reference.
Section 2: The City Council has considered the basis for the appeal offered by
the Appellant, and finds that they are without merit for the reasons described below:
A. The Appellant asserts that Staff is selectively interpreting the communication
regarding the filing date of the preliminary application to achieve a predetermined
outcome, however, staff has been clear in all correspondence with the Appellant,
and the complete email correspondence from May 12 — October 1 is included in
the staff report record. There is nothing selective about how Staff interpreted these
communications, the Appellant was very clear and unequivocal about their
intentions to submit a new preliminary application on April 18, 2024 and withdraw
the preliminary application submitted on January 22, 2024.
B. While the Appellant alleges that the project as submitted should qualify for the
exception to the requirement that a project having to be consistent with the
applicable zoning and general plan set forth in Government Code, section
65589.5(d)(5), "the Builder's Remedy" and the ministerial review, and approval
Resolution No 2025-11
Page 5 of 10
process set forth in Government Code, section 65913.4 ("SB 35/423"), the project
does not qualify because at the time the Applicant submitted the operative
Preliminary Application, the City had adopted a Housing Element and the required
zoning to implement the Housing Element all of which was in substantial
compliance with state Housing Element law.
Based on HCD's letter of April 5, 2024, which indicated that the City's draft Housing
Element met the statutory requirements but would not be in substantial compliance
until the requisite zoning code amendments are adopted, on April 16, 2024 the City
Council determined that the Negative Declaration adopted on August 11, 2022, as
amended by Addendum No. 1, adequately analyzed the impacts from the adoption
and implementation of the Revised Final 2021-2029 Housing Element, and
following the public hearing adopted Resolution No. 2024-16 approving a General
Plan Amendment for the City's Revised Final 2021-2029 Housing Element, a
General Plan Amendment for the Land Use Element and Land Use Map, and a
Local Coastal Plan (Coastal Specific Plan) Amendment to effectuate the 2021-
2029 Housing Element. The City Council also adopted Resolution No. 2024-17 to
forward to the California Coastal Commission the amendments to the Local
Coastal Program (LCP) Coastal Specific Plan and zoning map related to the 6th
Cycle Housing Element actions in the Coastal Zone, consistent with State Law.
Additionally, in order to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of
the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, on April 16, 2024 the City Council unanimously
adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 678U approving zoning amendments inclusive of
Zoning Map amendments and development standards for Accessory Dwelling
Units (ADUs) and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs), to immediately
effectuate the Housing Element, including rezoning sufficient sites to
accommodate the City's regional housing needs allocation by adopting the
implementation actions to effectuate the City's Revised Final 2021-2029 Housing
Element.
As such, the Housing Element was in substantial compliance with Housing
Element Law on April 16, 2024, as indicated by HCD on April 5, 2024. Therefore,
at the time of the Applicant/Appellant's April 18, 2024 submission of a new
preliminary application, the City's Housing Element was substantially compliant
with the relevant state housing element laws, thus the preliminary application
submitted on April 18 does not qualify for Builder's Remedy protection. Additionally,
the project does not qualify as an SB 35 project, as it is not compliant with the
General Plan and Zoning Code.
Based on the Preliminary Application materials submitted on April 18, the City
Council has determined the proposed project does not qualify for the ministerial
review and approval process set forth in Government Code, section 65913,4 or the
Builder's Remedy exception set forth in Government Code, section 65589.5(d)(5).
I
Resolution No 2025-11
Page 6 of 10
C. The Appellant asserts the Preliminary Application submitted on April 18 was
supplemental to the January 22 Preliminary Application. However, the preliminary
application submitted on January 22 provided for 637,042 square feet of residential
and 641,193 total square footage, while the one submitted on April 18 changed the
anticipated square footage to 765,283 of residential space and 1,173,927 total
square footage. The increase in construction square footage in the April 18
preliminary application is 54% over the construction square footage in the January
22 preliminary application, necessitating a new Preliminary Application pursuant
to Government Code, section 65941.1(c).
D. The Appellant asserts the City is violating the Permit Streamlining Act by denying
this housing project. The Appellant notes that, "once a development project
application is submitted, an agency must first determine whether the application
is complete and provide an exhaustive list of incomplete items. The City has not
determined whether the application is complete and has not provided an
exhaustive list of incomplete items as required by state laws." As the
Applicant/Appellant paid the fees for consideration of the required project
applications. As such, staff provided a letter of incompleteness on October 29,
2024 in compliance with the Permit Streamlining Act. Subsequently, the
Applicant/Appellant requested via email to place the application review on hold
until the appeal process concluded. Following, Staff provided the
Applicant/Appellant a letter via email noting the project review can be placed on
hold till such time the Appeal is finalized providing a new resubmittal deadline of
March 20, 2025. On November 15, 2024, the Applicant/Appellant provided a
written agreement to place the project review on hold. As such, staff has complied
with the Permit Streamlining Act.
E. The Appellant asserts that the City violates the affordable Housing Streamlined
process by denying this housing project, specifically by failing to act within the
required timelines for Tribal Consultation and not providing details regarding the
tribal consultation. Upon the submittal of the preliminary application dated January
22 Staff commenced the Tribal Consultation on February 13, 2024. Staff sent a
letter requesting 10 local tribes to engage in the tribal consultation process. As a
result, two tribes, Tongva Nation and Kizh Nation requested to engage in the tribal
consult. The Kizh Nation requested to engage in tribal consult on February 23.
Thereafter, on February 29 Staff emailed to inquire if the tribe would like the
developer included in the consult process. Additionally, the Tongva Nation
requested to engage tribal consult on April 2, on April 22 Staff emailed to inquire
if the tribe would like the developer included in the consult process. Neither tribe
approved the developer's participation in the Scoping Consultation, as required
by Government Code, section 65913.4(b)(2)(C). Accordingly, staff proceeded
with the required consultation process without the participation of the Appellant.
City staff provided the Appellant an update via email on July 11, 2024 noting that
the Tribal Consultation had not yet concluded with the Kizh Nation, but provided
the, conditions requested by the Tongva Nation. Additionally, as Staff has
Resolution No 2025-11
Page 7 of 10
determined that the project does not qualify for SB35/ministerial approval, Tribal
Consultation would not be required as a part of SB35.
F. The appellant asserts the City is violating the Housing Accountability Act by
denying this housing project, However, the Planning Commission's and Director
of Community Development's determination that the project does not qualify for
builders remedy/ministerial review process does not constitute a disapproval of
the project pursuant to HAA and therefore no additional findings are required.
G. While the Appellant alleges that the City's actions are in clear violation of State
Density Bonus Law, The City has not denied any incentives or waivers of
development standards provided for under state Density Bonus Law. Furthermore,
Appellant's claims regarding the City allegedly violating state Density Bonus Law
are irrelevant to the Planning Commission and Director's determination that the
project does not qualify for the SB 35 ministerial review process or the Builder's
Remedy.
H. The appellant asserts the courts have decided on very similar matters in the favor
of housing development. However, none of the cases cited are binding authority
and the facts in the cases are significantly different than the subject of this matter.
I. The Appellant claims per Assembly Bill (AB) 1886, "a jurisdiction is in compliance
as of the date of the Housing and Community Development department's (HCD)
letter finding the adopted housing element in substantial compliance. Any other
letters do not constitute a finding of substantial compliance. Section 65585.03 of
the Government Code, as added by Section 1 of this act, is declaratory of existing
law and does not represent a change." However, the legislation does not apply in
the circumstance were a city, first submits its Housing Element to the Department
of Housing and Community Development ("HCD") for its review and approval
before adopting the Housing Element. The City submitted the revised Housing
Element to HCD for its review and approval which was obtained on April 5, 2024
before it adopted the Housing Element on April 16, 2024.
J. The Appellant asserts the City has not sought a court order regarding the
compliance of the Housing Element, stating, "despite ample time and opportunity,
the City has not sought a court ruling to establish April 16, as the compliance date.
Without contesting HCD's determination, June 12, remains the official compliance
date." Currently, there is not legal mechanism for the City to obtain a court
determination as to whether its Housing Element is in substantial compliance with
state housing element law. Furthermore, as stated above Government Code,
section 65585.03 is intended to be declaratory of existing law. As such, should the
City's housing element be challenged through litigation a Court may determine that
as of April 16, 2024 the City's Housing Element was in substantial compliance with
state housing element laws.
I
Resolution No. 2025-11
Page 8 of 10
K. A Biological Assessment prepared by Michael Baker Inc. dated December 18,
concluded that the project site contains habitat for protected species identified as
candidate, sensitive, or species of special status by state or federal agencies, fully
protected species, or species protected by the federal Endangered Species Act of
1973 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1531 et seq.), the California Endangered Species Act
(Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 2050) of Division 3 of the Fish and Game
Code), or the Native Plant Protection Act (Chapter 10 (commencing with Section
1900) of Division 2 of the Fish and Game Code).As such, pursuant to Government
Code Section 65913.4(a)(6)(J), this disqualifies the project from utilizing
streamlined ministerial zoning and permitting processes pursuant to SB 35..
Section 3: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings
included in the Staff Report, Minutes and other records of proceedings, the City Council
of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby adopts Resolution No. 2025- , denying the
Appellant's appeal and upholding the Planning Commission's determination that the
proposed project which includes 482 units (1,173,927 square feet) does not qualify for
SB35 ministerial review or falls within the Builders Remedy exception and therefore
requires the following entitlements: General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Certificate
of Compliance, Major Grading Permit, Variance, Environmental Review and Major Site
Plan Review as required by the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code for the proposed
project, as described herein, for property located at 5323 ironwood street (Case No.
PLZC2024-0002).
Section 4: Any challenge for judicial review of this Resolution and the findings
set forth therein, must be filed within the 90-day statute of limitations set forth in Code of
Civil Procedure §1094.6 and §17.86.100(B) of the RPVMC.
Section 5: The City Clerk shall certify the passage, approval, and adoption of this
Resolution, and shall cause this Resolution and the City Clerk's certification to be entered
in the Book of Resolutions of the City Council.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 18th day of February 2025.
C----
Davi(1,47.,,,:,
L. Bradley, Mayor
Attest:
a
eresa Takaoka, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )ss
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES )
Resolution No. 2025-11
Page 9 of 10
I, Teresa Takaoka, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, do hereby certify that
the above Resolution No. 2025-11, was duly adopted by the City Council of said City at
a regular meeting thereof held on February 18, 2025.
eresa .kaoka, City Clerk
Resolution No 2025-11
Page 10 of 10