The URL can be used to link to this page

20250318 Late Correspondence1 1 Subject:FW: Support homes in Rancho Palos Verdes, and tell the city to comply with state law! -----Original Message----- From: jim61773@everyacƟoncustom.com <jim61773@everyacƟoncustom.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2025 4:56 PM To: Jessica BobbeƩ <jbobbeƩ@rpvca.gov> Subject: Support homes in Rancho Palos Verdes, and tell the city to comply with state law! [You don't oŌen get email from jim61773@everyacƟoncustom.com. Learn why this is important at hƩps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdenƟficaƟon ] EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open any aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe!!!. Dear J BobbeƩ (Rancho PV), As a resident of Rancho Palos Verdes, I am concerned about a possible decision that could both violate state housing law and deepen inequiƟes locally. LA County and South Bay ciƟes have a severe housing shortage. Last year, Rancho Palos Verdes did the right thing by adopƟng a Housing Element that the state deemed compliant with state law. The City also increased zoned capacity for the relevant parcels in its sites inventory and agreed to amend its Local Coastal Plan to allow for greater density. Now, the city wants to reverse course and is considering revising its Housing Element to remove three parcels— sites 16, 18 and 19 — from its sites inventory. The city is clearly responding to development interest in Site 16, located at 0 Clipper Road. In addiƟon, the item before you includes potenƟal amendments to the General Plan, Zoning Code, and Zoning Map to effectuate these revisions. These acƟons would violate of state housing law, parƟcularly SB 330 (Skinner, 2019). They also defeat the purpose of the Housing Element process. Rancho Palos Verdes is not on track to meet its housing obligaƟons, with or without these sites. The city has only permiƩed 44 of the 639 units it is required to allow, good for only 7 percent of its RHNA alloca Ɵon, despite being nearly halfway through the 2021-2029 cycle. And in 2024, as noted in Consent Calendar Item D of today’s agenda, the city permi Ʃed just 14 new units, most of them ADUs. California has a crippling housing shortage. Here in the South Bay, we are home to the 3rd largest jobs center in Los Angeles County and we suffer from a severe jobs-housing imbalance. The number of jobs far outweigh available housing units. Building housing at all income levels will create a more inclusive, vibrant community that benefits everyone — small business owners, low-wage workers, young families, elderly Californians hoping to stay in the community they love. Having more homes in Rancho Palos Verdes helps address the region’s worsening shortage. It also provides opportuniƟes for people to live closer to their workplaces, schools, and essenƟal services. 2 A diversity of housing opƟons fosters a balanced economy to help both current and future residents thrive. The city has a responsibility to improve housing opportunity and affirmaƟvely further fair housing by applying a good faith effort to expanding and maintaining zoned capacity on residenƟally-zoned parcels. Please comply with state housing law and reject any aƩempts to downzone parcels or modify your Housing Element, underlying zoning, or relevant local plans. Sincerely, James Fujita Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-0853 jim61773@yahoo.com 1 1 Subject:FW: Support homes in Rancho Palos Verdes, and tell the city to comply with state law! -----Original Message----- From: kenny.johnson@everyacƟoncustom.com <kenny.johnson@everyacƟoncustom.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2025 5:34 PM To: Jessica BobbeƩ <jbobbeƩ@rpvca.gov> Subject: Support homes in Rancho Palos Verdes, and tell the city to comply with state law! [You don't oŌen get email from kenny.johnson@everyacƟoncustom.com. Learn why this is important at hƩps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdenƟficaƟon ] EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open any aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe!!!. Dear J BobbeƩ (Rancho PV), I write to express grave concerns about a possible decision that could both violate state housing law and deepen inequiƟes locally. LA County and South Bay ciƟes are suffering from a severe housing shortage, which is why housing advocates across the South Bay are engaging at the local level to build support for new housing and hold ci Ɵes accountable to their obligaƟons and commitments to addressing the housing crisis. Last year, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted a Housing Element that the state of California deemed compliant with state law. The City also increased zoned capacity for the relevant parcels in its sites inventory and agreed to amend its Local Coastal Plan to allow for greater density. Now, the City wants to reverse course and is considering revising its Housing Element to remove three parcels—sites 16, 18 and 19—from its sites inventory. The city is clearly responding to development interest in Site 16, located at 0 Clipper Road. In addiƟon, the item before you includes potenƟal amendments to the General Plan, Zoning Code, and Zoning Map to effectuate these revisions; these ac Ɵons would represent a violaƟon of state housing law, parƟcularly SB 330 (Skinner, 2019). They also defeat the purpose of the Housing Element process. Let’s not pretend that Rancho Palos Verdes is on track to meet its housing obliga Ɵons, with or without these sites. That’s what the staff report suggests, but it is untrue. The City has only permi Ʃed 44 of the 639 units it is required to allow, good for only 7% of its RHNA allocaƟon, despite being nearly halfway through the 2021 -2029 cycle. And in 2024, as noted in Consent Calendar Item D of today’s agenda, the city permiƩed just 14 new units, most of them ADUs. California has a crippling housing shortage. Here in the South Bay, we are home to the 3rd largest jobs center in Los Angeles County and suffering from a severe jobs-housing imbalance, as a result, with the number of jobs far outweighing available housing units. Building housing at all income levels will create a more inclusive, vibrant community that benefits everyone—small business owners, low-wage workers, young families, elderly Californians hoping to stay in the community they love. Having more homes in Rancho Palos Verdes helps address the region’s worsening shortage. It provides opportuniƟes for people to live closer to their workplaces, schools, and essenƟal services. A diversity of housing opƟons fosters a balanced economy to help both current and future residents thrive. Your city has a responsibility to improve housing opportunity and affirma Ɵvely further fair housing by applying a good faith effort to expanding and maintaining zoned capacity on residenƟally-zoned parcels. Please comply with state housing law and reject any aƩempts to downzone parcels or modify your Housing Element, underlying zoning, or relevant local plans. 2 Sincerely, Kenneth Johnson Torrance, CA 90504-2812 kenny.johnson@gmail.com 1 2 Subject:FW: Request for a different Landslide images From: Madeleine McJones <homecoding@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2025 3:30 PM To: LDG and Movement <landmovement@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Subject: Request for a different Landslide images EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open any attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe!!!. Dear Landslide, Geo-Engineers, and City Council or Rancho Palos Verdes. Request for a different image I wonder if the city of RPV could please provide some Geomorphological images to the public that are “cut away” or “side views” of some of the landslides? Wow! Images with depths and toes shown. Even if it is an assumed TOE? All the images are the same in each report. They may not help the public understand the size and scope and the depths or the toe of the landside. Your reports state facts, the depth of water is getting pumped out, etc... but it is difficult to visualize the landslide layers. Clear simplified Geomorphological image would be more helpful.  Cut away Maps that address the different landslides in our complex, both large and smaller  Indicate the TOE locations of the landslides, even if it is proposed not proven, o https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2003/ofr-03-144/Figure-2.jpg  Show how the RAINWATER is getting in and where it is getting pumped out in general. Dispel false news facts. Please make a statement to stop the old age false reports of septic and pool water being the culprit that has persisted in white papers without science proof and still gets into the news. Please Keep Clarifying Where and how rainwater is getting in “the top” versus the bottom. Yet most of the canyon lining is at the bottom? How much water gets 350 feet down from the bottom or does it mostly come from the top Head scarp? Madeleine McJones 2 3 Tangerine Road RPV CA 90275 MORE EXAMPLES DIAGRAMS FROM ACTIVE LANDSLIDE PDF   Limit Equilibrium Analysis and Real-Time Monitoring as Support for Landslide Risk Mitigation: The San Rocco Case Study at San Benedetto Ullano (Calabria) Madeleine McJones 3102134392 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS CITY CLERK MARCH 18, 2025 ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented for tonight's meeting. Item No. 1 Description of Material Emails from: Matthew Glefand; Charles lantorno; Azeen Khanmalek and Brianna Egan; Alexandra Bandea; Kendra L. Carney Mehr; Joan Davidson; Michele Carbone; Dave Rand; Therese Miller; Kurt Canfield ** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted through Monday, March 17, 2025**. Respectfully submitted, L:\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2025\2025 Coversheets\20250318 additions revisions to agenda.docx From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Matt Gelfand <admin@caforhomes.org> on behalf of matt@caforhomes.org Monday, March 17, 2025 11 :57 PM cc Brandy Forbes; Jessica Bobbett; wwynder@awattorneys.com Correspondence from Californians for Homeownership 2025-3-17 -Californians Letter to City Council.pdf Some people who received this message don't often get email from matt@caforhomes.org. Learn why this is important To the City Council: Please see the attached correspondence regarding Public Hearing Item 1 being considered at your upcoming meeting. Sincerely, Matthew Gelfand Matthew Gelfand Counsel, Californians for Homeownership m.01t@)caforhomes.org Tel: (213) 739-8206 Californians for Homeownership is a 501{c)(3) non-profit organization that works to address California's housing crisis through impact litigation and other legal tools. 1 /. CALIFORNIANS FOR HOMEOWNERSHIP VIA EMAIL City Council City of Rancho Palos Verdes Email: cc@rpvca.gov March 17, 2025 RE: March 18, 2025 City Council Meeting, Public Hearing Item 1 To the City Council: MATTHEW GELFAND, COUNSEL MATT@CAFORHOMES.ORG TEL: {213) 739-8206 Californians for Homeownership is a 50l(c)(3) non-profit organization devoted to using legal tools to address California's housing crisis. Our organization is monitoring local compliance with the state laws governing general plan housing elements, and we have successfully sued over a dozen cities to enforce these laws. At your upcoming meeting, you will be considering initiating amendments to the City's housing element that will bring the City out of compliance with state law and unlawfully interfere with the vested rights of a development applicant. The legal flaws in the City's plans have been covered extensively by others, including in the attached letter from YIMBY Law, which we incorporate here by reference. We write separately to emphasize that if you adopt the resolution recommended by staff, the City will immediately fall out of compliance with state housing element law because it will have violated the duty to timely rezone consistent with the requirements state law. In litigation over the failure to rezone, the City will bear the burden of proving that it has completed its rezoning program. (Gov. Code§ 65587(d)(2).) Our organization has prevailed in litigation against several cities on this basis, including two cities in Los Angeles County. In our view, the City's failure to rezone, as established by its decision rescinding Resolution No. 2024-17, will immediately subject the City to the "builder's remedy" under the Housing Accountability Act. Sincerely, Matthew Gelfand cc: Brandy Forbes, Community Development Director (by email to bforbes@rpvca.gov) Jessica Bobbett, Senior Planner (by email to jbobbett@rpvca.gov) William W. Wynder, Esq., City Attorney (by email to wwynder@awattorneys.com) 525 S. Virgil Avenue Los An9eles, CA 90020 EXHIBIT A YIMBYLaw 2261 Market Street STE 10/i.16 San Francisco, CA 911.114 !Jg_llo@yi1nbylaw_,_mg 3/17/2025 City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council 3094.0 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Via email: CC@rpvca.gov YIMBY LAW Re: Removal of Sites 16, 18, and 19 from the Housing Sites Inventory Dear City Council, YIMBY Law is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation, whose mission is to increase the accessibility and affordability of housing in California. YIMBY Law sues municipalities when they fail to comply with state housing laws, including the Housing Element Law. We understand that this Council is preparing to remove sites 16, 18, and 19 from its sites inventory as identified in Program 1 of the City>s April 16, 2024 Housing Element. This follows the site being rezoned for 22 units per acre, and a preliminary application for development on site 16. The proposed amended Housing Element and subsequent downzoning of those sites will violate state housing law and the vested rights of Clipper Development, beyond the threat this action poses to your ability to meet the statutory RHNA obligation. To remain in compliance with Housing Element law and ensure the City is not subject to the Builder's Remedy, it must move forward with the Local Coastal Program amendment that would finalize the April 2024 zoning amendments. Vested Rights Clipper submitted its SB 330 preliminary application on November 22, 2024, for a development of 14 townhomes and 2 Accessory Dwelling Units. That submission vests the applicant's rights under the current General Plan and Zoning designations, as per CA Gov. Code 65589.5(0)(1). The application vests rights to develop the project only according to ''the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect when a preliminary application including all of the information required by subdivision (a) of Section 65941.1 was submitted. n The application relied upon representations made in the Housing Element, General Plan, and Zone changes, on the (then reasonable) belief that Rancho Palos Verdes did not complete these processes for no reason. Even if you proceed with removing the site from your Housing Element and subsequently reducing its density, the Preliminary Application granted the property a vested right to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes approval of the LCP Amendment, and to develop the Project in accordance with the Zone Change and General Plan Amendment. Coastal Act§ 3051t1.(b) requires that any LCP amendment be submitted to the Coastal Commission following adoption. The City's resolutions seeking an LCP amendment and Housing Element certification were both adopted and effective prior to the November application. The Coastal Commission is not bound by vesting rights, but you are legally prohibited from withdrawing that request to the Coastal Commission via a new resolution until the applicant fails to file a full application within the statutory 180 day period. Duty to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing Rancho Palos Verdes' certified Housing Element made programmatic commitments to affirmatively further the cause of fair housing. As per the Rancho Palos Verdes Housing Element, as drafted, reviewed, and certified: "Program 1, Zoning Amendments to Increase Housing Development Potential, is focused on increasing the amount of land zoned for residential development at or above the default minimum density for lower-income housing. This will promote additional opportunities for housing for lower-income households, including minorities and people with disabilities, in Rancho Palos Verdes, a high opportunity community. This program also contains provisions to permit Emergency Shelters by-right in a new Mixed-Use Overlay District (MUOD) zone that will also permit residential uses and eliminate requirements for View Preservation analysis and CUPs for buildings over 16 feet developed on Housing Element sites. 11 Program 1, specifically, is a component to address the city's Fair Housing issue of "limited housing choice." The city's housing element says, a contributing factor to this issue of housing choice is, "Land Use and Zoning laws that historically limited opportunity for development of higher density housing types (e.g., apartments, condominiums); economic factors (i.e., high cost of housing)." If City officials stayed by their words and specific commitments, housing which would address those flaws and has already been applied for could rriove forward. The options in front of you are to respect the efforts of your staff which led to a Housing Element and subsequent rezoning AND an application consistent with those measures, or to waste time and open yourselves to our lawsuit while crippling your ability to meet the statutory RHNA obligation. Obligation to Meet RHNA Capacity Substantially reducing capacity on opportunity sites will prevent Rancho Palos Verdes from meeting the statutory responsibilities it committed to. If zoning were undone on Site 16 1 its maximum capacity would fall from 17 units to 3 single family homes, though current RS-4 lot size requirements could preclude this on the 1.56 acres that the City has identified as buildable property. Site 18, a 3.71 acres site currently zoned for ministerial approval under the city's "residential overlay district 11 (ROD-6) zoning, would have its maximum capacity reduced from the current 12 units with the ROD overlay, to the underlying zoning of "Institutional II which does not allow residential uses. (12 -> o units) The ''closed Marymount University/sold to UCLA site at 30800 Palos Verdes Drive E (site 19 ), which is a 20.87 acre site currently zoned for ministerial approval under the ROD-6 zoning would have its maximum capacity reduced from the current eight (8) units to the underlying zoning of ''institutional" which does not allow residential uses. (8 -> o units) Site 16 is one of only three sites in the city's site inventory on which the property owner has expressed interest in developing, and one of only two sites that the City performed a true rezoning on as part of their rezoning Program 1. All other rezonings are overlays. The two UCLA sites represent 2/3 of the total sites city rezoned with the ministerial approval of the 11 residential overlay district" zoning for sites that were previously designated as 11 institutional" where no housing is otherwise permitted. The other housing element sites that were rezoned as 11 mixed use overlay district 11 as part of the Program 1 rezoning action in April 202Le are still zoned commercial retail or office, and the majority have active commercial uses. While some sites could seek ministerial approval under AB 2011, they are likely subject to known development challenges on shopping center sites such as reciprocal easement agreements. Environmental Impacts Page 5 of the staff report for this amendment states that site removal would have little to no environmental impacts as opposed to following through with legal requirements and city programs. This assumption ignores the habitat loss and emissions that result from low density housing. Rancho Palos Verdes' amended Mitigated Negative Declaration considered the Housing Element upzoning; it found that 11 The Revised Project would allow for an increase in residential units and non-residential square footage that would occur as infill development throughout the City .... Future infill development of residential and limited residential-serving retail or commercial uses would also not be anticipated to result in substantial increases in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and associated vehicle emissions. The housing sites were identified to locate higher-density and mixed-use developments in infill locations near other uses that would help to reduce VMT within the city." (Addendum to Adopted Negative Declaration, March 2024 1 page 33) As the already completed upzoning would reduce VMTs, a subsequent downsizing must necessarily increase VMTs. The proposed amendment could require new environmental reviews to assess this damage. That process, along with a reopened Housing Element, subject the City to numerous opportunities for litigation and scrutiny. We urge the City to take its commitments seriously, as well as state housing law. I am signing this letter both in my capacity as the Executive Director ofYIMBY Law, and as a resident of California who is affected by the shortage of housing in our state. Sincerely, ~~ Sonja Trauss Executive Director YIMBYLaw From: Sent: To: Subject: Charlie lantorno <charlieiantorno@gmail.com> Tuesday, March 18, 2025 10:58 AM CityClerk Comment for City Council -March 18th Agenda Item #1 Some people who received this message don't often get email from charlieiantorno@gmail.com. Learn why this is important !F-~.~~~:::_:MAlL:.Do)lOt.tli<:f<l11ll<S6r··op~r\~ny~ti~~Hrn~r\t~~nJ~~s~v~41r~~tfgffi~~:tft~,~n"cfer:ind,~g'~w'.fti~~~n~.~rlt:(~s~f~O.tti_.u ..•..• Hello, My name is Charles lantorno, and I have registered to submit public comment to the City Council meeting taking place at 6PM today, Tuesday March 18th regarding Agenda Item #1. My address is 6280 W 3rd St Apt 309 Los Angeles 90036. My phone number is 3233305074. I would like to submit this comment for the record and their consideration: We're in a severe housing shortage and climate crisis. We need every new home we can get, especially in places where residents don't need a car to live (or too much AC/Heat). Homelessness as well as high rents, for diminishing quality, are correlated to the fact that cities like RPV make it pretty much illegal to build. The state is trying to work with cities, but actions like these threaten California's ability to become a leader in sustainability and quality of life. It's alarming that downzoning is even a consideration, or that HCD would fathom sanctioning such a move. If the Council continues taking this landowners' private property rights for public use without compensation, the city will be exposed to expensive litigation --YIMBY Law already said they won't hesitate to sue. And they should win. Downzoning means less tax dollars for infrastructure, education, and public safety in the future, too. It's a great waste of taxpayers resources just to make life worse for renters, working people, and businesses. Please come into the 21st century, and reject the hysterical degrowthers. Reject this ill-advised downzoning. Let the people build. Thanks, Charles lantorno !. From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Jake Pierce <jake@abundanthousingla.org > Tuesday, March 18, 2025 10:40 AM CityClerk Oppose Agenda Item 1 -Consideration to revise the City Council-adopted Housing Element to remove Site Nos. 16, 18, and 19 from the Housing Sites Inventory AHLA Letter to Rancho Palos Verdes re_ sites modification.pdf Some people who received this message don't often get email from jake@abundanthousingla.org. Learn why this is important March 18, 2025 Fred Hesse Community Park, McTaggart Hall 29301 Hawthorne Blvd, Rancho Palos Verdes 90275 Subject: Oppose Agenda Item 1 -Consideration to revise the City Council-adopted Housing Element to remove Site Nos. 16, 18, and 19 from the Housing Sites Inventory Dear Mayor Bradley and Rancho Palos Verdes City Council members, Abundant Housing LA and its local chapter South Bay Forward write to express grave concerns about a possible decision that could both violate state housing law and deepen inequities locally. LA County and South Bay cities are suffering from a severe housing shortage, which is why housing advocates across the South Bay are engaging at the local level to build support for new housing and hold cities accountable to their obligations and commitments to addressing the housing crisis. Last year, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted a Housing Element that the state of California deemed compliant with state law. The City also increased zoned capacity for the relevant parcels in its sites inventory and agreed to amend its Local Coastal Plan to allow for greater density. Now, the City wants to reverse course and is considering revising its Housing Element to remove three parcels-sites 16, 18 and 19-from its sites inventory. The city is clearly responding to development interest in Site 16, located at 0 Clipper Road. In addition, the item before you includes potential amendments to the General Plan, Zoning Code, and Zoning Map to effectuate these revisions; these actions would represent a violation of state housing law, particularly SB 330 (Skinner, 2019). They also defeat the purpose of the Housing Element process. Let's not pretend that Rancho Palos Verdes is on track to meet its housing obligations, with or without these sites. That's what the staff report suggests, but it is untrue. The City has only permitted 44 of the 639 units it is required to allow, good for only 7% of its RHNA allocation, despite being nearly halfway through the 2021- 2029 cycle. And in 2024, as noted in Consent Calendar Item D of today's agenda, the city permitted just 14 new units, most of them AD Us. 1 California has a crippling housing shortage. Here in the South Bay, we are home to the 3rd largest jobs center in Los Angeles County and suffering from a severe jobs-housing imbalance, as a result, with the number of jobs far outweighing available housing units. Building housing at all income levels will create a more inclusive, vibrant community that benefits everyone-small business owners, low-wage workers, young families, elderly Californians hoping to stay in the community they love. Having more homes in Rancho Palos Verdes helps address the region's worsening shortage. It provides opportunities for people to live closer to their workplaces, schools, and essential services. A diversity of housing options fosters a balanced economy to help both current and future residents thrive. Your city has a responsibility to improve housing opportunity and affirmatively further fair housing by applying a good faith effort to expanding and maintaining zoned capacity on residentially-zoned parcels. Please comply with state housing law and reject any attempts to downzone parcels or modify your Housing Element, underlying zoning, or relevant local plans. Azeen Khanmalek Executive Director Abundant Housing LA Brianna Egan Chapter Chair South Bay Forward 2 March 18, 2025 ABUNDANT LA HOUSING Fred Hesse Community Park, McTaggart Hall 29301 Hawthorne Blvd, Rancho Palos Verdes 90275 SOUTH BAY FORWARD Subject: Oppose Agenda Item 1 -Consideration to revise the City Council-adopted Housing Element to remove Site Nos. 16, 18, and 19 from the Housing Sites Inventory Dear Mayor Bradley and Rancho Palos Verdes City Council members, Abundant Housing LA and its local chapter South Bay Forward write to express grave concerns about a possible decision that could both violate state housing law and deepen inequities locally. LA County and South Bay cities are suffering from a severe housing shortage, which is why housing advocates across the South Bay are engaging at the local level to build support for new housing and hold cities accountable to their obligations and commitments to addressing the housing crisis. Last year, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted a Housing Element that the state of California deemed compliant with state law. The City also increased zoned capacity for the relevant parcels in its sites inventory and agreed to amend its Local Coastal Plan to allow for greater density. Now, the City wants to reverse course and is considering revising its Housing Element to remove three parcels-sites 16, 18 and 19-from its sites inventory. The city is clearly responding to development interest in Site 16, located at O Clipper Road. In addition, the item before you includes potential amendments to the General Plan, Zoning Code, and Zoning Map to effectuate these revisions; these actions would represent a violation of state housing law, particularly SB 330 (Skinner, 2019). They also defeat the purpose of the Housing Element process. Let's not pretend that Rancho Palos Verdes is on track to meet its housing obligations, with or without these sites. That's what the staff report suggests, but it is untrue. The City has only permitted 44 of the 639 units it is required to allow, good for only 7% of its RHNA allocation, despite being nearly halfway through the 2021-2029 cycle. And in 2024, as noted in Consent Calendar Item D of today's agenda, the city permitted just 14 new units, most of them ADUs.1 California has a crippling housing shortage. Here in the South Bay, we are home to the 3rd largest jobs center in Los Angeles County2 and suffering from a severe jobs-housing imbalance, as a result, with the number of jobs far outweighing available housing units. Building housing at all income levels will create a more inclusive, vibrant community that benefits everyone-small business owners, low-wage workers, young families, elderly Californians hoping to stay in the community they love. Having more homes in Rancho Palos Verdes helps address the region's worsening shortage. It provides opportunities for people to live closer to their workplaces, schools, and essential services. A diversity of housing options fosters a balanced economy to help both current and future residents thrive. Your city has a responsibility to improve housing opportunity and affirmatively further fair housing by applying a good faith effort to expanding and maintaining zoned capacity on residentially-zoned parcels. Please comply with state housing law and reject any attempts to downzone parcels or modify your Housing Element, underlying zoning, or relevant local plans. Thank you, Azeen Khanmalek Executive Director Abundant Housing LA Brianna Egan Chapter Chair South Bay Forward 2 https://hub.scag.ca.gov/datasets/5a9796e44aba46f1 b217af1 b211 ce2ac From: Sent: To: Jessica Bobbett Tuesday, March 18, 2025 1 :54 PM CityClerk Subject: FW: Support homes in Rancho Palos Verdes, and tell the city to comply with state law! Late Corr. Thanks, Jessica Jessica Bobbett Senior Planner jbobbett@rpvca.gov Phone -(310) 544-5224 -DO\t'VNLOAD 'fll'{ Address: 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Website: www.rpvca.gov !;!··) <: 1ci1;I ttK:S'.•;:1J<: c;r~~,:_1l1t:. ir1fonr~<it::.~:·; !),.:!1.:11~_:i11) ;'!i(!(L<lcd fror1 cbchstnc T1f.' :nicnn,J'..inr1 is inlt.::<lct cii;/r1i>~1tKltL (J( co:-)y:nq :-,tncU\1 p:r1hi!:•H·:~c;, .:.f y,·;u : r1c,ndcr :: r1r);:_'.dH!.dy. i hanr'. you :'·or ycL_,;· -----Original Message----- 'i Oownlo.:1d on the App Store h.._ GETITON Y Google Play fJ!Jt __ ;1c, Pdic.1!, \/r:'.rdc'..•r \.Nh1d1 rndy tY.~ p!·(vi!c:;ed 1 cunfklcriUaif iY:d/or th: :ndivkllt?ii ,:;r t\nU:y ru1c~~d. t.Jnauthorizc:d disscrr1in(L:ic1n 1 ::T,"Jii ::·1 ('.r:·1 H, or nrc ;1ot dn intended recip\u11·1 pie;:1sc nuUfy the From: a@everyactioncustom.com <a@everyactioncustom.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2025 1:51 PM To: Jessica Bobbett <jbobbett@rpvca.gov> Subject: Support homes in Rancho Palos Verdes, and tell the city to comply with state law! [You don't often get email from a@everyactioncustom.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification ) EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open any attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe!!!. Dear J Bobbett (Rancho PV), I write to express grave concerns about a possible decision that could both violate state housing law and deepen inequities locally. I grew up in Rancho Palos Verdes. My family still lives there after 30 years as vibrant members of the community. I had access to incredible public schools and a clean climate growing up, which has afforded me so many opportunities as an adult. And you know why? It's because of dense affordable housing. They still live in the same apartment complex after 30 years. As they age, they would like to continue living on the Peninsula, but this looks more and more unlikely due to the lack of affordable housing. /. 1 Last year, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted a Housing Element that the state of California deemed compliant with state law. The City also increased zoned capacity for the relevant parcels in its sites inventory and agreed to amend its Local Coastal Plan to allow for greater density. Now, the City wants to reverse course and is considering revising its Housing Element to remove three parcels-sites 16, 18 and 19-from its sites inventory. The city is clearly responding to development interest in Site 16, located at 0 Clipper Road. In addition, the item before you includes potential amendments to the General Plan, Zoning Code, and Zoning Map to effectuate these revisions; these actions would represent a violation of state housing law, particularly SB 330 {Skinner, 2019). They also defeat the purpose of the Housing Element process. Let's not pretend that Rancho Palos Verdes is on track to meet its housing obligations, with or without these sites. That's what the staff report suggests, but it is untrue. The City has only permitted 44 of the 639 units it is required to allow, good for only 7% of its RHNA allocation, despite being nearly halfway through the 2021-2029 cycle. And in 2024, as noted in Consent Calendar Item D of today's agenda, the city permitted just 14 new units, most of them AD Us. California has a crippling housing shortage. Here in the South Bay, we are home to the 3rd largest jobs center in Los Angeles County and suffering from a severe jobs-housing imbalance, as a result, with the number of jobs far outweighing available housing units. Building housing at all income levels will create a more inclusive, vibrant community that benefits everyone-small business owners, young families, elderly Californians {like my own family) hoping to stay in the community they love. Having more homes in Rancho Palos Verdes helps address the region's worsening shortage. It provides opportunities for people to live closer to their workplaces, schools, and essential services. A diversity of housing options fosters a balanced economy to help both current and future residents thrive. Your city has a responsibility to improve housing opportunity and affirmatively further fair housing by applying a good faith effort to expanding and maintaining zoned capacity on residentially-zoned parcels. Please comply with state housing law and reject any attempts to downzone parcels or modify your Housing Element, underlying zoning, or relevant local plans. I wouldn't be where I am without the ability of living on the Peninsula, and current and future generations deserve this too. Sincerely, Alexandra Bandea Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-3566 a@bandea.net 2 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Kendra Carney Mehr <klcm@carneymehr.com> Tuesday, March 18, 2025 1 :50 PM CityClerk Elena Gerli; Erin Grubisich Public Comment -March 18, 2025 -Public Hearing Agenda Item No. 1 3.18.25 Letter to City Council re Public Hearing Item 1.pdf Some people who received this message don't often get email from klcm@carneymehr.com. Learn why this is important I f~XtE~~ig~.~MAtfoQonlitclick links·o.r o~~~:~~~-~t~~~~~~~t·i-~nless'y9(;~~~oglii~lfij~~$~1n!!tfr~ri~f~'.t19:Wi~b~t~4~f~ritJs~~::~~;~ Please see attached letter to the City Council with regard to the above item. Best regards, Kendra L. Carney Mehr Principal Carney Mehr, a legal corporation t: (949) 629-4676 e: klcm@carneymehr.com w: carnaymehr.com Schedule a meeting with me by clicking this link My working hours are 9:30 am -4:30 pm, Monday-Thursday, and 9:30 am -1 :00 pm on Fridays. Outside of working hours: klcm@ca...rnELymehr.com, and I will respond within 12 business hours • : , .11 , ~mci any docun1f'nl:s, files or prcvim1'., e-n1c1ii :_·,·. ,:. '· : .. ,:I,,'!· ; c c:·· r1'1'i ·jor)h,' 1 \it ln(-1:·1 11 \/ r· l':\,.11 1"('1('( 1 J1.11· 1/()l.l ;:_1 ·1 > .. ·' . . .. I,., .... ), ,C,\,.t 1,,11-,ll ";_ "··.--)'L !!y i.J I "-',: .,,.,I, \., no! Lhc iritcnclc:ci iC\l 1 ,;_:1 ,::,1 for t.idivcrimJ it Lo tlK: inir,nciccJ rccipi('11t, you ,ln'. he(eby rmtiflcd (i'1ai" 1 1,1 . '·, ,", c·;,,·,.i,::•:'.1'(·)t'l ,: .. r1(·1' t-1·,.,,t .. ·11,,., 1"lkc·1'(',"Ll"t' c·•(')")'V,11··1,·1. ,.·11·1·1·1t'·'11·1c1 .. ,di.,,,,., . .,, .. ., . _j .. 1Ct. C I)' e,,,_.,. .,) f 'I ,. j .. '.-·n I' .:JI cl1'.)tribution m use uf o<li1tc11r1t!c! in or a\tachcd to U1is transrnission i~; STRICT! Y Pf{()l,.,1JF3.rr1:-::C), ff !"\(-)\/\·~ Jf"l "1 'T(')1" r1 le"J<'.(\ ·1'""il,)')(·'('i·,-.,t·c,1v '!'(''l'Ll'"l (> .. r1·1a·11 ;:in\'1 j ' \",l I "' I I, ( .... , ',;• l I < .,, J (..-1 ,\.~ , .• " , l I ... I .,, "'' 1 n 2 CARNEY MEHR LAW March 18, 2025 Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 cityclerk@rpvca.gov Kendra L. Camey Mehr 23 Corporate Plaza Drive, Suite 150 Newport Beach, CA (949) 629-4676 klcm@cameymehr.com Re: Consideration of Amendment to the City Council-Adopted 2021-2029 Housing Element. (March 18, 2025 City Council Agenda, Public Hearing Item No 1.) To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: This firm represents Thomas and Shannon Hartman, homeowners and residents within the Community of Abalone Cove which is adjacent to the parcel identified as 0 Clipper, more specifically identified as Assessor's Parcel Number 7573-006-024 (the "Clipper Lot") within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (the "City"). The Clipper Lot is also identified as Site No. 16 on the City's Housing Element Sites Inventory being discussed this evening as Public Hearing Agenda Item No. 1. Not only do the Hartmans live in the neighboring community that will be directly, negatively impacted by any development to the Clipper Lot, but the Hartmans sold the Clipper Lot to the current owner based on the City's representations that it would not consider increased density for this parcel. The Hartmans request and strongly encourage the City Council to direct City staff to initiate the public hearing proceedings to adopt the revised 2021-2029 Housing Element to remove the Clipper Lot, Site No. 16, and amend the General Plan, Zoning Code, and Zoning Map to effectuate that revision and return this parcel to its original zoning. A review of the City's findings in support of the reclassification of the Clipper Lot from RS-4 to RM-22 shows these findings include blatant inconsistencies with the General Plan, Coastal Specific Plan and, more importantly, purposefully ignored existing salient Zoning Code provisions that were established to protect the " ... the peace, health, safety and welfare of the community ... ". And, specifically, the rezoning is not consistent with the City's own site selection criteria and ignores hazards previously identified as impacting the subject parcel. The Clipper Lot is simply not safely suitable for high- density development. As stated in prior correspondence, for many important reasons, the Community is adamantly opposed to the rezoning of the Clipper Lot which was approved in accordance with the adoption of the Housing Element on June 18, 2024. While several of these reasons are discussed below, as underscored by the City Council's Special Meeting earlier this evening, the Clipper Lot's proximity 1 to the Portuguese Bend community raises grave concerns regarding the environmental stability and geological hazards present in the area. Concerning Site Conditions Landslides and Geological Hazards According to the Housing Element: "Portuguese Bend Landslide Moratorium Area: the Housing Element sites have avoided these areas and are instead limited to infill locations within existing developed areas and some vacant sites. " The Housing Element indicates that an investigation was performed to show that no environmental constraints were present on the Clipper Lot to justify the inclusion and appropriateness of this parcel for multi-family housing development. This conclusion relied in part on the image shown below which illustrates the City's Landslide Inventory. According to this Inventory, the Clipper Lot is adjacent to but has no existing landslide designation. Essentially, the report indicates that the subject parcel is located outside the Portuguese Bend Landslide area and is therefore buildable. However, the report qualified this determination by also including the requirement that a geotechnical analysis will be required during the entitlement/permitting process to actually assess and address any potential landslide concern. 1 The Clipper Lot is located just half of a mile from the Portuguese Bend community. 2 Figure 1: Landslide In ventory Land slid e In ve nt ory ~ 100 fl. Contoure C Non -L 1nd1lld1 -Possible L1nd1Udt Dorman t Landslide -Active Lands lldt - Of significant concern however, is that the City's Coastal Specific Plan, adopted by the City prior to the Housing Element, found the Clipper Lot is actually located within an "extreme geologic hazard area" as well as within a natural vegetation and wildlife corridor. The image below is from the City's Coast Plan Geologic/Preservation Designations . 01 tr emo goologic haz:o,d / ext romct slope natur al vo901ot ion/hobif,11 c:::J ma ,ino reso ur ce THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDE S \.-!o !aoo l 1600 !3200 This conflicting information was not included, addressed, or analyzed in the Housing Element or related CEQA Addendum. For many reasons, but especially for this reason, the Community urges the City Council act and direct City staff to request HCD's approval to remove the Clipper Lot from the Housing Sites Inventory of the City's 2021- 2029 Housing Element. Flood Hazards The Housing Element illustrates 2 the potential flood hazards throughout the City, but does specify that "Site 16", the Clipper Lot, is located within FEMA's Flood Zone Category D. The Housing Element states: 2 See Housing Element Figure 80 3 "Flood z one Dis defined as areas with possible but undetermined flood hazards . No flood hazard analysis has been conducted in these areas and th erefore these areas are designated as undetermined risk areas. Although the chances of a flood hazard are minimal, as identified by FEMA, a definite flooding problem does exist in the form of temporary flash floods related to heavy winter rains." As shown below, the Coastal Specific Plan, on the other hand, appropriately identifies the Clipper Lot and adjacent properties as an area prone to flood-related hazard s and with exposure to potential negative hydrological impacts. C] hydro logy fac tor B ll ood hazard THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ,,. jo !eoo j1 600 fn oo Significantly, neither the Housing Element nor the CEQA Addendum indicated, analyzed, or provided a mitigation framework to address FEMA's Flood Zone Category D. Instead, the City not only ignored the potential safety impacts to the Community but ex posed the Community to exacerbated risk by creating a hi gher density development. Wildlife and Natural Vegetation The reported site conditions relied upon for the Housing Element similarly did not take into account the existing wildlife corridors and natural vegetation present on the Clipper Lot. Again, the City's Coastal Plan indicates that the Clipper Lot has natural vegetation and serves as a wildlife corridor. Housin g development will necessarily eliminate the existing vegetation and will destroy the wildlife corridor. The City simply did not identify these corridors or conduct any environmental review to mitigate the se impacts . 4 Figure 5, Vegetation and Wildlife Corridors terrestrial [\\~;~•:·:.:::I vege tation m;wiJdti fe mar ine -preservaUon D restoration LJ maint enance THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES \-' !o !eoo ! 1soo jn oo As shown above , in the map of vegetation and wildlife corridors from the Coastal Specific Plan, the City has not ade quately analyzed the existing geohazards, potential flooding concerns, existing wildlife corridor, or natural vegetation of the Clipper Lot. However, the numerous contradictions relatin g to the site conditions between the Housing Element and recent Zoning Amendment and prior documents adopted by the City, such as its General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan give ample justification for th e City Council to reque st HCD approve the request to remove the Clipper Lot from the Hous ing Sites Inventory . Conflicting Development Standards The change in land use when the City amended the zoning of the Clipper Lot from RS -4 to RM-22 created spot zoning and inconsistent development. If left as is, the amendm ent will result in a significant lo ss to the established land use patterns, incompatible design, and the lo ss of the neighborhood character. The Clipper Lot is situated within and surrounded by RS-4 and RS -2 designated neighborhoods . The notable design features of these communities include low scale and mass, largely midcentury design , low heights, low pitched roofs , and the requirement to be situated on a minimum of approximately 10 ,000 square foot lots . The RM-22 zoning designation, on the other hand , is intended to create a PUD development project design with small, 2,000 square foot lots with no lot coverage maximum standards, 36 foot high dwe llings , with no opportunities to review the design for compatibility or view obstructions . With this change, the City Council effectively eliminated "the peace, health, safety and welfare of the community" in terms of view preservation criteria. In its reclassification process, the City did not review plans , conduct primary data analysis, such as the erection of story pole s, or create a regulatory framework to analyze potential impacts of development despite the Planning Commission's recomm endation. Rather, the City relied on studies that essentially plotted lots on the parcel base d on 5 assumptions of potential development desires, and made "approximations" of view obstruction base on available data and web images. The City's own consultant (Dudek) even indicated the following: "As identified in this analysis, potential building height maximums are approximations based on available contour data from the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and elevation spot-checking within Google Earth ... Further analysis is required to determined adequate view preservation per code. " In addition to the lack of meaningful data or evidence or the opportunity to establish a regulatory framework to guard against potential impacts resulting from the development of the parcel, the City purposefully removed or did not include standards that could have been used to analyze impacts, including view preservation and neighborhood compatibility. Instead, the Housing Element information indicated that: "Further, to ensure that the sites can be developed at the assumed densities, the Dudek analysis recommended that the proposed rezoning actions include provisions to eliminate the requirement for analysis pursuant to the View Preservation Ordinance and to eliminate the requirement for a Conditional Use Permit to allow development taller than 16 feet in height, on Housing Element sites. These recommendations are incorporated into Housing Element Program 1." This is the same report that indicated the need for further analysis to determine potential view impairments. These actions demonstrate that the City intended to rezone the subject parcel regardless of the impact to the existing community. However, this may still be corrected by the Council directing City staff to request HCD's approval to remove the Clipper Lot from the Housing Sites Inventory. A review of the Housing Element, supporting report, CEQA Addendum, Coastal Specific Plan, and Housing Site Selection Criteria shows that the zoning amendment of the Clipper Lot from RS-4 to RM-22 is inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhood development patterns. Moreover, the City's report and findings ignored environmental constraints and very present geological hazards to create internal inconsistencies between its Coastal Specific Plan and its General Plan. Furthermore, the reclassification is not consistent with the City's own site selection criteria. In its rush to meet various deadlines for adoption of the Housing Element, the City purposefully ignored and omitted existing salient zoning code provisions that were established to protect the" ... the peace, health, safety and welfare of the community ... ". However, HCD has provided the City Council the means to correct course. The City Council can begin to rectify this grave error this evening by voting to direct City staff to initiate the public hearing proceedings to adopt the revised 2021-2029 Housing Element to remove the Clipper Lot, Site No. 16, and amend the General Plan, Zoning Code, and Zoning Map to effectuate that revision and return this parcel to its original zoning. 6 While not before the City Council this evening, the plans submitted for the Clipper Lot in November 2024 will further exacerbate all of the conditions identified above. For the foregoing reasons, the Clipper Lot cannot be safely developed without putting the surrounding residents at risk and exposing the City to significant liability. Again, the Hartmans respectfully request the City Council direct City staff to initiate the public hearing proceedings to adopt the revised 2021-2029 Housing Element to remove the Clipper Lot, Site No. 16, and amend the General Plan, Zoning Code, and Zoning Map to effectuate that revision and return this parcel to its original zoning. cc: egerli@awattorneys.com 7 Best regards, /&__{awvfl-~ Kendra L. Carney Mehr Principal Attorney From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Kendra L. Carney Mehr Principal Kendra Carney Mehr <klcm@carneymehr.com> Tuesday, March 18, 2025 4:04 PM CityClerk Erin Grubisich; Elena Gerli Supplemental Letter for Public Comment -March 18, 2025 -Public Hearing Item No.1 3.18.25 Supplemental Letter to City Council re Public Hearing Item 1.pdf Carney Mehr, a legal corporation t: (949) 629-4676 e: klcm@carneymehr.com w: carneymehr.com Schedule a meeting with me by clicking this link My working hours are 9:30 am -4:30 pm, Monday-Thursday, and 9:30 am -1 :OO pm on Fridays. Outside of working hours: klcm@carneymehr.com, and I will respond within 12 business hours CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE-·· This e-mail transmission, and any docurr1ents, files or previous e-·mail messages attached to it may contain information that is confidential or legally pr·ivileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a pet·son t·esponsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you must not reacl this transmission and that any disclosure, copying, printing, distribution or use of any of the information cont:ainecl in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please imrr,ediately return e-mail and delete the original transrnission ancl its attachments without reading or saving in any rnanner. Thank you. 1 (. CARNEY MEHR LAW March 18, 2025 Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 cityclerk@rpvca.gov Kendra L. Carney Mehr 23 Corporate Plaza Drive, Suite 150 Newport Beach, CA (949) 629-4676 klcm@carneymehr.com Re: Consideration of Amendment to the City Council-Adopted 2021-2029 Housing Element. (March 18, 2025 City Council Agenda, Public Hearing Item No 1.) To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: This firm represents Thomas and Shannon Hartman, homeowners and residents within the Community of Abalone Cove which is adjacent to the parcel identified as 0 Clipper, more specifically identified as Assessor's Parcel Number 7573-006-024 (the "Clipper Lot") within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (the "City"). The Clipper Lot is also identified as Site No. 16 on the City's Housing Element Sites Inventory being discussed this evening as Public Hearing Agenda Item No. 1. The Hartmans request and strongly encourage the City Council to direct City staff to initiate the public hearing proceedings to adopt the revised 2021-2029 Housing Element to remove the Clipper Lot, Site No. 16, and amend the General Plan, Zoning Code, and Zoning Map to effectuate that revision and return this parcel to its original zoning. A review of the comments submitted for this item included a letter from "YIMBY Law." "YIMBY Law" is not a law firm, it is a non-profit that advocates only for increased density. The letter's author is not a lawyer, but YIMBY's executive director. Essentially, the YIMBY letter threatens that modifying the density to decrease the zoning will: 1. Violate state housing law; 2. Alter vested rights of Clipper Development; 3. Challenge the City's ability to meet the statutory RHNA obligation; and 4. Put the City at risk for Builder's Remedy. These assertions are false and not based in an analysis of the law. The following is an attempt to correct YIMBY's misleading statements: 1. YIMBY does not appear to state exactly how this action would violate State law. 2. Vested rights are a legal concept that protects property owners from changes in deveiopment regulations that could hinder or prevent them from completing a project they've already started or have approvals for. They essentially "lock in" the regulations in place at the time the rights vest, ensuring the project can proceed according to those rules, even if later changes are enacted. Rights do not vest until either (I) the developer obtains a building permit and performs substantial work or incurs substantial liabilities in good faith reliance on the permit or (2) the developer obtains some other approval of the project or secures a development agreement. Here, it does not appear the developer has any approvals at this time, and instead that he has merely submitted an incomplete application, so he simply does not have vested rights. 3. The City has provided ample housing to exceed its RHNA obligation. The current version provides 647 units. The City's own website states "The City's RHNA for above moderate income households in the 6th cycle is 122 units. Please note the City will still meet the required 122 units for above moderate RHNA if site 16 is not counted." The City will still exceed its RHNA requirement which was confirmed by HCD. 4. In general, if a city has not adopted a housing element in substantial compliance with state law, developers may propose eligible housing development projects that do not comply with either the zoning or the general plan. The term "Builder's Remedy" is used to describe the situation where a local agency may be required to approve an eligible housing development project because it cannot make one of the allowable findings to deny it. However, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes is in compliance, this is the reason it was important to obtain HCD's blessing to modify the Housing Element to remove the Clipper Lot (and two others). Because of this, the City is not at risk of Builder's Remedy. It could find that the project proposed by the developer for the Clipper Lot is inconsistent with both the zoning ordinance and the land use designation as specified in any general plan element (once revised to reve1t to its original status). However, a city or county cannot make this finding if it has not adopted a housing element in substantial compliance with state law. And, given the unique geological hazards, flood path, and topography of the Clipper Lot, the City could also find that the housing 2 development would have a specific adverse impact on public health and safety, and there is no way to mitigate or avoid the impact without making the development unaffordable. The City is not at risk of Builder's Remedy. cc: egerli@awattorneys.com 3 Best regards, /(flaw f{_tM Kendra L. Carney Mehr Principal Attorney From: Joan Davidson <j135cooper(cQ_y 0 hoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2025 9:23 AM To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.g9_y'>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Important! for tonight's meeting EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open any attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe!!!. HI-Someone sent this to me and if it's real please be prepared. ◄ Safari Search for Home Painting Recent Nearby Trending What happened: The City of Rancho Palos Verdes zoned and designated a site for housing. Someone bought the parcel of land, intending to build new homes on it. The neighbors freaked out and asked the city to down-zone the land. The City downzoned the parcel, rnaking it impossible to build new homes. Cities must not be allowed to downzone their housing sites like this. This kind of (apparently illegal) action is a great example of the kind of regulatory dysfunction that has put Southern California in such a serious housing crisis. During the last hearing on this issue, there were only 3 NIMBY comments. We can and will defeat them by being present and having our voice heard on the record. If you cannot call-in, please considet- sending in a letter in support. YIMBY Los Angeles leads are here to help as needed, just message us on Slack or reply to this email for help m more info. 0 + Horne Search r·or ~;;1iP Notifications /. ◄ Safari Q Search for Plumber Recent Nearby Trendin9 Joann Gioia i> South Shore~:· 411 ((D WARNING-Yimby Los Angeles is planning on bombarding the Rancho Palos Verdes Council meeting on March 18th. The YLA wants to force RPV to build more homes. If you want to fight this, you need to attend the meeting and speak up. The YU\ wants people who don't even live in RPV to have a say in what is built. YLA wants high density housing in RPV with no parking. They do not understand the problerns we are dealing with-landslides-lack of mads-fire danger-no parking. Here is the email they sent out to their members: Hello YIMBY friends, If you can, please consider joining us in- person or virtually tomorrow at 6PM to oppose the City of Rancho Palos Verdes downzoning. While the hearing is tomorrow, you'll need to register by tonight at 5PM to be called on. You can register by searching for the city council meeting on March 18th here. The agenda can be found here. 0 + Horne Search Post Notificntions ------- Thanks Joan Davidson From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Hello City Council Michele Carbone <michelepcarbone@gmail.com> Monday, March 17, 2025 9:33 PM CC; CityClerk 0 Clipper-Council Meeting Agenda Item March 18, 2025 2025-03-17 Letter and Petition for 0 Clipper.pdf Attached is a letter and petition from the Community of Abalone Cove and Upper Abalone Cove HOA. TH is parcel should never have been placed on the Housing Element, re-zoned or any of the changes approved by the City council. Per documents: The original owners, while they owned it, requested it to be re-zoned and if it was going to be added to the Housing element and was told no to the rezoning and it was not going to be added to the Housing Element. Within the same time frame, before it was sold to the developer, the city, Octavio and the mayor were in discussion with the developer for the re-zoning and adding to the Housing Element. This entire Seacove area is moving and any additional development is putting additional risk to the community similar to what was done in Portuguese bend and the additional development approved by the city and look at what a disaster that is currently and again another potential disaster adjacent that area. 1 I ; o: RPV Cly Council , Letter and pHit:on r he Comrnunity cf Abs lone Cov0' ;,ind upper Abalone Cove Hon,eowners Association has been very vornl ar1 cl iv,ve comrnuniG1H,d via le':ter. emails and appear,rnces at both the planning and councii :neetngs submitting object.ion~, about th:s parcel br,ing added to the Housing hernent, rezoning, coastal ;:,hange·s 2nd any approved deVfdop ·nc•1t, vv:1,n was subrnitr.ed \>\11th signa1,u'P:i from horneowners is again repeated at the bottom of thi:::, letter. ,n '.,urnn\aty and additionar inforn,ation to indudc the PR/1. discovcrv and v11hy we opposed the approved changt!S by City Counci: as d result of this parce: being added to the Holising Element ,, Environmernai :mpact and devr,loprnent risk as this parcel is% rnile away from the land slide .. Since la,,t year, the area is even more fragile and any development close in proximity could add rn the current rnoven,ent and potentially be catastrophic and additive to existing land movc:Ywnt jeopardizing our neighborhood. r Community compatibility .... now thdt we have seen the developer's pians, we are even more concerned how apparent n,at ·,,,is deve:oprnent wU destroy our neighborhood and negatively i"npan our hornc vaiu<: .. Not to mention the added congPsi'ion, additional parking on Hie street ,md cvaclielion cor·,Lern), sa,,eci on these concerns, we approached HCD and they had brought to the city-'s attention that the city had an adequate housing buffor to remove t.his site from the Housing Element. As a result of the U)rr,munity's effo'.·t,, this resulted in ,H·, approved Housing Element .Amendmunt on January 23, 202.S. in essence, the Housing Eiement did not need this parcel to meet the RHNA numbers, Th,, up--zoning, General Pian and Coastal Plan changes were not warranted or needed, As HCD approved the site removai ;rnd still be in compliance and as such we are asking the Council to rr1ake this right as a terrible vvrong was clone againsi: our community: .1. Aoprovc the Housing Ficrncrt !-1rrkrn:irnent, ranoving 1hb parcel 2, Ecscind the request for Coaslai Corrnnis..:\ion to consider ,he LCP Amendment and revised Zon:ng plan We have spent hundreds of hours and thousands of doHars to prevent this re-zoning/ development and its irnpc1ct on our community. ;t is su VfHy concerning based on findings, the nefarious dealings with both the ciccuxl officials and c:ty emp!oyePs. ':011 j_-,•r., :rit' e 1iport1.:wcv ;,; iL.d-:,• i'1i, tnr u 1.,i' u,tter anq petition submitted __ Af!IU 2.!U.:1: We, :he n':s1dents of Absione Cove C on1n-nrn1ty1 respectfuiiy su:)mit our object,ons to the City of Rdncho P:dos Verdes proposed rezoning pl,:ln of the subJect property to a RM-22 in finalizinq its l·lo,J<nq r::::ern2nt update. The st3te-m<Hidated process req~Jires that ai! California cities undertake• every eight years (CY "cycles") to derno:,':Jrate hovv tht'Y will rnee:1: hous1rHJ needs. 'y_Y,e the Abalone <::ove (mnDJ\J,rqtJ,_iJ_DOQL;ig~_§X1y correlation betweenJh1srnandatec12rocessa.nd r,:~zonin~-2 residentia.1 lo.t .. to Res:_de~ntiai Mu:tinle f-PF i. Ii y ( RM:£iL The St;;,ff f<eport requesting to adopi: this pmpos,id plan has many mcorrect analysis and specific irrlproper derrnmst1 ation of facr.s, n::eds and requirPrnents. It also seerrs to ignore the facts that this rei9hborhood is in 21 slide d!Cd and is already' unsafe for those of us here. ! he repo, r on Pas.1e '/ indicate,; that the site-by-site analysis completed by Dudek studied ti,e topogniphic and view conditions of e2;ch MUOD, FIOD and F<M-22 !'ezoned parcel and prepared;_, potential deve(oprnent fra:-nework tl,dt minimlzeci adverse irnpacts rn neighbors. We disagree with this unsubst2,1\tiats:0 d condus:cn. ® Housin9 Eiernent by f,:,dit21t1nq the deveioprnent of d MUOD project of residential-only or rn1><ed-•use de·veloprnent with residential and comrnen::ial uses on seiect parcels. ,. Housin9 Elernent by facilitatinq a ROD development of res,dentiai-only or residential vvith lin1ited nonresidential uses on sclC"ct pat~cels with an existing Institutional underlying base dl 1;tr1ct designation. "' Hnusing Elernent by facilitating th," rezor11ncJ of d Single Residential Family to d 1·1igh density !VLitipie Res1dentia' Family. 2 The fZepo(t 1.,w~, out that a Genera! F'!an J\,n,c,ndnent to th,-:-Land Use E\ernent Map 1s also requin~d to :ri·1; ,,io ,;,,c, ri"'"i '/IIJOI> "',d Rn[-;, (l,1 ;,riav !''listr1cts as weil as to reclassify two residential properties : t ... :.....,\.~\.... t:is;.:;, 1;;;.-.,; l\ · ._,<..:;.,. •=" , ........ , , --~ • •S< • , (Assessor Paree! No. 7573-006 .. 024 (Site No. 16) (Clipper) and Assessor Pa(cei No. 7578-002-011 (Site \lo. :17)) to d higher densii:y. We be:i,::ve that Assessor Parcel No_ 7573-006-02.'.\ (Site [\Jo. 16) ( Clipper) cannot z1r:d shall not be rezonecl tc;, RM-n. Beside ali the topographic and geographic impact, it is in direct violation of neighborhood compatibility, T:-,t" PotE'.ntiai Hou'.,ing Sites lnverrcory included in the• Draft Revised Fina! ilousm9 C:ernem revised \iarch 1:;, 2m1, propc;c,es tc, ar;-w11ci 1he zorw19 de,;ignation and correspondins; City Zoninq rvlap (Cxh 1b1t f) for/.,'', ssor Parcel No. 7573-006-024 (Site No. 16) and Assessor Parcei No. 7578-002-011 (Site No.17) fron, RcsidentkJi Sin~i,e f=arnliy (RS-4) and i,!esidential Single Farni!y (RS-A-5)1 respectively, to f?esicientidi Multipie Family (RM--12). It appears to us, the Abalone cove Cornmunity, that this report has been prepared merely to satisfy one and oniy one purpose, at ail cost, ;,nd, that is to accommodate the City's 6Lt7 housing unit RHNA durirg Uhc> 61T Housing Cycie. The proposal of rezoning Clipper property to RM-22 has severe impact on Palos V.ardes Drive South road conditions, traffic, load and land slide. Iii<: Report further on Pages 7 and 8, introduces t1·1e list of 30 Potential Ho1y;ing Sit,'s identified in the Cty's adopted 6th Cycle Hous:n9 Elen,ent inciud:ng additional site at 500 Silvei-Spur Road {Site No. 15- 1\sse!;<,or Parcel No. 7586-028 019) for ti total of 31 Potential Housing Sites. Further, it establishes that Proposed RHNA imp!Pmentation l'neasures include Ceneral Plan Amendrnents, Zorie Changes, Locai Coastdl Progl';;;m (Coastal Specific Plan) /m,endments and dssociated code amendments, which are out!ined in further detail below: Draft Rev::,(:d Final Housing Element g Housing Programs (Case Nos. On Page 8 the Report illustrates the Concerns of HCD with the environrnenta: irnpact of this proposal as follows: On ,A,ugust 111 10-n1 the City Cour;cd adopte<j Resolution No. 2022-491 adopting the City's 6th Cycle Housinq Eleme,it and associated environmental review, which included a Negative Declaration pursuant to the California Environrnental Quality Act (CEOA). The adopted Housin9 Elernent was subsequently forw,;rded to HCD for compliance review with State Housing Element Law. In October :wn, HCD notified the City's Cornrnunity Development DepEntrnent via letter that although the adop,ed Housing Flernent rnet many of the statutol'y require1nents, the docun1ent was ultirnately not 3 found to :Je in co,Y1plianc1::, As p01't of 11:, revif~1.v, HCD outlined adciitiondl document cor:'ect:ons required to be cornpieted to achieve cornpiiance, dCD corrections inducled, but were not ii:nitecl to, providing support ;nfo,rnation rel2ted to affHr,vitiveiy furthering fai,, housing effmts and ciarifying the realistic capacity of residential deve:opment 1)n identified Potential Housing Sites outlined Fl the City's Housing Fw Hou',,ng Liement update ho'., inv;;ived scffon::; by City staff and con:,ullants; pubi1c outreach, virtual ;rnd in p;?rso11 "Norkshops, and meetnqs of th(! Planning Commission and City C:ounol --all ai1r1ed at :dNlt :iynq ways the City can rezon,0 to 2ccon1rnoclate 6,17 potential new housing units 1n f~PV across vzJ1iou:; 1nrnrne !eve ls through 2029. Th,, target figure, ca lied a Regional Housing Needs Assessrnent (F<HNA) allocation, w,is assigned to :h2 City by the state, and the City is required to denionstrcJte the c;ip;icity o1 prov1dins1 that ;,dditiona 1 housin9 by adequately zoning for the FfrH<A To meet. :t.s l~Hl'J,\ the City i:; propO'.i:ng the credtion of a Mixed-Use Overlay D,st,ict (MUOD) and i,:;,:s1dent1al Overlay Distr,ct (ROD J. T :-ic City i,; 211'.,o proposmg to reclassify the zoninq of two resident1ai propert10c, t.o ,; highf,r' density. Both of the proposed districts and the rezoning effort ure outlined in ·:he f,/\'Vi'•'ilfi11,,d r!ch.1sir•(Jtlcrw·r1~ (l'i)J}1 which was recently subrnitted to the California Department of Hous1nq zind Cornrnurnty Development (HCD), the agency that detem,ines vvhether cities have co1,,plic>nt housing elernerits. Vve, the Ab-c1lone Cove Comn,un!'t''f" believ1~ that while MUOD or ROD l'l'1i~Jht have possible V✓Ot'k arnund env1ronrnent irnpact, the f~M · 22 on;., one--aue lot located on the rnost Unstable Costzil Road 1ivill have i·11c;h 01,viconmental irnpact, view irnpairn1ent and adverse affect on durability 2nd desirability of the co,nrnunicy, As stated at the opening of our objectiors, it appears that this report has centered on th"' state rn,H1d2ted cyclic hou:,ing ,ilernent dnd foc,seci entirely on addition of 647 high density housing at all costs not dcceptable to t)·1e rest of community. From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Dave Rand < Dave@rpnllp.com> Monday, March 17, 2025 6:18 PM CC; CityClerk Brandy Forbes Public Comment -Item #1 March 18, 2025 City Council agenda Clipper RPV _Letter to City Council_3.18.25 meeting.pdf Good afternoon Hon. Councilmembers: Our firm represents the owner of the "Clipper Site" which is the subject of Item #1 on the March 18, 2025 City Council agenda. Please see our attached correspondence and public comment related to this item. Thank you, Dave Rand Partner Phone: 213.557.7222 Direct: 213.557.7224 Cell: 818.983.6155 63 3 W. Fifth Street, Suite 5880, Los Angeles, CA 90071 Email: Dave@rpnllp.com Web: www.rpnllp.com Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail +++++++++++++++++++++++ This e-mail message is intended only for the personal use of the recipient(s) named above. This message may be an attorney-client communication and/or include attorney work product privileged material, and as such is privileged and confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the original message. To comply with IRS regulations, we advise you that any discussion of Federal tax issues in this e-mail was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used by you, (i) to avoid any penalties imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) to promote, market or recommend to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. +++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 (, 111111/11 Ill RAND I PASTER I NELSON March 17, 2025 VIA EMAIL City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council cc@rpvca.gov Re: March 18, 2025 City Council Agenda, Public Hearing Item 1 Proposed Removal of Sites from Housing Element Sites Inventory Dear Mayor Bradley and Honorable City Council Members: 633 West Fifth Street Suite 5880 Los Angeles, CA 90071 213.557.7222 www.rpnllp.com Dave Rand 213.557. 7224 Dave@rpnllp.com We represent Clipper Development LLC ("Clipper" or "Applicant"), which owns the property located at the southeast corner of Clipper Road and Palos Verdes Drive South (the "Clipper Site") in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes ("City"). The Clipper Site is included as Site No. 16 in the Sites Inventory in the City's certified 2021-2029 Housing Element ("Sites Inventory"). On March 18, 2025, the City Council will consider whether to initiate actions to remove the Clipper Site from the Sites Inventory and downzone the Clipper Site, including adopting a resolution rescinding the City's previous request for the California Coastal Commission to consider the City's amendments to the Local Coastal Program ("LCP Amendment"). The proposed actions would violate state law by (i) denying Clipper's vested rights under Senate Bill ("SB") 330, (ii) violating State Housing Element Law (Government Code Section 65580 et seq.), and (iii) violating the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). In addition to being illegal, these actions are manifestly unfair to the Applicant who proceeded in good faith to purchase, and develop plans for, a property that the City explicitly singled out in its Housing Element and other public actions as a suitable and available site for higher-density housing to meet the City's housing needs. Now, with an actual development application in hand, the City Council is poised to dramatically reverse course, denying the applicant the benefits of its efforts and investment, and denying future tenants the enjoyment of 16 new homes. For the reasons discussed in this letter, we strongly urge you not to take any actions that would interfere with the Applicant's vested rights to develop the Clipper Site. I. The Proposed Actions Violate Clipper's Vested Rights Under SB 330 A. The City's Actions Concerning The General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, LCP Amendment, And Certification Request Are All Adopted And In Effect On April 16, 2024, the City Council took the following actions to implement the City's Housing Element update: RPV City Council March 17, 2025 Page 2 1. Adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 678-U, which rezoned the Clipper Site from RS-4 (Single- Family Residential, 4 Lots Per Acre) to RM-22 (Multi-Family Residential, 22 Units Per Acre) ("Zone Change"). 2. Adopted Resolution No. 2024-016, which: a. Amended the General Plan to change the land use designation of the Clipper Site from Residential 1-2 DU/acre to Residential 12-22 DU/acre ("General Plan Amendment"). b. Amended the Coastal Specific Plan (Local Coastal Program) to change the land use classification of the Clipper Site from Residential 1-2 DU/acre to Residential 12-22 DU/ Acre ("LCP Amendment"). 3. Adopted Resolution No. 2024-017, which submitted the LCP Amendment to the Coastal Commission for certification ("Certification Request"). The Zone Change took effect immediately because it was adopted by urgency ordinance. Resolution No. 2024-016, adopting the General Plan Amendment and LCP Amendment, took effect either immediately or on May 16, 2024 .. 1 Resolution No. 2024-017 took effect immediately. B. Clipper's Preliminary Application Vested The City's Actions That Were Adopted And In Effect On November 22, 2024 On November 22, 2024, Clipper submitted a preliminary application 2 under Government Code Section 65941.1 ("Preliminary Application") for a project that would include 14 townhomes and 2 accessory dwelling units (ADUs) for a total of 16 units ("Project"). One of the units will be deed- restricted to be affordable to very low-income households. The density of the proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan Amendment, LCP Amendment, and Zone Change adopted by the City Council. The submission of a preliminary application gives the applicant an intentionally broad vested right to develop the proposed project in accordance with the "the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect when a preliminary application including all of the information required by subdivision (a) of Section 65941.1 was submitted," provided the preliminary application does not expire .. 3 "Ordinances, policies, and standards" "includes general plan, community plan, specific plan, zoning, design review standards and criteria, subdivision standards and criteria, and any other rules, regulations, requirements, and policies of a local agency.11 4 (Emphasis added). Finally, as these 1 The General Plan Amendment arguably took legal effect 30 days after adoption since it was a legislative act subject to referendum. Midway Orchards v. County of Butte (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 765, 781 (holding that resolutions that constitute legislative acts, including general plan amendments, do not take effect until the time period for exercising the power of referendum has ended). 2 The City informed Clipper that the City does not charge a fee for submission of Preliminary Applications, so Clipper was not required to pay an application fee. 3 Government Code Section 65589.5(0)(1). 4 Government Code Section 65589.5(0)(4). RPV City Council March 17, 2025 Page 3 previously quoted provisions are part of the Housing Accountability Act (Government Code Section 65589.5) ("HAA''), they must be "interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing.".5 Clipper's vested rights under the Preliminary Application are also acknowledged in the letter from the Department of Housing and Community Development ("HCD") to Brandy Forbes, included with the staff report for this agenda item. The letter states: HCD is aware that a preliminary application has been submitted to the City for site number 16 APN 7573-006-024. Please be aware pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5 subdivision (o)(l) a housing development project shall be subject only to the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect when a preliminary application including all the information required by Government Code Section 65941.1 subdivision (a) was submitted. Consequently, Clipper has a vested right in all of the actions taken by the City Council on April 16, 2024, which are described above. These actions include: (a) the City's approval of the LCP Amendment, and importantly (b) the Certification Request. Although the ultimate effectiveness of the LCP Amendment requires Coastal Commission certification,.6 the effectiveness of the City's approval of the LCP Amendment does not. Resolution No. 2024-016 clearly articulates the City Council's approval of the LCP Amendment and does not condition the approval on any subsequent event or action. Section 10 of the Resolution states: "The City Council approves the Local Coastal Program (LCP) (Coastal Specific Plan) Amendments (Exhibit D) to change the land use of one residentially-designated property in Subregion 4 to allow for higher density up to 22 dwelling units per acre." This approval (i.e., the City action to amend the Coastal Specific Plan) was adopted and in effect when the Preliminary Application was submitted. The City's approval of the LCP Amendment and Certification Request are legally required conditions precedent to the Coastal Commission's certification of the LCP Amendment, which, if certified, would take effect immediately and automatically .. 7 As such, the City's actions are part of a multi-step, multi-jurisdictional procedure that, if completed, will ultimately govern development on the Site. Although the full procedure is not yet complete, all of City's required steps are complete and final and were adopted and in effect on the date the Preliminary Application was submitted. Consequently, the City's approval of the LCP Amendment and Certification Request fall within the broad universe of "ordinances, policies, and standards" in which the Project is vested pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.5(0)(1). This must be the case, particularly if the SB 330 vesting provisions are properly "interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing" as directed by the HAA. 5 Government Code Section 65589.S(a)(2)(L). 6 As provided in the Coastal Act: "A certified local coastal program and all local implementing ordinances, regulations, and other actions may be amended by the appropriate local government, but no such amendment shall take effect until it has been certified by the commission." (Public Resources Code Section 30514(a).) 7 In Section 2 of Resolution No. 2024-017, the City Council states that the LCP Amendment "will take effect automatically once certified by the Coastal Commission" (emphasis added). RPV City Council March 17, 2025 Page 4 Consequently, Clipper has a vested right to develop the property in accordance with the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, LCP Amendment (subject to Coastal Commission certification), and the Certification Request. Any action by the City to rescind any of these regulations or resolutions with respect to the Clipper Site -including adopting the proposed Resolution rescinding the Certification Request-will therefore constitute a violation of Clipper's vested rights under the Preliminary Application and a disapproval of the Project in violation of the HAA .. 8 II. The Proposed Actions Violate State Housing Element Law A. The Proposed Actions Would Violate Both the Letter and Intent of State Housing Element Law Once every eight years, the required preparation and approval of updated Housing Elements and associated Sites Inventories presents critical new opportunities for the development of housing. The premise and requirement of a Housing Sites Inventory is to list sites where housing is suitable and where the local jurisdiction will, in fact, support the creation of housing at the identified density. Naturally, housing developers closely study these documents, investing significant time and money in hopes of developing a project that previously may not have been possible. In this case, the City both placed the Clipper Site on the Housing Sites Inventory and upzoned the Site, presenting an extremely rare opportunity for a relatively higher-density housing project to be developed in the Coastal Zone in a mostly built-out city. Clipper has spent significant amounts of money to acquire control of the Site and develop the proposed Project in reliance on the upzoning of the Site. However, once several neighbors realized that the Site may actually be developed with new housing units -which is the entire point of identifying the Site in the Sites Inventory-they voiced their complaints to the City, and the City Council is now considering whether to reverse course and not just eliminate the Clipper Site from the Sites Inventory but also downzone it to its prior residential development capacity. Such actions would violate both the letter and intent of Housing Element Law (Government Code Section 65580 et seq.) by destroying public confidence in the reliability of the Sites Inventory and chilling any potential actions a developer might take to actually attempt to build housing on one of the properties in the Sites Inventory. The City is obligated to make sites available "with appropriate zoning and development standards" to accommodate the City's RHNA obligations (Government Code Section 65583(c)(1)). Taking intentional actions to severely reduce the development capacity of a site that is currently listed on the Sites Inventory and for which a vesting development application has already been submitted -in effect, punishing a developer for taking the City at its word and trying to build more housing in the City-is the opposite of what Housing Element Law both requires and intends, and is, in fact, a violation of state Housing Element Law. B. The Proposed Actions Would Violate the City's Obligation to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing 8 See Government Code Section 65589.S(k)(l)(A)(i)(lll)(ia), providing that a local agency violates the HAA when "in violation of subdivision (o), [it] require[s] or attempt[s] to require a housing development project to comply with an ordinance, policy, or standard not adopted and in effect when a preliminary application was submitted." RPV City Council March 17, 2025 Page 5 Removing the Clipper Site from the Sites Inventory would be a violation of the City's duty to affirmatively further fair housing and would directly conflict with the City's adopted fair housing goals and programs. Although HCD has given its preliminary approval of the City's proposed Housing Element revisions, we note that California courts are not bound by HCD's determination and would conduct an independent review concerning whether the proposed revisions comply with state law .. 9 Specifically, the City's efforts to remove the Clipper Site from the Housing Sites Inventory and to downzone its residential development capacity directly conflict with the Housing Element's multiple affirmations regarding the City's support for fair housing. Specifically, the 11 Fair Housing Priorities, Goals, and Actions 11 section of the City's Updated Housing Element includes the following analysis: [T]he limited availability of land zoned for higher density development has limited opportunities for lower-income households to have choice in housing in the city .... Further, as a nearly built out city, where remaining vacant lots are those that are more difficult to develop, controversy can arise when new developments are proposed and this can hinder housing development and create adverse impacts not just for members of protected classes, but for any prospective resident or household who may be seeking housing opportunity in Rancho Palos Verdes .. 10 Based on this analysis, the Updated Housing Element lists the following as the City's first "fair housing priority": [E]xpand the opportunities for development of housing at higher densities which can better support housing that can be affordable for lower-income households by diversifying the City's housing stock with more housing units at higher densities that are more likely to be affordable to lower-and moderate-income households; thus increasing their access to fair housing choice in Rancho Palos Verdes for people of all racial, ethnic, and socio-economic groups[.]_11 Moreover, the first row in Table 29 of the Updated Housing Element, entitled 11 Fair Housing Issues, Contributing Factors, Priorities, and Programs Summary Matrix,"_12 reads as follows: Fair Hc>Uslna Issue L!ffitcd hou5ing choce Contribulina Factor{s) Priorit"y Lcvol l£ Pro~ram Responses l.and Uso and Zoning law i; lhlll ht.'.torir.alty linitcd ttigh ~(igr.im 1 (ZnnN,g Arreoctrrcnt'!', to ncrcase: tbu~.1ng ££vci:,rm~nt opportunity for dcvek>prrcnt of higHef density FbtcnMI}, Rogrnm 3 (tlerem:.-ntat :nflff tt,"tjs1ng Ftogrnmj, A'ogtamfi housing type:, (e.g., .apart1mn1s, condoninilnrs); {Affordable ADU klccnt~,c ~ogrnm), ftogram 1 (ACU Assis1aoct': cco1m1lic factor~• (Le., high co~t of hou5ing) A"ogram); Rogram9 {Scctoo Rcn1~11 Ass15taocc-), A"cq~1m 10 (C«yw de Affordable ~lousing Requren1)nts), Rog,.nm l l {first lin'l! tbrmbuycr Asstst.ancc) The listed factors contributing to 11 limited housing choice" include "Zoning laws that historically limited opportunities for development of higher density housing types," including "condominiums." Addressing this issue is listed as a 11 High" priority by the Updated Housing Element. And as noted above, the Housing 9 Martinez v. City of Clovis (2023) 90 Cal. App. 5th 193, 237 ("[C]ourts 'independently ascertain as a question of law whether the housing element at issue substantially complies with the requirements of the Housing Element Law."'). 10 Updated Housing Element, p. 141-142. 11 Housing Element, p. 142. 12 Housing Element, p. 146. RPV City Council March 17, 2025 Page 6 Element identifies various specific programs for the City to achieve its housing goals, including the rezoning actions under Program 1, which reads as follows:-13 1. Zoning Amendments to Increase Housing Development Potential (modification of existing Program #1) • Include component for Mixed-Use Overlay Zoning District (MUOD) and Residential Overlay District (ROD) (modify existing program and expand beyond Western Avenue) • Include component for other re-zonings to fully accommodate RHNA with appropriate zoning amendments for sites targeted in the sites inventory. • Complete necessary rezonings within the applicable statutory deadlines, including provisions for by-right development for projects that include at least 20 percent affordable housing. As described above, in order to achieve certification of the Housing Element, the City implemented Program 1 by approving the upzoning of the Clipper Site and various other sites listed on the Housing Sites Inventory in April 2024. It is clear from the sections of the Housing Element quoted above that the upzoning of the Clipper Site was an indispensable action in the furtherance of fair housing in the City. Upzoning the Site created the possibility for the expansion of housing choice by allowing for high-density development in an otherwise low-density area. Moreover, the upzoning worked. Within only a few months of the adoption of the Housing Element update, Clipper submitted an application to develop the Site with the exact type of housing that the Housing Element identified -14 condominiums, including 1 deed- restricted affordable unit, and 2 ADUs, which often provide a more affordable housing option even if they are not deed-restricted. Furthermore, the Project's new housing opportunities would be located in the Coastal Zone, where diverse housing options are especially rare. The California legislature has emphasized the importance of "encourag[ing] ... the provision of new affordable housing opportunities for persons of low and moderate income in the coastal zone."_14 If the City removes the Clipper Site from the Sites Inventory, then all new housing -including affordable housing -planned for in the Housing Element will be located outside of the Coastal Zone. To now remove the Clipper Site from the Housing Sites Inventory and downzone the Site would directly conflict with the City's stated fair housing goals and programs. Furthermore, this change would remove the only site on the Housing Sites Inventory that is located in the Coastal Zone, thereby further entrenching the economic exclusivity of this zone. In short, removal of the Clipper Site from the Housing Sites Inventory, and the subsequent downzoning of the Site, would violate the City's legal obligation to affirmatively further fair housing in the City, and would directly conflict with the stated goals and programs in the City's Housing Element. 13 Housing Element, p. 224. 14 Public Resources Code Section 30604(g). RPV City Council March 17, 2025 Page 7 Ill. The Proposed Actions Violate CEQA Neither the staff report for this agenda item nor the draft resolution rescinding the Certification Request include any analysis or findings concerning the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Housing Element amendments or the upzoning of the sites proposed to be removed from the Sites Inventory. This lack of analysis and findings violates the requirements of CEQA and fails to consider the increased vehicle miles traveled (VMT) that results from replacing high-density development with lower-density development. The March 2024 Addendum to the Adopted Negative Declaration for the Rancho Palos Verdes Revised 2021-2029 Housing Element considered the Housing Element upzoning and found that "The Revised Project would allow for an increase in residential units and non-residential square footage that would occur as infill development throughout the City .... Future infill development of residential and limited residential-serving retail or commercial uses would also not be anticipated to result in substantial increases in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and associated vehicle emissions. The housing sites were identified to locate higher-density and mixed-use developments in infill locations near other uses that would help to reduce VMTwithin the city." (Addendum, p. 33.) As the already completed upzoning would reduce VMT, a subsequent downsizing must necessarily increase VMT. Consequently, the City must complete a through evaluation of potential environmental impacts before taking any actions to initiate the downzoning of any sites in the Sites Inventory. IV. Conclusion As discussed above, any action by the City to rescind the Certification Request, regardless of whether the Clipper Site is removed from the Sites Inventory, will violate both the Housing Accountability Act (Government Code Section 65589.5) ("HAA'') and Clipper's vested rights under the Preliminary Application. Moreover, the proposed amendments to the Housing Element and downzoning of sites would violate the City's duty to provide suitable and available sites to accommodate the City's RHNA, would violate the City's duty to affirmatively further fair housing, and would directly conflict with the City's adopted fair housing goals and programs. Finally, the City has not complied with the requirements of CEQA to analyze and make findings regarding the potential environmental impacts of the proposed actions. For the foregoing reasons, we strongly urge the City not to take any actions that would interfere with Clipper's vested rights to development much-needed housing on the Clipper Site. Sincerely, Jjew,e,Of.2and Dave Rand Partner of RAND PASTER & NELSON, LLP RPV City Council March 17, 2025 Page 8 cc: Teri Takaoka, City Clerk, cityclerk@rpvca.gov Brandy Forbes, Director of Community Development, bforbes@rpvca.gov From: Sent: To: Subject: Teresa Takaoka Monday, March 17, 2025 6:06 PM CityClerk Fw: Agenda consideration -Public Hearing March 18, 2025 regarding the removal of sites# 16, 18, 19 of the Housing Sites Inventory From: Therese Miller <tpm1976@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2025 5:44 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Cc: Zeo Solomon <amazis@gmail.com> Subject: Agenda consideration -Public Hearing March 18, 2025 regarding the removal of sites# 16, 18, 19 of the Housing Sites Inventory Some people who received this message don't often get email from tpm1976@gmail.com. Learn why this is important Dear City Council Members, I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to petition the city council to reach the following resolutions that are of great importance to our neighborhood community of Abalone Cove. Firstly, we urge you to approve the Housing Element Amendment, specifically to remove sites 16, 18, and 19. This amendment is crucial for maintaining the integrity of our neighborhoods and our property foundations. Secondly, we request that you revert the zoning bacl< to the original plan in those affected areas. This action will help preserve the character and safety of our community. Thirdly, we asl< that you formally withdraw the requested revision to the Coastal Plan. Without this approval, the Clipper lot pre-application entitlement for increased density might be invalid, which could prevent inappropriate development in a fragile area. Moreover, we strongly oppose any large development for O Clipper, especially given its proximity to the landslide area of Portuguese Bend. This location poses additional safety risl<s to our neighborhood, and large developments would exacerbate these risl<s. We want to emphasize that this is a fragile area, close to the Portuguese Bend landslide. The neighborhood is not built to support multi-unit developments of this type, and the manner in which the parcel was added to the up-zoning was inappropriate. Therefore, we l<indly request the city council to adopt the Draft Revised Housing Element and remove site 16, along with the amendments to the General Plan, Zoning Code, and Zoning Map to effectuate those /. 1 revisions. Additionally, we ask you to adopt a resolution to rescind RPV Council Resolution No 2024-17, a request for the California Coastal Commission to consider amendments to the Local Coastal Program (LCP), Coastal Specific Plan, and Zoning Map related to the 6th cycle Housing Element. Thank you for your attention to these matters. We believe that these resolutions will significantly benefit our community and ensure the safety and well-being of our residents and interests in real property. Therese Miller Attorney, State of California 32 Sea Cove Dr. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 2 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Late Corr. Thanks, Jessica Jessica Bobbett Tuesday, March 18, 2025 3:52 PM CityClerk Brandy Forbes; Octavio Silva FW: Support homes in Rancho Palos Verdes, and tell the city to comply with state law! Jessica Bobbett Senior Planner jbobbett@nJv_ca.gov Phone -(310) 544-5224 Address: 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Website: www_,_[JWCJl.gO_\I DOWNLOAD -0 . rtt.r ~ GETITON r,,..-Google Play This ernail rnessaqe contains infonnation belon9in(J to the City of Rancho f-\1los Verck>.s, which rmIy h<>. confidential, cliid/or prottxtecl from disclosure, The infonnation is intended only for use of the individual or entity Unauthorized clissc•n1i:1ation, clistritJution, or rnpyin() is st1·ictly prohibitcicL lf you rcceivc•d this ernail in error, or arc not a11 intcndccl rccipit)nt, p:casc notify the cicndcr irnrncclia!:cly, Thank you for your a,,sisl:,rncc and coopNation, -----Original Message----- From: yeskurtcan@everyactioncustom.com <yeskurtcan@everyactioncustom.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2025 3:46 PM To: Jessica Bobbett <jbobbett@rpvca.gov> Subject: Support homes in Rancho Palos Verdes, and tell the city to comply with state law! [You don't often get email from yeskurtcan@everyactioncustom.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification] EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open any attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe!!!. Dear J Bobbett (Rancho PV), I write to express grave concerns about a possible decision that could both violate state housing law and deepen inequities locally. LA County and South Bay cities are suffering from a severe housing shortage, which is why housing advocates across the South Bay are engaging at the local level to build support for new housing and hold cities accountable to their obligations and commitments to addressing the housing crisis. Last year, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted a Housing Element that the state of California deemed compliant with state law. The City also increased zoned capacity for the relevant parcels in its sites inventory and agreed to amend its local Coastal Plan to allow for greater density. Now, the ~ity wants to reverse course and is considering revising its / • Housing Element to remove three parcels-sites 16, 18 and 19-from its sites inventory. The city is clearly responding to development interest in Site 16, located at 0 Clipper Road. In addition, the item before you includes potential amendments to the General Plan, Zoning Code, and Zoning Map to effectuate these revisions; these actions would represent a violation of state housing law, particularly SB 330 (Skinner, 2019). They also defeat the purpose of the Housing Element process. Let's not pretend that Rancho Palos Verdes is on track to meet its housing obligations, with or without these sites. That's what the staff report suggests, but it is untrue. The City has only permitted 44 of the 639 units it is required to allow, good for only 7% of its RHNA allocation, despite being nearly halfway through the 2021-2029 cycle. And in 2024, as noted in Consent Calendar Item D of today's agenda, the city permitted just 14 new units, most of them ADUs. California has a crippling housing shortage. Here in the South Bay, we are home to the 3rd largest jobs center in Los Angeles County and suffering from a severe jobs-housing imbalance, as a result, with the number of jobs far outweighing available housing units. Building housing at all income levels will create a more inclusive, vibrant community that benefits everyone-small business owners, low-wage workers, young families, elderly Californians hoping to stay in the community they love. Having more homes in Rancho Palos Verdes helps address the region's worsening shortage. It provides opportunities for people to live closer to their workplaces, schools, and essential services. A diversity of housing options fosters a balanced economy to help both current and future residents thrive. Your city has a responsibility to improve housing opportunity and affirmatively further fair housing by applying a good faith effort to expanding and maintaining zoned capacity on residentially-zoned parcels. Please comply with state housing law and reject any attempts to downzone parcels or modify your Housing Element, underlying zoning, or relevant local plans. Sincerely, Kurt Canfield Long Beach, CA 90814-1656 yesku rtcan@gma ii .com 2 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY CLERK DATE: MARCH 17, 2025 SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA _____________________________________________________________________ Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agen da material received through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, March 18, 2025, City Council meeting: Item No. Description of Material 1 Emails from: Jack Farrell; Julie Hamill; Shahzad Khaligh; Janine Micucci and Denny Beaubien; Stasys Petravicius; Karen Mills; Richard Schleicher; Nena Schleicher; Song Song Wang; Allan Singer; Cynthia Clemons; Lowell Wedemeyer Respectfully submitted, __________________ Teresa Takaoka L:\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2025\2025 Coversheets\20250318 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday.docx From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Late corr Teresa Takaoka Monday, March 17, 2025 9:48 AM CityClerk FW: Public Comment -Housing Elements Site Removal Rancho Palos Verdes Housing Element Amendment.docx From: Jack Farrell <jack@yesinmybackyard.org> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2025 5:34 AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Public Comment -Housing Elements Site Removal Some people who received this message don't often get email from jack@yesinmybackyard.org. Learn why this is important t~X:fl::!3,i',(~~ffliffll!'li!t•;L~q~;~~,wcuck .links or open· any attachments unless•you recognjzli! the se~~~r~n'gJKPliJN%tb~:~~6!~ijja~:twf.l!\!~~·i~~~i Good morning, Please find attached correspondence from YIMBY Law regarding tomorrow's meeting of the City Council, Agenda Item 1. for public hearings. Sincerely, Jack Farrell Research Attorney 267-218-1147 D 1 /. YIMBYLaw 2261 Market Street STE 10416 San Francisco, CA 911-114 hello@yirnbylaw.org 3/17/2025 City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Via email: CC@rpvca.gov YIMBY LAW Re: Removal of Sites 16, 18, and 19 from the Housing Sites Inventory Dear City Council, YIMBY Law is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation, whose mission is to increase the accessibility and affordability of housing in California. YIMBY Law sues municipalities when they fail to comply with state housing laws, including the Housing Element Law. We understand that this Council is preparing to remove sites 16, 18, and 19 from its sites inventory as identified in Program 1 of the City's April 16, 2024 Housing Element. This follows the site being rezoned for 22 units per acre, and a preliminary application for development on site 16. The proposed amended Housing Element and subsequent downzoning of those sites will violate state housing law and the vested rights of Clipper Development, beyond the threat this action poses to your ability to meet the statutory RHNA obligation. To remain in compliance with Housing Element law and ensure the City is not subject to the Builder's Remedy, it must move forward with the Local Coastal Program amendment that would finalize the April 2024 zoning amendments. Vested Rights Clipper submitted its SB 330 preliminary application on November 22, 2024, for a development of 14 townhomes and 2 Accessory Dwelling Units. That submission vests the applicant's rights under the current General Plan and Zoning designations, as per CA Gov. Code 65589.5( o )(1). The application vests rights to develop the project only according to «the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect when a preliminary application including all of the information required by subdivision (a) of Section 65941.1 was submitted." The application relied upon representations made in the Housing Element, General Plan, and Zone changes, on the (then reasonable) belief that Rancho Palos Verdes did not complete these processes for no reason. Even if you proceed with removing the site from your Housing Element and subsequently reducing its density, the Preliminary Application granted the property a vested right to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes approval of the LCP Amendment, and to develop the Project in accordance with the Zone Change and General Plan Amendment. Coastal Act § 3051tib) requires that any LCP amendment be submitted to the Coastal Commission following adoption. The City's resolutions seeking an LCP amendment and Housing Element certification were both adopted and effective prior to the November application. The Coastal Commission is not bound by vesting rights, but you are legally prohibited from withdrawing that request to the Coastal Commission via a new resolution until the applicant fails to file a full application within the statutory 180 day period. Duty to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing Rancho Palos Verdes' certified Housing Element made programmatic commitments to affirmatively further the cause of fair housing. As per the Rancho Palos Verdes Housing Element, as drafted, reviewed, and certified: "Program 1, Zoning Amendments to Increase Housing Development Potential, is focused on increasing the amount of land zoned for residential development at or above the default minimum density for lower-income housing. This will promote additional opportunities for housing for lower-income households, including minorities and people with disabilities, in Rancho Palos Verdes, a high opportunity community. This program also contains provisions to permit Emergency Shelters by-right in a new Mixed-Use Overlay District (MOOD) zone that will also permit residential uses and eliminate requirements for View Preservation analysis and CUPs for buildings over 16 feet developed on Housing Element sites." Program 1, specifically, is a component to address the city's Fair Housing issue of "limited housing choice." The city's housing element says, a contributing factor to this issue of housing choice is, "Land Use and Zoning laws that historically limited opportunity for development of higher density housing types (e.g., apartments, condominiums); economic factors (i.e., high cost of housing)." If City officials stayed by their words and specific commitments, housing which would address those flaws and has already been applied for could move forward. The options in front of you are to respect the efforts of your staff which led to a Housing Element and subsequent rezoning AND an application consistent with those measures, or to waste time and open yourselves to our lawsuit while crippling your ability to meet the statutory RHNA obligation. Obligation to Meet RHNA Capacity Substantially reducing capacity on opportunity sites will prevent Rancho Palos Verdes from meeting the statutory responsibilities it committed to. If zoning were undone on Site 16, its maximum capacity would fall from 17 units to 3 single family homes, though current RS-4 lot size requirements could preclude this on the 1.56 acres that the City has identified as buildable property. Site 18, a 3.71 acres site currently zoned for ministerial approval under the city's "residential overlay districe 1 (ROD-6) zoning, would have its maximum capacity reduced from the current 12 units with the ROD overlay, to the underlying zoning of "Institutional" which does not allow residential uses. (12 -> o units) The "closed Marymount University/sold to UCLA site at 30800 Palos Verdes Drive E (site 19), which is a 20.87 acre site currently zoned for ministerial approval under the ROD-6 zoning would have its maximum capacity reduced from the current eight (8) units to the underlying zoning of "institutional" which does not allow residential uses. (8 -> o units) Site 16 is one of only three sites in the city's site inventory on which the property owner has expressed interest in developing, and one of only two sites that the City performed a true rezoning on as part of their rezoning Program 1. All other rezonings are overlays. The two UCLA sites represent 2/3 of the total sites city rezoned with the ministerial approval of the "residential overlay district" zoning for sites that were previously designated as 11 institutional 11 where no housing is otherwise permitted. The other housing element sites that were rezoned as "mixed use overlay district" as part of the Program 1 rezoning action in April 2021~ are still zoned commercial retail or office, and the majority have active commercial uses. While some sites could seek ministerial approval under AB 2011, they are likely subject to known development challenges on shopping center sites such as reciprocal easement agreements. Environmental Impacts Page 5 of the staff report for this amendment states that site removal would have little to no environmental impacts as opposed to following through with legal requirements and city programs. This assumption ignores the habitat loss and emissions that result from low density housing. Rancho Palos Verdes' amended Mitigated Negative Declaration considered the Housing Element upzoning; it found that 11 The Revised Project would allow for an increase in residential units and non-residential square footage that would occur as infill development throughout the City .... Future infill development of residential and limited residential-serving retail or commercial uses would also not be anticipated to result in substantial increases in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and associated vehicle emissions. The housing sites were identified to locate higher-density and mixed-use developments in infill locations near other uses that would help to reduce VMT within the city.11 (Addendum to Adopted Negative Declaration, March 2024, page 33) As the already completed upzoning would reduce VMTs, a subsequent downsizing must necessarily increase VMTs. The proposed amendment could require new environmental reviews to assess this damage. That process, along with a reopened Housing Element, subject the City to numerous opportunities for litigation and scrutiny. We urge the City to take its commitments seriously, as well as state housing law. I am signing this letter both in my capacity as the Executive Director of YIMBY Law, and as a resident of California who is affected by the shortage of housing in our state. Sincerely, ~~ Sonja Trauss Executive Director YIMBYLaw Nathan Zweizig From: Sent: To: Subject: Late corr Teresa Takaoka Friday, March 14, 2025 7:07 AM CityClerk Fw: Housing Element Comment From: Julie Hamill <julie@justiceca.com> Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2025 7:15 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Housing Element Comment Some people who received this message don't often get email from julie@justiceca.com. Learn why this is important Dear Mayor Bradley and Members of the City Council: I recently attempted to set up a meeting with Assemblyman Al Muratsuchi to discuss state policy changes needed to address the serious fire danger our community faces. Despite multiple attempts, I received no acknowledgement or response. I copied all of you on my communications to Mr. Muratsuchi. Please let me know if you would like me to forward a copy of those communications. Part of my concern involves the State's relentless push to upzone with no consideration for our very high fire severity zone designation and lac!< of infrastructure. It also recently came to my attention that the Palos Verdes Reservoir has been empty for years. SB 182, which was vetoed by Governor Newsom, would have helped reduce development pressure within VHFS zones. Frankly, the hill should be exempt entirely from upzoning due to serious safety concerns. As you know, we are operating within a broken system, and we are putting people's lives at risk by cowering and refusing to fight for our residents. Please use the examples of the Palisades and Eaton fires to push Governor Newsom and HCD toward a position of reason and common sense. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) and California Department of Housing & Community Development must talk to each other about what local governments can do to protect lives in very high fire severity zones while meeting state housing mandates. U1ublicl'£_stated as much three ~ Nothing has been done, and our loss of local control and quality of life worsens the longer we fail to take bold action. I'm always available to discuss. Best regards, /. Julie Hamill JULIE A. HAMILL Principal Attorney (424) 2G5-0529 j1JJi_Q@jµ;;ti[:_CQJ._C:_QID www.justiccca.corr1 2 From: Sent: To: Subject: Late corr Teresa Takaoka Wednesday, March 12, 2025 2:08 PM CityClerk FW: Clipper Lot Rezone Exclusion From: Skhaligh <skhaligh@verizon.net> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2025 1:47 PM To: Brandy Forbes <bforbes@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Jessica Bobbett <jbobbett@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <Ara M@rpvca.gov> Cc: smkhaligh@yahoo.com; Jessica Bobbett <jbobbett@rpvca.gov> Subject: RE: Clipper Lot Rezone Exclusion Dear Brandy, I am extending my gratitude to you and all parties involved in working so hard on this very difficult project. I received and reviewed the agenda for CC public hearing on March 18 th . Thank you so much for initiating the process of adopting the draft revised 2021-2029 amendment to Housing Element removing site #16, Clipper Lot, and the two other smaller sites based on the HCD's formal response of January 23, 2025 to the City's Revised draft amendment to Housing Element; and more importantly adopting a 2025 RPV CC resolution rescinding the adopted 2024-17 resolution requesting Coastal consideration of LCP amendment application. This is a huge support from the City that affects residents in the midst of continual landslide. Thank you! I believe that the developer/new owner of 0-clipper lot wrongly assumes that he might be able to pursue legalizing the adoption of resolution of 2024-17 under SB 330 clauses. I do not think SB 330 would apply here since adopted resolution by City Council without Coastal approval did not put the up-zone in effect. I wish the developer can realize this and put it at rest before wasting City's resources and his own money and time. I will not be able to attend the March 18th meeting but I wanted to pass on my appreciation to you all. Thank you. All the best, Shahzad Khaligh, PhD 310-722-3788 1 I From: Teresa Takaoka Sent: To: Tuesday, March 11, 2025 4:54 PM CityClerk Subject: RE: Clipper Lot Sorry-I meant item 1 From: Teresa Takaoka Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2025 4:54 PM To: CityClerk <CityClerk@rpvca.gov> Subject: FW: Clipper Lot Late corr item 2 From: janine micucci <janinemicucci@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2025 4:53 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Cc: Denny Beaubien <denny@productionelements.com> Subject: Clipper Lot Some people who received this message don't often get email from janinemicucci@gmail.com. Learn why this is important pEX]E'~~~t:i~M~lt~l~~rio~·c(ic:k li.nks·or_~~~·~-~~~.~~t~~h~:;~;~ un~essyou .. recognii~th~.s~rjd~~)~rl~f•~n~wii~~~~on~~n~~liij}if~;t!l;~·~•14!~t: Dear Mayor Bradley and City Council members, Thank you for submitting a draft amendment to the Housing Element which included the removal of the Clipper Rd lot, site #16, to HCD back in November, 2024. It is my understanding that the HCD did respond favorably to the draft in January, 2025 stating the city could remove this site (and 2 additional ones) from the Housing Element and remain compliant. I strongly urge the City Council to formally adopt the amendments to the Housing Element to remove the Clipper (and others) site, revert the Clipper Rd lot back to its original R-4 zoning designation, and adopt a resolution to rescind City Council Resolution 2014-17 requesting the California Coastal Commission to consider amendments to the Local Coastal Program Coastal related to the Housing Element. My husband and I have just spent thousands and thousands of dollars while we waded through the RPV permit process. We finally have the ability to move forward with our plans, but we cannot possibly save The Round House and sensibly develop our property if a 40' tall building is going up directly in front of us. We were shown emails that were very suspect in nature involving the prior mayor, the current land owner and the sellers real estate broker! Meanwhile, we are doing all the things -all the right things to get a permit and all these shenanigans were going on behind the scenes! Do you think we would have continued down that path had we known about these shady activities? That's a solid no! 1 Besides this, we just watched 2 entire neighborhoods burn to the ground ... mass hysteria while people were trying to escape. Abalone Cove has one road in and out...adding this amount of housing to the furthest point is highly concerning. In addition to the fact that this land is already moving. Removing massive amounts of soil will destabilize an area already fraught with geological issues. What recourse will there be if the neighboring properties on Clipper, on Sea Cove, Arrowroot etc. are impacted? How many years of litigation is the city willing to tolerate? Reverting the lot back to its original R-4 zoning will assuredly avoid a lot of environmental and fiscal risks. The current zoning for Clipper allows for the development of as many units on this single approx. 1 acre lot as on the rest of all the other homes on Clipper and Sea Cove that border it. Clearly this is incompatible with the rest of the neighborhood, and I know many members of the community have strongly expressed their concerns about this. Reverting back to R-4 would keep the property more in line with the rest of the surrounding properties. So please, again, I highly encourage you to formally adopt the amendment to the Housing Element to remove the Clipper site, and to revert it back to its original R-4 zoning. Thank you, Janine Micucci & Denny Beaubien 2 To: Teresa Takaoka Subject: RE: 0 Clipper Rd Rezoning to allow a Town House complex From: Jessica Bobbett Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2025 2:02 PM To: stasyspetravl(fviclQud.corri Cc: CC <CC(@rpvca.gov> Subject: RE: 0 Clipper Rd Rezoning to allow a Town House complex Good afternoon, The City is in receipt of your email expressing concerns regarding O Clipper Road. Your comment letter will be provided to the City Council as late correspondence in advance of the March I 8th City Council meeting. Let me know if you have any further questions. Thank you, Jessica Jessica Bobbett Senior Planner Jbobbett@rpvca.gov Phone -(31 0) 544-5224 Address: 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Website: www.rpvca.gov er copyinq i(~ s1:rlcJ!y itY1rncch:it:jy, Thi:H)k vou -----Original Message----- From: stasyspetrav1@icloud.com <stasyspetrav1@icloud.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2025 10:07 AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> 111o... G£TITON .,.. Google Play Cc: Rich Schleicher <actsworldretired@gmail.com>; Janet YAMAMOTO <rjec@cox.net>; Michele Carbone <anis.mokrani.algerie@viacesi.fr>; Angelique Lyle <angeliquelyle@gmail.com>; Stasys Petravicius <stasyspetrav@iclo ud .com> Subject: 0 Clipper Rd Rezoning to allow a Town House complex [Some people who received this message don't often get email from stasyspetrav1@icloud.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification] EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open any attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is/ safe!!!. 1 ' Dear City Council: A request from Stasys Petravicius, 15 Seacove Dr., RPV., a resident here since June 1970. As I have stated before at Council meetings -our Community of Abalone Cove, and the Community above us across PV Dr. South are against the rezoning of 0 Clipper to R-22. You may recall that about 50 local residents spoke of our concerns at many City Council meetings and are against the rezoning. It should go back to the R-4 which it was for about 50 years. I believe the property was sold to the developer at a zoning of R-4. You have heard of all the problems and concerns about building a town home complex to cover the lot with 16 units that can go to 36 feet tall. Recall I had mentioned that the lot has 6 feet of fill going in from about 20 feet of Clipper Rd to the South. A large construction project could cause land movement problems to the surrounding properties with the excavation to accommodate underground parking of the town homes. Also-there is land moving across Seacove Dr. at the ocean. Also-the proposed construction of 2 ADU's and 2 townhouses at Sea cove Drive would require major fill of the deep gully which is a large drain from under PV Dr. South. Also-the City has identified 800 possible units that could be built in the City -and only requires 647. So -it is not mandatory to build an undesirable complex in our neighborhood. Also-the City's priority is to service and satisfy its residents. So -please listen to our concerns and not allow the developer to upset our Communities. Best, Stasys Petravicius 2 Subject: RE: Public Hearing Correspondence From: Nathan Zweizig <NathanZ@rpvca.gov> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2025 4:19 PM To: Hector Gomez <hgomez@rpvca.gov> Cc: CityClerk <CityClerk@rpvca.gov> Subject: FW: Public Hearing Correspondence Please see the attached letter to be included as part of late correspondence. Thanks, Nathan Nathan B. Zweizig AdministMiive /1ssisiant City Clerk's Of /ice nathanz@rpvca.goy Phone -{3HJ) 544.~;21;, City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Website: www.rpvca.goy Consider the environment before printing this e-mail, t hi~) c··rn~.1:1 F)(:\/;;:;r_w :.:nn:ain:·, inh,rin~:11.:cr: L: prpt1.xh~d frorn (ii_,/ k6U!\:. l'""'~c :r1forH\)i i<:t; C:i:::",Jii)l!Uor\ or (·_(\J)inq 1 .• ;\(cily pn r:,cndt:r ir:•uri('CL~.:ely, 1·h;.ir1k you ror ► GUIT~ GooglePlay \, :!'Cci~·>,. '/:hie h r:1ay iK'. pr·ivll('.q(:d 1 cniif\dcntiaif and/or ~Jl1;1; ,y ,~·i1t·:tv 11,'.;1r(;(j, U1v1r)hut:c:1; dbscu1!r1<:1t!or1, d!'C: :~'.Jl ri:1 in(er:dcci rr;cq·iicn\:1 r::c:d')t:: notify th<? 1 lnbox Unread Starred Drafts Sent " More Views Photos Documents Hide Emails to myself Subscriptions Receipts Credits Travel Folders + New Folder > Archive INBOX/SentMail Notes Hide Advanced v 0 Clipper Rd. Zoning To @cc L1 X 0 Clipper Rd. Zoning Dear City Council: A request from Stasys Petravicius, 15 Seacove Dr., RPV, a resident here since June 1970. As I have stated before at Council meetings -our Community of Abalone Cove, and the Community above us across PV Dr. South are against the rezoning of 0 Clipper to R-22. You may recall that about 50 local residents spoke of our concerns at many City Council meetings and are against the rezoning of 0 Clipper to R-22. It should go back to the R-4 which it was for about 50 years. I believe the property was sold to the developer at a zoning of R-4. You have heard of all the problems and concerns about building a Townhome complex to cover the lot with 16 units that can go to 36 feet tall. Recall I had mentioned that the lot has 6 feet of fill going in from about 20 feet of Clipper Rd to the South. A large construction project could cause land movement problems to the surrounding properties with the excavation to accommodate underground parking of the Townhomes. Also-the proposed construction of 2 ADU's and 2 Townhomes at Seacove Drive would require major fill of the deep gully which is a large drain from under PV Dr. South. Also -the City has identified 800 possible units that could be built in the City -and only requires 647. So -it is not mandatory to build an undesireable complex in our neighborhood. Also-the City's priority is to service and satisfy its residents. So -please listen to our concerns and not allow the developer to upset our Communities. Best, Stasys Petravicius Community of Abalone Cove VP c-,-::i B I m Learn more about AllianzlM I Buffered ETFs From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Late corr Teresa Takaoka Tuesday, March 11, 2025 11 :42 AM CityClerk FW: Correspondence re: 0 Clipper Rd & Housing Element. Clipper -Site 16 .pdf From: Karen Mills <millskkmc@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2025 11:10 AM To: Jessica Bobbett <jbobbett@rpvca.gov> Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Barbara Ferraro <barbara.ferraro@rpvca.gov> Subject: Correspondence re: 0 Clipper Rd & Housing Element. Some people who received this message don't often get email from millskkmc@yahoo.com. Learn why this is important I fE'~)i~i{~~.~;E@~tt~)EJQtri~tcJick_links·or o~~-~~ny __ ~!~~chments unlessyou re~i,g~iz~the;~end~~arl(J?~~<()w;itt~,~()i\:~'&'rjt'i~!~lfill~~fsttt~l Hello Ms. Bobbett, Please see the attached letter I am submitting for the City meeting on March 18. Sincerely, Karen Mills 1 /. Ms. Jessica Bobbett. Senior Planner, City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Bobbett, I am writing regarding the proposed removal of the parcel of land at 0 Clipper Rd -Site 16 from the City's Housing Element. I spoke against that parcel being added to the Housing Element at the Planning Commission meeting back in March 2024 and I am pleased to see that the city is now proposing its removal for all the reasons our community was concerned about. 0 Clipper should never have been added to the Housing Element. I urge you to pass the amendment and remove Site 16 from the City's Housing Element. I also urge you to remove the up-zoning of that parcel and revert that parcel back to R2/R4 and not the up-zoned R22 that was created as part of the Housing Element. If you have ever visited this community, you will see 80 or so homes that are mostly single- family residences. Many of them are 50, 60, 70 years old, and many homes have been occupied by the same families for decades. This is a place where people come, and they stay, mostly because of the small, community feel of our neighborhood. Adding numerous 3-story units on this parcel 0 Clipper and the adjacent 8 Clipper will significantly change the character of our neighborhood -expanding it by over 25% and removing view ordinances for surrounding neighbors. There are no 3-story buildings in this neighborhood and even the multi-unit homes that are on Clipper Rd look more like single-family homes than a condo or townhouse development. I am also very concerned about the addition of up-zoning housing units in an area that is an environmental treasure. It's adjacent to the marine preserve and is surrounded by land that has been reclaimed by the Palos Verdes Land Conservancy to restore & protect valuable habitat for flora and fauna, including all the work done to restore the natural environment at Abalone Cove Shoreline Park. But more importantly, this parcel is right on the active landslide area. It's about a 1/4 of a mile from Wayfarers Chapel which is now closed due to damage from the landslide, it's across the road from Catalina View Gardens which is part of the ACLAD. I worry about the further impact of this geological disaster on our neighborhood if the up zoning of the parcel remains in effect & the developer goes ahead with proposed plans on the preliminary application for development. The earthworks, the construction, the heavy vehicles coming and going will certainly not help with the fallout from the landslide that ALL of us in the Abalone Cove/Portuguese Bend/Seaview areas are dealing with daily. I'm sure the developer will bemoan the loss of value and revenue in not being able to build high density housing on these sites, but he purchased the O Clipper site 2 years prior to the change in zoning from R2/R4 so the purchase can only be seen as speculative. I also have concerns about what transpired between elected officials and the developer and the hypocrisy of the elected official saying he had no conflict of interest in approving the upzoning of this parcel after confirming he had received a significant campaign donation from this developer. I ask you please, considering all this, that you return O Clipper Road to its original R2/R4 zoning. I am asking you: • Adopt the Draft Revised Housing Element and remove site 16 and the amendments to the General Plan, Zoning code and Zoning Map to effectuate those revisions. • Adopt a resolution to rescind RPV Council Resolution No 2024-17, a request for California Coastal Commission to consider amendments to the Local Coastal Program (LCP} Coastal Specific Plan and Zoning Map related to the 6th cycle Housing Element Sincerely, Karen Mills. Abalone Cove Resident Ms. Jessica Bobbett. Senior Planner, City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Bobbett, I am writing regarding the proposed removal of the parcel of land at 0 Clipper Rd -Site 16 from the City's Housing Element. I spoke against that parcel being added to the Housing Element at the Planning Commission meeting back in March 2024 and I am pleased to see that the city is now proposing its removal for all the reasons our community was concerned about. 0 Clipper should never have been added to the Housing Element. I urge you to pass the amendment and remove Site 16 from the City's Housing Element. I also urge you to remove the up~zoning of that parcel and revert that parcel back to R2/R4 and not the up-zoned R22 that was created as part of the Housing Element. If you have ever visited this community, you will see 80 or so homes that are mostly single- family residences. Many of them are 50, 60, 70 years old, and many homes have been occupied by the same families for decades. This is a place where people come, and they stay, mostly because of the small, community feel of our neighborhood. Adding numerous 3-story units on this parcel 0 Clipper and the adjacent 8 Clipper will significantly change the character of our neighborhood -expanding it by over 25% and removing view ordinances for surrounding neighbors. There are no 3-story buildings in this neighborhood and even the multi-unit homes that are on Clipper Rd look more like single-family homes than a condo or townhouse development. I am also very concerned about the addition of up-zoning housing units in an area that is an environmental treasure. It's adjacent to the marine preserve and is surrounded by land that has been reclaimed by the Palos Verdes Land Conservancy to restore & protect valuable habitat for flora and fauna, including all the work done to restore the natural environment at Abalone Cove Shoreline Park. But more importantly, this parcel is right on the active landslide area. It's about a 1/4 of a mile from Wayfarers Chapel which is now closed due to damage from the landslide, it's across the road from Catalina View Gardens which is part of the ACLAD. I worry about the further impact of this geological disaster on our neighborhood if the up zoning of the parcel remains in effect & the developer goes ahead with proposed plans on the preliminary application for development. The earthworks, the construction, the heavy vehicles coming and going will certainly not help with the fallout from the landslide that ALL of us in the Abalone Cove/Portuguese Bend/Seaview areas are dealing with daily. I'm sure the developer will bemoan the loss of value and revenue in not being able to build high density housing on these sites, but he purchased the O Clipper site 2 years prior to the change in zoning from R2/R4 so the purchase can only be seen as speculative. I also have concerns about what transpired between elected officials and the developer and the hypocrisy of the elected official saying he had no conflict of interest in approving the upzoning of this parcel after confirming he had received a significant campaign donation from this developer. I ask you please, considering all this, that you return O Clipper Road to its original R2/R4 zoning. I am asking you: • Adopt the Draft Revised Housing Element and remove site 16 and the amendments to the General Plan, Zoning code and Zoning Map to effectuate those revisions. • Adopt a resolution to rescind RPV Council Resolution No 2024-17, a request for California Coastal Commission to consider amendments to the Local Coastal Program {LCP) Coastal Specific Plan and Zoning Map related to the 6th cycle Housing Element Sincerely, Karen Mills. Abalone Cove Resident From: Teresa Takaoka Sent: To: Tuesday, March 11, 2025 11:05 AM CityClerk Subject: Late corr item 1 0 Clipper Lot Development and rezoning From: cacrichs@gmail.com <cacrichs@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2025 10:31 AM To: Jessica Bobbett <jbobbett@rpvca.gov> Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: 0 Clipper Lot Development and rezoning Some people who received this message don't often get email from cacrichs@gmail.com. Learn why this is important I tEXT~~N~t'~'r@\l!.(t: D~ nqt·cl.ick lf~ks or open any_attachmen.ts _unlessvW t~cogi)izl:?ttie sender aijct~nii'~blli~i~ii61~of'i~flt~11til'~i(vi1\l Dear City Council I am a resident and member of the Community of Abalone Cove Association. The city has changed the zoning of a vacant piece of property located at the top of Clipper Drive in our community from R4 to R22. I oppose this change and request the city to revert this lot back to the original intended zoning of R4. Numerous letters and public comments have been issued to the city in opposition to the proposed development. This is less than 500 yards from active land movement and the drainage in this area continues to be undermined and progressive erosion is evident below this lot. The geology is fragile in this area. This neighborhood is predominately single-family dwellings and all architecture is limited to 2 story dwellings that enhance the community environment. This lot is prime for luxury homes based on the zoning of R4 and will maintain the aesthetic condition of the community. If more than 4 homes are condensed into this lot, it will put massive strain on the community, the infrastructure of the neighborhood, excessive traffic burden, and environmental impact issues. How this parcel evolved into a massive multiunit design by the city officials in collusion with the developer is something that our community and the neighboring residents that will be impacted by this development object to and request the city to revert this lot back to the original approved R4 zoning. Please adopt the draft Revised Housing Element and remove site 16 and adopt the amendment to the General Plan, Zoning code and Zoning map to effectuate the revisions. Please adopt a resolution to rescind RPV Council Resolution No 2024-17, a request for California Coastal Commission to considers amendments to the Local Coastal Program (LCP) Coastal Specific Plan and Zoning Map related the 6th cycle Housing Element. Please let us hear from the city council on March 18, regarding this issue and as represent the will of the people who are directly impacted by the development of this parcel. Sincerely 1 Richard Schleicher 9 Barkentine Rd RPV 2 From: Sent: To: Subject: Teresa Takaoka Tuesday, March 11, 2025 11:04 AM CityClerk late corr item 1 From: Nena Schleicher <nbschleicher@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2025 10:48 AM To: Jessica Bobbett <jbobbett@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Fwd: Some people who received this message don't often get email from nbschleicher@yahoo.com. Learn why this is important I !~o/{t~R)XI,i.\\["~N,~tt,J>9.i;tbt.click links •• or open an~ a~tachrnents.unlessfyolJre~ogniz~"Jtie~sencler~anclt~l'(QIA(rt~~t~ij'ijj~ij~.f~~~@lil~J~~i~~ Sent from my iPhone Dear City Council I am a resident and member of the Community of Abalone Cove Association. The city has changed the zoning of a vacant piece of property located at the top of Clipper Drive in our community from R4 to R22. I oppose this change and request the city to revert this lot back to the original intended zoning of R4. Numerous letters and public comments have been issued to the city in opposition to the proposed development. This is less than 500 yards from active land movement and the drainage in this area continues to be undermined and progressive erosion is evident below this lot. The geology is fragile in this area. This neighborhood is predominately single-family dwellings and all architecture is limited to 2 story dwellings that enhance the community environment. This lot is prime for luxury homes based on the zoning of R4 and will maintain the aesthetic condition of the community. If more than 4 homes are condensed into this lot, it will put massive strain on the community, the infrastructure of the neighborhood, excessive traffic burden, and environmental impact issues. How this parcel evolved into a massive multiunit design by the city officials in collusion with the developer is something that our community and the neighboring residents that will be impacted by this development object to and request the city to revert this lot back to the original approved R4 zoning. Please adopt the draft Revised Housing Element and remove site 16 and adopt the amendment to the General Plan, Zoning code and Zoning map to effectuate the revisions. Please adopt a resolution to rescind RPV Council Resolution No 2024-17, a request for California Coastal Commission to considers amendments to the Local Coastal Program (LCP) Coastal Specific Plan and Zoning Map related the 6th cycle Housing Element. Please let us hear from the city council on March 18, regarding this issue and as represent the will of the people who are directly impacted by the development of this parcel. 1 /. Sincerely Nena Schleicher 9 Barkentine Rd RPV 2 From: Sent: To: Subject: Late corr Teresa Takaoka Thursday, March 13, 2025 7:41 AM CityClerk Item 1 not letter D City council agenda item "D" 2024 Housing Element From: Songsong Wang <songsongwang21@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2025 8:12 PM To: Jessica Bobbett <jbobbett@rpvca.gov>; David Bradley <david.bradley@rpvca.gov>; Paul Seo <paul.seo@rpvca.gov>; Barbara Ferraro <barbara.ferraro@rpvca.gov>; George.Lewis@rpvca.com <George.Lewis@rpvca.com>; Stephen Perestam <stephen.perestam@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: City council agenda item "D" 2024 Housing Element Some people who received this message don't often get email from songsongwang21@gmail.com. Learn why this is important Dear Sir/Madam, I'm a resident of RPV and live at 42 Sea Cove Dr, Rancho Palos Verdes. It's my understanding that you heard our neighborhood's concerns and requests related to O Clipper and as a result submitted the Housing Element Amendment to remove the parcel (which has since been approved.) Please help us keep the charm of our community intact. The neighborhood is made up of mostly Single Family homes many which are single story. Developing multiple dense high-rise residences in the lot will only line the pockets of a Developer and sadden everyone who is lucky to live here. Importantly, please help us not add to potential land movement by allowing significant development of a parcel of land so close to an active slide area. There is substantial documentation that was presented and brought to the city's attention and inappropriate decisions and actions to include adding this parcel to the Housing Element with city council, developer and city employees. I'm writing to respectfully ask the city to please: 1) Adopt the Draft Revised Housing Element and remove O Clipper (large undeveloped lot near Fire Station 53) referenced in the document as Site 16. Also, adopt the amendments to the General Plan, Zoning Code, and Zoning Map to effectuate those revisions. 1 I 2) Adopt a resolution to rescind RPV Council Resolution No. 2024-17, a request for California Coastal Commission to consider amendments to the Local Coastal Program (LCP) Coastal Specific Plan and Zoning Map related to the 6th cycle Housing Element. 3)Please help us maintain the longstanding character of our wonderful neighborhood of modestly scaled home. The city failed this neighborhood and it is your opportunity to undo the wrong and do the right thing and represent your city and not special interests. Thank you and Best regards, Song Song Wang 2 From: Teresa Takaoka Sent: To: Monday, March 17, 2025 4:32 PM CityClerk Subject: FW: I own #1 Clipper road and support item 1 on tomorrow's agenda. From: Allan Singer <allandsinger@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2025 4:28 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: I own #1 Clipper road and support item 1 on tomorrow's agenda. 1. Consideration to revise the City Council-adopted Housing Element to remove Site Nos. 16, 18, and 19 from the Housing Sites Inventory. (Forbes/Bobbett) (45 mins) Recommendation: 1) Review the California Department of Housing and Community Development's (HCD) formal review letter of the proposed draft revisions to the City Council- adopted 2021-2029 Housing Element to remove Site Nos. 16, 18, and 19 from the Housing Sites Inventory; 2) If deemed acceptable, initiate the public hearing proceedings to consider adopting the draft revised 2021-2029 Housing Element by removing Site Nos. 16, 18, and 19 and amending the General Plan, Zoning Code, and Zoning Map to effectuate those revisions; and, 3) Adopt Resolution No. 2025 -A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA, RESCINDING RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2024-17, A REQUEST FOR CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION TO CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM (LCP) COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN AND ZONING MAP RELATED TO THE 6th CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT. I agree with removing sites 16, 18, 19 from the housing sites inventory. This is on the edge of the landslide. Allan Singer 1 /. From: Sent: To: Subject: Cynthia Clemons <cclemons88@gmail.com> Monday, March 17, 2025 2:57 PM CityClerk Public Comment 3.18.25 -Item 1 Some people who received this message don't often get email from cclemons88@gmail.com. Learn why this is important I ig~1~6i.l~~~M'~1!t!;s;qqk~llWlicK1inks or open· any attachrnen.ts U~i~~~ftjq~llt~~Q'gnl;~i~~!~~il«&~.~'~g?&rrtj~~ttl~~gRt~~nlf(f!(lttlltlf To the Honorable Rancho Palos Verdes City Council, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed downzoning item regarding the removal of Site Nos. 16, 18, and 19 from the City Council-adopted 2021-2029 Housing Element's Housing Sites Inventory. I understand that the Council is considering revising the Housing Element in response to the California Department of Housing and Community Development's (HCD) formal review letter. However, I believe that removing these sites would significantly undermine the city's ability to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) obligations and would negatively impact the availability of much-needed housing in our community. My specific concerns include: • Failure to Address RHNA Obligations: Removing these sites will likely result in a significant shortfall in the city's capacity to accommodate its RHNA targets. This will not only create compliance issues with state housing laws but also exacerbate the existing housing crisis. • Impact on Housing Affordability: Downzoning further restricts the potential for housing development, driving up housing costs and making it even more difficult for residents, particularly those with lower incomes, to find affordable housing. • Contradiction of State Housing Policy: The proposed action contradicts the state's efforts to increase housing production and streamline development. • Lack of Alternative Solutions: I urge the Council to explore alternative solutions that would address HCD's concerns without resorting to the removal of essential housing sites. I respectfully request that the City Council reconsider this proposal and prioritize the development of strategies that promote housing affordability and meet the city's RHNA obligations. I urge you to maintain sites 16, 18 and 19 in the housing sites inventory. I ask that my comments be entered into the public record for this item. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Cynthia Clemons /. Cynthia Clemons 404 -542 -2645 2 From: Sent: To: Subject: Late corr Teresa Takaoka Monday, March 17, 2025 1 :01 PM CityClerk FW: Council Meeting March 18, 2025, Agenda Public Hearing 1, From: Lowell <lowell@transtalk.com> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2025 1:00 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Council Meeting March 18, 2025, Agenda Public Hearing 1, You don't often get email from lowell@transtalk.com. Learn why this is important I ~l:~]ERN~~I~@Ar~:109t)()t dick links or open any attachments unles~you,,retQgtl(f~Jij~$~'.rtqi;li;artq:f;~~Q~ilb~(ct>,~,eH~fli~1t.f~tf~1~1l:! Consideration to revise the City Council-adopted Housing Element to remove Site Nos. 16, 18, and 19 from the Housing Sites Inventory. (Forbes/Bobbett) I understand that Site 16 is the vacant lot known as O Clipper Road, Rancho Palos Verdes, located at the southeast corner of Palos Verdes Drive South and Clipper Road. I own and reside at 13 Clipper Road. I served on the Storm Drain Oversight Committee for 7 years and the IMAC for 8 years. I respectfully request that Council instruct Staff to take all steps necessary or useful to prevent intensive development of Site 16, also known as O Clipper Road. Such steps include but are not limited to removing itfrom the housing sites inventory. The reasons are as follows: Intensive development poses an unacceptable, unreasonable risk of destabilizing not only the subject lot itself but also surrounding lands and infrastructure. The subject lot is bounded on its north and east by a water course which in fact is the historic outlet of Barkentine Canyon to the Pacific Ocean. That is, the border of the subject lot is on the 1 /. western wall of ancient Barkentine Canyon. It is likely that the subject lot was created by grading fill into the canyon. That fill likely was compacted poorly if at all under the standards prevailing in 1949 when the subject lot probably was built. Los Angeles County Fire Station 53 lies on the other side of the water course on the eastern wall of Barkentine Canyon. The lower reaches of the Barkentine Canyon outlet to the sea are known to be unstable. The western border of Abalone Cove Bluff-top Park is the easterly wall of the ancient Barkentine Canyon outlet to the sea. Much of the storm water from Barkentine Canyon has been diverted to the Mccarrell Canyon storm drain system. This storm water diversion, while helpful, does not eliminate the instability risks posed by proposed intensive development of the subject lot on the westerly wall of ancient Barkentine Canyon. Mother Nature's own laws of gravity, floods and landslides will prevail. This is true despite jurisdictional issues among the City, various agencies of the State of California and the Coastal Commission. The City, its Council and Staff have vast experience with slides on the south facing slopes of the Peninsula. They know that once slide movement begins it cannot practically be stopped. Common sense and ordinary prudence say that all steps necessary to prevent intensive development of the subject lot should be taken. Why risk Abalone Park, the fire station, surrounding streets and infrastructure? Lowell R Wedemeyer 2