CC SR 20250218 01 - 5323 Ironwood Appeal
PUBLIC HEARING
Date: February 18, 2025
Subject:
Consideration and possible action to conduct an appeal requested by Verdes Estates Inc. of the
Planning Commission’s decision upholding the Director of Community Development’s
determination for property located at 5323 Ironwood Street (Case No. PLZC2024 -0002).
Recommendation:
Adopt Resolution No. 2025-__ , A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
PALOS VERDES THEREBY DENYING AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S
DETERMINATION THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT WHICH INCLUDES 482 RESIDENTIAL UNITS
(1,173,927 SQUARE FEET) DOES NOT QUALIFY FOR SB35/423 MINISTERIAL REVIEW OR THE
EXEMPTION FROM CONSISTENCY WITH THE CITY’S GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION OR ZONING SET
FORTH IN GOVERNMENT CODE, SECTION 65589.5(D)(5) THEREFORE REQUIRING THE FOLLOWING
LAND USE ENTITLEMENTS: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE, CERTIFICATE OF
COMPLIANCE, MAJOR GRADING PERMIT, VARIANCE, ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND MAJOR SITE
PLAN REVIEW AS REQUIRED BY THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE TO CONSIDER THE
PROPOSED PROJECT, AS DESCRIBED HEREIN, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5323 IRONWOOD
STREET (CASE NO. PLZC2024-0002).
1. Report of Notice Given: City Clerk
2. Declare Public Hearing Open: Mayor Bradley
3. Request for Staff Report: Mayor Bradley
4. Staff Report & Recommendation: Brandy Forbes, AICP, Director of Community Development and
Jessica Bobbett, Senior Planner
5. Council Questions of Staff (factual and without bias):
6. Testimony from members of the public:
Principal Parties 10 Minutes Each. The appellant or their representative speaks first and will generally be allowed ten minutes. If the
applicant is different from the appellant, the applicant or their representative will speak following the appellant and will also be
allowed ten minutes to make a presentation.
Appellant/Applicant: Verdes Estates, Inc.
Mayor Bradley invites the Applicant to speak. (10 mins.)
Testimony from members of the public:
The normal time limit for each speaker is three (3) minutes. The Presiding Officer may grant additional time to a representative speaking
for an entire group. The Mayor also may adjust the time limit for individual speakers depending upon the number of speakers who
intend to speak.
7. Rebuttal: Mayor Bradley invites brief rebuttals by Appellant/Applicants. (5 mins)
Normally, the applicants and appellants will be limited to a five (5) minute rebuttal, if requested after all other interested persons have
spoken.
8. Council Questions of Appellant and Applicants (factual and without bias):
9. Declare Hearing Closed/or Continue the Public Hearing to a later date: Mayor Bradley
10. Council Deliberation:
The Council may ask staff to address questions raised by the testimony, or to clarify matters. Staff and/or Council may also answer
questions posed by speakers during their testimony. The Council will then debate and/or make motions on the matter.
11. Council Action:
The Council may: vote on the item; offer amendments or substitute motions to decide the matter; reopen the hearing for additional
testimony; continue the matter to a later date for a decision.
01203.0049/1049736.1
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 02/18/2025
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Public Hearing
AGENDA TITLE:
Consideration and possible action to conduct an appeal requested by Verdes Estates Inc.
of the Planning Commission’s decision upholding the Director of Community
Development’s determination for property located at 5323 Ironwood Street (Case No.
PLZC2024-0002).
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Adopt Resolution No. 2025-__ , A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES THEREBY DENYING AND
UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DETERMINATION THAT THE
PROPOSED PROJECT WHICH INCLUDES 482 RESIDENTIAL UNITS
(1,173,927 SQUARE FEET) DOES NOT QUALIFY FOR SB35/423 MINISTERIAL
REVIEW OR THE EXEMPTION FROM CONSISTENCY WITH THE CITY’S
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION OR ZONING SET FORTH IN GOVERNMENT
CODE, SECTION 65589.5(D)(5) THEREFORE REQUIRING THE FOLLOWING
LAND USE ENTITLEMENTS: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE,
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE, MAJOR GRADING PERMIT, VARIANCE,
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW AS REQUIRED
BY THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE TO CONSIDER THE
PROPOSED PROJECT, AS DESCRIBED HEREIN, FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 5323 IRONWOOD STREET (CASE NO. PLZC2024-0002).
FISCAL IMPACT: The Appellant paid the $3,100 appeal fee to the City. If the City
Council grants the appeal, the entire $3,100 appeal fee will be
refunded to Appellant. If an appeal results in a modification to the
project, other than changes specifically requested in the appeal, half
of the appeal fee ($1,550) shall be refunded to Appellant. If the City
Council denies the appeal, the Appellant will not be refunded any
portion of the appeal fee. VR
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): 101-300-0000-3218
(General Fund – Revenue – Plan Misc. Fee) VR
ORIGINATED BY: Jessica Bobbett, Senior Planner
REVIEWED BY: Brandy Forbes, AICP, Director of Community Development
1
APPROVED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS & EXHBITS (PROVIDED IN HYPER LINKS):
The following attachments can be viewed via the links embedded in the staff report:
A. Resolution No. 2025-__(Page A-1).
B. Appeal letter and materials dated October 21, 2024
C. Public Correspondence
D. Planning Commission Staff Report dated October 8, 2024 Planning Commission
Resolution 2024-22
E. Planning Commission Slide Presentation dated October 8, 2024
F. Letter from Staff dated June 5, 2024
G. Letter from Staff dated July 18, 2024
H. Letter from Staff dated August 19, 2024
I. Email Correspondence between City Staff and Appellant from May 12, 2024 to
October 1, 2024
J. Letter from City Staff dated October 25, 2024
K. Letter from City Staff dated November 15, 2024
BACKGROUND:
On January 22, 2024, the Appellant, Verdes Estates Inc., submitted a preliminary
application, proposing 482 units (385 market rate and 97 affordable units, i.e. 20% of the
total units) comprised of 641,193 square feet of building area on a vacant property located
at 5323 Ironwood Street. At the time of this submittal, the City was still in the pr ocess of
revising its Housing Element and had not adopted a Housing Element that was in
substantial compliance with State Housing Laws, according to the Department of Housing
and Community Development (“HCD”).
A preliminary application is for housing development projects seeking vesting rights
pursuant to SB 330, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019. After submitting a preliminary
application to the local agency, an applicant has 180 days to submit a full application, or
the preliminary application will expire. The pertinence is of a preliminary application being
submitted prior to the City having a substantially compliant Housing Element, is that if at
the time an application for a housing development project is deemed complete and the
City does not have a Housing Element that is in substantial compliance with laws
governing housing elements, then the City is not permitted to deny the project on the
basis of its inconsistency with the jurisdiction’s zoning ordinance and general plan land
use designation for that property, commonly referred to as the “Builder’s Remedy.”
On April 16, the City Council adopted a revised Housing Element containing modifications
requested by HCD. On that date, the City Council also adopted, as an urgency measure,
an ordinance to establish the Mixed-Use Overlay Zone and the Residential Overlay Zone
and to rezone two properties. This urgency ordinance, which became effective
2
immediately upon its adoption, served to rezone the necessary properties to implement
the revised Housing Element. Accordingly, the City had adopted a Housing Element that
is in substantial compliance with the applicable State Housing Laws.
On April 18, 2024, the Appellant submitted a preliminary application, proposing 482 units
(385 market rate, 97 affordable units) comprised of 1,173,927 square feet for the same
site at 5323 Ironwood Street. On May 23, 2024, the Appellant confirmed, via email, the
preliminary application dated January 22, 2024 was withdrawn (Attachment I).
Additionally, there were significant changes in square footage between the January 22 ,
2024 and April 18, 2024 preliminary applications, pursuant to Government Code §
65941.1(c) a new preliminary application is required. Therefore, at the time of the April 18
submission, the City’s Housing Element was substantially compliant with the relevant
State Housing Laws, thus the preliminary application submitted on April 18 does not
qualify for Builder’s Remedy protection. Additionally, the project does not qualify as an
SB 35 project, as it is not compliant with the General Plan and Zoning Code. Based on
the preliminary application materials submitted on April 18, Staff has determined the
proposed project does not qualify as SB35/423 Ministerial Review.
On June 5, 2024, Staff provided a letter (Attachment F) to the Appellant via email,
detailing the preliminary application dated January 22, 2024 is withdrawn per the
correspondence provided on May 23 and due to the new preliminary application being
significantly different with regard to the square footages for each building. Following, staff
corresponded with the Appellant on various occasions and ultimately, the Appellant filed
an timely written appeal of the Director’s Determination on August 8, 2024. A more
detailed timeline of correspondence is provided in the “Chronology of Events for Appeal
Consideration” outlined below.
On October 8, 2024, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to
consider the appeal, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be
heard and present evidence. The Planning Commission upheld the Community
Development Director’s determination that the project does not qualify for SB35/423
ministerial review and denied the appeal
On October 21, 2024, the requested appeal was filed by the Appellant of the Planning
Commission’s decision to uphold the Community Development Director’s determination
that the Appellant’s proposed project does not qualify for SB35/423 ministerial review and
does not qualify for the “Builder’s Remedy” exception from compliance with the City’s
General Plan and zoning set forth in Government Code, § 65589.5(d)(5). In light of the
decision of the Planning Commission, for the proposed project to proceed forward , the
following land use entitlements will be required: General Plan Amendment, Zone Change,
Certificate of Compliance, Major Grading Permit, Variance, Environmental Review and
Major Site Plan Review as required by the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code
(RPVMC).
The Appeal is timely brought (Attachment B) by Appellant pursuant to RPVMC Chapter
17.80. The grounds upon which Appellant requests the City Council to grant its appeal
3
are described in further detail in the “Discussion” section of this report as well as staffs’
responses to the same. TheAppellant requests the City Council grant its appeal, overrule
the Planning Commission’s denial, and find that its project is subject to limited ministerial
review under SB35/423. Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal in its
entirety.
Planning Commission Hearing
On September 19, 2024, a public notice was issued and published in the Palos Verdes
Peninsula News providing notification of the Planning Commission’s consideration of the
Appeal. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on October
8, 2024. The October 8th Planning Commission staff report (Attachment D) and staff
presentation (Attachment E) are available for review. The Planning Commission findings
for denial are outlined below.
Planning Commission’s Findings for Denial
On October 8, 2024 the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution 2024-22
(Attachment D) making the following findings to deny the project without prejudice:
• While the Appellant argues that its project, as submitted, should qualify for the
exception to the requirement that a project having to be consistent with the
applicable zoning and general plan set forth in Government Code, § 65589.5(d)(5),
“the Builder’s Remedy” and the ministerial review, and approval process set forth
in Government Code § 65913.4 (“SB 35/423”), the Planning Commission found
that the project does not qualify because at the time the Applicant submitted the
operative preliminary application, the City had adopted a Housing Element and the
required zoning to implement the Housing Element - all of which was in substantial
compliance with State Housing Element Law.
Based on HCD’s letter of April 5, 2024 which indicated that the City’s draft Housing
Element met the statutory requirements but would not be in substantial compliance
until the requisite zoning code amendments are adopted, on April 16 , 2024 City
Council determined that the Negative Declaration adopted on August 11, 2022, as
amended by Addendum No. 1, adequately analyzed the impacts from the adoption
and implementation of the Revised Final 2021-2029 Housing Element, and
following the public hearing adopted Resolution No. 2024-16 approving a General
Plan Amendment for the City’s Revised Final 2021 -2029 Housing Element, a
General Plan Amendment for the Land Use Element and Land Use Map, and a
Local Coastal Plan (Coastal Specific Plan) Amendment to effectuate th e 2021-
2029 Housing Element. The City Council also adopted Resolution No. 2024 -17 to
forward to the California Coastal Commission the amendments to the Local
Coastal Program (LCP) Coastal Specific Plan and zoning map related to the 6th
Cycle Housing Element actions in the Coastal Zone, consistent with State Law.
4
Additionally, in order to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of
the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, on April 16 the City Council unanimously adopted
Urgency Ordinance No. 678U approving zoning amendments inclusive of Zoning
Map amendments and development standards for Accessory Dwelling Units
(ADUs) and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs), to immediately effectuate
the Housing Element, including rezoning sufficient sites to accommodate the City’s
regional housing needs allocation by adopting the implementation actions to
effectuate the City’s Revised Final 2021-2029 Housing Element.
As such, the Housing Element was in substantial compliance with Housing
Element Law on April 16, as indicated by HCD on April 5. Therefore, at the time of
the Applicant’s April 18, 2024 preliminary application submission, the City’s
Housing Element was substantially compliant with the relevant State Housing
Laws, thus the preliminary application submitted on April 18 does not qualify for
Builder’s Remedy protection. Additionally, the project does not qualify as an SB 35
project, as it is not compliant with the General Plan and Zoning Code.
Based on the preliminary application materials submitted on April 18, the Planning
Commission has determined the proposed project does not qualify for the
ministerial review and approval process set forth in Government Code, section
65913,4 or the Builder’s Remedy exception set forth in Government Code, section
65589.5(d)(5).
• The Appellant argues that Staff is selectively interpreting the communication
regarding the filing date of the preliminary application to achieve a predetermined
outcome; however, Staff has been clear in all correspondence with the Appellant,
and the complete email correspondence from May 12 – October 1 is included in
the staff report record (Attachment I). There is nothing selective about how Staff
interpreted these communications; Appellant was very clear and unequivocal
about their intentions and actions.
• The Appellant argues the preliminary application submitted on April 18 was
supplemental to the January 22, 2024 preliminary application. However, the
preliminary application submitted on January 22 provided for 637,042 square feet
of residential and 641,193 total square footage, while the one submitted on April
18 changed the anticipated square footage to 765,283 of residential space and
1,173,927 total square footage. The increase in construction square footage in the
April 18 preliminary application is 54% over the construction square footage in the
January 22 preliminary application, necessitating a new preliminary application
pursuant to Government Code §65941.1(c)
• The Appellant argues per Assembly Bill (AB) 1886, “a jurisdiction is in compliance
as of the date of the Housing and Community Development department’s (HCD)
letter finding the adopted housing element in substantial compliance. Any other
letters do not constitute a finding of substantial compliance. Section 65585.03 of
the Government Code, as added by Section 1 of this act, is declaratory of existing
5
law and does not represent a change.” However, the legislation does not apply in
the circumstance where a city first submits its Housing Element to the Department
of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) for its review and approval
before adopting the Housing Element. The City submitted the revised Housing
Element to HCD for its review and approval which was obtained on April 5 before
it adopted the Housing Element on April 16. Furthermore, the legislation states a
court may also determine that a Housing Element is in substantial compliance with
State Housing Element Laws. To the extent this statute is declaratory of existing
law, after a city’s adoption of its Housing Element a court may determine that as
of the date of that city’s adoption of the Housing Element, the Housing Element
was in substantial compliance with State Housing Law.
• The Appellant argues that the City’s actions are in clear violation of State Density
Bonus Law, the City has not denied any incentives or waivers of development
standards provided for under state Density Bonus Law, as the Appellant only
recently submitted their development application. Staff is in the process of
determining completeness of the application. Furthermore, Appellant’s claims
regarding the City allegedly violating state Density Bonus Law are irrelevant to the
Director’s determination that the project does not qualify for the SB 35 ministerial
review process or the Builder’s Remedy.
• The Appellant argues that the City violates the affordable Housing Streamlined
process by denying this housing project, specifically by failing to act within the
required timelines for tribal consultation and not providing details regarding the
tribal consultation. Upon the submittal of the preliminary application dated January
22, 2024, Staff commenced the tribal consultation on February 13, 2024. Staff sent
a letter requesting 10 local tribes to engage in the tribal consultation process. As
a result, two tribes, Tongva Nation and Kizh Natio n, requested to engage in the
tribal consult. The Kizh Nation requested to engage in tribal consult on February
23, 2024. Thereafter, on February 29, 2024, Staff emailed to inquire if the tribe
would like the developer included in the consult process. Additionally, the Tongva
Nation requested to engage tribal consult on April 2, 2024, and on April 22, 2024
Staff emailed to inquire if the tribe would like the developer included in the consult
process. Neither tribe approved the developer’s participation in the Scoping
Consultation, as required by Government Code § 65913.4(b)(2)(C). Accordingly,
Staff proceeded with the required consultation process without the participation of
the Appellant. Staff provided the Appellant an update, via email on July 11, 2024,
noting that the tribal consultation had not yet concluded with the Kizh Nation, but
provided the conditions requested by the Tongva Nation.
On October 21, 2024 the Appellant filed a timely Appeal (Attachment B) pursuant to
RPVMC 17.80 which included a written appeal and supporting documentation.
Site Description
Table No. 1 on the following page provides key characteristics of the site:
6
Table No. 1 - Site Description
5323 Ironwood Street (APN:7546-008-021)
Lot Size 4.97-acre lot
Existing
Improvements
Vacant
Zoning
Designation
RS-A-5
General Plan
Designation
Residential <=1 DU/5 Acre
Special Districts OC-3 Urban Appearance Overlay Control District
Surrounding Land-
Use
Single-family residential development located to the south, west
and east, and Institutional development to the north
Miscellaneous Easements: County of Los Angeles for Storm Drain Purposes,
County of Los Angeles for Sanitary Sewer purpose, County of Los
Angeles for Fire Road Purposes, and County of Los Angeles for
Storm Sewer Purposes
7
DISCUSSION:
De Novo Review
Notwithstanding the public hearing and determinations of the Planning Commission, the
appeal hearing before the City Council is what is known as a “de novo” hearing, meaning
the City Council will consider the evidence, documents, this staff report, the testimony
and evidence presented during tonight’s public hearing , and other materials from the
record of the previous consideration by the Planning Commission and the Community
Development Director and make its own independent determination as to the merits o f
this appeal as required by RPVMC §17.80.070(F) which provides: "the City Council
appeal hearing is not limited to consideration of the materials presented to the Planning
Commission. Any matter or evidence relating to the action on the application, regardless
of the specific issue appealed, may be reviewed by the City Council at the appeal
hearing."
In conducting an appeal hearing, the City Council may:
1. Grant, in whole or in part, the appeal upon provision of applicable findings
determining that the application qualifies for SB 35/423 ministerial review for the
property located at 5323 Ironwood Street; or
2. Deny the appeal, in whole or in part, without prejudice, upon the finding that
applicable findings have been correctly made; or
3. Remand the matter back to either the Planning Commission or Community
Development Department with directions to further consider the appeal and
application in light of the evidence presented at tonight’s appeal hearing.
The next part of the report includes the statutory framework and the project chronology,
which provides context to the Appellant’s appeal which is described in more detail below.
Statutory Framework
The Director’s and Planning Commission’s determination that the Project as proposed
requires an amendment to the City’s General Plan and a rezone involves the application
of three interrelated statutes, Government Code § 65589.5, known as the “Housing
Accountability Act, (“HAA”), Senate Bill 35 (amended by SB 423), codified as Government
Code § 65913.4 (“SB 35”), and Government Code § 65941.1.
The Housing Accountability Act, Government Code § 65589.5
The HAA regulates a city’s processing, consideration and approval/denial of a project that
qualifies as a Housing Development Project, such as the Appellant’s Project. Subsection
(d) sets forth the reasons a city may deny a Housing Development Project. Of relevance
here, subsection (d)(5) states that a city may deny a development project if:
8
The housing development project or emergency shelter is inconsistent with
both the jurisdiction's zoning ordinance and general plan land use
designation as specified in any element of the general plan as it existed on
the date the application was deemed complete, and the jurisdiction has
adopted a revised housing element in accordance with Section 65588 that
is in substantial compliance with this article. For purposes of this section, a
change to the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation
subsequent to the date the application was deemed complete shall not
constitute a valid basis to disapprove or condition approval of the housing
development project or emergency shelter. (Underlining added for
emphasis)
The HAA is included within Article 10.6 of Chapter 3 of the Government Code which
governs Housing Elements. Accordingly, this section has been interpreted as stating that
if at the time an application for a Housing Development Project is deemed complete an d
the city in which the Housing Development Project is proposed does not have a Housing
Element that is in substantial compliance with laws governing housing elements, then the
city is not permitted to deny the project on the basis of its inconsistency wi th the
jurisdiction’s zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation for that property.
Subsection (d)(5) is commonly referred to as the “Builder’s Remedy.”
Furthermore, if an applicant files a preliminary application that complies with the
requirements of Government Code § 65941.1 (discussed below), then the Housing
Development Project is subject only to the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted
and in effect when the preliminary application was submitted. (Government Code §
65589.5(o).)
SB 35, Government Code § 65913.4
This section provides for a ministerial review and approval process for projects that
include a specified affordability component, that will comply with the statute’s
requirements, and where agreement is reached with relevant tribes regarding the
project’s potential impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources with the appropriate mitigation of
those potential impacts. Subsection (a) sets forth the requirements for qualifying projects.
Of relevance here is the requirement set forth in subsection (a)(2)(C)(I) and (II) which
require the property to be zoned and have a General Plan land use designation that
permits the requested residential use. However, this limitation does not apply to Builder’s
Remedy projects. An applicant provides a city of notice that it intends to proceed under §
65913.4 by submitting a preliminary application that complies with Government Code §
65941.1. (Government Code, section 65913.4(b)(1)(A)(i).)
Additionally, SB 35 provides that the affordability component for SB 35 projects in a city
that does not have a substantially compliant Housing Element is 10% (affordability is
measured differently depending on whether the units are for rent or sale) (Gov’t Code §
65913.4(a)(4)(B)(i)). However, once the city has a substantially compliant Housing
9
Element, the affordability component jumps to 50%, in a city which has issued building
permits for “fewer units of housing [for] either very low income or low-income households
by income category than were required for the regional housing needs assessment
[RHNA] cycle for that reporting period.” Gov’t Code § 65913.4(a)(4)(B)(ii). (The City has
not met its RHNA number of low income housing building permit issuance.)
Subsection (b) also sets forth the requirements for completing a scoping consultation with
any California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the
geographic area of the proposed development. The purpose of the scopin g consultation
is to reach agreement on whether the project may impact Tribal Cultural Resources and,
if the project may impact Tribal Cultural Resources, reach agreement as to mitigation
measures to avoid those impacts. The scoping consultation is strictly between the tribe
and the city, and the project proponent does not participate unless certain requirements
are met, including the tribe approves of the project proponent’s participation in the scoping
consultation. (Subsection (b)(1)(C)(iii). The project proponent may submit a development
application only if the scoping consultation results in agreement between the tribe and the
city that the project will not impact a Tribal Cultural Resource or, if there is a potential
impact, an agreement on mitigation measures to avoid or substantially lessen the
impacts. (Subsection (b)(2)(C)).
Government Code § 65941.1
Subsection (a) sets forth the information that must be provided to a city in order to have
a compliant preliminary application. Such information includes (1) the specific location of
the project, (2) any existing uses on the project site, (3) a site plan showing the location
on the property, elevation showing design, color, and material, and the massing, height
and approximate square footage of each building that is to be occupied, (4) the proposed
land uses by number of units and square feet of residentia l and nonresidential
development, and (5) information regarding environmental conditions on the project site.
Of relevance here, subsection (c) states,
After submittal of all of the information required by subdivision (a), if the
development proponent revises the project such that the number of
residential units or square footage of construction changes by 20 percent or
more, exclusive of any increase resulting from the receipt of a density
bonus, incentive, concession, waiver, or similar provision, the housing
development project shall not be deemed to have submitted a preliminary
application that satisfies this section until the development proponent
resubmits the information required by subdivision (a) so that it reflects the
revisions. For purposes of this subdivision, “square footage of construction”
means the building area, as defined by the California Building Standards
Code (Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations). (underlined added for
emphasis)
Chronology of Events for Appeal Consideration
10
The following sets forth a chronology of events pertaining to the Appellant’s submittal of
its two preliminary applications, the tribal scoping consultation process, and the events
leading up to the City Council’s adoption of its Housing Element on April 16, 2024:
• January 22, 2024 – The Appellant submitted a preliminary application, proposing
482 units (385 market rate and 97 affordable units, i.e. 20% of the total units)
comprised of 641,193 square feet of building area on property located at 5323
Ironwood Street. At the time of this submittal, the City was still in the process of
revising its Housing Element and had not adopted a Housing Element that was in
substantial compliance with State Housing Laws, according to HCD.
• February 7, 2024 – After the required seven-day posting and circulation of the
document, the City submits final revised Housing Element to the HCD for its formal
review.
• February 13, 2024 – The City commenced the tribal consultation process on the
preliminary application pursuant to Government Code § 65913.4, commonly
known as SB 35 (Gov’t Code § 65913.4(b)).
• March 14, 2024 – HCD Staff sent an email to the Director indicating that HCD has
no further comments regarding revisions to the Revised Housing Element.
• April 5, 2024 –HCD provided a letter to Staff detailing that the Housing Element
addressed most of the statutory requirements, but cannot be found in full
compliance until the City has completed the Zoning Code and Zoning Map
Amendments.
• April 16, 2024 –The City Council adopted a revised Housing Element containing
modifications requested by HCD. On that date, the City Council also adopted as
an urgency measure an ordinance to establish the Mixed -Use Overlay Zone and
the Residential Overlay Zone and to rezone two properties. This urgency
ordinance, which became effective immediately upon its adop tion, served to
rezone the necessary properties to implement the revised Housing Element.
Accordingly, the City had adopted a Housing Element that is in substantial
compliance with the applicable State Housing Laws.
• April 18, 2024 – The Appellant submitted a preliminary application, proposing 482
units (385 market rate, 97 affordable units) comprised of 1,173,927 square feet for
the same site at 5323 Ironwood Street.
• May 12, 2024 – The Appellant emailed Staff for clarification on the SB35 submittal
checklist.
• May 15, 2024 – Staff emailed the Appellant, noting that the tribal consultation was
still in progress and to provide a list of questions in writing regarding the submittal
requirements.
• May 20, 2024 – The Appellant noted that the preliminary application was submitted
on April 17 1 [sic] and therefore the 30-day deadline for the City to notify any
affiliated Tribes had now passed. Additionally, the Appellant inquired about the
requested format for the application submittal.
1 The email from the Appellant submitting the new preliminary application was actually dated April 18,
2024.
11
• May 21, 2024 – Staff emailed the Appellant inquiring if the preliminary application
submitted April 18 was a new application or a modification to the existing
preliminary application.
• May 22, 2024 – The Appellant emailed Staff noting the April 18 submittal was a
new preliminary application.
• May 22, 2024 – Staff emailed the Appellant to confirm if the earlier preliminary
application was being withdrawn and replaced with the April 18 submittal.
• May 23, 2024 – The Appellant confirmed via email the preliminary application
dated January 22 was withdrawn.
• June 3, 2024 – The Appellant emailed Staff requesting to use the preliminary
application submitted January 22.
• June 5, 2024 – Staff provided a letter (Attachment F) to the Appellant via email,
detailing the preliminary application dated January 22, is withdrawn per the
correspondence provided on May 23 and due to the new preliminary application
being significantly different with regard to the square footages for each building.
• June 7, 2024 – the Appellant emailed Staff requesting that the preliminary
application submitted April 18 be considered a modification to the January 22
preliminary application, along with supplemental information.
• June 12, 2024 - HCD provided a letter to Staff confirming that the City’s Housing
Element adopted April 16, 2024 and completed actions (Zoning Amendments to
Increase Housing Development Potential) met the statutory requirements as
described in the April 5, 2024 HCD letter, and therefore is in substantial compliance
with State Housing Element Law.
• July 2, 2024 – the Appellant met with Staff at the public counter. Staff noted that
the tribal consultation was still in progress.
• July 11, 2024 – The Appellant emailed Staff requesting the status of the tribal
consultation.
• July 11, 2024 – Staff emailed the Appellant that the tribal consultation was still in
progress. Staff noted that should the Appellant wish to submit an application prior
to the conclusion of the tribal consultation, the project would be processed per the
requirements of the RPVMC. Staff provided a project fee statement and relevant
submittal materials. Staff noted that following the conclusion of the tribal
consultation, should it be determined that the proposed project meets all SB35
requirements, the pertinent fees would be refunded.
• July 15, 2024 – The Appellant emailed Staff noting the project was based on
SB35/423 and Housing Accountability Act Builder’s Remedy, therefore certain
planning entitlements and discretionary reviews would not be required. The
Appellant provided an updated copy of the fee statement with strikethrough for the
fees they felt were not applicable.
• July 18, 2024 – Staff provided a letter (Attachment G) to the Appellant reiterating
that the preliminary application submitted on January 22 was withdrawn and
resubmitted as a new preliminary application on April 18. Staff noted that at the
time of the April 18 submission, the City had an adopted Housing Element that was
substantially compliant with State Housing Element Law, thus the project does not
qualify for Builder’s Remedy protection. Additionally, the project does not qualify
12
as an SB 35 project, as it is not compliant with the General Plan and Zoning Code.
Staff noted the Appellant can submit the project for review by the Planning Division,
pending payment of the unedited City invoice provided on July 11, 2024.
• July 29, 2024 – The Appellant emailed Staff requesting to appeal the decision
outlined in the July 18, 2024 correspondence.
• August 5, 2024 – Staff provided to the Appellant, via email, instructions to process
the appeal.
• August 8, 2024 – Staff received a timely written Appeal Letter with fee from the
Appellant /Owner at 5323 Ironwood Street.
• August 19, 2024 – Staff provided a letter (Attachment H) to the Appellant via email,
noting Staff is in receipt of the filed Appeal.
• August 27, 2024 – The Appellant provided a letter via email with supplemental
Appeal information.
• September 12, 2024 – A public notice announcing the Planning Commission’s
consideration of the appeal on October 8, 2024, was provided to the Appellant,
property owners within a 500-foot radius of the project site, and interested parties,
and was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News.
• September 25, 2024 – The Appellant requested a link to pay the invoice dated July
10, 2024.
• September 30, 2024 – The Appellant provided a letter via email with supplemental
Appeal information.
• October 1, 2024 – Staff provided the link for payment via email.
• October 1, 2024 – The Appellant paid the fee for consideration of the required
project applications. Although the fee was submitted, all listed application forms
were not submitted. Additionally, the appeal request was not withdrawn.
• October 8, 2024 – The Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing to
consider the appeal, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity
to be heard and present evidence. The Planning Commission upheld the
Community Development Director’s determination that the project does not qualify
for SB35/423 ministerial review and denied the appeal (Attachment D).
• October 21, 2024 – The Appellant filed a timely Appeal (Attachment B) of the
Planning Commission’s determination to City Council pursuant to RPVMC 17.80
which included a written appeal and supporting documentation.
• October 25, 2024 – Staff provided the Appellant a letter (Attachment J) via email
noting Staff received the timely filed Appeal.
• October 29, 2024 – Staff issued a letter of incompleteness for Case No.
PLZC2024-0002 (application submitted October 1, 2024).
• November 3, 2024 – The Appellant requested, via email, to place the application
review on hold until the appeal process concluded.
• November 15, 2024 – Staff provided the Appellant a letter (Attachment K), via
email, noting the project review can be placed on hold until such time the Appeal
is finalized, providing a new resubmittal deadline of March 20, 2025. The Appellant
submitted a written agreement to place the project review for Case No. PLZC2024-
0002 on hold.
13
Appeal Determination
The Community Development Director and the Planning Commission determined that the
proposed project for which the preliminary application was submitted on April 18, 2024,
which includes 482 residential units (1,173,927ft2) does not qualify for SB35/423
ministerial review and therefore requires the following entitlements: General Plan
Amendment, Zone Change, Certificate of Compliance, Major Grading Permit, Variance,
Environmental Review and Major Site Plan Review as required by the RPVMC.
The Appellant’s appeal presents arguments, included in the Appeal letter dated October
21, 2024 (Attachment B), that the project as submitted should qualify for Builder’s
Remedy status and SB35/423 ministerial review.
The property located at 5323 Ironwood Street is zoned RS-A-5 which permits one single-
family residential building and associated improvements pursuant to the development
standards in RPVMC Chapter 17.02. Additionally, the site is within the Urban Appearance
Overlay Control District (OC-3) which per RPVMC § 17.40.010, “provides criteria which
further reduce potential impacts which could be directly created or indirectly induced by
proposed and existing developments in sensitive areas of the city. These areas have
been defined by the general plan and other studies to be sensitive areas due to unique
characteristics contributing significantly to the city's form, appearance, natural setting,
and historical and cultural heritage.”
As outlined above per RPVMC § 17.02.020, permitted uses for the RS-A-5 zoning
designation include a single-family residence and associated development. The project
is proposing a multi-family development including 482 residential units. As proposed, the
project is not a permitted use within the RS-A-5 zoning designation. As such, the
proposed development would require a Zone Change and General Plan Amendment as
detailed in Staff correspondence dated July 18 (Attachment G).
Appellant’s Ground for Appeal No. 1
The Appellant asserts that Staff is selectively interpreting the communication regarding
the filing date of the preliminary application to achieve a predetermined outcome.
City’s Response to Ground for Appeal No. 1
Staff has been clear in all correspondence with the Appellant, and the complete email
correspondence from May 12 – October 1 is attached (Attachment I).
On May 20 the Appellant inquired about the status of the tribal consultation stating, “Since
we submitted our Preliminary Application on April 17, 2024 [sic], the 30 -day deadline for
the City to notify any affiliated Tribes has now passed. Would you be able to let us know
which, if any, Tribes have been notified under this process? Given th e 30-30-30 timeline
from the statute, when would you be able to tell us what the schedule for the scoping
consultation would be, or if it is not required?”
14
As a point of clarification Staff asked the Appellant on May 22, “as discussed at the public
counter, I understood the materials submitted to be supplemental materials (a clarification
in the proposed floor area). The tribal consultation was commenced on February 29,
2024, and is still in progress. In any event, Staff has provided the updated plans to the
participating tribes. To clarify, is the preliminary application submitted on April 18, 2024,
a new application or a modification to the existing preliminary application on file for the
property?”
The Appellant responded, “The April 18, 2024 is our new preliminary application please.”
To further clarify Staff responded on May 23, “Thank you for the information. Are you
withdrawing the earlier Preliminary Application and replacing it with this one?” The
Appellant stated, “That is correct.” As such, the January 22 preliminary application was
formally withdrawn, and a new preliminary application was submitted on April 18. There
is nothing selective about how Staff interpreted these communications, the Appellant was
very clear and unequivocal about their intentions.
Moreover, the preliminary application submitted on January 22 provided for 637,04 2ft2 of
residential and 641,193 total square footage, while the one submitted on April 18 changed
the anticipated square footage to 765,283 of residential space and 1,173,927 total square
footage. The increase in construction square footage in the April 18 prel iminary
application is 54% over the construction square footage in the January 22 preliminary
application. As set forth in the “Statutory Framework” section above, Sectio n 65941.1(c)
provides:
After submittal of all of the information required by subdivision (a), if the
development proponent revises the project such that the number of residential
units or square footage of construction changes by 20 percent or more, exclusive
of any increase resulting from the receipt of a density bonus, incentive, concession,
waiver, or similar provision, the housing development project shall not be deemed
to have submitted a preliminary application that satisfies this section until the
development proponent resubmits the information required by subdivision (a) so
that it reflects the revisions. For purposes of this subdivision, “square footage of
construction” means the building area, as defined by the California Building
Standards Code (Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations).
The square footage of the proposed project received substantial revisions as specified in
the preliminary applications dated January 22 and April 18 shown below in Figure No. 1
and Figure No. 2:
Figure No. 1 – January 22 Preliminary Application Proposed Floor Area
15
Figure No. 2 – April 18 Preliminary Application Proposed Floor Area
Appellants Ground for Appeal No. 2
The Appellant asserts the City’s claim about the date of its Housing Element compliance
is incorrect.
City’s Response to Ground for Appeal No. 2
Based on HCD’s letter of April 5, 2024 which indicated that the City’s draft Housing
Element met the statutory requirements but would not be in substantial compliance until
the requisite zoning code amendments are adopted. On April 16, 2024, the City Council
determined that the Negative Declaration adopted on August 11, 2022, as amended by
Addendum No. 1, adequately analyzed the impacts from the adoption and implementation
of the Revised Final 2021-2029 Housing Element, and following the public hearing
adopted Resolution No. 2024-16 approving a General Plan Amendment for the City’s
Revised Final 2021-2029 Housing Element, a General Plan Amendment for the Land Use
Element and Land Use Map, and a Local Coastal Plan (Coastal Specific Plan)
Amendment to effectuate the 2021-2029 Housing Element.
The City Council also adopted Resolution No. 2024-17 to forward to the California Coastal
Commission the amendments to the Local Coastal Program (LCP) Coastal Specific Plan
and zoning map related to the 6th Cycle Housing Element actions in the Coastal Zone,
consistent with State Law.
Additionally, in order to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the City
of Rancho Palos Verdes, on April 16, 2024, the City Council unanimously adopted
Urgency Ordinance No. 678U approving zoning amendments inclusive of Zoning Map
amendments and development standards for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and
Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs), to immediately effectuate the Housing
Element, including rezoning sufficient sites to accommodate the City’s regional housing
16
needs allocation by adopting the implementation actions to effectuate the City’s Revised
Final 2021-2029 Housing Element.
As such, the Housing Element was in substantial compliance with Housing Element Law
on April 16, 2024 as indicated by HCD on April 5, 2024. The April 16 City Council Staff
Report for the consideration of the Revised Final Housing Element is available for review.
Therefore, at the time of the April 18 submission, the City’s Housing Element was
substantially compliant with the relevant State Housing Laws, thus the preliminary
application submitted on April 18 does not qualify for Builder’s Remedy protection.
Additionally, the project does not qualify as an SB 35 project, as it is not compliant with
the General Plan and Zoning Code.
Based on the preliminary application materials submitted on April 18, Staff has
determined the proposed project does not qualify as SB35/423 Ministerial Review.
Appellant’s Ground for Appeal No. 3
The Appellant asserts the City is violating the Permit Streamlining Act by denying this
housing project. The Appellant notes that “once a development project application is
submitted, an agency must first determine whether the application is complete and
provide an exhaustive list of incomplete items. The City has not determined whether the
application is complete and has not provided an exhaustive list of incomplete items as
required by state laws.”
City’s Response to Ground for Appeal No. 3
The Appellant paid the fees for consideration of the required project applications on
October 1, 2024. As such, staff provided a letter of incompleteness on October 29, 2024
in compliance with the Permit Streamlining Act. Subsequently, the Appellant requested
via email to place the application review on hold until this current appeal process
concluded. Following, Staff provided the Appellant a letter via email noting the project
review can be placed on hold until such time the Appeal is finalized providing a new
resubmittal deadline of March 20, 2025. On November 15, 2024 the Appellant provided
a written agreement (Attachment K) to place the project review on hold. As such, staff
has complied with the Permit Streamlining Act.
Appellant’s Ground for Appeal No. 4
The Appellant asserts that the City violates the affordable housing streamlined process
by denying this housing project, specifically by failing to act within the required timelines
for tribal consultation and not providing details regarding the tribal consultation.
17
City’s Response to Ground for Appeal No. 4
Upon the submittal of the preliminary application dated January 22, 2024, Staff
commenced the tribal consultation on February 13, 2024. Staff sent a letter requesting 10
local tribes to engage in the tribal consultation process. As a result, two tribes, Tongva
Nation and Kizh Nation, requested to engage in the tribal consult.
The Kizh Nation requested to engage in tribal consult on February 23 , 2024. Thereafter,
on February 29, 2024, Staff emailed to inquire if the tribe would like the developer included
in the consult process. Additionally, the Tongva Nation requested to engage tribal consult
on April 2, 2024. On April 22, 2024, Staff emailed to inquire if the tribe would like the
developer included in the consult process. Neither tribe approved the developer’s
participation in the Scoping Consultation, as required by Government Code §
65913.4(b)(2)(C). Accordingly, Staff proceeded with the required consultation process
without the participation of the Appellant.
Staff provided the Appellant an update via email on July 11, (Attachment I) noting that the
tribal consultation had not yet concluded with the Kizh Nation, but provided the conditions
requested by the Tongva Nation.
Additionally, as Staff has determined that the project does not qualify for SB35/ministerial
approval, tribal consultation would not be required as a part of SB35.
Appellant’s Ground for Appeal No. 5
The Appellant asserts the City is violating the Housing Accountability Act by denying this
housing project, stating “the HAA prohibits local government from disapproving an
affordable housing project unless it makes written findings based on the preponderance
of the evidence in the record as to one of five specifically enumerated findings
(Government Code section 65589.5(d). The City cannot disapprove the project based on
HAA subd. (d)(5), the builder’s remedy, because the City was not in compliance wit h the
Housing Element Law on the date of a complete preliminary application. There is no
evidence in the record that any of the other enumerated findings apply, nor did the City
even attempt to make such findings.”
City’s Response to Ground for Appeal No. 5
The Planning Commission upheld the Director of Community Development’s
determination that the project does not qualify for Builder’s Remedy/ministerial review
process does not constitute a disapproval of the project pursuant to HAA and therefore
no additional findings are required.
Appellant’s Ground for Appeal No. 6
The Appellant asserts that the City’s actions are in clear violation of State Density Bonus
Law.
18
City’s Response to Ground for Appeal No. 6
The City has not denied any incentives or waivers of development standards provided for
under state Density Bonus Law. Furthermore, Appellant’s claims regarding the City
allegedly violating state Density Bonus Law are irrelevant to the Planning Commission
and Director’s determination that the project does not qualify for the SB 35 ministerial
review process or the Builder’s Remedy.
Appellant’s Ground for Appeal No. 7
The Appellant asserts the courts have decided on very similar matters in the favor of
housing development.
City’s Response to Ground for Appeal No. 7
None of the cases cited are binding authority, and the facts in the cases are significantly
different than the subject of this matter.
Appellant’s Ground for Appeal No. 8
The Appellant asserts the City has not sought a court order regarding the compliance of
the Housing Element, stating, “despite ample time and opportunity, the City has not
sought a court ruling to establish April 16, as the compliance date. Without contesting
HCD’s determination, June 12, remains the official compliance date.”
City’s Response to Ground for Appeal No. 8
Currently, there is not a legal mechanism for the City to obtain a court determination as
to whether its Housing Element is in substantial compliance with State Housing Element
Law. Furthermore, as stated above Government Code § 65585.03 is intended to be
declaratory of existing law. As such, should the City’s Housing Element be challenged
through litigation, a Court may determine that as of April 16, 2024, the City’s Housing
Element was in substantial compliance with State Housing Element Laws.
Appellant’s Ground for Appeal No. 9
The Appellant asserts that Governor signed AB 1886 into law on September 19. However,
this legislation went into effect on January 1, 2025, and was not in effect at the time of
the Director’s and Planning Commission’s determination that is the subject of this appeal.
Nevertheless, Staff addresses the argument below.
City’s Response to Ground for Appeal No. 9
In the September 30, supplemental information provided to the Planning Commission, the
Appellant claims the legislation states, “A jurisdiction is in compliance as of the date of
the Housing and Community Development department’s (HCD) letter finding the adopted
19
housing element in substantial compliance. Any other letters do not constitute a finding
of substantial compliance. Section 65585.03 of the Government Code, as added by
Section 1 of this act, is declaratory of existing law and does not represent a change.”
However, the Appellant misrepresents the text of new Government Code § 65585.03 and
fails to provide the statutory context for this statute. Section 65585.03 states:
A housing element or amendment shall be considered to be in substantial
compliance with this article when the local agency adopts the housing element or
amendment for the current planning period in accordance with Section 65585 and
either of the following apply:
(a) The department finds that the adopted housing element or amendment
is in substantial compliance with this article and the department’s
compliance findings have not been superseded by subsequent contrary
findings by the department or by a decision of a court of competent
jurisdiction.
(b) A court of competent jurisdiction determines that the adopted housing
element or amendment substantially complies with this article and the
court’s decision has not been overturned or superseded by a subsequent
court decision or by statute.
In addition, Section 3 of AB 1886 states,
In Section 65585.03 of the Government Code, as added by Section 1 of this act, it
is the intent of the Legislature to confirm that local agencies cannot self -certify
housing element compliance and to ratify the regulatory interpretation expressed
in the March 16, 2023, memorandum from the Department of Housing and
Community Development to planning directors and interested parties, which
states, “where a jurisdiction submits an ‘adopted’ housing element before
submitting an initial draft or before considerin g HCD’s findings on an initial
draft, HCD will consider the ‘adopted’ to be an initial draft for purposes of both
HCD’s review and the jurisdiction’s statutory compliance,” and “a jurisdiction does
not have the authority to determine that its adopted element is in substantial
compliance but may provide reasoning why HCD should make a finding of
substantial compliance. In addition, a jurisdiction is ‘in compliance’ as of the date
of HCD’s letter finding the adopted element in substantial compliance. Any othe r
letters are not a finding of substantial compliance.” In this respect, Section
65585.03 of the Government Code, as added by Section 1 of this act, does not
constitute a change in, but is declaratory of, existing law.
In this case, contrary to the circumstances described in Section 3 of AB 1886, on February
7, 2024, the City submitted its final Housing Element to HCD for its review and finding of
substantial compliance. On April 5, 2024, HCD provided a letter indicating that the City’s
Housing Element met the statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law, but that
for it to be in full compliance the City would have to adopt the revised Housing Element
20
and the necessary zone changes to effectuate the Housing Element. The City did not wait
until after it adopted its Housing Element on April 16, 2024 to submit it to HCD for its
review but rather submitted multiple drafts to HCD until it received approval before
adoption. Therefore, HCD’s letter dated April 5, 2024, confirmed the City would be fully in
compliance with the Housing Element Law when the City adopted the revised Housing
Element and adopted the necessary zoning to effectuate the Housing Element. This was
accomplished on April 16, 2024.
Therefore, Appellant’s claim the City’s Housing Element was not in substantial
compliance with the Housing Element Law until June 12, 2024 is not supported by the
text of AB 1886.
In addition, since the Project is not subject to the Builder’s Remedy exception, another
reason it fails to comply with the requirements of Government Code, section 65913.4 is
that, as proposed, fifty percent of the Project’s total units are not designated for
households making at or below 80 percent of the area median income. (Government
Code, section 65913.4(a)(4)(B)(i) (III)(ii)).
Based on the above discussion on the Appellants appeal points, Staff recommends the
City Council deny the appeal thereby upholding the Planning Commission’s
determination.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Planning Commission’s Attendance
Pursuant to City Council Policy No. 24, the Chair of the Planning Commission has been
invited to attend the February 18 meeting to provide the City Council, if desired, with
context related to the October 8, 2024 Planning Commission meeting on the appeal.
City Councilmember Proximity to Project Site
Councilmember Seo resides within 1,000 feet of the project site. As such, Councilmember
Seo will be required to recuse himself from the public hearing. No additional conflicts were
identified.
Biological Assessment
A Biological Assessment prepared by Michael Baker Inc. dated December 18, 2024
concluded that the project site contains habitat for protected species identified as
candidate, sensitive, or species of special status by state or federal agencies, fully
protected species, or species protected by the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973
(16 U.S.C. Sec. 1531 et seq.), the California Endangered Species Act (Chapter 1.5
(commencing with Section 2050) of Division 3 of the Fish and Game Code), or the Native
Plant Protection Act (Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 1900) of Division 2 of the
Fish and Game Code). As such, pursuant to Government Code § 65913.4(a)(6)(J), this
21
disqualifies the project from utilizing streamlined ministerial zoning and permitting
processes pursuant to SB 35.
Public Correspondence
On January 30, 2025, a public notice was issued and published in the Palos Verdes
Peninsula News providing notification of the City Council’s review and consideration of
the appeal hearing. Since the Planning Commission meeting on October 8, Staff received
13 additional comments (Attachment C), expressing opposition to the project.
CONCLUSION
Based on the discussion contained herein, it is Staff’s recommendation that the City
Council adopt the draft resolution thereby denying the Appellant’s appeal and upholding
the Planning Commission’s decision to uphold the Community Development Director’s
determination that the proposed project does not qualify for SB35 ministerial review or
within the Builder’s Remedy exception on property located at 5323 Ironwood Street (Case
No. PLZC2024-0002).
ALTERNATIVES
In addition to Staff’s recommendation, the following alternatives are available for the City
Council’s consideration:
1. Grant, in whole or in part, the appeal upon provision of applicable findings
determining that the application qualifies for SB 35/423 ministerial review for the
property located at 5323 Ironwood Street (Case No. PLZC2024-0002).
2. Remand the matter back to either the Planning Commission or Community
Development Department with directions to further consider the appeal and
application in light of the evidence presented at tonight’s appeal hearing.
22
01203.0049/1049858.1
Resolution No. 2025-_
Page 1 of 10
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES THEREBY DENYING AN APPEAL
AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S
DETERMINATION THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT WHICH
INCLUDES 482 RESIDENTIAL UNITS (1,173,927 SQUARE FEET)
DOES NOT QUALIFY FOR SB35/423 MINISTERIAL REVIEW OR
THE EXEMPTION FROM CONSISTENCY WITH THE CITY’S
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION OR ZONING SET FORTH IN
GOVERNMENT CODE, SECTION 65589.5(D)(5) THEREFORE
REQUIRING THE FOLLOWING LAND USE ENTITLEMENTS:
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE, CERTIFICATE
OF COMPLIANCE, MAJOR GRADING PERMIT, VARIANCE,
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW
AS REQUIRED BY THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL
CODE TO CONSIDER THE PROPOSED PROJECT, AS
DESCRIBED HEREIN, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5323
IRONWOOD STREET (CASE NO. PLZC2024-0002).
WHEREAS, on January 22, 2024, the Applicant/Appellant, Verde Estates Inc.
submitted a Preliminary Application, proposing 482 units (385 market rate and 97
affordable units, i.e. 20% of the total units) comprised of 641,193 square feet of building
area. At the time of this submittal the City was still in the process of revising its Housing
Element and had not adopted a Housing Element that was in substantial compliance with
state housing laws, according to the Department of Housing and Community
Development (“HCD”); and,
WHEREAS, on February 7, 2024, after the required seven-day posting and
circulation of the document, the City submitted the final revised Housing Element to the
HCD for its formal review; and,
WHEREAS, on February 13, 2024, the City commenced the Tribal Consultation
process pursuant to Government Code Section 65913.4, commonly known as SB 35
(Gov’t Code § 65913.4(b)); and,
WHEREAS, on March 14, 2024, HCD staff sent an email to the Director indicating
that HCD has no further comments regarding revisions to the Revised Housing Element;
and,
WHEREAS, on April 5, 2024, the HCD provided a letter to Staff detailing that the
Housing Element addressed most of the statutory requirements but cannot be found in
full compliance until the City has completed the Zone Amendments required to implement
certain programs in the Housing Element; and,
A-1
Resolution No. 2025-_
Page 2 of 10
WHEREAS, on April 16, 2024, the City Council adopted a revised Housing
Element containing modifications requested by the HCD. On that date, the City Council
also adopted as an urgency measure an ordinance to establish the Mixed-Use Overlay
Zone and the Residential Overlay Zone and to rezone two properties. This urgency
ordinance, which became effective immediately upon its adoption, served to rezone the
necessary properties to implement the revised Housing Element. Accordingly, the City
had adopted a housing element that is in substantial compliance with the applicable state
housing element laws; and,
WHEREAS, on April 18, 2024, the Applicant submitted a Preliminary Application,
proposing 482 units (385 market rate, 97 affordable units) comprised of 1,173,927 square
feet; and,
WHEREAS, on May 12, 2024, the Applicant emailed staff for clarification on the
SB35 submittal checklist; and,
WHEREAS, on May 15, 2024, Staff emailed the Applicant, noting that the Tribal
Consultation was still in progress and to provide a list of questions in writing regarding the
submittal requirements; and,
WHEREAS, on May 20, 2024, the Applicant noted that the Preliminary Application
was submitted on April 17 1 [sic] and therefore the 30-day deadline for the City to notify
any affiliated Tribes had now passed. Additionally, the Applicant inquired about the
requested format for the application submittal; and,
WHEREAS, on May 21, 2024, Staff emailed the Applicant inquiring if the
Preliminary Application submitted April 18 was a new application or a modification to the
existing Preliminary Application; and,
WHEREAS, on May 22, 2024, the Applicant emailed Staff noting the April 18 was
a new Preliminary Application and Staff emailed the Applicant to confirm if the earlier
Preliminary Application was being withdrawn and replaced with the April 18 application;
and,
WHEREAS, on May 23, 2024, the Applicant confirmed via email the Preliminary
Application dated January 22 was withdrawn; and,
WHEREAS, on June 3, 2024, the Applicant emailed Staff requesting to use the
Preliminary Application submitted January 22; and,
WHEREAS, on June 5, 2024, Staff provided a letter to the Applicant via email,
stating the Applicant withdrew the Preliminary Application dated January 22, per
Applicant’s correspondence provided on May 23 and due to the new Preliminary
1 The email from the Appellant submitting the new Preliminary Application was actually dated April 18,
2024.
A-2
Resolution No. 2025-_
Page 3 of 10
Application being significantly different with regard to the square footages for each
building; and,
WHEREAS, on June 7, 2024, the Applicant emailed Staff requesting that the
Preliminary Application submitted April 18 be considered a modification to the January 22
Preliminary Application, along with supplemental information; and,
WHEREAS, on June 12, 2024, HCD provided a letter to Staff confirming that the
City’s Housing Element adopted April 16, 2024, and completed actions (Zoning
Amendments to Increase Housing Development Potential) met the statutory requirements
as described in the April 5, 2024 HCD letter, and therefore is in substantial compliance
with State Housing Element Law; and,
WHEREAS, on July 2, 2024, the Applicant met with staff at the public counter. Staff
noted that the Tribal Consultation was still in progress; and,
WHEREAS, on July 11, 2024, the Applicant emailed Staff regarding requesting the
status of the Tribal Consultation and Staff emailed the Applicant that the Tribal
Consultation was still in progress. Staff noted that should the Applicant wish to submit an
application prior to the conclusion of the Tribal Consultation, the project would be
processed per the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code. Staff
provided a project fee statement and relevant submittal materials. Staff noted that
following the conclusion of the tribal consultation, should it be determined that the
proposed project meets all SB35 requirements, the pertinent fees would be refunded;
and,
WHEREAS, on July 15, 2024, the Applicant emailed Staff noting the project was
based on SB35/423 and Housing Accountability Act Builder’s Remedy, therefore certain
planning entitlements and discretionary reviews would not be required. The Applicant
provided an updated copy of the fee statement with strikethrough for the fees they felt
were not applicable; and,
WHEREAS, on July 18, 2024, Staff provided a letter to the Applicant reiterating
that the Preliminary Application submitted on January 22 was withdrawn and resubmitted
as a new Preliminary Application on April 18. Staff noted that at the time of the April 18
submission, the City had adopted Housing Element that was substantially compliant with
housing element law, thus the project does not qualify for Builder’s Remedy protection.
Additionally, the project does not qualify as an SB 35 project, as it is not compliant with
the General Plan and Zoning Code. Staff noted the Applicant can submit the project for
review by the Planning Division, pending payment of the unedited City invoice provided
on July 11, 2024; and,
WHEREAS, on July 29, 2024, the Applicant emailed staff requesting to appeal the
decision outlined in the July 18, 224 correspondence; and,
A-3
Resolution No. 2025-_
Page 4 of 10
WHEREAS, on August 5, 2024, Staff provided the Applicant via email instructions
to process the appeal; and,
WHEREAS, on August 8, 2024, Staff received a timely written Appeal Letter with
fee from the Applicant/Owner at 5323 Ironwood Street; and,
WHEREAS, on August 19, 2024, Staff provided a letter to the Applicant/Appellant
via email, noting Staff is in receipt of the filed Appeal; and,
WHEREAS, on August 27, 2024, the Applicant/Appellant provided a letter via email
with supplemental Appeal information; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC)
§17.80.050(C), an appeal hearing before the Planning Commission shall be set within 90
days of the filing of the appeal, or no later than November 6, 2024; and,
WHEREAS, on September 12, 2024, pursuant to RPVMC §17.80.090, a public
notice announcing the Planning Commission’s consideration of the appeal on October 8,
2024, was provided to the Applicant/Appellant, property owners within a 500-foot radius
of the project site, interested parties and published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News;
and,
WHEREAS, on September 25, 2024, the Applicant/Appellant requested a link to
pay the invoice dated July 10, 2024; and,
WHEREAS, on September 30, 2024, the Applicant/Appellant provided a letter via
email with supplemental Appeal information; and,
WHEREAS, on October 1, 2024, Staff provided the link for payment via email and
the Applicant/Appellant paid the fee for consideration of the required project applications.
However, the appeal request was not withdrawn; and,
WHEREAS, on October 8, 2024, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed
public hearing to consider the appeal, at which time all interested parties were given an
opportunity to be heard and present evidence. The Planning Commission denied the
appeal without prejudice thereby upholding the Community Development Director’s
determination; and
WHEREAS, on October 21, 2024, Staff received a timely written Appeal Letter with
fee from the Applicant/Owner at 5323 Ironwood Street; and
WHEREAS, on October 25, 2024, Staff provided the Applicant/Appellant a letter
via email acknowledging Staff received the filed Appeal; and
A-4
Resolution No. 2025-_
Page 5 of 10
WHEREAS, pursuant to RPVMC §17.80.050(C), an appeal hearing before City
Council shall be set within 90 days of the filing of the appeal, staff schedule the appeal
for February 18, 2025; and
WHEREAS, on October 29, 2024, Staff issued a letter of incompleteness for Case
No. PLZC2024-0002; and
WHEREAS, on November 3, 2024, the Applicant/Appellant requested via email to
place the application for Case No. PLZC2024-0002 on hold until the appeal process
conclude; and
WHEREAS, on November 15, 2024, Staff provided the Applicant/Appellant a letter
via email noting the project review can be placed on hold till such time the Appeal is
finalized providing a new resubmittal deadline of March 20, 2025; and
WHEREAS, on January 30, 2025, pursuant to RPVMC §17.80.090, a public notice
announcing the City Council’s consideration of the appeal on February 18, 2025, was
provided to the Appellant, property owners within a 500-foot radius of the project site,
interested parties and published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News; and
WHEREAS, on February 18, 2025, the City Council held a duly noticed public
hearing to consider the appeal, at which time all interested parties were given an
opportunity to be heard and present evidence.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE
AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by
reference.
Section 2: The City Council has considered the basis for the appeal offered by
the Appellant, and finds that they are without merit for the reasons described below:
A.The Appellant asserts that Staff is selectively interpreting the communication
regarding the filing date of the preliminary application to achieve a predetermined
outcome, however, staff has been clear in all correspondence with the Appellant,
and the complete email correspondence from May 12 – October 1 is included in
the staff report record. There is nothing selective about how Staff interpreted these
communications, the Appellant was very clear and unequivocal about their
intentions to submit a new preliminary application on April 18, 2024 and withdraw
the preliminary application submitted on January 22, 2024.
B.While the Appellant alleges that the project as submitted should qualify for the
exception to the requirement that a project having to be consistent with the
applicable zoning and general plan set forth in Government Code, section
65589.5(d)(5), “the Builder’s Remedy” and the ministerial review, and approval
A-5
Resolution No. 2025-_
Page 6 of 10
process set forth in Government Code, section 65913.4 (“SB 35/423”), the project
does not qualify because at the time the Applicant submitted the operative
Preliminary Application, the City had adopted a Housing Element and the required
zoning to implement the Housing Element all of which was in substantial
compliance with state Housing Element law.
Based on HCD’s letter of April 5, 2024, which indicated that the City’s draft Housing
Element met the statutory requirements but would not be in substantial compliance
until the requisite zoning code amendments are adopted, on April 16, 2024 the City
Council determined that the Negative Declaration adopted on August 11, 2022, as
amended by Addendum No. 1, adequately analyzed the impacts from the adoption
and implementation of the Revised Final 2021-2029 Housing Element, and
following the public hearing adopted Resolution No. 2024-16 approving a General
Plan Amendment for the City’s Revised Final 2021-2029 Housing Element, a
General Plan Amendment for the Land Use Element and Land Use Map, and a
Local Coastal Plan (Coastal Specific Plan) Amendment to effectuate the 2021-
2029 Housing Element. The City Council also adopted Resolution No. 2024-17 to
forward to the California Coastal Commission the amendments to the Local
Coastal Program (LCP) Coastal Specific Plan and zoning map related to the 6th
Cycle Housing Element actions in the Coastal Zone, consistent with State Law.
Additionally, in order to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of
the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, on April 16, 2024 the City Council unanimously
adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 678U approving zoning amendments inclusive of
Zoning Map amendments and development standards for Accessory Dwelling
Units (ADUs) and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs), to immediately
effectuate the Housing Element, including rezoning sufficient sites to
accommodate the City’s regional housing needs allocation by adopting the
implementation actions to effectuate the City’s Revised Final 2021-2029 Housing
Element.
As such, the Housing Element was in substantial compliance with Housing
Element Law on April 16, 2024, as indicated by HCD on April 5, 2024. Therefore,
at the time of the Applicant/Appellant’s April 18, 2024 submission of a new
preliminary application, the City’s Housing Element was substantially compliant
with the relevant state housing element laws, thus the preliminary application
submitted on April 18 does not qualify for Builder’s Remedy protection. Additionally,
the project does not qualify as an SB 35 project, as it is not compliant with the
General Plan and Zoning Code.
Based on the Preliminary Application materials submitted on April 18, the City
Council has determined the proposed project does not qualify for the ministerial
review and approval process set forth in Government Code, section 65913,4 or the
Builder’s Remedy exception set forth in Government Code, section 65589.5(d)(5).
A-6
Resolution No. 2025-_
Page 7 of 10
C.The Appellant asserts the Preliminary Application submitted on April 18 was
supplemental to the January 22 Preliminary Application. However, the preliminary
application submitted on January 22 provided for 637,042 square feet of residential
and 641,193 total square footage, while the one submitted on April 18 changed the
anticipated square footage to 765,283 of residential space and 1,173,927 total
square footage. The increase in construction square footage in the April 18
preliminary application is 54% over the construction square footage in the January
22 preliminary application, necessitating a new Preliminary Application pursuant
to Government Code, section 65941.1(c).
D.The Appellant asserts the City is violating the Permit Streamlining Act by denying
this housing project. The Appellant notes that, “once a development project
application is submitted, an agency must first determine whether the application
is complete and provide an exhaustive list of incomplete items. The City has not
determined whether the application is complete and has not provided an
exhaustive list of incomplete items as required by state laws.” As the
Applicant/Appellant paid the fees for consideration of the required project
applications. As such, staff provided a letter of incompleteness on October 29,
2024 in compliance with the Permit Streamlining Act. Subsequently, the
Applicant/Appellant requested via email to place the application review on hold
until the appeal process concluded. Following, Staff provided the
Applicant/Appellant a letter via email noting the project review can be placed on
hold till such time the Appeal is finalized providing a new resubmittal deadline of
March 20, 2025. On November 15, 2024, the Applicant/Appellant provided a
written agreement to place the project review on hold. As such, staff has complied
with the Permit Streamlining Act.
E.The Appellant asserts that the City violates the affordable Housing Streamlined
process by denying this housing project, specifically by failing to act within the
required timelines for Tribal Consultation and not providing details regarding the
tribal consultation. Upon the submittal of the preliminary application dated January
22 Staff commenced the Tribal Consultation on February 13, 2024. Staff sent a
letter requesting 10 local tribes to engage in the tribal consultation process. As a
result, two tribes, Tongva Nation and Kizh Nation requested to engage in the tribal
consult. The Kizh Nation requested to engage in tribal consult on February 23.
Thereafter, on February 29 Staff emailed to inquire if the tribe would like the
developer included in the consult process. Additionally, the Tongva Nation
requested to engage tribal consult on April 2, on April 22 Staff emailed to inquire
if the tribe would like the developer included in the consult process. Neither tribe
approved the developer’s participation in the Scoping Consultation, as required
by Government Code, section 65913.4(b)(2)(C). Accordingly, staff proceeded
with the required consultation process without the participation of the Appellant.
City staff provided the Appellant an update via email on July 11, 2024 noting that
the Tribal Consultation had not yet concluded with the Kizh Nation, but provided
the conditions requested by the Tongva Nation. Additionally, as Staff has
A-7
Resolution No. 2025-_
Page 8 of 10
determined that the project does not qualify for SB35/ministerial approval, Tribal
Consultation would not be required as a part of SB35.
F.The appellant asserts the City is violating the Housing Accountability Act by
denying this housing project, However, the Planning Commission’s and Director
of Community Development’s determination that the project does not qualify for
builders remedy/ministerial review process does not constitute a disapproval of
the project pursuant to HAA and therefore no additional findings are required.
G.While the Appellant alleges that the City’s actions are in clear violation of State
Density Bonus Law, The City has not denied any incentives or waivers of
development standards provided for under state Density Bonus Law. Furthermore,
Appellant’s claims regarding the City allegedly violating state Density Bonus Law
are irrelevant to the Planning Commission and Director’s determination that the
project does not qualify for the SB 35 ministerial review process or the Builder’s
Remedy.
H.The appellant asserts the courts have decided on very similar matters in the favor
of housing development. However, none of the cases cited are binding authority
and the facts in the cases are significantly different than the subject of this matter.
I.The Appellant claims per Assembly Bill (AB) 1886, “a jurisdiction is in compliance
as of the date of the Housing and Community Development department’s (HCD)
letter finding the adopted housing element in substantial compliance. Any other
letters do not constitute a finding of substantial compliance. Section 65585.03 of
the Government Code, as added by Section 1 of this act, is declaratory of existing
law and does not represent a change.” However, the legislation does not apply in
the circumstance were a city, first submits its Housing Element to the Department
of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) for its review and approval
before adopting the Housing Element. The City submitted the revised Housing
Element to HCD for its review and approval which was obtained on April 5, 2024
before it adopted the Housing Element on April 16, 2024.
J.The Appellant asserts the City has not sought a court order regarding the
compliance of the Housing Element, stating, “despite ample time and opportunity,
the City has not sought a court ruling to establish April 16, as the compliance date.
Without contesting HCD’s determination, June 12, remains the official compliance
date.” Currently, there is not legal mechanism for the City to obtain a court
determination as to whether its Housing Element is in substantial compliance with
state housing element law. Furthermore, as stated above Government Code,
section 65585.03 is intended to be declaratory of existing law. As such, should the
City’s housing element be challenged through litigation a Court may determine that
as of April 16, 2024 the City’s Housing Element was in substantial compliance with
state housing element laws.
A-8
Resolution No. 2025-_
Page 9 of 10
K.A Biological Assessment prepared by Michael Baker Inc. dated December 18,
concluded that the project site contains habitat for protected species identified as
candidate, sensitive, or species of special status by state or federal agencies, fully
protected species, or species protected by the federal Endangered Species Act of
1973 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1531 et seq.), the California Endangered Species Act
(Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 2050) of Division 3 of the Fish and Game
Code), or the Native Plant Protection Act (Chapter 10 (commencing with Section
1900) of Division 2 of the Fish and Game Code).As such, pursuant to Government
Code Section 65913.4(a)(6)(J), this disqualifies the project from utilizing
streamlined ministerial zoning and permitting processes pursuant to SB 35..
Section 3: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings
included in the Staff Report, Minutes and other records of proceedings, the City Council
of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby adopts Resolution No. 2025-__, denying the
Appellant’s appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s determination that the
proposed project which includes 482 units (1,173,927 square feet) does not qualify for
SB35 ministerial review or falls within the Builders Remedy exception and therefore
requires the following entitlements: General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Certificate
of Compliance, Major Grading Permit, Variance, Environmental Review and Major Site
Plan Review as required by the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code for the proposed
project, as described herein, for property located at 5323 ironwood street (Case No.
PLZC2024-0002).
Section 4: Any challenge for judicial review of this Resolution and the findings
set forth therein, must be filed within the 90-day statute of limitations set forth in Code of
Civil Procedure §1094.6 and §17.86.100(B) of the RPVMC.
Section 5: The City Clerk shall certify the passage, approval, and adoption of this
Resolution, and shall cause this Resolution and the City Clerk’s certification to be entered
in the Book of Resolutions of the City Council.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 18th day of February 2025.
David L. Bradley, Mayor
Attest:
Teresa Takaoka, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )ss
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES )
A-9
Resolution No. 2025-_
Page 10 of 10
I, Teresa Takaoka, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, do hereby certify that
the above Resolution No. 2025-11, was duly adopted by the City Council of said City at
a regular meeting thereof held on February 18, 2025.
______________________
Teresa Takaoka, City Clerk
A-10