20250603 Late Correspondence
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: CITY CLERK
DATE: JUNE 2, 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, June 3, 2025, City Council meeting:
Item No. Description of Material
1 Emails from: Kendra Carney Mehr; Dr Shahzad Khaligh; Brian Wright-
Bushman; André F. Bueno; Rafa Sonnenfeld
Respectfully submitted,
__________________
Teresa Takaoka
L:\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2025\2025 Coversheets\20250603 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday.docx
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Kendra Carney Mehr <klcm@carneymehr.com>
Monday, June 2, 2025 3:25 PM
CityClerk
Erin Grubisich; wwynder@awattorneys.com
Public Comment -June 3, 2025 City Council Meeting -Public Hearing Item No. 1
Attachments: 6.2.25 Letter to City Council re Public Hearing Item 1.pdf; 3.18.25 Supplemental Letter to
City Council re Public Hearing Item 1.pdf; 3.18.25 Letter to City Council re Public Hearing
Item 1.pdf
Hi,
Please provide this letter to all members of the City Council.
Thank you,
~
Kendra L. Carney Mehr
Principal
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 :00 pm on Fridays.
Outside of working hours: klcm@carneymehr.com, and I will respond within 12 business hours
1 I
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE -This e-rnail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-·mail
messages attached to it may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are
not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that you must not read this transmission and that any disclosure, copying, printing,
distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY
PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately return e-mail and
delete the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. Thank
you.
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@carneymehr.com
Re: Consideration of Amendment to th e City Council-Adopted 2021-2029 Housing
Element. (March 18, 2025 City Council Agenda, Public H earing 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 ba se d 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 r eclassification 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 lnvento ,y
La ndsli de In ve nt ory
'\ 100 ft . Contoura
Non-L1nd1Udt
-Pou ible Landll ldt
Oo rm1 nt Lands llde
-ACl lvt LtndSlldt
-..
uc.e:
'-----4 (ityritkanchoPalotV-dH &
CGSL..-_,.,u.ro1
thtP .. \IM._P._..,2007
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.
• .1 ,-•---· • .,.,_,. .,...,,,,u v •J
011.tr emo geologic haia,d / o:i tromo sl ope
natur al vogotation/ha bilat
[:::J morinc roso urco
THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDE S \_. !o !soo!1 •00 )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 zone D is defined as areas with possible but undetermined flood hazards. No
flood hazard analysis has been conducted in these areas and therefore these areas are
designated as undetermined risk areas . Although the chances of a flood haz ard 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
hazards and with exposure to potential negative hydrological impacts.
CJ hydr ology f ac tor
B fl ood hazard
THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERD ES \-' 1° !eoo l 1600 13200
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
exposed the Community to exacerbated risk by creating a higher 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. Housing 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 these
impacts.
4
Figure 5, Vegetation and Wildlife Corridors
terres tria l
J.\·.--~/)\:.J vege tation
~wild li fe
ma rine
-preserva ti on
[:J res tor ation
~ maintenance
TH E CITY O F RAN CH O PA LOS V ER D ES \" jo jsooj 1&00 j32 00
As shown above, in the map of vegetation and wildlife corridors from the Coastal
Specific Plan, the City has not adequately analyzed the existing geohazards, potential
flooding concerns, existing wildlife corridor, or natural vegetation of the Clipper Lot.
However, the numerous contradictions relating 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 the
City Council to request HCD approve the request to remove the Clipper Lot from the
Housing 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 amendment will result in a significant loss to the established land
use patterns, incompatible design , and the loss 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
dwellings, 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 poles, or create a regulatory framework to analyze
potential impacts of development despite the Planning Commission 's recommendation.
Rather, the City relied on studies that essentially plotted lots on the parcel based 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,
/6(_{a1,u1{~
Kendra L. Carney Mehr
Principal Attorney
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.
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
development 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 mies, even if later changes are enacted. Rights do not
vest until either (1) 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 revert 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,
/(flcwui4_M
Kendra L. Camey Mehr
Principal Attorney
CARNEY MEHR LAW
June 2, 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 @ carneymehr.com
Re: Comment in Respons e to June 3, 2 025 Housing Element Report and Continued
R equest for R emoval of Site No. 16 (June 3, 2 025 City Council Agenda, Public
Hearing Item No I.)
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Counci l:
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 id entified as Assessor's Parcel Number 7573 -006-024 (the
"Clipp er 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 E lement Sites Inventory being
discussed this evening. Not only do the Hartmans live in the neighboring community that
will be directly, negatively impacted by any development to the C lipp er Lot, but the
Hartmans sold the Clipper Lot to the current owner based on the City's representations
that it wou ld 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 allow this parcel
to retain its original RS-4 zoning.
In support of this request, this letter responds to both the on-site meeting held by
the City Manager at the Clipper Lot on May 28 th and the staff report included in the June
3, 2025 City Council Agenda for the Public Hearing as identified above. The letter will
first address improper assumptions asserted by the developer and apparently adopted by
City staff with regard to the current zoning and then continue to review the procedural
deficiencies in the staff report and conclude with a reminder of the significant
environmental and geological concerns inherent in the Clipper Lot.
However, it is important to note that, despite including a link to the "Draft
Revised 2021-2029 Housing Element" in its agenda for the June 3, 2025 City Council
meeting, the City did not publish that document to the public. Instead, the link leads only
to a login page which requires a City-provided email address.
Developer's False Claims Regarding Coastal Zone Status
At the May 28th meeting at O Clipper, the City circulated documents including a
letter from an attorney for the developer making two primary bizarre and factually
incorrect claims regarding O Clipper. First, that O Clipper is not located in the City's
Coastal Zone. This assertion is demonstrably false and contradicts the City's own staff
statements and legal positions. Second, that the zoning for O Clipper is already R-22. The
City appears to have accepted this false assertion without analysis or justification, along
with the developer's SB330 application for housing development at the site. In fact, the
City Manager parroted the developer's assertion regarding the current zoning at an on-
site meeting at O Clipper on May 28 th . The City Manager's seeming acceptance of the
developer's self-serving but incorrect determination of the current zoning directly
contradicts prior statements by the City's own attorney firm.
As City staff has correctly stated previously, and in its staff report, Site No. 16
requires Coastal Commission approval precisely because it is located within the City's
Coastal Zone. More significantly, the City itself has taken the legal position in pleadings
filed in November 2024 that the rezoning of the Clipper Lot is "not yet effective since it
is pending certification by the Coastal Commission."1
The City's own legal argument confirms that under Public Resources Code section
30514, subdivision (a): "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."
As the Court of Appeal explained in Keen v. County of Marin (2023) 77
Cal.App.5th 142, 146: "Once [a local government's LCP] is approved, it can be amended,
1 See Demurrer filed on behalf of Rancho Palos Verdes on November 27, 2024, in Case No. 24TRCP00352
in the Los Angeles Superior Court.
2
but the local government must submit amendments to the [Coastal] Commission for
approval. Absent approval, amendments have no force." [ emphasis added].
The City Attorney's office previously stated:
"Indeed, in passing Resolution No. 2024-17, the City Council expressly
acknowledged compliance with the Coastal Act by submitting the rezoning of the
Clipper Lot "to the Coastal Commission for certification pursuant to [PRC]
section 30514 and California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 13 5 51 (b) as
an amendment which will take effect automatically once certified by the Coastal
Commission." The City has not increased and has not attempted to increase the
intensity of use of the Clipper Lot without first obtaining Coastal Commission
certification."
Most importantly, as the City's own legal pleading confirms, "the RS-4 zoning
classification for the Clipper Lot remains in full effect to date, because the Coastal
Commission has not yet certified [the City's] amendments to the LCP." This means the
current zoning for Site No. 16 remains RS-4, not RM-22, making all analysis based on
RM-22 zoning premature and improper. The developer's attempt to deny the Coastal
Zone location of the property appears to be an effort to avoid the rigorous environmental
review and approval process required by the Coastal Act and to shoehorn his project into
R-22 zoning by falsely claiming SB330 protects his interest here.
Critical Procedural Violations in Staff Report
The June 3, 2025 City Council staff report for Public Hearing Item No. 1 contains
several serious procedural violations that undermine the integrity of the proceedings:
Inappropriate Inclusion of Specific Development Project: It is highly
inappropriate for staff to include information about a specific development project within
the broader Housing Element consideration. Staff has improperly included processing
timeline information, fee payments, and, most concerning, has utilized this specific
development project in its buildout scenario analysis. This creates fundamental
procedural problems including that:
• The public hearing notice for this meeting does not include notice for this specific
development project.
• No CEQA analysis has been provided for this project.
• The Local Coastal Program (LCP) has not been approved for the Housing
Element, meaning Site No. 16's zoning remains RS-4, not RM-22.
Inadequate and Contradictory Analysis: Staffs zoning build-out scenarios for
Site No. 16 are fundamentally flawed because staff has failed to provide a comprehensive
site investigation, made contradictory statements, relied on broad assumptions about the
3
City's development process, excluded relevant SB 9 information, and inappropriately
utilized a specific development project for analysis purposes.
Fundamental Flaws in Dudek Site Feasibility Studies
The City's consultant, Dudek, has prepared multiple Site Feasibility Studies for
Site No. 16, with the most recent update conducted on May 13, 2025. Both studies draw
faulty conclusions because they fail to consider significant environmental conditions,
zoning development standards, and subdivision map provisions:
Incorrect Zoning Designation: The Dudek analysis incorrectly assumes Site No.
16 is zoned RM-22. Since the Coastal Commission has not approved the LCP, the current
zoning remains RS-4.
Failure to Address Required Subdivision Processing: Dudek falsely assumes
Site No. 16 can comply with all provisions ofRPVMC Title 16 (Subdivisions) without
acknowledging the extensive requirements, including:
• Required tentative tract maps per RPVMC Section 16.04.030
• Mandatory soils reports and geology reports to determine subdivision suitability
• Review requirements for development in flood-prone areas per RPVMC Section
16.04.070
Ignored Environmental Constraints: Most critically, Dudek failed to
acknowledge the extensive hazard and preservation designations under the Rancho Palos
Verdes Coastal Specific Plan, including:
• Hydrology and flood hazard designations
• Wildlife corridor designations
• Natural drainage corridor designations
• Extreme geologic hazards/extreme slow/natural vegetation/habitat designations
Assessor Map Flood Hazard Reduction: Dudek failed to recognize that the
Assessor's Map indicates a Flood Hazard Area designation that reduces the effective
parcel size from 1.58 acres to 1.01 acres, significantly impacting potential development
yield.
Incorrect Lot Dimension Standards: Dudek incorrectly represented RS-4
minimum lot dimensions as 40' by 80'. The City's zoning code Table 02-A clearly
indicates minimum lot width and depth within the RS-4 zone is 75 ft (width) and 100 ft
( depth), substantially reducing the total allowable lot yield.
4
Misapplication of SB 9 Provisions
Staff and Dudek have fundamentally misunderstood SB 9 requirements:
Urban Lot Split Limitations: SB 9 only allows Urban Lot Splits, meaning no
more than 2 residential units within a single-family residential zone can be considered
ministerially. Since there is currently one parcel, only one additional lot would be
allowed under SB 9.
Environmental Constraint Disqualifications: Most importantly, Dudek
completely ignored SB 9's environmental constraints provisions under Government Code
section 65913.4, subdivision (a)(6)(B-K). A proposed housing development or lot split is
not eligible under SB 9 if the parcel contains disqualifying conditions such as:
• Flood risk areas
• Conservation areas
• Wildlife habitat areas
• Conservation easements
As established by the Coastal Specific Plan, Site No. 16 contains multiple
disqualifying conditions that would prevent SB 9 eligibility entirely.
Concerning Site Conditions Remain Unaddressed
Our March 18, 2025 letter submitted in response to the previously agendized
public hearing on this same matter detailed extensive site condition concerns that remain
unaddressed in the current staff report2 :
Landslides and Geological Hazards: While the Housing Element claimed the
Clipper Lot avoided landslide areas, the City's own Coastal Specific Plan designates the
Clipper Lot as located within an "extreme geologic hazard area" as well as within a
natural vegetation and wildlife corridor. This conflicting information was never
reconciled.
Flood Hazards: The site is located within FEMA's Flood Zone Category D,
defined as areas with possible but undetermined flood hazards. The City acknowledged
that "a definite flooding problem does exist in the form of temporary flash floods related
to heavy winter rains," yet failed to provide any mitigation framework for higher-density
development.
Wildlife and Natural Vegetation: The Coastal Specific Plan identifies the
Clipper Lot as containing natural vegetation and serving as a wildlife corridor. Housing
2 A true and correct copy of the March 18, 2025 letter is included in this submission for reference.
5
development will eliminate existing vegetation and destroy the wildlife corridor, impacts
that were never analyzed or mitigated.
Conflicting Development Standards Create Spot Zoning
The amendment from RS-4 to RM-22 creates spot zoning within an established
RS-4 and RS-2 neighborhood. The RM-22 designation allows 36-foot-high dwellings on
2,000 square foot lots with no lot coverage maximums, completely incompatible with the
surrounding low-scale, midcentury neighborhood character built on minimum 10,000
square foot lots.
Significantly, to facilitate this incompatible development, the City eliminated
view preservation analysis requirements and conditional use permit requirements for
buildings taller than 16 feet -protections that were specifically established to preserve
neighborhood character and resident welfare.
Staff Recommendations Contradict Previous Council Direction
Most troubling, staffs current analysis contradicts the City Council's previous
direction. The September 3, 2024 staff report indicated Site No. 16 has "constraints with
drainage, layout, and open space requirements, where only 50% of the site is expected to
be developable" and noted it is "the only site in the City's Coastal Zone and is located
further away from commercial areas than most other sites in the inventory."
Despite these acknowledged constraints, staff provided no recommendation for
removal and now suggests SB 9 will afford more development opportunities, a
conclusion that ignores the environmental constraints and SB 9 disqualification criteria
discussed herein.
Conclusion
The June 3, 2025 City Council agenda staff report for Public Hearing Item No. 1
demonstrates continued fundamental flaws in the analysis of Site No. 16, procedural
violations in the proceedings, and misapplication of state housing law. The Dudek studies
relied upon by staff contain factual errors regarding zoning, lot dimensions,
environmental constraints, and SB 9 eligibility requirements.
Most critically, both the staff report and Dudek studies ignore the extensive
environmental constraints identified in the City's own Coastal Specific Plan that would
disqualify the site from SB 9 eligibility and create significant safety risks for any high-
density development.
The City Council can and should correct these errors by directing staff to initiate
6
proceedings to remove Site No. 16 from the Housing Element Sites Inventory and return
the parcel to its original RS-4 zoning, consistent with the surrounding neighborhood and
the site's environmental constraints, by directing staff to bring back a resolution to
rescind the City's request of the California Coastal Commission to consider the
amendment to the Local Coastal Plan and Zoning Map that would otherwise allow the
zoning change to proceed.
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, amend the General Plan, Zoning
Code, and Zoning Map to effectuate that revision and return this parcel to its
original RS-4 zoning, and rescind the City's amendment to the Local Coastal Plan
and Zoning Map currently pending California Coastal Commission review.
cc: City Attorney
7
Best regards,
J(t(cwu f{eM
Kendra L. Carney Mehr
Principal Attorney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Dear Teri and Enyssa,
Smkhaligh <smkhaligh@yahoo.com>
Monday, June 2, 2025 2:03 PM
CityClerk; Enyssa Sisson; Teresa Takaoka
presentation for June 3rd Council meeting
Presentation -June 3rd.pdf
This is Dr Shahzad Khaligh. Attached is my presentation for tomorrow night's meeting. Would you please
upload it for OH display on the central monitor? I appreciate that. Also if you may submit it to the City
Council in case they would take the time to look at the pertinent law in favor of removing Clipper lot. Thank
you.
All the best,
Shahzad
/.
Mayor Bradley, Members of the City Council and City Staff
CLWPERLOT-HCD-COASTAL
HCD
Take away from the letter of HCD (1/23 /2 025) WRT compliance and preliminary application:
1. Removing Clipper will not affect RHNA compliance -The revised draft amendments do
not impact the June 12 , 2024, finding of substantial compliance
2. Preliminary application submitted is subject only to ordinance adopted and in effect-
pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5 subdivision (o)(l) a housing development
proj ec t 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.
a. Amending the code by adopting an Ordinance takes effect 30 days after adoption by the
local authority only for non Coastal Jurisdiction . Clipper lot is in Coastal Jurisdiction
COASTAL
The Coastal Commission retains overs ight over all amendments to an LCP before a LAW
CHANGE CAN TAKE EFFECT.
https ://www .californiacoastalworks.com/post/housing -mandates-in -the -coastal -z one
This link describes the legal procedure for a law in coastal zone to take EFFECT.
It is a normal practice that an LCP amendment will be denied and after number(s) ofrevisions a
revised version may be approved and certified.
At the end of legal proceeding if final acceptance is made, at that point the change becomes law
at the local level
So simply because City adopted RS 22 up zone, clipper lot zone change has not legally taken
effect.
Therefore, we request the City to proceed with the steps necessary to formally remove the
sites.
The Legal Procedure:
1) All local agencies follow a typical process when amending their codes. This involves the
preparation of an ordinance, a recommendation hearing with their respective Planning Commission,
and ultimate review and adoption by the governing body ( e.g., City Council or Board of
Supervisors).
2) Once an ordinance is adopted, a second reading is required at the governing body's next meeting
and the law goes into effect 30 days following. Generally, this is the end of the road for non-
coastal communities.
3) For coastal communities, the ordinance is then submitted to the Coastal Commission for
review and certification. This is a process for all jurisdictions that have a certified Local Coastal
Program (LCP). An LCP implements the Coastal Act at the local level; however, the Coastal
Commission retains oversight over all amendments to an LCP before a law change can take effect.
4) Once received, the Coastal Commission will review the amendment and request additional
information if necessary to deem the amendment application complete.
Some mire then
5) Once deemed complete, the Coastal Commission must act on the amendment within 60 days (for
an amendment to an LCP's Implementing Ordinances (IO) or 90 days for an amendment to an
LCP's Land Use Plan (LUP) or requests involving amendments to both an IO and LUP).
6) If the Coastal Commission cannot take action in this timeframe, the Coastal Commission may
extend their review for up to one year. This has been the typical practice due to workload of Coastal
Commission staff.
7) If the extension is granted, the Coastal Commission must take action on the request within the
one-year extended timeframe or else the amendment is considered approved as requested.
8) When the Coastal Commission approves an amendment, it has been typical practice that Coastal
Commission staff recommends the Commission deny the local agency amendment and approve a
revised amendment ( changes are referred to as "suggested modifications"). If approved with the
suggested modifications, the amendment must go back to the local governing body for an
acknowledgement and acceptance of the amendment as revised(+/-two to four months). This must
occur at a public meeting.
9) If acknowledged and accepted by the governing body, the request must go back to the Coastal
Commission for a final acceptance of the request ( +/-two months). This must occur at a public
meeting and is generally carried out under the Director's Report.
10) If final acceptance is made, the change becomes law at the local level and may be utilized
by the local jurisdiction and/or applicants.
There are more regulations if HCD mandate the housing -for us -HCD did not mandate.
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Brian Wright-Bushman < Brian@rpnllp.com>
Monday, June 2, 2025 11 :18 AM
CC; CityClerk; Brandy Forbes
Dave Rand
Comment Letter for June 3, 2025 City Council Agenda -Public Hearing Item 1
Clipper RPV_Letter to City Council_6.3.25 Meeting_FINAL.pdf
Good morning, Hon. Councilmembers:
Our firm represents the owner of the "Clipper Site" which is the subject of public hearing Item #1 on the
June 3, 2025, City Council agenda. Please see our attached correspondence and public comment
related to this item.
Thank you,
Brian Wright-Bushman
Partner
H Ii.. N !) I f:1•1\~1 r L F~ \1t:t S()N
Phone: 213.557.7222 Direct: 213.753.0335
Cell: 949.677.6861
633 W. Fifth Street, Suite 5880, Los Angeles, CA 90071
Email: Brian@)rpnllp.com
1 I
I I I 11111 !II
RAND I PASTER I NELSON
June 2, 2025
VIA EMAIL
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
City Council
cc@rpvca.gov
cityclerk@rpvca.gov
Re: June 3, 2025 City Council Agenda -Public Hearing Item 1
Clipper Property-Housing Element Site No. 16
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"), 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 June 3, 2025, the City Council will consider
whether to retain the existing Housing Element designation and zoning for the Clipper Site, or to initiate
actions to remove the Clipper Site from the Sites Inventory and rezone the Clipper Site to its previous
zoning. The City Council will also consider whether to notify the Coastal Commission to proceed with
processing the LCP Amendment related to the Clipper Site.
For the reasons stated below, we strongly urge the City Council to retain the existing Housing
Element designation and zoning for the Clipper Site, and to notify the Coastal Commission to proceed
with processing the LCP Amendment.
1. Clipper Has Participated in Good Faith Discussions with the City and Surrounding
Neighbors to Address Project Concerns and Continuing This Process Is The Best Way
Forward
As explained in the staff report, Clipper has previously met with city staff, the City Council
Housing Subcommittee, and a neighborhood group to better understand and address concerns about
the Project proposed on the Clipper Site. These efforts are ongoing. We believe this is a potentially
fruitful path toward crafting a project that is viable and addresses local concerns, particularly with
regard to the height of the proposed Project. Consequently, we urge the City Council to allow this
engagement process to continue by essentially maintaining the current status quo, and not making any
changes to the zoning of the Clipper Site.
RPV City Council
June 2, 2025
Page 2
2. Rezoning the Clipper Site and Rescinding the Request for Coastal Commission
Consideration of the LCP Amendment Would Violate Clipper's Vested Rights
The City Council previously considered this item on March 18, 2025, and decided to continue the
item. Prior to the March 18, 2025 meeting, we submitted a comment letter, which is attached.
(Attachment 1.) We reiterate the comments and arguments made in the attached letter and incorporate
them by reference into this comment letter.
As we addressed in detail in our prior letter, Clipper's submission of the Preliminary Application
on November 22, 2024, gave Clipper a vested right to develop the Clipper Site in accordance with all of
the actions that the City had taken prior to that date, which include: (1) rezoning the Site to RM-22, (2)
changing the General Plan land use designation for the Site to Residential 12-22 DU/acre, (3) changing
the Coastal Specific Plan (Local Coastal Program) land use classification for the Site to Residential 12-22
DU/Acre ("LCP Amendment"), and (4) adopting Resolution No. 2024-017, which submitted the LCP
Amendment to the Coastal Commission for certification ("Certification Request"). Clipper submitted a
formal application for the project proposed in the Preliminary Application on May 21, 2025 -within 180
days of submitting the Preliminary Application -and has therefore taken~all required actions to maintain
its vested rights to develop the proposed project under Government Code Section 65941.1.
Consequently, any action by the City to rescind any of these actions with respect to the Clipper
Site -including adopting a resolution rescinding the Certification Request-will constitute a violation
of Clipper's vested rights under the Preliminary Application and a disapproval of the Project in violation
of the Housing Accountability Act..1
* * * *
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. Specifically, we
urge the City Council to keep the Clipper Site in the Sites Inventory, maintain the existing zoning for the
Clipper Site, and direct staff to notify the Coastal Commission to proceed with processing the LCP
Amendment.
Sincerely,
Jjav,e ~
Dave Rand
Partner
of RAND PASTER & NELSON, LLP
cc: Brandy Forbes, Director of Community Development, bforbes@rpvca.gov
1 See Government Code Section 65589.S(k)(l)(A)(i)(lll)(ia), providing that a local agency violates the Housing
Accountability Act 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
June 2, 2025
Page 3
Attachment 1
Letter to City Council Dated March 17, 2025
111111111 111
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 town homes and 2
accessory dwelling units (AD Us) 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 aqency."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.S(o)(l). 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 Violation State Housing Element Law
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 "Fair Housing Priorities, Goals,
and Actions" 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
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."
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.
RPV City Council
March 17, 2025
Page 5
Moreover, the first row in Table 29 of the Updated Housing Element, entitled "Fair Housing Issues,
Contributing Factors, Priorities, and Programs Summary Matrix,"12 reads as follows:
Fair Haus ino Is s uo
limted housing chrn:c
ContributinA Factor(s) Priority Love) t£ Proqram Rosponsos
land Uso and Zoning laws thal ht'>toricaHy !initcd I tigl1 Ftogram 1 (Zoning Am:!ndn~nts to ncrcasc tW~ing Cevt~prrrnt
opportunity for dnvclopnrnt o! higher dtm5ity Fllmmml), Prngr;,m J {hercrmntal 11!~ t'l:l<ISing Rogram!, Rogram6
housing types (e.g., nparlrmnts. condorrlniu,m); (AilordatJ,c ADU Incentive P!ogranv. f\oqam 7 (ACU Assistance
econonic facw,s (i.e., l1igll co~,t ot hrn,sing) A"ogrnm); Rogr,~m 9 {Set:tmn Renlal Assf.'.t11rx:eL Ftnq_ram 10 {C-.ilywdc
Aftorda~ Housing ""q,i,e,rentsJ, Rogrnm 11 {first T'm, 11.'.lll'Cbuyc,
A~iSIS!iHlCC!J
The listed factors contributing to "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 "High" priority by the Updated Housing Element. And as noted above, the Housing
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
12 Housing Element, p. 146.
13 Housing Element, p. 224.
RPV City Council
March 17, 2025
Page 6
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.
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 City's amended Mitigated Negative Declaration 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 to Adopted Negative Declaration,
March 2024, 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 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. 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.
14 Public Resources Code Section 30604(g).
RPV City Council
March 17, 2025
Page 7
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,
JJ{WR,,°!bnd
Dave Rand
Partner
of RAND PASTER & NELSON, LLP
cc: Brandy Forbes, Director of Community Development, bforbes@rpvca.gov
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
-----Original Message-----
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, June 2, 2025 1 :19 PM
CityClerk
FW: Strong opposition to the removal of Site Nos. 16, 18, and 19 from the City's
Housing Element
From: Andre Bueno <andre@betterangels.la>
Sent: Monday, June 2, 2025 8:00 AM
To: CityClerk <CityClerk@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Strong opposition to the removal of Site Nos. 16, 18, and 19 from the City's Housing Element
Some people who received this message don't often get email from andre@betterangels.la. Learn why this is
important <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!!!.
June 02, 2025
Mayor Bradley and Members of the City Council City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Dear Mayor Bradley and City Councilmembers,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed removal of Site Nos. 16, 18, and 19 from the City's Housing
Element. This action is inconsistent with the City's prior commitments under the State Housing Element Law and
undermines efforts to address our region's severe housing crisis.
These sites were previously upzoned in good faith to comply with state mandates and to fulfill the City's obligations
under its certified Housing Element. With active multifamily proposals in progress, rescinding these designations would
send the wrong message to residents, developers, and the California Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD} about the City's commitment to housing solutions.
HCD has already raised concerns regarding the legality of obstructing housing projects with active preliminary
applications, as outlined in their recent letter to the City (HCD, January 23, 2025). The Housing Accountability Act (Gov.
Code§ 65589.5) clarifies that housing projects must be processed under the ordinances, policies, and standards in place
at the time of application. Reversing the zoning now would create significant legal risk and jeopardize the City's Housing
Element compliance-putting future access to critical state housing and infrastructure funding at risk.
It's time for the City Council to support its Housing Element and say yes to housing. Let the projects move forward, and
let the community build mixed-income housing we so desperately need.
1 /
I respectfully urge you to reject any efforts to remove these sites from the Housing Element and instead reaffirm the
City's commitment to housing production in line with state law and community needs.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Andre F. Bueno
Director of Housing at Better Angels
Andre@BetterAngels.LA
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Late corr.
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, June 2, 2025 12:56 PM
CityClerk
FW:.June 3rd City Council Agenda Public Hearing Item #1
Rancho Palos Verdes Housing Element Amendment -June 2.docx.pdf
From: Rafa Sonnenfeld <rafa@yimbylaw.org>
Sent: Monday, June 2, 2025 10:38 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: June 3rd City Council Agenda Public Hearing Item #1
Please find attached YIMBY Law's letter concerning the removal of the three housing element sites.
Thank you,
Rafa Sonnenfeld 1n1
□.Mer
Check out everything we achieved in 2024!
1 I
YIMBYLaw
2261 Market Street STE 10416
San Francisco, CA 94114
hello@yimbylaw.org
6/2/2025
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 again 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." 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 § 30514(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."
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 district" (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 -> 0 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 -> 0 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 "institutional" 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 2024 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 "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, 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