Rancho Palos Verdes

 Debrief of the 9/26 City Planning Commission hearing and decision.

Coalition letter from business groups w/ the specific policy asks were not addressed by the Planning Commission. Perhaps they felt like they were following the Mayor's lead. Commissioners spoke about single family neighborhoods but no movement/changes on the policy.

2. Strategy for the City Council (date?) No date, PLUM first and then goal is to have the full council vote happen before Dec. 13.

              A. PLUM Committee Members (Chair – John Lee, Vice Chair – Heather Hutt, Members: Katy Yaroslavsky, Imelda Padilla, Kevin de Leon)

Bit of a question as to what role Councilmember Lee will take. Will he lead as a Chair or be more of a figurehead until the new council takes over next year?

Mayor Bass doesn't seem to be focused on spending political capital on making changes. Perhaps the Council (and specific members) will have more of an interest in making these changes?

              B. Other Councilmembers most likely to be interested: CD1 and CD4 are big for single family zoning. CD 5, 4, 3, 2 for more technical asks/improvements. CD12 for getting an understanding of an appetite to open up the conversation. CD 13 open to single family conversation.

3. AECOM Feasibility Analysis of the CHIP and its implications for this next stage

AECOM analysis - engineering consulting firm and GC that Planning hired to do feasibility and market data to validate CHIP. AHLA leading an effort within this space to help inform advocacy, will circle back. There could be an opportunity to show how much development capacity (in terms of #s) is missed by excluding R1 zoning, in exhibit D (ie up to 40,000 or 60,000 parcels).

LA County's Housing Element calls for a study of their parking requirements and identifies those requirements as a constraint to housing. They hired consultants to study the issue and the consultants are recommending reductions in parking requirements. The workshop was to gather public input. I put in comments in favor of eliminiating parking requirements. Some other commenters were skeptical of parking reofrm.

I've drafted a post for the Abundant Housing LA blog (forthcoming) where I will go into detail on this, but I left the meeting frustrated at how esoteric it would have seemed to anyone not already in the weeds, how mostly the usual suspects showed up, and how we heard a lot of complaining about RHNA without a corresponding recognition of the severity of the housing affordability crisis.

It felt like a conflict between city employees (which were trying to decrease their RHNA allocation) and YIMBYs.

​

There was a big question about whether or not cities should be able trade their RHNA allocations, and how to take into account things like cost of infrastructure.

​

I pushed to encourage the state to use market prices as part of assessing pent-up housing need.

Housing element was approved as written. A few comments from Public Counsel, Building Industry Association, and environmental activist Lynne Plambeck. Commissioners were concerned about high low income housing goal and asked if SB 9 will help. Planning director responded that while SB 9 will increase total capacity  it will not increase the number of sites necessary for low income housing due to HE specific requirements for eligible sites. Commissioner also wanted it to go back to commission after HCD made more comments but it was batted down by staff as they are working towards a public hearing at BOS on October 19 as they intend to have it submitted to HCD by the statutory October 31 deadline and not use the grace period. Looks like staff is fine with doing whatever HCD wants just to get it approved and the element certified, and there was little push back against it.

The City Council accepted the 2020 Annual Progress Report as consent-calendar item G. I commented on the fact that the single lot that they selected for BMR housing in 2014 has yet to be rezoned (despite the Fifth Cycle Housing Element requiring it to be done by 2017), much less developed. I commented as follows:

​

"Hi! I'm Adam Buchbinder; I'm a Planning Commissioner for a Northern California city, though I'm speaking only for myself today. I'm following the Housing Element process in Rancho Palos Verdes in order to better prepare for my own city's Housing Element update next year.

​

I have some questions and concerns about the property at 29619 Western Ave. This appears to be the entirety of Housing Program #1 in the Fifth Cycle Housing Element, "Adequate Sites Program", which indicates that "Zoning of this site will be accomplished [...] no later than March 2017" (page 26). The Annual Progress Report presented today notes that "City staff met with the property owners [...] to discuss development proposals related to this housing program in 2018" and that "The City intends to initiate code amendment proceedings" to create an overlay zone "by December 31, 2021". 

​

I don't understand why the city didn't start the rezoning process well in advance of the due date it had selected. This site was selected in 2014, but it appears the city made no move to follow through on its plans for the ensuing seven years, and there's still no agreement with the property owners to redevelop the site for housing.

​

I'm concerned about whether or not the city's future plans will carry weight, when the city hasn't followed through on its plans from the last cycle. For example, HCD may require a rezoning within three years of the start of the next planning period (it will if 29619 Western Ave is proposed for low-income housing in the Sixth Cycle); what assurance can the city provide that it will follow through this time, when it didn't last time? If the owner doesn’t have any plans to sell the site or decides they are no longer interested, has the city identified other sites for the 6th Cycle? 

​

The site will also be presumed infeasible for lower-income development, since it's below a half-acre in size, unless there's, for example, an agreement in place with developers to actually produce something there. I worry that the city's approach is to lay out plans for future agreements and rezonings, where HCD requires these agreements to exist as done deals, not just proposals, in order to count these sites in the upcoming Housing Element. And if more than 50% of the lower-income RHNA is assigned to nonvacant sites like 29619 Western Ave, the city has to complete an exhaustive analysis all but proving that the likelihood of development at that site is 100%.

​

I understand that these decisions are difficult, that finding sites for lower-income housing can be contentious, that the city does not control developers or property owners, and cannot force them to sell lots or produce affordable housing; it can only provide incentives and streamline processes. My concern lies with the city completing what it has already committed to do and how your example can better inform me in the decisions I make for my own community. Thank you for your time."

​

Council asked which city I'm in (Campbell), and thanked me for my service. My notes on the following discussion are:

​

Staff: The property was indeed identified. It wasn't randomly selected; the property owner expressed an interest in redeveloping it. We've had numerous conversations with the owner if we could just zone it for multifamily, and it's not the city's way of doing things where we rezone property without consensus and agreement from property owners. The property owner said he wasn't interested in rezoning at the time, but we've had talks about it. We've been very proactive in trying to convince the property owner, and have been looking for more 

​

Councilmember Cruikshank: "the SCAG vote" was 94-1. Many appeals, none of which went through. Notes that they haven't disapproved any ADUs, though there haven't been many. I like where we're going with that. Our job isn't to build the housing, just to zone for it. The council knows what we're up against politically, that there are headwinds.

​

Councilmember Dyda: We need to make sure we follow our General Plan. We need to be careful that we don't end up spot zoning. Those are the two things we need to avoid.

Rancho Palos Verdes City Council elected to contract with Environmental Sciences Associates (ESA) for $238,749.48 to produce their Housing Element.

​

Councilmembers Cruikshank and Dyda proposed using ADUs to get their entire RHNA allocation; Ken Rukavina (Community Development Director) said that ADU guidance from SCAG is "still up in the air", though HCD's guidance "doesn't look to be as generous as we hoped". I got the impression that they want to propose their own ADU methodology, though I don't think this will be possible. Dyda seemed to think that "granny flats" and "ADUs" are separate (the former may have been pre-2017 ADUs?), and Rukavina cautioned the council that not every ADU will count as affordable. Dyda wants to "avoid the ministerial approval" for "preserving the character of the city"; I don't think he knows how the ADU laws work.

​

The desk item (including the contract with Environmental Sciences Associates) is here: https://rpv.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?viewid=5&eventid=1684&meta_id=91170

​

The proposed schedule is on p. 108. Important events on it are:

Mid-April/Mid-July: Planning/Council workshops (total of 4).

May, (Next) February: Public meetings (as part of Public Engagement Program).

September, October, (Next) February, March: Planning/Council public hearings.