It is a contract between a city and the State of CA to change zoning to allow high-density low-income housing.

Each city has been assigned a designated allocation (RHNA) of housing units, divided up by income levels. Housing units are apartments, condos and homes.

This is PVE’s RHNA requirements:
• 126 units: Low income and ultra low income
• 48 units: Moderate income
• 25 units: Above Moderate income

RHNA allocations are assigned by SCAGs, a psuedo-Govt organization which PVE opts into by paying an annual membership.

Below is an article about how RHNA allocations are being forced upon cities without evidence of the necessity of housing.

https://voiceofoc.org/2022/04/california-state-auditor-releases-scathing-report-on-rhna-process-report-finds-housing-goals-are-not-supported-by-evidence/

Yes, it is required by the state.

PVE, like most CA cities, is late. It was required to be approved by the state in 2021. PVE has submitted prior proposals that have been rejected by the State. While PVE has met the state’s objective criteria, state’s long and arduous review utilizes subjective criteria which can vary by city requiring multiple review cycles.

Yes. First, the state can sue the city and require passage with additional costs/concessions. This happened the city of San Bernardino.

https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-newsom-administration-announce-settlement-city-san

Second, until cities have a Housing Element, they are subject to Builder’s Remedy. Builder’s Remedy allows developers to build high density housing in violation of the city’s zoning code if a city does not have an approved H/E or one awaiting review/approval by the state. A H/E allows a city to limit these locations. Rancho Palos Verdes and Manhattan Beach have Builder’s Remedy projects which most residents find objectionable.

However, Builders Remedy is not an absolute. One concern is CEQA (environmental) protection laws. Our beautiful city has many environmental risks that need to be considered as part of the fragile CA coastline.

Council had a proposal on the city website for review and resident comments by 8/21. On 8/31, the City sent a Newsletter stating they planned to submit to the state the following week (9/8). Residents were surprised to learn of this proposal because it was never presented to the public and did not have Council approval, so residents were left unaware and without a voice.

One of the reasons resident were surprised is because on May 10th residents were told that there would be a July and Sept meeting on the proposal , but suddenly in the 8/31 city newsletter they learned neither of these public reviews would happen.
* https://youtu.be/w2jOxS2tl_k

Lunada Bay wrote to Council and made statements on Nextdoor expressing concern about lack of public engagement and inequitable density distribution. To address the concerns, Mayor Roos and Councilmember Kemps (the adhoc group to created the proposal) scheduled a townhall for 9/13 6:00 at the Golf Club.

City Council has not discussed yet discussed whether they plan to rezone for density immediately after submission of their proposal, or wait until it is approved by the state.

There has also not been any communication from the city about the other density laws which are far worse, and whether they plan to take any action.

You can email your feedback to cityclerk@pvestates.org and/or speak at the town hall scheduled 9/13 at 6:00 to provide feedback.

It is unknown at this time when Council will conclude this draft and send to the State, but appears to be moving at a pace this will occur soon.

Yes. This information was reported in the 2013 (prior cycle) H/E.
Lunada Bay Plaza: 50 units
Malaga Cove Plaza: 117 units
After the PVE Land Preservation Act passed in 2022, 42 of the Malaga Cove units became protected since these units are on Open Space.

None of buildings in the U-shape around the Neptune Fountain or around the post office have been proposed in this 2021 H/E cycle and can be.

The city’s H/E consultant has clarified that the historical designation allows the area to be rezoned for density.

No. The Housing Element only rezones the land. However, it increases the value of the land and an opportunity for the owner of the land to build density housing or sell it to someone else for this purpose.

The current proposal only includes privately owned land, so the city can not force a private party to develop.

To rezone public land requires residential approval because of the Land Preservation Act. Additionally, most public property also has CC&Rs protections that require approvals. Parkland has deed restrictions that prohibit rezoning for housing, regardless of any vote.

Yes. Laws exist to protect the environment and to prevent an overzealous City Council from approving a massive high-density development project in exchange for developer funding to replace a City Hall which occurred in Cupertino. * But the residents fought back.

We need a strategy because so far, PVE is vulnerable and just reacting to all the forced density laws being passed that will overtake all our commercial areas, churches, schools and libraries.

*(last 2 paragraphs)

https://californialocal.com/localnews/statewide/ca/article/show/1926-sb35-affordable-housing-law-explain/

It requires voter approval to rezone Open Space such as playgrounds and baseball fields.

It provides residents a voice.

We can still be sued for Builders Remedy because Open Space is subject to voter approval. Redondo is being sued for this issue. **

** https://la.urbanize.city/post/yimby-law-sues-redondo-beach-over-builders-remedy-project-rejection

Money is never free. Closed door ad-hoc committees by Council have not served our city well.

Below are two articles on how developers/investors are “partnering” with officials in CA cities to develop housing on public land and requiring taxpayers subsidize their lavish projects.

Here is  how it works:  the city leases the land to developers/investors (their “partners”) who then develop and rent the housing.  Since property taxes are not required on public land, the “partner” leasing the land does not have to contribute their share of property taxes, leaving existing residents to pay the “partner’s” share of costs to run the city, including now the additional cost of services consumed by the “partner” and his renters.  Notice how there is no “bidding” involved, rather just cozy relationships with “partners”.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/schifrin/2021/12/02/california-scheming-municipal-bonds-workforce-housing-crisis-luxury-apartments/?sh=279e1f630010

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-08-23/california-tenants-could-face-tax-bill-subsidized-housing

Yes, 100+ forced density laws have passed and many are far worse.

For instance, AB2295* goes live Jan 1, 2024. AB2295 allows School Boards to override local zoning to build workforce housing on school sites.

Our state representatives, Muratsuchi and Allen, approved the bill in 2022.

In PVE, all our children’s playgrounds and sports fields are on school sites, so workforce housing in PVE means eliminating our children’s facilities for outdoor play, health and socialization.

School Boards can also repurpose bonds/taxes passed by residents for infrastructure for classrooms and redirect the money to workforce housing. A similar situation occurred in PV about a decade ago when residents approved bond/taxes for retrofitting school sites for earthquake safety was redirected to Admin offices for $10 million, rather than retrofitting.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB2295

Housing on public land is not subject to property or parcel taxes, like landlords on private land who pass this cost to their renters. So, there is no skin in the game for public renters to vote down high taxes. This causes homeowners and renters on private property to pay for the public services consumed by renters on public land.

Workforce housing is a new concept to provide housing as “a right” in CA for anyone living in the state, either at a discount or for free. The development and maintenance of the facilities is paid by the rest of the community who must also give up facilities such as playgrounds.

Frequently, people receiving housing-as-a-right earn higher compensation than the community members who are paying increased taxes to supplement their lifestyle.

There are many legal considerations such as whether the right is permanent or can be withdrawn, how housing-as-a-right can be equitably distributed if there is not enough housing for all PV workers, if we can be sued if perceived as inadequate, if there are any conditions, such as crime, which can allow in removal.

Also unknown are sublet rights by the renters which is common in rent-controlled areas. Any conclusions today can be overridden by a new laws in CA which are frequent on housing. For instance, housing for teachers can be changed to migrant housing if the need is greater.

Forced density has been rolled out all over CA for years. It has not resulted in making housing affordable.

People have begun to ask critical questions:

— Why do we need to eliminate home ownership?

— Why hasn’t the new housing built, resulted in price reductions (rentals and sales)?

— Why not eliminate the 20% taxation on home sales to incentivize retirees to sell? (this costs less than than building new homes)

— Why are we forcing people to live so close together when it is unhealthy?

— Why is the state passing density laws that vacate environmental protections that allow developers to build on toxic sites free from lawsuits.

— Why are we building new housing when CA population is decreasing?

— Why are we forcing the NYC model of corporate ownership of rentals, which causes rents to increase and building management to decrease?

— Why should we turn CA into transient housing, verses homeowners who are invested in their communities and connected which is far healthier?

— Why would we follow the Vancouver model of force density, when it turned out so badly?