Update #1: An Introduction
My name is Mike Peterson, and I live adjacent to the vacant lot. As you know, this lot was sold in the last year. Because I needed to contact the new owner about foliage growing into my view, the city gave me the owner's name (Akilesh Jha). Not long after this, Mr. Jha was featured in an article on the front page of the Sunday Los Angeles Times in which it was revealed that he has developed other properties by taking advantage of new California laws allowing him to put sizable apartment complexes on lots previously zoned for single-family residences. According to one of the participants on the Nextdoor string, the lot is currently zoned for two single-family residences (the lot is approximately 5 acres).
Concerned about the possibility of a large development going in an area that is currently entirely single-family residences, I contacted the city about plans for the lot, and was informed that no plans had yet been submitted. The following is the email that I received from the city:
“If the property owner proposes a residential structure(s) in the future, then you will be made aware of it. When one proposes to construct a new house on a vacant lot, we encourage the owner to meet/contact the 20 nearest homeowners with the proposal before submitting an application to the city. This is voluntary. After submitting a development request to the planning department, the city will require the owner to construct a wood framed silhouette of the proposed home. That would be your 2nd opportunity to comment on the project. If the city approves the proposed home, the city will notify all owners within 500 feet and allow a period of time for one to appeal the decision. The process I just described is called the Neighborhood Compatibility review process. There is no view impact assessment for this kind of project because one has a right to construct a home up to 16 feet in height even if the house will impair a view.
For proposals that involve a 2 story home or a home that is proposed to be over 16 feet, the owner must contact surrounding neighbors and show the proposed plans. The owner must also construct a wood framed silhouette of the 2 story home so that city staff and surrounding neighbors could see how tall the proposed structure will be and assess the view impacts the proposed structure may cause. After the silhouette is installed, you could then submit comments to staff about the proposal. If the Community Development Director or the Planning Commission determines that the structure above 16 feet will create a significant view impairment, then the request will be denied. Whether the proposed development will be approved or denied, surrounding neighbors will be notified of the decision and be given the opportunity to appeal. This process is called the Height Variation process. This is the process that protects views whenever the proposal entails construction over 16 feet in height.
As of today, we have not received any proposal for the vacant lot.”
I also contacted Mr. Jha by phone a few weeks ago and asked him if he had any specific plans for the property. He stated that he didn’t know yet what he wanted to do with the property.
The real estate agent who sold Mr. Jha the property was a participant on the Nextdoor discussion. He reported that Mr. Jha had given him no indication of what he was planning to build. Interestingly, the agent posted a map of the property showing that a significant portion (~40%) of the property was under easement: which, to my understanding means that no structures can be built on that part of the property with easements. It’s unclear to me whether easements are permanent or changeable. Most of the easements are in the southern half of the property.
The state of California, in an effort to get communities to develop plans which include affordable housing (the plans I believe are called “Housing Elements”), passed a law which states that until any city’s Housing Element is approved by the state, developers can get approval for projects which are not subject to local zoning laws under a law known as the “Builders Remedy”. According to the website for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, our city’s Housing Element has not yet been approved and is awaiting revision by the city Council.
I wrote an email to the mayor of RPV several weeks ago inquiring into the status of the revision/submission of our Housing Element, but have not gotten a response. I am planning to send the same email now to members of the City Council to see if I can get a response.
My basic understanding of the law is that until our Housing Element is approved, Mr. Jha could legally get approval to build a multi-story apartment complex on this piece of property. Apparently, the courts have sided with Mr. Jha when he fought to do this in another city in the Los Angeles area. His right to build an eight-story apartment complex on property that was formerly a single-family residence was upheld under the new law.
I did notice from the article, though, the area in which he proposed this eight-story building already had apartment buildings mixed in with single-family residences, which makes it somewhat different than our situation. Still, to my understanding, there is nothing in the law that would prevent him from doing the same on this vacant lot.
My goal in communicating with all of you is to keep all of us up-to-date on what’s happening, in case there are particular actions that we, as a group, would like to take, such as making our concerns known to city government. In fact, it might be helpful if others wrote to our city representatives asking about the progress of our Housing Element.