“If everyone is moving forward together, then success takes care of itself”
#11. State Laws and Housing Density
Background: PVE is a planned development community. All single family zoned lots in the City are subject to Conditions, Covenants & Restrictions (CC&Rs) that govern all individual parcels and are incorporated in all single-family lot deeds.
The State of California has enacted a series of laws to override local control over zoning, construction and density:
First is the State assessed Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), in which the State tells Palos Verdes Estates how many new moderate-and low-income housing units need to be constructed in the City, and requiring the City to rezone as necessary to allow for construction of such housing.
Next, the State of California has overruled local housing and construction regulations – and CC&Rs – governing single family zoned lots by requiring that, with limited exceptions, cities must ministerially approve homeowner applications to build one ADU plus one JADU on any zoned single-family lot in the City in accordance with specified limited objective design and construction criteria, including mere 4-ft. side yard and backyard setbacks.
In response, the Council added Section 18.45 in the Municipal Code codifying this ministerial (staff) approval process for ADUs and JADUs in the City, notwithstanding that such construction contravenes the CC&Rs that mandate single-family residence for most properties.
Effective January 1, 2022, the State of California has decreed that two dwellings can be built on any single family lot larger than 2400 sq. ft. in the City and any such single family lot can be split in two and two-housing units built on each new lot, thereby allowing up to four housing units to be built on each single family lot, again all subject to a ministerial (staff) approval process limiting review to specified objective design and construction criteria (height, setbacks, materials, etc.). Also effective January 1, 2022, new state law allows (but does not currently require) the City, in disregard of current local zoning restrictions, to re-zone neighborhoods near mass transit or urban infill areas to allow development of apartment complexes with up to 10 units per property, excluding parcels located in very high fire hazard zones (per Department of Forestry and Fire Protection map) and any publicly-owned land designated open-space land or for park or recreational purposes pursuant to an enacted local restriction or approved by a local initiative.
The recent PreservePVE.org Citizens’ Initiative that circulated for only 28 days dramatically underscored how concerned PVE homeowners are over Sacramento’s actions and how protective they feel of PVE’s CC&Rs.
Question: As a Council member, in specific terms, how would go about ensuring protection of PVE’s CC&Rs in view of State encroachment on local decision making and homeowner contractual rights?”
Responses:
Michael Kemps
“MICHAEL KEMPS (incumbent)
”I have worked tirelessly on legal methods to protect PVE from state overreach and density expansion. Section 18.45 was added to the Municipal Code, codifying ministerial approval of ADUs, because it was required by law. Separately, a bill titled AB-670 eliminated PVHA’s ability to block ADU’s using the CC&R’s. The City has been threatened numerous times by a third party around planned lawsuit(s) associated first with ADU’s, and currently with the RHNA allocation and Housing Element status. The City must do all it can to avoid any violation of CC&R’s, while residents need to strengthen and financially support the Palos Verdes Homes Association. Without PVHA’s ability and willingness to defend, protect and litigate CC&R protections, the City is simply a general law municipal organization that functions under state law. As Mayor, I initiated efforts to block SB9’s intended lot splits by collaborating with PVHA, developing an understanding that PVHA would not approve them; nor would the City violate the CC&R’s with lot split approvals. Subsequently, the PreservePVE.org Citizens’ Initiative was circulated, and I led efforts to immediately approve and codify it, rather than waiting for approval by the voters on the November 2022 ballot.””
Victoria Lozzi
“VICTORIA LOZZI (incumbent)
”The CC&Rs fall under the purview of the Palos Verdes Homes Association, not directly under the City of Palos Verdes Estates. That said, it is critical that the two organizations work closely together to protect the character of PVE. State legislation around ADUs and JADUs is alarming enough, but SB9 and SB10 are a far worse attack on our community of predominately single-family lots. This Council assigned a liaison to PVHA initially to communicate about building and planning issues, but that has evolved to collaborating on housing density issues. With the State attack on local control of development, PVHA is the last line of defense and we must work together to preserve PVE.””
David McGowan
“DAVID MCGOWAN (incumbent)
”As apparent from the background preamble to this question, the State’s usurping of local authority over residential development is not just PVE’s problem, but one of all California cities. The PVE CC&Rs are deed restrictions that are enacted by and enforceable by the Palos Verdes Homes Association and not the City; however, the state’s actions to force residential density affect our City and the entire state.
The City Council is unanimously against the state’s actions. It has been working, and will continue to work, with local South Bay Cities and the South Bay Council of Governments to oppose these state actions and defend existing CC&Rs.
These unfunded mandates from State authorities increase residential density without provision for the increased infrastructure needs for utilities (power, water, sewers, etc.) nor proper consideration given to high-risk fire zones. This burden is left to the local cities and property owners. As I am writing this response, we are in a Flex Alert due to electric power limitations and with outdoor irrigation turned off due to a megadrought and failing pipelines. I find great irony in laws for increased residential density that additionally stress the sufficiency of utilities when current utilities are insufficient.
I encourage all residents to join in to resist and to reverse this State grab of local residential development authority. It will take all of us, the courts, and the ballot box to be successful.””
Desiree “Dez” Myers
“DESIREE “DEZ” MYERS
”• Council needs to work with PVHA (Homes Association).
The PVHA has the legal right to object to the state’s actions because the CA Constitution forbids the creation of a law that invalidates a contract. We all entered a contract with PVHA when we purchased in PVE to abide by the CC&Rs (deed restrictions) while PVHA is obligated to enforce the CC&Rs.
• Should PVHA be coordinating with other HOAs in CA with CC&Rs to consider a class action suit against state forced density that violates CC&Rs?
• PVHA has limited means of communicating with residents, should the city help?
The City and PVHA share the same constituents; collaboration helps us all.
• We need the city attorney to track new State laws that further impose forced density on our city and align with PVHA and their attorney. Opportunities need to be identified.
• The PVE Land Preservation Act affords protection which needs to be secured by Staff practices.
• We need to follow the status of other cities engaged in legal challenges against the state on density and be prepared to leverage any progress.
• Residents need to be aware of the statewide initiative planned in 2024 to re-establish full local control of zoning so they can make an educated vote.””