THIS IS AN EMAIL REGARDING A LOS ANGELES CITY HEARING FOR A LOT SPLIT THAT IS SCHEDULED FOR SEPTEMBER 4 & SEPTEMBER 9, 2025
Dear WANA members,
Thank you to those who participated in the hearing held on July 8th. Some of you may have received notice that the lot split was granted. This is not entirely accurate.
The lot split was granted if, as required by law, the developer can meet the 70 ft. midline requirement. Given the configuration of the lot, the developer cannot fulfill this condition. In other words, the city was merely granting what it is required by law to grant.
Because the developer cannot meet this requirement, he has applied to the Zoning Administrator (ZA) for a variance - i.e., to be relieved from this requirement. The hearing on whether to grant the developer a variance is the hearing that matters, and it will be held on Tuesday, September 9th at 9 am, via ZOOM. (See attached announcements.)
It is imperative that we have a strong turnout for the ZA hearing, to provide testimony against granting the variance. We need a much stronger and more organized showing than we produced in July.
In order to prepare for the hearing, we will hold a ZOOM meeting on the evening of Thursday, September 4th. Please mark your calendars to attend. I will send out an invitation tothe meeting and the precise start time in the next few days.
Even if you are able to attend the ZA hearing and provide oral testimony, and especially if you cannot, I urge you to submit written testimony against the variance. More guidance will be provided at our WANA ZOOM meeting, but if you would like to get started or submit before then, I suggest the following:
DO stress that granting the variance so as to allow the lot split will set a dangerous precedent for this neighborhood. The 70 ft midline requirement is not arbitrary - it was adopted by the city specifically to prevent lot splits of traditional Walnut Acres 120d ft wide lots. No lot splits have been granted since that requirement was put in place.
DO stress that the city itself has recognized that flag lot splits are particularly pernicious, as they create bad neighbor situations and destroy the privacy of nearby lots. Again, the 70 ft midline requirement is not arbitrary but instead was specifically adopted to prevent flag lot splits.
DO stress that, with this property in particular, seven (!) separate parcels abut this parcel and that means that seven discrete properties will be negatively impacted by granting a variance that would allow the lot split. DO stress that three of the parcels abutting this property have very shallow backyards (the properties on Woodlake) and thus their privacy and property values would be severely impacted by making an exception to grant this lot split. In other words, DO make the case that this specific property is particularly unsuitable for granting a variance because of the extraordinarily high number of abutting properties whose values will be negatively affected by a lot split.
DO stress that the developer has made no case for needing a lot split. Per state law, the developer is allowed to build more than one living quarters on the property and in fact is prepared to do so. A lot split will simply allow the developer to double the number of living quarters (to four) from the current one house on the property, significantly increasing the density of the lot, which will negatively impact the neighborhood.
DO call out the developer's claim that he plans to leave the second lot empty as a red herring and not credible. First, what the developer decides to do with a second lot is immaterial to the question of whether a variance should be granted. Second, once a lot split would be granted, the owner of the property (whoever that happens to be) can develop it as he could any single family lot and the neighborhood would have no say over what is built.
Unfortunately, DO NOT make as the centerpiece of your argument that you have lived in Walnut Acres for years and do not want to see the neighborhood change. While I encourage you to mention how long you have lived in the neighborhood, and why you moved to (and continue to live in) Walnut Acres, the city is not very receptive to anti-change arguments these days.
If you want to address the problem of developers coming into a neighborhood just to make a buck, DO so in a way that emphasizes the negative financial effects on those nearby. In other words, call on the city to make the developer justify why he is entitled to financially gain at the expense of owners of surrounding properties and the unjustifiability of such an arrangement. DO NOT simply rag on developers.