No Mas McMansions?
At least that what the ordinance purports to do.
The City Council unanimously passed the motion after years of debate and input from activists, residents and developers. Although this is just the beginning, the "baseline", as they call it, it appears that it is going to be much more difficult for a developer or homeowner to place the residential equivalent of a big box store on a property. There are many that feel this new ordinance does not go far enough and has loopholes big enough to drive a Mack Truck through, but at least it is a beginning.
The origins of this ordinance go all the way back to the community of Sunland-Tujunga, which Councilmember Greuel was kind enough to recognize today. She didn't mention her by name, but the author of the original proposal against McMansions was written by our good friend, and No Home Depot Campaign associate, Roberta Actor-Thomas.
I haven't spoken to Roberta about her feelings on the language of this ordinance, but we are all very proud of her for lighting the fuse and doing her part to put the brakes on out of scale development and rampant disregard for the character of neighborhoods.
She'll probably kill me for mentioning her name, but she deserves a little recognition, and this city desperately needs a lot more people like her!
Labels: Mansionization, McMansions
Posted by Unknown @ 5/06/2008 11:21:00 PM
19 Comments:
The Sunland-Tujunga people will kill me but I am absolutely against this. I can live with No Home Depot but a person's home is your castle. If you want to build a house on your property that looks like John Marshall High School, have at it cowboy. If you want to sacrifice your backyard for a bigger family room or more bathrooms, its up to you.
Now some folks say that the neighborhood has a right to tell you what your house should look like. I disagree. As long as you aren't throwing crap on the street, on other people's property, having really loud wild parties, running a nuclear reactor or stealing aluminum cans from your neighbor's recycling you should be kosher.
I doubt this law will pass constitutional muster.
I hate to say this but the neighborhoods that are fighting "McMansions" have a hella lot of ugly looking homes. Lets avoid the pot calling the kettle black and concentrate on more important city issues.
Oh in case you're wondering as to the John Marshall High School reference, the photo in Joe's story looks a bit like this:
That might make a great home for Tom LeBong!
I knew you'd disagree. A person's home is their castle, but not when it cast a permanent shadow over their neighbors, or when they build their house so large and utilize so much of their property for the structure that
the space between homes becomes just a few feet. The problem that irks many is when developers buy a property, bulldoze the existing home,
and replace it with 2 or more homes in the same space. That may be profitable for the developer, but it tends to ruin the neighborhood.
Putting a cap of 3000 sq. feet on all homes in the flats is really dumb and while that's good for the little craftsman bungalows and the things in Sunland Tujunga, it sure puts at a major disadvantage people building in Holmby, Westwood or much of the city.
The limit should be based on the lot, some of which are very large. This is just because some people are insensitive and built enormous things staring into yards or making a lot of noise right next door. Those are issues that should have been dealt with individually.
Where it's really needed is the hills, where it may take two more years -- and it's fueling a fury to overbuild before a hillside ord. is passed.
This was favored most by those in poor areas, with Caradenas arguying against Reyes of all people -- the nemesis of the westside -- that it's not stringent enough and somehow favors "the rich" over his area, tho it made no sense. But making sense is never the issue with these socialists.
In Sunland-Tujunga we had quite a few old Stone Houses.
They were built using rock from the Tujunga Canyon. There are only a few left now,as developers have Bulldozed them down. We have a Historic Norman Castle That a Developer Bulldozed down the Carriage House before he could be stopped. He didn't have Permits of Course. These Developers build ugly big boxes with no character
packed together. They are 2 Story and take away the Privacy of the surrounding neighbors.
One of these homes, has a Backyard so small, the only dog that would fit in it is a Hot Dog!
Lydia I understand what you're saying and the law has to be followed (and if its a dumb law it needs to be changed) but again, in America we have private property rights.
Joe, I sympathize with the shadow but the truth is if I want more space around me or I want no shadows its not the obligation of my neighbor to subsidize that for me. I need to buy a bigger lot or buy up the lot next to me. In New York they used to do that, people would buy the empty lot next to them to give them more space. Of course it was cheaper but you get my drift.
We just can't keep adding onto government to control the things we don't like. It sounds extreme but this is how we creep into something like the Soviet Union. And we know how well that worked. Used to be the government totally decided where and how you live.
Wonder if they have McMansions in Russia now?
Ultimately these and other development type policies (such as the vote on Skid Row) are going to push young professionals out of the city. As it is they're going places like Pasadena, Santa Monica, Orange County, No Cal, Seattle, etc. We don't have any major business left in LA other than entertainment.
LA will soon become a town of very old wealthy people and uneducated, unskilled very poor children and their parents.
In our community we still have small 1 and 2 Bedroom Starter homes
"Affordable Housing"
The types of homes that first time buyers can afford. These are the
Properties that are being sucked up.
They tear down a small house on a decent size lot and put 4 "Giant" wall to wall homes.
or they put up more apartments so we have "Affordable Housing"
Starting at $1,000. dollars a month rent they are not very affordable.
Packing more people into our neighborhood that doesn't have the infrastructure to support it, is
destroying our Community.
We have to protect what is around us. Nobody else has our best interests in mind.
Look at Home Depot:
They don't give a Damn about the safety of our students. They have used the wrong address for 4 years
so that the school didn't exist.
Now in the newest Permit Compliance they turned in the Paperwork for the School is still missing.
We have to defend ourselves.
We moved to a Rural Community with lots of culture, Small town feel,
Beutiful views, Open space and Wildlife.
What gives them the right to take that all away from us?
Mayor Sam may not be aware of this, but English common law historically protected a homeowner's right to the sunlight falling on THEIR property. This is still the case in the UK where no one equates the right to a kitchen garden with "creeping socialism". Many Angelenos and other Americans may be wondering why sunlight should be considered a "property right". The sky-rocketing price of food is going to soon provide some very compelling insight.
Karl Marx would be so proud of the elected Comrades of Los Angeles!
The last poster is absolutely correct...this city will end up being wealthy old folks who already 'have their's' and a third world underclass of uneducated, unskilled peasants. The middle class is practically gone now...and we certainly will not be adding any more of them to the census charts.
I happen to fall under the old folks who already 'have their's'..but I feel sooo sorry for our children and grandchildren who have had their legacy stolen from them by the Banditos in City Hall. My kids will inherit, but what about the kids who are not so fortunate? Sad...so sad!
Oh, and yes...the schools! Who in hades would ever send their kids to a Tijuana Tech public school?
L.A. is DONE! Finito! Kaput!
The new law does not limit all homes to 3,000 sq-ft, and is based a percentage. These are the new rules:
R1 - 50% of lot size; for lots 7,500 sq-ft or greater it will be 45% or 3,750 sq-ft, whichever is greater.
RS - 45% of lot size; for lots 9,000 sq-ft or greater it will be 40% or 4,050 sq-ft, whichever is greater.
RE9 and RE11 - 40% of lot size; for lots 15,000 sq-ft or greater it will be 35% or 6,000 sq-ft, whichever is greater.
RE15, RE20, and RE40 - 35% of lot size
RA (wich was what was copied in the original post) - 25% of lot size; for lots 20,000 sq-ft or greater it will be 20% or 5,000 sq-ft
The ordinance also has a way for people to get a 20% area bonus if they don't build a box or build "green", and you don't have to get special approval to do that.
The point here is that the bigger your lot is, the bigger your house can be.
Even if you don't like these numbers, you can always try to convince the rest of your neighbors to create a different size limit by using the new overlay that is included in the ordinance.
I'm not sure if you are all aware of this, but even with these changes, the City of Los Angeles still has larger size limits than the cities that Mayor Sam mentioned.
Lydia, your area of ST is totally out of sync with most of the city, from the Westside to Encino and Woodland HIlls -- and you know it, or you wouldn't go on about affordable little shoebox homes still left. Then have a condescending attitude about someone's small back yard -- so what, if they want it that way? Not everyone sits outside and barbecues all day with a dog in the yard. Many young professionals are out a lot and lead more social lives.
So you're just making a case for why ST should NOT be a precedent for the city, you're an exception, and Wendy was asleep at the switch if she thinks this is a precedent for the city. Her area includes some more affluent hillsides so she should know better.
As a practical matter, 3000 sq. ft. IS the outer limit for the average house, not counting the garage which can add 400 sq. feet.
As the lot gets bigger, the % of it that can be built on is smaller, and it made me blanch to hear how easy the Planning rep and Reyes etc. made it sound to get that 20% exemption, ha-ha, then for an extra 10% you have to persuade all your neighbors. EVER TRY TO DO THAT BEFORE YOU CAN BUILD IN REALITY? Unbelievable, and gives the retired busybodies the most control.
Funny, Cardenas wanted that to be 600 sq. feet, but Reyes asked him to stick to the current limit -- many HOA's wanted NO allowance for garages because theirs were detached and were separate small buildings -- again, some communities that aren't typical speaking for everyone.
Cardenas' reason, although he didn't say it, is because Mexicans tend to have multi-generations and relatives in the same house, and they and some Orthodox Jews who do the same, building giant things with 6 cars for 40 people, were one of the biggest catalysts for this.
I agree that L A already IS divided between very wealthy, who look to Europe and the EAst Coast, maybe Japan, for their models, and very poor/ uneducated, with the exception of some vegans in Silver Lake and families in the Valley.
This ordinance has give a sudden boost to anyone who already has a huge home, since sales are based on price/ sq. foot. Really, really dumb. The rich just weren't aware of this, they're not the ones who show up at every meeting everywhere, too busy shopping at Barney's until it's too late.
I do appreciate the credit, but Sunland-Tujunga's ICO was very much a community effort - I was given the task by the STNC Design Advisory Committee and CD2 promised their support from the start. I got a LOT of help in writing it from quite a few people, including Dale Thrush. His recommendation to allow somewhat larger homes on some small and substandard lots was designed accomodate homeowners who needed to improve their homes or provide for housing extended families. This was an important concession which insured that property rights ARE respected and that middle-class property owners are not penalized. In other words, you can still build a really big house in Sunland-Tujunga and if your lot is over 8000 square feet, there is absolutely no limit to size, within the standard setbacks.
Those of us who live up here all know what speculators did to our neighborhood. Nearly all demolished homes were small and affordable. Some were beautiful "storybook" cottages which were built by pioneer families and would have had historic protection in any other city. Some of the demolished stone houses were the work of the brilliant George Harris, who built Bolton Hall from a plan that resided only in his head. The homes that replaced them were NOT affordable to middle class or working families and we have seen them being flipped repeatedly - one wonders how much "cash back at closing" fraud has been involved as prices on these enormous but unattractive boxes soared to insane heights back in 2006.
Roberta and Lydia you people are whacked. If you want to "preserve" the "storybook" nature of the community you live in put your money where your mouth is and buy the properties.
Until then don't try to jack the people who do put up their money.
You don't like it but in this world money talks and bullshit walks. Take your bullshit somewhere else until you can afford it.
given all my diggs at your expense, you probably won't publish this, but you'd be making a mistake...
higby, your viewpoint is so self centered. but looking at you, should I be suprised that you think bigger is better?
If you want to live on an island where your actions don't affect anyone else, than move to one. But when someone buys a house in a neighborhood, they are buying into a community.
Teardowns, when rebuilt McMansion style, alter the character of the neighborhood, period. This isn't a question of "well the neighborhood is deteriorated so I'm doing my neighbors a service" because the new building could be larger AND less oppressive than the McMansion that was built in its place, using techniques like setbacks and design disguises. Building as big as possible because one can is just plain self-serving and self-defeating.
What about the rights of the people who have been living on that street for years who invested in the character of their street? The people who have cultivated a community? Their work and creating a place that people want to move to is thrown out the window. Teardowns alter the visual landscape with a bulky structure that doesnt relate to other homes on the street, ruining the visual narative for a neighborhood and creating an unattractive nuisance that decreases home values.
For people that are living in the shadow of the building, LITERALLY, their house loses value, privacy, fire hazard safety, and other quality of life issues. Is your right to build more important than the 3 families rights on the neighboring edges? What about the little old lady down the street who's neighborhood that she cherished has been altered?
But according to you, who gives an F#$% about others when you should be allowed to do whatever you want. In society, when individuals lose respect for informal rules set by the community (respect for others, law of the commons), then yes, a codified rule must take its place. And the law will hold up as its held up elsewhere in the country. You don't come first, society does. It's the same principle that allows for the separating of industrial land from residential spaces (Euclidean zoning).
We haven't even talked about the environmental effects that all of these have, like the loss of grass to allow for rainwater to return to the water tables, the loss of trees that provide shade and lower temperatures and all its snowball effects, etc. In the end, that is going to cost the owner of the bigger home something.
Did you ever think that you're neighbor casting a shadow is considered a "takings" of your sunlight. Isn't sunlight a right of life? I thought it was god who created light and darkness, not my neighbor across the way. But then again, you're probably used to casting a shadow...
Michael that 9:59 p.m. says a lot of the same things as a former failed 38th assembly district loser that noone listens to anymore.
Do you not agree?
I agree that no one is two words. Zuma tried to tell you but you refused his advice.
grad student, this is a bit off topic but in the last 2 weeks I have worked with 2 different students, one from Loyola and the other from CSUN, on their term papers, or assignments. One was a working on a masters in business, the other a journalism major. The former came to my house for an interview,and attended the Sunland-Tujunga Dialogue, the other communicated through emails. I was very impressed with their questions, and I sense a new level of concern and involvement by our grads (or soon to be) over community issues.
This is the last gasp of white Los Angeles.
It's anti-semitic too as orthodox Jews are by their culture required to have large families and need large homes. If I put the name you'd delete my comment but there is a well known anti-Jewish and anti-Mexican "leader" from Valley Glen who says that allowing larger homes brings more Mexicans and illegals in. That is what the whites are afraid up. Wake up gente!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home