The Los Angeles City Planning Department will consider a proposal to limit the size of new home construction in the Beverly Grove area — or “mansionization” — after the city council voted Tuesday to begin the planning review process.
The proposal by City Councilmember Paul Koretz, 5th District, seeks to limit the proliferation of oversized residences built out to the property lines. Koretz said the proposal is still in the early stages, and the council’s decision is the beginning of what he anticipates will be a “long process” that could take more than a year. Koretz has also increased the maximum size proposed for new homes in the area to 3,000 square feet, up from 2,378 square feet in an original proposal. The area being considered is between Colgate Avenue to the north, Hayworth Avenue to the east, Lindenhurst Avenue to the south, and San Vicente Boulevard to the west. The proposal specifically calls for an overlay zone, which is an area with more restrictive rules than the current zoning laws in place in a particular area.
Koretz said he proposed the limitations because some residents in the area had complained about people buying and demolishing residences, and replacing them with homes they claim are too large for the lots.
“They really change the character of historic neighborhoods. There is a question of whether they decrease property values, and I believe putting up some of these large houses may reduce the value of neighboring properties,” Koretz said. “What we proposed is that planning look at it further. We have received some feedback from residents, and we have responded to those comments.”
Koretz’s proposal caused a significant amount of opposition in August, primarily from residents who disagree that a majority of people in the neighborhood are in support of home size regulations. Koretz circulated a survey on the proposal to approximately 600 single-family homes in the area, and 376 were returned. Of those surveys, 226 were supportive of an overlay zone, or approximately 60 percent, he said.
Beverly Grove resident Charles Tarlow, who said he has lived on Colgate Avenue for 63 years, said he will continue to fight the proposal “tooth and nail”, and added that he is part of a group of residents that has collected more than 300 signatures against an overlay zone. He also claimed Koretz is sidestepping the will of residents by proposing the overlay zone. An overlay zone can be created either by a 75 percent majority of residents, or by a vote of the city council at a councilmember’s request.
“He can’t get a super majority in the neighborhood, but there is a loophole that allows a councilman to go around it,” Tarlow added. “We plan to present the signatures to him. When it goes to planning, anybody is a stakeholder, and we are hoping more people will oppose the plan. The real battle will occur in planning.”
Koretz added that the planning department will now examine and compare lot sizes for all of the properties in the area, and will draft a formal ordinance. There will then be hearings held where the public can weigh in on the draft plan. Later, the plan will go to the city council’s Planning and Land Use Management Committee, before going for a vote of the full city council.
“It’s just the beginning,” Koretz added.
2 Comments
When the mansionization ordinance was created, it set reasonable limits on home size and created overlay districts to allow individual neighborhoods to fine tune those limits if the overwhelming majority of neighbors want the change. To that end, the law requires 75% of stakeholders to sign in favor of an overlay before a resident can even submit an application to the city. This is to insure that no minority of people can impose their will on the majority.
But there is a loophole in the law. It empowers a council member to bypass the will of the people … and that is exactly what is happening here. A small group of neighbors have lobbied our councilman to submit this RFA to the city without sufficient stakeholder support. This is not a frivolous claim. We have signed statements from valid stakeholders representing over 300 properties against this overlay. I challenge the proponents to show you anything close to that number of properties. They can’t. All they can do is point to a misleading survey with scores of signatures from non stakeholders along with at least 49 signatures from valid stakeholders who have since signed against the proposed overlay. An audit of those survey responses would reveal that their support is closer to 20% of the neighborhood while we have signatures from valid stakeholders that represent well over 40% of the properties in the targeted area and the signatures are still coming in. To go forward with this overlay against the will of the people is not just bad zoning law … it is bad Democracy.
There are many reasons why this proposed RFA is bad zoning law. While the City Plan purports to encourage the building of homes that will serve families now and into the future, the proposed RFA does just the opposite. It penalizes people who want to build architectural elements and it specifically discourages the building of attached garage homes, ignoring the benefits to cost of construction, homeowner safety and convenience … not to mention the fact that people might actually park off the street and in their garage if they have easy garage access.
It severely limits home size to approximately 2400sf. When the Councilman says he is proposing a size limit of 3000sf, he is being less than forthright. The proposed overlay will count attached garages, balconies, covered porches and covered entryways as well as areas of vaulted ceilings as living space. Subtract the combined areas of those architectural elements from the 3000sf he says we will be able to build and you will get an idea of how onerous the proposed overlay actually is. We will be lucky if we can build a 2400sf home.
If this RFA becomes law:
Two million dollar homes will no longer be able to be built. Small homes will lose hundreds of thousands of dollars in property value. Many improvements and expansions will no longer be cost effective or even allowed. Our neighborhood will be set apart from the protection of city wide zoning laws. And the City and the County will lose millions of dollars in tax revenue in years to come.
More importantly … this law will not reflect the will of the people.
There are many reasons why this proposed RFA is bad zoning law. It is the goal of the City Wide Plan to encourage the building of homes that will serve families now and into the future. The proposed RFA does just the opposite. It penalizes people who want to build architectural elements like balconies, vaulted ceilings, and covered porches. It specifically discourages the building of attached garage homes, ignoring the benefits to cost of construction, homeowner safety and convenience … not to mention the fact that people might actually park off the street and in their garage if they have easy garage access. Including these architectural elements will restrict home size to about 2400sf … not the 3000sf claimed by the proponents of this overlay.
When the mansionization ordinance was created, it set reasonable limits on home size and created overlay districts to allow individual neighborhoods to fine tune those limits if the overwhelming majority of neighbors want the change. To that end, the law requires 75% of stakeholders to sign in favor of an overlay before a resident can even submit an application to the city. This is to insure that no minority of people can impose their will on the majority.
But there is a loophole in the law. It empowers a council member to bypass the will of the people … and that is exactly what is happening here. A small group of neighbors have lobbied our councilman to submit this RFA to the city without sufficient stakeholder support. This is not a frivolous claim. We have signed statements from valid stakeholders representing over 300 properties against this overlay. I challenge the proponents to show you anything close to that number of properties. They can’t. All they can do is point to a misleading survey with scores of signatures from non stakeholders along with at least 49 signatures from valid stakeholders who have since signed against the proposed overlay. An audit of those survey responses would reveal that their support is closer to 20% of the neighborhood while we have signatures from valid stakeholders that represent well over 40% of the properties in the targeted area and the signatures are still coming in.
Paul Koretz submitted his overlay to the PLUM (Planning Land Use Management Committee) without telling us. The proponents were there and spoke to the committee. The motion then went to the City Council … we found out about it and were there, but were unable to speak as Koretz effectively silenced us by deciding that the public input at the PLUM was good enough and did not allow the public (us!) to speak at the Council.
From here, the motion goes to the planning department for study, outreach, and a recommendation to the City Council. In the meantime we will contact Koretz, give him our statements against the overlay, and ask him to withdraw his motion for lack of neighborhood support. It remains to be seen if he will accept our statements as proof of opposition to his motion or if he will persist in pointing to his flawed survey for the appearance of support.
To go forward with this overlay against the will of the people is not just bad zoning law … it is bad Democracy.