No More McMansions in Los
Angeles
Breaking news!
Reform
is finally getting started on the city’s failed Baseline Mansionization
Ordinance and Baseline Hillside Ordinance (BMO/BHO). 
The Planning Department has now published its
draft amendments.
The Planning Department has now published its
draft amendments.
To
read the full draft, go to the web page of the city’s Office of Historic
Resources; click on Updates and then on BMO/BHO Draft Amendments. Or follow the link from our website. (Address at the bottom of this page.)
The timetable
The Planning Department is aiming for Council adoption
of the amendments sometime late next summer, following a comment period,
environmental analysis, more public comment, a staff report, and hearings
before the City Planning Commission and the Council’s Planning & Land
Use Management (PLUM) committee.
The first step is a series of public outreach
meetings held in different parts of the city.
The outreach meetings are
coming up fast:
Wednesday, December 2 -
Mid-City
Thursday, December 3 -
Westside
Tuesday, December 15 –
Downtown
Wednesday, December 16 – Van Nuys
On the following pages, you will find a summary of
the draft amendments, a position statement, and sample emails and talking
points.
For
background info, contact info, a point-by-point pushback against mansionizers’
bogus arguments, a link to the draft amendments, or info on yard signs go
to:
Summary
Overall,
the city’s draft amendments stick pretty close to Councilmember Koretz’s
original council Motion. And they eliminate the single most damaging provision
of the BMO, the 400 sq foot freebie for attached garages.
|
The city’s
draft amendment
|
The current
code
|
Our
position
|
|
Includes
square footage of attached garages when calculating size of house.
|
Excludes
up to 400 sq feet of attached garages when calculating size of house.
|
Yes! This gets rid of 400
sq feet of bloat and discourages designs that violate the character of many
older neighborhoods.
|
|
Drops
base floor area ratio to 0.45 for lots below 7500 sq feet and 0.40 for lots
above 7500 sq feet.
|
Uses 0.50 percent for lots below 7500 sq feet and
0.45 for lots above 7500 sq feet.
|
Yes! These ratios are much more compatible with
the scale of residential neighborhoods.
|
|
Eliminates
most, but not all, of the bonuses.
|
Grants bonuses of 20 percent of base FAR for
“green” building materials, “articulated” walls, and “proportional” stories (second
story smaller than the first).
|
Losing
the self-defeating bonuses for “green” building and “articulation” definitely
moves us in the right direction.
|
|
Keeps
the 20 percent bonus for proportional stories, if the second floor is no more
than 60 percent the size of the first floor.
|
Gives the bonus if the second floor is no more
than 75 percent the size of the first floor.
|
Better
formula, but needs to clearly define the size of the first-floor and handle
bonuses through open Planning Dept. hearings.
|
|
Eliminates
the exemption for “double-height” space.
|
Allows up to 100 square feet of “double height”
rooms, usually entryways.
|
Yes! This eliminates another 100 sq feet of
bulk.
|
|
Keeps
the exemption for roofless or “lattice top” patios, balconies, breezeways. But sets no limit on the size of the
exempted patios etc.
|
Exempts uncovered patios, etc. up to 250 square
feet.
|
! Danger ! Exemptions
invite manipulation and abuse.
Need to close this loophole.
|
|
Zoning
Administrators can grant 10 percent “adjustments” with no public
oversight.
|
This is the same as in the current code.
|
In
addition to variances, the city is creating flexible zoning tools tailored to
individual neighborhoods. We don’t
need more “adjustments.”
|
Our position
· Eliminate
the exemption for patios, breezeways, balconies, etc.
· Base
the “proportional stories” bonus on the net footprint of the first floor,
excluding any space not included in the FAR calculation. As with other
“discretionary” matters, have the Planning Dept. handle bonuses in a
properly-noticed
public hearing.
·
Eliminate the 10 percent “adjustments.”
· The
BMO amendments will take effect before the ICOs expire. Confirm that once amendments are adopted, ICO
neighborhoods will be subject to either their ICO or the BMO/BHO, whichever is
more restrictive.
The Game Plan: Speak
up and show up!
·
Rally
your neighbors.
·
Ask
your Council office, homeowners’ association, residents’ association, and/or
neighborhood council to speak out for meaningful reform of the mansionization
ordinance.
·
Go
to the public outreach meetings in December.
·
Follow
up with comments of support.
We
prepared sample talking points and emails.
Use them as-is or put the message in your own words. The key is to take action.
E-mails
Subject line should include: BMO/BHO
Amendments, CF #14-0656
Distribution should include Hagu Solomon-Cary (hagu.solomon-cary@lacity.org).
Sample text could be:
Loopholes
ruined the mansionization ordinance in 2008, and the city has paid a heavy
price ever since. The Planning
Department’s draft amendments make a very good start, but they need a few
crucial changes:
Uncovered
patios, breezeways, and balconies must be counted as floor space.
The
“proportional stories” bonus must be based on the net footprint of the first
floor, excluding any uncounted floor space.
And bonuses should be subject to public review by the Planning
Department.
The
City already offers variances and is now creating many other flexible zoning
tools and options. Get rid of
discretionary 10 percent “adjustments” made by zoning administrators.
The
city got mansionization very wrong the first time. This time, we need to get it right. And we have no time to lose.
Talking
Points
The city’s Baseline Mansionization Ordinance and
Baseline Hillside Ordinance (BMO/BHO) failed, and mansionization is ruining
neighborhoods all over the city. Now the
Planning Department has proposed important amendments to the ordinances.
Overall, the city stayed pretty close to
Councilmember Koretz’s excellent Council Motion and eliminated the single worst
provision of the BMO/BHO: the 400 sq foot freebie for attached garages.
But the draft amendments have a few flaws:
Uncovered (or “lattice roof” patios, breezeways, and
balconies are not counted as floor space. This is just the kind of loophole that turns houses
into McMansions. With or without a roof,
these spaces add bulk. We need to
close this exemption.
The “proportional stories”
bonus does not clearly define the first-story “footprint.” The draft amendments do set a tighter limit on the
second story: 60 percent versus 75 percent now.
But there’s a complication: If space
is excluded when the city calculates floor area, it makes the first floor
bigger. So the second floor would be measured
against a bigger number. The Beverly
Grove RFA provides a precedent: The
bonus must be based on the “net” footprint of the first floor.
“Adjustments”
of 10 percent can be granted by zoning administrators behind closed doors. The city already has a process for variances,
and now it’s creating all kinds of zoning tools tailored to the needs of
individual neighborhoods. We do not
need additional “adjustments.”
Loopholes ruined the
mansionization ordinance the first time, and the city has paid a heavy price
ever since. We need to get it right this
time.
For
further information:
Comments
Keep going... :)