By FRANCES SHARPE | Editor-in-Chief
At least 60 people packed the offices of Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage in Pacific Palisades on Wednesday, Feb. 10 for a presentation and a feisty Q&A with the Los Angeles City Planning department on a proposed citywide amendment that, if passed, would reduce the allowable size of new construction homes and renovations and could potentially affect property values.
The controversial amendment to the Baseline Mansionization Ordinance (BMO) and Baseline Hillside Ordinance (BHO) comes in response to what some Angelenos and politicians have called out-of-control mansionization.
If passed, which could happen as early as fall 2016, the amendment would affect neighborhoods within Pacific Palisades that are not in the Coastal zone. (To find out if your home is in the Coastal zone, visit zimas.lacity.org, type in your address, then click on “Additional.” Next to “Coastal Zone” it will either say “Coastal Zone Commission Authority,” which means the residence is within the coastal zone, or “None,” which means it is not in the coastal zone.)
The code amendments are scheduled to go before the City Planning Commission on May 12. The hearing was originally scheduled for March, but the date was changed to allow for more public input and environmental review.
City Planning Official Hagu Solomon-Cary said that by the planning department’s Jan. 11 deadline for comments, it had received over 1,000 emails and comment letters.
Attendees suggested that despite the large number of comments, not enough people know about the proposed amendment. The city’s scheduling of public hearings in December rubbed some people the wrong way.
“Why did you do the hearings in December when everybody’s out of town? It seems disingenuous,” one person said.
Coldwell Banker branch manager Anne Russell told the Palisadian-Post she invited realtors from all the local agencies to attend the meeting because “as informed and concerned citizens, we need to be vocal on this issue. The more we can do to inform Palisadians, the better.”
Solomon-Cary gave a quick overview of the proposed changes that would eliminate a number of existing exemptions within the BMO and BHO.
As the planning official detailed the exemptions that would be eliminated, many people shook their heads and gasped in disagreement.
“Don’t you expect a class action lawsuit?” asked one attendee.
One realtor said, “Never in the history of economy has limiting [the size of what you can build] brought up the value. What BS people are being sold!”
Some audience members said they understand that some people are negatively impacted by construction but suggested the city is going about addressing this issue the wrong way.
“I’ve heard from people who are tearing out their hair from a lot of construction on their street,” Russell said. “Even if you restrict the size of the building, it doesn’t get rid of the building/construction… This is the wrong way to address your issues.”
Longtime realtor Michael Edlen presented historical Palisadian-Post articles from the 1980s and ’90s, which detailed concerns about mansionization in the Huntington and led to tighter building controls in response.
Edlen said 87 percent of properties in the 90272 zip code are “already encumbered with limitations dealing with these very issues,” he said. “We’re already restricted.”
Edlen added that his team took two to three hours to figure out how much one woman’s home on a 5,200 square-foot lot in the Alphabet Streets would be worth if the amendment passed vs. what it’s worth today.
Basing his findings on the current pricing of $950-1,000 per square foot in the Palisades, Edlen said, “$500,000 is how much less her property is worth on Hartzell if the amendment passes.”
The realtor later told the Post he did the same exercise with two other lots in the Alphabet Streets.
“One would be worth $400,000 less, the other would be $550,000 less,” he said.
Edlen suggested to the planning officials that the city exempt 90272 from the amendment because the area already self-regulates.
One of the exemptions that would be eliminated is 400 square feet for an attached garage. This would lead to detached garages in backyards.
“This is taking us backwards to building 1950s style homes with a garage in back,” said one developer.
By a unanimous show of hands, the attendees said they want the city to do an economic analysis before making any decisions on the amendment.
The planning officials explained that their department does not perform such studies but that as the process moves forward other city committees may call for one.
The planners explained that the City Council can make revisions to the ordinance based on findings of an economic analysis.
Russell ended the meeting with an emphatic plea: “We have been self-regulating here since the 1940s long before the City Council ever got involved. Cut Pacific Palisades out of this altogether and leave us be.”
After the meeting, she told the Post, “If the Council can implement an emergency ordinance one way then they can exempt us the other way.”
This page is available to subscribers. Click here to sign in or get access.
