Staff Writer
The Long Beach City Council is closer to ending the debate over property owner-rights and what defines a “McMansion” in the Los Cerrritos/Virginia Country Club neighborhoods. In a first-reading vote on March 21, the council approved numerous changes to developmental standards affecting one specific zone in the unique residential area. The second and final reading of the ordinance outlining the development standards will take place on Tuesday, April 4.
The debate is expected to end after more than 18 months of fiery controversy, a few rounds of public meetings, petitions and even a moratorium on construction that started in September 2015 and concludes this week.
At the heart of the debate are those McMansions or the “mega” homes that often overshadow smaller adjacent houses. Los Cerritos residents signed a petition in 2015 that outlined their grievances against perceived oversized home construction that seemed to change the character of the neighborhood. Community organizer and Los Cerritos resident Stacy McDaniel said she counted about 400 out of the nearly 650 homeowners had signed onto the petition.
The community effort that year prompted Planning Department staff to study the issue. The Council in 2015 approved a moratorium on construction of homes and housing additions that were greater than 1,500 square feet. After several meetings, the Planning Department forwarded their final recommendations to the Planning Commission last month. After the Planning Commission voted in February to approve the numerous recommendations that had been debated in public meetings and scrutinized by many residents during the public-comment period, the council took up the issue again last week.
The recommendations to change the development standards are only applicable to the R-1-L zone. The Los Cerritos zoning district falls within the 8th District, and Councilmember Al Austin, who represents the area, acknowledged that he had spent a lot of time in face-to-face meetings with different residents who were on either side of the debate.
While several letters to the City had been filed in support of the Planning Department’s recommendations, and numerous people had praised these recommendations during the public-comment period, there were also some notable objections to the new restrictions. A few complained that some of the unique homes could not have been built today if the recommended proposed changes were adopted years ago. Others objected to the changes, citing concerns that their property values would be affected if they wanted to sell to homeowners who didn’t like restrictions on home additions.
However, many neighbors voiced their concerns that they needed to protect the character of their neighborhood and supported the Planning Department’s recommendations.
During the March 21 meeting, Austin asked whether there was a consensus among all the residents to all of the changes. He acknowledged that while there were many who supported the Planning Department’s recommendations, there were some who were staunchly against the plan. Austin specifically objected to the staff proposal to change two areas— floor-area ratio (FAR) and second-story-side setbacks.
“I personally am uncomfortable with fully embracing the changes to neighborhood zoning requirements that is not fully embraced by the neighborhood itself,” Austin said.
The 8th-district councilmember asked to eliminate from the ordinance both recommendations surrounding the FAR and second-story side setbacks proposed by the Planning Department.
Floor-area ratio (FAR)
The planning staff had noted in a previous meeting that while there are no specific limits on a home’s total size, changes to the requirements surrounding floor-area ratio could address concerns over whether a particular home was perceived to be too large, especially for its lot size. The FAR is a number calculated on the gross-floor area of the building divided by the gross area of the entire lot size. For instance, a home that is 6,000 square feet on a 10,000 square-foot lot would have a ratio of .60.
The staff recommended that the FAR be decreased, depending on the size of the lot.
For lots that are 15,000 square feet or less, the current maximum FAR is .60. The staff recommended that it be reduced to a FAR of .50. For lots that are larger than 15,000 square feet, the current maximum FAR is .60. The staff recommended a FAR maximum of .40.
Second-story-side setback
In an attempt to address greater privacy between two properties, the planning department staff recommended changes to the setbacks in the side yards. The minimum side-yard setback is currently set at six feet. Staff recommended to change some of the setback limits and based their recommendations on lot size.
For lot widths less than 60 feet, the staff proposed to maintain that 6-foot minimum setback.
However, for lots that were wider than 60 feet, the staff recommended that the setback be changed to a minimum of 10 feet, or 15 percent of the lot width, whichever is greater.
Other objections
Austin also voiced concern that there was no need for some changes. Citing figures from the planning department, Austin specifically noted that there weren’t many homes that would be affected. He said that out of the 25 largest homes with lots more than 15,000 square feet, only two of the homes were built after the year 2000.
“We are not seeing a major transformation of the neighborhood that is being experienced in some cities that have adopted mansionization ordinances,” Austin said.
The council voted 8-0 in favor of Austin’s changes to the Planning Department’s proposal and modified the ordinance. Councilmember Lena Gonzalez was not present for the vote.
The move was a blow to organizer McDaniel, who had spent much of her time researching the issue.
“We may not have agreed with all of the conclusions that the planning department came to,” McDaniel said in a phone interview, “but they did work really hard and really professionally to get this right. And if anything, they may have balanced individuals’ prospective property rights [!] more heavily than those of us who wanted changes. But the bottom line was, it was a compromise, and it was a thoughtful, professional process.”
McDaniel said in her phone interview that she did not know whether she and other residents would voice their continued opposition to Austin’s changes at the next council meeting.
“The councilman isn’t going to change his mind,” McDaniel said. “He came into this meeting absolutely with his mind made up and his script written.”
Back in February, the Signal Tribune previously reported on the details of the other proposed changes made by the planning department back in February. The latest round of changes has been updated below.
Front-yard setback
The front-yard setback is currently at 20 feet. Staff recommended to create a minimum setback of 25 feet in the front yard.
Corner-lot setback
The staff recommended to increase the minimum setbacks to 10 feet.
Lot size
Currently, the minimum lot size is 12,000 square feet, and there is no set maximum lot size. The planning department staff proposed a maximum lot size of 20,000 square feet. In the event a property owner wants to merge lots, the staff recommended that no more than two lots could be merged. The merged lot size could not exceed 20,000 square feet.
The planning department also recommended new building design standards applicable only to new single-family homes and remodel projects in the R-1-L zone. The new standards apply to projects that are greater than 5,000 square feet in total size or are “within 10 percent of the property’s maximum FAR.”
