The City Council adopts rules curbing the size of remodeled homes on the flatlands and preserving low-income housing, mostly on skid row, that advocates fear are in danger of becoming lofts.
By Jessica Garrison and Cara Mia DiMassa, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
2:47 PM PDT, May 6, 2008
» Discuss Article (14 Comments)

The Los Angeles City Council today approved new rules to address major byproducts of the gentrification that has swept the city: Limiting the size of “mansionization” additions and making it harder for developers to convert low-income housing on skid row into luxury lofts.

The new rules radically limit the size of remodeled homes in the city’s flatlands to 3,000 square feet in most cases, curtailing what homeowners say is a plague of behemoth, ugly stucco boxes that are killing neighborhood character.

On the other end of the spectrum, council members voted to preserve more than 18,700 units in residential hotels, mostly located downtown, that advocates worry are in danger of being turned into luxury lofts or condos.

Both measures were controversial and required heavy negotiation among activists, property owners and members of the business community. But in both cases, the final unanimous votes heralded an acknowledgment by council members of the incredible pressures that gentrification has exerted on virtually every corner of the city.

“When certain neighborhoods have homes on steroids and others no longer have a place for the poor to sleep, the social fabric is torn,” said City Council President Eric Garcetti, citing the need for the ordinances.

The city has been criticized for years for not doing more to preserve the look and character of existing neighborhoods against “tear-downs,” in which property owners demolish original homes and replacement with dwelling often two or three times larger.

Activists have also been alarmed at how the revitalization of downtown L.A. has swept into skid row, leading some owners of the residential hotels that for decades were the domain of the poor to remake their property for the new downtown crowd.

Mercedes Marquez, the general manager of the city’s housing department, said the double action represented a move “to make sure that everybody has a say and stake” in the city.

The mansionization law was first proposed more than three years ago. Residents complained that the character of their neighborhoods is being destroyed by behemoth houses that dwarf the scale of other residences.

Mark Lipis of Westwood brought council members poster-size photos of his neighbor’s house, which he described as a 6,500-square-foot behemoth with a roof deck and an elevator.

The law would effect more than 304,000 lots in the flatlands of Los Angeles, most of the city’s single-family homes.

“No neighborhood is immune to the loss of character and diminishment of privacy,” said Mike Buhler, director of advocacy for the Los Angeles Conservancy. “The impact of huge new homes cannot be overstated.”

Building industry and real estate representatives, on the other hand, warned that the law would drive down property values and hurt Los Angeles’ economy. They also decried what they said was the law’s one-size-fits-all policy.

The mansionization ordinance passed 12-0. Council members Weiss, Bernard Parks and Garcetti were all absent for the vote; Garcetti, who made an appearance in support of the ordinance, was on jury duty today.

The residential hotel ordinance passed 13-0, with Parks and Garcetti absent. It replaces a temporary ordinance that the council approved in 2005, when there was a growing concern that available housing for the poor — especially in downtown Los Angeles — was rapidly dwindling amid the gentrification of historic neighborhoods. That ordinance was set to expire later in the month.

The new law protects units in the 336 single-room-occupancy and residential hotels across the city, most of which are privately owned. Owners who wish to convert their buildings may only do so if they meet a strict set of guidelines requiring them to replace the residential units within two miles of their building or pay a fee that would provide for acquisition of a new site plus 80% of the cost of constructing new units.

Seven residential hotels in the city have more than 250 units, and owners of those units would only be allowed to convert 80% of their building to market-rate units.

Activists supporting the new law said that it provides strong protections for the city’s poorest. It also includes incentives to improve the living conditions for the aging properties.

“We feel like it’s a strong victory for tenants, one of the first victories for tenants in quite a while,” said Becky Dennison of the Los Angeles Community Action Network, one of several dozen community organizations supporting the measure.

City officials said that the ordinance was one way that they could protect housing for the city’s poorest without spending city dollars in the midst of a severe revenue shortage.

“Given the crisis we have, this is one thing we can do without having to put in money we don’t actually have,” said Marquez. “This is what we can do. It will go further than we ever have before in protecting the rights of tenants, particularly the very poor.”

Veronica Perez Becker, vice president of legislative affairs for the Central City Assn., a business advocacy group, called the new ordinance a “flexible policy that takes into account the needs of the business community.”

Perez Becker said that the ordinance “allows revitalization to continue” — in part because there are provisions allowing owners to convert their buildings if they follow a strict set of rules.

The owner of the Cecil Hotel downtown did take issue with his building’s designation as a residential hotel. In recent months, the Cecil has been the target of activists who allege that the owners have conducted prejudiced and illegal housing practices.

But Michael Ross told the council that most of his hotel’s guests are tourists. “We haven’t been given due process,” he said, adding that the ordinance would “give L.A. control over our property without recourse.”

Jane Usher, head of the city’s Planning Commission, said that both ordinances were important to Los Angeles’ future. “Both represent an understanding of the needs of our residents,” she said. “The city needs to be home to people of every income, and these measures foster that.”

Jessica.Garrison@latimes.com

Cara.diMassa@latimes.com

Filed under: Uncategorized on July 16th, 2008