My Belmont Heights - meetings - Comments

SEADIP Concerns

Mike Stewart — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 16:06:08 -0500

What are your concerns that are being ignored?

SEADIP Article in the Grunion Gazette

GWoodruff — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 19:43:32 -0500

By Bill Thomas

The volunteer members of the SEADIP committee headed by Third District Councilman Gary DeLong need our thanks rather than bad press. Many appreciate the effort they have made in suggesting improvements in zoning and development guidelines for the areas along PCH in the east side of Long Beach.

I have attended three such meetings. Two were promoted by negative flyers stating untrue “facts” distributed in our neighborhood. It is apparent that these flyers bring out the negative people who are looking for a forum to complain, with no real interest in learning information.

It was disappointing to see the press report on the complainers and not fact on reasons to upgrade the 30-year-old guidelines.

The presentation that was given at our AHHA (Alamitos Heights Homeowners Association) meeting was informative and given as a complete presentation that invited and received many comments.

At the other two meetings I attended, complainers interrupting made it difficult to follow the actual proposals. It was embarrassing that people would shout derogatory comments in the middle of a presentation to interrupt it. When asked for positive suggestions, these people had nothing positive to say other than more people would increase traffic and ruin the wetlands. I guess they feel that going back 30 to 50 years in time is the only solution.

I purchased my first home Belmont Shore in 1956 for $8,000. I could lament for the good old days also. To ask people not to move here is no solution. Long Beach is a great place to live and people will continue to come. We must prepare some logical guidelines for growth that will still preserve the uniqueness of the wetlands and beautiful beaches of our area.

I still enjoy paddling my kayak near the wetlands areas and riding my bike in this area under discussion.

The suggestions of this committee include some great bike trails and walking routes along connected strip parks. This should get some attention and be done now rather than the negative perception of all building height going to 60 feet. We need traffic mitigation and it will not be done if there is not a proper plan in place that requires developers to provide traffic mitigation as cost of development.

The anti-60 feet comments by the negative hecklers did not allow explanation that only some areas would allow 60-foot heights not to exceed 35% of the building area and only with separation and green space in between, no variance allowed. This will assure no “Big Box” stores will be built in this area.

PCH is a gateway to the eastern section of our city. There will be more cars along PCH even if they are only passing through. We must have a plan that is logical and requires the mitigation of traffic that will increase even if we do nothing. As the plan states this will be more than 10 years to even begin having effect but we must put a logical plan in place now before more unwanted developments are pushed through.

At the age of 74, I expect my bike rides and kayak paddling may diminish in another 10 years. But by then I could enjoy a path for strolling with plenty of rest benches.

This park space would be a great plus even if we must wait that long.

Progress must be made. We owe thanks to the nine members of Councilman DeLong’s advisory committee. You should present the proper facts. The vast majority of the Third District citizens appreciate the efforts of these volunteers, even though our voices get lost in the noise of the hecklers.

Bill Thomas is an AHIA board member.

Park Ave Update

Mike Stewart — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 13:59:56 -0500

Kerrie- thanks for the feedback! Can we consider that an update to the meeting minutes? I am glad to see you organizing a meeting. I'd love to see others involved as well. Please let me know how we can help? Please contact our newsletter comittee regarding a meeting - we will be sedning an issue out to all residents SOON, SOON, SOON - perhaps we can utilize the July meeting?

SEADIP/Traffic

Jim Populi — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 12:19:32 -0500

Thanks, Kerrie.

I too was at the Tot Lot meeting and FOUR of Councilman DeLong's SEADIP meetings. I am astounded that Mr. Woodruff who is a past President of the BHCA and who posts here regularly would support a plan which would go long way towards DEVASTATING our neighborhoods with congestion and traffic. He is ON Councilman DeLong's SEADIP committee and from what I have been hearing and reading he is IGNORING many of our concerns.

SEADIP as it is written needs to be SHELVED and a NEW process begun with REAL community input!!

RE: Traffic Impact

Kerrie-Park Avenue — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 11:53:11 -0500

Regarding the comment: Park Avenue: No news is bad news on Park Avenue. BHCA has no idea what is happening and hasn't had any response or updates from residents involved.

Please make the following correction to your meeting minutes:
Last month I contacted both Mike Stewart & Michael Bohn. I attempted to set up a meeting with Michael to discuss the devastating traffic impact of SEADIP, Downtown, and other planned developments on Belmont Heights. I also sent Michael a 30 page report outlining in detail the severe speeding and accident rates in Belmont Heights, Park Avenue and my concern about an additional 175,000 cars onto our already congested streets. Mr. Bohn was unable to meet with me. I also requested that a special neighborhood BHCA transportation meeting be held to discuss the traffic impacts of SEADIP, Downtown, and Douglas Park developments on Belmont Heights. Understanding that Mr. Bohn does not have the time to commit to such an effort-I am planning a meeting soon and will post the agenda, date, and time on the BHCA website. I have been working with a number of other community groups to develop another vision for Long Beach. Our vision for Long Beach is one that will enhance our quality of life and the environment.... not destroy our neighbor with traffic congestion and pollution.

Along with many Park Avenue Residents, Belmont Heights, and Belmont Park residents I attended Councilman's DeLong's Parking Spots for Tots meeting. Over 400 residents turned out and loudly rejected this plan- the tot lot will remain and the expansion of the Super Mex parking lot was abandoned. I am now working with others to raise funds to upgrade the playground.

Lot Coverage

Mark Hungerford — Mon, 19 Mar 2007 18:48:38 -0500

As per Section 21.15.1620 of the Long Beach Municipal Code, "lot coverage" means the percentage of the area of the lot covered by a building at all levels.

For residential purposes, garage area up to 400 square feet per unit, and up to 600 square feet for a single-family dwelling, is exempt from lot coverage. Accessory structures, such as storage sheds and the like, do count towards one's lot coverage.

lot coverage

John Fries — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 17:10:59 -0500

My recollection from the meeting is that a city rep specifically said that only the house counts in lot coverage calculation, not the garage.

Lot coverage

Bob Kittel — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 20:22:58 -0600

I believe that the garage and or any out buildings are already included in the percentage of lot coverage allowed.

Don't go too far

m_hewitt — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 19:08:53 -0600

I live in a 1923 California bungalow that is right next door to one of the dreaded McMansions, so I think I have as much standing as anyone to voice my opinion that the mansionization problem is overstated.

I do agree with some of the complaint. Houses that are over-large for their lots and that are designed with interior space – not exterior appearance – in mind can be an aesthetic nuisance.

But many of the proposed solutions I have heard discussed are too drastic. Stopping teardowns, imposing an architectural review board or forcing historical preservation are far worse than the problem.

Much more damage was done to quality of life here by the overbuilding of second units during the housing “crisis” of the late 1970s and early 1980s than will ever be done by new single-family homes. Let’s not forget, that situation was exacerbated by a panic “fix” to what was a short-term, market-oriented problem.

Many teardowns and massive remodels have turned out well. I can think of half a dozen examples of excellent new or expanded homes in the neighborhood. Many replaced homes that were ugly or unkempt.

Are these two-bedroom bungalows? No. But it’s silly to expect people to spend nearly $1 million to live in 900 square feet. Inevitably, the average size of houses in Belmont Heights will increase – but that can happen without the neighborhood being ruined in the process.

We can debate aesthetic choices endlessly, but the most basic criticisms of McMansions boil down to two visual issues: They are too massive for the lots they occupy, and this is compounded by large, unbroken vertical expanses.

Those issues can be addressed without Draconian steps.

Foremost, a change in the zoning codes is in order. The current restrictions never anticipated a market for 3,000-square-foot homes with 1,000-square-foot garages on 4,000-square-foot lots.

Two simple modifications would afford property owners reasonable leeway while creating a more satisfying aesthetic for the neighborhood:
1) Include the garage in the lot-coverage formula.
2) Reduce the allowable size of second stories and require that they be set back from the first.

Further, it would be helpful if the city or the association provided would-be builders with information about how to help their projects fit in with the neighborhood. Some free or low-cost architectural resources might go a long way.

The character of the neighborhood is changing, but it always has been. It’s not as if Belmont Heights were Brigadoon, wrapped in an idyllic cocoon until the horrible McMansionists arrived to remove the spell.

We need to create ways to make that change work in our collective favor.

Quality of Life

DAGMAR — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 18:16:10 -0600

That is why I am joining and getting on this website on a regular basis.

I have lived in my home for 29 years and put my heart and soul into it...it has always been a special place to me...never, in my wildest dreams did I think my neighbor who had never even so much as painted the fence we shared for 25 years, would come up with enough money to build a hugh structure that is literally in my tiny back yard...balcony off the master bedroom looks right into my kitchen window and back bedroom window.

The fence we share has literally been falling down for years with me replacing the boards...the supporting beams are on his side and he has done nothing in 25 years.

I can only pray that he does not really want to see what I do in my kitchen and back bedroom and that he puts up some type of screen or something....actually, it would have to be a 25 foot high fence....

Mansionizatoin Forum

DAGMAR — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 18:05:48 -0600

Most certainly everyone should have the right to improve their property. We all benefit from improvements.

There is a right way and a very wrong way to make these "improvements"...doing so without taking into consideration how it is going to directly affect the quality of life of your neighbor is the wrong way.

If one must build a second story that totally takes away all privacy the neighbor had, then put up some type of privacy barrier to accommodate for the intrusion.

Also, what I am seeing is a developer coming in, tearing the existing single family home to the ground, building a hugh, ugly, stucco box style home that looks like a hotel and sticking a "for sale" sign on it the next day.

Remodels in Belmont Heights

Richard Hollingsworth — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 17:48:00 -0600

I live on Bennett in a house remodeled in 1950, it is 3,400 sq ft. It is I suppose by other's definition a "mansion". Would those who would prohibit new remodels want me to shrink my house to suit their definition of what is appropriate. As far as I am concerned my neighbors can remodel to their hearts content. It is their private property and their right to remodel as their budget and hopefully good taste permit, provided they comply with the zoning codes applicable for our homes in this neighborhood. Belmonts Heights is a wonderful neighborhood, and if every house on my street became a two story home it would not harm my quality of life one bit. I suggest the Association stay away from others private property. However, if the Association has any power, could you have the folks in the purple original house on Bennett/Broadway tone down the purple shade on their house just a tad.

My House A Mansion?

Anonymous — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 15:09:56 -0600

Hello, the Mansionization Forum was definitely relevant to me, since my house was one of those featured in the slide show as an example of the "problem" in the neighborhood.

I'd like to suggest that you (collectively) consider all sides of the issue. My husband and I have lived here for 10 years as renters. This is our first house, and we've worked very hard and waited a long time to finally join the ranks of Homeowner. We are proud of our house, and naturally don't feel that it detracts from the neighborhood, or at roughly 2800 sq ft, is a "mansion." Ours is one of many two-storied homes on the block.

I love the historic homes as much as all of you. That, in part, is why we chose to live here. The original home that we bought had been a rental for many years, and was in poor shape. But more than that, we needed room for our growing family. I understand that construction is a nuisance; I understand why you would be upset if your single-story home was suddenly boxed in by two-storied neighbors. If I lived in a one-story, I wouldn't be thrilled about this either. But do you really want to permanently limit, or prevent anyone from making changes to their property? Neighborhoods need young families to remain dynamic--and it isn't ideal for families with several children to live in a two-bedroom, one bath home. (We did this as renters, and are happy to have more space.) I feel that in order to keep the neighborhood attractive to families, there needs to be a choice among housing sizes.

I'm not sure what the solution is, I just want to state that this is my neighborhood, too. My family and I plan to stay here for the long term. Perhaps the quality of life in Belmont Heights would be better served by extending a hand of welcome and friendship to your new neighbors, instead of making disparaging remarks about their homes.

Minutes to be posted soon

Mike Stewart — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 10:26:03 -0600

There might be something in the next grunion, but Im not sure. I dont recall seeing any reporters tho. The press deadline for the grunion is nearly a week before delivery. Check the website later today or tomorrow for meeting minutes. Someone from the Neighborhood preservation committee will be posting. Also, I saw that you took the survey, that's great! Hope others that missed the meeting submit a survey too.

Mansionization Forum

DAGMAR — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 10:20:11 -0600

I sort of thought there would be something on the website as to how the meeting went Wednesday night and I was hoping to see something in the Grunion Gazette about it.