 |
| McMansion Hell - link |
Gabe - Quite a few people were stunned by the outcome of the One Carter portion of last Tuesday night's City Council meeting. The notion that the city has become vulnerable to predatory mansionization due to its money problems is not a pretty one. I imagine the barbarians must be rushing the gates as we type.
Also the thought that the city is no longer willing to pay for attorneys to hold off developers like CETT, or cannot pay for them, is troubling.
But I've digressed. Here is the request for information. I am assuming that it must exist because who wouldn't want to know? It involves future financial planning, and what else does Sierra Madre have that is potentially worth as much as unbuilt property?
- All of the revenue the city would receive should all of the available properties at the Passionist Monastery be developed. From fees to water hookups to permits to taxes, plus anything else.
- All of the revenue the city would receive should all of the available properties at Stonegate (AKA One Carter) be developed. Same categories and any that I may have forgotten to mention.
- Same deal with Stonehouse. All that cash.
Thanks for this. I think it is information people would like to know.
John
Mod: Gabe, however, was having none of it. Rather than coughing up any large and interesting numbers, he states here that City Hall has done no such math.
Hi John - The City is not a partner or party to any development taking place or any proposed developments. The type of information you are seeking is typically created by a developer or owner of a property to show economic benefits to the community. The City has not engaged in any type of financial development scenarios for the properties you have listed.
The Monastery property is zoned institutional. The types of development allowed, either by right or with conditions, in this zone vary greatly, but could range from a hospital to an assisted living facility.
The City currently has a water tap moratorium in place, and because no water taps existed on the property when the moratorium was adopted, no development can take place. The Stonehouse properties have no water taps available and the property cannot be developed. However, Stonehouse is zoned residential, and a residential subdivision development could take place if the water moratorium is ended.
Because we have not seen any submissions for properties this year for the One Carter development we have not calculated the cost of the building or permit fees. We charge for service (plan check, permit, inspection) etc., based on plan submission, but the charges for service equal the cost of the service provided and should not create revenue to the city which is not offset by the expense of the service.
Similarly, because no homes have been constructed, we have not calculated the potential property taxes based on assessed value or any potential impact fees. The City collects property taxes at a rate of 0.0021% of taxable value. A home valued at $1,000,000 will pay $2,100 in property taxes to the City.
Thanks, Gabe
Mod - I have no reason to believe that Gabe is not being on the level here, but you know what? If I was running the show downtown I would have known.
Marguerite Shuster 6/12/18
 |
Madame Mayor and members of the city council, you will not be surprised to hear that I earnestly hope you will reject this proposed house. Quite simply, it fails the eyeball test, as the City Council rightly determined in its previous ruling. That this eyeball test is legitimate is presupposed even by this proposal, which strictly limits the paint color for the house.
The Hillside Ordinance in its relevant drawings implicitly uses it, and not just bare objective numbers, to demonstrate required conformity of proposed dwellings to the contour of the environment. That the previous owners used an unwise grading plan making such conformity more difficult, at least for houses of the desired size, really is not our fault and shouldn’t figure in the decision.
I would suggest that this is not a decision for one house alone in the larger scheme of things. I believe that it is delusional to suppose that this decision will not set a binding precedent for all future construction in this development. And if you want to see what this location will look like 15 years from now, I refer you to the La Vina development in Altadena: sterile, unimaginative, depressing, fully unfitted to its setting. Its earth tone paint doesn’t fix it.
I’m glad for your noticing how the proposed house and landscaping encroaches on one of the very few fine old oaks remaining on the property, but that you needed to note that a new tree can’t quite be planted right under the current one, is all the evidence one could want that no attention has been paid whatsoever to the environment, doing which is required by the Hillside Ordinance.
Furthermore, mitigation hardly suffices when its fruition could not, at best, be enjoyed by anyone now living on the planet. We mutilate the old and the priceless for what we count immediate gain and salve our consciences with mitigation.
Perhaps you’ve heard the fable of the hungry crow He was tempted with a good meal in exchange for a single feather. He hesitated, being rather attached to his feathers, and initially refused, even as you did with respect to this plan. But he got hungrier, and when the tempter came back, he agreed, and felt much relieved after the fact to discover that he could still fly just fine. You know how it went; he got hungry again, and again, and it was easier and easier to give up feathers. One day, not so very far off, he could no longer fly at all, no longer be what a crow is supposed to be.
Yes there are genuine risks and uncertainties in resisting, but the losses produced by not resisting are clear and certain. There has been something unique about Sierra Madre that we have loved and have wanted to protect, but anyone who has been paying attention knows that that uniqueness is under relentless pressure and is visibly fading away, green fence by green fence.
Please vote no on this one.