Home Building Rules to Change

The City Council, dominated by three new members sympathetic to development, on Monday rejected a proposal to block construction of oversized homes and signaled it would favor a less stringent measure.

Three new council members who voted to reject the so-called “mansionization” ordinance--Fred Balderrama, Samuel Kiang, and Marie T. Purvis--said it was too restrictive and unfairly punished property owners trying to build decent-sized homes.

They said, however, they are willing to pass a scaled-down version of the law that would restrict the floor area of houses only in projects of four houses or fewer.

The new version waives floor area requirements for large, new projects--including the controversial Monterey Views development. During the past few months, council members have clashed over application of the proposed law to Monterey Views, 86 single-family homes proposed to be built on the city’s largest chunk of vacant land.

“People have a right to build on their property,” Purvis said before asking City Atty. Anthony Canzoneri to scale down the ordinance. The action, hailed by developers who attended the council meeting, marks a departure from previous years, when councils controlled by slow-growth activists took drastic measures to curb development in the city--including building moratoriums and stricter rules governing commercial areas.

Mayor Judy Chu and Councilwoman Betty Couch voted in favor of the original ordinance Monday. After it failed to pass, however, they agreed to support the more lenient version.

Couch--a slow-growth advocate who has voted in the minority on development issues since the new council took office in April--said Monterey Park no longer is on the cutting edge of controlling development in the San Gabriel Valley. Other cities--including Alhambra, Arcadia and San Gabriel--already have strict laws to curb construction of bulky, oversized homes.

“We were a leader before, and other cities followed,” Couch said. “It’s not that way anymore. Now (the new council members) want to make everybody happy.”

The revised ordinance, to be considered at the council’s next meeting on Dec. 10, would:

* Limit the amount of ground a house can cover. Houses on lots of less than 6,000 square feet can cover 50% of the lot; houses on lots between 6,000 and 10,000 square feet can cover 40% of the lot or 3,000 square feet, whichever is greater; houses on lots greater than 10,000 square feet can only cover 35% of the lot or 4,000 square feet, whichever is greater

* Require three-car garages for all new houses of more than 3,000 square feet.

* Ban external staircases to cut down on illegal rental units in single family homes.

The original ordinance, which was rejected Monday, would have applied to all new construction. It also would have tightened city rules requiring that new construction not encroach on front lawns.

Under the proposed revision, there would be no added front lawn requirements. The parking requirements and outside staircase ban would apply to all new construction.

Meanwhile, several residents said any restrictions on large homes are unfair.

“You call them monster homes,” David Pedroza said. “Really, all they are is big, beautiful homes. What are we? Jealous because someone’s building a beautiful home in our neighborhood?”