Signatures 34 total
Page: 1
-
1
Name: Karen Safer on Jun 14, 2007Comments: definitely support that the MWSP should return to previous allowable building square footage. Car ports should NOT be included with sq. footage.Flag
-
2
Name: Terry Brown on Jun 15, 2007Comments:Flag
-
3
Name: Anonymous on Jun 15, 2007Comments:Flag
-
4
Name: Gerilyn on Jun 16, 2007Comments:Flag
-
5
Name: Gayle Woods on Jun 16, 2007Comments:Flag
-
6
Name: Colleen Parks on Jun 18, 2007Comments:Flag
-
7
Name: Robin Morris on Jun 22, 2007Comments:Flag
-
8
Name: Javier F Malespin on Jul 6, 2007Comments:Flag
-
9
Name: Francisco Bringas on Jul 12, 2007Comments: I agree, that we should not allow the local planning agencies to degrade our community by restricting allowable bldg. areas, that will include garages and covered area as part of your allowable sq. footage.Flag
-
10
Name: Paul Lazarus on Jul 13, 2007Comments: This reinterpretation o the Floor Area Ratio is extremely biased and unfair. It is being promoted by people who have nothing to lose and punishing longtime residents of Mt. Washington as well as newcomers to the area. Uncoverd carports should not be counted as house square footage.Flag
-
11
Name: Brett MacKnight on Jul 13, 2007Comments: Good luck.Flag
-
12
Name: William J Martel Jr on Jul 15, 2007Comments: I am a Mt Washington resident with plans to build on the adjacent property. Our community should welcome the building of beautiful homes and additions on our mountain just as they welcomed the building of small shacks and cottages 90 years ago.Flag
-
13
Name: Michael Burrichter on Jul 16, 2007Comments:Flag
-
14
Name: Karen Safer on Jul 16, 2007Comments:Flag
-
15
Name: Anonymous on Jul 16, 2007Comments:Flag
-
16
Name: Peter J. Faller on Jul 16, 2007Comments: Carports are obviously not part of the living footage.Flag
-
17
Name: Leonidas Easter on Jul 16, 2007Comments: The capricious interpretation of the MWSP is unfair and should not be allowed.Flag
-
18
Name: Anonymous on Jul 19, 2007Comments: this is really unfair, and really not in the spirit of the building codes, we are not talking about a fitted and furnished space here, we are talking about off street parking, which will reduce the amount of cars parked on our streets that can not take any more.Flag
-
19
Name: Andre Bohbot on Jul 20, 2007Comments: I am opposed to any new/diferent interpretation of MWSP and the department of LA building and safety with respect to the existing code and recomendations giving by the department prior of filling for permits.Flag
-
20
Name: Sebastian Fernandez on Jul 21, 2007Comments:Flag
-
21
Name: Anonymous on Jul 24, 2007Comments: If they don't go back to the previous interpretation of the Specific plan, people will build garages, and then, end up using them as living space. More cars will end up on the streets.Flag
-
22
Name: Richard Hofmeister on Jul 26, 2007Comments: In support of Los Angeles Department of of City Planning CASE NO. DIR-2006-0404-SPP project approval. We have been working for two years on four proposed earth-sheltered, green homes with a local Mt. Washington resident and property owner who plans to live in one of the new homes and provide the other three to the marketplace. The property is geotechnically stable, and the project architectural design meets all Specific Plan requirements. Because of this incorrect interpretation by the Area Planning Commission for an appeal brought by a neighborhood group, two of the four homes designed with carports are now infeasible to build, and we are unable to provide two 3 bedroom homes to the marketplace. The lots on the street average 4,000 to 4,200 sq. ft. in size and the real result of this capricious decision by the APC limits FAR so severely that we cannot propose a normal size home (~2,000 sq. ft.) for a typical family. I have reviewed the case file and talked with Planning deputies, and thus far do not agree with the appeal interpretation by APC. The Specific Plan Section 3 states "Floor Area is that area in square feet CONFINED WITHIN THE EXTERIOR WALLS of a building of a One-Family Project." A carport is an unenclosed building and IS NOT CONFINED BY EXTERIOR WALLS. The APC chased a red herring of LAMC 12.03 "building" definition put forth by the proponents of the appeal when they should have killed the appeal not only because of staff recommendation to do so but also the Floor Area definition in the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan supersedes definitions in LAMC 12.03 because it is more restrictive. In R and Hillside zones the garage, carports, or accessory buildings typically do not count toward "Habitable" FAR. The Specific Plan already includes garages as part of FAR by the term CONFINED WITHIN EXTERIOR WALLS. In my opinion the APC has not only misinterpreted the zoning and building code, but also illegally directed the Community Planning Department to reject applications with carport designs until this zoning matter is resolved in the general public domain with due process including notifications and public hearings. If the APC decision prevails the Plan should be amended to exclude from the FAR carports and patios covered by overhanging roofs & floors. None of these covered areas are enclosed, nor confined within walls, nor provide reasonable enclosure for rooms and "habitable" square feet.Flag
-
23
Name: Gregory Rice on Jul 26, 2007Comments:Flag
-
24
Name: Gary R. Cohan, M.D. on Jul 26, 2007Comments:Flag
-
25
Name: Travis Howard on Jul 26, 2007Comments:Flag
-
26
Name: Jonathan Watkins on Jul 26, 2007Comments: I couldn't agree more that this is a bad move for all home owners in the hills areas of Los Angeles and the surrounding areas.Flag
-
27
Name: Jeff Schlosser on Jul 26, 2007Comments:Flag
-
28
Name: James Wecker II on Jul 26, 2007Comments:Flag
-
29
Name: Barbara Cooper on Jul 29, 2007Comments:Flag
-
30
Name: James Finlay on Jul 29, 2007Comments:Flag
-
31
Name: Ann Carroll Davidson on Aug 11, 2007Comments: Don't cause our neighborhoods to be penalized by homeowners who are taking the attitude that "they have theirs" and are not looking to the future. Mt. Washington and Glassell Park will benefit by developers improving these neighborhoods. Developers here are doing Los Angeles a favor.Flag
-
32
Name: Monica Graham on Aug 15, 2007Comments: I cannot believe the power of a few individuals with the most backward sense of right and wrong . This is the most enormous case of discrimination I can't believe LA would risk so much for really so little when you think about what they're standing for. When did it become a hazard for a homeowner to have a carport and a home I have never heard of a community (other than a ghetto) that did not encourage growth and development.Flag
-
33
Name: Anonymous on Sep 4, 2007Comments:Flag
-
34
Name: Michelle Schurer on Sep 14, 2007Comments:Flag
Page: 1