Quick Links
Calendar
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
Archives
XML/RSS Feed
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Jan 11, 2006 04:21 PM
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Jan 11, 2006 04:21 PM
'Coastal Castles' in the News
Mansion located on Harmony Coast (near Schneider property) in San Luis Obispo. For blowup of photo
including unpermitted cliffside stairway and party platform, go to www.cacoast.org/1948 .
Monster
Homes
Extreme in size and luxury, behemoth houses are cropping up around SLO County. Question: Should more steps be taken to control them and, if so, how do we determine what is and is not a monster?
By Bob Cuddy
The Tribune (http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisobispo/news/local/12916592.htm)
You see them more and more these days, tucked away on ridges in Cayucos, hulking above Arroyo Grande, looking down on the wine country northeast of Paso Robles, looming on the Nipomo Mesa.
They are over-sized houses, some would say outlandishly over-sized. They are creeping across the nation from Maine to Mar Vista, drawing an array of deprecating nicknames: McMansion, Starter Castle, Edifice Rex.
The colossus of the moment is a 72,000-square-foot whopper planned for the slopes of Mount Diablo in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Community leaders in some parts of the country are beginning to move against the behemoths, arguing that they destroy the character of neighborhoods and cities.
But while some in San Luis Obispo County deplore the trend, and resistance has cropped up against some specific projects, so far there has been little organized opposition.
The rise of the monster
The county doesn't track the size of homes being built here, but it's undeniable that they are getting bigger.
In 1970, 10 percent of new homes nationwide were larger than 2,400 square feet, according to the National Association of Home Builders. By 1990, that number was 29 percent, and in 2003, it was 38 percent.
The average size of a home in 1950, according to the association, was 983 square feet. That number rose to 1,500 square feet in 1970; 2,080 square feet in 1990; and 2,330 square feet in 2003.
"Four or five thousand square feet is commonplace" in the county's rural areas, said San Luis Obispo County Supervising Planner Mark Janssen. "We see several over six or seven thousand square feet per year."
But at what point does a big house become a monster house?
The answer is "in the eye of the beholder," said Cambria's Wayne Ryburn, chairman of the North Coast Alliance, a nonprofit organization that began in 1997 to monitor coastal issues.
To Ryburn and many others, a house becomes monstrous when it occupies too much of the lot it is on. "People want to stretch it and squeeze out every inch they can," Ryburn said.
That's not always a bad thing, argues developer Jeff Edwards. The 5,800-square-foot home he is planning for Los Osos is "a nice monster," he jokes. "I'm kind of proud of it."
A 'trophy county'?
While there is little general outcry, as there was last week with the county's troubled program to control growth in rural lands through transfer development credits, some county leaders believe opposition to monster homes exists.
"The public cares about the impact of monster houses in scenic areas," said Sarah Christie, a San Luis Obispo County planning commissioner and a member of the California Coastal Commission staff.
Shirley Bianchi, chairwoman of the county Board of Supervisors, argues that many such houses are built by speculators who don't care about Central Coast land and views, except as a commodity. Bianchi said the county is in danger of not remaining a place for families.
"We're becoming a trophy county," she said. "It's not a long-term relationship."
Bianchi and County Supervisor Jim Patterson also see mansionization creating two tiers of homeowners and gradually eroding the nature of the county and what it stands for.
"It tends to gentrify the county," Patterson said. "It does make it more elitist."
"It makes it a wealthy person's paradise," Bianchi said, and such homogeneity changes the nature of a place, "economically, socially, spiritually, any way you want to name it."
Both supervisors also worry that building the big homes in rural areas takes land out of agriculture.
Still, Patterson is reluctant to tell anyone they can't build a super-sized house.
"You get into that whole property rights thing," he said.
A matter of context
One of the limitations in dealing with so-called monster homes is that there's no general agreement on what constitutes one.
"There's no accepted definition that I've ever heard," said Dana Lilley, a county supervising planner. "It depends on the context."
City and county planners acknowledge that the relationship between the size of the house and the size of the lot affects the neighborhood as well as the lot itself.
Most jurisdictions have zoning regulations that mandate the relationship between the lot line and the size and height of the house. The taller the house, the farther it must be from the lot line, said John Mandeville, community development director for the city of San Luis Obispo.
Part of that, said Jeff Hook, the city's senior planner, is for aesthetic reasons, but part also is to "ensure that light and air are available to neighboring structures."
In unincorporated areas of the county, restrictions on homes on lots from one to 500 acres are triggered by an environmental assessment, which can include such things as visual impact.
Regulating impact
While the county controls such impacts to some extent through zoning, the Coastal Commission comes down hard on them. The commission scrutinizes everything that happens along California's 900-mile coastline.
The commission recently ordered Harmony landowner Dennis Schneider to move his proposed 10,000 square foot house away from the cliffs because it would mar sailors' and kayakers' views from the ocean. They also told him to cut the house's square footage in half and disallowed a barn.
By the time they were through, commissioners had reduced the overall size of the development by almost 90 percent. Schneider appealed, arguing that the commission's actions were a de facto denial of the entire project.
The county to the south is looking to regulate monster homes by charging an impact fee that would be used to pay costs associated with workers that the homes would demand.
"Big houses create a disproportionate demand for service workers," said Patsy Stadelman, a planner with Santa Barbara County's comprehensive planning department. Those workers have to live somewhere, she said, and some planners and politicians feel the people who build the houses should pitch in.
The county is doing a study at the moment, Stadelman says, to determine the relationship between king-sized homes and the costs they create. She adds that it's not a new idea: Teton County in Wyoming has an impact fee. And the notion has floated to San Luis Obispo County, albeit informally.
And now...because CoastWatcher is a 'fair and balanced' publication, we'll share the views (excuse the pun!) of the right wing private development advocates. When it comes to monster houses and/or public views, these folks do not recognize such things or the legal right of the public to protect itself against the impacts from such injuries. Similar to every aspect of coastal protection, for critics like Longley, private property and the right to build what you wherever you want trumps all other issues, values, policies, good fiscal decision-making- even common sense. Ed.
Extreme in size and luxury, behemoth houses are cropping up around SLO County. Question: Should more steps be taken to control them and, if so, how do we determine what is and is not a monster?
By Bob Cuddy
The Tribune (http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisobispo/news/local/12916592.htm)
You see them more and more these days, tucked away on ridges in Cayucos, hulking above Arroyo Grande, looking down on the wine country northeast of Paso Robles, looming on the Nipomo Mesa.
They are over-sized houses, some would say outlandishly over-sized. They are creeping across the nation from Maine to Mar Vista, drawing an array of deprecating nicknames: McMansion, Starter Castle, Edifice Rex.
The colossus of the moment is a 72,000-square-foot whopper planned for the slopes of Mount Diablo in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Community leaders in some parts of the country are beginning to move against the behemoths, arguing that they destroy the character of neighborhoods and cities.
But while some in San Luis Obispo County deplore the trend, and resistance has cropped up against some specific projects, so far there has been little organized opposition.
The rise of the monster
The county doesn't track the size of homes being built here, but it's undeniable that they are getting bigger.
In 1970, 10 percent of new homes nationwide were larger than 2,400 square feet, according to the National Association of Home Builders. By 1990, that number was 29 percent, and in 2003, it was 38 percent.
The average size of a home in 1950, according to the association, was 983 square feet. That number rose to 1,500 square feet in 1970; 2,080 square feet in 1990; and 2,330 square feet in 2003.
"Four or five thousand square feet is commonplace" in the county's rural areas, said San Luis Obispo County Supervising Planner Mark Janssen. "We see several over six or seven thousand square feet per year."
But at what point does a big house become a monster house?
The answer is "in the eye of the beholder," said Cambria's Wayne Ryburn, chairman of the North Coast Alliance, a nonprofit organization that began in 1997 to monitor coastal issues.
To Ryburn and many others, a house becomes monstrous when it occupies too much of the lot it is on. "People want to stretch it and squeeze out every inch they can," Ryburn said.
That's not always a bad thing, argues developer Jeff Edwards. The 5,800-square-foot home he is planning for Los Osos is "a nice monster," he jokes. "I'm kind of proud of it."
A 'trophy county'?
While there is little general outcry, as there was last week with the county's troubled program to control growth in rural lands through transfer development credits, some county leaders believe opposition to monster homes exists.
"The public cares about the impact of monster houses in scenic areas," said Sarah Christie, a San Luis Obispo County planning commissioner and a member of the California Coastal Commission staff.
Shirley Bianchi, chairwoman of the county Board of Supervisors, argues that many such houses are built by speculators who don't care about Central Coast land and views, except as a commodity. Bianchi said the county is in danger of not remaining a place for families.
"We're becoming a trophy county," she said. "It's not a long-term relationship."
Bianchi and County Supervisor Jim Patterson also see mansionization creating two tiers of homeowners and gradually eroding the nature of the county and what it stands for.
"It tends to gentrify the county," Patterson said. "It does make it more elitist."
"It makes it a wealthy person's paradise," Bianchi said, and such homogeneity changes the nature of a place, "economically, socially, spiritually, any way you want to name it."
Both supervisors also worry that building the big homes in rural areas takes land out of agriculture.
Still, Patterson is reluctant to tell anyone they can't build a super-sized house.
"You get into that whole property rights thing," he said.
A matter of context
One of the limitations in dealing with so-called monster homes is that there's no general agreement on what constitutes one.
"There's no accepted definition that I've ever heard," said Dana Lilley, a county supervising planner. "It depends on the context."
City and county planners acknowledge that the relationship between the size of the house and the size of the lot affects the neighborhood as well as the lot itself.
Most jurisdictions have zoning regulations that mandate the relationship between the lot line and the size and height of the house. The taller the house, the farther it must be from the lot line, said John Mandeville, community development director for the city of San Luis Obispo.
Part of that, said Jeff Hook, the city's senior planner, is for aesthetic reasons, but part also is to "ensure that light and air are available to neighboring structures."
In unincorporated areas of the county, restrictions on homes on lots from one to 500 acres are triggered by an environmental assessment, which can include such things as visual impact.
Regulating impact
While the county controls such impacts to some extent through zoning, the Coastal Commission comes down hard on them. The commission scrutinizes everything that happens along California's 900-mile coastline.
The commission recently ordered Harmony landowner Dennis Schneider to move his proposed 10,000 square foot house away from the cliffs because it would mar sailors' and kayakers' views from the ocean. They also told him to cut the house's square footage in half and disallowed a barn.
By the time they were through, commissioners had reduced the overall size of the development by almost 90 percent. Schneider appealed, arguing that the commission's actions were a de facto denial of the entire project.
The county to the south is looking to regulate monster homes by charging an impact fee that would be used to pay costs associated with workers that the homes would demand.
"Big houses create a disproportionate demand for service workers," said Patsy Stadelman, a planner with Santa Barbara County's comprehensive planning department. Those workers have to live somewhere, she said, and some planners and politicians feel the people who build the houses should pitch in.
The county is doing a study at the moment, Stadelman says, to determine the relationship between king-sized homes and the costs they create. She adds that it's not a new idea: Teton County in Wyoming has an impact fee. And the notion has floated to San Luis Obispo County, albeit informally.
And now...because CoastWatcher is a 'fair and balanced' publication, we'll share the views (excuse the pun!) of the right wing private development advocates. When it comes to monster houses and/or public views, these folks do not recognize such things or the legal right of the public to protect itself against the impacts from such injuries. Similar to every aspect of coastal protection, for critics like Longley, private property and the right to build what you wherever you want trumps all other issues, values, policies, good fiscal decision-making- even common sense. Ed.
Boaters' Rights Trump Landowners' on
California Coast
Court rules house would spoil view of
boaters, surfers
Dateline: October 2005
By Robert Longley
A San Luis Obispo, CA judge has ruled that the rights of boaters, kayakers, and surfers to view a California coastline free from homes carry more weight that the rights of private property owners.
As a result of the judge's decision California property owner Dennis Schneider will become the first person to challenge a new California Coastal Commission policy that prohibits the building or modification of homes along the California coast to "protect views" from the Pacific Ocean.
In 2000, local officials granted Schneider a permit to build a single-family residence and barn on the 40 acres he owns in San Luis Obispo County. But the California Coastal Commission appealed the county’s decision—to itself—and, not surprisingly, rejected the permit.
Dateline: October 2005
By Robert Longley
A San Luis Obispo, CA judge has ruled that the rights of boaters, kayakers, and surfers to view a California coastline free from homes carry more weight that the rights of private property owners.
As a result of the judge's decision California property owner Dennis Schneider will become the first person to challenge a new California Coastal Commission policy that prohibits the building or modification of homes along the California coast to "protect views" from the Pacific Ocean.
In 2000, local officials granted Schneider a permit to build a single-family residence and barn on the 40 acres he owns in San Luis Obispo County. But the California Coastal Commission appealed the county’s decision—to itself—and, not surprisingly, rejected the permit.
Instead, the commission ordered Schneider to
reduce the size of his home and move it into a ravine—even though geologic
experts told the commission the ravine was unsafe due to the threat of
erosion.
Mr. Schneider took the commission to court, but in
a decision
issued in June, a judge ruled the Coastal Commission’s authority under the
Coastal Act extends to "offshore views." Although the judge likened the
bureaucratic hassles Mr. Schneider has faced during the permit process to "being
nibbled to death by ducks," he nevertheless held: "It is clear to the Court that
the beauty of a sunrise from a vantage point offshore is afforded the same
protection as a sunset seen from land."
The courts decision has been appealed on
Schneider's behalf by the Pacific
Legal Foundation, whose attorney Larry Salzman stated in a press
release, "The Coastal Commission is demanding that Californians sacrifice their
constitutionally protected property rights to the esthetic preferences of random
strangers."
"This is one of the commission’s most
hostile acts against Californians who want to live near the beach," Salzman
said. "It’s an unprecedented power grab that would allow the commission to
reject any and all new building along the California
coast."
"What’s next--banning boating on the Pacific so that beachgoers have a pristine view of the sea?" he said.
//////
"What’s next--banning boating on the Pacific so that beachgoers have a pristine view of the sea?" he said.
//////
Posted: Thu - October 20, 2005 at 11:33 AM