Hillside House Sizes Remain Unresolved

Los Angeles city planners squared off this week against a citizens advisory committee chosen 19 months ago to map out a plan to control growth for the steep hillsides and scenic ridges of Mt. Washington and Glassell Park.

Left unresolved by the two sides after three hours of haggling was the most significant question that has arisen during development of the growth-control plan: How big can a house be before it dwarfs those around it, blocks panoramic views and undermines a community’s rustic flavor.

Some of that flavor is being whittled away, said Bob Wolfe, a Mt. Washington resident, while the city and the citizens committee debate how to preserve the area’s character.

“We have seen incredible changes in Mt. Washington just since this committee was formed,” Wolfe said at Monday’s meeting, citing a number of large houses built on small lots during the past two years, as real estate values have risen. “What we feared would happen in five years has happened in one year.”

City planners and members of the citizens committee agree that restrictions should be placed on the size of new homes or homes undergoing major remodeling. But the planners and the citizens committee have devised two completely different formulas to limit the scale of new development.

The citizens committee favors a formula based on the ratio of proposed floor space to the area of each lot that can be used for construction. The numbers in the formula would change depending on lot size, to allow for “reasonable” development on small lots without permitting oversized houses on larger lots.

The Planning Department, seeking a simpler standard, prefers one that would permit a house’s footprint--the outline it would make on the land--to take up 30% of any lot that slopes up from a road, or 35% of any lot that slopes down from a road. The permitted height of new homes would depend on the slope of the lot.

The Planning Department’s formula is figured on the entire size of a lot, not just its space that can be used for construction. Committee members said such a formula would allow developers to plunge extra stories down steep hillsides.

The citizens committee also objects to the city formula because it wouldn’t take into account the total “bulk” of a house as it sits on its lot, said committee Chairman Donald Bloss.

The Planning Department, on the other hand, considers the committee plan to be so complex as to be incomprehensible to city staff members who review the blueprints that must be submitted to the city for approval.

“What good is a plan if it won’t be implemented properly?” asked Sutton. “We come up with all these nice plans that nobody understands, and when developers come in for sign-off, I can’t even tell you how many mistakes there are.”

Bloss, a Mt. Washington resident, said the Planning Department was trying to override the will of the citizens committee.

Committee member Laurie Weir charged that the Planning Department’s formula would have the effect of encouraging development on the steepest hillsides, since more floor space would be permitted on sharply sloped lots.

“On this hill, we can’t assume dumb developers,” she said . “We . . . were hoping the really steep lots would be left as almost vertical green plains.”

Weir said that the committee originally was told to come up with a plan based on the unique needs and characteristics of Mt. Washington. Suddenly, a year later, the Planning Department decided it wanted all hillside communities to conform to one simple plan, she said.

“This committee was not told when we set out that we needed to fit in,” Weir said. “We were told we were this special little community.”

Some compromises between the citizens and planners were achieved during Monday’s meeting at the Carlin G. Smith Recreation Center atop the historic mountain community.

The planners agreed to toughen the department’s recommendations to the city Planning Commission for new off-street parking requirements in the area. The committee-backed proposal, which the planners agreed to accept, would require any new Mt. Washington house of more than 2,600 square feet to include at least one additional off-street parking space.

The planners, led by principal neighborhood planner Robert H. Sutton, said they would recommend at the committee’s request that the owners of recreational vehicles--dubbed “monsters” by the committee--be required to screen them from public view.

They also agreed to delete language that would have obligated new homeowners to paint their homes in “subdued” colors, in response to a plea from the Mt. Washington-Glassell Park Specific Plan Citizens Advisory Committee for a development plan that would allow more diversity.

In addition, the citizens and planners said Mt. Washington’s rural character should be protected by preserving walking trails and promoting shopping and child care within the neighborhood.

They also agreed to create so-called “scenic corridors” along Mt. Washington Drive and San Rafael Avenue, where development would be required to be low enough to not block scenic views.

Architectural diversity would be encouraged, native plants would be protected, and walls and fences would have to be limited in height.

The committee decided to meet with planners again at 7 p.m. on May 7 at the Recreation Center to try to work out compromises on the issues left unresolved. Then, a public hearing will on the neighborhood specific plan will be scheduled.

Once public input has been heard, the Planning Department staff will present its recommendations, along with those from the committee, to the Los Angeles City Planning Commission for a vote.