Plan to Restrict Hillside Building Debated at Forum : Development: Some think the proposal will stop ‘mansionization.’ Others say it hinders property rights.

A controversial plan to restrict development in tony hillside neighborhoods, where the latest fashion is to build bulky multimillion-dollar homes on small lots, drew praise and heated criticism at a Los Angeles public hearing Tuesday.

Praise came from those weary of congested roads and of an architectural aesthetic that has produced huge houses towering over narrow streets. Others, however, complained that the restrictions would come at the expense of property rights or contain too many loopholes.

The remarks came at a public hearing before the Los Angeles City Council Planning and Land-Use Management Committee, which has scheduled a second hearing on the proposed restrictions for Sept. 24.

The ordinance grew out of concerns that emergency vehicles have difficulty getting to hillside properties on narrow, winding streets that are often clogged with parked vehicles.

As Councilman Michael Woo told the committee, the ordinance is of “urgent public necessity” to prevent incidents such as one that occurred in his district in which an elderly woman died because an ambulance was delayed on congested streets. Fire crews fighting hillside blazes also need better access, he said.

But as the ordinance moved through the planning process, it was broadened to include other goals. Ginny Kruger, planning deputy to Councilman Zev Yaroslavsky, told the planning committee that Westside supporters of the proposal see it as an antidote to the “mansionization” of the hillsides.

The ordinance includes requirements that property owners widen the streets in front of their houses whenever they do add-ons. New houses would have to be at least five feet from the street and have more off-street parking than is now required. The proposed law would also reduce the size of a hillside lot that may be covered by a structure and limit hillside houses to 36 feet in height.

Areas affected are hillside neighborhoods with streets that do not meet current city width requirements, which city planners said generally means areas developed before 1970. The areas involved read like a Who’s Who of blue-chip addresses, including Laurel Canyon, Benedict Canyon and Coldwater Canyon, and such rustic areas as Mt. Washington.

“It’s Ventura Boulevard to Sunset Boulevard and everything in-between,” said Cindy Miscikowski, chief deputy to Los Angeles City Councilman Marvin Braude, who represents the hillside areas of Encino, Woodland Hills, Tarzana, Brentwood and Pacific Palisades--all of which would be affected by the ordinance.

During the hearing, Alan Kishbaugh, a vice president of the Federation of Hillside and Canyon Assns., said he feared that the ordinance would give “too much wiggle room” for planning officials to exempt individual housing projects from controls. “We want an ordinance with teeth in it,” Kishbaugh said.

But there were property owners with development dreams and actual plans who said the proposal goes too far.

Dick Poe, a spokesman for the Hillside Property Owners Assn., said the measure wrongly attempts to impose modern-day subdivision standards on existing neighborhoods. The result, Poe said, would be erosion of owners’ ability to develop their properties. Poe’s association represents individuals and real estate companies with plans for developing their hillside properties.

Caroline Hanson, a Tujunga resident, said the plan would prevent her from building a patio or adding a room.

The ordinance would also require installation of fire sprinklers in new hillside houses and in existing residences expanded by more than 50%.

Chris Griffiths, a leader of a San Fernando Valley group of property owners who favor development, said the sprinklers would increase the price of a new home by $7,000.

Times staff writer Mayerene Barker contributed to this report.

Construction Restrictions

The proposed hillside ordinance would impose the following restrictions:

* Street proximity--Require houses to be built at least five feet from the street. Existing regulations permit a “zero setback.”

* Parking--Require new houses larger than 2,400 square feet to have more off-street parking spaces than are currently mandated.

* Lot proportion--Bar new houses from covering more than 40% of the lot.

* Height--Limit new houses to a height of 36 feet.

* Fire sprinklers--Require installation of automatic fire sprinkler systems in all new houses and in major remodeling of existing houses.

* Street widening--Require the widening of streets when new houses are built or existing residences have room additions.