Group of Residents Opposes New Rules on Hillside Building : Development: The planned measures are aimed at safeguarding the semi-rural character of Mt. Washington-Glassell Park.

A small but vocal group of residents has challenged a plan to impose strict new rules on hillside building in Mt. Washington and Glassell Park, saying the proposal is discriminatory and economically damaging.

The group, Citizens for a Fair Specific Plan, has persuaded Los Angeles officials to extend the period for public comment on the proposed Mt. Washington-Glassell Park Specific Plan through the end of March. City planners originally set a Feb. 8 deadline for receipt of written reactions to the plan.

Early this month, the new group submitted its detailed written objections. The challenge has delayed the plan’s consideration by the Los Angeles City Planning Commission and may pose a serious threat to swift approval of the proposed building limits, three years in the making.

Members of Citizens for a Fair Specific Plan argue that rigid new regulation is not needed.

“When we walked around and talked to people, most of them said we don’t need more rules here,� said Virginia Johannessen, a Mt. Washington resident and one of the leaders of the group.

“There were a wide range of concerns that people’s freedoms were being infringed upon. A lot of people stand to lose a good deal of money on their investments if these things go through.�

But supporters of the proposed building limits said the group’s members should have voiced their concerns earlier, at the many public meetings conducted to refine the plan.

“I really feel they had their chance and they missed it,� said Cheryl Kellough, a Mt. Washington resident who served on a citizens advisory committee that helped draft the plan.

“It’s not fair to the neighborhood to now try to delay this further. Every month and every year this drags on, inappropriate construction takes place.�

Johannessen said many property owners did not know the potential impact of the plan prior to a Jan. 17 public hearing conducted by city planners. Several critics of the plan met at the hearing and formed the new group, she said.

In early February the group presented city officials with a petition signed by 60 people seeking more time to comment. In an accompanying letter, the group cited “the discriminatory nature� of the proposed building rules.

“Under these restrictions, only a certain size family falling within a certain economic range and generally sharing certain aesthetic values will be able to live comfortably in the area,� the letter said.

Diego Cardoso, a planning aide to Councilman Richard Alatorre, contacted the group after receiving its Feb. 2 letter. “We felt that in the first letter, they had not really read the plan,� he recalled. “So I said, ‘Why don’t you read the plan, make sure you understand it, then write down some specific concerns?’ �

Alatorre and then-Councilwoman Gloria Molina advised city planners to extend the deadline for written comments on the plan, Cardoso said. On March 3, Citizens for a Fair Specific Plan submitted a more detailed eight-page letter to Alatorre, Molina and city planners.

In it, the group questioned the need for the building rules, saying other new laws would address most of the area’s development concerns. It also charged that there was no “broad citizen participation� in preparing the guidelines.

The letter raised concerns about the proposed building size restrictions, front yard setbacks, architectural design rules, scenic view corridors, walking trails, zoning changes and tree replacement guidelines.

Members of the citizens advisory committee that worked on the building rules said they had never heard of the new group until last week, had not seen its letters and did not know its members had obtained an eleventh-hour extension to file objections.

“I don’t know who these people are or why they didn’t get involved in the process, but they’ve had more than enough opportunities,� Kellough said. “The vast majority of the community has supported it and feels it is long overdue.�

The Mt. Washington-Glassell Park Specific Plan was developed after some neighborhood leaders complained to city officials three years ago that the scenic, semi-rural character of the community was in jeopardy. They said many builders were constructing oversize houses on substandard lots.

The proposed plan would limit the size of new houses, encourage architectural diversity and require builders to provide land for public walking trails. It would give more protection to principal ridges and significant trees and create two scenic view corridors with even stricter building restrictions.

The plan would cover a 2.75-square-mile area that includes about 8,000 parcels zoned for single-family houses. City planners say about 30% of the affected lots are vacant.

“To prevent three or four houses that might be out of scale with the neighborhood, they’re going to affect 8,000 properties,� Johannessen said. “There is just not that serious a problem with overbuilding here.�

Several members of the citizens advisory committee were upset last week because they had not been told of the extension and the document’s delay in getting to the Planning Commission.

“I think it’s ridiculous that we weren’t notified,� Kellough said.

Cardoso of Councilman Alatorre’s office responded, “It was probably just my oversight.�

Donald R. Bloss, chairman of the citizens advisory committee, denied last week that the building rules were developed without broad public comment. He said his panel met in open sessions that were widely publicized and often well attended.

He also denied that the rules were designed to keep out large families. Bloss said Mt. Washington’s oversize houses have been built not to accommodate big families but to justify a higher price and increased profits.

He said his panel will continue to defend the proposed building limits before the Planning Commission and the Los Angeles City Council. “I’m still confident that the plan that was put together by the committee represents the consensus of the community,� Bloss said.