The City of LA HILLSIDE MANSIONIZATION ORDINANCE working group session

will & erick; here are my thoughts on the proposed hillside ordinance. fine for distribution. andrew sussman The following are comments and suggestions on the ratios and methods for calculating FAR. Small lots, under 7,000 sq ft, need to be allowed a larger minimum size house. The proposed minimums and calculated ratios are too restricted. The existing overbuilding and out of scale homes are 4,000 sq ft and above, on small lots. 2,850 sq ft homes are not the problem. Hillside lots are built with a minimum of two stories and mostly often three stories. 1,000 sq ft footprint is not excessive on a 5,000 sq ft lot, thus a 20% lot coverage footprint. Most of the existing vacant lots require extensive entitlement costs and small homes become financially prohibitive. Hillside construction costs, due to new and upgraded codes and regulations i.e., fire sprinklers, foundation, seismic requirements etc, are higher and require larger homes to be economically feasible. Reducing 4,000+ sq ft homes to 3,000 sq ft homes would discourage speculators yet still allow owner/users to build their homes. This would also improve the design and quality of the homes. Larger homes are desirable because More and more people are working at home and have the need for home offices. Economic situation requires children to live at home longer. More and more aging parents move back in with their children (the need for “granny units” is well understood) Small homes and small budgets are often counter-productive to good design since people will not hire an architect for small projects. Combining of existing lots is difficult if not impossible due to different ownership of lots. Improvements and other infrastructure requirements are not financially feasible due to lack of collective construction. Public works and fire department access requirements have rendered many legal lots not buildable thus ultimately reducing construction and density in existing areas. FAR based on Slope Utilizing a slope a density formula is appropriate when subdividing land but not as effective after lots have been created. Proposed slope density ratios create too many exceptions, variations and/or contradictions when implementing. A steep downhill lot often requires less grading and provides lower visibility (since it sits lower than a less steep lot) than a less steep lot, yet a larger house would be allowed on the less steep lot. A lot with a large flat front yard and a steep rear yard would be required to build a smaller house than the neighbor with a less steep rear yard, even though both homes might be built on the flat portion of the lot. A property with both flat and sloped portions would be allowed to build the same sized house regardless if it were built on the flat area or the slope. This is counterproductive to creating an ordinance in limiting mass and scale. A possible solution is to calculate slope-FAR determined by the footprint of where the house is being built before grading. Height and Story How height is measured is as critical as the actual height limit. Utilizing envelope height standards is significant and will encourage and promote good design. The ability to step a house up or down the existing terrain will minimize grading, improve scale and massing, and further benefits and aesthetic goals. Roof Pitch 25% roof pitch is common for developers since it is the lowest pitch allowed for tile and lightweight concrete roofing. All roof pitches reduce massing and should receive the same additional height benefits. Increasing the height for the overall height for sloped roofs, would encourage better and more innovative designs. 20% residential Floor Area Bonus The five residential bonus options are all beneficial. The goal is to incorporate as many good options as possible. A 5% bonus for each option would encourage more options to be incorporated into the design instead of a 20% for complying with just one. Additional Comments 1. Square footage of new homes should reflect the neighborhood. To require maximum FAR of, for example, 2,000 sq ft and the neighbors with similarly sloped terrain, enjoying 3,000 sq ft homes, is not fair or justifiable. 2. Los Angeles’ climate embraces outdoor living style. The best architectural designs feature large and prominent balconies, decks and patios. Speculators do not utilize these amenities because they do not get a price per sq ft return on those amenities as they would with enclosed space. Balconies, decks and patios add a tremendous visual improvement and break up mass and add scale to residences. These amenities should be encouraged, not penalized, by either adding to the square footage or factored into height limitations. 3. Most hillside homes have limited or no access to yards. The need for additional square footage along with balconies, decks and patios becomes even more critical