Burbank’s New Era Is Showing Signs of Growth

May 1, 1985, was supposed to be the beginning of a new era for Burbank.

Three political novices were worn in as members of the City Council following a bitter campaign. They had won mainly because of the support of Councilwoman Mary Lou Howard, who felt the trio--Michael R. Hastings, Mary E. Kelsey and Al F. Dossin--shared her philosophy of slowing down development in Burbank.

With the introduction of the newcomers to four-year council terms, the pro-development posture favored by the defeated incumbents was out. Planned growth and the protection of single-family neighborhoods was in.

Now, Howard says, she believes she made a mistake.

“The faces have changed, but the voting pattern, unfortunately, has not,” she said last week. Except for her and Hastings, Howard said, the council has consistently favored developers over residents.

Not So, Others Say

The three other council members deny that they have voted for projects that are incompatible with single-family neighborhoods.

“Nobody told me when I ran that I had to do what Mary Lou Howard wanted me to do,” Kelsey said. “I’m for planned growth, but I don’t want to bring everything to a halt. Because we OKd one or two things, people are saying we’re going overboard. That’s not true.”

In recent weeks, a council majority, including Kelsey and Dossin, has approved a number of large developments in and around residential areas dominated by single-family homes.

The projects have included apartment and office buildings and a controversial 129-home development tract on undeveloped hillside land. The density allowed on some properties was increased to accommodate the developments.

As a result, angry residents have blasted the council, saying the projects will lead to traffic gridlock, pollution, deterioration of property values and crowding.

Council Action Rapped

The residents criticized the council most recently for approving a 34-unit apartment building at 121-133 Brighton St. and a 36-unit apartment complex between Catalina and Niagara streets.

A proposed ordinance to limit residential development was introduced by Hastings two weeks ago and quickly rejected with scathing comments by his council colleagues.

On 3-2 vote after a heated debate, the council also refused to restrict light industrial development in a portion of the city’s Rancho area, which is characterized by residences where horses are allowed to be kept.

Such council votes are sparking anti-growth and anti-council sentiment among residents and community groups. Almost weekly, the council is accused by one resident or another of selling out to developers.

“I’m hearing from people I’ve never heard from before, and they are as mad as hell,” said Hastings, who is also mayor. “People feel they’ve been sold down the river.”

“We’re being developed to death,” complained Jack Irwin, 41, a mechanical engineer who lives near the city’s Media District--the headquarters of several motion picture and television studios. The 36-unit apartment building on Catalina Street will be built nearby.

Irwin said he and others were considering moving out of Burbank or gathering petitions to get a development-limitation ordinance on the November ballot.

“I would like to live in this neighborhood for a long time, but I don’t want to be in an area that will be impacted and changed,” he said.

Annette Baecker, president of the Burbank Mountain Reserve Protection Assn., said the new council ignored a mandate from voters when it approved the 129-home hillside development proposal by builder Sherman Whitmore in December. The city in recent years had denied other proposals by Whitmore to develop the Verdugo Mountains property.

‘An Outrage’

“It was our understanding that the city wanted to preserve that hillside,” Baecker said. “It’s an outrage to have it approved after unanimous denials. But it’s the way things are going all over the city.”

Council members, however, say they have not abandoned residents. Even Robert R. Bowne, a holdover from the previous council who is regarded as the most pro-growth of the five-member panel, said he does not favor rapid development.

“I characterize myself as being for progress,” Bowne said. “I’m supportive of quality development, but I’m mindful at all times of the importance of maintaining residential quality . . . . I balance various aspects in making decisions.”

But Howard insists that the council has not been following the will of the people. She said she erred in supporting Kelsey and Dossin for the council.

“They adopted my philosophy to get on the council,” she said. “They all realized the issue during the election was development. We needed people who were more sensitive to keeping the quality of life.”

Howard had often clashed with former council members E. Daniel Remy and Larry Stamper, who favored development. So when it came time for them to seek re-election, she pushed a slate of their opponents.

“There needed to be a change,” Howard said. “But I made a mistake. The community was led to believe certain things, and those things have not materialized. Now we’ve got a terrible situation on our hands. If these people were running for reelection tomorrow, I would not support them.”

The three council members Howard considers pro-development--Kelsey, Bowne and Dossin--defended their recent votes.

They said the apartment projects are compatible with the neighborhoods. Moreover, they said, restrictions on property development could lead to costly lawsuits. Bowne said the hillside development would bring much-needed high-income housing to Burbank.

City planners say that residents who oppose the plans may be overreacting. They maintain that the recently approved projects do not signal wildfire growth throughout Burbank. In fact, they say, the rate of residential development is lower than in previous years.

City Planner Rick Pruetz said the inventory of dwelling units in Burbank increased by 1,500 in 1986. Last year, he said, there was an increase of 890 residences.

“What we’re going through now is a cyclical process,” Pruetz said. “The number of building permits indicates that the tide has turned. I’m not saying it can’t go up again, but we’re in the down part of the cycle.”

In addition to the developments approved recently, Pruetz said that residents may be concerned by the large amount of construction work taking place in Burbank. But, he said, that building boom was approved much earlier.

The city’s master plan is due to be revised this year, Pruetz said, and one aim will be to protect single-family neighborhoods. Of 2,943 acres zoned for single-family homes, only 13 acres are proposed for development with a higher density, he said.

In addition, officials and Kelsey, Dossin and Bowne maintain that economics will naturally slow development. They argue that moratoriums and slow-growth ordinances will not be needed.

“We need to see what impact all of that will have before we put on additional restraints,” Dossin said. “I feel that basically the entire council would like to achieve the same goal of planned growth. We just have different feelings about how to go about it.”

Neighborhoods affected in recent development decisions by Burbank City Council

1. 129 homes to be built on undeveloped land near residential neighborhood.

2. 249 apartment units and an office building planned near residential neighborhood.

3. 36-unit apartment building to be built near single-family neighborhood.

4. 34-unit apartment building slated near residential neighborhood.

5. Various commercial and light industrial developments proposed for residential area where horses are allowed.