Glendale Land-Use Law on Shaky Ground

Three years ago, officials drastically reduced the number of homes that could be built in this city’s hills and canyons, signaling an end to the era of easy development and the dawn of a new age of preservation of Glendale’s few remaining natural areas.

But now, many of the activists who worked on behalf of the ordinance are wondering what happened.

In the past month, the city has agreed to judge two controversial projects--including one of the largest subdivisions ever proposed in Glendale’s history--under older provisions that predate 1993’s hillside protection ordinance.

City officials insist the agreements will save taxpayers money. As part of the compromise, two major developers agreed to drop lawsuits designed to overturn the protection ordinance.

But homeowner groups angrily denounce this turn of events as a return to a bygone era of “rampant development” in Glendale.

“The bottom line is, the hillside ordinance was meant to protect a handful of large parcels of property that remain,” said George Young, an attorney for the Chevy Chase Estates Assn., a group that campaigned for strict building limits in the hills. “The ordinance is being gutted. If the City Council is going to make deals like this, it’s as if there is no ordinance at all.”

Prior to 1993, the City Council approved the development of several large hillside tracts that, once built, were criticized by homeowner groups as too dense, environmentally damaging and just plain ugly.

Critics pointed to phases III and IV of the 197-home Oakmont View development by veteran local builder Gregg Development Inc., whose tract of box-shaped houses was referred to as Coffin Hill, and to the 316-acre, 544-home Rancho San Rafael tract built by Irvine-based Polygon Communities, which involved the carving out of a hillside along the Glendale Freeway.

Community backlash to these projects led the council in 1990 to impose a two-year ban on hillside building, during which it held meetings with city planners, homeowner groups and developers to rewrite Glendale’s 1981 ordinance, which was considered too lax. The new law was modeled after legislation adopted previously in Santa Clarita, La Canada and other cities.

The legislation cut the number of new houses that could be built on city hillsides from 1,042 to 724--far more than what the homeowner groups had wanted, but not nearly enough to generate a fair profit, developers complained.

“Under the old ordinance, roughly speaking, you could build three houses per acre,” said Lee Gregg, vice president of Gregg Development.

“Under the new one, you can build one house on every two acres, so you’ve got one-sixth the yield. It’s as if all of a sudden you’ve got to buy six times as much cloth to make a suit. No one’s going to pay you enough to make a profit.”

Within weeks after the ordinance was adopted, developers filed three lawsuits. In the first, Polygon Communities claimed that its proposed Polygon II, a 41-home project atop an isolated hill above Glendale Community College, should be considered under the old ordinance. The council had rejected the proposal shortly before adopting the hillside protection ordinance.

City officials had invited the developer to try again under the new law, which would have limited the project to about 10 homes, but the suit contended that the project was first submitted to the city in 1989 and therefore should fall under the old, more liberal standards.

In the other lawsuits, Gregg Development charged that the ordinance was null and void because the council had not followed the letter of the law in adopting it. Gregg also claimed that its proposal, filed in 1992, predated the stricter ordinance.

City officials said that all three lawsuits were without merit. But the council chose to compromise to avoid runaway legal fees--at least $330,000 to date--and the possibility of defeat in court, according to City Atty. Scott Howard.

“I still believe the cases are winnable, but winnable at what cost?” Howard said. “You have to also assess the risk. Land-use cases are difficult at best to deal with in the courts. They are very costly, very complex and there is no guarantee of victory on either side.”

Howard said the city’s agreements with Polygon and Gregg are not settlements. In both cases, the developers have simply agreed to put their lawsuits on hold while the city agrees to look at new versions of both projects and evaluate them under the guidelines of the old ordinance.

Polygon will resubmit a 35-home plan for its project, and Gregg will submit plans for two versions of its tract, one with 572 homes, the other with 390.

Howard said both projects must still undergo environmental review and hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. Both developers have reserved the right to sue if their projects don’t pass muster with the city.

“I know there is the perception out there that deals have been worked out where Polygon and Gregg will be getting some kind of development approval, but that is simply not the case,” Howard said. “All we’re saying is, if we can develop some sort of plan that is a win-win and will end this litigation, we’re going to take a timeout and explore that.”

Many of the activists who championed the ordinance three years ago say they are convinced that a back-room deal has been cut. Some say the larger issue is the City Council’s unwillingness to fight to uphold the ordinance.

“I think people are furious about this,” said Rob Sharkey, a spokesman for the Glenmore Canyon Homeowners Assn. and a foe of the Polygon project. “It’s not the facts that have changed in the last three years that have caused this sort of backpedaling. It’s the makeup of the council and the attitude of the council that has changed. It’s back to business as usual in Glendale.”

Shortly after the ordinance was adopted, its two biggest supporters on the council, Carl Raggio and Ginger Bremberg, retired. Bremberg said recently that the council should have “stuck to its guns” and let the matter be settled in the courts.

“I understand that these lawsuits have been hanging over everyone’s head for a long time and both sides would like to get things resolved, but that doesn’t mean opening the door wide and giving developers carte blanche,” she said. “I still have faith in the political process. I hope and pray the council is not going to do that.”

City officials said that by trying to come to terms with the developer out of court, they also are preserving the integrity of the hillside ordinance for the future.

The Gregg lawsuits threatened the ordinance, Howard said. But now, the statute of limitations for challenging the ordinance in court has long since passed. Once the two developers’ cases are resolved, the law will remain intact, he said.

But critics remain unconvinced.

“If they’re going to cave in and get an exception for Oakmont and for Polygon, then other people would probably be able to get the same kind of concession from the city as well,” said Young. “Everyone will say, ‘If you did it for them, why won’t you do it for me?’ ”

The test case, Young said, may be a 153-acre parcel located on a hillside between Chevy Chase and Glenoaks canyons, where developers are preparing to submit plans for a new subdivision to the city. In the early 1980s, another builder proposed more than 400 homes on the site, but the project fizzled. Under current laws, only about 67 homes would be allowed on the land, city planners say.

But City Councilman Larry Zarian, who voted for the ordinance in 1993, said the city is doing its best to uphold it and exceptions will not be made in the future.

“These agreements that we’ve reached in no way bind us. This is not the approval of any project,” Zarian said. “People are accusing us of making back-room deals, but we have only agreed that the lawsuits will be stopped, and we will take a look at new proposals from the developers. I don’t see that as being wrong.

“When you go to court on something like this, there is a 50-50 chance of winning,” he said. “I believe in the hillside ordinance and I don’t want to lose it altogether, so it’s best to see if we can negotiate something rather than risk the whole thing being thrown out.”