Glendale Giving Away Too Much Too Soon in Hillsides : Precious land shouldn’t be sacrificed to avoid legal costs

Glendale officials have taken a big step backward by choosing to negotiate their way out of two lawsuits challenging a 3-year-old ordinance that protects the city’s hillsides from too much development. In the past month, the city has agreed to consider two hillside housing projects--one of them among the largest in Glendale’s history--under less restrictive rules than those imposed by the 1993 law.

City officials claim the move saves money and actually protects the ordinance from a possible loss in court. Already, Glendale has spent about $330,000 defending the law against attacks from Gregg Development Inc. and Polygon Communities. The two developers have different complaints about the ordinance, but share the common goal of building larger projects than the law allows. Gregg Development, for instance, proposes a project as much as five times bigger than the 107 houses permitted by the law.

We support negotiation over costly litigation in most cases. But in this case, Glendale is giving up too much too soon. Irreplaceable hillside land should not be sacrificed to avoid legal costs that are relatively minor in the long run. Granted, land-use cases are costly and complicated and can drag on for years, but surrendering calls the city’s commitment to the ordinance into question. Neither developer was deprived of the use of its land and the ordinance would allow both to build smaller projects--although they claim the houses would cost too much to attract buyers.

Guaranteeing a profit is not the city’s problem. Indeed, if Glendale is serious about protecting the dramatic hillsides that grace the city, it should defend the ordinance rather than buckle. Critics of the deal claim it opens the door for other developers to circumvent the law’s limits. And while the statute of limitations to challenge the ordinance has expired, the city’s willingness to negotiate these two cases could encourage others to exploit a perceived weakness, pushing harder during the normal give and take of the approval process. Over time, the ordinance could well become toothless.

Consider, too, that if these two projects are approved as proposed, they alone would account for up to 607 of the 724 new houses the ordinance permits in the hills. Even if other developers ask for no special consideration and build only to the limits of the law, the caps set by the ordinance would be destroyed.

City officials insist that they will consider both proposals on their merits and are not predisposed toward approving either one. But because both developers retain the right to continue the court battle if they don’t like the city’s final decision, deliberations over the projects will appear tainted by the threat of litigation. In fact, it’s quite possible that the city will end up back in court no matter how it rules on the projects. If it turns the projects down, it could face the developers. If it approves the projects, it could face already angry residents.

The desire to save public money is an admirable quality in local government. But in this case, the savings come at too high a price.

Irreplaceable hillside land should not be sacrificed to avoid legal costs that are relatively minor in the long run.