‘Ballot Box Planning’ : Development Fight Heads for La Canada Vote

Residents of affluent La Canada Flintridge have long congratulated themselves for keeping most commercial development out of their city.

Except for a four-mile stretch along Foothill Boulevard lined with fast-food shops, modest businesses and several larger stores, the city is dominated by quiet residential neighborhoods, and homeowners like it that way.

So when a sporting goods store called the Sports Chalet proposed building a 9.5-acre shopping center along the boulevard to replace its aging and cramped quarters at Foothill Boulevard and Angeles Crest Highway, the proposal was not welcomed by many residents.

Three years later, fierce debate over the project continues. It has engulfed elected officials and city planners, pitted homeowners against retailers and led to some nasty name-calling in a bedroom community where most residents are white-collar professionals and the median income is $37,800, more than twice the Los Angeles County average.

April 8 Vote

The issue will reach a climax on April 8, when residents vote on an initiative prompted by the Sports Chalet proposal. The measure, called Proposition A, would give residents the right to veto through referendums any commercial or residential development of more than two acres.

Proposition A would freeze all existing zoning and, taking final say away from the City Council and Planning Commission, would require voter approval for all zone changes from residential to commercial use.

Because the Sports Chalet withdrew its original proposal and has no zone change application pending with the city, the measure could affect that project if a new application is submitted. The debate, however, has widened beyond the Sports Chalet to include the city’s overall development philosophy.

Elected officials, business leaders and some residents say the sleepy Foothill business district can be revitalized without overbuilding. But a group of homeowners fears that the city may begin courting large-scale retailers because of declining sales tax revenue, which is 8% less than expected for fiscal 1985-86. They say Proposition A is needed to give residents extra protection against development.

The initiative is an example of “ballot box planning,” a growing trend in California that began as a backlash against development. Since a state Supreme Court decision 10 years ago opened planning issues to the initiative process, more than 50 local land-use issues have been put before voters throughout the state, with most of the initiatives written by grass-roots political groups untrained in zoning and planning law.

In La Canada Flintridge, city officials say this lack of training has created a poorly worded initiative that will be difficult to enforce. They fear that an ordinance based on such wording might be challenged in court by builders or owners of residential property seeking to have it zoned for more dense development.

This month, the council voted to transfer $15,000 from its general fund to the city attorney’s budget to fight lawsuits that may be filed if Proposition A passes. City officials are also concerned that the measure might scare away potential developers and cripple growth of existing businesses, City Manager Don Otterman said.

Leaders of the Homeowners’ Assn. of La Canada Flintridge, who wrote the initiative and collected enough signatures to place it on the ballot, say Proposition A will preserve residential property and give citizens an active voice in city government.

“Sometimes I question who the City Council is really representing,” homeowners spokesman David Stein said Monday during a community forum to explain the proposition. “It looks like the city is carrying the ball for the developer.”

Warren Gannon, a businessman and spokesman for Citizens Against Proposition A, which was formed last month, said the City Council and Planning Commission have turned down several major developments in the city’s 10-year history.

The initiative “would substitute anarchy for accountability and undermine many of the goals we’ve tried to establish,” Gannon said at the forum, in response to Stein’s remarks. More than 100 residents attended the meeting, which was sponsored by the La Canada Flintridge Coordinating Council and moderated by the League of Women Voters.

Besides Gannon’s group, opposition to the proposition comes from the Chamber of Commerce, the entire City Council and the Mayor’s Advisory Committee on Foothill Boulevard Development. These groups say land use decisions should be left to city officials.

Merchants and city officials are concerned about the loss of several retail stores. Foothill Boulevard has 13 empty storefronts, and sales tax revenues are $90,000 less than expected for this fiscal year, says a city report.

Crime Feared

Supporters and opponents of Proposition A agree that the city needs a more lively business district on Foothill Boulevard. But the homeowners group argues that the Sports Chalet project would exacerbate traffic, pollution, and crime--they say, for instance, that robbers would be drawn to the commercial area.

Otterman denied the homeowners’ contentions in a recent interview. “The city has not been attempting to get large-scale development, no matter what anybody says,” he said. “We’re not going to get developers knocking on our doors when they can go to Glendale.”

Sports Chalet owner Norbert Olberz, whose sporting goods business has annual sales of about $14 million, said last week that he will relocate outside the city if Proposition A passes.

Sports Chalet is in an area designated as the Foothill Community District on the city’s master plan and commonly referred to as “the island.” The area is bounded by the Foothill Freeway on the north and the boulevard on the south, and by La Canada Boulevard on the west and Hampton Road on the east.

Quarters Outgrown

Olberz said that the business, which sells sporting goods, clothing and equipment with a heavy concentration on skiing and outdoor goods, has outgrown the seven buildings it uses and that parking is inadequate. The main building is a converted grocery.

But, after spending $60,000 on site plans, consulting fees and an environmental impact report, he is tired of fighting, he said.

“Why should I go $10 million into debt and tear down 27 homes to make 1,000 enemies. I’m 61 years old, and, if La Canada doesn’t want a new Sports Chalet, we should go where they think differently,” he said.

Three cities already have approached him with offers of help and space, Olberz said, although he declined to identify them. He said it will take three years to relocate completely.

City officials say the company generates about $140,000 annually for the city from the 1% of state sales tax that is returned to communities. That is about 15% of the $1.1 million the city receives annually in sales tax revenues.

Although the loss of Sports Chalet would not cripple La Canada Flintridge, the city can ill afford to lose the tax revenue, Otterman said. La Canada Flintridge has no property tax and depends on sales tax and interest revenues to pay for municipal services such as police and fire protection, tree trimming and road maintenance.

If tax revenues continue to fall, expenses will exceed revenues within five years, Otterman said. If that happens, “It won’t be too long before the city will be faced with possibly cutting services.”

Leaders of the homeowners association call the city’s fears unfounded.

“I really don’t see a catastrophe from Sports Chalet moving. When somebody moves out, somebody moves in,” said Jack Cane, who lives five houses south of Foothill Boulevard.

Through press conferences, mass mailings and kaffeeklatsches, the association has lobbied against the Sports Chalet project and for Proposition A. The group claims 1,100 dues-paying members and another 1,000 supporters.

50 Houses in District

Members say they are especially concerned about development of the Foothill Community District. Cane and others would like to have the island rezoned as residential property and designated as such on the master plan to save about 50 houses within its boundaries. The island is now zoned for mixed commercial and residential use and designated for planned commercial development on the master plan.

Since 1971, Olberz has purchased 27 homes on the island, intending to eventually tear them down. He now rents most of them out, 12 to Sports Chalet employees.

Olberz’ original proposal called for new corporate and retail headquarters, a bank, several retail stores, a restaurant and a 500-space parking lot. Shops and a restaurant now on land Olberz owns would be given first refusal on leases, he said. By providing adequate parking, for instance, expansion would “solve 90% of residents’ complaints,” Olberz said.

Sports Chalet Chief Executive Officer Sam Allen said last week that the company would agree to scrap its plan for a shopping center in exchange for city approval of a larger Sports Chalet and parking lot. But he said he would not submit a new proposal if Proposition A passes.

Olberz first requested the rezoning in May, 1983. After an environmental impact study and public hearings, the Planning Commission approved the zone change in 1984.

The proposal was slated for council hearings early in 1985, but, facing mounting opposition from homeowners, Olberz withdrew his plans and agreed to work with a committee appointed by the council to come up with a compromise.

Called the Mayor’s Advisory Committee on Foothill Boulevard Development, the group advises the city but has no legal authority. Committee members include civic activists, business leaders, preservationists and developers.

Since its formation in February, 1985, the committee has walked the length of the boulevard to evaluate buildings there and has written five drafts of its report. Early drafts recommended rezoning the island for only residential use, but recent drafts favor retaining the planned commercial development designation and support the Sports Chalet expansion.

The committee suggests increased parking, landscaping and construction of sound walls that would shield neighbors from commercial activity. The panel is expected to complete its report within a month but has postponed meetings until after the election because the homeowners group has turned study sessions into “propaganda forums,” said Jim Reynolds, committee co-chairman.

In response, Cane has charged that the advisory committee is a tool of special interests and has failed to conduct an impartial study.

Last year, the city commissioned a $75,000 study of growth along Foothill Boulevard by the Pasadena-based Arroyo Group, a land-use consulting firm. A preliminary draft suggested developing the Foothill Community District as a “village center,” with stores clustered around a town square with a woodsy design, trellises and walkways.

That final report is expected in a few months.