Council OKs Expansion of House, but Adds Fee

GLENDALE — In its continuing debate over the city’s “anti-mansionization” law, the City Council on Tuesday gave final approval for the expansion of a Ben Lomond Drive home, but held the property owner responsible for any legal fees the city may incur in defending a legal challenge.

The law, adopted in April, 1991, is designed to prevent the so-called “mansionization” of neighborhoods by construction of oversize homes on standard lots.

By a 3-2 vote Tuesday, the Glendale City Council reaffirmed its commitment to allow Martha R. Satrustegui, owner of the 53-year-old Ben Lomond Drive home, to expand her residence.

But, because a homeowners group has threatened a lawsuit against the city if the 1,500-square-foot addition goes through, City Atty. Scott Howard said he has added a condition to Satrustegui’s variance application that would require her to file a deposit of about $5,000 if a lawsuit is filed. A spokesman for Satrustegui said she accepted the condition.

The deposit would be to cover the city’s costs in defending itself. Howard said he would add a similar condition to all future variance applications, with the amount to be determined on a case-by-case basis.

The city prevailed in a homeowner lawsuit contesting its approval this summer of a home expansion on Spazier Avenue but did not recover costs from the homeowner.

“Rather than spend general taxpayer funds to defend that type of action,” Howard said, “the individual who benefits the most by the variance--the applicant--should bear the cost of defending any legal challenges.”

The deposit would not be required until litigation is filed with the city, Howard said, and the amount would be determined by the city attorney’s office’s estimate of the number of hours necessary to prepare the case for court. The remaining monies in the deposit would be returned to the applicant after legal procedures had ceased.

“Over the years we have developed a pretty good ballparking” of the cost of suits against variances, Howard said.

Howard said deposits in most variance cases would not exceed $4,000 or $5,000, though the sum would depend on the complexity of the case. “Variance cases are not usually that complex,” he said.

Such a deposit would also be required on conditional-use permits, entitlements--such as in a subdivision grant--or a parcel map appeal where the threat of litigation exists.

Despite the assurance that the city would not be hit by legal fees, Council members Ginger Bremberg and Eileen Given continued to oppose the variance.

“It does not comply with the existing code,” Bremberg said. “I shall continue to vote no on granting you this variance,” she told Horacio Martinez, who spoke for Satrustegui at Tuesday’s meeting.

Mayor Carl Raggio and Councilmen Larry Zarian and Dick Jutras voted to grant the appeal after Satrustegui argued that the city’s rules are too restrictive to allow her to build a house large enough to accommodate the needs of her family of five.