Residents Unite in Opposing Downtown style Development North of Glenoaks Blvd.

The Glendale Coalition for Better Government Joins other concerned citizen group and helps draft the below opposition to over development project located at 1100-1108 N. Brand Boulevard, Glendale CA 91202.

INTRODUCTION

On behalf of their members, the undersigned Organizations and citizens of Glendale, hereinafter referred to as “Opponents” submit this analysis in opposition to the 1100-1108 N. Brand Boulevard, project, hereinafter referred to as the “Project”. This opposition is to rebut the preliminarily recommendation submitted by staff of the city of Glendale pursuant to an analysis published on-line dated with original hearing date of June 24, 2015 and to oppose the variance application filed by the applicant dated 3/10/15.

Opponents also request this document be entered in the administrative record and be made part of any decision and finding of facts.

HISTORY AND BACKGROUND

The Proposed Project.

The applicant proposes an oversized box shaped structure covering the ground space from lot-line to lot-line and seeking substantial valiances in areas of height, unit density, floor area density, exterior setback, interior setback, and elimination of open space requirements.

The proposed project located at 1100-1108 N. Brand Boulevard, Glendale, consisting of a five-story mixed use project of eighteen (18) residential dwelling units with 3,000 SF of restaurant space, and 81 on- site parking spaces on a 15,500 SF corner lot similar in shape to recently built downtown Glendale structure.

The project lacks uniqueness and is substantially similar to other recently developed mixed used residential projects in Glendale Downtown Specific Plan (DSP). The project attempts to expand the DSP area outside the zone designated by the city, creeping into the multi-residential area with substantial variance requirements.

The proposed Site Location

A five Story Building located at the northeast corner of Dryden and Brand blvd in an area that is zoned C3 with R1250 requirements for residential development. In specific the location is outside of the Glendale Downtown specific plan and North of Glenoaks Boulevard.

The C3 zone along brand blvd where this project is located runs on both sides of the Brand north until Stocker. It contemplates and expressly provides for mixed use building. One with commercial use on the first floor and residential use on the next two floors. It expressly lays down specific requirements for such a permissive and contemplated mixed use building. But this project seeks variances in excess of those permitted without any justification. The project objective seems to be to extend the Glendale DSP zone to north of Glenoaks. The Glendale Municipal code by design limits the DSP zone south of Glenoaks. The proposed project does not simply request a variance, it seeks to transplant the entire DSP into a C3 zone.

The project brings a massive structure on a corner street that dwarfs similar multi-residential units to its east. Fills all the space from sidewalk to sidewalk without any setbacks, and puts pressure on resources and restrict quality of life choices to residents who do not want the hustle and bustle of downtown Glendale extended outside the Glendale Downtown Specific Plan that terminates south of Glenoaks Blvd.

Community Opposition to projects that seek material variances to long established existing Code.

On June 18, 2015 Glendale Citizens along with civic organizations and with the leadership of the Rossmoyne Mountain Home owners association have come together in a town hall type meeting to discuss this project. There was an overwhelming opposition with the attendance of over 80 individuals at this meeting as depicted in attached Exhibit “A” and with 58 residents signing an opposition petition attached as Exhibit “B”.

Community Concern on the scope and effectiveness of notice regarding this project and suggestion for Additional Notice Requirements

The Opponents expresses grave concern at the minimal notice provided to residents and surrounding Homeowner Associations given the staff’s knowledge of the substantial variances requested. The Opponents request on this and future development for staff to actively reach out to Homeowner associations for input on projects prior to issuance of recommendations. In providing recommendations without significant input from the public creates the perception that staff, through its recommendations, are acting as advocates for the applicant.

Opponents also request that notice radius be increased to developments that request substantial variances as this project does so as to receive a better feedback from the community and provide stakeholders with an opportunity to be heard. Particularly when similar development located outside the 500 foot radius of project is being referenced to justify the granting of variances.

Opponents also request that notices be sent to residents of developments and the neighbors of each development that an applicant uses as a justification for their project. Residents of previously impacted developments should have an opportunity to express the negative impact that a comparable development has had. The objective would be to avoid repeat over and over the over development without evaluating the real life consequences of over-development due to successive developments seeking variances with each relying on the previously build project.

APPLICABLE LAW

Restrictive Rules of interpretation on structures for the benefit and promotion of public health, safety, comfort, convenience and general welfare.

Pursuant to Section 30.03.010 of the Glendale Municipal Code,

“When interpreting and applying the provisions in this part, they shall be held to be the minimum requirement for the promotion of the public health, safety, comfort, convenience and general welfare. Where any portion of this title imposes a greater restriction or regulation upon buildings, structures and/or uses than are imposed or required by other ordinances, rules, regulations or by easements, covenants or agreements, the most restrictive provisions of this title shall apply.”

Glendale municipal code is clear that the objective of the zoning ordinance is the promotion of health safety, comfort, convenience and general welfare of the public. The code clearly requires strict and restrictive interpretation on granting of variances.

Standard of Review must be based on findings of facts

Pursuant to Section 30.43.030 of the Glendale Municipal Code, a variance may be granted only

if the following findings of fact can be made:

• A. That the strict application of the provisions of any such ordinance would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship inconsistent with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance;

• B. There are exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use or development of the property that do not apply generally to other property in the same zone or neighborhood;

• C. The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such zone or neighborhood in which the property is located; and

• D. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the ordinance.

The application submitted by the application is devoid of any facts which would explain why the development of this lot consistent with R1250 standards would encounter practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship. In fact the application simply re-iterates benefits that a mixed used project can bring without ever addressing their burden of proof.

The analysis prepared by staff in recommending the project equally fails to state facts upon which the above enumerated findings must be made for the grant of a variance. The below opposition argues the flaws of the analysis presented and the failure to meet the finding of facts as required by the Glendale Municipal Code.

Burden of proof rests on Applicant seeking Variance.

Section 30.43.040 of the Glendale Municipal code squarely places the burden of proof on applicant seeking variances. Applicant has failed to meet its burden of proof and as such the application must be denied.

The applicant desires to build a mixed used development similar to ones developed in the Glendale Downtown Specific Plan area. While applicant recognizes that this property is outside of the DSP area they simply reiterate the perceived benefits of extending the area north of Glenoaks. Applicant in doing so run contrary to the entire zoning ordinance of Glendale and wish to seek a variance of the requirement of building according to R1250 standards simply because they believe a mixed used development is more “progressive” and in their opinion beneficial to the area. The applicant rationalize their request for a mixed development based on non-conforming buildings in the area that were developed prior to the implementation of the Glendale Zoning ordinance.

The applicant fails to present any facts as to why their property can not be developed according to the R1250 standards and simply try to “sell” the idea of a mixed used development as a more progressive project as the basis for their request of variance. Applicant fails to meet their burden of proof and their request for variance must be denied.

Variances Sought would bestow on the project privileges not commonly enjoyed by other parcels and contrary to Glendale Charter Article III Section 19.

Municipal code 30.43.010 expressly states “the purpose of the variance is to assure that no property, because of the special circumstances applicable to it, shall be deprived of the privileges commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zone and vicinity.” Nowhere is there any evidence that this project has any special circumstances applicable to it that deprive it of privileges not commonly enjoyed by other properties along Brand blvd that fall in to its C3 Zone.

Indeed if the city were to grant these variances, then the project would enjoy privileges not commonly enjoyed by the other properties in this C3 zone and all the adjoining R1250 zones. The code is clear that for a mixed development the developer must comply with R1250 zone requirements. What developer is seeking is a variance form the R1250 requirements. Granting the requested variance would require the city to grant same and similar variances to all C3 and adjoining R1250 properties and as such would no longer be a variance; it would be a repeal of the restrictions and turn the purpose of the variance on its head.

In short the grant of the variance would not deprive this property of privileges commonly enjoyed by other parcels in its zone, it would bestow on the project privileges not commonly enjoyed by all the other parcels in the zone. The grant of variance would be contrary to the Glendale Charter Article III Section 19 that requires that building regulation shall be uniform for each class of buildings throughout any district.

Requested Variances

The table below is a summarization of variance requested. In requesting the variances, applicant fails to provide facts upon which it bases its need for these variances to overcome its burden of proof.

ANALYSIS

Applicant fails to state any facts as to why the requested variances individually or combined would cause practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship

Conclusory statements are not findings of facts. Staff report states that:

“Strict application of the R-1250 standards for the residential portion of the mixed use project would result in insurmountable practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship inconsistent with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. The proposed mixed commercial and residential project is an allowed use in the C3 zone; however, there would be an unnecessary hardship associated with implementing a design that meets all the required development standards, including number of stories, height, FAR, density, lot coverage, setbacks, additional open space, etc.”

The Applicant does not provide any facts as to why these specific requested variances are necessary in overcoming unnecessary hardship. Applicant does not state what type of hardship or practical difficulties would be the hindrance in developing this property. Is it physical limitations, financial constrains, or any other myriad possibilities?

It is not the burden of the community to establish that the project is practical. Nor is it the responsibility of the community to suggest how the property should be developed. The Applicant bears the burden of establishing the basis for a determination of facts as to why compliance with the code will result in undue hardship. The Applicant utterly fails in this regards.

Case by case determination is a requisite of each development. Comparing to previously approved project does not overcome the requisite finding of facts.

Applicant does not overcome the requisite finding of facts by simply comparing to other mixed use projects that have been approved. Each project is determined on a case by case basis that must state with specificity what is unique about this property and how this property can not be developed without the requested variances individually or in combination.

To allow approval of projects by simple comparison to previously approved projects makes a mockery of the code, encourages haphazard and disorderly development and most importantly removes the oversight duty that staff has in implementing the code for the specific purpose of an orderly development of property that is consistent for the subject sight and the specific neighborhood.

Findings of facts as to why this property can not be developed within the required guidelines proceed and must be completed prior to an evaluation whether those variances can be accommodated by the surrounding streets or neighborhood.

Staff report can not simply eliminate burden of establishing facts as to why a property can not be developed by stating that the general area can absorb a variance. Staff report states:

“The requested standards and setback deviations allow the project to provide a functional form of mixed use development that is appropriate for the site, considering its location on a corner of the city’s major commercial boulevard with its extremely wide right of way (130′) which can visually and practically accommodate the increased height, density and minimized setbacks. The proposed type of development is consistent with the intent of the City’s General Plan to provide commercial activity at street level with a housing component above along a major thoroughfare.”

This logic basically states that any property on Brand Blvd can skirt all setback, hight variances because brand Blvd is 130′ wide.

The Applicant must build within the required code, and variances must be approved only when the Applicant establishes that building per code will create undue hardship. Only then do we continue to a determination if granting of variances can be accommodated by the surrounding streets or neighborhood.

The Applicant has failed to provide any facts as to why building to established standards would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship.

A Corner lot does not create an exceptional circumstance.

Applicant incredibly argues that exceptional circumstances applicable to the subject property lot do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone and neighborhood because this property is a corner lot.

Given the fact that there are four corner lots at each intersection and given the facts that Brand blvd intersects with Dryden, Fairview, Glenoaks, West Glenoaks, Arden, Montery and Goode within 1700ft. Corner lots are the norm for the neighborhood and do not present an exceptional circumstance. “Exhibit C”

Desirability of a mixed used project does not in and of itself allow for variances

Applicant argues that mixed use development are supported by the city’s general plan and allowed use in this zone. However Applicant continues to fail to justify any facts as to why he is unable to develop within the code, why he can not develop a mixed used property that incorporates a restaurant on the first floor and above which additional 2 levels of residential units can be constructed.

No facts exist in the analysis presented by that as to why the Applicant can not build a mixed used property within the code.

Granting the Variance would be materially detrimental to the public welfare and injurious to surrounding properties and neighboring developments.

Applicant attempts to transpose the Glendale DSP plan north of Glenoaks contrary to the vision articulated by the Glendale Municipal code. In doing so, Applicant attempts to circumvent its burden of proof and seeks to bestow upon itself rights that it is not entitled to and that are contrary to the zoning ordinance and the Glendale Charter.

The community has demonstrated a strong concern opposing the grant of variances as being contrary to the promotion of public health, safety, comfort, convenience and general welfare as evidences by exhibit A, B and the signatories of this document.

CONCLUSION

The undersigned and the listed citizens of Glendale are opposed to the project as presented and granting of the requested variances would not be based on any finding of facts and contrary to the Glendale ordinance and its objective. The undersigned respectfully request that the variances be denied as requested and the applicant to submit a design consisted with the zoning requirement of the ordinance.