NoVictoryHotel.org

On Friday January 25, 2019 we filed an appeal of the Design Review Board’s January 10th decision regarding the hotel proposal at 1633 S. Victory Blvd.   It was made on behalf of residents in the Glendale/Burbank Rancho, and many neighboring community residents who supported an appeal effort and pledged their financial support.  The appeal fee goal has not been met completely, but nearby residents felt the opportunity was too important to miss.

Appeal timestamped

Many in the community who were discouraged by the January 10th, 2019 decision have not been informed about the campaign to appeal.  And we hope continuing appeal campaign pledges meet or exceed the $2,000.00 required for the appeal filing fee, allowing us to purchase signage and other awareness materials (such a fliers or ads).

In addition to continuing our drive for funding, we are urging the community to reach out to us at admin@NoVictoryHotel.org to coordinate our efforts to bring awareness to the issue, and organize a campaign in which everyone can participate in some way.  I will write more on this later.  Whether through financial contribution, professional service, or creating awareness… YOUR EFFORT IS NEEDED!

Regarding the appeal itself, it was initiated with three major issues important to the community, some mentioned in our earlier post: Do you support, and are you willing to participate in, an appeal of the Design Review Board decision on Victory Hotel?  The appeal process allows for additional facts, studies, and grievances, to be presented as our appeal case is compiled.  However, a summary of concerns were listed to meet the filing instructions and deadline:

1. Circumstances surrounding the solar access study.  It isn’t the study (which upon viewing contains glaring errors, bias, and stated “assumptions”) that is of interest to the greater community, since shadowing of the structure will only affect about a dozen neighbors.  Rather, the manner in which the study was presented to the DRB was a violation of the public’s rights to have access to (and be aware of) all of the facts on which the decision was made.  The study was given to the planning department within two days of the meeting.  It was not available to the public prior to the DRB decision.  It was not previously viewed and vetted by the planner prior to the DRB decision.  And it was approved by the DRB at face value only without additional vetting.
2. We cited objections to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Environmental Impact reports which were approved by the DRB (who stated their primary focus is on “design,” and admit recognition of flaws in this process when it comes addressing matters that have implications beyond the scope of “design” – such as environmental and traffic).
3. Allowing the Applicant’s 64-room design compromises public safety.  It allows  the Applicant to have his customer’s traffic overhang into the public alleyway while as it lines up during high volume times to access the underground parking garage; the same route also accommodates traffic exiting the same parking garage.  Therefore, two-way traffic is created in a public thoroughfare that already endures traffic congestion created by residential, commercial, and municipal vehicles.  Residents along Winchester Ave. access their garages via the public alleyway.  Tenants of multi-residential buildings along Western Ave. also access their parking spaces via the alley.
4. We also included references to:
   1. Development plans not fully addressing privacy issues
   2. Nearby residents who are children, elderly, and toxin sensitive (including caner survivors/patients)
   3. Inadequate public outreach by the Applicant (recorded material supporting this point will be added to our appeal case).

The points made on the application will be further detailed, and supporting facts added, as our case is compiled and prepared to be heard by City Council.  The time estimate for case compilation and a hearing before City Council is three months.

Below is the city code, provided by planner, Dennis Joe, pertaining to the case compilation and the types of information that may be submitted up to one week before the hearing, and information which may be submitted at the hearing:

“All technical materials, including but not limited to: geologic/seismic reports, traffic studies, noise studies, biological studies and any other scientific studies; any visual simulations; and any comparative analytical or statistical report submitted by any interested party to be considered by the city council or planning commission, shall be submitted to the director of community development no later than seven (7) days prior to the scheduled date for consideration by the planning commission, Glendale Redevelopment Agency, or the city council. Materials submitted after the seven (7) days prior to the scheduled date for consideration shall only be considered upon the sole discretion of the planning commission, Glendale Redevelopment Agency, or the city council upon a showing of good cause. Materials which may be submitted at the time of the hearing include: petitions, group or individual letters, photographs, renderings, and presentational aids. If the applicant proposes amendments to the project which substantially changes the project by the intensification of any project impact and/or the imposition of different project impacts, the director of community development shall vacate the scheduled hearing and the matter shall not be eligible for further consideration without the filing of a new application.”

During the filing of the appeal application a member of the Applicant’s development team arrived at the Planning Department office.  Though he was not authorized to speak with us, we were able to inform him and the city planner that the Rancho and nearby neighborhoods are open to communications, and that reaching a resolution prior to going to City Hall is not beyond the realm of possibility.

Members of the Applicant’s team reached out to us the following day, and we are scheduled to speak on Monday January 28th to arrange a meeting with the Applicant.  During our conversation, they were informed that the appeal was filed on behalf of a local neighborhood and greater surrounding community; and, that we are not in a position to make any decisions without prior consultation and input from others involved in the appeal.

Before meeting with the Applicant, it is important for neighbors to meet, discuss our goals, present ideas, and organize our effort.  All parties interested in taking an active part in this appeal are welcome to contact us at admin@NoVictoryHotel.org.  We look forward to meeting, organizing, and working with you.