The property is uphill from other residences, and includes a significant ridgeline. Property owners below say that a flat pad big enough for the home would require lopping off the top of a ridge, filling in a canyon, and blocking access to 7 acres of City-owned open space.

The proposed main house would be a multi-story building, twice as big as the El Tovar project, and highly visible to the residents of Royal Canyon, College Hills, and Verdugo Woodlands.

Two neighbors produced site perspectives for the proposed home, using the drawing of the main house submitted by the developer. “Since the developer has not produced a rendition of the project shown in the actual location, we believe this is the most accurate portrayal of what this project will do to a prominent Glendale ridgeline,” said Lyn Foster.

1141 Esmeralda Dr. - View from Las Flores Dr.

1141 Esmeralda Dr. - View from Royal Blvd.

From the Planning Commission Agenda:

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Application for a CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT to construct a new 16,813 square-foot single-family residence and a detached 494 square-foot guesthouse on a vacant lot located in the R1R (Restricted Residential) Zone with an average current slope exceeding fifty percent (50%) and where greater than 1,500 cubic yards of earth material are proposed to be moved, located at 1141 Esmeralda Drive, in the ‘R1R’ – Restricted Residential Zone; Floor Area Ratio District II, described as Lot 209, Bellehurst Hillslopes Tract.

Application for a STANDARDS VARIANCE is proposed in order to gain access to the subject site from an adjoining property (driveway not located completely on the same lot), located at 1141 Esmeralda Drive, in the ‘R1R’ – Restricted Residential Zone; Floor Area Ratio District II, described as Lot 209, Bellehurst Hillslopes Tract.

UPDATE 2-9-2010, 11:15 a.m.: The hearing has been postponed to an undetermined date to allow the Planning Department more time to gather information about the proposal.

None of these questions were answered Wednesday when the Glendale Planning Commission approved a use variance to allow 4 live/work artist units in a new 4-story, 36-unit affordable housing project at 331 and 327 Salem Street. The proposed design will be eligible for state tax credits under SB 1818, include Silver LEED Certification, and provide 57 parking spaces (instead of the 81 that would normally be required under city code).

Consultant Rodney Khan gave the presentation, focusing on the city’s goal of increasing affordable housing and council’s stated goals of creating an arts district and encouraging live/work developments. Khan stressed that the site is only one block away from the Downtown Specific Plan area, where live/work units are already encouraged. Eligibility for the density bonus was determined at a Zoning Administrator’s hearing just that morning.

The lack of a city policy on live/work units had commissioners leaning toward postponement until after the Housing Authority/City Council joint meeting on the subject March 16. But when Planning Director Hassan Haghani and Khan both mentioned the project was on a tight deadline to apply for state tax credits, and the matter would be appealed directly to city council, commissioners decided to approve the project with recommendations.

The project is eligible for the state’s “density bonus” under SB 1818, a law that rewards affordable and low-income housing developments. Coincidentally, Paul Krekorian’s defeat of a Valley Village apartment project and its SB 1818 claims was featured Wednesday in CurbedLA.

Parking was a concern for some commissioners and several speakers who represented area property owners. The fact that live/work units might require special parking accommodations for deliveries, hours of business, clients, art showings, etc., was raised but not resolved.

Eric Yesayan commented, “Regardless of how ‘green’ this project is, we are still losing public parking.” Yesayan, Chang Lee, and Hank Sheets all had strong concerns about parking, while commission chair William Kane said, “I’m satisfied in terms of testimony that it is parking neutral.” Parking ended up being a secondary issue, as commissioners decided to approve the project instead of postpone it based on the state tax credit application deadline.

These were two of the questions addressed during an afternoon panel discussion at the Mobility 21 summit of Southern California transportation leaders. Three government council executive directors, the President and CEO of the California Business Properties Association, and a planning liaison from the California Air Resources Board (who had been on the job for six weeks) took part in the discussion.

According to Governor Schwarzenegger’s fact sheet, SB 375 is the nation’s first law to control greenhouse gas emissions by curbing sprawl, providing emissions-reducing goals for sustainable development, and enhancing the Air Resources Board’s (ARB) ability to reach AB 32 greenhouse gas reduction goals.

The business leaders expressed strong concerns that the “command and control” approach of the state legislature won’t work in implementing greenhouse gas emissions guidelines to be developed in 2010 under this law.

Hasan Ihkrata, Southern California Association of Governments Executive Director, said that targets will only be met if they make economic sense, and if cities and businesses are given “appropriate incentives to encourage sustainable development.”

Lee Harrington, Southern California Leadership Council CEO, warned that “it is developers, at the end of the day, that have to build these projects”, and we won’t have an adequate supply of housing if we negatively impact the economic bottom line for the private sector. He went on to tell the audience that he didn’t want to be stereotyped, because he has invested in solar energy and sustainable materials in his own residence and he does “believe we have to be smarter about the way we live.” Harrington said that the greenhouse gas provisions in SB 375 were “opportunistic” but reflect reality.

Among the business implications of SB 375 for transportation leaders at this discussion:

California lacks a strategic plan for growth and has no financial resources now to fund a plan.

Transit plans are an important component of any future sustainable development proposal, but the state has defunded transit.

At this point, Terry Roberts of the California Air Resources Board acknowledged that the board recognizes the need for more transit funds. The discussion concluded with questions from the audience including ideas about specific incentives beyond the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) negative declarations for projects within 1/2 mile of major public transit stops.

***On an encouraging note, the moderator asked the 70+ people in the room how many of them had taken public transit to attend the Mobility 21 meeting, and more than 1/3 raised their hands. This editor was one of them.

For the latter, the city published a request for proposal from firms with experience in helping cities craft an image or “brand.” Bids on the consulting contract are due this Friday, July 31st. Link to city’s RFP page is below:

RFQ# 071309 – Request for Qualifications for Marketing Consultant Services [Closes: 7/31/2009 5:00:00 PM]

The Glendale Redevelopment Agency (“Agency”) is requesting qualifications for a Marketing Firm to assist the Agency with drafting and implementing a comprehensive citywide marketing campaign. The Agency is seeking qualifications from qualified firms for professional consulting services with experience in the research, design and development of marketing plans with an emphasis on economic development.

If successful, this program would have a much greater impact than the Kenneth Village or other neighborhood farmer’s markets, or even the “Buy Glendale” campaign, which have the limited goal of attracting residents to a local retail area.

Promoting Glendale’s hotels should raise Glendale’s visibility as a business destination. Coordinated marketing efforts to attract businesses to locate here could build on tourism, retail strength, and Glendale’s location (which the Kosmont-Rose Institute cited as preferred in Southern California).

If Glendale can attract more successful businesses, especially currently sought-after and (presumably) recession-proof “high-tech/green” businesses with educated and skilled employees, some of that well-paid daytime workforce might decide to live close to where they work, and spend close to where they live.