Commentary in the Press
The following are letters that were published in the Glendale News-Press regarding this property. Full names are not included here for privacy reasons.
Times are changing, and so are our homes- October 19, 2007
No one wants to see change in their areas, but times have changed and larger homes are necessary for the current lifestyles and ethnic families that keep the family together instead of marrying them off, etc.
I had to get used to changing neighborhoods. When I moved to south Glendale, I had five homes behind my house. I now have more than 100 units; this was also pre-Design Review Board, but the fact is, these buildings are still there, and that will not change.
I think the City Council will have a lot more homes coming to them because there is no way either Design Review board can second-guess what is going to make everyone happy, other than to stop building.
Carol C - Glendale, CA
Mailbag - October 20, 2007
As a lifelong Glendale resident (73 years) and a resident of Hazbeth Lane for 20 years, I have an extraordinary interest in the construction of a home at 1650 Hazbeth Lane Appeals stacking up on council, Oct. 11.
As most everyone familiar with this project knows, there are quite a few issues of significant concern to the small neighborhood here on Hazbeth Lane, but for emphasis Ill echo what has already been posted and reported in the News-Press.
One of the more contentious issues is the construction of a new road that will parallel the upper portion of the street to terminate on a hilltop site well above the already existent pad at the end of the street.
What is most exasperating to me is the language in the approved conditional-use permit that is absolutely contrary to this statement. Page 2, item B, second paragraph, reads, "The approximately 66.4% average current slope does not pose a problem because only the driveway portion of the project will have to be excavated while the main house will be located within the existing pad."
I only wish this was true.
I e-mailed the zoning administrator on July 30 welcoming this significant change and asking for assurance that this statement was indeed correct.
I never received a response but now have subsequently learned from other residents that the initial plans for 14,000 cubic yards of earth removal is still the plan for the one home.
I hope this and other inaccuracies will be corrected so that the appeals process can go forward with a factual conditional-use permit.
The lack of an environmental impact report is most suspicious. I am beginning to understand the dynamics of how developers push through their projects at City Hall.
We were told at an early meeting with the zoning administrator that an environmental impact report for this project wasn't necessary.
With the massive removal of earth, the destruction of a pristine hillside and major disruption of the lives of Hazbeth residents for an extended period of time during construction, a thorough and factual environmental report should have been mandated. I think it would have gone a long way in assuaging the fears and worries of the neighborhood residents.
Now the process takes us to the City Council. I can only hope that these elected officials have the wisdom to separate fact from fiction and make a reasoned judgment that is in the best long-term interests of what all of us want for our city.
Richard G - Glendale, CA
Mailbag - October 18, 2007
It is my hope that the owner of 1650 Hazbeth Lane would reconsider the dimensions and plans of the home she wants to build (Appeals stacking up on council, - Oct. 11).
A 7,000-square-foot (Home Area Square Footage
First Floor Area = 3493 sf
Upper Floor Area = 1390 sf
Covered Patios = 1275 sf
4-car Garage = 931 sf
) home is preposterous for the city of Glendale. This size home could not possibly blend or complement its neighborhood. Neighborhood compatibility, homeowner privacy and hillside preservation is obviously not on this woman's agenda.In the future, I would want the Design Review boards to be absolutely clear and strict about not allowing homes to be built of this size in already existing neighborhoods. The residents of Glendale want their open spaces.
They want to be able to enjoy their homes without the stress of mansions
Oprah Winfrey's Mansion towering over them. And the city of Glendale needs to protect its hillsides and ridgelines from being destroyed or compromised, because you can't unring the bell.When our beautiful hillsides and lovely neighborhoods are shadowed by monster houses
Oprah Winfrey's Mansion, we won't be able to reclaim what we have lost.Our city government must stay focused on protecting Glendale from being greedily overbuilt.
Suzan T
Mailbag - October 16, 2007
Why do so many issues seem to hang around for so long? Why do we hear all about settlements and variances, when there are zoning and design rules that exist so that we maintain consistency in our communities?
When someone files a petition to gain a variance that is in violation of the codes, just say no! The Hazbeth project (Appeals stacking up on council, Thursday) is not just a little problem — it is really wrong. But still the posturing goes on and on. What's so difficult about seeing that a ridiculously huge new home that is 7,089 square feet (Home Area Square Footage
First Floor Area = 3493 sf
Upper Floor Area = 1390 sf
Covered Patios = 1275 sf
4-car Garage = 931 sf
) is not consistent with the neighboring homes?Haven't we learned that cutting and grading to remove the tremendous amount of soil in this case can cause mudslides?
Ten obvious inconsistencies were outlined in a Community Commentary Saturday titled Facts about Hazbeth project spell 'wrong'. What a hideous proposal this project is. Why does it seem to be so hard to say no when the laws are already on the books?
The City Council seems determined to allow one person's dream house to overshadow our homes and our dreams. We pay taxes and we live here and we will vote come election time.
Sadly, if enough of these inappropriate decisions are made, we all will have lost the treasures of natural scenery and wildlife that brought us to the foothills.
And then there is the Montrose Collection debacle (City, restaurant talk settlement, Oct. 5). But in the Crescenta Valley there already are rules that necessarily restrict such businesses. What kind of wheeling and dealing will make this seem OK to our City Council? Why is it so difficult to tell them no?
Why would the desires of one business be allowed to disturb and threaten an entire residential community for all this time? Why are we hearing about a settlement? How long will we wait to see if those in elected positions can find the strength of character to just say no? Why are we even talking about a settlement when a banquet hall and all their parking requirements in this location is against the law?
Let's just understand that we pay the salaries, and yet they will forsake us? How many thousands of families will be disturbed by the noise and violations of our restful community?
What's at stake here are the very reasons we all moved here in the first place. This is a peaceful, safe and quiet place to raise our families and to rest. Just tell them to go find a more suitable place downtown.
Margaret R - La Crescenta, CA
Home would set a bad precedent - October 14, 2007
After the Zoning Board of Appeals hearing on Sept. 17, a decision on the proposed home at 1650 Hazbeth Lane was delayed until Wednesday (Appeals stacking up on council, Thursday).
If the three board members would have approved the conditional-use permit for 1650 Hazbeth Lane, then the landowner's proposal would have meant a 7,100-square-foot (Home Area Square Footage
First Floor Area = 3493 sf
Upper Floor Area = 1390 sf
Covered Patios = 1275 sf
4-car Garage = 931 sf
) mansion
Oprah Winfrey's Mansion, pool, patios and four-car garage, removing more than 19 feet of hilltop to create a 19,500-square-foot (Home Area Square Footage
First Floor Area = 3493 sf
Upper Floor Area = 1390 sf
Covered Patios = 1275 sf
4-car Garage = 931 sf
) new flat pad, removing more than 14,400 cubic yards of earth, which is an estimated 2,000 truckloads going up and down narrow Hazbeth Lane. The landowner must cut into a very steep hillside with an average current slope of more than 66% to build a private road of 1,100 feet long above Hazbeth Lane that holds up the private part of Glenmont Drive to access the proposed building site for her proposed project.The existing narrow road of Hazbeth Lane now serves nine houses and is approximately 800 feet long. Why would anyone want to build a road that cost so much to just serve one house on almost seven acres of land unless the landowner plans to subdivide the lot and add more homes in the near future? If the landowner gets approval from Glendale, neighbors who live nearby should watch out, as they will suffer during construction for many years while the applicant builds more houses on this parcel. This is exactly what neighbors feel this applicant wishes to do.
The landowner brought in her architect, landscape designer, engineer, friends and family members for support at the hearing.
Neighbors strongly urged the board to tell the landowner to build on an existing flat pad(View of existing flat pad showing ravine and land fill.)
already graded at the end of Hazbeth Lane and to have an agreement with the owners of the private drive to use this existing driveway to avoid the construction of the 1,100 foot long new proposed roadway.
This would eliminate a tremendous amount of new grading, and eliminate the need to destroy the hilltop, hillside and ridgeline, which easily can be seen from all over Glendale. Just use the existing flat pad(View of existing flat pad showing ravine and land fill.)
It was very clear in the last Glendale election that residents want hillside, hilltop privacy and view protection and do not want more mansions
Oprah Winfrey's Mansion and more hillside destruction.Todd S - Glendale, CA
Facts about Hazbeth project spell 'wrong' - October 12, 2007
There are 10 critical facts Glendale residents should know about the 1650 Hazbeth Lane Project.
The facts about the project on Hazbeth Lane speak for themselves. I invite you to look at the site from anywhere on Pacific Avenue, Central Avenue or Brand Boulevard.
Look up toward the Verdugo Mountains ridgeline and you will see this pristine hilltop. Come see the actual site for yourself via Hazbeth Lane and/or Glenmont Drive and you will, without a doubt, confirm for yourself that this proposed project would have an irreversible negative environmental impact on the hillside that would affect all residents of Glendale.
Why is this project so wrong?
Fact No. 1: The 6.6-acre property was originally purchased by the owner in 1988. In 1991, the owner first proposed to develop this hillside lot with the same private road and home with swimming pool. At that time, no environmental impact report was provided by the owner to the city as requested. In 2007, for this current development proposal, no environmental impact report is being required by the city. Why not?
Fact No. 2: Currently there are nine homes on Hazbeth Lane, with the largest being 2,846 square feet (including garage). The proposed home, at 7,089 square feet, is grossly out of character with the neighborhood.
Fact No. 3: Currently Hazbeth Lane is only 615 feet in length and less than 16 feet wide. The proposed private road would be 1,100 feet in length to serve one home, and would parallel the existing end portion of Hazbeth Lane.
Fact No. 4: Current regulations require that if any project proposes to remove more than 1,500 cubic yards of soil, a conditional-use permit is required. This proposal requires more than 14,400 cubic yards of soil to be removed. The pristine hilltop would be chopped down by 19 feet in height to create a 20,000-square-foot (Home Area Square Footage
First Floor Area = 3493 sf
Upper Floor Area = 1390 sf
Covered Patios = 1275 sf
4-car Garage = 931 sf
) flat pad for this home, garage and swimming pool.Fact No. 5: Current regulations do not allow any retaining walls over 5 feet in height without a variance. This proposed 1,100-foot-long private road would require retaining walls all along its entire length, at a height of 20 feet, which I understand are not allowed under current city regulations without a variance.
Fact No. 6: Layout maps submitted for this proposed project show subdivision lines for three separately identified lots. After leveling a pad into the hilltop and carving an access road into the hillside, what will stop the owner from subdividing this lot?
Fact No. 7: The city of Glendale and our entire neighborhood would be affected by this project. Although not a protected site, this lot is home to many species of wildlife and on a daily basis you can see deer, rabbits, quail, owls, hawks and other wildlife.
Fact No. 8: The only reasons offered by the owner for the final design layout of the house and driveway for this project are that it is the only suitable location within the lot to place it, that it offered the best views and that it was the most economical design.
But this is at the expense of the entire neighborhood, wildlife and the city's hillside ordinances. There are definitely other design options for this lot that can give the owner the qualities in her new home that she desires.
Fact No. 9: The proposed project, in my opinion, is not consistent with the general plan and conflicts with the character of our neighborhood and hillside development guidelines. This project will be very detrimental to our safety as well as adversely affect the natural beauty and habitat of our wildlife.
Fact No. 10: Many concerned neighbors have not received notices of meetings even though they wrote letters and attended meetings. Why not?
Beatriz M - Glendale, CA
Better choices exist for Hazbeth property - October 9, 2007
Regarding the proposed 7,089-square-foot structure on Hazbeth Lane and an accompanying 1,100-foot-long private road ("Owner offers a concession," July 4): The developer insists that the owners are looking to build their dream home. We, the affected neighbors on Hazbeth Lane, Glenmont Drive and Larco Way, appreciate the desire to have a dream home.
Although there are no precise definitions of a dream home, there are certainly elements in our current neighborhood environment that make our homes close to achieving that. Privacy and neighborhood compatibility are two important ingredients of a dream home, and we are trying to protect this. We believe the currently proposed development would materially degrade the existing positive attributes of our neighborhood and adversely affect privacy and compatibility. Other more community-friendly options are readily available.
Throughout this process, we have tried to encourage changing the proposed site for the structure from a hilltop requiring more than 14,000 cubic yards of earth removal (approximately 2,000 truckloads of earth and rock) to the existing flat pad(View of existing flat pad showing ravine and land fill.)
The developer has maintained that the proposed project will be landscaped to look like a beautiful garden. While this ethereal vision is on the surface appealing, it does not appear to be pragmatically possible. It does not appear feasible that the current plan to use reclaimed shower water to irrigate this vast expanse of land would be sufficient to irrigate a vegetable garden, let alone 1,100 feet of private road, retaining walls and surroundings.
We wonder why the landowner would go to such great expense and lengths to avoid using the existing road when the existing road could serve to access the property. The developer claims that they were unable to obtain an easement from current homeowners to use the existing road; however, this is patently false and misleading. We have lived on Hazbeth Lane since 1993 and have never been approached by the developer to discuss an easement. To the contrary, when we tried to raise the topic with the developer, we were rebuffed. Further, recent discussions with the previous owner of our home confirmed the same. This only leads us to question the true motives of the developer.
In 1991, the developer filed an application for a conditional-use permit to build on the same lot. Details of the project are filed with the city. Although it is unclear why the project stopped then, it may have been due to the requirement by the city that the developer obtain an environmental impact report, which apparently the developer balked at. Strangely, the city has not required an environmental impact report for this currently proposed project, even though the potentially adverse impact is the same or greater than the one proposed in 1991.
What is clear is that the plan always included the construction of a private road, grading of the hilltop and, like today, the developer did not make serious attempts to work with the pertinent neighbors regarding an easement to use the existing road. After speaking with professionals familiar with the case going back to 1991, it is clear that all these years the developer has been strategizing and working every possible angle to achieve her ultimate goal, which clearly goes beyond the desire to build one house.
It is no secret that the developer has many friends in the city. As an example, one can question the zoning administrator's recent decision to grant the conditional-use permit for this proposed project. It appears that the report supporting the decision to grant the conditional-use permit sought to minimize and obscure the true nature and impact of the proposed development in favor of the developer.
The report, in our opinion, includes serious errors and misrepresentations that lead regular citizens to seriously question the impartiality of the process. Although these errors were brought to the zoning administrator's attention, to our knowledge, these serious errors have not been corrected in the public record.
As we have monitored the file for this case at the city, we saw various versions of maps prepared by the developer included in the file that showed one, two and three lots, even though the current proposal is for one house on the existing lot. At a public meeting at the city as part of the zoning administration hearing, the developer's contractor confirmed lines shown on the map they provided in their presentation were subdivision lines. More evidence that the current proposal is a Trojan horse with ramifications far beyond the current proposal.We would like to ask the developer that if they are serious about being a "good neighbor", then make use of the land in a manner that is more respectful of the neighbors and the environment. The notion of constructing a private road parallel to the existing road that will require massive retaining walls will not only adversely alter the character of the neighborhood but also jeopardize the safety and soundness of the homes on Glenmont Drive and Hazbeth Lane.
Further, evidence suggests the true intentions of this project go beyond building one "dream house". We all would appreciate more candor if this is the case, or if this is not the case, some form of assurance more binding than oral assertions.
We would like to emphasize and inform our fellow citizens that we, the affected neighbors, fully support allowing a property owner to make use of their land. What we oppose is the aggressiveness of this project when more neighbor-friendly alternatives are readily available that better respect the privacy and compatibility of the existing neighborhood.
Kurt and Delma K - Glendale, CA
Mailbag - October 7, 2007
The proposed project at the end of Hazbeth Lane would be a major disruption for the entire neighborhood.
Hazbeth Lane is a very narrow, steep street. In less than a quarter-mile, there is a rise of at least 200 feet. If one of the trucks loaded with dirt lost control, it would pose a hazard for people and property. This could prove to be a liability for the city of Glendale.
Cumberland Road is filled with cracks, and chunks of asphalt are coming out. Considering this is a street with no outlet, a great deal of traffic goes up and down this street. This is the road that all of the dump, cement and material trucks will take on their many trips.
The homes on this section of the street are quite close to the road. When the UPS truck and other trucks go up the street, our houses shake. My neighbors and I have cracks in our walls and ceilings from the normal traffic. What will be left of these streets when the project is over?
If the house was built on the large existing flat pad(View of existing flat pad showing ravine and land fill.)
Louise P - Glendale, CA
Please see Commentary from September, 2007 for more comments.
