The August 1st City Council meeting provided another interesting lesson in civics - the law doesn't matter, it's all in who you know or who you've annoyed at City Hall..

The owner of an auto storage lot on San Fernando Road applied for renewal of a variance to allow the continued use of his lot on San Fernando after the City's rezoning a a year or two ago made the lot an unallowable use.  He had a use variance for this property from 1989 through about 2004 if I caught the details correctly.

(Hearsay Department: The applicant (Mr. Carvil Gay, a gentleman who has done a lot for the City over the years) is reported to have been the subject of some controversy with the City Manager several years ago when the Glendale police towing contract was awarded - the City Manager wanted to open the bids to business outside of Glendale, but the City Council voted to restrict it to Glendale operators, so the applicant won the contract 15 or so years ago, which galled Mr. Starbird. Now Mr. Starbird has had his revenge.)

Edith Fuentes, the Zoning Administrator (knowing which side her bread was buttered) denied the variance. The BZA, after a lengthy and carefully debated hearing, overturned the ZA's decision, and granted the variance to allow the owner to continue the innocuous use of his narrow strip of land on San Fernando Road he's enjoyed since 1989.

So City Manager Jim Starbird personally appealed it to the City Council (bet he didn't have to pay the $500 fee), his staff and the City Attorney's office worked overtime to launch a major attack.

The absolutely stunning hypocrisy (on the part of the Zoning Administrator and the City Attorney's office) would have knocked you over if you had followed the 2632 Kennington variance case. Edith Fuentes stood up at the City Council hearing and said that "self-imposed economic impacts could not be considered in making a variance finding" (a fact that she VIGOROUSLY IGNORED in the Kennington case.) Then Assistant City Attorney Gillian van Muyden made the same argument.

Ms. van Muyden is from the same office that totally ignored the established fact of self-imposed hardship in the Kennington case. She stood up on August 1st, however, and gave the City Council a lengthy presentation on what the law states about granting variances. Not only did she say that "self-imposed financial hardship could not be considered when making findings", but she argued against the variance using the identical set of arguments used by the unsuccessful appellant's attorney in the 2632 Kennington case, even citing the same case law!

Why is a self imposed economic hardship grounds for granting a variance in one case (Kennington case) and just 5 months later economic hardship suddenly is NOT allowed to be considered (San Fernando Road case)?? Double standards?  Shameless hypocrisy? Unethical conduct by City staff and councilmen who didn't like the applicant in the recent case? You be the judge.

The irony of this is lost on the City Council, because most of them neither understand nor respect the law, and they just do whatever makes them feel good. The council voted 3-2 to kill this guy's business and therefore allowing Mr. Starbird to have the last laugh after 15 years.

 

What did you think of this article?

Liked
Disliked
No Opinion