Hotel Indigo Standards Variance Appeal

Representing Unite Here Local 11, he argued that the variance lacks substantial evidence for hardship and special circumstances, and that the project is ineligible for a CEQA exemption due to piecemeal approvals.

The project representative defended the variance, noting that construction is well underway and the changes adapt the hotel to brand requirements without expanding the exterior building mass.

Project legal counsel argued that the findings are legally supported and that the modifications are internal and minor.

The project manager asked the commission to deny the appeal so construction can proceed.

Representing the general contractor, he noted that construction is too far along to stop and the revisions are practical.

Spoke in support of the hotel project bringing jobs and visitors to Glendale.

The project architect confirmed that additional square footage stays within the approved building envelope.

A union organizer urged the commission to deny the variance, arguing self-inflicted hardship.

A political coordinator for the union stated that removing the public rooftop restaurant eliminates a promised community benefit.

A Glendale resident and union member spoke against the variance through an interpreter.

A caller supported the project and asked to deny the appeal.

The construction manager called in to support the variance modifications.

A nearby resident supported the project, stating it creates no negative impacts.

Objected to the variance as setting a negative precedent for mid-project changes.

A union member argued that developers should follow standard rules rather than seeking repeated variances.