Burbank Rejects Senior Citizens Housing Project

The Burbank City Council has turned down a developer’s request to build a residential project for senior citizens, even though it acknowledged that there is a need for such low-cost housing in the city.

The council voted 4 to 0 Tuesday night to deny developer Thomas Tunnicliffe’s request to build the 3-story, 349-room project. Council members said the project would be incompatible with the surrounding area, which is mostly industrial. They also said residents of the complex would not have easy access to shops and entertainment.

The proposed project has generated controversy because Tunnicliffe refused to commission an environmental impact report, which city officials insisted is required by the state. He called the city’s order that the report be produced “unreasonable and arbitrary.”

Delaying Project

At a 3-hour hearing Tuesday, Tunnicliffe said the city was needlessly delaying a project that would have no adverse effect on the surrounding area.

“There is a crying need for senior housing in Burbank,” Tunnicliffe said. He said there are waiting lists of up to 10 years at existing housing for senior citizens in Burbank.

Council members said they did not dispute the need for such housing. City officials said 440 handicapped or elderly people are on waiting lists to live in low-cost housing in Burbank.

The Tunnicliffe proposal would have included laundry facilities, meeting rooms, a lounge, game rooms and a rooftop recreation area. Rents would have ranged from $400 to $500 a month, Tunnicliffe said.

The site where Tunnicliffe wanted to build, between Olive and Orange Grove avenues, is zoned for commercial and industrial use.

“I really question whether we should have commercial complexes next to a residential complex,” Councilman Michael R. Hastings said. “The seniors won’t be able to walk to retail stores and to entertainment.”

Noise Disturbance

Councilwoman Mary E. Kelsey speculated that residents of the project would have been disturbed by noise from surrounding industry.

The environmental impact report is required by the California Environmental Quality Act because Tunnicliffe must prove that the residential project could be compatible with the surrounding area, city officials said.

City Atty. Douglas C. Holland said it would have been in Tunnicliffe’s best interest to commission the report “but he stubbornly refused. For the life of me, I can’t figure out why.”

Holland said the report could have proved that the project, with some revisions, is compatible with the area.

Tunnicliffe’s son, Thomas Tunnicliffe Jr., president of the firm’s development company, said Wednesday that he did not see what purpose the report would serve.

“We didn’t feel it warranted an EIR,” he said. “We had already spent tens of thousands of dollars developing this thing, and an EIR would not have told us any more than we know now. We didn’t want to wait 9 more months for an EIR.”

The report would have cost about $25,000, city officials estimated.

The Tunnicliffes are also building a 134-room senior citizen housing complex in downtown Burbank. The site is in a residential area so an environmental impact report is not required.