Agenda packet, first session — Glendale City Council, January 11, 2022

A G E N D A

GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL
(STAFF ACCESS ONLY) COUNCIL CHAMBERS
613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor
Glendale, CA 91206
Meetings are broadcast live on Glendale TV, viewable on Spectrum Cable, channel 6, and AT&T U- verse, channel 99. Meetings are also streamed live in high definition (HD) on the city's webpage, glendaleca.gov/live , on YouTube.com/myglendale , and on Apple TV, Roku, and Amazon Fire devices using a free app called Screenweave and choosing “Glendale TV” from the menu. Meetings are also archived on the City Website for viewing anytime at glendaleca.gov/agendas . Call (818) 548-4013 for program schedules. DVDs of the proceedings are available for purchase in the City Clerk's Office.

If you have any question about matters on the agenda, or requests for assistance, please contact the City Clerk at (818) 548-2090 during regular business hours.

PLEASE TURN OFF CELLULAR PHONES WHILE INSIDE THE MEETING LOCATION In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, auxiliary hearing aids, sign language translation, and Braille transcripts are available upon request. Assisted listening devices are available same-day upon request. At least 48 hours (or two business days) notice is required for requests regarding sign language translation and Braille transcription services. All documents related to open session items on this agenda that are received less than 72 hours prior to this meeting, and are public records, will be available for review in the Office of the City Clerk, 613 E. Broadway, RM 110, Glendale, CA 91206.

Translation services are provided for meetings through the use of bilingual staff for speakers who wish to utilize the service as available. Speakers should state their request by contacting the City Clerk’s office at (818) 548-2090, at least 24 hours prior to the scheduled meeting. Please specify the language for which you require translation. The exclusive use of City provided interpreters is not required and persons are welcome to use their own interpreter or speak in their native language.

JANUARY 11, 2022 AT 6:00 PM
To help slow the transmission of COVID-19, and protect the health and safety of the community, City Council, as well as Board & Commission meetings, will continue to be closed to the public for in-person attendance.

The public is encouraged to watch and participate from the safety of their homes to practice social distancing. Meetings are broadcast live on Glendale TV, viewable on Spectrum Cable, channel 6, and AT&T U-verse, channel 99. Meetings are also streamed live in high definition (HD) on the city's webpage, glendaleca.gov/live , on YouTube.com/myglendale , and on Apple TV, Roku, and Amazon Fire devices using a free app called Screenweave and choosing “Glendale TV” from the menu.

For public comments and questions during the meeting, call (818) 937-8100. Public comments on a specific agenda item will be taken when that agenda item is discussed. 1 TYPED 1/11/2022 9:23:52 AM
01 11 22
CC

REVISED
- Item 3b was added

ROLL CALL

1. CLOSED SESSION – 1:00 PM (To Commence at 3:00 PM )
a. Public Employee Appointment – Director of Finance and Information Technology

2. REGULAR BUSINESS AGENDA – 6:00 PM
Roll Call
a. Flag Salute: Mayor Devine
b. Invocation: Aram Adjemian, City Clerk
c. Report of City Clerk, re: Posting of Agenda. The Agenda for the January 11, 2022 Regular Meeting of the Glendale City Council was Posted on January 4, 2022 on the Bulletin Board Outside City Hall

3. PRESENTATIONS AND APPOINTMENTS
a. Agenda Preview for the Meetings of Tuesday, January 18, 2022 b. Martin Luther King Jr. Day Proclamation

4. CONSENT ITEMS (Including Minutes)
The following are Routine and May be Acted Upon by One Motion. Any Member of Council or the Audience Requesting Separate Consideration May do so by Making Such Request Before Motion is Proposed.
a. City Clerk, re: Minutes of the Regular City Council meeting of November 16, 2021, November 30, 2021, and December 7, 2021, Special City Council meeting of November 16, 2021, and December 7, 2021, and Joint Housing Authority and City Council meeting of November 30, 2021
b. Public Works, re: Uninterrupted Power Supply Improvement at Four Downtown Parking Garages; Award of Construction Contract

1. Motion authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute a construction contract with Electro Construction, Corp. in the amount of $927,000 plus a construction contingency of 10% ($92,700) for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $1,019,700 to provide construction services for the install of Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) at four downtown parking garages

2. Resolution of appropriation appropriating $300,000 to fund the installation of Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) at four downtown parking garages c. Public Works, re: Appropriate Funds for the Victory Boulevard Project

1. Resolution of appropriation in the amount of $5,951,587 to provide adequate funding for the Victory Boulevard Project
d. Public Works, re: Public Works Department As-Needed Miscellaneous Services

1. Motion Awarding a Contract to Electro Construction Corp. for as-needed Electrical Systems Services at Various City Facilities Project (Specification No. 3895) for the not- to-exceed amount of $640,440.00 and three (3) years and directing the City Manager or his designee to execute the contract

2. Motion Awarding a Contract to Omega Construction Co., Inc. for as-needed General Building Repairs Systems Services at Various City Facilities Project (Specification No. 3897) for the not-to-exceed amount of $598,770.00 and three (3) years and directing the City Manager or his designee to execute the contract
2 TYPED 1/11/2022 9:23:52 AM
01 11 22
CC

3. Motion Awarding a Contract to Prime Painting Contractors, Inc. for as-needed Protective Coating and Painting Services at Various City Facilities Project (Specification No. 3898) for the not-to-exceed amount of $345,600.00 and three (3) years and directing the City Manager or his designee to execute the contract

4. Motion Awarding a Contract to H.L. Moe, Co. for as-needed Plumbing Systems Services at Various City Facilities Project (Specification No. 3899) for the not-to-exceed amount of $425,655.00 and three (3) years and directing the City Manager or his designee to execute the contract

5. Motion Awarding a Contract to AME Builders, Inc. for as-needed Roofing Systems Services at Various City Facilities Project (Specification No. 3900) for the not-to-exceed amount of $490,094.40 and three (3) years and directing the City Manager or his designee to execute the contract
e. City Attorney, re: Consideration of a Resolution to allow the City Council and all City legislative bodies to continue to meet remotely pursuant to the Brown Act as amended by A.B. 361

1. Resolution authorizing the continuance of remote teleconference meetings of the City’s legislative bodies for a period of an additional 30 days in accordance with A.B. 361

5. CITY COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS

6. COMMUNITY EVENT ANNOUNCEMENTS (3-Minutes)

7. ADOPTION OF ORDINANCES
a. Community Development, re: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE CITY’S ZONING MAP TO ADD A NEW

ZONING DESIGNATION ENTITLED THE SOUTH CUMBERLAND HEIGHTS HISTORIC DISTRICT OVERLAY ZONE (Brotman, 12/14/2021)
b. Community Development, re: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA AMENDING THE C I T Y ’ S ZONING MAP TO ADD A NEW

ZONING DESIGNATION ENTITLED THE C A S A V E R D U G O H I S T O R I C D I S T R I C T O V E R L A Y Z O N E ( K a s s a k h i a n , 1 2 / 1 4 / 2 0 2 1 )

8. ACTION ITEMS

9. HEARINGS

10. REPORTS - INFORMATION

11. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS

12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Discussion is Limited to Items NOT a Part of this Agenda. Council May Question or Respond to The Speaker But There Will be no Debate or Decision. The City Manager May Refer the Matter to the Appropriate Department for Investigation and Report.

13. NEW BUSINESS

14. ADJOURNMENT
3 TYPED 1/11/2022 9:23:52 AM
01 11 22
CC
4 of 282
1 12 07 21
CC

M I N U T E S

GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL
(STAFF ACCESS ONLY) COUNCIL CHAMBERS
613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor Glendale, CA 91206
DECEMBER 7, 2021 AT 6:00 PM
ROLL CALL – All Present

1. CLOSED SESSION – 3:09 p.m.
a. Conference with Legal Counsel – Pending Litigation: City of Los Angeles, v.

City of San Fernando, et al., L.A.S.C. Case No. C650079; United Statse of America, and State of California v. ITT Industries, Inc., Lockheed Martin Corporation, et al. Case No. CV99-00552MRP
b. Conference with real property negotiators. City negotiators attending the closed session are: Roubik Golanian, Phil Lanzafame, Bradley Calvert, Tamar Sadd, Michele Flynn, Michael J. Garcia, and Gillian van Muyden. Property location: 216 S. Brand Blvd. Negotiating Parties: Museum of Neon Art.

Instructions to the negotiator(s) will concern the price and terms for the lease of property
c. Conference with Legal Counsel – Pending Litigation: Claim of David Ayvazyan, Claim No. 21-0210
City Attorney Mike Garcia indicated that action is not anticipated. Council recessed to Closed Session at 3:09 p.m.

2. REGULAR BUSINESS AGENDA – 6:05 PM
Roll Call – All Present
a. Flag Salute: Council Member Agajanian
b. Invocation: Aram Adjemian, City Clerk
c. Report of City Clerk, re: Posting of Agenda. The Agenda for the December 7, 2021 Regular Meeting of the Glendale City Council was Posted on December 1, 2021 on the Bulletin Board Outside City Hall

3. PRESENTATIONS AND APPOINTMENTS
a. Agenda Preview for the Meetings of Tuesday, December 14, 2021 Deputy City Manager John Takhtalian provided the preview. b. Appointment to Greater Los Angeles County Vector Control District Board of Trustees
Najarian appointed Agajanian for the position.

Vote as Follows

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Agajanian, Brotman, Kassakhian, Najarian, Devine
None
None
None
5 of 282
2 12 07 21
CC
Item 4b pulled for separate consideration.
a. Glendale Water and Power, re: Participation in the California Arrearage Payment Program (CAPP) and California Water and Wastewater Arrearage Payment Program (CWWAPP); Appropriation of Funding for Said Programs

1. Resolution 21-197 approving participation in the California Arrearage Payment Program
Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Brotman
Vote as Follows

2. Resolution 21-198 approving participation in the California Water and Wastewater Arrearage Payment Program
Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Brotman
Vote as Follows

3. Resolution 21-199 appropriating $5,200,272 received from the State of California for the California Arrearage Payment Program and appropriating $950,269 received from the State of California Water and Wastewater Arrearage Payment Program Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Brotman
Vote as Follows
b. Glendale Water and Power, re: Task Order for Operation, Maintenance and Remote Monitoring Services for Ice Bear Units under the Master Goods and Services Agreement with Ice Bear SPV #1, LLC dba Thule Energy Storage, and the Southern California Public Power Authority
Public Comment:

Burt Culver
Staff Comments:

Roubik Golanian, City Manager
Mark Young, General Manager of GWP
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Agajanian, Brotman, Kassakhian, Najarian, Devine
None
None
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Agajanian, Brotman, Kassakhian, Najarian, Devine
None
None
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Agajanian, Brotman, Kassakhian, Najarian, Devine
None
None
None
6 of 282
3 12 07 21
CC

1. Motion authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to execute a Task Order with Ice Bear SPV #1, LLC dba Thule Energy Storage (“TES”) under a Master Goods and Services Agreement with the Southern California Public Power Authority (“SCPPA”) for Operation, Maintenance and Remote Monitoring Services for Ice Bear Units for a not-to- exceed amount of $450,000 for three-year term, with an option for the City to extend the contract for two additional one-year term, for a total not-to-exceed amount of $300,000 for both years
Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Brotman
Vote as Follows
c. Glendale Water and Power, re: Furnishing & Installing a New Station Battery System, and Removal & Proper Disposal of an Existing Battery System at the Glendale Water & Power Department’s Scholl Substation

1. Motion authorizing the Deputy Director of Finance/Purchasing to issue a Purchase Order to Las Colinas Engineering dba Las Colinas Electrical for furnishing & installing a new station battery system, and removal & proper disposal of an existing battery system at the Scholl Substation for the amount of $54,417 Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Najarian
Vote as Follows
d. Libraries, Arts, and Culture, re: California State Library Community Connections Grant, Request for Authorization to Accept Grant Funds in the amount of $60,000

1. Motion accepting Community Connections grant funds in the amount of $60,000 from the California State Library, and authorizing the City Manager or a designee to execute all agreements, amendments, certifications, and documents necessary to accept and implement the funding
Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Najarian
Vote as Follows
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Agajanian, Brotman, Kassakhian, Najarian, Devine
None
None
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Agajanian, Brotman, Kassakhian, Najarian, Devine
None
None
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Agajanian, Brotman, Kassakhian, Najarian, Devine
None
None
None
7 of 282
4 12 07 21
CC

2. Resolution 21-200 of Appropriation
Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Najarian
Vote as Follows

5. CITY COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS
Council Members Agajanian and Kassakhian sent their condolences to the Gevorkian family for the untimely passing of Tevan Gevorkian.

Council Member Kassakhian asked staff on what has been done on the noise level coming from the Nissan dealership on Brand Blvd. He asked staff to extend the Blue Ribbon Commission for another four meetings. Brotman seconded. Mr. Brotman asked staff to provide a memo on the progress of the Blue Ribbon Commission meetings regarding the pension system. Mr. Kassakhian asked Council to adjourn in memories of Vartiter Kotcholosian Hovannisian, M.D. and Senator Bob Dole.

Council Member Najarian asked staff to provide a list of lobbyists for the city. City Attorney Mike Garcia indicated that staff will forward the link from the city’s website that lists all of the lobbyists.

Mayor Devine thanked Community Services and Parks for the lovely tree lighting ceremony at Perkins Plaza. She announced that the Adult Recreation Center will have a clothing drive this Sunday.

6. COMMUNITY EVENT ANNOUNCEMENTS (3-Minutes)
Jackie Gish
Mike Mohill

7. ADOPTION OF ORDINANCES

8. ACTION ITEMS
a. Finance, re: Annual financial reports for the City of Glendale as of June 30, 2021 Staff Comments:

Roubik Golanian, City Manager
Adrine Isayan, Deputy Director of Finance
Presenting:

Shu-Jun Li, Deputy Director of Finance
Daphne Munoz, Clifton Larson Allen Consultant
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Agajanian, Brotman, Kassakhian, Najarian, Devine
None
None
None
8 of 282
5 12 07 21
CC

1. Motion to accept City of Glendale’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting, and Communication with Those Charged with Governance for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2021 Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Najarian
Vote as Follows

2. Motion to note and file the Financial Status Report for the year ended June 30, 2021 Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Najarian
Vote as Follows
b. Finance, re: Financial Status Update Report-September 30, 2021 Staff Comments:

Roubik Golanian, City Manager
Matt Doyle, Director of Human Resources
Mike Garcia, City Attorney
Presenting:

Adrine Isayan, Deputy Director of Finance

1. Motion to note and file the Financial Status Report for the period ending September 30, 2021
Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Brotman
Vote as Follows

2. Resolution 21-201 of appropriation approving $1,086,838 in adjustments to the adopted fiscal year 2021-22 Budget
Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Brotman
Vote as Follows
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Agajanian, Brotman, Kassakhian, Najarian, Devine
None
None
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Agajanian, Brotman, Kassakhian, Najarian, Devine
None
None
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Agajanian, Brotman, Kassakhian, Najarian, Devine
None
None
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Agajanian, Brotman, Kassakhian, Najarian, Devine
None
None
None
9 of 282
6 12 07 21
CC
c. Community Development, re: Consideration of Interim Urgency Ordinance Regarding Senate Bill 9 Housing Development and Lot Split Projects and Senate Bill 478 Floor Area Ratio Standards
Staff Comments:

Roubik Golanian, City Manager
Mike Garcia, City Attorney
Silvio Lanzas, Fire Chief
Phil Lanzafame, Director of Community Development
Presenting:

Kristen Asp, Principal Planner
Yvette Neukian, Senior Assistant City Attorney
Public Comments:

Rondi Werner
Cathy Jurca

1. Introduction of Interim Urgency Ordinance of the Council of the City of Glendale, California, Establishing Interim Standards and Ministerial Processes for Reviewing and Approving Eligible SB 9 Projects and Setting Minimum SB 478 Floor Area Ratio Standards for Certain Multi-Family Housing Development Projects Introduced by: Agajanian

2. Fee Resolution 21-201 Amending the Adopted 2021-22 Citywide Fee Schedule by Establishing Fees for SB 9 Projects
Moved: Najarian Seconded: Agajanian
Vote as Follows
d. Management Services, re: Report Providing for the Establishment of Classification Titles and Compensation for Employees of the City of Glendale and Revisions to the Glendale Municipal Code Pertaining to Certain Department Heads and Departmental Functions
Presenting:

Roubik Golanian, City Manager

1. Intro. of Ordinance Providing for Certain Officers, Subordinate Officers, Assistants, Deputies, Clerks, and Employees, Establishing Officer Positions in the City of Glendale entitled Fire Chief/Deputy City Manager and Director of Finance & Information Technology, Renaming the Director of Human Resources classification to Director of Human Resources/Chief HR Officer, and Establishing Compensation for Specified Positions
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Agajanian, Brotman, Kassakhian, Najarian, Devine
None
None
None
10 of 282
7 12 07 21
CC
Introduced by: Kassakhian

2. Intro. of Ordinance Amending Title 2 of the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995, Pertaining to Certain Department Heads and Departmental Functions Introduced by: Kassakhian
e. Public Works, re: Equipment Replacement Capital Outlay for Glendale Water and Power (GWP) and the Public Works Department (PWD)
Presenting:

Yazdan Emrani, Director of PW

1. Resolution 21-202 of Appropriation to Appropriate Funds for Various Equipment Replacement Capital Outlay Procurements
Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Kassakhian
Vote as Follows

9. HEARINGS
a. Community Development, re: Property Owner Request for a Mills Act Historical Property Contract for 3021 E. Chevy Chase Drive (Calori House, Glendale Register No. 23)
Hearing opened at 8:40 p.m. and closed thereafter.

Presenting:

Jay Platt, Principal Planner
Public Comment:

Gabriella Zecchetto

1. Motion authorizing the City Manager to enter into a Mills Act Historical Property Contract with the owner of 3021 E. Chevy Chase Drive
Moved: Kassakhain Seconded: Agajanian
Vote as Follows
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Agajanian, Brotman, Kassakhian, Najarian, Devine
None
None
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Agajanian, Brotman, Kassakhian, Najarian, Devine
None
None
None
11 of 282
8 12 07 21
CC

10. REPORTS - INFORMATION
a. Update on the Transit Electrification Study
Staff Comments:

Roubik Golanian, City Manager
Yazdan Emrani, Director of PW
Presenting:

Calstart Consultants
b. Central Library Youth Spaces Design Update
Staff Comments:

Roubik Golanian, City Manager
Dr. Gary Shaffer, Director of Library, Arts, and Culture Presenting:

Johnson Favaro Consultants

11. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS

Vahe Seradjian
Aram Kazazian
Malcolm Johnson

13. NEW BUSINESS

14. ADJOURNMENT– 9:55 p.m., adjourned in memories of Vartiter Kotcholosian Hovannisian, M.D. and Senator Bob Dole
Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Kassakhian
Mayor of the City of Glendale
City Clerk of the City of Glendale
12 of 282
1 12 07 21
SP CC

M I N U T E S
SPECIAL MEETING: GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL
(STAFF ACCESS ONLY) COUNCIL CHAMBERS
613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor
Glendale, CA 91206
DECEMBER 7, 2021 AT 9:00 AM
The Special Meeting of the Glendale City Council convened in the Council Chambers, in said City, at 9:03 a.m. on the above date, pursuant to a call for such meeting signed by the City Clerk of the City Council, and on file with the City Clerk, a copy of which is as follows:

December 1, 2021
Date
A SPECIAL PUBLIC MEETING of the City Council is hereby called to meet at 9:00 AM on Tuesday, December 7, 2021, in the Council Chamber, 613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor, Glendale, CA 91206 to consider the following item(s) of business, to wit;

1. Management Services, re: Approving Work Plan for FY 22-23 Written Notice of said meeting was given, which Notice consisted of a copy of the foregoing Call, and was served on each Member of the Council not joining in the Call, and upon the in said City not less than 24 hours before the time fixed in said Call for said meeting, as follows:

Upon Vrej Agajanian at 5:00 p.m. December 1, 2021 Glendale, CA Upon Dan Brotman at 5:00 p.m. December 1, 2021 Glendale, CA Upon Ardy Kassakhian at 5:00 p.m. December 1, 2021 Glendale, CA Upon Ara Najarian at 5:00 p.m. December 1, 2021 Glendale, CA Upon Paula Devine at 5:00 p.m. December 1, 2021 Glendale, CA Mayor Devine called the meeting to order at 9:03 a.m.

ROLL CALL
- All Present
- Report of the City Clerk of the City Council, re: Posting of Agenda. The Agenda for the Tuesday, December 7, 2021 Special Public Meeting of the City Council was posted on December 1, 2021 on the Bulletin Board Outside City Hall

1. Management Services, re: Approving Work Plan for FY 22-23 Presenting:

Roubik Golanian, City Manager
Jennifer King, Management Partners
Rod Gould, Management Partners
4A
13 of 282
2 12 07 21
SP CC
Motion to approve the work plan but direct staff to review the items identified by Council and bring those back for consideration
Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Najarian
Vote as Follows
ADJOURNMENT – 10:11 a.m.

Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Kassakhian
Mayor of the City of Glendale
City Clerk of the City of Glendale
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Agajanian, Kassakhian, Najarian, Devine
Brotman
None
None
14 of 282
1 11 30 21
CC

M I N U T E S

GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL
(STAFF ACCESS ONLY) COUNCIL CHAMBERS
613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor Glendale, CA 91206
NOVEMBER 30, 2021 AT 6:00 PM
ROLL CALL- All Present

1. CLOSED SESSION – 3:39 p.m.
a. Conference with Legal Counsel – Pending Litigation: Kayayan v City of Glendale, L.A.S.C. Case No. BC708782
b. Conference with Legal Counsel – Pending Litigation: City of Glendale et al. vs Kemp Bros. Construction, Inc., et al., L.A.S.C. Case No. 19STCV37455 City Attorney Mike Garcia indicated that action is indicated on item 1b. Council recessed to Closed Session at 3:41 p.m.

2. REGULAR BUSINESS AGENDA – 6:05 PM
Roll Call – All Present
a. Flag Salute: Mayor Devine
b. Invocation: Aram Adjemian, City Clerk
c. Report of City Clerk, re: Posting of Agenda. The Agenda for the November 30, 2021 Regular Meeting of the Glendale City Council was Posted on November 24, 2021 on the Bulletin Board Outside City Hall

3. PRESENTATIONS AND APPOINTMENTS
a. Agenda Preview for the Meetings of Tuesday, December 7, 2021 Deputy City Manager John Takhtalian provided the preview.

Items 4b and 4c pulled for separate consideration.
a. City Clerk, re: Minutes of the Regular City Council meeting of November 16, 2021, the Special City Council meetings of November 6, 2021 and November 16, 2021, and the Joint City Council and Housing Authority meeting of November 16, 2021 Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Najarian
Vote as Follows
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Agajanian, Brotman, Kassakhian, Najarian, Devine
None
None
None
4A
15 of 282
2 11 30 21
CC
b. Public Works, re: Specifications for the Traffic Signal Modifications on Honolulu Avenue and Pennsylvania Avenue at Montrose Avenue Project Staff Comment:

Yazdan Emrani, Director of Public Works

1. Resolution 21-194 adopting the Plans and Specifications for the Traffic Signal Modifications on Honolulu Avenue and Pennsylvania Avenue at Montrose Avenue Project, Specifications No. 3842, Plan Nos. 1-3082, 50-678, 50-679, 50-680, 50- 681, 50-682, 50-683, 50-684; and directing the City Clerk to Advertise for Bids Moved: Brotman Seconded: Agajanian
Vote as Follows
c. Public Works, re: Professional Services Agreement (PSA) for Design and Engineering Services for Renovations of Fire Stations 23 and 27 Staff Comment:

Yazdan Emrani, Director of Public Works

1. Motion authorizing the City Manager or a designee, to execute a PSA with IDS Group, Inc. for Design and Engineering Services for Renovations of Fire Stations 23 and 27 in the not-to-exceed amount of $203,830, plus 10 percent for contingencies or $20,383
Moved: Brotman Seconded: Kassakhian
Vote as Follows

5. CITY COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS
Council Member Kassakhian asked staff to provide a report, in collaboration with GUSD, on teaching driver’s education to high school students. Brotman seconded. Mr. Kassakhian asked staff to provide a brief summary report on the franchise system for waste hauling.

Agajanian seconded. He asked staff to provide a report on water conservation. Brotman seconded.

Council Member Najarian asked staff to provide a report on other measures that are available the city has not yet taken regarding impounding and confiscation of vehicles. He talked about the letter received from the mayor of Glendale’s sister city, Higashiosaka.

Council Member Brotman asked staff to install bike sensors on traffic lights.

Mayor Devine and Mr. Najarian attended the Montrose tree lighting ceremony. She invited the Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Agajanian, Brotman, Kassakhian, Najarian, Devine
None
None
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Agajanian, Brotman, Kassakhian, Najarian, Devine
None
None
None
16 of 282
3 11 30 21
CC
public to attend the tree lighting ceremony on Friday at 6pm at the Perkins Plaza. She read a list of best restaurants in Glendale from LA Times newspaper.

6. COMMUNITY EVENT ANNOUNCEMENTS (3-Minutes)
Mike Mohill

7. ADOPTION OF ORDINANCES
a. Community Development, re: AN ORDINANCE 5978 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF

THE CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA, EXTENDING, BY TEN MONTHS AND FIFTEEN DAYS, INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 5977 PROHIBITING

ISSUANCE OF ENTITLEMENTS AND/OR PERMITS FOR HOTELS IN THE

DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AREA OF THE CITY AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF (Brotman, 11/16/2021)
Moved: Brotman Seconded: Kassakhian
Vote as Follows

8. ACTION ITEMS
a. Fire Department, re: Fire Department annual presentation of the status of state mandated fire inspection
Staff Comments:

Roubik Golanian, City Manager
Presenting:

Silvio Lanzas, Fire Chief
Public Comment:

Aram Stepanian

1. Resolution 21-195 recognizing the Glendale Fire Department’s level of compliance with California Health and Safety Code Sections 13146.2 and 13146.3 Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Brotman
Vote as Follows

9. HEARINGS
a. Community Development, re: Appeal of Planning Commission’s denial of Conditional Use Permit and Special Recreation Review regarding a proposed Biogas Renewable Generation Project to be located at 3001 Scholl Canyon Road (vehicular access via 7721 North Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, CA 90041)/ APNs 5662-023-900, 5666-001-904, 5666-002-900, 5666-002-901 and 5666-002-902 Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Agajanian, Brotman, Kassakhian, Najarian, Devine
None
None
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Agajanian, Brotman, Kassakhian, Najarian, Devine
None
None
None
17 of 282
4 11 30 21
CC
Hearing opened at 7:05 p.m. and closed at 11:01 p.m.

Staff Comments:

Roubik Golanian, City Manager
Mike Garcia, City Attorney
Mark Young, General Manager of GWP
Silvio Lanzas, Fire Chief
Gillian van Muyden, Chief Asst. City Attorney
Presenting:

Dennis Joe, Senior Planner
Maurice Oillataguerre, Environmental Program Administrator Michael Weber, Stantec Consultant
Karl Lany, Environmental Solutions Consultant
Dr. Jackie Gish, Applicant
Public Comments:

Sean Starkey
Sevan Kaltakjian
Angelina kalpakjian
Allen Dichigrikian
Jack
Rocio Rivas
Michael McDonald
Marla Nelson
Victoria Valentine
Angelo Sarkissian
Sara Levy
Nina Chomsky
Priscila Kasha
Malcolm Johnson
Walt Kasha
Jean
Mary Fischer
Kim Turner
Mona Valeriano
Joan Morris
Mauricio Sifuentes
Helen Mallory
Mike Mallory
Steve Bullock
Dan Cruz
Kurt Sawitskas
Justin King
Lawrence Meyer
Shant Sahakian
Elise Kalfayan
Mark Rothenberg
Alexander Yesayan
Linda Pillsbury
18 of 282
5 11 30 21
CC
Audry Zarokian
Alan Kish
Manuel Maktapkian
Joe Valeriano
Burt Culver
Giselle Topal
Eileen Patrick
Council recessed for five minutes and reconvened at 10:48 p.m.

1. Resolution 21-196 certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report and approving the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Moved: Najarian Seconded: Agajanian
Vote as Follows

2. Motion to approve Conditional Use Permit No. PCUP 2012782, and the Special Recreation Review No. PSRZDR 2012781 subject to the attached findings and the recommended conditions of approval
Moved: Najarian Seconded: Agajanian
Vote as Follows

3. Motion to sustain the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the Conditional Use Permit and Special Recreation Review applications
Brotman asked staff to provide a report confirming there will be no expansion of landfill once it reaches its fill level and that staff will develop a plan on closure and post closure planning, including the financial aspects and parks and open-space potential. Seconded by Kassakhian.

10. REPORTS - INFORMATION

11. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Agajanian, Najarian, Devine
Brotman, Kassakhian
None
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Agajanian, Najarian, Devine
Brotman, Kassakhian
None
None
19 of 282
6 11 30 21
CC

13. NEW BUSINESS
a. Motion to resolve all claims, including fees and costs related to thereto, as against Kemp Bros. Construction and Commercial Roofing in the case of City of Glendale v. Kemp Brothers Construction, L.A. Superior Court Case No. 19STCV375 in exchange for payment to the City of Glendale and/or Kasdan Turner Thomson Booth LLP in the amount of $3,166,666.00
Moved: Najarian Seconded: Agajanian
Vote as Follows

14. ADJOURNMENT – 12:07 p.m.

Moved: Najarian Seconded: Agajanian
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Agajanian, Brotman, Kassakhian, Najarian, Devine
None
None
None
Mayor of the City of Glendale
City Clerk of the City of Glendale
20 of 282
1 11 16 21
CC

M I N U T E S

GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL
(STAFF ACCESS ONLY) COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Glendale, CA 91206
NOVEMBER 16, 2021 AT 6:00 PM
ROLL CALL – All Present

1. CLOSED SESSION – 3:51 p.m.
a. Conference with Legal Counsel – Pending Litigation: San Agustin v.

City of Glendale, L.A.S.C. Case No. 18STCV03307
b. Public Employee Performance Evaluation – City Manager c. Conference with Legal Counsel – Pending Litigation: In Re National Prescription Opiate Litigation, MDL No. 2804
City Attorney Mike Garcia indicated that action is anticipated on item 1c. Council recessed to Closed Session at 3:52 p.m.

2. REGULAR BUSINESS AGENDA – 6:04 PM
Roll Call – All Present
a. Flag Salute: Council Member Kassakhian
b. Invocation: Aram Adjemian, City Clerk
c. Report of City Clerk, re: Posting of Agenda. The Agenda for the November 16, 2021 Regular Meeting of the Glendale City Council was Posted on November 10, 2021 on the Bulletin Board Outside City Hall

3. PRESENTATIONS AND APPOINTMENTS
a. Agenda Preview for the Meetings of Tuesday, November 23, 2021 Meetings have been cancelled. The next regular meetings will be on November 30, 2021.

Item 4b pulled for separate consideration.
a. City Clerk, re: Minutes of the Regular City Council meetings of October 26, 2021 and November 2, 2021 and the Joint City Council and Housing Authority meetings of October 26, 2021 and November 2, 2021
Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Najarian
Vote as Follows
4A
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Agajanian, Brotman, Kassakhian, Najarian, Devine
None
None
None
21 of 282
2 11 16 21
CC
b. Public Works, re: Submittal of Urban Forest Expansion and Improvement Grant Application
Staff Comment:

Loren Klick, Urban Forester

1. Resolution 21-182 authorizing the Director of Public Works or his designee to submit an application for funding from the Urban and Community Grant Program of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention for the planting and care of 500 new trees in South Glendale
Moved: Brotman Seconded: Agajanian
Vote as Follows
c. Police Department, re: Destruction of Certain Police Department Records, Documents, and Papers

1. Resolution 21-183 to Authorize Destruction of Certain Police Department Records, Documents, and Papers
Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Najarian
Vote as Follows
d. Police Department, re: Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs, Request for Authorization to Accept Grant Funds in the amount of $17,709

1. Motion to approve the Glendale Police Department’s participation in the Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of Justice Programs and authorize the City Manager to accept grant funds in the amount of $17,709 and execute the necessary agreements, certifications, and other documents required to accept the grant funds
Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Najarian
Vote as Follows
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Agajanian, Brotman, Kassakhian, Najarian, Devine
None
None
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Agajanian, Brotman, Kassakhian, Najarian, Devine
None
None
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Agajanian, Brotman, Kassakhian, Najarian, Devine
None
None
None
22 of 282
3 11 16 21
CC

2. Resolution 21-184 of Appropriation
Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Najarian
Vote as Follows
e. Glendale Water and Power, re: Feeder Reconstruction for the 12 kV Operation, Time and Equipment; Reject Sole Bid Received, and Direct the City Clerk to Re- advertise for Bids

1. Resolution 21-185 rejecting the sole bid received in response to Specification No. 3875 for Feeder Reconstruction for the 12kV Operation, Time and Equipment, and directing the City Clerk to re-advertise for bids
Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Najarian
Vote as Follows
f. Information Services Department, re: Acceptance of additional grant funding from the United States Department of Homeland Security 2020 Urban Area Security Initiatives (UASI) Grant Program

1. Resolution 21-186 to accept additional grant funds in the amount of $53,475 and authorize the City Manager to execute an amendment to the sub-ward agreement with the City of Los Angeles for the award of funds under the FY20 UASI grant program
Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Najarian
Vote as Follows

2. Resolution 21-187 of appropriation to appropriate $53,475 from the Urban Area Security Initiatives (UASI) Grant Program
Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Najarian
Vote as Follows
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Agajanian, Brotman, Kassakhian, Najarian, Devine
None
None
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Agajanian, Brotman, Kassakhian, Najarian, Devine
None
None
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Agajanian, Brotman, Kassakhian, Najarian, Devine
None
None
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Agajanian, Brotman, Kassakhian, Najarian, Devine
None
None
None
23 of 282
4 11 16 21
CC
g. City Attorney, re: Consideration of a Resolution to allow the City Council and all City legislative bodies to continue to meet remotely pursuant to the Brown Act as amended by A.B. 361

1. Resolution 21-188 authorizing the continuance of remote teleconference meetings of the City’s legislative bodies for a period of an additional 30 days in accordance with A.B. 361
Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Najarian
Vote as Follows

5. CITY COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS
Council Member Kassakhian asked staff to look into broken beeline fare boxes.

Council Member Brotman commented on pedestrian car collisions. He spoke about the city’s plans on pedestrian safety and asked staff to increase awareness campaign. Council Members echoed their concerns. City Manager Roubik Golanian provided his comments.

6. COMMUNITY EVENT ANNOUNCEMENTS (3-Minutes)
James DeCarli
Tony Passarella
Valentine
Elizabeth Bour

7. ADOPTION OF ORDINANCES

8. ACTION ITEMS
a. Information Services Department, re: Approval of Master Purchase Agreement with Motorola Solutions, Inc.

Staff Comment:

Jason Bradford, CIO
Public Comment:

Valentine

1. Resolution 21-189 to dispense with competitive bidding and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute a Master Purchase Agreement with Motorola Solutions, Inc. for all purchases of proprietary systems, equipment, software, and services through December 31, 2026, with one five-year renewal option Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Brotman
Vote as Follows
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Agajanian, Brotman, Kassakhian, Najarian, Devine
None
None
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Agajanian, Brotman, Kassakhian, Najarian, Devine
None
None
None
24 of 282
5 11 16 21
CC
b. Public Works, re: Professional Services Agreement (PSA) for Glendale Pavement Management Program (PMP)
Staff Comment:

Roubik Golanian, City Manager
Public Comment:

Herbert Molano

1. Motion authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute an amendment to PSA No. 8000855 with Transmap Corporation (Transmap) for the PMP update increasing the about by $99,404.22, plus a ten percent (10%) contingency of $9,940.42 and extending the PSA duration to June 30, 2024 Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Najarian
Vote as Follows
c. Public Works, re: Purchase Order Contract for Two Used 2008 Autocar Xpeditor Heil Rapid Rail CNG Side Loading Refuse Trucks
Staff Comment:

Yazdan Emrani, Director of Public Works

1. Resolution 21-190 dispensing with competitive bidding and authorizing the Deputy Director of Finance/Purchasing (Purchasing Administrator) to execute a purchase order contract with King Motors for the purchase or two used 2008 Autocar Xpeditor Heil Rapid Rail CNG Side Loading Refuse Trucks plus a 5 percent contingency
Moved: Najarian Seconded: Agajanian
Vote as Follows

2. Resolution 21-191 of appropriation from the Refuse Disposal Fund to provide adequate funding for this recommended procurement
Moved: Najarian Seconded: Agajanian
Vote as Follows
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Agajanian, Brotman, Kassakhian, Najarian, Devine
None
None
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Agajanian, Brotman, Kassakhian, Najarian, Devine
None
None
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Agajanian, Brotman, Kassakhian, Najarian, Devine
None
None
None
25 of 282
6 11 16 21
CC
d. Community Development, re: Space 134 Freeway Ramps Preliminary Engineering Study
Presenting:

Bradley Calvert, Asst. Director of Community Development Tony Kirby, ARUP Consultant

1. Motion to Note and File Space 134 Freeway Ramps Preliminary Engineering Study and Directing Staff on Next Steps of the Space 134 Freeway Ramps Project Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Brotman
Vote as Follows
e. Human Resources, re: Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Between the City of Glendale and Glendale Fire Fighters’ Association (GFFA) Staff Comments:

Roubik Golanian, City Manager
Matt Doyle, Director of Human Resources
Public Comments:

Valentine
Herbert Molano

1. Resolution 21-192 Approving and Adopting the MOU Commencing July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2024
Moved: Najarian Seconded: Kassakhian
Vote as Follows

2. Resolution 21-193 providing for the establishment of classification titles and compensation for employees covered by the Glendale Fire Fighters' Association Moved: Najarian Seconded: Kassakhian
Vote as Follows
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Agajanian, Brotman, Kassakhian, Najarian, Devine
None
None
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Agajanian, Brotman, Kassakhian, Najarian, Devine
None
None
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Agajanian, Brotman, Kassakhian, Najarian, Devine
None
None
None
26 of 282
7 11 16 21
CC
f. Management Services, re: Preservation of the Tri-City Communities of Glendale, Burbank, and Pasadena Within County Supervisorial District 5 During the 2021 Redistricting Process

1. Motion to Authorize the Mayor to Sign a Letter to the Los Angeles County Citizens Redistricting Commission to Advocate for the Preservation of the Tri-City Communities in One Supervisorial District for Los Angeles County Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Kassakhian
Vote as Follows
g. Management Services, re: Consideration of City Co-Sponsorship with the Consulate General of Armenia in Los Angeles for the Armenian Festival Presenting:

Christine Powers, Sr. Executive Analyst

1. Motion providing direction to staff regarding the co-sponsorship with the Consulate General of Armenia in Los Angeles for the Armenian Festival Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Brotman
Vote as Follows

2. Resolution 21-181 of Appropriation in the amount of $34,986 Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Brotman
Vote as Follows

9. HEARINGS
a. Community Development, re: Extension of Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 5977 Prohibiting Issuance of Entitlement and/or Permits for Hotels in the Downtown Specific Plan Area of the City
Hearing opened at 8:19 p.m. and closed at 8:22 p.m.

Staff Comment:

Roubik Golanian, City Manager
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Agajanian, Brotman, Kassakhian, Najarian, Devine
None
None
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Agajanian, Brotman, Kassakhian, Najarian, Devine
None
None
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Agajanian, Brotman, Kassakhian, Najarian, Devine
None
None
None
27 of 282
8 11 16 21
CC
Presenting:

Bradley Calvert, Asst. Director of Community Development Public Comment:

Valentine

1. Introduction of Ordinance Extending, for an Additional 10 Months and 15 Days, Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 5977 Prohibiting Issuance of Entitlements and/or Permits for Hotel Development Projects in the Downtown Specific Plan Area Ordinance Introduced by: Brotman

10. REPORTS - INFORMATION

11. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS

Alek Bartrosouf
Mara Baygulova
Vahe Saradjian
Emily Mirzakhan
Herbert Molano
Donald McPoland

13. NEW BUSINESS
a. Motion to Approve and Elect to “Opt In” to the Settlement Agreements reached with distributors McKesson, Cardinal Health, and AmerisourceBergen and with manufacturer Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, relating to the National Multi-District Opioid Litigation No. 2084 as a full participant.

Moved: Kassakhian Seconded: Najarian
Vote as Follows

14. ADJOURNMENT – 8:44 p.m.

Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Brotman
Mayor of the City of Glendale
City Clerk of the City of Glendale
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Agajanian, Brotman, Kassakhian, Najarian, Devine
None
None
None
28 of 282
1 11 16 21
SP CC

M I N U T E S
SPECIAL MEETING: GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL
(STAFF ACCESS ONLY) COUNCIL CHAMBERS
613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor
Glendale, CA 91206
NOVEMBER 16, 2021 AT 2:00 PM
The Special Meeting of the Glendale City Council convened in the Council Chambers, in said City, at 3:32 p.m. on the above date, pursuant to a call for such meeting signed by the City Clerk of the City Council, and on file with the City Clerk, a copy of which is as follows:

November 10, 2021
Date
A SPECIAL PUBLIC MEETING of the City Council is hereby called to meet at 2:00 PM on Tuesday, November 16, 2021, in the Council Chamber, 613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor, Glendale, CA 91206 to consider the following item(s) of business, to wit;

1. Community Development, re: Resolutions of Appropriation to purchase goods and services for the operation of and to pay for utilities necessary for the operation of the Alex Theatre, and motion authorizing certain expenditures in connection therewith a. Resolution of Appropriation of $250,000 to purchase personal property and to enter into service contracts for the continued operation of the Alex Theatre b. Resolution of Appropriation of $125,000 to pay the Theatre’s anticipated annual utility costs
c. Motion authorizing staff to execute purchase agreement(s) to acquire goods necessary for Theatre operation; to execute service contracts to maintain the Alex Theatre physical plant; and to pay for the Theatre’s annual utility costs Written Notice of said meeting was given, which Notice consisted of a copy of the foregoing Call, and was served on each Member of the Council not joining in the Call, and upon the in said City not less than 24 hours before the time fixed in said Call for said meeting, as follows:

Upon Vrej Agajanian at 5:00 p.m. November 10, 2021 Glendale, CA Upon Dan Brotman at 5:00 p.m. November 10, 2021 Glendale, CA Upon Ardy Kassakhian at 5:00 p.m. November 10, 2021 Glendale, CA Upon Ara Najarian at 5:00 p.m. November 10, 2021 Glendale, CA Upon Paula Devine at 5:00 p.m. November 10, 2021 Glendale, CA Mayor Devine called the meeting to order at 3:32 p.m.

ROLL CALL
- All Present
- Report of the City Clerk of the City Council, re: Posting of Agenda. The Agenda for the Tuesday, November 16, 2021 Special Public Meeting of the City Council was posted on November 10, 2021 on the Bulletin Board Outside City Hall 4A
29 of 282
2 11 16 21
SP CC

Bradley Calvert, Asst. Director of Community Development Public Comment:

Mark McCarley
a. Resolution of Appropriation of $250,000 to purchase personal property and to enter into service contracts for the continued operation of the Alex Theatre b. Resolution of Appropriation of $125,000 to pay the Theatre’s anticipated annual utility costs
Resolution 21-180 of Appropriation of $375,000 for the purchase of needed equipment to operate the Alex Theatre and Utilities for the City-Owned Venue Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Najarian
Vote as Follows
c. Motion authorizing staff to execute purchase agreement(s) to acquire goods necessary for Theatre operation; to execute service contracts to maintain the Alex Theatre physical plant; and to pay for the Theatre’s annual utility costs Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Najarian
Vote as Follows
ADJOURNMENT – 3:50 p.m.

Moved: Najarian Seconded: Kassakhian
Mayor of the City of Glendale
City Clerk of the City of Glendale
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Agajanian, Kassakhian, Najarian, Devine
Brotman
None
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Agajanian, Kassakhian, Najarian, Devine
Brotman
None
None
30 of 282
11 30 21
CC HA

M I N U T E S
JOINT MEETING: GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL AND GLENDALE HOUSING

AUTHORITY (STAFF ACCESS ONLY) COUNCIL CHAMBERS
613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor
Glendale, CA 91206
NOVEMBER 30, 2021 AT 3:00 PM
The Joint Meeting of the Glendale City Council and Glendale Housing Authority convened in the City Hal Council Chambers, in said City, at 3:06 p.m. on the above date, pursuant to a call for such meeting signed by the City Clerk of the City Council, and on file with the City Clerk, a copy of which is as follows:

November 10, 2021
Date
A JOINT PUBLIC MEETING of the City Council and Housing Authority is hereby called to meet at 3:00 PM on Tuesday, November 30, 2021, in the Council Chamber, 613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor, Glendale, CA 91206 to Consider the Following Item(s) of Business, to wit;

1. Community Services and Parks, re: FY 2020-2025 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
a. City Council Motion to Approve the FY 2020-2025 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
b. Housing Authority Motion to Approve the FY 2020-2025 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Written Notice of said meeting was given, which Notice consisted of a copy of the foregoing Call, and was served on each Member of the Council not joining in the Call, and upon the in said City not less than 24 hours before the time fixed in said Call for said meeting, as follows:

Upon Robert Adjinian at 5:00 p.m. November 10, 2021 Glendale, CA Upon Vrej Agajanian at 5:00 p.m. November 10, 2021 Glendale, CA Upon Dan Brotman at 5:00 p.m. November 10, 2021 Glendale, CA Upon Ardy Kassakhian at 5:00 p.m. November 10, 2021 Glendale, CA Upon Ara Najarian at 5:00 p.m. November 10, 2021 Glendale, CA Upon Laura Parazian at 5:00 p.m. November 10, 2021 Glendale, CA Upon Paula Devine at 5:00 p.m. November 10, 2021 Glendale, CA Mayor Devine called the meeting to order at 3:06 p.m.

ROLL CALL
- All Present
- Report of the City Clerk of the City Council and Housing Authority, re: Posting of Agenda.

The Agenda for the Tuesday, November 30, 2021 joint public meeting of the City Council and Housing Authority was posted on November 24, 2021 on the Bulletin Board outside City Hall

1. Community Services and Parks, re: FY 2020-2025 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Public Comments:

Roubik Golanian, City Manager
Phil Lanzafame, Director of Community Development
Presenting:
4A
31 of 282
11 30 21
CC HA
Maggie Kavarian, Senior Community Services Supervisor
Public Comment:

Veronika Tam, Consultant
a. City Council Motion to Approve the FY 2020-2025 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Brotman
Vote as Follows
b. Housing Authority Motion to Approve the FY 2020-2025 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Parazian
Vote as Follows

2. 3.

ADJOURNMENT – 3:38 p.m.
- City Council
Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Kassakhian
- Housing Authority
Moved: Brotman Seconded: Parazian
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Agajanian, Brotman, Kassakhian, Najarian, Devine
None
None
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Adjinian, Agajanian, Brotman, Devine, Najarian, Parazian, Kassakhian None
None
None
Mayor of the City of Glendale
City Clerk of the City of Glendale
Chair of the Glendale Housing Authority
Clerk of the Glendale Housing Authority
32 of 282
4b

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Uninterrupted Power Supply Improvement at Four Downtown Parking Garages; Award of Construction Contract

2. Resolution of appropriation appropriating $300,000 to fund the installation of Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) at four downtown parking garages.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Consent Calendar
Approved for January 11, 2022 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The existing UPS system at the Marketplace and Orange Street parking garages are in need of replacement, and new UPS systems at the Exchange and Civic Center parking garages are needed. UPS systems will ensure all four garages have adequate lighting for safety during a power outage. The proposed construction contract with Electro Construction, Corp. is for $927,000 plus a 10 percent contingency ($92,700) for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $1,019,700.
33 of 282
24 b
3 0
1 7

COUNCIL PRIORITIES
Infrastructure and Mobility: Upgraded UPS system will provide safe, efficient and reliable power to each downtown parking garage.

Exceptional Customer Service: Public Works will be able to ensure uninterrupted service, increase safety and reliability of the power supply at each downtown parking garage.

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council approve a motion authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute a construction contract with Electro Construction, Corp., in the amount of $927,000 plus a construction contingency of 10% ($92,7000) for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $1,019,700, for UPS improvements at four downtown parking garages. Staff also recommends approval of a Resolution of Appropriation in the amount of $300,000 from the Parking Fund Balance.

BACKGROUND
The Public Works Department operates and maintains four parking garages in downtown Glendale. The Exchange, Marketplace, Orange Street, and Civic Center parking garages provide parking for employees and customers of surrounding businesses. UPS systems provide backup electric power to lighting systems in the event of a power outage. These systems generally have a useful service life of 15 years before they need to be replaced.

The Marketplace and Orange Street garages have UPS systems that are over 20 years old, have exceeded their useful service life, and are in need of complete replacement while the Exchange and Civic Center garages lack UPS systems. Installation of upgraded UPS systems will improve customer safety in the event of power disruption.

The Marketplace parking garage located at 120 S. Artsakh Avenue has 1,124 parking spaces, and was completed in 1996. Over the past year, the existing UPS system has failed to deliver continuous power during outages and testing events, and is no longer reliable in the event of an emergency. The Orange Street parking garage located at 222 North Orange Street, completed in 1999, provides 625 parking spaces. This garage utilizes a similar UPS system as the Marketplace, also original to the garage, and has now exceeded its useful service life.

The Exchange parking garage located at 115 N. Artsakh Avenue, provides 694 parking spaces. The Exchange does not have a UPS system currently, and during a power outage the emergency lighting is powered by individual battery operated emergency lights. These lights provide very low light levels and require frequent maintenance. Installation of a UPS system will improve lighting levels in the event of a power disruption. The Civic Center parking garage is located at 650 E. Wilson Avenue, built in 1982 and is primarily used by city staff and constituents from Monday to Friday, and sparing in the evening hours. When power is interrupted at this location, all lights in the garage are off except for the battery powered emergency exit lights that provide ambient light at the stairwells only. This system is adequate to light the stairwells, but does not provide light to other locations in the structure that are needed during a power disruption. 34 of 282
34 b
3 0
1 7
UPS systems provide electric power to critical emergency lighting systems in the parking garages in the event of a power outage. These emergency lighting components are required by building code and OSHA regulations. Each structure has emergency lighting that provide light to all stairwells, corridors and pedestrian pathways to guide patrons to the exits or their vehicles, in a safe manner.

ANALYSIS
On June 29, 2021, the City Council adopted the plans and specifications for the UPS improvements at four parking garages, and authorized the City Clerk to advertise for bids.

The project was advertised for bids on July 26, 2021. A mandatory pre-bid meeting was held on August 19, 2021 and seven construction firms attended. On September 29, 2021, the City received two bids.

Upon review of the bid documents, Staff finds Electro Construction, Corp., to be responsive and to have submitted a competitive bid with the lowest cost. Their bid is $277,000 more than the Engineer’s preliminary estimate of $650,000, but appears to be commensurate with current market cost considering the recent and unprecedented escalation in construction material and labor costs.

Project Description: Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) Improvements Plans/Specs Adopted: 3889
Advertisement Method: City website, direct invitation
Specs Issued: July 26, 2021
Bids Opened: September 29, 2021
Company Name
and Bid Amount:

Electro Construction Corp. $927,000.00
AA Electric Co. $996,100
Selection Criteria: Lowest Bid
Recommended
Contractor(s):

Electro Construction, Corp.

New / Existing Contractor: Existing
Procurement Method (Bid /
SS):

Bid

Contract Term: One Year
Construction Phase Begins: February 2022
Construction Phase Ends: June 2022

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
None.

FISCAL IMPACT
The cost to install a modernized UPS system at all four parking garages, inclusive of contract contingency, is $1,019,700, of which $719,700 was approved as a part of the FY 2021-22. Therefore, staff is requesting for an appropriation of $300,000 from the Parking Fund Balance. The appropriation request is outlined below:
35 of 282
44 b
3 0
1 7
Existing Appropriation
Amount Account String Funding
Source
$350,800 GL: 51250-2210-PWD-0020-P0000
PL: 52072
Parking
Fund
$218,900 GL: 52100-2210-PWD-0020-P0000
PL: PWD000092N
Parking
Fund
$150,000 GL: 43110-2210-PWD-0020-P0000
PL: 52071
Parking
Fund
Requesting Appropriation
Amount From (Account String) To (Account String) Funding Source
$300,000 GL: 24246-2210-PWD-
0000
GL: 51250-2210-PWD-0020-P0000
PL: 52072
Parking
Fund

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
This project is Categorically Exempt under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a Class 1 exemption pursuant to the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15301.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute a construction contract with Electro Construction, Corp. in the amount of $927,000 plus a construction contingency of 10% ($92,700) for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $1,019,700 to provide construction services for the install of Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) at four downtown parking garages, and reject all other bids and approve a Resolution of Appropriation providing adequate funding for this project.

Alternative 2: Choose not to approve the Motion and Resolution thereby deferring the improvements and maintaining the status quo conditions and use of these garages.

Alternative 3: The City Council may consider any other alternative not proposed by staff. 36 of 282
54 b
3 0
1 7

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Shahen Begoumian, Project Manager
Jeff Brown, Assistant Parking Manager
Reviewed by:

Kevin Todd, Assistant Director of Public Works
Tad Dombroski, Parking Manager
Jason Bradford, Interim Director of Finance
Michael J. Garcia, City Attorney
Approved by:

Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
None.
37 of 282
G:\FILES\DOCFILES\FACTFIND\MTNCOLO.RBF

M O T I O N
Moved by Council Member , seconded by Council Member , that the Council of the City of Glendale finds that Electro Construction, Corp., is the lowest responsible bidder for the Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) Improvements at four parking garages, Specification No. 3889. The bid of Electro Construction, Corp., in the amount of $927,000.00 is hereby accepted and approved, and all other bids are hereby rejected. The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute a contract with Electro Construction, Corp., for the above-described work. The Council further authorizes a reserve for contingencies in the amount of $92,700.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
38 of 282
39 of 282

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Appropriate Funds for the Victory Boulevard Project

1. Resolution of appropriation in the amount of $5,951,587 to provide adequate funding for the Victory Boulevard Project

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Consent Calendar
Approved for January 11, 2022 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Public Works Department has obtained Measure M funds from the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) in the amount of $5,951,587 to complete multi-modal improvements on Victory Boulevard within the city limits. Staff is asking City Council to appropriate funds to begin studying various multi-modal transportation improvement options and begin designing the project. 40 of 282
24 c
3 0
2 6

COUNCIL PRIORITIES
Infrastructure & Mobility: The multi-modal improvements on Victory Boulevard will improve and modernize aging infrastructure throughout the corridor and allow for additional modes of transportation to use this stretch of roadway to commute between the neighboring cities of Burbank and Los Angeles.

RECOMMENDATION
Approve the Resolution of Appropriation in the amount of $5,951,587 to provide adequate funding for the Victory Boulevard project.

BACKGROUND
Los Angeles County voters approved Measure M November 8, 2016 to fund projects to ease traffic, repair local streets and sidewalks, and expand public transportation, amongst a host of other improvements. Measure M funding is available to local jurisdictions via the Metro Subregional Program (MSP) through Metro. As part of the MSP, the City of Glendale’s share of MSP funds for the first 7 years is approximately $13.6 million dollars, of which up to $6 million can be used on modal connectivity and complete streets projects that produce regional benefits throughout the Arroyo Verdugo Subregion.

Of the limited number of street corridors that can provide and improve regional connectivity benefits with neighboring cities, Victory Boulevard is the only corridor that would complete a regional gap in the off-street Class I bike path network between the Chandler Bikeway in the City of Burbank and the LA River Bike Path in the City of Los Angeles via the Burbank Western Channel and Victory Boulevard. Improving Victory Boulevard with modal connectivity and complete streets in mind would also improve transit and pedestrian connectivity in the corridor.

The project limits are Victory Boulevard from Riverside Drive/Sonora Avenue (shared jurisdiction with the City of Los Angeles) to the northern city boundary just south of Allen Avenue in the City of Burbank. The corridor is approximately one-mile-long and the street contains two travel lanes in each direction with a center two-way left-turn lane and an on-street parking lane in each direction. There are signalized intersections at Riverside Drive, Sonora Avenue, Western Avenue, and Allen Avenue. Land uses along the corridor consist of a mix of retail and industrial/office use, with some residential.

Most retail use include dedicated off‐street parking. Victory Boulevard runs parallel to the I-5 Interstate Freeway and intersects the Glendale 134 Freeway near the southerly city boundary. The speed limit on Victory Boulevard is posted at 35 mph, and a recently completed Engineering and Traffic Survey confirmed the 85th percentile speed at 39 mph.

ANALYSIS
The preliminary project scope of work to improve transit, bicycle, and pedestrian connectivity will include the following:
Bicycle infrastructure improvements will include either Class II bike lanes or 41 of 282
34 c
3 0
2 6
Class IV protected bike lanes on both sides of Victory Boulevard, or a Class IV protected Two-Way Cycle-Track on the north side of Victory Boulevard from the Burbank City limit west of Allen Avenue to the Riverwalk Bikeway entrance in the City of Glendale, just west of the Los Angeles City limit for a total length of one mile in each direction.
Pedestrian connectivity improvements will include new ADA compliant curb ramps and the replacement/repair of uplifted, damaged, and relocated sidewalk throughout the project limits on both sides of Victory Boulevard. Transit stops located at the intersections of Victory Boulevard and Allen Avenue (1 bus stop)/Thompson Avenue (2 bus stops)/Western Avenue (3 bus stops) will have transit connective improvements that include upgrading, adding, and relocating of concrete bus pads located in the street and/or bus shelters, bus benches, trash receptacles and ADA landing areas.

Furthermore, improvements to the corridor will also consult various master plans, programs, policies, and initiatives for recommendations and guidance, including, but not limited to the:

Citywide Pedestrian Plan
The corridor is not currently identified in the Citywide Pedestrian Plan but will be studied further to implement various pedestrian safety improvements at signalized intersections, such as curb extensions, high-visibility crosswalk installations, and creative crosswalk installations. Furthermore, the shared jurisdiction intersection of Victory Boulevard and Riverside Drive/Sonora Avenue will be studied to improve intersection safety for all modes of transportation by modifying/removing slip lanes and realigning the intersection for improved intersection visibility.

Bicycle Transportation Plan
The corridor is also not currently identified in the City’s Bicycle Transportation Plan but has the potential to provide an important bike network connection to existing or planned bikeways between the Cities of Burbank and Los Angeles and the neighboring Glendale communities. Feasibility studies for implementing Class II bike lanes and Class IV protected bike lanes on both sides of the street, as well as Class IV protected Cycle- Track on the north side of the street will be conducted in the preliminary design stages.

Creating a network of bike facilities within the City of Glendale can provide enhanced safety and comfort for people biking or scootering while potentially reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT).

Pavement Management Program
The corridor is identified for replacement by the use of pavement overlay methods as part of the latest Pavement Management Program to preserve and extend the useful life of the roadway by optimizing available funds to meet the road network needs. Certain adjacent side streets have also been identified in the program for maintenance and repair.
42 of 282
44 c
3 0
2 6
Green Streets Manual
Various green streets elements, such as bio-retention facilities will be studied and implemented to capture and recharge the groundwater table. Concrete pavement areas that can be removed and replaced with landscape areas will be identified, and every opportunity to expand the urban forest will be implemented. Reflective pavement will be considered in low traffic areas such as bike lanes and parking lanes to further reduce the heat island effect.

Safe Routes to School Program
Benjamin Franklin Elementary School is located one block north of Victory Boulevard on Winchester Avenue. Safe walking paths to school will be studied and incorporated as part of the project, including improving signing and crosswalk striping in the vicinity of the school.

The preliminary design of this project is anticipated to begin in January 2022 with a traffic study to determine potential configurations and impacts for the construction of either Class II or Class IV bicycle facilities within the existing public right-of-way.

Final design documents are expected by June 2023, and assuming a successful advertise and award phase, construction is anticipated to begin in November 2023.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
The multi-modal benefits to the community include the following:
More livable communities;
Improved safety for all users;
More walking and bicycling to improve public health;
Increased transportation choices; and
Greenhouse gas reduction and improved air quality
The Public Works Department reached out to Metro to obtain Measure M funding to fund the project design and construction via the MSP. The Victory Boulevard Project is included in Metro Board’s approved project list in the amount of $5,951,587. Staff has executed a Funding Agreement (FA) with Metro for this project.

Once the feasibility study is completed for implementing the bicycle infrastructure through either roadway widening or realignment, public outreach will occur to share the details of the study and recommendation on the options moving forward. Additional outreach will be conducted at 65% design plans, and prior to project advertisement for construction.

Furthermore, ongoing outreach on this project will continue to occur through a dedicated website for the project that is hosted through the City of Glendale domain. The website page introduces the public to the project and to the project team, explains the scope of 43 of 282
54 c
3 0
2 6
work and project locations, and provides the public with staff contact information for questions, discussion and/or input.

FISCAL IMPACT
The funding agreement for the Victory Boulevard Project will cost $5,951,587, which was not included as a part of the FY 2021-22 approved budget. Therefore, staff is requesting for an appropriation of $5,951,587 from the Measure M Subregional Fund.

The appropriation request is outlined below:

Requesting Appropriation
Amount From (Account String) To (Account String) Funding Source $5,951,587 GL: 34301-2230-PWD-
0020-P0000
PL: PWD00755AG
GL: 52100-2230-PWD-
0020-P0000
PL: PWD00755AG
Local Grants -
Measure M
Subregional Fund

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
The Project is categorically exempt from environmental review because of CEQA Guidelines §§ 15301.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
Not applicable.

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Appropriate funds for the Victory Boulevard Project.

Alternative 2: Do not appropriate funds for the Victory Boulevard Project. Doing so, however, will not study and implement multi-modal improvements and would also result in the forfeiture of Metro grant funds.

Alternative 3: The City Council may consider any other alternative not proposed by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Sarkis Oganesyan, P.E., Principal Civil Engineer
Approved by:

Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1: Project Location Map
44 of 282
45 of 282

8("

46 of 282
4d

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Public Works Department As-Needed Miscellaneous Services 1) Motion Awarding a Contract to Electro Construction Corp. for as-needed Electrical Systems Services at Various City Facilities Project (Specification No. 3895) for the not-to-exceed amount of $640,440.00 and three (3) years and directing the City Manager or his designee to execute the contract. 2) Motion Awarding a Contract to Omega Construction Co., Inc. for as-needed General Building Repairs Systems Services at Various City Facilities Project (Specification No. 3897) for the not-to-exceed amount of $598,770.00 and three (3) years and directing the City Manager or his designee to execute the contract. 3) Motion Awarding a Contract to Prime Painting Contractors, Inc. for as-needed Protective Coating and Painting Services at Various City Facilities Project (Specification No. 3898) for the not-to-exceed amount of $345,600.00 and three (3) years and directing the City Manager or his designee to execute the contract. 4) Motion Awarding a Contract to H.L. Moe, Co. for as-needed Plumbing Systems Services at Various City Facilities Project (Specification No. 3899) for the not-to- exceed amount of $425,655.00 and three (3) years and directing the City Manager or his designee to execute the contract.
5) Motion Awarding a Contract to AME Builders, Inc. for as-needed Roofing Systems Services at Various City Facilities Project (Specification No. 3900) for the not-to-exceed amount of $490,094.40 and three (3) years and directing the City Manager or his designee to execute the contract.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Consent Calendar
Approved for January 11, 2022 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Public Works Department uses a strategic combination of in-house trades staff and contracted services in order to maintain more than one million square feet of occupied building space and 15 million square feet of grounds citywide. This strategy allows Public Works variable capacity while providing services at a minimal cost. The contracted services are requested for three-years and include electrical, general building repairs, painting, plumbing, and roofing.
47 of 282
24 d
3 0
2 7

COUNCIL PRIORITIES
Community Services & Facilities: Public Works building maintenance services contracts support the upkeep of city facilities.

Exceptional Customer Service: Public Works will be able to resolve building issues and requests in a timely manner.

Sustainability: Public Works will be able to continue to optimally maintain building systems thereby preserving structures and efficiency.

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council approve the five motions awarding three-year contracts for as- needed repairs to city facilities for Electrical Services to Electro Construction Corp., for General Building Repairs to Omega Construction Co., Inc., for Plumbing to H.L. Moe, Co., for Protective Coating and Painting to Prime Painting Contractors, Inc., and for Roofing to AME Builders, Inc., and direct the City Manager or his designee to execute the contracts.

BACKGROUND
The Public Works Department is responsible for the maintenance and repair of all city buildings and systems including: Fire Stations, Police Station, libraries, parks, civic center, utility sites, corporation yards, and parking garages, totaling over 200 facilities and 1,250,000 occupied square feet. Maintenance and repair responsibilities are addressed with a strategic combination of in-house staff and contracted services.

On October 19, 2021, the City Council approved six resolutions adopting specifications for as needed building repair services for the following facility components: electrical systems, flooring, building, protective coating and paint, plumbing and roofing.

On November 9, 2021, the Public Works Department hosted a job walk for each of the six services advertised. On November 24, 2021, the city received bids for five services, excluding flooring.

The vendors that provided bids for each service, as listed in the table below, have all been evaluated and were found to have submitted responsive bids and they are responsible bidders. In all instances the vendors listed below are the lowest qualified bidders:

Bidder Building Component Three-Year Cost
Electro Construction
Corp.

Electrical $640,440.00
Omega Construction Co., General Building $598,770.00 48 of 282
34 d
3 0
2 7
Inc.

Prime Painting
Contractors, Inc.

Protective Coatings
and Painting
$345,600.00
H.L. Moe Co. Plumbing $425,655.00
AME Builders, Inc. Roofing $490,094.40

ANALYSIS
In order to maintain the integrity of the city's facilities and to best address tenant and public needs, it is necessary for Public Works Department to have sufficient, readily available resources to provide maintenance and repairs and to mitigate any situation that could render a facility unsafe and/or unusable.

The utilization of in-house maintenance staff in conjunction with contracted services has allowed the Public Works Department to minimize annual maintenance costs while providing the services needed. In most instances, the contracted maintenance services are used for larger and more complex tasks so that in-house staff can focus on the immediate and more than 1000 work requests submitted monthly.

By having readily available contracted services, the Public Works Department is able to quickly respond the various issues that arise across the city daily and keep costs down.

Staff recommends awarding five facilities maintenance contracts using funding for all six that went out to bid. When a contract is ready to be awarded for flooring services, staff intends to use savings from other building maintenance contracted services to fund it.

Plans, Specifications, & Estimates (PS&E) Dashboard
Project Description: Public Works Department Building Maintenance Contracts
Specification Nos. 3895, 3896, 3897, 3898, 3899, 3900
Plans/Specs Adopted: October 19, 2021
Advertisement Method: City website, eBidBoard, press release, direct invitation Specs Issued: October 26, 2021 – November 16, 2021
Bids Opened Date: November 24, 2021
Company Name(s) and
Bid Amount(s):

ELECTRICAL – 3895
A&A Electric Co. Non-Responsive
Ace Construction Non-Responsive
Electro Construction $640,440.00
49 of 282
44 d
3 0
2 7
Contractor: Electro Construction Corp.

New / Existing
Contractor:

Existing
Company Name(s) and
Bid Amount(s):

FLOORING – 3896
No contractor submitted a bid
Contractor: None
New / Existing
Contractor:

N/A
Company Name(s) and
Bid Amount(s):

GENERAL BUILDING REPAIRS – 3897
Ace Construction Non-Responsive
ARC Construction Non-Responsive
Fredrick Towers $628,050.00
Omega Construction $598,770.00
Contractor: Omega Construction Co., Inc.

New / Existing
Contractor:

New
Company Name(s) and
Bid Amount(s):

PAINTING – 3898
AJ Fistes Corporation $378,867.00
Innovation Painting, Inc. Non-Responsive
Omega Painting $413,580.00
Piana Construction $416,571.00
Prime Painting $345,600.00
US National Corp. $513,720.00
Contractor: Prime Painting
New / Existing
Contractor:

Existing
Company Name(s) and
Bid Amount(s):

PLUMBING – 3899
HL Moe $425,655.00
Verne’s Plumbing Non-Responsive
Contractor: HL Moe Co.

New / Existing
Contractor:

Existing
Company Name(s) and
Bid Amount(s):

ROOFING – 3900
AME Builders $490,094.40
Best Contracting Services $553,875.00
GreenCal Construction Non-Responsive
50 of 282
54 d
3 0
2 7
Stone Roofing Non-Responsive
Contractor: AME Builders, Inc.

New / Existing
Contractor:

New
Procurement Method
(Bid / SS):

Bid

Contract Term:

3 Years
Construction Phase
Begins:

N/A
Construction Phase
Ends:

N/A

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
By combining contractors’ access to sophisticated tools and training with staff’s onsite experience and availability, Public Works is able to keep city facilities in a safe and aesthetic state.

Stakeholders include:
City employees
City residents
Visitors to city facilities
No public outreach for these ongoing maintenance contracts is expected to be needed.

FISCAL IMPACT
The building maintenance services contract will cost $833,519.80 per year which was approved as part of the FY 2021-22 budget. Adequate funding for these contracts will be requested in future annual budgeting processes. No new appropriation is being requested at this time. The City Council approved funding is outlined below:

Amount: $870,000
Funding Source: Building Maintenance Fund
Account String GL & PL Ledger (if applicable):

GL: 43110-6070-PWD-7508-P0000-T0000-F0000-0000-0000-
PL: N/A

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This item includes routine maintenance and repairs activities and is therefore, not subject to CEQA review.
51 of 282
64 d
3 0
2 7

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Approve the Motions awarding contracts to the lowest qualifying bidders for Building Maintenance and Repair Services at Various City Facilities to ensure continuity of essential building maintenance services.

Alternative 2: Not approve the Motions awarding contracts for Building Maintenance and Repair Services at Various City Facilities, in which case there will be interruptions to essential maintenance services.

Alternative 3: Consider any other alternative not proposed by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Kevin C. Todd, Assistant Director of Public Works
Approved by:

Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager

EXHIBITS / ATTACHMENTS
N/A
52 of 282
MOTION
Moved by Council Member , seconded by
Council Member , that the Council of the City of
Glendale finds that, Electro Construction Corp. has provided the lowest responsive bid, and they are a responsible bidder, for Electrical System Services at Various City Facilities Project, as described in Specifications No. 3895, and that the bid of Electro Construction Corp. for the amount of six hundred forty thousand four hundred forty dollars ($640,440) is hereby accepted and approved, as recommended by the Director of Public Works, and that all other bids be, and are, hereby rejected. The Council authorizes the City Manager to execute a three-year contract, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney, with Electro Construction Corp., in the amount of six hundred forty thousand four hundred forty dollars ($640,440).

Votes as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
53 of 282
MOTION
Moved by Council Member , seconded by
Council Member , that the Council of the City of
Glendale finds that, Omega Construction Co., Inc. has provided the lowest responsive bid, and they are a responsible bidder, for General Building Repair Services at Various City Facilities Project, as described in Specifications No. 3897, and that the bid of Omega Construction Co., Inc. for the amount of five hundred ninety-eight thousand seven hundred seventy dollars ($598,770) is hereby accepted and approved, as recommended by the Director of Public Works, and that all other bids be, and are, hereby rejected. The Council authorizes the City Manager to execute a three-year contract, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney, with Omega Construction Co., Inc. in the amount of five hundred ninety-eight thousand seven hundred seventy dollars ($598,770).

Votes as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
54 of 282
MOTION
Moved by Council Member , seconded by
Council Member , that the Council of the City of
Glendale finds that, Prime Painting Contractors, Inc. has provided the lowest responsive bid, and they are a responsible bidder, for Protective Coating and Painting Services at Various City Facilities Project, as described in Specifications No. 3898, and that the bid of Prime Painting Contractors, Inc. for the amount of three hundred forty-five thousand six hundred dollars ($345,600) is hereby accepted and approved, as recommended by the Director of Public Works, and that all other bids be, and are, hereby rejected. The Council authorizes the City Manager to execute a three-year contract, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney, with Prime Painting Contractors, Inc., in the amount of three hundred forty-five thousand six hundred dollars ($345,600).

Votes as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
55 of 282
MOTION
Moved by Council Member , seconded by
Council Member , that the Council of the City of
Glendale finds that, HL Moe Co. has provided the lowest responsive bid, and they are a responsible bidder, for the Plumbing Services at Various City Facilities Project, as described in Specifications No. 3899, and that the bid of HL Moe Co. for the amount of four hundred twenty-five thousand six hundred fifty-five dollars ($425,655) is hereby accepted and approved, as recommended by the Director of Public Works, and that all other bids be, and are, hereby rejected. The Council authorizes the City Manager to execute a three-year contract, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney, with HL Moe Co., in the amount of four hundred twenty-five thousand six hundred fifty-five dollars ($425,655).

Votes as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
56 of 282
MOTION
Moved by Council Member , seconded by
Council Member , that the Council of the City of
Glendale finds that, AME Builders, Inc. has provided the lowest responsive bid, and they are a responsible bidder, for Roofing Services at Various City Facilities Project, as described in Specifications No. 3900, and that the bid of AME Builders, Inc. for the amount of four hundred ninety thousand ninety-four dollars and forty cents ($490,094.40) is hereby accepted and approved, as recommended by the Director of Public Works, and that all other bids be, and are, hereby rejected. The Council authorizes the City Manager to execute a three-year contract, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney, with AME Builders, Inc. in the amount of four hundred ninety thousand ninety-four dollars and forty cents ($490,094.40).

Votes as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
57 of 282
4e

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Consideration of a Resolution to allow the City Council and all City legislative bodies to continue to meet remotely pursuant to the Brown Act as amended by A.B. 361.

1. Resolution authorizing the continuance of remote teleconference meetings of the City’s legislative bodies for a period of an additional 30 days in accordance with A.B. 361.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Consent Item
Approved for January 11, 2022 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Governor signed A.B. 361 which permits continued remote teleconference meetings during a declared state of emergency, provided the local agency makes specified findings and adheres to the procedural safeguards specified in the law. The Council has adopted resolution to allow continued remote meetings under A.B. 361 for a period of 30 days. A resolution is presented for Council consideration to authorize continued remote teleconference meetings for an additional 30 days.

COUNCIL PRIORITIES
Informed and Engaged Community – Allowing continued remote teleconference meetings of the City’s legislative bodies, including live public participation, during the current state of emergency helps to ensure an informed and engaged community.
Safe & Health Community – Allowing continued remote teleconference meetings of the City’s legislative bodies promotes social distancing recommended by local health authorities during the pandemic.

RECOMMENDATION
That the Council adopt a resolution allowing continued remote teleconference meetings of the City’s legislative bodies, including live public participation, in accordance with A.B. 361.
58 of 282
24 e
3 0
4 6

BACKGROUND
Since March of 2020, because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Council and all boards and commissions have been meeting remotely pursuant to the Governor's Executive Order N-29-20, which suspended certain teleconference meeting requirements of the Brown Act. On June 11, 2021, the Governor issued Executive Order N-08-21, which rescinds these suspensions effective September 30, 2021. In recognition of the fact that the pandemic is ongoing, on September 16, 2021, the Governor signed AB 361, which amends the Brown Act and authorizes teleconferenced public meetings at remote locations under a state of emergency declared by the Governor under the Emergency Services Act. The Council adopted resolutions on October 19, 2021, November 16 2021, and December 14, 2021 allowing continued remote teleconference meetings under A.B. 361 for a period of 30 days.

ANALYSIS
AB 361 allows local agencies to continue having remote teleconference meetings when the Governor has declared and a state of emergency, if the local agency can make certain findings and complies with several procedural safeguards to protect public participation during a remote meeting. The public must have the ability to address the legislative body directly, and must be given information on how to address the body. The public must be provided either a call-in or internet-based service option. The body must stop the meeting if the call-in or internet-based option fails. The legislative body cannot require that public comments be submitted in advance (although this can be provided as an option).

Speakers cannot be required to pre-register (except as required by an independent call- in or internet platform). Members of the public must be given a reasonable time to register to provide public comment.

Accordingly, the Council adopted resolutions on October 19, 2021, November 16, 2021 and December 14, 2021 to authorize the Council and all boards, commissions, and committees, including ad hoc committees subject to the Brown Act, to continue to be able to meet remotely during the current declared state of emergency for a period of 30 days.

In adopting the resolutions, the Council found that state or local health measures continue to promote social distancing by state or local officials. With the recent surge caused by the Omicron variant, there is a need to continue remote teleconference meetings under AB 361. To continue remote teleconference meetings, the Council must confirm the circumstances of the state of emergency and make the required findings every 30 days.

A proposed resolution is presented for Council consideration.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Not applicable.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this item.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This item is exempt from CEQA. It is not a project and there is no reasonable likelihood that compliance with AB 361 will result in any significant impacts to the environment. 59 of 282
34 e
3 0
4 6

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Adopt the Resolution so that the Council and the City’s boards and commissions can continue to hold remote teleconference meetings, consistent with AB 361.

2.Choose not to adopt the Resolution but the Council and City boards and commissions would have to return to in-person meetings commencing on January 13, 2022.

3.The Council could select an alternative not identified by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Michael J. Garcia, City Attorney
Approved by:

Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager

EXHIBITS / ATTACHMENTS
None.
60 of 282
1 C:\inetpub\wwwroot\Glendale\temp\CC_01112022_Resolution_4e1.pdf RESOLUTION NO. ___________

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE,

CALIFORNIA AUTHORIZING CONTINUED REMOTE TELECONFERENCE

MEETINGS OF ALL CITY OF GLENDALE LEGISLATIVE BODIES
FOR AN ADDITIONAL THIRTY DAYS IN ACCORDANCE WITH AB 361 WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Glendale is committed to preserving and fostering public access and participation in meetings of the Council, and all City of Glendale “legislative bodies” as required by the Ralph M. Brown Act (Cal. Gov. Code §§ 54950 – 54963), so that any member of the public may attend and participate as the bodies conduct the public’s business; and
WHEREAS, the Brown Act, as amended by Assembly Bill No. 361 (“AB 361”), makes special provisions for remote teleconferencing participation in meetings when the Governor has declared a state of emergency pursuant to Government Code section 8625, and either state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing, or the state of emergency directly impacts the ability of legislative body members to meet safely in person; and
WHEREAS, such conditions now exist in the City of Glendale. Specifically, on March 4, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom issued a Proclamation of a State of Emergency with regard to the COVID-19 pandemic (“State of Emergency”). Los Angeles County Health Officer has issued numerous Health Orders regarding safety protocols during the COVID-19 pandemic, most recently dated September 28, 2021.

Pasadena’s Health Officer has also issued numerous Health Orders regarding safety protocols during the COVID-19 pandemic, including a June 14, 2021 Order To Comply With California Department Of Public Health Guidance For The Use Of Face Coverings 61 of 282
2 C:\inetpub\wwwroot\Glendale\temp\CC_01112022_Resolution_4e1.pdf And Select Sector Guidances And Public Health Protocols (which, among other orders, requires physical distancing of at least 6 feet) and a July 21, 2021 Order For Wearing Of Face Masks In Public Settings (requiring face masks be worn, regardless of vaccination status, in all indoor public settings). These latest orders were made necessary by the rise in the more contagious and easily spread Delta variant of the COVID-19 virus throughout the nation, and specifically in the Los Angeles County region. State and local health orders also continue to promote social distancing and outdoor activity to the extent feasible; and
WHEREAS, the Council finds that the current situation with regard to COVID-19, and particularly the Delta variant, is causing, and will continue to cause, risks to the safety of persons within the City of Glendale and finds that the Council and all City of Glendale legislative bodies, including the Council, Successor Agency, Housing Authority, all boards, commissions and committees, and all legislative bodies established by the Council shall conduct their meetings with remote participation in the manner authorized by Government Code § 54953(e), and such legislative bodies shall comply with the requirements to provide the public with access to the meetings as prescribed in Government Code § 54953(e)(2);
WHEREAS, the Council adopted resolutions on October 19, 2021, November 16, 2021 and December 14, 2021, making the findings set forth above and authorizing remote teleconference meetings for the Council and the City’s boards, commissions and committees in accordance with AB 361 for a period of 30 days.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Glendale, California as follows:
62 of 282
3 C:\inetpub\wwwroot\Glendale\temp\CC_01112022_Resolution_4e1.pdf Section 1. Recitals. The Recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.

Section 2. Findings. The Council finds:

A. It has reconsidered the circumstance of the State of Emergency, which is still in effect;
B. The State of Emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the City’s legislative bodies (and the members of the public who would wish to attend) to meet safely in person; and
C. State and local officials continue to recommend measures to promote social distancing.

Section 2. Remote Teleconference Meetings. The Council and all City of Glendale legislative bodies, including the Council, Successor Agency, Housing Authority, all boards, commissions and committees, and all legislative bodies established by the Council, shall conduct their meetings with remote participation in the manner authorized by Government Code § 54953(e), and such legislative bodies shall comply with the requirements to provide the public with access to the meetings as prescribed in Government Code § 54953(e)(2).

Section 3. Effective Date of Resolution. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption and shall be effective until the earlier of February 10, 2022, or such time as the Council adopts a subsequent resolution in accordance with Government Code § 54953(e)(3) to extend the time during which meetings may continue to be held remotely by teleconference in compliance with that section. 63 of 282
4 C:\inetpub\wwwroot\Glendale\temp\CC_01112022_Resolution_4e1.pdf Adopted this ______ day of ____________________, 2022.
___________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES)
I, Aram Adjemian, City Clerk of the City of Glendale, certify that the foregoing Resolution No. ___________ was adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale, California, at a regular meeting held on the _____day of __________, 2022, by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
_________________________
City Clerk
64 of 282
1 4
7 7
9 ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE CITY’S ZONING MAP

TO ADD A NEW ZONING DESIGNATION ENTITLED THE

SOUTH CUMBERLAND HEIGHTS HISTORIC DISTRICT OVERLAY ZONE WHEREAS, the City Council has conducted a noticed public hearing pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 30.61 of the Glendale Municipal Code, and Chapter 3, Title 7 of the California Government Code pertaining to the amendment of the City’s zoning map; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered all materials, communications, public testimony, maps and exhibits of current record on the proposed amendment of the City’s Zoning Map to add a new overlay zone entitled the South Cumberland Heights Historic District Overlay Zone (“Overlay Zone”); and WHEREAS, the City Council has also reviewed and taken into consideration recommendations from the City’s Historic Preservation Commission and the Planning Commission on proposed amendment of the City’s Zoning Map to add the new Overlay Zone; and
WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds the proposed Overlay Zone will promote and protect the public health, safety, comfort, convenience and general welfare of the citizens of Glendale and on that basis is adopting an amendment of the City’s Zoning Map to add the proposed Overlay Zone.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA:

SECTION 1. That recitals herein above are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 2. That based on the review of all materials, testimony and recommendations received related to the proposed formation of the South Cumberland Heights Historic District Overlay Zone (“Overlay Zone”) and amendment of the City’s Zoning Map to add the proposed 65 of 282
2 4
7 7
9 Overlay Zone, the City Council hereby adopts the proposed amendment of the City of Glendale Zoning Map in order to add the “South Cumberland Heights Historic District Overlay Zone” to the Zoning Map as shown in Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 3. That in addition to compliance with City of Glendale Zoning Ordinance requirements, properties within the Overlay Zone shall be subject to all of the requirements applicable to historic district overlay zones set forth in Glendale Municipal Code Chapter

30.25. SECTION 4. Effective Date. That the addition of the Overlay Zone to the City’s Zoning Map shall become effective 30 days from the passage and adoption of this Ordinance.

SECTION 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance, or any part thereof, is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or any part thereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed the remainder of this Ordinance, if such invalid portion thereof had been deleted.

SECTION 6. CEQA Compliance. That the adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Title 14 CCR Sections 15331 (preservation of historic resources) and 15308 (actions by regulatory agencies for protection of the environment).

Passed and adopted by a 4/5ths vote this _____day of ____________ 2022.

Mayor
ATTEST:

City Clerk
66 of 282
3 4
7 7
9 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS.

CITY OF GLENDALE )
I, Aram Adjemian, City Clerk of the City of Glendale, certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. __________was passed by a 4/5th vote of the Council of the City of Glendale, California, at a regular meeting held on the day of , 2022, and that the same was passed by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
_____________________
City Clerk
67 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021

Figure 1. Map of proposed South Cumberland Heights Historic District. 68 of 282
7a

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Proposed Ordinance to Establish South Cumberland Heights Historic District Overlay Zone

1. Introduction of Ordinance to Establish South Cumberland Heights Historic District Overlay Zone

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Public Hearing
Approved for December 14, 2021 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Staff is requesting the City Council hold a public hearing to consider adoption of an ordinance to establish the South Cumberland Heights Historic District Overlay Zone (“Ordinance”). The proposed historic district consists of 216 single-family properties in the Cumberland Heights neighborhood. Council’s review and adoption of the Ordinance is the final step in the district designation process.

In 2019, the City retained Architectural Resources Group to conduct a historic resources survey for the proposed district. The survey found that the proposal exceeds the thresholds and criteria established in Glendale Municipal Code Section 30.25 (“Historic District Overlay Zones”). After the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) reviewed and approved the draft survey, it authorized district proponents to circulate a petition among property owners requesting that City Council designate the district. The owners of 57% of the properties signed, exceeding the City’s requirement of over 50%. Finally, HPC and Planning Commission each reviewed the proposed Ordinance and recommended that City Council vote to establish the South Cumberland Heights Historic District Overlay Zone.
69 of 282
27 a
2 8
8 4

COUNCIL PRIORITIES
Balanced, Quality Housing: Designation of historic districts ensures that neighborhoods and individual properties that help tell the story of Glendale’s historic, cultural, and aesthetic development will be well-maintained over time and continue to reflect our diverse array of quality housing opportunities.

RECOMMENDATION
That City Council introduce the proposed Ordinance to add the new South Cumberland Heights Historic District Overlay Zone, as delineated on the map attached to this report as Exhibit 1.

BACKGROUND
Pursuant to Glendale Municipal Code, Chapter 30.25, historic districts are established through the creation of an overlay zone that does not affect the underlying zoning. The goal of creating historic districts is to preserve the historic and architectural character of groupings of buildings that share common visual and/or historic aspects. The Planning Division of the Community Development Department and the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) are responsible for reviewing proposed alterations, new construction, and demolitions within designated districts to ensure that changes do not affect the overall character of either the individual property or the district itself. The City’s Historic District Design Guidelines are used to direct the design review process.

City Council’s consideration of an ordinance to establish the proposed district is the final step in the designation process outlined in the Glendale Municipal Code. The process of designating districts is citizen-driven, beginning with a nomination submitted to the Planning Division by residents proposing their own neighborhood as a district. The process, which includes extensive opportunity for public participation, is summarized in the flowchart attached to this report as Exhibit 3. Prior to tonight hearing, both HPC and the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed district and associated zone change.

On November 18, 2021 and December 1, 2021, respectively, each commission voted unanimously to recommend that City Council pass and adopt the zone change ordinance to establish the South Cumberland Heights Historic District Overlay Zone.

Because the Ordinance adds an overlay zone, a Council super-majority (4/5th) vote is required.

ANALYSIS
The proposed South Cumberland Heights Historic District features 216 single-family properties, all zoned R1-I, in the Cumberland Heights neighborhood. Like many residential subdivisions developed in Glendale and Southern California during to the 1920s and 1930s, the houses reflect the various Period Revival styles popular at the time. As is often the case for Glendale’s foothill neighborhoods, the Spanish Colonial 70 of 282
37 a
2 8
8 4
Revival style is best represented, but there are also many fine examples of the Tudor Revival, French Eclectic, American Colonial Revival, Monterey Revival, and Mediterranean Revival styles. There are also three earlier Craftsman houses, with two having been moved to the neighborhood in the 1920s. The neighborhood continued to be built out throughout the 1940s and 1950s as exemplified by a large concentration of Minimal Traditional and Ranch Style houses that typify that era’s construction.

After reviewing and approving the draft historic resource survey on April 15, 2021, HPC authorized district proponents to circulate a petition requesting that City Council designate the historic district. The South Cumberland Heights proponents submitted signatures of the owners of one-hundred and twenty-three (123) out of the two-hundred and sixteen (216) homes in the proposed district fifty-seven (57%) within the mandated time period. The Code requires that the owners of over fifty (50%) of the proposed district’s properties sign the petition.

On November 18, 2021, HPC reviewed the final petition numbers and heard testimony in favor of designation from the district proponents, the Glendale Historical Society, and several members of the community. Two community members wrote and/or testified in opposition to the district. The City has not received any petition formally opposing the district. HPC voted unanimously (4-0) to recommend that City Council establish the South Cumberland Heights Historic District Overlay Zone. On December 1, 2021, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposal, including the proposed zone change, and heard testimony in favor of designation from the district proponents and several 71 of 282
47 a
2 8
8 4
members of the community. No comments were received in opposition. The Planning Commission voted unanimously (3-0) to recommend that City Council establish the district.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
The historic districting process requires significant stakeholder outreach among residents and property owners within the proposed historic district boundary as well as within a 500-foot radius. Over the course of this process, two meetings were held by Planning staff with community stakeholders and two petitions were distributed by proponents among the area’s property owners, who were also notified of the availability of the draft Historic Resources Survey and survey forms for each property on the City website. HPC reviewed the proposal at three public hearings and the Planning Commission at one hearing. Finally, prior to City Council’s present consideration of the zone change ordinance, it held a hearing to approve funding for the historic resources survey.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
The project is categorically exempt from further CEQA review under both Class 8 (“Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment") and Class 31 (“Historic Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation”) exemptions pursuant to Sections 15308 and 15331 of the State CEQA Guidelines because it involves the ongoing protection and preservation of historic resources.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
The names and addresses of the property owners who filed the nomination to establish the historic district are contain in Exhibit 4 attached hereto, in accordance with the City Campaign Finance Ordinance No. 5744.

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Introduce the and subsequently adopt the ordinance establishing the South Cumberland Heights Historic District Overlay Zone.

Alternative 2: Not introduce the ordinance establishing the South Cumberland Heights Historic District Overlay Zone.

Alternative 3: The City Council may consider any other alternative not proposed by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
72 of 282
57 a
2 8
8 4
Submitted by:

Philip S. Lanzafame, Director of Community Development
Prepared by:

Jay Platt, Principal Planner
Reviewed by:

Michele Flynn, Director of Finance
Michael J. Garcia, City Attorney
Gillian van Muyden, Chief Assistant City Attorney
Approved by:

Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1: Map of Proposed South Cumberland Heights Historic District Exhibit 2: South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey Report Exhibit 3: Historic District Process Flowchart
Exhibit 4: Campaign Finance Disclosure
73 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021

Figure 1. Map of proposed South Cumberland Heights Historic District. 74 of 282

Historic District Application
Planning Department
review and recommendation
Historic Preservation Commission
Preliminary Review
Vote to
proceed
Petition
Proponents circulate petition requesting historic
resource survey of area
(requires 25+% homeowner support w/in 3 months to
proceed – may begin before public meeting)
Public Meeting – Review of District Proposal
Notice and information sent to owners and residents
in proposed district and within a 500’ radius
Planning Department completes Historic
Resources Survey
Historic Preservation Commission
review and recommendation
Petition
Proponents circulate petition requesting a historic
district overlay zone
(requires 50+% homeowner support w/in 6 months to
proceed – may begin before public meeting)
Historic Preservation Commission
review and final recommendation
Planning Commission
review and final recommendation
City Council
final determination
Approval = new Historic District
Denial = no district
City of Glendale
Historic District
Process
Public Meeting - Review of Survey
Notice and information sent to all owners and
residents within proposed district
Options to make changes
and resubmit
or
appeal to City Council
Public Input
Administrative
Vote to
not proceed
Revised 03/09
75 of 282

South Cumberland Heights
Historic Resources Survey
City of Glendale, California
Prepared for:

City of Glendale
633 East Broadway, Room 103
Glendale, California 91206
Prepared by:

Architectural Resources Group
360 E. 2nd Street, Suite 225
Los Angeles, CA 90012

November 8, 2021

76 of 282

77 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................... 1 I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND METHODOLOGY ............................ 5

2. HISTORIC CONTEXTS AND THEMES ....................................... 11

3. PHYSICAL CHARACTER ..................................................... 39 Neighborhood Character ................................................... 39 Architectural Styles ........................................................ 42

4. EVALUATION AS A POTENTIAL HISTORIC DISTRICT ................... 55 Summary Statement of Significance ..................................... 55 Local Eligibility Evaluation ................................................ 55 California Register Eligibility Evaluation ................................ 63 National Register Eligibility Evaluation .................................. 64 BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................. 66

APPENDIX A: Property Data Tables
Table 1. Master Property List
Table 2. Properties by Construction Date
Table 3. Properties by Architectural Style

APPENDIX B: Survey Forms (DPR 523)

78 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021

Figure 1. Map of proposed South Cumberland Heights Historic District. 79 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this historic resource survey is to identify, document, and evaluate the proposed South Cumberland Heights Historic District , assessing its eligibility for listing in the Glendale R egister of Historic Resources. Its potential eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) and California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) is also assessed.

The proposed district consists of 216 properties, all of which are single- family residences in the Cumberland Heights neighborhood of northwest Glendale. Adjacent to the estates of noted Glendale developers Leslie Brand and brothers Dan and Arthur Campbell, the land comprising Cumberland Heights witnessed the beginnings of development in the early twentieth century, and was then subdivided and developed in earnest beginning in the 1920s. Development of the neighborhood remained measured but apace into the Great Depression and the early postwar era.

The proposed district is a subset of a larger area called Cumberland Heights, the entirety of which was surveyed in 2004 and determined eligible for local listing as a historic district. However, the Cumberland Heights district , as evaluated then, was not designated following the survey. In subsequent years, the eligible district was broken into smaller sub-sections, two of which have been locally designated as historic districts. Ard Eevin Highlands, which includes the northeast section of the original Cumberland Heights district, was designated in 2009; North Cumberland Heights, which includes the northwest section of the original Cumberland Heights district, was designated in 2012. This survey report accounts for the remainder of the original Cumberland Heights district that has not been designated. This area is known as South Cumberland Heights.

The project team involved in the preparation of this survey includes architectural historians and preservation planners f rom Architectural Resources Group (ARG). All ARG staff who contributed to this project meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards, 36 CFR Part 61, in the discipline of Architectural History.

Background and archival research were conducted into the history and development of South Cumberland Heights in order to develop a Historic Context Statement that is specific to the area (see Chapter 2). An intensive-level survey was then undertaken that included documentation and descriptions of all 2 16 properties within the proposed district boundaries. The survey information for each property was recorded on California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 series Primary Record (a) forms; information for the district as a whole was recorded on DPR 523 series District Record (d) forms. DPR forms are included as Appendix B. It should be noted that although the intensive -level survey 80 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 2

included the evaluation of the historic district and its requisite features, each property was not individually evaluated for significance and eligibility.

Upon completion of this survey and analysis, ARG finds that the proposed South Cumberland Heights historic district is eligible for designation as a City of Glendale historic district. It satisfies the requirements established by the 2007 Glendale Historic District Overlay Zone Ordinance. Its period of significance begins in 1922, accounting for the beginning of suburban development in the district, and ends in 1960, by which time the district’s primary period of development had come to a close . While houses constructed in the postwar period embody different architectural styles than those dating to e arlier decades, they are generally consistent with the prevailing scale, massing, and character of the neighborhood and contribute to its significance and sense of place.

South Cumberland Heights includes an eclectic, yet compatible mélange of architectur al styles that were popular during its primary period of development, between the early decades of the twentieth century and the early postwar period. Houses that were constructed earlier in the neighborhood’s history, nearer the turn of the twentieth cent ury, are generally designed in the Craftsman style; those dating to the 1920s and early 1930s are generally designed in the medley of Period Revival styles that were popular after World War I. Houses that date to the Depression era are generally designed i n the more chaste and restrained Minimal Traditional style; those that date to the early postwar era are generally designed in appropriately scaled versions of the Modern and Ranch styles.

In addition to its buildings, the district is defined by mature street trees, sidewalks, parkways, and other tract features that contribute to its sense of place.

Properties that date to the period of significance and retain integrity are considered to be “contributors” to the district. The survey determined that 75% of the area’s properties are contributors, exceeding the ordinance requirement that over 60% of the properties have this status (see Figure 3, page 4).

The district also meets five of the nine designation criteria established by the ordinance, which requires that at least one criterion be met. The survey found that the proposed district meets Criteria A, B, C, G, and H.

The survey also finds that the area appears to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources under Criteria 1, 2, and 3.

81 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 3

Figure 2. Location of
proposed South
Cumberland Heights
Historic District within
the City of Glendale.

Aerial imagery from
Google Maps

82 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 4

Figure 3. Proposed South Cumberland Heights Historic District, map of contributing and non-contributing properties

83 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 5

1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND METHODOLOGY

In December 2017 , the Glendale Historic Preservation Commission authorized a historic resource survey for the proposed South Cumberland Heights Historic District. This decision was based on the Commission’s determination that information in the nomination suggested that the district proposed by area residents appeared to meet one or more of the designation criteria established by the Historic District Overlay Zone Ordinance. In addition, the owners of 4 4% of the properties within the proposed boundary signed a petition requesting that the City conduct the survey, exceeding the 25% required by the ordinance.

The proposed historic district consists of 21 6 single-family residences located in the South Cumberland Heights neighborhood of northwest Glendale. The district encompasses an area that is moderate in size and irregular in shape. Its streets slope gently upward toward the north as the terrain gradually ascends into the foothills of the Verdugo Mountains.

The proposed historic district is a subset of a larger area called Cumberland Heights, the entirety of which was surveyed in 2004 and determined eligible for local listing as a historic district. However, the Cumberland Heights district, as evaluated, was not designated following the survey , as district proponents withdrew their nomination pending changes to the City’s historic district process that were completed in 2008. In subsequent years, the eligible district was broken into smaller sub-sections, two of which have been locally designated:

• Ard Eevin Highlands, comprising the northeast section of the original Cumberland Heights district, was designated in 2009. • North Cumberland Heights, comprising the northwest section of the original Cumberland Heights district, was designated in 2012.

This survey report accounts for the remainder of the original Cumberland Heights district that has not been designated. This area is known as South Cumberland Heights.

The irregular shape of the proposed historic district owes to the fact that it was “carved out” of the original Cumberland Heights district. The north boundary of the proposed historic district is coterminous with the boundaries of the adjacent Ard Eevin Highlands and North Cumberland Heights districts; the south and west boundaries correspond to the boundaries of the original Cumberland Heights district, which is generally defined by Kenneth Road but then jogs north to the west of Cleveland Road. The east boundary generally corresponds to the boundaries of the original Cumberland Heights district to the east of Highland Avenue, but has been augmented to capture seven additional properties on Glenview Place and Elliott Place that were not included in the original Cumberland 84 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 6

Heights district . These additional properties bear similar physical and contextual qualities to adjacent properties, and it was therefore deemed appropriate to include them in the proposed historic district.

Figure 4. Map of the Cumberland Heights neighborhood, including designated historic districts and the proposed South Cumberland Heights historic district

85 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 7

The following address ranges contain all of the properties proposed for inclusion in the district:

• 813-823 Glenview Road
• 1508-1610 Grandview Avenue
• 1513-1546 Highland Avenue
• 748-1008 W. Kenneth Road
• 1515-1639 Cleveland Road
• 1516-1648 Idlewood Road
• 1512-1665 Ben Lomond Drive
• 1513-1545 Ard Eevin Avenue
• 734, 740, 744, 745, 748, 752 Glenview Road
• 748 Elliott Place

This report was prepared by Architectural Resources Group (ARG). AR G staff who contributed to this study include Katie E. Horak, Principal ; Andrew Goodrich, AICP, Senior Associate; and Rosa Lisa Fry. Project support was provided by ARG intern Krista Gelev. Ms. Horak, Mr.

Goodrich, and Ms. Fry meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards, 36 CFR Part 61, in the discipline of Architectural History.

Analysis and evaluation of the proposed district is based upon current professional methodology standards and procedures developed by the National Park Service, the California Office of Historic Preservation, and the City of Glendale’s historic preservation program.

The project team performed the following tasks as part of the survey methodology:
• Reviewed previously developed historic context statements and historic resources surveys for background information and relevant context narrative , including historic contexts that had previously been prepared for Cumberland Heights (2004), Ard Eevin Highlands (2009), and North Cumberland Heights (2012). • Developed a historic context statement for the proposed district through building upon previously prepared context statements and information included in the historic district application. • Reviewed additional archival information and applicable contexts related to the area.
• Conducted a windshield survey of the proposed district and surrounding area to understand its immediate setting, layout, streetscape, landscape, architectural styles, and general integrity relative to adjacent neighborhoods.
• Surveyed every residence within the proposed boundary , preparing architectur al descriptions, noting and researching 86 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 8

alterations, identifying character -defining features of the buildings and landscape, and documenting the properties with digital photographs.
• Prepared Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 series Primary Record (a) forms for each property, and District Record (d) forms for the district as a whole.
• Evaluated the Study Area for eligibility as a historic district against federal, state, and local criteria.

The team’s analysis and findings are detailed in the follo wing pages of this report.

MAPS

Maps of the Study Area contained in this report were produced by ARG, and contain parcel information obtained from the Los Angeles County Office of the Assessor.

CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION

The main objective of this survey is to determine whether the proposed South Cumberland Heights Historic District appear s eligible for designation in accordance with federal, state, and/or local eligibility criteria.

The National Park Service defines a historic district as “a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or objects united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development.”
1 Resources that have been found to contribute to the historic identity of a district are r eferred to as district contributors. Properties located within the district boundaries that do not contribute to its significance are identified as district non-contributors.

A district may be designated as historic by federal, state, and/or local authorities. In order for a district to be considered historic, it must meet one or more identified criteria for an evaluation of significance. An argument for historic significance must be based upon legally established criteria such as those required for listing in the National Register, the California Register, or for local designation. Furthermore, the district must retain integrity, which is generally defined as the ability to convey

1 National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.

Washington D.C.: National Park Service, U. S. Department of the Interior, 1997. 87 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 9

its historic appearance and/or the character -defining elements that illustrate its historical significance.

Evaluation of the Survey Area as a historic district is based upon eligibility criteria for the National Register, the California Register, and the Glendale Municipal Code. Please see Chapter 4 for a complete discussion.

PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED HISTORIC RESOURCES

As of the time of this survey, two properties within the proposed historic district boundary are individually listed in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources.

The Ben Lomond House (1518 Ben Lomond Drive, 1925) was added to the Glendale Register of Historic Resources (#59) in 2006. The house is designed in the French -inspired style, which was popular during the neighborhood’s formative period of development in the 1920s.

The Stanford House (804 W. Kenneth Road, 1928) was added to the Glendale Register of Historic Resources (#91) in 2011. The house was designed by architect Earl C. Rahn for the family of John Stanford, the owner of a successful Glendale construction and real estate business. It is an excellent example of the Spanish Colonial Revival style.

Figure 5. Ben Lomond
House, 1518 N. Ben
Lomond Drive, built in
1925 and listed in the
Glendale Register of
Historic Resources.

Photo by ARG

88 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 10

Figure 6. Stanford
House, 804 W. Kenneth
Road, built in 1928 and
listed in the Glendale
Register of Historic
Resources. Photo by
ARG

89 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 11

2. HISTORIC CONTEXTS AND THEMES

INTRODUCTION

Purpose
In order to understand the significance of historic resources, it is necessary to examine those resources within one or more historic contexts. By placing built resources in the appropriate historic, social, and architectural context, the relationship between an area’s physical environment and its broader history can be established.

A historic context statement is not a comprehensive history of an area; rather, i t is intended to highlight trends and patterns critical to the understanding of the built environment. It provides a framework for the continuing process of identifying historic, architectural, and cultural resources. It may also serve as a guide to enable citizens, planners, and decision-makers to evaluate the relative significance and integrity of individual properties.

Acknowledgements
This historic context statement is intended to supplement past efforts by the City and its project consultants to devel op an increasingly comprehensive historic context statement for Glendale. The most relevant of these past efforts is the Citywide Historic Context Statement (1993), developed by Teresa Grimes and Leslie Heumann & Associates, and the Historic Resource Surve y Report for the Cumberland Heights neighborhood (2004), prepared by Historic Resources Group. In addition, pertinent sections of the survey reports for the Ard Eevin Highlands Historic District (2008) and the North Cumberland Heights Historic District (2012) were consulted in the preparation of this survey report.

This context statement has also benefited from the work and research of Mark Taraborelli, Derek Catao, Kat Babbitt, and Cliff Claycomb, who provided key information and research material in the historic district nomination about the development history of the neighborhood. Lastly, the National Register Bulletin Historic Residential Suburbs: Guidelines for Evaluation and Documentation for the National Register of Historic Places (2002) by David Ames and Linda Flint McClelland provided the necessary evaluative framework for the National Register.

90 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 12

DEVELOPMENT HISTORY
Early History
Rancho San Rafael and Early Anglo Settlement
In the Spanish and Mexican eras of California history, the present-day Cumberland Heights neighborhood was part of the expansive Rancho San Rafael, a 36,403 -acre land grant that extended across the present -day communities of Glendale, Burbank, Eagle Rock, and Highland Park.2 The rancho had been gifted in 1784 by the Spanish Empire to José María Verdugo, a corporal in the Spanish army . Its vast acreage was primarily used for cattle grazing and agriculture.3

California remained a Spanish colony until 1822, at which time it was ceded to Mexico. Under Mexican rule the missions were secularized, and much of the land comprising Alta California was parsed into expansive grants in the same tradition of the Spanish ranchos of previous years. 4 Upon José María Verdugo’s death in 1831, ownership of Rancho San Rafael was divided between two of his children, son Julio and daughter Catalina.

Rancho San Rafael remained in the hands of the Verdugo family throughout the Mexican era of California history (1822-1848).

In the wake of the Mexican American War (1846-1848), Mexico reluctantly ceded most of the American Southwest to the United States; California became the thirty -first state in 1850. In theory, the owners of Spanish and Mexican ranchos could retain title to their land; in practice, ownership was a muddled and often contentious issue due to discrepancies between Mexican and American title law and policies that by design, almost always favored the interests of Americans. Rancho San Rafael was divided several times over in the mid-nineteenth century as members of the Verdugo family used their vast land holdings to repay debts, taxes, and legal fees. The Verdugos eventually lost their rancho to foreclosure. In the Great Partition of 1871, one of the most infamous land ownership cases in California history, Rancho San Rafael was divided between 28 different parties.5

Following the Great Partition, t he area that would eventually become Cumberland Heights passed into the hands of Rafaela Verdugo de Sepulveda, the granddaughter of José María Verdugo and wife of Fernando Sepulveda , the descendent of another prominent California family.
6 Rafaela’s allotment of land spanned 909.4 acres along the base of the Verdugo Mountains and included the entire Survey Area.

Between the 1870s and 1890s, Rafaela subdivided and sold portions of

2 City of Glendale, “Overview of Glendale History,” accessed Mar. 2020. 3 Ibid; “Rancho San Rafael: A Land in Transition,” KCET, Oct. 4, 2010. 4 Carey McWilliams, Southern California: An Island on the Land (Salt Lake City: Peregrine Smith, 1946), 38-39.
5 “Rancho San Rafael: A Land in Transition,” KCET, Oct. 4, 2010. 6 “Rancho San Rafael: Beaudry and Verdugo de Sepulveda Parcels,” map, ca. 1872, accessed Mar. 2020 via The Huntington Library, Solano-Reeve Collection. 91 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 13

the land. Among the earliest settlers in the area was Jesse D . Hunter, who acquired a swath of land on the south side of present -day Cumberland Road. The Hunter Subdivision, recorded in 1883, parsed the land into 15 parcels that ranged between 12 and 50 acres in size. 7 Other early settlers of northwest Glendale inc luded Jonathan R. Scott and, later, Leslie C. Brand. 8

However, on the whole the Survey Area remained undeveloped for the duration of the nineteenth century , subdivision efforts notwithstanding . Located far on the periphery of an established population center, it lacked any true appeal to settlers at the time.

The only known permanent structures in northwest Glendale were the Sepulveda Adobe (not extant), located near Brand Boulevard and Stocker Street in the Casa Verdugo neighborhood, and Casa Adobe de San Rafael (1330 Dorothy Drive), which is located about a mile east of the Survey Area . They we re built circa 1865 and circa 1871, respectively, by members of the Verdugo and Sepulveda families. 9 Early Subdivision and Development
Glendale was beginning to take shape to the south and west of the Survey Area in the late nineteenth century . Like many Southern California communities, Glendale can trace its modern-day roots to the 1880s, when the completion of transcontinental rail lines and a subsequent fare “war” between the competing Southern Pacific and Santa Fe Railroad companies opened up previously inaccessible land and ushered in a wave of speculative development activity across the region. In 1887, developers C.E. Thom, Erskine M. Ross, B.F. Patterson, H.J. Crow, and E.T. Byram pooled together land that they had purchased and platted a 150 -acre

7 Tract map for the Hunter Subdivision, MR 5-395, Nov. 1883, accessed Mar. 2020 via the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works.
8 “Cumberland Heights Historic Resource Survey Report,” Sept. 30, 2004, 9. 9 Ibid, 8.

Figure 7. Glendale
and environs
ca.1870s. Source: Los
Angeles Public
Library Photo
Collection

92 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 14

town site that they called “Glendale.”10 The boundaries of the original town site were defined as First Street (now Lexington Avenue) on the north, Fifth (now Harvard Avenue) and south of Sixth (now Colorado Street) streets on the south, Central Avenue on the west, and the Childs Tract (a portion of which is now Chevy Chase Drive) on the east.

Development within the newly-founded town of Glendale was sluggish for the duration of the nineteenth century . The real estate boom abruptly collapsed shortly after the town was recorded in 1887; consequently, land sales and development activity – once bustling – fell completely flat. A grand, Queen Anne style hotel, intended to be a focal point of the new town, closed amid a sea of contractor debt, standing as a stark symbol of the economic collapse. 11 In addition, and perhaps most importantly, Glendale lacked a direct and dependable transportation connection to Los Angeles, making the nascent town difficult to access and thwarting development activi ty. A spur line affiliated with the San Pedro, Los Angeles, and Salt Lake Railroad had been constructed down Glendale Avenue in 1887, but operated only on a sporadic basis. For the remainder of the nineteenth century, Glendale remained a sparsely-developed town “of about 300 people… [with] no gas or electric lights, electric irons or electric cars.” 12

10 Perry and Parcher (1981), 11.
11 Pacific Coast Architecture Database, “Glendale Hotel, Downtown, Glendale, CA,” accessed Mar. 2020.
12 E. Caswell Perry, Shirley Catherine Berger, and Terri E. Jonisch, Glendale: A Pictorial History (Norfolk: The Donning Company, 1990), 23.

Figure 8. Original
plat map of
Glendale, 1887.

Source: Glendale
Public Library
Special Collections

93 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 15

The Survey Area was located about two miles northwest of Glendale and fell outside the boundari es of the original town site. The large, multi - acre parcels in the area that had been included in the Hunter Subdivision of 1883 and adjacent subdivisions remained undeveloped and consisted of small-scale agricultural uses at this time.

Leslie C. Brand and the Campbell Brothers
The early history of northwest Glendale is closely associated with the investments and development pursuits of Leslie Coombs Brand, often dubbed the “father of Glendale.”13 Born in Missouri in 1859, Brand arrived in Southern California in 1886, at the height of the real estate boom that was brought on by the arrival of transcontinental rail service. Upon arriving in California, Brand co -founded the Title Guarantee and Trust Company, established a close working relationship with transit magnate Henry Huntington, and invested heavily in real estate in and around the nascent town of Glendale, as well as in the nearby Burbank and San Fernando areas.14 Brand’s aspirations dovetailed with Huntington’s plan to construct a network of electric streetcars between suburban communities and central Los Angeles. Brand was perhaps Glendale’s

13 City of Glendale, “Brand Library/El Miradero,” accessed Mar. 2020. 14 “Cumberland Heights Historic Resource Survey Report,” Sept. 30, 2004, 9-10.

Figure 9. The
Glendale Hotel,
open for only a brief
period before the
collapse of the
economic boom of
the 1880s. Source:

Los Angeles Public
Library Photo
Collection

94 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 16

single-greatest civic booster, working tirelessly to promote his vision for Glendale up until his death in 1925. Brand played a pivotal role in bringing water, telephone, and transportation infrastructure to Glendale in the early 1900s.15

In the early twentieth century, Brand acquired several hundred acres along the foothills to the northwest of Glendale – then a remote outpost on the outskirts of town that was undeveloped aside from a smattering of agricultural properties. The Los Angeles Times, reporting on Brand’s acquisition in 1903, notes that the area is “without improvements,” and remarks that “about fifty acres of the land are in bearing oranges and ten in lemons.”
16 It also notes that Brand intended to “have the greater portion of the lands planted in str awberries and winter vegetables,” made possible by Brand’s acquisition of water rights in the area.17

Shortly after acquiring this foothill acreage, Brand commissioned his brother-in-law, architect Nathaniel Dryden, to design his personal house, perched atop the crest of a h ill overlooking Glendale and its environs.

Brand called his house “El Miradero,” the Spanish word for “viewpoint.”18 Constructed at a then-exorbitant cost of $60,000, the 5,000-square-foot estate was an exotic edifice that “combined Moorish, Spanish and Indian elements in a palatial structure.” 19 The unusual, Sarcenic styling of El Miradero was influenced by the East Indian Pavilion at the World’s Columbian Exposition in Chicago of 1893, which Brand had attended. 20 Brand later bequeathed the residence and its surrounding acreage to the City of Glendale; the property, which is located slightly north of the Survey Area, is currently used as a public library and park.21

15 Ibid.
16 “Quarter Million Dollars in Land,” Los Angeles Times, Mar. 27, 1903. 17 Ibid.
18 City of Glendale, “Brand Library/El Miradero,” accessed Mar. 2020. 19 Susan Vaughn, “Mansion Still Speaks Volumes,” Los Angeles Times, Jul. 3, 1992. 20 Ibid.
21 City of Glendale, “Brand Library/El Miradero,” accessed Mar. 2020.

Figures 10-11.

Leslie Brand, early
developer of
Glendale. Source:

Calisphere

95 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 17

It was also around this time that another key player in the early planning and development of the Survey Area, Daniel “Dan” Campbell, arrived in Southern California. Originally from Ireland, Campbell, at the age of 19, came to the United States and sought to strike it rich in the goldfields of the Alaskan Klondike.22 While there, Campbell became acquainted with Joe Brand, the younger brother of Leslie Brand, who sold the enterprising young Irishman on the merits and economic potential of Southern California’s real estate market. Campbell eventually visited Los Angeles and stayed for a period with the Brand family, at which point he witnessed Leslie Brand’s success in transportation and real estate development firsthand. Brand took a liking to Campbell, and persuaded the young man to purchase 25 acres at the base of the Verdugo Mountains, next to his property.

Campbell erected a house on his newly-acquired property and, like Brand, commissioned architect Dryden to design it. The house, built in 1903, was called “Ard Eevin,” believed to be an Irish name meaning “delightful peak.”23 Its design was expressive and eclectic, incorporating elements of the American Colonial Revival and Craftsman styles as well as features that have been described in contemporary literature as representing the “West Indian Plantation” style.24 Ard Eevin complemented the adjacent El Miradero/Brand residence, which was completed the following year and also represented a non- conformist interpretation of Period Revival styles, albeit in a different way.

Both Ard Eevin and El Miradero reflected the earliest patterns of development in northwe st Glendale, in which large country estates peppered an otherwise-virgin landscape along the Verdugo foothills. For their owners, these houses signified wealth and prestige, and also afforded them a degree of physical separation from the bustle of urban life.25 The area surrounding the Brand and Campbell estates remained almost entirely undeveloped in the early twentieth century, with the

22 “Cumberland Heights Historic Resource Survey Report,” Sept. 30, 2004, 10. 23 Ibid, 11; “National Register of Historic Places Registration Form, Ard Eevin,” prepared by Daniel D. Paul, May 13, 2006.
24 “Cumberland Heights Historic Resource Survey Report,” Sept. 30, 2004, 11. 25 Ibid.

Figures 12-13.

Views of El
Miradero, the estate
of Leslie Brand.

Source: Calisphere

96 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 18

adjacent land being used for agriculture. In 1905, the Glendale News Press, reporting on the construction of Campbell’s Ard Eevin estate, wrote that “much profit is realized by the owner from cultivating the fertile acres which lie east, south and west of the residence.” 26 Both residences are located slightly outside the boundaries of the Survey Area; however, they were prominent local architectural landmarks that drew attention to the otherwise -sparse landscape of the northwest Glendale area. Given their prominence and provenance, these houses spurred interest among sightseers, indirectly advertising the area’s scenic qualities and opening the door for its future development. “It is well worth the time and expense necessary to get a sight of these homes and the gr and view to be obtained of the valleys from this location,” remarked the Glendale News -Press in 1905 . “We predict the coming winter will bring many sightseers and homeseekers to this most favored spot in [the] beautiful San Fernando Valley.”
27 Arthur Campbell, the brother of Dan Campbell, also arrived in the area at about this time, acquiring property to the east of Highland Avenue and constructing a residence of his own. Lik e Dan, Arthur Campbell also farmed his land in the early twentieth century. The Campbell brothers both worked for Brand; Arthur managed his utility companies and Dan managed the First National Bank of Glendale, which had been founded by Brand in 1905.
28 They also began investing in Glendale real estate.

26 Glendale News-Press, Oct. 27, 1905.
27 Ibid.
28 “Cumberland Heights Historic Resource Survey Report,” Sept. 30, 2004, 9-11.

Figure 14. Ard
Eevin, the estate of
Dan Campbell.

Source: City of
Glendale Planning
Division

97 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 19

Streetcar Suburbanization and the Emergence of a “Community of Homes”
The arrival of dependable inter -urban transportation contributed to Glendale’s growth shortly after the turn of the twentieth century.

Between 1902 and 1903, Leslie Brand and E.D. Goode, Secretary of the Glendale Improvement Association, worked collaboratively to secure a right-of-way for an electric railway, which would run along what became Brand Boulevard through a large swath of land that was owned by Brand.29 The right-of-way was then acquired by Henry Huntington’s Pacific Electric Railway Company, which constructed a line that began in downtown Los Angeles and terminated in downtown Glendale. By providing a direct connection between Glendale and downtown Los Angeles wit h a travel time that averaged 20 minutes, the Pacific Electric (Red Car) line enhanced the accessibility of Glendale and led to its incorporation in 1906.
30 Additional “spur” lines were added to the Red Car route in subsequent years. The completion of the Red Car line was augmented by the completion of a second, albeit less direct, electric rail line in 1909 that arrived in downtown Glendale from the east. Financed by E.D.

Goode, this route connected to a Yel low Car line that provided service between downtown Los Angeles and Eagle Rock.31

Electric streetcar lines functioned as the primary catalyst for growth at this time, making Glendale ripe for new development by generating a demand for new houses that were removed from central Los Angeles yet remained within a reasonable commuting distance . Responding to this

29 Glendale Historical Society, “Glendale History – A Brief Look,” accessed Mar. 2020. 30 Perry and Parcher, Glendale Area History (1981), 21-23. 31 Ibid, 25.

Figure 15. Postcard
in promotional
leaflet released by
the Glendale
Chamber of
Commerce, c. 1924-

25. Source: California
Digital Library

98 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 20

newfound demand, developers and civic boosters marketed Glendale as a residential suburb – or a “community of homes” – early in its developmental history. 32 U.S. Census Bureau data indicated that Glendale’s population increased by 393 percent between 1910 and 1920, and “the fastest growing city in America” became its official (albeit disputed) slogan. 33 This statistic was touted relentlessly by developers and boosters, who were eager to promote Glendale and attract prospective settlers. The city continued to grow at a swift rate between 1920 and 1930 as the Southern California region came of age and experienced a period of economic prosperity.

Development of Cumberland Heights
Early Subdivision and the Real Estate Boom of the 1920s Between the turn -of-the-twentieth century and the early 1920s, the Brand and Campbell estates were surrounded by open land, much of it associated with the Hunter Subdivision that had been platted into large parcels in 1883. Apart from small -scale agricultural uses, the only development activity in the area at this time consisted of the sale and re-subdivision of some of the land. In 1907, a lot within t he Hunter Subdivision to the south of present -day Cumberland Road was acquired and re-subdivided into the Jones and Valentine Tract, comprising two parcels that measured 19 acres each.
34 Concurrent with the recordation
of this tract, two previously unnamed county streets that transected the area were named Grandview Avenue and Kenneth Road. 35 In 1912,

32 Juliet M. Arroyo, Katherine Peters Yamada, and George Ellison, Postcard History Series: Glendale (Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing, 2007), 9.
33 Ibid, 72.
34Tract map for the Jones and Valentine Tract, MB 12-155, May 1907, accessed Mar. 2020 via the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works.
35 Ibid.

Figure 16. Truck
sign touting
Glendale’s growth,
ca. 1923. Source:

Los Angeles Public
Library Photo
Collection

99 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 21

another portion of the Hunter Subdivision was re-subdivided to create the new Tract 1576. Tract 1576 occupied the area north of Kenneth Road, west of Highland Avenue, and east of the Jones and Valentine Tract.36

However, these subdivisions were speculative in nature and existed largely on paper ; they did not result in widespread neighborhood development. Only one house in the Survey Area, 1549 Ben Lomond Drive, dates to the early twentieth c entury and appears to be original to the neighborhood. It has since been extensively altered. Two others, 1621 Ben Lomond Drive (1912) and 1631 Ben Lomond Drive (1910), were constructed in the 1910s, but were both relocated to their current locations from Brand Boulevard in the 1920s.

The origins of the Cumberland Heights neighborhood date to the early 1920s, when Glendale was witnessing a period marked by swift and steady growth and a dramatic population increase. Buoyed by the construction of a vast network of electric streetcars and the prospect of a suburban dream, more and more prospective homeowners ventured outside of established ne ighborhoods and into suburban communities, including Glendale. This, in turn, spurred the subdivision and development of many new residential neighborhoods on the outskirts of town. The citrus orchards, vineyards, and scenic estates that had once character ized the foothill lands to the north and west of Glendale became rich fodder for

36 Tract map for Tract 1576, MB 20-44, accessed Mar. 2020 via the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works.

Figures 17-18.

Tract maps of the
Jones and Valentine
Tract (1907) and
Tract 1576 (1912).

Source: Los Angeles
County Department
of Public Works

100 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 22

investors and real estate developers, who subdivided the land into new residential neighborhoods. These investors capitalized on the desire for home ownership that permeated public opinion and tapped into society’s infatuation with suburban living.

There were a number of local investors and real estate firms who led the charge toward suburbanization at this time. Chief among these investors were Leslie Brand and Dan and Arthur Campbell. Homer and Campbell, a firm organized by the Campbell brothers, emerged as one of the most prolific real estate practices in Glendale during this time, amassing more than $200,000 in sales in the Glendale area.37

Beginning in the early 1920s, po rtions of the estates of Brand, the Campbells, and others who had invested in the area were subdivided and platted into more conventional residential neighborhoods that, over time, would become known as Cumberland Heights. Cumberland Heights consists of the Survey Area as well as the adjacent Ard Eevin Highlands and North Cumberland Heights historic districts, all of which were developed at the same general time, were developed by the same group of interested parties, and ascribed to the same template of re sidential development that was characteristic of the era. It was during the 1920s that this once -peripheral corner of Glendale shed its rural roots and began its swift transformation into a populous suburban district.

One of the largest and most prominent tracts to be subdivided in the area was recorded in September 1923 by Dan and Arthur Campbell. Known as Campbell Heights, it encompassed a swath of the brothers’ real estate holdings, consisting of acreage to the south and west of the Ard Eevin estate and Arthur’s residence on Mountain Street.38 Campbell Heights was touted as the “ideal homesite,” with advertisements making frequent mention of prominent individuals who purchased lots there. “In short,” remarked Arthur Campbell about the tract that bore his name, “practically everyone who visits the tract buys, and the remarkable thing about it is that they buy not to hold but to build…Campbell Heights will not last long. It is going too fast.”
39 A reporter for the Glendale News Press, writing about Campbell Heights in September 1923, described the area in the hyperbolic prose that were characteristic of real estate practices during this period:

…development there [is] exceedingly rapid, with street work practically all in and houses of the larger type going up on all hands. The view particularly is fine. There is nothing to break the long, beautiful panorama that spreads from east to west, and that

37 “Cumberland Heights Historic Resource Survey Report,” Sept. 30, 2004, 9-11. 38 Tract map for Tract 6663, MB 76-54, Sept. 1923, accessed Mar. 2020 via the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works.
39 “Cumberland Heights Historic Resource Survey Report,” Sept. 30, 2004, 15-16. 101 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 23

unfolds southward clear to the sea, a world of grandeur that would be difficult to duplicate anywhere . Surely here one might build the home of his dreams.40

The Campbell Heights tract included parcels to the north and south of Cumberland Road. Most of the parcels within this tract fall within the adjacent Ard Eevin Highlands and North Cumberland Heights historic districts; however, a few parcels to the south of Cumberland Road, along Ben Lomond Drive , are a part of the Survey Area. Dan and Arthur Campbell were similarly involved in the development of several other tracts in the greater Cumberland Heights neighborhood. The Campbells either owned these tracts outright or partnered with other developers in some capacity.

However, based on available information conveyed in tract maps the Campbells appear to have been most heavily involved in the development of tracts to the immediate north and east of the Survey Area, in the adjacent Ard Eevin Highlands and North Cumberland Heights historic districts. By contrast, most of the subdivisions in the Survey Area were carved out of the previously-platted Jones and Valentine Tract (1907) and Tract 1576 (1912) ; these original tracts consisted of large, multi -acre parcels that were acquired and re -platted into smaller residential lots .

40 Glendale News Press, Sept, 29, 1923.

Figure 19. Aerial
view of the Survey
Area, ca. 1921.

Grandview Avenue
is in the
foreground and
leads to the Brand
residence/ El
Miradero, at rear.

Source: Glendale
Public Library
Special Collections

102 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 24

The Campbells’ names do not appear on most of the tract maps encompassing the Survey Area. Many of these maps h ave illegible signatures, so it is possible that the Campbells were more heavily involved in the development of the South Cumberland Heights area than the available evidence suggests.

Once the Campbells had invested heavily in the subdivision and development of the greater Cumberland Heights area, other investors and developers swiftly followed suit. The Survey Area was not the product of any one developer, but is rather a patchwork of individual subdivisions that were platted and developed alongside each other, at about the same time, and in the same general manner. Altogether, the Survey Area comprises portions of 20 different subdivisions, most of which were carved out of existing tracts and then re-platted into smaller residential subdivisions (see Figure 18, page 25). The overwhelming majority of these subdivisions were recorded between 1923 and 1924, consistent with development patterns elsewhere in the Cumberland Heights neighborhood and reflecting the extraordinary demand for new suburban housing in northwest Glendale at this time.

Tracts within the Survey Area vary in size, with some comprising just a handful of parcels and others encompassing entire blocks. One of the largest subdivisions in the area is Tract No. 6664, a re -subdivision of earlier tracts that was recorded in 1923.
41 As originally platted, Tract No.
6664 comprised the 1500 and 1600 blocks of the east side of Cleveland Road and both sides of Idlewood Road, between Cumberland Road (north) and Kenneth Road (south). Active in the development of this subdivision were several owners and builder including investor s E.G. Manning, the Lehigh Investment Company, Seth J. Rice, contractor O’Neil and Son, Antonio Farinacci, Earl S. Hook, and M.E. Valentine.

Consistent with common practices of the day, parcels within these subdivisions were developed incrementally and on an individual basis, rather than all at once and by a single entity. Per this structure, the developers of each tract would sell lots to either individual homeseekers or investment companies, and buyers would construct a new dwelling in an architectural style of their choosing. As a result, houses within the subdivision ascribe to the same basic massing, bulk, and scale, but exhibit some variety with respect to architectural style.

41 Tract map for Tract 6664, MB 82-24, Dec. 1923, accessed Mar. 2020 via the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works.
103 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 25

Development of the Survey Area began in earnest in 1923, when a considerable number of its requisite subdivisions were platted and put on the market. Only nine of the Survey Area’s 21 6 properties ( 4%) have construction dates that pre-date 1923, and of these two were moved to the Survey Area from their original locations on Brand Boulevard. By Figure 20. Map of tract boundaries within the Survey Area, gleaned from subdivision maps

104 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 26

contrast, 86 of the Survey Area’s 216 properties (40%) were constructed between 1923 and 1929, reflecting the surge in new development activity that transformed the ar ea into a suburban enclave at this time. Houses in the neighborhood that date to the 1920s are generally designed in the medley of Period Revival styles that had come into vogue and were then seen as barometers of good taste. The Spanish Colonial Revival, Tudor Revival, and French-Inspired styles were most commonly applied to the dwellings constructed in the Survey Area at this time , though the neighborhood was peppered with other historicist idioms including the Mediterranean Revival, Monterey Revival, and American Colonial styles.

This variety of historically-inspired architectural styles was typical of suburban neighborhoods that witnessed considerable development in the 1920s, with an eclectic yet cohesive visual vocabulary.

Most houses within the Survey Area are relatively modest interpretations of their respective architectural style and were likely designed and constructed by a b uilding contractor . However, a few are known to have been designed by an architect including the Spanish Colonial Revival -style Stanford House at 804 W. Kenneth Road (built 1924, listed on the Glendale Register ), which was designed by architect Earl C. Rahn. Slightly outside the Survey Area, in the North Cumberland Heights district, Glendale architect Alfred F. Priest designed the Tudor Revival -style house at 1675 Ard Eevin Avenue. 42 The area attracted several prominent members of the Glendale community during its formative period of growth. Among them were Dr.

L.E. Eames, who relocated and reconfigured an existing house from Brand

42 “Plans Residence,” Los Angeles Times, Dec. 30, 1923.

Figure 21.

Postcard view of
residence at 1648
Idlewood Road,
n.d. Provided
courtesy of
Catherine Jurca

105 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 27

Boulevard to 1631 Ben Lomond Drive in 1925; and Dr. Norman C. Paine, who commissi oned an elegant Spanish Colonial Revival -style house at 1617 Cleveland Road (1931). 43 The renowned baseball coach Rod Dedeaux, who was the head baseball coach for the University of Southern California (USC) for 45 years, resided in the house at 747 W. Kenneth Road; baseball players Casey Stengel and Babe Herman resided nearby in houses slightly outside the Survey Area at 1663 Grandview Avenue and 1622 Highland Avenue, respectively ;.44 Blues musician Willie Dixon resided in a Tudor Revival style house at 1541 Ard Eevin Avenue later in his life, where he lived until his death in 1992.45

Great Depression through World War II (1929-1942)
By the late 1920s, the Survey Area was well -established and had assumed the form and appearance of a suburban neighborhood, with about half of all parcels improved . The greatest amount of development activity had occurred on the 1500 and 1600 blocks of Cleveland and Idlewood roads and Ben Lomond Drive; elsewhere in the Survey Area, development activity was more sporadic, with some parcels improved and others undeveloped. Portions of the Survey Area with the greatest number of undeveloped parcels included its southeast quadrant – generally, the area east of Ben Lomond Drive and south of Glenview Road – and the area west of Cleveland Road.

The Great Depression thwarted development activity in many communities, including some Glendale -area neighborhoods, but compared to larger nationwide trends development activity remained steady in the Survey Area following the Stock Market Crash of 1929 and the economic tumult that ensued. Continued residential development in the area during the Depression years is generally attributed to the nearby presence of entertainment and wartime industries, both of which soldiered on and fueled the local economy.

Two new residential subdivisions were platted in the Survey Area in the early 1930s: Tract 8873, recorded in 1930, and Tract 7664, recorded in 1931. Both are small subdivisions that are located side - by-side, and collectively comprise about a dozen parcels on the east side of Ard Eevin Avenue and the west side of Highland Avenue, to the north of Kenneth Road.
46 Both were carved out of the existing Tract
1576, which had been recorded in 1912 and encompassed much of the southeast quadrant of the Survey Area . A third subdivision, Tract 10597, was also subdivided in 1930; it mostly consisted of parcels to

43 “Cumberland Heights Historic Resource Survey Report,” Sept. 30, 2004, 15. 44 Ibid.
45 Steve Appleford, “Family Perpetuates a Legacy of the Blues,” Los Angeles Times, Oct. 19, 1995; “Willie Dixon Buys $700,000 House in Glendale, Calif.,” Jet 79.9 (Dec. 10, 1990), 36. 46 Tract maps for Tract 8873, MB 171-131, Mar. 1930, and Tract 7664, MB 175-41 Jan. 1931, accessed Mar. 2020 via the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. 106 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 28

the south of Kenneth Road, but includes one parcel that falls within the boundaries of the Survey Area. 47

Within these newly -subdivided tracts and elsewhere throughout the Survey Area, new houses were constructed on vacant lots , rounding out development patterns within much of the neighborhood by filling in parcels that remained vacant. 75 of the Survey Area’s 216 parcels (35%) were constructed during the Depression era, between 1930 and 1942. Generally, houses that were constructed earlier in the Depression era, during the first half of the 1930s, are similar in massing, scale, and style to houses that were built in the neighborhood during the 1920s. These houses vary between one and two stories in height and are designed in the same Spanish Colonial Revival, Tudor Revival, and French- Inspired styles that were popular in the 1920s and carried over into the next decade. However , houses built in the latter half of the 1930s and the early 1940s tended to reflect the economic restraint of the era and embodied the more austere Minimal Traditional style, which emphasized economy and efficiency with respect to home design. H owever, as a whole the area continued to read as a unified entity due to the scale and massing of individual houses and the retention of tract features like parkways and street trees, which contributed to the area’s distinctive sense of place.

Development within the Survey Area ground to an abrupt halt altogether in 1942, when the United States entered into World War II and a moratorium on new residential construction was imposed as the nation redirected its resources to wartime production. One new subdivision, Tract 13522, was recorded in 1944, taking a portion of the exiting Tract 1572 and re-platting it into seven smaller residential lots.48 Its owners are listed on map records at Alfred and Barbara Lathrup. However, no development activity within this tract, or elsewhere in the Survey Area, occurred until after the war, when building moratoria were lifted.

47 Tract map for Tract 10597, MB 173-39, Sept. 1930, accessed Mar. 2020 via the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works.
48 Tract map for Tract 13522, MB 268-7, Aug. 1944, accessed Mar. 2020 via the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works.
107 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 29

that were unimproved, particularly in the southeast and southwest corners of the Sur vey Area. C onsistent with prevailing trends of infill development in Glendale , the few vacant parcels that remained in the neighborhood were developed with new single-family residences.

39 houses were added to the Survey Area between 1946 and 1960, accounting for 18% of its total building stock . These houses rounded out patterns of development in the neighborhood, filling in all vacant parcels.

The Survey Area was entirely developed by 1960.

No new subdivisions were platted within the Survey Area after 1 944. In 1967, a small subdivision, Tract 30005, was recorded on a swath of land adjacent to the Survey Area that remained undeveloped. This tract consists of ten parcels that are oriented around a small cul-de-sac, Stone Lane. These parcels were develop ed beginning in the late 1960s, after Cumberland Heights’s primary period of development, and are not included in the Survey Area.

Houses dating to the early postwar period are almost exclusively single- story (as opposed to earlier residences, which were often two stories) and were generally designed in variations of the Ranch and Modern style s, which had emerged as the dominant modes of American residential architecture by the mid -twentieth century . Ranch style houses are characterized by their horizontal silhouettes and elongated floor plans; Modern style houses incorporated clean lines and geometric volumes.

Both reflected consumer preferences and society’s infatuation with modernity and progress. Given the compact size of lots within the neighborhood, Ranch and Modern houses in the Survey Area tend to be comparatively small in scale and modest in appearance. While clearly products of the postwar period, these later additions to the Survey Area are compatible with its prevailing scale, massing, and character. 108 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 30

Figure 22. Map indicating construction dates of properties within the proposed South Cumberland Heights Historic District
109 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 31

RELEVANT HISTORIC CONTEXTS AND THEMES
Context: Residential Development and Suburbanization
Theme: The Role of Transportation: Automobile
Suburbanization
Development of the Survey Area was made possible by the advent of the automobile as a dominant mode of personal transportation, both in Southern California and elsewhere across the United States.

Since the nineteenth century, transportation has been a key determinant of residential development patterns in cities throughout the United States. Modes of transportation played a pivotal role in dictating how American households traveled between their places of residence and their places of work. Accordingly, advances in transportation technology hastened the trend of suburbanization by providing a means by which development could reach farther and farther away from central cities and into the hinterlands of urban society. During the Industrial Revolution, suburban settings had become increasingly desirable places to live. A s cities industrialized and emerged as centers of American manufacturing, they also “became increasingly crowded and congested places perceived to be unhealthy and dangerous.”49 The clean air, ample open space, and dearth of heavy industry in suburban environments were widely seen as antidotes to the density, pollution, and congestion that pervaded the nineteenth century American city.

The earliest American suburbs were developed in the mid- nineteenth century alongside railroad corridors and, later, horse -drawn streetcar lines. The advent of electric streetcar technology in the 1880s hastened this trend of outward urban migration. Electric streetcars made it possible to extend transportation lines far into the urban periphery, into areas that had once been difficult – if not impossible – to reach, thereby opening up swaths of virgin land for new development. In most cities, and certainly in Los Angeles, these electric streetcar lines originated in the central city and extended out into the ether in any direction that was feasible. New lines were built en masse during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, resulting in streetcar networks that spanned entire regions and are often described as resembling spokes on a wheel.

The suburban neighborhoods that developed alongside electric streetcar lines between the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries are known as streetcar suburbs, owing to their direct association with streetcars and the outward growth that they promulgated.

Many of the earliest neighborhoods in Glendale are associated with this trend, as their subdivision and early growth was spurre d by the construction of a streetcar line between downtown Los Angeles and

49 “National Register Bulletin: Historic Residential Suburbs,” Sept. 2002 (U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National Register of Historic Places), 38. 110 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 32

Glendale in 1904. Various extensions and spur lines were added to the local streetcar network in subsequent years, radiating progressively outward from the historic downtown core and making possible the development of land further out into the periphery. The Burbank - Glendale line of the Pacific Electric Railway, which ran down Glenoaks Boulevard, opened in 1911, providing service to the neighborhoods of northwest Glendale for the first time.50 This line was located about a mile to the south of the Survey Area and other sections of the Cumberland Heights neighborhood – close enough to open the floodgates for new development in this general area of the city, but still too distant to result in the development of the Survey Area at this time. Indeed, subdivision maps and construction permits indicate that Cumberland Heights remained very sparsely developed for well more than a decade after the Burbank-Glendale line commenced service, suggesting that the proximity of streetcars did not directly lead to instantaneous growth in this area.

Rather, the nascence and early development of the Survey Area is more directly associated with the advent of the automobile, which, like the railroads and streetcars that preceded it, came to be a key determinant of residential development patterns beginning by about the 1920s.

In the first three decades of the twentieth century, the American public developed an infatuation with – and became increasingly reliant upon –

50 City of Glendale, “Proposed North Cumberland Heights Historic District, Historic Resource Survey Update,” prepared Aug. 2012, 17.

Figure 23. Pacific
Electric Red Car on
the Burbank-
Glendale line, 1911.

Source: Glendale
Public Library Special
Collections

111 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 33

the automobile.51 Once seen as a luxury item attainable only by the well- to-do, the passenger car became much more widely available after industrialist Henry Ford pioneered a method where by cars could be produced in mass quantities. In 1908, Ford introduced the Model T, a more economical model geared toward the common man, and using his mass production methods Ford became the single largest auto manufacturer in the nation. 52 This, in turn, allowed Ford to continually lower the price of his passenger cars, resulting in a substantial increase in ownership. The automobile became a popular mode of travel across the nation and particularly in Southern California, where it was adopted earlier and arguably with greater enthusiasm than anywhere else. In 1910, there were 20,000 cars registered in Los Angeles County; this number increased to 141,000 by 1919, and 777,000 by 1929. 53 In the mid-
1920s, Los Angeles had one car per 1.8 reside nts – compared to the national statistic of one car per 6.6 residents – and by 1924, Los Angeles had the highest percentage of automobile ownership in the world. 54 The car had unequivocally become a way of life in Los Angeles by the 1920s.

51 Andrew Wood, “The Rise and Fall of the Great American Motel,” Jun. 30, 2017, accessed Mar. 2020.
52 City of Los Angeles, “SurveyLA, Los Angeles Citywide Historic Context Statement, Context:

Commercial Development, Theme: Commercial Development and the Automobile,” Aug. 2016, 5. 53 Robert M. Fogelson, The Fragmented Metropolis: Los Angeles, 1850-1930 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993), 92; Richard Longstreth, “The Perils of a Parkless Town,” in Martin Wachs and Margaret Crawford, eds., The Car and the City: The Automobile, the Building Environment, and Daily Urban Life (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1992), 142. 54 Richard Longstreth, “The Perils of a Parkless Town” (1992), 142.

Figure 24.

Automobiles on
Broadway and
Orange Street in
Glendale, 1924.

Source: Los Angeles
Public Library Photo
Collection

112 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 34

Numerous factors unique to the Southern California region coalesced to make this trend possible.55 The region’s dry, temperate climate allowed unpaved roads to remain in operation most of the year and made driving in open cars relatively comfortable. The street grid was flat and straight in the heavily populated Los Angeles basin. T he t ar needed to make asphalt paving was locally abundant, and the lower-density, single-family neighborhoods that were favored in the region provided ample space to store and maintain cars, in contrast to the denser and more urban environments of eastern cities. Southern California’s abundant natural recreational spots encouraged pleasure driving, and organizations like the Automobile Club of Southern California, which was founded in 1900, promoted automobile ownership and advocated for road improvements and safety. Local newspapers devoted entire sections to new cars. Major local oil discoveries provided an ample fuel supply and kept the cost of driving low. The decentralization of Midwestern automobile and rubber companies after World War I ushered in the arrival of car -related industries to Southern California; a Ford Motor Assembly Plant opened in Long Beach (1930), a General Motors Plant opened in South Gate (1936); and Samson, Goodyear, Goodrich, and Firestone opened tire factories in metropolitan Los Angeles (1920s). “In 1928, with Goodyear and [the] three ot her large rubber companies, Los Angeles became the second greatest rubber manufacturing center in the United States.” 56 The ascent of the automobile ushered in changes to the essential form and character of residential suburbs. No longer restrained by the fixed routes of electric streetcars, developers and community builders began acquiring and subdividing areas that had previously been difficult to access because of their relative distance from streetcar lines. New roads, most of which were now paved with macadam or asphalt, were cleaved into the landscape , allowing developers to fill in the ope n spaces in

55 This paragraph adapted from the City of Glendale, “Proposed North Cumberland Heights Historic District, Historic Resource Survey Update,” prepared Aug. 2012, 17-18. 56 Library of Congress, “Goodyear Rubber Company, 6701 South Central Avenue, Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, CA,” accessed Mar. 2020.

Figures 25-26
Wayfinding signage
installed by the
Automobile Club of
Southern California,
n.d. Source: Los
Angeles Public
Library Photo
Collection

113 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 35

between streetcar lines and resulting in the infill of once-rural suburban settings. Developers could now venture into more challenging hillside areas and subdivide the varied terrain into residential lots with picturesque settings and commandi ng views. Roads became wider and charted more meandering, curvilinear courses that would have been difficult to traverse by streetcar but could be done with ease by the automobile. Compared to the streetcar suburbs that preceded them, early automobile subu rbs “became decentralized, creating fringes of increasingly low densities. With commuters no longer needing to live within walking distance of the streetcar line, residential suburbs could be built at lower densities to form self -contained neighborhoods that afforded more privacy, larger yards, and a park-like setting.” 57 There is no sharp line marking the end of streetcar suburbs and the beginning of early automobile suburbs; for decades these two modes of transit continued to operate alongside one anothe r. However, generally speaking this shift began to take root in the 1910s and had become firmly manifest in the American metropolitan landscape by the early 1920s. The rise of private automobile ownership at this time “stimulated an intense period of suburban expansion between 1918 and the onset of the Great Depression.”58 The 1920s are described as the “watershed decade for Los Angeles adoption of the automobile,” as well as the changes to the cityscape that accompanied this paradigm shift.59

The origins of the Cumberland Heights neighborhood – including the Survey Area – date to the early 1920s, when the area’s expansive estates and neighboring agricultural tracts were parsed into smaller residential subdivisions. That the neighborhood experienced a flurry of development activity at the same time that the automobile was coming of age is not mere coincidence, but is demonstrative of the profound impact that the car and car travel had on the built environment of Glendale and other Southern California communities. Car travel suddenly made it possible for prospective homeowners to travel t o this area on the outskirts of Glendale and purchase suburban lots on which to build a house. Marketing materials, beseeching homeseekers to visit the various tracts that were opening in the Cumberland Heights area , directed people to the neighborhood by way of car; one advertisement called attention to the parallel between neighborhood development and vehicular travel, stating that “some of the choicest foothill property, which was considered inaccessible twelve to fifteen years ago, has been brought into development by boulevards and motorcars.”60

57 “National Register Bulletin: Historic Residential Suburbs,” Sept. 2002, 22. 58 Ibid.
59 Wachs and Crawford, eds., The Car and the City: The Automobile, the Building Environment, and Daily Urban Life, 1992, 304.
60 Los Angeles Times, Mar, 21, 1922.
114 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 36

The Survey Area includes a number of tract and planning features that exhibit deference to the automobile. The neighborhood developed about a mile to the north of the Pacific Electric Red Car line that ran down Glenoaks Boulevard – making it somewhat inconvenient for neighborhood residents to commute by way of streetcar. Blocks within the neighborhood are longer than those in older suburban neighborhoods and were not particularly conducive to pedestrian travel. Its streets are wide enough to comfortably accommodate automobile traffic. Some feature no sidewalks or pedestrian accommodations; those that do are flanked by parkways and street trees that provide for a pleasant drive and provide a degree of protection f or pedestrians by creating a physical barrier, however modest, between cars and people. Many of the streets continue up into the foothills and ascend up into steeper hillside areas, which is much more accommodating to vehicles than it is to streetcars or pedestrians.

The influence of the automobile on patterns of neighborhood development is also manifest in the design of the houses themselves.

Almost every house within the Survey Area was constructed with a curb cut and driveway, so that owners could park their vehicles off street.

Garages are also common features within the neighborhood, with earlier houses generally accompanied by a detached garage and/or porte cochère and later additions to the neighborhood featuring garages that are attached to the hous e. The integration of garages into residential design in the 1930s and ‘40s reflects just how much the automobile was becoming a key part of everyday life and the suburban experience.

Figure 27.

Residence on
Cumberland Road,
1928. Note porte
cochère and
garage at rear.

Source: USC
Digital Library

115 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 37

While streetcar suburbs tended to be socioeconomically diverse and attracted a range of household types, early automobile subur bs tended to be more homogenous with respect to both class and race. To promote ridership, streetcar operators kept fares low and many offered flat fares with free transfers, which made it possible for working-class and middle- income families to reside in suburban neighborhoods alongside streetcar lines. In contrast, automobile ownership, while made affordable through methods of mass production, was not as easily attainable to those on the lower socioeconomic rungs of society, and many of the suburban neighborhoods that developed in concert with the automobile attracted white, middle- and upper-income households who sought reprieve from urban life and the class and racial homogeneity that came with it. The homogeneity of these neighborhoods was retained for many years through discriminatory real estate tactics like restrictive covenants and steering.

These trends were manifest in the composition of Cumberland Heights during the neighborhood’s formative period of development. When the federal Home Owners Loan Corporation (HOLC) assessed t he neighborhood in the late 1930s with the purpose of evaluating its mortgage lending risk, it noted that “deed restrictions are adequate… limiting construction to single -family residences and protecting against racial hazards…the location is a popular one not alone for its altitude and view but also on account of the homogeneity of its middle to higher income home owners.”
61 The neighborhood was rated “green” by the
agency, the highest of four color assignations given to neighborhoods.

These early automobile suburbs continued to be the dominant pattern of residential development in Southern California and elsewhere in the nation until World War II. After the war, the United States embarked upon a massive highway building program, which led to the develo pment of a vast network of freeways across Southern California and led to new patterns of suburbanization that gave rise to bedroom communities, expansive, mass-produced suburbs that dramatically changed the essence of the American suburban experience.
62 61 HOLC map for Burbank & Glendale, Area No. A-4, Mar. 27, 1939, accessed Mar. 2020 via the Testbed for the Redlining Archives of California’s Exclusionary Spaces (TRACES). 62 “National Register Bulletin: Historic Residential Suburbs,” Sept. 2002, 23-24. 116 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 38

117 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 39

3. PHYSICAL CHARACTER

NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER

The proposed South Cumberland Heights Historic District is a subset of the larger Cumberland Heights neighborhood, which consists of the Survey Area as well as two adjacent historic districts: Ard Eevin Highlands and North Cumberland Heights. The Survey Area is located to the south and west of the Ard Eevin Highlands Historic District, which was locally designated in 2009, and to the south of the North Cumberland Heights Historic District , which was locally designated in 2012. The irregular shape of the Survey Area is due to the fact that it was carved out of the original Cumberland Heights district that was surveyed in 2004.

The proposed South Cumberland Heights Historic District include s the parcels associated with the following addresses:

Located at the base of the Verdugo Mountains, the Survey Area occupies an area that is characterized by gently sloping terrain. There are some gradual changes in elevation as streets within the Survey Area travel north toward the mountains. Streets become steeper, and grade changes more pronounced, in areas to the immediate north of the Survey Area, in the adjacent Ard Eevin Highlands and North Cumberland Heights districts.

Streets within the Survey Area all adhere to a modified grid that is etched across much of northwest Glendale . This grid is askew of the cardinal directions, corresponding with the contour of the adjacent Verdugo Mountains. Most streets within the Survey Area are generally oriented to the north and south and consist of long blocks that are uninterrupted between Kenneth Road (south) and Cumberland Road (north). However, there are two exceptions that interrupt this otherwise -regular street pattern: Glenview Road, which transects the district mid- block via an east-west course, and Elliott Place, which extends to the east of Highland Avenue at an angle and terminates in a cul -de-sac. All streets are moderate in width and paved in asphalt.
118 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 40

Most of the streets within the Survey Area are flanked by concrete curbs, scored concrete sidewalks, and narrow parkways. The parkways are generally planted with strips of grass and mature street tre es. Uniform street tree schemes are found along Idlewood Road ( river she-oak), Ben Lomond Drive (southern magnolia), Ard Eevin Avenue (red flowering gum), and most of Glenwood Road ( red flowering gum). Parkways along other streets feature an eclectic assortment of street trees that do not adhere to a uniform planting scheme. Streets at the east end of the Survey Area – Elliott Place, Highland Avenue, and the easternmost section of Glenview Road – do not have sidewalks or parkways. At the west end of the district, Grandview Avenue has sidewalks along the east side of the street only; the west side of the street is flanked by mature American sweetgum trees. This variation with respect to tract and landscape features is likely due to the influence of multiple developers in the area.

Unlike some Glendale neighborhoods, where street lighting was touted as a tract feature, there does not appear to be a uniform street light ing standard in the Survey Area. Two streets – Idlewood Road and Ben Lomond Drive – are illuminated by single post metal electroliers that are installed in the parkway space and appear to be original street features. Elsewhere in the Survey Area, lighting consists of modern “cobrahead” style streetlights that are affixed to utility poles.

Individual parcels within the Survey Area are generally rectangular but of different sizes, reflecting the fact that the neighborhood consists of multiple tracts that were subdivided independent of one another. Parcels on the east side of Grandview Avenue and the west side of Cleveland Road are larger than others. Throughout the Survey Area, parcels are generally deep, and vehicular storage generally consists of detached garages that are located at the rear of lots. However, there are a few houses with later construction dates with attached garages. Garages are typically accessed from the front of the lot, via curb cuts and concrete driveways.

Houses within the Survey Area are all set back from the street, but reflective of the patchwork of subdivisions comprising the area setbacks are varied. This results in houses having different street frontages on some blocks than on others, rather than the more uniform frontages associated with single-developer tracts. These houses’ front setbacks are generally planted with lawns and various types of mature trees and vegetation. Many houses are approached by a concrete walkway that bisects the front lawn, connecting the sidewalk and the porch.

With the exception of the aforementioned street trees, landscape features within the Survey Area are located on private property and reflect the tastes of individual property owners. None of the mature trees, shrubs, or groundcover species represe nted in the Survey Area appears to be native, as historic photographs of the area indicate that it consisted of native chaparral prior to its subdivision in the early twentieth 119 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 41

century. Oak and sycamore trees, both species that are native to Southern California, can be found on some properties, but none appear to pre -date the houses with which they are associated. Landscape features are diverse and range widely in age, with no one species occurs with regularity across the Survey Area.

Figures 28-29.

General context and
streetscape of the
South Cumberland
Heights
neighborhood.

Photos by ARG

120 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 42

As noted, houses within the Survey Area exhibit variation in terms of architectural style, providing the area with a n eclectic, yet visually cohesive character. Architectural styles that are represented in the Survey Area are further addressed in the section below.

ARCHITECTURAL STYLES

As a community that developed over the course of multiple decades, the Survey Area includes houses that were constructed in a wide variety of styles. The area’s diverse architectural character is reflective of shifts in architectural taste between the 1920s and the post-World War II era.

The Survey Area includes a concentration of Period Revival style architecture, which was popular during its formative period of development in the 1920s and early 1930s. The Spanish Colonial Revival style is the most common idiom, though there are also sizable numbers of Tudor Revival, French- Inspired, and American Colonial Revi val style houses present. To a lesser extent, examples of the Mediterranean Revival and Monterey Revival styles can also be found. Houses constructed during the Great Depression and in the years immediately preceding World War II take on a more varied char acter; whereas some continued to embody various Period Revival traditions, the Minimal Traditional and Modern styles were also introduced. Most of the houses that were constructed after World War II were designed in the Modern or Ranch styles, both of whic h were common choices for residential architecture at the time.

There are also a few Craftsman style houses in the neighborhood, most of which were constructed in the 1910s at other locations and then moved to the neighborhood in the 1920s. Since the Cumberland Heights area did not develop in earnest until the 1920s – by which time Craftsman architecture had begun to fall out of favor – the Craftsman style is not as strongly represented as the above-listed styles that proceeded it.

Craftsman
The Craftsman style was popular in Southern California between 1900 and 1925. Rooted in the Arts and Crafts movement, the style emphasized the use of handcrafted products over machine -made details, a reaction against the perceived excess of the Victorian-era styles of previous years.

It also emphasized an integral relationship betwe en indoor and outdoor spaces. The Craftsman style was popular nationwide but was especially prolific in Southern California, as the mild climate was conducive to the ideas underpinning the style. The Craftsman style was a common choice for houses constructed in Glendale during the early twentieth century. It is commonly expressed in the form of a bungalow – a low-slung, one-story 121 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 43

dwelling with a large front porch – though it was applied to some larger houses as well.

Character-defining features of Craftsman architecture include:
• Low building profiles
• Horizontal massing
• Gabled roof with wide eaves and dormers
• Exposed rafters and purlins
• Exterior walls clad in wood clapboard siding; wood shingles were occasionally used
• Broad entry porches with massive piers and solid balustrades • Wood-framed windows arranged in horizontal rows
• Incorporation of stone and other natural materials as an accent material

Three examples of the Craftsman style were identified in the Survey Area, two of which were originally located elsewhere in Glendale and subsequently moved to South Cumberland Heights:
• 1621 Ben Lomond Drive (1912, moved to present site in 1925) • 1631 Ben Lomond Drive (1910, moved to present site in 1929) • 835 Kenneth Road (1922)

Mediterranean Revival
The Mediterranean Revival style is an eclectic synthesis of architectural elements that are loosely derived from various cultures around the Mediterranean region including Italy, Spain, southern France, and northern Africa. It was seen as especially well -suited to Southern California because of the region’s Spanish origins and its temperate climate. The style was interpreted in various ways, but in general Mediterranean Revival style buildings are defined by an eclectic synthesis of architectural features that are broadly classified as Mediterranean in origin, and are distinguished by their formality and grandeur. The style was among the Period Revival styles that were popular in the first several decades of the twentieth century.

Character-defining features of Mediterranean Revival architecture include:
• Two-story configuration
• Symmetrical massing and balanced, proportioned façades • Low-pitched hipped roof with red clay tile cladding; some buildings feature flat roofs
• Wide eaves and decorative brackets
• Smooth stucco wall cladding
• Elaborate entrances and door surrounds
• Wood double-hung and casement windows
• First-story windows are often full-height with arched openings 122 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 44

• Eclectic mix of decorative details, often Classical in origin

Seven examples of the Mediterranean Revival style were identified in the Survey Area:
• 1535 Ard Eevin Avenue (1923)
• 1614 Ben Lomond Drive (1927)
• 1540 Cleveland Road (1926)
• 1555 Cleveland Road (1926)
• 1635 Cleveland Road (1930)
• 1524 Idlewood Road (1924)
• 831 W Kenneth Road (1925)

Spanish Colonial Revival
The Spanish Colonial Revival style became one of the most prominent architectural styles in Southern California between the 1910s and 1930s.

The style became popular after its introduction at the Panama-California Exposition, held in San Diego in 1915 to celebrate the opening of the Panama Canal. The chief designer of the Exposition, Bertram Goodhue, rejected the formal Renaissance and Neoclassical architecture that had been used in previous world fairs and instead envisioned an environment that celebrated Southern California’s Spanish roots. The style is eclectic and incorporates architectural elements borrowed from Baroque Spain, Mediterranean villages, and the California missions.

Character-defining features of Spanish Colonial Revival architecture include:
• Two-story configuration
• Asymmetrical massing
• Red clay tile low or moderate -pitched gable or hip roof, often complex in form
• Smooth stucco wall cladding
• Wood casement, wood double hung, or steel casement windows, typically multi-light
• Arched colonnades
• Arched and parabolic door and window openings
• Grilles of wood, wrought iron, or plaster
• Balconies and patios
• Decorative terra cotta and tile work

69 examples of the Spanish Colonial Revival style were identified in the Survey Area:
• 1515 Ard Eevin Avenue (1925)
• 1516 Ard Eevin Avenue (1930)
• 1520 Ard Eevin Avenue (1930)
123 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 45

• 1524 Ard Eevin Avenue (1930)
• 1525 Ard Eevin Avenue (1930)
• 1529 Ard Eevin Avenue (1932)
• 1512 Ben Lomond Drive (1932)
• 1532 Ben Lomond Drive (1933)
• 1536 Ben Lomond Drive (1934)
• 1606 Ben Lomond Drive (1926)
• 1610 Ben Lomond Drive (1936)
• 1618 Ben Lomond Drive (1927)
• 1632 Ben Lomond Drive (1926)
• 1636 Ben Lomond Drive (1928)
• 1639 Ben Lomond Drive (1928)
• 1650 Ben Lomond Drive (1930)
• 1655 Ben Lomond Drive (1924)
• 1664 Ben Lomond Drive (1926)
• 1517 Cleveland Road (1924)
• 1526 Cleveland Road (1926)
• 1530 Cleveland Road (1926)
• 1536 Cleveland Road (1930)
• 1550 Cleveland Road (1925)
• 1551 Cleveland Road (1928)
• 1600 Cleveland Road (1927)
• 1610 Cleveland Road (1932)
• 1615 Cleveland Road (1930)
• 1617 Cleveland Road (1932)
• 1621 Cleveland Road (1932)
• 1624 Cleveland Road (1926)
• 1629 Cleveland Road (1930)
• 748 Elliott Place (1926)
• 740 Glenview Road (1927)
• 744 Glenview Road (1927)
• 745 Glenview Road (1926)
• 748 Glenview Road (1927)
• 752 Glenview Road (1928)
• 823 Glenview Road (1924)
• 1511 Grandview Avenue (1935)
• 1512 Grandview Avenue (1930)
• 1521 Grandview Avenue (1927)
• 1547 Grandview Avenue (1934)
• 1551 Grandview Avenue (1929)
• 1559 Grandview Avenue (1926)
• 1566 Grandview Avenue (1927)
• 1517 Highland Avenue (1931)
• 1521 Highland Avenue (1935)
• 1538 Idlewood Road (1925)
124 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 46

• 1542 Idlewood Road (1925)
• 1549 Idlewood Road (1925)
• 1606 Idlewood Road (1925)
• 1607 Idlewood Road (1925)
• 1611 Idlewood Road (1925)
• 1616 Idlewood Road (1926)
• 1621 Idlewood Road (1926)
• 1638 Idlewood Road (1929)
• 801 W Kenneth Road (1931)
• 804 W Kenneth Road (1928)
• 811 W Kenneth Road (1933)
• 815 W Kenneth Road (1930)
• 825 W Kenneth Road (1934)
• 830 W Kenneth Road (1926)
• 845 W Kenneth Road (1923)
• 905 W Kenneth Road (1927)
• 915 W Kenneth Road (1947)
• 919 W Kenneth Road (1933)
• 926 W Kenneth Road (1935)
• 933 W Kenneth Road (1934)
• 940 W Kenneth Road (1927)

Tudor Revival
The Tudor Revival style is rooted in the architectur al traditions of medieval England and emerged as a popular style for residential architecture in Southern California between the 1920s and 1930s.

Emphasis was placed on craftsmanship and the rusticity that characterized country houses of the medieval perio d. Like other Period Revival idioms, the Tudor Revival style is associated with an era in which American architects looked to past traditions for inspiration.

Character-defining features of Tudor Revival architecture include:
• One or two-story configuration
• Steeply pitched roof with front and side gables
• Brick or stone veneer, often in combination with smooth stucco wall cladding
• False half-timbering
• Tall, narrow windows, arranged in groups with multi -paned glazing
• Leaded glass windows
• Exaggerated, elaborate chimneys with decorative chimney pots • Arched front door surrounds with Renaissance detailing

30 examples of the Tudor Revival style were identified in the Survey Area:
125 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 47

• 1513 Ard Eevin Avenue (1926)
• 1521 Ard Eevin Avenue (1933)
• 1528 Ard Eevin Avenue (1927)
• 1541 Ard Eevin Avenue (1930)
• 1522 Ben Lomond Drive (1925)
• 1641 Ben Lomond Drive (1923)
• 1646 Ben Lomond Drive (1927)
• 1647 Ben Lomond Drive (1925)
• 1660 Ben Lomond Drive (1926)
• 1516 Cleveland Road (1925)
• 1554 Cleveland Road (1926)
• 1614 Cleveland Road (1926)
• 1620 Cleveland Road (1926)
• 1634 Cleveland Road (1926)
• 1560 Grandview Avenue (1923)
• 1520 Idlewood Road (1926)
• 1534 Idlewood Road (1925)
• 1548 Idlewood Road (1925)
• 1603 Idlewood Road (1925)
• 1610 Idlewood Road (1925)
• 1620 Idlewood Road (1925)
• 1626 Idlewood Road (1925)
• 1629 Idlewood Road (1929)
• 1630 Idlewood Road (1926)
• 1636 Idlewood Road (1927)
• 1641 Idlewood Road (1924)
• 750 W Kenneth Road (1937)
• 812 W Kenneth Road (1925)
• 854 W Kenneth Road (1931)
• 1008 W Kenneth Road (1923)

French-Inspired
French-inspired architecture became popular in the 1920s and 1930s, a period when many Americans who had served in France during World War I began purchasing houses. Buildings designed in the style incorporate a variety of architectural traditions found in the domestic architecture of France. The defining feature of the style is a tall, steeply-pitched hipped roof, often accentuated by dormers.

Character-defining features of French-inspired architecture include:
• Two-story configuration
• Steeply-pitched hip roof, sometimes slate or shingle clad • Smooth stucco wall cladding with brick or stone accents • Arched doors, windows, and/or dormers
• Tall, narrow windows, arranged in groups with multi-pane glazing 126 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 48

• Double hung or casement sash windows, often with leaded panes • Elaborate chimneys, often with multiple chimney pots

13 examples of French-inspired architecture were identified in the Survey Area:
• 1518 Ben Lomond Drive (1926)
• 1623 Ben Lomond Drive (1925)
• 1628 Ben Lomond Drive (1931)
• 1520 Cleveland Road (1926)
• 1546 Cleveland Road (1925)
• 1560 Cleveland Road (1927)
• 1630 Cleveland Road (1926)
• 1533 Highland Avenue (1948)
• 1602 Idlewood Road (1925)
• 1617 Idlewood Road (1925)
• 1627 Idlewood Road (1929)
• 900 W Kenneth Road (1939)
• 922 W Kenneth Road (1939)

American Colonial Revival
American Colonial Revival architecture was commonly applied to residences constructed in the first half of the twentieth century. It drew heavily upon historical precedent and aimed to revive many of the architectural sty les, forms, and motifs evident in the early American Colonial settlements of the Eastern Seaboard. The style encompassed a variety of architectural traditions used in early America and celebrated the nation’s English and Dutch roots. The dissemination of photographs, drawings, and other visual materials showcasing the style in domestic magazines helped perpetuate the style by linking it to a vision of the “ideal American home.”

Character-defining features of the American Colonial Revival architecture include:
• One or two-story configuration
• Side gable or hip roofs, often with gabled dormers
• Wood shiplap and/or brick wall cladding
• Accentuated entry porch or front door, with decorative pediment surrounded by pilasters or slender columns
• Doors with overhead fanlights and/or sidelights
• Wood double hung sash windows with multi-light glazing • Louvered or paneled wood shutters

11 examples of the American Colonial Revival style were identified in the Survey Area:
127 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 49

• 1540 Ben Lomond Dr (1938)
• 1545 Ben Lomond Dr (1948)
• 1546 Ben Lomond Dr (1932)
• 1625 Cleveland Road (1936)
• 1515 Grandview Avenue (1948)
• 1536 Grandview Avenue (1922)
• 1572 Grandview Avenue (1937)
• 1537 Highland Avenue (1940)
• 1531 Idlewood Road (1924)
• 840 W Kenneth Road (1936)
• 925 W Kenneth Road (1940)

Monterey Revival
Monterey Revival architecture is derived from Boston merchant Thomas Oliver Larkin’s nineteenth century residence in Monterey, California.

Larkin’s house, and others that were built in Northern California at this time, blended elements of the Spanish Colonial Revival and American Colonial Revival styles, incorporating the adobe construction methods of Spanish architecture and the simple massing of houses on the East Coast.

The single-most identifying feature of the style is a full -width, second- floor front facing balcony. Like other historically derived idioms, Monterey style architecture was revived in the 1920s and became a common choice for domestic architecture, popularized by architects such as Roland Coate. These later examples merged the Spanish Eclec tic and American Colonial Revival styles to greater or lesser extents.

Character-defining features of Monterey Revival architecture include:
• Two-story configuration
• Simple rectangular or L-shaped plan
• Low-pitched side-gabled roof with shingles or clay tiles • Exterior walls clad in stucco, brick, and wood siding; application of different cladding materials on the first and second floors • Second-story balcony, usually cantilevered, with simple post supports and open-rail balustrades
• Double hung and casement wood windows with divided lights • Full-length windows or glazed doors generally open onto balcony • Wood window shutters

Two examples of the Monterey Revival style were identified in the Survey Area:
• 1545 Cleveland Road (1930)
• 820 W Kenneth Road (1933)

128 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 50

Minimal Traditional
First appearing in the 1930s, Minimal Traditional architecture emerged as a dominant style for houses constructed in the years immediately before and after World War II. Minimal Traditional houses were often simplified interpretations o f Period Revival styles and assumed a much more modest, stripped-back appearance that reflected the economic austerity of the Depression era. Buildings designed in the style, which most often consisted of single -family and multi -family residences, exhibite d restraint in the application of detail and ornament. While the style was often used in the design of mass-produced tract houses, it was applied to custom-designed residences as well.

Character-defining features of Minimal Traditional architecture include:
• One story configuration
• Rectangular plan
• Low or moderate-pitched hip or side gable roof with shallow eaves • Smooth stucco wall cladding, often with wood lap or stone veneer accents
• Wood multi-light windows (picture, double hung sash, casement) • Projecting three-sided oriel
• Shallow entry porch with slender wood supports
• Fixed wood shutters
• Minimal decorative exterior detailing, often simplified interpretations of Period Revival features

36 examples of the Minimal Traditional style were identified in the Survey Area:
• 1540 Ard Eevin Avenue (1941)
• 1545 Ard Eevin Avenue (1936)
• 1600 Ben Lomond Drive (1932)
• 1603 Ben Lomond Drive (1946)
• 1607 Ben Lomond Drive (1948)
• 1611 Ben Lomond Drive (1950)
• 1615 Ben Lomond Drive (1950)
• 1622 Ben Lomond Drive (1948)
• 1640 Ben Lomond Drive (1940)
• 1651 Ben Lomond Drive (1945)
• 1656 Ben Lomond Drive (1941)
• 1515 Cleveland Road (1939)
• 1606 Cleveland Road (1941)
• 1639 Cleveland Road (1937)
• 734 Glenview Road (1934)
• 1508 Grandview Avenue (1939)
• 1525 Grandview Avenue (1950)
• 1529 Grandview Avenue (1938)
129 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 51

• 1535 Grandview Avenue (1939)
• 1537 Grandview Avenue (1940)
• 1540 Grandview Avenue (1947)
• 1546 Grandview Avenue (1946)
• 1550 Grandview Avenue (1948)
• 1606 Grandview Avenue (1940)
• 1513 Highland Avenue (1941)
• 1525 Highland Avenue (1936)
• 1527 Highland Avenue (1948)
• 1546 Highland Avenue (1938)
• 1528 Idlewood Road (1940)
• 1545 Idlewood Road (1937)
• 1633 Idlewood Road (1936)
• 1637 Idlewood Road (1936)
• 1644 Idlewood Road (1939)
• 910 W Kenneth Road (1939)
• 918 W Kenneth Road (1939)
• 945 W Kenneth Road (1939)

Modern
Modernism is a broad architectural movement that was widely applied to buildings across Southern California between the 1940s and 1960s. Its roots are diverse, though the style is definitively linked to the European modernist movement that developed between World War I and World War II. Modern architecture was widely applied to residential, commercial, and institutional buildings alike, many of which were designed by some of Southern California’s most pioneering and i nfluential architects. In general, the Modernism movement rejected past traditions and historicist styles, instead embracing modern materials and technologies and prioritizing function over form.

Character-defining features of Modern architecture include:
• One or two-story configuration
• Rectilinear forms with a horizontal emphasis
• Flat or low-pitched roofs, often with soffited eaves
• Smooth stucco or wood wall cladding, sometimes with brick or concrete block accents
• Steel casement or aluminum sliding windows, often arranged in horizontal bands
• Minimal ornamentation
• Attached garages or carports are common

Four examples of the Modern style were identified in the Survey Area:
• 819 Glenview Road (1921, remodeled 1950s)
130 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 52

• 1524 Grandview Avenue (1973)
• 1552 Grandview Avenue (1951)
• 1534 Highland Avenue (1948)

Ranch
Though it originated in the years before World War II, the Ranch style proliferated in the postwar era and became the quintessential California dwelling type. Multiple iterations of the Ranch house prototype emerged over time; in addition to the ubiquitous, sprawling Traditional Ranch, Ranch houses often took borrowed characteristics from other architectural styles including the Minimal Traditional and Mid- Century Modern styles. Ranch houses that incorporate these styles are referred to as Minimal Ranches and Contemporary Ranches, respectively. Buildings that embody the Ranch style are almost always single-family residences, and they vary from grand (rambling custom Ranch houses) to modest, such as the Ranch tract houses that were common in post -World War II subdivisions.

Character-defining features of the Ranch style include:
• One-story configuration
• Asymmetrical, rectangular massing
• Low-pitched gable or hip roof with wide eaves, wood shake cladding, and exposed rafters
• Horizontal, rambling layout
• Wood multi-paned sash or casement windows, aluminum sliding windows, and picture windows
• Attached garage
• Wood board -and-batten, wood lap, and shingle wall cladding, stucco wall cladding, decorative brick wall cladding
• Fixed wood shutters
• Recessed entry porch with roof supports

24 examples of the Ranch style were identified in the Survey Area:
• 1544 Ard Eevin Avenue (1950)
• 1521 Ben Lomond Drive (1951)
• 1527 Ben Lomond Drive (1948)
• 1528 Ben Lomond Drive (1930)
• 1535 Ben Lomond Drive (1951)
• 1541 Ben Lomond Drive (1951)
• 1525 Cleveland Road (1947)
• 1520 Grandview Avenue (1948)
• 1602 Grandview Avenue (1949)
• 1520 Highland Avenue (1948)
• 1528 Highland Avenue (1946)
131 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 53

• 1538 Highland Avenue (1950)
• 1545 Highland Avenue (1947)
• 1523 Idlewood Road (1960)
• 1535 Idlewood Road (1960)
• 1539 Idlewood Road (1959)
• 747 W Kenneth Road (1946)
• 850 W Kenneth Road (1939)
• 851 W Kenneth Road (1950)
• 859 W Kenneth Road (1922, subsequently remodeled)
• 864 W Kenneth Road (1941)
• 865 W Kenneth Road (1940)
• 901 W Kenneth Road (1949)
• 1000 W Kenneth Road (1952)

132 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 54

133 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 55

4. EVALUATION AS A POTENTIAL HISTORIC DISTRICT

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE

The South Cumberland Heights Historic District appears to be eligible for local listing under five local criteria: A, B, C, G, and H. The district’s significance is derived from its association with broad patterns of residential development and suburbanization that are associated with the proliferation of the automobile , and the flurry of suburban growth and expansion of the City of Glendale beginning in the 1920s. The district is a manifestation of the various economic, architectural, and aesthetic factors that came together to shape the character of Glendale’s neighborhoods at this time. The district is also significant for its association with brothers Dan and Arthur Campbell, noted figures in the developmental and banking history of Glendale who played a heavy hand in sowing the seeds for the district’s development. Finally, the district contains a notable concentration of Period Revival styles and complementary idioms, like the Minimal Traditional and Ranch styles, that convey important trends in architectural history during the district’s primary period of development.

The district also appears to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) under California Register Criteria 1, 2, and 3, for the same reasons summarized above.

LOCAL ELIGIBILITY EVALUATION

The Glendale Historic District Overlay Zone Ordinance (pursuant to Chapter 30.25 of the Glendale Municipal Code) defines a historic district as follows:

a geographically definable area possessing a concentration, linkage or continuity, constituting more than sixty (60) percent of the total of historic or scenic properties, or a themat ically related grouping of properties.

Those properties must “contribute to each other and be unified aesthetically by plan or historical physical development.” One of the main purposes of this historic resource survey is to determine which properties “contribute” to the district and which do not.

The ordinance also identifies nine criteria that may qualify an area as a district, stipulating that a proposed district must meet at least one criterion to be eligible for listing. The proposed South Cumberland Heights Historic District meets both of these requirements:
134 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 56

• 75% of its properties are contributors, exceeding the 60% requirement.
• Five out of the nine designation criteria are met, exceeding the requirement that at least one criterion be met.

Therefore, it is recommended that the proposed South Cumberland Heights Historic District is eligible for local designation. This assessment is discussed in detail in the sections below.

Contributors and Non-Contributors
The proposed district consists of 21 6 residential properties, all of which are single -family residences. This survey identified 16 3 of these as “contributors,” representing 7 5% of the properties. This exceeds the City’s requirement that at least 60% of properties be contributors for a historic district application to continue through the designation process.

Contributing status is determined by three factors:

1) the property was built within the Period of Significance, 2) it relates to historic contexts and themes identified in the historic context statement, and
3) it maintains enough physical integrity to allow it to continue to convey its historic meaning.

Non-contributing properties were either built outside the period of significance, do not relate to relevant historic contexts and themes, or have been altered in a manner that significantly reduces their architectural and historic character, resulting in the lo ss of their ability to physically convey their significance.

The field survey for this report analyzed each property to determine the level of change over the years, if any. Glendale’s Historic District Design Guidelines only apply to the portions of a property visible from the street, so the field assessment is based only on those areas. Integrity is assessed at three levels:

High
The property has few, if any, alterations and retains all or nearly all character -defining features. For instance, a proper ty with minor, reversible alterations, such as a non- conspicuous replacement window while all other originals remain, may still have high integrity. One larger-scale change – the replacement of wood shake roofs – is now mandated by building code and the installation of appropriate new roofing will not affect the integrity determination.

135 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 57

Moderate
The property is somewhat altered but retains most character - defining features. One or two character-defining features may be altered or lost, but the overall historic form and character of the property remain. Examples would include replacement windows in existing openings that do not match the originals or the application of new stucco cladding with a different texture.

Low
The property is dramatically altered from its original condition by changes to massing or scale, or through alteration or loss of multiple character-defining features.

In general, properties with high or moderate integrity may be considered contributors, while those with low integr ity would be considered non- contributors.

Period of Significance
According to National Register Bulletin #16A, “period of significance” is defined as follows:

Period of significance is the length of time when a property was associated with important events, activities, or persons, or attained the characteristics which qualify it for National Register listing. Period of significance usually begins with the date when significant activities or events began giving the property its historic significance; this is often a date of construction.

The period of significance for the South Cumberland Heights Historic District is identified as 1922 to 1960. Though there had been attempts to subdivide the area prior to this time, it was not until the early 1920s that the Cumberland Heights area began to develop in earnest and assume its present-day character. The earliest contributing houses within the historic district that are original to the neighborhood date to 1922. There are two contributing structures with earlier construction dates – 1621 Ben Lomond Drive (1912) and 1631 Ben Lomond Drive (1910) – but both were originally located elsewhere in Glendale and then relocated to these addresses in 1925 and 1929, respectively, when the neighborhood was amid its formative period of development. The relocation of these houses falls within the period of significance and their scale, massing, and architectural character are consistent with adjacent residences.

Development within the district continued at a steady, yet tempered pace for the next several decades, with the majority of parcels developed by the onset of World War II; the few remaining parcels that were undeveloped were subsequently improved in the early postwar period, with the last contributing house s constructed in 1960. Despite the 136 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 58

relatively long spread of construction dates and variety of architectural styles, houses within the district are visually compatible with one another, and together they are demonstrative of the broad patterns of residential development and associated trends in architecture that shaped Glendale neighborhoods in the first half of the twentieth century.

Boundary Justification
The boundaries of the South Cumberland Heights Historic District correspond with the boundaries of t he original Cumberland Heights district that was surveyed in 2004. These boundaries are generally defined by Kenneth Road on the south, Grandview Avenue on the west, and Highland Avenue on the east. The irregular north boundary is a result of the fact that the original Cumberland Heights district was carved into three sections, two of which have already been designated as local historic districts: Ard Eevin Highlands (20 09) and North Cumberland Heights (20 12). The north boundary of the South Cumberland Heights district was drawn to encompass all of the remaining properties from the 2004 survey that were not included in the two designated districts.

The historic district application included seven additional properties – six on Glenview Road, and one on Elliott Place – that were not included within the original Cumberland Heights district, but were identified as potential district contributors. ARG evaluated these additional seven properties as part of the field survey and concluded that it is appropriate to include them as part of the South Cumberland Heights district. All were constructed within the identified period of significance, are associated with the same historic contexts and themes, and are aesthetically and spatially compatible with other houses in the district.

One property included in the historic district application – 1005 W.

Kenneth Road (1960) – does not contribute to the district, and is associated with the adjacent tract of post -World War II houses on Stone Lane. This property was removed from the district boundary at the request of the applicant and upon field inspection.

California Historic Resource Status Codes
The California Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO) has created a list of “status codes” that are used to categorize properties identified in historic resource surveys. The present survey assigns each property one of three codes. The first two are standard California Historic Resource Status Codes and the third was developed by the City of Glendale, in consultation with SHPO, to better reflect the City’s review process:

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 59

this code: the Ben Lomond House at 1518 Ben Lomond Drive, and the Stanford House at 804 W. Kenneth Road.

5D1: Contributor to a local historic district; subject to design review per Glendale Historic District Ordinance; not evaluated for individual eligibility for Glendale, California, or National Registers. The other 161 contributing properties were assigned this code.

7DNC: Non-contributor to a local historic district; subject to design review per Glendale Historic District Ordinance; not evaluated for Glendale, California, or National Registers. 5 2 properties were assigned this code.

One property within the district could not evaluated at the time of the field survey, and was not assigned a status code. 1532 Highland Avenue is located on a flag lot and is not visible, so a determination of eligibility could not be made for this property.

The City of Glendale developed the 7DNC code to identify non - contributing properties in a way that best reflects their treatment under the Historic District Design Guidelines. It reflects that properties are still subject to design review, though at a redu ced level of scrutiny with regard to historic features. It also acknowledges that future, property - specific research may determine that a non- contributing structure has historic or architectural significance and is possibly individually eligible for the Glendale Register of Historic Resources.

The California Department of Parks and Recreation survey forms (DPR forms) prepared for each property as part of this survey utilize these codes, which can be found near the top right corner of the first page of each form (see Appendix B). The codes are also included in the master address table included in Appendix A. Figure 3 on page 4 features a map depicting all contributors and non-contributors.

Glendale Designation Criteria
To be eligible as a historic district, an area must meet at least one of the criteria established by the Glendale Historic District Overlay Ordinance.

Based on research and field documentation, the Survey Area appears to meet five of the nine local criteria (A, B, C, G, and H):

A. Exemplifies or reflects special elements of the city's cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering, architectural, or natural history. District Meets this Criterion.

The Survey Area is significant for exemplifying special elements of Glendale’s economic, aesthetic, and architectural history. The area is demonstrative of how advances in transportation - specifically the 138 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 60

advent and expansion of the personal automobile – facilitated suburban development and the physical expansion of Glendale and its environs in the early decades of the twentieth century. The relative distance of the neighborhood from central Glendale, its exceptionally long blocks and hilly terrain, as wel l as features such as garages and porte cochères associated with individual houses are demonstrative of the impact that the car had on residential development at the time during which it was subdivided and developed.

The Survey Area also contains an excellent concentration of residences constructed between the 1920s and the early postwar period. There is a particularly strong representation of properties developed during the 1920s and early 1930s, when the city was amid a period of extraordinary growth and expansion. Collectively, houses within the Survey Area are demonstrative of the broad architectural trends, aesthetic preferences, and general character and quality of residential architecture that defined the physical fabric of Glendale’s neighborhoods at this time.

B. Is identified with persons or events significant in local, state, or national history. District Meets this Criterion.

The Survey Area is significant for its association with brothers Dan and Arthur Campbell, both highly influential figures in the history of Glendale. The Campbells owned and subdivided much of the land in and around the Survey Area. Their role in the City’s physical growth and expansion, as well as their involvement in matters related to banking and transportation, contributed to the development of the City as it exists in the present day. While the Campbells did not live within the Survey Area, and much of what now comprises South Cumberland Heights appears to have been subdivided and developed by others, the Campbells’ contributions to the development of the greater Cumberland Heights area are myriad and deep. It is due in no small part to their extensive investment in this area of Glendale that South Cumberland Heights developed as it did beginning in the 1920s.

C. Embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period, or method of construction, or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materi als or craftsmanship. District Meets this Criterion.

The Survey Area meets this criterion for containing a significant concentration of architectural styles that were popular between the 1920s and early postwar period. Of particular note is its concentration of Period Revival style architecture , with many houses embodying distinctive characteristics of the Spanish Colonial Revival, Mediterranean Revival, Tudor Revival, French- Inspired, American Colonial Revival, and Monterey Revival styles. Examples of the 139 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 61

Minimal Traditional and Ranch styles that were popular in the 1940s and 1950s are interspersed throughout the Survey Area, and generally complement the Period Revival styles that prevail within the neighborhood. The Survey Area is notable for the quality of its houses and the relative degree of articulation expressed in their design.

D. Represents the wor k of notable builders, designers, or architects.

District Does Not Meet this Criterion.

The Survey Area does not meet this criterion. No single builder, designer, or architect is known to have made a significant contribution to the development or overall appearance of the Survey Area. Houses within the area were designed by numerous architects and builders over the span of its history; though some of these architects are significant, including Earl C. Rahn, the district as a whole does not represent their w ork in a manner that satisfies the conditions of this criterion.

E. Has a unique location or is a view or vista representing an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood community or of the city. District Does Not Meet this Criterion.

The Sur vey Area does not meet this criterion. It is one of many established residential neighborhoods in northwest Glendale, and generally it is consistent with the overall character and development patterns that prevail in this area of the city. There is nothing particularly unique nor picturesque about the Survey Area to suggest that it may be eligible under this criterion. The Survey Area also does not possess a unique location or view or vista that would render it an established or familiar visual feature of the neighborhood, community, or city.

F. Embodies a collection of elements of architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship that represent a significant structural or architectural achievement or innovation. District Does Not Meet this Criterion.

The Survey Area does not meet this criterion. As discussed in the evaluation against Criterion C, the Survey Area contains a significant concentration of architectural styles that were popular during its period of development. While the quality of the architectural design, materials, detailing, and craftsmanship is generally high in the Survey Area, reflecting its development and occupation by middle -class homeowners, it cannot be said that, as a collection, its contributing buildings represent a significant structural or architectural achievement or innovation that would merit consideration under this criterion. Most appear to be well-designed, yet fairly typical examples 140 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 62

of their respective architectural style and do not stand out as particularly innovative.

G. Reflects significant geographical patterns, including those associated with different eras of settlement and growth, transportation modes, or distinctive examples of park or community planning. District Meets this Criterion.

The Survey Area is significant for representing geographical patterns associated with automobile suburbanization, which lent impet us to the prevailing form, scale, and visual character of suburban neighborhoods in Glendale and its environs in the first several decades of the twentieth century. The Survey Area exhibits common characteristics of an automobile suburb in its relatively l ong blocks and wide streets, which accommodated vehicular traffic; the lack of pedestrian accommodations such as sidewalks on some streets; and architectural features such as curb cuts, driveways, porte cochè res, and garages, which were incorporated into the design of houses in the district and allowed for on- site vehicular parking and storage.

Common to automobile suburbs, streets within the Survey Area also contain features such as landscaped parkways and streetlamps.

H. Conveys a sense of historic and architectural cohesiveness through its design, setting, materials, workmanship or association. District Meets this Criterion.

The Survey Area conveys a sense of historic and architectural cohesiveness through the relatively consiste nt scale, bulk, and massing of its houses, as well as through their mostly-uniform setback from the street. As discussed in the evaluation against Criterion C, the Survey Area also contains a notable concentration of Period Revival style architecture and complementary idioms like the Minimal Traditional and Ranch styles, which results in a relatively consistent architectural character throughout.

I. Has been designated a historic district in the National Register of Historic Places or the California Regist er of Historical Resources.

District Does Not Meet this Criterion.

The Survey Area does not meet this criterion. It has not been designated a historic district in the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historical Resources.

141 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 63

CALIFORNIA REGISTER EVALUATION

The proposed South Cumberland Heights Historic District appears to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) for its significance at the local level under California Register Criteria 1, 2, and 3:

1. [The district is] associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. District Meets this Criterion.

The Survey Area is associated with significant patterns of residential development and automobile suburbanization in Glendale. As discussed in the evaluation against local criteria, the origins and development history of the neighborhood are linked to the proliferation of automobile travel, which haste ned the development of once-peripheral areas in northwest Glendale at a time in which the City was witnessing extraordinary growth. The Survey Area is an expression of the broad patterns of history related to residential development and suburbanization tha t characterized Glendale’s neighborhoods at this time. It is therefore associated with broad patterns of events related to the City’s economic, aesthetic, and architectural history and meets California Register Criterion 1.

2. [The district is] associated with the lives of persons important to local, California or national history. District Meets this Criterion.

As discussed in the evaluation against local Criterion B, the Survey Area’s development history bears a strong association with the contributions of Dan and Arthur Campbell, real estate developers and civic boosters who played a heavy hand in promoting and developing Glendale real estate in the early decades of the twentieth century.

The Survey Area is therefore associated with the lives of persons important to Glendale history and meets California Register Criterion

2. 3. [The district] embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values. District Meets this Criterion.

As discussed in the evaluation against local criteria, the Survey Area contains a notable concentration of Period Revival style architecture, and many of its contributing houses embody distinctive characteristics of a wide range of complementary Period Revival idioms. The district, as a whole, is valuable to a study of the Period Revival movement and its influence on the built environment of Glendale, and therefore meets California Register Criterion 3.
142 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 64

4. [The district] has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation. District Does Not Meet this Criterion at this Time.

The Survey Area lies on soil that has been disturbed by construction and extensive grading. The area is not known to possess any paleontological or archaeological resources. It is possible that the area may contain subsurface resources that have the potential to yield information important to the prehistory or history of the area; however, this falls outside the scope of this evaluation. With further research and analysis, this criterion may be reconsidered.

The proposed South Cumberland Heights Historic District retains sufficient integrity and character -defining features to convey its historical significance at the local level under the above-listed California Register criteria.

NATIONAL REGISTER EVALUATION

The National Register of Historic Places (National Register) is the nation’s master inventory of known historic resources. The National Register is administered by the National Park Service (NPS) and includes listings of buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts that possess historic, architectural, engineering, archaeological, or cultural significance at the national, state, or local level.

Though National Register criteria are similar to those of the California Register, the significance and integrity threshold s for a district to be listed in the National Register are generally understood to be higher than that for California Register listing. To be eligible for the National Register, a district must rise to a high level of significance in comparison to similar concentrations of properties, and must retain a relatively high level of integrity to be eligible for listing.

The 2004 survey of Cumberland Heights was inconclusive with respect to National Register eligibility. This survey suggested that perhaps only a portion of the larger area might meet National Register criteria pending additional focused analysis toward this end. Neither of the two locally designated districts that were subsequently carved out of Cumberland Heights – Ard Eevin Highlands and North Cumberland Heights – were determined to be eligible for listing in the National Register at the time of their evaluation for local listing in 2009 and 2012, respectively.

However, the survey report for North Cumberland Heights notes that “because other areas within the Cumberland Heights area initially proposed may apply for district status in the future, it is recommended 143 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 65

that any determination regarding National Register eligibility wait until the entire area can be reevaluated through further survey evaluation.”63 To be consistent with previous determinations regarding National Register eligibility of neighborhoods in the ge neral vicinity , ARG recommends that the same standard apply to South Cumberland Heights, and that any determinations of the district’s eligibil ity against National Register criteria wait until the Cumberland Heights area can be reevaluated in its entirety.

Master tables of all surveyed properties are included as Appendix A of this report, and DPR 523 forms (one District Record and 216 Primary Records) are also included as Appendix B.

63 “Proposed North Cumberland Heights Historic District, Historic Resource Survey Update,” Aug. 2012, 33-34.
144 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 66

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS, REPORTS, AND OTHER PUBLISHED SOURCES

Arroyo, Juliet M. Early Glendale. Charleston: Arcadia Publishing, 2005.

Arroyo, Juliet M., Katherine Peters Yamada, and George Ellison. Postcard History Series: Glendale. Charleston: Arcadia Publishing, 2007.

City of Los Angeles. “SurveyLA, Los Angeles Historic Context Statement, Context: Commercial Development, Theme: Commercial Development and the Automobile.” Aug. 2016.

“Cumberland Heights Historic Resource Survey Report.” Prepared by Historic Resources Group. Sept. 30, 2004.

Crise, Steve, et al. Pacific Electric Railway . Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing, 2011.

Fogelson, Robert M. The Fragmented Metropolis: Los Angeles, 1850-1930.

Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993.

Glendale Chamber of Commerce. Glendale: Fastest Growing City in America (promotional brochure), 1924-1925.

Glendale Chamber of Commerce. Glendale: Still the Fastest Growing City in America (promotional brochure), c. 1928.

Glendale Improvement Association. Glendale: A Place for Homes (promotional brochure), 1904.

Glendale Merchants Association. Glendale: Your Home (promotional brochure), 1926-1927.

Hilton, George W., and John F. Due. Interurban Railways in America.

Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1960.

Longstreth, Richard. “The Perils of a Parkless Town.” In Martin Wachs and Margaret Crawford, eds. The Car and the City: The Automobile, the Building Environment, and Daily Urban Life. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1992.

McWilliams, Carey. Southern California: An Island on the Land. Salt Lake City: Peregrine Smith, 1946.

Perry, E. Caswell, Shirley Catherine Berger, and Terri E. Jonisch.

Glendale: A Pictorial History. Norfolk: The Donning Company, 1990. 145 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 67

Perry, E. Caswell, and Carroll W. Parcher. Glendale Area History.

Glendale: Eric Schneirsohn, 1981.

“Proposed Ard Eevin Highlands Historic District Evaluation.” Prepared by Historic Resources Group. Aug. 2008.

“Proposed North Cumberland Heights Historic District – Historic Resource Survey Update.” Prepared by the City of Glendale. Aug. 2012.

Security Trust and Savings Bank. First of the Ranchos: The Story of Glendale (promotional brochure), 1924.

Sherer, John Calvin. History of Glendale and Vicinity. Unknown Publisher, 1922.

Starr, Kevin. Inventing the Dream: California Through the Progressive Era. New York: Oxford University Press, 1985.

NEWSPAPERS AND PERIODICALS

Appleford, Steve. “Family Perpetuates a Legacy of the Blues.” Los Angeles Times. Oct. 19, 1995.

“Burbank: Over Sea Entertainment.” Los Angeles Times. Oct. 28, 1904.

“Plans Residence.” Los Angeles Times. Dec. 30, 1923.

“Quarter Million Dollars in Land.” Los Angeles Times. Mar. 27, 1908.

Vaughn, Susan. “Mansion Still Speaks Volumes.” Los Angeles Times. Jul. 3, 1992.

“Willie Dixon Buys $700,000 House in Glendale, Calif.” Jet 79.9 (Dec. 10, 1990): 36.

WEB SITES AND OTHER SOURCES

California Office of Historic Preservation. Instructions for Recording Historical Resources. Mar. 1995. Accessed Mar. 2020,
http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1054/files/writing%20historic%20contex ts%20from%20ohp.pdf

California Office of Historic Preservation. Writing Historic Contexts. n.d. Accessed Mar. 2020,
http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1054/files/writing%20historic%20contex ts%20from%20ohp.pdf
146 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 68

City of Glendale. “Brand Library/El Miradero.” Accessed Mar. 2020, https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/community- development/planning-division/historic-preservation/brand-library-el- miradero

Independence Hall Association. “The Age of the Automobile.” Accessed Mar. 2020, http://www.ushistory.org/us/46a.asp

Library of Congress. “Goodyear Rubber Company, 6701 South Central Avenue, Los Angeles, Los Angeles Co unty, CA.” Accessed Mar. 2020, https://www.loc.gov/item/ca1293/

Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. Tract Maps. Accessed Mar. 2020, https://dpw.lacounty.gov/smpm/landrecords/

Los Angeles County Office of the Assessor. Property assessment data and maps. Accessed Mar. 2020, https://portal.assessor.lacounty.gov/

National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. 1990. Accessed Mar. 2020,
https://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb15/

National Register Bulletin 16A: How to Complete the National Register Registration Form. 1997. Accessed Mar. 2020,
https://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb16a/

National Register Bulletin 16B: How to Complete the National Register Multiple Property Documentation Form. 1991. Accessed Mar. 2020, https://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb16b/

National Register Bulletin 24: Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis for Preservation Planning. 1977. Accessed Mar. 2020,
https://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb24/

National Register Bulletin: Historic Residential Suburbs. Washington D.C.: National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Sept. 2002. Accessed Mar. 2020,
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/publications.htm

“National Register of Historic Places Registration Form: Ard Eevin.” Prepared by Daniel D. Paul. May 13, 2006.

Pacific Coast Architecture Database, “Glendale Hotel, Downtown, Glendale, CA,” accessed Mar. 2020,
http://pcad.lib.washington.edu/building/20546/

147 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 69

Sanborn Map Company. Sanborn Fire Insurance Map: Los Angeles, California (various dates). New York: Sanborn Company. Accessed Mar. 2020 via the Los Angeles Public Library,
http://www.lapl.org/collections-resources/research-and-homework#S

Wood, Andrew. “The Rise and Fall of the Great American Motel.” Jun. 30, 2017. Accessed Mar. 2020,
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/twilight-mom-and-pop- motel-180963895/
148 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021

APPENDIX A: PROPERTY DATA TABLES

TABLE 1. Master Property List
Street Address AIN Build
Date Architectural Style Status
Code
District
Status
1513 Ard Eevin Ave 5629-015-004 1926 Tudor Revival 5D1 C 1515 Ard Eevin Ave 5629-015-003 1925 Spanish Colonial Revival 5D1 C 1516 Ard Eevin Ave 5629-016-019 1930 Spanish Colonial Revival 5D1 C 1520 Ard Eevin Ave 5629-016-018 1930 Spanish Colonial Revival 5D1 C 1521 Ard Eevin Ave 5629-015-002 1933 Tudor Revival 5D1 C 1524 Ard Eevin Ave 5629-016-017 1930 Spanish Colonial Revival 5D1 C 1525 Ard Eevin Ave 5629-015-001 1930 Spanish Colonial Revival 5D1 C 1528 Ard Eevin Ave 5629-016-001 1927 Tudor Revival 5D1 C 1529 Ard Eevin Ave 5629-015-020 1932 Spanish Colonial Revival 5D1 C 1534 Ard Eevin Ave 5629-016-002 1987 Contemporary 7DNC NC 1535 Ard Eevin Ave 5629-015-019 1923 Mediterranean Revival 5D1 C 1540 Ard Eevin Ave 5629-016-003 1941 Minimal Traditional 5D1 C 1541 Ard Eevin Ave 5629-015-018 1930 Tudor Revival 5D1 C 1544 Ard Eevin Ave 5629-016-004 1950 Ranch 5D1 C
1545 Ard Eevin Ave 5629-015-017 1936 Minimal Traditional 5D1 C 1512 Ben Lomond Dr 5629-015-009 1932 Spanish Colonial Revival 7DNC NC 1515 Ben Lomond Dr 5629-011-024 1922 Contemporary 7DNC NC 1518 Ben Lomond Dr 5629-015-010 1926 French-Inspired 5B C 1521 Ben Lomond Dr 5629-011-023 1951 Ranch 7DNC NC
1522 Ben Lomond Dr 5629-015-011 1925 Tudor Revival 5D1 C 1527 Ben Lomond Dr 5629-011-022 1948 Ranch 5D1 C
1528 Ben Lomond Dr 5629-015-012 1930 Ranch 7DNC NC
1532 Ben Lomond Dr 5629-015-013 1933 Spanish Colonial Revival 5D1 C 1535 Ben Lomond Dr 5629-011-021 1951 Ranch 5D1 C
1536 Ben Lomond Dr 5629-015-014 1934 Spanish Colonial Revival 5D1 C 1540 Ben Lomond Dr 5629-015-015 1938 American Col. Revival 7DNC NC 1541 Ben Lomond Dr 5629-011-020 1951 Ranch 5D1 C
1545 Ben Lomond Dr 5629-011-019 1948 American Col. Revival 5D1 C 1546 Ben Lomond Dr 5629-015-016 1932 American Col. Revival 5D1 C 1549 Ben Lomond Dr 5629-011-018 1900 Contemporary 7DNC NC 1600 Ben Lomond Dr 5629-015-016 1932 Minimal Traditional 7DNC NC 1603 Ben Lomond Dr 5629-011-017 1946 Minimal Traditional 5D1 C 1606 Ben Lomond Dr 5629-014-002 1926 Spanish Colonial Revival 5D1 C 1607 Ben Lomond Dr 5629-011-016 1948 Minimal Traditional 5D1 C 1610 Ben Lomond Dr 5629-014-003 1936 Spanish Colonial Revival 5D1 C 149 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021

TABLE 1. Master Property List (cont.)
Street Address AIN Build
Date Architectural Style Status
Code
District
Status
1611 Ben Lomond Dr 5629-011-015 1950 Minimal Traditional 5D1 C 1614 Ben Lomond Dr 5629-014-004 1927 Mediterranean Revival 5D1 C 1615 Ben Lomond Dr 5629-011-014 1950 Minimal Traditional 5D1 C 1618 Ben Lomond Dr 5629-014-005 1927 Spanish Colonial Revival 7DNC NC 1621 Ben Lomond Dr 5629-012-011 1912 Craftsman 5D1 C
1622 Ben Lomond Dr 5629-014-015 1948 Minimal Traditional 5D1 C 1623 Ben Lomond Dr 5629-012-014 1925 French-Inspired 7DNC NC 1628 Ben Lomond Dr 5629-014-016 1931 French-Inspired 5D1 C 1631 Ben Lomond Dr 5629-012-013 1910 Eclectic Craftsman 5D1 C 1632 Ben Lomond Dr 5629-014-017 1926 Spanish Colonial Revival 5D1 C 1636 Ben Lomond Dr 5629-014-018 1928 Spanish Colonial Revival 5D1 C 1639 Ben Lomond Dr 5629-012-012 1928 Spanish Colonial Revival 5D1 C 1640 Ben Lomond Dr 5629-013-015 1940 Minimal Traditional 5D1 C 1641 Ben Lomond Dr 5629-012-015 1923 Tudor Revival 5D1 C 1646 Ben Lomond Dr 5629-013-014 1927 Tudor Revival 5D1 C 1647 Ben Lomond Dr 5629-012-016 1925 Tudor Revival 5D1 C 1650 Ben Lomond Dr 5629-013-013 1930 Spanish Colonial Revival 5D1 C 1651 Ben Lomond Dr 5629-012-017 1945 Minimal Traditional 7DNC NC 1655 Ben Lomond Dr 5629-012-018 1924 Spanish Colonial Revival 5D1 C 1656 Ben Lomond Dr 5629-013-012 1941 Minimal Traditional 5D1 C 1659 Ben Lomond Dr 5629-012-019 2020 Contemporary 7DNC NC 1660 Ben Lomond Dr 5629-013-011 1926 Tudor Revival 5D1 C 1664 Ben Lomond Dr 5629-013-010 1926 Spanish Colonial Revival 5D1 C 1665 Ben Lomond Dr 5629-012-020 2016 Contemporary 7DNC NC 1515 Cleveland Rd 5629-007-003 1939 Minimal Traditional 5D1 C 1516 Cleveland Rd 5629-010-011 1925 Tudor Revival 5D1 C 1517 Cleveland Rd 5629-007-004 1924 Spanish Colonial Revival 5D1 C 1520 Cleveland Rd 5629-010-012 1926 French-Inspired 5D1 C 1525 Cleveland Rd 5629-007-024 1947 Ranch 7DNC NC
1526 Cleveland Rd 5629-010-013 1926 Spanish Colonial Revival 5D1 C 1529 Cleveland Rd 5629-007-006 1947 No definable style 7DNC NC 1530 Cleveland Rd 5629-010-014 1926 Spanish Colonial Revival 5D1 C 1535 Cleveland Rd 5629-007-007 2014 Contemporary 7DNC NC 1536 Cleveland Rd 5629-010-015 1930 Spanish Colonial Revival 5D1 C 1540 Cleveland Rd 5629-010-016 1926 Mediterranean Revival 7DNC NC 1545 Cleveland Rd 5629-007-027 1930 Monterey Revival 5D1 C 1546 Cleveland Rd 5629-010-017 1925 French-Inspired 7DNC NC 1550 Cleveland Rd 5629-010-018 1925 Spanish Colonial Revival 5D1 C 150 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021

TABLE 1. Master Property List (cont.)
Street Address AIN Build
Date Architectural Style Status
Code
District
Status
1551 Cleveland Rd 5629-007-009 1928 Spanish Colonial Revival 5D1 C 1554 Cleveland Rd 5629-010-019 1926 Tudor Revival 5D1 C 1555 Cleveland Rd 5629-007-010 1926 Mediterranean Revival 5D1 C 1560 Cleveland Rd 5629-009-012 1927 French-Inspired 5D1 C 1600 Cleveland Rd 5629-009-013 1927 Spanish Colonial Revival 5D1 C 1601 Cleveland Rd 5629-008-002 2003 Contemporary 7DNC NC 1606 Cleveland Rd 5629-009-014 1941 Minimal Traditional 5D1 C 1610 Cleveland Rd 5629-009-015 1932 Spanish Colonial Revival 7DNC NC 1614 Cleveland Rd 5629-009-016 1926 Tudor Revival 5D1 C 1615 Cleveland Rd 5629-008-003 1930 Spanish Colonial Revival 5D1 C 1617 Cleveland Rd 5629-008-004 1932 Spanish Colonial Revival 7DNC NC 1620 Cleveland Rd 5629-009-017 1926 Tudor Revival 5D1 C 1621 Cleveland Rd 5629-008-016 1932 Spanish Colonial Revival 5D1 C 1624 Cleveland Rd 5629-009-018 1926 Spanish Colonial Revival 5D1 C 1625 Cleveland Rd 5629-008-014 1936 American Col. Revival 5D1 C 1629 Cleveland Rd 5629-008-013 1930 Spanish Colonial Revival 5D1 C 1630 Cleveland Rd 5629-009-019 1926 French-Inspired 5D1 C 1634 Cleveland Rd 5629-009-020 1926 Tudor Revival 5D1 C 1635 Cleveland Rd 5629-008-012 1930 Mediterranean Revival 7DNC NC 1639 Cleveland Rd 5629-008-011 1937 Minimal Traditional 5D1 C 748 Elliott Pl 5629-020-002 1926 Spanish Colonial Revival 5D1 C 734 Glenview Rd 5629-021-009 1934 Minimal Traditional 7DNC NC 740 Glenview Rd 5629-021-008 1927 Spanish Colonial Revival 7DNC NC 744 Glenview Rd 5629-021-007 1927 Spanish Colonial Revival 5D1 C 745 Glenview Rd 5629-020-001 1926 Spanish Colonial Revival 5D1 C 748 Glenview Rd 5629-021-006 1927 Spanish Colonial Revival 5D1 C 752 Glenview Rd 5629-021-017 1928 Spanish Colonial Revival 5D1 C 813 Glenview Rd 5629-017-006 1926 Contemporary 7DNC NC
819 Glenview Rd 5629-017-009 1921 Modern 7DNC NC
823 Glenview Rd 5629-017-010 1924 Spanish Colonial Revival 5D1 C 1508 Grandview Ave 5629-006-005 1939 Minimal Traditional 5D1 C 1511 Grandview Ave 5622-023-018 1935 Spanish Colonial Revival 5D1 C 1512 Grandview Ave 5629-006-004 1930 Spanish Colonial Revival 5D1 C 1515 Grandview Ave 5622-023-017 1948 American Col. Revival 5D1 C 1520 Grandview Ave 5629-006-018 1948 Ranch 7DNC NC
1521 Grandview Ave 5622-023-014 1927 Spanish Colonial Revival 5D1 C 1524 Grandview Ave 5629-006-028 1973 Modern 7DNC NC
1525 Grandview Ave 5622-023-013 1950 Minimal Traditional 5D1 C 151 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021

TABLE 1. Master Property List (cont.)
Street Address AIN Build
Date Architectural Style Status
Code
District
Status
1529 Grandview Ave 5622-023-010 1938 Minimal Traditional 7DNC NC 1530 Grandview Ave 5629-006-027 1920 Contemporary 7DNC NC 1535 Grandview Ave 5622-023-009 1939 Minimal Traditional 5D1 C 1536 Grandview Ave 5629-006-001 1922 American Col. Revival 5D1 C 1537 Grandview Ave 5622-023-006 1940 Minimal Traditional 7DNC NC 1540 Grandview Ave 5629-006-032 1947 Minimal Traditional 5D1 C 1543 Grandview Ave 5622-023-004 1926 No defined style 7DNC NC 1546 Grandview Ave 5629-006-012 1946 Minimal Traditional 5D1 C 1547 Grandview Ave 5622-023-003 1934 Spanish Colonial Revival 5D1 C 1550 Grandview Ave 5629-006-011 1948 Minimal Traditional 5D1 C 1551 Grandview Ave 5622-023-002 1929 Spanish Colonial Revival 5D1 C 1552 Grandview Ave 5629-006-010 1951 Modern 5D1 C
1559 Grandview Ave 5622-023-001 1926 Spanish Colonial Revival 5D1 C 1560 Grandview Ave 5629-005-001 1923 Tudor Revival 5D1 C 1566 Grandview Ave 5629-005-002 1927 Spanish Colonial Revival 5D1 C 1572 Grandview Ave 5629-005-003 1937 American Col. Revival 5D1 C 1600 Grandview Ave 5629-005-007 1995 Unknown (not visible) 7DNC NC 1602 Grandview Ave 5629-005-004 1949 Ranch 5D1 C
1606 Grandview Ave 5629-005-005 1940 Minimal Traditional 7DNC NC 1513 Highland Ave 5629-016-012 1941 Minimal Traditional 5D1 C 1517 Highland Ave 5629-016-011 1931 Spanish Colonial Revival 5D1 C 1520 Highland Ave 5629-021-012 1948 Ranch 7DNC NC
1521 Highland Ave 5629-016-010 1935 Spanish Colonial Revival 5D1 C 1525 Highland Ave 5629-016-009 1936 Minimal Traditional 7DNC NC 1527 Highland Ave 5629-016-005 1948 Minimal Traditional 5D1 C 1528 Highland Ave 5629-021-013 1946 Ranch 7DNC NC
1532 Highland Ave 5629-021-014 1953 Unknown (not visible) Unevaluated 1533 Highland Ave 5629-016-006 1948 French-Inspired 5D1 C 1534 Highland Ave 5629-021-002 1948 Modern 5D1 C
1537 Highland Ave 5629-016-007 1940 American Col. Revival 5D1 C 1538 Highland Ave 5629-021-015 1950 Ranch 7DNC NC
1545 Highland Ave 5629-016-008 1947 Ranch 5D1 C
1546 Highland Ave 5629-021-004 1938 Minimal Traditional 5D1 C 1516 Idlewood Rd 5629-011-003 1923 Contemporary 7DNC NC 1517 Idlewood Rd 5629-010-006 1931 No definable style 7DNC NC 1520 Idlewood Rd 5629-011-004 1926 Tudor Revival 5D1 C
1523 Idlewood Rd 5629-010-022 1960 Ranch 5D1 C
152 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021

TABLE 1. Master Property List (cont.)
Street Address AIN Build
Date Architectural Style Status
Code
District
Status
1524 Idlewood Rd 5629-011-005 1924 Mediterranean Revival 5D1 C 1528 Idlewood Rd 5629-011-006 1940 Minimal Traditional 5D1 C 1531 Idlewood Rd 5629-010-021 1924 American Col. Revival 5D1 C 1534 Idlewood Rd 5629-011-007 1925 Tudor Revival 5D1 C
1535 Idlewood Rd 5629-010-020 1960 Ranch 5D1 C
1538 Idlewood Rd 5629-011-008 1925 Spanish Colonial Revival 5D1 C 1539 Idlewood Rd 5629-010-004 1959 Ranch 7DNC NC
1542 Idlewood Rd 5629-011-009 1925 Spanish Colonial Revival 5D1 C 1545 Idlewood Rd 5629-010-003 1937 Minimal Traditional 5D1 C 1548 Idlewood Rd 5629-011-010 1925 Tudor Revival 5D1 C
1549 Idlewood Rd 5629-010-002 1925 Spanish Colonial Revival 5D1 C 1602 Idlewood Rd 5629-011-011 1925 French-Inspired 5D1 C 1603 Idlewood Rd 5629-010-001 1925 Tudor Revival 5D1 C
1606 Idlewood Rd 5629-011-012 1925 Spanish Colonial Revival 5D1 C 1607 Idlewood Rd 5629-009-011 1925 Spanish Colonial Revival 7DNC NC 1610 Idlewood Rd 5629-011-012 1925 Tudor Revival 7DNC NC 1611 Idlewood Rd 5629-009-010 1925 Spanish Colonial Revival 5D1 C 1616 Idlewood Rd 5629-012-001 1926 Spanish Colonial Revival 5D1 C 1617 Idlewood Rd 5629-009-009 1925 French-Inspired 5D1 C 1620 Idlewood Rd 5629-012-002 1925 Tudor Revival 5D1 C
1621 Idlewood Rd 5629-009-008 1926 Spanish Colonial Revival 5D1 C 1626 Idlewood Rd 5629-012-003 1925 Tudor Revival 7DNC NC 1627 Idlewood Rd 5629-009-006 1929 French-Inspired 5D1 C 1629 Idlewood Rd 5629-009-006 1929 Tudor Revival 5D1 C
1630 Idlewood Rd 5629-012-004 1926 Tudor Revival 7DNC NC 1633 Idlewood Rd 5629-009-005 1936 Minimal Traditional 5D1 C 1636 Idlewood Rd 5629-012-005 1927 Tudor Revival 5D1 C
1637 Idlewood Rd 5629-009-004 1936 Minimal Traditional 5D1 C 1638 Idlewood Rd 5629-012-006 1929 Spanish Colonial Revival 5D1 C 1641 Idlewood Rd 5629-009-003 1924 Tudor Revival 5D1 C
1644 Idlewood Rd 5629-012-007 1939 Minimal Traditional 5D1 C 1648 Idlewood Rd 5629-012-008 1924 Eclectic 5D1 C
747 W Kenneth Rd 5629-021-011 1946 Ranch 5D1 C
750 W Kenneth Rd 5634-006-002 1937 Tudor Revival 5D1 C
801 W Kenneth Rd 5629-016-016 1931 Spanish Colonial Revival 5D1 C 804 W Kenneth Rd 5628-001-015 1928 Spanish Colonial Revival 5B C 811 W Kenneth Rd 5629-016-013 1933 Spanish Colonial Revival 5D1 C 812 W Kenneth Rd 5628-001-016 1925 Tudor Revival 5D1 C
153 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021

TABLE 1. Master Property List (cont.)
Street Address AIN Build
Date Architectural Style Status
Code
District
Status
815 W Kenneth Rd 5629-016-021 1930 Spanish Colonial Revival 5D1 C 820 W Kenneth Rd 5628-001-030 1933 Monterey Revival 5D1 C 825 W Kenneth Rd 5629-016-020 1934 Spanish Colonial Revival 5D1 C 830 W Kenneth Rd 5628-001-029 1926 Spanish Colonial Revival 5D1 C 831 W Kenneth Rd 5629-015-005 1925 Mediterranean Revival 5D1 C 835 W Kenneth Rd 5629-015-006 1922 Craftsman 7DNC NC
840 W Kenneth Rd 5628-002-002 1936 American Col. Revival 5D1 C 845 W Kenneth Rd 5629-015-007 1923 Spanish Colonial Revival 7DNC NC 850 W Kenneth Rd 5628-002-001 1939 Ranch 5D1 C
851 W Kenneth Rd 5629-015-008 1950 Ranch 5D1 C
854 W Kenneth Rd 5628-002-030 1931 Tudor Revival 5D1 C
859 W Kenneth Rd 5629-011-026 1922 Ranch 7DNC NC
864 W Kenneth Rd 5628-002-029 1941 Ranch 5D1 C
865 W Kenneth Rd 5629-011-025 1940 Ranch 5D1 C
900 W Kenneth Rd 5628-003-024 1939 French-Inspired 5D1 C 901 W Kenneth Rd 5629-011-001 1949 Ranch 5D1 C
905 W Kenneth Rd 5629-011-002 1927 Spanish Colonial Revival 5D1 C 910 W Kenneth Rd 5628-003-001 1939 Minimal Traditional 5D1 C 915 W Kenneth Rd 5629-010-007 1947 Spanish Colonial Revival 5D1 C 918 W Kenneth Rd 5628-004-029 1939 Minimal Traditional 7DNC NC 919 W Kenneth Rd 5629-010-008 1933 Spanish Colonial Revival 5D1 C 922 W Kenneth Rd 5628-004-028 1939 French-Inspired 7DNC NC 925 W Kenneth Rd 5629-010-009 1940 American Col. Revival 5D1 C 926 W Kenneth Rd 5628-004-024 1935 Spanish Colonial Revival 5D1 C 932 W Kenneth Rd 5628-004-023 1955 Contemporary 7DNC NC 933 W Kenneth Rd 5629-010-010 1934 Spanish Colonial Revival 5D1 C 940 W Kenneth Rd 5628-005-002 1927 Spanish Colonial Revival 5D1 C 945 W Kenneth Rd 5629-007-002 1939 Minimal Traditional 5D1 C 1000 W Kenneth Rd 5628-005-001 1952 Ranch 7DNC NC
1008 W Kenneth Rd 5628-005-016 1923 Tudor Revival 5D1 C

154 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021

TABLE 2. Properties by Construction Date
Street Address Build Date Architectural Style
1549 Ben Lomond Dr 1900 Contemporary
1631 Ben Lomond Dr 1910 Eclectic Craftsman
1621 Ben Lomond Dr 1912 Craftsman
1530 Grandview Ave 1920 Contemporary
819 Glenview Rd 1921 Modern (altered)
1515 Ben Lomond Dr 1922 Contemporary
1536 Grandview Ave 1922 American Colonial Revival
835 W Kenneth Rd 1922 Craftsman
859 W Kenneth Rd 1922 Ranch
1535 Ard Eevin Ave 1923 Mediterranean Revival
1641 Ben Lomond Dr 1923 Tudor Revival
1560 Grandview Ave 1923 Tudor Revival
1516 Idlewood Rd 1923 Contemporary
845 W Kenneth Rd 1923 Spanish Colonial Revival
1008 W Kenneth Rd 1923 Tudor Revival
1655 Ben Lomond Dr 1924 Spanish Colonial Revival
1517 Cleveland Rd 1924 Spanish Colonial Revival
823 Glenview Rd 1924 Spanish Colonial Revival
1524 Idlewood Rd 1924 Mediterranean Revival
1531 Idlewood Rd 1924 American Colonial Revival
1641 Idlewood Rd 1924 Tudor Revival
1648 Idlewood Rd 1924 Eclectic
1515 Ard Eevin Ave 1925 Spanish Colonial Revival
1522 Ben Lomond Dr 1925 Tudor Revival
1623 Ben Lomond Dr 1925 French-Inspired
1647 Ben Lomond Dr 1925 Tudor Revival
1516 Cleveland Rd 1925 Tudor Revival
1546 Cleveland Rd 1925 French-Inspired
1550 Cleveland Rd 1925 Spanish Colonial Revival
1534 Idlewood Rd 1925 Tudor Revival
1538 Idlewood Rd 1925 Spanish Colonial Revival
1542 Idlewood Rd 1925 Spanish Colonial Revival
1548 Idlewood Rd 1925 Tudor Revival
1549 Idlewood Rd 1925 Spanish Colonial Revival
1602 Idlewood Rd 1925 French-Inspired
1603 Idlewood Rd 1925 Tudor Revival
1606 Idlewood Rd 1925 Spanish Colonial Revival
1607 Idlewood Rd 1925 Spanish Colonial Revival
155 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021

TABLE 2. Properties by Construction Date (cont.)
Street Address Build Date Architectural Style
1610 Idlewood Rd 1925 Tudor Revival
1611 Idlewood Rd 1925 Spanish Colonial Revival
1617 Idlewood Rd 1925 French-Inspired
1620 Idlewood Rd 1925 Tudor Revival
1626 Idlewood Rd 1925 Tudor Revival
812 W Kenneth Rd 1925 Tudor Revival
831 W Kenneth Rd 1925 Mediterranean Revival
1513 Ard Eevin Ave 1926 Tudor Revival
1518 Ben Lomond Dr 1926 French-Inspired
1606 Ben Lomond Dr 1926 Spanish Colonial Revival
1632 Ben Lomond Dr 1926 Spanish Colonial Revival
1660 Ben Lomond Dr 1926 Tudor Revival
1664 Ben Lomond Dr 1926 Spanish Colonial Revival
1520 Cleveland Rd 1926 French-Inspired
1526 Cleveland Rd 1926 Spanish Colonial Revival
1530 Cleveland Rd 1926 Spanish Colonial Revival
1540 Cleveland Rd 1926 Mediterranean Revival
1554 Cleveland Rd 1926 Tudor Revival
1555 Cleveland Rd 1926 Mediterranean Revival
1614 Cleveland Rd 1926 Tudor Revival
1620 Cleveland Rd 1926 Tudor Revival
1624 Cleveland Rd 1926 Spanish Colonial Revival
1630 Cleveland Rd 1926 French-Inspired
1634 Cleveland Rd 1926 Tudor Revival
748 Elliott Pl 1926 Spanish Colonial Revival
745 Glenview Rd 1926 Spanish Colonial Revival
813 Glenview Rd 1926 Contemporary
1543 Grandview Ave 1926 No defined style
1559 Grandview Ave 1926 Spanish Colonial Revival
1520 Idlewood Rd 1926 Tudor Revival
1616 Idlewood Rd 1926 Spanish Colonial Revival
1621 Idlewood Rd 1926 Spanish Colonial Revival
1630 Idlewood Rd 1926 Tudor Revival
830 W Kenneth Rd 1926 Spanish Colonial Revival
1528 Ard Eevin Ave 1927 Tudor Revival
1614 Ben Lomond Dr 1927 Mediterranean Revival
1618 Ben Lomond Dr 1927 Spanish Colonial Revival
1646 Ben Lomond Dr 1927 Tudor Revival
156 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021

TABLE 2. Properties by Construction Date
Street Address Build Date Architectural Style
1560 Cleveland Rd 1927 French-Inspired
1600 Cleveland Rd 1927 Spanish Colonial Revival
740 Glenview Rd 1927 Spanish Colonial Revival
744 Glenview Rd 1927 Spanish Colonial Revival
748 Glenview Rd 1927 Spanish Colonial Revival
1521 Grandview Ave 1927 Spanish Colonial Revival
1566 Grandview Ave 1927 Spanish Colonial Revival
1636 Idlewood Rd 1927 Tudor Revival
905 W Kenneth Rd 1927 Spanish Colonial Revival
940 W Kenneth Rd 1927 Spanish Colonial Revival
1636 Ben Lomond Dr 1928 Spanish Colonial Revival
1639 Ben Lomond Dr 1928 Spanish Colonial Revival
1551 Cleveland Rd 1928 Spanish Colonial Revival
752 Glenview Rd 1928 Spanish Colonial Revival
804 W Kenneth Rd 1928 Spanish Colonial Revival
1551 Grandview Ave 1929 Spanish Colonial Revival
1627 Idlewood Rd 1929 French-Inspired
1629 Idlewood Rd 1929 Tudor Revival
1638 Idlewood Rd 1929 Spanish Colonial Revival
1516 Ard Eevin Ave 1930 Spanish Colonial Revival
1520 Ard Eevin Ave 1930 Spanish Colonial Revival
1524 Ard Eevin Ave 1930 Spanish Colonial Revival
1525 Ard Eevin Ave 1930 Spanish Colonial Revival
1541 Ard Eevin Ave 1930 Tudor Revival
1528 Ben Lomond Dr 1930 Ranch
1650 Ben Lomond Dr 1930 Spanish Colonial Revival
1536 Cleveland Rd 1930 Spanish Colonial Revival
1545 Cleveland Rd 1930 Monterey Revival
1615 Cleveland Rd 1930 Spanish Colonial Revival
1629 Cleveland Rd 1930 Spanish Colonial Revival
1635 Cleveland Rd 1930 Mediterranean Revival
1512 Grandview Ave 1930 Spanish Colonial Revival
815 W Kenneth Rd 1930 Spanish Colonial Revival
1628 Ben Lomond Dr 1931 French-Inspired
1517 Highland Ave 1931 Spanish Colonial Revival
1517 Idlewood Rd 1931 No defined style
801 W Kenneth Rd 1931 Spanish Colonial Revival
854 W Kenneth Rd 1931 Tudor Revival
157 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021

TABLE 2. Properties by Construction Date (cont.)
Street Address Build Date Architectural Style
1529 Ard Eevin Ave 1932 Spanish Colonial Revival
1512 Ben Lomond Dr 1932 Spanish Colonial Revival
1546 Ben Lomond Dr 1932 American Colonial Revival
1600 Ben Lomond Dr 1932 Minimal Traditional
1610 Cleveland Rd 1932 Spanish Colonial Revival
1617 Cleveland Rd 1932 Spanish Colonial Revival
1621 Cleveland Rd 1932 Spanish Colonial Revival
1521 Ard Eevin Ave 1933 Tudor Revival
1532 Ben Lomond Dr 1933 Spanish Colonial Revival
811 W Kenneth Rd 1933 Spanish Colonial Revival
820 W Kenneth Rd 1933 Monterey Revival
919 W Kenneth Rd 1933 Spanish Colonial Revival
1536 Ben Lomond Dr 1934 Spanish Colonial Revival
734 Glenview Rd 1934 Minimal Traditional
1547 Grandview Ave 1934 Spanish Colonial Revival
825 W Kenneth Rd 1934 Spanish Colonial Revival
933 W Kenneth Rd 1934 Spanish Colonial Revival
1511 Grandview Ave 1935 Spanish Colonial Revival
1521 Highland Ave 1935 Spanish Colonial Revival
926 W Kenneth Rd 1935 Spanish Colonial Revival
1545 Ard Eevin Ave 1936 Minimal Traditional
1610 Ben Lomond Dr 1936 Spanish Colonial Revival
1625 Cleveland Rd 1936 American Colonial Revival
1525 Highland Ave 1936 Minimal Traditional
1633 Idlewood Rd 1936 Minimal Traditional
1637 Idlewood Rd 1936 Minimal Traditional
840 W Kenneth Rd 1936 American Colonial Revival
1639 Cleveland Rd 1937 Minimal Traditional
1572 Grandview Ave 1937 American Colonial Revival
1545 Idlewood Rd 1937 Minimal Traditional
750 W Kenneth Rd 1937 Tudor Revival
1540 Ben Lomond Dr 1938 American Colonial Revival
1529 Grandview Ave 1938 Minimal Traditional
1546 Highland Ave 1938 Minimal Traditional
1515 Cleveland Rd 1939 Minimal Traditional
1508 Grandview Ave 1939 Minimal Traditional
1535 Grandview Ave 1939 Minimal Traditional
1644 Idlewood Rd 1939 Minimal Traditional
158 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021

TABLE 2. Properties by Construction Date
Street Address Build Date Architectural Style
850 W Kenneth Rd 1939 Ranch
900 W Kenneth Rd 1939 French-Inspired
910 W Kenneth Rd 1939 Minimal Traditional
918 W Kenneth Rd 1939 Minimal Traditional
922 W Kenneth Rd 1939 French-Inspired
945 W Kenneth Rd 1939 Minimal Traditional
1640 Ben Lomond Dr 1940 Minimal Traditional
1537 Grandview Ave 1940 Minimal Traditional
1606 Grandview Ave 1940 Minimal Traditional
1537 Highland Ave 1940 American Colonial Revival
1528 Idlewood Rd 1940 Minimal Traditional
865 W Kenneth Rd 1940 Ranch
925 W Kenneth Rd 1940 American Colonial Revival
1540 Ard Eevin Ave 1941 Minimal Traditional
1656 Ben Lomond Dr 1941 Minimal Traditional
1606 Cleveland Rd 1941 Minimal Traditional
1513 Highland Ave 1941 Minimal Traditional
864 W Kenneth Rd 1941 Ranch
1651 Ben Lomond Dr 1945 Minimal Traditional
1603 Ben Lomond Dr 1946 Minimal Traditional
1546 Grandview Ave 1946 Minimal Traditional
1528 Highland Ave 1946 Ranch
747 W Kenneth Rd 1946 Ranch
1525 Cleveland Rd 1947 Ranch
1529 Cleveland Rd 1947 No defined style
1540 Grandview Ave 1947 Minimal Traditional
1545 Highland Ave 1947 Ranch
915 W Kenneth Rd 1947 Spanish Colonial Revival
1527 Ben Lomond Dr 1948 Ranch
1545 Ben Lomond Dr 1948 American Colonial Revival
1607 Ben Lomond Dr 1948 Minimal Traditional
1622 Ben Lomond Dr 1948 Minimal Traditional
1515 Grandview Ave 1948 American Colonial Revival
1520 Grandview Ave 1948 Ranch
1550 Grandview Ave 1948 Minimal Traditional
1520 Highland Ave 1948 Ranch
1527 Highland Ave 1948 Minimal Traditional
1533 Highland Ave 1948 French-Inspired
159 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021

TABLE 2. Properties by Construction Date (cont.)
Street Address Build Date Architectural Style
1534 Highland Ave 1948 Modern
1602 Grandview Ave 1949 Ranch
901 W Kenneth Rd 1949 Ranch
1544 Ard Eevin Ave 1950 Ranch
1611 Ben Lomond Dr 1950 Minimal Traditional
1615 Ben Lomond Dr 1950 Minimal Traditional
1525 Grandview Ave 1950 Minimal Traditional
1538 Highland Ave 1950 Ranch
851 W Kenneth Rd 1950 Ranch
1521 Ben Lomond Dr 1951 Ranch
1535 Ben Lomond Dr 1951 Ranch
1541 Ben Lomond Dr 1951 Ranch
1552 Grandview Ave 1951 Modern
1000 W Kenneth Rd 1952 Ranch
1532 Highland Ave 1953 Unknown (not visible)
932 W Kenneth Rd 1955 Contemporary
1539 Idlewood Rd 1959 Ranch
1523 Idlewood Rd 1960 Ranch
1535 Idlewood Rd 1960 Ranch
1524 Grandview Ave 1973 Modern
1534 Ard Eevin Ave 1987 Contemporary
1600 Grandview Ave 1995 Unknown (not visible)
1601 Cleveland Rd 2003 Contemporary
1535 Cleveland Rd 2014 Contemporary
1665 Ben Lomond Dr 2016 Contemporary
1659 Ben Lomond Dr 2020 Contemporary

160 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021

TABLE 3. Properties by Architectural Style
Architectural Style Street Address Build Date
American Colonial Revival 1540 Ben Lomond Dr 1938
American Colonial Revival 1545 Ben Lomond Dr 1948
American Colonial Revival 1546 Ben Lomond Dr 1932
American Colonial Revival 1625 Cleveland Rd 1936
American Colonial Revival 1515 Grandview Ave 1948
American Colonial Revival 1536 Grandview Ave 1922
American Colonial Revival 1572 Grandview Ave 1937
American Colonial Revival 1537 Highland Ave 1940
American Colonial Revival 1531 Idlewood Rd 1924
American Colonial Revival 840 W Kenneth Rd 1936
American Colonial Revival 925 W Kenneth Rd 1940
Contemporary 1534 Ard Eevin Ave 1987
Contemporary 1659 Ben Lomond Dr 2020
Contemporary 1665 Ben Lomond Dr 2016
Contemporary 1535 Cleveland Rd 2014
Contemporary 1601 Cleveland Rd 2003
Contemporary 932 W Kenneth Rd 1955
Contemporary 1515 Ben Lomond Dr 1922
Contemporary 1549 Ben Lomond Dr 1900
Contemporary 813 Glenview Rd 1926
Contemporary 1530 Grandview Ave 1920
Contemporary 1516 Idlewood Rd 1923
Craftsman 1621 Ben Lomond Dr 1912
Craftsman (eclectic) 1631 Ben Lomond Dr 1910
Craftsman 835 W Kenneth Rd 1922
Eclectic 1648 Idlewood Rd 1924
French-Inspired 1518 Ben Lomond Dr 1926
French-Inspired 1623 Ben Lomond Dr 1925
French-Inspired 1628 Ben Lomond Dr 1931
French-Inspired 1520 Cleveland Rd 1926
French-Inspired 1546 Cleveland Rd 1925
French-Inspired 1560 Cleveland Rd 1927
French-Inspired 1630 Cleveland Rd 1926
French-Inspired 1533 Highland Ave 1948
French-Inspired 1602 Idlewood Rd 1925
French-Inspired 1617 Idlewood Rd 1925
French-Inspired 1627 Idlewood Rd 1929
French-Inspired 900 W Kenneth Rd 1939
161 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021

TABLE 3. Properties by Architectural Style (cont.)
Architectural Style Street Address Build Date
French-Inspired 922 W Kenneth Rd 1939
Mediterranean Revival 1535 Ard Eevin Ave 1923
Mediterranean Revival 1614 Ben Lomond Dr 1927
Mediterranean Revival 1540 Cleveland Rd 1926
Mediterranean Revival 1555 Cleveland Rd 1926
Mediterranean Revival 1635 Cleveland Rd 1930
Mediterranean Revival 1524 Idlewood Rd 1924
Mediterranean Revival 831 W Kenneth Rd 1925
Minimal Traditional 1540 Ard Eevin Ave 1941
Minimal Traditional 1545 Ard Eevin Ave 1936
Minimal Traditional 1600 Ben Lomond Dr 1932
Minimal Traditional 1603 Ben Lomond Dr 1946
Minimal Traditional 1607 Ben Lomond Dr 1948
Minimal Traditional 1611 Ben Lomond Dr 1950
Minimal Traditional 1615 Ben Lomond Dr 1950
Minimal Traditional 1622 Ben Lomond Dr 1948
Minimal Traditional 1640 Ben Lomond Dr 1940
Minimal Traditional 1651 Ben Lomond Dr 1945
Minimal Traditional 1656 Ben Lomond Dr 1941
Minimal Traditional 1515 Cleveland Rd 1939
Minimal Traditional 1606 Cleveland Rd 1941
Minimal Traditional 1639 Cleveland Rd 1937
Minimal Traditional 734 Glenview Rd 1934
Minimal Traditional 1508 Grandview Ave 1939
Minimal Traditional 1525 Grandview Ave 1950
Minimal Traditional 1529 Grandview Ave 1938
Minimal Traditional 1535 Grandview Ave 1939
Minimal Traditional 1537 Grandview Ave 1940
Minimal Traditional 1540 Grandview Ave 1947
Minimal Traditional 1546 Grandview Ave 1946
Minimal Traditional 1550 Grandview Ave 1948
Minimal Traditional 1606 Grandview Ave 1940
Minimal Traditional 1513 Highland Ave 1941
Minimal Traditional 1525 Highland Ave 1936
Minimal Traditional 1527 Highland Ave 1948
Minimal Traditional 1546 Highland Ave 1938
Minimal Traditional 1528 Idlewood Rd 1940
Minimal Traditional 1545 Idlewood Rd 1937
162 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021

TABLE 3. Properties by Architectural Style (cont.)
Architectural Style Street Address Build Date
Minimal Traditional 1633 Idlewood Rd 1936
Minimal Traditional 1637 Idlewood Rd 1936
Minimal Traditional 1644 Idlewood Rd 1939
Minimal Traditional 910 W Kenneth Rd 1939
Minimal Traditional 918 W Kenneth Rd 1939
Minimal Traditional 945 W Kenneth Rd 1939
Modern 819 Glenview Rd 1921
Modern 1524 Grandview Ave 1973
Modern 1552 Grandview Ave 1951
Modern 1534 Highland Ave 1948
Monterey Revival 1545 Cleveland Rd 1930
Monterey Revival 820 W Kenneth Rd 1933
No defined style 1529 Cleveland Rd 1947
No defined style 1517 Idlewood Rd 1931
No defined style 1543 Grandview Ave 1926
Ranch 1544 Ard Eevin Ave 1950
Ranch 1521 Ben Lomond Dr 1951
Ranch 1527 Ben Lomond Dr 1948
Ranch 1528 Ben Lomond Dr 1930
Ranch 1535 Ben Lomond Dr 1951
Ranch 1541 Ben Lomond Dr 1951
Ranch 1525 Cleveland Rd 1947
Ranch 1520 Grandview Ave 1948
Ranch 1602 Grandview Ave 1949
Ranch 1520 Highland Ave 1948
Ranch 1528 Highland Ave 1946
Ranch 1538 Highland Ave 1950
Ranch 1545 Highland Ave 1947
Ranch 1523 Idlewood Rd 1960
Ranch 1535 Idlewood Rd 1960
Ranch 1539 Idlewood Rd 1959
Ranch 747 W Kenneth Rd 1946
Ranch 850 W Kenneth Rd 1939
Ranch 851 W Kenneth Rd 1950
Ranch 859 W Kenneth Rd 1922
Ranch 864 W Kenneth Rd 1941
Ranch 865 W Kenneth Rd 1940
Ranch 901 W Kenneth Rd 1949
163 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021

TABLE 3. Properties by Architectural Style (cont.)
Architectural Style Street Address Build Date
Ranch 1000 W Kenneth Rd 1952
Spanish Colonial Revival 1515 Ard Eevin Ave 1925
Spanish Colonial Revival 1516 Ard Eevin Ave 1930
Spanish Colonial Revival 1520 Ard Eevin Ave 1930
Spanish Colonial Revival 1524 Ard Eevin Ave 1930
Spanish Colonial Revival 1525 Ard Eevin Ave 1930
Spanish Colonial Revival 1529 Ard Eevin Ave 1932
Spanish Colonial Revival 1512 Ben Lomond Dr 1932
Spanish Colonial Revival 1532 Ben Lomond Dr 1933
Spanish Colonial Revival 1536 Ben Lomond Dr 1934
Spanish Colonial Revival 1606 Ben Lomond Dr 1926
Spanish Colonial Revival 1610 Ben Lomond Dr 1936
Spanish Colonial Revival 1618 Ben Lomond Dr 1927
Spanish Colonial Revival 1632 Ben Lomond Dr 1926
Spanish Colonial Revival 1636 Ben Lomond Dr 1928
Spanish Colonial Revival 1639 Ben Lomond Dr 1928
Spanish Colonial Revival 1650 Ben Lomond Dr 1930
Spanish Colonial Revival 1655 Ben Lomond Dr 1924
Spanish Colonial Revival 1664 Ben Lomond Dr 1926
Spanish Colonial Revival 1517 Cleveland Rd 1924
Spanish Colonial Revival 1526 Cleveland Rd 1926
Spanish Colonial Revival 1530 Cleveland Rd 1926
Spanish Colonial Revival 1536 Cleveland Rd 1930
Spanish Colonial Revival 1550 Cleveland Rd 1925
Spanish Colonial Revival 1551 Cleveland Rd 1928
Spanish Colonial Revival 1600 Cleveland Rd 1927
Spanish Colonial Revival 1610 Cleveland Rd 1932
Spanish Colonial Revival 1615 Cleveland Rd 1930
Spanish Colonial Revival 1617 Cleveland Rd 1932
Spanish Colonial Revival 1621 Cleveland Rd 1932
Spanish Colonial Revival 1624 Cleveland Rd 1926
Spanish Colonial Revival 1629 Cleveland Rd 1930
Spanish Colonial Revival 748 Elliott Pl 1926
Spanish Colonial Revival 740 Glenview Rd 1927
Spanish Colonial Revival 744 Glenview Rd 1927
Spanish Colonial Revival 745 Glenview Rd 1926
Spanish Colonial Revival 748 Glenview Rd 1927
Spanish Colonial Revival 752 Glenview Rd 1928
164 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021

TABLE 3. Properties by Architectural Style (cont.)
Architectural Style Street Address Build Date
Spanish Colonial Revival 823 Glenview Rd 1924
Spanish Colonial Revival 1511 Grandview Ave 1935
Spanish Colonial Revival 1512 Grandview Ave 1930
Spanish Colonial Revival 1521 Grandview Ave 1927
Spanish Colonial Revival 1547 Grandview Ave 1934
Spanish Colonial Revival 1551 Grandview Ave 1929
Spanish Colonial Revival 1559 Grandview Ave 1926
Spanish Colonial Revival 1566 Grandview Ave 1927
Spanish Colonial Revival 1517 Highland Ave 1931
Spanish Colonial Revival 1521 Highland Ave 1935
Spanish Colonial Revival 1538 Idlewood Rd 1925
Spanish Colonial Revival 1542 Idlewood Rd 1925
Spanish Colonial Revival 1549 Idlewood Rd 1925
Spanish Colonial Revival 1606 Idlewood Rd 1925
Spanish Colonial Revival 1607 Idlewood Rd 1925
Spanish Colonial Revival 1611 Idlewood Rd 1925
Spanish Colonial Revival 1616 Idlewood Rd 1926
Spanish Colonial Revival 1621 Idlewood Rd 1926
Spanish Colonial Revival 1638 Idlewood Rd 1929
Spanish Colonial Revival 801 W Kenneth Rd 1931
Spanish Colonial Revival 804 W Kenneth Rd 1928
Spanish Colonial Revival 811 W Kenneth Rd 1933
Spanish Colonial Revival 815 W Kenneth Rd 1930
Spanish Colonial Revival 825 W Kenneth Rd 1934
Spanish Colonial Revival 830 W Kenneth Rd 1926
Spanish Colonial Revival 845 W Kenneth Rd 1923
Spanish Colonial Revival 905 W Kenneth Rd 1927
Spanish Colonial Revival 915 W Kenneth Rd 1947
Spanish Colonial Revival 919 W Kenneth Rd 1933
Spanish Colonial Revival 926 W Kenneth Rd 1935
Spanish Colonial Revival 933 W Kenneth Rd 1934
Spanish Colonial Revival 940 W Kenneth Rd 1927
Tudor Revival 1513 Ard Eevin Ave 1926
Tudor Revival 1521 Ard Eevin Ave 1933
Tudor Revival 1528 Ard Eevin Ave 1927
Tudor Revival 1541 Ard Eevin Ave 1930
Tudor Revival 1522 Ben Lomond Dr 1925
Tudor Revival 1641 Ben Lomond Dr 1923
165 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021

TABLE 3. Properties by Architectural Style (cont.)
Architectural Style Street Address Build Date
Tudor Revival 1646 Ben Lomond Dr 1927
Tudor Revival 1647 Ben Lomond Dr 1925
Tudor Revival 1660 Ben Lomond Dr 1926
Tudor Revival 1516 Cleveland Rd 1925
Tudor Revival 1554 Cleveland Rd 1926
Tudor Revival 1614 Cleveland Rd 1926
Tudor Revival 1620 Cleveland Rd 1926
Tudor Revival 1634 Cleveland Rd 1926
Tudor Revival 1560 Grandview Ave 1923
Tudor Revival 1520 Idlewood Rd 1926
Tudor Revival 1534 Idlewood Rd 1925
Tudor Revival 1548 Idlewood Rd 1925
Tudor Revival 1603 Idlewood Rd 1925
Tudor Revival 1610 Idlewood Rd 1925
Tudor Revival 1620 Idlewood Rd 1925
Tudor Revival 1626 Idlewood Rd 1925
Tudor Revival 1629 Idlewood Rd 1929
Tudor Revival 1630 Idlewood Rd 1926
Tudor Revival 1636 Idlewood Rd 1927
Tudor Revival 1641 Idlewood Rd 1924
Tudor Revival 750 W Kenneth Rd 1937
Tudor Revival 812 W Kenneth Rd 1925
Tudor Revival 854 W Kenneth Rd 1931
Tudor Revival 1008 W Kenneth Rd 1923
Unknown 1600 Grandview Ave 1995
Unknown 1532 Highland Ave 1953

166 of 282

South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021
APPENDIX B: SURVEY FORMS (DPR 523)

167 of 282
168 of 282
169 of 282
170 of 282
171 of 282
172 of 282
173 of 282
ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA AMENDING THE CITY’S ZONING MAP TO ADD

A NEW ZONING DESIGNATION ENTITLED THE CASA

VERDUGO HISTORIC DISTRICT OVERLAY ZONE
WHEREAS, the City Council has conducted a noticed public hearing, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 30.61 of the Glendale Municipal Code, and Chapter 3, Title 7 of the California Government Code pertaining to the amendment of the City’s zoning map; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered all materials, communications, public testimony, maps and exhibits of current record on the proposed amendment of the City’s Zoning Map to add a new overlay zone entitled the Casa Verdugo Historic District Overlay Zone (“Overlay Zone”); and WHEREAS, the City Council has also reviewed and taken into consideration recommendations from the City’s Historic Preservation Commission and the Planning Commission on proposed amendment of the City’s Zoning Map to add the new Overlay Zone; and
WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds the proposed Overlay Zone will promote and protect the public health, safety, comfort, convenience and general welfare of the citizens of Glendale and on that basis is adopting an amendment of the City’s Zoning Map to add the proposed Overlay Zone.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA:

SECTION 1. That the recitals above are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 2. That based on the review of all materials, testimony and recommendations received related to the proposed formation of the Casa Verdugo Historic District Overlay Zone (“Overlay Zone”) and amendment of the City’s Zoning Map to add the proposed Overlay Zone, the City Council hereby 174 of 282
adopts the proposed amendment of the City of Glendale Zoning Map in order to add the “Casa Verdugo Historic District Overlay Zone” to the Zoning Map as shown in Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 4. Effective Date. That the addition of the Overlay Zone to the City’s Zoning Map shall become effective 30 days from the passage and adoption of this Ordinance.

Passed and adopted by a 4/5ths vote this _____day of ____________ 2022.

Mayor
ATTEST:

City Clerk
175 of 282

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS.

CITY OF GLENDALE )
I, Aram Adjemian, City Clerk of the City of Glendale, certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. was passed by a 4/5 th vote of the Council of the City of Glendale, California, at a regular meeting held on the _________day of__________________________, 2022, and that the same was passed by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
_____________________
City Clerk
176 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021

Figure 1. Map of proposed Casa Verdugo Historic District 177 of 282
7b

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Proposed Ordinance to Establish Casa Verdugo Historic District Overlay Zone

1. Introduction of Ordinance to Establish Casa Verdugo Historic District Overlay Zone.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Public Hearing
Approved for December 14, 2021 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Staff requests that City Council hold a public hearing to consider adoption of an ordinance establishing the Casa Verdugo Historic District Overlay Zone (“Ordinance”).

The proposed historic district consists of 112 single-family properties in the Casa Verdugo neighborhood. Council’s review and adoption of the Ordinance is the final step in the district designation process.

In 2019, the City retained Architectural Resources Group to conduct a historic resources survey for the proposed district. The survey found that the proposal exceeds the thresholds and criteria established in Glendale Municipal Code Section 30.25 (“Historic District Overlay Zones”). After the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) reviewed and approved the draft survey, it authorized district proponents to circulate a petition among property owners requesting that City Council designate the district. The owners of seventy-seven percent (77%) of the properties signed, exceeding the City’s requirement of over fifty percent (50%). Finally, HPC and the Planning Commission each reviewed the proposed Ordinance adding the new historic district overlay zone and recommend that City Council vote to establish the Casa Verdugo Historic District Overlay Zone.
178 of 282
27 b
2 8
8 5

RECOMMENDATION
That City Council introduce the proposed Ordinance to add a new overlay zone, the Casa Verdugo Historic District Overlay Zone, as delineated on the map, attached to this Report as Exhibit 1.

BACKGROUND
Pursuant to Glendale Municipal Code Chapter 30.25, historic districts are established through the creation of an overlay zone that does not affect the underlying zoning. The goal of creating historic districts is to preserve the historic and architectural character of groupings of buildings that share common visual and/or historic aspects. The Planning Division of the Community Development Department and the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) are responsible for reviewing proposed alterations, new construction, and demolitions within designated districts to ensure that changes do not affect the overall character of either the individual property or the district itself. The City’s Historic District Design Guidelines are used to direct the design review process.

City Council’s consideration of an ordinance to establish the proposed district is the final step in the designation process outlined in the Glendale Municipal Code. The process of designating districts is citizen-driven, beginning with a nomination submitted to the Planning Division by residents proposing their own neighborhood as a district. The process, which includes extensive opportunity for public participation, is summarized in the flowchart, attached to this Report as Exhibit 4. Prior to the public hearing in connection with this item, both HPC and the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed district and associated zone change. On November 18, 2021 and December 1, 2021, respectively, each voted unanimously to recommend that City Council pass and adopt the Ordinance to establish the Casa Verdugo Historic District Overlay Zone.

Because the Ordinance adds an overlay zone, a Council super-majority (a vote of four out of five) is required.

ANALYSIS
The proposed Casa Verdugo Historic District features 112 single-family properties, all zoned R1-II, in the Casa Verdugo neighborhood. The neighborhood’s history is tied to the development of the Pacific Electric streetcar line and the establishment of the Casa Verdugo Restaurant. In 1904, the Brand Boulevard streetcar line was extended to a new terminus at Mountain Street. The nearby Sepulveda Adobe was purchased by the railway and the first Casa Verdugo restaurant was established there in 1905. The 179 of 282
37 b
2 8
8 5
restaurant quickly became a major destination for local residents as well as a regional tourist attraction. Run by chef Piedad Yorba Sowl, it was known for its picturesque setting and Sowl’s “Spanish,” aka Mexican, cuisine. In 1910, she parted company with the railway and opened a new version of the restaurant in a house (built in 1907) at the corner of Louise and Randolph. The restaurant became the namesake for the new neighborhood that grew up around as well as the proposed district.

Residential development in the area began around 1906 and a number of homes in the proposed historic district date to the neighborhood’s early days. The area has a rich collection of Craftsman-style houses, along with some early styles rarely encountered in Glendale, such as the Mission Revival “Casa Verdugo” house and the Neo Classical- style Newton House (built in 1910), which stand at the same intersection and are both listed in the Glendale Register. As the Craftsman style waned in the mid-1920s, homes started being built in the various Period Revival styles, including Spanish Colonial, Tudor Revival, French Eclectic, American Colonial Revival, and Mediterranean Revival styles. The neighborhood continued to be built out throughout the 1940s and 1950s as exemplified by its Minimal Traditional, Ranch, and Modern style houses typical of that era’s construction.

Architectural Resources Group, a historic preservation consulting firm, was retained by the City in 2019 to conduct a historic resources survey for the proposed district. HPC reviewed the final version of the survey and expressed support of and agreement with the report’s conclusion that the proposed district meets all criteria and designation thresholds established in Section 30.25 (“Historic District Overlay Zone”) of the Glendale Municipal Code as follow:
The proposed Casa Verdugo Historic District meets 5 out of the 9 criteria for designation, specifically Criteria A, B, C, G, and H (see attached Exhibit 3, page 59). The Municipal Code requires that at least one criterion be met. 76 out of the 112 homes are determined to be “contributors.” This means they were built within the area’s “period of significance” (1906-1957, as determined by the survey) and retain enough physical integrity to display the traits associated with that period and/or their architectural style. Sixty-eight percent (68%) of the homes in the proposed district are contributors, above the sixty percent (60%) mandated by the Municipal Code. The ARG report included an option to revise the proposed district boundary to remove several non-contributors and increase the overall percentage of contributors. HPC recommends retaining the original boundary proposed by the applicants and considered in the historic resource survey.
180 of 282
47 b
2 8
8 5
After approving the draft historic resource survey on April 15, 2021, HPC authorized district proponents to circulate a petition requesting that City Council designate the historic district. The Code requires that the owners of over fifty percent (50%) of the proposed district’s properties sign the petition. The Casa Verdugo proponents submitted signatures of the owners of 86 out of the 112 homes in the proposed district (seventy- seven percent (77%)) within the mandated time period.

On November 18, 2021, HPC reviewed the final petition numbers and heard testimony in favor of designation from the district proponents, the Glendale Historical Society, and two members of the community. One community member wrote in opposition to the district. The City has not received any petition formally opposing the district. HPC voted unanimously (3-0) to recommend that City Council establish the Casa Verdugo Historic District Overlay Zone. On December 1, 2021, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposal, including the proposed zone change, and heard testimony in favor of designation from the district proponents and several members of the community. No comments were received in opposition. The Planning Commission voted unanimously (4-0) to recommend that City Council establish the district.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
The historic districting process requires significant stakeholder outreach among residents and property owners within the proposed historic district boundary as well as within a 500-foot radius. Over the course of this process, two meetings were held by Planning staff with community stakeholders and two petitions were distributed by proponents among the area’s property owners, who were also notified of the availability of the draft Historic Resources Survey and survey forms for each property on the City website. HPC reviewed the proposal at three public hearings and the Planning Commission at one hearing. Finally, prior to City Council’s present consideration of the overlay zone Ordinance, it held a hearing to approve funding for the historic resources survey.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report or adoption of the Ordinance.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
The project is categorically exempt from further CEQA review under both Class 8 (“Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment") and Class 31 (“Historic Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation”) exemptions, pursuant to Sections 15308 and 15331 of the State CEQA Guidelines because it involves the ongoing protection and preservation of historic resources.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
The names and addresses of the property owners who filed the nomination to establish the historic district are contained in Exhibit 4, attached to this Report, in accordance with the City Campaign Finance Ordinance No. 5744.
181 of 282
57 b
2 8
8 5

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Introduce and subsequently adopt the Ordinance establishing the Casa Verdugo Historic District Overlay Zone.

Alternative 2: Do not introduce the Ordinance establishing the Casa Verdugo Historic District Overlay Zone.

Alternative 3: Any other alternative not proposed by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Jay Platt, Principal Planner
Approved by:

Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1: Map of Proposed Casa Verdugo Historic District Exhibit 2: Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey Report Exhibit 3: Historic District Process Flowchart
Exhibit 4: Campaign Finance Disclosure
182 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021

Figure 1. Map of proposed Casa Verdugo Historic District 183 of 282

Casa Verdugo
Historic Resources Survey
City of Glendale, California
Prepared for:

City of Glendale
633 East Broadway, Room 103
Glendale, California 91206
Prepared by:

Architectural Resources Group
360 E. 2nd Street, Suite 225
Los Angeles, CA 90012

November 8, 2021
184 of 282

185 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................... 1 I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND METHODOLOGY ............................ 5

2. HISTORIC CONTEXTS AND THEMES ....................................... 11

3. PHYSICAL CHARACTER ..................................................... 45 Neighborhood Character ................................................... 45 Architectural Styles ........................................................ 47

4. EVALUATION AS A POTENTIAL HISTORIC DISTRICT ................... 57 Summary Statement of Significance ..................................... 57 Local Eligibility Evaluation ................................................ 57 California Register Eligibility Evaluation ................................ 64 National Register Eligibility Evaluation .................................. 66 Recommendations .......................................................... 67 BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................. 69

APPENDIX A: Property Data Tables
Table 1. Master Property List
Table 2. Properties by Construction Date
Table 3. Properties by Architectural Style

APPENDIX B: Survey Forms (DPR 523)

186 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021

Figure 1. Map of proposed Casa Verdugo Historic District 187 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The pur pose of this historic resource survey is to identify, document, and evaluate the proposed Casa Verdugo Historic District, assessing its eligibility for listing in the Glendale R egister of Historic Resources. Its potential eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) and California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) is also assessed.

The proposed district consists of 1 12 properties, most of which are single-family residences in the Casa Verdugo nei ghborhood o f North Glendale. Casa Verdugo is located to the north of Downtown Glendale and the Ventura Freeway/SR -134 (see Figure 2, p. 3 ). The area was originally subdivided and developed shortly after the turn of the twentieth century. Its development was spurred by the extension of a streetcar line that ran down Brand Boulevard, and the presence of a Spanish-themed restaurant called Casa Verdugo that opened nearby in 1905 and was a popular tourist attraction.1 The name “ Casa Verdugo” was also used to describe the larger neighborhood that developed in the vicinity of the rest aurant. Over time , much of the Ca sa Ve rdugo neighborhood has been re developed; t he proposed historic district constitutes the portion of the neighborhood that retains cohesion and has integrity from its period of significance.

The project team involved in the preparation of this survey includes architectural historians and preservation planne rs from Architectural Resources Group (ARG). All ARG staff who contributed to this project meet the Secretary of the Inte rior’s Professional Qualification Standards, 36 CFR Part 61, in the discipline of Architectural History.

Archival research was conduct ed into the histor y and development of Casa Verdugo in order to develop a Historic Context Statement that is specific to the area (see C hapter 2). An intensive-level survey that included documentation and descriptions of all 1 12 properties within the prop osed district boundaries was then undertaken . T he survey information for each property was recorded on California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 series Primary Record ( a) forms; information for the district as a whole was recorded on DPR 523 series District Rec ord (d) forms. DPR forms are included as Appendix B . It should be noted that althoug h the intensive-level survey inclu ded th e evaluation of the historic district and its requisite fe atures, each property was not individually evaluated for significance and eligibility.

Upon completion of this survey and analysis, ARG finds that the proposed Casa Verdugo historic district is eligible for designation as a City of Glendale historic district . It satisfies the requirements established by the 2 007 Glendale Histor ic D istrict Overlay Zone Ordinance. Its period of sig nificance be gins in 1906, when the first

1 “To Open Casa Verdugo,” Los Angeles Herald, Jan. 21, 1905. 188 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 2
house within the distric t was constructed, and ends in 1957 , by which time remaining most undeveloped parcels were improved and the neighborhood’s primary period of development had come to a close .

While houses constructed in t he postwar period e mbody d ifferent architectural styles t han those dating to earlier decades, they are generally compatible with the prevailing scale, massing, and characte r of the neighborhood and contribute to its overall significance.

The Casa Verdugo neighborho od is com posed of an eclec tic, yet compatible arr ay of ar chitectural styles that were popular during its primary period of development, between the turn- of-the-twentieth century and the early postwar period. Houses that were constructed earlier in the neig hborhood’s history, nearer the turn of the twenti eth century, are generally designed in the Craftsman style; those dating to the 1920s and early 1930s are general ly designed in the medley of Period Revival styles that were popular in the p eriod after World War I.

Houses that date to the Depressio n era ar e generally designed i n the more chaste and restrained Minimal Traditional style; those that date to the early postwar period are generally designed in appropriately scaled versions of the Modern and Ranch styles. In addition to its buildings, the district is defined by planning features including street trees, sidewalks, parkways, and other tract features that contribute to its sense of place.

Properties that date to the period of significance and retain integrity are considered to be “contributors” to the district. The survey determined that 68% of the area’s proper ties are contributors, exceeding the ordinance r equirement that over 60% of the properties have this status (see Figure 3, page 4).

The district meets five of the nine designation criteria est ablished by the ordinance, which requi res that at least on e criterion be met . The survey found that the proposed district meets loc al Criteria A, B, C, G, and H . The survey also finds that the area appears to be eli gible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources under Criteria 1, 2, and 3.

189 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 3

Figure 2. Location of
proposed Casa Verdugo
Historic District within
the City of Glendale.

Aerial imagery from
Google Maps

190 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 4

Figure 3. Proposed Casa Verdugo Historic District, map of contributing and non-contributing properties

191 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 5

1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND METHODOLOGY

In December 2017 , the Glend ale His toric Preservation Commission authorized a historic resource survey fo r the proposed Casa Verdugo Historic District. Th is decision was based on the Commission’ s determination that information in the nomination suggested that the district proposed by area residents appeared to meet one or more of the designation criteria established by the Historic District Overlay Zone Ordinance. In addition, the owners of 4 5% of the properti es within the proposed boundary signed a petition requesting that the City c onduct the survey, exceeding the 25% required by the ordinance.

The proposed historic dist rict consists of 112 residential properties located in the Casa Verdugo neighborhood of Nor th Glendale. The district occupies a flat area that is moderate in size an d roughly trapezoidal in shape. Its boundaries are generall y defined by Mountain Street on the north, Stocker and Loraine s treets on the south, Maryland Avenue on the west, and a mid -block transect between Campbell and Jackson streets on the east. The following address ranges contain all of the properties proposed for inclusion in the district:

• 1201-1335 N. Maryland Avenue
• 1201-1337 N. Louise Street
• 1217-1337 Campbell Street
• 201 E. Stocker Street
• 400-421 E. Loraine Street
• 300-421 E. Randolph Street
• 400-424 Ross Street
• 312 and 318 E. Mountain Street

This report was prepared by Architectural Resources Group (ARG) . ARG staff who contributed to this study include Katie E. Horak, Pr incipal; Andrew Goodr ich, AICP, Associate; and Rosa Lisa Fry. Pr oject support was provided by ARG intern Krista Gelev. Ms. Horak, Mr. Goodrich, and Ms. Fry meet th e Secretary of the Interi or’s Professional Qualification Standards, 36 CFR Part 61, in the discipline of Architectural History.

Analysis and evaluation of the proposed district is based upon current professional met hodology standard s and procedures devel oped by the National Park Service, the California Office of Historic Preservation, and the City of Glendale’s historic preservation program.

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 6
• Developed a historic context statement fo r the proposed district through building upon previously pre pared context statements and information included in the historic district application. • Reviewed additional archiv al information and applicable contexts related to the area.
• Conducted a windshield survey of the proposed district and surrounding area to understand its immediate setting, layout, streetscape, landscape, architectural styles, and general integrity relative to adjacent neighborhoods.
• Surveyed e very residence within the proposed boundary , preparing arc hitectural descriptions, noting and researching alterations, i dentifying character -defining features of the buildings and landscape, and documenting the proper ties with digital photographs.
• Prepared Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 5 23 series Primary Record (a) forms for each property, and Di strict Record (d) forms for the district as a whole.
• Evaluated the Study Area for eligibility as a historic distri ct against federal, state, and local criteria.

The team’s analysis and findings ar e detailed in t he following pages of this report.

MAPS

Maps of the Study Ar ea contained in this r eport were produced by AR G and contain parcel information obtained from the Los Angeles Count y Office of the Assessor.

CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION

The main objective of this survey is to determine whether the proposed Casa Verdugo Historic District appears eligible for designation in accordance with federal, state, and/or local eligibility criteria.

The National Park Ser vice defines a historic district as “a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, buil dings, structures, or objects united hist orically or aesthetical ly by plan or physical development.”2
Resources that have been found to contribute to the historic identity of a district are referr ed to as district contr ibutors. Properties located within the district boun daries that do not contrib ute to its significance are identified as district non-contributors.

2 National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.

Washington D.C.: National Park Service, U. S. Department of the Interior, 1997. 193 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 7
A district may be designated as historic by federal, state, and/or local authorities. In order for a district to be considered historic, it must meet one or more identified criteria f or an evaluation of signifi cance.

An argument for historic significance must be based upon le gally established crit eria such as those required for listing in the National Register, the California Register, or for local designation. Furthermore, the distr ict must retain integrity, wh ich is generally defined as the ability to conve y its historic appearance and/or the character -defining elements that illustrate its historical significance.

Evaluation of the Survey Area as a historic district is based upon eligibility criteria for the National Register, the California Register, and the Glendale Munici pal Code. Please see C hapter 4 for a complete discussion.

PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED HISTORIC RESOURCES

As of the time of this survey, five properties within the proposed historic district boundary are individually listed in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources.

The Ell iott House (1330 N. Louise Street, 1915) was added to the Glendale Regis ter of Historic Resources (#40) in 20 02. The house w as designed by archite ct Ralf Wilcox for the fami ly of Lloyd Elliot t, an attorney and president of a brokerage company. It is designed in the Craftsman style.

Figure 4. Elliott House,
1330 N. Louise Street,
built in 1915 and listed
in the Glendale Register
of Historic Resources.

Photo by ARG

194 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 8
The Hewitt Ba ker House (319 E. Randolph Street, 1914) was added to the Glendale Register of Historic Resources (#51) in 2004. It is also designed in the Craftsman style. The house w as designed by Ro bert P.

McMullen, a prolifi c Glendale building contractor, with a rear additio n designed by noted Glendale architect Alfred F. Priest.

Figure 5. Hewitt Baker
House, 319 E. Randolph
Street, built in 1914
and listed in the
Glendale Register of
Historic Resources.

Photo by ARG

Figure 6. Beggs House,
408 E Ross Street, built
in 1915, moved to this
site in 1925, and listed
in the Glendale Register
of Historic Resources.

Photo by ARG

195 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 9
The Beggs House (408 E. Ross Street, 1915) was added to the Glendale Register of Historic Resources (#117) in 2017. This residence was relocated to its current site in 1925 from its original location at 1107 N.

Louise Street. It, too, is an excellent example of the Craftsman style.

Casa Verdugo (1235 N. Louise Street, 1907) was added to the Glendale Register of Historic Resources (#119) in 2017. This Mission Revival style residence, designed by architect Charles E. Shattuck, housed the second iteration of the Casa Verdugo restaurant, a popular eatery and tourist attraction in the early twentieth century.

The Newton House (305 E. Randolph Street, 1906) was added to the Glendale Register of Historic Resources (#134) in 2020. The house was built by Edson K. Grant and Joshua E. Andrews for the family of Charles H. Newton, a clerk with the Wright and Callender Co., a real estate company. The house is a rare example of a Neoclassical style residence in Glendale. It is also the oldest house in the proposed historic district.

Figure 7. Casa Verdugo,
1235 N. Louise Street,
built in 1907 and listed
in the Glendale Register
of Historic Resources.

Photo by ARG

196 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 10

Figure 8. Newton
House, 305 E. Randolph
Street, built in 1906
and listed in the
Glendale Register of
Historic Resources.

Photo by ARG

197 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 11

2. HISTORIC CONTEXTS AND THEMES

INTRODUCTION

Purpose
In order to understand the significance of historic resources, it is necessary to exami ne those r esources within one or more historic contexts. By placing bui lt resources in t he appropriate historic, social, and architectural context, the relationship between an area’s physical environment and its broader history can be established.

A historic context statement is not a comprehensive history of an area; rather, it is intended to highlight trends and patterns critical to the understanding of the built environment. It provides a framework for the continuing process of identi fying historic, arc hitectural, and cultural resources. It may also serve as a guide to enable citizens, planners, and decision-makers to evaluate t he relative significance and integ rity of individual properties.

Pertinent sections of the Glendale Craftsman Style Architecture Historic Context Stat ement (2007), developed by GPA Consulting , was also consulted in the preparation of this report.

In addition, this context statement draws upon the work and research of Sean B ersell, Robin Fey, and Laurel Whitcomb -Perlman, who provided key information and research material in the historic district nomination about the development history of the neighborhood. Lastly, the National Register Bulletin Historic Residential Suburbs: G uidelines for Evaluation and Documentati on for the National Register of Historic Places (2002) by David Ames and Linda Flint McClelland provided the necessary evaluative framework for the National Register.

DEVELOPMENT HISTORY

Early History
Rancho San Rafael and Early Anglo Settlement
In the Spanish and Mexican eras of California history, the present-day Casa Verdugo neighborhood was part of the expansive Rancho San Rafael, a 36,403 -acre land grant that extended ac ross the present -day 198 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 12
communities of Glendale, Burbank, Eagle Rock, and Highland Park.3 The rancho had been gifted in 1 784 by the Spanish Empire to José María Verdugo, a corporal in the Spanish army . Its vast acreage was primarily used for cattle grazing and agriculture.4

California remained a Spanish colony until 1 822, at which tim e it was ceded to Mexico. Under Mexican rule the missions were secularized, and much of the land comprising Alta California was parsed into expansive grants in the same tradition of the Spanish ranchos of previous ye ars.5 Upon José María Verdugo’s death in 1831, ownership of Rancho San Rafael was divided between two of his children, son Julio and daughter Catalina. Rancho San Rafael remained in the hands of the Verdugo family throughout the Mexican era of California history (1822-1848).

In the wake of the Mexican American War ( 1846-1848), Mexico reluctantly ceded most of the American Southwest to the United States; California became the thirty-first state in 1850. In theory, the owners of Spanish and Mexican ranchos could retain title to their land; in practice, ownership was a muddled and often contentious issue due to discrepancies between Mexican and American title law and policies that by design, almost always favored the inter ests of Americans. Rancho San Rafael was divided several times over in the mid-nineteenth century as members of the Verdugo family used their vast land holdings to repay debts, taxes, and legal fees. The Verdugos eventually lost their rancho to foreclosure. In the Great Partition of 1871, one of the most infamous land ownership cases in California histo ry, Rancho San Rafa el was divided between 28 different parties.6

Following the Great Par tition, t he area that would eventually become Casa Verdu go passed into the hands of Rafaela Verdugo de

3 City of Glendale, “Overview of Glendale History,” accessed Mar. 2020. 4 Ibid; “Rancho San Rafael: A Land in Transition,” KCET, Oct. 4, 2010. 5 Carey McWilliams, Southern California: An Island on the Land (Salt Lake City: Peregrine Smith, 1946), 38-39.
6 “Rancho San Rafael: A Land in Transition,” KCET, Oct. 4, 2010.

Figure 9. Glendale
and environs
ca.1870s. Source: Los
Angeles Public Library
Photo Collection

199 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 13
Sepulveda, the granddaughter of José María Ver dugo and wife of Fernando Sepulveda , the descendent of another pr ominent C alifornia family.7 This swath of land was undeveloped aside from a single adobe structure , believed to have been built circa 1865 by Fernando Sepulveda (not extant) . Called the Sepul veda Adobe, the dwelling was modest, but “had a command ing vista towards downtown Los Angeles from its wide sheltering corredor that ran the entire length of the long narrow façade.” 8 The Sepulveda Adobe was the only known permanent structure in what would later become the Casa Verdugo neighborhood at this tim e. It was located to the east of what is now the east side of Brand Boulevard, between Randolph and Stocker streets, on what is now the 1200 block of North Maryland Avenue.

Early Subdivision and Development
The area around the Sepul veda Adobe remained undeveloped for the rest of the nineteenth century. Early attem pts to improve the land consisted almost exclusively of agricultural uses. The first concerte d effort to subdivide the area dates to 1883, when a 50 0-acre tract containing the Sepulv eda Adobe was acquired by the firm of Wicks, Wright, Hodgkins, and Watts, one of the leading real estate speculators in the Glendale area at the time.9 Consistent with the area’s prevailing agricultural char acter, t he firm promoted the idea of su bdividing the acreage into small ranch es.10 The property changed hands again in subsequent years, eventually landing in the hands of bro thers John

7 “Rancho San Rafael: Beaudry and Verdugo de Sepulveda Parcels,” map, ca. 1872, accessed Mar. 2020 via The Huntington Library, Solano-Reeve Collection. 8 “Casa Verdugo – Old L.A.’s Famous Restaurant ‘Out Glendale Way,’” accessed Mar. 2020. 9 John Calvin Sherer, History of Glendale and Vicinity (Unknown Publisher: 1922), 52. 10 E. Caswell Perry and Carroll W. Parcher, Glendale Area History (Glendale: Eric Schneirsohn, 1981), 12.

Figure 10. Sepulveda
Adobe, 1905. Source:

Water and Power
Associates

200 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 14
Dallett Bliss and Robert Parker Bliss. The brothers Bliss cultivated the land and erected a ranch house and stables near the Sepulveda Adobe, near present-day Mountain and Louise streets.11 They called the acreage “Bliss Ranch,” planted fruit tre es, and kept a menagerie of horses and cows.12 Judge E. M. Ross, another early sett ler of North Gl endale, cultivated apricots on acreage to the south and west of Bliss Ranch.13

Overall, though, this area remained very sparsely populated at this time due to its relative isolation from established p opulation centers. Nine people are reported to have lived in North Glendale by the 1890s. 14 Meanwhile, the town o f Glendale was beginning to take shape to the south of the Sepulveda Adobe and its agricultural e nvirons. Glendale, like many communities in Southern California, can trace its modern -day roots to the 1880s, when the co mpletion of transcontinental rail lines and a subsequent fare “war” between the co mpeting Southern Pacific and Santa Fe Railroad companies opened up previously inaccessible land and ushered in a wave of speculative de velopment activity across the region. In 1887, developers C.E. Thom, Erskine M. Ross, B.F. Patterson, H.J. Crow, and E.T. Byram pooled together land that they had purchased and platted a 150 -acre town site that they called “Glendale.”
15 The boundaries of the original town site were defined as First Street (now Lexington Avenue) on the north, Fifth (now Harvard

11 Gleaned from materials in the Bliss Ranch Collection, accessed via Glendale Public Library. 12 Ibid.
13 Sherer, History of Glendale and Vicinity (1922), 104. 14 Gleaned from materials in the Bliss Ranch Collection, accessed via Glendale Public Library. 15 Perry and Parcher (1981), 11.

Figure 11. Original
plat map of
Glendale, 1887.

Source: Glendale
Public Library
Special Collections

201 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 15
Avenue) and south of Sixth (now Colorado Street) s treets on the sout h, Central Avenue on the west, and the Chi lds Tract (a portion of which is now Chevy Chase Drive) on the east.

Early development in the new town of Glendale came in fits and starts, and was sluggish for the duration of the nineteenth century . The real estate boom abruptly collapsed shortly after t he town was recorded in 1887, and conse quently land sales and development acti vity – once bustling – fell flat. A grand Queen Anne style hotel, intended to be a focal point of the new town , close d amid a sea of contractor debt, standing as a stark symbol o f the economic collapse. 16 In addition, and perhaps mo st importantly, Glendale lacked a direct and dependable transportation connection to Los Angeles at the ti me, making the town difficult to access and thwarting development activity . A spur line affiliated with the San Pedro, Los Angeles, and Salt Lake Rail road had been constructed down Glendale Avenue in 1887 , but operated on a sporadic basis. Thus, for the rem ainder of the nineteenth century, Glendale remained a sparsely developed town “of about 300 peo ple… [with] no gas or electric lights, electric irons or electric cars.” 17

16 Pacific Coast Architecture Database, “Glendale Hotel, Downtown, Glendale, CA,” accessed Mar. 2020.
17 E. Caswell Perry, Shirley Catherine Berger, and Terri E. Jonisch, Glendale: A Pictorial History (Norfolk: The Donning Company, 1990), 23.

Figure 12. The
Glendale Hotel, open
for only a brief period
before the collapse of
the economic boom
of the 1880s. Source:

Los Angeles Public
Library Photo
Collection

202 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 16
The Surve y Area was located about a mile north of Glendale and fell outside the boundaries of the original town site. The few resident s who called this peripheral area home pri or to the turn -of-the-twentieth century exuded an independent spirit and did not consider themselves a part of the Glendale community that was taking root to the south.

Streetcar Suburbanization and the Emergence of a “Community of Homes”
It was the advent of dependable inter -urban transportation – namely, electric streetcar service – at t he turn-of-the-twentieth centu ry that facilitated Glendale’s growth and mat uration into an established suburban community. Streetcar service was also the impetus for the early development of the Casa Verdugo neighborhood.

Between 1902 and 1903, Leslie C. Brand, a businessman and developer, and E.D. Goode, S ecretary of the Gl endale Improvement Association, worked collaboratively to secure a right -of-way for an electric railway, which would run along what beca me Brand Boulevard through a large swath of land that Brand owned.
18 The right-of-way was then acquired
by Henry Huntingt on’s Pacific Electric Railway Company, which constructed a line that began in downtown Los Ange les and terminated in downtown Glendale. By providing a direct connection betwee n Glendale and downtown Los Angeles with a travel time that averaged a mere twenty minutes, the Pacific Electric (Red Car) line enhanc ed the accessibility of Glendale and led t o its incorporation in 1906. 19 Additional “spur” lines were added to the Red Car route in subsequent years. The compl etion of the Red Car line was augmented by the completion of a second, albeit less direct, electri c rail line in 1909 that arrived in downto wn Glendale from the east. Financed by E. D. Goode, this route connected to a Yellow Car line that provided service between downtown Los Angeles and Eagle Rock.20

Streetcar lines functioned as the primary catalyst f or growth at this time, making Glendale ri pe for new development by generating a demand for new houses that were removed from central Los Angeles yet remained within a reasonable commuting distance to th e urban core .

Responding to this newfound demand, dev elopers and civic boosters marketed Glendale as a residential suburb – or a “community of homes” – early in its developmental history.
21 U.S. Census Bureau data indicated
that Glendale’s population increased by 393 percent between 1910 and 1920.
22 This statistic was touted relentlessly by dev elopers and boosters, who were eage r to promote Glendale and attract prospective

18 Glendale Historical Society, “Glendale History – A Brief Look,” accessed Mar. 2020. 19 Perry and Parcher, Glendale Area History (1981), 21-23. 20 Ibid, 25.
21 Juliet M. Arroyo, Katherine Peters Yamada, and George Ellison, Postcard History Series: Glendale (Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing, 2007), 9.
22 Ibid, 72.
203 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 17
settlers.23 The city continued to grow at a swift rate between 1920 and 1930 as the Southern California region came of age a nd experienced a period of economic prosperity.

Development of Casa Verdugo
Neighborhood Origins: The P acific Electric Railway and th e Casa Verdugo Restaurant
The Casa Verdugo neighborhood was among the Glendale -area residential suburbs that emerged in association with the arrival of electric streetcar service in the early twentieth century.

The origins of Casa Verdugo are directly associated with the ambitions and endeavors of the Pacific Electric Railway Company. In 1903, Leslie Brand purchased B liss Ranch – the swath of undeveloped agricultural land to the north of Glendale that con tained the old Sepulveda Adobe – as well as a numbe r of addi tional properties nearby.24 Brand amalgamated these properties to create the Glendale Boulevard Tract, a subdivision that was platted in 1904 and recorded in 1905.25

The Glendale Boulevard Tract wa s a shrewd and tactical purchase on the part of Bra nd. He sold a stake of the tract to the Huntington Land and Improveme nt Company, which was owned by railroad magnat e

23 Using these statistics, civic boosters asserted that Glendale was the “fastest growing city in America; however, this claim was false, as there were other communities in the United States whose population growth was more pronounced at this time, as demonstrated by U.S. census data. 24 “Quarter Million Dollars in Land,” Los Angeles Times, Mar. 27, 1903. 25 Subdivision Map of the Glendale Boulevard Tract, Map Book 6-184, 1905, accessed Mar. 2020 via the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works.

Figure 13. Postcard in
promotional leaflet
released by the
Glendale Chamber of
Commerce, c. 1924-

25. Source: California
Digital Library

204 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 18
Henry Huntington. 26 Shortly thereafter, Huntington’s Pacific Electric Railway Company ac quired the s treetcar line t hat travel ed from downtown Los Angeles to Glendale by way of Brand Bouleva rd, incorporating it into its empire of Red Cars that crisscrossed the Southern California region. In November 1904, Pacific Electric began construction of an extension of the Bran d Boulevard line from its terminus in downtown Glendale up to the Verdugo foothills.27

While it was extending the Red Car line, the Pacific El ectric Railway devised a creative way to attract riders and encourage future development in the North Glendale area, in which it had a veste d interest . Capitaliz ing on romanticized images of old California, mad e popular by Helen Hunt Jackson’s 1884 hit nov el Ramona, the Pacific Electric renovated the old Sepulveda Adobe in 1904 with the intent of opening a California -Spanish themed restaurant. 28 The adobe was located about a block away from the northern terminus of the extended Pacific Electric line at Brand Boulevard and Mountain Street. Toward this end, Huntington and Pacific Electric spent a considera ble sum of money rehabilitating the old st ructure and transformi ng its grounds into a lush park, with “exotic pl antings including varieties of cacti and a fra grant grove of oranges that was intended to represent the type of gardens found in the ol d California days.”29 All of this was done in the spirit of theatrics, to make patrons feel like they had been transported back in time to a glamorized interpretation o f California’s Spanish and Mexican past.

26 “Huntington Gets Brand’s Holdings,” Los Angeles Herald, Mar. 26, 1904. 27 “Glendale Line to Old Adobe,” Los Angeles Times, Oct. 13, 1904. 28 “Railway Remodels Verdugo Homestead,” Los Angeles Herald, Nov. 10, 1904. 29 “Casa Verdugo – Old L.A.’s Famous Restaurant ‘Out Glendale Way,’” accessed Mar. 2020.

Figure 14. Pacific
Electric Red Car,
with the old
Sepulveda
Adobe/Casa Verdugo
restaurant at rear.

Source: Water and
Power Associates

205 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 19
Pacific Electric was an adept builder and o perator of st reetcar lines; however, the company was not in the business of managing eateries .

To operate the new Spanish restaurant, Pacific Electric recruited a savvy and experienced restauranteur, Piedad Yorba Sowl, who was granted a five -year operating lease. Under the lease agreement, Sowl would ru n the restaurant, and Pacific Electric would retain ownership of the land and building. Within turn-of-the-twentieth century gastronomic circles, Sowl was a familiar name wi th a strong reputation. “Señora Pie dad Yorba,” r emarked the lo cal press about the propr ietress, “is well kno wn to all the Spanish restaurants and personally achieved a high reputation in the management o f Spanish restaurants, her cuisine being unexcelled.” 30

Piedad Yorba Sowl (1864- 1948) wa s the descendent of prominent early California settl ers, though the frequent subdivision and re - subdivision of ranchos during the nineteenth century ultimately left her family with little capital or land. 31 Late in the nineteenth century , Sowl capitalized o n her culinar y skills and S panish-Mexican heritage a nd opened her first r estaurant, El Famoso, in Los Angeles in 1895. 32 El Famoso served authentic Mexican dishes (thoug h reflective of racial biases at the tim e, it was described as “Spanish” cuisine) and appears to have been well rec eived, though Sowl was plagued by financial wo es and legal problems rela ted to unlicensed alcohol sales that ultimately led to the restaurant ’s demise. The same “Spanish” type dishe s that Sowl had become known for would also be s erved at the new Casa Verdu go restaurant.

30 “To Open Casa Verdugo,” Los Angeles Herald, January 21, 1905. 31 “Jesus Yorba’s Little Estate,” Los Angeles Herald, Jun 8, 1904. 32City of Glendale, “Report: 1235 N. Louise Street – Glendale Register Nomination,” staff report, Sept. 12, 2017.

Figure 15. Piedad
Yorba Sowl,
proprietress of the
Casa Verdugo
restaurant. Source:

Glendale Public
Library Special
Collections

206 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 20
The Casa Verdugo restaur ant opened in Ja nuary 1905. 33 As proprietress, Sowl served as the restaurant’s hostess and over saw the menu, which consisted of “enchila das, tamales, frijoles (beans), chiles estufados (stuffed chil is), chile co n carne,” and other Spanish- Mexican dishes. 34 Her husband, Charles Sowl, assisted with the restaurant’s management ; her children and young re latives danced, sang, and entertained gue sts, adding t o the overall experience and adding to the restau rant’s mystique .35 Just as famous as the Sowls themselves was a black dog named Negro, whose cheerful greeti ngs came to be known as an essential part of t he experience at Casa Verdugo. “Negro was known to tho usands of visitors at the modern Casa Verdugo as the coal blac k and canine defender of a ll the dignity that ever surrounded a hacienda of the Spanish grande es,” wrote the Los Angeles Times about the chip per canine in 1910. 36

33 “To Open Casa Verdugo,” Los Angeles Herald, Jan. 21, 1905. 34 “Events in Society,” Los Angeles Times, Feb. 7, 1905. 35 “Native Sons’ Outing,” Los Angeles Times, Jun. 16, 1905; “Casa Verdugo – Old L.A.’s Famous Restaurant ‘Out Glendale Way,’” accessed Mar. 2020.
36 “The Finish of Negro,” Los Angeles Times, Apr. 10, 1910.

Figures 16-18.

Views of the
Casa Verdugo
restaurant and
dining patio,
1905. Source:

Water and Power
Associates, Los
Angeles Public
Library Photo
Collection

207 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 21
From t he start, Cas a Verdugo was a resounding success. Scores of people paid the nominal fare of twenty- five cents to ride the Red Car from downtown Los Angeles, through Glendale, and to the end of the line at Brand Boule vard and Mountain Street. The journey was very much an essential part of the experience , as Angelenos and tourists t ook in the scenic foothill views and lush gro unds surrounding the restaurant before partaking in what was perceived to be an authentic Spanis h meal. C ulinary historian Charles Perry has describe d Sowl’s restaurant as more than a typical eatery: “Casa Verdugo was no mere restaurant, but an overwhelming experience:
romantic setting, aromatic flowers, exotic food, sweet music in a foreign languag e, colorful dancing.”
37 It most certainly achieved
Brand and Huntington’s goal of increasing ridership on the Red Car s and attracting people to the once -remote Nor th Glendale area.

So succe ssful was the restaurant, in fact, tha t a large addition to the Sepulveda Adobe was construc ted in the fall of 1905 to better accommodate the swaths of people who came to dine; following this work the rest aurant could accommodate hundreds of patrons at once. Large-scale events became Piedad’s specialty – the rest aurant regularly hosted large dinners for hundreds of people – as was creative marketing. Postcards, menus, and souvenirs bearing the Casa Verdugo n ame promoted the restaurant as one of California’s premier attractions. The restaurant became a must -see tou rist destination for visitors on t he Southern Califor nia circuit, particularly those who wanted to so ak in its romantic Hispanic past.

37 Charles Perry, “Piedad Yorba,” Gastronomica: The Journal for Food Studies 10.3 (Summer 2010), 52-57.

Figure 19. Postcard
view of the Casa
Verdugo restaurant,
ca. 1905. Source:

Calisphere

208 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 22
On a parcel behind the Casa Verdugo restaurant, at the corner of Louise and Randolph streets, the So wls built a re sidence for themselves. Constructed in 1907, the Sowl residence was designed by architect Charles E. Shattuck. 38 Shattuck designed their house in the Mission Revival st yle tha t evinced the same glamorized image of old California.

At some point, and for reasons that are not ent irely clear, the relationship between Sowl and Pacific Electric soured; in October 1910, the company closed t he restaurant, allegedly for “repairs,” and abruptly ann ounced that Sowl’s operating lease would not be renewed. 39 According to Pacific Electric, the company would instead assume operations of the restaurant when it re -opened. A very public feud erupted between Sowl and Pacific Electric’s general manager, Joseph McMillian, with McMillian using his perceived authority to sully Sowl’s character. The cha racteristically sanguine Sowl, i n turn, took her culinary prowess and re -opened the Casa Verdugo restaurant in her own house in November 1910; the ne w location of Casa Verdugo occupied the property directly behind the old adobe and sat a mere 200 feet from the original rest aurant. It remains extant at 1235 N. Louise Street (listed on the Glendale Register). The second iteration of Casa Verdu go opened in 1910, and attracted the same custome rs who were loyal to Sowl and her cuisine. Marketing materials for the new Casa Verdugo restaurant

38 City of Glendale, “Report: 1235 N. Louise Street – Glendale Register Nomination,” staff report, Sept. 12, 2017.
39 “Tortilla Tax Starts Row,” Los Angeles Times, Sept. 25, 1910; “Railway Will Be Mine Host,” Los Angeles Times, Sept. 27, 1910.

Figure 20. Sowl
Residence, 1907,
designed by architect
Charles E. Shattuck.

Source: USC Digital
Library

209 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 23
stated that it was “not the railr oad place,” emphasizing that it was now an independent business, fully divo rced from Pacific Electric. 40

Not one to bac k down from a fight , Sowl had trademarked the business name, “Casa Verdugo, Inc,” when she relocated the restaurant to her Louise Street residence. When Pacific Electric attempted t o reopen the newl y renovated adobe in No vember 1910 under the name Casa Verdugo , Sowl sued the railway company for $10,000 in damages and misappropriation. 41 The case was ruled in favor of Sowl and Casa Verdugo I nc., thus permanently preventing Pacific Elec tric from using t he Casa Verdu go name . P acific Electric , in tur n, changed the name of the original restaurant and the nearby streetcar station to “La Ramada” (“the arbor ”).42 Both restaurants continued to operate side-by-side, som ewhat awkwardly, into the early 1920s. Sowl’ s Casa Verdug o operated at its Louise Street location until 1921, when it moved to a nearby location on Mountain Street; Pacific Electric’s L a Ramada closed permanent ly circa 1921.

40 Casa Verdugo postcard, n.d., accessed via the Glendale Public Library. 41 “Mrs. Sowl Sues Railway,” Los Angeles Herald, Dec. 13, 1910. 42 “Noted Resort Gets New Name,” Los Angeles Times, May 28, 1911.

Figures 21-23.

Postcard views of the
new Casa Verdugo
restaurant (top), and
the original
restaurant that was
re-branded as La
Ramada (bottom),
ca. 1910. Source:

Calisphere

210 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 24
Subdivision and Devel opment of Casa Verdugo
As Bra nd and Huntington had anticipated, the extens ion of the streetcar line to Mountain Street spurred subdivision and development of the a rea aroun d the original Ca sa Verdugo restaurant . With the arrival of the str eetcar line, it w as now possible to commute between North Glendale and Los Angeles easily an d quickly. Real estate advertisements for the area dating to the early twentieth centu ry made fre quent mention of its adjacency to the Red Ca r line , and touted the fact that it was only a twenty -five- minute ride from the central business district of Los An geles.43 The popularity of the Casa Verdugo restaurant also rendered this area – or at le ast its name – rather famous. This, in turn, drew dev elopers to the once -peripheral area , who expressed interest in acquiring its abundance of virgin land and subdivid ing it into residential tracts.

As noted, the first c oncerted effort to develop the area with non- agricultural use s dates to 1904. That year, Leslie Brand and the Pacific Elect ric R ailway filed a subdivision map for the Glendale Boulevard Tract, which was located next to the northern terminus of a Red Car sp ur line that was under construction. The Glendale Boulevard Tract encompassed a large area that was roughly bounded by present-day Mountain Street on the north, present -day Central Avenue on the west, an d the boundary of the C.E. Thom Ranch (just west of present-day Jackson Street) on the e ast. On t he south, the tract extended past the Verdugo Wash.44 This subdivision parsed the land into large, irregularly sized lots and also set aside rights- of-way for future roads. The subdivision map was officially recor ded in 1905, the same year that the Casa Ver dugo restaurant f irst opened for business. 45

In subsequent years, as the area around the restaurant became an increasingly attractive development site, Brand a nd the Pacific Electric sold off portions of the Glendale Boulevard Tract to other developers, who in turn re -subdivided their purchase into blocks comprising mo re conventional residential lots. Thus, the development of the Casa Verdugo neighborhood was no t the work of any one developer, but instead represents a patchwork of individual subdivisions that were platted a nd developed by different parties at about the same time . Over time, the lines and legal boundaries delineating these subdivisions were blurr ed, resulting in a visually cohesive neighborhood fabr ic that defines the area today.

The proposed historic district is specifically an amalg amation of six subdivisions that we re carved out of the original Glendale Boulevard tract in the early decades of t he twentieth century. The first of these was the Thom pson Tract, which encompasses the a rea

43 “Panorama Here Unsurpassed,” Los Angeles Times, Sept. 20, 1907. 44 Subdivision Map of the Glendale Boulevard Tract, Map Book 6-184, 1905, accessed Mar. 2020 via the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works.
45 Ibid.
211 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 25
between Mountain, Randolph, and Louise streets an d Bran d Boulevard and was recorded in 1906. Its developers platted a new street down the center of the tract that was originally called Putnam Street and is now Maryland Avenue. 46 The Broadmore Tract, which is loc ated to the east of the Thompson Tract and e xtends to Campbell S treet, was reco rded in 1907; the Stocker Street Tract, bounded by Randolph, Stocker, Louise, a nd Campbell streets, was recorded in 1909; and Tract 2 134, which encompasses the area nor th of Ran dolph Street and east of Campbell Street, wa s reco rded in 1913. Remaining portions o f the proposed historic district were subdivided in the early 1920s. Tract 4536, which includes the area east of Campbell Street and south of Randolph Street, was recorded in 1921; Tract 6429, which is bounded by Randolph, Stocker, and Louise streets and B rand Boulevard, was subdivided in 1924. 47

46 Subdivision dates gleaned from tract maps, accessed Mar. 2020 via the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works.
47 Additional subdivisions were recorded in the surrounding area, especially in the area to the west of Brand Boulevard, but these adjacent subdivisions do not retain sufficient integrity for inclusion in the proposed historic district.

Figure 24. Map of
tracts within the
proposed historic
district (map
produced by ARG)

212 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 26
The first extant residence cons tructed in the Survey Area, a Neoclassical dwelling at 305 Randolph Street, was construc ted in 1906 for Charles H unter Newton and Minnie Newt on. A May 1906 publication about i mprovements in the Glendale area make s note of a “6 -room Italian style residence ” at the corner of Randolph and Louisa [sic] streets. 48 Piedad Yorba Sowl and Charles Sowl construc ted their reside nce across the street, catty -corner to the Newton house, in 19 07. This is the house that would later be repurposed into the second iteration o f the Casa Verdugo restaurant following the Sowls’ ev iction from the old Sepulveda Adobe in 1910.

Seizing on the fame of the “ Casa Verdug o” name, developers , area residents, and ot hers applied the name of the famous restaurant to the community that was beginning to coalesce around the old Sepulveda Adobe. In March 1906, Charles Sowl was appointed the first postmaster of the “ Casa Verdugo ” branch of the United States Post Office. 49 “Casa Verdugo ” was also incorporated into the names of new tracts , with references to lots in “Casa Verdugo ” appearing in newspaper s as early as 1906. 50 Casa Verdugo was regarded as an independent community adjacent to, but indepe ndent of Glendale, much like Tropico was to the so uth. Glendale histor ian John Calvin Sherer remarked on the emergence of the Casa Verdugo identit y:
“there was one important section of the valley which through all the formative years o f Glendale was unwill ing to acknowledge itself as part of either Glenda le or Tropico… the mo re easterly section found a local name by adopting that which described the o ld adobe residence near the head of Brand Boulevard, ‘Casa Verdugo.’”51

48 “Glendale – Queen of the Valley,” promotional pamphlet, ca. 1906. 49 U.S. Post Office Department, Record of Appointment of Postmasters, 1832-Sept. 30, 1971, Los Angeles County, California, 483, accessed via Ancestry.com. 50 Derived from the district nomination for Casa Verdugo; original sources “Sales at Casa Verdugo, Los Angeles Herald, Jun. 3, 1906; “Casa Verdugo Lots Go Fast,” Los Angeles Herald, Apr. 19, 1906. 51 Sherer, History of Glendale and Vicinity (1922), 72-75.

Figure 25. Tract
office and billboard
for the Casa
Verdugo Villa Tract,
ca. 1910. Source:

Los Angeles Public
Library Photo
Collection

213 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 27
By the early 1910s, this once -peripheral area had shed its agra rian roots and had assumed the form of a streetcar suburb. By this time, the Casa Verdugo community had a population o f about 1,500. 52 In addition to the suburban houses t hat were sprouting up on its freshly platted blocks, a small commercial district emerged near Central Avenue a nd Stocker Street . A post office also served the community for several years in the early twen tieth century.53

Slowly but surely, the blocks comprising the Survey Area were improved with detache d, sing le-family suburban houses. The prevailing m odel of de velopment appears to have entailed the sale of individual lots with the purchaser construct ing a dwelling of their choosing, independent of ar chitectural restrictions or stringent design guideline s. As a result, houses in the neighborhood exhibit some variety with respect to architectural style , scale, and grandeur . Those that were built in the n eighborhood’s formative years of development in the 1900s and 1910s vary between one and two stories in height, and consist of both modes t bungalows and larger dwellings. Most are d esigned in the Craftsman style . While most of these earlier dwellings were likely designed and built by a contractor, a few are known to ha ve been d esigned by an ar chitect .

Glendale architect Alfred F. Priest – himself a res ident of the Casa Verdugo area – designed at le ast four Craftsman style houses in the proposed historic district at 1305, 1320, and 1326 Maryl and Avenue (built 1912, 1915, 1913, re spectively) and 1315 N. Louise Street (built 1916). 54 The Milwauk ee Building Company, the design and

52 Derived from the historic district nomination for Casa Verdugo; original source United States Census Records, accessed via Ancestry.com.
53 “Casa Verdugo Stirred Indeed,” Los Angeles Times, Mar. 25, 1909. 54 Derived from the district nomination for Casa Verdugo; original sources Southwest Contractor and Manufacturer and Glendale Evening News.

Figure 26. Postcard
view of Louise and
Randolph streets, ca.
1915. Source:

Glendale Public
Library Special
Collections

214 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 28
construction firm manag ed by acclaimed Los Angeles architects Meyer and Holler, designed the side-by-side houses at 401 Ross Street and 407 Ross Street ( both built 1916). 55 Benjamin W.

Sherwood , known for his theatrical interpretation of Period Revival styles, designed the house at 400 Loraine Street (1922) and is believed to have also designed his house at 423 Ross Street (19 22).

Thirty-one of the Survey Area’s 11 2 pr operties (28%) were constructed between the early 1900s and 1910s, demonst rating the steady but somewhat restrain ed pace at which development in the area took plac e. The residential blocks within the Survey Area remained so mewhat sporadically improved at this tim e, with plent y of parcels remaining vacant a nd ripe for new development.

55 Ibid.

Figure 29.

Sanborn map of
the Survey Area,
1919. Source: Los
Angeles Public
Library

Figures 27-28.

Craftsman style
Beggs House at 408
Ross St, built 1915
and moved to this
location in 1925.

Source: USC Digital
Library

215 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 29
The 1920s were a prosperous t ime for Southern California generally and Glendal e specifically, resulting in a wave of development that brought in many new settlers and fac ilitated the development of myriad new houses. Additional houses were incr ementally built in the Casa Verdugo subdi visions during the 1920s, rounding out existing development patterns in the area and resulting in increasingly continuous blocks of one and t wo-story dwellings. Like in previous years, developme nt in the Survey Area did not ascribe to a uniform design aest hetic or architectural vocabulary, but rather reflected the whims of their owners and embodied a va riety of popular architectural styles . Hou ses that were added to the Survey Area in the 1920s t ended to veer away fr om the Craftsman style – which by this t ime was seen as anachronistic – and instead embodied the medley of Period Revival styles that had co me into vogue a nd were seen as barometers of good t aste. Various inte rpretations of the Spanish Colonial Revival, Tudor R evival, French Revival, and American Colonial Revival styles were most commonly applied to the dwellings constructed in the Surve y Area . These houses were generally compatible w ith the f orm, scale, and st yle of the existing Craftsman style houses in the ne ighborhood, resulting in eclectic but consistent streetscapes that exuded a suburban appea rance.

Forty-five of the Survey Ar ea’s 112 properties ( 40%) were built in t he 1920s. Most a re relatively modest interpretations of their respective architectural st yle and were likely designed and built by a contractor. However, a few are comparativel y more articulated and represent the wo rk of a noted archite ct or designer. For instance, the Mediterranean Revival style house at 1333 North Louise Street Figure 30.

Maryland Avenue
streetscape, view
north from
Randolph Street,
n.d. Source: Los
Angeles Public
Library Photo
Collection

216 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 30
(1922) was an early commission of the renowne d African American architect and esteemed “architect to the stars” Paul R. Williams. 56

The side -by-side Casa Verdug o and La Ramada rest aurants, which had anchored the ne ighborhood since its incept ion, continued to operate until the early 1920s. In 1921, sist ers Jeanette, Ida, and Myrtle Baldwin purchased the e ntire block in one of the largest real estate transactions in the Glendale area. 57 The Baldwin sisters, upon purchasing the property, announce d plans to retain and improv e the restaurants. Their plans inc luded “the entire remodeling of both the Casa Verdugo and La Ramada into high -class eating places… [and] to conduct La Ramada Park as an amusement place.” 58 However, the sisters, who were savvy re al estate investors, scrappe d these plans almost immediately, likely because subdividing the land would yield a muc h higher rate of return on their purcha se. T he Casa Verdugo restaurant on Louise Street remained intact, though by 1921 Sowl had moved the re staurant to anot her location on Mountain Street and the Mission Revival style restaurant on Louise Street was reverted to its original use as a dwelling. La Ramada was demolis hed by the Baldwins in 1923, and the parcel was subdivided into two blocks of sev enteen lots each. 59 This subdivision constitutes the southwest portion of the Survey Area.

56 “Casa Verdugo: Stucco Residence,” Southwest Builder and Contractor 60.11 (Sept. 15, 1922): 52. 57 “Three Sisters, Teachers Here, Buy Two Cafes,” Los Angeles Times, Apr. 30, 1921. 58 Ibid.
59 Advertisement (“Beautiful La Ramada”), Glendale Daily Press, Jun. 8, 1923.

Figure 31. Plat
map of Tract 6429,
subdivided 1924 on
the site of the
former site of the
Sepulveda Adobe.

Source: Los Angeles
County Department
of Public Works

217 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 31

Also by the early 1920s, the questions of incorporation and annexation were fron t-and-center in the minds of Casa Verdugans.

As the Casa Verdugo community developed from a far -flung Red C ar stop into a populous suburban neighborhood between the turn- of- the-twentieth century and the 1920s, its residents had developed a sense of civic pride and a fiercely independent spirit. Annexation became an increasingly ho t-button issue as Casa Verdugo, Glendale, and other nearby commun ities witnessed significant growth in the early decade s of the twentieth century and expanded well beyond their or iginal boundarie s. A number of t hose who resided in Casa Verdugo sought to incorporate as an independent com munity; many expressed particular disdain at the idea of being annexed by Glendale. “If [the Casa Verdugo community] is dragged, willy nilly, from its chosen condit ion of a rural c ommunity into the confines of a young municipality,” remarked the Los Ange les Times about the community’s fervent resistance to annexation by Glendale, “it will not be without such a protest as went up fr om the throat of Patrick Henry when he made his choice of liberty or death. ”60

There were numerou s efforts on the part of Glen dale to annex Casa Verdugo. The firs t attempt at annexation had taken place in 1910.

Proposals for independent incorporation, or a nnexation to Glenda le or Los Angeles , were floated at this time . In October 1910 the Los Angeles Times reported that “Casa Ver dugo refuses to be annexed and Glend ale refuses to be satisfied without an attempt to add this rich district to its municipal terr itory.”61 Proponents of annexation to Glendale argued in favor of bet ter pol ice and fire departments and access to its water, p ower, and sewer systems. Opponents w ere concerned with taxes and government corruption. There were at least seven referenda concer ning t he annexation proposals , and sections of Casa Verdugo to the south and w est of the Survey Area

60 “Casa Verdugo Is Indignant,” Los Angeles Times, Sept. 20, 1910. 61 “If Glendale Was a Whale,” Los Angeles Times, Oct. 19, 1910.

Figure 32.

Residence at 1327
North Maryland
Avenue, ca. 1911.

Source: City of
Glendale, provided
courtesy of Sharon
Hefferon

218 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 32
joined Glendale in 1912 a nd 1921. 62 In March 1926, a vote was held, and the proponents of annexation won 358 to 282. The City of Glendale o fficially annexed Casa V erdugo, including the Survey Area, in April 1926.63 With this action G lendale had annexed ne arly 10,000 acres of land in twenty years. However, the annexatio n of C asa Verdugo ended Glendale’s era o f great expan sion until the C ity annexed several communities in North Gle ndale after World War II.64

Great Depression through World War II (1929-1942)
By the late 1920s, the Surve y Area was well -established, with abo ut two-thirds of all parcels developed. Most of the undeveloped parcels were located in the so uthwest section of the neighborhood, on and near th e site of the old Sepul veda Adobe that had bee n demolished and subsequentl y parsed into residential lots in 1923.

Upon the onset of the Great Depression, developme nt activity within the Survey Area slowed considerably; only five new dwelling s were constructed in the neighborhoo d between 1930 and 1934. However, development did not grind to a complete halt; i n genera l Glendale experienced continued residential development during the Depression years in contra st wit h larger na tionwide trends, pe rhaps due to t he nearby presence of e ntertainment and wartime industries that fueled the local economy. Further into the 1930s, development once again began to pick up, albeit at a modest pace. An additional nineteen pro perties were constructed in the Surv ey Area between 1935 and 1942. In total, twenty-three of the Survey Area’s 1 12 properties (21 %) were constructed during the Depre ssion era, from 1930-1942, confirming that the eco nomic depression slowed, but did not compl etely halt, the growth or d evelopment of Casa Ver dugo.

Development ground t o an abrupt halt altogether in 1942, when the United States entered into World War II an d a moratorium on new residential construction was imposed as the nation redirected its resources to wartime production.

By the time that wartime building restrictions had been imposed in 1942, the Survey Area had take n on a somewhat more varied architectural character. Properties within the Survey Area that were constructed in the Depression ye ars possess sever al common characteristics that are evocative of the era and distinguish them from earlier dwellings. Generally, houses that date to this period are more chaste and restrained in appearance than tho se that were constructed in previous years, reflecting the less-than-favorable economic cli mate of the era in which these houses were built. By this time, the Period Revival styles that had flourished in the 1910s and 1920s had given way to the more auster e Minimal Traditional style, which emphasi zed

62 Sherer, History of Glendale and Vicinity (1922), 181. 63 “Glendale Territory Increased,” Los Angeles Times, Mar. 31, 1926. 64 City of Glendale, “North Glendale Historic Context,” Nov. 29, 2011, 17-18. 219 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 33
economy and e fficiency with respect to home design. These houses generally featured on -site garages, reflecting the fact th at the automobile was beginning to supplant the electric streetcar as the preferred mode of personal transportation by this time.

However, as a whole the area continued to read as a unified entity due to the scale and massing of individual houses and the retention of tract features like parkways and street trees that provided the area with its distinctive sense of place.

Development after World War II (1946-1957)
Glendale, like many communities in Southern California, experi enced a population boom after World War II as scores of military veterans returned home from the war and sought jobs in the nearby aerospace and entertainment industries. This rapid increase in population led to a heightened demand fo r housing and ushered in a wave of new residential development. Postwar residential de velopment in Glendale consisted of new housing tract s in previously undeveloped areas of the city, i n addition to infill development within est ablished residential neighborhoods. The Casa Verd ugo neighborhood was almost e ntirely developed by the onset of W orld War II, but consistent with prevailing trends o f infill development in Glendale the few v acant parcels tha t remained in the Casa Verdugo neighborhood were i mproved with new single-family residences. Eight houses – amounting to 7% of the building stock - were added to the Survey Area between 1946 and the 1950s, rounding out the pattern of devel opment in the nei ghborhood. The Survey Area was entirely built out by 1957.

Houses dating to the e arly postwar period are exclusively single -story (as opposed to earlier residences, which were often two stories) a nd were generally designed in variations o f the Modern and Ranch styles, which became immensely popular in the years f ollowing the war. Ranch style houses reflected modern consumer preferences, and are characterized by their horizontal silhouettes and elongated floor plans ; Modern houses were notable fo r their aesthetic simplicity , structural expression, and incorporation of geometric building forms . Given the compact size of lots within the Casa Verdugo neig hborhood, the few Ranch and Modern houses that were built in the Survey Area tended to be c omparatively smal l in scale and modest in appearance. Though clearly products of the postwar era, these later additions to the Survey Area are compatible with its prevailing scale, massing, and character.

Racial and Ethnic History
Like many suburban communities in Southern California at the time, the population of Casa Ver dugo was composed almost exclusively of white residents during the community ’s formative years . However, racial restrictions – which w ere expressed in the form of deed r estrictions, covenants, and other exclusionary tactics - do not appear to have been enforced as string ently in Casa V erdugo as they did in the nearby 220 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 34
communities of Glendale and Tropico at th e time, likely due to Casa Verdugo’s status as an uni ncorporated community until 1926 . As such, the Casa Verdugo community exhibited more ethnic diversity than was seen in comparable communities during the early twentieth century.

Arguably the most prominent non- white individual in Casa Verdugo wa s Piedad Yorba Sowl – who self-identified as “ Spanish” and would today likely be classifi ed as “ Hispanic” or “Latina.” Sowl operated the enormously successful restaurant that operated under the “Casa Verdugo” name, and also lived at 1235 North Louise Street, where the second iteration of her restaurant was located. Other early Hispanic/Latino individuals associated with the district include several people who either worked at the Casa Verdugo restaurant or its chief competitor, the La Ramada restauran t; or were employed as cooks, gardeners, and other service industry workers who often lived on site.65

Other non-white groups were r epresented in Casa Verdugo in the community’s formative years. The 1917 Glendale City Director y identifies seven people of A frican American descent as living in Glendale, Tropico, and Casa Verdugo, four of whom lived in the then- unincorporated community of Casa Verdugo. Two of these individuals – Florence Padgett and Ella Williams – worked as servants and maids, but the other two residents – husband-and-wife J[ohn] Sherman and Sallie Warren – resided on Central Avenue, which falls outside the present-day district boundaries but was located within the historical boundaries of the Casa Verdugo community. The acclaimed African American architect Paul Reve re Williams was commissioned to design the house at 1333 North Louise Street (1922) in the district. He was not a resident of the neighborhood, but nonetheless played a role in its initial development.

A small number of individuals of Asian American descent also worked as gardeners, servants, or in similar service-oriented roles at houses in the Casa Verdugo neighborhood.
66 In addition, what is believed to be one of
the first Armenian Ameri can households to settle in Gl endale – the Pampaian (also spelled as Pampian or Pampayan) family – lived on nearby Valley View Road in the early twentieth centur y, slightly outside of the district boundaries.

65 Derived from the district nomination for Casa Verdugo. 66 Ibid.
221 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 35
Figure 33. Map indicating construction dates of properties within the proposed Casa Verdugo Historic District
222 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 36

RELEVANT HISTORIC CONTEXTS AND THEMES
Context: Residential Development and Suburbanization
Theme: The Role of Transportation: Streetcar
Suburbanization
Development of the Survey Area was made possible by the advent of the streetcar as a dominant mode of interu rban transportation, both i n Southern California and elsewhere across the United States.

Since the nineteenth century , transportation has been a key determinant of residential development patterns in cit ies throughout the United States. Modes of transport ation played a pivotal role in dictating how American house holds traveled between their places of residence and their places of work. Advances in transportation technology hastened the trend of suburbaniz ation by providing a means by which development coul d reach farther and farther away from central ci ties and in to the h interlands of urban society. During the Industrial Revolution, suburban settings had become increasingly desirable places to live. As cities industrialized and emerged as centers of America n manufacturing, they also “became increasingly crowded and congested places perceived to be unhealthy and dangerous.” 67 The clean air, ample open space, and dearth of heavy industry in suburban environments were widely seen as antidotes to the density, pol lution, and congestion that pervaded the nineteenth century American city.

Steam-powered railroads and horse -drawn str eetcars were among the earliest modes of public transpor tation that are associated wi th suburban growth and expansion. Railroads rapidly expanded in the mid- nineteenth century to facilitate the tr ansport of goods and raw materials between American cities, and often incorporated passenger stops into their routes as a way to generate extra r evenue. These passenger stops, in turn, lent impetus to the development of rail road suburbs on the borderlands between city and country – close enough to the central city to be within a reasonable commuting distance, but far enough removed from urban problems and “the lower classes who could not afford the high cost of commuting.”
68 Railroad suburbs provided
middle and upper-income households with an escape from urbanity and became increasingly touted as an idealized way of life. What is perhaps the most famous of these railroad suburbs is Riverside, Illinois, a suburb of Chicago that exuded a picturesque, naturalistic setting and was planned by eminent landscape architects Frederick Law Olmsted and Calvert Vaux. 69 Those who reside d in Riverside were able to do so because they were able to easily take the railroad into central Chicago.

One issue with railro ad suburbs, however, is that they could only be developed along existing heavy rail lines, leaving areas on the

67 “National Register Bulletin: Historic Residential Suburbs,” Sept. 2002 (U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National Register of Historic Places), 38. 68 Ibid, 16.
69 Ibid.
223 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 37
perimeters of c ities inaccessible and undeve loped. The advent of the horse-drawn streetcar, whic h ran on fixed routes down city streets, offered a partial solution. Horse-drawn streetcar tracks, which became common by the 1860s, “followed the main roads radiating out fro m the center city,” allowing for suburbanization in the interstitial zones on the outskirts of cities. Since they were not as far removed from the city center, and since horse -drawn streetcars were mo re affordable than commuter railroads, these suburbs tended to attract households of more modest means than railroad suburbs.

Commuter railroads and horse -drawn streetcar laid the groundwork for suburban development in American cities. However, it was the advent of the electric streetcar in the late nineteenth century that ushered in a new peri od of suburbanization and a new model of suburban development that came to be known as the “streetcar subur b.” The streetcar suburb became the dominant mode of residential development in American cities between the late nineteenth and e arly twenti eth centuries, d ictating prevailing patterns of community pl anning and shaping the socioeconomic composition of the residential landscape.

The world’s first successful electric streetcar system was developed by inventor Frank J. Sprague in the 1880s. Early in his career, Sprague worked as an assistant to Thomas Edison, during which time he developed a keen interest in technology associated with po wer and transport. In 1887, Sprague installed a twel ve-mile-long electric rail system in Richm ond, VA that elim inated the need for live animals and proved to be more effic ient and financially viable than their horse - drawn count erparts.70 “The electric stree tcar, or trolley, allowed

70 Ibid, 17-18.

Figure 34.

General plan of
Riverside, IL, a
notable example
of a railroad
suburb. Source:

City of Riverside,
Illinois

224 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 38
people to travel in ten mi nutes as far as they could walk in thirty minutes.”71 This new mode of mass transit was quickly adopted in cities across the nation and rendered the horse-drawn streetcar obsolete.

Electric streetcar rout es began to foster the rapid expansion of cities beyond their historical boundaries. The stree tcars made it pos sible to extend transportation lines far into the urban peri phery, into areas that had once been difficult – if not impossible – to reach, thereb y opening up swaths of virgin land for new developme nt. In most cities, and certainly in Los Angeles , these electric streetcar lines originated in the central city and ext ended out into the ether in any direction that was feasible. New lines were built en m asse during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, resulting in st reetcar networks that spanned entire regions and are often described as resembling spokes on a wheel.

This trend was manifest in the built environment of Southern California.

Upon the introduction of electric rail service in the 1880s, local transit entrepreneurs began building electric streetca r lines do wn major streets between downtown Los Angeles and outlying areas . What is generally considered to be Los Angele s’s first electric streetcar line opened in 1887 and ran dow n Pico Boulevard, between the central business district and the Harvard Hei ghts neighb orhood. 72 Additional
local streetcar lines were subsequently built by the Los Angeles Railway Corporation, which was founded in 1895. Also in 1895 , transit tycoons and bro thers-in-law Moses Sherman and Eli Clark incorporated a company called the Los Angele s Pacific, which operated several

71 Ibid.
72 Kevin Starr, Inventing the Dream: California Through the Progressive Era (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985), 70.

Figure 35. First
electric streetcar in
Los Angeles, ca.
1887 Source: Water
and Power
Associates

225 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 39
interurban lines between Los Angeles and othe r communities i ncluding Pasadena, Santa Monica, Venice, and Redondo Beach 73

In 1 901, railroad executive Henry Huntington and financier I saias Hellman incorporated th e Pacific Electric Railway Company. 74 The company then began purchasing property and rights -of-way ac ross Southern California, with the intent of constructing a network of electric streetcar lines that would crisscross the regio n. In its first decade, the c ompany built new lines that extended to communities as far south as Newport Bea ch and as far eas t as Redlands. The company also acq uired existing streetcar lines from small er, independent operators including the Los Angeles and Glendale Electric Railway , which had been incorporated by Leslie Brand in 1902 and operated the streetcar line down Brand B oulevard. Pacific Electric also acquired the Los Angeles Pacific company and incorporated that company’s rights-of- way into its own network. Several years later, in 1911, almost all of the streetcar outfits in Sout hern California were conso lidated under the Pacific Electric name, making the company the single largest operator

73 Ibid; George W. Hilton and John F. Due, Interurban Railways in America (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1960), 406.
74 Steve Crise, et al., Pacific Electric Railway (Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing, 2011), ix.

Figures 36-38.

Early view of
Brand Boulevard,
with streetcar
tracks in center
(top). Pacific
Electric streetcars
en route to
Glendale, n.d.
(bottom). Source:

Los Angeles Public
Library Photo
Collection; Water
and Power
Associates

226 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 40
of in terurban electric streetcar service in the world. 75 At i ts peak, Pacific Electric had 1,164 miles of track across four Southern California counties: Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside.76

The advent and rapid expansion of electric streetcar service in Southern California significantly altered the region’s-built environment. Areas along the streetcar lines that fell far outside of the historical boundaries of Los Angel es were suddenly opened up for new development. This, in turn, attracted deve lopers and investors who seized the opportunity to acquire and subdivide swaths of land into new residential communities that sated Ameri cans’ desire to move out o f crowded central cities and into suburban environments that were seen as cleaner, less dense, and more integrated with nature.

Not surprisingly, l and alongside the new elec tric streetcar lines was especially ripe for new suburban development. Across the Southern California region, tract s of lan d within a reasonable distance of streetcar lines were acquired by developers eager to turn a profit, who subdivided the acreage into residential lots. These lots, in turn, were improved wi th suburban dwellings, who se inhabitants c ould easily commute to do wntown Los Angeles and other destinations. T his model of streetcar suburbanization swiftly transformed vast swaths of undeveloped land on the periphery of Los Angeles into established and populous residential communities in the lat e nineteenth and earl y twentieth centuries. These streetcar suburbs struck an optimal balance between urban and rural life; they wer e far enough removed from the central city to insulate residents from the ills of urban life, but were still close enough to remain within a reasonable commuting distance.

Some of the most prolific dev elopers of streetcar suburbs were the streetcar compan ies themselves. California historian Kevin Starr elucidates this trend by remarking that the enterprises of mass transit and speculative real estate development “went hand in hand.

Huntington would link his trolleys with undeveloped areas he had invested in as the principal in one or a nother real estate syndicate…he and his associates wo uld then sell the land, w hose value skyroc keted once it bec ame accessible to downtown Los Angeles. These developments were helped by favorable publicity” in the local press.77

This is precisely how t he C asa Verdugo community originated and developed. Hunti ngton’s Pacific Electric Company, in conce rt with Leslie Brand, acquired a stake in the Glendale Boulevard tract that w as subdivided alongside the Pacific Electric spur line that was under construction to its northern terminus at Brand Boulevard and Mountain Street. The spur line opened, and the subdivision recor ded, in 1905. In subsequent years Brand and the Pacific Electric sold off smaller portions

75 Starr, Inventing the Dream: California Through the Progressive Era (1985), 70. 76 Ibid.
77 Ibid.
227 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 41
of the Glendale Boulevar d tract to other developer s who platted the acreage into residential lots, making windfall profits in the process.

As Casa V erdugo developed in the early decades of the twentieth century, it assumed the form and character of a quintessential streetcar suburb. Development in the ne ighborhood was concentrated near several streetcar stations along B rand Boulevard – Dryden, Casa Verdugo/La Ramada, and Bliss/North Glendale (near Brand and Mountain) – demonstrating the integ ral role that mass transit had on shaping the built environment .78 Development consisted of houses, constructed on small lots, that were located a five- or ten-minute walk from the stre etcar s tations. The neighborhood catered to those who relied on public tr ansit and thereby assum ed a walkable scale and strong pedestrian orientation. Blocks were short, and streets ascribed to a rectilinear grid that corresponded to the course of the stree tcar and were essentially an extension of the gridiron plat that characterized the plan of the nearby City of Glendale. Though they were sited on relatively small lots, houses in the neighborhood were set back from the street and separated from the public-right-of-way by a landscaped front yard that represented a break – however modest – from the density and congestion of urban life. Neighborhood- oriented commercial uses clustered near major intersections – in the case of Casa Verdugo, around the intersecti on of C entral Avenue and Stocker Street – to serve the day-to-day needs of those who lived in the community.

78 Derived from the district nomination for Casa Verdugo; original sources “Map Showing Operated Lines of Pacific Electric Railway,” 1910; “Map of Pacific Electric Railway in Southern California,” Jul. 1912, rev. Apr. 1918.

Figure 39. Pacific
Electric streetcar
at Brand Boulevard
and Mountain
street, ca. 1905. At
this time, the stop
was called “Bliss.”
Source: Glendale
Public Library
Special Collections

228 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 42

Streetcar suburbs also hastened the democ ratization of suburban environments by making t he ideal of a detached, suburban house attainable to a larger swath of the American population . In contrast t o earlier models of railroa d suburbs, wherein the high cost of commuting on heavy rail hindered acce ss to all but the wealthier classes, fares on electric streetcars were kept low, making the neighborhoods that developed alongside them accessible to working -class and middle - income families. Keeping fares low, and often offering flat fares with free trans fers, worked in the streetcar companies’ intere st by encouraging ridership and providing an incentive for households to move to the suburbs where these companies often had a vested interest.

These socioeconomic trends were also manifest in the development of Casa Verdugo. Houses in the neighborhood w ere quintessentially Figure 40.

Postcard view of
the Casa
Verdugo
restaurant, ca.
1910. Note
streetcar tracks
in foreground.

Source:

Calisphere

Figures 41-42.

Newspaper ads
for the Casa
Verdugo
restaurant, put
out by the
Pacific Electric
Railway, 1905.

Source: Historic
LA Herald;
Historic LA
Times
229 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 43
suburban in character, but their relative modesty with respect to form, scale, and style is indicative of the neighborhood’s mi ddle-class precepts. Though some of its residents were locall y prominent – chief among them Piedad Yorba Sow l, who operated the Casa Verdugo restaurant – most of the neighborhood’s residents appear to have been middle-income households employed in typical vocations of the era.

Electric streetcars were the dominant mode of transit in the United States genera lly, and Southern California specific ally, w ell into the 1920s, and streetcar suburbanization continued to dominate patterns of residential developm ent t hrough thi s time. By the 1920s and ‘30s, streetcar use began to slowly taper off as the automobile beca me increasingly available to the Amer ican public , though “there was no distinct break between streetcar and automobile use between the 1910s and 193 0s.”
79 By World War II, however, some transit companies,
including the Pacific Electric, began replacing some streetcar lines with buses and motor coaches; after World War II, automobiles became the

79 “National Register Bulletin: Historic Residential Suburbs,” Sept. 2002 (U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National Register of Historic Places), 20.

Figure 43. Pacific
Electric streetcar
near Brand
Boulevard and
Mountain street,
1949. Source:

Glendale Public
Library Special
Collections

230 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 44
dominant mode of pe rsonal transit, leading to a precipitous dec line in streetcar ridership and the eventual dismantling of streetcar systems in cities across the nati on.80 The ascent of the automobile by the 1940s effectively ended the model of streetcar suburbanization and introduced a new suburban form that catered to the motoring public.81

Casa Verdugo’s trajectory of development corresponds with the ascent and eventual decline of the electric streetcar , and is demonstrative of how this mode of transportation was a key determinant of Glendale and Southern Califo rnia’s urban form. The earliest houses in the neighborhood date to the mid-1900s, shortly after the streetcar arrived in the area and opened up i ts vast swaths of developable land. The neighborhood was almost entirely built out by the onset of World War II, by which time the streetcar system began to experience a decline.

80 Ibid.
81 Ibid.
231 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 45

3. PHYSICAL CHARACTER

NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER

The proposed boundaries of the Casa Verdugo Historic District are generally defined by Mountain Street on the north, Stocke r and Loraine streets on the south, Maryland Avenue on the west, and a mid- block transect between Campbell and Jackson str eets on the east. The southern boundary of the district is i rregular and jogs north to the east of Louise St reet, as to exclude prope rties along Sto cker and Campbell streets that do not contribute to the significance of the district.

The proposed Casa Verdugo Hist oric Di strict includes the parcels associated with the following addresses:

While it is located near the base of the Ve rdugo Mountains, the Survey Area occupies an area that is flat. There are some very minor changes in elevation near the northern boundary of the Survey Area, as the nor th- south streets approach their ascent up into the adjacent hills.

Streets within the Survey Area align with the cardinal directions and are generally extensions of the rectilinear street grid that is etched across most of central Glendale. However, the re are some slight variations in the street grid, owing to the fact that the Survey Area is compo sed of multiple subdivisions that were pla tted independe nt of one another.

Ross Street and Lor aine Street, both located near the east boundary of the Survey Ar ea, terminate at Campbell Street and do not extend further to the west , interrupting an otherwise-largely-uniform street grid. All streets are moderate in width and paved in asphalt.

The streets within the Survey Area are flanked by concrete curbs, scored concrete sidewalks, and narrow landscaped parkways. Most of the parkways are planted with grass and mature street trees. Consistent street tree schemes are found along Maryland Avenue (Mexican fan palm and California fan palm), Louise Street (Mexican fan palm and southern magnolia), and Mountain and Stocker streets (Mexican fan pal m).

Parkways along other streets within the Survey Area feat ure an eclectic assortment of stre et trees that do no t adhere to a uniform planting scheme. Standard “cobrahead” style streetlights are installed at various points within the parkway spaces, illuminating the streets. 232 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 46
Individual parcels within the Survey Ar ea are generally rectangular but are of different si zes, again reflecting the fact that the neighborhood consists of mu ltiple tracts that were subdivided independent of one another. Parcels are d eep, and vehicular s torage generally consists of detached garages that are loc ated at the rear of lots. However, there are a few houses with later construction dates that feature attached garages. Garages are typic ally accessed from the front of the lot, via curb cuts and concrete driveways that transect the parcel’s length.

Houses within the Surv ey Area feature moderate front setbacks, contributing to the area’s sense of visual co ntinuity. There are some slight variations with respect to setback depth. These front setbacks are generally planted with lawns and various types of mature trees and vegetation. Many houses are ap proached by a concrete walkway that bisects the fr ont lawn , connecting the sidewalk and the porch. Some feature lawns that are slightly elevated from street level and are framed by retaining walls of concrete, brick, or stone.

With the exceptio n of the aforemen tioned street trees, landscape features within the Survey A rea are located o n private property and reflect the tastes of individual property owners. N one of the mature trees, shrubs, or ground cover species represented in the Survey Area appears to be native, as historic photographs of the area indicate that it consisted of native chaparral prior to its subdivision in the early twentieth century. Landscape features are diverse and range widely i n age, with no one species occurs with regularity across the Survey Area.

Figure 44.

General context
of the Casa
Verdugo
neighborhood, as
seen looking
northwest on
Ross Street.

Photo by ARG

233 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 47

As noted, ho uses within the Survey Area are designed in a variety o f compatible architectural styles that were popular during its primary period of development (1906-1957). This range of styles provi des the neighborhood with a cohesive yet eclectic character that is reflective of architectural trends in Glendale during the first several decades of the twentieth century . Architectural styles that are represente d in the Survey Area are further addressed in the section below.

ARCHITECTURAL STYLES

As a community that developed over the course of fifty years, t he Survey Area includes houses that we re constructed in a wide variety o f styles. The area’s diverse architectural character is reflective of shif ts in architectural taste between the early twentieth century and the post-World War II era. The earliest house in the proposed district, the Figures 45-47.

Additional views
of the Casa
Verdugo
streetscape.

Photos by ARG

234 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 48
1906 Newton House , is an e clectic interpretation of the Neoclassical style that was popular at its time of construc tion; the Sowl Residence (which also housed the second iteration of the Casa Verdugo restaurant) was built in 1907 and designed in the Mission Revival style. Other houses in the ne ighborhood that were built between the early 1900s and early 1920s are generally designed in the Craftsman style, a popular choice for residential architec ture at that time. Most houses c onstructed between the 1910s and 1930s were designed in one of several Period Revival styles that were popular at the time. Houses constructed during the Great Depression and in the years immediately preceding World War II are generally designed in the Minimal Traditional or Ranch styles. Most of the houses that were constructed after World War II were designed in the Modern or Ranch styles, both of which were popular at that time.

These later additions to the neighborhood were generally designed to be consistent with its prevailing scale and visual character.

Following is a discussion of architectural styles that are found within the Survey Area:

Neoclassical
Neoclassical architecture had been favored by banks, churches, and civic institutions before it was applied to resi dential design around the turn-of-the-twentieth century. Formal, dignified, and monumental , the style took elements of Classical Greek and Roman precedents and reinterpreted them. The styl e was popularized in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries at world’s fairs and through the influence of pr ominent American architects such as McKim, M ead and Wh ite of New York. Residential examples of Neoc lassical architecture are distinguished from their commercial and institutional counterparts by their simpler tr eatment of classical forms, f eatures, and orn ament.

Some are almost academic interpretations of Classical traditions, while others blend tenets of Classicism with other po pular styles of the era like Queen Anne or Craftsman, depending on their date of construction.

Character-defining features of Neoclassical architecture include:
• One or two-story configuration
• Rectangular building forms
• Formal arrangement of architectural elements
• Flat or hipped roofs, often punctuated by a pediment
• Stucco or wood clapboard exterior walls
• Prominent entrance, often framed by a portico
• Wood double-hung and casement windows
• Classically derived decorative details including columns, pediments, friezes, and balustrades

One example of the Neoclassical style was identified in the Survey Area:
• 305 E. Randolph Street (1906)
235 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 49
Craftsman
The Craftsman style was popular in Southern California between 1900 and 1925. It, too is r ooted in the Arts and Crafts movement and emphasized the use of handcraft ed products over m achine-made details, a reaction again st t he perceiv ed excess o f th e Victorian-era styles that preceded it. It also emphasized an integral relationship between indoor and outdoor spaces. The Craftsman style was popular nationwide but was e specially prolific in Southern California, as the mild climate was co nducive to the ideas underpinning the style . The Craftsman style w as a common choice for houses constructed in Glendale during the early twentieth century. It is commonly expressed in the form of a bungalow – a low-slung, one-story dwelling with a large front porch – though it was applied to some larger houses as well.

Thirty-three examples of the Craftsman style were identified in the Survey Area:
• 1223 Campbell Street
• 1315 Campbell Street
• 1317 Campbell Street
• 1327 Campbell Street
• 415 E. Loraine Street
• 416 E. Loraine Street
• 1215 N. Louise Street
• 1315 N. Louise Street
• 1318 N. Louise Street
• 1322 N. Louise Street
• 1327 N. Louise Street
• 1330 N. Louise Street
• 1300 N. Maryland Avenue
• 1304 N. Maryland Avenue
• 1305 N. Maryland Avenue
• 1310 N. Maryland Avenue
• 1311 N. Maryland Avenue
• 1320 N. Maryland Avenue
• 1321 N. Maryland Avenue
236 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 50
• 1326 N. Maryland Avenue
• 1327 N. Maryland Avenue
• 1330 N. Maryland Avenue
• 1334 N. Maryland Avenue
• 300 E. Randolph Street
• 314 E. Randolph Street
• 318 E. Randolph Street
• 319 E. Randolph Street
• 326 E. Randolph Street
• 409 E. Randolph Street
• 407 Ross Street
• 419 Ross Street
• 424 Ross Street
• 408 Ross Street

Mission Revival
The Mission Revival style was a favorite architectural style in the early twentieth century. Drawing upon the architecture of Mediterranean, Italian, and Spanish traditions, the style sought to evince an aesthetic of early California, and partic ularly with the Calif ornia missions. Its popularity coincided with the public’s infatuation with glorified imagery of early California architecture a nd culture, made w ildly popul ar by Helen Hunt Jackson’s 1884 nove l Ramona. The style was also seen as ideally suited to the warm Southern California climate. Though the Mission Revival style was most popular in Pasadena and Santa Barbara, it was also appli ed to buildings el sewhere across the region. In Glendale, it was applied to a small number of single-family residences.

Character-defining features of Mission Revival architecture include:
• Low-pitched roof with clay tile cladding
• Shaped Mission-style parapet
• Smooth stucco exterior walls, usually painted white
• Arched and arcaded openings and porches
• Wood-framed windows
• Colorful tile accents
• Elaborate landscaping and integral courtyards

One example of the Mission Revival style was identified in the Survey Area:
• 1235 N. Louise Street/Casa Verdugo

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 51
northern Africa. It was seen as especially well-suited to Southern California because of the region’s Spanish origins and its temperate climate. The style was inter preted in various ways, but in general Mediterranean Revival style buildi ngs are defined by an eclectic synthesis of architectural features that are broadly classified as Mediterranean in origin, and are distinguished by the ir formality and grandeur. The style was a mong the Period Revival styles that were popular in the first several decades of the twentieth century.

Character-defining features of Mediterranean Revival architecture include:
• Two-story configuration
• Symmetrical massing and balanced, proportioned façades • Low-pitched hipped roof with red clay tile cla dding; some buildings feature flat roofs
• Wide eaves and decorative brackets
• Smooth stucco wall cladding
• Elaborate entrances and door surrounds
• Wood double-hung and casement windows
• First-story windows are often full-height with arched openings • Eclectic mix of decorative details, often Classical in origin

Five examples of the Mediterranean Revival style were identified in the Survey Area:
• 1305 N. Louise Street
• 1333 N. Louise Street
• 325 E. Randolph Street
• 404 E. Randolph Street
• 400 Ross Street

Spanish Colonial Revival
The Spanish Colonial Rev ival style was one of the most prominent architectural styles in Southern California between the 1910s and 1930s.

The style be came popular after its introduc tion at the Panama- California Exposition, held in San Diego in 1915 to celebrate the opening of the P anama Canal. The chief desig ner of the Exposition, Bert ram Grosvenor Goodhue, rejected t he formal Renai ssance and Neoclassical architecture that had been used in previous world fairs and instead envisioned an environment that celebrated Southern California’s Spanish roots. The style is eclectic and incorporate s architectural elements borrowed from Baroque Spain, Mediterranean villages, and the California missions.

Character-defining features of Spanish Colonial Revival ar chitecture include:
• Two-story configuration
• Asymmetrical massing
238 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 52
• Red clay tile low or mode rate-pitched gable or hip roof, often complex in form
• Smooth stucco wall cladding
• Wood casement, wood double hung, or steel casement windows, typically multi-light
• Arched colonnades
• Arched and parabolic door and window openings
• Grilles of wood, wrought iron, or plaster
• Balconies and patios
• Decorative terra cotta and tile work

Nineteen examples of the Spanish Colonial Revival style were identified in the Survey Area:
• 405 E. Loraine Street
• 1221 N. Louise Street
• 1308 N. Louise Street
• 1212 N. Maryland Avenue
• 1213 N. Maryland Avenue
• 1225 N. Maryland Avenue
• 1228 N. Maryland Avenue
• 1236 N. Maryland Avenue
• 1301 N. Maryland Avenue
• 1319 N. Maryland Avenue
• 308 E. Randolph Street
• 315 E. Randolph Street
• 403 E. Randolph Street
• 411 E. Randolph Street
• 416 E. Randolph Street
• 413 Ross Street
• 414 Ross Street
• 423 Ross Street
• 201 E. Stocker Street

Tudor Revival
The Tu dor Revival style is rooted in the architectural traditions of medieval England and emerged as a popular style for residential architecture in Southern C alifornia between the 1920s and 1930s.

Emphasis was placed on c raftsmanship and the rust icity that characterized country houses of the medieval period. Like other Period Revival idioms, the Tudor Rev ival style is associated with an era in which American architects looked to past traditions for inspiration.

Character-defining features of Tudor Revival architecture include:
• One or two-story configuration
• Steeply pitched roof with front and side gables
239 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 53
• Brick or stone veneer, often in combination with smooth s tucco wall cladding
• False half-timbering
• Tall, narrow windows, arranged i n groups with m ulti-paned glazing
• Leaded glass windows
• Exaggerated, elaborate chimneys with decorative chimney pots • Arched front door surrounds with Renaissance detailing

Nine examples of the Tudor Revival style were identified in the Survey Area:
• 421 E. Loraine Street
• 1201 N. Louise Street
• 1217 N. Louise Street
• 1204 N. Maryland Avenue
• 1216 N. Maryland Avenue
• 1237 N. Maryland Avenue
• 410 E. Randolph Street
• 420 E. Randolph Street
• 418 Ross Street

French-Inspired
French-inspired architecture became popular in the 1920s and 1930s, a period w hen many Americans who had se rved in France during World War I bega n purchasi ng houses. Buildings designed in the style incorporate a variety of architect ural traditions found in the domestic architecture of France . The defining feature of the style is a t all, steeply pitched hipped roof, often accentuated by dormers.

Character-defining features of French-inspired architecture include:
• Two-story configuration
• Steeply pitched hip roof, sometimes slate or shingle clad • Smooth stucco wall cladding with brick or stone accents • Arched doors, windows, and/or dormers
• Tall, narrow windows, arranged i n groups wi th multi -pane glazing
• Double hung or casement sash windows, often with leaded panes • Elaborate chimneys, often with multiple chimney pots

Three examples of French-inspired architecture were identified in the Survey Area:
• 1209 N. Louise Street
• 1225 N. Louise Street
• 1218 N. Maryland Avenue

240 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 54
American Colonial Revival
American Colonial Revival architecture was commonl y a pplied to residences constructed in the fi rst half of the twentieth century. It drew heavily upon historical precedent and aimed to revive many of the architectural styl es, forms, an d motifs evident in the early Amer ican Colonial settlements of the East ern Seaboard. The style encompassed a variety of architectural traditions used in early America and celebrated the nation’s English and Dutch roots. The dissemination of photographs, drawings, and other visual materials showcasing the style in domestic magazines helped perpetuate the style by linking it to a vision of the “ideal American home.”

Character-defining features of the American Co lonial Revival architecture include:
• One or two-story configuration
• Side gable or hip roofs, often with gabled dormers
• Wood shiplap and/or brick wall cladding
• Accentuated entry porch or front door, with decorativ e pediment surrounded by pilasters or slender columns
• Doors with overhead fanlights and/or sidelights
• Wood double hung sash windows with multi-light glazing • Louvered or paneled wood shutters

Five examples of the American Colonial Revival style were identified in the Survey Area:
• 420 E. Loraine Street
• 1220 N. Maryland Avenue
• 1231 N. Maryland Avenue
• 406 E. Randolph Street
• 401 Ross Street

Minimal Traditional
First appearing in the 1930s, Minimal Traditional architecture emerged as a dominant s tyle for houses constructed in the years immediately before and after World War II. Minimal Trad itional houses were often simplified interpretations of Period Revival styles and assume d a much more modest, stripped- back appearance that reflected the economic austerity of the Depression era. Buildings designed in t he style, which most often consisted of single-family and mult i-family residences , exhibited restraint in the application of detail and ornament. While the style was often used in the design of mass-produced tract houses, it was applied to custom-designed residences as well.

Character-defining features of Minimal Traditional architecture include:
• One story configuration
• Rectangular plan
241 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 55
• Low or moderate -pitched hip or side gable roof with shallow eaves
• Smooth stuc co w all cladding, often with wood lap or sto ne veneer accents
• Wood multi-light windows (picture, double hung sash, casement) • Projecting three-sided oriel
• Shallow entry porch with slender wood supports
• Fixed wood shutters
• Minimal decorative e xterior detailing, often simplified interpretations of Period Revival features

Ten examples of the Minimal Traditional style were identified in the Survey Area:
• 401 E. Loraine Street
• 417 E. Loraine Street
• 1204 N. Louise Street
• 1205 N. Louise Street
• 1214 N. Louise Street
• 1307 N. Louise Street
• 1321 N. Louise Street
• 1201 N. Maryland Avenue
• 1221 N. Maryland Avenue
• 311 E. Randolph Street

Modern
Modernism is a broad architectural movement t hat was widely applied to buildings across Southern California between the 1940s and 1960s. Its roots are diverse, though the style is definitively linked to the European modernist m ovement that developed between World War I a nd World War II. Modern archit ecture was widely applied to residential, commercial, and institutional buildings al ike, ma ny of which were designed by some o f Southern California’ s most pioneering and influential architects. In general, the Mod ernism moveme nt rejected past traditions and historicist styles, instead embracing modern materials and technologies and prioritizing function over form.

Character-defining features of Modern architecture include:
• One or two-story configuration
• Rectilinear forms with a horizontal emphasis
• Flat or low-pitched roofs, often with soffited eaves
• Smooth stucco or wood wall cladding, sometimes with brick or concrete block accents
• Steel casement or a luminum sliding windo ws, often arranged in horizontal bands
• Minimal ornamentation
• Attached garages or carports are common
242 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 56
One example of Modern architecture was identified in the Survey Area:
• 1328 N. Louise Street

Ranch
Though it or iginated in the years before World War II, the Ranch style proliferated in the postwar era and became the quintessential California dwelling type. Multiple iterations of the Ranch ho use prototype emerged over time; in additi on to the ubiquitous, sprawling Traditional Ranch, Ranch houses often took borrowed characteri stics from other architectural st yles including the Minimal Tradition al and Mid- Century Modern styles. Ranch houses that incorporate these styles are referred to as Minimal Ranches and Contempor ary Ranches, respectively.

Buildings that e mbody the Ranch sty le are almost always sing le-family residences, and they vary from grand (rambling custom Ranch houses) to modest, such as t he Ranch tract houses that were common in post- World War II subdivisions. In the Survey Area, Ranch houses tend to be modest interpretations of the style that were slotted into vacan t parcels within the neighborhood, rounding out its development.

Character-defining features of the Ranch style include:
• One-story configuration
• Asymmetrical, rectangular massing
• Low-pitched gable or hip ro of wi th wide eaves, wood shake cladding, and exposed rafters
• Horizontal, rambling layout
• Wood multi-paned sash or caseme nt windows, aluminum sliding windows, and picture windows
• Attached garage
• Wood board -and-batten, wood lap, and shingl e wall cladding, stucco wall cladding, decorative brick wall cladding
• Fixed wood shutters
• Recessed entry porch with roof supports

EIght examples of the Ranch style were identified in the Survey Area:
• 1337 Campbell Street
• 1229 N. Louise Street
• 1230 N. Louise Street
• 1205 N. Maryland Avenue
• 1211 N. Maryland Avenue
• 1224 N. Maryland Avenue
• 1335 N. Maryland Avenue
• 312 E. Mountain Street

243 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 57

4. EVALUATION AS A POTENTIAL HISTORIC DISTRICT

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE

The Casa Verdugo Historic District appears to be eligible for local listing under five local criteria: A, B, C, G, and H. The district’s significance is primarily derived from its association with broad patterns of residential development and subur banization that are link ed to the ad vent and expansion of streetcar service in Glendale during the early decades of the twentieth centu ry. The district is a manifestation of the various economic, architectural, and a esthetic factors that came together to shape these early suburban neighborhoods, and is demonstrative of how advances in transportation dictated the location, form, and character of residential development at this time. It is also significant for conveying patterns of Glendale ’s politic al h istory through the prac tice of annexation. The district is also significant for its association with Piedad Yorba Sowl, the trailblazing female restauranteur whose contributions played a heavy hand in promoting the Casa Verdugo neighborhood in its formative years. Research indicates that Sowl is a historically significant individual in the context of Glendale history. Finally, the distri ct is significant for possessing an eclectic, yet cohesive collection of architectural styles from the first several decades of the twentieth century, including a substantial number of Craftsman style houses.

The district also appears to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Re sources (California Register) under California Register Criteria 1, 2, and 3, for the same reasons summarized above.

LOCAL ELIGIBILITY EVALUATION

The Glendale Historic District Overlay Z one Ordinance (pursuant to Chapter 30.25 of the Glendale Municipal Code) defines a historic district as follows:

a geographically definable area possessing a concentr ation, linkage or continuity, constituting more than sixty (60) percent of the total of historic or scenic properties, or a thematically related grouping of properties.

Those p roperties must “ contribute to each other and be unified aesthetically by plan o r historical phy sical development. ” One of the main purposes of this historic resource survey is to determine w hich properties “contribute” to the district and which do not.

The ordinance also identifies nine criteria that may quali fy an area as a district, stipulating t hat a proposed district must meet at least on e criterion to be eligible for listing. The proposed Casa Verdugo Historic District meets both of these requirements:
244 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 58
• 68% of its properties are contributors, exceeding the 60% requirement.
• Five of the nine desig nation criteria are met , exceeding the requirement that at least one criterion be met.

Therefore, it is recommended that the proposed Casa Verdugo Historic District is eligible for local designati on. This assessment is discussed in detail in the sections below.

Contributors and Non-Contributors
The proposed distric t consists of 1 12 residential pr operties, incl uding 110 single-family r esidences and two multi -family residences (one duplex and one fourplex). This survey identifie s 7 6 of thes e a s “contributors,” representing 68% of the prop erties. This exceeds the City’s requirement that at least 60% of properties be contributors for a historic district application to continue through the designation process.

Contributing status is determined by three factors:

1) the property was built within the Period of Significance, 2) it relates to historic contexts and themes identif ied i n the historic context statement, and
3) it maintains enough physical i ntegrity to allow it to continue to convey its historic meaning.

Non-contributing properties were either built outside the period of significance, do not relate to relevant historic contexts and themes, or have been altered in a manner that significant ly reduces their architectural and historic character, resulting in the loss of their ability to physically convey their significance.

The field survey for this report analyzed each property to determine the level of change over the years, if any. Glendale’s Historic District Design Guidelines only apply t o the portions o f a property visible from the street, so the field assessment is based only on those areas. Integrity is assessed at three levels:

High
The property has few, if any, alterations and retains all or nearly all character -defining features. For instance, a p roperty with minor, reversible alterations, such as a non- conspicuous replacement window while all other originals remain, may still have high integrity. One larger -scale change – the replacement of wood shake roofs – is now mandated by building code and the installation of appropriate new roofing will not affect the integrity determination.

245 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 59
Moderate
The proper ty is somewhat altered bu t retains most character - defining features. One or t wo character -defining features may be altered or lost, but the overall historic form and character of the property remain. Examples would include replacement windows in existing openings that do not match the originals or the application of new stucco cladding with a different texture.

Low
The property is d ramatically altered from its original condition by changes to massing or scale, or through alteration or loss of multiple character-defining features.

In general, properties with high or moderate integr ity may be considered contributors, while those with low integrity may be considered non-contributors.

Period of Significance
According to National Register Bull etin #16A, “period of significance” is defined as follows:

Period of significance is the length of time when a property was associated with important events, act ivities, or persons, o r attained the characteristics which qual ify it for Nat ional Register li sting. Period of signif icance usually begins with the date when significant activiti es or events beg an giving the property its historic signif icance; th is is ofte n a d ate of construction.

The period of significance for the Casa Ver dugo Historic District i s 1906 to 1957. It was in 1906 that the neighborhood’s first residential subdivision, the Thompson Tract, was recorded, and its first house was constructed. The S owl Residence, which would become the second iteration of the popular Casa Verdugo restaurant, was constructed in 1907, an d its reput ation as a popular tourist destination attrac ted attention to the neighborhood and contributed to its early growth.

Development in the Survey Area carried on at a steady, yet tempered pace for the next several decades, with most parcels developed by the 1940s; the f ew parcels that remained vacant wer e subsequently built out in the early postwar period, with the last contributing property built in 1957. Despite t heir varying constr uction dates and architectural styles, houses within the distr ict are visually compatible with one another, and together they are demonstrative of th e broad patterns of residential deve lopment and asso ciated trends in architecture that shaped local neighborhoods in the first half of the twentieth century.

246 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 60
Boundary Justification
The Casa Verd ugo neighborhood was developed in t he early twentieth century, and until the mid -1920s it was an unincorporated community, jurisdictionally separate from the adjacent City of Glendale . The boundaries of the Casa Verdugo His toric District were drawn to encompass the p ortion of the Casa Verdugo community that retains sufficient integrity for historic district eligibilit y, which is generally defined as Mountain Street to the north, Stocker and Loraine streets to the south, and Brand Boulevard to the west; the east boundary , which runs approximately mid-block between Ca mpbell and Jackson streets, represents the historical boundary between the City of Glendale and the unincorporated community of Casa Verdugo until 1926.

Generally, areas to the immediate north, south, and west of the district have witnessed alterations and infill development , and while these areas were historically associated with the Casa Verdugo community they now lack s ufficient cohesion to be i ncluded withi n the district boundary. Areas to the immediate east of the hi storic district exhibit similar development patterns, but because they are located beyond the historical boundary that once de lineated Casa Verdugo and Glendale , these adjacent areas to the east have a d ifferent development context and were therefore not included within the district boundary.

The district was surveyed (and is presented in this report) using the proposed boundaries that were identified in the appl ication. Upon research and field inspection, ARG recommends that the City consider making minor adjustments to the south boundary to strengthen the district’s integrity and reduce the number of non- contributing properties. Please see the section titled “Recommendations” on p. 67 for further discussion.

California Historic Resource Status Codes
The California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) has created a list of “status codes” that ar e used to categorize properties ide ntified in historic resource surveys. The present survey assigns each property one of three codes. T he first two are standard Californi a Historic Resource Status Codes and the third w as developed by the City of Glendale, in consultation with SHPO, to better reflect the City’s review process:

5B: Contributor to a local historic district and listed or determined eligible for listing on the Glendale Register of Historic Resources; subject to design review per Glendale Hist oric Preservation Ordinance. Of the 7 6 contributing properties, five were assigned this code: Casa Verdugo at 1235 N. Louise S treet, the Elliott House at 1330 N. Louise Stre et, the Newton House at 305 E. Randolph Street, the Hewitt Baker House at 319 E. Randolph St reet, and the Beggs House at 408 Ross Street.

247 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 61
5D1: Contributor to a local hist oric district ; subject to design review per Glendale Historic District O rdinance; not evaluated for individual eligibility for Glendale, California, or National Registers.

The other 71 contributing properties were assigned this code.

One property within the district could not evaluated at the time of t he field survey, and was not assigned a status code. 318 E. Mountain Street is located on a fla g lot and is not visible, so a determination of eligibility could not be made for this property.

The City of Glendale developed the 7DNC code to i dentify non- contributing propert ies in a way that best reflects their treatment under the Historic Distri ct Design Guidelines. It reflect s that properties are still subject to design review, though at a reduced level of scrut iny with regard to historic features. It also acknowledges that future, property-specific research may determine that a non- contributing structure has historic or archi tectural significance and is possi bly individually eligible for the Glendale Register of Historic Resources.

The California Department of Parks and Recreation survey forms (DPR forms) prepared for each property as part of this survey utili ze these codes, which can be found near the top right corner of the first page of each form (see Appendix B). The codes are also included in the master address table included in Appendix A. Figure 3 on page 4 features a map depicting all contributors and non-contributors.

Glendale Designation Criteria
To be eligible as a historic district, an area must meet at least one of the cri teria established by the Glendale His toric District Overlay Ordinance. Based on research and field documentation, the Survey Area appears to meet five of the nine local criteria (A, B, C, G, and H):

A. Exemplifies or reflects special elements of the city's cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering, architectural, or natural history. District Meets this Criterion.

The Survey Area is significant for exemplifying special elements of Glendale’s economic, aesthetic, and architectural history. Its location alon gside the h istorical route of a streetcar lin e is reflective of the city’s ec onomic history as it relates to transportation technology . As such, the area is demonstrative of how advances in transportation - specifically the advent and expansion of electric streetcar service – facilitated suburban development and the physical expansion of Glendale and its environs 248 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 62
in the early decades of the twentieth century . The neighborhood is also reflective of the considerable influence that the Pacific Electric Railway and other inter urban transit operat ors wielded on real estate and land transactions during this period.

The neighborhood’s collection of eclectic, yet visually compatible early tw entieth century architectural styles is also reflective of broad trends in the city’s aesthetic and a rchitectural h istory.

Collectively, houses within the Study Area are demonstrative of the broad architectural trends, aesthetic preferences, and general character and quality of residential architecture that defined the physical fabric of the city’s early neighborhoods at this time.

Finally, the Survey Area is significant for reflecting special elements of the City’s political history. Conceived shortly after the turn of the twentieth century, Casa Verdugo , as an independe nt community , fervently resisted annexation efforts until its eventual annexation by adjacent Glendale in 192 6. The S urvey Area is a particularly palpable example of how political forces related to annexation and physical expansion facilitated Glendale’s remarkable growth in the early decades of the twentieth century.

B. Is identified with persons or events significant in local, state, or national history. District Meets this Criterion.

The Survey Area is signi ficant for its as sociation with res tauranteur Piedad Yorba Sowl. The Casa Verdugo neighborhood derived much of its initial notoriety from Sowl, who famously operated the Cas a Verdugo restaurant at various locations in the area between 1905 and 1930. Most significantly, she operated the restaurant out of her own residence at 1235 N. Louise Street between 1910 and 1921. The Casa V erdugo restaurant, and Sowl in particular, played in instrumental role in putting the Casa Verdugo community on the map and attracting patrons who were eager to visit the restaur ant and experience its romanticized Spanish-Mexican atmosphere in the early decades of the twentieth century. It was in large part because of Sowl’s business prowe ss that this peripheral area adjacent to Glendale was thrus t i nto the public’s pe rception, and was widely seen as a desirable l ocation for su burban development . Sowl’s residence, which operated as the second iteration of the Casa Verdugo restaurant for nea rly two decades, became a literal and figurative focal point of the neig hborhood that developed alongside it.

C. Embodies distinc tive characteristics of a style, type, period, or method of construction, or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship. District Meets this Criterion.
249 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 63
The Survey Area meets this criterion for c ontaining a significant and sufficiently cohesive concentration of architectural styles that were popular in the first se veral de cades of the twentieth century . Of particular note is the district’s concentration of Craftsman style and Period Revival style architectur e (including Mission Revival, Spanish Colonial Revival, Mediterranean Revival, Tudor Revival, French - Inspired, and American Colonial Revival). Examples of the Minimal Traditional, Ranch, and M odern styles that were popular in the 1940s and 1950s are interspersed throughout the Survey Area, and generally complement the Period Revival styles that prevail within the neighborhood. The Survey Area is notable for the quality of its residential architecture and relative degree of articulation.

D. Represents the work of notable builders , designers, or architects.

District Does Not Meet this Criterion.

The Survey Area does not meet this criterion . No single builder, designer, or archit ect is know n to have made a significant contribution to the development or overall appearance of the Survey Area. Houses within the area were designed by numerous architects and builders over the span of its history; though some of these architects are significant, including Alfred F. Priest, the Milwaukee Building Company , Paul R. Williams, Charles E. Shattuck, and Benjamin W. Sherwood, the district as a whole does not represent their work in a manner that satisfies the conditions of this criterion.

E. Has a unique location or is a view or vista represent ing an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood community or of the city. District Does Not Meet this Criterion.

The Survey Are a does not meet this criterion. It is one of many established residential n eighborhoods in North Glendale, and generally it is consistent w ith the overall character and development patterns that prevail in this area of the city. T here is nothing particularly unique nor picturesque about the Survey Area to suggest that it may be eligible under this criterion. The Survey Area also does not possess a unique location or view or vista that would render it an established or familiar visu al f eature of the neighborhood, community, or city.

F. Embodies a collection of element s of archit ectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship that represent a significant structural or architectural achievement or innovation. District Does Not Meet this Criterion.

The Survey Area does not meet this criterion. While the quality of the architectural design, mater ials, detailing, and craftsmanship is generally high in the Survey Area, reflecting its development and occupation by middle-class homeowners, it cannot be said that, as a 250 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 64
collection, its houses represent a significant achievement or innovation in the spirit of this criterion.

G. Reflects significant geographical patterns, including those associated with diff erent eras of settlement and growth, transportation modes, or distinctive examples of park or community planning. District Meets this Criterion.

The Survey Area is significant for representing geographical patterns associated with streetcar suburbanization, which lent impetus to the prevailing fo rm, scale, and visual character of suburban neighborhoods in Glendale and its environs in the early decades of the twentieth century. The Survey Area exhibits commo n characteristics of an early twentieth century str eetcar suburb in its adjacency to a historical stre etcar line , which ran down Brand Boulevard and terminated at Mountain Street; its simple, rect ilinear plan and relatively short and walkable blocks ; its modestly sized, rectangular parcels; and its sidewalks, landscaped parkways, and other planning features that accommodated pedestrian circulation.

H. Conveys a sense of historic and architectural cohesivene ss through its design, setting, materials, workmanship or association. District Meets this Criterion.

The S urvey Area’s general plan, scale, and configuration convey a sense of historic cohesi veness by reinforcing the neighborhood’s historical association with the adjacent streetcar line on Brand Boulevard, and with broad patterns of resi dential development and suburbanization associated with streetcar service. While its building stock includes examples of many different architectural styles, they are generally compat ible and collectively convey a sense of architectural cohesiveness.

I. Has been designated a historic district in the National Register of Historic Places or t he California Register of Historical Resources.

District Does Not Meet this Criterion.

The Survey Area does not meet this criterion . It has not been designated a hi storic district in the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historical Resources.

CALIFORNIA REGISTER EVALUATION

The proposed Casa Verdugo Histor ic District appears to be eligible for listing in the Californi a Register of H istorical Resources (California Register) for its significance at the local level under California Register Criteria 1, 2, and 3:

251 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 65

1. [The district is] associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pat terns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of Cali fornia or the United States. District Meets this Criterion.

The Survey Area is associated with significant patterns of residential development and streetcar suburbanization in Glendale . As discussed in the evaluation against local criteria, t he origins and development history of the neighborhood are inextricably linked to the expansion of streetcar service to North Glendale at the turn of the twentieth century , and wi th the tendency of earl y growth to manifest in the form of annexation. The neighborhood is therefore associated with broad p atterns of events related to the City ’s economic, aesthetic, architectural, and political h istory and meets California Register Criterion 1.

2. [The district is] associated with the lives of persons important to local, California or national history. District Meets this Criterion.

As discussed in the evaluatio n against local Crite rion B, the Sur vey Area’s developm ent history bears a strong association with the contributions of restauranteur Piedad Yorba Sowl, who operated the famed Casa Verdugo restaurant in the general vicinity between 1905 and 1930. It is the refore associated with the lives of persons important t o Glendale history and meets California Regist er Criterion 2.

3. [The district ] embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of con struction or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values. District Meets this Criterion.

As discussed in the evaluation against local criteria, the Survey Area contains a notable concentration of C raftsman a nd Period Revival style architecture, and many of its contributing houses embody distinctive characteristics of a wide range of complementary idioms associated with these two movements . The distri ct, as a whole, is valuable to a study of early tw entieth century residential architecture and its influence on the built environment of Glendale, and therefore meets California Register Criterion 3.

4. [The district] has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of t he local area, California or the nation. District Does Not Meet this Criterion at this Time.

The Survey Area lies on soil that has been disturbed by construction and extensive gra ding. The area is not known to possess any paleontological or archa eological r esources. It is possible that the area may contain subsurface resources that have the potential to yield information important to the prehistory or history of the area; 252 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 66
however, this falls outside the scope of this evaluation. With further research and analysis, this criterion may be reconsidered.

The proposed Casa Verdugo Historic District retains sufficient integrity and character-defining features to convey its historical significance at the local level under the above-listed California Register criteria.

NATIONAL REGISTER EVALUATION

The National Register of Historic Places (National Register) is the nation’s master inventory of known historic resources. The Na tional Register is administered by the National Park Service (NPS) and includes listings of buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts that possess historic, architectural, engineering, archaeological , or cultural significance at the national, state, or local level.

Though National Register criteria are similar to those of the California Register, the significance and integrit y thresholds for a district to be listed in the National Register are generally understood to be higher than that for California R egister listing. To be eli gible for the National Register, a district m ust rise to a high level of significance in comparison to similar concentrations of properties, and must retain a relatively high level of integrity to be eligible for listing.

The Casa Verdugo community originally encompassed a larger area that extended to the west and east of the Brand Boulevard streetcar line.

However, over time much of this original area has been redeveloped and does not retain the distinctive look or fee l of an early twentieth century streetcar suburb. The boundaries of the proposed district were drawn to include only the portion of the Casa Verdugo community that retains sufficient integrity to be eligible for listing, and excludes adjacent areas with co mpromised inte grity. The proposed district represents a portion of wha t was once a larger who le. While these boundaries satisfy the significance and integrity thresholds for local designation and for the California Register, they do not appear to meet the higher thresholds that are genera lly required by the National Register. Therefore, the proposed district does not appear to be eligible for National Register listing. However, more research and analysis are recommended to make a conclusive determination toward this end.

Master tables of a ll surveyed properties are included as Appendix A of this report, and DPR 523 forms (one Di strict Record and 112 Primary Records) are also included as Appendix B.

253 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 67

RECOMMENDATIONS

As noted, the district was surveyed and evaluated using the proposed boundaries that were identi fied in the application. ARG generally concurs with these proposed boundar ies and believes that they are appropriate as drawn, but during the field survey it was observed that a number of non-contributing properties are concentrated near the south boundary. In order to strengthen the district, ARG recommends that the City consider making minor adj ustments to the so uth boundary by removing the following ten properties from the district:

• 1217 Campbell Street
• 1223 Campbell Street
• 1227 Campbell Street
• 1201 N. Maryland Avenue
• 1204 N. Maryland Avenue
• 1205 N. Maryland Avenue
• 1211 N. Maryland Avenue
• 1212 N. Maryland Avenue
• 1216 N. Maryland Avenue
• 201 E. Stocker Street

Nine of the above -listed properties are non- contributors. One (201 E.

Stocker Street) is a contributor, but is separated from the rest of the district by a concentration of non -contributing properties on the 12 00 block of N. Maryland Avenue.

Amending the boundaries as such would reduce the total number of properties within the district from 112 to 102, and would result in the following number of contributors and non-contributors:

• 75 contributors (74%)
• 26 non-contributors (25%)
• 1 unevaluated/not visible (1%)

These recommended boundary modifications are depicted in F igure 48, p. 68.
254 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 68

Figure 48. District boundary map, showing recommendations for boundary modifications 255 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 69

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS, REPORTS, AND OTHER PUBLISHED SOURCES

Arroyo, Juliet M. Early Glendale. Charleston: Arcadia Publishing, 2005.

Arroyo, J uliet M., Katherine Peters Yamada, and Geo rge Ellison.

Postcard History Series: Glendale. Charleston: Arcadia Publishing, 2007.

City of Glendale. “North Glendale Historic Context.” Nov. 29, 2011.

City of Glendale. “Report: 1235 N. Louise Street – Glendale Register Nomination.” Staff report. Sept. 12, 2017.

Crise, Steve, et al. Pacific Electric Railway . Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing, 2011.

Glendale Chamber of C ommerce. Glendale: Fastest Growi ng City in America (promotional brochure), 1924-1925.

Glendale Cham ber of Commerce. Glendale: Still the Fastest Growing City in America (promotional brochure), c. 1928.

Glendale Improvement Association. Glendale: A Place f or Homes (promotional brochure), 1904.

Glendale Mer chants Associat ion. Glendale: Your Home (promotional brochure), 1926-1927.

Hilton, George W., and John F. Due. Interurban Railways in America.

Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1960.

McWilliams, Carey. Southern California: An Island on the Land. Salt Lake City: Peregrine Smith, 1946.

Perry, E . Caswell, Shirley Catherine Ber ger, and Terri E. Jonisch.

Glendale: A Pictorial History. Norfolk: The Donning Company, 1990.

Perry, E. Caswell, and Car roll W. Parc her. Glendale Area H istory.

Glendale: Eric Schneirsohn, 1981.

Security Trust and Savings B ank. First of the Ranchos: The Story of Glendale (promotional brochure), 1924.

Sherer, John Calvin. History of Glendale and Vicinity . Unknown Publisher, 1922.

Starr, Kevin. Inventing the Dream: California Through the Prog ressive Era. New York: Oxford University Press, 1985.
256 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 70

NEWSPAPERS AND PERIODICALS

“Casa Verdugo Is Indignant.” Los Angeles Times. Sept. 20, 1910.

“Casa Verdugo Stirred Indeed.” Los Angeles Times. Mar. 25, 1909.

“Casa Verdugo: Stucco Residence.” Southwest Builder and Contractor

60.11 (Sept. 15, 1922): 52.

“Events in Society.” Los Angeles Times. Feb. 7, 1905.

“Glendale Line to Old Adobe.” Los Angeles Times. Oct. 13, 1904.

“Glendale Territory Increased.” Los Angeles Times. Mar. 31, 1926.

“Huntington Gets Brand’s Holdings.” Los Angeles Herald. Mar. 26, 1904.

“If Glendale Was a Whale.” Los Angeles Times. Oct. 19, 1910.

“Jesus Yorba’s Little Estate.” Los Angeles Herald. Jun 8, 1904.

“Mrs. Sowl Sues Railway.” Los Angeles Herald. Dec. 13, 1910.

“Native Sons’ Outing.” Los Angeles Times. Jun. 16, 1905.

“Noted Resort Gets New Name.” Los Angeles Times. May 28, 1911.

“Panorama Here Unsurpassed.” Los Angeles Times. Sept. 20, 1907.

Perry, Charles. “Piedad Yorba.” Gastronomica: The Jou rnal for Food Studies 10.3 (Summer 2010): 52-57.

“Quarter Million Dollars in Land.” Los Angeles Times. Mar. 27, 1903.

“Railway Remodels Verdugo Homestead.” Los Angeles Herald. Nov. 10, 1904.

“Railway Will Be Mine Host.” Los Angeles Times. Sept. 27, 1910.

“Rancho San Rafael: A Land in Transition.” KCET. Oct. 4, 2010.

“The Finish of Negro.” Los Angeles Times. Apr. 10, 1910.

“Three Sisters, Teachers Here, Buy Two Cafes.” Los Angeles Times. Apr. 30, 1921.

“To Open Casa Verdugo.” Los Angeles Herald. January 21, 1905.

“Tortilla Tax Starts Row.” Los Angeles Times. Sept. 25, 1910. 257 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 71

WEB SITES AND OTHER SOURCES

California Office of Historic Preservation. Writing Historic Contexts. n.d. Accessed Mar. 2020,
http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1054/files/writing%20historic%20contex ts%20from%20ohp.pdf

“Casa Verdugo – Old L.A.’s Famous Restaurant ‘Out Glendale Way.’” Accessed Mar. 2020,
https://paradiseleased.wordpress.com/2011/01/17/casa-verdugo-old-l- a-s-famous-restaurant-out-glendale-way/

Independence Hall Association. “The Age of the Automobile.” Accessed Mar. 2020, http://www.ushistory.org/us/46a.asp

Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. Tract Maps. Accessed Mar. 2020, https://dpw.lacounty.gov/smpm/landrecords/

Los Angeles County Office of the Assessor. Property assessment data and maps. Accessed Mar. 2020, https://portal.assessor.lacounty.gov/

National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. 1990. Accessed Mar. 2020,
https://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb15/

National Register Bulletin 16A: How to Complete the National Register Registration Form. 1997. Accessed Mar. 2020,
https://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb16a/

National Register Bulletin 16B: How to Complete the National Register Multiple Property Documentation Form. 1991. Accessed Mar. 2020, https://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb16b/

National Register Bulletin 24: Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis for Preservation Planning. 1977. Accessed Mar. 2020,
https://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb24/

258 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021 72
Pacific Coast Architecture Database, “Glendale Hotel, Downtown, Glendale, CA,” accessed Mar. 2020,
http://pcad.lib.washington.edu/building/20546/

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021
APPENDIX A: PROPERTY DATA TABLES
TABLE 1. Master Property List
Street Address AIN Build
Date Architectural Style Status
Code
District
Status
1217 Campbell St 5647-011-020 1998 Contemporary 7DNC NC 1223 Campbell St 5647-011-011 1910 Craftsman 7DNC NC
1227 Campbell St 5647-011-010 1954 Contemporary 7DNC NC 1311 Campbell St 5647-012-006 1918 Contemporary (altered) 7DNC NC 1315 Campbell St 5647-012-005 1917 Craftsman 5D1 C
1317 Campbell St 5647-012-004 1913 Craftsman 5D1 C
1327 Campbell St 5647-012-003 1924 Craftsman 5D1 C
1329 Campbell St 5647-012-002 1923 Contemporary 7DNC NC 1337 Campbell St 5647-012-001 1951 Ranch 5D1 C
400 E Loraine St 5647-014-011 1922 Contemporary (altered) 7DNC NC 401 E Loraine St 5647-014-010 1938 Minimal Traditional 7DNC NC 405 E Loraine St 5647-014-009 1927 Spanish Colonial Revival 5D1 C 406 E Loraine St 5647-014-012 1923 Contemporary (altered) 7DNC NC 412 E Loraine St 5647-014-013 1923 Contemporary (altered) 7DNC NC 415 E Loraine St 5647-014-008 1911 Craftsman 5D1 C
416 E Loraine St 5647-014-014 1922 Craftsman 5D1 C
417 E Loraine St 5647-014-007 1939 Minimal Traditional 5D1 C 420 E Loraine St 5647-014-015 1923 American Colonial Revival 7DNC NC 421 E Loraine St 5647-014-006 1923 Tudor Revival 7DNC NC 1201 N Louise St 5647-008-010 1935 Tudor Revival 5D1 C
1204 N Louise St 5647-011-001 1937 Minimal Traditional 5D1 C 1205 N Louise St 5647-008-011 1937 Minimal Traditional 5D1 C 1209 N Louise St 5647-008-012 1928 French-Inspired 7DNC NC 1214 N Louise St 5647-011-013 1941 Minimal Traditional 5D1 C 1215 N Louise St 5647-008-013 1917 Craftsman 5D1 C
1217 N Louise St 5647-008-014 1926 Tudor Revival 5D1 C
1221 N Louise St 5647-008-015 1925 Spanish Colonial Revival 5D1 C 1222 N Louise St 5647-011-036 1987 Contemporary 7DNC NC 1225 N Louise St 5647-008-016 1931 French-Inspired 5D1 C 1226 N Louise St 5647-011-035 2014 Contemporary 7DNC NC 1229 N Louise St 5647-008-017 1953 Ranch 5D1 C
1230 N Louise St 5647-011-015 1957 Ranch 5D1 C
1235 N Louise St 5781-003-030 1907 Mission Revival 5B C 1305 N Louise St 5647-007-009 1925 Mediterranean Revival 5D1 C 1307 N Louise St 5647-007-010 1938 Minimal Traditional 5D1 C 1308 N Louise St 5647-012-015 1926 Spanish Colonial Revival 5D1 C 260 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021
TABLE 1. Master Property List (cont.)
Street Address AIN Build
Date Architectural Style Status
Code
District
Status
1315 N Louise St 5647-007-018 1916 Craftsman 5D1 C
1318 N Louise St 5647-012-009 1911 Craftsman 5D1 C
1321 N Louise St 5647-007-013 1936 Minimal Traditional 7DNC NC 1322 N Louise St 5647-012-010 1913 Craftsman 5D1 C
1327 N Louise St 5647-007-014 1912 Craftsman 5D1 C
1328 N Louise St 5647-012-011 1950 Modern 5D1 C
1330 N Louise St 5647-012-012 1915 Craftsman 5B C
1333 N Louise St 5647-007-015 1922 Mediterranean Revival 5D1 C 1337 N Louise St 5647-007-016 1921 Contemporary 7DNC NC 1201 N Maryland Ave 5647-005-013 1939 Minimal Traditional 7DNC NC 1204 N Maryland Ave 5647-008-008 1937 Tudor Revival 7DNC NC 1205 N Maryland Ave 5647-005-014 1948 Ranch 7DNC NC
1211 N Maryland Ave 5647-005-015 1947 Ranch 7DNC NC
1212 N Maryland Ave 5647-008-007 1925 Spanish Colonial Revival 7DNC NC 1213 N Maryland Ave 5647-005-016 1925 Spanish Colonial Revival 5D1 C 1216 N Maryland Ave 5647-008-006 1925 Tudor Revival 7DNC NC 1217 N Maryland Ave 5647-005-017 1938 Contemporary 7DNC NC 1218 N Maryland Ave 5647-008-005 1933 French-Inspired 5D1 C 1220 N Maryland Ave 5647-008-004 1938 American Colonial Revival 5D1 C 1221 N Maryland Ave 5647-005-018 1937 Minimal Traditional 5D1 C 1224 N Maryland Ave 5647-008-003 1937 Ranch 5D1 C
1225 N Maryland Ave 5640-013-032 1925 Spanish Colonial Revival 7DNC NC 1228 N Maryland Ave 5647-008-002 1927 Spanish Colonial Revival 5D1 C 1231 N Maryland Ave 5647-005-005 1938 American Colonial Revival 5D1 C 1236 N Maryland Ave 5647-008-001 1924 Spanish Colonial Revival 5D1 C 1237 N Maryland Ave 5647-005-004 1925 Tudor Revival 5D1 C 1300 N Maryland Ave 5647-007-008 1907 Craftsman 5D1 C
1301 N Maryland Ave 5647-006-009 1923 Spanish Colonial Revival 5D1 C 1304 N Maryland Ave 5647-007-007 1912 Craftsman 5D1 C
1305 N Maryland Ave 5647-006-010 1912 Craftsman 5D1 C
1310 N Maryland Ave 5647-007-006 1921 Craftsman 5D1 C
1311 N Maryland Ave 5647-006-011 1921 Craftsman 5D1 C
1319 N Maryland Ave 5647-006-012 1923 Spanish Colonial Revival 5D1 C 1320 N Maryland Ave 5647-007-005 1915 Craftsman 5D1 C
1321 N Maryland Ave 5647-006-013 1921 Craftsman 5D1 C
1326 N Maryland Ave 5647-007-017 1913 Craftsman 5D1 C
1327 N Maryland Ave 5647-006-014 1912 Craftsman 5D1 C
1330 N Maryland Ave 5647-007-002 1909 Craftsman 7DNC NC 261 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021
TABLE 1. Master Property List (cont.)
Street Address AIN Build
Date Architectural Style Status
Code
District
Status
1331 N Maryland Ave 5647-006-015 1910 Contemporary (altered) 7DNC NC 1334 N Maryland Ave 5647-007-001 1919 Craftsman 7DNC NC 1335 N Maryland Ave 5647-006-016 1950 Ranch 7DNC NC
312 E Mountain St 5647-012-013 1935 Ranch 5D1 C
318 E Mountain St 5647-012-014 1921 Not visible Unevaluated 300 E Randolph St 5647-011-016 1908 Craftsman 5D1 C
305 E Randolph St 5647-012-016 1906 Neoclassical 5B C
308 E Randolph St 5647-011-017 1925 Spanish Colonial Revival 5D1 C 311 E Randolph St 5647-012-017 1941 Minimal Traditional 5D1 C 314 E Randolph St 5647-011-018 1915 Craftsman 7DNC NC
315 E Randolph St 5647-012-018 1921 Spanish Colonial Revival 5D1 C 318 E Randolph St 5647-011-008 1910 Craftsman 5D1 C
319 E Randolph St 5647-012-008 1914 Craftsman 5B C
325 E Randolph St 5647-012-007 1919 Mediterranean Revival 5D1 C 326 E Randolph St 5647-011-009 1912 Craftsman 5D1 C
403 E Randolph St 5647-013-012 1942 Spanish Colonial Revival 5D1 C 404 E Randolph St 5647-014-001 1924 Mediterranean Revival 5D1 C 405 E Randolph St 5647-013-013 1999 Contemporary 7DNC NC 406 E Randolph St 5647-014-002 1922 American Colonial Revival 5D1 C 409 E Randolph St 5647-013-014 1921 Craftsman 5D1 C
410 E Randolph St 5647-014-003 1924 Tudor Revival 5D1 C 411 E Randolph St 5647-013-015 1921 Spanish Colonial Revival 5D1 C 416 E Randolph St 5647-014-004 1925 Spanish Colonial Revival 7DNC NC 417 E Randolph St 5647-013-016 2001 Contemporary 7DNC NC 420 E Randolph St 5647-014-005 1923 Tudor Revival 5D1 C 421 E Randolph St 5647-013-017 1923 Contemporary 7DNC NC 400 Ross St 5647-013-011 1922 Mediterranean Revival 7DNC NC 401 Ross St 5647-013-001 1916 American Colonial Revival 5D1 C 404 Ross St 5647-013-010 1922 Contemporary (altered) 7DNC NC 407 Ross St 5647-013-002 1916 Craftsman 5D1 C
408 Ross St 5647-013-009 1915 Craftsman 5B C
413 Ross St 5647-013-003 1927 Spanish Colonial Revival 5D1 C 414 Ross St 5647-013-008 1932 Spanish Colonial Revival 5D1 C 418 Ross St 5647-013-007 1930 Tudor Revival 5D1 C
419 Ross St 5647-013-004 1920 Craftsman 5D1 C
423 Ross St 5647-013-005 1922 Spanish Colonial Revival 5D1 C 424 Ross St 5647-013-006 1922 Craftsman 5D1 C
201 E Stocker St 5647-008-009 1938 Spanish Colonial Revival 5D1 C 262 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021
TABLE 2. Properties by Construction Date
Street Address Build Date Architectural Style
305 E Randolph St 1906 Neoclassical
1235 N Louise St 1907 Mission Revival
1300 N Maryland Ave 1907 Craftsman
300 E Randolph St 1908 Craftsman
1330 N Maryland Ave 1909 Craftsman
1223 Campbell St 1910 Craftsman
1331 N Maryland Ave 1910 Contemporary (altered)
318 E Randolph St 1910 Craftsman
415 E Loraine St 1911 Craftsman
1318 N Louise St 1911 Craftsman
1327 N Louise St 1912 Craftsman
1304 N Maryland Ave 1912 Craftsman
1305 N Maryland Ave 1912 Craftsman
1327 N Maryland Ave 1912 Craftsman
326 E Randolph St 1912 Craftsman
1317 Campbell St 1913 Craftsman
1322 N Louise St 1913 Craftsman
1326 N Maryland Ave 1913 Craftsman
319 E Randolph St 1914 Craftsman
1330 N Louise St 1915 Craftsman
1320 N Maryland Ave 1915 Craftsman
314 E Randolph St 1915 Craftsman
408 Ross St 1915 Craftsman
1315 N Louise St 1916 Craftsman
401 Ross St 1916 American Colonial Revival
407 Ross St 1916 Craftsman
1315 Campbell St 1917 Craftsman
1215 N Louise St 1917 Craftsman
1311 Campbell St 1918 Contemporary (altered)
1334 N Maryland Ave 1919 Craftsman
325 E Randolph St 1919 Mediterranean Revival
419 Ross St 1920 Craftsman
1337 N Louise St 1921 Contemporary (altered)
1310 N Maryland Ave 1921 Craftsman
1311 N Maryland Ave 1921 Craftsman
1321 N Maryland Ave 1921 Craftsman
318 E Mountain St 1921 Unknown (not visible)
263 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021

TABLE 2. Properties by Construction Date (cont.)
Street Address Build Date Architectural Style
315 E Randolph St 1921 Spanish Colonial Revival
409 E Randolph St 1921 Craftsman
411 E Randolph St 1921 Spanish Colonial Revival
400 E Loraine St 1922 Contemporary (altered)
416 E Loraine St 1922 Craftsman
1333 N Louise St 1922 Mediterranean Revival
406 E Randolph St 1922 American Colonial Revival
400 Ross St 1922 Mediterranean Revival
404 Ross St 1922 Contemporary (altered)
423 Ross St 1922 Spanish Colonial Revival
424 Ross St 1922 Craftsman
1329 Campbell St 1923 Contemporary (altered)
406 E Loraine St 1923 Contemporary (altered)
412 E Loraine St 1923 Contemporary (altered)
420 E Loraine St 1923 American Colonial Revival
421 E Loraine St 1923 Tudor Revival
1301 N Maryland Ave 1923 Spanish Colonial Revival
1319 N Maryland Ave 1923 Spanish Colonial Revival
420 E Randolph St 1923 Tudor Revival
421 E Randolph St 1923 Contemporary (altered)
1327 Campbell St 1924 Craftsman
1236 N Maryland Ave 1924 Spanish Colonial Revival
404 E Randolph St 1924 Mediterranean Revival
410 E Randolph St 1924 Tudor Revival
1221 N Louise St 1925 Spanish Colonial Revival
1305 N Louise St 1925 Mediterranean Revival
1212 N Maryland Ave 1925 Spanish Colonial Revival
1213 N Maryland Ave 1925 Spanish Colonial Revival
1216 N Maryland Ave 1925 Tudor Revival
1225 N Maryland Ave 1925 Spanish Colonial Revival
1237 N Maryland Ave 1925 Tudor Revival
308 E Randolph St 1925 Spanish Colonial Revival
416 E Randolph St 1925 Spanish Colonial Revival
1217 N Louise St 1926 Tudor Revival
1308 N Louise St 1926 Spanish Colonial Revival
405 E Loraine St 1927 Spanish Colonial Revival
1228 N Maryland Ave 1927 Spanish Colonial Revival
413 Ross St 1927 Spanish Colonial Revival

264 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021
TABLE 2. Properties by Construction Date (cont.)
Street Address Build Date Architectural Style
1209 N Louise St 1929 French-Inspired
418 Ross St 1930 Tudor Revival
1225 N Louise St 1931 French-Inspired
414 Ross St 1932 Spanish Colonial Revival
1218 N Maryland Ave 1933 French-Inspired
1201 N Louise St 1935 Tudor Revival
312 E Mountain St 1935 Ranch
1321 N Louise St 1936 Minimal Traditional
1204 N Louise St 1937 Minimal Traditional
1205 N Louise St 1937 Minimal Traditional
1204 N Maryland Ave 1937 Tudor Revival
1221 N Maryland Ave 1937 Minimal Traditional
1224 N Maryland Ave 1937 Ranch
401 E Loraine St 1938 Minimal Traditional
1307 N Louise St 1938 Minimal Traditional
1217 N Maryland Ave 1938 Contemporary (altered)
1220 N Maryland Ave 1938 American Colonial Revival
1231 N Maryland Ave 1938 American Colonial Revival
201 E Stocker St 1938 Spanish Colonial Revival
417 E Loraine St 1939 Minimal Traditional
1201 N Maryland Ave 1939 Minimal Traditional
1214 N Louise St 1941 Minimal Traditional
311 E Randolph St 1941 Minimal Traditional
403 E Randolph St 1942 Spanish Colonial Revival
1211 N Maryland Ave 1947 Ranch
1205 N Maryland Ave 1948 Ranch
1328 N Louise St 1950 Modern
1335 N Maryland Ave 1950 Ranch
1337 Campbell St 1951 Ranch
1229 N Louise St 1953 Ranch
1227 Campbell St 1954 Contemporary (altered)
1230 N Louise St 1957 Ranch
1222 N Louise St 1987 Contemporary
1217 Campbell St 1998 Contemporary
405 E Randolph St 1999 Contemporary
417 E Randolph St 2001 Contemporary
1226 N Louise St 2014 Contemporary
265 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021

TABLE 3. Properties by Architectural Style
Architectural Style Street Address Build Date
American Colonial Revival 420 E Loraine St 1923
American Colonial Revival 1220 N Maryland Ave 1938
American Colonial Revival 1231 N Maryland Ave 1938
American Colonial Revival 406 E Randolph St 1922
American Colonial Revival 401 Ross St 1916
Contemporary 1217 Campbell St 1998
Contemporary (altered) 1227 Campbell St 1954
Contemporary (altered) 1311 Campbell St 1918
Contemporary (altered) 1329 Campbell St 1923
Contemporary (altered) 400 E Loraine St 1922
Contemporary (altered) 406 E Loraine St 1923
Contemporary (altered) 412 E Loraine St 1923
Contemporary 1222 N Louise St 1987
Contemporary 1226 N Louise St 2014
Contemporary (altered) 1337 N Louise St 1921
Contemporary (altered) 1331 N Maryland Ave 1910
Contemporary (altered) 404 Ross St 1922
Contemporary (altered) 421 E Randolph St 1923
Contemporary (altered) 1217 N Maryland Ave 1938
Contemporary 405 E Randolph St 1999
Contemporary 417 E Randolph St 2001
Craftsman 1223 Campbell St 1910
Craftsman 1315 Campbell St 1917
Craftsman 1317 Campbell St 1913
Craftsman 1327 Campbell St 1924
Craftsman 415 E Loraine St 1911
Craftsman 416 E Loraine St 1922
Craftsman 1215 N Louise St 1917
Craftsman 1315 N Louise St 1916
Craftsman 1318 N Louise St 1911
Craftsman 1322 N Louise St 1913
Craftsman 1327 N Louise St 1912
Craftsman 1330 N Louise St 1915
Craftsman 1300 N Maryland Ave 1907
Craftsman 1304 N Maryland Ave 1912
Craftsman 1305 N Maryland Ave 1912
Craftsman 1310 N Maryland Ave 1921

266 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021
TABLE 3. Properties by Architectural Style (cont.)
Architectural Style Street Address Build Date
Craftsman 1311 N Maryland Ave 1921
Craftsman 1320 N Maryland Ave 1915
Craftsman 1321 N Maryland Ave 1921
Craftsman 1326 N Maryland Ave 1913
Craftsman 1327 N Maryland Ave 1912
Craftsman 1330 N Maryland Ave 1909
Craftsman 1334 N Maryland Ave 1919
Craftsman 300 E Randolph St 1908
Craftsman 314 E Randolph St 1915
Craftsman 318 E Randolph St 1910
Craftsman 319 E Randolph St 1914
Craftsman 326 E Randolph St 1912
Craftsman 409 E Randolph St 1921
Craftsman 407 Ross St 1916
Craftsman 408 Ross St 1915
Craftsman 419 Ross St 1920
Craftsman 424 Ross St 1922
French-Inspired 1209 N Louise St 1929
French-Inspired 1225 N Louise St 1931
French-Inspired 1218 N Maryland Ave 1933
Mediterranean Revival 1305 N Louise St 1925
Mediterranean Revival 1333 N Louise St 1922
Mediterranean Revival 325 E Randolph St 1919
Mediterranean Revival 404 E Randolph St 1924
Mediterranean Revival 400 Ross St 1922
Minimal Traditional 401 E Loraine St 1938
Minimal Traditional 417 E Loraine St 1939
Minimal Traditional 1204 N Louise St 1937
Minimal Traditional 1205 N Louise St 1937
Minimal Traditional 1214 N Louise St 1941
Minimal Traditional 1307 N Louise St 1938
Minimal Traditional 1321 N Louise St 1936
Minimal Traditional 1201 N Maryland Ave 1939
Minimal Traditional 1221 N Maryland Ave 1937
Minimal Traditional 311 E Randolph St 1941
Mission Revival 1235 N Louise St 1907
Modern 1328 N Louise St 1950
Neoclassical 305 E Randolph St 1906
267 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021
TABLE 3. Properties by Architectural Style (cont.)
Architectural Style Street Address Build Date
Ranch 1337 Campbell St 1951
Ranch 1229 N Louise St 1953
Ranch 1230 N Louise St 1957
Ranch 1205 N Maryland Ave 1948
Ranch 1211 N Maryland Ave 1947
Ranch 1224 N Maryland Ave 1937
Ranch 1335 N Maryland Ave 1950
Ranch 312 E Mountain St 1935
Spanish Colonial Revival 405 E Loraine St 1927
Spanish Colonial Revival 1221 N Louise St 1925
Spanish Colonial Revival 1308 N Louise St 1926
Spanish Colonial Revival 1212 N Maryland Ave 1925
Spanish Colonial Revival 1213 N Maryland Ave 1925
Spanish Colonial Revival 1225 N Maryland Ave 1925
Spanish Colonial Revival 1228 N Maryland Ave 1927
Spanish Colonial Revival 1236 N Maryland Ave 1924
Spanish Colonial Revival 1301 N Maryland Ave 1923
Spanish Colonial Revival 1319 N Maryland Ave 1923
Spanish Colonial Revival 308 E Randolph St 1925
Spanish Colonial Revival 315 E Randolph St 1921
Spanish Colonial Revival 403 E Randolph St 1942
Spanish Colonial Revival 411 E Randolph St 1921
Spanish Colonial Revival 416 E Randolph St 1925
Spanish Colonial Revival 413 Ross St 1927
Spanish Colonial Revival 414 Ross St 1932
Spanish Colonial Revival 423 Ross St 1922
Spanish Colonial Revival 201 E Stocker St 1938
Tudor Revival 421 E Loraine St 1923
Tudor Revival 1201 N Louise St 1935
Tudor Revival 1217 N Louise St 1926
Tudor Revival 1204 N Maryland Ave 1937
Tudor Revival 1216 N Maryland Ave 1925
Tudor Revival 1237 N Maryland Ave 1925
Tudor Revival 410 E Randolph St 1924
Tudor Revival 420 E Randolph St 1923
Tudor Revival 418 Ross St 1930
Unknown (not visible) 318 E Mountain St 1921
268 of 282

Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey City of Glendale November 8, 2021
APPENDIX B: SURVEY FORMS (DPR 523)
269 of 282

Glendale City CouncilJanuary 11, 2022

Glendale City Council
January 11, 2022