Glendale City Council
September 27, 2022

A G E N D A

GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL

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 Uverse, 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 usinga 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. For public comments and questions during the meeting, call (818) 937-8100. Public comments ona specific agenda item will be taken when that agenda item is discussed. 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.

SEPTEMBER 27, 2022

REVISED
- Item 4d was removed

ROLL CALL

1. CLOSED SESSION – 1:00 PM (To Commence at 2:00 PM)
a. Conference with Legal Counsel – Pending Litigation: Glenoaks Canyon 1 TYPED 9/27/2022 4:47:55 PM
09 27 22
CC
Homeowners Association v. City of Glendale, L.A.S.C. Case No. 22STCP0011 b. Conference with Legal Counsel – Pending Litigation: Claim of Berman, Claim No. 22-0178

2. REGULAR BUSINESS AGENDA – 6:00 PM
Roll Call
a. Flag Salute: Mayor Kassakhian
b. Invocation: Suzie Abajian, City Clerk
c. Report of City Clerk, re: Posting of Agenda. The Agenda for the September 27, 2022 Regular Meeting of the Glendale City Council was Posted on September 22, 2022 on the Bulletin Board Outside City Hall.

3. PRESENTATIONS AND APPOINTMENTS
a. Agenda Preview for the Meetings of Tuesday, October 4, 2022 b. Domestic Violence Awareness Month Proclamation
c. Proclamation regarding Philippine History Month Cultural Celebration d. Legislative Update: Senator Anthony Portantino
e. Appointment of Board and Commission (Brotman, 9/20/22)

1. Chris Lowery, Glendale Water and Power Commission

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 September 20, 2022 and the Special City Council meeting of September 20, 2022 b. Glendale Water and Power, re: Plans and Specifications for the Emerald Isle 1666 Tank and Glendale Recycled Water Tank Rehabilitation Project

1. Resolution adopting Specification No. 3934 and Plan No. 6960-E for Emerald Isle 1666 Tank and Glendale Recycled Water Tank Rehabilitation Project, and directing the City Clerk to advertise for bids
c. Libraries, Arts, and Culture, re: Library, Arts and Culture, re: Poet Laureate Pilot Program Recommendation

1. Motion approving the City to pilot a Poet Laureate Program

2. Resolution of appropriation in the amount of $20,000 from the General Fund Undesignated Fund Balance to support the Poet Laureate Program for FY 22-23 d. Human Resources, re: Acceptance of Grant Funds for Employment Training from the Professional Development Center of Glendale Community College

1. Motion accepting $500,000 in State of California grant funds which are being provided and administered by the Professional Development Center of Glendale Community College, to enable employment training for full-time City of Glendale employees

2. Resolution appropriating $500,000 from the State of California e. Public Works, re: Urban Forestry Grant Tree Planting and Maintenance Program Contract Increases
2 TYPED 9/27/2022 4:47:55 PM
09 27 22
CC

1. Resolution dispensing with competitive bidding and authorizing the City Manager, or a designee, to amend contract 8000974 for City Tree Services, with West Coast Arborists, Inc. (WCA) increasing the contract amount by $4,271,660 to a new total amount of $11,577,660, for the purpose of meeting recommended tree planting and maintenance goals, pruning palm trees, planting and caring for 500 trees as part of the reimbursable California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) Urban Forestry grant and planting 750 trees as part of the reimbursable California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Clean California grant subject to budget approval in FY 2023-24, FY 2024-25 and FY 2025-26

2. Resolution authorizing the Director of Public Works or his designee to execute a Clean California grant agreement with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for the City of Glendale’s ‘Southeast Glendale Greening’ project to plant 750 trees

3. Resolution of appropriation for grant funded tree planting and maintenance f. City Manager, re: Cancellation of October 4, 2022 Regular Meeting and Adding October 11, 2022 Regular Meeting to the Council Calendar for the 2022-23 Fiscal Year

1. Motion Modifying City Council Regular Meeting Schedule for the 2022-23 Fiscal Year g. Police Department, re: 2022-2023 Grant from the State of California Office of Traffic Safety, Selective Traffic Enforcement Program, for distracted driving, Vehicle Code, bicycle, pedestrian, and driving under the influence violations

1. Motion to approve the Glendale Police Department’s participation in the State of California Office of Traffic Safety, Selective Traffic Enforcement Program, and authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to accept grant funds in the amount of $285,000

5. CITY COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS

6. COMMUNITY EVENT ANNOUNCEMENTS (3-Minutes)

7. ADOPTION OF ORDINANCES
a. Community Development, re: Adoption of a Moratorium on New and Conversion of Existing Drive-through Waiting Lanes

1. Interim Urgency Ordinance Prohibiting Developments with New and Conversion of Existing Drive-through Waiting Lanes Citywide Without Pipeline Project Exemption (Brotman, 9/20/22)

2. Interim Urgency Ordinance Prohibiting Developments with New and Conversion of Existing Drive-through Waiting Lanes Citywide With Pipeline Project Exemption (Devine, 9/20/22)

8. ACTION ITEMS
a. Glendale Water and Power, re: Programming to Incentivize Water Reductions

1. Motion to Note and File Report on the Success of Glendale Water & Power’s (GWP) Water Conservation Programs

2. Motion directing staff relating to the allocation of Water funds for additional programs

9. HEARINGS
a. Community Development, re: Appeal of Design Review Board's approval of DRB Case No. PDR2105697 for 420 Nesmuth Road
3 TYPED 9/27/2022 4:47:55 PM
09 27 22
CC

1. Motion to sustain the Design Review Board's decision and approve the project

2. Motion to reverse the Design Review Board's decision and deny the project

3. Motion to remand the project to the Design Review Board for consideration b. Community Development, re: Public Hearing on Appeals of Design Review Board’s approval of Design Review Board Case No. 2101078 located at 1633 Victory Boulevard

1. Motion to sustain the Design Review Board’s decision to adopt the subsequent mitigated negative declaration and to approve the Design Review application with conditions

2. Motion to sustain the Design Review Board’s decision to adopt the subsequent mitigated negative declaration and to approve the Design Review application with amended conditions

3. Motion to continue the matter, directing the City Attorney to draft findings reversing the Design Review Board’s decision and denying the project
c. Community Development, re: Extension of Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 5978 Prohibiting Issuance of Entitlement and/or Permits for Hotels in the Downtown Specific Plan Area of the City

1. Introduction of Ordinance Extending, for an Additional One Year Period, Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 5978 Prohibiting Issuance of Entitlements and/or Permits for Hotel Development Projects in the Downtown Specific Plan Area

10. REPORTS - INFORMATION

11. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS

12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Discussion is Limited to Items NOT a Part of this Agenda. Each Speaker is Allowed 5 Discussion is Limited to Items NOT a Part of this Agenda. Each Speaker is Allowed 5 minutes. 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
4 TYPED 9/27/2022 4:47:55 PM
09 27 22
CC
5 of 675
6 of 675
7 of 675
09 20 22
SP CC
1 4A

M I N U T E S
SPECIAL MEETING: GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL

COUNCIL CHAMBERS
613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor
Glendale, CA 91206
SEPTEMBER 20, 2022
The Special Public Meeting of the Glendale City Council convened in the City Hall Council Chambers, in said City, at 2:06 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:

September 15, 2022
Date
A SPECIAL PUBLIC MEETING of the City Council is hereby called to meet at 2:00 PM on Tuesday, September 20, 2022, in the Council Chamber, 613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor, Glendale, CA 91206 to consider the following item(s) of business, to wit;

1. Public Works, re: Fleet Electrification Study
a. Motion to Note and File the Report and direct staff to implement the Fleet Electrification Plan

2. Community Development, re: Consideration of a Moratorium on New and Conversion of Existing Drive-through Waiting Lanes
a. Introduction of Interim Urgency Ordinance Prohibiting Developments with New and Conversion of Existing Drive-through Waiting Lanes Citywide b. Motion Directing Staff to Study and Review Drive-through Waiting Lane Impacts c. Motion to Note and File report

3. Community Development, re: Al Fresco Dining in Private Parking Lots a. Motion directing staff to conduct study on the conversion of private parking lots to outdoor dining
b. Motion suspending enforcement on existing Al Fresco locations in private parking lots while City conducts study on conversions
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 Elen Asatryan at 5:00 p.m. September 15, 2022 Glendale, CA Upon Dan Brotman at 5:00 p.m. September 15, 2022 Glendale, CA Upon Paula Devine at 5:00 p.m. September 15, 2022 Glendale, CA Upon Ara Najarian at 5:00 p.m. September 15, 2022 Glendale, CA Upon Ardy Kassakhian at 5:00 p.m. September 15, 2022 Glendale, CA Mayor Kassakhian called the meeting to order at 2:06 p.m.

ROLL CALL
- Absent: Najarian
- Report of the City Clerk of the City Council, re: Posting of Agenda. The Agenda for the Tuesday, September 20, 2022 Special Public Meeting of the City Council was posted on September 15, 2022 on the Bulletin Board Outside City Hall. 8 of 675
09 20 22
SP CC
2 1. Public Works, re: Fleet Electrification Study
Staff Comments:

Roubik Golanian, City Manager
Yazdan Emrani, Director of PW
Shea Eccleston, Senior Public Works Manager
Mike Garcia, City Attorney
Presenting:

Steve Clermont, CTE Consultant
Leslie Eudy, CTE Consultant
a. Motion to Note and File the Report and direct staff to implement the Fleet Electrification Plan
Moved: Devine Seconded: Brotman

2. Community Development, re: Consideration of a Moratorium on New and Conversion of Existing Drive-through Waiting Lanes
Staff Comments:

Roubik Golanian, City Manager
Mike Garcia, City Attorney
Presenting:

Kristen Asp, Principal Planner
Public Comments:

Justin Mahramas
Mary Rosas
Catherine Jurca
David Juarez
Cole Bazemore
Allen Hersch
Lee Ann Fineberg
Alek Bartrosouf
a. Introduction of Interim Urgency Ordinance Prohibiting Developments with New and Conversion of Existing Drive-through Waiting Lanes Citywide Councilmember Brotman introduced an Interim Urgency Ordinance Prohibiting Developments with New and Conversion of Existing Drive-through Waiting Lanes Citywide without any exemptions for such developments that have already received some level of review of entitlements.

Councilmember Devine introduced an alternate version of the Interim Urgency Ordinance Prohibiting Developments with New and Conversion of Existing Drive-through Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Asatryan, Brotman, Devine, Kassakhian
None
Najarian
None
9 of 675
09 20 22
SP CC
3 Waiting Lanes Citywide with an exemption for such developments that have received a “return for redesign” determination from the Design Review Board prior to the effective date of the ordinance.
b. Motion Directing Staff to Study and Review Drive-through Waiting Lane Impacts Moved: Asatryan Seconded: Devine
c. Motion to Note and File report

3. Community Development, re: Al Fresco Dining in Private Parking Lots Staff Comments:

Roubik Golanian, City Manager
Mike Garcia, City Attorney
Presenting:

Bradley Calvert, Asst. Director of CD
Public Comment:

Randy Stevenson
a. Motion directing staff to conduct study on the conversion of private parking lots to outdoor dining
Moved: Asatryan Seconded: Devine
b. Motion suspending enforcement on existing Al Fresco locations in private parking lots while City conducts study on conversions
Moved: Asatryan Seconded: Devine
Adjournment – 4:15 p.m.

Moved: Devine Seconded: Asatryan
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

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

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Asatryan, Brotman, Devine, Kassakhian
None
Najarian
None
Mayor of the City of Glendale
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Asatryan, Brotman, Devine, Kassakhian
None
Najarian
None
City Clerk of the City of Glendale 10 of 675
09 20 22
CC
1 4A

M I N U T E S

GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL

COUNCIL CHAMBERS
613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor Glendale, CA 91206
SEPTEMBER 20, 2022
ROLL CALL – Absent: Najarian

1. CLOSED SESSION – 4:17 p.m.
a. Conference with Legal Counsel – Pending Litigation: Sadeghi v. City of Glendale, et al., L.A.S.C. Case No. 20STCV34372
b. Public Employee Appointment – Director of Community Development c. Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation: Significant exposure litigation pursuant to paragraph subdivisions (d)(2) and (e)(2) of Section 54956.9: One (1) potential case
d. Conference with real property negotiators. City negotiators attending the closed session are: Roubik Golanian, John Takhtalian, Bradley Calvert, Jason Bradford, 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 Item 1a removed from calendar. City Attorney Mike Garcia indicated that action is anticipated on item 1b and 1d. Council recessed to Closed Session at 4:18 p.m.

2. REGULAR BUSINESS AGENDA – 6:08 PM
Roll Call – All Present
a. Flag Salute: Mayor Kassakhian
b. Invocation: Suzie Abajian, City Clerk
c. Report of City Clerk, re: Posting of Agenda. The Agenda for the September 20, 2022 Regular Meeting of the Glendale City Council was Posted on September 15, 2022 on the Bulletin Board Outside City Hall.

3. PRESENTATIONS AND APPOINTMENTS
a. Agenda Preview for the Meetings of Tuesday, September 27, 2022 Deputy City Manager John Takhtalian provided the preview. b. Introduction of the newly-hired Glendale Community College Superintendent/President, Dr. Ryan Cornner
Glendale Community College Board of Trustees
Public Comment:

Mike Borisov
c. Proclamation for the Brand Associate's 50th Works on Paper Exhibition Debra Thompson, Brand Associates
11 of 675
09 20 22
CC
2 d. Appointment of Board and Commission Member (Devine, 9/13/2022)

1. Michael Bain, Audit Committee
Item 3e1 moved to next week’s meeting.
e. Reappointments of Boards and Commissions (Brotman, 9/13/2022)

1. Sevanna Zadorian, Arts and Culture Commission

2. Alejandro Parajon, Audit Committee

3. Danielle Lockarref, Design Review Board

4. Regina Joy Alcazar, Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commission

5. Stefen Chraghchian, Planning Commission

6. Diane M. Lambillotte, Commission on the Status of Women Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

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

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

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

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

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

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

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

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

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

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Asatryan, Brotman, Devine Najarian, Kassakhian
None
None
None
12 of 675
09 20 22
CC
3 Asatryan, Brotman, Devine Najarian, Kassakhian
None
None
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

7. Ely Lester, Transportation and Parking Commission

8. Alek Bartrosouf, Sustainability Commission

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.

Item 4b pulled for separate consideration.
a. City Clerk, re: Minutes of the Regular City Council meetings of August 23, 2022 and September 13, 2022, the Special City Council meeting of September 13, 2022 and the Joint City Council and Housing Authority meeting of August 9, 2022 Moved: Najarian Seconded: Devine
b. Glendale Water and Power, re: Glendale Water and Power (GWP) Power Source Disclosure Report for Calendar Year 2021
Presenting:

Chie Valdez, Integrated Resource Planning Administrator

1. Motion to Note and File the GWP Power Source Disclosure Report for Calendar Year 2021
Moved: Brotman Seconded: Najarian
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

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

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

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

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
13 of 675
09 20 22
CC
4 Asatryan, Brotman, Devine Najarian, Kassakhian
None
None
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

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

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
c. Public Works, re: Acceptance of Grant Funds for Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP) grant from California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA)

1. Motion accepting $33,111,826 in Transit and Intercity Rail Program grant funds from the California State Transportation Agency and administered by Caltrans, to electrify the Beeline transit fleet including: purchasing battery electric buses and chargers, designing and constructing a parking deck with a photovoltaic canopy, installing electrification infrastructure, installing shelter and shade structures and eink real time bus arrival information at bus stops, installing bus technologies on all Beeline buses including Cal-ITP contactless payment readers, funding an integration study to better connect Beeline services with the new BRT service, Metro and Metrolink/Amtrak services, and creating a Climate Mobility and Safety App to encourage transit ridership
Moved: Devine Seconded: Najarian

2. Resolution 22-136 authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to execute the Master Agreement, all Award Agreements, and all Program Supplements for State-Funded Transit Projects and any Amendments thereto with the California Department of Transportation
Moved: Devine Seconded: Najarian

5. CITY COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS
Councilmember Asatryan announced that hundreds of civilians and soldiers have died, hundreds more are injured, 20 have been taken as prisoners of war and over 7,600 people have been displaced as a result of the unprovoked attacks by Azerbaijan on Armenia proper last week. She added that the Armenian National Committee of America Glendale Chapter has shared a letter with her, which the Mayor also supports and has forwarded to the City Manager. addressed to Speaker Nancy Pelosi in support of House Resolution 1351 which holds Azerbaijan accountable and asks for the full enforcement of the U.S. Freedom Support Act Section 907 that would ban all of U.S, aid to the Azerbaijani government. She inquired about the process of having a combined signature from all councilmembers and asked her colleagues if they would agree to jointly sign. Councilmember Najarian added that he would like letters to also be sent to the United Nations, the Council of Europe, and the European Union. All Councilmembers agreed to support and sign. Each Councilmember will sign individual letters and a combined packets of the letters will be sent from the City Management office to the parties.

Councilmember Brotman nominated Chris Lowery for GWP Commission.

Councilmember Devine commended the Parks and Open Space Foundation for the “Stars in the Park” fundraiser they held last Saturday at Deukmejian Wilderness Park. She also 14 of 675
09 20 22
CC
5 Asatryan, Brotman, Devine Najarian, Kassakhian
None
None
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
invited the public to see a play entitled “Everybody,” that has premiered in the Antaeus Theatre in Glendale.

Councilmember Najarian attended the annual airport conference in Minneapolis. He stated that a detailed report will be presented to council in a couple of weeks.

Mayor Kassakhian announced that September 20th is National Voter Registration Day and invited eligible individuals to register for the upcoming election in November. Mayor Kassakhian stated that Mayor Choi of Jung-gu of Busan, South Korea and Chairman Choi of Namsung Academy, a dual immersion school in Busan, South Korea came by to visit.

Kassakhian indicated that the city is looking forward to strengthening the bonds between the two cities. Mayor Kassakhian thanked the Fire Department in Station 26 for the ceremony they held in commemoration of the 21st anniversary of 9/11. He attended the John Henry Weidner Foundation of Altruism event in honor of Carl Wilkens and Damas Gisimba. He also attended the Jewish World Watch event, and the Parks and Open Space Foundation fundraiser.

6. COMMUNITY EVENT ANNOUNCEMENTS (3-Minutes)
Peter Rusch
Mike Mohill
Roger Wolf
Lilya Avagyan
Tony Passarella

7. ADOPTION OF ORDINANCES
Presenting:

Vilia Zemaitaitis, Principal Planner
a. Community Development, re: AN ORDINANCE 5992 OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA AMENDING SECTIONS 30.14.060 AND 30.32.090 OF TITLE 30 OF THE GLENDALE MUNICIPAL CODE, 1995, RELATING TO DSP

SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND EXCEPTIONS AND DRIVE-THROUGH USES IN THE DSP. (Case No. PZC 2205401); AN ORDINANCE 5993 OF THE CITY OF

GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN (DSP),

REGARDING CLARIFICATIONS TO CERTAIN URBAN DESIGN STANDARDS, AN

UPDATE TO THE LAND USE CHART TO ALLOW VETERINARY OFFICES, AND

AN AMENDMENT TO REQUIRE A COVENANT FOR PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE OPEN SPACE (CASE NO. PGPA2205740)
Moved: Devine Seconded: Asatryan
15 of 675
09 20 22
CC
6 8. ACTION ITEMS
a. Management Services, re: Appointment to Fill Vacancy on the BurbankGlendale- Pasadena Airport Authority Commission Staff Comments:

Roubik Golanian, City Manager
Mike Garcia, City Attorney
Item will come back for discussion in a few weeks.

1. Motion appointing an individual to serve as a Glendale representative on the Airport Authority Commission for the remainder of the unexpired term through May 31, 2025

2. Motion directing staff on other options for recruitment and selection of an Airport Authority Commissioner
b. Glendale Water and Power, re: Scholl Canyon Landfill Biogas Renewable Generation Project
Staff Comments:

Roubik Golanian, City Manager
Mark Young, General Manager of GWP
Chie Valdez, Integrated Resource Planning Administrator Tim Ernst, Fire Chief
Mike Garcia, City Attorney
Presenting:

Jeremy George, Worely Group, Inc.

Michael Weber, Stantec Consulting
Karl Lany, Montrose Environmental Group
Public Comments:

Jackie Gish
Rick Marquise
Marie Freeman
Monica Campagna
Robin Lee Hansen
Mike Mohill
Kurt Sawitskas
Linda Pillsburry
Sean Starkey
Mike Borisov
Emily Mirzakhan
Adam Starr
David Choi
Owen Lewis
Chris Snowdy, M.D.

Hans Johnson
Audry Zarokian
Jeremy Needleman
Jack Walworth
16 of 675
09 20 22
CC
7 Asatryan, Brotman, Kassakhian
Najarian
None
Devine
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Elizabeth Ferrari
Victoria Valentine
Nina Chomsky
Michael McDonald
Debra Lere
Justin King
Alexander Yessayantz
Jackie Eco
Courtney Smith
Nat Yonce
Council recessed for five minutes and resumed at 10:00 p.m.

Motion to direct a pause on the approval of the project contracts and direct staff to return with a report regarding cost-benefit analysis of the project including the energy content of the project, methane gas clean-up, communication of a robust fire plan to the community, the status of plans to develop solar and storage on city sites, demonstration of firm assurances that the proposed project will not be converted into an all-natural gas plant, and community meetings relating to the project, for City Council’s further consideration
Moved: Brotman Seconded: Asatryan

1. Resolution authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to execute Amendment No. 1 with Western Energy Systems, a division of Pen Power Group, LLC (WES), for the sale of Power Island Major Equipment (PIME) and services for the Biogas Renewable Generation Project and authorizing the issuance of the Full Notice to Proceed (FNTP) to WES in the not-to- exceed amount of $17,629,194, plus a Ten percent (10%) contingency in the amount of $1,762,919

2. Motion authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an Engineer- Procure-Construct (EPC) Contract with ACCO Engineered Systems Inc. for the engineering, design and construction of the Biogas Renewable Generation Project at the Scholl Canyon Landfill, in the not-toexceed amount of $43,637,098, plus a Fifteen percent (15%) contingency in the amount of $6,545,565

3. Resolution of Appropriation

9. HEARINGS

10. REPORTS - INFORMATION

11. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
17 of 675
09 20 22
CC
8 12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Discussion is Limited to Items NOT a Part of this Agenda. Each Speaker is Allowed 5 minutes. 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.

Alek Bartrosouf

13. NEW BUSINESS
Staff Comment:

Roubik Golanian, City Manager
a. Motion to appoint Bradley Calvert as the Director of Community Development for the City of Glendale
Moved: Devine Seconded: Najarian

14. ADJOURNMENT – 11:51 p.m.

Moved: Najarian Seconded: Brotman
City Clerk of the City of Glendale
Mayor of the City of Glendale
Asatryan, Brotman, Devine Najarian, Kassakhian
None
None
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
18 of 675
4b

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Plans and Specifications for the Emerald Isle 1666 Tank and Glendale Recycled Water Tank Rehabilitation Project.
1) Resolution adopting Specification No. 3934 and Plan No. 6960-E for Emerald Isle 1666 Tank and Glendale Recycled Water Tank Rehabilitation Project, and directing the City Clerk to advertise for bids.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Consent Calendar
Approved for September 27, 2022 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Specifications and Plans have been completed for the tank rehabilitation of Emerald Isle 1666 Potable Water Tank and Glendale Recycled Water Tank. Staff respectfully requests the City Council to adopt the project specifications and plans and authorize advertising for bids. Specification No. 3934 and Plan No. 6960-E are available at the Glendale Water & Power (GWP) - Water Engineering Service Counter.

COUNCIL PRIORITIES
Environmental Stewardship: The Glendale Recycled Water Tank Rehabilitation improves reliability of the recycled water supply to the community, which allows GWP to continue serving recycled water to customers and continue conservation of potable water.

Infrastructure: Aging infrastructure in the City’s water system is replaced or rehabilitated on a planned and ongoing basis. The Emerald Isle 1666 Tank and Glendale Recycled Water Tank Rehabilitation Project is part of the Water Storage Facility Rehabilitation Program that ensures reliable service now and for future generations. The updated safety features at the water storage tanks also improves safety for City staff when they access the tanks.

RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to adopt Specification No. 3934 and Plan No. 6960-E for Emerald Isle 1666 Tank and Glendale Recycled Water Tank Rehabilitation Project, and direct the City Clerk to advertise for bids. 19 of 675
2 d 4

BACKGROUND
The City of Glendale owns and operates 28 potable water reservoirs/tanks and five recycled water tanks in the water system. During regular inspections, some tanks are found to be in need of repairs to extend their service life and comply with current safety standards.

In July 2016, the City hired Harper & Associates Engineering (Harper) to evaluate a number of welded steel water storage tanks for both the potable and recycled water systems. Harper prepared evaluation reports outlining the condition of the tank coating systems and with recommendations to repair and/or upgrade structural and safety deficiencies. The evaluation reports also included interior and exterior photographic surveys and laboratory analysis on the chemical components of the existing coatings.

Based on the findings and recommendations, the Water Division has implemented a capital improvement program to systematically rehabilitate these water storage tanks.

Emerald Isle 1666 Potable Water Tank and Glendale Recycled Water Tank have been selected for rehabilitation in Fiscal Year 2022-2023.

The proposed work at the selected tanks includes abrasive removal of existing paint, application of new coating systems, structural repairs, and installation of new safety features.

ANALYSIS
To ensure competitive bids, the project will be advertised in a local newspaper, the Glendale Independent, prior to bid opening, as well as on eBidBoard, a construction services company. In turn, eBidBoard will send the project advertisement to several other project posting sites that do not require a subscription (i.e. Bid America, Blueprint Express, Construction Data Corp, Direct Connection, F.W. Dodge, etc.).

The construction of the project is anticipated to begin in March 2023 and is anticipated to be completed by December 2023. Water service to customers will not be interrupted during construction.

Specification No. 3934 and Plan No. 6960-E are on file and available at the Glendale Water & Power - Water Engineering Service Counter.

CONTRACT DASHBOARDS
Project Description: Emerald Isle 1666 Potable Water Tank and Glendale Recycled Water Tank Rehabilitation
Plans/Specs Adopted: September 27, 2022
Advertisement Method: Glendale Independent newspaper and online bidding distribution website: eBidBoard.com
Specs to be Issued: September 28, 2022 – October 19, 2022 Bids to be Opened: October 19, 2022
20 of 675
3 d 4
Company Name(s) and
Proposal Amount(s):

TBD
Recommended
Contractor(s):

TBD
New / Existing
Contractor(s):

TBD
Procurement Method
(Bid / SS):

Bid
Contract Term: 1 Year
Construction
Phase Begins:

March 2023
Construction
Phase Ends:

December 2023

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
During construction, there will be some noise and minor ground vibration from the movement of construction vehicles. Water service to customers will not be interrupted throughout the construction phase. GWP will reach out to the residents adjacent to the project sites via letter to inform them about the project and potential impacts.

FISCAL IMPACT
The engineer’s estimate for the construction work of this project at the planning stage was originally between $400,000 and $500,000 per tank, which was approved as a part of the FY 2022-23 budget. No new appropriation is being requested at this time.

Due to the current labor market, material cost increases, finalization of the scope during the design phase, GWP has updated the engineer’s estimate to be between $900,000 and $950,000. GWP staff will request to appropriate funds from the Water Fund Undesignated Fund Balance to cover the additional construction cost if the bid proposal amounts come in higher than the budgeted engineer’s estimate. The City Council approved funding is outlined below:

Existing Appropriation
Amount Account String Funding Source
$599,136 GL:52100-5930-GWP-0020-P0000
PL:GWP00669AA
GWP Water Depreciation
Fund (5930)

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review as a Class 1: Existing Facilities pursuant to the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15301.
21 of 675
4 d 4

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
Not Applicable.

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to adopt Specification No. 3934 and Plan No. 6960-E for Emerald Isle 1666 Tank and Glendale Recycled Water Tank Rehabilitation Project, and direct the City Clerk to advertise for bids.

Alternative 2: Not to adopt Specification No. 3934 and Plan No. 6960-E, which will result in postponement of the project, with the probable impact of increasing the risk of further protective coating deterioration, structural failure, and potentially increasing the cost of the project when it is completed in the future.

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

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Michael E. De Ghetto, Chief Assistant General Manager – Water Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS / ATTACHMENTS
None.
22 of 675
RESOLUTION NO. ________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE,

CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING GLENDALE WATER AND POWER DEPARTMENT SPECIFICATION NO. 3934 AND PLAN NO. 6960-E TO FURNISH
MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT AND LABOR FOR THE EMERALD ISLE 1666 AND

GLENDALE RECYCLED WATER TANK REHABILITATION PROJECT, AND

DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE:

SECTION 1. The specifications and plan on file in the Glendale Water & Power Department – Water Engineering Service Counter, to Furnish Materials Equipment, and Labor for the Emerald Isle 1666 and Glendale Recycled Water Tank Rehabilitation Project, including the various documents incorporated therein, are hereby approved, adopted, designated and shall hereafter be known as Specification No. 3934 and Plan No. 6960-E.

SECTION 2. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to advertise for bids for work, equipment and materials described in Specification No. 3934 and Plan No. 6960-E as adopted by this Resolution.

Adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale on this ___ day of _________, 2022.
________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
City Clerk
23 of 675
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS.

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I, Suzie Abajian, PH.D., City Clerk of the City of Glendale, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. _______________ was adopted by a majority 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 adopted by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
________________________
City Clerk
24 of 675
4c

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Library, Arts and Culture, re: Poet Laureate Pilot Program Recommendation

1. Motion approving the City to pilot a Poet Laureate Program.

2. Resolution of appropriation in the amount of $20,000 from the General Fund Undesignated Fund Balance to support the Poet Laureate Program for FY 22-23.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Consent Calendar
Approved for September 27, 2022 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
During the July 12, 2022 Regular Meeting of City Council, Library, Arts and Culture staff were asked to prepare a report on the creation of a Poet Laureate for the City of Glendale.

Library, Arts & Culture staff reviewed documents from Poet Laureate programs nationwide, and spoke with several program coordinators. Library, Arts and Culture believe the Poet Laureate Program would contribute to Glendale’s reputation as an arts destination and recommend piloting a Poet Laureate program in FY22-23 and FY23-24.

Library, Arts and Culture requests a resolution of appropriation in the amount of $20,000 from the General Fund Undesignated Fund Balance to pilot the program for FY 22-23.

COUNCIL PRIORITIES
N/A

RECOMMENDATION
Glendale Library, Arts & Culture recommends that the City Council adopt (1) a Motion approving the Poet Laureate Pilot Program, and (2) a Resolution appropriating $20,000 budget from the General Fund for FY22-23.

BACKGROUND
During the July 12, 2022 Regular Meeting of City Council, Mayor Kassakhian asked Staff to prepare a report on the creation of a Poet Laureate program for the City of Glendale, and Council Member Devine seconded.
25 of 675
2 c 4
Library, Arts & Culture (LAC) staff reviewed documents from Poet Laureate programs in Southern California and nationwide, and spoke with several program coordinators. All levels of government throughout the US maintain Poet Laureate programs, with similar goals:
• City of Los Angeles: “Serve as an official ambassador of LA’s vibrant creative scene, promoting the City’s rich literary community and celebrating the written word.”
• City of West Hollywood: “Serve as an official ambassador of West Hollywood’s vibrant literary culture, promoting poetry in West Hollywood, stimulating the transformative impact of poetry in the local community, and creating excitement about the written word.”
• State of California: “To advocate for the art of poetry in classrooms and boardrooms across the state, to inspire an emerging generation of literary artists, and to educate all Californians about the many poets and authors who have influenced our great state through creative literary expression.” Most organizations administering a Poet Laureate program go through an application and interview process, reviewed by a selection panel comprised of poets, educators, staff and elected or appointed officials. Selection criteria often include a residency requirement, past publishing, community involvement, and a strong proposal to engage the community in poetry writing and/or appreciation. Larger cities with active communities of poets make these requirements more specific (i.e., Los Angeles requires “Seven years of experience (not including years as student) in either publishing poetry or presenting poetry”).

Duties for Poets Laureate often include:
• creating a community-based program to celebrate poetry; • leading workshops and holding poetry readings, often with other poets; • writing or collecting poems that commemorate special events, reflect on the community, etc.;
• reading poems at special events; and,
• coordinating or participating in National Poetry Month events.

Terms are usually 2-3 years. Stipends for Poets Laureate range from $1,000 per year to $35,000 per year, depending on the scope of work, and the majority of organizations had contracts or MOUs with their Poets Laureate. Most organizations allocate a budget to support the Poet Laureate’s activities, and staff time to coordinate activities varied widely based on the scope of work.

ANALYSIS
Based on research and recommendations from other successful programs, LAC proposes the following baseline scope of work for the Poet Laureate:
• Develop a project that engages community members of all ages in poetry writing and appreciation. Project should include at least four programs per year. • Write one poem that celebrates Glendale’s rich culture and diversity, which will be 26 of 675
3 c 4
read aloud at an Arts & Culture Commission (ACC) meeting and a City Council meeting during National Poetry Month (April).
• Read poetry for at least 4 other special events throughout the City. • Submit a poem or blog post to be shared on the LAC blog at least once per quarter.

Selection criteria for the Poet Laureate should include at minimum:
• Current Glendale resident
• History of publishing and/or performing poetry and a demonstrated record of being included or invited to present works within poetry journals, magazines, websites, and/or programs that are not predominately self-published or self-curated. • Experience with community service and/or volunteering. • Experience in public speaking, teaching and/or public performance. • Able to make a commitment to serve as Poet Laureate for at least 1 year.

A selection panel would include staff, 1-2 ACC Commissioners, 1-2 poetry experts (i.e., Poets Laureate from other communities), and 1-2 other stakeholders (partners at GUSD, etc.). Poets would submit written applications, including a writing sample; a resume showcasing publication history, experience in public speaking, teaching, and/or public performances, and community outreach service and/or volunteering; and a brief proposal for a community outreach program that engages communities of diverse backgrounds.

The panel would interview finalists, and the selected Poet Laureate would be announced at a City Council meeting
The timeline for the pilot if approved would be:
• October 2022
o Reach out to community partners to recruit selection panel • November 2022
o Convene selection panel and finalize the selection criteria and process o Open applications and advertise Poet Laureate program • December 2022
o Close applications and interview finalists
• January 2023
o Finalize scope of work and contract with Poet Laureate o Announce selected Poet Laureate at a Council meeting
• February 2023 – January 2024
o Implement Poet Laureate Pilot Program based on scope of work o Determine feasibility to extend Poet Laureate Pilot Program into an ongoing effort While a Poet Laureate Pilot Program would contribute to Glendale’s reputation as an arts destination, the program does not align with the Urban Art Program Plan that guides the ACC’s use of the Urban Art Fund (UAF). The requested budget will support a stipend for the Poet Laureate, general supplies needed for their programs, and part-time staff hours, which are needed to support marketing for Poet Laurette events and to backfill full-time staff‘s existing responsibilities while they are engaged in coordinating the selection process, planning and promoting Poet Laureate programs, events and readings, and 27 of 675
4 c 4
providing support to the Poet Laureate on an on-going basis.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Staff plan to reach out to the following organizations to recruit a selection panel, promote the program to potential applicants, and be partners in future programming:
- Local cities with existing Poet Laureate programs: Los Angeles, West Hollywood and South Pasadena
- Organizations that have poetry programming: Junior High, - Bookstores: Abril Bookstore, Once Upon a Time, Barnes & Noble - Educational partners: Glendale Community College and Glendale Unified School District
Additionally, staff will promote the program through the City’s and LAC’s social media channels and outreach to print and television media outlets.

FISCAL IMPACT
The Poet Laureate Program will cost $20,000 which was not included as part of the FY2022-23 approved budget. Therefore, staff is requesting for an appropriation of $20,000 from the City’s fund balance. Since the program will line up with the calendar year, LAC will request unspent funds be rolled over to FY23-24 as appropriate. The appropriation request is outlined below.

Requesting Appropriation
Amount From (Account
String)
To (Account String) Funding Source
$10,000 GL: 25300-1010-000 GL: 41300-1010-
LAC-6000-P4105
General Fund –
Undesignated
Fund Balance
$5,000 GL: 25300-1010-000 GL: 43110-1010-
LAC-6000-P4105
General Fund –
Undesignated
Fund Balance
$5,000 GL: 25300-1010-000 GL: 45350-1010-
LAC-6000-P4105
General Fund –
Undesignated
Fund Balance

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
Because no possibility exists that the activity in question (Poet Laureate Program) may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA review under the common sense exemption set forth in 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15061(b)(3).

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements. 28 of 675
5 c 4

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: The City Council may adopt:
• A Motion approving the City to pilot a Poet Laureate Program. • A Resolution appropriating $20,000 budget from the General fund to pilot the Poet Laureate Program.

Alternative 2: The City Council may decline to adopt a Motion and Resolution of Appropriation and, thus, decline the creation of the Poet Laureate Program.

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

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Nicole Pasini, Assistant Director
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Not applicable.
29 of 675
C:\INETPUB\WWWROOT\MULTITENANT\TEMP\CC_09272022_MOTION_4C1.PDF MOTION
Moved by Council Member , seconded by
Council Member , that the Council of the
City of Glendale hereby approves the creation of a Poet Laureate Pilot Program for FY 2022-2023 and FY 2023-2024, administered by the Library, Arts and Culture Department, as more particularly described in the Director of Library, Arts and Culture’s September 27, 2022 Report to the City Council.

Vote as Follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
30 of 675
31 of 675
32 of 675
4d

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Acceptance of Grant Funds for Employment Training from the Professional Development Center of Glendale Community College.

1. Motion accepting $500,000 in State of California grant funds which are being provided and administered by the Professional Development Center of Glendale Community College, to enable employment training for full-time City of Glendale employees.

2. Resolution appropriating $500,000 from the State of California.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Consent Calendar
Approved for September 27, 2022 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Professional Development Center (PDC) of Glendale Community College was awarded a $1.5 million statewide grant through the State of California’s Employment Training Panel. This one-time California Community College Funds grant is part of the $15 million general fund dollars approved in SB129 by Governor Newsom. This funding allows for future-oriented quality employment training which is equitable and inclusive through PDC partnerships with business, labor, and government. The PDC is partnering with the City of Glendale to offer training to as many city employees as possible in various skill areas before December 2023.
33 of 675
2 d 4

COUNCIL PRIORITIES
N/A

RECOMMENDATION
Accept the $500,000 Employment Training Grant funds from the State of California administered by the PDC, authorize the City Manager to execute the necessary agreements, certification, and other documents required to implement the Grant and adopt a resolution to appropriate the funds for employee training.

BACKGROUND
Established in 1982, the Employment Training Panel (ETP) is a California program that supports job creation and retention through training. ETP is funded by a special tax on California employers and ETP fulfills its mission by reimbursing the cost of employerdriven training delivered to the incumbent workforce. ETP’s program helps to ensure that California businesses have the skilled workforce they need to remain competitive.

While ETP has been in place for 40 years, for the first-time, governmental agencies were invited to participate due to city workforce impacts because of the pandemic. ETP does require that the city be able to effectively train its workforce in response to changing business and industry needs. While the need for employment training is critical, public agencies generally reserve capacity building dollars for highly technical and professional occupations – limiting investment in training for frontline workers who deliver services.

ETP helps to fill this gap by funding training that supports both frontline workers and all other full-time employees.

ANALYSIS
Earlier this year (2022), the city canvassed its employees using an employee satisfaction survey. 61% of the respondents replied they did not believe they could reach their full potential with the city and among other things cited inadequate staff resources and insufficient resources devoted to employee development.

Following dialogue with the PDC, the city learned of its one-time ability to train our fulltime workforce in whatever areas the city deemed necessary (except mandatory training such as CA SB 1343 training) provided the training is delivered before December 2023.

The PDC class catalogue contains hundreds of courses to choose from including basic, business, computer, engineering & design, management and team skills, and continuous improvement such as lean six sigma and process improvement training. PDC training is offered both in a classroom and online.

Grant funds will be used to offer PDC courses and on-site leadership training for current frontline and rising staff, supervisors, managers and executives using three metrics to identify success: a) course attendance; b) employee retention, and c) employee promotion or wage elevation from September 2022 through December 2023. 34 of 675
3 d 4

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Grant funds will be used to impact employee development for full-time city employees who provide services to the public as well as those who serve our internal city departments.

FISCAL IMPACT
The $500,000 in grant funds from the PDC of Glendale Community College were not included as a part of the FY 2022-23 approved budget. Therefore, staff requests an appropriation of $500,000 from State Grant Revenue. The appropriation request is outlined below:

Requesting Appropriation
Amount From (Account
String)
To (Account String) Funding Source
$500,000 32610-2160-HRD0020-P0000
HRD00923AG
43110-2160-HRD0020-P0000
HRD00923AG
State Grant
Revenue

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
This item is not subject to CEQA/NEPA review. There is no possibility that the acceptance of this grant may have a significant effect on the environment.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Approve as requested by the Human Resources Department.

Alternative 2: Deny the Human Resources Department’s request. Expenses for employee training and development would be absorbed by the Human Resources Department budget.

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

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Paula Adams, Chief Human Resources Officer
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
None.
35 of 675

M O T I O N
Moved by Council Member , seconded by
Council Member , that the Council of the City of
Glendale hereby authorizes the acceptance of grant funds in the amount of $500,000 in State of California grant funds which are being provided and administered by the Professional Development Center of Glendale Community College, to enable employment training for full-time City of Glendale employees. The Council authorizes the City Manager or his designee to execute all agreements, certifications, and documents necessary to accept and implement the grant funds.

Vote as Follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
36 of 675
37 of 675
4e

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Urban Forestry Grant Tree Planting and Maintenance Program Contract Increases

1. Resolution dispensing with competitive bidding and authorizing the City Manager, or a designee, to amend contract 8000974 for City Tree Services, with West Coast Arborists, Inc. (WCA) increasing the contract amount by $4,271,660 to a new total amount of $11,577,660, for the purpose of meeting recommended tree planting and maintenance goals, pruning palm trees, planting and caring for 500 trees as part of the reimbursable California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) Urban Forestry grant and planting 750 trees as part of the reimbursable California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Clean California grant subject to budget approval in FY 2023-24, FY 2024-25 and FY 2025-26.

2. Resolution authorizing the Director of Public Works or his designee to execute a Clean California grant agreement with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for the City of Glendale’s ‘Southeast Glendale Greening’ project to plant 750 trees.

3. Resolution of appropriation for grant funded tree planting and maintenance.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for September 27, 2022 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Department of Public Works and its contractors prune City street palm trees on an annual basis. After receiving several staff reports on the state of the City’s urban forest, the City Council authorized budget appropriations for tree planting and maintenance as part of the FY 2022-23 annual budget. Additionally, the Council authorized staff to pursue grant funding for additional tree planting and maintenance services. A resolution dispensing with competitive bidding and authorizing an amendment to contract 8000974 with WCA is needed to spend these additional funds on tree planting and maintenance via the City’s current City Tree Services Contract. Additionally, a resolution authorizing the execution of a grant agreement with Caltrans is needed for the City to receive grant funds for the planting of 750 trees. Lastly, a resolution of appropriation is needed to appropriate Cal Fire grant funds for tree planting and maintenance services. 38 of 675
2 e 4

COUNCIL PRIORITIES
Environmental Stewardship: These programs will plant 1,250 additional street and park trees, helping the City increase its tree canopy towards the 25% coverage goal. A large, healthy urban forest is a critical component of a sustainable community due to trees’ positive impact on health, pollution reduction, and water savings.

Mobility/Connectivity/Safety: Shade from trees encourages use of public sidewalks, and trees help to calm traffic, assisting with Vision Zero efforts.

Infrastructure: Trees are the only form of public infrastructure that increase in value over time.

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council approve the resolutions to begin grant activities, and dispense with competitive bidding and increase the City Tree Services contract for increased tree planting, tree maintenance and palm pruning.

BACKGROUND
The Glendale Public Works Department is responsible for the maintenance of the City’s street trees and Parks trees. This maintenance is performed with a strategic combination of in-house resources and a City Tree Services contract. On May 12, 2020, following a Request for Proposals (RFP) process, the City Council approved a resolution dispensing with competitive bidding and authorizing execution of a six-year contract with WCA for $7,056,000, for tree maintenance services. WCA has provided tree maintenance services for the city for 20 years.

In March 2022, the City Council authorized an increase in the City Tree Services Contract of $250,000 to $7,306,000 for the use of Measure S funds to plant trees in conjunction with a project to mitigate the heat island effect. During the 22-23 budget process, Council approved a further $760,600 in funds dedicated to increased planting, watering, and maintenance, in line with the goal to reach 25% tree canopy citywide. The City Tree Services contract has not yet been amended to spend these new funds.

Palm Tree Pruning
In 2017, GWP began to fund increased frequency for palm tree pruning. Prior to 2017, these trees were pruned on a 3-year cycle; however, due to the dangers posed by palm fronds to nearby power lines, GWP has provided $200,000 in yearly funding for the majority of these trees to be trimmed annually.

This cost of contractual palm pruning unit prices increased from $59 to $89 per tree in the 2020 contract, in a large part due to State prevailing wage increases. As a result, in the FY 2022-23 budget, the appropriation from GWP for palm tree pruning was increased from $200,000 to $300,000. However, in order to spend this additional 39 of 675
3 e 4
funding, the City Tree Services Contract needs to be amended.

Cal Fire Grant
On November 16, 2021, the City Council approved a Resolution authorizing the Director of Public Works or his designee to submit an application for funding from the Urban and Community Grant Program of CalFire for the planting and care of 500 new trees in South Glendale. The City was awarded the grant, and a reimbursable appropriation is now needed to begin grant-related tree plantings and watering.

Caltrans Grant
On February 1, 2022, the Departments of Public Works and Community Services and Parks submitted a grant application for funding the planting of 750 trees from Caltrans’ Clean California program. On March 1, 2022, the City was awarded this grant worth $320,000 of which $27,500 is a City match requirement. A Resolution is now required to authorize the Director of Public Works or his designee to partake in the awarded grant.

Reimbursable funding will be requested for FY 2023-24 as grant activities are expected to commence this year.

Increased Planting and Maintenance Activities
As part of the three Council presentations on the State of the Urban Forest, Public Works described tree maintenance budgetary shortfalls and a decrease in overall tree canopy over the past decade. As part the FY 2021-22 budget, Council approved $250,000 in Measure S funding towards planting 600 new trees. On March 1, 2022, the City Council approved a tree maintenance contract increase to access that planting funding, and approved a resolution setting the citywide tree canopy coverage goal at 25%. As part of the FY 2022-23 budget, $760,600 was appropriated towards this end.

Another contract increase is now needed to access that funding. Additionally, the proposed contract increase provides an additional $760,600 annually for the following three years if the City Council elects to continue annual Measure S funding for this program.

ANALYSIS
Palm Tree Pruning
The Public Works Department is responsible for the maintenance of its 5,054 City street palm trees. Due to the trees’ height, palm pruning is time consuming work that often requires equipment which the City does not own. For these reasons, the City has traditionally used contractors for the majority of its palm pruning. City arborists do routinely prune young palm trees and endeavor to replace palm trees with shade trees whenever possible.

With current available funding provided by GWP, Public Works can prune 2,247 of these trees annually. With the recommended contract increase enabling Public Works to access appropriated funds, 3,370 palms can be pruned annually. This quantity of palm pruning would equal the amount performed under the previous contracts going back to 2017, and focuses on the areas with dense populations of palm trees. The remaining palms would continue to be maintained with City crews as necessary in 40 of 675
4 e 4
response to service requests or on the standard Citywide grid tree maintenance schedule of every six years.

Pruning palms annually reduces the dangers posed by falling fronds during wind events, as fronds are heavy and typically have sharp barbs along the stem. Palms naturally drop fronds and grow new fronds annually, as well as dropping significant quantities of fruit. Pruning palms also reduces City staff worktime, as Public Works responds to calls of fallen fronds Citywide as part of its services to the public.

Cal Fire Grant
Cal Fire Urban and Community Forestry grants are highly technical and competitive opportunities, open to municipalities and nonprofits statewide, and the City of Glendale was one of the few grant awardees. The award allows the City to plant drought-tolerant trees to most effectively reduce greenhouse gases. The City is required to meet strict grant criteria on planting locations, tree types, and costs. Staff will determine the impact of the entire project by calculating the benefits of the new trees using State-provided formulas, factoring the various planting locations, and subtracting any emissions caused by project activity. The grant forbids regular planting efforts from being supplanted by this project.

Trees must be planted in California EPA-defined ‘Disadvantaged Communities. These are communities within census tracts that are disproportionally impacted by pollution as compared to the rest of the state, or are populated with households at or below 80% of the statewide median income, or both. In Glendale, these tracts align nearly entirely with our lowest-canopied areas. The project area is thus all of Glendale south of and adjacent to the SR-134 freeway, and neighborhoods adjacent to the I-5 freeway. Public Works staff estimates there are over 3,500 vacant eligible planting locations within this project area, and according to the California EPA, 117,000 residents live within these areas.

The Public Works’ project, titled ‘Greening South Glendale,’ will plant 500 trees within these areas in the winter of 2022-2023. Importantly, this grant also funds tree watering for the first three years following planting and informational tree tags and brochures regarding tree benefits and care, to be sent to each address receiving a tree.

The tree planning and tree watering work will be performed by WCA. Based on current contract rates, planting 500 trees at the 15-gallon size will cost $90,000. Watering these trees for three years will cost $437,760. An additional $9,000 will be set aside for replacing up to 50 trees that don’t survive the initial three years.

In addition, the grant funds supplies, which will consist of green watering bags and City Graphics Department-produced educational brochures and weather-resistant tree tags.

These bags will cost $11,135, and the educational material will cost $500. Indirect costs to the City will be covered up to 12% of the total grant amount or up to $64,667.40.
41 of 675
5 e 4
Finally, the project requires tree maintenance to be performed annually on each new tree, and twice-yearly reporting on progress and benefits. These aspects of the project will be performed by Public Works staff. Over the course of the 3-year project, we estimate this will amount to 1,900 hours, with 400 of those being dedicated to project management, reporting, and inspections, and 1,500 hours dedicated specifically to young tree maintenance. This will be performed in tandem with regular, non-project maintenance, and is not expected to adversely impact Public Works’ operations. This staff time amounts to billable rates totaling $196,100. A table summarizing these quantities over the course of the 3-year project is included below.

Table 1: Total Cal Fire Grant Related Costs
Unit Cost Quantity Total Amount Funding
Type
Trees $180.00/tree 500 trees $90,000 Direct
Watering $3,040/week 144 weeks $437,760 Direct
Watering bags $22.27/bag 500 $11,135 Direct
Required
replacement trees
$180.00/tree 50 trees $9,000 Matching
Educational collateral $0.50/brochure
or tag
1000 $500 Matching
Staff time Varies 1900 hours $196,100 Matching
Indirect City costs =
12% of all direct
costs
N/A N/A $64,667.40 Indirect
Total $809,162.40
The annual breakdown of Cal Fire direct funded costs and activities and the educational collateral costs are indicated in Table 2 below.

Table 2: Direct Funded Grant Costs and Educational Collateral Costs Per Fiscal Year
Grant Activity 2022-2023 2023-2024 2024-2025 2025-2026
Tree planting, 15-gallon
size (WCA unit price
$180/tree) $90,000.00 $0,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Tree watering (WCA
unit price $760 per 125
trees) $79,040.00 $158,080.00 $158,080.00 $42,560.00
Tree watering bags $11,135.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Educational collateral $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Total $180,175.00 $158,080.00 $158,080.00 $42,560.00
Plus 12% indirect
costs $21,621.00 $18,969.60 $18,969.60 $5,107.20
42 of 675
6 e 4
If approved, the first work charged to this grant will begin in October 2022, with public outreach and specific tree site selection.

Caltrans Grant
The Caltrans Clean California grant program is another competitive program, open to agencies statewide. The Public Works and Community Services and Parks departments worked together on this successful grant application.

Like the Cal Fire grant, trees must be planted in California EPA-defined ‘Disadvantaged Communities.’ For this project, Public Works selected four census tracts to focus planting efforts due to their low canopy coverage and high quantity of vacant planting locations. These census tracts are 3021.03, 3021.04, 3022.02, and 3025.03. These four generally encompass an area bounded by Brand Blvd in the west, Windsor Street to the south, Broadway to the north, and the SR-134 and SR-2 freeways in the east. 750 trees total will be planted as part of this project.

Table 3: Caltrans Clean California Project Census Tracts Census Tract Current Canopy Coverage
3021.03 16.7%
3021.04 17.3%
3022.02 16.7%
3025.03 18.3%
Public Works titled this project ‘Southeast Glendale Greening’ and aims to begin planting within parks and along streets in the winter of 2023-2024. Unlike the Cal Fire grant, the Caltrans grant does not fund tree establishment watering, young tree maintenance, or outreach. However, grant funding of this large quantity of trees at 24” box size is a rare opportunity, and Public Works will perform young tree maintenance on an annual basis as with any other newly planted trees. Public Works will utilize a mix of staff and contractor services to perform establishment watering for these trees, using existing funding.

Based on current contract rates, planting 750 trees at the larger 24-gallon size will cost $292,500. This planting will be performed by WCA.

The project requires matching staff time during the site selection stage amounting to $27,500 which will be covered by existing appropriations. A table summarizing these quantities over the course of the project is included below. Direct funding is reimbursable to the City upon approval of progress reports.

Table 4: Clean California Grant Costs
Unit Cost Quantity Total Amount Funding Type
Trees $390.00/tree 750 trees $292,500.00 Direct
Staff time Varies 230 hours $27,500.00 Matching
Total $320,000.00
43 of 675
7 e 4
The annual breakdown of grant direct funded costs and activities is indicated in Table 5 below.

Table 5: Grant Costs Per Fiscal Year, Clean California
Grant Activity 2022-2023 2023-2024 2024-2025
Tree planting, 24-box size
(WCA unit price $390/tree) $0.00 $292,500.00 $0.00
Staff time (Matching $0.00 $27,500.00 $0.00
TOTAL $0.00 $320,000.00 $0.00
Staff will request funding as part of the FY 2023-24 Annual Budget for these grant funded tree plantings. The work is expected to begin in August 2023, with public outreach and specific tree site selection.

Increased Planting and Maintenance Activities
Council approved funding of $760,600 from Measure S as part of the FY 2022-23 budget, which will be spent through the tree maintenance contract with WCA. Public Works intends to request this same level of funding for the three remaining contract years, in fiscal years 2023-24, 2024-25, and 2025-26. As described in three previous Council reports, this level of funding is required to return tree maintenance to previous levels of service, which will improve tree health and reduce tree removals. It will also fund planting and watering of 450 trees per year, outside of grant funded tree plantings, which helps the City meet grant requirements to continue its normal planting activities.

As such, Public Works is requesting to increase the overall contact amount by $3,042,400 in preparation for these future years of increased tree planting and watering, as well as the return to previous levels of tree maintenance. In the future, if the City Council elects not to appropriate this annual funding, then the contract amount with WCA will not be increased.

In sum, Public Works in requesting increases to the West Coast Arborists contract for the following:

Purpose Funding
Source
Duration
of Project
Amount
Palm pruning GWP 4 years $400,000
Cal Fire granted planting,
watering, and
maintenance
State
grant
3 years $536,760
Cal Trans granted
planting
State
grant
1 year $292,500
Improved planting,
watering and
maintenance activities
City 4 years $3,042,400
Total $4,271,660
44 of 675
8 e 4
Project Description: City Tree Services
RFP Approved: February 2020
Advertisement Method: Websites and Outreach to Known Vendors RFP Issued: February 2020
Proposals Due: March 2020
Company Name(s)
and Proposal Amounts(s):

WCA $7,056,000
Selection Criteria: Proposal Price; Qualifications, Business History and Past Performance; Workplan, Project Approach,
and Corporate Capability; Responsiveness
Recommended
Contractor(s):

WCA
New / Existing Contractor: Existing
Procurement Method (RFP /
SS):

RFP
Contract Term: Six Years
Construction Phase Begins: July 20, 2020
Construction Phase Ends: July 19, 2026
Change Orders (When Applicable)
Company Name: WCA
Original Approved Contract
Amount:
$7,056,000
Approved Contingency: $0
Change Order History: $250,000
This Change Order
(Increase):
$4,271,660
New Contract Total (If
Approved):
$11,577,660
45 of 675
9 e 4

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Adopting these recommendations will benefit the community by resulting in increased palm tree pruning. Palm pruning increases community safety and satisfaction with City tree maintenance. The grant plantings will greatly increase the tree canopy in Glendale, benefiting all residents, and especially communities located within the grant boundaries.

Specific outreach materials will be created as part of the grant, targeted to communities and residences within the grant boundaries. Tree planting funds dedicated to these neighborhoods will likewise enable Public Works’ annual tree planting program to increase tree quantities in non-granted areas of the City.

FISCAL IMPACT
The Cal Fire Grant for the Greening South Glendale project was not included as a part of the FY 2022-23 budget. Therefore, staff is requesting for an appropriation of $603,562.40 from State Grant revenue.

Requesting Appropriation
Amount From (Account String) To (Account String) Funding Source $538,895.00 32610-2160-PWD-0020
PWD00927AG
43110-2160-PWD-0020
PWD00927AG
State Grant
$64,667.40 32610-2160-PWD-0020
PWD00927AG
41100-2160-PWD-0020
PWD00927AG
State Grant
The Cal Fire Grant has a matching requirement of $205,600, of which $196,100 will be in-kind salary match and $9,500 maintenance and operation costs. The City will count hours worked by current staff as match and will absorb the maintenance and operation costs within their existing General Fund budget. No new appropriation is being requested for the matching requirement.

The West Coast Arborists, Inc. contract amendment will cost $4,271,660. The cost for Year 1 is $1,029,640, of which $860,600 was approved as a part of the FY 2022-23 budget in the accounts listed below. The remaining $169,040 will be funded using the grant revenue appropriated for the Greening South Glendale project (appropriation requested above).

Funding for the remaining contract years will be requested as a part of the City’s annual budget process.

Existing Appropriation
Amount Account String Funding Source
$100,000 43110-5820-GWP-4660-P0000 GWP Electric Works
$760,600 43110-1070-PWD-8509-P8022 General Fund (Measure S) 46 of 675
10 e 4

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This item is considered a ministerial activity and therefore, not subject to CEQA review.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
The names and business addresses of the members of the board of directors, the chairperson, CEO, COO, CFO, Subcontractors and any person or entity with more than 10% interest in the company proposed for contract in this Agenda Item Report are listed below, in accordance with the City Campaign Finance Ordinance No. 5744.

Officers of West Coast Arborists, Inc.:

Full Name Title Business Address City State Zip
Patrick Mahoney CEO/President 2200 E. Via Burton Anaheim CA 92806 Richard Mahoney Chief Operating
Officer 2200 E. Via Burton Anaheim CA 92806
Rose Epperson Chief Financial
Officer 2200 E. Via Burton Anaheim CA 92806
Ownership Interest in more than 10% in West Coast Arborists, Inc.:

Full Name Title Business Address City State Zip
Patrick Mahoney CEO/President 2200 E. Via Burton Anaheim CA 92806 Richard
Mahoney
Chief Operating
Officer 2200 E. Via Burton Anaheim CA 92806
Rose Epperson Chief Financial
Officer 2200 E. Via Burton Anaheim CA 92806

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Approve the Resolution dispensing with competitive bidding and authorizing the City Manager, or a designee, to amend contract 8000974 for City Tree Services, with WCA increasing the contract amount by $4,271,660 to $11,577,660 subject to budget approval in FY 2023-24, FY 2024-25 and FY 2025-26; and Resolution authorizing the Director of Public Works or his designee to execute a Clean California grant agreement with Caltrans for the City of Glendale’s ‘Southeast Glendale Greening’ project; and Resolution of Appropriation. 3,370 palm trees will be pruned annually, 500 new trees will be planted in FY 2022-23 and 750 new trees planted in FY 2023-24.

Alternative 2: Take no action, which will result in only 2,247 palm trees pruned annually.

Also, City would not be able to plant 1250 new trees.

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

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Loren Klick, Urban Forester
47 of 675
11 e 4
Reviewed by:

Yazdan T. Emrani, P.E., Director of Public Works
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS / ATTACHMENTS
None.
48 of 675
RESOLUTION NO. ___________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE,

CALIFORNIA, DISPENSING WITH COMPETITIVE BIDDING AND AUTHORIZING

THE CITY MANAGER OR A DESIGNEE TO AMEND THE CONTRACT WITH WEST COAST ARBORISTS, INC. INCREASING THE AMOUNT FOR THE PURPOSE OF

MEETING RECOMMENDED TREE PLANTING AND MAINTENANCE GOALS, PRUNING PALM TREES, AND USING GRANT FUNDS.

WHEREAS, on May 12, 2020, following a Request for Proposals (RFP) process, the City Council approved a resolution dispensing with competitive bidding and authorizing execution of a six-year contract with West Coast Arborists, Inc. (WCA) for $7,056,000 for tree maintenance services; and
WHEREAS, on March 1, 2022, the City Council established a 25% citywide tree canopy goal which will entail significant planting and watering targets over the next planting seasons; and
WHEREAS, the Public Works Department has additional funding available for tree planting, tree watering and tree maintenance services due to a grant from Cal Fire, a grant from Caltrans and addition funds from GWP; and
WHEREAS, the Public Works department strategically uses a combination of inhouse staff and contractual tree trimming services to maintain the urban forest consistent with industry best practices; and
WHEREAS, City personnel do not have the capacity to provide ongoing tree planting, watering and maintenance services, due in part to efforts being focused on responding to resident tree maintenance requests and performing young tree maintenance, and
WHEREAS, WCA has demonstrated superior knowledge, qualifications, staffing, project approach, and experience, as well as a lower price; and WHEREAS, West Coast Arborists, Inc. also demonstrated a thorough understanding of important legal and industry issues related to invasive pests, accident reporting and response, and wildlife protection as well as responsive customer service, outreach, and emergency response capabilities; and
WHEREAS, within a City that places great value in its urban forest and faces the unique challenges of a Southern California urban environment, an outside contractor’s corporate philosophy and approach to a project of this size and scope are important factors to consider and difficult factors to quantify; and 49 of 675
WHEREAS, Glendale City Charter, Article VI, Sec. 9 provides an exemption to competitive bidding when the Council determines it is in the best interest of the City to dispense with competitive bidding; and
WHEREAS, given the foregoing findings and facts, it appears that adequate justification exists and it is in the City’s best interest ― upon recommendation of the Director of Public Works ― to (1) dispense with competitive bidding, and (2) authorize the City Manager or a designee to amend the current six-year contract with West Coast Arborists, Inc., to increase the contract amount by $4,271,660 for a new total amount not to exceed $11,577,660.

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

1. The foregoing facts are deemed to be true and correct, and are a basis for dispensing with competitive bidding.

2. The Council hereby dispenses with competitive bidding and authorizes the City Manager or a designee to amend the contract with West Coast Arborists, Inc., increasing the contract amount by $4,271,660 for a new not to exceed amount of $11,577,660 subject to budget approval in Fiscal Year 2023-24, Fiscal Year 2024-25 and Fiscal Year 2025-26.

Adopted this _____________ day of __________________________, 2022. ___________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________
City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF LOC ANGELES ) SS

CITY OF GLENDALE )
I, Suzie Abajian, 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:
50 of 675
Abstain:
___________________________
City Clerk
51 of 675
RESOLUTION NO. __________

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO EXECUTE AGREEMENTS

WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR THE CITY OF

GLENDALE CLEAN CALIFORNIA SOUTHEAST GLENDALE GREENING PROJECT WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Glendale is eligible to receive State funding for certain transportation related work through the California Department of Transportation; WHEREAS, a Restricted Grant Agreement is needed to be executed with the California Department of Transportation before such funds can be claimed through the Clean California Local Grant Program;
WHEREAS, the City of Glendale wishes to delegate authorization to execute these agreements and any amendments thereto;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Glendale, authorize the Director of Public Works, or designee, to execute a Restricted Grant Agreement and any amendments thereto with the California Department of Transportation in order to receive grant funds for the City of Glendale’s Southeast Glendale Greening Project.

APPROVED AND PASSED this _____ day of ____________, 2022. ____________________________
Mayor, City of Glendale
ATTEST:
__________________________
City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS

CITY OF GLENDALE )
I, Suzie Abajian, 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, the same was adopted by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain: ___________________________
City Clerk
52 of 675
53 of 675
4f

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Cancellation of October 4, 2022 Regular Meeting and Adding October 11, 2022 Regular Meeting to the Council Calendar for the 2022-23 Fiscal Year

1. Motion Modifying City Council Regular Meeting Schedule for the 2022-23 Fiscal Year

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Consent Calendar
Approved for September 27, 2022 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On May 10, 2022, the Council adopted a motion establishing the City Council regular meeting dates for the 2022-23 fiscal year, which included a cancelled meeting on October 11, 2022. The Mayor and City Manager recommend cancelling the October 4, 2022 regular meeting (Yom Kippur) and reinstating the October 11, 2022 regular meeting.
54 of 675
2 f 4

COUNCIL PRIORITIES
N/A.

RECOMMENDATION
That the Council cancel the October 4, 2022 regular meeting and add October 11, 2022 to the Council regular meeting calendar for FY 2022-23.

BACKGROUND
The City Council’s regular meetings are on Tuesday evenings at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. The Council also holds special meetings from time-to-time as well as joint meetings with other City agencies, as necessary. For the past several years, Council has adopted a regular meeting schedule per fiscal year by cancelling specified regular meetings. The regular meeting schedule typically takes holidays and school calendars into consideration. It should be noted that the City Manager and staff strive to calendar Council items in a manner so that agendas are not overly light, nor overburdened in a manner that makes for excessively heavy agendas.

ANALYSIS
On May 10, 2022, the Council adopted a motion establishing the City Council regular meeting dates for the 2022-23 fiscal year, which included a cancelled meeting on October 11, 2022. The Mayor and City Manager recommend cancelling the October 4, 2022 regular meeting (Yom Kippur) and reinstating the October 11, 2022 regular meeting.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Not applicable.

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

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
This item is exempt from CEQA because there is no reasonable possibility that the proposed action will result in any significant environmental impact.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: The Council can modify the regular meeting schedule for fiscal year 2022-

23. 55 of 675
3 f 4
Alternative 2: The Council can choose not to modify the proposed regular meeting schedule for fiscal year 2022-23.

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

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Michael J. Garcia, City Attorney
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
N/A.
56 of 675
MOTION
Moved by Council Member ____________________________, seconded by Council Member __________________________ that the City Council hereby modifies its regular meeting schedule for the 2022-23 fiscal year to include every Tuesday at 6 p.m., except on those dates set forth below (“Excepted Dates”):
2022
July 5
July 26
August 2
August 23
August 30
September 6
October 4
November 8
November 22
December 20
December 27
2023
January 3
January 17
February 21
March 14
April 25
May 16
May 30
June 20
The regular meetings on the Excepted Dates are hereby cancelled.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
57 of 675
58 of 675
4g

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: 2022-2023 Grant from the State of California Office of Traffic Safety, Selective Traffic Enforcement Program, for distracted driving, Vehicle Code, bicycle, pedestrian, and driving under the influence violations.

1. Motion to approve the Glendale Police Department’s participation in the State of California Office of Traffic Safety, Selective Traffic Enforcement Program, and authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to accept grant funds in the amount of $285,000.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Consent Calendar
Approved for September 27, 2022 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
To accept $285,000 in grant funds from the State of California Office of Traffic Safety, Selective Traffic Enforcement Program, for distracted driving, Vehicle Code, bicycle, pedestrian, and driving under the influence violations. 59 of 675
2 g 4

COUNCIL PRIORITIES
N/A

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the attached motion accepting $285,000 in grant funds from the Office of Traffic Safety for the "Selective Traffic Enforcement Program" to be conducted by the Glendale Police Department.

BACKGROUND
The California Office of Traffic Safety for the Selective Traffic Enforcement Program uses best practice strategies to reduce the number of persons killed and injured in crashes involving alcohol and other primary crash factors. The funded strategies may include impaired driving enforcement, enforcement operations focusing on primary crash factors, distracted driving, night-time seat belt enforcement, special enforcement operations encouraging motorcycle safety, enforcement and public awareness in areas with a high number of bicycle and pedestrian crashes, and educational programs.

These strategies are designed to earn media attention thus enhancing the overall deterrent effect.

ANALYSIS
In December 2021, the Police Department submitted a grant request to the California Office of Traffic Safety for a program designed to increase enforcement that concentrates in the areas of speed violations and distracted driving. After reviewing the proposal through a competitive process, the Office of Traffic Safety advised that the City of Glendale is eligible for $285,000 in funding for this program. The city will utilize the majority of the grant funding for specialized field operations. Specifically, the city will use the funds to pay for overtime for police officers, community service officers, support staff, and supervisors when engaged in field based education and enforcement activities between October 1, 2022 and September 30, 2023.

The City of Glendale and the Glendale Police Department have a longstanding practice of proactive enforcement with respect to traffic related issues including efforts directed at both pedestrian and speed related violations. The Glendale Police Department believes additional education and enforcement will reduce the accident rate in the City of Glendale.

The grant includes funding for the following thirty-nine enforcement field operations:
• Four DUI/Driver’s License checkpoints;
• Fifteen saturation patrols concentrating on impaired driving; • Eleven traffic enforcement operations, including but not limited to, primary collision factor violations;
60 of 675
3 g 4
• Two enforcement operations will focus on distracted driving (cell phone use/texting) violations;
• Four bicycle and/or pedestrian operations;
• One motorcycle safety enforcement operation;
• Two “Know Your Limits” alcohol consumption education operations.

Additionally, the grant covers four traffic safety educational presentations to the community.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Participation in this program provides the Glendale Police Department the ability to educate the public regarding the dangers of impaired driving, enforce impaired driving laws on the roadway, and improve its effectiveness through training and development of new strategies.

FISCAL IMPACT
The FY2022-23 State of California Office of Traffic Safety Selective Traffic Enforcement Program award in the amount of $285,000 was included as a part of the FY2022-23 approved budget. No new appropriation is being requested at this time. The City Council approved funding is outlined below:

Existing Appropriation
Amount Account String Funding Source
$271,251 GL: 41100-2610-GPD-0020-P0000-
T0000-F0000-0000
PL: GPD00922AG
Police Special Grant Fund
- Labor
$3,591 GL: 44550-2610-GPD-0020-P0000-
T0000-F0000-0000
PL: GPD00922AG
Police Special Grant Fund
– Travel
$7,600 GL: 43110-2610-GPD-0020-P0000-
T0000-F0000-0000
PL: GPD00922AG
Police Special Grant Fund
– Contractual Services
$2,558 GL: 45350-2610-GPD-0020-P0000-
T0000-F0000-0000
PL: GPD00922AG
Police Special Grant Fund
– Supplies

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
This item is considered a ministerial activity and therefore, not subjected to CEQA/NEPA review. There is no possibility that the acceptance of this award may have a significant effect on the environment. (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15061(b)(3))

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements. 61 of 675
4 g 4

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Adopt the attached motion accepting $285,000 in grant funds from the Office of Traffic Safety for the "Selective Traffic Enforcement Program" to be conducted by the Glendale Police Department.

Alternative 2: Deny the Police Department’s request. If the request is denied, the Police Department will not be able to utilize the grant funding for traffic enforcement operations.

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

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Scott Byrne, Police Sergeant
Ryan Gunn, Police Sergeant
Alison Finch, Public Safety Business Administrator
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
None.
62 of 675

M O T I O N
Moved by Council Member _________________________, seconded by Council Member _________________________, that the City of Glendale hereby accepts a State of California Office of Traffic Safety Grant (hereafter “Grant”) in the sum of $285,000.00 and authorizes participation in the “Selective Traffic Enforcement Program” to fund Police Department personnel overtime costs for field based education and enforcement activities relating to traffic safety between October 1, 2022 and September 30, 2023, as more as more particularly discussed in the report to the City Council dated September 27, 2022.

The City Manager or his designee is hereby authorized to execute the necessary agreements, certifications, and other documents required to accept the Grant.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
63 of 675
7a

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Adoption of a Moratorium on New and Conversion of Existing Drive-through Waiting Lanes

1. Interim Urgency Ordinance Prohibiting Developments with New and Conversion of Existing Drive-through Waiting Lanes Citywide Without Pipeline Project Exemption;

2. Interim Urgency Ordinance Prohibiting Developments with New and Conversion of Existing Drive-through Waiting Lanes Citywide With Pipeline Project Exemption.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Adoption of Ordinances
Approved for September 27, 2022 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Council requested the consideration of a moratorium on the development of new and conversion of existing drive-through waiting lanes citywide. This is based on the need to conduct a study of the impacts created by new drive-through lanes throughout Glendale’s commercial areas and to study the manner of which they are permitted, and determine if the current code should be amended to better reflect current development trends involving new and conversion of existing drive-through lanes throughout the City.

Council also requested a report to consider a moratorium on potential developments proposing new and conversion of existing drive-through waiting lanes, to include all proposals that have not received approval at this time (pipeline).

On September 20, 2022, Council introduced two different versions of the interim urgency ordinance (one without a pipeline provision and one with a pipeline provision exempting projects with a return for redesign determination). If adopted (either version), the ordinance will be effective for 45 days (until November 11, 2022) unless extended for an additional 10 months and 15 days following a noticed public hearing. As such, if adopted, staff will notice a public hearing for November 1, 2022, for Council to consider extending the ordinance for an additional 10 months and 15 days, with adoption to occur on November 8, 2022, but the effective date to commence upon expiration of the first 45-day ordinance.
64 of 675
2 a 7

COUNCIL PRIORITIES
Economic Vibrancy: The moratorium is consistent with the Council’s desire to ensure that the growth and economic vibrancy of Glendale is befitting of the Council and community’s vision of a vibrant city, and to better understand the need and demand for drive-through waiting lanes.

Infrastructure and Mobility: The moratorium is consistent Council’s desire to have a well-planned and comprehensive transportation system that is a safe, efficient and wellcoordinated multi-modal circulation system that focuses on enhancing roadway safety through effective engineering, enforcement and education to the public.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt either version of the interim urgency ordinance.

BACKGROUND
The City Council requested a report regarding developments with drive-through waiting lanes and to consider introducing a moratorium on developments proposing new or conversion of existing drive-through waiting lanes while studying the demand for such developments, and considerations for requiring a conditional use permit (CUP) or other regulations regarding drive-through development.

The Planning Division has received a growing number of applications for drive-through establishments (modifications to existing and new) even as concerns regarding the safety, aesthetics, and environmental impacts of this activity continue to become more evident. The effects of drive-through lanes on the City's major streets are difficult to align with adopted policies to support creating more walkable and pedestrian friendly environments.

Over the last five years, five (5) drive-through applications associated with restaurants have been submitted for review. Of these, four (4) were modifications of existing fast food style restaurants with new operators, and one (1) new fast food style restaurant is pending with a return for redesign from the Design Review Board. Also within this time period, staff has been contacted by various restaurant operators to preliminarily discuss potential locations for new drive-through waiting lane locations throughout the City. Other drivethrough waiting lanes have been developed during this time and were generally associated with banks and pharmacies.

ANALYSIS
Section 30.32.090 of the Glendale Municipal Code contains standards for the approval of any drive-up or drive-through associated with a business (i.e. restaurants, drug stores).

Those standards currently require enough space for the stacking of approximately three (3) cars or minimum of 60 feet between the beginning of the waiting lane to the order board, with a total range of queuing length between 100 and 200 feet [an additional two (2) to seven (7) cars] for fast food and full-service restaurants. With approximately 20 feet per car, recent installations of fast food style drive-through waiting lanes in the City have 65 of 675
3 a 7
experienced significantly longer lines than the maximum required length of 200 feet.

When drive-through lines extend significantly on private property, the lines can create parking and circulation conflicts in the shopping centers where they are located. The line of vehicles can extend across sidewalks and into drive-way aprons, and even onto City streets, which can result in traffic hazards, including unexpected stopping of vehicles, blind spots, unsafe lane changes to avoid lines on City streets, and hazards to pedestrians attempting to cross driveway aprons and streets impacted by lines of vehicles.

The Council has already adopted amendments to the DSP to prohibit developments containing drive-through waiting lanes because, among other reasons, such developments in the DSP are not consistent with a walkable and pedestrian-friendly environment. A similar such prohibition that applies Citywide can be studied and considered for the same reasons.

In response to Council’s expressed concern and direction regarding the impacts of existing and new drive-through waiting lanes in the City, staff intends to review the existing standards to ensure that future drive-through waiting lane installations minimize any conflicts and impacts, and are consistent with the City’s long-term policies, as well as studying the impacts of drive through waiting lane modifications on disabled persons.

Staff will also study the impacts of an option to prohibit drive-through waiting lanes Citywide for some or all uses (i.e., fast food restaurants, banks, pharmacies, etc.).

Moratorium Discussion
Under California Government Code section 65858, a city may adopt an interim ordinance to temporarily prohibit certain land uses and/or development standards that may be in conflict with a contemplated general plan, specific plan, or zoning proposal that the City Council is considering or intends to study within a reasonable time. The purpose of such an interim ordinance is to give the City time to maintain the status quo and prohibit the issuance of entitlements or permits that would be in conflict with new contemplated standards. The rationale for an urgency ordinance that takes immediate effect is to prevent a “rush to the counter” of applications to establish new uses or development under old standards before new standards can be put in place. The delay in issuing permits allows the city to subject all new uses to the new standards.

Urgency interim ordinances under Government Code Section 65858 require adoption by 4/5 vote of the Council and expire within 45 days, unless extended in the manner described below. An urgency ordinance may only be adopted if the Council finds that there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety and welfare, and that the approval of additional entitlements, permits, and other approvals would result in a threat to that public health, safety, or welfare. In this case, the findings in the attached ordinance identify the consideration of proposed changes to drive-through waiting lane standards, or modifying how drive-through waiting lanes are permitted within the city.

These findings would be legislative in nature, and would be entitled to a presumption of conclusiveness if adopted by Council.

After notice and public hearing, an interim ordinance may thereafter be extended for a 66 of 675
4 a 7
period not to exceed ten (10) months and fifteen (15) days, and then it may be extended once more for one year. An extension of an interim ordinance also required 4/5 vote of the Council.

Though the Council may utilize the moratorium mechanism while the City reviews potential changes to standards for drive-through waiting lanes, consideration should be given to “pipeline” status for projects that have some level of approval. While the recent number of drive-through waiting lane proposals has recently increased, it should be noted that the concerns have generally been at existing locations that were a result of turnover from perhaps less frequented fast food restaurants with drive-through waiting lanes to more popular establishments, many of which do not comply with current zoning standards.

Urgency Ordinance Procedures
The Council can adopt an urgency ordinance without following the typical procedures to amend the zoning code, which typically requires notice, public hearings before the Planning Commission and Council, introduction and adoption by the City Council, and a 30-day delay between the adoption and the effective date of the new law. An urgency ordinance can be passed consistent with the Charter and state law by introduction at one Council meeting and adoption at a subsequent regular meeting and can become immediately effective. At least ten (10) days prior to the expiration of the urgency ordinance, the Council must receive and approve a report outlining the actions the City has taken to alleviate the conditions which led to the adoption of the ordinance. In other words, the City must provide a status report on the action it has undertaken with respect to any potential changes to the use/development standards for drive-through waiting lanes in this report.

Urgency Options
If Council desires to adopt an urgency interim ordinance, staff has prepared the two versions of the draft ordinances that were both introduced on September 20, 2022, for consideration. Council would need a 4/5 vote on either one of the two versions of the ordinance (one without a pipeline exemption and one with a pipeline exemption) which would determine if any projects would be exempt from the proposed interim ordinance.

Non-Urgency Options
Council could hold off on adoption of a moratorium until a policy analysis can be executed.

This study would seek to understand potential physical, social and environmental impacts of new and existing drive-through waiting lane developments in the City, the impact of the current design, development and other land use standards and requirements on such development, including, but not limited to, whether there is a need for additional drivethrough waiting lane development in the City. 67 of 675
5 a 7

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Stakeholder and public outreach would be conducted during any policy studies regarding the demand and effect of new or conversion of existing drive-through waiting lane standards and/or processes. This includes any businesses that would be impacted by this change, as well as residents and adjacent neighborhoods to understand impacts to quality of life.

FISCAL IMPACT
The action of placing a moratorium on future drive-through waiting lanes has no direct costs or financial benefits associated with it. Indirectly, the City would not gain the sales tax and associated permit fees that would flow from future drive-through waiting lane developments.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Community Development Department staff have evaluated the potential environmental effects of adoption of the proposed Interim Ordinance temporarily barring new or conversion of existing drive-through waiting lanes within the City of Glendale within the meaning of and pursuant to CEQA, and have concluded that this action is consistent with classes of projects that do not have a significant effect on the environment, and thereby qualify for a Categorical Exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(3), 15307, and 15308; the action is therefore exempt from further environmental review or the preparation of an environmental document.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Adopt one of two versions of the interim urgency ordinance imposing a 45-day moratorium on all development projects containing a new or conversion of existing drive-through waiting lane with or without exemption for development projects with a certain level of approval (“pipeline status”) as of the date of adoption.

2. Decline to adopt either version of the urgency ordinance.

3. Choose any other alternative not proposed by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Bradley Calvert, Director of Community Development
68 of 675
6 a 7
Prepared by:

Kristen Asp, AICP, Principal Planner
Reviewed by:

Michael J. Garcia, City Attorney
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS / ATTACHMENTS
None.
69 of 675
1 ORDINANCE NO. _______

AN INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA, PROHIBITING ISSUANCE OF ENTITLEMENTS AND/OR PERMITS FOR DEVELOPMENTS WITH NEW OR CONVERTED DRIVETHROUGH WAITING LANES IN THE CITY AND DECLARING THE URGENCY

THEREOF

NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND DECLARE AS FOLLOWS:

WHEREAS, concerns have been raised over the number of developments with uses and/or standards that include new and converted drive-through waiting lanes in all parts of the City; and
WHEREAS, residents, Councilmembers, and other stakeholders and individuals have expressed concerns that current zoning regulations may not fully address the impacts that drive-through waiting lanes may have in the community, and the effects of drive-through waiting lanes on the City's major streets; and WHEREAS, when drive-through waiting lines extend significantly on private property, the lines can create parking and circulation conflicts within the shopping centers where they are located and those lines can extend across sidewalks and into drive-way aprons, and even onto City streets, which can result in significant traffic hazards, including, but not limited to, unexpected stopping of vehicles, blind spots, unsafe lane changes to avoid lines on City streets, and hazards to pedestrians attempting to cross driveway aprons and streets impacted by lines of cars; and WHEREAS, the goal of any new drive-through waiting lane zoning standards, allowable uses and regulations is to develop comprehensive regulations which recognize and balance the various interests related to drive-through waiting lanes in a manner tailored to the City's unique needs and community vision, and which are supportive of more walkable and pedestrian friendly environments, and which reflect the land use and zoning policy choices of the City; and
WHEREAS, the Glendale Municipal Code contains the standards for the approval of drive-through waiting lanes and establishes the desired physical development requirements; and
WHEREAS, the development standards established for drive-through waiting lines are meant to allow development with drive-through waiting lanes in a logical and safe manner by accommodating patrons of drive-through waiting lanes on-site, thereby minimizing conflicts with multi-modal forms of transportation (walking, cycling, vehicular) in the use of City streets, alleys, bike lanes and sidewalks; and 70 of 675
2 WHEREAS, the drive-through waiting lane development standards contained in Section 30.32.090 and accompanying Chart IX (Section 30.32.180) of the Glendale Municipal Code (“Parking and Loading – Parking Area Design and Layout Standards”) allows development projects that propose a drive-through waiting lane with the minimum dimensions and layout standards for an onsite vehicular waiting lane, including start of lane distances from service windows for restaurant uses and other uses, and from ordering devices, as well as a requirement for a separation lane from the onsite circulation to off-street parking spaces. These standards are intended to eliminate encounters of vehicles using the waiting lane versus vehicular access to off-street parking as well as, eliminate the spillover of waiting vehicles onto adjacent public-r-o-w’s or neighboring properties; and
WHEREAS, there are several current and future uses that are eligible and may propose new or converted drive-through waiting lanes Citywide, and there is one current development proposing a drive-through waiting lane using the drive-through waiting lane development standards that has received some level of discretionary review, Starbucks – 216-222 S Glendale and 611 Orange Grove (Return for Redesign); if developed, this would allow a 1,414 square-foot counter service restaurant with a drive-through waiting lane; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted an ordinance amending the Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) to prohibit developments with drive-through waiting lanes in the DSP because such developments are contrary to the City’s goal of creating a pedestrianfriendly environment and encouraging residents to walk and bike in the DSP, and the City wishes to comprehensively study the benefits of such a prohibition Citywide; and WHEREAS, drive-through waiting lane developments utilizing current development standards are a permitted use in most all Commercial, Mixed-Use and Industrial Zones (soon to be considered for prohibition by City Council in the DSP and currently prohibited in IMU-R and SFMU Zones for fast food restaurants only) and do not require any special conditional or other use permit; and WHEREAS, the City is considering revising or eliminating the drive-through waiting lane development standards or amending the Glendale Municipal Code to require uses proposing drive-through waiting lanes to obtain a conditional use permit, or prohibit such use entirely; and
WHEREAS, maintaining the status quo with respect to drive-through waiting lanes in the City by assuring that no applications for developments that contain uses or standards with new or converted drive-through waiting lanes are accepted, processed or approved, and no building permits for new or converted drive-through waiting lanes are issued while the City conducts a study on drive-through waiting lanes, is consistent with good planning; and
WHEREAS, until the drive-through waiting lane policy study is complete, and any new regulations are adopted, there is a significant risk that some individuals or entities 71 of 675
3 may make investments in and/or obtain approval to develop new drive-through lanes that would soon thereafter be illegal, nonconforming, or subject to an amortization program; and
WHEREAS, during this process, the City will be thoroughly studying and examining the potential physical, social and environmental impacts of new and existing drive-through waiting lane developments in the City, the impact of the current design, development and other land use standards and requirements on such development, including, but not limited to, whether there is a need for additional drive-through waiting lane development in the City; and
WHEREAS, the potential exists that proposed or converted drive-through waiting lane development project applications are inconsistent and in conflict with any new or eliminated drive-through waiting lane development policies, zoning, or revised standards of property development may be filed during the term that the City is studying potential revisions to drive-through waiting lane development standards and/or uses; and WHEREAS, any approval of new or conversion of drive-through waiting lane development in the City has the potential to contravene future revised drive-through waiting lane design, development and entitlement standards and requirements, while such revisions are being studied, which will result in a threat to the health, safety and general welfare of residents in the City; and
WHEREAS, in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare, it is now necessary for the City to undertake action to review and revise applicable provisions of the Glendale Municipal Code in order to provide for the reexamination within a reasonable time, of drive-through waiting lane design, development and entitlement standards and requirements in the City; and
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65858 provides that a city council may adopt by a four-fifths vote as an urgency measure an interim ordinance prohibiting any uses or development standards that may be in conflict with a general plan or zoning measure that the city is considering or studying, or intends to study within a reasonable time; and
WHEREAS, the moratorium on new or conversion of existing drive-through waiting lane development for any project will prevent changes to the existing physical environment within the city, and therefore, will not result in significant environmental impacts under CEQA, which are made in comparison to existing physical conditions (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15125(a) and 15126.2(a)).
72 of 675
4 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Findings.

The City Council finds, determines, and declares that:

1. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.

2. The City’s Community Development Department staff have fully evaluated the potential environmental effects of adoption of this Interim Ordinance temporarily barring development projects with drive-through waiting lanes and conversion of exiting drive-through waiting lanes from changing establishments within the City of Glendale within the meaning of and pursuant to CEQA, and the City Council finds that this action is consistent with classes of projects that do not have a significant effect on the environment and thereby approves a Categorical Exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(3), 15307, and 15308, and certifies that this Interim Ordinance is exempt from the requirement of further environmental review or the preparation of an environmental document.

3. The City has an overriding interest in planning and regulating development projects within the City. Implicit in any plan or regulation is the City’s interest in maintaining the quality of urban life and the character of the City’s neighborhoods.

4. Without stable, well-planned neighborhoods, areas of the City can quickly deteriorate, with negative consequences to social, environmental, and economic values.

5. The City has adopted a General Plan and various specific plans, to ensure a well-planned and safe community.

6. The City Council has introduced amendments to the DSP to prohibit developments that contain drive-through waiting lanes in the DSP because such developments are contrary to the City’s goal of encouraging pedestrian activity and alternative modes of transportation such as bicycle riding and public transportation, and wishes to comprehensively study whether such a prohibition should also be enacted Citywide.

7. The City finds that the potential exists that drive-through waiting lane project applications inconsistent and in conflict with any new or eliminated drive-through waiting lane and development policies, zoning, incentives, impact fees or revised standards of property development may be filed during the term that the City is studying potential revisions to drive-through waiting lane, development standards, and conditional use permit requirements, and that any approval of development uses that include new or converted drive-through waiting lanes have the potential to contravene future revised or eliminated drive-through waiting lanes and development standards 73 of 675
5 while such standards are being studied, which will result in a threat to the public health, safety and general welfare of residents in the City.

SECTION 2. Moratorium.

1. There is hereby imposed a 45-day moratorium on the approval of any land use entitlement(s) and/or permits under the Glendale Municipal Code for development projects which contain new, or conversion of existing, drive-through waiting lanes, defined as any project that proposes the development of a “drive-through waiting lane”, as defined in Glendale Municipal Code section 30.32.090 (“Drive-through Waiting Lane Project”) within the City of Glendale.

2. It is the intent of the City Council that any proposal for a Drive-through Waiting Lane Project within the City during the period of the moratorium shall be considered inconsistent with this Ordinance and with the City’s land use policies and zoning regulations for all purposes, and by all agencies charged with reviewing any application for such development.

3. City staff is directed to undertake a comprehensive study, as described above, and recommend new or amended policies, zoning or development standards, with respect to drive-through waiting lane developments in the City for consideration by the City Council.

4. Violations of this interim moratorium may be charged as a misdemeanor as set forth in Glendale Municipal Code Section 1.20.010, may be the subject of administrative code enforcement remedies as set forth in Chapter 1.24 of the Glendale Municipal Code, or may be deemed a public nuisance and may be enforced by an action for injunction or civil penalties as provided in the Glendale Municipal Code, or by any other remedy authorized by law.

5. The Glendale City Manager is hereby authorized to direct all City Departments, including the Community Development Department, the Police Department, and City Attorney, to facilitate compliance with the purpose and intent of this Interim Ordinance using the enforcement powers described in the preceding paragraph.

SECTION 3. Urgency.

By the City Council’s making the findings and determinations of fact which the Council declares to constitute an urgency for the immediate preservation of the public health, safety or welfare, the City Council hereby declares that this Ordinance is an urgency measure pursuant to City of Glendale Charter Article 6, Section 7 and Government Code Section 65858, which becomes effective immediately upon adoption by an affirmative vote of at least four-fifths (4/5ths) of the members of the City Council. 74 of 675
6 SECTION 4. Severability.

This Ordinance’s provisions are severable. If any portion of this Ordinance or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid or unconstitutional, that decision does not affect the validity of the Ordinance’s remaining portions and the Ordinance’s application to other persons and circumstances. The City Council declares that it would have passed the remainder of this Ordinance without the invalid or unconstitutional provision.

SECTION 5. Adoption and Incorporation.

The findings and information contained in the City Council staff report dated September 20, 2022, are hereby adopted and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.

SECTION 6. Effectiveness.

This Ordinance shall be of no further force and effect 45 days from its date of adoption unless timely extended by further action of the City Council.

SECTION 7. Certification.

The City Clerk shall certify this Ordinance’s adoption and cause the Ordinance to be published in a manner consistent with the requirements of applicable state and local law.

Adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale on the ____ day of ________, 2022.
___________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
75 of 675
7 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS.

CITY OF GLENDALE )
I, Suzie Abajian, Ph.D., City Clerk of the City of Glendale, certify that the foregoing Urgency Ordinance No. _________ was passed by a 4/5ths 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 adopted by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
___________________________________
City Clerk
76 of 675
1 ORDINANCE NO. _______

AN INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA, PROHIBITING ISSUANCE OF ENTITLEMENTS AND/OR PERMITS FOR DEVELOPMENTS WITH NEW OR CONVERTED DRIVETHROUGH WAITING LANES IN THE CITY AND DECLARING THE URGENCY

THEREOF

NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND DECLARE AS FOLLOWS:

WHEREAS, concerns have been raised over the number of developments with uses and/or standards that include new and converted drive-through waiting lanes in all parts of the City; and
WHEREAS, residents, Councilmembers, and other stakeholders and individuals have expressed concerns that current zoning regulations may not fully address the impacts that drive-through waiting lanes may have in the community, and the effects of drive-through waiting lanes on the City's major streets; and WHEREAS, when drive-through waiting lines extend significantly on private property, the lines can create parking and circulation conflicts within the shopping centers where they are located and those lines can extend across sidewalks and into drive-way aprons, and even onto City streets, which can result in significant traffic hazards, including, but not limited to, unexpected stopping of vehicles, blind spots, unsafe lane changes to avoid lines on City streets, and hazards to pedestrians attempting to cross driveway aprons and streets impacted by lines of cars; and WHEREAS, the goal of any new drive-through waiting lane zoning standards, allowable uses and regulations is to develop comprehensive regulations which recognize and balance the various interests related to drive-through waiting lanes in a manner tailored to the City's unique needs and community vision, and which are supportive of more walkable and pedestrian friendly environments, and which reflect the land use and zoning policy choices of the City; and
WHEREAS, the Glendale Municipal Code contains the standards for the approval of drive-through waiting lanes and establishes the desired physical development requirements; and
WHEREAS, the development standards established for drive-through waiting lines are meant to allow development with drive-through waiting lanes in a logical and safe manner by accommodating patrons of drive-through waiting lanes on-site, thereby minimizing conflicts with multi-modal forms of transportation (walking, cycling, vehicular) in the use of City streets, alleys, bike lanes and sidewalks; and 77 of 675
2 WHEREAS, the drive-through waiting lane development standards contained in Section 30.32.090 and accompanying Chart IX (Section 30.32.180) of the Glendale Municipal Code (“Parking and Loading – Parking Area Design and Layout Standards”) allows development projects that propose a drive-through waiting lane with the minimum dimensions and layout standards for an onsite vehicular waiting lane, including start of lane distances from service windows for restaurant uses and other uses, and from ordering devices, as well as a requirement for a separation lane from the onsite circulation to off-street parking spaces. These standards are intended to eliminate encounters of vehicles using the waiting lane versus vehicular access to off-street parking as well as, eliminate the spillover of waiting vehicles onto adjacent public-r-o-w’s or neighboring properties; and
WHEREAS, there are several current and future uses that are eligible and may propose new or converted drive-through waiting lanes Citywide, and there is one current development proposing a drive-through waiting lane using the drive-through waiting lane development standards that has received some level of discretionary review, Starbucks – 216-222 S Glendale and 611 Orange Grove (Return for Redesign); if developed, this would allow a 1,414 square-foot counter service restaurant with a drive-through waiting lane; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted an ordinance amending the Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) to prohibit developments with drive-through waiting lanes in the DSP because such developments are contrary to the City’s goal of creating a pedestrianfriendly environment and encouraging residents to walk and bike in the DSP, and the City wishes to comprehensively study the benefits of such a prohibition Citywide; and WHEREAS, drive-through waiting lane developments utilizing current development standards are a permitted use in most all Commercial, Mixed-Use and Industrial Zones (soon to be considered for prohibition by City Council in the DSP and currently prohibited in IMU-R and SFMU Zones for fast food restaurants only) and do not require any special conditional or other use permit; and WHEREAS, the City is considering revising or eliminating the drive-through waiting lane development standards or amending the Glendale Municipal Code to require uses proposing drive-through waiting lanes to obtain a conditional use permit, or prohibit such use entirely; and
WHEREAS, maintaining the status quo with respect to drive-through waiting lanes in the City by assuring that no applications for developments that contain uses or standards with new or converted drive-through waiting lanes are accepted, processed or approved, and no building permits for new or converted drive-through waiting lanes are issued while the City conducts a study on drive-through waiting lanes, is consistent with good planning; and
WHEREAS, until the drive-through waiting lane policy study is complete, and any new regulations are adopted, there is a significant risk that some individuals or entities 78 of 675
3 may make investments in and/or obtain approval to develop new drive-through lanes that would soon thereafter be illegal, nonconforming, or subject to an amortization program; and
WHEREAS, during this process, the City will be thoroughly studying and examining the potential physical, social and environmental impacts of new and existing drive-through waiting lane developments in the City, the impact of the current design, development and other land use standards and requirements on such development, including, but not limited to, whether there is a need for additional drive-through waiting lane development in the City; and
WHEREAS, the potential exists that proposed or converted drive-through waiting lane development project applications are inconsistent and in conflict with any new or eliminated drive-through waiting lane development policies, zoning, or revised standards of property development may be filed during the term that the City is studying potential revisions to drive-through waiting lane development standards and/or uses; and WHEREAS, any approval of new or conversion of drive-through waiting lane development in the City has the potential to contravene future revised drive-through waiting lane design, development and entitlement standards and requirements, while such revisions are being studied, which will result in a threat to the health, safety and general welfare of residents in the City; and
WHEREAS, in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare, it is now necessary for the City to undertake action to review and revise applicable provisions of the Glendale Municipal Code in order to provide for the reexamination within a reasonable time, of drive-through waiting lane design, development and entitlement standards and requirements in the City; and
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65858 provides that a city council may adopt by a four-fifths vote as an urgency measure an interim ordinance prohibiting any uses or development standards that may be in conflict with a general plan or zoning measure that the city is considering or studying, or intends to study within a reasonable time; and
WHEREAS, the moratorium on new or conversion of existing drive-through waiting lane development for any project will prevent changes to the existing physical environment within the city, and therefore, will not result in significant environmental impacts under CEQA, which are made in comparison to existing physical conditions (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15125(a) and 15126.2(a)).
79 of 675
4 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Findings.

The City Council finds, determines, and declares that:

1. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.

2. The City’s Community Development Department staff have fully evaluated the potential environmental effects of adoption of this Interim Ordinance temporarily barring development projects with drive-through waiting lanes and conversion of exiting drive-through waiting lanes from changing establishments within the City of Glendale within the meaning of and pursuant to CEQA, and the City Council finds that this action is consistent with classes of projects that do not have a significant effect on the environment and thereby approves a Categorical Exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(3), 15307, and 15308, and certifies that this Interim Ordinance is exempt from the requirement of further environmental review or the preparation of an environmental document.

3. The City has an overriding interest in planning and regulating development projects within the City. Implicit in any plan or regulation is the City’s interest in maintaining the quality of urban life and the character of the City’s neighborhoods.

4. Without stable, well-planned neighborhoods, areas of the City can quickly deteriorate, with negative consequences to social, environmental, and economic values.

5. The City has adopted a General Plan and various specific plans, to ensure a well-planned and safe community.

6. The City Council has introduced amendments to the DSP to prohibit developments that contain drive-through waiting lanes in the DSP because such developments are contrary to the City’s goal of encouraging pedestrian activity and alternative modes of transportation such as bicycle riding and public transportation, and wishes to comprehensively study whether such a prohibition should also be enacted Citywide.

7. The City finds that the potential exists that drive-through waiting lane project applications inconsistent and in conflict with any new or eliminated drive-through waiting lane and development policies, zoning, incentives, impact fees or revised standards of property development may be filed during the term that the City is studying potential revisions to drive-through waiting lane, development standards, and conditional use permit requirements, and that any approval of development uses that include new or converted drive-through waiting lanes have the potential to contravene future revised or eliminated drive-through waiting lanes and development standards 80 of 675
5 while such standards are being studied, which will result in a threat to the public health, safety and general welfare of residents in the City.

SECTION 2. Moratorium.

1. There is hereby imposed a 45-day moratorium on the approval of any land use entitlement(s) and/or permits under the Glendale Municipal Code for development projects which contain new, or conversion of existing, drive-through waiting lanes, defined as any project that proposes the development of a “drive-through waiting lane”, as defined in Glendale Municipal Code section 30.32.090 (“Drive-through Waiting Lane Project”) within the City of Glendale. Said moratorium shall not apply to any Drive-through Waiting Lane Project that has received a return for redesign determination from the Design Review Board prior to the effective date of this Ordinance.

2. It is the intent of the City Council that any proposal for a Drive-through Waiting Lane Project within the City during the period of the moratorium shall be considered inconsistent with this Ordinance and with the City’s land use policies and zoning regulations for all purposes, and by all agencies charged with reviewing any application for such development except as specifically exempted in Subsection 1 above.

3. City staff is directed to undertake a comprehensive study, as described above, and recommend new or amended policies, zoning or development standards, with respect to drive-through waiting lane developments in the City for consideration by the City Council.

4. Violations of this interim moratorium may be charged as a misdemeanor as set forth in Glendale Municipal Code Section 1.20.010, may be the subject of administrative code enforcement remedies as set forth in Chapter 1.24 of the Glendale Municipal Code, or may be deemed a public nuisance and may be enforced by an action for injunction or civil penalties as provided in the Glendale Municipal Code, or by any other remedy authorized by law.

5. The Glendale City Manager is hereby authorized to direct all City Departments, including the Community Development Department, the Police Department, and City Attorney, to facilitate compliance with the purpose and intent of this Interim Ordinance using the enforcement powers described in the preceding paragraph.

SECTION 3. Urgency.

By the City Council’s making the findings and determinations of fact which the Council declares to constitute an urgency for the immediate preservation of the public health, safety or welfare, the City Council hereby declares that this Ordinance is an urgency measure pursuant to City of Glendale Charter Article 6, Section 7 and Government Code Section 65858, which becomes effective immediately upon adoption by an affirmative vote of at least four-fifths (4/5ths) of the members of the City Council. 81 of 675
6 SECTION 4. Severability.

This Ordinance’s provisions are severable. If any portion of this Ordinance or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid or unconstitutional, that decision does not affect the validity of the Ordinance’s remaining portions and the Ordinance’s application to other persons and circumstances. The City Council declares that it would have passed the remainder of this Ordinance without the invalid or unconstitutional provision.

SECTION 5. Adoption and Incorporation.

The findings and information contained in the City Council staff report dated September 20, 2022, are hereby adopted and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.

SECTION 6. Effectiveness.

This Ordinance shall be of no further force and effect 45 days from its date of adoption unless timely extended by further action of the City Council.

SECTION 7. Certification.

The City Clerk shall certify this Ordinance’s adoption and cause the Ordinance to be published in a manner consistent with the requirements of applicable state and local law.

Adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale on the ____ day of ________, 2022.
___________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
82 of 675
7 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS.

CITY OF GLENDALE )
I, Suzie Abajian, Ph.D., City Clerk of the City of Glendale, certify that the foregoing Urgency Ordinance No. _________ was passed by a 4/5ths 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 adopted by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
___________________________________
City Clerk
83 of 675
From: Brenna
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes; Devine, Paula; Brotman, Daniel; Najarian, Ara; Asatryan, Elen; Abajian, Suzie; Golanian, Roubik
Subject: Public Comment on item 7a (SUPPORT Drive-Thru Moratorium) Date: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 8:07:38 AM
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Mayor Kassakhian and Councilmembers,
We strongly urge your support of the drive-thru moratorium, and its inclusion of existing pipeline projects that include the proposed Starbucks drive-thru project at 222 S. Glendale Avenue.

Glendale residents are already subjected to high traffic volumes and increasing safety concerns. South Glendale, in particular, is densely populated with families and young children.

We are concerned about the impact of the proposed Starbucks drive-thru on the health and safety of residents. It is unfair for this already-burdened part of Glendale to have yet another high volume drive-thru.

Pedestrian health and safety should be of utmost concern to the City. We would love to have more coffee shops, but do not need more high volume drive-thrus that add pollution and safety issues to the communities of South Glendale. Please stop this proposed project and help the area become more pedestrian friendly and kid friendly.

Sincerely,
Brenna Cancilla
84 of 675
From: Wendy Hunter
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes; Devine, Paula; Brotman, Daniel; Najarian, Ara; Asatryan, Elen; Abajian, Suzie; Golanian, Roubik
Subject: Public Comment on item 7a (SUPPORT Drive-Thru Moratorium) Date: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 6:11:42 AM
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Mayor Kassakhian and Councilmembers,
We strongly urge your support of the drive-thru moratorium, and its inclusion of existing pipeline projects that include the proposed Starbucks drive-thru project at 222 S. Glendale Avenue.

Glendale residents are already subjected to high traffic volumes and increasing safety concerns. South Glendale, in particular, is densely populated with families and young children. We are concerned about the impact of the proposed Starbucks drive-thru on the health and safety of residents. It is unfair for this already-burdened part of Glendale to have yet another high volume drive-thru.

Pedestrian health and safety should be of utmost concern to the City. We would love to have more coffee shops but do not need more high volume drive-thrus that add pollution and safety issues to the communities of South Glendale. Please stop this proposed project and help the area become more pedestrian friendly and kid friendly.

Sincerely,
Wendy Hunter
85 of 675
From: Nathalie Winiarski
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes; Devine, Paula; Brotman, Daniel; Najarian, Ara; Asatryan, Elen; Abajian, Suzie; Golanian, Roubik
Subject: Public Comment on item 7a (SUPPORT Drive-Thru Moratorium) Date: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 6:04:10 AM
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Mayor Kassakhian and Councilmembers,
We strongly urge your support of the drive-thru moratorium, and its inclusion of existing pipeline projects that include the proposed Starbucks drive-thru project at 222 S. Glendale Avenue.

Glendale residents are already subjected to high traffic volumes and increasing safety concerns. South Glendale, in particular, is densely populated with families and young children. We are concerned about the impact of the proposed Starbucks drive-thru on the health and safety of residents. It is unfair for this already-burdened part of Glendale to have yet another high volume drive-thru.

Pedestrian health and safety should be of utmost concern to the City. We would love to have more coffee shops but do not need more high volume drive-thrus that add pollution and safety issues to the communities of South Glendale. Please stop this proposed project and help the area become more pedestrian friendly and kid friendly.

Sincerely,
Sent from my iPhone
86 of 675
From: cjboles
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes; Devine, Paula; Brotman, Daniel; Najarian, Ara; Asatryan, Elen; Abajian, Suzie; Golanian, Roubik
Subject: Public Comment on item 7a (SUPPORT Drive-Thru Moratorium) Date: Monday, September 26, 2022 10:58:21 PM
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Mayor Kassakhian and Councilmembers,
We strongly urge your support of the drive-thru moratorium, and its inclusion of existing pipeline projects that include the proposed Starbucks drive-thru project at 222 S. Glendale Avenue.

Glendale residents are already subjected to high traffic volumes and increasing safety concerns. South Glendale, in particular, is densely populated with families and young children.

We are concerned about the impact of the proposed Starbucks drive-thru on the health and safety of residents. It is unfair for this already-burdened part of Glendale to have yet another high volume drive-thru.

Pedestrian health and safety should be of utmost concern to the City. We would love to have more coffee shops but do not need more high volume drive-thrus that add pollution and safety issues to the communities of South Glendale. Please stop this proposed project and help the area become more pedestrian friendly and kid friendly.

Sincerely,
Caroline Boles
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S10e, an AT&T 5G Evolution capable smartphone 87 of 675
From: Sean C. Abajian
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes; Asatryan, Elen; Devine, Paula; Golanian, Roubik; Abajian, Suzie; Najarian, Ara; Brotman, Daniel
Subject: Public Comment on item 7a (SUPPORT Drive-Thru Moratorium) Date: Monday, September 26, 2022 10:12:48 PM
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Mayor Kassakhian and Councilmembers,
We strongly urge your support of the drive-thru moratorium, and its inclusion of existing pipeline projects that include the proposed Starbucks drive-thru project at 222 S. Glendale Avenue.

Glendale residents are already subjected to high traffic volumes and increasing safety concerns. South Glendale, in particular, is densely populated with families and young children.

We are concerned about the impact of the proposed Starbucks drive-thru on the health and safety of residents. It is unfair for this already-burdened part of Glendale to have yet another high volume drive-thru.

Pedestrian health and safety should be of utmost concern to the City. We would love to have more coffee shops but do not need more high volume drive-thrus that add pollution and safety issues to the communities of South Glendale. Please stop this proposed project and help the area become more pedestrian friendly and kid friendly.

Sincerely,
Sean Abajian
South Glendale Resident &
Father of a Toddler
88 of 675
From: Lerna Kayserian Shirinian
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes; Devine, Paula; Brotman, Daniel; Najarian, Ara; Asatryan, Elen; Abajian, Suzie; Golanian, Roubik
Subject: Public Comment on item 7a (SUPPORT Drive-Thru Moratorium) Date: Monday, September 26, 2022 10:04:22 PM
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Mayor Kassakhian and Councilmembers,
We strongly urge your support of the drive-thru moratorium, and its inclusion of existing pipeline projects that include the proposed Starbucks drive-thru project at 222 S. Glendale Avenue.

Glendale residents are already subjected to high traffic volumes and increasing safety concerns. South Glendale, in particular, is densely populated with families and young children like mine. We are concerned about the impact of the proposed Starbucks drive-thru on the health and safety of residents. It is unfair for this already-burdened part of Glendale to have yet another high volume drive-thru.

Pedestrian health and safety should be of utmost concern to the City. We would love to have more coffee shops but do not need more high volume drive-thrus that add pollution and safety issues to the communities of South Glendale. Please stop this proposed project and help the area become more pedestrian friendly and kid friendly. We love Glendale and want to continue living in this great city.

Thank you,
Lerna Shirinian
1122 Raleigh St
Glendale, CA 91205
89 of 675
September 26, 2022
Dear Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers,
As Urban Planning professionals in Glendale, we support the moratorium on drive-thrus including pipeline projects (the proposed Starbucks project), while studying the issue for further consideration.

Earlier this month you voted unanimously to ban drive-thrus in the Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) area, citing sound policy objectives: promote walkability, more sustainable land uses, reduce pedestrian conflicts, and not actively encourage driving in already-congested parts of the city. While we support the ethos of that decision 100%, the limited boundaries of the DSP only means negative impacts of drive-thrus everywhere else.

Of particular concern is South Glendale where residents are already burdened by congestion. By SB 535’s standards, South Glendale is a disadvantaged community where we should reduce greenhouse gas emissions. South Glendale residents are more likely to walk, bike and take transit, yet most drive-thrus are located south of the 134 freeway. Nearly all high-collision corridors cited in the Pedestrian Plan (see page 3-3) are in South Glendale, including Glendale Ave. and Colorado Blvd. For example, on Colorado between Adams and Verdugo, there are 5 drive-thrus and 3 gas stations just within 0.4 miles.

This stretch is also a high-collision corridor in the Pedestrian Plan, but not within the DSP area.

Why include pipeline projects? The proposed Starbucks drive-thru on Glendale Avenue has been to the Design Review Board (DRB) twice. Both times, concerns were raised by DRB members, next door neighbors, and the larger community about the drive-thru component. Procedurally, the existing city code requires “up to 200 feet” of queuing which is inadequate, outdated, and does not factor post-pandemic driving patterns. We experience the outcome of drive-thru Starbucks causing havoc in communities repeatedly time, and time, and time again. The city also relies on the applicant’s own Local Traffic Analysis (LTA) that cites the existing queuing at Glenoaks and Grandview, which we all know has created immeasurable problems for Northwest Glendale. The process is broken and should not approve projects with faulty LTA’s at the community’s expense.

Lastly, the existing site includes 7 small businesses (6,100 sq. ft.) and a house (900 sq ft.). The proposed project would replace those uses with one small 1,400 sq. ft. business solely oriented toward the automobile, which is very pedestrian unfriendly and inappropriate for a dense commercial corridor like Glendale Avenue. Thank you for considering a drive-thru moratorium citywide and we hope to work with you to make our city safer.

Best,
Urban Planners in South Glendale Urban Planners in Glendale Alek Bartrosouf David Mariscal
Ani Garibyan Danny Manasserian
Kirsten Bladh Desiree Portillo Rabinov
Raziq Rauf Erik Yesayan
Regina Alcazar Jessica Meaney
Lia Soorenian
Shana Bonstin
Talin Shahbazian
90 of 675
From: V Bedikian
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes; Devine, Paula; Brotman, Daniel; Najarian, Ara; Asatryan, Elen; Abajian, Suzie; Golanian, Roubik
Subject: Public Comment on item 7a (SUPPORT Drive-Thru Moratorium) Date: Monday, September 26, 2022 9:46:01 PM
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Mayor Kassakhian and Councilmembers,
We strongly urge your support of the drive-thru moratorium, and its inclusion of existing pipeline projects that include the proposed Starbucks drive-thru project at 222 S. Glendale Avenue.

Glendale residents are already subjected to high traffic volumes and increasing safety concerns. South Glendale, in particular, is densely populated with families and young children.

We are concerned about the impact of the proposed Starbucks drive-thru on the health and safety of residents. It is unfair for this already-burdened part of Glendale to have yet another high volume drive-thru.

Pedestrian health and safety should be of utmost concern to the City. We would love to have more coffee shops but do not need more high volume drive-thrus that add pollution and safety issues to the communities of South Glendale. Please stop this proposed project and help the area become more pedestrian friendly and kid friendly.

Sincerely,
Thank you ;
Varouj Von Bedikian
818-406-9133
91 of 675
From: Kara W Sergile
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes; Devine, Paula; Brotman, Daniel; Najarian, Ara; Asatryan, Elen; Abajian, Suzie; Golanian, Roubik
Subject: Public Comment on item 7a (SUPPORT Drive-Thru Moratorium) Date: Monday, September 26, 2022 9:45:02 PM
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Mayor Kassakhian and Councilmembers,
We strongly urge your support of the drive-thru moratorium, and its inclusion of existing pipeline projects that include the proposed Starbucks drive-thru project at 222 S. Glendale Avenue.

Glendale residents are already subjected to high traffic volumes and increasing safety concerns. South Glendale, in particular, is densely populated with families and young children.

We are concerned about the impact of the proposed Starbucks drive-thru on the health and safety of residents. It is unfair for this already-burdened part of Glendale to have yet another high volume drive-thru. In addition, drive-thru’ s create a queuing of vehicles…which creates more vehicles idling, and creating more air pollution in the area.

Pedestrian health and safety should be of utmost concern to the City. We would love to have more coffee shops but do not need more high volume drive-thrus that add pollution and safety issues to the communities of South Glendale. Please stop this proposed project and help the area become more pedestrian friendly and kid friendly.

Sincerely,
Kara, Yves, Genevieve & Aaron Sergile (Rossmoyne)
92 of 675
From: Ingrid Gunnell
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes; Devine, Paula; Brotman, Daniel; Najarian, Ara; Asatryan, Elen; Abajian, Suzie; Golanian, Roubik
Subject: Public Comment on item 7a (SUPPORT Drive-Thru Moratorium) Date: Monday, September 26, 2022 8:37:32 PM
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Mayor Kassakhian and Councilmembers, <BR> <BR>We strongly urge your support of the drive-thru moratorium, and its inclusion of existing pipeline projects that include the proposed Starbucks drive-thru project at 222 S. Glendale Avenue. <BR> <BR>Glendale residents are already subjected to high traffic volumes and increasing safety concerns. South Glendale, in particular, is densely populated with families and young children. We are concerned about the impact of the proposed Starbucks drive-thru on the health and safety of residents. It is unfair for this already-burdened part of Glendale to have yet another high volume drive-thru. <BR> <BR>Pedestrian health and safety should be of utmost concern to the City. We would love to have more coffee shops but do not need more high volume drive-thrus that add pollution and safety issues to the communities of South Glendale. Please stop this proposed project and help the area become more pedestrian friendly and kid friendly. <BR> <BR>Sincerely, <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR>
Ingrid Gunnell
Sent from my iPhone
93 of 675
From: Raffi Wartanian
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes; Devine, Paula; Brotman, Daniel; Najarian, Ara; Asatryan, Elen; Abajian, Suzie; Golanian, Roubik
Subject: Public Comment on item 7a (SUPPORT Drive-Thru Moratorium) Date: Monday, September 26, 2022 8:25:52 PM
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Mayor Kassakhian and Councilmembers,
We strongly urge your support of the drive-thru moratorium, and its inclusion of existing pipeline projects that include the proposed Starbucks drive-thru project at 222 S. Glendale Avenue.

Glendale residents are already subjected to high traffic volumes and increasing safety concerns. South Glendale, in particular, is densely populated with families and young children.

We are concerned about the impact of the proposed Starbucks drive-thru on the health and safety of residents. It is unfair for this already-burdened part of Glendale to have yet another high volume drive-thru.

Pedestrian health and safety should be of utmost concern to the City. We would love to have more coffee shops but do not need more high volume drive-thrus that add pollution and safety issues to the communities of South Glendale. Please stop this proposed project and help the area become more pedestrian friendly and kid friendly.

Sincerely,
Raffi Joe Wartanian
Resident, Glendale, CA
Lecturer, UCLA
94 of 675
From: Kyle Sing
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes; Najarian, Ara; Asatryan, Elen; Devine, Paula; Golanian, Roubik; Abajian, Suzie; Brotman, Daniel
Subject: Public Comment on item 7a (SUPPORT Drive-Thru Moratorium) Date: Monday, September 26, 2022 8:19:06 PM
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Mayor Kassakhian and Councilmembers,
We strongly urge your support of the drive-thru moratorium, and its inclusion of existing pipeline projects that include the proposed Starbucks drive-thru project at 222 S. Glendale Avenue.

Glendale residents are already subjected to high traffic volumes and increasing safety concerns. South Glendale, in particular, is densely populated with families and young children.

We are concerned about the impact of the proposed Starbucks drive-thru on the health and safety of residents. It is unfair for this already-burdened part of Glendale to have yet another high volume drive-thru.

Pedestrian health and safety should be of utmost concern to the City. We would love to have more coffee shops but do not need more high volume drive-thrus that add pollution and safety issues to the communities of South Glendale. Please stop this proposed project and help the area become more pedestrian friendly and kid friendly.

Sincerely,
Kyle Sing
230 S. Jackson St. Suite 104
Glendale, CA 91205
95 of 675
From: nikhil mathur
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes; Najarian, Ara; Asatryan, Elen; Devine, Paula; Golanian, Roubik; Abajian, Suzie; Brotman, Daniel
Subject: Public Comment on item 7a (SUPPORT Drive-Thru Moratorium) Date: Monday, September 26, 2022 7:52:45 PM
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Mayor Kassakhian and Councilmembers,
We strongly urge your support of the drive-thru moratorium, and its inclusion of existing pipeline projects that include the proposed Starbucks drive-thru project at 222 S. Glendale Avenue.

Glendale residents are already subjected to high traffic volumes and increasing safety concerns. South Glendale, in particular, is densely populated with families and young children.

We are concerned about the impact of the proposed Starbucks drive-thru on the health and safety of residents. It is unfair for this already-burdened part of Glendale to have yet another high volume drive-thru.

Pedestrian health and safety should be of utmost concern to the City. We would love to have more coffee shops but do not need more high volume drive-thrus that add pollution and safety issues to the communities of South Glendale. Please stop this proposed project and help the area become more pedestrian friendly and kid friendly.

Sincerely,
Nikhil Mathur
96 of 675
From: Melanie Doody
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes; Devine, Paula; Brotman, Daniel; Najarian, Ara; Asatryan, Elen; Abajian, Suzie; Golanian, Roubik
Subject: Public Comment on item 7a (SUPPORT Drive-Thru Moratorium) Date: Monday, September 26, 2022 7:36:45 PM
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Mayor Kassakhian and Councilmembers,
We strongly urge your support of the drive-thru moratorium, and its inclusion of existing pipeline projects that include the proposed Starbucks drive-thru project at 222 S. Glendale Avenue.

Glendale residents are already subjected to high traffic volumes and increasing safety concerns. South Glendale, in particular, is densely populated with families and young children. We are concerned about the impact of the proposed Starbucks drive-thru on the health and safety of residents. It is unfair for this already-burdened part of Glendale to have yet another high volume drive-thru.

Pedestrian health and safety should be of utmost concern to the City. We would love to have more coffee shops but do not need more high volume drive-thrus that add pollution and safety issues to the communities of South Glendale. Please stop this proposed project and help the area become more pedestrian friendly and kid friendly.

Sincerely,
Melanie Doody
97 of 675
From: Abajian, Suzie
To: Cruz, Karen
Subject: FW: Public Comment on item 7a (SUPPORT Drive-Thru Moratorium) Date: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 11:27:38 AM
-----Original Message-----
From: James Peace <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 10:52 AM
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes <[email protected]>; Devine, Paula <[email protected]>; Brotman, Daniel <[email protected]>; Najarian, Ara <[email protected]>; Asatryan, Elen <[email protected]>; Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]>; Golanian, Roubik <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment on item 7a (SUPPORT Drive-Thru Moratorium) CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Mayor Kassakhian and Councilmembers,
We strongly urge your support of the drive-thru moratorium, and its inclusion of existing pipeline projects that include the proposed Starbucks drive-thru project at 222 S. Glendale Avenue.

Glendale residents are already subjected to high traffic volumes and increasing safety concerns. South Glendale, in particular, is densely populated with families and young children. We are concerned about the impact of the proposed Starbucks drive-thru on the health and safety of residents. It is unfair for this already-burdened part of Glendale to have yet another high volume drive-thru.

Pedestrian health and safety should be of utmost concern to the City. We would love to have more coffee shops but do not need more high volume drive-thrus that add pollution and safety issues to the communities of South Glendale. Please stop this proposed project and help the area become more pedestrian friendly and kid friendly.

Sincerely,
James Peace
Sent from my iPhone
98 of 675
From: Abajian, Suzie
To: Cruz, Karen
Subject: FW: Please Support a Drive-through Moratorium That Includes Pipeline Projects Date: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 11:27:48 AM
From: Ely Lester <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 10:29 AM
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes <[email protected]>; Asatryan, Elen <[email protected]>; Najarian, Ara <[email protected]>; Devine, Paula <[email protected]>; Brotman, Daniel <[email protected]> Cc: Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]>
Subject: Please Support a Drive-through Moratorium That Includes Pipeline Projects CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Mayor Kassakhian and City Council Members,
As a citizen I support this drive-through moratorium, and ask that you do so as well. This moratorium is appropriate because drive-throughs are powerful traffic generators and impose numerous negative impacts which are borne more by the overall community than by the drive-through operators themselves.

I'll mention up front that my position on the topic is heavily informed by my service on Glendale's Transportation and Parking Commission. At the very first TPC meeting I attended, speed humps were proposed for Griswold and Fischer Streets after a drive-through coffee establishment was added on adjacent Colorado Blvd. The public comments unanimously favored the installation of humps. Car trips had exploded as streets became cut-through routes to the drive-through. Take out trash was also being dumped in large quantities. The humps were granted by the commission. Across town, near where my family and I live, another newer drive-through conversion at Glenoaks and Grandview began producing problems as well. I had noticed over time in passing that queuing cars would sometimes block and cause backups on all surrounding right of ways: the rear alley, Grandview, and Glenoaks. I remember witnessing police struggling to manage the situation, giving traffic directions via bullhorn. The city responded by creating new traffic rules that included restricted alleyway access (a public ROW). This reduced back ups but not the traffic problem - it only shifted it elsewhere. The residents of Bruce Ave then created a petition for speed humps to deter cut-through drive-through trips, and before long the issue was before the TPC. There was another outpouring of public comment and the humps were granted.

Clearly there is a problem with this format. In each case, negative impacts are being shifted from their source to surrounding homes and businesses at taxpayer expense. This cost shifting seems like a pattern.

I think this is a good time for Glendale to take a pause and a hard look at drive-throughs. By design 99 of 675 they induce car trips and generate pollution. Cars must cross sidewalks to reach queuing lines, creating unnecessary danger in the form of additional points of conflict between cars, pedestrians, and bikes. Taxpayers get the bill for mitigations. As stewards of land use in Glendale, and leaders with broader interest in propriety and social sanction than the deep-pocketed corporations who tend to operate drive throughs, I urge you to support this moratorium.

Thank you,
Ely Lester
100 of 675
From: Abajian, Suzie
To: Cruz, Karen
Subject: FW: Public Comment on item 7a (SUPPORT Drive-Thru Moratorium) Date: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 11:27:53 AM
-----Original Message-----
From: Evan Atkinson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 9:36 AM
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes <[email protected]>; Devine, Paula <[email protected]>; Brotman, Daniel <[email protected]>; Najarian, Ara <[email protected]>; Asatryan, Elen <[email protected]>; Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]>; Golanian, Roubik <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment on item 7a (SUPPORT Drive-Thru Moratorium) CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Mayor Kassakhian and Councilmembers,
We strongly urge your support of the drive-thru moratorium, and its inclusion of existing pipeline projects that include the proposed Starbucks drive-thru project at 222 S. Glendale Avenue.

Glendale residents are already subjected to high traffic volumes and increasing safety concerns. South Glendale, in particular, is densely populated with families and young children. We are concerned about the impact of the proposed Starbucks drive-thru on the health and safety of residents. It is unfair for this already-burdened part of Glendale to have yet another high volume drive-thru.

Pedestrian health and safety should be of utmost concern to the City. We would love to have more coffee shops but do not need more high volume drive-thrus that add pollution and safety issues to the communities of South Glendale. Please stop this proposed project and help the area become more pedestrian friendly and kid friendly.

Sincerely,
Evan Atkinson
Sent from my iPhone
101 of 675
From: Abajian, Suzie
To: Cruz, Karen
Subject: FW: Public Comment on item 7a (SUPPORT Drive-Thru Moratorium) Date: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 11:28:04 AM
From: Karen Lowe <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 9:36 AM
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes <[email protected]>; Devine, Paula <[email protected]>; Brotman, Daniel <[email protected]>; Najarian, Ara <[email protected]>; Asatryan, Elen <[email protected]>; Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]>; Golanian, Roubik <[email protected]> Subject: Public Comment on item 7a (SUPPORT Drive-Thru Moratorium) CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Mayor Kassakhian and Councilmembers,
One of the pleasures of Glendale is going into business establishments and chatting with neighbors, and maybe making new friends. Drive-thrus of any sort, but especially in establishments like this, make that virtually impossible.

And idling cars spew more exhaust making it an unpleasant experience for those moving near those cars. The solution is simple: don’t allow more of them.

I urge the support of the drive-thru moratorium (inlucind any waiting for a drive through approval, including the proposed Starbucks drive-thru project at 222 S. Glendale Avenue .

South Glendale is already subjected to so many negative impacts of Glendale’s growth. Why inflict more on those residents?
Sincerely,
Karen Lowe
102 of 675
From: Abajian, Suzie
To: Cruz, Karen
Subject: FW: Public Comment on item 7a (SUPPORT Drive-Thru Moratorium) Date: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 11:28:11 AM
From: Linda Campo <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 9:33 AM
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes <[email protected]>; Najarian, Ara <[email protected]>; Asatryan, Elen <[email protected]>; Devine, Paula <[email protected]>; Golanian, Roubik <[email protected]>; Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]>; Brotman, Daniel <[email protected]> Subject: Public Comment on item 7a (SUPPORT Drive-Thru Moratorium) CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Mayor Kassakhian and Council-members,
I strongly urge your support of the drive-thru moratorium, and its inclusion of existing pipeline projects that include the proposed Starbucks drive-thru project at 222 S. Glendale Avenue. I am writing on this issue because I feel strongly about this even though drive-thrus are very common and accepted as conveniences.

Glendale residents are already subjected to high traffic volumes and increasing safety concerns.

South Glendale, in particular, is densely populated with families and young children. We are concerned about the impact of the proposed Starbucks drive-thru on the health and safety of residents. It is unfair for this already-burdened part of Glendale to have yet another high volume drive-thru.

Pedestrian health and safety should be of utmost concern to the City. We would love to have more coffee shops but do not need more high volume drive-thrus that add pollution and safety issues to the communities of South Glendale. Please stop this proposed project and help the area become more pedestrian friendly and kid friendly.

Although I live in North Glendale, I observe and do not support a pattern in which South Glendale foots the burden of the local quality of life costs for the broader community’s economic benefit and convenience.

Sincerely,
Linda Campo
103 of 675
From: Abajian, Suzie
To: Cruz, Karen
Subject: FW: Public Comment on item 7a (SUPPORT Drive-Thru Moratorium) Date: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 11:28:23 AM
From: Kenneth Ycmat <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 9:28 AM
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes <[email protected]>; Devine, Paula <[email protected]>; Brotman, Daniel <[email protected]>; Najarian, Ara <[email protected]>; Asatryan, Elen <[email protected]>; Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]>; Golanian, Roubik <[email protected]> Subject: Public Comment on item 7a (SUPPORT Drive-Thru Moratorium) CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Mayor Kassakhian and Councilmembers,
We strongly urge your support of the drive-thru moratorium, and its inclusion of existing pipeline projects that include the proposed Starbucks drive-thru project at 222 S. Glendale Avenue.

Glendale residents are already subjected to high traffic volumes and increasing safety concerns.

South Glendale, in particular, is densely populated with families and young children. We are concerned about the impact of the proposed Starbucks drive-thru on the health and safety of residents. It is unfair for this already-burdened part of Glendale to have yet another high volume drive-thru.

Pedestrian health and safety should be of utmost concern to the City. We would love to have more coffee shops but do not need more high volume drive-thrus that add pollution and safety issues to the communities of South Glendale. Please stop this proposed project and help the area become more pedestrian friendly and kid friendly.

Sincerely,
104 of 675
From: Abajian, Suzie
To: Cruz, Karen
Subject: FW: Public Comment on item 7a (SUPPORT Drive-Thru Moratorium) Date: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 11:28:31 AM
From: Brenna <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 8:07 AM
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes <[email protected]>; Devine, Paula <[email protected]>; Brotman, Daniel <[email protected]>; Najarian, Ara <[email protected]>; Asatryan, Elen <[email protected]>; Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]>; Golanian, Roubik <[email protected]> Subject: Public Comment on item 7a (SUPPORT Drive-Thru Moratorium) CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Mayor Kassakhian and Councilmembers,
We strongly urge your support of the drive-thru moratorium, and its inclusion of existing pipeline projects that include the proposed Starbucks drive-thru project at 222 S. Glendale Avenue.

Glendale residents are already subjected to high traffic volumes and increasing safety concerns.

South Glendale, in particular, is densely populated with families and young children. We are concerned about the impact of the proposed Starbucks drive-thru on the health and safety of residents. It is unfair for this already-burdened part of Glendale to have yet another high volume drive-thru.

Pedestrian health and safety should be of utmost concern to the City. We would love to have more coffee shops, but do not need more high volume drive-thrus that add pollution and safety issues to the communities of South Glendale. Please stop this proposed project and help the area become more pedestrian friendly and kid friendly.

Sincerely,
Brenna Cancilla
105 of 675
From: Abajian, Suzie
To: Cruz, Karen
Subject: FW: Public Comment on item 7a (SUPPORT Drive-Thru Moratorium) Date: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 11:28:39 AM
-----Original Message-----
From: Wendy Hunter <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 6:12 AM
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes <[email protected]>; Devine, Paula <[email protected]>; Brotman, Daniel <[email protected]>; Najarian, Ara <[email protected]>; Asatryan, Elen <[email protected]>; Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]>; Golanian, Roubik <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment on item 7a (SUPPORT Drive-Thru Moratorium) CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Mayor Kassakhian and Councilmembers,
We strongly urge your support of the drive-thru moratorium, and its inclusion of existing pipeline projects that include the proposed Starbucks drive-thru project at 222 S. Glendale Avenue.

Glendale residents are already subjected to high traffic volumes and increasing safety concerns. South Glendale, in particular, is densely populated with families and young children. We are concerned about the impact of the proposed Starbucks drive-thru on the health and safety of residents. It is unfair for this already-burdened part of Glendale to have yet another high volume drive-thru.

Pedestrian health and safety should be of utmost concern to the City. We would love to have more coffee shops but do not need more high volume drive-thrus that add pollution and safety issues to the communities of South Glendale. Please stop this proposed project and help the area become more pedestrian friendly and kid friendly.

Sincerely,
Wendy Hunter
106 of 675
From: Abajian, Suzie
To: Cruz, Karen
Subject: FW: Public Comment on item 7a (SUPPORT Drive-Thru Moratorium) Date: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 11:28:49 AM
-----Original Message-----
From: Nathalie Winiarski <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 6:04 AM
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes <[email protected]>; Devine, Paula <[email protected]>; Brotman, Daniel <[email protected]>; Najarian, Ara <[email protected]>; Asatryan, Elen <[email protected]>; Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]>; Golanian, Roubik <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment on item 7a (SUPPORT Drive-Thru Moratorium) CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Mayor Kassakhian and Councilmembers,
We strongly urge your support of the drive-thru moratorium, and its inclusion of existing pipeline projects that include the proposed Starbucks drive-thru project at 222 S. Glendale Avenue.

Glendale residents are already subjected to high traffic volumes and increasing safety concerns. South Glendale, in particular, is densely populated with families and young children. We are concerned about the impact of the proposed Starbucks drive-thru on the health and safety of residents. It is unfair for this already-burdened part of Glendale to have yet another high volume drive-thru.

Pedestrian health and safety should be of utmost concern to the City. We would love to have more coffee shops but do not need more high volume drive-thrus that add pollution and safety issues to the communities of South Glendale. Please stop this proposed project and help the area become more pedestrian friendly and kid friendly.

Sincerely,
Sent from my iPhone
107 of 675
From: Abajian, Suzie
To: Cruz, Karen
Subject: FW: Public Comment on item 7a (SUPPORT Drive-Thru Moratorium) Date: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 11:28:57 AM
From: cjboles <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2022 10:58 PM
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes <[email protected]>; Devine, Paula <[email protected]>; Brotman, Daniel <[email protected]>; Najarian, Ara <[email protected]>; Asatryan, Elen <[email protected]>; Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]>; Golanian, Roubik <[email protected]> Subject: Public Comment on item 7a (SUPPORT Drive-Thru Moratorium) CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Mayor Kassakhian and Councilmembers,
We strongly urge your support of the drive-thru moratorium, and its inclusion of existing pipeline projects that include the proposed Starbucks drive-thru project at 222 S. Glendale Avenue.

Glendale residents are already subjected to high traffic volumes and increasing safety concerns.

South Glendale, in particular, is densely populated with families and young children. We are concerned about the impact of the proposed Starbucks drive-thru on the health and safety of residents. It is unfair for this already-burdened part of Glendale to have yet another high volume drive-thru.

Pedestrian health and safety should be of utmost concern to the City. We would love to have more coffee shops but do not need more high volume drive-thrus that add pollution and safety issues to the communities of South Glendale. Please stop this proposed project and help the area become more pedestrian friendly and kid friendly.

Sincerely,
Caroline Boles
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S10e, an AT&T 5G Evolution capable smartphone 108 of 675
From: Abajian, Suzie
To: Cruz, Karen
Subject: FW: Drive-through business Agenda 7a
Date: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 11:29:08 AM
From: Arlene Vidor <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2022 10:39 PM
To: Ardy Kassakhian <[email protected]>; Asatryan, Elen <[email protected]>; Brotman, Daniel <[email protected]>; Devine, Paula <[email protected]>; Najarian, Ara <[email protected]>
Cc: Golanian, Roubik <[email protected]>; Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]> Subject: Drive-through business Agenda 7a
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Agenda Item 7A, City Council September 27, 2022:

Dear Mayor Kassakhian and Councilmembers Asatryan, Brotman, Devine and Najarian, I strongly support a moratorium on drive-through businesses for purposes of further evaluation.

However, it would be best if this resulted in a total ban on drive-throughs. There may be certain carve-outs allowed such as medically related drive-throughs (e.g. medical emergency situations, like the pandemic and pharmacy prescription pick-ups for people with handicapped stickers on their cars). There is no way to control the amount of cars in a drive-through queue; in popular places like Starbucks at particular times of day, queue lengths and wait times might be extremely long.

The original ban imposed within the DSP area should be broadened to include all areas within our city limits.

Also, stoplight controlled intersections should be evaluated and optimized further. I’ve been in plenty of red-light queues where I am stopped for 2-3 minutes with my motor running and there is no cross-traffic in sight at certain times of day or night.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Arlene Vidor
Adams Hill resident
Note: While we’re on the general topic of running cars going nowhere, the city should discourage people from sitting in their parked cars with motor running while they text on their phones, I’ve observed people in my neighborhood doing this for 15 minutes or more. It would not be feasible to 109 of 675 enforce this but mass communication to the public can help control this very annoying, noisy and polluting habit.
110 of 675
From: Abajian, Suzie
To: Cruz, Karen
Subject: FW: Public Comment on item 7a (SUPPORT Drive-Thru Moratorium) Date: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 11:29:18 AM
From: Sean C. Abajian <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2022 10:13 PM
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes <[email protected]>; Asatryan, Elen <[email protected]>; Devine, Paula <[email protected]>; Golanian, Roubik <[email protected]>; Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]>; Najarian, Ara <[email protected]>; Brotman, Daniel <[email protected]> Subject: Public Comment on item 7a (SUPPORT Drive-Thru Moratorium) CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Mayor Kassakhian and Councilmembers,
We strongly urge your support of the drive-thru moratorium, and its inclusion of existing pipeline projects that include the proposed Starbucks drive-thru project at 222 S. Glendale Avenue.

Glendale residents are already subjected to high traffic volumes and increasing safety concerns.

South Glendale, in particular, is densely populated with families and young children. We are concerned about the impact of the proposed Starbucks drive-thru on the health and safety of residents. It is unfair for this already-burdened part of Glendale to have yet another high volume drive-thru.

Pedestrian health and safety should be of utmost concern to the City. We would love to have more coffee shops but do not need more high volume drive-thrus that add pollution and safety issues to the communities of South Glendale. Please stop this proposed project and help the area become more pedestrian friendly and kid friendly.

Sincerely,
Sean Abajian
South Glendale Resident &
Father of a Toddler
111 of 675
From: Abajian, Suzie
To: Cruz, Karen
Subject: FW: Public Comment on item 7a (SUPPORT Drive-Thru Moratorium) Date: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 11:29:25 AM
-----Original Message-----
From: Lerna Kayserian Shirinian <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, September 26, 2022 10:04 PM
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes <[email protected]>; Devine, Paula <[email protected]>; Brotman, Daniel <[email protected]>; Najarian, Ara <[email protected]>; Asatryan, Elen <[email protected]>; Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]>; Golanian, Roubik <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment on item 7a (SUPPORT Drive-Thru Moratorium) CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Mayor Kassakhian and Councilmembers,
We strongly urge your support of the drive-thru moratorium, and its inclusion of existing pipeline projects that include the proposed Starbucks drive-thru project at 222 S. Glendale Avenue.

Glendale residents are already subjected to high traffic volumes and increasing safety concerns. South Glendale, in particular, is densely populated with families and young children like mine. We are concerned about the impact of the proposed Starbucks drive-thru on the health and safety of residents. It is unfair for this already-burdened part of Glendale to have yet another high volume drive-thru.

Pedestrian health and safety should be of utmost concern to the City. We would love to have more coffee shops but do not need more high volume drive-thrus that add pollution and safety issues to the communities of South Glendale. Please stop this proposed project and help the area become more pedestrian friendly and kid friendly. We love Glendale and want to continue living in this great city.

Thank you,
Lerna Shirinian
1122 Raleigh St
Glendale, CA 91205
112 of 675
From: Abajian, Suzie
To: Cruz, Karen
Subject: FW: Public Comment on item 7a (SUPPORT Drive-Thru Moratorium) Date: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 11:29:34 AM
From: V Bedikian <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2022 9:46 PM
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes <[email protected]>; Devine, Paula <[email protected]>; Brotman, Daniel <[email protected]>; Najarian, Ara <[email protected]>; Asatryan, Elen <[email protected]>; Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]>; Golanian, Roubik <[email protected]> Subject: Public Comment on item 7a (SUPPORT Drive-Thru Moratorium) CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Mayor Kassakhian and Councilmembers,
We strongly urge your support of the drive-thru moratorium, and its inclusion of existing pipeline projects that include the proposed Starbucks drive-thru project at 222 S. Glendale Avenue.

Glendale residents are already subjected to high traffic volumes and increasing safety concerns.

South Glendale, in particular, is densely populated with families and young children. We are concerned about the impact of the proposed Starbucks drive-thru on the health and safety of residents. It is unfair for this already-burdened part of Glendale to have yet another high volume drive-thru.

Pedestrian health and safety should be of utmost concern to the City. We would love to have more coffee shops but do not need more high volume drive-thrus that add pollution and safety issues to the communities of South Glendale. Please stop this proposed project and help the area become more pedestrian friendly and kid friendly.

Sincerely,
Thank you ;
Varouj Von Bedikian
818-406-9133
113 of 675
From: Abajian, Suzie
To: Cruz, Karen
Subject: FW: Public Comment on item 7a (SUPPORT Drive-Thru Moratorium) Date: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 11:29:41 AM
From: Kara W Sergile <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2022 9:45 PM
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes <[email protected]>; Devine, Paula <[email protected]>; Brotman, Daniel <[email protected]>; Najarian, Ara <[email protected]>; Asatryan, Elen <[email protected]>; Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]>; Golanian, Roubik <[email protected]> Subject: Public Comment on item 7a (SUPPORT Drive-Thru Moratorium) CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Mayor Kassakhian and Councilmembers,
We strongly urge your support of the drive-thru moratorium, and its inclusion of existing pipeline projects that include the proposed Starbucks drive-thru project at 222 S. Glendale Avenue.

Glendale residents are already subjected to high traffic volumes and increasing safety concerns. South Glendale, in particular, is densely populated with families and young children.

We are concerned about the impact of the proposed Starbucks drive-thru on the health and safety of residents. It is unfair for this already-burdened part of Glendale to have yet another high volume drive-thru. In addition, drive-thru’ s create a queuing of vehicles…which creates more vehicles idling, and creating more air pollution in the area.

Pedestrian health and safety should be of utmost concern to the City. We would love to have more coffee shops but do not need more high volume drive-thrus that add pollution and safety issues to the communities of South Glendale. Please stop this proposed project and help the area become more pedestrian friendly and kid friendly.

Sincerely,
Kara, Yves, Genevieve & Aaron Sergile (Rossmoyne)
114 of 675
From: Abajian, Suzie
To: Cruz, Karen
Subject: FW: Agenda Item 7. Please Adopt Interim Urgency Ordinance for Moratorium on Drive-Throughs, Option 2 Date: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 11:32:49 AM
From: Catherine Jurca <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2022 8:18 PM
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Brotman, Daniel <[email protected]>; Devine, Paula <[email protected]>; Najarian, Ara <[email protected]>
Cc: Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]>
Subject: Agenda Item 7. Please Adopt Interim Urgency Ordinance for Moratorium on DriveThroughs, Option 2 CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Mayor Kassakhian and Members of the City Council:

I am grateful that you are taking up this matter. It seems there is sufficient Council support to put a moratorium in place, for all the reasons raised regarding environmental and urban design concerns.

I write to address the issue of pipeline projects, which I urge you to include in the moratorium. I am particularly thinking of the Starbucks project at 216 S. Glendale. Usually I am sympathetic to applicants who have invested in the design and development process, but not in this case for the following reasons:
216 S. Glendale illustrates why there is a distinction between design review and the code. Just because a developer can meet the code doesn’t mean the design or use is appropriate for the site.

The DRB understood this, which is why they instructed the applicants at the first hearing to return for redesign with a proposal that did not include the drive through. The applicants instead came back with a project that had changed very little. The proposed design of the waiting line results in numerous bottleneck points, beginning with the entrance, where cars will be backing out of parking spaces. The applicants seem to think they are entitled to a drive through, and it’s not clear to me why.

Additionally, and somewhat orthogonally, this location is a perfect example of how pedestrianfriendly shops becomes a drive-by. The project would demolish three inviting retail spaces with large plate glass windows (which I admit, could use some refreshing, particularly at the strange brick extension). These are the kind of sidewalk-facing businesses that help animate a street. Demolishing these for a drive-through is the last thing Glendale should be doing. I would be happy to see the parking lot and restaurant on the corner go, but not for what is proposed.

That staff recommended this project, despite the palpable flaws and clear instructions from the DRB, 115 of 675 is a problem. I worry that staff can’t tell the difference between design review and code compliant any more either. This is a problem that needs to be addressed from the top.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Catherine Jurca
116 of 675
From: Abajian, Suzie
To: Cruz, Karen
Subject: FW: City Council Item 7a
Date: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 11:32:57 AM
From: Ann Andreassian <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2022 5:45 PM
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes <[email protected]>; Devine, Paula <[email protected]>; Brotman, Daniel <[email protected]>; Najarian, Ara <[email protected]>; Asatryan, Elen <[email protected]>; Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]>; Golanian, Roubik <[email protected]> Cc: Binbin Xing <[email protected]>; Rita Terterian <[email protected]> Subject: City Council Item 7a
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Mayor Kassakhian and Councilmembers,
As the board of a local HOA representing approximately 26 units and over 50 residents, we strongly urge your support of the drive thru moratorium, and its inclusion of existing pipeline projects that include the proposed drive-thru project at 222 S. Glendale Avenue.

We are local neighbors who live 2 blocks away from the proposed project, where we are already subjected to high traffic volumes and increasing safety concerns for our residents which include families with young children. South Glendale is already subjected to congestion and to have a drive-through project that means more cars will be in a rush to get coffee during rush hour, and when kids are trying to get to school, it is unfair for this already-burdened part of Glendale.

Pedestrian safety should be of utmost concern to the city. We would love to have more coffee shops, but they do not need to have drive-throughs and add pollution to the dense community of South Glendale.

Please stop this project and help the area be more walk-friendly and kid-friendly.

Respectfully,
Ann Andreassian, President
Binbin Xing, Vice President
Rita Terterian, Secretary
Jackson Glen HOA
230 South Jackson Street
Glendale, CA 91205
117 of 675
From: Abajian, Suzie
To: Cruz, Karen
Subject: FW: proposed Starbucks on Glendale Ave.

Date: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 11:33:55 AM
From: grey james <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2022 5:19 PM
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes <[email protected]>; Najarian, Ara <[email protected]>; Devine, Paula <[email protected]>; Brotman, Daniel <[email protected]>; Asatryan, Elen <[email protected]> Cc: Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]>
Subject: proposed Starbucks on Glendale Ave.

CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Greetings, Mayor Kassakhian and City Council.

To qualify this: I love Starbucks. LOVE. Italian Roast pour over, OMG. I worked for them once upon a time. I have many Starbucks stock. A new Starbucks near me? Yes Please.

One on every corner, please.

Starbucks is shutting down iconic locations because of crime? Probably not. Clearly they are getting out of their oldest and probably costliest locations to move forward with their new business model: the drive through. We see them opening everywhere. My stock is holding strong, I am happy.

But a drive through embedded in a neighborhood - not so much. While I love Starbucks, and my retirement fund, I also love functional-for-all cities, and this particular location is not that. Nor the one on Glenoaks and whatever, so we see.

Have you ever passed by the Krispy Kreme at Empire Center on a Friday night? A line of cars forever. But it's an industrial road, who cares. Other than it's cars and I do but you know what I mean.

Glendale is already behind on sustainable living for all, A LOT. Nixing one drive through while neglecting the bigger picture? Mmmmm. I'll sacrifice a Starbucks as part of more cohesive, inclusive and continued effort in this right direction, but I look forward to the rest of the work being done.

Thanks!
Grey.
118 of 675
From: Abajian, Suzie
To: Cruz, Karen
Subject: FW: Public Comment on item 7a (SUPPORT Drive-Thru Moratorium) Date: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 11:29:57 AM
From: Raffi Wartanian <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2022 8:25 PM
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes <[email protected]>; Devine, Paula <[email protected]>; Brotman, Daniel <[email protected]>; Najarian, Ara <[email protected]>; Asatryan, Elen <[email protected]>; Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]>; Golanian, Roubik <[email protected]> Subject: Public Comment on item 7a (SUPPORT Drive-Thru Moratorium) CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Mayor Kassakhian and Councilmembers,
We strongly urge your support of the drive-thru moratorium, and its inclusion of existing pipeline projects that include the proposed Starbucks drive-thru project at 222 S. Glendale Avenue.

Glendale residents are already subjected to high traffic volumes and increasing safety concerns.

South Glendale, in particular, is densely populated with families and young children. We are concerned about the impact of the proposed Starbucks drive-thru on the health and safety of residents. It is unfair for this already-burdened part of Glendale to have yet another high volume drive-thru.

Pedestrian health and safety should be of utmost concern to the City. We would love to have more coffee shops but do not need more high volume drive-thrus that add pollution and safety issues to the communities of South Glendale. Please stop this proposed project and help the area become more pedestrian friendly and kid friendly.

Sincerely,
Raffi Joe Wartanian
Resident, Glendale, CA
Lecturer, UCLA
119 of 675
From: Abajian, Suzie
To: Cruz, Karen
Subject: FW: Public Comment on item 7a (SUPPORT Drive-Thru Moratorium) Date: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 11:30:05 AM
From: Kyle Sing <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2022 8:19 PM
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes <[email protected]>; Najarian, Ara <[email protected]>; Asatryan, Elen <[email protected]>; Devine, Paula <[email protected]>; Golanian, Roubik <[email protected]>; Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]>; Brotman, Daniel <[email protected]> Subject: Public Comment on item 7a (SUPPORT Drive-Thru Moratorium) CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Mayor Kassakhian and Councilmembers,
We strongly urge your support of the drive-thru moratorium, and its inclusion of existing pipeline projects that include the proposed Starbucks drive-thru project at 222 S. Glendale Avenue.

Glendale residents are already subjected to high traffic volumes and increasing safety concerns.

South Glendale, in particular, is densely populated with families and young children. We are concerned about the impact of the proposed Starbucks drive-thru on the health and safety of residents. It is unfair for this already-burdened part of Glendale to have yet another high volume drive-thru.

Pedestrian health and safety should be of utmost concern to the City. We would love to have more coffee shops but do not need more high volume drive-thrus that add pollution and safety issues to the communities of South Glendale. Please stop this proposed project and help the area become more pedestrian friendly and kid friendly.

Sincerely,
Kyle Sing
230 S. Jackson St. Suite 104
Glendale, CA 91205
120 of 675
From: Abajian, Suzie
To: Cruz, Karen
Subject: FW: Public Comment on item 7a (SUPPORT Drive-Thru Moratorium) Date: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 11:30:12 AM
From: nikhil mathur <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2022 7:52 PM
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes <[email protected]>; Najarian, Ara <[email protected]>; Asatryan, Elen <[email protected]>; Devine, Paula <[email protected]>; Golanian, Roubik <[email protected]>; Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]>; Brotman, Daniel <[email protected]> Subject: Public Comment on item 7a (SUPPORT Drive-Thru Moratorium) CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Mayor Kassakhian and Councilmembers,
We strongly urge your support of the drive-thru moratorium, and its inclusion of existing pipeline projects that include the proposed Starbucks drive-thru project at 222 S. Glendale Avenue.

Glendale residents are already subjected to high traffic volumes and increasing safety concerns.

South Glendale, in particular, is densely populated with families and young children. We are concerned about the impact of the proposed Starbucks drive-thru on the health and safety of residents. It is unfair for this already-burdened part of Glendale to have yet another high volume drive-thru.

Pedestrian health and safety should be of utmost concern to the City. We would love to have more coffee shops but do not need more high volume drive-thrus that add pollution and safety issues to the communities of South Glendale. Please stop this proposed project and help the area become more pedestrian friendly and kid friendly.

Sincerely,
Nikhil Mathur
121 of 675
From: Abajian, Suzie
To: Cruz, Karen
Subject: FW: Public Comment on item 7a (SUPPORT Drive-Thru Moratorium) Date: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 11:30:18 AM
-----Original Message-----
From: Melanie Doody <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2022 7:37 PM
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes <[email protected]>; Devine, Paula <[email protected]>; Brotman, Daniel <[email protected]>; Najarian, Ara <[email protected]>; Asatryan, Elen <[email protected]>; Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]>; Golanian, Roubik <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment on item 7a (SUPPORT Drive-Thru Moratorium) CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Mayor Kassakhian and Councilmembers,
We strongly urge your support of the drive-thru moratorium, and its inclusion of existing pipeline projects that include the proposed Starbucks drive-thru project at 222 S. Glendale Avenue.

Glendale residents are already subjected to high traffic volumes and increasing safety concerns. South Glendale, in particular, is densely populated with families and young children. We are concerned about the impact of the proposed Starbucks drive-thru on the health and safety of residents. It is unfair for this already-burdened part of Glendale to have yet another high volume drive-thru.

Pedestrian health and safety should be of utmost concern to the City. We would love to have more coffee shops but do not need more high volume drive-thrus that add pollution and safety issues to the communities of South Glendale. Please stop this proposed project and help the area become more pedestrian friendly and kid friendly.

Sincerely,
Melanie Doody
122 of 675
From: Abajian, Suzie
To: Cruz, Karen
Subject: FW: Public Comment on item 7a (SUPPORT Drive-Thru Moratorium) Date: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 11:30:33 AM
From: Margarit Davtian <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2022 6:28 PM
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes <[email protected]>; Devine, Paula <[email protected]>; Brotman, Daniel <[email protected]>; Najarian, Ara <[email protected]>; Asatryan, Elen <[email protected]>; Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]>; Golanian, Roubik <[email protected]> Subject: Public Comment on item 7a (SUPPORT Drive-Thru Moratorium) CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Mayor Kassakhian and Councilmembers,
This letter is regarding the Starbucks drive-thru project at 222 S Glendale Avenue. As a Glendale resident my whole life, I am strongly against this project as I do not feel that Glendale needs another high-volume drive thru in an area that is already congested. I am concerned about the safety of bikers, families, and children. It does not make sense to compromise the health and safety of pedestrians, not to mention contribute to the pollution that high volume drive-thrus tend to cause.

I am strongly urging you to support the drive-thru moratorium. I am asking you to please stop this proposed project so that we can preserve the health and safety of our communities and city.

Sincerely,
Margarit Davtian
123 of 675
From: Abajian, Suzie
To: Cruz, Karen
Subject: FW: Public Comment on item 7a (SUPPORT Drive-Thru Moratorium) Date: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 11:38:15 AM
From: Jenny Alejandra Morataya <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 11:22 AM
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes <[email protected]>; Devine, Paula <[email protected]>; Brotman, Daniel <[email protected]>; Najarian, Ara <[email protected]>; Asatryan, Elen <[email protected]>; Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]>; Golanian, Roubik <[email protected]> Subject: Public Comment on item 7a (SUPPORT Drive-Thru Moratorium) CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Mayor Kassakhian and Councilmembers,
We strongly urge your support of the drive-thru moratorium, and its inclusion of existing pipeline projects that include the proposed Starbucks drive-thru project at 222 S. Glendale Avenue.

Do we really need another drive-through in Glendale? We should instead be encouraging people to walk, bike, and take transit. Not only is it good for people's health but it also reduces congestion and is better for the environment. Our "progressive" council members should be creating more walkable, connected communities in Glendale rather than enabling car-centric drive-throughs that are constantly backed up with idling cars contributing to our bad air quality.

Glendale residents are already subjected to high traffic volumes and increasing safety concerns.

South Glendale, in particular, is densely populated with families and young children. We are concerned about the impact of the proposed Starbucks drive-thru on the health and safety of residents. It is unfair for this already-burdened part of Glendale to have yet another high volume drive-thru.

Pedestrian health and safety should be of utmost concern to the City. We would love to have more coffee shops but do not need more high volume drive-thrus that add pollution and safety issues to the communities of South Glendale. Please stop this proposed project and help the area become more pedestrian friendly and kid friendly.

Sincerely,
Jenny Morataya
124 of 675
From: Abajian, Suzie
To: Cruz, Karen
Subject: FW: Public Comment on item 7a (SUPPORT Drive-Thru Moratorium) Date: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 11:29:48 AM
-----Original Message-----
From: Ingrid Gunnell <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2022 8:37 PM
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes <[email protected]>; Devine, Paula <[email protected]>; Brotman, Daniel <[email protected]>; Najarian, Ara <[email protected]>; Asatryan, Elen <[email protected]>; Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]>; Golanian, Roubik <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment on item 7a (SUPPORT Drive-Thru Moratorium) CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Mayor Kassakhian and Councilmembers, <BR> <BR>We strongly urge your support of the drive-thru moratorium, and its inclusion of existing pipeline projects that include the proposed Starbucks drive-thru project at 222 S. Glendale Avenue. <BR> <BR>Glendale residents are already subjected to high traffic volumes and increasing safety concerns. South Glendale, in particular, is densely populated with families and young children. We are concerned about the impact of the proposed Starbucks drive-thru on the health and safety of residents. It is unfair for this already-burdened part of Glendale to have yet another high volume drive-thru. <BR> <BR>Pedestrian health and safety should be of utmost concern to the City. We would love to have more coffee shops but do not need more high volume drive-thrus that add pollution and safety issues to the communities of South Glendale. Please stop this proposed project and help the area become more pedestrian friendly and kid friendly. <BR> <BR>Sincerely, <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR>
Ingrid Gunnell
Sent from my iPhone
125 of 675
From: Abajian, Suzie
To: Cortes, Karen
Subject: Fwd: Public Comment on item 7a (SUPPORT Drive-Thru Moratorium) Date: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 3:33:07 PM
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Erin Caswell <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 3:31:05 PM
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes <[email protected]>; Najarian, Ara <[email protected]>; Asatryan, Elen <[email protected]>; Devine, Paula <[email protected]>; Golanian, Roubik <[email protected]>; Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]>; Brotman, Daniel <[email protected]> Subject: Public Comment on item 7a (SUPPORT Drive-Thru Moratorium) CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Mayor Kassakhian and Councilmembers,
We strongly urge your support of the drive-thru moratorium, and its inclusion of existing pipeline projects that include the proposed Starbucks drive-thru project at 222 S. Glendale Avenue.

Glendale residents are already subjected to high traffic volumes and increasing safety concerns. South Glendale, in particular, is densely populated with families and young children.

We are concerned about the impact of the proposed Starbucks drive-thru on the health and safety of residents. It is unfair for this already-burdened part of Glendale to have yet another high volume drive-thru.

Pedestrian health and safety should be of utmost concern to the City. We would love to have more coffee shops but do not need more high volume drive-thrus that add pollution and safety issues to the communities of South Glendale. Please stop this proposed project and help the area become more pedestrian friendly and kid friendly.

Sincerely,
Erin Caswell
126 of 675
8a

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Programming to Incentivize Water Reductions.
1) Motion to Note and File Report on the Success of Glendale Water & Power’s (GWP) Water Conservation Programs.
2) Motion directing staff relating to the allocation of Water funds for additional programs.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action
Approved for September 27, 2022 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
GWP has a successful suite of water conservation programs, primarily funded by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), that have helped residents and businesses save water in MWD’s system. These programs have resulted in a 29% decrease in water use since 2006.

Glendale’s groundwater rights are governed by a court Judgement, issued in 1979 which established water rights for the Cities of Glendale, Burbank, San Fernando, Los Angeles and the Crescenta Valley Water District. In the area where GWP produces groundwater, when customers use less water, the City has less water available to pump. This makes establishing a nexus between local funding for water conservation and a local benefit for water customers difficult.

GWP’s water rates are set pursuant to the applicable Proposition 218 requirements.

The Water Fund also collects about $80,000 of “other revenues” from lease payments.

These revenues could be directed toward water conservation programs without materially affecting the charges for water service in the City.

COUNCIL PRIORITIES
Environmental Stewardship: When Glendale residents conserve water, it helps MWD store water for future use in the region.
127 of 675
2 d 8

RECOMMENDATION
Note and file this report on the success of GWP’s Water Conservation Programs, and direct staff on the allocation of revenues derived from lease payments to provide additional water conservation program funding.

BACKGROUND
GWP’s water conservation programs have been tremendously successful in helping residents and businesses save water. The success can be measured in multiple ways.

One way to look at the success of the programs is to list the number of residents and businesses that have used the programs as noted below.

Turf Removal Rebates Since 2014
• 480 Glendale residents received a turf removal rebate and removed 732,293 square feet of turf for an aggregate rebate amount $1,428,459. • 27 Glendale commercial customers received a turf removal rebate and removed 1,700,017 square feet of turf at an aggregate rebate amount of $3,358,635. • Five of the 26 commercial rebates were for GWP sites, and totaled 38,406 square feet of turf removed for a rebate of $50,198.

SoCal Water$mart Rebate Program for Water Efficient Appliances/ Toilets/ Irrigation Controllers
• Since 2008 a total of 4,439 residential rebates have been awarded, totaling $280,196.
• Since 2013 a total of 7,132 commercial rebates have been awarded totaling $1,056,251.

Glendale’s Residential Home Water Reports and Water Insight Web portal Glendale receives funding from MWD for Member Agency Administered Programs. The current allocation is $49,900 and GWP staff are using this funding for Glendale’s Residential Home Water Reports and Water Insight Web Portal. These programs help give residents a sense of how much water they are using in comparison to similar properties, and these programs provide continuous monitoring of water usage in order to alert residents to potential leaks at their property.

Success in Aggregate
Another way to measure the success of Glendale’s water conservation programs is to track and monitor water use as a whole. In Fiscal Year 2006/2007, Glendale residents and businesses used 32,846 ACFT of potable water, which is equivalent to 10.7 billion gallons. In Fiscal Year 2013/2014, Glendale residents and businesses used 27,908 ACFT of water which is a 15% reduction in water use.

During the water shortage of 2015, the year 2013 was selected by the State as the year to use for comparison for compliance with the Governor’s emergency conservation orders. Since that time Glendale’s residents and businesses have held their 128 of 675 3 d 8
conservation levels at nearly 18% below 2013 levels, even prior to the current mandatory conservation implementation. The four-year period of 2017 to 2020, the average annual use was 23,361 ACFT, which is a 29% reduction from the 2006/2007 time period.

ANALYSIS
The only sources of water that the City of Glendale owns are an agreement with the City of Los Angeles for 50% of the recycled water produced at the Los Angeles – Glendale Water Reclamation Plant (LAGWRP), and a prescriptive right to 3,856 ACFT of groundwater in the Verdugo Basin. Approximately 7% of the City’s water demands are being met by recycled water, and approximately 5% of the City’s water demands are being met by water production in the Verdugo Basin. Water not used from LAGWRP is discharged to the LA River. The City is only able to produce about half its water right in the Verdugo Basin because of long-term declining groundwater levels, and reducing pumping does not materially affect groundwater levels in the basin because of how the basin is formed.

The City of Glendale is entitled to pump groundwater from the San Fernando Basin (SFB) based on a formula delineated in a 1979 Court Judgement stemming from a decade-long litigation the court case referred to as in the matter of “The City of Los Angeles v. City of San Fernando, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 650079” (Judgment). The Judgement allows Glendale to pump from the SFB an amount equal to 20% of its total water sales in the areas overlying the SFB, and this is referred to as a Return Flow Credit. The Judgement allows Glendale to further pump and additional 5,500 ACFT above the return flow credit by paying the City of Los Angeles a Physical Solution Rate for each ACFT used. The current Physical Solution Rate is $814.65/ACFT. Glendale’s local supply from the SFB is pumped through the Glendale Water Treatment Plant which is part of an EPA Superfund clean-up project called the Glendale Operable Unit. The City is a party to the court ordered Consent Decree related to this project and currently about 25% of the City’s water supply comes from this plant and the SFB. The project produces about 7,600 ACFT of highly treated drinking water year.

During the Water-Year (WY) of 2006/2007, GWP delivered 29,511 ACFT to its service area overlying the SFB, providing a return flow credit of 5,902 ACFT that could be pumped from the basin. After the successful conservation measures noted in the previous section, during WY 2019/2020, GWP delivered 21,997 ACFT to its service area overlying the SFB, providing a return flow credit of 4,399 ACFT. (A WY is October 1 st through September 30th).

Due to the Judgement, successful water conservation in the City reduced the amount of water available to pump without using Physical Solution water by 1,503 ACFT between 2006 and 2020.

Water conservation in Glendale saves water in the MWD system for use in the region while reducing the amount of water Glendale can pump itself without using Physical Solution water.
129 of 675
4 d 8
Glendale’s water conservation rebates and programs are funded by MWD. One way to increase water conservation funding without a clear nexus between a local benefit being derived from local revenue, and while avoiding using revenue from all customers that would materially benefit a few customers, would be to use “other revenue” collected by the Water Fund. The Water Fund collects approximately $80,000 per year of revenue from lease payments primarily related communication towers. This amount would provide additional funding for water conservation programs and is not tied to fees charged to customers.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Glendale’s residents and businesses can find water saving tips an links to all of the utility’s rebates at https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/glendale-waterand-power. These rebates and programs are advertised in the monthly “GWP from the Source Newsletter”. The programs are regularly featured at the GWP Commission meetings, and are advertised in the customers’ bills and on social media. The programs are also listed in GWP’s press releases and discussed on multiple television interviews and on GTV.

Current programs on the website include:
• Turf Removal Rebates - $2 per square foot
• Laundry to Landscape Greywater System Rebate - Residential customers who install a Laundry to Landscape Greywater system that does not require a City permit may be eligible for a $500 rebate.
• Smart Home Energy and Water Saving Upgrade Program - Evaluates the efficiency of customer homes, installs low cost energy and water saving devices, and makes recommendations regarding additional energy and water measures customers can implement. The program inspects a number of energy and water saving measures, including water flow rates at all sinks, showers, toilets and irrigation controller programming. Additionally, it installs a number of measures at no cost to the customer, including shower heads, faucet aerators, toilet displacement devices, toilet flappers, dual flushometer retrofits and sprinkler head replacements.
• WaterInsight Program - Provides customers with Home Water Reports that compare a customer’s usage to similar homes, along with leak alerts, a web portal to view detailed water data and access educational tools to help change water usage behaviors.
• Smart Home Rebates - Helps customers save money on water bills by offering the following water rebates which are supplemental to MWD’s rebates. Clothes washers, up to $80 and Premium High Efficiency Toilets, up to $60. • Energy & Water Efficiency Marketplace - Offers online shopping for energy and water efficient products at discounted prices.
• In School Energy and Water Conservation Education - This program works on a cooperative basis with the Glendale Unified School District and private schools within Glendale. It seeks to educate sixth grade science students in the areas of energy and water conservation through a “hands on” curriculum that includes in130 of 675 5 d 8
home installation of conservation devices. The program was suspended during the pandemic but is scheduled to resume this current 2022-2023 school year. • Student Art Contest - The annual “Water is Life” Student Art Contest was open to all K-12th grade students in Glendale. Sponsored by GWP and the Metropolitan Water District (MWD), participating students were asked to submit artwork portraying the water-wise "Water is Life" theme, along with a short message about water conservation for a chance to be featured in MWD's 2023 Calendar and win a $100 Amazon gift card.
• Glendale Water-Wise Gardening Website - If residents need help planting a CA Friendly landscape, they can visit MySmartGarden.com/GlendaleCA to help them transform their water guzzling landscape into a water efficient landscape. This Glendale website provides residents with access to local gardens with over 200 examples of CA Native landscapes.

Water Saving Tips and links on the website include:
• MySmartGarden.com/GlendaleCA
• Plant a Beautiful Water-Wise Garden
• Rain Barrel Information
• How to Program Your Irrigation Controller
• SaveOurWater.com
• Bewaterwise.com
• No Water Waste Policy
• Water Saving Tips
• Report Water Waste Anonymously

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report. Using approximately $80,000 of revenue per year, compared to approximately $60 million in revenue collected from water rates will not materially impact the cost of service analysis.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The requested actions herein are not related to any project and, thus, are not subject to environmental review. The first item is a report highlighting GWP’s successful conservation efforts, and the second item seeks further direction from Council related to additional funding of conservation programs.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
Not Applicable.

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Note and file this report on the success of GWP’s Water Conservation Programs.

Alternative 2: Direct staff to use “other revenues” collected by the Water Fund to provide additional funding for water conservation programs.
131 of 675
6 d 8
Alternative 3: Consider any other alternative not proposed by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Michael E. De Ghetto, Chief Assistant General Manager - Water Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS / ATTACHMENTS
None.
132 of 675

M O T I O N
Moved by Council Member ________________________________, seconded by Council Member __________________________________, that the City Council hereby notes and files the Report dated September 27, 2022, by the General Manager of Glendale Water & Power Department (GWP) regarding the success of GWP’s Water Conservation Programs.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
133 of 675
1 M O T I O N
Moved by Council Member ___________________, seconded by Council Member __________________, that the City Council has considered the Report dated September 27, 2022 by the General Manager of Glendale Water & Power Department, regarding the allocation of water funds for additional water conservation programs, and directs staff as follows:

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
134 of 675
9a

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Appeal of Design Review Board's approval of DRB Case No. PDR2105697 for 420 Nesmuth Road.

1. Motion to sustain the Design Review Board's decision and approve the project.

2. Motion to reverse the Design Review Board's decision and deny the project.

3. Motion to remand the project to the Design Review Board for consideration.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Public Hearing
Approved for September 27, 2022 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This hearing is an appeal of a decision made by the Design Review Board on July 8, 2021, to approve Design Review Board Case No. PDR 2105697 for the construction of a new 2,268 square-foot three-story, single-family residence with an attached two-car garage on a 7,566 square-foot vacant lot located in the R1R-II (Restricted Residential - Floor Area Ratio District II) zone.

COUNCIL PRIORITIES
Balanced, Quality Housing
One of the City’s major goals is to maintain, preserve, and develop of balanced housing opportunities. The development of the existing vacant lot with the proposed singlefamily residence will create housing opportunity.

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council sustain the Design Review Board's approval of Case No. PDR 2105697, based on the rationale used in the staff report. 135 of 675
2 BACKGROUND
Appellants: Joseph R. Ashby (411 Nolan Avenue), Haik Mesropian (417 Nolan Avenue), and Nicola Montuschi (412 Nesmuth Road)
Status of Appellant: Neighbors
Applicant: Domus Design (C/O Garo Nazarian)
Owner: Alfred and Anahid Babayans
Legal Description: Lot 49, Tract No. 4881
APN: 5630-022-015
Zone: R1R-II (Restricted Residential) Zone - Floor Area Ratio District II.

Land Use Element: Low Density Residential.

Lot Size and Frontage: The project site is an interior lot with 7,566 square feet in area and 76.8 linear feet of frontage along Nesmuth Road.

Existing Site Characteristics: The project site is a vacant lot with approximately 54 percent average current slope for the area of construction. The irregularly-shaped lot slopes upward from Nesmuth Road towards the rear. The lot contains one protected Oak tree (6 inches in diameter) at the southeast corner of the lot, at the rear. The tree will not be impacted by the proposed development. There is also one protected street tree (Deodar Cedar) within the public right-of-way, adjacent to the project’s site, which is proposed to remain. The project will involve approximately 803 cubic yards of cut and export; and 48 percent of the site will remain as ungraded open space.

Circulation Element: Nesmuth Road is classified as a local street in the Circulation Element of the General Plan and is capable to accommodate the traffic generated by the residential uses.

Surrounding Land Use/Zoning: The properties immediately surrounding the subject site are zoned R1R, FAR District II. The majority of the neighboring properties consist of vacant lots; however, the immediate properties at the east and south of the subject site are developed with single family dwellings.
136 of 675
3 PROJECT HISTORY:

April 7, 2021 – Applicant submitted a design review application (DRB Case No.

PDR2105697) to construct a new 2,268 square-foot three-story, single-family residence with an attached two-car garage on a 7,566 square-foot vacant lot located in the R1R-II Zone.

June 1, 2021 – Incomplete letter was sent to the applicant.

June 18, 2021 – The application was deemed complete.

July 8, 2021 – Design Review Board approved the project (4-0) with three conditions.

July 23, 2021 – Neighbors filed an appeal.

SUMMARY OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD’S DISCUSSION:

Of the five (5) Board members, Board member Minas recused himself from voting due to a conflict and Board members Simonian, Welch, Smith, and Tchaghayan, unanimously voted in favor (4-0) to approve the project with three (3) conditions. Below, is a summary of discussions made by Board members during the DRB public hearing:
• Board Member Smith acknowledged the simplicity of the proposed design and found the project to be well-designed in terms of scale and details. However, she suggested several conditions to further enhance the design including the reduction of the size of the second floor windows (front façade), simplifying the proposed balcony railings, eliminating the second floor balconies, using French doors instead of sliding doors (for the balconies), eliminating the header over the garage door, eliminating the arched header for the interior stairwell window (front façade), and redesigning the front curved staircase to be rectilinear. • Board Member Tchaghayan found the design appropriate to the site and appreciated that the design truly reflected the architectural features of the proposed style (Spanish Colonial Revival). She acknowledged the challenges with the development in hillside properties; however, she found the proposed design an appropriate approach in terms of its site planning. With regard to the neighbors’ concerns expressed during public testimony including the size of the lot, lot boundaries, loss of privacy and views, impermissible retaining walls in relation the current lot slope, infringement on an existing easement, and the project’s failure to preserve native trees, Board Member Tchaghayan noted that most of the neighbors’ concerns were not within DRB purview and would be appropriately addressed during the plan check and permit process. She particularly noted the proposed 10’-5” high retaining wall behind the house was lower than the maximum allowable height limit of 15’-0” and that the retaining wall could not exceed that height limit and would be verified during the plan check and permitting process. 137 of 675
4 Finally, she agreed with Board member Smith’s suggestion for reducing the size of the second floor windows on the front façade and suggested a new condition for replacing the front facing hipped roof with a gabled roof on the front façade. • Board Member Simonian found the proposed project successful in terms of its attention to details, high quality materials, simplicity, articulation, orientation in relation the site slope, and creation of a focal point. He supported the conditions to reduce the size of the second floor windows and replacing the front facing hipped roof with a gabled roof. In response to the neighbors’ concern in regard to the amount of grading and lot slope being more than 50 percent, he strongly believed that the proposed construction would not result in more than 1,500 cubic yards of grading (cut and export) and if the grading would need to exceed the proposed approximately 803 cubic yards, the Board would not suggest any additional condition, because the proposed site planning was well oriented and appropriate to the site. In response to the neighbors’ concern in regard to the project distance from the east property line, Mr. Simonian noted that the project met the minimum required 10’-0” interior setback along the east side property line (along the adjacent neighbor at 412 Nesmuth Road) and that any further distancing from the property line would create an unnecessary hardship for the developer of the subject site; and that it was unfortunate that the existing neighboring house at 412 Nesmuth Road was situated almost along the side property line, without adequate setback. He also acknowledged the existing drainage and sewer piping on the subject site belonged to the neighbor(s) and encroached on the subject site. He strongly believed that with implementation of some precautionary measures during construction, the construction would not cause any harm to the existing exposed piping. • Chairman Welch concurred with Board Members and supported the proposed design. He also found the project’s mass was appropriate and successful in response to the site topography. He appreciated the simplicity of the proposed design and details. He also echoed Board Member Simonian’s comments that any further distancing from the east side property line would create an unnecessary hardship for the developer and that it was unfortunate that the existing neighboring house (to the east) was built along the side property line with no setback. However, he asked the developer to ensure the protection of the existing exposed piping system during construction. He supported the Board member’s suggested conditions in addition to the staff recommended Condition No. 1 to obtain required permits from Urban Forestry to protect the street tree and the oak tree on the site; and update the landscape plan to include the protected trees. 138 of 675
5 Ultimately, Board Member Smith made a motion to approve the project with three (3) conditions. The motion was seconded by Board Member Simonian. The Board unanimously voted in favor (4-0) to approve the project with the following conditions:

1. Obtain required permits from Urban Forestry to protect the street tree and the oak tree on the site; and update the landscape plan to include the protected trees.

2. Replace the front facing hipped roof with a gabled roof at the left side (north) of the front façade (second floor).

3. Replace the French doors at the south side of the front façade (in the area above the entry and bedroom #3) with windows that are reduced in height and width to express a hierarchy of window sizes.

ANALYSIS
In the appeal application (Exhibit 7), the appellants contend that the applicant presented an incomplete application and false information such as the area of the lot, lot boundaries, lot slope, and location of the existing sidewalk; and that the DRB exceeded its authority and rendered the decision based on the applicant’s false presentations. The appellants also contend that the adjacent neighboring property (412 Nesmuth Road) located at the east side of the subject project would suffer serious loss of privacy and views. Further, the appellants raised concern for the impermissible retaining walls, infringement on an existing easement, and the project’s failure to preserve native trees.

The appellants believe the subject development will adversely affect, at a minimum, the properties at 412 Nesmuth Road, 411 Nolan Avenue, and 417 Nolan Avenue.

STAFF’S ANALYSIS OF APPEAL:

Below is a list of the statements made by the appellants in the appeal application in Part 4 “Statement of Error” (grounds for the appeal), as required by GMC section 2.88.030, together with staff responses:

A. That there was a violation of a specific provision of law, which forms the basis of the appeal. The appellants cite GMC [section] 30.11.060(B) (lot size [is] less than 7,500 square feet), GMC [sections] 30.11.070 and 30.30.010(B)(2)(a) (retaining walls taller than the [allowable] 5 feet visible from street), GMC [section] 30.47.040 (B)(3) (failure to consider privacy), and Civil Code §1468 (infringement of use of easement/intent of easement).

Staff’s response:
139 of 675
6 With respect to GMC section 30.11.060(B), which requires seven-thousand fivehundred (7,500) square feet as the minimum lot size for purposes of constructing a new dwelling unit on lots divided prior to June 26, 1986, the applicant included a land survey as part of the submitted plans (Exhibit 3). The land survey was prepared by a licensed surveyor on April 28, 2020 and the area of the subject lot was shown to be 7,566 square feet. Staff did not find any discrepancies between the survey and lot information found in the City and County records. DRB also found the land survey accurate and acceptable.

With respect to GMC section 30.11.070, which regulates the required setbacks in residential district, no specific subsection of this code was cited by the appellants.

Staff found the project in compliance with this code section and subsections.

With respect to GMC section 30.30.010(B)(2)(a), which regulates the height limit of retaining walls and crib walls in the ROS and R1R zones, the project is in compliance with this code section and subsection GMC section

30.30.010(B)(2)(a)(ii), because the proposed retaining walls, which are upslope from the public street access, have a maximum exposed height of 10’-5”, which is less than the maximum allowable height of fifteen (15) feet and will be hidden from view from the public street by the primary house, as required by the code.

In regard to the appellants’ reference to GMC section 30.47.040 (B)(3), this code section addresses privacy and conflicting relationships of proposed development to adjacent buildings including unreasonable impacts on privacy on adjacent buildings and outdoor spaces. According to this code section, privacy is judged by the view from the proposal’s primary living spaces (living room, den, study, family room, great room, library, dining room) into the buildings and outdoor spaces of existing buildings. In addition, views from new balconies greater than 25 square feet and the placement and relationship of windows must also be considered. In the current project, the property to the west is a vacant lot and due to the site topography, there is no view from the subject site to the neighboring properties to the south (along Nolan Avenue); however, three windows of the subject three-story house will face the neighboring property to the east (412 Nesmuth Road). These windows include two small windows (18 inches by 30 inches) at the third floor bathroom, which according to above code section, should not be considered for privacy concerns.

The third window is the proposed living room window (30 inches by 36 inches) at the second floor (east façade) and does not face directly toward the neighbor’s large window (46 inches by 120 inches). Therefore, the DRB did not find any privacy issue caused by these window placements.

The project proposes a 57 square-foot balcony off the third floor bedroom and a 117 square-foot balcony off the living room on the second floor at the front façade. There 140 of 675
7 is no balcony proposed on the side façade (east), facing the neighbor and neither of the two balconies face directly toward the neighboring house or its backyard outdoor open spaces. Furthermore, a privacy wall is designed on the east façade of the second-floor balcony with a small opening (approximately 2 feet by 4 feet). The DRB did not find any privacy issue caused by the proposed balconies.

The appellant’s argument regarding an infringement of use of easement/intent of easement (Civil Code §1468) is incorrect. The existence of a 5’-0” sewer easement and sewer lateral(s) along the east property line was noted by the City’s Public Works/Engineering Division when the project was circulated for comments to various City departments during the application review process. According to the project plans, no building or structure is proposed within the 5’-0” easement, along the east property line. In fact, the proposed house is set back 10’-0” from the east side property line, as required by the zoning code. Therefore, the project does not infringe upon or violate any rights given by the easement.

B. That the DRB exceeded its authority. Final design review requires that the applicant file a complete application and that the DRB’s discussion acknowledged that information about grading plan was absent and also the retaining walls would change based on the engineering and soil testing, which would necessarily change the design, but still the DRB approved the project. The appellants refer to GMC [section] 30.47.040.

Staff’s response: Staff has analyzed appellant’s contentions here and finds the DRB did not exceed its authority, because:
1) The list of items required for review of a final design review application is contained in GMC section 30.40.020. All information required for the DRB to review the project was completely provided. Regarding the grading plan requirement, the project was found to be acceptable by the Public Works Department and Building and Safety Division and was processed for DRB review after it was circulated to other departments/divisions for comments.

Details about the grading plan and required permit(s) will be addressed in the permitting phase, when construction documents and details are submitted for review and permit. The design of the project, except for changes to meet the conditions of DRB approval, will remain unchanged during the permit process. 2) The DRB noted and considered the height of the retaining walls after hearing the public testimony during the meeting. Board Member Tchaghayan noted that the designer relied on a soils report to propose a retaining wall with the maximum exposed height of 10’-5” behind the house. However, she strongly believed if soil conditions and future grading permits require taller retaining 141 of 675
8 wall(s), the project would not exceed the height limit of 15’-0”, as required by GMC section 30.30.010(B)(2)(a)(ii).
3) In regard to the appellants’ reference to GMC section 30.47.040 related to the project’s compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood, the DRB appropriately acted within its authority and found the proposed project, as conditioned, in compliance with the applicable subsections A, B, and C of this code section in terms of compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood, use of high quality materials, and incorporation of appropriate architectural details and design. 4) With respect to GMC section 30.47.040 (D), DRB acted within its authority and reviewed the proposed design and details, considered the public concerns, ensured the project’s compatibility with the surrounding development, considered the staff-recommended condition (Condition No. 1), and found the project in compliance with the Zoning Code and the Hillside Design Guidelines after implementation of Conditions No. 2 and No. 3.

C. That the DRB failed to fulfill a mandatory duty by provision of GMC [section]

30.40.020 (G) (applicant filing), because the application was incomplete; GMC [section] 12.44 for protection of indigenous trees, because the proposed retaining walls will endanger the oak tree; GMC [sections] 30.47.040(B)(3) and 30.47.030, because the proposed development is not in reasonable conformance with the [Glendale] Municipal Code (GMC).

Staff’s response:

With respect to GMC section 30.40.020 (G), as was noted above in the staff response to Item B (1), all information required for a complete design review application submittal was provided to staff and the application was deemed complete.

With respect to GMC section 12.44 for protection of indigenous trees, the lot contains one protected oak tree (6 inches in diameter) at the southeast rear corner of the lot, away from the construction area. The oak tree will not be impacted by the proposed development and all onsite activities must otherwise comply with the City’s indigenous tree protection ordinance. There is also one protected street tree (Deodar Cedar) within the public right-of-way adjacent to the project site. The project plans were reviewed by the Urban Forestry Division during the application review process. The Urban Forestry Division supported the proposed development and required the applicant to obtain required permits to protect the street tree and the oak tree on the site. Condition No. 1 was recommended by staff and imposed by the DRB to satisfy the Urban Forestry Division requirement. 142 of 675
9 With respect to GMC section 30.47.040(B)(3), which addresses conflicting relationships of proposed development to adjacent buildings including unreasonable impacts on privacy of adjacent buildings and outdoor spaces privacy, please see staff response to Item A above.

With respect to GMC section 30.47.030, and the appellants’ contention that the proposed development is not in reasonable conformance with the municipal code, no specific issue was raised by the appellants. In addition to the responses included for Items A and B above, the DRB carefully reviewed the development and imposed conditions of approval to ensure compatibility with surrounding development. In this case, the DRB considered the staff-recommended condition of approval (Condition No. 1) and added two more conditions to replace the front facing hipped roof with a gabled roof at the left side (north) of the front façade (second floor) and to replace the French doors at the south side of the front façade (in the area above the entry and bedroom #3) with windows. The goal of these changes was to reduce building height and width and to express a hierarchy of window sizes. The applicant subsequently provided a revised set of drawings appropriately addressing the DRB conditions of approval (Exhibit 8).

D. That the DRB refused to hear or consider certain facts before rendering its decision.

The appellants contend that the lot size submitted by applicant is inaccurate and the actual lot is less than 7,500 SF, [that there is an] easement held by adjoining property owners, [that there would be an] invasion of privacy of 412 Nesmuth Road due to large window, and that the slope of the subject site is exceeding an average current slope of 50 percent.

Staff’s response:

Most of these concerns are addressed in staff responses set forth in Items A, B, and C above. In addition, as proposed, the new three-story house will be built into the slope and will terrace and follow the natural topography as recommended by the Hillside Design Guidelines. The DRB carefully reviewed the project design and considered all facts presented before the Board, including public testimony, before rendering its decision. Board Member Simonian in particular noted that with the project exceeding the average current slope of fifty (50) percent, the Board would not suggest any additional conditions of approval because the proposed design was an appropriate and well-oriented site planning approach.

E. That the evidence before the DRB was insufficient or inadequate to support its decision. The appellants state that evidence was necessary, but lacking including:
• Independent evaluation of the lot size
143 of 675
10 • Document regarding the easement (that applicant told the DRB there were no easement, but DRB should have required a letter from a title search company)
• Grading report
• Photos assessing privacy
Staff’s response:

Most of the concerns are addressed in staff responses set forth in Items A, B, C, and D (above). Furthermore, the additional photos assessing privacy that were submitted by the appellants (Appellant’s Statement of Additional Facts - Exhibit 7) do not show any privacy conflict. As mentioned above, the DRB did not find the proposed project would cause any privacy conflict with the neighboring properties.

F. That the details of the project were not posted to the Design Review Board until seven days before the hearing. The additional evidence required the appellants to contact third parties to obtain documents and that could not be accomplished with the short window when the DRB posted the design. The issues were raised with the DRB and the applicant responded by providing false information that the applicant could not benefit from providing false information to the DRB.

Staff’s response:

The project drawings and staff report, along with the application materials, were posted on the City’s website a week prior to the DRB hearing in accordance with Planning Division policy. However, the submitted development plans and project documents were available for public review by request upon design review application submittal and when the DRB hearing was noticed. The project was noticed at least 10 days prior to the DRB hearing for public comments in accordance with GMC section 30.61. In addition, the project installed story poles (temporary frames) reflecting the project footprint and size, in accordance with GMC section

30.40.020, approximately four weeks prior to the Design Review Board hearing.

These should have given the appellants and all interested parties adequate time to inquire and obtain additional evidence.

Furthermore, the appellants submitted the following three documents with the appeal application for “Appellant’s Statement of Additional Facts” (Exhibit 7) as additional documents as follows:
1) Tree Report prepared by Sims Tree Health Specialists, Inc. (dated July 20, 2021).

The report states that the project will not damage the existing oak tree as long as 144 of 675
11 precautions are taken and that the tree will survive the development; however, the street tree (Cedrus Deodora) will likely not survive the construction. As noted in staff response to Item C above, the City’s Urban Forestry Division reviewed and supported the proposed development and required the applicant to obtain applicable permits prior to construction to protect the street tree and the oak tree on the site. DRB Condition No. 1 will ensure there will not be any negative impacts to the trees.
2) A letter (“Statement of facts for 420 Nesmuth RD., Glendale, CA”) prepared by Hennon Surveying & Mapping, Inc. (dated July 22, 2021). The letter states that according to records obtained from the Los Angeles County Recorder Office, the lot size at 420 Nesmuth Road (proposed project) appears to be approximately 7,272 square feet or about 7,270 square feet. The letter is attached with copies of older survey records (corner records). As noted in staff response to Item A, the land survey (dated April 28, 2020) was prepared by a licensed surveyor and submitted with the project drawings by the applicant. The survey indicates the lot area to be 7,566 square feet. Staff did not find any discrepancies between the survey and information found in the City and County records in terms of the property line dimensions and boundaries. The DRB also found the land survey accurate and acceptable.
3) A photographic survey was submitted showing the subject site and the window of the neighboring house at 412 Nesmuth Road, with the focus on privacy and view concern for 412 Nesmuth Road to support the appellants’ argument for privacy conflict and blocking the view. However, the photographic survey does not reveal any new evidence supporting an argument that the project impacts privacy in violation of applicable standards. As mentioned above (staff response to Item A), the DRB did not find the proposed project would cause any privacy conflict with the neighboring properties and, in addition, the City of Glendale does not have a view protection ordinance for the Board to consider.

In addition, the appellants’ claim that DRB relied on the applicant’s false information is incorrect. The four DRB members present at the hearing listened to the neighboring concerns and discussed the site planning, mass and scale, and details of the project.

The DRB did not find the information provided by the applicant to be false or incomplete. The plans and information provided to the DRB were sufficient and adequate to enable the DRB to render a decision within its purview, and based on its review and consideration of all the materials and testimony the DRB conditionally approved the application unanimously (4-0). In addition, the DRB did not think the approved conditions would warrant a second review by the DRB; otherwise, the DRB would have voted for “return for redesign”.
145 of 675
12 APPELLANTS’ STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL FACTS AND STAFF RESPONSES:

The appeal listed eight (8) statements of additional facts, which mainly support the Statement of Error (see above, Items A to F). A summary of the appellant’s arguments under statement of additional facts are listed below together with the staff responses:

1. Obstruction of view and invasion of privacy: The appellants contend that the project significantly invades the privacy of 412 Nesmuth Road by looking into the neighbor’s panoramic window (46 inches by 12 inches) located at the second floor (east side) and materially blocks the main view of canyon for 412 Nesmuth Road and that this will cause the market value of the property to be decreased. The appellants refer to the older developments in the neighborhood (along Nolan Avenue towards the north, canyon facing side) as successful examples for protecting the privacy and window placements of adjacent neighbors. The appellants further contend the proposed project fails to account for the privacy concerns inherent in the hillside development. The appellants also state that the above issues were brought to the DRB’s attention during the hearing and that the applicant did not find the proposed two small windows facing the neighboring house at 412 Nesmuth causing privacy issue and that the DRB failed to consider the privacy conflict. The appellants also contend that the DRB should have required the project to be redesigned and be reduced in scale and the overall size to not obscure 412 Nesmuth Road.

Staff’s response:

As noted in the staff response in Item A above, the Board acted within its authority and reviewed the relation between the subject development and neighboring properties (in particular, the immediate neighbor to the east) and did not find any privacy issue caused by any conflicting relationships between the proposed development and the adjacent building with respect to window placements.

Therefore, the Board did not fail to consider privacy issues. Regarding the project’s scale and the overall size, the DRB found the overall size and scale of the proposed 2,268 square-foot house, as conditioned with Condition No. 2, compatible with the average 2,472 square-foot home sizes in the neighborhood (within 300 linear feet of subject property).

2. Retaining walls visible from street exceed permitted height: The appellants believe that the proposed retaining walls, behind the proposed house (south side of project) will exceed the permitted height limit of 5’-0” for the visible portion of the wall from the street, because the proposed retaining walls can be seen when driving on Valentine Drive and Cardigan Avenue; therefore, the project should comply with 146 of 675
13 GMC section 30.30.010(2)(a)(i), instead of GMC section 30.30.010(2)(a)(ii). In addition, the appellants believe the future stages in the permitting process which require soil testing and engineering, may alter the design and likely require taller retaining walls and that the public including the appellants won’t have the opportunity to voice their concern or appeal the next phase of the project after design is altered during permitting process.

Staff’s response:

See staff response in Item A above. In addition, GMC section 30.30.010(2)(a)(i) only regulates the height of the retaining walls which have a toe within fifteen (15) feet of a street front and street side property lines and run essentially parallel to the street. This code subsection is not applicable to the proposed retaining walls which are located behind the house, at the rear. The project is in compliance with GMC section 30.30.010(2)(a)(ii) which states that a “new retaining wall behind the house, which are hidden from view from the public street by primary or accessory structures that are upslope from their public street access may have a maximum exposed height of fifteen (15) feet at any point along the wall.”

3. Infringement on Easement: The appellants state that the project infringes the existing 5’-0” easement recorded for the sewer and drainage lines between 417 Nolan Avenue, 411 Nolan Avenue, and the subject property at 420 Nesmuth (along the east property line) and that the DRB failed to consider the neighbor request (411 Nolan Avenue) during the DRB hearing to grant additional 3’-0” setback from the sewer and drainage lines to minimize disruptions, which would allow assessment for any leaks, and ensure adequate access for repairs. The appellants also argue that the applicant should have noted the easement on the project plans and be aware of such easement because he falsely presented the project before the DRB without the notation for such easement.

Staff’s response:

See staff response on Item A above.

4. Misrepresentation of incline of parcel slope: The appellants believe the plans submitted to DRB misrepresented average actual slope of approximately 70 percent. The appellant state that the soil is unstable and the existence of vegetation is necessary to keep the soil together. The appellants also contend that the DRB failed to impose additional condition to address the impacts related to construction and grading for the subject property, which exceeds the average current slope of 50 percent by referring to GMC section 30.47.030 (I)(1) and this will endanger the adjoining residents.
147 of 675
14 Staff’s response:

The DRB found that the plans were adequate for a decision and proceeded to conditionally approve the project. With respect to GMC section 30.47.030 (I)(1), this code section states that “the review authority may impose conditions to address impacts related to construction and grading, including, but not limited to, haul routes, protection of indigenous trees and requirements and conditions of approval of any city department that are reasonably related to the public health, safety or welfare, where the property has an average current slope exceeding fifty (50) percent, or where the project grading will exceed one thousand five hundred (1,500) cubic yards”. This code section also states that “the review authority (DRB) shall have the authority to impose conditions in order to ensure compatibility with surrounding development and shall consider alternative arrangement of windows or building massing or site layout to avoid conflicting relationships; however, the review authority shall not reduce the size or scale of a project or shall not prohibit construction with a reasonable number or size of windows in a new or remodeled building, or an addition thereto”.

As noted in staff’s response to Item F above, the DRB acted within its authority and rendered its decision to conditionally approve the project after careful consideration of the neighbors’ concerns and proposed site planning, mass and scale, and details and the project’s compatibility with the surrounding development. The DRB found the size and scale of the project and number and size of the proposed windows reasonable and in conformance with the surrounding neighborhood and the site.

With respect to GMC section 30.47.030 (I)(1), which requires the DRB to impose conditions to address the impacts related to construction and grading for the projects that have an average current slope exceeding fifty (50) percent, or where the project grading will exceed one thousand five hundred (1,500) cubic yards, the DRB noted that the proposed construction would not cause more than 1,500 cubic yards of grading (cut and export) and if the grading would need to exceed the proposed approximately 803 cubic yards, the Board would not suggest any additional condition, because the proposed site planning was well oriented and appropriate to the site.

5. Endangering native and purported tree: The appellants present an arborist report, prepared by Sims Tree Health Specialists Inc., (dated July 20, 2021), stating that the project will endanger native and protected trees in violation of GMC and that loss imperils long term hillside stability. The main appellant’s argument is about the health and stability of the street tree (Cedrus Deodora). 148 of 675
15 Staff’s response:

See staff response on Item C and F above.

6. Actual lot size does not permit development: The appellants argue that the actual lot size does not permit the subject development because according to a letter (Statement of facts for 420 Nesmuth RD., Glendale, CA) prepared by Hennon Surveying & Mapping, Inc. (dated July 22, 2021), the 420 Nesmuth Road lot size appears to be approximately 7,272 square feet or about 7,270 square feet; and that the lot size of the subject project is less than what presented to DRB and required by GMC section 30.11.060(B); and that the proposed development is attempting to use approximately 294 square feet of land that is not part of 420 Nesmuth in order to permit the development. The appellants also believe that DRB failed to hold the project for a future hearing to allow time for investigation by the appellants or the City regarding the lot size.

Staff’s response:

See staff response on Item A above.

7. Plans submitted to DRB show a non-existent sidewalk: The appellants contend that plans submitted to DRB show a non-existent sidewalk. An image was submitted as part of the appeal application for “Appellant’s Statement of Additional Facts” (Exhibit 7) showing the current street frontage at 420 Nesmuth Road.

Staff’s response:

The project drawings correctly show the portion of existing sidewalk on the existing site plan. According to the Public Works Department the future sidewalk requirements are also correctly shown on the proposed site plan. The Board appropriately reviewed and considered the proposed improvements along the street frontage before rendering its decision.

8. Majority of neighbors oppose project as currently proposed: The appellants contend that the majority of residents and adjacent homeowners (listed below) supported the appeal and oppose project as currently proposed: Annette Shirinian, Haik Mesropian, Joseph R. Ashby, Lorenzo M. Rivera, Mary Esparrago.

Staff’s response:
149 of 675
16 The appeal application was signed by Joseph R. Ashby (411 Nolan Avenue), Haik Mesropian (417 Nolan Avenue), and Nicola Montuschi (412 Nesmuth Road). During the DRB hearing, in addition to the applicant, four speakers spoke in opposition to the proposed project: Joseph R. Ashby (411 Nolan Avenue), Haik Mesropian (417 Nolan Avenue), Nicola Montuschi (412 Nesmuth Road), and Annette Shirinian (412 Nesmuth Road). The Board considered the public testimony, responded to the public concerns, and rendered its decision. The additional opponents as listed by the appellants are Annette Shirinian (412 Nesmuth Road) and Lorenzo M. Rivera and Mary Esparrago reside at 437 Nolan Avenue (located three blocks away, southwest of the subject project).

SUMMARY
Based on the analysis of the appeal and the reasoning above, staff recommends that the City Council sustain the DRB decision to approve the project.

The basis of the staff’s recommendation and DRB’s finding for approval as incorporated in the final DRB Record of Decision include the following:

Site Planning: The proposed site planning is appropriate, as modified by any conditions, to the site and its surroundings for the following reasons:
• The proposed 3-story house follows the topography of the site, which slopes upward sharply from the street frontage.
• New retaining walls (split face concrete blocks) at the sides and rear of the new house will help to minimize landform alterations and keep almost 48 percent of the existing site as ungraded open space. The new retaining walls meet Zoning Code requirements.
• New drought-tolerant landscape is complementary to the building design.

Landscaping is proposed along the retaining walls, facing neighboring properties to reduce visual impacts.
• The design and location of the attached garage and driveway (with decorative pavers) are compatible with the primary structure.

Mass and Scale: The proposed mass and scale are appropriate, as modified by any conditions, to the site and its surroundings for the following reasons:
• The new 3-story house with the overall height of 34’-6” presents appropriate proportions and transitions in mass and scale.
• The new design follows the Hillside Design Guidelines because it is built into the up- sloped lot and creates appropriate articulations following the natural terrace. • The hipped roofs reinforce the design concept and are appropriate to the context. 150 of 675
17 • However, a condition of approval is added to replace the front facing hipped roof with a gabled roof at the left side (north) of the front façade (second floor) to better reinforce the architectural style and design concept.

Building Design and Detailing: The proposed building design and detailing are appropriate, as modified by any conditions, to the site and its surroundings for the following reasons:
• The project’s architectural details and colors including stone veneer, smooth stucco finish, two-piece roof tiles, roof eave details, trim and exposed beams, windows and exterior doors, railings, light fixtures, and front staircase are consistent and reinforce the project’s Spanish Colonial Revival design concept.

However, for better design consistency, a condition of approval is added to replace the French doors at the south side of the front façade (in the area above the entry and bedroom #3) with windows that are reduced in height and width to express a hierarchy of window sizes.
• The entryway is well integrated into the overall design. • The new three-story house will not create a privacy issue because the project’s balcony and a small window of the living room at the second floor will not overlook the adjacent neighboring property to the east. A majority of the neighborhood consists of vacant lots.
• The new windows (weathered brown wood clad windows) are recessed within walls with sills and represent the project’s architectural style with an appropriate combination of hung, fixed, and casement windows.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
The Code requires public notice when the Council considers an appeal of a design review decision. Staff has mailed copies of the notice to all property owners and occupants within 500’ radius of the project site. Also, a public notice was posted on-site and on the City’s website.

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

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is exempt from CEQA review as a Class 3 “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures” exemption pursuant to Section 15303 of the State CEQA Guidelines, because the project is the construction of a new single-family house, and there are no unusual circumstances associates with the project that would cause any significant environmental impact that would except the project from a Class 3 exemption. 151 of 675
18 CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
In accordance with Council direction pursuant to the adopted City Campaign Finance Ordinance, the names and addresses of all owners and applicable parties involved in this project proposal in this Agenda Item Report are attached as Exhibit 9.

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: The City Council may approve the attached motion to sustain the Design Review Board’s decision to approve Case No. PDR2105697.

Alternative 2: The City Council may approve the attached motion to continue the matter, directing the City Attorney to draft findings overturning the Design Review Board’s decision and denying the project.

Alternative 3: The City Council may make a motion to remand the case to the Design Review Board for further consideration.

Alternative 4: The City Council may consider any other alternative not proposed by staff. 152 of 675
19 ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

John Takhtalian, Interim Director of Community Development Prepared by:

Aileen Babakhani, Planner
Reviewed by:

Jay Platt, Principal Urban Designer
Chris Baghdikian, Senior Planner
Jason Bradford, Director of Finance and Information Technology Michael J. Garcia, City Attorney
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS / ATTACHMENTS

1. Location Map

2. Photos of Subject and Neighboring Properties, and Neighborhood Survey

3. Reduced Plans for current DRB case No. PDR2105697

4. DRB staff Report, July 8, 2021 (without attachments)

5. Urban Forestry Comments (dated April 22, 2021) and Indigenous Tree Report (dated June 5, 2021)

6. DRB’s Record of Decision

7. Appeal application of DRB’s Decision

8. Applicant’s revised drawings addressing DRB conditions

9. Campaign Disclosure Form
153 of 675
1 MOTION
Moved by Council Member _____________________________, seconded by Council Member _________________________, that upon review and consideration of all documents, materials, exhibits and testimony relative to the appeal of the Design Review Board approval with conditions of Design Review Case No. PDR2105697, located at 420 Nesmuth Road (the “Design Review Case”), and after having conducted a public hearing on the appeal on September 27, 2022, pursuant to the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995 (“GMC”), and receiving testimony, the City Council of the City of Glendale, California, based upon all of the evidence in the record, hereby SUSTAINS the Design Review Board’s decision to APPROVE the Design Review Case based on the findings and conclusions set forth in the September 27, 2022, Report to Council from the Director of Community Development, including any attachments thereto.

FINDINGS
In approving the Design Review Case, the Council hereby makes the following findings:

Site Planning: The proposed site planning is appropriate, as modified by any conditions, to the site and its surroundings for the following reasons:
• The proposed 3-story house follows the topography of the site, which slopes upward sharply from the street frontage.
• New retaining walls (split face concrete blocks) at the sides and rear of the new house will help to minimize landform alterations and keep almost 48 percent of the existing site as ungraded open space. The new retaining walls meet Zoning Code requirements.
154 of 675
• New drought-tolerant landscape is complementary to the building design.

Landscaping is proposed along the retaining walls, facing neighboring properties to reduce visual impacts.
• The design and location of the attached garage and driveway (with decorative pavers) are compatible with the primary structure.

Mass and Scale: The proposed mass and scale are appropriate, as modified by any conditions, to the site and its surroundings for the following reasons:
• The new 3-story house with the overall height of 34’-6” presents appropriate proportions and transitions in mass and scale.
• The new design follows the Hillside Design Guidelines because it is built into the up- sloped lot and creates appropriate articulations following the natural terrace. • The hipped roofs reinforce the design concept and are appropriate to the context. • However, a condition of approval is added to replace the front facing hipped roof with a gabled roof at the left side (north) of the front façade (second floor) to better reinforce the architectural style and design concept.

Building Design and Detailing: The proposed building design and detailing are appropriate, as modified by any conditions, to the site and its surroundings for the following reasons:
• The project’s architectural details and colors including stone veneer, smooth stucco finish, two-piece roof tiles, roof eave details, trim and exposed beams, windows and exterior doors, railings, light fixtures, and front staircase are consistent and reinforce the project’s Spanish Colonial Revival design concept.

However, for better design consistency, a condition of approval is added to replace the French doors at the south side of the front façade (in the area above the entry and bedroom #3) with windows that are reduced in height and width to express a hierarchy of window sizes.
• The entryway is well integrated into the overall design. • The new three-story house will not create a privacy issue because the project’s balcony and a small window of the living room at the second floor will not 155 of 675
overlook the adjacent neighboring property to the east. A majority of the neighborhood consists of vacant lots.
• The new windows (weathered brown wood clad windows) are recessed within walls with sills and represent the project’s architectural style with an appropriate combination of hung, fixed, and casement windows.

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

1. Obtain required permits from Urban Forestry to protect the street tree and the oak tree on the site; and update the landscape plan to include the protected trees.

2. Replace the front facing hipped roof with a gabled roof at the left side (north) of the front façade (second floor).

3. Replace the French doors at the south side of the front façade (in the area above the entry and bedroom #3) with windows that are reduced in height and width to express a hierarchy of window sizes.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
156 of 675
MOTION
Moved by Council Member _____________________________, seconded by Council Member _________________________, that upon review and consideration of all documents, materials, exhibits and testimony relative to the appeal of the Design Review Board approval with conditions of Design Review Case No. PDR2105697, located at 420 Nesmuth Road (the “Design Review Case”), and after having conducted a public hearing on the appeal on September 27, 2022, the Council hereby reverses the Design Review Board’s decision and denies the Design Review Case. The Council hereby continues this matter until October 11, 2022, without further public notice, and directs the City Attorney to prepare written findings in support of reversing the Design Review Board’s decision on the Design Review Case.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
157 of 675
MOTION
Moved by Council Member _____________________________, seconded by Council Member _________________________, that upon review and consideration of Design Review Case No. PDR2105697, located at 420 Nesmuth Road (“Design Review Case”), and after having conducted a public hearing on the appeal on September 27, 2022, the Council hereby reverses the Design Review Board’s decision and denies the Design Review Case. The Council hereby remands the Design Review Case back to the Design Review Board for further consideration, taking into account the following:

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
158 of 675
EXHIBIT 1
159 of 675
EXHIBIT 2
160 of 675
161 of 675
NEIGHBORHOOD SURVEY FOR: 420 NESMUTH RD
KEY ADDRESS PARCEL NUMBER PROPERTY TYPE LOT S.F. HOUSE S.F. FLOOR AREA STORIES ESTIMATED SETBACK (Feet) ROOF A(SITE) N/A 5630-022-015 VACANT LOT 7,566 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A B 412 NESMUTH RD 5630-022-014 S.F.D 8,290 1,569 19% 2 0 SPANISH TILEC N/A 5630-022-011 VACANT LOT 6,050 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AD 397 NOLAN AVE 5630-022-034 S.F.D 9,250 2,513 27% 1 15 METAL E N/A 5630-022-009 VACANT LOT 8,770 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A F 419 CARDIGAN AVE 5630-024-003 S.F.D 776,239 3,483 0% 2 25 TILE G N/A 5630-023-013 VACANT LOT 9,080 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A H N/A 5630-023-014 VACANT LOT 6,670 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A I 431 NESMUTH RD 5630-023-015 S.F.D 7,560 1,985 26% 2 10 COMP. SHINGLE J N/A 5630-023-016 VACANT LOT 8,430 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A K N/A 5630-023-902 GOV. OWNED 18,987 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A L N/A 5630-022-901 GOV. OWNED 72,960 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A M N/A 5630-022-007 VACANT LOT 9,680 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N 441 NOLAN AVE 5630-022--032 S.F.D 11,420 2,718 24% 2 15 TILE O 437 NOLAN AVE 5630-022-031 S.F.D 11,120 2,343 21% 2 15 TILE P N/A 5630-022-019 VACANT LOT 7,050 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Q N/A 5630-022-018 VACANT LOT 6,670 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A R 417 NOLAN AVE 5630-022-016 S.F.D 7,650 2,691 35% 3 10 FLAT & SHINGLE AVERAGE 55,191 2,472 4% 2 13 1 (Site)
Proposed* 420 NESMUTH RD 5630-022-015 S.F.D 7,566 2,204 29% 3 18 SPANISH TILE NOTE: PROPOSED NOT CALCULATED IN AVERAGE
162 of 675
163 of 675
164 of 675
165 of 675
166 of 675
167 of 675
168 of 675
169 of 675
170 of 675
171 of 675
172 of 675
DOMUS DESIGN 109 E. HARVARD ST, # 306, GLENDALE, CA. 91205 TEL: (818) 500-3966 FAX: (818) 548-8108 450 North Brand Blvd. # 600
Glandale, CA 91203
TEL: (818) 813-1852
RCB

ENGINEERING
DATE: JUNE 2020 OWNER

REVISION
SCALE:

DRAWN: XXX
APPROVED:

JOB: 2020 -18
SHEET:

OF SHEETS PROJECT 420 NESMUTH ROAD, GLENDALE, CA. 91202 DRAWING TITLE BY ALFRED BABAYANS. 4609 OCEAN VIEW BLVD, LA CANADA, CA, 91011 S 5900
EXP. 09.30.21 R
E

GISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINE
E
R

STATEOF CALIFORNIA

STRUCTURA L

PATRICK BARATY
04/01/2021
N.T.S.

A-0COVER SHEET
NEW 3-STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 2268 SQ.FT
W/ ATTACHED 2 CAR GARAGE 500 S.F.

Ground Floor = 2 car garage 455 s.f. + stairs 101 s.f
First Floor = living area 1043 s.f.

Second floor = Bedrooms 1169.5 s.f.

Total Bldg. area = 2768.5 s.f.( 500 Garage +2268.5 Living area)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
420 NESMUTH ROAD,
GLENDALE, CA. 91202

PROJECT ADDRESS
APN: 5630-022-015
TRACT NO 4881 LOT 49

LEGAL DESCRIPTION

PROPERTY OWNER

DOMUS DESIGN
109 E. HARVARD ST. #306
GLENDALE, CA 91205
TEL: (818) 507-4444
FAX: (818) 548-81-08

SURVEYOR

DESIGNER

ENGINEER (ENGINEER OF RECORD)

APPLICABLE CODES

VICINITY MAP

PROJECT DATA SHEET INDEX
A-0 COVER SHEET
C-1 SURVEY MAP
A-1 SLOPE ANALYSIS
A-2 SITE PLAN
A-3 GARAGE FLOOR PLAN
A-4 FIRST FLOOR PLAN
A-5 SECOND FLOOR PLAN
A-6 ROOF PLAN
A-7 SECTION PLANS
A-7.1 SECTION & DOOR AND WINDOW SCHEDULE
A-8 NORTH-WEST & SOUTH-EAST ELEVATIONS
A-8C NORTH-WEST & SOUTH-EAST COLORED ELEVATIONS
A-9 SOUTH-WEST & NORTH-EAST ELEVATIONS
A-9C SOUTH-WEST & NORTH-EAST COLORED ELEVATIONS
AD-1 ARCHITECTURAL DETAIL
L-1 PLANTING PLAN
L-2 IRRIGATION PLAN
L-3 LANDSCAPE DETAIL & SPECIFICATION PLAN
R-1 RENDERING
TF-1 TEMPORARY FRAME PLAN
TF-2 TEMPORARY FRAME ELEVATIONS
ALFRED BABAYANS.
4609 OCEAN VIEW BLVD,
LA CANADA, CA, 91011
NL ENGINEERING & SURVEYING, INC.
790 S. ATLANTIC BLVD, SUITE 106
MONTEREY PARK, CA 91754
TEL: (626) 281-2001
FAX: (626) 281-2008
ZONING: R1R II
LOT AREA: 7,566 S.F.

OCCUPANCY GROUP: R-3 / U-1
TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: V-B
SPRINKLERED: YES
FLOOR AREA TABULATION:

GROUND FLOOR 455 S.F. 2 CAR GARAGE
101 S.F. STAIRS
FIRST FLOOR AREA: 1043 S.F.

SECOND FLOOR AREA: 1169.5 S.F.

TOTAL FLOOR AREA: 2212.5 S.F.

TOTAL BUILDING AREA 2768 S.F.

F.A.R. 2768-500 garage = 2268 s.f.=29.9%
LANDSCAPED AREA: 4212 S.F.

EARTH WORK QUANTITY:

CUT: 803.43 CU.YD
FILL: 0 CU.YD
EXPORT: 803.43 CU.YD
IMPORT: 0 CU.YD
ZONING INFO: REQUIRED / ALLOWED PROVIDED / PROPOSED
F.A.R. 7566 X 30% 2269.8 S.F. MAX.

LOT COVERAGE: 7566 X 30% 2269.8 S.F. MAX.

LANDSCAPED AREA: 7566 X 40% 3026.4 S.F. MIN.

BUILDING HEIGHT:

MAIN HOUSE: 3 STORIES (32'+3') MAX.

UNGRADED 3027 SQ.FT. = 40%
2268 S.F. (29.8%)
1393.6 S.F. (18.4%)
4212 S.F. (55.6%)
3 STORIES (34'-6")
3659 SQ.FT. = 48%
CBC 2019, CEC 2019, CMC 2019, 2019 CPC,
2019 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE,
2020 GLENDALE BUILDING AND SAFETY CODE
2019 CALIFORNIA GREEN CODE

PATRICK BARATY
109 E. HARVARD ST. #306
GLENDALE, CA 91205
TEL: (818) 500-3966
FAX: (818) 548-8108

DEPARTMENTS COMMENTS
EXHIBIT 3
173 of 675
174 of 675
DOMUS DESIGN 109 E. HARVARD ST, # 306, GLENDALE, CA. 91205 TEL: (818) 500-3966 FAX: (818) 548-8108 450 North Brand Blvd. # 600
Glandale, CA 91203
TEL: (818) 813-1852
RCB

ENGINEERING
DATE: JUNE 2020 OWNER

REVISION
SCALE:

DRAWN: XXX
APPROVED:

JOB: 2020 -18
SHEET:

OF SHEETS PROJECT 420 NESMUTH ROAD, GLENDALE, CA. 91202 DRAWING TITLE BY ALFRED BABAYANS. 4609 OCEAN VIEW BLVD, LA CANADA, CA, 91011 S 5900
EXP. 09.30.21 R
E

GISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINE
E
R

STATEOF CALIFORNIA

STRUCTURA L

PATRICK BARATY
04/01/2021
3/16"=1'-0"
A-1SLOPE ANALYSIS

DRIVE VALENTINE
(E) BLDG

NESMUTH ROAD
Δ
Δ

BUILDING LINE
ABOVE
Scale: 3/16"=1'-0"

SLOPE ANALYSIS
S = 0.00229.IL = 0.00229 x 2 x 363.3' = 53.6
A .031
S = Average percent current slope
I = Contour interval, in feet = 2'
L = Summation of length of contour lines within the boundary of the project, in feet = 363.3' A = Gross area of the project, in acres. = 1352.6 sq.ft. = 0.031 acre

PROJECT AREA
30'-10" 49'-7" 3'-0"UP

UNGRADED
AREA

UNGRADED
AREA

UNGRADED
AREA
PL. = 76.8'
15' FRONT SETBACK = 78.33'

COST LIVE OAK
6"Ø
Drip line 8'
Spread 16'
175 of 675
DOMUS DESIGN 109 E. HARVARD ST, # 306, GLENDALE, CA. 91205 TEL: (818) 500-3966 FAX: (818) 548-8108 450 North Brand Blvd. # 600
Glandale, CA 91203
TEL: (818) 813-1852
RCB

ENGINEERING
DATE: JUNE 2020 OWNER

REVISION
SCALE:

DRAWN: XXX
APPROVED:

JOB: 2020 -18
SHEET:

OF SHEETS PROJECT 420 NESMUTH ROAD, GLENDALE, CA. 91202 DRAWING TITLE BY ALFRED BABAYANS. 4609 OCEAN VIEW BLVD, LA CANADA, CA, 91011 S 5900
EXP. 09.30.21 R
E

GISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINE
E
R

STATEOF CALIFORNIA

STRUCTURA L

PATRICK BARATY
04/01/2021
3/16" =1'-0"
A-2SITE PLAN

DRIVE VALENTINE
(E) BLDG

NESMUTH ROAD
Δ
Δ
Scale: 3/16"=1'-0"

SITE PLAN
(N) CURB CUT
953.80'
978.30'
978.30'
966.00'
975.92'
965.40' 3'-0" 14'-10" 4'-0" 13'-9"
7'-6"
4'-0"
10'-8" 10'-0" 11'-4" 5'-8"
5'-0" 5'-8"
7'-11"
11'-5"
955.38
953.72
T.W.956.53'
H=32.0'
T.W.957.96'
H=3.0'
T.W.958.39'
H=3.0'
T.W.960.82'
H=5.0'
T.W.961.72'
H=5.0'
T.W.962'
H=1.54'
T.W.969.22'
H=5.0'
T.W.978'
H=5.7'
T.W.983'
H=5.7'
T.W.988.5'
H=11.2'
T.W.989.3'
H=12.0'
T.W.984'
H=5.7'
T.W.983'
H=4.7'
T.W.980'
H=1.7'
T.W.978'
H=2.08'
T.W.967'
H=1'
T.W.966'
H=2'
955.72
956.72
954.22
954.53
955.39
955.82
954.96 PLANTER2% SLOPE

DRIVEWAY
UP
DECK
UP

86.2 S.F. 53.7 S.F.

28.6 S.F. 24.7 S.F.

T.C.949.68'
C.F..949.28'
T.C.956.82'
C.F..946.42'
3 STORY SINGLE

FAMILY RESIDENCE
PORCH

A/C UNIT

SPLIT FACE
CONC. BLOCK

SPLIT FACE
CONC. BLOCK

SPLIT FACE
CONC. BLOCK

SPLIT FACE
CONC. BLOCK
GRADE LEVEL = 953.25'
2nd FLOOR WINDOW
3rd FLOOR WINDOW
15'-0"
15'-6"
15'-1"
15'-0"
15'-3"
PL. = 76.8'
15' FRONT SETBACK = 78.33'
13'-1" 14'-9"
47'-7"

COST LIVE OAK
6"Ø
Drip line 8'
Spread 16'
16'-8"
12'-0"
176 of 675

DRIVE VALENTINE
(E) BLDG

NESMUTH ROAD
Δ
Δ DOMUS DESIGN 109 E. HARVARD ST, # 306, GLENDALE, CA. 91205 TEL: (818) 500-3966 FAX: (818) 548-8108 450 North Brand Blvd. # 600
Glandale, CA 91203
TEL: (818) 813-1852
RCB

ENGINEERING
DATE: JUNE 2020 OWNER

REVISION
SCALE:

DRAWN: XXX
APPROVED:

JOB: 2020 -18
SHEET:

OF SHEETS PROJECT 420 NESMUTH ROAD, GLENDALE, CA. 91202 DRAWING TITLE BY ALFRED BABAYANS. 4609 OCEAN VIEW BLVD, LA CANADA, CA, 91011 S 5900
EXP. 09.30.21 R
E

GISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINE
E
R

STATEOF CALIFORNIA

STRUCTURA L

PATRICK BARATY
04/01/2021
3/16"=1'-0"
A-3GARAGE FLOOR PLAN
Scale: 3/16"=1'-0"

GARAGE FLOOR PLAN
2-CAR GARAGE
956.80
UP
956.38'

GARAGE DOOR
2%

SLOPE TRASH
455 S.F.
953.80'
2% SLOPEUP
CL. STAIRS
101 sq.ft. 20'-0"
20'-0" 16'-0" 6'-2" 3'-0"
(N) CURB CUT
5'-0"
955.38
953.62
954.12 955.58

BUILDING LINE ABOVE
LEGEND

SYMBOL DESCRIPTION

CONCRETE BLOCK WALL

EXTERIOR LIGHTING FIXTURE
DRIVEWAY 21'-4" 6'-10"
21'-4"
14'-9"
DS.
3 6
A-7
A
A-7
A
A-7.1
C
A-7.1
C

SPLIT FACE
CONC. BLOCK A-7.2 D A-7.2 D
18R@7"
17T@11"
2nd FLOOR WINDOW
3rd FLOOR WINDOW

COST LIVE OAK
6"Ø
Drip line 8'
Spread 16'
177 of 675
DOMUS DESIGN 109 E. HARVARD ST, # 306, GLENDALE, CA. 91205 TEL: (818) 500-3966 FAX: (818) 548-8108 450 North Brand Blvd. # 600
Glandale, CA 91203
TEL: (818) 813-1852
RCB

ENGINEERING
DATE: JUNE 2020 OWNER

REVISION
SCALE:

DRAWN: XXX
APPROVED:

JOB: 2020 -18
SHEET:

OF SHEETS PROJECT 420 NESMUTH ROAD, GLENDALE, CA. 91202 DRAWING TITLE BY ALFRED BABAYANS. 4609 OCEAN VIEW BLVD, LA CANADA, CA, 91011 S 5900
EXP. 09.30.21 R
E

GISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINE
E
R

STATEOF CALIFORNIA

STRUCTURA L

PATRICK BARATY
04/01/2021
3/16"=1'-0"
A-4FIRST FLOOR PLAN

DRIVE VALENTINE
(E) BLDG

NESMUTH ROAD
Δ
Δ
DN.

UP REF. OV.

UP

DINING KITCHEN
NOOK
DEN

LIVING ROOM BALCONY
966.38'
965.40'
1043 S.F.

BUILDING LINE
ABOVE

BUILDING LINE
ABOVE

BUILDING LINE
ABOVE
Scale: 3/16"=1'-0"

FIRST FLOOR PLAN
978.30'
966.00' 975.92' 3'-0"
13'-10"
5'-10"
9'-0"
5'-5" 7'-6"
9'-0" 12'-11"
9'-0" 11'-1"
10'-4"
4'-0"
6'-1" 7'-6"
4'-0" 20'-2" 6'-2" 3'-0" 6'-2"
4'-10" 3'-8"49'-7" OVERALL
2'-2" 7'-8" 10'-2"
30'-10"

OVERALL
30'-10"
OVERALL 21'-4" 6'-8" 7'-6" 12'-3" 1'-10" 49'-7" OVERALL 11'-5" 5'-4" 4'-7" 9'-6"
10'-10"
LEGEND

SYMBOL DESCRIPTION

CONCRETE BLOCK WALL
2X STUD WALL

SMOKE DETECTOR / CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTOR COMBO

SMOKE DETECTOR W/ BATTERY BACK-UP
"ENERGY STAR" RATED MECHANICAL FAN UP TO TO ROOF, MIN. 5

AIR CHANGES, WITH HUMIDISTAT

EXTERIOR LIGHTING FIXTURE
SD
CO
SD
SD
CO

UP PLANTER
DS.

DS. DS.

DS.

DS.

DS.

DS.

DS.
1 A
C
C
D
E
B
2 3
5 I
I
A-7
A
A-7
A
A-7
B
A-7
B
A-7.1
C
A-7.1
C
T.W.956.53'
H=32.0'
T.W.957.96'
H=3.0'
T.W.958.39'
H=3.0'
T.W.960.82'
H=5.0'
T.W.961.72'
H=5.0'
T.W.962'
H=1.54'
T.W.969.22'
H=5.0'
T.W.978'
H=5.7'
T.W.983'
H=5.7'
T.W.988.5'
H=11.2'
T.W.989.3'
H=12.0'
T.W.984'
H=5.7'
T.W.983'
H=4.7'
T.W.980'
H=1.7'
T.W.978'
H=2.08'
T.W.967'
H=1'
T.W.966'
H=2'

SPLIT FACE
CONC. BLOCK

SPLIT FACE
CONC. BLOCK A-7.2 D A-7.2 D
20R@7"
19T@11"
2nd FLOOR WINDOW
3rd FLOOR WINDOW

COST LIVE OAK
6"Ø
Drip line 8'
Spread 16' 13'-11"
178 of 675

DRIVE VALENTINE
(E) BLDG

NESMUTH ROAD
Δ
Δ
Scale: 3/16"=1'-0"
SECOND FLOOR PLAN DOMUS DESIGN 109 E. HARVARD ST, # 306, GLENDALE, CA. 91205 TEL: (818) 500-3966 FAX: (818) 548-8108 450 North Brand Blvd. # 600
Glandale, CA 91203
TEL: (818) 813-1852
RCB

ENGINEERING
DATE: JUNE 2020 OWNER

REVISION
SCALE:

DRAWN: XXX
APPROVED:

JOB: 2020 -18
SHEET:

OF SHEETS PROJECT 420 NESMUTH ROAD, GLENDALE, CA. 91202 DRAWING TITLE BY ALFRED BABAYANS. 4609 OCEAN VIEW BLVD, LA CANADA, CA, 91011 S 5900
EXP. 09.30.21 R
E

GISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINE
E
R

STATEOF CALIFORNIA

STRUCTURA L

PATRICK BARATY
04/01/2021
3/16"=1'-0"
A-5SECOND FLOOR PLAN
978.30'
977.30'
975.92'
10'-4"
1'-5" 20'-4"
5'-10" 3'-9" 10'-3" 7'-2"
9'-2" 6'-2" 3'-0"5'-5" 6'-2"
8'-6" 5'-0"
8'-6" 13'-1"
10'-10" 11'-3"
10'-4" 5'-11"
5'-0" 11'-4" 4'-0"
T.W.956.53'
H=32.0'
T.W.957.96'
H=3.0'
T.W.958.39'
H=3.0'
T.W.960.82'
H=5.0'
T.W.961.72'
H=5.0'
T.W.962'
H=1.54'
T.W.969.22'
H=5.0'
T.W.978'
H=5.7'
T.W.983'
H=5.7'
T.W.988.5'
H=11.2'
T.W.989.3'
H=12.0'
T.W.984'
H=5.7'
T.W.983'
H=4.7'
T.W.980'
H=1.7'
T.W.978'
H=2.08'
T.W.967'
H=1'
T.W.966'
H=2'
DN.

M. BATH.

M. BEDROOM
W.I.C.

BATH. #2
BEDROOM #3 BEDROOM #3 BALCONY

LAUNDRY
W D IRON BRD. ATTIC ACCESS
DOOR
977.38'
1169.5 S.F. 972.88'

BALCONY
CONC. CURB
H=4" 11'-4" 5'-0" 4'-0"
3'-4" 3'-0" 10'-10" 14'-4"
1"
31'-6"
OVERALL 28'-9" 49'-7" OVERALL
6'-5" 11'-4" 5'-9" 3'-10" 4'-1"
31'-6"
OVERALL 5'-0" 11'-4" 4'-6" 7'-2" 7'-6" 12'-3" 1'-10" 49'-7" OVERALL LEGEND

SYMBOL DESCRIPTION

CONCRETE BLOCK WALL

RETAINING WALL
2X STUD WALL

SMOKE DETECTOR / CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTOR
COMBO

SMOKE DETECTOR W/ BATTERY BACK-UP
"ENERGY STAR" RATED MECHANICAL FAN UP TO TO ROOF,
MIN. 5 AIR CHANGES, WITH HUMIDISTAT

EXTERIOR LIGHTING FIXTURE
SD
CO
SD

30.30.010 – Fences and Walls

2. Height restrictions.
ii. Retaining walls which are hidden from view from the public street by primary or accessory structures that are upslope from their public street access may have a maximum exposed height of fifteen (15) feet at any point along the wall. Successive hidden retaining walls may not exceed a total combined exposed height of fifteen (15) feet.

SD SD
SD
SD

CO DECK
DS. 20'-10"
10'-4"
DS. DS.

DS.

DS.

DS.

DS.

DS.

GUTTER DS.

H
E
E
F
F
G
G
2 2
2 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
4 5
5 A-7
A
A-7
A
A-7
B
A-7
B
A-7.1
C
A-7.1
C

A/C UNIT
2 DS.

SPLIT FACE
CONC. BLOCK

SPLIT FACE
CONC. BLOCK

SPLIT FACE
CONC. BLOCK A-7.2 D A-7.2 D
20R@7"
19T@11"
2nd FLOOR WINDOW
3rd FLOOR WINDOW

COST LIVE OAK
6"Ø
Drip line 8'
Spread 16'
179 of 675

DRIVE VALENTINE
(E) BLDG

NESMUTH ROAD
Δ
Δ
Scale: 3/16"=1'-0"
ROOF PLAN DOMUS DESIGN 109 E. HARVARD ST, # 306, GLENDALE, CA. 91205 TEL: (818) 500-3966 FAX: (818) 548-8108 450 North Brand Blvd. # 600
Glandale, CA 91203
TEL: (818) 813-1852
RCB

ENGINEERING
DATE: JUNE 2020 OWNER

REVISION
SCALE:

DRAWN: XXX
APPROVED:

JOB: 2020 -18
SHEET:

OF SHEETS PROJECT 420 NESMUTH ROAD, GLENDALE, CA. 91202 DRAWING TITLE BY ALFRED BABAYANS. 4609 OCEAN VIEW BLVD, LA CANADA, CA, 91011 S 5900
EXP. 09.30.21 R
E

GISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINE
E
R

STATEOF CALIFORNIA

STRUCTURA L

PATRICK BARATY
04/01/2021
3/16"=1'-0"
A-6ROOF PLAN
A-7
A
A-7
A
T.W.956.53'
H=32.0'
T.W.957.96'
H=3.0'
T.W.958.39'
H=3.0'
T.W.960.82'
H=5.0'
T.W.961.72'
H=5.0'
T.W.962'
H=1.54'
T.W.969.22'
H=5.0'
T.W.978'
H=5.7'
T.W.983'
H=5.7'
T.W.988.5'
H=11.2'
T.W.989.3'
H=12.0'
T.W.984'
H=5.7'
T.W.983'
H=4.7'
T.W.980'
H=1.7'
T.W.978'
H=2.08'
T.W.967'
H=1'
T.W.966'
H=2'
DS.

DS.

GUTTER
GUTTER
DS.

DS.

DS.

DS.

DS.

GUTTER
DS.

DS.

A-7
B
A-7
B
A-7.1
C
A-7.1
C
DS.

TRELLIS
4:12
4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12 A-7.2 D A-7.2 D
ATTIC AREA = 1337.4 sq.ft.
1337.4 / 150 = 8.9 sq.ft.

Roof Vent N.F.A = 1.04 sq.ft.

Roof Vent. Req.: 8.9 / 1.04 = 8.5 ≈ 9
1'-10" 2'-0"

ROOF VENT BY AIR VENT
Model # SLP150BL

ROOFING SPECIFICATION
MFR MATERIAL CLASS BRAND & MODEL ICC # CRRC ID #
SOLAR

REFLECTANCE

THERMAL

EMITTANCE
SRI
INITIAL 3 YEAR INITIAL 3 YEAR INITIAL 3 YEAR

US TILE BY
BORAL

CLAY ROOF
TILES
B 2-PIECE MISSION ESR-1017 0138A 0.28 0.26 0.84 0.86 27 25

COST LIVE OAK
6"Ø
Drip line 8'
Spread 16'
180 of 675
9'-0" 7'-3" 10'-0" 8'-7"
3'-0"
9'-3" 6'-0"
SECOND FLOOR 977.33'
FIRST FLOOR 966.38'
GARAGE 956.38'
T.O.P 986.38'
T.O.R. 990.88' 10'-0" 11'-0" 9'-0" 3'-6"
9'-0"
12'-6"
12 4
12 4
12 4
960.00'
980.00'
990.00'
1000.00'
956.80'
GRADE LEVEL = 953.25'
Scale: 3/16"=1'-0"

SECTION C
PL
PL
1020.00'
1010.00' DOMUS DESIGN 109 E. HARVARD ST, # 306, GLENDALE, CA. 91205 TEL: (818) 500-3966 FAX: (818) 548-8108 450 North Brand Blvd. # 600
Glandale, CA 91203
TEL: (818) 813-1852
RCB

ENGINEERING
DATE: JUNE 2020 OWNER

REVISION
SCALE:

DRAWN: XXX
APPROVED:

JOB: 2020 -18
SHEET:

OF SHEETS PROJECT 420 NESMUTH ROAD, GLENDALE, CA. 91202 DRAWING TITLE BY ALFRED BABAYANS. 4609 OCEAN VIEW BLVD, LA CANADA, CA, 91011 S 5900
EXP. 09.30.21 R
E

GISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINE
E
R

STATEOF CALIFORNIA

STRUCTURA L

PATRICK BARATY
04/01/2021
3/16"=1'-0"
A-7.1SECTION & DOOR AND WINDOW SCHEDULE

WINDOW SCHEDULE
WINDOW
NUMBER

WIDTHXHEIGH

T MATERIAL OPERATION GLASS FRAME TYPE EXTERNAL

GRID EDGE DETAIL BEDROOM ENERGY

EFFICIENT

TEMPERED
GLASS

FIRE HAZARD
ZONE
18" OF

FLOOR OR
40" OF
DOOR

U-FACTOR SHGC REMARKS
6'-0"X4'-0" WOOD CLAD CASEMENT DOUBLE NAIL IN Y STUCCO Y Y Y Y - 0.32 0.25 2'-0"X2'-0" WOOD CLAD FIXED DOUBLE NAIL IN Y STUCCO N Y Y Y - 0.32 0.25 2'-4"X4'-0" WOOD CLAD FIXED DOUBLE NAIL IN Y STUCCO N Y Y Y - 0.32 0.25 2'-6"X3'-0" WOOD CLAD FIXED DOUBLE NAIL IN Y STUCCO N Y Y Y - 0.32 0.25 2'-0"X4'-0" WOOD CLAD SINGLE HUNG DOUBLE NAIL IN Y STUCCO Y Y Y Y - 0.32 0.25 1'-6"X2'-6" WOOD CLAD SINGLE HUNG DOUBLE NAIL IN Y STUCCO N Y Y Y - 0.32 0.25 2'-0"X3'-0" WOOD CLAD FIXED DOUBLE NAIL IN Y STUCCO N Y Y Y - 0.32 0.25 2'-6"X5'-6" WOOD CLAD FIXED DOUBLE NAIL IN Y STUCCO N Y Y Y - 0.32 0.25 1'-4"X7'-0" WOOD CLAD FIXED DOUBLE NAIL IN Y STUCCO N Y Y Y - 0.32 0.25 SIDE LITES A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I

DOOR SCHEDULE

MARK CORE WIDTH HEIGHT THK TYPE MATERIAL FINISH HARDWARE REMARKS S 3'-0" 7'-0" 1 3
4" SWING WOOD PAINT LEVER TYPE TEMPERED GLASS IN FILL W/ TRANSOM 6'-0" 6'-8" SLIDING WOOD CLAD TEMPERED GLASS
H 6'-0" 6'-8" SWING WOOD PAINT LEVER TYPE - S 3'-0" 6'-8" 1 3 4" SWING WOOD PAINT LEVER TYPE
H 2X1'-6" 6'-8" DOUBLE SWING WOOD PAINT LEVER TYPE - 16'-0" 7'-0" OVERHEAD WOOD PAINT GARAGE DOOR 1 2
3 4
5 6 12'-3" DOOR HEIGHT 7'-0" OPENING 1'-0" DOOR HEIGHT 7'-0" OPENING 1'-0" Scale: 3/8"=1'-0"

ENTRY DOOR ELEVATION
Scale: 3/8"=1'-0"

ENTRY DOOR SECTION

EXTERIOR INTERIOR
1'-4" 3'-0" 1'-4"
CUT
CUT
CUT
CUT
CUT
NATURAL GRADE 10'-1" 3'-6" 9'-7" 3'-6"
970.00' 3'-0"
181 of 675
DOMUS DESIGN 109 E. HARVARD ST, # 306, GLENDALE, CA. 91205 TEL: (818) 500-3966 FAX: (818) 548-8108 450 North Brand Blvd. # 600
Glandale, CA 91203
TEL: (818) 813-1852
RCB

ENGINEERING
DATE: JUNE 2020 OWNER

REVISION
SCALE:

DRAWN: XXX
APPROVED:

JOB: 2020 -18
SHEET:

OF SHEETS PROJECT 420 NESMUTH ROAD, GLENDALE, CA. 91202 DRAWING TITLE BY ALFRED BABAYANS. 4609 OCEAN VIEW BLVD, LA CANADA, CA, 91011 S 5900
EXP. 09.30.21 R
E

GISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINE
E
R

STATEOF CALIFORNIA

STRUCTURA L

PATRICK BARATY
04/01/2021
3/16"=1'-0"
A-7SECTIONS
1021.25'
955.83'
1020.00'
1010.00'
1000.00'
990.00'
980.00'
970.00'
960.00'
PL
PL
Scale: 3/16"=1'-0"

SECTION A
Scale: 3/16"=1'-0"

SECTION B
PL
PL
1024.33'
954.25'
960.00'
970.00'
980.00'
990.00'
1010.00'
1000.00'
1020.00'
1030.00' 9'-0" 10'-0" 9'-0" 34'-6" 10'-0"
12 4
SECOND FLOOR 977.33'
FIRST FLOOR 966.38'
GARAGE 956.38'
12 3
T.O.P 986.38'
T.O.R. 990.88' 10'-0" 11'-0" 9'-0" 4'-6"
FIRST FLOOR 966.38'
T.O.P 975.54'
SECOND FLOOR 977.38'
FIRST FLOOR 966.38'
T.O. PLATE 986.38' 11'-0" 9'-0"
12'-5"
15'-6"
11'-8"
@10.0%MAX @20.0%MAX @10.0%MAX
5'-8" 8'-11" 7'-4"
955.65'
953.87'
953.31'
956.38'
1'-6" 2'-0" 9'-0" 3'-6"
14'-9"
SECOND FLOOR 977.38' 9'-4" 10'-1" 1'-10" 1'-10"
2%
SLOPE
GRADE LEVEL = 953.25'
GRADE LEVEL = 953.25'
1'-6" 4'-6"
T.O.R. 990.88
CUT
CUT
CUT
CUT
CUT
CUT
CUT
CUT
CUT 7'-6"

NATURAL GRADE

NATURAL GRADE
SECOND FLOOR 977.33'
182 of 675
DOMUS DESIGN 109 E. HARVARD ST, # 306, GLENDALE, CA. 91205 TEL: (818) 500-3966 FAX: (818) 548-8108 450 North Brand Blvd. # 600
Glandale, CA 91203
TEL: (818) 813-1852
RCB

ENGINEERING
DATE: JUNE 2020 OWNER

REVISION
SCALE:

DRAWN: XXX
APPROVED:

JOB: 2020 -18
SHEET:

OF SHEETS PROJECT 420 NESMUTH ROAD, GLENDALE, CA. 91202 DRAWING TITLE BY ALFRED BABAYANS. 4609 OCEAN VIEW BLVD, LA CANADA, CA, 91011 S 5900
EXP. 09.30.21 R
E

GISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINE
E
R

STATEOF CALIFORNIA

STRUCTURA L

PATRICK BARATY
04/01/2021
3/16"=1'-0"
A-8NORTH-WEST & SOUTH-EAST ELEVATIONS
4 7 4 1 2 3 7 5 5 12
SECOND FLOOR 977.38'
FIRST FLOOR 966.38'
T.O. PLATE 986.38'
GARAGE 956.38'
T.O.R. 990.88
Scale: 3/16"=1'-0"

NORTH-WEST ELEVATION
Scale: 3/16"=1'-0"

SOUTH-EAST ELEVATION
SECOND FLOOR 977.38'
T.O. PLATE 986.38'
T.O.R. 990.88'
9 7 4 5 2 4 7 6 1 3 5
12 8 11 4 10

CORONADO ASHLAR & RUBBLE - TEXAS

RUBBLE/TEXAS CREAM

JOHN TIMBERLAND LIGHTING
BELLAGIO COLLECTION 21" HIGH BRONZE

OUTDOOR POST LIGHT
13 14
14 OUTDOOR 450 LUMEN 2700K SECURITY

LANTERNS BY FEIT ELECTRIC

US TILE - TWO PIECE - EL CAMINO BLEND
ROCKWALL LARGE 6 IN. X 17.5 IN. X 7 IN.

PALOMINO CONCRETE RETAINING

WALL BLOCK BY PAVESTONE
DUNN EDWARDS DEC756

WEATHERED BROWN

CORONADO FLOOR TILE SERIES -
4"X8" RUSTIC USED BRICK

TRELLIS
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12

ELEVATION KEYNOTES
ROOF : U.S. TILE - TWO PIECE - EL CAMINO BLEND
FASCIA :PAINTED - DUNN EDWARDS DEC756 WEATHERED BROWN
GUTTER : TO MATCH THE FASCIA
TRIMS AND EXPOSED BEAMS : PAINTED - DUNN EDWARDS
DEC756 WEATHERED BROWN
STUCCO : LA HABRA X-28 MIRAGE - STEEL TOWELED SMOOTH FINISH ENTRY DOOR : WOOD, STAIN GRADE W/GLASS AND SIDE LIGHT PANELS EXTERIOR SLIDING DOORS AND WINDOWS : "WOOD CLAD" BROWN

COLOR TO MATCH THE ENTRY DOOR
GARAGE DOOR : WOOD 16'-0"X7'-0" OVERHEAD GARAGE DOOR,

COLOR TO MATCH THE ENTRY DOOR
RAILINGS : COLOR TO MATCH THE WINDOWS AND DOORS
STONES : CORONADO ASHLAR & RUBBLE - TEXAS RUBBLE/TEXAS CREAM DRIVEWAY : PAVING BRICKS @ EDGES - CORONADO FLOOR
TILE SERIES - 4"X8" RUSTIC USED BRICK
RETAINING WALLS: SPLIT FACE CONC. BLOCK BY PAVESTONE WITH A PRECAST CONC. CAP - COLOR TO MATCH BLOCKS
JOHN TIMBERLAND LIGHTING - BELLAGIO COLLECTION 21" HIGH BRONZE

OUTDOOR POST LIGHT
OUTDOOR 450 LUMEN 2700K SECURITY LANTERNS

BY FEIT ELECTRIC
13 14
STUCCO : LA HABRA X-28 MIRAGE - STEEL

TOWELED SMOOTH FINISH

PLANTER
BOX 4'-7" 3'-6"
DS
DS
DS
DS
DS 3'-6" 3'-6" 3'-6" 3'-6"
DS
DS
183 of 675
DOMUS DESIGN 109 E. HARVARD ST, # 306, GLENDALE, CA. 91205 TEL: (818) 500-3966 FAX: (818) 548-8108 450 North Brand Blvd. # 600
Glandale, CA 91203
TEL: (818) 813-1852
RCB

ENGINEERING
DATE: JUNE 2020 OWNER

REVISION
SCALE:

DRAWN: XXX
APPROVED:

JOB: 2020 -18
SHEET:

OF SHEETS PROJECT 420 NESMUTH ROAD, GLENDALE, CA. 91202 DRAWING TITLE BY ALFRED BABAYANS. 4609 OCEAN VIEW BLVD, LA CANADA, CA, 91011 S 5900
EXP. 09.30.21 R
E

GISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINE
E
R

STATEOF CALIFORNIA

STRUCTURA L

PATRICK BARATY
04/01/2021
3/16"=1'-0"
A-8CNORTH-WEST & SOUTH-EAST COLORED ELEVATIONS 4'-7"
Scale: 3/16"=1'-0"

NORTH-WEST ELEVATION
Scale: 3/16"=1'-0"

SOUTH-EAST ELEVATION
T.O.R. 990.88'
SECOND FLOOR 977.38'
FIRST FLOOR 966.38'
T.O. PLATE 986.38'
GARAGE 956.38'
T.O.R. 990.88
9 7 4 5 2 4 7 6 1 3 7 5
12 8 11 4 10
4 7 4 1 2 3 7 5 5 12
SECOND FLOOR 977.38'
T.O. PLATE 986.38'
14 13
14 TRELLIS
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12

ELEVATION KEYNOTES
ROOF : U.S. TILE - TWO PIECE - EL CAMINO BLEND
FASCIA :PAINTED - DUNN EDWARDS DEC756 WEATHERED BROWN
GUTTER : TO MATCH THE FASCIA
TRIMS AND EXPOSED BEAMS : PAINTED - DUNN EDWARDS
DEC756 WEATHERED BROWN
STUCCO : LA HABRA X-28 MIRAGE - STEEL TOWELED SMOOTH FINISH ENTRY DOOR : WOOD, STAIN GRADE W/GLASS AND SIDE LIGHT PANELS EXTERIOR SLIDING DOORS AND WINDOWS : "WOOD CLAD" BROWN

COLOR TO MATCH THE ENTRY DOOR
GARAGE DOOR : WOOD 16'-0"X7'-0" OVERHEAD GARAGE DOOR,

COLOR TO MATCH THE ENTRY DOOR
RAILINGS : COLOR TO MATCH THE WINDOWS AND DOORS
STONES : CORONADO ASHLAR & RUBBLE - TEXAS RUBBLE/TEXAS CREAM DRIVEWAY : PAVING BRICKS @ EDGES - CORONADO FLOOR
TILE SERIES - 4"X8" RUSTIC USED BRICK
RETAINING WALLS: SPLIT FACE CONC. BLOCK BY PAVESTONE WITH A PRECAST CONC. CAP - COLOR TO MATCH BLOCKS
JOHN TIMBERLAND LIGHTING - BELLAGIO COLLECTION 21" HIGH BRONZE

OUTDOOR POST LIGHT
OUTDOOR 450 LUMEN 2700K SECURITY LANTERNS

BY FEIT ELECTRIC
13 14 3'-6"

PLANTER
BOX
DS DS
DS
DS
DS
DS
DS
DS 3'-6" 3'-6" 3'-6" 3'-6"
184 of 675
DOMUS DESIGN 109 E. HARVARD ST, # 306, GLENDALE, CA. 91205 TEL: (818) 500-3966 FAX: (818) 548-8108 450 North Brand Blvd. # 600
Glandale, CA 91203
TEL: (818) 813-1852
RCB

ENGINEERING
DATE: JUNE 2020 OWNER

REVISION
SCALE:

DRAWN: XXX
APPROVED:

JOB: 2020 -18
SHEET:

OF SHEETS PROJECT 420 NESMUTH ROAD, GLENDALE, CA. 91202 DRAWING TITLE BY ALFRED BABAYANS. 4609 OCEAN VIEW BLVD, LA CANADA, CA, 91011 S 5900
EXP. 09.30.21 R
E

GISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINE
E
R

STATEOF CALIFORNIA

STRUCTURA L

PATRICK BARATY
04/01/2021
3/16"=1'-0"
A-9SOUTH-WEST & NORTH-EAST ELEVATIONS
Scale: 3/16"=1'-0"

SOUTH-WEST ELEVATION
Scale: 3/16"=1'-0"

NORTH-EAST ELEVATION
FIRST FLOOR 966.38'
9 5 4 2 7 3 1 10 5 4 2 12
1 7 3 2 5 4 9 5 4 12
SECOND FLOOR 977.38'
FIRST FLOOR 966.38'
T.O.R. 990.88'
GARAGE 956.38'
SECOND FLOOR 977.38'
GARAGE 956.38'
T.O.P 986.38'
T.O.R. 990.88'
14 14
13 TRELLIS

TRELLIS
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12

ELEVATION KEYNOTES
ROOF : U.S. TILE - TWO PIECE - EL CAMINO BLEND
FASCIA :PAINTED - DUNN EDWARDS DEC756 WEATHERED BROWN
GUTTER : TO MATCH THE FASCIA
TRIMS AND EXPOSED BEAMS : PAINTED - DUNN EDWARDS
DEC756 WEATHERED BROWN
STUCCO : LA HABRA X-28 MIRAGE - STEEL TOWELED SMOOTH FINISH ENTRY DOOR : WOOD, STAIN GRADE W/GLASS AND SIDE LIGHT PANELS EXTERIOR SLIDING DOORS AND WINDOWS : "WOOD CLAD" BROWN

COLOR TO MATCH THE ENTRY DOOR
GARAGE DOOR : WOOD 16'-0"X7'-0" OVERHEAD GARAGE DOOR,

COLOR TO MATCH THE ENTRY DOOR
RAILINGS : COLOR TO MATCH THE WINDOWS AND DOORS
STONES : CORONADO ASHLAR & RUBBLE - TEXAS RUBBLE/TEXAS CREAM DRIVEWAY : PAVING BRICKS @ EDGES - CORONADO FLOOR
TILE SERIES - 4"X8" RUSTIC USED BRICK
RETAINING WALLS: SPLIT FACE CONC. BLOCK BY PAVESTONE WITH A PRECAST CONC. CAP - COLOR TO MATCH BLOCKS
JOHN TIMBERLAND LIGHTING - BELLAGIO COLLECTION 21" HIGH BRONZE

OUTDOOR POST LIGHT
OUTDOOR 450 LUMEN 2700K SECURITY LANTERNS

BY FEIT ELECTRIC
13 14
DS DS
DS 3'-6" 3'-6"
DS
DS
DS
DS 3'-6"
T.O. DECK 965.38'
SECOND FLOOR PATIO 977.33'
185 of 675
DOMUS DESIGN 109 E. HARVARD ST, # 306, GLENDALE, CA. 91205 TEL: (818) 500-3966 FAX: (818) 548-8108 450 North Brand Blvd. # 600
Glandale, CA 91203
TEL: (818) 813-1852
RCB

ENGINEERING
DATE: JUNE 2020 OWNER

REVISION
SCALE:

DRAWN: XXX
APPROVED:

JOB: 2020 -18
SHEET:

OF SHEETS PROJECT 420 NESMUTH ROAD, GLENDALE, CA. 91202 DRAWING TITLE BY ALFRED BABAYANS. 4609 OCEAN VIEW BLVD, LA CANADA, CA, 91011 S 5900
EXP. 09.30.21 R
E

GISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINE
E
R

STATEOF CALIFORNIA

STRUCTURA L

PATRICK BARATY
04/01/2021
3/16"=1'-0"
A-9CSOUTH-WEST & NORTH-EAST COLORED ELEVATIONS
Scale: 3/16"=1'-0"

SOUTH-WEST ELEVATION
Scale: 3/16"=1'-0"

NORTH-EAST ELEVATION
FIRST FLOOR 966.38'
1 7 3 2 5 4 9 5 4 12
SECOND FLOOR 977.38'
T.O.P 986.38'
T.O.R. 990.88'
2 GARAGE 956.38'
5 4 7 3 1 5 2
FIRST FLOOR 966.38'
9 10 4 12
SECOND FLOOR 977.38'
T.O.R. 990.88'
T.O. PLATE 986.38'
GARAGE 956.38'
14 13
14 TRELLIS

TRELLIS
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12

ELEVATION KEYNOTES
ROOF : U.S. TILE - TWO PIECE - EL CAMINO BLEND
FASCIA :PAINTED - DUNN EDWARDS DEC756 WEATHERED BROWN
GUTTER : TO MATCH THE FASCIA
TRIMS AND EXPOSED BEAMS : PAINTED - DUNN EDWARDS
DEC756 WEATHERED BROWN
STUCCO : LA HABRA X-28 MIRAGE - STEEL TOWELED SMOOTH FINISH ENTRY DOOR : WOOD, STAIN GRADE W/GLASS AND SIDE LIGHT PANELS EXTERIOR SLIDING DOORS AND WINDOWS : "WOOD CLAD" BROWN

COLOR TO MATCH THE ENTRY DOOR
GARAGE DOOR : WOOD 16'-0"X7'-0" OVERHEAD GARAGE DOOR,

COLOR TO MATCH THE ENTRY DOOR
RAILINGS : COLOR TO MATCH THE WINDOWS AND DOORS
STONES : CORONADO ASHLAR & RUBBLE - TEXAS RUBBLE/TEXAS CREAM DRIVEWAY : PAVING BRICKS @ EDGES - CORONADO FLOOR
TILE SERIES - 4"X8" RUSTIC USED BRICK
RETAINING WALLS: SPLIT FACE CONC. BLOCK BY PAVESTONE WITH A PRECAST CONC. CAP - COLOR TO MATCH BLOCKS
JOHN TIMBERLAND LIGHTING - BELLAGIO COLLECTION 21" HIGH BRONZE

OUTDOOR POST LIGHT
OUTDOOR 450 LUMEN 2700K SECURITY LANTERNS

BY FEIT ELECTRIC
13 14
DS DS
DS
DS
DS
DS
DS 3'-6" 3'-6" 3'-6"
T.O. DECK 965.38'
186 of 675
Scale 3 GUARDRAIL N.T.S
Scale 2 RAILING AT STAIRWAYS N.T.S
Scale 4 TIPICAL EAVE DETAIL N.T.S
1/2"X1/2" PICKETS
@4"O.C. MAX.

Ø6" MAX. 34" TO 38" FROM STAIR NOSING
2"Ø MAX. HANDRAIL W/ SMOOTH

SURFACE & NO SHARP CORNERS
1"X1" POST
@48"O.C. MAX.
10" MIN. 7 3/4" MAX.
4" MAX. (TYP.)
1"X1" TOP RAIL
1/2"X1/2" PICKETS
@4"O.C. MAX.
2"Ø HANDRAIL W/ SMOOTH

SURFACE & NO SHARP CORNERS
2X @16"O.C. STUD WALL
1"X1" POST @48"O.C.

MAX.
48" O.C. MAX. 42" MIN. 4" MAX. 4" MAX.
1"X1" BOT. RAIL
7/8" STUCCO OVER BUILDING

PAPER BACKED METAL LATH
5/8" TYPE "X" G.B. 2" MIN.
2X @16"O.C. C.J.
2X BLK'G
R-30 INSULATION
R-13 INSULATION

PLYW'D SHT'G PER STRUCTURAL
2X @16"O.C. R.R.

MTL. GUTTER
BASKET

DRAINER

DOWNSPOUT
2X FASCIA
2X4 @16"O.C.
2X4 LEDGER

PLYW'D SHT'G

LIGHT WEIGHT
CONC. TILE

CORROSION

RESISTANT METAL

WIRE MESH
N0. 26 GALVANIZED SHEET GAGE
WEEP SCREED WITH A 3-1/2" FLANGE
7/8" STUCCO OVER TWO
LAYERS OF GRADE "D" PAPER

BACKED METAL LATH
CONC. STEM WALL, SLAB OR
FOOTING 4" MIN.

HARDSCAPE F.S.

FINISH GRADE
R-15 INSULATION
Scale 1 WEEP SCREED
N.T.S 8" MIN. DOMUS DESIGN 109 E. HARVARD ST, # 306, GLENDALE, CA. 91205 TEL: (818) 500-3966 FAX: (818) 548-8108 450 North Brand Blvd. # 600
Glandale, CA 91203
TEL: (818) 813-1852
RCB

ENGINEERING
DATE: JUNE 2020 OWNER

REVISION
SCALE:

DRAWN: XXX
APPROVED:

JOB: 2020 -18
SHEET:

OF SHEETS PROJECT 420 NESMUTH ROAD, GLENDALE, CA. 91202 DRAWING TITLE BY ALFRED BABAYANS. 4609 OCEAN VIEW BLVD, LA CANADA, CA, 91011 S 5900
EXP. 09.30.21 R
E

GISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINE
E
R

STATEOF CALIFORNIA

STRUCTURA L

PATRICK BARATY
04/01/2021
1/4"=1'-0"
AD-1DETAILS
7 8" STUCCO OVER TWO LAYERS
OF GRADE "D" PAPER BACKED

METAL LATH

HEADER PER

STRUCTURAL
2 - 2X4 TOP PLATES
G.B.

G.B.

ALIGN EDGE OF WINDOW

FRAME WITH WALL FINISH
7 8" STUCCO OVER TWO LAYERS
OF GRADE "D" PAPER BACKED

METAL LATH
2X4 @16"O.C. STUD
WALL
Scale 9 TYPICAL VERTICAL SECTION THRU WINDOW
N.T.S

EXTERIOR INTERIOR
187 of 675
188 of 675
189 of 675
190 of 675
DOMUS DESIGN 109 E. HARVARD ST, # 306, GLENDALE, CA. 91205 TEL: (818) 500-3966 FAX: (818) 548-8108 450 North Brand Blvd. # 600
Glandale, CA 91203
TEL: (818) 813-1852
RCB

ENGINEERING
DATE: JUNE 2020 OWNER

REVISION
SCALE:

DRAWN: XXX
APPROVED:

JOB: 2020 -18
SHEET:

OF SHEETS PROJECT 420 NESMUTH ROAD, GLENDALE, CA. 91202 DRAWING TITLE BY ALFRED BABAYANS. 4609 OCEAN VIEW BLVD, LA CANADA, CA, 91011 S 5900
EXP. 09.30.21 R
E

GISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINE
E
R

STATEOF CALIFORNIA

STRUCTURA L

PATRICK BARATY
04/01/2021
N.T.S.

R-1RENDERING
191 of 675

CITY OF GLENDALE, CA
DESIGN REVIEW STAFF REPORT – HILLSIDE SINGLE FAMILY
July 8, 2020 420 Nesmuth Road
Hearing Date Address
Design Review Board (DRB) 5630-022-015
Review Type APN
PDR 2105697 DOMUS DESIGN
Case Number Applicant
Aileen Babakhani, Planner ALFRED BABAYANS
Case Planner Owner
Project Summary
To construct a new 2,268 square-foot three-story, single-family residence with an attached two-car garage on a 7, 566 square-foot vacant lot located in the R1R-II (Restricted Residential - Floor Area Ratio District II) zone.

Environmental Review
The project is exempt from CEQA review as a Class 3 “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures” exemption pursuant to Section 15303 of the State CEQA Guidelines because the project is the construction of a new single-family house.

Existing Property/Background
The subject site is a vacant lot with an average current slope of approximately 54 percent.

The irregularly-shaped lot slopes upward from Nesmuth Road towards the rear. The lot contains one protected Oak tree (6 inches in diameter) at the southeast corner of the lot, at the rear. The tree will not be impacted by the proposed development. There is also one protected street tree (Deodar Cedar) within the public right-of-way, adjacent to the project’s site. The applicant must obtain required permits from Urban Forestry to protect the street tree and the oak tree on the site. The City’s Urban Forestry comments and the tree report are attached to this report (Attachment 5). As proposed, the project will involve approximately 803 cubic yards of cut and export; and 48 percent of the site will remain as ungraded open space.

Staff Recommendation
Approve with Conditions
________________________________________________________________________ EXHIBIT 4
192 of 675
2 Last Date Reviewed / Decision
First time submittal for final review.

Zone: RIR FAR District: II
Although this design review does not convey final zoning approval, the project has been reviewed for consistency with the applicable Codes and no inconsistencies have been identified.

Active/Pending Permits and Approvals
None.

Site Slope and Grading
50% or greater current average slope: The project will involve approximately 803 cubic yards of cut and export.

Neighborhood Survey

DESIGN ANALYSIS
________________________________________________________________________ Site Planning
Are the following items satisfactory and compatible with the project site and surrounding area?
Building Location
☒ yes ☐ n/a ☐ no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☐ Setbacks of buildings on site
☐ Prevailing setbacks on the street
☐ Building and decks follow topography
☐ Alteration of landform minimized

Yards and Usable Open Space
☒ yes ☐ n/a ☐ no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☐ Avoid altering landform to create flat yards
☐ Outdoor areas integrated into open space
Average of
Properties within
300 linear feet of
subject property
Range of Properties within
300 linear feet of subject
property
Subject
Property
Proposal
Lot size 7, 650 sq.ft. 6, 056 sq.ft to 776, 239 sq.ft. 7, 566 sq.ft.

Setback 13 feet 0' to 25' 15 feet
House size 2, 472 sq.ft. 1,569 sq.ft to 3, 483 sq.ft. 2, 268 sq.ft.

Floor Area Ratio 0.04 0 to 0.35 0.29
Number of stories 2 (average) 1, 2 and 3 stories 3-story 193 of 675
3 ☐ Use of retaining walls minimized
☐ Provide landscaping to reduce visual impact of retaining walls ☐ Decorative material used for retaining walls to blend into landscape and/or complement the building design

Garage Location and Driveway
☒ yes ☐ n/a ☐ no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☐ Consistent with predominant pattern on street
☐ Compatible with primary structure
☐ Permeable paving material
☐ Decorative paving

Landscape Design
☒ yes ☐ n/a ☐ no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☐ Complementary to building design and surrounding site ☐ Maintains existing trees when possible
☐ Maximizes permeable surfaces
☐ Appropriately sized and located

Walls and Fences
☒ yes ☐ n/a ☐ no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☐ Appropriate style/color/material
☐ Perimeter walls treated at both sides
☐ Retaining walls minimized
☐ Appropriately sized and located
☐ Stormwater runoff minimized

Determination of Compatibility: Site Planning
The proposed site planning is appropriate, as modified by any proposed conditions, to the site and its surroundings for the following reasons:
 The proposed 3-story house follows the topography of the site, which slopes upward sharply from the street frontage.
 New retaining walls (split face concrete blocks) at the sides and rear of the new house will help to minimize landform alterations and keep almost 48 percent of the existing site as ungraded open space. The new retaining walls meet Zoning Code requirements.
194 of 675
4  New drought-tolerant landscape is complementary to the building design.

Landscaping is proposed along the retaining walls, facing neighboring properties to reduce visual impacts.
 The design and location of the attached garage and driveway (with decorative pavers) are compatible with the primary structure.
________________________________________________________________________ Massing and Scale
Are the following items satisfactory and compatible with the project site and surrounding area?
Building Relates to its Surrounding Context
☒ yes ☐ n/a ☐ no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☐ Appropriate proportions and transitions
☐ Impact of larger building minimized

Building Relates to Existing Topography
☒ yes ☐ n/a ☐ no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☐ Form and profile follow topography
☐ Alteration of existing land form minimized
☐ Retaining walls terrace with slope

Consistent Architectural Concept
☒ yes ☐ n/a ☐ no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☐ Concept governs massing and height

Scale and Proportion
☒ yes ☐ n/a ☐ no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☐ Scale and proportion fit context
☐ Articulation avoids overbearing forms
☐ Appropriate solid/void relationships
☐ Entry and major features well located
☐ Avoids sense of monumentality

Roof Forms
☒ yes ☐ n/a ☐ no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☐ Roof reinforces design concept
☐ Configuration appropriate to context 195 of 675
5 Determination of Compatibility: Mass and Scale
The proposed massing and scale are appropriate, as modified by any proposed conditions, to the site and its surroundings for the following reasons:
 The new 3-story house with the overall height of 34’-6” presents appropriate proportions and transitions in mass and scale.
 The new design follows the Hillside Design Guidelines because it is built into the upsloped lot and creates appropriate articulations following the natural terrace.  The hipped roofs reinforce the design concept and are appropriate to the context. ________________________________________________________________________ Design and Detailing
Are the following items satisfactory and compatible with the project site and surrounding area?
Overall Design and Detailing
☒ yes ☐ n/a ☐ no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☐ Consistent architectural concept
☐ Proportions appropriate to project and surrounding neighborhood ☐ Appropriate solid/void relationships

Entryway
☒ yes ☐ n/a ☐ no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☐ Well integrated into design
☐ Avoids sense of monumentality
☐ Design provides appropriate focal point
☐ Doors appropriate to design

Windows
☒ yes ☐ n/a ☐ no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☐ Appropriate to overall design
☐ Placement appropriate to style
☐ Recessed in wall, when appropriate

Privacy
☒ yes ☐ n/a ☐ no
If “no” select from below and explain: 196 of 675
6 ☐ Consideration of views from “public” rooms and balconies/decks ☐ Avoid windows facing adjacent windows

Finish Materials and Color
☒ yes ☐ n/a ☐ no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☐ Textures and colors reinforce design
☐ High-quality, especially facing the street
☐ Respect articulation and façade hierarchy
☐ Wrap corners and terminate appropriately
☐ Natural colors appropriate to hillside area

Paving Materials
☒ yes ☐ n/a ☐ no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☐ Decorative material at entries/driveways
☐ Permeable paving when possible
☐ Material and color related to design

Lighting, Equipment, Trash, and Drainage
☒ yes ☐ n/a ☐ no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☐ Light fixtures appropriately located/avoid spillover and over-lit facades ☐ Light fixture design appropriate to project
☐ Equipment screened and well located
☐ Trash storage out of public view
☐ Downspouts appropriately located
☐ Vents, utility connections integrated with design, avoid primary facades

Ancillary Structures
☒ yes ☐ n/a ☐ no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☐ Design consistent with primary structure
☐ Design and materials of gates complement primary structure

Determination of Compatibility: Design and Detailing
The proposed design and detailing are appropriate, as modified by any proposed conditions, to the site and its surroundings for the following reasons:
197 of 675
7  The proposed architectural details and colors including stone veneer, smooth stucco finish, two-piece roof tiles, roof eave details, trim and exposed beams, windows and exterior doors, railings, light fixtures, and front staircase are consistent and reinforce the proposed Spanish Colonial Revival design concept.
 The entryway is well integrated into the overall design.  The new three-story house will not create a privacy issue because the proposed balcony and a small window of the living room at the second floor will not overlook the adjacent neighboring property to the east. A majority of the neighborhood consists of vacant lots.
 The new windows (weathered brown wood clad windows) are recessed within walls with sills and represent the proposed architectural style with an appropriate combination of hung, fixed, and casement windows.
________________________________________________________________________ Recommendation / Draft Record of Decision
Based on the above analysis, staff recommends Approval with Conditions. This determination is based on the implementation of the following recommended conditions:

Conditions

1. Obtain required permits from Urban Forestry to protect the street tree and the oak tree on the site; and update the landscape plan to include the protected trees. ________________________________________________________________________ Attachments

1. Reduced Plans

2. Photos of Existing Property

3. Location Map

4. Neighborhood Survey

5. Urban Forestry Comments (dated April 22, 2021) and Indigenous Tree Report (dated June 5, 2021)
198 of 675
Revised 13 OCTOBER 2020 --VE 2

INTER-DEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION

PROJECT CONDITIONS AND COMMENTS
Project Project
Address: 420 NESMUTH RD Case No.: PDR 2105697
If project comments are not received by the due date, it will be assumed that your department has no comments.

NOTE: Your comments should address, within your area of authority, concerns and potentially significant adverse physical changes to the environment regarding the project. You may also identify code requirements specific to the project, above and beyond your normal requirements. Applicant will be informed early in the development process.

You may review complete plans, maps and exhibits in our office, MSB Room 103. We appreciate your consideration and look forward to your timely comments. Please do not recommend APPROVAL or DENIAL. For any questions, please contact the Case Planner ASAP, so as not to delay the case processing.

COMMENTS:
 This office DOES NOT have any comment.
This office HAS the following comments/conditions.  (See attached Dept. Master List) Date:_4/22/2021__________________
Print Name:__Loren Klick_____________________________
Title:____Urban Forester__Dept.___MS-PW________________Tel.:___x3416___________ a. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
 1.

Indigenous Tree Ordinance: Required Plan Submittal
Glendale Municipal Code requires all persons who apply for development permits or entitlements to submit an accurate plan showing exact locations of each protected indigenous tree on the subject property and on adjoining properties whose trunks or branches are located twenty (20) feet outside the subject property line. Guidelines for submission of entitlements, development permits or preliminary plan reviews report can be found at www.glendaletrees.org.

Forestry staff observed a collection of juvenile scrub oak trees on and adjacent to the site. These trees must be indicated on the site plan. Please measure and record the trunk diameter of these trees so that staff can determine if they are of protected size. To calculate the DBH (diameter at breast height) of a multi-stem tree, use the industry standard method of taking the square root of the sum of the squares of the individual stem DBHs.

City of Glendale Street Trees – Permit and Plan Submittal Required Plans correctly indicate the presence of one (1) deodar cedar protected City street tree in front of the project within the City right-of-way, adjacent to 412 Nesmuth Road. A street tree permit will be required due to working near the protected City tree. Please also provide a tree protection plan for this City street tree prepared by a Certified Arborist to ensure the tree’s health during construction and following the project.

Forestry will provide further comments following a review of the tree protection plan and plan that indicate all indigenous trees in the area.

If I may be of further assistance, please contact me at ext. 3416.

EXHIBIT 5
199 of 675
From: Williams, Katherine
To: Babakhani, Aileen; Garo Nazarian
Subject: RE: 420 Nesmuth Road
Date: Tuesday, June 8, 2021 3:59:17 PM
Attachments: 420 Nesmuth Rd City Street Tree on site plan.jpg Hi Aileen, yes. We can finalize Forestry requirements for the private oak tree protection and street tree protection in plan check.

Garo, thank you for sending this information regarding the protected tree. I wanted to remind you the other Forestry item is the deodar cedar street tree per the Urban Forester’s comments that you received earlier. We can address this later in plan check. I have attached a screen shot of this tree for your reference and have copied the comments from the RFC for you here:

City of Glendale Street Trees – Permit and Plan Submittal Required Plans correctly indicate the presence of one (1) deodar cedar protected City street tree in front of the project within the City right-of-way, adjacent to 412 Nesmuth Road. A street tree permit will be required due to working near the protected City tree. Please also provide a tree protection plan for this City street tree prepared by a Certified Arborist to ensure the tree’s health during construction and following the project.

Thank you!
Katherine Williams, Arborist Technician ● City of Glendale ● Public Works /Maintenance Services 541 W. Chevy Chase Dr. ● Glendale, CA 91204 ● (818) 550-3402 office ● (818) 254-5335 cell ● [email protected] ● ISA Certified Arborist, Municipal Specialist WE-11939AM
From: Babakhani, Aileen <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2021 6:53 PM
To: Garo Nazarian <[email protected]>; Williams, Katherine <[email protected]> Subject: RE: 420 Nesmuth Road
Katherine,
Are we good to move forward (to Design Review Board Hearing phase)? Planning will condition the approval for Forestry requirements. Please let me know. Thank you so much.

Aileen Babakhani, Planner● City of Glendale ● Community Development Department 633 E. Broadway, Rm. 103 ● Glendale, CA 91206 ● (818) 937-8331 ● [email protected] From: Garo Nazarian <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, June 5, 2021 11:07 AM
To: Babakhani, Aileen <[email protected]>; Williams, Katherine <[email protected]>
Subject: 420 Nesmuth Road
200 of 675
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Hi Aileen and Katherine
Please see attached Site plan and the arborist letter with the picture Please let me know if we are good with this.

Regards
--
Garo Nazarian
Domus Design
109 E. Harvard Suite 306
Glendale, CA 91205
Office: 818.507.4444
Cell: 818.389.9640
201 of 675
McKinley & Associates (818) 240-1358
Arborist Letter
June 5, 2021
Mr. Alfred Babayans
Techno-Advanced, Inc.
3455 Ocean View Blvd., Suite 201
Glendale, CA 91208
Dear Mr. Babayans:

Recently I was contacted by your Architect, Garo Nazarian concerning a question as to the identity of a tree or trees on your property located at 420 Nesmuth Road, Glendale. I met you at the subject property on Friday, June 4, 2021 at 6:00 p.m. It is a steep, uphill, vacant lot.

While inspecting the vacant lot I was able to observe one protected Oak tree. The tree is a Quercus agrifolia or Coast Live Oak. It measures approximately 6 inches in diameter at D.B.H. (Diameter Breast Height) or 4.5 feet above the ground. The dripline measures 8 feet and it has a 16 foot spread. The height is approximately 17 feet. It is located near the northeast corner of the vacant lot. This protected indigenous tree is at the extreme uphill end of the subject property. The Oak is in slightly below average health and condition. It will not be impacted by the proposed single-family home construction.

I would however recommend that a four foot high plastic, orange tree protection fence be placed at the dripline of the Oak to ensure that no activity takes place within the dripline of the tree. No dumping of excess soil, debris and other foreign materials shall take place inside the tree protection fence. No pruning or cutting of roots or branches shall be permitted. The Coast Live Oak shall be preserved in place and shall not be disturbed in any way during demolition, grading and construction.

Other tree species observed growing on the subject property hillside included Eucalyptus camaldulensis or Red Gum and Jacaranda acutifolia or Jacaranda. These trees are not indigenous and are not protected in the City of Glendale. No permit is necessary to remove these trees.

If you have questions, please feel free to contact me on my business cell phone at (818) 426-2432 or you may call my office (818) 240-1358.

Sincerely,
William R. McKinley
William R. McKinley, Consulting Arborist
American Society of Consulting Arborists
Certified Arborist #WE-4578A
International Society of Arboriculture
Arborists and Environmental Consultants
202 of 675
203 of 675
204 of 675

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD

RECORD OF DECISION
Meeting Date July 8, 2021 DRB Case No. PDR2105697
Address 420 Nesmuth Road
Applicant DOMUS DESIGN
Project Summary:

To construct a new 2,268 square-foot three-story, single-family residence with an attached two-car garage on a 7, 566 square-foot vacant lot located in the R1R-II (Restricted Residential - Floor Area Ratio District II) zone.

Design Review:

Board Member Motion Second Yes No Absent Abstain
Minas X
Simonian X X
Smith X X
Tchaghayan X
Welch X
Totals 4 0
DRB Decision Approve with Conditions
Conditions:

1. Obtain required permits from Urban Forestry to protect the street tree and the oak tree on the site; and update the landscape plan to include the protected trees.

2. Replace the front facing hipped roof with a gabled roof at the left side (north) of the front façade (second floor).

3. Replace the French doors at the south side of the front façade (in the area above the entry and bedroom #3) with windows that are reduced in height and width to express a hierarchy of window sizes.
1 EXHIBIT 6
205 of 675
420 Nesmuth Road
PDR 2105697
2 Determination of Compatibility: Site Planning
The new site planning is appropriate, as modified by conditions, to the site and its surroundings for the following reasons:
 The new 3-story house follows the topography of the site, which slopes upward sharply from the street frontage.
 New retaining walls (split face concrete blocks) at the sides and rear of the new house will help to minimize landform alterations and keep almost 48 percent of the existing site as ungraded open space. The new retaining walls meet Zoning Code requirements.  New drought-tolerant landscape is complementary to the building design. Landscaping is shown along the retaining walls, facing neighboring properties to reduce visual impacts.  The design and location of the attached garage and driveway (with decorative pavers) are compatible with the primary structure.

Determination of Compatibility: Mass and Scale
The project’s massing and scale are appropriate, as modified by conditions, to the site and its surroundings for the following reasons:
 The new 3-story house with the overall height of 34’-6” presents appropriate proportions and transitions in mass and scale.
 The new design follows the Hillside Design Guidelines because it is built into the upsloped lot and creates appropriate articulations following the natural terrace.  The hipped roofs reinforce the design concept and are appropriate to the context.

However, a condition of approval is added to replace the front facing hipped roof with a gabled roof at the left side (north) of the front façade (second floor) to better reinforce the architectural style and design concept.

Determination of Compatibility: Design and Detailing
The design and detailing are appropriate, as modified by conditions, to the site and its surroundings for the following reasons:
 The project’s architectural details and colors including stone veneer, smooth stucco finish, two-piece roof tiles, roof eave details, trim and exposed beams, windows and exterior doors, railings, light fixtures, and front staircase are consistent and reinforce the project’s Spanish Colonial Revival design concept. However, for better design consistency, a condition of approval is added to replace the French doors at the south side of the front façade (in the area above the entry and bedroom #3) with windows that are reduced in height and width to express a hierarchy of window sizes.  The entryway is well integrat206 of 675 ed into the overall design. 420 Nesmuth Road
PDR 2105697
3  The new three-story house will not create a privacy issue because the project’s balcony and a small window of the living room at the second floor will not overlook the adjacent neighboring property to the east. A majority of the neighborhood consists of vacant lots.  The new windows (weathered brown wood clad windows) are recessed within walls with sills and represent the project’s architectural style with an appropriate combination of hung, fixed, and casement windows.

DRB Staff Member Aileen Babakhani, Planner
Notes:

Contact the case planner for an appointment for a DRB stamp. DRB stamps will not be stamped over the counter without an appointment with the case planner. The Design Review Board approves the design of project only. Approval of a project by the Design Review Board does not constitute an approval of compliance with the Zoning Code and/or Building Code requirements. If an appeal is not filed within the 15-day appeal period of the Design Review Board decision, plans may be approved for Building Division plan check. Prior to Building Division plan check submittal, Design Review Board approved plans must be stamped approved by the Design Review staff.

Any changes to the approved plans may constitute returning to the Design Review Board for approval. Prior to Building Division plan check submittal, all changes in substantial conformance with approved plans by the Design Review Board must be on file with the Planning Division. 207 of 675
EXHIBIT 7
208 of 675
209 of 675
210 of 675
211 of 675
212 of 675
213 of 675
420 Nesmuth Road
PDR 2105697
3  The new three-story house will not create a privacy issue because the project’s balcony and a small window of the living room at the second floor will not overlook the adjacent neighboring property to the east. A majority of the neighborhood consists of vacant lots.  The new windows (weathered brown wood clad windows) are recessed within walls with sills and represent the project’s architectural style with an appropriate combination of hung, fixed, and casement windows.

DRB Staff Member Aileen Babakhani, Planner
Notes:

Contact the case planner for an appointment for a DRB stamp. DRB stamps will not be stamped over the counter without an appointment with the case planner. The Design Review Board approves the design of project only. Approval of a project by the Design Review Board does not constitute an approval of compliance with the Zoning Code and/or Building Code requirements. If an appeal is not filed within the 15-day appeal period of the Design Review Board decision, plans may be approved for Building Division plan check. Prior to Building Division plan check submittal, Design Review Board approved plans must be stamped approved by the Design Review staff.

Any changes to the approved plans may constitute returning to the Design Review Board for approval. Prior to Building Division plan check submittal, all changes in substantial conformance with approved plans by the Design Review Board must be on file with the Planning Division. 214 of 675
215 of 675
216 of 675
217 of 675
218 of 675
219 of 675
220 of 675
221 of 675
222 of 675
223 of 675
224 of 675
225 of 675
226 of 675
227 of 675
228 of 675
229 of 675
230 of 675
231 of 675
232 of 675
233 of 675
234 of 675
235 of 675
236 of 675
237 of 675
238 of 675
239 of 675
240 of 675
241 of 675
242 of 675
ORDER #:

WORK DATE:
203334
07/20/2021
CA - #WE-10739A
CA - QAL-132967
CA - RA-55538
License #:

Ken McCormick
Time In:

Time Out:
7/20/2021 1:21:26 PM
7/20/2021 2:38:44 PM
Technician Signature
Customer Signature
client approves
LOCATION 21837
818-966-3662 xcell
Nicola Genoma
420 NESMUTH RD
GLENDALE, CA 91202-1132
Phone:

BILL-TO 21837
818-966-3662 xcell
Nicola Genoma
412 NESMUTH RD
GLENDALE, CA 91202-1132
Phone:

Purchase Order Terms Service Description Quantity Amount None CREDITCARD Consultation 1.00 250.00
E-mailed Reports 1.00 325.00
Subtotal
Total Due: 575.00

0.00 575.00
Tax

GENERAL COMMENTS / INSTRUCTIONS
APPT B/W 12PM - 2PM. Advise on 1 Oak & 1 Cedar located on property line of an empty lot that s being prepared for development. Advise on general health of trees and if development will hurt roots and cause additional stress on the trees. 71% incline on slope. Development will build a retaining wall will be very close to trees. Customer is concerned about slope erosion and structural integrity that the roots provide. If written report desired, cost is $325 with a 2-4 week turnaround time.

Call out fee of $85.00 will be applied if service cannot be performed for reasons other then weather. PAYMENTS THAT ARE NOT RECEIVED WITHIN 30 DAYS WILL BE SUBJECT TO A 10% LATE FEE PER MONTH.

TECH TO RECOMMEND MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE
Inspected one Quercus Agrifolia and one Cedrus Deodora that are on a property that is undergoing development at 420 Nesmuth Rd in Glendale. The property is being developed and needs tree reports for each of the protected trees.

The Quercus Agrifolia has had a report already submitted by McKinley and Associates Arborists. The report indicates that the oak(Quercus Agrifolia) will be fine during the construction damage as long as precautions are taken during construction. I concur with this report as long as the precautions are taken and the property and construction lines are correct this tree should survive the development.

However, the report provided did not mention the Cedrus Deodora near the street(possibly a city tree). According to the development plans a retaining wall is to be built very close to the cedar(Cedrus Deodora). Installing a retaining wall this close to the trunk of a mature cedar tree you will likely be removing an. Estimated 40% of the trees rooting system. The shock that the tree will undergo will likely weaken the tree and make it susceptible to insect infestation and fungal issues. Additionally by removing so much of the trees root zone the result may be total tree failure in the direction of the lean. This is due to the removal of the trees structural stability when the roots are removed.

Unfortunately the tree would likely fall directly onto the powerlines beneath the tree.

I do believe that the proposed construction will likely result in stress, infestation, and possible total tree failure.

Report to follow.

Tree has a diameter of 17" and is approximately 30'-35'.

PRODUCTS APPLICATION SUMMARY
None Noted.

Printed: 07/20/2021 Page: 1/1
243 of 675
244 of 675
245 of 675
246 of 675
247 of 675
248 of 675
249 of 675
250 of 675
251 of 675
252 of 675
253 of 675
DOMUS
DESIGN
109 E. HARVARD ST, # 306, GLENDALE, CA. 91205
TEL: (818) 500-3966 FAX: (818) 548-8108 450 North Brand Blvd. # 600 Glandale, CA 91203 TEL: (818) 813-1852 RCB ENGINEERING DATE: JUNE 2020 OWNER REVISION SCALE: DRAWN: XXX APPROVED: JOB: 2020 -18 SHEET: OF SHEETS

PROJECT
420 NESMUTH ROAD,
GLENDALE, CA. 91202

DRAWING TITLE BY
ALFRED BABAYANS.
4609 OCEAN VIEW BLVD,
LA CANADA, CA, 91011 S 5900 EXP. 09.30.23

REGISTERED PRO
F
E

S IONAL ENGINEER

STATEOF

CALIFORNIA
STRUC
T
URA L
PATRIC
K
BARATY 04/01/2021 N.T.S. A-0
COVER SHEET NEW 3-STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 2268 SQ.FT W/ ATTACHED 2 CAR GARAGE 500 S.F. Ground Floor = 2 car garage 455 s.f. + stairs 101 s.f First Floor = living area 1043 s.f. Second floor = Bedrooms 1169.5 s.f. Total Bldg. area = 2768.5 s.f.( 500 Garage +2268.5 Living area) PROJECT DESCRIPTION 420 NESMUTH ROAD, GLENDALE, CA. 91202 PROJECT ADDRESS APN: 5630-022-015 TRACT NO 4881 LOT 49 LEGAL DESCRIPTION PROPERTY OWNER DOMUS DESIGN 109 E. HARVARD ST. #306 GLENDALE, CA 91205 TEL: (818) 507-4444 FAX: (818) 548-81-08 SURVEYOR DESIGNER ENGINEER (ENGINEER OF RECORD) APPLICABLE CODES VICINITY MAP PROJECT DATA SHEET INDEX A-0 COVER SHEET A-0.1 NOTES C-1 SURVEY MAP A-1 SLOPE ANALYSIS A-2 SITE PLAN A-3 GARAGE FLOOR PLAN A-4 FIRST FLOOR PLAN A-5 SECOND FLOOR PLAN A-6 ROOF PLAN A-7 SECTION PLANS A-7.1 SECTION PLANS A-8 NORTH-WEST & SOUTH-EAST ELEVATIONS A-8C NORTH-WEST & SOUTH-EAST COLORED ELEVATIONS A-9 SOUTH-WEST & NORTH-EAST ELEVATIONS A-9C SOUTH-WEST & NORTH-EAST COLORED ELEVATIONS A-10 DOOR AND WINDOW SCHEDULE AD-1 ARCHITECTURAL DETAIL L-1 PLANTING PLAN L-2 IRRIGATION PLAN L-3 LANDSCAPE DETAIL & SPECIFICATION ALFRED BABAYANS. 4609 OCEAN VIEW BLVD, LA CANADA, CA, 91011 NL ENGINEERING & SURVEYING, INC. 790 S. ATLANTIC BLVD, SUITE 106 MONTEREY PARK, CA 91754 TEL: (626) 281-2001 FAX: (626) 281-2008 ZONING: R1R II LOT AREA: 7,566 S.F. OCCUPANCY GROUP: R-3 / U-1 TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: V-B SPRINKLERED: YES FLOOR AREA TABULATION: GROUND FLOOR 455 S.F. 2 CAR GARAGE 101 S.F. STAIRS FIRST FLOOR AREA: 1043 S.F. SECOND FLOOR AREA: 1169.5 S.F. TOTAL FLOOR AREA: 2212.5 S.F. TOTAL BUILDING AREA 2768 S.F. F.A.R. 2768-500 garage = 2268 s.f.=29.9% LANDSCAPED AREA: 4212 S.F. EARTH WORK QUANTITY: CUT: 803.43 CU.YD FILL: 0 CU.YD EXPORT: 803.43 CU.YD IMPORT: 0 CU.YD ZONING INFO: REQUIRED / ALLOWED PROVIDED / PROPOSED F.A.R. 7566 X 30% 2269.8 S.F. MAX. 2259 S.F. (29.8%) LOT COVERAGE: 7566 X 30% 2269.8 S.F. MAX. 1393.6 S.F. (18.4%) LANDSCAPED AREA: 7566 X 40% 3026.4 S.F. MIN. 4212 S.F. (55.6%) BUILDING HEIGHT: MAIN HOUSE: 3 STORIES (32'+3') MAX. 3 STORIES (34'-6") UNGRADED 3027 SQ.FT. = 40% 3659 SQ.FT. = 48% CBC 2019, CEC 2019, CMC 2019, 2019 CPC, 2019 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE, 2020 GLENDALE BUILDING AND SAFETY CODE 2019 CALIFORNIA GREEN CODE PATRICK BARATY 109 E. HARVARD ST. #306 GLENDALE, CA 91205 TEL: (818) 500-3966 FAX: (818) 548-8108 5630022015 EXHIBIT 8 254 of 675
DOMUS
DESIGN
109 E. HARVARD ST, # 306, GLENDALE, CA. 91205
TEL: (818) 500-3966 FAX: (818) 548-8108 450 North Brand Blvd. # 600 Glandale, CA 91203 TEL: (818) 813-1852 R C
B ENGINEERING DATE: JUNE 2020
OWNER REVISION SCALE: DRAWN: XXX APPROVED: JOB: 2020 -18 SHEET: OF SHEETS

PROJECT
420 NESMUTH ROAD,
GLENDALE, CA. 91202

DRAWING TITLE BY
ALFRED BABAYANS.
4609 OCEAN VIEW BLVD,
LA CANADA, CA, 91011 S 5900 EXP. 09.30.23

REGISTERED PROF
E

S IONAL ENGINEER

STATEOF

CALIFORNIA
STRUC
T
URA L
PATRIC
K
BARATY 04/01/2021 N.T.S. A-0.1
NOTES SECURITY NOTES 1. Door jambs shall have a solid backing with no voids exist between the strike side of the jamb and the frame opening for a vertical distance of six (6) inches (153mm) each side of the strike. 2. In wood framing, horizontal blocking shall be placed between studs at door lock height for three (3) stud spaces each side of the door openings. Jambs shall have solid backing against sole plates. 3. Iron or steel screens shall be 1/8” thick with 2” mesh securely fastened. 4. Iron bars shall be 1/2" diameter bars or 1” x 1/4" flat steel spaced at 5” max. securely fastened. 5. Cylinder guards shall be attached with 1/2" connecting screws, and shall be installed whenever the cylinder projects beyond the face of the door, or is otherwise accessible to gripping tools. 6. Door stops for in-swinging doors shall be integrated (rabetted) with the jamb. Jambs for all doors shall be constructed or protected so as to prevent violation of the strike. 7. The strike plate for deadbolts on all wood frame doors shall be constructed of at least sixteen (16) U.S. gauge steel, bronze, or brass and secured to the jamb by a minimum of two screws. 8. Hinges for out-swinging doors shall be equipped with non-removable hinge pins or a mechanical interlock to preclude removal of the door from the exterior by removing the hinge pins. 9. Louvered windows shall not be used when any portion of the window is less than 12 feet (3658mm) vertically or 6 feet (1829mm) horizontally from an accessible surface or any adjoining roof, balcony, landing, stair tread, platform, or similar structure. 10. Garage Door Types: Rolling overhead, solid overhead, swing or sliding accordion garage-type doors shall conform to the following standards: 10.1.Wood doors shall have panels a minimum of five-sixteenths (5/16) inch (8mm) in thickness with the locking hardware being attached to the support framing. 10.2.Aluminum doors shall be a minimum thickness of .0215 inches (.546mm) and riveted together a minimum of eighteen (18) inches (458mm) on center along the outside seams. There shall be a full width horizontal beam attached to the main door structure which shall meet the pilot, or pedestrian access, door framing within three (3) inches (76mm) of the strike area of the pilot or pedestrian access door. 10.3.Fiberglass doors shall have panels a minimum density of six (6) ounces per square foot (1831 gram/m2) from the bottom of the door to a height of seven (7) feet (2134mm). Panels above seven (7) feet (2134mm) and panels in residential structures shall have a density not less than five (5) ounces per square foot (1526 grams/m2). 10.4.Doors utilizing a cylinder lock shall have not less than a five (5) pin tumbler operation with the locking bar or bolt extending into the receiving guide a minimum of one (1) inch (25.4mm). 10.5.Doors exceeding sixteen (16) feet (4877mm) in width shall have two lock receiving points or, if the door does not exceed nineteen (19) feet (5791mm), a single bolt may be used if placed in the center of the door with the locking point located either at the floor or door frame header; or, torsion spring counter balance type hardware may be used. 10.6.Doors with slide bolt assemblies shall have frames a minimum of .120 inches (3mm) in thickness, with a minimum bolt diameter of one-half (½) inch (13mm) and protrude at least one and one-half (1½ ) inches (38mm) into the receiving guide. A bolt diameter of three-eights (3/8) inch (10mm) may be used in a residential building. The slide bolt shall be attached to the door with non-removable bolts from the outside. Rivets shall not be used to attach slide bolt assemblies. 11. Swinging Exterior Doors: All exterior swinging doors of any residential building and attached garages (Except for vehicular access doors), including the door leading from the garage area into the dwelling unit shall be equipped as follows: 11.1.All wood doors shall be of solid core construction with a minimum thickness of one and three-fourths (1 ¾ inches (45mm), or with panels not less than nine-sixteenths (9/16) inch (15mm) thick. 11.2.A single or double door shall be equipped with a single cylinder deadbolt lock with a minimum projection of one (1) inch (25.4mm) and be constructed so as to repel cutting tool attack. The deadbolt shall have an embedment of at least three-fourths (3/4) inch (19mm) into the strike receiving the projected bolt. The cylinder shall have a cylinder guard, a minimum of five pin tumblers, and shall be connected to the inner portion of the lock by connecting screws of at least one fourth (1/4) inch (6.3mm) in diameter. All installation shall be done so that the performance of the locking device will meet the intended anti-burglary requirements. A dual locking mechanism constructed so that both deadbolt and latch can be retracted by a single action of the inside door knob, or lever, may be substituted provided it meets all other specifications for locking devices. 11.3.The inactive leaf of double doors shall be equipped with metal flush bolts having a minimum embedment of five-eights (5/8) inch (16mm) into the head and threshold or the door frame. 11.4.Glazing: Glazing in exterior doors or within forty (40) inches (1016mm) of any locking mechanism shall be of fully tempered glass or rated burglary resistant glazing. 11.5.Wide Angle Viewer: Except where clear vision panels are installed, all front exterior doors shall be equipped with a wide angle (180°) door viewer. 11.6.Hollow steel doors shall be a minimum sixteen (16) gauge thick with extra reinforcing around the lock to prevent collapsing. 11.7.Aluminum doors shall be constructed per Vol. VII, Section 15.3 of Security Ordinance No. 5581, and shall be equipped with a double cylinder deadbolt with a 1” min. bolt projection or hook shaped or expanding dog bolt to prevent spreading. The deadbolt lock shall have a minimum of five (5) pin tumblers and a cylinder guard. 12. Address Number and Identifying Data: Address numbers and other identifying data shall be displayed as follows: 12.1.All residential dwellings shall display an address number in a prominent location on the street side of the residence in such a position that the number is easily visible to approaching emergency vehicles. The numerals shall be no less than four (4) inches (102mm) in height and shall be of a contrasting color to the background to which they are attached. In addition, any residence with rear vehicular access through any driveway, alleyway or parking lot shall also display the same numbers on the rear of the building. 12.2.Multiple Family Dwelling; Illuminated Diagrams and Identification Numbers: There shall be positioned at each entrance of a multiple family dwelling complex an illuminated diagrammatic representation of the complex which shows the location of the viewer and the unit designations within the complex. In addition, each individual unit within the complex shall display a prominent identification number, not less than four (4) inches (102mm) in height, which is easily visible to approaching vehicular and/or pedestrian traffic. In addition, any multiple family dwelling with rear vehicular access shall also display the same numbers at the rear of the building. CONSTRUCTION NOTES 1. Bathtubs and shower floors and walls above bathtubs with showers and shower compartments shall be finished with nonabsorbent surface to a height of 6 feet above the floor. 2. Lots shall be graded to drain surface water away from foundation walls. The garde shall fall a minimum of 6 inches within the first 10 feet. 3. Safety glazing shall be provided in the following locations: a. Glazing in all fixed and operable panels of swinging, sliding and bifold doors. b. Glazing in walls, enclosures, or fences containing or facing hot tubs, spas, whirlpools, saunas, steam rooms, bathtubs, showers and indoor or outdoor swimming pools where the bottom exposed edge of glazing is less than 60 inches measured vertically above any standing or walking surface. This shall apply to single glazing and all panes in multiple glazing. c. Glazing in an individual fixed or operable panel adjacent to a door where the nearest vertical edge is within a 24-inch arc of the door in a closed position and the bottom edge is less than 60 inches above the walking surface. 4. Cement, fiber-cement, fiber-mat reinforced cement, glass mat gypsum or fiber-reinforced gypsum backers shall be used as a base for wall tile in tub and shower areas and wall and ceiling panels in shower areas. 5. A minimum 26 gauge corrosion-resistant or plastic weep screed with a minimum vertical flange of 3 1 2" shall provided at or below foundation plate line on exterior stud wall. Screed shall be a minimum of 4 inches above earth or 2 inches above paved areas. MECHANICAL NOTES 1. Condensate lines from mechanical equipment shall discharge to a plumbing fixture or storm drain by means of an indirect waste pipe. Condensate lines shall not terminate in landscape or yard areas. 2. Provide min. 100 sq.in. makeup air opening in the dryer closet door. 3. Clothes dryer duct shall be of metal and a minimum of 4 inches in diameter. The exhaust duct shall not exceed a total combined horizontal and vertical length of 14 feet, including two 90-degree elbows. Two feet shall be deducted for each 90-degree elbow in excess of two. GLENDALE FIRE DEPARTMENT NOTES 1. Address Numbers: Approved address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification shall be placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street, road, alley, and walkways giving access to and within the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background. Address numbers shall be Arabic numerals or alphabet letters. Numbers shall be a minimum of six (6) inches (152 mm) high with a minimum stroke width of 0.5 inch (12.7 mm) and shall be illuminated in an approved manner (if numbers are on the exterior). Number height and stroke width shall be increased as needed for legibility based on visibility distance. 2. Fire Sprinklers: Provide a complete automatic fire sprinkler system throughout the structure installed in accordance with the recommendations of NFPA 13D and the requirements of the Glendale Fire Department. Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted within 30 days of issuance of the building permit.

3. Smoke Detectors: Smoke detectors shall be wired to the building electrical system, be equipped with battery backup, and emit a signal when batteries are low. Smoke alarms shall be interconnected, so that the activation of one alarm will activate all other smoke detectors. 4. Carbon Monoxide Detectors: Shall be installed outside of each separate dwelling unit sleeping area in the immediate vicinity of the bedroom(s) and on every level of a dwelling unit including basements. Alarms shall be hardwired from the building power supply and equipped with battery backup. Detectors shall meet U.L. 2034 and/or NFPA 720 standards. Comply with current CRC Chapter 3. 5. Egress: All required exits are to be openable from the inside without key, special knowledge or effort. 6.Fire Permits: The following permits are required from the Fire Department: · Fire Sprinkler · Other ________________________ 7. Required GFD inspections: For inspections, call 818-548-4810. Fire Department inspections for this project are: · Fire sprinkler overhead/underground rough and flush (before covering any piping). · Fire sprinkler final. · Fire Prevention Bureau Final (address signs, egress fire department access, smoke detectors, fuel modification, etc.). ELECTRICAL NOTES 1. Fixed appliances such as food waste grinders, dishwashers, washing machines, dryers, laundry tray locations, built-in refrigerators or freezers, furnaces, AC units, built-in heaters or any other fixed appliance with a motor of 1/4 HP or larger shall be on a separate 20 amp. branch circuit. 2. All receptacles in bathrooms, outdoors, crawl spaces, kitchens (where receptacles serve counter top surfaces), laundry, utility, wet bar sinks (within 6 feet of the edge of the sink), shall have ground-fault circuit-interrupter (GFCI) protection. 3. All branch circuits supplying receptacles in family rooms, dining rooms,living rooms, parlors, libraries, dens, bedrooms, sunrooms, recreation rooms, closets, hallways and similar rooms or areas shall be protected by a listed arc-fault circuit interrupter. 4. Within new additions all wall spaces, 2 inches or more in width, shall have receptacles installed such that no point measured horizontally is more tan 6 feet from a receptacle (12 feet maximum spacing). 5. Countertops in kitchens, pantry, breakfast rooms and similar areas 12 inches or wider shall have receptacles installed such that no point along the wall is more than 2 feet from a receptacle. 6. Island and peninsular counters 2 feet or wider shall have at least one receptacle. 7. At least one receptacle at grade level shall be installed in both the front and back of the house. 8. Deck accessible from inside the dwelling shall have at least one receptacle installed within the perimeter of the deck, balcony or porch. 9. At least one receptacle shall be installed in the laundry. 10. At least one wall switch-controlled lighting outlet shall be installed on the exterior side of outdoor entrances or exits with grade level access for dwelling. 11. In all new areas specified in CEC Art. 210.52 all non-locking type 125-volt, 15- and 20- ampere receptacles shall be listed tamper-resistant receptacles. 12. In closets, luminaries shall be (a) surface-mounted or recessed incandescent or LED with completely enclosed light sources, (b) Surface mounted or recessed fluorescent luminaries, (c) surface mounted or LED luminaries identified as suitable for installation within storage areas. Minimum clearance between luminaries and the nearest point of storage space shall be as follows: a. 12 inches for surface-mounted incandescent or LED luminaries with completely enclosed light installed on the wall above the door or on the ceiling. b. 6 inches for surface-mounted fluorescent luminaries installed on the wall above the door or on the ceiling. c. 6 inches for recessed incandescent or LED luminaries with a completely enclosed light source installed in the wall or ceiling. d. 6 inches for recessed fluorescent luminaries installed in the wall or ceiling. e. Surface-mounted fluorescent or LED luminaries installed within storage space where identified for this use. PLUMBING NOTES 1. Water closets shall have an average water consumption of not more than 1.28 gallons per flush. (403.2 CPC) 2. Shower heads shall have a water flow not exceed 2.0 gallons per minute. (408.2 CPC) 3. Faucets in kitchens shall have a water flow not to exceed 1.8 gallons per minute and may temporarily increase the flow above the maximum rate, but not to exceed 2.2 gallons per minute, and must default to a maximum rate of 1.8 gallons per minute. (403.6 CPC) 4. The maximum flow rate of lavatory faucets shall not exceed 1.5 gallons per minute. (403.7 CPC) 5. Water piping materials within a building shall be in accordance with Sec. 604.1 of the California Plumbing Code. PEX, CPVC and other plastic water piping system shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of Sec. 604 of the CPC, Installation Standard of Appendix I of the CPC and manufacturer's recommended installation standards. CPVC water piping requires a Certification of Compliance as specified in Sec. 604.1 of the CPC prior to permit issuance. 6. Provide straps for water heater at the upper and lower 1/3 of its dimension. GENERAL NOTES 1. Applications for which no permit is issued within one (1) year following the date of application shall automatically expire. (R105.3.2 CRC) 2. Every permit issued shall become invalid unless work authorized is commenced within 180 days or if the work authorized is suspended or abandon for a period of 180 days. A successful inspection must be obtained within 180 days. A permit may be extended if a written request stating justification for extension and an extension fee is received prior to expiration of the permit and granted by the Building Official. 3. Fire sprinkler plans stamped approved by the City of Glendale’s Fire Department shall be provided at the site at time of framing inspection. 4. Water closets shall have an average water consumption of not more than 1.6 gallons of water per flush, 1.28 gallons per flush after July 1, 2011. (401.3 CPC) 5. Urinals shall have an average water consumption of not more than 1.0 gallons of water per flush, 0.5 gallons per flush after July 1, 2011. (401.3 CPC) 6. Shower heads shall have a water flow not to exceed 2.5 gallons per minute. (401.3 CPC) 7. Faucets in kitchens, wet bars, lavatories, laundry sinks, etc. shall have a water flow not to exceed 2.2 gallons per minute. (401.3 CPC) 8. Water piping materials within a building shall be in accordance with Sec. 604.1 of the California Plumbing Code. Pex, CPVC and other plastic water piping systems shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of Sec. 604 of the CPC, installation Standards of Appendix I of the CPC and manufacturers recommended installation standards. CPVC water piping requires a Certification of Compliance as specified in Sec 604.1.1 of the CPC prior to permit issuance. 255 of 675
DOMUS
DESIGN
109 E. HARVARD ST, # 306, GLENDALE, CA. 91205
TEL: (818) 500-3966 FAX: (818) 548-8108 450 North Brand Blvd. # 600 Glandale, CA 91203 TEL: (818) 813-1852 R C
B ENGINEERING DATE: JUNE 2020
OWNER REVISION SCALE: DRAWN: XXX APPROVED: JOB: 2020 -18 SHEET: OF SHEETS

PROJECT
420 NESMUTH ROAD,
GLENDALE, CA. 91202

DRAWING TITLE BY
ALFRED BABAYANS.
4609 OCEAN VIEW BLVD,
LA CANADA, CA, 91011 S 5900 EXP. 09.30.23

REGISTERED PROF
E

S IONAL ENGINEER

STATEOF

CALIFORNIA
STRUC
T
URA L
PATRIC
K
BARATY 04/01/2021 3/16" =1'-0" A-2

SITE PLAN

DRIVE VALENTINE (E) BLDG

NESMUTH
ROAD
Δ
Δ Scale: 3/16"=1'-0" SITE PLAN (N) CURB CUT 953.80' 978.30' 978.30' 966.00' 975.92' 965.40' 3'-0"
14'-10"
4'-0"
13'-9" 7'-6" 4'-0" 10'-8"
10'-0"
11'-4"
5'-8"
5'-0"
5'-8" 7'-11"11'-5" 955.38 953.72 T.W.956.53' H=32.0' T.W.957.96' H=3.0' T.W.958.39' H=3.0' T.W.960.82' H=5.0' T.W.961.72' H=5.0' T.W.962' H=1.54' T.W.969.22' H=5.0' T.W.978' H=5.7' T.W.983' H=5.7' T.W.988.5' H=11.2' T.W.989.3' H=12.0' T.W.984' H=5.7' T.W.983' H=4.7' T.W.980' H=1.7' T.W.978' H=2.08' T.W.967' H=1' T.W.966' H=2' 955.72 956.72 954.22 954.53 955.39 955.82 954.96

PLANTER
2%

SLOPE DRIVEWAY UP DECK
UP 86.2 S.F. 53.7 S.F. 28.6 S.F.

24.7 S.F. T.C.949.68' C.F..949.28' T.C.956.82' C.F..946.42' 3 STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE PORCH A/C UNIT SPLIT FACE CONC. BLOCK SPLIT FACE CONC. BLOCK SPLIT FACE CONC. BLOCK SPLIT FACE CONC. BLOCK GRADE LEVEL = 953.25' 2nd FLOOR WINDOW 3rd FLOOR WINDOW 15'-0" 15'-6" 15'-1"
15'-0"
15'-3"
PL. = 76.8'
15' FRONT SETBACK = 78.33'
13'-1"
14'-9"
47'-7" COST LIVE OAK 6"Ø Drip line 8' Spread 16' 16'-8" 12'-0" 256 of 675

DRIVE VALENTINE (E) BLDG

NESMUTH
ROAD
Δ
Δ
DOMUS
DESIGN
109 E. HARVARD ST, # 306, GLENDALE, CA. 91205
TEL: (818) 500-3966 FAX: (818) 548-8108 450 North Brand Blvd. # 600 Glandale, CA 91203 TEL: (818) 813-1852 R C
B ENGINEERING DATE: JUNE 2020
OWNER REVISION SCALE: DRAWN: XXX APPROVED: JOB: 2020 -18 SHEET: OF SHEETS

PROJECT
420 NESMUTH ROAD,
GLENDALE, CA. 91202

DRAWING TITLE BY
ALFRED BABAYANS.
4609 OCEAN VIEW BLVD,
LA CANADA, CA, 91011 S 5900 EXP. 09.30.23

REGISTERED PROF
E

S IONAL ENGINEER

STATEOF

CALIFORNIA
STRUC
T
URA L
PATRIC
K
BARATY 04/01/2021 3/16"=1'-0" A-3
GARAGE FLOOR PLAN Scale: 3/16"=1'-0" GARAGE FLOOR PLAN 2-CAR GARAGE956.80 UP 956.38' GARAGE DOOR 2% SLOPE TRASH 455 S.F. 953.80' 2%
SLOPEUP CL. STAIRS 101 sq.ft.
20'-0" 20'-0"
16'-0"
6'-2"
3'-0" (N) CURB CUT
5'-0" 955.38 953.62 954.12 955.58 BUILDING LINE ABOVE LEGEND SYMBOL DESCRIPTION CONCRETE BLOCK WALL EXTERIOR LIGHTING FIXTURE DRIVEWAY 21'-4" 6'-10" 21'-4" 14'-9" DS.
3 6 A-7A A-7A A-7.1 C A-7.1 C SPLIT FACE CONC. BLOCK
A-7.2
D
A-7.2
D 18R@7" 17T@11" 2nd FLOOR WINDOW 3rd FLOOR WINDOW COST LIVE OAK 6"Ø Drip line 8' Spread 16' 257 of 675
DOMUS
DESIGN
109 E. HARVARD ST, # 306, GLENDALE, CA. 91205
TEL: (818) 500-3966 FAX: (818) 548-8108 450 North Brand Blvd. # 600 Glandale, CA 91203 TEL: (818) 813-1852 R C
B ENGINEERING DATE: JUNE 2020
OWNER REVISION SCALE: DRAWN: XXX APPROVED: JOB: 2020 -18 SHEET: OF SHEETS

PROJECT
420 NESMUTH ROAD,
GLENDALE, CA. 91202

DRAWING TITLE BY
ALFRED BABAYANS.
4609 OCEAN VIEW BLVD,
LA CANADA, CA, 91011 S 5900 EXP. 09.30.23

REGISTERED PROF
E

S IONAL ENGINEER

STATEOF

CALIFORNIA
STRUC
T
URA L
PATRIC
K
BARATY 04/01/2021 3/16"=1'-0" A-4

FIRST FLOOR PLAN

DRIVE VALENTINE (E) BLDG

NESMUTH
ROAD
Δ
Δ DN. UP
REF.

OV. UP DINING KITCHEN NOOKDEN LIVING ROOM
BALCONY 966.38' 965.40' 1043 S.F. BUILDING LINE ABOVE BUILDING LINE ABOVE BUILDING LINE ABOVE Scale: 3/16"=1'-0" FIRST FLOOR PLAN 978.30' 966.00' 975.92' 3'-0" 13'-10" 5'-10" 9'-0" 5'-5"
7'-6" 9'-0"
12'-11" 9'-0"
11'-1" 10'-4" 4'-0" 6'-1"
7'-6" 4'-0"
20'-2"
6'-2"
3'-0"
6'-2" 4'-10"
3'-8"
49'-7"
OVERALL 2'-2" 7'-8" 10'-2" 30'-10" OVERALL 30'-10" OVERALL 21'-4" 6'-8" 7'-6" 12'-3" 1'-10"
49'-7"
OVERALL 11'-5" 5'-4" 4'-7" 9'-6" 10'-10" LEGEND SYMBOL DESCRIPTION CONCRETE BLOCK WALL 2X STUD WALL SMOKE DETECTOR / CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTOR COMBO SMOKE DETECTOR W/ BATTERY BACK-UP "ENERGY STAR" RATED MECHANICAL FAN UP TO TO ROOF, MIN. 5 AIR CHANGES, WITH HUMIDISTAT EXTERIOR LIGHTING FIXTURE EGRESS WINDOW: MIN. CLEAR OPENING TO BE 24" CLEAR HIGH, 20" CLEAR WIDTH, 5.7 S.F. MIN. AREA (5.0 S.F. AT GRADE FLOOR OPENING) & 44" MAX. TO SILL SDCOSDEW SDCO UP PLANTER DS. DS. DS. DS. DS. DS. DS. DS. 1 A
CC
D
E
B
2 3
5 II A-7A A-7A A-7B A-7B A-7.1 C A-7.1 C T.W.956.53' H=32.0' T.W.957.96' H=3.0' T.W.958.39' H=3.0' T.W.960.82' H=5.0' T.W.961.72' H=5.0' T.W.962' H=1.54' T.W.969.22' H=5.0' T.W.978' H=5.7' T.W.983' H=5.7' T.W.988.5' H=11.2' T.W.989.3' H=12.0' T.W.984' H=5.7' T.W.983' H=4.7' T.W.980' H=1.7' T.W.978' H=2.08' T.W.967' H=1' T.W.966' H=2' SPLIT FACE CONC. BLOCK SPLIT FACE CONC. BLOCK A-7.2
D
A-7.2
D 20R@7" 19T@11" 2nd FLOOR WINDOW 3rd FLOOR WINDOW COST LIVE OAK 6"Ø Drip line 8' Spread 16' 13'-11"
258 of 675

DRIVE VALENTINE (E) BLDG

NESMUTH
ROAD
Δ
Δ Scale: 3/16"=1'-0" SECOND FLOOR PLAN
DOMUS
DESIGN
109 E. HARVARD ST, # 306, GLENDALE, CA. 91205
TEL: (818) 500-3966 FAX: (818) 548-8108 450 North Brand Blvd. # 600 Glandale, CA 91203 TEL: (818) 813-1852 R C
B ENGINEERING DATE: JUNE 2020
OWNER REVISION SCALE: DRAWN: XXX APPROVED: JOB: 2020 -18 SHEET: OF SHEETS

PROJECT
420 NESMUTH ROAD,
GLENDALE, CA. 91202

DRAWING TITLE BY
ALFRED BABAYANS.
4609 OCEAN VIEW BLVD,
LA CANADA, CA, 91011 S 5900 EXP. 09.30.23

REGISTERED PROF
E

S IONAL ENGINEER

STATEOF

CALIFORNIA
STRUC
T
URA L
PATRIC
K
BARATY 04/01/2021 3/16"=1'-0" A-5
SECOND FLOOR PLAN 978.30' 977.30' 975.92' 10'-4" 1'-5"
20'-4" 5'-10" 3'-9"
10'-3"
7'-2" 9'-2"
6'-2"
3'-0"5'-5"
6'-2" 8'-6"
5'-0" 8'-6"
13'-1" 10'-10"
11'-3" 10'-4"
5'-11" 5'-0"
11'-4"
4'-0" T.W.956.53' H=32.0' T.W.957.96' H=3.0' T.W.958.39' H=3.0' T.W.960.82' H=5.0' T.W.961.72' H=5.0' T.W.962' H=1.54' T.W.969.22' H=5.0' T.W.978' H=5.7' T.W.983' H=5.7' T.W.988.5' H=11.2' T.W.989.3' H=12.0' T.W.984' H=5.7' T.W.983' H=4.7' T.W.980' H=1.7' T.W.978' H=2.08' T.W.967' H=1' T.W.966' H=2' DN. M. BATH. M. BEDROOM W.I.C.BATH. #2 BEDROOM #3 BEDROOM #3

BALCONY LAUNDRY
W
D
IRON BRD. ATTIC ACCESS DOOR 977.38' 1169.5 S.F.
972.88' CONC. CURB H=4"
11'-4"
5'-0"
4'-0" 3'-4" 3'-0" 10'-10" 14'-4" 1" 31'-6" OVERALL
28'-9"
49'-7"
OVERALL 6'-5" 11'-4" 5'-9" 3'-10" 4'-1" 31'-6" OVERALL
5'-0" 11'-4" 4'-6" 7'-2"
7'-6" 12'-3" 1'-10"
49'-7"
OVERALL 30.30.010 – Fences and Walls 2. Height restrictions. ii. Retaining walls which are hidden from view from the public street by primary or accessory structures that are upslope from their public street access may have a maximum exposed height of fifteen (15) feet at any point along the wall. Successive hidden retaining walls may not exceed a total combined exposed height of fifteen (15) feet. SD SD SD SDCO DECK DS. 20'-10" 10'-4" DS. DS. DS. DS. DS. DS. DS. GUTTER DS. H E
E
F
F
G
G
2 2
33 3
3 3
3 3
4 5
5 A-7A A-7A A-7B A-7B A-7.1 C A-7.1 C A/C UNIT SPLIT FACE CONC. BLOCK SPLIT FACE CONC. BLOCK SPLIT FACE CONC. BLOCK A-7.2
D
A-7.2
D 20R@7" 19T@11" 2nd FLOOR WINDOW 3rd FLOOR WINDOW COST LIVE OAK 6"Ø Drip line 8' Spread 16' LEGEND SYMBOL DESCRIPTION CONCRETE BLOCK WALL 2X STUD WALL SMOKE DETECTOR / CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTOR COMBO SMOKE DETECTOR W/ BATTERY BACK-UP "ENERGY STAR" RATED MECHANICAL FAN UP TO TO ROOF, MIN. 5 AIR CHANGES, WITH HUMIDISTAT EXTERIOR LIGHTING FIXTURE EGRESS WINDOW: MIN. CLEAR OPENING TO BE 24" CLEAR HIGH, 20" CLEAR WIDTH, 5.7 S.F. MIN. AREA (5.0 S.F. AT GRADE FLOOR OPENING) & 44" MAX. TO SILL SDCOSDEW EW EW GUTTER J A DS.
259 of 675
4:12 4:12

DRIVE VALENTINE (E) BLDG

NESMUTH
ROAD
Δ
Δ Scale: 3/16"=1'-0" ROOF PLAN
DOMUS
DESIGN
109 E. HARVARD ST, # 306, GLENDALE, CA. 91205
TEL: (818) 500-3966 FAX: (818) 548-8108 450 North Brand Blvd. # 600 Glandale, CA 91203 TEL: (818) 813-1852 R C
B ENGINEERING DATE: JUNE 2020
OWNER REVISION SCALE: DRAWN: XXX APPROVED: JOB: 2020 -18 SHEET: OF SHEETS

PROJECT
420 NESMUTH ROAD,
GLENDALE, CA. 91202

DRAWING TITLE BY
ALFRED BABAYANS.
4609 OCEAN VIEW BLVD,
LA CANADA, CA, 91011 S 5900 EXP. 09.30.23

REGISTERED PROF
E

S IONAL ENGINEER

STATEOF

CALIFORNIA
STRUC
T
URA L
PATRIC
K
BARATY 04/01/2021 3/16"=1'-0" A-6
ROOF PLAN A-7A A-7A T.W.956.53' H=32.0' T.W.957.96' H=3.0' T.W.958.39' H=3.0' T.W.960.82' H=5.0' T.W.961.72' H=5.0' T.W.962' H=1.54' T.W.969.22' H=5.0' T.W.978' H=5.7' T.W.983' H=5.7' T.W.988.5' H=11.2' T.W.989.3' H=12.0' T.W.984' H=5.7' T.W.983' H=4.7' T.W.980' H=1.7' T.W.978' H=2.08' T.W.967' H=1' T.W.966' H=2' DS. DS. GUTTER GUTTER DS. DS. DS. DS. DS. GUTTER DS. DS. A-7B A-7B A-7.1 C A-7.1 C DS. TRELLIS 4:12
4:12
4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12
4:12
4:12
4:124:12
4:12 4:12
A-7.2
D
A-7.2
D ATTIC AREA = 1337.4 sq.ft. 1337.4 / 150 = 8.9 sq.ft. Roof Vent N.F.A = 1.04 sq.ft. Roof Vent. Req.: 8.9 / 1.04 = 8.5 ≈ 9 1'-10" 2'-0" ROOF VENT BY AIR VENT Model # SLP150BL ROOFING SPECIFICATION MFR MATERIAL CLASS BRAND & MODEL ICC # CRRC ID # SOLAR REFLECTANCE THERMAL EMITTANCE SRI INITIAL 3 YEAR INITIAL 3 YEAR INITIAL 3 YEAR US TILE BY BORAL CLAY ROOF TILES B 2-PIECE MISSION ESR-1017 0138A 0.28 0.26 0.84 0.86 27 25 COST LIVE OAK 6"Ø Drip line 8' Spread 16' 5'-0" 8'-8" 21'-9" 5'-0" 174 S.F. UNOBSTRUCTED AREA FOR FUTURE INSTALLATION OF SOLAR PANELS 76 S.F. UNOBSTRUCTED AREA FOR FUTURE INSTALLATION OF SOLAR PANELS 7'-9" 9'-7" 4:12
260 of 675
9'-0"
7'-3"
10'-0"
8'-7" 3'-0" 9'-3"
6'-0" SECOND FLOOR 977.33' FIRST FLOOR 966.38' GARAGE 956.38' T.O.P 986.38' T.O.R. 990.88' 10'-0" 11'-0" 9'-0" 3'-6" 9'-0" 12'-6" 12
4 12
4 12
4 960.00' 980.00' 990.00' 1000.00' 956.80' GRADE LEVEL = 953.25' Scale: 3/16"=1'-0" SECTION C PL
PL 1020.00' 1010.00'
12'-3" CUT CUT CUT CUT CUT NATURAL GRADE NATURAL GRADE SECOND FLOOR 977.38' FIRST FLOOR 966.38' T.O. PLATE 986.38' GARAGE 956.38' PL
PL 982.5' 977.8' 970.0' 978.25' T.O.R. 990.88'
9'-0"
10'-0"
9'-0" 972.3'
DOMUS
DESIGN
109 E. HARVARD ST, # 306, GLENDALE, CA. 91205
TEL: (818) 500-3966 FAX: (818) 548-8108 450 North Brand Blvd. # 600 Glandale, CA 91203 TEL: (818) 813-1852 R C
B ENGINEERING DATE: JUNE 2020
OWNER REVISION SCALE: DRAWN: XXX APPROVED: JOB: 2020 -18 SHEET: OF SHEETS

PROJECT
420 NESMUTH ROAD,
GLENDALE, CA. 91202

DRAWING TITLE BY
ALFRED BABAYANS.
4609 OCEAN VIEW BLVD,
LA CANADA, CA, 91011 S 5900 EXP. 09.30.23

REGISTERED PROF
E

S IONAL ENGINEER

STATEOF

CALIFORNIA
STRUC
T
URA L
PATRIC
K
BARATY 04/01/2021 3/16"=1'-0" A-7.1
SECTIONs Scale: 3/16"=1'-0" SECTION D
10'-1" 3'-6" 9'-7"
3'-6" 970.00'
3'-0" 4" TH'K SLAB ON GRADE OVER 10MIL VISQUEEN (VAPOR BARRIER) OVER 4" MIN. TH'K BASE OF 1/2" MIN. CLEAN AGGREGATE. (TYP) 4" TH'K SLAB ON GRADE OVER 10MIL VISQUEEN (VAPOR BARRIER) OVER 4" MIN. TH'K BASE OF 1/2" MIN. CLEAN AGGREGATE. (TYP) 261 of 675
DOMUS
DESIGN
109 E. HARVARD ST, # 306, GLENDALE, CA. 91205
TEL: (818) 500-3966 FAX: (818) 548-8108 450 North Brand Blvd. # 600 Glandale, CA 91203 TEL: (818) 813-1852 R C
B ENGINEERING DATE: JUNE 2020
OWNER REVISION SCALE: DRAWN: XXX APPROVED: JOB: 2020 -18 SHEET: OF SHEETS

PROJECT
420 NESMUTH ROAD,
GLENDALE, CA. 91202

DRAWING TITLE BY
ALFRED BABAYANS.
4609 OCEAN VIEW BLVD,
LA CANADA, CA, 91011 S 5900 EXP. 09.30.23

REGISTERED PROF
E

S IONAL ENGINEER

STATEOF

CALIFORNIA
STRUC
T
URA L
PATRIC
K
BARATY 04/01/2021 3/16"=1'-0" A-7
SECTIONS 1021.25' 955.83' 1020.00' 1010.00' 1000.00' 990.00' 980.00' 970.00' 960.00' PL
PL Scale: 3/16"=1'-0" SECTION A Scale: 3/16"=1'-0" SECTION B PL
PL 1024.33' 954.25' 960.00' 970.00' 980.00' 990.00' 1010.00' 1000.00' 1020.00' 1030.00' 9'-0" 10'-0" 9'-0"
34'-6"
10'-0" 12
4 SECOND FLOOR 977.33' FIRST FLOOR 966.38' GARAGE 956.38' 12 3 T.O.P 986.38' T.O.R. 990.88'
10'-0" 11'-0" 9'-0" 4'-6" FIRST FLOOR 966.38' T.O.P 975.54' SECOND FLOOR 977.38' FIRST FLOOR 966.38' T.O. PLATE 986.38' 11'-0" 9'-0" 12'-5" 15'-6" 11'-8" @10.0%MAX @20.0%MAX @10.0%MAX 5'-8" 8'-11" 7'-4" 955.65' 953.87' 953.31' 956.38' 1'-6" 2'-0"
9'-0"
3'-6" 14'-9" SECOND FLOOR 977.38'
9'-4"
10'-1"
1'-10"
1'-10" 2% SLOPE GRADE LEVEL = 953.25' GRADE LEVEL = 953.25' 1'-6" 4'-6" T.O.R. 990.88 CUT CUT CUT CUT CUT CUT CUT CUT
7'-6" CUT NATURAL GRADE NATURAL GRADE SECOND FLOOR 977.33' 4" TH'K SLAB ON GRADE OVER 10MIL VISQUEEN (VAPOR BARRIER) OVER 4" MIN. TH'K BASE OF 1/2" MIN. CLEAN AGGREGATE. (TYP) 4" TH'K SLAB ON GRADE OVER 10MIL VISQUEEN (VAPOR BARRIER) OVER 4" MIN. TH'K BASE OF 1/2" MIN. CLEAN AGGREGATE. (TYP) 262 of 675
DOMUS
DESIGN
109 E. HARVARD ST, # 306, GLENDALE, CA. 91205
TEL: (818) 500-3966 FAX: (818) 548-8108 450 North Brand Blvd. # 600 Glandale, CA 91203 TEL: (818) 813-1852 R C
B ENGINEERING DATE: JUNE 2020
OWNER REVISION SCALE: DRAWN: XXX APPROVED: JOB: 2020 -18 SHEET: OF SHEETS

PROJECT
420 NESMUTH ROAD,
GLENDALE, CA. 91202

DRAWING TITLE BY
ALFRED BABAYANS.
4609 OCEAN VIEW BLVD,
LA CANADA, CA, 91011 S 5900 EXP. 09.30.23

REGISTERED PROF
E

S IONAL ENGINEER

STATEOF

CALIFORNIA
STRUC
T
URA L
PATRIC
K
BARATY 04/01/2021 3/16"=1'-0" A-8

NORTH-WEST &

SOUTH-EAST ELEVATIONS
4 7 4 1 2 3 7 5 5 12 SECOND FLOOR 977.38' FIRST FLOOR 966.38' T.O. PLATE 986.38' GARAGE 956.38' T.O.R. 990.88 Scale: 3/16"=1'-0" NORTH-WEST ELEVATION Scale: 3/16"=1'-0" SOUTH-EAST ELEVATION SECOND FLOOR 977.38' T.O. PLATE 986.38' T.O.R. 990.88' 9 7 4 5 2 4 7 6 1 3 5 12 8 11
4 10 CORONADO ASHLAR & RUBBLE - TEXAS RUBBLE/TEXAS CREAM JOHN TIMBERLAND LIGHTING BELLAGIO COLLECTION 21" HIGH BRONZE OUTDOOR POST LIGHT 13 14 14 OUTDOOR 450 LUMEN 2700K SECURITY LANTERNS BY FEIT ELECTRIC US TILE - TWO PIECE - EL CAMINO BLEND ROCKWALL LARGE 6 IN. X 17.5 IN. X 7 IN. PALOMINO CONCRETE RETAINING WALL BLOCK BY PAVESTONE DUNN EDWARDS DEC756 WEATHERED BROWN CORONADO FLOOR TILE SERIES - 4"X8" RUSTIC USED BRICK TRELLIS 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 89101112 ELEVATION KEYNOTES ROOF : U.S. TILE - TWO PIECE - EL CAMINO BLEND FASCIA :PAINTED - DUNN EDWARDS DEC756 WEATHERED BROWN GUTTER : TO MATCH THE FASCIA TRIMS AND EXPOSED BEAMS : PAINTED - DUNN EDWARDS DEC756 WEATHERED BROWN STUCCO : LA HABRA X-28 MIRAGE - STEEL TOWELED SMOOTH FINISH ENTRY DOOR : WOOD, STAIN GRADE W/GLASS AND SIDE LIGHT PANELS EXTERIOR SLIDING DOORS AND WINDOWS : "WOOD CLAD" BROWN COLOR TO MATCH THE ENTRY DOOR GARAGE DOOR : WOOD 16'-0"X7'-0" OVERHEAD GARAGE DOOR, COLOR TO MATCH THE ENTRY DOOR RAILINGS : COLOR TO MATCH THE WINDOWS AND DOORS STONES : CORONADO ASHLAR & RUBBLE - TEXAS RUBBLE/TEXAS CREAM DRIVEWAY : PAVING BRICKS @ EDGES - CORONADO FLOOR TILE SERIES - 4"X8" RUSTIC USED BRICK RETAINING WALLS: SPLIT FACE CONC. BLOCK BY PAVESTONE WITH A PRECAST CONC. CAP - COLOR TO MATCH BLOCKS JOHN TIMBERLAND LIGHTING - BELLAGIO COLLECTION 21" HIGH BRONZE OUTDOOR POST LIGHT OUTDOOR 450 LUMEN 2700K SECURITY LANTERNS BY FEIT ELECTRIC 1314 STUCCO : LA HABRA X-28 MIRAGE - STEEL TOWELED SMOOTH FINISH PLANTER BOX 4'-7"
3'-6" DS DS DS DS DS
3'-6"
3'-6" DS DS
263 of 675
DOMUS
DESIGN
109 E. HARVARD ST, # 306, GLENDALE, CA. 91205
TEL: (818) 500-3966 FAX: (818) 548-8108 450 North Brand Blvd. # 600 Glandale, CA 91203 TEL: (818) 813-1852 R C
B ENGINEERING DATE: JUNE 2020
OWNER REVISION SCALE: DRAWN: XXX APPROVED: JOB: 2020 -18 SHEET: OF SHEETS

PROJECT
420 NESMUTH ROAD,
GLENDALE, CA. 91202

DRAWING TITLE BY
ALFRED BABAYANS.
4609 OCEAN VIEW BLVD,
LA CANADA, CA, 91011 S 5900 EXP. 09.30.23

REGISTERED PROF
E

S IONAL ENGINEER

STATEOF

CALIFORNIA
STRUC
T
URA L
PATRIC
K
BARATY 04/01/2021 3/16"=1'-0" A-8C

NORTH-WEST &

SOUTH-EAST COLORED

ELEVATIONS
4'-7" Scale: 3/16"=1'-0" NORTH-WEST ELEVATION Scale: 3/16"=1'-0" SOUTH-EAST ELEVATION T.O.R. 990.88' SECOND FLOOR 977.38' FIRST FLOOR 966.38' T.O. PLATE 986.38' GARAGE 956.38' T.O.R. 990.88 9 7 4 5 2 4 7 6 1 3 7 5 12 8 11
4 10
4 7 4 1 2 3 7 5 5 12 SECOND FLOOR 977.38' T.O. PLATE 986.38' 14 13 14 TRELLIS 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 89101112 ELEVATION KEYNOTES ROOF : U.S. TILE - TWO PIECE - EL CAMINO BLEND FASCIA :PAINTED - DUNN EDWARDS DEC756 WEATHERED BROWN GUTTER : TO MATCH THE FASCIA TRIMS AND EXPOSED BEAMS : PAINTED - DUNN EDWARDS DEC756 WEATHERED BROWN STUCCO : LA HABRA X-28 MIRAGE - STEEL TOWELED SMOOTH FINISH ENTRY DOOR : WOOD, STAIN GRADE W/GLASS AND SIDE LIGHT PANELS EXTERIOR SLIDING DOORS AND WINDOWS : "WOOD CLAD" BROWN COLOR TO MATCH THE ENTRY DOOR GARAGE DOOR : WOOD 16'-0"X7'-0" OVERHEAD GARAGE DOOR, COLOR TO MATCH THE ENTRY DOOR RAILINGS : COLOR TO MATCH THE WINDOWS AND DOORS STONES : CORONADO ASHLAR & RUBBLE - TEXAS RUBBLE/TEXAS CREAM DRIVEWAY : PAVING BRICKS @ EDGES - CORONADO FLOOR TILE SERIES - 4"X8" RUSTIC USED BRICK RETAINING WALLS: SPLIT FACE CONC. BLOCK BY PAVESTONE WITH A PRECAST CONC. CAP - COLOR TO MATCH BLOCKS JOHN TIMBERLAND LIGHTING - BELLAGIO COLLECTION 21" HIGH BRONZE OUTDOOR POST LIGHT OUTDOOR 450 LUMEN 2700K SECURITY LANTERNS BY FEIT ELECTRIC 1314 3'-6" PLANTER BOX DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS
3'-6" 3'-6"
3'-6"
3'-6"
264 of 675
DOMUS
DESIGN
109 E. HARVARD ST, # 306, GLENDALE, CA. 91205
TEL: (818) 500-3966 FAX: (818) 548-8108 450 North Brand Blvd. # 600 Glandale, CA 91203 TEL: (818) 813-1852 R C
B ENGINEERING DATE: JUNE 2020
OWNER REVISION SCALE: DRAWN: XXX APPROVED: JOB: 2020 -18 SHEET: OF SHEETS

PROJECT
420 NESMUTH ROAD,
GLENDALE, CA. 91202

DRAWING TITLE BY
ALFRED BABAYANS.
4609 OCEAN VIEW BLVD,
LA CANADA, CA, 91011 S 5900 EXP. 09.30.23

REGISTERED PROF
E

S IONAL ENGINEER

STATEOF

CALIFORNIA
STRUC
T
URA L
PATRIC
K
BARATY 04/01/2021 3/16"=1'-0" A-9

SOUTH-WEST &
NORTH-EAST ELEVATIONS Scale: 3/16"=1'-0" SOUTH-WEST ELEVATION Scale: 3/16"=1'-0" NORTH-EAST ELEVATION FIRST FLOOR 966.38' 9 5 4 2 7 3 1 10 5 4 2 12
1 7 3 2 5 4 9 5 4 12 SECOND FLOOR 977.38' FIRST FLOOR 966.38' T.O.R. 990.88' GARAGE 956.38' SECOND FLOOR 977.38' GARAGE 956.38' T.O.P 986.38' T.O.R. 990.88' 14 14 13 TRELLIS TRELLIS 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 89101112 ELEVATION KEYNOTES ROOF : U.S. TILE - TWO PIECE - EL CAMINO BLEND FASCIA :PAINTED - DUNN EDWARDS DEC756 WEATHERED BROWN GUTTER : TO MATCH THE FASCIA TRIMS AND EXPOSED BEAMS : PAINTED - DUNN EDWARDS DEC756 WEATHERED BROWN STUCCO : LA HABRA X-28 MIRAGE - STEEL TOWELED SMOOTH FINISH ENTRY DOOR : WOOD, STAIN GRADE W/GLASS AND SIDE LIGHT PANELS EXTERIOR SLIDING DOORS AND WINDOWS : "WOOD CLAD" BROWN COLOR TO MATCH THE ENTRY DOOR GARAGE DOOR : WOOD 16'-0"X7'-0" OVERHEAD GARAGE DOOR, COLOR TO MATCH THE ENTRY DOOR RAILINGS : COLOR TO MATCH THE WINDOWS AND DOORS STONES : CORONADO ASHLAR & RUBBLE - TEXAS RUBBLE/TEXAS CREAM DRIVEWAY : PAVING BRICKS @ EDGES - CORONADO FLOOR TILE SERIES - 4"X8" RUSTIC USED BRICK RETAINING WALLS: SPLIT FACE CONC. BLOCK BY PAVESTONE WITH A PRECAST CONC. CAP - COLOR TO MATCH BLOCKS JOHN TIMBERLAND LIGHTING - BELLAGIO COLLECTION 21" HIGH BRONZE OUTDOOR POST LIGHT OUTDOOR 450 LUMEN 2700K SECURITY LANTERNS BY FEIT ELECTRIC 1314 DS DS DS 3'-6" DS DS DS DS
3'-6" T.O. DECK 965.38' SECOND FLOOR PATIO 977.33'
265 of 675
DOMUS
DESIGN
109 E. HARVARD ST, # 306, GLENDALE, CA. 91205
TEL: (818) 500-3966 FAX: (818) 548-8108 450 North Brand Blvd. # 600 Glandale, CA 91203 TEL: (818) 813-1852 R C
B ENGINEERING DATE: JUNE 2020
OWNER REVISION SCALE: DRAWN: XXX APPROVED: JOB: 2020 -18 SHEET: OF SHEETS

PROJECT
420 NESMUTH ROAD,
GLENDALE, CA. 91202

DRAWING TITLE BY
ALFRED BABAYANS.
4609 OCEAN VIEW BLVD,
LA CANADA, CA, 91011 S 5900 EXP. 09.30.23

REGISTERED PROF
E

S IONAL ENGINEER

STATEOF

CALIFORNIA
STRUC
T
URA L
PATRIC
K
BARATY 04/01/2021 3/16"=1'-0" A-9C

SOUTH-WEST &

NORTH-EAST COLORED
ELEVATIONS Scale: 3/16"=1'-0" SOUTH-WEST ELEVATION Scale: 3/16"=1'-0" NORTH-EAST ELEVATION 12 FIRST FLOOR 966.38' 1 7 3 2 5 4 9 5 4 SECOND FLOOR 977.38' T.O.P 986.38' T.O.R. 990.88' 2 GARAGE 956.38'
5 4 7 3 1 5 2 FIRST FLOOR 966.38'
9 10
4 12 SECOND FLOOR 977.38' T.O.R. 990.88' T.O. PLATE 986.38' GARAGE 956.38' 14 13 14 TRELLIS TRELLIS 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 89101112 ELEVATION KEYNOTES ROOF : U.S. TILE - TWO PIECE - EL CAMINO BLEND FASCIA :PAINTED - DUNN EDWARDS DEC756 WEATHERED BROWN GUTTER : TO MATCH THE FASCIA TRIMS AND EXPOSED BEAMS : PAINTED - DUNN EDWARDS DEC756 WEATHERED BROWN STUCCO : LA HABRA X-28 MIRAGE - STEEL TOWELED SMOOTH FINISH ENTRY DOOR : WOOD, STAIN GRADE W/GLASS AND SIDE LIGHT PANELS EXTERIOR SLIDING DOORS AND WINDOWS : "WOOD CLAD" BROWN COLOR TO MATCH THE ENTRY DOOR GARAGE DOOR : WOOD 16'-0"X7'-0" OVERHEAD GARAGE DOOR, COLOR TO MATCH THE ENTRY DOOR RAILINGS : COLOR TO MATCH THE WINDOWS AND DOORS STONES : CORONADO ASHLAR & RUBBLE - TEXAS RUBBLE/TEXAS CREAM DRIVEWAY : PAVING BRICKS @ EDGES - CORONADO FLOOR TILE SERIES - 4"X8" RUSTIC USED BRICK RETAINING WALLS: SPLIT FACE CONC. BLOCK BY PAVESTONE WITH A PRECAST CONC. CAP - COLOR TO MATCH BLOCKS JOHN TIMBERLAND LIGHTING - BELLAGIO COLLECTION 21" HIGH BRONZE OUTDOOR POST LIGHT OUTDOOR 450 LUMEN 2700K SECURITY LANTERNS BY FEIT ELECTRIC 1314 DS DS DS DS DS DS DS 3'-6"
3'-6"
3'-6" T.O. DECK 965.38'
266 of 675
DOMUS
DESIGN
109 E. HARVARD ST, # 306, GLENDALE, CA. 91205
TEL: (818) 500-3966 FAX: (818) 548-8108 450 North Brand Blvd. # 600 Glandale, CA 91203 TEL: (818) 813-1852 R C
B ENGINEERING DATE: JUNE 2020
OWNER REVISION SCALE: DRAWN: XXX APPROVED: JOB: 2020 -18 SHEET: OF SHEETS

PROJECT
420 NESMUTH ROAD,
GLENDALE, CA. 91202

DRAWING TITLE BY
ALFRED BABAYANS.
4609 OCEAN VIEW BLVD,
LA CANADA, CA, 91011 S 5900 EXP. 09.30.23

REGISTERED PROF
E

S IONAL ENGINEER

STATEOF

CALIFORNIA
STRUC
T
URA L
PATRIC
K
BARATY 04/01/2021 AS NOTED A-10

DOOR AND WINDOW

SCHEDULE WINDOW SCHEDULE WINDOW NUMBER WIDTHXHEIGH
T MATERIAL OPERATION GLASS FRAME TYPE EXTERNAL GRID EDGE DETAIL BEDROOM ENERGY EFFICIENT TEMPERED GLASS FIRE HAZARD ZONE 18" OF FLOOR OR 40" OF DOOR U-FACTOR SHGC REMARKS 6'-0"X4'-0" WOOD CLAD CASEMENT DOUBLE NAIL IN

Y STUCCO
Y
Y
Y
Y - 0.32 0.25 2'-0"X2'-0" WOOD CLAD FIXED DOUBLE NAIL IN

Y STUCCO
N
Y
Y
Y - 0.32 0.25 2'-4"X4'-0" WOOD CLAD FIXED DOUBLE NAIL IN

Y STUCCO
N
Y
Y
Y - 0.32 0.25 2'-6"X3'-0" WOOD CLAD FIXED DOUBLE NAIL IN

Y STUCCO
N
Y
Y
Y - 0.32 0.25 2'-0"X4'-0" WOOD CLAD SINGLE HUNG DOUBLE NAIL IN

Y STUCCO
Y
Y
Y
Y - 0.32 0.25 1'-6"X2'-6" WOOD CLAD SINGLE HUNG DOUBLE NAIL IN

Y STUCCO
N
Y
Y
Y - 0.32 0.25 2'-0"X3'-0" WOOD CLAD FIXED DOUBLE NAIL IN

Y STUCCO
N
Y
Y
Y - 0.32 0.25 2'-6"X5'-6" WOOD CLAD FIXED DOUBLE NAIL IN

Y STUCCO
N
Y
Y
Y - 0.32 0.25 1'-4"X7'-0" WOOD CLAD FIXED DOUBLE NAIL IN

Y STUCCO
N
Y
Y
Y - 0.32 0.25 SIDE LITES 4'-0"X4'-0" WOOD CLAD CASEMENT DOUBLE NAIL IN

Y STUCCO
Y
Y
Y
Y - 0.32 0.25
ABC
D
E
FG
H

IJ DOOR SCHEDULE MARK CORE WIDTH HEIGHT THK TYPE MATERIAL FINISH HARDWARE REMARKS S 3'-0" 7'-0" 1
3 4" SWING WOOD PAINT LEVER TYPE TEMPERED GLASS IN FILL W/ TRANSOM 6'-0" 6'-8" SLIDING WOOD CLAD TEMPERED GLASS H 6'-0" 6'-8" SWING WOOD PAINT LEVER TYPE - S 3'-0" 6'-8" 1 3 4" SWING WOOD PAINT LEVER TYPE
H 2X1'-6" 6'-8" DOUBLE SWING WOOD PAINT LEVER TYPE - 16'-0" 7'-0" OVERHEAD WOOD PAINT GARAGE DOOR 123456
DOOR HEIGHT 7'-0" OPENING 1'-0"
DOOR HEIGHT 7'-0" OPENING 1'-0" Scale: 3/8"=1'-0" ENTRY DOOR ELEVATION Scale: 3/8"=1'-0" ENTRY DOOR SECTION EXTERIOR INTERIOR 1'-4" 3'-0" 1'-4" 267 of 675
Scale
3 GUARDRAIL N.T.S Scale2 RAILING AT STAIRWAYS N.T.S Scale4 TIPICAL EAVE DETAIL N.T.S 1/2"X1/2" PICKETS @4"O.C. MAX. Ø6" MAX. 34" TO 38" FROM STAIR NOSING 2"Ø MAX. HANDRAIL W/ SMOOTH SURFACE & NO SHARP CORNERS 1"X1" POST @48"O.C. MAX. 10" MIN. 7 3/4" MAX. 4" MAX. (TYP.) 1"X1" TOP RAIL 1/2"X1/2" PICKETS @4"O.C. MAX. 2"Ø HANDRAIL W/ SMOOTH SURFACE & NO SHARP CORNERS 1"X1" POST @48"O.C. MAX. 48" O.C. MAX. 42" MIN.
4" MAX. 4" MAX. 1"X1" BOT. RAIL Scale
1 WEEP SCREED N.T.S
DOMUS
DESIGN
109 E. HARVARD ST, # 306, GLENDALE, CA. 91205
TEL: (818) 500-3966 FAX: (818) 548-8108 450 North Brand Blvd. # 600 Glandale, CA 91203 TEL: (818) 813-1852 R C
B ENGINEERING DATE: JUNE 2020
OWNER REVISION SCALE: DRAWN: XXX APPROVED: JOB: 2020 -18 SHEET: OF SHEETS

PROJECT
420 NESMUTH ROAD,
GLENDALE, CA. 91202

DRAWING TITLE BY
ALFRED BABAYANS.
4609 OCEAN VIEW BLVD,
LA CANADA, CA, 91011 S 5900 EXP. 09.30.23

REGISTERED PROF
E

S IONAL ENGINEER

STATEOF

CALIFORNIA
STRUC
T
URA L
PATRIC
K
BARATY 04/01/2021 1/4"=1'-0" AD-1

DETAILS
7 8" STUCCO OVER TWO LAYERS OF GRADE "D" PAPER BACKED METAL LATH HEADER PER STRUCTURAL 2 - 2X4 TOP PLATES G.B. G.B. ALIGN EDGE OF WINDOW FRAME WITH WALL FINISH 7 8" STUCCO OVER TWO LAYERS OF GRADE "D" PAPER BACKED METAL LATH 2X4 @16"O.C. STUD WALL Scale 5 TYPICAL VERTICAL SECTION THRU WINDOW N.T.S EXTERIOR INTERIOR 7/8" STUCCO OVER TWO LAYERS OF GRADE D BACKED METAL LATH CONC. STEM WALL, SLAB OR FOOTING 4" MIN.
2" MIN. CORROSION-RESISTANT WEEP SCREED HARDSCAPE F.S. FINISH GRADE INSULATION PER T-24 8" MIN. Scale
4 WATER HEATER INSTALLATION AND STRAPPING DETAIL N.T.S WATER HEATER INSTALLATION NOTES: 1. GAS WATER HEATERS INSTALLED IN A GARAGE SHALL BE ELEVATED A MINIMUM OF 18" ABOVE THE GARAGE FLOOR. 2. WATER HEATER SHALL BE ANCHORED OR STRAPPED TO RESIST HORIZONTAL DISPLACEMENT DUE TO EARTHQUAKE MOTION. STRAPPING SHALL BE AT POINTS WITHIN THE UPPER ONE THIRD AND LOWER ONE THIRD OF ITS VERTICAL DIMENSION. AT THE LOWER POINT A MINIMUM DISTANCE OF 4" SHALL BE MAINTAINED ABOVE THE CONTROLS WITH THE STRAPPING. 1/3 OF W/H
VERT. DIM.
1/3 OF W/H
VERT. DIM.

W/H VERT. DIMENSION
18" MIN.
4" MIN. WATER HEATER GARAGE F.F. SEISMIC STRAP WATER HEATER CONTROLS METAL OR CONCRETE PLATFORM NOTE: VOID THIS DETAIL IF WALL MOUNTED WATER HEATER IS USED. Scale 6 FLASHING AT ROOF VALLEY N.T.S Scale7 WALL MOUNTED HANDRAIL N.T.S WATER DIVERTER VALLEY TILE MIN. 0.019-INCH (NO 26GALV. SHEET GAGE) CORROSION RESISTANT METAL INSTALLED OVER A 36-IN. WIDE UNDERLAYMENT CONSISTING OF ONE LAYER OF 72 POUND MINERAL-SURFACED NONPERFORATED CAP SHEET MEETING ASTM D3909 RUNNING THE FULL LENGTH OF THE VALLEY ROOF DECK ROOF SUPPORT PER STRUCTURAL WINTERGUARD OR WATERPROOF UNDERLAYMENT WINTERGUARD OR WATERPROOF UNDERLAYMENT WINTERGUARD OR WATERPROOF UNDERLAYMENT COPPER CLEAT 3" MIN. 34" TO 38" TO STAIR NOSING 1 1/2" MIN. 2"Ø MAX. HANDRAIL W/ SMOOTH SURFACE & NO SHARP CORNERS WALL FINISH 2X4 @16"O.C. STUD WALL PROVIDE BLK'G & ANCHORS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT LOAD OF MIN. 250 LB / FT 7/8" STUCCO OVER TWO LAYERS OF GRADE "D" PAPER BACKED METAL LATH PLYWD SHTG PER STRUCTURAL 2X4 @16"O.C. STUD WALL G.B. R-13 INSULATION CEILING JOIST PER STRUCTURAL ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFING PLYWD SHTG PER STRUCTURAL 2X LEDGER 2X4 @16"O.C. 2X FASCIA MTL. GUTTER DOWNSPOUT R-30 INSULATION 2X BLKG ROOF RAFTER PER STRUCTURAL CORROSION-RESISTANT WIRE MESH 268 of 675
DOMUS
DESIGN
109 E. HARVARD ST, # 306, GLENDALE, CA. 91205
TEL: (818) 500-3966 FAX: (818) 548-8108 450 North Brand Blvd. # 600 Glandale, CA 91203 TEL: (818) 813-1852 R C
B ENGINEERING DATE: JUNE 2020
OWNER REVISION SCALE: DRAWN: XXX APPROVED: JOB: 2020 -18 SHEET: OF SHEETS

PROJECT
420 NESMUTH ROAD,
GLENDALE, CA. 91202

DRAWING TITLE BY
ALFRED BABAYANS.
4609 OCEAN VIEW BLVD,
LA CANADA, CA, 91011 S 5900 EXP. 09.30.23

REGISTERED PROF
E

S IONAL ENGINEER

STATEOF

CALIFORNIA
STRUC
T
URA L
PATRIC
K
BARATY 04/01/2021 N.T.S. R-1

RENDERING
269 of 675