Agenda packet, first session — Glendale City Council, October 25, 2022

A G E N D A

GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL

COUNCIL CHAMBERS
613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor
Glendale, CA 91206
Meetings

are

broadcast

live

Glendale

TV,

viewable

Spectrum

Cable,

channel

and

AT&T

U-
verse,

channel

99. Meetings

are

also

streamed

live

high

definition

(HD)

the

city's

webpage,
glendaleca.gov/live
,

YouTube.com/myglendale
,

and

Apple

TV,

Roku,

and

Amazon

Fire
devices

using

free

app

called

Screenweave

and

choosing

“Glendale

TV”

from

the

menu.

Meetings
are

also

archived

the

City

Website

for

viewing

anytime

glendaleca.gov/agendas
.

Call

(818)
548-4013

for

program

schedules.

DVDs

the

proceedings

are

available

for

purchase

the

City
Clerk's

Office.

For

public

comments

and

questions

during

the

meeting,

call

(818)

937-8100.

Public
comments

specific

agenda

item

will

taken

when

that

agenda

item

discussed.

you

have
any

question

about

matters

the

agenda,

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)

1990,

auxiliary

hearing

aids,

sign
language

translation,

and

Braille

transcripts

are

available

upon

request.

Assisted

listening

devices
are

available

same-day

upon

request.

least

48 hours

(or

two

business

days)

notice

required

for
requests

regarding

sign

language

translation

and

Braille

transcription

services.

All

documents
related

open

session

items

this

agenda

that

are

received

less

than

72 hours

prior

this
meeting,

and

are

public

records,

will

available

for

review

the

Office

the

City

Clerk,

613

Broadway, RM 110, Glendale, CA 91206.

Translation

services

are

provided

for

meetings

through

the

use

bilingual

staff

for

speakers

who
wish

utilize

the

service

available.

Speakers

should

state

their

request

contacting

the

City
Clerk’s

office

(818)

548-2090,

least

24 hours

prior

the

scheduled

meeting.

Please

specify
the

language

for

which

you

require

translation.

The

exclusive

use

City

provided

interpreters

not
required and persons are welcome to use their own interpreter or speak in their native language.

OCTOBER 25, 2022

REVISED
- ITEM 1A REVISED
- ITEM 1E ADDED

ROLL CALL

1. CLOSED SESSION
– 1:00 PM ( To Commence at 3:00 PM)

1 TYPED 10/21/2022 9:50:17 AM
10 25 22
CC

Conference with Legal Counsel - Pending Litigation: Dickinson v. Izadi, et al., L.A.S.C. Case No. 21STCV08281
b.

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
c.

Conference with real property negotiators: Property location – Real property generally located at the terminus of New York Avenue near Park Vista Drive, commonly referred to as “Mountain Oaks.” Negotiating parties: F.E. & M. Inc.

Employee’s Defined Contribution Plan Trust dated July 10, 1984. Agency negotiators attending the closed session are: Roubik Golanian, John Takhtalian, Michael J. Garcia, Gillian van Muyden, Bradley Calvert, Jason Bradford and Onnig Bulanikian. Instructions to the negotiator(s) will concern the price and terms for the acquisition of property

Conference with Legal Counsel - Pending Litigation: F.E. & M. Inc. Employee’s Defined Contribution Plan Trust dated July 10, 1984 v. City of Glendale et al., L.A.S.C. Case No. BS16989
e.

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 October 25, 2022 Regular Meeting of the Glendale City Council was Posted on Wednesday, October 19, 2022, on the Bulletin Board Outside City Hall.

3. PRESENTATIONS AND APPOINTMENTS
a.

Agenda Preview for the Meetings of Tuesday, November 1, 2022

City Clerk, re: Minutes of the Regular City Council and Joint City Council and Housing Authority Meetings of October 18, 2022
b.

Public Works, re: Adopt the Plans and Specification for the Dunsmore Park Improvements Project

1. Resolution adopting the Plans and Specification for the Dunsmore Park Improvements Project, Specification No. 3840, Plan Nos. 22-105 and 49-255; and directing the City Clerk to advertise for bids
c.

Public Works, re: Adopt the Plans and Specification for the Fiscal Year 2023 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Curb Ramp Installation and Sidewalk Repair Program

2 TYPED 10/21/2022 9:50:17 AM
10 25 22
CC

1. Resolution adopting the Plans and Specification for the ADA Curb Ramp Installation and Sidewalk Repair Program, Specification No. 3913, Plan Nos. 1- 3097 and 1-3099; and directing the City Clerk to advertise for bids

5. CITY COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS

6. COMMUNITY EVENT ANNOUNCEMENTS (3-Minutes)

7. ADOPTION OF ORDINANCES

8. ACTION ITEMS
a.

Community Development, re:

Review of Recommendations for Streamlining the
Historic District Designation Process

1. Motion to approve recommendations related to streamlining the historic district designation process and initiate amendments to Glendale Municipal Code Section

30.25.030
b.

Glendale Water and Power, re: Solar Energy on City Owned Properties – Report to File, and to Authorize the General Manager of GWP to Issue an RFP using Engineer- Procure-Construct (EPC) Method for Six Proposed Project Sites

1. Motion to Note and File the GWP Solar PV Development on City Owned Properties and DER Hosting Capacity Analysis and Update

2. Resolution authorizing the General Manager of GW P, or his designee, to prepare a Request for Proposal (RFP) using the Alternative Project Delivery Method for the Engineer-Procure-Construct (EPC) of Solar PV Systems at the following proposed project sites: 1) Glendale Sports Complex Parking Lot, 2) Montrose Parking Lot 3, 3) Utility Operations Parking Lot, 4) Brand Landfill, 5) Fire Station 21, and 6) Glendale Central Library, and authorizing the City Clerk to solicit proposals c.

City Attorney, re: Findings regarding Approval of Design Review Case No. PDR 2101078 for a three-story, 82-room hotel at 1633 Victory Boulevard

1. Resolution Adopting a Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

2. Motion Sustaining the Design Review Board's Decision to Approve the Design Review Case and Making Findings in Support Thereof

9. HEARINGS
a.

Community Development, re: Public Hearing on an Appeal of Planning Commission's Decision to Sustain the Planning Hearing Officer’s Approval of Setback and Standards Variance Case No. PVAR 1722701 for the Project Site Located at 521 Nolan Avenue

1. Motion to sustain the Planning Commission’s decision of April 3, 2019, to sustain the Planning Hearing Officer’s decision to approve the variance with conditions

2. Motion to continue the matter, directing the City Attorney to draft findings, reversing the Planning Commission’s decision and deny the project

3 TYPED 10/21/2022 9:50:17 AM
10 25 22
CC

Community Development, re: Extension of Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 5994 Prohibiting Developments with New and Conversion of Existing Drive-through Waiting Lanes Citywide

1. Introduction of Ordinance Extending, for an Additional 10 Months and 15 Days, Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 5994 Prohibiting Developments with New and Conversion of Existing Drive-through Waiting Lanes Citywide

10. REPORTS - INFORMATION

11. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS

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

13. NEW BUSINESS

14. ADJOURNMENT

4 TYPED 10/21/2022 9:50:17 AM
10 25 22
CC

10 18 22
CC1
Asatryan, Brotman, Devine, Najarian, Kassakhian
None
None
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
4A

M I N U T E S

GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL

COUNCIL CHAMBERS
613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor Glendale, CA 91206
OCTOBER 18, 2022
ROLL CALL – All Present

1.CLOSED SESSION – 3:54 p.m.
a. Public Employment – Attorneys
b. 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
c. Conference with real property negotiators: Property location – Real property generally located at the terminus of New York Avenue near Park Vista Drive, commonly referred to as “Mountain Oaks.” Negotiating parties: F.E. & M. Inc.

Employee’s Defined Contribution Plan Trust dated July 10, 1984 v. City of Glendale et al., L.A.S.C. Case No. BS16989
City Attorney Mike Garcia indicated that action is not anticipated. Council recessed to Closed Session at 3:57 p.m.

2.REGULAR BUSINESS AGENDA – 6:04 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 October 18, 2022 Regular Meeting of the Glendale City Council was Posted on Wednesday, October 12, 2022, on the Bulletin Board Outside City Hall.

3.PRESENTATIONS AND APPOINTMENTS
a. Agenda Preview for the Meetings of Tuesday, October 25, 2022 Deputy City Manager John Takhtalian provided the preview.

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 Special City Council and Regular City Council Meetings of October 11, 2022
Moved: Devine Seconded: Najarian
5 of 239

10 18 22
CC2
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:
b. Glendale Water and Power, re: Adopt a Motion Approving Participation in the California Arrearage Payment Program (CAPP) 2022, and a Resolution of Appropriation

1. Motion approving participation in the 2022 California Arrearage Payment Program Moved: Devine Seconded: Najarian

2. Resolution 22-150 appropriating $1,528,053.21 received from the State of California for the California Arrearage Payment Program Moved: Devine Seconded: Najarian
c. Public Works, re: Grant Funds for the Carl Moyer Program from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD)

1. Motion accepting $225,000 in Carl Moyer Infrastructure grant funds from the AQMD to purchase and install three electric bus chargers at the Beeline Bus Maintenance Facility and authorizing the Director of Public Works or his designee to execute the funding contract with the AQMD and any amendments, thereto with AQMD Moved: Devine Seconded: Najarian
d. Fire Department, re: Acceptance of grant funds for hazardous brush clearance from the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire)

1. Resolution 22-151 authorizing the acceptance of $184,150 in California Climate Investments Program funds from the CalFire’s Fire Prevention Program for the Fire Reduction and Brush Abatement Program, and authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreements, amendments, payment requests and any other necessary documentation for the acceptance of the funds Moved: Devine Seconded: Najarian
6 of 239

10 18 22
CC3
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:

2. Resolution 22-152 appropriating $184,150.00 from CalFire, California Climate Investments Program fund, and an additional $29,850 in matching funds from the Fire Department’s existing General Fund balance
Moved: Devine Seconded: Najarian
e. Libraries, Arts, and Culture, re: Library, Arts & Culture, re: Acceptance of Grant Funds for Adult Literacy and ESL Services

1. Motion accepting $54,845 and $83,916 in California Library Literacy Services grant funds from the California State Library to support services and programs for Adult Literacy and English as a Second Language; and authorizing the City Manager or a designee to execute all agreements, amendments, certifications, and documents necessary to accept and implement the funding Moved: Devine Seconded: Najarian

2. Resolution 22-153 appropriating $54,845 from the California State Library Literacy Services program and $83,916 from the California State Library Literacy Services program
Moved: Devine Seconded: Najarian
f. Community Services and Parks, re: Award of American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA-R) funding through the Los Angeles County Emergency Food and Shelter Program for the City’s Elderly Nutrition Program administered by United Way of Greater Los Angeles

1. Motion accepting $85,000 in ARPA-R funding in FY2022-2023 through the Los Angeles County Emergency Food and Shelter Program (EFSP) administered by the United Way of Greater Los Angeles for the City’s Elderly Nutrition Program from November 1, 2021 through April 30, 2023, and authorizing the City Manager, or a designee, to execute all agreements, amendments, certifications, and documents necessary to accept and implement the funding Moved: Devine Seconded: Najarian
7 of 239

10 18 22
CC4
Asatryan, Brotman, Devine, Kassakhian
Najarian
None
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

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

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

2. Resolution 22-154 of Appropriation to appropriate $85,000 in ARPA-R funding for Elderly Nutrition Program home delivered meals program Moved: Devine Seconded: Najarian

5.CITY COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS
Councilmember Najarian met US President Biden while touring the metro subway station in Westwood.

Mayor Kassakhian thanked Mayor Pro Tem Najarian for running the meeting while he was out last week. Kassakhian visited our sister cities and toured the hydrogen powering facilities and fueling stations in Japan. He also attended the Korean Cultural Celebration Festival at the Shoseian Teahouse in Glendale. Kassakhian asked staff to look into a senior housing complex at 333 Monterey that is undergoing renovations and see whether the renovations are done with permits. He asked staff to provide this information to the resident of 333 Monterey who made the inquiry.

Director of Community Development Bradley Calvert provided a brief update on Glendale Tech Week.

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

7.ADOPTION OF ORDINANCES
Staff Comment:

Bradley Calvert, Director of Community Development
a. Community Development, re: Ordinance 5995 Adoption of 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 (Brotman, 09/27/22)
Moved: Brotman Seconded: Devine
8 of 239

10 18 22
CC5
Asatryan, Brotman, Devine, Najarian, Kassakhian
None
None
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

8.ACTION ITEMS
a. Community Development, re: Project Development Team Formation to Update the Citywide Bicycle Transportation Plan (BTP), the creation of Vision Zero policies, and Development of an Outreach Plan
Staff Comment:

Roubik Golanian, City Manager
Presenting:

Bradley Calvert, Director of Community Development
Public Comment:

James DeCarli

1. Motion Authorizing staff to form a Project Development Team (PDT) to Update the Citywide Bicycle Transportation Plan and develop Vision Zero policies, and provide direction for developing of a robust outreach plan Moved: Devine Seconded: Brotman
b. Public Works, re: Bicycle Facility alternative options for the La Crescenta Avenue Rehabilitation Project
Staff Comments:

Roubik Golanian, City Manager
Yazdan Emrani, Director of Public Works
Presenting:

Sarkis Oganesyan, Deputy Director of Public Works/ City Engineer Public Comments:

David Mariscal
Patrick Murphy
Dave Gallagher
Travis Brown
Kent Clark
Melissa Moulton Church
Cole Bazemore
Roberta Medford
Martha Sensel
Zoe Witt
Chris Welch
Philip Ruddy
Benjamin Ruddy
Jennifer Ho
Edward Gonzales
Cassandra Chowdhury
9 of 239

10 18 22
CC6
Asatryan, Brotman, Devine, Kassakhian
Najarian
None
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

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

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

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

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Joaquin Siques
Manuel Menjivar
Peter Hebert
Alek Bartrosouf
Alex Calleros
Yeprem Davoodian
Vahe Dilanian
Melanie Verkins
CJ Cemizal
Catherine Jurca
Ani Gharibyan
Katie Smith
Mary Anderson

1. Motion Selecting a Bicycle Facilities Alternative for the La Crescenta Avenue Rehabilitation Project
Moved: Devine Seconded: Brotman
c. City Attorney, re: Findings regarding Approval of Design Review Case No.

PDR 2101078 for a three-story, 82-room hotel at 1633 Victory Boulevard Staff Comments:

Bradley Calvert, Director of Community Development
Mike Garcia, City Attorney
Public Comment:

Anand Desai
Items did not pass and will be moved to next week’s meeting.

1. Resolution Adopting a Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Moved: Najarian Seconded: Asatryan

2. Motion Sustaining the Design Review Board's Decision to Approve the Design Review Case and Making Findings in Support Thereof
Moved: Najarian Seconded: Asatryan
10 of 239

10 18 22
CC7
Mayor of the City of Glendale
Najarian left the chambers at 8:50 p.m.

9.HEARINGS

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 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.

Ramella Eraghi
Andranik Zadorian
Edwin
Diane Martin

13.NEW BUSINESS

14.ADJOURNMENT – 9:04 p.m.

Moved: Brotman Seconded: Asatryan
City Clerk of the City of Glendale
11 of 239

10 18 22
CC HA
1 4A

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

COUNCIL CHAMBERS
613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor
Glendale, CA 91206
OCTOBER 18, 2022
The Joint Meeting of the Glendale City Council and Glendale Housing Authority convened in the City Hal Council Chambers, in said City, at 3:07 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:

October 12, 2022
Date
JOINT PUBLIC MEETING of the City Council and Housing Authority is hereby called to meet at 3:00 PM on Tuesday, October 18, 2022, in the Council Chamber, 613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor, Glendale, CA 91206 to Consider the Following Item(s) of Business, to wit;

1. Community Development, re: Program Update and Future Considerations for Monthly Housing Subsidy Program
a. Motion to receive and file this report and provide direction as deemed necessary Written Notice of said meeting was given, which Notice consisted of a copy of the foregoing Call, and was served on each Member of the Council not joining in the Call, and upon the in said City not less than 24 hours before the time fixed in said Call for said meeting, as follows:

Upon Robert Adjinian at 5:00 p.m. October 12, 2022 Glendale, CA Upon Elen Asatryan at 5:00 p.m. October 12, 2022 Glendale, CA Upon Dan Brotman at 5:00 p.m. October 12, 2022 Glendale, CA Upon Paula Devine at 5:00 p.m. October 12, 2022 Glendale, CA Upon Ara Najarian at 5:00 p.m. October 12, 2022 Glendale, CA Upon Laura Parazian at 5:00 p.m. October 12, 2022 Glendale, CA Upon Ardy Kassakhian at 5:00 p.m. October 12, 2022 Glendale, CA Mayor Kassakhian called the meeting to order at 3:07 p.m.

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

The Agenda for the Tuesday, October 18, 2022 joint public meeting of the City Council and Housing Authority was posted on Wednesday, October 12, 2022, on the Bulletin Board outside City Hall.
12 of 239

10 18 22
CC HA
2 1. Community Development, re: Program Update and Future Considerations for Monthly Housing Subsidy Program
Staff Comments:

Roubik Golanian, City Manager
Mike Garcia, City Attorney
Peter Zovak, Asst. Director of Community Development – Housing Presenting:

Sipan Zadoryan, Senior Housing Analyst
a. Motion to receive and file this report and provide direction as deemed necessary Moved: Devine Seconded: Najarian
Vote as Follows
ADJOURNMENT – 3:53 p.m.
- City Council
Moved: Brotman Seconded: Asatryan
- Housing Authority
Moved: Najarian Seconded: Kassakhian
Mayor of the City of Glendale
City Clerk of the City of Glendale
Chair of the Glendale Housing Authority
Clerk of the Glendale Housing Authority
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Asatryan, Brotman, Devine, Najarian, Kassakhian
None
None
None
13 of 239

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Adopt the Plans and Specification for the Dunsmore Park Improvements Project
1) Resolution adopting the Plans and Specification for the Dunsmore Park Improvements Project, Specification No. 3840, Plan Nos. 22-105 and 49-255; and directing the City Clerk to advertise for bids.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Consent Calendar
Approved for 10/25/22 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The plans and specification have been completed for the improvements at Dunsmore Park. Staff would like to respectfully ask City Council to adopt the project plans and specification and authorize the City Clerk to advertise for bids. 14 of 239

24b
3 6
4 5

COUNCIL PRIORITIES
Infrastructure: This project will significantly improve the condition of the parking lot of Dunsmore Park and improve access and safety for all users of the park to the different amenities available.

RECOMMENDATION
Approve the resolution adopting the Plans and Specification for the Dunsmore Park Improvements Project, Specification No. 3840, Plan Nos. 22-105 and 49-255; and direct the City Clerk to advertise for bids.

BACKGROUND
As part of Public Works and Community Services and Parks’ ongoing efforts to improve the condition of the City’s parks, the plans and specification have been prepared for the Dunsmore Park Improvements Project.

The project location is as follows:
•Dunsmore Park
The scope of work includes the following:
•Asphalt Grinding (Various Thickness) and Asphalt Surface Course Placement (Various Thickness) in the parking lot;
•Selective removal and reconstruction of concrete curbs, sidewalks; and deteriorated asphalt concrete pavement;
•Construction of curb ramps meeting Americans with Disabilities Act guidelines; and,
•Installation of new striping, signing, and pavement markings in the parking lot.

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
The proposed project includes improvements that will comply with current Federal ADA guidelines.

ANALYSIS
To ensure competitive bids, the city will advertise the Project on multiple plan holders’ web sites who publish requests for proposals for projects and distribute the information to their extensive network of consultant, contractor, and construction industry contacts.

The Project will also be advertised in a local newspaper, the Glendale Independent, prior to bid opening, as well as on eBidboard, which is a web enabled data service to the public sector, for the dissemination of the building and construction project proposals to their large number of member contractors and consultants.

Finally, the project bidding documents will also be posted on the City’s website.

The construction of this project is anticipated to begin in March 2023 and is scheduled 15 of 239

34b
3 6
4 5
for completion by July 2023.

Project Description: Dunsmore Park Improvements Project Plans/Specs Adopted: October 25, 2022
Advertisement Method: Bid America, The Blue Book, Construction Bid Board, Construct Connect, Direct Connection, PlanIT
Reprographics, Dodge Data & Analytics, eBidBoard,
Glendale Independent Newspaper, City’s website
Specs to be Issued: October 25, 2022 – November 16, 2022 Bids to be Opened: November 16, 2022
Company Name
and Bid Amount:

TBD
Recommended
Contractor(s)
TBD
New / Existing
Contractor(s):

TBD
Procurement Method
(Bid / SS):

Bid
Contract Term:

4 Months

Construction
Phase Begins:

March 2023
Construction
Phase Ends:

July 2023

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
The Dunsmore Park improvements benefit to the community will include the following:
•Improved safety for all users; and,
•Improved recreational experience at the park and service to the community.

Furthermore, outreach on this project continues to occur through a dedicated website for the project. The website page introduces the public to the project and to the project team, explains the scope of work and project locations, highlights the project phase, and provides the public with Staff contact information for questions, discussion and/or input.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report. The engineer’s estimate for the construction of this project is between $800,000 and $900,000. Funding for this project has been budgeted in the Capital Improvement Fund (4010).

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Project is categorically exempt from environmental review because of CEQA Guidelines §§ 15301.
16 of 239

44b
3 6
4 5

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
Not Applicable

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Adopt the Plans and Specification for the Dunsmore Park Improvements Project and direct the City Clerk to advertise for bids.

Alternative 2: Do not authorize the issuance of Plans and Specification for the Dunsmore Park Improvements Project. Doing so, however, will not improve the condition of the park.

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

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Sarkis Oganesyan, P.E., Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer Marc David, Project Manager
Reviewed by:

Yazdan Emrani, P.E., Director of Public Works
Onnig Bulanikian, Director of Community Services and Parks Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1: Project Location Map
17 of 239

6 9
6 5
RESOLUTION NO. __________

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

ADOPTING THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATION FOR THE DUNSMORE PARK IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SPECIFICATION NO. 3840, PLAN NOS. 22-105 AND 49-255; AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS.

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE:

SECTION 1.The Plans and Specification on file in the City Clerk’s office for the Dunsmore Park Improvements Project including the various documents incorporated therein, are hereby approved, adopted, designated, and shall hereafter be known as Specification No. 3840, Plan Nos. 22-105 and 49-255.

SECTION 2.The City Clerk is hereby directed to advertise for bids for the work, equipment and materials described in these Plans and Specifications adopted by this Resolution.

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

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )

CITY OF GLENDALE )
I, Suzie Abajian, Ph.D., 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
18 of 239

PENNSYLVANIA AV

ZOE ANNE WY

REYNARD AVACAMPO AV

EL MORENO STEL CAMINITO PL

FRANKLIN STFAIRESTA ST

LOWELL AVABELLA STALTURA AV

GROMER TERHENRITETTA AVMEVEL PL

BROOKHILL STHENRITETTA AV

CHERYL AV

EL CAMINITO STPONTIAC ST

FAIRESTA

ALTURA AV

NEW YORK AV

MARYANN STKENTUCKYWASHINGTON PL

QUAIL CANYON RDMARKRIDGE RDRIMHILL RDFRANCES AVCHERYL AVMARYLAND AV

PONTIAC STFAIRESTA ST

ARNELL PLBOSTON AVBURRITT WYSANTA CARLOTTA STEL CAMINITO STMARKRIDGE RD

CAROLYN WYBROOKHILL

TREND TERBURRITT WYPARAISO WY

PARAISO WY

EL CAMINITO STLOS ANGELES STEL MORENO STLOS OLIVOS LNMOORE ST

DANNY ST

VISTA CT

LAUDERDALE AVVIRGINIA STFIRST AVSECOND AVTHIRD AVFOURTH AV

FIFTH AV

SECOND AVBOSTON AV

BETH PL

LIRIO LN

WILEY LNMAYFIELD AV

ANDERSON AVLEHMAN LNLOWELL AV

OAKGROVE CTHONOLULU AVMONTROSE AV

BOSTON AV

ANDERSON AV

COMMUNITY AVMARYANN STPROSPECT AVE

FAIRCHILD ST

FOOTHILL BLVD

FAIRMONT AVMELANIE FREDERICK ST

FAIRESTA STLOS OLIVOS LNALABAMA STSTEVENS ST

WILLALEEDANNY DR

RETA STSANTA CARLOTTA STEL CAMINITO PONTIAC ST

CLOUDSDALE AV

PARAISO WYBURRITT WYBROOKHILL STHENRITETTA AVFREDERICK AV

GLENCOVE AV

COMMUNITY AVABELLA ST

MEVEL PL

FINEHILL AV TER
AV
LN
ST
PL
DUNSMORE AVEdunsmoreelementaryschool
210 FWY

NOT TO SCALE
EXHIBIT 1: PROJECT LOCATION MAPDUNSMORE PARK IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTSPECIFICATION NO. 3840

LEGENDPROJECT LOCATIONSCHOOLCITY LIMITS
19 of 239

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Adopt the Plans and Specification for the Fiscal Year 2023 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Curb Ramp Installation and Sidewalk Repair Program 1) Resolution adopting the Plans and Specification for the ADA Curb Ramp Installation and Sidewalk Repair Program, Specification No. 3913, Plan Nos. 1- 3097 and 1-3099; and directing the City Clerk to advertise for bids.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Consent Calendar
Approved for 10/25/22 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The plans and specification have been completed for the Fiscal Year 2023 ADA Curb Ramp Installation and Sidewalk Repair Program. Staff would like to respectfully ask City Council to adopt the project plans and specification and authorize the City Clerk to advertise for bids.
20 of 239

24c
3 6
4 6

COUNCIL PRIORITIES
Infrastructure: This project will significantly improve the condition of sidewalks in the City’s Maintenance Districts 4, 5, and 7 and improve access and safety for pedestrians.

Mobility/Connectivity/Safety: This project will replace damaged sidewalks, construct new ADA compliant curb ramps where none existed and will reconstruct existing curb ramps to comply with the latest ADA requirements. This will significantly improve pedestrian access and safety in the project neighborhood.

RECOMMENDATION
Approve the resolution adopting the Plans and Specification for the Fiscal Year 2023 ADA Curb Ramp Installation and Sidewalk Repair Program, Specification No. 3913, Plan Nos. 1-3097 and 1-3099; and direct the City Clerk to advertise for bids

BACKGROUND
As part of the Public Works Department’s ongoing efforts to improve the condition of the City’s sidewalks, the plans and specification have been prepared for the Fiscal Year 2023 ADA Curb Ramp Installation and Sidewalk Repair Program.

The project locations for ADA Improvements are as follows:
•Maintenance District 4, 5, and 7
•Intersections of Lexington Drive at Kenwood Street and Howard Street The project location for concrete pavement repairs are as follows:
•Country Club Drive between Valene Drive and Beaudry Boulevard •San Gabriel Avenue between Country Club Drive and Beaudry Boulevard •Kirkby Road between North Verdugo Road and Easterly terminus •Glenoaks Boulevard west side of the intersection at Chevy Chase Drive •Madison Way between South Glendale Avenue and easterly terminus •Roads End Drive between South Glendale Avenue and Madison Way •Mission Road between South Glendale Avenue and easterly terminus •Colby Drive between Heminger Street and Roads End Drive •Alley 74 between West Palmer Avenue and East Chevy Chase Drive •Alley 41 between West Cypress Street and Magnolia Avenue •Alley 39 between West Eulalia Street and West Laurel Street •Alley 38 between West Cerritos Avenue and West Eulalia Street •Alley 02 between East Harvard Street and East Broadway The scope of work includes the following:
•Selective removal, repair, and reconstruction of damaged curbs, gutters, sidewalks, driveways, cross gutters, and alley aprons;
•Selective removal, repair, and reconstruction of damaged asphalt and Portland cement concrete pavements;
•Installation of new ADA compliant curb ramps where none existed; and 21 of 239

34c
3 6
4 6
•Modification and reconstruction of existing ramps to meet current ADA standards.

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
The proposed project includes improvements that will comply with current Federal ADA guidelines.

ANALYSIS
To ensure competitive bids, the city will advertise the project on multiple plan holders’ web sites who publish project bidding documents and distribute the information to their extensive network of consultant, contractor, and construction industry contacts.

The project will also be advertised in a local newspaper, the Glendale Independent, prior to bid opening, as well as on ebidboard, which is a web enabled data service to the public sector, for the dissemination of the building and construction project proposals to their large number of member contractors and consultants.

Finally, the project bidding documents will also be posted on the City’s website.

The construction of this project is anticipated to begin in March 2023 and is scheduled for completion by June 2023.

Project Description: Fiscal Year 2023 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Curb Ramp Installation and Sidewalk Repair Program
Plans/Specs Adopted: October 25, 2022
Advertisement Method: Bid America, The Blue Book, Construction Bid Board, Construct Connect, Direct Connection, PlanIT
Reprographics, Dodge Data & Analytics, ebidboard,
Glendale Independent Newspaper, City’s website
Specs to be Issued: October 25, 2022 – November 16, 2022 Bids to be Opened: November 16, 2022
Company Name
and Bid Amount:

TBD
Recommended
Contractor(s)
TBD
New / Existing
Contractor(s):

TBD
Procurement Method
(Bid / SS):

Bid
Contract Term:

3 Months

Construction
Phase Begins:

March 2023
Construction
Phase Ends:

June 2023

The engineer’s estimate for the construction of this project is between $1,500,000 and 22 of 239

44c
3 6
4 6
$1,650,000.

Funding for this project has been budgeted from the Gas Tax Fund (4020).

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Fiscal Year 2023 ADA Curb Ramp Installation and Sidewalk Repair Program benefits to the community will include the following:
•Improved safety for all users; and,
•Improved accessibility and walkability throughout the project neighborhoods.

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

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

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
Not Applicable

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Adopt the Plans and Specification for the Fiscal Year 2023 ADA Curb Ramp Installation and Sidewalk Repair Program and direct the City Clerk to advertise for bids.

Alternative 2: Do not authorize the issuance of Plans and Specification for the Fiscal Year 2023 ADA Curb Ramp Installation and Sidewalk Repair Program.

Doing so, however, will not improve the condition of the city’s sidewalks.

Alternative 3: The City Council may consider any other alternative not proposed by staff.
23 of 239

54c
3 6
4 6

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Sarkis Oganesyan, P.E., Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer Armen Avazian, P.E., Senior Civil Engineer
Reviewed by:

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

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1: Project Location Map
24 of 239

6 9
6 5
RESOLUTION NO. __________

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA ADOPTING THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2023

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES (ADA) CURB RAMP INSTALLATION AND SIDEWALK REPAIR PROGRAM PROJECT, SPECIFICATION NO. 3913, PLAN NOS. 1-3097 AND 1-3099; AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE:

SECTION 1.The Plans and Specification on file in the City Clerk’s office for the Fiscal Year 2023 Americans with Disabilities (ADA) Curb Ramp Installation and Sidewalk Repair Program Project including the various documents incorporated therein, are hereby approved, adopted, designated, and shall hereafter be known as Specification No. 3913, Plan Nos. 1-3097 and 1-3099.

SECTION 2.The City Clerk is hereby directed to advertise for bids for the work, equipment and materials described in these Plans and Specifications adopted by this Resolution.

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

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain: ___________________________
City Clerk
25 of 239

GLENCREST TER

BEAUDRY BLVD

CANADA BLVD
CLUB

SAN GABRIEL AV

HERMOSITA DR

SANTA ROSA AV

SANTA MARIA AV

SOMBRA DR

OPECHEE WY

CAPISTRANO AV

HERMOSITA DR

CAMULOS AV

EL RITO AV

MENLO DR
RD

CANYON RD

GLEN DR

RISA DR
BROOK

CORO TER

CATHAY ST

HILLSIDE DR

VERDUGO KNOLL PL

LOMA VISTA DR

TAMBOR DR

SHERER LN

VIRDEN DR

HILLFAIR DR

CRESTSHIRE DR

CM SAN RAFAEL

CL CANTA

CL LA COSTA

CL SIRENA

CL FORTUNA

CL SUENOS

CL LA PRIMAVERA

CL DEL SOL

CMTO DE LA NARCISACMTO DE LA PLAYA

CMTO DEL CIELOMONTANA

CMTO DE LA VALLE

CMTO DE LA ESTRELLACMTO DE LA LUNA

CMTO DEL PILAR

CL SIMPATICO

CL BELLA

CL SONRISA

CM SAN RAFAEL

CL CONTENTO

CL DEL PACIFICOCL AZUL

CL ALLEGRE

CL AMABLE

KNOLL PL

FLINTRIDGE DR

EMERALD ISLE DR

LINDA VISTA RD

FIGUEROA ST

LINDA VISTA RDBUCKINGHAM RD

ARUNDLE PL

KENNINGTON DR

CASCADIA DR

GLENFLOW CT

VALLE VISTA DRHOLLISTER TER

MOUNT CARMEL DR

E GLENOAKS BLVD

SUNSHINE DR

TRAFALGER DR

CATALINA DR

ESMERALDA DR

PUEBLA DR

E CALIFORNIA AV

ZERR CT

SINCLAIR AV

BARRINGTON WY

GLENMORE BLVD

CORWIN AV

ACADEMY PLKIMLIN DR

LILAC LNELEANORE DR

LILAC LN

EDEN AV

HARVEY DR

HILL DR

OAK VISTA DR

SOLWAY ST

PENNERTON DR GARDNER PL

E GLENOAKS BLVD

PERSKIN CIR

HAVERKAMP DR

FERGUS DR

GARDNER LNSTORY PL

ARCADE PL

DELCOURT PL

SUNCOURT TER

BRADEN DR

GARDNER PL

ARCH PL

HOLLISTER TERHOLLISTER TER

SCHOLL DRELVINA DRWALTONIA DR

GLEN IVY DR

BLACKMORE DR

TRYON PL

EDWARDS PL

SLEEPY HOLLOW TER

BAILEY PL

BYWOOD DR
HARLOW
DR

SLEEPY HOLLOW DR

VALLE VISTA DR

SLEEPY HOLLOW PL
PL

CORLINGTON RDWYNDALE PL

ASHBURTON PL

DEVONSHIRE LNCOUTIN LN GLENOAKS CANYON DR

ORCHARD AV

HARVEY DR

VALLEJO DR

HOLLY DR

WILSON TERR

CALIFORNIA AV

E HARVARD STCAMPUS ST

CARR DR

MAYNARD ST

SINCLAIR AV

LUKENS PL

WILSON AV

N VERDUGO RD

CARLTON DR

OLIVE ST

CARLA DR

MILDRED DRFAY DR

GLENMORE BLVD

MOUNTAIN ST

FOXKIRK RD

PARCHER PL

SOLWAY ST

EASTEDGE DR
CHEVY

ARUNDLE PL

ANNITA DR

SHERIDAN RD

BELLEAU RD

THURLENE RD

BOUQUETE ST

CORNWALL DR

HOLLYWELL PL

ST GREGORY RD

EDGEWICK RD

PADDINGTON RD

GOLF CLUB DR

CHEVY KNOLL DR

GOLF CLUB DR

PARWAY DR

GRACELAND WY

CHEVY OAKS CR

RIDGE DR

CHEVY OAKS

HAWKDEN CT

PENHILL CT

NORSSALL CT

BARMORE CT

FAIRCLIFF CT

MAYGREEN CTALLER CT

GLENFLOW CT

CAPROCK CT

EDMONTON RD

LAIRD DR

CHANCERY LN

OLYMPIC DR

KENNINGTON DR

GREENWICH RD

CHEVY CHASE DR

GRACELAND WY

STUART WK

SOMERSET RD
MARTIN

LARKSTONE LN

OUTLOOK LN

ST ANDREWS DRRAMSAY DR

BARNETT DR

CASCADIA DRLEITH RDDRURY LN

CHEVY CHASE DR

GLENOAKS BLVD

MARENGO DR

THORNWOOD ST

FALLEN LEAF PL

HOLLYBURNE CT

PHEASANT ST

DRAGONFLY ST

FOX GLOVE ST

FIGUEROA ST

CORNWALL DR

TYRRELL PL

DUNSMERE RDCHARING CROSS RD

SUSSEX CT

COVENTRY PL

LINDA VISTA RD

BALEGH PL

FULLBROKE RD

BUCKINGHAM RD

BUCKINGHAM PL

KAREN LYNN DR

SAN AUGUSTINE DR

NORHAM PL

FULLMOON DR

ST ELIZABETH RD

FIGUEROA ST

CHEVY CHASE

WELSH WY

ERIN CT

DUBLIN DR

ERIN WY

SHANNON WY

SHERWOOD

LENORE DR

CRAIL WY

CM SAN RAFAEL

PASEO DE CIMA

FLINTRIDGE DR

ASHINGTON DR

BALMAIN WY

EMERALD ISLE
RD

GRANGEMOUNT RD

CHADNEY DR

KINGRIDGE WY

KIRKHAM DR

HAMPSTEAD RD

DELISLE CT

EASTGATE PL

FLORENA CTALLENJAY PL

CARRIE LN

POSITAS RD

BAGDAD PL

EL ARBOLITA DR

PAULA PL

WILLOW DR

ATWATER

LOCKWOOD RDMARCIA RD
RD

AMARILLO DR

RAFAEL TER

BAY BERRY DR

SPARR BLVD

OAKWOOD

RUSTIC LN

VERDUGO RD

ALPHA RD

LOS ENCINOS AV

VISTA DEL VERDEPASA

MIRA VISTA DR

BOUGE DR

GLORIETTA AV

SANTA BARBARA AV

RAMONA AV

GLORIETTA AV

DON CARLOS AV

WESTON PL

DEL VALLE AVBLANCHARD DR

VERDUGO

ARMOUR PL

LA VISTA

OPECHEE WY

HERMOSITA DR

RISA PLRISA DR

FERN LN

CONCITA ST

RISA DRCALAFIA ST

BARA RD

BONITA DR

JUNE LN

OPECHEE WY

SYLVAN LN

EL RITO AV

CAPISTRANO AVE

SELVAS PL

ANDENES DR

DESCANSO

FREEMONT PL

OPECHEE WY

SAN LUIS REY DR

SUNSHINE CT

COLINA DR

BONITA DR

COLINA DR

CAMULOS AV

BONITA DR

ROSITA DR HAVEN ST

HILLSIDE DR

WABASSO WY

SIERRA PL

HILLSIDE DR

POLARIS DR

HILLSIDE DR

BRANTA DR

FERNBROOK PL

HIAWATHA DR

COLINA DR

ESSEX LN

SANDRINGHAM DR

NIODRARA DR

OAKMONT TER

SAMARKAND PLTAMERLANE DR

VERDUGO KNOLL DR

OAK KNOLL

CRESTMONT CT

SHERER LN

ARVIN DR

KIRKBY RD

VERDUGO VISTA DR

VERDUGO LOMA DRTHE MIDWAY

ALCALDE WYALCALDE DR
PL
TER
CT

OAKGLEN
AV

OAKGLEN
DR DR
PL
DR

SLEEPYHOLLOW

EDWARDS

VALLE VISTA
DR
CA-2
(GLENDALE

COUNTRY CLUB DR
DRIVE

SAN GABRIEL

CANADA BLVD

SINCLAIR AV

WOODBURY RD

N VERDUGO RD

LAS FLORES DR

IMPERIAL DR

N VERDUGO RD

VERDUGO CIRCLE DR

SINCLAIR AV

N CHEVY CHASE DR

WOODBURY RD

HERBERT AV

CORWIN AV

ATKINS DR

TRENTON AV

RICHARD AV LEERIDGE TERLYNGLEN DR

AVONGLEN TER

MERRILL AV

E GLENOAKS BLVD

LORINDA DR

MILLAR DR

LUTON DRCANYON DR

LA LOMA RD

RICHARD PL

SYLVANOAK DR

GLENVISTA DR

BRIARWOOD LN

AVONOAK TER

PRINCIPIA DR

FURMAN PL

GLADYS DR

AVONOAK TER

SWARTHMORE DR

SWEETBRIAR DR

INA DRLURING DR

GLAN AV

ATKINS DRGLENANDALE TER

CANADA BLVD

N VERDUGO RD

DELMONTE DR

MOUNTAIN ST

ALAMO DR

LAS FLORES DR

PRINCES DR

AROBLES DR

MORENO DR

OROSCO DRPUEBLA DR

MAJESTIC WY

ROYAL BLVD

TOLEDO DR

TORRES DR

GREENBRIAR RD

LA ZANJA DR

DON JOSE DR

HILLCROFT RD

MOUNTAIN ST

VERDUGO CIRCLE DR
4 5

KIRKBY RD

TOWNE ST
LN
RD
EXHIBIT 1: PROJECT LOCATION MAP
FISCAL YEAR 2023 ADA CURB RAMP INSTALLATION

AND SIDEWALK REPAIR PROGRAM

MAINTENANCE

DISTRICT BOUNDARY

NOT TO SCALE

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

ENGINEERING DIVISION

PROJECT LOCATION

PROJECT LOCATION
(ADA and Sidewalk Repair)
LEGEND

CONCRETE PAVEMENT
REPAIR

CITY BOUNDARY
PAGE 1 OF 3
26 of 239

OPECHEE WY

CAPISTRANO AV

HERMOSITA DR

CAMULOS AV

EL RITO AV

RISA DR
BROOK

CORO TER

CATHAY ST

VERDUGO KNOLL PL

MOUNT CARMEL DR

E GLENOAKS BLVD

SUNSHINE DR

BALMORAL DR

TRAFALGER DRDOVERWOOD DR

MOUNTBATTEN DR

KILDONAN DR

WOLVERTON RD

BRAMFORD DR

KILMARY LN

STEWARTON WY

PENSHORE TER

WHITEHAVEN TER

MOORSIDE DR

BRIARRIDGE

KIRKTON PL

PEBBLESHIRE RD

CHUDLEIGH LN

CATALINA DR

ESMERALDA DR

PUEBLA DRRIDGEVIEW DR

WOODHOLLY DEERMONT RD

CIELITO DR

RAMS HORN

STARVALE RD

RIMCREST DR

CANYONWOOD DR

RIMCREST DR

CANYONWOOD

OAK LNASPEN

WONDERVIEW DR

MAGINN DR

CARDIGAN AV

MAGINN DR

NESMUTH RD

DOROTHY DR

VALLEY VIEW RD

MERRIMAN PL

PALM DR

DRYDEN ST

E CALIFORNIA AV

ZERR CT

SINCLAIR AV

E CALIFORNIA AV

N EVERETT ST

N KENWOOD ST

E CALIFORNIA AV

SALEM ST

W CALIFORNIA AV

MYRTLE ST

N BRAND BLVD

GLENMORE BLVD

CORWIN AV

ACADEMY PLKIMLIN DR

ELEANORE DR

LILAC LN

EDEN AV

HARVEY DR

HILL DR

OAK VISTA DR

ORCHARD AV

HARVEY DR

VALLEJO DR

HOLLY DR

WILSON TERR

CALIFORNIA AV

N CHEVY CHASE DR

STANLEY AV

CARLA DR

MILDRED DRFAY DR

GLENMORE BLVD

MOUNTAIN ST

FOXKIRK RD

PARCHER PL

SOLWAY ST

EASTEDGE DR

RIDGE DR

HAWKDEN CT

PENHILL CT

NORSSALL CT

POSITAS RD

VIA SALDIVAR

WESTON PL

DEL VALLE AVBLANCHARD DR

VERDUGO

ARMOUR PL

LA VISTA

OPECHEE WY

HERMOSITA DR

RISA PLRISA DR

FERN LN

CONCITA ST

RISA DRCALAFIA ST

BARA RD

BONITA DR

JUNE LN

OPECHEE WY

SYLVAN LN

EL RITO AV

CAPISTRANO AVE

SELVAS PL

ANDENES DR

DESCANSO

FREEMONT PL

OPECHEE WY

SAN LUIS REY DR

SUNSHINE CT

COLINA DR

BONITA DR

COLINA DR

CAMULOS AV

BONITA DR

ROSITA DR HAVEN ST

HILLSIDE DR

WABASSO WY

SIERRA PL

HILLSIDE DR

POLARIS DR

HILLSIDE DR

BRANTA DR

FERNBROOK PL

HIAWATHA DR

COLINA DR

ESSEX LN

SANDRINGHAM DR

NIODRARA DR

OAKMONT TER

SAMARKAND PLTAMERLANE DR

VERDUGO KNOLL DR

OAK KNOLL

CRESTMONT CT

SHERER LN

ARVIN DR

KIRKBY RD

VERDUGO VISTA DR

VERDUGO LOMA DRTHE MIDWAYMELWOOD DR

CIELITO DR
DR

RASICRIDGE RD

HEATHER RIDGE DR

ALCALDE WYALCALDE DR

ROYAL BLVD

THORNCREST

OLD PHILLIPS RD

IVY BRIDGE RD

GREENBRIAR

COLUMBUS AV

MERRIMAN PL

CUMBERLAND RD

LAWSON PL

CUMBERLAND TER

LARCO WY

ARBOR DR

KEMPTON RD

BROCKMONT
DR

PARK RIDGE DR

GLEN AIRE DR

VIEW CREST RD

W STOCKER ST

NOLAN AV

GANGI LN

MAGINN PL

N MARYLAND AV

BENOWE SCOTIA DR
RD RD
PL
TER
CT
DR
CT
TER
CT

CANADA BLVD
8 SINCLAIR AV

WOODBURY RD

GALLER PL

N VERDUGO RD

BONNYBROOK

LAS FLORES DR

IMPERIAL DR

N VERDUGO RD

N CAMPBELL ST

DWIGHT DR

CUMBERLAND RD

CARMEN DR

DEL REY DR

VERDUGO CIRCLE DR

E GLENOAKS BLVD

E DRYDEN ST
FOX PL
BALBOA

N CAMPBELL

N ISABEL ST

N HOWARD ST

N LOUISE ST

N BRAND BLVD

SHERMAN LN

LORAINE ST

E FAIRVIEW AV

VIOLA AV

N COLUMBUS AV

PARKWOOD LN

N COLUMBUS AV

W DRYDEN ST

N BELMONT ST

SINCLAIR AV

N CHEVY CHASE DR

N ADAMS ST
McHENRY RD

PIEDMONT AV

NARANJAI DRNARANJAI DR

E DORAN ST
E. LEXINGTON DRN. GLENDALE AV

BALBOA AV

N GENEVA ST
N. EVERETT ST

GLENVIA ST

E DORAN ST

N GENEVA ST

N HOWARD ST

N ISABEL ST

N JACKSON ST

E LEXINGTON DRW LEXINGTON DR

W MILFORD ST

W DORAN ST

PIONEER DR

GROVE PLWOODBURY RD

HERBERT AV

CORWIN AV

ATKINS DR

TRENTON AV

RICHARD AV LEERIDGE TERLYNGLEN DR

AVONGLEN TER

MAURITA PL

MERRILL AV

E GLENOAKS BLVD

LORINDA DR

MILLAR DR

LUTON DRCANYON DR

LA LOMA RD

RICHARD PL

SYLVANOAK DR

GLENVISTA DR

BRIARWOOD LN

AVONOAK TER

PRINCIPIA DR

FURMAN PL

GLADYS DR

AVONOAK TER

SWARTHMORE DR

SWEETBRIAR DR

INA DRLURING DR

GLAN AV

ATKINS DRGLENANDALE TER

CANADA BLVD

N VERDUGO RD

DELMONTE DR

MOUNTAIN ST

ALAMO DR

LAS FLORES DR

PRINCES DR

AROBLES DR

MORENO DR

OROSCO DRPUEBLA DRMISTY ISLE DR

REMAH VISTA DR

MELWOOD DR

IMPERIAL DR

MAJESTIC WY

ROYAL BLVD

OAKENGATE DR

MELWOOD DR HARRINGTON RD

BOHLIG RD

HOWARD ST

ROSS ST

TOLEDO DR

TORRES DR

GREENBRIAR RD

LA ZANJA DR

LORETO DR

SINALOA DR

ROSEMOUNT RD

CORDOVA AV

CEDAR RD
RD

CAVANAGH

CAVANAGH RD

N JACKSON ST

MONCADO DR

DON JOSE DR

HILLCROFT RD

MOUNTAIN ST

E STOCKER ST

CORTEZ DR

VISCANO DR

ROSSMOYNE AV

CORDOVA AV

N CEDAR STN EVERETT ST

N HOWARD STN JACKSON STN ISABEL ST

VERDUGO CIRCLE DR

N ADAMS ST

PORTOLA AV

CORDOVA AV

CORONADO DRMONTEREY RD

N GLENDALE AV

E GLENOAKS BLVD

CABRILLO DR

MONTEREY RD

JACKSON PL

GOODE AV

SANCHEZ DR

MARYLAND PL

PARKWOOD DR

KENNETH RD

CEDAR HILL RD

DARRELL DR

HAZBETH LN

VALLEY VIEW RD

SPENCER ST

MOUNTAIN STN CENTRAL AV

DWIGHT DR

LOUISE TER

GLENMONT DR

N MARYLAND AV

N LOUISE ST

CAMPBELL ST

RANDOLPH ST

LORAINE ST

MELROSE AV

W FAIRVIEW AV

CAMERON

SAN RAFAEL AV
TER
PL
AV

N COLUMBUS AV

N CENTRAL AV

W STOCKER ST
9 7
ST

N GENEVA ST

KIRKBY RD

TOWNE ST
LN
RD

MAINTENANCE

DISTRICT BOUNDARY

NOT TO SCALE

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

ENGINEERING DIVISION

PROJECT LOCATION

PROJECT LOCATION
(ADA and Sidewalk Repair)
LEGEND

CONCRETE PAVEMENT
REPAIR

CITY BOUNDARY
PAGE 2 OF 3

PROJECT LOCATION
EXHIBIT 1: PROJECT LOCATION MAP
FISCAL YEAR 2023 ADA CURB RAMP INSTALLATION

AND SIDEWALK REPAIR PROGRAM
27 of 239

SANTA FE RAILROAD
S. GLENDALE AV

SAN FERNANDO RD

ROSSLYN ST

DOLORES ST

CARMEL ST

FORREST AV

E EULALIA ST

E CERRITOS AV

S BRAND BLVD

GARDENA AV

S CENTRAL AV

W CYPRESS ST

MAGNOLIA AV

S MARYLAND AVE CYPRESS ST

W LOS FELIZ RD
E LAUREL STS. BRAND BLVD

S GLENDALE AV

E CYPRESS ST

HAGUE CT
S. CENTRAL AV

MARIPOSA ST

E PALMER AV

W PALMER AV MAGNOLIA AV

E PALMER AV

E CHEVY CHASE DR

PEPPER WY

E GARFIELD AV

E ACACIA AVE ACACIA AV

E GARFIELD AV

E WINDSOR RD

W WINDSOR RDS CENTRAL AV

W GARFIELD AV

W ACACIA AV

W WINDSOR RD

SAN FERNANDO RD

W GARFIELD AV

S COLUMBUS AV

CATHEDRAL DR

MARIPOSA ST

W CERRITOS AV

MIRA LOMA AV

E LOS FELIZ RD
W. LAUREL ST
W. EULALIA ST

W CERRITOS AV

W CYPRESS ST

MAGNOLIA AV

W PALMER AV

EL BONITO AV

RAILROAD

FERNANDO CT

LOS ANGELES ST

GARDENA AV

RAILROAD

S ORANGE ST

MADISON WY

HEMINGER ST

ROADS END

MISSION RD

COLBY DR

W CHEVY CHASE DR

W GARFIELD AV

W WINDSOR RD

FLORENCE PL

VIRGINIA PL

S MARYLAND AV

PRINCETON ST

TOPOCK ST

VASSAR AV
ST
ST

W PALMER AV

E GARFIELD AV
ALLEY 39
ALLEY 41
ALLEY 79

CITY OF GLENDALE

CITY OF LOS ANGELES

MISSION RD
ALLEY 38
ALLEY 74

E HARVARD ST

E BROADWAY

E WILSON AV

E CALIFORNIA AVN ADAMS STS ADAMS ST

FRANKLIN CT

S EVERETT STN EVERETT ST

S CEDAR ST

S BELMONT STN BELMONT ST

S CEDAR ST N CEDAR ST

S GLENDALE AV

N EVERETT ST

E WILSON AV

N CHEVY CHASE DR

STANLEY AV

CARLTON DR

OLIVE ST

ORANGE GROVE AV

N BELMONT ST
McHENRY RD
ALLEY 02

MOUNT CARMEL DR

E GLENOAKS BLVD

SINCLAIR AV

GLENMORE BLVD

CORWIN AV

ACADEMY PLKIMLIN DR

ELEANORE DR

EDEN AV

HARVEY DR

HILL DR

OAK VISTA DR

ORCHARD AV

HARVEY DR

VALLEJO DR

HOLLY DR

WILSON TERR

CALIFORNIA AV

SINCLAIR AVSINCLAIR AV

N CHEVY CHASE DR

HERBERT AV

CORWIN AV

ATKINS DR

TRENTON AV

RICHARD AV LEERIDGE TERLYNGLEN DR

AVONGLEN TER

MERRILL AV

E GLENOAKS BLVD

MILLAR DR

AVONOAK TER

ATKINS DRGLENANDALE TER

STEPHENS CIR

DEER CREEK LNPETERS CIR

GLENCREST TER

GLENCREST DR

BEAUDRY SAN GABRIEL AVSHADY GLEN

LEE CIR

DAILY CIR

BARNES CIR

DORA VERDUGO DR

GREENMONT DR

STARVIEW DR

VALANE DR

BEAUDRY BLVD

CANADA BLVD
CLUB

SAN GABRIEL AV

HERMOSITA DR

SANTA ROSA AV

SANTA MARIA AV

VERDUGO RD

EL VISTA CT

EL TOVAR DRMENLO DR

EL ARBOLITA

N VERDUGO RD

MENLO DR
RD

CANYON RD

DOWNING AV

LA CRESCENTA AV

GLENCOE WY

VICKERS DR

CASTERA AV

SPARR BLVD

MENLO DR
DR
MAR
DEL

HARMON PL

BAGDAD PL

EL ARBOLITA DR

EL ARBOLITA

ATWATER

LOCKWOOD RDMARCIA RD

AMARILLO DR

RAFAEL TER

BAY BERRY DR

SPARR BLVD

OAKWOOD

VERDUGO RD

OAKGLEN

OAKGLEN
N
DR
DR
BLVD
VISTA

COUNTRY CLUB DR
DRIVE

SAN GABRIEL

COUNTRY CLUB DR

VERDUGO KNOLL PL

LOMA VISTA DR

TAMBOR DR

CMTO DE LA NARCISA

SHERER LN

ARVIN DR

KIRKBY RD

VERDUGO VISTA DR

VERDUGO LOMA DRTHE MIDWAY

CANADA BLVD

N VERDUGO RDKIRKBY RD

TOWNE ST

NOT TO SCALE

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

ENGINEERING DIVISION
LEGEND
PAGE 3 OF 3

MAINTENANCE

DISTRICT BOUNDARY

PROJECT LOCATION
(ADA and Sidewalk Repair)

CONCRETE PAVEMENT
REPAIR

CITY BOUNDARY
EXHIBIT 1: PROJECT LOCATION MAP
FISCAL YEAR 2023 ADA CURB RAMP INSTALLATION

AND SIDEWALK REPAIR PROGRAM
28 of 239

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Review of Recommendations for Streamlining the Historic District Designation Process

1. Motion to approve recommendations related to streamlining the historic district designation process and initiate amendments to Glendale Municipal Code Section

30.25.030.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Public Hearing
Approved for October 25, 2022 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) recommends that City Council approve a series of recommendations prepared by Planning Division staff, as augmented by HPC, regarding the streamlining of the City’s historic district designation process. The goal of these changes is to significantly reduce the amount of time between an initial district application and City Council’s decision on the designation of a proposed historic district overlay zone.

COUNCIL PRIORITIES
Balanced, Quality Housing
One of the City’s priorities is to maintain, preserve, and develop a balanced mix of housing opportunities. Historic districts help protect the character and desirability of Glendale’s beautiful residential neighborhoods.

RECOMMENDATION
Community Development staff respectfully recommends that the City Council approve the recommendations related to streamlining the historic district designation process and initiate amendments to GMC 30.25.030 (“Procedure for Historic District Overlay Zone Designation and Expansion”).
29 of 239

28a
3 6
4 0

BACKGROUND
Summary
On September 15, 2022, the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) reviewed a series of recommendations presented by Planning Division staff, based on direction from City Council in 2021, to streamline the existing historic district designation process.

HPC recommended some minor changes and clarifications and voted unanimously (5-0) to recommend that City Council approve the procedural revisions. The goal of these changes is to significantly reduce the amount of time between an initial district application and City Council’s decision on a proposed historic district overlay zone.

The proposal is discussed in the Analysis section below and also shown graphically in a chart comparing the existing and proposed designation processes (Exhibit 1). An expanded analysis is included in the attached HPC staff report from the September 2022 hearing (Exhibit 2). The current designation process is detailed in Glendale Municipal Code Section 30.25.030 (“Procedure for Historic District Overlay Zone Designation and Expansion” - Exhibit 3). Based on Council’s direction, staff will prepare code amendments containing all approved changes to the designation process and bring a proposed ordinance to revise GMC 30.25.030 to the Planning Commission for advisory review and to City Council for introduction and adoption.

Background
In 2003, City Council established a process for identifying, designating, and regulating historic district overlay zones (Ordinance No. 5347). In 2004, significant changes were made to the entire Zoning Code (Glendale Municipal Code Title 30; Ordinance No. 5399), including moving most of the district-related code sections to Section 30.25 (“Historic Preservation Overlay Zone”), where they remain today. While individual properties could be listed in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources since 1997, there had been no mechanism to identify and protect significant groupings of buildings - in other words, historic districts - prior to 2003-04. The impetus to establish districts came from the community; specifically, home owners in what was called the Cumberland Heights neighborhood who were concerned about how the area was changing and lobbied for a means to maintain its historic character. Ultimately, an application for a historic district overlay zone was submitted under the new ordinance.

Unfortunately, the initial district ordinances failed to provide clarity regarding the designation process and how the City would regulate changes to properties within an area that was designated. For example, proponents for each new district were required to prepare a set of design guidelines specific to their district. This would have likely led to inconsistencies in design review between different districts. This, and other factors, produced uncertainty about how districts would actually work, leading the City to 30 of 239

38a
3 6
4 0
recognize that significant changes were needed to establish a clear process that could be more broadly supported in the community.

The Cumberland Heights proponents withdrew their application pending a new district process. This came in 2006, when the City revised many of the earlier code sections, particularly Section 30.25 (“Historic District Overlay Zone”), to address the earlier shortcomings. In addition, the City commissioned Architectural Resources Group to produce a set of historic district guidelines, which later won an award from the Los Angeles Conservancy. The guidelines were intended for use in all future districts, rather than the initial model of having different sets of guidelines for each district. With significant community support, City Council approved the code revisions (Ordinance No. 5535) and the current framework for creating and regulating historic districts was established.

There are now nine designated districts in Glendale - Royal Boulevard (2008), Ard Eevin Highlands (2009), Cottage Grove (2009), Rossmoyne (2012), North Cumberland Heights (2012), Brockmont Park (2014), Niodrara Drive (2016), South Cumberland Heights (2022), and Casa Verdugo (2022). A tenth nomination, for the Bellehurst neighborhood, is in progress and the historic survey is underway. In addition, a nomination for a district encompassing a large portion of the Verdugo Woodlands neighborhood (Selvas de Verdugo) was recently submitted. Staff has also discussed a potential district south of the South Cumberland Heights Historic District with a proponent who has gathered support in the neighborhood and may submit a nomination at some time. Any streamlined process approved by Council will be implemented for the Selvas de Verdugo nomination and all those that follow.

While numerous revisions have been made to preservation-related sections of the Glendale Municipal Code (GMC) over the last ten years, the section that focuses on the actual process of designating districts (GMC 30.25.030) is the same today as what was approved in 2006 (see Exhibit 4). Based on the confusion and uncertainty generated during the City’s first districting attempt, a very cautious approach was taken when this section was written, with the approval process involving extensive community outreach, three HPC hearings, and two proponent-circulated petitions.

We now have over fifteen years of experience with designating districts and much of the fear and uncertainty that accompanied the first designations has dissipated. Despite this, the time it takes to process district applications has increased over the years. This is due to the inherently time-consuming designation process that is unchanged since 2006, along with staffing and workload issues over the years. While recent additions to Community Development Department (CDD) staff will help address the latter, City Council recognized that structural changes to the designation process itself should also take place, resulting in the current proposal.
31 of 239

48a
3 6
4 0

ANALYSIS
The streamlining proposal presented below is not a radical re-envisioning of the current process. The goal is to maintain and enhance transparency and the level of public participation while also achieving time savings through the elimination or consolidation of several steps of the process. In addition, timeline goals for certain staff-level actions are proposed to help ensure efficient application processing. Finally, our experience with public meetings and processing district applications during the pandemic suggests concepts like hybrid public meetings and accepting electronic signatures on petitions will help further the City’s streamlining goals.

The discussion below follows the steps of the current process, numbered to coordinate with the items in the left column of the Comparison Chart attached as Exhibit 1. The right column of the chart indicates the reduced number of proposed steps. For each step, the current process is summarized, followed by the HPC/Staff streamlining recommendation and a brief discussion. As noted above, the HPC staff report attached as Exhibit 2 provides a more detailed analysis.

1. Historic District Application
Streamlining Recommendation: No Change (with one minor adjustment) Current Process
•The application process is straightforward and has been successfully navigated by applicants without issue.
•Currently, applicants are expected to provide draft design guidelines for building types or styles not included in the current Historic District Design Guidelines. Staff believes it unrealistic to expect most applicants to provide this information and that, when required, it should be provided later in the process by the consultant conducting the district survey.

2. Staff Review and Recommendation
Streamlining Recommendation: No Change
Current Process
•Staff review determines if an application is complete and provides an opportunity to work directly with applicants regarding issues such as boundary selection, assessment of properties’ contributing status, and analysis of applicable designation criteria and thresholds.
32 of 239

58a
3 6
4 0
•Review of information in the application is the basis for staff’s recommendation to HPC regarding the potential eligibility of a proposed district.

3. 1 st HPC Hearing: Preliminary Review

4. 1st Community Meeting: Review of Proposed District______________________ Streamlining Recommendation: Combine Meetings
Current Process
•After an application is determined complete, two distinct but related steps occur:

1) HPC holds a hearing to review the nomination and determine whether the proposed district merits further review. This item is agendized but not otherwise publicly noticed; and
2) if HPC votes to move the application forward, staff mails a notice of HPC’s preliminary determination to all owners and occupants within the proposed boundary and a 500’ radius. This notice also announces a community meeting at which staff provides information about the proposed district and answers questions from residents and owners.

•An affirmative HPC vote also authorizes district proponents to circulate a petition requesting that the City conduct a historic district survey. •There has been limited attendance at community meetings over the years, with the majority of participants generally supporting the proposed district and many of those also attending the separate HPC meeting. The lack of public noticing for the HPC meeting, a strategic decision to avoid potential alterations to properties prior to HPC moving the designation process forward, no longer feels justified.

Streamlined Process
•A single televised Community Forum and Preliminary HPC Hearing is proposed.

Combining these meetings will enhance the opportunity for public participation and allow for direct testimony (in-person, written, or by phone) with HPC rather than staff relaying what was heard at the community meeting. A video of the meeting will also be archived for later viewing by those unable to attend or watch it live. •A notice of the Forum/Hearing will be mailed to all owners/occupants with the proposed boundary and within a 500-foot radius. The notice will provide links to information about the proposed district on the Planning Division website. HPC also recommends adding a QR code to the notice connecting to the same links. •An HPC commissioner was concerned that members of the public might find speaking in a more formal “hearing” setting somewhat intimidating, leading to a less forthright discussion. To address this, HPC and staff resolved to have the first part 33 of 239

68a
3 6
4 0
of the meeting function similarly to the former community meetings, with a staff presentation followed by public commentary and informal questions and answers.

This “Community Forum” will be held immediately before the hearing, with no time limits on speakers. The formal hearing would follow, with HPC voting on whether to move the nomination forward and directing staff to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) to historic survey consultants.
•Staff will mail a follow-up notice to all affected owners/occupants within approximately two weeks of the HPC determination, informing them of the decision and, if the process moves forward, that historic design guidelines for design review are in effect while the area is considered a “pending historic district.” This notice would also include information about how property owners could oppose establishment of a district.

5. First Petition Circulation: Request for Historic District Survey_______ ____ Streamlining Recommendation: Eliminate 1st Petition / HPC Option to Require Current Process
•The first petition contains signatures of property owners who request that the City conduct a survey to identify whether the area meets the criteria and thresholds for designation. District proponents circulate the petition, typically door-to-door, and provide information and answer questions. The owners of over 25% of the area’s properties must sign in order for the nomination to move forward. Proponents have 90 days from the date of the HPC hearing to submit the petition, with a potential of a 90-day extension being granted if necessary.
•Given the confusion in the early days of districting in Glendale, the first petition was probably important to give the City some assurance that investing in a district survey was warranted. Today, however, it is more of a pro forma requirement and adds an unnecessary step to the districting process.
•Proponents for all districts to date have easily met this requirement.

Streamlined Process
•Eliminating the petition will directly reduce the process timeline by several months.

Optional Step
•There may be situations when either HPC (at the 1 st Hearing) or City Council (at the Survey Funding Hearing (Step 7, see below)) determine the 1st Petition is necessary (for example, if significant opposition to the district is raised and understanding the 34 of 239

78a
3 6
4 0
level of neighborhood “buy-in” is desired). Either body can vote to require a petition be circulated to inform a decision to move forward with the designation process.

6. Request for Proposals (RFP) and Bidder Recommendation Streamlining Recommendation: No Change / Add Timeline Goals Current Process
•To begin the survey process, once the first petition requirements are met, staff prepares an RFP that is issued to qualified historic consultants. It requests bids that describe the firm’s understanding of the proposed survey, along with a scope of work, project timeline, and budget proposal. A small group of Planning staff reviews the bids and selects a preferred consultant.

Streamlined Process
•No change is proposed for the basic RFP process. However, staff recognizes the opportunity to shorten the timeframe for this step and recommends two changes:
1) working toward a 60-day timeline for issuance of an RFP after the 1st HPC hearing while taking into account the timelines of other departments involved in the review process; and

2) establishing a 45-day goal for selection of the preferred bidder from the due date of the bids.
•If an existing district is proposed for expansion, an effort will be made to retain the original consultant to conduct the additional survey needed to determine if the expansion is historically appropriate and meets the designation criteria and thresholds. This would eliminate the need for issuing an RFP unless the original consultant is unavailable.

7. City Council Funding Authorization for District Survey Streamlining Recommendation: No Change / Option to Require 1st Petition Current Process
•The need to retain consultants for historic district surveys fluctuates from year to year. Where one, or even two, surveys may begin within one calendar year, in others there are none. For this reason, surveys are not included as line items in the Community Development Department’s annual budget. They therefore need to be paid for through the General Fund, which requires authorization from City Council.

This is generally a straightforward, though unavoidable, process. 35 of 239

88a
3 6
4 0
Optional Step
•Council may vote to restore the 1 st Petition, which would show the level of support for conducting a district survey prior to authorizing funding, if it believes significant opposition to a proposed district has arisen or for any other reason. Otherwise, elimination of the 1st Petition is recommended as discussed in Step 5 above.

8. Draft Historic District Survey
Streamlining Recommendation: No Change / Add Timeline Goal Current Process
•Once the survey consultant is selected, staff writes a Professional Services Agreement and obtain necessary approvals. The contract is reviewed by the City Attorney and Finance before it can be approved and signed by the City Manager.

Once the contract is signed by all parties, the consultant is expected to perform all work within the timeline specified in the contract.

Streamlined Process
•No change is proposed for the basic process. However, staff recognizes the opportunity to shorten the timeframe for writing the contract and recommends establishing a goal of a 45-day timeline between the date of City Council’s authorization of funding and review by the City Attorney and Finance Department.

9. 2nd Community Meeting: Review of Draft Survey

10. 2nd HPC Hearing: Review of Draft Survey and Petition Authorization Streamlining Recommendation: Combine Meetings
Current Process
•The second community meeting and second HPC meeting are typically held in close succession and are noticed in the same mailing. The community meeting allows staff and the consultant to share the survey results with owners/occupants in the proposed district, including the property-specific information on the survey forms.

The meeting also gives attendees the chance to ask questions and let the survey team know if there are any inaccuracies on the forms. The same things are done at the HPC meeting, often with many of the same community members in attendance.

HPC’s role is to provide comments and corrections regarding the draft survey that, along with relevant corrections proposed by community members, are incorporated into a final draft of the survey.
•If HPC finds the draft survey adequate, it also authorizes the proponents to circulate a petition requesting that the City designate the proposed historic district. 36 of 239

98a
3 6
4 0
Streamlined Process
•As with the first community meeting and HPC hearing, the material presented by staff and the consultant at the second meeting are largely identical. Attendance at the community meeting is generally limited and skews toward the district proponents and those in support. HPC/Staff believe that combining the two meetings will be a more efficient use of time and will also provide for greater transparency and participation due to the pandemic-driven changes to the public hearing process noted earlier.
•HPC/Staff also recommend that this be the final HPC meeting in the designation process unless the historic district survey requires significant revision or there is organized opposition to the district, which to-date only occurred with the first district designation (Royal Boulevard).
•At this point, the survey has identified whether the proposal meets all code requirements and the boundary has been finalized, providing HPC with the information it needs to determine whether it supports designation. •If there are only minor survey corrections and HPC is comfortable with these being made by staff and the consultant, HPC could decide on a recommendation to Council at this hearing, along with authorizing proponents to circulate the petition requesting designation.

11. 2nd Petition Circulation: Request Designation of Historic District Streamlining Recommendation: No Change / Minor Shift in Authority Current Process
•Proponents distribute a petition to property owners within the district boundary. This petition specifically requests that City Council vote to approve the historic district overlay zone and designate the proposed district. The owners of over 50% of the area’s properties must sign in order for the nomination to move forward. Proponents have 180 days from the date of the HPC hearing to submit the petition, with a potential of a 180-day extension being granted by City Council if necessary. •Staff believes that signature gathering by district proponents will remain the best way to reach the greatest number of owners and residents. In the past, dedicated neighborhood volunteers have carefully mapped their outreach efforts, enabling them to return multiple times to properties they hadn’t heard from after their initial contact attempt. In addition, if Council decides to eliminate the first petition that is required under the current system, the neighbor-to-neighbor contact required for the petition process may humanize the proponents’ effort. The most important aspect of 37 of 239

108a
3 6
4 0
this step is that it ultimately gives City Council an objective view of the level of support for the district to inform its decision regarding designation.

Streamlined Process
•HPC/Staff recommend that HPC, rather than City Council, decide on requests for a 180-day extension for submitting the petition.

12. Final Historic Resource Survey
Streamlining Recommendation: No Change
Current Process
•Staff works with the consultant to make any revisions to the draft survey required by HPC at the 2nd Hearing. This step is straightforward and no changes are recommended.

13. 3rd HPC Hearing: Petition and Final Survey Review, Council Recommendation Streamlining Recommendation: Eliminate 3rd HPC / Option to Require Hearing

Current Process
•At the third, and final, HPC hearing, staff presents the Commission with the number of properties for which owners signed the petition and what percentage of the district this represents. In all cases to date, the over-50% threshold was exceeded, with the nine designated districts receiving an average support rate of 73%. Staff also updates HPC on any revisions made to the draft survey that allow it to become the final version. The Commission then votes on whether or not to recommend that City Council approve the historic district overlay zone.

Streamlined Process
•The third HPC meeting has felt rather unnecessary over the years and HPC/Staff recommend it be eliminated in most circumstances. If the required percentage of support is met and any revisions are made to the draft survey, HPC really has no option but to move the proposal forward to the Planning Commission and City Council. As discussed above, HPC will usually be able to issue its recommendation to Council at the 2nd Hearing and indicate what survey revisions are required based on public testimony and its own review of the draft document. HPC has no role in reviewing petition signatures, which is done by staff. The final percentage of support will ultimately be conveyed to City Council, which, as the ultimate decision maker in the process, is really the body to which this number is most important. •Similar to staff’s recommendation regarding the 1 st Petition, we recommend a provision be made for HPC to require a third hearing if, at the time of the second 38 of 239

118a
3 6
4 0
hearing, substantial changes are required before the draft survey can be finalized or there is organized opposition to designation. In such a case, HPC would direct staff to schedule the third hearing after proponents submit a petition that meets or exceeds the required threshold of support.

14. Planning Commission Review and Recommendation to Council Streamlining Recommendation: No Change
Current Process
•The Planning Commission (PC) must review all zone change applications, including those for historic district overlay zones, and make a recommendation to City Council on whether or not the zone change should be approved. PC is provided with an overview of the findings of the historic district survey and HPC’s recommendation to help inform its deliberation. The PC’s recommendation is included, along with that of HPC, in the staff report to Council for its final deliberation about a district designation and zone change.

15. City Council Final Determination
Streamlining Recommendation: No Change
Current Process
This is ultimately the most important step in the process but also one of the most straightforward. Staff provides Council with an overview of both the final survey and how the various designation criteria and thresholds have been met, along with the recommendations of HPC and the Planning Commission. Because a zone change is required to establish a historic district, a 4/5 majority Council vote is needed to approve the designation of a new historic district.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Not applicable.

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

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
The project is exempt from CEQA review as a Class 8, "Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment," exemption pursuant to Section 15208 of the State CEQA Guidelines because it provides for the enhancement and protection of historic resources.
39 of 239

128a
3 6
4 0

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Approve the recommended changes and direct staff to prepare amendments to GMC 30.25.030.

Alternative 2: The City Council may consider any other alternative not proposed by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Jay Platt, Principal Planner
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1: Comparison Chart: Current and Proposed Designation Processes Exhibit 2: HPC Staff Report regarding Streamlining the Historic District Designation Process (September 15, 2022)
Exhibit 3: GMC 30.25.030 (“Procedure for Historic District Overlay Zone Designation and Expansion”)
40 of 239

C:\inetpub\wwwroot\multitenant\temp\CC_10252022_Motion_8a1.pdf

M O T I O N
Moved by Council Member , seconded by Council Member , that the Council hereby initiates amendments to the Zoning Code, Title 30 of the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995, to address streamlining improvements to the Historic District Designation Process, as outlined in the Report to Council dated October 25, 2022.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
41 of 239

Historic District Application
Application Review and Recommendation
1st HPC – Community Forum/
Preliminary Review
RFP / Bidder Recommendation
CC Authorize Funding and Contract
Draft Historic Resource Survey
2nd HPC - Review of Survey
Recommendation to Council
Authorization of Petition
Final Historic Resource Survey
Petition Circulation
PC Review of Zone Change
Recommendation to Council
Council Final Determination
Historic District Application
Application Review and Recommendation
1st HPC - Preliminary Review
RFP / Bidder Recommendation
CC Authorize Funding and Contract
Draft Historic Resource Survey
2nd HPC - Review of Survey
Authorization of Petition
Final Historic Resource Survey
2nd Petition Circulation
PC Review of Zone Change
Recommendation to Council
Council Final Determination
1st Community Meeting
1st Petition Circulation
2nd Community Meeting
3rd - HPC Review of Survey and Petition
Recommendation to Council
1st Petition Circulation
3rd HPC – Review of Final Survey
Comparison: Existing and Proposed Historic District Designation Process public input
administrative
HPC/CC discretion
new timeline
Exhibit 1
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
42 of 239

City of Glendale

Report to the Historic Preservation Commission

September 15, 2022
Hearing Date

Recommendations for Streamlining the Historic District Designation Process Subject

Jay Platt, Principal Planner
CDD Staff Member

___________________________________________________________________

Summary
At the direction of City Council, Planning staff is providing a set of recommendations to streamline the City’s existing historic district designation process with the goal of significantly reducing the amount of time between an initial application and City Council’s ultimate vote regarding the establishment of a new district.

Environmental Review
The project is exempt from CEQA review as a Class 8, "Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment," exemption pursuant to Section 15208 of the State CEQA Guidelines because it provides for the enhancement and protection of historic resources through the establishment of historic districts.

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Historic Preservation Commission review the proposed process revisions and recommend to City Council that they be approved and codified, along with any additional revisions recommended by the Commission.

___________________________________________________________________

Proposed Streamlining of Histor ic District Designation Process 2 HPC September 15, 2022

properties could be listed in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources since 1997, there had been no mechanism to identify and protect significant groupings of buildings, aka historic districts, prior to 2003/04. The impetus to establish districts came from the community; specifically, home owners in what was called the Cumberland Heights neighborhood who were concerned about how the area was changing and lobbied for a means maintain its character. Ultimately, a group of home owners submitted a historic district application under the new ordinance. Unfortunately, the initial district ordinances failed to provide clarity about the actual designation process and how the City would regulate changes to properties were the area to be designated. For example, proponents for each new district were required to prepare a set of design guidelines specific to their district. This would have likely led to different types of design review being conducted in different districts. This, and other factors, produced uncertainty about how districts would actually work, leading the City to recognize that significant changes were needed to establish a clear process that could be more broadly supported in the community.

The Cumberland Heights proponents withdrew their nomination pending a new district process. This came in 2006, when the City revised many of the earlier code sections, particularly Section 30.25, in order to address the earlier shortcomings. In addition, the City commissioned Architectural Resources Group to produce a set of historic district guidelines, which later won an award from the Los Angeles Conservancy. The guidelines were intended for use in all future districts, rather than the initial model of having different sets of guidelines for different districts. With significant community support, City Council approved the code revisions (Ordinance No. 5535) and the current framework for creating and regulating historic districts was established.

While numerous revisions have been made to preservation-related sections of the Glendale Municipal Code (GMC) over the last ten years, the section that focuses on the actual process of designating districts (GMC 30.25.030) is the same today as what was approved in 2006 (see Exhibit 4). Based on the confusion and uncertainty generated during the City’s first districting attempt, a very cautious approach was taken when this section was written, with the approved process involving extensive community outreach, multiple HPC hearings, and two proponent-circulated petitions. We now have over 44 of 239

Proposed Streamlining of Histor ic District Designation Process 3 HPC September 15, 2022

fifteen years of experience with designating districts and much of the fear and uncertainty that accompanied the first designations has dissipated. Despite this, the time it takes to process district applications has increased over the years. This is largely due to staffing and workload issues, and the inherently time-consuming designation process that is unchanged since 2006. While recent additions to Community Development Department (CDD) staff will help address the first issue, City Council recognized that structural changes to the designation process itself should also take place. In 2021, Council directed staff to propose ways to streamline the existing process, which is discussed in the following set of recommendations. All HPC comments and recommendations will be included in the staff report that Council will tentatively consider in October or November. Based on Council’s direction, staff will prepare revisions to GMC 30.25.030 for review by HPC and the Planning Commission (PC) prior to their consideration by City Council.

Proposed Changes to the Current Process
The streamlining proposal presented below is not a radical re-envisioning of the current process. The goal is to maintain – and enhance – transparency and the level of public participation while also achieving time savings through the elimination or consolidation of several steps of the process (see Exhibits 1 and 2 for flowcharts depicting the current and proposed processes and Exhibit 3 for a comparison between the two). In addition, timelines for certain staff-level actions are proposed to help ensure efficient application processing. Finally, our experience with public meetings and processing district applications during the pandemic suggests concepts like hybrid public meetings and accepting electronic signatures on petitions can help further the City’s streamlining goals.

This section follows the outline of the current process. Each item is briefly discussed in terms of current practice. Any streamlining recommendations are then discussed including, when applicable, an assessment of potential pros and cons. In a few cases, possible alternatives are suggested that PC, HPC, and/or Council may wish to consider.

 Historic District Application

Current Process
The current application requirements expect proponents to provide sufficient information about the history, character, and boundary of the proposed district to help staff and HPC assess whether the proposal appears to meet the designation criteria and thresholds established in GMC Section 30.25. This section also requires that proponents must propose supplements to the Historic District Design Guidelines for any property types or styles that are not included in that document.

Streamlined Process: minor change proposed
Proponents of all currently designated and nominated districts have ultimately been able to produce applications with sufficient information to allow the process to begin. 45 of 239

Proposed Streamlining of Histor ic District Designation Process 4 HPC September 15, 2022

Staff recommends changing the current requirement regarding supplements to the design guidelines because expecting this from applicants is unrealistic and should instead be a task given to the consultant performing the district survey.

 Staff Review and Recommendation

Current Process
Staff review of district applications has two purposes: to make sure the application is complete and to assess the proposal against the City’s designation requirements to make a preliminary recommendation to HPC regarding whether or not the area appears eligible for designation. We do not expect an application to tell the full story at this stage because if HPC ultimately moves it forward, the initial information will be reassessed and augmented by qualified historic resource consultants during the survey phase. However, staff may need to work with proponents to ensure an application is complete and/or provide assistance with issues such as boundary determination, assessment of properties’ contributing status, and analysis of applicable designation criteria and thresholds. Typically, staff has held one or more meetings with proponents, either before or after an application is submitted, to work toward developing a complete application. These also serve to educate the proponents about the overall process and their role in moving it forward.

Streamlined Process: no change proposed

 1st HPC Hearing: Preliminary Review
 1st Community Meeting: Review of Proposed District

Current Process
After an application is determined complete, two distinct but related steps occur.

First, HPC holds a hearing to review the nomination and determine whether the proposed district merits further review. This item is agendized but not otherwise publicly noticed. If HPC votes to move the application forward, staff is directed to mail a notice of HPC’s preliminary determination to all owners and occupants within the proposed boundary and a 500’ radius. This notice also announces a community meeting at which staff provides information about the proposed district and answers questions from residents and owners. An affirmative HPC vote also authorizes district proponents to circulate a petition requesting that the City conduct a historic district survey.

Streamlined Process: combine HPC hearing and community meeting Staff has found that attendance at community meetings over the years has been limited, with the majority of participants generally supporting the proposed district and many of those also attending the HPC meeting. In addition, those at this one- time community meeting speak only with staff members, who then convey what was 46 of 239

Proposed Streamlining of Histor ic District Designation Process 5 HPC September 15, 2022

heard to HPC as part of the staff report. Overall, it appears that combining the meetings will enhance, rather than reduce, the opportunity for public participation and ensure a direct line of communication between the community and HPC.

The City’s decision to retain the pandemic-driven use of remote connections to public meetings means that community members have the added avenue of participating by phone, as well as the traditional forms of in-person and written testimony. Additionally, videos of the meetings are quickly archived, allowing people who weren’t able to participate “live” to still view the staff presentation, hear public testimony, and watch HPC’s deliberation.

Within ten business days of the HPC determination, staff will mail a follow-up notice to all affected owners/occupants informing them of the decision and, if the process moves forward, that historic design guidelines for design review are in effect while the area is considered a “pending historic district.” This step is not currently practiced and staff strongly recommends its inclusion to help ensure the broadest awareness about the pending district and how it affects property owners. This notice would also include information about how property owners could oppose establishment of a district.

Pro
 Mailed notice of district proposal to owners/occupants in boundary and within a 500’ radius, along with notice of the HPC hearing.
 Links to information on website and staff contacts provide in mailing.  Improved transparency – previously, no public notice/information prior to 1st HPC meeting.
 Potentially enhance participation through televised hearing, with written, in- person and phone testimony considered.
 Follow-up notice regarding HPC decision and pending district status mailed to owners/occupants.

Con
 Some could see loss of transparency / comment opportunities in reducing number of public meetings

 1st Petition Circulation: Request for Historic District Survey

Current Process
Two petitions are required under the current process. The first occurs at this step and asks that property owners sign a petition requesting that the City conduct a survey to identify whether the area meets the criteria and thresholds for designation.

District proponents circulate the petition, typically door-to-door, and provide information and answer questions for their neighbors. The owners of 25%+ of the 47 of 239

Proposed Streamlining of Histor ic District Designation Process 6 HPC September 15, 2022

area’s properties must sign in order for the nomination to move forward. Proponents have 90 days from the date of the HPC hearing to submit the petition, with a potential of a 90-day extension being granted if necessary.

Streamlined Process: eliminate the 1st petition (with a caveat) Given the confusion in the early days of districting in Glendale, the 1st petition was probably important to give the City some assurance that investing in a district survey was warranted. Today, however, it is more of a pro forma requirement and adds an unnecessary step to the districting process. The proponents for all districts to date have easily met this requirement. Eliminating the petition will directly reduce the process timeline by several months. It will also allow staff to move directly from the HPC hearing to the Request for Proposal (RFP) step, which itself will have new timeline requirements as discussed below.

Staff does recommend that HPC be given the option of requiring the initial petition.

Opposition to new districts by some property owners is inevitable and has been raised for each of the city’s districts. In each case, this opposition was limited and far outweighed by the district supporters. However, this may not always be the case. Staff therefore recommends that HPC be given the power to require an initial petition if a majority of the commission believes that significant opposition was raised at the first HPC hearing at a level that warrants determining if there is sufficient “buy- in” from the community before moving the process forward.

Pro
 The public notice for the HPC meeting will allow for similar public outreach by providing links to information about the proposed district and the designation process.
 Petition feels unnecessary at this point - all districts have easily met requirement.  Delivery of consistent information to owners/residents by City rather than by various proponents.

Con
 Loss of grassroots, neighbor-to-neighbor interactions to spread the word and gather petition signatures early in the process, though proponents may find more informal ways to accomplish early outreach.

 Request for Proposals (RFP) and Bidder Recommendation

Current Process
Once the completed petition is submitted, staff reviews and counts all signatures and, if the 25%+ baseline threshold is met, begins preparation of an RFP. This document is a mix of boilerplate and language specific to the proposed district that, after review by the City Attorney, is sent to the City’s list of qualified historic preservation consultants. It requests bids that describe the firm’s understanding of 48 of 239

Proposed Streamlining of Histor ic District Designation Process 7 HPC September 15, 2022

the proposed survey, along with a scope of work, project timeline, and budget proposal. A small group of Planning staff reviews all bid documents received by the deadline and ranks the proposals, leading to the determination of a preferred bidder.

There is currently no timeline requirement for staff’s issuance of RFPs or the selection of bidders.

Streamlined Process: maintain basic process and establish staff timelines No change is proposed for the basic RFP process. However, staff recognizes the opportunity to shorten the timeframe for this step and recommends two changes:
working toward a 60-day timeline for issuance of an RFP after the 1st HPC hearing while also taking into account the timelines of other agencies involved in the review process, and a 45-day timeline for selection of the preferred bidder from the due date of the bids.

Pro
 Establishes timelines for RFP issuance and bidder selection.

Con
None.

Alternatives
If an application is received requesting the expansion of an existing historic district, all of the streamlined designation steps, as ultimately approved by Council, would apply. However, the process of developing an amended district survey could potentially be shortened by retaining the same firm to survey the new area that prepared the original document. Staff recommends that HPC provide direction to explore potential issues with the City Attorney and include this information in the report to City Council.

 City Council Funding Authorization for District Survey

Current Process
The need to retain consultants for historic district surveys fluctuates from year to year. Where one, or even two, surveys may begin within one calendar year, in others there are none. For this reason, surveys are not included as line items in the Community Development Department’s annual budget. They therefore need to be paid for through the City’s General Fund, which requires authorization from City Council. This is generally a straightforward, though unavoidable, process.

Streamlined Process: no change proposed

49 of 239

Proposed Streamlining of Histor ic District Designation Process 8 HPC September 15, 2022

 Historic District Survey

Current Process
Once the survey consultant is selected, staff needs to write the contract and obtain necessary approvals. The contract is largely boilerplate that needs to be carefully reviewed and edited to include all specifics of the proposed survey. CDD staff time for this process is relatively minimal but the contract also needs to be reviewed by the City Attorney and Finance before it can be signed by the City Manager. These latter steps lead to some uncertainty in the overall timeframe for this step. Once the contract is signed by all parties, however, the consultant is expected to perform all work within the timeline specified in the contract.

Streamlined Process: maintain basic process and establish staff timeline No change is proposed for the basic process. However, staff recognizes the opportunity to shorten the timeframe for writing the contract and recommends that a 45-day timeline be established between the date of City Council’s authorization of funding and placing the contract in the queue for City Attorney, and then Finance, review.

 2nd Community Meeting: Review of Draft Survey
 2nd HPC Hearing: Review of Draft Survey and Petition Authorization

Current Process
The second community meeting and second HPC meeting are typically held in close succession and are noticed in the same mailing. The community meeting allows staff and the consultant to share the survey results with homeowners in the proposed district, from the larger narrative history of an area’s development to the finely-grained detail of the survey forms prepared for each property. The meeting also gives attendees the chance to ask questions and let the survey team know if there are any inaccuracies in the survey form. The same things are done at the HPC meeting, often with many of the same community members in attendance.

HPC’s role is to provide comments and corrections regarding the draft survey that, along with relevant corrections proposed by community members, are incorporated into a final draft of the survey. If HPC finds the draft survey adequate, it also authorizes the proponents to circulate a petition requesting that the city designate the proposed historic district.

Streamlined Process: combine HPC hearing and community meeting As with the first community meeting and HPC hearing, the material presented by staff and the consultant at the second meeting are largely identical. Attendance at the community meeting is generally quite limited and skews heavily toward the district proponents and those in support. Staff believes that combining the two meetings will be a more efficient use of time, as well as providing greater

50 of 239

Proposed Streamlining of Histor ic District Designation Process 9 HPC September 15, 2022

transparency and participation due to the pandemic driven changes to the public hearing process in general.

Staff also recommends that this be the final HPC meeting in the designation process unless the historic district survey requires significant revision, which has never been the case to date. If there are only minor corrections, as is typical, and HPC is comfortable with these being made by staff and the consultant, HPC could decide on a recommendation to Council at this time, along with authorizing proponents to circulate the petition requesting designation. This would eliminate the third HPC meeting, as discussed further below, unless HPC determines that a third meeting is necessary to review a substantially-changed document.

Pro
 Mailed notice of district proposal to owners/occupants in boundary.  Links to information on website and staff contacts provide in mailing.  Improved transparency – draft survey and property survey forms are posted online and the hearing is televised, with written, in-person and phone testimony considered.
 Potentially enhance participation.

Con
 Some could see loss of transparency / comment opportunities in reducing number of public meetings.

 2nd Petition Circulation: Request Designation of Historic District

Current Process
Proponents distribute the second petition to property owners within the district boundary. This petition specifically requests that City Council vote to enact the historic district zone change and designate the proposed district. The owners of 50%+ of the area’s properties must sign in order for the nomination to move forward.

Proponents have 180 days from the date of the HPC hearing to submit the petition, with a potential of a 180-day extension being granted if necessary.

Streamlined Process: no change proposed
Staff believes that signature gathering by district proponents will remain the best way to reach the greatest number of owners and residents. In the past, dedicated neighborhood volunteers have carefully mapped their outreach efforts, enabling them to return multiple times to properties they hadn’t heard from after their initial contact attempt. In addition, if Council decides to eliminate the first petition that is required under the current system, the neighbor-to-neighbor contact required for the petition process may humanize the proponents’ effort. The most important aspect of this step is that it ultimately gives City Council an objective look at the level of support for the district to inform its decision regarding designation.

51 of 239

Proposed Streamlining of Histor ic District Designation Process 10 HPC September 15, 2022

Pro
 Provides Council with objective view of the level of support in the proposed district.
 Direct contact between proponents and neighbors may humanize the districting effort.

Con
 Can be time consuming, but most petitions have been submitted well within the six-month deadline.

 3rd HPC Hearing: Review of Petition and Final Survey, and Recommendation to Council

Current Process
At the final HPC hearing, staff presents the Commission with the number of properties for which owners signed the petition and what percentage of the district this represents. In all cases to date the 50%+ threshold was exceeded, with the nine designated districts receiving an average support rate of 73%. Staff also updates HPC on any revisions made to the draft survey that allow it to become the final version. The Commission then votes on whether or not it recommends that City Council approve the historic district overlay zone.

Streamlined Process: eliminate the 3rd HPC hearing unless HPC previously voted to review final draft of the survey
The third HPC meeting has felt rather unnecessary over the years. If the required percentage of support is met and any revisions are made to the draft survey, HPC really has no option but to move the proposal forward to the Planning Commission and City Council. As discussed above, HPC may be able to issue its recommendation to Council at its second meeting and indicate what revisions need to be made to the survey report based on public testimony and its own review of the draft document. HPC has no role in reviewing petition signatures, which is done by staff. The final percentage of support will ultimately be conveyed to City Council, which, as the ultimate decision maker in the process, is really the body to which the numbers are most important. Similar to staff’s recommendation regarding the first petition, we recommend a provision be made for HPC to require a third hearing if, at the time of the second hearing, substantial changes are required before the draft survey can be finalized. In such a case, HPC would direct staff to schedule the third hearing after proponents submit a petition that meets or exceeds the required threshold of support.

Pro
52 of 239

Proposed Streamlining of Histor ic District Designation Process 11 HPC September 15, 2022

 Eliminating the third HPC meeting would offer some overall time savings.  The provision for HPC to require the meeting under certain circumstances would improve transparency in the case of proposals that do not move forward as smoothly as is the case for the existing districts.

Con
 Some could see loss of transparency / comment opportunities in reducing number of public meetings.

 Planning Commission Review of Zone Change and Recommendation to Council

Current Process
The Planning Commission must review all zone change applications, including those for historic district overlay zones, and vote on whether or not to recommend the zone change to City Council. The Commission is informed about the findings of the historic district survey and HPC’s recommendation to help inform its deliberation.

The PC’s recommendation is included, along with that of HPC, in the staff report to Council for its final deliberation about a district designation and zone change.

Streamlined Process: no change is proposed.

 City Council Final Determination

Current Process
This is ultimately the most important step in the process but it is also one of the most straightforward. Staff provides Council with an overview of both the final survey and how the various designation criteria and thresholds have been met, along with the recommendations of HPC and the Planning Commission. Because a zone change is required to establish a historic district, a 4/5 majority Council vote is needed to approve the designation of a new historic district.

Streamlined Process: no change proposed.

Exhibits
Exhibit 1: Proposed Streamlined Designation Process Flowchart Exhibit 2: Current Designation Process Flowchart
Exhibit 3: Comparison between Existing and Proposed Processes Exhibit 4: GMC 30.25.030 (“Procedure for Historic District Overlay Zone Designation”)

53 of 239

Exhibit 4
GMC 30.25.030
Procedure for historic district overlay zone designation and expansion.

The following shall be the procedures for establishing and modifying historic district overlay zones:

A. Requests for the establishment or modification of historic district overlay zones must originate with the owners of any three (3) properties within the proposed district and be presented to the director of community development for consideration. Requests shall be accompanied by a draft historic district study area boundary, historical context, a statement describing why the proposed or expanded historic district overlay zone meets the criteria for designation under Section 30.25.020, and any proposed supplements to the citywide historic district design guidelines. For study areas containing non-residential buildings, the request shall contain draft historic district design guidelines for those buildings. The draft historic district design guidelines for non-residential buildings shall identify the standards which will be applied to design review within the district, differentiating review standards for properties and features within the district that contribute to the historical significance of the area and those that do not, as well as for standards for in-fill development.

B. The director of community development shall forward the request to the historic preservation commission to conduct a preliminary consideration of the request to determine eligibility under the criteria set forth in Section 30.25.020 of this chapter. The director of community development may conduct meetings with residents of the community, seek advice of preservation professionals and historians and conduct or receive any preliminary research or studies to assist the historic preservation commission with its decision.

C. If the historic preservation commission preliminarily determines that the study area is eligible to become a historic district overlay zone or expand an existing one, it shall authorize the project proponent(s) to circulate a petition requesting a historic resources survey to affected property owners, asking the city council to authorize preparation of a historic resources survey or modification of an existing survey. Upon this preliminary determination, a proposed study area shall be deemed a “Pending Historic District Overlay Zone” until such time as the application is approved or denied by city council, or is withdrawn by the applicants.

D. If the historic preservation commission determines that the study area is eligible to become a historic district overlay zone or expand an existing one, the director of community development shall send notice of such preliminary determination to every property owner, and every household that is not owner occupied according to the County Assessor’s office, in the study area, and to every property owner within five hundred (500) feet of the preliminary boundary. In addition, the director of community development shall mail to all owners, and each household that is not owner occupied according to the County Assessor’s office, a document containing basic information regarding the proposed historic district overlay zone, a map indicating the proposed 54 of 239

Exhibit 4
district boundary and the addresses of the properties within the boundary, and links to documents on the city of Glendale website, including the Historic District Design Guidelines and any supplements thereto proposed for the proposed district; the Historic District Handbook, and any other appropriate informational materials.

E. Within ninety (90) days of the preliminary determination of eligibility of the historic preservation commission, or within ninety (90) days of the city council action sustaining the historic preservation commission’s determination following an appeal, the project proponents shall submit to the director of community development the petition requesting a historic resources survey. Said petition must be signed by owners of more than twenty-five (25) percent of the properties in the historic district study area, or the application for a historic district overlay zone shall be deemed denied. The ninety (90) day time limit may be extended by the historic preservation commission upon showing of good cause. Any request for an extension of time must be made prior to the expiration of the ninety (90) day time limit. Any petition that is deemed denied may not be re-submitted for a period of six (6) months after the date of denial.

For the purpose of this section, for the signature of an “owner of property” to constitute a valid petition signature, the petition shall be signed by one (1) of the following:

1. Where the property is held by one individual, the petition shall be signed by that individual;

2. Where the property is held in a form of co-tenancy, including joint tenancy, tenants in common, tenants in partnership or community property, then each such co-tenant shall be required to sign the petition;

3. Where the property is held by a business entity, such as a corporation, limited partnership, general partnership, or limited liability, an authorized agent of such business entity with the power to bind the entity in contract shall sign the petition;

4. Where the property is a common interest development, as defined in California Civil Code Section 1351, the authorized agent of the homeowners association or other agent designated in the common interest development’s governing documents shall sign the petition; or

5. Where the property is held in trust, all co-trustees shall sign the petition unless the California Probate Code allows otherwise.

Properties owned by any public agency shall not be considered, either as signatories or when determining the total number of properties, in judging whether a petition has sufficient signatures.

F. At the time of submittal of the petition requesting a historic resources survey, the project proponent(s) may request amendment of the application, including the boundaries of the study area, any supplements to the citywide historic district design 55 of 239

Exhibit 4
guidelines, any design guidelines proposed for non-residential structures, or any other aspect of the application. Any amendment of the application must be reviewed and approved by the historic preservation commission, to determine that the amendment is consistent with the commission’s preliminary determination that the area is eligible to become a historic district overlay zone, pursuant to subsection A, above. The historic preservation commission’s determination on the amendment may be appealed to the city council, following the uniform appeals procedures of the Glendale Municipal Code.

G. Upon receipt of the petition requesting a historic resources survey, the director of community development shall verify that the petition meets the requirements of subsection D, above, and, after the historic preservation commission’s review of amendments to the historic district overlay zone application, if any, the director of community development shall forward the petition to the city council for authorization to conduct a historic resources survey.

H. Upon completion of the historic resources survey, the director of community development shall forward the survey to the historic preservation commission for its review and approval. Upon approving the survey, the historic preservation commission shall authorize the project proponent(s) to circulate petitions to affected property owners asking the city council to initiate the designation process. The petitions shall be accompanied by a copy of the citywide historic district design guidelines, and any supplements proposed thereto, any draft historic district guidelines prepared for non- residential buildings, and shall also refer to where the historic district design guidelines and any such proposed supplements, and any draft design review guidelines for non- residential buildings may be reviewed. The commission’s approval of the historic resources survey may be appealed to the city council pursuant to Chapter 2.88 of this code.

I. Within six (6) months of the historic preservation commission’s authorization to circulate a Petition Requesting a historic district overlay zone, the project proponents shall submit said petition to the director of community development. Said petition must be signed by owners of more than fifty (50) percent of the properties in the historic district study area, or part thereof. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a petition satisfying the requirements of Article XV, Section 2 of the Glendale City Charter shall satisfy the requirement of this subsection. If such a petition is not submitted to the satisfaction of the director of community development within six (6) months of the historic preservation commission’s authorization to circulate petitions, the application for a historic district overlay zone shall be deemed denied. The six-month time limit may be extended by the historic preservation commission upon showing of good cause. Any request for an extension of time must be made prior to the expiration of the six (6) month time limit.

Any petition that is deemed denied may not be re-submitted for a period of six (6) months after the date of denial.

For the purpose of this section, for the signature of an “owner of property” to constitute a valid petition signature, the petition shall be signed by one of the following:
56 of 239

Exhibit 4

1. Where the property is held by one individual, the petition shall be signed by that individual;

5. Where the property is held in trust, all co-trustees shall sign the petition unless the California Probate Code allows otherwise.

Properties owned by any public agency shall not be considered, either as signatories or when determining the total number of properties, in judging whether a petition has sufficient signatures.

J. Upon receipt of the petition, and verification by the director of community development that the petition satisfies the requirements of subsection I, above, the community development department shall prepare a report which will detail the appropriateness of the boundaries consistent with the historic district overlay zone designation criteria, provide the percentage of the property owners in the district petitioning the city council, document the history and significance of the area, provide photographs of all properties within the area (both contributing and non-contributing buildings), present any supplements to the citywide historic district design guidelines proposed for the historic district overlay zone and any proposed design guidelines for non-residential buildings, and indicate whether the historic resources survey has found that the supplements concern characteristics which have been identified in the historic resources survey to make significant contributions to the character of the potential historic district. Once complete, the director of community development shall present the report to the historic preservation commission for its consideration and recommendation to city council.

K. The director of community development shall forward the historic preservation commission’s recommendation to the planning commission for consideration of a zone change to create the specific historic district overlay zone. The application shall then be processed according to the procedures set forth under Chapter 30.63 of this title.

L. If the request for a historic district overlay zone includes any supplements to the citywide historic district design guidelines specific to the requested overlay zone, the city 57 of 239

Exhibit 4
council may not approve the supplements unless it finds that the supplements concern characteristics which have been identified in the historic resources survey to make significant contributions to the character of the potential historic district overlay zone.

M. The procedures for modification or deletion of a historic district overlay zone shall follow the procedures outlined in this section and elsewhere in the Zoning Code (Title 30) and the City Charter as applicable. (Ord. 5949 § 31, 2020; Ord. 5747 § 21, 2011; Ord. 5535 § 9, 2006; Ord. 5399 Attach. A, 2004)

58 of 239

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Solar Energy on City Owned Properties – Report to File, and to Authorize the General Manager of GWP to Issue an RFP using Engineer-Procure-Construct (EPC) Method for Six Proposed Project Sites.

1. Motion to Note and File the GWP Solar PV Development on City Owned Properties and DER Hosting Capacity Analysis and Update.

2. Resolution authorizing the General Manager of GWP, or his designee, to prepare a Request for Proposal (RFP) using the Alternative Project Delivery Method for the Engineer-Procure-Construct (EPC) of Solar PV Systems at the following proposed project sites: 1) Glendale Sports Complex Parking Lot, 2) Montrose Parking Lot 3, 3) Utility Operations Parking Lot, 4) Brand Landfill, 5) Fire Station 21, and 6) Glendale Central Library, and authorizing the City Clerk to solicit proposals.

COUNCIL ACTION

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In July 2021, GWP began working with consultant, Black & Veatch, on the Solar PV Development on City Owned Properties and DER Hosting Capacity Analysis Project.

The scope of the project sought is to identify the viability of installing solar PV systems on city owned properties, and to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the DER hosting capacity of the electrical distribution infrastructure.

The solar PV scope of the project included a list of 101 properties which were evaluated following a multi-step approach to determine if the conditions of the sites allowed for further consideration for installing solar. The process included an in depth analysis of current site conditions, solar modeling, structural and engineering reviews, and permitting considerations to determine if each site were to be included in the final list of viable sites for solar. Upon completion of the study in August 2022, 65 sites were identified as viable locations for solar PV installations.

The DER hosting capacity scope of the project analyzed the entire electrical distribution network to identify the maximum amount of distributed PV penetration levels for each of the 100+ distribution feeders. The intent of the DER hosting capacity study was to identify the hosting capacity ranges for each distribution feeder and to establish the maximum DER capacity without affecting the systems reliability or power quality. 8b
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for October 25, 2022 calendar
59 of 239

8b2

COUNCIL PRIORITIES
Environmental Stewardship: GWP is continuously working towards providing cost- effective and sustainable energy to its commercial, business, and residential customers to meet the renewable and clean energy procurement and emission reduction goals.

RECOMMENDATION
Note and file this GWP Solar PV Development on City Owned Properties and DER Hosting Capacity Analysis Update, and approve a resolution authorizing the General Manager of GWP to prepare a RFP using the Alternative Project Delivery Method for the EPC of Solar PV Systems at the Glendale Sports Complex Parking Lot, Montrose Parking Lot 3, Utility Operations Center Parking Lot, Brand Landfill, Fire Station 21, and Glendale Central Library, and authorizing the City Clerk to solicit proposals.

BACKGROUND
GWP’s mission is to provide clean, reliable, and affordable power to the diverse citizens and businesses of Glendale 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. This objective is currently met with a portfolio of demand-side and supply-side resources. Supply-side resources include local gas-fired generation from the aging Grayson Power Plant; local distributed solar generation; distant coal fired, hydro, nuclear, and renewable energy supplies, and a portfolio of transmission ownership rights and long-term transmission lease rights. GWP operates within the Balancing Area of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) under a Balancing Authority Area Services Agreement with LADWP. Glendale is forging a leadership position in the acquisition of renewable energy and carbon allowances in both the short term and long-term markets.

GWP is faced with the imminent retirement of its largest generation resource, the natural gas-fired Grayson Power Plant, located within the City’s boundaries. GWP is extremely transmission constrained, and must replace the retiring Grayson units with reliable local generation. The retirement of Grayson presents GWP with an opportunity to shift to cleaner, more efficient technology to power the City in the future.

In June 2021, the City of Glendale awarded the City of Glendale Solar and Storage Owner’s Engineer (OE) project to Black & Veatch. The scope of the project included two components: (1) A comprehensive electric distribution feeder PV hosting capacity study, and (2) The development of a comprehensive plan for the City of Glendale to develop, own, operate and maintain solar and storage on City owned properties in the City of Glendale.

ANALYSIS

1. SITE ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN BASIS FOR SOLAR PV ON CITY OWNED

PROPERTIES
GWP staff identified an initial list of 101 City owned sites where there were no evident permitting issues with deploying solar PV. The site list included sites for rooftop solar PV, parking lot canopies, landfill sites, and reservoirs. Staff from the 14 Citywide departments were included in the initial site selection and the feedback received helped 60 of 239

8b3
determine the initial list of 101 sites.

In order to make the site data collection and survey effort more efficient, Black & Veatch used gating steps, as show in Figure 1 below, where each site had to clear the prior step to proceed with the next review step. This approach also helped maintain the focus on the sites that are well-suited for solar and /or battery energy storage system (BESS) installations according to the various deployment factors.

Figure 1: Site Gating Steps
Evaluation Process Baseline and Design Basis
The Black & Veatch team worked with the GWP Electric Engineering team to set the evaluation process baseline conditions and to confirm the list of sites for evaluation.

This process included the following considerations and established the inputs for the Design Basis:
•Site considerations and corresponding solar technology options for the site. •Site layout and design considerations, as well as performance criteria assumptions that were used as inputs for creating preliminary solar resource assessments using Aurora Solar Design Software.
•Site minimum size thresholds and site bucketization methodology for creating site prioritization notes, which helps prioritize project that maximize kilowatt hour (kWh) production and minimize $/watt installation cost. •Equipment specification sheets that were used as assumptions for the analysis for the project.
•Sites with apparent constraints were suspended during this step and further analysis was not performed for them.
61 of 239

8b4
GWP is in the process of deploying utility scale BESS to support the utility grid. Hence, for this project, smaller distributed battery systems will only be considered for the high priority sites to provide resiliency during a power outage or emergency event.

Desktop Assessment
The next step in the screening process included conducting desktop assessments for the potential sites using Aurora Solar Design Software and included the following steps:
•Modeling the roof footprint available space for rooftop solar locations and carport and ground mount potential for parking lots, landfills, and reservoirs using map imagery.
•Analyzing available space for solar PV equipment according to the following:
oThe roof footprint and parcel boundaries.
oSurrounding trees and shading structures.
oExisting obstructions.
oSetback and clearance according to the City of Glendale Building, Fire and Municipal Zoning code requirements.
•Generating the solar irradiance map for the site according to the site model and local weather data set.
•Using a Total Solar Resource Fraction cutoff of 65 percent, site energy requirements and economics, to suggest a solar PV system size for the site.

Sites that did not meet the minimum size threshold, as set in the Site Assessment and Design Basis, were suspended during this step and further analysis was not performed for them.

Site Visits and Data Collection
After the desktop assessments were complete, the Black & Veatch team conducted site visits for the active rooftop sites to validate the desktop assessments and collect major structural, electrical, and constructability information including major electrical equipment, electrical connections, and apparent roof age and condition. Additional site constraints were identified for some sites during site visits, and these sites were suspended during this step and further analysis was not performed for them.

Site Structural Engineering Review
The sites were further reviewed for assessing structural constraints and included the following considerations:
•System and equipment layout review.
•Site suitability review of rooftop solar technologies suggested for each site including suitability analyses for roof mount systems and roof gravity and seismic analyses.
•Site suitability review of parking structures for carport technologies suggested for each site including suitability review for carport systems, parking structure gravity and seismic analyses.
•Site suitability review of landfill sites for ground mount technologies suggested for each site.
62 of 239

8b5
The site structural reviews were performed using the best available information (or appropriate assumptions), including data gathered during site surveys and applicable codes and standards for the systems. Sites that could not meet the minimum size threshold according to the gravity or seismic analyses were suspended during this step and further analyses was not performed for them. Sites with insufficient structural information were also suspended and further analysis was not performed for them.

Site Electrical Engineering Review
Electrical reviews were conducted on the sites following the structural reviews and included the following considerations:
•Interconnection review including an assessment of existing electrical service capacity and ratings and determination of proposed interconnection method. •Proposed areas for equipment placement.

The site electrical engineering reviews were performed using the best available information along with appropriate codes and standards for solar systems including any data gathered during site surveys.

Planner Review
After the completion of conceptual layouts for sites with carports, the Black & Veatch team coordinated with the City’s Planning department to review the proposed solar canopy designs. During this review, the Planning department provided feedback on the minimum parking stall dimensions, existing light standards, landscape preservation requirements, future proposed construction, and historic sites. Black & Veatch documented the feedback received, and these considerations should be noted during the planning as well as detailed design phase for the carport solar projects.

Site Prioritization Summary
The site prioritization summary includes notes from engineering and planner reviews and solar rough order of magnitude cost assumptions. Black & Veatch used Wood Mackenzie’s interactive US solar PV costs model to provide rough order of magnitude costs for the various system sizes and types listed in Figure 2. The rough order of magnitude costs is based on Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE) Class 5 estimates and are intended to be used for budgetary purposes.

This model utilizes a bottom-up methodology to provide U.S. solar PV system prices and costs from the perspective of the seller in $/watt. System price forecasts are in real 2022 U.S. dollars. The methodology is available upon request. 63 of 239

8b6
Figure 2: Budgetary All-in System Cost by System Size and Type Conclusions and Next Steps
According to the site review methodology, 65 sites out of the original list of 101 sites are considered viable for solar PV projects and could provide an estimated 14 MW of solar power. Below is a list of potential solar systems by installation type and a table of the estimated solar PV size categories:
•17 active sites included only rooftop solar PV systems. •32 active sites included only carport solar PV systems. •15 active sites included both rooftop and carport solar PV systems. •1 active site was a landfill site that could consider a ballasted ground mount PV system.

Figure 3: Solar PV System Size Categories
Electric Distribution Feeder PV Hosting Capacity Analysis A hosting capacity analysis is a high-level analysis that provides a general starting point for distribution engineers and planners to evaluate whether upgrades to the electric distribution system are needed to reach desired PV penetration levels. PV hosting capacity is defined as the maximum amount of distributed PV generation that can be added to a distribution feeder without affecting the system’s reliability or power quality.

Adding generation units beyond the distribution feeders’ PV hosting capacity will require further analysis, and in most cases, control and network updates will be needed.

Understanding the current PV hosting capacity of GWP electric distribution feeder 64 of 239

8b7
infrastructure will aid in planning system upgrades to reach the goal of increasing its distributed generation footprint.

GWP’s electric distribution network includes 4.2 kilovolt (kV) and 12.5 kV class feeders.

Many contributing factors affect each feeder’s ability to accept DER penetration, such as DER location on the feeder and feeder voltage class. In general, a feeder’s voltage class will have an impact on its ability to accept DER penetration. The greatest impact on the feeder’s ability to accept DER penetration is loading. At the lower voltage class, the hosting capacity is very low at all feeder lengths. Feeders with the higher voltage class have higher hosting capacity when cared to the lower voltage class. The length of the feeder is also a defining factor for the hosting capacity of both lower voltage and higher voltage classes.

The load connected to the feeder plays a significant role in its hosting capacity since the load affects the point of reverse power flow and occurrence of violations. Reverse power flow happens when generation is larger than consumption. Therefore, a lightly loaded feeder will see reverse power flow at lower levels of PV penetration. As the load increases the point at which reverse power flow occurs will increase. Similarly, the point at which voltage and thermal violations occur will be affected by loading.

The analysis of the electric distribution feeder PV hosting capacity included simulations of the Synergi Electric model for the 103 feeders that make up the GWP electric distribution network. Simulations using the Synergi Electric PV stochastic analysis began by clearing out all PV generation in the model and then randomly placing small PV devices back in the model, building over a series of steps until a maximum PV generation was achieved. This process was repeated to complete 500 profiles for each feeder.

The data was then analyzed to determine the PV hosting capacity of each feeder. A data analysis program based on American National Standards Institute (ANSI) C84.1- 2020 for voltage limits and equipment specifications for reverse power flow and thermal overloading was then used to identify violations and system thresholds. This analysis provided kilowatt (kW) values for each feeder’s PV penetration levels where no upgrades are needed, where upgrades may be needed, and where upgrades are required. The PV penetration levels where no upgrades are needed are categorized as location independent and represent the kW values that will be considered for solar adoption.

As GWP systematically upgrades its 4kV feeders to 12kV, the PV hosting capacities for those upgraded feeders will increase significantly. Additionally, the hosting capacity on some of the feeders may be increased by implementing the following options:
•Volt/Var Optimization: Volt/Var control plays an important role in improving voltage profile. By encouraging customers to install inverters with volt/var capability, it is possible to mitigate some of the overvoltage problem and, hence, increase the hosting capacity.
•Feeder Reconfiguration: Hosting capacity of the feeders can be increased by adjusting the existing regulator setpoint. This will uniformly shift the voltage across the regulation zone. Adding regulators to a long feeder will also create a 65 of 239

8b8
new regulating zone, impacting the voltage profile. Reconductoring the feeder in such a way that the primary impedance is lowered will indirectly change the voltage profile. This will resolve overloading problems if there are any. Any positive change to the voltage profile will increase the hosting capacity. •Selective Location: In this study, all of the sections of the PV were considered to have an equal change of hosting PV, but by restricting the location of the PV closer to the substation, it is possible to increase the hosting capacity.

2. RFPS USING THE ALTERNATIVE PROJECT DELIVERY METHOD FOR THE

ENGINEER-PROCURE-CONSTRUCT OF SOLAR PV SYSTEMS
The six solar PV systems described below are estimated to provide 4 MW of solar power representing 28% of the total estimated 14 MW of viable solar installations on City owned properties. The total estimated annual output for these six sites is 6.7 million kWh, which is the equivalent to the average annual electric consumption of 600 homes.

On October 12, 2022, the General Manager of GWP obtained the City Manager’s approval for the herein proposed procurement for these six proposed projects, as required by Glendale Municipal Code (GMC), Section 4.13.070. Staff is recommending that the City Council authorize the adoption and issuance of an RFP for these six proposed projects utilizing the Engineer Procure Construct (EPC) project delivery method. GWP staff has found that it is more efficient to use the EPC method for such projects because the time needed for the research and design phases can be reduced with a similar outcome in the final construction. By using the EPC method, design items can be addressed as they come up by the engineer-procure-construct entity without the need for delays in engineering, then procurement, and lastly construction that occurs using the traditional design-procure-bid-build project delivery method.

1. Glendale Sports Complex Parking Lot Solar PV Carport Canopy Project:

The Sports Complex Parking Lot conceptual site plan estimates a solar PV system size of 916 kW. This location is one of the ten properties that have the potential of delivering up to 46% of the total estimated 14 MW of solar power. The solar solution for this location utilizes carport style solar canopies and is designed to cover most of the parking spaces at the Sports Complex.

2. Montrose Parking Lot 3 Solar PV Carport Canopy Project:

The Montrose Parking Lot 3 conceptual site plan estimates a solar PV system size of 807 kW. This location is one of the ten properties that has the potential of delivering up to 46% of the total estimated 14 MW of solar power. The solar solution for this location utilizes carport style solar canopies and is designed to cover most of the parking spaces at Montrose Parking Lot 3. The installation of solar canopies in Parking Lot 3 will most likely require a reconfiguration of the parking spaces to align with the installation of the solar support posts. This would result in a loss of parking spaces, revenue, and may trigger additional ADA improvements, including the installation of ADA stalls to current code and quantity standards, and parking pavement improvements, to name a few.

These changes need to be considered during the EPC process.

3. Utility Operations Center (UOC) Parking Lot Solar PV Carport Canopy Project:

The UOC Parking Lot conceptual site plan estimates a solar PV system size of 305 kW.

The solar solution for this location utilizes carport style solar canopies and is designed 66 of 239

8b9
to cover most of the parking spaces at the UOC Parking Lot.

4. Brand Landfill Ground Mount Solar PV Project:

The Brand Landfill conceptual site plan estimates a solar PV system size of 1.4 MW.

This location is the largest site identified as being viable for solar and has the potential of delivering 10% of the total estimated 14 MW of solar power. The landfill has been closed for over three decades and was used for the disposal of inert material, mostly concrete and asphalt. The solar solution for this location utilizes ground mount solar panels secured by means of an anchoring design.

5. Fire Department Station 21 Rooftop and Carport Canopy Solar PV Project:

The Fire Station 21 conceptual site plan estimates a solar PV system size of 237 kW.

The solar solution for this location utilizes both rooftop mounted solar and carport style solar canopies. It is designed to maximize rooftop coverage and to cover some of the parking inside the facility.

6. Glendale Central Library Rooftop Solar PV Project:

The Central Library conceptual site plan estimates a solar PV system size of 402 kW.

This location is one of the ten properties that has the potential of delivering up to 46% of the total estimated 14 MW of solar power. The solar solution for this location utilizes rooftop mounted solar and is designed to maximize rooftop coverage. The Central Library is currently undergoing a roof redesign and reroofing project which will be completed prior to the solar PV installation.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
GWP will conduct outreach as each of the projects are designed and ready to be built.

FISCAL IMPACT
Funds for this project are available in the FY 2022-23 budget per the table below.

Additional appropriations will be requested when proposals are received and the award of EPC contracts are requested.

Funding Source Account String Amount
Electric Depreciation Fund, 43110-5830-GWP-0020-P0000- $3,500,000 GWP, Projects, GWP Solar T0000-F3600
Design Built Program

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The requested action herein which is authorization to issue the RFP and solicit proposals does not require environmental review. Environmental review will be conducted for each project as applicable.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
Not applicable.

ALTERNATIVES
67 of 239

8b10
Alternative 1: Authorize and approve the actions requested and recommended in this report.

Alternative 2: Do not authorize or approve the actions requested and recommended in this report which will delay the implementation of clean energy solar PV development on City owned properties.

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

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Daniel Scorza, P.E., Chief Assistant General Manager - Electric Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS / ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A: City Owned Solar PV Priority List (6) Conceptual Images Exhibit B: October 11, 2022 Memo to City Manager, and City Manager approval of the Engineer Procure Construct project delivery method.
68 of 239

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 October 25, 2022, by the General Manager of Glendale Water & Power Department regarding Solar PV Development on City Owned Properties and DER Hosting Capacity Analysis Update.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
69 of 239

1 RESOLUTION NO.

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

AUTHORIZING THE GENERAL MANAGER OF GLENDALE WATER & POWER

DEPARTMENT OR A DESIGNEE TO PREPARE A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

UTILIZING THE ENGINEER, PROCURE, CONSTRUCT (EPC) PROJECT DELIVERY

METHOD FOR THE SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM AT SIX PROPOSED SITES AND

DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE FOR PROPOSALS
WHEREAS, the General Manager of Glendale Water & Power Department (“GWP”) has proposed the design and construction of the solar photovoltaic system at the following six proposed sites: 1) Glendale Sports Complex Parking Lot, 2) Montrose Parking Lot 3, 3) Utility Operations Parking Lot, 4) Brand Landfill, 5) Fire Station 21, and 6) Glendale Central Library (collectively “Projects”) which will provide an estimated 4 MW of solar power representing 28% of the total estimated 14 MW of viable solar installations on City owned properties, with a total estimated annual output of 6.7 million kWh, which is equivalent to the average annual electric consumption of 600 homes; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Projects will improve and expand GWP’s commitment to alternate source for power as well as meet GWP’s requirements as set by state mandates; and WHEREAS, GWP’s recommendation is to utilize the Engineer Procure Construct (“EPC”) method an alternative project delivery method - instead of the traditional design then bid and procure and then build delivery method - authorized under Chapter 4.13 of the Glendale Municipal Code (“GMC”); and
WHEREAS, on October 11, 2022, the General Manager of GWP prepared a memorandum to the City Manager, as required by GMC Section 4.13.070(A)(1), describing the Projects’ attributes and stating the reasons and justifications for proposing the EPC method of project delivery; and
WHEREAS, the memorandum, which is attached as an exhibit to the General Manager of GWP’s October 25, 2022 Report to the City Council, states that:

1. The utilization of an alternative project delivery method for the Projects will meet the Project’s need for overall schedule acceleration [GMC Section

4.13.060(A)(7)], and meet GWP’s obligation to maintain, and improve, the level of service it provides to its customers, as well as the Projects benefitting from early contractor involvement by avoiding delays and engineering and construction and reducing the completion time for the Projects [GMC Section

4.13.060(A)(4); and

2. The EPC delivery method achieves or improves the Project by:

A. Minimizing the Projects delivery time, [GMC 4.13.060(B)(1)(a)], by reducing the research and design phases by enabling early contractor involvement to allow design and construction schedules to overlap and reduce the time needed for separate and consecutive research and design phases which occurs using the traditional design-bid-build method; and B. Minimizing the Project’s overall cost [GMC Section 4.13.060(B)(2)], by minimizing through:
i. The Projects designer and builder team having early coordination of the construction means, methods, and materials, thereby 70 of 239

2 minimizing Projects’ costs and maximizing each Project’s budget; and
ii. Constant communication and coordination between the team members to have fewer design errors, constructions mistakes, and change orders, thereby enabling them to complete the Projects on budget; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager, as required by GMC Section 4.13.070(A)(2), has reviewed the Projects and, on October 12, 2022, approved the use of the EPC delivery method for all six proposed Projects; and
WHEREAS, having received the City Manager’s approval and having satisfied one or more reasons under GMC Section 4.13.060(A), and one or more justifications under GMC Section 4.13.060(B), the Projects meet the procedural and substantive requirements for using an alternative project delivery method.

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 authorizing the use of the EPC delivery method on each of the subject six Projects as further described in the Report dated October 25, 2022 by the General Manager of GWP.

2. The General Manager of GWP, or a designee, shall prepare the Projects’ plans, specifications, and contract documents and issue them through the Request For Proposals (“RFP”) process and solicit proposals.

3. The City Clerk is hereby directed to advertise the RFP for proposals for the Projects’ design, construction, equipment, and materials, as described in the Specification. The RFP containing the specification and all pertinent related documents will be on file in GWP’s Electric Engineering counter.

4. The General Manager of GWP is directed to return to the City Council upon the conclusion of the RFP process with a recommendation, or recommendations, for the award of the contract(s) for an EPC contractor. The approval or disapproval of the proposed Projects and the award of an EPC contract(s) are subject to the City Council’s approval.

5. The City Council hereby finds that the adoption of this Resolution is not a “project” under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), because the Resolution does not involve any commitment to a specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment, as contemplated by Title 14 California Code of Regulations, Section 15378(b)(4).

Adopted this _____________ day of __________________, 2022 ___________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
71 of 239

3 _______________________________
City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I, Suzie Abajian PhD, City Clerk of the City of Glendale, do certify that the foregoing Resolution No. __________ was adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale, California, at a regular meeting held on the ________ day of _______________, 2022, by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
_______________________________
City Clerk
72 of 239

City Owned Solar PV Priority List – Estimated 4 MW
Sports Complex Parking Lot – 916 kW
Brand Landfill – 1.4 MW
Montrose Parking Lot 3 – 807 kW
Fire Department Station 21 – 237 kW
Central Library – 402 kW
UOC Parking Lot – 305 kW

EXHIBIT A
73 of 239

EXHIBIT B
74 of 239

75 of 239

76 of 239

77 of 239

78 of 239

79 of 239

80 of 239

81 of 239

82 of 239

83 of 239

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Findings regarding Approval of Design Review Case No. PDR 2101078 for a three-story, 82-room hotel at 1633 Victory Boulevard

1. Resolution Adopting a Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

2. Motion Sustaining the Design Review Board's Decision to Approve the Design Review Case and Making Findings in Support Thereof.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action Calendar
Approved for October 18, 2022 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Council held a duly noticed public hearing on September 27, 2022 to hear appeals of Design Review Board Case No. PDR 2101078 pertaining to a 3-story, 82-room hotel at 1633 Victory Blvd. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Council voted 3-2 to approve the project with a modification of the conditions imposed by the Design Review Board.

The Council continued the matter and directed the staff to draft revised findings and conditions of approval consistent with their direction. 84 of 239

28c
3 6
9 3

COUNCIL PRIORITIES
N/A.

RECOMMENDATION
That the Council adopt the resolution approving the CEQA document and the motion approving DRB Case No. PDR 2101078 with findings and conditions.

BACKGROUND
The Council held a duly noticed public hearing on September 27, 2022 to hear appeals of Design Review Board Case No. PDR 2101078 (“Design Review Case”) pertaining to a 3-story, 82-room hotel at 1633 Victory Blvd. (“Project”). At the conclusion of the hearing, the Council voted 3-2 to approve the Design Review Case with a modification of the conditions imposed by the Design Review Board (“DRB”). The Council continued the matter and directed the staff to draft revised findings and conditions of approval consistent with its direction.

ANALYSIS
This matter was heard for two appeals of the DRB’s approval of the Design Review Case.

The applicant appealed certain conditions imposed by the DRB and another appellant appealed the approval of the Design Review Case. The Council approved the Design Review Case, but removed DRB Condition No. 1 which required the reduction of the massing at the second and third level expansions at the eastern and western facades to be more consistent with the Original Project.

The Council also added the following condition (Condition No. 13):

The block wall that spans the entire length of the north property line, extending to the Winchester Avenue right-of-way shall be set back a minimum of 3 feet from the western property line (right-of-way along Winchester Avenue), and a the first five to ten feet of the wall shall be constructed with a combination of concrete blocks finished with stucco and wrought iron (e.g. three-foot tall block wall and three-foot tall wrought iron above) to enhance the line-of-site between pedestrians walking on Winchester Avenue and the adjacent driveway.

The Council’s approval also sustains and adopts the DRB’s findings pertaining to the Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration (“SMND”) for the Project, and a resolution adopting those findings is included with this item.

Finally, the City Attorney recommends the addition of a condition to require the applicant to defend and indemnify the City in the event of a legal challenge to the project approvals (Condition No. 14). This is a fairly standard condition imposed on project approvals that the City Attorney will be seeking for all project approvals that come before Council.
85 of 239

38c
3 6
9 3

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
N/A.

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

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
As noted above, the SMND was prepared for the Project. The Design Review Board adopted the SMND and imposed a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan. This Council action will sustain the adoption of the SMND, make CEQA findings, and adopt the MMRP.

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 companies affected by this item are attached as Exhibit 1.

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: The Council can adopt the resolution adopting the SMND and MMRP and the motion approving the Design Review Case, making findings, and imposing conditions.

Alternative 2: The Council can choose not to adopt the SMND, MMRP and the Design Review Case. If the Council does not adopt the resolution and motion it will need to provide further direction.

Alternative 3: The Council can modify the proposed motion consistent with evidence in the Design Review Case.

Alternative 4: The Council can take another action not proposed by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Michael J. Garcia, City Attorney
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS

1. Campaign Finance Disclosure
86 of 239

1 C:\inetpub\wwwroot\multitenant\temp\CC_10252022_Resolution_8c1.pdf

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE,

CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A SUBSEQUENT MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING

PROGRAM PREPARED PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FOR THE PROJECT LOCATED
AT 1633 VICTORY BOULEVARD, GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA
WHEREAS, the City of Glendale, as the lead agency, prepared an Initial Study on behalf of Design Review Case No. PDR 2101078 for the development of a 42,310 square foot, three- story, 82 room hotel with a two level subterranean garage containing 67 parking spaces to be located at 1633 Victory Boulevard (the “Project”), and on April 28, 2022, the Deputy Director of Community Development approved preparation of a Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, the Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration and MMRP were made available for a 20-day public review and comment period, and twenty-two public comments were received; and
WHEREAS, the Glendale Design Review Board (“DRB”) adopted the Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration and granted design review approval for the Project on July 14, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the City Council heard appeals of the DRB’s approval of the Project and Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration on September 27, 2022; and WHEREAS, the City Council exercising its independent judgment, has read, reviewed and analyzed the Initial Study and all reports and appendices in connection with the Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project, has considered public testimony and based thereon the City Council finds and determines that the proposed Subsequent MMRP will reduce all impacts to a less than significant level and that the Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration and MMRP were prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, the Glendale Planning Division has been identified as the custodian of record for the Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration and MMRP.

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

SECTION 1. The recitals as set forth herein above are true and correct.

SECTION 2. The Council finds that the Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City of Glendale as the lead agency.

SECTION 3. On the basis of the whole of the record including the Initial Study, the comments and responses thereto on the Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration and testimony received during hearings on the Project, the Council finds that there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment that cannot be mitigated through the measures proposed in the MMRP for the Project. 87 of 239

2 C:\inetpub\wwwroot\multitenant\temp\CC_10252022_Resolution_8c1.pdf SECTION 4. The Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Project to be located at 1633 Victory Boulevard, is hereby adopted and approved as being prepared in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) with the following mitigation measures, monitoring and reporting actions (MMRP) imposed to reduce identified impacts to less than significant levels:

GEO -1In the event that paleontological resources are unearthed during the proposed project-related subsurface activities all earth-disturbing work within a 100-meter radius must be temporary suspended or redirected until a paleontologist has evaluated the nature and significance of the find. After the find has been appropriately mitigated, work in the area may resume.

Monitoring Action: Onsite monitoring during grading and excavation activities
Timing: During any site grading or excavation activities (site inspection)
Responsibility: Director of Community Development
HAZ – 1A soil management plan (SMP) shall be prepared prior to issuance of any grading permit on the subject property. The SMP shall require that a geologist/environmental professional be on-site during site grading and excavation activities to monitor for potentially impacted soils not identified during the Phase II assessment prepared by Conservation Consulting International (CCI) and to perform South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1166 monitoring. The SMP shall also include recommended actions for handling and disposing of potentially impacted soils, if identified during site grading and excavation activities.

Monitoring Action: Preparation of Soil Management Plan
Onsite monitoring during grading and
excavation activities
Timing: Prior to issuance of grading permit (plan review) During any site grading or excavation activities
(site inspection)
Responsibility: Director of Public Works
Director of Community Development
NOISE -1 The hours of operation for the outdoor terrace shall be limited to between 8:00 AM and 8:00 PM Monday through Sunday.

Monitoring Action: After issuance of a certificate of occupancy Timing: Ongoing
Responsibility: Director of Community Development
88 of 239

3 C:\inetpub\wwwroot\multitenant\temp\CC_10252022_Resolution_8c1.pdf NOISE -2 The use of amplified sound shall be strictly prohibited.

Monitoring Action: Upon Complaints to Neighborhood Code Enforcement
Timing: Ongoing
Responsibility: Director of Community Development
TRIBAL-1 Prior to the issuance of demolition, grading or building permits for the project, the applicant shall submit written verification that a qualified archaeological monitor has been retained to monitor ground disturbance necessary to prepare the ground surface.

Monitoring Action: Plan review
Timing: Prior to issuance of development permits (plan
review).

Responsibility: Director of Community Development

TRIBAL-2 A Tribal representative, procured by the Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians, shall monitor soil-disturbances occurring within the initial five (5) feet [in depth] of excavation from the surface.

Monitoring Action: Site Inspection
Timing: During ground disturbing activities
Responsibility: Tribal Representative
SECTION 5. The proposed Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared was published and duly noticed as required by law.

Adopted this _______ day of __________________________, 2022. ___________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
City Clerk
89 of 239

4 C:\inetpub\wwwroot\multitenant\temp\CC_10252022_Resolution_8c1.pdf

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I, Suzie Abajian, Ph.D., City Clerk of the City of Glendale, certify that the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of Glendale, California, at a regular meeting held on the ___________ day of _________________, 2022, and that same was adopted by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
____________________________
City Clerk
90 of 239

c:\inetpub\wwwroot\multitenant\temp\cc_10252022_motion_8c2.pdf MOTION
Moved by Council Member _____________________________, seconded by Council Member _________________________, that upon review and consideration of all documents, materials and exhibits relative to the appeal of the Design Review Board’s (DRB) approval of Design Review Board Case No. PDR 2101078, located at 1633 Victory Boulevard (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 after having reviewed the materials, and receiving testimony, the 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, and based on the following findings and amended conditions of approval:

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

1.Site Planning
The proposed site planning is appropriate, as modified by any proposed conditions, to the site and its surroundings for the following reasons:
a. Similar to the Original Project, the Revised Project's building footprint follows the square shape of the lot. While the Revised Project proposes to reduce the northern interior setback to 11-feet, 6-inches, the proposed street and interior setbacks of the building will comply with the Zoning Code. b. Traffic circulation onto and within the site will remain the same as the Original Project. Access into the subterranean garage will be via an existing alley located west of the project site and away from the Victory Boulevard/Winchester Avenue intersection.
c. The revised outdoor terrace at the second level is appropriately sited on the 91 of 239

c:\inetpub\wwwroot\multitenant\temp\cc_10252022_motion_8c2.pdf building. As recommended by staff, the landscape planter is conditioned to span the entire length of the outdoor terrace and the 7-foot tall screen wall with acoustical panels be returned to the planter to visually obscure and buffer potential noise onto the neighboring property.
d. Ground cover and shrubs will be provided along the right-of-ways to provide texture and pedestrian interest at the street level. As recommended by staff, a condition for the landscaped design at the northern interior yard is to be revised to include a similar variety of canopy trees, shrubs and ground cover as was provided by the Original Project to provide visual relief for the abutting parcel. e. The paved walkway at the northern interior yard is conditioned to be eliminated and return the layered landscaping design that was provided by the Original Project, and the portions of the paved walkway providing emergency egress out of the building and onto the public alley are conditioned to remain.

2.Massing and Scale
a. With the exception of the rooftop mechanical equipment screens conditioned to be lowered and the utility service structures (e.g. stairwells and elevator shaft), the Project is three stories high and has an overall height of 35-feet. The building height relates to the varied urban context along Victory Boulevard, as the site is surrounded by an existing 3-story, multi-family residential building to the southeast, a one-story, commercial/industrial buildings to the south and across the street, and a one-story gas station to the northwest. However, to the north and along Winchester Avenue, there is an existing single-family residential neighborhood consisting of multiple one-story, single-family dwellings. The north side of the Original Project was only one story high with an outdoor terrace and pool above. This scale related to the neighborhood context and provided a transitional mass that reflected the sale of the abutting one-story single- family residence. The Revised Project will continue a 3-story profile along the western, eastern and northern facades to provide additional hotel guestrooms, and will eliminate the Original Design's stepped down transition toward the adjoining single-family neighborhood. This design, however, is not inconsistent with 92 of 239

c:\inetpub\wwwroot\multitenant\temp\cc_10252022_motion_8c2.pdf existing development in the vicinity of the Revised Project. b. The Revised Project proposes to expand the building footprint closer to the northern interior property line and continue the hotel's 3-story profile along the western, eastern and northern facades. The northern facade is designed with a long continuous walls that are conditioned to provide more articulation. c. The Revised Project’s design employs a variety of architectural strategies to avoid overbearing forms, such as variations in building height, recessed volumes and with conditions incorporated, the final design will break up/articulate all street facing facades.

3.Building Design and Detailing:

Finish materials incorporated in the Revised Project include the primary use of stone veneer at the ground level and laminate panels (Trespa Meteon) with a wood-like appearance at the recessed front entry. At the second and third level of the building, the elevations are clad with smooth stucco painted with a variety of colors (dark blue, white, and light grey), and laminate panels (Trespa Meteon) at limited areas at the southern (Victory Boulevard) and northern facades to add visual variety. As conditioned the overall pattern and placement of materials at the north facade will be redesigned at the upper floor levels (second and third) to improve the hierarchy of applied finishes, as well as improve the appearance of the facade.

4.CEQA
A Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration (“SMND”) for the Revised Project was prepared and circulated April 28, 2022 to May 19, 2022 for a 20-day review period. The Council has adopted the SMND and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”), and has reviewed the SMND and MMRP and considered all testimony and materials presented prior to taking this action.
93 of 239

c:\inetpub\wwwroot\multitenant\temp\cc_10252022_motion_8c2.pdf CONDITIONS:

In approving the Design Review Case, the Council imposes the following conditions of approval:

1. At the outdoor terrace at the second level along the northern façade, the landscape planter and 7-foot tall acoustic screen wall shall span the entire length of the terrace and to buffer the neighboring property from views and potential noise.

2. Provide window openings at the ground level of the Winchester (east) façade to enhance the pedestrian experience and to avoid a blank wall at the street.

3. If allowed by Building & Safety, relocate the egress staircase at the east side of the courtyard to reduce or eliminate its visibility from the street and neighboring properties. If this is not possible, provide a privacy screen at the north side of the upper landing and a solid railing for the entire run of the staircase.

4. The landscape design at the northern interior yard should be revised to re- introduce a layered design that includes a variety of canopy trees, shrubs and ground cover, and return the previously-approved landscape buffer.

5. The paved walkway at the northern interior yard should be removed and replaced with layered landscaping. Portions of the paved walkway providing emergency egress out of the building and onto the public alley located at the northwestern portion of the lot should remain to comply with Fire and Building & Safety codes.

6. Raise the height of the proposed concrete masonry unit (CMU) wall along the northern interior property line to be 8-feet high. Clad the wall with stucco on both sides to allow the wall to reflect the stucco cladding of the hotel building.

7. Relocate the backflow preventer located at the street front yard along Winchester Avenue to the parking garage or at the north side of the alley.

8. Prior to & Building & Safety plan check submittal, the rooftop mechanical screens are to be lowered to comply with the Zoning Code and for applicant provide plans demonstrating how the roof top equipment will be adequately obscured from view.

9. The overall pattern and placement of materials at the north facade should be redesigned at the upper floor levels (second and third) to improve the hierarchy of applied finishes, as well as improve the appearance of the façade.

10. Provide greater articulation and design character at the north façade, possibly by providing variation in parapet heights, changes in wall plane, incorporation 94 of 239

c:\inetpub\wwwroot\multitenant\temp\cc_10252022_motion_8c2.pdf of windows featuring high sill heights to preclude views toward the neighbors to the north, and/or other design revision to achieve this goal.

11. Revise the design of the street façade at the lobby to make it more distinctive and inviting, possibly by widening its street frontage, incorporating additional architectural design features, and/or other design changes to achieve this goal.

12. Prior to Building & Safety plan check submittal, a lighting plan shall be provided to staff demonstrating lighting detail that are appropriate to the building design and shielded to avoid spillover onto adjacent properties.

13. The block wall that spans the entire length of the north property line, extending to the Winchester Avenue right-of-way shall be set back a minimum of 3 feet from the western property line (right-of-way along Winchester Avenue), and a the first five to ten feet of the wall shall be constructed with a combination of concrete blocks finished with stucco and wrought iron (e.g. three-foot tall block wall and three-foot tall wrought iron above) to enhance the line-of-site between pedestrians walking on Winchester Avenue and the adjacent driveway.

14. The Revised Project owner(s)/applicant(s), and its/their successors and assigns (the “Applicant”), shall indemnify the City of Glendale, its agents, officers and employees (collectively the “City”) from any claim, action, liability or proceeding against the City to attack, set aside, void or annul the Revised Project or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done or made as a result of City's processing and/or approval of the Revised Project, as specified below. The Applicant's obligation to indemnify shall apply to any lawsuit or challenge against the City alleging failure to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act or compliance with the requirements of any other federal, state, or local laws, including but not limited to general plan and zoning requirements.

Each Applicant's obligation to indemnify the City shall include, but not be limited to, payment of all court costs and attorneys' fees, costs of any judgments or awards against the City, damages, and/or settlement costs, which arise out of City's processing and/or approval of the Project, except that an applicant shall only be responsible for indemnifying the City in the amount of liability which is equal to the proportion of fault caused by the Applicant, as determined by a court. Where any court action results in a ruling for the plaintiff/petitioner, the Applicant and the City shall request a determination 95 of 239

c:\inetpub\wwwroot\multitenant\temp\cc_10252022_motion_8c2.pdf on the percentage contribution of fault from the court which adjudicated the underlying challenge to the Revised Project.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
96 of 239

City of Glendale, Community Development Department (9/12/11)

PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1633 Victory Blvd, Glendale, CA 91201 ENTITLEMENTS REQUESTED: 84-Unit Hotel
I hereby acknowledge, on behalf of the applicant(s) and owner(s)/lessor(s) for the project above, that the applicant seeking entitlement has received the campaign finance disclos
ure forms related to applicants seeking entitlement before the City Council, Redevelopment Agency and Hous
ing Authority. I acknowledge it is the applicant’s
responsibility to review t
he requirements of the City’s campaign finance ordinance, including its disclosure obligations and its applicability to the applicant and its contractors and subcontractors
, which include architects, engineers, design professionals, prime or general contractors
, and subcontractors retained by the applicant at the time the application
is pending before the Council, Redevelopment Agency or Housing Authority.

Executed on 3
/6/2021 at Glendale, California
Applicant’s Signature_________________________________, Print Applicant’s Full Name Anand Desai

ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT OF

CAMPAIGN FINANCE DISCLOSURE
(To Be Submitted at Time of Application Submittal)
Submit to Permit Services Center, 633 E. Broadway, Rm. 101. For more information call 818-54
8-3200.
97 of 239

98 of 239

99 of 239

100 of 239

101 of 239

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Public Hearing on an Appeal of Planning Commission's Decision to Sustain the Planning Hearing Officer’s Approval of Setback and Standards Variance Case No. PVAR 1722701 for the Project Site Located at 521 Nolan Avenue

1. Motion to sustain the Planning Commission’s decision of April 3, 2019, to sustain the Planning Hearing Officer’s decision to approve the variance with conditions.

2. Motion to continue the matter, directing the City Attorney to draft findings, reversing the Planning Commission’s decision and deny the project.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Public Hearing
Approved for October 25, 2022 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The hearing is an appeal of the decision made by the Planning Commission on April 3, 2019 to sustain the Planning Hearing Officer’s decision to approve Setback and Standards Variance Case No. PVAR 1722701 with conditions for the project site located at 521 Nolan Avenue in the R1R (FAR District II) Zone. The variance requests are to allow a five-foot street-front setback, a six-foot and 1 ¾ inch driveway length, and uncovered stairs greater than four feet high that project into the street-front setback. This is in conjunction with the development of a new 2,486 square-foot single-family dwelling and attached two-car garage on a vacant hillside lot.

The appellant is requesting that the City Council reverse the Planning Commission’s decision and deny the requested variances. The appellant’s arguments focus on the belief that the Planning Commission refused to hear or consider certain facts before rendering their decision and that the evidence before the commission was insufficient or inadequate to support their decision.
102 of 239

29a
3 5
6 2

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

RECOMMENDATION
Uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to sustain the Planning Hearing Officer’s approval of Setback and Standards Variance Case No. PVAR 1722701 with conditions, based on the rationale used by the Planning Commission and the Planning Hearing Officer.

If the Council is inclined to reverse the Planning Commission’s decision and deny the application, staff recommends that City Council continue the matter for two weeks to allow the City Attorney to draft findings to support a motion for denial.

BACKGROUND
This hearing is an appeal of a decision made by the Planning Commission on April 3, 2019 to sustain the Planning Hearing Officer’s approval of Setback and Standards Variance Case No. PVAR 1722701 with conditions to allow the construction of a new 2,486 square-foot, three-story single-family residence and attached garage with a five- foot street front setback, six-foot and 1 ¾ inch driveway length, and uncovered stairs greater than four feet high projecting into the street front setback area for the project site located at 521 Nolan Avenue in the R1R (FAR District II) Zone.

General Information
Appellant:Dr. Karina Chan
531 Nolan Avenue
Glendale, CA 91202
Applicant:Rodney V. Khan, Khan Consulting, Inc.

P.O. Box 816
Montrose, CA 91021
Property Owner:Matilda Hartounian
2706 North Kenneth Road
Burbank, CA 91504
Requested Action:

The appellant is requesting that the City Council overturn the Planning Commission’s decision of April 3, 2019 to sustain the Planning Hearing Officer’s approval of Setback and Standards Variance Case No. PVAR 1722701 with conditions.

Location/APN:521 Nolan Avenue / APN: 5630-011-035
Legal Description:Portion of Lot 70, Tract No. 4881
103 of 239

39a
3 5
6 2
Zone:R1R-II: Restricted Residential Zone, FAR District II Land Use Element:Low Density Residential
Existing Site Characteristics:

The property at 521 Nolan Avenue is currently vacant. The lot is irregular in shape and is 8,790 square-feet with frontage on Nolan Avenue and Valentine Drive. Access to the site taken from Nolan Avenue which is classified as a local street in the Circulation Element.

The lot slopes down from Nolan Avenue in a westerly direction, with an average current slope (ACS) of 84.5 percent. The surrounding uses consist of single-family residential dwellings.

Surrounding Uses/Zoning:

Zoning Existing Uses
North R1R III – Restricted Residential Zone,
Floor Area Ratio District III
Single-family residential
South R1R II – Restricted Residential Zone,
Floor Area Ratio District II
Single-family residential
East R1R II – Restricted Residential Zone,
Floor Area Ratio District II
Single-family residential
West R1R II – Restricted Residential Zone,
Floor Area Ratio District II
Single-family residential
Project Site R1R II – Restricted Residential Zone,
Floor Area Ratio District II
Vacant
Utilities and Public Services: All municipal and private utilities are in place serving the neighborhood and other public services are currently provided in the vicinity.

Project History
April 18, 2018 – The Planning Hearing Officer conducted a public hearing for Setback and Standards Variance Case No. PVAR 1722701 and Administrative Exception Case No. PAE 1722704 for the following requests:
•Setback and Standards Variance Case No. PVAR 1722701 to allow:

1. A five-foot street front setback, where a minimum 15-foot street-front setback is required (GMC Section 30.11.030, Table 30.11-A).

2. A six-foot and 1 ¾ inch driveway length, where any driveway servicing a parking area shall be a minimum of 18 feet in length in the R1R zones, from the back of the sidewalk or the property line where no sidewalk exists (GMC Section 30.32.130.G.4).

3. Uncovered stairs greater than four feet high projecting into the street-front setback area for a length of 11 feet, where uncovered steps, ramps, or 104 of 239

49a
3 5
6 2
landings not over four feet high as measured parallel to the natural or finish ground level at the location of the construction may project into the required setback for a length of three feet in the ROS, R1R and R1 zones (GMC Section 30.11.070.A.1.g).
•Administrative Exception Case No. PAE 1722704

1. To allow the construction of a new 2,486 square-foot house and attached two-car garage with a height of 36 feet, where no primary building in the R1R and ROS zones shall exceed two stories in height or exceed a height of 32 feet pursuant to the definition of height set forth in Title 30 (GMC Section 30.11.040.E).

Following review of the staff report and attachments, including any submitted correspondence, and having heard all testimony at the public hearing, the Planning Hearing Officer took the item under submission for a decision to be made at a later date.

July 26, 2018 – The Planning Hearing Officer approved the variance as requested to allow a five-foot street front setback, six-foot and 1 ¾ inch driveway length, and uncovered stairs greater than four feet high projecting into the street-front setback area with conditions and the administrative exception to allow a building height of 36 feet, where the maximum height permitted is 32 feet. The decision letters for these cases are included as attachments to this report (Exhibit 6).

August 10, 2018 – Alexander Jackson, the property owner of the adjacent property at 515 Nolan Avenue, submitted an appeal of the Planning Hearing Officer’s decision to approve Setback and Standards Variance Case No. PVAR 1722701 with conditions.

Note: Only the variance application was appealed and the administrative exception approval is still applicable.

April 3, 2019 – The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing for the appeal of Setback and Standards Variance Case No. PVAR 1722701, pertaining to the request for variances to decrease the street-front setback, shorten the required driveway length and to permit uncovered stairs in the street-front setback area. Following review of the staff report and attachments, including any submitted correspondence, and having heard all testimony at the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted (3 -1) to sustain the Planning Hearing Officer’s decision and approve the variance request in accord with the findings and conditions set forth in the decision letter of July 26, 2018 (Exhibit 6).

During the public comment portion of the appeal hearing, Alexander Jackson (the appellant) indicated that a four-foot strip of land had been added to his property (515 Nolan Avenue) from the subject property (521 Nolan Avenue). The appellant submitted documentation which included images from the approved Tract Map establishing the lots; the legal description for his property from a preliminary title report; and images from the LA County Assessor’s map (Exhibit 12). The appellant expressed concern that the proposed house was not properly set back taking into consideration the four feet that he stated was now part of his Lot 69. At the hearing, the owner of 521 Nolan Avenue 105 of 239

59a
3 5
6 2
provided a property survey (Exhibit 9) to the Planning Commission which showed that the four-foot strip of land on the northerly side of Lot 70 belonged to Lot 69 and that this had therefore been taken in consideration as it relates to the required interior setbacks.

Following review of the staff report and attachments, including any submitted correspondence, and having heard all testimony at the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted (3 -1) to sustain the Planning Hearing Officer’s decision and approve the variance request in accord with the findings and conditions set forth in the decision letter of July 26, 2018 (Exhibit 6).

April 16, 2019 – Dr. Karina Chan, the property owner of the adjacent property at 531 Nolan Avenue submitted an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to sustain the Planning Hearing Officer’s decision to approve Setback and Standards Variance Case No. PVAR 1722701 with conditions (Exhibit 11)
Based on the information presented at the Planning Commission meeting, the City’s Planning Department conducted an investigation and learned that the property line between these properties had been changed through a grant deed conveyance in 1965 without a City approved Lot Split map. The submitted appeal was placed on hold pending resolution of this matter.

After gathering information and conducting research, Planning and City Attorney staff met with both property owners, or their representatives, on various occasions over several months to encourage resolution of the violation through various means.

However eventually, in 2020-2021, following the City’s mailing of a Notice of Intent to Record a Notice of Violation, the violation was remedied through the filing and recording of Certificates of Compliance by both property owners (515 and 521 Nolan).

Since both owners resolved the illegal lot split issue through the COC process, the matter was concluded. Subsequently, staff moved forward with the appeal application.

Basis of the Variance Approval
Pursuant to Section 30.43.030 of the GMC, the Planning Hearing Officer made the following findings and approved the applicant’s request for a variance with nine conditions to allow for the construction of a new 2,486 square-foot, single-family residence with a reduced street front setback and driveway length, and uncovered stairs projecting into the street front setback.

A. That the strict application of the provisions of the code would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship inconsistent with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. The subject site is an 8,790 square-foot, irregularly- shaped through lot with frontages on Nolan Avenue and Valentine Drive. The subject site features an average current slope of 84.5% that drops off almost immediately from Nolan Avenue towards Valentine Drive below. The proposed 2,486 square-foot, two-story single-family residence with an attached two-car garage is to be located close to the front property line with a street front setback 106 of 239

69a
3 5
6 2
of five feet, driveway length of six feet, 1¾-inches, and uncovered stairs greater than four feet high projecting into the street front setback area for a length of eleven (11) feet.

Strict application of the code would result in practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship inconsistent with R1R street front setback and driveway length standards. Providing the minimum15-foot street front setback and 18-foot driveway would require that the house be located farther from the street, thereby increasing the visible mass of the building; the massing of the dwelling and attached garage would project farther away from the slope and would loom over adjacent properties downslope of the subject site. Such a building would not comply with the hillside design guidelines that specifically recommend that new houses reflect the topography and slope, and that encourage building into the hillside to diminish visual impact of mass and scale. The design guidelines also state that prevailing setbacks of buildings on the street be considered as well as Code requirements. The majority of houses along Nolan Avenue within 300 feet of the subject property feature reduced front setbacks ranging from 3 to 6 feet, all of which approved by variance, including 531 Nolan Avenue (Case No. 6482-S, 1978) and 535 Nolan Avenue (Case No. 3134-S, 1964) – both houses on each side of the subject property, as well as 510 Nolan Avenue (Case No. 4453-S, 1967) and 524 Nolan Avenue (Case No 5504-S, 1972) – both properties directly across the street. Approval of a reduced street front setback and driveway length would allow for reasonable development of the site in such a manner that is not incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood.

Further, granting approval of the reduced setbacks for the house and garage creates a condition where stairs greater than four feet in height from the street level entrance to the topography below are required and which encroach into the street front setback area. These stairs lead down to the grade below and provide access around the residence and side yard, and to the rear deck atop the lower floor (as required access by the Building Code). Strict application of the required height limit for the stairs within the street front setback is not possible and elimination of these stairs would create a practical difficulty inconsistent with the Building & Safety standards

B. There are exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use or development of the property that do not apply generally to other property in the same zone or neighborhood. The subject site is one of a few remaining vacant, dual-frontage lots between Nolan Avenue and Valentine Drive. Its width, length, slope and topography, which essentially determine the site planning and design of the project, are different than other lots in the neighborhood. The lot’s steep topography, featuring an 84.5% average current slope, is unique to the subject property. The lot itself is narrower at the bottom of the hillside (79 feet along Valentine Drive) and curves into the slope, and is wider at the top of the hillside (97 feet along Nolan Avenue), while most other lots are narrower at the top and wider at the bottom. Such circumstances 107 of 239

79a
3 5
6 2
place the subject property at an unfair disadvantage because compliance with the zoning code minimum setback and driveway length requirements on this steeply sloped lot would cause unintentional conflicts between the City’s Zoning Code Standards and Hillside Design Guidelines, resulting in a building form that is forced to project away from the topography. It would be impossible to lengthen the driveway and increase the depth of the street front setback to comply with current development standards without exacerbating the massing of the house, as the house would be pushed further away from the hillside. Additionally, given that the average current slope of the property is almost 85%, compliance with the driveway slope requirement with a minimum 18-foot driveway would necessitate a driveway bridge design, thus disrupting the street front development pattern along Nolan Avenue. Furthermore, the overall height limit for stairs projecting into the street front setback is meant for hillside properties with not as steep slopes; the subject lot drops off significantly from the street level and there is no physical way of providing access from the street entrance level to the ground below within the four-foot height limit. Therefore, the subject site is unique in relation to the surrounding properties that do not generally apply to R1R properties.

C. The granting of the variance to allow the single-family house without providing the required street front setback and driveway length, and stairs greater than four feet in height projecting in the setback area would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the surrounding properties and houses within the existing hillside neighborhood. The Zoning Code requires a 15-foot street front setback and a minimum driveway length of 18 feet for single-family residences located in the R1R zone. The applicant is requesting a reduced street front setback of five feet and a driveway length of six feet, 1¾ -inch. The intent of the front setback requirement is to maintain an attractive neighborhood with consistent streetscape and rhythm, in addition to relief from the street. This requirement is critical in a more typical arrangement where homes are aligned next to each other and address the street the same way in a repeating pattern.

The reduced street front setback in this case would not create a visual impact and would be consistent with the development pattern in the immediate hillside neighborhood along this stretch of Nolan Avenue. This street is a remote cul-de- sac that already features a number of residences and garages with reduced front setbacks and driveways (see Finding A). Given that the requested street front setback and driveway length would be in line with other existing, neighboring, hillside, single family residential developments, approval of this proposal would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to property or adjacent neighbors. Approval of the stairs greater than four feet in overall height projecting into the street front setback will not be detrimental to the adjacent residences and neighborhood; the majority of the stairs will be hidden from the public right-of-way based on the down sloped condition from the street, and will provide the code-required access around the residence to the side and rear sloped areas. Furthermore, Public Works’ Engineering Division did not cite any significant concern for the proposed setback and driveway width. 108 of 239

89a
3 5
6 2
Granting of these variance requests will allow the house to fit with the natural topography of the site and minimize visual impacts to the neighborhood by reducing the massing. The house is sited to minimize the amount of grading needed and preserve the greatest amount of natural open space. New drought- tolerant landscaping is proposed around the perimeter of the new house and garage. Additionally, the proposed 2,486 square-foot house will be proportional in size and scale to the existing houses in the immediate neighborhood, which average 2,994 square feet in size. The neighborhood is developed with similar type homes on hillside lots that have not been detrimental to the neighborhood.

D. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the ordinance. The objective of the street front setback requirement is to ensure that the setbacks of buildings from a street respect the existing or preferred neighborhood character, maintain an attractive rhythm and streetscape, and provide landscaped open space along the street. The proposed street front setback is similar to other homes on the street and is in keeping with the neighborhood character. Sufficient open space and landscaping is provided on the downhill slope and interior setbacks. The objective of the driveway length standards is to ensure sufficient temporary off-street parking and to lessen traffic congestion on public streets. Nolan Avenue is a local street in the City’s Circulation Element of the General Plan. The lack of required driveway length at the subject site will not negatively impact traffic congestion on this remote, cul- de-sac street. Moreover, the proposed house is providing the Code-required parking. The height and length limitations for stairs within the street front setback are intended to minimize the projection and appearance of stairs with railings along the streetscape and to ensure that stairs follow the natural grade. As proposed, stairs will be screened from view given that they lead from the street level entrance to the lower level below grade, and are buffered between the downslope of the lot from the street and the front elevation. In conclusion, the requested exceptions in this case are sensible and afford the property owner a fair opportunity in developing a vacant property similar to other residences in the immediate vicinity.

Additionally, a discretionary application, such as the requested variance must also take into consideration the hillside development review policy specified in GMC Section

30.11.040.A, which is as follows:

Development shall be in keeping with the design objectives in the GMC, the hillside design guidelines and the landscape guidelines for hillside development as now adopted and as may be amended from time to time by city council. Development shall be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood in terms of size, scale, bulk/mass, roofline orientation, setbacks, and site layout. Site plans shall show preservation of prominent natural features, native vegetation and open space in a manner compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, minimizing alteration of terrain necessary for development. Site plans for development of property on steep slopes shall take into 109 of 239

99a
3 5
6 2
account the visual impact on surrounding properties. The architectural style and elements of in-fill development shall be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.

ANALYSIS
On April 3, 2019, the Planning Commission considered the materials and exhibits relative to the subject Setback and Standards Variance for the project site located at 521 Nolan Avenue. After conducting a hearing, the Planning Commission voted (3-1) to sustain the Planning Hearing Officer’s decision to approve the variance with conditions because all the required findings for the variance request could be made. On April 16, 2019, within the required 15-day appeal period an appeal was filed by Dr. Karina Chan (the appellant).

The appellant’s arguments focus on the belief that the Planning Commission refused to hear or consider certain facts before rendering their decision and that the evidence before the commission was insufficient or inadequate to support their decision.

Summary of the Appellant Discussion and Staff Responses The appellant contends that the Planning Commission refused to hear or consider certain facts before rendering their decision. The facts the appellant contends were not considered are neighborhood uniformity, property uniqueness, inaccurate measurement data, and public welfare concerns. The appellant contends that some of the commission members seemed unresponsive when the public comment that there was inaccurate or misleading information provided with the variance application.

Staff’s Response:

The Planning Commission conducted the hearing in accordance with established rules and procedures. All parties were granted time to speak as per established speaking time, with the commission having discretion to modify times as deemed necessary. In rendering the decision to uphold the approval of the variance, the Planning Commission took into consideration all the evidence provided for this case. This includes the staff report, the attachments, written public comments, and all public testimony received at the hearing.

Neighborhood Uniformity
The appellant identifies neighborhood uniformity as the first issue the commission refused to consider, but does not specify what this means or provide any other information. This comment appears to be related to the variance requests required for the development of the site and compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood.

The primary reason why the applicant is requesting the variances is so that the design of the new house will be compatible with the Hillside Design Guidelines and the City’s Hillside Development Review Policy (GMC Section 30.11.040.A). If the building were to comply with the required street-front setback and driveway length, the massing of the dwelling and attached garage would project far from the slope and would loom over 110 of 239

109a
3 5
6 2
adjacent properties that are downslope of the subject site, thereby increasing the visible mass of the building. The reduced setback and driveway length are creating a condition where the stairs are greater than four feet in height from the street-level entrance to the topography below and are required and encroach in the street-front setback area.

These stairs lead down to the grade below and provide access around the residence, side yard, and rear deck. This access is required by the Building Code for life safety and strict application of the requirements for stairs in the front setback would create a practical difficulty that is inconsistent with Building and Safety requirements. A discretionary application like the subject variance must also take into consideration the Hillside Development Review Policy in the Zoning Code which also discusses neighborhood compatibility. The Planning Hearing Officer’s original approval took this policy into consideration prior to rendering a decision, as discussed in the findings noted above. The project site is located on the south side of Nolan Avenue which features steep lots, many of which have an additional frontage along Valentine Drive and the design is for a three-story house. This is consistent with the existing houses along the south side of Nolan Avenue that range from two to three stories in overall height.

The project will also be required to obtain approval from the Design Review Board (DRB) prior to the issuance of building permits. The DRB will review this project for compatibility with the City’s Comprehensive Design Guidelines, specifically the Hillside Design Guidelines. In addition to reviewing the site planning, mass and scale, and overall design of new single-family construction, compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood is also taken into consideration with their decision.

Prior to rendering the original decision, the Planning Hearing Officer reviewed previously approved setback variance requests for properties within 300-feet of the subject property, and this information was presented to the Planning Commission in the staff report. During the Planning Commission hearing there were comments made by members of the public regarding inconsistencies in the data being provided. Staff has since reviewed the available City records and verified the information previously provided to the Planning Commission, see revised table below. Additionally, it is important to note that staff’s analysis was related to the history of variances approved, and while in some instances those variance approvals were not acted on, that does not negate the fact that the required findings for a variance were made and they were approved.

Address Case Number Setback Built Condition
521 Nolan Avenue PVAR 1722701 5’-0” N/A – Subject Property 6482-S** 3’-0”531 Nolan Avenue 6717-S 8’-0”
Building permit identifies a
minimum 10’-0” setback.
535 Nolan Avenue* 3134-S 12’-6” Building permit records indicate this was never constructed.
537 Nolan Avenue 5878-S 6’-0” Building permit identifies a minimum 6’-0” setback.
510 Nolan Avenue 4453-S 6’-0” Building permit identifies a minimum 6’-0” setback.
111 of 239

119a
3 5
6 2
524 Nolan Avenue 5504-S 6’-0” Building permit identifies a minimum 6’-0” setback.
* City records have multiple addresses associated with this property that were also reviewed for applicability (535 Nolan Avenue, 1768-1774 Rohr Drive). ** A decision was never rendered on this case and it was superseded by a subsequent variance.

Property Uniqueness
The appellant identifies property uniqueness as the second issue the commission refused to consider, but does not specify what this means or provide any other information.

In accordance with GMC Section 30.43.010, the purpose of a variance is to assure that no property shall be deprived of privileges commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zone and vicinity because of the special circumstances applicable to it. Since the variance process is established to afford properties with unique circumstances the same development rights as other properties, the Planning Hearing Officer is required to establish those unique circumstances in the required findings. This is detailed in Finding B above under “Basis of the Variance Approval”, and the main points are summarized below:
•Steep topography – has an average current slope of 84.5% •Lot configuration – double-frontage lot that is narrower along Valentine Drive and curves into the slope, and wider along Nolan Avenue, where other lots are narrower at the top and wider at the bottom.
•The steep topography and lot configuration gives the subject site an unfair disadvantage because compliance with the zoning code minimum setback and driveway length requirements causes unintentional conflicts between the Zoning Code and Hillside Design Guidelines where the massing of the house would be exacerbated because the house would be pushed farther away from the slope. Compliance would also require a driveway bridge design inconsistent with the development pattern along Nolan Avenue. •As it relates to the stairs, the zoning development standards are for the more typical hillside lot where the slope is not as steep as the subject site. As such, it would not be possible to construct the required stairs in compliance with the four-foot height limit.

The Planning Hearing Officer did take the property uniqueness into consideration in rendering their final decision as discussed in Finding B. Additionally, the Planning Commission’s decision was to sustain the Planning Hearing Officer’s decision without any amendments, indicating that they concurred with all of the findings, including the unique circumstances associated with the subject site.

Inaccurate Measurement Data
The appellant identifies inaccurate measurement data as the third issue the commission refused to consider, but does not define the inaccuracies in this part of the application. 112 of 239

129a
3 5
6 2
At the end of the application under the statement of additional facts section, the appellant identifies the driveway length, slope and setback as needing accurate data, but not does not provide any other specifics or material evidence with the appeal application to support this statement.

During the Planning Commission hearing, the appellant, Mr. Alexander Jackson, owner and resident at 515 Nolan Avenue brought up that a portion of the subject site was deeded to his property in the 1970s and that the plans do not take this into account when showing the required 10’-0” interior setback. This matter was eventually resolved through the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance for each of the properties, as discussed above under Project History. The original tract map that established these lots, Tract Map No. 4881, was recorded in 1927 and therefore does not take into account the four feet. The Los Angeles County Assessor’s Map, date unknown, does show the four feet. Both of these maps are included with this report as Exhibit 12. The project plans, as reviewed by the Planning Hearing Officer and the Planning Commission also take this four-feet in consideration with the required 10’-0” interior setback accurately shown and no changes are required to the site planning.

Additionally, at the Planning Commission hearing, the applicant submitted a stamped topographic survey prepared by a licensed civil engineer, included with this report as Exhibit 9.

The street front property line dimensions are what is pertinent to the measurement of the required interior setback in this argument, and the below table compares the data on the tract map, assessor’s map, and submitted survey.

Street
Front
1927 Tract
Map
Assessor’s
Map
Submitted
Survey
Project
Plans
Nolan
Avenue
101.75
(12+81.5+8.25)

97.75 (12+81.5+8.25-4)

97.53 (12+81.5+4.03)

97.06 Valentine
Drive

83.33 79.33
(83.33-4)

79.33 79.33
Public Welfare Concerns
The appellant identifies public welfare concerns as the final issue that the commission refused to consider, but does not specify what this means or provide any other information.

In accordance with GMC Section 30.43.030, the Planning Hearing Officer is required to make a finding that the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such zone or neighborhood in which the property is located. This is detailed in Finding C above under “Basis of the Variance Approval”, and the main points are summarized below:
•Street-front setback requirements are established to maintain an attractive neighborhood with a consistent streetscape and rhythm, as well as providing 113 of 239

139a
3 5
6 2
relief from the street.
•The requested variance for the front setback would not create a visual impact and would be consistent with the development pattern in the neighborhood along this portion of Nolan Avenue.
•The requested variances for the front setback and the driveway length would be consistent with other existing, neighboring residences. Accordingly, this will not be detrimental to the public welfare.
•The stairs will not impact the public welfare as the majority of the stairs will be hidden from view based on the down sloped condition, and they are providing the code-required access around the residence to the side and rear sloped areas for life safety.
•Approval of the requested variances allows the house to fit with the natural topography of the site and minimize visual impacts to the neighborhood by reducing the massing. The design also minimizes the amount of grading needed and preserve a significant portion of the site as natural open space. •The surrounding neighborhood has been developed with similar type homes on hillside lots that have not been detrimental to the neighborhood.

The Planning Hearing Officer did take the public welfare into consideration in rendering their final decision as discussed in Finding C. Additionally, the Planning Commission’s decision was to sustain the Planning Hearing Officer’s decision without any amendments, indicating that they concurred with all of the findings, including that the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare.

The appellant contends that the evidence before the Planning Commission was insufficient or inadequate to support its decision. The evidence the appellant cites as lacking is that the subject properties and the wording used in the initial variance request were flawed and erroneously presented to the commission members and their decision was based on inaccurate information.

Staff’s Response:

The appellant does not provide any specifics with this argument regarding the flawed wording and inaccurate information presented in error to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission’s decision to sustain the Planning Hearing Officer’s approval of the variance was based on all of the evidence in the public record, including the staff report and attachments, any submitted correspondence, all application materials, and having heard all testimony at the public hearing. Having reviewed all of this information, including written and oral testimony from the public, the Planning Commission sustained the Planning Hearing Officer’s decision without any amendments. Staff’s response above addresses neighborhood uniformity as well as clarifying data from available city records regarding similar variance requests historically made in the neighborhood. The concern regarding inaccurate measurement data is discussed in detail above as well and shows that no misinformation was provided.
114 of 239

149a
3 5
6 2
The appellant contends that they have new evidence of material facts that were not previously presented that would have changed the Planning Commission’s determination.

Staff’s Response:

While the appellant selected “Yes” as the response to the final question under Part 4, no other information has been provided. The appellant does not cite any new evidence, and no material evidence was included with the submitted appeal application. During the Planning Commission hearing, the appellant submitted documentation for the commission to consider in rendering their final decision. This is included with this report as Exhibit 8, and includes copies of all written testimony received. In rendering their final decision, the Planning Commission took all of the evidence in the public record into consideration, including all written and oral testimony from the public, including the appellant’s documentation.

In her appeal under the “Statement of additional facts related to the appeal”, the appellant appears to suggest that accurate information including the driveway length, slope, and setback were not provided by the applicant.

Staff’s Response:

The appellant has made a general statement that accurate information related to the driveway length, slope, and setback were not provided by the applicant, but does not provide any material evidence with the appeal application to support this claim. Staff’s responses above address these statements.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Not applicable.

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

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
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 involves the development of one single-family residence.

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 attached in Exhibit 13, in accordance with the City Campaign Finance Ordinance No. 115 of 239

159a
3 5
6 2
5744.

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: The City Council may sustain the Planning Commission’s decision of April 3, 2019, to sustain the Planning Hearing Officer’s decision to approve the variance with conditions.

Alternative 2: The City Council may continue the matter, directing the City Attorney to draft findings, reversing the Planning Commission’s decision and denying the project.

Alternative 3: Any other alternative not proposed by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Bradley Calvert, Director of Community Development
Prepared by:

Vista Ezzati, Planner
Reviewed by:

Michael J. Garcia, City Attorney
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Click or tap here to enter text.

Exhibit 1: Location Map
Exhibit 2: Reduced Plans
Exhibit 3: Project Site Photographs
Exhibit 4: Variance Application
Exhibit 5: Planning Hearing Officer’s Staff Report, dated April 18, 2018 Note - Exhibits are available online:
http://www.ci.glendale.ca.us/government/packets/PHO_041818/521- Nolan-Ave.pdf
Exhibit 6: Planning Hearing Officer’s Decision Letters, dated April 18, 2018 Exhibit 7: Planning Commission Staff Report, dated April 3, 2019 Note - Exhibits are available online:
https://www.ci.glendale.ca.us/government/packets/PC_040319/521-Nolan- Ave.pdf
Exhibit 8: Public Comments Submitted to the Planning Commission, April 3, 2019 Exhibit 9: Topographic Survey Submitted by the Applicant, April 3, 2019 Exhibit 10: Planning Commission Decision, dated April 3, 2019 Exhibit 11: Notice of Appeal of Planning Commission’s Decision Exhibit 12: Recorded Tract Map and LA County Assessor’s Map 116 of 239

169a
3 5
6 2
Exhibit 13: Campaign Disclosure
117 of 239

C:\inetpub\wwwroot\multitenant\temp\CC_10252022_Motion_9a1.pdf Pg. 1 MOTION
Moved by Council Member ________________________, seconded by Council Member ____________________________ that upon review and consideration of all documents, materials and exhibits relative to Setback and Standards Variance Case No. PVAR 1722701 (“Variance”), for the project site located at 521 Nolan Avenue, and after having conducted a public hearing on the appeal pursuant to the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995, and received testimony, the Council of the City of Glendale, based upon the record in the matter, hereby SUSTAINS the decision of the Planning Commission to sustain the Planning Hearing Officer’s Decision and GRANTS said Variance subject to conditions.

In sustaining the decisions of the Planning Commission and Planning Hearing Officer and granting the Variance, the Council adopts and incorporates herein by reference the findings contained in the Planning Hearing Officer’s decision letter dated July 16, 2018, attached as Exhibit 6 to the Report to Council dated October 25, 2022 (“PHO Decision Letter”). The Council decision granting the variance is further subject to the conditions of approval set forth in the PHO Decision Letter. 118 of 239

C:\inetpub\wwwroot\multitenant\temp\CC_10252022_Motion_9a2.pdf MOTION
Moved by Council Member ________________________, seconded by Council Member ____________________________ that upon review and consideration of all documents, materials and exhibits relative to Setback and Standards Variance Case No. PVAR 1722701 (“Variance”), for the project site located at 521 Nolan Avenue, and after having conducted a public hearing on the appeal pursuant to the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995, and received testimony, the Council of the City of Glendale, based upon the record in the matter, hereby reverses the Planning Commission’s decision and denies the Variance. The Council hereby continues this matter until November 15, 2022, without further public notice, and directs the City Attorney to prepare written findings in support of reversing the Planning Commission’s decision on the Variance.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
119 of 239

Exhibit 1
120 of 239

2-STORY HOUSE
2-STORY HOUSE
PORTION LOT 7
0 TRACT NO. 4881
M.B. 140/32
-35
VA

CANT LAND
DIR
T AR
EA
LOT 69 & PORTION LOT 70
TRACT NO. 4881
M.B. 140/32-35

(NOT A PART)
LOT 71
TRACT NO. 4881
M.B. 140/32-35
(NOT A PART)

NOLAN AVENUE

VALENTINE DRIVE
15'
15'
3 0'
15'
15'
3 0'
15'

15'
3 0'
N 72°11'59''W 109.20'
L=79.33'
S 77°20'49''E 132.47'
L=81.50'
L=17.68'
R=90.00'
R=773.20' L1
L2
L=35.05'
R=39.40'
L=83.08'
R=788.20'

15.00'
S 38°30'32''E
L4
S 51°29'28''W

10.00'

18.03'
C1
R=24.40'
10 41
.49
10 41
.96
10 52
.51
10 51
.23
10 51
.69
10 52
.03
10 53
.74
10 48
.16
10 51
.57 10
46 .44
10 44
.95
10 40
.33 10
40 .95
10 41
.71
10 39
.40
10 38
.43
10 34
.22
10 45
.85
10 34
.66
10 34
.82
10 34
.70
950.02
964.28
972.59
982.51
982.63
978.16
946.39
939.17
1045.00
1040.00
1035.00
1030.00
1010.001010.00
1005.001005.00
1000.001000.00
995.00
995.00
990.00
990.00 985.00
980.00
975.00
970.00
965.00
960.00
955.00
950.00
950.00
945.00
945.00
940.00
947.84
1066.70 ROOF
1043.86 ROOF
1052.55TOPX
1052.13FS
1052.14BO
T X
1052.76
1052.44TW
1052.04TC
1051.61FL 1050.74FS
1051.28TC
1054.94 FF
1051.27
1049.00
1048.57
1047.20
1047.98TC
1047.66FS
1046.16
1044.60
1045.80TC
1043.15FS
1043.66TC1045.38FS
1040.33
1037.78
1039.22FS
1039.76TC1041.74TC
1041.10FS
1038.92TOP X
1038.44FS
1038.13BO
T X
1037.51FS
1038.32
1038.361041.45
1044.94
1049.18
1051.47
1053.67TW
1034.59TW
1034.65TW
1031.411031.81
1031.71
1026.95
1020.74
1033.91
1036.39
1029.52NG
1032.88TW1034.25
1033.18
1024.95
1026.88NG
1025.18
1018.27TW
1014.74
996.84
973.70
1034.56 FF
946.47
940.50
975.53
962.56
976.84
976.86
992.64
1010.18
983.41
978.66 980.13
971.60 974.84
953.32
950.52
951.34
958.18
947.93
945.31
943.89
941.84
940.21
940.76
942.60
945.05
1 2 2
5 2
6 2
7 8
10 11
12 45
65 67
68 6970
71 72
73 74
75 76
7778798081
82 83
86 85
87 88
90 91
9293
94 9596
9798
99 10
0 10
1 10
2 10
3 10
4 10
10 5
6 10
7 10
8 10
9 110
111112
113 114
115
116117
118119
12 2
12 3
12 4
12 5
12 6
12 7
12 8
12 9
13 0
13 1 13
2 13
3 13
413
5 13
6 13
7 13
813
9 14
0 14
1 14
2 14
314
4 14
5 14
7 14
8 15
0 15
1 15
2 15
3 15
4 15
5 15
6 15
7 15
8 15
9 16
0 16
1 16
2 16
3 16
4 16
5 16
6 16
7 16
8 16
9 17
0 17
117
2 17
3 17
5 17
6 17
7 17
8 17
9 18
1 18
3 18
4 18
5 18
6 18
7 18
8 18
9 19
0 19
1 19
2 19
3 19
4 19
5 19
6 19
7 19
8 19
9 200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
21 0
21 1
21 2
21 3
21 4
46 43
44 13
21 5
FS
FDLS
4161
TPX
FDLS
2599

PRODSETLNT
ROOF
BC
N
BC
N
ROOF
BC
N
BC
N

PRODPRODPRODPRODSETLNT
BC
N
48TR
LF XT
BX
FL
WIF
WIF
EOCEOC
TW
TCFL
FSTC
TW
GFF
STRNG
NG
24TRFSTRNG
NG
24TR
SM
H
TCFS
NG CA
TV
24TR
TCFS
FSTC
FS
NG
NG
NG
EB
36TR
24TR
FSTC
TCFS
WM

TXFS BX FL
D
NG
GM
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
TW
TPX
TW
TW
TW
8TRN
FS
FS
FS
TW
TW
10 TRN
NG
NG
NG
NG
NGTW
NGF

WIFNSTR
WIFN
36TR
NGW
NGW
TW
NG
NG
NG
TPX
GFF
SETN
SETN
NG
NG
NG
NG
NG
NG
TR NG
NG
NG
TR
TR TR
NG
NG
TR
NG
NG
NG
NG
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
EB

IDENTICAL POINT
FD. L& TAG "
LS 4161"
ON T
C AT 7.28'

SE'LY F
ROM PC
SET. L&T ON TC
AT 9.00' FROM P
C,
P.L. PROD.

SET. L&T ON TC
AT 6.85' FROM PC,
P.L. PROD.

SET HUB WIT
H NAIL
ON LO

T CORNER

SET C NAIL

ON PAVEMENT

AT LOT CORNER
UP

DRIVEWAY ACCESS

DRIVEWAY ACCESS
24"T
REE
36"T
REE
24"T
REE
24"T
REE
8"TREE
36"T
REE
10"TREE
6"TREE
6"TREE
6"TREE
6"TREE
6"TREE

CONCRETE CURB

AC PAVEMENT

CONCRETE CURB
N 51°
29'
28''E

12.00'
N
5°31
'08
''W

7.76'

LINE DATA
LINE
BEARI
NG
L1
L2
L3
CL
CL
CL
WM
GM
S
CT
VB
PROJECT ADDRESS: 521 NOLAN AVE.

GLENDALE, CA 91202
ZONE: RIR DISTRICT II
LOT SIZE: 8,790 PER ASSESSOR
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE FAR: 8,790 X 0.30 = 2,637 SF
PROPOSED FAR:

GARAGE LEVEL -
BLDG -
GARAGE - 447 SF (NOT INCLUDED)

LOWER LEVEL -
LOWER LEVEL 2 -

PROJECT DATA
S= 0.00229 IL/A
l= 1 FOOT
L= 1,192' FEET
A= 1,407.5469 SQ.FT= 0.03231283057851 ACRES
S= 0.00229 x 2.72968 (IL)/ 0.032312 (A)

0.00229/0.0362312

0.00229/0.0362312= 84.478
S= 84.5%
1,012 SF
1,292 SF
182 SF
2,486 SF
515 NOLAN - 7 FT
491 NOLAN - 15 FT
510 NOLAN - 10 FT
524 NOLAN - 4 FT
537 NOLAN - 4 FT
531 NOLAN - 14 FT

PREVAILING SETBACKS
PROPOSED SETBACK - 5 FEET
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT - 32 FEET + 3 FEET IF ROOF SLOPE IS 3:12 MIN.

PROPOSED HEIGHT - 36 FEET
ASSESSOR ID: 5630-011-035

REQ'D INTERIOR SETBACK
10' - 0"

PROPOSED FRONT SETBACK
5' - 0"
1036.71' FS
1039.21' TW

NOLAN AVENUE
P.L. 79.33'
P.L. 132.47'
P.L. 109.20'
P.L. 97.06'

SHEET NUMBER

DRAWN BY

PROJECT NUMBER

CADD FILE
SCALE
.

SHEET TITLE

PLOTTED DATE

REVISIONS

PROJECT
PREPARED FOR:

Malekian & Assoc.
.
.

MM MMoo oonn nntt ttrr rroo ooss ssee ee,,,, CC CCAA AA 99 9911 1100 0022 2200 00 22 2222 2255 5555 55 HH HHoo oonn nnoo oolllluu uulllluu uu AA AAvv vvee ee.... 11 11AA AA Fax.88 8811 1188 88....22 2244 4499 99....55 5500 0000 0055 55 88 8811 1188 88....22 2244 4499 99....55 5555 5522 2222 22 Tel.
9/14/20179/14/20179/14/20179/14/2017
12:57:44 PM12:57:44 PM12:57:44 PM12:57:44 PM
P:\Projects\Malekian & Assoicates\0115.390 521 Nolan\REVIT MODEL\521 Nolan7.1(Recovery).rvtP:\Projects\Malekian & Assoicates\0115.390 521 Nolan\REVIT MODEL\521 Nolan7.1(Recovery).rvtP:\Projects\Malekian & Assoicates\0115.390 521 Nolan\REVIT MODEL\521 Nolan7.1(Recovery).rvtP:\Projects\Malekian & Assoicates\0115.390 521 Nolan\REVIT MODEL\521 Nolan7.1(Recovery).rvt -
PROPOSED 2-STORY

RESIDENCE
A1.0

PROJECT DATA AND

SITE PLAN
521 Nolan Avenue
Glendale, CA 91202
Project NumberProject NumberProject NumberProject Number NORTH
1" = 10'-0"1 PROPOSED SITE PLAN
PROPOSED 3 STORY RESIDENCE
521 NOLAN AVE,
Glendale, CA 91202
NORTH
Exhibit 2
121 of 239

2-STORY HOUSE
2-STORY HOUSE
PORTION LOT 70
TRACT NO. 4881
M.B. 140/32
-35
VA

CANT LAND
DIR
T AR
EA
LOT 69 & PORTION LOT 70
TRACT NO. 4881
M.B. 140/32-35
(NOT A PART)
LOT 71
TRACT NO. 4881
M.B. 140/32-35
(NOT A PART)

NOLAN AVENUE

VALENTINE DRIVE
15' 15'
3 0'
15' 15'
3 0'
15' 15'
3 0'
N 72°11'59''W 109.20'
L=79.33'
S 77°20'49''E 132.47'
L=81.50'
L=17.68'
R=90.00'
R=773.20' L1
L2
L=35.05'
R=39.40'
L=83.08'
R=788.20'

15.00'
S 38°30'32''E
L4
S 51°29'28''W

10.00'

18.03'
C1
R=24.40'
10 41
.49
10 41
.96
10 52
.51
10 51
.23
10 51
.69
10 52
.03
10 53
.74
10 48
.16
10 51
.57 10
46 .44
10 44
.95
10 40
.33 10
40 .95
10 41
.71
10 39
.40
10 38
.43
10 34
.22
10 45
.85
10 34
.66
10 34
.82
10 34
.70
950.02
964.28
972.59
982.51
982.63
978.16
946.39
939.17
1045.00
1040.00
1035.00
1030.00
1010.00 1010.00
1005.00 1005.00
1000.00 1000.00
995.00
995.00
990.00
990.00 985.00
980.00
975.00
970.00
965.00
960.00
955.00
950.00
950.00
945.00
945.00
940.00
947.84
1066.70 ROOF
1043.86 ROOF
1052.55TOPX
1052.13FS
1052.14BO
T X
1052.76
1052.44TW
1052.04TC
1051.61FL 1050.74FS
1051.28TC
1054.94 FF
1051.27
1049.00
1048.57
1047.20
1047.98TC
1047.66FS
1046.16
1044.60
1045.80TC
1043.15FS
1043.66TC 1045.38FS
1040.33
1037.78
1039.22FS
1039.76TC 1041.74TC
1041.10FS
1038.92TOP X
1038.44FS
1038.13BO
T X
1037.51FS
1038.32
1038.36 1041.45
1044.94
1049.18
1051.47
1053.67TW
1034.59TW
1034.65TW
1031.41 1031.81
1031.71
1026.95
1020.74
1033.91
1036.39
1029.52NG
1032.88TW 1034.25
1033.18
1024.95
1026.88NG
1025.18
1018.27TW
1014.74
996.84
973.70
1034.56 FF
946.47
940.50
975.53
962.56
976.84
976.86
992.64
1010.18
983.41
978.66 980.13
971.60 974.84
953.32
950.52
951.34
958.18
947.93
945.31
943.89
941.84
940.21
940.76
942.60
945.05
1 22
5 2
6 2
7 8
10 11
12 45
65 67
68 69 70
71 72
73 74
75 76
77 78 79 80 81
82 83
85 86 87
88 90
91 92 93
94 95 96
97 98
99 10
0 10
1 10
2 10
3 10
4 10
5 10
6 10
7 10
8 10
9 110
111 112
113 114
115
116 117
118 119
12 2
12 3
12 4
12 5
12 6
12 7
12 8
12 9
13 0
13 1 13
2 13
3 13
4 13
5 13
6 13
7 13
8 13
9 14
0 14
1 14
2 14
3 14
4 14
5 14
7 14
8 15
0 15
1 15
2 15
3 15
4 15
5 15
6 15
7 15
8 15
9 16
0 16
1 16
2 16
3 16
4 16
5 16
6 16
7 16
8 16
9 17
0 17
1 17
2 17
3 17
5 17
6 17
7 17
8 17
9 18
1 18
3 18
4 18
5 18
6 18
7 18
8 18
9 19
0 19
1 19
2 19
3 19
4 19
5 19
6 19
7 19
8 19
9 200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
21 0
21 1
21 2
21 3
21 4
46 43
44 13
21 5
FS
FDLS
4161
TPX
FDLS
2599

PROD SETLNT
ROOF
BC
N
BC
N
ROOF
BC
N
BC
N

PROD PROD PROD PROD SETLNT
BC
N
48TR

TX FL BX
FL
WIF
WIF

EOC EOC
TW
TC FL
FS TC
TW
GFF
STR NG
NG
24TR FSTR NG
NG
24TR
SM
H
TC FS
NG CA
TV
24TR
TC FS
FS TC
FS
NG
NG
NG
EB
36TR
24TR
FS TC
TC FS
WM

TX FS BX FL
D
NG
GM
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
TW
TPX
TW
TW
TW
8TRN
FS
FS
FS
TW
TW
10 TRN
NG
NG
NG
NG
NG TW
NGF

WIFN STR
WIFN
36TR
NGW
NGW
TW
NG
NG
NG
TPX
GFF
SETN
SETN
NG
NG
NG
NG
NG
NG
TR NG
NG
NG
TR
TR TR
NG
NG
TR
NG
NG
NG
NG
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
EB

IDENTICAL POINT
FD. L& TAG "
LS 4161"
ON T
C AT 7.28'

SE'LY F
ROM PC
SET. L&T ON TC
AT 9.00' FROM P
C,
P.L. PROD.

SET. L&T ON TC
AT 6.85' FROM PC,
P.L. PROD.

SET HUB WIT
H NAIL
ON LO

T CORNER

SET C NAIL

ON PAVEMENT

AT LOT CORNER
UP

DRIVEWAY ACCESS

DRIVEWAY ACCESS
24"T
REE
36"T
REE
24"T
REE
24"T
REE
8"TREE
36"T
REE
10"TREE
6"TREE
6"TREE
6"TREE
6"TREE
6"TREE

CONCRETE CURB

AC PAVEMENT

CONCRETE CURB
N 51°
29'
28''E 1

2.00'
N 5°31
'08
''W

7.76'

LINE DATA
LINE
BEARI
NG
L1
L2
L3
CL
CL
CL
WM
GM
S
CT
VB

REQ'D INTERIOR SETBACK
10' - 0"

PROPOSED FRONT SETBACK
5' - 0"
1036.71' FS
1039.21' TW

NOLAN AVENUE
P.L. 79.33'
P.L. 132.47'
P.L. 109.20'
P.L. 97.06'

LANDSCAPE

HARDSCAPE

BUILDING
LEGEND:

SHEET NUMBER

DRAWN BY

PROJECT NUMBER

CADD FILE
SCALE
.

SHEET TITLE

PLOTTED DATE

REVISIONS

PROJECT
PREPARED FOR:

Malekian & Assoc.
.
.

MM MMoo oonn nntt ttrr rroo ooss ssee ee,,,, CC CCAA AA 99 9911 1100 0022 2200 00 22 2222 2255 5555 55 HH HHoo oonn nnoo oolllluu uulllluu uu AA AAvv vvee ee.... 11 11AA AA Fax.88 8811 1188 88....22 2244 4499 99....55 5500 0000 0055 55 88 8811 1188 88....22 2244 4499 99....55 5555 5522 2222 22 Tel. 9/14/2017 9/14/2017 9/14/2017 9/14/2017
12:57:45 PM 12:57:45 PM 12:57:45 PM 12:57:45 PM
P:\Projects\Malekian & Assoicates\0115.390 521 Nolan\REVIT MODEL\521 Nolan7.1(Recovery).rvt P:\Projects\Malekian & Assoicates\0115.390 521 Nolan\REVIT MODEL\521 Nolan7.1(Recovery).rvt P:\Projects\Malekian & Assoicates\0115.390 521 Nolan\REVIT MODEL\521 Nolan7.1(Recovery).rvt P:\Projects\Malekian & Assoicates\0115.390 521 Nolan\REVIT MODEL\521 Nolan7.1(Recovery).rvt -
PROPOSED 2 -STORY

RESIDENCE
A1.1

COLORED PLOT PLAN
521 Nolan Avenue
Glendale, CA 91202
Project Number Project Number Project Number Project Number 1" = 10'-0" 1 PROPOSED SITE PLAN Copy 1
122 of 239

NOLAN AVENUE
3 0'
S 77°20'49''E 132.47'
L=81.50'
R=773.20' L1
L=83.08' R=788.20'

15.00'
S 38°30'32''E
L4

10.00'
104

1.49 104

1.96104

6.44 104

4.95 104

0.33 104

0.95 104

1.71 1035.00
1030.00
1025.00
1020.00
1015.00
1015.00
1010.001010.00
1005.001005.00
1000.001000.00
995.00
995.00
1047.20
1046.16
1044.60
1040.33
1041.45
1044.94
1033.91
1036.39
1024.95 1018.61
1018.27TW
996.84
992.64
1010.18
1 8
45 656877787981
83 110
113
114
115123
124
125
126
127
142
143
159
163
164
174
177
193
194
48TR
SMH
NG
CATV
24TR TC
NG
NG
NG
EB
36TR
FS
FS
10TR
N
NG
NG
NG
NG
NG
NG
EB
S
CTVB
DN
1 A4.0
10' - 0"
FOYER
1 A4.1

PROPOSED FRONT SETBACK
5' - 0"
20' - 0"

1.99%

1.97%
20' - 0"

6.44%

5.95%
2 CAR GARAGE
20' - 9 5/8" 7' - 10 3/4" 2' - 4 3/4"
9' - 0 1/4" 11' - 9" 2' - 11"
21' - 0 1/4"
P.L.

SHEET NUMBER

DRAWN BY

PROJECT NUMBER

CADD FILE
SCALE
.

SHEET TITLE

PLOTTED DATE

REVISIONS

PROJECT
PREPARED FOR:

Malekian & Assoc.
.
.

MM MMoo oonn nntt ttrr rroo ooss ssee ee,,,, CC CCAA AA 99 9911 1100 0022 2200 00 22 2222 2255 5555 55 HH HHoo oonn nnoo oolllluu uulllluu uu AA AAvv vvee ee.... 11 11AA AA Fax.88 8811 1188 88....22 2244 4499 99....55 5500 0000 0055 55 88 8811 1188 88....22 2244 4499 99....55 5555 5522 2222 22 Tel. 9/14/2017 9/14/2017 9/14/2017 9/14/2017
12:57:45 PM 12:57:45 PM 12:57:45 PM 12:57:45 PM
P:\Projects\Malekian & Assoicates\0115.390 521 Nolan\REVIT MODEL\521 Nolan7.1(Recovery).rvt P:\Projects\Malekian & Assoicates\0115.390 521 Nolan\REVIT MODEL\521 Nolan7.1(Recovery).rvt P:\Projects\Malekian & Assoicates\0115.390 521 Nolan\REVIT MODEL\521 Nolan7.1(Recovery).rvt P:\Projects\Malekian & Assoicates\0115.390 521 Nolan\REVIT MODEL\521 Nolan7.1(Recovery).rvt -
PROPOSED 2 -STORY

RESIDENCE
A2.0

PROPOSED GARAGE

LEVEL PLAN
521 Nolan Avenue
Glendale, CA 91202
Project Number Project Number Project Number Project Number 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 PROPOSED GARAGE LEVEL
NORTH
123 of 239

UP
DN
1 A4.0
DINING
LIVING
1 A4.1
14' - 2 1/2"
10' - 0"
DECK
20' - 0"
16' - 0"
5' - 0"
13' - 1 7/8"
15' - 1 7/8"
17' - 0 1/4" 3' - 9" 3' - 11"
23' - 7 1/2" 7' - 8 3/4" 20' - 0"
28' - 4 1/4" 21' - 0"
5' - 10 3/4" 16' - 1 1/2" 4' - 11 7/8"
5' - 2 5/8"
3' - 5 13/16"
1' - 11 1/16"
5' - 8 3/8"
1 A4.0
BEDROOM 1
BEDROOM 2
1 A4.1

MASTERS
10' - 0"
10' - 0"
W.I.C.

WIC
5' - 0"

MASTERS
BATH
11' - 6"
12' - 0 1/4"
12' - 0"
12' - 0" 5' - 0"
13' - 0"
15' - 6 3/4"
5' - 2"
5' - 0"
CLO.
7' - 10 3/4"
9' - 8 3/16"

SHEET NUMBER

DRAWN BY

PROJECT NUMBER

CADD FILE
SCALE
.

SHEET TITLE

PLOTTED DATE

REVISIONS

PROJECT
PREPARED FOR:

Malekian & Assoc.
.
.

MM MMoo oonn nntt ttrr rroo ooss ssee ee,,,, CC CCAA AA 99 9911 1100 0022 2200 00 22 2222 2255 5555 55 HH HHoo oonn nnoo oolllluu uulllluu uu AA AAvv vvee ee.... 11 11AA AA Fax.88 8811 1188 88....22 2244 4499 99....55 5500 0000 0055 55 88 8811 1188 88....22 2244 4499 99....55 5555 5522 2222 22 Tel. 9/14/2017 9/14/2017 9/14/2017 9/14/2017
12:57:46 PM 12:57:46 PM 12:57:46 PM 12:57:46 PM
P:\Projects\Malekian & Assoicates\0115.390 521 Nolan\REVIT MODEL\521 Nolan7.1(Recovery).rvt P:\Projects\Malekian & Assoicates\0115.390 521 Nolan\REVIT MODEL\521 Nolan7.1(Recovery).rvt P:\Projects\Malekian & Assoicates\0115.390 521 Nolan\REVIT MODEL\521 Nolan7.1(Recovery).rvt P:\Projects\Malekian & Assoicates\0115.390 521 Nolan\REVIT MODEL\521 Nolan7.1(Recovery).rvt -
PROPOSED 2 -STORY

RESIDENCE
A2.1

PROPOSED LOWER

LEVEL PLAN
521 Nolan Avenue
Glendale, CA 91202
Project Number Project Number Project Number Project Number 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL PLAN
1/4" = 1'-0" 2 PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL 2 PLAN

NORTH NORTH
124 of 239

TOP OF PARAPET
1053.71

FOYER/GARAGE LEVEL
1043.71
10' - 0"
LOWER LEVEL 1
1033.21
LOWER LEVEL 2
1022.71

TOP OF PARAPET
1053.71

FOYER/GARAGE LEVEL
1043.71

LOWEST POINT
1017.71
10' - 6" 5' - 0"

MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING
36' - 0"
10' - 6" 10' - 0"

PROPERTY LINE
LOWER LEVEL 1
1033.21
LOWER LEVEL 2
1022.71

TOP OF PARAPET
1053.71

FOYER/GARAGE LEVEL
1043.71

LOWEST POINT
1017.71
1 A4.0
1 A4.1

MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING
36' - 0"
10' - 0" 10' - 6" 10' - 6" 5' - 0"
5'-0" MAX. ALLOWABLE
4' - 11"
3' - 0 9/16"

SHEET NUMBER

DRAWN BY

PROJECT NUMBER

CADD FILE
SCALE
.

SHEET TITLE

PLOTTED DATE

REVISIONS

PROJECT
PREPARED FOR:

Malekian & Assoc.
.
.

MM MMoo oonn nntt ttrr rroo ooss ssee ee,,,, CC CCAA AA 99 9911 1100 0022 2200 00 22 2222 2255 5555 55 HH HHoo oonn nnoo oolllluu uulllluu uu AA AAvv vvee ee.... 11 11AA AA Fax.88 8811 1188 88....22 2244 4499 99....55 5500 0000 0055 55 88 8811 1188 88....22 2244 4499 99....55 5555 5522 2222 22 Tel. 9/14/2017 9/14/2017 9/14/2017 9/14/2017
12:57:49 PM 12:57:49 PM 12:57:49 PM 12:57:49 PM
P:\Projects\Malekian & Assoicates\0115.390 521 Nolan\REVIT MODEL\521 Nolan7.1(Recovery).rvt P:\Projects\Malekian & Assoicates\0115.390 521 Nolan\REVIT MODEL\521 Nolan7.1(Recovery).rvt P:\Projects\Malekian & Assoicates\0115.390 521 Nolan\REVIT MODEL\521 Nolan7.1(Recovery).rvt P:\Projects\Malekian & Assoicates\0115.390 521 Nolan\REVIT MODEL\521 Nolan7.1(Recovery).rvt -
PROPOSED 2 -STORY

RESIDENCE
A3.0

ELEVATIONS
521 Nolan Avenue
Glendale, CA 91202
Project Number Project Number Project Number Project Number 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 SOUTH ELEVATION
1/4" = 1'-0" 2 WEST ELEVATION
1/4" = 1'-0" 3 NORTH ELEVATION
125 of 239

LOWER LEVEL 1
1033.21
LOWER LEVEL 2
1022.71

TOP OF PARAPET
1053.71

FOYER/GARAGE LEVEL
1043.71

LOWEST POINT
1017.71
10' - 0" 5' - 0"

PROPERTY LINE

MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING
36' - 0"
10' - 6" 10' - 6"
NOLAN AVE.

SHEET NUMBER

DRAWN BY

PROJECT NUMBER

CADD FILE
SCALE
.

SHEET TITLE

PLOTTED DATE

REVISIONS

PROJECT
PREPARED FOR:

Malekian & Assoc.
.
.

MM MMoo oonn nntt ttrr rroo ooss ssee ee,,,, CC CCAA AA 99 9911 1100 0022 2200 00 22 2222 2255 5555 55 HH HHoo oonn nnoo oolllluu uulllluu uu AA AAvv vvee ee.... 11 11AA AA Fax.88 8811 1188 88....22 2244 4499 99....55 5500 0000 0055 55 88 8811 1188 88....22 2244 4499 99....55 5555 5522 2222 22 Tel. 9/14/2017 9/14/2017 9/14/2017 9/14/2017
12:57:52 PM 12:57:52 PM 12:57:52 PM 12:57:52 PM
P:\Projects\Malekian & Assoicates\0115.390 521 Nolan\REVIT MODEL\521 Nolan7.1(Recovery).rvt P:\Projects\Malekian & Assoicates\0115.390 521 Nolan\REVIT MODEL\521 Nolan7.1(Recovery).rvt P:\Projects\Malekian & Assoicates\0115.390 521 Nolan\REVIT MODEL\521 Nolan7.1(Recovery).rvt P:\Projects\Malekian & Assoicates\0115.390 521 Nolan\REVIT MODEL\521 Nolan7.1(Recovery).rvt -
PROPOSED 2 -STORY

RESIDENCE
A3.1

ELEVATION
521 Nolan Avenue
Glendale, CA 91202
Project Number Project Number Project Number Project Number 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 EAST ELEVATION
126 of 239

LOWER LEVEL 1
1033.21
LOWER LEVEL 2
1022.71

TOP OF PARAPET
1053.71

FOYER/GARAGE LEVEL
1043.71

LOWEST POINT
1017.71

MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT
36' - 0"
10' - 0" 10' - 6" 5' - 0"

NATURAL GRADE

LIVING DECK
10' - 6"
5'-0" MAX.
4' - 5"
2:1
5' - 0"
BEDROOM 2
NOLAN AVE.

PROPERTY LINE

SHEET NUMBER

DRAWN BY

PROJECT NUMBER

CADD FILE
SCALE
.

SHEET TITLE

PLOTTED DATE

REVISIONS

PROJECT
PREPARED FOR:

Malekian & Assoc.
.
.

MM MMoo oonn nntt ttrr rroo ooss ssee ee,,,, CC CCAA AA 99 9911 1100 0022 2200 00 22 2222 2255 5555 55 HH HHoo oonn nnoo oolllluu uulllluu uu AA AAvv vvee ee.... 11 11AA AA Fax.88 8811 1188 88....22 2244 4499 99....55 5500 0000 0055 55 88 8811 1188 88....22 2244 4499 99....55 5555 5522 2222 22 Tel. 9/14/2017 9/14/2017 9/14/2017 9/14/2017
12:57:52 PM 12:57:52 PM 12:57:52 PM 12:57:52 PM
P:\Projects\Malekian & Assoicates\0115.390 521 Nolan\REVIT MODEL\521 Nolan7.1(Recovery).rvt P:\Projects\Malekian & Assoicates\0115.390 521 Nolan\REVIT MODEL\521 Nolan7.1(Recovery).rvt P:\Projects\Malekian & Assoicates\0115.390 521 Nolan\REVIT MODEL\521 Nolan7.1(Recovery).rvt P:\Projects\Malekian & Assoicates\0115.390 521 Nolan\REVIT MODEL\521 Nolan7.1(Recovery).rvt -
PROPOSED 2 -STORY

RESIDENCE
A4.0

SECTION A
521 Nolan Avenue
Glendale, CA 91202
Project Number Project Number Project Number Project Number 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 SECTION A
127 of 239

LOWER LEVEL 1
1033.21
LOWER LEVEL 2
1022.71

TOP OF PARAPET
1053.71

FOYER/GARAGE LEVEL
1043.71

LOWEST POINT
1017.71
10' - 0" 10' - 6" 10' - 6" 5' - 0"

MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT
36' - 0" DINING
2-CAR GARAGE
DECK
5'-0" MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE
4' - 0"
2:1

MASTERS
BATH
NOLAN AVE.

PROPERTY LINE

SHEET NUMBER

DRAWN BY

PROJECT NUMBER

CADD FILE
SCALE
.

SHEET TITLE

PLOTTED DATE

REVISIONS

PROJECT
PREPARED FOR:

Malekian & Assoc.
.
.

MM MMoo oonn nntt ttrr rroo ooss ssee ee,,,, CC CCAA AA 99 9911 1100 0022 2200 00 22 2222 2255 5555 55 HH HHoo oonn nnoo oolllluu uulllluu uu AA AAvv vvee ee.... 11 11AA AA Fax.88 8811 1188 88....22 2244 4499 99....55 5500 0000 0055 55 88 8811 1188 88....22 2244 4499 99....55 5555 5522 2222 22 Tel. 9/14/2017 9/14/2017 9/14/2017 9/14/2017
12:57:53 PM 12:57:53 PM 12:57:53 PM 12:57:53 PM
P:\Projects\Malekian & Assoicates\0115.390 521 Nolan\REVIT MODEL\521 Nolan7.1(Recovery).rvt P:\Projects\Malekian & Assoicates\0115.390 521 Nolan\REVIT MODEL\521 Nolan7.1(Recovery).rvt P:\Projects\Malekian & Assoicates\0115.390 521 Nolan\REVIT MODEL\521 Nolan7.1(Recovery).rvt P:\Projects\Malekian & Assoicates\0115.390 521 Nolan\REVIT MODEL\521 Nolan7.1(Recovery).rvt -
PROPOSED 2 -STORY

RESIDENCE
A4.1

SECTION B
521 Nolan Avenue
Glendale, CA 91202
Project Number Project Number Project Number Project Number 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 SECTION B
128 of 239

SHEET NUMBER

DRAWN BY

PROJECT NUMBER

CADD FILE
SCALE
.

SHEET TITLE

PLOTTED DATE

REVISIONS

PROJECT
PREPARED FOR:

Malekian & Assoc.
.
.

MM MMoo oonn nntt ttrr rroo ooss ssee ee,,,, CC CCAA AA 99 9911 1100 0022 2200 00 22 2222 2255 5555 55 HH HHoo oonn nnoo oolllluu uulllluu uu AA AAvv vvee ee.... 11 11AA AA Fax.88 8811 1188 88....22 2244 4499 99....55 5500 0000 0055 55 88 8811 1188 88....22 2244 4499 99....55 5555 5522 2222 22 Tel. 9/14/2017 9/14/2017 9/14/2017 9/14/2017
12:57:53 PM 12:57:53 PM 12:57:53 PM 12:57:53 PM
P:\Projects\Malekian & Assoicates\0115.390 521 Nolan\REVIT MODEL\521 Nolan7.1(Recovery).rvt P:\Projects\Malekian & Assoicates\0115.390 521 Nolan\REVIT MODEL\521 Nolan7.1(Recovery).rvt P:\Projects\Malekian & Assoicates\0115.390 521 Nolan\REVIT MODEL\521 Nolan7.1(Recovery).rvt P:\Projects\Malekian & Assoicates\0115.390 521 Nolan\REVIT MODEL\521 Nolan7.1(Recovery).rvt -
PROPOSED 2 -STORY

RESIDENCE
A5.0
3D VIEWS
521 Nolan Avenue
Glendale, CA 91202
Project Number Project Number Project Number Project Number 129 of 239

PHOTOS
521 NOLAN A VENUE
GLENDALE CA 91202
Case No. ~~~{ 2\141] O \
130 of 239

521 Nolan Avenue Legend
Write a description for your map. f 521 Nolan Ave
131 of 239

SUBJECT PROPERTY: 521 NOLAN AVENUE
132 of 239

SUBJECT PROPERTY: 521 NOLAN AVENUE
133 of 239

SUBJECT PROPERTY: 521 NOLAN AVENUE
134 of 239

Exhibit 4
135 of 239

136 of 239

137 of 239

138 of 239

CITY OF GLENDALE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

PLANNING HEARING OFFICER STAFF REPORT
VARIANCE CASE NO. PVAR1722701
ADMINISTRAT IVE EXCEPTION CASE NO. PAE1722704
MEETING DATE: April 4, 2018
TO:

PREPARED BY:

Planning Hearing Officer
Kathy Duarte , Planner
521 Nolan Avenue ADDRESS:

APPLICANT:

OWNER :

Rodney Khan, Khan Consulting Inc.

Matilda Hartounian
PROJECT PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting the approval of a variance and administrative exception to allow the construction of a new 2,486 square-foot single family house and attached two-car garage on an 8,790 square-foot vacant hillside lot without providing the required minimum street front setback and driveway length and with uncovered stairs projecting into the front setback greater than what is permitted and exceeding the maximum 32-foot building height allowed.

A. Applicant Proposes:

The applicant is requesting approval of standards variances for the following :

1. A 5-foot street front setback

2. A 6-foot, 1 % - inch driveway length .

3. Uncovered stairs in the street front setback area for a length of 11 feet.

Code Requires:

1. A minimum 15-foot street front setback (30.11 .030)

2. Any driveway serving a parking area shall be a minimum of eighteen (18) feet in length in the R1 R zones, from the back of the sidewalk or the property line where no sidewalk exists. (30.32.130)

3. Uncovered steps, ramps , or landings not over four (4) feet high as measured parallel to the natural or finish ground level at the location of the construction may project into the required setback area for a length of fourteen ( 14) feet measured parallel to the building. Such steps, ramps, and landings may project into the required setback area for a distance of three (3) feet in the ROS, R1 Rand R1 zones. (30.11.070) B. Applicant Proposes:

The applicant is requesting approval of an administrative exception for the following :

1. To allow the construction of a new 2,486 square-foot house and attached two-car garage with a height of 36 feet.
1 Exhibit 5
139 of 239

Code Requires :
521 Nolan Avenue
Variance Case No. PVAR1722701
Administrative Exception Case No. PAE1722704

1. No primary building in the R1 Rand ROS zones shall exceed two (2) stories in height or exceed a height of thirty-two (32) feet pursuant to the definition of height set forth in this title. (30 .11 .040)
B. CEQA Status: The project is exempt from environmental review as a Class 3 "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures" exemption pursuant to State CEQA Section 15303 because it is a proposed single-family residence in a residential zone.

C. Previous Permits for the Site: None
D. Related Concurrent Permit Applications: The applicant will need design review approval for the new house and attached garage.

E. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the variance and administrative exception applications with conditions.

SITE CONTEXT
GENERAL PLAN: Low Density Residential.

ZONE: R1 R (Restricted Residential), Floor Area Ratio District II zone.

DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING PROPERTY AND USES:

The subject lot currently contains an existing single-family residence with an attached garage and a swimming pool.

NEIGHBORING ZONES AND USES:

Zoning Existing Uses
North R1R Single-family residential
South R1R Single-family residential
East R1R Single-family residential
West R1R Single-family residential
Project Site R1R Vacant land
COMMENTS FROM OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS: An indigenous tree permit will be required from Public Works. The developer will be responsible for providing water service or fire line installation.

VARIANCE REQUIRED FINDINGS
Pursuant to Section 30.43.030 of the Glendale Municipal Code, a variance shall be granted only if the review authority first finds that:

A. That the strict application of the provisions of any such ordinance would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship inconsistent with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance.
2 140 of 239

521 Nolan Avenue
Variance Case No. PVAR1722701
Administrative Exception Case No. PAE1722704
B. There are exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use or development of the property that do not apply generally to other property in the same zone or neighborhood .

C. The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such zone or neighborhood in which the property is located.

D. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the objective of the ordinance .

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE REQUEST
The 8,790 square-foot, irregularly-shaped through lot, has frontages on Nolan Avenue and Valentine Drive and gains access from Nolan. The subject site is a very steep downhill vacant lot with an average current slope of 84.5% that drops off almost immediately from Nolan Avenue. Strictly applying the street front setback and driveway standards in the present case would result in practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship inconsistent with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. Providing a 15-foot street front setback and 18-foot driveway would require that the house be located farther from the street, thereby increasing the visible mass of the building. The intent of the Zoning Ordinance and Hillside Design Guidelines is to prevent massive buildings on hillside lots. Granting of the variance would allow the applicant to reduce the visible mass of the building by pulling the house closer to the front property line. As a result, this reduces the length of the driveway and creates a condition where the steps leading down to the ground level will project into the required setback area.

The applicant is requesting to build a 2,486 square-foot house where a 2,637 square-foot house is allowed. As such, the applicant is not maximizing the massing and the house is a compatible size with the nearby homes on similar sloping lots. The average size home in the area is 2,994 square feet.

There are exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use or development of the property that do not apply generally to other property in the same zone or neighborhood . The sites' width, length, slope and topography are different than other lots in the neighborhood, which determined the site planning and design of the project.

The lots' steepness, 84.5% average current slope is unique to the subject property. The lot is narrower at the bottom of the hillside (79 feet along Valentine Drive) and curves into the slope, and is wider at the top of the hillside (97 feet along Nolan Avenue), while most other lots are narrower at the top and wider at the bottom. Given these circumstances, it would be impossible to lengthen the driveway and increase the depth of the street front setback to comply with current development standards without exacerbating the massing of the house as the house would be pushed further away from the hillside.

The granting of the variance to allow the single-family house without providing the required street front setback, driveway length, and stairs in the setback area would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare due to the existing hillside topography. Granting of these variance requests will allow the house to fit with the natural topography of the site and minimize visual impacts to the neighborhood by reducing the massing. The house is sited to minimize the amount of grading needed and preserve the greatest amount of natural open space.

Additionally , the proposed 2,486 square-foot house will be proportional in size and scale to the existing houses in the immediate neighborhood , which average 2,994 square feet in size. The neighborhood is developed with similar type homes that have not been detrimental to the neighborhood.
3 141 of 239

521 Nolan Avenue
Variance Case No. PVAR1722701
Administrative Exception Case No. PAE1722704
The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the ordinance. One of the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance is to accommodate reasonable development. Granting the proposed variances does this by allowing the development of a single dwelling unit on the site, which is allowed in the R1 R (Restricted Residential) Zone . The objective of the street front setback is to provide a consistent street edge, open space and landscaping . The proposed street front setback is similar to other homes on the street and is in keeping with the neighborhood character. Sufficient open space and landscaping is provided on the downhill slope and interior setbacks. The objective of the driveway length standards is to ensure sufficient temporary off-street parking for various uses and lessening traffic congestion on public streets. Nolan Avenue is a local street in the City 's Circulation Element of the General Plan. The lack of required driveway length at the subject site will not negatively impact traffic congestion on this street. Further, the proposed house is providing the Code-required parking.

ADMINISTRATIVE EXCEPTION REQUIRED FINDINGS
Pursuant to Section 30.43.030 of the Glendale Municipal Code , an Administrative Exception shall be granted only if the review authority first finds that:

A. The granting of the exception will result in design improvements, or there are space restrictions on the site that preclude full compliance with the Code requirements without hardship.

B. The granting of the exception will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such zone or neighborhood in which the property is located.

C. The granting of the exception will not be contrary to the objectives of the applicable regulations.

ANALYSIS OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXCEPTION REQUEST
The 8,790 square-foot, irregularly-shaped through lot, has frontages on Nolan Avenue and Valentine Drive and gains access from Nolan. The subject site is a very steep downhill vacant lot with an average current slope of 84.5% that drops off almost immediately from Nolan Avenue . The intent of the ordinance and Hillside Design Guidelines is to prevent massive buildings on hillside lots. The granting of the exception will result in design improvements by allowing the applicant to reduce the visible mass of the building by pulling the house closer to the front property line, which increases the height of the building. To provide the Code required height, the applicant would either need to remove a story from the house or build a number of additional retaining walls . Removing a story would degrade the functionality of the house and create an unnecessary hardship for the property owner . The exception to allow an additional 4 feet in building height will maintain the design integrity of the proposed modern style house. Additional retaining walls would require substantial grading and negativity impact the hillside and visual quality of the neighborhood. The applicant is requesting to build a 2,486 square-foot house where a 2,637 square-foot house is allowed and, as such, the applicant is not maximizing the massing. The proposed house is compatible in size with the similar homes on sloping lots, which have an average size of 2,994 square feet.

521 Nolan Avenue
Variance Case No. PVAR1722701
Admini strative Exception Case No. PAE1722704
the massing. The house is sited to minimize the amount of grading and preserve the amount of natural open space. Additionally, the proposed 2,486 square-foot house will be proportional in size and scale to the existing houses in the immediate neighborhood , which average 2,994 square feet in size. The neighborhood is developed with similar type homes that have not been detrimental to the neighborhood .

The granting of the administrative exception will not be contrary to the objectives of the ordinance. One of the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance is to accommodate reasonable development. The proposed project does this by allowing the development of a single dwelling unit on the site, which is allowed in the R1 R (Restricted Residential) Zone. The objective of height limits is to provide consistency and neighborhood compatibility, as well as light and air.

The proposed project is designed similar to other homes in the neighborhood with the building pushed closer to the street in order to reduce massing and building to the hillside. Nearby properties , including 515 Nolan Avenue and 531 Nolan Avenue have buildings located on them that exceed the applicant's request. Therefore, the 4-foot height exception is consistent and compatible with the neighborhood.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

Staff believes that the findings for the variance and administrative exception can be made and recommends that the requests be granted.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Location Map

2. Reduced Plans

3. Departmental Comments
5 143 of 239

521 Nolan Avenue
Variance Case No. PVAR1722701
Administrative Exception Case No. PAE1722704
VARIANCE NO. PVAR 1722701

DRAFT FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
A. That the strict application of the provisions of any such ordinance would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship inconsistent with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance.

The 8,790 square-foot, irregularly-shaped through lot, has frontages on Nolan Avenue and Valentine Drive and gains access from Nolan. The subject site is a very steep downhill vacant lot with an average current slope of 84.5% that drops off almost immediately from Nolan Avenue . Strictly applying the street front setback and driveway standards in the present case would result in practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship inconsistent with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance . Providing a 15-foot street front setback and 18-foot driveway would require that the house be located farther from the street, thereby increasing the visible mass of the building. The intent of the Zoning Ordinance and Hillside Design Guidelines is to prevent massive buildings on hillside lots. Granting of the variance would allow the applicant to reduce the visible mass of the building by pulling the house closer to the front property line. As a result, this reduces the length of the driveway and creates a condition where the steps leading down to the ground level will project into the required setback area.

The applicant is requesting to build a 2,486 square-foot house where a 2,637 square-foot house is allowed . As such, the applicant is not maximizing the massing and the house is a compatible size with the nearby homes on similar sloping lots. The average size home in the area is 2,994 square feet.

There are exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use or development of the property that do not apply generally to other property in the same zone or neighborhood. The sites' width, length, slope and topography are different than other lots in the neighborhood, which determined the site planning and design of the project.

The lots' steepness , 84.5% average current slope is unique to the subject property. The lot is narrowe r at the bottom of the hillside (79 feet along Valentine Drive) and curves into the slope, and is wider at the top of the hillside (97 feet along Nolan Avenue), while most other lots are narrowe r at the top and wider at the bottom. Given these circumstances, it would be impossible to lengthen the driveway and increase the depth of the street front setback to comply with current development standards without exacerbating the massing of the house as the house would be pushed further away from the hillside.

C. The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such zone or neighborhood in which the property is located.

521 Nolan Avenue
Variance Case No. PVAR1722701
Administrati ve Exception Case No. PAE1722704
neighborhood is developed with similar type homes that have not been detrimental to the neighborhood .

D. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the object ive of the ordinance.

The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the ordinance. One of the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance is to accommodate reasonable development. Granting the proposed variances does this by allowing the development of a single dwelling unit on the site, which is allowed in the R1 R (Restricted Residential) Zone. The objective of the street front setback is to provide a consistent street edge, open space and landscaping. The proposed street front setback is similar to other homes on the street and is in keeping with the neighborhood character . Sufficient open space and landscaping is provided on the downhill slope and interior setbacks . The objective of the driveway length standards is to ensure sufficient temporary off-street parking for various uses and lessening traffic congestion on public streets . Nolan Avenue is a local street in the City's Circulation Element of the General Plan. The lack of required driveway length at the subject site will not negatively impact traffic congestion on this street. Further, the proposed house is providing the Code-required parking.

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:

APPROVAL of this Variance shall be subject to the following:

1. That the development shall be in substantial accord with the plans submitted with the application and presented at the hearing except for any modifications as may be required to meet specific Code standards or other conditions stipulated herein to the satisfaction of the Planning Hearing Officer.

2. That all necessary licenses (i.e. building , fire, engineering, etc.) shall be obtained from the Building and Safety section and Public Works Department and all construction shall be in compliance with the Glendale Building Code USC (Universal Building Code) and all other applicable regulations .

3. A grading/drainage plan shall be submitted for the Engineering Division's review and approval and shall be made a part of the building plans submitted with the building permit application.

4. The project shall comply with all National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements , including filing a Notice of Intent with the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the submittal and certification of plans and details showing preconstruction, during construction and post-construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) that are integrated into the design of the project. In addition, the applicant shall submit an approved Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) to be integrated into the design of the project.

5. That a building permit shall be obtained for all work enabled by this variance.

6. That Design Review approval shall be obtained prior to the issuance of a building permit.

7. That if any buildings , sidewalks , curb or gutter, fencing or landscape areas, etc., adjacent to the site are damaged during the course of construction on public or private 7 145 of 239

521 Nolan Avenue
Variance Case No. PVAR1722701
Administrative Exception Case No. PAE1722704
property, the damage shall be repaired to the satisfaction of the Planning Hearing Officer for private property and the Director of Public Works for public property. 8 146 of 239

521 Nolan Avenue
Variance Case No. PVAR1722701
Administrative Exception Case No. PAE1722704
ADMINISTRATIVE EXCEPTION NO. PAE17227041

DRAFT FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
A. The granting of the exception will result in design improvements, or there are space restrictions on the site that preclude full compliance with the Code requirements without hardship.

The 8,790 square-foot, irregularly-shaped through lot, has frontages on Nolan Avenue and Valentine Drive and gains access from Nolan. The subject site is a very steep downhill vacant lot with an average current slope of 84.5% that drops off almost immediately from Nolan Avenue. The intent of the ordinance and Hillside Design Guidelines is to prevent massive buildings on hillside lots. The granting of the exception will result in design improvements by allowing the applicant to reduce the visible mass of the building by pulling the house closer to the front property line, which increases the height of the building. To provide the Code required height, the applicant would either need to remove a story from the house or build a number of additional retaining walls. Removing a story would degrade the functionality of the house and create an unnecessary hardship for the property owner. The exception to allow an additional 4 feet in building height will maintain the design integrity of the proposed modern style house. Additional retaining walls would require substantial grading and negativity impact the hillside and visual quality of the neighborhood . The applicant is requesting to build a 2,486 square-foot house where a 2,637 square-foot house is allowed and, as such, the applicant is not maximizing the massing. The proposed house is compatible in size with the similar homes on sloping lots, which have an average size of 2,994 square feet.

8. The granting of the exception will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such zone or neighborhood in which the property is located.

The granting of the administrative exception to allow the single-family house to exceed the maximum allowed height by 4 feet would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare due to the existing hillside topography . Approval of the height exception allows the house to fit with the natural topography of the site and minimize visual impacts to the neighborhood by reducing the massing. The house is sited to minimize the amount of grading and preserve the amount of natural open space. Additionally, the proposed 2,486 square-foot house will be proportional in size and scale to the existing houses in the immediate neighborhood, which average 2,994 square feet in size. The neighborhood is developed with similar type homes that have not been detrimental to the neighborhood .

C. The granting of the exception will not be contrary to the objectives of the applicable regulations .

The proposed project is designed similar to other homes in the neighborhood with the building pushed closer to the street in order to reduce massing and building to the hillside. Nearby properties, including 515 Nolan Avenue and 531 Nolan Avenue have buildings located on them that exceed the applicant 's request. Therefore , the 4-foot height exception is consistent and compatible with the neighborhood .
9 147 of 239

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
521 Nolan Avenue
Variance Case No. PVAR1722701
Administrative Exception Case No. PAE1722704
APPROVAL of this Administrative Exception shall be subject to the following:

2. That all necessary licenses (i.e. building, fire, engineering, etc.) shall be obtained from the Building and Safety section and Public Works Department and all construction shall be in compliance with the Glendale Building Code UBC (Universal Building Code) and all other applicable regulations.

3. That a grading/drainage plan shall be submitted for the Engineering Division's review and approval and shall be made a part of the building plans submitted with the building permit application.

4. That the project shall comply with all National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, including filing a Notice of Intent with the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the submittal and certification of plans and details showing preconstruction , during construction and post-construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) that are integrated into the design of the project. In addition, the applicant shall submit an approved Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) to be integrated into the design of the project.

5. That the Scrub Oak shall be specifically identified as an Oak on the plans and an indigenous tree permit shall be obtained prior to issuance of a building permit and protective measures for the indigenous Oak tree shall be maintained throughout construction.

6. That Glendale Water and Power Customer Service Engineering shall be contacted to determine electric service requirements before starting the permitting process and final construction plans shall incorporate the electric service plan information.

7. That the developer shall be responsible for the current cost of a water service or fire service line installation in accordance with the current water fee schedule.

8. That a building permit shall be obtained for all work enabled by this administrative exception.

9. That Design Review approval shall be obtained prior to the issuance of a building permit.

10. That if any buildings , sidewalks , curb or gutter, fencing or landscape areas , etc., adjacent to the site are damaged during the course of construction on public or private property, the damage shall be repaired to the satisfaction of the Planning Hearing Officer for private property and the Director of Public Works for public property. 10 148 of 239

Exhibit 6
149 of 239

150 of 239

151 of 239

152 of 239

153 of 239

154 of 239

155 of 239

156 of 239

157 of 239

158 of 239

159 of 239

160 of 239

161 of 239

TO:

MEETING DATE:

PREPARED BY:

FILE/CASE NO.:

PROPOSAL:

APPLICANT
PROPERTY OWNER:

APPELLANT:

LOCATION/APN:

LEGAL DESCRIPTION:

RECOMMENDATION:

General Information

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Members of the Planning Commission
April 3, 2019
Kathy Duarte, Planner
Variance Case No. PVAR1722701
Appeal of Planning Hearing Officer's approval of Variance Case No.

PVAR 1722701 to allow the construction of a new 2,486 square-foot, three-story single-family residence with a five-foot street front setback, six-foot, 1 % - inch driveway length, and uncovered stairs greater than four feet high projecting into the street front setback area.

Rodney V. Khan, Khan Consulting, Inc.

Matilda Hartounian
Alexander Jackson
521 Nolan /APN5630-011-035
Portion of Lot 70, Tract No. 4881
Sustain the Planning Hearing Officer's decision to grant Variance Case No. PVAR1722701.

Land Use Element: Low Density Residential
Zone: R1 R II - Restricted Residential Zone, Floor Area Ratio District II Existing Site Characteristics: The project site is a vacant 8,790 square-foot lot that is irregular in shape and slopes downward away from the street in the westerly direction with an approximate average current slope (ACS) of 84.5%. It has frontages on Nolan Avenue and Valentine Drive and gains access from Nolan. The surrounding uses consist of single-family residential dwellings.

Exhibit 7
162 of 239

521 Nolan Avenue
Appeal of Variance Case No. PVAR1722701
Surrounding Uses/Zoning:

Zonini::i Existina Uses
North R1 R Ill - Restricted Residential Zane,
Floor Area Ratio District Ill
Single-family residential
South R 1 R II - Restricted Residential Zone, Single-family residential Floor Area Ratio District II
East R1 R II - Restricted Residential Zone,
Floor Area Ratio District II
Single-family residential
West R1 R II - Restricted Residential Zone,
Floor Area Ratio District II
Single-family residential
Project Site R1 R II - Restricted Residential Zone, Vacant Floor Area Ratio District II
Circulation Element: Nolan Avenue is classified as a local street in the Circulation Element of the General Plan.

Project History:

April 18, 2018 Public hearing was conducted for the Variance Case No. PVAR1722701 and Administrative Exception Case No. PAE1722704 for the following requests:

Variance Case No. PVAR1722701
Applicant Proposed:

1. A 5-foot street front setback

2. A 6-foot, 1 % - inch driveway length.

3. Uncovered stairs in the street front setback area for a length of 11 feet.

Code Requires:

1. A minimum 15-foot street front setback (30.11.030)

2. Any driveway serving a parking area shall be a minimum of eighteen (18) feet in length in the R1 R zones, from the back of the sidewalk or the property line where no sidewalk exists. (30.32.130)

3. Uncovered steps, ramps, or landings not over four (4) feet high as measured parallel to the natural or finish ground level at the location of the construction may project into the required setback area for a length of fourteen (14) feet measured parallel to the building. Such steps, ramps, and landings may project into the required setback area for a distance of three (3) feet in the ROS, R1 Rand R1 zones. (30.11.070) Administrative Exception Case No. PAE1722704
Applicant Proposed:

1. To allow the construction of a new 2,486 square-foot house and attached two-car garage with a height of 36 feet.
2 163 of 239

Code Requires:
521 Nolan Avenue
Appeal of Variance Case No. PVAR1722701

1. No primary building in the R1 Rand ROS zones shall exceed two (2) stories in height or exceed a height of thirty-two (32) feet pursuant to the definition of height set forth in this title. (30.11.040)
July 26, 2018 Planning Hearing Officer approved the variance as requested, with a five foot street front setback, six-foot, 1 % - inch driveway length, and uncovered stairs greater than four feet high projecting into the street front setback area and Administrative Exception Case No. PAE172204 to allow a building height of 36 feet, where the maximum allowed is 32 feet.

August 10, 2018 Appellant appealed the Planning Hearing Officer's decision for Variance Case No. PVAR1722701.

Applicable Regulations: Glendale Municipal Code (G.M.C.), Title 30, Chapter 30.43 provides rules and procedures for a variance application.

G.M.C., Title 30, Chapter 30.62, provides rules and procedures for appeals before the Planning Commission.

Ordinance No. 5582, adopted on November 27, 2007, provides the rules and procedure for appeals before the Planning Commission.

Utilities and Public Services: All municipal and private utilities are in place serving the neighborhood and other public services are currently provided to the vicinity.

Environmental Determination: The project is categorically exempt from CEQA review as a Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) exemption, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303.

ANALYSIS
Requested Action by the Appellant:

The appellant is requesting that the Planning Commission reverse the July 26, 2018, Planning Hearing Officer's approval of Variance Case No. PVAR1722701.

Variance Application Required Findings
Pursuant to Section 30.43.030 of the Glendale Municipal Code, a variance may be granted only if the review authority first finds that each of the following exists:

A. The strict application of the provisions of any such ordinance would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship inconsistent with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance;
B. There are exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use or development of the property that do not apply generally to other property in the same zone or neighborhood;
C. The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such zone or neighborhood in which the property is located; and
D. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the ordinance. 3 164 of 239

521 Nolan Avenue
Appeal of Variance Case No. PVAR1722701
Additionally, a discretionary application, such as the requested standards variance and exception to Title 16, must also take into consideration the hillside development review consistent with Chapter 30.11.040 (A), which is as follows:

Development shall be in keeping with design objectives in the Glendale Municipal Code, the hillside design guidelines and the landscape guidelines for hillside development as now adopted and as may be amended from time to time by city council. Development shall be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood in terms of size, scale, bulk/mass, roofline orientation, setbacks, and site layout. Site plans shall show preservation of prominent natural features, native vegetation and open space in a manner compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, minimizing alteration of terrain necessary for development. Site plans for development of property on steep slopes shall take into account the visual impact on surrounding properties. The architectural style and architectural elements of in-fill development shall be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood Basis of the Planning Hearing Officer's Decision
The Planning Hearing Officer made the following findings and approved the applicant's request for a variance with nine conditions to allow for the construction of a new 2,486 square-foot, single family residence with a reduced street front setback and driveway length, and uncovered stairs projecting into the street front setback.

1. That the strict application of the provisions of the code would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship inconsistent with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. If the building were to comply with required street front setback and driveway length, the massing of the dwelling and attached garage would project far from the slope and would loom over adjacent properties downslope of the subject site, thereby increasing the visible mass of the building. Such a building would not comply with the hillside design guidelines that specifically recommend that new houses reflect the topography and slope, and that encourage building into the hillside to diminish visual impact of mass and scale. The design guidelines also state that prevailing setbacks of buildings on the street be considered as well as Code requirements. The majority of houses along Nolan within 300 feet of the subject property feature front setbacks ranging from 3 to 6 feet, all of which were approved by variance. Approval of a reduced street front setback and driveway length would allow for reasonable development of the site in such a manner that is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and the intent of the ordinance.

These stairs lead down to the grade below and provide access around the residence and side yard, and to the rear deck atop the lower floor (as required access by the Building Code). Strict application of the required height limit for the stairs within the street front setback is not possible and elimination of these stairs would create a practical difficulty inconsistent with the Building & Safety standards.

2. There are conditions that exist on the subject site that typically do not exist on comparable lots with the same zoning designation in that the subject property has a steeper average current slope (84.5%) and different shape than other lots in the neighborhood. The lot itself is narrower at the bottom of the hillside (79 feet along Valentine Drive) and is wider at the top of the hillside (97 feet along Nolan Avenue), while most other lots are narrower at the top and wider at the bottom. This exceptional circumstance places the subject property at 4 165 of 239

521 Nolan Avenue
Appeal of Variance Case No. PVAR1722701
an unfair disadvantage because compliance with the zoning code minimum setback and driveway length requirements on this steeply sloped lot would cause unintentional conflicts with the City's Hillside Design Guidelines, because the building form would project away from the topography. Additionally, given that the minimum driveway slope for R1 R properties is twenty percent (20%) and the average current slope of the property is almost 85%, compliance with the driveway slope requirement with a minimum 18-foot driveway would necessitate a driveway bridge design, thus disrupting the street front development pattern along Nolan Avenue.

The subject lot drops off significantly from the street level and there is no physical way of providing access from the street entrance level to the ground below within the four foot height limit. Therefore, the subject site is unique in relation to the surrounding properties that do not generally apply to R1 R properties.

3. Granting a reduced street setback and driveway length and stairs greater than four feet in height projecting in the setback area will not be materially detrimental to the public or injurious to the property or improvements in the R1 R neighborhood. The intent of the front setback requirement is to maintain an attractive neighborhood with a consistent streetscape and rhythm, in addition to relief from the street. This requirement is critical in a more typical neighborhood where homes are aligned next to each other and address the street the same way in a repeating pattern. The reduced street front setback in this case would not create a visual impact and would be consistent with the development pattern in the immediate hillside neighborhood along this stretch of Nolan Avenue. This street is a remote cul-de-sac that already features a number of residences and garages with reduced front setbacks and driveways (see Finding A). Given that the requested street front setback and driveway length would be in line with other existing, neighboring, hillside, single family residential developments, approval of this proposal would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to property or adjacent neighbors. Approval of the stairs greater than four feet in overall height projecting into the street front setback will not be detrimental to the adjacent residences and neighborhood; the majority of the stairs will be hidden from the public right-of-way because of the downslope condition from the street, and will provide the code-required access around the residence to the side and rear sloped areas. Furthermore, Public Works' Engineering Division did not cite any significant concern for the proposed setback and driveway width.

4. The objective of the Zoning Code is to protect the character of the neighborhood and ensure sensible development. The objective of the street front setback requirement is to ensure that the setbacks of buildings from a street respect the existing or preferred neighborhood character, maintain an attractive rhythm and streetscape, and provide landscaped open space along the street. The proposed street front setback is similar to other homes on the street and is in keeping with the neighborhood character. Sufficient open space and landscaping is provided below the proposed house on the downhill slope and in the interior setbacks. The objective of driveway length standards is to ensure sufficient temporary off-street parking and to lessen traffic congestion on public streets.

Nolan Avenue is a local street in the City's Circulation Element of the General Plan. The lack of required driveway length at the subject site will not negatively impact traffic congestion on this remote, cul-de-sac street. Moreover, the proposed house is providing the Code-required parking. The height and length limitations for stairs within the street front setback are intended to minimize the projection and appearance of stairs with railings along the streetscape and to ensure that stairs follow the natural grade. As proposed, stairs will be screened from view given that they lead from the street level entrance to the lower level below grade, and are buffered between the downslope of the lot from the street and the 5 166 of 239

521 Nolan Avenue
Appeal of Variance Case No. PVAR1722701
front elevation. In conclusion, the requested variances in this case are sensible and afford the property owner a fair opportunity in developing a vacant property similar to other residences in the immediate vicinity.

Because all required findings could be met, the Planning Hearing Officer approved the variance requests for reduced setback, driveway length and stairs within the street front setback.

Planning Hearing Officers Meeting: The hearing is available for viewing online at:
http://glendale.qranicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view id=47&clip id=7555 Summary of the Appellant Discussion and Staff Responses Appellant's Argument
The appellant contends that the evidence before the Hearing Officer was inadequate to support the determination. In summary of the appellant's appeal letter, the key arguments are the following:

1. The appellant states that the "the majority of houses near the property in question, including the properties on both sides of 521, in fact have a much farther setback from the street than stated by applicant." He notes that the immediate surrounding houses of 515, 510, and 531 Nolan, as well as the houses within 300 feet show that the 5-foot setback requested is not average or normal to the neighborhood and this will create incongruity within the neighborhood and create an unfortunate precedent for the area.

2. The appellant states that "the applicant provided no substantial evidence that providing these variances and exceptions will actually diminish the overall mass of the house. For instance, no alternate plans exist to show how providing these variances for the applicant will in anyway result in a design that has less of a visual impact of mass and scale."

3. The appellant notes general concerns about how this design and these variances will impact the already limited parking on the street as that particular area of Nolan Avenue is the narrowest and is already difficult to navigate.

Staff Response 1.

The appellant contends that the majority of houses in the neighborhood have a much greater setback than stated by the applicant:
• 515 Nolan (immediately next door) has a seven-foot street front setback and a reduced driveway length
• Other immediate properties along Nolan Avenue have reduced street front setbacks and driveway lengths which vary from 4 feet to 14 feet.

Prior to the rendered decision, the Planning Hearing Officer reviewed approved variance requests of properties within 300-feet of the subject property. As noted in the decision letter, "The majority of houses along Nolan Avenue within 300 feet of the subject property feature reduced front setbacks ranging from 3 to 6 feet, all of which approved by variance, including 531 Nolan Avenue (Case No. 6482-S, 1978) and 535 Nolan Avenue (Case No. 3134-S, 1964)- both houses on each side of the subject property, as well as 510 Nolan Avenue (Case No. 4453-S, 1967) and 524 Nolan Avenue (Case No 5504-S, 1972) - both properties directly across the street." Upon further review, the approved project at 535 Nolan Avenue was never constructed. As noted in the chart below, variances were approved to allow street front setbacks ranging from 3 to 6 feet, with the average of 5.2 feet, the locations of which are illustrated in Exhibit 7. The adjacent neighbor located to the north of the subject property is 515 Nolan, which according to plans submitted for a seismic retrofit in 2015, has a 5'-6" setback. A 1927 building permit shows a substandard setback.
6 167 of 239

521 Nolan Avenue
Appeal of Variance Case No. PVAR1722701

ADDRESS CASE NUMBER SETBACK
SUBJECT PROPERTY PVAR1722701 5'
531 Nolan Ave. 6482-S 3'
535 Nolan Ave. 3134-S 5'
537 Nolan Ave. 5878-S 6'
510 Nolan Ave. 4453-S 6'
524 Nolan Ave. 5504-S 6'
AVERAGE 5.2'
Despite the appellant's claim that there are a number of houses in the neighborhood with greater street front setbacks than proposed, and that five feet is not the average or normal street front setback, staff believes the analysis above demonstrates that the requested setback is not unusual for the immediate context, and as noted in the approval findings, there are exceptional circumstances and practical difficulties present on the subject property that justify a five-foot street front setback. Given the existing conditions, the requested reduction in setback would not create incongruity within the neighborhood or create an usual precedent for the area. Furthermore, the design guidelines state that prevailing setbacks of buildings on the street be considered as well as Code requirements.

Staff Response 2.

The appellant states that "the applicant provided no substantial evidence that providing theses variances and exceptions will actually diminish the overall mass of the house." Providing the minimum 15-foot street front setback and 18-foot driveway would require that the house be located farther from the street, thereby increasing the visible mass of the building; the massing of the dwelling and attached garage would project farther away from the slope and would loom over adjacent properties downslope of the subject site. Such a building would not comply with the hillside design guidelines which recommends that new houses reflect the topography and slope, and that encourage building into the hillside to diminish visual impact of mass and scale.

Furthermore, the project is required to obtain approval from the Design Review Board. The Board will consider massing and scale in its review.

Staff Response 3.

The appellant has general concerns about how this design and these variances will impact the already limited on-street parking, and that particular area of Nolan Avenue is the narrowest portion of the street and is already difficult to navigate.

Except for the cul-de-sac at the end of the street, the width of Nolan Avenue ranges from 30 to 35 feet, similar to the other streets in the hillside neighborhood. Nolan Avenue is a remote cul-de-sac that has only four other houses/properties beyond the subject property to the end of the street, and already features a number of residences and garages with reduced front setbacks and driveways.

Furthermore, Code requires all new single family residences to provide on-site parking based on their size and this project is providing the two-car garage required by Code.

RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above analysis, staff recommends that the Planning Commission sustain the Planning Hearing Officer's decision to grant the Variances, as conditioned. A motion for the Commission's consideration is attached.
7 168 of 239

EXHIBITS

1. Location Map

2. Reduced Plans

3. Copies of Photographs

4. Variance Application
521 Nolan Avenue
Appeal of Variance Case No. PVAR1722701

5. Planning Hearing Officer's Staff Report for Variance Case No. PVAR1722701

6. Planning Hearing Officer's Decision Letter, dated July 26, 2018

7. Surrounding Setbacks Map

8. Appeal Application
8 169 of 239

521 Nolan Avenue
Appeal of Variance Case No. PVAR1722701

MOTION TO SUSTAIN THE PLANNING HEARING OFFICER'S DECISION Moved by Commission Member ______ , seconded by Commission Member _____ , that upon review and consideration of all materials and exhibits of current record relative to Variance Case No. PVAR1722701, located at 521 Nolan Avenue, and after having conducted an appeal hearing on said matter, that the Planning Commission hereby sustains the Planning Hearing Officer's decision APPROVING said Variance Case No.

PVAR1722701 in accord with the findings and conditions set forth in the decision letter of July 26, 2018.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Abstain:

Absent:
9 170 of 239

Dr. Karina Chan
Exhibit 8
171 of 239

172 of 239

173 of 239

174 of 239

175 of 239

176 of 239

177 of 239

178 of 239

179 of 239

Alexander Jackson
180 of 239

181 of 239

182 of 239

183 of 239

184 of 239

185 of 239

186 of 239

Ani Vartabetian
187 of 239

188 of 239

189 of 239

190 of 239

191 of 239

192 of 239

193 of 239

194 of 239

195 of 239

Tiffany Borland
196 of 239

197 of 239

198 of 239

199 of 239

200 of 239

201 of 239

202 of 239

203 of 239

Exhibit 9
204 of 239

Exhibit 10
205 of 239

206 of 239

207 of 239

208 of 239

Exhibit 11
209 of 239

210 of 239

Exhibit 12
211 of 239

212 of 239

213 of 239

214 of 239

215 of 239

Exhibit 13
216 of 239

217 of 239

218 of 239

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Extension of Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 5994 Prohibiting Developments with New and Conversion of Existing Drive-through Waiting Lanes Citywide

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Public Hearing
Approved for October 25, 2022 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On September 27, 2022, Council adopted an interim urgency ordinance imposing a 45- day moratorium on the approval of any developments with new and conversion of existing drive-through waiting lanes throughout the City, with no exemptions for projects that had received some level of discretionary review (return for redesign from the Design Review Board) prior to the effective date of the ordinance. Previously, on September 20, 2022, Council adopted a motion directing staff to engage in a policy analysis to be executed in 2023 to study drive-through waiting lane impacts and demand, and potential modifications to the development standards applicable to drive-through waiting lane proposals. The moratorium on drive-through waiting lane projects was necessary in order to put a pause on such applications to allow time for the City to undertake and complete such a study and make recommendations to Council for potential amendments to the Zoning Code. A report is attached as an exhibit to this staff report detailing the actions that have been taken thus far to alleviate conditions leading to imposition of the moratorium, as required by law. The ordinance adopted on September 27 expires on November 11, 2022, unless extended by Council following a noticed public hearing. Such hearing was noticed for October 25, 2022; after the hearing is conducted, Council may introduce the ordinance to extend the moratorium for an additional 10 months and 15 days beyond its initial expiration. If introduced, Council must vote on whether to adopt the ordinance at the next meeting of November 1, 2022. Council may thereafter extend the moratorium for one additional year. Any extension of an interim ordinance requires a 4/5ths vote of Council. 219 of 239

29b
3 6
9 8

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

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council adopt the ordinance, extending, for 10 months and 15 days, Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 5994 adopted on September 27, 2022, related to a moratorium on new and conversion of existing drive-through waiting lanes.

BACKGROUND
On September 20, 2022, Council directed staff to undertake a study seeking to understand potential physical, social and environmental impacts of new and existing drive-through waiting lane developments in the City by type (i.e., fast food, banks, pharmacies, etc.), 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 types of drive-through waiting lane development (such as fast food restaurant drive-throughs) in the City. As a result of initiating such a study, which may lead to amended Zoning Code development standards in the future, on September 20, 2022, the Council introduced and subsequently, on September 27, 2022, adopted, an interim urgency ordinance to prohibit new and existing drive-through waiting lane developments citywide. Council elected to not to exempt certain pipeline projects from the effects of the ordinance – those that received a return for redesign determination from the Design Review Board, prior to the effective date of the ordinance. The interim ordinance adopted on September 27 is only effective for 45 days by law, and automatically expires on November 11, 2022, but can be extended twice after notice and public hearing – once for an additional 10 months and 15 days, and once more for an additional year.

If Council extends the moratorium for an additional 10 months and 15 days, during the extended moratorium period, Planning staff will continue to take all necessary steps to commence the drive-through waiting lane study, and return to Council with a report and findings once the study is completed, for Council consideration. It is important to note that even if Council does not vote to extend the moratorium, Planning staff will nonetheless continue to undertake the Council’s directive to undertake the study regarding drive-through waiting lane use/development standards.

ANALYSIS
Under California Government Code section 65858, a city may adopt an interim ordinance to temporarily prohibit certain land uses 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 220 of 239

39b
3 6
9 8
an urgency ordinance that takes immediate effect is to prevent a “rush to the counter” of applications to establish new uses before standards can be put in place. The delay in permits allows the city to subject all new uses to the new standards.

Urgency interim ordinances under Government Code section 65858 require adoption by 4/5ths 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. On September 27, 2022, the Council adopted Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 5994, with the required findings, that imposed a 45-day moratorium on new and conversion of existing drive-through waiting lanes development projects citywide. This ordinance automatically expires on November 11, 2022, unless extended prior to that date. At least ten days prior to the expiration of the ordinance or any extension thereof (by November 1, 2022), the City must prepare and issue a written report describing the measures taken to alleviate the condition which led to the adoption of the ordinance. As required by law, this ten-day report has been prepared and is attached as an exhibit to this staff report for Council’s review, consideration and comment.

Ordinance No. 5994 may be extended for a period not to exceed 10 months and 15 days following a noticed public hearing. A public hearing has been noticed for October 25, 2022, and after the hearing is conducted, Council may introduce the ordinance to extend the moratorium. If introduced, the Council must vote on whether to adopt the ordinance at the next Council meeting of November 1, 2022. The Council may thereafter extend the moratorium for one additional year. Any extension of an interim ordinance also requires a 4/5ths vote of the Council.

An ordinance extending Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 5994 an additional 10 months and 15 days has been included for introduction, which may occur following the public hearing. The ordinance contains no “pipeline provision” as Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 5994, but Council may introduce this extension ordinance with different, additional or revised exemptions.

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.
221 of 239

49b
3 6
9 8

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. Introduce and subsequently adopt an ordinance extending, for 10 months and 15 days, a moratorium on all development projects containing new or conversion of existing drive-through waiting lanes citywide;

2. Decline to introduce an ordinance extending, for 10 months and 15 days, a moratorium on all development projects containing a new or conversion of existing drive-through waiting lanes citywide;

3. Choose any other alternative not proposed by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Bradley Calvert, AICP, Director of Community Development Prepared by:

Kristen Asp, AICP, Principal Planner
Yvette Neukian, Principal Assistant City Attorney
Reviewed by:

Jason Bradford, Director of Finance/Information Services Michael J. Garcia, City Attorney
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS / ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 5994 Prohibiting Issuance of Entitlements and/or Permits for Developments with New or Converted Drive-through Waiting Lanes in the City and Declaring the Urgency Thereof; 222 of 239

59b
3 6
9 8
Exhibit 2 Report on Actions Taken to Alleviate Conditions Leading to Imposition of Moratorium.
223 of 239

1 6
8 0
8 ORDINANCE NO. _______

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA, EXTENDING, BY 10 MONTHS AND 15 DAYS, INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 5994 PROHIBITING ISSUANCE OF ENTITLEMENTS AND/OR

PERMITS FOR DEVELOPMENTS WITH NEW OR CONVERTED DRIVE-THROUGH

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, the California Constitution, the Glendale City Charter, and the State Planning and Zoning Law (California Government Code Sections 6500, et seq.) broadly empower the City of Glendale (“City”) to plan for and regulate the use of land in order to provide for orderly development, the public health, safety and welfare and a balancing of property rights and desires of the community; and
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
224 of 239

2 6
8 0
8 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 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 pedestrian- friendly 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 (currently prohibited in the DSP, and in the 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 225 of 239

3 6
8 0
8 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 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, on September 20 and 27, 2022, the City evaluated the potential environmental effects of adoption of Interim Ordinance No. 5994 temporarily prohibiting approval of new or conversion of drive-through waiting lane development in the City within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), and the Council found that the adoption of Interim Ordinance No. 5994 was consistent with classes of projects that do not have a significant effect on the environment and thereby approved a Categorical Exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), 15307, and 15308, and certified that Interim Ordinance No. 5994 was exempt from additional environmental review, including from the preparation of an environmental impact report; and
WHEREAS, on September 27, 2022, the City Council, by a fourth-fifths vote, adopted Interim Ordinance No. 5994 imposing a 45-day moratorium on the approval of any new or conversion of drive-through waiting lane development in the City; and WHEREAS, on October 25, 2022, the City issued a “10-day report” describing the measures taken to alleviate the conditions that led to the adoption of Interim Ordinance 226 of 239

4 6
8 0
8 No. 5994 which date was at least 10 days prior to the adoption of this extension, as required by Government Code Section 65858(d); 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, for 45 days, and may extend such moratorium following notice and public hearing for an additional 10 months and 15 days; and
WHEREAS, the moratorium and extension of Interim Ordinance No. 5994 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)); and
WHEREAS, notice of the date, time and place of the public hearing for this Ordinance to extend Interim Ordinance No. 5994 for 10 months and 15 days was given pursuant to Government Code Sections 65090 and 65858, by publication in Glendale Independent on October 10, 2022, and by posting and making available the written report referenced herein, which notified the public the City would be considering a 10 month and 15 day extension of the adopted Interim Ordinance No. 5994 imposing a moratorium on all new or conversion of existing drive-through waiting lane development for any project, together with issuance of a written report describing the measures taken to alleviate the condition which led to the adoption of Interim Ordinance No. 5994.

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 227 of 239

5 6
8 0
8 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 amended 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 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 10 month and 15 day extension of Interim Ordinance No. 5994 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 228 of 239

6 6
8 0
8 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.

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 reports dated September 20 and 27 2022, and October 25, 2022, are hereby adopted and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.

229 of 239

7 6
8 0
8 SECTION 6. Effectiveness.

This Ordinance shall go into effect upon the expiration of Interim Ordinance No. 5994 and shall be of no further force and effect 10 months and 15 days from the expiration date of Interim Ordinance No. 5994, 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

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
230 of 239

231 of 239

232 of 239

233 of 239

234 of 239

235 of 239

236 of 239

237 of 239

Report on Actions Taken to Alleviate Conditions Leading to the Imposition of a Moratorium on New and Conversion of Existing Drive-through Waiting Lanes in the City:

On September 27, 2022, the City of Glendale enacted a Moratorium prohibiting approval of any developments with new and conversion of existing drive-through waiting lanes throughout the City by Interim Urgency Interim Ordinance No. 5994. The Moratorium was enacted for an initial period of 45 days and the City Council will consider an action to extend the Moratorium for up to 10 months and 15 days at a duly noticed Public Hearing on October 25, 2022.

This report provides all interested parties information on actions taken by the City of Glendale to alleviate the conditions leading to the imposition of the Moratorium.

Pursuant to law, this report is being made available at least 10 days prior to the City taking action on extending the Moratorium.

1. Staff has created different alternatives to study regarding the future of drive- through waiting lanes in the City. These alternatives will define the work plan during the moratorium. Staff has identified the following alternatives:

A) Policy Analysis. The analysis will provide an opportunity to evaluate the potential physical, social and environmental impacts of new and existing drive-through waiting lane developments in the City by type (i.e., fast food, banks, pharmacies, etc.), as well as, the demand of existing and future needs of drive-through waiting lanes in the City. This study will consider the impacts and need for different drive-through waiting lane types associated with different uses. It will also analyze the current Zoning Code development standards and recommend amendments to standards based on current drive- through waiting lane trends, as well as study appropriate locations in specific zoning districts. This analysis will also consider the impacts drive-through waiting lanes have on disabled access to goods and services and how potential changes to drive-through waiting lanes standards may have on disabled access.

B) Conditional Use Permit. Staff will also study the potential of drive-through waiting lanes in the City to be required to obtain a conditional use permit. A conditional use permit will require that specific findings be made regarding the compatibility of drive-through waiting lanes use in the City and may also require that specific conditions be met to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses and tailored to City’s unique needs and community vision.

Staff will analyze the impacts of requiring a conditional use permit, including potential special conditions that could be required.

C) Prohibited Use. Staff will study an alternative that would consider prohibiting types of drive-through waiting lanes in the City. This alternative will be developed based on the findings of the proposed policy analysis, and will identify whether the use of certain types of drive-through waiting lanes is 238 of 239

necessary in the City and also present the potential impacts of prohibiting such types. During the period of the extended moratorium, staff will return to Council with updates on each of the potential alternatives, as well as a recommendation for future action.
239 of 239

Glendale City CouncilOctober 25, 2022

Glendale City Council
October 25, 2022