Glendale Boards and Commissions
Qualifications or Background
With Subject Matter Expertise
• Arts and Culture Commission -
A. “For two (2) members of the arts and culture commission, the following qualifications are desirable, but are not a requirement, for serving on the commission:
1) One (1) commission member is an elected official, an employee, student, or volunteer of the Glendale Unified School District; and
2) One (1) commission member is an elected official, employee, student, or volunteer of:
a) A community college, state university, the University of California education system, or a private institution which provides instruction at the college level or higher; or b) A trade or vocational school.
B. For three (3) members of the commission, the individuals must have substantial professional expertise as:
1) An artist, designer, or arts administrator in the fields of the performing, visual folk or literary arts, or architecture; or
2) A business community leader with an acknowledged record of stewardship of the arts.
C. Except for a student of a school, each member must be a qualified elector of the city all the time of appointment and during incumbency.”
• Audit Committee - "All members of the audit committee shall be public members who shall be persons with relevant experience serving as a corporate officer, auditor, attorney or professional consultant to business, government or organizations." • Building and Fire Board of Appeals - "Each member shall be either active at the time of appointment or previously active in the building construction business. A minimum of two (2) members, one (1) of which shall be qualified to practice architecture or civil engineering in the state, shall also be qualified on matters pertaining to the Glendale building and safety code, pertaining to building regulations; and a minimum of one (1) member shall be qualified on matters pertaining to the Glendale building and safety code pertaining to fire regulations, or pertaining to the area of fire protection."
• Design Review Board - "At least one (1) member of each design review board group shall be a licensed architect. Other members of the board shall be persons who, as a result of their training, experience and attainments are qualified to analyze and interpret architectural and site planning information, including, but not limited to, licensed landscape architects, urban planners, engineers and builders/developers."
• Historic Preservation Commission - “All members shall demonstrate interest, competence and knowledge in historic preservation. Composition of the commission shall include at least one (1) member doing business in one or more of the disciplines of architecture, history, architectural history, planning, archaeology, or other historic preservation related fields.” • Transportation and Parking Commission - "At least three (3) members of the transportation and parking commission shall be persons who either currently or previously as a result of their training, experience and attainments are qualified to analyze and interpret transportation and parking information including, but not limited to, transportation planning, transportation program management, transportation and advisory agency, civil engineering, transportation, traffic engineering or urban planning."
607 of 818
Exhibit 1
Without Subject Matter Expertise
• Civil Service Commission - “…consisting of five (5) qualified electors of the City of Glendale.” • Commission on the Status of Women - "…shall be individuals who have exhibited leadership qualities in the community or other activities relating to the general welfare of women.” • Community Development Block Grant Advisory Committee - “No person shall serve on the committee if he or she has any decision-making authority in a community organization that applies for or receives funds through the community development block grant. Any participation by a committee member as a decision-maker in such community organization must have ceased at least thirty (30) days prior to the time of appointment and may not occur during incumbency. Alternatively, any community organization with a decision-maker that is also a member of the committee shall not be entitled to receive funds through the community development block grant as long as the member continues to serve in both capacities. For purposes of this section, any person serving on the governance board, e.g., board of directors, of a community organization shall be deemed to have decision-making authority in that organization."
• Parks, Recreation & Community Services Commission - “…shall be a qualified elector of the city at the time of appointment and during incumbency.” • Planning Commission - “… shall be a qualified elector of the city at the time of his or her appointment and during his or her incumbency.”
• Water and Power Commission - “… shall be a qualified elector of the city at the time of his or her appointment and during his or her incumbency.”
608 of 818
9a
CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM
Public Hearing: Consideration of Ordinance amending Title 30 of the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995, relating generally to standards for eligible SB9 projects, minimum SB478 floor area ratio standards for certain multi-family housing development projects, and incorporation of State law amendments and minor modifications and clarifications related to junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs) and accessory dwelling units (ADUs).
1. Introduction of Ordinance amending Title 30.
COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action
Approved for November 1, 2022 calendar
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report discusses proposed amendments to Title 30 of the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995 – specifically, to establish specific standards for projects meeting the eligibility requirements for Senate Bill 9 (SB9). It also includes other amendments to reflect recent legislation related to Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for certain multi-family projects and incorporation of State law amendments and minor modifications and clarifications related to reviewing and approving accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs).
SB9 took effect on January 1, 2022. The state legislation provides for a ministerial process, without discretionary review or a public hearing, to approve Two-Unit Developments as well as lot split Parcel Maps (called Urban Lot Splits) meeting certain criteria on lots zoned for single-family residential. The bill adds two sections to the Government Code, sections 65852.21 and 66411.7, and amends provisions of the State Subdivision Map Act relating to the expiration of subdivision maps (Section 66452.6).
This bill required the City to establish standards and processes for review of SB 9 eligible projects.
609 of 818
29a
3 7
3 2
Accordingly, on December 14, 2021, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 5981, an urgency ordinance establishing interim standards and ministerial processes for reviewing and approving SB9 projects. Since the urgency ordinance will expire on December 13, 2022, the Council must review these amendments and introduce and adopt the permanent SB 9 ordinance prior to the expiration of the urgency ordinance.
COUNCIL PRIORITIES
Housing: The development of high quality housing is an important goal, especially with respect to providing housing opportunities to all segments of the population. An ordinance setting forth objective zoning, subdivision and design standards for SB 9 projects will promote housing development consistent with the Council’s goal of providing a balanced mix of housing opportunities.
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council review the proposed amendments to Title 30 of the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995, related generally to standards for eligible SB9 projects, minimum SB478 floor area ratio standards for certain multi-family housing development projects, and incorporation of State law amendments and minor modifications and clarifications related to JADUs and ADUs as recommended by the Planning Commission.
BACKGROUND
Senate Bill 9
SB9, known as the California Housing Opportunity and More Efficiency (HOME) Act, has been dubbed by many commentators as the law that will “end single family zoning in California.” SB9 allows a property owner to build two units and/or subdivide an existing single-family-zoned parcel into two parcels. It also adds sections 65852.21 and 66411.7 to the Government Code, and requires cities and counties to ministerially approve a housing development containing no more than two residential units (duplex) on a single parcel in single-family zones (“two-on-a-lot” projects). In addition, the bill requires a city to ministerially approve an urban lot split, creating two independent lots that may be sold separately. A property owner able to meet SB9’s requirements could potentially combine the two provisions of SB9 to split one existing lot into two and then build two residential units on each new lot, resulting in four residential units where only one was allowed before. To be eligible for an SB9 project, a parcel must meet a specific list of qualifications, discussed below.
SB9 “Two-On-A-Lot” Qualifying Projects
SB9 would allow housing development projects containing no more than two dwelling units on a single-family zoned parcel to be permitted on a ministerial basis, upon satisfaction of qualifying criteria that include the following:
610 of 818
39a
3 7
3 2
•The project site is in a city or urbanized portion of an unincorporated county (the City of Glendale is such a city);
•The project site is not:
oWithin a Coastal Zone;
oPrime farmland, or farmland of statewide importance;
oWetlands;
oWithin a very high fire severity zone with exceptions (see explanation applicable to the City below);
oA hazardous waste or hazardous list site;
oWithin a delineated earthquake fault zone with exceptions; oWithin a 100-year flood zone;
oWithin a floodway;
oIdentified for conservation in an adopted natural community conservation plan;
oHabitat for protected species; or
oLands under conservation easement;
•The project site cannot require demolition or alteration of any housing if:
oHousing is restricted affordable housing;
oSubject to rent control; or
oContains tenant occupied housing in the last three years; •The project site cannot be withdrawn from the rental market (i.e., under the Ellis Act) within the past 15 years;
•The project does not propose demolition of more than 25 percent of the existing exterior walls unless either:
oThe local ordinance allows more demolition; or
oThe site has not been occupied by a tenant in the past three years; •The project site is not within a historic district or property included on the California Historical Resources Inventory or within a site that is designated or listed as a city or county landmark or historic property or district pursuant to a city or county ordinance.
A local agency may enact objective zoning, subdivision and design review standards, provided such objective standards do not preclude the construction of either of the two units being at least 800 square feet in floor area. Similar to state ADU/JADU legislation, no setbacks are required for an existing structure or a structure constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing structure. In other circumstances, the local agency may require four-foot interior (side and rear) yard setbacks. Parking of no 611 of 818
49a
3 7
3 2
more than one space per dwelling unit (with no requirement that this be uncovered parking)1 is allowed, except no parking required for projects:
•Within a half-mile walking distance of a high-quality transit corridor or a major transit stop; or
•Within one block of car share.
Moreover, a local agency is not required to permit an ADU/JADU on parcels that take advantage of both the “two-on-a-lot” and lot split provisions. This means that a local agency may limit a parcel with an existing ADU or JADU to using just one, not both provisions of SB9 (i.e., a parcel with an existing ADU/JADU may split the lot but may not thereafter build two houses on each of the two new lots; a parcel with an existing ADU/JADU may not build any additional units on the lot since it already has two (and in some cases three) units on its lot (the primary dwelling unit and the ADU and/or JADU).
This also means that if a parcel without an existing ADU/JADU takes advantage of a lot split, it cannot thereafter build any ADU/JADU on the property because this would be considered a “two-on-a-lot” SB9 project. If a parcel without an existing ADU/JADU builds a “two-on-a-lot” SB9 project and later splits the lot into two lots, it similarly cannot build an ADU/JADU on either of the two new lots.
A local agency may deny a SB9 housing development project if the building official makes written findings that the project would create a “specific adverse impact” upon public health and safety or the physical environment that there is no way to mitigate or avoid, a heightened standard to meet. A “specific adverse impact” means a “significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.”
Additional local agency-applicable regulations include:
•The rental of any unit created must be for a term longer than 30 days; •The California Coastal Act still applies, except that no public hearing is required for Coastal Development Permits for housing developments pursuant to SB9; •A local agency may not reject housing solely on the basis that a project proposes adjacent or connected structures provided that the structures meet building code safety standards and are sufficient to allow separate conveyance. 1 State law governing accessory dwelling units specifies that in instances where parking is required, a local agency may not require more than one space per accessory dwelling unit and that this requirement may be satisfied through “tandem parking on a driveway”. (Gov’t Code § 65852.2(a)(1)(D(x)(I))). State law governing SB 9 housing developments is silent as to whether a local agency may require applicable parking requirements to be satisfied through covered parking (i.e., through construction of a garage), but if a garage is required for a SB 9 housing development under Glendale’s Ordinance no design review could be conducted on the garage.
612 of 818
59a
3 7
3 2
If these criteria are satisfied, the city must approve the project ministerially (i.e., without discretionary review or hearings). Projects approved ministerially are not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and cannot be required to obtain any discretionary approvals such as design review.
SB9 Lot Split Projects
In addition to permitting two units on a single family lot, the proposed legislation would allow qualifying lot splits to be approved ministerially pursuant to a parcel map, upon meeting a number of criteria, including many of the same criteria for the two units described above. Additional criteria include the following:
•Each parcel must be at least 40 percent of the original parcel's size; •Each parcel must be at least 1,200 square feet in lot size unless the local agency permits smaller lot size per ordinance;
•There cannot be a sequential lot split on the same parcel, nor can there be a lot split if the owner of the parcel being subdivided (or someone working in concert with that owner) has subdivided an adjacent parcel pursuant to this lot split legislation;
•No right-of-way dedication or off-site improvement may be required; •The parcel must be limited to residential use;
•An affidavit that the applicant intends to use one of the housing units as a principal residence for at least three years from the date of approval is required; •The local agency shall not require a condition that requires correction of nonconforming zoning conditions;
•For each parcel created through this legislation, a local agency is not required to permit more than two dwelling units on a parcel.
A local agency may require, as conditions of approval:
•Easements for public services and facilities;
•Access to the public right-of-way;
•Objective subdivision standards.
613 of 818
69a
3 7
3 2
Senate Bill 478
SB478 prohibits the City from imposing a FAR of less than 1.0 for a housing development project (comprised solely of residential units, a mixed-use development with at least two- thirds of the square footage attributed to residential uses or transitional or supportive housing as defined in the Housing Accountability Act) consisting of three to seven units and a FAR of less than 1.25 for a housing development project consisting of 8 to 10 units.
Additionally, the City may not deny a housing development project located on an existing legal parcel solely on the basis that the lot area does not meet the requirement for minimum lot size. To qualify, a project must consist of three to ten units in a multifamily residential zone or mixed-use zone in an urbanized area and cannot be within a single- family zone or within a historic district. SB478 also makes any private development CC&R void and unenforceable if it effectively prohibits or unreasonably restricts an eligible FAR, as authorized under the new FAR standards as summarized above (and now found in Government Code Section 65913.11).
Senate Bill 897 and Assembly Bill 2221
SB897 and AB2221 both relate to local permitting of ADUs.
SB897 increases the minimum height limits that local governments may impose on ADUs.
Specifically, SB897 provides minimum height limits of 16 feet (for detached ADUs on same lot with an existing or proposed single-family or multifamily dwelling); 18 feet (for detached ADUs located on lot that is within a half-mile of a major transit stop, or detached ADUs on a lot with an existing or proposed multistory, multifamily dwelling); or 25 feet or underlying zone height, whatever is lower (for attached ADUs). The law introduces the potential for two-story ADUs if certain conditions are met, but ensures local agencies are not required to permit three-story ADUs. Lastly, SB897 now clarifies that two detached ADUs may be constructed (and qualify for building permit ministerial review under Subdivision (e)) on lots with proposed multifamily dwellings. This change will allow developers to include two detached ADUs in their design and planning processes for new multifamily residential projects.
AB2221 contains clean-up language and clarifications to reduce permitting hurdles for ADU applicants, including:
•Existing law requires local agencies to "act on" an ADU application within 60 days of issuing a "completeness determination," and if not, an ADU application is deemed approved as a matter of law. However, some local agencies have used internal intermediary "actions" (e.g., inter-departmental referrals, issuing design comments) to bypass the 60-day deadline. AB 2221 eliminates that practice by 614 of 818
79a
3 7
3 2
expressly requiring agencies to "approve or deny" an ADU application within 60 days of the completeness determination.
•Agencies that deny an ADU application must now provide a full set of comments to the applicant with a list of items that are deficient and a description of how the application can be remedied.
•Clarifies that the construction of an ADU does not trigger a change in "Group R" occupancy of the residential building (thereby requiring stricter building code standards), unless the agency makes specific findings that the ADU would create an adverse impact on health and safety.
•Expands the definition of "permitting agency" to include any entity involved in the review of an ADU permit, rather than simply the agency responsible for issuing the permit. This change makes clear that other agency departments, as well as special districts (water, sanitary) are subject to the 60-day deadline following a completeness determination.
•Clarifies that the construction of an ADU (attached or detached) cannot trigger a requirement to install fire sprinklers in an existing multifamily dwelling. •Finally, AB2221 adds front setbacks to the list of objective development standards that local agencies are precluded from imposing if they would prevent construction of an ADU that is 800 square feet or smaller and adheres to 4 feet of rear and side yard setbacks and revised height limits. Front setbacks remain inapplicable to the "state exempt" class of ADUs found in Subdivision (e) of the state law.
ANALYSIS
SB 9 and 478
SB9 requires ministerial approval, without condition, discretion or a hearing, of a housing development containing no more than two residential units on an individual parcel in single-family zones. It also requires local governments to ministerially approve an urban lot split, creating two independent lots that may be sold separately.
Although SB9 requires the City to ministerially approve certain qualifying projects to build two units on a single family-zoned lot, it does allow a city to enact certain objective standards for “two-on-a-lot” projects. SB9 allows a city to “impose objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design review standards”, as long as these standards do not conflict with other requirements in the legislation. SB9 defines the terms “objective zoning standards,” “objective subdivision standards,” and “objective design review standards” as “standards that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official prior to submittal. These standards may be embodied in alternative objective land use specifications adopted by a local agency, and may 615 of 818
89a
3 7
3 2
include, but are not limited to, housing overlay zones, specific plans, inclusionary zoning ordinances, and density bonus ordinances.” Gov’t Code § 65852.21(i)(2) (emphasis added). Examples of non-objective (subjective) standards are those that require general compatibility with the architectural style of the home or with the architectural style or pattern of the neighborhood.
A city’s objective standards cannot “have the effect of physically precluding the construction of up to two units or . . . physically preclude either of the two units from being at least 800 square feet in floor area.” Gov’t Code § 65852.21(b)(2)(A). Also, a city cannot require a setback for “existing structures or structures constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing structure.” Id. at § 65852.21(b)(2)(B)(i). In all other circumstances, a city may require a four-foot interior setback. Id. at § 65852.21(b)(2)(B)(ii). With respect to parking, a city may require one off-street space per unit, except in cases where the lot is located within one-half mile walking distance of either a high-quality transit corridor, or a major transit stop (as defined in other laws), or in cases where there is a car share vehicle located within one block of the parcel. Id. at § 65852.21(c)(1)(A-B).
Among other provisions, the proposed permanent Ordinance includes the following provisions:
•Limitation on the two new units to a maximum of 800 square feet; •Counting an existing or proposed ADU/JADU as a “unit”; •Requiring projects to adhere to objective design standards such as height/stories, setbacks (to the extent allowed to be regulated), roof form, location (e.g. outside front/street-side setback), and others, in order to produce the least impactful high quality design;
•Mandating and enforcing owner-occupancy requirements to the fullest extent permitted by law.
The Ordinance contains additional requirements for SB9 lot splits, as follows:
•Requires lots to front a dedicated and improved public or private street; •New lot lines shall be at right angles adjacent to the street frontage; •A minimum lot width of 12 feet (consistent with existing driveway standards for a flag lot); and
•Prohibits lots with double frontage (except on corner lots).
Provisions related to shared driveways and parking include:
•Requirement for parking to share the driveway with the existing residence and prohibits adding an additional separate driveway (exception for when adjacent to 616 of 818
99a
3 7
3 2
an alley);
•Requirement that development of a SB 9 housing development on vacant land share a singular driveway.
The Ordinance applies the same parking standards to SB 9 housing developments as the current rules for ADUs. While required parking for SB 9 housing developments is not specifically mandated by the state to be uncovered, it is staff’s recommendation to allow uncovered parking because enclosed/covered parking would add an additional building to the site, increasing lot coverage and reducing landscaping/open space that would likely exceed all existing zoning standard limits. Additionally, because the enclosed parking would be for the SB 9 housing development, design review is prohibited, making objective design standards more challenging.
Other miscellaneous provisions:
•Prohibits a parcel with a SB 9 unit from also having a guest house or similar; •Prohibits the location of new construction or any addition for a SB9 unit between an existing or proposed residential dwelling and the street front or street side setback, and
•Requirement for a covenant for a SB9 housing development for reciprocal use agreements to allow for cross-access, cross-drainage, utilities services and parking.
Objective design standards have been developed that govern height and massing, including roof forms and breaks in volume, as well as exterior materials for walls and roofs. For example, a height limit of 12 feet is established for flat roofs and 16 feet for pitched roofs. Standard details are also included for windows, entryways and doors, as well as associated covered porches and patios. Windows must be recessed and require a sill, entry doors must be on the street facing façade and covered porches are limited to 80 square feet. Particular attention has been given to standards to match the new SB 9 unit to the existing residential dwelling, when retained, in terms of roof form and exterior materials. The Ordinance states that ADUs/JADUs are not permitted on a parcel that applies for both a SB 9 housing development and SB9 lot split.
For both an SB9 housing development (two-on-a-lot) and an SB 9 lot split, the Ordinance requires the property owner to execute and record a covenant and agreement. With respect to SB9 housing developments, the fact that there is no prohibition in the state law with respect to owner-occupancy requirements for two-on-a-lot developments (in other words, the state law is silent on that point) is indicative that such a requirement is left open to local regulation.
Given the state law’s silence on the issue leading to the presumptive ability of the City of 617 of 818
109a
3 7
3 2
Glendale to enact an owner-occupancy requirement for SB9 housing developments, the Ordinance requires that a property owner applying for a SB9 housing development covenant to reside in at least one of the residential dwelling units that constitute the non- lot split SB9 housing development, or only rent or lease the property as a single rental property and not rent or lease the residential dwelling units separately from each other (similar to how ADUs were regulated prior to the state changing the law). The state law does not allow a similar owner-occupancy requirement for SB9 lot splits, however, and limits a local agency to requiring a signed affidavit that the owner “intends to occupy one of the housing units as their principal residence for a minimum of three years from the date of the approval of the urban lot split.” Government Code Section 66411.7(g)(1). As such, the Ordinance requires such a sworn statement (for SB9 lot split projects) to be incorporated into a covenant and agreement containing other promises by the property owner related to parking and the prohibition of short-term rentals, but specifies that the written statement under penalty of perjury of the property owner’s intent to occupy does not run with the land and is only binding and enforceable upon the current property owner.
Another key component of the Ordinance is a procedure for the Building Official to make findings of denial of a SB9 project. These findings must be based upon a preponderance of the evidence, leading the Building Official to conclude that the SB9 project would have a specific, adverse impact (a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete) upon public health and safety or the physical environment and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact. The process in the Ordinance requires the Building Official to review each SB9 project application for such specific adverse impacts, and, if found, the Building Official must draft written findings and make a recommendation of denial of the SB9 project. Upon review of the Building Official’s findings and recommendation of denial, the Director of Community Development must issue a written decision to deny the project, and must publish the written decision with the Building Officials’ findings on the City’s website, which denial is appealable to the Planning Commission, then to the City Council, pursuant to the procedures set forth in Glendale Municipal Code Chapter 30.62. In addition to existing written public health or safety standards, policies or conditions, the Ordinance contains additional standards for potential historic resources (those not listed/designated and those not surveyed as eligible, and thus not part of the State Historic Resources Inventory) that allows the Building Official to deny a SB9 project if there exists substantial evidence that the project will have a substantial adverse effect on a potential resource the City determines to be a historic resource.
The Ordinance does not contain additional standards related to high fire areas with substandard streets. Construction of a SB9 housing development in the existing high and 618 of 818
119a
3 7
3 2
very high fire hazard severity zones in the City would not prevent the Fire Department from servicing those areas and similarly to accessory dwelling units, a SB9 housing development would not pose a substantial adverse impact on fire safety in these areas.
Furthermore, new SB9 housing developments would be required to follow the additional building construction code and standards related to construction in these fire hazard area and must follow the adopted fire mitigation standards of the Building and Safety Code.
In addition to the above SB9 standards, the Ordinance also modifies floor area ratios for certain qualifying projects under SB478.
Other Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) amendments, including SB 897 and AB 2221 The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) submitted comments to the City on its ADU Ordinance and requested clarifications related to the location of an ADU within the street side setback, the prohibition of the location of the entry door to an ADU, and the separate sale of an ADU or JADU from its respective primary dwelling.
The Zoning Code prevents the new construction of an ADU between the primary residential dwelling(s) and the street front and street side setback. The intent is to prevent ADUs in the front or street side front yard. The Zoning Code also provides exceptions to this setback restriction with respect to new construction ADUs meeting the requirements of Government Code section 65852.2(e)(1)(B), in GMC section 30.34.080(E)(1) (allowing for a four (4) foot interior setback).
Section 30.34.080(E)(5) limits the addition of a door facing a street in connection with an ADU/JADU. The intent of this prohibition is to prevent, when possible, the negative aesthetic impact to a single-family neighborhood that would result from a dwelling unit that appears to have two front doors (resulting in a “duplex”-looking structure in a neighborhood with a consistent pattern of single-family homes). Similarly, the Zoning Code provides for the same exceptions to this prohibition for ADUs that meet the requirements of Government Code section 65852.2(e)(1)(B).
Regardless, HCD felt additional clarification was needed to make the exceptions to the setback and additional door restriction clearer, so language to Section 30.34.080(D)(10) and 30.34.080(E)(5) has been added.
The last HCD-requested amendment relates to the separate sale of an ADU or JADU from its respective primary dwelling; the amendment makes it clear that an exception to the prohibition of the separate sale of an ADU is contained in Government Code section 65852.26.
619 of 818
129a
3 7
3 2
Additional miscellaneous ADU amendments relate to prohibiting rooftop decks over accessory and junior accessory dwelling units and limiting ADUs in combination with other accessory buildings on a lot. The amendments make clear that rooftop decks are not permitted over an ADU/JADU. This is, first, to address privacy concerns for neighboring properties, especially when a ADU can be four feet and sometimes less (no setback garage conversion) from a property line. Second, to deter hillside properties from building flat roof ADUs on lower sloping portions of a lot that then convert the roof to a large deck, essentially extending the rear yard with a large addition under the pretense of just adding an ADU and circumventing the deck rules in hillsides that require Design Review.
The current Code prohibits an ADU when there is an existing guest house. A property can have one or the other, not both. However, Planning staff has discovered that many other types of accessory buildings such as pool house, cabana, recreation room, and the like, essentially act like guest houses, but because they were not technically permitted as such allow a property to then have an ADU and these other accessory buildings. The proposed amendment closes this loop hole and clarifies that a property can have one, but not both, either an ADU or these additional accessory buildings.
The provisions of SB897 and AB2221 outline new height standards and those have been incorporated into the draft Ordinance. The new State law adds new varying heights for detached ADUs of 16 and 18 (+2 for matching existing roof pitch) depending on the distance of a property to major transit stop and 25 feet when the ADU is attached to the primary dwelling regardless of location to a major transit stop.
Other provisions of SB897 and AB2221 relate to process and permitting clarifications and will be practiced by Community Development Department staff and therefore are not included in the proposed Ordinance.
PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW
The proposed amendments were reviewed by the Planning Commission at a regularly scheduled meeting and hearing on October 19, 2022. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend adoption the proposed ordinance regarding specific standards for projects meeting the eligibility requirements for SB9; minimum SB478 FAR standards for certain multi-family housing development projects, and incorporation of State law amendments and minor modifications and clarifications related to JADUs and ADUs.
STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Not applicable.
620 of 818
139a
3 7
3 2
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report. Additional revenue in the form of application/permit fees and development impact fees could be realized from SB9 housing development or lot split proposals.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed Ordinance is not a project under the CEQA because it implements the provisions of Government Code Sections 65852.21 and 66411.7 and pursuant to Government Code Sections 65852.21(j) and 66411.7(n), is therefore not a project under Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code.
Additionally, the proposed ordinance is exempt from CEQA review because it implements the provisions of Government Code Section 65913.11 and is therefore: (1) exempt from further environmental review under CEQA pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CEQA Guidelines) Section 15305 (minor alterations to land use limitations), Class 5 Exemption, as the Ordinance will allow a slightly more generous floor area ratio than currently allowed in certain zones, but the Ordinance will not allow for or encourage any more density or development than is already anticipated under the City’s existing General Plan and as regulated by existing zoning, or otherwise allow for or promote physical changes in the environment; (2) exempt from further environmental review under CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because the Ordinance will allow a slightly more generous floor area ratio than currently allowed in certain zones, but the Ordinance will not allow for or encourage any more density or development than is already anticipated under the City’s existing General Plan and as regulated by existing zoning, or otherwise allow for or promote physical changes in the environment, and therefore, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment; and (3) not intended to apply to specifically identified housing development projects and as such it is speculative to evaluate any such future project now. Moreover, the Ordinance is not intended to, nor does it, provide CEQA clearance for future development-related projects by mere establishment of a slightly more generous floor area ratio in certain zones; any such projects subject to the Ordinance will be subject to appropriate environmental review at such time as approvals for those housing projects are considered. Each of the foregoing provides a separate and independent basis for CEQA compliance and, when viewed collectively, provides an overall basis for CEQA compliance.
The proposed Ordinance implements the provisions of Government Code Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22, second units in a single-family or multifamily residential zone, and is therefore exempt from CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.17 and California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15282(h). Moreover, this Ordinance is exempt from further environmental review under CEQA pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations Section 15060(c)(1), as it implements provisions of 621 of 818
149a
3 7
3 2
Government Code Sections 65852.2 and 65852,22, which require ministerial review and approval of accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units and therefore, does not involve the exercise of discretionary powers by the City.
CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.
ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Introduce proposed amendments to Title 30 of the GMC, 1995 relating generally to standards for eligible SB9 projects, minimum SB478 floor area ratio standards for certain multi-family housing development projects, and incorporation of State law amendments and minor modifications and clarifications related to JADUs and ADUs as recommended by the Planning Commission.
Alternative 2: Do not to introduce proposed amendments to Title 30 of the GMC, 1995.
Alternative 3: Consider any other alternative not proposed by staff or the Planning Commission.
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:
Kristen Asp, AICP, Principal Planner
Yvette Neukian, Principal Assistant City Attorney
Approved by:
Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager
EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
1. Planning Commission Motion dated October 19, 2022
2. Interim Ordinance No. 5985
3. Interim Ordinance No. 5981
622 of 818
1 ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE,
CALIFORNIA AMENDING SECTIONS 30.11.020, 30.11.050 AND 30.34.080, AND REPEALING AND REPLACING 30.34.110 OF TITLE 30 TO THE GLENDALE MUNICIPAL CODE, 1995 ESTABLISHING STANDARDS AND MINISTERIAL PROCESSES FOR REVIEWING AND APPROVING ELIGIBLE SB 9 PROJECTS,
MINIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO STANDARDS FOR CERTAIN MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS (SB 478) AND INCORPORATION OF STATE
LAW AMENDMENTS AND MINOR MODIFICATIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS
RELATED TO ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND JUNIOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS (CASE NO. PZC-0001-2022)
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE:
WHEREAS, on September 16, 2021, Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law Senate Bill 9 (“SB 9”), that added Sections 65852.21 and 66411.7 to the California Government Code; and
WHEREAS, on September 28, 2021, Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law Senate Bill 478 (“SB 478”), that added Section 65913.11 to the California Government Code; and
WHEREAS, SB 9 mandates that a local agency ministerially approve a proposed housing development that proposes two residential dwelling units in a single-family residential zone, and/or a parcel map for an urban lot split to create no more than two new parcels of approximate equal area in a single-family residential zone, subject to certain requirements; and
WHEREAS, SB 9 allows a local agency to adopt objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design review standards, that do not conflict with the provisions of SB 9, upon proposed SB 9 housing developments, and also allows a local agency to deny a proposed SB 9 housing development if the building official makes written findings, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, that the proposed housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact, as defined and determined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5, upon public health and safety or the physical environment and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact; and WHEREAS, SB 478 prohibits a local agency from imposing a floor area ratio standard that is less than 1.0 on a housing development project proposed in a multifamily residential zone or a mixed-use zone that consists of three (3) to seven (7) units, or less than 1.25 on a housing development project proposed in a multifamily residential zone or a mixed-use zone that consists of eight (8) to ten (10) units, and would prohibit a local agency from imposing a lot coverage requirement that would physically preclude a housing development project from achieving such floor area 623 of 818
2 ratios; and
WHEREAS, the City of Glendale regulates accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units under Title 30 of the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995 (“GMC”), including Chapter 30.34 thereof, as well as the Glendale Building and Safety Code; and WHEREAS, Government Code Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22 permit local governments to establish standards for ministerial review of accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units and directs that accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units be approved subject to minimal state standards when existing local standards or process for accessory dwellings conflict with state standards; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65852.2 was amended by SB 897 and AB 2221 to reduce permitting hurdles for accessory dwelling unit applicants and increase the minimum height limits that local governments may impose on accessory dwelling units, effective January 1, 2023; and
WHEREAS, Planning Division staff has identified additional amendments to Section 30.34.080 related to standards for accessory dwelling units that will contribute to the general welfare of the City and that are allowed under State law; and WHEREAS, the City of Glendale adopted Housing Element 2021-2029 of the General Plan on February 1, 2022, which is pending certification by the State Department of Housing and Community Development; and
WHEREAS, the development of accessory dwelling units, junior accessory dwelling units, and residential dwelling units under SB 9 will further local, regional and state goals for meeting the RHNA requirement expressed in Housing Element 2021- 2029; and
WHEREAS, Housing Element 2021-2029, contains Policy 1.9 "Encourage flexibility in the Zoning Ordinance to promote a wide range of housing types"; Policy 1.3 "Promote the dispersion of affordable housing throughout the City while recognizing the potential for the integration of market-rate and affordable units within individual projects"; Policy 2.9 "Respect scale, historic continuity, and a sense of community in new residential development"; and, Policy 6.10 "Encourage the use of sustainable building practices in residential developments" and permitting dwelling units and lot splits under SB 9 implements these policies; and
WHEREAS, the Greener Glendale Plan for Community Activities was adopted by the City Council of the City of Glendale on March 12, 2012 for the purposes of promoting sustainable practices and establishing greenhouse gas reduction strategies in accordance with AB 32 (2006) and SB 375 (2008); and
WHEREAS, the Greener Glendale Plan for Community Activities Objective UD4 directs Glendale to continue to promote infill development to increase sustainability and 624 of 818
3 livable environment and permitting dwelling units proposed under SB 9 is consistent with that objective; and
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65858 permits cities to adopt interim procedures and criteria while studying potential permanent processes and zoning standards to protect public health, safety, and welfare; and WHEREAS, City Council received a staff report and testimony on October 26, 2021 and December 7, 2021, discussed the process and standards for SB 9 units and SB 478 floor area ratio standards, initiated code amendments to prepare a permanent process and criteria for approval of SB 9 projects, and introduced the interim urgency ordinance to establish interim standards and ministerial processes for review and approval of SB 9 projects and SB 478 floor area ratio standards; and WHEREAS, on December 14, 2021, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 5981 as an urgency ordinance to establish interim standards and ministerial processes for reviewing and approving SB 9 projects and setting minimum SB 478 floor area ratio standards for certain multi-family housing development projects that was effective on January 1, 2022; and
WHEREAS, on January 25, 2022, following a duly noticed public hearing held on January 18, 2022, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 5985 that extended Ordinance No. 5981 by for a period of ten months and fifteen days, extending the effective date of such ordinance through and including December 13, 2022; and WHEREAS, on December 8, 2020, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 5957 amending permanent standards and processes for the review and approval of accessory dwelling units and junior accessory units, contained in Section 30.34.080 of the Glendale Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, it is now necessary that the City Council adopt permanent standards and ministerial processes for reviewing and approving SB 9 projects, codify the provisions of SB 478, as well as amend standards and processes for the review and approval of accessory dwelling units and junior accessory units; and WHEREAS, this Ordinance is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it implements the provisions of Government Code Sections 65852.21 and 66411.7 and pursuant to Government Code Sections 65852.21(j) and 66411.7(n), is therefore not a project under Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code. Additionally, the Ordinance is exempt from CEQA review because it implements the provisions of Government Code Section 65913.11 and is therefore: (1) exempt from further environmental review under CEQA pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CEQA Guidelines) Section 15305 (minor alterations to land use limitations), Class 5 Exemption, as the Ordinance will allow a slightly more generous floor area ratio than currently allowed in certain zones, but the Ordinance will not allow for or encourage any more density or 625 of 818
4 development than is already anticipated under the City’s existing General Plan and as regulated by existing zoning, or otherwise allow for or promote physical changes in the environment; (2) exempt from further environmental review under CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because the Ordinance will allow a slightly more generous floor area ratio than currently allowed in certain zones, but the Ordinance will not allow for or encourage any more density or development than is already anticipated under the City’s existing General Plan and as regulated by existing zoning, or otherwise allow for or promote physical changes in the environment, and therefore, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment; and (3) not intended to apply to specifically identified housing development projects and as such it is speculative to evaluate any such future project now. Moreover, the Ordinance is not intended to, nor does it, provide CEQA clearance for future development-related projects by mere establishment of a slightly more generous floor area ratio in certain zones; any such projects subject to the Ordinance will be subject to appropriate environmental review at such time as approvals for those housing projects are considered. Each of the foregoing provides a separate and independent basis for CEQA compliance and, when viewed collectively, provides an overall basis for CEQA compliance. The Ordinance also implements the provisions of Government Code Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22, second units in a single-family or multifamily residential zone, and is therefore exempt from CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.17 and California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15282(h). Moreover, this Ordinance is exempt from further environmental review under CEQA pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations Section 15060(c)(1), as it implements provisions of Government Code Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22, which require ministerial review and approval of accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units and therefore, does not involve the exercise of discretionary powers by the City.
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Glendale does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Glendale finds that the above recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference.
SECTION 2. The City Council of the City of Glendale finds and declares that this Ordinance establishing reasonable permanent standards for permitting eligible SB 9 housing development and lot split projects, codifying floor area ratio and other prohibitions set forth in SB 478, and amending standards for permitting accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units ministerially, is consistent with the City’s Housing Element 2021-2029, with state housing policy, and with Glendale’s adopted greenhouse gas reduction strategies.
SECTION 3. Section 30.11.020 of the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995 is hereby amended as follows:
30.11.020 – Residential District Land Uses and Permit Requirements 626 of 818
5 A. Permitted Primary Uses and Structures. No building, structure or land shall be used and no building, structure or use in the residential zoning districts shall be erected, structurally altered, enlarged or established except the following permitted uses, buildings and structures identified with a “P” in Table 30.11 – A.
B. Conditional Uses and Structures. The following uses and structures identified with a “C” in Table 30.11 – A may be permitted in the residential zoning districts subject to approval of a conditional use permit (Section 30.42). The development standards of this zone shall apply except as otherwise provided herein.
C. Temporary Uses. Temporary uses (identified with a “T” in Table 30.11 – A), allowed subject to approval and compliance with all applicable provisions of this Zoning Code.
D. Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures. Accessory uses, buildings and structures shall be permitted in zones identified with a “P” in Table 30.11 – A.
E. Wireless Telecommunications Facilities. Wireless telecommunications facilities, identified with a “W” in Table 30.11-A may be permitted subject to the approval of a wireless telecommunications facility permit as set forth in Chapter 30.48 of this Code.
F. Standards for Specific Uses. Where the last column in the following tables (“See standards in Section”) includes a section number, the regulations in the referenced section apply to the use; however, provisions in other sections of this Zoning Code may apply as well.
G. Historic Resources. Uses listed as permitted or conditionally permitted within a historic resource included on the Glendale Historic Register only (identified in Table
30.11 – A) are permitted or conditionally permitted only within a designated historic resource on the Glendale Register of Historic Resources. 627 of 818
6 Table 30.11 – A
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS AND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS
LAND USE (1) (2) PERMIT REQUIREMENT BY ZONE
Residential Uses ROS R1R R1 R3050 R2250 R1650 R1250
See
Standards
in Section
Domestic Violence Shelter P P P P P P P
Multiple residential dwellings P P P P 30.11.050
One (1) residential dwelling per lot P P P P P P P 30.34.110 Residential congregate living, Limited P P P P P P P
Residential congregate living, Medical C C C
Residential congregate living, Non-medical C C C C
Senior housing P P P P
Education, Public Assembly, Recreation
Community gardens P P P P P P P 30.34.045
Day care center, only where operated at a
church, synagogue, temple, or other house
of worship, religiously affiliated or
nonsectarian preschool. In determining
whether to grant or deny a conditional use
permit for a day care center hereunder, the
content of any curriculum and every aspect
of an organization's operations which are
religious in nature shall not be considered
C C C C
Parks and playgrounds, operated by a
homeowners' association and approved in
connection with a subdivision
P P P P P P P
Parks and playgrounds, private C C C C C C C
Parks and playgrounds, public P P P P P P P
Places of worship C C C C C C C
Schools, private C C C
Key to Permit Requirements Symbol See Chapter
Permitted use P
Conditional use – Conditional Use Permit required. C 30.42 Temporary Use T
Use not allowed
Notes: (1) See 30.03.010 regarding uses not listed
(2) See 30.70 for definitions of the land uses
Table continues on next page.
628 of 818
7 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS AND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS
LAND USE (1) (2) PERMIT REQUIREMENT BY ZONE
Open Space and Resources ROS R1R R1 R3050 R2250 R1650 R1250 See
Standards
in Section
Open Space P P P
Transportation & Communication Uses
Utility and transmission facilities C C C C C C C
Wireless telecommunication facilities W W W W W W W Chapter
30.48 Accessory Buildings, Structures and Uses
Accessory dwelling unit (ADU) and/or junior
accessory dwelling unit (JADU) on a lot
developed with one residential dwelling unit
P P P P P P P 30.34.080
Accessory dwelling unit(s) (ADU) on a lot
developed with more than one residential
dwelling unit
P P P P P P P 30.34.080
Accessory living quarters or guest house not
to exceed an aggregate area of five hundred
(500) square feet of floor area
P P P P P P P
Accessory buildings or structures, other than
garages or carports, not to exceed five
hundred (500) square feet of floor area
P P P P P P P
Accessory uses P P P P P P P
Antennas (pole type) P P P P P P P
Dish antennas P P P P P P P 30.34.050
Home occupations P P P P P P P 30.45
Home-sharing P P P P P P P 5.110
Signs P P P P P P P 30.33
Solar energy equipment P P P P P P P 30.30.050
Temporary Uses
Contractor’s office and/or storage,
temporary T T T T T T T
Temporary subdivision sales offices, sales
trailers and model dwellings or trailers
proposed for use as temporary sales offices
shall be registered with the Director of
Community Development by an application
for conditions of use. The Director of
Community Development may establish
conditions for operations and maintenance
including but not limited to restrictions on
hours of operation, lighting and promotional
restrictions and reasonable termination of
the temporary use. The decision of the
Director of Community Development shall
be appealable.
T T T T T T T
Key to Permit Requirements Symbol See Chapter
Permitted use P
Conditional use – Conditional Use Permit required. C 30.42 Temporary Use T
Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Permit Required W 30.48 Use not allowed
629 of 818
8 Notes: (1) See 30.03.010 regarding uses not listed
(2) See 30.70 for definitions of the land uses
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS AND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS
LAND USE (1) (2) PERMIT REQUIREMENT BY ZONE
Uses within a Historic Resource ROS R1R R1 R3050 R2250 R1650 R1250 See
Standards
in Section
Cultural Art Centers C C C C C C C
Day care centers C C C C C C C
Museum C C C C C C C
Office C C C C C C C
Residential congregate living, Non-medical C C C
Restaurants, full service not to exceed a
seating capacity of forty (40) persons C C C C
Retail stores, general merchandise C C C C C C C
Schools, physical instruction C C C C C C C
Schools, private specialized education and
training C C C C C C C
Key to Permit Requirements Symbol See Chapter
Permitted use P
Conditional use – Conditional Use Permit required. C 30.42 Temporary Use T
Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Permit Required W 30.48 Use not allowed
Notes:
(1) See 30.03.010 regarding uses not listed
(2) See 30.70 for definitions of the land uses
SECTION 4. Section 30.11.050 of the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995, is hereby amended to read as follows:
30.11.050 – Residential District Additional R-3050, R-2250, R-1650, and R-1250 Development Standards. The following standards shall apply in the R-3050, R-2250, R-1650, and R-1250 zones.
A. Dwelling Unit Size.
The gross floor area of any dwelling unit shall be not less than provided herein. For the purpose of this section, dens, studies or other similar rooms which may be used as bedrooms shall be considered as bedrooms. Living rooms, dining rooms, kitchens, or bathrooms shall not be considered as bedrooms except that separate dining rooms in efficiency units or rooms that could be converted into additional bedrooms shall be considered as bedrooms.
1. Efficiency and one (1) bedroom units: six hundred (600) square feet.
2. Two (2) bedroom units: eight hundred (800) square feet. 630 of 818
9 3. Three (3) or more bedroom units: one thousand (1,000) square feet.
B. Private Outdoor Space.
A minimum private outdoor space of forty (40) square feet shall be provided for each dwelling unit. Such private outdoor space shall be designed as a patio, deck, or balcony and shall have a minimum length or width of four (4) feet and shall be directly accessible and an integral part of the dwelling unit which it serves.
C. Common Outdoor Space.
A minimum common outdoor space of two hundred (200) square feet shall be provided per dwelling unit for the first twenty-five (25) dwelling units on a lot; a minimum common outdoor space of one hundred fifty (150) square feet shall be provided per dwelling unit for the second twenty-five (25) dwelling units on a lot; a minimum common outdoor space of one hundred (100) square feet shall be provided per dwelling unit for each additional dwelling unit above fifty (50) on a lot.
Any common outdoor space shall have a minimum level surface dimension of ten (10) feet and a minimum area of two hundred (200) square feet.
Landscaping and seating shall be permanently integrated into all required common outdoor spaces. No street front setback area or street side setback area shall be used for common outdoor space. The developer shall pay an amount of money, established by the city council as a parks fee, to be used by the city for the purpose of fulfillment of recreational demand created by the project.
D. Distance Between Dwellings.
Exterior walls of separate buildings containing dwelling units on the same lot shall be separated by a minimum distance of twelve (12) feet. The windows or window/doors of any one (1) dwelling unit may not face the windows or window/doors of any other dwelling unit unless separated by a distance of twelve (12) or more feet except where the angle between the wall of the separate dwelling units is ninety (90) degrees or more. Walls parallel to each other shall be considered to be at a zero (0) degree angle.
E. Rooftop Equipment.
For regulations concerning rooftop equipment, see Section 30.30.020 of this title.
F. Fences and Walls.
For regulations concerning fences and walls, see Chapter 30.30.010.
G. Trash Collection Areas.
631 of 818
10 For regulations concerning trash collection areas, see Chapter 30.30.030.
H. Access to Dwelling Units.
An elevator shall be provided to serve all stories in a building containing more than three (3) dwelling units where the floor area of any dwelling unit is located only on the third story and other dwelling units are located on the first and second stories.
I. Laundry Facilities.
Laundry facilities shall be provided to serve all dwelling units on a lot. Such laundry facilities, constituting washer and dryer appliances connected to utilities, shall be provided in the individual dwelling units where there are three (3) or less dwelling units on a lot. Where there are more than three (3) dwelling units on a lot, laundry facilities shall either be provided in the individual dwelling units or in a common laundry room. A common laundry room shall be in an accessible location and shall have at least one (1) washer and one (1) dryer for each ten (10) dwelling units, maintained in operable condition and accessible to all tenants daily between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.
J. Storage Space-Private.
A minimum of ninety (90) cubic feet of private storage space shall be provided for each dwelling unit outside such unit unless a private attached garage serving only the dwelling unit is provided. Such private storage space shall have a minimum horizontal surface area of twenty-four (24) square feet and shall be fully enclosed and lockable.
K. Additional Standards for Floor Area Ratio Minimums
1. Any development of three (3) to seven (7) multiple residential dwelling units shall not have a floor area ratio standard that is less than 1.0.
2. Any development of eight (8) to ten (10) multiple residential dwelling units shall not have a floor area ratio standard that is less than 1.25.
3. To be eligible for the provisions in Subsection 1 and 2 above, a multi-family housing development project shall meet all of the following conditions:
a. The project consists of at least three (3), but not more than ten (10), units. b. The project is located in a multifamily residential zone, commercial zone, or a mixed-use zone, and is not located in either of the following:
i. Within a single-family zone.
ii. Within a historic district or property that is included on the State Historic Resources Inventory, as defined in Section 5020.1 of the Public Resources Code, or within a site that is or contains buildings, sites, objects, structures, 632 of 818
11 neighborhoods, cultural landscapes, and archaeological sites, that are designated or listed as a city or county landmark or historic property or district pursuant to a city or county ordinance.
4. This Subsection shall not be construed to prohibit the City from imposing any zoning or design standards, including, but not limited to, building height and setbacks, on a housing development project that meets the requirements of this Subsection, other than zoning or design standards that establish floor area ratios or lot size requirements that expressly conflict with the standards contained in this Subsection.
5. The City may not impose a lot coverage requirement that would physically preclude a housing development project that meets the requirements of this Subsection from achieving the floor area ratio allowed herein.
SECTION 5. Section 30.34.080 of the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995, is hereby repealed and replaced to read as follows:
30.34.080 – Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units A. Intent and Purpose
This Section is intended to provide for the creation of accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units in a manner that is ministerial and nondiscretionary consistent with State Law.
1. Accessory dwelling units and/or junior accessory dwelling units, as applicable, are located on lots developed or proposed with dwelling units in areas zoned for single- family and multifamily residential (including mixed-use residential) uses and can provide an important source of affordable housing. For purposes of this Section, the existing one residential dwelling on property zoned single family residential or property with an existing single family dwelling on it shall also be known as the primary dwelling.
2. Accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units, when appropriately sized and located, have little impact on neighborhood quality of life or upon real property that is listed, or identified on a historic survey as potentially eligible on the National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources, Glendale Register of Historic Resources, and in a City of Glendale designated or nominated Historic District.
3. Establishing reasonable regulations for accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units is an appropriate mechanism to properly balance the need for additional affordable housing with the need to maintain existing architectural character, community character and neighborhood quality of life.
4. Accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units are not considered for purposes of General Plan density calculation.
633 of 818
12 5. Accessory dwelling unit and junior accessory dwelling unit permits are necessary to enable tracking of affordable housing and to ensure review and compliance with zoning, fire, and life safety standards contained in state and local law.
B. Applicability
This Section shall apply to all zones that allow single family or multifamily residential use(s).
C. Definitions.
The following definitions shall apply to the requirements of this Section any term not defined herein shall have the same meaning as defined in Chapter 30.70:
“Accessory dwelling unit” means an attached or a detached residential dwelling unit that provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons and is located on a lot with a proposed or existing primary residence. It shall include permanent provisions for living, sleeping eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as the single-family or multifamily dwelling is or will be situated. An accessory dwelling unit also includes the following:
•An efficiency unit as defined in Section 17958.1 of the Health and Safety Code.
•A manufactured home, as defined in Section 18007 of the Health and Safety Code.
“Junior accessory dwelling unit” means a unit that is no more than 500 square feet in size and contained entirely within a single-family residence, and shall in no event be contained within a detached accessory building or structure. For purposes of this definition, “contained entirely within a single-family residence” means enclosed uses within the residence, such as attached garages. A junior accessory dwelling unit may include separate sanitation facilities, or may share sanitation facilities with the existing structure.
“Living area” means the interior habitable area of a dwelling unit, including basements and attics, but does not include a garage or any accessory structure. “Public transit” means a location, including, but not limited to, a bus stop or train station, where the public may access buses, trains, subways, and other forms of transportation that charge set fares, run on fixed routes, and are available to the public.
D. General Provisions
1. Accessory dwelling units shall be permitted in any zone that allows residential uses and is developed with residential uses or, in the case of single family zones only, is proposed to be developed with a residential dwelling unit. Where two (2) or more contiguous lots in the same ownership are developed as one (1) building site with residential dwellings and where an accessory dwelling unit is proposed, a lot line 634 of 818
13 adjustment or parcel map, as applicable, shall be required to create one lot by relocating or eliminating existing lot lines.
2. Junior accessory dwelling units shall only be permitted on lots developed with one residential dwelling or proposed to be developed with one residential dwelling.
Where two (2) or more contiguous lots in the same ownership are developed as one (1) building site with residential dwellings and where a junior accessory dwelling unit is proposed, a lot line adjustment or parcel map shall, as applicable, be required to create one lot by relocating or eliminating existing lot lines.
3. Accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units are subject to the underlying zoning development standards for setback, floor area ratio, lot coverage, height, parking, open space and landscaping that are applicable to the primary residential dwelling, or dwellings, except as otherwise set forth in this Section.
4. No additional setback shall be required for an existing living area or accessory building or a building constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing building that is converted to an accessory dwelling unit, and a setback of no more than four feet from an interior lot line shall be required for an accessory dwelling unit that is not converted from an existing building constructed in the same locations and to the same dimensions as an existing building.
5. An accessory dwelling unit shall include:
a. A bathroom.
b. A kitchen.
c. Independent access.
d. Comply with building codes, including sufficient setbacks for fire. e. May not be smaller than identified in Section 17958.1 of the California Health & Safety Code.
f. Must be served by utilities, including sewer, water and electric.
6. All new construction attached or detached accessory dwelling units shall have a maximum square footage as follows.
a. 850 square feet; or
b. 1,000 square feet for an accessory dwelling unit that provides more than one bedroom.
7. All new construction accessory dwelling units attached to the existing primary dwelling shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the existing floor area of the primary dwelling, but in no event shall an accessory dwelling unit exceed the maximum square feet stated in Subsection D.6.
8. A junior accessory dwelling unit shall include:
a. An efficiency kitchen, which shall include a sink and a cooking facility with appliances and a food preparation counter and storage cabinets that are of reasonable size in relation to the size of the junior accessory dwelling unit. 635 of 818
14 b. Independent access.
c. Comply with building codes, including sufficient setbacks for fire. d. May not be smaller than identified in Section 17958.1 of the California Health & Safety Code.
e. Must be served by utilities, including sewer, water and electric. f. If the junior accessory dwelling unit does not include a separate bathroom, the junior accessory dwelling unit shall include a separate entrance from the main entrance to the structure, with an interior entry to the main living area.
9. A lot where only one residential dwelling unit exists may have either an accessory dwelling unit or one an accessory living quarters, but not both. For the purposes of this section, other accessory buildings which are defined as “R” Occupancy per Chapter 3 of the California Building Code such as, a cabana, pool house, recreation room, workshop, studio, rumpus room and similar shall be considered accessory living quarters. An accessory living quarters may be converted to an accessory dwelling unit. Nothing herein shall prohibit the creation of a junior accessory dwelling unit on such a lot that contains an accessory living quarters.
10.In no case shall new construction of an accessory dwelling unit be located between the primary residential dwelling(s) and the street front and street side setback.
Notwithstanding such prohibition, in cases where a lot has more than one street front (through lot), a new construction attached or detached accessory dwelling unit may be located between the street front setback and the side or rear façade of the primary residential dwelling(s). Further, no additional driveway shall be allowed from any street frontage. These prohibitions do not apply when compliance with this Section precludes development of an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit that qualifies under Subsection E.4 below.
11.Any rental of an accessory dwelling unit and/or junior accessory dwelling unit created pursuant to this Section shall be for a term longer than 30 days.
12.Except as provided in Government Code Section 65852.26, tThe accessory dwelling unit and/or the junior accessory dwelling unit cannot be sold separately from the residential dwelling(s).
13.Fire sprinklers shall be required for the accessory dwelling unit and/or junior accessory dwelling unit if fire sprinklers are or were required for the residential dwelling. The construction of an accessory dwelling unit shall not trigger a requirement for fire sprinklers to be installed in the existing single- or multifamily dwelling.
14.No passageway shall be required between an entrance of the accessory dwelling unit and the street right-of-way as defined in State law. 636 of 818
15 15.The property owner shall pay all sewer, water, school district, and other applicable fees.
16.Notwithstanding Chapter 4.10 and any development impact fee resolutions adopted thereunder:
a. Any accessory dwelling unit under 750 square feet shall be exempt from any Development Impact Fee, including but not limited to the Parks and Libraries Development Impact Fee; and
b. Any accessory dwelling unit of 750 square feet or greater shall be charged a Parks and Library Development Impact Fee in an amount proportionally related to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit or the average square footage of the existing multifamily dwelling units, as applicable, not to exceed that amount set forth in the Development Impact Fee Resolution adopted pursuant to Chapter
4.10. 17.The property owner may install new or separate utility connections between the accessory dwelling unit(s) or junior accessory dwelling unit and the utility, and pay all applicable connection fees or capacity charges.
18.An accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory unit shall not be considered a new residential use for purposes of calculating connection fees or capacity charges for utilities, including water and sewer, unless the accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit is constructed with a new single-family dwelling.
19.When an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit qualifies under Section E.4 or Section F.2, installation of new or separate utility connections, including related connection fees or capacity charges, directly between the accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit shall not be required unless the accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit was constructed with a new single-family dwelling.
20.When an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit does not qualify under Section E.4 or Section F.2, installation of a new or separate utility connection directly between the accessory dwelling unit and the utility may be required.
Consistent with California Government Code Section 66013, the connection may be subject to a connection fee or capacity charge that shall be proportionate to the burden of the proposed accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit, based upon either it’s square footage or the number of its drainage fixture unit (DFU) values, as defined in the Uniform Plumbing Code adopted and published by the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials, upon the water or sewer system. This fee or charge shall not exceed the reasonable cost of providing this service.
637 of 818
16 E. Additional standards specific only to an Accessory Dwelling Unit and/or Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit where only one residential dwelling unit exists or is proposed on a lot.
The following standards and criteria apply to accessory dwelling units and/or junior accessory dwelling units where only one residential dwelling unit exists or is proposed on a lot.
1. Except as otherwise set forth in this Section, accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units are subject to all zoning development standards that apply in the underlying zone to the primary residential dwelling, including but not limited to, setbacks, floor area ratio, lot coverage, height, parking, landscaping, open space, and ungraded open space, except that no more than a minimum of four (4) foot interior setbacks shall be required.
2. Notwithstanding the development standards for floor area ratio, lot coverage, and open space (when not required for minimum landscaping requirements) for the underlying zone, a new construction attached or detached accessory dwelling unit shall be permitted that is 800 square feet or less in size, provides 4-foot minimum interior setbacks and does not exceed 16 feet in height. the following height limitations:
a. A height limit of 16 feet for a detached accessory dwelling unit on a lot with an existing or proposed single family dwelling unit.
b. A height limit of 18 feet for a detached accessory dwelling unit on a lot with an existing or proposed single family dwelling unit that is within one-half mile walking distance of a major transit stop or a high quality transit corridor, as those terms are defined in Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code. An additional two feet in height shall be permitted to accommodate a roof pitch on the accessory dwelling unit that is aligned with the roof pitch of the primary dwelling unit. In no case shall the accessory dwelling unit exceed two stories. c. A height of 25 feet or the height limitation of the underlying zoning district, whichever is lower, for an accessory dwelling unit that is attached to the primary dwelling. In no case shall the accessory dwelling unit exceed two stories.
3. For properties listed on the California Register of Historic Places, the Glendale Register of Historic Properties, any property in an adopted or nominated historic district overlay zone, or any property identified as significant or potentially significant on a historic survey meeting the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(g), any exterior changes to an existing property to create an accessory dwelling unit and/or a junior accessory dwelling unit shall not be visible from the public street or sidewalk right-of-way immediately adjacent to the property and shall not alter any defining historical characteristic unless compliance with this Section precludes development of an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit that qualifies under Subsection E.4 below.
4. Notwithstanding Subsection E.1 above:
638 of 818
17 a. One accessory dwelling unit and one junior accessory dwelling unit shall be allowed when all of the following apply:
i. The accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit shall be located within the proposed space of a single-family dwelling or existing space of a single-family dwelling, or the accessory dwelling unit shall be located within the existing space of an accessory building and may include an expansion of an accessory building not to exceed 150 square feet beyond the same physical dimensions as the existing accessory building. An expansion of an accessory dwelling unit beyond the physical dimensions of the existing accessory building shall be limited to accommodating ingress and egress; ii. The space has exterior access from the proposed or existing single-family dwelling;
iii. For fire safety purposes, at least one of the existing interior setbacks has minimum of three (3) feet; and
iv. The junior accessory dwelling unit complies with all other junior accessory dwelling unit requirements outlined in this Ordinance.
b. One detached new construction accessory dwelling unit shall be allowed subject to the following:
i. A minimum 4-foot interior setback;
ii. A maximum square footage of 800 square feet; and
iii. A height limit as set forth in Subsection E.2 aboveof 16 feet.
An accessory dwelling unit constructed under subparagraph (b) above may be combined to also allow a junior accessory dwelling unit in the manner described in subparagraph (a) above, but only where one residential dwelling unit exists, or is proposed to be constructed.
5. Alterations and/or additions to any existing primary residential dwelling which do not propose an additional story and/or change to a façade, including addition of a door, directly facing a street may be permitted to accommodate an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit. In cases where a lot has more than one street front (through lot), a new construction attached or detached accessory dwelling unit may be located between the street front setback and the side or rear façade of the primary residential dwelling(s) and may add a door directly facing a street. These prohibitions do not apply when compliance with this Section precludes development of an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit that qualifies under Subsection E.4 above.
6. Accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units that are new construction, or propose exterior modifications to an existing primary residence or to a permitted accessory building shall be architecturally compatible with the existing primary residence and must use matching or complementary building materials unless compliance with this Section precludes development of an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit that qualifies under Subsection E.4 above.
639 of 818
18 7. New construction attached or detached accessory dwelling units shall be limited to a single-story, except when constructed under the height limits enumerated in Subsection E.2(b)-(c). New construction accessory dwelling units shall not be permitted above a detached garage or carport.
8. When an accessory dwelling unit and/or junior accessory dwelling unit is proposed with an attached balcony, porch or patio cover structure, the attached balcony, porch or patio cover structure shall be limited to no more than five (5) percent of the square footage of the accessory dwelling unit and/or junior accessory dwelling unit or 60 square feet, whichever is less.
9. Rooftop deck located above any new construction (attached or detached) or converted accessory and/or junior accessory dwelling unit are prohibited. Further, when a parapet is used for the accessory dwelling, the parapet height shall not exceed 18”.
F. Additional standards specific only to Accessory Dwelling Units on lots developed with existing multiple residential dwelling units.
The following standards and criteria apply to accessory dwelling units on lots developed with existing multiple residential dwelling units.
1. Except as otherwise set forth in this Section, accessory dwelling units are subject to all zoning development standards that apply in the underlying zone, including but not limited to, setbacks, floor area ratio, lot coverage, height, parking, landscaping, open space, and ungraded open space, except that no more than a minimum of four (4) foot interior setbacks shall be required. In such cases, no more than three (3) new construction accessory dwelling units with a maximum square footage set forth in Subsection D.6 above shall be allowed.
2. Notwithstanding F.1 above, the applicant is entitled to build accessory dwelling units under either subparagraph (a) or (b) below, but not both:
a. At least one accessory dwelling unit and up to 25 percent of the existing multifamily dwelling units shall be allowed within portions of existing multifamily dwelling structures (excluding existing dwelling units) that are not used as livable space, including, but not limited to, storage rooms, boiler rooms, passageways, attics, basements, or garages, if each unit complies with state building standards for dwellings; or
b. Not more than two (2) detached accessory dwelling units with a height limit of 16 feet and minimum 4-foot interior setbacks shall be allowed. These accessory dwelling units may be attached or detached from each other and shall be located where existing garage or carports are located and are proposed to be demolished and where this demolition is necessary to physically accommodate the accessory dwelling unit(s). In addition, the following height limitations shall apply:
640 of 818
19 i. A height of 16 feet for a detached accessory dwelling unit on a lot with an existing multifamily dwelling unit.
ii. A height of 18 feet for a detached accessory dwelling unit on a lot with an existing or proposed multifamily dwelling unit that is within one-half of one mile walking distance of a major transit stop or a high-quality transit corridor, as those terms are defined in Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code.
An additional two feet in height shall be permitted to accommodate a roof pitch on the accessory dwelling unit(s) that is aligned with the roof pitch of the primary dwelling unit. In no case shall the accessory dwelling unit exceed two stories.
iii. A height of 18 feet for a detached accessory dwelling unit on a lot with an existing or proposed multifamily, multistory dwelling. In no case shall the accessory dwelling unit exceed two stories.
3. Junior accessory dwelling units are prohibited on lots developed with existing multiple residential dwelling units.
4. For properties listed on the California Register of Historic Places, the Glendale Register of Historic Properties, any property in an adopted or nominated historic district overlay zone, or any property identified as significant or potentially significant on a historic survey meeting the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(g), any exterior changes to an existing property to create accessory dwelling units shall not be visible from the public street or sidewalk right-of-way immediately adjacent to the property and shall not alter any defining historical characteristic unless compliance with this Section precludes development of an accessory dwelling unit(s) that qualifies under Subsection F.2 above.
5. Accessory dwelling units that are new construction, or that propose exterior modifications to an existing multi-family building or to a permitted accessory building shall be architecturally compatible with the existing multi-family building and must use matching or complementary building materials unless compliance with this Section precludes development of an accessory dwelling unit(s) that qualifies under Subsection F.2 above.
6. Accessory dwelling units shall be limited to a single-story, except when constructed under the height limits enumerated in Subsection F.2.b(ii)-(c). . New construction accessory dwelling units shall not be permitted above detached garages or carports.
7. When an accessory dwelling unit(s) is proposed with an attached balcony, porch or patio cover structure, the attached balcony, porch or patio cover structure shall be limited to no more than five (5) percent of the square footage of the accessory dwelling unit and/or junior accessory dwelling unit or 60 square feet, whichever is less.
8. Rooftop decks located above any new construction (attached are detached) or converted accessory dwelling unit are prohibited. Further, when a parapet is used for the accessory dwelling unit, the parapet height shall not exceed 18”. 641 of 818
20 G. Parking Standards for an Accessory Dwelling Unit
1. Off-street parking for an accessory dwelling unit shall comply with the following standards:
a. A maximum of one off-street parking space shall be provided per accessory dwelling unit or per bedroom, whichever is less, except as otherwise provided in this Section.
b. Any uncovered parking space shall have a minimum width of 8 feet and a length of 18 feet.
c. Parking may be located in any configuration on the same lot as the accessory dwelling unit, including covered spaces, uncovered spaces, or tandem spaces, or by the use of mechanical automobile parking lifts. d. If a mechanical automobile parking lift is used, it shall be enclosed and may not be located within any setback area.
e. An uncovered parking space may be located within setback areas on an existing driveway and shall not encroach on the public right-of-way. f. A covered or enclosed parking space shall comply with zoning standards.
2. An accessory dwelling unit shall share the driveway with the existing primary residential dwelling or multiple residential dwelling units. The driveway to the primary residential dwelling or multiple residential dwelling units may be modified to accommodate onsite parking and shall comply with Section 30.32.130. A separate driveway for the accessory dwelling unit shall not be provided, except where the lot is adjacent to an alley, in which case a driveway from the alley may be added to serve the accessory dwelling unit.
3. On shared driveways that provide access for multiple lots, such as flag lots, parking shall not be permitted on portions of the driveway that are used to provide access to more than one lot.
4. No onsite parking is required for an accessory dwelling unit when one or more of the following is applicable:
a. The property is located within one-half mile walking distance of a public transit stop.
b. The property is listed on the California Register of Historic Places, Glendale Register of Historic Properties, or any property in an adopted historic district overlay zone with a building identified as a contributing building or structure in an adopted historic resources survey.
c. When the accessory dwelling unit is located within the existing primary residence or accessory living quarters.
d. When on-street parking permits are required but not offered to the occupant of an accessory dwelling unit.
e. When there is a car share vehicle lot, such as ZIP car, located within one block of the accessory dwelling unit.
f. When it is a junior accessory dwelling unit.
642 of 818
21 g. When an accessory dwelling unit(s) qualifies for approval under Sections
30.34.080.E.4 or 30.34.080.F.2.
5. Parking spaces shall not be required to be replaced when a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished in conjunction with the construction of an accessory dwelling unit or converted to an accessory dwelling unit. For purposes of this Section, “in conjunction with” means construction of an accessory dwelling unit(s) or conversion that falls within the footprint of the original garage, carport, or covered parking structure that is proposed to be demolished/converted for an accessory dwelling unit.
H. Covenant and Agreement
1. A covenant and agreement shall be executed by the property owner and recorded for an accessory dwelling unit and/or junior accessory dwelling unit prior to final approval of the building permit. The covenant and agreement shall include the following:
a. The accessory dwelling unit and junior accessory dwelling unit shall not be sold separately from the primary residential dwelling., except as provided in Government Code Section 65852.26.
b. All required onsite parking for the lot identified in the accessory dwelling unit permit shall remain available for the primary residential dwelling and accessory dwelling unit and shall not be rented separately to non-residents. c. For properties with junior accessory dwelling units, at all times, the property owner shall comply with one of the following requirements: (i) the property owner must be an owner-occupant and reside in either the residential dwelling or in the junior accessory dwelling unit, or; (ii) if the property owner does not reside in either the residential dwelling or the junior accessory dwelling unit, then the property owner shall only rent or lease the property as a single rental property and shall not rent or lease the residential dwelling and junior accessory dwelling unit separately from each other.
d. Short-term rentals less than 30 days are prohibited for the primary residential dwelling, accessory dwelling unit, and junior accessory dwelling unit. e. The accessory dwelling unit and junior accessory dwelling unit permit shall run with the land and the accessory dwelling unit and junior accessory dwelling unit permit is binding and enforceable on future property owners. f. The accessory dwelling unit and junior accessory dwelling unit shall be removed at the expense of the property owner if the accessory dwelling unit permit or junior accessory dwelling unit permit is invalidated or terminated, upon violation of this Section, or upon cessation of the primary land use as a single-family residential dwelling and/or multifamily residential dwellings, as applicable.
SECTION 6. Section 30.34.110 of the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995, is hereby repealed and replaced to read as follows:
643 of 818
22 30.34.110 – SB 9 Projects
A. Intent and Purpose
This Section is intended to provide for the creation of no more than two residential dwelling units (two new units, or adding one new unit to one existing unit) and/or an urban lot split, within a single-family residential zone in a manner that is ministerial and nondiscretionary, consistent with State Law. This Section shall apply to all parcels in single-family residential zones (ROS, R1R, and R1).
B. Applicability
This Section shall apply to all single-family zones (ROS, R1R, and R1).
C. Definitions
“Unit” or “residential unit” or “residential dwelling unit” means any dwelling unit or units, as defined in Glendale Municipal Code Section 30.70.050, including, but not limited to, a unit or units created pursuant to Section 65852.21, a primary dwelling, an accessory dwelling unit as defined in Government Code Section 65852.2, or a junior accessory dwelling unit as defined in Government Code Section 65852.22. “Lot” and/or “parcel” shall have that meaning as set forth in Glendale Municipal Code Section 16.40.180.
“Objective zoning standards,” “objective subdivision standards,” and “objective design review standards” mean standards that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official prior to submittal. These standards may be embodied in alternative objective land use specifications adopted by the City, and may include, but are not limited to, housing overlay zones, specific plans, inclusionary zoning ordinances, density bonus ordinances, and this Section.
“SB 9 housing development” means the proposed addition or conversion of residential units within a single-family residential zone (ROS, R1R and R1) that meets all of the requirements contained in Government Code Section 65852.21 and/or 66411.7 and the provisions of this Section, and results in no more than two residential units per parcel or lot, but in no event shall mean the proposed addition or conversion of a residential unit within a single-family residential zone resulting in only one residential unit per parcel or lot.
“SB 9 lot split” means any subdivision of land proposed under Government Code Section 66411.7 and the provisions of this Section.
“SB 9 project” means either or both a SB 9 housing development and/or SB 9 lot split.
D. General Provisions for SB 9 projects
644 of 818
23 1. A SB 9 housing development shall be permitted only in a single-family residential zone (ROS, R1R, and R1).
2. A SB 9 housing development is permitted to have a maximum of two units on a parcel in a single-family residential zone (ROS, R1R, and R1). A maximum of two units means if the SB 9 housing development proposes no more than two new units, or if it proposes to add one new unit to one existing unit. Adding one new unit means construction of a new unit or conversion of an existing building into a unit.
3. A SB 9 housing development and a SB 9 lot split may be applied for concurrently.
4. A SB 9 lot split shall conform to all objective requirements of the Subdivision Map Act; and an SB 9 lot split and SB 9 housing development shall conform to all objective zoning and subdivision standards contained in Titles 30 and 16, respectively, of the Glendale Municipal Code, except as otherwise set forth in this Section.
5. Notwithstanding the provisions of this Section, the City may deny a SB 9 housing development or SB 9 lot split (collectively, “SB 9 project”) if the Building Official makes a written finding, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, that the proposed SB 9 housing development or proposed SB 9 lot split would have a specific, adverse impact, as defined and determined in Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(2), upon public health and safety or the physical environment and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact, per the process outlined below:
a. Once a SB 9 project application is deemed complete, the application and any pertinent information shall be routed for review by the Building Official to make a determination as to whether the proposed SB 9 housing development or SB 9 lot split would have a specific, adverse impact (a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete) upon public health and safety or the physical environment and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact. b. If the Building Official makes a determination that the SB 9 project would have a specific, adverse impact (a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete) upon public health and safety or the physical environment and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact, he or she shall make one or 645 of 818
24 more findings of such impact or impacts, based on the preponderance of the evidence, and shall recommend denial of such project.
c. Upon review of the Building Official’s findings and recommendation of denial, the Director of Community Development shall issue a written decision to deny the SB 9 project. The Director of Community Development shall publish the written decision with the Building Officials’ findings on the City’s website, which denial shall be appealable to the Planning Commission, then to the City Council, pursuant to the procedures set forth in Glendale Municipal Code Chapter 30.62.
d. In addition to any existing objective public health or safety standards, policies or conditions, the following objective standards and policies shall apply in any review of a SB 9 project by the Building Official under this Section:
i. A SB 9 project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant and unavoidable impact or effect on the environment. ii. The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources, not included in a local register of historical resources, or not deemed significant pursuant to criteria set forth in Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(g) shall not preclude the City from determining whether the resource may be an historical resource. The resource shall be reviewed, evaluated, and processed pursuant to the factors, criteria and requirements contained in the Glendale Municipal Code related to historic preservation, including, but not limited to, factors, criteria and requirements contained in Chapter
15.20. The City may require the applicant to commission or prepare additional reports, studies or analyses in order to determine whether the resource may be an historical resource.
iii. The City’s Building Official, in consultation with the Director of Community Development and Planning Division, will evaluate and make a determination, based on substantial evidence, whether the building, structure or site being affected by the SB 9 project is a historic resource, and whether a SB 9 project may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource.
iv. As used in this Section “a substantial adverse change” means demolition, destruction, relocation or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings resulting in the significance of the resource being materially impaired. The significance of a resource is “materially impaired” when the physical characteristics that convey its historical significance and that justify its designation as a historical resource are demolished or materially altered in an adverse manner.
646 of 818
25 E. Standards Specific to SB 9 Housing Developments
The following standards apply to SB 9 Housing Developments.
1. The SB 9 housing development shall not be located within a historic district or on property that is included on the State Historic Resources Inventory, as defined in Section 5020.1 of the Public Resources Code, or within a site that is or contains buildings, sites, objects, structures, neighborhoods, cultural landscapes, and archaeological sites, that are designated or listed as a city or county landmark or historic property or district pursuant to a city or county ordinance.
2. The parcel on which the SB 9 housing development is proposed shall satisfy the requirements set forth in Government Code Section 65913.4(a)(6)(B-K).
3. The SB 9 housing development shall not require demolition or alteration of any of the following types of housing:
a. A dwelling unit that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of moderate, low, or very low income;
b. A dwelling unit that is subject to any form of rent or price control through a public entity’s valid exercise of its police power; or
c. A dwelling unit that has been occupied by a tenant in the last three years.
4. The parcel on which the SB 9 housing development is proposed shall not be a parcel on which an owner of residential real property has exercised the owner’s rights under Chapter 12.75 (commencing with Section 7060) of Division 7 of Title 1 to withdraw accommodations from rent or lease within 15 years before the date that the development proponent submits an application.
5. If one or more of the units of a SB 9 housing development have been occupied by a tenant in the last three years, no more than 25 percent of the existing exterior walls shall be demolished.
6. Any proposed SB 9 housing development with unit(s) that are or will be connected to an onsite wastewater treatment system shall be required to complete a percolation test within the last five years, or, if the percolation test has been recertified, within the last 10 years consistent with Government Code Section 65852.21(c)(2).
7. New construction or any addition to an existing building for one or more units of a SB 9 housing development shall not be located between any existing or proposed residential unit and the street front and street side setback line. 647 of 818
26 8. In cases where a parcel contains an existing accessory building which is defined as “R” Occupancy per Chapter 3 of the California Building Code, such as living quarters and/or guest house, cabana, pool house, recreation room, workshop, studio, rumpus room and similar, a SB 9 housing development may be built only if such building(s) is either demolished or converted to a code-compliant residential unit.
9. In cases where a parcel contains a SB 9 housing development, an accessory building which is defined as “R’” Occupancy per Chapter 3 of the California Building Code, such as living quarters and/or guest house, cabana, pool house, recreation room, workshop, studio, rumpus room and similar shall not be permitted.
10.Rental of any unit or part of a unit resulting from any SB 9 project shall be for a term longer than thirty (30) days. Home-sharing pursuant to Chapter 5.110 shall be prohibited in a SB 9 housing development.
11.The units of a SB 9 housing development located on one parcel and/or lot shall not be sold separately from each other.
12.New construction (attached or detached) of, and/or conversion of existing living area or existing accessory building to, units for a SB 9 housing development shall have a minimum square footage of an “efficiency unit”, as defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 17958.1, and a maximum square footage of 800 square feet.
13.Notwithstanding the development standards for floor area ratio, height, lot coverage, and permanently landscaped open space set forth in Title 30 of the GMC, an applicant shall be entitled to develop a SB 9 housing development with units that are 800 square feet or less in size (for each new permitted unit), provided the unit provides 4-foot minimum interior setbacks (subject to the exception set forth in Subsection E.14 below for an existing living area or accessory building or a building constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing building).
14.No additional setback shall be required for an existing living area or accessory building or a building constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing building that is converted to a SB 9 unit, and a setback of no more than four feet from an interior lot line shall be required for a SB 9 unit that is not converted from an existing building constructed in the same locations and to the same dimensions as an existing building.
F. Design Standards for SB 9 Housing Developments
The following objective design standards apply to an SB 9 housing development. 648 of 818
27 1. SB 9 housing development proposing new construction of a residential dwelling unit (“new SB 9 unit”) with an existing residential dwelling unit retained:
a. Height and Massing
i. Height
a. The new SB 9 unit with a pitched roof (minimum three (3) feet in 12 feet) shall have a maximum height of 16 feet.
b. The new SB 9 unit with a flat roof shall have a maximum height of 12 feet and shall include a parapet which shall not be more than 18 inches above the highest portion of the flat roof.
c. The new SB 9 unit with a combination of a pitched and flat roof shall have maximum heights of 16 feet at the pitched roof and 12 feet at the flat roof.
ii. Roof Form
a. The roof form of the new SB 9 unit shall match the roof form of the existing residential dwelling. For an existing residential dwelling with multiple roof forms, the roof of the new SB 9 unit shall match at least one of the roof forms of the existing residential dwelling. iii. Breaks in Building Volume
a. For an interior lot, the street-facing facade of the new SB 9 unit shall have a change in plane with a minimum depth of 18 inches. b. For a corner lot, the new SB 9 unit facades facing the street and street- side frontages shall have a change in plane with a minimum depth of 18 inches at each façade.
b. Materials
i. Exterior Wall Cladding
a. Except as indicated in Subsection b(i)(f) and b(i)(g) below, the new SB 9 unit shall have a minimum of two wall cladding materials at all exterior wall surfaces.
b. All cladding materials shall wrap exterior corners and either wrap the entire building or terminate at inside corners.
c. The following cladding materials may be used: wood or cementitious siding (i.e. lap siding, tongue-and-groove/interlocking boards, board- and-batten, shingle), stucco, brick, veneer brick, natural stone, and pre-cast stone.
d. If siding is located solely at only the base of the building (wainscoting), it must span from the lowest edge of the wall to the height of the window sills.
e. Use of stucco shall be limited to a maximum of 60 percent of the total exterior wall surface of any building.
649 of 818
28 f. If the roof of the existing residential dwelling is clad with Spanish-tiles (one- or two-piece clay or concrete tiles with a curved profile), 100 percent of exterior wall surfaces of the new SB 9 unit building shall be clad with stucco.
g. If the existing residential dwelling is clad entirely with horizontal and/or shingle siding, 100% of exterior wall surfaces of the new SB 9 unit building shall be clad with horizontal and/or shingle siding. ii. Roof Cladding
a. Pitched roofs on the new SB 9 unit shall be clad with a material that matches the roof of the existing residential dwelling in terms of material, color, texture, dimensions, shape, and profiles. b. Flat roofs may be clad with any material permitted by the Building Code.
c. If the flat-roofed portion of an existing residential dwelling has Spanish- tile (one- or two-piece clay or concrete tiles with a curved profile) parapet caps, any flat-roofed portion of the new SB 9 unit shall have parapet caps that match the existing parapet caps of the existing residential dwelling unit in terms of material, color, texture, dimensions, shape, and profiles.
d. If the flat-roofed portion of an existing residential dwelling does not have Spanish-tile parapet caps, any flat-roofed portion of the new SB 9 unit shall have parapets with an upper surface designed to shed water or a sheet-metal parapet cap that is finished at its outward-facing surface to match the color of the adjacent wall cladding.
2. SB 9 housing development proposing construction of new SB 9 units on a vacant parcel or lot:
a. Height and Massing
i. Height
a. SB 9 unit(s) with a pitched roof (minimum three (3) feet in 12 feet) shall have a maximum height of 16 feet.
b. SB 9 unit(s) with a flat roof shall have a maximum height of 12 feet and shall include a parapet which shall not be more than 18 inches. c. SB 9 unit(s) with a combination of pitched and flat roof shall have maximum heights of 16 feet at the pitched roof and 12 feet at the flat roof.
ii. Roof Form
a. The following roof forms may be employed: front gable, side gable, cross gable, hip, cross hip, gable-on-hip, hip-on-gable, shed, gambrel, flat. The new SB 9 unit(s) may have more than one roof form. 650 of 818
29 iii. Breaks in Building Volume
a. For an interior lot, the street-facing facade of the new SB 9 unit(s) shall have a change in plane with a minimum depth of 18 inches. b. For a corner lot, the new SB 9 unit(s) facades facing the street and street-side frontages must have a change in plane with a minimum depth of 18 inches at each façade.
b. Materials
i. Exterior Wall Cladding
a. Except as indicated in Subsection b(i)(f) below, any SB 9 unit(s) shall have a minimum of two wall cladding materials at all exterior wall surfaces.
b. All cladding materials shall wrap exterior corners and either wrap the entire building or terminate at inside corners.
c. The following cladding materials may be used: wood or cementitious siding (i.e. lap siding, tongue-and-groove/interlocking boards, board-and- batten, shingle), stucco, brick, veneer brick, natural stone, and pre-cast stone.
d. If siding is located solely at only the base of the building (wainscoting), it must span from the lowest edge of the wall to the height of the window sills.
e. Use of stucco shall be limited to a maximum of 60 percent of the total exterior wall surface of any building.
f. If the roof is clad with Spanish-tiles (one- or two-piece clay or cement tiles with a curved profile), 100 percent of exterior wall surfaces of the new SB 9 building shall be clad with stucco.
ii. Roof Cladding
a. Pitched roofs on new buildings may be clad with asphalt composite shingles, faux wood shingles, curved clay or lightweight concrete tile (Spanish-tile), flat clay or lightweight concrete tile, slate, synthetic slate, metal shingles, or standing-seam metal. Per Section 2(b)(i)(f) above, Spanish-tile may only be used for buildings with exterior walls clad only with stucco.
b. Flat roofs may be clad with any material permitted by the Building Code. c. Buildings incorporating both pitched- and flat-roofed areas and using Spanish-tile roof cladding, shall have parapets around the flat roof capped with the same roofing material.
d. Buildings incorporating both pitched- and flat-roofed areas, other than those described in Subsection 2(b)(ii)(c) above, shall have parapets around the flat roof with an upper surface designed to shed water or with 651 of 818
30 a sheet-metal parapet cap that is finished at its outward-facing surface to match the color of the adjacent wall cladding.
3. Details and Design Standards Applicable to All SB 9 Housing Developments:
a. Windows
i. Windows shall be recessed a minimum of 1-inch (1”) from the face of the window frame to the face of the exterior wall material finish. ii. Windows shall have a sill projecting a minimum of 1-inch (1”) from the exterior wall material finish.
iii. Window at the street front and street-side facing façade shall make up a minimum of 20% of the wall area.
b. Entryways and Doors
i. The main entry to a SB 9 unit adjacent to a street shall be located on the building façade oriented toward the adjacent street.
ii. The main entry to a SB 9 unit not adjacent to a street may be located on any building façade.
iii. Double doors are not permitted.
c. Covered Porches, Patios and Decks
i. Attached covered porches or patios may not cumulatively exceed 10 percent of the square footage of the unit or 80 square feet, whichever is less.
ii. No rooftop decks are permitted.
G. Standards Specific to SB 9 Lot Splits
The following standards and criteria apply to SB 9 Lot Splits.
1. A SB 9 lot split may subdivide an existing parcel to create no more than two new parcels of approximately equal lot area, provided that one parcel shall not be smaller than 40 percent of the lot area of the original parcel proposed for subdivision.
2. A SB 9 lot split shall not create a parcel smaller than 1,200 square feet.
3. Neither of the parcels resulting from a SB 9 lot split shall be located within a historic district or included, or contain buildings, sites, objects, structures, neighborhoods, cultural landscapes, and archaeological sites that are included, on the State Historic Resources Inventory, as defined in Section 5020.1 of the Public Resources Code, or within a site, or contain buildings, sites, objects, structures, neighborhoods, cultural landscapes, and archaeological sites, that are designated or listed as a city or county landmark or historic property or district pursuant to a city or county ordinance.
652 of 818
31 4. The parcels resulting from a SB 9 lot split shall satisfy the requirements set forth in Government Code Section 65913.4(a)(6)(B-K).
5. The proposed SB 9 lot split shall not require demolition or alteration of any of the following types of housing:
a. A dwelling unit that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of moderate, low, or very low income;
b. A dwelling unit that is subject to any form of rent or price control through a public entity’s valid exercise of its police power;
c. A dwelling unit located on a parcel on which an owner of residential real property has exercised the owner’s rights under Chapter 12.75 (commencing with Section 7060) of Division 7 of Title 1 to withdraw accommodations from rent or lease within 15 years before the date that the development proponent submits an application; or
d. A dwelling unit that has been occupied by a tenant in the last three years.
6. The subject parcel proposed to be subdivided shall not have been created through a prior SB 9 lot split application.
7. Neither the owner of the subject parcel proposed to be subdivided, nor any person acting in concert with the owner, shall have previously subdivided an adjacent parcel through approval of a SB 9 lot split. For purposes of this Section, “acting in concert with the owner” means participating jointly, either through actions or agreement, toward a common goal.
8. A SB 9 lot split shall result in a maximum total of four (4) units on the lot as it existed prior to the SB 9 lot split, inclusive of any existing, converted or new accessory dwelling unit, as defined in Government Code Section 65852.2, or junior accessory dwelling unit, as defined in Government Code Section 65852.22. In no event shall a SB 9 lot split that results in a maximum of four (4) units on the lot as it existed prior to the SB 9 lot split be allowed to add any new unit(s), inclusive of any existing, converted or new units, as defined in this Section.
9. Any SB 9 housing development proposed on a lot resulting from a SB 9 lot split shall comply with all applicable requirements set forth in this Section and the Glendale Municipal Code applicable to a SB 9 housing development. Any non- SB 9 housing development proposed on a lot resulting from a SB 9 lot split shall comply with all applicable requirements set forth in the Glendale Municipal Code applicable to development of one residential dwelling unit. An accessory dwelling unit, as defined in Government Code Section 65852.2, or a junior accessory dwelling unit, as defined in Government Code Section 65852.22, 653 of 818
32 remaining on a lot by itself (i.e., without the primary dwelling unit) as a result of a SB 9 lot split, shall count as a “unit” for purposes of this Section.
10.A SB 9 lot split shall not be subject to any dedication of right-of-way or the construction of offsite improvements for the parcels being created as a condition of issuing a SB 9 lot split.
11.A SB 9 lot split may be subject to any of the following conditions:
a. Easements required for the provision of public services and facilities. b. A requirement that the parcels have access to, provide access to, or adjoin the public right-of-way.
c. Off-street parking of up to one space per unit, except as provided in Subsection G.
12.The following objective subdivision standards apply to a SB 9 lot split. a. Lot Lines. The lot lines of any SB 9 lot split shall be at right angles to the street which the lot faces, or radial if the street is curved. b. Lot Frontage. Lots resulting from a SB 9 lot split shall front on a dedicated improved public street or private street. For the purposes of this Section, “improved” means any public street that has curb and gutter and asphalt pavement.
c. Minimum lot width. The lot frontage of lots resulting from a SB 9 lot split shall have a minimum width of 12 feet.
d. Double Frontage Lots. Lots resulting from a SB 9 lot split shall not have double frontage, except on corner lots.
G. Parking Standards for SB 9 Projects
1. A maximum of one off-street parking space shall be provided per dwelling unit except:
a. If the parcel is located within one-half mile walking distance of either a high- quality transit corridor, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code, or a major transit stop, as defined in Section 21064.3 of the Public Resources Code; or
b. If the parcel is located within one block of a car share vehicle.
2. Unless otherwise exempt by this Section, off-street parking for a SB 9 housing development shall comply with the following standards:
a. Any uncovered parking space shall have a minimum width of eight (8) feet and a length of eighteen (18) feet.
654 of 818
33 b. Parking may be located in any configuration on the same lot as the SB 9 housing development, including covered spaces, uncovered spaces, or tandem spaces.
c. An uncovered parking space may be located within setback areas on an existing driveway and shall not encroach on the public right-of-way. d. A covered or enclosed parking space shall comply with zoning standards.
3. To prevent additional curb-cuts for access to required parking, a SB 9 housing development shall share the driveway with the existing residential dwelling unit, where one exists. The driveway to the existing residential dwelling unit may be modified to accommodate onsite parking and shall comply with Section
30.32.130. A separate driveway for the SB 9 housing development shall not be provided, except where the lot is adjacent to an alley, in which case a driveway to the alley may be added to serve the SB 9 unit.
4. A SB 9 housing development proposed on a vacant lot shall accommodate required onsite parking provided by a singular shared driveway subject to Glendale Municipal Code Section 30.32.130.
5. On shared driveways that provide access for multiple lots, such as flag lots, parking shall not be permitted on portions of the driveway that are used to provide access to more than one lot.
6. Shared driveways required for SB 9 projects shall execute a reciprocal access agreement.
H. Covenant and Agreement
1. The property owner applying for a SB 9 housing development shall execute and record a covenant and agreement that shall contain the following:
a. The residential dwelling units that constitute the SB 9 housing development shall not be sold separately from each other.
b. All required onsite parking for the lot identified in the SB 9 housing development permit shall remain available for the residential dwelling unit(s) and shall not be rented separately to non-residents.
c. The property owner shall comply with one of the following requirements: (i) the property owner must be an owner-occupant and reside in at least one of the residential dwelling units that constitute the SB 9 housing development, or; (ii) if the property owner does not reside in at least one of the residential dwelling units that constitute the SB 9 housing development, then the property owner shall only rent or lease the property as a single rental property and shall not rent or lease the residential dwelling units separately from each other.
655 of 818
34 d. Short-term rentals thirty (30) days or less are prohibited for either of the residential dwelling units that constitute the SB 9 housing development.
Home-sharing pursuant to Chapter 5.110 shall be prohibited. e. The SB 9 housing development permit and covenant shall run with the land and is binding and enforceable on future property owners. f. The residential units that constitute the SB 9 housing development shall be removed at the expense of the property owner if either of the units are terminated or upon violation of this Section or upon cessation of the primary land use as multifamily residential dwellings.
2. The property owner of a parcel applying for a SB 9 lot split shall execute and record a covenant and agreement that shall contain the following:
a. All required onsite parking for the lot identified in the SB 9 lot split approval shall remain available for the existing or proposed residential dwelling unit(s) and shall not be rented separately to non-residents.
b. Short-term rentals thirty (30) days or less are prohibited for any of the residential dwelling units resulting from the SB 9 lot split. Home-sharing pursuant to Chapter 5.110 shall be prohibited.
c. If the SB 9 lot split results in the maximum total of four (4) units on the lot as it existed prior to the SB 9 lot split, inclusive of any existing, converted or new accessory dwelling unit, as defined in Government Code Section 65852.2, or junior accessory dwelling unit, as defined in Government Code Section 65852.22, in no event shall any new unit(s), inclusive of any existing, converted or new unit(s) (as defined herein) be added.
d. The SB 9 lot split approval and covenant shall run with the land and is binding and enforceable on future property owners.
e. The residential units resulting from the SB 9 lot split shall be removed at the expense of the property owner if either of the units are terminated or upon violation of this Section or upon cessation of the primary land use as multifamily residential dwellings.
f. A written statement signed under penalty of perjury (affidavit) attesting that the property owner intends to occupy at least one of the residential dwelling units resulting from the SB 9 lot split as his/her/its principal residence for a minimum of three years from the date of the approval of the SB 9 lot split application. This requirement shall not apply to an owner or applicant that is a “community land trust,” as defined in Section 402.1(a)(11)(C)(ii) of the Revenue and Taxation Code, or is a “qualified nonprofit corporation” as described in Section 214.15 if the Revenue and Taxation Code. This statement shall not be a covenant that runs with the land and shall only be binding and enforceable upon the current property owner.
3. The property owner for a SB 9 housing development and/or a SB 9 lot split shall prepare, execute and record, at its cost, a covenant, which, at minimum, creates mutual easements and reciprocal use agreements for cross-access, 656 of 818
35 cross-drainage and shared public utility services or fire suppressions systems in a manner which affords adequate access, drainage and public services to/from a dedicated public street for the benefit of any lot.
SECTION 7. Pipeline Projects.
Accessory dwelling unit and junior accessory dwelling unit permit applications which have been submitted to plan check prior to the adoption of this Ordinance shall be reviewed under the zoning rules and regulations which were in effect on the day prior to adoption of this Ordinance. The foregoing notwithstanding, any applicant may make a request in writing to the Director of Community Development that his or her application be reviewed under the zoning rules and regulations as amended by this Ordinance.
SECTION 8. Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act.
The City Council hereby finds that this Ordinance is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it implements the provisions of Government Code Sections 65852.21 and 66411.7 and pursuant to Government Code Sections 65852.21(j) and 66411.7(n), is therefore not a project under Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code. Additionally, the Ordinance is exempt from CEQA review because it implements the provisions of Government Code Section 65913.11 and is therefore: (1) exempt from further environmental review under CEQA pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CEQA Guidelines) Section 15305 (minor alterations to land use limitations), Class 5 Exemption, as the Ordinance will allow a slightly more generous floor area ratio than currently allowed in certain zones, but the Ordinance will not allow for or encourage any more density or development than is already anticipated under the City’s existing General Plan and as regulated by existing zoning, or otherwise allow for or promote physical changes in the environment; (2) exempt from further environmental review under CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because the Ordinance will allow a slightly more generous floor area ratio than currently allowed in certain zones, but the Ordinance will not allow for or encourage any more density or development than is already anticipated under the City’s existing General Plan and as regulated by existing zoning, or otherwise allow for or promote physical changes in the environment, and therefore, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment; and (3) not intended to apply to specifically identified housing development projects and as such it is speculative to evaluate any such future project now. Moreover, the Ordinance is not intended to, nor does it, provide CEQA clearance for future development-related projects by mere establishment of a slightly more generous floor area ratio in certain zones; any such projects subject to the Ordinance will be subject to appropriate environmental review at such time as approvals for those housing projects are considered. Each of the foregoing provides a separate and independent basis for CEQA compliance and, when viewed collectively, provides an overall basis for CEQA compliance.
657 of 818
36 The Ordinance also implements the provisions of Government Code Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22, second units in a single-family or multifamily residential zone, and is therefore exempt from CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.17 and California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15282(h). Moreover, this Ordinance is exempt from further environmental review under CEQA pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations Section 15060(c)(1), as it implements provisions of Government Code Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22, which require ministerial review and approval of accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units and therefore, does not involve the exercise of discretionary powers by the City.
SECTION 9. 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 10. Effective Date.
This ordinance becomes effective on the thirtieth (30th) day after its passage.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale on the ___ day of ____________, 2022. ______________________________
Mayor
Attest
___________________________________
City Clerk
658 of 818
37 STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) SS.
CITY OF GLENDALE)
I, Suzie Abajian, Ph.D., City Clerk of the City of Glendale, California, certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. ______________ was passed by the Council of the City of Glendale, California, by a vote of four-fifths (4/5ths) of the members thereof, at a regular meeting held on the ______ day of _______________, 2022 by the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
____________________________
City Clerk
659 of 818
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Minassian, seconded by Commissioner Chraghchian, that upon consideration of the proposed ordinances, and after reviewing the applicable CEQA exemption outlined in the Planning Commission staff report dated October 19, 2022, as well as the records, files, reports, and all documentary evidence submitted with regard to said Case No. PZC-0001- 2022 to amend Title 30 of the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995, relating generally to standards for eligible SB 9 projects, minimum SB 478 floor area ratio standards for certain multi- family housing development projects, and recent minor modifications and clarifications related to junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs) and accessory dwelling units (ADUs), the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the ordinance amending Title 30 as presented.
Adopted this 19th day of October 19, 2022.
Vote as follows: Ayes: Chraghchian, Fuentes, Minassian, Shahbazian Noes:
Absent: Lee
Abstain:
660 of 818
661 of 818
662 of 818
663 of 818
664 of 818
665 of 818
666 of 818
667 of 818
5981
7C
668 of 818
669 of 818
670 of 818
671 of 818
672 of 818
673 of 818
674 of 818
675 of 818
676 of 818
677 of 818
678 of 818
679 of 818
680 of 818
681 of 818
682 of 818
683 of 818
684 of 818
685 of 818
686 of 818
687 of 818
14th
December
688 of 818
5981
14th
December
Agajanian, Brotman, Kassakhian, Najarian, Devine
None
None
None
689 of 818
9b
CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM
Report: 849 Cavanagh Road: Consideration of Glendale Register Nomination and Request for a Mills Act Historic Property Contract.
1. Resolution to designate the residential property at 849 Cavanagh Road as a historic resource in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources, as the Vida H. Wallace House, and authorizing the City Manager to enter into a Mills Act Historical Property Contract with the property owner.
2. Motion to deny the request of the property owner to designate the residential property at 849 Cavanagh Road as a historic resource in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources.
COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Public Hearing
Approved for November 1, 2022 calendar
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The owner of 849 Cavanagh Road requests that the City Council designate/list the property in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources and authorize a Mills Act historical property contract. The house was designed in 1928 by master architect Paul Williams and is an excellent and highly intact example of Spanish Colonial Revival-style architecture.
On April 21, 2022, Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) reviewed the nomination and voted 5-0 to recommend to the City Council that the property at 849 Cavanagh Road be listed in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources as the “Vida H. Wallace House,” and that the City Manager be authorized to enter into a Mills Act historic property contract with the property owner under Section 15.20.070A of the Glendale Municipal Code.
690 of 818
29b
3 7
5 7
COUNCIL PRIORITIES
Environmental Stewardship: The protection of properties through historic preservation is an inherently sustainable practice because preserving an existing structure is more sustainable than the development of a new structure.
RECOMMENDATION
That City Council authorize listing of the property in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources and authorize the City Manager to enter into a Mills Act historic property contract, with the conditions recommended by HPC, between the City and the property owner under Section 15.20.070A of the Glendale Municipal Code.
BACKGROUND
Historical Background
849 Cavanagh Road is a three-story, single-family residence built in 1928. The residence was designed by master architect Paul Williams and is an excellent example of the Spanish Colonial Revival-style. Paul Williams (1894-1980) was one of the most celebrated architects of the 20th century, designing in a variety of styles including the Period Revivals and Mid-Century Modern over a career spanning more than five decades. In 1923, he became the first African American member of the American Institute of Architects (AIA) and was elected into its College of Fellows in 1953. He posthumously received the group’s Gold Medal in 2017. Williams designed many types of buildings, including single-family homes, public housing projects, and commercial and institutional buildings. Among his works are numerous homes, including many designed for Hollywood celebrities, the Angelus Funeral Home, the Golden State Mutual Life Insurance building, and the 28th Street and Hollywood YMCAs. A detailed biography of Williams’ life and work can be found in the nomination packet attached as Exhibit 1.
The original owner, Vida H. Wallace, was a widow who shared the house with her unmarried sister. Wallace had moved to Los Angeles early in the 20th century with her husband Dr. Frederick Wallace, a dentist, who passed away in 1920. Vida Wallace was an active socialite in the community hosting many events at the property where she lived until her death in 1955. In 1956, the property was purchased by Dorothy and Carl Herrick, a real estate agent, and in 2013 it was owned by television producer, writer, and stand-up comic Mark Brazill and Shelley Brazill, a real estate agent. The current owner, Karen N. Young, purchased the house in 2017.
No information provided in the application suggests that the property is identified with important events in national, state, or city history, or that it exemplifies significant contributions to the broad cultural, political, economic, social, tribal, or historic heritage of the nation, state, or city. It therefore does not appear eligible under Criterion 1.
Additionally, none of the previous owners appear to be significant in the history of the 691 of 818
39b
3 7
5 7
nation, state, region, or city and therefore, the property does not appear eligible under Criterion 2.
Architectural Description
The 3,806-square-foot residence is located on a 20,930-square-foot irregularly shaped lot within the winding streets at the base of the Verdugo Mountains, just north of the pending Bellehurst historic district. Only the rear façade is visible from Cavanagh Road.
The house is at the end of a winding driveway shared by homes on lots that were later subdivided from the original parcel. The rock retaining wall along the driveway appears to date to the original construction but most of it is no longer part of the property.
The house has an L-shaped footprint, is clad in smooth stucco, has a low pitched- hipped and gabled roof clad in two-piece clay tiles, and has an asymmetrical primary façade. It has three levels, which are each visible at the rear façade. From the front, the house appears to be two-stories high, with one story projections at the living room wing and the attached garage. The living room wing to the south has a pair of tall arched wood sliding doors set into a segmental blind arch separated and flanked by stucco pilasters. These doors, which opened onto the front yard, have been sealed but the original interior pocket screen doors still function. The primary entrance is located at roughly the center of the primary façade. The elaborate wood-paneled entrance door has a stained-glass speakeasy window and a somewhat Moorish appearance. The door is recessed in the splayed opening, which has stucco mouldings wrapping the wall and jamb at the top of each side that work a little visual magic by giving the appearance of flanking pilasters. The doorway is accessed by a simple concrete porch. The front landscaping is notable in its simplicity. The decomposed granite yard, with only limited planting, feels more Iberian than Glendalian. It is not known if this remains from Williams’ vision for the property or is something that developed later, but it does feel appropriate to the house and refreshingly different from the abundant landscaping so often found at the front of Glendale’s homes.
The second story above the entrance cantilevers slightly with a bold horizontal beam and corbels which are mirrored around the building under the slight eave overhang of the roof. The projecting “L” of the building to the north has a wrought iron balcony facing east accessed by wood multi-light French doors. Below the balcony is another deeply set blind arch with a steel multi-light casement window. This type of window can be seen throughout the building in singles and pairs. Most of these windows have a deep recess with a steep canted sill on the non-primary façades. It also appears that the windows on the lower level of the non-primary facades were replaced with compatible steel windows, though they were installed flush to the façade and not recessed. 692 of 818
49b
3 7
5 7
The lot slopes steeply to the west and the building’s design responds to the topography.
A stone staircase and winding path leads down the lot along the south façade and back up to a rear patio spanning the rear (west) façade. The patio features a stucco wall with wide, flat, brick coping. The building’s massing along the west façade is irregular, mimicking the slope of the lot below, with the full three story mass exposed to view. At the center of the façade, wood French doors set within another deeply recessed arch allow access to the residence from the patio. Above this entrance, a small wrought iron Juliet balcony supported by corbels is visible.
A stone staircase leads back up the lot to the north where there is a small open patio with two additional entrance doors. The doors are contemporary wood paneled doors and it is unclear if these are original. The patio was covered with a corrugated sheet metal roof supported by metal decorative posts at an unknown date and is not appropriate to the building.
The attached garage located to the north has a gabled roof and two segmentally-arched openings with paneled wood doors that appear to be original. A utility light is mounted between the garage doors which is not appropriate to the design of the building and should be replaced. Non-original wood gates with stucco columns separate the property from the shared driveway.
Notable character-defining features of 849 Cavanagh Road include:
•“L”-shaped footprint
•2-story massing at front and 3-story massing at rear
•Asymmetrical primary façade
•2-piece red clay tile roof cladding
•Multiple gabled, hipped, and shed roof forms
•Smooth stucco cladding
•Cantilevered second-story at front façade with exposed beam and corbels •Tall arched wood windows/doors on primary facade
•Multi-pane deeply-recessed steel casement windows with canted sills •Wood entrance door with glazed speakeasy door
•Simple concrete entrance stairs
•Winding rock walkways, stairs, and retaining walls
•Paneled wood garage doors in segmentally-arched openings •Wrought iron balconies on front and rear facades
Alterations and Integrity
693 of 818
59b
3 7
5 7
The residence at 849 Cavanagh Road retains a high degree of integrity with minimal and/or compatible alterations occurring since original construction. In 2003, the house was re-roofed in kind with two-piece red clay tiles. At an unknown date the steel windows along the lower levels on the non-primary facades were replaced with compatible, almost-identical steel windows. The recess of these windows were changed to flush, yet this change does not deter from the overall design of the building. The arched windows on the primary façade were originally pocket doors and were sealed at some point, but this alteration only affected their function, not their appearance. Along the north (side) façade, a corrugated metal roof was added over the open patio and some alterations were made to the entry doors and windows on this façade (based on stucco repair/scarring). Fabric awnings were added over the primary entrance and various windows. Most of these are appropriate to the style but the awning over the front door detracts from its appearance and should be removed or replaced. The large retractable canopy over the arched living room windows serves a functional use and is relatively unobtrusive when retracted. The house was re-stuccoed with an appropriate smooth finish stucco at some point, though it is in need of repair in some places. A gate and wall were added at the end of the driveway enclosing the front of the property for security. It is simple and straightforward in design and may be seen as an acceptable intervention given that replacement with a more aesthetically “compatible” design could be problematic. None of these alterations deter from the building’s overall integrity of materials, design, workmanship, or feeling and the residence retains a high degree of integrity.
HPC and staff therefore recommend the following Mills Act conditions:
1. Repair failing/damaged stucco on residence where needed.
2. Repair cracks in concrete entrance porch.
3. Replace utility light fixture between garage doors with a period appropriate fixture.
4. Remove corrugated metal roof over north patio and replace with stylistically appropriate roof cover or leave patio uncovered.
ANALYSIS
Finding of Eligibility
After reviewing the nomination submitted by the owner and its supporting documentation, as well as visiting the site, HPC found that the property appears to meet Criterion 3 of the eligibility criteria for listing in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources, as follows:
Architectural Significance [Criterion 3]
To meet Criterion 3, a property must “embody the distinctive and exemplary characteristics of an architectural style, architectural type, period, or method of construction; or represent a notable work of a master designer, builder or architect 694 of 818
69b
3 7
5 7
whose genius influenced his or her profession; or possess high artistic values; and retain integrity.”
849 Cavanagh Road is an excellent and highly intact example of Spanish Colonial Revival-style architecture and was designed by renowned architect Paul Williams. The building is simple and thoughtful in design with modest detailing such as large, arched window openings from the living room to the front yard, cantilevered second story with an exposed beam and corbels, and deeply recessed windows and doors that give the large scale building with generally flat facades a visual break in plane. The irregular massing of the west façade mimics the site’s slope, allowing the building to complement rather than compete with its surroundings. Landscaping details of winding rock walkways/stairs and natural vegetation contrast with the sharp lines and blocky volumes of the building. Paul Williams was a master architect, celebrated for his skill designing in various styles and for his influence on the built environment of Southern California. The building is an excellent example of the Spanish Colonial Revival-style, thoughtfully designed with its setting in mind and retaining a high level of integrity of design, materials, and workmanship. Therefore, the subject property is eligible for listing in the Glendale Register under Criterion 3.
Staff recommends that City Council consider HPC’s recommendation and find the property eligible for designation as a historic resource in the Glendale Register under Criterion 3, and authorize the City Manager to enter into a Mills Act contract, with the recommended conditions, between the City and the property owner.
STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
There are no stakeholders other than the property owner.
FISCAL IMPACT
Listing historic properties in the Glendale Register has no fiscal impact. However, future property tax savings to private owners of listed historic properties under Mills Act contracts will slightly reduce City property tax revenues from the general County tax levy received from each Mills Act property.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
The project is exempt from CEQA review as Class 31 (“Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation”) and Class 8 (“Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment") exemptions pursuant to Sections 15331 and 15308 of the State CEQA Guidelines because it involves the designation and protection/preservation of a historic resource.
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 4, in accordance with the City Campaign Finance Ordinance No. 5744.
695 of 818
79b
3 7
5 7
ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Designate 849 Cavanagh Road as a historic resource in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources, finding that the property meets designation Criterion 3, and authorize the City Manager to enter into a Mills Act contract, with conditions, between the City and the property owner.
Alternative 2: Reject designation/listing of 849 Cavanagh Road on the Glendale Register of Historic Resources, finding that the property does not meet Criterion 3 or any other criteria.
Alternative 3: Any other alternative not proposed by staff.
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:
Kasey Conley, Associate Planner
Reviewed by:
Jay Platt, Principal Planner
Approved by:
Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager
EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1: Glendale Register Nomination
Exhibit 2: Photographs
Exhibit 3: Mills Act Application
Exhibit 4: Campaign Disclosure
696 of 818
1 RESOLUTION NO. _____________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA, TO DESIGNATE THE RESIDENTIAL
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 849 CAVANAGH ROAD AS A HISTORIC
RESOURCE ON THE GLENDALE REGISTER OF HISTORIC
RESOURCES AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER
INTO A MILLS ACT HISTORICAL PROPERTY CONTRACT
WHEREAS, the owner of record of the residential property located at 849 Cavanagh Road (the “Property”) has consented to, and requests that the Property be designated as a historic resource on the Glendale Register of Historic Resources pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.20.060 of the Glendale Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission, at a regularly scheduled meeting on April 21, 2022, unanimously recommended designation of the Property for listing on the Glendale Register of Historic Resources; and WHEREAS, the City Council has conducted a duly noticed public hearing pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.20.060 of the Glendale Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Glendale, pursuant to Sections
15.20.050 and 15.20.060, finds based on information in the record that the Property, to be known as the Vida H. Wallace House, is eligible for listing on the Glendale Register of Historic Resources because it qualifies under Criterion 3 (embodies the distinctive and exemplary characteristics of an architectural style, architectural type, period, or method of construction; or represents a notable work of a master designer, builder or architect whose genius influenced his or her profession; or possesses high artistic values) in that, the house is an excellent and highly intact example of Spanish Colonial Revival-style architecture, and is simple and thoughtful in design with modest detailing such as large, arched window openings from the living room to the front yard, cantilevered second story with an exposed beam and corbels, and deeply recessed windows and doors that give the large scale building with generally flat facades a visual break in plane, designed by renowned architect Paul Williams, as further described in the November 1, 2022 Staff Report regarding the Property; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Glendale further finds that because the Property qualifies for listing on the Glendale Register of Historic Resources that entering into a Mills Act contract with the Property owner is appropriate based on all of the information in the record.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The recitals above are incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 2. That the property located at 849 Cavanagh Road is to be designated as a historic resource in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources. 697 of 818
2 Section 3. That the City Manager is authorized to enter into a Mills Act historical property contract with the Property owner subject to the following conditions:
1. Repair failing/damaged stucco on residence where needed.
2. Repair cracks in concrete entrance porch.
3. Replace utility light fixture between garage doors with a period appropriate fixture.
4. Remove corrugated metal roof over north patio and replace with stylistically appropriate roof cover or leave patio uncovered.
Section 4. That the designation of the Property as a Historic Resource for listing on the Glendale Register of Historic Resources and entering into a Mills Act contract with the Property owner is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Title 14 CCR Sections 15331 (preservation of historic resources) and 15308 (actions by regulatory agencies for protection of the environment).
Adopted this _______ day of __________________________, 2022. ______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________
City Clerk
698 of 818
3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.
CITY OF GLENDALE )
I, SUZIE ABAJIAN, Ph.D., Clerk of the City of Glendale, certify that the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the 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
699 of 818
MOTION
Moved by Council Member ____________________________, seconded by Council Member ____________________________, that upon review and consideration of all documents, materials and exhibits relative to the request of the owner of record of the residential property located at 849 Cavanagh Road (the “Property”) to list the Property on the Glendale Register of Historic Resources, and after having conducted a public hearing on said request and receiving testimony, the City Council of the City of Glendale, California, based upon all of the evidence in the record, hereby denies the request of the owner of record of the Property to list the Property on the Glendale Register of Historic Resources pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.20.060 of the Glendale Municipal Code and denies the request of the owner of record of the Property to authorize the City Manager to enter into a Mills Act historical property contract with the Property owner. This denial is based on the Council’s determination, pursuant to Glendale Municipal Code Sections 15.20.050 and 15.20.060, that, based on information in the record, the Property is not eligible for listing on the Glendale Register of Historic Resources because it does not meet any of the criteria enumerated in Glendale Municipal Code Section 15.20.050.
Vote as Follows:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
700 of 818
701 of 818
702 of 818
703 of 818
704 of 818
705 of 818
706 of 818
849 CAVANAGH ROAD
GLENDALE
Former Address: 807 Cavanagh Road (1928-ca. 1936)
Style: Spanish Colonial Revival
Year of Completion: 1928
Original Building Permit: #20658, issued by the City of Glendale on June 21, 1928 for a new two-story, eight-room residence. The house, to measure approximately 52 by 85 feet, would have a concrete foundation, wood-frame walls, a tile and composition roof, and one brick chimney with two flues. A copy of this permit is attached on page 7.
Cost to Build: $14,000—a large amount for a new house of this size at the time.
Architect: Paul R. Williams, one of the most celebrated designers during the “golden age” of California architecture. Although the building permit does not include the name of the architect, the house is listed as a Williams’ work on page 230 of Karen E. Hudson’s book Paul R.
Williams: A Legacy of Style. Please see the attached biographical materials on Paul Williams on pages 8 through 28.
First Owner and Builder: Vida H. Wallace, a widow, who shared the house with her unmarried sister Mamie J. Smith. Mrs. Wallace purchased the undeveloped parcel from the Security Trust & Savings Bank. The original property included all of Lots 106 through 111 (about 520 linear feet along Cavanagh Road).
707 of 818
2 Vida Wallace was born Vida Hortense Smith in Wheeling, West Virginia on July 9, 1870. Her father John Wallace was a leather dealer and her mother Annie M. (Ulrich) Wallace was of German parentage. By 1900 Vida was living in Chicago with her parents, three sisters, and one brother. All four girls were identified in the census as “musicians.” John Wallace was by then working as a “storekeeper.”
Vida married Frederick (“Fred”) H. Wallace in Chicago in 1906. Fred Wallace was born into a farming family in Sark, Wisconsin around 1859, the only child of William and Rosamund Wallace. By 1880, the family was living in Chicago where Fred Wallace worked as the assistant treasurer of Haverly’s Theater. After graduating from the Chicago School of Dental Surgery at Lake Forest University in 1892, he set up his own private dental practice in Chicago.
At some point, Dr. and Mrs. Wallace moved to Los Angeles where he died in 1920 at the age of 61. He is interred in Chicago. Mrs. Wallace continued to be active in local society as a member of the Tuesday Afternoon Club of Glendale, the La Cañada Thursday Club’s Garden Section, the Glendale Garden Club (of which she served as president), and the District Federation of Women’s Clubs. She often entertained in her home and gardens on Cavanagh Road. Vida Wallace passed away on June 16, 1955, having reached the age of 84. She is interred at Forest Lawn. No obituary could be found for her in the Los Angeles Times.
Following the death of Mrs. Wallace, her Cavanagh Road property was subdivided down to its current area.
Other Building Permits: A new sewer line was installed in February 1957.
The gas meter was relocated in August 1983.
The house was re-roofed in November 2003 for $4,500.
In October 2013 a permit was issued for interior remodeling, including the kitchen. Structural alterations were to be made but no exterior work would occur. Countywide Remodeling of Van Nuys was the contractor. The cost was estimated at $15,000. A copy of this permit is attached on page 33.
(Note: Permits for very minor alterations, such as water heater replacement, are not included.
Also not included are permits missing from the file or whose microfilmed or digital copies are indecipherable and not otherwise recorded or described in Assessor’s records.)
Assessor’s Records: The Los Angeles County Assessor first visited the property on February 6, 1929 and again on May 2, 1961. He recorded a single two-story residence and garage. The house had a concrete foundation, a stucco-over-wood-frame exterior, plaster trim, steel sash, a hipped and gabled fully-tiled roof, and “several small balconies.” Heat was provided by a double fireplace, a two-unit gravity gas furnace with ten openings, and electric wall heaters.
There were twelve “special”-quality plumbing fixtures. Lighting fixtures (including metal sconces) were also considered “special.” Interior finishes were plaster, Sanitas paper, paint, and plain woodwork. The house had a total of eight hardwood floors. Overall construction quality 708 of 818
3 of the house was rated “extra special”—in fact, “special” was the highest category available on the Assessor’s form, before which he wrote in “ex.”
The Assessor estimated the square footage at 3,806. On the first floor were an entry hall with a tile floor and a decorative paneled ceiling, a living room with an arched ceiling and arched windows, a den with a tile floor, a dining room with a beamed and plastered ceiling and “ample” built-ins, one bedroom, one bathroom, a pass pantry with a sink and built-in painted wood cabinets, a kitchen with tile counters and painted wood cabinets, a breakfast room, and a toilet room. The second floor contained two bedrooms, two dressing rooms, and one fully-tiled bathroom. There was also a plastered basement that contained a furnace room and a laundry.
The attached garage, measuring approximately 19 by 21 feet, had a concrete floor, stucco walls, a gabled tile roof, a fully-plastered interior, two overhead doors, and a service door.
In 1961, the Assessor commented that the house was “well built [with] solid construction.” Ceiling heights were good and partition walls were thick,
The Los Angeles County Assessor still currently estimates the square footage of the house at 3,806 with three bedrooms and three bathrooms.
Copies of the Assessor’s building records are attached on pages 34 through 39.
Other Owners and Residents: The Wallace house was sold to Carl E. and Dorothy W. Herrick in August 1956. Mr. Herrick became the sole trustee owner in January 2007. Carl Eugene Herrick (1915-2004) was born in Stockton, California. By 1930, the family was living in Oglesby, Illinois where Carl’s father Carl J. Herrick was an electrical engineer. Carl, Jr. graduated from La Salle High School in 1934.
The year 1940 found the Herricks living in Glendale. The senior Mr. Herrick was now a real estate salesman and Carl, Jr. was employed as a mechanic at Lockheed Aircraft. He would stay with Lockheed for the rest of his career, rising to foreman and then to department manager. In 1940, he married the former Dorothy Kathryn Weiland (1917-2007), a native of Peru, Illinoi.
Her father Albert was a cigar packer who later became a postmaster. Mrs. Herrick was active in the Assistance League of Glendale, the PTA, and the Grandview Presbyterian Church. Her husband had retired by the early 1970s.
After 57 years of Herrick family ownership, title was granted to Mark and Shelley Brazill in September 2013. Mr. Brazill was a stand-up comic and television producer of such series as That ‘70s Show. Shelley Brazill was a real estate agent.
SPRK Productions LLC, an Helsinki-based firm, was recorded as the owner in June 2016.
Karen N. Young took possession in January 2017.
In January 2020, name on title changed to the R. S. Peled and K. Young 2019 Trust.
709 of 818
4 Notes: An Assessor’s parcel map, attached on page 6, outlines the original extent of the property. Following subdivision, the house at 825 Cavanagh was built in 1961; 843 Cavanagh in 1960.
A copy of a sales brochure for the property dating from 2016 is attached on pages 29 through 32.
It indicates that original plans signed by Paul Williams accompanied the house. However, their current whereabouts are unknown.
Significance: The Wallace house is potentially eligible for listing on a local inventory of significant properties due to its design by a renowned architect, its good state of preservation, and its contribution to the architectural and historical context of the Bellehurst Hillslopes neighborhood
710 of 818
5 Sources:
City of Glendale, Building Department
Los Angeles County Assessor (Sylmar district office and Los Angeles archives) Los Angeles Public Library
Gebhard, David and Robert Winter. An Architectural Guidebook to Los Angeles, 6th ed.
Santa Monica, Angel City Press, 2018.
Hudson, Karen E. Paul R. Williams, Architect: A Legacy of Style.
New York, Rizzoli, 1993.
McAlester, Virginia Savage. A Field Guide to American Houses. 2nd ed.
New York, Knopf, 2013.
City Directories: 1929-
Southwest Builder and Contractor: June 29, 1928
Internet Resources, including California Index, California Death Index, Gale Biography Master Index, Ancestry.com, and Historic Los Angeles Times Database.
Tim Gregory
The Building Biographer
400 East California Blvd., #3
Pasadena, CA 91106-3763
626-792-7465 (office)
626-241-4471 (cell)
[email protected]
www.buildingbiographer.com
Copyright November 2021
by Tim Gregory
711 of 818
6 712 of 818
7 713 of 818
8 PAUL R. WILLIAMS
Architect
Paul Revere Williams first gained fame as the only
major African-American architect practicing in Southern California during an era when blacks were discouraged
from entering the profession. By the end of his life, he was regarded among the most pre-eminent of national
architects, regardless of race.
Paul Williams was born on February 18, 1894 in a house
on Eighth Street in Los Angeles, the son of Chester
Stanley and Lila Churchill Williams. He was orphaned
at an early age. His foster father, Charles Clarkson, was a janitor, and Williams often accompanied him
downtown, selling newspapers at the corner of First and Spring while Clarkson worked in a building nearby.
Williams attended Los Angeles public schools,
including Polytechnic High School, where he discovered
an interest in drawing and art. Determinedly going
where no black had gone before, he pursued architectural studies on scholarship at U.S.C. and the Beaux Arts Institute of Design, completing his academic training in 1919. Knowing his race would be a factor against his success, Williams applied to every architectural firm listed in the telephone directory, winning three design competitions while doing so. In 1914, Pasadena-based architect Reginald Johnson "took a chance" and hired the 20-year-old Williams as a designer.
Williams remained successfully under Johnson's employ until 1917, and it is thought Johnson sent a number of referrals his way in later years. By the early 1920s, Williams could augment his resume with work experience with such other local well-known architects as Arthur R. Kelly and John C. Austin.
Williams organized his own firm in 1923 and maintained offices at 3839 Wilshire Blvd. (At the zenith of his career, he also established branch offices in Washington and Bogota, Colombia.) In 1917 he married Della M. Givens of Los Angeles at the First AME Church. He was appointed to the Los Angeles City Planning Commission in 1921 (he was only 27 at the time) on which he served for three years. Later, in 1953, he served as President of the Los Angeles Art Commission. He was also a member of the California Redevelopment Commission and the State Housing Commission. He published two architectural books, The Small Home for Tomorrow and New Homes for Today, both in 1945.
During the course of his career, Williams designed nearly 3,000 buildings. As his fame as a residential architect increased, thanks to word-of-mouth and lavish spreads in magazines, Williams' client list became a "who's who" of entertainment industry celebrities and titans of business. Among them: E. L. Cord (the automobile magnate for whom Williams designed a house with 32,000 square feet, 30 rooms and an 18-car garage!), Tyrone Power, Bill (Bojangles) Robinson, Frank Sinatra, Danny Thomas, Bert Lahr, Adolph Menjou, Cary Grant, Lon Chaney, Sr., Fanny Brice, Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall, Betty Grable, Zsa Zsa Gabor, and Lucille 714 of 818
9 Ball. Williams' designs dot the map in such communities as Hancock Park, Brentwood, and Bel- Air. It is said his aim was to make a home's occupants feel special.
Williams is also well represented in the Pasadena area. Senator Frank Flint, who had bought newspapers from him all those years ago in downtown Los Angeles, remembered Williams when he began to plan his new 1,500-acre prestige community of Flintridge in 1917. Approximately 25 of Williams' earliest designs are still extant at such elegant Flintridge addresses as 4236 Woodleigh Lane (Louis Cass House--a high-school classmate of Williams--1922), Somerset Place above Berkshire Avenue (W. H. Harrison House--1927), 4159 Commonwealth Avenue (J.
B. Green House--1927), 841 Inverness Drive (King-Beesemyer House--1930), 3718 Chevy Chase Drive (Dr. Joseph T. Edward House--1926), 524 Dartmouth Place (Katherine B. Flint House--1929), and 503 Dartmouth Place (Haze House--1927). These were either commissioned by Frank Flint himself or were the result of Flint's referrals to customers purchasing building sites in his subdivision. (Williams would return in the mid-1930s to design several more houses for the Flintridge Company, scattered among the hillsides in western Flintridge.)
Williams designed the following residences in Pasadena: 200 Fern Drive (Dr. V. Mott Pierce House--1928), 150 Fern Drive (a speculative house for the Alta San Rafael Neighbors Association--1929), 111 Linda Vista Avenue (Shepard House--1926), 639 La Loma Road (1927), and the spectacular Jack Atkin house on the banks of the Arroyo Seco at 160 South San Rafael Avenue. Also of local note is 2210 Orlando Road, San Marino (Bryan House--1931), 2048 Edgewood Drive, South Pasadena (Burnett House--1925), and 2258 Villa Heights Road, in the Kinneloa area of unincorporated Pasadena (Lockhart House--1928).
Palatial houses were not Williams' only stock-in-trade. In 1924, he won a competition sponsored by the Architectural Club of Los Angeles, Small House Service Bureau, with his model homes for the modest Lincoln Square neighborhood.
Williams also gained a reputation for his fine design of commercial and civic buildings. These included: Saks Fifth Avenue; the award-winning Music Corporation of America (now Litton Industries) Building, and the annex of the Beverly Wilshire Hotel--all in Beverly Hills; Perino's Restaurant in Los Angeles; the first Monrovia Civic Center; the Palm Springs Tennis Club (in association with A. Quincy Jones); the Los Angeles Courthouse; County (now Hahn) Hall of Administration; and three buildings at U.C.L.A. He was also an associate architect for the Los Angeles International Airport: the theme restaurant building was his own design. During the 1930s, impressed with the variety and quality of his work, a delegation from Medellin, Colombia selected Williams to design a series of homes and a hotel/office complex in their country.
Examples of Williams' work also appear as far afield as Liberia.
Williams seemed comfortable working in a variety of architectural styles. His designs varied from Georgian Revival to Colonial Revival and from Tudor to Spanish Colonial, but all were marked by an attention to detail and proportion. It was the use of unique accents that made his work so desirable.
Remembered as a gentle, courtly man, and a perfectionist with the highest integrity, Williams often had to deal with the astonishment of first-time clients who hadn't realized, before meeting 715 of 818
10 him, that he was black. He became skilled at sketching upside-down, so that he wouldn't make his customers uncomfortable by standing next to them. He tried to make his clients partners in the design of their homes, thereby giving them a feeling of control in the situation. A genius at self-marketing, Williams found himself invited to social events in the world of corporate America where he made many contacts. But even while supervising the construction of the Polo Lounge at the Beverly Hills Hotel, which he also designed, Williams did not feel comfortable venturing out into the pool or other public areas. It was ironic that for much of his life he would not have been welcome to live in the neighborhoods for which he designed such magnificent residences, although he could well have afforded to. However, his family reported they sensed no bitterness in him about these imposed limitations. Eventually he and his wife moved to a house of his own design, characterized as "modern", in Lafayette Square Park in Los Angeles.
Williams was greatly honored during his career. In 1923, he became the first black ever admitted into the American Institute of Architects (he eventually would become a Fellow of the Institute). He held five honorary degrees, including doctorates from the Tuskegee Institute and Howard University. He also won the Springarn Medal for Distinguished Achievement from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. His last years as an architect were spent nurturing the talents of emerging local architects, especially among the African-American community. After a career lasting 58 years, Paul Williams retired from the practice of architecture in 1973 and died on January 23, 1980 at the age of 85. As historian Robert Winter said, "Paul Williams stands on his own, not because he was black, but because he was a very fine architect."
Although some of Williams’ records that were stored in South Los Angeles were destroyed during the civil disturbances of 1992, a great number of his papers survived and in 2020 were donated to the USC School of Architecture and the Getty Research Institute.
Sources:
American Architects Directory. American Institute of Architects, 1956.
Hudson, Karen E. Paul R. Williams, Architect: A Legacy of Style.
New York, Rizzoli, 1993.
McGroarty, John Steven. California of the South: A History, vol. IV.
Los Angeles, S. J. Clarke Publishing Co., 1933.
Los Angeles Times: January 28, 1980; February 28, 1987; July 23, 1989; Pasadena Heritage Newsletter: Spring 1980
USC Trojan Family Magazine: Spring 2004
Tim Gregory
The Building Biographer
400 East California Blvd., #3
Pasadena, CA 91106-3763
626-792-7465
[email protected]
www.buildingbiographer.com
Copyright
May 2000
716 of 818
11 McGroarty, p. 519
717 of 818
12 USC Trojan Family Magazine
Spring 2004; p. 27+
Continued…
718 of 818
13 719 of 818
14 720 of 818
15 721 of 818
16 722 of 818
17 723 of 818
18 724 of 818
19 725 of 818
20 726 of 818
21 727 of 818
22 Los Angeles Times
February 28, 1987
728 of 818
23 Los Angeles Times
July 23, 1989
Continued…
729 of 818
24 730 of 818
25 731 of 818
26 732 of 818
27 733 of 818
28 Pasadena Star-News
July 1, 2020
734 of 818
29 735 of 818
30 736 of 818
31 737 of 818
32 738 of 818
33 739 of 818
34 740 of 818
35 741 of 818
36 742 of 818
37 743 of 818
38 744 of 818
39 745 of 818
746 of 818
747 of 818
748 of 818
749 of 818
750 of 818
751 of 818
752 of 818
753 of 818
754 of 818
755 of 818
756 of 818
757 of 818
758 of 818
759 of 818
760 of 818
761 of 818
762 of 818
City of Glendale, Community Development Department (9/9/11)
(To be Completed Prior to Preparation of Staff Reports for Consideration of Entitlement Matter by Council, Agency, or Authority, or at Time of Appeal to the City Council if the Applicant is also the Appellant)
In August 2011, the Glendale City Council adopted Ordinance No. 5744, which becomes effective on September 9, 2011 (“Ordinance”). The Ordinance prohibits campaign contributions from “applicants seeking entitlement,” their contractors and subcontractors (including their architects, engineers, and design professionals) while the application is “pending” and for 12 months thereafter. The Ordinance also prohibits Council Members from voting on any matter pertaining to an entitlement if the Council member has received a campaign contribution from the applicant seeking the entitlement, or certain contractors or subcontractors of the applicant, within the 12-month period preceding the vote.
The Applicant and the Owner/Lessor hereby discloses as follows.
(If printing, please print legibly. Use additional sheets as necessary.)
I. Name of Applicant and Name of Owner/Lessor on whose behalf application is filed:
Full Name Title Business Address City State Zip
City of Glendale
Disclosure - Campaign Finance Ordinance
Applicants Seeking Entitlement
Submit to Permit Services Center, 633 E. Broadway, Rm. 101.
For more information, call 818-548-3200.
763 of 818
City of Glendale, Community Development Department (9/9/11) II. Officers or owners/investors of Applicant Entity. Please also disclose the following persons or entities related to the applicant entity: CEO/President, Chairperson, Chief Operations Officer, Chief Financial Officer, any member of the Board of Directors, a nd any individual or entity that owns 10% or more the contractor of applicant seeking entitlement, as well as any campaign + Full Name Title Business Address City State Zip
III. Contractor of Applicant(s) Seeking Entitlement*
Full Name Title Business Address City State Zip
* “Contractor of Applicant Seeking Entitlement” means “a person who has, or has been promised, a contract as an architect, design professional, engineer, or general or prime contract with an applicant seeking entitlement. “Contractor of applicant seeking entitlement,” includes not only the contracting party but also the CEO/President, Chairperson, Chief Operations Officer, Chief Financial Officer, any member of the Board of Directors, and any individual or entity that owns 10% or more the contractor of applicant seeking entitlement, as well as any campaign committee that is sponsored and controlled by the contracting party.
Please list the names and addresses of all of these parties.
IV. Subcontractor of Applicant(s) Seeking Entitlement**
Full Name Title Business Address City State Zip
** “Subcontractor of Applicant Seeking Entitlement” means “a person who has, or has been promised, a subcontract as an architect, design professional, engineer, or perform other work with a ‘contractor an applicant seeking entitlement.” 764 of 818
City of Glendale, Community Development Department (9/9/11) “Subcontractor of applicant seeking entitlement,” includes not only the subcontracting party, but also the CEO/President, Chairperson, Chief Operations Officer, Chief Financial Officer, any member of the Board of Directors, and any individual or entity that owns 10% or more the subcontractor of applicant seeking entitlement, as well as any campaign committee that is sponsored and controlled by the subcontracting party. Please list the name and addresses of all of these parties.
V. Disclosure. The Applicant Seeking Entitlement has made campaign or officeholder contributions in the preceding 12 months to City of Glendale elected officials as follows:
Elected Official Name of Individual or Entity Date of Contribution
I hereby certify, on behalf of the above-named applicant(s) and owner(s)/lessor(s), that the applicant seeking entitlement has made the campaign contributions as set forth above. I also certify that the names of all contractors of applicant and all subcontractors of applicant, as of today’s date, are fully set forth above. I further acknowledge that the applicant has a continuing obligation to update this disclosure form if the applicant selects additional or substitute architects, design professionals, contractors or subcontractors within ten (10) days of the selection or change. I hereby certify that I have been legally authorized by the applicant/owner/lessor to submit this disclosure form and certify to the content hereof.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on ___________________ at _____________________________, California
Applicant’s Signature_____________________________, Print Applicant’s Full Name ___________________________________
Applicant’s Address _____________________________________________________________________
Applicant’s Contact Phone Number ________________________________________________________
Applicant’s Email Address _______________________________________________________________ 765 of 818
9c
CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM
Report: 2795 Mira Vista Drive: Consideration of Glendale Register Nomination and Request for a Mills Act Historic Property Contract.
1. Resolution to designate the residential property at 2795 Mira Vista Drive as a historic resource in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources, as the Sherman and Henrietta Ford House, and authorizing the City Manager to enter into a Mills Act Historical Property Contract with the property owner.
2. Motion to deny the request of the property owner to designate the residential property at 2795 Mira Vista Drive as a historic resource in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources.
COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Public Hearing
Approved for November 1, 2022 calendar
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The owner of 2795 Mira Vista Drive requests that the City Council designate/list the property in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources and authorize a Mills Act historical property contract. The house was designed in 1936 and is an excellent and highly intact example of a modestly scaled Tudor Revival-style residence within the city.
On June 16, 2022, Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) reviewed the nomination and voted 5-0 to recommend to the City Council that the property at 2795 Mira Vista Drive be listed in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources as the “Sherman and Henrietta Ford House,” and that the City Manager be authorized to enter into a Mills Act historic property contract with the property owner under Section 15.20.070A of the Glendale Municipal Code.
766 of 818
29c
3 7
5 8
COUNCIL PRIORITIES
Environmental Stewardship: The protection of properties through historic preservation is an inherently sustainable practice because preserving an existing structure is more sustainable than the development of a new structure.
RECOMMENDATION
That City Council authorize listing of the property in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources and authorize the City Manager to enter into a Mills Act historic property contract, with the conditions recommended by HPC, between the City and the property owner under Section 15.20.070A of the Glendale Municipal Code.
BACKGROUND
Historical Background
2795 Mira Vista Drive is a one-story, single-family residence constructed in 1936 in the Verdugo Woodlands neighborhood. The property is an excellent and highly intact example of a modestly scaled Tudor Revival-style residence within the city. It was designed and built by builder John Frith who worked on a variety of projects including modest residences such as the subject property as well as larger houses and remodels for high profile clients including Fred Astaire and Humphry Bogart. He also built furniture such as desks and chairs for some residences. The nomination report (Exhibit 1) gives further information about Frith’s life and career.
The house was built for Sherman W. Ford and his wife Henrietta. Sherman had recently retired from real estate when he gave Frith the commission. Ford owned the property for approximately ten years before selling it to Harry Albert and Shirley A. Isabel in 1946, who held it briefly before a selling it to Harry R. and Jean Agnes Hough the same year.
In 1971, it was sold to George B. and Audrey Barrett before being sold to Richard “Dick” and Geraldine F. Alexander in 1973. Dick Alexander is an American sound engineer who has worked on over 170 films during a career spanning more than four decades.
He won two Academy Awards for his work on All the President’s Men in 1976 and Bird in 1988 and was nominated six additional times. Though Alexander appears to have lived at the residence during his peak professional years and held meetings with clients there, no information in the nomination or further research suggests his work has significantly impacted the sound engineering field or the history of the city. No other owners associated with the property appear to have made any significant contributions to local, state, or national history and the property does not appear eligible under Criterion 2. The current owner purchased the property in 1997. Additionally, no information provided in the application suggests that the property is identified with important events in national, state, or city history, or that it exemplifies significant contributions to the broad cultural, political, economic, social, tribal, or historic heritage of the nation, state, or city. It therefore does not appear eligible under Criterion 1. 767 of 818
39c
3 7
5 8
Based on the information in the nomination, attached to this report as Exhibit 1 and incorporated by reference, HPC found the property eligible for listing in the Glendale Register under Criterion 3 as detailed in the “Findings of Eligibility” section below. HPC recommends the house be listed as the “Sherman and Henrietta Ford House” after its original owners.
Architectural Description
The residence is located on an irregularly shaped corner lot in the Verdugo Woodlands neighborhood. Mira Vista Drive is a short winding street located east of N. Verdugo Road. The lot measures only 3,406 square feet with the 1,153-square-foot house and attached garage occupying much of it. The one-story, single-family residence has an irregular footprint and an asymmetrical front façade that faces southeast towards Mira Vista Drive. A narrow brick walkway leads from the street to the entrance porch and a winding gravel walkway runs perpendicular in front of the property. The gravel walkway was added by the current owner. The house is mostly clad in stucco with horizontal wood clapboard in the gables, brick detailing at the entrance and below the bay windows, and half timbering around the entrance. It has a steeply pitched cross gable roof with slightly flared eaves and exposed rafter tails. The roof is clad in faux wood shingles which mimic the look of the original wood shingles. A prominent front-facing gable with low sloping eaves is located at the far west of the primary façade and a shed roof with a shallower pitch extends off this gable to create the small entrance porch. The shed roof is supported by wood posts and brackets and a brick wall encloses the porch to the south. The brick entrance steps, which face east, and metal handrail lead to the original paneled wood entry door with a metal grill viewer. The remainder of the primary façade contains three striking leaded-glass windows with a small diamond pattern. The window at the far west also has wood shutters. There are two bay windows on the building; one at the west end in the front facing gable with wood multi-pane fixed and casement windows, and one on the east façade with a combination of leaded glass and wood multi-pane windows. Additional window patterns on the non-primary facades include slightly recessed, multi-light wood casement windows with bold wood sills.
A wing wall with a single-leaf wood gate and squared-off opening allows access to a brick walkway along the west façade. This leads to a rear courtyard along the north façade with a brick patio. Two sets of multi-pane wood French doors with exterior screens flank the brick chimney with stepped shoulders at the center of this façade. At the east end of the patio there is a contemporary entrance door which leads to the kitchen and a single double-hung wood window. Beyond this door and window, a set of stairs lead down to a solid wood door at the rear of the garage.
The attached single-car garage is located at the northeast corner of the lot. It has a small, rectangular footprint with high pitched gable roof clad in faux wood shingles and 768 of 818
49c
3 7
5 8
exposed rafter tails, mirroring the residence. There is a multi-light wood casement window on the south façade with wood shutters. The narrow swing up door is metal with vertical grooves. It does not appear to be original but is compatible with the house and style.
Notable character-defining features of 2795 Mira Vista Drive include:
•Irregular footprint
•One-story massing
•Steeply pitched roof with faux wood shingles, flared eaves, and exposed rafter tails •Stucco, horizontal wood clapboard, and brick exterior cladding •Half timbering
•Entrance porch with shed roof, bracket supports, and brick wall •Wood-paneled door with metal grill viewer
•Leaded glass windows in diamond pattern
•Multi-light wood casement windows
•Multi-light wood French doors
•Wood shutters flanking one front façade window
•Bay windows
•Attached single-car garage (if original)
•Rear patio with step-shouldered brick chimney
Alterations and Integrity
The residence at 2795 Mira Vista Drive retains a high degree of integrity with minimal alterations occurring since original construction. In 1988, a permit was issued to repair the chimney from the roofline up due to earthquake damage. It also appears that the chimney was painted at some point and the paint was later removed. According to the current owner, minor stucco repair has taken place in various locations with a compatible stucco finish. The house was also re-roofed with faux wood shingles prior to the current ownership which mimic the wood shingles called out on the original permit.
A rear door which allows access to the kitchen was replaced at an unknown date with a more contemporary style door, but it is minimal in design and compatible in style. The gravel walkway at the front of property was also added by the current owner. Oddly enough, the original building permit does not include the construction of an attached garage and the plot plan associated with the original permit shows the footprint of the house only. The chimney permit from 1988 also does not include the garage as part of the footprint of the property. Based on this information, it is possible that the garage was added later, though its design and materials also lend to the possibility it was constructed at the same time as the residence. Due to a slight gap between the garage door and wall, there is some minor wood rot at the foundation of the garage along the 769 of 818
59c
3 7
5 8
perimeter that should be repaired. None of the listed minimal alterations deter from the building’s integrity of materials, design, or workmanship. The building’s integrity of location, feeling, and setting have also been maintained as it has not been moved, is still located within a single-family neighborhood, and its surroundings retain a sense of small-scale development.
HPC and staff therefore recommend the following Mills Act conditions:
1. Repoint the brick cladding below the bay windows on the front of the property, the brick on the entrance way stairs and wall, and the brick chimney on the north façade to repair failing mortar joints.
2. Repair/reinforce joints of wood windows and doors to ensure no further damage.
3. Repair wood rot at the foundation of the attached garage.
ANALYSIS
Finding of Eligibility
After reviewing the nomination submitted by the owner and its supporting documentation, as well as visiting the site, HPC found that the property appears to meet Criterion 3 of the eligibility criteria for listing in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources, as follows:
Architectural Significance [Criterion 3]
To meet Criterion 3, a property must “embody the distinctive and exemplary characteristics of an architectural style, architectural type, period, or method of construction; or represent a notable work of a master designer, builder or architect whose genius influenced his or her profession; or possess high artistic values; and retain integrity.”
2795 Mira Vista Drive is an excellent and thoughtfully detailed example of a modest Tudor Revival-style residence within the city. The building is an interesting example of Period Revival architecture scaled down to a reduced size incorporating many character-defining features of the style on only 1,153-sqaure feet. Much of the area surrounding the subject property was developed in the 1930s and 1940s with many houses in the Minimal Traditional style. The intricate detail of the property makes it a contrasting property even among the handful of Period Revival residences nearby.
Character-defining features such as the flared eaves, exposed rafter tails, prominent front facing gable with low sloping eaves, striking leaded glass windows, bay windows with brick detailing, stepped-shoulder brick chimney, and long list of interior details makes this property an exceptional example of Tudor Revival-style residential on a smaller scale. In addition, the property retains integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, and feeling with very little alterations occurring since construction. Therefore, the subject property is eligible for listing in the Glendale Register under Criterion 3.
Staff recommends that City Council consider HPC’s recommendation and find the 770 of 818
69c
3 7
5 8
property eligible for designation as a historic resource in the Glendale Register under Criterion 3 and authorize the City Manager to enter into a Mills Act contract, with the recommended conditions, between the City and the property owner.
STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
There are no stakeholders other than the property owner.
FISCAL IMPACT
Listing historic properties in the Glendale Register has no fiscal impact. However, future property tax savings to private owners of listed historic properties under Mills Act contracts will slightly reduce City property tax revenues from the general County tax levy received from each Mills Act property.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
The project is exempt from CEQA review as Class 31 (“Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation”) and Class 8 (“Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment") exemptions pursuant to Sections 15331 and 15308 of the State CEQA Guidelines because it involves the designation and protection/preservation of a historic resource.
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 4, in accordance with the City Campaign Finance Ordinance No. 5744.
ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Designate 2795 Mira Vista Drive as a historic resource in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources, finding that the property meets designation Criterion 3, and authorize the City Manager to enter into a Mills Act contract, with conditions, between the City and the property owner.
Alternative 2: Reject designation/listing of 2795 Mira Vista Drive on the Glendale Register of Historic Resources, finding that the property does not meet Criterion 3 or any other criteria.
Alternative 3: Any other alternative not proposed by staff.
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:
Kasey Conley, Associate Planner
771 of 818
79c
3 7
5 8
Reviewed by:
Jay Platt, Principal Planner
Approved by:
Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager
EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1: Glendale Register Nomination
Exhibit 2: Photographs
Exhibit 3: Mills Act Application
Exhibit 4: Campaign Disclosure
772 of 818
1 RESOLUTION NO. _____________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA, TO DESIGNATE THE RESIDENTIAL
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2795 MIRA VISTA DRIVE AS A HISTORIC
RESOURCE ON THE GLENDALE REGISTER OF HISTORIC
RESOURCES AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER
INTO A MILLS ACT HISTORICAL PROPERTY CONTRACT
WHEREAS, the owner of record of the residential property located at 2795 Mira Vista Drive (the “Property”) has consented to, and requests that the Property be designated as a historic resource on the Glendale Register of Historic Resources pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.20.060 of the Glendale Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission, at a regularly scheduled meeting on June 16, 2022, unanimously recommended designation of the Property for listing on the Glendale Register of Historic Resources; and WHEREAS, the City Council has conducted a duly noticed public hearing pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.20.060 of the Glendale Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Glendale, pursuant to Sections
15.20.050 and 15.20.060, finds based on information in the record that the Property, to be known as the Sherman and Henrietta Ford House, is eligible for listing on the Glendale Register of Historic Resources because it qualifies under Criterion 3 (embodies the distinctive and exemplary characteristics of an architectural style, architectural type, period, or method of construction; or represents a notable work of a master designer, builder or architect whose genius influenced his or her profession; or possesses high artistic values) in that, it is an interesting example of Period Revival architecture scaled down to a reduced size incorporating many character-defining features of the style on only 1,153- sqaure feet, the intricate detail of the property makes it a contrasting property even among the handful of Period Revival residences nearby, character-defining features such as the flared eaves, exposed rafter tails, prominent front facing gable with low sloping eaves, striking leaded glass windows, bay windows with brick detailing, stepped-shoulder brick chimney, and long list of interior details makes it an exceptional example of Tudor Revival- style residential on a smaller scale, and it retains integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, and feeling with very little alterations occurring since construction, as further described in the November 1, 2022 Staff Report regarding the Property; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Glendale further finds that because the Property qualifies for listing on the Glendale Register of Historic Resources that entering into a Mills Act contract with the Property owner is appropriate based on all of the information in the record.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The recitals above are incorporated herein by this reference. 773 of 818
2 Section 2. That the property located at 2795 Mira Vista Drive is to be designated as a historic resource in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources.
Section 3. That the City Manager is authorized to enter into a Mills Act historical property contract with the Property owner subject to the following conditions:
1. Repoint the brick cladding below the bay windows on the front of the property, the brick on the entrance way stairs and wall, and the brick chimney on the north façade to repair failing mortar joints.
2. Repair/reinforce joints of wood windows and doors to ensure no further damage.
3. Repair wood rot at the foundation of the attached garage.
Section 4. That the designation of the Property as a Historic Resource for listing on the Glendale Register of Historic Resources and entering into a Mills Act contract with the Property owner is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Title 14 CCR Sections 15331 (preservation of historic resources) and 15308 (actions by regulatory agencies for protection of the environment).
Adopted this _______ day of __________________________, 2022. ______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________
City Clerk
774 of 818
3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.
CITY OF GLENDALE )
I, SUZIE ABAJIAN, Ph.D., Clerk of the City of Glendale, certify that the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the 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
775 of 818
MOTION
Moved by Council Member ____________________________, seconded by Council Member ____________________________, that upon review and consideration of all documents, materials and exhibits relative to the request of the owner of record of the residential property located at 2795 Mira Vista Drive (the “Property”) to list the Property on the Glendale Register of Historic Resources, and after having conducted a public hearing on said request and receiving testimony, the City Council of the City of Glendale, California, based upon all of the evidence in the record, hereby denies the request of the owner of record of the Property to list the Property on the Glendale Register of Historic Resources pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.20.060 of the Glendale Municipal Code and denies the request of the owner of record of the Property to authorize the City Manager to enter into a Mills Act historical property contract with the Property owner. This denial is based on the Council’s determination, pursuant to Glendale Municipal Code Sections 15.20.050 and 15.20.060, that, based on information in the record, the Property is not eligible for listing on the Glendale Register of Historic Resources because it does not meet any of the criteria enumerated in Glendale Municipal Code Section 15.20.050.
Vote as Follows:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
776 of 818
777 of 818
778 of 818
779 of 818
780 of 818
781 of 818
Sherman W. Ford House
Architectural Description
The Sherman W. Ford House is a single story English Tudor Revival cottage, built with an L-shaped plan. The exterior has traditional Tudor half-timbering, multi- light casement windows, as well as leaded diamond pane glass windows, wooden shutters, textured stucco, a front facing gable on a wing to the left of the front porch, with a wood covered central bay and the pediment covered with horizontal siding. The roof is covered with patterned shake shingles.
The small front porch, located to the right of the front wing, is square under a shed type roof with horizontal siding, supported by bracketed 4X4 posts with a brick insert in the lower part of the porch. The paneled wooden door has a central grilled door viewer. A small porch light is to the right of the door. A brick chimney is on the rear facade of the cottage.
A single-car garage (built at the same time as the house) is attached on the right (North) side of the house.
The house is almost completely unaltered inside and out (with the exception of the roof, which was originally wood shake but is now a slate that mimics wood shake.) and is a rare intact example of a small storybook style Tudor cottage.
782 of 818
Sherman W. Ford House
2795 Mira Vista Drive
Significance Statement
This Tudor Revival cottage was designed and built in 1936 by contractor Jack Frith. It was built for Sherman W. Ford, a recently retired real estate accountant.
Although the title was in Fords name only, he appears to have married around that time. His wife, Henrietta R. Ford, was three decades his junior. It appears that Ford, who was born in New York City on January 1, 1869, was carefully saving up his money, living mostly in rooming houses while he was working before his marriage.
The house is situated on lot 54 of Tract No. 9088 in the Verdugo Woodlands community of Glendale. Verdugo Woodlands has a rich history that reaches back to 1784, when Jose Maria Verdugo received a land grant of 36,403 acres, known as Rancho San Rafael. The rancho includes the present day cities of Glendale (including the communities of, La Crescenta, Montrose and Verdugo City), Burbank, La Cañada-Flintridge, and the city of Los Angeles communities of Atwater Village, Cypress Park, Eagle Rock, Garvanza, Glassell Park, Highland Park, and Mount Washington.
Tract No. 9088 is a subdivision of a part of Lots 1 and 2 of the Verdugo Estate, a portion of the 2,629 Acre Tract of the Rancho San Rafael allotted to Teodoro and Catalina Verdugo after court action forced the dividing of the rancho in 1869. The tract was filed on March 17, 1926 and was listed under the ownership of the Hellman Commercial Trust and Savings Bank. On February 1, 1931 Lot 54 was deeded to Matthew Lauder Vallance, a Scottish born Beverly Hills policeman. On June 12, 1935 he transferred the land to his cousin, Lloyd George Vallance. It was sold to Ford on July 8, 1936 and the permit to build the Tudor Revival house was issued on August 1, 1936.
The Tudor Revival style is based on the original Tudor architecture dating to the period from 1485 until 1558, when craftsmen built sophisticated two-toned manor homes, with an amalgamation of Renaissance and Gothic design elements. This transitional style continued to pop up in villages throughout England until Elizabethan architecture took over in 1558. Known for its use of half-timbered walls, steep rooflines and leaded glass windows, the style became easily recognizable and soon had versions appearing in other countries, such as France and the German states.
783 of 818
As the United States architecture evolved into the multiple revival style, beginning around 1890, the Tudor Revival was one of the earliest to make its appearance.
Aspects of the style, especially the half-timbering, found its way into other styles, especially, some Arts and Crafts designs. The use of the Tudor design in the United States hit its zenith during the 1920s and carried on until the onset of World War II.
Even though Tudor revival homes were pricey to manufacture, you can still find them in all sizes. There are sprawling mansions and small 1000 square feet cottages, each with the main design elements that make it a Tudor. Most of the Tudor Revival Houses were large manors, found in the more upscale neighborhoods.
While the majority of Tudor Revival homes are located in the Northern United States since their facade is ideal for colder climates. However, the style did become popular in certain parts of Southern California, seen on many tree-lined streets in neighborhoods such as Hancock Park and Windsor Square in the Wilshire District of Los Angeles.
By the 1920s, Los Angeles was filled with talented craftspeople and artists from across the globe, lured by studio work. The city was flush with dramatic, newly wealthy movie moguls and stars looking for luxurious living quarters befitting their new status. Los Angeles became a paradise of unique revival styles of architecture. Picturesque, idealized versions of everything from Mediterranean villas to Spanish Missions and Greek Revival plantations began to pop up everywhere.
One notable exception to these large houses were the Story-book cottages which gained popularity as the movie industry grew. These small homes were often found in bungalow courts, but there were some that were stand-alone houses, frequently found on small lots.
The permit has no space for an architect to be filled in, however, in this case, it was most probably designed by the contractor, Jack Frith, who always listed himself as a carpenter in public records.
John Hardy Frith, who was known as Jack Frith, was born in Settle, Yorkshire, England on June 23, 1884. He learned his carpentry in England and China and, then immigrated to the United States, arriving in Philadelphia on June 27, 1910.
Once he had work, he contacted his fiancé, 25 year old Florence Anne Jones, who came from England to join him. They were married on December 23, 1911, the day that she arrived. They lived in Fort Wayne, Indiana, Chicago, Illinois and Midco, Missouri before moving to San Bernardino, California after he served in the Canadian Navy during World War I. By 1922, now with four children, were living in the city of Tujunga. He became a United States citizen in 1925.
784 of 818
Once settled in Tujunga, Frith began building houses. In 1930 he designed and built his own family home at 7705 Beckett Street in Tujunga. That 1,446 square foot house is also of a Tudor design. Many of his other homes also went up in the Tujunga area and during the first boom period in the San Fernando Valley. As the Great Depression set in, he remained in the building business, also supervising larger projects, but always preferring to be his own boss (according to his grandson, John L. Walker). His expertise and craftsmanship was also valuable in remodeling work in the homes of Hollywood stars such as Joe E. Brown, Fred Astaire, Humphrey Bogart
and a beautiful desk for her husband, Director John Farrow, father of actress Mia Farrow).
Jack Frith was a master craftsman who was proud to be referred to as a carpenter, whether he was building a chair or a house. His career extended into the 1950s, even after his wife died on November 24, 1945, at the age of 59. In January 1962, he was installed for the second time as the commander of Glendale Post No. 4 of the Canadian Legion, but passed away on November, 30, 1962, at the age of 78.
The Fords appear to have only lived in the house for a short time, if at all. During the 1940s, they were listed at a different address. They owned the house for a decade and then sold it to Harry Albert Islieb and Shirley A. Islieb on October 7, 1946. The Isliebs sold the house on August 14 of the following year to Harry R. and Jean Agnes Hough who were to live there until their divorce in August 1969.
Harry R. Hough, Jr. was an insurance agent for Farmers. They had a son, Harry R.
Hough III, who grew up in the house. After their divorce, they retained ownership until November 3, 1971, when it was deeded to George B. and Audrey Barrett.
George Barrett was, around that time, the President of the Los Angeles Turf Club that operates the Santa Anita Racetrack in Arcadia.
The Barretts owned the house for a bit less than three years, selling it to Richard L and Geraldine F. Alexander on September 26, 1974. Dick Alexander is an American sound engineer. He won two Academy Awards for Best Sound and was nominated for six more in the same category. He has worked on over 170 films and television shows since 1975.
Alexander frequently
held meeting at the house with actors, directors and other production principals, such as Clint Eastwood while working on their films.
785 of 818
On July 16, 1997 the Alexanders sold the house to the current owner, Steve M.
Vilarino. The house has remained virtually intact from 1936 up to the present through six owners. Even though Glendale does not include interiors in the historic designation, it is worth noting that the well maintained interior of the cottage has also retained its original integrity of design.
The Sherman W. Ford House meets the requirements for Historic Monument as a rare intact example of a Tudor Revival cottage. It may also qualify as a significant work by Jack Frith, who may well qualify as a master builder as more of his design and construction work is evaluated.
786 of 818
Sherman W. Ford House
Bibliography
Books:
McAlester, Virginia and Lee.......A Field Guide to American Houses...........©1990, Alfred A. Knopf On-Line Sources:
Dick Alexander..................................................................................................................Wikipedia There You Don Many Tudor-Style Homes These Days.......................Nov 1, 2018 Glendale News Press Articles:
Jack Frith Will Head Legion Post..............................................................................................................Jan 1963 Additional Data Sources:
Los Angeles County Assessors Records
Los Angeles City Building Permits
Los Angeles County Subdivision Maps
World War I Draft Registration Records
United States Census Records
Social Security Death Index
787 of 818
788 of 818
789 of 818
790 of 818
Jack Frith in the British Navy circa 1905
791 of 818
Jack Frith in China, where he learned many of his carpentry skills. 792 of 818
Jack Frith installed as Canadian Legion Post Commander near end of life in 1962.
793 of 818
Frith Residence, 7705 Beckett Street, Tujunga, April 2019 794 of 818
Building Permit History
2795 Mira Vista Drive
Glendale
August 1, 1936: Building Permit No. 8198 to construct a 1-story 5- 2795 Mira Vista Drive on Lot 54 of Tract No. 9088.
Owner: Sherman Ford
Architect: None
Contractor: Jack Frith
Cost: $3,200.00
August 20, 1936: Plumbing Permit No. 34282 to install and connect plumbing.
Owner: Sherman Ford
Architect: None
Contractor: Harry R. Bailey
Cost: Not Shown
August 21, 1936: Furnace Permit No. 34294 to install wall heater and floor furnace.
Owner: Sherman Ford
Architect: None
Contractor: Andrews Heater Co.
Cost: Not Shown
September 10, 1936: Electrical Permit No. 16445 to install electrical wiring in new residence.
Owner: Sherman Ford
Architect: None
Contractor: Coghline Electric
Cost: Not Shown
795 of 818
September 16, 1936: Lath Permit No. 7053 to install lath for plaster in new residence.
Owner: Sherman Ford
Architect: None
Contractor: Louis Hanson
Cost: 650 yards of lath
September 21, 1936: Plastering Permit No. 7087 to plaster new residence, 435 yards on interior and 265 yards on the exterior.
Owner: Sherman Ford
Architect: None
Contractor: Percy Telefono
Cost: Not Shown
November 16, 1936: Sewer Permit No. 35526 to hook up new house to city sewer.
Owner: Sherman Ford
Architect: None
Contractor: Harry R. Bailey
Cost: Not Shown
June 23, 1965: Plumbing Permit No. 94289 to install a new water heater.
Owner: Harry Hough
Architect: None
Contractor: Glaze Plumbing
Cost: Not Shown
November 12, 1971: Plumbing Permit No. 75814 to install a new water heater.
Owner: George B. Barrett
Architect: None
Contractor: Glaze Plumbing
Cost: Not Shown
July 18, 1978: HVAC Permit No. 47796 to install a new heating system.
Owner: Richard Alexander
Architect: None
Contractor: Pacific Installers
Cost: Not Shown
796 of 818
July 18, 1978: HVAC Permit No. 47797 to install a new air-conditioning system.
Owner: Richard Alexander
Architect: None
Contractor: Pacific Installers
Cost: Not Shown
January 20, 1988: Building Permit No. 5150B008 to repair earthquake damaged fireplace per city standard.
Owner: Richard Alexander
Architect: None
Engineer: None
Contractor: Padgett Masonry
Cost: $685.00
Unknown Date 1988: Building Permit not located but was supposed to have been issued to re-roof with slate shingles.
Owner: Richard Alexander
Architect: None
Engineer: Arnold B. Larson
Contractor; Unknown
Cost: $10,000.00
797 of 818
798 of 818
799 of 818
800 of 818
801 of 818
802 of 818
803 of 818
804 of 818
805 of 818
1. 2795 Mira Vista Drive, Primary Façade, view west, May 2022
2. 2795 Mira Vista Drive, Primary Façade, view northwest, May 2022 806 of 818
3. 2795 Mira Vista Drive, Primary Façade, view north, May 2022
4. 2795 Mira Vista Drive, West Façade, view north, May 2022 807 of 818
5. 2795 Mira Vista Drive, entrance door and porch, view west, June 2022
808 of 818
6. 2795 Mira Vista Drive, West walkway/stairs, view northwest, June 2022
809 of 818
7. 2795 Mira Vista Drive, North Façade, view southeast, June 2022
8. 2795 Mira Vista Drive, North Façade, view east, June 2022 810 of 818
9. 2795 Mira Vista Drive, Rear Garage Entrance, view northeast, June 2022 811 of 818
10. 2795 Mira Vista Drive, Attached Garage, view southwest, May 2022
11. 2795 Mira Vista Drive, Leaded Glass Window Detail, view northwest, May 2022 812 of 818
12. 2795 Mira Vista Drive, Bay Window Detail, view northwest, May 2022
13. 2795 Mira Vista Drive, Brick Detailing, June 2022
813 of 818
14. 2795 Mira Vista Drive, Brick Detailing, June 2022
15. 2795 Mira Vista Drive, Door Jamb Separation Detail, June 2022 814 of 818
16. 2795 Mira Vista Drive, Window Jamb Separation Detail, June 2022
17. 2795 Mira Vista Drive, Window Jamb Separation Detail, June 2022 815 of 818
816 of 818
817 of 818
818 of 818