Agenda packet, first session — Glendale City Council, March 7, 2023

A G E N D A

GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL

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

are

broadcast

live

Glendale

TV,

viewable

Spectrum

Cable,

channel

and

AT&T

U-
verse,

channel

99. Meetings

are

also

streamed

live

high

definition

(HD)

the

city's

webpage,
glendaleca.gov/live
,

YouTube.com/myglendale
,

and

Apple

TV,

Roku,

and

Amazon

Fire
devices

using

free

app

called

Screenweave

and

choosing

“Glendale

TV”

from

the

menu.

Meetings
are

also

archived

the

City

Website

for

viewing

anytime

glendaleca.gov/agendas
.

Call

(818)
548-4013

for

program

schedules.

DVDs

the

proceedings

are

available

for

purchase

the

City
Clerk's

Office.

For

public

comments

and

questions

during

the

meeting,

call

(818)

937-8100.

Public
comments

specific

agenda

item

will

taken

when

that

agenda

item

discussed.

you

have
any

question

about

matters

the

agenda,

requests

for

assistance,

please

contact

the

City

Clerk
at (818) 548-2090 during regular business hours.

PLEASE TURN OFF CELLULAR PHONES WHILE INSIDE THE MEETING LOCATION In

compliance

with

the

Americans

with

Disabilities

Act

(ADA)

1990,

auxiliary

hearing

aids,

sign
language

translation,

and

Braille

transcripts

are

available

upon

request.

Assisted

listening

devices
are

available

same-day

upon

request.

least

48 hours

(or

two

business

days)

notice

required

for
requests

regarding

sign

language

translation

and

Braille

transcription

services.

All

documents
related

open

session

items

this

agenda

that

are

received

less

than

72 hours

prior

this
meeting,

and

are

public

records,

will

available

for

review

the

Office

the

City

Clerk,

613

Broadway, RM 110, Glendale, CA 91206.

Translation

services

are

provided

for

meetings

through

the

use

bilingual

staff

for

speakers

who
wish

utilize

the

service

available.

Speakers

should

state

their

request

contacting

the

City
Clerk’s

office

(818)

548-2090,

least

24 hours

prior

the

scheduled

meeting.

Please

specify
the

language

for

which

you

require

translation.

The

exclusive

use

City

provided

interpreters

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

MARCH 7, 2023

ROLL CALL

1. CLOSED SESSION
– 1:00 PM ( To Commence at 2:00 PM)
a.

Conference with Legal Counsel - Pending Litigation: German Navarrete v. City of Glendale, et al., U.S.D.C. Case No. 2:22-cv-04372-SK

1 TYPED 3/6/2023 2:01:51 PM
03 07 23
CC

2. REGULAR BUSINESS AGENDA
– 6:00 PM
Roll Call
a.

Flag Salute: Mayor Ardy Kassakhian
b.

Invocation: Senior Pastor Todd Leonard of Glendale City Church c.

Report of City Clerk, re: Posting of Agenda. The Agenda for the March 7, 2023 Regular Meeting of the Glendale City Council was Posted on Wednesday, March 1, 2023, on the Bulletin Board Outside City Hall.

3. PRESENTATIONS AND APPOINTMENTS
a.

Agenda Preview for the Meetings of Tuesday, March 14, 2023 b.

Proclamation designating March 2023 as Women’s History Month and March 8, 2023 as International Women’s Day
c.

Appointment of Roland Kedikian to the Glendale Water and Power Commission (Devine, 02/07/23)
d.

Appointment of Daniel Paul to the Historic Preservation Commission (Brotman, 02/28/23)

City Clerk, re: Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of February 28, 2023 b.

Public Works, re: Plans and Specification for the Community Beautification Project

1. Resolution adopting the Plans and Specification for the Community Beautification Project, Specification No. 3849, and directing the City Clerk to Advertise for Bids c.

Libraries, Arts, and Culture, re: Acceptance of Grant Funds for eBooks For All

1. Motion accepting $40,000 in Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA) grant program funds from the California State Library‘s eBooks for All program; and authorizing the City Manager or a designee to execute all agreements, amendments, certifications, and documents necessary to accept and implement the funding

2. Resolution appropriating $40,000 from the California State Library‘s Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA) eBooks for All grant program as well as shifting $10,000 from the Library Fund for the 25% local match requirement d.

Public Works, re: Central Library Roof Replacement Project

1. Resolution adopting Plans and Specification No. 3942 for the Central Library Roof Replacement Project and directing the City Clerk to advertise for bids

5. CITY COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS

6. COMMUNITY EVENT ANNOUNCEMENTS (3-Minutes)

7. ADOPTION OF ORDINANCES
a.

City Attorney, re: ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE REMOVING SECTION 10.36.100 AND AMENDING SECTION 10.36.140 OF THE GLENDALE MUNICIPAL CODE, 1995, TO REMOVE PARKING PERMITS FOR

2 TYPED 3/6/2023 2:01:51 PM
03 07 23
CC

COMMERCIAL VEHICLES AND TO UPDATE PARKING PERMIT FEES FOR LARGE VEHICLES, BOATS, AND PERSONAL WATERCRAFT (Devine, 02/28/23)

1. Resolution amending the Citywide Fee Schedule to match provisions of Chapter 10.36 as amended

8. ACTION ITEMS
a.

Public Works, re: Fremont Park Renovation Project Bids, Specification 3624

1. Resolution rejecting all bids received on January 11, 2023, dispensing with competitive bidding and authorizing the Director of Public Works or his designee to negotiate a contract with one or more of the contractors that submitted bids

2. Motion Amending the Professional Services Agreement with David Volz Design Landscaping Architects, Inc., (DVD) increasing the contract in the amount of $149,596.00 for a new total not-to-exceed contract amount of $1,254,473.00 and extending the contract duration until the completion of the project

3. Motion Amending the Professional Services Agreement with Maestro Development, LLC (Maestro) increasing the contract in the amount of $190,000.00 for a new total not-to-exceed contract amount of $855,000.00 and extending the contract duration until the completion of the project
b.

Glendale Water and Power, re: Standardization of water meter boxes/vaults, covers, inserts, and related items for the enclosure of water meters as Armorcast Products Company (Armorcast)

1. Resolution adopting Armorcast as the City-standard for water meter boxes and vaults for the enclosure of water meters and dispense with competitive bidding for the procurement of water meter boxes, vaults, covers, inserts, and related items from Armorcast
c.

Glendale Water and Power, re: Amendment No. 4 to Professional Services Agreement (Contract No. 8000586) with NewGen Strategies and Solutions, LLC

1. Motion authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to execute Amendment No. 4 to the Professional Services Agreement (Contract No. 8000586) with NewGen Strategies and Solutions, LLC. to extend the agreement through December 31, 2023, and increase the contract amount by $148,300, plus a 10% contingency of $14,830 to a new not to exceed total of $347,800 to provide Complete Financial Forecast, Rate Recommendations and Cost of Service Analysis Model Update, and provide for subsequent development of optional "Op-Out" TOU Model and Rate Recommendations for future consideration
d.

Glendale Water and Power, re: Prepare a Request for Proposal using the Alternative Project Delivery Method for the Engineer-Procure-Construct of City-owned PV Solar Projects – Phase 1

1. Resolution authorizing the General Manager of GW P, or his designee, to prepare a Request for Proposal (RFP) using the Alternative Project Delivery Method for the Engineer-Procure-Construct (EPC) of Solar PV Systems at the following proposed project sites: 1) Glendale Sports Complex Parking Lot, 2) Montrose Parking Lot 3, 3) Utility Operations Parking Lot, 4) Brand Landfill, 5) Fire Station 21, 6) Glendale Central Library, 7) GWP Perkins Building, and 8) Dunsmore Park Parking Lot, and authorizing the City Clerk to solicit proposals

9. HEARINGS
a.

Community Development, re: Appeal of the Director of Community Development’s

3 TYPED 3/6/2023 2:01:51 PM
03 07 23
CC

determination related to Design Review Case No. PDR-000210-2022 and Environmental Information Form Case No. PEIF-000280-2022 that the preparation of an EIR is required to review and assess the proposed project that includes demolition of the existing stable and accessory buildings located at 1900 Riverside Drive in conjunction with the development of new kennel and stable buildings, a new corral, a new accessory building, and associated parking

1. Motion to sustain the CEQA determination made by the Director of Community Development to require an EIR

2. Motion to reverse the CEQA determination made by the Director of Community Development to require an EIR

10. REPORTS - INFORMATION

11. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS

12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Discussion is Limited to Items NOT a Part of this Agenda. Each Speaker is Allowed 5 minutes.

Council May Question or Respond to The Speaker But There Will be no Debate or Decision.

The City Manager May Refer the Matter to the Appropriate Department for Investigation and Report.

13. NEW BUSINESS

14. ADJOURNMENT

4 TYPED 3/6/2023 2:01:51 PM
03 07 23
CC

Whereas, the President of the United States has declared March as “Women’s History Month”;
Whereas, “International Women’s Day”, observed on March 8, is a global celebration commemorating the cultural, political, and socioeconomic achievement of women, and also serves to bring attention to issues such as gender equality and violence and abuse against women; Whereas, American women of every race, class, and ethnic background have made historic contributions to the growth and strength of our Nation in countless recorded and unrecorded ways;
Whereas, American women have played and continue to play critical economic, cultural, and social role in every sphere of the life of the Nation by constituting a significant portion of the labor force working inside and outside of the home;
Whereas, American women were particularly important in the establishment of early charitable, philanthropic, and cultural institutions in our Nation; Whereas, American women of every race, class, and ethnic background served as early leaders in the forefront of every major progressive social change movement; Whereas, American women have served our country courageously in the military; Whereas, American women have been leaders, not only in securing their own rights of suffrage and equal opportunity, but also in the abolitionist movement, the emancipation movement, the industrial labor movement, the civil rights movement, and other movements, especially the peace movement, which create a more fair and just society for all; and Whereas, despite these contributions, the role of American women in history has been consistently overlooked and undervalued, in the literature, teaching and study of American history; Now, therefore, I, Ardashes Ardy Kassakhian, Mayor of the City of Glendale, hereby proclaim the month of March as
Women’s History Month
and March 8, 2023, as “International Women’s Day” in Glendale. I call upon all residents of the City of Glendale to observe this month and to celebrate International Women’s Day.

Ardashes Ardy Kassakhian, Mayor
March 7, 2023
5 of 303

6 of 303

7 of 303

8 of 303

9 of 303

10 of 303

11 of 303

12 of 303

13 of 303

14 of 303

15 of 303

16 of 303

17 of 303

18 of 303

19 of 303

20 of 303

21 of 303

1 4A
Asatryan, Brotman, Devine, Najarian (pro tem)
None
Kassakhian
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

M I N U T E S

GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL

COUNCIL CHAMBERS
613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor Glendale, CA 91206
FEBRUARY 28, 2023
ROLL CALL – Absent: Kassakhian

1. CLOSED SESSION – 5:00 p.m.
a. Conference with Legal Counsel - Pending Litigation: Leeper v. City of Glendale, L.A.S.C. Case No. BC708092
b. Public Employment – Attorneys
City Attorney Mike Garcia indicated that action is anticipated. Council recessed to Closed Session at 5:01 p.m.

2. REGULAR BUSINESS AGENDA – 6:05 PM
Roll Call – Absent: Kassakhian
a. Flag Salute: Mayor Ardy Kassakhian
b. Invocation: Suzie Abajian, City Clerk
c. Report of City Clerk, re: Posting of Agenda. The Agenda for the February 28, 2023 Regular Meeting of the Glendale City Council was Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2023, on the Bulletin Board Outside City Hall.

3. PRESENTATIONS AND APPOINTMENTS
a. Agenda Preview for the Meetings of Tuesday, March 7, 2023 Asst. City Manager John Takhtalian provided the preview. b. Air Quality Updates Presentation by South Coast Air Quality Management District Governing Board Member Vice Chair-Elect Michael Cacciotti Public Comments:

Mike Mohill
Ramella Eraghi

4. CONSENT ITEMS (Including Minutes)
The following are Routine and May be Acted Upon by One Motion. Any Member of Council or the Audience Requesting Separate Consideration May do so by Making Such Request Before Motion is Proposed.
a. City Clerk, re: Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of February 7, 2023 and Regular City Council, Special City Council, and Joint City Council and Housing Authority Meetings of February 14, 2023
Moved: Brotman Seconded: Devine
22 of 303

2 Asatryan, Brotman, Devine, Najarian (pro tem)
None
Kassakhian
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Asatryan, Brotman, Devine, Najarian (pro tem)
None
Kassakhian
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
b. Fire Department, re: Funding from Hazard Mitigation Grant for Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update

1. Motion to approve to authorize the City Manager to accept Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HGMP) funds in the amount of $28,000, and to execute the necessary agreements, certifications, and other documents required to accept the grant funds
Moved: Brotman Seconded: Devine

2. Approve Resolution 23-17 of Appropriation
Moved: Brotman Seconded: Devine

5. CITY COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS
Councilmember Devine’s nomination of Roland Kedikian for GWP Commission will be placed on the City Council Agenda for March 7th. Devine announced that SoCal Gas has new programs to assist customers over 55 years old and who are struggling financially with their gas bills, using charitable donations of $10 million dollars ($5M will be used for gas assistance fund and administered by United Way, $4M will be used to relaunch the fuel and communities program to help relieve food insecurity by collaborating with local food banks, and $1M will be used to fund the Restaurant Care Resilience Fund, intended for small restaurant owners to help with improvements in their property, employee retention and to manage debt, losses, and rising costs). More information can be found on SoCal’s website at www.socalgas.com/managehigherbills.

Councilmember Asatryan announced it is International Woman’s Day on March 8, 2023, and a couple of events will take place that day. The Greater Downtown Glendale Association will be hosting an event at the MYA Rooftop from 2-5pm, tickets are available for purchase at www.downtownglendale.com. The Armenian Film Society is hosting a panel discussion on Armenian Women on Film and Entertainment at the Hero House @HyeRise at 7pm, tickets are available for purchase at https://www.herohouse.io/. Asatryan announced it is Employee Appreciation Day on March 3, 2023 and expressed her deepest gratitude to all city employees for doing their part, whether working remotely or here at City Hall.

Councilmember Brotman echoed Asatryan’s comments regarding city employees. He nominated Daniel Paul to the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). Brotman thanked Lorna Vartanian for her many years of service since she will be stepping down from the HPC after serving three terms. He asked staff to provide a report to reconsider how the city is defining major transit stop for the purposes of Assembly Bill 2097 authored by Assemblymember Friedman. Asatryan seconded.

City Manager Golanian announced that he received a letter from the California Department of Housing and Community Development that the City of Glendale’s adopted Housing Element is now in substantial compliance with the State Housing Element Law. He congratulated Council for the direction and adoption of the Housing Element back in 23 of 303

3 November 2022, as well as city staff from the Planning Division, especially Deputy Director Erik Krause, who spent many hours drafting and revising the housing element. He also thanked the city’s consultant Amanda Tropiano, principal with the De Novo Planning Group, for her expertise, professionalism, and tenacity for working together with a team of attorneys and for collaborating with the city’s Planning Division. Devine mentioned it is very rare these days that a city would receive this type of approval from the state. Golanian indicated a report came out yesterday that half of the municipalities in California are vulnerable and not close to having their Housing Element adopted.

Golanian expressed his deepest gratitude and appreciation to the crews of Public Works, Glendale Water and Power, Community Services and Parks, and Police and Fire Public Safety Personnel who worked tirelessly to mitigate the impacts of the recent storm events.

He stated that the City of Glendale was notified by LA DWP that two of their Rinaldi Air Way Lines were impacted: one of them experienced substantial damage due to the storm and had to bring the other one down to make emergency repairs. Since Glendale’s lines are between the two systems of LA PD’s grid, there was a great potential of a system failure, essentially cutting off the City’s electricity from this external power source. Golanian sent his gratitude and appreciation to the GWP crew for their quick action in keeping the lights on and trying to mitigate the storm’s impact that would have otherwise cut-off the power when LADWP’s lines were damaged.

6. COMMUNITY EVENT ANNOUNCEMENTS (3-Minutes)
Cathy Morfopoulos
Robert Hogg
Mike Mohill
Allen Dish
Gustavo Moreno

7. ADOPTION OF ORDINANCES
Agenda out of order. Item 8b read next.

8. ACTION ITEMS
a. City Attorney, re: Amendment to Glendale Municipal Code to Remove Commercial Parking Permits and to Update Parking Permit Fees for Large Vehicles, Boats, and Personal Watercraft

1. Introduction of Ordinance deleting Section 10.36.100 and amending Section

10.36.140 of the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995, to remove parking permits for commercial vehicles and to update parking permit fees for large vehicles, boats, and personal watercraft
Introduced by: Devine
b. Management Services, re: Potential Ban On The Use of Gas-Powered Landscaping Equipment or Two-Stroke Gas Engines
Staff Comments:

Roubik Golanian, City Manager
Bradley Calvert, Director of Community Development
Mike Garcia, City Attorney
24 of 303

4 Asatryan, Brotman, Devine, Najarian (pro tem)
None
Kassakhian
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Asatryan, Brotman, Devine, Najarian (pro tem)
None
Kassakhian
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Presenting:

Elizabeth Harris, Administrative Associate/Sustainability Michael Cacciotti, South Coast Air Quality Management District Public Comments:

Mike Mohill
Stephen Meek
Monica Campagna
Cathy Jurca
Don Labresh

1. Motion providing direction to staff regarding the scope of a potential ban on the use of gas-powered landscaping equipment or two-stroke gas engines and direction on ordinance enforcement
Moved: Devine Seconded: Brotman

9. HEARINGS

10. REPORTS – INFORMATION

11. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS

12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Discussion is Limited to Items NOT a Part of this Agenda. Each Speaker is Allowed 5 minutes. Council May Question or Respond to The Speaker But There Will be no Debate or Decision. The City Manager May Refer the Matter to the Appropriate Department for Investigation and Report.

Blair Stroh
Karen Kwak

13. NEW BUSINESS
a. Motion to enter into a retainer agreement to engage the services of Gutierrez, Preciado & House, LLP (Calvin House) to assist the City Attorney with a matter.

Moved: Brotman Seconded: Asatryan

14. ADJOURNMENT by Consensus – 8:17 p.m.

Mayor of the City of Glendale
City Clerk of the City of Glendale
25 of 303

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Plans and Specification for the Community Beautification Project 1) Resolution adopting the Plans and Specification for the Community Beautification Project, Specification No. 3849, Plan Nos. 1-3088, 1-3093, 1-3107, 3-1580, 3- 1585, 4-638, 4-641, 49-257, 50-694, 50-695; and directing the City Clerk to Advertise for Bids

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Consent Calendar
Approved for March 7, 2023 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The construction plans and specification have been completed for the pavement rehabilitation and capital improvements on Concord Street and adjacent streets and Acacia Avenue and adjacent streets. Staff respectfully asks City Council to adopt the project plans and specification and advertise for bids. 26 of 303

24b
3 9
9 7

COUNCIL PRIORITIES
Infrastructure: The capital improvements as part of this project will improve the roadway infrastructure, sewer capacity, storm drain infrastructure, and eliminate street flooding.

Mobility/Connectivity/Safety: This project will improve pedestrian and traffic safety, modernize the aging traffic signal infrastructure, and improve the use of several modes of transportation.

RECOMMENDATION
Approve the resolution adopting the Plans and Specification for the Community Beautification Project.

BACKGROUND
Street resurfacing involves the rehabilitation of existing street pavement that has deteriorated beyond normal maintenance work. It typically consists of the removal of the top 2-inches of existing Asphalt Concrete (AC) pavement, followed by either the placement of 1.5-inches of Asphalt Rubber Hot Mix (ARHM) pavement wearing surface over a 0.5-inch to variable thickness AC leveling course; or the placement of 2-inches of ARHM pavement wearing surface. This method of street resurfacing improves the ride of the roadway, the structural integrity of the pavement, and begins a new service life for the street.

Concord Street between Fairmont Avenue and Glenoaks Boulevard is an approximate

0.3-mile-long corridor. The roadway right-of-way on Concord Street, Patterson Avenue, Greydale Avenue, Fairmont Avenue, and Chester Street allow for one travel lane and an on-street parking lane in each direction. Acacia Avenue between Glendale Avenue and Chevy Chase Drive is an approximate 0.7-mile-long corridor. The roadway right-of- way on Acacia Avenue, Mariposa Street, and Boynton Street allow for one travel lane and an on-street parking lane in each direction.

There are signalized intersections at Concord Street and Fairmont Avenue and Glenoaks Boulevard; at Acacia Avenue and Glendale Avenue and Chevy Chase Drive; and at Boynton Street and Chevy Chase Drive.

Land uses along the project consist of a mix of single family and multi-family residential, with some retail/office use.

Concord Street runs perpendicular to the Glendale 134 Freeway and connects to Fairmont Avenue within a block of the freeway on and off ramps. The speed limit on Concord Avenue is posted at 30 mph. The speed limits on Patterson Avenue, Greydale Avenue, Fairmont Avenue, and Chester Street are posted at 15 mph. Fremont Park is a major destination adjacent to the project. Acacia Avenue runs east/west. The speed limits on Acacia Avenue, Mariposa Street, and Boynton Street are posted at 25 mph.

Fire Station No. 22, Horace Mann Elementary School, John Muir Elementary School, Theodore Roosevelt Middle School, Glendale Community College Garfield Campus, and Palmer Park are major destinations adjacent to the project. 27 of 303

34b
3 9
9 7
Project Location
The following capital improvements will be implemented as part of the project:

Street resurfacing at the following locations:
•Concord Street between Fairmont Avenue and Glenoaks Boulevard; •Patterson Avenue between Concord Street and Easterly Terminus; •Fairmont Avenue between Concord Street and Chester Street; •Chester Street between Fairmont Avenue and Patterson Avenue; •Greydale Avenue between Patterson Avenue and Northerly terminus; •Acacia Avenue between Glendale Avenue and Chevy Chase Drive; •Mariposa Street between Chevy Chase Drive and Acacia Avenue; and, •Boynton Street between Palmer Avenue and Acacia Avenue.

Sewer capacity improvements at the following locations:
•Concord Street between Burchett Street and Glenoaks Boulevard; and, •Acacia Avenue between Glendale Avenue and Mariposa Street Storm drain replacement at the following location:
•Concord Street between Fairmont Avenue and Patterson Avenue Storm drain installation at the following location:
•Acacia Avenue between Boynton Street and Adams Street
Pedestrian and traffic improvements at the following intersections:
•Concord Street and Patterson Avenue; and,
•Loraine Street and Columbus Avenue
Existing traffic signal modifications at the following intersections:
•Concord Street and Glenoaks Boulevard; and,
•Boynton Street and Chevy Chase Drive
Bicycle route (class III) with green shared roadway bicycle pavement marking (B-Type Sharrows) installations at the following location:
•Concord Street between Fairmont Avenue and Glenoaks Boulevard Drywell installations at the following locations:
•Acacia Avenue between Boynton Street and Adams Street; and, •Mariposa Street between Chevy Chase Drive and Acacia Avenue Project Scope of Work
•Surface grinding and placement of approximately 1.5 centerline miles of ARHM; •Surface grinding and placement of approximately 0.3 centerline miles of ARHM over Asphalt Rubber Aggregate Membrane (ARAM);
28 of 303

44b
3 9
9 7
•Selective removal, repair, and reconstruction of approximately 6,700 linear feet of damaged curbs and gutters, and 18,700 square feet of sidewalks, driveways, cross gutters, alley aprons, and bus pads;
•Modification and reconstruction of approximately 15 existing curb ramps to meet current ADA standards;
•Adjustment of existing manholes and water meters to finished grade; •Removal and replacement of existing traffic striping and pavement markings; •Installation of 3,000 linear feet of new bicycle route (class III) with green shared roadway bicycle pavement markings (B-Type Sharrows);
•Removal and replacement of 1,380 linear feet of sanitary sewer main line; •Removal and replacement of 230 linear feet of storm drain line; •Installation of 1,430 linear feet of storm drain line; •Construction of 4 catch basins;
•Construction of 7 manhole structures;
•Realignment of two intersections;
•Planting of 128 new street trees;
•Modification of existing traffic signals at two intersections; and, •Installation of two drywells.

Pavement Rehabilitation
Pavement Rehabilitation consists of the removal and replacement of the top two inches of roadway pavement using ARHM.

ARHM is composed of conventional asphalt concrete mixed with recycled tire rubber material. ARHM provides a longer service life than conventional asphalt concrete. It also provides a smoother and quieter ride while reducing the amount of scrap rubber tires buried in landfills.

ARAM is another structural pavement layer used in the pavement rehabilitation of this project. It is composed of asphalt emulsion and coarse aggregate coated with asphalt emulsion, where the asphalt emulsion is rubberized with recycled tire rubber material.

ARAM provides an extended service life to the existing asphalt concrete pavement by filling the pavement cracks with the flexible rubberized emulsion. ARAM is typically covered with either slurry seal or ARHM.

Conventional AC is also used for localized full depth pavement removal and replacement where required and will be used at localized areas that require the full pavement section to be repaired before the final asphalt wearing surface is installed.

Sanitary Sewer Improvements
As part of a City-wide wastewater infrastructure master plan, sections of deficient sanitary sewer lines are identified and recommended for capacity improvements.

Sanitary sewer capacity improvements as part of this project will consist of the removal of the surface pavement, supporting/protecting existing utilities, excavation to the depth below the existing sewer pipe, performing a temporary sewer bypass, replacement of existing sewer pipe with larger pipe size, reconnecting existing house connections, trench backfill, and finally, trench resurfacing.
29 of 303

54b
3 9
9 7
Storm Drain Improvements
Public Works field crews clean and inspect City-owned storm drain infrastructures on a rotational basis. As part of the cleaning process, the field crews report observed deficiencies, damages, and needed repairs to the Engineering Division. Moreover, storm drain deficiencies resulting in street flooding are reported to Public Works by residents during large storm events. Based on these reports, Public Works evaluates the damages and deficiencies, studies existing conditions, identifies remedies, and prepares the plans and specifications for these improvements for bid.

Storm drain improvements as part of this project include repairs to the existing storm drain infrastructure that is broken, damaged, and/or poses maintenance issues as well as installation of new storm drain lines where necessary. The improvements are as follows:

1. Pipe replacement consists of the removal of the surface pavement, supporting/protecting existing utilities, excavation to the depth below the existing storm drain pipe, replacement of damaged 18-inch corrugated metal pipe (CMP) with 18-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP), trench backfill, trench resurfacing, removal of the existing damaged catch basin, and construction of a new 14-foot curb opening catch basin.

2. New storm drain installation will consist of the removal of the surface pavement, supporting/protecting existing utilities, excavation to the depth below the proposed storm drain pipe, placement of new 18-inch RCP storm drain laterals and 24-inch RCP storm drain main line, trench backfill, trench resurfacing, and installation of new manholes and catch basins. This new storm drain line then connects to an existing County of Los Angeles storm drain line, and maintenance and operations will be transferred to the County once constructed.

Intersection Realignments
As part of any major CIP project, Public Works evaluates the existing intersection conditions to identify pedestrian mobility and safety improvements. To take advantage of economies of scale, Public Works includes realignment and improvements of previously identified deficient intersections to upcoming CIP projects.

Intersection realignments as part of this project include extending existing curb configurations, shortening crosswalk lengths, implementing all-way stop controlled intersections, installation of new ADA compliant curb ramps, and installation of new signing and striping.

Tree Plantings
A total of 128 new street trees will be planted in vacant locations to infill the street canopy and expand the urban forest as part of this project on the following streets:
30 of 303

64b
3 9
9 7
•23 trees on Concord Street between Fairmont Avenue and Glenoaks Boulevard; •7 trees on Patterson Avenue between Concord Street and Easterly Terminus; •2 trees on Chester Street between Fairmont Avenue and Patterson Avenue; •76 trees on Acacia Avenue between Glendale Avenue and Chevy Chase Drive; •6 trees on Mariposa Street between Chevy Chase Drive and Acacia Avenue; •13 trees on Boynton Street between Palmer Avenue and Acacia Avenue; and, •1 tree on Loraine Street near Columbus Avenue;
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
The proposed project includes improvements that will comply with current Federal ADA guidelines.

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

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

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

The construction of this project is anticipated to begin in July 2023, with major storm drain and sewer improvements scheduled for completion by November 2023 and the remaining street capital improvements scheduled for completion by March 2024.

Furthermore, the proposed improvements to the corridors consulted various master plans, programs, policies, and initiatives for recommendations and guidance, including, but not limited to the following:

Pavement Management Program
The corridor and adjacent side streets have been identified for replacement by the use of pavement overlay methods as part of the Pavement Management Program to preserve and extend the useful life of the roadway by optimizing available funds to meet the road network needs.

Citywide Pedestrian Plan
The corridors and adjacent streets are not currently identified in the Citywide Pedestrian Plan, however, the project was studied further and will implement various pedestrian safety improvements at two intersections, such as realigning the roadway to shorten crossing time and installing three new stop signs. The project will also comply with the latest ADA requirements; 15 existing curb ramps will be modified or reconstructed. 31 of 303

74b
3 9
9 7
Bicycle Transportation Plan
Concord Street between Fairmont Avenue and Glenoaks Boulevard is identified in the Glendale Bicycle Transportation Plan (BTP) as a future bike route (type III) with shared roadway bicycle markings. Staff further analyzed the roadway and recommended the installation of green shared roadway bicycle pavement markings (B-Type Sharrows) on Concord Street due to limited right-of-way. The BTP does not recommend the installation of any new bicycle infrastructure on any of the other streets as part of this project.

The approval to use green colored pavement is in accordance with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), and National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) guidelines. Colored pavement may be used to enhance the visibility of a shared lane markings and to further encourage desired lane positioning, and where bicyclists and other roadway traffic might have potentially conflicting weaving or crossing movements.

Green Streets Manual
Various green streets elements, such as bio-retention facilities were studied and will be implemented to capture and recharge the groundwater table. Concrete pavement areas that could be removed and replaced with landscape areas and expanding of tree wells were identified, and every opportunity to expand the urban forest was implemented.

Safe Routes to School Program
Horace Mann Elementary School is located on Acacia Avenue adjacent to Boynton Street. Fremont Park is located adjacent to Patterson Avenue between Greydale Drive and Kenilworth Avenue. To ensure safe walking paths, crosswalk improvements will be implemented as part of the project in the vicinity of the nearby schools and parks.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
The multi-modal benefits to the community include the following:
•More livable communities;
•Improved safety for all users;
•More walking and bicycling to improve public health;
•Increased transportation choices;
•Enhanced traffic flow along surface streets in the vicinity of the subject intersections;
•Reduced traffic delays, improved travel time, and consequently reduced fuel consumption and vehicle emissions;
•Greenhouse gas reduction and improved air quality;
•Less street flooding; and,
•Additional sewer capacity.

Approximately 5,318 notifications were sent to property owners and occupants along the project limits notifying them of the virtual community meeting on September 29, 2022. The in-person community meeting was held at the City Hall Council Chambers 32 of 303

84b
3 9
9 7
and was also broadcasted on the City’s YouTube channel. During the meeting, the public was informed of the project details, construction schedule, future City and contractor notifications, and the impacts of the construction work in their neighborhood.

Participants also had the opportunity to phone in and provide their comments and/or ask questions regarding the project.

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

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report. The engineer’s estimate for the construction of this project is between $6,300,000 and $7,000,000. Funding for this project has been budgeted from the Measure S CIP Fund (4011), State Gas Tax Fund (4020), Sewer fund (5250), and Water Depreciation Fund (5930).

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

Moreover, as part of this project, approximately 9,570 recycled tires will be diverted from the landfills and used in the Asphalt Concrete pavement treatment. An additional 304 tires will be diverted from the landfill and used in the ARAM pavement treatment.

Furthermore, conventional AC is composed of aggregate and emulsified liquid asphalt.

The aggregate is allowed to contain up to 20 percent recycled AC, which extends the life of both landfills and quarries. Finally, as part of this project, up to 182 tons of asphalt concrete will be diverted from the landfills and used in the roadway structures.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
Not Applicable

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Adopt the Plans and Specification for the Community Beautification Project and direct the City Clerk to advertise for bids.

Alternative 2: Do not authorize issuance of the Plans and Specification for the Community Beautification Project. Doing so, however, will not improve the condition of the city streets, sewer and storm drain systems, and pedestrian and traffic safety.

Alternative 3: The City Council may consider any other alternative not proposed by staff.
33 of 303

94b
3 9
9 7

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Viktoriya Pakhanyan, P.E., Civil Engineer II
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1: Project Location Map
34 of 303

104b
3 9
9 7
RESOLUTION NO. __________

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

ADOPTING THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATION FOR THE COMMUNITY
BEAUTIFICATION PROJECT, SPECIFICATION NO. 3849, PLAN NOS. 1-3088, 1- 3093, 1-3107, 3-1580, 3-1585, 4-638, 4-641, 49-257, 50-694, 50-695; AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS.

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

SECTION 1.The Plans and Specification on file in the City Clerk’s office for the Dunsmore Park Improvements Project including the various documents incorporated therein, are hereby approved, adopted, designated, and shall hereafter be known as Specification No. 3849, Plan Nos. 1-3088, 1-3093, 1-3107, 3-1580, 3-1585, 4-638, 4- 641, 49-257, 50-694, and 50-695.

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

Adopted this _____ day of ____________, 2023.
____________________________
Mayor, City of Glendale
ATTEST:
__________________________
City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )

CITY OF GLENDALE )
I, Suzie Abajian, City Clerk of the City of Glendale, certify that the foregoing Resolution No. _____________ was adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale, California, at a regular meeting held on the _____ day of _________________, 2023, the same was adopted by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain: ___________________________
City Clerk
35 of 303

7 9
8 5
RESOLUTION NO. __________

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

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

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

Adopted this _____ day of ____________, 2023.
____________________________
Mayor, City of Glendale
ATTEST:
__________________________
City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )

CITY OF GLENDALE )
I, Suzie Abajian, Ph.D., City Clerk of the City of Glendale, certify that the foregoing Resolution No. _____________ was adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale, California, at a regular meeting held on the _____ day of _________________, 2023, the same was adopted by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain: ___________________________
City Clerk
36 of 303

37 of 303

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Acceptance of Grant Funds for eBooks For All

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Consent Calendar
Approved for March 7, 2023 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The eBooks for All grant will expand access to eBooks in Glendale, particularly eBooks that are of high interest to the community, unavailable in other library platforms, and/or written in languages used in Glendale Unified School District’s language immersion programs.
38 of 303

24c
4 0
2 3

COUNCIL PRIORITIES
Not Applicable.

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council approve the Motion accepting $40,000 in Library Services and Technology Act grant funds from the California State Library to support eBooks for All and a Resolution appropriating the funds.

BACKGROUND
Glendale is a unique community of immigrants, making multilingual collections critical.

52.4% of Glendale residents were born outside the United States, with 78.2% from Asia (primarily immigrants from the Armenian diaspora and Korea) and 14.2% from Latin America. 67.3% of the population in Glendale speak a language other than English, and

32.8% speak English less than “very well.” (American Community Survey, 2020).

Primary languages spoken in Glendale include Armenian, Spanish, Korean, and Tagalog. In addition to collecting materials in these primary languages, Glendale Library Arts & Culture G(LAC) also collects materials in Farsi, Russian, Vietnamese, French, German, Italian, and Japanese to serve our multilingual community and provide support to Glendale Unified School District (GUSD) students. GUSD has a robust Dual Language Immersion program with Armenian, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Korean, and Spanish. The eBooks for All grant will utilize a large inventory of eBooks in Spanish, French, German, Italian and Japanese which will help meet these needs.

GLAC‘s circulation of eBooks is significant. In FY21-22, 782,662 uses of eBooks and other eCollections accounted for 51.4% of all library collections use. By continuing to invest in eCollections, LAC can better support community needs.

ANALYSIS
The eBooks for All in Glendale project will expand access to eBooks in Glendale and support statewide access. Through this grant, GLAC staff estimates it will be able to purchase 1,100 titles in the Palace Marketplace.

GLAC plans to focus collection development for the eBooks for All in Glendale project on a variety of existing needs including:
-High-interest materials that are likely to circulate with our community. -Global Language collections, including:
oMaterials for adults in Spanish to better serve our community. oMaterials for children and teens in the languages offered in Glendale Unified School District (GUSD) Dual Language Immersion programs and offered in the Palace Marketplace, including French, German, Italian, and Spanish.
-Titles that are written by diverse authors.
-Titles that patrons have checked out in other formats and platforms, and on 39 of 303

34c
4 0
2 3
related topics.
-High-interest Amazon Publishing titles that patrons have not had access to through the library before.

GLAC will promote use of the Palace app, which is the platform for the eBooks for All grant program, as the best way to access the largest selection of the library’s collection of eBooks in one place. The Palace app can aggregate collections from multiple existing eBook sources (CloudLibrary, etc.). We plan to promote the Palace App through a marketing campaign that will include staff training and targeted outreach and promotion to GUSD staff, teachers, students and families, as well as current and likely eBook readers.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
We will use circulation statistics to guide our collection development, as well as buy titles that will garner new eBook users. GLAC’s partnership with GUSD and the need to support youth in their dual-language immersion programs also informs this project. We plan to involve GUSD in marketing the Palace App as the best way to access the largest selection of the library’s collection of eBooks.

FISCAL IMPACT
The eBooks for All grant is for$40,000 with a 25% match of $10,000, for a total cost of $50,000. The Grant award of $40,000 was not included as a part of the FY 2022-23 budget whereas the $10,000 in matching funding is available in the Library Fund.

Therefore, staff is requesting for an appropriation of $40,000 from Federal Grant Revenue and a shift of $10,000 from the Library Fund. The appropriation requests are outlined below.

Requesting Appropriation
Amount From (Account
String)
To (Account String) Funding Source
$40,000 GL:
31240-2750-LAC-0020
-P0000
PL: LAC00955AG

GL:
45101-2750-LAC-0020
-P0000
PL: LAC00955AG
Federal Grant
Revenue
$10,000 GL:
43110-2750-LAC-0020
-P0000
PL: G51796
GL:
45101-2750-LAC-0020
-P0000
PL: LAC00955BG
Library Fund - State
Grant Revenue

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
Because no possibility exists that the activity in question (eBooks for All grant) may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA review under the common sense exemption set forth in 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15061(b)(3). 40 of 303

44c
4 0
2 3

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Adopt a Motion accepting $40,000 in California State Library funding; and authorizing the City Manager to execute all agreements, amendments, certifications, and documents necessary to accept and implement the funding, and a Resolution appropriating the funds as well as shifting $10,000 from the Library Fund for the 25% local match requirement.

Alternative 2:Decline to adopt a Motion and Resolution of Appropriation and, thus, forfeit the grant funding.

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

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Kristina Gerber, Library, Arts & Culture Administrative Manager Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
None.
41 of 303

MOTION
Moved by Council Member , seconded by
Council Member , that the City Council of the City of
Glendale hereby accepts Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA) grant program funds in the amount of $40,000 from the California State Library’s eBooks for All program; and authorizes the City Manager or his designee to execute all agreements, amendment, certifications, and documents necessary to accept and implement the funding.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
42 of 303

43 of 303

44 of 303

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Central Library Roof Replacement Project
1) Resolution adopting Plans and Specification No. 3942 for the Central Library Roof Replacement Project and directing the City Clerk to advertise for bids.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Consent Calendar
Approved for March 7, 2023 Calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Central Library Roof Replacement Project includes the removal of the existing roof system on the entire library (approx. 45,000sq.ft.) and installation of a new, engineered roof system with a 30-year warranty.

COUNCIL PRIORITIES
Infrastructure: A new roof system provides protection from elements, energy efficiency, a substate for photovoltaic installation, and preserves the facility for future generations.

RECOMMENDATION
Approve the Resolution Adopting Plans and Specifications for the Central Library Roof Replacement Project and direct the City Clerk to advertise for bids.

BACKGROUND
The Glendale Central Library underwent a substantial renovation in 2017 and the contractor failed to install the roof per the approved plans. In general, the installed roof did not have the required slope to move water toward the drain inlets. Since 2017, the roof has experienced several leaks that necessitates maintenance staff pump the standing water from the roof during each rainfall. The City subsequently filed a construction defect action against the contractor and its roofing subcontractor.

In November 2021, the City settled the roof claim against the contractor and roofing subcontractor, resulting in a net recovery to the City of approximately $2 million dollars.

On November 22, 2022, the City executed a contract with 19six Architects to design and engineer a new roofing system. In January 2023, staff consulted and coordinated the design with the Planning Division of CDD to meet the historical building requirements. 45 of 303

24d
3 9
7 7
Plans and engineering design have been submitted to Building and Safety for approval and permits are ready to be issued.

The scope of roof replacement includes the removal and reinstallation of all rooftop equipment and the existing roofing system. A new, fully tapered, roofing system will be installed. The new system will include a high reflectance surface meeting Title 24 regulations, a 30-year warranty, and will be coordinated with Glendale Water and Power to accept a photovoltaic system installed by a separate contractor once the roof system installation is completed.

The roofing work will be performed during regular business hours and will be phased to minimize impact to customers, staff, and traffic.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
To minimize any impact to the Central Library operations, Public Works and Library staff will coordinate with the contractor to phase the work.

FISCAL IMPACT
The Architect’s estimate for the Central Library Roof Replacement Project is $1,500,000.

Funding for this project has been budgeted in the Capital Improvement Fund (4010).

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project is Categorically Exempt under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines as a Class 31 (Historical Resource Restoration/ Rehabilitation) exemption pursuant to the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15331, which provides:

Class 31 consists of projects limited to maintenance, repair, stabilization, rehabilitation, restoration, preservation, conservation or reconstruction of historical resources in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (1995), Weeks and Grimmer.”

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
Not Applicable.

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Approve the Resolution adopting Plans and Specifications for the Central Library Roof Replacement Project and direct the City Clerk to advertise for bids.

Alternative 2: Do not approve the Resolution, in doing so would require Public Works Department to continue to commit resources to patch and repair the existing roofing systems as needed.

Alternative 3: Council may consider any other alternatives not proposed by staff. 46 of 303

34d
3 9
7 7

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Arthur Asaturyan, Project Manager
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS / ATTACHMENTS
None.
47 of 303

4d
RESOLUTION NO. __________

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA ADOPTING THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATION NO. 3942 FOR THE

CENTRAL LIBRARY ROOF REPLACEMENT PROJECT AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS.

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

SECTION 1.The specifications on file in the City Clerk’s office for the Central Library Roof Replacement Project including the various documents incorporated therein, are hereby approved, adopted, designated, and shall hereafter be known as Specification No. 3942.

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

Adopted this _____ day of ____________, 2023.
____________________________
Mayor, City of Glendale
ATTEST:
__________________________
City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )

CITY OF GLENDALE )
I, Suzie Abajian Ph.D., City Clerk of the City of Glendale, certify that the foregoing Resolution No. _____________ was Adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale, California, at a regular meeting held on the _____ day of _________________, 2023, the same was adopted by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
___________________________
City Clerk
48 of 303

7 7
6 3
ORDINANCE NO. ____________

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE REMOVING SECTION 10.36.100 AND AMENDING SECTION 10.36.140 OF THE GLENDALE MUNICIPAL CODE, 1995, TO REMOVE PARKING PERMITS FOR COMMERCIAL

VEHICLES AND TO UPDATE PARKING PERMIT FEES FOR LARGE VEHICLES,

BOATS, AND PERSONAL WATERCRAFT
WHEREAS , Glendale Municipal Code sections 10.36.100 and 10.36.140, establishing permit fees and procedures for commercial vehicles and large vehicles, respectively, are over 60 years old; and
WHEREAS , GMC provisions for commercial vehicle parking permits in section 10.36.100 have not been used in current staff’s memory; and WHEREAS , current provisions of GMC section 10.36.140 are in conflict with the Citywide Fee Schedule, specifically with regard to the permit fee for parking of large vehicles, boats, and personal watercraft; and
WHEREAS , confining specific fees to the Fee Schedule, which may be modified by resolution of the City Council, is a more efficient way to maintain such fees; and
WHEREAS , the City Council desires to remove permit provisions for commercial vehicles and amend the code to absolve the fee discrepancy and implement the more-efficient use of the Citywide Fee Schedule,

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

SECTION 1. Section 10.36.100 of the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995, is removed from the Code in its entirety.

SECTION 2. Section 10.36.140 of the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995, is amended to read as follows:

10.36.140 Parking of large vehicles, boats and personal watercraft—Permit.

A. A permit for the parking of large vehicles, boats or personal watercraft during the time prohibited under section 10.36.130 may be issued by the chief of police or the chief’s representative upon application thereof. Each application shall be filed with the chief of police or the chief’s representative upon a form to be furnished by the city and shall contain the following:
49 of 303

7 7
6 3

1. The name, residence and phone number of the applicant;

2. The license number, make, model and type of vehicle or craft for which the permit is requested;

3. The name and current address of the registered owner of said vehicle or craft;

4. The dates for which the permit is requested. Such dates shall consist of two (2) twenty-four (24) hour periods, to commence in all cases at 6:00 p.m. and to end in all cases at 6:00 p.m. the following day;

5. The application shall be accompanied by a fee of an amount to be established or modified by resolution of the City Council, which fee shall be nonrefundable;

6. Such additional information as the chief of police or the chief’s representative may require;

7. The application shall be signed by the applicant under penalty of perjury.

B. The chief of police or the chief’s representative shall issue a permit hereunder if upon investigation the chief of police determines that the health, safety and general welfare of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected thereby. Such permit shall be displayed on the driver’s side dashboard, windshield or instrument panel of the vehicle, boat or personal watercraft for which it is issued.

C. In no event may a permit be issued under this chapter more than once a month for the parking of the same vehicle.

SECTION 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after the date of its passage.

Adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale on the _______ day of ________, 2023. ______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
City Clerk
50 of 303

7 7
6 3

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) SS.

CITY OF GLENDALE )
I, Suzie Abajian, Ph.D., City Clerk of the City of Glendale, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale, California, at a regular meeting held on the _______ day of ________________, 2023, and that the same was adopted by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
____________________________
City Clerk
51 of 303

RESOLUTION NO. __________

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE

AMENDING THE CITY-WIDE FEE SCHEDULE FOR PARKING PERMIT FEES TO MATCH CORRESPONDING PROVISIONS OF THE GLENDALE MUNICIPAL CODE.

WHEREAS, Glendale Municipal Code, 1995, section 10.36.140 establishes permits for the parking of large vehicles, boats, and personal watercraft; WHEREAS, section 10.36.140 is being amended to reflect updated practices, including a reference to permit fees in the Citywide Fee Schedule; WHEREAS, section 10.36.140(A)(4) has limited issued permits to two consecutive 24-hour periods, a practice currently enforced by the Glendale Police Department in their issuance of these permits;
WHEREAS, the corresponding fee in the Citywide Fee Schedule mistakenly refers to the permit as having a duration of “3 Nights”; WHEREAS, the Council finds there is a need to adjust the Citywide fee schedule to match the standing provisions of the Glendale Municipal Code;

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

SECTION 1. The Service Title of the Citywide Fee Schedule, Chapter VI – Police, Section 1: Miscellaneous Police Fees, #29 shall be amended to state: “Oversized Vehicle” SECTION 2. Effective Date. This fee shall be amended and go into effect thirty (30) days after the date of this resolution.
52 of 303

Adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale on this _____ day of ________, 2023.

Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS

CITY OF GLENDALE )
I, Suzie Abajian, Ph.D., City Clerk of the City of Glendale, certify that the foregoing Resolution No._______________ was adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale, California, at a regular meeting held on the _____________ day of ______________, 2023, by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
________________________________
City Clerk
53 of 303

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Adoption of an Ordinance to Amend the Glendale Municipal Code to Remove Commercial Parking Permits and to Update Parking Permit Fees for Large Vehicles, Boats, and Personal Watercraft

1.Ordinance removing Section 10.36.100 and amending Section 10.36.140 of the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995, to remove parking permits for commercial vehicles and to update parking permit fees for large vehicles, boats, and personal watercraft

2.Resolution amending the Citywide Fee Schedule to match provisions of Chapter

10.36 as amended.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Ordinance
Approved for March 7, 2023 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Council adopted Glendale Municipal Code Sections 10.36.100 and 10.36.140 over 60 years ago, creating permits and establishing fees for the parking of commercial vehicles and large vehicles, respectively. Permits for parking of commercial vehicles have not been issued in modern memory. Permits for large vehicles, which now also include boats and personal watercraft, are still necessary but have obsolete fee amounts contained in the code itself. The proposed ordinance would amend both issues. 54 of 303

27a
4 0
1 0

COUNCIL PRIORITIES
N/A

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance and resolution to clean up the described obsolescence and fee discrepancy.

BACKGROUND
Over 60 years ago, the City introduced parking limitations for commercial vehicles and for large vehicles in residential districts. They also included permit processes and set fees for situations where such parking might be necessary. In 2002, boats and personal watercraft were included into the prohibitions and permitting for large vehicles.

The permit fee, according to the code, is $10. However, at some point a fee was added to the Citywide Fee Schedule for the same permit which currently stands at $50. Since the discrepancy has recently been noted by applicants, the Traffic Bureau of the Glendale Police Department has reverted to issuing permits for $10 as per code, but wishes to fix the discrepancy and modernize the fee, including an update to the better practice of referring to fees as set by resolution of the Council in the Fee Schedule.

Furthermore, upon reviewing the related code in this chapter, it was noted that permits for parking of commercial vehicles have not been issued in current staff's memory. Nor does current staff see any value in resuming the obsolete practice, and therefore recommends removal of the permit from the code.

ANALYSIS
Glendale PD's Traffic Bureau enforces portions of GMC Chapter 10.36 with regard to parking of commercial vehicles and parking of "large" vehicles in residential zones. ("Large" vehicles are defined as "any motor vehicle, house car, recreational vehicle, or trailer, which exceeds eight feet in width or eight feet in height or twenty-three feet in length," and the same permits and prohibitions extend to all boats and personal watercraft, whether on or off a trailer, as well.) The Bureau regularly cites for violations of GMC 10.36.090 (parking of commercial vehicles for over five hours without obvious service necessity) and GMC 10.36.130 (parking of large vehicles over two hours unless being used to complete a service or parking of boats or personal watercraft over two hours unless being loaded or unloaded).

In the late 1950s and early 1960s, the City adopted permit provisions alongside both of those prohibitions to allow for more extended parking at the discretion of the Chief of Police, with Glendale PD being the permit issuing authority in both cases. At some point between then and now, the details or use of those permitting provisions fell out of the notice of staff. Additionally, while the use of permits for parking of commercial vehicles has fallen out of use entirely, permits for parking of large vehicles, boats, and personal watercraft in residential zones have continued--though at some point the permit fee was added to the Citywide Fee Schedule without amending the corresponding code provision and currently stands at $50 in the Fee Schedule. In the last three years, the Traffic Bureau 55 of 303

37a
4 0
1 0
has issued between three and six such permits annually, mainly to accommodate the parking of RVs.

Upon recognition of these issues, staff has determined that there exists no modern need to keep or update the commercial parking permit. Staff also recognizes a continued modern need to issue large vehicle/boat/watercraft permits for residential zones.

However, noting the discrepancy between the Fee Schedule and the Municipal Code, staff recommends amending the code in favor of keeping the fee in the Schedule. This would represent a modern rate, more appropriately designed to compensate for corresponding administrative costs for permit issuance and enforcement. It would also make the permit fee more easily updateable by resolution of City Council--rather than the more onerous requirements of an ordinance such as this.

Together, the recommended changes would bring the code in line with what is already current practice.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
N/A

FISCAL IMPACT
Permit fees are intended to be fee-neutral, designed to accurately reflect the administrative costs for permit issuance and enforcement. Failure to adopt the proposed ordinance will compel the Traffic Bureau to issue large vehicle/boat/watercraft permits at the code-mandated cost of $10, which is well below the estimated costs associated, therefore creating an extremely small fiscal impact based on the number of permits issued annually. Adoption of the ordinance will return the permit fees to neutrality, negating any such impact.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
The proposed changes have no potential to result in any significant environmental impacts and are therefore exempt from environmental review. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3))

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Adopt the Ordinance and Resolution. This would update the Glendale Municipal Code to match current practice--removing parking permits for commercial vehicles and relegating fees for large vehicle/boat/watercraft parking permits to the Citywide Fee Schedule at a fee-neutral rate.

Alternative 2: Decline to Adopt the Ordinance and Resolution. Both permits would remain in their current state in the Glendale Municipal Code and the PD Traffic Bureau would necessarily issue large vehicle/boat/watercraft parking permits at the insufficient, code- mandated rate.
56 of 303

47a
4 0
1 0
Alternative 3: The City Council may consider any other alternative not proposed by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

David Ligtenberg, Assistant City Attorney
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
57 of 303

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Fremont Park Renovation Project Bids

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action Calendar
Approved for March 7, 2023 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Fremont Park Renovation Project has been in the design, approval, and procurement phases for several years due to the evaluation of various design elements, funding, and permitting. The city received bids for the Fremont Renovations Project on January 11, 2023, however, due to various issues with bidder responsiveness and four of the five bids being over the anticipated engineer’s estimate for the Project, staff recommends all bids should be rejected.

The Public Works Department is managing the procurement process and believes that the five contractors that submitted bids are viable contractors to perform the Fremont renovations. The Public Works Department proposes to negotiate with one or more of the bidders to achieve a conforming bid and best value pricing. 58 of 303

28a
3 9
9 6

COUNCIL PRIORITIES
Infrastructure: Add new park amenities and improve accessibility, functionality, safety, and reliability of park features. Improve 35-year-old features to current codes, regulations, functionality, energy efficiency, and conservation.

RECOMMENDATION
Approve the Resolution rejecting all bids received, dispense with competitive bidding and authorizing the Director of Public Works or his designee to negotiate a contract with one or more of the contractors submitting bids, approve the Motion amending the Professional Services Agreements with DVD and Maestro.

BACKGROUND
Fremont Park, approximately 7.9 acres in size, is located adjacent to the Glenwood and Vineyard Neighborhoods south of Glenoaks Boulevard and west of Pacific Avenue. It is one of the oldest neighborhood parks in the city created in 1922 and has numerous heavily used amenities including: 8 tennis courts, children’s play equipment, a wading pool, a basketball half-court, a sand volleyball court, open fields, a rose garden, and numerous picnic areas clustered under the park’s mature trees.

The park is extensively used for both active and passive recreation. Picnic areas are frequently used by patrons on weekdays as well as on weekends. The children’s play area is heavily used daily. The wading pool is reserved on weekends extensively during the summer. The basketball half-court is used throughout the day for pick-up games by multiple age groups. In addition, the open field areas are regularly used for soccer games.

In July 2016, City Council approved a motion authorizing the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement with DVD for the preparation of design and construction documents for the Fremont Park Renovation Project. To date, DVD has completed the preparation of the project construction documents. Staff has obtained Los Angeles County Health Department approvals. Building and Safety has initialed the project plans as complete and ready for permits to be issued.

On October 5, 2021, City Council authorized a Professional Services Agreement for Construction Management Services with Maestro.

The Fremont Renovation Project construction duration is estimated at 18-months during which time the entire park will be closed to expedite the work and to keep the public safe from the construction activities.

ANALYSIS
The City has a Professional Services Agreement with DVD for professional design services for the Fremont Park Renovation Project. This agreement has been in place since 2016 and additional design services are needed to transition this project to the construction phase. Staff recommends increasing the amount of Agreement C106224 with DVD to provide additional plan updates, bidding support, and construction administration in the amount of $149,596, for a new total not-to-exceed contract amount 59 of 303

38a
3 9
9 6
of $1,254,472 and extend the agreement to the end of the project duration which is projected to be June 30, 2025.

The City has a Professional Services Agreement with Maestro, for professional construction management services for the Fremont Park Renovation Project. Staff recommends extending the agreement 8001517 with Maestro to include additional bidding support and required 3rd-party inspections and testing in the amount of $190,000, for a new total not-to-exceed contract amount of $855,000 extend the agreement to the end of the project duration, which is projected to be June 30, 2025.

On October 8, 2019, City Council approved a resolution adopting plans and Specification 3624 and directed the City Clerk to advertise for bids. The Public Works Department hosted a job walk on February 21, 2021, and 18 contractors attended. This procurement process was cancelled due to the turf field materials evaluation that was completed in June 2022 with the final determination made to include Shaw brand artificial turf materials into the project specifications.

On October 10 and 17, 2022, the project was re-advertised and a job walk was hosted by the Public Works Department on November 2, 2022, and 12 contractors attended.

On January 11, 2023, the city received five bids. During the evaluation of bids, three separate bid protests were filed. Upon thorough review of all bids received, all the bids were non-responsive, including that of the apparent low bidder and four of the bids exceeded the engineer’s estimate.

On January 11, 2023, the following five bids were received. The anticipated bid estimate is approximately $18,000,000:

Contractor Bid Amount
Dorado Design and Construction, Inc. $16,712,240
ARC Construction, Inc. $21,850,000
Ohno Construction Company $23,750,000
Masters Contracting Corp. $28,076,000
LA Engineering, Inc. $29,550,000
While each of the five bids had various technical issues including subcontractor listings, federal funding documentation, and bid line-item amounts, the five contractors are reputable, capable, qualified, and several have performed successfully for the city on past projects.
60 of 303

48a
3 9
9 6
Due to the current momentum and various factors including competition, construction pricing, permitting, and project budget, the Public Works Department recommends negotiating with one or more of the contractors that submitted bids on January 11, 2023.

Negotiating a bid price would expedite the initiation of the construction phase as opposed to updating plans and specifications and rebidding, allow for further value engineering of project elements, preserve the designs and permitting already approved, provide the best price for the work, and ensure a conforming bid and contract.

Article VI, Section 9 of the City Charter authorizes City Council to dispense with competitive bidding and have the contract negotiated without further bidding if it is in the best interest of the City to do so.

Staff believes that a collaborative negotiation with one or more firms that submitted bids would allow the contractor(s) to better understand the unique project requirements and eliminate excessive contingencies that the contractor(s) may have included in their bid.

In addition, it is staff’s expectation that a negotiated bid will provide further opportunities for value engineering which will essentially allow for the best project at the lowest overall cost. Any firm recommended for a contract as a result of negotiations would have to meet all bidding requirements as defined in the initial Invitation for Bids.

Following successful negotiations, staff will return to the City Council with a recommendation to award a construction contract and approve a resolution of appropriation to provide adequate funding for this project.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
As part of the master planning and conceptual design process, two community meetings were held to engage the community and find out what they would like to see as part of the master plan. The first meeting was held on Saturday, April 11, 2015. About 50 participants took a walking tour of the park and then broke out into small groups and acted as landscape architects for a day by preparing initial planning maps that explored ideas for the park’s renovation. At the end of the exercise, each group was asked to present their plans and explain what they would like to see added/changed/kept the same in the park. There was also a questionnaire provided for the attendees to provide written feedback. DVD gathered all the feedback from the community meeting and the written responses, reviewed the feedback with CSP staff, and prepared three different master plan conceptual designs which were shared with the community at the second community meeting.

The second meeting was held on Wednesday, May 27, 2015 when about 50 community members attended to review the three versions of conceptual master plans for the park. DVD presented each plan and explained the features. At the end of the presentation, DVD asked for a show of hands as to which plan the attendees favored and the majority of the attendees favored Schematic B which is the plan recommended for Council review and approval, with minor adjustments to address further feedback received from the community and/or city departments such as the Police Department. 61 of 303

58a
3 9
9 6
After this extensive community outreach process, the final master plan was prepared and presented to the Parks Recreation and Community Services Commission on November 16, 2015 and with their recommendation to take to City Council for approval.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with rejecting all bids, dispensing with competitive bidding and authorizing staff to negotiate a contract with one or more of the bidders.

The Architects original estimate from October 2019 for the construction phase of the Fremont Park Renovation Project is $15,000,000 to $16,000,000; however, based on the current market and materials and labor inflation, the revised estimate is $18,000,000. Funding for this project is budgeted in the Capital Improvement Fund (4010), Park Mitigation Fee Fund (4050) and Community Development Block Grant Fund (2010); however, additional funding will have to be appropriated at construction contract award to adequately fund the project construction phase.

The professional project design services amendment with DVD and professional construction services amendment with Maestro will cost $339,596. The approved project funding has the available budget to absorb this cost and therefore no new appropriation is being requested at this time. The City Council approved funding is outlined below:

Existing Appropriation
Amount Account String Funding Source
$1,682,731 GL: 51200-4010-CSP-0020-P0000-
PL: 51873 Capital Improvement Fund
$5,448,041 GL: 51200-4050-CSP-0020-P0000-
PL: 51873 Park Mitigation Fee fund

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
This project is Categorically Exempt under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a Class 2 exemption pursuant state CEQA Guidelines, Section 15302.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
In accordance with the City Campaign Finance Ordinance, the following are 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 10% interest or more in the firm proposed for contract in this Agenda Item Report:

David Volz Design Landscaping Architects, Inc. (DVD)
62 of 303

68a
3 9
9 6
Full Name Title Business
Address
City State Zip
David Volz Chief Executive
Officer/President
151 Kalmus Drive
No M8
Costa Mesa CA 92626
Maestro Development, LLC (Maestro)
Full Name Title Business
Address
City State Zip
Nareg
Mouradian
North American
President/CEO
555 West 5 th St.

Fl. 35
Los Angeles CA 90013
Twining, Inc. (subconsultant of Maestro)
Full Name Title Business
Address
City State Zip
Edward M.

Twining Jr.

Chairperson 2883 East Spring
St. Ste. 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Robert
Ryan
CEO/President
Linas Vitkus COO
Robert
Hathaway
CFO
N/A Board of
Directors
Edward M.

Twining Jr.

More than 10%
interest owner

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Approve the Resolution rejecting all bids, dispensing with competitive bidding and authorizing the Director of Public Works or his designee to negotiate a contract with one or more of the contractors that submitted bids, and approve the Motions amending the PSAs with DVD and Maestro Alternative 2: Re-bid the project. Rebidding would cause significant delays due to updating the plans and specifications, and a new procurement process.

Alternative 3: Do not approve the recommended Motions. Parks and Public Works Departments will continue to maintain the playground and features and keep them in service for as long as possible.

Alternative 4: Consider any other alternative not proposed by staff. 63 of 303

78a
3 9
9 6

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Kevin Todd, Assistant Director of Public Works
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
N/A
64 of 303

C:\inetpub\wwwroot\multitenant\temp\CC_03072023_RESOLUTION_8A1.pdf RESOLUTION NO. __________

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

REJECTING ALL BIDS, DISPENSING WITH COMPETITIVE BIDDING AND AUTHORIZING

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS OR DESIGNEE TO NEGOTIATE WITH ONE OR

MORE BIDDERS THAT SUBMITTED BIDS FOR THE FREMONT PARK RENOVATION PROJECT, SPECIFICATION NO. 3624R, IN ORDER TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION FOR

AWARD OF A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
WHEREAS, on October 8, 2019, the Council adopted Resolution No. 19-135, adopting plans and specifications for the Fremont Park Renovation Project, Specification No. 3624; and WHEREAS, the original procurement was cancelled due to an evaluation of the turf field materials for the Project, wherein a final determination was made to use Shaw artificial turf materials; and
WHEREAS, the Project was re-advertised following revision of the specifications to include Shaw artificial turf materials; and
WHEREAS, a job walk was hosted by the Public Works Department on November 2, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the Public Works Department received 5 bids for the Project by the January 11, 2023 deadline; and
WHEREAS, a detailed review of the bids revealed that all bids were non-responsive, including that of the apparent low bidder; and
WHEREAS, four of the five bids exceeded the City’s anticipated engineer’s estimate for the Project;
WHEREAS, Public Works Department staff believes that a collaborative negotiation with one or more firms that submitted bids would allow the contractor(s) to better understand the project requirements and eliminate excessive contingencies that the contractor(s) may have included in their original bid; and
WHEREAS, with any delay, the City risks stalling the current momentum and various project factors including competition, construction pricing, permitting, and project budget; and WHEREAS, negotiating a bid price would expedite the initiation of the construction phase as opposed to updating plans and specifications and rebidding, allow for further value engineering of project elements, preserve the designs and permitting already approved, provide the best price for the work, and would ensure a conforming bid and contract; and WHEREAS, Glendale City Charter, Article VI, Sec. 9 provides an exemption to competitive bidding where the Council determines it is in the best interest of the City to dispense with competitive bidding; and
WHEREAS, the Project has significant momentum due to City Council support, investment of staff resources, execution of support contracts, and project expenditures to date and in order to maintain the progress of the project, and obtain the best contractor, materials and labor during a time when contractors, labor and materials are becoming increasingly in higher demand, and staff believes it is in the City’s best interest to dispense with competitive bidding, reject all bids and negotiate with one or both of the bidders that submitted bids on January 11, 2023, in the effort to execute a contract within the City’s financial resources. 65 of 303

C:\inetpub\wwwroot\multitenant\temp\CC_03072023_RESOLUTION_8A1.pdf

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

Section 1. The foregoing facts are deemed to be true and correct, and are a basis for rejecting the bids, dispensing with competitive bidding, and authorizing the Director of Public Works or his designee to directly negotiate with one or more bidders that submitted bids.

Section 2. The Council hereby:

A. Rejects all bids for the Project;
B. Dispenses with competitive bidding; and
C. Authorizes the Director of Public Works or his designee to directly negotiate with one or more firms that submitted bids in order to recommend a construction contract within the City’s resources.

Adopted this _____ day of ____________, 2023.
____________________________
Mayor, City of Glendale
ATTEST:
__________________________
City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )

CITY OF GLENDALE )
I, Suzie Abajian, Ph.D., City Clerk of the City of Glendale, certify that the foregoing Resolution No. _____________ was Adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale, California, at a regular meeting held on the _____ day of _________________, 2023, the same was adopted by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
___________________________
City Clerk
66 of 303

C:\inetpub\wwwroot\multitenant\temp\CC_03072023_RESOLUTION_8A1.pdf 67 of 303

8 0
5 6
MOTION
Moved by Council Member _______________________________________, seconded by Council Member _______________________________________, that the City Manager or his designee is authorized to execute an Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement (C105818) with David Volz Landscaping Architects, Inc., in the amount of $149,596, to provide additional design services, plan updates, bidding support and construction administration, for a new not-to-exceed amount of $1,254,472, and to extend the term of the contract until completion of the Fremont Park Renovation Project, Specification No. 3624R, in a form approved by the City Attorney.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
68 of 303

8 0
5 6
MOTION
Moved by Council Member _______________________________________, seconded by Council Member _______________________________________, that the City Manager or his designee is authorized to execute an Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement (C800151) with Maestro Development, LLC, in the amount of $190,000, to provide additional bidding support and third party inspection and testing services, for a new not-to-exceed amount of $855,000, and to extend the term of the contract until completion of the Fremont Park Renovation Project, Specification No. 3624R, in a form approved by the City Attorney.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
69 of 303

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Standardization of water meter boxes/vaults, covers, inserts, and related items for the enclosure of water meters as Armorcast Products Company (Armorcast).

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action
Approved for March 7, 2023 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
GWP Water Division regularly purchases meter boxes and related items for the enclosure of water meters. Armorcast boxes have been used exclusively by the Water Division for over ten years as they are the only boxes/vaults that adequately meet the City’s needs. Therefore, standardization to Armorcast for water meter boxes/vaults, covers, inserts, and related items for the enclosure of water meters is justified.

COUNCIL PRIORITIES
Infrastructure: Aging infrastructure in the City’s water system is replaced or rehabilitated on a planned and ongoing basis. Meter boxes are regularly replaced when they are broken or past their useful life. In addition to housing the City’s water meters, meter box and meter box lid replacements help protect residents from trips and falls in or on broken and damaged meter boxes and lids.

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council approve a Resolution authorizing standardization to Armorcast for water meter boxes, vaults, covers, inserts, and related items for the next ten years, to dispense with competitive bidding, and to authorize the procurement of meter boxes/vaults for the enclosure of water meters dependent on need and within the budget amounts approved by the City Council during the annual budgeting process.
70 of 303

28b
3 9
8 8

BACKGROUND
GWP Water Division typically purchases over 300 meter boxes, vaults, covers, and vault related items each year. Armorcast products have been purchased exclusively for over ten years as they have the flexibility, durability, quality, and affordability that meets the City’s needs. Making boxes in a variety of materials, unlike other providers, Armorcast supplies concrete, polymer, and fiberglass boxes and vaults that provide the flexibility required by staff. Locally manufactured, Armorcast can readily supply customized vaults (specialized punchouts or size) that are required for certain locations. In addition, other vendors materials would not be compatible with meter boxes/vaults and related items that are already installed, which would make repairs and replacements difficult and work currently in progress could not be completed with incompatible materials. Finally, current means and methods would have to change to adapt and conform to another product, which would create inefficiencies.

ANALYSIS
Armorcast meter boxes and vaults have been used exclusively by GWP for over ten years due to their superior quality and to due to the need for compatibility amongst boxes.

The City of Glendale Purchasing Policy promotes the standardization of commonly used items, vehicles, and equipment. This process will eliminate repetitive future approvals by the City Council for similar equipment. Standardized items need to be reviewed by the Departments at least every five years and need to be approved by City Council at least every ten years.

If the City Council approves the proposed Resolution adopting Armorcast as the City’s standard for meter boxes and vaults and to dispense with competitive bidding, the Deputy Director of Finance, Purchasing will be authorized to proceed with the purchase of the meter boxes and vaults included in the budget.

The proposed standardization of meter boxes, vaults, and related items to Armorcast for ten years does not necessarily entail a long-term commitment to Armorcast for further purchases. The proposed action is merely a standardization policy authorizing City staff to procure these specific items from Armorcast, without competitive bidding.

Each equipment procurement will be handled separately under separate contracts with Armorcast. For example, the Fiscal Year 2022-23 budget includes an amount for the operation and maintenance for the Water Distribution Section. If the Glendale City Council approves the proposed standardization policy, staff will pursue a purchase order.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Not applicable.
71 of 303

38b
3 9
8 8

FISCAL IMPACT
The GWP Water Division is expected to spend approximately $50,000 for the remainder of the fiscal year which was approved as part of the FY2022-2023 budget. No new appropriation is being requested at this time.

The City Council approved funding is outlined below:

Existing Appropriation
Amount Account String Funding Source
$124,085 GL:45350-5920-GWP-4710-P0000- Water Works Revenue Fund

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
This item is considered a ministerial activity and therefore, not subject to CEQA review

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
In accordance with the City Campaign Finance Ordinance No. 5744, the following are 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 ten percent interest in the company proposed for contract in this agenda item report.

Full Name Title Business
Address
City State Zip
Paul Boghossian President 9410 Lurline
Avenue
Chatsworth CA 91311
Brooke Garza CEO 9410 Lurline
Avenue
Chatsworth CA 91311
David Howard Corporate
VP
9410 Lurline
Avenue
Chatsworth CA 91311

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Approve the Resolution for the standardization of meter boxes/vaults from Armorcast, to dispense with competitive bidding, and authorize the procurement of meter boxes/vaults, covers, inserts, and related items for the enclosure of water meters to Armorcast Products Company.

Alternative 2: Not approve the recommended Resolution. GWP will continue to pursue multi-year sole source contracts with Armorcast.

Alternative 3: Consider any other alternative not proposed by staff. 72 of 303

48b
3 9
8 8

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

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

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
None.
73 of 303

1 RESOLUTION NO. ________

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

ESTABLISHING STANDARDIZATION OF WATER METER BOXES AND

VAULTS FOR THE ENCLSOURE OF WATER METERS, DISPENSING WITH

COMPETITIVE BIDDING AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF

ARMORCAST PRODUCTS COMPANY WATER METER BOXES AND

VAULTS FROM ARMORCAST PRODUCTS COMPANY
WHEREAS, Glendale Water and Power Department (“GWP”) replaces or rehabilitates, on a planned and ongoing bases, its water meter boxes and related facilities in order to provide its customers with reliable service; and WHEREAS, GWP typically purchases over 300 water meter boxes, vaults, covers, and vault related items each year for the maintenance of its water meter throughout the City of Glendale (“City”); and
WHEREAS, for over the last ten years, GWP has been purchasing said water meter boxes, vaults, covers and vault related items exclusively from Armorcast Products Company (“Armorcast”) because Armorcast products have the flexibility, durability, quality, and affordability that meets the City’s needs; and WHEREAS, because Armorcast products are locally manufactures, Armorcast can readily supply customized vaults that are required for certain locations in the City; and
WHEREAS, other vendors’ materials would not be compatible with GWP meter boxes/vaults and related items which are already installed, which would make repairs and replacement difficult and which would hinder the completion of work currently in progress; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it is in the best interests of the City to dispense with competitive bidding, and to authorize the Purchasing Administrator to execute a purchase order contract for said meter boxes, vaults, covers, and vault related items.

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

1. That, the City Council hereby approves the standardization of Armorcast Products Company (“Armorcast”) water meter boxes, vaults, covers, inserts and related items for the enclosure of water meters ensure Glendale Water & Power (“GWP”) customers are provided with optimal municipal water service.

2. That, the determination to standardize the herein-subject Armorcast products will be reviewed by GWP and Purchasing Division at least every five years, and GWP will seek approval from the City Council at least every ten years. 74 of 303

2 3. That, Armorcast is the only available manufacturer and distributer of water meter boxes, vaults, covers, inserts and related items as specified under this Standardization, at the scale needed by GWP.

4. That, the foregoing facts are deemed to be true and correct and a basis for dispensing with competitive bidding and that the City Council finds that it is in the best interests of the City to dispense with competitive bidding.

5. That, the City’s Deputy Director of Finance, Purchasing is hereby authorized to procure water meter boxes, vaults, covers, inserts and related items from Armorcast as long as the budget is available.

Adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale on this ___ day of _________, 2023.
________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS.

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I, Suzie Abajian Ph.D., City Clerk of the City of Glendale, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. _______________ was adopted by a majority vote of the Council of the City of Glendale, California, at a regular meeting held on the ______ day of ______________________, 2023, and that the same was adopted by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
________________________
City Clerk
75 of 303

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Amendment No. 4 to Professional Services Agreement (Contract No. 8000586) with NewGen Strategies and Solutions, LLC.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Consent Calendar
Approved for March 7, 2023 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Glendale Water and Power (GWP) utilizes the services of NewGen Strategies and Solutions, LLC. (NewGen) for the development of a long-term financial forecasts and revenue requirement, and Cost of Service Analysis (COSA). In July 2023, GWP anticipates the need to issue bonds for at least $600 million to fund the Grayson Repower and Scholl Canyon Biogas projects. Completion of a new COSA is highly recommended by our financial advisor prior to the issuance of these, if the City is to receive the highest possible bond rating thereby lowering the cost of borrowing. GWP’s contract with NewGen needs to be extended and additional funds are needed to complete the new COSA.

COUNCIL PRIORITIES
Not Applicable.

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 4 to the Professional Services Agreement with NewGen adding $148,300 plus a 10 percent contingency to the existing contract, and extending the agreement through December 31, 2023.
76 of 303

28c
4 0
0 7

BACKGROUND
On July 1, 2019, GWP entered into an agreement with NewGen to provide services including but not limited to Electric Utility Financial Modeling Rate Support, and Distributed Energy Rate Making (collectively, “the Services”) for Glendale Water & Power (the Agreement) for an amount not to exceed $49,500. This work primarily focused on estimating the rate impacts from the proposed Franklin Energy Demand Response, Lime Energy (now Willdan) Commercial Direct Install Energy Efficiency, and Sunrun Virtual Power Plant programs.

On or about July 14, 2020, City and NewGen executed Amendment No. 1 to extend the term of the Agreement to June 30, 2021.

In October 2020, GWP and NewGen presented preliminary rate impact findings for the proposed Franklin, Lime, and Sunrun clean energy programs to City Council based on the 2018 COSA model. Due to changes in the assumptions that informed the 2018 COSA model, including COVID-19, and lower than expected energy sales and demand charges, GWP recommended that a new detailed COSA be prepared to refine the estimate and develop a rate plan to fund the programs. Based on this recommendation, City Council authorized the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 2 to the NewGen Agreement to increase the not-to-exceed Agreement amount by $150,000 to $199,500 and to extend the Agreement to December 31, 2021.

In February 2022, Amendment No. 3 was executed to extend the Agreement for an additional term of six months through June 30, 2022. At the same time, updates to the COSA model were substantially completed, and results for various scenarios were presented to City Council. At the meeting, among other things, City Council directed that GWP proceed with developing an Electric COSA for "Base Case plus Scenarios 1 and 2", as presented, provided that Scenario 2 would be modified based on the final cost of the proposed Sunrun Virtual Power Plant Project.

From February to December 2022, several issues further delayed the finalization of the new COSA. On March 2, 2022, City Council adopted a resolution that, in part, put the scope and cost of the final Grayson Repowering project on hold until the end of 2022.

During the delay, negotiations with Sunrun broke down and they withdrew from a proposed virtual powerplant project. Additionally, ongoing supply chain issues and inflation increases put upward pressure on Grayson Repower and Scholl Canyon Biogas project costs. Finally, increased interest rates resulted in higher projected bond costs. All these issues are requiring significant changes to the COSA model in preparation of issuing bonds for the Grayson Repowering and the Biogas Renewable Generation projects and, in turn, the need to extend and add funds to the NewGen contract.
77 of 303

38c
4 0
0 7

ANALYSIS
GWP utilizes the services of NewGen for the development of a long-term financial forecasts and revenue requirement, towards the development of a COSA. GWP is anticipating the need to borrow as much as $600 million to fund the Grayson Repower and the Biogas Renewable Generation projects, in July 2023. Completion of a new COSA and adoption of a new 5-year rate plan is highly recommended by PFM, the City’s financial advisor for bond issuance, prior to the issuance of bonds to fund the Grayson Repower and Biogas Renewable Generation projects if the City is to receive the highest possible bond rating hereby lowering the cost of borrowing. GWP’s contract with NewGen needs to be extended, and additional funds are needed to complete the new COSA. NewGen proposes the following scope of work to complete the COSA:

Tasks Description Completion
Date Est. Cost
Complete Financial Forecast, Rate Recommendations
and COSA Model Update 3/31/2023 32,700$
-10 Year Financial Forecast for debt and rate
recommendations and scenario planning
-Cost of service results for each customer class
Standard and Existing Classes Rate Design and Special
Rates 4/21/2023 20,900$
-Recommended rates and charges for all existing
customer classes
-Design of new and refinement of existing special
rates such as EV rates, Feed in Tariffs, and Stand-by
rates
Participation in Three Community Meetings TBD 16,900$
-Attendance and presentation of COSA and rate
recommendations at up to three community or
public meetings
GWP Commission Meeting 5/1/2023 7,800$
-Attendance and presentation of COSA and rate
recommendations at GWP Commission meeting and
recommendation
COSA Report - Final 5/23/2023 10,300$
-Report documenting COSA process, results and
rate recommendations
Council Meeting 5/23/2023 7,800$
-Attendance and presentation of COSA results and
rate recommendations at a City Council Meeting for
review and approval
Subtotal 96,400$
1 2
5 6
7 8
78 of 303

48c
4 0
0 7

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
GWP anticipates the need for the presentation of the basic COSA and rate recommendations at up to three community or public meetings. Similarly, should City Council recommend that GWP complete the optional "Op-Out" TOU model and rate recommendations, GWP anticipates the need for three additional community meetings to gain customer input.

FISCAL IMPACT
Amendment No. 4 increases the contract amount by $148,300, to a new total of $347,800, plus a contingency of $14,830. Funding associated with this amendment was approved as a part of the FY 2022-23 budget. No new appropriation is being requested at this time. The City Council approved funding is outlined below:

Existing Appropriation
Amount Account String Funding Source
$163,130 GL: 43110-5820-GWP-4505-P0000- Electric Works Revenue Fund

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
Not Applicable.

Tasks Description Completion
Date Est. Cost
"Op-Out"TOU Model and Rate Recommendations 9/15/2023 19,400$ -Develop dynamic TOU rate model for residential and
small commercial classes
-Design and recommend TOU rates for residential and
small commercial classes
Participation in Three Community Meetings TBD 16,900$
-Attendance and presentation of TOU rate
recommendations at up to three community or
public meetings
GWP Commission Meeting TBD 7,800$
-Present results to GWP Commission
Council Meeting TBD 7,800$
-Present results to GWP and Council
Subtotal 51,900$
Contingency 14,830$
Total 163,130$
Optional
79 of 303

58c
4 0
0 7

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
In accordance with the City Campaign Finance Ordinance No. 5744, the attachment to this Report contains 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 ten percent interest or more in the company proposed for contract in this agenda item:

Full Name Title Business Address City State Zip
Tony Georgis Managing Director 225 Union Blvd.

Suite 305
Lakewood CO 80228

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Authorize and approve Amendment No. 4 with NewGen to extend the agreement through December 31, 2023, and increase the contract amount by $148,300, to a new contract total of $347,800, plus a contingency of $14,830 to provide Complete Financial Forecast, Rate Recommendations and Cost of Service Analysis Model Update, and provide for subsequent development of optional "Op-Out" TOU Model and Rate Recommendations for future consideration.

Alternative 2: Not authorize or approve Amendment No. 4 with NewGen.

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

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Craig Kuennen, Assistant General Manager - Business Services Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
None.
80 of 303

M O T I O N
Moved by Council Member ________________________________, seconded by Council Member __________________________________, that the Council of the City of Glendale hereby authorizes the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into Amendment No. 4 to the existing Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with NewGen Strategies and Solutions, LLC (Contract No. 8000586) with the City of Glendale to extend the PSA term to December 31, 2023, and increase the not to exceed amount by $148,300 to a new total not to exceed amount of $347,800, plus a 10% contingency in the amount of $14,830, to provide Complete Financial Forecast, Rate Recommendations and Cost of Service Analysis Model Update, and provide for subsequent development of optional “Opt-Out” TOU Model and Rate Recommendations for future consideration, as described in the Report dated March 7, 2023 by the General Manager of Glendale Water & Power Department. The City Manager, or his designee, is authorized to execute said Amendment No. 4 subject to approval by the City Attorney.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
81 of 303

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Resolution authorizing GWP, to prepare a Request for Proposal using the Alternative Project Delivery Method for the Engineer-Procure-Construct of City- owned PV Solar Projects – Phase 1.

1. Resolution authorizing the General Manager of GWP, or his designee, to prepare a Request for Proposal (RFP) using the Alternative Project Delivery Method for the Engineer-Procure-Construct (EPC) of Solar PV Systems at the following proposed project sites: 1) Glendale Sports Complex Parking Lot, 2) Montrose Parking Lot 3, 3) Utility Operations Parking Lot, 4) Brand Landfill, 5) Fire Station 21, 6) Glendale Central Library, 7) GWP Perkins Building, and 8) Dunsmore Park Parking Lot, and authorizing the City Clerk to solicit proposals.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for March 7, 2023 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In July 2021, GWP began working with consultant, Black & Veatch, to identify the viability of installing solar PV systems on city owned properties, and to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the DER hosting capacity of the electrical distribution infrastructure.

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

The DER hosting capacity scope of the project analyzed the entire electrical distribution network to identify the maximum amount of distributed PV penetration levels for each of the 100+ distribution feeders. The intent of the DER hosting capacity study was to identify the hosting capacity ranges for each distribution feeder and to establish the maximum DER capacity without affecting the systems reliability or power quality. 82 of 303

28d
4 0
2 1

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

RECOMMENDATION
Approve a resolution authorizing the General Manager of GWP to prepare an RFP using the Alternative Project Delivery Method for the EPC of Solar PV Systems at the Glendale Sports Complex Parking Lot, Montrose Parking Lot 3, Utility Operations Center Parking Lot, Brand Landfill, Fire Station 21, Glendale Central Library, GWP Perkins Building, and Dunsmore Park Parking Lot, and authorizing the City Clerk to solicit proposals.

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

GWP is faced with the imminent retirement of its largest generation resource, the natural gas-fired Grayson Power Plant. GWP is extremely transmission constrained and is in the process of replacing the retiring Grayson units with reliable local generation.

The retirement of Grayson presents GWP with an opportunity to shift to cleaner, more efficient technology to power the city in the future.

The conclusion of the Solar PV Development on City Owned Properties and DER Hosting Capacity Analysis Project in August of 2022 provided staff with a list of 65 City owned properties that are deemed viable for solar. GWP staff has since been partnering with its internal departmental peers to review and edit the conceptual designs based on operational needs for the sites, and determine which sites are available for solar installations in the short term.

ANALYSIS
This project is a part of a multi-phased solar PV system installation program that includes other sites such as Scholl Canyon Landfill. Although, the plans for the installation of a solar PV system at the Scholl Canyon Landfill will be considered in future phases, Staff did perform a review of the Watershed Geo Closure Turf technology shared by the community members with GWP regarding the potential solutions for the Scholl Canyon Landfill cap and solar installations.
83 of 303

38d
4 0
2 1
Staff requested Black & Veatch’s professional opinion of the Watershed Geo Closure Turf technology, which included the following:
•This technology could be a responsible investment for the Scholl Canyon Landfill cover while also providing an excellent foundation for the associated solar technology offered by the company.
•Finding a sufficient quantity of soil material for a landfill cover may be expensive. •The overall maintenance costs could be a responsible investment. •A life cycle cost analysis should be conducted to include evaporative landfill covers, which are viable options in California
Furthermore, consideration of the Watershed Geo Closure Turf technology at the Scholl Canyon Landfill will require a coordinated effort between the two agencies responsible for the landfill closure, Los Angeles County Sanitation District and Glendale Public Works. The decision to implement the Watershed Geo Closure Turf technology would then be further analyzed and compared to other available landfill cover systems.

Regardless of the selected landfill cover and solar technology for the closed portions of Scholl Canyon Landfill including the Edison Arm, GWP will need to engineer and construct 69kV electrical sub-transmission infrastructure to the closed portions of the landfill. The planning and engineering for this activity will need to be budgeted in future Capital Improvement Projects to align with the timeframe in which the Los Angeles County Sanitation District releases the closed landfill areas to the City of Glendale.

The planning and coordination required for the Scholl Canyon Landfill cover and solar project will follow the same process as the 60+ City-owned properties that have been already identified. GWP recognizes the fact that there is a great opportunity to maximize solar system installation on City-owned properties. The ongoing coordination between GWP and its interdepartmental peers has revealed several important factors to address before investing in solar systems on City owned properties:
•Roof condition and roof replacement schedules.
•Parking lot conditions and upcoming resurfacing projects. •Future reconstruction plans for parking lots, buildings, and parks. •Electric distribution upgrades needed to support solar installations in locations where distribution feeders do not currently exist or need additional capacity. •Historical preservations considerations.
•Impact on community usage of facilities.

For these reasons, it is GWP’s opinion that the most aggressive approach to growing its clean energy portfolio is by implementing a phased approach to its solar development program. This will allow GWP to immediately develop solar PV systems on properties that do not have any conflicting projects or needed repairs while concurrently planning and coordinating the next phases of solar development in alignment with the “solar readiness” of the properties. During the implementation of the Phase 1 project, GWP will be concurrently working on the site readiness and RFP development for Phase 2.

Moving forward now with “solar ready” properties will also allow GWP to take advantage 84 of 303

48d
4 0
2 1
of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) Investment Tax Credit, which requires projects to begin before 2025. Taking advantage of these tax credit programs aligns with GWP’s commitment to delivering cost-effective energy solutions to its rate payers.

Proposed Phase 1 Projects:

The eight solar PV systems described below are estimated to provide 4.4 MW of solar power representing 31% of the total estimated 14 MW of viable solar installations on City-owned properties. The total estimated annual output for these eight sites is 7.3 million kWh, which is the equivalent to the average annual electric consumption of 656 homes.

On February 14, 2023, the General Manager of GWP obtained the City Manager’s approval for the herein proposed procurement for these eight proposed projects, as required by Glendale Municipal Code (GMC), Section 4.13.070. Staff is recommending that the City Council authorize the adoption and issuance of an RFP for these eight proposed projects utilizing the Engineer Procure Construct (EPC) project delivery method. GWP staff has found that it is more efficient to use the EPC method for such projects because the time needed for the research and design phases can be reduced with a similar outcome in the final construction. By using the EPC method, design items can be addressed as they come up by the engineer-procure-construct entity without the need for delays in engineering, then procurement, and lastly construction that occur using the traditional design-procure-bid-build project delivery method.

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

This conceptual site plan estimates a solar PV system size of 916 kW. The solar solution for this location utilizes carport style solar canopies and is designed to cover most of the parking spaces at the Sports Complex. Estimated cost is $3 million.

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

This conceptual site plan estimates a solar PV system size of 807 kW. The solar solution for this location utilizes carport style solar canopies and is designed to cover most of the parking spaces at Montrose Parking Lot 3. Estimated cost is $2.7 million.

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

This conceptual site plan estimates a solar PV system size of 305 kW. The solar solution for this location utilizes carport style solar canopies and is designed to cover most of the parking spaces at the UOC Parking Lot. Estimated cost is $1 million.

4. Brand Landfill Ground Mount Solar PV Project:

This conceptual site plan estimates a solar PV system size of 1.4 MW. This location is the largest site identified as being viable for solar and has the potential of delivering ten percent of the total estimated 14 MW of solar power. The landfill has been closed for over three decades. The solar solution for this location utilizes ground mount solar panels secured by means of an anchoring design. Estimated cost is $4.6 million. 85 of 303

58d
4 0
2 1

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

This conceptual site plan estimates a solar PV system size of 237 kW. The solar solution for this location utilizes both rooftop-mounted and carport style solar canopies.

It is designed to maximize rooftop coverage and to cover some of the parking inside the facility. Estimated cost is $800 thousand.

6. Glendale Central Library Rooftop Solar PV Project:

This conceptual site plan estimates a solar PV system size of 402 kW. The solar solution for this location utilizes rooftop-mounted solar and is designed to maximize coverage. The Central Library is currently undergoing a roof redesign and reroofing project, which will be completed prior to the solar PV installation. Estimated cost is $1.3 million.

7. GWP Perkins Building Rooftop Solar PV Project:

This conceptual site plan estimates a solar PV system size of 155 kW. The solar solution for this location utilizes rooftop mounted solar, designed to maximize coverage.

Estimated cost is $500 thousand.

8. Dunsmore Park Parking Lot Carport Solar PV Project:

This conceptual site plan estimates a solar PV system size of 221 kW. The solar solution for this location utilizes carport solar, designed to maximize solar potential in the parking lot. Public Works and Community Service & Parks have a concurrent parking lot resurfacing project, which planned to take place after the carport solar system is installed. Estimated cost is $750 thousand.

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

FISCAL IMPACT________________________________________________________ The estimated cost for the first phase of the City Owned Solar Development Program is $14,650,000, which will be requested as a part of the annual budget process.

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

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
Not applicable.

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Authorize the General Manager of GWP to prepare an RFP using the Alternative Project Delivery Method for the EPC of City-owned Solar PV Systems Project – Phase 1 and authorizing the City Clerk to solicit proposals.
86 of 303

68d
4 0
2 1
Alternative 2: Do not authorize the issuance of an RFP for installation of Solar PV Systems on City-owned properties project, Phase 1 which will delay the implementation of clean energy programs.

Alternative 2: Consider any other alternative not proposed by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

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

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

EXHIBITS / ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A: City Owned Solar PV Priority List - Eight Conceptual Images Exhibit B: February 14, 2023, Memo to City Manager and City Manager approval of the Engineer Procure Construct project delivery method.
87 of 303

1 RESOLUTION NO.

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

AUTHORIZING THE GENERAL MANAGER OF GLENDALE WATER & POWER

DEPARTMENT, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO PREPARE A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

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

METHOD FOR THE SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM AT EIGHT PROPOSED

SITES, AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE FOR PROPOSALS WHEREAS, the General Manager of Glendale Water & Power Department (“GWP”) has proposed the design and construction of the solar photovoltaic system at the following eight proposed sites: 1) Glendale Sports Complex Parking Lot, 2) Montrose Parking Lot 3, 3) Utility Operations Parking Lot, 4) Brand Landfill, 5) Fire Station 21, 6) Glendale Central Library 7) GWP Perkins Building, and 8) Dunsmore Park Parking Lot (collectively “Projects”) which will provide an estimated 4.4 MW of solar power representing 31% of the total estimated 14 MW of viable solar installations on City owned properties, with a total estimated annual output of 7.3 million kWh, which is equivalent to the average annual electric consumption of 656 homes; and WHEREAS, the proposed Projects will improve and expand GWP’s commitment to alternate source for power as well as meet GWP’s requirements as set by state mandates; and
WHEREAS, GWP’s recommendation is to utilize the Engineer Procure Construct (“EPC”) method an alternative project delivery method - instead of the traditional design then bid and procure and then build delivery method - authorized under Chapter 4.13 of the Glendale Municipal Code (“GMC”); and
WHEREAS, on February 3, 2023, the General Manager of GWP prepared a memorandum to the City Manager, as required by GMC Section 4.13.070(A)(1), describing the Projects’ attributes, and stating the reasons and justifications for proposing the EPC method of project delivery; and
WHEREAS, the memorandum, which is attached as an exhibit to the General Manager of GWP’s March 7, 2023 report to the City Council, states that:

1. The utilization of an alternative project delivery method for the Projects will meet the Project’s need for overall schedule acceleration [GMC Section 4.13.060(A)(7)], and meet GWP’s obligation to maintain, and improve, the level of service it provides to its customers, as well as the Projects benefitting from early contractor involvement by avoiding delays and engineering and construction and reducing the completion time for the Projects [GMC Section 4.13.060(A)(4); and

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

A. Minimizing the Projects delivery time, [GMC 4.13.060(B)(1)(a)], by reducing the research and design phases by enabling early contractor involvement to allow design and construction schedules to overlap and reduce the time needed for separate and consecutive research and design phases which occurs using the traditional design-bid-build method; and
88 of 303

2 B. Minimizing the Project’s overall cost [GMC Section 4.13.060(B)(2)], by minimizing through:
i. The Projects designer and builder team having early
coordination of the construction means, methods, and
materials, thereby minimizing Projects’ costs and maximizing each Project’s budget; and
ii. Constant communication and coordination between
the team members to have fewer design errors, constructions mistakes, and change orders, thereby enabling them to
complete the Projects on budget; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager, as required by GMC Section 4.13.070(A)(2), has reviewed the Projects and, on February 14, 2023, approved the use of the EPC delivery method for all eight proposed Projects; and
WHEREAS, having received the City Manager’s approval and having satisfied one or more reasons under GMC Section 4.13.060(A), and one or more justifications under GMC Section 4.13.060(B), the Projects meet the procedural and substantive requirements for using an alternative project delivery method.

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

1. The foregoing facts are deemed to be true and correct, and are a basis for authorizing the use of the EPC delivery method on each of the subject eight Projects as further described in the Report dated March 7, 2023, by the General Manager of GWP.

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

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

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

5. The City Council hereby finds that the adoption of this Resolution is not a “project” under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), because the Resolution does not involve any commitment to a specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment, as contemplated by Title 14 California Code of Regulations, Section 15378(b)(4).
89 of 303

3 Adopted this _____________ day of __________________, 2023 ___________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES)
I, Suzie Abajian PhD, City Clerk of the City of Glendale, do certify that the foregoing Resolution No. __________ was adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale, California, at a regular meeting held on the ________ day of _______________, 2023, by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
_______________________________
City Clerk
90 of 303

1 Sports Complex Parking Lot Carport Solar
Estimated Solar PV Size: 916 kW
Estimated Cost: $3 million
Montrose Parking Lot 3 Carport Solar
Estimated Solar PV Size: 807 kW
Estimated Cost: $2.7 million
Central Library Rooftop Solar
Estimated Solar PV Size: 402 kW
Estimated Cost: $1.3 million
Brand Landfill Ground Mount Solar
Estimated Solar PV Size: 1,392 kW
Estimated Cost: $4.6 million
City Owned Solar Development Project—Phase 1: 8 Projects, Estimated 4.4 MW

EXHIBIT A
91 of 303

2 Utility Operations Center (UOC) Parking Lot
Carport Solar
Estimated Solar PV Size: 305 kW
Estimated Cost: $1 million
Fire Station 21 Rooftop Solar
Estimated Solar PV Size: 237 kW
Estimated Cost: $800 thousand
Dunsmore Park Parking Lot Carport Solar
Estimated Solar PV Size: 221 kW
Estimated Cost: $750 thousand
GWP Perkins Building Rooftop Solar
Estimated Solar PV Size: 155 kW
Estimated Cost: $500 thousand
City Owned Solar Development Project—Phase 1: 8 Projects, Estimated 4.4 MW 92 of 303

EXHIBIT B
93 of 303

94 of 303

95 of 303

96 of 303

97 of 303

98 of 303

99 of 303

100 of 303

101 of 303

102 of 303

103 of 303

104 of 303

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Public Hearing Regarding Appeal Case No. PAPP-000522-2022 - Appeal of the Director of Community Development’s determination related to Design Review Case No.

PDR-000210-2022 and Environmental Information Form Case No. PEIF-000280-2022 that the preparation of an EIR is required to review and assess the proposed project that includes demolition of the existing stable and accessory buildings located at 1900 Riverside Drive in conjunction with the development of new kennel and stable buildings, a new corral, a new accessory building, and associated parking.

1. Motion to sustain the CEQA determination made by the Director of Community Development to require an EIR.

2. Motion to reverse the CEQA determination made by the Director of Community Development to require an EIR.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Public Hearing
Approved for March 7, 2023 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This hearing is an appeal of the determination made by the Director of Community Development on November 30, 2022 that the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required prior to development of the proposed project that includes the demolition of the existing stable and accessory buildings located at 1900 Riverside Drive in conjunction with development of new kennel and stable buildings, a new corral, a new accessory building, and associated parking.

The Director’s determination was made pursuant to Title 14, Chapter 3 of California Code of Regulations, Section 15064 of the State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Glendale’s CEQA Guidelines which requires the preparation of an EIR when there is substantial evidence in light of the whole record that a project may have a significant effect on the environment. For this project, the proposed demolition of the existing buildings onsite may result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines §15064.5.

The appellant is requesting that the City Council reverse the Director of Community Development’s determination and not require the preparation of an EIR for the demolition and redevelopment of the site. The appellant’s main argument focuses on his belief that 105 of 303

29a
4 0
2 6
the Historical Resource Evaluation prepared by Sapphos, Inc. (Exhibit 5), was definitive, whereas the conflicting Historic Resource Assessment prepared by Jenna Snow, Historic Preservation Consulting (Exhibit 6) was subjective and its conclusion that the property is a historic resource should not have any bearing on the development of the site to construct a new state-of-the-art equestrian and kennel facility.

COUNCIL PRIORITIES
N/A.

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council sustain the determination of the Director of Community Development that the preparation of an EIR is required to review and assess the proposed project that includes the demolition of the existing stable and accessory buildings and subsequent development of a new stable and kennel facility, because there is substantial evidence in the record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.

BACKGROUND
The appellant requests that the City Council overturn the determination of the Director of Community Development that the preparation of an EIR is required for the development of the site.

General Information
Appellant: Rene Karapedian, PRI Properties LLC
Status of Appellant:Property Owner
Project Applicant:Tim Nagao, RED Architectural Group
Kris Oliveros, RED Architectural Group
Assessor’s Parcel Number: 5625-031-008
Legal Description:Lots 15 thru 17, Portion of Lot 18, and a Vacated Alley, Tract No. 9792
Zone:CE – Commercial Equestrian
Land Use Element: Community Services
Site Description
The property is an approximately 36,699 square-foot (SF) corner lot with frontage on Riverside Drive and Allen Avenue. Towards the rear of the project site is a 20-foot-wide alley at the terminus of Allen Avenue that abuts the Los Angeles Equestrian Center. The property was originally developed in 1939 with various additions and other site 106 of 303

39a
4 0
2 6
improvements made over time. Currently, there are three stable buildings on-site, an existing one-story house originally built in 1942 that is currently vacant, and a one-story barn originally built in 1939 that is located toward the center of the site. As part of the proposed project, all existing buildings and structures will be demolished.

Project Description
The current owner and appellant, intends to redevelop the site to expand the current commercial stable use to also include a kennel. The project will feature three buildings for the proposed use, an outdoor corral, and associated landscaping and parking. The project includes:
•Demolition of all existing buildings and structures.
•Construction of a one-story, 4,224 SF barn with 16 stables. •Construction of a one-story, 4,793 SF building to be used as a kennel. •Construction of a 6,604 SF outdoor corral located between the stable and kennel building.
•Construction of a one-story, 630 SF accessory building. •16 surface parking spaces located at the front and rear of the property. •Vacation of the existing 20-foot-wide alley located at the terminus of Allen Avenue.

Relevant Project History
February 26, 2018 – Design Review Case No. PDR 1804696 was submitted by the previous owner for a 21-unit multi-family development.
•The applicant was required to provide a historic resource evaluation of the site for this project. The report was prepared by Sapphos Environmental Inc. and is included as Exhibit 5 with this report (the “Sapphos Report”). The Sapphos report determined that the property does not meet any criteria for designation at the state or local level and is not considered a historic resource, therefore, demolition of the existing buildings and structures would not result in a substantial adverse change to a historical resource.
•A second historic resource report was commissioned by a private individual and prepared by Jenna Snow, Historic Preservation Consulting (the “Snow Report”) in anticipation of the multi-family project moving forward. This report was not submitted to the City because this project did not move forward. It was subsequently delivered to the City by the Glendale Historical Society on September 19, 2021. A copy of this report is included as Exhibit 6 with this report. The Snow report concluded that property is individually eligible for designation at the state and local level as a historic resource, and for listing as a contributing resource to an eligible historic district of equestrian properties.

July 24, 2018 – The design review application was subsequently withdrawn, and no further action was taken.
107 of 303

49a
4 0
2 6
September 1, 2021 – The current owner, Mr. Rene Karapedian, took ownership of the property at 1900 Riverside Drive.

October 31, 2022 - The project applicant submitted Design Review Case No. PDR 000210-2022 and Environmental Information Form Case No. PEIF 000280-2022 for the proposed project, detailed above.

November 30, 2022 – The Director of Community Development determined that the preparation of an EIR is required to review and assess the proposed project that involves demolition of the existing stable and accessory buildings on-site for the project to allow for the development of a new stable and kennel. This determination was made based on the evidence in the record which includes the two historic resource reports. A copy of this letter is included as Exhibit 4.

December 1, 2022 - The property owner filed an appeal regarding the Director of Community Development’s determination that an EIR is required for the proposed project.

ANALYSIS
Process For Evaluating Appeal – Guidance for Making the Threshold Determination Whether a Building, Structure or Object Is or Is Not a Historic Resource
When a site has not been listed or determined eligible for listing on the State Register of Historical Resources, has not been listed on a local register under Public Resources Code (“PRC”) section 5020.1(k), or has not been found to be significant under PRC section 5024.1(g), the City Council, as lead agency may independently determine whether the property should be treated as a historical resource under CEQA. (PRC section 21084.1; CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(a)(4)). To be clear, CEQA does not limit a lead agency's discretion when making such a determination. (PRC section 21084.1). The City’s discretionary determination that a structure or object is or is not a historical resource need only be supported by substantial evidence. (CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(a)(3); Friends of the Willow Glen Trestle v City of San Jose (2016) 2 CA5th 457, 468; Valley Advocates v City of Fresno (2008) 160 CA4th 1039, 1059, 1070.) Kostka & Zischke, Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act, §20.97 (CEB, 2022).

The City’s discretion to make this determination is the same in the context of either an EIR or a negative declaration. In either case, the substantial evidence standard, rather than the fair argument standard, applies to a City’s threshold determination of whether a building or district is a historical resource under CEQA. The absence of substantial evidence that a structure or area is historic is itself sufficient to support a determination that it is not historic. Further, the City’s determination that a building should not be listed on a local register does not relieve the agency of its obligation to exercise its 108 of 303

59a
4 0
2 6
discretion to determine whether the building is a historical resource, and even if a property does not qualify as a presumptive resource, such as when a structure or object has not been listed or determined eligible for listing on a register, the City as lead agency may independently determine whether the property should be treated as a resource under CEQA, in its discretion. (PRC section 21084.1; CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(a)(4)).

When a lead agency is considering the historical nature of a building or structure the decision is based on substantial evidence, which includes facts, reasonable assumptions predicated on facts and expert opinions supported by facts. Substantial evidence is not argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, clearly inaccurate or erroneous evidence, evidence that is not credible and evidence of social and economic impacts that do not contribute to or are not caused by physical impacts on the environment.

The question of historic significance must be resolved early in the environmental review process, an approach that would avoid the delays and expense of an EIR in cases where the lead agency exercises its discretion by concluding the building or other object in question is not a historical resource. “[D]uring the preliminary review stage of a CEQA review, the fair argument standard does not apply to the question of whether a building or other object qualifies as an historical resource for purposes of CEQA.” Citizens for the Restoration of L Street v. City of Fresno, 177 Cal. Rptr. 3d 96, 117 (2014), “Rather, the question whether an object is an historical resource and thus part of the environment protected by CEQA must be resolved by the lead agency, . . . before it applies the fair argument standard to determine whether the project may have a significant adverse impact on the environment.” Id.

As long as there is substantial evidence to support a lead agency’s determination regarding whether a structure or object is a historic resource, a court will uphold that discretionary decision. Kostka & Zischke, Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act, §20.97 (CEB, 2022).

Summary of the Appellant’s Basis for Appeal and Staff Reponses The appellant contends that the evidence before the Director of Community Development was insufficient or inadequate to support the determination because the Historical Resource Evaluation prepared by Sapphos, Inc. was definitive in stating that there would not be an impact to a historic resource. Whereas the Historic Resource Assessment prepared by Jenna Snow, Historic Preservation Consulting, contained subjective interpretations to justify maintaining the property in its current condition because “of their defunct historical aura and cultural effect.”
The appellant has made a general statement that the Sapphos report is definitive whereas the Snow report is subjective, however no explanation, additional information 109 of 303

69a
4 0
2 6
or substantial evidence has been provided with the appeal to support this claim. The Director of Community Development’s determination that the preparation of an EIR is required for this project is predicated on the substantial evidence provided that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.

As the lead agency, the determination as to the appropriate level of environmental review required is made by the Director of Community Development and is based on substantial evidence in the whole record. In this case, the substantial evidence submitted into the record are the two reports, as well as expert Planning staff analysis, summarized below.

Sapphos Environmental Inc. Report (“Sapphos Report) Submitted by the Project Applicant:

A Historical Resource Evaluation was prepared and submitted by Sapphos Environmental Inc. (Exhibit 5) for this property. This report evaluated the history of the area, the setting, the buildings on-site and their integrity, and persons associated with the site. The Sapphos Report determined that the property does not meet any criteria for designation at the state or local level and is not considered a historic resource as defined in §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. This evaluation concluded that demolition of the buildings located on this site would not result in a substantial adverse change to a historical resource.

Specifically, the Sapphos Report analyzed the integrity of the structures, with respect to setting, physical/architectural alterations (integrity of design, workmanship and/or materials), and concluded that the property does not possess sufficient historical or architectural significance for listing in the California or City registers. The Sapphos Report found as follows:
“The setting of the property has been compromised because it is now adjacent to modern multistory, multifamily apartment buildings to the east across the boundary with Burbank. The property located at 1900 Riverside Drive is altered with some window and entrance alterations and new cladding materials to its original stables and barns.

Additionally, the primary entry porch of the residence has been altered, and the property does not retain integrity of design, workmanship, or materials. Moreover, buildings adjacent to the property in neighboring Burbank have largely changed from those evident at the time of construction and become large apartment complexes or commercial buildings. The buildings have not been moved and retain integrity of location. The property located at 1900 Riverside Drive does not possess sufficient historical or architectural significance to merit listing in the CRHR or City Register of Historic Resources.” (Sapphos Report, pg. 18, Exh. 5 to Report).

The Sapphos Report also analyzed the property against each Criterion to qualify it for local or State listing (local criteria largely mirror criteria for listing in the California 110 of 303

79a
4 0
2 6
Register). The Sapphos Report found that “[t]he architecture of the subject property reflects a working addition to the historic origins of this development rather than a formative or high-style contribution, and its use has deteriorated its level of integrity. It therefore cannot convey the significant broad patterns of history and cultural heritage in this regional trend to develop and maintain an equestrian-related recreational infrastructure, and so is ineligible pursuant to Criterion A.” (Id.) Moreover, the Sapphos Report found that “[a]lthough many early riders and instructors of minor local prominence passed though the subject property, their relationships to it is not substantial or long term enough to be associated with this property pursuant to Criterion B. (Id.) Further, the Sapphos Report concluded that “the buildings represent a vernacular use of architectural elements from slightly different periods and style, and are not of high architectural merit. They therefore are do not embody the distinct characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction pursuant to Criterion C, and have no association with a known master architect.” (Id.) Finally, the Report determined that “[t]he buildings were constructed using common building materials and techniques, and the site was graded during construction of the buildings. Therefore, the property is not likely to yield significant information regarding the prehistory and history of the area pursuant to Criterion D. Additionally, while related to the history of equestrian activities in the City and Griffith Park, the property does not exemplify the early heritage of the City pursuant to Criterion E because it was established at least 33 years after the establishment of Glendale and almost 20 years after equestrian activities were established in this area of the City.” (Id.)
Jenna Snow Historic Preservation Consulting Report (“Snow Report”):

A Historic Resource Assessment was prepared by Jenna Snow, Historic Preservation Consulting (Exhibit 6) for this property in response to the Sapphos report. This report provided an expanded evaluation of the history of the area, the setting, the buildings on- site and their integrity, and persons associated with the site. The Snow Report determined that the property is individually eligible for designation at the state and local level as a historic resource because it meets some of the eligibility criteria:
•The property is associated with the equestrian history in the area and continued use as a stable and riding academy and is one of the few remaining commercial-equestrian properties in Glendale.
•The property is associated with the life of an important person, Grover “Sandy” Sanders who owned the property in the 1950s. Mr. Sanders is identified in this report as an actor and stuntman in Western films and television shows, including the role of stunt double for Gene Autry.
•The property exemplifies the early heritage of the city because it is associated with the history of the local equestrian community in Glendale.

The Snow Report also determined that the property is eligible for listing as a contributing resource to a potential historic district of equestrian properties. The potential district would include the subject site and the other four properties in this area that are zoned for commercial-equestrian and identifies the period of significance from 111 of 303

89a
4 0
2 6
1939-1978.It is important to note that the Snow Report also determined that because the eligibility criteria for this property are not related to architectural design, the property could potentially sustain more alterations while remaining eligible as a historic resource.

Community Development Staff Evaluation:

The Sapphos Report concludes that the project site is not a historic resource, whereas the Snow Report concludes that the property is a historic resource as defined in PRC section 5020.1 and CEQA Guidelines section15064.5. Based on the facts in the record, there is a possibility that the property at 1900 Riverside Drive could be a historic resource as defined, though there is evidence on both sides. The proposed demolition of a historic resource would be considered a substantial adverse change in the environment, and in those instances the lead agency is required to prepare an EIR because the impacts could not be mitigated.

The decision before Council is whether substantial evidence has been provided in the record that the subject property may be a historic resource, or if the weight of the evidence supports a conclusion that the subject property is not a historic resource. In this case, facts and expert opinion have been provided in the record supporting opposing views as to whether or not the subject property is a historic resource.

Under the “Statement of additional facts related to the appeal”, the appellant contends that the existing facilities are substandard and inhumane equestrian facilities whereas the owner intends to construct state-of-the-art, humane, and above standard equestrian facilities.

The appellant provides a general statement that the current stable facilities on-site are inhumane (with no discussion as to the meaning of this term) and substandard, whereas the project would result in new and humane facilities that comply with current codes as well as industry standards. No other information is provided with this statement, but a Field Investigation Report (Exhibit 7) prepared by a structural engineer, and an Architectural Building Assessment Report (Exhibit 8) prepared by RED Architectural Group were submitted with the appeal.

The Field Investigation Report was prepared by a Principal Structural Engineer with Wheeler & Gray, Inc., an engineering consulting firm. The report evaluated visible portions based on a cursory walk through of the existing buildings on-site and offers a professional opinion regarding the condition of the existing buildings and possible damage. The report identifies structural issues with the existing buildings and provides recommendations as to what structural improvements should be addressed for each building. The engineer does not indicate that any of the buildings are structurally unsound or pose an imminent threat to public safety.

The Architectural Building Assessment Report was prepared by the project applicant, RED Architectural Group. The report evaluates the existing buildings on-site, but no 112 of 303

99a
4 0
2 6
explanation of the methodology for the evaluation is established in the report. A description of each building is provided, and recommendations are made for each building that specify the necessary improvements to bring them up to building code requirements.

The necessary clearance for the proposed demolition is evaluated as part of the Design Review application. There is a provision in GMC Section 15.22.110 of the City’s demolition ordinance that would allow a dangerous building to be demolished without requiring the demolition clearance and associated environmental review. This can only be applied if the City’s Building Official determines the buildings to be unsafe or pose an imminent threat to public safety. While the existing buildings are in disrepair because they are older and have been neglected, the Building Official did not determine them to be unsafe. The existing buildings can be repaired and improved, as described in the reports submitted by the appellant (Exhibits 7 & 8).

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
The Code requires publication of public notices when the Council considers approval of entitlements such as design review. Staff has published all required notices and has mailed copies of the notices to all property owners and occupants within 500 feet of the project. A public notice has also been posted on-site.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with the appeal of the Director of Community Development’s determination that an EIR is required for the proposed development outside of staff time and resources. If an EIR is prepared, additional staff time would be required to review the EIR and respond to any comments. However, if developed, the project could have a positive fiscal impact due to enhanced property taxes and building permit/plan check fees.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
In accordance with California Government Code §15064, the Director of Community Development has determined that the proposed project located at 1900 Riverside Drive may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA, and the preparation of an EIR is required.

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 10, in accordance with the City Campaign Finance Ordinance No. 5744.
113 of 303

109a
4 0
2 6

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Sustain the Director of Community Development’s determination that the preparation of an EIR is required to review and assess the proposed project that includes the demolition of the existing stable and accessory buildings located at 1900 Riverside Drive.

Alternative 2: Reverse the Director of Community Development’s determination that the preparation of an EIR is required to review and assess the proposed project that includes the demolition of the existing stable and accessory buildings located at 1900 Riverside Drive.

Alternative 3: Any other alternative for this appeal not proposed by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Vista Ezzati, Planner
Reviewed by:

Erik Krause, Deputy Director of Community Development
Jay Platt, Principal Planner
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1: Location Map
Exhibit 2: Reduced Plans for Design Review Application
Exhibit 3: Photos of Existing Property
Exhibit 4: Director of Community Development’s Determination Letter, dated November 30, 2022
Exhibit 5: Historical Resource Evaluation prepared by Sapphos Environmental Inc., dated May 8, 2018
Exhibit 6: Jenna Snow, Historic Resource Assessment prepared by Historic Preservation Consulting, dated August 2018
Exhibit 7: Field Investigation Report prepared by Wheeler & Gray, Inc., dated November 4, 2021
Exhibit 8: Architectural Building Assessment Report prepared by RED Architectural Group, dated November 19, 2021
Exhibit 9: Appeal Application
Exhibit 10: Campaign Disclosure
114 of 303

M O T I O N
Moved by Council Member ____________________________, seconded by Council Member ___________________________, that upon review and consideration of all documents, testimony, materials and exhibits relative to Appeal Case No. PAPP- 000522-2022 - appeal of the Director of Community Development’s determination related to Design Review Case No. PDR-000210-2022 and Environmental Information Form Case No. PEIF-000280-2022, that the preparation of an EIR is required to review and assess the proposed project, because such proposed project will result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource as defined by CEQA such that preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required, and after having conducted and closed a public hearing on said determination, the Council hereby SUSTAINS said determination based on the need for further environmental review under CEQA, all of the evidence in the record, and the reasons, determinations and conclusions set forth in the March 7, 2023 staff report, including any attachments thereto.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
115 of 303

M O T I O N
Moved by Council Member ____________________________, seconded by Council Member ___________________________, that upon review and consideration of all documents, testimony, materials and exhibits relative to Appeal Case No. PAPP- 000522-2022 - appeal of the Director of Community Development’s determination related to Design Review Case No. PDR-000210-2022 and Environmental Information Form Case No. PEIF-000280-2022, that the preparation of an EIR is required to review and assess the proposed project, because such proposed project will result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource as defined by CEQA such that preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required, and after having conducted and closed a public hearing on said determination, the Council hereby REVERSES said determination based on all of the evidence in the record, including all of the appellant’s and appellant’s witnesses’ arguments and testimony at the hearing, the appellant’s appeal, as well as the Historical Resource Evaluation that was prepared and submitted by Sapphos Environmental Inc.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
116 of 303

Exhibit 1
117 of 303

Exhibit 2
118 of 303

±
60'-0"
25'-0"SETBACK
±
32'-0"
24'-0"18'-0"
18'-0"8'-0"8'-6"106'-0"
62'-4"6'-0"38'-0"5'-0"
8'-6"5'-0"
20'-0"
20'-0"70'-0"
18'-0"8'-6"
1'-6"
70'-0"
±20'-0"
4'-0"
21'-4"29'-6"204'-0"
12'-0"10'-0"5'-0"
9'-0"
5'-0"5'-0"4'-0"4'-0" 5'-0"
3'-0"124'-0"150'-0"
30'-0"
2'-0" 5'-0"8'-0"6"
1'-8"
12'-0"10'-0"
6'-4"
2'-0"8'-0" 23'-1"27'-3"
10'-0"47'-1"22'-0"8'-0"9'-3" ±
19'-9"3'-10"8'-0"
12'-0"
NORTH
DATE: 1900 RIVERSIDE DRIVEGLENDALE, CA 91201PROJECT NUMBER558.2101.03KARAPEDIAN FAMILY RANCH A-1 DESIGN REVIEW1/20/2023
PROPOSED PROJECT SUMMARY:ADDRESS 1900 RIVERSIDE DRIVE, GLENDALE CA 91201EXISTING PROPERTY TYPE: STABLESLEGAL DESCRIPTION:TRACT # 9792 1/2 VAC ALLEY ON SWAPN : 562-5031-008TRACT NO:9792REGION / CLUSTER: 24 / 24632BUILT:1939-1940 1942ZONING : CEFIRE HAZARD:N/AHILLSIDE:N/AGROSS LOT W/0 VACATION:39,985 SFVACATION AREA (ALLEY): 3,190 SF (EASEMENT NEXT TO CHANNEL)LOT AREA AFTER VACATION: 44,682 SFTOTAL BLDG AREA: 9997 SF CALCULATED FAR: 9,997/ 44,682 = 0.22LOT COVERAGE REQUIRED: N/A (TABLE 30.15-B)LOT COVERAGE CALCULATED: 9,997/ 44,682 = 0.22 X 100% = 22% STABLES BARN (UNDER ROOF):4223 SF STORAGE :253 SF COVERED HAY STORAGE: 96 SFOPEN HORSE WASH: 295 SFOUTDOOR CORRAL: 6604 SFKENNEL BARN: 4795 SF OPEN OUTDOOR AREA: 1600 SFSUPPORT BUILDING: 630 SFLANDSCAPE: 10%PARKING REQUIRED:STABLES: 1 SPACE PER 4 HORSES (16 HORSES) 4 KENNEL : 2 SPACES PER 1,000 ( 4,750)10 SUPPORT BLDG. :2 SPACE PER 1,000 (630) 2 TOTAL: 16 STALLS PARKING REQUIRED:16 PARKING PROVIDED:16( 1 HC INCLUDED) + 1 STALL (FOR 5 BIKES)BIKE PARKING REQ :5 BIKE PARKING PROVIDED:5(4 SHORT TERM, 1 - LONG TERM)REQUIRED LANDSCAPE:CE- NOT APPLICABLE (TABLE 30.31-A)PROVIDED LANDSCAPE:4,800 SFEQUESTRIAN USE AREA:62% KENNEL USE AREA:38%

LEGENDS

KEY NOTES
PROPOSED PARKING STALLS #
NOTE: INFORMATION ON THIS SHEET IS FORREFERENCE ONLY PROVIDED ANDPREPARED BY : SEABOARD ENGINEERINGCO. SURVEY DATED: 12/15/2021 119 of 303

120 of 303

121 of 303

10'-0"2'-0"2'-0"10'-0"3'-10"16'-10"
19'-0"
19'-0"
30'-0"20'-0"10'-0"
5'-0"
3'-10"
19'-0"
10'-0"3'-10"19'-0"
10'-0"3'-10"
204'-0"
204'-0"
DATE: 1900 RIVERSIDE DRIVEGLENDALE, CA 91201PROJECT NUMBER558.2101.03KARAPEDIAN FAMILY RANCH DESIGN REVIEW1/20/2023A-2.2

KEY NOTES

COLOR LEGEND

STABLE COLORED ELEVATIONS
122 of 303

124'-0"
6'-4"6'-4"
38'-0"
8'-10"6'-0"20'-10"
20'-0"
4'-10"4'-10"
8'-0"15'-6"12'-2"
7'-8"7'-6"3'-10"4'-6"
6"
6"6"
3'-10"
3'-0"5'-0"
38'-0"
20'-0" 78'-10" 20'-0"
4'-0"
4'-0"
19'-0"19'-0"
6" 6" 6"6" 6"
8"
7'-1"1'-6"1'-6"
10'-0"
DATE: 1900 RIVERSIDE DRIVEGLENDALE, CA 91201PROJECT NUMBER558.2101.03KARAPEDIAN FAMILY RANCH DESIGN REVIEWA-3
LEGEND
NORTH

KEY NOTES
1/20/2023
123 of 303

10'-0"
10'-0"
10'-0"
10'-0" 1'-6"
1'-6"1'-6"
1'-6"1'-6"
1'-6"1'-6"
6'-8"
4'-0"
4'-0"
4'-0"4'-0"5'-0"
10'-0"
T.O.P.
20'-0"
7'-0"
7'-0"
TYP.
20'-0"
1'-4"7'-0"
6'-0"

KEYNOTES
COLOR LEGEND14'-0"
3'-6"
7'-0"16"
T.O.P.

T.O.R.
20'-0"
14'-0"
17'-0"
T.O.P.

DATE: 1900 RIVERSIDE DRIVEGLENDALE, CA 91201PROJECT NUMBER558.2101.03KARAPEDIAN FAMILY RANCH 1/20/23DESIGN REVIEWA-3.1 KENNEL ELEVATIONS
124 of 303

10'-0"
10'-0"T.O.P. T.O.P.
20'-0"
17''-0"
T.O.R.
38'-0"38'-0"
17''-0"
T.O.R.1'-6"
1'-6"
1'-6"
1'-6"
10'-0"
T.O.P.4'-0"
17''-0"20'-0"
T.O.R.
124'-0"
10'-0"4'-0"T.O.P.
20'-0"17''-0"
T.O.R.
124'-0"
DATE: 1900 RIVERSIDE DRIVEGLENDALE, CA 91201PROJECT NUMBER558.2101.03KARAPEDIAN FAMILY RANCH

KEYNOTES

COLOR LEGEND
DESIGN REVIEWKENNEL ELEVATIONSA-3.2 1/20/23
125 of 303

10'-0"
1'-6"
4'-0"
10'-0"
10'-0"14'-2"17'-6"1'-6"
1'-6"14'-2"17'-6"
4'-0"
14'-2"17'-6" 1'-6"
10'-0"
14'-2"17'-6"1'-6"
8'-0"
12'-0"
T.O.P.

T.O.P.

T.O.P.10'-0" 1'-6"T.O.P.T.O.R. T.O.R.

T.O.R.
21'-4"
29'-6"
6'-0"
12'-5"
2'-0"4'-0"4'-0"3'-0"
2'-6"2'-6"
7'-6"
3'-6"
6'-0"
15'-5"4'-0"
8'-6"
2'-0"
10'-0"

KEYNOTES

COLOR LEGEND
DATE: 1900 RIVERSIDE DRIVEGLENDALE, CA 91201PROJECT NUMBER558.2101.03KARAPEDIAN FAMILY RANCH NORTH
DESIGN REVIEWA-4 1/20/2023SUPPORT BUILDING
LEGEND
126 of 303

10'-0"
T.O.P.4'-0"
4'-0"
10'-0"
T.O.P.
14'-2"17'-6"
14'-2"17'-7"
10'-0"
T.O.P.
14'-2"17'-7"
T.O.R.

T.O.R. T.O.R.14'-2"17'-7"
T.O.R.10'-0"
T.O.P.1'-6"1'-6"1'-6"
1'-6" 1'-6"1'-6"
21'-4"
21'-4"29'-6"
29'-6"
DATE: 1900 RIVERSIDE DRIVEGLENDALE, CA 91201PROJECT NUMBER558.2101.03KARAPEDIAN FAMILY RANCH

KEYNOTES

COLOR LEGEND
SUPPORT BUILDING ELEVATIONSDESIGN REVIEWA-4.1 1/20/2023 127 of 303

6'-0"
19'-9"
6'-0"2"
21'-1"
7'-0"4"6'-5"
7'-0"4'-0"4"6'-5"
7'-0"
7'-0"
DATE: 1900 RIVERSIDE DRIVEGLENDALE, CA 91201PROJECT NUMBER558.2101.03KARAPEDIAN FAMILY RANCH TRASH AREA , TYPICAL FENCE , GATES ELEVATIONSDESIGN REVIEWA-4.2 1/20/2023 128 of 303

DATE: 1900 RIVERSIDE DRIVEGLENDALE, CA 91201PROJECT NUMBER558.2101.03KARAPEDIAN FAMILY RANCH DESIGN REVIEWA-5 1/12/2023WINDOW AND DOOR SCHEDULESFOR ALL BUILDNGS AND STREET VISIBLEWINDOW PROFILE DETAIL 129 of 303

130 of 303

DATE: 1900 RIVERSIDE DRIVEGLENDALE, CA 91201PROJECT NUMBER558.2101.03KARAPEDIAN FAMILY RANCH A-7 DESIGN REVIEW1/20/2023RENDERED PERSPECTIVES
131 of 303

STABLESCOLOR & MATERIAL BOARD1/20/2023A-8 DATE: 1900 RIVERSIDE DRIVEGLENDALE, CA 91201PROJECT NUMBER558.2101.03KARAPEDIAN FAMILY RANCH

DESIGN REVIEW
132 of 303

KENNEL & SUPPORT BLDGCOLOR & MATERIAL BOARD1/20/2023
®
A-8.1 DATE: 1900 RIVERSIDE DRIVEGLENDALE, CA 91201PROJECT NUMBER558.2101.03KARAPEDIAN FAMILY RANCH

DESIGN REVIEW
®
133 of 303

NORTH
DATE: 1900 RIVERSIDE DRIVEGLENDALE, CA 91201PROJECT NUMBER558.2101.03KARAPEDIAN FAMILY RANCH A-9 DESIGN REVIEW1/20/2023LAND USE MAPS
NORTH

CITY OF GLENDALE, LOS ANGELES &BURBANKNORTH
134 of 303

DATE: 1900 RIVERSIDE DRIVEGLENDALE, CA 91201PROJECT NUMBER558.2101.03KARAPEDIAN FAMILY RANCH DESIGN REVIEWA-10 1/20/2023
NORTH
NORTH
NORTH
135 of 303

PROJECT:

PROJECT NUMBER:

BUILDING #:

DATE:

SCALE:
1900 RIVERSIDE DRIVE GLENDALE , CA 91201

KARAPEDIAN FAMILY
RANCH

KARAPEDIAN FAMILY RANCH

NOT TO SCALE
558.2101.08
JANUARY 20, 2023

ON-SITE PHOTO SURVEY
Exhibit 3
136 of 303

PROJECT:PROJECT NUMBER:BUILDING #:DATE:SCALE:1900 RIVERSIDE DRIVE GLENDALE , CA 91201KARAPEDIAN FAMILYRANCHKARAPEDIAN FAMILY RANCHNOT TO SCALE558.2101.08JANUARY 20, 2023 NORTH
ON SITE PHOT0 SURVEY
137 of 303

PROJECT:PROJECT NUMBER:BUILDING #:DATE:SCALE:1900 RIVERSIDE DRIVE GLENDALE , CA 91201NOT TO SCALE558.2101.08JANUARY 20, 2023ON SITE PHOT0 SURVEYKARAPEDIAN FAMILY RANCHKARAPEDIAN FAMILYRANCH 138 of 303

PROJECT:PROJECT NUMBER:BUILDING #:DATE:SCALE:1900 RIVERSIDE DRIVE GLENDALE , CA 91201KARAPEDIAN FAMILYRANCHKARAPEDIAN FAMILY RANCHNOT TO SCALEJANUARY 20, 2023PROJECT NUMBER 139 of 303

PROJECT:PROJECT NUMBER:BUILDING #:DATE:SCALE:1900 RIVERSIDE DRIVE GLENDALE , CA 91201KARAPEDIAN FAMILYRANCHKARAPEDIAN FAMILY RANCHNOT TO SCALEJANUARY 20, 2023PROJECT NUMBER 140 of 303

PROJECT:PROJECT NUMBER:BUILDING #:DATE:SCALE:1900 RIVERSIDE DRIVE GLENDALE , CA 91201KARAPEDIAN FAMILYRANCHKARAPEDIAN FAMILY RANCHNOT TO SCALEJANUARY 20, 2023PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT:PROJECT NUMBER:BUILDING #:DATE:SCALE:1900 RIVERSIDE DRIVE GLENDALE , CA 91201KARAPEDIAN FAMILYRANCHKARAPEDIAN FAMILY RANCHNOT TO SCALEJANUARY 20, 2023PROJECT NUMBER 141 of 303

PROJECT:PROJECT NUMBER:

BUILDING #:DATE:SCALE:1900 RIVERSIDE DRIVE GLENDALE , CA 91201KARAPEDIAN FAMILYRANCHKARAPEDIAN FAMILY RANCH NOT TO SCALEJANUARY 20, 2023PROJECT NUMBER
ON SITE PHOT0 SURVEY
142 of 303

PROJECT:PROJECT NUMBER:

BUILDING #:DATE:SCALE:1900 RIVERSIDE DRIVE GLENDALE , CA 91201KARAPEDIAN FAMILYRANCHKARAPEDIAN FAMILY RANCH NOT TO SCALEJANUARY 20, 2023PROJECT NUMBER
ON SITE PHOT0 SURVEY
144 of 303

PROJECT:PROJECT NUMBER:

BUILDING #:DATE:SCALE:1900 RIVERSIDE DRIVE GLENDALE , CA 91201KARAPEDIAN FAMILYRANCHKARAPEDIAN FAMILY RANCH NOT TO SCALEJANUARY 20, 2023PROJECT NUMBER
ON SITE PHOT0 SURVEY
146 of 303

PROJECT:PROJECT NUMBER:

BUILDING #:DATE:SCALE:1900 RIVERSIDE DRIVE GLENDALE , CA 91201KARAPEDIAN FAMILYRANCHKARAPEDIAN FAMILY RANCH NOT TO SCALEJANUARY 20, 2023PROJECT NUMBER
ON SITE PHOT0 SURVEY
147 of 303

PROJECT:PROJECT NUMBER:

BUILDING #:DATE:SCALE:1900 RIVERSIDE DRIVE GLENDALE , CA 91201KARAPEDIAN FAMILYRANCHKARAPEDIAN FAMILY RANCH NOT TO SCALEJANUARY 20, 2023558.2101.08
ON SITE PHOT0 SURVEY
151 of 303

PROJECT:PROJECT NUMBER:

BUILDING #:DATE:SCALE:1900 RIVERSIDE DRIVE GLENDALE , CA 91201KARAPEDIAN FAMILYRANCHKARAPEDIAN FAMILY RANCH NOT TO SCALEJANUARY 20, 2023558.2101.08
ON SITE PHOT0 SURVEY
152 of 303

PROJECT:PROJECT NUMBER:

BUILDING #:DATE:SCALE:1900 RIVERSIDE DRIVE GLENDALE , CA 91201KARAPEDIAN FAMILYRANCHKARAPEDIAN FAMILY RANCH NOT TO SCALEJANUARY 20, 2023558.2101.08
ON SITE PHOT0 SURVEY
154 of 303

PROJECT:PROJECT NUMBER:

BUILDING #:DATE:SCALE:1900 RIVERSIDE DRIVE GLENDALE , CA 91201KARAPEDIAN FAMILYRANCHKARAPEDIAN FAMILY RANCH NOT TO SCALEJANUARY 20, 2023558.2101.08
ON SITE PHOT0 SURVEY
155 of 303

PROJECT:PROJECT NUMBER:

BUILDING #:DATE:SCALE:1900 RIVERSIDE DRIVE GLENDALE , CA 91201KARAPEDIAN FAMILYRANCHKARAPEDIAN FAMILY RANCH NOT TO SCALEJANUARY 20, 2023558.2101.08
ON SITE PHOT0 SURVEY
156 of 303

157 of 303

158 of 303

159 of 303

160 of 303

161 of 303

162 of 303

163 of 303

164 of 303

165 of 303

166 of 303

167 of 303

168 of 303

169 of 303

170 of 303

171 of 303

Exhibit 4
172 of 303

173 of 303

P.O. Box 655
Sierr a Madre, CA 91025
www.sapphosenvir onmental.com
430 North Halstead Street
Ma
y 8, 2018
Job Number: 2268-001
Historical Resource Evaluation for
1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA 91204
FIN

AL MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD

2.6 2268-001.M01
TO
: Glendale/Riverside LLC
Attn: Art Simonian
501 W. Glenoaks Blvd.

Glendale, CA 91202
(818) 246-0092
[email protected]
FROM
: Sapphos Environmental, Inc.
(Mr. Don Faxon and Ms. Carrie Chasteen)
SU
BJECT: Historical Resource Evaluation of Property at 1900 Riverside Dr., Glendale, California
AT
TACHMENT: 1. Resumes of Key Personnel
Exhibit 5
174 of 303

Historical Resource Evaluation of 1900 Riverside Drive Memorandum for the Record May 8, 2018 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.
\\zeus\wp\Projects\2268\2268-001\MFR\2268-001 MFR1_rev20180508.docx Page 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Glendale Riverside LLC, a prospective applicant, proposes to demolish all existing buildings on the property located at 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, Los Angeles County in order to redevelop the site. At the request of the City of Glendale (City) and Glendale Riverside LLC , Sapphos Environmental, Inc. conducte d a preliminary evaluation of 1900 Riverside Dr ive, Glendale, California (AIN 5625 -031-008), to determine if the subject property meets the definition of a “historical resource” as defined in Section 15064.5(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. In order to inform this evaluation, a site visit was c onducted on February 5, 2018, by Sapphos Environmental, Inc. ( Ms. Carrie Chasteen) . Ms. Chasteen meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards in the fields of History and Architectural History.

Research was conducted in the Lo s Angeles County Assessor records, City public library and building permits, and the internet. The purpose of this research was to determine if the property meets the criteria for being determined eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic al Resources (CRHR), as articulated in Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines , and/or for designation as a City Historic Resource. The property was not evaluated for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places per the City’s guidance. The prop erty does not possess sufficient architectural significance to merit listing in the CRHR or City Register of Historic Resources. Because the property at 1900 Riverside Drive does not appear to be eligible for listing in the CRHR and City Register of Histor ic Resources, it is not considered to be a “historical resource” as defined in Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, demolition of the buildings located on this site would not result in a substantial adverse change to a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5(b) of the CEQA Guidelines.

175 of 303

Historical Resource Evaluation of 1900 Riverside Drive Memorandum for the Record May 8, 2018 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.
\\zeus\wp\Projects\2268\2268-001\MFR\2268-001 MFR1_rev20180508.docx Page 3

INTRODUCTION

Glendale Riverside LLC, a prospective applicant, proposes to demolish all existing buildings on the property located at 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, Los Angeles County in order to redevelop the site. At the request of the City of Glendale (City) and Glendale Riverside LLC , , Sapphos Environmental, Inc. conducted a preliminary evaluation of 1900 Riverside Dr ive, Glendale, California (AIN 5625-031-008), to determine if the subject property meets the definition of a “historical resource” as defined in Section 15064.5(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. This memorandum for the record (MFR) documents these identification and evaluation efforts.

In order to inform this evaluation, Sapphos Environmental, Inc. conducted a site visit on February 5, 201 8 (Ms. Carrie Chasteen ), and performed an evaluation of the subject property ( Mr. Don Faxon). Mr. Faxon and Ms. Chasteen meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards in the fields of History and Architectural History (Attachment 1, Resumes of Key Personnel).

The subject property, which consists of a complex of horse stables and related service and outbuildings generally more than 50 years old, is located within a special zoning area of the City of Glendale that is identified as a CE (Commercial, Equestrian Services) Zone. The City defines this area as “designed to encourage and support the development of equestrian related activities and other related uses required or desired by the inhabitants of the community.” The City’s CE Zone includes three blocks of properties along Riverside Drive that receive special consideration, as does the “Horse Overlay Zone” for the neighborhood , including the subjec t property. It is a part of a larger “rural” equestrian related resource area within, and identified by the neighboring City of Los Angeles as, the Rancho Equestrian District (District). The District includes all equestrian- related infrastructure along the Los Angeles River that serves the trails of Griffith Park and its environs, and is centered on a core area consisting of the Equestrian Center. The City of Burbank also provides for special equestrian zoning for its related Rancho Equestrian Riverside neighborhood.

Research was conducted using reliable information available through public and nongovernmental agencies, libraries, and other sources of published information, including:

• Los Angeles County Assessor
• City of Glendale Building and Safety, building permits • City of Glendale Public Library, city directories and Sanborn maps • Historical issues of the Los Angeles Times
• Internet

The purpose of this research was to determine if the property meets the criteria for being determined eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), as articulated in Section 15064.5(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines:

A. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history and cultural heritage;
B. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic value; or
D. Has yielded or may be likely to yield information important in prehistory or history. 176 of 303

Historical Resource Evaluation of 1900 Riverside Drive Memorandum for the Record May 8, 2018 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.
\\zeus\wp\Projects\2268\2268-001\MFR\2268-001 MFR1_rev20180508.docx Page 4 The property was also evaluated for designation as a City Historic Resource. The eligibility criteria for the City Register of Historic Resources mirror the CRHR with the addition of resources that exemplify the early heritage of the City (Criterion E). Research was conducted to determine if the subject property exemplifies the early heritage of the City for designation as a City Historic Resource. The property was not evaluated for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places per the City’s guidance.

HISTORY

The westernmost area of the City of Glendale is the product of a number of events and annexations involving Rancho San Rafael, Rancho Providencia, the City of Burbank, and the City of Los Angeles’ development of Griffith Park. Evaluation of the subject property therefore involves the history of those areas. The following contexts focus on the histories and neighborhoods of those areas that are directly related to the property’s development and significance.

Glendale’s Northwest Annexation Area

What is today referred to as “The Rancho Equestrian District ” was part of Rancho Providencia, a Mexican land grant awarded after Mexico won independence from Spain in 1821. On this land, sheep and cattle grazed, and wheat and barley were grown from the soil. After the Spanish period ended with the signing of the Treaty of Cahuenga, local dentist David Burbank purchased a 9,000 - acre ranch in 1867, including the Rancho Providencia area. In 1866, a severe drought convinced Burbank to sell his land to the Providencia Land, Water , and Development Company, and took on the role as one of the company ’s directors. A business district was laid out, surr ounded by residential lots. Rancho Providencia was then subdivided into 10- to 40-acre farms. When Burbank was incorporated, some of that agricultural territory was annexed to the City.1 Maps showing the City’s growth suggest this mixed Burbank/Ranch San Rafael/Rancho Providencia annexation occurred just before 1930. The City states that more than 12,000 acres were annexed during this period; the majority of that acreage contributed to the large northwestern area added at that time.

Origins of the Rancho Equestrian District and Its Connection to Glendale

The history of equestrian activities and related infrastructure along the Los Angeles River between Glendale, Burbank, and Los Angeles appears to be directly related to the establishment of Griffith Park and its related horse trails in 1896. Equestrian services within the Riverside neighborhood s of Glendale and Burbank flourished to support the park’s bridle trails by the 1920s , as improvement and a national outdoor camp movement encouraged increased use of the park . Equestrian services became even more in demand as the growth nearby of film studios provided more customers during the same period. N otables such as rider Bettie Davis, whose Riverbottom estate was constructed within the Rancho Riverside neighborhood less than one -half mile from the subject property, could often be seen on horseback during leisure hours in promotional films of the period.

The area’s equestrian activities, initiated at Rancho Providencia in the 19th century, were maintained into the 1920s by the small ranches and farms carved out from the original rancho property along the river, many of which have subsequently been redeveloped. Equestrian facilities provided recreation to the public and also horses for the burgeoning film industry. Land from the development company was used to create Lasky Ranch, a film location use d for some of the Civil

1 KCET. n.d. Environment. Country Life in the Big City. Available at: https://www.kcet.org/earth-focus/country-life-in- the-big-city
177 of 303

Historical Resource Evaluation of 1900 Riverside Drive Memorandum for the Record May 8, 2018 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.
\\zeus\wp\Projects\2268\2268-001\MFR\2268-001 MFR1_rev20180508.docx Page 5 War battle scenes of troops on horseback for the 1915 D.W. Griffith film, Birth of a Nation, as well as other famous silent film sets requiring equestrian services.2

The s mall local riding facilities were joined by large commercial stables within the Riverside junction of Glendale , Burbank, and Los Angeles , where shared equestrian interests became grouped. Many of t hese larger facilities were intended spe cifically for the film industry , such as Lasky Ranch, which included stables and a large horse track . According to a history of Los Angeles’s Forest Lawn Cemetery:3

“Warner Brothers leased the 1,000 -acre old Lasky Ranch in 1929 from W.I. Hollingswor th and Company, and by 1930 Lasky Ran ch had been in almost constant demand by studios for nearly 20 years … films made at the Lasky Ranch include All Quiet on the Western Front … and several of Charlie Chaplin’s early comedies.”

The Hudkin Brothers leased the old Lasky Ranch property around 1929 . The four Hudkin brothers continued providing equestrian services to the studios, including providing trained and untrained horses directly to the Warner Brothers lot for its western and period films . It was the Hudkin Brothers’ stable that provided f uture equine celebrity Trigger to Western film star Roy Rogers. 4 Research did not indicate any films were shot at the subject property, and the subject property is too small to host filming large production films.

As demand for horses in the greater Riverside neighborhood grew to serve the film industry and its employees, a constant and simultaneous demand for horses to serve the bridle trails of Griffith Park was taking place, during that Los Angeles park’s period of development (1896–1958).5 In Glendale, this development appears to have served as a continuation of the horse culture from the 19th century. Despite the railroads, streetcars, and automobiles that were moving through Glendale, a small equestrian community had held on where small farms still existed, and as late as 1918, hitching posts where horses could be tethered were still evident in the City. Among the first of the smaller stables to soon reappear in Glendale to serve the Griffith Park trails was the California Riding Academy at 1831 Rive rside Drive near the su bject property , which opened sometime around 1920.

During the height of the historic period of use of the subject property, 1940 to 19 58, more than 12 stables were operated at various times within the Glendale side of the Riverside Rancho Equestrian District and Rancho neighborhood serving the trails of Griffith Park. These included:

• The California Riding Academy, 1851 Riverside Drive (c. 1920–?) • The General Riding Academy, Irving Avenue (1933–1944) • The Glendale Riding Academy, Irving Avenue (1933–1950) • The Kemsley Western Riding Academy, Verdugo Road (1933–1939)

2 “The Three Stooges, Birth of a Nation, Forest Lawn Trees.” 17 April 2015. Chaplin-Keaton-Lloyd film locations (and more). Available at: https://silentlocations.wordpress.com/2015/04/17/the-three-stooges-birth-of-a-nation-forest-lawn- trees/
3 Forest Lawn Memorial-park Association Corporate Counsel, Glendale, CA. June 2009. Historical Resources Assessment, Forest Lawn Memorial Park, Hollywood Hills. Prepared by: LSA Associates, Inc., Riverside, CA. p. 12. 4 Mitchum, Petrine Day, and Audrey Pavia. 2014. Hollywood Hoofbeats: The Fascinating Story of Horses in Movies and Television. Los Angeles, CA: I5 Publishing.
5 Los Angeles Cultural Heritage Commission. 19 April 2008. Historic-Cultural Monument Application for Griffith Park. Prepared by: ICF Jones and Stokes, Los Angeles, CA. 178 of 303

Historical Resource Evaluation of 1900 Riverside Drive Memorandum for the Record May 8, 2018 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.
\\zeus\wp\Projects\2268\2268-001\MFR\2268-001 MFR1_rev20180508.docx Page 6 • The Royal Riding Academy 155 Irving Street (1933–?)
• The Charles Kemsley Riding Academy, 1900 Riverside Drive (1940–1947) • The Olmstead Brothers Riding School, 1850 Riverside Drive (1948–1954) • The Onondarka Riding Stables, address unknown (1947–1952) • The Parkview Riding Academy, 4865 Colorado Street (1946–1955) • The Sandy Sanders Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive (1950–1954 • The LC Goss Stables, 1850 Riverside Drive (1955–1960) • The Silver Glen Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive (1950–1954)

In addition to these riding facilities, a number of riding instructors offered services locally under their own names, including Fred O. Bailes , W. Blessing, Jack House, and Earl Ludlow. Of these 12 stables, 3 are extant. All three remaining stables appear to have been altered over the course of time as needs and trends have changed. The three remaining stables do not appear to constitute a historic district due to loss of integrity.

A recent survey of Griffith Park stated that “for almost all of Griffith Park’s long history and as of now, picnicking, horseback riding, and hiking have been key to experiencing the p ark as intended.”6 Today, the core of the District is the Los Angeles Equestrian Center, b ut the smaller private stables within Glendale’s three blocks identified as a CE Zone continue to provide livery, riding instruction, and riding tours to Griffith Park.

PROPERTY HISTORY

1900 Riverside Drive

The subject property located at 1900 Riverside Drive was constructed primarily during 1939 to 1940 according to current Assessor’s records, but aerials and permits suggest that the primary, central stables were built in 1939, with the residence and hay building added in 1942. Occupants first appeared in City directories in 1942. Businesses located at 1900 Riverside Drive during its first decade included Charles Kemsley’s and Earl Ludlow’s riding schools , the Silver Glen Stables , and Mom’s Hot Dog Stand. From 1967 to the present, the pr incipal business at the facility has been known as the Silver Spur Stables and Riding Club (Figure 1, Building Footprint s at 1900 Riverside Drive, circa 1949, Sanborn Map).

6 Los Angeles Cultural Heritage Commission. 19 April 2008. Historic-Cultural Monument Application for Griffith Park. Page 41. Prepared by: ICF Jones and Stokes.
179 of 303

Historical Resource Evaluation of 1900 Riverside Drive Memorandum for the Record May 8, 2018 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.
\\zeus\wp\Projects\2268\2268-001\MFR\2268-001 MFR1_rev20180508.docx Page 7

Figure 1. Building Footprints at 1900 Riverside Drive, circa 1949, Sanborn Map SOURCE: Sanborn Maps, Glendale, 1919–1925, updated 19497

PERMIT HISTORY

Building permits show that the first significant development on the property was applied for by owner Charles Kemsley in April 1939. Those permits are for construction of the primary “center” stables, 24 feet by 57 feet in dimension, employing a concrete pad, wood framing, “wood or metal” siding, and metal roofing. 8 These were balanced by a second, slightly smaller “stable” on the property running parallel to the larger structure that were constructed in 1942 .9 These smaller stables are shown as proposed for siting far against the west property line on the building permit. It seems more likely that these are the “secondary stables” that were actually constructed much closer and next to the larger central stables, since that is where the y are shown on the 1949 Sanborn Map10 (Figure 1).

Upon completion of the two stables, Kemsley next applied for construction of “living quarters” at the front of the lot in January 1942.11

Permits for what appear to be the final stables were applied for by owner Sandy Sanders in 1957 and describe what are clearly the long outer stall units installed to the “front and side” (northeast and southeast) of the lot. 12 No permits were found for what is known as the h ay barn, now known as the petting zoo, or for the “grooming area.”

7 Sanborn Maps, Glendale June 1919, Sheet 43; Sanborn Maps, Glendale 1925 vol. 1, Sheet 129. 8 City of Glendale Building Permit No. 13799, 20 April 1939. 9 City of Glendale Building Permit No. 19942, 29 January 1942. 10 City of Glendale Building Permit No. 13798, 20 April 1939. 11 City of Glendale Building Permit 28 January 1942. No. 19942. 12 City of Glendale Building Permit 14 April 1957 No. 54301. 180 of 303

Historical Resource Evaluation of 1900 Riverside Drive Memorandum for the Record May 8, 2018 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.
\\zeus\wp\Projects\2268\2268-001\MFR\2268-001 MFR1_rev20180508.docx Page 8

PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND OCCUPANCY

The current owner of the subject property is Bell Diversified Development, Inc . The property has had multiple owners and occupants between 19 25 and 1977. The following table summarizes the history of previous occupants and owners of this property (Table 1, Summary of Ownership History, 1900 Riverside Drive).

TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF OWNERSHIP HISTORY, 1900 RIVERSIDE DRIVE

Date
Occupant Identified in Glendale City
Directories13
Los Angeles County Assessor
Ownership Record
1925 N/A
John and Harry M. Lutge
1926 N/A
1927 N/A
1928 N/A
1929 N/A
1930 N/A
1931 N/A
1932 N/A
1933 N/A
1934 N/A
1935 N/A
1936 N/A
1937 N/A
1938 N/A
Charles Kemsley
1939 N/A
1940* N/A
1941 N/A
1942 Charles Kemsley Riding Academy
1943 Charles Kemsley Riding Academy
1944 Charles Kemsley Riding Academy
1945 Charles Kemsley and Earl Ludlow
1946 Charles Kemsley and Earl Ludlow
1947 Charles Kemsley and Earl Ludlow
1948 Earl R. Ludlow Riding Academy
1949 Earl R. Ludlow Riding Academy
Laura Kemsley
1950 Silver Glen Stables; Mom’s Hot Dog Stand
1951 Silver Glen Stables; Mom’s Hot Dog Stand
1952 Silver Glen Stables
1953 Silver Glen Stables
1954 Silver Glen Stables
1955 Sandy Sanders Stables
Grover S. Sanders 1956 Sandy Sanders Stables
1957 Sandy Sanders Stables
1958 N/A
1959 N/A
N/A 1963 N/A
1965 N/A
1967 Silver Spur Stables

13 Glendale City Directory Company, Glendale (1922–1977); Polk’s Glendale City Directory, Glendale (1951–1977). 181 of 303

Date
Occupant Identified in Glendale City
Directories13
Los Angeles County Assessor
Ownership Record
1968 Silver Spur Stables
1969 Wladyslaw Tomaszewski
1970 Wladyslaw Tomaszewski
1972 Wladyslaw Tomaszewski
1973 Wladyslaw Tomaszewski
1975 N/A Roger and Alma Dyrness
1977 Zack Porteous N/A
1986 N/A Alexander Haagen III 1995 N/A
1999 N/A Empire II LLC
2003 N/A Jose M. Marroquin
2005 N/A Nicole I. Marroquin
2007 N/A James B. Sands
2007 N/A Bell Diversified Development
KEY: *Denotes date property was first improved.

ASSOCIATED PERSONS

The subject property was improved in 19 39–1940; before this date , John and Harry M. Lutge owned the unimproved parcel and much of the entire tract. The first owner to improve the property was Charles Kemsley, who had started the Kemsley Western Riding Academy on Verdugo Road before purchasing 190 0 Riverside Drive and opening the Charles Kemsley Riding Academy.

Kemsley was originally from Idaho and lived in Santa Monica before moving to Pasadena around 1930. At that time he was the “proprietor” of a riding school, possibly his Western Riding Academy.14 Charles Kemsley and his wife lived on Langdale Avenue in Eagle Rock in 1938 just before purchasing 1900 Riverside Drive and continued living there during the initial campaigns of construction for the subject property. Although Mrs. Kem sley continued to reside at the property, Charles moved to an unknown address and died in 1959 in Los Angeles. The next owner of the property was Charles Kemsley’s wife, Laura Kemsley. She was born in 1872 and was listed as living without Charles at the property from 1948 to 195415 Nine years older than Charles, she died in 1957.

The next owner of the property was a former laborer who began working with Charles Kemsley at 1900 Riverside Drive in 1940 after marrying Kemsley’s daughter, Edna. Earl R. Ludlow is described as having maintained the stables before becoming listed in 1945 as joint partner at the Charles Kemsley Riding Academy. By 1948 the a cademy was named after Ludlow, but the property was still owned by Kemsley’s wife . By 1950 the facility was referred to as the Silver Glen Stables and managed by Ludlow. In the 1940s, Ludlow won numerous horse competitions, including first place in the San Fernando V alley riding competition under the Silver Glen Stables banner.16 No information is available on Grover S. Sanders, who does not appear in any U.S. Census.

14 U.S. Census 1930
15 1948, 1951, 1954 Glendale City Directory
16 Valley Times. 2 December 1948.
182 of 303

Historical Resource Evaluation of 1900 Riverside Drive Memorandum for the Record May 8, 2018 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.
\\zeus\wp\Projects\2268\2268-001\MFR\2268-001 MFR1_rev20180508.docx Page 10

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

Complex

The property at 1900 Riverside Drive consists of a single -family residence along with a complex of horse stables and associated support buildings. Most buildings are sited so that they run from front (Riverside Drive) to rear (the Los Angeles River) of the parcel. A small, original hay barn to the rear is among the only buildings to run perpendicular to this arrangement. To the northwest, the site contains a corral referred to as “the arena.”

The principal buildings are the oldest from the facility’s original 1939–1940 construction: the long, linear, centrally located primary stables that form the backbone of the complex, and the associated caretaker’s residence . Both are visible on a 1949 Sanborn map (Figure 1), and have not significantly changed, although the stables have become partially obscured by later structures added along its southeastern (Allen Avenue extension) side , and partially along its back, western, corner. Aerial images show that these additional buildings and structures were added more than 50 years ago, before 1964 ; most were added within the same decade as the primary stables and residence (Figure 2, Current Building Footprint, Showing Relationship to Griffith Park).

Figure 2. Current Building Footprint, showing relationship to Griffith Park SOURCE: Los Angeles County Assessor, 2018

183 of 303

A side-gabled-on-hipped one-story dwelling appears to have been constructed in 1939 –1940, and is located ne ar the front of the complex between the arena and primary stables. The vernacular building reflects a variety of architectural style influences including Ranch and Italiana te (cupula).

The building has a generally rectangular footprint and measures approximately 1,038 square feet.

The exterior walls are clad in board and batten siding. A shed roof extension shields a raised porch at the entrance to the southeast, and one bay projects slightly from a central portion of that side.

The partially enclosed porch appears to be an alteration. A pyramidal-roofed cupola projects from the primary roof near the corral side of the building. The building retains its multilight wood windows (Figure 3, General View from the East, Residence at 1900 Riverside Drive).

Figure 3. General View from the East, Residence at 1900 Riverside Drive SOURCE: Sapphos Environmental, Inc. 2018

Primary (Northeastern) Façade

The primary façade features a single multilight wood window, and large exaggerated eaves with exposed rafter tails (Figure 4, Primary [Northeastern] Façade, Residence, 1900 Riverside Drive).

Figure 4. Primary (Northeastern) Façade, Residence, 1900 Riverside Drive SOURCE: Sapphos Environmental, Inc. 2018
184 of 303

The southeastern façade is defined by its shed-roof-covered primary entrance and projecting bay.

The partially enclosed porch with plywood and modern lattice skirting appears to be an addition (Figure 5, Southeastern Façade Detail, 1900 Riverside Drive).

Figure 5. Southeastern Façade Detail, 1900 Riverside Drive SOURCE: Sapphos Environmental, Inc., 2018

Northwestern Façade

The northwestern façade features three evenly spaced windows topped by the cupola (Figure 6, Northwestern Façade, 1900 Riverside Drive).

Figure 6. Northwestern Façade, 1900 Riverside Drive
SOURCE: Sapphos Environmental, Inc., 2018
185 of 303

The original central stables building is a long linear end-gable roofed wood-framed building clad in board and batten siding and topped with standing seam metal roofing . A raised gabled clerestory element provides light along most of the roof. The fenestration on the primary façade of the building appears to include a mix of both replacement window sash and possibly original sash within original openings. The metal roofing has been replaced over the course of time due to wear and tear. Additionally, two bubble skylights were installed at an unknown date . An office occupies the front of this building and is visible from the north (Figure 7 , Primary [Northeastern] Façade, Original Central Stables; Figure 8 , Northwestern Façade, O riginal Central Stables Showing Office Area).

Figure 7. Primary (Northeastern) Façade, Original Central Stables SOURCE: Sapphos Environmental, Inc., 2018

Figure 8. Northwestern Façade, Original Central Stables Showing Office Area SOURCE: Sapphos Environmental, Inc., 2018

186 of 303

Historical Resource Evaluation of 1900 Riverside Drive Memorandum for the Record May 8, 2018 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.
\\zeus\wp\Projects\2268\2268-001\MFR\2268-001 MFR1_rev20180508.docx Page 14 The southwestern (trail) end of the original stables has been substantially reconstructed and/or extended. It is clad in modern vertical wood siding , and only its massing and roof slope are common with the primary street end of the building . The building was clad in corrugated metal siding and was reclad in wood siding within the last 10 years (Figure 9 , Southwestern Façade, Original Central Stables).

Figure 9. Southwestern Façade, Original Central Stables SOURCE: Sapphos Environmental, Inc., 2018

1939–1942 Building Campaign – Northwest (Secondary) Stables

Constructed along with the primary stables during 1939 –1940, the secondary stables are smaller than the primary stables and located parallel to, and just northwest of, those central stables; they are south of the dwelling at 1900 Riverside Drive. They are semi-open with a raised central gabled roof flanked by outer shed-roofed stall wings. The building was clad in corrugated metal siding and was reclad in wood siding within the last 10 years (Figure 10, South View of Secondary Stables).

Figure 10. South View of Secondary Stables
SOURCE: Sapphos Environmental, Inc., 2018
187 of 303

The grooming area seems to have been constructed by 194 7, and consists of a covered, open area with adjacent storage areas for brushes, blankets, and other related paraphernalia (Figure 11 , Grooming Area).

Figure 11. Grooming Area
SOURCE: Sapphos Environmental, Inc., 2018

Circa 1947/1990 – Hay Barn

The hay barn is a gabled, wood -framed, semiopen building employing modern vertical board siding. The barn has been substantially altered by an addition from an undetermined date of construction. The addition obscures the original, board and batten, 1940s primar y façade (Figure 12, Southeastern Façade, O riginal Hay Barn Showing Modern Front Addition ; Figure 13, Original Primary Façade of Hay Barn Seen inside Current Building).

188 of 303

Historical Resource Evaluation of 1900 Riverside Drive Memorandum for the Record May 8, 2018 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.
\\zeus\wp\Projects\2268\2268-001\MFR\2268-001 MFR1_rev20180508.docx Page 16

Figure 12. Southeastern Façade, Original Hay Barn Showing Modern Front Addition SOURCE: Sapphos Environmental, Inc., 2018

Figure 13. Original Primary Façade of Hay Barn Seen inside Current Building SOURCE: Sapphos Environmental, Inc., 2018

189 of 303

This long (112-foot), gable-roofed stables building was added in 1957 along the outer perimeter of the property to the southeast, along Allen Avenue extension . The building was constructed using concrete blocks, modern wood, and metal animal corrals (Figure 14, Southeast Stables).

Figure 14, Southeast Stables
SOURCE: Sapphos Environmental, Inc., 2018

EVALUATION

The subject property at 1900 Riverside Drive is an equestrian-related complex within a special use zone for that purpose in the City of Glendale. The property is associated with the growth of equestrian-related recreational activities shared by Los Angeles, Burbank, and Glendale within their shared and tightly defined use area known as known the Rancho Equestrian District. Since at least the 1920s , riding facilities replaced working farms . The r eplacement equestrian barns, stables, riding arenas, and bridle trails that were constructed as early as the 1920s contribute to the zoned area’s feel. The history of riding stables in this area of Glendale coincides with the later years of the primary period of significance for Griffith Park (1898 to 1958) ,17 and also with the growth of the nearby film industry, if more indirectly. This defined zone shares traits of development, use, and history, and conveys the historic relationship with the horse that was closely associated with Glendale, since areas of that city have maintained a n uninterrupted relationship with the horse since the 19th century that became associated with Griffith Park ’s miles of bridle trails . However, the City of Los Angeles Historic -Cultural Monument application did not identify equestrian activities as significant in the history of the park.18

The subject property at 1900 Riverside Drive was created in 1940 as a part of this equestrian development. It is a component of a minimal, three-block area associated with equestrian activities that has become somewhat disconnected from other early horse-culture resources due to Burbank’s redevelopment of its equestrian zone, and the City of Los Angeles’s 1980 redevelopment of Griffith

17 Los Angeles Cultural Heritage Commission. 19 April 2008. Historic-Cultural Monument Application for Griffith Park. Page 41. Prepared by: ICF Jones and Stokes.
18 Los Angeles Cultural Heritage Commission. 19 April 2008. Historic-Cultural Monument Application for Griffith Park. Page 41. Prepared by: ICF Jones and Stokes.
190 of 303

Historical Resource Evaluation of 1900 Riverside Drive Memorandum for the Record May 8, 2018 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.
\\zeus\wp\Projects\2268\2268-001\MFR\2268-001 MFR1_rev20180508.docx Page 18 Park’s Equestrian Center. The architecture of the subject property reflects a working addition to the historic origins of this development rather than a formative or high- style contribution, and its use has deteriorated its level of integrity. It therefore cannot convey the significant broad patterns of history and cultural heritage in this regional trend to develop and maintain an equestrian-related recreational infrastructure, and so is ineligible pursuant to Criterion A.

Although many early riders and instructors of minor local prominence passed though the subject property, their relationships to it is not substantial or long term enough to be associated with this property pursuant to Criterion B.

The primary two buildings of the complex— the original stables and residence —were constructed during a period when it was not unusual to provide a Mid -Century “theme” influence of revival architectural style for a service -related commercial/recreational building. The house at the subje ct property in fact suggests the kind of theme/period style/type shared by the nearby Griffith Park and Southern Pacific Miniature Railroad complex “depot” for instance, as well as aspects of some shared period theme park architecture. A long with the prima ry stables it creates an evocative, if limited, “Old West” feeling that would be consistent with kinds of 1940s and 1950s customers that arrived seeking a small taste of the experience they watched on television Westerns each night.

Nevertheless, the buildings represent a vernacular use of architectural elements from slightly different periods and style , and are not of high architectural merit. They therefore are do not embody the distinct characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction pursuan t to Criterion C, and have no association with a known master architect.

The buildings were constructed using common building materials and techniques, and the site was graded during construction of the buildings. Therefore, the property is not likely to yield significant information regarding the prehistory and history of the area pursuant to Criterion D. Additionally, while related to the history of equestrian activities in the City and Griffith Park, the property does not exemplify the ea rly heritage of the City pursuant to Criterion E because it was established at least 33 years after the establishment of Glendale and almost 20 years after equestrian activities were established in this area of the City.

Integrity Considerations

The set ting of the property has been compromised because it is now adjacent to modern multistory, multifamily apartment buildings to the east across the boundary with Burbank. The property located at 1900 Riverside Drive is altered with some window and entrance alterations and new cladding materials to its original stables and barns. Additionally, the primary entry porch of the residence has been altered , and the property does not retain integrity of design, workmanship , or materials. Moreover, buildings adjacent to the property in neighboring Burbank have largely changed from those evident at the time of construct ion and become large apartment complexes or commercial buildings . The building s have not been moved and retain integrity of location. The property located at 1900 Riverside Drive does not possess sufficient historical or architectural significance to merit listing in the CRHR or City Register of Historic Resources.

191 of 303

Historical Resource Evaluation of 1900 Riverside Drive Memorandum for the Record May 8, 2018 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.
\\zeus\wp\Projects\2268\2268-001\MFR\2268-001 MFR1_rev20180508.docx Page 19

CONCLUSION

Because the property at 1900 Riverside Drive does not appear to be eligible for listing in the CRHR and City Register of Historic Resources, it is not considered to be a “historical resource” as defined in Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, demolition of the buildings located on this site would not result in a substantial adverse change to a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5(b) of the CEQA Guidelines.

Should there be any questions regarding the information contained in this MFR, please contact Ms. Carrie Chasteen at (626) 683-3547, extension 102.

192 of 303

ATTACHMENT 1

RESUMES OF KEY PERSONNEL

193 of 303

Carrie E. Chasteen, MS, BA
S
enior Historic Resource
Specialist
MS,
Historic Preservation,
School of the Art Institute of
Chicago, Chicago, IL
B
A, History and Political
Science, University of South
Florida, Tampa, FL
Phi
Alpha Theta historical honor
society
• C
ultural resources
management and legal
compliance
• History of California
• Identification and
e
valuation of the built
environment
• Historic American
B
uilding Survey (HABS)
and Engineering Record
(
HAER) documentation
• Historic Property Survey
Reports (HPSRs)
• Historical Resources
Evaluation Reports
(HRERs)
Ye
ars of Experience: 15+
R
elevant Experience
• C
ertified Oregon
Tr
ansportation Investment
Act (OTIA) III CS3
Technical Lead
• Historic Preservati
on
C
ommissioner, City of
Pasadena, CA
• Historic consultant for the
Shangri La Hotel
renovation project, Santa
Monica, CA
• Principal Architectural
Historian for the Interstate
10 (I-10) Corridor Project
• HABS/HAE
R
doc
umentation for
Mission Control at NASA
JPL in Pasadena, CA
Ms. Carrie Chasteen has more than 15 years of experience in the field of cultural re sources management and the built environment, including project management, agency coordination, archival research, managing large surveys, preparation of Environmental Impact Statement / Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) sections, peer review, and regulatory compliance. She me ets and exceeds the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards in the fields of History and Architectural History.

Ms. Chasteen has served as Principal Investigator / Principal Architectural Historian on projects in Kern, S an Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange, Imperial, and San Diego Counties in
Southern California. She has extensive experie nce with the California Office of Historic Preservation, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), S an Be rnardino Associated Governments (SANBAG), Los Angeles County Department of Parks and
Recreation, the City of L os Angeles, and various other State, county, and local government agencies.

Ms. Chasteen served as the historic consultant for the design team for the renovation of the Shangri La Hotel, Santa Monica, California, which won a historic preservation award from the Santa Monica Conservancy.

For the Shangri La Hotel project, Ms. Chasteen documented and ranked the character -defining features of the building and structures on the property; reviewed plans for consistenc y with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties; assisted with developing creative solutions to meet the objectives of updating the hotel amenities while maintaining the historic character of the building; assisted with the entitlement process including presentations before the Planning Commission; and prepared Historic American Building Surv ey (HABS) documentation of the linoleum flooring which was set in unique patterns per room throughout the entire building. Additional experience includes serving as Principal Architectural Historian for the Interstate 10 (I-10) Corridor Project. For this project, Ms. Chasteen prepared a Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR), Historical Resources Evaluation Report (HRER), and a Finding of No Adverse Effect with Non -Standard Conditions (FNAE). As part of the FNAE, she conducted agency consultation with the Cities of Redlands, Upland, and Ontario, and with other interested parties including regional historical societies. Ms.

Chasteen has also prepared Historic American Buildings Survey / Historic American Engineering Record (HABS / HAER) documentation for the former Caltrans District 7 headquarters building and the Space Flight Operations Facility, commonly referred to a s Mission Control, a National Historic Monument, at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena.

Ms. Chasteen is a member of the Society of Architectural Historians, National Trust for Historic Preservation, California Preservation Foundation, and Pasadena Heritage. Ms. Chasteen is also a Historic Preservation Commissioner for the City of Pasadena.
194 of 303

Donald M. Faxon, MA, BS

Architectural Historian
Preservation Specialist

MA, Historic Preservation,
Savannah College of Art &
Design, Savannah, GA

BS, Public Communications,
Boston University, Boston,
MA

• Cultural resources
management and legal
compliance
• History of California
• Identification and
evaluation of the built
environment
• Archival documentation
• Historic preservation
consultation
• Historic treatment
planning, monitoring, and
management.
• ADA assessment
• Historic structure reports
and conditions
assessment
• Scientific materials
evaluation
• Architectural history

Years of Experience: 25 +

• Society of Architectural
Historians
• Former Cultural Heritage
Commissioner, City of
Sierra Madre
• Sigma Pi Kappa Historic
Preservation Fellowship
• Former Historical
Architect at a State
Historic Preservation
Office (SHPO)
• Section 106 reports

Donald M. Faxon has professional experience as both an Architectural Historian and Architectural Preservation Specialist. He served as Senior Historical Architect at a state office of historic preservation (S HPO) and as a city Cultural Heritage Commissioner; and has worked for the National Park Service and the National Trust for Historic Preservation. He has explained, interpreted, applied, and/or enforced the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards in positions on both c oasts. His experience includes providing inventory, significance evaluations, re -use stud ies, and interpretation options. He also provides architectural technical expertise in design review, visual and scientific condition assessments, preservation and conser vation treatments, historic structure reports, project monitoring, compatible integration design for code required elements, and accessibility planning for the disabled. Additional skills include architectural project planning and monitoring. He has prepar ed technical reports for historical built environment resources to satisfy compliance requirements under CEQA, Section 106, and local ordinances.

Mr. Faxon has more than 25 years of experience as a historic preservation professional on projects involvin g a wide variety of building, structure and landscape styles and types, including agricultural, maritime, industrial, residential, commercial, transportation, civic, religious, entertainment, and military related resources.

Mr. Faxon’s selected project experience includes:

• Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Conformance Review for Los Angeles Unified School District’s Lincoln High School HVAC Project.
• Evaluation and recommendations for properties owned by the Preservation Society of Newport County (The Newport Mansions) for Americans with the Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility, Newport, RI.
• Secretary of the Interior’s Standards e valuation of “Old State House” buildings and other properties owned by the State Government of Rhode Island for repair, restoration , and ADA accessibility, Providence, RI, including design recommendations and implementation.
• Evaluation of the state -owned Veteran’s Auditorium in Providence , RI for ADA accessibility.
• Evaluations and historic contexts for multiple County parks for the Los Angeles Department of County Parks and Recreation,
including assessment for the NRHP, SRHP, and County Register. • Cultural Resource Management Plan research and preparation for the Los Angeles Department of County Parks and Recreation. • CEQA evaluation of historical significance and design review of a proposed rehabilitation, San Luis Obispo, CA.
• Administration and monitoring of Congressionally -funded seismic disaster grant projects at Castle Green Apartments, Pasadena , CA; Shrine Auditorium, 665 Western Boulevard, Los Angeles , CA; and Case Study House Number 18, 199 Chautauqua Blvd, Pacific Palisades, CA.
• Field evaluations and recommendations for endangered propertie s at Rocky Mountain National Park, CO.

195 of 303

Jenna Snow, Historic Preservation Consulting ● 323/317-3297 ● [email protected] H
istoric Resource Assessment
Silver Spur Stables
1900 Riverside Drive
Glendale, CA 91201
A
ugust 2018
Exhibit 6
196 of 303

Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA 0

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction and Executive Summary........................................................................... 1

II. Consultant Qualifications ................................................................................................ 2

III. Regulatory Setting ............................................................................................................. 3 National Register ....................................................................................................... 3 California Register ..................................................................................................... 4 CEQA ......................................................................................................................... 4 City of Glendale ......................................................................................................... 5

IV. Property Description ........................................................................................................ 7 Physical Description.................................................................................................. 7 History ......................................................................................................................... 9

V. Historic Context ................................................................................................................ 14 Equestrians in Glendale............................................................................................ 14 Equestrians in Adjacent Communities ................................................................... 16 Planning for Horses and Equestrians..................................................................... 18 Western Movies and Television Shows ................................................................. 21

VI. Historic Resource Assessment ........................................................................................ 23 Significance ................................................................................................................. 23 Integrity ....................................................................................................................... 25

VII. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 26

VIII. Bibliography ....................................................................................................................... 27

Appendix A: Tables of Local Riding Academies
Appendix B: Tables of Local Riding Academies

Attachments
Attachment 1: Current Maps and Aerials
Attachment 2: Historic Maps and Aerials
Attachment 3: Current Photographs of Subject Property
Attachment 4: Current Photographs of Setting
Attachment 5: Historic Photographs of Setting

197 of 303

Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA 1 I. INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report provides an historic resource assessment of the property located at 1900 Riverside Drive in the City of Glendale, California (Assessor Parcel Number 5625-031-008, hereinafter referred to as “subject property”). Initially developed with an office and horse stables in 1939, the subject property was expanded in the 1940s and 1950s with additional stables, a barn, and a single-family home.

The subject property was evaluated for historic and architectural significance in a report prepared by Sapphos Environmental, Inc., dated May 8, 2018.1 That report found the property ineligible for designation in the Glendale Register of Historic Resource (Glendale Register) or for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register), and therefore not an historical resource under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

This report provides an expanded analysis, and, based on additional information, comes to the opposite conclusion that the subject property appears individually eligible for listing in both the Glendale and California Registers. In addition, the subject property appears eligible as a contributing resource to a potential historic district eligible for listing in both the Glendale and California Registers for its significant association with local equestrian history. The subject property is located within an equestrian zone at the junction of the cities of Glendale, Burbank and Los Angeles that incorporates commercial and residential properties and provides linkages with bridle trails along the Los Angeles River and within Griffith Park on the opposite side of the river.

As the report concludes that the subject property is eligible for designation in the Glendale and California Registers both individually as well as a part of a potential historic district, this report provides recommendations for future actions to pursue designation.

As a note, the term “equestrian” is used frequently throughout this report. The term is used as a noun to describe “one who rides on horseback” or as an adjective to show something “relating to the act of riding horses.”2 More specifically, the term equestrian may include, though it is not limited to, a person who owns, leases, or trains horses; exercise riders; competitors; groomers; riding instructors; mounted police, sheriffs, or park rangers; and guides or “wranglers” that accompany riders.

1 Sapphos Environmental Inc., “Historic Resource Evaluation of the Property at 1900 Riverside Drive, Final Memorandum For the Record, addressed to Art Simonian, Glendale/Riverside LLC, May 8, 2018. 2 “Equestrian,” Merriam-Webster Dictionary, online database, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equestrian. 198 of 303

Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA 2 II. CONSULTANT QUALIFICATIONS

This report was prepared by Jenna Snow and Kathryn McGee. Ms. Snow and Ms. McGee visited and photographed the site on June 26, 2018. The site visit was conducted on foot, horseback, and for surrounding residential areas, in a car.

Jenna Snow
In January 2015, Jenna Snow launched an independent historic preservation consulting practice offices in Los Angeles. With over fifteen years of professional experience, Ms. Snow has a strong and broad understanding of best historic preservation practice, including federal, state, and local regulations. She has worked on a wide range of projects on both the east and west coasts, as well as internationally. Ms. Snow holds a M.S. in Historic Preservation from Columbia University and a B.A. in Fine Arts focusing on architectural history from Brandeis University. She meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in Architectural History. Throughout her career, Ms. Snow has authored, co-authored, and/or served as project manager for nearly 100 historic preservation projects, including a wide variety of historic resource assessments, National Register nominations, and historic resources surveys. She regularly contributes to environmental impact reports, historic preservation certification applications, Section 106 reviews and other work associated with historic building rehabilitation and preservation planning. Ms. Snow has prepared multiple National Register nominations, including the Twohy Building in San José, CA; the Beverly Hills Women’s Club in Beverly Hills, CA; the Sam and Alfreda Maloof Compound in Rancho Cucamonga, CA; the Boyle Hotel/Cummings Block in Los Angeles, CA; the West Los Angeles Veterans Affairs Historic District in Los Angeles, CA, and Temple Ohave Israel in Brownsville, PA.

She has completed historic resources surveys, including coauthoring historic context statements in Hollywood, Whittier, CA, and South Los Angeles. Prior to her consulting work, Ms. Snow worked for the New York City Department of Design and Construction in New York, NY, the Freedom Trail Foundation in Boston, MA, and the Neighborhood Preservation Center in New York, NY.

Kathryn McGee
Ms. McGee is an architectural historian and historic preservation planner based in Los Angeles. She meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards in Architectural History and has ten years of experience in the field of historic preservation consulting. She previously worked at historic preservation consulting firm Chattel, Inc. for nearly seven years and launched an independent practice in 2015. Her educational background includes a Bachelor of Arts degree in architectural history from the University of California, Santa Barbara and a Master of Urban and Regional Planning degree from the University of California, Irvine. She has also completed the Summer Program in Historic Preservation at the University of Southern California and is a LEED Accredited Professional with specialty in Neighborhood Development. Her consulting work entails writing reports for purposes of environmental and local project review; preparation of historic resource assessments and surveys; preparation of technical reports for General Plan Updates; evaluation of properties seeking or complying with Mills Act Contracts; and consultation on adaptive reuse and federal Investment Tax Credit projects.

199 of 303

Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA 3 III. REGULATORY SETTING

National Register
The National Register of Historic Places is “an authoritative guide to be used by federal, state, and local governments, private groups, and citizens to identify the nation’s cultural resources and indicate what properties should be considered for protection from destruction or impairment,”3 Administered by the National Park Service, the National Register is the nation’s official list of historic and cultural resources worthy of preservation. Properties listed in the National Register include districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that are significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture. Resources are eligible for the National Register if they meet one or more of the following criteria for significance:

A) are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or
B) are associated with the lives of significant persons in our past; or C) embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
D) have yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory.4

Once a resource has been determined to satisfy one of the above criteria, then it must be assessed for “integrity.”5 Integrity refers to the ability of a property to convey its significance. Evaluation of integrity is based on “an understanding of a property’s physical features and how they relate to its significance.” The National Register recognizes seven aspects or qualities of integrity: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. To retain integrity, a property must possess several, and usually most, of these aspects.

Cultural Landscape
The National Park Service provides guidance for evaluating cultural landscapes in Preservation Brief 36:

Protecting Cultural Landscapes: Planning, Treatment and Management of Historic Landscapes as per the following:

A Cultural Landscape is defined as, “A geographic area, including both cultural and natural resources and the wildlife or domestic animals therein, associated with a historic event, activity, or person or exhibiting other cultural or aesthetic values.” There are four general types of cultural landscapes, not mutually exclusive: historic sites, historic designed landscapes, historic vernacular landscapes, and ethnographic landscapes.6

The definition most relevant for discussion of the subject property is historic vernacular landscape, defined as follows:

A landscape that evolved through use by the people whose activates or occupancy shaped that landscape. Through social or cultural attitudes of an individual, family or a community, the landscape reflects the physical, biological, and cultural character of those everyday lives.

Function plays a significant role in vernacular landscapes. They can be a single property such

3 National Register Bulletin #16A: How to Complete the National Register Registration Form (National Park Service, 1997). 4 National Register Bulletin #15, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (National Park Service, 1990, revised 2002).
5 National Register Bulletin #15, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (National Park Service, 1990, revised 2002).
6 Charles A. Birnbaum, ASLA, Preservation Brief 36: Protecting Cultural Landscapes: Planning, Treatment and Management of Historic Landscapes, National Park Service, September 1994: 1.
200 of 303

Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA 4 as a farm or a collection of properties such as a district of historic farms along a river valley.

Examples include rural villages, industrial complexes, and agricultural landscapes.7

Relationship to this report: The subject property is not listed in the National Register. For the reasons stated in this report, the subject property appears to meet National Register eligibility requirements, both individually and as part of an historic district with a significant cultural landscape. However, the subject property or the identified historic district may not retain sufficient integrity for listing in the National Register. It is important to note that neither the California Register nor the Glendale Register of Historic Resources specifically address cultural landscapes.

California Register
Based substantially on the National Register, the California Register is “an authoritative guide… used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify the state's historical resources and to indicate what properties are to be protected.”8 For a property to be eligible for listing in the California Register, it must be found by the State Historical Resources Commission to be significant under at least one of the following four criteria:

1) is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage; or
2) is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; or 3) embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual or possesses high artistic values; or
4) has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Also included in the California Register are properties which have been formally determined eligible for listing in, or are listed in the National Register; are registered State Historical Landmark Number 770, and all consecutively numbered landmarks above Number 770; and Points of Historical Interest, which have been reviewed and recommended to the State Historical Resources Commission for listing.

The primary difference between eligibility for listing in the National and California Registers is integrity. Properties eligible for listing in the National Register generally have a higher degree of integrity than those only eligible for listing in the California Register. There is, however, no difference with regard to significance.

Relationship to this report: The subject property is not listed in the California Register. For the reasons stated in this report, the subject property appears to meet California Register eligibility requirements, both individually and as part of an historic district. It is important to note that neither the California Register nor the Glendale Register of Historic Resources specifically address cultural landscapes.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was enacted in 1970 and offers protection for identified historical resources. In general, for purposes of CEQA and environmental review, an “historical resource” is that which has been determined eligible for listing in the California Register, or one that is designated at the local level. The term “historical resource” includes the following:

7 Birnbaum, Preservation Brief 36, 2.
8 California Public Resources Code §5024.1(a), <http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PRC/1/d5/1/2/s5024.1>. 201 of 303

Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA 5

1. A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub Res Code SS5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4850 et seq).

2. A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant.

3. Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered to be an historical resource, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record.

Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register (Pub Res Code SS5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852).

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 (pursuant to 5020.1 (k) of the Public Resources Code), or identified in an historical survey (meeting the criteria in Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as defined in Public Resources Code Sections 5020.1 (j) or 5024.1.

Relationship to this report: For the reasons stated in this report, the subject property appears eligible for listing in the California Register and the City of Glendale Register of Historic Resources, both individually and as part of a historic district, and therefore qualifies as an historical resource under CEQA.

City of Glendale
§15.20.020 of the Glendale Municipal Code provides the following definition of a designated historic resource:9

“Designated historic resource” means any site, building, structure, area or place, man-made or natural, which is historically or archaeologically significant in the cultural, architectural, archaeological, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political or military heritage of the City of Glendale, the State of California, or the United States and which has been designated as historically significant in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, or the Glendale Register of Historic Resources.

§15.20.050 of the Glendale Municipal Code provides the following regarding designation of historic resources:10

Upon recommendation of the historic preservation commission, city council shall consider and

9 City of Glendale Municipal Code §15.20.020, http://qcode.us/codes/glendale/view.php?topic=15-15_20-15_20_020&frames=on, accessed July 28, 2018.
10 City of Glendale Municipal Code §15.20.050.
202 of 303

Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA 6 make findings for additions to the Glendale Register of Historic Resources. The designation of any proposed resource in the city as a historic resource shall be granted only if city council first finds that the proposed historic resource meets one (1) or more of the following criteria:

1. The proposed historic resource is identified with important events in national, state, or city history, or exemplifies significant contributions to the broad cultural, political, economic, social, or historic heritage of the nation, state, or city;

2. The proposed historic resource is associated with a person, persons, or groups who significantly contributed to the history of the nation, state, region, or city;

3. The proposed historic resource 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;

4. The proposed historic resource has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to archaeological pre-history or history of the nation, state, region, or city;

5. The proposed historic resource exemplifies the early heritage of the city. (Ord. 5784 § 7, 2012; Ord. 5347 § 7, 2003: Ord. 5110 § 12, 1996: prior code § 21-02)

Relationship to this report: The subject property is not individually listed in the Glendale Register. For reasons stated in this report, the subject property appears to meet local eligibility requirement, both individually and as part of a potential historic district.

203 of 303

Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA 7 IV. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

Physical Description
Current maps and aerials are included in Attachment 1, current photographs are included in Attachment 3, and current photographs of the setting are included in Attachment 4.

Setting
Located at 1900 Riverside Drive in the City of Glendale, the subject property is situated within an equestrian-oriented neighborhood spanning areas of Glendale as well as Burbank, positioned among other commercial-equestrian properties on Riverside Drive. Other nearby commercial-equestrian properties include additional horse stables and two feed stores, the TriKee Tack at 1840 Riverside Drive and DaMoors Feed and Tack at 1532 Riverside Drive. The subject property is also adjacent to the Los Angeles Equestrian Center, located to the southwest, which is a large complex of horse stables, arenas, and related buildings. Surrounding residential areas in both Glendale and Burbank are also zoned to accommodate horses and private stables in backyards.

The subject property is located at the intersection of Riverside Drive and Allen Avenue. The subject property faces Riverside Drive, which is the automotive spine of the commercial-equestrian area. For purposes of this report and ease of description, it is assumed Riverside Drive is north of the subject property. East of the subject property, Allen Avenue becomes a dirt road, leading directly to a bridge and then onto a bridle trail to the south. That bridle trail provides linkage to a bridle trail system accessing the equestrian neighborhood and serves as a critical access point from surrounding residential-equestrian properties and to bridges over the Los Angeles River and into Griffith Park, which has over fifty miles of equestrian trails. To access Griffith Park, the trail leads over the Los Angeles River via a bridge and under the 5-Freeway via a tunnel.

Site
The subject property is irregularly shaped and
contains a single-family home, horse stables,
barn with stables, and horse arena. Buildings
and site features are labeled in the adjacent
contemporary aerial photograph (1, see also
Map 6). The property is partially obscured from
the street by a fence covered in vegetation. A
driveway covered by a metal sign at the west
side of the property provides access to a paved
parking area at the north side of the site. The
Arena (Feature E, Figures 29-30) at the west
side of the property, is also visible from the
street. The arena is an open, oval-shaped dirt
area encircled by a wood fence. Wood gates
provide access along the southeast and
southwest borders. Several mature trees are
scattered throughout the site.

Building A: House (Figures 1-5)
The house is a one-story, single-family home, generally rectangular in plan, with board and batten siding. The clay tile roof is hipped with exposed rafter tails. Fenestration generally consists of multi- light, double-hung wood sash sided by fixed shutters. A tower, square in plan, with pyramidal roof extends from the approximate center of the roof. The tower has narrow windows on the north and south elevations. The primary elevation faces east and contains a partial front porch. The porch is covered by a shed roof clad in contemporary composite shingles and is supported on simple wood 1: Current aerial of subject property identifying site features 204 of 303

Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA 8 posts. The main entrance is slightly inset and is sided to the south by a single window. An additional window along this elevation is located south of the porch. Fenestration south of the main entrance includes a double-hung, eight-over-eight wood sash and a double-hung, four-over-four wood sash.

The north elevation contains a single window centered on the elevation. The west elevation contains three, somewhat evenly spaced windows while the south elevation has no articulation.

Building B: Office and Main Stable (Figures 6-19)
The office and main stable is the primary building on the property and is oriented north. It is a long, linear building with multiple parts and multiple rooflines. The central portion is generally rectangular in plan and has a front gable roof with a vented monitor that runs the nearly the whole length.

Exterior walls are clad in board and batten siding. Fenestration consists of wood, double hung sash as well as contemporary vinyl, vertically sliding sash. The main pedestrian entrance is centered on the north elevation, flanked by a pair of windows on either side. A vent under the gable peak is positioned over the main entrance with a metal, horse-themed weathervane placed above on the roof.

Only the front portion of the west elevation is readily visible, revealing a secondary pedestrian door flanked by tall, multi-light wood sash windows. South of the secondary entrance is an irregularly shaped addition. The central portion widens at the south half of the building with two, additional long rectangular sections that are topped by shed roofs. The section along the west elevation is clad in corrugated metal siding while the section along the east elevation is clad in vertical wood siding and concrete block. Similarly, the south elevation is clad in vertical wood siding and includes large barn door openings.

The interior is accessed through pedestrian doors along the north elevation, which lead into a central, double-loaded corridor accessing offices and restrooms at the north end, with horse stalls at the south. At the north end of the corridor, around the office, walls are finished in wood. Toward the south end of the corridor, wood roof trusses are visible. East and west sections are also organized around a central corridor with horse stalls on either side.

Building C: East Stable (Figures 20-22)
The East stable is a long, rectangular building, facing north. It has a flat roof that forms a canopy extending over the open-air northwest elevation. The canopy is supported by a row of wood posts.

Deeply recessed behind the columns is a row of wood and metal horse stalls. North and south elevations consist of unarticulated concrete block.

Building D: Barn (Figures 23-28)
The barn is a tall one-story building, featuring a front gable, metal roof, supported on the interior by visible wood framing. The roof sits higher in the east half, while there is a slightly lower front gable roof in the west half. Exterior walls are generally clad in vertical wood siding. At the primary east elevation, the exterior wall does not extend all the way up to the roof, but leaves the uppermost part of the wall open-air. The main entrance is centered on the elevation and consists of a wide, tall opening and a single swinging wood door that reaches only partly up to the door opening.

Rectangular window openings are placed on either side of the door, though openings have no sash.

The south elevation contains a secondary entrance toward the west side that is also boarded on either side by window openings. The west elevation was not visible, as it closely abuts the neighboring property. The interior consists of are wood and metal stalls for horses and other animals, such as miniature horses, an alpaca, several goats, sheep, ducks, chickens, rabbits, a pig, and two cats.

Immediately adjacent to the north elevation is an additional stable of slightly lower height, with a metal shed roof. The stable is finished similarly to the barn, with exterior walls generally clad in vertical wood siding, leaving some open space between the top of the walls and the roof. The east 205 of 303

Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA 9 elevation contains a doorway, which leads into an aisle between horse stalls. The north elevation, which looks onto the arena, is open with metal bars running across the length of the elevation.

History
Historic maps and aerial photographs are included in Attachment 2. A table of available building permits is included in Appendix A.

History of Construction and Alterations
Buildings at the subject property were generally constructed from 1939 through 1957. In 1939, three separate permits were issued to Charles Kemsley for construction of the stables that now constitute the Office and Main Stables (Building B).11 Permits describe three separate structures, all 28-feet- wide, which were presumably joined to make the one long narrow building. Structures were described as one-story, with wood-on-metal siding, cement foundations, and metal roofs. In 1942, use of the property expanded to encompass a single-family home. A permit was issued to Charles Kemsley for construction of the existing house (Building A).12 The house was planned as a three- room, one-story, 14’x34’ house with cement plaster exterior walls and a concrete foundation. It is likely that Building B was expanded at the time to include the structure at the west, although permits are not available for this expansion. Nor are there available permits for construction of the Barn (Building D) or Arena (Building E), though all of these features appear on historic maps and aerials from 1946 (see Attachment 2, historic aerials 7 and 8).

In 1957, a permit was issued to Sandy Sanders for construction of the East Stables (Building C).13 In 1969, the east part of the Office and Main Stables (Building B) was expanded with a small area for grooming of horses, encompassing a one-story, 215 square-foot, wood-frame shelter with metal roof.14 In 1976, the southeast portion of the Office and Main Stables (Building B) was repaired, with

11 “1900 Riverside Drive,” Application for Building Permit, City of Glendale, Department of Public Works, Division of Building, Permit No. 13798, April 24, 1939.
“1900 Riverside Drive,” Application for Building Permit, City of Glendale, Department of Public Works, Division of Building, Permit No. 13799, April 24, 1939.
12 “1900 Riverside Drive,” Application for Building Permit, City of Glendale, Department of Public Works, Division of Building, Building Permit No. 19942, February 2, 1942.
13 “1900 Riverside Drive,” Application for Building Permit, City of Glendale, Permit No. 54301, April 14, 1957. 14 “1902 Riverside Drive,” Application for a Building Permit, Building Section, Public Works Division, City of Glendale, California, Permit No. 53225, October 20, 1969.
2 (left): Sanborn Map of subject property, 1951, with letters identifying current buildings and site features 3 (right): Sanborn Map of subject property 1965, with letters identifying current buildings and site features 206 of 303

Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA 10 the sides raised to 6’-high and new gates added.15 In 1987, the interior of the house (Building A) was rehabilitated, with new paint and other unspecified interior work.16

Alterations
While there have been some alterations, the subject property is generally intact from its primary dates of construction, 1939-1957. The original (1942) building permit for the house (Building A) states that the exterior walls of the house were to be clad in cement plaster finish. However, exterior walls are currently clad in board and batten siding. It is unknown if the current siding is an early alteration, or if the cement plaster walls were simply not constructed as described on the building permit. In 1987, a permit was issued to “fix up” the interior with new paint and other unspecified interior work.17 Building B has sustained some minor alterations as well. One of the north elevation windows, originally wood double hung, has been replaced with contemporary vinyl (no building permit available). Additionally, the original stables were expanded over time as use of the property increased.

In 1969, a grooming area was added.18 In 1976, the southeast portion of Building B was altered, with the sides raised to 6’-high and new gates added.19 However, despite these alterations, the property as a whole appears to retain a high degree of integrity from the period 1939-1957.

History of Ownership
The following history of ownership was compiled based on historic map books of the Los Angeles County Assessor and historic building permits on file with the City of Glendale. The subject property was originally part of a large area of land known as the Rancho Providencia. As early as 1925, members of the Lutge family, including John, Harry, and William Lutge, owned and subdivided land in the area, including the subject property. The subject property encompassed four separate lots at the time, which were sold to Charles Kemsley in 1939. Kemsley subsequently developed the lots with the main stable and office, and single-family home. Title to all four lots was subsequently transferred to Kemsley’s wife, Laura Kemsley, by 1955. Title then transferred to Grover “Sandy” Sanders, who owned the subject property from 1955 through at least 1962, further improving the property by adding the East Stable (Building C). The property appears to have been subsequently owned by Wladyslaw Tomaszewski, as his name appears as the owner on building permits from the early 1960s through 1969. Roger E. Dyrness then owned and operated the Silver Spur Stables at the subject property from at least 1975 through at least 1977. Alex Haagen is listed on building permits as the owner of the subject property in 1987 and Paul A. Hay is listed on building permits as the owner in 1994. Biographies for key historical owners follow.

Charles Kemsley (1883-1959)
Charles Kemsley owned the subject property from 1939 through at least 1949 and was responsible for developing the main stable and office in 1939, and single-family home in 1942. Born about 1883 in Idaho, he moved to Los Angeles by 1930 with his wife, Laura B. Kemsley (born c. 1874) and daughters, Florence and Edna. In 1930, the United States Census lists Charles Kemsley as the proprietor of a riding academy, though the location of that riding academy is unknown.20 Although Charles moved often to different rental properties,21 he was able to purchase the subject property in

15 “1902 Riverside Drive,” Application for a Building Permit, Building Section, Public Works Division, City of Glendale, California, Permit No. 21268, March 24, 1976.
16 “1902 Riverside Drive,” Application for a Building Permit, Building Section, Public Works Division, City of Glendale, CA, Permit No. 3750B008, December 16, 1987.
17 “1902 Riverside Drive,” Application for a Building Permit, Building Section, Public Works Division, City of Glendale, CA, Permit No. 3750B008, December 16, 1987.
18 “1902 Riverside Drive,” Application for a Building Permit, Building Section, Public Works Division, City of Glendale, California, Permit No. 53225, October 20, 1969.
19 “1902 Riverside Drive,” Application for a Building Permit, Building Section, Public Works Division, City of Glendale, California, Permit No. 21268, March 24, 1976.
20 “Charles Kemsley,” 1930 United States Federal Census, Census Place: Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California; Page: 1A; Enumeration District: 0658; FHL microfilm: 2339896, Ancestry.com. 21 Los Angeles City Directory, 1938: 1122, Ancestry.com. 207 of 303

Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA 11 1939. It doesn’t appear that Charles ever lived at the subject property, and, after 1940, he transferred the riding academy business to his son-in-law, Earl Ludlow.22 It is not known what Charles Kemsley’s motivation was to own and run riding academies.

Grover “Sandy” Sanders (1919-2005)
Grover S. Sanders, known professionally as Sandy Sanders, owned and operated riding stables at the subject property in the mid-1950s. In addition to working at the stables as a riding teacher,23 he was a prolific film actor and stuntman in Western films and television shows, with 81 acting credits and 34 stunt credits. He is best known for his work as Gene Autry’s stunt double on The Gene Autry Show, and such films as The Old West (1952), Cow Town (1950), and Sons of New Mexico (1949).24 He also did stunt work for prolific actor Clayton Moore on the Lone Ranger television series.25 Active in films and television the late 1940s though the 1970s, Sandy Sanders mostly played small rolls in western films and television shows, such as Wagon Train (1958-1964), the aforementioned Lone Ranger series (1949- 1957), The Cisco Kid (1953-1956), The Roy Rogers Show (1952-1953), and the aforementioned The Gene Autry Show (1950-1953). He was frequently cast as the “henchman,” “rider,” “driver,” or other such secondary character.

Grover S. Sanders was born in Hereford, Texas, where his father, also named Grover S. Sanders, worked on a stock farm.26 By 1930, he lived in Kansas with his mother, Tempie Thomas, and stepfather, Earnest B. Thomas.27 Sandy Sanders moved often and by 1940, he lived in Mississippi with his biological father and stepmother, Estella Sanders28 and he served in the United States Army during World War II.29 After the war, he got his start in the industry when he “put up a horse act,” at which time he became acquainted with a film crew and decided to try work in Hollywood.30 He married three times, first to actress Gloria Talbott in 1956,31 then to Maureen May Endicott in 1976,32 and to Maureen Lee Botello in 1988.33

Wladyslaw K. Tomaszewski (1901-1977)
Wladyslaw K. Tomaszewski is listed on building permits as the owner of the subject property from 1960 through 1969. There is little available biographical information about Wladyslaw Tomaszewski.

His name appears in Glendale city directories along with his wife, Stefania Tomaszewski, indicating the couple lived in the residence at the subject property from about 1960 until at least 1972.

Tomaszewski appears to have been a Polish immigrant who worked as a cabinet maker prior to immigrating to the United States. Born Wadyslaw Kazimierez Tomaszewski in Poland in 1901, he entered the United States on the Queen Mary in New York in 1951 and petitioned for naturalization in the United States in 1957.34 As no additional information could be gleaned on Wladyslaw Tomaszewski, his motivation for to purchase the Silver Spur Stables could not be ascertained.

22 “Charles Kemsley,” 1940 United States Federal Census, Census Place: Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California; Roll: m-t0627- 00387; Page: 14A; Enumeration District: 60-1129, Ancestry.com. 23 Glendale City Directory, 1955: 418, Ancestry.com.
24 “Sandy Sanders,” Internet Movie Database, https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0761708/?ref_=nv_sr_1#archive_footage, accessed July 27, 2018.
25 Harris M. Lentz III, “Sandy Sanders,” Obituaries in the Performing Arts, 2005, Google Books, accessed July 27, 2018. 26 “Grover S. Sanders,” 1920 United States Federal Census, Census Place: Justice Precinct 2, Deaf Smith, Texas; Roll: T625_1790; Page: 6A; Enumeration District: 54, Ancestry.com. 27 “Grover S. Sanders,” 1930 United States Federal Census, Census Place: Shawnee, Johnson, Kansas; Page: 20B; Enumeration District: 0021; FHL microfilm: 2340441, Ancestry.com.
28 “Grover Sanders Junior,” Census Place: Warren, Mississippi; Roll: m-t0627-02074; Page: 12B; Enumeration District: 75-30, Ancestry.com.
29 “Sandy Sanders: Biography,” Metacritic, http://www.metacritic.com/person/sandy-sanders, accessed July 27, 2018. 30 “Sandy Sanders: Biography,” Metacritic, http://www.metacritic.com/person/sandy-sanders, accessed July 27, 2018. “Sandy Sanders: Biography,” Internet Movie Database, https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0761708/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm, accessed July 27, 2018.
31 “Talented Miss Talbott Learns the Hard Way,” Los Angeles Times, April 21, 1957: E1. 32 “Grover Sandy Sanders,” Nevada, Marriage Index, 1956-2005, Ancestry.com. 33 “Grover Sandy Sanders,” Nevada, Marriage Index, 1956-2005, Ancestry.com. 34 “Wladyslaw Kazimierz Tomaszewski,” California, Federal Naturalization Records, 1843-1999, Ancestry.com. 208 of 303

Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA 12

Roger E. Dyrness (1927-2014)
Roger E. Dyrness owned and operated the Silver Spur Stables at the subject property from at least 1975 through at least 1977.35 Born in North Dakota in 1927,36 Roger relocated to the Los Angeles area by 1951, where he married Alma T. Wagner and had three daughters.37 After serving in the United States Army during the Korean War, he moved to Los Encinos Avenue in Glendale, California with his wife.38 From at least 1965 through at least 1972,39 he lived at the same address in Glendale and owned and operated a Chevron gas station. By 1975, he owned and operated the Silver Spur Stables.40 It does not appear he lived at the subject property, though it appears his daughter, Terry Porteous, and her husband, Zack Porteous, lived at the subject property in 1977. Given the limited biographical information on Roger Dyrness, it is not known why he purchased the subject property.

History of Occupants
The following table lists occupants of the subject property based on information provided in Glendale city directories.

Table of Occupants
Date Occupant
1939 No listing for address
1940 No listing for address
1942 Charles Kemsley Riding Academy
1948 E.R. Ludlow (stable)
Chris Carstensen (Restaurant)
Laura Kemsley (owned house)
1951 Mrs. Laura Kemsley (owned house)
E.R. Ludlow
Mom’s Hot Dog Stand
Silver Glen Stables
1953 Mrs. Laura Kemsley (owned house)
E.R. Ludlow
Mom’s Hot Dog Stand
Silver Glen Stables
1955 Sandy Sanders Stables
1960 Silver Spur Stables (listed with address 1902 Riverside Drive) Wladyslaw Tomaszewski (lived in house)
1965 Wladyslaw Tomaszewski (1902 Riverside Drive)
1970 Wladyslaw Tomaszewski (1900 Riverside Drive)
Silver Spur Stables horse boarding and training (1902 Riverside Drive) 1972 Wladyslaw Tomaszewski (1900 Riverside Drive)
Silver Spur Stables horse boarding and training (1902 Riverside Drive) 1977 Zack Porteous (1900 Riverside Drive)
Silver Spur Stables horse boarding and training

Earl R. Ludlow (1903-1993)
Earl R. Ludlow was born in 1903 in California. He completed high school, but did not attend college.

35 “Roger E Dyrness,” Glendale City Directory, 1977: 131, U.S. City Directories, 1822-1995, Ancestry.com. 36 “Obituary: Roger E. Dyrness,” The Bulletin, May 1, 2014, https://www.bendbulletin.com/obituaries/2038468-151/roger-e-dyrness. 37 “Roger E Dyrness,” California, Marriage Index, 1949-1959, Ancestry.com. 38 “Roger Dyrness,” Glendale City Directory, 1955: 205, U.S. City Directories, 1822-1995, Ancestry.com. 39 “Roger E Dyrness,” Glendale City Directory, 1965: 159, U.S. City Directories, 1822-1995, Ancestry.com.

Roger E Dyrness,” Glendale City Directory, 1972: 130, U.S. City Directories, 1822-1995, Ancestry.com. 40 “Roger E Dyrness,” Glendale City Directory, 1977: 131, U.S. City Directories, 1822-1995, Ancestry.com. 209 of 303

Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA 13 In 1920, he lived in San Diego with his father, Harry P. Ludlow, who was a farmer born in Indiana.41 Earl worked on the family farm at the time. In 1930, Earl lived as a boarder on Ventura Boulevard in Los Angeles and worked as a farm laborer.42 On February 28, 1935, he married Edna Kemsley in Los Angeles and lived in Glendale.43 In 1939, he is listed in the Glendale city directory, residing at 1110 North Verdugo Road in Glendale and his occupation is listed as “ponies,” presumably in relation to his work at the riding academy at the subject property.44 As previously noted, he appears to have taken over his father-in-law, Charles Kemsley’s, riding academy business at the subject property.

Zack O. Porteous (1955-present)
Zack O. Porteous resided at the house at the subject property with his wife, Terry Porteous, in 1977.45 Zack’s father-in-law, Roger E. Dyrness, owned the subject property at the time. Zack was born in 1955 and married Teresa A. Dyrness in 1976, a year prior to moving to the subject property.46 Given that Zack lived at the subject property in our recent past, there is little available biographical information available about him.

41 “Earl R. Ludlow,” 1920 United States Federal Census, Census Place: Los Flores, San Diego, California; Roll: T625_130; Page: 9B; Enumeration District: 220, Ancestry.com.
42 “Earl R. Ludlow,” 1930 United States Federal Census, Census Place: Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California; Page: 2A; Enumeration District: 0621; FHL microfilm: 2339893, Ancestry.com. 43 “Earl R. Ludlow,” California, County Birth, Marriage, and Death Records, 1849-1980, Ancestry.com. 44 Glendale City Directory, 1939: 279, Ancestry.com.
45 Glendale City Directory, 1977: 377, Ancestry.com.
46 “Zack O. Porteous,” California, Marriage Index, 1960-1985, Ancestry.com. 210 of 303

Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA 14 V. HISTORIC CONTEXT

Equestrians in Glendale
Glendale Commercial-Equestrian Zone
Heralding the significance of California’s horse culture, one 1940 Los Angeles Times article declared,

California has more horse-flesh and more horse people than any place in the country outside of Kentucky…. And the holy ground, the mystic Mecca, the sanctified gathering place for the initiate is out Griffith Park way, north of Los Feliz Blvd., along the banks of that torrential stream known as the Los Angeles River.47

The subject property is located in this “mystic Mecca,” an area historically known as both the “River Bottom” and the “Riverside Rancho.” The River Bottom spans areas of Glendale, as well as adjacent equestrian areas of Burbank and Los Angeles. Both Glendale and Burbank have since zoned the area specifically for equestrian uses (see zoning map 4 below). The commercial equestrian zone currently includes properties on the south side of Riverside Avenue, bounded by and including the subject property to the west and a tributary channel of the Los Angeles River to the east. The larger neighborhood that includes portions of Burbank and Los Angeles not only includes commercial- equestrian properties, but also residential-equestrian properties. Many of the homes were constructed in the late 1930s through the mid-1950s, reaching their height of popularity in the 1940s.

The “River Bottom,” served as an important
center for equestrians in the early 1900s (see
Attachment 5, Figures A-E). Riding academies,
schools for teaching horsemanship, were
established in this location by the 1920s and
became important centers for the equestrian
community. The River Bottom has been home
to horse stables and riding academies, as well as
restaurants, feed stores, and related properties
that service local equestrians. Located in close
proximity to Griffith Park, this commercial-
equestrian center has historically provided, and
continues to provide, access via the local bridle
trail system over the Los Angeles River and into
Griffith Park, where there are over fifty miles of
bridle trails. Thus, the River Bottom served as a critical service area for equestrians as well as point of access to the extensive bridle trail system. Given the close proximity to nearby movie ranches, the River Bottom became an important hub for local Western actors and stuntmen to work, reside, and spend free time. Many important Western films were shot on the nearby movie ranches and in Griffith Park.

The subject property, which has historically housed riding academies, stables, and served as a location for horse training, has always been an essential, central component of the important equestrian neighborhood that spans portions of Glendale, Burbank, and Los Angeles. As the previously quoted 1940 Los Angeles Times article aptly stated,

The temples of the cult are the riding academies. Follow the river from Los Feliz north and west as it curves around Griffith Park to Warner Bros. studio. The stables are thick as ticks and within rifle range of the river. The geographical center of this horsy holiness is Bette

47 “Hoss Auction,” Los Angeles Times, June 2, 1940: H12. 4: Cropped view of city of Glendale zoning map, with area zoned Commercial-Equestrian shown in red crosshatch and approximate location of subject property indicated by arrow. 211 of 303

Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA 15 Davis’ home, situated where the river bends to the west beyond the Grand Central airport.

Here the horse is supreme. Even the homes of the district are known as Riverside ranchos.

And every one of them has a stable for a horse or two just as surely as a ship has a rudder.48

Historic city directories show that by 1923 there were two riding academies in Glendale, the California Riding Academy at 1831 Riverside Drive and the Glendale Riding Academy at 100 Irving Avenue. These businesses were located across Riverside Drive from each other, just a few parcels east of the subject property. The local riding academy industry grew over ensuing decades, with the peak of number of riding academies in the 1940s. There were five riding academies in the 1940s, and three in the 1950s and 1960s. Mirroring this trend, the adjacent equestrian areas in Burbank had eight riding academies in the 1940s and five in the 1950s. The first known riding academy at the subject property was established in 1942, squarely during the height of riding academy popularity. According to historian and horseman Don Burt, the River Bottom was “the horse capital of the western United States at that time.”49 Tables of historic riding academies in Glendale and Burbank are included in Appendix B. Historic Sanborn maps of the Commercial-Equestrian zone in Glendale in 1950 show a concentration of commercial-equestrian properties, as well as residential properties that included stables (see Attachment 2, Sanborn Maps).

Riverside Rancho
The Riverside Rancho, also referred to as the Rancho Neighborhood, is the broad residential- equestrian neighborhood of Burbank and Glendale that is northeast and northwest of the subject property, across Riverside Drive. This area is notable for its historic “semi-rural” design with stables in the backyards of houses.50 Situated on the rim of Griffith Park, property owners have close access to the equestrian trail system. It appears that while some properties were separately constructed in this area, other properties were part of a planned development referred to as the “Riverside Ranchos,” originally developed beginning in the 1930s by the Fritz B. Burns Company and described at the time as an “urban ranch.”51 These properties were especially unique at the time for their accommodation of the horse and connectivity to the local bridle trail system. As noted by historian and horseman Don Burt, “At one time, this area of Burbank was the focal point and home to nearly all of the famous horses and horsemen from the 1930s on.”52 Burt goes on to describe the uniqueness of the housing in the area, stating, “My family bought their first stable there when I was about five or six years old… During that time, there was a real estate development called Riverside Ranchos. If you bought a house, they gave you a horse, and to this day, instead of garages or swimming pools, there is a stable in every backyard on a lot consisting of 50 x 100 feet.”53 Burt is perhaps most poignant in his summary of the charmed local culture: “One of the most significant products generated from this area was the people. Those who grew up there or used it as a layover or watering hole have maintained a lifelong camaraderie. Many to this day stay in touch, from trainers, movie stars, and jockeys to business tycoons and champion cowboys. Horses, movies, and industry have a shared lifestyle, a common thread woven between glamour and nostalgia…”54 Actress Bette Davis moved to the area in 1938, with her home located at 1705 Rancho Drive, adjacent to a swath of open park space now known as the Bette Davis Picnic Area.55

Early advertisements for homes in the Riverside Rancho focused on the primacy of equestrian amenities, noting a certain home was “right in the heart of horse district with 3,200 acres of park to

48 “Hoss Auction,” Los Angeles Times, June 2, 1940: H12. 49 “Ingenuity and Service,” America’s Horse, July/August 2003: 10. 50 “Small-Farms’ Lure Told,” Los Angeles Times, June 13, 1937: E1. 51 Jean Burden, “The House Moved Out to the Horse,” Los Angeles Times, November 6, 1949: H8. 52 Don Burt, Horses & Other Heroes: Recollections and Reflections of a Life with Horses, Connecticut: The Lyons Press, 2002: 132. 53 Burt, 132.
54 Burt, 118.
55 “Bette Davis Picnic Area,” Los Angeles Times, July 9, 2000, http://articles.latimes.com/2000/jul/09/local/me-50135. 212 of 303

Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA 16 ride in.”56 A 1949 advertisement even stated, “Corral? Of course. Why live in Riverside Ranchos if one is not an addict of spur and saddle!”57 Articles about the development described the charms of “semi-rural” living in this “island of peace and quiet,”58 noting, “the semi-rural home is part and parcel of our community planning,” and that Los Angeles County was “ideally situated for this half- city, half-country living.”59 Playing on the romanticized notions of life in the American West, one 1937 advertisement for the Riverside Ranchos stated, “Have you seen Ranch O’Romance Number Two?”60 The Riverside Ranchos featured several demonstration homes described as “modern adobes.”61 One such house, described as a “100-Year Home” that was “built to last until 2037,62 was shown as part of an exhibit focused on its “latest example of groutlock brick masonry construction.”63

The residences in the Riverside Rancho continued to be used in combination with equestrian uses over the ensuing decades. In the late 1970s, approximately 3,500 horses resided in the Riverside Rancho area of Burbank and Glendale, and most houses often came with stables in the backyards.64 Advertisements from the 1970s mentioned stables in backyards and proximity to horse trails as an important feature of the properties.65 As late as 1978, a Los Angeles Times article described the significance of the local community and its adjacency to Griffith Park: “The rancho area, which straddles the southern borders of Glendale and Burbank, is situated at the head of the equestrian trails which lead under the Ventura Freeway into Griffith Park. In addition to the rental and boarding stables in the area, nearby homes are zoned for single-family residences with horses. Thus, rancho houses, which sell at premium prices, often come with a stable in the backyard.”66

Equestrians in Adjacent Communities
Bridges (Attachment 4, Figures 43-46)
So significant was the local equestrian community that efforts had to be made to provide appropriate bridle trails and related amenities in the area. A series of three bridges at Allen Avenue (at the east property line of the subject property), Irving Avenue (at the eastern property line of the Triple R Stables), and Easter Field (adjacent to the Bette Davis Park) connect the City of Glendale to the perimeter of the Los Angeles Equestrian Center. The perimeter bridle trail provides access to the Swinging Bridge, an essential point of conveyance over the Los Angeles River into Griffith Park. By the late 1930s, the need for a bridge was clear, as evidenced by a discussion that occurred at a 1938 Burbank City Council meeting where construction of a bridge connecting equestrian areas to Griffith Park was discussed. Meeting minutes include reference to a letter from Western-genre star Gene Autry, which had been submitted “asking the City Council to lend every effort to see that the privileges of Griffith Park [were] not denied the citizens of Burbank and those who patronize the local stables, by assisting in procuring a permanent crossing over the river at or near Mariposa Street.”67 The bridge was subsequently constructed; in 1939, it was dedicated. As noted in the Los Angeles Times, the finished bridge was presented “to “outdoor-minded” citizens of Los Angeles,

56 “Classified Ad 8 – No Title,” Los Angeles Times, June 29, 1947: C10. 57 Jean Burden, “The House Moved Out to the Horse,” Los Angeles Times, November 6, 1949: H8. 58 Jean Burden, “The House Moved Out to the Horse,” Los Angeles Times, November 6, 1949: H8. 59 “Small-Farms’ Lure Told,” Los Angeles Times, June 13, 1937: E1. 60 Advertisement was for the property located at 1712 Riverside Drive, Burbank. “Display Ad 23 – No Title,” Los Angeles Times, December 19, 1937: A7. 61 “Display Ad 13 – No Title,” Los Angeles Times, May 8, 1938: 14. 62 “The Homebuilder’s Department: House Design Has Strength,” Los Angeles Times, September 19, 1937: F4. 63 The address of this home was not given, though its location was described as being in “Riverside Ranchos, adjoining Griffith Park, on Riverside Drive.”
“Many Visitors View Model Residence,” Los Angeles Times, September 26, 1937: F3. 64 “Riverside Rancho Residents Vow to Resist Changes in Horse-Oriented Community,” Los Angeles Times, August 13, 1978:

GB6.
65 “Classified Ad 86 – No Title,” Los Angeles Times, April 28, 1974: K73. 66 “Riverside Rancho Residents Vow to Resist Changes in Horse-Oriented Community,” Los Angeles Times, August 13, 1978:

GB6.
67 Meeting Minutes of the Burbank City Council, August 23, 1938: 151. 213 of 303

Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA 17 Glendale and Burbank,” underscoring the fact that the bridge was to be used by not just citizens of one city, but by those representing all three communities sharing equestrian resources in the area.68 Built at a cost of $12,000, the suspension-type bridge “replace[d] a crossing destroyed when the river channel was widened for flood-control purposes.”69 Additionally, there is a fifth bridge, the Atwater Bridge, currently under construction in the Atwater Village equestrian area (discussed below), which will include special access for equestrians into Griffith Park. This currently underway project underscores the ongoing interest in and importance of the sustainability of equestrian resources. All of the bridges in this area are an integral part of the equestrian trail system and the primary reason most equestrians are able to access Griffith Park. Without the bridges, the only way to access the park as an equestrian would be to trailer horses into the park via Zoo Drive, with parking at the Martinez Arena area of the park.

Atwater Village
In addition to the popular River Bottom area, another equestrian area was established in the 1920s in the Atwater Village neighborhood of Los Angeles, along the east border of Griffith Park. This area began with establishment of the Verdant Equestrian Center in the 1920s, which included stables for up to fifty horses and a single-family home.70 Additional riding clubs, such as the Saddle and Sirloin Riding Club (established in 1927) Paddock Riding Club/Pitchfork Ranch (established in 1930s), and stables, such as the River Ridge Stables (constructed in 1930s), were located in this neighborhood.

The Atwater Village equestrian area was identified in SurveyLA, the City of Los Angeles’ citywide survey of historical resources, as “an excellent example of equestrian-related development…and as one of the last remaining equestrian communities in Los Angeles.” As previously noted, construction of the Atwater Bridge that will provide equestrian access from the Atwater Village Equestrian Area over the Los Angeles River is currently underway.

Griffith Park
Donated to the City of Los Angeles in 1896, Griffith Park was an essential early location for bridle trails in Los Angeles. Construction of trails began in the early 1900s. In 1911, 18,930 feet (or 3.5 miles) of bridle trail were constructed in the park.71 By the 1920s, Griffith Park had become “a favored spot for equestrians,”72 and “spurred the development of equestrian land uses in surrounding areas.”73 Mike Eberts’ Griffith Park: A Centennial History establishes the important relationship between the Griffith Park bridle trails and the resources of the nearby River Bottom area in the 1920s:

Busy businessmen particularly appreciated the park’s close-in wilderness because it gave them a place to ride on weekday mornings before work. By fall 1924, a group of men prominent in the business, professional and social life of the region fell into an informal ritual. After their Friday morning rides, they’d eat breakfast in the park, gathering around a chuckwagon operated as a sideline by local banker Marco Hellman. Afterward, most would ride back to the Griffith Park Riding Academy on Riverside Drive.74

Signaling the ongoing importance of horses in the local community, a massive bridle trail system with over fifty miles of trails was established in Griffith Park beginning in the 1930s. This work was

68 “Equestrian Bridge Ready,” Los Angeles Times, March 16, 1939: I2. 69 “Equestrian Bridge Ready,” Los Angeles Times, March 16, 1939: I2. 70 “Atwater Village Equestrian Historic District,” SurveyLA, Northeast Los Angeles, Historic Districts, Planning Districts, and Multiple-Property Resources, prepared for City of Los Angeles, February 6, 2017: 2. 71 ICF Jones & Stokes, “Landscape Elements of Griffith Park,” as requested by the Cultural Heritage Commission and Office of Historic Resources of the City of Los Angeles, October 20, 2008: 21. 72 Mike Eberts, Griffith Park: A Centennial History, Los Angeles: The Historical Society of Southern California, 1996: 146. 73 “Atwater Village Equestrian Historic District,” SurveyLA, Northeast Los Angeles, Historic Districts, Planning Districts, and Multiple-Property Resources, prepared for City of Los Angeles, February 6, 2017: 2. 74 Eberts, 146.
214 of 303

Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA 18 started in order to help put people back to work during the Great Depression. In 1931, the Los Angeles City Council passed a bond for public improvements that enabled construction of 13 miles of the park’s bridle trail system.75 In 1939, landscape architect Ralph D. Cornell was hired to design a master plan for the park. Eberts writes:

Cornell didn’t forget the park’s equestrians. He proposed a horse entrance paralleling Crystal Springs Drive. He suggested a half-mile-long path for carriages and sulkies along with more conventional equestrians. The path was designed to allow equestrians to enter the park from the stables near its south end without having to mingle with automobile traffic…76

A central trail leading from what is now Allen Avenue adjacent to the subject property served as a feeder from the local equestrian commercial and residential areas of Glendale and Burbank into Griffith Park. However, access for equestrians has required ongoing work. In 1938, the Los Angeles River adjacent to the subject property was channelized due to constant problems with flooding.77 Historic aerial photographs show the subject property flooded in 1938, prior to development with the existing buildings (see Attachment 2, figures 5-6). A bridge known as the Swinging Bridge was subsequently constructed over the channelized river, southwest of the subject property (see Attachment 4, figures 45-46). Equestrians continued accessing Griffith Park, with local equestrian communities in Atwater Village, Glendale, and Burbank, continuing to grow. In 1954, patronage of the Griffith Park bridle paths was 625,520 for the year.78 After years of controversy, in 1955-1957, the 5-Freeway was constructed in Griffith Park, alongside the channelized river.79 A tunnel constructed under the freeway allows equestrians passage into the park from the surrounding bridle trails and equestrian neighborhood. Griffith Park continues to be of central importance to neighboring equestrian communities, providing invaluable space for horses to exercise. Current maps of Griffith Park showing proximity of the subject property to the trail system are included in Attachment 1, Maps 9-10.

Los Angeles Equestrian Center
Formal plans to design and construct the Los Angeles Equestrian Center in the north part of Griffith Park were discussed in the late 1940s. Planning continued for decades, documented by a conceptual drawing from 196080 and in the 1968 Griffith Park Master Plan.81 In 1966, Mayor of Los Angeles Sam Yorty announced the development would be “one of the greatest equestrian show places in the world.”82 While many parts of the Griffith Park Master Plan were contested at the time, “The one major part of the plan that almost no one objected to—the proposed Equestrian Center—continued to move forward.”83 Despite delays, the center was constructed and the first horse show was held in June 1982.84 While the center was a popular place for a variety of horse-related and other social activities, it had financial problems immediately. Due to massive financial debt, the property was leased in 1990 by Del Rey Properties, a Burbank-based company, which took over operations, though the property remained part of Griffith Park, owned by the City of Los Angeles.

Planning for Horses and Equestrians
Despite the importance of local equestrian history, horse-related properties and bridle trails are often under threat of redevelopment or encroachment, or opposition from local residents. For example,

75 Eberts, 152.
76 Eberts, 165.
77 Eberts, 203-204.
78 Eberts, 230.
79 Eberts, 253.
80 Eberts, 366.
81 Griffith Park Master Plan, Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks, December 19, 1968. 82 Eberts, 368.
83 Eberts, 237.
84 Eberts, 369.
215 of 303

Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA 19 even in 1949, there were “anti-horse groups” in Burbank that “held that the horse was lovable in its place but not near them.”85 As a result, horses were “restricted to the Rancho District” at the time.

Construction of the 5-Freeway through Griffith Park in 1955-1957 encroached on the equestrian area and brought with it the demand for new large-scale housing projects, especially near Atwater Village.

As a result, in the 1960s and 1970s, two Atwater Village stables were lost to large residential projects.

This included demolition of the Las Flores Stables, formerly home to the private Los Angeles Breakfast Club (established in 1920, constructed on this site in 1937), which was “reserved for some of the city’s most powerful residents, including Leo Carillo, Edward Doheny, and Cecil B. De Mille.”86 A 1986 article in the Los Angeles Times focused on this problem: “Twenty-five years ago, about 40 commercial horse stables clustered along the east bank of the Los Angeles River, just a short distance from the 60 miles of riding trails in Griffith Park. From Atwater to Glendale to Burbank, the stables formed a rural oasis amid the urban sprawl. Today, only 15 commercial stables remain in the area. Development has slowly nibbled away at the equestrian greenbelt.”87

Despite losses, there have been efforts at preservation of equestrian uses. In 1944, an organization known as Equestrian Trails, Inc. was established to focus on maintaining bridle trails and equestrian amenities.88 The organization subsequently grew, forming local branches known as “corrals.”89 By 1954, there were 31 corrals in Los Angeles and Orange Counties, with about 3,500 total members.

The organization still exists today and “is a non-profit organization dedicated to equine legislation, good horsemanship, and the acquisition and preservation of trails, open space and public lands.”90 More recently, in 1985, the Ahmanson Foundation purchased a two-acre equestrian property in Atwater Village, establishing the Ahmanson Equestrian Facility.91 The Los Angeles Police Department subsequently “established a full-time mounted platoon” in 1987 and rented the Ahmanson Equestrian Facility for $1 per year. The mounted unit currently includes 35 full-time personnel.92

In 1986, a plan to demolish the Silver Spur Stables at the subject property and erect condos was denied by the Glendale Board of Zoning Appeals.93 Also in 1986, the Rancho Equestrian Protection Agency was formed and dedicated to “preserving horse properties near Griffith Park along the Los Angeles River in Burbank and Glendale.”94 In 2003, the Children’s Ranch was established on Verdant Street in Atwater Village.95 Founded by Jackie Sloan, the foundation provides “therapeutic equestrian programs to children and teens of all abilities.”96

Identification of equestrian trails in the City of Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monument (HCM) nomination for Griffith Park, HCM No. 942, established important precedent for noting the historic significance of horses and equestrians. The HCM nomination prepared by ICF Jones and Stokes did not initially include detailed information on landscape features of Griffith Park. However, the City of Los Angeles Cultural Heritage Commission requested that additional information about the park’s landscape be prepared prior to designation of the park. ICF Jones and Stokes then prepared a

85 Jackson Mayers, Ph.D., Burbank History, Burbank: James W. Anderson, 1975: 138. 86 Atwater Village Equestrian Historic District,” SurveyLA, Northeast Los Angeles, Historic Districts, Planning Districts, and Multiple-Property Resources, prepared for City of Los Angeles, February 6, 2017: 2-3. 87 “Dwindling of Stables Alarms Equestrians,” Los Angeles Times, October 9, 1986: GD1. 88 “Riding Fans Take Bow for Trails,” Los Angeles Times, July 4, 1954. 89 “Riding Fans Take Bow for Trails,” Los Angeles Times, July 4, 1954. 90 Equestrian Trails, Inc., organization website, https://etinational.com/eti-past-present/. 91 Atwater Village Equestrian Historic District,” SurveyLA, Northeast Los Angeles, Historic Districts, Planning Districts, and Multiple-Property Resources, prepared for City of Los Angeles, February 6, 2017: 2-3. 92 Los Angeles Police Department, organization website, http://www.lapdonline.org/inside_the_lapd/content_basic_view/6347. 93 “Glendale Board Rejects Plan to Demolish Stable, Erect Condos,” Los Angeles Times, November 23, 1986: V_A16. 94 Denise Hamilton, “Board Rejects Plan to Raze Stable, Build Condos,” Los Angeles Times, November 27, 1986: WS5. 95 Atwater Village Equestrian Historic District,” SurveyLA, Northeast Los Angeles, Historic Districts, Planning Districts, and Multiple-Property Resources, prepared for City of Los Angeles, February 6, 2017: 2-3. 96 “The Children’s Ranch,” organization website, http://www.thechildrensranch.org/about-us/. 216 of 303

Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA 20 supplemental document called “Landscape Elements of Griffith Park.”97 The purpose of this report was to “further identify and illustrate the character-defining features of the natural features and designed landscape components of Griffith Park and provide a context for their establishment and development.”98 The report identifies bridle trails as a “component feature” of Griffith Park.99 The report also notes, “One of the primary character-defining features within the wilderness area is the presence of foot and bridle trails, in addition to the vistas that are associated to them… Throughout the wilderness, hiking and equestrian activity are the predominant activities.”100 Additionally, the following character-defining features for pedestrian and bridle trails are provided:101

• Pedestrian trails narrower than bridle trails
• Earthen ground cover, hard packed upon bridle trails often cut directly in to the wilderness • Trails designed to connect various natural and recreational components of the park • Trails designed to take advantage of significant vistas and view sheds • Curved, organic paths
• Trails designed around pre-existing natural features such as trees • When cut into a natural feature, trail acknowledges its contours and shape • Steps of rusticated rockwork embedded into the ground • At lower elevations, trails bordered by eucalyptus and other non-indigenous trees • Foot and equestrian trails often paralleling automobile roads

Recent city planning for equestrian uses in Glendale and Burbank further signals the ongoing importance of equestrian resources to the local community. The City of Glendale’s equestrian area is known as the Horse Overlay Zone (Chapter 30.21 of the Zoning Code) and encompasses an area zoned Commercial-Equestrian, with the subject property and adjacent properties on Riverside Drive, as well as the surrounding residential properties that include horse stables.102 Additionally, the City of Glendale is implementing a multi-phase project to improve the half-mile area along the Los Angeles River in the area located east of the subject property and east of Bette Davis Park. Known as the Glendale Narrows Riverwalk,103 this project is being implemented in phases and has included a small equestrian area along the river that opened in 2012.104 Bridges providing connection over the river into Griffith Park may be part of future project plans, though it is unclear if bridges would provide equestrian trails.105

In the City of Burbank, new zoning and land use policies were adopted in 1993 “to protect the unique equestrian nature of the Rancho area located in the southeast corner of Burbank generally and centered along Alameda Avenue and Riverside Drive.”106 While a draft Rancho Commercial Recreation Master Plan document was created in 1992 for a City Council Study Session, it was not adopted by the City Council. One year later, on May 11 and May 18, 1993, the Burbank City Council

97 ICF Jones & Stokes, “Landscape Elements of Griffith Park,” as requested by the Cultural Heritage Commission and Office of Historic Resources of the City of Los Angeles, October 20, 2008: 1. 98 “Historic Cultural Monument Application for Griffith Park,” Los Angeles Department of City Planning Recommendation Report to the Cultural Heritage Commission, CHC-2008-2724-HCM, October 30, 2008: 9. 99 ICF Jones & Stokes, “Landscape Elements of Griffith Park,” 1. 100 ICF Jones & Stokes, “Landscape Elements of Griffith Park,” October 20, 2008: 21. 101 ICF Jones & Stokes, “Landscape Elements of Griffith Park,” October 20, 2008: 26. 102 City of Glendale Horse Overlay Zone, Zoning Code, Chapter 30.21, http://qcode.us/codes/glendale/view.php?topic=30- 30_21&frames=on, accessed July 28, 2018.
103 “Glendale Narrows Riverwalk Phases II & III Master Plan,” City of Glendale, 2011, available https://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showdocument?id=22565.
104 Carren Jao, “Phase One of Glendale Narrows Riverwalk Opens, Bringing Recreational Opportunities to LA River,” KCET, December 12, 2012, https://www.kcet.org/earth-focus/phase-one-of-glendale-narrows-riverwalk-opens-bringing-recreational-opportunities-to-the. 105 Glendale Narrows Riverwalk, Phase III, project website, https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/public- works/projects/glendale-narrows-riverwalk-phase-iii.
106 “Rancho Master Plan,” City of Burbank website, http://www.burbankca.gov/departments/community-development/planning/document- library/specific-plans/rancho-master-plan, accessed July 30, 2018. 217 of 303

Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA 21 adopted new zoning and land use policies for the Rancho (Ord. Nos. 3343, 3344; and Resolution No. 23,927 for equestrian-compatible uses). Although not officially adopted, the Study Session document “is often referenced by Rancho residents as reflecting the intent of the Rancho land use policies and zoning.”107 The current Burbank General Plan (2035) identifies the “Rancho Master Plan” as one of its three specific plans.109 Similar to the City of Glendale, Burbank single-family equestrian-keeping properties are denoted by an “H” on the Zone Maps and defined in the Burbank Municipal Code.

Finally, In September 2018, Governor Jerry Brown signed AB2955, a state bill that authorizes evaluation of equestrian safety when considering traffic speed limits anywhere within the boundaries of the Burbank and Glendale Ranchos, as well as the equestrian communities in the Tujunga- Sunland-Shadow Hills neighborhood of Los Angeles. This bill affords equestrian communities greater safety.

Western Movies and Television Shows
The significance of Western-genre films and television shows in American culture cannot be understated. Author Stuart Miller summarizes this fact in his recent article on the continuing importance of the genre:110

The western has been a movie staple since the pioneering 1903 film, The Great Train Robbery.

It became the dominant genre, especially after the second world war, creating an image – John Wayne – of rugged American self-reliance and manliness. From 1910 through 1960, approximately a quarter of all films featured hats and horses and the television landscape was similarly populated with cowboys.

Miller quotes Syracuse University television scholar Robert Thompson, who emphasizes the continuing primacy of the genre in our culture: “The western has always been the American epic… It’s exciting and violent and huge. We don’t have a single text like The Iliad or The Odyssey but the western is our story.”111

Frequently filmed in the San Fernando Valley, immortalizing “the former ranches of the 19th century” on film,112 Western movies and television shows were often shot in close proximity to the subject property, utilizing the horse stables, riding academies, and other resources of the River Bottom commercial-equestrian neighborhood. The significance of this area for filming dates to 1911, when the first studio in Hollywood, the Nestor Film Company, was established. Nestor Film Company utilized the Providencia Ranch, which later became Lasky Studios and is now Forest Lawn Memorial Park, as its “principal location for filming westerns.” This location is just southwest of the subject property, accessible via the Griffith Park bridle trails. Other significant movie ranches were established nearby, with the filming of Westerns on these properties common. The Republic Studios and CBS Studio Center, active beginning in 1935 and continuing for decades, was located just east of the subject property along the Los Angeles River. This location featured a movie set known as the CBS Western Town, “used for famous television shows such as Zane Grey Theatre, The Rifleman, Wanted Dead or Alive, Gunsmoke, Rawhide, The Big Valley, and Wild Wild West.113 Additionally, Universal Studios had a large ranch property nearby, in the foothills of Mt. Hollywood spanning to the Los

107 “Rancho Master Plan,” City of Burbank website, http://www.burbankca.gov/departments/community-development/planning/document- library/specific-plans/rancho-master-plan, accessed July 30, 2018. 109 Burbank 2035: General Plan, prepared by: AECOM, prepared for: City of Burbank, adopted February 19, 2013, 3-19. 110 Stuart Miller, “The American Epic: Hollywood’s Enduring Love for the Western,” The Guardian, October 21, 2016, https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/oct/21/western-films-hollywood-enduring-genre. 111 Stuart Miller, “The American Epic: Hollywood’s Enduring Love for the Western,” The Guardian, October 21, 2016, https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/oct/21/western-films-hollywood-enduring-genre. 112 Marc Wanamaker, Images of America: San Fernando Valley, Charleston: Arcadia Publishing, 2011: 113. 113 Wanamaker, 104-105.
218 of 303

Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA 22 Angeles River near Barham Boulevard.114 Early work of Universal Studios included Westerns starring prolific actor Harry Carey, known for his work in Western films. Warner Brothers Studios, founded in 1912, was also located nearby, with their property located near the Los Angeles River and Barham Boulevard.115 The River Bottom was at the geographic center of these movie ranches, making it an important place for riding academies, horse stables, and related needs of studio horses and movie stuntmen. Historian and horseman Don Burt writes about life in the area in the 1930s:

In those days the River Bottom housed many famous horses and horsemen and became the learning area and watering hole for lots of the Hollywood stars of the era—especially those who made Westerns. I rode across that bridge for many years with Jocko Mahoney (The Range Rider), Wild Bill Elliott (Red Ryder…), Hoot Gibson (who had a club called The Painted Post Saloon), and Jerry Ambler (champion bronc rider who owned the Amble Inn)…116

As summarized by Hollywood historian Marc Wanamaker, “From then on, the Valley became Hollywood’s backlot.”117 There were numerous Westerns filmed in Griffith Park. Famed Western actor John Wayne, who “grew up across the river from Griffith Park in Glendale,” filmed a fight scene from the movie Sagebrush Trail (1933), in Griffith Park.118 Other Westerns filmed in Griffith Park include, but are not limited to: The Great Adventures of Wild Bill Hickok (1938), Wolf Call (1939), The Leather Burners (1943), Split Second (1952), Pirates of Monterey (1947), Hellgate (1952), Thunder Pass (1954), Badlands of Montana (1957), Gun Glory (1957), Return to Warbow (1958), Ride the High Country (1962), and The Gun Hawk (1963).119 It should be noted there have been numerous non-Western films involving horses that were filmed in Griffith Park. Other such films include but are not limited to: the Three Stooges film, Ants in the Pantry (1934), which involved “an ill-advised foxhunt on a Griffith Park bridle path.” The film, Manhattan Love Song (1934), which also involved a ride on the bridle trails; and Julius Caesar (1953), which saw the “Roman legions storm through Bronson Canyon.”120 According to a recent analysis, the park is still the most popular place to film in Los Angeles County, boasting 341 days of production in 2010.121

114 Wanamaker, 107.
115 Wanamaker, 101.
116 Don Burt, Horses & Other Heroes: Recollections and Reflections of a Life with Horses, Connecticut: The Lyons Press, 2002: 133. 117 Wanamaker, 113.
118 E.J. Stephens and Marc Wanamaker, Images of America: Griffith Park, Charleston: Arcadia Publishing, 2011: 78. 119 Stephens and Wanamaker, 83-125.
120 Stephens and Wanamaker, 83-125.
121 Stephens and Wanamaker, 127.
219 of 303

Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA 23 VI. HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT

Significance
National and California Registers
Because eligibility criteria for local City of Glendale Historic Resource designation align in large degree with eligibility criteria for National and California Registers, the following evaluation considers eligibility under each of the criteria at federal, state and local levels under a single heading. The City of Glendale includes an additional criterion for evaluation, which is noted below as Criterion 5.

Criterion A/1/1: Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history and cultural heritage.

The subject property appears significant for association with equestrian history in Glendale and the broader equestrian community encompassing portions of Burbank and Los Angeles. Developed with horse stables beginning in 1939 and expanded through 1957, the subject property is located on Riverside Drive in a commercial-equestrian area historically known as the River Bottom. The property has been in continuous use providing horse stables and a riding academy since its inception, while also including a single-family home that has often housed a riding academy proprietor.

The River Bottom was historically, and continues to be, an essential center for the equestrian community, providing stables, riding academies, feed stores, and other related amenities, especially linkages to surrounding bridle trails for equestrians living in the adjacent “Riverside Rancho” neighborhood. Allen Avenue, which runs alongside the subject property, provides a key point of access to a major bridle trail system, including over fifty miles of bridle trails in Griffith Park. Thus, developed when the River Bottom was at its height of use for riding academies, the subject property has long been a central component of the local equestrian ecosystem.

The subject property is one of the few remaining commercial-equestrian properties in Glendale.

Given that there are few commercial-equestrian properties in Glendale, those that remain are highly significant for representing the City’s important equestrian history. Therefore, the subject property appears eligible under Criterion A/1/1, with a period of significance beginning with construction of the first stable in 1939 and extending through expansion of the stables in 1957.

Criterion B/2/2: Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.

The subject property was evaluated for potential significance for association with the lives of persons important in our past, specifically property owners and tenants. The subject property appears significant for association with owner-operator Grover “Sandy” Sanders (1919-2005) who owned the subject property in the 1950s and expanded the stables in 1957. In addition to working at the stables as a riding teacher, he was a prolific film actor and stuntman in Western films and television shows, with 81 acting credits and 34 stunt credits. He is best known for his work as Gene Autry’s stunt double. Sandy Sanders appears to have been a person important in our past for his work on Western- genre films. He did his important work as a stuntman in conjunction with his operation of stables and a riding academy at the subject property. Therefore, the subject property appears eligible under Criterion B/2/2.

Criterion C/3/3: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual or possesses high artistic values.

The subject property was evaluated for potential significance for association with its architecture.

Given the relatively utilitarian nature of the stables and single-family home, none of the buildings or structures at the subject property are high-style or qualify as having high artistic values. Furthermore, they cannot be attributed to the work of an important creative individual. Therefore, the subject property does not appear eligible under Criterion C/3/3.

220 of 303

Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA 24 Criterion D/4/4: Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

The subject property cannot be reasonably expected to yield information important in prehistory or history; therefore, it is not eligible under Criterion D/4/4.

City of Glendale Criterion 5: The proposed historic resource exemplifies the early heritage of the city.

As described above under Criterion A/1/1, the subject property appears to be significant for its association with the history of the local equestrian community in Glendale, and is one of the few remaining commercial-equestrian properties in the City. Therefore, it is eligible under City of Glendale Criterion 5.

Evaluation as Contributor to Historic District
In addition to being individually significant, the subject property appears to be significant as part of a potential California Register- and City of Glendale-eligible historic district of commercial-equestrian properties. The boundaries of the potential district align with the boundaries of the existing commercial-equestrian-zoned properties located on the south side of Riverside Drive, bounded by and including the subject property to the west and the tributary channel that feeds into the Los Angeles River to the east. The potential district includes all of the five properties in this area that are currently zoned commercial-equestrian, with a period of significance beginning in 1939 and ending in 1978, encompassing all dates of construction. Contributing properties would include the following:

• 1900 Riverside Drive (APN 5625-031-008), buildings constructed 1939-1957 • 1840 Riverside Drive (APN 5625-031-009), buildings constructed 1930-1943 • 1830 Riverside Drive (APN 5625-031-010), building constructed 1973 • 1820 Riverside Drive (APN 5626-006-002), building constructed 1949 • 110 Irving Avenue (APN 5626-006-001), buildings constructed 1940-1978

Individual properties appear to have been in constant use as equestrian properties since their dates of construction and to collectively retain sufficient integrity to convey a strong sense of time and place from the period of significance, 1939-1978. The potential district appears to be part of an important Cultural Landscape and specifically as a historic vernacular landscape relating to local equestrian history.

In addition, this historic district is also significant for its role in the making of Western-genre movies and television shows. Centrally located between major movie ranches and studios, the River Bottom played a key role serving the needs of such filmmaking by providing stables, horse rentals, riding academies, and skilled horsemen. Western-genre were commonly shot on nearby movie ranches, movie studios, and in Griffith Park, which is the most popular place to film in Los Angeles County.

As established in this report, Westerns have had profound influence on American culture nation- wide; their filming in the areas surrounding the River Bottom is an essential aspect of the history of the genre.

It is possible a historic district also includes adjacent and nearby residential properties that have historically had horse stables in their backyards, thereby contributing to the history of the equestrian neighborhood. Properties further east along the south side of Riverside Drive, bordered by Rancho Avenue and Victory Boulevard to the east, appear most likely to be potential district contributors.

These properties have direct access to open parkland and bridle trails to the south and a strong physical connection to the commercial-equestrian properties to the west. There are also residential properties that historically had horse stables located north of Riverside Drive that may also be contributors. Inclusion of residential-equestrian properties in the potential district warrants further study in order to determine integrity of individual contributors and specifically whether or not properties retain horse stables and contribute to a sense of time and place reflecting the history of the equestrian neighborhood.
221 of 303

Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA 25 Integrity
As previously noted, once a resource has been determined to satisfy at least one of the above criteria, then it must be assessed for “integrity.”122 Integrity refers to the ability of a property to convey its significance. Evaluation of integrity is based on “an understanding of a property’s physical features and how they relate to its significance.” The National Register recognizes seven aspects or qualities of integrity: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. To retain integrity, a property must possess several, and usually most, of these aspects.

• Location: None of the buildings at the subject property have been moved; therefore, the subject property retains integrity of location.
• Design: The buildings and structures at the subject property have sustained some alterations to design, especially as horse stables have been expanded over time to accommodate increasing use. However, such alterations appear to convey ongoing significance of the property and do not diminish the ability to read the essential plan, mass, and form of the original stables. Therefore, the subject property retains integrity of design. • Setting: The subject property is situated amongst other historic commercial-equestrian properties along Riverside Drive and continues to have access to the adjacent bridle trail system via Allen Avenue, as well as access into the bridle trails of Griffith Park. There is a strong sense of time and place in this area. Therefore, the subject property retains integrity of setting.
• Materials: The buildings and structures at the subject property have sustained some loss of materials, such as to windows at Building B. However, in general, the majority of early materials are intact. Therefore, the subject property retains integrity of materials. • Feeling and Association: The subject property closely recalls its historical association with Glendale’s equestrian history through its retention of elements of design and materials, and context adjacent to other equestrian uses, and therefore retains integrity of feeling and association.

The subject property is significant for its history as an equestrian property. Because its important associations aren’t necessarily related to architectural design, the property can sustain more alterations than a property significant for architecture, while still being eligible as an historical resource. The subject clearly retains sufficient integrity to convey its significance and eligibility for the California Register and as a City of Glendale Historic Resource. However, it may not retain sufficient integrity for listing in the National Register, due to alterations.

122 National Register Bulletin #15, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (National Park Service, 1990, revised 2002).
222 of 303

Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA 26 VII. CONCLUSION

The subject property was evaluated in this report for historic significance and was found individually eligible for listing in California Register and as a City of Glendale Historic Resource. The subject property was also found eligible as a contributing resource to a California and Glendale Register- eligible historic district of equestrian properties in Glendale. The subject property is in a unique location adjacent to the bridle trail system that feeds into Griffith Park from surrounding communities of Glendale, Burbank and Los Angeles. With horse-related buildings constructed beginning in 1939 through 1957, the property has been in continuous use providing horse stables and a riding academy since its inception, while also including a single-family home that has often housed a riding academy proprietor or other local equestrian. As the subject property has sustained some alterations, it therefore does not appear to retain sufficient integrity for listing in the National Register.

The subject property is situated amongst other commercial-equestrian properties that provide horse stables, riding academies, a feed store, and related uses. Individual properties appear to have been in constant use as equestrian properties since their dates of construction and to collectively retain sufficient integrity to convey a strong sense of time and place from the period of significance, 1939- 1978. Given that equestrian properties in the region are increasingly rare and under near constant threat of redevelopment, preservation of remaining resources is essential to the preservation of equestrian history.

Listing the subject property in the Glendale Register, either individually or as part of historic district, requires owner consent. While listing the subject property, either individually or as part of a historic district in the California Register does not require owner consent, a property or properties will not be listed over owner’s objections. In those situations, the State Historic Resources Commission will formally determine the property eligible for listing. Based on these requirements, it would be most straightforward to nominate the subject property for listing in the California Register for individual designation. Furthermore, designation as part of a historic district would require quite a bit of outreach to property owners of contributing properties.

As noted above, it is possible a historic district also includes adjacent and nearby residential properties that have historically had horse stables in their backyards. However, identification of boundaries as well as a contributing properties would require a more focused investigation that was outside the scope of this report.

223 of 303

Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA 27 VIII. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Articles

“Bette Davis Picnic Area,” Los Angeles Times, July 9, 2000, http://articles.latimes.com/2000/jul/09/local/me-50135.

Burden, Jean, “The House Moved Out to the Horse,” Los Angeles Times, November 6, 1949: H8.

“Classified Ad 8 – No Title,” Los Angeles Times, June 29, 1947: C10.

“Classified Ad 86 – No Title,” Los Angeles Times, April 28, 1974: K73.

“Display Ad 13 – No Title,” Los Angeles Times, May 8, 1938: 14.

“Display Ad 23 – No Title,” Los Angeles Times, December 19, 1937: A7.

“Dwindling of Stables Alarms Equestrians,” Los Angeles Times, October 9, 1986: GD1.

“Equestrian Bridge Ready,” Los Angeles Times, March 16, 1939: I2.

“Glendale Board Rejects Plan to Demolish Stable, Erect Condos,” Los Angeles Times, November 23, 1986: V_A16.

Hamilton, Denise, “Board Rejects Plan to Raze Stable, Build Condos,” Los Angeles Times, November 27, 1986: WS5.

“Hoss Auction,” Los Angeles Times, June 2, 1940: H12.

“Ingenuity and Service,” America’s Horse, July/August 2003: 10.

Jao, Carren, “Phase One of Glendale Narrows Riverwalk Opens, Bringing Recreational Opportunities to LA River,” KCET, December 12,
2012, https://www.kcet.org/earth-focus/phase-one-of-glendale-narrows-riverwalk-opens-bringing-recreational- opportunities-to-the.

“Many Visitors View Model Residence,” Los Angeles Times, September 26, 1937: F3.

Miller, Stuart “The American Epic: Hollywood’s Enduring Love for the Western,” The Guardian, October 21, 2016, https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/oct/21/western-films-hollywood-enduring- genre.

“Riding Fans Take Bow for Trails,” Los Angeles Times, July 4, 1954.

“Riverside Rancho Residents Vow to Resist Changes in Horse-Oriented Community,” Los Angeles Times, August 13, 1978: GB6.

“Small-Farms’ Lure Told,” Los Angeles Times, June 13, 1937: E1.

“The Homebuilder’s Department: House Design Has Strength,” Los Angeles Times, September 19, 1937: F4.

224 of 303

Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA 28 Books

Burt, Don, Horses & Other Heroes: Recollections and Reflections of a Life with Horses, Connecticut: The Lyons Press, 2002: 118.

Eberts, Mike, Griffith Park: A Centennial History, Los Angeles: The Historical Society of Southern California, 1996

Mayers, Jackson, Ph.D., Burbank History, Burbank: James W. Anderson, 1975: 138.

Stephens, E.J. and Marc Wanamaker, Images of America: Griffith Park, Charleston: Arcadia Publishing, 2011: 78.

Wanamaker, Marc, Images of America: San Fernando Valley, Charleston: Arcadia Publishing, 2011: 113.

Building Permits

“1900 Riverside Drive,” Application for Building Permit, City of Glendale, Department of Public Works, Division of Building, Permit No. 13798, April 24, 1939.

“1900 Riverside Drive,” Application for Building Permit, City of Glendale, Department of Public Works, Division of Building, Permit No. 13799, April 24, 1939.

“1900 Riverside Drive,” Application for Building Permit, City of Glendale, Department of Public Works, Division of Building, Building Permit No. 19942, February 2, 1942.

“1900 Riverside Drive,” Application for Building Permit, City of Glendale, Permit No. 54301, April 14, 1957.

“1902 Riverside Drive,” Application for a Building Permit, Building Section, Public Works Division, City of Glendale, California, Permit No. 53225, October 20, 1969.

“1902 Riverside Drive,” Application for a Building Permit, Building Section, Public Works Division, City of Glendale, California, Permit No. 21268, March 24, 1976.

“1902 Riverside Drive,” Application for a Building Permit, Building Section, Public Works Division, City of Glendale, CA, Permit No. 3750B008, December 16, 1987.

Biographical Information

Charles Kemsley

“Charles Kemsley,” 1930 United States Federal Census, Census Place: Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California; Page: 1A; Enumeration
District: 0658; FHL microfilm: 2339896, Ancestry.com.

“Charles Kemsley,” 1940 United States Federal Census, Census Place: Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California; Roll: m-t0627-00387; Page: 14A; Enumeration District: 60-1129, Ancestry.com.

“Charles Kemsley,” California, Death Index, 1940-1997, Ancestry.com.

Los Angeles City Directory, 1938: 1122, Ancestry.com.

225 of 303

Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA 29 Earl R. Ludlow

“Earl R. Ludlow,” 1920 United States Federal Census, Census Place: Los Flores, San Diego, California; Roll: T625_130; Page: 9B; Enumeration District: 220, Ancestry.com.

“Earl R. Ludlow,” 1930 United States Federal Census, Census Place: Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California; Page: 2A; Enumeration District: 0621; FHL microfilm: 2339893, Ancestry.com.

“Earl Ludlow,” 1940 United States Federal Census, Census Place: Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California; Roll: m-t0627-00387; Page: 14A; Enumeration District: 60-1129, Ancestry.com.

“Earl R. Ludlow,” California, County Birth, Marriage, and Death Records, 1849-1980, Ancestry.com.

Glendale City Directory, 1939: 279, Ancestry.com.

“Earl R. Ludlow,” U.S., Find A Grave Index, 1600s-Current, Ancestry.com.

Grover “Sandy” Sanders

Glendale City Directory, 1955: 418, Ancestry.com.

“Grover S. Sanders,” 1920 United States Federal Census, Census Place: Justice Precinct 2, Deaf Smith, Texas; Roll: T625_1790; Page: 6A; Enumeration District: 54, Ancestry.com.

“Grover S. Sanders,” 1930 United States Federal Census, Census Place: Shawnee, Johnson, Kansas; Page: 20B; Enumeration District: 0021; FHL microfilm: 2340441, Ancestry.com.

“Grover Sanders Junior,” Census Place: Warren, Mississippi; Roll: m-t0627-02074; Page: 12B; Enumeration District: 75-30, Ancestry.com.

“Grover Sandy Sanders,” Nevada, Marriage Index, 1956-2005, Ancestry.com.

“Grover S. Sanders,” U.S., Find A Grave Index, 1600s-Current, Ancestry.com.

“Sandy Sanders: Biography,” Internet Movie Database,
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0761708/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm, accessed July 27, 2018.

“Sandy Sanders,” Internet Movie Database,
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0761708/?ref_=nv_sr_1#archive_footage, accessed July 27, 2018.

Harris M. Lentz III, “Sandy Sanders,” Obituaries in the Performing Arts, 2005, Google Books, accessed July 27, 2018.

“Sandy Sanders: Biography,” Metacritic, http://www.metacritic.com/person/sandy-sanders, accessed July 27, 2018.

“Talented Miss Talbott Learns the Hard Way,” Los Angeles Times, April 21, 1957: E1.

Roger E. Dyrness

“Obituary: Roger E. Dyrness,” The Bulletin, May 1, 2014, https://www.bendbulletin.com/obituaries/2038468-151/roger-e-dyrness.

226 of 303

Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA 30 “Roger E Dyrness,” 1940 United States Federal Census, Census Place: Pleasant Prairie, Eddy, North Dakota; Roll: m-t0627-03000; Page: 2B; Enumeration District: 14-15, Ancestry.com.

“Roger E Dyrness,” California, Marriage Index, 1949-1959, Ancestry.com.

“Roger Dyrness,” Glendale City Directory, 1955: 205, U.S. City Directories, 1822-1995, Ancestry.com.

“Roger E Dyrness,” Glendale City Directory, 1965: 159, U.S. City Directories, 1822-1995, Ancestry.com.

“Roger E Dyrness,” Glendale City Directory, 1972: 130, U.S. City Directories, 1822-1995, Ancestry.com.

“Roger E Dyrness,” Glendale City Directory, 1977: 131, U.S. City Directories, 1822-1995, Ancestry.com.

Wladyslaw K. Tomaszewski

“Wladyslaw Kazimierz Tomaszewski,” California, Federal Naturalization Records, 1843-1999, Ancestry.com.

“Wladyslaw K. Tomaszewski,” U.S., Find A Grave Index, 1600s-Current, Ancestry.com.

“U.S. Will Never Desert Poland, Gronouski Says,” Los Angeles Times, September 28, 1964, E7.

Zack O. Porteous

Glendale City Directory, 1977: 377, Ancestry.com.

“Zack O. Porteous,” California, Marriage Index, 1960-1985, Ancestry.com.

City Directories

City directories for Burbank, Glendale, and Los Angeles, various years, Ancestry.com and Los Angeles Public Library.

City Planning Documents

“Atwater Village Equestrian Historic District,” SurveyLA, Northeast Los Angeles, Historic Districts, Planning Districts, and Multiple-Property Resources, prepared for City of Los Angeles, February 6, 2017.

Burbank 2035: General Plan, prepared by: AECOM, prepared for: City of Burbank, adopted February 19, 2013.

City of Glendale Horse Overlay Zone, Zoning Code, Chapter 30.21, http://qcode.us/codes/glendale/view.php?topic=30-30_21&frames=on, accessed July 28, 2018.

“Glendale Narrows Riverwalk Phases II & III Master Plan,” City of Glendale, 2011, available https://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showdocument?id=22565.

Glendale Narrows Riverwalk, Phase III, project website, https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/public-works/projects/glendale-narrows-riverwalk- phase-iii.

227 of 303

Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA 31 Griffith Park Master Plan, Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks, December 19, 1968.

“Historic Cultural Monument Application for Griffith Park,” Los Angeles Department of City Planning Recommendation Report to the Cultural Heritage Commission, CHC-2008-2724- HCM, October 30, 2008.

ICF Jones & Stokes, “Landscape Elements of Griffith Park,” as requested by the Cultural Heritage Commission and Office of Historic Resources of the City of Los Angeles, October 20, 2008.

List of Comprehensive General Plan Elements, City of Glendale, April 2009, https://www.glendaleca.gov/Home/ShowDocument?id=820.

City of Glendale Historic Preservation Element of the General Plan, Glendale Planning Division, September 1997, https://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showdocument?id=833.

Meeting Minutes of the Burbank City Council, August 23, 1938: 151.

“Rancho Master Plan,” City of Burbank website, http://www.burbankca.gov/departments/community- development/planning/document-library/specific-plans/rancho-master-plan, accessed July 30, 2018.

National Park Service Guidance

Birnbaum, Charles A., ASLA, Preservation Brief 36: Protecting Cultural Landscapes: Planning, Treatment and Management of Historic Landscapes, National Park Service, September 1994: 1.

National Register Bulletin #15, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (National Park Service, 1990, revised 2002).

National Register Bulletin #16A: How to Complete the National Register Registration Form (National Park Service, 1997).

Reports

Sapphos Environmental Inc., “Historic Resource Evaluation of the Property at 1900 Riverside Drive, Final Memorandum For the Record, addressed to Art Simonian, Glendale/Riverside LLC, May 8, 2018.

Websites

“Equestrian,” Merriam-Webster Dictionary, online database, https://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/equestrian.

Equestrian Trails, Inc., organization website, https://etinational.com/eti-past-present/.

Los Angeles Police Department, organization website,
http://www.lapdonline.org/inside_the_lapd/content_basic_view/6347.

“The Children’s Ranch,” organization website, http://www.thechildrensranch.org/about-us/.

228 of 303

Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA 32 Appendix A: Table of Building Permits

Date Permit No. Work Owner Architect Contractor Valuation April 24,
1939
13798 Erect stable at
1900 Riverside
Drive in rear of
lot. Stable to be
28’x39.5’, one-
story, with wood
on metal siding,
shingle and metal
roof, and cement
foundation.

Charles
Kemsley
Not given Permit says
“same”
$1,000.00
April 24,
1939
13799 Erect stable at 107
Allen Avenue in
center of lot.

Stable to be
28’x57’, one-story,
with wood on
metal siding,
cement
foundation, and
shingles and metal
roof.

Charles
Kemsley
Not given Owner $500.00
May 4,
1939
14554 Erect two-room
stable at 1900
Riverside Drive in
center of lot.

Stable to be one-
story, 28’x51.5’,
with metal siding,
cement
foundation,
exterior walls of
wood, metal
roofing.

Charles
Kemsley,
2423
Langdale
Ave, Los
Angeles
None Owner $1,500.00
February
2, 1942
19942 Erect 3-room
residence at 1900
Riverside Drive in
front of lot. House
to be one-story,
14’x34’, with
cement plaster
exterior finish, and
concrete
foundation.

Charles
Kemsley
Not given Henry
Hansen,
Glendale
$2,300.00
April 27,
1951
Not visible Sewer and
cesspool work at
1900 Riverside
Drive.

Laura
Kemsley
N/A Leo C.

Tapia
Not given
May 17,
1951
Not visible Sewer and
cesspool work at
1900 Riverside
Drive.

Laura
Kemsley
N/A Leo C.

Tapia
Not given
April 15,
1957
54301 Erect stable for
horses at 1900
Riverside Drive.

Sandy
Sanders
Johnson
and Engen,
5159
Owner $11,000.00
229 of 303

Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA 33 Date Permit No. Work Owner Architect Contractor Valuation Stable to be one-
story and hold 9
stalls, with
concrete block
exterior walls; felt,
sheeting, and pea
gravel roof;
concrete block,
wood and wire
interior walls; and
decomposed
granite floors.

Cahuenga
Boulevard
November
4, 1960
32 Certificate of Use
and Occupancy
for existing
boarding stable at
1902 Riverside
Drive.

W.K.

Tomaszewski

N/A N/A N/A
December
10, 1962
49425 Electrical permit
for 6 fixtures at
1900 Riverside
Drive.

Silver Spur
Stables
N/A Pacific
Southwest
Electric
N/A
April 2,
1963
54373 Plumbing permit
for 1902 Riverside
Drive, for water
closets and/or
anti-syphon
ballcock and 2
lavatories.

Silver Spur
Stables
N/A Les Green
Plumbing
N/A
May 11,
1965
90923 Plumbing permit
for water systems,
without fixtures, at
1900 Riverside
Drive.

W.K.

Tomaszewski
N/A Dot
Plumbing
Co.

N/A
May 9,
1966
08544 Plumbing permit
for water heaters
and/or vents at
1900 Riverside
Drive.

W.K.

Tomaszewski
N/A Dot
Plumbing
Co.

N/A
August 15,
1968
38657 Building permit
for fire sprinkler.

Silver Spur
Stables
N/A Kilian Fire $5,800.00
October
20, 1969
53225 Construct shelter
for grooming of
horses, one-story,
215 sq. ft., wood
roof framing,
metal roof
covering material,
wood partitioning
material.

Tomaszewski,
1902
Riverside
Drive
N/A Owner $700.00
December
8, 1975
467 Certificate of Use
and Occupancy
for existing stable
at 1902 Riverside
Drive.

Roger
Dyrness
DBA Silver
Spur Stables

N/A N/A N/A
230 of 303

Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA 34 Date Permit No. Work Owner Architect Contractor Valuation March 24,
1976
21268 Repair sides of
stable at 1902
Riverside Drive,
raise sides to 6’-
high, add front
and new gates.

Roger
Dyrness
N/A N/A $250.00
December
4, 1987
3750B008 Rehab existing
facilities in house
at 1902 Riverside
Drive, paint and
fix-up, interior
work only as per
city letter.

Alex Haagen
III, 8556
Wilshire
Blvd, Beverly
Hills
Don
Picken,
Reseda
Richard C.

C. Lee
$10,000.00
December
16, 1987
3747B008 HVAC or
Refrigeration
permit for air
handling units.

Alex Haagen N/A Richard C.

C. Lee
N/A
December
16, 1987
3748B008 Electrical Permit
for 1900-1902
Riverside Drive,
for replacement of
four outlets.

Alex Haagen N/A Richard C.

C. Lee
N/A
December
16, 1987
3749B008 Plumbing permit
for 1902 Riverside
Drive, for showers
and/or pan; water
closets and/or
anti-syphon
ballcock;
lavatories; sinks,
kitchen, bar, floor,
service, with 4
new fixtures.

Alex Haaagen N/A Richard C.

C. Lee
N/A
May 26,
1994
P10044566 Plumbing permit
for industrial
waste interceptor
at 1900-02
Riverside Drive.

Paul Hay,
1900 and
1902
Riverside
Drive
N/A California
Sewer Co.

N/A
August 22,
1994
14420 Certificate of Use
and Occupancy
for existing legal
structure or
building at 1900
Riverside Drive,
for “Stables for
Horses (Boarding
of Pleasure
Horses)”, 14,300
square feet.

Paul A. Hay
Jr. DBA
Double H.

Stables

N/A N/A N/A

231 of 303

Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA 35 Appendix B: Tables of Local Riding Academies

Table of Riding Academies in Glendale by Year (based on city directories) Year Business Location
1923123
California Riding Academy 1831 Riverside Drive
Glendale Riding Academy 100 Irving Avenue
1930124
California Riding Academy 1831 Riverside Drive
1940125
F. O. Bailes 1850 Riverside Drive
G. R. Johnson 155 Irving Avenue
1948:126
F. O. Bailes Jr. 1800 Riverside Drive
W. W. Blesing 221 Irving Avenue
Jack House 100 Irving Avenue
E. R. Ludlow 1900 Riverside Drive
Olmstead Bros 1850 Riverside Drive
1954:127
Fred O. Bailes Jr. 1830 Riverside Drive
Myers & Wills 1850 Riverside Drive
Silver Glenn Stables 1900 Riverside Drive
1960:128
Fred Bailes Stables 1830 Riverside Drive
L. C. Goss Stables 1850 Riverside Drive
Ride Awhile Stables 1850 Riverside Drive
1965:129
L. C. Goss Stables 1850 Riverside Drive
Ride Awhile Stables 1850 Riverside Drive
Rocking Horse Stables, Inc. 1830 Riverside Drive
1975: No listings
1977130
Circle T Inter-Valley Ranch 5142 Dunsmore Avenue

Table of Riding Academies in Burbank by Year (based on city directories) Year Business Location
1936131
Continental Riding Academy 914 S Mariposa
F.C. Doyle 902 Main
R.L. Kirk 822 S Mariposa
1939132
W.H. Fickett 1001 Main
William Hagan 1031 Main

123 Glendale City Directory, Western Directory Company, 1923: 761, Ancestry.com. 124 Glendale City Directory, Glendale Directory Company, 1930: 765, Ancestry.com. 125 Glendale City Directory, Glendale Directory Company, 1940: 474, Ancestry.com. 126 Glendale City Directory, Glendale Directory Company: 1948: 620, Ancestry.com. 127 Polk’s Glendale Classified Business Directory, 1954: 43, Ancestry.com. 128 Polk’s Glendale City Directory, 1960: 95, Ancestry.com. 129 Glendale City Directory, 1965: 100, Ancestry.com.
130 Glendale City Directory, 1977: 98, Ancestry.com.
131 Burbank City Directory: 1936: 340, Ancestry.com.
132 Burbank City Directory: 1939: 437, Ancestry.com.
232 of 303

Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA 36 Year Business Location
1940133
Walter Browne 910 S Mariposa
John Dinneen 806 S Mariposa
W.H. Fickett 1001 Main
William Hagan 1031 Main
Midwick Stables 430 Riverside Drive
Pickwick Stables 1216 Riverside Drive
Pico Stables 420 Riverside Drive
Teel Lee Stables 470 Riverside Drive
1952134
Dincara Stock Farm 806 S Mariposa
Pickwick Stables 1006 Riverside Drive
Pico Stables 420 Riverside Drive
Ride-A-While Stables 1021 Main
Rocking Horse Stable 470 Riverside Drive
1969135
Silver Spur Stable 1902 W Riverside Drive
1970 No listings

133 Burbank City Directory, 1940: 580-582, Ancestry.com. 134 Burbank City Directory, 1952: 1019, Ancestry.com.
135 Burbank City Directory, 1969: 203, Ancestry.com.
233 of 303

Attachment 1: Current Maps and Aerials
Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA Map 1: Location map, subject property at center in yellow (source: Los Angeles County Assessor) Map 2: Parcel map, subject property outlined in red (source: Los Angeles County Assessor) N Assumed
N
N Assumed
N
234 of 303

Attachment 1: Current Maps and Aerials
Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA Map 3: Current aerial, subject property at center (source: Google, 2018) Map 4: Current aerial, subject property outlined in yellow (source: Google, 2018) N
N Assumed
N
N Assumed
N
235 of 303

Attachment 1: Current Maps and Aerials
Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA Map 5: Current aerial, view southeast, subject property outlined in white dashed line, site features identified with let- ters (source: Emily Gabel-Luddy, 2018)
Map 6: Current aerial, view northwest, subject property outlined in white dashed line (source: Emily Gabel-Luddy, 2018)
Silver Spur Stables
B
C
D
E
A
Silver Spur Stables
A
B
C
E
D
Bridle Trail
LA Equestrian Center
stables
feed store
stables
feed store
stables
N Assumed
N
236 of 303

Attachment 1: Current Maps and Aerials
Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA Map 8: City of Burbank map showing areas addressed by land use policies for equestrian areas, adopted as a General Plan amendment, approximate location of subject property indicated by arrow (source: City Council Resolution No. 23,927, 1993).

Map 7: Current City of Glendale zoning map, with Commercial-Equestrian-zoned properties in red cross-hatch and approximate location of subject property indicated by arrow (source: City of Glendale).

N Assumed
N
N Assumed
N
237 of 303

Attachment 1: Current Maps and Aerials
Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA Map 9: Current map of Griffith Park, with trails shown in orange and subject property indicated by arrow (source:

City of Los Angeles Department of Parks and Recreation) Map 10: Crop of previous, current map of Griffith Park zoomed in on area of subject property (source: City of Los Angeles Department of Parks and Recreation) 238 of 303

Attachment 2: Historic Maps and Aerials
Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA Historic Map 2: Sanborn Fire Insurance Map, subject property outlined in red (1965) Historic Map 1: Sanborn Fire Insurance Map, subject property outlined in red (1951) A
B
C
D
E
A
B
C
D
E
North North
239 of 303

Attachment 2: Historic Maps and Aerials
Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA Historic Map 3: Sanborn Fire Insurance Map, area surrounding subject property, with subject property outlined in red (1950) North
240 of 303

Attachment 2: Historic Maps and Aerials
Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA Historic Map 4: Sanborn Fire Insurance Map, crop of previous showing Glendale Commercial-Equestrian-zoned properties in red (1950)
N Assumed
N
241 of 303

Attachment 2: Historic Maps and Aerials
Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA Historic Aerial 2: Crop of previous, subject property indicated by arrow, prior to development with existing buildings (source: UCLA Air Photo Archive, 1936)
Historic Aerial 1: Subject property indicated by arrow, prior to development with existing buildings, view northwest (source: UCLA Air Photo Archive, 1936)
242 of 303

Attachment 2: Historic Maps and Aerials
Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA Historic Aerial 4: Crop of previous, subject property indicated by arrow, prior to development with existing buildings (source: UCLA Air Photo Archive, 1937)
Historic Aerial 3: Subject property indicated by arrow, prior to development with existing buildings, view north (source: UCLA Air Photo Archive, 1937)
243 of 303

Attachment 2: Historic Maps and Aerials
Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA Historic Aerial 6: Crop of previous, approximate area of subject property indicated by arrow, prior to development with existing buildings, after LA River flood (source: UCLA Air Photo Archive, 1938) Historic Aerial 5: Approximate area of subject property indicated by arrow, prior to development with existing build- ings, after LA River flood, view northwest (source: UCLA Air Photo Archive, 1938) 244 of 303

Attachment 2: Historic Maps and Aerials
Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA Historic Aerial 8: Crop of previous, subject property indicated by arrow, showing existing buildings (source: UCLA Air Photo Archive, 1946)
Historic Aerial 7: Subject property indicated by arrow, showing existing buildings, view northwest (source: UCLA Air Photo Archive, 1946)
245 of 303

Attachment 2: Historic Maps and Aerials
Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA Historic Aerial 10: Crop of previous, 1947, subject property indicated by arrow, showing existing buildings (source:

UCLA Air Photo Archive)
Historic Aerial 9: Subject property indicated by arrow, showing existing buildings, view southeast (source: UCLA Air Photo Archive, 1946)
246 of 303

Attachment 2: Historic Maps and Aerials
Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA Historic Aerial 12: Crop of previous, subject property indicated by arrow, showing existing buildings (source: UCLA Air Photo Archive, 1953)
Historic Aerial 11: Subject property indicated by arrow, showing existing buildings, view south (source: UCLA Air Photo Archive, 1953)
247 of 303

Attachment 3: Current Photographs of Subject Property
Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA Figure 1: Silver Spur Stables, Building A (House), north elevation (right) and east eleva- tion (left), view southwest (Snow, 2018)
Figure 2: Silver Spur Stables, Building A (House), east elevation, view southwest (Snow, 2018)
248 of 303

Attachment 3: Current Photographs of Subject Property
Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA Figure 3: Silver Spur Stables, Building A (House), north elevation, view southeast (Snow, 2018)
Figure 4: Silver Spur Stables, Building A (House), west elevation, view east (Snow, 2018) 249 of 303

Attachment 3: Current Photographs of Subject Property
Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA Figure 5: Silver Spur Stables, Building A (House), west elevation (left) and south elevation (right), view northeast (Snow, 2018)
250 of 303

Attachment 3: Current Photographs of Subject Property
Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA Figure 6: Silver Spur Stables, Building B (Office and Main Stable), primary north eleva- tion, view southeast (Snow, 2018)
Figure 7: Silver Spur Stables, Building B (Office and Main Stable), detail of west elevation, view east (Snow, 2018)
251 of 303

Attachment 3: Current Photographs of Subject Property
Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA Figure 9: Silver Spur Stables, Building B (Office and Main Stable), south elevation, view northwest (Snow, 2018)
Figure 8: Silver Spur Stables, Building B (Office and Main Stable), south side of west ele- vation, view southeast (Snow, 2018)
252 of 303

Attachment 3: Current Photographs of Subject Property
Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA Figure 10: Silver Spur Stables, Building B (Office and Main Stable), east elevation, view northwest (Snow, 2018)
Figure 11: Silver Spur Stables, Building B (Office and Main Stable), east elevation, view northwest (Snow, 2018)
253 of 303

Attachment 3: Current Photographs of Subject Property
Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA Figure 12: Silver Spur Stables, Building B (Office and Main Stable), interior, central corri- dor, view south (Snow, 2018)
Figure 13: Silver Spur Stables, Building B (Office and Main Stable), interior, central corri- dor, view south (Snow, 2018)
254 of 303

Attachment 3: Current Photographs of Subject Property
Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA Figure 14: Silver Spur Stables, Building B (Office and Main Stable), interior, door to bath- room, view east (Snow, 2018)
Figure 15: Silver Spur Stables, Building B (Office and Main Stable), interior (Snow, 2018) 255 of 303

Attachment 3: Current Photographs of Subject Property
Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA Figure 16: Silver Spur Stables, Building B (Office and Main Stable), interior (Snow, 2018) Figure 17: Silver Spur Stables, Building B (Office and Main Stable), interior (Snow, 2018) 256 of 303

Attachment 3: Current Photographs of Subject Property
Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA Figure 18: Silver Spur Stables, Building B (Office and Main Stable), interior, view west (Snow, 2018)
Figure 19: Silver Spur Stables, Building B (Office and Main Stable), interior (Snow, 2018) 257 of 303

Attachment 3: Current Photographs of Subject Property
Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA Figure 20: Silver Spur Stables, Building C (East Stable), west elevation, view east (Snow, 2018)
Figure 21: Silver Spur Stables, Building C (East Stable), west elevation, view northeast (Snow, 2018)
258 of 303

Attachment 3: Current Photographs of Subject Property
Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA Figure 22: Silver Spur Stables, Building C (East Stable), east elevation, view northwest (Snow, 2018)
259 of 303

Attachment 3: Current Photographs of Subject Property
Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA Figure 23: Silver Spur Stables, Building D (Barn), east elevation, view northwest (Snow, 2018)
Figure 24: Silver Spur Stables, Building D (Barn), south elevation, view northwest (Snow, 2018)
260 of 303

Attachment 3: Current Photographs of Subject Property
Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA Figure 25: Silver Spur Stables, Building D (Barn), east elevation of barn and stables, view southwest (Snow, 2018)
Figure 26: Silver Spur Stables, Building D (Barn), north elevation of stables, view south- west (Snow, 2018)
261 of 303

Attachment 3: Current Photographs of Subject Property
Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA Figure 27: Silver Spur Stables, Building D (Barn), interior, view west (Snow, 2018) Figure 28: Silver Spur Stables, Building D (Barn), stable view west (Snow, 2018) 262 of 303

Attachment 3: Current Photographs of Subject Property
Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA Figure 29: Silver Spur Stables, Building E (Arena), view north (Snow, 2018) Figure 30: Silver Spur Stables, Building E (Arena), view southwest (Snow, 2018) 263 of 303

Attachment 4: Current Photographs of Setting

Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA Figure 31: Allen Avenue, with subject property at right and adjacent property (1850 River- side Drive, Glendale, LA Horse Rentals) at left, view south (Snow, 2018) Figure 32: 1850 Riverside Drive, Glendale (LA Horse Rentals, located adjacent to subject property), view south (Snow, 2018)
264 of 303

Attachment 4: Current Photographs of Setting

Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA Figure 33: 1840 Riverside Drive (Trickee Tack feed store), view southwest (Snow, 2018) Figure 34: 1830 Riverside Drive (Triple R Stables), view southwest (Snow, 2018) 265 of 303

Attachment 4: Current Photographs of Setting

Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA Figure 35: 400 Riverside Drive (condos with stables), view southeast (Snow, 2018) 266 of 303

Attachment 4: Current Photographs of Setting

Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA Figure 36: Bridle trail located southeast of subject property, with LA River at right, view east (Snow, 2018)
Figure 37: Bridle trail located southeast of subject property, view north, with Bette Davis Estate in background ( Snow, 2018)
267 of 303

Attachment 4: Current Photographs of Setting

Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA Figure 38: Swinging Bridge, located southwest of subject property, provides passage from bridle trails over the LA River and into Griffith Park, view south (Snow, 2018) Figure 39: Swinging Bridge, located southwest of subject property, provides passage from bridle trails over the LA River and into Griffith Park, view northeast (Snow, 2018) 268 of 303

Attachment 4: Current Photographs of Setting

Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA Figure 40: Tunnel under 5-Freeway, located southwest of subject property, provides pas- sage from bridle trails into Griffith Park, view southeast (Snow, 2018) Figure 41: Bridle trail leading along Zoo Drive into Griffith Park (Snow, 2018) 269 of 303

Attachment 4: Current Photographs of Setting

Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA Figure 42: Bridle trail in Griffith Park (Snow, 2018)
270 of 303

Attachment 4: Current Photographs of Setting

Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA Figure 43: Current aerial, view southeast, with bridges to bridle trails indicated (source: Emily Gabel-Luddy, 2018) Easter Field Bridge
Irving Avenue Bridge
Allen Avenue Bridge
Figure 44: Current aerial, view southeast, Easter Field Bridge at center (source: Emily Gabel-Luddy, 2018) Silver Spur Stables
271 of 303

Attachment 4: Current Photographs of Setting

Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA Figure 45: Current aerial, view northeast, Irving Avenue Bridge at center (source: Emily Gabel-Luddy, 2018) Figure 46: Current aerial, view northwest, Allen Avenue Bridge at center (source: Emily Gabel-Luddy, 2018) 272 of 303

Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA Attachment 5: Historic Photographs of Setting

Figure A: Early view of Riverside Riding Stable, 3129 Riverside Drive, not extant (source: Page Williams, n.d.)
Figure B: Early view of Park View Riding Academy, Glendale, not extant (source: Page Williams, n.d.)
273 of 303

Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA Attachment 5: Historic Photographs of Setting

Figure D: Rocking Horse Stables, 470 Riverside Drive, not extant (source: Page Williams, c. 1950s)
Figure C: Early view of Royal Riding Academy, Riverside Drive, not extant (source: Page Williams, n.d.)
274 of 303

Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale, CA Attachment 5: Historic Photographs of Setting

Figure E: Actors on horseback training in Griffith Park in area that is now the Los Angeles Eques- trian Center (source: Page Williams, 1966)
275 of 303

Exhibit 7
276 of 303

277 of 303

278 of 303

279 of 303

280 of 303

281 of 303

282 of 303

283 of 303

Exhibit 8
284 of 303

285 of 303

286 of 303

287 of 303

Exhibit 9
288 of 303

289 of 303

Exhibit 10
290 of 303

291 of 303

292 of 303

1 1333 S. MAYFLOWER AVE., SUITE 320  MONROVIA  CALIFORNIA  91016  (626) 432-5850

W H E E L E R & G R A Y, I N C

C O N S U L T I N G E N G I N E E R S

November 18, 2021
W&G #S21288

FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT

Silver Spurs Stables
1900 Riverside Drive
Glendale, CA 91201

INTRODUCTION

This report was made at the request of the Richard Dell of RED Architectural Group to review and evaluate visible portions of the existing stable buildings and offer an opinion as to the condition of the subject structures and possible damage.

DESCRIPTION OF FACILITY

The subject facility consists of the following:

Building A – A one story residence type V framed residence built in 1942 and supported over a raised foundation (see photo #1).

Building B - One story wood framed horse stable structures built from 1939-1957. the buildings are composed of the following
Central Stable and Office:

The structure is a type V framed long narrow building approximately 28 ft. in width and consists of a central hallway with horse stableson each side of the hall. There is a continuous monitor over the hallway (photo #2). Roof framing consists of 1x straight sheathing supported by 2x4 rafters spaced at 24”o.c.

West Side Stable and Shed:

The westside building has a shed roof (photo #3 & #4). The roof framing consists of 1x sheathing supported by 2x rafters. The walls are covered with 1x sheathing.

East Side Stable:

The eastside building has a shed roof (photo #4). The roof framing consists of 1x sheathing supported by 2x rafters. The walls are covered with 1x sheathing. There is a concrete block wall on the east wall.
293 of 303

2 1333 S. MAYFLOWER AVE., SUITE 320  MONROVIA  CALIFORNIA  91016  (626) 432-5850 Building C - A one story building consisting of a wood framed roof and masonry shear walls. The building appears to have been constructed in the late 1950’s.

Building D – A tall one-story barn structure approximately consisting of a wood framed roof supporting corrugated steel roof sheets and 1x exterior sheathing and 2x Rafters.

The original portion of the building is approximately 28’x31’ in plan dimensions with additions on the north and east sides (photo #8).

INVESTIGATION

Our investigation is preliminary and consisted solely of a cursory visual walk through the areas of the buildings that were accessible and preliminary. No tests or exact measurements were made and the only alternate information reviewed was the Historic Resource Assessment by Jenna Snow of Historic Preservation Consulting.

FINDINGS

Based on the site visit the following items were noted:

Building A – Residence

1. The foundation consists of a typical raised floor system with exterior walls are supported on a continuous concrete footing. The raised floor consists of plywood sheathing over 2x6 floor joists that span approximately 8 ft. and a 4x girder running through the middle of the structure.

2. The building siding and framing shows signs of dry wrought deterioration where grade is too close to sill plate.

3. Roof framing consists of 2x6 rafters spanning 7 ft to a 1x ridge board. There are only minimal collar ties running transversely across the building.

4. The building sill plate is anchored to the foundation stem with anchor bolts.

Building B – Central Stable and Office

1. The exterior walls appear to be supported on a continuous concrete footing. In some areas the top of the footings are flush with the interior and exterior grades which does not protect the walls and posts which makes them susceptible to dry wrought (see photo #6).

2. Concrete footing shows signs of exposed aggregate and therefore concrete quality is below minimum standard and is deteriorating.

3. The interior posts each side of the hall appear to be supported on the soil only with no signs of footings.
294 of 303

3 1333 S. MAYFLOWER AVE., SUITE 320  MONROVIA  CALIFORNIA  91016  (626) 432-5850

4. The roof diaphragms are not supported laterally or longitudinally by shear walls and there are no signs of foundation sill anchor bolts (see photo #6).

5. Roof framing appears to be undersized based on the spans (photo #7).

6. There is no lateral transfer from monitor diaphragm structure to the lower roof (photo #2).

Building B – Westside Stable and Shed

1. The exterior walls appear to be not supported on a continuous-footings but are supported on a sill plate on the soil with no anchor bolts.

2. The interior posts each side of the hall appear to be supported on the soil only with no signs of footings.

3. The roof diaphragms are not supported or minimally supported laterally or longitudinally by shear walls.

4. The wood framed wall on the west side of the structure is supporting two to three feet of soil.

5. The roof framing is undersized with 2x6 rafters spanning over 10 ft. and spaced at 3 ft. o.c.

6. There are no wall top plates per normal type V construction (photo #4).

Building B – Eastside Stable

1. The wood stud walls appear to be not supported on a continuous-footings but are supported on a sill plate on the soil with no anchor bolts.

2. The interior posts are supported on the soil only with no signs of footings.

3. The masonry wall on the east wall is not positively anchored to the roof diaphragm (photo #5).

4. The roof diaphragms are not supported or minimally supported laterally or longitudinally by shear walls and there are no signs of foundation anchor bolts.

5. The roof framing is undersized with 2x6 rafters spanning over 15 ft. and spaced at 16”o.c.

Building C – Stable

1. The exterior walls consist of wood framing and masonry walls.

2. The building appears to be in good condition with no signs of distress. 295 of 303

4 1333 S. MAYFLOWER AVE., SUITE 320  MONROVIA  CALIFORNIA  91016  (626) 432-5850 Building D – Barn (Photo #8)

1. The exterior walls are supported on a continuous-footings but there are only minimal sill anchor bolts found.

2. The interior posts each side of the hall appear to be supported on the soil only with no signs of footings.

3. The roof diaphragm, which consists of inadequate corrugated steel sheets, is not minimally supported laterally and longitudinally by shear walls.

4. The north wall of the structure is supporting approximately 3 ft. of soil.

5. The tall east and west wall studs are undersized based on their spans.

6. Roof framing (2x4 rafters spanning 9 ft. and spaced at 24”o.c.) are undersized.

7. The east and west walls studs are not continuous to the top of the gable roof but are interrupted by 2-2x plates at the 10 ft. height. This condition creates a hinge point in the wall and therefore the wall is inadequate for wind loading.

8. The foundation sill plates are not redwood or pressure treated material and therefore are susceptible to deterioration.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
To provide a code minimum level of “Life Safety” based on the findings of the visual walk- through the following items are to be addressed;
Please note that due to the extensive deterioration of the noted structural systems and existing building materials along with the lack of lateral resistance, the existing buildings should be considered a danger for use and occupancy. If the following noted retrofit items are not installed or implemented, we recommend that the structures be demolished for Life Safety purposes. The proposed retrofitting of the structures will require additional shoring, supportive bracing, new footings, additional framing and other structural elements to be employed once the final studies and calculations have been formally designed and engineered. Because of the extreme deterioration of the existing structural elements of the buildings the retrofit may result in removal and replacement of most of the structural systems. The retrofit will more than likely cause more retro fitting work than as outlined in this initial study. Our experience with retrofitting utilitarian structures like this, generally leads to more in-depth structural work and retrofitting than planned and anticipated as the structures additional weakness are revealed during construction. Demolition of these minimally designed and altered structures should be highly considered due to the above stated reasons, the following retrofit items and current fire , life, safety concerns. 296 of 303

5 1333 S. MAYFLOWER AVE., SUITE 320  MONROVIA  CALIFORNIA  91016  (626) 432-5850 Building A – Residence

1. Provide a retrofit foundation sill anchors at the top of the foundation stem wall.

2. Strengthen roof framing by addition collar ties from top plate to top plate at a minimum of 24”o.c.

3. Remove and replace deteriorated siding and sill plates.

4. Provide plywood shear panels to seismically retrofit the building. Retrofit consists of a continuous load path from roof diaphragm to shear walls to foundation stem. These items include continuous blocking between rafters and floor joists, framing anchors at blocking and holdowns at ends of plywood sheathed shear panels.

5. Regrade surrounding area to provide proper distance from grade to foundation sill.

6. Add foundations at the east side porch to support posts as seen in photo #1. Posts are to be knee braced to add lateral support for porch extension.

Building B – Central Stable and Office

1. Entire roof is to be sheathed with plywood.

2. Scab new 2x rafters to undersized existing 2x rafters.

3. Add continuous collar ties between monitor cripple wall plates and sheath cripple walls with plywood to create a continuous load path from roof diaphragm to foundations. This will include continuous blocking between rafters with added framing anchors at each block.

4. To seismically retrofit the structure, add new shear panels to all exterior walls, interior longitudinal hallway walls and selected interior cross walls (A minimum of two interior transverse locations). The seismic retrofit consists of a continuous load path from roof diaphragm to shear walls to foundation stem. These items include continuous blocking between rafters, framing anchors at all blocking and holdowns at ends of plywood sheathed shear panels.

5. Shore entire building and provide a new-foundations with curbs to all continuous walls, posts and added shear panels.

6. Remove and replace all deteriorated wood framing.

Building B – Westside Stable and Shed

1. Entire roof is to be sheathed with plywood

2. Scab new 2x rafters to undersized existing 2x4 rafters. 297 of 303

6 1333 S. MAYFLOWER AVE., SUITE 320  MONROVIA  CALIFORNIA  91016  (626) 432-5850

3. To seismically retrofit the structure, add shear panels to all exterior walls and selected cross walls. The seismic retrofit consists of a continuous load path from roof diaphragm to shear walls to foundation stem. These items include continuous blocking between rafters, framing anchors at all blocking and holdowns at ends of plywood sheathed shear panels.

4. The existing stud walls are inadequate and do not meet typical type V framing requirements (no top plates). All of the stud walls are to be removed and reframed.

5. Shore entire building and provide a new-foundations with curbs to all continuous walls, posts and added shear panels.

6. Remove soil at west wall and regrade.

7. Remove and replace all deteriorated framing.

Building B – Eastside Stable

1. Entire roof is to be sheathed with plywood

2. Scab new 2x rafters to undersized existing 2x6 rafters.

4. The existing masonry wall is to be positively anchored to the roof diaphragm with straps and anchor bolts.

5. Shore entire building and provide a new-foundations with curbs to all continuous walls, posts and added shear panels.

6. Remove and replace all deteriorated framing.

Building C – Stable
Building is in good structural condition with no signs of distress in any structural members.

Building D – Barn (photo #8)

1. Entire roof is to be sheathed with plywood

2. Scab new 2x rafters to undersized existing 2x4 rafters and add roof beams as required. 298 of 303

7 1333 S. MAYFLOWER AVE., SUITE 320  MONROVIA  CALIFORNIA  91016  (626) 432-5850

7. To seismically retrofit the structure, add shear panels to all exterior walls and selected cross walls. The seismic retrofit consists of a continuous load path from roof diaphragm to shear walls to foundation stem. These items include continuous blocking between rafters, framing anchors at all blocking and holdowns at ends of plywood sheathed shear panels.

3. Shore entire building and provide a new-foundations with curbs to all continuous walls, posts and added shear panels with proper anchor bolts and sill material.

4. Reframe tall and east and west walls with continuous larger studs.

5. Remove soil where finish grade is too close to foundation sill plates.

GENERAL
This report is based on a visual examination of the exposed areas of the structure. No tests, destructive or non-destructive were made. No drawings of the original construction were available and no exact measurements were obtained and no structural analysis on noted roof and shear panels was performed. The cursory inspection was made solely to assist in evaluating the structural integrity of the subject building structures and provide a general list of corrective measures. Neither the investigation nor this report is intended to address architectural features.

The findings and recommendations in this report represent conditions found at the time of the investigation and were prepared in accordance with generally accepted professional engineering principles, practices and judgment. No warranty is expressed or implied.

Respectfully submitted,
WHEELER & GRAY, INC.
______________________
Les Schulz, Principal, S.E.

LS
299 of 303

8 1333 S. MAYFLOWER AVE., SUITE 320  MONROVIA  CALIFORNIA  91016  (626) 432-5850 Photo #1 Building A-Wood Framed Residence Structure

Photo #2 Building B Central Stable
300 of 303

9 1333 S. MAYFLOWER AVE., SUITE 320  MONROVIA  CALIFORNIA  91016  (626) 432-5850 Photo #3 Building B Westside Stable
Photo #4 Building B Westside (east wall)
301 of 303

10 1333 S. MAYFLOWER AVE., SUITE 320  MONROVIA  CALIFORNIA  91016  (626) 432-5850 Photo #5 Building B Eastside Stable
Photo #6-Continous footing at longitudinal wall
302 of 303

11 1333 S. MAYFLOWER AVE., SUITE 320  MONROVIA  CALIFORNIA  91016  (626) 432-5850 Photo #7 Typical Longitudinal wall at Central Stable
Photo #8 Barn East Elevation
303 of 303

Glendale City CouncilMarch 7, 2023

Glendale City Council
March 7, 2023