Glendale City Council
September 19, 2023

P1. Other Identifier
*a. Country Los Angeles
*P2. Location: Not for Publication           Unrestricted and (P2c, P2e, and P2b or P2d.     Attach a Location Map as Necessary.) *b USGS 7.5' Quad Pasadena Date 2018 T 1N ; R 13W of of Sec B. M. c. Address 1006 E Harvard St City Glendale Zip 91205
d. UTM: , (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone mE/ mN e. Other Locational Data: APN: 5674015005
*P3a. Description
P5a. Photograph or Drawing (Photograph required for buildings, structure, and objects.) *P3b. Resource Attributes:

HP2. Single family property
*P4. Resources Present ■ Building
*P5b. Description of Photo
View South, 2017
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Source
1906, LA County Tax Assessor
*P7. Owner and Address
*P8. Recorded by:

Historic Resources Group
12 S Fair Oaks Ave, Suite 200
Pasadena, CA 91105
*P9. Date Recorded 2017
*P10. Survey Type Intensive
*P11. Report Citation: Historic Resources Group, City of Glendale South Glendale Historic Context Statement,  September 30, 2014. *Attachments: ■ Continuation Sheet
This property was surveyed in the 2007 Glendale Craftsman Style Architecture survey. This survey form updates that evaluation. The character‐defining features remain unchanged from those identified in 2004. No new alterations were noted in the 2017 survey update of the property. 225 of 253

CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI #
State of California ‐‐ The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

*B6. Construction History:

NO ORIGINAL PERMIT. 1937 Certificate of Inspection indicates owner is A. Fossten. PERMIT: 1960, Kitchen remodel for owner and contractor, V.

Bruno.

City Directory Research:

City directory: 1917, Address not listed. City directory: 1930, A.A. Fosston, grocer, resides here.

B10. Significance: Early Development & Town Settlement (1872‐1918); Architecture and Design: Craftsman Area South Glendale Period of Significance: 1906 Property Type: Single family residence Applicable Criteria: 1; 3 This property was documented during the 2007 Glendale Craftsman Survey, and re‐evaluated during the 2017 South Glendale historic resources survey.

It was constructed in 1906, and is significant as an increasingly rare example of early residential development in South Glendale. It is eligible for listing in the Glendale Register under local Criterion 1, representing the earliest period of South Glendale's residential development. It is also eligible for listing in the Glendale Register under local Criterion 3, as an excellent example of Craftsman architecture in South Glendale. This property retains character‐ defining features of its original design, including its one‐and‐one‐half‐story height, low‐pitched cross gable roof, and wood shingle exterior wall cladding.

Glendale was founded in 1887, amid the regional real estate and population boom of the era; the City of Glendale was incorporated in 1906.

Incorporation triggered exponential growth, and the new city’s population grew from 1,186 in 1906 to 13,576 in 1920. While the town had been platted in 1887, subdivisions of new tracts began in earnest with the arrival of the streetcar in the early 20th century. Dozens of tracts of varying sizes were subdivided in Glendale in the first two decades of the 20th century. By 1919, the Sanborn maps show residential construction to have spread westward, specifically along Lexington Drive, Myrtle Street, California, and Milford Streets to the west of Brand Boulevard and east of Columbus Avenue; there were some dwellings as far west as Pacific Avenue. South Glendale contains the historic heart of the city and some of its oldest residential neighborhoods. Single‐family residential development in South Glendale from the early 20th century consisted primarily of California bungalows:
simple, often garden‐oriented houses uniquely suited for the climate and lifestyle of the region. The term “bungalow” typically refers to a modest, one‐ or one‐and‐a‐half‐story house with an informal floor plan. The exteriors were generally simple, and the use of natural materials was important to the design aesthetic.

Zoning changes have resulted in a great deal of infill construction of apartment buildings in areas that were formerly low density, single‐family neighborhoods. As a result, intact neighborhoods of low‐density, single‐family development are rare in South Glendale. Consistent with the registration requirements identified in the South Glendale Historic Context Statement, properties significant as examples of early residential development were constructed prior to 1918 (Criterion 1).
2017 NRHP Updated Status Code   5S3
2017 update to Previous Survey Data
*Recorded by: Historic Resources Group
*Resource Name or #: 1006 E Harvard St
Date: 2017 *Update
226 of 253
State of California - The Resource Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

PRIMARY RECORD
Survey #:

DOE #:

Primary #:

HRI #:

Trinomial:

NRHP Status Code:5S3
Other Listings:

Review Code: Reviewer:

Date:-/-/-
*Resource Name or #:1006 E. Harvard Street
P1. Other Identifier:
*P2. Location: not for publication unrestricted *a. County Los Angeles and (P2c, P2e, and P2b or P2d. Attach a Location Map as Necessary) b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Pasadena YEAR: 1994 T ;R ; of of Sec ; B.M. d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone: ; mE/ mN e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate) APN 5674-015-005
*P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) Parcel number 5674-015-005 consists of 0.15 acres and includes two buildings. The building address is 1006 East Harvard Street. It is located on the south side of Harvard Street and faces north. This property is a single-family residence and a two-car garage with a driveway on the east side of the property. The primary building is a single-family residence that was constructed in 1906 in the Transitional Craftsman style. It is located on the center-front of the lot. It is a two-story,...Continued below...
*P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP02 *P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of a District Other P5a. Photograph or Drawing (Photograph required for buildings, structures, and objects.) *P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none.") None
*Attachments:

NONE Location Map Sketch Map Continuation Sheet
Building, Structure, and Ojbect Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record Other:
c. Address: 1006 E Harvard Street City: Glendale State: CA Zip Code: 91205-1213 P5b. Description of Photo:

Front Facade
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Source:

Historic PreHistoric
Both Neither
Year Built: 1906 - Documented
*P7. Owner and Address:

Name:Lillian A. Palmer
Address: 1006 E. Harvard St.

Glendale,CA 91205
*P8. Recorded By:

Planning Department
City of Glendale
633 E. Broadway, Room 103
Glendale, CA 91206
*P9. Date Recorded: 03/07/2007
*P10. Survey Type: Survey - Reconnaissance
Survey Title: 2007 Glendale Craftsman Survey
DPR 523A (01/04) Page 1 of 2 *Required Information
227 of 253
State of California - The Resource Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #:

HRI #:

Trinomial:

P3a.Description (continued):
squared building. The principal façade is asymmetrical. It is constructed out of wood and sits on a concrete block foundation. The exterior is clad in horizontal wood beveled siding. It is covered by a steeply pitched, side gabled roof sheathed with composite shingles. The building has a wide overhang with open eaves with wood elbow brackets and wood louvered vents underneath the east and west elevation gable pitches and exposed rafters with notched ends. The roof has one medium sized gabled dormer located on the north side of the roof with a ribbon of three wood double hung windows. The building also has one stepped brick chimney located on the west elevation. There is also one wood and concrete porch located on the façade. It consists of a partial width corner porch under the primary roof. The porch is supported by one tapered wood column resting on a concrete block pedestal with a wood railing. The porch steps and landing are wood with step railings clad with horizontal wood siding. The main entrance is located in on the facade. The entrance consists of a wood paneled door with a large upper light and with a wood sill and flanked by sidelights that consist of wood casement windows with upper diamond panes. Other entrances could not be observed. There are four windows on the on the primary elevation. They are asymmetrically spaced and consist of a center square wood sash fixed window with upper small diamond panes and flanked by wood sash double hung windows with upper diamond panes, and a square wood sash fixed window with diamond panes located within the front porch. Other windows throughout the house consist of wood sash double hung windows with upper diamond panes and plain upper panes on the second story windows. All windows have wide wood surrounds. Landscaping elements include a front lawn, a mature magnolia tree near the east elevation, a mature tree near the west elevation and various other shrubs planted throughout the property. Other features include a concrete driveway near the east elevation that leads to a detached two-car garage clad with horizontal wood beveled siding and with a storage room that appears to have been constructed at the same time as the house.

The Craftsman style was popular from 1900 to 1925 in southern California. Typical character defining features of the Craftsman style include: the use of natural materials such as wood and stone, a low-pitched, gabled roof (occasionally hipped) with wide, open eave overhangs and exposed rafters; decorative (false) beams or braces commonly added under gables; either full- or partial-width porches with the roof supported by tapered square columns or pedestals frequently extend to ground level (without a break at level of porch floor); and horizontally arranged windows with wide wood window surrounds, multi-light windows and extended lintels. This Craftsman building exhibits horizontal wood siding, a steeply pitched side gabled roof, wood sash windows with upper diamond panes (first story), wide overhanging open eaves with wood elbow brackets and louvered wood vents underneath the gable pitches, exposed rafters with notched ends, a medium sized gabled dormer with a ribbon of three double hung windows, a stepped red brick chimney, a corner porch supported by a tapered wood column resting on a concrete block pedestal with a wood railing, wood porch steps and landing with step railing clad with horizontal siding and a wood paneled main entry door with an upper light and wood sill.

The condition of the building is good. The building does not appear to have been altered. However an air conditioning unit has been installed in an upper story window.

DPR523L (01/04) Page 2 of 2 *Required Information
228 of 253
229 of 253
230 of 253
231 of 253
9d

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Appeal Case No. PAPP-001002-2023 - Appeal of the Design Review Board (DRB) approval of Design Review Case No. PDR 2113521-B to demolish the existing 1- story, 3,246 square-foot (SF) single-family dwelling with attached, 2-car garage (originally built in 1961), located at 1766 Cielito Drive, and to construct a new 2-story, 4,855 SF single-family dwelling with an attached, subterranean, three-car garage on a 23,620 square-foot, double-frontage lot located in the R1R (FAR District II) Zone (Class 3 “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures” exemption pursuant to Section 15303 of the State CEQA Guidelines)

1. Motion to sustain the Design Review Board’s decision of February 9, 2023, to approve the project with conditions and one consideration;

2. Motion to continue the matter, directing the City Attorney to draft findings reversing the Design Review Board’s decision and denying the project.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Public Hearing
Approved for September 19, 2023 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This hearing is to consider an appeal of a February 9, 2023 decision of the Design Review Board (DRB) (DRB Case No. PDR 2113521-B) to approve the design of a project located at 1766 Cielito Drive, with conditions and one consideration (“DRB Decision”). The project is the demolition of an existing 1-story, 3,246 square-foot (SF) single-family dwelling with attached, 2-car garage (originally built in 1961) and construction of a new 2-story, 4,855 SF single-family dwelling with an attached, subterranean, three-car garage on a 23,620 square-foot, double-frontage lot located in the R1R (FAR District II) Zone (hereinafter, “Project”). The DRB found that the Project is exempt from further review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to a Class 3 “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures” exemption (Section 15303 of the State CEQA Guidelines) because the project involves the development of one single-family residence.

The appellant is requesting the City Council overturn the DRB Decision and deny the Project. The appellant contends the DRB violated the law, exceeded its authority, failed to fulfill its mandatory duty, and refused to consider certain facts related to the Project because it did not consider the purpose of the R1R zone (GMC Section 30.11.010.B), 232 of 253
2 d 9
the City’s Hillside Development Review Policy (GMC Section 30.11.040.A), and California Civil Code Section 5975 as it relates to compliance with and enforcement of certain covenants, conditions, and restriction (CC&Rs) for the tract.

COUNCIL PRIORITIES
Not applicable.

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council sustain the DRB Decision to approve Design Review Case No.

PDR 2113521-B with DRB conditions and one consideration (and an additional recommended condition), based on all of the evidence, reasoning and findings of the DRB articulated at the February 9, 2023 DRB hearing, and set forth in the DRB’s Record of Decision for Current Design Review Application (PDR 2113521-B) dated February 9, 2023.

If the City Council wishes to reverse the Design Review Board’s decision, a second alternate motion is included to continue the matter for two weeks, without further public notice, and direct the City Attorney to prepare written findings in support of denying the project based on the facts supporting reversal articulated by the Council.

BACKGROUND
This is an appeal of a the DRB’s February 9, 2023 decision to approve the design of the new single-family dwelling located at 1766 Cielito Drive with conditions and one consideration (DRB Case No. PDR 2113521-B). The full scope of the Project is the demolition of an existing 1-story, 3,246SF single-family dwelling with attached, 2-car garage (originally built in 1961) and construction of a new 2-story, 4,855 SF singlefamily dwelling with an attached, subterranean, three-car garage on a 23,620 SF, double-frontage lot located in the R1R (FAR District II) Zone.

General Information
Appellant: David Sagherian
Status of Appellant: Neighbor
Applicant: Aram Alajajian
Owner: Jack Demirchian & Souseh Babomian
Requested Action:

The appellant is requesting that the City Council overturn the DRB Decision to approve Design Review Case No. PDR 2113521-B with conditions and one consideration (Exhibit # 4).

Legal Description: Portion of Lot 4, Tract No. 24858
233 of 253
3 d 9
APN: 5648-029-015
Zone: R1R (Restricted Residential) Zone, Floor Area District II Land Use Element: Low Density Residential
Lot Size and Frontage: The Project site is 23,620 SF in area with double-frontage along a curved portion of Cielito Drive. Along the northerly portion of Cielito (“upper Cielito”), the property has approximately 147 linear feet of frontage, and along the southerly portion (“lower” Cielito) the property has 83 linear feet of frontage.

Existing Site Characteristics: The subject property is an irregularly-shaped lot in the Brockmont Neighborhood with two street frontages along Cielito Drive, with primary access taken from the upper portion of Cielito Drive. Originally developed in 1961, the site currently features a one-story, 3,246 SF single-family dwelling with an attached twocar garage, swimming pool, and outdoor deck at the rear. The property has an average current slope (ACS) of approximately 39.5%, with upper Cielito sloping down from north to south. The existing house sits on a flat pad that is oriented towards upper Cielito, and which sits approximately ten feet lower than the street. The rear of the lot steeply slopes down from the existing pool and deck area down to lower Cielito. The southern-easterly portion of the property is located in a landslide hazard potential zone and will remain undeveloped. The applicant has submitted a Preliminary Geologic and Geotechnical Engineering Investigation (Exhibit # 10). On June 23, 1960, the Glendale City Council adopted Ordinance No. 3214 that established a 20-foot special setback line along both upper and lower Cielito Drive. Additionally, there are also city easements located adjacent to the front property lines at both frontages of Cielito Drive.

Historic Status of Property: A Historic Resource Evaluation was prepared for the property by Kaplan Chen Kaplan, dated March 24, 2022 (Exhibit # 11). The evaluation concluded that the existing building does not meet any criteria for designation at the national, state, or local level. The evaluation also concluded that the existing building is not a distinctive or exemplary representative of its architectural style, type, or period, and no evidence was found indicating the site is associated with important events or people in history. Therefore, the property is not considered a historic resource under the CEQA.

During the first DRB hearing regarding the Project, which took place on May 26, 2022, the Glendale Historical Society (TGHS) submitted comments (see Exhibit # 9) disputing the findings of the Kaplan Chen Kaplan evaluation. TGHS argued that the property is eligible for listing in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources because it retains character-defining features of the Mid-Century Modern style, and because they contend it is directly associated with individuals that contributed to the history of the city.

Architecturally, the house has a few interesting features, including limited areas of stone cladding, a rock roof, rounded bay windows at a side facade, and an irregular footprint.

TGHS’s comments doe not provide context or substantial evidentiary support for its conclusions. TGHS’s comments also do not fully assess or, in some cases, 234 of 253
4 d 9
acknowledge certain alterations, such as the replacement of the original front doors and garage door, window alterations at the pool-deck façade, the addition of a garden window at the same façade, the metal picket fence along the driveway, or the application of resin-pebble paving at the driveway and pool deck.

The original owners of this property were Tom and Wanda Bistagne who are associated with the Bistagne Brothers Body Shop, located at 1400 East Chevy Chase Drive, which began operating in 1946. The Body Shop, a commercial building, retains much of its original appearance and is connected with the Bistagne Brothers automotive work, but it was found to not be a historic resource in the 2019 South Glendale Historic Resource Survey. The TGHS comments suggest that 1766 Cielito Drive is significant for its association with Tom and Wanda Bistagne and contends the house therefore eligible under Criterion 2 for listing in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources. However, beyond these assertions, the TGHS comments do not contain substantial evidence to support the claim that Tom Bistagne, along with his brother George, contributed significantly to Southern California’s important role in car culture during the 1940s and beyond. The sources cited, in fact, contradict this claim and acknowledge that little is known about their involvement in this important facet of the region’s history. The TGHS comments also cite Tom and Wanda Bistagne’s involvement in civic groups and philanthropy, which was common among many successful businesspeople throughout the history of Glendale. The listing of the couple’s philanthropic activities and causes cannot substitute for a contextual evaluation of how their efforts impacted the city.

This Project was originally scheduled to be heard by the DRB on January 12, 2023 and several comment letters were received (Exhibit # 9). TGHS submitted a revised historic assessment providing information about the architect of the house, which was previously unknown because names were not included on the original building permit.

Staff confirms that Robert L. Earl, AIA was the architect of 1766 Cielito (as well as the house at 1616 Parway Drive in Chevy Chase Canyon that was designed for Tom Bistagne’s brother George). The item was continued to allow staff additional time to review and evaluate the information in the comment letters. Staff’s review of the information provided led staff to conclude that Earl’s involvement with the property is of potential interest but that, once again, the new information is not substantial evidence of the property’s historicity. Rather, it provides a listing of several known Earl projects, including three in Glendale and several others in Beverly Hills (particularly Trousdale Estates) and Los Angeles. No context is provided, however, through which Earl’s career and the design of 1766 Cielito can be effectively evaluated, or which shows that Earl was a master architect or significant reknown, or an important creative individual.

Circulation Element: Cielito Drive is classified as a local street in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. On-street parking is available on both sides of upper Cielito Drive adjacent to the subject property.

Surrounding Land Use/ Zoning: The surrounding properties are zoned R1R (FAR District II) and consist of single-family residences. The immediate neighborhood surrounding the subject property (300 lineal feet of the site) features one-story homes. 235 of 253
5 d 9
Additionally, beyond the 300 lineal feet, there are a few 2-story homes located at the end of the road outside the immediate neighborhood.

Project History
Previous DRB Case (PDR 2113521)
August 3, 2021 – The applicant submitted a design review application for final review to demolish the existing 1-story, 3,246 SF single-family dwelling with an attached, 2-car garage and construct a new 2-story, 5,337 SF single-family dwelling with an attached, subterranean, three-car garage on a 23,620 SF, double-frontage lot located in the R1R (FAR District II) Zone.

February 10, 2022 – The application was scheduled to be heard by the DRB but was taken off calendar and continued to a date uncertain, pending the submittal of a Historic Resource Report.

March 28, 2022 – A Historic Resource Evaluation prepared by Kaplan Chen Kaplan (Exhibit # 11) was submitted to staff for review. This evaluation concluded that the property is not considered a historic resource under CEQA because the existing building does not meet any criteria for designation at the national, state, or local level; it is not a distinctive or exemplary representative of its architectural style, type, or period, and no evidence was found indicating the site is associated with important events or people in history.

April 28, 2022 – The application was scheduled to be heard by the DRB but at the request of the project applicant was continued to a date certain, May 26, 2022.

May 26, 2022 – Design Review Board Case No. PDR 2113521 was presented to the DRB with a staff recommendation to return for redesign. The DRB voted unanimously (5-0) to return for redesign with six conditions:

1. Lower the overall height of the project by a minimum of three to four feet and rotate the livable space from the east to the west.

2. Redesign the project to better follow the topography and terrace with the hillside in accordance with the Hillside Design Guidelines. This may include reducing the overall size and projections of the southern cantilevered decks and relocating the master bedroom.

3. Explore other alternatives related to the garage location that would minimize the amount of grading required for this project and reduce the size of the driveway area.

4. Reduce the overall mass and size of the project, such as a minimum 15% reduction in size of the livable square footage and provide a concept that is compatible with the neighborhood conditions.

5. Reduce the overall amount of lighting proposed for the exterior building façades and the outdoor areas of the site.
236 of 253
6 d 9

6. Replace the proposed roofing material with a rock roof. *Note: Planning staff met with the applicant and discussed the project on several occasions prior to the DRB application being submitted. On those occasions staff identified the various issues with the design and consistency with the Hillside Design Guidelines and advised the applicant that should they choose to move forward with the project as presented, staff would have to recommend return for redesign to the DRB.

Current DRB Case (PDR 2113521-B)
September 20, 2022 – The applicant resubmitted a design review application for final review to demolish the existing house and garage and to construct a new updated design for a 2-story, 4,855 SF (decreased from 5,337 SF) single-family dwelling with at attached, subterranean, three-car garage.

January 12, 2023 – The application was scheduled to be heard by the DRB. Prior to the hearing, several comment letters were received (Exhibit # 9) regarding the Project, including a revised historic assessment from TGHS providing information about the architect of the house, Robert L. Earl, AIA, which was previously unknown because his name was not included on the original building permit. The item was continued to January 26, 2023 to allow staff time to review the correspondence and respond accordingly.

January 26, 2023 – The application was scheduled to be heard by the DRB but was taken off calendar and continued to February 9, 2023. Planning staff need time to investigate the claims made in the TGHS comment letter.

February 9, 2023 – A detailed, updated staff report for Design Review Board Case No.

PDR 2113521-B was presented to the DRB with a staff recommendation to approve with one condition and one consideration. The DRB voted (3-2) to approve the project with five conditions and one consideration:

Conditions:

1. Reduce the proposed livable area by at least 15% from the originally proposed 5,337 square-feet.

2. Reinstate the original design concept presented at the May 26, 2022 DRB hearing, reflecting the conditions of approval.

3. Step back the façade of the primary bedroom/bath at the second floor so that it is placed further back from the first-floor façade below.

4. Reduce the width of the driveway entrance in the front setback to minimize the amount of hardscape.

5. Reduce the size of the south deck, removing the sawtooth form in this area and allowing for the continuation of the corresponding retaining wall.

Consideration:

1. That the overall building height be reduced by reducing the floor-to-floor heights 237 of 253
7 d 9
at the first and second floors.

February 23, 2023 – The appellant submitted their appeal of the DRB’s approval - Case No. PAPP 001002-2023 (Exhibit # 12).

ANALYSIS
SUMMARY OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD’S DISCUSSION OF CASE NO. PDR 2113521-B FROM FEBRUARY 9, 2023
• All five Design Review Board members were present at the February 9, 2023 meeting at which the subject project was discussed.
• Board member Welch noted that he was not opposed to two-story homes in onestory neighborhoods or modern style homes, as long as the project is designed well and sensitive to the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Welch stated that he was unsure about the CEQA exemption based on the evidence that was presented for the hearing, and that prior to rendering a decision, he would recommend that the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) review the Project in an advisory capacity and provide the DRB with guidance regarding the historic status of the property. Mr. Welch indicated that the previous condition related to reducing the mass and scale as well as the overall square footage had not been successfully met and that the Project was still too massive and out of scale with the neighborhood. He also noted that the mass was emphasized by rooms that were excessively large, lack of step backs at the second floor, and the large slab of solid wall at the second-floor front façade. Mr. Welch also expressed his concern with the excessive hardscape proposed for the new driveway, the driveway width, as well as the amount of grading that would be necessary to accommodate the subterranean garage and the new driveway. He noted that the alteration to the terrain to accommodate automobiles seemed unnecessary and that these areas should be further reduced.
• Board member Lockareff indicated that she was in agreement with all of the comments made by Mr. Welch as they relate to the overall Project design and the historic status of the property. Ms. Lockareff indicated that she believes substantial evidence has been provided in the record regarding the historic status of the property and that it could potentially be eligible for designation based on the architectural style of the existing residence. Additionally, Ms. Lockareff noted that while she was not opposed to a two-story home, the façade of the building with the large slab of solid wall is too flat. She indicated that the original façade design seemed more appropriate with the concept and could help with the massive and over-scaled design.
• Board member Kaskanian indicated that he did not believe substantial evidence had been provided regarding the historic status of the property and was generally in support of the proposal for demolition and new construction. Mr. Kaskanian stated that he was in favor of the proposed modern design and appreciated the 238 of 253
8 d 9
use of high-quality materials and colors to showcase the design concept. He also expressed that he was in favor of the proposed greenspace on the rooftop and appreciated this unique design feature. Mr. Kaskanian concluded his remarks by stating that he believes the new house would be a value to the city and the surrounding neighborhood.
• Board member Simonian indicated that after considering all of the information, he did not believe substantial evidence had been provided to the City regarding the historic status of the property, and therefore, agreed that the Project is exempt from further CEQA review based on staff’s analysis and findings. Overall, Mr.

Simonian was in favor of the Project as presented through the redesign, though he made several comments related to improving the design that were subsequently codified as conditions of approval. This includes reducing the overall square footage by a minimum of 15% from the originally proposed 5,337 square-feet, reinstating the original design concept from the first review, stepping back a portion of the second-floor façade, and reducing the size of the south deck.
• Board member Tchagayan indicated that she was in agreement with the various comments made by the other board members. Ms. Tchagayan also noted that while the DRB has limited expertise in determining the historic status of a property, she did not believe substantial evidence had been provided regarding the historic significance of the property.
• Following review of the staff report and attachments, including the submitted correspondence, and having heard all testimony at the public hearing, Board member Simonian made a motion to approve the project with five conditions and one consideration. The motion was seconded by Board Member Kaskanian. The Record of Decision is attached as Exhibit # 4.

Ultimately, the DRB voted to approve the project (3 – yes, 2 – no (Welch, Lockareff)) with five conditions and one consideration, as noted above.

After the appeal was filed, the applicant submitted revised drawings to staff illustrating how the project would comply with the conditions of the DRB approval for building permit plan check submittal. A copy of these plans are provided for illustrative and informational purposes only and are included as Exhibit # 13 with this report.

SUMMARY OF THE APPELLANT’S BASIS FOR APPEAL AND STAFF RESPONSES In the appeal application, the appellant contends that by approving the Project, the DRB violated specific provisions of law, exceeded its authority, failed to fulfill its mandatory duty and refused to hear or consider certain facts before rendering its decision. Below is a summary of the statements made by the appellant in their appeal application (Exhibit # 12), as required by GMC 2.88.030, as well as staff’s responses to the claims.

The appellant contends that the DRB violated the law, specifically GMC Section 239 of 253
9 d 9

30.11.010.B as it relates to the purpose of the R1R (Restricted Residential) Zone, the Hillside Development Review Policy in GMC Section 30.11.040.A, and California Civil Code § 5975 as it relates to compliance with and enforcement of the covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) for the tract.

The DRB did not violate any provisions of law in rendering their decision to approve the Project with conditions. Additionally, the approved Project complies with all Zoning Code development standards and does not require any setback or standards variance requests. The appellant cites specific sections of the GMC, as well as sections of the California Civil Code, in support of the argument that the DRB violated the law and approved a project that does not comply with these specific regulations, described below.

Purpose of the R1R (Restricted Residential) Zone
In accordance with GMC Section 30.11.010.B, the purpose of the R1R zone is to protect low density residential neighborhoods in hillside areas in conformance with the comprehensive general plan and to preserve valuable open space, physical features and scenic resources, while allowing owners to substantially and reasonably use their property. According to the Open Space and Conservation Element of Glendale’s General Plan, visual and scenic resource are identified as aesthetic functions that contain natural beauty, such as lush or colorful vegetation prominent topographical stature, unique physical features, and an interesting visual effect. There are no designated scenic vistas or scenic highways near the Project site, it is not slated for public open space, and there are no blueline streams on-site. Additionally, the subject property is not located in a protected primary or secondary ridgeline area and is characterized in the Open Space and Conservation Element as an area of low visual sensitivity.

The appellant contends that this purpose is not being met and that open space on the lot is being minimized to allow for the Project to have an oversized footprint and volume.

The Project plans include a topographic survey map prepared by a registered land surveyor with an average current slope (ACS) calculation. The subject property has an ACS of 39.53%, and in accordance with GMC Section 30.11.0340.F, a minimum of 40% of the lot must be maintained as ungraded open space. This open space standard allows owners to reasonably use their property, while also meeting the intent to preserve open space, physical features, and scenic resources. As it relates to an oversized footprint, the maximum allowed lot coverage in this zone is 40% of the lot.

The Project complies with both requirements for ungraded open space and lot coverage and no variances for either of these standards is required. The table below provides a breakdown of the ungraded open space and lot coverage requirements for this Project and how the proposal has complied both with the original proposal and the current version.

Ungraded Open Space Lot Coverage
Code Required 40% or 9,448 SF (Minimum) 40% or 9,448 SF (Maximum) 240 of 253
10 d 9
Current Proposal 41.6% or 9,826 SF 14.6% or 3,450 SF
Original Proposal 41.6 % or 9,826 SF 15.9% or 3,754 SF
Hillside Development Review Policy
The appellant cites the City’s Hillside Development Review Policy (GMC Section

30.11.040.A) to support their argument that the Project does not meet the purpose of the R1R zone . Originally adopted in 2001 under Ordinance No. 5279, the Hillside Development Review Policy codified existing policy that was related to the implementation of the “Hillside Design Guidelines” and “Landscape Guidelines for Hillside Development Review” adopted in 1993. Subsequently in 2011, the City Council adopted the Comprehensive Design Guidelines, which superseded these previously adopted guidelines. The Hillside Development Review Policy in the zoning code requires that every discretionary decision made by the City, including the DRB, shall consider five criteria when reviewing development projects. These criteria are not required findings of fact in order to approve a project; they are criteria that must only be considered by the review authority in making their final decision. Below are the five criteria and staff’s responses based on the proposed Project and the DRB’s decision to approve the Project with conditions and one consideration. a. Development shall be in keeping with the design objectives in the Glendale Municipal Code, the hillside design guidelines and the landscape guidelines for hillside development as now adopted and as may be amended from time to time by city council.

The development standards in the Zoning Code for single-family hillside development are objective requirements related to aesthetics, public health, safety, and general welfare. The proposed Project complies with all of the development standards and no variances are required. The intent of design review is to promote the general welfare of the community by ensuring that new development is of high quality, relates well to the surrounding context and enhances the overall built environment. In rendering their decision, the DRB determined that the Project was consistent with the intent of the design guidelines, subject to the conditions of approval.
b. Development shall be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood in terms of size, scale, bulk/mass, roofline orientation, setbacks, and site layout.

As conditioned, the majority of the DRB determined the development to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and placed conditions of approval on the Project that the applicant must comply with in order to develop their site.

Compliance with the conditions of approval are reviewed by staff as part of the building permit process. For illustrative and informational purposes, the applicant has revised the Project plans to address the DRB conditions of approval (Exhibit # 13).
241 of 253
11 d 9
The subject property is located in the R1R Zone, FAR District II where the maximum allowable FAR for the site is 40% for the first 10,000 SF of lot area, and then 10% for the remainder of square footage thereafter. The subject property is 23,620 SF, and the maximum FAR permitted on the site is 5,362 SF.

The table below illustrates the square footage of livable area for the existing house, the original proposal, the current proposal, and the minimum required based on the DRB condition of approval to reduce the livable area by at least 15% from the original proposal.

Existing House 3,246 SF
(13.7% FAR)
Original Proposal
(May 2022)
5,337 SF
(22.5% FAR)
Current Proposal
(February 2023)
4,855 SF
(20.5% FAR)
After DRB Condition
of Approval
4,536 SF
(19.2 % FAR)
The applicant included a neighborhood survey with their application (Exhibit # 7) that includes all properties within 300 lineal feet of the site and provides a breakdown of their lot sizes, square-footage, FAR, setback, roof material, and number of stories. The table below illustrates the neighborhood range and averages for lot size, house square-footage, and FAR in comparison to the total square footage after the DRB condition of approval is applied to the proposal approved by the DRB.

Range Average Revised Proposal
Lot Size 10,300 SF –
18,110 SF
14,530 SF 23,620 SF
Square-footage 2,140 SF –
3,620 SF
2,972 SF 4,536 SF
*maximum with -15%*
FAR 12.3% - 34% 21.8% 19.2%
While not in the immediate neighborhood of 300 lineal feet, further up the road at the intersection of Cielito Drive and Starvale Road, there are two houses built in 2014 that are two-stories and 4,896 SF and 5,968 SF in size according to the LA County Assessor’s website. As it relates to size and scale, at 4,536 SF, this will be the largest house in the immediate 300-foot radius neighborhood, however, it is also located on the largest lot, and the proposed FAR is in keeping with the neighborhood range and average. The proposal is for a new 2-story house with a subterranean 3-car garage, where the immediate neighborhood features 1-story homes. While this differs from the immediate neighborhood context, the DRB did not cite any major concerns with this at either of the hearings, and did not impose 242 of 253
12 d 9
any conditions requiring the subterranean garage to be omitted from the design or a reduction in the number of stories. Accordingly, the DRB found, and staff agrees, that the size and scale of the Project is appropriate, as conditioned. As the review authority the Council can impose additional conditions or modify any of the DRB-imposed conditions, including a condition to further reduce the size of the house.

The appellant contends that the bulk/mass of the building and site layout are confined to a relatively small buildable footprint given the topography of the site.

This is accurate, as the majority of the Project is located on the existing flat pad, similar to the homes in the surrounding neighborhood. The Zoning Code allows the property owner to reasonably develop their property, and the Project will comply with all Zoning Code development standards, including the size of the house and the configuration as two stories with a subterranean 3-car garage. In order to develop the property under the current hillside regulations, the owner is required to maintain a minimum 40% ungraded open space on the property, which will be accomplished, but this requirement further confines the buildable area of the property. The appellant’s contentions regarding the preservation of open space on the property are analyzed above under the “Purpose of the R1R (Restricted Residential) Zone” section.

As it relates to the roofline orientation, the appellant contends that all of the houses in the neighborhood have pitched roofs and the proposed flat roof is not compatible with the existing character, and that as proposed, the flat roof does not allow any accommodations for rooftop mechanical equipment. To the first point, the immediate neighborhood of 300 lineal feet has homes with both flat and pitched roofs. This includes the house directly across the street from the project site at 1771 Cielito Drive, the house to the north of the appellant at 1780 Cielito Drive, and the property two houses down at 1740 Cielito Drive.

Additionally, in reviewing aerial imagery of properties within a 500-foot radius, there is no predominant pattern as it relates to roofline orientation, as there are homes with pitched and flat roofs. The proposed flat roof is also consistent with the architect’s modern design. To the second point, in accordance with GMC Section 30.30.020.B, new rooftop mechanical equipment is strictly prohibited in all single-family zones, including the R1R zone.
c. Site plans shall show preservation of prominent natural features, native vegetation and open space in a manner compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, minimizing alteration of terrain necessary for development.

As detailed in the sections above, the applicant is maintaining the minimum required ungraded open space, which includes native vegetation, and to the greatest extent possible has minimized alteration to the terrain that is necessary for development.
d. Site plans for development of property on steep slopes shall take into account 243 of 253
13 d 9
the visual impact on surrounding properties.

The appellants contentions regarding this policy are related to visual impacts and rooftop equipment. Staff’s response to these contentions are addressed in the sections above.
e. The architectural style and architectural elements of in-fill development shall be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.

The appellant contends that the design is an “ultra-modern futuristic style” that is not compatible with the surrounding homes. There is no predominant architectural style in the surrounding neighborhood, as the houses vary from traditional and ranch style homes to more modern designs. It is worth nothing that the home directly to the north of the appellant at 1780 Cielito Drive has a similar modern aesthetic and is within the immediate neighborhood. Additionally, within a 500-foot radius, there are other homes with a similar modern aesthetic, including nearby homes on Deermont Road and the two homes noted earlier at the intersection of Cielito Drive and Starvale Road. During their deliberations, all five of the DRB members were in favor of the modern design aesthetic presented at the hearing and did not cite any concerns with the proposed style or 2-story height with a subterranean garage being a neighborhood compatibility issue. A condition of approval was placed on the Project to reinstate the original design concept from the first proposal that would omit the large slabs of wall along the street-front elevation with wood siding that is recessed from the exterior frame.

The appellant also contends that the drawings are inaccurate and intentionally do not show rooftop mechanical equipment and solar panels. To the first point, as noted in the sections above, new rooftop mechanical equipment is strictly prohibited in this zone and as such could not be part of the proposal. To the second point, California Government Code § 65850.5 precludes a local agency from adopting ordinances that create unreasonable obstacles to the installation of solar energy equipment, which includes aesthetic standards enforced through design review processes. Accordingly, solar energy equipment is exempt from design review and therefore outside the purview of the DRB. Also, as of January 1, 2023, the Glendale Building and Safety Code requires solar panel installation for all new single-family development, and while panels are not subject to design review, there are limited Zoning Code
standards specified in GMC Section 30.30.050 related to setbacks, height, lot coverage, and landscaping.

California Civil Code § 5975
The appellant contends that the Project does not comply with California Civil Code Section 5975 because it does not comply with the CC&Rs that govern the tract. The CC&Rs were originally recorded with the LA County Assessor in 1961, and later amended in 2003; copies are included with the appeal application (Exhibit # 12). The 244 of 253
14 d 9
City of Glendale is neither a party to nor is it bound by private CC&Rs, particularly those that conflict with its Code. Moreover, CC&Rs are only enforceable by the individual property owners who are successors in interest to the original parties, if authorized by the language of the CC&Rs. Any claim the Project violates the CC&Rs is a civil matter that would have to be heard and decided in a separate private court action brought by an aggrieved party with legally-required standing (which the City does not have). The appellant has been advised of these facts consistently through the process and acknowledges as much in the appeal application. This issue has also been a point of discussion at the two DRB hearings for this Project. The appellant also acknowledges that while this is a civil matter, in his opinion, it is a burden to the property owners to regulate and enforce the CC&Rs, and as such, he is including it as part of the appeal application. While that may be his opinion, the City is neither obligated nor authorized to enforce the CC&Rs, and the appellant and/or any other affected parties would need to assume that responsibility afforded to them under the Civil Code. Since the CC&Rs are not within the purview of the City to regulate or enforce, and it is a civil matter, the DRB did not violate this provision of law in rendering its decision to approve the Project with conditions and one consideration.

The appellant contends that the DRB exceeded their authority when they approved the Project because the Project does not comply with the Glendale Municipal Code, and therefore has no authority to approve the Project.

The appellant provides a general statement and does not provide any other additional information with respect to this contention. The DRB did not exceed their authority by approving this Project. As detailed in the sections above, the Project does comply with the provisions of the GMC and no variances are required. The authority of the DRB is to review projects for their design only and DRB approval does not constitute final Zoning approval for construction. Additionally, as part of the building permit review process, the Project will be routed to all applicable City departments for plan check review.

The appellant contends that the DRB failed to fulfill its mandatory duty under the law because the Project does not comply with the Glendale Municipal Code.

The appellant provides a general statement and does not provide any other additional information with respect to this contention. As detailed in the sections above, the Project complies with the provisions of the GMC and no variances are required. In accordance with GMC Section 2.52.120, the powers and duties of the DRB are to review, approve, disapprove and attach conditions to plans and design review applications in accordance with the intent, purpose and standards for design review and the authority of the board is limited to appearance, site planning, design and general layout. In rendering their decision to approve the project, the DRB took into consideration all of the evidence provided and presented. This includes the Hillside Design Guidelines, staff report(s) and associated attachments, written public comments, and all public testimony received at the hearing. Ultimately after a lengthy deliberation the DRB voted to approve the Project with conditions and one consideration, which is their duty under the GMC. Accordingly, the DRB did not fail to fulfill their mandatory duty under the law.

The appellant contends that the DRB refused to consider the size of the house, 245 of 253
15 d 9
architectural style, number of stories, roofline, and garage location before rendering their decision to approve the Project.

The appellant provides a general statement about each of these facts that are addressed in the sections above. As detailed above, the DRB did consider all of these items before rendering its decision to approve the Project.

Under the “Statement of additional facts related to the appeal” section, the appellant repeats statements regarding the City’s Hillside Development Review Policy.

A detailed response to this contention is already provided in the sections above.

SUMMARY
Based on the analysis of the appeal and the reasoning above, staff recommends that the City Council uphold the DRB decision to approve the project with conditions and one consideration. The Board members took into account not only the size of the home, but also the project’s massing, scale, height, setback, landscaping, window placement, garage location, use of material and colors and other architectural design elements in determining compatibility. The Project, as conditioned, was determined by a majority vote (3-yes, 2-no) of the DRB to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, with an appropriate design with quality materials and details for the neighborhood, which has a variety of architectural styles. The DRB also found that the Project is exempt from further review under CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303.

The basis of the DRB’s decision (the Record of Decision, Exhibit # 4) includes the following:

Site Planning: The proposed site planning is appropriate to the site and its surroundings for the following reasons:
• The proposed site planning addresses various zoning regulations, including the 20’-0” special street-front setback, parking, lot coverage, and landscaping. • Based on the DRB conditions from the first hearing, the size of the new house was reduced by 482 square-feet, and the building was moved closer to the street.

This has resulted in an increased setback from the downhill portion of the lot oriented towards “lower Cielito” and the building and deck areas being sited primarily on the existing pad. The deck cantilevers were minimized, and portions of the deck stepped down approximately two to four feet. The DRB is requiring a further reduction in the size of the house and a reduction in the size of the south deck to further reduce the cantilevering.
• The subterranean 3-car garage was reoriented after the first hearing so that it is parallel with the street and relocated below the house. While the proposed subterranean garage is not consistent with the predominant neighborhood pattern, the DRB did not cite any concerns aside from its location on the site at the first hearing. The current siting of the garage was based on the DRB conditions of approval and the deliberation during the first hearing. 246 of 253
16 d 9
• The width of the driveway was reduced by four feet for the majority of its length following the first hearing, though the driveway width at the driveway apron and in the street-front setback was unchanged. A condition of approval requires that the driveway in this area be reduced to minimize the amount of paving in the front setback.
• The project will maintain 9,826 square-feet (42%) of the lot as ungraded open space. The usable outdoor spaces for this Project includes a new outdoor deck located at the rear of the house, and at the front there will be new drought tolerant landscaping and water features adjacent to the walkways. • The Project includes new drought tolerant landscaping throughout the site that will complement the building design. The rooftop also features landscaping, potted cactus plants.
• The Project will maintain some of the existing retaining walls, primarily at the front of the new house, parallel to upper Cielito Drive. New retaining walls are also proposed along the driveway and at the outdoor deck areas at the rear.

Mass and Scale: The proposed massing and scale are appropriate to the site and its surroundings for the following reasons:
• The immediate neighborhood surrounding the subject property (300 lineal feet of site) features one-story homes, with a few 2-story homes located at the end of the road and outside the immediate neighborhood. While the proposal to construct a new 2-story house over a subterranean 3-car garage differs from the neighborhood context, the DRB did not cite any major concerns with this at the first hearing and did not impose any conditions with the redesign requiring the subterranean garage to be omitted from the design or a reduction in the number of stories.
• Based on the conditions placed on the redesign of the Project that were related to the size of the house and reductions in the overall sense of mass and scale, the livable area was reduced from 5,337 square-feet to 4,855 square-feet after the first hearing. A condition of approval for the redesigned Project requires a further reduction of floor area (minimum 15% from the original proposal) to ensure compatibility with the neighborhood.
• The massing is broken up through the use of varied building volumes that articulate the facades, balconies, and changes in the façade planes. As discussed during the second hearing, the Board is requiring that the outdoor deck be reduced in size and for the primary bedroom at the upper floor to step back from the façade below to help improve the massing as seen from below. • The overall height of the new house with the subterranean garage remains at 32’- 0” which is the maximum permitted by code. While the height remains the same, the Project has been redesigned after the first hearing so that the building pad is lowered by four feet, thereby minimizing the appearance of the height from the public right-of-way. The Board has added a consideration that the overall building height be reduced by decreasing the floor-to-floor heights at the first and second floors.
247 of 253
17 d 9
• The Project features a flat roof design, which is consistent with the modern design concept of the new house.

Design and Detailing: The proposed design and detailing are appropriate to the site and its surroundings for the following reasons:
• A condition of approval of the Project requires the original design concept that was presented at the May 26, 2022 hearing, especially at the front façade, to be reinstated. As conditioned, the selected style fits within the neighborhood which features a mix of architectural styles, include modern style homes. • The design of the entryway is similar to the original proposal, with a canopy at the first floor breaking up the 2-story volume. The entryway and entry doors have been designed to be appropriately integrated into the overall design. • The new doors and windows will be clear anodized, black aluminum, and the windows will be an appropriate combination of fixed and casement. • The proposed materials for the house include smooth finish plaster, natural limestone masonry veneer, and horizontal wood siding. The materials are high quality, reinforce the design concept, and the color palette is appropriate to the hillside area.
• The design of the new light fixtures is appropriate to the modern design concept, and the lights are appropriately located on the exterior building façades and outdoor areas.
• The trash storage and mechanical equipment are appropriately located along the southerly elevation and will not be visible from the street.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
The Code requires public notice when the Council considers approval of entitlements such as design review. Staff has published all required notices and has mailed copies of the notice 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 this report.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
The Project was determined to be exempt from any further CEQA review because it qualifies for a Class 3 “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures” exemption, pursuant to Section 15303 of the State CEQA Guidelines, as the Project involves the demolition and construction of a single-family dwelling; there exist no exceptions to this exemption, as there is no reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.

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 248 of 253
18 d 9
attached in Exhibit # 14, in accordance with the City Campaign Finance Ordinance No. 5744.

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Sustain the Design Review Board Decision to approve the Project with conditions and one consideration.

Alternative 2: Continue the matter, directing the City Attorney to draft findings, reversing the Design Review Board’ Decision and denying the Project.

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

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Vista Ezzati, Senior Planner
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1: Location Map
Exhibit 2: Photos of Existing Project Site
Exhibit 3: DRB Staff Report and Reduced Plans for Current Design Review Application (PDR 2113521-B) from February 9, 2023
Exhibit 4: DRB’s Record of Decision for Current Design Review Application (PDR 2113521-B), dated February 9, 2023
Exhibit 5: DRB Staff Report and Reduced Plans for Original Design Review Application (PDR 2115321), dated May 26, 2022
Exhibit 6: DRB’s Record of Decision for Original Design Review Application (PDR 2113521), dated May 26, 2022
Exhibit 7: Neighborhood Survey
Exhibit 8: Interdepartmental Comments
Exhibit 9: Correspondence
Exhibit 10: Geotechnical Report, dated August 2, 2021
Exhibit 11: Historic Resource Evaluation, dated March 24, 2022 Exhibit 12: Notice of Appeal of DRB’s Decision to City Council Exhibit 13: Revised Plans Submitted by Applicant
Note: These plans were submitted by the applicant in response to the DRB conditions of approval from February 9, 2023
Exhibit 14: Campaign Disclosure Form
249 of 253
MOTION
Moved by Council Member _____________________________, seconded by Council Member _________________________, that upon review and consideration of all documents, materials and exhibits relative to the appeal of the Design Review Board approval, with conditions and one consideration, of Design Review Case No. PDR 2113521-B, located at 1766 Cielito Drive, (“Design Review Case”), and after having conducted a public hearing on said appeal pursuant to the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995, and receiving testimony, the City Council of the City of Glendale, California, based upon all of the evidence in the record, hereby SUSTAINS the Design Review Board’s decision to APPROVE the Design Review Case with conditions/considerations (“Project”), based on the findings and conclusions set forth in the September 19, 2023 staff report from the Director of Community Development, including any attachments thereto, and including additional condition(s) or considerations set forth below in this motion. Further, the Council hereby adopts, and incorporates herein by this reference, the analysis, findings, conclusions and conditions/considerations of the Design Review Board in its Record of Decision dated February 9, 2023 (Exhibit 4 to the staff report to Council).

DRB CONDITIONS:

1. Reduce the proposed livable area by at least 15% from the originally proposed 5,337 square-feet.

2. Reinstate the original design concept presented at the May 26, 2022 DRB hearing, reflecting the conditions of approval.

3. Step back the façade of the primary bedroom/bath at the second floor so that it is placed further back from the first-floor façade below.

4. Reduce the width of the driveway entrance in the front setback to minimize the amount of hardscape.

5. Reduce the size of the south deck, removing the sawtooth form in this area and allowing for the continuation of the corresponding retaining wall.

DRB CONSIDERATION:

That the overall building height be reduced by reducing the floor-to-floor heights at the first and second floors.

ADDITIONAL COUNCIL-IMPOSED CONDITONS:
250 of 253

1. Aram Alajajian, Jack Demirchian and/or Souseh Babomian (Applicant/Owner), and their respective successors; owners by deed, deed-in-lieu of foreclosure, foreclosure or otherwise; assigns; and/or any real party in interest with an interest in the property that is the subject of this approval, and/or with an interest in the Project site, that is named as a party in any suit (hereinafter collectively the “Developer”), agree to and shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Glendale (the “City”), and each of its agents, officers, council members, commissioners, attorneys, employees and representatives (the “Indemnitees”) from any claim, action or proceeding brought against the City and/or the Indemnities to attack, set aside, void or annul any City land use or California Environmental Quality Act approval for the Project.

The Developer agrees to use legal counsel reasonably acceptable to the City. The foregoing shall include, without limitation, payment of all damages awarded against the City and/or the Indemnitees, if any, costs of suit, attorney’s fees, and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with such action or proceeding. In the event that a claim, action or proceeding referenced herein is brought, the City shall promptly notify the Developer of the existence of the claim, action or proceeding and will cooperate fully in the defense of such claim, action or proceeding. As used herein, “land use approval” shall refer to decisions of the City approving requests of applicants for planning permits, including, but not limited to, general plan amendments, annexations, zone changes, zoning ordinance text amendments, tentative maps, vesting tentative maps, tentative parcel maps, reversions to acreage, final maps, final modifications or amendments, time extensions, parcel map waivers, lot line adjustments, boundary line adjustments, certificates of compliance, conditional certificates of compliance, design review approval(s), development agreements, conditional use permits, conditional use permit modifications, conditional use permit extensions, variances, variance modifications, precise plan of design, specific plans, density bonus review/housing plan applications, sign permits, parking reduction permits, site plans, temporary use permits, any administrative or discretionary permit pertaining to a land use approval, and/or any accompanying California Environmental Quality Act determination(s) pertaining to the type of approval referred to in this section, and any other similar approval.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:
251 of 253
Abstain:
252 of 253
MOTION
Moved by Council Member , seconded by
Council Member that upon review and consideration of
all documents, materials, exhibits, and testimony relative to the appeal of Design Review Case No. PDR 2113521-B located at 1766 Cielito Drive (“Design Review Case”), and after conducting a public hearing on said appeal pursuant to the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995, and receiving testimony, the City Council, based upon all of the evidence in the record, hereby REVERSES the Design Review Board’s decision and DENIES the Design Review Case. The City Council hereby continues this matter for three weeks until the October 10, 2023 City Council meeting, without further public notice, and directs the City Attorney to prepare written findings in support of denying the Design Review Case.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
253 of 253
EXHIBIT #1
EXHIBIT #2

CITY OF GLENDALE, CA
DESIGN REVIEW STAFF REPORT – HILLSIDE SINGLE FAMILY
February 9, 2023 1766 Cielito Drive, Glendale, CA 91207 Hearing Date Address
Design Review Board (DRB) 5648-029-015
Review Type APN
PDR 2113521-B Aram Alajajian
Case Number Applicant
Vista Ezzati, Planner Jack Demirchian & Souseh Babomian Case Planner Owner
Project Summary
The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing 1-story, 3,246 square-foot (SF) singlefamily dwelling with attached, 2-car garage (originally built in 1961) and to construct a new 2-story, 4,855 square-foot single-family dwelling with an attached, subterranean, three-car garage on a 23,620 square-foot, double-frontage lot located in the R1R (FAR District II) Zone. This is a second submittal for Final Review; on May 26,2022, the DRB voted to “Return for Redesign”.

The proposed work also includes:
• A new expanded outdoor deck and new pool at the rear of the house and facing lower Cielito Drive.
• 1,450 cubic yards (CY) of grading which includes 1,129 CY of cut, 321 CY of fill, and the remaining 808 CY will be exported.

Environmental Review
The project is exempt from CEQA review as a Class 3 “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures” exemption pursuant to Section 15303 of the State CEQA Guidelines because the project involves the development of one single-family residence.

Existing Property/Background
The project site is a 23,620 square-foot, irregularly shaped, double-frontage lot with frontage on Cielito Drive to the north (“upper Cielito”), and to the south (“lower Cielito”).

Upper Cielito Drive slopes down from north to south, and the subject hillside lot features an average current slope (ACS) of approximately 39.5%. Originally developed in 1961, the site currently features a one-story, 3,246 square-foot single-family dwelling with an attached two-car garage, swimming pool, and outdoor deck at the rear. The existing house sits on a flat pad that is oriented towards, and sitting approximately ten feet lower than, upper Cielito Drive. Oriented towards lower Cielito Drive, the rear of the lot steeply slopes EXHIBIT #3
2 down from the existing pool and deck area down to the street below. The south-easterly portion of the property is located in a landslide hazard potential zone and will remain undeveloped. The applicant has submitted a Preliminary Geologic and Geotechnical Engineering Investigation that is included as Attachment #8 to this report. The project site is accessed via an existing driveway along upper Cielito Drive which will be maintained as part of the proposal.

A Historic Resource Evaluation was prepared for the property by Kaplan Chen Kaplan, dated March 24, 2022 (Attachment #9). The evaluation concluded that the existing building does not meet any criteria for designation at the national, state, or local level. The evaluation also concluded that the existing building is not a distinctive or exemplary representative of its architectural style, type, or period, and no evidence was found indicating the site is associated with important events or people in history. Therefore, the property is not considered a historic resource under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

For the DRB hearing on May 26, 2022, the Glendale Historical Society (TGHS) submitted comments (Attachment #10) disputing the findings of the Kaplan Chen Kaplan evaluation.

The TGHS comments state that the property is eligible for listing in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources because it retains character-defining features of the Mid-Century Modern style, and because it is directly associated with individuals that contributed to the history of the city. Architecturally, the house has a few interesting features, including limited areas of stone cladding, a rock roof, rounded bay windows at a side facade, and an irregular footprint. The information in the submittal, however, does not provide context or support for its conclusions. It also does not fully assess or, in some cases, acknowledge certain alterations, such as the removal of the original front doors, window alterations at the pool-deck façade, the addition of a garden window at the same façade, the metal picket fence along the driveway, or the application of resin-pebble paving at the driveway and pool deck.

The original owners of this property are Tom and Wanda Bistagne who are associated with the Bistagne Brothers Body Shop located at 1400 East Chevy Chase Drive, which began operating in 1946. This building, which retains a great deal of its original appearance and has a strong connection with the Bistagne Brothers automotive work was found to not be a historic resource in the 2019 South Glendale Historic Resource Survey. The TGHS comments suggest that 1766 Cielito Drive is significant for its association with Tom and Wanda Bistagne and therefore eligible under Criterion 2 for listing in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources. No substantial evidence is provided to support the assertion that Tom Bistagne, along with his brother George, contributed significantly to Southern California’s important role in car culture during the 1940s and beyond. The sources cited, in fact, contradict this claim and acknowledge that little is known about their involvement in this important facet of the region’s history. The TGHS comments also cite Tom and Wanda Bistagne’s involvement in civic groups and philanthropy, which was common among many successful businesspeople and wealthy families throughout the history of Glendale. The listing of the couple’s philanthropic activities and causes cannot substitute for an evaluation of any potential historic importance of this work, which has not been provided.

This project was scheduled to be heard by the DRB on January 12, 2023 and several comment letters were received (Attachment #10) regarding this project. In particular, TGHS submitted a revised historic assessment providing information about the architect of the house, which was previously unknown because his name was not included on the 3 original building permit. Staff confirms that Robert L. Earl, AIA was the architect of 1766 Cielito (as well as the house at 1616 Parway Drive in Chevy Chase Canyon that was designed for Tom Bistagne’s brother George). The item was continued to allow staff additional time to review and evaluate the information in the comment letters. Staff’s review of the information provided finds that Earl’s involvement with the property is of potential interest but that, once again, the new information is not substantial. Rather it provides a listing of several known Earl projects, including three in Glendale and several others in Beverly Hills (particularly Trousdale Estates) and Los Angeles. Unfortunately, no context is provided through which Earl’s career and the design of 1766 Cielito can be considered. The TGHS document notes that Earl is included in the City of Beverly Hills’ list of “master architects,” which may also be of interest if more information and analysis were provided but, as presented, is relatively meaningless in the context of the property in Glendale and cannot be taken as definitive evidence that the property is eligible for the Glendale Register.

On June 23, 1960, the Glendale City Council adopted Ordinance No. 3214 that established a 20-foot special setback line along both upper and lower Cielito Drive.

Additionally, there are also city easements located adjacent to the front property lines at both upper and lower Cielito Drive.

Staff Recommendation
Approve with Conditions
________________________________________________________________________ Last Date Reviewed / Decision
This project was last reviewed by the DRB on May 26, 2022. Decision: Return for Redesign with conditions. Vote: 5-0. The Record of Decision and project plans are included with this report as Attachment #3.

Zone: RIR FAR District: II
Although this design review does not convey final zoning approval, the project has been reviewed for consistency with the applicable Codes and no inconsistencies have been identified.

Active/Pending Permits and Approvals
None.

Site Slope and Grading
Less than 50% current average slope and less than 1500 cubic yards of earth movement (cut and/or fill); no additional review required.

Neighborhood Survey
Average of
Properties within 300
linear feet of subject
property
Range of Properties
within 300 linear feet
of subject property
Subject Property
Proposal
Lot size 14,530 sq. ft. 10,300 sq. ft. – 23,620
sq. ft.
23,620 sq. ft.

Setback 22’-0” 10’-0” – 55’-0” 20’-0” from
upper Cielito
4 DESIGN ANALYSIS
________________________________________________________________________ Site Planning
Are the following items satisfactory and compatible with the project site and surrounding area?
Building Location
yes ☐ n/a ☐ no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☐ Setbacks of buildings on site
☐ Prevailing setbacks on the street
☐ Building and decks follow topography
☐ Alteration of landform minimized
Yards and Usable Open Space
yes n/a no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☐ Avoid altering landform to create flat yards
☐ Outdoor areas integrated into open space
☐ Use of retaining walls minimized
☐ Provide landscaping to reduce visual impact of retaining walls ☐ Decorative material used for retaining walls to blend into landscape and/or complement the building design

Garage Location and Driveway
☒ yes ☐ n/a ☐ no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☐ Consistent with predominant pattern on street
☐ Compatible with primary structure
☐ Permeable paving material
☐ Decorative paving
Landscape Design
☒ yes ☐ n/a ☐ no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☐ Complementary to building design and surrounding site ☐ Maintains existing trees when possible
House size 2,972 sq. ft. 2,140 sq. ft. – 3,695
sq. ft.
4,855 sq. ft.

Floor Area Ratio 0.21 0.12 – 0.32 0.20
Number of stories
All 11 homes
surveyed are 1-story
1-story 2-stories plus a
subterranean
3-car garage
5 ☐ Maximizes permeable surfaces
☐ Appropriately sized and located
Walls and Fences
☒ yes ☐ n/a ☐ no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☐ Appropriate style/color/material
☐ Perimeter walls treated at both sides
☐ Retaining walls minimized
☐ Appropriately sized and located
☐ Stormwater runoff minimized
Determination of Compatibility: Site Planning
The proposed site planning is appropriate to the site and its surroundings for the following reasons:
• The proposed site planning addresses various zoning regulations, including the 20’- 0” special street-front setback, parking, lot coverage, and landscaping. • Based on the DRB conditions from the first hearing, the size of the new house was reduced by 482 square-feet, and the building was moved closer to the street. This has resulted in an increased setback from the downhill portion of the lot oriented towards “lower Cielito” and the building and deck areas being sited primarily on the existing pad. The deck cantilevers have been minimized, and portions of the deck step down approximately two to four feet.
• The subterranean 3-car garage has been reoriented so that it is parallel with the street and relocated below the house. While the proposed subterranean garage is not consistent with the predominant neighborhood pattern, at the first hearing, the DRB did not cite any concerns aside from its location on the site. The current siting of the garage was based on the DRB conditions of approval and the deliberation at the hearing.
• The width of the driveway has been reduced by four feet for the majority of its length.

However, at the driveway apron and in the street-front setback, the driveway width is unchanged. Staff is recommending a condition of approval that the driveway in this area be reduced to minimize the amount of paving in the front setback. • The project will maintain 9,826 square-feet (42%) of the lot as ungraded open space.

The usable outdoor spaces for this project includes a new outdoor deck located at the rear of the house, and at the front there will be new drought tolerant landscaping and water features adjacent to the walkways.
• The project includes new drought tolerant landscaping throughout the site that will complement the building design. The rooftop also features landscaping, potted cactus plants. This is a unique design feature that is not typically proposed on this type of development, and staff will defer to the DRB for direction on this feature. • The project will maintain some of the existing retaining walls, primarily at the front of the new house, parallel to upper Cielito Drive. New retaining walls are also proposed along the driveway and at the outdoor deck areas at the rear. ________________________________________________________________________ 6 Massing and Scale
Are the following items satisfactory and compatible with the project site and surrounding area?
Building Relates to its Surrounding Context
☒ yes ☐ n/a ☐ no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☐ Appropriate proportions and transitions
☐ Impact of larger building minimized
Building Relates to Existing Topography
☒ yes ☐ n/a ☐ no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☐ Form and profile follow topography
☐ Alteration of existing landform minimized
☐ Retaining walls terrace with slope
Consistent Architectural Concept
☒ yes ☐ n/a ☐ no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☐ Concept governs massing and height
Scale and Proportion
☒ yes ☐ n/a ☐ no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☐ Scale and proportion fit context
☐ Articulation avoids overbearing forms
☐ Appropriate solid/void relationships
☐ Entry and major features well located
☐ Avoids sense of monumentality
Roof Forms
☒ yes ☐ n/a ☐ no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☐ Roof reinforces design concept
☐ Configuration appropriate to context
Determination of Compatibility: Mass and Scale
The proposed massing and scale are appropriate, to the site and its surroundings for the following reasons:
• The immediate neighborhood surrounding the subject property (300 lineal feet of site) features one-story homes, with a few 2-story homes located at the end of the road and outside the immediate neighborhood. While the proposal to construct a 7 new 2-story house over a subterranean 3-car garage differs from the neighborhood context, the DRB did not cite any major concerns with this at the first hearing and did not impose any conditions with the redesign requiring the subterranean garage to be omitted from the design or a reduction in the number of stories. • Based on the conditions placed on the redesign of the project that were related to the size of the house and reductions in the overall sense of mass and scale, the livable area was reduced from 5,337 square-feet to 4,855 square-feet. • The massing is broken up through the use of varied building volumes that articulate the facades, balconies, and changes in the façade planes. • The overall height of the new house with the subterranean garage remains at 32’-0” which is the maximum permitted by code. While the height remains the same, the project has been redesigned so that the building pad is lowered by four feet, thereby minimizing the appearance of the height from the public right-of-way. • The project features a flat roof design, which is consistent with the modern design concept of the new house.
__________________________________________________________ Design and Detailing
Are the following items satisfactory and compatible with the project site and surrounding area?
Overall Design and Detailing
☒ yes ☐ n/a ☐ no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☐ Consistent architectural concept
☐ Proportions appropriate to project and surrounding neighborhood ☐ Appropriate solid/void relationships
Entryway
☒ yes ☐ n/a ☐ no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☐ Well integrated into design
☐ Avoids sense of monumentality
☐ Design provides appropriate focal point
☐ Doors appropriate to design
Windows
☒ yes ☐ n/a ☐ no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☐ Appropriate to overall design
☐ Placement appropriate to style
☐ Recessed in wall, when appropriate
Privacy
☒ yes ☐ n/a ☐ no
If “no” select from below and explain:
8 ☐ Consideration of views from “public” rooms and balconies/decks ☐ Avoid windows facing adjacent windows
The project does feature an outdoor deck at the ground floor as well as new balconies and a terrace at the second floor which could potentially have a privacy impact with adjacent neighbors, but there is a considerable distance between the residences as well as a difference in building pad elevations that could mitigate this issue.

Finish Materials and Color
☒ yes ☐ n/a ☐ no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☐ Textures and colors reinforce design
☐ High-quality, especially facing the street
☐ Respect articulation and façade hierarchy
☐ Wrap corners and terminate appropriately
☐ Natural colors appropriate to hillside area
Paving Materials
☒ yes ☐ n/a ☐ no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☐ Decorative material at entries/driveways
☐ Permeable paving when possible
☐ Material and color related to design
Lighting, Equipment, Trash, and Drainage
☒ yes ☐ n/a ☐ no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☐ Light fixtures appropriately located/avoid spillover and over-lit facades ☐ Light fixture design appropriate to project
☐ Equipment screened and well located
☐ Trash storage out of public view
☐ Downspouts appropriately located
☐ Vents, utility connections integrated with design, avoid primary facades Ancillary Structures
☒ yes ☐ n/a ☐ no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☐ Design consistent with primary structure
☐ Design and materials of gates complement primary structure Determination of Compatibility: Design and Detailing
9 The proposed design and detailing are appropriate, as modified by any proposed conditions, to the site and its surroundings for the following reasons:
• Overall, the consistency in the use of materials and colors throughout the project helps to reinforce the proposed modern style of the new house. Overall, the selected style fits within the neighborhood which features a mix of architectural styles, include modern style homes.
• The design of the entryway is similar to the original proposal, with a canopy at the first floor breaking up the 2-story volume. The entryway and entry doors have been designed to be appropriately integrated into the overall design. • The new doors and windows will be clear anodized, black aluminum, and the windows will be an appropriate combination of fixed and casement. • The proposed materials for the house include smooth finish plaster, natural limestone masonry veneer, and horizontal wood siding. The materials are high quality, reinforce the design concept, and the color palette is appropriate to the hillside area.
• The design of the new light fixtures is appropriate to the modern design concept, and the lights are appropriately located on the exterior building façades and outdoor areas.
• The trash storage and mechanical equipment are appropriately located along the southerly elevation and will not be visible from the street. ________________________________________________________________________ Recommendation / Draft Record of Decision
The following analysis relates to the revisions made to the proposed project since the last DRB meeting.

Conditions from DRB meeting on May 26, 2022 (Case No. PDR 2113521)

1. Lower the overall height of the project by a minimum of three to four feet and rotate the livable space from the east to the west.

The overall height of the house remains at 32’-0”, however, the building pad has been lowered by four feet. At the first and second floors, the floor-to-floor heights remain the same, at 12 and 10 feet respectively. The floor-to-floor height of the subterranean garage has been reduced by one foot. During the last hearing, suggestions were made by the board that were more prescriptive, including a 10- foot floor-floor-height at the ground floor, and an 8’-6” height at the second floor.

These suggestions were not incorporated into the project design. Having said that, lowering the building pad four feet does minimize the visual impact of the house as seen from “upper Cielito”. To better address this condition, the board can consider a further reduction in the overall height by reducing the floor-to-floor heights at the first and second floors. The southerly portion of the house has shifted from east to west, thereby bringing the house closer to the street at this elevation with the streetfront setback ranging from 20 feet to 35’-8”, measured to the building wall.

2. Re-design the project to better follow the topography and terrace with the hillside in accordance with the Hillside Design Guidelines. This may include reducing the overall size and projections of the southern cantilevered decks 10 and relocating the master bedroom.

As noted above, the siting of the house has shifted to bring the southerly portion closer to the street resulting in an increased setback from the steep downhill condition on the portion of the lot oriented towards “lower Cielito”. This redesign also results in more of the building and deck areas being sited on the existing flat pad portion of the lot, which also minimizes the projections of the cantilevered decks. The cantilevers for the outdoor deck have been reduced, but with the reduction in the building footprint, the size of the deck area increased.

3. Explore other alternatives related to the garage location that would minimize the amount of grading required for this project, and reduce the size of the driveway area.

The subterranean 3-car garage has been reoriented so that it is parallel with the street and relocated below the house where in the original proposal the garage was perpendicular to the street and below the deck areas. The reorientation of the garage in its current location was based on the conditions of approval and suggestions made by the board during the deliberation portion of the hearing. The width of the driveway has been reduced from 19 feet to 15 feet, with the exception of the portion of the driveway at the entrance, which remains relatively unchanged.

Staff is recommending a condition of approval that the width and hardscape at this area be reduced as well to be consistent. The reorientation of the garage requires less grading, but the necessary adjustments to the driveway for access to the garage will increase the overall amount of grading required for the project. The table below illustrates the changes to the amount of grading required.

Original Proposal Current Proposal
Driveway 533 CY
(225 CY of fill, 308 CY of cut)
880 CY
(790 CY of cut, 90 CY of fill)
Garage 438 CY of cut 339 CY of cut

4. Reduce the overall mass and size of the project, such as a minimum 15% reduction in size of the livable square footage, and provide a concept that is compatible with the neighborhood conditions.

The size of the livable area has been reduced by approximately nine percent, from 5,337 square-feet to 4,855 square-feet. The table below illustrates the changes, with the most significant reduction being at the ground floor. The garage is excluded from the calculation of livable area in single-family zones it is provided for reference only and is not included in the total.

Original Proposal Current Proposal
Garage 626 sq. ft. 680 sq.ft.

Basement 254 sq. ft. 150 sq. ft.
1st Floor 3,055 sq. ft. 2,700 sq. ft.
2nd Floor 2,028 sq. ft. 2,005 sq. ft.

TOTAL 5,337 sq. ft. 4,855 sq. ft.
11 5. Reduce the overall amount of lighting proposed for the exterior building façades and the outdoor areas of the site.

The lighting plan features a combination of floor and ground lighting, with building façade light fixtures. The applicant has submitted a revised lighting plan showing the reduction in the amount of lighting on-site and has reduced the number of light fixtures significantly. The original proposal featured a total of 56 light fixtures throughout the site and building, and the current proposal has been reduced to feature 25 fixtures.

6. Replace the proposed roofing material with a rock roof.

The new roofing material will be a rock roof as required by the DRB. At the rooftop, the applicant has also incorporated cactus plants throughout. Introducing the landscaping at the rooftop does raise issues related to access for maintenance, as well as irrigation. This is not a typical feature for single-family development and staff will defer to the board’s recommendation regarding this area.

Based on the above analysis, staff recommends Approval with Conditions. This determination is based on the implementation of the following recommended conditions:

Condition

1. That the width of the driveway entrance in the front setback be reduced to minimize the amount of hardscape.

Consideration

1. That the overall building height be reduced by reducing the floor-to-floor heights at the first and second floors.
________________________________________________________________________ Attachments

1. Reduced Plans for Current Proposal

2. Applicant’s Write-Up for Current Proposal

3. Record of Decision and Reduced Plans – May 26, 2022 DRB Meeting The staff report and exhibits are available online, Item 6b:
https://glendaleca.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=33030

4. Photos of Existing Property

5. Location Map

6. Neighborhood Survey

7. Interdepartmental Comments

8. Geotechnical Report, dated August 2, 2021

9. TGHS Historic Resource Evaluation, dated March 24, 2022, and revised evaluation, dated January 21, 2023

10. Correspondence
Attachment #1
TRACT NO. M.B.
354
24858
PGS. APN # : 5648-029-015
80-82 POR. LOT 4
1- STORY HOUSE
( # 1766 )

C I E L I T O D R I V E
APN # : 5648-029-002 LOT 3
N 80°26'16" E 126.50'
N 9°39'01" E 150.14'
N 75°59'02" W 44.83'
S 60°52'38" E 84.75'
N 33°28'29" E 114.45'
=
4 1 ° 0
4 ' 5
2 " L
=
6 2 . 3
8 ' R
=
8 7 . 0
0 '
=9°43'29"
L=32.39' R=190.81'
R / W
R / W

R / W C I E L I T O D R I V E
APN # : 5648-029-014

P O O L
1- STORY HOUSE LOT 5

AVERAGE SLOPE CALCULATION
I (INTERVAL) L (LENGTH) IN (FEET) TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY MAP LEGAL DESCRIPTION SCALE: DATE: R.D.P. 1766 CIELITO DR., GLENDALE, CA 91207 Ray Lombera & Associates, Inc. FEB. 5, 2020 SHEET OF C-1 1"=10'- 0" CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: REVISIONS:

Land Surveying Planning Land Development
TEL. (323) 257-9771 FAX. (323) 257-9865 WWW.RAYLOMBERA.COM JACK DEMIRCHIAN SHEET NO. 1 1 REQUESTED BY:
135 S. JACKSON ST., STE. 202 , GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA 91205 JOB ADDRESS: R.L. BASIS OF BEARING BENCH MARK
Ray Lombera &Associates
ALR

LICENSED
LA
N
D

SURV EY OR

RAYMUNDO
A. LOMBERA

S T A T E OF
C
A
L I FOR NIA No. 7740 LEGEND NOTE : SCALE:1"=10'
0 5' 10' 20' 40' SEPT. 11, 2020

C I E L I T O D R I V E
℄ "ELEVETTE" CABLE DRUM-200 7'H-OVERALL 80"H-CLEAR ID CODE(S) 6 CL
20'
20'
4 0'
CL TRACT NO. 24858 M.B. 354 PGS. 80-82 APN # : 5648-029-015 POR. LOT 4

C I E L I T O D R I V E
APN # : 5648-029-002 LOT 3

A S P H A L T C O N C R E T E P A V E M E N T
N 66°15'00" W
N 56°31'31" W
(RAD) 20.00'
N 56°31'31" W 20.00' (RAD)
N63°06'25"W 20.00' (RAD)
N 14°00'58" E

22.00'
(RAD)
S 13°33'05" W 30.00'
(RAD)
N 33°28'29" E 180.43'
130.45'

30.00'

19.98'
=19°55'24"
L=59.40'
L=19.98' R=173.92' =6°34'54"
N 75°59'02" W 175.90'

79.07'

96.83'

FOUND SPK ACCEPTED AS EC
PER CEFB 116, PG. 18

FOUND SPK ACCEPTED AS EC
PER CEFB 116, PG. 18

FOUND SPK ACCEPTED AS BC
PER CEFB 116, PG. 18

FOUND SPK ACCEPTED A
PER CEFB 116, PG. 18
N 80°26'16" E 126.50'
N 9°39'01" E 150.14'
S 60°52'38" E 84.75' N 75°59'02" W 44.83'
N 33°28'29" E 114.45'
=9°43'29" L=32.39' R=190.81'
R / W
R / W

C I E L I T O D R I V E
N26°53'35"E

10.00'
M

C O N C R E T E G U T T E R

C O N C R E T E G U T T E R

A S P H A L T C O N C R E T E P A V E M E N T

C O N C R E T E G U T T E R

C O N C R E T E G U T T E R
SSMH
WM
MH
WV
WV
MH
FD
GM
ACU
FD
WV
SSMH
PP PP
O.H. WIRE

GB GB GB
GB
GB
GB
GB
GB
GB
GB
GB
GB GB
EDGE OF PAV'T.

EDGE OF PAV'T.

CONC. CURB
8" CONC. WALL
IRON
GATE
TVBOX

UTILITY
BOX
CO
8" CONC. WALL
HIGH

VOLTAGE
BOX
HIGH

VOLTAGE
BOX
D.O.

TS

TS GB GB GB
GB
NOTHING FOUND EST. PER
TR. NO. 24858, MB 654/80-82
POOL EQM'T.

NE'LY LINE OF A 6' EASEMENT TO THE CITY OF GLENDALE FOR GB PLANTING PURPOSES PER GB GB
GB
GB

6.00'
TR. NO. 24858, M.B. 654/80-81

6.00'
6' EASEMENT TO THE OF GLENDALE FOR

PLANTING PURPOSES PER
TR. NO. 24858, M.B. 654/80-81
1064
1050
1040
1030
1020
1010
1080
1010
1000
1030
1020
1010
1000
1060
1050
1040
1030
1050
1040
1060
1040
1030
1020
1080
1080
1080
1075
1070
1065
1060
990
995
1000

AN EASEMENT FOR CONDUITS AND

INCIDENTAL PURPOSES TO THE CITY OF GLENDALE AS
INST. NO. 3440, BK D-977/610 O.R. "=1'-0" Glendale, CA 91203 Fax: (818) 551-1613 320 W. Arden Ave. Phone: (818) 244-5130Suite 120 E-mail: [email protected]

L A N D S C A P E COURTLAND STUDIO, LLC A R
C H I T E E C T U R 505 E Colorado Blvd. Mezz C Pasadena CA 91101 P: 818-788-9382 F: 818-788-3217 Licensed Landscape Architect #3620 0'SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0" 4' 8' 16' WHEN PRINTED ON 24" X 36" PAPER. SITE PLAN SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0" 2022-08-31 Cielito SD Set2022-08-31 Cielito SD Set
℄ "ELEVETTE" CABLE DRUM-200 7'H-OVERALL 80"H-CLEAR ID CODE(S) 6 CL 20' 20'
4 0'
CL TRACT NO. 24858 M.B. 354 PGS. 80-82 APN # : 5648-029-015 POR. LOT 4 A S P H A L T C O N C R E T E P A V E M E N T N 66°15'00" W
N 56°31'31" W (RAD) 20.00'
N 56°31'31" W 20.00' (RAD)
S 13°33'05" W 30.00'
(RAD)
N 33°28'29" E 180.43' 130.45'

30.00' =19°55'24"
L=59.40'
FOUND SPK ACCEPTED AS EC PER CEFB 116, PG. 18
PER CEFB 116, PG. 18
N 80°26'16" E 126.50'
N 9°39'01" E 150.14'
S 60°52'38" E 84.75' N 75°59'02" W 44.83'
N 33°28'29" E 114.45'
=9°43'29"
L=32.39'
R=190.81'

R / W C I E L I T O D R I V E M C O N C R E T E G U T T E R C O N C R E T E G U T T E R SSMHWM MH
WV
WV
MH
FD
GM
ACU
FD

GB GB GB GBGB
GB
GB
GB
GB
GB
GB
GB
GB
EDGE OF PAV'T.

CONC. CURB
8" CONC. WALL
IRON
GATE
TVBOX

UTILITY BOX
8" CONC. WALL

HIGH VOLTAGE BOX
HIGH VOLTAGE BOX D.O.

TS

TS GB GB GB GB
POOL EQM'T.

NE'LY LINE OF A 6' EASEMENT TO THE CITY OF GLENDALE FOR GB PLANTING PURPOSES PER GB GB GB

6.00'
TR. NO. 24858, M.B. 654/80-81

6.00'
6' EASEMENT TO THE OF GLENDALE FOR PLANTING PURPOSES PER TR. NO. 24858, M.B. 654/80-81 1064 1080
1010
1000
1030
1020
1010
1060
1050
1040
1050
1040
1060
1040
1030
1020
1080
1080
1080
1075
1070
1065
AN EASEMENT FOR CONDUITS AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES TO THE CITY OF GLENDALE AS PLANTING LEGEND Symbol Botanical Name/Common Name TREES SHRUBS Cyperus papyrus / Paper Reed 7 Hakonechloa macra / Hakone grass 30 @ 24" o.c. Juncus patens / California gray rush 52 @ 18" o.c. Ligustrum japonicum 'Texanum' / 48 Waxleaf privet @ 36" o.c. Lomandra longifolia 'LM300' / 93 Breeze Dwarf Mat Rush @ 24" o.c. Nandina domestica / Heavenly bamboo 40 @ 30" o.c. VINES Bouganvillea 'Barbara Kurst' / Red bougainvillea @ 60" o.c. Ficus pumila / Creeping Fig @ 60" o.c. GROUND COVER Juniperus horizontalis / Creeping juniper 237 sf @ 48" o.c. Decorative Gravel - 952 sf Cotinus coggygria / Smoke tree Magnolia x soulangeana / Saucer magnolia Pinus thunbergii / Japanese black pine "=1'-0" Glendale, CA 91203 Fax: (818) 551-1613 320 W. Arden Ave. Phone: (818) 244-5130Suite 120 E-mail: [email protected] L A N D S C A P E COURTLAND STUDIO, LLC A R C H I T E E C T U R 505 E Colorado Blvd. Mezz C Pasadena CA 91101 P: 818-788-9382 F: 818-788-3217 Licensed Landscape Architect #3620 0'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 4' 8' 16' WHEN PRINTED ON 24" X 36" PAPER. ENLARGED LANDSCAPE PLAN SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 2022-08-31 Cielito SD Set2022-08-31 Cielito SD Set
PLANTING LEGEND Symbol Botanical Name/Common Name TREES SHRUBS Cyperus papyrus / Paper Reed 7 Hakonechloa macra / Hakone grass 30
@ 24" o.c.

Juncus patens / California gray rush 52
@ 18" o.c.

Ligustrum japonicum 'Texanum' / 48
Waxleaf privet @ 36" o.c.

Lomandra longifolia 'LM300' / 93
Breeze Dwarf Mat Rush @ 24" o.c.

Nandina domestica / Heavenly bamboo 40
@ 30" o.c. VINES Bouganvillea 'Barbara Kurst' / Red bougainvillea@ 60" o.c.

Ficus pumila / Creeping Fig
@ 60" o.c. GROUND COVER Juniperus horizontalis / Creeping juniper 237 sf @ 48" o.c. Decorative Gravel - 952 sf Cotinus coggygria / Smoke tree Magnolia x soulangeana / Saucer magnolia Pinus thunbergii / Japanese black pine TREES Cotinus coggygria / Smoke tree Magnolia x soulangeana / Saucer magnolia Pinus thunbergii / Japanese black pine Ligustrum japonicum 'Texanum' / Waxleaf privet Lomandra longifolia 'LM300' / Breezxe Dwarf Mat Rush Nandina domestica / Heavenly bamboo GROUNDCOVER SHRUBS Cyperus papyrus / Paper Reed Hakonechloa macra / Hakone grass Juncus patens / California gray rush Bouganvillea 'Barbara Kurst' / Red bougainvillea Ficus pumila / Creeping fig Juniperus horizontalis / Creeping juniper VINE "=1'-0" Glendale, CA 91203 Fax: (818) 551-1613 320 W. Arden Ave. Phone: (818) 244-5130Suite 120 E-mail: [email protected] L A N D S C A P E COURTLAND STUDIO, LLC A R C H I T E E C T U R 505 E Colorado Blvd. Mezz C Pasadena CA 91101 P: 818-788-9382 F: 818-788-3217 Licensed Landscape Architect #3620 2022-08-31 Cielito SD Set2022-08-31 Cielito SD Set

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD

RECORD OF DECISION
Meeting Date February 9, 2023 DRB Case No. PDR 2113521-B Address 1766 Cielito Drive
Applicant Aram Alajajian
Project Summary:

The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing 1-story, 3,246 square-foot (SF) single-family dwelling with attached, 2-car garage (originally built in 1961) and to construct a new 2-story, 4,855 square-foot single-family dwelling with an attached, subterranean, three-car garage on a 23,620 square-foot, double-frontage lot located in the R1R (FAR District II) Zone. This is a second submittal for Final Review; on May 26, 2022, the DRB voted to “Return for Redesign”.

Design Review:

Board Member Motion Second Yes No Absent Abstain
Kaskanian X X
Lockareff X
Simonian X X
Tchaghayan X
Welch X
Totals 3 2
DRB Decision Approve with conditions and one consideration.

Conditions:

1. Reduce the proposed livable area by at least 15% from the originally proposed 5,337 square-feet.

2. Reinstate the original design concept presented at the May 26, 2022, DRB hearing, reflecting the conditions of approval.

EXHIBIT #4
1766 Cielito Drive
PDR 2113521-B

3. Step back the façade of the primary bedroom/bath at the second floor so that it is placed further back from the first-floor façade below.

4. Reduce the width of the driveway entrance in the front setback to minimize the amount of hardscape.

5. Reduce the size of the south deck, removing the sawtooth form in this area and allowing for the continuation of the corresponding retaining wall.

Consideration:

1. That the overall building height be reduced by reducing the floor-to-floor heights at the first and second floors.

Determination of Compatibility: Site Planning
The proposed site planning is appropriate to the site and its surroundings for the following reasons:
• The proposed site planning addresses various zoning regulations, including the 20’-0” special street-front setback, parking, lot coverage, and landscaping. • Based on the DRB conditions from the first hearing, the size of the new house was reduced by 482 square-feet, and the building was moved closer to the street.

This has resulted in an increased setback from the downhill portion of the lot oriented towards “lower Cielito” and the building and deck areas being sited primarily on the existing pad. The deck cantilevers have been minimized, and portions of the deck step down approximately two to four feet. • The subterranean 3-car garage has been reoriented so that it is parallel with the street and relocated below the house. While the proposed subterranean garage is not consistent with the predominant neighborhood pattern, at the first hearing, the DRB did not cite any concerns aside from its location on the site. The current siting of the garage was based on the DRB conditions of approval and the deliberation at the hearing.
• The width of the driveway has been reduced by four feet for the majority of its length. However, at the driveway apron and in the street-front setback, the driveway width is unchanged. A condition of approval requires that the driveway in this area be reduced to minimize the amount of paving in the front setback. • The project will maintain 9,826 square-feet (42%) of the lot as ungraded open space. The usable outdoor spaces for this project includes a new outdoor deck located at the rear of the house, and at the front there will be new drought tolerant landscaping and water features adjacent to the walkways. • The project includes new drought tolerant landscaping throughout the site that will complement the building design. The rooftop also features landscaping, potted cactus plants.
• The project will maintain some of the existing retaining walls, primarily at the front of the new house, parallel to upper Cielito Drive. New retaining walls are also proposed along the driveway and at the outdoor deck areas at the rear. 1766 Cielito Drive
PDR 2113521-B

Determination of Compatibility: Mass and Scale
The proposed massing and scale are appropriate to the site and its surroundings for the following reasons:
• The immediate neighborhood surrounding the subject property (300 lineal feet of site) features one-story homes, with a few 2-story homes located at the end of the road and outside the immediate neighborhood. While the proposal to construct a new 2-story house over a subterranean 3-car garage differs from the neighborhood context, the DRB did not cite any major concerns with this at the first hearing and did not impose any conditions with the redesign requiring the subterranean garage to be omitted from the design or a reduction in the number of stories.
• Based on the conditions placed on the redesign of the project that were related to the size of the house and reductions in the overall sense of mass and scale, the livable area was reduced from 5,337 square-feet to 4,855 square-feet. • The massing is broken up through the use of varied building volumes that articulate the facades, balconies, and changes in the façade planes. • The overall height of the new house with the subterranean garage remains at 32’- 0” which is the maximum permitted by code. While the height remains the same, the project has been redesigned so that the building pad is lowered by four feet, thereby minimizing the appearance of the height from the public right-of-way. • The project features a flat roof design, which is consistent with the modern design concept of the new house.

Determination of Compatibility: Design and Detailing
The proposed design and detailing are appropriate to the site and its surroundings for the following reasons:
• Overall, the consistency in the use of materials and colors throughout the project helps to reinforce the proposed modern style of the new house. Overall, the selected style fits within the neighborhood which features a mix of architectural styles, include modern style homes.
• The design of the entryway is similar to the original proposal, with a canopy at the first floor breaking up the 2-story volume. The entryway and entry doors have been designed to be appropriately integrated into the overall design. • The new doors and windows will be clear anodized, black aluminum, and the windows will be an appropriate combination of fixed and casement. • The proposed materials for the house include smooth finish plaster, natural limestone masonry veneer, and horizontal wood siding. The materials are high quality, reinforce the design concept, and the color palette is appropriate to the hillside area.
• The design of the new light fixtures is appropriate to the modern design concept, and the lights are appropriately located on the exterior building façades and outdoor areas.
1766 Cielito Drive
PDR 2113521-B

• The trash storage and mechanical equipment are appropriately located along the southerly elevation and will not be visible from the street.

DRB Staff Member Vista Ezzati, Planner
Notes:

Contact the case planner for an appointment for a DRB stamp prior to submittal for plan check.

The Design Review Board approves the design of project only. Approval of a project by the Design Review Board does not constitute an approval of compliance with the Zoning Code and/or Building Code requirements.

If an appeal is not filed within the 15-day appeal period of the Design Review Board decision, plans may be approved for Building Division plan check. Prior to Building Division plan check submittal, Design Review Board approved plans must be stamped approved by the Design Review staff.

Any changes to the approved plans may constitute returning to the Design Review Board for approval. Prior to Building Division plan check submittal, all changes in substantial conformance with approved plans by the Design Review Board must be on file with the Planning Division.

CITY OF GLENDALE, CA
DESIGN REVIEW STAFF REPORT – HILLSIDE SINGLE FAMILY
May 26, 2022 1766 Cielito Drive, Glendale, CA 91207
Hearing Date Address
Design Review Board (DRB) 5648-029-015
Review Type APN
PDR 2113521 Aram Alajajian
Case Number Applicant
Vista Ezzati, Planner Jack Demirchian & Souseh Babomian Case Planner Owner
Project Summary
The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing 1-story, 3,246 square-foot (SF) singlefamily dwelling with attached, 2-car garage (originally built in 1961) and to construct a new 2-story, 5,337 square-foot single-family dwelling with an attached, subterranean, three-car garage on a 23,620 square-foot, double-frontage lot located in the R1R (FAR District II) Zone.

The proposed work also includes:
• A new expanded outdoor deck and new pool at the rear of the house and facing lower Cielito Drive.
• 965 cubic yard (CY) of grading which includes 740 CY of cut, 225 CY of fill, and the remaining 515 CY will be exported.

Environmental Review
The project is exempt from CEQA review as a Class 3 “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures” exemption pursuant to Section 15303 of the State CEQA Guidelines because the project involves the development of one single-family residence.

Existing Property/Background
The project site is a 23,620 square-foot, irregularly shaped, double-frontage lot with frontage on Cielito Drive to the north (“upper Cielito”), and to the south (“lower Cielito”).

Upper Cielito Drive slopes down from north to south, and the subject hillside lot features an average current slope (ACS) of approximately 39.5%. Originally developed in 1961, the site currently features a one-story, 3,246 square-foot single-family dwelling with an attached two-car garage, swimming pool, and outdoor deck at the rear. The existing house sits on a flat pad that is oriented towards, and sitting approximately ten feet lower than, upper Cielito Drive. Oriented towards lower Cielito Drive, the rear of the house steeply slopes down from the existing pool and deck area down to the street below. The southEXHIBIT #5 2 easterly portion of the property is located in a landslide hazard potential zone and will remain undeveloped. The applicant has submitted a Preliminary Geologic and Geotechnical Engineering Investigation that is included as Attachment 6 to this report. The project site is accessed via an existing driveway along upper Cielito Drive which will be maintained as part of the proposal.

A Historic Resource Evaluation was prepared for the property by Kaplan Chen Kaplan, dated March 24, 2022 (Attachment #7). The evaluation concluded that the existing building does not meet any criteria for designation at the national, state, or local level. The existing building is not a distinctive or exemplary representative of its architectural style, type, or period, and no evidence was found indicating the site is associated with important events or people in history. Therefore, the property is not considered a historic resource under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

On June 23, 1960, the Glendale City Council adopted Ordinance No. 3214 that established a 20-foot special setback line along both upper and lower Cielito Drive.

Additionally, there are also city easements located adjacent to the front property lines at both upper and lower Cielito Drive.

Staff Recommendation
Return for Redesign
________________________________________________________________________ Last Date Reviewed / Decision
First time submittal for final review.

Zone: RIR FAR District: II
Although this design review does not convey final zoning approval, the project has been reviewed for consistency with the applicable Codes and no inconsistencies have been identified.

Active/Pending Permits and Approvals
None.

Site Slope and Grading
Less than 50% current average slope and less than 1500 cubic yards of earth movement (cut and/or fill); no additional review required.

Neighborhood Survey
Average of
Properties within 300
linear feet of subject
property
Range of Properties
within 300 linear feet
of subject property
Subject Property
Proposal
Lot size 14,530 sq. ft. 10,300 sq. ft. – 23,620
sq. ft.
23,620 sq. ft.

Setback
22’-0” 10’-0” – 55’-0” 20’-0” from
upper Cielito &
55’-0” from lower
Cielito
3 DESIGN ANALYSIS
________________________________________________________________________ Site Planning
Are the following items satisfactory and compatible with the project site and surrounding area?
Building Location
☐ yes ☐ n/a ☒ no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☐ Setbacks of buildings on site
☐ Prevailing setbacks on the street
☒ Building and decks follow topography
☒ Alteration of landform minimized
The proposed building location is not consistent with the City’s Hillside Design Guidelines. The new two-story house with an attached, subterranean 3-car garage does not follow the topography of the subject site, and the new deck does not terrace with the hillside. Staff is recommending a condition of approval that the applicant redesign the project to follow the topography and terrace with the hillside. Additionally, development of the project site will require 965 CY of grading for the new driveway and subterranean 3-car garage. The City’s Hillside Design Guidelines and Hillside Development Review Policy (Section 30.11.040.A of the Zoning Code) encourage new development to minimize the amount of grading required, thereby minimizing the alterations to the terrain and preserving native vegetation and ungraded open space.

While this is not a new residence on a vacant hillside lot, the proposal’s additional grading for the driveway and subterranean garage within the manufactured pad neighborhood still appears somewhat contrary to the Guideline’s objective. Staff is therefore recommending a condition that the applicant explore other alternatives related to the garage location that would minimize the amount of grading. This could include relocating the required garage to the first floor and omitting the subterranean level, or if the subterranean level is to remain, the applicant should look into other alternatives that will minimize grading.

Yards and Usable Open Space
yes n/a no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☐ Avoid altering landform to create flat yards
☐ Outdoor areas integrated into open space
☐ Use of retaining walls minimized
☐ Provide landscaping to reduce visual impact of retaining walls House size 2,972 sq. ft. 2,140 sq. ft. – 3,695
sq. ft.
5,337 sq. ft.

Floor Area Ratio 0.21 0.12 – 0.32 0.21
Number of stories
All 11 homes
surveyed are 1-story
1-story 2-stories plus a
subterranean
3-car garage
4 ☐ Decorative material used for retaining walls to blend into landscape and/or complement the building design

Garage Location and Driveway
☐ yes ☐ n/a ☒ no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☒ Consistent with predominant pattern on street
☐ Compatible with primary structure
☐ Permeable paving material
☐ Decorative paving
The applicant is proposing a significant amount of grading to accommodate the proposed subterranean 3-car garage and new driveway. The surrounding neighborhood features one-story houses with attached garages with primarily level driveways from the street. As such, the applicant’s proposal is not consistent with the predominant neighborhood pattern. As noted above, the City’s Hillside Design Guidelines and Hillside Development Review Policy discourage excessive grading, and staff is recommending a condition that the garage location and driveway be redesigned.

Landscape Design
☒ yes ☐ n/a ☐ no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☐ Complementary to building design and surrounding site ☐ Maintains existing trees when possible
☐ Maximizes permeable surfaces
☐ Appropriately sized and located

Walls and Fences
☒ yes ☐ n/a ☐ no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☐ Appropriate style/color/material
☐ Perimeter walls treated at both sides
☐ Retaining walls minimized
☐ Appropriately sized and located
☐ Stormwater runoff minimized

Determination of Compatibility: Site Planning
The proposed site planning is not appropriate to the site and its surroundings for the following reasons:

• The proposed site planning does address various zoning regulations, including the 20’-0” special street-front setback, parking, lot coverage, and landscaping. However, the proposed building is not consistent with the City’s Hillside Design Guidelines because it does not follow the topography of the site, the large outdoor deck does 5 not terrace with the hillside, and the subterranean 3-car garage and driveway require a significant amount of grading which is discouraged through the guidelines as well as the Hillside Development Review Policy of the Zoning Code. Conditions are recommended to address these issues.
• The project will maintain 9,826 square-feet (42%) of the lot as ungraded open space.

The usable outdoor spaces for this project includes a new outdoor deck located at the rear of the house, and at the front there will be new drought tolerant landscaping and water features adjacent to the walkways. The project includes new drought tolerant landscaping throughout the site that will complement the building design. • The project will maintain some of the existing retaining walls, primarily at the front of the new house, parallel to upper Cielito Drive. New retaining walls are also proposed along the driveway and at the outdoor deck areas at the rear. ________________________________________________________________________ Massing and Scale
Are the following items satisfactory and compatible with the project site and surrounding area?
Building Relates to its Surrounding Context
☐ yes ☐ n/a ☒ no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☐ Appropriate proportions and transitions
☒ Impact of larger building minimized
The immediate neighborhood surrounding the subject property (300 lineal feet of site) features one-story homes with a few 2-story homes located at the end of the road and outside the immediate neighborhood. The proposal to construct a new 2-story house over a subterranean 3-car garage does not relate to the surrounding context and is not consistent with the neighborhood pattern. A recommended staff condition requires the applicant to redesign the required garage to minimize grading impacts which could include relocating the garage to the first floor. At 5,337 square-feet, this will also be the largest house in the immediate neighborhood. However, the proposed design does not reduce the visual impact of the larger building to surrounding properties, which is a goal of the Hillside Design Guidelines, as further discussed below.

Building Relates to Existing Topography
☐ yes ☐ n/a ☒ no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☒ Form and profile follow topography
☒ Alteration of existing land form minimized
☐ Retaining walls terrace with slope
The form and profile of the new 2-story house does not follow the topography of the project site. Additionally, with 965 CY of grading proposed, the subterranean garage and new driveway will require significant alterations to the existing land forms. The design features 2-story volumes at the front façade (upper Cielito Drive), as well as along the north elevation adjacent to the neighbor at 1770 Cielito Drive. Cantilevered building volumes and decks at several locations also emphasize the building mass and are inappropriate to the hillside setting. Furthermore, the 5,337 square-foot residence will be the largest house in the immediate neighborhood, more than 2,300 square feet larger than the neighborhood average of 2,972. The guidelines do allow for larger, infill development, so far as the mass and scale of the new proposal is appropriate and 6 transitions well to the existing context and surrounding neighborhood, yet this proposal does not appear to meet these objectives. Staff is recommending a condition that the project be redesigned to reduce the overall sense of mass and provide a concept that is compatible with the neighborhood conditions.

Consistent Architectural Concept
☐ yes ☐ n/a ☒ no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☐ Concept governs massing and height
As noted above, staff is recommending a condition that the overall sense of mass be reduced.

Scale and Proportion
☐ yes ☐ n/a ☒ no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☒ Scale and proportion fit context
☒ Articulation avoids overbearing forms
☐ Appropriate solid/void relationships
☐ Entry and major features well located
☒ Avoids sense of monumentality
The guidelines do allow for the house to have a larger size than the surrounding neighborhood when the overall scale and proportions fit appropriately into the neighborhood context. As described in greater detail above, the size of the residence far exceeds the neighborhood average and its massing is not consistent with the surrounding, primarily 1-story houses and stepped, manufactured building pads.

Furthermore, the project features 2-story volumes at the front façade as well as adjacent to the neighbor to the north, contrary to the objective of avoiding overbearing forms, and overall, the design does little to provide visual relief to the neighbors as it relates to mass and scale. Lastly, the massing of the proposed three-story residence from lower Cielito and the neighborhood below will be clearly visible, despite being graded into the hillside.

Roof Forms
☒ yes ☐ n/a ☐ no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☐ Roof reinforces design concept
☐ Configuration appropriate to context

Determination of Compatibility: Mass and Scale
The proposed massing and scale are not appropriate, to the site and its surroundings for the following reasons:
• The immediate neighborhood surrounding the subject property (300 lineal feet of site) features one-story homes, with a few 2-story homes located at the end of the road and outside the immediate neighborhood. As such, the proposal to construct a 7 new 2-story house over a subterranean 3-car garage does not relate to the surrounding context.
• At 5,337 square-feet, this will also be the largest house in the immediate neighborhood. However, the proposed design does nothing to reduce the visual impacts of the larger building to the surrounding properties. A staff condition has been added requiring the project be redesigned to reduce the overall sense of mass and provide a concept that is compatible with the neighborhood conditions. • The overall height of the new house with the subterranean garage will be 32’-0” which is the maximum permitted by code. At the subterranean level and first floor, the project features floor to ceiling heights that range from 10’-4” to approximately 10’- 10”, and the applicant could look into reducing these dimensions to help with the overall sense of mass and scale for this project.
• The project features a flat roof design, which is consistent with the modern design concept of the new house.
__________________________________________________________ Design and Detailing
Are the following items satisfactory and compatible with the project site and surrounding area?
Overall Design and Detailing
☒ yes ☐ n/a ☐ no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☐ Consistent architectural concept
☐ Proportions appropriate to project and surrounding neighborhood ☐ Appropriate solid/void relationships
Entryway
☐ yes ☐ n/a ☒ no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☐ Well integrated into design
☒ Avoids sense of monumentality
☐ Design provides appropriate focal point
☐ Doors appropriate to design
The design features an entryway that is monumental in scale. The entryway is a 2-story volume which is discouraged by the design guidelines, and the overall monumentality does not integrate with the overall design concept. Staff is recommending a condition that the entryway be redesigned, as part of the overall recommended redesign, to reduce the sense of monumentality.

Windows
☒ yes ☐ n/a ☐ no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☐ Appropriate to overall design
☐ Placement appropriate to style
☐ Recessed in wall, when appropriate
8 Privacy
☒ yes ☐ n/a ☐ no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☐ Consideration of views from “public” rooms and balconies/decks ☐ Avoid windows facing adjacent windows
The project does feature an outdoor deck at the ground floor as well as new balconies at the second floor which could potentially have a privacy impact with adjacent neighbors, but there is a considerable distance between the residences as well as a difference in building pad elevations that could mitigate this issue.

Finish Materials and Color
☒ yes ☐ n/a ☐ no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☐ Textures and colors reinforce design
☐ High-quality, especially facing the street
☐ Respect articulation and façade hierarchy
☐ Wrap corners and terminate appropriately
☐ Natural colors appropriate to hillside area
Paving Materials
☒ yes ☐ n/a ☐ no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☐ Decorative material at entries/driveways
☐ Permeable paving when possible
☐ Material and color related to design
Lighting, Equipment, Trash, and Drainage
☒ yes ☐ n/a ☐ no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☐ Light fixtures appropriately located/avoid spillover and over-lit facades ☐ Light fixture design appropriate to project
☐ Equipment screened and well located
☐ Trash storage out of public view
☐ Downspouts appropriately located
☐ Vents, utility connections integrated with design, avoid primary facades Ancillary Structures
☒ yes ☐ n/a ☐ no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☐ Design consistent with primary structure
☐ Design and materials of gates complement primary structure 9 Determination of Compatibility: Design and Detailing
The proposed design and detailing are appropriate, as modified by any proposed conditions, to the site and its surroundings for the following reasons:
• While staff is recommending conditions related to the site planning, mass and scale, and entryway, the consistency in the use of materials and colors throughout the project helps to reinforce the proposed modern style of the new house and they would be appropriate for a redesigned project. Overall, the selected style fits within the neighborhood which features a mix of architectural styles, include modern style homes.
• The 2-story volume for the new entryway is monumental in scale and staff is recommending a condition of approval that this area be redesigned. • The new doors and windows will be clear anodized, black aluminum, and the windows will be an appropriate combination of fixed and casement. • The proposed materials for the house include smooth finish plaster, natural limestone masonry veneer, and horizontal wood siding. The materials are high quality, reinforce the design concept, and the color palette is appropriate to the hillside area.
• The design of the new light fixtures is appropriate to the modern design concept, and are appropriately located on the exterior building façades and outdoor areas. • The trash storage and mechanical equipment are appropriately located along the southerly elevation and will not be visible from the street. ________________________________________________________________________ Recommendation / Draft Record of Decision
Based on the above analysis, staff recommends Return for Redesign. This determination is based on the implementation of the following recommended conditions:

Conditions

1. That the applicant re-design the project to better follow the topography and terrace with the hillside in accordance with the Hillside Design Guidelines.

2. That the applicant explore other alternatives related to the garage location that would minimize the amount of grading required for this project.

3. That the project be redesigned to reduce the overall sense of mass and provide a concept that is compatible with the neighborhood conditions.

4. The entryway should be redesigned to reduce the sense of monumentality. ________________________________________________________________________ Attachments

1. Reduced Plans

2. Photos of Existing Property

3. Location Map

4. Neighborhood Survey

5. Interdepartmental Comments

6. Geotechnical Report, dated August 2, 2021

7. Historic Resource Evaluation, dated March 24, 2022
Attachment 1
TRACT NO. M.B.
354
24858
PGS. APN # : 5648-029-015
80-82 POR. LOT 4
1- STORY HOUSE
( # 1766 )

C I E L I T O D R I V E
APN # : 5648-029-002 LOT 3
N 80°26'16" E 126.50'
N 9°39'01" E 150.14'
N 75°59'02" W 44.83'
S 60°52'38" E 84.75'
N 33°28'29" E 114.45'
=
4 1 ° 0
4 ' 5
2 " L
=
6 2 . 3
8 ' R
=
8 7 . 0
0 '
=9°43'29"
L=32.39' R=190.81'
R / W
R / W

R / W C I E L I T O D R I V E
APN # : 5648-029-014

P O O L
1- STORY HOUSE LOT 5

AVERAGE SLOPE CALCULATION
I (INTERVAL) L (LENGTH) IN (FEET) TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY MAP LEGAL DESCRIPTION SCALE: DATE: R.D.P. 1766 CIELITO DR., GLENDALE, CA 91207 Ray Lombera & Associates, Inc. FEB. 5, 2020 SHEET OF C-1 1"=10'- 0" CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: REVISIONS:

Land Surveying Planning Land Development
TEL. (323) 257-9771 FAX. (323) 257-9865 WWW.RAYLOMBERA.COM JACK DEMIRCHIAN SHEET NO. 1 1 REQUESTED BY:
135 S. JACKSON ST., STE. 202 , GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA 91205 JOB ADDRESS: R.L. BASIS OF BEARING BENCH MARK
Ray Lombera &Associates
ALR

LICENSED
LA
N
D

SURV EY OR

RAYMUNDO
A. LOMBERA

S T A T E OF
C
A
L I FOR NIA No. 7740 LEGEND NOTE : SCALE:1"=10'
0 5' 10' 20' 40' SEPT. 11, 2020

TRACT NO. 24858 M.B. 354 PGS. 80-82 APN # : 5648-029-015 POR. LOT 4
N 80°26'16" E 126.50'
N 9°39'01" E 150.14'
S 60°52'38" E 84.75' N 75°59'02" W 44.83'
N 33°28'29" E 114.45'
=9°43'29"
L=32.39'
R=190.81'
R / W C I E L I T O D R I V E M ℄ PLANTING LEGEND Symbol Botanical Name/Common Name Quantity Size TREES SHRUBS Cyperus papyrus / Paper Reed 7 15g H In pots, handwatered Hakonechloa macra / Hakone grass 30 1g M
@ 24" o.c.

Juncus patens / California gray rush 52 1g L
@ 18" o.c.

Ligustrum japonicum 'Texanum' / 48 5g M
Waxleaf privet @ 36" o.c.

Lomandra longifolia 'LM300' / 93 5g L
Breeze Dwarf Mat Rush @ 24" o.c.

Nandina domestica / Heavenly bamboo 40 1g L
@ 30" o.c. VINES Bouganvillea 'Barbara Kurst' / Red bougainvillea 10 15g L@ 60" o.c.

Ficus pumila / Creeping Fig 10 5g M
@ 60" o.c. GROUND COVER Juniperus horizontalis / Creeping juniper 15 1g L 237 sf @ 48" o.c. Decorative Gravel - 952 sf WUCOLS Remarks Cotinus coggygria / Smoke tree 4 36" Box L Magnolia x soulangeana / Saucer magnolia 6 36" Box M Pinus thunbergii / Japanese black pine 1 24" Box M Specialty grown Alt. 24" Box "=1'-0" Glendale, CA 91203 Fax: (818) 551-1613 320 W. Arden Ave. Phone: (818) 244-5130Suite 120 E-mail: [email protected] L A N D S C A P E COURTLAND STUDIO, LLC A R C H I T E E C T U R 505 E Colorado Blvd. Mezz C Pasadena CA 91101 P: 818-788-9382 F: 818-788-3217 Licensed Landscape Architect #3620 0'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 4' 8' 16' WHEN PRINTED ON 24" X 36" PAPER. ENLARGED LANDSCAPE PLAN SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 2021-07-29 Cielito DRB Submittal2021-07-29 Cielito DRB Submittal PLANTING LEGEND Symbol Botanical Name/Common Name Quantity Size TREES SHRUBS Cyperus papyrus / Paper Reed 7 15g H In pots, handwatered Hakonechloa macra / Hakone grass 30 1g M
@ 24" o.c.

Juncus patens / California gray rush 52 1g L
@ 18" o.c.

Ligustrum japonicum 'Texanum' / 48 5g M
Waxleaf privet @ 36" o.c.

Lomandra longifolia 'LM300' / 93 5g L
Breeze Dwarf Mat Rush @ 24" o.c.

Nandina domestica / Heavenly bamboo 40 1g L
@ 30" o.c. VINES Bouganvillea 'Barbara Kurst' / Red bougainvillea 10 15g L@ 60" o.c.

Ficus pumila / Creeping Fig 10 5g M
@ 60" o.c. GROUND COVER Juniperus horizontalis / Creeping juniper 15 1g L 237 sf @ 48" o.c. Decorative Gravel - 952 sf WUCOLS Remarks Cotinus coggygria / Smoke tree 4 36" Box L Magnolia x soulangeana / Saucer magnolia 6 36" Box M Pinus thunbergii / Japanese black pine 1 24" Box M Specialty grown Alt. 24" Box TREES Cotinus coggygria / Smoke tree Magnolia x soulangeana / Saucer magnolia Pinus thunbergii / Japanese black pine Ligustrum japonicum 'Texanum' / Waxleaf privet Lomandra longifolia 'LM300' / Breezxe Dwarf Mat Rush Nandina domestica / Heavenly bamboo GROUNDCOVER SHRUBS Cyperus papyrus / Paper Reed Hakonechloa macra / Hakone grass Juncus patens / California gray rush Bouganvillea 'Barbara Kurst' / Red bougainvillea Ficus pumila / Creeping fig Juniperus horizontalis / Creeping juniper VINE "=1'-0" Glendale, CA 91203 Fax: (818) 551-1613 320 W. Arden Ave. Phone: (818) 244-5130Suite 120 E-mail: [email protected] L A N D S C A P E COURTLAND STUDIO, LLC A R C H I T E E C T U R 505 E Colorado Blvd. Mezz C Pasadena CA 91101 P: 818-788-9382 F: 818-788-3217 Licensed Landscape Architect #3620 2021-07-29 Cielito DRB Submittal2021-07-29 Cielito DRB Submittal TRACT NO. 24858 M.B. 354 PGS. 80-82 APN # : 5648-029-015 POR. LOT 4
N 80°26'16" E 126.50'
N 9°39'01" E 150.14' N 33°28'29" E 114.45'
=9°43'29"
L=32.39'
R=190.81'
R / W C I E L I T O D R I V E ℄ V V V V DRIP LWUS 1" A-1 7.7 LOCATE ON SITE PER LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT & OWNER. 110V BY OTHERS AT LOCATION OF CONTROLLER, PROVIDE 3/4" CONDUIT TO ROOF FOR SOLAR SYNC IRRIGATION CONTROL WIRE A FS MV M 1.44 in/hr 40 psi 512 sf DRIP LWUS 1" A-2 5.2 1.44 in/hr 40 psi 345 sf DRIP MWUS 1" A-5 6.3 1.44 in/hr 40 psi 422 sf DRIP LWUS 1" A-4 2.0 1.44 in/hr 40 psi 138 sf DRIP MWUS 1" A-3 2.7 1.44 in/hr 40 psi 185 sf ECO ECO ECO ECO ECO SYMBOL DESCRIPTION CST COOL SEASON TURF WST WARM SEASON TURF HWUS HIGH WATER USING SHRUB/TREE MWUS MEDIUM WATER USING SHRUB/TREE LWUS LOW WATER USING SHRUB/TREE VLWUS VERY LOW WATER USING SHRUB/TREE HYDROZONE LEGEND IRRIGATION LEGEND MFG. MODEL NUMBER/ DESCRIPTION REMARKS APPROVED PVC SCH. 40 LATERAL LINE; SEE PLAN FOR SIZE SEE DETAIL J APPROVED PVC SCH. 40 MAINLINE SLEEVE; 2 AT EACH LOCATION 2X THE DIA. OF PIPE TO BE SLEEVED SEE NOTES 1, 2 SYMBOL M A FEBCO LF825-YA, 1" REDUCED PRESSURE BACKFLOW DEVICE SEE DETAIL C APPROVED METER HUNTER ICZ-101-40, 1" DRIP REMOTE CONTROL VALVE (1" ICV FILTER SENTRY GLOBE W/1" HY100 FILTER+REGULATOR) SEE DETAIL B NIBCO APPROVED BRONZE 150 PSI RATED BALL VALVE; LINE SIZE IN VALVE BOX. SEE DETAIL E RAINBIRD XFS-CV-09-12-xxx DRIPLINE W/ COPPER SHIELD EMITTERS; EMITTERS @12" O.C. & 12" ROW SPACING. SEE DETAIL I MV HUNTER ICV-101G, 1" MASTER CONTROL VALVE SEE DETAIL A APPROVED MAINLINE: 1) UNDER CONCRETE DECK (IN GARAGE) - TYPE L COPPER FOR SIZES 1-1/2" AND SMALLER SEE DETAIL J 2) INSIDE WALLS AND BETWEEN FLOORS (DECK PENETRATIONS) - TYPE K COPPER 3) BETWEEN WATER MAIN AND BACKFLOW - TYPE K COPPER 4) DOWNSTREAM FROM BACKFLOW - SCHEDULE 40 PVC BURIED IN SOIL SIZE 1 1/2" AND SMALLER, SIZE NOTED VALVE / CONTROLLER SEQUENCE ------ GPM VALVE SIZE MWUS DRIP HYDROZONE TYPE IRRIGATION TYPE xx sf AREA NETAFIM TL050-MFV AUTOMATIC FLUSH VALVE IN VALVE BOX AT LOW POINT. SEE DETAIL H RAINBIRD AR VALVE KIT; 1" AIR/ VACUUM RELIEF VALVE IN VALVE BOX AT HIGH POINT. SEE DETAIL H FS HUNTER HFS-FCT-100, 1" PVC FLOW SENSOR SEE DETAIL F 120 VAC POWER TO THE CONTROLLER LOCATION BY OTHERS. 3/4" CONDUIT TO ROOF FROM CONTROLLER HUNTER IC-600-PL, WITH ICM-600 MODULES (AS REQUIRED). 6 STN. WALL MOUNT CONTROLLER W-SOLAR SYNC SENSOR; SEE DETAIL G FOR CONTROL VALVE & WEATHER BASED SOLAR SYNC CONTROL MODULE. HUNTER ECO-ID DRIP SYSTEM INDICATOR SEE DETAIL K xx in/hr 40 psi APPLICATION RATE DESIGN OPERATING PRESSURE ECO RAINBIRD XFD-09-12-xxx ON SURFACE DRIPLINE; EMITTERS @12" O.C. & 12" ROW SPACING. SEE DETAIL F HUNTER HQ-33DLRC, 3/4" QUICK COUPLER. SEE DETAIL D A-1 Drip-L HYDROZONES A-2 Drip-L A-3 Drip-M A-4 Drip-L A-5 Drip-M Existing Spray-L GREEN BUILDING NOTES: 1. I HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE CRITERIA OF THE ORDINANCE AND APPLIED THEM FOR THE EFFICIENT USE OF WATER IN THE LANDSCAPE DESIGN PLANS. 2. PRESSURE REGULATING DEVICES ARE REQUIRED IF WATER PRESSURE IS BELOW OR EXCEEDS THE RECOMMENDED PRESSURE OF THE SPECIFIED IRRIGATION DEVICES. 3. AFTER INSTALLATION, INSTALLER TO PERFORM PRESSURE TESTING AND VERIFY WATER COVERAGE OF ENTIRE IRRIGATION SYSTEM. INSTALLER SHALL ADJUST OR REPLACE ANY DEVICES TO ENSURE EFFICIENT, COMPLETE AND PROPER WORKING OF THE SYSTEM. 4. CHECK VALVES OR ANTI-DRAIN VALVES ARE REQUIRED ON ALL SPRINKLER HEADS WHERE LOW POINT DRAINAGE COULD OCCUR. 5. A DIAGRAM OF THE IRRIGATION PLAN SHOWING HYDROZONES SHALL BE KEPT WITH THE IRRIGATION CONTROLLER FOR SUBSEQUENT MANAGEMENT PURPOSES. 6. THE CONTROLLER IS SHIPPED WITH A COMPLETE OPERATIONS MANUAL WHICH SHALL BE GIVEN TO OWNER OR KEPT ON SITE PER OWNER'S REQUEST. 7. A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION SHALL BE FILLED OUT AND CERTIFIED BY EITHER THE DESIGNER OF THE LANDSCAPE PLANS, IRRIGATION PLANS OR THE LICENSED LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR FOR THE PROJECT. 8. AN IRRIGATION AUDIT REPORT SHALL BE COMPLETED AT THE TIME OF FINAL INSPECTION. IRRIGATION WATER LINE: For all irrigation systems with non-potable water, rainwater, or graywater. Confirm with civil engineer and LA County Health Department if required. If required, all buried pressurized water lines shall be identified w/ continuous tape (CA UPC, Sec. 601.2.2.1) and all buried pressurized water lines must be inspected prior to backfill. Potable (blue or green background w/ black lettering) up to backflow "POTABLE WATER LINE" Recycled (CCR Title 22 water, purple background w/ black lettering) "CAUTION - RECLAIMED WATER, DO NOT DRINK" Non-potable (Irrigation, from potable source, yellow background w/ black lettering)* "CAUTION - NON-POTABLE WATER LINE" Industrial/Non-potable (Industrial application, yellow w/ black lettering & direction of flow) "CAUTION - INDUSTRIAL WATER LINE" Rainwater/Cistern Water (yellow or purple background w/ black lettering) "CAUTION - NON-POTABLE RAINWATER, DO NOT DRINK" Graywater (gray or purple background w/ black lettering) "CAUTION - NON-POTABLE GRAY WATER, DO NOT DRINK" Treated Graywater (gray or purple background w/ black lettering) "CAUTION - ON SITE TREATED NON-POTABLE WATER, DO NOT DRINK" "=1'-0" Glendale, CA 91203 Fax: (818) 551-1613 320 W. Arden Ave. Phone: (818) 244-5130Suite 120 E-mail: [email protected] L A N D S C A P E COURTLAND STUDIO, LLC A R C H I T E E C T U R 505 E Colorado Blvd. Mezz C Pasadena CA 91101 P: 818-788-9382 F: 818-788-3217 Licensed Landscape Architect #3620 0'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 4' 8' 16' WHEN PRINTED ON 24" X 36" PAPER. ENLARGED IRRIGATION PLAN SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 2021-07-29 Cielito DRB Submittal2021-07-29 Cielito DRB Submittal

ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES
1766 Cielito Dr., Glendale, CA, 91207
Proposed for a two-story Single-Family house over basement/3 car garage.

1. Existing structure:

The existing 3246 SQFT house was built in 1961. This building has gone through several renovations. However, the current condition is so poor that new renovation will require to demolish 60-80% of the existing structure in order to maximize the utilization of the site and to meet the owner’s needs. Therefore, by applying new zoning codes and regulations this renovation will be considered as a new construction.

Existing layout:

The existing building was originally built closer to property lines. The smaller building pad created in 1960s were suitable at that time when lesser setbacks and closer proximity between the setbacks did not take to an account the size and availability of the large property. However, per new zoning codes since the property is approximately 23,620 SQFT, allows the house to be built as +/- 5300 SQFT.

The position of existing 2 car garage and front driveway /motor court is not encouraged by new design standards. The layout of the house takes over 70% of the building pad area leaving a very small and unusable backyard/terrace. (See Figure 1)

2. The figure 2 shows that the new design exploits the same size pad with the application of current setbacks and it will allow only 2300 SQFT one story building or 4600 SQFT two story building with 3 car garage and very small backyard that is not going to utilize the potentiality that the site is really providing.

In this figure almost 1300 SQFT of the existing pad will be used for parking garage and a backup area.

3. Proposed Design and building Location:

The proposed design takes a careful consideration of the topography. Shallow slope at the South side of existing pad naturally connects to the entry driveway. It is not difficult to visualize a driveway that takes 3 car garage down to a covered basement which itself will free up about 1300 SQFT of existing building pad.

Freeing the front yard from concrete driveway it will give an opportunity to have an inviting landscape with water features at the front of the house and create much more functional floor plan.

4. The proposed building is terraced from East to West and from South to North following the topography of the site. (Figure 3, 4 & 5)

5. The proposed design includes terraces and swimming pool that orients toward South and East sides of the property. Designed terrace provides sizable private backyard space.

6. No significant grading will be required to achieve the basement under the main house. However, this design approach helps to utilize the building pad area as its best.

7. Windows and large glazed openings are directed towards the view which will provide a maximum interior daylight and privacy at the same time. North and East elevations are designed with a privacy in mind.

8. Proposed building consists of geometric fragments. Those masses, itself becomes terracing elements as well.

9. The proposed structure designed to respect the relationship to adjacent buildings and considers the use of the sunlight at the majority of the house. Also, the increased setbacks from North and West property lines provide considerable privacy to the adjacent buildings.

10.The progressive Street side setback offers a great opportunity to create a courtyard garden with native plants. (See Landscaping drawings.)

11.All mechanical equipment and trash area located a way from the street view and screened esthetically.

12.Retaining walls:

All proposed driveway retaining walls are made of decorative block buffered with continuous landscape that softens the look. Note: The Southern driveway wall also will serve as a stabilizing component for the project. (See soils and geological reports.)

13.Garage:

Which is located at the basement is not visible from street. Driveway that leads to basement garage has an average 5% slope which makes it walkable and ease pedestrian access for maintenance.

Conclusion:

Overall, the proposed design is a logical and a sensitive approach to the topography of the site. The proposed contemporary style creates horizontality and architectural forms that interplay with proposed high quality material selection. The site limitation dictates this design.

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD

RECORD OF DECISION
Meeting Date May 26, 2022 DRB Case No. PDR 2113521
Address 1766 Cielito Drive
Applicant Aram Alajajian
Project Summary:

The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing 1-story, 3,246 square-foot (SF) singlefamily dwelling with attached, 2-car garage (originally built in 1961) and to construct a new 2- story, 5,337 square-foot single-family dwelling with an attached, subterranean, three-car garage on a 23,620 square-foot, double-frontage lot located in the R1R (FAR District II) Zone.

Design Review:

Board Member Motion Second Yes No Absent Abstain
Lockareff X
Minas X
Simonian X
Tchaghayan X X
Welch X X
Totals 5 0
DRB Decision Return for Redesign
Condition:

1. Lower the overall height of the project by a minimum of three to four feet and rotate the livable space from the east to the west.

2. Re-design the project to better follow the topography and terrace with the hillside in accordance with the Hillside Design Guidelines. This may include reducing the overall size and projections of the southern cantilevered decks and relocating the master bedroom.

3. Explore other alternatives related to the garage location that would minimize the amount of grading required for this project, and reduce the size of the driveway area.

EXHIBIT #6
1766 Cielito Drive
PDR 2113521

4. Reduce the overall mass and size of the project, such as a minimum 15% reduction in size of the livable square footage, and provide a concept that is compatible with the neighborhood conditions.

5. Reduce the overall amount of lighting proposed for the exterior building façades and the outdoor areas of the site.

6. Replace the proposed roofing material with a rock roof.

DRB Staff Member Vista Ezzati, Planner
Notes:

All resubmittals require a DRB application and fee payment. According to Section GMC 30.47.075, projects submitted after 180 days following the DRB’s decision date are to be considered as new projects and must submit a new DRB application and all corresponding materials, including new mailing list and labels.

EXHIBIT #7

EXHIBIT #8
Revised 1 JULY 2021 --VE 2

INTER-DEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION

PROJECT CONDITIONS AND COMMENTS
Project Project
Address: 1766 Cielito Drive Case No.: PDR 2113521
If project comments are not received by the due date, it will be assumed that your department has no comments.

NOTE: Your comments should address, within your area of authority, concerns and potentially significant adverse physical changes to the environment regarding the project. You may also identify code requirements specific to the project, above and beyond your normal requirements. Applicant will be informed early in the development process.

You may review complete plans, maps and exhibits in our office, MSB Room 103. We appreciate your consideration and look forward to your timely comments. Please do not recommend APPROVAL or DENIAL. For any questions, please contact the Case Planner ASAP, so as not to delay the case processing.

COMMENTS:
 This office DOES NOT have any comment.
This office HAS the following comments/conditions.  (See attached Dept. Master List) Date: September 10, 2021
Print Name: Pastor Casanova, T.E. CC: Mark Anthony Bueno, P.E.

Title: Principal Traffic Engineer Dept. Public Works-Traffic Engineering Tel.: 818-937-8324
a. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
 1.
b. CASE SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS: (these are not standard code requirements)  1.
c. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS: (may or may not be adopted by the Hearing Officer)  1. The contractor shall not store trash bins, construction equipment, construction materials, or construction vehicles (concrete truck, dump truck, etc.) on City’s Right-OfWay (sidewalk, parkway, or street) without first obtaining a “Street-Use” permit from the Public Works - Engineering Division. Permit must be displayed at job site.  2. An approved Construction Traffic Control plan shall be required for use during project construction. The plan shall identify all traffic control measures, signs, and delineators to be implemented by the construction contractor through the duration of demolition and construction. The plan shall also identify contractor information, hours of construction, construction worker parking information, as well as the proposed haul route.

PC
8/19/2021 Plan Check 4528
gwpmappingprod2/Reports/PlanCheck/memopipprintable.cfm?planckno=4528&space=1 1/2

CITY OF GLENDALE

INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION
DATE: August 13, 2021
TO: Vista Ezzati, Community Development Department
FROM: Gerald Tom, GWP Water Engineering
Daniel Scorza, GWP Electric Engineering
SUBJECT: PDR 2113521
1766 Cielito Drive
Glendale Water & Power (GWP) Engineering has reviewed the plans.

Requirements are as follows:

Electric Engineering
Customer Service (818) 548-3921
Project to contact GWP Customer Service Engineering to determine electric service requirements before starting the permitting process. Final construction plans must incorporate the electric service plan information for GWP Electric Engineering to sign off the building plan application.

Project to provide electric service - size, single line diagram and electric load calculation per National Electric Code (NEC).

Additional comment(s) and/or attachment(s).

Project to perfect the electrical easement.

Fiber Optics (818) 548-3923
No conflict.

Street Lighting (818) 548-4877
No Conflict
Transmission & Distribution (818) 548-3923
No conflict.

Water Engineering
Recycled Water (818) 548-2062
No conflict.

Backflow Prevention (818) 548-2062
Backflow prevention (BFP) devices are required for the following water services:

Potable Water, Irrigation
See BFP requirements below:

Backflow prevention (BFP) devices are required for each service connection(s) listed above from the City of Glendale, per the GWP Cross-Connection Control Program and Glendale Municipal Code (Chapter 13.32). BFP device locations must be approved by both GWP and Planning Departments prior to installation. All BFP’s are required to be installed as close as practical to the point of connection for meter service/water distribution system protection on the domestic, irrigation, and fire services. Installation of the BFP’s must meet the 12” MIN – 36” MAX above finished street grade, 24” minimum front clearance, 12” minimum back and side clearance, and 8/19/2021 Plan Check 4528
gwpmappingprod2/Reports/PlanCheck/memopipprintable.cfm?planckno=4528&space=1 2/2 Daniel Scorza
Chief Assistant General Manager
Gerald Tom
Senior Civil Engineer
in a manner where it is readily accessible for inspection, testing and maintenance. The backflow installation must be inspected prior to burying or covering the pipes to confirm no cross-connection exists. GWP will also need to inspect the installed facilities prior to receiving service to ensure adequate backflow protection. The BFP device must be tested immediately upon installation and annually thereafter by a certified tester licensed by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (626) 430-5290 before service can be granted. A list of approved backflow prevention assemblies can be found at www.usc.edu/dept/fccchr/list.html.

A Reduced Pressure Principle (RP) Backflow Prevention Assembly is required to be installed as close as practical to the potable service for multi-family (4 units +), commercial and irrigation use. A RP Backflow Prevention Assembly is required to be installed as close as practical to the recycled water service for dual plumbed, commercial and irrigation use. Customer must submit plans to GWP Cross-Connection Control Program showing the location, size, manufacturer, and model number of the approved RP. Please refer to the City of Glendale’s Standard Detail Drawing 6528-A for installation requirements. Please contact GWP’s CrossConnection Control Program (818)-937-8948 for approval of BFP installation location, questions and scheduling a final inspection. (PER CA CODE OF REGULATIONS, TITLE 17 & CITY OF GLENDALE ORD NO. 5678) Additional comment(s) and/or attachment(s).

Please insert STD Detail Drawings 6528-A & 6762-A on plans and specify location/manf/model/size of backflow prevention assembly and adhere to clearance requirements. All backflow prevention assemblies are required to be installed at street grade and as close as practical to property line/service connection. SUB-LEVEL INSTALLATIONS ARE NOT ALLOWED.

Potable Water (818) 548-2062
Developer is responsible for the current cost of a water service or fire line installation in accordance with the current water fee schedule.

Fire Department approval/exemption shall be obtained when determining if existing fire flow is adequate. The applicant shall pay the cost of any necessary fire or domestic water services and recycled water service to the property, as well as offsite water facility improvements necessary to provide fire flow as required by the Glendale Fire Department.

All water facilities shall be protected in place during construction of the subject project. All water valves, water meter boxes, water vaults and fire hydrants must be relocated and set to finished grade when necessary at project's expense.

Additional comment(s) and/or attachment(s).

The property has an existing 0.75 inch water meter and service. The static water pressure at the project site is approximately 87 psi, the owner shall be responsible to install all required pressure reducing valves as needed for the domestic and irrigation services.

DS/GT:fg/sb
Revised 1 JULY 2021 --VE 2

INTER-DEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION

PROJECT CONDITIONS AND COMMENTS
Project Project
Address: 1766 Cielito Drive Case No.: PDR 2113521
If project comments are not received by the due date, it will be assumed that your department has no comments.

NOTE: Your comments should address, within your area of authority, concerns and potentially significant adverse physical changes to the environment regarding the project. You may also identify code requirements specific to the project, above and beyond your normal requirements. Applicant will be informed early in the development process.

You may review complete plans, maps and exhibits in our office, MSB Room 103. We appreciate your consideration and look forward to your timely comments. Please do not recommend APPROVAL or DENIAL. For any questions, please contact the Case Planner ASAP, so as not to delay the case processing.

COMMENTS:

 This office DOES NOT have any comment.

 This office HAS the following comments/conditions.  (See attached Dept. Master List) Date:08-27-2021
Print Name: Sarkis Hairapetian
Title: Pr. BCS. Dept. B&S. Tel.: X-3209
Conditions:
 1. That all necessary permits (i.e., building, fire, engineering, grading, etc.) shall be obtained from the Building and Safety Division and all construction shall be in compliance with the Glendale Building Code and all other applicable regulations.

A. Separate application is required for separate detached structures, demolition, retaining walls, fences and swimming pool.

B. Projects is within the Wildland Urban Interface Fire Areas and it shall comply with Chapter 7A, Vol. 1. CBC 2019.
 2. That the premises shall be made available and accessible to any authorized City personnel (Building, Fire, Police, Neighborhood Services, Planning, etc.), for inspection to ascertain that all conditions of approval of this conditional use permit are complied with.
 3. That Structure or building on hillside with slope greater than 33% shall comply with the Section 1615 special hillside design requirements.
 4. That additional or other building code requirements or specific code requirements (i.e.

CA Green Building Code, etc.) will be required upon submittal of plans for building plan check and permit.

A. Electric vehicle (EV) charging for new construction. New construction shall Comply with Glendale’s CALGreen Sections 4.106.4.1 (items #5 ) to facilitate the future installation and use of electric vehicle (EV) chargers. Electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) when installed, shall be in accordance with the California Electrical Code (CEC).
 5. A grading permit is required. Refer to Grading Requirements Checklist for additional requirements.
 6. LID for Single Family Hillside Homes: Implement measures per Glendale Municipal Code Section 13.43.030-D.
 7. The proposed improvements shall not increase the amount of storm water runoff to the properties downstream. Hydrology and hydraulic calculations shall be submitted to the City for review and approval.
 8. Any proposed drainage infrastructures shall be constructed per City standards.

Revised 1 JULY 2021 --VE 3
 9. Additional requirements may apply after the initial submittal of the plans for building plan check.

Revised 1 JULY 2021 --VE 2

INTER-DEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION

PROJECT CONDITIONS AND COMMENTS
Project Project
Address: 1766 Cielito Drive Case No.: PDR 2113521
If project comments are not received by the due date, it will be assumed that your department has no comments.

NOTE: Your comments should address, within your area of authority, concerns and potentially significant adverse physical changes to the environment regarding the project. You may also identify code requirements specific to the project, above and beyond your normal requirements. Applicant will be informed early in the development process.

You may review complete plans, maps and exhibits in our office, MSB Room 103. We appreciate your consideration and look forward to your timely comments. Please do not recommend APPROVAL or DENIAL. For any questions, please contact the Case Planner ASAP, so as not to delay the case processing.

COMMENTS: See Below.

 This office DOES NOT have any comment.

 This office HAS the following comments/conditions.  (See attached Dept. Master List) Date:_____8/25/21______________
Print Name:__________Foster McLean_____________________ Title:_____Asst Fire Marshal__Dept.____Fire__________________Tel.:___7706_______ a. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

1. Fire sprinkler system. A complete automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed in all new structures in accordance with the recommendations of NFPA 13D and the requirements of the Glendale Building and Safety Code. Plans and permit application shall be submitted to the Fire Department within 30 days of issuance of the building permit. Riser and all sprinkler piping shall be concealed; no exposed piping on exterior permitted. Quick response sprinkler heads are required throughout the structure unless contraindicated. Flat concealed sprinkler heads are required in all habitable areas.

2. Address. Approved reflectorized address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification shall be placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street, road and walkways giving access to and within the property. Address numbers shall be Arabic numerals or alphabet letters. Numbers shall be a minimum of 4 inches (102 mm) high with a minimum stroke width of 0.5 inch (12.7 mm) and shall be illuminated in an approved manner (if numbers are on the exterior). Number height and stroke width shall be increased as needed for legibility based on visibility distance.

3. Emergency escape. Basements and sleeping rooms below the fourth story above grade plane shall have at least one exterior emergency escape and rescue opening in accordance with the CBC.

4. Emergency access walkway Ensure an emergency access walkway leading from fire apparatus access road to exterior openings per the CFC. Landings shall be provided beneath bedroom rescue windows or doors to provide fire department access around the home. All architectural and landscape plans shall be designed to avoid any present or future obstructions that may hinder access and placement of fire department ladders.

5. High Fire Hazard Area. Projects located in the High Fire Hazard Area must comply with all related regulations (see the Fire Prevention Vegetation Management section of the Glendale Fire Department website www.glendalefire.org for a map and related requirements).

Revised 1 JULY 2021 --VE 3

6. Hazard abatement. All hazardous vegetation shall be abated per city requirements for a distance of 100 feet prior to construction of any new structure (and from any existing structures) and shall be maintained at all times.

7. Fuel modification/Landscaping. All landscaping/fuel modification shall comply with the Hillside Development Landscape Guidelines. Provide a minimum 100-foot Fuel Modification Zone for all proposed and existing structures. Submit plans and application to obtain a Fire Permit.

8. Building materials. All building material and material assemblies (walls, roofs, eaves, decks, windows, etc.) for projects within the High Fire Hazard Area shall comply with the CBC Chapter 7A.
b. CASE SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS: (these are not standard code requirements)  1.
c. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS: (may or may not be adopted by the Hearing Officer)  1.

Revised 1 JULY 2021 --VE 2

INTER-DEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION

PROJECT CONDITIONS AND COMMENTS
Project Project
Address: 1766 Cielito Drive Case No.: PDR 2113521
If project comments are not received by the due date, it will be assumed that your department has no comments.

NOTE: Your comments should address, within your area of authority, concerns and potentially significant adverse physical changes to the environment regarding the project. You may also identify code requirements specific to the project, above and beyond your normal requirements. Applicant will be informed early in the development process.

You may review complete plans, maps and exhibits in our office, MSB Room 103. We appreciate your consideration and look forward to your timely comments. Please do not recommend APPROVAL or DENIAL. For any questions, please contact the Case Planner ASAP, so as not to delay the case processing.

COMMENTS:

 This office DOES NOT have any comment.

 This office HAS the following comments/conditions.  (See attached Dept. Master List) Date:__8/11/2021_________________
Print Name:__Loren Klick_____________________________
Title:_Urban Forester_________Dept.__PW-MS_____Tel.:___x3416___________ a. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
 1.

Indigenous Trees
Glendale Municipal Code requires all persons who apply for development permits or entitlements to submit an accurate plan showing exact locations of each protected indigenous tree on the subject property and on adjoining properties whose trunks or branches are located twenty (20) feet outside the subject property line. Guidelines for submission of entitlements, development permits or preliminary plan reviews report can be found at www.glendaletrees.org.

If no such trees exist, the developer should indicate as such on plans.

City Street Trees
This project involves construction and landscaping adjacent to City right of way and planting easement along Cielito Drive, both in front and at the rear of the property. There are four extant city trees along the frontage, all Japanese black pine (Pinus thunbergii) in fair condition.

The proposed site plan indicates no new trees would be planted within the City right of way or planting easement, and all four existing City trees would be retained. The plans as shown indicate these trees are likely to survive, should GMC 12.40 be followed, as the construction impacts should occur well outside the trees’ dripline. No trees are shown on plans for the rear of the property.

Forestry supports the plans as they pertain to public trees, as existing City trees are to be retained, and there are no suitable planting locations at the rear of the property due to the rocky, sloped nature of the parcel.

SUGGESTED CONDITIONS:

1. Indicate on plans that the four trees are protected City street trees per GMC 12.40, the species of the trees, and their diameter size in inches as measured at 4.5’ above grade.

Revised 1 JULY 2021 --VE 3

2. As per GMC 12.40.030, a Street Tree Permit will be required and CITY TREE PROTECTION MEASURES (attached) must be followed.

3. Developer must contact Forestry and see that trees are in good condition at the time of project completion. Trees that are declining due to construction impact or a violation of tree protection measures will be required removals with on-site 1:1 replacement of a species to be determined by Forestry, with commensurate irrigation system adjustments for the long-term establishment and care of any replacement trees.

If I may be of further assistance, please contact me at ext. 3416. b. CASE SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS: (these are not standard code requirements)  1.
c. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS: (may or may not be adopted by the Hearing Officer)  1.

CITY TREE PROTECTION MEASURES
1766 Cielito Drive

1. All project plans; including grading, site improvements, utility locations, and landscaping shall indicate the exact trunk location of the City tree(s) and its protected zone. Construction is to be completed without negative direct impact(s) on City tree(s) of the subject site. Prior to any site disturbance, including grubbing, demolition and mobilization, obtain an Street Tree Permit from the Public Works Building and Safety Division for any site that contains a tree within the public right-of-way. Allow two (2) weeks from date of application to issuance.

2. All site development plans, including grading, planting and irrigation and their installation are subject to approval by the Public Works Department.

3. The approved Street Tree Permit shall be maintained on the project site at all times and shall be presented upon request to any City official.

4. In general, take such steps as necessary to protect roots, bark, trunk, branches and leaves from injury during construction.

5. Prior to any site disturbance, including demolition or mobilization, install a six-foot (6’) tall temporary fence, five feet (5’) outside of the drip-line of each protected tree, or to the nearest hardscape boundary.

6. Inspection of the temporary fencing installation is required prior to any site disturbance, including grubbing, demolition and mobilization. Photos can meet this requirement. Contact Forestry at (818-548-3950).

7. The temporary fencing installation shall be maintained until authorization is received for relocation or removal from the Director of Public Works or his designee.

8. Monitor trees for drought stress throughout construction and irrigate as needed to maintain health.

9. Gently spray tree canopy with water to remove construction dust build-up as needed throughout construction.

10. No tools, equipment, materials, vehicles, debris, paint, concrete, mortar, cement, stucco, paint, solvent, excess soil or other foreign materials shall be placed within the protected zone of any protected tree at any time, except as authorized by the Director of Public works.

11. No changes in grade shall be made within the tree protection zone of any protected tree at any time, except as authorized by the Director of Public Works or his designee.

12. All utility improvements with installation of hook-up boxes, including but not limited to water, sewer, electrical, cable and phone lines are to be located outside the tree protected zone (TPZ). Utility lines shall be routed outside of the protected zone of trees, unless otherwise approved by the Director of Public Works.

13. Any approved excavation within the protected zone of any protected tree shall be performed with hand tools only. Light construction equipment may be used with the written approval of the Director of Public Works or his designee.

14. Forty-eight (48) hours notice shall be provided to Forestry at (818-548-3950) prior to the start of any authorized work within the protected zone of any protected tree.

15. Contact the Public Works Permit Services Center upon completion of work for Final Inspection and card sign-off.

16. Failure to comply with these mitigation measures may result in work stoppage and will result in fee of $1,000.00 per tree, per violation. Work shall resume only when the City of Glendale deems reparations satisfactory.

17. Questions should be directed to the Urban Forester at 818-548-3950. 1766 Cielito Drive
PDR 2113521-B

PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED FOR CURRENT

DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION
EXHIBIT #9
1 Ezzati, Vista
From: Zemaitaitis, Vilia
Sent: Monday, January 9, 2023 10:13 AM
To: Art Simonian; Nina Tchaghayan DRB; Danielle DRB; Christopher Welch; Joseph Kaskanian Cc: Ezzati, Vista; Kiesel, Roger
Subject: Fwd: 1766 Cielito Drive
For your consideration.

Begin forwarded message:

From: Ana Lisa Reinoso <[email protected]>
Date: January 9, 2023 at 10:10:23 AM PST
To: Design Review Board <[email protected]> Subject: 1766 Cielito Drive
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Glendale Design Review Executives,
Please stop the demolition of this mid century treasure.

Thank you!

2 BRE #00346376
Chris and I love referrals!
Awkward phrasing and misspelling compliments of my iPad dictation and autocorrect.

2 on the market as our elderly population is passing on. Let’s set an example for the future and recognize that the Bistagne house must be preserved.

Thank you for listening,
Gerri
Gerri Cragnotti
G&C Properties
Located in Historic Kenneth Village
818‐244‐5400 Ofc
818‐383‐1499 cell/text
DRE #00346376
Awkward phrasing and misspelling compliments of my iPad dictation and autocorrect. 1 Ezzati, Vista
From: Sargsyan, Sofi
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2023 9:20 AM
To: Ezzati, Vista
Cc: ; Art Simonian DRB; Christopher Welch DRB; Nina Tchaghayan ( ; Danielle Lockareff
Subject: Fw: PLEASE SAVE and designate 1766 Cielito Drive as Historic For your consideration for DRB meeting 1/12.

Sofi Sargsyan | Administrative Specialist I
City of Glendale | Community Development, Planning
633 East Broadway, Room 103 | Glendale, CA | 818-937-8176 [email protected]| www.glendaleca.gov | Follow us! ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Jenelle Serkin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 9, 2023 2:34 PM
To: Design Review Board <[email protected]> Subject: PLEASE SAVE and designate 1766 Cielito Drive as Historic CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Hello,
It has come to my attention that yet another important historic home is endangered of being demolished. I urge you to please designate 1766 Cielito Drive as historic and save this piece of history. Please require a full environmental review.

Any property that Kaplan Chen Kaplan is involved with should always be a red flag to your office. Glendale has already lost so many historically significant buildings, please don’t allow 1766 Cielito Drive join that list.

Sincerely,
Jenelle Serkin
1 Ezzati, Vista
From: Sargsyan, Sofi
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2023 9:20 AM
To: Ezzati, Vista
Cc: ; Art Simonian DRB; Christopher Welch DRB; Nina Tchaghayan ; Danielle Lockareff
Subject: Fw: Bistange Property
For your consideration for DRB meeting 1/12.

Sofi Sargsyan | Administrative Specialist I
City of Glendale | Community Development, Planning
633 East Broadway, Room 103 | Glendale, CA | 818-937-8176 [email protected]| www.glendaleca.gov | Follow us! From: Banuelos, Ryan <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2023 9:05 AM
To: Sargsyan, Sofi <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Bistange Property

Ryan J. Bañuelos | Urban Designer | City of Glendale | Community Development Department 633 E. Broadway Room 103 | Glendale, CA 91206 | (818) 937‐8301 | [email protected] ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Jennifer Berry <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 9, 2023 3:29 PM
To: Design Review Board <[email protected]> Subject: Bistange Property
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Hello Design Review board,
As an over 50 year residence of Glendale, I’m asking you to find the Bistange property as historic because it is! It is mid century, and those properties need to be preserved! Moreover, The Bistange body shop offered support to many young GLENDALE high school students in the197Os, 1980s and 90s.

Many went on, to own their own very successful body shop after working under Bistange’s leadership! I’m also asking you to require your staff to prepare the all review documents to study in regards to this property.

Glendale has beautifully historic homes and other landmarks. This differentiates us from other communities that level everything and rebuild it. I’m hoping that you will understand this and do your due diligence. 2 Thank you.

Sincerely, Jennifer Berry Jacobson.

Sent from iPhone please excuse typos!

2 struture DOES NOT COMPLY with the
municipal code.

These are not minor variances. And there are more noncompliance items on every page of the architectural set.

This matter is not a simple individual case and its
ramifications will affect EVERY SINGLE HILLSIDE
PROPERTY in Glendale and in the state of California
if not dealt with properly. Please highlight this concern to the DRB in your communications. The DRB should
do its best to avoid establishing precedents that will
cause the whole hillside properties to explode in
litigation due to people starting to decide unilaterally to add stories and affecting their neighbors detrimentally.

Please don't look at this as an individual case.

Thanks
David Sagherian, P.E.
818 606 1770

FRANCESCA G. SMITH
Experience
Principal Architectural Historian California Department of Transportation 2011-present As professionally qualified staff to state agency, responsible for built environment review of federal and local assistance projects in District 7 (Los Angeles and Ventura counties). Act on behalf of Federal Highways Administration under First Amended Programmatic Agreement Among The Federal Highway Administration, The Advisory Council On Historic Preservation, The California State Historic Preservation Officer, And The California Department Of Transportation Regarding Compliance With Section 106 Of The National Historic Preservation Act, As It Pertains To The Administration Of The Federal-Aid Highway Program In California. Prepare determinations of National Register eligibility, analyze effects, identify mitigation and prepare agreement documents for federal projects.

Review and approve consultants’ work for conformance with above-referenced Programmatic Agreement.

Reviewed all alterations to and proposed maintenance for 100-plus historic properties owned by Caltrans in the 710 corridor.

Senior Architectural Historian various private consulting firms 1990-1997 and 2000-2011 Prepared built environment environmental documentation including complex Environmental Impact Statements (EISes), Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) and technical documents for various projects to comply with federal, state and local requirements for projects undertaken by public agencies and private developers. Successful Section 106, National Environmental Policy Act and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review required management of effective cooperation among junior staff and outside consultants, including transit and transportation, energy, and public works projects. Numerous projects required analysis for compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Treatment (Standards) and or with local design guidelines. Prepared evaluations of historic significance, analyze effects of complex projects for Section 106 clearance, impacts for CEQA conformance, and recommended mitigation measures to avoid or reduce effects (federal) or impacts (state projects).

Prepared draft Memoranda of Agreement and Programmatic Agreements. For Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), prepared evaluations for significance and analyzed project-related effects. Reviewed other consultants’ and disciplines’ work for compliance with requirements in CEQA. Acted as lead on numerous successful certified (tax credit) rehabilitations with developers, architects and engineers and contractors, including limited construction management, completing more than 400 units. Worked closely with building departments and fire-life safety reviewers, using the California Historical Building Code, to meet project goals and achieve code consistency.

Performed design review, prepared and presented staff reports for review by cities of Beverly Hills, Carmel, Monterey, Orange and Vallejo.

Mills Act Manager, Specialized Historic Preservation Planner Cities of Los Angeles and Pasadena 1997- 2000 Coordinated and oversaw review of new construction and/or historic preservation projects. Prepared and presented complex analyses for staff and City Manager reports, including graphics, as staff to Design and Cultural Heritage commissions as well as City Council. Managed public counters with other planners, assisting the public and performing plan check including design review for conformance with local design guidelines and Standards.

Performed sign review for central district and Old Pasadena and oversaw City of Gardens (multi-family residential) design review, from plan check through issuance of Certificates of Occupancy. Prepared Request for Proposals and managed contract administration of consultant for successful Certified Local Government Grant project. Managed successful, growing Mills Act program including coordination with County Assessor and property owners.

Education
M.S. Real Estate Development (historic preservation focus), Columbia University, New York 1986 Master’s Thesis- “Redevelopment of the Grand Central Market, Los Angeles” B.A. Political Science (architectural history emphasis), The College of Charleston, South Carolina 1981 Supplemental Experience
California Preservation Foundation, Los Angeles Conservancy, National Trust for Historic Preservation City of Glendale, Design Review Board member, 2020-2021 The Glendale Historical Society, Society of Architectural Historians-Southern California Chapter, Pasadena Heritage and Los Angeles City Historical Society- former member of Boards of Directors Lecturer and teaching assistant, UCLA Extension courses: history, “Undiscovered Los Angeles: Water & Steel” (1997 and 2001); “Historic Preservation- State of the Art” (1997) and Construction Management (1995 and 1996).

USC: historic preservation documentation (2011).

Wells Fargo Realty Advisors, Analyst Officer, 1988-1990.

Private real estate development, Project Engineer or Project Manager, 1986-1988. Responsible for development of more than 1.5 million square feet of medical-related, office and retail buildings.

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles, Environmental Planner, summers 1985 and 1986.

Olympic Organizing Committee for the 1984 Games, Graphic Designer, 1983-1984.

Charles Kober Associates, Drafting Technician, 1978, same position at Inslee Senefield & Puchlick, 1982.

Reader: Huntington Library and Library of Congress.

FRANCESCA G. SMITH
2 Partial List of Publications and Technical Reports All projects are in Los Angeles, California, unless otherwise noted.

Environmental Impact Statements (EISs)
Interstate 110 Terminus. , Caltrans, METRO, 2019. Now 110 Adams Terminus Improvement Project.

Crenshaw LAX Transit Project. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (METRO) and A. Hayes & Associates, LLC (TAHA), 2008, 2010. Prepared Preliminary Environmental Assessment and built environment identification. Reviewed preliminary analyses of effects.

Regional Connector. METRO and CDM, 2010. Prepared alternatives analysis and draft built environment cultural resources sections for complex downtown transit project with multiple alternatives.

State Route 180 (Fresno, CA). Caltrans District 6, 2008. Peer-reviewed historic resources and community impact sections.

Mid-Jordan Transit Corridor (Salt Lake County, UT). Utah Transit Authority, 2006. Peer-reviewed parklands and open space, Section 4 (f), and historic resources sections, as well as Determination of Eligibility and Finding of Effects.

Conrail Railroad Acquisition by Norfolk Southern Railroad and CSX. Surface Transportation Board (STB), 1997-98. Prepared Section 106 compliance for nationwide railroad merger in the states of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Ohio, Tennessee and West Virginia.

DART North Central Corridor LRT Extension, with Finding of Effect and Agreement-Based Determination of No Adverse Effect (Dallas, Texas).

Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART), Federal Transit Administration, (FTA), 1997.

Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs)
EIR/Environmental Assessment (EA) I-110 Flyover, Caltrans, METRO, 2019. Now 110 Adams Terminus Improvement Project.

Imperial Hardware (Riverside, CA). City of Riverside, 2011.

Riverside Central Library (Riverside, CA). City of Riverside, 2011.

Stone Boat Yard (Alameda, CA). City of Alameda, 2011.

South of Market (SoMa) Specific Plan (San Francisco, CA) City and County of San Francisco, 2011.

First & Mission (San Francisco, CA) City and County of San Francisco, 2011.

East Los Angeles College Satellite Campus Project (South Gate, CA). Los Angeles Community College District and TAHA, 2009. Prepared built environment identification and analyses of effects. Add-on work included participation in Master Plan team.

Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) New School Construction Program, Program EIR Exemptions. LAUSD, 2005.

Central Los Angeles Area New Learning Center #1 (Ambassador Hotel site). LAUSD, June 2003.

Creekside Center Project (Arroyo Grande, CA, draft and final). City of Arroyo Grande, 2003. Additional impacts analysis, August 2004. 9th & Flower, South Park Mixed-Use Development (draft, final and two addenda). CIM Group and CRA, 2002, 2004 and 2005.

Palladium Project (San José, CA). Reviewer, San José Redevelopment Agency (SJRDA) 2002.

Los Angeles Central Area High School #9. LAUSD 2001.

Los Angeles Central Area High School #2. (draft, supplemental and final). LAUSD 2002.

Maranatha High School (Sierra Madre). (Reviewer) City of Sierra Madre, Dorn-Platz Realty. 2001.

University of California at Irvine Medical Center, Orange (draft). Bonterra Consulting, 2001.

Long Beach Naval Shipyard (Roosevelt Island). City and Port of Long Beach, 1998.

Adelante Eastside Redevelopment Project (draft). CRA, 1997.

Barham Cahuenga Improvement Project, In Los Angeles County (including Historic Resource Evaluation Report). City and County of Los Angeles, City of Burbank, Caltrans District 7, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 1997.

The Grand (Lindon) Hotel Project. City of Beverly Hills, 1996.

Broadway State Office Building. California State Department of General Services, 1996. Received Los Angeles Conservancy Preservation Award in 2000.

South Central Revitalization Project. CRA, 1995.

East Central Interceptor Sewer. City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Engineering, 1995.

California Museum of Science & Industry. State of California Department of General Services. 1993.

Playa Vista. Maguire Thomas Partners, City of Los Angeles, 1991. Prepared built environment cultural resources technical report focused on Hughes Aircraft Factory.

Environmental Impact Statements/Environmental Impact Reports (EIS/EIRs) State Route 710 North EIR/EIS. METRO and Caltrans, 2017.

Alameda Corridor Transportation Project. Alameda Corridor Authority, 2006. Prepared Section 106 compliance, evaluating bridges for historic significance as part of a regionally significant railroad project.

Mid-City Red Line Extension. METRO, FTA. 1995.

Mission Valley East Transit Improvements Project (Mission Valley, CA). Metropolitan (San Diego) Transit Development Board, FTA, 1995.

FRANCESCA G. SMITH
3 Environmental Assessments (EAs)
Alameda Corridor East-San Gabriel Trench. Alameda Corridor East Construction Authority (ACE), 2010. Prepared Section 106 compliance for railroad project. Prepared Finding of Effect and approved Memorandum of Agreement.

Sbx E Street Corridor (San Bernardino, CA). Omnitrans and Parsons, 2009. Prepared cultural resources technical reports and EA section for bus rapid transit project,
Interstate-15 Improvements, Sloan Road to Tropicana Boulevard (Las Vegas and Clark County, Nevada). Nevada Department of Transportation, 2009.

Evaluation of seven parcels (San José, CA). San José Redevelopment Agency (SJRDA), 2002.

Hudson Apartments- 290 North Hudson Avenue (Pasadena, CA). City of Pasadena. 2000. Prepared complete initial environmental study for 140-unit apartment project.

Meridian Court- 591 South Marengo Avenue (Pasadena, CA). City of Pasadena. 1999. Prepared cultural resources section for initial environmental study of 10-unit condominium project, immediately adjacent to Wallace Neff’s former office (b. 1926) including demolition of two residences constructed in 1910s.

Palm Court- 214 South Madison Avenue (Pasadena, CA). City of Pasadena. 1999. Prepared complete initial environmental study for 19- unit condominium project, including relocation of Emma Black House, a Greene & Greene-designed residence built in 1908.

Union Pacific/Southern Pacific Railroads Merger. Section 106 compliance for nationwide railroad merger in states of Texas and Colorado, STB, 1997.

McKinney Avenue Trolley Extension (Dallas, TX). City of Dallas, May 1997.

DART Northeast Corridor (Dallas, TX). DART, FTA, 1996.

Del Amo Boulevard Overcrossing, In Los Angeles County. City of Carson, Caltrans District 7, FHWA, 1996.

In-Service Engineering Staging Facility and Engineering Lab at Hangar 19, San Diego. US Air Force, 1994.

North Wardlow Station (Long Beach, CA). METRO, FTA, 1993. Prepared initial environmental study for relocation of light rail station to vacant parcel adjacent to residential area.

State Route-68 (Monterey, CA). Prepared complete initial environmental study for conversion of two-lane highway to freeway. FHWA, 1992.

Certified Rehabilitations (Investment Tax Credits)
Southern California Gas Company Complex. Parts 1, 2 and 3. CIM Group, 2006. Recipient of 2004 Los Angeles Downtown News Downtowners of Distinction “Community Financial District” award. 830 South Flower Street building. Parts 1 and 2. CIM Group, 2006.

Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel. Early Review and Part 1. Goodwin Gaw, 2005. Subject of E! television series entitled “Hotspot.” Far East Café Building. Parts 1, 2, 3 and tenant improvements. Little Tokyo Service Center, Community Development Corporation, current project. Recipient of 2004 Los Angeles Conservancy Preservation Award.

Twohy Building (San José). Parts 1, 2, 3 and tenant improvements. CIM Group, 2003. Recipient of 2004 California Preservation Foundation, Preservation Design Award, Rehabilitation & Reuse category.

Brockman Building. Part 1. Sage Hospitality, 2001.

Homer Laughlin Building. Parts 1 and 2. Ira Yellin. 1991.

Culver Hotel (Culver City, CA). Parts 1 and 2. Louis Catlet. 1991.

Engine Co. No. 28. Parts 1, 2 and 3. Linda Griego. 1986.

Reviews for conformance with Standards
Buchanan Garage (San Francisco, CA). 2011.

Confidential project (Gaviota Coast, CA). 2011.

Far Bar (Far East Café). 20111-2017. Reviewed proposed alterations to National Historic Landmark.

Hugo Reid Adobe (Los Angeles County Arboretum). County of Los Angeles, 2010.

Holiday Bowl Coffee Shop and Majestic Pontiac sign. Axiom Properties, City of Los Angeles Cultural Heritage Commission and Crenshaw Corridor Specific Plan, 2006.

Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel and Spare Room. Goodwin Gaw, CRA and City of Los Angeles Planning Department, 2005, 2009, 2011.

National Historic Landmark and National Register of Historic Places Nominations Mission San Gabriel (San Gabriel, CA). current project.

Piedras Blancas Light Station (San Simeon, CA). 2009.

Killingsworth, Brady & Smith Building (Long Beach, CA). KSM Architecture, listed 2009.

General Sedgwick Tower (Bronx, NY), pro bono, determined eligible for National Register, 2007.

FRANCESCA G. SMITH
4 Southern California Gas Company Complex. CIM/Flower LLC, listed 2004.

Twohy Building (San José, CA). CIM/Twohy LLC, listed 2003.

Sam and Alfreda Maloof Complex (Rancho Cucamonga, CA). listed 2010.

Breed Street Schul/Congregation Talmud Torah (Boyle Heights). listed 2001.

Local Landmark and California Register of Historical Resources Applications Ruth Nelson Taylor Residence (Laguna Beach, CA) current project nomination for California Register.

Glendale Civic Auditorium (Glendale, CA) listed in California Register 2018.

Brockmont Park Historic District (Glendale, CA) designated local historic district, 2014.

Fire Station #21. 1187 East 52nd Street, designated City of Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monument (H-CM) #787, 2004.

Southern California Gas Company Complex. CIM Group, designated City of Los Angeles H-CM #789, 2004.

Gans Brothers Building, 814 South Spring Street, Flatiron Development Group, LLC, designated H-CM #737, 2002. 141-147 Bay Street- Bay Craftsman Cluster (Santa Monica). Morris Abram and Bill Bridges, designated local historic district, 2000.

Historic Property Survey Reports and Historic Resource Evaluation Reports Interstate 110 Terminus Project, At Grade Alternative. METRO and Caltrans District 7, current project.

Interstate 105 Express Lanes Project (Los Angeles County). METRO and Caltrans District 7, 2019.

Interstate 5 Freight Corridor (Los Angeles County). Caltrans District 7, 2018.

Interstate 405 Western/Crenshaw (Torrance, CA). Caltrans District 7, 2016.

San Gabriel Walnut Intersection (San Gabriel, CA). Caltrans District 7, 2014.

Interstate 5 Silverbow to Orr & Day Road (Norwalk, CA). Caltrans District 7, 2012.

Hollywood Crossroads Transit Corridor. CRA, CDM, 2010.

Twin Cities Road/Route 99 Interchange Modification Project (Galt, CA). Caltrans District 3, 2010.

Sunset Avenue Grade Separation Project (Banning, CA). Caltrans District 8, 2010.

North Fort Bragg Coastal Trail (Fort Bragg, CA). Caltrans District 5, 2010.

Hollister Avenue Bridge Seismic Retrofit Project (Goleta, CA). Evaluated 1880s-era railroad bridge for historic significance. Caltrans District 5. 2010.

Nogales Street Grade Separation and Gale Avenue/Walnut Drive Widening Project (City of Industry, CA). ACE, Caltrans District 7, 2009. 6th Street Viaduct Improvements Project. Caltrans District 7, 2007.

Pacific Electric Inland Empire Bike Trail Project for the City of Fontana. Also prepared Finding of Effect. Caltrans District 8, 2009.

US-101 Del Norte Overcrossing, In Ventura County. City of Oxnard, Caltrans District 7, 2007.

US-101/Wendy Drive Interchange Improvement Project (Newberry Park, CA). Caltrans District 7, 2007.

State Route-57 Widening, Cities of Placentia, Fullerton and Brea, In Orange County. Bonterra Consulting, Caltrans District 12, 2006.

State Route-118 Widening Between Spring Road and Moorpark Avenue, In Ventura County. City of Moorpark, Caltrans District 7, 2006.

Santiago Creek Bicycle Trail Bridge. Responsible for preparation of Archaeological Survey Report as well. City of Orange, Caltrans District 12, 2005.

Santiago Creek Bicycle Trail. City of Orange, Caltrans District 12, Bonterra Consulting, 2002.

Sepulveda Boulevard Overcrossing at Alameda Street, In Los Angeles County. City of Carson, Caltrans District 7, FHWA, 1996.

Orange Show Road Extension, San Bernardino, California. City of San Bernardino, Caltrans District 8, FHWA, 1995.

Interstate-10 Between Baldwin Avenue and Interstate-605, In Los Angeles County (Segment 1). NegDec/FONSI. Caltrans District 7, FHWA, 1993.

Interstate-10 Between Puente and Citrus Avenues, In Los Angeles County (Segment 2). Caltrans District 7, FHWA, 1995.

Interstate-10 Between Citrus Avenue and Routes 57, 71 and 210, In Los Angeles County (Segment 3). Caltrans District 7, FHWA, 1994.

Interstate-10 Between State Route 57/Interstate-210 and The Los Angeles/San Bernardino County Lines and Interstate-15, In Los Angeles County (Segment 4A). NegDec/FONSI. Caltrans District 7, FHWA, 1993.

Interstate-10 Between The Los Angeles/San Bernardino County Lines and Interstate-15, In San Bernardino County (Segment 4B). San Bernardino County Associated Governments, Caltrans District 8, FHWA, 1993.

Proposed Widening of Interstate-Route 15 and Reconstruction of The 15/40 Interchange, From Lenwood Road to East Main Street, Barstow, In San Bernardino County. NegDec/FONSI. Caltrans District 8, Nevada Department of Transportation, FHWA, 1994.

Interstate-10/Monterey Avenue Overcrossing. City of Palm Desert, Caltrans District 11, FHWA, 1992.

State Route-120 Oakdale Bypass Interchange Improvement Project, In Stanislaus County. Caltrans District 10, FHWA, 1993.

Historic Assessments
Confidential projects (5 buildings). major university, 2011.

FRANCESCA G. SMITH
5 Confidential project. Housing Corporation for the City of Los Angeles, 2011.

Piedras Blancas Light Station (San Simeon, CA). Piedras Blancas Light Station Board of Directors, 2010.

Cultural Resources Technical Report For Mammoth Crossing Project (Mono County, CA). City of Mammoth, 2009.

Addendum To The Cultural Resources Assessment For The Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension Project (Corona, CA). 2009.

Archaeological Survey, Evaluation And Eligibility Investigation For Three Bedrock Milling Feature Sites (unincorporated San Diego County, CA). Stonemark Estates, 2010.

Preliminary Cultural Resources Survey For Formation of the Wiseburn Unified School District Project (El Segundo, Hawthorne and unincorporated Los Angeles County, CA). TAHA, 2008.

Proposed South Region Elementary School No. 9 Project (South Gate, CA). Cultural Resources Initial Technical Report and Phase I Site Investigation, Intensive Survey. LAUSD 2008.

Proposed South Region Middle School No. 3 Project (Walnut Park, CA). Cultural Resources Initial Technical Report and Phase I Site Investigation, Intensive Survey, LAUSD 2008.

Class III Cultural Resources Inventory For Border Fuel Break Project (San Diego County, CA). Bureau of Land Management, 2008.

Foster’s Old Fashion Freeze Property- 590 Marsh Street (San Luis Obispo, CA). City of San Luis Obispo, 2008.

Thomas Roads Improvements Projects (Bakersfield, CA). Built Environment Historic Context Statement, 2008. 10757 - 10763½ Wilkins Avenue. Weston Benshoof Rochefort Rubalcava & MacCuish, LLP, 2003.

Strick Residence- 1911 La Mesa Drive (Santa Monica, CA). Evaluation of single-family residence attributed to Oscar Neimeyer for historic significance. Property is only known example in the United States credited to the noted Brazilian architect. Harding, Larmore, Kozal & Kutcher, 2002.

Fire Station #21 – Southeast Los Angeles (1162-1192 East 51st Street and 1165-1187 East 52nd Street) City of Los Angeles Bureau of Engineering, 2002. Later designated a City Historic-Cultural Monument (2004).

Fire Station #65 (9912, 9916 and 9920 Holmes Avenue, 1807, 1811 and 1825 East Century Boulevard and 9909 and 9917 Bandera Street, Watts) City of Los Angeles Bureau of Engineering, 2002. 666 South Bonnie Brae Street. CRA, 2002.

Star Court-1951-1959 Beachwood Drive (Hollywood, CA). City of Los Angeles, CFF Properties, 2002.

Broad Street Mixed-Use Project (San Luis Obispo, CA). City of San Luis Obispo, Oasis Landscape Architecture & Planning (Oasis), 2002.

Walnut-Toro Properties (San Luis Obispo, CA). City of San Luis Obispo, Oasis, 2002.

Phase I: El Encanto Hotel- 1900 Lassuen Road (Santa Barbara, CA). City of Santa Barbara, with Alexandra Cole, TynanGroup, 2002.

Hillview Apartments- 6807 Hollywood Boulevard (Hollywood). CRA, Millennium Holdings, 2001.

Automobile Club of Southern California, Hollywood Branch Office/Liberty Records- 6902 Sunset Boulevard (Hollywood). CRA, Reliable Properties, 2001.

Gas Station Building- 11757 East Hadley Street (Whittier, CA). City of Whittier, Whittier Redevelopment Agency, Melvyn Green & Associates, Inc., 2001.

Esperion Duarte/Dream Theater Building- 693-699 Lighthouse Avenue; Mission Building- 685-691 Lighthouse Avenue; and Garnero’s Hector de Smet Bakery- 665 Lighthouse Avenue (Monterey, CA). The Cannery Row Company, City of Monterey, 2001.

Mutual Don Lee Broadcasting/AIDS Project LA- 1313 North Vine Street (Hollywood). CRA, Accord Interests, 2000. 1351-53, 1357-59 South Alvarado Street and 1336-38 South Hoover Street. CRA, 2000.

Bowden Ranch Estates Project (San Luis Obispo, CA). City of San Luis Obispo, Oasis, Bowden Ranch Estates, 2000. 811 El Capitan Way- The Log Cabin (San Luis Obispo, CA). City of San Luis Obispo, Oasis, Covey III, 2000 1230 Montana Avenue- Moeller Murphy Moeller Mortuary (Santa Monica). City of Santa Monica, Damavandi Capital LLC, 2000. 4641 Morro Drive (Woodland Hills, CA). City of Los Angeles, Accord Interests LLC, 2000. 914 Royal Street and 1210 West 30th Street. University of Southern California, 2000. 2600 Wilshire Boulevard- Home Savings of America (Santa Monica, CA). City of Santa Monica, Payless Cellular, Inc., 2000.

Zions German Methodist Episcopal Church (Carson, CA). City of Carson, 1998.

Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fé Railroad Yard and Shops (San Bernardino, CA). City of San Bernardino, The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company, 1993-94.

Major Investment Studies
Los Angeles-Bakersfield High Speed Ground Transportation System. Caltrans, FTA, 1993.

The Corridor. Orange County Transportation Authority, 1996.

Environmental Constraints Analyses
Eastern Bypass (Temecula, CA). Western Riverside Council of Governments, 2007.

Ventura Freeway Aerial Alignment Project Study Report. METRO, 1993.

FRANCESCA G. SMITH
6 Santa Monica Boulevard Transit Parkway. METRO, 1993.

Bridge Rehabilitations, Relocations, Evaluation of Adjacent New Construction Fletcher Drive Bridge (seismic retrofit). City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Engineering, Department of Public Works, HDR Engineering, Inc., 2002.

North Broadway/Buena Vista Viaduct Rehabilitation/Reconstruction (seismic retrofit). City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Engineering, Department of Public Works, 1999.

Olympic Boulevard Bridge Rehabilitation/Reconstruction. City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Engineering, Department of Public Works, 1999.

Memorandum: La Loma Bridge, Evaluation of Historic Significance. City of Pasadena, (listed in National Register 7/14/04) 1998.

Duck Creek Bridge Relocation (Dallas, Texas). DART, US Army Corps of Engineers, FTA, 1997.

White Rock Creek Bridge Rehabilitation and Adjacent New LRT Bridge (Dallas, Texas). DART, FTA, 1997.

Photographic Documentation
State New Elementary School #1 (Huntington Park, CA). LAUSD 2002.

Environmental Compliance For Los Angeles County Rail System. (Red Line Eastern Extension) METRO, 1997.

Metropolitan Water District (MWD) Headquarters, Union Station. MWD, 1997.

Historic American Buildings Survey/Historic American Engineering Record (HABS/HAER) Arroyo Seco Parkway (Pasadena Freeway). HAER No. CA-265. Caltrans District 7, 1999. Assisted in research effort.

State Exposition Building (Ahmanson Building, California Museum of Science and Industry). HABS No. CA-2608. State of California, National Park Service, 1996.

Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, Master and Preservation Plans Brockton Arcade Design Guidelines (Riverside, CA). City of Riverside, current project.

East Los Angeles College Satellite Campus Project (City of South Gate). Berliner Architects, current project.

City of Monterey Design Guidelines, Cannery Row Conservation District. The Cannery Row Company, Monterey Bay Aquarium and City of Monterey, 2004.

Villa Riviera (Long Beach, CA). Villa Riviera Board of Directors, 2001.

Roosevelt Building. John Ash Group, 1991.

Miscellaneous
Co-Executive Producer
Commodore Schuyler Heim Bridge: Spanning Centuries of Progress. high definition, half-hour documentary film, 2015.

Peer Review
Historic Preservation Ordinance (Carmel-By the Sea Municipal Code, Chapter 17.41). City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, 2002.

General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan, Land Use & Community Character Element. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, adopted 2003.

Mills Act (Historical Property Contract) Application
Robert R. Blacker House, Pasadena (Greene & Greene, 1907). Harvey Knell, City of Pasadena, 2003.

Author or Researcher
"Preserving the Birth Place of Hip Hop, 1520 Sedgwick Tower." David Gest, Panorama (University of Pennsylvania School of Design), Spring 2007, Vol. XVI.
“Mail Chutes and Downtown Los Angeles Buildings” Los Angeles City Historical Society Newsletter, October 2003, Volume XXX, Issue 4.

Sacramento’s Memorial Auditorium: Seven Decades of Memories. Bonnie Snyder and Paula Boghosian. (Sacramento: Sacramento Heritage Press) 1997.

Southern California’s Car Culture Landmarks: A Drive Thru History of the Southland, Automobile Club of Southern California, 2000.

DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # UPDATE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code 5S3
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date

P1. Other Identifier: 1766 Cielito Drive
*P2. Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted
*a. County Los Angeles
*b. USGS 7.5’ Quad Date:
*c. Address 1766 Cielito Drive City Glendale Zip 91207
*d. UTM: Zone: ; mE/ mN (G.P.S.)
*e. Other Locational Data: Assessor’s Identification Number 5648-029-015 *P3a. Description:

The subject property contains a large, single story, Mid-Century Modern style, late Ranch subtype residence configured in a boomerang shape. Exterior walls are clad in sand-finished stucco and natural stone. The low sloping, overhanging hipped roof is finished in crushed beige rock in large (fist) to small (pea) sizes. The rock roof creates varying light reflection and shadow patterns.

The façade is three bays wide and notably, has a convex and concave, gently undulating front roof overhang. The deep stucco eaves are boxed and have integral gutters with canted fascia, in keeping with the distinctive style. The asymmetrical facade is horizontally oriented. There is a painted, very simple, wide three-car garage door. The garage is flanked by deeply textured natural stone walls on each side, in various colors, sizes and shapes, laid up random. An off-center, one bay deep, recessed entrance has one straight and one wide, curved side wall. The quarter-round radius, terrazzo step front is raised. The full-height curved wall is a sweeping radiused corner with a bay of windows beyond that wraps around the southeast corner. Inboard of the curved wall, on the roof, a lower curved screen wall in a tighter radius reinforces the character-defining, organic masonry base wall concept and very specific curving geometry. The stone forms subtly punctuate the overall horizontal orientation and appear to pierce the roof plane in a reductive form. A wide, pebble-finished two-tone driveway with a low curb is set into the hillside by a stepped retaining wall and reinforces the radius curved, and irregular design theme. The residence, cantilevered pool deck, driveway have broad views of the foothills and city below.

The rear of the residence is primarily a continuous, wide band of floor-to ceiling widows which take advantage of the sweeping views and wrap around the southeast side. Slim, nearly unnoticeable columns support the roof in various locations. Two steppedout, radius curved bays with full-height and punched windows face the nearly rectangular swimming pool set into a cantilevered, pebbled deck.

Continued, see page 3
*P3b. Resource Attributes: (list attributes and codes) HP2. Single family property *P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other *P5b. Photo: (view and date)
View northeast 2022.
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and
Sources: historic
1961, Building Permit
*P7. Owner and Address:
*P8. Recorded by:

F. Smith for The Glendale
Historical Society
PO Box 4173
Glendale CA 91202
*P9. Date Recorded:

May 25, 2022, revised January 10,
2023
*P10. Survey Type: Intensive
*P11. Report Citation:

Evaluation of Historic Significance for 1766 Cielito Drive, Glendale. 2022. *Attachments: None Location Map Sketch Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record Other (list)
P5a. Photo or Drawing (Photo required for buildings, structures, and objects.) DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # UPDATE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD

*Resource Name or # Bistagne Residence
B1. Historic name: Wanda & Thomas Bistagne Residence
B2. Common name: 1766 Cielito Drive
B3. Original Use: single-family residential B4. Present use: same *B5. Architectural Style: Mid-Century Modern, late Ranch subtype *B6. Construction History: Completed in 1961(Building Permit). Swimming pool and cantilevered deck completed in 1961.

Front door replaced. Metal picket fence added at driveway outer edge (dates unknown). *B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features:

B9a. Architect: Robert L. Earl, AIA & Assoc. b. Builder: G.E. Brask for R. L. Earl & Associates *B10. Significance: Theme Post-World War II Single-Family Residential Development Area Glendale Period of Significance 1961-2007 Property Type Single-family home Applicable Criteria B and C The subject property residence was constructed in 1961 by Wanda and Thomas Bistagne. Their general contractor was George E.

Brask, who lived nearby. Brask was born in 1893 in Minnesota, died in 1976 and is interred at Forest Lawn in Glendale (People Legacy 2022). No architect is listed on the original building permit, but a family member confirmed that it was designed by Robert L. Earl, AIA. Earl also designed Mr. Bistange’s brother and his wife’s nearby home. Both residences are high style example of the Mid-Century Modern and late Ranch subtype, both of which are increasing rare in the community.

Figure 1: Original business card for Bistange Bros. at 1411 E. Chevy Chase, estimated 1946 or 1947.

Source: Custom Car Chronicles, 2022.

Tom Bistagne was born in France in 1920 and after demonstrating an early interest in car customization, established the Bistange Brothers Body Shop with his brother George, in a rented garage in 1946. In 1948, they purchased a property at the same intersection where their first small shop was and have remained at that location to this day (Photograph 1, page 3). Their well-known business was extremely successful, has been and continues to be featured in numerous automotive periodicals (Bistange Brothers Body Shop 2022).

Tom’s first independent car conversion is described in The American Custom Car as “completely exemplify[ing] the custom style.” That first custom car in the 1940s was painted a deep maroon; his show cars always bore the rich, distinctive color. The shop originally customized cars, including engines, in the 1950s and 1960s but they focused on body work and paint. Their shop became associated with The Road Kings, a thriving car and drag racing club in Burbank that was and is known for their meticulous paint work (Custom Car Chronicles 2022). The Bistagne business was closely associated with Southern California post-war car culture that deeply influenced American society and continues to affect popular culture. Bistagne Brothers is considered “one of the shops that shaped the history of the Custom Car” (ibid). The Bistange family deeply influenced reginal car culture in their bold ideas regarding car modifications and their mastery of specialized paint finishes. (See Continuation Sheet, page 3)
B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attr butes and codes) *B12. References:

Refer to page 4
B13. Remarks: none
*B14. Evaluator
*Date of Evaluation:

Sketch Map subject property in red, no scale  N
DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # UPDATE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial#

*Recorded by: F. Smith *Date: May 25, 2022, January 10, 2023 Continuation Update *P3a. Description: Continued from page 2
The pool, like the residence and its driveway has a wide, curved corner which further emphasizes the property’s carefully expressed radius-curved geometry. Known alterations include replacement of the recessed entrance door (date unknown). The subject property is an irregularly shaped parcel with a graded, roughly triangular pad, landscaped, terraced slopes and sheer rock faces on the southeast side. It is located on a dramatic curving road among other single-story residences that date from the same era.
*B10. Significance: Continued from page 2
The second and third generations remain active in the family business. The Bistange Bros. Body Shop was not found to be eligible for the National or California Registers or eligible for the Glendale Register in the 2018 South Glendale Survey.

Photograph 1: Bistange Brothers Body Shop, 1400 E. Chevy Chase Bl. circa 1950s. Source: Making Painting Pay, Acme Paints, Vol. 6, No. 2, 1950s.

Tom Bistagne who died in 2007, was energetic in civic and philanthropic groups beginning with Glendale Junior Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Bistagne later served on the Board of Directors of Verdugo Mental Health, and “was instrumental in finding property” for the “the Glen Roberts Child Study Center, a Glendale community mental health center…” (Amirkhanian 2007). The Bistagnes were considered “major supporters” of his alma mater, Glendale Community College (ibid). He was extremely influential and successful at “raising the funds for one of the labs of the Cimmarusti Science Center” and with his wife supported the athletic Walk of Fame and the Patron’s Scholarship Program for low-income students (ibid). With Mrs. Bistagne, they were active local philanthropists who were honored as “Couple of the Year” by the Glendale Chamber in 2000. Wanda Bistagne (1921- 2019) was further the involved in community at Holy Family and Incarnation Parishes, St. Joseph's Hospital Guild, Oakmont League Club, Cabrini Literary Guild, Glendale Kiwanis and Verdugo Mental Health Center. Wanda Bistagne was an R.N. who studied at Duquesne University in her native Pittsburgh. She received the 1991 Glendale-News Press “Woman of Achievement” award, sponsored by Verdugo Mental Health Center for making the Glen Roberts Child Study Center possible. With her family she earned the "Reaching for the Stars" award for Philanthropists of Distinction at the Glendale Community College 90th Anniversary Celebration (Los Angeles Times 2019). Mr. and Mrs. Bistagne are permanently memorialized at Holy Family Church in stylized, full-size portraits flanking the altar with the Virgin Mary. Through their lifelong efforts, they made a lasting impression in Glendale including mental health and educational causes. In his work and their shared community involvement, the Bistagnes significantly contributed to improving the past and future of the City of Glendale.

DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # UPDATE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial#

*Recorded by: F. Smith *Date: May 25, 2022, January 10, 2023 Continuation Update *B10. Significance: Continued from page 2
The family’s designer, Robert L. Earl was Los Angeles-based architect who first designed single-story modernist-influenced residences in View Park and Ladera Heights for developer Homer Valentine. By the late 1950s, he designed residences at 410 Dabney Lane (1958), in Trousdale, Beverly Hills and 3940 Royal Oak Place (1959) in Encino. In 1961, Earl was responsible for the design if 365 Trousdale Place, also Trousdale, Beverly Hills as well as the subject property Wanda & Tom Bistagne Residence. The following year he designed an equally distinctive residence for George Bistagne at 1616 Parway Drive, Glendale (Photograph 2) and 1945 Loma Vista Drive, Beverly Hills.

Photograph 2:

George Bistagne
Residence, view
northeast. The front
eave is distinctively
curved in plan.

Note the driveway
materials. Source:

Google maps,
September 2022.

Photograph 2 demonstrates that the connections among the Bistagne residences are uncanny. They include low pitched, rock roofs, single-story heights, natural stone wall and pier finishes, recessed double-door entrances, boomerang plan shapes and unassuming, large garages. In 1963, Earl designed the Japanese-influenced Modern residence at 1811 Niodrara Drive, in the Niodrara Drive Historic District, Glendale, the residence at 1935 Carla Ridge, in Beverly Hills and his own, Robert L. Earl Residence, at 1934 Casiano Drive, in Bel Air. His home was a single-story, with a double-door entrance, boomerang shape, and the swimming pool was located inside of the crook of the “elbow.” Other work includes 12833 Chalon Road (1996), in the Brentwood area of Los Angeles and a Spanish-influenced residence in Beverly Hills (2000). The phrase has become ubiquitous, but Robert L.

Earl, AIA & Associates became known as the “architect to the stars.” Robert L. Earl is one of few architects in the City of Beverly Hills List of Master Architects. Inclusion in that roster means that he is “as architect of widely recognized greatness in the field of architecture whose individual genius influenced his… age.” (Adopted by Cultural Heritage Commission in 2015, revised 2019, Version 3.1).

The property exhibits nearly all of the character-defining features of the Mid-Century style set forth in the only clear local guidance on the subject, “South Glendale Historic Context Statement.” Those include its one-story height; the horizontal massing; its simple geometric forms; the low-pitched gable roof with wide overhanging eaves; the unadorned stucco wall surfaces with natural stone used as exterior wall panels and accent materials; flush-mounted metal frame fixed windows and sliding doors; exterior deck patios; restrained exterior decorative detailing and the expressionistic/organic subtype sculptural forms and geometric shaped roof (Glendale 2018). As described in the “South Glendale Historic Context Statement” the Mid-Century Modern design idiom was clearly “characterized by a clear expression of structure and materials, large expanses of glass, and open interior plans” (2018). As described in “Glendale’s Residential Character” the Ranch subtype and the Mid-Century Modern style “both took advantage of large suburban parcels to create new low-lying, linear house forms… [They] emphasized geometric forms and textures. Both styles, however, were usually a single story, accommodated a two-car garage into the design, and celebrated outdoor living (City of Glendale no date).

The property is proposed for demolition and was recently evaluated for historic significance by a consultant. That consultant mistakenly applied the City of Los Angeles’ registration criteria, failed to consider the direct association of, or the achievements of Tom and Wanda Bistagne, did not identify the project architect and found it not eligible for any historic designation (Kaplan Chen Kaplan 2022). It should be noted that the same consultants have never found a property in Glendale to be locally eligible and the results of their flawed evaluations have consistently been challenged by The Glendale Historical Society. Those previous evaluations were for 540, 607, 610 and 633 N. Central Avenue, 204 W. Wilson Avenue, 3901 San Fernando Road (estimated 2013) and 512 West Doran Street (2014, which was overridden by City of Glendale staff).

DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # UPDATE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial#

*Recorded by: F. Smith *Date: May 25, 2022, January 10, 2023 Continuation Update *B10. Significance: Continued from page 4
Based on its associative significance, the property’s period of significance is between 1961, when the house and pool were completed, and 2007 when Mr. Bistagne passed away. The subject property retains integrity to its original appearance despite the replacement of the front entry doors. It is clearly recognizable to its distinctive 1961 design, its hillside location, the primary stone, rock and stucco materials, the plaster workers, stone masons and roofers’ workmanship, its dramatic landscaped immediate and larger setting, the property’s indoor-outdoor 1960s Mid-Century Modern feeling and the direct association with its original car culture pioneer owners who had it built it to reflect their taste. The house, its curved driveway, unique pool and cantilevered deck was the place of residence where the well-known philanthropists lived and entertained.

The property is eligible for listing in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources based on its direct association with Tom Bistagne, a recognized forerunner and life-long contributor to the field of car customization, and with Wanda Bistagne, who together significantly contributed magnanimously of their time and other resources to education, well-being and culture, affecting both the history and the future of the City of Glendale(Criterion B). The subject property retains historic integrity. The property additionally embodies the distinctive and exemplary characteristics of the Mid-Century Modern architectural style and the late Ranch architectural type. In addition, the property was designed by Robert L Earl, AIA, who is considered a master architect for his single-story, Modern, elegant residences that embodied casual, California, Postwar indoor-outdoor living (Criterion C, Ord. 5949 § 6, 2020; Ord. 5784 § 7, 2012; Ord. 5347 § 7, 2003; Ord. 5110 § 12, 1996; prior code § 21-02). *B12. References: Continued from page 2
Amirkhanian, Ani. “Obituary” Glendale News-Press. November 28, 2007.

Anonymous. In-person interview with Francesca Smith. January 9, 2023.

Beverly Hills, City of. List of Master Architects. Adopted by Cultural Heritage Commission in 2015, revised 2019, Version 3.1.

Bistagne Brothers Body Shop. “Our History” 2022 at https://www.bistagnebros.com/history/ Custom Car Chronicle. Bistagne Brothers 2022 ay https://www.customcarchronicle.com/cc-builders/bistagne-bros/bistagnebros-auto-shop/ Ganahl, Pat. The American Custom Car. (St Paul, MN: MBI Publishing Co., 2009).

Glendale, City of. Various building permits.

Glendale. City of. “Glendale Design Guidelines for Residential Buildings in Adopted Historic Districts” no date.

Glendale. City of. “South Glendale Historic Context Statements”2018.

Kaplan Chen Kaplan. “1766 Cielito Drive Glendale, California Historic Resource Evaluation” 2022. “Wanda Anna Bistagne” Los Angeles Times. June 5, 2019.

1 Ezzati, Vista
From: Sargsyan, Sofi
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2023 3:24 PM
To: Ezzati, Vista
Cc: Joseph Kaskanian; ; Christopher Welch DRB; Nina Tchaghayan ; Danielle Lockareff
Subject: FW: Bistagne House Historic value to Glendale
For your consideration for the DRB meeting 1/12.
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Roseanne Kalaba <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2023 3:11 PM
To: Design Review Board <[email protected]> Subject: Bistagne House Historic value to Glendale
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Bistagne house property is of historic value to preserve Glendale ‘s story especially ties with Bistagne familybusiness still very active. Demolishing will erase part of Glendale’s historic fabric which is special andunique .Please study review documents and mitigate project impacts . Please require staff to prepare appropriate environmental review to save Glendale history . Donot destroy pastwith demolishing it’s significance .

Sent from my iPad Roseanne

2 Sincerely,
Glendale resident

1 Ezzati, Vista
From: Sargsyan, Sofi
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2023 12:55 PM
To: Ezzati, Vista
Cc: Christopher Welch DRB; Danielle Lockareff; Nina Tchaghayan ; Art Simonian DRB
Subject: Fw: comments re: Agenda Item 7a1766 Cielito Dr.

Attachments: JurcaComments-1766Cielito.pdf
For your consideration for DRB Meeting 1/12.

Sofi Sargsyan | Administrative Specialist I
City of Glendale | Community Development, Planning
633 East Broadway, Room 103 | Glendale, CA | 818-937-8176 [email protected]| www.glendaleca.gov | Follow us! From: Catherine Jurca <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2023 12:47 PM
To: Design Review Board <[email protected]> Cc: Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]>
Subject: comments re: Agenda Item 7a1766 Cielito Dr.

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

Dear Members of the Design Review Board:

Please read my attached comments. I find that the property at 1766 Ceilito appears eligible for the Glendale Register of Historic Resources and ask you not to approve the proposed project.

Thank you for your consideration.

Best wishes,
Catherine Jurca
January 11, 2023
Members of the Design Review Board
City of Glendale
via email
Dear Members of the Design Review Board:

Thank you for allowing me to comment on the historic status of the subject property and proposed project.

At present I am a member of Glendale’s Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). I am the former Vice President for Preservation at The Glendale Historical Society and served on its board for six years. I am Professor of English and Visual Culture at Caltech where I teach, among other courses, heritage studies and conservation.

Based on my review of the documents in the record, including the historic resource evaluations and Staff Report, and my own site visit, I believe that this property qualifies as a historic resource as a locally significant example of Mid-century Modern-Ranch architecture and for its association with the Tom and Wanda Bistagne. I ask you not to approve demolition without environmental review. I strongly disagree with the Kaplan Chen Kaplan (KCK) analysis and with staff’s brief comments in the Staff Report. It is unfortunate that staff did not address the evidence contradicting the consultant’s report before the first hearing on this project; we all know that the pressure to approve projects increases as the process moves along. However, that is not relevant for your decision about historic status.

If this property had come before the HPC, barring unexpected revelations or public comment, I would find it to be eligible for the Glendale Register under Criteria B and C.

My first significant preservation effort ever was in 2013, in relation to the proposed demolition of 3901 San Fernando Road. Pam O’Connor of KCK also wrote the report which found that the Mediterranean Revival commercial building built by and for the developer L. H. Wilson, who created San Fernando Road as a major regional industrial center, was not a historic resource. It had previously been found eligible for the National Register in a city-adopted survey. Around the same time, Ms. O’Connor also found other previously identified historic resources in Glendale—Alexander Market (204 W. Wilson) and the Central Avenue brick medical office buildings (540, 607, 610, and 633 N. Central Ave.)—not to be historic. In large part due to these projects, and the prominent role of a single consultant in demolishing so many vintage buildings, Glendale residents successfully lobbied to ensure that the City, rather than the developer, selects the consultant who prepares Environmental Impact Reports.

The historic resource evaluation for 1766 Cielito reminded me of the one for 3901 San Fernando Road. While less obviously egregious, it is still infuriating. Its laziness serves clear interests. It argues its case largely through rhetoric—short, declarative sentences that seem to strive to make the building and Bistagnes as bland and insignificant as the prose used to describe them—and conclusory statements that lack basis in fact. Its Jurca 2
analysis of the property against the Glendale Register criteria is simply: “The subject property does not meet any of the Glendale Register criteria and is not eligible for inclusion to [sic] the Glendale Register of Historic Resources” (p. 22).

The Report contains errors throughout—far too many to enumerate. The consultant states that the Glendale Register “is silent with respect…to integrity” (p. 7). No, it’s not.

This would appear to be a cut and paste from the consultant’s previous reports, before Glendale revised its historic preservation ordinance. It would have been appropriate for the consultant to have familiarized herself with it. Trivially, but predictably, she gets the building year wrong out of the gate. It is 1961, not 1960, although it is correct later in the document. More outrageous, the consultant ignores evidence of Robert L. Earl’s involvement with the property. From page 11, Property History and Description:

This contains errors of commission and omission. R.L. Earl and Assoc. is listed on the permit for the retaining wall, but neither the box for engineer or architect is checked.

And yet O’Connor asserts that the firm served as engineer for the project (see figure 1).

It doesn’t take long for Google to take “Earl and Associates” and find the architectural practice of Robert L. Earl and Associates and a long list of notable Mid-century Modern/Ranch-style buildings credited to him. Members of the Bistagne family still work at the family business; a phone call to them could have confirmed Robert Earl Figure 1. 1960 Building Permit for 1766 Cielito Dr.

Jurca 3
as the architect. But you won’t find what you don’t want to look for. I am disappointed that staff did not pursue this connection either.

The use of SurveyLA criteria to make a case for or against the historic status of this property is baffling. Since when is Glendale located within the City of Los Angeles, and since when is its architecture to be evaluated according to a context that was not designed for it and that members of the Historic Preservation Commission, staff, and the public had no role in shaping? SurveyLA is used to argue that the house is not a “hill house,” because its foundation is not adjusted to fit the slope (i.e. it’s not built into the hillside). So what?
The Staff Report’s dismissal of the architecture (“a few interesting features”) is unpersuasive and ignores the detailed analysis prepared by Francesca Smith. The California Modern Ranch, with pool no less, is iconic and does not get the attention or respect it deserves—not just in Glendale and not just from Pam O’Connor, who does not even use the word “ranch” in her evaluation. This is not Mid-century Modern as popularly conceived, and it should not be judged by those standards. It is sweeping and gracious, with over 3,000 feet on one level (so, yes, not a “hill house”). It possesses high integrity and exemplifies the style and its embodiment of a particularly sun-drenched version of the good (and in this case quite affluent) California life, not only through individual features but as clearly demonstrated in the whole (see Figure 2 and revised DPR prepared by Francesca Smith).

Figure 2. Rear of Bistagne House, Maynard Parker, 1965. Maynard Parker Collection, Huntington Library.

After having read hundreds of DPR forms and evaluation in the last seven years, I get a sense that some consultants can prepare them with their eyes closed. And some consultants just close their eyes.

Part of your decision about the historic status of this property is the credibility of opinions. For the reasons I have explained, including but by no means only my familiarity with this consultant’s reports on behalf of developers seeking to demolish Jurca 4
properties that have been identified as historic, and who fear their property may be so identified, I think you should find her opinion biased and not credible. Her work is error-ridden, and she does not dig deeply into the material, including the significance of the Bistagnes.

I am a preservation advocate, but I don’t squander my time trying to save properties I don’t think are historic. That is, just because I volunteer my time doesn’t mean I don’t place a high value on it. I review every DRB agenda and have done for years. Dozens of Mid-century properties in Glendale have gone to landfill without a word from me, much as I may regret the environmental consequences and what often takes their place.

This property is worth my time. It is special, and it is historic. Please do not approve demolition. The owner can always appeal the decision and take their case to the City Council, or better yet, can rehabilitate the property with an addition that respects the original design and style of the building.

Thank you for your consideration.

Best wishes,
Catherine Jurca

2 Qualified Architectural Historian
On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 04:27:31 PM PST, Smith, Francesca@DOT <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Chair and esteemed members of the Design Review Board:

I evaluated the subject property for historic significance last year and submitted those results to the DRB on behalf of The Glendale Historical Society. Based on additional information, that evaluation has been updated (see attachment), including identification of the architect who designed the subject property residence. The Kaplan Chen Kaplan evaluation in 2022 did not identify or consider the previous owners or Robert L. Earl, AIA, the master architect who designed the residence.

The update reveals that the property is clearly eligible for local designation.

I am a qualified Architectural Historian with more than three decades of experience successfully evaluating properties for historic significance. Professional Qualification standards were established by National Park Service, and are published in the Federal Code of Federal Regulations, 36 CFR Part 61. My CV is appended as well for your review.

This property should be treated as a “historical resource” under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and cannot not be demolished without appropriate environmental review. The Staff Report errs in claiming that the project is exempt from CEQA.

Please do not vote to approve the project, direct the City to consider the property a historical resource and to prepare the proper type of environmental review. It is with your purview to make this finding.

Thank you for your time and service.

Francesca Smith
PQS Principal Architectural Historian
California Department of Transportation

DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # UPDATE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code 5S3
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date

P1. Other Identifier: 1766 Cielito Drive
*P2. Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted
*a. County Los Angeles
*b. USGS 7.5’ Quad Date:
*c. Address 1766 Cielito Drive City Glendale Zip 91207
*d. UTM: Zone: ; mE/ mN (G.P.S.)
*e. Other Locational Data: Assessor’s Identification Number 5648-029-015 *P3a. Description:

The subject property contains a large, single story, Mid-Century Modern style, late Ranch subtype residence configured in a boomerang shape. Exterior walls are clad in sand-finished stucco and natural stone. The low sloping, overhanging hipped roof is finished in crushed beige rock in large (fist) to small (pea) sizes. The rock roof creates varying light reflection and shadow patterns.

The façade is three bays wide and notably, has a convex and concave, gently undulating front roof overhang. The deep stucco eaves are boxed and have integral gutters with canted fascia, in keeping with the distinctive style. The asymmetrical facade is horizontally oriented. There is a painted, very simple, wide three-car garage door. The garage is flanked by deeply textured natural stone walls on each side, in various colors, sizes and shapes, laid up random. An off-center, one bay deep, recessed entrance has one straight and one wide, curved side wall. The quarter-round radius, terrazzo step front is raised. The full-height curved wall is a sweeping radiused corner with a bay of windows beyond that wraps around the southeast corner. Inboard of the curved wall, on the roof, a lower curved screen wall in a tighter radius reinforces the character-defining, organic masonry base wall concept and very specific curving geometry. The stone forms subtly punctuate the overall horizontal orientation and appear to pierce the roof plane in a reductive form. A wide, pebble-finished two-tone driveway with a low curb is set into the hillside by a stepped retaining wall and reinforces the radius curved, and irregular design theme. The residence, cantilevered pool deck, driveway have broad views of the foothills and city below.

The rear of the residence is primarily a continuous, wide band of floor-to ceiling widows which take advantage of the sweeping views and wrap around the southeast side. Slim, nearly unnoticeable columns support the roof in various locations. Two steppedout, radius curved bays with full-height and punched windows face the nearly rectangular swimming pool set into a cantilevered, pebbled deck.

Continued, see page 3
*P3b. Resource Attributes: (list attributes and codes) HP2. Single family property *P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other *P5b. Photo: (view and date)
View northeast 2022.
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and
Sources: historic
1961, Building Permit
*P7. Owner and Address:
*P8. Recorded by:

F. Smith for The Glendale
Historical Society
PO Box 4173
Glendale CA 91202
*P9. Date Recorded:

May 25, 2022, revised January 10,
2023
*P10. Survey Type: Intensive
*P11. Report Citation:

Evaluation of Historic Significance for 1766 Cielito Drive, Glendale. 2022. *Attachments: None Location Map Sketch Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record Other (list)
P5a. Photo or Drawing (Photo required for buildings, structures, and objects.) DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # UPDATE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD

*Resource Name or # Bistagne Residence
B1. Historic name: Wanda & Thomas Bistagne Residence
B2. Common name: 1766 Cielito Drive
B3. Original Use: single-family residential B4. Present use: same *B5. Architectural Style: Mid-Century Modern, late Ranch subtype *B6. Construction History: Completed in 1961(Building Permit). Swimming pool and cantilevered deck completed in 1961.

Front door replaced. Metal picket fence added at driveway outer edge (dates unknown). *B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features:

B9a. Architect: Robert L. Earl, AIA & Assoc. b. Builder: G.E. Brask for R. L. Earl & Associates *B10. Significance: Theme Post-World War II Single-Family Residential Development Area Glendale Period of Significance 1961-2007 Property Type Single-family home Applicable Criteria B and C The subject property residence was constructed in 1961 by Wanda and Thomas Bistagne. Their general contractor was George E.

Brask, who lived nearby. Brask was born in 1893 in Minnesota, died in 1976 and is interred at Forest Lawn in Glendale (People Legacy 2022). No architect is listed on the original building permit, but a family member confirmed that it was designed by Robert L. Earl, AIA. Earl also designed Mr. Bistange’s brother and his wife’s nearby home. Both residences are high style example of the Mid-Century Modern and late Ranch subtype, both of which are increasing rare in the community.

Figure 1: Original business card for Bistange Bros. at 1411 E. Chevy Chase, estimated 1946 or 1947.

Source: Custom Car Chronicles, 2022.

Tom Bistagne was born in France in 1920 and after demonstrating an early interest in car customization, established the Bistange Brothers Body Shop with his brother George, in a rented garage in 1946. In 1948, they purchased a property at the same intersection where their first small shop was and have remained at that location to this day (Photograph 1, page 3). Their well-known business was extremely successful, has been and continues to be featured in numerous automotive periodicals (Bistange Brothers Body Shop 2022).

Tom’s first independent car conversion is described in The American Custom Car as “completely exemplify[ing] the custom style.” That first custom car in the 1940s was painted a deep maroon; his show cars always bore the rich, distinctive color. The shop originally customized cars, including engines, in the 1950s and 1960s but they focused on body work and paint. Their shop became associated with The Road Kings, a thriving car and drag racing club in Burbank that was and is known for their meticulous paint work (Custom Car Chronicles 2022). The Bistagne business was closely associated with Southern California post-war car culture that deeply influenced American society and continues to affect popular culture. Bistagne Brothers is considered “one of the shops that shaped the history of the Custom Car” (ibid). The Bistange family deeply influenced reginal car culture in their bold ideas regarding car modifications and their mastery of specialized paint finishes. (See Continuation Sheet, page 3)
B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attr butes and codes) *B12. References:

Refer to page 4
B13. Remarks: none
*B14. Evaluator
*Date of Evaluation:

Sketch Map subject property in red, no scale  N
DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # UPDATE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial#

*Recorded by: F. Smith *Date: May 25, 2022, January 10, 2023 Continuation Update *P3a. Description: Continued from page 2
The pool, like the residence and its driveway has a wide, curved corner which further emphasizes the property’s carefully expressed radius-curved geometry. Known alterations include replacement of the recessed entrance door (date unknown). The subject property is an irregularly shaped parcel with a graded, roughly triangular pad, landscaped, terraced slopes and sheer rock faces on the southeast side. It is located on a dramatic curving road among other single-story residences that date from the same era.
*B10. Significance: Continued from page 2
The second and third generations remain active in the family business. The Bistange Bros. Body Shop was not found to be eligible for the National or California Registers or eligible for the Glendale Register in the 2018 South Glendale Survey.

Photograph 1: Bistange Brothers Body Shop, 1400 E. Chevy Chase Bl. circa 1950s. Source: Making Painting Pay, Acme Paints, Vol. 6, No. 2, 1950s.

Tom Bistagne who died in 2007, was energetic in civic and philanthropic groups beginning with Glendale Junior Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Bistagne later served on the Board of Directors of Verdugo Mental Health, and “was instrumental in finding property” for the “the Glen Roberts Child Study Center, a Glendale community mental health center…” (Amirkhanian 2007). The Bistagnes were considered “major supporters” of his alma mater, Glendale Community College (ibid). He was extremely influential and successful at “raising the funds for one of the labs of the Cimmarusti Science Center” and with his wife supported the athletic Walk of Fame and the Patron’s Scholarship Program for low-income students (ibid). With Mrs. Bistagne, they were active local philanthropists who were honored as “Couple of the Year” by the Glendale Chamber in 2000. Wanda Bistagne (1921- 2019) was further the involved in community at Holy Family and Incarnation Parishes, St. Joseph's Hospital Guild, Oakmont League Club, Cabrini Literary Guild, Glendale Kiwanis and Verdugo Mental Health Center. Wanda Bistagne was an R.N. who studied at Duquesne University in her native Pittsburgh. She received the 1991 Glendale-News Press “Woman of Achievement” award, sponsored by Verdugo Mental Health Center for making the Glen Roberts Child Study Center possible. With her family she earned the "Reaching for the Stars" award for Philanthropists of Distinction at the Glendale Community College 90th Anniversary Celebration (Los Angeles Times 2019). Mr. and Mrs. Bistagne are permanently memorialized at Holy Family Church in stylized, full-size portraits flanking the altar with the Virgin Mary. Through their lifelong efforts, they made a lasting impression in Glendale including mental health and educational causes. In his work and their shared community involvement, the Bistagnes significantly contributed to improving the past and future of the City of Glendale.

DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # UPDATE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial#

*Recorded by: F. Smith *Date: May 25, 2022, January 10, 2023 Continuation Update *B10. Significance: Continued from page 2
The family’s designer, Robert L. Earl was Los Angeles-based architect who first designed single-story modernist-influenced residences in View Park and Ladera Heights for developer Homer Valentine. By the late 1950s, he designed residences at 410 Dabney Lane (1958), in Trousdale, Beverly Hills and 3940 Royal Oak Place (1959) in Encino. In 1961, Earl was responsible for the design if 365 Trousdale Place, also Trousdale, Beverly Hills as well as the subject property Wanda & Tom Bistagne Residence. The following year he designed an equally distinctive residence for George Bistagne at 1616 Parway Drive, Glendale (Photograph 2) and 1945 Loma Vista Drive, Beverly Hills.

Photograph 2:

George Bistagne
Residence, view
northeast. The front
eave is distinctively
curved in plan.

Note the driveway
materials. Source:

Google maps,
September 2022.

Photograph 2 demonstrates that the connections among the Bistagne residences are uncanny. They include low pitched, rock roofs, single-story heights, natural stone wall and pier finishes, recessed double-door entrances, boomerang plan shapes and unassuming, large garages. In 1963, Earl designed the Japanese-influenced Modern residence at 1811 Niodrara Drive, in the Niodrara Drive Historic District, Glendale, the residence at 1935 Carla Ridge, in Beverly Hills and his own, Robert L. Earl Residence, at 1934 Casiano Drive, in Bel Air. His home was a single-story, with a double-door entrance, boomerang shape, and the swimming pool was located inside of the crook of the “elbow.” Other work includes 12833 Chalon Road (1996), in the Brentwood area of Los Angeles and a Spanish-influenced residence in Beverly Hills (2000). The phrase has become ubiquitous, but Robert L.

Earl, AIA & Associates became known as the “architect to the stars.” Robert L. Earl is one of few architects in the City of Beverly Hills List of Master Architects. Inclusion in that roster means that he is “as architect of widely recognized greatness in the field of architecture whose individual genius influenced his… age.” (Adopted by Cultural Heritage Commission in 2015, revised 2019, Version 3.1).

The property exhibits nearly all of the character-defining features of the Mid-Century style set forth in the only clear local guidance on the subject, “South Glendale Historic Context Statement.” Those include its one-story height; the horizontal massing; its simple geometric forms; the low-pitched gable roof with wide overhanging eaves; the unadorned stucco wall surfaces with natural stone used as exterior wall panels and accent materials; flush-mounted metal frame fixed windows and sliding doors; exterior deck patios; restrained exterior decorative detailing and the expressionistic/organic subtype sculptural forms and geometric shaped roof (Glendale 2018). As described in the “South Glendale Historic Context Statement” the Mid-Century Modern design idiom was clearly “characterized by a clear expression of structure and materials, large expanses of glass, and open interior plans” (2018). As described in “Glendale’s Residential Character” the Ranch subtype and the Mid-Century Modern style “both took advantage of large suburban parcels to create new low-lying, linear house forms… [They] emphasized geometric forms and textures. Both styles, however, were usually a single story, accommodated a two-car garage into the design, and celebrated outdoor living (City of Glendale no date).

The property is proposed for demolition and was recently evaluated for historic significance by a consultant. That consultant mistakenly applied the City of Los Angeles’ registration criteria, failed to consider the direct association of, or the achievements of Tom and Wanda Bistagne, did not identify the project architect and found it not eligible for any historic designation (Kaplan Chen Kaplan 2022). It should be noted that the same consultants have never found a property in Glendale to be locally eligible and the results of their flawed evaluations have consistently been challenged by The Glendale Historical Society. Those previous evaluations were for 540, 607, 610 and 633 N. Central Avenue, 204 W. Wilson Avenue, 3901 San Fernando Road (estimated 2013) and 512 West Doran Street (2014, which was overridden by City of Glendale staff).

DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # UPDATE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial#

*Recorded by: F. Smith *Date: May 25, 2022, January 10, 2023 Continuation Update *B10. Significance: Continued from page 4
Based on its associative significance, the property’s period of significance is between 1961, when the house and pool were completed, and 2007 when Mr. Bistagne passed away. The subject property retains integrity to its original appearance despite the replacement of the front entry doors. It is clearly recognizable to its distinctive 1961 design, its hillside location, the primary stone, rock and stucco materials, the plaster workers, stone masons and roofers’ workmanship, its dramatic landscaped immediate and larger setting, the property’s indoor-outdoor 1960s Mid-Century Modern feeling and the direct association with its original car culture pioneer owners who had it built it to reflect their taste. The house, its curved driveway, unique pool and cantilevered deck was the place of residence where the well-known philanthropists lived and entertained.

The property is eligible for listing in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources based on its direct association with Tom Bistagne, a recognized forerunner and life-long contributor to the field of car customization, and with Wanda Bistagne, who together significantly contributed magnanimously of their time and other resources to education, well-being and culture, affecting both the history and the future of the City of Glendale(Criterion B). The subject property retains historic integrity. The property additionally embodies the distinctive and exemplary characteristics of the Mid-Century Modern architectural style and the late Ranch architectural type. In addition, the property was designed by Robert L Earl, AIA, who is considered a master architect for his single-story, Modern, elegant residences that embodied casual, California, Postwar indoor-outdoor living (Criterion C, Ord. 5949 § 6, 2020; Ord. 5784 § 7, 2012; Ord. 5347 § 7, 2003; Ord. 5110 § 12, 1996; prior code § 21-02). *B12. References: Continued from page 2
Amirkhanian, Ani. “Obituary” Glendale News-Press. November 28, 2007.

Anonymous. In-person interview with Francesca Smith. January 9, 2023.

Beverly Hills, City of. List of Master Architects. Adopted by Cultural Heritage Commission in 2015, revised 2019, Version 3.1.

Bistagne Brothers Body Shop. “Our History” 2022 at https://www.bistagnebros.com/history/ Custom Car Chronicle. Bistagne Brothers 2022 ay https://www.customcarchronicle.com/cc-builders/bistagne-bros/bistagnebros-auto-shop/ Ganahl, Pat. The American Custom Car. (St Paul, MN: MBI Publishing Co., 2009).

Glendale, City of. Various building permits.

Glendale. City of. “Glendale Design Guidelines for Residential Buildings in Adopted Historic Districts” no date.

Glendale. City of. “South Glendale Historic Context Statements”2018.

Kaplan Chen Kaplan. “1766 Cielito Drive Glendale, California Historic Resource Evaluation” 2022. “Wanda Anna Bistagne” Los Angeles Times. June 5, 2019.

FRANCESCA G. SMITH
Experience
Principal Architectural Historian California Department of Transportation 2011-present As professionally qualified staff to state agency, responsible for built environment review of federal and local assistance projects in District 7 (Los Angeles and Ventura counties). Act on behalf of Federal Highways Administration under First Amended Programmatic Agreement Among The Federal Highway Administration, The Advisory Council On Historic Preservation, The California State Historic Preservation Officer, And The California Department Of Transportation Regarding Compliance With Section 106 Of The National Historic Preservation Act, As It Pertains To The Administration Of The Federal-Aid Highway Program In California. Prepare determinations of National Register eligibility, analyze effects, identify mitigation and prepare agreement documents for federal projects.

Review and approve consultants’ work for conformance with above-referenced Programmatic Agreement.

Reviewed all alterations to and proposed maintenance for 100-plus historic properties owned by Caltrans in the 710 corridor.

Senior Architectural Historian various private consulting firms 1990-1997 and 2000-2011 Prepared built environment environmental documentation including complex Environmental Impact Statements (EISes), Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) and technical documents for various projects to comply with federal, state and local requirements for projects undertaken by public agencies and private developers. Successful Section 106, National Environmental Policy Act and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review required management of effective cooperation among junior staff and outside consultants, including transit and transportation, energy, and public works projects. Numerous projects required analysis for compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Treatment (Standards) and or with local design guidelines. Prepared evaluations of historic significance, analyze effects of complex projects for Section 106 clearance, impacts for CEQA conformance, and recommended mitigation measures to avoid or reduce effects (federal) or impacts (state projects).

Prepared draft Memoranda of Agreement and Programmatic Agreements. For Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), prepared evaluations for significance and analyzed project-related effects. Reviewed other consultants’ and disciplines’ work for compliance with requirements in CEQA. Acted as lead on numerous successful certified (tax credit) rehabilitations with developers, architects and engineers and contractors, including limited construction management, completing more than 400 units. Worked closely with building departments and fire-life safety reviewers, using the California Historical Building Code, to meet project goals and achieve code consistency.

Performed design review, prepared and presented staff reports for review by cities of Beverly Hills, Carmel, Monterey, Orange and Vallejo.

Mills Act Manager, Specialized Historic Preservation Planner Cities of Los Angeles and Pasadena 1997- 2000 Coordinated and oversaw review of new construction and/or historic preservation projects. Prepared and presented complex analyses for staff and City Manager reports, including graphics, as staff to Design and Cultural Heritage commissions as well as City Council. Managed public counters with other planners, assisting the public and performing plan check including design review for conformance with local design guidelines and Standards.

Performed sign review for central district and Old Pasadena and oversaw City of Gardens (multi-family residential) design review, from plan check through issuance of Certificates of Occupancy. Prepared Request for Proposals and managed contract administration of consultant for successful Certified Local Government Grant project. Managed successful, growing Mills Act program including coordination with County Assessor and property owners.

Education
M.S. Real Estate Development (historic preservation focus), Columbia University, New York 1986 Master’s Thesis- “Redevelopment of the Grand Central Market, Los Angeles” B.A. Political Science (architectural history emphasis), The College of Charleston, South Carolina 1981 Supplemental Experience
California Preservation Foundation, Los Angeles Conservancy, National Trust for Historic Preservation City of Glendale, Design Review Board member, 2020-2021 The Glendale Historical Society, Society of Architectural Historians-Southern California Chapter, Pasadena Heritage and Los Angeles City Historical Society- former member of Boards of Directors Lecturer and teaching assistant, UCLA Extension courses: history, “Undiscovered Los Angeles: Water & Steel” (1997 and 2001); “Historic Preservation- State of the Art” (1997) and Construction Management (1995 and 1996).

USC: historic preservation documentation (2011).

Wells Fargo Realty Advisors, Analyst Officer, 1988-1990.

Private real estate development, Project Engineer or Project Manager, 1986-1988. Responsible for development of more than 1.5 million square feet of medical-related, office and retail buildings.

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles, Environmental Planner, summers 1985 and 1986.

Olympic Organizing Committee for the 1984 Games, Graphic Designer, 1983-1984.

Charles Kober Associates, Drafting Technician, 1978, same position at Inslee Senefield & Puchlick, 1982.

Reader: Huntington Library and Library of Congress.

FRANCESCA G. SMITH
2 Partial List of Publications and Technical Reports All projects are in Los Angeles, California, unless otherwise noted.

Environmental Impact Statements (EISs)
Interstate 110 Terminus. , Caltrans, METRO, 2019. Now 110 Adams Terminus Improvement Project.

Crenshaw LAX Transit Project. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (METRO) and A. Hayes & Associates, LLC (TAHA), 2008, 2010. Prepared Preliminary Environmental Assessment and built environment identification. Reviewed preliminary analyses of effects.

Regional Connector. METRO and CDM, 2010. Prepared alternatives analysis and draft built environment cultural resources sections for complex downtown transit project with multiple alternatives.

State Route 180 (Fresno, CA). Caltrans District 6, 2008. Peer-reviewed historic resources and community impact sections.

Mid-Jordan Transit Corridor (Salt Lake County, UT). Utah Transit Authority, 2006. Peer-reviewed parklands and open space, Section 4 (f), and historic resources sections, as well as Determination of Eligibility and Finding of Effects.

Conrail Railroad Acquisition by Norfolk Southern Railroad and CSX. Surface Transportation Board (STB), 1997-98. Prepared Section 106 compliance for nationwide railroad merger in the states of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Ohio, Tennessee and West Virginia.

DART North Central Corridor LRT Extension, with Finding of Effect and Agreement-Based Determination of No Adverse Effect (Dallas, Texas).

Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART), Federal Transit Administration, (FTA), 1997.

Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs)
EIR/Environmental Assessment (EA) I-110 Flyover, Caltrans, METRO, 2019. Now 110 Adams Terminus Improvement Project.

Imperial Hardware (Riverside, CA). City of Riverside, 2011.

Riverside Central Library (Riverside, CA). City of Riverside, 2011.

Stone Boat Yard (Alameda, CA). City of Alameda, 2011.

South of Market (SoMa) Specific Plan (San Francisco, CA) City and County of San Francisco, 2011.

First & Mission (San Francisco, CA) City and County of San Francisco, 2011.

East Los Angeles College Satellite Campus Project (South Gate, CA). Los Angeles Community College District and TAHA, 2009. Prepared built environment identification and analyses of effects. Add-on work included participation in Master Plan team.

Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) New School Construction Program, Program EIR Exemptions. LAUSD, 2005.

Central Los Angeles Area New Learning Center #1 (Ambassador Hotel site). LAUSD, June 2003.

Creekside Center Project (Arroyo Grande, CA, draft and final). City of Arroyo Grande, 2003. Additional impacts analysis, August 2004. 9th & Flower, South Park Mixed-Use Development (draft, final and two addenda). CIM Group and CRA, 2002, 2004 and 2005.

Palladium Project (San José, CA). Reviewer, San José Redevelopment Agency (SJRDA) 2002.

Los Angeles Central Area High School #9. LAUSD 2001.

Los Angeles Central Area High School #2. (draft, supplemental and final). LAUSD 2002.

Maranatha High School (Sierra Madre). (Reviewer) City of Sierra Madre, Dorn-Platz Realty. 2001.

University of California at Irvine Medical Center, Orange (draft). Bonterra Consulting, 2001.

Long Beach Naval Shipyard (Roosevelt Island). City and Port of Long Beach, 1998.

Adelante Eastside Redevelopment Project (draft). CRA, 1997.

Barham Cahuenga Improvement Project, In Los Angeles County (including Historic Resource Evaluation Report). City and County of Los Angeles, City of Burbank, Caltrans District 7, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 1997.

The Grand (Lindon) Hotel Project. City of Beverly Hills, 1996.

Broadway State Office Building. California State Department of General Services, 1996. Received Los Angeles Conservancy Preservation Award in 2000.

South Central Revitalization Project. CRA, 1995.

East Central Interceptor Sewer. City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Engineering, 1995.

California Museum of Science & Industry. State of California Department of General Services. 1993.

Playa Vista. Maguire Thomas Partners, City of Los Angeles, 1991. Prepared built environment cultural resources technical report focused on Hughes Aircraft Factory.

Environmental Impact Statements/Environmental Impact Reports (EIS/EIRs) State Route 710 North EIR/EIS. METRO and Caltrans, 2017.

Alameda Corridor Transportation Project. Alameda Corridor Authority, 2006. Prepared Section 106 compliance, evaluating bridges for historic significance as part of a regionally significant railroad project.

Mid-City Red Line Extension. METRO, FTA. 1995.

Mission Valley East Transit Improvements Project (Mission Valley, CA). Metropolitan (San Diego) Transit Development Board, FTA, 1995.

FRANCESCA G. SMITH
3 Environmental Assessments (EAs)
Alameda Corridor East-San Gabriel Trench. Alameda Corridor East Construction Authority (ACE), 2010. Prepared Section 106 compliance for railroad project. Prepared Finding of Effect and approved Memorandum of Agreement.

Sbx E Street Corridor (San Bernardino, CA). Omnitrans and Parsons, 2009. Prepared cultural resources technical reports and EA section for bus rapid transit project,
Interstate-15 Improvements, Sloan Road to Tropicana Boulevard (Las Vegas and Clark County, Nevada). Nevada Department of Transportation, 2009.

Evaluation of seven parcels (San José, CA). San José Redevelopment Agency (SJRDA), 2002.

Hudson Apartments- 290 North Hudson Avenue (Pasadena, CA). City of Pasadena. 2000. Prepared complete initial environmental study for 140-unit apartment project.

Meridian Court- 591 South Marengo Avenue (Pasadena, CA). City of Pasadena. 1999. Prepared cultural resources section for initial environmental study of 10-unit condominium project, immediately adjacent to Wallace Neff’s former office (b. 1926) including demolition of two residences constructed in 1910s.

Palm Court- 214 South Madison Avenue (Pasadena, CA). City of Pasadena. 1999. Prepared complete initial environmental study for 19- unit condominium project, including relocation of Emma Black House, a Greene & Greene-designed residence built in 1908.

Union Pacific/Southern Pacific Railroads Merger. Section 106 compliance for nationwide railroad merger in states of Texas and Colorado, STB, 1997.

McKinney Avenue Trolley Extension (Dallas, TX). City of Dallas, May 1997.

DART Northeast Corridor (Dallas, TX). DART, FTA, 1996.

Del Amo Boulevard Overcrossing, In Los Angeles County. City of Carson, Caltrans District 7, FHWA, 1996.

In-Service Engineering Staging Facility and Engineering Lab at Hangar 19, San Diego. US Air Force, 1994.

North Wardlow Station (Long Beach, CA). METRO, FTA, 1993. Prepared initial environmental study for relocation of light rail station to vacant parcel adjacent to residential area.

State Route-68 (Monterey, CA). Prepared complete initial environmental study for conversion of two-lane highway to freeway. FHWA, 1992.

Certified Rehabilitations (Investment Tax Credits)
Southern California Gas Company Complex. Parts 1, 2 and 3. CIM Group, 2006. Recipient of 2004 Los Angeles Downtown News Downtowners of Distinction “Community Financial District” award. 830 South Flower Street building. Parts 1 and 2. CIM Group, 2006.

Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel. Early Review and Part 1. Goodwin Gaw, 2005. Subject of E! television series entitled “Hotspot.” Far East Café Building. Parts 1, 2, 3 and tenant improvements. Little Tokyo Service Center, Community Development Corporation, current project. Recipient of 2004 Los Angeles Conservancy Preservation Award.

Twohy Building (San José). Parts 1, 2, 3 and tenant improvements. CIM Group, 2003. Recipient of 2004 California Preservation Foundation, Preservation Design Award, Rehabilitation & Reuse category.

Brockman Building. Part 1. Sage Hospitality, 2001.

Homer Laughlin Building. Parts 1 and 2. Ira Yellin. 1991.

Culver Hotel (Culver City, CA). Parts 1 and 2. Louis Catlet. 1991.

Engine Co. No. 28. Parts 1, 2 and 3. Linda Griego. 1986.

Reviews for conformance with Standards
Buchanan Garage (San Francisco, CA). 2011.

Confidential project (Gaviota Coast, CA). 2011.

Far Bar (Far East Café). 20111-2017. Reviewed proposed alterations to National Historic Landmark.

Hugo Reid Adobe (Los Angeles County Arboretum). County of Los Angeles, 2010.

Holiday Bowl Coffee Shop and Majestic Pontiac sign. Axiom Properties, City of Los Angeles Cultural Heritage Commission and Crenshaw Corridor Specific Plan, 2006.

Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel and Spare Room. Goodwin Gaw, CRA and City of Los Angeles Planning Department, 2005, 2009, 2011.

National Historic Landmark and National Register of Historic Places Nominations Mission San Gabriel (San Gabriel, CA). current project.

Piedras Blancas Light Station (San Simeon, CA). 2009.

Killingsworth, Brady & Smith Building (Long Beach, CA). KSM Architecture, listed 2009.

General Sedgwick Tower (Bronx, NY), pro bono, determined eligible for National Register, 2007.

FRANCESCA G. SMITH
4 Southern California Gas Company Complex. CIM/Flower LLC, listed 2004.

Twohy Building (San José, CA). CIM/Twohy LLC, listed 2003.

Sam and Alfreda Maloof Complex (Rancho Cucamonga, CA). listed 2010.

Breed Street Schul/Congregation Talmud Torah (Boyle Heights). listed 2001.

Local Landmark and California Register of Historical Resources Applications Ruth Nelson Taylor Residence (Laguna Beach, CA) current project nomination for California Register.

Glendale Civic Auditorium (Glendale, CA) listed in California Register 2018.

Brockmont Park Historic District (Glendale, CA) designated local historic district, 2014.

Fire Station #21. 1187 East 52nd Street, designated City of Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monument (H-CM) #787, 2004.

Southern California Gas Company Complex. CIM Group, designated City of Los Angeles H-CM #789, 2004.

Gans Brothers Building, 814 South Spring Street, Flatiron Development Group, LLC, designated H-CM #737, 2002. 141-147 Bay Street- Bay Craftsman Cluster (Santa Monica). Morris Abram and Bill Bridges, designated local historic district, 2000.

Historic Property Survey Reports and Historic Resource Evaluation Reports Interstate 110 Terminus Project, At Grade Alternative. METRO and Caltrans District 7, current project.

Interstate 105 Express Lanes Project (Los Angeles County). METRO and Caltrans District 7, 2019.

Interstate 5 Freight Corridor (Los Angeles County). Caltrans District 7, 2018.

Interstate 405 Western/Crenshaw (Torrance, CA). Caltrans District 7, 2016.

San Gabriel Walnut Intersection (San Gabriel, CA). Caltrans District 7, 2014.

Interstate 5 Silverbow to Orr & Day Road (Norwalk, CA). Caltrans District 7, 2012.

Hollywood Crossroads Transit Corridor. CRA, CDM, 2010.

Twin Cities Road/Route 99 Interchange Modification Project (Galt, CA). Caltrans District 3, 2010.

Sunset Avenue Grade Separation Project (Banning, CA). Caltrans District 8, 2010.

North Fort Bragg Coastal Trail (Fort Bragg, CA). Caltrans District 5, 2010.

Hollister Avenue Bridge Seismic Retrofit Project (Goleta, CA). Evaluated 1880s-era railroad bridge for historic significance. Caltrans District 5. 2010.

Nogales Street Grade Separation and Gale Avenue/Walnut Drive Widening Project (City of Industry, CA). ACE, Caltrans District 7, 2009. 6th Street Viaduct Improvements Project. Caltrans District 7, 2007.

Pacific Electric Inland Empire Bike Trail Project for the City of Fontana. Also prepared Finding of Effect. Caltrans District 8, 2009.

US-101 Del Norte Overcrossing, In Ventura County. City of Oxnard, Caltrans District 7, 2007.

US-101/Wendy Drive Interchange Improvement Project (Newberry Park, CA). Caltrans District 7, 2007.

State Route-57 Widening, Cities of Placentia, Fullerton and Brea, In Orange County. Bonterra Consulting, Caltrans District 12, 2006.

State Route-118 Widening Between Spring Road and Moorpark Avenue, In Ventura County. City of Moorpark, Caltrans District 7, 2006.

Santiago Creek Bicycle Trail Bridge. Responsible for preparation of Archaeological Survey Report as well. City of Orange, Caltrans District 12, 2005.

Santiago Creek Bicycle Trail. City of Orange, Caltrans District 12, Bonterra Consulting, 2002.

Sepulveda Boulevard Overcrossing at Alameda Street, In Los Angeles County. City of Carson, Caltrans District 7, FHWA, 1996.

Orange Show Road Extension, San Bernardino, California. City of San Bernardino, Caltrans District 8, FHWA, 1995.

Interstate-10 Between Baldwin Avenue and Interstate-605, In Los Angeles County (Segment 1). NegDec/FONSI. Caltrans District 7, FHWA, 1993.

Interstate-10 Between Puente and Citrus Avenues, In Los Angeles County (Segment 2). Caltrans District 7, FHWA, 1995.

Interstate-10 Between Citrus Avenue and Routes 57, 71 and 210, In Los Angeles County (Segment 3). Caltrans District 7, FHWA, 1994.

Interstate-10 Between State Route 57/Interstate-210 and The Los Angeles/San Bernardino County Lines and Interstate-15, In Los Angeles County (Segment 4A). NegDec/FONSI. Caltrans District 7, FHWA, 1993.

Interstate-10 Between The Los Angeles/San Bernardino County Lines and Interstate-15, In San Bernardino County (Segment 4B). San Bernardino County Associated Governments, Caltrans District 8, FHWA, 1993.

Proposed Widening of Interstate-Route 15 and Reconstruction of The 15/40 Interchange, From Lenwood Road to East Main Street, Barstow, In San Bernardino County. NegDec/FONSI. Caltrans District 8, Nevada Department of Transportation, FHWA, 1994.

Interstate-10/Monterey Avenue Overcrossing. City of Palm Desert, Caltrans District 11, FHWA, 1992.

State Route-120 Oakdale Bypass Interchange Improvement Project, In Stanislaus County. Caltrans District 10, FHWA, 1993.

Historic Assessments
Confidential projects (5 buildings). major university, 2011.

FRANCESCA G. SMITH
5 Confidential project. Housing Corporation for the City of Los Angeles, 2011.

Piedras Blancas Light Station (San Simeon, CA). Piedras Blancas Light Station Board of Directors, 2010.

Cultural Resources Technical Report For Mammoth Crossing Project (Mono County, CA). City of Mammoth, 2009.

Addendum To The Cultural Resources Assessment For The Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension Project (Corona, CA). 2009.

Archaeological Survey, Evaluation And Eligibility Investigation For Three Bedrock Milling Feature Sites (unincorporated San Diego County, CA). Stonemark Estates, 2010.

Preliminary Cultural Resources Survey For Formation of the Wiseburn Unified School District Project (El Segundo, Hawthorne and unincorporated Los Angeles County, CA). TAHA, 2008.

Proposed South Region Elementary School No. 9 Project (South Gate, CA). Cultural Resources Initial Technical Report and Phase I Site Investigation, Intensive Survey. LAUSD 2008.

Proposed South Region Middle School No. 3 Project (Walnut Park, CA). Cultural Resources Initial Technical Report and Phase I Site Investigation, Intensive Survey, LAUSD 2008.

Class III Cultural Resources Inventory For Border Fuel Break Project (San Diego County, CA). Bureau of Land Management, 2008.

Foster’s Old Fashion Freeze Property- 590 Marsh Street (San Luis Obispo, CA). City of San Luis Obispo, 2008.

Thomas Roads Improvements Projects (Bakersfield, CA). Built Environment Historic Context Statement, 2008. 10757 - 10763½ Wilkins Avenue. Weston Benshoof Rochefort Rubalcava & MacCuish, LLP, 2003.

Strick Residence- 1911 La Mesa Drive (Santa Monica, CA). Evaluation of single-family residence attributed to Oscar Neimeyer for historic significance. Property is only known example in the United States credited to the noted Brazilian architect. Harding, Larmore, Kozal & Kutcher, 2002.

Fire Station #21 – Southeast Los Angeles (1162-1192 East 51st Street and 1165-1187 East 52nd Street) City of Los Angeles Bureau of Engineering, 2002. Later designated a City Historic-Cultural Monument (2004).

Fire Station #65 (9912, 9916 and 9920 Holmes Avenue, 1807, 1811 and 1825 East Century Boulevard and 9909 and 9917 Bandera Street, Watts) City of Los Angeles Bureau of Engineering, 2002. 666 South Bonnie Brae Street. CRA, 2002.

Star Court-1951-1959 Beachwood Drive (Hollywood, CA). City of Los Angeles, CFF Properties, 2002.

Broad Street Mixed-Use Project (San Luis Obispo, CA). City of San Luis Obispo, Oasis Landscape Architecture & Planning (Oasis), 2002.

Walnut-Toro Properties (San Luis Obispo, CA). City of San Luis Obispo, Oasis, 2002.

Phase I: El Encanto Hotel- 1900 Lassuen Road (Santa Barbara, CA). City of Santa Barbara, with Alexandra Cole, TynanGroup, 2002.

Hillview Apartments- 6807 Hollywood Boulevard (Hollywood). CRA, Millennium Holdings, 2001.

Automobile Club of Southern California, Hollywood Branch Office/Liberty Records- 6902 Sunset Boulevard (Hollywood). CRA, Reliable Properties, 2001.

Gas Station Building- 11757 East Hadley Street (Whittier, CA). City of Whittier, Whittier Redevelopment Agency, Melvyn Green & Associates, Inc., 2001.

Esperion Duarte/Dream Theater Building- 693-699 Lighthouse Avenue; Mission Building- 685-691 Lighthouse Avenue; and Garnero’s Hector de Smet Bakery- 665 Lighthouse Avenue (Monterey, CA). The Cannery Row Company, City of Monterey, 2001.

Mutual Don Lee Broadcasting/AIDS Project LA- 1313 North Vine Street (Hollywood). CRA, Accord Interests, 2000. 1351-53, 1357-59 South Alvarado Street and 1336-38 South Hoover Street. CRA, 2000.

Bowden Ranch Estates Project (San Luis Obispo, CA). City of San Luis Obispo, Oasis, Bowden Ranch Estates, 2000. 811 El Capitan Way- The Log Cabin (San Luis Obispo, CA). City of San Luis Obispo, Oasis, Covey III, 2000 1230 Montana Avenue- Moeller Murphy Moeller Mortuary (Santa Monica). City of Santa Monica, Damavandi Capital LLC, 2000. 4641 Morro Drive (Woodland Hills, CA). City of Los Angeles, Accord Interests LLC, 2000. 914 Royal Street and 1210 West 30th Street. University of Southern California, 2000. 2600 Wilshire Boulevard- Home Savings of America (Santa Monica, CA). City of Santa Monica, Payless Cellular, Inc., 2000.

Zions German Methodist Episcopal Church (Carson, CA). City of Carson, 1998.

Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fé Railroad Yard and Shops (San Bernardino, CA). City of San Bernardino, The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company, 1993-94.

Major Investment Studies
Los Angeles-Bakersfield High Speed Ground Transportation System. Caltrans, FTA, 1993.

The Corridor. Orange County Transportation Authority, 1996.

Environmental Constraints Analyses
Eastern Bypass (Temecula, CA). Western Riverside Council of Governments, 2007.

Ventura Freeway Aerial Alignment Project Study Report. METRO, 1993.

FRANCESCA G. SMITH
6 Santa Monica Boulevard Transit Parkway. METRO, 1993.

Bridge Rehabilitations, Relocations, Evaluation of Adjacent New Construction Fletcher Drive Bridge (seismic retrofit). City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Engineering, Department of Public Works, HDR Engineering, Inc., 2002.

North Broadway/Buena Vista Viaduct Rehabilitation/Reconstruction (seismic retrofit). City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Engineering, Department of Public Works, 1999.

Olympic Boulevard Bridge Rehabilitation/Reconstruction. City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Engineering, Department of Public Works, 1999.

Memorandum: La Loma Bridge, Evaluation of Historic Significance. City of Pasadena, (listed in National Register 7/14/04) 1998.

Duck Creek Bridge Relocation (Dallas, Texas). DART, US Army Corps of Engineers, FTA, 1997.

White Rock Creek Bridge Rehabilitation and Adjacent New LRT Bridge (Dallas, Texas). DART, FTA, 1997.

Photographic Documentation
State New Elementary School #1 (Huntington Park, CA). LAUSD 2002.

Environmental Compliance For Los Angeles County Rail System. (Red Line Eastern Extension) METRO, 1997.

Metropolitan Water District (MWD) Headquarters, Union Station. MWD, 1997.

Historic American Buildings Survey/Historic American Engineering Record (HABS/HAER) Arroyo Seco Parkway (Pasadena Freeway). HAER No. CA-265. Caltrans District 7, 1999. Assisted in research effort.

State Exposition Building (Ahmanson Building, California Museum of Science and Industry). HABS No. CA-2608. State of California, National Park Service, 1996.

Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, Master and Preservation Plans Brockton Arcade Design Guidelines (Riverside, CA). City of Riverside, current project.

East Los Angeles College Satellite Campus Project (City of South Gate). Berliner Architects, current project.

City of Monterey Design Guidelines, Cannery Row Conservation District. The Cannery Row Company, Monterey Bay Aquarium and City of Monterey, 2004.

Villa Riviera (Long Beach, CA). Villa Riviera Board of Directors, 2001.

Roosevelt Building. John Ash Group, 1991.

Miscellaneous
Co-Executive Producer
Commodore Schuyler Heim Bridge: Spanning Centuries of Progress. high definition, half-hour documentary film, 2015.

Peer Review
Historic Preservation Ordinance (Carmel-By the Sea Municipal Code, Chapter 17.41). City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, 2002.

General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan, Land Use & Community Character Element. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, adopted 2003.

Mills Act (Historical Property Contract) Application
Robert R. Blacker House, Pasadena (Greene & Greene, 1907). Harvey Knell, City of Pasadena, 2003.

Author or Researcher
"Preserving the Birth Place of Hip Hop, 1520 Sedgwick Tower." David Gest, Panorama (University of Pennsylvania School of Design), Spring 2007, Vol. XVI.
“Mail Chutes and Downtown Los Angeles Buildings” Los Angeles City Historical Society Newsletter, October 2003, Volume XXX, Issue 4.

Sacramento’s Memorial Auditorium: Seven Decades of Memories. Bonnie Snyder and Paula Boghosian. (Sacramento: Sacramento Heritage Press) 1997.

Southern California’s Car Culture Landmarks: A Drive Thru History of the Southland, Automobile Club of Southern California, 2000.

1 Ezzati, Vista
From: Sargsyan, Sofi
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2023 10:35 AM
To: Ezzati, Vista
Cc: Danielle Lockareff; Christopher Welch DRB; ; Art Simonian DRB; Nina Tchaghayan
Subject: Fw: Save Bistagne House (1766 Cielito Dr.)
For your consideration for DRB Meeting 1/12.

Sofi Sargsyan | Administrative Specialist I
City of Glendale | Community Development, Planning
633 East Broadway, Room 103 | Glendale, CA | 818-937-8176 [email protected]| www.glendaleca.gov | Follow us! From: ROBERTA A MEDFORD <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2023 10:21 AM
To: Design Review Board <[email protected]> Subject: Save Bistagne House (1766 Cielito Dr.)

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

Dear Design Review Bd. members,
I write to ask you to recognize the historic value of this strikingly beautiful mid‐century property, and of the significant place in Glendale’s history of the original owners.

The consultant report seems inadequate, and there is evidence that they may be biased against preservation.

You would do better to direct our city design staff to instead prepare the required full environmental review which includes revealing and mitigating any negative project impacts.

Glendale’s very valuable and appealing neighborhoods have been nourished by our success in preserving historic properties.  Every unnecessary and preventable demolition like this one chips away at that, and is a  great disappointment to me.

Sincerely,
Roberta Medford
2715 Sycamore Avenue
Montrose

2 nations and became popular worldwide. Its popularity waned in the late 20th century as neo-eclectic house styles featuring historical and traditional decoration became more popular.

Preservationist movements have begun in some ranch house neighborhoods, reinforced by an interest in the style from a younger generation who did not grow up in such homes. This revival has been compared to that which other house styles such as the bungalow and Queen Anne experienced in the 20th century.[1] --
PLEASE NOTE MY NEW CONTACT INFORMATION:

Corin L. Kahn, Esq.
401 Wilshire Blvd
12th Floor
Santa Monica, CA | 90401
Office: 424-252-4714
Email: [email protected]

1 Ezzati, Vista
From: Sarah Botros Youssef <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 6, 2023 4:24 PM
To: Ezzati, Vista
Subject: 1766 Cielito Dr. Glendale, CA 91207
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

To whom it may concern

I have lived in Southern California for many years in Glendale for over 10 and I observed both mid‐century and ranch‐style homes everywhere. These styles are not about to disappear. Dr. Demirchian's home will add a special house to the neigborhood.

Neighbor,
Sarah Youssef
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 1 Ezzati, Vista
From: Anita Endjilian <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 1:36 PM
To: Ezzati, Vista
Subject: Regarding 1766 Cielito Dr. Glendale
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

To whom it may concern,
I have been a resident of Glendale for over 40 years and have seen the city evolve and beautifully adapt to the times through the neighborhoods and businesses.  I was recently walking through the Brockmont neighborhood and was advised that the so‐called architectural historians claim the existing home at 1766 Cielito Dr. is both mid‐century and ranch. Seeing both along with beautifully modernized homes that bring up the value of the neighborhood, this mashup of two styles is an eye sore. These neighborhoods in Glendale we see have either a modern, ranch or mid century styles, and this is what adds to the beauty and charm of the home and neighborhood; not a combination of two very different designs. If this is the case, then each of these architectural styles dilutes the other and you end up with a mutt, not a pure breed of a charming home. I cannot understand how a mix of these two styles can represent a significant example of either one of them. I think with the times we should be looking at the style that is most appealing and brings the most beauty and value to the neighborhood. I am in full support of the beautiful design for the property mentioned above. Coming from a family of realtors and understanding property value and neighborhood charm,  this will be a remarkable and beautiful home to add to the Brockmont neighborhood.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Concerned citizen of Glendale,
Anita Martinez
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 1 Ezzati, Vista
From: Armen Khoshoryan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 6:38 PM
To: Ezzati, Vista
Subject: 1766 Cielito Dr., Glendale CA 91207 - DEMIRCHIAN HOME DEVELOPMENT CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Good Evening,
My name is Armen Khoshoryan and I am a fellow Glendale resident in support of Dr. Demirchian's newly designed home development at 1766 Cielito Dr., Glendale, CA 91207.

To be frank, I am disappointed by the actions of my fellow Glendale citizens who resist change and progress as though that is an inherently bad thing. I believe if Glendale citizens had this type of attitude, this city would have never developed as beautifully as it had over the past decade. Glendale is a city that has always championed progress and advancement and I am shocked that this City's wonderful residents are now the main roadblock to allow greater advancement and modern design. Dr. Demirchian's proposed plans for his property would enhance the neighborhood esthetically and more importantly signal to all Glendale residents (and those whom Glendale would welcome) that the city is in fact advancing and changing for the better.

I thank you for the opportunity to be heard and I strongly advocate my support for Dr. Demirchian's proposed home development project.

Thank you,
Armen Khoshoryan
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 1 Ezzati, Vista
From: Karina Sarkissian <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 5:32 PM
To: Ezzati, Vista
Subject: 1766 Cielito Dr Glendale CA 91207
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Board,
Tens of thousands of ranch style houses, if not more, were built after the war.

There was a pressing need for new houses, just like today. You can feel from them that speed and affordability were important.  You can see that that ranch style houses lack design features. Buyers in those days did not want expense, they wanted affordability. Dr. Demirchian's well designed home has detailed design features making it special unlike the current house.

Thank you,
Karina Sarkissian
Glendale Resident of 35 years.

You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 1 Ezzati, Vista
From: narek Khachatryan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 6:24 PM
To: Ezzati, Vista
Subject: Dr. Demirchian’s home project at 1766 Cielito Dr.

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

Narek Khachatryan
1363 Norton Ave,
Glendale, CA 91202
Dear whom it may concern,
My name is Narek Khachatryan . I am told that the commonality between mid‐century and ranch‐style homes is that they were developed to minimize costs, especially after World War II. I am not aware of anything that makes this house special. I am in full support of the new home that is going to be built on the existing pad which was graded in the 1960s.

You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 1 Ezzati, Vista
From: Zemaitaitis, Vilia
Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2023 7:10 AM
To: Nina Tchaghayan DRB; Danielle DRB; Art Simonian; Christopher Welch; Joseph Kaskanian Cc: Ezzati, Vista; Platt, Jay; Sargsyan, Sofi
Subject: Fwd: Oppose demolition of Bistagne House at 1766 Cielito For your consideration.

From: Andrew Allison <[email protected]>
Date: February 8, 2023 at 10:57:16 PM PST
To: Design Review Board <[email protected]> Subject: Oppose demolition of Bistagne House at 1766 Cielito

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

Dear Members of the Design Review Board:

I am writing to ask you to oppose the demolition of the Bistagne House at 1766 Cielito, an outstanding example of a mid-century California ranch house, designed by noted architect Robert L. Earl in 1961.

Earle is noteworthy for being the architect of many houses of the famous and well-to-do in Beverly Hills, and is also recognized for his important role in the development of the Ladera Heights neighborhood.

The current historic resource evaluation for the Bistagne House overlooks numerous facts in its determination as "not historic." Reference should be made to research in the DPR prepared by Francesca Smith.

With the detailed evidence provided by Francesca Smith that this property is a historic resource, I'm hopeful that you are too convinced that the application to demolish the residence must be denied, and that an environmental review of the project is required.

At a minimum, please vote to request the project be sent to the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) for review of the historic status of the property.

Thanks for your efforts, and for your attention to this significant property.

Regards,
Andrew Allison
1330 Romulus Drive
Glendale, CA 91205
1 Ezzati, Vista
From: Catherine Jurca <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2023 11:44 AM
To: Design Review Board
Cc: Ezzati, Vista
Subject: Updated comments re: 1766 Cielito, PDR 2113521-B Attachments: JurcaComments-1766Cielito-updatedFeb-2023.pdf CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

My apologies—I revised the letter I submitted an hour ago, mostly to take care of egregious typos that I included in my haste to get it to you. Please find the updated update below! Best, Cathy
Dear Members of the Design Review Board:

Please accept this updated letter based on new information in the staff report and the January 2023 memo from the historic resource consultant.

I hope that you receive correspondence from the public in a timely way. I learned at our last Historic Preservation Commission meeting that all emails from the public go to an email account that no commissioners actually have access to. I worry the same may be true in your case! Thank you for your time and consideration.

Best wishes,
Catherine Jurca
February 7, 2023
Members of the Design Review Board
City of Glendale
via email
Re: Agenda Item 6a, 1766 Cielito Dr. PDR 2113521-B
Dear Members of the Design Review Board:

Please accept this updated letter based on new information in the staff report and from the historic resource consultant. The first 2 pages are entirely new.

I know from my experience on the Historic Preservation Commission that the City provides no training on CEQA for its board members and commissioners, even though we are charged with making CEQA determinations. In the past, the DRB has balked at challenging staff’s opinion about historic resource impacts, even when presented with ample evidence that the CEQA analysis is flawed. It is unfortunate that staff did not address the evidence contradicting the consultant’s report before the first hearing on this project; we all know that the pressure to approve projects increases as the process moves along. However, that is not relevant for your decision about historic status.

I hope that the mountain of evidence that the property is a historic resource convinces you that you must deny the application to demolish the residence and require environmental review of the project. However, if the evidence only gives you significant pause about its historic status, please vote to request the project be sent to the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) for review of the historic status of the property. Under Glendale’s revised Historic Preservation Ordinance, the Commission may render decisions involving “potential historic resources,” not just those that are designated or have been identified through a historic resources survey, at the discretion of the Director of Community Development (GMC 15.22.050):

B. For a potential historic resource, the historic preservation commission shall consider all evidence in the record and make findings as to whether or not the subject property is eligible for listing on the Glendale Register, and is therefore a historic resource because the resource meets one or more of the criteria for listing in Section

15.20.050 of this code.

Obviously I would have to recuse myself from any decision about the historic status at the Commission, because I am not impartial. Based on my review of the documents in the record, including the historic resource evaluations and Staff Report, and my own site visit, I believe that this property qualifies as a historic resource under criteria B and C as a locally significant example of Mid-century Modern-Ranch architecture and for its association with the Tom and Wanda Bistagne. Please note that a property need only meet one of the criteria to be considered eligible.

Jurca 2
Again, I ask you not to approve demolition without environmental review. As before, I strongly disagree with the Kaplan Chen Kaplan (KCK) analysis, and the incredibly lazy memo dated January 21, 2023, that the consultant produced in response to the discovery that the project was designed by Robert L. Earl (to wit, using “Applying the National Register Criteria for Evaluation” to this locally eligible property; continuing to state that Earl is tagged as the engineer on the 1766 Cielito building permit, when he is NOT (see figure 1); failing to identify the homes and communities he built; suggesting that because the project is early in his career that is somehow disqualifying), only amplifies my profound concerns about the quality and integrity of her evaluation. It is literally her job to discover Earl’s connection to the property herself and to evaluate this property in light of his career: that is what a historic resource evaluation does; it does not simply speed demolition. Her memo basically provides a list of reasons she has not done it. What is missing is quite damning: for example, Earl’s important role in the development of Ladera Heights, along with Charles Wong (https://www.laderaheightsnews.com/valentine-homes.html). The attorney’s conclusory statement that the KCK report constitutes “substantial evidence” but the findings of qualified architectural historian Francesca Smith somehow do not is ridiculous. The anemic response from staff is disheartening to say the least. They are demanding context that they do not themselves provide when bringing properties to the Historic Preservation Commission for evaluation for the Glendale Register. With two staff members who are qualified in historic preservation (and this is leaving out Chloe Cuffel who I understand is completing her degree in Heritage Conservation at USC), one would think that staff would have undertaken to answer their own questions.

Beyond the historic preservation issue, this project is obviously what Glendale’s antimansionization Hillside Development Review Policy was designed to prevent. The owners propose to replace the historic resource with an almost 5,000-square-foot building, not counting the almost 700-square-foot garage. You are required to make findings that the project complies with the Policy, and I do not see how that is possible.

30.11.040 Residential district additional ROS and R1R development standards.

The following standards shall apply in the ROS and R1R zones:

A. Hillside Development Review Policy.

1. Every discretionary decision made by the city council, along with city boards, commissions and administrators related to development in the ROS and R1R zones shall take the following into consideration…
b. Development shall be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood in terms of size, scale, bulk/mass, roofline orientation, setbacks, and site layout. c. Site plans shall show preservation of prominent natural features, native vegetation and open space in a manner compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, minimizing alteration of terrain necessary for development.

Jurca 3
d. Site plans for development of property on steep slopes shall take into account the visual impact on surrounding properties.
e. The architectural style and architectural elements of in-fill development shall be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.

The size has scarcely decreased and is not compatible with the neighboring properties.

A two-story building with subterranean garage is an incompatible architectural element, as the staff report notes. Grading has increased for the project, despite a requirement to minimize alteration of terrain. Glendale has a terrible track record lately of taking the Hillside Development Review Policy seriously in evaluating hillside projects, despite the mandatory requirements for compatibility. Please change that.

From my previous letter:

My first significant preservation effort ever was in 2013, in relation to the proposed demolition of 3901 San Fernando Road. Pam O’Connor of KCK also wrote the report which found that the Mediterranean Revival commercial building built by and for the developer L. H. Wilson, who created San Fernando Road as a major regional industrial center, was not a historic resource. It had previously been found eligible for the National Register in a city-adopted survey. Around the same time, Ms. O’Connor also found other previously identified historic resources in Glendale—Alexander Market (204 W. Wilson) and the Central Avenue brick medical office buildings (540, 607, 610, and 633 N. Central Ave.)—not to be historic. In large part due to these projects, and the prominent role of a single consultant in demolishing so many vintage buildings, Glendale residents successfully lobbied to ensure that the City, rather than the developer, selects the consultant who prepares Environmental Impact Reports.

The historic resource evaluation for 1766 Cielito reminded me of the one for 3901 San Fernando Road. While less obviously egregious, it is still infuriating. Its laziness serves clear interests. It argues its case largely through rhetoric—short, declarative sentences that seem to strive to make the building and Bistagnes as bland and insignificant as the prose used to describe them—and conclusory statements that lack basis in fact. Its analysis of the property against the Glendale Register criteria is simply: “The subject property does not meet any of the Glendale Register criteria and is not eligible for inclusion to [sic] the Glendale Register of Historic Resources” (p. 22).

The Report contains errors throughout—far too many to enumerate. The consultant states that the Glendale Register “is silent with respect…to integrity” (p. 7). No, it’s not.

This would appear to be a cut and paste from the consultant’s previous reports, before Glendale revised its historic preservation ordinance. It would have been appropriate for the consultant to have familiarized herself with it. Trivially, but predictably, she gets the building year wrong out of the gate. It is 1961, not 1960, although it is correct later in the document. More outrageous, the consultant ignores evidence of Robert L. Earl’s involvement with the property. From page 11, Property History and Description:

Jurca 4
This contains errors of commission and omission. R.L. Earl and Assoc. is listed on the permit for the retaining wall, but neither the box for engineer or architect is checked.

And yet O’Connor asserts that the firm served as engineer for the project (see figure 1).

Figure 1. 1960 Building Permit for 1766 Cielito Dr.

It doesn’t take long for Google to take “Earl and Associates” and find the architectural practice of Robert L. Earl and Associates and a long list of notable Mid-century Modern/Ranch-style buildings credited to him. Members of the Bistagne family still work at the family business; a phone call to them could have confirmed Robert Earl as the architect. But you won’t find what you don’t want to look for. I am disappointed that staff did not pursue this connection either.

The use of SurveyLA criteria to make a case for or against the historic status of this property is baffling. Since when is Glendale located within the City of Los Angeles, and since when is its architecture to be evaluated according to a context that was not Jurca 5
designed for it and that members of the Historic Preservation Commission, staff, and the public had no role in shaping? SurveyLA is used to argue that the house is not a “hill house,” because its foundation is not adjusted to fit the slope (i.e. it’s not built into the hillside). So what?
The Staff Report’s dismissal of the architecture (“a few interesting features”) is unpersuasive and ignores the detailed analysis prepared by Francesca Smith. The California Modern Ranch, with pool no less, is iconic and does not get the attention or respect it deserves—not just in Glendale and not just from Pam O’Connor, who does not even use the word “ranch” in her evaluation. This is not Mid-century Modern as popularly conceived, and it should not be judged by those standards. It is sweeping and gracious, with over 3,000 feet on one level (so, yes, not a “hill house”). It possesses high integrity and exemplifies the style and its embodiment of a particularly sun-drenched version of the good (and in this case quite affluent) California life, not only through individual features but as clearly demonstrated in the whole (see Figure 2 and revised DPR prepared by Francesca Smith).

Figure 2. Rear of Bistagne House, Maynard Parker, 1965. Maynard Parker Collection, Huntington Library.

After having read hundreds of DPR forms and evaluation in the last seven years, I get a sense that some consultants can prepare them with their eyes closed. And some consultants just close their eyes.

Part of your decision about the historic status of this property is the credibility of opinions. For the reasons I have explained, including but by no means only my Jurca 6
familiarity with this consultant’s reports on behalf of developers seeking to demolish properties that have been identified as historic, and who fear their property may be so identified, I think you should find her opinion biased and not credible. Her work is error-ridden, and she does not dig deeply into the material, including the significance of the Bistagnes.

I am a preservation advocate, but I don’t squander my time trying to save properties I don’t think are historic. That is, just because I volunteer my time doesn’t mean I don’t place a high value on it. I review every DRB agenda and have done for years. Dozens of Mid-century properties in Glendale have gone to landfill without a word from me, much as I may regret the environmental consequences and what often takes their place.

This property is worth my time. It is special, and it is historic. Please do not approve demolition. The owner can always appeal the decision and take their case to the City Council, or better yet, can rehabilitate the property with an addition that respects the original design and style of the building.

Thank you for your consideration.

Best wishes,
Catherine Jurca
1 Ezzati, Vista
From: Catherine Jurca <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2023 10:57 AM
To: Design Review Board
Cc: Ezzati, Vista
Subject: Updated comments re: 1766 Cielito, PDR 2113521-B Attachments: JurcaComments-1766Cielito-updated.pdf
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Members of the Design Review Board:

Please accept this updated letter based on new information in the staff report and the January 2023 memo from the historic resource consultant.

I hope that you receive correspondence from the public in a timely way. I learned at our last Historic Preservation Commission meeting that all emails from the public go to an email account that no commissioners actually have access to. I worry the same may be true in your case! Thank you for your time and consideration.

Best wishes,
Catherine Jurca
February 7, 2023
Members of the Design Review Board
City of Glendale
via email
Re: Agenda Item 6a, 1766 Cielito Dr. PDR 2113521-B
Dear Members of the Design Review Board:

Please accept this updated letter based on new information that the subject property was designed by master architect Robert L. Earl. The first 2 pages are entirely new.

I know from my experience as a Historic Preservation Commission that the City provides no training on CEQA for its board members and commissioners, even though we are charged with making CEQA determinations. In the past, the DRB has balked at challenging staff’s opinion about historic resource impacts, even when presented with ample evidence that the CEQA analysis is flawed. It is unfortunate that staff did not address the evidence contradicting the consultant’s report before the first hearing on this project; we all know that the pressure to approve projects increases as the process moves along. However, that is not relevant for your decision about historic status.

I urge you not to do that in this case. We hope that the mountain of evidence that the property is a historic resource convinces you that you must deny the application to demolish to residence and require environmental review of the project. However, if the evidence only gives you significant reservations about finding it not to be historic, please vote to request the project be sent to the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) for review of the status of the property. Under Glendale’s revised Historic Preservation Ordinance, the Commission may render decisions involving “potential historic resources,” not just those that are designated or have been identified through a historic resources survey, at the discretion of the Director of Community Development (GMC 15.22.050):

B. For a potential historic resource, the historic preservation commission shall consider all evidence in the record and make findings as to whether or not the subject property is eligible for listing on the Glendale Register, and is therefore a historic resource because the resource meets one or more of the criteria for listing in Section

15.20.050 of this code.

Obviously I would have to recuse myself from any decision about the historic status at the Commission, because I am not impartial. Based on my review of the documents in the record, including the historic resource evaluations and Staff Report, and my own site visit, I believe that this property qualifies as a historic resource under criteria B and C as a locally significant example of Mid-century Modern-Ranch architecture and for its association with the Tom and Wanda Bistagne. Please note that a property need only meet one of the criteria to be considered eligible.

Jurca 2
Again, I ask you not to approve demolition without environmental review. As before, I strongly disagree with the Kaplan Chen Kaplan (KCK) analysis, and the incredibly lazy memo dated January 21, 2023, the consultant produced in response to the discovery that the project was designed by Robert L. Earl (to wit, using “Applying the National Register Criteria for Evaluation” to this locally eligible property; continuing to state that Earl is tagged as the engineer on the 1766 Cielito building permit, when he is NOT (see figure 1; failing to identify the homes and communities he built; suggesting that because the project is early in his career that is somehow disqualifying), only amplifies my profound concerns about the quality and integrity of her evaluation. It is literally her job to discover Earl’s connection to the property herself and to evaluate this property in light of his career: that is what a historic resource evaluation does; it does not simply speed demolition. Her memo basically provides a list of reasons she has not done it.

What is missing is quite damning;:for example, Earl’s important role in the development of Ladera Heights, along with Charles Wong
(https://www.laderaheightsnews.com/valentine-homes.html). The attorney’s conclusory statement that the KCK report constitutes “substantial evidence” but the findings of qualified architectural historian Francesca Smith somehow do not is ridiculous. The anemic response from staff is disheartening to say the least. They are demanding context that they do not themselves provide when bringing properties to the Historic Preservation Commission for evaluation for the Glendale Register. With two staff members who are qualified in historic preservation (and this is leaving out Chloe Cuffel who I understand is completing her degree in Heritage Conservation at USC), one would think that staff would have undertaken to answer their own questions.

Beyond the historic preservation issue, this project is obviously what Glendale’s antimansionization Hillside Development Review Policy was designed to prevent. The owners propose to replace the historic resource with an almost 5,000-square-foot building, not counting the almost 700-square-foot garage. You are required to make findings that the project complies with the Policy, and I do not see how that is possible.

30.11.040 Residential district additional ROS and R1R development standards.

The following standards shall apply in the ROS and R1R zones:

A. Hillside Development Review Policy.

1. Every discretionary decision made by the city council, along with city boards, commissions and administrators related to development in the ROS and R1R zones shall take the following into consideration…
b. Development shall be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood in terms of size, scale, bulk/mass, roofline orientation, setbacks, and site layout. c. Site plans shall show preservation of prominent natural features, native vegetation and open space in a manner compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, minimizing alteration of terrain necessary for development.

Jurca 3
d. Site plans for development of property on steep slopes shall take into account the visual impact on surrounding properties.
e. The architectural style and architectural elements of in-fill development shall be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.

The size has scarcely decreased and is not compatible with the neighboring properties.

A two-story building with subterranean garage is an incompatible architectural element, as the staff report notes. Grading has increased for the project, despite a requirement to minimize alteration of terrain. Glendale has a terrible track record lately of taking the Hillside Development Review Policy seriously in evaluating hillside projects, despite the mandatory requirements for compatibility. Please change that.

From my previous letter:

My first significant preservation effort ever was in 2013, in relation to the proposed demolition of 3901 San Fernando Road. Pam O’Connor of KCK also wrote the report which found that the Mediterranean Revival commercial building built by and for the developer L. H. Wilson, who created San Fernando Road as a major regional industrial center, was not a historic resource. It had previously been found eligible for the National Register in a city-adopted survey. Around the same time, Ms. O’Connor also found other previously identified historic resources in Glendale—Alexander Market (204 W. Wilson) and the Central Avenue brick medical office buildings (540, 607, 610, and 633 N. Central Ave.)—not to be historic. In large part due to these projects, and the prominent role of a single consultant in demolishing so many vintage buildings, Glendale residents successfully lobbied to ensure that the City, rather than the developer, selects the consultant who prepares Environmental Impact Reports.

The historic resource evaluation for 1766 Cielito reminded me of the one for 3901 San Fernando Road. While less obviously egregious, it is still infuriating. Its laziness serves clear interests. It argues its case largely through rhetoric—short, declarative sentences that seem to strive to make the building and Bistagnes as bland and insignificant as the prose used to describe them—and conclusory statements that lack basis in fact. Its analysis of the property against the Glendale Register criteria is simply: “The subject property does not meet any of the Glendale Register criteria and is not eligible for inclusion to [sic] the Glendale Register of Historic Resources” (p. 22).

The Report contains errors throughout—far too many to enumerate. The consultant states that the Glendale Register “is silent with respect…to integrity” (p. 7). No, it’s not.

This would appear to be a cut and paste from the consultant’s previous reports, before Glendale revised its historic preservation ordinance. It would have been appropriate for the consultant to have familiarized herself with it. Trivially, but predictably, she gets the building year wrong out of the gate. It is 1961, not 1960, although it is correct later in the document. More outrageous, the consultant ignores evidence of Robert L. Earl’s involvement with the property. From page 11, Property History and Description:

Jurca 4
This contains errors of commission and omission. R.L. Earl and Assoc. is listed on the permit for the retaining wall, but neither the box for engineer or architect is checked.

And yet O’Connor asserts that the firm served as engineer for the project (see figure 1).

Figure 1. 1960 Building Permit for 1766 Cielito Dr.

It doesn’t take long for Google to take “Earl and Associates” and find the architectural practice of Robert L. Earl and Associates and a long list of notable Mid-century Modern/Ranch-style buildings credited to him. Members of the Bistagne family still work at the family business; a phone call to them could have confirmed Robert Earl as the architect. But you won’t find what you don’t want to look for. I am disappointed that staff did not pursue this connection either.

The use of SurveyLA criteria to make a case for or against the historic status of this property is baffling. Since when is Glendale located within the City of Los Angeles, and since when is its architecture to be evaluated according to a context that was not Jurca 5
designed for it and that members of the Historic Preservation Commission, staff, and the public had no role in shaping? SurveyLA is used to argue that the house is not a “hill house,” because its foundation is not adjusted to fit the slope (i.e. it’s not built into the hillside). So what?
The Staff Report’s dismissal of the architecture (“a few interesting features”) is unpersuasive and ignores the detailed analysis prepared by Francesca Smith. The California Modern Ranch, with pool no less, is iconic and does not get the attention or respect it deserves—not just in Glendale and not just from Pam O’Connor, who does not even use the word “ranch” in her evaluation. This is not Mid-century Modern as popularly conceived, and it should not be judged by those standards. It is sweeping and gracious, with over 3,000 feet on one level (so, yes, not a “hill house”). It possesses high integrity and exemplifies the style and its embodiment of a particularly sun-drenched version of the good (and in this case quite affluent) California life, not only through individual features but as clearly demonstrated in the whole (see Figure 2 and revised DPR prepared by Francesca Smith).

Figure 2. Rear of Bistagne House, Maynard Parker, 1965. Maynard Parker Collection, Huntington Library.

After having read hundreds of DPR forms and evaluation in the last seven years, I get a sense that some consultants can prepare them with their eyes closed. And some consultants just close their eyes.

Part of your decision about the historic status of this property is the credibility of opinions. For the reasons I have explained, including but by no means only my Jurca 6
familiarity with this consultant’s reports on behalf of developers seeking to demolish properties that have been identified as historic, and who fear their property may be so identified, I think you should find her opinion biased and not credible. Her work is error-ridden, and she does not dig deeply into the material, including the significance of the Bistagnes.

I am a preservation advocate, but I don’t squander my time trying to save properties I don’t think are historic. That is, just because I volunteer my time doesn’t mean I don’t place a high value on it. I review every DRB agenda and have done for years. Dozens of Mid-century properties in Glendale have gone to landfill without a word from me, much as I may regret the environmental consequences and what often takes their place.

This property is worth my time. It is special, and it is historic. Please do not approve demolition. The owner can always appeal the decision and take their case to the City Council, or better yet, can rehabilitate the property with an addition that respects the original design and style of the building.

Thank you for your consideration.

Best wishes,
Catherine Jurca
1 Ezzati, Vista
From: Corin L. Kahn <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2023 10:35 AM
To: Ezzati, Vista; Aram Alajajian
Cc: Vardan Hambardzumyan; Souseh Babomian; Dr. Jack Demirchian Subject: RE: 1766 Cielito Drive - Comment Letters Received Attachments: EXPERT OPINION LETTER IN SUPPORT OF PROJECT.pdf CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Good morning Ms. Ezzati: we have consulted with a second expert, Dr. Peter Chesney, in the matter of the CEQA requirements concerning properties for which there is a dispute about potential historical significance. I am attaching that letter for the file and for staff to provide to the members of the DRB. The letter demonstrates a deep knowledge of the subject matters that some members of the community have raised. Based on both that knowledge and Dr.

Chesney’s research, he unambiguously rebuts the significance of those points. Do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.
--
PLEASE NOTE MY NEW CONTACT INFORMATION:

Corin L. Kahn, Esq.
401 Wilshire Blvd
12th Floor
Santa Monica, CA | 90401
Office: 424-252-4714
Email: [email protected]
From: Ezzati, Vista <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2023 8:38 AM
To: Aram Alajajian <[email protected]>
Cc: Vardan Hambardzumyan <[email protected]>; Souseh Babomian <[email protected]>; Dr. Jack Demirchian <[email protected]>; Corin L. Kahn <[email protected]> Subject: 1766 Cielito Drive ‐ Comment Letters Received
Hi Aram,
Please see the attached comment letters that have come in the last few days for your files. These comments are in support of the project.

Regards,

1 Ezzati, Vista
From: Smith, Francesca@DOT <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2023 7:11 PM
To: Zemaitaitis, Vilia; Abajian, Suzie; Ezzati, Vista; Design Review Board Cc: John Sims; [email protected]; Francesca Smith
Subject: RE: Item 7.a. 1766 Cielito Drive, DRB Case No. PDR2113521-B REVISION Corrected message apologies
Attachments: 1766 Cielito Dr Glendale- Feb 6 2023-FINAL.pdf; 1766 Cielito Dr Glendale- Feb 6 2023-FINAL.docx CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear DRB Chair and members:

I am resending a this message email along with the Please find my updated evaluation of the property at 1766 Cielito Drive attached for your review and consideration (in both Word and as a pdf).  It proves that the property is eligible for listing in the Glendale Register under Criteria B and C.  It contains additional information on Robert L. Earl and other facts.

I erred in calling this property a “presumptive historical resource” under CEQA. It is a discretionary historical resource, and the attached is substantial evidence of its historical significance and that its demolition would cause a substantial adverse impact on the historic resource, which is a significant effect on the environment.  Therefore, the project is not categorically exempt from CEQA review. An Environmental Impact Report must be prepared.

In order to appropriately clear the demolition of this property an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared.

You will see in my attached professionally qualified evaluation that the subject property is eligible for listing in the Glendale Register and is therefore a presumptive historical resource under the California Environmental Quality Act.

Based on this information, it has been fairly argued, based on substantial evidence, in light of the whole record, that the project, demolition of the historical resource, may have a significant environmental effect. The threshold for preparing EIRs is purposely a low and it has been presented.
“Fairly argued” means that there is evidence of the potential for impact in the administrative record before the lead agency
Impacts can be direct (like the proposed demolition), indirect or cause cumulative contribution impacts. The point that the proposed project demolition “may have” an impact means that the evidence need not be absolute or unequivocal. “Substantial evidence means” facts, like those used in my professional evaluation, reasonable assumption predicated on those facts and expert opinion, like mine, which are supported by facts.

Please ensure that this message is entered into the administrative demonstrative record for this project.

Thanks for your time.

Francesca Smith
From: Zemaitaitis, Vilia <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, 8 February, 2023 5:20 PM
To: Smith, Francesca@DOT <[email protected]>; Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]>; Ezzati, Vista <[email protected]>
Cc: John Sims <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Francesca Smith <smith‐[email protected]> Subject: RE: Item 7.a. 1766 Cielito Drive, DRB Case No. PDR2113521‐B EXTERNAL EMAIL. Links/attachments may not be safe.

Thank you for your email.

Your comments have been forwarded to the Design Review Board members for their consideration prior to the meeting and will be included in the case file for this project.

If you have any further comments or questions, please contact the case planner. 2 Vilia Zemaitaitis, AICP, Principal Planner | City of Glendale | Community Development Department 633 E. Broadway, Room 103 | Glendale, CA 91206 | 818‐937‐8154 [email protected] | www.glendaleca.gov

From: Smith, Francesca@DOT <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2023 5:16 PM
To: Design Review Board <[email protected]>; Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]>; Ezzati, Vista <[email protected]>
Cc: John Sims <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Francesca Smith <smith‐[email protected]> Subject: RE: Item 7.a. 1766 Cielito Drive, DRB Case No. PDR2113521‐B Importance: High
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear DRB Chair and members:

Please find my updated evaluation of the property at 1766 Cielito Drive attached for your review and consideration (in both Word and as a pdf).  It proves that the property is eligible for listing in the Glendale Register under Criteria B and C.  It contains additional information on Robert L. Earl and other facts.

In order to appropriately clear the demolition of this property an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared.

You will see in my attached professionally qualified evaluation that the subject property is eligible for listing in the Glendale Register and is therefore a presumptive historical resource under the California Environmental Quality Act.

Based on this information, it has been fairly argued, based on substantial evidence, in light of the whole record, that the project, demolition of the historical resource, may have a significant environmental effect. The threshold for preparing EIRs is purposely a low and it has been presented.
“Fairly argued” means that there is evidence of the potential for impact in the administrative record before the lead agency
Impacts can be direct (like the proposed demolition), indirect or cause cumulative contribution impacts. The point that the proposed project demolition “may have” an impact means that the evidence need not be absolute or unequivocal. “Substantial evidence means” facts, like those used in my professional evaluation, reasonable assumption predicated on those facts and expert opinion, like mine, which are supported by facts.

Please ensure that this message is entered into the demonstrative record for this project.

Thanks for your time.

Francesca Smith
From: Smith, Francesca@DOT
Sent: Tuesday, 10 January, 2023 4:27 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: John Sims <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Francesca Smith <smith‐[email protected]> Subject: Item 7.a. 1766 Cielito Drive, DRB Case No. PDR2113521‐B Dear Chair and esteemed members of the Design Review Board:

I evaluated the subject property for historic significance last year and submitted those results to the DRB on behalf of The Glendale Historical Society.  Based on additional information, that evaluation has been updated (see attachment), including identification of the architect who designed the subject property residence. The Kaplan Chen Kaplan evaluation in 2022 did not identify or consider the previous owners or Robert L. Earl, AIA, the master architect who designed the residence.
3 The update reveals that the property is clearly eligible for local designation.

I am a qualified Architectural Historian with more than three decades of experience successfully evaluating properties for historic significance.  Professional Qualification standards were established by National Park Service, and are published in the Federal Code of Federal Regulations, 36 CFR Part 61.  My CV is appended as well for your review.

This property should be treated as a “historical resource” under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and cannot not be demolished without appropriate environmental review.  The Staff Report errs in claiming that the project is exempt from CEQA.

Please do not vote to approve the project, direct the City to consider the property a historical resource and to prepare the proper type of environmental review.  It is with your purview to make this finding.

Thank you for your time and service.

Francesca Smith
PQS Principal Architectural Historian
California Department of Transportation
DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # UPDATE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code 5S3
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date