Agenda packet, first session — Glendale City Council, September 19, 2023 (part 3 of 3)

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 Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted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 original quarter-round radius, terrazzo front step is raised. The full-height curved wall bay 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 and driveway each 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 custom swimming pool set into a cantilevered, pebbled deck and clear downslope viewsheds to the south and west. 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,
and February 6, 2023
*P10. Survey Type: Intensive
*P11. Report Citation:

Evaluation of Historic Significance
for 1766 Cielito Drive, Glendale.
2022. Updated 2023.
*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

Page 2 of 8 ends

*Resource Name or # Bistagne Residence
B1. Historic name: Wanda & Thomas Bistagne Residence
B2. Common name: 1766 Cielito Drive
B3. Original Use: single-family residence 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. Painted 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). Although no architect is listed on the original building permit, a family member confirmed that it was designed by Robert L. Earl. Comparing this to other known examples of Earl’s work confirms this as his design. Earl also designed Mr.

Bistange’s brother, George and his wife, Martha’s nearby home in 1962. Both residences are high style examples of the MidCentury Modern style and the late Ranch subtype, each 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 at left. 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 that first small shop was. The business has notably 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 was prescient, as 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, through the 1950s but later focused on body work and paint, and are considered among the best in the industry.
(See Continuation Sheet, page 3)
B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) *B12. References:

Refer to pages 7 and 8
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#

Page 3 of 8 ends

*Recorded by: F. Smith *Date: last updated February 6, 2023 Continuation Update *P3a. Description: Continued from page 2
The uniquely shaped, custom pool, like the residence and its driveway, has a wide, curved corner which further emphasizes the property’s carefully expressed, radius-curved geometry which was a hallmark of Robert L. Earl’s modern designs. The few known alterations include replacement of the recessed entrance doors and a kitchen garden window at the back of the house (dates 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 roughly the same era. It is located in Rosewood Estates, a tract with and long-established CC&Rs which are clear about retaining the area’s character, and specifically includes limits on building heights to one story. *B10. Significance: Continued from page 2
Among other car clubs, their shop became notably associated in the 1950s with The Road Kings, a notorious car and drag racing club in Burbank that was, and continues to be, known for their meticulous paint work (Custom Car Chronicles 2022). The Bistagne business was directly associated with the 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 regional car culture in their bold ideas regarding car modifications and their mastery of specialized paint finishes .

The second and third generations of Bistagnes remain active in the family business which was established partly because of the original brothers’ fascination with and as undisputed founders of the then-nascent field of car customization. According to “Oldest Body Shops In America” the author stated “If any body shop in America can be called the quintessential post-war body shop, it’s Bistagne Bros Body Shop in Glendale, CA.” Gary Ledoux described their significance “They were what one might call a pair of ‘pioneers’ in the California car craze later made famous in movies and music...” He asserts that people saw their work, liked it and wanted the brothers to work their charm on their own cars. Before they knew it, they had a small business going, customizing cars for friends, neighbors---anyone who saw or appreciated their work. They worked days … they worked nights … they worked on weekends just to keep up. A career in automotive customizing looked promising… [later] heavy engine work was dropped, as was customizing. Maybe they were visionaries and saw the future of increased post-war car sales and increased miles traveled …. maybe it was just instinctive to the brothers. But they decided to concentrate on body repair and automotive painting (Ledoux 2018).

The Bistange Bros. Body Shop at 1400 E. Chevy Chase Bl., was established more than 78 years ago and was notably not found to be eligible for local designation or for listing in the National or California Registers in the in the 2018 South Glendale Survey.

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

Glendale is identified in Kustomland as being part of the “cluster of businesses in then suburban los Angeles [that] catered to the burgeoning custom cult” (2008). A case in point was the 1938 Ford DeLuxe convertible sedan that was reimagined by the Bistagne brothers in 1940 when they
filled the hood sides and top of the grille. The windshield was chopped 2.75 inches and a padded top [was made] using 1934 Ford Cabriolet rear door windows, giving it a rounded rear corner to the window and top. The rear license plate was inset in the deck lid and a pair of 1939 Ford taillights were installed in the fenders. The running boards were removed and State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # UPDATE DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial#

Page 4 of 8 ends

*Recorded by: F. Smith *Date: last updated February 6, 2023 Continuation Update *B10. Significance: Continued from page 3
California Metal Shaping Company created a pair of running board covers. The stock bumpers were replaced with 1937 DeSoto ripple bumpers. Once the bodywork was finished the body was painted [what was to become their signature color] 1941 Buick maroon metallic. Dual spotlights and Hollywood Flipper Hubcaps wrapped up the style (Kustomrama:

Traditional Rod and Custom Encyclopedia 2023).

In Kevin Starr’s Golden Dreams: California in an Age of Abundance, 1950-1963, the author precisely enumerated the features of a custom car that would strongly influence southern California and the national identity. Like the Bistagnes first did in 1940, a vehicle was
channeled (lowered) to sit more closely to the pavement, its rear wheels skirted with metal shields, its windows topchopped to half their normal size, to create an atmosphere of mystery, the front or rear end of the car raked downward in pure attitude, exhaust pipes extended, painted pin-striping and decorative motifs, such as flames, running along the surface, suggestive of explosive power beneath the hood (2009).

These are the same elements of work as the brothers first undertook before World War II. Comparison of the Bistagne customizing legacy with that of the late Barris Brothers, Ed “Big Daddy” Roth or Kenny “Von Dutch” Howard demonstrates the lasting importance of the Bistange brothers, particularly in Glendale. Sam and George Barris at Barris Kustoms enjoyed success and were influential in the custom car area but focused their careers on specialized cars made for film and television, including General Lee, The Munster Koach, Drag-u-la and The Monkeemobile. Big Daddy Roth, a well-known hot-rodder and an artist who financed his inventions by selling his drawings and t-shirts ,was primarily known as the graphic designer of Rat Fink and other characters (Roth 2003). The man known as Von Dutch was Los Angeles-based mechanic who worked primarily on motorcycles and became a metalsmith, knife fabricator and gunsmiths became a notable artist, and pin-striper. He is primarily known for a clothing line that bears his name. Thus the Bistagne history, while it may have been most relevant to the early custom car movement left a lasting impression on the field. There are some remaining “speed shops” in Glendale, but they are not recognized as integral progenitors of the style movement as were the Bistagnes. It should be noted that other than the Barris brothers, none of those innovators made stable livings, and none of them become philanthropists ]who helped shape the future of their communities.

Tom Bistagne who died in 2007, was extremely 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). He also supported the Nationwide Collision Education Repair Foundation and the body shop continues its local Teen Auto Workshop with Petersen Auto Museum. The Bistagnes were considered “major supporters” of his alma mater, Glendale Community College (ibid).

He was tremendously 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. Mrs. 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, hand painted, full-size portraits flanking the altar with the Virgin Mary. No other parishioners have received that high honor. Through their lifelong efforts, they made a lasting impression in Glendale including mental health and educational causes. Memorial scholarships in their names continue to support Glendale Community College students. In his regionally and easily nationally significant custom car work and their shared community involvement, the Bistagnes significantly contributed to improving the past and future of the City of Glendale. In Southern California, their lasting impression is in the legacy of custom cars which deeply affected teen and young adult culture in music, films, fashion and built environment development, including drive-in theaters and restaurants, since the early 1950s. Different groups adopted and adapted car culture and developed it according to their own races or groups, classes and tastes, from “low riders” and “rice rockets” to surfer woodies, muscle cars, classic car enthusiasts, NASCAR and Formula One racing.

As much as cars represented freedom to young people throughout the United States in the post-war era, the ability to possess, alter and personalize a person’s own or shared car has been a fundamental element in so much of American coming-of-age, urban, suburban, and rural customs that shaped numerous other factors.

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

Page 5 of 8 ends

*Recorded by: F. Smith *Date: last updated February 6, 2023 Continuation Update *B10. Significance: Continued from page 4
Robert L. Earl was a Los Angeles-based designer who became a licensed architect (LA Architect 1986). Earl was born in 1934, grew up in the Windsor Hills area and died in 2018 in Los Angeles. In the early 1950s, he was a draftsman or an associate of modernist architect, Charles W. Wong. After being was “discovered” by developer Homer Valentine , Earl spent more than a decade designing increasingly modern, single-story homes with swimming pools in the View Park and Ladera Heights areas of Los Angeles (Steinbrocker no date). Earl said of the time:

I credit Homer Valentine for the expansion of my career, when I was starting out. People would admire the style and design of Homer's new houses and call me to draw up plans for their homes… I still love the Windsor Hills and Ladera Heights areas. The homes and grounds are so well kept… Homer liked to build homes close to where he lived. When he lived in View Park, he built there. When he lived in Ladera Heights, he had his crews there. I often ended up traveling a lot further…
His [Earl’s] clients have included …sports figures [as well as] Madonna, Nancy Sinatra [Architectural Digest 1962], Sylvester Stallone, Robert Kardashian, Barron Hilton, and Warren Beatty, among dozens of others. He also designed [LA Investment Co President] Ru[e]ben Ingold's home and that of Ingold's son-in-law and daughter (ibid).

Other notable clients over Earl’s career included Werhner von Braun, Vin Scully, Michael Landon (Architectural Digest 1990), Irving “Swifty” Lazar (Haldeman 2013) and Donald Trump. He designed entire neighborhoods including large number of upscale homes in Palos Verdes, Calabasas, Redlands and a townhome community in Burbank (House & Home 1976). Steinbrocker described Earl’s “artistic vision” which resulted in “signature design features” for each home, and together created “lush neighborhoods imbued with timeless beauty for countless generations to enjoy.” Despite working with wealthy and famous clients throughout his career, the architect kept a surprisingly low profile. When asked about collaboration with Donald Trump on a golf club and 36 homes in Palos Verdes, Earl was surprisingly blunt, saying “He likes his materials all rich… Everything is in marbles and granites and gold finish” (Daily Commercial News 2004).

Mid Century Home fittingly defined the contradiction in Earl’s career. “As a builder of celebrity houses, information on Robert L.

Earl is peculiarly elusive. This architect has managed to establish himself as an architect to the stars while also maintaining a remarkable level of anonymity”(2017). For someone who maintained a low profile, he was awarded numerous accolades in his industry. He received the Pacific Coast Builders Conference’s prestigious Gold Nugget Award for 15 consecutive years (including three in 1985), the Orange County and Beverly Hills “Design Homes of the Year” awards and multiple Major Achievement in Merchandising Excellence Awards from the Building Industry Association (Haute Residence 2011).

A search of Architectural Digest archives reveals about 25 individual articles with photos between the 1950s and early 2000s focused primarily on his distinctive residential designs. Earl’s practice eventually ventured beyond the continental United States with known projects in Hawaii, Japan, Brunei, China, Mexico and Saudi Arabia.

In the now-rare coffee table book, In Trousdale Estates: Midcentury to Modern in Beverly Hills, at least three of Earl’s late and early 1960s designs are in described in the text and lavish photographs. The author, Steven M. Price summed up the effects of Earl’s designs, “Part of what made Trousdale Estates over the top was its embodiment of what it felt like to be wealthy in an optimistic era” (2017). Price’s interest in the Trousdale community was partly encouraged by his appreciation of Earl’s designs. The very specific Earl style is still highly prized among architecture aficionados: one of his homes sold in 2022 for a reported $38 million.

Robert L. Earl “produced some phenomenally expressive homes there and nowhere was this freeform, kinetic experimentation more evident than in their floor plans… His use of swoops, arcs and circles were not only signature elements of their day, they have become prized features of the present as well “ (ibid). The Bistagne House is both expressive and freeform, it radiates dynamic energy in its idiosyncratic floor plan and roof design. Unlike some of Earl’s more symmetrical ordered, Period Revival designs, it has swoops in its roof overhangs, the interior and exterior plans, and the many curved interior and exterior walls. The location and viewsheds created for the Bistange House, together with the use of natural stone in walls, custom terrazzo floors that extend to the front stoop, the hand-painted mural on the living room wall and other upscale finish materials collectively declare to visitors that this house was built as something special, where a great deal of care was taken in every detail, and still is. Reflecting their taste in cars, the owners wanted everything to be customized. The Bistagne House design exemplifies the forward-looking principles of southern California regional modernism at the time in a uniquely optimistic, and admittedly in an over-the-top way, which is impeccably executed.

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

Page 6 of 8 ends

*Recorded by: F. Smith *Date: last updated February 6, 2023 Continuation Update *B10. Significance: Continued from page 5
The following year, Earl designed an equally distinctive residence for Martha and George Bistagne at 1616 Parway Drive, Glendale (Photograph 2).

Photograph 2:

Martha and George
Bistagne Residence,
view northeast. The
front eave is
distinctively curved
in plan. Note the
custom driveway
materials and
colors. Source:

Google maps,
September 2022.

Review of Photograph 2 establishes that the connections among the Bistagne residences’ designs are abundant. They include the shared low pitched, rock-finished roofs, canted, overhanging eaves, single-story heights, natural stone wall and pier finishes, recessed double-door entrances, cantilevered back yard pools, boomerang plan shapes and unassuming (but large) garages. In 1962, Earl also designed the Japanese-influenced Modern residence at 1811 Niodrara Drive, in the Niodrara Drive Historic District, Glendale, residences at 1935 Carla Ridge and 1945 Loma Vista Drive, both in Beverly Hills. He was not yet 30 years old at the time.

The designer’s own home at 1934 Casiano Drive in Los Angeles, built in 1963, was a single-story, with a double-door entrance, boomerang shape, and a swimming pool located inside of the crook of the “elbow.” His career spanned decades and changing tastes, including 12833 Chalon Road (1996, Brentwood) 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 considered “an 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 subject property exhibits nearly all of the character-defining features (CDFs) of the Mid-Century style established in the “South Glendale Historic Context Statement” the only known local guidance on the subject (2018). Those CDFs include its onestory height; the horizontal massing; its simple geometric forms; the low-pitched, gabled roof finished in natural rock, with wide overhanging eaves; the unadorned stucco wall surfaces with natural stone used as exterior wall panels and accent materials; flushmounted 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 illustrated in the “South Glendale Historic Context Statement” the Mid-Century Modern design idiom was “characterized by a clear expression of structure and materials, large expanses of glass, and open interior plans” (2018). The Ranch subtype and the Mid-Century Modern style are explained in the publication “Glendale’s Residential Character: both took advantage of large suburban parcels to create new lowlying, 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) as are evident in the design of the subject property.

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 avoiding the South Glendale context, failed to adequately consider the local importance of or achievements of the owners, Mr. and Mrs. Bistagne, uses National Register guidance for local eligibility findings and abjures the established reputation of the project designer, who later became an architect, making those shaky errors their reasons for not finding it eligible for any historic designation (Kaplan Chen Kaplan 2022 and 2023).

National Register guidance clarifies “Work of a Master” in “How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation” A master is a figure [like Robert L. Earl], of generally recognized greatness in a field [such as design of upscale Mid Century custom residences], whose work is distinguishable from others by its characteristic [curvilinear] style and quality [of design which the Bistagne House exhibits in its style and materials]. The property must express a particular phase in DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # UPDATE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial#

Page 7 of 8 ends

*Recorded by: F. Smith *Date: last updated February 6, 2023 Continuation Update *B10. Significance: Continued from page 6
the development of the master's career [early 1960s], an aspect of his or her work [suburban boomerang-plan residences], or a particular idea or theme [like curved walls combined with indoor-outdoor living] in his… craft (2005).

In addition, to be considered significant as the work of a master, the property must be the type for which the architect was best known. In this case, Robert L. Earl was clearly considered preeminent, despite his intentionally low profile, for designing high style, single-family, innovative, one-story homes in the late 1950s and early 1960s, with curved walls, on hillsides, with cantilevered backyard pools. The subject property is a perfect illustration of that type.

It should be noted that the same consultants have never been known to find 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 (designed by noted architect, Stiles O.

Clements), 3901 San Fernando Road (estimated 2013) and 512 West Doran Street (2014, overridden by City of Glendale staff).

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, its designed immediate and more natural larger downslope setting 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 local humanitarians 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, 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 more than adequate integrity to its original design, location, setting, nearly all materials, workmanship , its feeling and direct association with the Bistagnes. 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 many 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
____. “Robert L Earl Designs $25Million Beverly Hills Estate” Haute Residence. July 6, 2011 at https://www.hauteresidence.com/robert-l-earl-designs-25-million-beverly-hills-estate/ ____. “Area Builders, Architects Win Big: Southland Firms Capture Most Gold Nuggets at PCBC” Los Angeles Times. June 23, 1985. ____. “Cabrini Villas” House & Home. September 1976.
____. “New Members” LA Architect 1986.
____. “New Trump Golf Development Provokes Mixed Reaction From Wealthy Residents” Daily Commercial News. September 17, 2004 at https://canada.constructconnect.com/dcn/news/labour/2004/09/new-trump-golf-development-provokes-mixedreaction-from-wealthy-residents-dcn029096w ____. “ Robert Earl’s Bel-Air Residence: Hilltop Seclusion” Mid-Century Home. February 9, 2017 at https://www.midcenturyhome.com/robert-earl-bel-air-residence-hilltop/ Amirkhanian, Ani. “Obituary” Glendale News-Press. November 28, 2007.

Anonymous Bistange family member. 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 at 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.

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

Page 8 of 8 ends

*Recorded by: F. Smith *Date: last updated February 6, 2023 Continuation Update *B12. References: Continued from page 7
Glendale. City of. “Glendale Design Guidelines for Residential Buildings in Adopted Historic Districts” no date.

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

Haledman, Peter “Trousdale, Los Angeles’s Forgotten Architectural Mecca, Makes a Comeback” The New York Times Style Magazine. October 16, 2013 at https://archive.nytimes.com/tmagazine.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/16/on-the-vergetrousdale-los-angeless-forgotten-architectural-mecca-makes-a-comeback/ Kaplan Chen Kaplan. “1766 Cielito Drive Glendale, California Historic Resource Evaluation” 2022.

Kaplan Chen Kaplan. Memo to Aram Alajajian re 1766 Cielito Drive Glendale, January 23, 2023.

Kustomrama: Traditional Rod and Custom Encyclopedia. “George Bistagne’s 1938 Ford” 2023 at https://kustomrama.com/wiki/George_Bistagne%27s_1938_Ford#cite_note-rh-1 Ledoux, Gary. “Oldest Body Shops In America” Auto Body News. July 12 2018 at https://www.autobodynews.com/ index.php/component/ k2/item/15852-oldest-body-shops-in-america-bistagne-bros-body-shop.html Price, Steven. In Trousdale Estates: Midcentury to Modern in Beverly Hills. (NY: Simon & Schuster, 2017).

Roth, Ed. The Art of Ed "Big Daddy" Roth. (United States: Last Gasp, 2003).

Starr, Kevin. Golden Dreams: California in an Age of Abundance, 1950-1963. (United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2009).

Steinbrocker, Dan. “Homer Valentine Famous Windsor Hills and Ladera Heights Home Builder” Ladera Heights News. no date at https://www.laderaheightsnews.com/valentine-homes.html
Taylor, Thom. Kustomland: The Custom Car Photography of James Potter, 1955-1959. (Minneapolis: Motor Books International 2008). “Wanda Anna Bistagne” Los Angeles Times. June 5, 2019.

Zarsadiaz, James. Resisting Change in Suburbia Asian Immigrants and Frontier Nostalgia in L.A (Berkeley: UC Press, 2022). 1 Ezzati, Vista
From: Smith, Francesca@DOT <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2023 5:16 PM
To: Design Review Board; Abajian, Suzie; Ezzati, Vista
Cc: John Sims; [email protected]; Francesca Smith
Subject: RE: Item 7.a. 1766 Cielito Drive, DRB Case No. PDR2113521-B Attachments: 1766 Cielito Dr Glendale- Feb 6 2023-FINAL.pdf; 1766 Cielito Dr Glendale- Feb 6 2023-FINAL.docx 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.

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

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 2 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

Page 1 of 8 ends

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

May 25, 2022, revised January 10,
and February 6, 2023
*P10. Survey Type: Intensive
*P11. Report Citation:

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD

Page 2 of 8 ends

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

Figure 1: Original business card for Bistange Bros. at 1411 E. Chevy Chase, estimated 1946 or 1947 at left. Source: Custom Car Chronicles, 2022.

Refer to pages 7 and 8
B13. Remarks: none
*B14. Evaluator
*Date of Evaluation:

Page 3 of 8 ends

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

Page 4 of 8 ends

Traditional Rod and Custom Encyclopedia 2023).

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

Page 5 of 8 ends

Mid Century Home fittingly defined the contradiction in Earl’s career. “As a builder of celebrity houses, information on Robert L.

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

Page 6 of 8 ends

Photograph 2:

Martha and George
Bistagne Residence,
view northeast. The
front eave is
distinctively curved
in plan. Note the
custom driveway
materials and
colors. Source:

Google maps,
September 2022.

Page 7 of 8 ends

Clements), 3901 San Fernando Road (estimated 2013) and 512 West Doran Street (2014, overridden by City of Glendale staff).

The house, its curved driveway, unique pool and cantilevered deck was the place of residence where the well-known local humanitarians lived and entertained.

Anonymous Bistange family member. 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.

Glendale, City of. Various building permits.

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

Page 8 of 8 ends

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

Kaplan Chen Kaplan. Memo to Aram Alajajian re 1766 Cielito Drive Glendale, January 23, 2023.

Roth, Ed. The Art of Ed "Big Daddy" Roth. (United States: Last Gasp, 2003).

Starr, Kevin. Golden Dreams: California in an Age of Abundance, 1950-1963. (United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2009).

Zarsadiaz, James. Resisting Change in Suburbia Asian Immigrants and Frontier Nostalgia in L.A (Berkeley: UC Press, 2022). 1 Ezzati, Vista
From: Zemaitaitis, Vilia
Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2023 9:35 AM
To: Nina Tchaghayan ; Danielle Lockareff; Art Simonian DRB; Christopher Welch DRB; Joseph Kaskanian
Cc: Ezzati, Vista; Platt, Jay; Sargsyan, Sofi
Subject: FW: 1766 Cielito - The Bistagne House
For your consideration.
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Gloria Sander <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2023 9:57 PM
To: Design Review Board <[email protected]> Subject: 1766 Cielito ‐ The Bistagne House
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] 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 the Design Review Board,
I am writing this evening to request that you oppose demolition of The Bistagne House. It is so easy to erase the history of a city and its neighborhoods, never to be resurrected again. This house has an architectural footprint that deserves great consideration as to its value, and to its historical and architectural merit. The house is part of Glendale history but also part of the larger history of architecture in Southern California. I, along with my neighbors, worked for three years to establish the North Cumberland Heights Historic District. I am also an historian of Los Angeles art and architecture of the early modern period and am a curator at a local museum. Many residents here have a full and sympathetic understanding of such structures to our posterity. Please vote against demolition.

If there is a tension as to whether to move forward, please request that the HPC produce an evaluation for this address as an historic resource.

Thank you for accepting this recommendation.

Sincerely,
Gloria Williams Sander
909 Matilija Road
Glendale, CA 91202
1 Ezzati, Vista
From: Zemaitaitis, Vilia
Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2023 7:11 AM
To: Nina Tchaghayan DRB; Danielle DRB; Art Simonian DRB; Christopher Welch DRB; Joseph Kaskanian Cc: Ezzati, Vista; Platt, Jay; Sargsyan, Sofi
Subject: Fwd: Design Review Item: 1766 Cielito
For your consideration.

Begin forwarded message:

From: Joanna Pringle <[email protected]>
Date: February 8, 2023 at 11:32:30 PM PST
To: Design Review Board <[email protected]> Subject: Design Review Item: 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 Board Members,
Please save 1766 Cielito.

It is a striking ranch house designed by a highly respected architect that Glendale is so lucky to have.

As time goes on, I know we will only be more proud that you saved this rare home. Thank you very much for doing what Design Review is here to do.

Yours sincerely,
Joanna
Joanna Pringle
1555 Hillside Drive
Glendale, CA 91208
Mobile 213‐509‐0005
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 1 Ezzati, Vista
From: Eric Abramian <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2023 3:45 PM
To: Ezzati, Vista
Cc: mom; David Sagherian; [email protected]
Subject: Re: 1766 Cielito Dr Hearing
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Hi Vista,
Hope you are well. Reiterating my above comments for tonight's DRB meeting.

Thanks,
Eric
On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 3:04 PM Ezzati, Vista <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Eric,

Thank you. A copy will be forwarded to the DRB for their consideration.

Please be advised, as of today staff will be recommending to the DRB that they continue this item to a date certain of January 26th.

We have received a lot of comments on this in the last few days, and a historic issue has come up as part of those comments that was not previously identified and staff needs time to research it.

The DRB typically goes with staff’s recommendation to continue an item when something like this comes up. They may choose to open the public hearing portion for people to speak – that’s rare, but it has happened and is at their discretion. There will still be an opportunity to speak again when this is heard on the 26th.

If you would like to submit revised or additional comments between now and the next hearing you are welcome to email them to me.

Regards,

2 From: Eric Abramian <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2023 2:43 PM
To: Ezzati, Vista <[email protected]>
Cc: mom <[email protected]>; David Sagherian <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: 1766 Cielito Dr Hearing

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

Hi Vista,

I hope you are doing well and enjoying the beginning of the new year!

I received a notice for the DRB meeting re the proposed resubmittal at 1766 Cieltio Dr. I will not be able to attend the meeting on Thursday but I want to express the same concerns I had regarding the original proposal. Even with a reduction from 5,337 sq ft. to 4.850 sq ft., the size and feel of this proposed house is incompatible with the look and feel of the neighborhood. While I am a huge proponent of adding value to the neighborhood with new homes designed by renowned architects, I also do not want to run the risk of creating a neighborhood where homes are completely inconsistent in size and feel with one another, thereby giving everyone free reign to build to whatever dimensions they wish or even worse reduce the overall value and desirability to live on Cielito Dr. This street is arguably the crown jewel of Glendale, California, and it is important we put serious thought into maintaining its beauty, consistency and overall value.

I hope that my comments can be considered for the meeting.

All the best,

Eric Abramian
1 Ezzati, Vista
From: Smith, Francesca@DOT <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2023 1:47 PM
To: Zemaitaitis, Vilia; Abajian, Suzie; Ezzati, Vista
Cc: Francesca Smith
Subject: RE: Item 7.a. 1766 Cielito Drive, DRB Case No. PDR2113521-B Attachments: WANDA & TOM BISTAGNE RESIDENCE 2 9 23-PPT.pptx CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Hi all, my revised PowerPoint is attached for tonight’s DRB meeting.

Please let me know if you have any problem opening it or need additional information.

Thanks in advance.

Francesca Smith
From: Smith, Francesca@DOT
Sent: Wednesday, 8 February, 2023 7:11 PM
To: Zemaitaitis, Vilia <[email protected]>; Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]>; Ezzati, Vista <[email protected]>; [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 REVISION Corrected message apologies 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.

Please ensure that this message is entered into the administrative demonstrative record for this project.

Thanks for your time.

Francesca Smith
2 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.

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:

In order to appropriately clear the demolition of this property an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared.

Please ensure that this message is entered into the demonstrative record for this project.

Thanks for your time.

Francesca Smith
3 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:

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.

Thank you for your time and service.

Francesca Smith
PQS Principal Architectural Historian
California Department of Transportation

WANDA & TOM BISTAGNE

RESIDENCE
1766 Cielito Drive, Glendale

WANDA & TOM BISTAGNE

RESIDENCE

ELIGIBLE FOR LISTING IN

GLENDALE REGISTER
2 Criterion B
for associative significance and
Criterion C
for design and
as the work of a master
architect.

CRITERION C
The resource embodies the distinctive and exemplary characteristics of an architectural style, architectural type, period... or represents a notable work of a master designer… or
architect whose genius influenced his profession…
and retains historic integrity.

MASTER ARCHITECT
ROBERT L. EARL, AIA
ROBERT L. EARL

RESIDENCE, BEL-AIR
1963
BISTANGE RESIDENCE #2,

GLENDALE
1962
410 DABNEY
LANE,

TROUSDALE

ESTATES
1958
4804 SOUTHRIDGE AVENUE,

LADERA HEIGHTS

LOS ANGELES
1959
2023 4

CRITERION B
5 The resource is associated with …persons,
who significantly contributed to the history of
the nation, state, region, or city,
and retains historic integrity.

The resource is associated with …
persons,
who significantly contributed
to the history of the nation,
state, region, or city,
and retains historic integrity.

WANDA & TOM BISTAGNE HOUSE
Maynard L. Parker
May 1965
7 CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL

QUALITY
ACT
This property is a historical resource.

Historical resources
are considered part of the environment.

Because the proposed project would
demolish a historical resource,
it would cause
substantial adverse change in its
significance,
which is considered an impact
under CEQA.

A project that may cause
a substantial adverse effect on the
significance of a historical resource
is a project that may have

A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE
ENVIRONMENT.
2023 Bistagne
8 1
Ezzati, Vista
From: Zemaitaitis, Vilia
Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2023 9:39 AM
To: Nina Tchaghayan ; Danielle Lockareff; Art Simonian DRB; Christopher Welch DRB; Joseph Kaskanian
Cc: Ezzati, Vista; Platt, Jay; Sargsyan, Sofi
Subject: FW: Deny Demolition of Bistagne House - 1766 Cielito Drive For your consideration.

From: Jeffrey Head <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2023 9:36 AM
To: Design Review Board <[email protected]> Subject: Deny Demolition of Bistagne House ‐ 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.

Hello,
My name is Jeffrey Head. I am a resident of Glendale and a concerned citizen, especially when it comes to preservation of Glendale’s historic architectural resources.

I write to you today to oppose the demolition of the Bistagne House at 1766 Cielito Drive.

It does not take a trained architectural historian to identify the architectural integrity of the Bistagne House. The architectural value of the house is obvious for its uniqueness, particularly within Glendale. It only takes looking at the house to recognize its social, cultural and historic value. Yet, what is most unfortunate is that Kaplan Chen Kaplan (KCK) and its on-staff architectural historian neglected its fundamental duty and responsibility in properly, accurately evaluating the Bistagne House. Instead, it appears Kaplan Chen Kaplan (KCK) generated an evaluation of the house from a pre-disposed, financially-based viewpoint. This lack of impartiality is reason enough to dismiss KCK’s report.

KCK’s report lacks the objectivity necessary for making fair and accurate determinations.

To me, it appears the owners of the Bistagne House have paid KCK for the convenience of ignoring its historic value to ensure an outcome that favors the owners desire to demolish the house.

At minimum, I would like to ask that an unbiased, impartial party, such as the Historic Preservation Commission, review the owner’s application. Otherwise, Glendale is again in danger of losing a historic resource simply because of negligence caused by not following rules and regulations the city itself has defined.
2 I oppose the demolition of the Bistagne House at 1766 Cielito Drive.

Sincerely,
Jeffrey Head
1 Ezzati, Vista
From: Zemaitaitis, Vilia
Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2023 11:03 AM
To: Nina Tchaghayan Danielle Lockareff; Art Simonian DRB; Christopher Welch DRB; Joseph Kaskanian
Cc: Ezzati, Vista; Platt, Jay; Sargsyan, Sofi
Subject: FW: 1766 Cielito
For your consideration.

From: Joemy Wilson <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2023 10:44 AM
To: Design Review Board <[email protected]> Subject: 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.

Hello,
I am writing to state that I oppose demolition of the Bistagne House at 1766 Cielito. Not only does it deserve preservation as the design of a Master Architect, Robert L. Earl, but the outsized building that would take its place would violate Glendale's Hillside Development Review Policy. I hope you will consider these historic and environmental factors at your meeting tonight.

Sincerely,
Joemy Wilson
Glendale resident since 1986
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 1 Ezzati, Vista
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2023 3:07 PM
To: Ezzati, Vista
Subject: 1766 Cielito Dr. Glendale, CA 91207
[You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
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 City of Glendale,
I have been living in Glendale, CA for eight years. I am aware of the project on 1766 Cielito Dr. and cant wait for this project to start. What I do not understand is... there is nothing spectacular about the current existing house. It looks just like houses all over Southern California built in the 60s. Why preserve a style that is so common? I do not understand why people would ask for that.

Sincerely,
Kristina Nazarova
1 Ezzati, Vista
From: Zemaitaitis, Vilia
Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2023 12:26 PM
To: Nina Tchaghayan ; Danielle Lockareff; Art Simonian DRB; Christopher Welch DRB; Joseph Kaskanian
Cc: Ezzati, Vista; Platt, Jay
Subject: FW: 1766 Cielo Drive
For your consideration.

From: Robert H King <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2023 11:41 AM
To: Design Review Board <[email protected]> Subject: 1766 Cielo 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 Members of the Design Review Board:

I am writing to oppose the demolition of the home at 1766 Cielo Drive in Glendale. Facts about this house show that it may be eligible for the Glendale Register for its Mid‐century Modern/Late‐Ranch subtype design and as a work of Earl’s, and for its association with the Bistagnes. I urge you to reconsider the importance of this home as a Glendale resource.

Sincerely,
Robert King
1330 Cambridge Drive
Glendale, CA
Get BlueMail for Desktop
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 1 Ezzati, Vista
From: Silva Gasparian <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2023 3:16 PM
To: Ezzati, Vista
Subject: Fwd: 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.

To Design review board,
My name is Silva Gasparian.

I reside on 1818 Cielito drive, Glendale CA 91207.

I am in opposition to the proposed new construction on 1766 Cielito drive, the fact that it’s now lower in height and 500sq ft smaller does not change the reasons that I objected to it in the past! -The design and size of this proposed project is not consistence with the rest of the houses on Cielito drive, which are single story mid century design. All the houses are terraced in such a way that non of their views are blocked. The street has a nice uniform and modest and neighborhood feel to it.( Hence the reason why CC&Rs were implemented to keep the houses on a single level when the area was developed).

Furthermore, it was mentioned at the last DRB meeting about 1818 Cielito being a partial two story house. Let me clarify that structure is at the end of a flag lot, tucked below street level and not visible at all when driving on Cielito drive. Also, the CC&R was amended at that time, with majority of the neighbors approval, to exclude only and only that lot from the CC&R’s one level requirement for that tract. Plus it’s still approximately 500sq ft smaller than the proposed project. -Having to excavate such a large area on a hillside to accommodate a subterranean parking is alarming and dangerous to the stability of the whole hillside and the other homes now especially with the torrential rains they we are experiencing.

Although I believe that everyone is entitled to their dream house..but doing so one should not interfere or reduce other peoples home values or put their homes in danger.

I also have faith in Glendale’s design review board that they will propose an alternative single story design that will compliment the neighborhood and pleases the owner of the property.

Sincerely,
Silva Gasparian
Sent from my iPhone
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 2 Begin forwarded message:

From: Silva Gasparian <[email protected]>
Date: January 12, 2023 at 2:42:52 PM PST
To: [email protected]
Subject: 1766 Cielito drive
To Design review board,
My name is Silva Gasparian.

I reside on 1818 Cielito drive, Glendale CA 91207.

Although I believe that everyone is entitled to their dream house..but doing so one should not interfere or reduce other peoples home values or put their homes in danger.

I also have faith in Glendale’s design review board that they will propose an alternative single story design that will compliment the neighborhood and pleases the owner of the property.

Sincerely,
Silva Gasparian
1 Ezzati, Vista
From: Gevork A <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2023 4:00 PM
To: Ezzati, Vista
Subject: 1766 Cielito Dr in Glendale Ca
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
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 name is Gevork Alexanian and I have been living in Glendale since 2020. This email is in regards to 1766 Cielito Dr in Glendale Ca. I have been to multiple historic properties and this current house in my opinion isn't a historic property. I support the new home plan to be build on this property.

Thank you,
Gevork Alexanian
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important NOTE: This email came in after the Hearing on February 8th, and was not considered by the DRB. 1766 Cielito Drive
PDR 2113521

PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED FOR

ORIGINAL DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION

Vista Ezzati
Project Planner
City Of Glendale
Dear Vista:

Introduction
My name is David Sagherian, P.E. I reside at 1770 Cielito Drive , Glendale CA, 91207.

The proposed 1766 Cielito project has major violations as shown below:

Violations to applicable Codes
The violations I am reporting are:

1. Glendale municipal code – Title 30, Zoning Code Chapter 30.11 – Residential Districts – 30.11.010.B – Purpose R1R (Restricted Residential) Zone states:

The R1R zone is intended to preserve and protect low density residential neighborhoods in hillside areas in conformance with the comprehensive general plan to promote the public health, safety and general welfare of the community. Within this zone it is proposed to preserve valuable open space, physical features and scenic
resources while, at the same time, permitting a substantial and reasonable beneficial use of such property.

Furthermore, Section 30.11.040 provides 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:
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. b. Development shall be compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood in terms of:
size – PROPOSED STRUCTURE (SEE A-0.1) IS 5,337 SF – AVERAGE SIZE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS 3,500SF MAX – 53% LARGER IF NOT LARGER: NOT

COMPATIBLE
Scale PROPOSED STRUCTURE IS 53% LARGER: NOT COMPATIBLE
bulk/mass – THE BUILDING IS MASSED INSIDE A VERY SMALL BUILDABLE FOORTPRINT AS THE BULK OF THE LOT (SHEET C-1) IS HILLSIDE STEEP GRADE. NO OTHER STRUCTURE ON THE TRACT ATTEMPTS SUCH AN APPROACH. NOT COMPATIBLE
roofline orientation – NO ROOF ORIENTATION (IT IS ALMOST FLAT TO ALLOW 8’6”

HEIGHT IN SECOND FLOOR BUT THERE IS ZERO ALLOWANCE FOR
MECHANCAL DUCTWORK TO SERVICE THE ROOMS): NOT COMPATIBLE (ALL HOUSES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAVE PITCHED ROOFS ALONG A GENERAL NORTH-SOUTH ORIENTATION): NOT COMPATIBLE
setbacks, ARE MET
and site layout. THE BUILDING IS MASSED INSIDE A VERY SMALL BUILDABLE FOORTPRINT AS THE BULK OF THE LOT (SHEET C-1) IS HILLSIDE STEEP GRADE . NO OTHER STRUCTURE ON THE TRACT ATTEMPTS SUCH AN APPROACH. : NOT COMPATIBLE
d. Site plans for development of property on steep slopes shall take into account the visual impact on surrounding properties.

See Sheet A-0.4 , IN ALL SECTIONS, VISUAL IMPACTS WERE NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT AND ARE NOTICEABLE. SECTIONS ARE ALSO INACCURATE AS

THEY DO NOT SHOW ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT (MECHANICAL AND
PROPOSED SOLAR THAT WILL ADD 2 TO 3 FEET OF VISUAL OBSTACLES). :

NOT COMPATIBLE
e. The architectural style and architectural elements of in-fill development shall be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.

STYLE IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD

AS MAJORITY IS SINGLE STORY RANCH STYLE WITH PITCHED ROOFS AND ATTACHED GARAGE – PROPOSED STRUCTURE IS ULTRA MODERN

FUTURISTIC STYLE WITH LARGE GLASS BAYS, RECTANGULAR WALLS AND FLAT ROOF WITH UNDERGROUND GARAGE. : NOT COMPATIBLE

AND FINALLY, DRAWINGS INTENTIONALLY FAIL TO SHOW IN PROPOSED SECTIONS AND ROOF DRAWINGS (SHEET A2.3) SOLAR PANELS AND MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT NECESSARY TO CONDITION THE BUILDING:

1. ROOF PLAN INDICATES PROPOSED SOLAR PANEL LOCATIONS IN TWO AREAS. SINCE ROOF IS ESSENTIALLY FLAT, THESE WILL HAVE TO BE PITCHED AT LEAST BY TWO+ FEET IN A SOUTHERN
ORIENTATION TO BE EFFECTIVE (ADDING TWO FEET HIGH AND 24 TO 30 FEET WIDTH MIN OF VISUAL OBSTRUCTIONS). THE TWO FEET WILL BE ADDITIONAL TO THE CURRENTLY PROPOSED 22 FEET NON

COMPLIANT HEIGHT) IN LARGE AREAS OF THE ROOP IMPACTING
NEIGHBORS’ VISUAL VISTAS.

2. MECHANICAL AIR CONDITIONING EQUIPMENT (EXHAUST FANS

AND AIR HANDLERS) WILL MOST LIKELY BE PLACED ON THE ROOF FOR MINIMUM AESTHETIC IMPACT. THE BUILDING BEING 5,300 SF, IT WILL REQUIRE ROUGHLY 10 TONS OF A/C COOLING. THESE
UNITS ARE AT LEAST 6 FEET WIDE AND 3 FEET HIGH WO CURBS AND THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE WILL BE NEEDING AT LEAST 2 OR

MORE DEPENDING ON HOW THE MECHANICAL ENGINEER WILL

ZONE THE BUILDING (ADDING THREE FEET MIN TO THE PLANNED 22 FEET). NOTE: WHILE 3 COMPRESSORS ARE SHOWN ON THE

NORTH SIDE OF THE UNIT, AIR HANDLERS CANNOT BE FITTED
INTO THE FIRST NOR SECOND FLOORS AS SHOWN.

THE INSTALLATION OF SOLAR AND MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT (ROOFTOP

UNITS, SAUNA EQUIPMENT, KITCHEN AND BATHROOM EXHAUST FANS)

CHIMNEY(S), AND VARIOUS VENT AND EXHAUST PIPING FOR PLUMBING

AND WATER HEATER WILL ADD VISUAL BARRIERS TO THE NEIGHBORING UNITS AS WELL AS INFRINGE ON THE MAXIMUM 14’ ESTABLISHED FOR CHIMNEYS AND OTHER ABOVE ROOF REQUIREMENTS. : NOT

COMPATIBLE

2. Second, Civil code section 5975 of the California Civil code:

Property is in a tract governed by Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) (attachment a) and while this is not adjudicated by the DRB, it is still a relevant to the neighbors who have abided to these restrictions over the years:

CIVIL CODE – CIV DIVISION 4. GENERAL PROVISIONS [3274 - 9566] ( Heading of Division 4 amended by Stats. 1988, Ch. 160, Sec. 16. )

PART 5. Common Interest Developments [4000 - 6150]
( Part 5 added by Stats. 2012, Ch. 180, Sec. 2. )

CHAPTER 10. Dispute Resolution and Enforcement [5850 - 5986] ( Chapter 10 added by Stats. 2012, Ch. 180, Sec. 2. )

ARTICLE 4. Civil Action [5975 - 5986]
( Article 4 added by Stats. 2012, Ch. 180, Sec. 2. )

5975.
(a) The covenants and restrictions in the declaration shall be enforceable equitable servitudes, unless unreasonable, and shall inure to the benefit of and bind all owners of separate interests in the development. Unless the declaration states otherwise, these servitudes may be enforced by any owner of a separate interest or by the association, or by both.
(b) A governing document other than the declaration may be enforced by the association against an owner of a separate interest or by an owner of a separate interest against the association.
(c) In an action to enforce the governing documents, the prevailing party shall be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
(Added by Stats. 2012, Ch. 180, Sec. 2. (AB 805) Effective January 1, 2013. Operative January 1, 2014, by Sec. 3 of Ch. 180.)
Violation Narrative:

Restrictive covenants are contract clauses that limit a contracting party’s future conduct. In general, restrictive land covenants serve the purpose of enforcing neighborhood presentation standards.

Such covenants are typically written into a deed, or at least referenced in the deed and recorded. The stated intention of many restrictive covenants is to “preserve, protect, and enhance property values.”
Covenants are guarantees the original owner(s) of the title made to the future owner(s) of the title regarding the property listed in the title.

Covenants are normally registered on title in order to bind the present and future owners. Restrictive covenants “run with the land.” This means that they are tied to the property (land), and not to a specific owner(s). In other words, the limitations of a restrictive land covenant are legally binding for anybody who subsequently buys the property.

A restrictive land covenant is enforceable as long it was recorded, it is being enforced in a fair and non-discriminatory manner, and there is still an individual or group benefiting from it.

All three conditions listed above have been met in this tract in its history. Two lot owners (Gasparians in 2003 and Jamgotchians in 2018) respectfully approached the other 15 owners and obtained authorization to build a second floor on their lots. As of this letter’s date, almost two years after Demirchian purchased 1766 Cielito Drive, he has not even attempted (!) to approach the neighbors and obtain authorization via majority acceptance to his proposed project.

Finally, it can be enforced by any individual land owner who benefits from the restriction, or the collective homeowner’s association if there is one. (Cal. Civ. Code §5975). Here, lot owners are responsible for adhering and enforcing. That is a big burden to me, his neighbor, and to other neighbors, and will surely be prejudicial to all.

Even if Demirchian claims ignorance of the CC&Rs, that is not a valid excuse for failure to comply once I provided these CC&R’s to him in March 2021. Furthermore, we are providing a letter ( item c) by the Bistagne family (former owner) confirming their informing Demirchian of the CC&Rs at time of sale in 2019.

Thank you for your time.

David Sagherian, P.E.
1770 Cielito Drive
Glendale, CA 91207
818) 606-1770
Attachments:
a. Covenants
b. Petition by majority of neighbors to comply to CC&Rs c. Bistagne Letter

May 25, 2022
Members of the Design Review Board
City of Glendale
via email
RE: Agenda Item 6b: 1766 Cielito Dr., PDR 2113521
Dear Members of the Design Review Board:

Thank you for considering our comments on this project. The project is not located within our boundaries, but on occasion our HOA weighs in on projects that raise issues or concerns that are relevant to our neighborhood, in this case the application of the Hillside Development Review Policy (GMC 30.1.040 A).

We will keep our remarks brief. We are glad to see that staff propose that you return this project for a redesign for the reasons they mention, including excessive grading, incompatibility of mass and scale with neighboring properties, and visual impacts. We agree with this recommendation.

However, there is an additional reason the project should be returned for a redesign according to the Hillside Development Review Policy, one that goes conspicuously unmentioned in the staff report: the size of the proposed project.

The Staff Report notes that at 5,377 square feet, not counting the three-car garage, the project “is more than 2,300 square feet larger than the neighborhood average of 2,972 square feet.” The Report continues “the [Hillside Design] guidelines do allow for larger infill development, so [long] as the mass and scale of the new proposal is appropriate and transitions well to the existing context and surrounding neighborhood.” And later: “At 5,337, 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 buildings on the surrounding properties” (Staff Report, May 25, 2022, p. 5-6).

The Staff Report fails to apply the Hillside Development Review Policy requirements to the size of this project. While acknowledging the new house’s enormity relative to its neighbors, it refuses to offer the simplest, required solution to the problem of its enormous size: reducing it. It offers that the Hillside Design Guidelines allow for larger infill development; however, it nowhere mentions that the Hillside Development Review Policy explicitly does not allow for a 2 house that is so much larger than its neighbors, regardless of how it transitions to the neighborhood. And unlike the Hillside Design Guidelines, the Hillside Development Review Policy is written into the Glendale Municipal Code. Its application is not optional.

All we are asking is that you—and staff—ensure that the hillside development policy as laid out in our Municipal Code is followed. It is not enough to try to reduce the massing and scale and visual impacts of a too-large house; the house itself shall be compatible in size with its neighbors.

Staff’s disregard of the plain language of the Hillside Development Review Policy, which is designed precisely to prevent the kind of mansionization in our hillsides that this project represents, is a chronic problem that has frustrated many residents and resulted in the approval of incompatibly large houses in hillside neighborhoods. This is a perfect case for you to insist on fair application of the protections the Code and this policy afford residents. Staff have already requested a redesign; please ensure that reducing the size is part of that work.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Catherine Jurca, Board Member
Verdugo Woodlands HOA

2 David Sagherian. P.E.

Sent from AT&T Yahoo Mail on Android

2 To Design review board,
My name is Silva Gasparian.

I reside on 1818 Cielito drive, Glendale CA 91207.

I am in opposition to the proposed new construction on 1766 Cielito drive for many reasons and here are few of my objections:
-The design and size of this proposed project is not consistence with the rest of the houses on Cielito drive, which are single story mid century design. All the houses are terraced in such a way that non of their views are blocked. The street has a nice uniform and modest and neighborhood feel to it.( Hence the reason why CC&Rs were implemented to keep the houses on a single level when the area was developed)
-Having to excavate such a large area on a hillside to accommodate a subterranean parking is alarming and dangerous to the stability of the whole hillside and the other homes on it.

Although I believe that everyone is entitled to their dream house..but doing so one should not interfere or reduce other peoples home values or put their homes in danger.

I also have faith in Glendale’s design review board that they will propose an alternative single story design that will compliment the neighborhood and Although I believe that everyone is entitled to their dream house..but doing so one should not interfere or reduce other peoples house values in that neighborhood and pleases the owner of the property.

Sincerely,
Silva Gasparian
PS I would have personally attended to express my concerns but I have been exposed to Covid and unfortunately could not attend.
1 Ezzati, Vista
From: Silva Gasparian <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2022 2:45 PM
To: Ezzati, Vista
Subject: 1766 Cielito drive/ design review
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 Design review board,
My name is Silva Gasparian.

I reside on 1818 Cielito drive, Glendale CA 91207.

I am in opposition to the proposed new construction on 1766 Cielito drive for many reasons and here are few of my objections:
‐The design and size of this proposed project is not consistence with the rest of the houses on Cielito drive, which are single story mid century design. All the houses are terraced in such a way that non of their views are blocked. The street has a nice uniform and modest and neighborhood feel to it.( Hence the reason why CC&Rs were implemented to keep the houses on a single level when the area was developed) ‐Having to excavate such a large area on a hillside to accommodate a subterranean parking is alarming and dangerous to the stability of the whole hillside and the other homes on it.

Although I believe that everyone is entitled to their dream house..but doing so one should not interfere or reduce other peoples home values or put their homes in danger.

Sincerely,
Silva Gasparian
PS I would have personally attended to express my concerns but I have been exposed to Covid and unfortunately could not attend.

CORIN L. KAHN
May 26, 2022
VIA HAND DELIVERY and email [email protected]
Glendale Design Review Board
Re: AGENDA ITEM 6.b Agenda Item 6b: 1766 Cielito Dr., PDR 2113521 Dear Honorable Chairperson and the Honorable Members of the Committee:

This firm represents the applicant, the family of Dr. Jack Demerchian and respectfully submits this analysis in support of approving the proposal as submitted.

INTRODUCTION
Frank Lloyd Wright, the world-renowned architect and noted site designer, who laid down the fundamentals that provide the foundation for the concept “design with nature” followed by all of the greats, taught us never to put a home on the top of a hill. The preferred design that is compatible with nature is to nestle the home into the hillside, to match the house to the site. This is exactly what the architects did in this case The subdivider set into motion the key facts that distinguish this lot from the others in the neighborhood. The Neighborhood Key provides important facts that City must take into account in evaluating this project vis a vie the Hillside Development Reviews Policy GMC 30.11.040, the applicable municipal code, does not allow the City to condition a project based on style

OBJECTIVE FACTS THAT GOVERN ANALYSIS OF THE HILLSIDE

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
The objective facts that drive the design of this house that must be considered in examining are that Cielito Drive;
1) The lot is defined by a sharpy curving and steeply descending street. This makes it unique. There are no others lot within the neighborhood that even closely resemble the key geographic (site) aspects of it.
2) The subdivider created a lot that is 163% the size of the average lot; it is twice as large as three lots (1740 - Touzian, 1751 - Talar Tejirian, 1780- Kasimian); it is one third larger than the next two largest lot in the neighborhood (1800 - Hosnanian, 1801 - Karachanian);

ATTORNEY AT LAW
401 WIL SH I RE B OULEVARD, 12 t h Fl oor
SANT A MONI CA, CAL IFO RNIA, 90 401
TELEPH ON E: ( 424) 252-4714
WRITER’S E-MAIL:

CLKESQ@OUTLOOK COM
O U R F I L E N U M B E R:

Glendale Design Review Board
May 26, 2022

Page 2 ends

3) There is a sharp disparity in scale (18,110 sq ft. versus 10,620 sq ft.= 175%) between the next largest lot (1800- Hosnanian) and the smallest lot (1780- Kasimian). The lot before you today is 222% larger than the 10,620 sq ft. lot at 1780- Kasimian. It would be totally unreasonable for City to guide its development review based on standards that apply to a lot well less than one-half the size of the one before you tonight City must take all of these facts and in particular the wild disparities into account in considering whether this house is compatible in terms of size, scale, bulk/massing, and site layout, the only issues under the Hillside Development Reviews Policy that seem to be raised by the opponents.

Let me repeat the issue: IS THE PROPOSED HOUSE “COMPATIBLE WITH THE

SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD IN TERMS SIZE, SCALE, BULK/MASSING, AND SITE LAYOUT” That is what is before you tonight.

The City will require facts, not opinion or speculation, or statements that lack support in the evidence to find against this house regarding any of these criteria.

DEFINITION FOR “COMPATIBLE” AND “COMPATIBILITY”
The analysis must begin with the definition of “compatible” New Oxford American Dictionary:

Compatible |kəmˈpatəbəl| (of two things) able to exist or occur together without conflict Compatibility |kəmˌpatəˈbilitē| a state in which two things are able to exist or occur together without problems or conflict
SIZE
There exist several two-story houses located all around the tract. Unfortunately for the aesthetics of the neighborhood, some of them in view of the subject property, sit on top of hillsides and are extremely visible from the neighborhood.

In the meantime, this immediate neighborhood, ie the tract, has already voted to allow 2 houses to be tw-stories.

The allowance of a third two-story home does not constitute a change is size. That change occurred beginning in 2003 (Gasparians in 2003 and Jamgotchians in 2018.) Any neighborhood objection on that basis was waived nearly 20 years ago, 2 STORIES IS NOT IN CONFLICT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD SIZE AND

THEREFORE IS NOT A GROUND TO FIND INCOMPATIBILITY
SCALE - Architectural scale means the size of a building relative to the buildings or elements around it.

Scale is a concept that inherently involves context. That is what separates scale from size which is an objective or absolute term.

Right now the footprint of the existing home (13.7) is the second lowest in the neighborhood as stated on the Neighborhood Key (the lowest is 1771 is 12.3) Glendale Design Review Board
May 26, 2022

Page 3 ends

2 lots have a nearly three times greater footprint at 34 (1780- Kasimian), and 32 (1791 - Simonian) In other words, when considering scale based on footprint, ie the house size relative to the lot size, 2 are nearly three times larger
The footprint of the replacement house is 3055, a 6% reduction in footprint The total massing of the proposed home 5083 sq ft. (above grade) relative to lot size is an unappreciable difference, a plus 3% over the average massing stated in the Neighborhood Key of

21.8. 5 houses in the Neighborhood Key have a massing index larger than the massing of the proposed house which is 23 (1780- Kasimian, 1791- Simonian, 1740- Touzian, 1751 - Tejirian, 1763 - Abramian)

THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT SUPPORT A FINDING OF INCOMPATIBILITY

BASED ON SCALE
MASS - Massing refers to the structure in three dimensions (form), not just its outline from a single perspective (shape). Massing influences the sense of space which the building encloses, and helps to define both the interior space and the exterior shape of the building. The creation of massing, and changes to it, may be additive (accumulating or repeating masses) or subtractive (creating spaces or voids in a mass by removing parts of it). Massing can also be significantly altered by the materials used for the building's exterior, as transparent, reflective, or layered materials are perceived differently.

I will defer to the architect to discuss with you the many steps he took to address massing but let’s observe a few all of which staff has already approved:
 Fenestration;
 Changing materials that reflect light differently;
 Varied volumes, voids, and set backs; and
 A combination of horizontal and vertical visual features

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF INCOMPATIBILITY BASED ON MASS/BULK

SITE LAYOUT
The City’s slope standard is not exceeded, therefore, there is no particular mitigation necessary to address the slope
Likewise the amount of proposed grading does not exceed or even come close to the City’s threshold for grading
Land Form Grading
Again, it is critical to recall that the lot is defined by a sharply curving and descending street that defines the lot, this dictates much of what must be considered in site layout.

The contours of the slope are not being altered;
The siting and nestling of the house is dictated by and follows the sharply falling and curving street, no other lot has this condition;
The site plan does not contradict any of the several illustrations provided in the Guidelines of what is disallowed– ie filled canyons, change in the grade surrounding the property,
Glendale Design Review Board
May 26, 2022

Page 4 ends

The fill is limited to a relatively small part of the lot that is not a material change to the shape of the slope it works with the slope
The City must consider feasible mitigation of any concern it has regarding any aspect of the house. Landscaping is a critical component of mitigating any adverse impacts of the proposal. The current landscape plan enhances and preserves the slope, the topography, the contours, the landform, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF INCOMPATIBILITY BASED ON

SITE LAYOUT
STYLE
GMC 30.11.040, the applicable municipal code, does not allow the City to condition a project based on style.

It is unreasonable to demand that new homes be built in the style of 1960s ranch homes.

VISUAL IMPACTS
Again, the Glendale code does not allow the City to condition a project based on visual impact.

The analysis must begin with the proposal which is to replace a house with a different house. The existing house is visible from the street, whereas the proposal is to replace that highly visible house with a much less visible house that is screen from the street by the careful site location, preservation of the hillside contours, landscaping, and nestling the house into the curving and sharply descending street that creates the lot A set of story poles has been established to demonstrate there is no visual impact Does City require that the house is unseen? Of course not. The landscape plan does much to enhance the visual aspects of the proposal.

There is no evidence of a privacy issue between the proposed house and adjacent homes.

I appreciate the opportunity to address this matter.

Respectfully submitted,
( SIGNED)
Corin L. Kahn
cc. clients

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

Page 1 of 4 ends

The façade is three bays wide and notably, has a convex and concave, curved front roof overhang. The deep stucco eaves are boxed and have integral gutters with canted fascia, in keeping with the style. The asymmetrical facade is horizontally oriented. There is a painted, very simple, wide 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 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.

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
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
*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 #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD

Page 2 of 4 ends

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

B9a. Architect: unknown b. Builder: G.E. Brask for R. L. Earl & Associates *B10. Significance: Theme Area
Period of Significance Property Type Applicable Criteria N/A (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity) 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 the property is nonetheless a high style example of the Mid-Century Modern type and of the late Ranch subtype, all of which are increasing rare in the community.

Tom or “Toss” Bistange (1920-2007) was a native Glendalian who, with brother George, established the Bistange Brothers Body Shop 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 (Photograph 1, page 3). Their well-known business was extremely successful and was featured in numerous automotive periodicals (Bistange Brothers Body Shop 2022). Tom’s 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 affected American society. It is considered “one of the shops that shaped the history of the Custom Car” (ibid). The second and third generations remain active in the family business.

Figure 1: Original business card for
Bistange Bros. at 1411 E. Chevy Chase,
estimated 1946 or 1947. Source: Custom
Car Chronicles, 2022.
(See Continuation Sheet, page 3)
*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 #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial#

Page 3 of 4 ends

*Recorded by: F. Smith *Date: May 25, 2022 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 and a few windows on the south (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 residence that date from the same era.
*B10. Significance: Continued from page 2
The Bistange Bros. Body Shop was not found to be National California Register or locally eligible 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 was very active in civic 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). Bistagne with his wife, Wanda, were active local philanthropists who were honored as “Couple of the Year” by the Glendale Chamber in 2000. The Bistagnes were considered “major supporters” of his alma mater, Glendale Community College. He was “instrumental in 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). 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. Mrs. 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 made a lasting impression in Glendale and its future including mental health and educational facilities. They significantly contributed to the history of the city.

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

Page 4 of 4 ends

*Recorded by: F. Smith *Date: May 25, 2022 Continuation Update *B10. Significance: Continued from page 2
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” including 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 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 (Glendale no date).

The property was recently evaluated for historic significance by a consultant who mistakenly applied the City of Los Angeles’ registration criteria, failed to consider the achievements of Tom and Wanda Bistagne and found it not eligible for any historic designation (Kaplan Chen Kaplan 2022). It should be noted that the same private 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, 204 W. Wilson, 3901 San Fernando (estimated 2013) and 512 West Doran (2014, overridden by City of Glendale staff).

The subject property retains integrity to its original appearance despite the few minor additions described. It is clearly recognizable to its distinctive 1961 design, its hillside location, the primary stone 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 automobile industry owners who 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 because it is directly associated with Tom and Wanda Bistagne, who significantly contributed magnanimously of their time and other resources to the history of the city. The subject property retains historic integrity (Criterion B). The property further embodies the distinctive and exemplary characteristics of the Mid-Century Modern architectural style, the late Ranch architectural type, and retains historic integrity to its appearance. (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.

Bistange 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/ 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.

Ezzati, Vista
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Eric Abramian <[email protected]>
Thursday, May 26, 2022 5:39 PM
Ezzati, Vista
Opposition to Proposed Plan at 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.

Hi,
My name is Eric Abramian and I've been living on Cielito Dr since the day I was born, now I am 27 years old, working as a lawyer in the field of enteitainment law.

As a lifetin1e member of our community, invested in its foture for generations to come, I urge the DRB and COG to consider the long term value in rejecting the proposed plan at 1766 Cielito.

Each of the property owne1·s in our colllll1unity have chosen amongst hundreds of neighborhoods in our cotmty to invest in Cielito as a place to call home. We've all complied with the codes that have govemed the appropriate sizes, shapes, and heights of our homes, respectfolly preserving the aesthetics of om· street while enjoying the perks ofliving in what is arguably Glendale's most lt1Xm1ous hillside community.

I'm ve1y blessed to have grown up on this street, but I'm not ignorant of the fact that being able to acquire a prope1ty in this neighborhood requires a lot of hard work, and financial stability. We're a community of highly accomplished and educated people and we p11de ourselves on following the rules, and we welcome with open anns those who do the same.

I love seeing new designs being implemented on Cielito and having our street keep up with the tin1es by implementing modem mid-centmy aesthetics in otu· neighborhood. But we simply don't have the space for this proposed colossal 5,300 square foot home in the middle of our street, where neighbo1111g homes average 2,500 square feet. This would simply make the street feel crowded, tmcomfortable, and tmbreathable. However, we can get creative and imitate these modem concepts on a smaller scale that is both in compliance with the codes and respectfol to our neighbors.

Thank you,
E11c Abramian
1 www.CreativeGeotechnical.com
14421 Sylvan Street, Van Nuys, CA 91411, O. 818 923 5800

PRELIMINARY GEOLOGIC AND GEOTECHNICAL

ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION
Proposed Single-Family Residence and Swimming Pool
AIN: 5648-029-015
1766 Cielito Drive
Glendale, CA
for
Dr. Jack Demirchian
1766 Cielito Drive
Glendale, CA
Project 200416
August 2, 2021
EXHIBIT #10

PRELIMINARY GEOLOGIC AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 1 SCOPE ........................................................................................................................................................... 1 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................................................................... 1 SITE DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................................... 2 Location and Description .......................................................................................................................... 2 Topography ............................................................................................................................................... 2 Drainage .................................................................................................................................................... 2 Groundwater .............................................................................................................................................. 2 FIELD EXPLORATION ............................................................................................................................... 3 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ......................................................................................................................... 3 Previous Work ........................................................................................................................................... 3 Stratigraphy ............................................................................................................................................... 3 Artificial Fill (Af) ................................................................................................................................. 3 Bedrock (gqd) ....................................................................................................................................... 4 Excavation Characteristics ........................................................................................................................ 4 Geologic Structure ..................................................................................................................................... 4 Landslides .................................................................................................................................................. 4 Slope Stability ........................................................................................................................................... 5 Seismic Hazards ........................................................................................................................................ 5 Earthquake Faults ................................................................................................................................. 5 Active Faults .................................................................................................................................... 5 Potentially Active Faults .................................................................................................................. 8 Seismic Effects ..................................................................................................................................... 9 Ground Rupture ............................................................................................................................... 9 Ground Shaking ............................................................................................................................... 9 Earthquake Induced Landslides ..................................................................................................... 10 Liquefaction ................................................................................................................................... 10 Seismically Induced Settlements ................................................................................................... 11 CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................................................... 12 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................................. 12 Specific .................................................................................................................................................... 12 Building Setbacks .................................................................................................................................... 13 Drainage and Maintenance ...................................................................................................................... 13 Grading and Earthwork ........................................................................................................................... 14 Foundations ............................................................................................................................................. 14 Settlement ................................................................................................................................................ 15 Expansive Soils ....................................................................................................................................... 15 Excavations ............................................................................................................................................. 16 Excavations Maintenance – Erosion Control .......................................................................................... 21 Retaining Walls ....................................................................................................................................... 22 Lateral Earth Pressure Due to Earth Motion ...................................................................................... 24 Slabs on Grade ........................................................................................................................................ 25 Decking ................................................................................................................................................... 26 Slough Protection .................................................................................................................................... 26 Trench Backfill ........................................................................................................................................ 26 Soil Shrinkage and Bulking ..................................................................................................................... 27 Jobsite Safety ........................................................................................................................................... 27 REVIEWS .................................................................................................................................................... 27 Plan Review and Plan Notes ................................................................................................................... 27 Construction Review ............................................................................................................................... 28 LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 28 General .................................................................................................................................................... 28 CONSTRUCTION NOTICE ....................................................................................................................... 29

APPENDICES

APPENDIX I SITE INFORMATION

LOCATION MAP

REGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP

USGS FAULT MAP

SEISMIC HAZARD MAP

GEOLOGIC MAP

CROSS SECTIONS

FIELD EXPLORATION
EXPLORATIONS 1 THROUGH 9

APPENDIX II LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
LABORATORY RECAPITULATION - TABLE 1
LABORATORY RECAPITULATION - TABLE 2
LABORATORY RECAPITULATION - TABLE 3
FIGURES S.1 THROUGH S.4

APPENDIX III ANALYSES

BEARING

LATERAL

STABILITY

SEISMIC EVALUATION

APPENDIX IV REFERENCES
August 2, 2021 Page 1
Project 200416

INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of a Preliminary Geologic and Geotechnical Engineering Investigation on a portion of the subject property. The purpose of this investigation has been to ascertain the subsurface conditions pertaining to the proposed project. The work performed for the project included reconnaissance mapping, description of earth materials, determining geologic structure, obtaining representative samples of earth materials, laboratory testing, engineering analyses, and preparation of this report. Results of the project include findings, conclusions, and appropriate recommendations.

SCOPE
The scope of this investigation included the following:
Review of preliminary plans by Alajajian Marcoosi Architects, Inc. Review of nine (9) test pit explorations. Explorations were backfilled with the excavated materials but not compacted.
 Preparation of the enclosed Geologic Map and Cross Sections, (see Appendix I).  Sampling of representative earth materials, laboratory testing, and engineering analyses (see Appendix II).
Review of referenced materials and available public reports at the City of Glendale (see Appendix V).  Presentation of findings, conclusions, and recommendations for the proposed project.

Ray Lombera & Associates, Inc. prepared the topographic base map utilized in this investigation.

Preliminary building plans were prepared by Alajajian Marcoosi Architects, Inc and utilized/incorporated onto the base map for this investigation. Analysis and/or professional opinions generated from this plan are only as accurate as the plan(s) provided to our office. If discrepancies are found to exist between the plan(s) and the actual site condition, they should be brought to our immediate attention so that revisions may be made as required.

The scope of this investigation is limited to the project area explored as depicted on the Geologic Map.

This report is not a comprehensive evaluation of the entire property. This report has not been prepared for use by other parties or for purposes other than the proposed project. Creative Geotechnical, Inc. should be consulted to determine if additional work is required when our work is used by others or if the scope of the project has changed. If the project is delayed for more than one year, this office should be contacted to verify the current site conditions and to prepare an update report.

This report is prepared for the use of the client and authorized agents only and should not be considered transferable. Prior to use by others, the site should be revisited and this report should be reviewed by Creative Geotechnical, Inc. Following review, additional work may be required to update this report.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
It is our understanding that the site will be developed with a single-family residence and a swimming pool. Anticipated foundations will range from 1 to 2 kips per lineal foot and 20-40 kips for column foundations. The proposed development is depicted on the enclosed Geologic Map and Cross Sections.

August 2, 2021 Page 2
Project 200416
Grading will consist of conventional cut and fill methods. Final plans have not been prepared and await the conclusions and recommendations of this investigation. These plans should be reviewed by Creative Geotechnical, Inc. to ensure that our recommendations have been followed.

SITE DESCRIPTION
Location and Description
Access to the property is via Cielito Drive from Deermont Road (see Location Map in Appendix I). The site is developed with a one-story single-family residence with attached garage, swimming pool and deck.

The pad has a light to moderately dense growth of vegetation consisting of grasses, lawn areas, shrubs and trees. Vegetation is moderately dense to dense on the ascending and descending slopes consisting of grasses, ground cover, shrubs, and trees.

Adjacent sites to the north and south have been developed with single-family residences. Adjacent structures to the north and south are more than 15 feet from the property line.

Topography
Topographically, the property is situated on the east west flank of a north-south trending ridge within the southwest portion of the San Gabriel Mountains. The property essentially consists of a near-level pad with ascending slopes to the north and descending slopes to the south. Maximum topographic relief onsite is about 90 feet. Ascending slopes from the pad on the north portion of the site have a general gradient of 1.5:1 or less, (horizontal to vertical). Descending slopes display a general gradient of 0.3:1 or less, (horizontal to vertical). Some slopes are partially supported by retaining walls and board revetment.

Details of the topography are depicted on the Location Map and Geologic Map in Appendix I.

Drainage
Surface water at the site consists of direct precipitation onto the property and runoff from surrounding slopes to the north. Much of this water drains as sheet flow down descending slopes to low-lying areas, area drains, paved swale drains, offsite and/or to the street. The residence has been provided with roof gutters and downspouts. Portions of the yard are serviced by an irrigation system. Area drains are located in the front and rear yard areas, and pool deck. A subdrain outlet pipe was observed in the curb and near the southwest corner of the property.

Groundwater
No active surface groundwater seeps or springs were observed on the subject site. The subsurface exploration did not encounter groundwater to a depth of 10 feet. Due to the elevated nature of the property, groundwater is not anticipated to pose a problem to the proposed project. Seasonal fluctuations of groundwater levels may occur by tidal changes and varying amounts of rainfall, irrigation and recharge.

August 2, 2021 Page 3
Project 200416

FIELD EXPLORATION
The scope of the field exploration was developed based on the preliminary plans of the proposed development available at the time of the exploration and was limited to the area of the proposed development. The locations of the explorations are depicted on the Geologic Map and Cross Sections.

The field exploration was limited by existing structures, hardscape, and/or underground utilities on the site.

The field exploration of the site was conducted on April 18, 2020. The geotechnical and geologic conditions were mapped by a representative of this office (refer to Exploration Logs). Subsurface exploration was performed by manual excavation into the underlying earth materials. Explorations were excavated to a maximum depth of 10 feet. Down-hole observation of the earth materials exposed in the explorations was performed by the project geologist where subsurface conditions were deemed to be safe.

All explorations were backfilled and tamped upon completion of down-hole observation. However, some settlement within exploration areas should be anticipated.

Detailed descriptions of the geologic materials encountered during the field exploration are provided in the Exploration Logs and Boring Logs in Appendix I.

Undisturbed and bulk samples representative of the earth materials were obtained and transported to our laboratory. Undisturbed Modified California (MC) samples were obtained within the explorations through the use of a thin-walled steel hand-held sampler. MC samples were retained in brass rings of two and one-half inches in diameter and one inch in height. The samples were transported in moisture tight containers. The results of the laboratory testing and a summary of the test procedures are included within Appendix II.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Previous Work
The subject property was developed circa 1961 prior to the County of Los Angeles Grading Ordinance.

The City of Santa Monica, Building Department had been contacted for geology and/or geotechnical reports covering the subject property. However, the building official would not allow review of the records and had refused to conduct a search for available records.

Stratigraphy
The encountered earth materials on the site are briefly described below. Detailed descriptions of the explorations and approximate depths of the earth materials are given in the enclosed Exploration Logs (see Appendix A).

Artificial Fill (Af)
Artificial fill was encountered on the subject site. Fill materials were presumably placed during pad grading and construction of the residence. Fill was encountered in all nine of the test pits ranging from 1 August 2, 2021 Page 4
Project 200416
to more than 10 feet in thickness. The contact between the fill and the underlying bedrock was exposed within five of the exploratory test pits. No evidence of engineered keys or benches was observed. Fill generally consists of silty sand and with abundant rock fragments that generally range between 1 and 10 inches in length. The approximate limit of the existing fill is shown on the attached Geologic Map and Cross Sections.

Bedrock (gqd)
Bedrock exposed on-site and underlying the fill consists of intrusive granitic rocks of Cretaceous time with varying compositions of granodiorite and quartz diorite. They are generally dark yellowish brown to black and white, very dense, slightly fractured, and slightly to moderately weathered. The contact between the artificial fill and bedrock is approximately located on the Geologic Map and Cross Sections.

Excavation Characteristics
Subsurface exploration was performed through the use of hand labor excavating into fill and bedrock.

The bedrock encountered during the exploration consists of granite. At the site, bedrock was observed to be moderately to slightly weathered and slightly fractured. Although excavation difficulty is considered normal, it should be noted that the bedrock is a layered formation and hard or well cemented bedrock may be encountered. Extremely hard layers of bedrock were encountered in the explorations. Thus, excavating into the bedrock during construction will be difficult. Typically, the hardness of bedrock increases with depth. If hard or well cemented bedrock is encountered, coring or the use of heavy jack hammers may be necessary.

Geologic Structure
The local area has been uplifted and intruded by a granitic pluton. No dominant patterns of adversely orientated fractures or joints were observed during the subsurface investigation. The proposed retaining walls will not be surcharged by the bedrock.

Critical anticipated bedrock structure is depicted on Geologic Cross Sections. Preliminary geologic data indicates the proposed development is favorable from the standpoint of geology and geotechnical engineering, provided the recommendations contained herein are followed and maintained.

Landslides
Landslides are a mass wasting phenomenon in mountainous and hillside areas which include a wide range of movements. In Southern California common slope movements include shallow surficial slumps and flows, deep-seated rotational and translational bedrock failures, and rock falls. Landslides occur when the stability of the slopes change to an unstable condition resulting from a number of factors. Common natural factors include the physical and/or chemical weathering of earth materials, unfavorable geologic structure relative to the slope geometry, erosion at the toe of a slope, and precipitation. These factors may be further aggravated by human activities such as excavations, removal of lateral support at the toe of a slope, surcharge at the top of a slope, clearing of vegetation, alteration of drainage, and the addition of August 2, 2021 Page 5
Project 200416
water from irrigation and leaking pipes.

Ancient or recent bedrock landslides were not observed on the property. Also, no recent surficial slope failures or slumps were observed within the proposed project area on the property.

Slope Stability
A gross stability analysis was performed on cross section A that are considered to represent the most critical profile based on the geologic structure and topography. The analysis was performed using the computer program stabl for windows. A summary of the stability analysis is provided below with calculations contained herein.

Summary of shear strength parameters:

Material  (pcf) sat (pcf) C (psf) Phi (deg)
Bedrock 130 140 906 41.3
Summary of slope stability analyses:

Section Static
Factor of Safety Pseudo-Static Factor of Safety
A 2.00 1.19
The assessment of surficial slope stability was based on the infinite slope with seepage parallel to the slope surface model. The analysis indicates that the slope is surficially stable.

Seismic Hazards
Earthquake Faults
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning (AP) Act was passed into law following the destructive February 9, 1971 San Fernando earthquake. The intent of the Act is to increase public safety by reducing the siting of most structures for human occupancy across an active fault. The Act only addresses the hazard of surface fault rupture and is not directed toward other earthquake hazards. The property is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The general locations of major faults within Southern California are depicted on a fault map provided by the USGS in Appendix I.

Active Faults
The following active faults are capable of producing seismic waves (ground shaking) on the subject property. A summary description of the closest active faults and potentially active faults to the site are described herein and labeled by number on the map below. An active fault, as defined by the State Mining and Geology Board, is one, which has “had surface displacement within Holocene time (about the last 11,000 years)”.

August 2, 2021 Page 6
Project 200416
The San Andreas Fault zone (42) is the dominant active fault in California. Geologic studies show that over the past 1,400 to 1,500 years large earthquakes have occurred at about 150-year intervals on the southern San Andreas Fault. It consists of numerous subparallel faults of varied lengths in a zone generally 0.3 to 1.5 km wide in Southern California. The dip of the fault is near vertical and the sense of motion is right lateral. Historically, the 1857 Fort Tejon earthquake with an estimated magnitude of 7.9 ruptured the ground surface from the vicinity of Cholame (near Paso Robles) to somewhere between the Cajon Pass and San Gorgonio Pass (Wrightwood), approximately 200 miles. Studies of offset stream channels indicate that as much as (29) feet of movement occurred in 1857. The fault extends from the Gulf of California northward to the Cape Mendocino area where it continues along the ocean floor, approximately 750 miles in length.

The Northridge earthquake occurred on January 17, 1994, in the San Fernando Valley. The epicenter was about 1 mile south-southwest of Northridge at a focal depth of 12 miles. The surface wave magnitude was issued by the National Earthquake Information Center at Mw=6.7. This event occurred on a previously unrecognized south-dipping blind reverse fault without surface rupture. This earthquake produced the strongest ground motions ever instrumentally recorded in an urban setting in North America.

Damage was wide-spread with sections of major freeways collapsed include some parking structures and office buildings. Common surface disruptions included buckled curbs and sidewalks, fissured concrete and asphalt, and rupture of utility lines which are generally aligned in northwest and east-west directions.

Shattered ridges were reported along Mulholland Drive in the Sherman Oaks area, consisting of intense ground disturbances associated with strong vibratory ground motions within the north trending ridges underlain by shale of the Lower Modelo formation.

The Whittier-Elsinore fault zone (60) consists of several subparallel, overlapping and en echelon fault strands in a zone up to 1.2 km wide. It extends nearly 125 miles from the Mexican border to the northern edge of the San Fernando Valley. Seismicity includes the Whittier Narrows earthquake of October 1, 1987 with a magnitude of 5.9 and an epicenter in the city of Rosemead. This earthquake occurred on a previously unknown and concealed thrust fault. There was no reported surface rupture from the earthquake. Also, numerous close and scattered small earthquakes have occurred in historic time near and along the fault.

The San Fernando fault (45) consists of five major en echelon strands at least 9.5 miles in length. The "San Fernando" earthquake of February 9, 1971 produced a magnitude of Mw 6.5 at a depth of 8.4 km along an east west trending reverse fault with a northerly dip. The length of the surface rupture was about

9.5 miles and ground shaking lasted for approximately 60 seconds. The earthquake ruptured the northwestern end of the Sierra Madre Fault zone forming the San Fernando Fault. Major damage included the Olive View and Veterans Administration Hospitals and collapse of freeway overpasses.

Landslides occurred in the Upper Lake area of Van Norman Lakes. Additionally, the Van Norman Dam and the Pacoima Dam were severely damaged.

The eastern portion of the Santa Susana fault (52) ruptured during the 1971 San Fernando Earthquake.

The Santa Susana fault consists of several strands in a zone as wide as 1 km. It generally strikes from north 75 degrees west to north 50 degrees east and dips to the north. The fault is a high angle reverse fault. The fault appears to have been generated by northeast-southwest oriented compressional stress.

The Newport-Inglewood fault zone (31) consists of several strands that extend from offshore by Laguna August 2, 2021 Page 7
Project 200416
Beach to either merge with or be truncated by the Malibu-Santa Monica fault zone near Beverly Hills.

The fault has a length of about 45 miles. It was the source of the "Long Beach" earthquake, which occurred on March 10, 1933 with a magnitude of 6.3. Numerous small earthquakes have occurred in historic time along and near the fault zone. The fault zone is easily observed by an alignment of hills and mesas including Cheviot Hills, Baldwin Hills, Rosecrans Hills, Dominguez Hills, Signal Hill, Reservoir Hill, Alamitos Heights, Landing Hill, Bolsa Chica Mesa, and Newport Mesa.

In June 1995, two portions of the Malibu Coast fault zone (27) were reclassified as active fault zones by the State of California. On August 16, 2007, the fault zone near the east side of Malibu Bluff Park was removed from the State of California Earthquake Fault Zone map by the State of California. The east west trending Malibu Coast fault consists of several subparallel strands in a zone as wide as 0.5 km, with a length of at least 17 miles. It strikes east west and dips (45) to (80) degrees to the north. The Malibu Coast fault has the potential to produce a large Maximum Credible Peak and Repeatable Acceleration on the subject property. The duration of the Malibu Coast fault is estimated at (11) seconds assuming fault end nucleation and unidirectional rupture propagation, (Bolt, 1981). The Malibu Coast fault is thought to be part of other faults such as the Santa Monica fault and Hollywood fault that separate the Transverse Ranges on the north from the Peninsula Range on the south. Two Malibu Earthquakes occurred with Magnitudes of ML 5.2 and ML 5.0 on January 1, 1979 and January 18, 1989, respectively. It was reported that only minor damage occurred in the areas closest to the epicenter.

The Hollywood fault zone (22) extends along the base of the Santa Monica Mountains. This fault was added to the list of active faults by the State of California in 2014. Generally, the Hollywood fault extends eastward for a distance of 15 km through Beverly Hills, West Hollywood, and Hollywood to the Los Angeles River. The fault is primarily expressed at the ground surface by scarp-like features. This is a left–reverse fault with an estimated slip rate between 0.33 mm/yr and 0.75 mm/yr, (Petersen and Wesnousky 1994).

The Raymond fault (39) is a combination fault with reverse and left slip movement that acts as a groundwater barrier within the densely populated San Gabriel Valley. The activity of the fault is attested to by the numerous geomorphic features found along its entire length of approximately 14 miles.

Scattered small earthquakes have occurred north of the fault trace. It may be the source of the 1855 Los Angeles earthquake. The Raymond fault is an east-trending fault made up of other faults such as the Hollywood and Santa Monica faults that separate the Transverse Ranges on the north form the Peninsula Range on the south.

The Sierra Madre fault zone (53) is often divided into five main segments; Vasquez Creek fault, Clamshell fault (10), Sawpit Canyon fault (10), Duarte fault and the Cucamonga fault (14). The Sierra Madre earthquake of June 28, 1991 (Mw5.8) was in the San Gabriel Mountains. An estimated 33.5 million dollars of damage has been reported. The Sierra Madre fault zone is about 75 km long. It’s a thrust fault system along the south edge of the San Gabriel Mountains. The east end of the Sierra Madre fault zone intersects the San Jacinto fault and the San Andreas Fault. The 1971 San Fernando earthquake occurred on the San Fernando-Sunland segment of the Sierra Madre fault zone.

The San Gabriel fault (46) consists of several en echelon fault strands in a zone approximately 0.5 km wide, with a length of about 90 miles. The fault trends northwestward and subparallel to the San Andreas Fault. As of March 1, 1988, a portion of the Newhall segment of the fault zone was reclassified as an active fault. Fault activity has been dated between 1550 and 3500 years before present within the August 2, 2021 Page 8
Project 200416
Newhall segment. The youngest ground rupture event has broken alluvial beds to within five feet of the ground surface. Geologic evidence suggests 38 miles of right lateral offset has occurred between 14 million and 3 million years ago and may have functioned as an ancestral branch of the San Andreas Fault.

Recent studies suggest that the major strike slip movement has become inactive and dip slip movement is active at the present time.

Potentially Active Faults
A potentially active fault, as defined by the State Mining and Geology Board, is one, which has had surface displacement during Quaternary time (last 1.6 million years). "These faults are those based on available data along which no known historical ground surface ruptures or earthquakes have occurred.

These faults, however, show strong indications of geologically recent activity". The following list provides potentially active faults that are capable of producing seismic waves (ground shaking) on the property.

The Santa Monica fault (50) extends east from the coastline in Pacific Palisades through Santa Monica and West Los Angeles and merges with the Hollywood fault. Several local geologists believe portions of the Santa Monica fault zone are active. Currently, it is listed by the State of California as a potentially active fault. Portions of the fault zone may change to "active" and be placed within the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone as additional geologic reports are submitted to the State containing evidence of Holocene activity. The Santa Monica fault consists of one or more fault strands, with a poorly known geometry. Generally, the fault strikes northeast 60 to 80 degrees and dips 45 to 65 degrees northwest at depth with a few near vertical surface traces. The length of the fault is at least 25 miles. The composite local mechanism of fault displacement is a reverse left lateral along the Santa Monica-HollywoodRaymond fault zone. The Santa Monica and Hollywood faults may be part of a larger fault system that includes Malibu Coast, Raymond and Cucamonga fault system. This fault zone forms the central portion of a major tectonic boundary separating the east west trending Transverse Ranges province to the north from the northwest trending Peninsular Ranges province to the south.

The Benedict Canyon fault zone trends eastward through the Santa Monica Mountains. The fault may be part of the Hollywood-Santa Monica-Raymond fault system. The activity of the fault is based on offsets in groundwater bearing sediments that correlate with steep dipping gravity gradients. The fault extends through Universal City and along the north side of the eastern part of the Santa Monica Mountains.

The Simi fault (54) consists of a single strand that bifurcates at the western end. Generally, it strikes north 70-80 degrees east and dips 60 to 75 degrees north with a length of about 31-km.

The Mission Hills fault (30) is an east west trending fault with a length of about 9 km. The fault is presumed to be a single strand that strikes north 80 degrees east to east west and dips about 80 degrees to the north.

The Chatsworth fault (8) is a reverse fault which juxtaposes Cretaceous Chatsworth formation and Paleocene Martinez formation over Miocene Modelo formation within the San Fernando Valley.

The Palos Verdes Hills fault (35) consists of several en echelon strands locally in a zone as wide as 2 km with a length of 50 miles. It strikes north between 20 and 60 degrees west with dips of 70 degrees to the southwest.

August 2, 2021 Page 9
Project 200416
Seismic Effects
During an earthquake there are several primary geologic hazards such as ground rupture, ground shaking, landslides, and liquefaction that can adversely affect property, structures, and improvements. On hillside properties, the potential exists for landsliding from ground shaking which may adversely affect property, structures, and improvements. Properties near and along the coastline may potentially be affected by inundation due to tsunamis generated from a seismic event. The State of California has prepared maps that detail areas which may require assessment for ground rupture, landsliding and/or liquefaction. Strong ground shaking is the primary hazard that causes damage from earthquakes and these areas have been zoned with a high level of seismic shaking hazard. The historical earthquake record in Southern California is less than 200 years; therefore, potential damage from a seismic event is not limited areas that have experienced damage in the past. Based on the above discussion, earthquake insurance with building code upgrades is suggested.

There are several active and/or potentially active faults that could possibly affect the site within Los Angeles County. Although all of Southern California is within a seismically active region, some areas have a higher potential for seismic damage than others. The current scientific technology does not provide for accurate prediction of the time, location, or magnitude of an earthquake event.

It should be understood that the following discussion is an evaluation of risk and degree of potential damage to a structure if a fault were to rupture on or near the site and does not imply that a fault may or may not be present beneath the site. An assessment of damage to the structure is based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale which is correlated to observed damage from seismic events. Intensity/damage associated with an earthquake is not directly correlated to magnitude. For a given magnitude of an earthquake, the intensity/damage to a structure may vary depending on the subsurface earth materials, type of fault rupture, hypocenter depth, and local building practices in effect during the construction of a structure.

An evaluation of the seismic effects on a property is designed to provide the client with rational and believable seismic data that could affect the property during the lifetime of the proposed improvements.

The minimum design acceleration for a project is listed in the Building Code. It is recommended that the structural design of the proposed project be based on current design and acceleration practices of similar projects in the area. The project structural designer should review and verify all of the seismic design parameters prior to utilizing the information for the design.

Ground Rupture
Ground rupture is the result of movement from an active fault. A fault is a fracture in the crust of the earth along which rocks on one side have moved relative to those on the other side. No known active fault is mapped on the subject site.

Ground Shaking
Ground shaking caused by an earthquake is likely to occur at the site during the lifetime of the development due to the proximity of several active and potentially active faults. Generally, on a regional scale, quantitative predictions of ground motion values are linked to peak acceleration and repeatable acceleration, which are a response to earthquake magnitudes relative to the fault distance from the subject August 2, 2021 Page 10
Project 200416
property. Southern California major earthquakes are generally the result of large-scale earth processes in which the Pacific plate slides northwestward relative to the North American plate at about 2 inches/year.

The potential for lurching, surface manifestations, landslides, and topographic related features from ground/seismic shaking can occur almost anywhere in Southern California. Proper maintenance of properties can mitigate some of the potential for these types of manifestations, but the potential cannot be completely eliminated. Many structures were built before earthquake codes were adopted; others were built according to codes formulated when less was known about the intensity of near-fault shaking.

Therefore, the margin of safety is difficult to quantify.

A publicly available computer program provided by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) was utilized for the probabilistic prediction of peak horizontal ground acceleration from digitized design maps of Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) ground response. A summary of the seismic design parameters is provided in Appendix III. The project structural designer should verify all of the input parameters and review all of the resulting seismic design parameters prior to utilizing the information for the design.

Earthquake Induced Landslides
The State of California has prepared Seismic Hazard Zone Reports to regionally map areas of potential increased risk of permanent ground displacement based on historic occurrence of landslide movement, local topographic expression, and geological and geotechnical subsurface conditions. The maps may not identify all areas that have potential for earthquake-induced landslides, strong ground shaking, or other earthquake-related geologic hazards. The subject site is not located within an earthquake-induced landslide hazard zone on the State of California Seismic Hazard Map.

Liquefaction
The State of California has prepared Seismic Hazard Zone Reports to regionally map areas where historic occurrence of liquefaction, or local geological, geotechnical and groundwater conditions indicate a potential for permanent ground displacement. The maps may not identify all areas that have potential for liquefaction, strong ground shaking, and other earthquake and geologic hazards. The subject site is not located within a liquefaction hazard zone on the State of California Seismic Hazard Zone Map.

A detailed subsurface analysis can be performed to determine the liquefaction potential on the subject site and provide recommendations to mitigate the effects of liquefaction. A proposal for a detailed analysis will be prepared if requested.

Liquefaction is a process by which sediments below the water table temporarily lose strength and behave as a viscous liquid rather than a solid. The types of sediments most susceptible are clay-free deposits of sand and silts; occasionally gravel liquefies. Liquefaction can occur when seismic waves, primarily shear waves, pass through saturated granular layers distorting the granular structure, and causing loosely packed groups of particles to collapse. These collapses increase the pore-water pressure between grains if drainage cannot occur. If the pore-water pressure rises to a level approaching the weight of the overlying soil, the granular layer temporarily behaves as a viscous liquid rather than a solid.

In the liquefied condition, soil may deform with little shear resistance; deformations large enough to cause August 2, 2021 Page 11
Project 200416
damage to buildings and other structures are called ground failures. The ease with which a soil can be liquefied depends primarily on the looseness of the material, the depth, thickness and areal extent of the liquefied layer, the ground slope and the distribution of loads applied by buildings and other structures.

Liquefaction induced ground deformations (detailed below) will have an effect on the proposed and existing development that can result in significant structural damage, collapse or partial collapse of a structure, especially if there is significant differential settlement or lateral spreading between adjacent structural elements. Even without collapse, significant settlement or lateral spreading could result in significant structural damage including, but not limited to, blocked doors and windows that could trap occupants.

Surface Manifestations
The determination of whether surface manifestation of liquefaction (such as sand boils, ground fissures etc.) will occur during earthquake shaking at a level-ground site can be made using the method outlined by Ishihara (1985). It is emphasized that settlement may occur, even with the absence of surface manifestation.

Youd and Garris (1994 and 1995) evaluated the Ishihara method and concluded that the method is not appropriate for level ground sites subject to lateral spreading and/or ground oscillation.

Lateral Spreads
Whereas the potential for flow slides may exist at a building site, the degradation in undrained shear resistance arising from liquefaction may lead to limited lateral spreads (of the order of feet or less) induced by earthquake inertial loading. Such spreads can occur on gently sloping ground or where nearby drainage or stream channels can lead to static shear stress biases on essentially horizontal ground (Youd, 1995). At larger cyclic shear strains, the effects of dilation may significantly increase post liquefaction undrained shear resistance. However, incremental permanent deformations will still accumulate during portions of the earthquake load cycles when low residual resistance is available. Such low resistance will continue even while large permanent shear deformations accumulate through a ratcheting effect. Such effects have recently been demonstrated in centrifuge tests to study liquefaction induced lateral spreads, as described by Balakrishnan et al. (1998). Once earthquake loading has ceased, the effects of dilation under static loading can mitigate the potential for a flow slide.

It is clear from past earthquakes that damage to structures can be severe, if permanent ground displacements on the order of several feet occur. However, during the Northridge earthquake significant damage to building structures (floor slab and wall cracks) occurred with less than one (1) foot of lateral spread. The complexities of post-liquefaction behavior of soils noted above, coupled with the additional complexities of potential pore water pressure redistribution effects and the nature of earthquake loading on the sliding mass, lead to difficulties in providing specific guidelines for lateral spread evaluations.

Seismically Induced Settlements
Seismic settlement occurs when cohesionless soils densify as result of ground shaking. Typically, seismically induced settlement is greatest in loose cohesionless sands. Lee and Albaisa (1974) and Yoshimi (1975) studied the volumetric strains (or settlements) in saturated sands due to dissipation of excess pore pressures generated in saturated granular soils by the cyclic ground motions. The volumetric August 2, 2021 Page 12
Project 200416
strain, in the absence of lateral flow or spreading, results in settlement. Liquefaction-induced settlement could result in collapse or partial collapse of a structure, especially if there is significant differential settlement between adjacent structural elements. Even without collapse, significant settlement could result in blocked doors and windows that could trap occupants.

CONCLUSIONS

1. Based on the results of this investigation and a thorough review of the proposed development, as discussed, the project is suitable for the intended use providing the following recommendations are incorporated into the design and subsequent construction of the project. Also, the development must be performed in an acceptable manner conforming to building code requirements of the controlling governing agency.

2. Based on the State of California Seismic Hazard Maps, the subject site is not located within a liquefaction hazard zone.

3. Based on the State of California Seismic Hazard Maps, the subject site is partially located within an earthquake-induced landslide hazard zone.

4. The SITE CLASS based on California Building Code is C.

5. Based upon field observations, laboratory testing and analysis, the bedrock found in the explorations has sufficient strength to support the proposed development.

RECOMMENDATIONS
Specific

1. To create a uniform building pad for the proposed driveway, the existing fill should be removed to competent bedrock and replaced as compacted fill. In addition, the proposed removals should extend a minimum of two feet below the proposed foundations and outside of the building footprint.

2. The proposed residence and swimming pool should be supported on foundations embedded into bedrock.

3. The proposed swimming pool should be supported entirely on piles embedded into bedrock. The swimming pool should be designed as outlined in the Pool section below.

4. The soils chemistry results should be incorporated into the design of the proposed project. Our firm does not practice corrosion mitigation, it is recommended that a corrosion specialist be retained to perform pertinent laboratory testing after completion of earthworks to verify the corrosivity potential of finish grades, and develop adequate and relevant prevention recommendations; if any are needed.

5. The property owner shall maintain the site as outlined in the Drainage and Maintenance Section.

August 2, 2021 Page 13
Project 200416
Building Setbacks
The construction of buildings and structures on or adjacent to slopes steeper than 3:1 (horizontal to vertical) in gradient shall be setback from the slopes in accordance with the requirements of the applicable governmental agency.

In general, all foundations on or adjacent to a descending slope shall be located a distance of one-third of the vertical height of the slope (H/3) to provide vertical and lateral support for the foundation. This distance is measured horizontally from the face of the foundation to the face of the bearing material. This horizontal distance does not need to exceed 40 feet. Where the slope is steeper than 1:1 (horizontal to vertical), the required setback shall be measured from an imaginary plane at 45 degrees to the horizontal, projected upward from the toe of the slope.

In general, buildings and structures on or adjacent to an ascending slope shall be located a distance of one-half of the vertical height of the slope (H/2) to provide sufficient protection from slope drainage, erosion, and shallow failures. This distance is measured horizontally from the face of the building/structure to the toe of the slope. This horizontal distance does not need to exceed 15 feet. Where the slope is steeper than 1:1 (horizontal to vertical), the toe is considered to be at the intersection of a horizontal plane from the top of the foundation and an imaginary plane tangent to the slope at 45 degrees to the horizontal.

The construction of swimming pools on or adjacent to slopes shall maintain setback distances equal to one-half of the setback distances for buildings and foundations. Swimming pools on or adjacent to a descending slope shall be located a distance of one-sixth of the vertical height of the slope (H/6). This horizontal distance does not need to exceed 20 feet. Swimming pools on or adjacent to an ascending slope shall be located a distance of one-fourth of the vertical height of the slope (H/4). This horizontal distance does not need to exceed (7½) feet.

Drainage and Maintenance
Maintenance of properties must be performed to minimize the chance of serious damage and/or instability to improvements. Most problems are associated with or triggered by water. Therefore, a comprehensive drainage system should be designed and incorporated into the final plans. In addition, pad areas should be maintained and planted in a way that will allow this drainage system to function as intended. The property owner shall be fully responsible for dampness or water accumulation caused by alteration in grading, irrigation or installation of improper drainage system, and failure to maintain drain systems. The following are specific drainage, maintenance, and landscaping recommendations. Reductions in these recommendations will reduce their effectiveness and may lead to damage and/or instability to the improvements. It is the responsibility of the property owner to ensure that improvements, structures and drainage devices are maintained in accordance with the following recommendations and the requirements of all applicable government agencies.

Drainage
Positive pad drainage should be incorporated into the final plans. The pad should slope away from the footings at a minimum five percent slope for a horizontal distance of ten feet. In areas where there is August 2, 2021 Page 14
Project 200416
insufficient space for the recommended ten foot horizontal distance concrete or other impermeable surface should be provided for a minimum of three feet adjacent the structure. Pad drainage should be at a minimum of two percent slope where water flow over lawn or other planted areas. Drainage swales should be provided with area drains about every fifteen feet. Area drains should be provided in the rear and side yards to collect drainage. All drainage from the pad should be directed so that water does not pond adjacent to the foundations or flow toward them. Roof gutters and downspouts are required for the proposed structures and should be connected into a buried area drain system. All drainage from the site should be collected and directed via non-erosive devices to a location approved by the building official.

Area drains, subdrains, weep holes, roof gutters and downspouts should be inspected periodically to ensure that they are not clogged with debris or damaged. If they are clogged or damaged, they should be cleaned out or repaired.

Landscaping (Planting)
The property owner is advised not to develop planter areas between patios, sidewalk and structures.

Planters placed immediately adjacent to the structures are not recommended. If planters are proposed immediately adjacent to structures, impervious above-grade or below-grade planter boxes with solid bottoms and drainage pipes away from the structure are suggested. All slopes should be maintained with a dense growth of plants, ground-covering vegetation, shrubs and trees that possess dense, deep root structures and require a minimum of irrigation. Plants surrounding the development should be of a variety that requires a minimum of watering. It is recommended that a landscape architect be consulted regarding planting adjacent to improvements. It will be the responsibility of the property owner to maintain the planting. Alterations of planting schemes should be reviewed by the landscape architect.

Irrigation
An adequate irrigation system is required to sustain landscaping. Over-watering resulting in runoff and/or ground saturation must be avoided. Irrigation systems must be adjusted to account for natural rainfall conditions. Any leaks or defective sprinklers must be repaired immediately. To mitigate erosion and saturation, automatic sprinkling systems must be adjusted for rainy seasons. A landscape architect should be consulted to determine the best times for landscape watering and the proper usage.

Pools/Plumbing
Leakage from a swimming pool or plumbing can produce a perched groundwater condition that may cause instability or damage to improvements. Therefore, all plumbing should be leak-free.

Grading and Earthwork
Proposed grading will consist of removal & recompaction and foundation excavations.

Foundations
It is recommended that the proposed structure be founded into bedrock. All foundations shall maintain the required code setback from any slope.

August 2, 2021 Page 15
Project 200416
The minimum skin-friction pile diameter is 24 inches. Piles should extend into the bedrock a minimum of 10 feet. The piles may be proportioned using the Pile Capacity Chart in Appendix III. All piles shall be considered fixed 3 feet into competent bedrock. All piles should be designed to resist a creep force of 1000 pounds per lineal foot for each foot of shaft exposed to the soils above the bedrock.

The minimum continuous footing size is 24 inches wide and 24 inches deep into the bedrock, measured from the lowest adjacent grade. Continuous footings may be proportioned, using a bearing value of 3000 pounds per square foot. Column footings placed into the bedrock may be proportioned, using a bearing value of 3500 pounds per square foot, and should be a minimum of 2 feet in width and 24 inches deep, below the lowest adjacent grade.

The bearing values given above are net bearing values; the weight of concrete below grade may be neglected. These bearing values may be increased by one-third (1/3) for temporary loads, such as, wind and seismic forces.

Lateral loads may be resisted by friction at the base of the foundations and by passive resistance within the bedrock. A coefficient of friction of 0.3 may be used between the foundations and the bedrock. The passive resistance may be assumed to act as a fluid with a density of 500 pounds per square foot, with a maximum earth pressure of 5000 pounds per square foot. When combining passive and friction for resistance of lateral loads, the passive component should be reduced by one-third. Piles may be considered isolated if the distance between piles is greater that (2.5) time the pile diameter. For isolated poles, the allowable passive earth pressure may be doubled.

All footing excavation depths will be measured from the lowest adjacent grade of recommended bearing material. Footing depths will not be measured from any proposed elevations or grades. Any foundation excavations that are not the recommended depth into the recommended bearing materials will not be acceptable to this office.

Settlement
Settlement of the proposed residence and swimming pool will occur. Settlement of 1/8 to 1/4 inches between walls, within 20 feet or less, of each other, and under similar loading conditions, are considered normal. Total settlement on the order of 1/2 inches should be anticipated.

Expansive Soils
Expansive soils were not encountered on the subject property. Expansive soils can be a problem, as variation in moisture content will cause a volume change in the soil. Expansive soils heave when moisture is introduced and contract as they dry. During inclement weather and/or excessive landscape watering, moisture infiltrates the soil and causes the soil to heave (expansion). When drying occurs the soils will shrink (contraction).

Repeated cycles of expansion and contraction of soils can cause pavement, concrete slabs on grade and foundations to crack. This movement can also result in misalignment of doors and windows. To reduce August 2, 2021 Page 16
Project 200416
the effect of expansive soils, foundation systems are usually deepened and/or provided with additional reinforcement design by the structural engineer. Planning of yard improvements should take into consideration maintaining uniform moisture conditions around structures. Soils should be kept moist, but water should not be allowed to pond. These designs are intended to reduce, but will not eliminate deflection and cracking and do not guarantee or warrant that cracking will not occur.

Excavations
Excavations ranging in vertical height up to (16) feet will be required for the proposed basement.

Conventional excavation equipment may be used to make these excavations. Excavations should expose fill. The fill is suitable for vertical non-surcharged excavations up to (5) feet, cuts above (5) feet in height shall be trimmed back at 1:1 (H:V) slope gradient or shored per our recommendations. The bedrock is suitable for vertical non-surcharged excavations up to (5) feet, cuts above (5) feet in height shall be trimmed back st 1:1 (H:V) slope gradient or shored per our recommendations Surcharged cuts and/or cuts removes support from any adjacent properties/structures (Note: lateral support shall be considered removed when the excavation extends below a plane projected downward at an angle of 45 degrees from the bottom of a footing of an existing structure, from the edge of the public way or an adjacent property) should be shored. This should be verified by the project geotechnical engineer during construction so that modifications can be made if variations in the soil occur.

Caving was not noted in any of our test pits, however the chances of caving will increase within larger scale excavations and should be anticipated particularly in coarse-grained material and under groundwater table, and saturated fine-grained material may cave as well. Since caving can be affected by many known and unknown factors, test boring(s) is/are suggested before initiating drilling on site to understand the need for caving mitigation on site.

Proper installation of shoring is the responsibility of the contractor. The adjacent property owners must be advised of the risks and the owner and builder should provide arrangements to repair any possible damages.

The cantilevered retrained shoring shall be designed per the following table. A trapezoidal distribution of lateral earth pressure would be appropriate where shoring is to be restrained at the top by bracing or tie backs. In addition to lateral earth pressure, these retaining walls should be designed to resist the surcharge imposed by the proposed structures, footings, any adjacent buildings. The design values provided in the following table assuming that water table will be maintained below the bottom of the cut until the permanent subgrade structure is constructed.

Depth of Shoring
(feet)
Cantilever Shoring System
Equivalent Fluid Pressure (p.c.f.)
Triangular Distribution of Pressure
Restrained Shoring System
Lateral Earth Pressure (p.s.f./ft)*
Trapezoidal Distribution of Pressure
Up to 12 20 15H
In addition to lateral earth pressure, these retaining walls should be designed to resist the surcharge imposed by the proposed structures, footings, any adjacent buildings, or by adjacent traffic surcharge.

Where a combination of sloped embankment and shoring is utilized, the pressure will be greater and must August 2, 2021 Page 17
Project 200416
be determined for each combination. Additional active pressures should be applied where the shoring will be surcharged by adjacent traffic or structures.

The minimum shoring pile diameter is (18) inches. Shoring piles should extend into the alluvium a minimum of (10) feet below the bottom of the proposed excavation. All piles shall be considered fixed ( 3) feet into bedrock. Lagging is required.

Constriction excavations shall be made under the supervision of a qualified “competent person” along with periodic review performed by this office. A “competent person” as defined by California/OSHA, is one who is capable of identifying existing and predictable hazards that are unsanitary or dangerous to employees. The competent person has the authority to impose prompt corrective measures to eliminate these hazards.

All excavations should be stabilized within 30 days of initial excavation. If this time is exceeded, the project geotechnical engineer must be notified, and modifications, such as shoring or slope trimming may be required. Water should not be allowed to pond on top of the excavation, nor to flow toward it. All excavations should be protected from inclement weather. This is required to keep the surface of the open excavation from becoming saturated during rainfall. Saturation of the excavation may result in a relaxation of the soils which may result in failures. Excavations should be kept moist, not saturated, to reduce the potential for raveling and sloughing during construction. No vehicular surcharge should be allowed within three feet (3') of the top of cut.

Temporary Shoring
The following information on the design and installation of the shoring is as complete as possible at this time. It is suggested that a review of the final shoring plans and specifications be made by this office prior to bidding or negotiating with a shoring contractor be made.

One method of shoring would consist of steel soldier piles, placed in drilled holes and backfilled with concrete. The soldier piles may be designed as cantilevers or laterally braced utilizing drilled tie-back anchors or raker braces.

Soldier Piles
Drilled cast-in-place soldier piles should be placed no closer than two diameters on center. The minimum diameter of the piles is 18 inches. Structural concrete should be used for the soldier piles below the excavation; lean-mix concrete may be employed above that level. As an alternative, lean-mix concrete may be used throughout the pile where the reinforcing consists of a wideflange section. The slurry must be of sufficient strength to impart the lateral bearing pressure developed by the wideflange section to the earth materials.

The frictional resistance between the soldier piles and retained earth material may be used to resist the vertical component of the anchor load. The coefficient of friction may be taken as 0.35 based on uniform contact between the steel beam and lean-mix concrete and retained earth. The portion of soldier piles below the plane of excavation may also be employed to resist the downward loads. The downward capacity may be taken from the attached pile capacity chart. The minimum depth of embedment for shoring piles is 10 feet below the bottom of the excavation plane.

August 2, 2021 Page 18
Project 200416
Casing may be required should caving be experienced in the saturated earth materials. If casing is used, extreme care should be employed so that the pile is not pulled apart as the casing is withdrawn. At no time should the distance between the surface of the concrete and the bottom of the casing be less than 5 feet.

To allow for continuous placement of the pile foundations, it is recommended that piles be placed under the continuous inspection of the project Soils Engineer.

Piles placed below the water level will require the use of a tremie to place the concrete into the bottom of the hole. A tremie shall consist of a water-tight tube having a diameter of not less than 10 inches with a hopper at the top. The tube shall be equipped with a device that will close the discharge end and prevent water from entering the tube while it is being charged with concrete. The tremie shall be supported so as to permit free movement of the discharge end over the entire top surface of the work and to permit rapid lowering when necessary to retard or stop the flow of concrete. The discharge end shall be closed at the start of the work to prevent water entering the tube and shall be entirely sealed at all times, except when the concrete is being placed. The tremie tube shall be kept full of concrete. The flow shall be continuous until the work is completed and the resulting concrete seal shall be monolithic and homogeneous. The tip of the tremie tube shall always be kept about five feet below the surface of the concrete and definite steps and safeguards should be taken to insure that the tip of the tremie tube is never raised above the surface of the concrete.

A special concrete mix should be used for concrete to be placed below water. The design shall provide for concrete with a strength of 1,000 psi over the initial job specification. An admixture that reduces the problem of segregation of paste/aggregates and dilution of paste shall be included. The slump shall be commensurate to any research report for the admixture, provided that it shall also be the minimum for a reasonable consistency for placing when water is present.

Lagging
Due to the cohesionless nature of the underlying earth materials, it is anticipated that lagging will be required throughout the entire depth of the excavation. It is anticipated that lagging will be required throughout the entire depth of the excavation. Soldier piles and anchors should be designed for the full anticipated pressures. Due to arching in the earth materials, the pressure on the lagging will be less. It is recommended that the lagging be designed for the full design pressure but may be limited to a maximum of 400 pounds per square foot.

The maximum vertical cut during the lagging installation shall be limited to (5) feet in height. If loose or cohesionless material is encountered during the lagging installation, the maximum vertical cut during the lagging installation shall be limited to (2-3) feet in height.

Tied-Back Anchors
Tie-back anchors may be used to resist lateral loads. Friction anchors consisting of high stress thread bars are recommended. For design purposes, it may be assumed that the active wedge adjacent to the shoring is defined by a plane drawn 35 degrees with the vertical through the bottom plane of the excavation.

Friction anchors should extend a minimum of 20 feet beyond the potentially active wedge and to greater lengths if necessary to develop the desired capacities.

August 2, 2021 Page 19
Project 200416
For preliminary design purposes, the drilled friction anchors may be designed for a skin friction of 300 pounds per square foot. Pressure grouted anchor may be designed for a skin friction of 2,000 pounds per square foot. Where belled anchors are utilized, the capacity of belled anchors may be designed by assuming the diameter of the bonded zone is equivalent to the diameter of the bell. Only the frictional resistance developed beyond the active wedge would be effective in resisting lateral loads. Anchors should be placed at least 6 feet on center to be considered isolated. The capacities of the anchors should be determined by testing of the initial anchors as outlined below under the Tie-back Anchor Testing section.

Tie-Back Anchor Testing
The installation of the anchors and the testing of the completed anchors should be observed by are presentative of a qualified geotechnical firm. The geotechnical engineer or his representative should select at least two of the initial anchors for 24-hour 200% tests and two additional anchors for “quick” 200% tests to verify in the field the friction value assumed in this report. Also, we recommend that the 200% tests be performed at representative locations around the site and not be concentrated in a single area, and the total number of 200% tests (quick and 24-hour) performed should not be less than minimum of 10 percent of the number of installed tiebacks.

The total deflection during 24-hour 200% tests should not exceed 12 inches during loading; the anchor deflection should not exceed ¾ inch during the 24-hour period, measured after the 200% test load is applied. If the anchor movement after the 200% load has been applied for 12 hours is less than ½ inch, and the movement over the previous 4 hours has been less than 0.1 inch, the test may be terminated.

For the quick 200% tests, the test load should be maintained for 30 minutes. The total deflection of the anchor during the 200% quick test should not exceed 12 inches; the deflection after the 200% test load has been applied should not exceed ¼ inch during the 30-minute period.

All of the production anchors should be pre-tested to at least 150% of the design load; the total deflection during the test should not exceed 12 inches. The rate of creep under the 150% test should not exceed 0.1 inch over a 15-minute period in order for the anchor to be approved for the design loading.

After a satisfactory test, each production anchor should be locked off at the design load. The locked-off load should be verified by rechecking the load on the anchor. If the locked-off load varies by more than 10% from the design load, the load should be reset until the anchor is locked off within 10% of the design load. Where satisfactory tests are not attained, the anchor diameter and/or length should be increased or additional anchors be installed until satisfactory test results are obtained. The installation and testing of the anchors should be observed by a representative of this firm. Minor caving during drilling of the anchors should be anticipated.

Raker Braces

The proposed soldier piles may be laterally supported by raker braces supported by temporary footings, or dead-men. Temporary footings inclined at an angle of 45 degrees to the horizontal may be designed for an allowable bearing value of 1500 psf. To utilize this allowable bearing pressure, the inclined footings should be a minimum of 24 inches in width, and should be embedded a minimum of 24 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. The allowable bearing provided above may be increased by 10% for August 2, 2021 Page 20
Project 200416
each additional foot of depth to maximum of (3000) pounds per square foot.

Deflection
It is difficult to accurately predict the amount of deflection of a shored embankment. It should be realized that some deflection will occur. The maximum deflection shall not exceed one-half inch (1/2) inch at the top of the shored embankment where a structure is within 1:1 (h:v) plane projected up from the base of the excavation, and for a maximum lateral deflection of (1) inch provided there are no structures within a 1:1 (h:v) plane projected up from the base of excavation. If greater deflection occurs during construction, additional bracing may be necessary to minimize settlement of adjacent buildings and utilities in adjacent streets and alleys. If desired to reduce the deflection, a greater active pressure could be used in the shoring design. Where internal bracing is used, the rakers should be tightly wedged to minimize deflection. The proper installation of the raker braces and the wedging will be critical to the performance of the shoring.

Monitoring and Pre-Construction Survey
Because of the depth of the excavation, periodic shoring monitoring the performance of the shoring system is recommended. The monitoring should consist of periodic surveying of the lateral and vertical locations of the tops of all soldier piles and the lateral movement along the entire lengths of selected soldier piles. Also, some means of periodically checking the load on selected anchors will be necessary, where applicable. The intent of this program will be to produce an accurate and on-going record of the horizontal and vertical deflections of the temporary shoring system.

Monitoring of the excavation performance should be started prior to the beginning of the initial excavation. The weekly schedule of performance monitoring may be modified as the job progresses.

Once the subterranean structure has been constructed, monitoring of the performance will no longer be required.

Complete documentation of the pre- and post-construction conditions of the adjacent improvements shall be undertaken. A sufficient number of photographs to establish the existing condition of all adjacent structures.

It is recommended that the client’s representative prepare a pre-construction survey prior to site development. The pre-construction survey should document existing site conditions and performance of offsite structures prior to construction (where applicable). It is recommended that any temporary shoring excavations at the site be conducted with frequent observation by a representative from this office. If adverse conditions are encountered during excavations, additional recommendations may be necessary.

The excavations should be monitored by a representative from this office. The monitoring may be provided by a licensed surveyor during construction to determine deformation monitoring of adjacent structures and possible deflection of the shoring piles and/or temporary excavations. It is recommended that the survey monitoring performed by others, be provided weekly for the first month and monthly afterward for a period of 6 months or as determined by your representatives (if applicable). Additional design recommendations (i.e. bracing, tie back) may be necessary depending on field conditions, and should be determined by the project engineer (if applicable).

August 2, 2021 Page 21
Project 200416
Shoring Observations
It is critical that the installation of shoring is observed by a representative of this office. Many building officials require that shoring installation should be performed during the continuous observations of the geotechnical engineer. The observations are made so that modifications of the recommendations can be made if variations in the earth material or groundwater conditions occur. Also the observations will allow for a report to be prepared on the installation of shoring for the use of the local building official.

Excavations Maintenance – Erosion Control
The following recommendations should be considered a part of the excavation/erosion control plan for the subject site and are intended to supplement, but not supersede nor limit the erosion control plans produced by the Project Civil Engineer and/or Qualified SWPPP Developer. These recommendations should be implemented during periods required by the Building Code (typically between the months of October and April) or at any time of the year prior to a predicted rain event. Consideration should also be given to potential local sources of water/runoff such as existing drainage pipes or irrigation systems that remain in operation during construction activities.

Open Excavations:

All open excavations shall be protected from inclement weather, including areas above and at the toe of the excavation. This is required to keep the excavations from becoming saturated. Saturation of the excavation may result in a relaxation of the soils which may result in failures. Water/runoff should be diverted away from the excavation and not be allowed to flow over the excavation in a concentrated manner.

Hillside Excavations:

All hillside excavations shall be protected during inclement weather and should extend beyond the edges of the excavations in all directions. Plastic sheeting along with stakes, ropes and sandbags may be used to provide protection of the excavations. Water/runoff should be diverted away from the excavation and not be allowed to flow over the excavation.

The project Civil Engineer should provide a plan depicting the required limits of erosion control. Slopes around an open excavation should be trimmed to slope away from the open excavation so that water/runoff will not drain into the excavation. Any trees or planters that might cause failures around an open excavation shall be anchored safely. After the inclement weather has ceased, the excavations shall be reviewed by the project geotechnical engineer and geologist for safety prior to recommencement of work.

Open Trenches/Foundation Excavations:

No water should be allowed to pond adjacent to or flow into open trenches. All open trenches shall be covered with plastic sheeting that is anchored with sandbags. Areas around the trenches should be sloped away from the trenches to prevent water runoff from flowing into or ponding adjacent to the trenches.

August 2, 2021 Page 22
Project 200416
After the inclement weather has ceased, the excavations shall be reviewed by the project geotechnical engineer and geologist for safety prior to recommencement of work. Foundation excavations that remain open during inclement weather shall be reviewed by the project geotechnical engineer and geologist prior to the placement of steel and concrete to ensure that proper embedment and contact with the bearing material have been maintained.

Open Pile/Caisson Excavations:

All pile/caisson excavations should be reviewed and poured prior to the onset of inclement weather. It is not recommended that any pile/caisson excavations remain open through any inclement weather.

However, if it is necessary to leave pile/caisson excavations open during inclement weather, all water and runoff shall be diverted away from and prevented from entering the pile/caisson excavations. Pile/caisson excavations that remain open during inclement weather shall be reviewed by the project geotechnical engineer and geologist prior to the placement of steel and concrete to ensure that proper embedment has been maintained. The base of all end-bearing caissons shall be re-cleaned to ensure contact with the proper bearing material. All stockpiled cuttings from the pile borings shall be removed.

Grading In Progress:

During the inclement time of the year, or during periods prior to the onset of rain, all fill that has been spread and is awaiting compaction shall be compacted before stopping work for the day or before stopping work because of inclement weather. These fills, once compacted, shall have the surface sloped to drain to one area where water may be removed.

Additionally, it is suggested that all stock-piled fill materials be covered with plastic sheeting. This action will reduce the potential for the moisture content of the fill from becoming too high for compaction. If the fill stockpile is not covered during inclement weather, then aerating the fill to reduce the moisture content would be required. This action is generally very time consuming and may result in construction delays.

Work may recommence, after the rain event, once the site has been reviewed by the project geotechnical engineer.

Retaining Walls
Cantilever retaining walls should be designed to resist an active earth pressure such as that exerted by compacted backfill. Retaining walls up to (12) feet in height may be designed per the following table.

The ‘active’ pressure assumes that the wall will be allowed to deflect 0.01H to 0.02H. Basement walls and other walls where horizontal movement is restricted at the top or not allowed to deflect shall be designed for at-rest pressure.

Surface Slope of
Retained Material
Horizontal to Vertical
Active Equivalent
Fluid Weight
p.c.f.

At-Rest Pressure
Fluid Weight
p.c.f.

Level 30 60
August 2, 2021 Page 23
Project 200416
The active and at-rest equivalent fluid pressure presented herein are based on assumed certified compacted fill shear strength parameters, the proposed compacted fill shear strength parameters shall be verified during the compacted fill construction. If expansive soils were to be used in the compacted fill behind the proposed retaining wall, the active and at-rest equivalent fluid pressure shall be increased by (15) p.c.f.

In addition to lateral earth pressure, these retaining walls should be designed to resist the surcharge imposed by the proposed structures, footings, any adjacent buildings, or by adjacent traffic surcharge, per the attached figures 11 and 12 obtained from the Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Design Manual

7.02 (Foundation and Earth Structures, pages 74 and 75).

The wall pressure stated assumes that the wall has been backfilled as outlined below with a permanent drainage system. Proper compaction of the backfill is recommended to provide lateral support to adjacent properties. Even with proper compaction of required backfill, settlement of the backfill may occur.

Accordingly, utility lines, footings, slabs, or falsework should be planned and designed to accommodate potential settlement.

Walls to be backfilled must be reviewed by the project Geotechnical Engineer prior to commencement of the backfilling operation.

1. Adequate permanent drainage is required behind the wall to minimize the buildup of hydrostatic pressures. A perforated pipe, with perforations placed down, shall be installed at the base of the wall footing. The pipe shall be encased in at least one cubic foot (1') of three-quarter inch (3/4") gravel.

The pipe shall exit from behind the retaining wall and drain to a location approved by the architect or civil engineer.

When space does not permit the installation of standard pipe and gravel drainage system, i.e. walls adjacent the property line, a flat drainage product is acceptable subject to approval of the governing agency. It is recommended that a drainage composite geotextile (such as MiraDrain / QuickDrain) be placed at the base of the proposed retaining wall. The drainage composite geotextile will provide comparable drainage to the conventional four inch perforated pipe encased in gravel per Code Sections 1805.4.2 and 1805.4.3.

Where shoring does not allow for the installation of a standard subdrainage system behind the proposed retaining wall, a rock pockets system may be utilized. The client shall submit a letter of modification and obtain the City of Glendale approval prior to using this option. The rock pockets system should drain through the proposed retaining wall. The (3/4”) gravels pockets should be a minimum of one cubic foot (1’X1’X1’ or 2’X2’X4”) and should be installed no more than (8) feet on center.

If a drainage system is not provided the walls should be designed to resist an external hydrostatic pressure due to water in addition to the lateral earth pressure in Retaining Wall section. The entire wall should be design for full hydrostatic pressure based on a water level at the ground surface. In addition, floors would need to be designed for hydrostatic uplift and waterproofed.

2. A continuous vertical drain, consisting of a gravel blanket six inches (6") thick or geotextile vertical drainage system, shall be placed along the back side of the wall to within 2 feet of the ground surface.

August 2, 2021 Page 24
Project 200416

3. Water and moisture affecting retaining walls is a common post-construction complaint. Poorly applied or omitted waterproofing can lead to standing water inside the building or efflorescence on the wall.

It is recommended that the retaining walls be waterproofed. Waterproofing design and inspection of installation is not the responsibility of the geotechnical engineer. Creative Geotechnical, Inc. does not practice in the field of water and moisture vapor transmission evaluation/mitigation. Therefore, we recommend that a qualified person/firm be engaged/consulted to evaluate the general and specific water and moisture vapor transmission paths and any impact on the proposed development. This person/firm should provide recommendations for mitigation of potential adverse impact of water and moisture vapor transmission on various components of the structure as deemed necessary. The actual waterproofing design shall be provided by the architect, structural engineer or contractor with experience in waterproofing.

4. After the wall backdrain system has been placed and the waterproofing installed, fill may be placed, if sufficient room allows, in layers not exceeding four inches (4") in thickness and compacted to 90 percent of the maximum density, as determined by ASTM D 1557. Where cohesionless soil having less than (15) percent finer than (0.005) millimeters is used for fill, the fill material shall be compacted to a minimum of (95) percent of the maximum dry density.

5. Where space does not permit compaction of material behind the wall (<24 inches wide, up to 10 feet in height), a granular backfill shall be used. This granular backfill shall consist of one-half inch (1/2") to three-quarter inch (3/4") crushed rock and should be densified by tamping into place. The crushed rock backfill should not exceed a depth of ten feet.

6. All granular free-draining wall backfills shall be capped with a clayey compacted soil within the upper two feet (2') of the wall backfill. This compacted material should start below the required wall freeboard.

7. A concrete-lined swale drain should be placed behind any retaining wall that can intercept surface runoff from upslope areas. This surface runoff shall be transferred to an area approved by the building official.

8. A minimum freeboard of two (2) feet shall be maintained at all times. Any slough, debris or trash should be removed immediately. Swales shall be maintained, by sealing any and all cracks or repairing breaks that occur over the life of the swale.

Lateral Earth Pressure Due to Earth Motion
Retaining walls should be designed to resist an active earth pressure due to earth motion, if required by the building official, distributed as a triangle pressure. Retaining walls up to (12) feet in height may be designed per the following table. The seismic equivalent fluid pressure is in addition to static earth pressures.

The seismic loading is based on a horizontal acceleration coefficient of ½ of 2/3 PGAM = 0.36.

August 2, 2021 Page 25
Project 200416
Surface Slope of
Retained Material
Horizontal to Vertical
Seismically Induced Earth
Pressure - Equivalent
Fluid Weight
p.c.f.

Level 10
Slabs on Grade
Slabs on grade should be reinforced with minimum #4 reinforcing bars, placed at (16) inches on center each way and supported on certified compacted fill and/or bedrock. Alternatively, the slab on grade may be structurally supported on the recommended foundation system. Provisions for cracks should be incorporated into the design and construction of the foundation system, slabs, and proposed floor coverings. Concrete slabs should have sufficient control joints spaced at a maximum of approximately 8 feet, control joints are not required for structural slab supported on the recommended foundations system option. Two-car garage slabs should be quartered or saw cut slabs and isolated from the stem wall footing to mitigate cracking. These recommendations are considered minimums unless superseded by the project structural engineer. Prior to placing the vapor retarder/waterproofing the moisture content of the subgrade should be raised to 120 percent of the optimum moisture content to a depth of 18 inches.

It is recommended that a vapor retarder/waterproofing be placed below the concrete slab on grade.

Vapor/moisture transmission through slabs does occur and can impact various components of the structure.

Vapor retarder/waterproofing design and inspection of installation is not the responsibility of the geotechnical engineer (most often the responsibility of the architect). Creative Geotechnical, Inc. does not practice in the field of water and moisture vapor transmission evaluation/mitigation. Therefore, we recommend that a qualified person/firm be engaged/consulted to evaluate the general and specific water and moisture vapor transmission paths and any impact on the proposed development. This person/firm should provide recommendations for mitigation of potential adverse impact of water and moisture vapor transmission on various components of the structure as deemed necessary. The actual waterproofing design shall be provided by the architect, structural engineer or contractor with experience in waterproofing
In order to promote good building practices and alert the rest of the design/construction team of some of the appropriate standards and expert recommendations pertaining to vapor barriers/retarders, the waterproofing designer should consider recommending and citing specific performance characteristics.

The following paragraph includes some of the standards and expert recommendations and should be considered for use waterproofing designer own recommendations:

Vapor barrier shall consist of a minimum 15 mil extruded polyolefin plastic (no recycled content or woven materials permitted). Permeance as tested before and after mandatory conditions (ASTM E 1745 Section 7.1 and Sub-Paragraph 7.1.1-7.1.5): less than 0.01 perms [grains/(ft2-hr-inHg)] and comply with the ASTM E 1745 Class A requirements. Install vapor barrier according to ASTM E1643, including proper perimeter seal. Basis of design: Stego Wrap Vapor Barrier 15 mil and Stego Crete Claw Tape (perimeter seal tape). Approved Alternatives: Vaporguard by Reef Industries, Sundance 15 mil Vapor Barrier by Sundance Inc.

August 2, 2021 Page 26
Project 200416
Decking
Exterior decking slabs on grade should be reinforced with minimum #4 reinforcing bars, placed at 16 inches on center each way and supported on certified compacted fill and/or bedrock. Alternatively, the slab on grade may be structurally supported on the recommended foundation system. Provisions for cracks should be incorporated into the design and construction of the decking. Concrete slabs should have sufficient control joints spaced at a maximum of approximately 8 feet. Decking planned adjacent to lawns, planters or adjacent to descending slopes should be provided with a 12-inch thickened edge. The deck reinforcement should be bent down into the edge. These recommendations are considered minimums unless superseded by the project structural engineer. Prior to placing the concrete the subgrade should be raised to 120 percent of the optimum moisture content to a depth of 18 inches.

Slough Protection
Some surficial erosion/surficial slope failures may occur during inclement weather. In order to mitigate this possible occurrence from impacting the rear yard area and the proposed structure, it is recommended that the freeboard on the rear yard retaining wall be a minimum of two feet.

The sloughed materials behind these walls must be cleaned out each time deposition occurs, to allow them to function as envisioned.

Some surficial erosion/surficial slope failures may occur during inclement weather. In order to mitigate this possible occurrence from impacting improvements all slopes should be planted and maintained as described in the Drainage and Maintenance section. In addition, deep-rooted shrubs should be planted in staggered rows that do not exceed 10 feet on center over the slope face.

Trench Backfill
Standard construction techniques should be sufficient for site utility trench excavations. It is recommended that utility trenches not be planned or constructed parallel to and below a 2:1 (h:v) plane projected down from the base of the outer edge of conventional foundations. If utilities are required within this zone, foundations should be deepened to satisfy this recommendation. The surface of utility trenches frequently settles, even when backfill is placed under optimum conditions. Structural units or pavement placed over the trench backfill should be designed to accommodate such movements.

Backfill of all utility trenches should be placed by mechanical compaction methods and should be tested and certified. Flooding and/or jetting of other trench backfill does not create compact trench backfill.

Sand (with a minor Sand Equivalent of 30+) may be placed around utility lines and be properly jetted and should be limited to around the pipe and 6 inches above the pipe.

Utilities bedded in sand can serve as conduits to bring subsurface water onto the site. It is recommended that a slurry seal be placed around the pipes at their entrance to the property.

August 2, 2021 Page 27
Project 200416
Soil Shrinkage and Bulking
Bulking is the increase of volume of the earth material when it is excavated. Shrinkage is the decrease in volume of the earth material when it is compacted. Contingencies should be made to adjust the earthwork balance when grading is in progress and the bulk-shrink is better defined.

The bulking factor is estimated to range from 10 to 20 percent. The shrinkage factor is estimated to range from 10 to 20 percent. These estimated values are based on the limited data collected from the subsurface exploration, available information at the time of this report, laboratory test data, and our experience in the site area.

These estimates may vary depending on contractor methods and few known & unknown factors during the site grading. Losses from site clearing and grubbing operations mat effect quantity calculations and should be taken into account. Actual shrinkage/bulking of the soil may vary.

Jobsite Safety
Neither the processional activities of Creative Geotechnical, Inc., nor the presence of Creative Geotechnical, Inc. employees and subconsultants at a construction/project site, shall relieve the contractor of its obligations, duties and responsibilities including, but not limited to, construction means, methods, techniques, or procedures necessary for performing, superintending and coordination the work in accordance with the contract documents and any health or safety precaution required by any regulatory agencies. Creative Geotechnical, Inc. and its personal have no connection with their work or any health or safety programs or procedures. The general contractor shall be the sole responsible for jobsite safety.

REVIEWS
Plan Review and Plan Notes
The final grading, building, and/or structural plans shall be reviewed and approved by the consultants to ensure that all recommendations are incorporated into the design or shown as notes on the plan.

The final plans should reflect the following:

1. The Preliminary Geologic and Geotechnical Engineering Investigation by Creative Geotechnical, Inc. is a part of the plans.

2. Plans must be reviewed and signed by Creative Geotechnical, Inc.

3. The project geotechnical engineer and/or geologist must review all grading.

4. The project geotechnical engineer and/or geologist shall review all foundations.

August 2, 2021 Page 28
Project 200416
Construction Review
Reviews will be required to verify all geologic and geotechnical work. It is required that all footing excavations, seepage pits, and grading be reviewed by this office. This office should be notified at least two working days in advance of any field reviews so that staff personnel may be made available.

The property owner should take an active role in project safety by assigning responsibility and authority to individuals qualified in appropriate construction safety principles and practices. Generally, site safety should be assigned to the general contractor or construction manager that is in control of the site and has the required expertise, which includes but not limited to construction means, methods and safety precautions. When excavations exist on a site, the area should be fenced, and warning signs posted. All pile excavations must be properly covered and secured. Soil generated from excavations and cuts should not be spilled over descending slopes or piled against fences.

LIMITATIONS
General
This report and the explorations are subject to the following conditions. Please read this section carefully; it limits our liability.

The validity of our recommendations presented herein is dependent upon review of the engineering geology and geotechnical engineering aspects of the project during construction by this firm. This report is intended to be used only in its entirety. No portion or section of the report, by itself, is designed to completely represent any aspect of the project described herein. If any reader requires additional information or has questions regarding this report, Creative Geotechnical, Inc. should be contacted.

The subsurface conditions described herein have been projected from limited subsurface explorations and laboratory testing. The explorations and testing presented in our report should in no way be construed to reflect any variations which may occur between the exploration locations or which may result from changes in subsurface conditions. Subsurface conditions were interpreted on the basis of field explorations and past experience. Although, between exploratory excavations, subsurface earth materials may vary in type, strength and many other properties from those interpreted. The findings, conclusions and recommendations presented herein are for the soil conditions encountered in the specific locations.

Earth materials and conditions immediately adjacent to, or beneath those observed may have different characteristics, such as, earth type, physical properties and strength. Other soil conditions due to nonuniformity of the soil conditions or manmade alterations may be revealed during construction. If subsurface conditions differ from those encountered in the described exploration, this office should be advised immediately so that further recommendations may be made if required. If it is desired to minimize the possibility of such changes, additional explorations and testing can/should be performed.

The exploration was performed only on portion of the site, and cannot be considered as indicative of the portions of the site not explored.

Creative Geotechnical, Inc. should be consulted to determine if additional work is required when our work is used by others or if the scope of the project has changed. If the project is delayed for more than August 2, 2021 Page 29
Project 200416
one year, this office should be contacted to verify the current site conditions and to prepare an update report.

Findings, conclusions and recommendations presented herein are based on experience and background.

Therefore, findings, conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions and are not meant to indicate a control of nature.

Fluctuations in groundwater level may occur due to variations in rainfall, temperature, irrigation, and other factors not evident at the measurements reported herein. Fluctuations also may occur across the site.

High groundwater levels can be hazardous to health and property and saturation of earth materials can cause subsidence or slippage of the site.

This preliminary report provides information regarding the findings on the subject property. It is not designed to provide a guarantee that the site will be free of hazards in the future, such as but not limited to, landslides, slippage, liquefaction, expansive soils, differential settlement, debris flows, seepage, concentrated drainage or flooding. It may not be possible to eliminate all hazards, but homeowners must maintain their property and improve deficiencies to minimize these hazards. Any liability in connection herewith shall not exceed the fee for this report.

The exploration was performed only on portion of the site, and cannot be considered as indicative of the portions of the site not explored.

Engineering for the proposed project should not begin until approval of the investigation is granted by the local building official. Significant changes in our recommendations may result due to the building department review process.

This report was prepared on the basis of the preliminary development plan furnished. Final plans should be reviewed by our office as additional geotechnical work may be required.

This report may not be copied. If you wish to purchase additional copies, you may order them from this office.

CONSTRUCTION NOTICE
Construction can be challenging. Creative Geotechnical, Inc. has provided this report to advise you of the general site conditions, geotechnical feasibility of the proposed project, and overall site stability. It must be understood that the professional opinions provided herein are based upon subsurface data, laboratory testing, analyses, and interpretation thereof. Recommendations contained herein are based upon surface reconnaissance and minimum subsurface explorations deemed suitable by your consultants.

Although quantities for foundation concrete and steel may be estimated based on the findings provided in this report, provision should be made for possible changes in quantities during construction. If it is desired to minimize the possibility of such changes, additional exploration and testing should be considered. However, you must be aware that depths and magnitudes will most likely vary between explorations given in the report.

August 2, 2021 Page 30
Project 200416
The observations and testing during construction are beyond the scope of this investigation and budget and are conducted on a time and material basis.

We appreciate the opportunity of serving you on this project. If you have any questions concerning this report, please contact the undersigned.

Respectfully submitted,
CREATIVE GEOTECHNICAL, INC.

Raymond M. Haddad Pedram Rahimikian
Project Engineer Project Geologist
GE 2985 CEG 2683
RMH/PRK: -200416-1
Distribution: (3) Addressee

August 2, 2021 Page 31
Project 200416

APPENDIX I

SITE INFORMATION
Location Map
Groundwater Map
Regional Geologic Map
Seismic Hazard Map
Geologic Map
Cross Sections
Field Exploration
Exploration Logs TP-1 through TP-9

August 2, 2021 Page 32
Project 200416

LOCATION MAP
Reference: GIS-NET Scale: As Shown
August 2, 2021 Page 33
Project 200416

GROUNDWATER MAP
Reference: State of California Seismic Hazard Report, Burbank and Pasadena Quadrangle
Scale: As Shown
August 2, 2021 Page 34
Project 200416

REGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP
Reference: Dibblee Geologic Foundation, Burbank & Pasadena Quadrangle Scale: As Shown

August 2, 2021 Page 35
Project 200416

USGS FAULT MAP
Lisa Wald, U.S. Geologic Survey (modified from SCEC).

Reference: U. S. G. S: active fault (red) and potentially active fault (green) August 2, 2021 Page 36
Project 200416

SEISMIC HAZARD MAP

Reference: State of California, Seismic Hazard Map of the Burbank & Pasadena Quadrangle
Scale: As
Shown
August 2, 2021 Page 37
Project 200416
August 2, 2021 Page 38
Project 200416
Page Left Blank Intentionally

August 2, 2021 Page 39
Project 200416

August 2, 2021 Page 40
Project 200416
Page Left Blank Intentionally
August 2, 2021 Page 41
Project 200416

August 2, 2021 Page 42
Project 200416
Page Left Blank Intentionally
August 2, 2021 Page 43
Project 200416
CreativeGeotechnical, Inc.

Project #: 200416
Address: 1766 Cielito Drive
Date of Excavation: 04.18.2020
Logger: PRK Test Pit
TP-1

DESCRIPTIONS
Attitudes
Bedding: (b) Joint: (j)
Shear: (s) Fault: (f)
0 – 1.0’ ARTIFICIAL FILL (Af), silty sand, dark yellowish brown, loose

1.0’ – 2.0’ BEDROCK (gqd), granite, dark gray, slightly weathered, very dense TOTAL DEPTH: 2.0 ft. NO GROUNDWATER NO CAVING
August 2, 2021 Page 44
Project 200416
CreativeGeotechnical, Inc.

Project #: 200416
Address: 1766 Cielito Drive
Date of Excavation: 04.18.2020
Logger: PRK Test Pit
TP-2

DESCRIPTIONS
Attitudes
Bedding: (b) Joint: (j)
Shear: (s) Fault: (f)
0 – 5.0’ ARTIFICIAL FILL (Af), silty sand with gravels and cobbles, dark yellowish brown, moderately dense, abundant roots, moist

5.0’ – 6.0’ BEDROCK (gqd), granite, white to dark gray, slightly weathered and fractured, very dense
TOTAL DEPTH: 6.0 ft. NO GROUNDWATER NO CAVING
August 2, 2021 Page 45
Project 200416
CreativeGeotechnical, Inc.

Project #: 200416
Address: 1766 Cielito Drive
Date of Excavation: 04.18.2020
Logger: PRK Test Pit
TP-3

DESCRIPTIONS
Attitudes
Bedding: (b) Joint: (j)
Shear: (s) Fault: (f)
0 – 10.0’ ARTIFICIAL FILL (Af), silty sand with gravels and cobbles, dark yellowish brown, moderately dense, abundant roots, moist @10’ Refusal due to gravels
TOTAL DEPTH: 10.0 ft. NO GROUNDWATER NO CAVING
August 2, 2021 Page 46
Project 200416
CreativeGeotechnical, Inc.

Project #: 200416
Address: 1766 Cielito Drive
Date of Excavation: 04.18.2020
Logger: PRK Test Pit
TP-4

DESCRIPTIONS
Attitudes
Bedding: (b) Joint: (j)
Shear: (s) Fault: (f)
0 – 6.0’ ARTIFICIAL FILL (Af), silty sand with gravels and cobbles, dark yellowish brown, moderately dense, abundant roots, moist
@6’ Refusal due to gravels
TOTAL DEPTH: 6.0 ft. NO GROUNDWATER NO CAVING
August 2, 2021 Page 47
Project 200416
CreativeGeotechnical, Inc.

Project #: 200416
Address: 1766 Cielito Drive
Date of Excavation: 04.18.2020
Logger: PRK Test Pit
TP-5

DESCRIPTIONS
Attitudes
Bedding: (b) Joint: (j)
Shear: (s) Fault: (f)
0 – 6.5’ ARTIFICIAL FILL (Af), silty sand with gravels, dark yellowish brown, moderately dense, abundant roots, moist
@6.5’ Refusal due to gravels
TOTAL DEPTH: 6.5 ft. NO GROUNDWATER NO CAVING

August 2, 2021 Page 48
Project 200416
CreativeGeotechnical, Inc.

Project #: 200416
Address: 1766 Cielito Drive
Date of Excavation: 04.18.2020
Logger: PRK Test Pit
TP-6

DESCRIPTIONS
Attitudes
Bedding: (b) Joint: (j)
Shear: (s) Fault: (f)
0 – 9.0’ ARTIFICIAL FILL (Af), silty sand with gravels, dark yellowish brown, moderately dense, abundant roots, moist
@ 9’ Refusal due to gravels
TOTAL DEPTH: 9.0 ft. NO GROUNDWATER NO CAVING

August 2, 2021 Page 49
Project 200416
CreativeGeotechnical, Inc.

Project #: 200416
Address: 1766 Cielito Drive
Date of Excavation: 04.18.2020
Logger: PRK Test Pit
TP-7

DESCRIPTIONS
Attitudes
Bedding: (b) Joint: (j)
Shear: (s) Fault: (f)
0 – 5.5’ ARTIFICIAL FILL (Af), silty sand with gravels and cobbles, dark yellowish brown, moderately dense, abundant roots, moist

5.5’ – 6.5’ BEDROCK (gqd), granite, white to dark gray, moderately to slightly weathered and fractured, very dense
TOTAL DEPTH: 6.5 ft. NO GROUNDWATER NO CAVING

August 2, 2021 Page 50
Project 200416
CreativeGeotechnical, Inc.

Project #: 200416
Address: 1766 Cielito Drive
Date of Excavation: 04.18.2020
Logger: PRK Test Pit
TP-8

DESCRIPTIONS
Attitudes
Bedding: (b) Joint: (j)
Shear: (s) Fault: (f)
0 – 2.0’ ARTIFICIAL FILL (Af), silty sand, dark yellowish brown, loose

2.0’ – 3.0’ BEDROCK (gqd), granite, white to dark gray, slightly weathered, very dense
TOTAL DEPTH: 3.0 ft. NO GROUNDWATER NO CAVING

August 2, 2021 Page 51
Project 200416
CreativeGeotechnical, Inc.

Project #: 200416
Address: 1766 Cielito Drive
Date of Excavation: 04.18.2020
Logger: PRK Test Pit
TP-9

DESCRIPTIONS
Attitudes
Bedding: (b) Joint: (j)
Shear: (s) Fault: (f)
0 – 4.0’ ARTIFICIAL FILL (Af), silty sand with gravels, dark yellowish brown, loose, slightly moist

4.0’ – 5.0’ BEDROCK (gqd), granite, white to dark gray, moderately to slightly weathered, very dense
TOTAL DEPTH: 5.0 ft. NO GROUNDWATER NO CAVING

August 2, 2021 Page 52
Project 200416

APPENDIX II

LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory testing was performed on samples obtained as outlined in the Field Exploration section of this report. All samples were sent to the laboratory for examination, testing in general conformance to specified test methods, and classification, using the Unified Soil Classification System and group symbol.

Moisture and Density Tests
The dry unit weight and moisture content of the undisturbed samples were determined. The results are tabulated in the Laboratory Recapitulation - Table 1.

Shear Tests
Direct single-shear tests were performed with a direct shear machine. The desired normal load is applied to the specimen and allowed to come to equilibrium. The rate of deflection on the sample is approximately 0.005 inches per minute. The samples are tested at higher and/or lower normal loads in order to determine the angle of internal friction and the cohesion. The results are plotted on the Shear Test Diagrams and the results tabulated in the Laboratory Recapitulation - Table 1.
pH (CTM 643)
A sample of dry soil and distilled water are placed in a flask and allowed to stand for approximately an hour to stabilize. The pH is measured using a pH meter that has been compensated for temperature. The results are tabulated in the Laboratory Recapitulation - Table 2.

Minimum Resistivity (CTM 643)
The electrical resistivity of each soil specimen is conducted in a two-stage process using the soil box method. The first stage measures the resistivity of the soil in its as-received condition and the second stage records the value after saturation with distilled water. The results are tabulated in the Laboratory Recapitulation - Table 2.

Chloride Content (CTM 422)
A sample of dry soil is mixed with distilled water and allowed to stand overnight. The top aliquot of the sample is mixed with chloride indicator and titrated over silver nitrate solution. The chloride content is determined by the difference of the volumes required to complete titration. The results are tabulated in the Laboratory Recapitulation - Table 2.

Sulfate Content (CTM 417)
A sample of dry soil is mixed with distilled water and allowed to stand overnight. The top aliquot is mixed with distilled water and a conditioning agent. The solution is then placed in a photometer and the value recorded. The process is repeated with the addition of barium chloride. The sulfate content is determined by the difference of the photometer readings. The results are tabulated in the Laboratory Recapitulation - Table 2.

August 2, 2021 Page 53
Project 200416
PROJECT NO.: 200416

PROJECT
ADDRESS: 1766 Cielito Drive
LABORATORY RECAPITULATION 1
Explorations Depth
(ft) Material Dry Density (p.c.f.)
Moisture
Content (%)
Outcrop 0.0 gqd 120 4
TP-1 2.0 gqd 121 3
TP-2 6.0 gqd 124 5
TP-3 6.0 Af 119 8
TP-5 4.0 Af 125 5
TP-7 3.0 Af 122 5
LABORATORY RECAPITULATION 2
Explorations Depth
(ft) pH
As-Is Soil
Resistivity
(ohm-cm)
Minimum Soil
Resistivity
(ohm-cm)
Chloride
(ppm)
Sulfate
(ppm)
TP-2 6.0 6.70 60,000 5,600 18 22
LABORATORY RECAPITULATION 3
Exploration Depth (ft) Expansion
Index
TP-3 6 0
August 2, 2021 Page 54
Project 200416

August 2, 2021 Page 55
Project 200416

August 2, 2021 Page 56
Project 200416

August 2, 2021 Page 57
Project 200416
August 2, 2021 Page 58
Project 200416

APPENDIX III

ANALYSES
Bearing Capacity
Lateral Design
Slope Stability
Seismic Evaluation

August 2, 2021 Page 59
Project 200416

August 2, 2021 Page 60
Project 200416

August 2, 2021 Page 61
Project 200416

August 2, 2021 Page 62
Project 200416

August 2, 2021 Page 63
Project 200416

August 2, 2021 Page 64
Project 200416

August 2, 2021 Page 65
Project 200416
August 2, 2021 Page 66
Project 200416

August 2, 2021 Page 67
Project 200416

August 2, 2021 Page 68
Project 200416
August 2, 2021 Page 69
Project 200416
August 2, 2021 Page 70
Project 200416

August 2, 2021 Page 71
Project 200416
August 2, 2021 Page 72
Project 200416
** PCSTABL6 **
by
Purdue University
1 --Slope Stability Analysis--
Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop
or Spencer`s Method of Slices
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION Cross Section A - A'

BOUNDARY COORDINATES
9 Top Boundaries
9 Total Boundaries
Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type
No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd
1 0.00 25.00 40.00 25.00 1
2 40.00 25.00 45.00 29.00 1
3 45.00 29.00 55.00 55.00 1
4 55.00 55.00 90.00 80.00 1
5 90.00 80.00 100.00 85.00 1
6 100.00 85.00 100.10 88.00 1
7 100.10 88.00 130.00 88.00 1
8 130.00 88.00 130.10 97.00 1
9 130.10 97.00 203.00 97.00 1
1 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS
1 Type(s) of Soil
Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez.

Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No.
1 130.0 140.0 906.0 41.3 0.00 0.0 0
1 BOUNDARY LOAD(S)
2 Load(s) Specified
Load X-Left X-Right Intensity Deflection
No. (ft) (ft) (psf) (deg)
1 102.00 128.00 100.0 0.0
2 131.00 201.00 200.0 0.0
NOTE - Intensity Is Specified As A Uniformly Distributed Force Acting On A Horizontally Projected Surface.
1 A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 400 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated.

August 2, 2021 Page 73
Project 200416
20 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 20 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = 0.00 ft.
and X = 50.00 ft.

Each Surface Terminates Between X = 60.00 ft.
and X = 203.00 ft.

Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = 0.00 ft.

10.00 ft. Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. 1 Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered - Most Critical First.
* * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method * * Failure Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 44.74 28.79
2 53.79 33.04
3 62.57 37.83
4 71.04 43.14
5 79.18 48.96
6 86.95 55.25
7 94.32 62.00
8 101.28 69.19
9 107.79 76.78
10 113.83 84.75
11 116.00 88.00
Circle Center At X = -21.1 ; Y = 180.8 and Radius, 165.6 *** 2.003 ***
Individual data on the 16 slices
Water Water Earthquake
Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge
Slice Width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load
No. (ft) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 1 0.3 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2 8.8 10793.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3 1.2 3158.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4 7.6 21574.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
5 8.5 25269.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
6 8.1 24658.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
7 7.8 23175.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
8 3.1 8835.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
9 4.3 11838.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
10 5.7 13760.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
11 0.1 241.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
12 1.2 2981.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
August 2, 2021 Page 74
Project 200416
13 0.7 1719.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
14 5.8 10991.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 579.1
15 6.0 5684.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 604.0
16 2.2 459.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 217.1
August 2, 2021 Page 75
Project 200416
** PCSTABL6 **
by
Purdue University
1 --Slope Stability Analysis--
Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop
or Spencer`s Method of Slices
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION Cross Section A - A'

A Horizontal Earthquake Loading Coefficient
Of0.360 Has Been Assigned
A Vertical Earthquake Loading Coefficient
August 2, 2021 Page 76
Project 200416
Of0.000 Has Been Assigned
Cavitation Pressure = 0.0 (psf)
1 A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 400 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated.
20 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 20 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = 0.00 ft.
and X = 50.00 ft.

Each Surface Terminates Between X = 60.00 ft.
and X = 203.00 ft.

Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = 0.00 ft.

10.00 ft. Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. 1 Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered - Most Critical First.
* * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method * * Failure Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 44.74 28.79
2 53.79 33.04
3 62.57 37.83
4 71.04 43.14
5 79.18 48.96
6 86.95 55.25
7 94.32 62.00
8 101.28 69.19
9 107.79 76.78
10 113.83 84.75
11 116.00 88.00
Circle Center At X = -21.1 ; Y = 180.8 and Radius, 165.6 *** 1.194 ***
Individual data on the 16 slices
Water Water Earthquake
Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge
Slice Width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load
No. (ft) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) August 2, 2021 Page 77
Project 200416
1 0.3 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0
2 8.8 10793.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3885.5 0.0 0.0
3 1.2 3158.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1137.1 0.0 0.0
4 7.6 21574.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7766.8 0.0 0.0
5 8.5 25269.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9097.1 0.0 0.0
6 8.1 24658.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8877.2 0.0 0.0
7 7.8 23175.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8343.1 0.0 0.0
8 3.1 8835.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3180.8 0.0 0.0
9 4.3 11838.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4261.7 0.0 0.0
10 5.7 13760.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4953.6 0.0 0.0
11 0.1 241.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 87.0 0.0 0.0
12 1.2 2981.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1073.4 0.0 0.0
13 0.7 1719.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 619.1 0.0 0.0
14 5.8 10991.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3957.1 0.0 579.1
15 6.0 5684.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2046.6 0.0 604.0
16 2.2 459.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 165.3 0.0 217.1
August 2, 2021 Page 78
Project 200416
August 2, 2021 Page 79
Project 200416
August 2, 2021 Page 80
Project 200416
August 2, 2021 Page 81
Project 200416
August 2, 2021 Page 82
Project 200416

August 2, 2021 Page 83
Project 200416

APPENDIX IV

REFERENCES

1. Abramson, Lee W., et. al., Slope Stability and Stabilization Methods (Wiley & Sons, New York: 1996).

2. Bowen, Robert, Grouting in Engineering Practice - 2nd Edition (Applied Science Publishers, Ltd., New York: 1981).

3. Bowles, Joseph, E., Foundation Analysis and Design (McGraw-Hill, New York: 1988).

4. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1998, Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada.

5. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, March 25, 1999, State of California Seismic Hazard Zones Map of the Burbank and Pasadena Quadrangles.

6. Dibblee, T. W. Jr., 1991, Geologic Map of the Pasadena and Burbank Quadrangles, Los Angeles County, California: Dibblee Geological Foundation.

7. Monahan, Edward J., PE, Construction of and on Compacted Fills (Wiley & Sons, New York: 1986).

8. Naval Facilities Engineering Command Foundations and Earth Structures - Design Manual 7.02 (Naval Publications and Forms Center, Philadelphia: 1986).

9. Northridge Earthquake January 17, 1994, preliminary reconnaissance report: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, March 1994.

10. Poulos, H. G., and Davis, E. H., Pile Foundation Analysis and Design (Wiley & Sons, New York: 1980).

11. Taylor, Donald W., Fundamentals of Soil Mechanics (Wiley & Sons, New York: 1948).

12. Terzaghi, Karl, Peck, Ralph B., Mesri, Gholamreza, Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice (Wiley & Sons, New York: 1996).

www.CreativeGeotechnical.com
14421 Sylvan Street, Van Nuys, CA 91411, O. 818 923 5800

September 7, 2022 Project 200416
Dr. Jack Demirchian
1766 Cielito Drive
Glendale, CA
Subject: SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT No. 2
1766 Cielito Drive
Glendale, CA
References:
1) Preliminary Geologic and Geotechnical Engineering report by Creative Geotechnical, Inc. covering the subject site, dated August 2, 2021.

Dear Dr. Demirchian:

With regard to the non-certified fill, about 20 feet thick on top bedrock, existing on your property, it is our firm’s opinion that trimming the fill down to bedrock will reduce the potential for future instability on the steep slope portion (refer to cross sections A-A’ and B-B’ in Ref. No.1 above). Should you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at your convenience.

Respectfully submitted,
CREATIVE GEOTECHNICAL, INC.


Raymond M. Haddad
Project Engineer
GE 2985
RMH: -3
Distribution: (1) Addressee Via Email
1766 Cielito Drive,
Glendale, California
Historic Resource Evaluation
March 24, 2022
Submitted by:

Kaplan Chen Kaplan
2526 Eighteenth Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
David Kaplan, Principal
Pam O’Connor, Architectural Historian
EXHIBIT #11
Table of Contents
Executive Summary and Purpose 1
Summary of Research and Field Methodology 1
Regulatory Framework 2
Project Location and Setting 6
Development History of the 1700 block of Cielito Drive 8 Property History and Description 9
Review of Previous Surveys 15
Historic Context Statement – Eligibility Criteria 15
Evaluation of Significance 17
Conclusion 20
References 21

Attachments
Attachment A: Photographs
Attachment B: Maps
Attachment C: Building Permits
Attachment D: Historic Aerials and Sanborn Insurance Maps Attachment E: DPR Records
Historic Resource Evaluation 1766 Cielito Drive
Glendale, California

Kaplan Chen Kaplan 1 March 24, 2022

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND PURPOSE
This report, completed by Kaplan Chen Kaplan (KCK), presents the findings of the historic resource assessment conducted for property at 1766 Cielito Drive, in the City of Glendale. The purpose of this evaluation is to determine whether this property contains any historical resources.

The single-family dwelling at 1766 Cielito Drive was constructed in 1960. The Tract was recorded in 1960 by a number of owners who then individually developed parcels; there was no single developer of the tract. The subject building did not influence the development of the block or area. There was no architect associated with the design of the building. There is no evidence that the engineer or contractor were exceptional professionals. The subject building is designed in the Mid-Century Modern architectural style. While the building is representative of the style, it is not an excellent example of the style. The building materials are not exceptional nor is the workmanship.

No historic events or persons associated with the property. The property is not associated with the early history or heritage of Glendale. .

The findings of the KCK report are the result of thorough research, field observations and building evaluations using current technical guidance from national, state, and local historic preservation agencies. The property at 1766 Cielito Drive does not meet the criteria to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, or in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources as an individual resource. Demolition of the building would not result in any direct or indirect adverse impacts to any historical resources.

METHODOLOGY
A comprehensive methodology for research and evaluation the development history of the subject property and surrounds properties determine potential historic eligibility included the following:

• Field review of subject properties in February 2022
• Field review of adjacent area in February 2022
• Photography of subject property and adjacent area
• Building Permit Research
• Assessor data research
• Research online databases and sources
• Research Los Angeles Public Library and Glendale Public Library online resources
• City Directory research including Review of digitized City Directories, Glendale Historical Society, Ancestry.com
• Review of aerial and topographic maps
• Research online photographic databases
• Research historic newspaper databases
• Review of Glendale Historic Preservation website
• Review of Glendale Historic Resources Surveys
Historic Resource Evaluation 1766 Cielito Drive
Glendale, California

Kaplan Chen Kaplan 2 March 24, 2022
• Analysis of research materials/data
• Evaluation of properties in accordance with federal, state, and local eligibility criteria
All of the field data and research data were analyzed and evaluated by an architectural historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for Historic Preservation and by an architect who meets the Professional Qualification Standards for Historic Architect.

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
The importance of historic resources has been recognized by federal, state, and local governments through programs and legislation that identify and recognize buildings, structures, object, landscapes and districts that possess historic significance.

California Environmental Quality Act
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) considers historical resources part of the environment. A project that may cause a substantial adverse effect on the significance of an historical resource may have a significant effect on the environment. A property that is eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, is listed in a local register of historical resources, or has been identified as historically significant in an historic resources survey that meets specific criteria is considered a historical resource under CEQA. In order to determine if a property is a potential historical resource, it must be evaluated for its eligibility for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources and/or as a local historical resource.

National Register of Historic Places
The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 established the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) as an authoritative guide “used by Federal, State, and local governments, private groups and citizens to identify the Nation’s cultural resources and indicate what properties should be afforded protection from destruction or impairment.”1 Buildings, districts, sites and structures may be eligible for listing in the National Register if they possess significance at the national, state or local level in American history, culture, architecture or archeology, and in general, are over 50 years old. Significance is evaluated using established criteria:

A. Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or
B. Are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or C. Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
D. Yield, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. 136 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 60.

Historic Resource Evaluation 1766 Cielito Drive
Glendale, California

Kaplan Chen Kaplan 3 March 24, 2022
Significance of Association National Register Bulletin 32, Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Properties Associated with Significant Persons, provides guidance on evaluating potential historic association with people who have “made contributions or played a role that can be justified as significant.” For association with leaders or prominent families it is necessary “to explain their significant accomplishments” and they “must be compared to those of others who were active, successful, prosperous, or influential in the same field.” Most properties nominated for associations with significant persons also are nominated for other reasons and a majority of properties nominated under the association criterion are also significant in the area of architecture or for the area in which the individual(s) achieved recognition.

National Register Bulletin 32 adds that the fact that we value certain professions or the contributions of certain groups historically does not mean that every property associated with or used by a member of that group is significant. Associations with one or more individuals in a particular profession, economic or social class, or ethnic group will not automatically qualify a property. The contribution must be distinctive: it is not enough to show that an individual has acquired wealth, run a successful business, or held public office, unless any of these accomplishments, or their number or combination, is a significant achievement in the community in comparison with the activities and accomplishments of others.

Integrity. Properties may be eligible for inclusion on the National Register as individual resources and/or as contributors to an historic district. National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply National Register Criteria for Evaluation states that in addition to meeting at least one of the four criteria, a resource should be evaluated to assess its integrity. For individual resources to qualify for inclusion they must represent an important aspect of an area’s history and possess integrity. An historic district must retain integrity as a whole, “the majority of the components that make up the district’s historic character must possess integrity even if they are individually undistinguished.” The seven aspects of integrity are location, design, feeling, association, setting, workmanship and materials. To “retain historic integrity a property will always possess several, and usually most, of the aspects.” For a resource to be evaluated as significant for its design, a “property important for illustrating a particular architectural style or construction technique must retain most of the physical features that constitute that style or technique.”
Historic Context. A resource must also be significant within an historic context. National Register Bulletin 15 states that an historic context explains “those patterns, themes, or trends in history by which a specific…property or site is understood and its meaning…is made clear.” To be determined eligible for listing on the National Register a property must possess significance within a historic context and possess integrity.

Historic District. According to National Register Bulletin 15, an historic district derives its importance from being a unified entity whose identity as a district “results from the interrelationship of its resources, which can convey a visual sense of the overall historic environment.” An historic district is “a definable geographic area that can be distinguished from surrounding properties by changes such as density, scale, type, age, style of sites, buildings, structures, and objects, or by documented differences in Historic Resource Evaluation 1766 Cielito Drive
Glendale, California

Kaplan Chen Kaplan 4 March 24, 2022
patterns of historic development or associations...the boundaries must be based upon a shared relationship among the properties constituting the district.”2 California Register of Historical Resources
The California Register, based on the National Register, is the “authoritative guide to be used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify the state’s historical resources and indicate which properties are to be protected.” A building, site, structure, object, or historic district may be eligible for inclusion on the California Register if it meets one or more of the following criteria:

1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States

2. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history

3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values

4. It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.

California Office of Historic Preservation Technical Assistance Series #6, California Register and National Register: A Comparison states that in addition to meeting one of the criteria of significance, a resource must “retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and to convey the reasons for their significance” and “integrity is evaluated with regard to the retention of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. ” Historical resources that “have been rehabilitated or restored may be evaluated for listing.” Series 6 Guidance also states, “Alterations over time to a resource or historic changes in its use may themselves have historical, cultural, or architectural significance.” Historical resources that do not retain sufficient integrity to qualify for the National Register may still be eligible for listing in the California Register: “a resource that has lost its historic character or appearance may still have sufficient integrity for the California Register if it maintains the potential to yield significant scientific or historical information or specific data.”3
The Glendale Register of Historic Resources
The City of Glendale’s Register of Historic Resources was established in 1996 as the official list of designated historic resources in the City. A Historic Resource is defined as “any site, building, structure, area or place, man-made or natural, which is historically or archeologically significant in the cultural, architectural, archaeological, engineering, 2 National Register Bulletin 15, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, pp. 5-6, https://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/pdfs/nrb15.pdf 3 California Office of Historic Preservation Technical Assistance Series #6: California Register and National Register: A Comparison, p. 3.

Historic Resource Evaluation 1766 Cielito Drive
Glendale, California

Kaplan Chen Kaplan 5 March 24, 2022
scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political or military heritage of the city of Glendale, the state of California, or the United States.” According to Section 15.20.050 of the Glendale Municipal Code, “upon recommendation of the Historic Preservation Commission, City Council shall consider and make findings for additions to the Glendale Register of Historic Resources. The designation of any proposed resource in the city as a historic resource shall be granted only if City Council first finds that the proposed historic resource meets one (1) or more of the following criteria:

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

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

3. The proposed historic resource embodies the distinctive and exemplary characteristics of an architectural style, architectural type, period, or method of construction; or represents a notable work of a master designer, builder or architect whose genius influenced his or her profession; or possesses high artistic values.

4. The proposed historic resource has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to archeological pre-history or history of the nation, state, region, or city;
The Glendale Register and Historic Preservation Ordinance do not have any additional eligibility requirements and are silent with respect to age and integrity of potential resources.

Chapter 30.25 of the Glendale Municipal Code allows for designation of historic district overlay zones which enables creation of historic districts that would be subject to special design review process in order to protect historic architecture and features.

A historic district is “a geographically definable area that possesses a concentration, linkage or continuity, constituting more than sixty percent of the total, of historic or scenic properties, or a thematically related grouping of properties. Resources must contribute to each other and be unified aesthetically by plan or historical physical development. A geographic area may be designed as a historic district if the district meets at least one of the following criteria:

A. Exemplifies or reflects special elements of the city’s cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering, architectural, or natural history; B. Is identified with persons or events significant in local, state, or national history; Historic Resource Evaluation 1766 Cielito Drive
Glendale, California

Kaplan Chen Kaplan 6 March 24, 2022
C. Embodies distinctive characteristics of style, type, period, or method of construction, or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship.

D. Represents the work of notable builders, designers, or architects; E. Has a unique location or is a view or vista representing an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood community or of the city; F. Embodies a collection of elements of architectural design, details, materials or craftsmanship that represent a significant structural or architectural achievement of innovation;
G. Reflects significant geographical patterns, including those associated with different eras of settlement and program, transportation modes, or distinctive examples of park or community planning;
H. Conveys a sense of historic and architectural cohesiveness through its design, setting, materials, workmanship or association; or
I. Has been designed a historic district in the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historical Resources.

PROPERTY LOCATION AND SETTING
The subject property, 1766 Cielito Drive, is located in the City of Glendale. The property is zoned R1R, Restricted Residential. The Assessor Parcel Number is 5648-029-015.

Area Map (Los Angeles County Assessor, 2021)
Historic Resource Evaluation 1766 Cielito Drive
Glendale, California

Kaplan Chen Kaplan 7 March 24, 2022
Glendale Zoning Map

City of Glendale Zoning Map excerpt
The parcel at 1766 Cielito Drive is located in the foothills of the Verdugo Mountains.

Cielito Drive is a narrow residential street that conforms to the contours of the foothills.

The road has one travel lane in each direction. There is no parking lane and no sidewalks. Parcels are accessed by driveways with parking onsite.

Historic Resource Evaluation 1766 Cielito Drive
Glendale, California

Kaplan Chen Kaplan 8 March 24, 2022

1700 block of Cielito Drive (Google Earth, c2021)

DEVELOPMENT HISTORY OF THE 1700 BLOCK OF CIELITO DRIVE
Tract 24858 was recorded in 1960 by owners: Rosewood Estates, Corp; Title Insurance and Trust Co.; Security First National Bank; and Bank of America. Development of the 1700 -1800 block of Cielito Drive immediately began with development of single-family dwellings and all the parcels were developed over the next five years: two were built in 1962, three in 1961 (including the subject building), two in 1962, one in 1963, one in 1964, two in 1965 and one in 1966.

Tract 24858, Recorded 1960

Historic Resource Evaluation 1766 Cielito Drive
Glendale, California

Kaplan Chen Kaplan 9 March 24, 2022
Address Date
Built
East Side Cielito Drive
1740 Cielito Drive 1963
1750 Cielito Drive 1964
1766 Cielito Drive 1961
1770 Cielito Drive 1960
1780 Cielito Drive 1960
1800 Cielito Drive 1961
West Side Cielito Drive
1751 Cielito Drive 1962
1763 Cielito Drive 1965
1771 Cielito Drive 1966
1785 Cielito Drive 1961
1791 Cielito Drive 1962
1801 Cielito Drive 1965

PROPERTY HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION
The property at 1766 Cielito Drive is on a parcel of 23,616 square feet with of which 11,810 square feet is usable per the Los Angeles County Assessor. There is a single building on the parcel, a single-family dwelling with attached garage. The 3,246 square foot building was constructed in 1961.

The 1961 building permit was to “construct new home with attached garage” for owners Mr. and Mrs. T. Bistagne (Thomas). The contractor was G.E. Brask. There was no architect for the building. The name of the engineer is illegible however on the permit for a retaining wall (also 1960) the engineer is listed as R.L. Earl and Associate.

The sketch from the 1960 building permit shows the proposed footprint of the dwelling.

The sketch from a 1960 permit for the pool shows a slightly different footprint – the sketch does not show the articulation of the rear (pool facing) elevation but shows that the building extended closer to the north property line of the parcel. 1960 building permit sketch 1960 pool permit sketch
Historic Resource Evaluation 1766 Cielito Drive
Glendale, California

Kaplan Chen Kaplan 10 March 24, 2022
The 1960 permit for a 15 foot by 17 foot by 34 foot pool had Jack Kenny as Engineer with the contractor is Sealtight Construction Company. In 1961 a permit was taken out to build a cantilevered patio deck for the pool area. The engineer was J. Anderson and G.E. Brask was the contractor. Another permit was taken out in 1961 for the lathing and plastering of the exterior and interior of the building.

In 1997 a permit was taken out to “remove the existing roof install 52 sqs BUR class A.” “BUR” is built up roofing.

Satellite view of building with elevations listed
The parcel is slightly below the grade of the street of Cielito Drive. The building and pool are on a level grade. The area of the parcel beyond the pool deck is where the topography changes as the grade drops.

The building is four-sided. The street facing side and side at the north property line, abutting the adjacent property are straight. The driveway elevation is angled. The rear elevation, that faces the view and the downslope of the parcel, has a stepped elevation with the northern half projecting out.

Roof from Cielito Drive Driveway entrance
Historic Resource Evaluation 1766 Cielito Drive
Glendale, California

Kaplan Chen Kaplan 11 March 24, 2022
Fencing where grade drops at rear View of downtown LA from pool deck The building is one-story, with a flat sloping roof. The roof is covered in a rough, crushed stone-like material. The roof has a deep overhang on three elevations: the street elevation, driveway elevation, and rear elevations. The exterior is stucco clad with a small area featuring decorative stone veneer and glazing on sections of the rear elevation
Street elevation Street elevation
The street facing elevation is stucco clad. Along this elevation the roof overhang is supported by painted wood posts. At the driveway corner of the building, there is a short section of stone veneer which wraps around to the driveway elevation. The stone veneer runs a short distance on the driveway elevation where it meets the garage door. The garage door is wide and takes up about half of the driveway elevation. The garage door is painted white and is devoid of any architectural details.

Historic Resource Evaluation 1766 Cielito Drive
Glendale, California

Kaplan Chen Kaplan 12 March 24, 2022
Retaining wall and end of garage Driveway elevation
Garage on driveway elevation Main entry door on driveway elevation The other half of the driveway elevation is clad in stone veneer. The elements on this half of the driveway elevation includes a recessed main entry door. The door assembly is of more recent provenance and consists of a door flanked by sidelights and a semicircular fixed transom window. All the glazing is evocative of leaded glass.

Next to the entry is a chimney wing. That element is rounded and the chimney flue punctures the roof. Next to this rounded chimney/projection is a window. At this point where the roof projects out towards the rear, it curves downward slightly. There is a small landscaped area next to the chimney projection.

Driveway elevation with entry door End of driveway elevation near property line Historic Resource Evaluation 1766 Cielito Drive
Glendale, California

Kaplan Chen Kaplan 13 March 24, 2022
Rear elevation A & part of rear elevation B Rear elevation A The rear of the dwelling consists of three elevations. Elevation A is almost all floor to ceiling glazing , flush mounted with narrow stiles that are not stucco-clad. There is a small area for plantings in front of the windows on Elevation A. Elevation B has a projecting box window, a section of stucco and two almost floor to ceiling windows; these windows have stucco clad headers and sills.

Rear elevation B & portions of A & C Rear elevation A and rear elevation B Portion of Rear elevation A and B Rear elevation B and rear elevation C On Elevation C where it meets Elevation B, there is one floor to ceiling window that is followed by a larger expanse of stucco; a solid door is located along this expanse of stucco. At the north end of Elevation C there is a multi-sided projection that consists of window elements – these glazed elements do not run from floor to ceiling but have a stucco-clad header.

Historic Resource Evaluation 1766 Cielito Drive
Glendale, California

Kaplan Chen Kaplan 14 March 24, 2022
Rear elevation C Rear elevation C

Rear elevation C near property wall Pool deck and pool
The north elevation, adjacent to the retaining wall that separates the parcel from the parcel to the north, is stucco clad. There is a pool and pool deck; the deck is bounded by a fence as the grade falls at that point.

Owner/Occupant Information
The first owners of the building were Tom Bistagne (1920-2007) and Wanda Bistagne. (1921-2019). Each of the Bistagnes lived at the dwelling from its original construction until their deaths.

Tom was born in 1920 in France, His parents emigrated to the US, originally from Odessa (listed in the U.S. Census as from Russia) around 1921. Tom’s brother, George was born in the US in 1921. They were raised in Hollywood and Pasadena. After World War II, in 1946, Tom and George opened an auto-repair/body shop in Glendale, calling it Bistagne Brothers.

Bistagne Brothers Body Shop celebrated its 75th anniversary in Glendale in 2022. Their first shop was small but within two years they expanded and purchased the property at 1400 Chevy Chase Drive, where the business has remained in operation since.

In the 1970s the second-generation of Bistagne brothers, Tom’s sons, Robert and Chuck, joined the company. In 2003 the third-generation , Bob’s son Robert, joined the business.

Historic Resource Evaluation 1766 Cielito Drive
Glendale, California

Kaplan Chen Kaplan 15 March 24, 2022
In addition to being a small business owner, Tom Bistagne was active in local organizations including the Glendale Kiwanis and the Glendale Chamber of Commerce.

He also served on the Board of Verdugo Mental Health and on the Glendale Community College Foundation.

Tom married Wanda Plutnicki of Pittsburg, Pennsylvania in 1948. Wanda was active in social and philanthropic organizations. Wanda remained in the house on Cielito Drive into the 2000s.

REVIEW OF PREVIOUS SURVEYS
The area of Glendale north of CA-134 has had several areas surveyed for historic resources and eligible historic districts have been identified and designated. However, the area of Cielito Drive has not been surveyed.

HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT - ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Historic context statements analyze the historical development of a community and are based on guidelines promulgated by the National Park Service and specified in National Register Bulletin 16A: Historic context is information about historic trends and properties grouped by an important theme in pre-history or history of a community, state, or the nation during a particular period of time. Because historic contexts are organized by theme, place, and time, they link historic properties to important historic trends. In this way, they provide a framework for determining the significance of a property.4 Historic contexts provide information about historic trends and properties grouped by an important theme in pre-history or history of a community, state, or the nation during a particular period of time. Because historic contexts are organized by theme, place, and time, they link historic properties to important historic trends. In this way, they provide a framework for determining the significance of a property.

The City of Los Angeles’ SurveyLA has prepared historic contexts for a variety of areas including for multi-family residential buildings and architectural styles. The general development patterns and property types covered by SurveyLA are representative of the development of the region and are applicable to cities such as Glendale.

SurveyLA has a historic context for Hill Houses. Unlike the “level-lot house , the “hill house” “adjusted its foundation to follow the slope, thereby making the foundation and important design element. This required structural experimentation.” The subject property while constructed in the foothills is not a Hill House as it is set on a level grade and did not require any special structural supports.

The subject property will be evaluated using the Mid-Century Modern, 1945-1975 historic context from SurveyLA.
4 National Register Bulletin 16A: How to Complete the National Register Registration Form, p. 4.

Historic Resource Evaluation 1766 Cielito Drive
Glendale, California

Kaplan Chen Kaplan 16 March 24, 2022
Context: Architecture and Engineering
Theme : Mid-Century Modern
Summary Statement of Significance: Resources evaluated under this sub-theme are significant in the area of Architecture as excellent
examples of the Mid-Century Modern style and
exhibit quality of design through distinctive features.

Mid- Century Modernism is a broad classification of
postwar modernism and represents one of the
largest and most diverse collections of architecture
in Los Angeles. The style is generally characterized
by its geometric forms, smooth wall surfaces, flat or
low-pitched roofs, and absence of exterior
ornamentation. While some examples of the style
may represent a particular influence – such as
Post-and-Beam or Organic architecture – many
incorporated elements of the various influences that
shaped this style. It was a remarkably versatile
style that was applied to almost every type of
property: residential, commercial, institutional, and
industrial.

Period of Significance: 1945-1975
Period of Significance Justification: Mid-Century Modernism was, in many ways, a Continuation of the prewar Modernism that
extended into and evolved for the duration of the
postwar period. The period of significance begins in
1945, which signifies the beginning of the postwar
period, and ends in the mid- 1970s, by which time
the style had largely fallen out of favor with
architects and the American public.

Area(s) of Significance: Architecture
Criterion: NR: C CR: 3 Local: 3
Associated Property Types: Residential – Single-Family Residence ♣ Institutional Property Type Description: Mid-Century Modern architecture is expressed in a vast array of residential, commercial, institutional,
and industrial property types. The wide variety of
properties that are associated with the style are a
testament to its versatility and adaptability. It also
underscores the immense popularity of the style in
the postwar years. Groupings of resources in the
style may be evaluated as historic districts.

Historic Resource Evaluation 1766 Cielito Drive
Glendale, California

Kaplan Chen Kaplan 17 March 24, 2022
Property Type Significance: See Summary Statement of Significance above.

Eligibility Standards:
♣ Exhibits quality of design through distinctive features ♣ Is an excellent example of the Mid-Century Modern style ♣ Was constructed during the period of significance
Character-Defining /Associative Features:
♣ Retains most of the essential character-defining features from the period of significance
♣ Direct expression of the structural system, often wood or steel post and beam ♣ Simple geometric volumes
♣ Unornamented wall surfaces
♣ Flat roof, at times with wide overhanging eaves
♣ Floor-to-ceiling windows, often flush-mounted metal framed ♣ Horizontal massing
Integrity Considerations:
♣ Should retain integrity of Design, Materials, Workmanship, and Feeling from the period of significance
♣ Retains sufficient integrity to convey significance
♣ Some windows and doors may have been replaced, as long as openings have not been altered and original fenestration patterns have not been disrupted
♣ Surrounding building and land uses may have changed
♣ Original use may have changed
• ♣ The painting of surfaces (wood) original unpainted may be acceptable • ♣ Addition of decorative elements to originally sparse facades may be acceptable

EVALUATION OF SIGNIFICANCE

National Register of Historic Places
The property at 1766 Cielito Drive is evaluated for eligibility for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places under the four National Register criteria for significance.

National Register Criterion A.

To be eligible for inclusion on the National Register under Criterion A, a property must have a direct association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history and cultural heritage.

Historic Resource Evaluation 1766 Cielito Drive
Glendale, California

Kaplan Chen Kaplan 18 March 24, 2022
The property at 1766 Cielito Drive does not meet this Criterion based on the research and analysis conducted in this report. The property is not representative of the early residential history of Glendale. The Tract was recorded in 1960 by many owners who developed individual parcels over a brief six-year period. The subject property did not stimulate or influence the development of the other parcels. There is no evidence that any historic events are associated with the property at 1766 Cielito Drive.

The property at 1766 Cielito Drive does not meet Criterion A and is not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion A.

National Register Criterion B
To be eligible for inclusion on the National Register under Criterion B, a property must be associated with the lives of persons significant in the past who have made an important impact on national, state, or local history.

The property at 1766 Cielito Drive does not meet this Criterion based on the research and analysis conducted in this report. The owners of the property, Tom and Wanda Bistagne, commissioned the dwelling when they were in their 40’s. They lived in the house during their middle age years and as seniors. While they were active community members, there is no evidence that their community participation is more significant than other active community members and does not rise to the level of historic significance.

Tom Bistagne established an auto body repair business with his brother which has continued for 75 years in the hands of second and third generations of the Bistagne family. The success of a long-tenure business is dependent on the management of the business after the original owners, Tom and George Bistagne, retired. The long-tenure of the business is not directly due to the operation and management of the business by Tom and his brother as the business has been operated by subsequent generations since the 1970s. The other owners/managers of the business do not have any direct connection to the subject property.

The property at 1766 Cielito Drive does not meet Criterion B and is not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion B.

National Register Criterion C
A property is eligible under Criterion C if it embodies the distinguishing characteristics of an architectural type, specimen, is inherently valuable for study of a period style or method of construction. A property also is eligible if it represents notable work of a master builder, designer or architect or possesses high artistic values or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.

The property at 1766 Cielito Drive does not meet this Criterion based on the research and analysis conducted in this report. While the subject property at 1766 Cielito Drive can be described as the Mid-Century Modern architectural style, it is not an excellent example of the style.

Historic Resource Evaluation 1766 Cielito Drive
Glendale, California

Kaplan Chen Kaplan 19 March 24, 2022
The building is sited to take advantage of the views that the parcel provides. Almost all parcels that afford a view place the building oriented to take advantage of the views. The siting of the subject building to look out at the views is not a unique design feature. The design of the three rear elevations that allow occupants to see the views, vary in terms of the quality of their designs.

Elevation A has the best design of the three with floor to ceiling windows and narrow stiles. However, Elevations B and C – two-thirds of the rear, view-facing elevation -- are a mix of expanses of stucco, only a few expanses of glazing, and modest features such as a box window and utilitarian door.

The building does not exhibit exemplary workmanship or materials. Most of the exterior walls are stucco-clad surfaces with no detailing. Nor are they of any significant geometric or expressionist design. There is one section of the Driveway Elevation that has an articulated wing, clad in stone veneer. This stone element is not the work of a stone mason, but application of a layer of stone used as a decorative facing.

The building was not designed by an architect or master architect. There is no evidence that the contractor or engineer are considered to be exceptional professionals working in their respective fields.

The subject building at 1766 Cielito Drive is not excellent example of the Mid-Century Modern architectural style.

The property at 1766 Cielito Drive does not meet Criterion C and the property is not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion C.

Criterion D
This criterion generally applies to archaeological resources. The building and garages on the property were constructed during historic times; none of these buildings would yield information important to the prehistory or early history of the area, state, or nation. Thus, Criterion D is not applicable to the property at 1766 Cielito Drive.

The property at 1766 Cielito Drive does not meet any of the National Register criteria and is not eligible for inclusion to the National Register of Historic Places.

California Register of Historical Resources
Because the California Register criteria are based on the National Register criteria, the property at 1766 Cielito Drive evaluated above, is ineligible for listing to the California Register for the same reasons explained in the National Register evaluation section.

The Glendale Register Criteria
The City of Glendale Criteria 1 through 4 are based on the National Register criteria A to D. The property at 1766 Cielito Drive evaluated above, is ineligible for listing on the Historic Resource Evaluation 1766 Cielito Drive
Glendale, California

Kaplan Chen Kaplan 20 March 24, 2022
California Register for the same reasons explained in the National Register evaluation section.

The subject property does not meet any of the Glendale Register criteria and is not eligible for inclusion to the Glendale Register of Historic Resources.

Historic District Evaluation
According to National Register Bulletin 15, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation” a district derives its importance from being a unified entity, even though it is often composed of a variety of resources. The identity of a district results from the interrelationship of its resources, which can convey a visual sense of the overall historic environment or be an arrangement of historically or functionally related properties.” In addition, “a district must be significant, as well as being an identifiable entity. It must be important for historical architectural…values.” Also “the majority of the components that add to the district’s historic character, even if they are individually undistinguished, must possess integrity.” And “the number of noncontributing properties a district can contain yet still convey its sense of time and place and historical development depends on how these properties affect the district’s integrity.”5
The area of Cielito Drive has not been evaluated for its potential as an historic district.

The parcels are large and many of the buildings are shielded from the right of way due to the topography and changes of grade. It is beyond the scope of this project to undertake a survey of this type of development pattern (versus reviewing an urbanized block).

CONCLUSION
Based on the facts presented above, the property at 1766 Cielito Drive is not eligible for individual designation to the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, or to the City of Glendale Register. There is no eligible historic district that includes the property at 1766 Cielito Drive. The subject property:
• Is not associated with any historic events or patterns of history; • Is not associated with the early residential development of Glendale; • Is not associated with any historic persons;
• is not a rare or excellent example of Mid-Century Modern architectural style;
• is not the work of a master architect or master builder/craftsman; • does not possess high quality workmanship or materials.

Therefore, the subject property 1766 Cielito Drive is not a historical resource.

There will be no adverse impacts to any historical resource due to demolition of the building at 1766 Cielito Drive or from construction of new buildings. 5https://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/pdfs/nrb15.pdf, p. 5.

Historic Resource Evaluation 1766 Cielito Drive
Glendale, California

Kaplan Chen Kaplan 21 March 24, 2022

REFERENCES
Autobody News, “Bistagne Bros. Body Shop Celebrated 75 Years with a Big Party, LA Style.” https://www.autobodynews.com/index.php/western/item/25025-bistagne-brosbody-shop-celebrates-75-years-with-a-big-party-la-style.html California Office of Historic Preservation, Technical Assistance Series #6: California Register and National Register: A Comparison, 2011.
https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1069/files/technical%20assistance%20bulletin%206%20 2011%20update.pdf
City of Glendale, Historic Preservation Element of the General Plan. 1997. https://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showdocument?id=833
City of Glendale Register of Historic Resources, 1997, updated Register List.

City of Glendale, City of Glendale South Glendale Historic Context Statement Report, 2014; 2018.
https://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/45661/63665170231750000 0 EDR, City Directories.

Gebhard, David, and Winter, Robert. An Architectural Guidebook to Los Angeles.” Salt Lake City: Gibbs Smith, 2003.

Glendale Historical Society, digitized City Directories, https://glendalehistorical.org/glendale-directories
Glendale Historical Society, How to Research Buildings in Glendale. Prepared by Heumann, Gleye and Associates, 1987.

Glendale News Press, “Tom Bistagne Obituary.” November 28, 2007.

Los Angeles County Assessor Records.

Los Angeles Public Library, City Directory collection.

McAlester, Virginia Savage. A Field Guide to American Houses: The Definitive Guide to Identifying and Understanding America’s Domestic Architecture. New York: Alfred A.

Knopf. 2013.

National Register Bulletin 15, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, 1997. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB-15_web508.pdf Perry, E. Caswell, Berger, Shirley C., and Jonisch, Terri E., Glendale, A Pictorial History.

Norfolk, VA, The Donning Company, 1990.

Historic Resource Evaluation 1766 Cielito Drive
Glendale, California

Kaplan Chen Kaplan 22 March 24, 2022
Perry, E. Caswell and Parcher, Carroll W., Glendale Area History. Glendale, CA, James W. Anderson, 1974.

Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps.

Sherer, John C., A History of Glendale and Vicinity, Glendale, CA, The Glendale History Publishing Company, 1922.

SurveyLA. Los Angeles Citywide Historic Context Statement; Architecture and engineering, LA Modernism, 1919-1980. 2021.
https://planning.lacity.org/odocument/4f67bd39-631a-4f26-9a52- cd5809a66655/LA_Modernism_1919-1980.pdf
U.S. Census Records, ancestry.com
Historic Resource Evaluation 1766 Cielito Drive
Glendale, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan i March 24, 2022
Attachment A: Photographs

1. 1766 Cielito Drive, legend

2. 1700 block of Cielito Drive
Historic Resource Evaluation 1766 Cielito Drive
Glendale, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan ii March 24, 2022

3. Cielito Drive, looking at roof of 1766 Cielito Drive

4. Driveway to 1766 Cielito Drive
Historic Resource Evaluation 1766 Cielito Drive
Glendale, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan iii March 24, 2022

5. Street elevation

6. Street elevation
Historic Resource Evaluation 1766 Cielito Drive
Glendale, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan iv March 24, 2022

7. Property retaining wall and end of garage closest to Cielito Drive

8. Driveway elevation
Historic Resource Evaluation 1766 Cielito Drive
Glendale, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan v March 24, 2022

9. Garage on driveway elevation

10. Main entry door on Driveway elevation
Historic Resource Evaluation 1766 Cielito Drive
Glendale, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan vi March 24, 2022

11. Driveway elevation with entry door

12. End of driveway elevation near property line
Historic Resource Evaluation 1766 Cielito Drive
Glendale, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan vii March 24, 2022

13. Rear elevation A and part of rear elevation B

14. Rear elevation A
Historic Resource Evaluation 1766 Cielito Drive
Glendale, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan viii March 24, 2022

15. Rear elevation A, rear elevation B and corner of Rear elevation C

16. Rear elevation A and rear elevation B
Historic Resource Evaluation 1766 Cielito Drive
Glendale, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan ix March 24, 2022

17. Rear elevation A and rear elevation B

18. Rear elevation B and rear elevation C
Historic Resource Evaluation 1766 Cielito Drive
Glendale, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan x March 24, 2022

19. Rear elevation C

20. Rear elevation C
Historic Resource Evaluation 1766 Cielito Drive
Glendale, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan xi March 24, 2022

21. Rear elevation C near property wall
.

22. Pool and deck area
Historic Resource Evaluation 1766 Cielito Drive
Glendale, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan xii March 24, 2022

23. View from pool deck

24. View from pool deck
Historic Resource Evaluation 1766 Cielito Drive
Glendale, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan xiii March 24, 2022

25. View from pool deck
Historic Resource Evaluation 1766 Cielito Drive
Glendale, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan i March 24, 2022
Attachment B: Maps
Aerial photograph (ca. 2021)
Los Angeles County Assessor's Map
Historic Resource Evaluation 1766 Cielito Drive
Glendale, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan ii March 24, 2022
Original Tract Map (page 1)
Historic Resource Evaluation 1766 Cielito Drive
Glendale, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan iii March 24, 2022
Original Tract Map (page 2)
Historic Resource Evaluation 1766 Cielito Drive
Glendale, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan iv March 24, 2022
Original Tract Map (page 3)
Historic Resource Evaluation 1766 Cielito Drive
Glendale, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan March 24, 2022
ATTACHMENT C: Building Permits

Historic Resource Evaluation 1766 Cielito Drive
Glendale, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan i March 24, 2022
Attachment D: Historic Aerials and Sanborn Insurance Maps Historic Aerials
Aerial Photo 1928
Historic Resource Evaluation 1766 Cielito Drive
Glendale, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan ii March 24, 2022
Aerial Photo 1938
Historic Resource Evaluation 1766 Cielito Drive
Glendale, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan iii March 24, 2022
Aerial Photo 1944
Historic Resource Evaluation 1766 Cielito Drive
Glendale, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan iv March 24, 2022
Aerial Photo 1952
Historic Resource Evaluation 1766 Cielito Drive
Glendale, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan v March 24, 2022
Aerial Photo 1964
Historic Resource Evaluation 1766 Cielito Drive
Glendale, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan vi March 24, 2022
Aerial Photo 1977
Historic Resource Evaluation 1766 Cielito Drive
Glendale, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan vii March 24, 2022
Aerial Photo 1979
Historic Resource Evaluation 1766 Cielito Drive
Glendale, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan viii March 24, 2022
Aerial Photo 1983
Historic Resource Evaluation 1766 Cielito Drive
Glendale, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan ix March 24, 2022
Aerial Photo 1989
Historic Resource Evaluation 1766 Cielito Drive
Glendale, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan x March 24, 2022
Aerial Photo 1994
Historic Resource Evaluation 1766 Cielito Drive
Glendale, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan xi March 24, 2022
Aerial Photo 2002
Historic Resource Evaluation 1766 Cielito Drive
Glendale, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan xii March 24, 2022
Aerial Photo 2005
Historic Resource Evaluation 1766 Cielito Drive
Glendale, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan xiii March 24, 2022
Aerial Photo 2009
Historic Resource Evaluation 1766 Cielito Drive
Glendale, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan xiv March 24, 2022
Aerial Photo 2012
Historic Resource Evaluation 1766 Cielito Drive
Glendale, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan xv March 24, 2022
Aerial Photo 2016
Historic Resource Evaluation 1766 Cielito Drive
Glendale, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan xvi March 24, 2022
Sanborn Insurance Maps
Sanborn Map 1925 – not mapped
Historic Resource Evaluation 1766 Cielito Drive
Glendale, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan xvii March 24, 2022
Sanborn Map 1950 – not mapped
Historic Resource Evaluation 1766 Cielito Drive
Glendale, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan xviii March 24, 2022
Sanborn Map 1970 – not mapped
Historic Resource Evaluation 1766 Cielito Drive
Glendale, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan March 24, 2022
ATTACHMENT E: DPR Records - DPR 523a & 523b
Page1of *Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) 1766 Cielito Drive, Glendale, CA P1. Other Identifier: ____
DPR 523A (9/2013) *Required information
S tate of California  The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP S tatus Code 6Z
Other Listings R eview Code R eviewer Date
*P2. Location:Not for PublicationUnrestricted
*a. County Los Angeles and (P2c, P2e, and P2b or P2d. Attach a Location M ap as necessary.) *b. US GS 7.5' QuadDateT; R; of of S ec; B.M.
c. Address City 1766 Cielito Drive, Glendale Zip 91207
d. UTM: (G ive more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone, mE/ mN e. Other Locational Data: (eg., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, decimal degrees, etc., as appropriate) APN: 5648-029-015
*P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries)
The building is generally four-sided and stucco-clad. The driveway elevation is angled. The rear elevation, that faces the view and the downslope of the parcel, has a stepped elevation with the northern half projecting out. The building is one-story, with a flat sloping roof. The roof is covered in a rough, crushed stone-like material and has a deep overhang. The exterior is stucco clad with a small area featuring decorative stone veneer and glazing on sections of the rear elevation. The garage door is wide and takes up about half of the driveway elevation. The other half of the driveway elevation is clad in stone veneer. The elements on this half of the driveway elevation includes a recessed main entry door. The door assembly is of more recent provenance and consists of a door flanked by sidelights and a semi-circular fixed transom window. All the glazing is evocative of leaded glass. Next to the entry is a chimney wing.

That element is rounded and the chimney flue punctures the roof. Next to this rounded chimney/projection is a window. At this point where the roof projects out towards the rear, it curves downward slightly. The rear of the dwelling consists of three elevations.

Elevation A is almost all floor to ceiling glazing , flush mounted with narrow stiles that are not stucco-clad. There is a small area for plantings in front of the windows on Elevation A. Elevation B has a projecting box window, a section of stucco and two almost floor to ceiling windows; these windows have
stucco clad headers and sills.
*P3b. Resource Attributes: (List
attributes and codes) HP2
*P4.Resources Present:X Building
S tructure Object S ite District
E lement of District Other (Isolates,
etc.)
P5b. Description of Photo: (view, date,
accession #) March 2022
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and
S ource: X Historic Prehistoric
B oth 1960
*P7. Owner and Address:
*P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation,
and address) Pam O’Connor, Kaplan Chen
Kaplan, 2526 18thSt., Santa Monica, CA
90405
*P9. Date Recorded: 3/2022 Survey
Type: (Describe) Intensive
*P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey
report and other sources, or enter "none.")
Historic Resources Survey,.1766 Cielito
Drive, Glendale, Kaplan Chen Kaplan,3/2022
*Attachments:NONELocation
MapContinuation S heetB uilding, S tructure, and Object R ecord Archaeological RecordDistrict R ecordLinear Feature R ecordM illing S tation R ecordR ock Art R ecord Artifact R ecordPhotograph R ecord Other (List):

P5a. Photograph or Drawing (Photograph required for buildings, structures, and objects.)
50400290175040029017
1*Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1766 Cielito Drive, Glendale, CA *NRHP S tatus Code: 6Z Page2of2
DPR 523B (9/2013) *Required information
S tate of California  The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#

BUILDING, S TRUCTURE, AND OBJ ECT RECORD
(T his space reserved for official com m ents.)
2100 N Cahuenga Blvd
B1Historic Name: B2. Common Name: B3. Original Use: Single-Family Dwelling B 4. Present U se: Single-family dwelling
*B5. Architectural S tyle: Mid-Century Modern
*B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) The 3,246 square foot building was constructed in 1961. The 1961 building permit was to “construct new home with attached garage” for owners Mr. and Mrs. T. Bistagne (Thomas). The contractor was G.E. Brask. There was no architect for the building.

The name of the engineer is illegible however on the permit for a retaining wall (also 1960) the engineer is listed as R.L. Earl and Associate. The 1960 permit for a 15 foot by 17 foot by 34 foot pool had Jack Kenny as Engineer with the contractor is Sealtight Construction Company. In 1961 a permit was taken out to build a cantilevered patio deck for the pool area. The engineer was J.

Anderson and G.E. Brask was the contractor. Another permit was taken out in 1961 for the lathing and plastering of the exterior and interior of the building. In 1997 a permit was taken out to “remove the existing roof install 52 sq. BUR Class A.”

*B7. Moved? No Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features:

B9a. Architect: None b. Builder: G.E. Brask
*B10. S ignificance: Theme Mid-Century M odern Area: Architecture and Engineering Period of S ignificance: 1945-1975 Property Type: S ingle-family dwelling Applicable Criteria None (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.
• Is not associated with any historic events or patterns of history • Is not associated with the early residential development of Glendale • Is not associated with any historic persons
• is not a rare or excellent example of the Mid-Century Modern style • is not the work of a master architect or master builder • does not possess high quality workmanship or materials • The first owners of the building were Tom Bistagne (1920-2007) and Wanda Bistagne. (1921-2019). Each of the Bistagnes lived at the dwelling from its original construction until their deaths. Tom was born in 1920 in France, His parents emigrated to the US, originally from Odessa (listed in the U.S. Census as from Russia) around 1921. Tom’s brother, George was born in the US in 1921. They were raised in Hollywood and Pasadena. After World War II, in 1946, Tom and George opened an auto-repair/body shop in Glendale, calling it Bistagne Brothers. Bistagne Brothers Body Shop celebrated its 75th anniversary in Glendale in 2022. Their first shop was small but within two years they expanded and purchased the property at 1400 Chevy Chase Drive, where the business has remained in operation since. In the 1970s the second-generation of Bistagne brothers, Tom’s sons, Robert and Chuck, joined the company. In 2003 the thirdgeneration , Bob’s son Robert, joined the business.

B11. Additional R esource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) *B12. References: Historic Resources Survey 1766 Cielito Drive.

Glendale. Kaplan Chen Kaplan3/2022
B13. Remarks:
*B14. Evaluator: Pam O’Connor, Kaplan Chen Kaplan
*Date of Evaluation: 3/2022
1 Ezzati, Vista
From: Corin L. Kahn <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 3:58 PM
To: Aram Alajajian; David Kaplan; Ezzati, Vista
Subject: RE: Kaplan Supplemental Support for No Evidence of Historic Significance under CEQA Attachments: Kaplan Supplement 012123.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 afternoon Ms. Ezzati: you may recall that I am the attorney representing the Demerchian family in their pursuit of building a single‐family home at 1766 Cielito Drive. I have read and analyzed the many comments submitted in opposition to the project, most particularly those contending that the facts concerning the property and/or its former owners, support a finding under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that the current single‐family structure has historical significance that warrants an exception to the categorical exemption.

These contentions do not achieve the level of fact required to constitute substantial evidence.

Conversely, the detailed Kaplan report, previously submitted and supplemented herein, provide the City with a vast quantity of substantial evidence to demonstrate unequivocally that the facts about the house and its former occupants fail to meet both the substantial evidence standard and the threshold of significance legally required to make the finding the opponents are asking the City to make. In light of the vast evidence against any finding of historical significance, City must find against the project opponents and grant the project approval and certify compliance with CEQA. If you would like more explanation from me, I will be most happy to provide it to you. --
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: Aram Alajajian <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2023 3:29 PM
To: Corin L. Kahn <[email protected]>; David Kaplan <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Comments Received as of 01/11/2023
From: Ezzati, Vista <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2023 11:48 AM
To: Aram Alajajian <[email protected]>; Vardan Hambardzumyan <[email protected]> Cc: Souseh Babomian <[email protected]>; Dr. Jack Demirchian <[email protected]> Subject: Comments Received as of 01/11/2023
2 Hi Aram,
Additional comments have been forwarded to me yesterday afternoon and today. I had left early yesterday because I was not feeling well and couldn’t forward them until now.

I am attaching them here for your review. Many of them are against demolition of the residence because it should be a historic resource.

Two that you and your project team should pay extra attention to will be the ones from Francesca Smith and David Sagherian, both dated 01.10.2023, as they have additional comments beyond opposition to the demolition.

From: Ezzati, Vista
Sent: Monday, January 9, 2023 4:57 PM
To: Aram Alajajian <[email protected]>; Vardan Hambardzumyan <[email protected]> Cc: Souseh Babomian <[email protected]>; Dr. Jack Demirchian <[email protected]> Subject: Comments Received 01/09/2023
Hi Aram,
Attached are comments that I received today. We do expect more to come in based on the TGHS email blast they sent out to their members. That was the email I sent you earlier today.

At the end of each day I will email them to you as opposed to sending numerous emails throughout the day. I will also have hard copies on hand at the hearing.

If there is anyone else you would like me to include on this email chain, please let me know.

Regards,
Kaplan Chen Kaplan
Kaplan Chen Kaplan
Kaplan Chen Kaplan
Kaplan Chen Kaplan

EXHIBIT #12

1766 Cielito Drive – Appeal - Attachments
Part 4 – Statement of Error
A. Do you contend that there was a violation of a specific provision of law which forms the basis for this appeal? If “Yes”, state each specific provision of law that you contend was violated:

Yes.
1- Glendale municipal code – Title 30, Zoning Code Chapter 30.11 – Residential Districts – 30.11.010.B – Purpose R1R (Restricted Residential) Zone 2- California Civil code,section 5975
B. Do you contend that the board, commission or officer exceeded its authority by virtue of any of the provisions of any of the provisions of law given in answer “A”? If “Yes”, state which provisions, and state specifically each act that was in excess of authority:

Yes.

PROPOSED BUILDING IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE GLENDALE MUNICIPAL CODE. BOARD CANNOT GRANT APPROVAL TO A PROJECT

THAT IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE GMC
C. Do you contend that the board, commission or officer failed to fulfill a mandatory duty by any provision of law given in answer “A”? If “Yes”, state which provisions and the specific duty that it failed to exercise:

Yes.

PROPOSED BUILDING IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE GLENDALE MUNICIPAL CODE. BOARD CANNOT GRANT APPROVAL TO A PROJECT

THAT IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE GMC
D. Do you contend that the board, commission or officer refused to hear or consider certain facts before rendering its decision? If “Yes”, state such fact, and for each fact, state how it should have changed the act, determination or ruling:

SIZE : BUILDING IS 4850 SF AND NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES ARE 2000 TO 3000 SF. GMC CODE REQUIRES COMPATIBILITY AND MATCHING CHARACTER OF NEIGHBORING STRUCTURES.

STYLE: BUILDING IS ULTRA MODERN WITH LARGE WINDOWS AND
RECTANGULAR CORNERS AND NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES ARE RANCH.

GMC CODE REQUIRES COMPATIBILITY AND MATCHING CHARACTER OF NEIGHBORING STRUCTURES.

ALSO: BUILDING IS TWO STORY AND NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES ARE ONE-STORY. GMC CODE REQUIRES COMPATIBILITY AND MATCHING CHARACTER OF NEIGHBORING STRUCTURES.

ROOFLINE: BUILDING IS FLAT ROOF AND NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES ARE PITCHED ROOF. GMC CODE REQUIRES COMPATIBILITY AND
MATCHING CHARACTER OF NEIGHBORING STRUCTURES.

GARAGE: BUILDING IS UNDERGROUND GARAGE AND NEIGHBORING

PROPERTIES ARE ATTACHED GARAGE GMC CODE REQUIRES

COMPATIBILITY AND MATCHING CHARACTER OF NEIGHBORING
STRUCTURES.

E. Do you contend that the evidence before the board, commission or officer was insufficient or inadequate to support its action, determination or ruling or any specific finding in support thereof? If “Yes”, state what evidence was necessary, but lacking:

No.

F. Do you contend that you have new evidence of material facts not previously presented, which is considered should change the act, determination or ruling? If “Yes”, state each new material fact not previously presented to the board, commission or officer. For each fact, state why it was not available, or with the exercise of reasonable diligence could not have been discovered and previously presented by the appellant:

No.

Statement of additional facts related to the appeal:

Section 30.11.040 provides Residential District Additional ROS and R1R Development Standards.

The following standards shall apply in the ROS and R1R zones.

A. Hillside Development Review Policy.

SIZE – PROPOSED STRUCTURE IS 4,800 SF – AVERAGE SIZE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS 2,500SF MAX – ALMOST 100% LARGER: NOT
COMPATIBLE.

SCALE PROPOSED STRUCTURE IS ALMOST 150% LARGER THAN BUILDINGS IN THE 300 FEET RADIUS AROUND ITS PROPERTY LINES: NOT COMPATIBLE bulk/mass – THE BUILDING IS MASSED INSIDE A VERY SMALL BUILDABLE FOORTPRINT AS THE MAJORITY OF THE LOT IS HILLSIDE STEEP GRADE.

NO OTHER STRUCTURE ON THE TRACT ATTEMPTS SUCH AN APPROACH.

NOT COMPATIBLE
roofline orientation – NO ROOF ORIENTATION (ALL HOUSES IN THE

NEIGHBORHOOD HAVE PITCHED ROOFS ALONG A GENERAL NORTH-SOUTH ORIENTATION): NOT COMPATIBLE
and site layout. THE BUILDING IS MASSED INSIDE A VERY SMALL BUILDABLE FOORTPRINT AS THE BULK OF THE LOT IS HILLSIDE STEEP GRADE . NO OTHER STRUCTURE ON THE TRACT ATTEMPTS SUCH AN APPROACH. : NOT

COMPATIBLE
City Council Members
Glendale City Council
Appeal to the DRB
decision regarding the
1766 Cielito Drive
proposes project
The Cielito drive community is requesting the City Council assistance in ensuring that the Glendale Municipal Code is enforced. As currently proposed, the owner of 1766 and his representatives are not in compliance with the codes’ requirements and are prejudicially affecting the character and the integrity of the adjacent properties. Furthermore, it establishes the most dangerous precedent, the one where the Glendale Municipal code and related ordinances can be bypassed or outright ignored.

The proposed 1766 Cielito project is not in compliance with:

1. Glendale municipal code – Title 30, Zoning Code Chapter 30.11 – Residential Districts – 30.11.010.B – Purpose R1R (Restricted Residential) Zone states (in italics):

The R1R zone is intended to preserve and protect low density residential neighborhoods in hillside areas in conformance with the comprehensive general plan to promote the public health, safety and general welfare of the community. Within this zone it is proposed to preserve valuable open space, physical features and scenic resources while, at the same time, permitting a substantial and reasonable beneficial use of such property.

Open space on this lot is minimized to allow for this project’s OVERSIZED footprint and volume.

Furthermore, Section 30.11.040 provides Residential District Additional ROS and R1R Development Standards.

The following standards shall apply in the ROS and R1R zones.

A. Hillside Development Review Policy.

SIZE – PROPOSED STRUCTURE IS 4,800 SF – AVERAGE SIZE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS 2,500SF MAX – ALMOST 100% LARGER: NOT COMPATIBLE.

EVEN WORSE, THIS PROPOSED STRUCTURE DWARFS EVERY SINGLE

BUILDING IN ITS IMMEDIATE VICINITY SINCE THESE BUILDINGS ARE APPROXIMATELY 2000 SF, 150% LARGER.

SCALE PROPOSED STRUCTURE IS ALMOST 150% LARGER THAN BUILDINGS IN THE 300 FEET RADIUS AROUND ITS PROPERTY LINES: NOT COMPATIBLE IN THE FIRST DRB HEARING HELD IN MAY 2022, A DRB MEMBER ASKED THE

CITY LAWYER A DEFINITION FOR COMPATIBILITY AND THE ANSWER WAS

MATCHING THE CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING STRUCTURES WITHIN 300 FEET. HOW CAN A BUILDING TWICE THE SIZE OF BUILDINGS IN ITS

VICINITY BE EVEN CONSIDERED MATCHING THE CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING STRUCTURES?
bulk/mass – THE BUILDING IS MASSED INSIDE A VERY SMALL BUILDABLE FOORTPRINT AS THE MAJORITY OF THE LOT IS HILLSIDE STEEP GRADE.

NO OTHER STRUCTURE ON THE TRACT ATTEMPTS SUCH AN APPROACH.

NOT COMPATIBLE

THE OWNER AND HIS REPRESENTATIVES ARE DISINGENUOUSLY USING

THE LARGE LOT SIZE TO JUSTIFY A LARGER BUILDING , BUT AS STATED

ABOVE, THE BUILDABLE LOT SIZE IS A SMALL FRACTION OF THE LOT,

THE REST IS AN EXTREMELY STEEP HILLSIDE UNSUITABLE FOR ANY CONSTRUCTION.
roofline orientation – NO ROOF ORIENTATION (IT IS ALMOST FLAT TO ALLOW 8’6”

HEIGHT IN SECOND FLOOR BUT THERE IS ZERO ALLOWANCE FOR

ROOFTOP MECHANCAL EQUIPMENT TO SERVICE THE BIUILDING
KITCHENS AND SAUNAS, AS WELL AS AIR CONDITIONING THE ROOMS):

NOT COMPATIBLE

FURTHERMORE (ALL HOUSES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAVE PITCHED ROOFS ALONG A GENERAL NORTH-SOUTH ORIENTATION): NOT

COMPATIBLE

LOCAL CHARACTER IS AGAIN IGNORED DESPITE HILLSIDE DESIGN GUIDELINES REQUIRING COMPATIBILITY.
setbacks, ARE MET
and site layout. THE BUILDING IS MASSED INSIDE A VERY SMALL BUILDABLE FOORTPRINT AS THE BULK OF THE LOT IS HILLSIDE STEEP GRADE . NO Development shall be compatible with the
OTHER STRUCTURE ON THE TRACT ATTEMPTS SUCH AN APPROACH. :

NOT COMPATIBLE
d. Site plans for development of property on steep slopes shall take into account the visual impact on surrounding properties.

See Sheet A-0.4 , IN ALL SECTIONS, VISUAL IMPACTS TO SURROUNDING PROPERTIES WERE NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT AND ARE NOTICEABLE.

NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES ARE SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECTED BY THE OVERSIZED STRUCTURE.

FURTHERMORE, SECTIONS ARE ALSO INACCURATE AS THEY DO NOT

SHOW ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT (MECHANICAL (EXHAUST FANS AND

OTHER MECHANICAL DEVICES THAT NEED TO BE ON THE ROOF) AND

DRAWINGS HAVE PROPOSED INSTALLATION OF SOLAR PANELS THAT WILL ADD 2 TO 3 FEET OF VISUAL OBSTACLES NOT SHOWN ON THE ROOF PLANS). : NOT COMPATIBLE
e. The architectural style and architectural elements of in-fill development shall be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.

STYLE IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD AS

MAJORITY IS SINGLE STORY RANCH STYLE WITH PITCHED ROOFS AND ATTACHED GARAGE – PROPOSED STRUCTURE IS ULTRA MODERN

FUTURISTIC STYLE WITH LARGE GLASS BAYS, RECTANGULAR WALLS AND FLAT ROOF WITH UNDERGROUND GARAGE. : NOT COMPATIBLE
IN THE FIRST DRB HEARING HELD IN MAY 2022, A DRB MEMBER ASKED THE

CITY LAWYER A DEFINITION FOR COMPATIBILITY AND THE ANSWER WAS

MATCHING THE CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING STRUCTURES WITHIN 300 FEET. HOW CAN AN ULTRA MODERN TWO STORY STRUCTURE TWICE

THE SIZE OF BUILDINGS IN ITS VICINITY BE CONSIDERED MATCHING THE

CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMPATIBLE WITH ITS

NEIGHBORING STRUCTURES WHEN ALL THESE STRUCTURES ARE RANCH SINGLE STORY?

AND FINALLY, DRAWINGS INTENTIONALLY FAIL TO SHOW IN PROPOSED SECTIONS AND ROOF DRAWINGS (SHEET A2.3) SOLAR PANELS AND MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT NECESSARY TO CONDITION THE BUILDING:

COMPLIANT HEIGHT) IN LARGE AREAS OF THE ROOP IMPACTING
NEIGHBORS’ VISUAL VISTAS.

2. MECHANICAL AIR CONDITIONING EQUIPMENT (EXHAUST FANS

MORE DEPENDING ON HOW THE MECHANICAL ENGINEER WILL

ZONE THE BUILDING (ADDING THREE FEET MIN TO THE PLANNED 22 FEET). NOTE: WHILE 3 COMPRESSORS ARE SHOWN ON THE

NORTH SIDE OF THE UNIT, AIR HANDLERS CANNOT BE FITTED
INTO THE FIRST NOR SECOND FLOORS AS SHOWN.

THE INSTALLATION OF SOLAR AND MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT (ROOFTOP

UNITS, SAUNA EQUIPMENT, KITCHEN AND BATHROOM EXHAUST FANS)

CHIMNEY(S), AND VARIOUS VENT AND EXHAUST PIPING FOR PLUMBING

AND WATER HEATER WILL ADD VISUAL BARRIERS TO THE NEIGHBORING UNITS AS WELL AS INFRINGE ON THE MAXIMUM 14’ ESTABLISHED FOR CHIMNEYS AND OTHER ABOVE ROOF REQUIREMENTS. BY THE CC&RS THAT GOVERN IN THIS TRACT : NOT COMPATIBLE

2. Second, the proposed project is not in compliance with the Civil code section 5975 of the California Civil code:

CIVIL CODE – CIV DIVISION 4. GENERAL PROVISIONS [3274 - 9566] ( Heading of Division 4 amended by Stats. 1988, Ch. 160, Sec. 16. ) PART 5. Common Interest Developments [4000 - 6150]
( Part 5 added by Stats. 2012, Ch. 180, Sec. 2. )
CHAPTER 10. Dispute Resolution and Enforcement [5850 - 5986] ( Chapter 10 added by Stats. 2012, Ch. 180, Sec. 2. )
ARTICLE 4. Civil Action [5975 - 5986]
( Article 4 added by Stats. 2012, Ch. 180, Sec. 2. )
SECTION 5975.
(a) The covenants and restrictions in the declaration shall be enforceable equitable servitudes, unless unreasonable, and shall inure to the benefit of and bind all owners of separate interests in the development. Unless the declaration states otherwise, these servitudes may be enforced by any owner of a separate interest or by the association, or by both.
(b) A governing document other than the declaration may be enforced by the association against an owner of a separate interest or by an owner of a separate interest against the association.
(c) In an action to enforce the governing documents, the prevailing party shall be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
(Added by Stats. 2012, Ch. 180, Sec. 2. (AB 805) Effective January 1, 2013. Operative January 1, 2014, by Sec. 3 of Ch. 180.)
Violation Narrative:

A restrictive land covenant is enforceable as long it was recorded, it is being enforced in a fair and non-discriminatory manner, and there is still an individual or group benefiting from it.

All three conditions listed above have been met in this tract in its history. Two lot owners (Gasparians in 2003 and Jamgotchians in 2018) respectfully approached the other 15 owners and obtained authorization to build a second floor on their lots. As of this letter’s date, THREE years after Demirchian purchased 1766 Cielito Drive, he has not even attempted (!) to approach the neighbors and obtain authorization via majority acceptance to his proposed project.

The surrounding properties owners are alarmed by these blatant disregards to the Glendale Municipal Code and standards, and fearful that such actions will destroy the harmony of the tight knit community we live in. Furthermore, the precedent it establishes will create major havoc in future developments in the Glendale area if it becomes known that the Design Review Board and the City of Glendale Building & Safety Department are not enforcing its codes.

Please don’t allow this project to destroy our neighborhood! Thank you for your time.

David Sagherian, P.E.
1770 Cielito Drive
Glendale, CA 91207
818) 606-1770
Attachments:
a. Covenants
b. Petition by majority of neighbors to comply to CC&Rs

•'
5-I~ I PRO'l'EC'!'IVE COVENANTS .AND. RES'.MIO~IOl:i'S FOR I.OTS l ro 15 TRACT 24858
3373 CITY ili' SWllJIE, OOIIN'l! OF LOS Jllllllii.ES, llWFOR!IIA z , . C~fiFZ ~] RidgeliCod Estates, a California. ~rpor&tion, as original oW~tar of: :tots l to .l5, · · inclusive, of Tract 24858, as per lll&p reeorde:d in Boek 654, Pagea 80 to 82 of Mapa in the Office CJf the Cuunty Recorder o.f los Angeles County, hereby certify and deelsre that :in the sale and (lOnveyance of said lots, and each of them, the grant thereof shall be made upon the following conditions and :testrictions:

Provided, however, that this conveyance is lllade out and accepted. ami said :realty is hereby granted and subject to the conditions, restrictions$ reservations and easeinent:s no.w of record and upon the following express pl'()visions, reservations and restrictions which shall apply to and bhtd the parties hen:!to, their heirs, executors, 'administratot>s and assigns,. and are •sed J>!lt'suant to tbe general plan for the improvement of' ·said !A"'ts 1 to 15, itiehts:ive, of '.rraet 24858, and are designed for the mutual. benefit of the OWllers of said lo-ts and shall inure to and pass with each and every l¢t therein.

Said conditions are imposed upon said realty as an obligation or charge against the same t and for the benefit Qf each and f!t.Very !l)ther lot hereinabl.)ve mentioned as said realty and the ower or o·wnera thereof,. and that the right Gf ent'Drcement or said conditions, and each r>f them, is: veated in the olmll)!rs of any one or more. or the other lots bereina'bo~"e mentit1ned, and :dmilar conditions either have been or will be imposed upon each and e'V'eey other lot be'remabov~ mentioned in said Tract 24858.

Cotiditions and Restrictions .are as follow:s:
--......,--, fhat ear::h lot shall be used only for single private residential Jl'UrpO!H'!S. Eaeh :g'..: ~ ... single :family structure shall not exceed one stal"y .in height: and must eontain a a:~ - "E lllin::l.ntuna floor area. of 2,500 square feat, except Lots 3,. ll and 13 lltid.(:h· mst:
§ ': ""' ~ contain a. mhtimmn. floor' area. of :i.Jooo sqWU'e feet. Flcor area. s:hall be deemed ~· ~ ~ a:: to inch:de the total floor area. of the residence proper;; 1'lleUW"61!ents to be taken g g ~ ~ fnr this purpose fro:m th~ outer £aces of the exterior walls, excluding the: areas lt U) ~ .§• ot open perches :t open patios and garages~ All garages •ther an integrs.l part et~ d. o of ths residence or a separate structure must contam a :m~:imum outside measurelllent ~~ o f!J of 2l teet by 21 feet. Trees, shrnb:s, etCc. shall nat be allowed to exQeed a bdgbt g ~ r-'1 _. of 12 feet. Roofs sla.ll not exceed a height of l2 :feet and ch:imneys 14 feet allove gs.s. .~·::! tbe highest ground elevation t>:f ·IUlY' lot as origlnally gX'aded. BoOifs shall not he 101 ~ ~ <t ot a. reflective wirl;te or other bright colored mate:rial.. · C::Ci at That no atructure shall be placed upon any lot in this. s~bdivision untU such buUding has been approved. in writing as to confonlity and :barll»ny of ,external design with ed.stfng structures in the subdividon bw" an Arcbitect:u.ral Comnittee composed. of the folla:r.dngjersons~ .an;y two of~ may act tor the wholet . . John R. Henry n. men D.. Henry Bert a .. Anl.eebe Harry J. Lindgren
As an fil.ternative, a representative d¢signated by a. majority of the IDelllbeN of sa.id Architectu4'al Comaittee is pe:rmiasihle.. In the event·. ot death c:tr resignation of tnemhel' of said Arehiteetural. C:Onmittee~ the rema.:tning tnetnber 9'r members Doc: CALOSA:19610501 03373~06037
- 2-
. .

3. That no kennel,. a.:via.ey, hutch or warren shall be erected on any lot~ nor shall dogs, cats., birds, poultry10 rabbits or other domestie animals or .t"owl e;rer be kept thereon, exeept tba.t this restl'i.etion ahall not be eonstrued to prohibit ordinary household pets whieh do not constitute an annoyance or nuisance to the neighborhood ..

4. That no structure, nor any portion thereof, ahal.l at any time be occupied or used by any person of either Negro, Ai'rioan) Asiatic o:r Mexiea:n raee; but the tt.se of such property shall be restrieted to the White Caucasian race forever, except; that this covenant shall not pl"event occupancy by domestic se!:"Vants of a different race or nationalit;r employed by an owner or tenant.

5.. That no naxious or offensive trade or activity shall. be eal'l'ied on upon any- lot, nor shill a:nybbing be done thereon which may be or become an annoyance or nuisance to the neighborhood, including the ereetic:m of tmJ' structure not nom.ally required in the mainte;nance of a resl.denoe. A television ante:nna and radio aerla.l are included in this .eategor;r and shall not be installed on any lot.

Provided that these Covenants are to run 'idth the land and shall be binding .
)
on .all parties and all persons ela:iming under them ·mttil Jan"Uary- l, 19911 at which time• said Covenants shall be autal.1atiea.lJ..)'" extended for eucc.easi;ve pa:riods ot ten yea.ra, -unless b;r a vote or a majority of the then owners oi' the lc:ta it is agreed to change said Covenant$ in whole or in part., Provided also that a braaeh of any of the foregoing conditions shall cause sdd rea:Lty- to l:'evert to the said Grantor, oX" its successors in interest, who shall. have the right of :irronediate 'l:'een.try upol'~ aa.id real.t;y in the event of an;r such breach, and as to the .~owner or owners ·~ aJlf' other lot or lots, or part. or- parts thereof, in said realty, the foregoing conditions shall operate as Covenants l'Ul'lfling with the· .land,. and the breach .of any such Covenants, or the continuance of any such breach, Ina,y be enjoined, abated or l'emedied bf $aid Grantors, or their successors in interest, or b;y any such owner, or owners., but by no othel' person. 'l'he tem ncnmern shill include the l:u;Jt::a tide- ·O'Wllet' or holder" .at an;r. agreement ot sale ~euted by aa.i.d c-antor tor anJr o:t the lots hereinabove mentioned.,
Prtr'i'ided also that a. breaclt ot a:o.y of' the foregoi:ng Covenants or Oonditi,ona <n" s.nJ'" re~ntey by reason of $U,eh. br$a.ch, shall not d$!ea.t or rendet' inwlld the lien of any Mortgage ot Deed of Trust made in good faith and for value, as to res.J.ty, or any part thereof, but said; Covenants and Conditions $hall be bi:ndi1lg upon and .et.fective again'st o9I13' subsequent owner ot said. ree.lt;y. No delay or · · anissi.on ¢n the part ot the Grantor;. or i.ts successors in interest, as owner of t.he ~versionary rights herein provided for.~ in exer·cising any rights, power or remeey herein provided in the event of~ breach .of the conditiOM1 restrictions_, covenants or reservations herein contained, shall be construed as a waiVE'¢ thereof or acqui.eseence thel"Sin:~: and the ex:pira;tion. and tennination of Aid eonditiona or Janua.r;r 1, 1991, shall not ba eonatrued prejudio!al.ly to affect a.ey rights or reversion, reentry or entorc:e:mmt accruing prior to said date ..

Invalidation of ~ one of these covenants hy judgellleilts or eOl.ll"t order shall ----------~urnc~.se-a£f -- ---and-effect.,
I
Doc: CALOSA:19610501 03373"'06037
.59 PM
.·
-.3-
. .

IN 'Wl'l'NESS WHEREOF, the !'ollowir.Jg na.med owners of Lota 1 to 15, inclusiva, have ea.used thia instrument to be executed aec~ ..

Lot No.
l.

2. 6.
? •
.10.,
n ..
l
1 I
J
r
t
l
STAn: 01" CA.LU"''M'L'., }
County of Los Angeles ,ss.

On March .30* _ ~ 61 .19--, before me.
the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said Coonty and State, personatly appeared Donald L .. John and Esther John
---------------------------------------------?knowntonw to he t1w person!... whose rwmaL !\I'$ :S'U'b8cribed to the within Instrument, and aclmowledgelt w me that __:t.h4:-- ~outed the same.

G. R. 1'£unse
ST.&'l"E 01" CALIFORJI!IA, }
ss.

County of Los Angeles
ON. ,, .A,pr] 1 5 * , 19.Jll.... before me~
tiu~ unde:mgned. a Notary Ptiblw ~~and for .t4id Ootm:ty and State~ personally appeared Kennef.b R. Abbot:t a.ntl }Iariann E. Abbott
--------------------------------------------~knowntonw
to be the personJL whose nameS,_ are sub:u;rihed to the within Instrument, and tD me that __j;;J!C.L-. ~cuteil the ,same.

WlTNESS my hand a11d
STA'IE or; G.u..lroJJ.m.A,, }
' $$.

Ccunty of Los Angeles
ON Harcb 29, 1 19~ before me,
the undersigneit, a Notary Public m and for said Oountg anti State,persoMlly appeared R<:;bert. A. ~filEr B.UQ Marlanne L. taaver
---------------------------. h."flown to me
--~=--:subJ>cribed to tf1c within
'~cuted the same.

Doc: CALOSA:19610501 03373"'06037
.59 PM

To whom it may concern,
Whereas Document No 3373 (Protective Covenants and Restrictions For Lots 1-15 Tract 24858, CC&Rs dated May 1, 1961) states, among other restrictions, that each lot shall be used only for single private residential purposes, shall not exceed one story in height, and with roofs not exceeding a 12 feet height above the highest ground elevation of any lot as originally graded. Furthermore, the CC&Rs confirm that these covenants are to run with the land and are binding on all parties. Finally, no amendments to the CC&Rs have been granted allowing exemptions to any residence at 1766 Cielito Drive from the Conditions and Restrictions that Lots 1 through 16, inclusive, of Tract 24858 in the city of Glendale, County of Los Angeles, California are currently subject to.

Now therefore, the undersigned lot owners, consisting of a majority of the lot owners within Tract 24858, having affixed their signatures hereto, hereby request that the property owners of 1766 Cielito Drive in Tract 24858 provide construction design in full compliance with the same Protective Covenants and Restrictions as for all Lots in Tracts 24858 (except for any property which has been previously granted exemption by a majority of owners):

Lot No
1 Name / Address Signature /Phone Number Date
2 3
1721 Cielito Drive (Lot 1)
(1/9/Li
4 1750 Cielito Drive (Lot 3)
1766 Cielito Drive (Lot 4)
StW
1770 Cielito Drive (Lot 5)
VV4$ILJ Ov))
1740 Cielito Drive (Lot 2)
5 Amendment to CC&Rs Tract 24858 Page 1/3

____
/
1763 Cielito Drive (Lot 14)
1751 Cielito Drive (Lot 15)
Cielito Drive (Lot 16)
Amendment to CC&Rs Tract 24858 Pa8e/
14 15
16 EXHIBIT #13

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 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

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 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 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
EXHIBIT #14

Glendale City CouncilSeptember 19, 2023

Glendale City Council
September 19, 2023