1 {{section.number}}a
4 8
1 4
CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM
Report: Appeal Case No. PAPP-002052-2023 - Appeal of the Design Review Board (DRB) approval of Design Review Case No. PDR-000210-2022 to demolish the existing commercial stable buildings and associated structures (originally developed in 1939) and construct three new buildings with 15 surface parking spaces for a commercial stable and kennel on a 44,682 square-foot (SF) corner lot, located at 1900 Riverside Drive in the CE (Commercial Equestrian Services) Zone.
1. Motion to sustain the Design Review Board’s decision to approve the Design Review Application with conditions.
2. Motion to continue the matter, directing the City Attorney to draft findings reversing the Design Review Board’s decision and denying the Project.
COUNCIL ACTION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This hearing is to consider an appeal of the August 10, 2023, decision of the Design Review Board (DRB) to approve Design Review Case with conditions for the project site located at 1900 Riverside Drive (“DRB Decision”). The project is to demolish the existing commercial stable buildings and associated structures and construct three new buildings with 15 surface parking spaces for a commercial stable and kennel on a 44,682 square- foot (SF) corner lot located in the CE (Commercial Equestrian Services) Zone (the “Project”). The site is currently 39,985 SF; however, the project scope includes vacating the existing alley at the rear of the site for a total lot size of 44,682 SF. The DRB found that the Project is exempt from further review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to a Class 32 “Infill Development” exemption pursuant to Section 15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines because the project meets all of the conditions for an in-fill development. Development of the Project also includes:
•A new 4,793 SF kennel building located along the easterly portion of the site with frontage on both Riverside Drive and the unimproved portion of Allen Avenue. •A new 4,224 SF barn with 16 stables located along the westerly portion of the site that extends to the rear of the property.
•An approximately 6,600 SF outdoor corral will be located in the center of the site, separating the barn and kennel buildings.
•New landscaping and a remodeled and expanded parking lot will separate the new buildings from Riverside Drive.
Item Type: Public Hearing
Approved forJanuary 30, 2024 calendar
2 {{section.number}}a
4 8
1 4
•A new 630 SF accessory building (support offices) is located directly behind the corral with three additional parking spaces, as well as a 20’ wide secondary driveway to access the parking and provide necessary fire department access.
The appellant is requesting that the City Council overturn the DRB Decision and deny the Project. The appellant contends that by approving the Project, the DRB violated specific provisions of law, failed to fulfill its mandatory duty, refused to hear or consider certain facts before rendering its decision, and that the evidence before the board was insufficient or inadequate to support its decision. The appellant’s concerns are related to a vacation of Allen Avenue, the lack of consideration given to public comments, conflicts with kennel and equestrian uses, public health and safety, the use of the site as a horse facility, and previously submitted historic assessments.
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council sustain the DRB Decision to approve Design Review Case No. PDR- 000210-2022 with conditions based on all of the evidence, reasoning and findings of the DRB articulated at the August 10, 2023 hearing, and set forth in the DRB’s Record of Decision for the project, dated August 10, 2023 and included as Exhibit 4.
ANALYSIS
This is an appeal of the DRB’s August 10, 2023 decision to approve the Project at 1900 Riverside Drive that involves the demolition of the existing building and redevelopment of the site as a new kennel and commercial stable business.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Appellant:Hunt C. Braly, Poole Shaffery Attorneys at Law Status of Appellant:Attorney representing Legal Action Network LLC (LAN) Applicant:Tim Nagao, RED Architectural Group
Richard Dell, RED Architectural Group
Owner:Rene Karapedian, PRI Properties LLC
Requested Action:
The appellant is requesting that the City Council overturn the DRB Decision to approve Design Review Case No. PDR-000210-2022 with conditions (Exhibit 4).
Legal Description:Lots 15 thru 17, Portion of Lot 18, and a Vacated Alley, Tract No. 9792
3 {{section.number}}a
4 8
1 4
APN: 5625-031-008
Zone:CE – Commercial Equestrian Services
Land Use Element:Community Services
Site Description:
The property is an approximately 39,985 SF corner lot with frontage on Riverside Drive and Allen Avenue. Towards the rear of the project site is a 20-foot-wide alley at the terminus of Allen Avenue that abuts the Los Angeles Equestrian Center. This alley will be vacated as part of the Project. The property was originally developed in 1939 with various additions and other site improvements made over time. Currently, there are three stable buildings on-site, an existing one-story house originally built in 1942 that is currently vacant, and a one-story barn originally built in 1939 that is located toward the center of the site. As part of the proposed project, all existing buildings and structures will be demolished.
RELEVANT PROJECT HISTORY
February 26, 2018 – Design Review Case No. PDR 1804696 was submitted by the previous owner for a 21-unit multi-family development.
•The applicant was required to provide a historic resource evaluation of the site for this project. The report was prepared by Sapphos Environmental Inc. and is included as Exhibit 9 (the “Sapphos Report”). The Sapphos report determined that the property does not meet any criteria for designation at the state or local level and is not considered a historic resource, therefore, demolition of the existing buildings and structures would not result in a substantial adverse change to a historical resource. •A second historic resource report was commissioned by a private individual and prepared by Jenna Snow, Historic Preservation Consulting (the “Snow Report”) in anticipation of the multi-family project moving forward. This report was not submitted to the City because this project did not move forward. It was subsequently delivered to the City by the Glendale Historical Society on September 19, 2021. A copy of this report is included as Exhibit 10. The Snow report concluded that property is individually eligible for designation at the state and local level as a historic resource, and for listing as a contributing resource to an eligible historic district of equestrian properties.
July 24, 2018 – The design review application was subsequently withdrawn, and no further action was taken.
September 1, 2021 – The current owner, Mr. Rene Karapedian, took ownership of the property at 1900 Riverside Drive.
October 31, 2022 - The project applicant submitted Design Review Case No. PDR 000210-2022 and Environmental Information Form Case No. PEIF 000280-2022 for the proposed project, detailed above.
4 {{section.number}}a
4 8
1 4
November 30, 2022 – The Director of Community Development determined that the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required to review and assess the proposed project that involves demolition of the existing stable and accessory buildings on-site for the project to allow for the development of a new stable and kennel.
This determination was made based on the evidence in the record which includes the two historic resource reports.
December 1, 2022 - The property owner filed Appeal Case No. PAPP-000522-2022 regarding the Director of Community Development’s determination that an EIR is required for the proposed project.
March 7, 2023 – The Glendale City Council held a public hearing regarding Appeal Case No. PAPP-000522-2022 and voted to reverse the Director of Community Development’s determination that, pursuant to Section 15064 of the State CEQA Guidelines, preparation of an EIR would be required for demolition of the existing stable and accessory buildings.
Council determined that based on the evidence in the record, the subject property is not a historic resource under CEQA. A copy of this motion is included as Exhibit 12.
April 14, 2023 – Based on the Council’s determination, Environmental Information Case No. PEIF-000280-2022 was subsequently withdrawn.
August 10, 2023 – Design Review Board Case No. PDR-000210-2022 was presented to the DRB with a staff recommendation to approve the project with conditions. The DRB voted unanimously (5-0) to approve the project with seven conditions (Exhibit 4):
1. The applicant shall obtain approval of an Alley Vacation prior to the issuance of a building permit.
2. The window design shall be a simulated divided light window that features an exterior grid.
3. The window frame type and edge detail shall be identified on the window schedules with vertical and horizontal window section details provided for each window type that shows recess, sill, and frame, and external grids as applicable.
4. The parking areas and pedestrian walkways shall include decorative paving materials with consideration given to permeable paving options to help reduce stormwater runoff.
5. The applicant shall submit an exterior lighting proposal with fixtures that are consistent with the style of the development for review by staff prior to plan check submittal.
6. The applicant shall provide corner details that illustrate how the different cladding wraps the building corners.
7. The proposed vinyl cupolas shall be revised to a higher quality material such as wood or metal.
August 25, 2023 – The appellant submitted their appeal of the DRB’s approval – Case No. PAPP-002052-2023 (Exhibit 14).
5 {{section.number}}a
4 8
1 4
SUMMARY OF DRB’S DISCUSSION OF CASE NO. PDR-000210-2022 ON AUGUST 10, 2023
Generally, the DRB members were in favor of the Project and the discussion of the project was limited.
•All five DRB members were present at the August 10, 2023 meeting at which the Project was discussed.
•Board member Welch noted that he was in favor of the proposal and that overall, the project was appropriately designed and thought out well with the separation between the two on-site uses. Mr. Welch commented that the Project team appropriately was respectful of and incorporated the history of the site into the design concept, including the use of colors and building design, while also modernizing the uses on-site.
•Board member Lockareff indicated that she agreed with all of the comments made by Mr. Welch as they related to the overall Project and acknowledged the comments received in support of the Project. Ms. Lockareff commented that the thoughtful design would be a great addition to the community, that the massing was appropriate to the surrounding neighborhood, and that it would be significant improvement from the existing conditions. Ms. Lockareff also acknowledged that comments regarding noise impacts were received for the Project, but the siting of the kennels away from the residential uses is an appropriate solution.
•Board member Kaskanian indicated that he agreed with all of the comments made by Mr. Welch and Ms. Lockareff and was in full support of the Project design. Mr.
Kaskanian also noted that kennel uses are lacking in Glendale and that this Project would benefit the city.
•Board member Simonian indicated that he agreed with the other board members and was in favor of the Project. Mr. Simonian commented that the project was well-designed with superb site planning, appropriate integration of the two uses, high-quality materials, and an appropriate one-story scale. Mr. Simonian also commented that he disagreed with the staff recommended condition regarding the proposed vinyl window material being revised to a higher quality because, based on the use, vinyl windows would be more effective and durable over time. This condition was not incorporated into the final approval. •Board member Tchagayan indicated that she agreed with the other board members and was also in favor of the Project. Ms. Tchagayan commended the applicant’s attention to detail and agreed with board member Simonian’s comments regarding the condition for the material of the windows. •Following review of the staff report and attachments, including the submitted correspondence, and having heard all testimony at the public hearing, Board member Simonian made a motion to approve the project with conditions. The motion was seconded by board member Lockareff. The Record of Decision is 6 {{section.number}}a
4 8
1 4
attached as Exhibit 4.
SUMMARY OF THE APPELLANT’S BASIS FOR APPEAL AND STAFF RESPONSES In the appeal application, the appellant contends that by approving the Project, the DRB violated specific provisions of law, failed to fulfill its mandatory duty, refused to hear or consider certain facts before rendering its decision, and that the evidence before the board was insufficient or inadequate to support its decision. Below is a summary of the statements made by the appellant in their appeal application (Exhibit 14), as required by GMC 2.88.030, as well as staff’s responses to the claims.
The appellant contends that the DRB violated the law because they failed to address the health and safety impacts of the Project on neighboring uses, and they failed to consider the impact on the vacation of the easement would have on neighboring uses.
There is no specific provision of law cited by the appellant and this is a general statement with no other specific information or evidence included with the submitted appeal.
Decisions rendered by the DRB are related to the design of a project, they do not have any authority over land use or streets, alleys, or sidewalks. Since the use and the vacation are outside of their purview, the DRB did not violate the law.
The site has been developed with a commercial stable since the 1930s and the applicant’s proposal is to redevelop the site to include a commercial stable and expand the operation to include a kennel. Pursuant to GMC Section 30.01.020, the purpose of the Zoning Code is to promote and protect the public health, safety and general welfare and economic viability of the community in accordance with the comprehensive general plan. In order to achieve this, the zoning code designates, regulates, and restricts the location and use of buildings in each zone in order to encourage the most appropriate use of the land. The subject property is located in the CE (Commercial Equestrian) Zone which was designed to encourage and support the development of equestrian related activities and other related uses required or desired by the inhabitants of the community. The proposed uses on-site include commercial stables and a kennel, both of which are uses that are permitted by right in the CE Zone (Table 30.15-A, GMC Section 30.15.020). The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the Project site as Community Services Commercial where flexibility in the range and type of services and facilities that serve the community are encouraged, such as the uses proposed for the project. The proposed use of the site is consistent with the Land Use Element and the Zoning Code, and for these reasons, there is no impact on public health or safety. Additionally, the applicant has not provided any additional information or evidence demonstrating how the permitted uses would conflict with applicable ordinances and impact public health and safety.
The subject property is a corner lot with frontage along Riverside Drive and Allen Avenue, and at the rear of the site there is an existing 20-foot-wide alley. This southerly portion of Allen Avenue is unimproved and terminates with a bridge that connects to the Los Angeles Equestrian Center. This portion of Allen Avenue is proposed to be maintained in its current condition as part of the project scope and will continue to be a public street that serves the residents and equestrian community. The 20-foot-wide alley that is located at the rear of 7 {{section.number}}a
4 8
1 4
the subject property is proposed to be vacated as part of the project scope and used as a secondary driveway to access three of the required parking spaces as well as comply with fire department requirements for access. While this area is a public alley, it does not appear to have been used as such for some time – it is currently unimproved and has been used as part of the previous stable use. The appellant has not provided any evidence or additional information and there is nothing on record to suggest that vacating this alley would have an impact on the surrounding neighborhood or public health and safety.
The appellant contends that the DRB failed to fulfill a mandatory duty when they did not address the health and safety impacts of the Project on neighboring uses, and the impact the vacation would have on neighboring uses.
This is a general statement with no other specific information or evidence included with the appeal. Staff’s response to this contention is addressed in the section above.
The appellant contends that the DRB refused to hear or consider certain facts before rendering its decision because there was no acknowledgment that the DRB had received the comment letter submitted by the appellant on August 10th or that they considered the issues presented in the letter.
This statement is not true and there is no evidence on record to support this claim. All comments received are part of the public record and are kept on file with the Planning Department. Staff received eight comment letters (Exhibit 8) for this project with six commenters in favor of the project, and two in opposition, this includes the appellant’s letter dated August 10th, 2023 that is referenced in the appeal. Two of the comment letters in support were received after 5 pm on the day of the hearing. During the public hearing portion of the meeting, there were four speakers (3 in-person, 1 call-in), all in favor of the project. While the appellant submitted a comment letter, they did not call in, nor were there any speakers present or on the phone in opposition. As part of Planning’s standard process, all written comments that are received from the public for a design review application are provided to the board members for review prior to rendering their decision. Typically, a copy of comment letters is emailed to the board members prior to the hearing, and hard copies are provided to them at the hearing. Additionally, staff’s presentation acknowledges public comments received with a summary of the main points provided to the board. Finally, as part of her questions to the applicant as well as comments during deliberation, Ms. Lockareff acknowledged the concerns regarding noise that were brought up from the public, which is one of the concerns from the appellant’s August 10th, 2023 letter.
The appellant contends that the DRB had insufficient or inadequate evidence to supports its decision because they did not consider health and safety impacts on neighboring uses and the impact the vacation would have on neighboring uses also.
This is a general statement with no other specific information or evidence included with the appeal. Staff’s response to this contention is addressed in the sections above. 8 {{section.number}}a
4 8
1 4
Under the “Statement of additional facts related to the appeal” section, the appellant references a letter, dated August 25, 2023, that was submitted as part of the appeal. Below is a summary of the letter’s main points and staff’s responses.
Vacation of Allen Avenue
The appellant contends that one of the DRB conditions of approval is that Allen Avenue be vacated in order to serve as the driveway for the business and incorrectly states that Allen Avenue is frequently referred to as the “Alley”. The appellant’s concern with the vacation of Allen Avenue is that it is used for access (horses, hikers, emergency vehicles, utility vehicles) over the channel to the Los Angeles Equestrian Center. There are no plans to vacate Allen Avenue for this project. This has been demonstrated on the project plans which shows Allen Avenue being maintained as-is and discussed in the March 7, 2023 staff report to the City Council, and the August 10, 2023 staff report to DRB, and staff has also made note of this to the appellant. The project scope includes vacating the existing alley located at the rear of the site at the terminus of Allen Avenue, as illustrated on the project plans and the two images below.
Image No. 1
The area highlighted in
red is the subject
property. Bisecting the
site is an alley that has
been vacated since the
site was developed in
1939, exact year is
unknown. The alley that is
proposed to be vacated is
highlighted in green.
Image No. 2
The area highlighted in
red is the subject
property. The alley that is
proposed to be vacated is
highlighted in green. Allen
Avenue is proposed to be
maintained as an
unimproved road. The
aerial illustrates the
current condition of the
alley area as part of the
property.
9 {{section.number}}a
4 8
1 4
Applications for the vacation of a public street or alley are filed with the Public Works Engineering Division and are subject to the provisions of GMC Chapter 12.24 and the state’s Public Streets, Highways and Service Easements Vacation Law (Streets and Highways Code Section 8300 et seq.). Typically, these applications are first heard by the Planning Commission for recommendation, and then by the City Council for the final decision. Having said that, in the case of a summary vacation, the request can go straight to City Council as a consent item. A summary vacation can occur when the public street or alley has been impassible for vehicular travel for five consecutive years, no public money has been spent on maintenance of the public street or alley during that five-year period, and no public utility facilities are in-place. This alley was never improved and meets these criteria, classifying it as a summary vacation, which will be heard by council as a consent item.
Public Comments Not Considered
The appellant contends that the public has provided comments and testimony at hearing regarding the impacts of the Project that the DRB did not consider from the August 10, 2023 hearing, as well as the comments made at the March 7, 2023 City Council meeting.
As noted in the sections above, the DRB did consider the public comments received for the August 10, 2023 hearing as they were provided with copies of all public comments received, staff acknowledged the comment letters and main points during the presentation, and Ms. Lockareff also acknowledged the noise issue in her comments.
The public comments that were made at the March 7th, 2023 City Council hearing were related to reversing the Director of Community Development’s determination that an EIR would be required for the proposed demolition and that the property is not a historic resource under CEQA. For that hearing, one public comment letter was received and provided to City Council. This letter was from The Glendale Historical Society (TGHS) and indicated their support that an EIR should be required. During the public hearing portion of the meeting there were ten speakers (6 in-person, 4 call-in), with eight in favor of the project not being required to go through the EIR process, and two in support of the EIR. These comments were considered by the City Council prior to rendering their final decision. The appellant did not submit any written comments or public testimony at this hearing.
Conflicts with Kennels and Equestrian Uses
The appellant contends that since 2019 there has been communication with the city that included evidence that kennels and equestrian uses conflict with one another. This is a general statement with no other specific information regarding the conflicts or the individual(s) or division(s) communicated with. Additionally, the referenced communications were not provided to Planning staff for review for the DRB hearing, and they were not provided with the submitted appeal. In 2022, the Director of Community Development received communications requesting a report be prepared regarding the conflict of the uses, but the request was declined because there was no evidence available to support the claim (Exhibit 13).
10 {{section.number}}a
4 8
1 4
As illustrated on the plans, the subject property is large, with approximately 145 feet of frontage along Riverside Drive. The kennel and stable uses are located on opposite sides of the property, separated by an outdoor corral that is approximately 68-feet wide and 6,604 square-feet in size. Additionally, the kennel has a separate open outdoor area at the rear of the building for the dogs. The proposed site planning provides a significant amount of separation between the two uses and there is no evidence that the two would conflict with one another.
Public Health and Safety
This is a general statement with no other specific information or evidence included with the appeal. Staff’s response to this contention is addressed in the sections above.
Use as a Horse Facility
The appellant contends that there have been claims made indicating that the use of the property as a horse facility was not possible. There is no other information or evidence included with the appeal. It is unclear what the intent of this statement is or what claims the appellant is referring to, however, the Project will retain the use of the property as a stable and will be expanding the operation to include a kennel. It is also worth noting that while developing the Project, the property owner met with members of the community, and based on their feedback, intends to maintain the stable operation.
Historical Assessments
The appellant states that there have been two historical assessments submitted to the City supporting the status of the property as a historic resource and the Project approval is prohibiting the community from pursuing historic preservation. The two historical assessments referenced in the appeal are a 2018 report prepared by Jenna Snow and a 2021 report prepared by James DeCarli. There is no additional information or evidence included with the appeal.
Under CEQA, substantial evidence includes facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts (CEQA Guidelines section 15384(a)).
As the lead agency, the city has the authority to determine if submitted documentation constitutes substantial evidence. The Secretary of the Interior defines the professional qualification standards required to perform identification evaluation, registration, and treatment activities of historic resources.
The first historic assessment mentioned in the appeal was commissioned by a private individual and prepared by Jenna Snow, Historic Preservation Consulting (“Snow Report,” Exhibit 10) in 2021. Ms. Snow meets the Secretary of the Interior’s qualification standards and determined that the property is a historic resource, meeting two criteria for listing in the Glendale and California Register of Historic Resources as well as appearing eligible as a contributing property to a potential historic district. The second document referenced in the appeal was prepared by James M. DeCarli in 2021 (“DeCarli Report,” Exhibit 11). No evidence has been provided to indicate that Mr. DeCarli meets the Secretary of the Interior’s qualification standards. The report was reviewed by staff at the time of its submission and was found not to be credible. Its finding that the property is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places is based on unsubstantiated claims 11 {{section.number}}a
4 8
1 4
and opinion that is unsupported by evidence. Its contention that the rear barn structure is an important example of a “pole barn” is not borne out by either the documentation or physical evidence at the site. Because of this, it was determined that the report does not constitute substantial evidence and no further consideration was necessary when City Council heard the owners’ initial appeal regarding whether or not an EIR would be requried. A third report, which is not mentioned in the appeal, had been prepared in 2018 for a previous property owner by Sapphos Environmental Inc. (“Sapphos Report,” Exhibit 9). The team that prepared the report also meets the Secretary of the Interior’s qualification standards and determined that the property is not a historic resource because it does not meet any criteria for listing at the local, state, or federal level. Both the Sapphos Report and the Snow Report were reviewed and discussed by council at the meeting on March 7, 2023 where the Director of Community Development’s determination that the preparation of an EIR would be required, was reversed.
SUMMARY
Based on the analysis of the appeal and the reasoning above, staff recommends that the City Council uphold the DRB decision to approve the project with conditions. The Board members took into account not only the site planning, but also the project’s massing, scale, height, setback, landscaping, window placement, use of materials and colors and other architectural design elements in determining compatibility. The Project, as conditioned, was determined by a unanimous vote (5-yes, 0-no) of the DRB to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Design Guidelines. The DRB also found that the Project is exempt from further environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332.
The basis of the DRB’s decision (the Record of Decision, Exhibit 4) includes the following:
Site Planning: The proposed site planning is appropriate to the site and its surroundings for the following reasons:
•There are a limited number of stable and kennel uses located in the City, and the proposed stable/kennel is an appropriate re-use/redevelopment of the existing stable. The proposed site planning is driven by the operational necessities of the use, the City’s Design Guidelines for suburban commercial corridors, and the development standards for the CE zone, which unlike other commercial zones, includes a minimum 25’-0” street-front setback requirement. •The proposed building locations comply with the City’s Design Guidelines where, in suburban commercial corridors, buildings can be located near the front of the lot with parking behind (stable and accessory building), or toward the back of the lot with parking in front (kennel).
•The subject property is a corner lot with the kennel sited as near the corner as possible while still complying with the street-front setback requirement. New landscaping along Riverside Drive and the unimproved portion of Allen Avenue provides an appropriate buffer from the public right-of-way. 12 {{section.number}}a
4 8
1 4
•The project includes two surface parking areas that are appropriately screened with landscaping and have a total of 15 parking spaces. A condition of approval requires that the parking areas and pedestrian walkways include decorative paving materials. oSimilar to the existing corner condition, there is a surface parking area with 12 parking spaces that is located at the front of the site with an entrance that is accessed from Riverside Drive and exits onto Allen Avenue. oAn additional three parking spaces are located at the rear of the lot and accessed from Allen Avenue.
•New drought-tolerant landscaping is proposed along both street frontages, as well as in the rear parking lot area. At the center of the lot is a new 6,604 SF outdoor corral that will be surfaced in decomposed granite.
Mass and Scale: The proposed mass and scale is appropriate to the site and its surroundings for the following reasons:
•The nearby residential buildings range from one to two stories in height and, with the exception of 1820 Riverside Drive located one block to the south, the equestrian-use related buildings are primarily one-story, with multiple buildings on-site. The proposed project fits within this neighborhood massing context. •The project design is driven by the needs of the proposed use as a stable and kennel. While the design guidelines discourage long, continuous segments of building walls along the street, for this project, the elongated rectangular buildings for the animals are appropriate and consistent with the use and the surrounding neighborhood.
•All of the proposed buildings will be one-story, and range in height from 14 feet to 20 feet, which is compatible to the surrounding neighborhood. •The design incorporates building forms with varied roof heights that range from 14 to 20 feet, with cupolas appropriately incorporated into the design of the new buildings.
Design and Detailing: The proposed design and detailing is appropriate to the site and its surroundings for the following reasons:
•Overall, the finish materials reinforce the architectural concept of the new buildings and are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
•The exterior finish materials consist of horizontal wood siding for the stable, board and batten hardie panel siding for the kennel and support building, standing seam metal roofing.
•While the design of the stable differs from the other buildings, the materials are similar, with the buildings tied together through the use of the same color palette of primarily off-white buildings, gray metal roofing, and black detailing (window trim, railings, gutters, fascia, wood posts, etc.).
13 {{section.number}}a
4 8
1 4
•Walkways are proposed within the interior of the site that appropriately connect the new buildings, with the primary entrance to the site taken from Riverside Drive.
STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
The Code requires public notice when the Council considers approval of entitlements such as design review. Staff has published all required notices and has mailed copies of the notice to all property owners and occupants within 500 feet of the project. A public notice has also been posted on-site.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
The project is exempt from CEQA review as a Class 32 “Infill Development” exemption pursuant to Section 15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines because the project meets all of the conditions for an in-fill development as noted in Exhibit 7.
CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
The names and business addresses of the members of the board of directors, the chairperson, CEO, COO, CFO, Subcontractors and any person or entity with more than 10% interest in the company proposed for contract in this Agenda Item Report are attached in Exhibit 15, in accordance with the City Campaign Finance Ordinance No. 5744.
ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Alternative 1:Continue the matter, directing the City Attorney to draft findings, reversing the DRB decision and denying the project.
Alternative 2:Any other alternative for this appeal not proposed by staff.
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:
Bradley Calvert, Director of Community Development
Prepared by:
Vista Ezzati, Senior Planner
Approved by:
Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager
14 {{section.number}}a
4 8
1 4
EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1: Location Map
Exhibit 2: Photos of Existing Property
Exhibit 3: DRB Staff Report and Reduced Plans for Current Design Review Application (PDR-000210-2022) from August 10, 2023
Exhibit 4: DRB Record of Decision for Current Design Review Application (PDR-000210- 2022) from August 10, 2023
Exhibit 5: Neighborhood Survey
Exhibit 6: Interdepartmental Comments
Exhibit 7: Categorical Exemption Findings
Exhibit 8: Correspondence
Exhibit 9: Historical Resource Evaluation prepared by Sapphos Environmental Inc., dated May 8, 2018
Exhibit 10: Jenna Snow, Historic Resource Assessment prepared by Historic Preservation Consulting, dated August 2018
Exhibit 11: Historical Assessment of Silver Spur Stables prepared by James M. DeCarli, dated September 8, 2021
Exhibit 12: City Council Motion for Appeal Case No. PAPP-000522-2022, dated March 7, 2023
The staff report and exhibits are available online, Item 9a:
https://glendaleca.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=34470 Exhibit 13: Interdepartmental Communication, dated July 14, 2022 Exhibit 14: Notice of Appeal of DRB’s Decision to City Council Exhibit 15: Campaign Disclosure