'
-
I
From: Abajian, Suzie
To: Golanian, Roubik
Cc: Garcia, Michael; Calvert, Bradley; Cortes, Karen
Subject: FW: City Council Meeting April 30, 2024, Item 8c City Attorney, re: Declaration of City-owned property adjacent to 1015 N. Central Avenue as exempt from the Surplus Land Act, from the City’s competitive bidding requirement, and from the California Environ
Date: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 5:04:10 PM
Attachments: North Glendale Methosdist Church No 2- Lttr to CC.pdf image001.png
image003.png
Suzie Abajian, Ph.D.| City Clerk | City of Glendale
613 East Broadway, Suite 110 | Glendale, CA | 818-548-2090 [email protected] | www.glendaleca.gov | Follow us!
From: Francesca Smith <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 4:04 PM
To: Asatryan, Elen <[email protected]>; Kassakhian, Ardashes <[email protected]>; Brotman, Daniel <[email protected]>; Najarian, Ara <[email protected]>; Gharpetian, Vartan <[email protected]>; Garcia, Michael <[email protected]>; Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]> Subject: City Council Meeting April 30, 2024, Item 8c City Attorney, re: Declaration of City-owned property adjacent to 1015 N. Central Avenue as exempt from the Surplus Land Act, from the City’s competitive bidding requirement, and from the California Environm...
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,
Please find my letter regarding the above-referenced item attached as a pdf for this evening's meeting. Please ensure this letter is included in the Administrative Record and let me know if any of you have questions.
Best wishes,
Francesca Smith
City Council Meeting April 30, 2024, Item 8c 1 of 9
FRANCESCA SMITH
April 30, 2024
Mayor Elen Asatryan and City Council members
City of Glendale
613 E. Broadway
Glendale, CA 91206
Sent via e-mail
RE: City Council Meeting April 30, 2024, Item 8c
City Attorney, re: Declaration of City-owned property adjacent to 1015 N. Central Avenue as exempt from the Surplus Land Act, from the City’s competitive bidding requirement, and from the California Environmental Quality Act
Dear Mayor Asatryan and council members:
I appreciate the opportunity to comment on this item. There are a few different issues and complications related to its adoption. The first is the conveniently low appraisal provided as a number with no supporting evidence. The second is the adjacent property owner who would purchase the subject property surplus land (Parcel No. 5636-007-903) has, without completing the expected purchase, already fenced the land it does not own and are currently grading it.
The next issue is the undeniable appearance of chumminess (there is no better word) between the adjacent property owner (Western Diocese of the Armenian Church of North America, or “church”) and the city of Glendale (“state”). The last, but nonetheless related issue, is the fact that the state is not treating the architect-designed, high style North Glendale Methodist Church No. 2 (1015 and 1018 N. Central Avenue) and school (212-214 Farview Avenue) as historical resources for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) when that property appears to qualify as a local historic district.
Reviewing the “Report to City Council” (“report”) on the item, it is apparent that this proposed action is taking place at the request of the church. If that request was made in late October 2023, it is certainly being swiftly addressed by the state. Most applicants can barely reach the assigned planner for project review that quickly, much less have the item rushed through the City Attorney’s office, with an appraisal, a draft purchase and sale agreement and to be placed on the already-crowded council agenda. As you see by this description it all seems like an enormous favor, this rush to practically give away land that has been languishing in the ownership of the state for 88 years to the church (2024-1936). So much for the ostensible separation of the two in this proposed action.
City Council Meeting April 30, 2024, Item 8c 2 of 9
The appraisal in the Report, referenced as “an independent appraisal” (what is the converse?) apparently valued the property at less than “$25,000, and as an irregularly shaped 3,720 square foot parcel the Property is incapable of development by itself” (see page 2 of Report). What property is capable of development “by itself”? That appraisal is peculiarly not included in the packet but the public is to conclude assigned an extremely low value was assigned to the small, reasonably level subject property that immediately abuts the church. Because the public cannot review that independent evaluation, we have no way of knowing how they arrived at that value. If one of the approaches was using comparable sales, as is common professional practice, were the “comps” in Glendale? There are few comparable sales of small parcels of vacant level land in the city. It must not have been Parcel No. 5636-007-075, which is 2,390 square feet (SF), and sold on August 17, 2022 for a reported $50,000. That would make the cost per SF $20.92, or for the subject property a value of $77,822. Has the value of vacant land been severely reduced in the past year and a half? Local real estate listings and other sales would demonstrate otherwise. At present, there is one vacant parcel for sale that is 3, 919 (SF), roughly 200 SF larger than the subject property (CRMLS#IV24083884). It is APN 5607-027-010, located at 0 Verdugo Woods Edison Road, which is an unpaved utility road. That property is listed at $39,000 at present. It has a Redfin Estimate of $41,688 but is also largely unbuildable. Without knowing how the independent appraiser arrived at their fair market value (a phrase missing from the Report and attachments), the public has no idea how the property, which may only be of use to the church, was determined. We are being asked not to look behind the curtain on this swift, seemingly rushed deal.
The next hurdle is that the church, which does not yet own the subject property which is subject to review by a State of California housing agency, has nonetheless enclosed the state’s right of way using a construction fence and are actively currently grading it. That seems more than counterintuitive to any reasonable expectation of waiting for their rushed transaction to be completed and smells like a big favor granted off of the books to the church by the city. The Glendale Municipal Code states:
Section 12.08.040 Excavation permit—Application.
A. No person shall make, cause or permit to be made, any excavation or construction, in, along or under the surface of any public right-of-way for the installation, repair or removal of any facility or for any other purpose without first obtaining from the director of public works a written permit to make such excavations or construction. All requirements for obtaining a permit pursuant to this chapter are in addition to any other applicable local, state, or federal law and regulation [emphasis added].
B. Unless otherwise determined by the director of public works, no excavation permit shall be issued until the applicant has deposited all applicable fees and submitted a complete application to the director of public works containing true and correct information, including, but not be limited to, the following information:
1. The name and residence or business address of the person(s) or entity making such application, the estimated duration of the excavation and restoration work in the public right-of-way, a detailed statement of the location and area of each City Council Meeting April 30, 2024, Item 8c 3 of 9
proposed excavation and the purpose for which the excavation is to be made and used;
2. System location data which details and documents all of the geographic locations of any public utility facility or facilities located in the public right-of- way;
3. A plat, in duplicate, showing the location of each proposed excavation, the dimensions thereof and such other details as the director of public works may require to be shown upon such plat; provided, that the filing of plats shall not be required when excavations are made for the location of trouble or leaks in conduits or pipes or for the making of repairs thereto, or when the purpose for making the excavation is the installation of a service connection or the inspection or repair of an existing installation provided such excavations are located in strict conformance with the locations sufficiently described in the application. When the presentation of a plat is not required for the reasons stipulated above, prior to notification by underground service alert to utilities to field mark the location of their respective underground facilities, the applicant shall premark the excavation location at the site in accordance with state law.
4.The type and location of all existing and proposed overhead facilities and underground public utility facilities in the public right-of-way along the proposed route. The director of public works may require photographs or artist's renderings of all aboveground visible equipment, a detailed description of the equipment within the aboveground installation including any electronic components, natural gas generators, electrical fans, anticipated noise levels during winter and summer months, emergency backup operations, and the proposed maintenance schedule for such aboveground facilities;…
6. The specific tree, structure, improvement, facility and obstruction, if any, the applicant proposes to temporarily or permanently remove or relocate;… Did the church obtain a right of entry? Is there an encroachment permit, an existing easement deed or
other legal instrument that authorizes the applicant or owner to use or occupy the public right-of-way for the purpose described in the application. Where the applicant is not the owner of the facility or facilities to be installed, maintained, or repaired, the applicant must demonstrate in a form and manner specified by the director of public works that the applicant is authorized to act on behalf of the owner and show legal authority to occupy and use for the purpose mentioned in the application, the public right-of-way wherein the excavation is intended[?] (GMC Section 12.08.040 (B)(7) Excavation permit— Application).
May I grade and fence my neighbor’s property if I intend, in the future to purchase it? Is the church insured when they or their agents perform work on the state-owned subject property? Similarly is there Workers’ Comp coverage currently on the subject property? If this process is held up for an unforeseen reason, would the church return the subject parcel to its former condition as required in the local code?
These are of course, rhetorical questions for you all to consider. Taken together, these actions seem very tenuous in their legitimacy. If this special deal does not seem kosher, it is recommended that council not approve it. All of this seems counterintuitive to any reasonable City Council Meeting April 30, 2024, Item 8c 4 of 9
expectation of the church waiting for ownership and smells distinctly like a series of generous favors granted off the books, by the city.
The last, but not the least significant issue is that the church was granted a building permit to alter the buildings at 1015 and 1018 N. Central Avenue without any known historic review. If such an evaluation of the North Glendale Methodist Church No. 2 had taken place it is logical to believe that it would have been found eligible for listing in the Glendale Register of Historic Places by qualified city staff and subject to review by either the Historic Preservation Commission or at least, by the Director of Community Development.
North Glendale Methodist Church No. 2 was built in 1942, during World War II. It was designed by Harold (Harry) Ladds Pierce, who was born in California in 1887. He was licensed to practice architecture in 1913. He practiced throughout Southern California and designing churches, a school and a theater between the 1920s and 1940s. He was briefly associated with Arthur G. Lindley and L.C. Leeds at Lindley, Leeds & Pierce in 1918. Pierce’s known existing work is:
Crescent Heights Methodist Episcopal Church #2- 1282-1296 Fairfax Avenue West Hollywood, 1923. No longer used as a church.
Tivoli Theater #4 (now Laemmle’s Royal Theater)- 11523 Santa Monica Boulevard, Los Angeles, 1924. In 2023, Survey LA found the property “eligible for National Register as an individual property through SurveyLA;” “eligible for California Register as an individual property through SurveyLA;” and “individually eligible for local listing or designation through SurveyLA.”
Chaffee Union School (Chaffey High School), Science Building- 1245 North Euclid Avenue.
Ontario, 1937. The Los Angeles Times described on June 20, 1937: "Work is to start shortly on a $120,000 science building at the Chaffey Union High School site, Ontario. Harry L. Pierce is the architect. The building is to be two stories and basement and will be of reinforced concrete construction” (“Chaffey Union School to Add Science Unit”: V-5) Crescent Heights Methodist Episcopal Church #2, 1282-1296 Fairfax Avenue West Hollywood, 1923. No longer used as a church.
It is said that he may have had a final project Laguna Hills, but no records were found in the brief search. Pierce died in 1992 at 104 or 105. He was buried, fittingly at Forest Lawn in Glendale.
The North Glendale Methodist Church No. 2 was mentioned in attributed to the wrong architect in Robert Winter and David Gebhard’s Los Angeles: An Architectural Guide (1994: 319).
It is called “Gothic Moderne,” in the book, but the design is actually Streamline Moderne in style with Art Deco influences. Its inclusion in at least two editions of that well-received book is notable.
The City of Glendale South Glendale Historic Context described those styles in 2018:
[Streamline Moderne] character-defining features include:
Flat roof with coping
Smooth plaster wall surfaces
Curved end walls and corners
Glass block and porthole windows
City Council Meeting April 30, 2024, Item 8c 5 of 9
Flat canopy over entrances .
Fluted or reeded moldings or stringcourses
Pipe railings along exterior staircases and balconies Steel sash windows (page 230)
Only the Streamline Moderne features that apply to the North Glendale Methodist Church No. 2 are enumerated above.
Character-defining features [of the Art Deco style] include:
Vertical emphasis
Smooth wall surfaces, usually of plaster
Flat roofs with decorative parapets or towers
Stylized decorative floral and figurative elements in cast stone, glazed terra cotta tiles, or aluminum
Geometric decorative motifs such as zigzags and chevrons Stepped towers, piers, and other vertical elements
Metal windows, usually fixed or casement (page 228)
The subject property is only a few blocks removed from south Glendale and the descriptions are applicable to the specific architectural styles. Each of the described character-defining features listed above are evident in the North Glendale Methodist Church No. 2 prior to the very recent building permit which was issued without any known historic review. The floral and figurative features may, in this case be more geometric than natural, but it is otherwise a clear example of the types and retained high integrity. Both styles are becoming increasingly rare in Glendale, especially in light of recent demolitions (L.W. Grayson Steam Electric Plant, 1941) and other alterations.
Elizabeth McMillian’s 2004 Deco & Streamline Architecture in L.A: A Moderne City Survey also includes North Glendale Methodist Church No. 2 on page 130, but attributes it to Harry W.
Pierce as well. An undated post card featured the exterior and interior of North Glendale Methodist Church No. 2 in Figure 1 on page 6.
City Council Meeting April 30, 2024, Item 8c 6 of 9
Figure 1: Undated post card featuring North Glendale Methodist Church #2, view northwest. The high style Streamline Moderne design is strongly evident in the highly retouched image. Those features include its stepped central tower, the reeded central shaft (in front of crucifix at entrance), exaggerated tower corners, the simple, low sanctuary mass and volume with a plain cornice and brick bulkhead, and the stepped side building separately addressed at 1018 N. Central Avenue. Private collection.
The Historic Post Card Series, Glendale includes a black and white version of Figure 1 on page 32.
It described “The unique structure, with its ‘Tower of Light’ was cited by an interdenominational architectural board in New York… The congregation was very active during World War II, forming a Saturday night canteen for servicemen who had no place to stay.” A reported 8,000 soldiers are said to have slept at the church during that time (Juliet M.
Arroyo, Katherine Peters Yamada and George Ellison). By 1949, English Academy Award recipient Charles Laughton was said to have dramatically read aloud at North Glendale Methodist Church #2. An observer described it as being “like seeing the Bible in Technicolor” (“Life Visits the Laughtons.” Life. Jan 24, 1949: 109).
City Council Meeting April 30, 2024, Item 8c 7 of 9
Figure 2: Photograph of North Glendale Methodist Church #2 (1015 N. Central Av.), view northwest. Source: Google Maps, September 2022, all photos unless otherwise noted.
Figure 3: Photograph of 1018 N. Central Av. view
west. Note the curved plaster recessed entrance
walls, the flat canopy above the entrance, the deep
fluted, central tower form and windows set at
corners.
Figure 3: Photograph of 1018 N. Central Av. view south of entrance from Fairview. Note the plaster recessed entrance walls, the convex fluted entry side walls, flat canopy above entrance, the stepped central tower form with vertical battens that continue at roof and stained glass windows and simple brick base.
The fact that North Glendale Methodist Church #2 was involved in the local community and its historic mid-20th century development is not exceptional. Most churches are directly associated with the development and well-being of a community. The fact that North Glendale Methodist Church #2 is an exceptional, intact example of the Streamline Moderne and Art Deco architectural styles is significant. The entire North Glendale Methodist Church #2 property should be considered eligible for listing in the Glendale Register as a historic district with its school and grounds.
As described in the GMC in section 30.25.020, under “Historic district overlay zone designation criteria” Each of the buildings (1015 and 1018 N. Central Ave. and 202-214 Fairview Ave.) with the grounds at North Glendale Methodist Church #2 clearly meet the prescribed criteria listed on the following pages:
City Council Meeting April 30, 2024, Item 8c 8 of 9
A geographic area may be designated as a historic district overlay zone by the city council upon the recommendation of the historic preservation commission and planning commission if the district meets one or more of the following criteria:
A. Exemplifies or reflects special elements of the city’s cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering, architectural, or natural history; The North Glendale Methodist Church #2 Historic District illustrates and echoes special elements of the World War II era in its Streamline Moderne with Art Deco distinctive designs, which is a rare and important component of Glendale’s architectural history.
B. Is identified with persons or events significant in local, state, or national history; Unknown.
C. Embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period, method of construction, or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship; Each of the Central Avenue buildings exemplifies the very distinctive characteristics of the Streamline Moderne with Art Deco influences combined style of architecture, the modern church types of buildings, their designs and uses during the World War II period (1941-1945) were and are significant.
D. Represents the work of notable builders, designers, or architects; While the architect, Harry L. Pierce is a reasonably new discovery, the resulting buildings in the proposed historic district with his other known work makes him notable.
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; Not applicable.
F. Embodies a collection of elements of architectural design, detail, materials, or craftsmanship that represent a significant structural or architectural achievement or innovation;
The distinctive “Tower of Light” buildings exemplify a unique combined architectural stye resulting in a singular architectural design using the very distinctive details of the Streamline Moderne and Art Deco combined design. The craftsmanship in the smooth plaster walls and distinctive features (flutes, battens, stained glass, masonry, wood and steel framed windows have stood the test of time for 82 years. They represent excellent work and craftsmanship.
Also, the up-lit tower of light was an architectural feature that provided a symbol of hope and refuge to both the community and more importantly to soldiers who otherwise had no lodging during World War II.
G. Reflects significant geographical patterns, including those associated with different eras of settlement and growth, transportation modes, or distinctive examples of park or community planning;
Not applicable.
H. Conveys a sense of historic and architectural cohesiveness through its design, setting, materials, workmanship, or association; and/or
City Council Meeting April 30, 2024, Item 8c 9 of 9
The North Glendale Methodist Church #2 Historic District absolutely imparts a clear sense of historic and architectural cohesiveness through its distinctive Streamline Moderne and Art Deco design, its green planted setting, the smooth plaster and brick building materials, the fine workmanship exhibited in the buildings’ exterior finishes and claddings.
I. Has been designated a historic district in the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historical Resources (Ord. 5399 Attach. A, 2004; Ord. 5949 § 30, 2020)
Not applicable.
The North Glendale Methodist Church #2 Historic District qualifies under five of the ten historic district criteria. It needs only to meet one of the listed criteria to be considered eligible.
In light of the facts and qualified professional opinion provided herein, I strongly recommend that council:
Continue this matter or deny the item.
Request additional information regarding the “independent appraisal” for your and the public’s review in reconsidering the matter.
Direct appropriate staff to have the construction fence moved the church’s property and any grading activity on the subject property ceased. The subject property should be returned to its previous condition immediately as well. Direct staff to evaluate or cause to be evaluated by a qualified consultant, the larger church property as a historic district and present those finding to the Historic Preservation Commission, or merely treat it as a historical resource immediately.
Feel free to contact me with questions. Thank you all for your time and service to the city of Glendale.
Sincerely,
Francesca Smith
Francesca Smith
Qualified Architectural Historian
cc: Suzie Abajian, City Clerk at [email protected]