From: Adjemian, Aram
To: Cortes, Karen
Subject: FW: July 30, 2024, Special City Council meeting, Item 2 Community Development, Public Hearing for Stage I Preliminary Design Review Case No. PDR-002684-2023 for the Development of a New 40-unit, 5-story Multi- Family Development with 73 parking spaces a...
Date: Monday, July 29, 2024 4:53:29 PM
Attachments: Special City Council, 126 128 S Kenwood- FGS.pdf Attachment.pdf
Hi Karen,
Can you please attach this to the agenda.
Thanks,
Aram
From: Francesca Smith <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2024 2:38 PM
To: Adjemian, Aram <[email protected]>
Subject: Fw: July 30, 2024, Special City Council meeting, Item 2 Community Development, Public Hearing for Stage I Preliminary Design Review Case No. PDR-002684-2023 for the Development of a New 40-unit, 5-story Multi-Family Development with 73 parking spaces a...
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 Aram,
Please include this letter and its attachment in the Administrative Record for the above- referenced project.
Thanks in advance!
Francesca
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Francesca Smith <[email protected]>
To: Elen Asatryan <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Daniel Brotman <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: Suzie Abajian <[email protected]>; Vista Ezzati <[email protected]>; Bradley Calvert <[email protected]>; Roubik Golanian <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 29, 2024 at 02:33:58 PM PDT
Subject: July 30, 2024, Special City Council meeting, Item 2 Community Development, Public Hearing for Stage I Preliminary Design Review Case No. PDR-002684-2023 for the Development of a New 40- unit, 5-story Multi-Family Development with 73 parking spaces and Public Open Space Area on a 14,988 square-foot (SF) lot located at 126-128 South Kenwood Street
Dear Mayor Astatryan and members of council,
Please find my letter regarding the above-referenced item appended to this message, with the referenced attachment.
I strongly urge you not to approve the proposed Phase 1 design and encourage the applicants to work more closely with staff to meet the requirements in the Downtown Glendale Specific Plan as described in the letter. The proposed project does not comply with requirements in CEQA and its expected historic resources impacts will necessitate the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report to address and hopefully, reduce those effects.
This letter and its attachment should be included in the Administrative record for the project.
Thanks, in advance for your time!
Best wishes,
Francesca Smith
1 of 19
FRANCESCA SMITH
July 27, 2024
Mayor Elen Asatryan and City Council members
Glendale City Hall
613 E. Broadway
Glendale, CA 91206
via e-mail
RE: July 30, 2024, Special City Council meeting, Item 2 Community Development, Public Hearing for Stage I Preliminary Design Review Case No. PDR-002684-2023 for the Development of a New 40-unit, 5-story Multi-Family Development with 73 parking spaces and Public Open Space Area on a 14,988 square-foot (SF) lot located at 126-128 South Kenwood Street
Dear Mayor Asatryan and members of city council:
I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the above-referenced item on behalf of Glendale Residents Against Environmental Destruction. My interest in this case is from various perspectives, including historic preservation issues, appropriate California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review, the expected loss of naturally occurring affordable housing units, as well as significant effects to community character and aesthetics. I am a qualified Historian and Architectural Historian under the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards, a former board member of The Glendale Historical Society and current member of the Advisory Board, a former member of the City of Glendale’s Design Review Board, and I teamed with Catherine Jurca, PhD, to evaluate the property abutting the proposed project. The Reverend Clifford A. Cole Property at 132 South Kenwood Avenue was evaluated for local significance in 2016. Based on Dr. Jurca’s and my efforts, the Glendale City Council agreed in 2016 that the Cole Property was eligible for listing in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources based on its associative qualities (see Attachment and Figures 1 and 2 on page 2). Two years later, in the City of Glendale’s “South Glendale Historic Context” and “Appendix B: Individually Eligible Properties” the property was found to be locally eligible under both “Early Development & Town Settlement” and “Early Residential Development" contexts (2018, page 42). Based on those findings and the council’s agreement, the Reverend Clifford A. Cole property is considered a historic resource for the purposes of CEQA.
The proposed five-story project immediately abuts the single-story residence at 132 South Kenwood Avenue, a presumptive historic resource under CEQA (California Public Resources Code, Section 21084.1), and as briefly described herein, the proposed project could cause a significant impact to the historic resource under CEQA. It is noted that in the Glendale Municipal Code, “Projects that are authorized to proceed with preparation of a Stage II final design submission must first complete applicable California Environmental Quality Act review in addition to completing the final design for design review authority consideration” (Title 30 Zoning, Chapter 30.47 Design Review, Section 30.47.070 (d) 2 of 19
Procedure for review). What that means is that particularly in the case of this project, City Council is being asked to review a project that may (and should) be far different in its appearance (including materials, design, planning and orientation) after appropriate CEQA review, particularly including consideration of Cultural Resources impacts.
Figure 1: Annotated, abbreviated county
assessor’s Parcel Map (5642-007, sheet 1, 2019),
denoting the proposed project in red and the
Cole Property in green. Broadway is at the top
(north) and Harvard Street is at the foot of the
diagram. An alley is at left side. North at top.
Figure 2: Annotated aerial photograph of 120 (top),
126-128 (in red) and the 132 South Kenwood Street
(Reverend Clifford A. Cole Property in green)
demonstrating the proximity of the proposed project to
the historic property. North at top. Source: Google
maps 2024.
Because Stage I Preliminary design review invites council direction on project site planning, massing and scale, this is the appropriate time to address the proposed project’s problematic site planning, as well as its massing and scale, as submitted. The guiding review document, council would apply is Downtown Glendale Specific Plan (DSP). Its stated purpose is that the DSP “seeks to preserve and enhance the aspects which provide each district its unique character, while improving the attractiveness and livability of the Downtown area” (Chapter 2, page 2-1). The proposed project is located in the “East Broadway District,” the expected “form and character” (2-2) of which is described as “moderate density” and that it “combines a number of civic and cultural uses and historic buildings (emphasis added, 2-8).
It is noted that the Report to the Special City Council contains only one recommended condition, but that condition is nonetheless significant.
3 of 19
1. That the applicant redesign the site plan so that the ground floor open space, which includes the publicly accessible courtyard, be located adjacent to the historic house at 132 South Kenwood Street (page 12).
Presumably, what staff means is that the proposed project design would be “flipped “on its axis, and the proposed public and private open space would abut the Cole Property at 132 S.
Kenwood. See Figure 3 below.
Figure 3: Excerpted altered proposed project site plan (from Exhibit 1, sheet A2.0) showing the project turned over on its axis. That change would result in the proposed public and private open space being immediately adjacent to the historic Reverend Clifford A. Cole Property at the foot of the revised drawing.
That proposed condition would certainly improve the proposed project, and while it would lessen the expected CEQA historical resource impacts to a less than significant level, it would be a positive step toward reducing the project’s effects on the Reverend Clifford A.
Cole Property. Other recommended conditions would be to step the proposed building’s façade back, floor-by-floor, to alter the proposed materials as well as its design to be more compatible and less differentiated from the simple, small-scale historic resource, to reduce the number of balconies looking into the historic resource’s yard and to require the use of camphor trees as the proposed project street trees. The Report to the Special City Council also addresses the large amount of stucco proposed on the exterior.
The proposed materials do not comply with the Glendale DSP Urban Design policies (Chapter 4). The report points out that “The DSP restricts no more than 60% of the building elevations to be clad with stucco or plaster and staff will work with the design team that this is being met in the Stage II submittal” (page 6). In light of that fact, the proposed materials and the relationship among materials not only do not comply with the DSP, but would be
4 of 19
different than the design being reviewed, with a smaller amount of stucco finish than is being considered for the Phase I submittal. The result of that materials condition with the others is, city council would not be able to understand what the proposed project’s altered appearance would be, once the stucco area was reduced, the design was turned over and the “canopies” were redesigned to comply with DSP requirements.
In addition, the proposed exterior light fixtures (other than landscape fixtures), specified are extremely limited and do not comply with the DSP Urban Design Guideline policies, 4.2 “Building Design,” 4.2.22 that directs in “Architectural Elements: Lighting” A. Lighting shall be directed away from surrounding development and shielded to minimize spillover on adjacent properties.
B. No light shall be directed at the windows of a residential unit within or adjacent to a project.
C. Reflective materials or other sources of glare, such as polished metal surfaces, shall result in visual glare or measurable heat gain on surrounding windows.
D. Significant architectural features such as corners or unique cornices should be illuminated and enhanced by a comprehensive lighting design.
E. Building lighting should be adjustable, and prior to Certificate of Occupancy a test may be required to calibrate proper illumination levels to the satisfaction of the Urban Design Studio.
Only two non-landscape light fixtures are proposed in Phase 1. They would be not really coordinated, with matte bronze and “charcoal smudge” finishes specified. Neither would illuminate or “wash” walls softly or evenly (see standard E requires that they be adjustable).
Fixture 1, “lighting Fixture Up/Down accent” is a 16” wall-mounted tube that provides either up or down lighting, not both according to the manufacturer.1 Fixture 2, the proposed “LED Recessed Lightings at Balconie’s Soffit” [sic] would be down-lights, to illuminate the private balconies. In fact, the proposed five-story building with 15 or more balconies located within ten feet of the single-story historic resource could have a great deal of light spillover that would be oriented toward the single-family residence (see Standards A-C).
In the DSP under Chapter 4, Urban Design, under 4.0.2 Context Sensitive Design, it directs “New development shall be sensitive to existing patterns and character in Downtown.
Where strong existing patterns of height, scale or use are established, new development should reinforce these patterns (4.2). It further states regarding “Edges and Transitions” in “4.0.6 that proposed projects should “Be sensitive to the transition between various Downtown districts and the residential neighborhoods immediately surrounding Downtown. Heights of buildings should step down toward the predominantly 1-to 3-story development of surrounding neighborhoods…” (4-2). The proposed project would be five stories and 65 feet in height.
Table 1 below enumerates the existing numbers of stories on the subject property city block to show how large the proposed project would be in comparison to nearby properties.
1 See https://www.seginuslighting.com/products/spj-lighting-spj-ud2-16-up-or-down-wall- mount?currency=USD&variant=43680198492358&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=G oogle%20Shopping&stkn=5f47acf7ff87&gad_source=1&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIzaKcp9njhgMV3jYIBR3GTgeyE AQYBCABEgKvKfD_BwE
5 of 19
Table 1: Building Heights on 100 S. Kenwood Street
Address Year Built Stories Notes
A.2 126 S Kenwood St Pre-1908,
demolished
1988
0 “Built prior to 1908, according to the Sanborn maps,
this bungalow is typical of the simplest building of
that genre. It is located on a mixed use street which retains a larger number of historic buildings than most of the
comparable streets nearby. It is worthy of note, therefore, for its site and for its integrity” (emphasis added, “1983– 1984 Glendale Architectural and Historical Survey”).
Demolished in 1988 according to County Assessor
B. 128 S Kenwood St 1928 1 Proposed project location, to be demolished.
C. 132 S Kenwood St 19073 1 Reverend Clifford A. Cole Property D. 401 E Harvard St 1962 2
E. 404 E Harvard St 1962 2
F. 320 E Harvard St 2
G. 133 S Kenwood St 1979 9 Casa De La Paloma, affordable housing (senior and disabled)
H. 117-119 S Kenwood St. 1925 2 MGM Banquet Hall
I. 115 S Kenwood St N/A 0 Paved parking lot
J. 103-111 S Kenwood St 1907, 1922
and 1924
1 Four one-story buildings
K. 109 S. Kenwood St./
412 E. Broadway
2008 4
L. 118-120 S. Kenwood St. 2014 6
Average Building Height 2.5 stories A vertical difference of roughly 50 feet between abutting buildings, particularly when one is a historic resource would not demonstrate sensitivity to the historic resource, the existing established, character or pattern of the existing neighborhood.
If the DSP directs that “Heights of buildings should step down toward the predominantly 1- to 3-story development of surrounding neighborhoods…” (4-2) and the 13 surrounding properties have an average height of 2.5 stories, then it seems reasonably obvious that five stories and 65 feet in height would be considered mid-rise, far too tall and too high, by more than three stories, for the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed project would not acknowledge or reinforce the strong existing predominant pattern of low building heights and small scale. The DSP further proclaims in 4.1 Site Planning, in section 4.1.1 Historic Preservation/ Adaptive Reuse that “Glendale’s older buildings are an important part of the streetscape, contributing to the distinctive character of Downtown. Some of these are historically significant while others reflect good design practices and stylistic trends over many decades (4-8). The same section states on the same page that:
A. Rehabilitation of historic resources, including related adjacent new construction, shall conform to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (see pages 9 and 10).
The staff-prepared Report to the Special City Council states under Building Design – DSP Chapter 4.2 Urban Design, Overall Building Design on page 6 that “The 65-foot-tall
2 Address letters, numbers and parcels are from Exhibit 1, the proposed project Photographic Survey Map Sheet A1.5, prepared by Art Tech Design, dated December 12, 2023. 3 City of Glendale. “South Glendale Historic Context” and “Appendix B: Individually Eligible Properties” 2018, page 42.
6 of 19
residential development has appropriately incorporated the required height and façade modulations into the design which add visual interest to both the skyline, as well as at the street-level…” in its "general analysis of the Project’s architectural elements” as well as the following:
4.2.7 Architectural Elements “The ground floor is visually separated from the floors above through the use of a metal canopy and the application of materials at the base of the building” (page 6).
4.2.10 Architectural Elements: Building Lobbies & Entries, “The entry is highlighted by a metal canopy with the building name, a green-screen wall, and the MCM wood-like cladding wraps the volume of the ground-floor leasing office a wood cladding [sic]”(7).
4.2.13 Architectural Elements: Canopies, “The DSP requires at least 50% of the street elevations to include canopies or marquees. At the ground floor entry to the building, a metal canopy has been incorporated into the design that complements the contemporary design aesthetic” (7).
While the analysis in the Report has found the proposed project to be in general compliance with the requirements in the DSP, it is partly because of the proposed use of metal canopies to articulate the design and is unfortunately overly accommodating in its interpretation of what a canopy is in the City of Glendale. Canopies are clearly defined in the Glendale Municipal Code:
“Canopy” means a fixed shelter of any material and of any length, projecting from and connected to a building and/or columns and/or posts from the ground, or supported by a frame extending from the building and/or columns or posts from the ground. “Canopy” includes a marquee. “Canopy” does not include a shelter whose roof is also a walkway or area being used as a balcony for an upper floor occupancy (emphasis added Section 30.33.020 Definitions).
Review of the proposed plans before council reveal that “The massing and scale of the building are complimented by the canopies separating ground floor from floors above” (Project Narrative, Sheet A.1-2). On sheet A.1.19, the plans decare that the open space is ”Open to sky, no building over hangs, only canopies/awnings.” 7 of 19
Figure 4: Annotated rendering from page 2 of Exhibit 1 of proposed project, depicting numerous articulating “canopies” with green arrows. Balconies and balcony roof/upper floor decks have red arrows.
The canopies are the floor decks of the balconies, as well as the roofs above and upper floor canopies. The 15 canopies that would serve as both balcony decks and roofs on the south-facing elevation (center of image) and set-back east-facing façade (left side) do not have red arrows in the interest of legibility.
Figure 5: Annotated, excerpted
plan of proposed project second
floor, Unit 201, showing
balcony in yellow that would
project outboard of the building
façade, as would the canopies.
The proposed balcony deck in
yellow would also be the
required “canopy” which
presents a problem. Source:
Second Floor Plan, sheet A3-2.
8 of 19
What this analysis reveals, particularly considering Figures 4 and 5, is that the canopies that are proposed to support proposed project compliance with requirements in the DSP do not technically qualify as canopies. They are instead “area[s] being used as a balcony for an upper floor occupancy.” The red and green arrows in Figure 5 and the highlighting in Figure 6 point to examples where the canopies could not be considered the required design features when they would serve as balcony decks and roofs. Moreover, the proposed “canopies” would be merely slight projections from the main, nearly flat facades, painted in a contrasting color.
As such, the proposed design does not comply with the DSP requirements, particularly by relying on 1-2-foot-deep, minimal façade projections which are not allowable as decks and roofs but are being considered improperly to be canopies.
A brief reminder, as well, however, that the Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the Glendale Downtown Specific Plan (FPEIR), prepared by the City of Glendale in 2006 in Chapter 1 Executive Summary, in Table 1-1,under Summary of Environmental Effects and Project Requirements/Mitigation Measures, established a requirement if “Implementation of the proposed project would result in new development perhaps including demolition, on or near sites with known historic resources and on potentially historic sites. This is considered a potentially significant impact…” (Impact 4.4-4, page 1-18).4 It is considered a significant and unavoidable impact under “Level of Significance After Mitigation.” This presents a significant problem for the City of Glendale if this project, as proposed (or even with the proposed condition) would reduce but not avoid impacts to the historic resource and continues to move forward.
The corresponding Mitigation Measure in the FPEIR DSP under MM 4.4-4(c) in addition specifies in "Timeframe/ Monitoring Milestone" that this would occur during Plan Check and Design Review" (emphasis added). We note that city council is performing Phase 1 design review in this meeting, therefore the current method of review unfortunately has the sequence for project analysis out-of-order.
The fact that there are potentially significant and unavoidable impacts to the setting, aesthetics, with both potential noise and vibration effects to a historic resource should trigger implementation of FPEIR Mitigation Measure MM 4.4-4(c), which directs that In the event that a future development within the DPS is proposed on or immediately surrounding a site containing a known historic resource, environmental review of the development project shall consider the impacts to the known historical resource and, if needed shall include a study conducted by a qualified historian or architectural historian to determine whether the proposed development project would materially alter in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of the known historic resource that conveys its historical significance. If the project would demolish a historic resource or if it is determined that the development project would materially alter in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that convey the resource’s historic significance, the City shall impose any and all measures to avoid or substantially lessen the impact, unless the City, after having analyzed the significant impacts and proposed mitigation measures in an Environmental Impact Report, finds such mitigation measures are infeasible and adopts a statement of overriding considerations. Potential modifications to a site- specific development project to avoid or mitigate adverse impacts on historic resources include, but are not limited to:
4 See https://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/38596/636398816908230000 9 of 19
(1) Site plan modifications that incorporate the historic resource into the proposed project, and if necessary, rehabilitation of the historic resource. Rehabilitation of architecturally or historically significant buildings shall meet the U.S. Secretary of the [I]nterior’s Standards for Rehabilitation;
(2) Design changes related to height[,] density, upper story step-backs, architectural features, or materials; and
(3) Changes in the proposed development program to include compatible uses (emphasis added, pages 1-18 and 1-19).
During Phase 1 design review it is the appropriate time for council, as the authority, to not approve or to significantly modify the proposed project. The proposed project will likely also change dramatically in the future based on the results of an appropriate CEQA alternatives analysis, which should be far more rigorous than this review. As proposed, the tallest part of the new building would be 65 feet (at elevator penthouse, see Exhibit 1, sheet A1-6), and the rest of the building facing the Cole Property would be five stories or 59 feet- high, abutting the one-story historic resource (estimated to be 17 feet high at the roof ridge), resulting in an over-scaled, mid-rise proposed project, which would loom over and dwarf the Cole Property by nearly 50 feet (48 feet). The proposed project, at 65 feet would be nearly four times the height of the main building historic resource (3.823). That difference in height is tremendous and would not be in keeping with the established character and scale of the neighborhood of most of the seven other properties on the block (see Figures 6, 7, 8 and 12).
Further, it is remarkably noted that nothing in the Report to the Special City Council in any way addresses the proposed changes to the larger setting of the Reverend Clifford A. Cole Property. Absent a local definition for a historic setting, its setting is defined in National Register guidance as:
the physical environment of a historic property. Whereas location refers to the specific place where a property was built or an event occurred, setting refers to the character of the place in which the property played its historical role. It involves how, not just where, the property is situated and its relationship to surrounding features and open space. Setting often reflects the basic physical conditions under which a property was built and the functions it was intended to serve. In addition, the way in which a property is positioned in its environment can reflect the [builder’s] concept of nature and aesthetic preferences. The physical features that constitute the setting of a historic property can be either natural or manmade, including such elements as…vegetation; simple manmade features (paths or fences); and relationships between buildings and other features or open space. These features and their relationships should be examined not only within the exact boundaries of the property, but also between the property and its surroundings (National Park Service “How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation” 1990, revised 1995, emphasis added).
The proposed project, as currently designed would permanently destroy the larger setting of the historic resource, including but not limited to its relationship to the neighborhood, its connection to surrounding buildings (which are currently roughly the same approximate height on the north and south sides) and negatively impact its integral front and rear yards including their mature plant material (lawn, mature trees and bushes) in the extended periods of shade and shadow that would be caused by the proposed presence of a five- story, 65-foot high building within 10 feet of the Reverend Clifford A. Cole residence and property.
While each of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation applies to the proposed project, as currently proposed, the project would not comply with Standards 2 10 of 19
(retention of historic character), 9 (compatible new additions) and 10 (reversibility of those new additions) which are particularly germane to this project. The formerly expansive, nearly pastoral large setting of the Reverend Clifford A. Cole Property, including an abutting nearly equal setback with the abutting front yard (128 N. Kenwood Street), its own landscape and the landscaping that surrounds the Cole Property consisting largely of grass planted lawn areas, covered areas dotted by small shrubs, mature trees and camphor street trees5 would be drastically reduced by the implementation of the proposed project.
The existing camphor street trees notably create a collective tree canopy which create shade, contribute to neighborhood character and establish the street’s pleasant atmosphere. Street trees (other than palm trees) that have canopies, like camphor, can decrease stormwater and runoff, they can clean the air using photosynthesis and capture particulate matter. Trees reduce solar islands by blocking direct heat from the direct by providing shade to buildings, heat-retaining paved surfaces, other plant material and through evapotranspiration.6 Canopy trees can protect infrastructure by acting as natural flood control and protection against soil erosion. Higher tree canopy density in developed communities can decrease stress, reduce rates of illness, and can assist in providing longer life expectancy.7 Table 2 below enumerates existing properties on the block and whether or not those properties on the 100 S. Kenwood Street block currently have camphor street trees. The shaded rows in the table on the following page are the subject properties where the proposed project would be constructed.
5 Mature camphor trees exist in the parkways at 126 (1), 132 (1) and at 401 East Harvard Street (2 with 2 recent replacements). The opposite side of South Kenwood is also planted in mature camphor trees, all of which are surrounded by lawn.
6 Evapoptraspiration is defined in Oxford Languages as “the process by which water is transferred from the land to the atmosphere by evaporation from the soil and other surfaces and by transpiration from plants.” 7 “Community Greening: Six Benefits of Urban Forestry Trees by Josh Weiner on February 8, 2023 at https://communitygreening.org/blog/six-benefits-of-urban- forestrytrees?gad_source=1&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIpsLj_bOBhwMVzxutBh3_twfvEAASA AEgK3n_D_BwE 11 of 19
Table 2: Street Trees on 100 Block of S. Kenwood Street Address Camphor
Street Trees
Notes
103-111 S. Kenwood St. Yes Four one-story buildings
109 S. Kenwood St./412 E.
Broadway
Yes
115 S. Kenwood St. Yes until 2014.
After 2014,
different
canopy street
trees
Paved parking lot
117 -119 S. Kenwood St. No street trees MGM Banquet Hall 118-120 S. Kenwood St. Yes
126 S. Kenwood St. No Vacant lot
128 S. Kenwood St. Yes single-family residence
132 S. Kenwood St. Yes Rev. Clifford A. Cole Property
133 S. Kenwood St. Yes Casa De La Paloma, affordable senior and disabled housing, 167 units
401 E. Harvard St. Yes Two, two-story buildings
Table 2 above demonstrates that the majority of properties on the 100 South Kenwood Street block have existing camphor street trees. The proposed project presents tall palm trees in the parkway as street trees. Mature palm trees do not provide the described benefits of canopy trees. Sheet L-1, the proposed Landscape Plan, does not include any reference to street trees.
The proposed 65-foot height, nearly uninterrupted massing, large scale and proximity of the proposed project is not in character with and would effectively dwarf and overshadow the historic resource. The cumulative effect of each of the changes caused by the proposed project would negatively impact the historic character of both the Cole residence as well as its immediate and larger setting. Based on this supported evidence, the proposed project would not meet the requirements in the Standards for Rehabilitation. See also National Park Service, Technical Preservation Services “Interpreting the Standards No, 41: Incompatible Alterations to the Setting and Environment of a Historic Property” by Antonio Aguilar, 2006 at https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1739/upload/its-41-alterations-setting-environment.pdf .
Additional flaws in the proposed project are numerous: as proposed, the side of the proposed project facing the Cole Property (South Elevation, Exhibit 1, sheet A-4-3) would have a minimal, 5-foot setback from the street unless the project were flipped as currently recommended as a condition. The Cole Residence has a 24-foot setback with a front yard, foundation plantings and mature trees. As proposed, the view north from the low, small- scaled Cole residence would be the large edifice in Figure 6, on page 12. The proposed elevation in Figure 4 would be about 10 feet from the Reverend Clifford Cole residence’s current and established location for more than a century. The Cole Residence has six windows that would immediately face the proposed project (see also Figure 6 on page 11). 12 of 19
Figure 6: Excerpted, annotated South Elevation of proposed project, which would face and immediately abut the historic Reverend Clifford Cole Property. The Cole residence is depicted, including its roof in red on left, with 17” side and intersecting rear, gabled roof ridges that continue to back of residence. The two- story, Clifford Cole Apartments are shown at left with its low, hipped roof also in red. Main image from Sheet A-4.3, depth and size of the Cole residence and duplex apartments from Topographical Survey, sheet A1-15 (February 2015), as well as field review.
The Cole residence’s approximate location would align approximately at the left side of the image in Figure 6, where the darkest gray, full height metal panels are proposed, on the left (west) side. As depicted in Figures 7 and 8 below, the small-scale historic resource would be significantly overshadowed by the proposed project. The proposed mid-rise project at 65 feet, is too tall and too large to immediately abut a historic resource without causing unmitigable, significant impacts to its setting, and aesthetics and as well as potential noise and vibration impacts under CEQA.
Figure 7: View southeast from street of the six visible windows that face north from the Reverend Clifford A. Cole residence (at left).
Figure 8: Reverend Clifford A. Cole residence and large, mature camphor street tree, view northeast 2016 (below). Photograph by Michael Locke, Flicker used with permission. Not for publication.
The height of the Cole residence, in comparison to the proposed project, would not quite align with the horizontal centerline (floor-to floor) of the second of five floors as depicted in Figure 6. Views north from the six north-facing windows at the Cole Residence (Figure 7)
13 of 19
would be of a large wall, measuring 148 feet wide (just two feet fewer than the lot width), and 59 feet high, of a nearly uninterrupted flat wall (Exhibit 1, Sheets A3-2 through A3-5 and A3-6, all toward bottom of pages). The historic resource’s six north-facing windows would be visible from proposed project in Units 103 and 105 on two balconies and from two bedroom windows according to the current plans.
That otherwise uninterrupted south wall plane would have just one inset jog at the first and second floors to accommodate the height of the proposed parking garage ramp (sheets A3-1 and A3-2). Out-board horizonal “bumps” or canopies are proposed at the first, third and fifth floors, at stairwell 1, Units 501, 503 and 505 and the sundeck. Instead of using the proposed ratio voids to provide visual and spatial relief, the designers are proposing the addition of materials outboard of the exterior walls in an attempt to modulate the proposed design (See Façade Modulation diagram on sheet A1-10). It is essential that designers balance proportions to reflect and reinforce the style of a building. That balance is critical to a property’s appearance and is not evident in the currently proposed design. The balconies’ exterior edges would almost align with the exterior demising wall planes. Its main openings would be numerous, black-framed windows overlooking the Cole residence and property, with its front and back yards. In addition, as currently proposed, at least 15 sets of sliding doors (also black-framed) and at least 15 sets of industrial and or mechanical- appearing, black metal, cable-guard type railings would face the small Craftsman style historic resource from a distance of an estimated eight feet. None of the proposed project’s proximity or design demonstrates any compatibility or deference to the established community nor acknowledges the value or existence of the century-old setting, small scale, proportions, design or materials of the Rev. Clifford A. Cole Property.
The proposed color and material palate for the project does not demonstrate any relation to the painted wood, Cole residence which has stood on the same lot since 1920 (104 years and counting). The proposed project, Kenwood Gardens description on sheet A1-5 describes the proposed project “Street level materials such as the aluminum wood look panels and the metal wall panels are human-scaled to provide a high-quality aesthetic and diversity in building design in accordance with the material standards. The modulation of height and façade [proposed on the north side] relates to the human scale and creates a visual interest along the pedestrian realm.” Refer to Figures 9 and 10 on the following page.
Aluminum wood-look panels, as described, are not demonstrably human-scaled. In fact, actual walnut, what the proposed metal finish is intended to mimic, as an exposed wood material was not historically or currently used on building exteriors. According to the Building Research Establishment “Untreated wood exposed to the weather discolours and degrades. If the natural appearance of the wood is to be preserved, some form of surface treatment must be applied...” (Natural Finishes for Exterior Wood, 1993). Walnut is generally used for furniture and interior cabinets
14 of 19
The exposed wood trend, particularly
the faux material affixed as proposed in
horizonal lengths, would look like floor
samples in a retail store more than an
exterior finish (Figure 9). MCM is the
acronym for “metal composite
material.” so it would be a metal
composite painted and finished to look
like natural wood. The sample image on
the Material Board depicts the
appearance of horizontal flat boards
with a narrow recess between the
“boards.” The proposed finish is an
unsanded walnut appearance, a faux,
natural wood. Natural wood was
historically not used on exteriors of
buildings, other than log cabins or other
vernacular buildings, because of the
harsh effects of the sun. Wood has
historically been painted or another
finish applied to protect the wood from
the effects of moisture and sun.
Figure 9: Hardwood floor display by McColl Display
Solutions at https://www.mccolldisplay.com/
There was a recent, short-lived fad in residential architecture where natural wood was used on exteriors, which was and is derisively called the “Orange Wood Trend.” That movement ended quickly as the exterior wood was exposed to sun and weather. The fleeting cheap commercial and residential style is no longer in vogue. Likewise, the Kenwood Gardens description fails to justify how the proposed, up to five-story, dark gray metal wall panels would be “human-scaled” in any way or would “provide a high-quality aesthetic and diversity in building design in accordance with the [unidentified] material standards.” That Kenwood Gardens description on sheet A1-5 further asserts that “Window material [would] complement and reflect the overall design of the building,” although it is not specified how the unidentified window material would in any way compliment or pay tribute to the overall proposed design of the building. That implied connection is not explained or evident in the Phase 1 design submittal. The same description curiously asserts that “Subdivided glass is added at large windows,” when neither the meaning of the statement (copied from the DSP wording) nor any details were provided to demonstrate what that would be. The Materials Board depicts “2” frame profile, dark bronze aluminum,” which can be seen in most commercial mini-malls. The proposed two-inch brake metal cladding size is just about minimum profile fabricated for storefronts. The glass type and manufacturer are not specified, but the proposed windows, storefront (at entrance) and sliding doors seem to be absent any specific information, and of minimum quality. If the glass in the windows was to be subdivided, it is not clear how, whether through-the-glass or by the application of faux muntins which was allowed on at least one historic resource elsewhere in Glendale (234 S. Brand Av., Masonic Temple). The description states “Additionally, the aluminum doors and windows are low reflective” although no
15 of 19
information regarding the colors or types of glass to be used, are specified either. Despite the fact that the main façade of the proposed project facing Kenwood Street would be roughly 64 feet long, the narrative nonetheless claims “The 13-foot building frontage is raised for residential entry,” which merely means that the entrance is not at the same level as the sidewalk, which is far from pedestrian-friendly and more “Upstairs-Downstairs” than anything else. Pedestrian-friendly design would call for animation inside of the ground floor, with large clear windows where that activity inside the building could be seen by passersby from the exterior, inviting participation (see Figure 10, on page 15). It is noted that cable-guard railings are the standard choice for California Department of Transportation retaining walls on interstate freeways, which makes their use less-than-appealing for multi- family residences, particularly where its use would be a proposed project that would abut and directly face a known historic building that was built more than a century ago.
Pedestrian-friendly urban design includes solutions including well-maintained sidewalks, safe street crossings, tactile paving, clear signage, noise-reduction strategies and green spaces which are each conveniently accessible by pedestrians. The only truly pedestrian- friendly feature proposed would be the DSP-required, 1,498.8-square foot open space, the street entrance to which would be significantly narrowed by 6 and 3-foot-deep planting beds, 6 by 6-foot planters and the water feature (sheet Landscape Sheet L-1). As proposed, the project would generously provide an extra 1.2 square feet, which would be nearly 173 square inches of additional, publicly available open space. That modest public open space would be immediately overlooked by two private balconies on the first floor and eight private balconies on floors two through five.
There are four “bare root” olive trees proposed in the 6 by 6-foot planters in the public open space, to be planted at 18-20-inches in height (see Landscape Sheet L-1). Although the olive trees are depicted on that same landscape sheet with large shade canopies, when in reality that height and width would take decades to grow. In addition, according to the Olive Oil Source, bare root olive trees are not generally used (see https://www.oliveoilsource.com /info/olive-tree-planting). Olives are well known to be slow growing and require well- drained soil, which may not be practical, as proposed in a 6-foot planter. 16 of 19
Figure 10: Excerpted, annotated West Elevation, facing South Kenwood Street, from sheet A4-0. The added red dashed line is set at average adult height, about 5’-5.” The added blue oval shows the area a passerby would be expected to see at the street-facing entrance. The 126 address numbers above, shown in shadow, are the closest thing to a sign program included in the submittal. The address is shown against the proposed “human-scaled,” three-story high, dark gray metal wall panels that are described as providing “a high-quality aesthetic and diversity in [the proposed] building design.”
Figure 11: Annotated, excerpted first
floor plan, sheet A-3.1. The added blue
cone is the area of the main entrance that
is expected to be visible to pedestrians
and may be a mere 13 feet wide. As
shown, the visible area in the building
leasing office would be limited to double
doors and part of a single, storefront
window and would be very limited.
North in this case would be the to the
right.
Nothing in the Phase 1 submittal demonstrates a demonstrably or especially pedestrian- friendly project. The same proposed project description states that “The massing and scale of the building are complimented by the canopies separating ground floor from upper floors.” However, neither the massing8 nor the scale9 would be in any way enhanced or visually reduced by the proposed shallow, insignificant and nearly imperceptible canopy overhangs shown on sheet A1-10 (see also separate discussion of canopies on pages 6-8).
8 Massing refers to a building in three dimensions or its form. It is not merely its outline from a single perspective. Massing influences the sense of space which the building encloses and helps to define both the interior space and the exterior shape of a building.
9 Scale is the size building or object in comparison to a reference standard or to the size of something else, like a human being or a small building next door.
17 of 19
Perhaps the vertical orientation of the building would be somewhat modulated or tempered by the meager canopies (which require significant redesign), but its massing and scale would be more effectively reduced by the use of stepped setbacks, which are strongly recommended to be considered, particularly on the north (which would become the south) leg, immediately adjacent to the Rev. Clifford A. Cole Property. Ironically, those units and their balconies would likely be far less marketable if the project were reoriented as conditioned, facing the existing southern, 9-story highrise. The proposed “canopies,” or awnings are variously described in the Report, and are described in the plans as 2- by 2- foot “aluminum awning” (Item 3, “Window/Door Schedule” sheet A6-0), “metal cladding- structural style aluminum” in dark gray (Material G, sheets A4-0 through A4-3), “metal fascia MCM10 aluminum” (Material G, sheet 61-3). It makes sense, since they do not meet the city’s established definition of a canopy. The narrow overhangs are by no means canopies or awnings and appear to be, at best, exposed false, shallow I-beams, which would be one to two feet deep (“Façade Modulation,” sheet A1-10). Because of the inappropriate consideration of these “canopies” as defined in the Glendale Municipal Code, they could not serve the intended design effect unless the project was considerably redesigned from the design as proposed.
This detailed analysis of the Phase 1 design review reveals a project that is much less compliant with the DSP design guidelines, far darker in color and feeling, and more commercial or industrial in design. The results would not be particularly stylish, timeless or residential in appearance.
Another important historic resource impact that has not been addressed is the very real potential for vibration-related damage to the historic property, including but not limited to differential settlement during and in immediate years following construction. Protection from construction-related activities, such as grading, equipment and vehicles striking buildings, over-spray of various materials, over-excavation of soil and pile driving depths and methods may present a serious threat to the historic resource. Without a complete study by a qualified structural engineer who has a demonstrated specialty in the protection of historic buildings before and during construction, directed by clear, concise mitigation measures that would ensure structural investigations, pre-construction surveys, continuous vibration monitoring with related stop-work orders that would trigger less vibration intense equipment or methods, we can only assume that damage may well occur to the historic resource, which is extremely close and abuts the proposed project, its subterranean garage and whatever types of pilings would be proposed.
Pile-driving is normally prohibited within 200 feet of identified “fragile structures” within and around the DSP area. Implementation of mitigation measures may ensure that impacts of construction-related vibration to historic resources be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Regarding aesthetics, construction and implementation of the project as proposed may result in substantial adverse effects on the visual quality of the DSP area as well as the Clifford A. Cole Property which would be both project-related and cumulative. In addition,
10 MCM is the acronym for metal composite material, so the finish material would be a metal composite finished to look like natural wood.
18 of 19
implementation and construction of the proposed project would result in new sources of shade and shadow which may be both project-related and cumulative.
Likewise, in the Glendale DSP, under Urban Design Framework (C), the project applicants must:
Apply publicly open space and setback standards..." (#4); Apply transitional massing standards..." (# 5, massing should step down toward the lower height of the historic resource);
Apply building massing and modulation standards" (#6, meaning the new building should have recesses in perimeter walls that reduce its massing by modulation); Apply building frontage, facade and material standards" (#7, meaning the materials, relation of solids (walls) to voids (windows and balconies) should relate to the historic resource).” As proposed, the five-story project does not demonstrate any respect toward the existing, single-story, historical resource at 132 South Kenwood Avenue (Reverend Clifford A. Cole Property). The proposed project would not “step-down” to meet the height of the Reverend Clifford Cole Residence. As proposed the project would be about 50 feet higher than the Clifford Cole residence. (Its height at the roof ridge is estimated because it is not provided in feet in sheet A4.0.) The proposed project would have almost no setback from the sidewalk, as sheet A3.1 for the proposed project shows the main façade just 5 feet from the sidewalk (Building Adjacent Zone”). The Clifford Cole residence is setback 30 feet from the sidewalk, according to the plans in Exhibit 1. Inexplicably, the south leg of the proposed project (corridor and Unit 106) is proposed to be setback more than 100 feet for public and private open space, but would be separated from the Cole property by a mid-rise building.
The building immediately south of the proposed project, 133 S. Kenwood Street is 9 stories high (see sheet A4.0 and Figure 12 below) and has a minimal setback. In addition, the proposed setbacks for the sun deck would not provide any visual relief from the large five- story blocky mass and its large scale. That mass and scale would be in no way be relieved or reduced by the meager first floor “notch” and proposed balconies on the second through fourth floors in the proposed façade elevation (see sheet A3-3). In fact, the fourth and fifth floors would be separated by a projection, outboard of the façade, rather than any attempt at creating a setback (see sheet A4-3). Figure 12 below visually demonstrates the dramatic difference between the proposed project’s height, hard-edged design and lack of articulation when compared with the existing, historic resource, the Rev. Clifford A. Cole Property at 132 S. Kenwood Street.
Future iterations of the proposed east elevation on sheet A4.0 in Exhibit 1 (se Figure 12 on page 19) should be revised to clearly depict 133 S. Kenwood correctly and must include the Cole house and garage at 132 S. Kenwood St. for any reviewers and for the public to understand the scale and obvious impacts of the proposed project on the neighborhood and especially on the historic resource.
19 of 19
Figure 12: Annotated proposed project west elevation, facing Kenwood Street, sheet A4.0 (Urban Design Specialists, no date). Photographs of the Reverend Clifford A. Cole residence and the farthest 2-story, dingbat style south building at 401 E Harvard St. from Google are separately overlaid to roughly demonstrate scale (various dates). Note that 133 S. Kenwood at the left of the image above is 9 stories high, not six as depicted. In addition, there are no windows on that portion of the façade as drawn. L- shaped balconies on all upper floors are cantilevered over its north side.
While Stage I design review direction does not constitute project approval, it is noted that projects that are authorized to proceed with preparation of a Stage II final design submission must first complete applicable California Environmental Quality Act review in addition to completing the final design for design review authority consideration.
Based on each of the significant defects described in this letter, I sincerely request that you not approve the Phase I design as proposed and strongly recommend that the proposed project be considerably redesigned. The applicants and their consultants need to work effectively with staff to realize a smaller, more sensitively designed, much more compatible project that would comply with the stated requirements in the DSP and CEQA, using a qualified expert with demonstrated successful experience in compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, considering compatibility, settings and neighborhoods. Please ensure that this letter is entered into the Administrative Record for this project. I appreciate all of your time.
Best wishes,
Francesca Smith
Francesca Smith
attachment
cc: Suzie Abajian, PhD, City Clerk
Bradley Calvert, Director of Community Development
Vista Ezzati, Principal Planner
Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code 3CS, 5S2
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date
P1. Other Identifier: 132 South Kenwood Street
*P2. Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted *a. County: Los Angeles and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Burbank Quad Date: 1994 T R ¼ of ¼ of Sec . B.M. c. Address: 132 South Kenwood Street City: Glendale Zip: 91205-1023 d. UTM: Zone: ; mE/ mN (G.P.S.)
e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate) APN 5624-007-042
*P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) The subject property is a single-story, Craftsman Bungalow style main residence (132A) with a two-story vernacular apartment unit (132B) at the rear of the property. Bungalow characteristics of the residence include its studied asymmetry, the horizontal orientation, the inset partial length porch, its low-sloping, overhanging roof with exposed eaves. The main building is clad in alternating wide and narrow painted shiplap siding, which is notably flared at the corners. The corner entrance porch is enclosed by a low brick wall with matching posts, concrete caps and tapered, painted wood posts, typical of the style. A large header supports the porch. The two multi-light entry doors appear to be original. All windows and doors have wide wood casing with thumbrails, illustrative of the style. The central tripartite, front window group has double-hung side windows flanking a wider, central picture window. All visible windows are wood sash. The low-sloping, side gabled roof has extended rafter tails and a low, central shed-roofed dormer with paired horizontal vents. No alterations are visible from the street and the main building is in excellent condition. The rear apartment unit is only visible from the alley. It is two stories in height, configured in an irregular square and has a hipped roof with closed eaves. The building is two bays wide, is finished in smooth stucco and has steel, 3- and 4-light high casement windows. The second floor is cantilevered over an inset side garage. The apartment building front wall is set at the edge of the alley. The garage door and the single entrance door were replaced (dates unknown). The level, rectangular lot has a low, concrete retaining wall at the sidewalk, some of which features an oatmeal finish. The main house is set back from the street by a lawn and there is a concrete, Hollywood style, side driveway that leads to a small mid-lot, front-gabled garage. The garage is detailed to match the residence, but its door was replaced (year unknown). The subject property is on a street with large, camphor street trees in the built-up Central Business District, and other than the lot to the south (Kenwood Property No. 1), is surrounded by mid-rise apartment buildings.
*P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP2. Single family residence HP3. Multiple family property *P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.) P5b. Description of Photo: (View, date, accession #)
View southeast, April 2016
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources:
Historic Prehistoric Both
1920, 1953 (Los Angeles County Office of the
Assessor)
*P7. Owner and Address:
unknown
*P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, and address)
C. Jurca, F. Smith
The Glendale Historical Society
PO Box 4173
Glendale, CA 91202
*P9. Date Recorded: November 18, 2016-revised
*P10. Survey Type: (Describe) Intensive
*P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other
sources, or enter "none.")
Property Evaluation for 128 and 132 South Kenwood Street, The Glendale Historical Society 2016. *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):
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
P5a. Photo or Drawing (Photo required for buildings, structures, and objects.)
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
*Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder): Kenwood Property No. 2 B1. Historic Name: Rev. Clifford A. Cole Residence B2. Common Name:
B3. Original Use: single-family residence B4. Present Use: multi-family residence *B5. Architectural Style: Craftsman Bungalow, 132A) and Minimal Traditional (132B) *B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) Main residence built in 1920 (Office of the Los Angeles County Assessor). Apartment units constructed in 1953 (Office of the Assessor of Los Angeles County). Garage doors and rear apartment unit door replaced (dates unknown).
*B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: n/a Original Location: n/a *B8. Related Features: garage
B9a. Architect: unknown b. Builder: unknown
*B10. Significance: Theme: Residential Architecture, Local Civic LeadersArea: GlendalePeriod of Significance: 1920-1964 Property Type: Craftsman Architecture in Glendale: 1904-1920, Early 20th Century Christian Leaders Applicable Criteria: 2/3
The subject property main residence was built in 1920 (Assessor). The earliest known owner was Rev. Clifford A. Cole in 1920 (Year Book). Rev. Cole was listed at the same address in subsequent directories, including Who’s Who On the Pacific Coast (1951) and lived at the subject property for more than a quarter of a century. Dr. Cole moved to a convalescent home and died in 1965. He was born in Kansas in 1881, attended a local college and married Bessie Mae Garton (1882-1964). Cole was a midwestern minister until relocating to Glendale with his young family in 1916. He was pastor at Central Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) until 1938 and oversaw the finance and construction of a new church in 1922; he served at least five times as President of the Glendale Ministerial Association (“Dr. Clifford A. Cole Resigns Pulpit”). In 1939, Dr. Cole was named State Secretary of Christian Churches, and retained that position until 1956. In that capacity he initiated the Mid-Century Church Extension program, which anticipated the need for new churches amid the burgeoning suburban areas of postwar southern California. Twenty-eight new churches were built in southern California during his tenure as State Secretary (“Disciples of Christ State Secretary Retires”). He was energetically engaged in the community, serving on the Parks Commission for three decades, notably presiding over the well-attended Sunrise Easter Service at Forest Lawn Memorial Park for more than two decades (beginning in 1929) and wrote a syndicated newspaper column on religion from 1938 until 1965, the year of his death. Cole was a longtime member of the boards of directors of numerous church and civic groups, including Community Chest and Chapman College. As an officer of the local Kiwanis, Cole was instrumental in funding the Glendale YMCA and chaired a successful bond issue drive for Glendale schools and City Hall. In 1946 he received a citation from the City Council of Glendale, Parks & Recreation Commission, Forest Lawn and the News-Press for his leadership. Six years later, Glendale Historical Society cited his accomplishments and community service (”Dr. Clifford A. Cole, News-Press Writer, Dies”). A recorded interview with the Rev. Cole that first aired on KFI is currently on the city website. After his retirement, Rev. Cole published a book of children’s poems and at least ten hard and soft cover books on faith and family.The property was previously evaluated for historic significance in 1984 (Architectural and Historical Survey of Central Glendale) and 2006 (Downtown Specific Plan EIR). It was not found eligible for listing in the National Register in either survey, but the latter asserted that the property “may warrant special consideration in planning.” Both surveys were reconnaissance-level and neither received concurrence from SHPO. The property is not listed in the latest print-out of the California Office of Historic Preservation- maintained “Historic Property Data File for Los Angeles County” and Glendale’s historic survey data are not readily available. (see Continuation Sheet, page 3).
B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) n/a *B12. References:
See Continuation Sheet, page 4.
B13. Remarks:
*B14. Evaluator: F. Smith
*Date of Evaluation: November 19, 2016- revised
(This space reserved for official comments.)
(Sketch Map with north arrow required.)
N no scale subject property outlined in black
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
*Recorded by: C. Jurca, F. Smith *Date: Nov. 18, 2016-rev Continuation Update
*B10. Significance: (continued from page 3)
The only significant changes in the property’s setting were the development of the apartment units at the alley, made during Dr.
Coles’ lifetime and ownership, and the replacement of surrounding buildings with large, mid-rise apartment buildings. The 2007 Craftsman Survey described what was rewuired for a property to retain high integrity: “For a property to exhibit high integrity, the building must contain the majority of its original character-defining features that are visible from the public right-of-way.
Buildings with high integrity may exhibit a few minor reversible alterations; however, overall the windows, window openings, porches, siding, and architectural characteristics should be fairly intact. The typical character defining features that contribute to the significance of a Craftsman style building include: one- to two-stories in height, are wood framed, foundation of poured concrete or fieldstone, siding materials that are either horizontal wood boards or wood shingles, a low-pitched, gabled roof (occasionally hipped) with wide, unenclosed eaves, (gables often feature vents in a variety of configurations, including rectangular, vertical slats, horizontal slats, latticework, and “picket fence”), exposed roof rafters, …shed, gabled or eyebrow dormers on the roof[.] Full- or partial-width porches with roofs supported by tapered square columns, wood windows that consist of fixed, double-hung, or casement sash with either multiple lights or single panes of glass, typical Craftsman door that is stained wood with multiple lights, windows and doors surrounded by wide casings or a lintel above the window.The subject property remains nearly unchanged, retaining its character-defining features visible from the street: the original windows, window openings, its porch, siding and other architectural characteristics, including the alternating width siding, the wide, low pitched side-gabled roof and shed-roofed, vented dormer, open eaves and exposed, extended rafter tails. The building retains its partial width porch, tapered square columns, wood sashed, fixed, casement and double-hung windows, some with multiple lights over single panes, and pair of multi-light, stained entrance doors. This clearly demonstrates integrity of the house’s original design, the location, its workmanship, nearly all of its original materials, the feeling of a small, middle-class home and is recognizable to the time of its association with Rev. Cole .
The 2007 local Craftsman Survey did not evaluate the property, but it was not conducted at an intensive level. Of the 240 Bungalows surveyed, only 28 were found locally eligible. The subject property retains the requisite integrity and character- defining features to have been found eligible for local listing if it had been part of that survey population. A planning consultant prepared two evaluations and found the subject property not eligible for National or California Register listing or local designation (Arroyo Resources 2016). That survey did not adequately consider its association with Reverend Cole, inaccurately applied National Register requirments to local crietria and did not make any narrative conclusion regarding its significance in the DPR 523 form. In the first report, only architectural evaluations were made and no DPR 523 forms were prepared (January 2016). In the second evaluation exhaustive lists of previous owners or renters who may have been directly associated with the property as well as permits for alterations that are not germane (electrical, plumbing and interior modifications) and lytanies of other ministers were presented without thoughtful application of professional judgment or well-reasoned consideration of local significance.
The property is not eligible for the National Register under Criteria A, B, C or D, because its architectural and associative significance is merely local, and as a Craftsman bungalow it is a reasonably common building type. The property is eligible for listing in both the California and the Glendale Registers because of its direct association with Rev. Cole and as an increasingly rare remaining intact vernacular Craftsman Bungalow residence with a consistently styled, original garage in Glendale. When a separate Craftsman Survey was prepared nearly a decade ago, approximately 200 buildings of this style remained with high integrity. The only known alterations to the subject property are the addition of the apartment unit in 1953, and the replacement of garage doors and one unit door.
While the subject property is not a high style example of Craftsman architecture, it is a robust local example of a side-gabled roof type, middle-class Craftsman Bungalow residence. The low sloping roof, generous eave overhangs, flared siding, decorative exposed rafter tails and beams, partial-width porch supported on a tapered, square post and low, capped brick walls are each character-defining features of the style which was popular nationally between 1905 and 1930. It is eligible for listing in the California Register under Criteria 2 and 3, for its direct association with life of Dr. Cole, a person who was undeniably important in Glendale’s civic past. The main residence and garage that clearly embody the distinctive characteristics of the Craftsman Bungalow type and theearly decades of the twentieth century. (see Continuation Sheet, page 4)
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
*Recorded by: C. Jurca, F. Smith *Date: Nov. 18, 2016-rev Continuation Update
The property is eligible for listing in the Glendale Register under Criteria 2, 3, and 5. It was directly associated with Dr. Clifford Cole, the locally significant, civic-minded minister who helped shape local customs including Sunrise Service at Forest Lawn, published widely popular Christian books and a nationally syndicated newspaper column, was largely responsible for the Parks & Recreation Commission, building at least one local church, funding schools and recreation programs and assisted in the development of City Hall. The design of the main house and garage embody distinctive characteristics of the Craftsman Bungalow type and exemplifies the early twentieth century period when Glendale devleloped from a small town to a growing community.
The property’s intact Craftman design and original materials convey a sense of historic and architectural cohesiveness through the design, materials, workmanship and association.
*D7. References (Give full citations including the names and addresses of any informants, where possible.):
Arroyo Associates. “Historic Resource Assessment 126, 128, 132A and 132B South Kenwood Street” January 11, 2016 and October 18, 2016.
______. “Lay Corner-Stone.: Many Attend Ceremonies at New Church in Glendale”Los Angeles Times. 6 February, 1922:17.
Cole, Clifford A., Celebrating Together in Our Family, 1955.
Cole, Clifford A., Modern Women in a Modern World, 1965.
Cole, Clifford A., The Prophets Speak, 1954.
Cole, Clifford A., Faith for New Frontiers, 1956. hard and soft, 156 pages $5.00 Cole, Clifford A., The Revelation in Christ, 1963, hard and soft, 346 pages $5.00 Cole, Clifford A., Working Together in Our Families, 1957, soft, 52 pages B $2.00 “Disciples of Christ State Secretary Retires,” Los Angeles Times, 3 March, 1956: A3. “Dr. Clifford A. Cole, News-Press Writer, Dies” Glendale News-Press. 13 October, 1965: n.p. “Dr. Clifford A. Cole Resigns Pulpit,” Glendale News-Press, 10 June, 1938, n.p.
Galvin Preservation Associates for Glendale, City of. “Reconnaissance Survey and Historic Context Statement of Craftsman Style Architecture, 2006-2007.”
Glendale, City of. “Glendale History, Glendale Historical Society Citations,” accessed on 27 March, 2016. <http://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/library-arts-culture/glendale-history/glendale-historical-society- citations>
“Historical Society to Hold Citation Night” Glendale News-Press. 20 November 1952: n.p.
Jones & Stokes for City of Glendale. “Downtown Specific Plan” 10/17/2006.
Year Book ... of International Convention of Disciples of Christ, 1920: 88.