Public Comment-8a 2 3 2026 — Glendale City Council, February 3, 2026

Montrose/Verdugo City/Sparr Heights Neighborhood Association P.O. Box 732
Verdugo City, CA 91046-0732

“Protecting our Paradise”

February 3, 2026

Mayor and City Council
City of Glendale
613 East Broadway, Suite 200
Glendale, CA 91206

Re: ASOZ for the Masonic Temple

Dear Mayor Najarian, Members of the City Council and City Staff:

The Montrose/Verdugo City/Sparr Heights Neighborhood Association formed in 1997 with the mission of uniting our neighbors to protect our quality of life. For nearly three decades we have been advocating for our neighborhoods.

Adopting the ASOZ Ordinance to allow electronic billboards on the iconic Masonic Temple is not in the best interest of Glendale nor the preservation of its historic resources. That signage will change the character of the Masonic Temple and go against the legacy of the Masons in Glendale. The building façade has already been altered by the installation of windows. Electronic billboards will further negatively impact the character of the building.

The consideration of advertising revenue is disingenuous at best with the Mills Act contract in effect. Adding modern electronic signage goes against the sprit and intent of the Mills Act

We encourage the Council to act upon the comments opposing the ASOZ and preserve the historic integrity of the Masonic Temple. The Historic Preservation Commission is the body best able to address the impacts of this ordinance. This matter must be addressed by the HPC prior to any impact on the historic character of this significant example of Glendale’s history.

Sincerely,

Michael Morgan
Vice President, MVSNA

1 February 2, 2026
Mayor Ara Najarian and city council members
Glendale City Hall
633 East Broadway
Glendale, CA 91206
via e-mail
RE: City Council Meeting Item 8.a. February 3, 2026 Community Development, re: Case No. PZC-0014- 2025. Amendments to Chapter 30.26 - Advertising Signage Overlay Zone (ASOZ) of the Glendale Municipal Code (GMC). Amendment to the City's Zoning Map to expand the boundary of the Town Center (Americana)-Galleria Districts ASOZ overlay zone onto a portion of the Downtown Arts and Entertainment District of the Downtown Speciﬁc Plan to incorporate the properties at 230 – 238 S.

Brand Blvd into the overlay zone and identify locations, sizes and elevations of two new animated wall signs to be incorporated into the expanded ASOZ boundary. Statutory Development Agreement to comply with GMC Section 30.26.100, including the provision of certain public beneﬁts Dear Mr. Mayor and councilpersons:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important issue. I was reminded in reviewing this proposed sign ordinance and proposed signiﬁcant alteration to the Masonic Temple Building of the strong comments provided by The Glendale Historical Society (TGHS) regarding this project, sent to the Glendale Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) regarding the original project. As a qualiﬁed architectural historian under the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation, Professional Qualiﬁcations Standards, I assisted in the preparation of TGHS’s leĴer (Code of Federal Regulations, 36 CFR Part 61). That leĴer held forth:

Not all work undertaken [for the Masonic Temple Building] was approved by the HPC.

HVAC placement changed and a large number of brand new perforations were required as vents; these were approved at staﬀ level. In addition, the new windows are not the windows the HPC approved. Caruso Aﬃliated’s Phase 1 Narrative Statement and Supporting Materials of April 7, 2015…, stated that ‘New windows [are] intended to be in an aluminum material to match [the] look and character of existing steel windows’ (3).

Page & Turnbull’s revised memorandum of March 25, 2015 was more speciﬁc: ‘New windows will be contemporary with a single central panel ﬂanked by multi-pane, divided light windows similar to the casement windows found at the building’ (ibid., 7).

It further noted that ‘the [proposed] windows…are compatible and designed to be contemporary’ (10). However, the window additions are neither similar to nor compatible with the original casement windows, even allowing for the substitution of aluminum for steel over the objections of TGHS. The new windows are standard storefront extrusions with applied muntins. That is, in contrast with the original divided light windows, and the contemporary multi-pane, divided light windows promised by the applicant and approved by the HPC, these are simply large sheets of glass with exterior bars glued or otherwise aĴached to them to simulate divided lights. These are incompatible, inappropriate substitutes for the windows requested and approved; they have no place on a historic building and do not meet the Secretary of the Interior’s 2 Standards for Rehabilitation by any means (page 2, November 17, 2015, see AĴachment A).

The placement of new, particularly electric-powered billboards on recognized historic buildings has created debate for decades. The focus is balancing public interests and the importance of retaining of historic character with a property owner’s desire for proﬁt, often disguised as encouraging economic development. Billboards, particularly on historic buildings are strictly regulated in most Certiﬁed Local Governments1 in the United States, and usually require prior from the local historic preservation board to ensure they not damage the historical resources or identiﬁed character-deﬁning features. None of that has happened for the proposed project.

Local ordinances frequently prohibit, or at least severely limit the addition of roof signs, ﬂashing, or other advertising on designated historic properties to preserve community character. Many cities restrict or ban speciﬁc types of signs on historic buildings. Glendale should as well.

Billboards on historic buildings, residential, or rural areas can negatively impact the aesthetic, character, and property values of surrounding properties, especially when they have liĴle or no review by the appropriate local body. Most communities use tools including thoughtful zoning, carefully crafted ordinances and amortization to remove or limit billboards in sensitive areas including historic buildings. While some old advertisements ("ghost signs") are considered historic, modern billboards on protected buildings usually face strict scrutiny, as well they should.

I am reminded of the lost ghost signs that were once present on the north and south elevations of the Masonic Temple Building. Ghost signs are faded, painted advertisements on the “party” sides (facing other building sides) of old buildings. Contrary to what City Council and the public were told by Caruso’s abatement contractor, ghost signs generally are not required to be abated (removed or covered) by law. Ghost signs they are often lost to demolition new building additions. Instead, the debate surrounding them focuses on whether they should be preserved in their faded state, restored, or left to vanish naturally. Their importance was recently described by the National Trust for Historic Preservation:

Ghost signs have a special place in any city. Hand-painted signs were a popular form of advertising between the 1880s and the 1950s, before ads could be inexpensively mass produced, installed, and replaced. Their remnants oﬀer a lens into a neighborhood’s past, reminding viewers about elements of commerce and life at certain points in history. They acquaint us with the type of businesses that once lined the streets, and oﬀer glimpses of products and services that were important at the time of the sign's painting… (MaĴhew Kruchak. “Your City's Ghost Signs Have Stories to Tell” August 17, 2017 at hĴps://savingplaces.org/stories/your-citys-ghost-signs-have-stories-to-tell accessed on February 2, 2026).

1 Certiﬁed Local Governments (CLGs) are municipalities that have demonstrated, through a certiﬁcation process, a commitment to local preservation and saving the past for future generations. This commitment is key to America’s ability to preserve, protect, and increase awareness of our unique cultural heritage found in the built environment across the country. The CLG program was federally mandated as part of an amendment to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and is administered by the National Park Service. Glendale is a CLG.
3 Figure 1: View southeast of Masonic Temple
Building clearly showing a Community Bank (top)
and Kessler whiskey (below) ghost signs.

Uncredited photograph, circa 2015. Shayna Rose
Arnold. “Rick Caruso Shares His Preservation-
Friendly Plans for Glendale’s Masonic Temple”
April 7, 2015. At hĴps://lamag.com/urban
development/rick-caruso-shares-his-preservation-
friendly-plans-for-glendales-masonic-temple/
Figure 2: View northeast of Masonic Temple
Building clearly showing a “WELCOME TO
GLENDALE” (top) with “MASONIC TEMPLE” and
Coca Cola (below) painted signs. Uncredited
undated photograph, circa 1950s from Dave’s Rail
Pix at hĴps://www.newdavesrailpix.com/ . Not for
Publication.

In Figures 1 and 2, note the ghost signs as well as the extant and former billboards in the foregrounds of each photograph. Despite their popularity, public interest and the undeniable nostalgia of ghost signs, unfortunately the ghost signs on the Masonic Temple were abated as part of the 2015 “renovation.” Contrary to what City Council and/or HPC and the public were told by a Caruso staﬀ member, ghost signs generally are not required to be abated (removed or covered) by law. He said, incidentally in that meeting that the property contained “the most lead that the [abatement] contractor had ever seen” which both a dubious and a meaningless claim. Clear lead containment is absolutely possible and involves using specialized, clear, water-based, low-VOC acrylic coatings to encapsulate lead-based paint on surfaces, including concrete. The product forms a protective, maĴe-ﬁnished barrier that seals the hazard without changing the appearance of the sign. Because it is simple to retain them, ghost signs they are most often lost to demolition or to new building additions. In 2023, a ghost sign for a 15-cent movie theater at 417 N. Brand Bl. was brieﬂy exposed after an adjacent building was demolished. There was no way to expose the theater sign permanently, unlike the Masonic Temple Building’s signs which should have remained. Now the applicant who was aﬀorded too much change in 2015, in a series of segmented reviews over the course of a year or more. In its haste to please the applicant, the City of Glendale was already so overly permissive that the property’s historic signiﬁcance, as well as its Mills Act Contract should both be under scrutiny.

There are other, far more speciﬁc fatal ﬂaws to the proposed extension of the Advertising Signage Overlay Zone, as well as other issues with conformance with the most fundamental historic preservation policies. In its haste to please the applicant, the City of Glendale was already so overly permissive to that developer that the subject property’s historic signiﬁcance, as well as its Mills Act Contract should both be held to a high level of scrutiny.

4 Advertising Signage Overlay Zone
The Glendale Municipal Code (GMC) states in Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 30.26.040 under “Criteria to Approve an Advertising Signage Overlay Zone” (ASOZ):

B. The city council may, by ordinance, designate a geographic area as an ASOZ if the council ﬁnds that the area is:

1. Designated downtown speciﬁc plan (DSP) in the city’s land use element of the general plan.

2. Located within the boundaries of the Central Glendale Redevelopment Project Area as of the date of adopting this chapter.

3. A minimum of 20 contiguous acres in size, not including streets and alleys, excluding the areas of streets and alleys from acreage calculations.

4. Devoted to intense retail, restaurant and/or theater uses, and contains a minimum of one million (1,000,000) square feet of gross area of those uses, where each applicant has operational controls of properties with a minimum of 400,000 square feet of gross retail, restaurant and/or theater use.

5. Occupied by buildings no more than 110 feet in height (emphasis added).

Item B.4. is important because adding the Masonic Temple Building to the ASOZ when the freestanding building contains no retail, restaurant or theater uses. The subject property’s use is oﬃce space so it does not meet the criteria to qualify. B.5. may not be an issue because the building height appears to be 105 feet. In the same chapter, etc., the GMC directs under C:

The signs in question are not proposed to be "installed parallel to the face of the building" as described in item C.5. As proposed, the north- and south-facing signs would be perpendicular to the face of the building, not parallel. While the GMC does not deﬁne what the "face" of a building is, the word is usually interchangeable with facade, which means the front of a building. The proposed signs would be not quite ﬂush with the north elevation and aﬃxed to the added exterior stairwell, perpendicular, not parallel to the face of the subject property building. The proposed signs would not comply with the stated requirements.

5 Preservation Brief 14: New Exterior Additions to Historic Buildings: Preservation Concerns Another essential source in historic preservation, the National Park Service, in its "Preservation Brief 14: New Exterior Additions to Historic Buildings: Preservation Concerns" (at Preservation Brief 14: New Exterior Additions to Historic Buildings: Preservation Concerns) directs unambiguously regarding exterior additions (which the proposed electric signs would be) on page 14:

Signs such as the large, projecting electric types proposed at the Masonic Temple Building qualify as exterior additions. The proposed signs are, by design, neither simple nor unobtrusive. The two signs would actually be the opposite: elaborate, electriﬁed, unmistakably ﬂashy and conspicuous. The signs as proposed would be highly visible, as is speciﬁcally directed against in the guidance. They would be placed on the most visible elevations of the historic building from both north and south views. Nothing about the black-rimmed, electrical animated signs would be harmonious or correspond with the board-formed exterior concrete side walls that were over-painted in 2015. The two signs would certainly be smaller than the historic building overall, but as proposed would be neither respectful in their sizes or designs to the simple, Period Revival-inﬂuenced Masonic Temple Building. That brief provides guidelines for adding new all types of additions including signs to the exterior of historic buildings while preserving their historical character and signiﬁcance. None of the four highlighted bullets in this section above is being followed in the designs for the proposed signage, see Figures 3 and 4 on the following page.

6 Preservation Brief 25: The Preservation of Historic Signs Similarly, in Preservation Brief 25: The Preservation of Historic Signs, the National Park Service directs how to add new signs to historic buildings in several fundamental, non-prescriptive principles on page 11 (see following page and Preservation Brief 25: The Preservation of Historic Signs). For the Masonic Temple, following these basic guidelines regarding exercising restraint in the addition of new signs is not proposed (Figures 5 and 6).

The proposed signs would be incompatible with the historic building; they are designed to be overly large and exceedingly prominent. The decision made by city council January 27th should be reconsidered, reversed, abandoned or modiﬁed in this meeting now that that you all have been provided in this clear guiding information and its explanation.

7 For the Masonic Temple Building, there is no known sign or graphic standards program. It is not part of the Americana property, despite its shared ownership. The proposed signs would not “work with the building,” as recommended in the guidance, the historic building would be nothing but a vertical canvas for giant, garish, incompatible signs.

Review of the applicant’s consultants’ memorandum is discomforting. ARG’s claim to Caruso staﬀ on page 9 of their August 6, 2025 “Secretary of the Interior’s Standard Compliance Assessment” asserts in its conclusion

Pages 2, 6 and 8 are notably missing from Exhibit 8 in last week’s packet. It is assumed that the Masonic Temple Building’s character-deﬁning features are not described, identiﬁed or

8 enumerated in those missing pages. The consultant nevertheless concluded without clear justiﬁcation that the proposed project would have “minimal-to-no impact to the historic materials [which is the only one of seven unmentioned, recognized aspects of integrity], the character-deﬁning features or aesthetics” of the subject property. There was also no discussion of aesthetics in the pages included in the packet.

Conversely, in the California Code of Regulations in Title 14, Section 15064.5 “Determining the Signiﬁcance of Impacts to Archaeological and Historical Resources, the law deﬁnes and clariﬁes:
(b) A project with an eﬀect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the signiﬁcance of an historical resource is a project that may have a signiﬁcant eﬀect on the environment.
(1) Substantial adverse change in the signiﬁcance of an historical resource means physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the signiﬁcance of an historical resource would be materially impaired.
(2) The signiﬁcance of an historical resource is materially impaired when a project:
(A) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical signiﬁcance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources;
(B) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or its identiﬁcation in an historical resources survey meeting the requirements of section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, unless the public agency reviewing the eﬀects of the project establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the resource is not historically or culturally signiﬁcant; or (C) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical signiﬁcance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources as determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA (emphasis added).

Based on my professionally qualiﬁed analysis of the unencumbered alterations that have been made to the Masonic Temple Buildings in 2015, including but not limited to:
 painting an unpainted concrete building,
 removing the ghost signs with inadequate justiﬁcation,  not reconstructing the storefronts faithfully using photographic evidence,  entirely altering existing window and door openings and conﬁgurations on the extremely visible north and south elevations,
 entirely altering existing window and door openings and conﬁgurations and replacing them with entirely new materials on the secondary east elevation, 9  using cheap substitute window materials in the enormous new north and south elevation windows that are arranged in a regular fenestration which never existed,  adding a clumsy, unnecessary exterior stairwell on the highly visible south elevation when it could have been accommodated, and previously existed within the building’s demising walls (exterior walls) in order to add leasable ﬂoor area and  over-illumination of the exterior of the building at night.

This quick list of alterations, which taken together with the proposed addition of two large, incompatible electrical signs on either side have resulted in an overly-shiny and well-lit replica of what once was a signiﬁcant historic building in Glendale. To retain its local historic signiﬁcance, a historic property must retain most, if not all of its seven italicized aspects of integrity in this paragraph. The Masonic Temple no longer retains integrity of its original design on the north, south and especially the west elevations, each of which is highly visible. Its original exterior window, door, board-formed, unpainted and façade concrete exterior materials have been altered by irreparably painting the exterior, replacing and demolishing numerous widows on the north and south sides, using cheap stick-on grids on the large, regular new windows and inﬁlling numerous window and door opening without leaving the promised blind openings. The essential feeling of the secretive Masonic Temple was lost by the addition of numerous regular windows and doors as well as making no eﬀort to reconstruct the storefronts and each side’s character-deﬁning storefront doors, despite the existence of photographic documentation on which to case the reconstruction. Any remaining feeling of the secretive original men’s club is further diminished by its excessively bright exterior illumination at night, the internally illuminated commercial sign at the top ﬂoor and the large prominent, unnecessary exterior stairwell on the south elevation that is right at the street wall and bever existed. The physical record of anonymous tradesmen’s original, late 1920s workmanship, erecting and stripping wooden boards to shape the exterior north, south and east walls has been irrevocably dulled and erased by the application of exterior paint that never historically existed and cannot be removed using the “gentlest means possible” directed in the Standards for Rehabilitation. Workmanship applies to the property as a whole or to its individual components. It is expressed in vernacular methods of construction and plain ﬁnishes or in highly sophisticated conﬁgurations and ornamental detailing, like the front of the building, which was also painted in the 2015 renovation, dulling the crispness and edges of the building’s ornate cast detail. Its larger seĴing has been somewhat altered as Glendale grew but includes not only the physical conditions under which the property was built but includes the functions (such as Masonry) that it was intended to serve. The historic building has lost the original Masonic function and all of its secret society trappings, such as few windows, a slightly mystical main entrance and few doors and windows. The only appliable aspect of integrity the property has not lost is its original location.

Application of basic historic preservation concepts regarding restraint in the design, implementation and addition of the new signs under consideration would not have allowed the proposed, overly large and modern, incompatible signs that were approved on the 27th by city council.

Powers & Duties of the Historic Preservation Commission I see that the applicant’s paid consultants’ inadequate analysis of the proposed signs for conformance with the Standards for Rehabilitation, absent identiﬁcation of character-deﬁning 10 features but with inconsistent interpretation of CEQA as its relates to historical resources has somehow been substituted for appropriate project review by Glendale HPC. In the GMC, Chapter 2.76.100 states under “Powers and duties generally” The historic preservation commission shall have the power and it shall be its duty to perform the following acts:

A. To consider and recommend to the city council additions to and deletions from the Glendale Register of Historic Resources;
B. To keep current and publish a register of historic resources; C. To make recommendations to the planning commission, and the city council on amendments to the Historic Preservation Element of the city General Plan; D. To grant or deny applications for permits for demolition, or major alterations of historic resources [see deﬁnition of major alteration on the following page] E. To grant or deny appeals from decisions of the director of community development as speciﬁed in Section 15.20.040 of this code;
F. To encourage public understanding of and involvement in the unique historical, architectural and environmental heritage of the city through educational and interpretative programs;
G. To explore means for the protection, retention and use of any historic resource, historic district, or potential historic resource or district; H. To make recommendations to the city council on applications for properties to be included in the Mills Act property tax incentives program which may be subject to historic property contracts as set forth in Section 15.20.070 of this code; I. To encourage private eﬀorts to acquire property and raise funding on behalf of historic preservation; however, the commission is speciﬁcally denied the power to acquire any property or interest therein for or on behalf of itself or the city; J. To recommend and encourage the protection, enhancement, appreciation and use of structures of historical, cultural, architectural, community or aesthetic value which have not been designated as historic resources but are deserving of recognition; K. To encourage the cooperation between public and private historic preservation groups;
L. To advise city council and city boards and commissions as necessary on historic preservation issues;
M. To make recommendations concerning, and render decisions on, design review applications aﬀecting designated historic resources, resources pending designation as historic resources, potential historic resources, protected interiors, and protected landscape features as deﬁned in Section 15.20.020 of this code, and aﬀecting existing or proposed buildings, structures, or objects in designated and pending historic district overlay zones, as deﬁned in Section 30.25.030(C) of this code and pursuant to Chapter

30.47 of this code;
N. To perform any other functions that may be designated by resolution or motion of the city council;
11 O. To make environmental determinations under the California Environmental Quality Act on any discretionary project applications the historic preservation commission considers for approval (emphasis added).

The stated powers and duties of the Historic Preservation Commission, particularly Items D, L, M and O were inexplicably an illegally sidestepped when the major alteration for large, new signs was analyzed by a paid consultant engaged by the applicant instead of the HPC. Whether the decision was made by staﬀ of by a department head is immaterial- it should not be allowed to progress. The city council and mayor must call this serious mistake out, pause the process and send this proposal to the HPC to make the appropriate decision in keeping with their duties.

Is this a “Major Alteration?”
As described in the Powers and Duties of the HPC section above, item D. assigns the responsibility to the HPC “To grant or deny applications for permits for demolition, or major alterations of historic resources… In the Historic Preservation Ordinance of the GMC (15.20.020) it declares
"Major alteration" means alteration to any exterior portion of a designated historic resource, of a resource that is pending designation as a historic resource, or of a potential historic resource, or to any protected interior that involves:

1. Construction of an addition to an existing building or structure, or new construction, exceeding 200 square feet at a location visible from the public right-of-way... [like Brand Boulevard].

2. Construction of an addition to an existing building or structure, or new construction, with 700 square feet or greater of building area at a location not visible from the public right-of-way (emphasis added)
The two signs are alterations and technically should be considered additions to the historical property. They would be 817 square feet (SF) on the north elevation and 820 SF on the south elevation, which is collectively more than 1,600 square feet in total. That quantity far exceeds the stated threshold of 200 SF "at a location visible from the public right-of-way." Because the proposed sign additions meet the deﬁnition of "major alterations" as deﬁned in the Historic Preservation Ordinance, this project review, once the ASOZ was approved (or perhaps before), should rightly have been the purview of the Historic Preservation Commission (see HPC Powers and Duties description above).

Mills Act Contract
Because the Masonic Temple Building and its owners hold a Mills Act Contract, the property's property tax rate is greatly reduced. According to current information on the Los Angeles County Tax Assessor's website, the subject property’s 2026 assessed value was $12,234,000. Its Mills Act value is stated as $8,734,000, which is a diﬀerence of $7,450,000. Their annual tax bill should be around $134,500 but is instead roughly $96,000. per year.

As stated in TGHS’ leĴer of November 17, 2015 on page 1:

TGHS believes… that the renovations to the Masonic Temple can in no way be considered to comply with the goals of the Mills Act and therefore that the application should be denied.
12 Currently only properties on the Glendale Register are eligible for a Mills Act contract; however, they are not entitled to one. TGHS has aĴended several HPC meetings in which homeowners who sought a Mills Act contract were required to perform work to restore the integrity of their historic resource, and we congratulate the HPC for its rigor in these cases. Conditions placed on Mills Act contracts accomplish exactly what is intended in the language of the [California Oﬃce of] Historic Preservation…: they oﬀer a ﬁnancial incentive to perform needed restoration work. Conditions imposed on homeowners include the restoration and protection of original wood beams, restoration of the original exterior ﬁnish, and the replacement of newer windows with windows that match the originals as closely as possible [underlined emphasis added].

Changes to this historic property should be far more carefully reviewed, by the HPC, which is the appropriate city body. This is particularly true considering the ﬁnancial yearly reward of $38,500 that the owner is receiving approximately in tax reductions (or $385,000. per decade). In part for this reason, the proposed overly modern, exceptionally visible, incompatible sign alterations, as demonstrated in this leĴer alteration must be far more closely considered with HPC making a recommendation to city council.

I greatly appreciate the chance to comment and sincerely hope that each of you will take this important information and analysis into consideration and pause this process or reverse your previous decision. Please ensure that this leĴer is entered into the Administrative Record for this project.

Sincerely yours.

Francesca Smith
Francesca Smith
Qualiﬁed Architectural Historian

Cc: Suzie Abajian, PhD, City Clerk
Roger Kiesel, Senior Planner
Historic Preservation Commission
Roubik Golanian, P.E., City Manager

November 17, 2015 Chairperson Vartanian and Members of the Historic Preservation Commission City of Glendale 613 E. Broadway Glendale, CA 91206 Re: Agenda Item 7a—232-234 S. Brand Boulevard (Masonic Temple, GR No. 15) Dear Chairwoman Vartanian and Commissioners Morgan, Shier, and Vidor: On behalf of the Board of Directors of The Glendale Historical Society and its more than six hundred members, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Mills Act contract application for the Masonic Temple. We are glad that the Masonic Temple will be in use again. We do, however, regret the extent of the alterations. We believe that after such radical changes, the building can no longer be considered eligible for the National Register, as surveyed in the Historic Resources Technical Report for the Downtown Specific Plan, which was adopted by City Council in 2006. The Mills Act is, according to the California Office of Historic Preservation website, “the most important economic incentive program in California for the restoration and preservation of qualified historic buildings by private property owners.” The purpose of the Mills Act is to encourage property owners to restore and maintain the integrity of historic resources. As you know, TGHS strongly supports the Mills Act program and is proud that Glendale participates in it. TGHS believes, however, that the renovations to the Masonic Temple can in no way be considered to comply with the goals of the Mills Act and therefore that the application should be denied. Currently only properties on the Glendale Register are eligible for a Mills Act contract; however, they are not entitled to one. TGHS has attended several HPC meetings in which homeowners who sought a Mills Act contract were required to perform work to restore the integrity of their historic resource, and we congratulate the HPC for its rigor in these cases. Conditions placed on Mills Act contracts accomplish exactly what is intended in the language of the Historic Preservation Office: they offer a financial incentive to perform needed restoration work. Conditions imposed on homeowners include the restoration and protection of original wood beams, restoration of the original exterior finish, and the replacement of newer windows with windows that match the originals as closely as possible.

While the HPC approved most of the alterations to the Masonic Temple, with some exceptions that will be noted, it did so based on the applicant’s claim that these changes were necessary to make the building viable for a particular commercial tenant. Indeed, we heard several times that the proposed project had to be completed by December 2015 or the tenant would not move in and the building sale would not take place (Exhibit A, Project Objectives, Project Design Review, April 16, 2015, 1). The proposed new use and tenant requirements dictated virtually all decisions governing fenestration, Nanawalls, glass balcony, and the stair tower. Original windows had to be filled in to accommodate very large new windows; the stair tower was not a structural necessity of the building but an addition driven by interior function. None of these alterations represent or were represented as restorations of the historic character of the building. Even the front façade was a missed opportunity to restore it closer to the original. These changes may suit the needs of the owner and tenant, but they do not meet the preservation standards the Commissioners have long associated with the Mills Act. We respectfully submit that no ordinary homeowner in Glendale would receive a Mills Act contract from the HPC if he or she had performed such significant alterations to a Glendale Register property. For an ordinary Glendale homeowner, the HPC would impose strict conditions to restore the building to a closer approximation of the original before granting a contract. The conditions listed by staff do not count; they are simply directives to the applicant to finish the project. We ask that you treat the applicant for the Masonic Temple in exactly the same manner as you would treat any Glendale homeowner. We further point out that not all work undertaken was approved by the HPC. HVAC placement changed and a large number of brand new perforations were required as vents; these were approved at staff level. In addition, the new windows are not the windows the HPC approved. Caruso Affiliated’s Phase 1 Narrative Statement and Supporting Materials of April 7, 2015 (Exhibit A, Project Design Review, April 16, 2015), stated that “New windows [are] intended to be in an aluminum material to match [the] look and character of existing steel windows” (3). Page & Turnbull’s revised memorandum of March 25, 2015 was more specific: “New windows will be contemporary with a single central panel flanked by multi-pane, divided light windows similar to the casement windows found at the building” (Exhibit C, ibid., 7). It further noted that “the windows…are compatible and designed to be contemporary” (10). However, the window additions are neither similar to nor compatible with the original casement windows, even allowing for the substitution of aluminum for steel over the objections of TGHS. The new windows are standard storefront extrusions with applied muntins. That is, in contrast with the original divided light windows, and the contemporary multi-pane, divided light windows promised by the applicant and approved by the HPC, these are simply large sheets of glass with exterior bars glued or otherwise attached to them to simulate divided lights. These are incompatible, inappropriate substitutes for the windows requested and approved; they have no place on a historic building and do not meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation by any means.

Figure 1. Photo taken Nov. 12, 2015. Note that upper right side of window has already lost its applied muntin. This would not be possible if the applicant had installed the multi-pane divided light windows that the HPC approved. We note that nothing was submitted by the applicant to the HPC requesting a change to the multi-pane, divided light windows. The only other north and south façade window details were given as part of Gensler’s Presentation on the Former Masonic Temple Building from May 11, 2015 (exhibit B, Project Design Review, May 21, 2015, 21-22). These details simply establish how the windows will be configured and how they will fit into the openings, not that they are simulated muntins. Glendale will live with this building. It is an important landmark, and occupancy will help to prevent its deterioration. But this renovation does not respect the building’s historic fabric. It is not a worthy example of historic preservation and cannot be considered a suitable candidate for a Mills Act property tax credit. Sincerely, Greg Grammer Greg Grammer, President The Glendale Historical Society

Via Email
February 3, 2026
Members of the City Council and Community Development Staff City of Glendale
613 East Broadway, Room 200
Glendale, CA 91206
Re: Case No. PZC-0014-2025. Amendments to ASOZ and GMC

Dear Mayor Najarian, City Council Members, and Community Development Staff:

The GHCC discussed the amendments to the ASOZ and GMC at our February meeting and unanimously opposed this ordinance and the addition of electronic signage to the historic Masonic Temple. There is agreement with the opposition points raised during the Council Meeting on January 27th. Clearly modern electronic video signage is out of character with a historic resource. The expansion of the existing zoning to cover the minimum properties required to install the signage on the Masonic Temple and hang over the air rights of the adjoining properties is spot zoning as no other properties will benefit from the zoning change.

A Mills Act contract confers a significant financial incentive to preserve the historic character of a property. With a Mills Act contract in place with the Masonic Temple, the addition of out of character electronic signage violates the spirit and intent to maintain a historic resource.

Bypassing the Historic Preservation Commission prior to adopting an ordinance that significantly changes the exterior façade prevents the hearing body best suited to evaluate the impacts. Collectively, we believe that modern electronic signage detracts from historic preservation and consider the HPC is the best forum to decide the matter.

We oppose the adoption of the Advertising Signage Overlay Zone and amendments to the Chater sections for numerous reasons elaborated by the community and encourage Council not to adopt this ordinance. At a minimum, this matter must be referred to the Historic Preservation Commission to provide an appropriate forum to address the impact on this historic resource.

Sincerely,

Grant Michals
President, Glendale Homeowners Coordinating Council

From: Abajian, Suzie
To: Calvert, Bradley; Garcia, Michael J.

Cc: Adjemian, Aram; Simon, Jinette
Subject: Fw: Case No. PZC-0014-2025. Amendments to ASOZ and GMC Date: Tuesday, February 3, 2026 7:01:52 PM
Attachments: glendaleca_logo.png
image003.png
Get Outlook for iOS
Suzie Abajian | City Clerk
City Clerk
613 E. Broadway, Room 110, Glendale, CA 91206
P: +1 (818) 548-2090
[email protected] |
GlendaleCA.gov | Follow us!
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 3, 2026 5:45:07 PM
To: Najarian, Ara <[email protected]>; Adjemian, Aram <[email protected]>; Kassakhian, Ardashes <[email protected]>; Brotman, Daniel <[email protected]>; Asatryan, Elen <[email protected]>; Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]>; Gharpetian, Vartan <[email protected]>; Golanian, Roubik <[email protected]>
Subject: Case No. PZC-0014-2025. Amendments to ASOZ and GMC

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

Via Email
February 3, 2026

Members of the City Council and Community Development Staff City of Glendale
613 East Broadway, Room 200
Glendale, CA 91206
Re: Case No. PZC-0014-2025. Amendments to ASOZ and GMC

Dear Mayor Najarian, City Council Members, and Community Development Staff:

The GHCC discussed the amendments to the ASOZ and GMC at our February meeting and unanimously opposed this ordinance and the addition of electronic signage to the historic Masonic Temple. There is agreement with the opposition points raised during the Council Meeting on January 27
th. Clearly modern electronic video signage is out of character with a historic resource. The expansion of the existing zoning to cover the minimum properties required to install the signage on the Masonic Temple and hang over the air rights of the adjoining properties is spot zoning as no other properties will benefit from the zoning change.

Bypassing the Historic Preservation Commission prior to adopting an ordinance that significantly changes the exterior façade prevents the hearing body best suited to evaluate the impacts.

Collectively, we believe that modern electronic signage detracts from historic preservation and consider the HPC is the best forum to decide the matter.

Sincerely,

Grant Michals
President, Glendale Homeowners Coordinating Council
cc: GHCC Board Members and Delegates

ARMBRUSTER GOLDSMITH & DELVAC LLP
12100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1600 | LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90025 | T: 310.209.8800 www.AGD-Landuse.com
DALE J. GOLDSMITH
T: 310.254.9054
E: Dale@AGD-
Landuse.com

February 3, 2026

BY EMAIL
The Honorable City Council
of the City of Glendale
613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor
Glendale, California 91206

[email protected]

Re: 230-238 S. Brand Blvd. (Item 8.a on the February 3, 2026 Council agenda) Dear Councilmembers:

We represent Caruso Property Management LLC (“Caruso”), the applicant in the above- referenced matter. Caruso is seeking amendments to the Advertising Signage Overlay Zone (“ASOZ”) and a Development Agreement to permit the installation of two signs (“Signs”) on the Masonic Temple Building (“Building”) at the above address (“Project”). The Signs will add visual interest and provide a new source of revenue to the City of Glendale (“City”).

We are writing on behalf of our client to provide point-by-point responses to late comments by members of the public that we only received today. As set forth below, none of the arguments presented has merit. Therefore, we respectfully request that you follow the recommendations of City Staff and the unanimous Planning Commission and approve the Project.

A. Letter from Francesca Smith dated February 2, 2026

1. The scope of the 2015 renovation of the Building is not relevant to the current proposal.

Ms. Smith asserts that the City’s approval of the renovation and rehabilitation of the Building in 2015 was inappropriate. However, the time period for challenging this approval has long since passed, and the renovation work was completed years ago. As such, the Building, as renovated, represents the baseline existing conditions.

In accordance with best practices, historic preservation experts ARG evaluated the Project against existing conditions, not the previously approved and completed work. This expert analysis, which was independently reviewed by City Staff, demonstrates that the signs are consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic Preservation (“Secretary’s Standards”). Ms. Smith has provided no credible evidence to the contrary.

The Honorable City Council
of the City of Glendale
February 3, 2026

Page 2 ends

2. The Building does not need to include retail, restaurant, and/or theater uses.

Ms. Smith claims that the Building must contain retail, restaurant, and/or theater uses to qualify for the ASOZ. This argument misconstrues Glendale Municipal Code (“GMC”) Chapter

30.26.040.B, which expressly applies to the “geographic area” for ASOZs and not individual . individual buildings.

The proposed ASOZ amendment would extend the existing ASOZ for the Glendale Galleria, which contains the requisite amount of retail, restaurant, and theater uses. Therefore, the proposed amendments meet the requirements of GMC Chapter 30.26.040.B.

3. The ASOZ permits the signs to be located on the north and south faces of the Building.

Ms. Smith maintains that the ASOZ requires the signs to be located on the Building face that fronts the street. GMC Chapter 30.26.040.C contains no such requirement. Subsection C.5, as amended, provides that the signs be “installed parallel to the face of the building or the appurtenant structure on which they are attached.” (Emphasis added.) It does not require them to be on a specific face.

Like most buildings, the Building has four faces. Consistent with the ASOZ, as amended, the proposed Signs will be installed parallel to the face of the Building or an appurtenant structure on which they are attached. Therefore, the Signs comply with this ASOZ requirement.

4. The signs are consistent with the Secretary’s Standards.

Ms. Smith argues that the installation of the signs is not consistent with the Secretary’s Standards. The expert analysis by ARG, which was independently reviewed by City Staff, demonstrates that the signs are consistent with the Secretary's Standards. Specifically:
• The location and placement of the Signs would not result in the removal or obstruction of any of the Building’s character-defining features, which are largely concentrated on the Building’s primary (west) façade and are enumerated in ARG’s memo.
• While the north Sign would be mounted to the Building’s exterior concrete wall, the Sign would be installed in such a way that there would be minimal damage to the historic fabric.
• The size and scale of the Signs are similar to the size and scale of previous (non- extant) wall signs on the building. The Signs take up a small portion of the elevations and would be compatible with the historic size, scale, proportion, and massing of the Building.

The Honorable City Council
of the City of Glendale
February 3, 2026

Page 3 ends

• The Signs’ design would be simple but compatible with the historic building (simple dark surround), and their materials (metal frame) are similar to the existing materials (metal doors/windows) on the Building. • The Standards are inherently flexible; buildings need to change use to remain vital, and the Standards provide accommodations for change.

Ms. Smith claims that the signs are inconsistent with National Park Service Preservation (“NPS”) Brief 14. However, this Brief is not relevant as it pertains only to the expansion of a building’s footprint. The Project proposes no such expansion.

She also claims that the signs are inconsistent with NPS Preservation Brief 25. The Brief states that:

NPS discourages the adoption of local guidelines that are too restrictive, and that effectively dictate uniform signs within commercial districts. Instead, it encourages communities to promote diversity in signs-their sizes, types, colors, lighting, lettering and other qualities. It also encourages business owners to choose signs that reflect their own tastes, values, and personalities.

Therefore, the Signs are consistent with Preservation Brief 25.

5. Historic Preservation Commission approval is not required.

Ms. Smith and others maintain that the Historic Preservation Commission (“HPC”) must approve the signs. The HPC has the authority to approve “Major Alterations,” whereas the Community Development Director (Director) has the authority to approve “Minor Alterations.” The GMC defines a Major Alteration as:
• As a building addition above the specified square footages; • The addition of a story to the building;
• An alteration determined by the Director to be incompatible with the Secretary’s Standards.
• An alteration that the Director determines requires design review by the appropriate design review authority to be able to determine compatibility with the Secretary's Standards.

In this case:
• No square footage is being added to the Building:
• No additional story is being added to the Building; and

The Honorable City Council
of the City of Glendale
February 3, 2026

Page 4 ends

• The Director has determined the Signs to be consistent with the Secretary’s Standards.

Therefore, the Signs are a minor alteration, and Commission review is not required.

6. The signs are consistent with the Mills Act contract.

Ms. Smith asserts that the Signs are not consistent with the Mills Act contract (“Contract”). The Mills Act contract requires the owner to preserve the Building , if necessary to restore and rehabilitate it to conform to the Secretary's Standards.

The Contract includes a specific list of maintenance items, including inspection, cleaning, repairs, and graffiti removal, and a timeline for completion. Caruso has complied fully with these requirements.

The Contract does not prohibit the owner from making alterations to the Building. As previously discussed, the signs are consistent with the Secretary’s Standards. Therefore, they are also consistent with the Contract.

Ms. Smith also maintains that the Contract requires HPC review and approval of the signs. There is no such requirement in the Contract. As previously discussed, the Project is a Minor Alteration that does not require HPC approval.

B. Response to Email from Damian Sullivan dated February 3, 2026

1. The signs are consistent with the Secretary’s Standards.

Mr. Sullivan argues that, based on his own admittedly cursory, non-expert review, the installation of the Signs is not consistent with the Secretary’s Standards.

ARG’s expert analysis, which was independently reviewed by City Staff, demonstrates that the signs are consistent with the Secretary's Standards.

2. The project is exempt from CEQA.

Mr. Sullivan implies that the City’s determination that the project is exempt from CEQA is incorrect because it relied on an expert hired by the applicant. The City’s determined that the Project is exempt from CEQA based, in part, on a thorough report from ARG, who are widely recognized and respected experts in historic preservation.

Consistent with CEQA and the City’s longstanding practice, City Staff independently reviewed and approved the report. Therefore, the City’s determination that the Project is exempt from CEQA is supported by substantial evidence and in compliance with CEQA.

The Honorable City Council
of the City of Glendale
February 3, 2026

Page 5 ends

For the foregoing reasons, the arguments in the late correspondence should be rejected.

Thank you for your consideration. We will be available at the hearing tonight to answer any questions you may have.

Very truly yours,

Dale J. Goldsmith

Glendale City CouncilFebruary 3, 2026

Glendale City Council
February 3, 2026