Agenda packet — Glendale City Council, October 20, 2026 (part 12 of 29)

DPR 523A (9/2013) *Required information
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________________ PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial __________________________________________________________ NRHP Status Code: 5S3______________________________________________ Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date ________________
P1. Other Identifier: Princes Dr./Imperial Dr. Residential Historic District *P2. Location:  Not for Publication  Unrestricted
*a. County: Los Angeles
*b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Date: T: ,R: B.M.
c. Address: Various City: Glendale Zip: 91207
d. UTM: Zone mE/mN
e. Other Locational Data: Various APNs
*P3a. Description:

The Princes Dr./Imperial Dr. Residential Historic District occupies sloped terrain in the historic Rossmoyne Village development, in the northeast suburbs of Glendale. The historic district is irregularly shaped and includes several parcels on Princes Drive and parcels on both sides of Imperial Drive. The district is exclusively one-and-two story single-family residences dating from the late 1920s through the 1940s. Residences occupy large irregularly shaped lots with detached or attached garages accessed via private driveways. They are primarily designed in the Period Revival architectural styles, including, Spanish Colonial Revival, American Colonial Revival, Tudor Revival, French Revival, and Monterey Revival. Other styles include various Ranch styles including Traditional and Minimal. District planning features include curvilinear streets, uniform setbacks and concrete curbs; street trees, period streetlights; and a sidewalk with a landscaped parkway on the south side of Imperial Drive. The district contains some contemporary streetlights.

The Princes Dr./Imperial Dr. Residential Historic District consists of 23 parcels. Of these, 20 were evaluated as contributors to the historic district (approximately 87%); 2 are non-contributors; and 1 is unknown/not visible, and therefore unevaluated. Additionally, of the 20 contributing properties, two are listed in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources – the Wellman House at 1428 Imperial Drive (GR #70) and the Duntley House at 1407 Imperial Drive (GR #95). *P3b. Resource Attributes: HP2. Single family property
*P4. Resources Present: Building Structure 
Object Site District Element of District Other
P5b. Description of Photo: View southeast, HRG,
2026.
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Source: 1926-1941.

Los Angeles County Assessor.
 Historic  Prehistoric  Both
*P7. Owner and Address: Not recorded
*P8. Recorded by:

Adam Rajper, Robby Aranguren, Mariana Ruiz
Historic Resources Group
556 S. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 101-514,
Pasadena, CA 91105
*P9. Date Recorded: June 1, 2026
*P10. Survey Type: Intensive
*P11. Report Citation: Architectural Resources Group,
“East-West Glendale Study Area Intensive Survey,”
(prepared for the City of Glendale, 2026).
*Attachments:  NONE  Location 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): 1431 of 5188

Page 1 of 7 ends

*Resource Name or #: Princes Dr./Imperial Dr. Residential Historic District DPR 523D (9/2013) *Required information
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________________ DISTRICT RECORD Trinomial
D1. Historic Name: Rossmoyne Village
D2. Common Name: Princes Dr./Imperial Dr. Residential Historic District *D3. Detailed Description:

The Princes Dr./Imperial Dr. Residential Historic District occupies sloped terrain in the historic Rossmoyne Village development, in the northeast suburbs of Glendale. The historic district is irregularly shaped and includes parcels on Princes Drive and parcels on both sides of Imperial Drive. The district is exclusively composed of one-and-two story single-family residences dating from the late 1920s through the 1940s. Residences occupy large irregularly shaped lots with detached or attached garages accessed via private driveways. They are primarily designed in the Period Revival architectural styles, including, Spanish Colonial Revival, American Colonial Revival, Tudor Revival, French Revival, and Monterey Revival. Other styles include various Ranch styles including Traditional and Minimal. District planning features include curvilinear streets, uniform setbacks and concrete curbs, street trees, period streetlights, and a sidewalk with a landscaped parkway on the south side of Imperial Drive. The district contains some contemporary streetlights.

The Princes Dr./Imperial Dr. Residential Historic District consists of 23 parcels. Of these, 20 were evaluated as contributors to the historic district (approximately 87); 2 are non-contributors; and 1 is unknown/not visible, and therefore unevaluated. Additionally, of the 20 contributing properties, two are listed in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources – the Wellman House at 1428 Imperial Drive (GR #70) and the Duntley House at 1407 Imperial Drive (GR #95). *D4. Boundary Description
The Princes Dr./Imperial Dr. Residential Historic District is irregularly shaped and bounded by parcels on both sides of Imperial Drive between Princes Drive to the north and Royal Boulevard to the south and parcels on both sides of Princes Drive. *D5. Boundary Justification:

The Princes Dr./Imperial Dr. Residential Historic District comprises a cohesive concentration of intact single-family residential properties from the late 1920s to the 1940s in the historic Rossmoyne Village development of Glendale. Residential development to the south and west of the historic district do not display similar levels of cohesion, architectural consistency, or integrity from the historic period. The properties to the east of the historic district are part of the designated Royal Boulevard Historic District.

D6. Significance: Theme: Suburban Development through World War II Area: Glendale Period of Significance: 1926-1941 Applicable Criteria: A, G The Princes Dr./Imperial Dr. Residential Historic District appears eligible for local designation as a City of Glendale Historic District under District Criteria A and G. This district is significant as a cohesive concentration of residential development from 1926 to 1941 in the historic Rossmoyne Village development, reflecting Glendale’s residential growth in the interwar years. The historic district retains its original planned boundary and zoning and reflects an evolving pattern of single-family development during the period of significance beginning in 1926 with the platting of Tract No. 7013 through 1941. Of the historic district’s 23 parcels, 20 of these contribute to its significance (approximately 87%); 2 are non-contributors and 1 is unevaluated because it is not visible from the public right-of-way.

The Princes Dr./Imperial Dr. Historic District comprises a portion of Tract No. 7013 platted in 1926 by the Security Trust and Savings Bank1 as part of the Royal Boulevard Subdivision developed by Standard Investments, Inc., in 1926. The Royal Boulevard subdivision is an extension of the original Rossmoyne Subdivision plated in 1923 by the Haddock-Nibley Company. (See continuation page)
*D7. References:
(See continuation page)
*D8. Evaluator: Adam Rajper, Robby Aranguren, Mariana Ruiz Date: June 1, 2026 Affiliation and Address: Historic Resources Group, 556 Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 101-514, Pasadena, California 91105 1 Tract No. 7013 (TR 0131-155), Land Records Information, Los Angeles County Public Works, Accessed June 2026, https://pw.lacounty.gov/smpm/landrecords/TractMaps.aspx# 1432 of 5188

Page 2 of 7 ends

Rossmoyne was conceived as a planned suburban community by the Haddock-Nibley Company, from Salt Lake City, Utah. In 1923, they purchased 800 acres of the Rossmoyne Ranch for a reported $2 million and built an Egyptian Revival style sales office at 1300 Verdugo Road (not extant). The land included expanses of citrus groves, live oak, and sycamore trees, and a rising mesa. The portion of land originally subdivided under the name “Rossmoyne” included land east of present-day Cordova Avenue, west of Mountain Street, and north of Verdugo Road as well as smaller portions south of Verdugo Road and north of Mountain Street.2 The community incorporated natural features, curving concrete streets, and lighting. Many lots were large with expansive views, aimed at upper middle-class buyers. Architectural covenants were imposed to control the character of the community, “mandating Period Revival styles,” minimum constructions costs to ensure a particular class of buyers, protection of open lands in the foothills, and race restrictions.3 The subdivision was accessible by the Glendale & Montrose Railway developed by the Holmes-Walton Company in 19134 along North Glendale Avenue.

In 1926, a second phase of Rossmoyne land, located in the hillside area of Rossmoyne’s northeastern corner, was subdivided and laid out as a series of narrow winding streets branching off Royal Boulevard.5 A 1926 article in the Glendale Evening News announcing the opening of the “Royal Boulevard unit” quoted Alex Nibley in saying that “practically every available inch of ground already developed” had been sold and the “Royal Boulevard unit is opening just in time” to meet demand for new homes in Rossmoyne.6
Construction in the Royal Boulevard subdivision began in 1926 and was designed in the Spanish or Mediterranean revival styles, featuring large hillside lots aimed at a higher income level than other sections of Rossmoyne. Reminiscent of a Mediterranean hill town with the wide sweep of Royal Boulevard serving as its centerpiece and formal entrance, the landscaped parkways on both sides of Royal Boulevard were planted with palm trees, enhancing the area’s “Spanish” qualities.7 In 1931, Alex Nibley announced that Standard Investments, Inc., an East Coast financial concern, had acquired over 450 acres of undeveloped land in Rossmoyne. According to the Los Angeles Times, the transaction called for Rossmoyne Investments & Securities to continue handling the sale of home sites.8 The Times also noted that Ernest Payson Goodrich, a New York community development consultant, would come to Glendale to direct the future planning of Rossmoyne. Financial difficulties continued within the Royal Boulevard subdivision from the 1929 Stock Market crash and subsequent economic Depression, halting construction until 1935 under a new development firm.9 There are 9 properties in the historic district that were built in the early period of development between 1926 and 1931.

In 1936, the opening of “Rossmoyne Village” was announced by Harry Welton, vice-president of a new real estate concern, Rossmoyne Properties, Inc.10 Rossmoyne Village is described as a new residential community immediately adjacent to the residential community “formerly known as Rossmoyne.” Advertisements for the new community also promoted plans for a neighborhood swimming pool, playgrounds, a second park, a community center, shopping center, and a college, at the intersection of Mountain Street and Verdugo Road, adjacent to the Glendale & Montrose Railway rail line. 11 Royal Boulevard became a focal point for Rossmoyne Village marketing featuring a French Revival model home at 1455 Royal Boulevard, opened in 1936. The home was sponsored as “Home of the Month” by McCall’s Magazine. 12 The French Revival
architecture of 1455 Royal Boulevard, together with the earlier construction of a Tudor-Revival style home at 1447 Royal Boulevard in 1935, ceased the Spanish/Mediterranean mandate on Royal Boulevard and welcomed more current architectural trends. The model home as a marketing tactic proved so successful that it was repeated at 1524 Royal Boulevard in 1939 with a showcase of “authentic English Cotswold architecture.”13
2 Historic Resources Group, Royal Boulevard Historic Resources Survey, City of Glendale Community Development Department, 2008, 16. 3 Architectural Resources Group, City of Glendale East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement, City of Glendale Community Development Department, 2026, 59. 4 Perry et al., Glendale: A Pictorial History, 79. As cited in As cited in City of Glendale East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement, 117. 5 Tract Map No. 7013. As cited in Royal Boulevard Historic Resources Survey, 20. 6 “Rossmoyne Will Offer New Unit”, Glendale Evening News, August 7, 1926. As cited in Royal Boulevard Historic Resources Survey, 21. 7 Royal Boulevard Historic Resources Survey, 21. 8 “Rossmoyne Brings Cash From East”, Los Angeles Times, January 29, 1931. As cited in Royal Boulevard Historic Resources Survey, 24. 9 Royal Boulevard Historic Resources Survey, 22. 10 “Home Tract Announced”, Los Angeles Times, June 28, 1936. As cited in Royal Boulevard Historic Resources Survey, 24. 11 Display advertisement, Los Angeles Times, August 9, 1936. As cited in Royal Boulevard Historic Resources Survey, 24. 12 “Model Home’s Opening Set for Today”, Los Angeles Times, September 27, 1937. As cited in Royal Boulevard Historic Resources Survey, 26. 13 “Master Model Home Opened Today”, Los Angeles Times, March 19, 1939. 1433 of 5188 As cited in Royal Boulevard Historic Resources Survey, 26.

Page 3 of 7 ends

Development within the historic district continued after the purchase of Rossmoyne Village, Inc., with infill development within previously subdivided areas. Following national trends, houses constructed in the post-war era largely abandoned period revival architectural styles in favor of new variations of the modern styles introduced in the pre-war years, primarily the Minimal Traditional and the Ranch styles.
15 Large-scale residential development in Rossmoyne came to an end in the late 1970s. Some of the last residential subdivisions in Rossmoyne would occur in 1977 along Greenbrier Road north of the Markham estate.16 In 2008, the Royal Boulevard Historic District was locally designated. Developed between 1926 and 1948, it is significant as a distinctive example of community planning and a unique location representing an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood community. The proposed historic district is immediately adjacent to the Royal Boulevard Historic District and has a similar development pattern and residential character. Both the Royal Boulevard Historic District and proposed historic district contain individually eligible properties due to their architectural merit.

The Princes Dr./Imperial Dr. Residential Historic District remains a cohesive collection of single-family residences constructed between 1926 and 1941. While some of the district’s properties were altered over time, the majority of them have not been substantially altered beyond recognition that they no longer contribute to the historic district’s significance. Two of the properties were demolished and have been infilled with more recent development from the 2000s. Contributing properties in the district typically retain their original setbacks, scale and massing, plans, style, and character-defining features. They are primarily designed in the Period Revival architectural styles, including Spanish Colonial Revival, American Colonial Revival, Tudor Revival, French Revival, Monterey Revival, and some have been designed in various Ranch styles. Contributing features to the historic district include its curvilinear street pattern, concrete curbs, trees and vegetation, period streetlights, sidewalk and parkways.

D7. References (continued):

Architectural Resources Group. City of Glendale East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement. City of Glendale Community Development Department. 2026.

Historic Resources Group. Royal Boulevard Historic Resources Survey. City of Glendale Community Development Department. 2008.

Los Angeles County Assessor-Recorder.

Land Records Information. Los Angeles County Public Works. Accessed June 2026. https://pw.lacounty.gov/smpm/landrecords/TractMaps.aspx# 14 “Large Acreage at Rossmoyne Purchased by Glendale Firm”, Los Angeles Times, March 14, 1948. As cited in Royal Boulevard Historic Resources Survey, 28. 15 Royal Boulevard Historic Resources Survey, 29. 16 Royal Boulevard Historic Resources Survey, 29. 1434 of 5188

Page 4 of 7 ends

Page 5 of 7 ends

Page 6 of 7 ends

*Recorded by: Historical Resources Group *Date: June 1, 2026  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________________ Property List
APN Address Type Date Style Status Status
Code
5650-025-011 1341 Imperial Dr Single-family
residential
1938 French Revival Contributor 7PDC
5650-025-010 1345 Imperial Dr Single-family
residential
1936 American Colonial
Revival
Contributor 7PDC
5650-026-021 1348 Imperial Dr Single-family
residential
1934 Tudor Revival Unevaluated 7R
5650-026-026 1368 Imperial Dr Single-family
residential
2008 No Style Noncontributor
(outside
period of
significance)
7PDNC
5650-025-009 1401 Imperial Dr Single-family
residential
1928 American Colonial
Revival
Contributor 7PDC
5650-025-008 1407 Imperial Dr Single-family
residential
1932 Tudor Revival Individually
significant,
Contributor
5S1, 7PDC
5650-026-019 1410 Imperial Dr Single-family
residential
1934 Spanish Colonial
Revival
Contributor 7PDC
5650-025-007 1413 Imperial Dr Single-family
residential
1928 Spanish Colonial
Revival
Contributor 7PDC
5650-025-006 1419 Imperial Dr Single-family
residential
1930 Mediterranean
Revival
Contributor 7PDC
5650-026-017 1422 Imperial Dr Single-family
residential
1929 Spanish Colonial
Revival
Contributor 7PDC
5650-025-027 1425 Imperial Dr Single-family
residential
1931 Monterey Revival Contributor 7PDC
5650-026-024 1428 Imperial Dr Single-family
residential
1933 Spanish Colonial
Revival
Individually
significant,
Contributor
5S1, 7PDC
5650-025-003 1433 Imperial Dr Single-family
residential
1928 Spanish Colonial
Revival
Contributor 7PDC
5650-026-003 1436 Imperial Dr Single-family
residential
1940 Tudor Revival Contributor 7PDC
5650-025-002 1437 Imperial Dr Single-family
residential
2003 Spanish Colonial
Revival
Noncontributor
(outside
period of
significance)
7PDNC
5650-026-004 1442 Imperial Dr Single-family
residential
1927 Tudor Revival Contributor 7PDC
5650-025-001 1445 Imperial Dr Single-family
residential
1937 Spanish Colonial
Revival
Contributor 7PDC
5650-026-005 1446 Imperial Dr Single-family
residential
1940 Tudor Revival Contributor 7PDC
5650-026-006 1450 Imperial Dr Single-family
residential
1930 Tudor Revival Contributor 7PDC
5650-025-012 1510 Princes Dr Single-family
residential
1930 Spanish Colonial
Revival
Contributor 7PDC
5650-024-016 1515 Princes Dr Single-family
residential
1934 Spanish Colonial
Revival
Contributor 7PDC
5650-024-015 1525 Princes Dr Single-family
residential
1940 Ranch, Minimal Contributor 7PDC
1437 of 5188

Page 7 of 7 ends

Page 1 of 8 ends

P1. Other Identifier: Riverside Drive Equestrian Commercial Historic District *P2. Location:  Not for Publication  Unrestricted
*a. County Los Angeles
*b. USGS 7.5' Quad Date T ; R ; of of Sec ; B.M.
c. Address Various addresses City Glendale Zip 91201
d. UTM: Zone , mE/ mN
e. Other Locational Data: Various APNs
*P3a. Description:

The Riverside Drive Equestrian Commercial Historic District is located in the northwestern portion of Glendale. Comprising four properties on the south side of Riverside Drive and adjacent Irving Avenue between the city’s boundary with Burbank and the Burbank Western Channel, the district contains the most intact and cohesive grouping of vernacular commercial buildings, outbuildings, and structures related to the area’s equestrian-related recreational development between the 1940s and the 1970s.

Properties in the district are one- and two-story buildings situated on large, generally rectangular lots and include structures and features related to their equestrian use. All four properties contribute to the district’s significance and were constructed between 1940 and 1972. A fifth equestrian-related property from this period, 1900 Riverside Drive, is associated with the district’s broader patterns of development; however, it does not retain sufficient integrity to convey its association and is excluded from the district boundary.
*P3b. Resource Attributes: HP2. Single family property; HP4. Ancillary building; HP6. 1-3 story commercial building; HP33.

Farm/ranch; HP46. Walls/gates/fences
*P4. Resources Present: Building Structure
Object Site District Element of District
Other
P5b. Description of Photo: Riverside Drive, view
southeast, April 2026
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Source:
 Historic  Prehistoric  Both
1940-1972, LAC Tax Assessor
*P7. Owner and Address: Not Recorded
*P8. Recorded by:

Mary Ringhoff, Kiara Hosseinion
Architectural Resources Group
360 E 2nd St #225, Los Angeles, CA 90012
*P9. Date Recorded: April-May 2026
*P10. Survey Type: Intensive
*P11. Report Citation: ARG, “East-West Glendale
Study Area Intensive Survey,” (prepared for the City of Glendale, 2026).
*Attachments:  NONE  Location Map  Continuation Sheet  Building, Structure, and Object Record  Archaeological Record  District Record  Linear Feature Record  Milling Station Record  Rock Art Record  Artifact Record  Photograph Record  Other (List):

P5a. Photograph
1439 of 5188
*NRHP Status Code: 5D3
DPR 523D (9/2013) *Required information
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________________ DISTRICT RECORD Trinomial

Page 2 of 8 ends

*Resource Name or #: Riverside Drive Equestrian Commercial Historic District D1. Historic Name: River Bottom/Riverside Rancho
D2. Common Name: Riverside Drive Equestrian Commercial Historic District *D3. Detailed Description:

The Riverside Drive Equestrian Commercial Historic District contains a total of four properties, all of which (100%) contribute to its historic significance. Although associated with the district’s broader patterns of development, a fifth equestrian-related property at 1900 Riverside Drive was excluded from the district boundary due to insufficient integrity. Contributing properties are one- and twostory equestrian recreational-commercial complexes constructed between 1940 and 1972 in a predominantly vernacular architectural idiom. Collectively, they retain the distinctive physical characteristics associated with the area's long-standing horseoriented commercial economy, including stables, barns, corrals, riding arenas, loafing sheds, hay-storage facilities, wash racks, and ancillary service buildings arranged to support equestrian activities. Buildings are generally modest in design, reflecting their utilitarian/recreational purpose.
(continued on page 3)
*D4. Boundary Description:

The Riverside Drive Equestrian Commercial Historic District is bounded by Riverside Drive to the north, the Burbank Western Channel to the east, Allen Avenue (east side) and the adjacent City of Burbank boundary to the west, and a bridle trail to the south at the junction of the Cities of Glendale and Burbank. The bridle trail, which is accessible via bridges at Allen and Irving Avenues, connects to a larger network of bridle trails that serve the surrounding equestrian community and provide access to the Los Angeles Equestrian Center, the Los Angeles River, and Griffith Park. The contributing properties front on the south side of Riverside Drive and adjacent Irving Avenue.
*D5. Boundary Justification:

The boundaries of the Riverside Drive Equestrian Commercial Historic District were drawn to encompass the remaining cohesive and intact collection of vernacular commercial buildings, outbuildings, and associated structures that reflect the area’s equestrianrelated recreational development. Unlike a planned development created by a single developer, the district appears to have evolved incrementally through piecemeal construction by individual property owners. The district boundaries are therefore limited to the southern portion of Riverside Drive and adjacent Irving Avenue, where sufficient historic integrity remains to convey the area's association with commercial and equestrian-related recreational development between 1940 and 1972.

D6. Significance: Theme: Pre-World War II Commercial Development (1904-1944), Post-World War II Commercial Development (1945-2000) Area: Glendale
Period of Significance: 1940-1972 Applicable Criteria: A, G Summary Statement of Significance:

The Riverside Drive Equestrian Commercial District appears eligible for local designation as a City of Glendale Historic District under District Criteria A and G. It is significant for its association with historic patterns of commercial-recreational development in Glendale, which resulted in the district’s distinctive character as an enclave for equestrian activity. Located within an area historically known as both the “River Bottom” and the “Riverside Rancho,” the district represents the commercial center of a broader equestrian landscape that developed throughout the early and mid-twentieth century.1 The district’s four properties, all developed between 1940 and 1972, contribute to its significance. As a cohesive grouping, they reflect the longstanding importance of horse culture in Glendale and the adjacent communities of Burbank and Los Angeles. (continued on page 3) *D7. References: (continued on page 4)
*D8. Evaluator: Mary Ringhoff, Brannon Smithwick, Kiara Hosseinion Date: June 18, 2026 Affiliation and Address: Architectural Resources Group, 360 E. 2nd Street #225, Los Angeles, CA 90012 1 “Hoss Auction,” Los Angeles Times, June 2, 1940, 104. 1440 of 5188

Page 3 of 8 ends

The district includes a range of equestrian-related property types. The complex at 110 Irving Avenue contains multiple buildings and structures, including at least two single-family residences, stables, barns, sheds, corrals, and a fenced riding arena. The property at 1820 Riverside Drive, which was originally a single-family residence, consists of a two-story primary corner building fronting Riverside Drive with an attached stable at the rear, accompanied by ancillary structures including loafing and storage sheds. The property at 1830 Riverside Drive contains a one-story stable, a fenced riding arena, and loafing shed. 1840 Riverside Drive includes three buildings: a commercial tack and feed store, a Quonset hut, and a one-story stable with associated corrals and wash racks.

Some alterations have occurred throughout the district; however, most have not obscured the original design, configuration, or function of individual buildings and structures. As a result, the district continues to convey its historic association with the equestrianbased commercial economy that has long been central to the community's identity.

D6. Significance (continued from page 2):

The period of significance has been identified as 1940 to 1972, encompassing the district’s primary period of development and continued growth as a hub for equestrian activities. The district contains four contributing properties, all of which retain strong associations with their historic equestrian functions. Collectively, these properties have provided horse boarding facilities, riding academies, feed stores, and other services supporting the local equestrian community. The district also includes a single-family residence at 1820 Riverside Drive, which retains a horse barn at the rear of the property. Similarly, the property at 110 Irving Avenue historically included residential accommodations, likely serving as housing for individuals responsible for the around-theclock care and supervision of horses.2 Since the early twentieth century, the River Bottom has served as the focal point of equestrian activity in the area. By the 1920s, riding academies had been established along Riverside Drive, attracting a variety of related businesses and facilities. Horse boarding stables, feed stores, restaurants, and other commercial enterprises soon emerged to support the growing equestrian community. The district developed adjacent to the residential neighborhood historically known as “Riverside Rancho,” a planned residential community developed primarily by the Fritz B. Burns Company during the 1930s.3 Unlike many Southern California neighborhoods of the period, Riverside Rancho was specifically designed to accommodate horse ownership. In place of, or alongside, the backyard swimming pools common in suburban developments, many homes included detached horse stables and direct access to equestrian amenities. Contemporary advertisements emphasized this distinctive lifestyle, proclaiming, “Corral? Of course. Why live in Riverside Ranchos if one is not an addict of spur and saddle!”4 The district also occupies a strategic location within a larger network of bridle trails serving Glendale, Burbank, and Los Angeles.

These trails provide direct access to Griffith Park and have long-connected residential and commercial equestrian facilities throughout the area. All of the district’s contributing properties retain access to this network through bridges located at the southern termini of Allen and Irving Avenues.

The development of the Riverside Drive Equestrian Commercial District coincided with the peak period of equestrian-oriented residential and commercial growth in the area. As riding academies, horse boarding facilities, and equestrian neighborhoods expanded throughout the mid-twentieth century, the district emerged as the commercial heart of the local equestrian community.

Today, the district remains a rare and cohesive concentration of properties associated with Glendale’s enduring equestrian heritage. 2 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from Glendale, California 1925 vol. 2A, 1925-Oct. 1950, Sheet 299P, Los Angeles Public Library Digital Sanborn Maps, 1867-1970 Collection. 3 Fritz B. Burns And Company ad, Los Angeles Evening Citizen News, May 7, 1938. 4 “The House Moved Out to the Horse,” Los Angeles Times, November 6, 1949, 190. 1441 of 5188

Page 4 of 8 ends

Architectural Resources Group. “City of Glendale East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement-DRAFT.” Prepared for the City of Glendale, April 13, 2026.

City of Glendale. Glendale Register of Historic Resources. Glendale Municipal Code, Chapter 15.20 (1997). “Frame Finder.” Special Research Collections, UCSB Library, University of California Santa Barbara. Accessed August 2025. https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder/.

Glendale News-Press. Various dates (as noted in footnotes). “Historic Aerials.” NETRONLINE. Accessed August 2025. https://www.historicaerials.com/.

Historic Resources Group. “South Glendale Historic Context Statement.” Prepared for the City of Glendale Planning Division, September 15, 2014.

Jenna Snow, Historic Preservation Consulting. “Historic Resource Assessment, Silver Spur Stables, 1900 Riverside Drive, Glendale CA, 91201.” August 2018.

Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. Land Records Information: Tract Maps. Accessed September 2025. https://dpw.lacounty.gov/smpm/landrecords/TractMaps.aspx.

Los Angeles Evening Express. Various dates (as noted in footnotes).

Los Angeles Times. Various dates (as noted in footnotes).

Sherer, John Calvin. History of Glendale and Vicinity. Glendale, CA: Glendale History Publishing Company, 1922.

Snow, Jenna and Kathryn McGee. “Mariposa Street Bridge - DRAFT.” National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 2024, Reference ##100010110.

Southwest Wave. Various dates (as noted in footnotes).

Van Nuys Valley Times. Various dates (as noted in footnotes). 1442 of 5188
Resource Name or #: Riverside Drive Equestrian Commercial Historic District *Date:  Continuation  Update
DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________________

Page 5 of 8 ends

*Recorded by: Architectural Resources Group
Context Views
View south on Riverside Drive. View southwest on Riverside Drive.

View west on Riverside Drive. View southwest of 1840 Riverside Drive.

View southeast of TriKee Tack at 1840 Riverside Drive.
1443 of 5188

Page 6 of 8 ends

*Recorded by: Architectural Resources Group *Date:  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial__________________________________________________________ Table 1. Riverside Drive Equestrian Commercial Historic District Properties APN Address Type Date Style Status Status Code
5626-006-001 110 Irving Ave
Equestrian
Stables/Facilities 1940
Minimal
Traditional
District
contributor 7PDC
5626-006-002
1820 Riverside
Dr
Single-family residential
with rear stables 1949
Residential
Vernacular
District
contributor 7PDC
5625-031-010
1830 Riverside
Dr
Equestrian
Stables/Facilities 1973 Vernacular
District
contributor 7PDC
5625-031-009
1840 Riverside
Dr
Equestrian
Stables/Facilities 1943 Vernacular
District
contributor 7PDC
1444 of 5188

Page 7 of 8 ends

DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________________ LOCATION MAP Trinomial
Map Name: Riverside Drive Equestrian Commercial Historic District Location Map Scale: 1:24,000 Date: June 18, 2026 1445 of 5188
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial__________________________________________________________

Page 8 of 8 ends

*Recorded by: Architectural Resources Group *Date:  Continuation  Update DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
Map Name: Riverside Drive Equestrian Commercial Historic District Survey Findings Map Date: June 18, 2026 1446 of 5188

Page 1 of 1 ends

DPR 523A (9/2013) *Required information
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________________ PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial __________________________________________________________ NRHP Status Code: 5D3_______________________________________________ Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date ________________
P1. Other Identifier: W. Glenoaks Blvd./Cleveland Rd. to Highland Ave. Multi-Family Residential Historic District *P2. Location:  Not for Publication  Unrestricted
*a. County: Los Angeles
*b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Date: T:, R: B.M.
c. Address: Various City: Glendale Zip: 91202
d. UTM: Zone mE/mN
e. Other Locational Data: Various APNs
*P3a. Description:

The W. Glenoaks Blvd./Cleveland Rd. to Highland Ave. Multi-Family Residential Historic District is located along W. Glenoaks Boulevard in the northwest area of Glendale, California. The district occupies flat terrain and includes parcels on both sides of W. Glenoaks Boulevard between Cleveland Road on the west and Alma Street on the east. The rectangular district comprises five linear blocks developed exclusively with one-and-two story multi-family residences dating from the late 1930s through 1950. Residences occupy rectangular lots typically measuring 50 feet wide and 120 feet deep, with detached rear garages accessed via alleyways. Residences are designed predominately in the Minimal Traditional style with a few Period Revival examples, including the Spanish Colonial Revival and Tudor Revival styles. District planning features include uniform setbacks, concrete curbs and sidewalks, parkways lined with palm trees; and a landscaped center median.

The W. Glenoaks Blvd./Cleveland Rd. to Highland Ave. Multi-Family Residential Historic District consists of 47 properties. Of these, 39 were evaluated as contributors to the historic district (approximately 83%); 8 are non-contributors. *P3b. Resource Attributes: HP3. Multiple family
property
*P4. Resources Present: Building Structure 
Object Site District Element of District Other
P5b. Description of Photo: View southeast. HRG, 2026.
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Source: 1937-1955, Los
Angeles County Assessor
 Historic  Prehistoric  Both
*P7. Owner and Address: Not recorded
*P8. Recorded by:

Page 1 of 8 ends

*Resource Name or #: W. Glenoaks Blvd./Cleveland Rd. to Highland Ave. Multi-Family Residential Historic District DPR 523D (9/2013) *Required information
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________________ DISTRICT RECORD Trinomial
D1. Historic Name:

D2. Common Name: W. Glenoaks Blvd./Cleveland Rd. to Highland Ave. Multi-Family Residential Historic District *D3. Detailed Description:

Glenoaks Boulevard between Cleveland Road on the west and Alma Street on the east. The rectangular district comprises five linear blocks developed exclusively with one-and-two story multi-family residences dating from the late 1930s through 1950.

Residences occupy rectangular lots typically measuring 50 feet wide and 120 feet deep, with detached rear garages accessed via alleyways. Residences are designed predominately in the Minimal Traditional style with a few Period Revival examples, including the Spanish Colonial Revival and Tudor Revival styles. District planning features include uniform setbacks, concrete curbs and sidewalks, parkways lined with palm trees; and a landscaped center median.

The W. Glenoaks Blvd./Cleveland Rd. to Highland Ave. Multi-Family Residential Historic District is bounded by Cleveland Road on the west, Alma Street on the west, and alleyways on the north and south. *D5. Boundary Justification:

The W. Glenoaks Blvd./Cleveland Rd. to Highland Ave. Multi-Family Residential Historic District comprises a cohesive concentration of intact multi-family residential properties from 1930 through the 1950s along Glenoaks Boulevard in the northwest area of Glendale. Surrounding areas of residential development do not display similar levels of cohesion of multi-family residential construction in line with the historic theme. The commercial parcels along W. Glenoaks Blvd have also been excluded from the district boundaries due to thematic differences and extensive alterations.

D6. Significance: Theme: Pre-World War II Multi-Family Residential Development (1910-1944); Post-World War II Multi-Family Residential Development (1945-2000)
Area: Glendale Period of Significance: 1937-1955 Applicable Criteria: A, G The W. Glenoaks Blvd./Cleveland Rd. to Highland Ave. Multi-Family Residential Historic District appears eligible for local designation as a City of Glendale Historic District under District Criteria A and G. This district is significant as a cohesive concentration of multi-family residential development from 1937 through 1955 along W. Glenoaks Boulevard in the northwest side of Glendale, reflecting the city’s residential growth in the interwar years and expansion during the post-World War II period. The historic district retains its original tract boundary and reflects the evolving pattern of multi-family development during the period of significance beginning in 1937 with the initial development of Tract no. 8419, through the end of its postwar development in 1955. Of the historic district’s 47 parcels, 39 of these contribute to its significance (approximately 83%); 8 are non-contributors.

The W. Glenoaks Blvd./Cleveland Rd. to Highland Ave. Multi-Family Residential Historic District comprises portions of lot 1, block 8 and portions of lot 1, block 9 of the original Pelanconi Tract, platted in 1927 by the heirs of the Pelanconi family. The Pelanconi tract was subdivided into smaller residential tracts, including Tract no. 8419, 11040, and 11150 in the 1930’s by the Title Guarantee and Trust Company, encompassing portions of the historic district. (see continuation page) *D7. References:

Aerial Photography Collection. University of California, Santa Barbara Library.

Architectural Resources Group. City of Glendale East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement. City of Glendale Community Development Department. 2026.

Los Angeles County Assessor-Recorder.

Land Records Information. Los Angeles County Public Works. Accessed June 2026. https://pw.lacounty.gov/smpm/landrecords/TractMaps.aspx# Los Angeles Times via Proquest. Los Angeles Public Library.

Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps. Los Angeles Public Library. *D8. Evaluator: Adam Rajper, Robby Aranguren, Mariana Ruiz Date: June 1, 2026 Affiliation and Address: Historic Resources Group, 556 S. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 101-514, Pasadena, CA 91105 1448 of 5188

Page 2 of 8 ends

In 1881, the Pelanconi family, headed by Antonio and Isabela Pelanconi, settled on a ranch of 212 acres in the future Glenwood Road area and planted a vineyard on their land.1 In 1911, the Pacific Electric (PE) Company developed the Burbank Line along Glenoaks Boulevard into Burbank, acquiring the right-of-way through the Pelanconi vineyard prior to the development of the land.

The introduction of the interurban line stimulated subdivisions around them and became magnets for multi-family housing and commercial activity along the routes. The PE Red Car line that ran along Glenoaks facilitated mixed-use development along the route, persisting even after the streetcar gave way to automobiles.2

In the late 1920s, the Pelanconi vineyard was subdivided into residential lots after about a decade of probate. The Pelanconi heirs sold the 212-acre property to developers for a reported $1 million. In 1930, the W.I. Hollingsworth Company announced it would put a 150-acre tract in the area on the market pending street improvements. According to the Los Angeles Times, frontage along San Fernando Boulevard and West Glenoaks Boulevard was zoned for business while the remainder of the tract for residential development.
3 Between 1930 and 1936, the Pelanconi tract was subdivided into three tracts – Tract no. 8419, 11040, and 11150 – between Grandview and Highland Avenues by the Title Guarantee and Trust Company.4 In 1937, construction of a series of multifamily dwellings was launched in the historic district, between Cleveland Road and Pelanconi Avenue. The plan was to develop 3,000 feet of frontage on Glenoaks in this area which would be restricted to income property. G.D. Robertson & Co., Inc. was the main developer of these multi-family projects totaling $75,000. They were largely two-story fourplexes and duplexes with uniform setbacks and a minimum of 10 feet between dwellings – all conforming to FHA regulations.5 Through a combination of developers, this area of W. Glenoaks Boulevard came to be developed with Period Revival and Minimal Traditional two-story apartment buildings starting in the late 1930s.6 During this early period of development, fourteen properties were built in the historic district between 1937 and 1940; eight additional properties were constructed between 1941 and 1942, as listed in the table below.

The district saw a second surge of development in the postwar period. Sanborn maps from 1950 depict the historic district nearly built out with mainly duplexes, two-flats, three-flats, and four-flats. The surrounding north and south radiating streets were dominated by single-family homes. The PE street line service to Burbank ceased in 1955, the same year the historic district was completely developed, according to the assessor’s record. By 1962, aerial photographs depict the streetcar rail along W. Glenoaks Blvd. replaced by a concrete center median with landscaping.

Contributing properties in the district are primarily designed in the Minimal Traditional style, with some in Period Revival examples, including the Spanish Colonial Revival and Tudor Revival styles. The historic district also retains its original planning features, including its concrete curbs and sidewalks, parkways, landscaping, and center median. While some alterations have occurred, the district retains sufficient integrity to convey its significance. Contributing properties generally retain the majority of their characterdefining features, including their original setback, scale and massing, configuration, and style. 1 Architectural Resources Group, “South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey,” prepared for the City of Glendale, November 8, 2021, 13; “Purchase Valuable Tract,” Los Angeles Times, August 14, 1926; “Estate to be Placed in Market,” Los Angeles Times, March 23, 1930; Perry and Parcher, Glendale Area History, 6-8. As cited in Architectural Resources Group, City of Glendale East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement, City of Glendale Community Development Department, 2026, 27. 2 City of Glendale East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement, 47. 3 “Estate To Be Placed on Market,” Los Angeles Times, March 23, 1930. As cited in City of Glendale East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement, 68. 4 Tract no. 8419 (TR0171-048) map; Tract no. 11040 (TR0193-018) map; Tract no. 11150 (TR0195-021) map, Land Records Information, Los Angeles County Public Works, accessed June 2026, https://pw.lacounty.gov/smpm/landrecords/TractMaps.aspx#. 5 “Glendale Park Multiple Units to Cost $75,000,” Los Angeles Times, April 25, 1937; “Glendale Area Building Active,” Los Angeles Times, August 21, 1938; “Extensive Frontage Set Aside for Multiple-Housing Units,” Los Angeles Times, July 24, 1938. As cited in City of Glendale East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement, 95. 6 City of Glendale East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement, 95.1449 of 5188

Page 3 of 8 ends

Page 4 of 8 ends

Page 5 of 8 ends

*Recorded by: Historic Resources Group *Date: June 1, 2026  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________________ Property List
APN Address Type Date Style Status Status
Code
5628-034-028 922 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Fourplex
1955 Minimal Traditional Contributor 7PDC
5628-017-033 927 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Apartment house
1951 Minimal Traditional Contributor 7PDC
5628-034-027 928 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Apartment house
1953 Minimal Traditional Contributor 7PDC
5628-028-004 929 Idlewood Rd Multi-family
residential -
Apartment house
1938 Minimal Traditional Noncontributor
(extensively
altered)
7PDNC
5628-017-017 931 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Apartment house
1939 American Colonial
Revival
Contributor 7PDC
5628-034-035 932 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Courtyard
apartment
1954 Minimal Traditional Contributor 7PDC
5628-034-002 934 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Courtyard
apartment
1954 Minimal Traditional Contributor 7PDC
5628-017-016 937 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Apartment house
1945 Tudor Revival Contributor 7PDC
5628-034-001 938 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Apartment house
1954 Minimal Traditional Contributor 7PDC
5628-017-015 941 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Apartment house
1940 Ranch, Traditional Contributor 7PDC
5628-017-014 947 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Apartment house
1944 Minimal Traditional Contributor 7PDC
5628-017-013 951 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Apartment house
1938 Minimal Traditional Noncontributor
(extensively
altered)
7PDNC
5628-033-004 952 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Courtyard
apartment
1944 Minimal Traditional Contributor 7PDC
5628-017-012 955 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Apartment house
1940 Minimal Traditional Contributor 7PDC
5628-033-003 956 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Courtyard
apartment
1939 Minimal Traditional Contributor 7PDC
5628-017-011 959 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Apartment house
1942 Minimal Traditional Contributor 7PDC
1452 of 5188

Page 6 of 8 ends

*Recorded by: Historic Resources Group *Date: June 1, 2026  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________________ APN Address Type Date Style Status Status
Code
5628-033-002 960 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Courtyard
apartment
1941 Minimal Traditional Noncontributor
(extensively
altered)
7PDNC
5628-030-002 970 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Apartment house
1946 Minimal Traditional Contributor 7PDC
5628-020-012 973 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Courtyard
apartment
1937 Minimal Traditional Contributor 7PDC
5628-030-001 976 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Courtyard
apartment
1937 Minimal Traditional Contributor 7PDC
5628-020-025 977 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Apartment house
1937 Minimal Traditional Contributor 7PDC
5628-030-035 980 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Courtyard
apartment
1946 Minimal Traditional Noncontributor
(extensively
altered)
7PDNC
5628-020-024 981 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Duplex
1941 Minimal Traditional Contributor 7PDC
5628-030-017 984 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Courtyard
apartment
1940 Minimal Traditional Noncontributor
(extensively
altered)
7PDNC
5628-030-016 988 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Apartment house
1948 Minimal Traditional Contributor 7PDC
5628-029-005 1000 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Apartment house
1946 Tudor Revival Contributor 7PDC
5628-021-013 1001 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Triplex
1940 Minimal Traditional Contributor 7PDC
5628-029-004 1006 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Courtyard
apartment
1944 Minimal Traditional Contributor 7PDC
5628-021-012 1007 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Apartment house
1948 Minimal Traditional Contributor 7PDC
5628-029-003 1010 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Courtyard
apartment
1942 Minimal Traditional Contributor 7PDC
5628-021-011 1011 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Apartment house
1946 Minimal Traditional Contributor 7PDC
5628-029-002 1014 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Triplex
1944 Minimal Traditional Contributor 7PDC
1453 of 5188

Page 7 of 8 ends

*Recorded by: Historic Resources Group *Date: June 1, 2026  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________________ APN Address Type Date Style Status Status
Code
5628-021-010 1015 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Apartment house
1939 Minimal Traditional Contributor 7PDC
5628-029-001 1018 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Apartment house
1946 Minimal Traditional Contributor 7PDC
5628-024-011 1029 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Fourplex
1941 Minimal Traditional Noncontributor
(extensively
altered)
7PDNC
5628-028-003 1032 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Courtyard
apartment
1944 Minimal Traditional Contributor 7PDC
5628-024-010 1033 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Apartment house
1944 Minimal Traditional Contributor 7PDC
5628-024-009 1037 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Apartment house
1941 Minimal Traditional Noncontributor
(extensively
altered)
7PDNC
5628-028-002 1038 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Courtyard
apartment
1944 Minimal Traditional Contributor 7PDC
5628-028-001 1042 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Courtyard
apartment
1944 Minimal Traditional Contributor 7PDC
5628-024-008 1043 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Duplex
1945 Minimal Traditional Contributor 7PDC
5628-024-007 1047 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Apartment house
1945 Minimal Traditional Contributor 7PDC
5628-020-023 1104 Graynold Ave Multi-family
residential -
Apartment house
1947 Minimal Traditional Contributor 7PDC
5628-021-009 1102 Idlewood Rd Multi-family
residential -
Fourplex
1941 Tudor Revival Contributor 7PDC
5628-033-001 926 Norton Ave Multi-family
residential -
Apartment house
1937 Minimal Traditional Noncontributor
(extensively
altered)
7PDNC
5628-020-013 1101 Norton Ave Multi-family
residential -
Apartment house
1937 Minimal Traditional Contributor 7PDC
5628-033-005 927 Pelanconi Ave Multi-family
residential -
Apartment house
1941 Minimal Traditional Contributor 7PDC
1454 of 5188

Page 8 of 8 ends

Page 1 of 1 ends

DPR 523A (9/2013) *Required information
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________________ PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial __________________________________________________________ NRHP Status Code: 5D3_______________________________________________ Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date ________________
P1. Other Identifier: W. Glenoaks Blvd./Highland Ave. to Kenilworth Ave. Multi-Family Residential Historic District *P2. Location:  Not for Publication  Unrestricted
*a. County: Los Angeles
*b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Date: T: , R: ; B.M.
c. Address: Various City: Zip: 91202
d. UTM: mE/mN
e. Other Locational Data: Various APNs
*P3a. Description:

Glenoaks Boulevard between Highland Avenue on the west and Beulah Street on the east. The district is rectangular in shape and comprises two linear blocks on the north side and three linear blocks on the south side developed primarily with one-and-two story multi-family residences dating from the mid-1920s through the early 1950s. Residences occupy rectangular lots typically measuring 50 feet wide and 120 feet deep, with detached rear garages accessed via driveways. Residences are designed predominately in the Minimal Traditional style with a few Period Revival examples, including the Spanish Colonial Revival, Tudor Revival, and American Colonial Revival styles. District planning features include uniform setbacks, concrete curbs and sidewalks, parkways lined with palm trees, and a landscaped center median.

The W. Glenoaks Blvd-Cleveland Rd to Highland Ave Multi-Family Residential Historic District consists of 67 parcels. Of these, 50 were evaluated as contributors to the historic district (approximately 75%); 17 are non-contributors. *P3b. Resource Attributes: HP2. Single family
property; HP3. Multiple family property
*P4. Resources Present:  Building Structure 
Object Site District Element of District Other
P5b. Description of Photo: View south. HRG, 2026.
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Source: 1924-1953,
Los Angeles County Assessor
 Historic  Prehistoric  Both
*P7. Owner and Address: Not recorded
*P8. Recorded by:

Page 1 of 9 ends

*Resource Name or #: W. Glenoaks Blvd./Highland Ave. to Kenilworth Ave. Multi-Family Residential Historic District DPR 523D (9/2013) *Required information
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________________ DISTRICT RECORD Trinomial
D1. Historic Name:

D2. Common Name: W. Glenoaks Blvd./Highland Ave. to Kenilworth Ave. Multi-Family Residential Historic District *D3. Detailed Description:

The W. Glenoaks Blvd./Highland Ave. to Kenilworth Ave. Multi-Family Residential Historic District is located along W. Glenoaks Boulevard in the northwest portion of E-W Glendale. The historic district occupies flat terrain and includes parcels on both sides of W. Glenoaks Boulevard between Highland Avenue on the west and Beulah Street on the east. The district is rectangular in shape and comprises two linear blocks on the north side and three linear blocks on the south side developed primarily with one-and-two story multi-family residences dating from the mid-1920s through the early 1950s. Residences occupy rectangular lots typically measuring 50 feet wide and 120 feet deep, with detached rear garages accessed via driveways. Residences are designed predominately in the Minimal Traditional style with a few Period Revival examples, including the Spanish Colonial Revival, Tudor Revival, and American Colonial Revival styles. District planning features include uniform setbacks, concrete curbs and sidewalks, parkways lined with palm trees, and a landscaped center median.

The W. Glenoaks Blvd./Highland Ave. to Kenilworth Ave. Multi-Family Residential Historic District consists of 67 parcels. Of these, 50 were evaluated as contributors to the historic district (approximately 75%); 17 are non-contributors. *D4. Boundary Description:

The W. Glenoaks Blvd./Highland Ave. to Kenilworth Ave. Multi-Family Residential Historic District is bounded by the east lot lines of commercial parcels along Glenoaks Boulevard on the west; the rear lot lines of parcels fronting Glenoaks Boulevard on the north; the west lot lines of commercial parcels along Glenoaks Boulevard on the east and Beulah Street on the east; and the rear lot lines of parcels fronting Glenoaks Boulevard on the south.
*D5. Boundary Justification:

The W. Glenoaks Blvd./Highland Ave. to Kenilworth Ave. Multi-Family Residential Historic District comprises a cohesive concentration of intact multi-family residential properties from the mid-1920s through the early 1950s along Glenoaks Boulevard in the northwest area of Glendale. Surrounding areas of residential development do not display similar levels of cohesion of multi-family residential construction in line with the historic theme. The commercial parcels along W. Glenoaks Blvd have also been excluded from the district boundaries due to thematic differences and extensive alterations.

D6. Significance: Theme: Pre-World War II Multi-Family Residential Development (1910-1944); Post-World War II Multi-Family Residential Development (1945-2000)
Area: Glendale Period of Significance: 1924-1953 Applicable Criteria: A, G The W. Glenoaks Blvd./Highland Ave. to Kenilworth Ave. Multi-Family Residential Historic District appears eligible for local designation as a City of Glendale Historic District under District Criteria A and G. This district is significant as a cohesive concentration of multifamily residential development from 1924 to 1953 along W. Glenoaks Boulevard in the northwest side of Glendale, reflecting the city’s residential growth in the interwar years and expansion during the post-World War II period. The historic district retains its original boundary and zoning and reflects an evolving pattern of multi-family development during the period of significance beginning with the first construction (1924) after the 1923 platting of Tract no. 6042 and 6243 through 1953, the end of its postwar development. Of the historic district’s 67 parcels, 50 of these contribute to its significance (approximately 75%); 17 are noncontributors.

The W. Glenoaks Blvd./Highland Ave. to Kenilworth Ave. Multi-Family Residential Historic District comprises portions of the large S.C.

Hahne estate platted in 1883 on the northwest side of Glendale. In 1909, Tract No. 646 was subdivided from a portion of the S.C.

Hahne estate by members of the Hahne family, including real estate investor, Carl Simon Hahne (1883-1942), his mother, Jennie A.

Hahne, and sisters Eloise G. Hahne, and Ethlyn May Handson.1 In 1923, Tract No. 646 tract was further subdivided into smaller tracts – including Tract no. 6042 and 6243 – compromising portions of the historic district.2 (see continuation page) *D7. References:
(see continuation page)
*D8. Evaluator: Adam Rajper, Robby Aranguren, Mariana Ruiz Date: June 1, 2026 Affiliation and Address: Historic Resources Group, 556 S. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 101-514, Pasadena, CA 91105 1 S.C. Hahne’s Subdivision of a part of Rancho San Rafael (MR005-314); Tract No. 646 (TR0015-162b), Land Records Information, Los Angeles County Public Works. Accessed June 2026. https://pw.lacounty.gov/smpm/landrecords/TractMaps.aspx# 2 Tract No. 6040 (TR0063-076) and Tract No. 6243 (TR0069-096), Land Records Information. 1457 of 5188

Page 2 of 9 ends

In 1911, the Pacific Electric Company developed the Burbank Line along Glenoaks Boulevard into Burbank. The new line branched off of the existing Glendale line at Brand Boulevard, traveling northwest for about three miles along Glenoaks Boulevard through vast expanses of farmland, including the S.C Hahne estate.3 Construction of the Glendale-Burbank line made it possible to access the sparsely developed agricultural hinterlands west of Glendale and Casa Verdugo, stimulated subdivisions around them, including multi-family housing and commercial activity along the routes. The PE Red Car line that ran along Glenoaks Boulevard facilitated mixed-use development along the route, persisting even after the streetcar gave way to automobiles.4

By 1925, Sanborn maps depict predominantly single-family residential development in Tract no. 6042 and 6243, north and south of Glenoaks Boulevard.5 By the late 1920s, low-scale multi-family residential development had picked up on and around Glenoaks Boulevard, with the stretch east of Brand Boulevard nearly built out by 1930.6 Multi-family residential development was slow and sporadic in the historic district through the 1940’s, as visible in aerial photographs; between 1924 to 1931 there were 13 properties built. Construction was halted in 1931 following the stock market crash of 1929. During the Depression years, construction continued steadily in the district with 14 properties built between 1937 and 1940. In 1939, the federal Home Owners Loan Corporation (HOLC) surveys note that five percent of dwellings along Glenoaks Boulevard (between Grandview Avenue and Fairmont Road) were multi-family, suggesting a persistent dearth of multi-family properties in the area.7
The district saw a second surge of development in the postwar period. Sanborn maps from 1950 depict the historic district nearly built out with mainly duplexes, two-flats, three-flats, and four-flats. The surrounding north and south radiating streets were dominated by single-family homes.8 By 1953, the district was completely built out, with a total of 29 properties built between 1942 and 1953 according to the assessor’s record. In 1955, the PE street line service to Burbank ceased, and by 1962, aerial photographs depict the streetcar rail along W. Glenoaks Blvd replaced by a concrete center median with landscaping.

Aerial Photography Collection. University of California, Santa Barbara Library.

Architectural Resources Group. City of Glendale East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement. City of Glendale Community Development Department. 2026.

Los Angeles County Assessor-Recorder.

Land Records Information. Los Angeles County Public Works. Accessed June 2026. https://pw.lacounty.gov/smpm/landrecords/TractMaps.aspx# Los Angeles Times via Proquest. Los Angeles Public Library.

Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps. Los Angeles Public Library. 3 Arroyo, Early Glendale, 59; Electric Railway Historical Association of Southern California, “Pacific Electric Glendale-Burbank Line,” accessed May 2025, https://www.erha.org/pewgb.htm. As cited in Architectural Resources Group, City of Glendale East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement.

City of Glendale Community Development Department, 2026, 36. 4 City of Glendale East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement, 47. 5 Sanborn Maps, Glendale 1925 vol. 2, Sheet 254-269, Los Angeles Public Library. 6 City of Glendale East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement, 94. 7 Home Owners’ Land Corporation, worksheets B-18 and C-12. As cited in City of Glendale East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement, 95. 8 Sanborn Map, Glendale 1925 vol. 2A, 1925-Oct 1950, Sheet 254-269, Los Angeles Public Library. 1458 of 5188

Page 3 of 9 ends

Page 4 of 9 ends

Page 5 of 9 ends

*Recorded by: Historic Resources Group *Date: June 1, 2026  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________________ Property List
APN Address Type Date Style Status Status
Code
5635-001-024 929 Beulah St Multi-family
residential -
Apartment house
1940 Minimal Traditional Contributor 7PDC
5635-009-037 939 Concord St Multi-family
residential -
Apartment house
1926 Minimal Traditional Contributor 7PDC
5635-008-003 615 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Apartment house
1952 Minimal Traditional Contributor 7PDC
5635-008-004 617 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Apartment house
1936 American Colonial
Revival
Contributor 7PDC
5635-008-005 621 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Single-family
residential
1924 Spanish Colonial
Revival
Contributor 7PDC
5635-008-006 625 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Apartment house
1948 Minimal Traditional Contributor 7PDC
5635-001-025 628 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Apartment house
1946 Minimal Traditional Contributor 7PDC
5635-008-007 629 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Courtyard
apartment
1945 Minimal Traditional Contributor 7PDC
5635-008-008 635 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Apartment house
1930 Spanish Colonial
Revival
Contributor 7PDC
5635-001-026 636 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Duplex
1949 Minimal Traditional Contributor 7PDC
5635-001-027 640 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Duplex
1940 Minimal Traditional Noncontributor
(extensively
altered)
7PDNC
5635-008-009 641 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Fourplex
1939 Minimal Traditional Contributor 7PDC
5635-001-028 644 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Single-family
residential
1926 Spanish Colonial
Revival
Noncontributor
(extensively
altered)
7PDNC
5635-008-010 645 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Apartment house
1931 Spanish Colonial
Revival
Contributor 7PDC
5635-001-029 648 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Single-family
residential
1928 Spanish Colonial
Revival
Contributor 7PDC
5635-008-011 649 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Apartment house
1952 Minimal Traditional Contributor 7PDC
5635-001-030 652 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Apartment house
1949 Minimal Traditional Noncontributor
(extensively
altered)
7PDNC
1461 of 5188

Page 6 of 9 ends

*Recorded by: Historic Resources Group *Date: June 1, 2026  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________________ APN Address Type Date Style Status Status
Code
5635-008-012 653 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Apartment house
1940 Minimal Traditional Noncontributor
(extensively
altered)
7PDNC
5635-001-031 656 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Fourplex
1949 Minimal Traditional Contributor 7PDC
5635-008-013 657 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Single-family
residential
1928 Tudor Revival Contributor 7PDC
5635-001-032 660 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Apartment house
1948 Minimal Traditional Contributor 7PDC
5635-008-014 661 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Apartment house
1936 Spanish Colonial
Revival
Contributor 7PDC
5635-001-033 664 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential –
Apartment house
1948 Minimal Traditional Contributor 7PDC
5635-008-015 665 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Apartment house
1941 Minimal Traditional Noncontributor
(extensively
altered)
7PDNC
5635-001-034 668 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Apartment house 1948 Minimal Traditional Noncontributor (extensively
altered)
7PDNC
5635-008-016 669 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Single-family
residential
1928 Tudor Revival Noncontributor
(extensively
altered)
7PDNC
5635-001-035 672 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Apartment house
1940 Minimal Traditional Noncontributor
(extensively
altered)
7PDNC
5635-008-017 675 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Duplex
1938 Minimal Traditional Contributor 7PDC
5635-001-036 676 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Apartment house
1947 American Colonial
Revival
Contributor 7PDC
5635-008-018 677 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Apartment house
1938 American Colonial
Revival
Contributor 7PDC
5635-001-037 678 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Apartment house
1947 American Colonial
Revival
Contributor 7PDC
5635-001-038 684 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Apartment house
1939 Minimal Traditional Contributor 7PDC
5635-001-039 688 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Apartment house
1925 Spanish Colonial
Revival
Contributor 7PDC
5635-007-001 701 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Apartment house
1946 Minimal Traditional Contributor 7PDC
1462 of 5188

Page 7 of 9 ends

*Recorded by: Historic Resources Group *Date: June 1, 2026  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________________ APN Address Type Date Style Status Status
Code
5635-009-038 704 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Duplex 1939 Minimal Traditional Contributor 7PDC
5635-007-002 705 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Apartment house
1946 Minimal Traditional Contributor 7PDC
5635-009-039 708 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Apartment house
1946 Minimal Traditional Contributor 7PDC
5635-007-003 709 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Apartment house
1948 Minimal Traditional Noncontributor
(extensively
altered)
7PDNC
5635-009-040 712 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Apartment house
1939 Streamline Moderne Contributor 7PDC
5635-007-004 713 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Apartment house
1941 Minimal Traditional Contributor 7PDC
5635-009-041 716 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Apartment house
1949 Minimal Traditional Contributor 7PDC
5635-007-005 717 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Apartment house
1953 Minimal Traditional Noncontributor
(extensively
altered)
7PDNC
5635-009-042 720 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Duplex
1940 Minimal Traditional Contributor 7PDC
5635-007-006 721 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Apartment house
1946 Minimal Traditional Contributor 7PDC
5635-007-007 725 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Duplex
1948 Spanish Colonial
Revival
Noncontributor
(extensively
altered)
7PDNC
5635-009-043 726 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Apartment house
1930 No Style Noncontributor
(extensively
altered)
7PDNC
5635-007-008 729 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Triplex
1942 Minimal Traditional Contributor 7PDC
5635-009-044 730 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Apartment house
1949 Minimal Traditional Noncontributor
(extensively
altered)
7PDNC
5635-009-045 732 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Courtyard
apartment
1948 Minimal Traditional Contributor 7PDC
5635-007-009 733 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Duplex
1940 No Style Noncontributor
(extensively
altered)
7PDNC
1463 of 5188

Page 8 of 9 ends

*Recorded by: Historic Resources Group *Date: June 1, 2026  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________________ APN Address Type Date Style Status Status
Code
5635-007-010 739 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Single-family
residential
c. 1930 Spanish Colonial
Revival
Contributor 7PDC
5635-009-046 740 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Apartment house
1929 Spanish Colonial
Revival
Contributor 7PDC
5635-007-011 741 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Triplex
1927 Minimal Traditional Contributor 7PDC
5635-007-012 745 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Apartment house
1940 Minimal Traditional Contributor 7PDC
5635-012-001 800 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Apartment house
1929 Spanish Colonial
Revival
Contributor 7PDC
5635-007-013 801 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Apartment house
1939 Minimal Traditional Noncontributor
(extensively
altered)
7PDNC
5635-012-002 804 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Duplex
1941 Minimal Traditional Contributor 7PDC
5635-007-014 805 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Apartment house
1947 Minimal Traditional Contributor 7PDC
5635-012-003 808 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Apartment house
1948 Minimal Traditional Contributor 7PDC
5635-007-027 809 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Apartment house
1937 Streamline Moderne Contributor 7PDC
5635-012-004 812 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Apartment house
1948 Minimal Traditional Contributor 7PDC
5635-007-028 815 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Apartment house
1942 Minimal Traditional Noncontributor
(extensively
altered)
7PDNC
5635-012-005 816 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Apartment house
1953 Minimal Traditional Contributor 7PDC
5635-007-029 817 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Courtyard Multifamily residential -
apartment
1947 Minimal Traditional Contributor 7PDC
5635-012-006 820 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Apartment house
1938 Minimal Traditional Noncontributor
(extensively
altered)
7PDNC
5635-012-007 824 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Apartment house
1942 Minimal Traditional Contributor 7PDC
5635-012-008 828 W Glenoaks
Blvd
Multi-family
residential -
Apartment house
1953 Minimal Traditional Contributor 7PDC
1464 of 5188

Page 9 of 9 ends

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
1466 of 5188
1467 of 5188
AdopteJ
09/J 7/24
Gharpetian/Brotman
All Ayes
RESOLUTION NO. 24-158

RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE
MAKING AN APPROPR!A TION
BE IT R!:SOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE:

SECTION 1 That the sum of $6.170 is hereby appropriated and/or transferred from the following accounts to the following accounts.

ACCOUNTS DESCRIPTION FROM
$6,170
-- -·· TO
25300-1010-000
- ... _ -
Undesignated Fund Balance. General Fund
43110-1010-COD-2502- Contractual Services, General Fund, Community $6,170 P0000 Development Department, Urban Design & Mobility,
To appropriate funding for the PSA with Architectural Resources Group for preparation of the East-West and North Glendale histonc context surveys
SECTION 2: The Director of Finance is authonzed to make such otner revisions, individual appropnc:tion line-items, changes m summaries, fund totals. grand totals, and other portions of the budget document as necessary to reflect and implement the changes specified in this resolution.

SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify t:, the adoptior of this Resolutior..

Adopted this 17th day of Sep
tember
ATT
EST.
� _j • � /1�7,r,-� -Crty • N

ST A TE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS

CITY OF GLENDALE )
2024
/
Mayor, City of Glendale

CITY OF GLENDALE
DATE 10/10/2�4 _____ _
PROvlSION

APPROVED AS
FOR
TO
$_§
FINA.�CIAL
)_7�0 ___
jd rt./4 'uirector of Finance
I, Suzie Abajian, City Clerk of the City of Glendale, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 24-158 was adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale, California. at a regular meeting held on the J 7th day of�. 2024, and that the same was adopted by the following vote.

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Brotman, Gharpetian, Najarian, Kassakhian, Asatryan
None
None
None APPF<OVeD AS TO FOi-< 1
1'1
;121::;;�
DATE h, I IS-I 2. � 4h 1468 of 5188
Los Angeles Public Library
City of Glendale
East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement &
Historic Resources Survey Report
Prepared for:

City of Glendale
Community Development Department | Planning Division
Prepared by:

Los Angeles, CA
October 2, 2026
1469 of 5188
City of Glendale| East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026

ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Project Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 1

1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 2 Statement of Purpose ...............................................................................................................................2 Project Overview and Scope......................................................................................................................2 Study Area.................................................................................................................................................2 Project Team .............................................................................................................................................3 Previously Identified Historic Resources in East-West Glendale ...............................................................4

2. Methodology ................................................................................................................................... 6 Background Research and Community Outreach......................................................................................6 Historic Context Statement.......................................................................................................................7 Reconnaissance Survey .............................................................................................................................8 Intensive Survey ........................................................................................................................................9 Survey Report..........................................................................................................................................10

3. Guidelines for Evaluation ............................................................................................................... 13 National Register of Historic Places.........................................................................................................13 California Register of Historical Resources..............................................................................................15 Glendale Register of Historic Resources and Historic Districts................................................................16

4. Historic Context Statement ............................................................................................................ 19 Overview .................................................................................................................................................19 East-West Glendale Demographics.........................................................................................................21 Summary of Contexts and Themes..........................................................................................................24 Early History and Development (Pre-1871).............................................................................................26 Context: Early Development and Town Settlement (1872-1918)............................................................32 Context: Single-Family Residential Development (1910-2000) ...............................................................51 Context: Multi-Family Residential Development (1910-2000) ................................................................95 Context: Commercial Development (1904-2000)..................................................................................115 Context: Industrial Development (1919-2000)......................................................................................131 Context: Institutions and Community (1919-2000)...............................................................................146 Context: Architecture and Design .........................................................................................................167

5. Survey Findings ............................................................................................................................ 210 Summary of Survey Findings .................................................................................................................210 1470 of 5188
City of Glendale| East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026

ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP
Individually Eligible Properties ..............................................................................................................211 Eligible Historic Districts........................................................................................................................213

6. Bibliography ................................................................................................................................. 216

Appendix A. Survey Area Map

Appendix B. Chronology Map

Appendix C. Survey Findings Map

Appendix D. Survey Findings Property Lists
Appendix D.1. Potentially Eligible Individual Properties Appendix D.2. Potentially Eligible Historic Districts
Appendix E. DPR Forms

1471 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 1
Project Summary
This Historic Context Statement and Historic Resources Survey Report was prepared at the request of the City of Glendale, and was funded in part by a grant through the Certified Local Government (CLG) program. In December 2024, the City contracted with Architectural Resources Group (ARG) for the preparation of a Historic Context Statement and completion of a Historic Resources Survey for the EastWest Glendale Study Area. This document follows the guidance outlined for the development of historic contexts in the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation, along with National Register Bulletin 16B: How to Complete the National Register Multiple Property Documentation Form.

The activity which is the subject of this report has been financed in part with Federal funds from the National Park Service, Department of the Interior, through the California Office of Historic Preservation.

However, the contents and opinions do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of the Interior or the California Office of Historic Preservation, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation by the Department of the Interior or the California Office of Historic Preservation.

Regulations of the U.S. Department of the Interior strictly prohibit unlawful discrimination in departmental federally-assisted programs on the basis of race, color, sex, age, disability, or national origin. Any person who believes he or she has been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility operated by a recipient of Federal assistance should write to:

Director, Equal Opportunity Program
U.S. Department of the Interior
National Park Service
P.O. Box 37127
Washington, D.C. 20013-7127
1472 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 2

1. Introduction
Statement of Purpose
The City of Glendale is committed to the preservation of its historic buildings, neighborhoods, and sites as part of its overall goal of planning for the future. The East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report (the Study) will serve as an informational document for the Community Development Department, the public, and those making policy and legislative decisions in the City of Glendale. It will also inform of the development of, and be included as an appendix to, the East-West Glendale Community Plan, preparation of which is currently in progress. The Study will be an important component of the Community Plan and will assist in the identification and protection of historic resources, as well as inform other aspects of the Plan such as policy recommendations, zoning changes, and design review.

Project Overview and Scope
In December 2024, Architectural Resources Group (ARG), with subconsultant Historic Resources Group (HRG), was retained by the City of Glendale (the City) to prepare a historic context statement (HCS) and complete a historic resources survey for the East-West Glendale portion of Glendale. The project commenced in January 2025. The scope of this project is to develop an HCS for the East-West Study Area, survey all properties in the Study Area constructed through 2000, and identify and evaluate properties that appear eligible for local, state, and/or federal listing. Chapter 2, Methodology, discusses each task of the scope in more detail.

Study Area
The City of Glendale is located at the eastern end of the San Fernando Valley in Los Angeles County, at the southern base of the Verdugo Mountains. It is bordered to the northwest by the Tujunga neighborhood of Los Angeles, to the northeast by La Cañada Flintridge and the unincorporated area of La Crescenta, to the west by Burbank, to the east by Pasadena, and to the south and southeast by the City of Los Angeles.

The East-West Glendale Study Area generally comprises the area north of the Ventura Freeway/State Route 134, between the Burbank city limit on the west and the Pasadena and La Cañada Flintridge city limits on the east and south of the Oakmont Country Club. Its northern boundary adjoins the southern boundary of the North Glendale Community Plan Area. The Study Area is composed of a variety of land uses and associated property types including established single-family residential neighborhoods at the base of the Verdugo Mountains and into the Verdugo Woodlands, Chevy Chase Canyon, and Glenoaks Canyon; commercial, institutional, and multi-family residential properties on and near major thoroughfares; and industrial uses adjacent to the Los Angeles River and the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way. It contains two 19th century adobes, and was among the first areas in Glendale to 1473 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 3
experience suburbanization beginning in the early 20th century. Appendix A, Survey Area Map, depicts the Study Area in detail and Appendix B, Chronology Map, depicts eras of development.

East-West Glendale Study Area. (Map created by the City of Glendale.) Project Team
The HCS was developed by ARG team members Mary Ringhoff, Senior Associate; Elysha Paluszek, Senior Associate; Brannon Smithwick, Architectural Historian; and Kiara Hosseinion, Architectural Historian, with contributions by subconsultants Dr. Becky Nicolaides, Subconsultant and Caitlin Parker. The historic resources survey was conducted by Ms. Ringhoff, Ms. Smithwick, and Ms. Hosseinion for ARG, in partnership with HRG surveyors Adam Rajper, Senior Historic Preservation Specialist, Robby Aranguren, GIS/Technical Specialist, and Mariana Ruiz, Architectural Historian. Maps were created by ARG Associate Morgan Quirk. All work was conducted under the supervision of Katie Horak, Principal at ARG. All key personnel who contributed to this document meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards (36 CFR Part 61) in the discipline of Architectural History, History, or both. 1474 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 4
Previously Identified Historic Resources in East-West Glendale The East-West Glendale Study Area contains a high proportion of designated historic resources relative to other areas of the city. At the time of this study, City records indicate there are 150 individual properties listed on the Glendale Register, 109 of which are located in the study area.1 In addition, eight of the city’s nine local historic districts are located in the Study Area, and applications for two additional historic districts in the area have been submitted to the City and are currently being processed and evaluated.2 There are four properties in the study area that are listed in the National Register, and at least four properties that are listed in the California Register, according to the Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD).3 Additional properties in the Study Area that are not already designated have been formally determined eligible for listing in the National Register and therefore automatically listed in the California Register.

Designated individual properties were not re-visited as part of this project. Designated districts were surveyed in order to identify district properties that also appear individually eligible for listing.

In addition to the designated properties and districts in East-West Glendale, previous surveys, historic resource studies, and research for this project’s historic context statement identified 217 potential historic resources in the Study Area. This information is derived from the following sources:
• The Glendale Register of Historic Resources, updated January 2025 • The California Built Environment Resources Directory (BERD), updated 2022 • The City of Glendale’s internal Historic Property Master List, updated October 2025 • California Department of Transportation Historic Bridge Inventories • Glendale Stone Houses Survey Update (Architectural Resources Group, 2010) • Glendale Craftsman Style Architecture (Galvin Preservation Associates, 2007) • San Fernando Road Industrial Survey (Harland Bartholomew & Associates, 1995-1996) • Pre-1910 Preliminary Survey (City of Glendale, Date Unknown) 1 City of Glendale, “Glendale Register of Historic Resources,” updated January 2025, accessed September 2025, reviewed AugustSeptember 2026, https://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/77630/638749447696600000. There are 110 properties in East-West Glendale on the list of locally designated properties, but one (the Oak of Peace) is no longer extant and is not included in this study’s count.
2 City of Glendale, “Historic Districts,” online, accessed September 2025, reviewed August-September 2026, https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/community-development/development-services/historicpreservation/historic-districts; information on in-progress applications from Jay Platt, City of Glendale, November 2025. 3 The Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD) is maintained by the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP), and includes information about non-archaeological resources in OHP’s inventory that have been evaluated by the office. The BERD for Los Angeles County was last updated February 2, 2026. For more information, refer to https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=30338.
1475 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 5
Designated and previously identified properties in the East-West Study Area (N at left). (HRG map from City and BERD data) 1476 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 6

2. Methodology
This Study was prepared in accordance with the Multiple Property Documentation (MPD) approach developed by the National Park Service (NPS). Often applied to large-scale historic resource surveys, the MPD approach streamlines the evaluation process by distilling major patterns of development into themes that are shared by multiple properties within a study area. The MPD approach streamlines the evaluation process by ensuring that properties with shared associative and/or architectural characteristics are evaluated in the same manner and against the same evaluation criteria.

To ensure that the methodology described herein incorporated the most up-to-date standards and was rooted in professional best practices, ARG consulted the following informational materials maintained by the NPS and the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP):
• National Register Bulletin (NRB) 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation • NRB 16A: How to Complete the National Register Registration Form • NRB 16B: How to Complete the National Register Multiple Property Documentation Form • NRB 24: Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis for Preservation Planning • NPS Technical Preservation Services, Preservation Brief 36: Protecting Cultural Landscapes:

Planning, Treatment, and Management of Historic Landscapes • California OHP: Writing Historic Contexts
• California OHP: Instructions for Recording Historical Resources Before commencing any survey work, the project team developed a memorandum proposing the methodology to be used for this project. This was done at the request of the City, in order to ensure survey findings would be consistent, defensible, and sufficiently tailored to the resources of the Study Area and Glendale as a whole. Following is a discussion of the field and research methods used to complete this project.

Background Research and Community Outreach
The project team collected and reviewed pertinent background materials including the Historic Preservation Element of the City’s General Plan, applicable sections of the Glendale Municipal Code, and previous historic resource studies and survey data. Primary and secondary source research was conducted to inform the preparation of the historic context statement, and to provide neighborhoodspecific and property-specific information for the survey. Research materials included both primary (historic photos, maps, building permits, county assessor building records, city directories, ephemera) and secondary (newspaper articles, local published histories, unpublished manuscripts) source materials. The collections of the Glendale History Room at the Glendale Public Library were consulted to collect source materials that may not otherwise be available.
1477 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 7
City staff created a project-specific webpage to outline the project scope, solicit feedback, and publicize upcoming outreach meetings (https://engage.glendaleca.gov/eastwestglendalehistoricsurvey). This website includes an interactive map, on which community members can place a pin at the location of a property of interest and provide information on it. Properties recommended by members of the public were added to the team’s spreadsheet of properties to investigate during fieldwork. Some members of the public submitted property recommendations and comments via email to the City of Glendale; the survey team reviewed and responded to comments during the revision phase, and considered all recommended properties for inclusion in the findings.

The project team presented the survey project for discussion in a public presentation during a regularly scheduled Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) meeting: a kickoff on November 20, 2025. This meeting provided an overview of the project’s scope and purpose, and solicited information, feedback, and questions from members of the community. The draft survey findings were presented at the Historic Preservation Commission meeting for discussion on July 16, 2026, August 20, 2026, and September 17, 2026. Comments received from the public, the Commission, and City staff were addressed after receipt.

Both the website and the outreach events were noticed and publicized by the City of Glendale.

Historic Context Statement
The HCS provides a basis for understanding the significance of historic resources by identifying and discussing significant historic, social, and architectural themes as represented by a community’s built resources. It analyzes important themes as discussed in guidelines provided by the National Park Service (NPS) in National Register Bulletin 16A:

Historic context is information about historic trends and properties grouped by an important theme in pre-history or history of a community, state, or the nation during a particular period of time. Because historic contexts are organized by theme, place, and time, they link historic properties to important historic trends. In this way, they provide a framework for determining the significance of a property.4
A historic context statement is not a comprehensive history of an area; rather, it is a focused discussion of patterns that are represented in its built environment. It is intended to help inform land use and planning decisions relative to the historic built environment and enable planners, decisionmakers, and stakeholders to evaluate the relative significance and integrity of both individual properties and districts.

A historic context statement is linked with tangible built resources through the concept of “property type,” a grouping of individual properties based on shared physical or associative characteristics.

The HCS was structured and formatted in a manner consistent with the existing historic context statement for the South Glendale Community Plan Area to ensure consistency across different areas of the city. It largely is organized thematically (e.g., residential development, commercial development) to capture major occurrences in the area’s developmental history as expressed in its built resources; 4 National Park Service, National Register Bulletin 16A: How to Complete the National Register Registration Form (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1997), 4. 1478 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 8
additional themes were added for major architectural styles found in the Study Area. For each theme, baseline eligibility standards and integrity thresholds were developed to provide a systematic approach to determining which properties and districts associated with a particular theme are eligible for designation.

Reconnaissance Survey
A reconnaissance survey is an important part of a historic resources survey as it informs the project team about a study area’s development patterns and physical character, and also enables a street-by-street look at all of the area’s resources at once for effective comparative analysis. The reconnaissance survey helps to refine the HCS and provides the basis for the subsequent intensive-level survey.

Prior to conducting the reconnaissance survey of East-West Glendale, the project team used assessor parcel data, City historic property parcel data, and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) software to generate a “base map” for use in the field. The base map included all parcels within the study area, and was pre-populated with previous survey data, locations of properties of interest as determined by research and outreach, and other applicable information for ease of reference in the field. This background information was also added to a property database in which previously known and newly identified properties were catalogued and tracked.

During the reconnaissance survey, the project team drove each street within the study area and conducted a windshield inspection of each parcel with a construction date through 2000. The survey team included two members of ARG staff and two members of HRG staff in a single car, to ensure full coverage and “real time” peer review for consistency. Property types, architectural styles, and the general age and condition of buildings were observed. The project team made note of individual properties and cohesive groupings of related properties (potential historic districts) meriting inclusion in the property database. In some cases this was because a property appeared to have potential historical significance per the historic context statement and established national, state, and local designation criteria; in other cases, potential eligibility was less clear. These properties were added to the database because they required additional research to ascertain whether they were potentially eligible.

As noted above, designated individual properties were not re-visited as part of the survey. Designated districts were surveyed in order to identify district properties that also appear individually eligible for listing.

The reconnaissance survey provided information about pools of resource types (quantities of extant pre1919 residential buildings, for instance) to help inform future evaluations made under the intensive survey. The comparative rarity of resource types played a role in the identification of potentially eligible properties during the reconnaissance phase. Examples of abundant and common property types and architectural styles were held to a higher standard for significance and integrity, as opposed to examples of rare property types and architectural styles, which had a lower threshold. This enabled the consistent identification of potentially significant properties and will facilitate their future management by the City.

Upon completion of the field reconnaissance survey, the project team conducted additional, focused research for properties noted in the field. Primary and secondary sources as detailed above were 1479 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 9
consulted. The property database was refined accordingly, and preliminary assessments of potential eligibility were provided. The database and preliminary reconnaissance findings maps were submitted to the City for review.

Intensive Survey
Once the property database was finalized per City staff review, the project team completed an intensive survey of the properties on it. Survey teams from ARG and HRG documented the properties identified as potential historic resources (including potential districts) using a mobile documentation app (Fulcrum), with an interface customized for Glendale. Data gathered correspond to the fields from DPR 523 series forms, including address/location, name, photographs (three of each property), physical description, alterations, construction date, and statement of significance. All fieldwork was conducted from the public right-of-way and did not access private property. Once the intensive field surveys were complete, the project team reviewed and cleaned the data, conducted additional research as needed, and internally reviewed all preliminary findings.

The documented properties were evaluated against eligibility criteria for National Register, California Register, and local (Glendale) designation, using the applicable eligibility standards as discussed in the appropriate context. As each property was evaluated, it was assigned a California Historical Resource Status Code (discussed in detail below) that corresponds to its evaluation of significance. The eligibility standards provide guidance and are not strictly prescriptive. In other words, not all properties dating from a particular period and retaining the character-defining or associative features listed in the eligibility standards will automatically be eligible for designation. Additional analysis is required for assessment of potential eligibility, including:
• Strength of association with a particular context or theme; • Comparison with the larger population of related resources and relative rarity (as noted in the reconnaissance survey discussion above);
• Assessment of integrity.

With respect to local criteria for an individual property’s eligibility for the Glendale Register of Historic Resources,5 the following were considered:
• For properties that are potentially eligible for association with important events or for exemplifying significant contributions to heritage (Criterion A), evaluations placed primary focus on whether an individual property “exemplifies significant contributions to the broad cultural, political, economic, social, tribal, or historic heritage of the nation, state, or city.” Properties that may be eligible for their association with patterns of residential development were compared to other properties within the survey area to ascertain whether they represent the earliest development, were clear catalysts for development, or otherwise exemplify significant 5 Glendale Municipal Code, §15.20.050, Findings for Listing Resources in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources. Chapter 3, Guidelines for Evaluation, discusses local eligibility criteria in more detail. 1480 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 10
contributions to heritage. Properties that convey a collective association with important events were more likely to be identified as eligible under historic district criteria as addressed below. • For properties that are potentially eligible for their expression of an architectural style, type, period, or method of construction (Criterion C), evaluations placed primary focus on whether an individual property “embodies the distinctive and exemplary characteristics.” Following the primary definition of “exemplary” in common sources, “exemplary” was interpreted as “excellent” and “deserving of imitation” rather than as “typical” or “representative.”6 As noted above, the relative rarity of architectural styles and types occurring within the survey area were also considered, and a relatively high threshold of eligibility was used in identifying specific examples of these styles. The survey is not intended to be an inventory of all intact examples of a particular style, but an identification of those properties that are clearly distinctive and can be differentiated from other examples of the style.

With respect to local criteria for eligibility as a historic district overlay zone,7 a cohesive grouping of properties must occur in a significant concentration, rather than comprising a small handful (e.g., three houses), and must be clearly distinguishable from surrounding development.8 Potential historic districts must retain a high percentage of contributors in order to qualify. This requires both a strong collective association with a context or theme and a high level of physical integrity, in order to ensure the grouping strongly conveys its historical associations and/or architectural character, and retains a strong sense of time and place
Survey Report
Following completion of data review and property evaluations, the team conducted another peer review of all findings and then produced DPR forms and drafted the survey report. This document incorporates the historic context statement as well as a discussion of methodology and a summary of survey findings.

The findings are presented in more detail in the appendices to the survey report, including maps, spreadsheets listing all identified properties (potentially eligible individuals, historic districts, and properties in the historic districts), and DPR forms. The draft survey findings were presented for discussion at three Historic Preservation Commission meetings as noted above. Following revisions per feedback received from City staff, community members, and the HPC, the reports and appendices will be finalized.

California Historical Resource Status Codes
First adopted in 1975 and substantially amended in 2003, the California Historical Resource Status Codes (referred to herein as “status codes”) are a systematic means of classifying historical resources that are 6 See as examples: The Britannica Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, Cambridge Dictionary, and Collins Dictionary. 7 Glendale Municipal Code, §30.25.020, Historic District Overlay Zone Designation Criteria. See Chapter 3 for more information. 8 As discussed in NRB 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb15/.
1481 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 11
evaluated either in a historic resources survey or as part of a regulatory process.9 Each status code conveys two pieces of information: (1) a classification code that signifies at which designation level (federal, state, or local) the resource is determined eligible, if at all; and (2) a qualifier that indicates under which program or regulatory process the evaluation was initiated. Resources and their associated status code(s) are subsequently input into the State of California’s BERD database for reference. Various derivatives of the status codes exist, some of which are rarely used or are not applicable to this project.

The status codes most commonly applied in this survey include:
• 5S3 for properties appearing eligible for listing in the Glendale Register as individuals (including districts as a whole).
• 5B for properties that already contribute to a locally designated historic district and also appear eligible for listing in the Glendale Register on an individual basis. • 3S/3CS for properties appearing eligible for listing in the National Register/California Register as individuals. These codes have only been applied to a limited number of properties that are clearly eligible for listing in the California and National Register; for the most part, this large-scale survey focused on identifying locally eligible historic resources, since this survey effort is intended to inform planning activities in East-West Glendale.
• 7PDC for properties that appear to be contributors to a potential historic district. 10 • 7PDNC for properties that appear to be non-contributors to a potential historic district. • 7R, rarely, for properties that cannot be evaluated due to lack of visibility or the need for additional research beyond the scope of a large-scale survey. • 6L, rarely, for properties of apparent historical significance that do not retain sufficient integrity to convey their historical association or character; they may warrant special consideration in local planning.

Listed below are all of the state status codes used to categorize eligibility of historic resources:

CODE DESCRIPTION
1S Individual property listed in the National Register (NR) by the Keeper. Listed in the California Register (CR).
2S2 Individual property determined eligible for the National Register (NR) by a consensus through Section 106 process. Listed in the California Register (CR).
3S Appears eligible for the National Register (NR) as an individual property through survey evaluation. 3B Appears eligible for NR both individually and as a contributor to a NR eligible district through survey evaluation.
3CS Appears eligible for the California Register (CR) as an individual property through survey evaluation. 3CB Appears eligible for CR both individually and as a contributor to a CR eligible district through a survey evaluation.
9 For more information about status codes and their application, refer to the State Office of Historic Preservation’s Technical Assistance Bulletin #8: http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1069/files/tab8.pdf. 10 7PDC (“potential district contributor”) and 7PDNC (“potential district non-contributor”) are status codes specific to Glendale, for use in identified (not designated or pending designation) potential historic districts. They were approved by OHP in May 2026.

Jay Platt, personal communication to ARG, May 21, 2026. 1482 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 12
5S1 Individual property that is listed or designated locally. 5S3 Appears to be individually eligible for local listing/designation through survey evaluation. 5B Locally significant both individually (listed, eligible, or appears eligible) and as a contributor to a district that is locally listed, designated, determined eligible or appears eligible through survey evaluation. 6L Determined ineligible for local listing or designation through local government review process; may warrant special consideration in local planning.
6Z Found ineligible for National Register (NR), California Register (CR) or Local designation through survey evaluation.
7PDC Contributor to a local historic district; subject to design review per Glendale Historic District Ordinance. 7PDNC Non-contributor to a local historic district; subject to design review per Glendale Historic District Ordinance.
7R Identified in Reconnaissance Level Survey: Not evaluated.

Resource Types
In addition to buildings, the survey considers other common types of historic resources, all of which can be significant elements of the study area’s built environment that help to tell the full story of its development history. Following is a brief description of each major resource type that may be identified:11
Buildings are intended to shelter human habitation. As buildings are the foundation of a developed area, they represent a very common resource type. Buildings house a variety of residential, commercial, institutional, and industrial uses.

Structures are also substantive constructions composed of structural elements, but unlike buildings, they serve a purpose aside from human habitation. Common examples of structures identified in a historic resources survey include bridges, tunnels, gazebos, dams, and lighthouses.

Objects are differentiated from structures in that they are either decorative in nature, or are comparatively small and simply constructed. Resources such as signs, fountains, monuments, sculptures, public art installations, and streetlamps are typically classified as objects.

Sites are defined as areas that possess historic or cultural value and whose significance is not related to any building, structure, or object that may (or may not) be present. Some common examples include cemeteries, parks, and designed landscapes.

Historic Districts are identifiable areas that are related geographically and by theme. Districts are significant for the interrelationship between their resources and consist of historically and/or functionally related properties. Residential neighborhoods, commercial areas, and institutional campuses are examples of resources that may be recorded as historic districts. 11 These categories and descriptions are derived from NRB 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. For more information, refer to http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb15/ 1483 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 13

3. Guidelines for Evaluation
A property may be designated as historic by National, State, and local authorities. In order for a property or grouping of properties to qualify for listing in the National Register, the California Register, or the Glendale Register, it must meet one or more identified criteria of significance. The property must also retain sufficient physical integrity to evoke the sense of place and time with which it is historically associated. This Historic Context Statement provides guidance for listing at the federal, state, and local levels, according to the established criteria and integrity thresholds.

National Register of Historic Places
The National Register of Historic Places (National Register) is the nation’s master inventory of known historic resources. Established under the auspices of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the National Register is administered by the National Park Service (NPS) and includes buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts that possess historic, architectural, engineering, archaeological, or cultural significance at the national, state, or local level. Eligibility for in the National Register is addressed in National Register Bulletin (NRB) 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. NRB 15 states that in order to be eligible for the National Register, a resource must both: (1) be historically significant, and (2) retain sufficient integrity to adequately convey its significance.

Significance is assessed by evaluating a resource against established eligibility criteria. A resource is considered significant if it satisfies any one of the following four National Register criteria:12 • Criterion A (events): associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history;
• Criterion B (persons): associated with the lives of significant persons in our past; • Criterion C (architecture): embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represents the work of a master, or that possesses high artistic values, or that represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction;
• Criterion D (information potential): has yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Standard preservation practice evaluates collections of properties from similar time periods and historic contexts as historic districts. The NPS defines a historic district as “a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or objects united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development.”13
12 Some resources may meet multiple criteria, though only one needs to be satisfied for National Register eligibility. 13 National Park Service, National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1997), 5. 1484 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 14
Once significance has been established, it must then be demonstrated that a resource retains enough of its physical and associative qualities – or integrity – to convey the reason(s) for its significance. Integrity is best described as a resource’s “authenticity” as expressed through its physical features and extant characteristics. Generally, if a resource is recognizable as such in its present state, it is said to retain integrity, but if it has been extensively altered then it does not. Whether a resource retains sufficient integrity for listing is determined by evaluating the seven aspects of integrity defined by NPS:

Location: the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred.

The actual location is an important component in conveying the history of a district, building or site.

Therefore, the National Park Service has determined that except in rare cases, if a building is moved it loses its historic association and therefore its significance. In the case of districts where there are found to be a large number of specialized components, some of those components may be relocated within the original larger location and still retain significance.

Setting: the physical environment of a historic property.

Setting is differentiated from location in that it refers to the “character” of the place. However, it is defined by the physical features such as topography, vegetation, manmade features, and relationships between the buildings and the open spaces.

Design: the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property.

The National Park Service notes that design results from “conscious decisions made during the original conception and planning or the property.”14
Materials: the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular manner or configuration to form a historic property.

The National Park Service states that not only does a property still need to look as it did historically, but it needs to physically retain the key exterior materials dating from its period of significance.

Workmanship: the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory.

The concept of workmanship applies to physical techniques used during the period of significance and acknowledges labor, technique, and craftsmanship associated with a particular period of time.

Workmanship acknowledges the interaction of human manipulation of specific materials, and therefore is closely associated with the concepts of material and design.

Feeling: a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time.

The National Park Service defines feeling as the presence of physical features that convey a property’s character.
14 National Register Bulletin 15, 44.
1485 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 15
Association: the direct link between an important historic event/person and a historic property.

A property or district retains integrity of association if it is the place where an event or activity occurred and is sufficiently intact to convey that relationship to an observer. Like feeling, association requires the presence of physical features that convey a property’s historic character.

Integrity is evaluated by weighing all seven of these aspects together and is ultimately a “yes or no” determination – that is, a resource either retains sufficient integrity, or it does not.15 Some aspects of integrity may be weighted more heavily than others depending on the type of resource being evaluated and the reason(s) for the resource’s significance. Since integrity depends on a resource’s placement within a historic context, integrity can be assessed only after it has been concluded that the resource is in fact significant.

In assessing a property's integrity, the National Park Service recognizes that properties change over time.

National Register Bulletin 15 provides:

To retain historic integrity a property will always possess several, and usually most, of the aspects. It is not necessary for a property to retain all its historic physical features or characteristics. The property must retain, however, the essential physical features that enable it to convey its historic identity.16 A property that has lost some historic materials or details can be eligible if it retains the majority of the features that illustrate its style in terms of the massing, spatial relationships, proportion, pattern of windows and doors, texture of materials, and ornamentation. The property is not eligible, however, if it retains some basic features conveying massing but has lost the majority of the features that once characterized its style.17

A property that is significant for its historic association is eligible if it retains the essential physical features that made up its character or appearance during the period of its association with the important event, historical pattern, or person(s). A property important for illustrating a particular architectural style or construction technique must retain most of the physical features that constitute that style or technique.18 California Register of Historical Resources
The California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) is an authoritative guide used to identify, inventory, and protect historical resources in California. Established by an act of the State Legislature in 1998, the California Register program encourages public recognition and protection of significant architectural, historical, archeological, and cultural resources; identifies these resources for state and local planning purposes; determines eligibility for state historic preservation grant funding; and affords certain protections under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 15 Derived from NRB 15, Section VIII: “How to Evaluate the Integrity of a Property.” 16 National Register Bulletin 15, 44, 46.
17 National Register Bulletin 15.
18 National Register Bulletin 15.
1486 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 16
The structure of the California Register program is similar to that of the National Register, though the former more heavily emphasizes resources that have contributed specifically to the development of California. To be eligible for the California Register, a resource must first be deemed significant under one of the following four criteria, which are modeled after the National Register criteria listed above:
• Criterion 1 (events): associated with events or patterns of events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States;
• Criterion 2 (persons): associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history;
• Criterion 3 (architecture): embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values; • Criterion 4 (information potential): has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, state, or the nation.

Mirroring the National Register, the California Register also requires that resources retain sufficient integrity to be eligible for listing. A resource’s integrity is assessed using the same seven aspects of integrity used for the National Register. However, since integrity thresholds associated with the California Register are generally less rigid than those associated with the National Register, it is possible that a resource may lack the integrity required for the National Register but still be eligible for listing in the California Register.

Certain properties are automatically listed in the California Register, as follows:19 • All California properties that are listed in the National Register; • All California properties that have formally been determined eligible for listing in the National Register (by the State Office of Historic Preservation); • All California Historical Landmarks numbered 770 and above; and • California Points of Historical Interest which have been reviewed by the State Office of Historic Preservation and recommended for listing by the State Historical Resources Commission.

There is no prescribed age limit for listing in the California Register, although guidelines state that sufficient time must have passed to obtain a scholarly perspective on the events or individuals associated with a resource.

Glendale Register of Historic Resources and Historic Districts Glendale administers its own program for designating historic resources at the local level. There are separate criteria and procedures for the designation of individual properties and historic districts, each of which is discussed below.
19 California Public Resources Code, Division 5, Chapter 1, Article 2, § 5024.1. 1487 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 17
Glendale Register of Historic Resources
The City of Glendale created and adopted the Glendale Register of Historic Resources (Glendale Register) in 1997 as a mechanism for locally designating individual properties.20 The Glendale Register program is governed by Section 15.20 (Historic Preservation) of the Glendale Municipal Code. Listing on the Glendale Register requires approval from both the property owner and the City Council.

To be eligible for the Glendale Register, a potential resource must meet at least one of the following criteria (Section 15.20.050 of the Glendale Municipal Code, as updated 2020):
• Criterion A (events): is identified with important events in national, state, or city history, or exemplifies significant contributions to the broad cultural, political, economic, social, tribal, or historic heritage of the nation, state, or city, and retains historic integrity; • Criterion B (persons): is associated with a person, persons, or groups who significantly contributed to the history of the nation, state, region, or city, and retains historic integrity; • Criterion C (architecture): embodies the distinctive and exemplary characteristics of an architectural style, architectural type, period, or method of construction; or represents a notable work of a master designer, builder or architect whose genius influenced his or her profession; or possesses high artistic values, and retains historic integrity; • Criterion D (information potential): has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to archaeological pre-history or history of the nation, state, region, or city, and retains historic integrity.

The 2020 amended Ordinance defines historic integrity as:

The authenticity of a resource’s historic identity, evidenced by the survival of physical characteristics that existed during the resource’s prehistoric or historic period and which allow it to continue to convey its significance. Historic integrity is the composite of seven aspects or qualities: location; design; setting; materials; workmanship; feeling; and association (as defined by the National Park Service). All seven aspects or qualities do not need to be present for eligibility for designation as a historic resource as long as the overall sense of past time and place is evident. 21 There is no prescribed age limit for listing in the Glendale Register. 20 City of Glendale, California, “Glendale Register of Historic Resources,” accessed May 2025, https://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/77630/638749447696600000. 21 Glendale Municipal Code Section 15.20.020. 1488 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 18
Historic Districts
The City of Glendale approved its Historic District Ordinance in 2007 as a mechanism for locally designating historic districts.22 Local historic districts are governed by Section 30.25 (Historic District Overlay Zone) of the Glendale Municipal Code. Historic districts are initiated only after community members file an application, which then begins a process that involves City review and public participation and input.

To be eligible, a potential historic district must meet at least one of the following criteria:

A. Exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City’s cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering, architectural, or natural history;
B. Is identified with persons or events significant in local, state, or national history; C. Embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period, or method of construction, or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship; D. Represents the work of notable builders, designers, or architects; E. Has a unique location or is a view or vista representing an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community, or of the city;
F. Embodies a collection of elements of architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship that represent a significant structural or architectural achievement or innovation; G. Reflects significant geographic patterns, including those associated with different eras of settlement and growth, transportation modes, or distinctive examples of park or community planning;
H. Conveys a sense of historic and architectural cohesiveness through its design, setting, materials, workmanship or association;
I. Has been designated a historic district in the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historical Resources.
22 City of Glendale, California, “Designated Historic Districts,” accessed May 2025, https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/community-development/development-services/historicpreservation/historic-districts. 1489 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 19

4. Historic Context Statement
Overview
Glendale was founded in 1887, amid the regional real estate and population boom of the era; the City of Glendale was incorporated in 1906. This original part of the City, along with the absorbed community of Tropico and some of the earliest annexations in the 1910s, lies in the South Glendale Community Plan Area. Other early annexations, most notably the massive 1912 annexation of the Verdugo Woodlands area, extended the City well into what is now the East-West Glendale study area between 1911 and 1919.

By 1920, the new city’s 1906 population of 1,186 had exploded to 13,576. By 1930, it was 62,736, thanks both to the regional boom of the 1920s and to the annexation of additional unincorporated areas which expanded Glendale further north into the Study Area between 1921 and 1926.23 Many of the city’s residents lived in new suburban subdivisions laid out here during this time, spurred by Glendale’s proximity to downtown Los Angeles, improvements to public transportation systems, and increasing automobile-related development.

Glendale advertisement in the Los Angeles Evening Express, February 18, 1922. 23 Populations from Juliet M. Arroyo, Early Glendale (Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing, 2006), 72. Confirmed by U.S. census data for Glendale. City of Glendale Annexations map accessed September 2025 via the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works.
1490 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 20
The Study Area saw its next burst of development after World War II, as Glendale experienced a population and construction boom. Subdividers created new residential neighborhoods, new infill began replacing properties in some of the older areas, and the City claimed additional land in a series of annexations between 1945 and 1968. New construction continued past the initial postwar period, with the Study Area containing at least 95 percent of all new single-family residential projects in Glendale between 1976 and 1987.24 The need for more housing led to rising rates of multi-family residential development during this period as well, a pattern that would only accelerate through the end of the 20th century. Commercial and institutional development kept pace with residential during the postwar period, and once-limited industrial areas changed rapidly when the Grand Central Airport and its adjacent areas were repurposed for industry.

History of Condominium Subdivision Activity Table, “Residential Development Activity…1973 to Present,” City of Glendale, Planning Division, January 1982.

Today the East-West Glendale Study Area remains heavily but not exclusively residential in character, with neighborhood configurations and character reflecting the area’s most intense development between the 1910s and the 1980s. The mixed nature of the area is demonstrated by the industrial district in the 24 City of Glendale, Planning Division, “Residential Development Activity…Ten Year History,” July 1, 1987. 1491 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 21
southwest portion of the Study Area and the commercial, institutional, and mixed-use properties lining thoroughfares like Glenoaks Boulevard, N. Brand Boulevard, N. Glendale Avenue, and N. Verdugo Road.

East-West Glendale Demographics
Like many communities across Southern California, Glendale began as a predominantly White town and has diversified over time. Historically, it was well-known as a “sundown town” – a community in which people of color were not allowed after dark. As will be discussed later, a combination of public and private discriminatory policies and practices prevented people of color from living in Glendale during its early history. These included racially restictive covenants, discrimination on the part of developers and real estate agents, intimindation and violence, and others. In the 1920s and 1930s, the Ku Klux Klan in Glendale actively worked to keep Jews and people of color from the city.25 As a result, the city as a whole, and East-West Glendale, were overwhelmingly White for much of the 20th century. Prior to World War II, the population of all people of color in East-West Glendale was less than 1 percent.

In the decades after the war, East-West Glendale began to slowly diversify, with the percentage of populations of color rising from about 3 percent in 1960 to 20 percent in 1980.26 This was aided by an increasing tendency towards progressive politics beginning in the 1960s, as “a new generation of Glendale natives sought to oust its prejudicial organizations” and the government created organizations to protect civil rights, including the creation of a Human Relations Council in 1963.27 The African American population of East-West Glendale remained low in 1980 (with less than 1 percent African Americans) due to continued discrimination, but the Asian American and Hispanic populations had increased to 7 percent and 13 percent, respectively, by that time.28 This likely included a portion of the city’s increasing numbers of upwardly mobile Filipinos and Koreans who moved out of Los Angeles’ urban environment seeking a more suburban existence.29 The city was also home to a sizable concentration of Cubans.30 The majority of Glendale’s new diversity was the result of an influx of Armenian immigrants in the last decades of the 20th century.

Asian Community
For much of the 20th century, Glendale’s Asian population was small. In 1930, there were reported to be 408 Japanese residents when the total population was 62,736 people.31 The Asian population in East25 James P. Allen and Eugene Turner, The Ethnic Quilt: Population Diversity in Southern California (Center for Geographical Studies, California State University, Northridge, 1997), 50. 26 Philip J. Ethington, Anne Marie Kooistra, and Edward DeYoung, Los Angeles County Union Census Tract Data Series, 1940-1990, Version 1.01. Created with the support of the John Randolph Haynes and Dora Haynes Foundation (Los Angeles: University of Southern California, 2000); City of Glendale Community Development Department, Population Density in Glendale Census Tract Map, 2013. Data obtained from the U.S. Bureau of Census and the Department of Finance, accessed September 2025, https://www.glendaleca.gov/our-city/demographics/census-information. 27 Daniel Fittante, “But Why Glendale? A History of Armenian Immigration to Southern California,” California History 94, no. 3 (2017): 14, https://doi.org/10.1525/ch.2017.94.3.2; Juliet M. Arroyo, Glendale: 1940-2000 (Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing, 2006), 55. 28 Allen and Turner, The Ethnic Quilt, 147, 151; Arroyo, Glendale: 1940-2000, 63. 29 Allen and Turner, The Ethnic Quilt, 147, 151. 30 Allen and Turner, The Ethnic Quilt, 111. 31 Arroyo, Early Glendale, 103. 1492 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 22
West Glendale numbered 143 people in 1940, or 0.5 percent of the population.32 Though the exact number of Japanese residents that year is not known, there were a number of Japanese businesses in East-West Glendale by 1941, including several grocery stores, restaurants, and florists on San Fernando Boulevard and N. Glendale Avenue.33 One is known to be intact, though much altered: the popular Fish King market and restaurant at 722 N. Glendale Avenue (1948). Hank Kagawa began working part-time at the seafood market in 1952, and in 1956 purchased it with his uncle Harry Kuruma. They ran the business together until Kuruma’s death in 1968, then Kagawa continued running it and bringing in additional family members. Kagawa died in 2023 and the Kagawa family continues operation of the legacy business.

Notable growth in the Asian and Asian American population did not occur for several more decades. The Filipino and Korean populations in Glendale increased in the 1970s. Many of these new residents were reported to be upwardly economically mobile people moving from urban areas in Los Angeles to Glendale’s more suburban environment. By 1980, the Asian American population was approximately 7 percent of the population in East-West Glendale, and by 1990, it had increased to 14 percent.

Latino Community
Like other populations of color, Glendale’s Latino population was small until well into the 20th century. It was reported that in 1930, Glendale’s Latino population – reported as Mexican – was 584 residents.34 Latinos were one of the earliest groups of people of color to move to Glendale in significant numbers. The majority of this group was made up of Mexican Americans and Cubans.35 Glendale’s Latino population as a whole nearly doubled in size between 1970 to 1980 to nearly 18 percent.36 Though many incoming Latino residents settled in South Glendale, the Latino population of East-West Glendale also increased during this time. The Latino population of the study area stood at 13 percent by 1980, up from 2 percent two decades before.37 Numerous organizations, churches, and businesses were established in Glendale during these decades. In 1985, Glendale also became home to the region’s second Spanish language television station, KVEA. It operated out of a building in Grand Central Industrial Park in the southwestern portion of the Study Area.
38 Armenian Community
The Armenian population in the Los Angeles area for much of the 20th century was concentrated in Boyle Heights and later, Hollywood.39 The size of this group was initally small due to immigration quotas. Some 32 This is based on data from the U.S. Census in the category called “Other” non-Hispanic, into which people of Asian descent are included.
33 California Japantowns, “Glendale,” accessed November 2025, https://www.californiajapantowns.org/survey/index.php/component/mtree/los-angeles-region/glendale. 34 Arroyo, Early Glendale, 103. 35 Arroyo, Glendale: 1940-2000, 79. 36 Arroyo, Glendale: 1940-2000, 120. 37 Ethington, et al., Los Angeles County Union Census Tract Data Series. 38 Historic Resources Group, “South Glendale Historic Context Statement,” prepared for the City of Glendale Planning Division, September 15, 2014, 23. 39 Fittante, “But Why Glendale?” 7-8. 1493 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 23
of the earliest significant population influxes included Armenians seeking to escape persecution in Russia.

This population was ethnically and culturally diverse, including Ottoman and Russian Armenians.

In Glendale, the Armenian population was also small, mirroring the region’s broader trends. Prior to the 1950s, a small number of Armenian residents lived in the Casa Verdugo neighborhood. This included the Pampaian family, who moved to Glendale about 1909 and lived at 1312 Valley View Road (no longer extant).
40 The Armenian population in Glendale remained small for decades; only about a dozen families lived in the city in the 1950s. Early Armenian immigrants to Glendale included Loris “Larry” Zarian (who emigrated with his family as a teenager in 1952 and later became Glendale’s first Armenian mayor) and Kosti Shervanian (whose family established Western West Industries) from Iran; these individuals attracted other Iranian Armenians to the city in the 1950s and 1960s. Many wealthy Iranian Armenians who came to the U.S. to study were attracted to Glendale College, further encouraging the growth of a community in the city.41
As Hollywood – the region’s first Armenian enclave – became increasingly urban, many immigrants sought a new place to settle. As late as 1970, Glendale’s Armenian population stood at less than 5,000 residents (or 4 percent of the city’s population), but this changed in the subsequent decade.42 During the 1980s, Armenian immigration in the region shifted to Glendale and nearby communities.43 Glendale became the main destination for Armenian immigrants, especially those who fled Iran in 1979 after the country was taken over by a conservative Islamic group. Initially, this group primarily included middleand upper-class Armenians. This changed as the city’s Armenian population increased and diversified in both socioeconomic class and country of origin.44 It was at this time that Glendale became “a popular symbol of Armenian immigrant upward socioeconomic mobility.”45 James Allen and Eugene Turner note that, “Glendale became so well known among Armenians in Iran that they talked not of the United States but Glendale as the hoped-for destination.”46 Glendale even had a housing development in the Armenian capital city of Yerevan named after it.47
Between 1990 and 2000, Glendale’s Armenian population grew from 30,783 to 53,854.48 By the turn of the 21st century, Glendale had become “the world’s most demographically concentrated Armenian diasporic hub.”49 With this population growth came a proliferation of Armenian businesses, cultural 40Architectural Resources Group, “Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey,” prepared for the City of Glendale, November 8, 2021; Eric van Breene, “Not So Little Armenia: Conserving Armenian Heritage Sites in Los Angeles” (M.A.Thesis, University of Southern California, 2022), 21.
41 van Breene, “Not So Little Armenia,” 21. 42 HRG, “South Glendale Historic Context Statement,” 21. Armenians are classified as White in the U.S. Census. Though census data, including country of origin, can provide clues, it was beyond the scope of this study to perform such detailed analysis.

Therefore, there are not exact numbers of Armenian residents in East-West Glendale at any given period in this document. 43 Fittante, “But Why Glendale?” 8. 44 Allen and Turner, The Ethnic Quilt, 73. 45 Allen and Turner, The Ethnic Quilt, 73. 46 Allen and Turner, The Ethnic Quilt, 75. 47 van Breene, “Not So Little Armenia,” 22. 48 Arroyo, Glendale: 1940-2000, 121. 49 Fittante, “But Why Glendale?” 2. 1494 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 24
groups, organizations, and institutions. Many of these businesses were established along Glenoaks Boulevard in the study area.

Summary of Contexts and Themes
Seven contexts have been identified for the evaluation of historic resources in East-West Glendale and collectively comprise the historic context statement. They are preceded by an overview discussion of the history of the Study Area prior to 1872. The contexts are organized thematically, and capture major patterns and trends in the city’s development history that are expressed through its extant built resources. Within each of these contexts are themes that provide a focused discussion relative to particular property types. The seventh context, entitled Architecture and Design, identifies and defines the dominant architectural styles that are reflected in every phase of the Study Area’s development and collectively shape its physical form.

Summary Table of Contexts and Themes
Context Theme
Early Development and Town Settlement (1872-1918) Early Development, 1872-1918 Single-Family Residential Development (1910-2000) Suburban Development through World War II (1910- 1944)
Post-World War II Suburban Development (1945-2000)
Multi-Family Residential Development (1910-2000) Pre-World War II Multi-Family Residential Development (1910-1944)
Post-World War II Multi-Family Residential Development
(1945-2000)
Commercial Development (1904-2000) Pre-World War II Commercial Development (1910-1944) Post-World War II Commercial Development (1945-
2000)
Industrial Development (1919-2000) Pre-World War II Commercial Development (1919-1944) Post-World War II Commercial Development (1945-
2000)
Institutions and Community (1919-2000) Pre-World War II Civic and Institutional Development (1919-1944)
Post-World War II Civic and Institutional Development
(1945-2000)
1495 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 25
Architecture and Design Late 19th-Early 20th Century Styles Arts and Crafts
20th Century Period Revivals
Modernism
Minimal Traditional
Ranch
Postmodernism
1496 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 26
Early History and Development (Pre-1871)
The East-West Glendale Study Area is a subset of present-day Glendale. This section outlines the early history and development of Glendale generally and specifically as it applies to the Study Area.

Theme: Native American Period (Pre-1769)
The original inhabitants of the Glendale area were Indigenous Californians known alternatively as the Gabrielino and Tongva. The name Gabrielino is not rooted in Indigenous culture; rather, it was the name bestowed upon them by Spanish colonizers in the eighteenth century and is a reflection of Spain’s colonial aspirations. Tongva is sometimes used instead of Gabrielino, though its use is subject to debate.50 The Gabrielino/Tongva occupied what was then known as Tovaangar and is now greater Los Angeles.

Tovaangar spanned an expansive geographic area that extended between the Palos Verdes Peninsula and San Bernardino, and between southern Orange County and the San Fernando Valley. Though data is scant, scholars estimate that prior to 1770, there were approximately 5,000 people living in Tovaangar.51 Ethnographic accounts describe the Gabrielino/Tongva as hunters and gatherers. It is believed that women did the majority of the gathering of plants, while men hunted fish and game and gathered other subsistence items. The Gabrielino/Tongva built ti’ats (canoes) of wood planks, which they used to develop a thriving maritime trade network along the California coast. They were dispersed across an estimated 100 semi-ephemeral villages, each with a population ranging from 50 to 200. Each village was an autonomous entity and was loosely connected to those around it by a network of trails.52 Larger villages “functioned as political, legal, and administrative center” and “served as ritual centers […or] focal points for traditional activities.”53 What is believed to be the largest village was Yaangna, which was located alongside the Los Angeles River near what is now Downtown Los Angeles.

Gabrielino/Tongva villages near present-day Glendale included Wiqanga, Tujunga, Ashwaangna, Maungna, and Hahamongna – which are believed to have been located along the banks of the Los Angeles River or water sources descending from the San Gabriel Mountains.54 Evidence of the Gabrielino/Tongva’s presence in the Glendale area has been substantiated in the archaeological record. In 1939, it was reported that “cooking stones and metate fragments were found near the site of the Glendale Sanitarium” (now Adventist Health Glendale).”55 Like other Tongva/Gabrielino villages, settlements in the Glendale area consisted of shelters and other structures that were constructed of willow poles and tule mats and oriented in domed circular configurations. The area’s trading trails would 50 Vincent Brook, “Tongva vs. Kizh: The Battle to Name L.A.’s Indigenous People,” October 28, 2023, accessed September 2025, https://babblingbrook.substack.com/p/tongva-vs-kizh.
51 William McCawley, The First Angelinos: The Gabrielino Indians of Los Angeles County (Banning: Malki Museum Press, 1996), 2. 52 Sean Greene and Thomas Curwen, “Mapping the Tongva Villages of L.A.’s Past,” Los Angeles Times, May 9, 2019. 53 McCawley, The First Angelinos, 27.
54 City of Glendale, “Historic Glendale: An Overview of Glendale History,” accessed May 2025, https://www.glendaleca.gov/ourcity/visitors/historic-glendale. 55 HRG, “South Glendale Historic Context Statement,” 24. 1497 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 27
later be expanded by Spanish colonists into a broad road network, and shaped much of today’s current transportation system.

Theme: Spanish and Mexican Periods (1769-1848)
The lives of Indigenous Californians were upended upon the arrival of Spanish colonizers in the mideighteenth century. In 1769, Captain Gaspar de Portolá led an overland voyage between Baja and Alta California, passing through the Los Angeles region that summer. As they traveled north, Portolá and his entourage founded a network of 21 missions (religious centers) with the intent of converting the Indigenous population to Catholicism and, by extension, it was believed, into loyal subjects of Spain. The Spanish colonizers also founded presidios (military fortifications) and pueblos (civilian settlements) at strategic locations throughout Alta California.56 Spain’s goal was to create and sustain a self-sufficient colony that would solidify Spanish influence in the region and would be protected from foreign incursion.

Two Spanish missions were founded in the present-day Los Angeles region: San Gabriel Arcángel in 1771, and San Fernando Rey de España in 1797.57 The missions depended upon Indigenous labor to sustain their operations, and the Spanish colonizers conscripted the region’s Indigenous people to work at the missions and also in their hinterlands – sometimes by coercion, and often by force.58 Those living near present-day Glendale were generally relocated to the San Gabriel Mission, though some were located to the San Fernando Mission; at the missions, they were required to abandon their languages, cultural practices, and religious beliefs. Many succumbed to smallpox, measles, and other communicable diseases introduced by the Spanish, for which immunity had not been developed, and overcrowding and mistreatment were common.59
The success of Spain’s colonial aspirations led to its provincial government issuing land grants – called ranchos – to military officers and others held in high esteem by the Spanish government, typically in exchange for grazing concessions. In 1784, José María Verdugo, a Spanish soldier who had served in the Portolá expedition, was granted a swath of land between the Arroyo Seco and the Los Angeles River, comprising the present-day communities of Glendale, Burbank, La Cañada Flintridge, and the northeast Los Angeles neighborhoods of Atwater Village, Eagle Rock, Garvanza, Glassell Park, and Highland Park.60 Verdugo’s land grant was named Rancho San Rafael, and at eight square leagues (or approximately 36,000 acres) it was one of the largest land grants issued during the Spanish occupation of California.61 In exchange for the grant, Verdugo agreed to use the land to “raise 2,000 head of livestock, build a permanent dwelling, and provide grain for the community.”62 By the early 19th century, Verdugo had 56 Mary Floyd Williams, “Mission, Presidio and Pueblo: Notes on California Local Institutions under Spain and Mexico,” California Historical Society Quarterly 1, no. 1 (1922): 23-25, https://doi.org/10.2307/25613566. 57 California State Parks, “The California Missions Trail,” accessed May 2025, https://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=22722. 58 City of Los Angeles, “SurveyLA Los Angeles Citywide Historic Context Statement: Context: Spanish Colonial and Mexican Era Settlement, 1781-1849” (prepared by Daniel Prosser for the City of Los Angeles, Department of City Planning, Office of Historic Resources, February 2016), 5.
59 Benjamin Madley, “California’s First Mass Incarceration System: Franciscan Missions, California Indians, and Penal Servitude, 1969-1836,” Pacific Historical Review 88, no. 1 (2019): 14-47, doi:10.1525/phr.2019.88.1.14. 60 Katherine Yamada, “Verdugo Views: Portion of Verdugo Land Grant Sold to Founder of Burbank,” Los Angeles Times, July 1, 2011.
61 Yamada, “Verdugo Views: Portion of Verdugo Land.”
62 City of Glendale Planning Division, “Historic Preservation Element of the General Plan,” September 30, 1997, 9. 1498 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 28
retired from military life and had settled into his role as a Spanish don. On his land, Verdugo raised livestock including “1,900 cattle, 670 horses, and 70 mules,” and planted grains, vegetables, and fruits.63 Mexico won independence from Spain in 1821. In the 1830s Mexico secularized the Spanish missions, a process that transferred ownership from the Catholic church to the Mexican government and was intended to quell any lingering Spanish influence over California.64 During the Mexican period of California history, land in Alta California was parsed into additional ranchos which were awarded to military officers and others held in high esteem by the Mexican government, carrying forward the Spanish-era land grant tradition.

In 1831, José María Verdugo died at the age of 80. He bequeathed Rancho San Rafael to his son Julio and daughter Catalina, who jointly owned the land. Julio Verdugo “assumed the mantle of his father as patriarch of the Verdugo family,” and continued to graze cattle and harvest grain on his family’s land.65 Rancho San Rafael thus remained in the hands of the Verdugo family during the Mexican era of California history (1822-1848).

Theme: Early American Period and the Great Partition (1848-1871) Control over California changed again with the Mexican American War (1846-1848). In early 1848, the United States and Mexico signed the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which concluded the war and transferred large portions of the Mexican Empire to the United States including California, Nevada, and Utah as well as parts of Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, and Wyoming. In exchange, the United States agreed to pay Mexico $15 million for the conquered territory.66 California was admitted to the Union as the 31st state in September 1850.

In the early years of statehood, the rancho system began to erode, largely because of discrepancies between Mexican and American title law and legal processes that were preferential to American interests. The U.S. Land Commission was created in 1851, which required the owners of Spanish and Mexican-era ranchos to provide proof of ownership – proof that often did not exist due to the informal process of conferring ownership under Spanish and Mexican rule.67 However, the Verdugos were able to retain their land at the outset. They filed a petition with the Board of Land Commissioners in 1851, and with the help of lawyer and Baltimore native Joseph Lancaster Brent, were able to validate their land claim in 1855.
68 63 City of Glendale Planning Division, “Historic Preservation Element,” 9. 64 W.B. Campbell and J.R. Moriarty, “The Struggle Over Secularization of the Missions on the Alta California Frontier,” The Journal of San Diego History 15, no. 4 (1969): https://sandiegohistory.org/journal/1969/october/struggle/. 65 City of Glendale Planning Division, “Historic Preservation Element,” 9. 66 Cordelia Candelaria and Gary D. Keller, eds., The Legacy of the Mexican and Spanish-American Wars: Legal, Literary, and Historical Perspectives (Tempe, AZ: Bilingual Review-Press, 2000), 66. 67 Karen Clay and Werner Troesken, “Ranchos and the Politics of Land Claims,” in Land of Sunshine: An Environmental History of Los Angeles, ed. William Deverell and Greg Hise (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1996), 59. 68 Bruce E. Medcalf, City of Glendale Planning Division, “San Rafael Rancho (Verdugo Adobe and Oak of Peace),” National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1976, Reference #76000487), Section 8, page 3.
1499 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 29
The ensuing years presented dire economic challenges. By the 1850s, the demand for hides from cattle raised on the ranchos had dwindled, and a severe drought between 1861 and 1863 compounded the situation by killing off many of Julio Verdugo’s cattle. The Verdugos thereafter sold off portions of Rancho San Rafael to raise money, resulting in a gradual whittling down of their once-vast estate. In 1861, Julio Verdugo mortgaged a substantial portion of the rancho to merchant Jacob Elias under terms he could not afford, ultimately resulting in foreclosure and conflicting claims of ownership.69 A lawsuit was filed by Andrew Glassell and other plaintiffs “to adjudicate the conflicting claims and establish clear titles” to the land.70 In 1871, a decision known as the “Great Partition” was rendered, one of the most infamous land ownership cases in California history. It divided the Verdugos’ holdings into 31 parts among 28 parties. As a result of this decision, the Verdugos retained but a few thousand acres of their family’s original 36,000-acre grant, generally at the base of the Verdugo Mountains and up into what is now the Verdugo Woodlands.71
Built resources associated with this early (through 1871) period of development generally consisted of adobe houses that were constructed by members of the Verdugo family, and were designed using forms and materials that were contextually appropriate for Southern California. Typically, these homes were modest, one-story structures. One to four rooms were arranged in a linear or “U” plan. A veranda, protected by the overhang of a flat or gable roof, connected the rooms on the exterior and shielded the adobe walls from rain. Tar was used to waterproof the earlier roofs, eventually clay tiles and then wood shingles were utilized. Adobe bricks were usually manufactured on the property, and walls were one to three feet thick. Floors were initially hard-packed earth and later covered with wood.72 Several adobe houses are believed to have dotted Rancho San Rafael, two of which remain in the EastWest Glendale Study Area. Both are designated, and both are now city parks. The Catalina Verdugo Adobe (2211 Bonita Drive) is believed to have been built by Teodoro Verdugo, the son of Julio Verdugo, and was the home of Catalina Verdugo in her later years. Its construction date is subject to debate given the absence of written records, but based on available evidence it is believed to date to circa 1860.73 It is listed in the Glendale Register (#1), and is also listed in the National Register and as California Historical Landmark #637.

The Casa Adobe de San Rafael (1330 Dorothy Drive) was constructed circa 1871 by Maria Sepulveda Sanchez, granddaughter of Jose Maria Verdugo, and her husband, Tomás Sanchez, who was an early Sheriff of Los Angeles County.74 The structure was their residence until the death of Tomás Sanchez in 69 City of Glendale Planning Division, “Historic Preservation Element,” 11. 70 E. Caswell Perry, Shirley Catherine Berger, and Terri E. Jonisch, Glendale: A Pictorial History (Norfolk, VA: The Donning Company, 1990), 8.
71 Perry et al., Glendale: A Pictorial History; City of Glendale Planning Division, “Historic Preservation Element,” 11. 72 City of Glendale Planning Division, “Historic Preservation Element,” 10. 73 Martha L. Willman, “Date Debate Still Surrounds Historic Verdugo Adobe,” Los Angeles Times, October 28, 1984. The Glendale Register of Historic Resources also lists the date of construction as 1860. 74 Perry et al., Glendale: A Pictorial History, 14.
1500 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 30
1882. After decades of deferred maintenance, it was purchased and rehabilitated by the City of Glendale in 1935.75 It is listed in the Glendale Register (#3) and California Historical Landmark #235.

Casa Adobe de San Rafael, 1935. (Water and Power Associates) Next to the Catalina Verdugo Adobe stood a massive oak tree where, in 1847, emissaries of the Mexican and American militaries met to arrange peace negotiations between Andrés Pico (of Mexico) and John C.

Fremont (of the United States). Pico and Fremont met two days later near what is now Hollywood and signed the Treaty of Cahuenga, an agreement that ended fighting in California during the Mexican American War.76 The tree in Verdugo Canyon was called the Oak of Peace and was included as part of the National Register listing for the Catalina Verdugo Adobe; it is also listed in the Glendale Register (#2). The oak succumbed to root rot and died in 1987, at which time it was thought to be about 500 years old.77 75 “Dedication Plans Made,” Los Angeles Times, March 3, 1935. 76 Perry et al., Glendale: A Pictorial History, 10.
77 City of Glendale, “Oak Of Peace At Catalina Verdugo Adobe,” accessed June 2025, https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/community-services-parks/parks-facilities-historic-sites/catalinaverdugo-adobe#ad-image-4 1501 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 31
Oak of Peace at the Catalina Verdugo Adobe, circa 1900. (Water and Power Associates) Property Types and Registration Requirements
There are no known extant, undesignated properties in East-West Glendale constructed prior to 1872. If any properties from this period are discovered, they would be eligible under local Criterion A (and possibly others). Because of the rarity of a property from this period and its significance to the early history of Glendale, an altered property would likely retain eligibility, as long as it adequately conveyed its historic significance. This context statement specifically addresses the built environment. Should any archaeological resources be discovered in East-West Glendale, those would need to be evaluated for potential significance under National Register Criterion D, California Register Criterion 4, and Local Criterion D.
1502 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 32
Context: Early Development and Town Settlement (1872-1918) The Early Development and Town Settlement context addresses resources constructed following the Great Partition of 1871. The first settlement and development of the city of Glendale occurred primarily within what is now the South Glendale Community Plan Area, which also includes the area that was historically Tropico. The following context focuses on early development in the East-West Glendale Study Area and its close ties to development to its south. Due to the rarity of resources from this period, and the interconnectivity of development patterns for both commercial and residential properties, the Early Development and Town Settlement context discusses residential, commercial, and institutional property types, along with significant municipal and tract improvements from this period.

Late 19th Century Agricultural Development
The Great Partition of 1871 ended Spanish and Mexican-era land use patterns and laid the groundwork for Anglo-American settlement in the greater Glendale area. At the time, the area was far removed from the fledgling City of Los Angeles and other population centers, but nonetheless attracted a small contingent of early American settlers. These settlers “cleared their lands of the brush and sage that had previously supported sheep and cattle in the rancho days,” and tapped into the area’s agricultural potential by planting vineyards, orchards, and other crops that were sold for profit, transitioning the land toward more intensive farming.78 Early residents included Jesse and George Taylor, who established a 26- acre ranch near what is now the corner of Pacific Avenue and Glenwood Road and constructed a house there in 1873. Around 1920, the building was moved to its current location at 1027 Glenwood Road, where it is locally designated and is thought to be the oldest standing wood-frame house in Glendale. 1027 Glenwood Rd., constructed 1873 and moved ca. 1920. 78 HRG, “South Glendale Historic Context Statement,” 28. 1503 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 33
Portions of the East-West Study Area continued to be owned by members of the Verdugo family, who were among the parties granted land as part of the Great Partition. Julio and Catalina Verdugo retained some acreage in Verdugo Canyon along present-day Verdugo Road, including their adobe house. Rafaela Verdugo de Sepulveda, daughter of Julio Verdugo, owned 909 acres at the base of the Verdugo Mountains which contained three adobe houses, including her own home (not extant) and the aforementioned Casa Adobe de San Rafael, the home of her stepdaughter, Maria Sepulveda Sanchez.79 Among the largest landowners in the East-West Study Area at this time were Cameron Erskine Thom and his nephew, Erskine Mayo Ross. Thom was a Confederate officer in the Civil War who became an attorney and politician; Ross was an attorney and jurist. In 1870, Thom purchased 2,700 acres near Verdugo Canyon from Catalina Verdugo, of which he sold 1,100 acres to Ross in 1872. On his land, Ross planted the first citrus groves in the Glendale area as well as deciduous fruit and olive trees, and built a mill used to produce olive oil. In short order, “he became well known as a horticulturalist, working as a farmer and establishing a fruit packing plant on his property.”80 He named his ranch Rossmoyne; in 1883, he built a large home (no longer extant) there.

Map of a 100 acre tract conveyed by Rafaela Verdugo de Sepulveda to Maria Sepulveda de Sanchez, 1885. (Huntington Digital Library)
79 E. Caswell Perry and Carroll W. Parcher, Glendale Area History, 2nd ed. (Glendale: Eric Schneirsohn, Xanadu Galleries 1981), 9-

10. 80 Perry, et al., Glendale: A Pictorial History, 65. 1504 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 34
Another early settler was Jesse Hunter, who acquired a swath of land on the south side of present-day Cumberland Road, in the northwest section of the Study Area below the foothills. The Hunter subdivision, recorded in 1883, divided the land into 15 parcels ranging between 12 to 50 acres each. Johnathan R.

Scott, an attorney involved in land transfers between the Rancheros and Americans, was another landowner and early settler. In 1881, the Pelanconi family, headed by Antonio and Isabela Pelanconi, settled on a ranch of 212 acres in the future Glenwood Road area. They planted a vineyard on their land.81
Meanwhile further south, the seeds of present-day Glendale were being sown with the arrival of the transcontinental railroad to Southern California. The Southern Pacific Railroad built a new rail line between San Francisco and Los Angeles in the 1870s, with the first trains arriving at their new southern terminus in downtown Los Angeles in 1876. The railroad right-of-way ran roughly parallel to the Los Angeles River along present-day San Fernando Road, skirting the west end of what is now Glendale. The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe, a competitor of Southern Pacific, built a second railroad line to Los Angeles, which opened in 1885. The two operators attempted to dominate the industry by undercutting one another, engaging in a fierce and protracted fare war that dropped the price of a $125 ticket from Kansas City to one dollar.82
Rossmoyne Home (built 1883), circa 1910. (Perry, et. al., Glendale: A Pictorial History, 65). 81 Architectural Resources Group, “South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey,” prepared for the City of Glendale, November 8, 2021, 13; “Purchase Valuable Tract,” Los Angeles Times, August 14, 1926; “Estate to be Placed in Market,” Los Angeles Times, March 23, 1930; Perry and Parcher, Glendale Area History, 6-8. 82 John Sedgwick, “How the Santa Fe Railroad Changed America Forever,” Smithsonian Magazine, July 2021. 1505 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 35
Hordes of newcomers came to Southern California at this time because of the affordability of rail travel and the sense of mystique surrounding the American West. In a decade the population of Los Angeles County more than tripled, from 33,318 in 1880 to 101,454 in 1890, largely due to the influence of the railroad.83 Eager to capitalize on this phenomenon, investors subdivided swaths of land as development sites, often on speculation. This trend of speculative development expanded the footprint of the Los Angeles region and led to the genesis of dozens of new towns on the urban periphery, including Glendale.

During the land boom of the 1880s, parcels in the Glendale area were bought and sold, often many times over, as speculators began flirting with the area’s potential for development. In 1883, the Glendale Improvement Association organized with the purpose of promoting Glendale.84 In 1887, a consortium of developers – C.E. Thom, Erskine M. Ross, B.F. Patterson, H.J. Crow, and E.T. Byram – pooled together land that they had previously purchased and platted a new town called “Glendale.”85 The original Glendale town site was arranged around 64 rectilinear blocks and was bounded by First Street (now Lexington Avenue) on the north, Fifth (now Harvard Avenue) and south of Sixth (now Colorado) streets on the south, Central Avenue on the west, and Chevy Chase Drive on the east. The town was anchored by the opulent Queen Anne style Glendale Hotel, intended to promote Glendale as a desirable destination.86 The Study Area lies north of the 1887 townsite.

But this early attempt to develop Glendale was the victim of poor timing. The land boom collapsed not long after the town was recorded in 1887, and property sales and development activity languished. The Glendale Hotel was shuttered amid a sea of contractor debt, standing as a stark symbol of the economic collapse. Also, and perhaps most importantly, the fledgling town lacked a direct and dependable transportation connection to Los Angeles, which made Glendale difficult to access and further hindered its development. By the end of the 19th century, Glendale remained a sparsely developed town “of about 300 people…[with] no gas or electric lights, electric irons or electric cars.”87 Since the agricultural lands owned by the Verdugos, Erskine Ross, Jesse Hunter, the Pelanconis, and others were located some distance north of Glendale, they were unaffected by the 1880s land boom and bust. East-West Glendale continued to exude a pastoral character and remained undeveloped aside from orchards and a handful of modest houses that anchored farmsteads. In the 1880s and 1890s, as developers “began to buy more with an eye to speculation than orchard planting,” portions of the area’s large agricultural properties were incrementally subdivided and sold, though the uptick in land transfers did not result in many discernible changes to its rural landscape. Small-scale agricultural activity 83 U.S. Census Bureau, 1850-1900 census data, Los Angeles County General Population by City, accessed via the Los Angeles Almanac, June 2025, https://www.laalmanac.com/population/po02.php. 84 As noted in the HRG “South Glendale Historic Context Statement,” “During the boom period of the 1880s, improvement associations were often formed to advance town developments, including the provision of train transportation, water, road infrastructure and publicity. They also focused on building the institutions like schools and churches that would attract residential investors,” 33.
85 Perry and Parcher, Glendale Area History, 11.
86 Katherine Yamada, “Three-Story Glendale Hotel Towered Above the City,” Los Angeles Times, August 10, 2002. 87 Perry, et al., Glendale: A Pictorial History, 23.
1506 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 36
continued.88 Nine people are reported to have resided in the area north of Glendale in the 1890s.89 Extant properties from this period include 630 W. Kenneth Road (1890, locally designated) and 535 Spencer Street (1890, possibly moved to its current location).

Beginning at the turn of the 20th century, some of Glendale’s most affluent and connected early residents built large country estates in peripheral areas north of town, at the base of the Verdugo Mountains. Leslie Brand, an early land developer, businessman, and local booster, acquired several hundred acres and commissioned his brother-in-law, architect Nathaniel Dryden, to design his personal house, perched atop the crest of a hill overlooking Glendale and its environs. Constructed at a thenexorbitant cost of $60,000, the 5,000-square-foot estate was an exotic edifice that combined Moorish, Indian, and Spanish elements. The unusual, Sarcenic styling of El Miradero was influenced by the East Indian Pavilion at the World’s Columbian Exposition in Chicago of 1893, which Brand had attended. Brand later bequeathed the residence and its surrounding acreage to the City of Glendale; the locally designated property is currently used as a public library and park.90 Portrait of Leslie C. Brand, no date. (Los Angeles Public Library) 88 Perry and Parcher, Glendale Area History, 12; ARG, “South Cumberland Heights Survey,” 15. 89 Gleaned from materials in the Bliss Ranch Collection, accessed via the Glendale Library, Arts and Culture, Glendale History Room.
90ARG, “South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey Report,” 16. 1507 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 37
Around the same time, another key player in the early planning and development of this area was Daniel “Dan” Campbell. Originally from Ireland, Campbell came to the United States at age 19 seeking to strike it rich in the goldfields of the Alaskan Klondike. Persuaded by acquaintance Joe Brand, younger brother of Leslie Brand, to visit Southern California, he stayed for a period with the Brand family and soon witnessed Leslie Brand’s success in transportation and real estate development firsthand. Brand took a liking to Campbell and persuaded the young man to purchase 25 acres at the base of the Verdugo Mountains, next to his property. Campbell erected a house on his newly-acquired property and, like Brand, commissioned architect Dryden to design it. The house (851 W. Mountain Street), built in 1903, was called “Ard Eevin,” believed to be an Irish name meaning “delightful peak.” Its design was expressive and eclectic, incorporating elements of the American Colonial Revival, Craftsman, and “West Indian Plantation” style. Ard Eevin is listed on the Glendale Register and National Register. Both the El Miradero and Ard Eevin houses reflect the early development pattern in the northwest part of the East-West Glendale Study Area, where large country estates spanning many acres were surrounded by agricultural lands.91
View of El Miradero from the entrance gates of the property, circa 1904. (Water and Power Associates) 91 ARG, “South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey Report,” 17-18. 1508 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 38
More modest residences were constructed in the East-West Study Area in the early 20th century as well, continuing the older pattern of agriculture-based settlement. At least three properties from the first decade of the 20th century remain extant on Bel Aire Drive: 2056 Bel Aire Drive (1901), 2000 Bel Air Drive (1902), and 1600 Bel Aire Drive (1910). The 1910 Cole-Carothers House at 1235 Glenwood Road (locally designated) also dates to this period but was originally sited downtown and was moved to its current location in 1931.

Left: 2000 Bel Air Drive (1902). Right: 1600 Bel Aire Drive (1910).

The Advent of Interurban Transportation
Chief among the factors hindering Glendale’s early development was its lack of proximity to Los Angeles’s emerging electric streetcar network. Although the Southern Pacific Railroad ran near the fledgling town, it remained far enough removed from it and was not part of the nascent electric streetcar system. A spur line associated with the San Pedro, Los Angeles, and Salt Lake Railroad had been constructed down Glendale Avenue in 1887, but only operated on a sporadic basis. It provided intermittent service to Verdugo Park starting that year.92
The 1880s and 1890s, in fact, were a period of rapid synergistic growth in land and transportation development across Los Angeles, the two processes often closely intertwined. The coincident timing of the region’s first major land boom in the 1880s and the national introduction of electric streetcar technology positioned Los Angeles to adopt this mode of transit with exceptional fervor, helping shape the suburban form of the metropolis. Moreover, the overlapping ownership of land development and transit companies by individuals such as Henry Huntington incentivized suburban real estate development which became the source of their greatest wealth.93 In 1888, Los Angeles installed its first electric line on Pico Boulevard, and within the next decades expanded the network to become the largest in the world.

The two major systems were the Los Angeles Railway Company, smaller cars that ran within the city of 92 Perry et al., Glendale: A Pictorial History, 28.
93 The United States was unique among nations to allow such intertwined interests. See Kenneth Jackson, Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985). 1509 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 39
Los Angeles, and the Pacific Electric, the “big Red Cars” that traversed 1,200 route miles across Southern California. As this transit network expanded, so did suburban development along its routes. Electric streetcar technology was a revolutionary breakthrough, democratizing access to the suburbs with its clean, fast, and inexpensive service. It made the prospect of daily commuting a new reality for many, catalyzing development along its lines.94
Glendale leaders soon recognized the importance of linking to this network, during a time of rapid flux and development. In 1902 the Glendale Improvement Association appointed a railroad committee comprising civic leaders E.W. Peck, J.L. Whitaker, W.P. Penn, P.W. Parker, and J.A. Merrill.95 The committee largely focused on deriving better service from the San Pedro, Los Angeles, and Salt Lake Railroad. But its secretary, Edgar D. Goode, explored the prospect of bringing electric rail service to Glendale. As reported by the Los Angeles Times in 1903, “Mr. Goode has been working to secure an electric railway from Glendale to Los Angeles for a number of years. He has tried to persuade the Pacific Electric Railroad and the Los Angeles Traction company to build, but neither of them would be persuaded.”96 Goode then turned to Leslie Brand to help secure a right-of-way for an electric railway.

From 1902 to 1903, Brand and Goode worked to secure a right-of-way for a streetcar line serving Glendale. In 1903, Brand petitioned for and received a franchise from the Los Angeles City Council for an electric railway line that would begin in downtown Los Angeles and end at Brand Boulevard and Broadway in Glendale. Ground was broken in September 1903, and the first electric cars arrived in Glendale in April 1904. Prior to its completion, the line was sold by Brand to an affiliate of Henry Huntington’s Pacific Electric Railway and was incorporated into that company’s vast Red Car network.97 In November 1904, the Pacific Electric commenced construction on an extension of the Glendale streetcar line. The line was extended about one-and-a-half miles north, terminating at Brand Boulevard and Mountain Street at the base of the Verdugo Mountains. Envisaging the area’s development potential, much of the land adjacent to the extended streetcar line was purchased and subdivided by Brand and the Huntington Land and Improvement Company, the real estate arm of the Pacific Electric company. Brand had developed a close working relationship with Henry Huntington and shared Huntington’s strategy of developing infrastructure – such as the streetcar lines – and suburban subdivisions in tandem. As historian Merry Ovnick has written, Brand:
participated in the practice of buying up large tracts of undeveloped land, while secretly participating in capitalization of major improvements which, once announced, drove up the price of the real estate he planned to sell. In the newly developed community which followed, Brand would have arranged to monopolize the key services such as banks, newspapers, mortgage 94 Becky M. Nicolaides, The New Suburbia: How Diversity Remade Suburban Life in Los Angeles After 1945 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2024), 34-35.
95 HRG, “South Glendale Historic Context Statement,” 35. 96 HRG, “South Glendale Historic Context Statement,” 35. 97 HRG, “South Glendale Historic Context Statement,” 35. 1510 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 40
companies, and utilities. After the town was well-established and the value of these endeavors had grown, he could sell them at high prices.98
While construction of the Red Car extension was underway, the Pacific Electric company devised a creative way to attract riders and promote land sales. Capitalizing on romanticized imagery of Spanish and Mexican California, the company converted the Sepulveda Adobe – which was located about a block away from Brand Boulevard and Mountain Street – into a restaurant serving “Spanish” cuisine. The company rehabilitated the structure and landscaped its grounds with “exotic plantings including varieties of cacti and a fragrant grove of oranges that was intended to represent the type of gardens found in the old California days.”99 The new restaurant, Casa Verdugo, opened in January 1905 and was operated by Piedad Yorba Sowl, an experienced and well-regarded restauranteur of Spanish-Mexican heritage.100 Views of the Casa Verdugo restaurant, exterior and patio, circa 1905 (left, Water and Power Associates) and outdoor dining area (right, Perry, et. al., Glendale: A Pictorial History, 39).

Casa Verdugo was a resounding success as a tourist destination that introduced the area to outsiders and increased ridership on the Red Car line. Almost instantly, the restaurant became a popular attraction among tourists and day-trippers who paid the 25-cent fare to ride the streetcar from downtown Los Angeles, through Glendale, and on to Casa Verdugo for a daily excursion.101 The restaurant was so successful that a large addition to the building was constructed in fall 1905 to accommodate hundreds of diners. In 1907, Sowl built a Charles E. Shattuck-designed, Mission Revival-style residence (1235 N. Louise Street, locally designated) on a parcel behind the restaurant. In 1910, a feud between Sowl and the Pacific Electric prompted her to leave and re-open Casa Verdugo Restaurant out of her own house, where it operated until 1921. Pacific Electric, meanwhile, changed the original restaurant name to La Ramada 98 Merry Ovnick, Los Angeles: End of the Rainbow (Los Angeles: Balcony Press, 1994), 113. 99 ARG, “Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey,” 18.
100 “To Open Casa Verdugo,” Los Angeles Herald, January 21, 1905; Perry et al., Glendale: A Pictorial History, 39; Perry and Parcher, Glendale Area History, 21; ARG, “Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey,” 19-21. 101 Arroyo, Early Glendale, 44; ARG, “Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey,” 21. 1511 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 41
(“the arbor”) after a legal dispute with Sowl; that restaurant closed permanently in 1921 and was demolished in 1923.
102
A permanent community would gradually form around Casa Verdugo, extending from Central Avenue to the west and the Thom and Ross ranches to the east. This area came to be informally known as North Glendale – it comprised the early residential nucleus of the East-West Study Area.103 Land transactions continued apace into the early 1900s, falling more firmly into the hands of American buyers and land speculators. In 1883, a 500-acre property in the future Rossmoyne and Verdugo Woodlands area was purchased by Wicks, Wright, Hodgkins, and Watts, a leading real estate speculator in the area. Ownership of the land subsequently passed to others, including retired minister George Baugh, and in 1900 the brothers John and Robert Bliss. On Bliss Ranch (no longer extant), the brothers grew fruits trees, kept cows and horses, and John Bliss is thought to have built a two-story yellow stucco Spanish-style home which he later sold to James McMillan of the Pacific Electric Company.104 The lands of the Study Area remained primarily agricultural and sparsely populated during this period.

The few residents who called this peripheral area home prior to the turn of the 20th century exuded an independent spirit and did not consider themselves a part of the Glendale community that was taking root to the south.105 While distant from Glendale’s center, the area was forging connections to the emerging town in notable ways – through transit networks, Casa Verdugo’s local popularity, and the social and civic ties of its early elite residents, such as Leslie Brand. Though Brand was a powerful booster and developer of Glendale, and was instrumental in linking Glendale to Los Angeles’s burgeoning streetcar network, his own home stood apart in northern Glendale. The Study Area’s civic future remained to be seen.

Glendale’s Incorporation and Early Improvements
In the first two decades of the 20th century, Glendale became a city and began the process of building its civic and physical infrastructure. Glendale’s linking to the regional electric streetcar system helped catalyze the movement for incorporation, which began in 1902. Over the next four years, the issue fiercely divided Glendale area residents. Those living in the “thickly populated” central area tended to favored cityhood. They believed that incorporation would provide services and infrastructure for the area’s growing population, better than what Los Angeles County had been providing. Opponents included large landowners in surrounding districts, including within the Study Area. Those opposed included Henry Huntington, Erskine Ross, and (ironically) Leslie C. Brand. They favored consolidation with Los Angeles City, which would help grant them access to water from the Owens River. As the Los Angeles Times 102ARG, “Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey,” 23; “Early Views of Glendale,” Water and Power Associates, accessed September 2025, https://waterandpower.org/museum/Early_Views_of_Glendale_1_of_2.html. 103 Arroyo, Early Glendale, 42.
104 Perry, et al., Glendale: A Pictorial History, 32 states this is 915 E. Mountain St. This property (in the Casa Verdugo Historic District) is extant but the permit history indicates it was constructed for M. Angelo Bessolo, not Bliss or McMillan, in 1928.

Additional research may resolve this contradiction.
105 ARG, “Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey,” 14-16. 1512 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 42
reported at the time, they refused to be “swallowed by Glendale,” Huntington even threatening to remove the newly installed electric railway line if the incorporation measure was approved.106

Despite the formidable opposition, on February 6, 1906, incorporation passed by a vote of 75 to 41, making Glendale the 16th city to incorporate in Los Angeles County. The new city comprised 2.32 square miles, south of the Study Area – bounded by Doran Street and Chevy Chase Drive on the north, Central Avenue on the west, Garfield Avenue/Romulus Drive on the south, and Lincoln Street on the east.107 The new city government soon proceeded to establish municipal services and continue the expansion of the streetcar system in Glendale. New municipal offices were established to improve roadways, establish a fire department, install streetlights, and rename streets. Poolhalls were banned by city ordinance in 1909.

Glendale’s first city hall was built in 1912. Leslie Brand continued to be deeply involved in these early civic efforts, despite his early opposition to cityhood and his continued residence in north Glendale.108 Meanwhile, the transit system serving Glendale continued to expand, linking the Study Area to streetcar services which in turn strengthened its ties to Glendale. Multiple lines – sometimes by separate transit companies – were built through the area. In 1910, E.D. Goode’s Glendale and Eagle Rock Railway extended a line along Glendale Avenue up to a point just past Verdugo Park. The line was sold to real estate developers – the Western Empire Suburban Farm Association in 1911 and the Holmes-Walton Company in 1913 – the latter extending the line further north into Montrose and La Crescenta. This line was renamed the Glendale and Montrose Railway in 1914 and would continue operating until 1930.109 In 1911, the Pacific Electric built a new streetcar line to Burbank. The new line branched off of the existing Glendale line at Brand Boulevard, traveling northwest for about three miles along what is now Glenoaks Boulevard through vast expanses of farmland.110 Construction of the Glendale-Burbank line made it possible to access the sparsely-developed agricultural hinterlands west of Glendale and Casa Verdugo.

This ultimately helped make these lands in the western part of the Study Area accessible to suburban development.
106 “Glendale Incorporation Vote Today,” Los Angeles Times, February 7, 1906, 25; HRG, “South Glendale Historic Context Statement,” 41; City of Glendale Community Development Department, Planning Division “North Cumberland Heights Historic District, Historic Resource Survey Update,” August 2012, 13. 107 Arroyo, Early Glendale, 42; HRG, “South Glendale Historic Context Statement,” 41. 108 Arroyo, Early Glendale, 42; HRG, “South Glendale Historic Context Statement,” 41-42. 109 Perry et al., Glendale: A Pictorial History, 55, 79. 110 Arroyo, Early Glendale, 59; Electric Railway Historical Association of Southern California, “Pacific Electric Glendale-Burbank Line,” accessed May 2025, https://www.erha.org/pewgb.htm. 1513 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 43
Historic Glendale Streetcar Lines. (Map created by ARG, 2025) 1514 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 44
Glendale Annexations, chronological gradient. (Map created by ARG from City of Glendale data, 2025) 1515 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 45
Sections of the Study Area also began joining the city of Glendale through annexation. In 1912 the large central portion of the Study Area – the undeveloped Verdugo Cañon District – was annexed to Glendale.

Glendale was experiencing steady growth and pursued this area to gain riparian rights tied to Verdugo Canyon’s abundance of natural streams (see discussion of Verdugo Woodlands in the residential development context below). The physical environment of this area, however remained virtually unchanged through the 1910s.111
Early Characteristics of the East-West Study Area
Given the sparseness of settlement in the Study Area at this time, the lands were mostly open and undeveloped, dotted with two popular restaurants (Casa Verdugo and La Ramada), a couple of streetcar lines, farmlands, citrus orchards, vineyards, and scattered residences. In the 1910s, two quintessentially regional enterprises appeared – a film company and an aviation airfield – along with a handful of institutional, civic, and commercial enterprises. But for the most part, this was country living within convenient proximity to the nascent city of Glendale.

A scattering of other homes were constructed in the 1910s. One notable example is the 1912 Toll House (1521 N Columbus Avenue, locally designated), a grand Craftsman-style home designed by architect Charles E. Shattuck.112
The Toll House (built 1912), 1521 N. Columbus Avenue. (Perry, et. al., Glendale: A Pictorial History, 78) 111 Architectural Resources Group, “Niodrara Drive Historic Resources Survey,” prepared for the City of Glendale, June 15, 2015, 17; City of Glendale Annexations map, accessed September 2025 via the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. 112 Perry, et. al., Glendale: A Pictorial History, 78.
1516 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 46
In terms of early institutional resources, Grand View Cemetery was established in the western part of the Study Area on land earmarked for use as a cemetery ca. 1884. 113 Many Civil War veterans were settling in
Southern California, and this served as the sole burial ground in the Glendale area for them (Forest Lawn would open in 1906). In the early 1920s, the cemetery was purchased by Len C. Davis, who renamed it Grand View Memorial Park and built its Spanish Colonial Revival buildings. 114 The cemetery property is
extant at 1341 Glenwood Road. In the eastern portion of the Study Area, Verdugo Park also had its origins in the 1880s. This largely undeveloped park began appearing in small notices in the Los Angeles Times as early as 1872. It was a popular picnicking spot for church and civic groups, and other individuals who ventured to the rustic area.115 As noted above, the San Pedro, Los Angeles, and Salt Lake Railroad began providing intermittent service to the park starting in 1887. Grand View cemetery and Verdugo Park are discussed further in the Institutions and Community context.

A small commercial district emerged near Central Avenue and Stocker Street, serving the nascent streetcar suburb developing around this time.116 This supplemented the two restaurants, Casa Verdugo and La Ramada. Glendale’s connection to the film industry also began in the Study Area, early on. The Kalem Studio, which originally operated at Broadway and Orange Street, outgrew that facility then moved north to a much larger site on Verdugo Road. It later became the Astra Film Corporation, which produced silent features from 1915-1919, an “Astra Serial” titled “The Third Eye” in 1919.117 The company dissolved and its buildings were moved or demolished in summer 1922, when newspaper ads for the Whiting Wrecking Co. stated “We’re Wrecking a Movie Studio.”118 113 Perry and Parcher, Glendale Area History, 129, states both that the cemetery was established “twenty-two years prior to Glendale’s incorporation” (1906, making establishment date 1884) and that the property was set aside for cemetery purposes “as early as 1894.” The latter date is presumed to be a typographical error. Katherine Peters Yamada also states the opening date was the mid-1880s, in “Still Standing after All These Years, Part V: Grandview Avenue, Grand View School and Grand View Cemetery, 1880s,” accessed September 2025 via the Glendale Historical Society, https://glendalehistorical.org/still-standing-5. 114 Juliet M. Arroyo, Katherine Peters Yamada, and George Ellison, Glendale: Postcard History Series, (Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing, 2007) 90; Yamada, “Part V: Grandview Avenue;” “Erect Big Glendale Building,” Los Angeles Times, June 10, 1923. The cemetery was the subject of scandal in 2005, when decades-old remains found in storage (Los Angeles Times, November 5, 2005, B1).
115 “The East Side: A Genuine Improvement Boom,” Los Angeles Times, May 6, 1872, 9; “The East Side,” Los Angeles Times, May 19, 1872, 8; ARG, “Niodrara Drive Historic Resources Survey,” 13. 116 ARG, “Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey,” 27.
117 Arroyo, Early Glendale, 42; “Begin Filming ‘The Third Eye,’” Los Angeles Times, August 17, 1919. 118 E.g., display ad, Los Angeles Evening Express August 22, 1922. 1517 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 47
Astra Film Company’s extension plan announcement in the Los Angeles Evening Express, February 8, 1919.

Perhaps the most striking features of the area were the grand country estates described earlier, built along the foothills, notably Leslie C. Brand’s El Mirador and Dan Campbell’s Ard Eevin. Surrounded by open lands and farmlands, these estates had wide vistas from their elevated locations. They were accessed by a dirt lane – later Kenneth Road – servicing the few farms that dotted the area.119 In 1905, the Glendale News Press described Ard Eevin as “this picturesque home and most beautiful view point of this wonderful valley.” Both opulent homes drew sightseers, drawing public attention to the area and its desirability as a future residential site.120
On the nearby El Miradero estate, Leslie Brand had grown interested in aviation in 1912 and soon turned parts of his expansive property into an airfield. He purchased several war surplus planes in 1918, then built an aerodrome in front of his mansion the following year. The planes took off downhill toward Kenneth Road. Brand also built a hangar, in the same East Indian architectural style as El Miradero.121 These properties are no longer extant.

The airfield built in front of Leslie Brand’s El Miradero, 1919. (Perry, et. al., Glendale: A Pictorial History, 51) 119 Arroyo, Early Glendale, 83.
120 HRG, “Proposed Ard Eevin Highlands Historic District Evaluation,” prepared for the City of Glendale, August 2008, 13; ARG, “South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey,” 18. 121 Perry et al., Glendale: A Pictorial History, 51.
1518 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 48
Property Types and Registration Requirements for Early Development and Town Settlement (1872-1918)
Property Types: Single-Family Residence122
Properties eligible under this context represent early resources in the City’s history, reflecting preannexation establishment of scattered single-family residences primarily associated with agricultural pursuits. Resources from this period are rare in the East-West Study Area, and represent remnant properties associated with Glendale’s early history.

A residential property from this period may be significant under this context:

Criteria123 Reason
A/1/A (Event) As an increasingly rare example of residential development representing the Study Area’s early development. Residential properties eligible under this context may have an association with historic agricultural uses, or with an ethnic group important in Glendale’s early history.

B/2/B (Person) For its association with a significant person in the early history of Glendale.

Significant persons within this theme include early settlers or other members of the community who were influential in the development of Glendale. It must be shown/proven that the person was a significant early resident of the Study Area or played a role in the area’s development. Properties eligible under this criterion are those associated with a person’s productive life, reflecting the time period when they achieved significance.

C/3/C (Architecture) As an excellent or rare example of an architectural style or type from the period. Additional information about architectural styles from each period and their associated character-defining features are outlined in the Architecture & Design context.

122 As no commercial, mixed use, institutional/civic, or industrial buildings dating to this early time period were identified during this study, there are no registration requirements included here for their evaluation as potential resources. Due to the rarity of resources from this period, should any commercial, mixed-use, institutional/civic, or industrial properties be discovered as part of future efforts, they would likely be eligible for listing as local landmarks under this theme even if their physical integrity has been compromised. The properties that would become Grand View Cemetery and Verdugo Park are both known to have been established during this theme’s period of significance, but saw most of their development, and status as community amenities, after 1918. For this reason, they are addressed under the Institutions and Community context and fall under the Property Types and Registration Requirements for that context.
123 Eligibility criteria are listed in the order National Register/California Register/Local. 1519 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 49
Integrity Considerations for Early Development and Town Settlement (1872-1918) In order to be eligible for listing at the federal, state, or local levels, a property must retain sufficient integrity to convey its historic significance under the Early Development and Town Settlement context.

C/3/C (Architecture) A property important for illustrating a particular architectural style or construction technique must retain most of the physical features that constitute that style or technique.
126 A single-family residential property
significant under Criterion C/3/C (Architecture) should retain integrity of design, workmanship, materials, and feeling, at a minimum, in order to be eligible for its architectural merit. A property that has lost some historic materials or details can be eligible if it retains the majority of the features that illustrate its style in terms of the massing, spatial relationships, proportion, pattern of windows and doors, texture of materials, and ornamentation. The property is not eligible, however, if it retains some basic features conveying massing but has lost the majority of the features that once characterized its style.

124 National Register Bulletin 15.
125 National Register Bulletin 15.
126 National Register Bulletin 15.
1520 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 50
Registration Requirements for Early Development and Town Settlement (1872-1918)

To be eligible under the Early Development and Town Settlement (1872-1918) theme, a property must:
• date from the period of significance;
• exemplify important patterns and trends in development from this period; • display most of the character-defining features of the property type or style; and • retain the essential aspects of integrity for listing in the National, California, or Glendale Registers. 1521 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 51
Context: Single-Family Residential Development (1910-2000) Throughout the 20th century, suburbanization spread far and wide across Los Angeles County. The Los Angeles region developed as a suburban metropolis, embracing the form with particular fervor starting the early 1900s, due to several factors. Regional boosters and leaders believed that suburban development would allow Los Angeles to avoid the mistakes of eastern industrial cities, by embracing outward development to “create a calmer, healthy way to live and work, close to greenery and open air.” Other factors included the cultural proclivities of the numerous Midwestern arrivals to Los Angeles who preferred a suburban community form, and the geography of oil fields and agriculture which drew suburban development into the hinterland. Transportation – such as the electric streetcars and automobile – played a more nuanced role, facilitating rather causing suburban sprawl. Over 130 years, suburban communities proliferated across the region, taking the form of distinct historic suburban landscapes.127

The East-West Glendale Study Area came to represent the city’s suburban heart. It was a particularly attractive site for suburban development, with its hillsides, canyons, and picturesque natural features. Its numerous subdivisions reflected a range of historical suburban landscape types and development patterns, from carefully master planned communities to more piecemeal subdivisions. The background and motive of subdividers influenced these characteristics – from a “master planner” like Walter Leimert who developed Bellehurst Park, to the four Italian immigrants who partnered to subdivide a small tract in the Cleveland Knoll area, to the Campbell brothers who sought to maximize profits through subdivision, property sales, and real estate enterprises. These different approaches often shaped the character of various Study Area subdivisions.

Bellehurst Park advertisement by the Walter H. Leimert Company in the Los Angeles Times, June 24, 1923. 127 Nicolaides, The New Suburbia, 24-25.
1522 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 52
Theme: Suburban Development through World War II (1910-1944) In the 1910s and 1920s, the city of Glendale grew both in population and physical size. The city’s overall population rose from 2,746 to 13,576 from 1910 to 1920, making it one of the fastest growing cities in the nation according to the U.S. Census Bureau. The Chamber of Commerce picked up on this fact and adopted the effective booster slogan “The Fastest Growing City in America.” Glendale’s growth accelerated during the 1920s, part of a regional boom driven by the expansion of the real estate, oil, motion pictures, aviation, and tourism industries. In the 1920s, Glendale’s population jumped from 13,576 to 62,736, an upsurge catalyzed in part by its emergence as a desirable suburban area known for its prime location, its easy accessibility to downtown thanks to the electric streetcar, and its scenic landscapes. The real estate industry, in fact, emerged as one of Glendale’s leading economic sectors.128 It was during the 1920s that the once-peripheral area north of Glendale proper shed its rural roots and began its swift transformation into suburban communities.129 Glendale advertisement stating the “Fastest Growing City in America” slogan seen in the Los Angeles Times, February 20, 1924.

In addition to its picturesque natural features, the Study Area possessed available land and abundant water resources which drew the attention of Glendale leaders. As a result, much of it was incrementally annexed by Glendale between the 1910s and 1920s, most notably with the 1912 addition of the large Verdugo Woodlands parcel which extends to the northern edge of the Study Area. While annexation elections in the area were often controversial, with opponents usually fearing rising taxes, annexation 128 HRG, “South Glendale Historic Context Statement,” 61; Arroyo, Early Glendale, 71. 129 Architectural Resources Group, “Cleveland Knoll Historic Resources Survey,” prepared for the City of Glendale, October 2025,

20. 1523 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 53
continued until most of the Study Area was part of the city. As they joined the city, these subdivisions came under the purview of city policy. The civic status of various sections of the Study Area could impact suburban development in terms of the presence (or absence) of zoning regulations and provisioning for civic infrastructure. Developers of new pre-annexation subdivisions had to provide regulations on land use (to mimic zoning), or infrastructure. There was some unevenness in this regard, opening the way to piecemeal, unregulated development over the years.

Many of the subdivisions in the East-West Study Area lacked period coherence, but rather experienced waves of piecemeal, infill development after their original 1920s establishment, with different housing types built over the decades. For example, the immediate prewar and postwar periods saw a notable amount of in-fill development with Minimal Traditional instead of Period Revival homes, influenced by Federal Housing Authority (FHA) standards and financing and the public’s demand for more affordable housing. This type of “helter-skelter” development was common across Los Angeles, according to geographers James Allen and Eugene Turner.130
Transportation in Prewar Residential Development
In the 1910s and 1920s, two major streetcar lines serviced the Study Area: the Pacific Electric (running east-west, serving the western area) and the Glendale & Montrose line (running north-south, serving the eastern area) They were owned and operated by two separate traction companies. These lines stimulated further subdivisions around them, and also became magnets for multi-family housing and commercial activity along the routes, although that pattern varied. The PE Red Car line that ran along Glenoaks, in particular, facilitated mixed-use development along the route, persisting even after the streetcar gave way to automobiles. Since the streetcars were a fairly class-inclusive form of transit, some elite suburbs in Los Angeles considered distance from the streetcar lines as a plus for keeping away the “riff raff.” This was less true in Glendale, as advertisements even for higher-end subdivisions, such as Bellehurst Park mentioned proximity to the streetcar line as a selling point. The economic crash of 1929 put fiscal pressure on the Glendale & Montrose Railway, and in early 1930 the company filed for abandonment with the California Railroad Commission.131
Starting in the 1910s, automobiles began to catch on in Los Angeles at a rate faster than in other parts of the nation. By 1924, Los Angeles had the highest rate of automobile ownership in the world. Through the public’s habits and policy decisions, the automobile came to eclipse the streetcar as the transit mode of choice in the region. From 1910 to the 1930s, a series of streets and thoroughfares were built throughout Los Angeles County, with major roadways following the routes of the streetcar lines. This was true in the Study Area, such as along Glenoaks, Brand, and Cañada Boulevard. In 1923, the Pacific Electric Railway began using buses to supplement its rail service, to add greater flexibility and take advantage of the expanded street network. In Glendale, such bus lines extended into residential areas and adjacent communities.132
130 Allen and Turner, The Ethnic Quilt, 14.
131 Perry et al., Glendale: A Pictorial History, 79.
132 Perry et al., Glendale: A Pictorial History, 105.
1524 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 54
Automobile use stimulated new waves of suburban development in the 1910s and 1920s. It also reshaped development patterns by opening up land away from the streetcar lines and facilitating hillside and canyon development which became especially important in Glendale due to its topographical features.

There was a class dimension to these patterns, which paralleled the class profile of automobile buyers.

Automobiles were affordable to middle-class buyers in the 1910s, and to the working classes by the 1920s. By the boom decade of the 1920s, suburbs were catering to a wider range of classes across the region, including in Glendale.133 The topography of Glendale also introduced class distinctions. Hillside subdivisions tended to contain the most expensive homes, reflecting a regional pattern. As geographers James Allen and Eugene Turner wrote, “numerous geographically separated regions of wealth are evident, most of which are located in or near environmental amenities: within hilly or mountainous terrain or near the coast.” This included the hills of Glendale.134 During the 1930s, Glendale showed remarkable resilience despite the economic hardship of the Great Depression. As the Los Angeles Times described in 1937, “Airplanes and Spanish houses combined to give Glendale its greatest year since the 1920s, when it was one of the outstanding places for rapid growth in the United States,” and noted “homes mushrooming in a vast fan-shape out by the Oakmont Country Club,” at the north end of the Study Area.135 In 1937, the Glendale Real Estate Board asserted that more homes were built and sold in Glendale compared to any year over the previous decade.136 Glendale’s population rose by 20,000 in the 1930s, a notable rate of growth driven in part by nearby the film and aircraft industries which were somewhat buffered from the economic downturn. Equally important, the Federal Housing Authority (FHA) stimulated construction in many neighborhoods of the Study Area after 1935.137 In the 1930s, federal Works Progress Administration programs funded the construction of new civic buildings, including several in the Study Area. Public works projects after 1935 also included infrastructure improvements, such street and drainage work around Chevy Chase Drive. Altogether, these improvements enhanced the area’s development potentials.138 By 1940, the Study Area’s population reached 52,000, comprising 63 percent of Glendale’s total population.139 From 1942 to 1945, the federal War Production Board placed a moratorium on non-essential home construction. As discussed in the Multi-Family Residential Development context to follow, it does not appear this altogether halted building in Glendale. The Los Angeles Times reported in January 1943 that Glendale “bucked wartime restrictions and still put up new building, chiefly homes, valued at approximately $1,700,000.… Builder and buyers continued to occupy the oak-clustered Rossmoyne and Verdugo Woodlands areas, which fast are becoming the Southland’s most fashionable residential 133 Nicolaides, The New Suburbia, 44-45.
134 Allen and Turner, The Ethnic Quilt, 77.
135 “Glendale,” Los Angeles Times, January 2, 1937.
136 “Glendale Sets Ten-Year Record of Building of Homes,” Los Angeles Times, July 4, 1937. 137 In its appraisals of neighborhoods in the East-West Study Area conducted in 1939, the federal Home Owners’ Loan Corporation noted repeatedly the important influence of FHA financing in stimulating building after 1935. 138 Arroyo, Early Glendale, 103.
139 Ethington, et al., Los Angeles County Union Census Tract Data Series; ); City of Glendale Community Development Department, Population Density in Glendale Census Tract Map. 1525 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 55
districts.” Nevertheless, the overall wartime slowdown in home construction in Glendale contributed to a growing housing shortage, and would unleash vigorous building in the postwar years.140 The Racial Landscape of Prewar Glendale
Suburban neighborhoods of the Study Area maintained race restrictions starting in the 1910s. They followed practices spreading across Southern California, which had become a national leader in this arena. These tools of exclusion included race restrictive covenants, developer restrictions, realtor practices like steering, professional real estate codes discouraging integration, neighborhood protective associations, and grassroots pressure. The end result was that many Los Angeles communities remained nearly all-white from the 1910s to the 1960s.141
Glendale participated in these practices. Race restrictions were enforced through individual property deeds and also, in some cases, through developer restrictions. The developers of Brockmont Park, for example, specified in its 1928 “Covenants, Conditions, Charges and Restrictions” that “no person of African, Japanese, Chinese, or any Mongolian descent shall be allowed to purchase, own, occupy, or lease” property.142 In 1927, William McMillan, president of the Glendale Realty Board, wrote, “The Glendale Realty Board, and the Glendale brokers, as a whole, cooperate in every way to keep Glendale an ‘All-American city’ … by enforcing the race restrictions.”143 Across the Study Area, the use of individual race restrictive covenants was fairly widespread. Federal appraisers of the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (HOLC) confirmed this in their assessment of several Glendale neighborhoods in the late 1930s: in northwest Glendale, deed restrictions were “adequate… protecting against racial hazards.”144 In the Rossmoyne area, deed restrictions provided for “perpetual racial protection,”145 while the HOLC assessed the Chevy Chase district as a “highly deed restricted and controlled area with ample protection against racial hazards.”146 Several other Glendale areas had similar descriptions. By the late 1930s, Glendale, along with neighboring towns La Cañada, Pasadena, Arcadia, 140 “Los Angeles County,” Los Angeles Times, January 2, 1943. Further research is needed to establish whether Glendale qualified for Lanham Act funds during the war as an essential war worker area. 141 Nicolaides, The New Suburbia, 28-29, 72-76; Andrea Gibbons, City of Segregation: 100 Years of Housing in Los Angeles (London: Verso, 2018); Douglas Flamming, Bound for Freedom: Black Los Angeles in Jim Crow America (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005); Laura Redford, “The Intertwined History of Class and Race Segregation in Los Angeles,” Journal of Planning History 16, no. 4 (2017): https://doi.org/10.1177/153851321667619; Architectural Resources Group, “City of Los Angeles Historical Housing and Land Use Study,” prepared for the City of Los Angeles, Department of City Planning, September 20, 2024, https://planning.lacity.gov/odocument/3eaaa5ce-d96c-4325-a1b8- 557218bbd0f5/Historic_Housing_and_Land_Use_Study.pdf.
142 City of Glendale Community Development Department, Planning Division and Francesca Smith, “Brockmont Park Historic Resources Survey,” prepared for the City of Glendale, May 2013, 24. 143 Flamming, Bound for Freedom, 219.
144 Home Owners’ Loan Corporation, Area Description A-4, Burbank and Glendale, March 27, 1939, accessed September 2025 via Mapping Inequality: Redlining in New Deal America, https://dsl.richmond.edu/panorama/redlining/map#loc=5/38.0448/-

95.8425.
145 Home Owners’ Loan Corporation, Area Description A-5, March 27, 1939. 146 Home Owners’ Loan Corporation, Area Description B-22, March 28, 1939. 1526 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 56
South Pasadena, and others, engaged in well-organized campaigns to help homeowners renew deed restrictions that were expiring.147
Glendale also had a reputation as a “sundown town,” meaning Black Americans were not allowed in the city after sundown. Historian Merry Ovnick writes, “The City of Glendale legislated that blacks employed within its limits could only work between dawn and dusk, housemaids had to be day workers rather than live-ins. Glendale residents boasted, ‘No Negro sleeps overnight in our city.’”148 African American Loren Miller, a renowned civil rights attorney who grew up middle-class in Los Angeles in the 1940s, recalled:
“As teen-agers, we knew not to drive into Compton, to Inglewood, not to drive into Glendale ‘cause you would just be out, with your hands on top of the car.” Writer Lynell George likewise described Glendale as being “off-limits for people of color” after dark.149
There were small exceptions to the rule. In 1907, the African American dentist Dr. Alva C. Garrott moved to Glendale “where Negroes did not live,” and quickly received a threatening letter to leave. With the help of friends, he stayed and remained until 1916.150 In May 1914, the Black newspaper the Los Angeles Sentinel published a piece by African American real estate agent Simon Battey, who wrote about coming to Glendale only to learn from local real estate dealers that “all the property listed by them was covered by restrictions against colored people.” Not to be deterred, he went on to list several Glendale lots and homes for sale.151 Despite these modest breakthroughs, Glendale’s Black American population remained very small from 1910-1940. A census data analysis found that of Glendale’s 13,536 residents in 1920, only 22 were enumerated as Black. In 1930, the total was 38 of 62,738, and in 1940 it was 68 of 82,582.152

Sub-Theme: Streetcar Suburbs (1910-1919)
The advent of dependable inter-urban transportation – namely, electric streetcar service – at the turn of the 20th century facilitated Glendale’s growth and maturation into an established suburban community.

As was happening across the region, the streetcars catalyzed suburban development along its route lines.

The streetcars helped make Glendale ripe for new development by generating a demand for new homes that were removed from central Los Angeles yet remained within a reasonable commuting distance to 147 “Editorial: Seen Thru Eagle’s Eye,” California Eagle, August 27, 1940; “La Canada Race Restrictions Program Assured:

Underwriting Fund Sought,” Crescenta Valley Ledger, May 8, 1941. Two HOLC area descriptions mentioned that race restrictions were expiring in the “Pacific-Brand-Glenoaks” district, and the “Chevy Chase-Broadway” district (see worksheets C-16 and C-17). 148 Ovnick, Los Angeles: End of the Rainbow, 244.
149 Ovnick, Los Angeles: End of the Rainbow, 244; Gary Keyes and Mike Lawler, Crescenta Valley’s Dirty Laundry (Arcadia Publishing, 2021), 64; History and Social Justice, “Glendale, California,” accessed September 2025, https://justice.tougaloo.edu/sundowntown/glendale-ca/; Dolores Hayden, Power of Place: Urban Landscapes as Public History (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1996), 23-24.
150 “Trail Blazer: Alva C. Garrott,” California Eagle, April 14, 1947. 151 “To the Colored Citizens of Los Angeles,” Los Angeles Sentinel, June 16, 1914. 152 History and Social Justice, “Glendale, California,” accessed September 2025, https://justice.tougaloo.edu/sundowntown/glendale-ca/.
1527 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 57
the urban core. Responding to this newfound demand, developers and civic boosters marketed Glendale as a residential suburb – or a “community of homes” – early in its developmental history.153 Streetcar service was also the impetus for the earliest suburban development within the East-West Glendale Study Area. Streetcar suburbs were characterized by their orientation to the streetcar itself.

They were pedestrian-oriented, with few streets more than six blocks away from a depot or rail line, and often anchored by a commercial “main street” near the trolley stop.154 In the Study Area, the earliest streetcar suburb was the Casa Verdugo neighborhood. With the extension of the Red Car and the opening of the Casa Verdugo restaurant, agricultural land near the streetcar line was suddenly attractive for development. This land was subdivided and incrementally improved with suburban single-family houses, lending impetus to a new community that began coalescing in the first decade of the 20th century. Located about a mile north of incorporated Glendale at that time, this community came to be known as Casa Verdugo, seizing on the name of the iconic restaurant that was its main commercial anchor. Charles Sowl – the husband of Casa Verdugo proprietor Piedad Yorba Sowl – was appointed the first postmaster of the “Casa Verdugo” branch of the United States Post Office in 1906.155
"Tropico & Glendale" electric streetcar outside Casa Verdugo restaurant, circa 1905. (Water and Power Associates) The Casa Verdugo community, now locally designated as the Casa Verdugo Historic District, was the first substantial residential development within the East-West Study Area. In its nascence, the community was regarded as an independent entity adjacent to, but separate from Glendale, much like Tropico to the south. Glendale historian John Calvin Sherer made remarks to this end: “there was one important section of the valley which through all the formative years of Glendale was unwilling to acknowledge itself as a 153 ARG, “Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey,” 16.
154 Nicolaides, The New Suburbia, 36.
155 ARG, “Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey,” 26.
1528 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 58
part of either Glendale or Tropico…the more easterly section found a local name by adopting that which described the old adobe house near the head of Brand Boulevard.”156 By the early 1910s, Casa Verdugo had unequivocally shed its agrarian roots and had assumed the character of a streetcar suburb. Its population was about 1,500 by this time. In addition to the suburban dwellings that were increasingly filling in its once-sparse blocks, the community featured a small commercial node near the corner of Central Avenue and Stocker Street, one block west of the streetcar.157 Gradually, the blocks around the streetcar line improved with detached, single-family suburban houses. Early advertisements touted the area as a “high class, restricted subdivision… at the south base of Verdugo Mountains… with suburban freedom and comforts.” It highlighted the area’s mature fruit trees and featured an illustration of stately homes.158 Casa Verdugo Villa Tract advertisement in the Los Angeles Times, May 24, 1906.

The prevailing model of development appears to have entailed the sale of individual lots with the purchaser constructing a dwelling of their choosing, independent of architectural restrictions or stringent design guidelines. As a result, houses in the neighborhood exhibit some variety with respect to architectural style, scale, and grandeur. Those that were built in the neighborhood’s formative years of development in the 1900s and 1910s vary between one and two stories in height and consist of both modest bungalows and larger dwellings. Most are designed in the Craftsman style. While most of these earlier dwellings were likely designed and built by a contractor, a few are known to have been designed by architects, including Alfred F. Priest, Meyer and Holler, and Benjamin W. Sherwood.159 156 John Calvin Sherer, History of Glendale and Vicinity (Los Angeles, CA: Glendale History Publishing Company, 1922), 72. 157 ARG, “Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey,” 27.
158 “Casa Verdugo Villa Tract,” Los Angeles Times, June 24, 1906. 159 ARG, “Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey,” 28. This report has details about those properties. 1529 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 59
Additional houses were incrementally built in the Casa Verdugo subdivisions during the 1920s, illustrating how waves of infill typically shaped and reshaped early subdivisions in the Study Area. Continuing the earlier pattern, these homes did not ascribe to a uniform design aesthetic or architectural vocabulary, but rather reflected the whims of their owners and embodied a variety of popular architectural styles. By the 1920s, homes in the area tended to veer away from the Craftsman style – which by this time was seen as anachronistic – and instead embodied the medley of Period Revival styles that were seen as barometers of good taste, including various interpretations of the Spanish Colonial Revival, Tudor Revival, French Revival, and American Colonial Revival styles. These homes were generally compatible with the form, scale, and style of the existing Craftsman style houses in the neighborhood, resulting in eclectic but consistent streetscapes that exuded a suburban appearance. While most homes built in the 1920s were built and designed by a contractor, at least a few were custom-designed by known architects; a notable example is the 1922 Mediterranean Revival style house at 1333 N. Louise Street (a contributor to the Casa Verdugo Historic District), designed by then-up-and-coming Black American architect Paul R.

Williams.160
Sub-Theme: Interwar Planned Communities (1920-1944)
The topography and natural features of the central and eastern portion of the Study Area sparked the imagination of several community builders, who designed planned communities that would nestle within nature and use natural elements to enhance the aesthetic qualities of these subdivisions. These were Southern California versions of the picturesque enclave and garden suburb.161 Typically operating at the upper end of the market, these community builders tended to select sites in newer areas or established towns amenable to stringent land use restrictions. These restrictions were conceived as a way to protect the design and value of property, well into the future. 162 The Study Area was a promising site for such
developments, and attracted community builders such as William Leimert and John Pirtle.

Planned communities of the interwar period drew upon long-standing design principles of picturesque suburbs and garden cities. Picturesque suburbs integrated the natural and built environments, with welldeveloped site and landscape plans which were often conceived by noted landscape architects and horticulturalists. Instead of following rigid orthogonal grids, streets adhered to curvilinear networks that conformed to the natural topography and reinforced a sense of picturesqueness. In a similar vein, parcels tended to be relatively large in size in order to prevent crowding and maintain residents’ access to clean air and open space. In the Los Angeles region, picturesque enclaves were sited in some of the most scenic locations, such as the rolling hills overlooking the Pacific, and the peaceful foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains and Verdugo Hills. Astute site selection, strict restrictions, high pricing, and community 160 ARG, “Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey,” 29-30. 161 In Southern California, “nature” could mean untouched hillsides or groves of citrus and olive trees. See Nicolaides, New Suburbia, 39-43.
162 Nicolaides, New Suburbia, 27; Marc A. Weiss, Rise of the Community Builders: The American Real Estate Industry and Urban Land Planning (New York: Columbia University Press, 1987); on community builders nationally, also see Becky Nicolaides and Andrew Wiese, eds., The Suburb Reader, 2nd edition (New York: Routledge, 2016), chapter 6, and 230-234. 1530 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 60
consensus to protect the status quo helped lock these advantages into place.163 The City Beautiful movement also influenced planned suburbs of the interwar period, emphasizing the importance of maintaining access to open space and natural features to encourage residents to fully embrace and explore nature. Garden suburbs contained other notable design elements, including a prominent entrance marked by plantings, signs, portals, and/or other decorative elements to delineate the neighborhood boundaries. Streets were often curvilinear, following the natural contours of the land, and parkways were often planted with trees to enhance the feel of nature.164 In California, planned communities were generally characterized by: streets that followed the natural elements of the area, whether curving along hillsides or gridded along former citrus orchards; larger, high-end properties; the incorporation of natural elements and imported greenery; and a uniform architectural style.165 Within the Study Area, these elements were most evident in the earliest core areas of specific subdivisions.

In some of these developments, economic downturns and pressures – particularly the Great Depression and post-World War II-era housing demand – diluted the original aesthetic concept, leading to changes in subdivision ownership and pressures to sell in subsequent years. This typically resulted in infill development with a greater variety of housing types. However, the original site design often persisted, including original community design features such as winding roads, mature trees, and other natural elements.

Verdugo Woodlands
In the first decade of the 20th century, developers began eyeing the natural setting of Verdugo Canyon as a potential site for suburban expansion. In 1906, the Forest Grove Land Company purchased Tract 250, a 469-acre parcel adjacent to the Catalina Verdugo adobe with the intention of subdividing the land into large one-acre lots. This early effort proved fruitless as the canyon was not served by public transit and remained hard to access. In 1909, the tract was purchased by the Verdugo Canyon Land Company,166 whose President John A. Pirtle had ties to the Forest Grove Land Company; the purchase included “all the water rights in the Verdugo rivulet.”167 The prospects for subdividing the land changed dramatically in 1910, when the Glendale and Eagle Rock Railway extended service into the canyon; Pirtle facilitated its route by laying out Cañada Boulevard in a straight line. 163 The Cultural Landscape Foundation, “Picturesque Suburb,” accessed May 2025, https://tclf.org/category/designed-landscapetypes/picturesque-suburb; Nicolaides, The New Suburbia, 39-43. 164 David Ames and Linda Flint McClelland, National Register Bulletin Historic Residential Suburbs: Guidelines for Evaluation and Documentation for the National Register of Historic Places (Washington D.C.: National Parks Service, September 2002), 41-43; Architectural Resources Group, “Carthay Neighborhoods Historic District,” National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form (Washington, D.C.: U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 2022, Reference #100007486), 8-344. 165 Barry Neil Zarakov, “California Planned Communities of the 1920s” (M. A. Thesis, UC Santa Barbara, 1977), VI-VII (accessed at SRLF, UCLA Library).
166 The Los Angeles Times referred to them as stockholders of the Glendale Consolidated Water Company. “Transformation of Big Ranch,” Los Angeles Times, September 28, 1909.
167 “Transformation of Big Ranch,” Los Angeles Times.
1531 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 61
From its suburban inception, the Verdugo Canyon area was conceived as a picturesque enclave serviced by the streetcars. This was a somewhat unique feature, as most picturesque enclaves insisted on distance from the streetcars in order to ensure the seclusion from the broader public. Typical of the picturesque enclave development process, Pirtle hired the noted San Francisco landscape designer John McLaren, “the father of Golden Gate Park,” to design this high-end “villa colony.” The streets would be laid out to follow the natural contours of the hills and canyons, ensuring that no live oaks or sycamores trees would be removed. Niodrara Drive was an exemplar of this approach, following the course of a meandering natural stream.168 The developers also sought to include the 40-acre Verdugo Park, with “one of the most magnificent groves of forest trees, mostly Alisos, in all Southern California,” integrating this natural space into the overall community design. The rest of the tract would be divided into half-acre to three-acre “villa lots… running up the hillsides or into the cañons.” Some of these properties included rivulets and mature trees.169 Over 200 lots were laid out, in the area west of Cañada Boulevard. By 1912, the entire area was annexed to Glendale, a process no doubt facilitated by John Pirtle who had intertwined interests in real estate and the water company.170 While only a few homes were built in the 1910s, a community design template was set in the early years for this area. 1910 postcard marketing the Verdugo Canyon Tract. (Glendale Public Library) Pirtle marketed the tract as one of the area’s finest residential districts and envisioned the lots as being developed with sizable residences that were to be set within the natural landscape and would evoke a serene, villa-like aesthetic. Niodrara Drive, for example, was originally composed of twelve estate-like 168 ARG, “Niodrara Drive Historic Resources Survey,” 15. 169 “Transformation of Big Ranch,” Los Angeles Times.
170 Verdugo Woodlands West Neighborhood Association, “Supporting Materials: Proposed Selvas de Verdugo Historic District,” April 1, 2022, 4-6.
1532 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 62
parcels, all of which varied in size and shape. Several parcels were purchased shortly after it opened to the public in 1909, but only one house was actually constructed. Completed in 1912, this residence (1616 Wabasso Way; contributor to the Niodrara Drive Historic District) embodied the aesthetic that had been envisioned by Pirtle and today is distinguished by its comparatively large lot, estate-like setting, generous setback, and overall sense of grandeur.171
In 1917, developer F.P. Newport acquired a portion of the original Verdugo Canyon tract, and renamed the area Selvas de Verdugo, or Verdugo Woodlands in English. He continued the design style by extending more streets into the foothills following the land’s natural contours, including the picturesque Hermosita Drive curving north-south along the base of the hills. His promotion and advertisements continued to tout picturesque elements, such as “[c]hattering brooks of sparkling mountain water—clear vistas of rugged mountains…laurel-covered foothills—great gnarled sycamores—evergreen live-oaks, clusters of alders.” And to secure the future of this high-class development, he instituted restrictions such as the prohibition of “commercial, tenement, apartment house, bungalow court” and other “undesirable feature[s].”172 By the 1920s, Newport was selling smaller lots more in line with middle-class suburban subdivision of that period, introducing different aesthetics into the district; later development waves ensued in subsequent years which allowed more in-fill, especially after Newport went bankrupt in 1935 and sold off to other entities, such as Security First Bank.173 (The torrential rains and floods of 1934 hit this area particularly hard, compelling the city to institute a flood control program in 1935.174) Nonetheless, the original design vision of Verdugo Woodlands persisted in the overall site design, the longevity of certain natural features, and the presence of Verdugo Park. Smaller pockets of this part of the Study Area reflect well-preserved elements of the original plan, such as Niodrara Drive, locally designated as the Niodrara Drive Historic District.

Bellehurst Park and Bellehurst Slopes
In 1900, the Bellehurst land was owned by Captain Cameron Erskine Thom, who named it Bellehurst Ranch after his second wife “Belle.” Thom grew groves of orange, lemon, olive, and shade trees along the roads on his property, many remaining today.175 In the 1920s, the land was developed as the first Los Angeles-area planned community by Walter B. Leimert, who became renowned as a community builder in Southern California.176 The Bellehurst Park and Bellehurst Slopes subdivisions exemplified the approach and aesthetic of a 1920s planned community, by one of the region’s leading community builders. 171ARG, “Niodrara Drive Historic Resources Survey,” 16. 172 Verdugo Woodlands West Neighborhood Association, “Proposed Selvas de Verdugo Historic District,” 7; Redford, “Intertwined History.” Redford notes that “undesirable features” was code for nonwhites in many suburban advertisements of this period 173 Verdugo Woodlands West Neighborhood Association, “Proposed Selvas de Verdugo Historic District,” 7-8; ARG, “Niodrara Drive Historic Resources Survey,” 22.
174 Perry et al., Glendale: A Pictorial History, 139; Home Owners’ Loan Corporation, Worksheet C-15. 175 Rossmoyne/Mountain Homeowners Association, “About Bellehurst: Our History,” accessed September 2025, https://www.rossmoynemountain.com/bellehurst.
176 Yosuke Kitazawa, “Walter H. Leimert and the Selling of a Perfect Planned Community,” PBS SoCal, September 19, 2013, accessed September 2025, https://www.pbssocal.org/shows/departures/walter-h-leimert-and-the-selling-of-a-perfect-plannedcommunity. Leimert went on the develop the Los Angeles neighborhoods of Leimert Park, Beverlywood, Beverly Highlands, Cheviot Knolls, and Rancho Malibu.
1533 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 63
A frequent collaborator with the Olmsted Brothers, Leimert began his career in Northern California, developing the high-end hillside Berkeley Hills and Piedmont neighborhoods. When he arrived in Los Angeles, his first project was Bellehurst Park in Glendale in 1923. Situated next to the new Rossmoyne tract, both Bellehurst and Rossmoyne shared traits as 1920s planned communities aimed at wealthy buyers.177 The sloping Bellehurst Park portion of the area was platted according to the gridiron pattern, with slightly curving east-west roads bisecting the parallel north-south streets. To protect the suburban ambience, developer restrictions prohibited any multi-family housing, although a “limited area” was set aside for businesses.178 Leimert was a vigorous proponent of restrictions in developments to ensure the stability and value of property into the future. As he explained a few years later, “By this plan of restrictions the control of the property comes into the hands of the property owners themselves when the subdivider steps out; and they can and do maintain the beautiful appearance of the property, both from an architectural and a landscaping point of view, FOR ALL TIME.”179 Map of Bellehurst Park Lots in the Los Angeles Times, March 24, 1923.

The Bellehurst Park “residential park,” as Leimert described it in 1923, included features that softened the edges of the gridiron layout, especially the many trees that dotted the former Bellehurst ranch. These included citrus, olive, apple and pepper trees, as well as forty-year old palms, magnolias, live oaks and other ornamental trees. “It is very unusual to find so many large spreading trees in such a comparatively 177 LSA Associates, Inc., “Rossmoyne Historic Resources Survey,” prepared for the City of Glendale, September 6, 2011, 25. 178 “Open Bellehurst Park,” Los Angeles Times, March 18, 1923. 179 Kitazawa, “Walter H. Leimert.”
1534 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 64
limited area.” One ad described the breadth of natural features: “foothill slopes; picturesque various shaped sites, commanding magnificent vistas… along the winding roads of this magnificent foothill section.” Ads also mentioned the proximity of the Pacific Electric streetcar line, two blocks away. In 1923, the minimum home price was set at $4,000, and they ranged up to $7,500. Lot frontages ranged from 40 to 70 feet wide.180
The community’s development model entailed both the sale of empty lots – leaving construction up to the buyer – as well as built homes for sale. In March 1923, 350 lots were sold, and in May 1923, a second phase put more lots for sale. Ads mentioned “moderate” prices for the “average man,” suggesting some variety of properties offered.181 Later that year, homes designed by Carleton M. Winslow and Christ Thoren were advertised, including two-story Italian Revival and English Revival homes.182 By late 1923, Bellehurst Hillslopes opened, pushing into the hillside above the original development. With curvilinear roads following the natural contours of the land, every lot was touted to have “an absolutely unobstructed THREE-WAY VIEW—east, south, and west, with the massive Verdugo Mountains in the background.” Lots were sold ranging from $1,500 to $3,000. Buyers would handle construction of the homes themselves.183
Rossmoyne and Brockmont Park
Two designated Glendale Historic Districts, Rossmoyne and Brockmont Park, are strong examples of planned suburban communities developed in the interwar period. Rossmoyne was conceived as a planned suburban community by the Haddock-Nibley Company, developers who hailed from Salt Lake City, Utah. In 1923, they purchased 800 acres of the Rossmoyne Ranch for a reported $2 million, which included expanses of citrus groves, live oak, and sycamore trees, and a rising mesa. They designed the community to incorporate natural features, curving concrete streets, and lighting. Many lots were large with expansive views, aimed at upper middle-class buyers of “independent means and comfortable circumstances.” Seeking to control the character of the community, the developers imposed restrictions that included “architectural covenants mandating Period Revival styles,” minimum constructions costs to ensure a particular class of buyers, protection of open lands in the foothills, and race restrictions. While homes were built by individual buyers of property, this level of holistic community design along with a robust set of restrictions to ensure its longevity pegged this as a strong example of an interwar planned community.184
Similarly, Brockmont Park was a planned community from its suburban genesis. Developed by the Home Realty Company, it shared the sloping topography of neighboring subdivisions. Its curving roads, “thoughtfully placed street trees,” and preservation of natural features incorporated picturesque elements. Notably, the developer also established a non-profit homeowner association, the Brockmont 180 “Open Bellehurst Park,” Los Angeles Times, March 18, 1923; Bellehurst Park display ad, Los Angeles Times, March 24, 1923. 181 “Bellehurst Meets Glendale Home Demand,” Los Angeles Evening Express, May 5, 1923. 182 Display ad, Los Angeles Daily News, October 4, 1923; also see Bellehurst Park display ads, Los Angeles Times, April 7, 1923, May 4, 1923.
183 “Bellehurst Slopes” display ad, Los Angeles Times, October 27, 1923. 184 LSA Associates, Inc., “Rossmoyne Historic Resources Survey,” 12-19. 1535 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 65
Park Association, quite early on in 1928 to enforce a strict set of restrictions. The developer saw the need to codify explicit restrictions to assure home seekers of the development’s stability into the future. These measures included race restrictions, prohibitions on businesses, single-family residences only, the Association’s vetting of the exterior color of homes, minimum setbacks of 30 feet, $7,500 minimum construction costs for homes to ensure the area’s class character, and the maintenance of gateways, fountains and other ornamental community features. The Association was active until at least 1956, helping fix these elements into place. This may explain the lack of Minimal Traditional homes built in the 1930-40s, when this style was proliferating in other areas.185 Chevy Chase Canyon & Chevy Chase Estates
The Chevy Chase Canyon area, the largest canyon in the San Rafael Hills, was originally dubbed Sycamore Canyon, a natural area of green oaks, sycamores, and native flowers. In the 1910s, the area was said to be a private game preserve of the Doheny family, although the property was owned by J.C. Anderson, president of the Pan-American Petroleum Co. The property was kept locked behind iron gates, and retained many of its natural features. It was annexed to Glendale in 1921.

In 1925, developer Bert Farrar, who hailed from Seattle, began preparing the area for suburban development. He worked with experts to design the canyon area as a coherent development, nestled in nature and offering leisure amenities. He assembled a community design team that included Swiss architect and planning engineer Franz Herding; Mark Daniels, a city planning engineer; and Albro Gardner, Jr., a “resident engineer.” Los Angeles County facilitated the construction of Chevy Chase Drive, touted by Farrar for its “unusual scenic beauty” with mammoth trees lining the way and commanding views at its upper reaches. (In 1925, the Glendale City Council changed the name from Sycamore Canyon Road to Chevy Chase Drive.) The development also included nature and bridle trails, a nine-hole golf course designed by Pasadena-based William Bell, and a Spanish-style clubhouse, which included a swimming pool and tennis courts. The golf course and clubhouse were available to residents for a nominal fee. A small shopping center, designed to be architecturally compatible with the area, was also planned.186 The developer also planted colorful flowers and shrubs, which were maintained by a yearround gardener. By 1927, Bert Farrar Inc. had invested over $2,000,000 in the development.187 In the Chevy Chase area, individual homes or empty lots were sold to buyers who would hire a designer/builder to construct a customized home. Prices and styles varied widely. In 1925, lots were offered for “$950 on easy terms – many lower – a few higher.”188 That same year, Herding was overseeing the building of several homes, along with noted architect Lloyd Wright, son of the famed architect Frank Lloyd Wright.189 By 1927, after the golf course had been built, large homesites overlooking 185 City of Glendale and Smith, “Brockmont Park Historic Resources Survey,” 13-21, 23-25. 186 “Opening for Estate Set for Tomorrow,” Glendale Daily Press, Feb 28, 1925; Display ad, Chevy Chase Canyon, Glendale Daily Press, March 31, 1925; “Chevy Chase Improvement Plans Told; Experts Aid Farrar in Designs,” Glendale Daily Press, September 12, 1925, accessed August 2025, https://www.chevychaseestates.us/newspaper-gallery/. 187 Jerry McKee, History of the Chevy Chase Estates Association, And the Community it Serves 1925-2015, 2nd edition, 5-7, accessed August 2025, https://www.chevychaseestates.us/history-of-the-chevy-chase-estates-association/. 188 “A Hidden Domain: Chevy Chase Opens Sunday,” Glendale News Press, February 28, 1925. 189 “Chevy Chase Improvement Plans Told; Experts Aid Farrar in Designs,” Glendale Daily Press, September 12, 1925. 1536 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 66
the course ranged from $1,750 to $2,450, a relatively affordable price in the Study Area at this time.

Period Revival architecture was popular in the development. The first home constructed was a Tudor Revival (2500 E. Chevy Chase Drive, extant) in 1925. Spanish Colonial homes included the locally known “castle” (2322 E. Chevy Chase Drive, 1929, extant but altered) and the original residence of Bert Farrar (2440 St. Andrews, locally designated). Homes designed by Lloyd Wright included the Derby House (2535 E. Chevy Chase Drive, 1926, listed in the Glendale Register and National Register), the Calori House (3021 E. Chevy Chase Drive, 1926, locally designated), and the Ellis R. Lewis House (2948 Graceland Way, 1926, extant but extensively altered). By 1929, a number of higher-end homes were under construction, including a $40,000 home for Hollywood businessman A. Thompson. There were nearly 60 homes built in the Canyon by that year.190
Front-page story highlights the variety of homes in Chevy Chase Canyon in the Glendale News Press, March 9, 1929.

To ensure aesthetic coherence in the community, Farrar specified in all property deeds sold that all building plans needed approval by an Architectural Board appointed by the developer. One newspaper reported that Herding and Farrar supervised the “art jury” to oversee architectural designs. The developer also required a minimum building cost of $5,000, a moderately high price in this period.

Property buyers were also presented with an application for membership in the Golf Club.191 Along with 190 “Home Builders Flock to Chevy Chase,” Glendale News Press, March 9, 1929; McKee, History of the Chevy Chase Estates Association, 7-8.
191 McKee, History of the Chevy Chase Estates Association, 8. 1537 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 67
its siting in natural terrain, its curvilinear streets, and its leisure amenities, these regulations helped distinguish this as a planned community.

The stock market crash of 1929 ended Bert Farrar’s ownership, the remaining properties went into foreclosure, and Security First National Bank of Los Angeles took ownership of the remaining properties and the golf club. In 1937, area residents banded together to form the Chevy Chase Estates [Homeowners] Association (CCEA) to block plans by the Bank to subdivide the golf course; the residents of all 68 homes built to date signed the petition. Over the next few years, conflict between local residents and the Bank continued over ownership of the remaining lots and golf club. The Bank auctioned off several small lots directly adjacent to the golf course, allowing for the building of a few smaller homes.192 After the wartime moratorium on building lifted in 1945, the intense postwar housing demand led to the construction of smaller homes in the Canyon (to the dismay of some long-time residents). Illustrating how changing housing and economic conditions could alter the original vision of a master-planned community, the CCEA official history described:

In the wake of the postwar housing shortage, construction of new homes was in evidence. But the first postwar house completed in the canyon brought about a storm of protests from all parts of Chevy Chase. Unattractive in appearance and much smaller than average, it was entirely incompatible with the expensively built homes around it. What was more, it had been constructed under false pretenses: the builder, posing as a war veteran, got signatures from sympathetic neighbors on a petition to permit a setback variation. Too late it was discovered that the man was a speculator and not even a war veteran.193 This turn of events explained how a number of more modest, Minimal Traditional homes were built in the area, lending a more eclectic character to the Canyon. Seeking to stem the tide and restore the Canyon’s original aesthetic, in 1948, the CCEA was incorporated as a non-profit, and the Architectural Advisory Committee was reactivated, to restore local control over architecture in the Canyon. Seeking R1R (restricted single-family residence) zoning, as a means to exert greater control over the quality of homes, the CCEA won approval from the city, after a years-long effort.194 They imposed a minimum 1,400 square foot requirement for homes (excluding porches, patios, and garages or carports), based on average square footage in the area. As the CCEA reported in its history, it denied “small lot” building plans during these years, and fended off a low-rent apartment complex in 1950. In subsequent years, the CCEA successfully fought the building of “high-rise condos, apartments, ridgeline communities and commercial properties in order to protect the wild character of the Canyon and the value of Canyon properties.”195

192 McKee, History of the Chevy Chase Estates Association, 10-11. 193 McKee, History of the Chevy Chase Estates Association, 12. 194 McKee, History of the Chevy Chase Estates Association, 13. 195 McKee, History of the Chevy Chase Estates Association, 13. 1538 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 68
Sub-Theme: Standard Subdivisions and Automobile Suburbs (1910-1944) The 1910s and 1920s were a time of vigorous suburban development across the entire Study Area. The rise in automobile usage opened up new areas for subdivision. No longer restrained by the fixed routes of electric streetcars, developers began acquiring and subdividing land that had previously been difficult to access because of its relative distance from the streetcar lines. New roads, most of which were now paved with macadam or asphalt, were cleaved into the landscape, allowing developers to subdivide the open lands in between the streetcar lines. Developers could also venture into more challenging hillside areas and subdivide the varied terrain into residential lots with picturesque settings and commanding views. Roads became wider and charted more meandering, curvilinear courses that would have been difficult to traverse by streetcar but could be done with ease by the automobile. The result were automobile suburbs that spanned the gamut, from modest communities to higher-end neighborhoods that “afforded more privacy, larger yards, and a parklike setting.”196 They could be planned or unplanned.

Planned suburbs followed design elements described above, with a holistic approach to site design and restrictions in place. Unplanned standard subdivisions were developed without this guiding aesthetic vision.

Generally speaking, the western part of the Study Area was characterized by more standard unplanned subdivisions, that followed the pattern of the “speculative gridiron.” Subdividers carved up lots along a grid pattern, a cost-effective way of selling street frontage while allowing for future expansion. Some of these subdivisions were platted on sloping lands that swept south of the country estates – El Mirador and Ard Eevin. Others were platted around the streetcar lines, for a varied class of buyers. With few exceptions, these tracts were subdivided, designed, and sold by individuals concerned less with designing an aesthetically imagined community, than with facilitating property sales. The building process in these subdivisions was generally undertaken by individual buyers of property, who might hire a contractor or purchase and construct a kit home. These more piecemeal suburban landscapes were typical of the many subdivisions proliferating across Los Angeles during the 1920s real estate boom.197 This suburban type also included a handful of hillside and canyon subdivisions that became accessible by automobile by the 1920s, such as Glenoaks Canyon and the Oakmont Country Club tracts. Because they were not “master planned,” they are included in this category.

Cumberland Heights
In 1910, in the western part of the East-West Study Area, the El Miradero and Ard Eevin estates loomed above the sloping lands that would be soon subdivided into numerous suburban tracts. This area was associated with the Hunter Subdivision that had been platted into large parcels in 1883. Apart from smallscale agricultural uses, the only development activity in the area around the turn of the century consisted of the sale and re-subdivision of some of the land. Both Leslie Brand and the Campbell brothers, owners 196 ARG, “South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey,” 35. 197 Nicolaides, New Suburbia, 26-27, 42; Allen and Turner, Ethnic Quilt, 14. 1539 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 69
of those estates, would soon emerge as major investors and figures in real estate, leading the charge toward suburbanization in this area.198
As early as 1907, several lots situated in this area were acquired and re-subdivided.199 It was also around this time that two previously unnamed county streets that transected the area were named Grandview Avenue and Kenneth Road. In the 1910s, more land in the area was subdivided north of Kenneth Road.

However, these subdivisions were speculative in nature and existed largely on paper; they did not result in widespread neighborhood development. Only one house in this area, 1549 Ben Lomond Drive, dates to the early 20th century and appears to be original to the neighborhood. It has since been extensively altered and is a non-contributor to the South Cumberland Heights Historic District. Two others, 1621 Ben Lomond Drive (1912) and 1631 Ben Lomond Drive (1910), were constructed in the 1910s, but were both relocated to their current locations from Brand Boulevard in the 1920s.200 Both are contributors to the South Cumberland Heights Historic District.

Beginning in the early 1920s, portions of the estates of Brand, the Campbells, and others who had invested in the area were subdivided and platted into more conventional residential neighborhoods that, over time, would become known as Cumberland Heights. (This includes the locally designated Historic Districts of North Cumberland Heights, South Cumberland Heights, and Ard Eevin Highlands.) These tracts were developed at the same general time, by the same group of interested parties, and ascribed to the same template of residential development that was characteristic of the era. Suburban development was not the product of any one developer or “community builder,” rather this area was a patchwork of individual subdivisions that were platted and developed alongside each other, simultaneously, and in the same general manner.201
Consistent with common practices of the day, parcels within these subdivisions were developed incrementally and on an individual basis. The developers of each tract would sell lots to either individual home-seekers or investment companies, and buyers would construct a new dwelling in an architectural style of their choosing. As a result, houses within the subdivision ascribe to the same basic massing, bulk, and scale, but exhibit some variety with respect to architectural style. Homes built in the 1920s were designed in Period Revival styles, particularly Spanish Colonial Revival, Tudor Revival, and French-Inspired styles, reflecting popular preferences of this time.202 198 ARG, “South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey,” 22. 199 City of Glendale, “North Cumberland Heights Historic District,”14; ARG, “Cleveland Knoll Historic Resources Survey,” 19; Tract map for the Jones and Valentine Tract, MB 12-155, May 1907, accessed May 2025 via the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works.
200 ARG, “South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey,” 20-21. 201 ARG, “Cleveland Knoll Historic Resources Survey,” 20. 202 ARG, “South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey,” 24-26. 1540 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 70
A Spanish Colonial Revival residence on Cumberland Road, 1928. The porte cochere and rear detached garage are typical of automobile suburbs. (USC Digital Library)
Most houses within Cumberland Heights are relatively modest interpretations of their respective architectural styles and were likely designed and constructed by building contractors. However, a few are known to have been designed by an architect, including the Spanish Colonial Revival-style Stanford House at 804 W. Kenneth Road (1924, listed on the Glendale Register), which was designed by architect Earl C.

Rahn. The Bel Aire Mansion at 747 W. Kenneth Road, (1922, listed on the Glendale Register), was built by a renowned attorney from Kentucky, Mattison Boyd Jones. That home, writes historian Merry Ovnick, was “a public announcement of plantation heritage, although with California concessions, especially in its tree-lined approach, where eucalyptus substituted for magnolia or live-oak trees.”203 In the North Cumberland Heights area, Glendale architect Alfred F. Priest designed the Tudor Revival-style house at 1675 Ard Eevin Avenue (1924, contributor to the Ard Eevin Historic District). 204
In the 1930s, development continued apace. Much of this was in-fill development on vacant lots; by the latter part of the decade, a greater number of Minimal Traditional homes were constructed, reflecting both economic constraints and FHA influences upon home design (i.e., the “minimum house.”) Much of 203 Ovnick, Los Angeles: End of the Rainbow, 174.
204 ARG, “South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey,” 26; on Bel Aire, see The Historical Marker Database, “Bel Aire, 727 Kenneth Road, Jones House,” accessed September 2025, https://www.hmdb.org/m.asp?m=163467. 1541 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 71
the area was built out at this time. In the years after World War II, more in-fill construction occurred, but comprised a relatively small portion of the housing stock in this area.205 The Cumberland Heights area illustrated the piecemeal nature of development, particularly evident in the western part of the East-West Study Area. It lent itself to variations in home styles and costs. At the same time, these subdivisions cohered in their scaling, massing, and general character.

Pelanconi Subdivision
In the late 1920s, the Pelanconi vineyard was subdivided into residential lots after about a decade of probate. The delay was noted by a Glendale Evening News writer in 1927: “The opening of the Pelanconi vineyard has long been hoped for by the community. It has been somewhat of a mystery to many as to why this large tract remained undeveloped so long when all the surrounding property was being subdivided and built up.”206 The Pelanconi heirs sold the 212-acre property to developers for a reported $1 million. In 1930, the W.I. Hollingsworth Company announced it would put a 150-acre tract in the area on the market, “as soon as street improvements are completed. Frontage on San Fernando Boulevard and West Glen Oaks Boulevard will be used for business and the remainder of the tract for residence.”207 As realtor Walter B. Davis described, the plan was to subdivide tracts as the “demand for property there justifies it.”208 Most of the area’s lots were sold in the 1930s, on streets platted on the gridiron pattern.

Several streets were named for family members, including Alma, Tononi, and Pelanconi Avenue.209 In 1936, 500 homesites in the Glendale Park subdivision (within the Pelanconi tract) were put on the market, and the Los Angeles Times reported brisk demand, with numerous inquiries from “prospective home builders and operative contractors” and a “substantial” number of sales.210 It appears the development pattern was the sale of individual lots to buyers who then hired a builder to construct the home. This subdivision evidently catered to families of modest means and middle-class buyers, with a fair number of Minimal Traditional homes.211
Cleveland Knoll
The Cleveland Knoll area is a good example of a standard subdivision that developed in a piecemeal way.

Not the product of a single developer, rather it was a patchwork of individual subdivisions that were platted and developed alongside each other, at about the same time, and in the same general manner. It included seven subdivisions platted from 1922-1926, reflecting the extraordinary demand for housing in the East-West Study Area in this period. The subdividers of Cleveland Knoll included Security Trust & Savings Bank and a small group of Italian immigrants who went in together to re-subdivide a tract. Census research revealed the immigrants were a building contractor, a farmer, and a farm laborer, suggesting their real estate venture may have been a path to upward mobility.212 Early ads for Cleveland Knoll touted 205 ARG, “South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey,” 29. 206 Katherine Yamada, “Verdugo Views,” Glendale News Press, June 6, 2008. 207 “Estate To Be Placed on Market,” Los Angeles Times, March 23, 1930. 208 “Purchase Valuable Tract,” Los Angeles Times, August 14, 1926. 209 Yamada, “Verdugo Views.”
210 “Park Site Dedication in Glendale Disclosed,” Los Angeles Times, June 21, 1936. 211 For a broader discussion of modest suburbia in Los Angeles, see Nicolaides, The New Suburbia, 43-49. 212 Three of the Italian men were Guiseppe di Vittorio, a builder contractor; Michael Maccario a farmer; and Secando Teodo, a farm laborer. United States Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, 1930 census data: Glendale, CA, enumeration district 1542 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 72
the development’s mature citrus trees, planned street improvement, and free architectural plans designed by Antonio Farinacci, one of the Italian subdividers. Lots were sold to individual home seekers or investment companies, who constructed the dwelling in an architectural style of their choosing. Homes built in the 1920s were designed in a medley of Period Revival Styles, resulting in an eclectic yet cohesive visual vocabulary. The various subdivisions of Cleveland Knoll shared the same basic massing, bulk and scale. But this was a minimal level of aesthetic coherence, compared to the planned communities.213 1432 Cleveland Road in the Cleveland Knoll area, with porte cochere and detached rear garage. (ARG photo) Oakmont Country Club tracts
The Oakmont Country Club acted as a catalyst for suburban development around it, beginning in the 1920s. The genesis of the Country Club itself began in 1920 when a group of Glendale businessmen purchased the 112-acre site at the north end of Verdugo Canyon, formerly a vineyard owned by French immigrant Louis LeMesnager.214 The Club was established in 1922 and the Tudor Revival Clubhouse built in 1923, designed by British architect Charles Creassy. It was built by the Edwards, Wildey, and Dixon Construction Company. The golf course was designed by Max Behr, who also designed the Lakeside, Rancho Santa Fe, and Montebello municipal golf courses. He used natural elements of the Arroyo Verdugo to add character and difficulty to the course. In 1926, the golf course was expanded to 18 holes.

The original clubhouse was destroyed in a fire in 1946, and a new edifice arose in a different style the following year, designed by architect George Lindsay.215 It has been extensively altered.

In 1922, citrus grower and land developer William S. Sparr purchased 1,500 acres of the LeMesnager land, and he hired developers Harry E. Barnum and Malenkthion Walters to form a realty company to sell 0959, sheet 5B, accessed via ancestry.com, https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/6224/; City of Glendale city directories, various dates; 1930 census data, enumeration district 0959, sheet 4A. 213 ARG, “Cleveland Knoll Historic Resources Survey,” 19-27. 214 The businessmen included land developers William S. Sparr, Frank Lanterman, and F.P. Newport, according to the Oakmont Country Club official history.
215 Perry and Parcher, Glendale Area History, 129; Bob Rector, “History of Oakmont Country Club, Glendale, California, 90th Anniversary, 1922-2012,” accessed September 2025,
https://www.oakmontcc.com/documents/10184/12810/90thBrochure2012.pdf, 4-6, 17. 1543 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 73
the land. Setting their sights on the wealthy Easterners moving to Pasadena, they sought to lure them to purchase property in this country-club subdivision, along the sloping lands surrounding the country club.216
The prevailing development pattern appears to have entailed the sale of individual lots, with the purchaser hiring a contractor to build the home, independent of architectural restrictions or strict design guidelines. Homes varied widely in terms of size, pricing, and style. A 1929 ad listed a “beautiful estate” – five bedrooms, four bathrooms, and “just across the way from the clubhouse entrance” – for $15,000 (the home was built in 1928).217 The same year, a furnished two-bedroom “modern stucco” home with “beautiful terraced gardens” on Del Valle Avenue was listed for $13,500.218 Ads in the 1930s revealed some decline in pricing. One notable property was a grand 18-room “estate” on two acres (on the southeast corner of Verdugo Road and Sparr Heights Boulevard) across from the country club, put up for pre-foreclosure auction in 1931.219 The property featured oak trees, a “family orchard,” and fish ponds.

Six blocks south of the Country Club, an Italian Revival home with “running stream through delightful gardens” was listed (1608 El Rito Avenue, extant).220 Homes built in the 1920s and 1930s reflected a range of Period Revival styles, including Spanish Revival, Monterey Revival, Tudor Revival, and Mediterranean Revival designs with custom landscapes. Common features included homes on elevated lots, multi-story residences with ornamental detailing, and custom design elements. Although one small classified advertisement mentioned it was a “restricted residence area,” no further evidence clarified the nature of those restrictions.221 Homes continued to be built from the 1930s through the 1960s.

Glenoaks Canyon
The Glenoaks Canyon subdivision was built in what was originally known as Scholl Canyon, a remote area between Glendale and Pasadena with hundreds of oak and sycamore trees, as well as some fruit trees (including pear and apricot) planted by ranchers who owned the land. In the early 1920s, a syndicate of “Los Angeles men,” that included John Powers, Charles T. Tyron, and Walter P. Story purchased the land and began preparations to subdivide the canyon and hilly area into half- and one-acre lots, many of them from 1,000 to 1,500 feet in elevation. In 1923, they sold a five-acre tract of the land to the City of Glendale, to build a 5-million-gallon reservoir, and donated two acres to create a city park, with plans to build tennis courts and a “community house” open to all. In March 1923, in typical Southern California fashion, they launched their real estate venture with a public barbecue held on site, complete with “Spanish dancers and Swiss yodelers” and all-you-can-pick apricots. Thousands attended.222 By the late 1920s, the Glen Oaks Inc. syndicate included Walter P. Story (President), Guy M. Rush (Vice President and Managing Director), and George A. Orloff (Secretary). In 1927, they announced the formal opening of the 680-acre “Glen Oaks” subdivision, a wooded tract in the San Rafael Hills along East 216 Rector, “History of Oakmont Country Club”, 1-4.
217 Classified ad, Los Angeles Times, April 11, 1929.
218 Classified ad, Los Angeles Times, Feb 18, 1929
219 Display ad, Los Angeles Times, April 25, 1931.
220 Display ad, Los Angeles Times, May 28, 1932.
221 Classified ad, Los Angeles Times, March 28, 1936.
222 “Glendale Reservoir,” Los Angeles Times, July 22, 1923. 1544 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 74
Glenoaks Boulevard.223 Touted as “the most important” subdivision in the area, Glen Oaks was planned as a self-contained community with sea breezes and abundant oak trees. The vision was to create “an artistic community of moderately priced homes,” designed to attract “the man of average income.” The developers also emphasized the importance of forming a homeowner association “to perpetuate restrictions, an art jury to supervise architectural construction, a master plan safeguarding the beautiful tree growth and other natural features of Glen Oaks.”224 The Homeowner Association was not formed, however, until 1997, suggesting that the intended level of oversight may not have been achieved until much later.225 While the development did include basic infrastructure improvements, apparently financed in part by the land syndicate, including water, gas, electricity, sewer systems, quality street work, and ornamental “electroliers” (streetlights), the lack of a comprehensive community plan and stringent restrictions qualifies it more as a standard subdivision.226 Nevertheless, it became a community of several architecturally notable homes. It is conceivable that the lack of an “art jury” gave more latitude and freedom to architects designing more avant-garde modernist homes.

Glenoaks Canyon was gradually built up in the 1920s and 1930s, with a few additional properties built in the 1950s and 1960s. The development pattern appeared to be lots sold to speculative builders and individuals, who hired a contractor/builder to construct the home. A scattering of homes were built in the 1920s. In 1930, thirty homes were under construction by both individuals and speculative builders, and more building followed in that decade.227 The homes in Glenoaks Canyon have varied architectural styles, with several architecturally significant properties. Architect Richard Neutra homes designed two homes here in this period, including the Philip Gill House (542 Suncourt Terrace, 1939, extant) and the Matilda Sweet House (541 Suncourt Terrace, 1940, extant).228 Neither of these are designated. Ads for other homes reflected varied styles, such as “Classic Riviera” and “England Farm House.”229 223 “Gives Report on Opening of Tract,” Pasadena Star-News, October 8, 1927. 224 “Gives Report on Opening of Tract,” Pasadena Star-News. 225 “Glenoaks Canyon Homeowners Association,” accessed September 2025 via bizprofile.net, https://www.bizprofile.net/ca/glendale/glenoaks-canyon-homeowners-association. 226 “Gives Report on Opening of Tract,” Pasadena Star News, October 8, 1927; Katherine Yamada, “Verdugo Views: Before Glenoaks, there was Scholl,” Glendale News Press, December 8, 2006; Katherine Yamada, “Verdugo Views: Glenoaks Canyon in the 1930s and ‘40s,” Glendale News Press, March 23, 2007. An extension of Glenoaks Boulevard was also built into the tract to provide access.
227 “Thirty Homes Being Erected at Subdivision,” Los Angeles Times, August 18, 1929. 228 US Modernist Archives, “Richard Joseph Neutra (1892-1970),”accessed September 2025, https://www.usmodernist.org/neutra.htm;
San Fernando Valley Blog, “Richard Neutra In The San Fernando Valley,” accessed September 2025, https://sanfernandovalleyblog.blogspot.com/2012/11/richard-neutra-in-san-fernando-valley.html. 229 Various classified ads, Los Angeles Times, July 4, 1937, May 38, 1939, June 18, 1943. 1545 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 75
The Richard Neutra-designed Philip Gill House, 542 Suncourt Terrace (1941). ARG photo.

By 1939, HOLC appraisers according the Glenoaks Canyon area a green “A” rating, noting that building in the area had progressed rapidly “under the stimulus of well-directed promotional effort and FHA financing. Construction is standard or better. Maintenance indicates high pride of ownership.

Architectural designs are excellent and population is stable and homogenous.”230 Scattered in-fill development ensued from the mid-1940s to the 1960s, with several large parcels developed in the 1970s. It is unclear from historical sources to what extent stringent regulations guided architectural developments in Glenoaks.

Property Types and Registration Requirements for Suburban Development through World War II (1910-1944)
Property Types: Single-Family Residence; Tract Feature; Historic District The 1910s-1930s saw significant development of single-family residential tracts in East-West Glendale.

The earliest subdivision occurred in the 1910s in response to streetcar transportation and the popularity of the Casa Verdugo restaurant, and saw erection of Craftsman and Period Revival houses. The most intense subdivision took place in the 1920s, when master builders designed carefully planned neighborhoods with an eye toward the picturesque, and more numerous community developers laid out gridded subdivisions oriented toward the automobile. Both of these 1920s types heavily featured Period Revival style architecture. Prominent planned suburbs included Verdugo Woodlands, Bellehurst Park/Bellehurst Slopes, Rossmoyne, Brockmont Park, and Chevy Chase Canyon/Chevy Chase Estates.

Among the more numerous standard automobile suburbs were Cumberland Heights, the Pelanconi Subdivision, Cleveland Knoll, Oakmont Country Club Estates, and Glenoaks Canyon. Construction in all these neighborhood types typically continued in an incremental and piecemeal fashion, with continued construction through the Depression years of the 1930s and ending during the wartime moratorium on building in the early 1940s. Residences constructed during this time reflected either Period Revival or Minimal Traditional architectural styles.
230 Home Owners’ Land Corporation, Area Description A-6, 1939. 1546 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 76
A residential property or tract feature from this period may be significant under this context:

Criteria231 Reason
A/1/A (Event) As a singularly significant example of residential development associated with 1910s-1930s growth in the area; as a clear catalyst for development; or otherwise as an exemplification of significant contributions to heritage.

Properties that convey a collective association with important events, primarily an association with historic patterns of single-family residential development, are more likely to be identified as part of a grouping eligible under historic district criteria.

A/1/A, G (Event) A collection of residences from this period that are linked geographically may be eligible as a historic district.232 Residences from this period may also contribute to historic districts that are significant under other contexts and themes. Districts boundaries may represent original tract boundaries, or they may comprise a portion of a tract or neighborhood. The district must be unified aesthetically and historically by plan, physical development, and architectural quality. Tract features, including street lights, landscaping, parkland, and other amenities may contribute to the significance of the district.

Integrity Considerations for Suburban Development through World War II (1910-1944) In order to be eligible for listing at the federal, state, or local levels, a property must retain sufficient integrity to convey its historic significance under this theme.

Criteria Required Aspects of Integrity
A/1/A (Event) A property that is significant for its historic association is eligible if it retains the essential physical features that made up its character or appearance during the 231 Eligibility criteria are listed in the order National Register/California Register/Local. 232 Historic districts are evaluated locally under a separate set of criteria. 1547 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 77
period of its association with the important event or historical pattern.233 A residential property from this period eligible under Criteria A/1/A (Event) should retain integrity of location, design, workmanship, materials, and feeling, at a minimum, in order to reflect the important association with the city’s residential development during this period. A property that has lost some historic materials or details can be eligible if it retains the majority of the features that illustrate its style in terms of the massing, spatial relationships, proportion, pattern of windows and doors, texture of materials, and ornamentation. The property is not eligible, however, if it retains some basic features conveying massing but has lost the majority of the features that once characterized its style.234
B/2/B (Person) A residential property significant under Criterion B/2/B (Person) should retain integrity of location, design, workmanship, and feeling, at a minimum, in order to convey the historic association with a significant person. It is expected that some historic materials may have been replaced, particularly windows, and the integrity of setting may have been compromised by later development.

C/3/C (Architecture) A property important for illustrating a particular architectural style or construction technique must retain most of the physical features that constitute that style or technique.
235 A single-family residential property
significant under Criterion C/3/C (Architecture) should retain integrity of design, workmanship, materials, and feeling, at a minimum, in order to be eligible for its architectural merit. A property that has lost some historic materials or details can be eligible if it retains the majority of the features that illustrate its style in terms of the massing, spatial relationships, proportion, pattern of windows and doors, texture of materials, and ornamentation. The property is not eligible, however, if it retains some basic features conveying massing but has lost the majority of the features that once characterized its style.

A/1/A-I (District) In order for a historic district to be eligible for designation, the majority of the components that add to the district’s historic character must possess integrity, as must the district as a whole. A contributing property must retain integrity of location, design, setting, feeling, and association to adequately convey the significance of the historic district. Some alterations to individual buildings, such as replacement roof materials, replacement garage doors, and replacement of windows may be acceptable as long as the district as a whole continues to convey its significance. Major alterations such as substantial additions that are visible from the public right-of-way, interruptions of the original fenestration pattern through window opening enlargement or infill, or numerous smaller 233 National Register Bulletin 15.
234 National Register Bulletin 15.
235 National Register Bulletin 15.
1548 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 78
alterations that cumulatively result in a loss of integrity would not be acceptable.

Registration Requirements for Suburban Development through World War II (1910-1944)

To be eligible under the Suburban Development through World War II theme, a property must:
• date from the period of significance;
• exemplify important patterns and trends in residential development from this period; • display most of the character-defining features of the property type or style; and • retain the essential aspects of integrity for listing in the National, California, or Glendale Registers.

To be eligible under the Suburban Development through World War II theme, a historic district must:
• retain a majority of the contributors dating from the period of significance for listing in the National or California Registers; retain 60% contributors for local designation; • reflect planning and design principles from the period; • display most of the character-defining features of a residential subdivision, including the original layout, street plan, and other planning features; and • retain the essential aspects of integrity for listing in the National, California, or Glendale Registers. 1549 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 79
Theme: Post-World War II Suburban Development (1945-2000) Glendale, like many communities in Southern California, experienced a population boom after World War II as scores of military veterans returned home from the war and sought jobs in nearby aerospace, entertainment, and other growing job sectors. This rapid increase in population led to a heightened demand for housing and ushered in waves of new residential development.

In contrast to the South Glendale area, which was nearly completely subdivided by 1940, the East-West Study Area had some remaining open tracts of land, particularly in the hillside areas. Some of these were extensions of existing suburban developments, such as Chevy Chase Highridge in the Chevy Chase hillsides, the Oakmont Country Club area, and Greenbriar above the Royal Boulevard development.

Others were completely new subdivisions such as Rancho San Rafael and Emerald Isle. These new neighborhoods were commonly built out with single-family houses in the Minimal Traditional or Ranch styles, depending on their main period of development, with a few reflecting the Mid-Century Modern idiom. Postwar residential building also included widespread infill construction on empty lots within existing subdivisions, again in Minimal Traditional, Ranch, or Mid-Century Modern styles.

The Study Area’s new subdivisions and remaining unincorporated land became part of Glendale in a series of annexations during the postwar period. Most of these annexations were on the smaller side, with the exception of the Verdugo Mountains area236 in 1950, which remained largely undeveloped, and the Chevy Chase Drive Annex at the eastern edge of the Study Area in 1952. Glendale’s population grew from 95,702 in 1950 to 119,442 in 1960; by that time, the East-West Glendale Study Area contained approximately 57 percent of Glendale’s total population. 237 The Study Area saw continued single-family
residential development through the rest of the 20th century to accommodate this growth, along with multi-family residential development as discussed in that context.

The dramatic boom of the 1950s and ‘60s inspired an era of slow-growth and anti-growth homeowner politics in Glendale in later decades, particularly with regard to the canyons and foothills of the Verdugo Mountains. Across Los Angeles, anti-growth movements gained momentum by the 1960s, reversing decades of pro-growth boosterism in Southern California. Protection of open lands against development, often on conservationist grounds, became part of the language of this movement. In the Study Area, conflicts over hillside development reflected these ideas. Subdivisions in the San Rafael Hills above Chevy Chase, for example, sparked concerns about scarring and overdevelopment. 238 Historian Juliet Arroyo
notes that these controversies began as early as the 1950s in Glendale: “Much of the news in the 1950s reported concern over the loss of hillside open space to new development.”239 By 1977, Jim Pollard, president of the Building-Industry Association Glendale-Burbank chapter, stated, “Last year we had a few 236 Only the southern portion of this parcel lies within the East-West Glendale Study Area. 237 Becky Nicolaides, "Los Angeles County Demographic Data Project 1950-2010", USC Digital Library, https://doi.org/10.25549/lademo-ouc1sto1757543; Ethington, et al., Los Angeles County Union Census Tract Data Series. 238 Architectural Resources Group, “City of Los Angeles Historical Housing and Land Use Study,” 80-88; Nicolaides, The New Suburbia, 77.
239 Arroyo, Glendale: 1940-2000, 52.
1550 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 80
single family subdivisions sneak through. But so far this year everything being proposed is being challenged in court on environmental grounds.”240 With this building option more difficult to pursue, this opposition may have had the effect of catalyzing the construction of multi-family housing in other areas of Glendale, to meet rising housing demand.

Development continued nonetheless in the Study Area in the last quarter of the 20th century. Several hillside subdivisions overcame local resistance, some of them using a “phased” approach to roll out new housing. From 1976-1987, the East-West Study Area led the way in single-family home construction, the site of at least 95 percent of all new single-family home projects in Glendale.241 Infill building also continued apace, which helped meet the ever-growing demand for single-family homes in Southern California but dramatically changed the character of many older subdivisions.

Post-World War II Transportation and Freeway Development Transportation continued to influence development in the postwar years. By the mid-1950s, streetcar service was completely phased out in Glendale. The last PE train from Glendale to Los Angeles ran in 1954, then the tracks were removed. Automobiles and buses had completely replaced the electric streetcar system by this point.242
Much like the railroad and streetcar influenced development around the turn of the 20th century, the freeway system shaped broad development patterns in the postwar era. In this period, transportation planners in the metro region envisioned a freeway system that would revolutionize travel times for Los Angelenos and tap into the region’s car culture. The 1947 Master Plan for the Los Angeles Metropolitan Freeways shows the system of freeways in and around Glendale, and appears largely as we know it today.243 The East-West Glendale Study Area is a focal point of the “golden triangle,” which is the confluence of three Southern California freeways: Interstate 5, the 134 Freeway, and the 2 Freeway. The freeways shaped Glendale’s development and the city’s vision for how it wanted to be seen: as a regional destination for shopping, offices, and suburban living. Thanks in large part to the new transportation system, the southern portion of the largely suburban East-West Study Area acquired the characteristics of the higher-density “edge cities” emerging along freeway corridors during the 1970s to the 2000s. 244
The first freeway to be constructed servicing Glendale was Interstate 5 (the Golden State Freeway), which skirts through the very southwestern edge of the East-West Study Area. Work started in 1955 on the section from the Los Angeles River into Burbank. This section was opened to traffic in 1957. The Western Avenue offramp of I-5 provides direct access to the Study Area. The 2 Freeway traverses the East-West Study area from south to north, while the 134 represents its southern border. The genesis of these freeways is described in the South Glendale Historic Study:
240 “Real Estate Demand Booms,” Glendale News Press, February 24, 1977. 241 City of Glendale, Planning Division, “Residential Development Activity.” 242 Arroyo, Glendale: 1940-2000, 19; Perry et al., Glendale: A Pictorial History, 165. 243 A majority of this information was adapted from the “South Glendale Historic Resources Survey,” prepared by HRG for the City of Glendale Planning Division, 79-80.
244 As defined by Joel Garreau, Edge City: Life on the New Frontier (New York: Doubleday, 1991). 1551 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 81
Originally known as the Alessandro Freeway, construction on the 2 Freeway (also known as the Glendale Freeway) was started in 1956. The 2 went north and eastward from the Los Angeles River, roughly paralleling Verdugo Road. Initially, it stopped at the 134 Freeway; construction was not completed north of the 134 until the late 1970s. …
The 134 Freeway (Ventura Freeway) was originally known as the Crosstown Freeway and the exact path of its development was hotly debated by Glendale politicians and community members alike. One city group led by Glendale City Planning Director Joseph Mellon advocated for a southern route roughly paralleling Colorado Street. Proponents of this route believed it would bring new apartments, businesses, and other construction projects to an area of the city they believed needed revitalization. Another group believed in an alternate route: a northern route running just south of the Verdugo wash flood control channel and north of Doran Street. A keen supporter of this route was Glendale Public Works Director William Martini. The second route was selected. A key factor in its selection appears to have been the ability to depress the freeway below grade through the city. The first proposal would have required a raised roadbed to avoid the large number of water, sewer, and underground pipelines in the area. This portion of the 134 Freeway was opened in April of 1969.245
The offramps serving the East West Study Area include Mountain Street off the 2 Freeway, and off the 134 Freeway, Glendale Boulevard, Brand Boulevard, Pacific Avenue, and San Fernando Road.

The Racial Landscape of Postwar Glendale
After decades of persistent segregation, people of color and their White allies began to see success in their fight for equal access to housing after World War II. They fought segregation practices through a variety of means, such as court litigation, legislative pressure, political action, protests, and individual actions. The legal fight against restrictive covenants was an important step. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) appealed several state-level covenant rulings to the U.S. Supreme Court, the most well-known being Shelley v. Kraemer (1948). While covenants were a private agreement outside the realm of the Constitution, the Court found in the Shelley case that enforcement of restrictive covenants was unconstitutional because it violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

Despite the Shelley ruling, discriminatory housing practices persisted and evolved. Realtors continued the practice of steering well into the 1960s, and also developed new “color-blind” modes of influencing the racial make-up of neighborhoods. For example, the California Real Estate Association (CREA) suggested that homeowners’ associations could require a discretionary occupancy permit for residences under their purview. These permits would not make any “reference to race or color, but [would require] personal qualifications as a good neighbor, or in other words, cultural status.”246 The CREA’s attorney advised that “if fairly administered so as to exclude undesirable persons irrespective of race or color, no difficulty 245 HRG, “South Glendale Historic Context,” 80.
246 Gene Slater, Freedom to Discriminate: How Realtors Conspired to Segregate Housing and Divide America (Berkeley, CA:

Heyday 2021), 160.
1552 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 82
should be encountered.”247 Even after the CREA removed the racial provision in its code of ethics in 1951, local realty boards continued to expel members who sold property to non-Whites in White neighborhoods.248 Homeowners' protective associations continued to monitor the sale of property, and residents of White neighborhoods also resorted to threats, intimidation tactics, and violence against people of color who moved into their neighborhoods. This grass-roots resistance peaked in Los Angeles in the postwar years.249 In communities like Glendale, Pasadena, and El Monte, White supremacist groups operated through local branches of the Nazi Party and KKK well into the 1970s.250 In California, fair housing activism resulted in the Rumford Fair Housing Act of 1963, which banned discrimination in housing based on “race, color, religion, nationality, or ancestry.” It was followed in 1964 by a measure to undo it, Proposition 14 (1964), which passed by a wide margin. By the late 1960s, several federal fair housing measures were implemented, including a 1967 U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning Prop 14, and the Fair Housing Act (1968), which prohibited discrimination in housing. Despite certain weaknesses in these and other housing laws, such as enforcement challenges, these measures began opening the suburbs to people of color.251
Glendale’s postwar racial landscape reflected an array of characteristics. Demographically, Glendale began to diversify by race and ethnicity after 1970. Latinos were the first to move into Glendale in significant numbers, beginning around 1970. From 1970-2000, the proportion of Latinos and Asians grew substantially, while only a small number of Black Americans moved in (less than 2 percent of the total population). The East-West Study Area maintained a higher proportion of Whites compared to the rest of Glendale, a comparable proportion of Asians, and lower proportions of Latinos and Blacks. In the postwar years, Glendale continued to have a reputation as a “racist city, which is somewhat deserving and somewhat myth,” according to historian Juliet Arroyo.252 Glendale had attracted extremist groups, including a hate group “which is very strong among the former residents of the South who have moved here,” as reported in the Los Angeles Sentinel in 1959.253 In 1963, the same newspaper reported that a “hate group” called “Citizens to Keep Glendale White Committee,” circulated flyers warning that Glendale was the “next target” of the Black struggle for equality.254 At same time, a number of Glendale residents resisted these efforts, through public protests and through community-based work. In 1965, for example, an interracial church group from Glendale helped form the Glendale Watts Christian Committee, to promote positive race relations (this included people from the 247 Slater, Freedom to Discriminate, 160.
248 Nicolaides, The New Suburbia, 75.
249 For more detail on the ways realtors and property owners circumvented the Shelley ruling, see Slater, Freedom to Discriminate, 160-161.
250 Nicolaides, The New Suburbia, 74.
251 Nicolaides, The New Suburbia, 76-77.
252 Arroyo, Glendale: 1940-2000, 63.
253 Stanley Robertson, “Confidential,” Los Angeles Sentinel, October 1, 1959. 254 “Nazi Bigot Heads Pro-White Group,” Los Angeles Sentinel, August 1, 1963. 1553 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 83
United Community Church in Glendale).255 Around the same time, several “civil rights seminars” for teens were held at Camp Max Strauss in the Glendale Hills; this camp hosted these events from 1963-1966.256 Despite these efforts, the low proportion of Blacks in Glendale – at a time of significant overall population growth – signaled the persistence of housing discrimination.257

Architecture in the Postwar Era
Architecture in the early postwar (1945 to 1965) period was shaped by two major influences, the modernist movement and the FHA minimum house standard. As described in the South Glendale Historic Study:

Architecture in the postwar period exemplified a range of design philosophies. Architects in Southern California during this period developed iterations of a new, regional style that was influenced by the surrounding landscape, as well as modern architectural trends and planning principles that have roots in the prewar era. The local modern aesthetic reflected elements of the International Style, but with a more organic palette, an emphasis on a visual connection between indoor and outdoor space, and often featuring post-and-beam construction. Teachers and graduates from the University of Southern California (USC) School of Architecture had a profound influence on the development of architecture in Southern California after the war.

Experimental designs developed by architects in the years before World War II had also produced some tangible ideas that would become influential in the development of residential architecture in the years following the war. The discovery that a good house could be made of inexpensive materials, that outdoor living was important to quality of life, and that formal spaces such as separate dining rooms are expendable when space is limited, all became integral components of postwar, middle-class housing.

These ideas for the ideal, modern home were embraced and promoted by national architecture and shelter magazines before, during, and after the war. One of the most influential of these was Arts & Architecture magazine, and in particular the Case Study House program developed by editor John Entenza. During the war, Entenza and a number of architects discussed new ideas in residential design and construction that could only be talked about because of wartime service and restrictions. These discussions resulted in the Case Study House program that was implemented after the war. The program involved the study, planning, design and construction of a series of houses that would address the particular issues of living in Southern California. The announcement stated that each “house must be capable of duplication and in no sense be an individual 'performance'... It is important that the best material available be used in the best 255 “Glendale Group Hosts Leaders,” Los Angeles Sentinel, September 9, 1965; “Committee Tells Accomplishments,” Los Angeles Sentinel, November 25, 1965.
256 “Youth Group Plans Civil Rights Confab,” Los Angeles Sentinel, May 2, 1963; “Manual Arts Students Discuss Civil Rights,” Los Angeles Sentinel, April 28, 1966.
257 Arroyo, Glendale: 1940-2000, 63. For other examples of housing discrimination in Glendale, also see “Judge Restrains Glendale Mixed Marriage Eviction,” Los Angeles Sentinel, April 20, 1967; “Rental Firm Charged with Unfair Suit,” Los Angeles Sentinel, August 27, 1970.
1554 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 84
possible way in order to arrive at a ‘good’ solution of each problem, which in the overall program will be general enough to be of practical assistance to the average American in search of a home in which he can afford to live.”

Over the course of the program, which lasted from 1945 until 1962, over 30 projects were designed by many of Southern California’s most renowned Modernists. The real impact of the program was the national attention that it brought to modern design in California during this period. “Publication in Arts & Architecture became a door to national and international renown for West Coast architects. Reyner Banham said that ‘Arts and Architecture changed the itinerary of the Grand Tour pilgrimage for European architects and students: America replaced Italy and Los Angeles replaced Florence.’”
The idea of an inexpensive house devoid of formal spaces was embraced by the FHA, which implemented guidelines promoting the construction of a 624-square-foot dwelling type known as the “basic plan” or “minimum house.” Although these FHA concepts were originally established in the 1930s, they would have the greatest influence after the war.

To satisfy functional and spatial requirements, FHA design staff organized the house in a side-by-side arrangement. A small hall served as the pivot for this plan type. The private spaces, two bedrooms and a bath, opened off the hall. Opposite this was a public zone with living room and kitchen. These contained a major and minor entry respectively… The kitchens were small, planned for efficiency, and stocked with up-to-date appliances. A utility room with an integrated mechanical system replaced the basement heating plant and coal storage.

The widespread construction of such houses was made possible by the FHA’s mortgage guarantee program, and further incentivized by the 1944 Serviceman’s Readjustment Act, also known as the GI Bill. The GI Bill included a mortgage guarantee program for veterans which allowed returning serviceman to purchase a home with no down payment. For many new families, the availability of FHA mortgages with agreeable rates and little or no down payment made buying a home as affordable as renting one, if not more so. From another perspective, the agency’s involvement in the home mortgage market made it possible for builders to address the postwar housing crisis by constructing single-family houses rather than apartment buildings.258 In the 1970s and subsequent decades, suburban architecture became more heavily influenced by the “corporate” style of building. Although the East West Glendale Study Area’s new subdivisions from this period were not built at the large scale of corporate builders like KB Home, the architecture, layout, and amenities of these subdivisions shared the aesthetic and community design of large-scale corporate suburbs. Shaped by market research and production decisions made by corporate executives, the corporate suburb standardized multiple aspects of home production and used economies of scale to build homes of striking architectural similarity, while giving consumers a wide range of choices on interior 258 HRG, “South Glendale Historic Context,” 81-82.
1555 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 85
amenities. As described in The New Suburbia, “The emphasis was on more ‘domestic bling’ inside the home – high ceilings, bigger walk-in closets, bigger kitchens with professional-style appliances – with much less concern for exteriors and overall community site design.” 259 The end result was a built landscape of architectural uniformity, with the square-footage of single-family homes larger on average than in previous eras.

The East-West Study Area included examples of these key trends in architecture – from the FHA Minimal Traditional house, to sprawling Ranch homes, Mid-Century Modern homes, and corporate-style housing.

Several areas of postwar infill construction reflected design trends of the day and added architectural variety to existing subdivisions. In the Verdugo Woodlands area, for example, the postwar period witnessed the construction of Ranch style homes with their low-slung design, open floor plans, and integration of indoor and outdoor space. Mid-Century Modern homes were also built in this area, incorporating post and beam construction and large walls of glass. In the Cumberland Heights area, a small number of lots were available for postwar infill construction, and they were built out by about 1960.

Homes in this area included Minimal Traditional homes built immediately after the war, and single-story Ranch and Modern Style homes generally small in scale and modest in appearance.260 This pattern repeated in a number of Study Area subdivisions.

The East-West Study Area also contains several architecturally significant homes built within existing developments. Many are designated on the Glendale Historic Register. Several examples of Modernist houses were built in hillside communities during this period, particularly the Chevy Chase Canyon and Highlands area. Architect Richard Fleming, who graduated from the USC School of Architecture in 1960 and was a notable Modernist, was hired by the developer Richard Prock to design several speculative homes in Glendale, including one in Chevy Chase Canyon at 2990 Edgewick Road (1963, listed in the Glendale Register). Another significant home in this area is the 1979 Steen House (Ise Homestead, listed in the Glendale Register) at 1646 Golf Club Drive, a Modernist home designed by architect Gordon Steen.

The noted Modernist architects A. Quincy Jones and Frederick Emmons designed at least eight properties in the Chevy Chase Country Club Highlands tract, including the Berg House at 1575 Sheridan Road (1947, Glendale Register) and the Fuller House (3068 E. Chevy Chase Drive, 1948. extant). The Porter house at 3235 Cornwall Drive (1961, Glendale Register) was designed by Frank B. Wilson. These and others make for a notable cluster of Modernist homes built in the postwar period in the Chevy Chase Canyon area.261 In the Oakmont Country Club area, two examples of notable Modernist homes include the 1959 Jack and JoAnn Taylor home at 1380 Greenmont Drive (Glendale Register) designed by architect James Langenheim, who also designed the LAX Theme Building while working at Pereira and Luckman. The 1959 Wall House at 1374 Greenmont Drive (Glendale Register) is a Ranch Style home with Modernist/Asian influences.
259 Nicolaides, The New Suburbia, 62, 64.
260 Verdugo Woodlands West Neighborhood Association, “Verdugo Woodlands,” accessed September 2025, https://vwwhoa.org/history; ARG, “South Cumberland Heights Historic Resources Survey,” 29; City of Glendale, “North Cumberland Heights Historic District,” 19-20.
261 Sources for these properties included Los Angeles Times, Glendale Register of Historic Resources forms, Zillow, and US Modernist Archives.
1556 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 86
Sub-Theme: Master Planned Subdivisions (1970-2000)
In many suburban areas of Los Angeles, master-planned subdivisions built after 1970 shared certain traits.

They displayed architectural uniformity, they were built by a single large developer, and they were tightly regulated through Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). These subdivisions were often Common Interest Developments (CIDs), planned developments with homeowners’ associations and strict CC&Rs, and often with private amenities such as pools, parks, and playgrounds for use only by residents of the subdivision. The rise in CIDs after 1970 reflected changing demographic trends in the suburbs toward more households with affluent singles, retirees, empty-nesters, and single-parent families, who preferred these amenities.262 Demographic trends in Glendale from 1970-2000 somewhat reflected these characteristics, with a decline in married adults and rise in singles and divorced individuals. The East-West Study Area contains one known example of this subdivision style, Rancho San Rafael.263

Rancho San Rafael
The master-planned subdivision of Rancho San Rafael had controversial roots. It was sited in the San Rafael Hills which had been at the center of anti-development battles in Glendale from 1965 to the 1980s. This particular parcel – owned by Richard R. Hensler of Sun Valley and the S.T. MacDonald family of Montrose – occupied lands above the Chevy Chase Canyon area, which had been built up decades earlier. Attempts to develop it over the years were halted several times by nearby homeowners, reflecting a general trend of successful anti-development campaigns by Glendale homeowners in this period. Early proposals to develop the land included: a 293-lot development in 1967, a 2,059-unit development in 1971, and another high-density plan in 1972. All faced opposition by the city and residents. In 1979, the city approved a 640-unit subdivision, but a lawsuit in L.A. Superior Court brought by nearby residents blocked it, the court ruling that the city did not adequately study the environmental impacts of the proposed development. Responding to these popular concerns, in 1981, Glendale passed an ordinance banning building within 100 feet of a major ridgeline, deemed one of the most stringent such measures in the state. The city also purchased 2,500 acres to preserve as open land in the Verdugo Mountains and San Rafael Hills.264

In 1983, another attempt to subdivide the land was launched yet again, this time by Baldwin Homes of Irvine which proposed an even larger subdivision of 792 lots for 414 single-family homes and 378 townhomes, on a 316-acre parcel. The Chevy Chase Estates Homeowner Association launched a battle against the proposed subdivision, claiming it would impinge upon their “rural living style and the greenery and openness of the hills.”265 Though Baldwin came back with a scaled-down project, by 1987 another 262 Nicolaides, The New Suburbia, 62, 64; Evan McKenzie, Privatopia: Homeowner Associations and the Rise of Residential Private Government (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994).
263 Nicolaides, The New Suburbia, 62, 64; Evan McKenzie, Privatopia. 264 “Homeowners Renew Development Battle,” Los Angeles Times, July 24, 1983; “Hill Development Issue Threatens to Explode Again,” Los Angeles Times, December 18, 1983.
265 “Homeowners Renew Development Battle,” Los Angeles Times; “San Rafael Development Proposal is Scaled Down,” Los Angeles Times, May 20, 1984.
1557 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 87
developer had taken over the project, Homes by Polygon, based in Costa Mesa. The Glendale City Council approved their plan to build 542 units – including 130 town houses, 189 duplexes, and 223 single-family homes on 127 acres. The remaining land would be preserved as open space, including preservation of a ridge line to hide the subdivision from view in Chevy Chase Canyon. This subdivision was the first approved under the city’s new Planned Residential Development ordinance, which allowed for higher density in some areas in exchange for open space in others.266 It was the largest housing development in Glendale’s history.267
Typical of corporate suburbs in this period, Rancho San Rafael was built as a master-planned common interest development. It had a Home Owners Association (HOA), private services and amenities paid for by HOA monthly dues, and strict CC&Rs to preserve “the architectural character and theme of the community.” Common amenities available to residents included a swimming pool, spa and tennis courts, tot lot, and recreation center. The HOA administered and enforced all architectural rules through an Architectural Review Committee.268 Homes in Rancho San Rafael were constructed by three builders:

Brock Homes, Custom Living Homes and Communities (CLHC), and Polygon California, Inc. Single-family homes ranged from 2,000 to 3,000 square feet. All were designed in a neo-Mediterranean style, creating a built landscape of architectural similarity common in large-scale corporate suburbs of this period.269 Sub-Theme: Standard Subdivisions (1960-2000)
More common than master planned subdivisions in the Study Area were standard subdivisions. These were also developed in the hillsides, usually as extensions of existing developments established before 1940 and following the same basic goals of efficient subdivision and selling of lots. Many sparked controversy, and ended up with commitments from the city to preserve open land. Examples of standard subdivisions in the Study Area include Emerald Isle, Greenbriar above Royal Blvd, the Country Club area above Beaudry, and the Rimcrest tracts in the hills above the Casa Verdugo area.

Emerald Isle
Emerald Isle is a large hillside subdivision in the northeast part of the Study Area. Built incrementally from the 1960s to the 1980s, it involved several developers and builders so lacked a unified master plan. The first subdivision was the 120-acre Flintridge Terrace, developed by Carlton Builders. An early ad from 1961 promised “the charm and seclusion of suburbia… high above the smog and fog.” It offered three-, 266 “Council Ready to OK 542-Unit Project After 2-Decade Fight,” Los Angeles Times, July 2, 1987. 267 “Council Approves Rancho San Rafael Project,” Los Angeles Times, July 9, 1987. 268 Rancho San Rafael Homeowners, “About Us,” accessed September 2025, https://www.ranchosanrafael.org/info.php?pnum=2. 269 “CLH&C blurs distinction between custom and master-planned homes,” Los Angeles Times, June 26, 1988; “Two luxury home projects to debut at Rancho San Rafael,” Los Angeles Times, January 8, 1989; “Over 500 new homes to be built at master-planned Rancho San Rafael,” Los Angeles Times, February 5, 1989; “Brock Homes introduces paired homes at Las Rosas,” Los Angeles Times, August 4, 1989.
1558 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 88
four- and five-bedroom view homes in a variety of Late Modern and neo-traditional designs. By 1971, the developer was proposing to build on 279 lots which triggered some resistance from nearby residents.270 Meanwhile, in 1965 another developer, Harold Hirsch, proposed a $20 million project of 400 lots on 133 acres of land in the same general area, adjacent to upscale Flintridge. The minimum lot size was set at 14,000 square foot, under pressure from Flintridge residents who feared the depreciation of their own properties without this stipulation. The first phase of 79 lots was approved in 1967, along an extension of Emerald Isle Drive.271 In 1969, the Gardena-based Scottfield Corp., launched Chevy Chase Highridge, a 42- home project in the same general area, with sales offices at Chevy Chase Drive and Emerald Isle.272 That same year, the developers Mark and Emery Rubin announced the subdivision Chevy Knoll Estates, a $1.7 million development at Chevy Chase and Emerald Isle Drive with three- to five-bedroom homes designed by Barry Berkus.273 While it is not altogether clear how these different developers were operating in the same place, around the same time, the media coverage of these subdivisions all listed the intersection of Chevy Chase and Emerald Isle Drives as the location of the developments and their sales offices.

More development in Emerald Isle followed in the late 1970s. In early 1978, phase one of the Glendale View Estates subdivision rolled out, built by Park Ambassador Homes. Six floor plans with up to 3,200 square feet were offered, with 15 exterior designs. Typical of corporate-style building in this period, homes offered a range of customizable interior amenities.274 Two more phases followed, to bring the home total to 204 by 1980.
275 In 1989, RWR Development’s Sunset Ridge subdivision completed buildout of Emerald Isle. These were larger homes from 3,125 to 4,222 square feet, exemplifying the broader trend of ever-growing square footage in this period. Reflecting economies of scale in corporate suburbs, only five floor plans were available in three architectural designs. 276
270 “Preview Invitation,”(Pasadena) Independent Star News, April 9, 1961; “Flintridge Terrace Sets New Custom Home Previews,” (Pasadena) Independent Star News, July 30, 1967; “Preview Set at Terrace in Glendale,” Los Angeles Times, August 6, 1967; “Resistance Grows to Glendale Subdivision,” Los Angeles Times, February 21, 1971. 271 “Promoter Resumes $20 Million Project,” Los Angeles Times, October 17, 1965; “Planners Approve Map of $20 Million Tract,” Los Angeles Times, November 11, 1965.
272 “New Firm Plans to Build 1,500 Homes,” Los Angeles Times, June 8, 1969. 273 “Opening this Weekend,” Los Angeles Times, November 2, 1969; “Sales offices opened for new nearby estates,” Northeast Star-Review, May 14, 1970.
274 “Early sales reported brisk at Glendale View,” Los Angeles Times, February 4, 1978. 275 “Phase Two 50% sold at Glendale View,” Los Angeles Times, June 17, 1978; “Third Phase opens at Glendale View Estates,” Los Angeles Times, February 10, 1979.
276 “New Sunset Ridge project ready for weekend opening,” Los Angeles Times, April 21, 1989; “Sunset Ridge offers homes in 5 floor plans,” Los Angeles Times, May 13, 1989.
1559 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 89
Extant example of a Park Ambassador Home design: 2447 Flintridge Dr., 1979. (Google Streetview 2025) Greenbriar
This subdivision was first developed in the mid-1960s along Greenbriar Road which runs parallel to Royal Boulevard (a Glendale Historic District). Developed by Glendale Developers Ltd., headed by William Gorham, the initial subdivision was designed into a series of cul-de-sacs radiating off of Greenbriar Road, with 114 parcels platted. New homes were single-story, split level, and two story, with “Georgian, French Contemporary, and Oriental exteriors,” with up to 2,600 square feet of living space.277 In 1978, “Greenbriar Garden Estates” was developed in the former Dead Horse Canyon area in the southern portion of Greenbriar Road. This was a cluster of 16 luxury homes offered in five floor plans with 2,600 square feet of living space. They were situated among groves of oak, ash, pine, walnut and redwood trees, with a sales office and a model home for Greenbriar Garden Estates was at 1326 Greenbriar Road (extant but altered).
278 In February 1991, the city of Glendale purchased 36 acres of undeveloped land in this area for $1.7 million, to preserve as open space.279 Oakmont Country Club area above Beaudry
Responding to the continued strong demand for housing, development pushed into the hillsides throughout the postwar period. Between 1982 and 1984, the Gregg Development Company subdivided, 277 “Glendale Project Offers New Program for Sales,” Los Angeles Times, April 11, 1965; “Development That Proves It’s Close In,” Los Angeles Times, November 14, 1965; “Greenbriar Wins Award,” Los Angeles Times, June 26, 1966. 278 “Greenbriar grand opening set for Sunday,” Los Angeles Times, February 18, 1978. This was the same parcel that Johnny Carson had previously owned, and tried unsuccessfully tried to develop into a 17-home subdivision in 1984 (see “City to Buy 12- Acre Site for Open Space,” Los Angeles Times, October 22, 1992). 279 “City to Buy 12-Acre Site for Open Space,” Los Angeles Times, October 22, 1992. 1560 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 90
lots on the hillsides above the Oakmont Country Club and began grading the land. 280 The city objected to
the developer’s plans, fearing loss of the natural ridgeline. Following some negotiations, the Gregg Development Co., plan to build 197 homes went forward, with “corporate style” homes constructed on the hillside. The Los Angeles Times reported, “Many critics had complained that homes built in the subdivision, usually by private developers who purchased lots, are oversized and ugly.”281 A plan to develop a subsequent phase dubbed the Oakmont V – 572 luxury homes on 244 acres in the Verdugo Mountains – was ultimately killed by the city, after numerous public objections by community and environmental groups in a 10-year battle. In 2003, the developer Gregg’s Artistic Homes sold the land to the city and the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy for $25 million. The land became the Verdugo Mountains Open Space Preserve.282
Preliminary grading of the hillside above Oakmont Country Club, early 1980s (Perry et. al., Glendale: A Pictorial History, 192).

Glendale Highlands/Rimcrest Area
Another cluster of hillside developments lay above the Brockmont Park area. In 1960, the developer John Henry, president of Ridgewood Estates, subdivided hillside land along Cielito Drive. The city required that cuts into the hillside be covered by screen planting.283 Development appeared to go forward in this section (Tracts 25143 and 27280). By 1980, the Ernest Auerbach Co., had launched the Glendale Highlands development in the area, a $50 million project of 121 single-family homes. The project rolled out in phases, the first two containing a total of 26 two-story homes. Architect Marshall Lewis designed the Late Modern homes, ranging in size from 2,520 to 3,700 square feet, with six customized floor plans and 18 façade options.
284
280 Perry et. al., Glendale: A Pictorial History, 191; “San Rafael Proposal Is Scaled Down,” Los Angeles Times, May 20, 1984. In 1976, Gregg Development Co. initially planned for 222 homes (“Subdivision Plan,” Los Angeles Times, March 14, 1976). 281 “Disputed Grading Project Begins on Prominent Ridge,” Los Angeles Times, April 12, 1990. 282 “Glendale Project Replaced by Park,” Los Angeles Times, April 1, 2003. 283 “Commission Inserts Hillside Proviso in Subdivision OK,” Los Angeles Times, May 22, 1960. 284 “Glendale Community Features City Views,” Los Angeles Times, May 18, 1980; “Glendale Highlands has two-story homes,” Los Angeles Times, May 31, 1980).
1561 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 91
Property Types and Registration Requirements for Post-World War II Suburban Development (1945-2000)
Property Types: Single-Family Residence; Historic District Subdivision and construction of single-family residences resumed in the East-West Glendale Study Area following the end of World War II, in response to another massive regional population boom. Additional annexations in the 1950s and ‘60s brought new areas under Glendale incorporation and encouraged continued construction of “standard” suburbs on the edges of the city. These suburbs, which included Emerald Isle, Greenbriar, the Country Club area above Beaudry and Glendale Highlands/Ridgecrest, generally followed older patterns of development, albeit on a different scale. At least one master-planned subdivision, Rancho San Rafael, reflected a more stringently controlled neighborhood type. In existing prewar subdivisions, new homes in Minimal Traditional, Ranch, and Mid-Century Modern styles filled in empty lots and replaced existing homes.

Properties that were developed in the recent past require additional analysis for consideration for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. A property that is less than 50 years old can be listed in the National Register; however, it must meet Criteria Consideration G which states that “a property (which has achieved) significance within the past 50 years is eligible if it is of exceptional importance.” The California Register does not have a specific criteria consideration, but the guidelines state that significant time must have passed for the development of a scholarly perspective on the potential resource. There is no age requirement for local designation, but generally speaking the same need exists for the passage of sufficient time to enable a scholarly perspective.

A residential property or tract feature from this period may be significant under this context:

Criteria285 Reason
A/1/A (Event) As a rare or unique exemplification of significant development patterns associated with post-World War II growth in the area; as a clear catalyst for development; or otherwise as an exemplification of significant contributions to heritage. Properties may also be significant for an association with a particular ethnic community in East-West Glendale. Merely representing general patterns of postwar residential development is insufficient reason for eligibility.

Properties that convey a collective association with important events, primarily an association with singularly significant patterns of single-family residential development, are more likely to be identified as part of a grouping eligible under historic district criteria.

B/2/B (Person) For its association with a significant person. Significant persons within this theme include members of the community who may have been influential in the development of Glendale during this period, or who gained significance 285 Eligibility criteria are listed in the order National Register/California Register/Local. 1562 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 92
within their profession. Properties eligible under this criterion are those associated with a person’s productive life, reflecting the time period when they achieved significance.

A/1/A, G (Event) A collection of residences from this period that are linked geographically and convey an association with singularly significant patterns of single-family residential development may be eligible as a historic district.286 Residences from this period may also contribute to historic districts that are significant under other contexts and themes. Districts boundaries may represent original tract boundaries, or they may comprise a portion of a tract or neighborhood.

The district must be unified aesthetically and historically by plan, physical development, and architectural quality. Tract features, including street lights, landscaping, parkland, and other amenities may contribute to the significance of the district.

Integrity Considerations for Post-World War II Suburban Development (1945-2000) In order to be eligible for listing at the federal, state, or local levels, a property must retain sufficient integrity to convey its historic significance under this theme.

C/3/C (Architecture) A property important for illustrating a particular architectural style or construction technique must retain most of the physical features that constitute that style or technique.
289 A single-family residential property
significant under Criterion C/3/C (Architecture) should retain integrity of design, workmanship, materials, and feeling, at a minimum, in order to be eligible for its architectural merit. A property that has lost some historic materials or details can be eligible if it retains the majority of the features that illustrate its style in terms of the massing, spatial relationships, proportion, pattern of windows and doors, texture of materials, and ornamentation. The property is not eligible, however, if it retains some basic features conveying massing but has lost the majority of the features that once characterized its style.

A/1/A-I (District) In order for a historic district to be eligible for designation, the majority of the components that add to the district’s historic character must possess integrity, as must the district as a whole. A contributing property must retain integrity of location, design, setting, feeling, and association to adequately convey the significance of the historic district. Some alterations to individual buildings, such as replacement roof materials, replacement garage doors, and replacement of windows may be acceptable as long as the district as a whole continues to convey its significance. Major alterations such as substantial additions that are visible from the public right-of-way, interruptions of the original fenestration pattern through window opening enlargement or infill, or numerous smaller alterations that cumulatively result in a loss of integrity would not be acceptable.

Registration Requirements for Post-World War II Suburban Development (1945-2000)

To be eligible under the Post-World War II Suburban Development theme, a property must:
• date from the period of significance;
• exemplify a rare or unique example of an important trend or pattern of development from this period;
• be an excellent example of an architectural style or method of construction; • display most of the character-defining features of the property type or style; • if less than 50 years old, exhibit exceptional importance for listing in the National Register; and • retain the essential aspects of integrity for listing in the National, California, or Glendale Registers. 289 National Register Bulletin 15.
1564 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 94
To be eligible under the Post-World War II Suburban Development theme, a historic district must:
• retain a majority of the contributors dating from the period of significance for listing in the National or California Registers; retain 60% contributors for local designation; • be an excellent or unique example of planning and design principles from the period; • display most of the character-defining features of a residential subdivision, including the original layout, street plan, and other planning features; • if less than 50 years old, exhibit exceptional importance for listing in the National Register; and • retain the essential aspects of integrity for listing in the National, California, or Glendale Registers. 1565 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 95
Context: Multi-Family Residential Development (1910-2000) While multi-family residential development was a significant part of the built landscape in the East-West Study Area, it was overshadowed by single-family homes and paled in comparison to the large scale of multi-family development in Central/South Glendale. Still, the Study Area had several notable “firsts” in Glendale’s history of multi-family housing. It was the site of several pioneering “own your own” apartments which were progenitors of condominiums and townhouses. It also had Glendale’s first highrise residential building, Verdugo Towers. Multi-family housing took many forms in the Study Area, from small individual duplexes to large-scale townhouse developments, and contained exemplary forms in a few cases.

In terms of housing types and housing tenure in Glendale overall, U.S. Census data from 1950-2000 indicates the rising role of renters and multi-family units in the city over this period, with 1970-1980 a key transitional period. In the 1950s and 1960s, homeowners were a majority, but by 1970, they were outnumbered by renters for the first time and would remain so for the remainder of the century. In a similar way, from 1950 to 1970, single-family homes comprised a majority of housing units in Glendale as a whole. After 1980, multi-family housing handily outnumbered single-family homes and continued to do so through 2010. Larger multi-family buildings (five units and greater) came to outnumber all housing types. One reason for the crossover was that single-family home prices were rapidly outpacing income levels in this period, across all of Los Angeles and within Glendale.290 In 1977, Glendale builders and city officials expressed concern about this crossover: “The reasons, they say, are not that apartment or condominium living is seen as more favorable but rather that the prices of homes have outgrown the average family’s income,” noted the Glendale News Press. 291 Another factor was the “no-growth” movement gaining power in the East-West Study Area in the 1970s, which suppressed home building in the hillsides and thus increased demand for housing overall.

By 1980, Glendale’s earlier reputation as a “a place for homes” applied less to Glendale as a whole, and more to the East-West Study Area. While housing data for the Study Area specifically was not extracted for this report, descriptive evidence suggests that single-family suburban homes continued to predominate and define the character of this part of Glendale. Multi-family housing played a lesser role overall, yet still added to a diversifying built landscape in the Study Area. 290 Nicolaides, The New Suburbia, 95-96; Becky Nicolaides, “Can’t afford a house in L.A.? Here’s how that happened,” Los Angeles Times, September 28, 2023.
291 “Real estate demand booms,” Glendale News Press, February 24, 1977. 1566 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 96
Theme: Pre-World War II Multi-Family Residential Development (1910-1944) Multi-family residential development appeared in the East-West Study Area at least as early as the 1910s.

While historically overshadowed by the plethora of single-family homes and neighborhoods, multi-family dwellings gradually added to the low-slung suburban landscape from 1910-1940. Duplexes, three-flats, four-flats, bungalow courts, and standard apartments were built within walking distance of the streetcar lines and adjacent roadways. Since there was no early zoning for multi-family units, they tended to be tucked into suburban residential areas next to single-family homes, and reflected compatible scales and styles to fit in with the surrounding Craftsman, Period Revival, and Minimal Traditional single-family homes.

The 1925 Sanborn map of the blocks just east of N. Brand Boulevard depicts duplexes, two-flats, duplexes, and two bungalow courts, interspersed among single-family homes (Los Angeles Public Library).

From 1910-1944, the original streetcar routes had a strong influence on the location of multi-family housing in the Study Area. These would become corridors of mixed land use and remained so for much of the 20thcentury. The PE Red Car Line, along what became Glenoaks Boulevard, was a key thoroughfare starting in the 1910s. Multi-family dwellings would be built on this road and on the side streets that 1567 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 97
branched off it, particularly in the western part of the Study Area. Where the PE line turned north up Brand Boulevard leading to the Casa Verdugo area, more multi-family units were built within walking distance of the line. Similarly, the parallel-running Verdugo Road and Cañada Boulevard contained some multi-family housing, although much less than in the western and central part of the Study Area. Other notable concentrations were a cluster bounded roughly by Highland, Glenwood, Brand, and Glenoaks, and another around the Grand Central Air Terminal. This pattern took shape somewhat gradually.

In the prewar years, multi-family residential development was typically low-density, and took the form of duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, bungalow courts, and flats. These were found dotted throughout the Study Area – one example is the 1927 Spanish Colonial Revival bungalow court at 1323-1329 N. Columbus Avenue (1927, extant) – and concentrated along streetcar routes and major automobile routes One of the earliest multi-family properties in the area is the 1922 Tudor Revival triplex at 1838 N. Verdugo Road, in close proximity to the streetcar line. Concentrations of early multi-family properties remain evident on N. Brand Boulevard and nearby streets like Dryden Street, Stocker Street, and Louise Street, though subsequent alterations and later infill mean they do not retain sufficient cohesion to be classed as historic districts. Extant early examples also include larger-scale apartment houses like the two-story Stanford Arms at 107 W. Dryden Street, a 1926 Tudor Revival courtyard apartment; the three-story Spanish Colonial Revival building at 1114 N. Brand Boulevard (1927); and the unusual Egyptian Revival/Art Nouveau Louise-Dryden Apartments at 1105 N. Louise Street. This three-story building from 1925 is locally designated.

The 1925 Louise-Dryden Apartments, 1105 N. Louise Street, in 1926. (USC Digital Library) 1568 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 98
At the southern edge of the Study Area, a 25-unit apartment building at 111 Burchett Street (no longer extant) once served as one of the largest multi-family residential sites in the Study Area. Along Glenoaks, the 1925 Sanborn maps depicts many empty platted lots in stretches between Highland and Howard Streets, indicating building activity was slow there by the mid-1920s. 292 By the late 1920s, multi-family
residential development had picked up on and around Glenoaks, with the stretch east of Brand Boulevard nearly built out by 1930. As in other areas, properties were typically low-scale, though exceptions like the locally designated Glen Arden Apartments at 347 Arden Avenue (1929, Spanish Colonial Revival) attest to the presence of larger apartment houses.

The western section of Glenoaks took longer to develop, despite the expansion of industry anchored by the Grand Central Air Terminal, and the resulting demand for rental housing. In 1928, the Glendale News Press reported on the high demand for apartments by workers arriving in Glendale. Realtor and subdivider Walter B. Davis noted, “Several inquiries have already been received from employes [sic] of the aviation industries who are arranging to locate here as soon as buildings can be completed.... it is extremely difficult to find a house for rent and there are no apartments within convenient walking distance of the air terminal.” 293 Davis emphasized the pressing need to build rental housing for this workforce. In 1939, HOLC surveyors of the area just south of the Grand Central Air Terminal noted the presence of older substandard “shacks,” suggesting these jerry-built dwellings may have been an immediate strategy for housing workers, although this is speculation.294 In 1937, construction of a series of multi-family dwellings was launched on Glenoaks Boulevard, between Cleveland Road and Pelanconi Avenue. The plan was to develop 3,000 feet of frontage on Glenoaks in this area which would be restricted to income property. G.D. Robertson & Co., Inc. was the main developer of these multi-family projects totaling $75,000. They were largely two-story fourplexes and duplexes with uniform setbacks and a minimum of 10 feet between dwellings – all conforming to FHA regulations.295 Whether by this developer or a combination of others, this area of W. Glenoaks Boulevard came to be developed with Period Revival and Minimal two-story apartment buildings starting in the late 1930s and picking up again in the 1950s (mostly Minimal Traditional style with some Mid-Century Modern examples) until the stretch was fully built out. The original multi-family residential character of this area remains largely intact today.

In 1939, the federal Home Owners Loan Corporation surveyed Glendale as part of its broad appraisal of U.S. cities. Their appraisal worksheets/area descriptions, which assessed specific neighborhoods, offer some clues about the presence of multi-family dwellings in the Study Area. Along Glenoaks Boulevard (between Grandview Avenue and Fairmont Road), appraisers noted that five percent of dwellings were 292 Sanborn Maps, sheets 251-253 are unavailable online, the area presumed to cover west Glenoaks Boulevard and the adjacent Pacific Electric Line. Sanborn sheets 254-256, 267-271 showed many empty platted lots along Glenoaks Boulevard, between Highland Avenue and Howard Street.
293 “Shows Need for More Residences,” Glendale News Press, February 22, 1928. 294 Home Owners’ Land Corporation, Area Description C-13. (This area was listed as Burbank, but today is part of Glendale) 295 “Glendale Park Multiple Units to Cost $75,000,” Los Angeles Times, April 25, 1937; “Glendale Area Building Active,” Los Angeles Times, August 21, 1938; “Extensive Frontage Set Aside for Multiple-Housing Units,” Los Angeles Times, July 24, 1938. 1569 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 99
multi-family, suggesting a persistent dearth of multi-family properties in the area.296 In its observation of the Casa Verdugo area around Brand Blvd., the appraiser noted that five percent of dwellings were multifamily, in a predominantly single-family home area. “There are comparatively few multi-family dwellings but a distinct tendency to build rental units behind dwellings (on the rear of lots),” the report noted. (That report also noted an influx of lower income groups).297 In the corridor along Verdugo Road and Cañada Boulevard – former route of the Glendale & Montrose Railway – the appraisers noted the presence of duplexes. And in the northern part of Verdugo Woodlands, some multi-family structures had been constructed “in harmony” with the single-family landscape.298 In the lower part of the Chevy Chase Canyon area (below Solway Street), a small number of duplexes and “multifamily” dwellings were noted.299
Several small subdivisions were established in the Study Area in the early 1940s, including at least one developed with distinct single-family and multi-family residential areas. Gregg’s Artistic Homes, founded by licensed contractor Alice Lee Gregg in 1934, subdivided Tract 12547 in mid-1941 just south of the point where N. Glendale Avenue and N. Verdugo Road connect.300 Tract No. 12547 map, 1941.
296 Home Owners’ Land Corporation, worksheets B-18 and C-12. 297 Home Owners’ Land Corporation, worksheet C-16.
298 Home Owners’ Land Corporation, worksheets C-15 and B-16 299 Home Owners’ Land Corporation, worksheets B-20 and B-21. 300 Tract No. 12547 Map, July 1941; “Winning OK for Hillside Plan Is an Uphill Battle for Gregg,” Los Angeles Times April 13, 2026. 1570 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 100
The developer filled Verdugo Circle, north of Glenoaks Boulevard, with Minimal Traditional single-family houses and the lots south of Glenoaks with Minimal Traditional multi-family properties of various sizes.

Upon the development’s completion in 1942, newspaper advertisements indicate preference would be given to defense workers, illustrating the ramp-up of the region’s defense industry as the U.S. entered World War II.301 The multi-family residences of this development remain intact, though most of the single-family residences on Verdugo Circle have sustained alterations.

From 1942 to 1945, the federal War Production Board placed a moratorium on non-essential home construction, which generally halted home building in Southern California. However, this does not appear to have halted residential construction in Glendale. The Los Angeles Times reported in January 1943 that Glendale “bucked wartime restrictions and still engaged in building, chiefly homes, valued at approximately $1,700,000.”302 In 1944, the Glendale City Council approved a tract map for a multi-family housing project on 37 lots along North Glendale Blvd., between Glenoaks and Mountain (on the northwest part of Glendale Blvd.). The Council re-zoned this area from R-1 to R-4 to allow the project. The builder Kenneth P. Schmidt proposed a $500,000 development of “one-story multi-unit dwellings,” with deed restrictions prohibiting two-story structures on these parcels.303 Many of these properties remain extant, though subsequent alterations have compromised the cohesive character they once possessed as a grouping.

The overall wartime slowdown in home construction in Glendale contributed to a growing housing shortage and demand for rental housing, which unleashed vigorous building in the postwar years.

Property Types and Registration Requirements for Pre-World War II Multi-Family Residential Development (1910-1944)
Property Types: Multi-Family Residence; Historic District Multi-family residential development began in the East-West Study Area in the 1910s, with Craftsman and early Period Revival properties constructed in styles and sizes compatible with the surrounding (and much more numerous) single-family homes. It increased in the 1920s and ‘30s, as the population grew; given the lack of strict zoning at this time, most multi-family properties were intermixed with single-family homes, though some were constructed in small clusters and along streetcar routes and major automobile corridors like Brand Boulevard and Glenoaks Boulevard. This time period also saw the advent of the bungalow court property type here. Multi-family property types in the Study Area include bungalow courts, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, flats (typically two-story triplexes or fourplexes), courtyard apartments, and low-scale (maximum two story) apartment houses. 301 Los Angeles Times May 31, 1942; June 21, 1942; July 12, 1942. 302 “Los Angeles County,” Los Angeles Times, January 2, 1943. Further research is needed to establish whether Glendale qualified for Lanham Act funds during the war, as an essential war worker area. 303 “Housing Tract Map Approved,” Glendale News Press, March 8, 1944. 1571 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 101
A multi-family residential property from this period may be significant under this context:

Criteria304 Reason
A/1/A (Event) As a unique or rare representation of a particular type of multi-family residential development. Eligible examples may represent the earliest extant multi-family residences in East-West Glendale, as association with streetcarrelated development, or a threatened resource type like the bungalow court.

Properties that convey a collective association with important events, primarily an association with historic patterns of multi-family residential development, are more likely to be identified as part of a grouping eligible under historic district criteria.

B/2/B (Person) For its association with a significant person. Significant persons within this theme include members of the community who may have been influential in the development of Glendale during this period, or who gained significance within their profession. Properties eligible under this criterion are those associated with a person’s productive life, reflecting the time period when they achieved significance
C/3/C (Architecture) As an excellent or rare example of an architectural style or type from the period. Additional information about architectural styles from each period and their associated character-defining features are outlined in the Architecture & Design context.

A/1/A, G (Event) A collection of multi-family residences from this period that are linked geographically and associatively may be eligible as a historic district.305 Multifamily residences from this period may also contribute to historic districts that are significant under other contexts and themes. The district must be unified aesthetically and historically by plan, physical development, and architectural quality.

Integrity Considerations for Pre-World War II Multi-Family Residential Development (1910-1944) In order to be eligible for listing at the federal, state, or local levels, a property must retain sufficient integrity to convey its historic significance under this theme.

It is expected that some historic materials may have been replaced, particularly windows, and the integrity of setting may have been compromised by later development.

C/3/C (Architecture) A property important for illustrating a particular architectural style or construction technique must retain most of the physical features that constitute that style or technique.
308 A multi-family residential property
significant under Criterion C/3/C (Architecture) should retain integrity of design, workmanship, materials, and feeling, at a minimum, in order to be eligible for its architectural merit. A property that has lost some historic materials or details can be eligible if it retains the majority of the features that illustrate its style in terms of the massing, spatial relationships, proportion, pattern of windows and doors, texture of materials, and ornamentation. The property is not eligible, however, if it retains some basic features conveying massing but has lost the majority of the features that once characterized its style.

A/1/A-I (District) In order for a historic district to be eligible for designation, the majority of the components that add to the district’s historic character must possess integrity, as must the district as a whole. A contributing property must retain integrity of location, design, setting, feeling, and association to adequately convey the significance of the historic district. Some alterations to individual buildings, such as replacement roof materials, replacement garage doors, and replacement of windows may be acceptable as long as the district as a whole continues to convey its significance. Major alterations such as substantial additions that are visible from the public right-of-way, interruptions of the original fenestration pattern through window opening enlargement or infill, or numerous smaller alterations that cumulatively result in a loss of integrity would not be acceptable.
307 National Register Bulletin 15.
308 National Register Bulletin 15.
1573 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 103
Registration Requirements for Pre-World War II Multi-Family Residential Development (1910-1944)

To be eligible under the Pre-World War II Multi-Family Residential Development theme, a property must:
• date from the period of significance;
• represent a unique or rare type of multi-family residential development; • display most of the character-defining features of the property type or style; and • retain the essential aspects of integrity for listing in the National, California, or Glendale Registers.

To be eligible under the Pre-World War II Multi-Family Residential Development theme, a historic district must:
• retain a majority of the contributors dating from the period of significance for listing in the National or California Registers; retain 60% contributors for local designation; and • retain the essential aspects of integrity for listing in the National, California, or Glendale Registers. 1574 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 104
Theme: Post-World War II Multi-Family Residential Development (1945-2000) Southern California experienced a population boom during and after World War II. Returning servicemembers and defense workers were drawn to the region for its growing economy, good weather, and affordability. Demand for housing surged. In the postwar period, federal housing policy also began to take full effect as the wartime constraints on construction were finally lifted. Federal programs incentivized the building and buying of housing, making it more affordable and less risky financially.

Together, these forces spurred a building boom of both single-family and multi-family housing in Glendale and the entire Southern California region.

The East-West Study Area saw an increase in multi-family housing construction in the postwar era. They included duplexes, multiplexes, bungalow courts, standard apartments, garden apartments, “own your own” apartments, condominiums and townhouses, as well as high-rises. The Study Area, in fact, had several notable “firsts” in Glendale’s history of multi-family housing. It was the site of several pioneering “own your own” apartments by the developer Charles E. Carpenter, which were progenitors of condominiums and townhouses. It also had Glendale’s first high-rise residential building – the 11-story Verdugo Towers built in 1965.

Most multi-family housing continued to cluster on or adjacent to the established thoroughfares of Glenoaks, Brand and Central. But some also appeared in the Verdugo Woodlands area, as well as in the master-planned Rancho San Rafael. The 1951 zoning map of Glendale showed a corridor of R-4 (higherdensity multi-family residential) zones along the side-streets radiating off of W. Glenoaks Blvd., between Alameda and Glenview. (Glenoaks itself was zoned for commercial in this area). R-4 zones also clustered relatively tightly in the central part of the Study Area, and along thin corridors adjacent to Verdugo Drive.

A notable amount of low-slung multi-family housing clustered along and adjacent to the West Glenoaks Boulevard corridor. This area was nearly built out by the early 1950s, mainly with single-family homes in the Grandview and Pelanconi districts. Tucked among those rows of homes were duplexes, fourplexes, larger “plexes,” two-flats and four-flats, along with several bungalow courts, which blended into the suburban landscape. The 1950 Sanborn maps reveal some distinct patterns. Between Alameda and Rosedale Avenues, multi-family dwellings were located chiefly on the side streets radiating north and south of Glenoaks. These included bungalow courts on nearly every north-south avenue as well as Glenoaks, and a number of duplexes, fourplexes, and four-flats interspersed among single-family homes.

The occasional backyard dwelling also appeared. The prevalence of this housing lent this area a degree of horizontal density seen in many working-class districts across Los Angeles.309 309 Nicolaides, New Suburbia, 302-311.
1575 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 105
1950 Sanborn Map depicts side streets along West Glenoaks, between Alameda and Allen Avenues, illustrating the presence of small-scale multi-family dwellings, 1950 (Sanborn Map Company).

Glenoaks Boulevard itself also had a scattering of duplexes and bungalow courts, and between Allen and Thompson Avenues, eight apartment buildings. Further east along Glenoaks, between Grandview and Central, multi-family dwellings were mainly concentrated on Glenoaks Blvd. itself, and not on its side streets, which were dominated by single-family homes (except along larger streets such as Central and Columbus Avenues). Along Glenoaks, these consisted mainly of duplexes, two-flats, three-flats, and fourflats. 1576 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 106
Eight apartment buildings along W. Glenoaks Blvd. between Allen and Thompson, 1950 Sanborn Map. (Sanborn Map Company) Signaling a break with this small-scale pattern of multi-family housing, larger scale apartments proliferated in the postwar era in the Study Area. This was stimulated by federal policy which incentivized the building of apartments. As noted in the South Glendale Historic Context Statement, Between 1941 and 1950, the federal government created “Section 608” which “provided Federal Housing Administration (FHA) insurance for as much as 90% of mortgages on rental housing projects.” The FHA began to provide mortgage insurance for apartment buildings having elevators in the late 1940s. By the 1950s apartment buildings were equipped with improved mechanical systems, elevators, up-to-date appliances, central air conditioning, outdoor balconies, and newly available prefabricated components such as steel-framed windows and sliding glass doors. The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 “permitted owners to charge off high percentages of the original cost of new building during the early years of the building’s life,” thereby encouraging new construction. In the early 1960s the federal government eased existing restrictions limiting investment in multi-family housing lending by Savings and Loans.310 Some designs of multi-family structures in the postwar period were influenced by planning and design ideas dating to the early 20th century. Particularly influential were the Garden City Movement and Clarence Stein’s Toward New Towns (1951). The FHA also contributed to these design principles, including for projects built at larger scales. Garden apartment villages exemplified a large-scale application of these ideas. Guided by FHA architect Eugene Henry Klaber, these complexes called for “the use of superblocks in development of the site, the segregation of automobile and pedestrian traffic, low to medium density and building coverage, the standardization of building types with a maximum of three stories in height, and an emphasis on landscaping and open space.”311 Individual garden apartments were typically low310 HRG, “South Glendale Historic Context Statement,” 99. 311 HRG, “South Glendale Historic Context Statement,” 100; and Ames and McClelland, “Historic Residential Suburbs,” 50-51. Also see Architectural Resources Group, “Garden Apartments of Los Angeles Historic Context Statement,” prepared for the Los Angeles Conservancy, October 2012.
1577 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 107
slung buildings, rarely exceeding two stories, and landscaped in a variety of styles. Design-wise, in Southern California they represented a precursor to modern condo and townhouse communities.312 In Glendale and Los Angeles as a whole, apartment designs increasingly drew on the garden apartment model, which was particularly suited to Southern California with its temperate climate and penchant for outdoor living.313 Many of these designs in the early postwar period also adhered to low-slung suburban forms. As historian Matthew Lasner writes, “Southern Californians eschewed tall apartment buildings in favor of [multi-family] homes that preserved privacy, offered outdoor space, and readily accommodated the automobile. The formula was in many respects suburban.”314 At least one extant example of the garden apartment property type exists in the Study Area: the Mid-Century Modern complex at 1550 N.

Verdugo Road (1950), on a hillside near Glendale Community College.

In the 1950s and early 1960s, the “own-your-own” apartment movement was taking off in Southern California. Historian Matthew Lasner notes that while the trend of owner-occupied apartments emerged nationally after World I, its popularity in Southern California remained intermittent until the mid-1950s.

This was largely due to the abundance and affordability of suburban single-family homes, a preferable alternative to many people. Los Angeles had a few notable examples of “own your own” apartments dating back to the 1920s, such as Lionel Mayell’s Villa Riviera high-rise co-op in Long Beach, built in 1928-

29. Mayell devised a deed plan – which came to be popularly known as “own-your-own” – which “relied on the legal doctrine of tenancy-in-common to convey, via deed, an undivided share of a building to each owner.” This was essentially a co-op form of ownership. Many own-your-own apartments followed Mayell’s plan from the 1920s to 1950s, from San Diego to Santa Barbara. These “own-your-owns” helped pave the way for condos and townhouses which superseded the older form by the 1960s.315 After the war, Mayell built a notable, pioneering “own-your-own” apartment in Pasadena in 1949-50, called the Orange Grove Manor, catalyzing the transition of South Orange Grove Boulevard from large old mansions to multi-family housing. He recognized that Orange Grove still held social cachet, and sought to capitalize on it by building higher-end, but smaller and more manageable garden-style apartments that residents could own. Soon, the “own-your-own way of life fanned out from Orange Grove Boulevard” across Pasadena and into Glendale.316
In Glendale, Mayell’s acquaintance Charles E. Carpenter was a leader in developing “own-your-own” apartments in the late 1950s and 1960s, signaling a ripening demand for multi-family homeownership.317 Carpenter built ten of these apartments in Glendale, including several in the East-West Study Area. These were predominantly configured in the garden apartment and courtyard apartment complex types. One of the earliest was the Oak Mount Manor (1325-1333 N. Central Avenue, 1954, extant). A January 1954 ad proclaimed, “You Don’t Rent It – You Own It!” Oak Mount Manor had five four-unit buildings of 312 Matthew Lasner, High Life: Condo Living in the Suburban Century (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012), 209-212. 313 HRG, “South Glendale Historic Context Statement,” 100. 314 Lasner, High Life, 207.
315 Lasner, High Life, 207-209.
316 Lasner, High Life, 211.
317 Lasner, High Life, 211.
1578 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 108
“apartment homes” ranging from one- to three- bedrooms, with a common landscaped courtyard setting.318
Ad for Charles E. Carpenter’s Oak Mount Manor in the Los Angeles Times, January 27, 1954.

Another notable Charles E. Carpenter apartment in the Study Area was the 1961 Royal Palms (1401 N.

Central Avenue, extant), a Hawaiian style 30-unit “luxury development.” The Royal Palms, Carpenter’s eighth cooperative apartment in Glendale, featured “semitropical landscaping,” and unit prices ranged from $18,900 to $31,900 in 1962.319 Another own-your-own apartment was the 1960 Southwood Apartments (587 South Street, extant but extensively altered), a garden apartment complex developed by Fred Wood.320 Despite these projects, Carpenter claimed that Southern California as a whole lagged behind the nation in cooperative apartments. He noted that these complexes were managed by a board of governors elected by residents, a precursor to Home Owner Association boards.321 By the late 1950s, the scale of some apartment complexes had grown. A three-story apartment complex at the northeast corner of Chevy Chase Drive and E. Glenoaks Boulevard (1595 E. Chevy Chase Drive, heavily altered) was touted as one of Glendale’s largest apartment structures built at that time.

Developed by the Norlen Investment Corp., it contained 55 units and a subterranean garage, and was landscaped in a tropical style.322
318 Display ad, Los Angeles Times, January 27, 1954.
319 “Royal Palms Sales Reach $261,000,” Los Angeles Times, February 4, 1962. Another Carpenter project was The Virginian (315 N. Louise St.), in the South Glendale area.
320 “Garden Atmosphere at Southwood Apartments,” Los Angeles Times, October 1, 1961. 321 “Southland Lags in Co-Ops, Demand is Rising – Expert,” Los Angeles Times, April 29, 1962. 322 “Apartment Under Way in Glendale,” Los Angeles Times, March 29, 1959. 1579 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 109
In 1964, multi-family housing took a turn with the construction of Glendale’s first high-rise complex – the Verdugo Towers – built at 1155 N. Brand Blvd (extant), at the intersection of N. Brand Boulevard and W.

Stocker Street. This 11-story complex was built by Mudget-Taylor Development Inc., of Glendale, and was designed by architects Langdon & Wilson. The cost of the project was $2.25 million. It originated as an “own-your-own” apartment, with 51 units priced from $29,500 to $75,000. This included one-, two-, and three-bedroom units, and three penthouse apartments. The third floor had a heated pool and deck, while the lower floors would include a coffee shop, stores, and parking.323 Verdugo Towers advertisement, Los Angeles Times February 10, 1963.

Verdugo Towers remained the only high-rise residential building in Glendale for over a decade.324 In 1974, the Glendale Planning Commission recommended a narrower, longer zone for high rises in Glendale, contained within a 62-block area along and abutting Brand Boulevard, with the northern border set at Glenoaks Boulevard. This would be zoned R-5, indicating no height limitation. Planners sought to encourage more high-rise residential constructions in this area, the center of Glendale’s “edge city” 323 “High Rise Residential Era Comes to Glendale,” Los Angeles Times, November 10, 1963; “Glendale’s Tallest Building ToppedOut,” Los Angeles Times, September 20, 1964; “Verdugo Towers Sales Near $500,000 Mark,” Los Angeles Times, July 25, 1965. 324 HRG, “South Glendale Historic Context Statement,” 103. Also see “Condominium Plan Approved,” Los Angeles Times, October 7, 1964.
1580 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 110
activity and an envisioned cornerstone of the Central Glendale Redevelopment Project of 1972 (see Commercial Context for discussion).325
Monterey Island, Los Angeles Times October 17, 1982.

By the 1980s, Verdugo Towers had been eclipsed by other high-rise towers, mostly condominiums constructed around Brand Boulevard and the 134 in the heart of the Central Glendale Redevelopment Area. One example was the fifteen-story Monterey Island condominium tower (222 Monterey Road, extant), designed by Krisel Shapiro and Associates and completed in 1983. 326 Although the City touted the
development as a stellar example of Central Glendale redevelopment, most of Monterey Island’s expensive units remained vacant for several years after completion. Local realtors felt “Monterey Island was doomed to failure because of the ‘restrictive’ cost of the condominiums, their proximity to the Ventura Freeway and a lack of people who would be willing to buy a ‘Beverly Hills-type’ condominium in 325 “High Rise Skyline for Business Area Urged,” Los Angeles Times, August 25, 1974. 326 “Condos a Key to Glendale Plan,” Los Angeles Times October 17, 1982. 1581 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 111
Glendale.”327 The tower eventually filled up after half of its units were put up for sale at auction at reduced prices.328
The building of multi-family units, and particularly condominium projects, continued through the 1970s and 1980s. From 1973-1982, the area generally called North Glendale (including the Study Area) had 33 condo projects and the Verdugo Canyon had 15. This was a much smaller number compared to other parts of the city. 329 While multi-family housing was increasing in the Study Area, it was still outnumbered by single-family homes. Development of multi-family housing intensified in the 1990s and 2000s as demand continued to soar along with the city’s population.

Property Types and Registration Requirements for Post-World War II Multi-Family Residential Development (1945-2000)
Property Types: Multi-Family Residence; Historic District Multi-family residential development continued in the Study Area during the post-World War II period, first reflecting low-scale types compatible with single-family residences as seen in the 1920s and ‘30s and clustered around corridors like Glenoaks Boulevard. Larger properties emerged as well, reflecting redevelopment and population growth. Multi-family residences are relatively common in the Study Area, and represent a range of multi-family property types and architectural styles.

A multi-family residential property from this period may be significant under this context:

Criteria330 Reason
A/1/A (Event) As a unique or rare representation of a particular type of multi-family residential development. Eligible examples may represent the first or best example of a specific type of multi-family residential development. Properties that convey a collective association with important events, primarily an association with historic patterns of multi-family residential development, are 327 “Luxury Condos, Mostly Vacant, Caught in 3-Way Squeeze,” Los Angeles Times July 15, 1984. 328 “Developer Pulls Out of Downtown Condo Project,” Los Angeles Times August 1, 1985. 329 City of Glendale, Planning Division, “Residential Development Activity… 1973 to present,” January 1982, 1. 330 Eligibility criteria are listed in the order National Register/California Register/Local. 1582 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 112
more likely to be identified as part of a grouping eligible under historic district criteria.

A/1/A, G (Event) A collection of multi-family residences from this period that are linked geographically and associatively may be eligible as a historic district.331 Multifamily residences from this period may also contribute to historic districts that are significant under other contexts and themes. The district must be unified aesthetically and historically by plan, physical development, and architectural quality.

Integrity Considerations for Post-World War II Multi-Family Residential Development (1945-2000) In order to be eligible for listing at the federal, state, or local levels, a property must retain sufficient integrity to convey its historic significance under this theme.

It is expected that some historic materials may have been replaced, particularly windows, and the integrity of setting may have been compromised by later development.

C/3/C (Architecture) A property important for illustrating a particular architectural style or construction technique must retain most of the physical features that constitute that style or technique.334 A single-family residential property significant under Criterion C/3/C (Architecture) should retain integrity of design, workmanship, materials, and feeling, at a minimum, in order to be eligible for its architectural merit. A property that has lost some historic materials or details can be eligible if it retains the majority of the features that illustrate its style in terms of the massing, spatial relationships, proportion, pattern of windows and doors, texture of materials, and ornamentation. The property is not eligible, however, if it retains some basic features conveying massing but has lost the majority of the features that once characterized its style.

A/1/A-I (District) In order for a historic district to be eligible for designation, the majority of the components that add to the district’s historic character must possess integrity, as must the district as a whole. A contributing property must retain integrity of location, design, setting, feeling, and association to adequately convey the significance of the historic district. Some alterations to individual buildings, such as replacement roof materials, replacement garage doors, and replacement of windows may be acceptable as long as the district as a whole continues to convey its significance. Major alterations such as substantial additions that are visible from the public right-of-way, interruptions of the original fenestration pattern through window opening enlargement or infill, or numerous smaller alterations that cumulatively result in a loss of integrity would not be acceptable.

Registration Requirements for Post-World War II Multi-Family Residential Development (1945-2000)

To be eligible under the Post-World War II Multi-Family Residential Development theme, a property must:
• date from the period of significance;
• represent a unique or rare type of multi-family residential development; • display most of the character-defining features of the property type or style; 333 National Register Bulletin 15.
334 National Register Bulletin 15.
1584 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 114
• if less than 50 years old, exhibit exceptional importance for listing in the National Register; and • retain the essential aspects of integrity for listing in the National, California, or Glendale Registers.

To be eligible under the Post-World War II Multi-Family Residential Development theme, a historic district must:
• retain a majority of the contributors dating from the period of significance for listing in the National or California Registers; retain 60% contributors for local designation; • if less than 50 years old, exhibit exceptional importance for listing in the National Register; and • retain the essential aspects of integrity for listing in the National, California, or Glendale Registers. 1585 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 115
Context: Commercial Development (1904-2000)
In contrast to South Glendale, home to Glendale’s commercial core, the East-West Study Area was dominated by residential suburban development. Commercial development mostly blended into this landscape, catering to residents of nascent suburban subdivisions. Early commercial districts were limited to the essentials: a real estate office, a service station, a grocer, and perhaps a hardware store or drug store. As the population expanded and grew increasingly reliant on the automobile in the 1920s and 1930s, supermarkets and other retail establishments grew along main arteries, limiting the need to travel downtown to shop. These commercial corridors filled in as the suburban population boomed in the postwar period. Freeways further decentralized Glendale’s landscape, allowing high-rise offices and hotels to locate along the southern border of the East-West Study Area by the 1980s and 1990s.

Theme: Pre-World War II Commercial Development (1904-1944) While Glendale’s commercial center developed in the downtown business district of South Glendale, smaller clusters and strips of retail emerged in the East-West Study Area to service the residents of new suburban subdivisions. The first commercial enterprises appeared in the early 1900s, outposts in a landscape primarily composed of large country estates and undeveloped agricultural tracts. The earliest commercial districts were developed in the 1910s and 1920s adjacent to rail, streetcar, and bus lines.

These corridors ran along present-day San Fernando Boulevard, Brand Boulevard, Glenoaks Boulevard, N.

Glendale Boulevard., Cañada Boulevard. and Verdugo Road. Mixed-use development, including commercial businesses and multi-family housing, expanded along these corridors as they attracted more automobile traffic by the 1930s. In this period, commercial establishments were small-scale, catering mainly to customers living in nearby suburban communities.

The first commercial district in the Study Area began to develop in 1904, when the Pacific Electric Railway Company extended the Glendale streetcar line from Brand Boulevard and Broadway to a new terminus station a mile-and-a-half north at Brand Boulevard and Mountain Street. In 1905, Pacific Electric opened the restaurant Casa Verdugo in the former Sepulveda adobe adjacent to the station to increase ridership along the line.335 The Spanish restaurant quickly became a tourist destination and was used to spur development in the area, particularly residential development geared towards a wealthier clientele. A real estate ad in the Los Angeles Evening Post declared, “High-class people want high-class surroundings.

GLENDALE boasts one of the best Spanish restaurants in the country, and should be visited by all gourmands. Take the Glendale car to the end of the line and see for yourself.”336 335 Arroyo, Early Glendale, 44.
336 “Birds of a Feather,” Los Angeles Evening Post, April 1, 1905. 1586 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 116
The "Tropico & Glendale" electric streetcar outside Casa Verdugo adobe in Glendale, ca. 1905. (USC Libraries, California Historical Society Collection, Title Insurance and Trust and C.C. Pierce Photography Collection 1860-1960).

Within a year, the restaurant had become so popular that an addition was made to the building to accommodate more diners.337 In 1910, a dispute between Pacific Electric and Piedad Yorba Sowl, the proprietor of the restaurant, led the company to rename the restaurant and adjacent streetcar station “La Ramada.” Sowl relocated Casa Verdugo to her Charles E. Shattuck-designed, Mission Revival-style home at 1235 N. Louise St. (locally designated) and continued to operate the restaurant “independent of [the] railroad” until 1921.338 The original Casa Verdugo restaurant (formerly the Sepulveda adobe) was demolished in 1923.339
Postcard of the new location of Casa Verdugo on Louise Street, n.d. (Casa Verdugo Historic District Committee) 337 ARG, “Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey,” 21.
338 Glendale City Directory 1913-1914; Early Views of Glendale,” Water and Power Associates. 339 “Early Views of Glendale,” Water and Power Associates. 1587 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 117
By the 1910s, residential development in the streetcar suburb of Casa Verdugo had advanced enough to support a small commercial district at Central Avenue and Stocker Street.340 The 1913-1914 Glendale City Directory listed two grocery stores (Sanitary Cash Grocery and Logan’s Espesero de Verdugo Store), a drug store, the Pepper Tree Inn, and the Mission Theater at Central and Stocker.341 No resources dating to this earliest period appear to be extant here. The intersection was also home to a post office where “tourists could have their picture postcards of the restaurant postmarked ‘Casa Verdugo, California.’” Fittingly, Piedad Yorba Sowl’s husband, Charles, served as the first postmaster of the Casa Verdugo branch.342
The expansion of Pacific Electric bus lines in the early 1920s led to the development of another commercial district, later known as Kenneth Village, along Kenneth Road between Grandview and Sonora Avenues. After L.C. Brand left 800 acres of his estate to the city, a strip of land north of Grand View Cemetery was set aside for commercial use.343 A 1923 advertisement by the Gilbert-Sherwood and Guthrie real estate company touted the area as “the only business district in all Northwest Glendale.” The ad highlighted access to new Pacific Electric bus lines, reporting, “Bus line transportation has been installed and is now in operation. All the buses for this territory start from here, Kenneth Road and Grand View. This means the congregation point for the entire foothill district. This means ample transportation for this business district. This means that stores with apartments above will pay.”344 Early occupants included the Grand View Groceteria at 1404 W. Kenneth Road (1925, extant and now Village Market) and two service stations, one owned by Blackwell & Son at 1435 W. Kenneth Road (1925 and 1935 buildings, extant and now a child care center), and the other by J.A. Snow at 1327 Grand View (no longer extant). 345
A few other low-scale commercial properties dating to the 1920s remain extant at other locations along streetcar, bus, and automobile corridors, including 469 Burchett Street off Glenoaks Boulevard (1925) and 1580 E. Chevy Chase Drive (1925, in a small grouping of 1920s-30s commercial buildings that have mostly been altered).

Automobile ownership greatly increased in the 1920s and 1930s and further catalyzed commercial development. As historian Dolores Hayden argues, this increase was not simply a result of consumer preference, but rather due to “automobile manufacturers…strategizing about federal subsidies for roads and developers…reshaping buildings to accommodate consumers in automobiles.” In particular, the street-oriented design of gas stations encouraged “roadside strip development (or ribbon development) serving the automobile.”346 Soon, grocers and supermarkets adopted these design elements to make 340 Streetcar suburbs were typically anchored around “a small Main Street near the trolley stop, with groceries, barbers, pharmacies and hardware stores serving the local populace.” Nicolaides, The New Suburbia, 36; ARG, “Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey;” “Verdugo Views: The Unlikely Origin Story of Kenneth Village,” Los Angeles Times, November 21, 2013. 341 Photo of interior of Logan’s Espesero de Verdugo from Arroyo, Early Glendale, 64. 342 “Early Views of Glendale,” Water and Power Associates; Glendale City Directory, 1913-1914. 343 “The Unlikely Origin Story of Kenneth Village,” Los Angeles Times. 344 “The Only Business District in All Northwest Glendale,” Glendale Evening News, December 18, 1923. 345 Glendale City Directory, 1927.
346Dolores Hayden, Building Suburbia: Green Fields and Urban Growth, 1820-1900 (Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, 2004), 159.
1588 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 118
shopping more convenient for car-bound commuters. Rather than search for street parking, customers at “drive-in markets” could park their cars directly in front of the store.347 One important example of the drive-in market is located at 6300-6320 San Fernando Road between Grover Avenue and Davis Avenue (extant, though altered). Built in 1930 by the Davis Glendale Company, the Aurora Market was designed by Alfred Priest, an architect responsible for many historic buildings in South Glendale’s downtown business district. The L-shaped market with front parking faces toward San Fernando Road to attract automobile traffic. A 1932 advertisement for Aurora Market noted its location opposite the Grand Central Air Terminal.348 The 1995-1996 San Fernando Road Industrial Survey noted that the building remained largely intact, including “the four-story, Spanish Baroque Revival-style clock tower located at the intersection of the two legs of the L.”349 The placement along a heavily trafficked corridor, L-shaped design facing the road, and Spanish Colonial Revival style all make the Aurora Market a typical example of drive-in markets, described by historian Richard Longstreth as “stores the road passes through.”350
Advertisement for the Aurora Market on N. San Fernando Road in the Burbank Daily Evening Review, October 6, 1932.

View to north of Aurora Market, n.d. (Los Angeles Public Library, Security Pacific National Bank Collection) 347 Richard Longstreth, The Drive-in, the Supermarket, and the Transformation of Commercial Space in Los Angeles, 1914-1941 (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1999), 33-76.
348 Arroyo, Early Glendale, 100; Burbank Daily Evening Review, October 6, 1932. 349 M.J. Wuellner and Harland Bartholomew & Associates, “HBA-22, 6300-6320 San Fernando Road,” within the “San Fernando Road Industrial Survey (1995-1996),” DPR523A Primary Record, (Sacramento, CA: California Office of Historic Preservation, Department of Parks and Recreation, 1995), page 63.
350 Longstreth, Drive-in, Supermarket, 33.
1589 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 119
Another notable market from the period is located nearby at 6401-6409 San Fernando Road (extant, though extensively altered). The 1995-1996 San Fernando Road Survey noted the 1925 building was “significant as a good example of an Art Moderne warehouse / commercial structure featuring distinctive design elements such as the corner entrance and clock tower, angled display windows and punctuated silhouette.”351 One of the earliest commercial properties in this area, 6401 San Fernando housed a neighborhood market managed in 1940 by Kazuichi “Jack” Numamoto, indicating an early Japanese American association. Other commercial and industrial properties from the 1920s-30s remain on San Fernando Road, though most are heavily altered. One altered but recognizable exception is the small round building at the northeast corner of San Fernando and Winchester Avenue (6530 San Fernando Road), constructed here in 1933 as part of the regional Chili Bowl chain of restaurants.352 Former Chili Bowl restaurant, 6530 San Fernando Road. (Google Streetview 2025) The development of the Pelanconi tract in the 1930s helped turn Glenoaks Boulevard into a commercial corridor. West Glenoaks, which paralleled the Pacific Electric streetcar line to Burbank built in 1911, relieved traffic on San Fernando and quickly became an important thoroughfare.353 Glendale developers G.D. Robertson and Co. created a business district for the Glendale Park subdivision at the intersection of Glenoaks and Highland Avenue.354 The 1938 City Directory listed multiple markets, service stations, real estate offices, and beauty parlors, a restaurant, a bakery, a barber, a drug store, and a hardware store on West Glenoaks between Highland and Alameda Avenues. The commercial buildings here have been replaced by newer buildings or significantly altered. This stretch of Glenoaks also housed two Safeway 351Wuellner and Harland Bartholomew & Associates, “HBA-23, 6401-09 San Fernando Road,” within the “San Fernando Road Industrial Survey (1995-1996),” DPR523A Primary Record, (Sacramento, CA: California Office of Historic Preservation, Department of Parks and Recreation, 1995), page 66.
352 Depicted on cover of Robert Oberhand, The Chili Bowls of Los Angeles, ca. 1975. 353 “New Link Will Help Glendale,” Los Angeles Times, March 17, 1929; “Estate to be placed on market,” Los Angeles Times, March 23, 1930.
354 “Business Center Growth Planned,” Los Angeles Times, September 25,1938. 1590 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 120
supermarkets, one at 1707 W. Glenoaks Boulevard and one at 1931 W. Glenoaks Boulevard. 355 Both are
extensively altered.

On the northeastern side of Glendale, streetcar and bus lines, followed by increasing automobile traffic on newly built roads, led to the development of the picturesque communities of Rossmoyne, Verdugo Woodlands, and Chevy Chase Estates. In 1910 the Glendale and Eagle Rock Railway extended a line on North Glendale Avenue to reach Verdugo Park. To accommodate the tracks, real estate developer John A.

Pirtle laid out Cañada Boulevard in a straight line parallel to Verdugo Road, one of the oldest thoroughfares in the area.356 In 1913, the Holmes-Walton Company extended the rail line, renamed the Glendale & Montrose Railway, further north towards Montrose and La Crescenta.357 Beginning in the 1920s, Pacific Electric provided bus service from its Brand Boulevard streetcar line east to the Rossmoyne tract.358 Small commercial districts soon emerged alongside the real estate offices for these subdivisions.

The subdivision of the Rossmoyne tract spurred the growth of a commercial district at the intersection of Verdugo Road and E. Mountain Street. In 1926, the Haddock-Nibley Company purchased 800 acres for development and built an Egyptian Revival style sales office at 1300 Verdugo Road (now demolished). In 1936, Harry Welton, Vice President of Rossmoyne Properties Inc, announced the opening of Rossmoyne Village development. In 1937, a shopping center, designed in a Streamline Moderne Style, was built to service both the suburban residents as well as visitors to the newly-built Glendale Junior College, Glendale Civic Auditorium, and Municipal Plunge.359 By 1941, Rossmoyne Village included the Rossmoyne real estate office, Rossmoyne Village Pharmacy, Rossmoyne Village Cleaners and Rossmoyne Market, as well as a gift store, a beauty parlor, a flower shop, and a barber.360 In the mid-1960s, the City of Glendale demolished both the Rossmoyne commercial village and the Municipal Plunge to build a parking lot and parking structure for the Civic Auditorium.361
To the north of Rossmoyne, a small commercial cluster developed where Cañada Boulevard split from Verdugo Road. It included the offices of F.P. Newport Corporation (the real estate company of Frederick Pennington Newport, the primary developer of early Verdugo Woodlands), a gas station, service station, contractor, and veterinarian. Further north on Cañada towards Montrose, another cluster developed between El Rito Ave and Del Valle Ave, consisting of the Verdugo Woodlands Market, a service station and a café in 1935.362 By 1941, this cluster had expanded to include McIntire Motor Service, a real estate office, another drug store, and a service station.363 To the south of Rossmoyne, a commercial cluster developed at East Glenoaks Avenue and Chevy Chase Drive to service the Chevy Chase Estates. The 1935 355 Glendale City Directory, 1938.
356 Verdugo Woodlands West Neighborhood Association, “Proposed Selvas de Verdugo Historic District.” 357 Perry et al., Glendale: A Pictorial History, 79.
358 Arroyo, Early Glendale, 87.
359 LSA Associates, Inc., “Rossmoyne Historic Resources Survey,” prepared for the City of Glendale, September 6, 2011, 21. 360 Glendale City Directory, 1941.
361 LSA Associates, Inc., “Rossmoyne Historic Resources Survey,” 23. 362 Glendale City Directory, 1935.
363 Glendale City Directory, 1941.
1591 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 121
City Directory lists the Economy Market, a bakery, a plumber, and a beauty parlor in this cluster.364 None of these early commercial operations appear to be intact.

By 1940, the E-W Study Area’s population reached 52,000, comprising 63 percent of Glendale’s total population. This substantial population base would fuel the growth of commercial strips outside of Glendale’s downtown business district as automobile-oriented development continued in the post-World War II period.

Property Types and Registration Requirements for Pre-World War II Commercial Development (1904-1944)
Property Types: Commercial Building, Commercial Block, Historic District Aside from the Casa Verdugo property, most of the East-West Study Area’s early commercial development occurred in the 1920s and ‘30s. It appeared on neighborhood scales, as seen in the Kenneth Village and Rossmoyne areas, and along major thoroughfares like Glenoaks Boulevard, San Fernando Road, and Verdugo Road, with orientation toward the automobile. Resources from this time period are relatively rare due to the heavily residential nature of the Study Area and post-World War II development pressure.

A commercial property from this period may be significant under this context:

Criteria365 Reason
A/1/A (Event) As an increasingly rare example of commercial development representing the Study Area’s early growth. Commercial properties may be eligible as remnants of early business districts or as a rare example of an important commercial property type.

B/2/B (Person) For its association with a significant person in the early commercial development of Glendale. Significant persons within this theme include members of the community who were influential in the development of Glendale. It must be shown/proven that the person was a significant early business owner or occupant of the Study Area or played a role in the area’s commercial development. Properties eligible under this criterion are those associated with a person’s productive life, reflecting the time period when they achieved significance.

C/3/C (Architecture) As an excellent or rare example of an architectural style or type from the period. Additional information about architectural styles from each period and 364 Glendale City Directory, 1935.
365 Eligibility criteria are listed in the order National Register/California Register/Local. 1592 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 122
their associated character-defining features are outlined in the Architecture & Design context.

A/1/A, G (Event) A collection of commercial buildings from this period that are linked geographically may be eligible as a historic district.366 Commercial buildings from this period may also contribute to historic districts that are significant under other contexts and themes. The district must be unified aesthetically and historically by plan, physical development, and architectural quality.

Integrity Considerations for Pre-World War II Commercial Development (1904-1944) In order to be eligible for listing at the federal, state, or local levels, a property must retain sufficient integrity to convey its historic significance under the Pre-World War II Commercial Development theme.

Criteria Required Aspects of Integrity
A/1/A (Event) A property that is significant for its historic association is eligible if it retains the essential physical features that made up its character or appearance during the period of its association with the important event or historical pattern.367 A commercial property from this period eligible under Criteria A/1/A (Event) should retain integrity of location, design, workmanship, materials, and feeling, at a minimum, in order to reflect the important association with the city’s commercial development during this period. A property that has lost some historic materials or details can be eligible if it retains the majority of the features that illustrate its style in terms of the massing, spatial relationships, proportion, pattern of windows and doors, texture of materials, and ornamentation. The property is not eligible, however, if it retains some basic features conveying massing but has lost the majority of the features that once characterized its style.368
B/2/B (Person) A commercial property significant under Criterion B/2/B (Person) should retain integrity of location, design, workmanship, and feeling, at a minimum, in order to convey the historic association with a significant person. It is expected that some historic materials may have been replaced, particularly storefront windows, and the integrity of setting may have been compromised by later development.
366 Historic districts are evaluated locally under a separate set of criteria. 367 National Register Bulletin 15.
368 National Register Bulletin 15.
1593 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 123
C/3/C (Architecture) A property important for illustrating a particular architectural style or construction technique must retain most of the physical features that constitute that style or technique.
369 A commercial property significant under
Criterion C/3/C (Architecture) should retain integrity of design, workmanship, materials, and feeling, at a minimum, in order to be eligible for its architectural merit. A property that has lost some historic materials or details can be eligible if it retains the majority of the features that illustrate its style in terms of the massing, spatial relationships, proportion, pattern of windows and doors, texture of materials, and ornamentation. The property is not eligible, however, if it retains some basic features conveying massing but has lost the majority of the features that once characterized its style.

A/1/A-I (District) In order for a historic district to be eligible for designation, the majority of the components that add to the district’s historic character must possess integrity, as must the district as a whole. A contributing property must retain integrity of location, design, setting, feeling, and association to adequately convey the significance of the historic district. Some alterations to individual buildings, such as replacement of storefront components, may be acceptable as long as the district as a whole continues to convey its significance. Major alterations such as substantial additions that are visible from the public right-of-way, interruptions of the original fenestration pattern through window opening enlargement or infill, or numerous smaller alterations that cumulatively result in a loss of integrity would not be acceptable. Eligible historic districts may span several periods of development.

Registration Requirements for Pre-World War II Commercial Development (1904-1944)

To be eligible under the Pre-World War II Commercial Development theme, a property must:
• date from the period of significance;
• represent important patterns and trends in commercial development from this period; or • represent a unique or rare commercial property type;
• display most of the character-defining features of the property type or style; and • retain the essential aspects of integrity for listing in the National, California, or Glendale Registers.

To be eligible under the Pre-World War II Commercial Development theme, a historic district must:
• retain a majority of the contributors dating from the period of significance for listing in the National or California Registers; or 60% contributors for local designation; and • retain the essential aspects of integrity for listing in the National, California, or Glendale Registers. 369 National Register Bulletin 15.
1594 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 124
Theme: Post-World War II Commercial Development (1945-2000) The 1950s brought the final demise of the streetcar system and the beginning of freeway construction in the East-West Study Area. Pacific Electric streetcar and bus service ended in Glendale by 1955, solidifying the automobile as the dominant mode of transportation and allowing commercial development to spread along main arteries such as San Fernando, Glenoaks, Central, Brand, Glendale, Victory, and Verdugo. 370 Existing commercial districts – historically centered around real estate offices, service stations, and grocers – expanded to include a broader range of commercial enterprises, including banks, medical offices, and branches of local chain stores and supermarkets. The 1980s brought the arrival of major corporate offices sited in redevelopment projects along the 134 Freeway.

Both Brand Boulevard and Central Avenue continued to develop as important commercial throughfares.

Crocker-Citizens National Bank opened a branch at 1000 N. Brand (extant) in 1963, an early bank for the Study Area though not for Glendale generally. To the north, several physicians and dentists located offices from 1007 to 1105 N. Brand, and the extant two-story Late Moderne building at 1122 N. Brand Boulevard was purpose-built for medical offices with a pharmacy in 1951. Glendale Pharmacy is a longtime occupant. At 1200 N. Central Avenue, W.H Crawford’s Parket Market, dating back to 1935, expanded and was renovated as Crawford’s Market. In 1968, the building won an award for outstanding contribution to the beauty of the city during Glendale's first beautification week. In 1986, the market was bought by the Ralphs Supermarket chain, which retained the same general exterior design.371 Crawfords Supermarket at 1200 N. Central (top), circa 1970s and Ralphs Supermarket at 1200 N. Central (bottom), 2024 (Cheryl Bauer Lozingot, Facebook User)372
370 Arroyo, Glendale: 1940-2000, 19.
371 Arroyo, Glendale: 1940-2000, 65.
372 Accessed October 2025,
https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=10226114252991513&set=gm.25232514143030935&idorvanity=211506122225083 1595 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 125
Following the demise of the Rossmoyne Village commercial district in the 1960s, a new cluster of commercial development emerged along North Glendale Avenue south of Glendale Junior College. Pikes Verdugo Oaks Restaurant and Banquet facility opened at 1010 N. Glendale Avenue (no longer extant) in 1957 and quickly became an important event space for local organizations and civic groups. Billed as “Glendale’s largest and finest Restaurant,” the restaurant’s closure in the 1980s created a void that would not be filled until the completion of the Red Lion hotel. The 1971 city directory also listed a gas station, the Verdugo Professional Building (offices), a pet clinic, and a Sizzler restaurant along this stretch of North Glendale. A United Oil gas station remains at 1118 N. Glendale Avenue, but does not retain any historic material.

Further north, a pocket of retail development emerged along North Verdugo Road between Oakwood and Los Encinos Avenues. In the early 1970s, 2834 N. Verdugo (extant but extensively altered) was home to a Van’s shoe store, a popular Southern California brand. Other stores in 1971 included Genie’s Beauty Salon, Party Line Cleaners, and Rinaldi’s Party Line Liquors. Meanwhile, many of the earlier commercial buildings on established corridors were altered, updated, or demolished for new construction in the postwar period. Remaining empty lots filled in with a variety of commercial property types, including motels like the Mid-Century Modern Glen Capri (6700 San Fernando Road, 1957, extant). Office buildings included a new edifice for IBM in 1965 (1025 N. Brand Boulevard, extant), and by the 1960s strip malls with front parking were becoming more common. Some, like the extant 1969 example at 1700 Victory Boulevard, exhibited Modern or Regency architectural flair; others had small stand-alone buildings at their open corner, like the 1967 Orange Julius at 6800 San Fernando Road.

Several decades of haphazard car-oriented development led to pockets of decline in downtown Glendale by the 1960s. In 1972, the Central Glendale Redevelopment Project was established to revitalize “areas that had become blighted due to deterioration, disuse, and ‘unproductive economic conditions.” While the bulk of the Redevelopment Project focused on the South Glendale downtown business district, the redevelopment area extended north to the commercial district between the 134 Freeway and Glenoaks Avenue.373 The Redevelopment project brought high rise office towers, hotels, and condominiums to the southern portion of the largely suburban East-West Study Area, giving it the characteristics of an “edge city” emerging along freeway corridors during the 1970s to the 2000s.374 These postwar commercial enterprises catered to a more regional clientele.
373 City of Glendale, Community Development Department, “South Glendale Community Plan, Policy and Planning Review,” July 12, 2016, accessed September 2025,
https://www.ci.glendale.ca.us/government/council_packets/Reports_071216/CC_SpMtg_Item1_071216.pdf. 374 Nicolaides, The New Suburbia, 57-58.
1596 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 126
The 1972 Central Glendale Redevelopment Project area, in red (City of Glendale).

The abandonment of the Pacific Electric streetcar along Glenoaks Blvd. left a barren strip of land where the streetcar yard had once been, which local residents dubbed “Eyesore Island.” The 4.2-acre site on Glenoaks between Pacific and Central Avenues was declared blighted in early 1965 but was not addressed until the Redevelopment Agency’s Glenoaks Island project began in 1980. Glendale architect Paul L.

Burkhard Jr. designed two three-story office buildings and a two-story office building for the project, while Clair Earl and Associates designed a 17,000-square foot Spanish-style building for the Verdugo Club of Glendale.375
Other redevelopment projects north of the 134 Freeway included the $25 million Allstate Savings Plaza, an office-restaurant complex designed by Neptune and Thomas Associates and completed in 1980.

Bounded by N. Central Avenue, Arden Avenue, Brand Boulevard, and Goode Avenue, the complex featured twin eight-story office buildings (700 N. Central Avenue and 711 N. Brand Avenue), an adjacent six-level parking garage, and a 10,000 square foot restaurant (the Rusty Scupper, later the Glendale Grill).

The 700 North Brand project, designed by A.C. Martin and completed in 1981, included a 13-story office building and a 15-story condominium complex.376 In 1990, Allstate constructed another 13-story office building, a granite-clad structure designed by Neptune and Thomas Associates, at 801 North Brand.377 In 1990 the Johnson Fain Pereira-designed headquarters for the Carnation Company (later Nestle) was completed at 800 N. Brand Boulevard. The extant 21-story building is more architecturally expressive 375 “Glendale’s Eyesore Island Will Be Developed,” Los Angeles Times, August 13, 1978. 376 HRG, “South Glendale Historic Context Statement,” 147; “Redevelopment Revamps a City,” Los Angeles Times, June 7, 1981. 377 “13-story Allstate Plaza Tops Out in Glendale,” Los Angeles Times, January 19, 1986. 1597 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 127
than some of its high-rise neighbors, and was originally accompanied by a 35,000 square-foot plaza later replaced with parking.
378
Another architecturally distinctive office building was built outside the Redevelopment area at 318 E.

Glenoaks Boulevard (extant) in 1982. The two-story Thatcher building – or “Pyramid building” – was designed by Eric Lloyd Wright, Frank Lloyd Wright’s grandson and a notable practitioner in his own right.

The Thatcher Building (1981) designed by Eric Lloyd Wright, 2020. (ARG) Property Types and Registration Requirements for Post-World War II Commercial Development (1945-2000)
Property Types: Commercial Building, Commercial Complex, Historic District The East-West Glendale Study Area experienced a period of commercial growth after World War II, with new properties constructed along existing corridors like Glenoaks Boulevard, San Fernando Road, and Verdugo Road. The southern portion of the Study Area saw particularly dramatic changes in the late postwar period with the construction of the 134 Freeway and large-scale commercial development spawned by the 1972 Central Glendale Redevelopment Project. Commercial resources from this time period are common, though many have experienced later alterations.

Properties that were developed in the recent past require additional analysis for consideration for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. A property that is less than 50 years old can be listed in the National Register; however, it must meet Criteria Consideration G which states that “a property (which 378 HRG, “South Glendale Historic Context Statement,” 148; “Carnation Begins Move to 21-Story Tower,” Los Angeles Times, August 30, 1990.
1598 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 128
has achieved) significance within the past 50 years is eligible if it is of exceptional importance.” The California Register does not have a specific criteria consideration, but the guidelines state that significant time must have passed for the development of a scholarly perspective on the potential resource. There is no age requirement for local designation, but generally speaking the same need exists for the passage of sufficient time to enable a scholarly perspective..

A commercial property from this period may be significant under this context:

Criteria379 Reason
A/1/A (Event) As a unique or rare example of commercial development representing the growth of Glendale during this period. Commercial buildings may be eligible as the first, best, or rare remaining example of an important commercial property type, or for an association with an industry that is important in the development of Glendale.

A/1/A, G (Event) A collection of commercial buildings from this period that are linked geographically may be eligible as a historic district.380 Commercial buildings from this period may also contribute to historic districts that are significant under other contexts and themes. The district must be unified aesthetically and historically by plan, physical development, and architectural quality.

Integrity Considerations for Post-World War II Commercial Development (1945-2000) In order to be eligible for listing at the federal, state, or local levels, a property must retain sufficient integrity to convey its historic significance under the Post-World War II Commercial Development theme.

Criteria Required Aspects of Integrity
A/1/A (Event) A property that is significant for its historic association is eligible if it retains the essential physical features that made up its character or appearance during the period of its association with the important event or historical pattern.381 A commercial property from this period eligible under Criteria A/1/A (Event) should retain integrity of location, design, workmanship, materials, and feeling, at a minimum, in order to reflect the important association with the city’s 379 Eligibility criteria are listed in the order National Register/California Register/Local. 380 Historic districts are evaluated locally under a separate set of criteria. 381 National Register Bulletin 15.
1599 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 129
commercial development during this period. A property that has lost some historic materials or details can be eligible if it retains the majority of the features that illustrate its style in terms of the massing, spatial relationships, proportion, pattern of windows and doors, texture of materials, and ornamentation. The property is not eligible, however, if it retains some basic features conveying massing but has lost the majority of the features that once characterized its style.382
C/3/C (Architecture) A property important for illustrating a particular architectural style or construction technique must retain most of the physical features that constitute that style or technique.383 A commercial property significant under Criterion C/3/C (Architecture) should retain integrity of design, workmanship, materials, and feeling, at a minimum, in order to be eligible for its architectural merit. A property that has lost some historic materials or details can be eligible if it retains the majority of the features that illustrate its style in terms of the massing, spatial relationships, proportion, pattern of windows and doors, texture of materials, and ornamentation. The property is not eligible, however, if it retains some basic features conveying massing but has lost the majority of the features that once characterized its style.

A/1/A-I (District) In order for a historic district to be eligible for designation, the majority of the components that add to the district’s historic character must possess integrity, as must the district as a whole. A contributing property must retain integrity of location, design, setting, feeling, and association to adequately convey the significance of the historic district. Some alterations to individual buildings, such as replacement of storefront components, may be acceptable as long as the district as a whole continues to convey its significance. Major alterations such as substantial additions that are visible from the public right-of-way, interruptions of the original fenestration pattern through window opening enlargement or infill, or numerous smaller alterations that cumulatively result in a loss of integrity would not be acceptable. Eligible historic districts may span several periods of development.

Registration Requirements for Post-World War II Commercial Development (1945-2000)

To be eligible under the Post-World War II Commercial Development theme, a property must:
• date from the period of significance;
• represent a unique or rare commercial property type from the period; • display most of the character-defining features of the property type or style; • if less than 50 years old, exhibit exceptional importance for listing in the National Register; and • retain the essential aspects of integrity for listing in the National, California, or Glendale Registers. 382 National Register Bulletin 15.
383 National Register Bulletin 15.
1600 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 130
To be eligible under the Post-World War II Commercial Development theme, a historic district must:
• retain a majority of the contributors dating from the period of significance for listing in the National or California Registers; or 60% contributors for local designation; • if less than 50 years old, exhibit exceptional importance for listing in the National Register; and • retain the essential aspects of integrity for listing in the National, California, or Glendale Registers. 1601 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 131
Context: Industrial Development (1919-2000)
The majority of early industrial development in Glendale emerged in the southern portion of the city, particularly within the Downtown area and along rail lines that connected it with neighboring Los Angeles.

Industrial development began in earnest during the 1920s and 1930s, when Glendale transitioned from a primarily residential and suburban community into a city supporting an expanding industrial economy.

San Fernando Road, which paralleled the Southern Pacific rail line in southwest Glendale, became the city’s main industrial corridor by the mid-20th century, shaped by both regional economic shifts and Glendale’s strategic geographic position within the Los Angeles Basin.384 In 1920, the Greater Glendale Development Association successfully lobbied City Council to zone the land immediately surrounding San Fernando Road for industrial use. As a result, Glendale’s industrial sector began to rapidly grow and diversify throughout the 1920s and ‘30s.

Efforts to expand Glendale’s industrial footprint were championed by prominent local speculative real estate developer Lloyd Hammond Wilson (1848-1942). Wilson played a pivotal role in attracting developers to invest in the city’s industrialization, and helped recruit and convince dozens of manufacturers to set up shop along S. San Fernando Road (south of the Study Area). The area soon housed a number of industries, including tile manufacturers, steel and other raw materials manufacturers, packing houses, and lumber yards. As a result, San Fernando Road grew into a major industrial corridor that continued to expand north of what is now the intersection of the Golden State and Ventura Freeways (I-5 and CA-134, respectively) and into the Study Area. 385
Theme: Pre-World War II Industrial Development (1919-1944) Bordered by the Verdugo Mountains to the north and connected to the Southern Pacific and Union Pacific rail lines on the west, the Study Area provided a natural landscape for industrial growth in the early decades of the 20th century. In 1911, the Burbank-Glendale Line of the Pacific Electric Railway was installed along Glenoaks Boulevard, providing service to the neighborhoods of northwest Glendale for the first time. The presence of a streetcar line for would-be employees contributed to opportunities for industry along the developing east-west corridor in the decades to follow.386 A series of annexations further secured Glendale’s control over prime industrial land as the city began to suburbanize to the north and west. The Kenilworth District (1918), Laurel Avenue District (1921), Flower Street District (1923), and Vine Street District (1924) annexations all included portions of major streetcar and emerging automobile thoroughfares like N. San Fernando Road, Grandview Avenue, and Glenoaks Boulevard that were ripe for commercial and industrial development as residential growth expanded into the northwest Glendale area.
387 Relatively large tracts of flat land compared to the more built-out downtown core— 384 San Fernando Road has since been renamed San Fernando Boulevard. 385 HRG, “City of Glendale, South Glendale Historic Context Statement,” 156-159. 386 City of Glendale, “North Cumberland Heights Historic District,” 17; Juliet M. Arroyo, Images of Early Glendale (San Francisco, CA: Arcadia Publishing, 2005), 93. 387 County of Los Angeles, “City of Glendale Annexations,” accessed August 2025, https://pw.lacounty.gov/sur/nas/SMPM_AnnexationCityPDFs/Glendale.pdf. 1602 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 132
along with the presence of nearby rail and streetcar infrastructure—made the northwest portion of Glendale especially attractive for warehouses, light manufacturing, and distribution facilities.

Although industrialization remained concentrated in the S. San Fernando Road corridor throughout the 1920s and ‘30s, various entities helped drive Glendale’s industrial ambitions northward. One was the city’s Industrial and Publicity Department, established in 1926 in an effort to help industrial businesses “find suitable locations in Glendale.”388 In 1930, the Glendale Manufacturers Association was formed under the purview of the city’s Chamber of Commerce. The group was not only successful in attracting new investment from the private sector to Glendale, but in their ability to lobby city officials to keep business taxes low for manufacturers across town. In 1934, the Manufacturers Association was successful in killing a proposed business tax ordinance that called for a pro-rate tax based on the number of persons employed, a policy business owners believed would severely limit the city’s ability to attract large manufacturers with hundreds of employees to Glendale.389 One of the earliest industrial businesses established in the Study Area was the Weber Baking Company, constructed in 1926 at 6841 San Fernando Road (extensively altered) and much expanded after World War II. Sited at the Glendale-Burbank border, Weber processed and distributed baked goods across the Los Angeles region. In 1927, the Crystalite Products Co. established a one-story glass manufacturing plant at 1710 Standard Street (extant), soon expanding east with a two-story volume (1706-1708 Standard Street, extant). The Goldak Company, an electronics firm established in 1933, occupied 1544 W. Glenoaks Boulevard (extensively altered). Grand Central Controls, an automatic controls manufacturer established 1932-1937, operated out of 801 Allen Avenue (no longer extant). The most dominant industrial property in the Study Area at this time, though, was the airport that came to be known as Grand Central Air Terminal.

Grand Central Air Terminal
Despite some early 20th century industrial development along major corridors within the Study Area, it was the Grand Central neighborhood that eventually became Glendale’s main industrial zone. Generally bounded by the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks and N. San Fernando Road on the north and east, city boundary lines on the west, and city boundary lines and the intersection of the Ventura and Golden State Freeways on the south, the industrial area once comprised the Grand Central Air Terminal (GCAT), which was one of the Los Angeles area’s main airports in the early years of air travel.390 The idea to establish an airport in Glendale likely originated from Glendale pioneer and aviation enthusiast Leslie Coombs Brand.

In 1912, Brand established a private grass airstrip, Brand Field, below his Moorish-inspired El Miradero Estate. By 1916, the real estate mogul had constructed a large hangar on the property to accommodate his fleet of planes. Throughout the 1910s and ‘20s, Brand hosted “fly-in” parties for a myriad of wealthy 388 Glendale Merchant’s Association, Glendale: Your Home (Superior Printing Company, 1926), 16. 389 Carroll W. Parcher and George S. Goshorn, ed., Glendale Community Book (John W. Akers Publishing, 1957), 121; “Glendale Kills Tax Plan,” Los Angeles Times, June 1, 1934, 26. 390 “Aviation in Early Los Angeles,” Water and Power Associates, accessed August 2025, https://waterandpower.org/museum/Aviation_in_Early_LA_(Page_3).html. 1603 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 133
dignitaries and movie stars, earning Glendale a reputation for its early involvement with leisure aviation.391
Efforts to establish a municipal airport at a different site in Glendale began in December 1922 when City Council set aside 33 acres near the Los Angeles River for this purpose. Its actions were at the behest of the Aero Club of California, whose members consisted of returning World War I pilots and local aviation enthusiasts that wanted to increase Glendale’s involvement with the emerging aviation industry. The land was situated immediately across the river from the Griffith Park Aerodrome and adjacent to the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks. After a 1,200-foot runway was constructed, the Glendale Municipal Airport officially opened on March 17, 1923, and quickly gained prominence throughout the region. 392
Notable early aviators such as Amelia Earhart, Early Daugherty, and Charles Lindbergh used the airport facilities, while companies like Kinner Airplane & Motor Corporation and Waterhouse & Royer constructed hangars on the airport property and used the site to test and manufacture pioneering aircraft throughout the 1920s.
393 In 1925, inventor Thomas B. Slate constructed a hangar immediately south of the airport to house his all-metal hydrogen flying dirigible. Although ultimately a failed endeavor, the dirigible hangar was the largest hangar constructed in the United States at the time, and was emblematic of Glendale’s commitment to cutting edge aviation technology.394 None of these early aviation buildings is extant.

Grand Central Air Terminal, ca. 1937. (Herman Schultheis Collection, Los Angeles Public Library) 391 “Early Views of Glendale,” Water and Power Associates. 392 “Eary Views of Glendale,” Water and Power Associates. 393 John LoCascio, AIA, Historic Resources Group, “Grand Central Air Terminal,” National Register of Historic Places Registration Form (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 2016, Reference #100000780) Section 8, page 16. 394 “Eary Views of Glendale,” Water and Power Associates; Arroyo, et al., Glendale: Postcard History Series, 124. 1604 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 134
In 1928, the airport expanded to 175 acres when former World War I fighter pilot Captain Charles A.

Spicer formed a syndicate to upgrade the property’s facilities. The group’s investment funded the construction of a new 3,800-foot concrete runway, an Art Deco control tower, and a passenger terminal building designed by Los Angeles-based architect Henry L. Gogerty in a combination of the Spanish Colonial Revival and Art Deco styles. Although improvements were still under construction at the time, the building was renamed Grand Central Air Terminal (1310 Air Way, listed in the Glendale Register, California Register, and National Register) and formally dedicated on February 22, 1929 in an event which drew 12,000 spectators and Hollywood celebrities to the ceremony. 395 In the same year, the airport was
chosen by Transcontinental Air Transport (TAT) as the western terminus of the nation’s first regularly scheduled coast-to-coast commercial passenger service between Los Angeles and New York. On July 8, 1929, Charles Lindbergh piloted the inaugural eastbound flight, cementing GCAT’s place in aviation history as the first commercial passenger airport on the West Coast. 396
Throughout the 1930s, Grand Central became a hub for airlines including TAT (later TWA), Maddux, Pickwick, Pan Am, and American Airlines, having established itself as Southern California’s premier passenger airport. Multiple films were shot on location there, including Howard Hughes’ infamous Hells Angels (1930). Grand Central also became a center for aviation training, with the Curtiss-Wright Technical Institute (renamed Cal-Aero Technical Institute in 1950) and Grand Central Flight School each producing some of the area’s most renowned pilots and mechanics. In 1932, Major Corliss C. “Mose” Moseley, director of the Technical Institute, leased the airport facility from the Curtiss-Wright Technical Institute, the airport property’s owner by this point. Moseley formed Aircraft Industries Inc. (later renamed Grand Central Aircraft Company), which functioned as a full-service sales and distribution agency for various aircraft manufacturers. Among them was Howard Hughes, who in 1934 established the engineering department of what would later become the Hughes Aircraft Company in a nearby garage within blocks of the airport campus (exact location unknown).397 That same year, the first international passenger and mail service flight departed out of Grand Central to Mexico City, further expanding Glendale’s contribution to early aviation history.398
The presence of Aircraft Industries Inc. and Hughes Aircraft Company on the airport property set the stage for industrial expansion within the Study Area in the years to come. As airport operations continued to evolve throughout the decade, so did Glendale’s aviation support industries, fostering an ecosystem of smaller machine shops and suppliers in the surrounding industrial corridor. Non-aviation industrial operations continued as well, like the Carnation Company’s milk distribution depot established at 6713- 6717 San Fernando Road around 1944. The complex’s small freestanding office building remains extant but is heavily altered, while most of the other buildings on the parcel (constructed primarily in the 1950s) are also gone or heavily altered.
395 “Eary Views of Glendale,” Water and Power Associates; LoCascio, “Grand Central Air Terminal,” Section 8, 16-17. 396 LoCascio, “Grand Central Air Terminal,” Section 8, 17. 397 “Eary Views of Glendale,” Water and Power Associates; LoCascio, “Grand Central Air Terminal,” Section 8, 17-18; Arroyo, Glendale: 1940-2000, 16-17. 398 Arroyo, Images of Early Glendale, 109. 1605 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 135
During World War II, Grand Central Terminal transformed into a military facility, serving as a pilot training center and an armed camp. Its runway was extended for wartime use, and over the course of the conflict thousands of pilots and mechanics trained for combat there. 399 Like many Southern California cities at the
time, Glendale became part of the greater defense manufacturing network. With the existing airport infrastructure already in place, more aircraft and emerging aerospace industries spilled into Glendale from nearby Burbank and Los Angeles. Soon, machine shops, component suppliers, and assembly facilities populated the Study Area on streets surrounding the airport parcel. Industrial buildings from this era typically featured functional designs—reinforced concrete structures with rectangular forms and high ceilings—intended to accommodate heavy machinery and production lines.

Property Types and Registration Requirements for Pre-World War II Industrial Development (1919-1944)
Property Types: Industrial Building, Industrial Complex The East-West Study Area’s first industrial development largely occurred in proximity to the Southern Pacific rail line and its parallel San Fernando Road corridor, with lesser development along established automobile and streetcar routes like Glenoaks Boulevard. The most prominent resource from this time period, Grand Central Air Terminal, is already designated. Industrial resources from this time period are rare due to post-World War II development.

An industrial property from this period may be significant under this context:

Criteria400 Reason
A/1/A As an excellent example of industrial development representing an early industry in Glendale, or the growth of San Fernando Road as an important industrial corridor.

Integrity Considerations for Pre-World War II Industrial Development (1919-1944) In order to be eligible for listing at the federal, state, or local levels, a property must retain sufficient integrity to convey its historic significance under the Pre-World War II Industrial Development theme. 399 LoCascio, “Grand Central Air Terminal,” Section 8, 18-19. 400 Eligibility criteria are listed in the order National Register/California Register/Local. 1606 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 136
Criteria Required Aspects of Integrity
A/1/A (Event) A property that is significant for its historic association is eligible if it retains the essential physical features that made up its character or appearance during the period of its association with the important event or historical pattern.401 An industrial property from this period eligible under Criteria A/1/A (Event) should retain integrity of location, design, workmanship, materials, and feeling, at a minimum, in order to reflect the important association with the city’s industrial development during this period. A property that has lost some historic materials or details can be eligible if it retains the majority of the features that illustrate its style in terms of the massing, spatial relationships, proportion, pattern of windows and doors, texture of materials, and ornamentation. The property is not eligible, however, if it retains some basic features conveying massing but has lost the majority of the features that once characterized its style.402
C/3/C (Architecture) A property important for illustrating a particular architectural style or construction technique must retain most of the physical features that constitute that style or technique.403 An industrial property significant under Criterion C/3/C (Architecture) should retain integrity of design, workmanship, materials, and feeling, at a minimum, in order to be eligible for its architectural merit. A property that has lost some historic materials or details can be eligible if it retains the majority of the features that illustrate its style in terms of the massing, spatial relationships, proportion, pattern of windows and doors, texture of materials, and ornamentation. The property is not eligible, however, if it retains some basic features conveying massing but has lost the majority of the features that once characterized its style.

Registration Requirements for Pre-World War II Industrial Development (1919-1944)

To be eligible under the Pre-World War II Industrial Development theme, a property must:
• date from the period of significance;
• represent one of the early industries in Glendale or reflect a pattern or trend in industrial growth; or
• represent a unique or rare commercial property type;
• display most of the character-defining features of the property type or style; and • retain the essential aspects of integrity for listing in the National, California, or Glendale Registers. 401 National Register Bulletin 15.
402 National Register Bulletin 15.
403 National Register Bulletin 15.
1607 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 137
To be eligible under the Pre-World War II Industrial Development theme, a historic district must:
• retain a majority of the contributors dating from the period of significance for listing in the National or California Registers; or 60% contributors for local designation; and • retain the essential aspects of integrity for listing in the National, California, or Glendale Registers. 1608 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 138
Theme: Post-World War II Industrial Development (1945-2000) After the war, commercial air traffic shifted to the growing Los Angeles Municipal Airport (now LAX). In 1944, Mose Moseley purchased the Glendale Central Air Terminal property outright. In 1945, the city annexed the Glen Precinct, situated north of the Los Angeles River at nearby Sonora Avenue, adding prime real estate for industrial development to the airport vicinity.404 Non-aviation industries continued to arrive, including at least two 1947 properties remaining extant: the Streamline Moderne toy manufacturing plant for Scandia Crafts, Inc. at 1521 Flower Street and the Late Moderne headquarters for Vitaminerals (1815 Flower Street).

By 1947, all major airlines had departed from Grand Central for LAX. 405 Later that year, the airport was
renamed Grand Central Airport, and the runway extension was cut back to 3,800 feet when the city reopened Sonora Avenue. As a result, the airport was reclassified as a Class II facility for private use only.

Cal-Aero Technical Institute (formerly Curtiss-Wright Technical Institute) shuttered in 1954, signaling the inevitable demise of airport operations.406 Air traffic ceased and the airport officially closed in 1955. By 1959, all aviation-related facilities fell out of use after the Grand Central Aircraft Company (formerly Aircraft Industries Inc.) folded, setting the stage for a massive redevelopment effort of the former airport property into Glendale’s modern industrial district. The known extant buildings and structures relating to the original Grand Central Air Terminal are the two-story, Gogerty-designed terminal building (1310 Air Way) and the attached, five-story air traffic control tower. The terminal building was used as an office building until 1991 before it was purchased by the Walt Disney Company, its current occupant, in 1997.

The terminal building and control tower structure were placed on the National Register of Historic Places in 2017.407
Sub-Theme: Grand Central Industrial Center and Adjacent Areas (1955-2000) Plans for Grand Central Industrial Center (GCIC)408 began in earnest as early as 1954, even prior to Grand Central Air Terminal’s closure in 1955. Seeing the writing on the wall as jet-age demands outgrew the modest terminal and commercial carriers moved to LAX in droves, the City of Glendale hired Co-ordinated Construction Inc. and developer/realtor John B. Kilroy to begin plans for the $55-million redevelopment project.409 Under the project, the former airport property—by now approximately 180 acres in size—was to be developed into a large industrial complex comprising 150 buildings, making it the largest industrial 404 County of Los Angeles, “City of Glendale Annexations;” “Annexation Voted by Glen District,” Los Angeles Times, May 4, 1945,

14. 405 LoCascio, “Grand Central Air Terminal,” Section 8, 18-19. 406 “Early Views of Glendale,” Water and Power Associates; LoCascio, “Grand Central Air Terminal,” Section 8, 19. 407 LoCascio, “Grand Central Air Terminal,” Section 8, 19; Arroyo, Glendale: 1940-2000, 36; Victor A. Medina, Movie Sites blog, “Grand Central Terminal,” accessed August 2025,
https://www.moviesites.org/grandcentral.htm#:~:text=Because%20all%20of%20these%20airfields,Revival%20with%20Art%20De co%20styles.
408 The industrial complex is sometimes referred to as “Grand Central Business Park” in more recent publications, however historical periodicals and primary source materials typically refer to it as “Grand Central Industrial Center,” sometimes spelled “Centre.” 409 “Co-ordinated Construction Plays Big Role in So. Cal Development,” Los Angeles Times, December 3, 1954, 14; Parcher and Goshorn, ed., Glendale Community Book, 121.
1609 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 139
tract in the San Fernando Valley under single ownership at the time. Within the next two decades, GCIC would make up the second largest phase of Glendale industry after the S. San Fernando Road corridor, growing to become the city’s primary economic hub by the end of the 1960s.410 By April 1955, the GCIC property had been subdivided and the first unit of the proposed development was under construction. By the end of the year, four industrial buildings had been erected on the parcel, including a vacant building constructed for lease (located somewhere on Flower Street), and three other buildings purpose-built for the Horizon Door Company (600-620 Paula Avenue, extensively altered; makers of aluminum and wood sliding glass doors), the Claude C. Slate Company (1733 Flower Street, extant; aircraft, electronics, shipyard, and oil industry components manufacturer), and the Allied Control Company (1326 Flower Street, extant but completely altered; makers of electrical equipment). All four buildings were constructed by Co-ordinated Construction, Inc. and reflected a simplified industrial vernacular idiom of the Mid-Century Modern style.411
The success of the Grand Central Industrial Center was inseparable from Southern California’s rapidly evolving transportation network. In 1955, Glendale adopted a new parking ordinance requiring on-site parking for all new development, a policy that reflected the automobile’s dominance and therefore was incorporated into the development of GCIC. Around the same time, the Pacific Electric streetcars ceased operation, leaving buses as the only public transit option. This drove the need for immediate regional access by car with the now-defunct San Fernando Road streetcar line no longer providing access to the emerging industrial zone. In 1956, this need was met when the Golden State Freeway (I-5) was completed immediately south of the site, positioning the new industrial center within a prime, easily accessible location for local workers and nearby commuters alike. Access to the freeway further strengthened Glendale’s role as a logistics and distribution hub, attracting more industry throughout the decade.412 In 1957, the city passed an ordinance to form the City Industrial Commission. The small advisory board was established to work in tandem with the Chamber of Commerce and city planning officials to develop and coordinate information regarding available areas suitable for industrial development in Glendale. The new Commission played a key role in recommending the sale and leasing of city-owned property for industrial development within the Study Area, particularly those smaller parcels that had once been part of the greater Grand Central Terminal airport complex.413 By the end of 1957, there were 11 industrial buildings on the former airport property, with dozens more underway.
414 According to journalist Carroll W. Parcher writing in a 1957 publication titled Glendale Community Book, each building in the development “is provided with generous off-street parking which 410 Arroyo, Glendale: 1940-2000, 29; Perry, et al., Glendale: A Pictorial History, 194. 411 Perry, et al., Glendale: A Pictorial History, 194; “Work Started on Initial Unit of $55,000,000 Program,” Los Angeles Times, April 10, 1955, 157; “Glass Door Plant,” Los Angeles Times, July 3, 155, 78; “Firm Occupies New Building,” Los Angeles Times, July 17, 1955, 112; Eastern Firm to Build New Plant in Glendale,” Los Angeles Times, August 7, 1955, 128. 412 Arroyo, Glendale: 1940-2000, 29, 46. 413 “Wheels Spin Toward Industry Commission,” Glendale Independent, May 19, 1957, 1; “Industrial Body Takes Form as Trio Appointed,” Glendale Independent, July 21, 1957, 1; Swearing-in Ceremony to Launch Industrial Commission on Its Way,” Glendale Independent, August 25, 1957, 1, 19. 414 Parcher and Goshorn, ed., Glendale Community Book, 121-22. 1610 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 140
includes recorded restrictions insuring their continuance. Factories fit to live in, concrete and steel construction, excellent labor pool, low tax rate, low insurance rate and low water and power rates are among the important advantages.” Parcher touts the physical features of GCIC even further, writing that “modern space planning efficiently uses areas around each building. Paved parallel and angle parking along with driveways and loading areas are more than adequate. Planters and landscaping also enhance building exteriors. Most of the structures are of pre-cast reinforced concrete, tilt-up wall panel construction, with gypsum roof decking over steel framing.”415 Overall, Glendale saw its greatest period of industrial growth from 1940-1959, the majority of which occurred within the Grand Central Industrial Center and its surroundings within the Study Area. 416 By the
mid-1960s, GCIC and the adjacent San Fernando Road corridor had become Glendale’s principal industrial zone, with development particularly concentrated along major streets within the economic center, including Flower Street, Sonora Avenue, Western Avenue, and Allen Avenue.417 A particularly notable design was that of the 1962 headquarters for Studio Girl Cosmetics (1401 Flower Street, extant), designed by A.C. Martin and Associates in a Mid-Century Modern style.

Studio Girl Cosmetics, 1401 Flower Street, in 1963. (Valley Times Collection, Los Angeles Public Library).

According to brochures and pamphlets published by the Glendale Chamber of Commerce and California Manufacturers Register, Glendale’s preeminent industries in the postwar years included plants that 415 Parcher and Goshorn, ed., Glendale Community Book, 121-22. Carroll W. Parcher later went on to serve a total of ten years on the Glendale City Council and four terms as mayor throughout the 1970s and 80s. 416 Perry and Parcher, Glendale Area History, 194. 417 Various aerial images dating between 1952-1972, NETR Online Historic Aerials, accessed August 2025, https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer.
1611 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 141
manufactured aviation, aerospace, and missile components; electrical and electronic equipment; pharmaceuticals and cosmetics; plastics and molded products; air conditioning and cable systems; as well as various printing plants for books, newspapers, and periodicals.418 By 1974, GCIC was home to about 70 industrial firms with a total of 2,700 employees working within the complex.419 The aviation and aerospace industries were key drivers of the regional economy into the 1960s, at which time, many traditional manufacturing firms began to decline or relocate. This caused a plateau in Glendale’s industrial development. In 1968, the City Industrial Commission disbanded, and efforts to redevelop throughout the 1970s were driven by the Glendale Redevelopment Agency (established 1972) and focused on the downtown commercial core and S. San Fernando Boulevard industrial corridor, the latter of which was rapidly losing manufacturers to other cities in the Southland with more developable land space (both areas situated south of the Study Area).420 Nevertheless, the industrial base of GCIC grew to include a total of 80 firms with nearly 3,000 employees by 1975, comprising the majority of manufacturers still present in Glendale.421 As heavy manufacturing decreased, warehousing, auto repair, construction trades, and creative industries took root in the district’s flexible building stock. The large parcels and utilitarian structures provided opportunities for adaptive reuse to suit a wave of new creative tenants while still supporting the traditional industries that remained.

The first major creative tenant to take up occupancy at Grand Central was Walter Elias Disney Enterprises (WED), the research and development division of the Walt Disney Company that was tasked with developing the Disneyland theme park. Wanting a creative office away from the main studio in Burbank where he could work undisturbed, Walt Disney rented an industrial building (800 Sonora Avenue, extant but altered) within the GCIC complex in 1961. WED Enterprises soon expanded its footprint on the property and began leasing the old airport terminal building at 1310 Air Way, where the branch focused on developing the Epcot and Disney World parks in Florida. In 1965, the company moved into the former home of Studio Girl Cosmetics at 1401 Flower Street (extant) and constructed another building at GCIC to house the production of Audio-Animatronics technology (address unknown). In 1986, WED Enterprises was rebranded as Walt Disney Imagineering, and by 1996 the company occupied several more buildings within the industrial complex.422
In 1997, Disney Imagineering purchased the majority of the Grand Central Industrial Center property with plans to redevelop a significant portion of the site into the Grand Central Creative Campus (GC3). The 418 Perry and Parcher, Glendale Area History, 193-94. 419 City of Glendale, Planning Division, “Glendale Industry: a Background Report for the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive General Plan,” April 1974, 29, 35. Accessed August 2025 in the Glendale History Room, Glendale Library, Arts, and Culture. 420 HRG, “South Glendale Historic Context Statement,” 103; Perry et al., Glendale: A Pictorial History, 9, 169; “Industrial Development Commission to be Dissolved,” Glendale News-Press, August 23, 1968. 421 “Glendale Losing Chance to Expand Industrial Base, City Aide Says,” Los Angeles Times, July 13, 1975, 283. 422 Walt Disney Imagineering, “The Story of Imagineering,” accessed September 2025, https://sites.disney.com/waltdisneyimagineering/our-story/#:~:text=1986,imagination%20and%20technical%20know%2Dhow.; “Early Views of Glendale,” Water and Power Associates; Josh Kleinbaum, “Bringing Magic to San Fernando,” Glendale News-Press, May 12, 2004, accessed September 2025,
https://web.archive.org/web/20161229033104/http:/articles.glendalenewspress.com/2004-05-12/news/export10340_1_grandcentral-creative-campus-disney-imagineering-disney-and-city-officials; 1612 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 142
purchase was a necessary one—by the end of the 1990s, Disney occupied approximately 60% of the industrial park with a total of 3,000 employees.423 The proposed project underwent several design revisions between 1999 and 2004, ultimately leading to the construction of a Cesar Pelli-designed neoStreamline Moderne building (530 Circle 7 Drive, extant) and two Art Deco-inspired office buildings at 1101 and 1201 Flower Street (both extant, completed between 2005-2009). In addition to the Imagineering headquarters, the redeveloped campus became home to Disney Consumer Products and Interactive, the Los Angeles affiliate of the ABC Network, and several other Disney-owned business entities, totaling between 700-900 employees.424 Between 2010 and 2015, Disney underwent phase two of the redevelopment project, adding a third office building and a parking structure to accommodate an additional 1,200 employees.425 As part of phase two, Disney meticulously restored the airport’s original terminal building, which by this point had fallen into disrepair. The project was completed in 2014. The landmark building now functions as an event space and office facility.426 Simultaneously, DreamWorks Animation SKG also embarked on a redevelopment project within the GCIC campus. Founded by Steven Spielberg, Jeffrey Katzenberg, and David Geffen, the animation company purchased 12 acres of the former GCIC property situated immediately north of the Los Angeles River at the property’s southwest corner in 1996. The undeveloped land was formerly used as a commercial helicopter base. By 1998, DreamWorks had constructed a new 500,000 sf creative campus comprising seven office buildings and a parking garage.427 It remains the DreamWorks Animation and DreamWorks SKG headquarters at the time of this reporting (now two separate business entities). The recent redevelopment projects by Disney and DreamWorks on the former GCIC site symbolizes Glendale’s shift from a manufacturing hub to an anchor for the creative economy in the 21st century. Today, the Grand Central area of Glendale remains one of the city’s few concentrated industrial zones, distinguished from the commercial and retail character of central Glendale and the residential neighborhoods along the foothills.
423 Andrew Blankenstein, “Disney Plans to Build Major ‘Creative Campus’ in Glendale,” Los Angeles Times, September 2, 1999, 1,

18. 424 Walt Disney Imagineering, “The Story of Imagineering;” “Bringing Magic to San Fernando,” Glendale News-Press; 2005 and 2009 aerial images, NETR Online Historic Aerials, accessed September 2025, https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer. 425 Zain Shauk, “Glendale OKs Disney Expansion,” Los Angeles Times, May 13, 2010, AA.5; Various aerials dating between 2009- 2016, NETR Online Historic Aerials, accessed September 2025, https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer. 426 LoCascio, “Grand Central Air Terminal;” “Grand Central Air Terminal,” The Los Angeles Conservancy, accessed September 2025, https://www.laconservancy.org/learn/historic-places/grand-central-air-terminal/. 427 “Early Views of Glendale,” Water and Power Associates; Efrain Hernandez Jr., “Studio Construction Receives Panel’s OK,” Los Angeles Times, May 22, 1996; 1997 and 1998 aerials, NETR Online Historic Aerials, accessed September 2025, https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer.
1613 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 143
Property Types and Registration Requirements for Post-World War II Industrial Development (1945-2000)
Property Types: Industrial Building, Industrial Complex, Historic District The redevelopment of the Grand Central Air Terminal area into the Grand Central Industrial Center starting in the mid-1950s was the key event shaping industrial development in the Study Area during the late 20th century. Additional industrial development continued in other areas, primarily along San Fernando Road as in earlier years, replacing older properties and building out vacant parcels. Industrial resources from this time period, and particularly dating after 1980, are common in the Study Area.

An industrial property from this period may be significant under this context:

Criteria428 Reason
A/1/A (Event) As a unique or rare example of industrial development representing the growth of Glendale during this period. Industrial buildings may be eligible as the first, best, or rare remaining example of an important industrial property type, or for an association with an industry that is important in the development of Glendale.

C/3/C
(Architecture)
As an excellent or rare example of an architectural style or type from the period.

Additional information about architectural styles from each period and their associated character-defining features are outlined in the Architecture & Design context.

A/1/A, G (Event) A collection of industrial buildings from this period that are linked geographically may be eligible as a historic district.429 Industrial buildings from this period may also contribute to historic districts that are significant under other contexts and themes.

The district must be unified aesthetically and historically by plan, physical development, and architectural quality.
428 Eligibility criteria are listed in the order National Register/California Register/Local. 429 Historic districts are evaluated locally under a separate set of criteria. 1614 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 144
Integrity Considerations for Post-World War II Industrial Development (1945-2000) In order to be eligible for listing at the federal, state, or local levels, a property must retain sufficient integrity to convey its historic significance under the Post-World War II Industrial Development theme.

Criteria Required Aspects of Integrity
A/1/A (Event) A property that is significant for its historic association is eligible if it retains the essential physical features that made up its character or appearance during the period of its association with the important event or historical pattern.430 An industrial property from this period eligible under Criteria A/1/A (Event) should retain integrity of location, design, workmanship, materials, and feeling, at a minimum, in order to reflect the important association with the city’s industrial development during this period. A property that has lost some historic materials or details can be eligible if it retains the majority of the features that illustrate its style in terms of the massing, spatial relationships, proportion, pattern of windows and doors, texture of materials, and ornamentation. The property is not eligible, however, if it retains some basic features conveying massing but has lost the majority of the features that once characterized its style.431
C/3/C (Architecture) A property important for illustrating a particular architectural style or construction technique must retain most of the physical features that constitute that style or technique.432 An industrial property significant under Criterion C/3/C (Architecture) should retain integrity of design, workmanship, materials, and feeling, at a minimum, in order to be eligible for its architectural merit. A property that has lost some historic materials or details can be eligible if it retains the majority of the features that illustrate its style in terms of the massing, spatial relationships, proportion, pattern of windows and doors, texture of materials, and ornamentation. The property is not eligible, however, if it retains some basic features conveying massing but has lost the majority of the features that once characterized its style.

A/1/A-I (District) In order for a historic district to be eligible for designation, the majority of the components that add to the district’s historic character must possess integrity, as must the district as a whole. A contributing property must retain integrity of location, design, setting, feeling, and association to adequately convey the significance of the historic district. Some alterations to individual buildings, such as replacement of storefront components, may be acceptable as long as the district as a whole continues to convey its significance. Major alterations such as substantial additions that are visible from the public right-of-way, interruptions of the original fenestration pattern through window opening 430 National Register Bulletin 15.
431 National Register Bulletin 15.
432 National Register Bulletin 15.
1615 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 145
enlargement or infill, or numerous smaller alterations that cumulatively result in a loss of integrity would not be acceptable. Eligible historic districts may span several periods of development.

Registration Requirements for Post-World War II Industrial Development (1945-2000)

To be eligible under the Post-World War II Industrial Development theme, a property must:
• date from the period of significance;
• represent a unique or rare industrial property type from the period; • display most of the character-defining features of the property type or style; • if less than 50 years old, exhibit exceptional importance for listing in the National Register; and • retain the essential aspects of integrity for listing in the National, California, or Glendale Registers.

To be eligible under the Post-World War II Industrial Development theme, a historic district must:
• retain a majority of the contributors dating from the period of significance for listing in the National or California Registers; or 60% contributors for local designation; • if less than 50 years old, exhibit exceptional importance for listing in the National Register; and • retain the essential aspects of integrity for listing in the National, California, or Glendale Registers. 1616 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 146
Context: Institutions and Community (1919-2000)
The majority of Glendale’s civic, religious, and community-oriented institutions were sited in what is now the South Glendale area in the city’s early years. Aside from Grand View Cemetery, (the site of which was set aside as a burial ground ca. 1884) and the undeveloped Verdugo Park (accessed via a streetcar line starting in 1887), the East-West Glendale Study Area did not see the establishment of public amenities, let alone significant institutional growth, until the late 1910s-early 1920s. As Glendale’s population expanded north into the new subdivisions of the Study Area starting in the 1920s, municipal services followed in a series of annexations, and community groups, congregations, and other institutions arose to serve the needs of what was then called North Glendale. After World War II, civic and institutional development accelerated in tandem with the growing population and many existing institutions replaced their older facilities with new ones.

Theme: Pre-World War II Civic and Institutional Development (1919-1944) Grand View Cemetery
The site that would become Grand View Cemetery (1341 Glenwood Road, extant) was earmarked for use as a burial ground in the western part of the Study Area circa 1884.433 Many Civil War veterans were settling in Southern California, and this served as the sole burial ground in the Glendale area for them - Forest Lawn would not open until 1906. In the early 1920s, the cemetery was purchased by Len C. Davis, who renamed it Grand View Memorial Park, planted camphor and bottle trees, and built several Spanish Colonial Revival buildings, including a residence, chapel, and a 1,060-foot-long mausoleum forming the cemetery’s wall along Sonora Avenue between W. Kenneth Road and Glenwood Road.434 At the time contractor C.A. Cornell commenced constructing the mausoleum in 1923, it was said to be the largest in the United States.435 The cemetery’s original buildings and designed landscape with curvilinear drives and mature trees were little changed in subsequent years and through several changes in ownership and gradual additions of more buildings.
433 Perry and Parch, Glendale Area History, 129 states both that the cemetery was established “twenty-two years prior to Glendale’s incorporation” (1906, making establishment date 1884) and that the property was set aside for cemetery purposes “as early as 1894.” The latter date is presumed to be a typographical error. Katherine Peters Yamada (Glendale Historical Society) also states the opening date was the mid-1880s, in “Still Standing after All These Years, Part V: Grandview Avenue, Grand View School and Grand View Cemetery, 1880s,” accessed September 2025, https://glendalehistorical.org/still-standing-5. 434 Perry, Glendale Area History, 129; Yamada, “Still Standing.” 435 “Erect Big Glendale Building,” Los Angeles Times June 10, 1923. 1617 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 147

Grand View Memorial Park advertisement, The Burbank Review May 12, 1922.

Civic Services and Facilities
Prior to the area’s piecemeal annexation through the 1910s and 1920s, civic and institutional services tended to be sited in existing properties rather than purpose-built facilities. In 1906, the “Casa Verdugo” branch of the U.S. Post Office was established, with Charles Sowl (husband of Casa Verdugo proprietor Piedad Yorba Sowl) appointed as the first postmaster and presumably operating out of Casa Verdugo itself.
436
Infrastructure development, including establishment of electrical and water service, typically followed tract subdivision as residential construction and annexation progressed in tandem and new neighborhoods connected to expanding municipal services. Municipal reservoirs were established in Verdugo Canyon and elsewhere in the Study Area, including the Western Reservoir at the corner of Bel Aire Drive (originally 10th Street) and Western Avenue sometime prior to 1928. 437 The extant Spanish
Colonial Revival pumphouse at this corner remains extant and likely dates to the same period. Another 436 ARG, “Casa Verdugo Historic Resources Survey,” 26.
437 The reservoir property is on a 1928 aerial photograph (UCSB Library Geospatial Collection). 1618 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 148
extant pumphouse disguised as a Spanish Colonial Revival house was constructed ca. 1930 adjacent to Verdugo Wash (possibly related to the reservoir under Glorietta Park to the north), at 2722 Rustic Lane.

In 1941, Glendale Water and Power (GWP) established a new power plant (800 Air Way, no longer extant) in the southwest corner of the Study Area.438 The PWA Moderne electrical generating plant, designed by architect Daniel A. Elliott, was reported to be the world’s first earthquake-proof power plant.439 The building much expanded in the postwar period and has been demolished.

The primary work taking place in the Study Area during the 1920s was the extension and improvement of the existing road network, funded by Los Angeles County with occasional assistance from the municipalities of Glendale and Burbank. In 1923-24, Glendale saw the construction of the “New Glen Oaks Highway” connecting Glendale and Pasadena in the southeast part of the Study Area.440 It became part of the larger Glenoaks Boulevard, which by late 1925 was being planned to connect Glendale and San Fernando through Burbank, and which was extended multiple times through the late 1920s.441 It paralleled the Pacific Electric tracks through much of the Study Area and its extension facilitated commercial development along the route. The county opened Chevy Chase Drive connecting Glendale with La Canada-Flintridge through Chevy Chase Canyon in late 1925, cutting miles off the former route between Los Angeles and Flintridge and opening up the canyon to further residential development.442 Starting in 1933, the New Deal programs instated by President Franklin D. Roosevelt and augmented by state support began to provide relief in the form of funding for municipal infrastructure projects, as well as work relief programs creating jobs for the unemployed. In Glendale, programs like the Works Progress Administration (WPA), the Public Works Administration (PWA) and the State Emergency Relief Administration (SERA) provided funds and put people to work constructing new buildings and infrastructure features. The New Deal was involved with a number of major institutional and infrastructural projects undertaken in the Study Area during the Great Depression. 438 Perry and Parcher, Glendale Area History, 152;
439 Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., “Grayson Repowering Project: Partially Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report” (prepared for City of Glendale Water and Power, August 6, 2021), 4.13. 440 “Glendale Planning Highway Celebration,” Los Angeles Times December 29, 1923. 441 “Through Highway to Link Glendale to San Fernando,” Los Angeles Daily News November 6, 1925; “Glenoaks Is Given Needed Enthusiasm,” Burbank Daily Evening Review January 8, 1927; “Contract Given for New Valley Artery,” Los Angeles Times April 13, 1929; “Opening of Street Aid to Building,” Los Angeles Times April 21, 1929. 442 “Shorter Route Now Available,” Los Angeles Times December 13, 1925. 1619 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 149
Glendale Civic Auditorium, 1939. Burton O. Burt, Works Progress Administration Photo Collection, Los Angeles Public Library.

The most visible New Deal projects in the Study Area included the WPA-built Verdugo Swim Stadium (1937) and the Verdugo Municipal Recreation Center (1938, now Glendale Civic Auditorium) at 1401 N. Verdugo Road. The massive swimming facility (no longer extant) had an Olympic-sized pool and matched the Spanish Colonial Revival/PWA Moderne architectural style of the auditorium, designed by local architect John A. Grundfor.443 The auditorium is large enough to accommodate 3,000 people for ballroom use and served as a popular gathering spot for dances and events.444 Now designated, it remains extant and is used as an event space by many groups and events. The recreational complex was sited adjacent to Glendale Community College (GCC), which was among the many local schools that benefited from New Deal projects. As discussed further under Schools and Educational Institutions below, GCC relocated to its present site in 1937 and received several PWA-funded buildings and site features.

In 1934, the Glendale area experienced devastating flooding that killed 40 people and caused extensive property damage. Most of the New Deal infrastructure projects in the Study Area responded to the flood threat by focusing on stormwater control in the sloping washes of the area.445 WPA crews and the Army Corps of Engineers widened and channelized Verdugo Wash itself between 1935 and 1937, adding new bridges across the concrete channel at Geneva Street, Concord Street, Glenoaks Boulevard, Kenilworth Avenue, upper and lower Canada Boulevard, Mountain Street, Opechee Way, Wabasso Way, and San Fernando Road. These bridges are extant, and four of them are designated. Between 1935 and 1936, about 100 stone check dams were constructed in Brand Park; one was thought to be one of the largest stone dams in the country when completed in 1936. The current status of these features is unknown. At least one drinking water reservoir was also WPA-built: the Chevy Chase West reservoir (off Gardner Place 443 “Landmarks,” The Glendale Historical Society, accessed October 2025, https://glendalehistorical.org/landmarks. 444 “Civic Auditorium – Glendale CA,” Living New Deal, accessed November 2025, https://livingnewdeal.org/sites/civicauditorium-glendale-ca/; Arroyo, Early Glendale, 125. 445 All information on infrastructure projects is derived from “Glendale Sites,” Living New Deal, accessed November 2025, https://livingnewdeal.org/us/ca/glendale-ca/.
1620 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 150
in Glenoaks Canyon), which replaced older wooden tanks and connected with the larger municipal system.

Wabasso Way bridge over Verdugo Wash, constructed 1938 by the WPA. (HRG 2026) Schools and Educational Institutions
The earliest known schools in the East-West Glendale Study Area were established in the mid-1890s and occupied homes and commercial buildings rather than purpose-built facilities.446 This remained the state of affairs until the early 1920s, when expanding residential development and annexations to Glendale meant that almost all existing schools, most of which were south of the Study Area, were filled beyond capacity.447 New construction began in earnest in the northern part of the community with the establishment of Thomas Jefferson School (1540 5th Street, original building no longer extant) in 1922.

Originally Grand View School, the name changed in 1926, after the school had already required expansion with two sets of additions.
448 In 1926, Verdugo Woodlands School (1751 N. Verdugo Road) was established, as was Eleanor Toll Middle School (700 Glenwood Road, extant). 449 Toll was almost immediately overcrowded and additional buildings were added to the campus in 1927 and 1928.450 In 1929, Herbert Hoover High School (651 Glenwood Road) opened across the street from Toll Middle 446 Chester Baker Lynch, “A History of the Glendale Public Schools from 1879 to 1957, with Emphasis on School Organization and Administration” (M.A. thesis, Occidental College, 1957), 63-64. 447 Arroyo, Early Glendale, 75.
448 Lynch, “History of Glendale Public Schools,” 76-77. 449 Lynch, “History of Glendale Public Schools,” 83.
450 Lynch, “History of Glendale Public Schools,” 95-96; “History of Eleanor J. Toll Middle School,” accessed October 2025, https://toll.gusd.net/4710_2.
1621 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 151
School, and in 1930, Mark Keppel School (730 Glenwood Road, extant but altered) opened next to Toll. 451 Glenoaks School (2015 E. Glenoaks Boulevard) and Balboa School (1844 Bel Aire Drive) also opened in 1930, and received additions in 1937 and 1940, respectively.452 Hoover High School’s 1929 auditorium (651 Glenwood Road), retrofitted and remodeled by the WPA in 1935-36. (Photo by Richard A. Walker, 2024, livingnewdeal.org.)
Reflecting typical Southern California school buildings of the period, the Study Area’s 1920s-30s schools were two-story masonry buildings in Period Revival styles. And like other schools across the region, multiple Glendale schools sustained damage in the 1933 Long Beach Earthquake. Major damage occurred at both Toll Middle School and Hoover High School, with most of the repairs and reconstruction taking place between 1936 and 1939.453 Hoover’s auditorium, the only extant original building thought to remain on the campus today, was repaired in a 1935-36 WPA project that employed 105 workers.454 Other schools saw New Deal projects in the 1930s, including WPA improvements to the grounds of Balboa and Jefferson.455 In 1936, the city Board of Education combined the area’s multiple districts into the Glendale Unified School District.

Incarnation Parish (discussed further under Churches and Religious Institutions below) established a parochial school at what is now 123 W. Glenoaks Boulevard (extant, with a ca. 1960 addition) in 1937.

The two-story Streamline Moderne building was designed by notable Los Angeles architect Gene Verge, 451 Lynch, “History of Glendale Public Schools,”85-86.
452 Lynch, “History of Glendale Public Schools,” 84-87. 453 Lynch, “History of Glendale Public Schools,” 37.
454 Lynch, “History of Glendale Public Schools,” 103-104; “Glendale Sites,” Living New Deal. 455 “Glendale Sites,” Living New Deal.
1622 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 152
who also designed the 1952 church and rectory on the property.456 It served as the parish church prior to construction of the new edifice, and remains in operation on the large parish parcel today.

Glendale Junior College (today known as Glendale Community College, or GCC), originally founded in 1927 and sited south of the East-West Study Area, relocated to a 25-acre site on Verdugo Road in 1937.

New Deal programs including the PWA and WPA were instrumental in construction of the new campus between 1936 and 1937, with designs by Glendale architect George M. Lindsey.457 Buildings and objects from this time thought to be extant include the John A. Davitt Administration Building, the mosaicked C.A.

Nelson Memorial Fountain by Archibald Garner, and a petrachrome (tinted cement with other crushed materials) bench by Jane Mussy. The artists who created the fountain and bench worked under the auspices of the Federal Arts Project.458 During World War II, the growth of defense industries increased demand for technical, science, and vocational education and the college’s curriculum shifted to meet workforce needs. The campus saw limited physical expansion, however, due to material and labor shortages.459 GCC expanded greatly in the post-World War II period.

Libraries
The Study Area received two libraries in the 1920s, though neither building is extant today. The Grandview Branch Library opened in 1923 at Jefferson Elementary School, then moved into its own building (1145 Ruberta Avenue) in 1926.460 It was replaced by the current building (1535 5th Street, extant) in 1964. The Casa Verdugo Branch Library was first opened as a book deposit station on Central Avenue in 1926, but soon moved to rented space at 1153 N. Central Avenue.461 1926: Casa Verdugo Branch Library, 1151 N Brand Blvd. Opened on Central Ave as a deposit station in early November 1926. Shortly after it was provided with its own rented quarters across the street at 1153 N Central Avenue (property type and status unclear). In 1951, the branch received its own building with an attached fire station at 1151 N. Brand Boulevard (extant).

Parks
Given that much of the Study Area was undeveloped open space in the prewar period, it served as the de facto location for sightseers and recreational activities. Verdugo Canyon, with its verdant streams and oak woodlands, was particularly heavily visited. The area now known as Verdugo Park (1621 Canada Boulevard, extant) began appearing in small notices in the Los Angeles Times as early as 1872, noted as a popular picnicking spot.462 A spur line of the San Pedro, Los Angeles, and Salt Lake Railroad began 456 “History and Mission,” Incarnation Catholic Church accessed November 2025, https://incaglendale.org/history-mission; “Ecclesiastical Architecture Tour: Churches of North Brand Boulevard,” Glendale Historical Society, accessed November 2025, https://glendalehistorical.org/ecclesiastical-architecture-tour. 457 “Glendale Sites,” Living New Deal.
458 “Glendale Sites,” Living New Deal.
459 Lynch, “History of Glendale Public Schools,” 37.
460 Perry and Parcher, Glendale Area History, 56.
461 Perry and Parcher, Glendale Area History, 57.
462 “The East Side: A Genuine Improvement Boom,” Los Angeles Times, May 6, 1872, 9; “The East Side,” Los Angeles Times, May 19, 1872, 8; Niodrara Drive HCS, 13.
1623 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 153
providing intermittent service to the area starting in 1887.463 Verdugo Park became the Glendale area’s first known park when its picnic grounds officially opened in 1910, with more reliable access provided by a newly opened streetcar line extension.464 Two years later, the park came into the city along with the rest of the Verdugo Woodlands area in a massive annexation. Though privately owned, it remained a popular picnic grounds and baseball park for decades and did not become an official city park until the 1940s.

The first official municipal park in the Study Area was Patterson Park (600 Hahn Avenue), a 10-acre site acquired by the city in 1922.465 By 1924, it had a swimming pool and paved tennis courts.466 The park’s name was later changed to Fremont, as it is known today. It has experienced major alterations, most recently in 2023-25. The city established other public parks in the Study Area in the 1920s and early 1930s, including Glenoaks Park (2531 E. Glenoaks Boulevard), Pelanconi Park (1000 Grandview Avenue), and Nibley Park (1103 E Mountain Street). 467 The 2.5-acre Nibley Park and its native sycamore-oak woodland was donated to the city by the developers of the Rossmoyne subdivision as part of “a particularly aggressive campaign to keep Rossmoyne in the real estate section.”468 The 1927 developers of Brockmont Park, on the other hand, boasted a private park for exclusive use by the subdivision’s residents, but the parcel was ultimately subdivided and built out.469 In 1928, Harland Bartholomew and Associates completed Glendale’s first master plan, which “scolded the city for its unrestrained, indiscriminate growth and resulting lack of sufficient amenities, including public parks.”470 The dearth of parks in South Glendale perhaps influenced the postwar establishment of more in the East-West Study Area, though Glendale remained relatively park-poor until later in the 20th century.

Local residents and civic groups lobbied for more park space, as in the case of Griffith Manor Park (1551 Flower Street, extant with altered landscape configuration and no longer including the garden club’s clubhouse). Around 1936-37, the Glendale Griffith Park Manor Garden and Civic Club urged the City to establish a playground near Grand Central Air Terminal, and appear to have succeeded in getting the land set aside.471 However, 1938 aerial photographs show the parcel as undeveloped grove land, and it appears actual park development did not occur until after World War II.472 463 Perry et. al., Glendale: A Pictorial History, 28.
464 “Verdugo Park Opened: Forty-Acre Picnic Ground Is Added to the Attractions of Glendale,” Los Angeles Times July 18, 1910; “Verdugo Park Has a Long History as a Recreation Area,” Crescenta Valley Weekly May 22, 2025, accessed November 2025, https://www.crescentavalleyweekly.com/viewpoints/05/22/2025/treasures-of-the-valley-184/. 465 Perry et al., Glendale: A Pictorial History, 99.
466 “Glendale Will Hold City Park,” Los Angeles Times April 28, 1923; “Plan Tennis Court Paving in Glendale,” Los Angeles Times April 10, 1924.
467 Katherine Yamada, “Verdugo Views,” Glendale News-Press June 6, 2008; “Accept Site for Park at Glendale,” Los Angeles Times June 16, 1925; LSA Associates, Inc., “Rossmoyne Historic Resources Survey,” 14. 468 LSA Associates, Inc., “Rossmoyne Historic Resources Survey,” 16. 469 City of Glendale and Smith, “Brockmont Park Historic Resources Survey,” 16-17. 470 HRG, “South Glendale Historic Context Statement,” 173. 471 “Playground Plan Studied at Glendale,” Los Angeles Times October 2, 1936; “Griffith Park Manor Garden Group to Honor Hero Sons at Dedication,” Valley Times January 3, 1948.
472 Flight axj-1938, Frame 44-3, January 1, 1938, UCSB Library Geospatial Collection; “Honor Hero Sons.” 1624 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 154
Churches and Religious Institutions
As with early schools, the earliest religious congregations in the Study Area met in private homes or shared spaces rather than purpose-built edifices. One example was the Casa Verdugo Methodist Church, organized in the early 1900s but meeting without a chapel until constructing one around 1913; in 1919, the congregation opened a new church at 1015 N. Central Avenue (no longer extant).473 In 1941, the Methodist church (by then known as the North Glendale Methodist Church) moved into a new edifice at the same site. Designed by architect Harry W. Pierce, the new church exhibited a Moderne/Art Deco style.474 It appears to have been demolished. The Catholic Incarnation Parish was established at the corner of N. Brand Boulevard and Glenoaks Boulevard in 1927, originally using a small chapel in the Albert Canfield home (which was also the rectory).475 In 1928, the congregation built a wood framed building simply called “the hall,” which later became the parish hall. In 1937, Incarnation Church School was constructed on the property, and its auditorium was used for services until the new church was constructed in 1952. The school’s architect, Gene Verge, also designed the postwar church and rectory (extant).476 It served as the parish church prior to construction of the new edifice, and remains in operation today.

Demolition or extensive alteration was the apparent fate of most other pre-World War II religious properties in the Study Area. One rare exception is the United Brethren in Christ Church at 1146 Justin Avenue, a modest edifice bearing a construction date of 1926 on its cornerstone. It has been altered but is recognizable as an early church. The 1920s development of the Glendale Sanitarium’s new site (discussed below) included the 1928 construction of the Glendale Sanitarium Seventh-Day Adventist Church (300 Vallejo Drive).477 This edifice was replaced by a new one in 1967. Likewise, Rossmoyne Christian’s 1940s church at 1504 E. Mountain Street was replaced by a new complex for St. Gregory Armenian Catholic Cathedral in the late 1990s.478 The Study Area would see a number of new religious buildings constructed after World War II.

Glendale Sanitarium and Hospital
The Study Area became the home of a major medical facility in the early 1920s, when the Seventh Day Adventist-founded Glendale Sanitarium moved from its old home in the Glendale Hotel building to a new 30-acre site (1509 Wilson Terrace). The expansive hillside location was ideally sited for views, sunlight, and fresh air, in keeping with Glendale’s reputation as a destination for health and wellness. Completed in 1924, the new Glendale Sanitarium and Hospital facility was a large five-story building advertised as “the temple of health.”479 The complex, now known as Adventist Health Glendale after several name changes, 473 Perry and Parcher, Glendale Area History, 79.
474 David Gebhard and Robert Winter, An Architectural Guidebook to Los Angeles (6th Edition) (Santa Monica: Angel City Press, 2018), 341.
475 “History and Mission.”
476 “History and Mission”; “Ecclesiastical Architecture Tour.” 477 “Our Story,” Vallejo Drive Church, accessed November 2025, https://vallejodrive.church/our-story. 478 Perry and Parcher, Glendale Area History, 82; “The Early Years on How It All Started,” St. Gregory Armenian, accessed November 2025, https://www.stgregoryarmenian.org/our-history/. 479 Arroyo, Early Glendale, 74.
1625 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 155
expanded multiple times from the 1950s through the 1970s and was again modernized in the 1980s; it does not appear that any prewar buildings remain extant on the medical campus, and most pre-2000 buildings appear to have been altered as well.

Property Types and Registration Requirements for Pre-World War II Civic and Institutional Development (1919-1944)
Property Types: Civic or Institutional Building, School, Infrastructure Feature, Designed Landscape, Municipal Park, Cemetery, Religious Building
Most of the East-West Study Area’s early civic and institutional development occurred in the 1920s and ‘30s, with notable New Deal infrastructure projects addressing school improvements, flood control, and municipal water storage during the Great Depression. Institutional buildings typically were constructed along thoroughfares like N. Brand Boulevard, N. Central Avenue, Glenoaks Boulevard, San Fernando Road, and Verdugo Road, with a few examples on smaller residential neighborhood scales. Resources from this time period were never very abundant, with the exception of schools, and intact examples are relatively rare due to the heavily residential nature of the Study Area and post-World War II development pressure.

An institutional property from this period may be significant under this context:

Criteria480 Reason
A/1/A (Event) As an increasingly rare example of civic or institutional development representing the Study Area’s early growth. Institutional properties may be eligible for an association with an early institution in the area or as an excellent or rare example of an important institutional property type.

Properties may also be significant for an association with a particular ethnic community in East-West Glendale.

C/3/C
(Architecture)
As an excellent or rare example of an architectural style or type from the period. Additional information about architectural styles from each period and their associated character-defining features are outlined in the Architecture & Design context.

Integrity Considerations for Pre-World War II Civic and Institutional Development (1919-1944) In order to be eligible for listing at the federal, state, or local levels, a property must retain sufficient integrity to convey its historic significance under the Pre-World War II Civic and Institutional Development theme. As properties from this period are rare, a greater degree of alteration may be acceptable.

Criteria Required Aspects of Integrity
480 Eligibility criteria are listed in the order National Register/California Register/Local. 1626 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 156
A/1/A (Event) A property that is significant for its historic association is eligible if it retains the essential physical features that made up its character or appearance during the period of its association with the important event or historical pattern.481 An institutional property from this period eligible under Criteria A/1/A (Event) should retain integrity of location, design, workmanship, materials, and feeling, at a minimum, in order to reflect the important association with the city’s institutional development during this period. A property that has lost some historic materials or details can be eligible if it retains the majority of the features that illustrate its style in terms of the massing, spatial relationships, proportion, pattern of windows and doors, texture of materials, and ornamentation. The property is not eligible, however, if it retains some basic features conveying massing but has lost the majority of the features that once characterized its style.482
C/3/C(Architecture) A property important for illustrating a particular architectural style or construction technique must retain most of the physical features that constitute that style or technique.
483 An institutional property significant
under Criterion C/3/C (Architecture) should retain integrity of design, workmanship, materials, and feeling, at a minimum, in order to be eligible for its architectural merit. A property that has lost some historic materials or details can be eligible if it retains the majority of the features that illustrate its style in terms of the massing, spatial relationships, proportion, pattern of windows and doors, texture of materials, and ornamentation. The property is not eligible, however, if it retains some basic features conveying massing but has lost the majority of the features that once characterized its style.

Registration Requirements for Pre-World War II Civic and Institutional Development (1919-1944)

To be eligible under the Pre-World War II Institutional Development theme, a property must:
• date from the period of significance;
• represent important patterns and trends in civic and institutional development from this period; or
• represent an excellent or rare institutional property type; • display most of the character-defining features of the property type or style; and • retain the essential aspects of integrity for listing in the National, California, or Glendale Registers. 481 National Register Bulletin 15.
482 National Register Bulletin 15.
483 National Register Bulletin 15.
1627 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 157
Theme: Post-World War II Civic and Institutional Development (1945-2000) Like other Southern California cities, Glendale saw massive growth during the post-World War II economic boom as returning veterans and new residents established homes and required new institutions and municipal services. New religious, cultural, and service organizations joined existing ones and occupied purpose-built facilities on larger scales and in Modern styles. The biggest impact to the built environment of the East-West Study Area was the establishment of the freeway network, discussed in the Post-War Suburban Development context above. When the 134 Freeway was completed in the southern part of the Study Area and the 2 Freeway was completed in the eastern part, growth along adjoining streets like N. Brand Boulevard, N. Pacific Avenue, Glenoaks Boulevard, E. Chevy Chase Drive, and others came to include new institutional buildings.

Civic Services and Facilities
Most municipal facilities established before World War II saw major expansion after the war. One prominent example was the 1941 Grayson Power Plant (800 Air Way), which was expanded in 1945, 1947, 1953, 1959, 1964, 1972, 1974, 1977, and 2004.484 It was demolished in 2025. The large municipal utility parcel on which the plant sat may retain other buildings dating to the early postwar period. Other infrastructure systems, from electrical systems to water storage and distribution, saw establishment and expansion in the 1950s-60s; one example was the 1956 Diederich Reservoir near the intersection of E.

Mountain Street and Campbell Street.485 In 1949, a new U.S. Post Office was established in the Study Area at 1009 N. Pacific Avenue (extant); in 1960, it expanded into the neighboring storefront and received a new facade. And in 1961, the 425-acre Scholl Canyon Landfill (3001 Scholl Canyon Road) opened in Scholl Canyon to serve trash disposal needs for Glendale and adjacent communities.486 Fire stations were among the new facilities constructed in the Study Area in the early postwar period, with at least two examples built with adjoining libraries (discussed below). Fire Station No. 26 (1145 N.

Brand Boulevard, extant) was completed in 1951, and Fire Station No. 23 (3303 E. Chevy Chase Drive, extant) was completed in 1972. Fire stations without libraries were constructed at 1734 Canada Boulevard (Station No. 24, 1964, extant) and 1127 Western Avenue (Station No. 27, 1968, extant). 487
Schools and Educational Institutions
Nearly all of the school buildings established in the Study Area between the 1920s and the 1940s were significantly altered through additions, if not demolished and replaced outright, in the postwar period.

Glendale Community College expanded greatly, starting with the 1945 purchase of 17.5 acres south and east of the existing campus for $8,250, and following with the 1949 acquisition of more Verdugo Road frontage.
488 It constructed new buildings in Modern styles through the 1960s, including a music, speech, 484 Stantec, “Grayson Power Plant DEIR,” 4.14. 485 Gretchen Hoffman, “Underground Glendale,” Glendale News-Press September 10, 2001. 486 “Scholl Canyon Dump Site Put in Operation,” Los Angeles Times March 23, 1961. 487 “$91,856 Pact Issued for Glendale Station,” Los Angeles Times August 23, 1967; “Find a Fire Department Facility,” accessed November 2025, https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/fire-department/administration/fire-stations. 488 Lynch, “History of Glendale Public Schools,” 40-45. 1628 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 158
and arts building; a carpentry shop; an aviation shop; two gymnasiums; a student union, and a library.489 Today the GCC campus occupies over 100 acres.

Improvements to the Study Area’s schools included expansion of the 1926 Verdugo Woodlands Elementary School (1751 N. Verdugo Road) in 1947 and 1954; additions and rehabilitation of the original Mark Keppel Elementary School (730 Glenwood Road) in 1949; additions to Glenoaks Elementary (2015 E.

Glenoaks Boulevard) in 1949-1950; an addition to Balboa Elementary (1844 Bel Aire Drive) in 1950; demolition of the 1922 Thomas Jefferson School building (1540 5th Street) to make room for a new building in 1950; and multiple additions to Eleanor Toll Middle School (700 Glenwood Road) in 1955 and the 1970s.490 In 1955, Woodrow Wilson Middle School moved to a new site in the Study Area (1221 Monterey Road); the campus underwent a modernization project in 2005-06 but appears relatively intact.
491
In 1966, the 1929 Hoover High School campus, with the exception of the auditorium and physical education facilities, was demolished and replaced by a new Modern campus designed by Woodford and Bernard in 1969. Major additions and alterations took place in 1992 and 2010. 492 Postwar modernization of Glendale schools continued into the 21st century; in the early postwar period, it typically resulted in campuses of one-story buildings in a modest Mid-Century Modern idiom, connected by walkways and incorporating the outdoors into unified plans as seen in school design across Southern California at this time. Later modernization, from the late 1960s through 2000, tended to add two- and three-story buildings back in and generally favored density balanced by open space to accommodate larger student populations.

Libraries
The Study Area acquired three new library buildings during this period. Two were replacements of older buildings. The new Casa Verdugo Library with its adjoining Fire Station No. 26 (1951, 1151 N. Brand Boulevard, extant), was designed in a restrained Mid-Century Modern idiom by notable Los Angeles architect Adrian Wilson. In January 1964, Glendale dedicated the new iteration of the Grandview Branch Library (1535 5th Street, extant), designed by notable Glendale architect S. Graham Latta and built by contractor Frank Reitinger.493 The eastern part of the Study Area received its first branch in 1972, after the City hired Burke, Kober, Nicolais and Archuleta to design a combination library and fire station at 3301 E. Chevy Chase Drive, in Chevy Chase Canyon.494 The Late Modern facility (extant) was constructed by H.A. Kaufman.495
489 Perry and Parcher, Glendale Area History, 65. 490 Lynch, “History of Glendale Public Schools,” 83-88, 95-96; “History of Eleanor J. Toll Middle School.” 491 “Wilson’s History,” accessed October 2025, https://wilson.gusd.net/20502_2. 492 “Hoover History,” accessed October 2025, https://hooverhs.gusd.net/29713_2.Architect names from 1969 dedication program.
493 “Dedication of Library Branch Slated Today,” Los Angeles Times January 26, 1964; building plaque. 494 “Architects Hired,” Los Angeles Times July 26, 1970. 495 “Library Dedication,” Los Angeles Times May 24, 1972; “Fire Station-Library Serves Glendale Area,” Los Angeles Times June 25, 1972.
1629 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 159
The Chevy Chase branch library upon completion in 1972. Los Angeles Times June 25, 1972.

The conversion of Leslie Brand’s El Miradero estate into Brand Library and Park (1601 West Mountain Street, extant and locally designated) starting in 1949 gave Glendale its finest library building. The Exotic Revival (Indo-Saracenic) building saw a slow conversion through the 1950s and opened to the public in 1956. In 1965, a Modern addition designed by architects Raymond Jones and Charles Walton was completed for use as an art gallery and recital hall. The property was restored in 2012-2014. The development of the rest of Brand Park is discussed below.

Parks
Responding to the City’s increasing need for park space, Glendale established several municipal parks in the mid-to-late 20th century. Verdugo Park finally became an official municipal park in 1944, when the City acquired 36.5 acres and commissioned prominent landscape architects Ruth Shellhorn and Ralph Cornell to shape the park as it exists today. 496 Shellhorn is perhaps best known for her work on Disneyland’s landscape design, but worked on numerous projects across Southern California. Cornell was known in part for his work with native plant enthusiast Theodore Payne and incorporated native vegetation into many of his park plans.497
496 “Verdugo Park Has a Long History.” 497 “Ralph Dalton Cornell Biography,” The Cultural Landscape Foundation, accessed November 2025, https://www.tclf.org/ralphdalton-cornell-biography. 1630 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 160
Verdugo Park site plan by Ruth Shellhorn and Ralph D. Cornell, 1945. (Ralph D. Cornell Papers, UCLA Special Collections).

In 1948, the Glendale-Burbank Griffith Park Manor Garden Club dedicated Griffith Manor Park (1551 Flower Street) in memory of three local veterans lost in World War II, all sons of club members.498 The park was adjacent to Grand Central Air Terminal and contained the garden group’s clubhouse (no longer extant); it is unclear whether it was officially a municipal park in 1948, but it was by 1965.499 Leslie C. Brand deeded 488 acres of land, including his El Miradero estate and mansion, to the City of Glendale for use as a public park and library after his death. He died in 1925 and his widow, Mary Louise Brand, died in 1945, leaving the City with its largest park property. Glendale hired landscape architect Arthur G. Barton to develop a plan for the park in 1947, and development began in 1949 (with a five year plan instituted in 1951).500 In 1972, the City acquired additional acreage for Brand Park, bringing the total to 872; only 31 acres are actually developed for recreational use, with some of the more remote areas (and the Brand Family Cemetery) accessible by hiking trail.

Brand Park received several significant additions over the next decades, starting with the Shoseian Teahouse and garden installation 1972-74. This project was sponsored by the Sister City Committee with participation from Glendale’s sister city Higashi-Oaska, Japan. The Teahouse is listed in the Glendale Register. In 1979, Glendale residents saved the ca. 1888 Doctors House from demolition and relocated it to Brand Park. The Queen Anne-Eastlake house is listed in the Glendale Register and National Register. In 498 “Honor Hero Sons.” 499 “Horse Overlay Zone Request Goes to Council,” Los Angeles Times June 1, 1965. 500 Perry and Parcher, Glendale Area History, 34. 1631 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 161
1992, the City dedicated the relocated Miss American Green Cross Statue at its new site in Brand Park.501 This 1928 bronze statue by Frederick Willard Proctor, originally at Glendale High School, was later moved to a canyon in Brand Park, rediscovered in the 1950s, and put in City storage in 1981.502 It was restored in the early 1990s and is listed in the Glendale Register.

The city made some of its infrastructure sites multipurpose by adding parks to them between the late 1960s and 1980s. As the 1961 Scholl Canyon landfill was incrementally filled in with garbage and covered over with sediment, the City established a recreational area on the reclaimed portions as Lower Scholl Canyon Park (2849 E Glenoaks Boulevard). The development started in 1965 but most of the work on what is now a golf and tennis complex took place in the late 1970s-early 1980s.503 Glorietta Park (2801 N.

Verdugo Road) was developed atop a subsurface reservoir between 1972 and 1974.504 The seven-acre park spans Verdugo Wash, crossing it with a pedestrian bridge. The similarly sized Emerald Isle Park (2130 Lenore Drive) was given to the city by the subdividers of two new tracts in Chevy Chase Canyon in 1976, and was completed around 1978.
505
Most of Glendale’s prewar municipal parks saw expansion and redevelopment in the postwar period, and both prewar and postwar parks saw additional expansion and redevelopment between the 1990s and the 2020s.

Churches and Religious Institutions
Many new religious properties were constructed in the Study Area after World War II. One of the first was St. Mark’s Episcopal Church (1020 N. Brand Boulevard, extant), completed in 1948. The Late Gothic Revival edifice was designed by master architect Carleton M. Winslow and continues to house the congregation that started elsewhere in Glendale in the 1880s.506 Its stained glass windows were produced by the famous Judson Studios.507 The St. Mark’s complex includes a former WWII-era Red Cross building moved from Los Angeles’s Pershing Square in 1948 for use as a temporary parish hall (now part of the church preschool), a new parish hall built in 1954, front cloisters enclosing the courtyard in keeping with Winslow’s original master plan in 1962, and another classroom building in the 1960s.508 Another early postwar property was Temple Sinai (1212 N. Pacific Avenue, extant). Glendale’s historic Jewish congregation moved from its small shul in South Glendale into a new building here in 1949. 509 In 1962, the congregation added a new MidCentury Modern main building designed by local architect George Postle.. 501 “Green Cross,” Los Angeles Times September 3, 1992. 502 Arroyo, Early Glendale, 98; “Red Tape Ties Up Statue Project,” Los Angeles Times October 17, 1990. 503 Perry and Parcher, Glendale Area History, 167. 504 “Park atop Reservoir to Be Dedicated,” Los Angeles Times February 10, 1974 505 “Park Planned for Two Subdivisions,” Los Angeles Times October 3, 1976; “Glendale Plans 6-Acre Park in Upper Canyon,” Los Angeles Times August 7, 1977. 506 “A Brief History of Saint Mark’s,” accessed November 2025, https://www.saintmarks.la/history. 507 “Ecclesiastical Architecture Tour.” 508 “A Brief History of Saint Mark’s.” 509 “History and Vision,” accessed November 2025, https://www.temple-sinai.net/welcome/history-vision/. 1632 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 162
St. Mark’s Episcopal Church (1016 N. Brand Boulevard, 1948). ARG photo.

Several other large church properties joined St. Mark’s on N. Brand Boulevard in the postwar period. In 1952, the Catholic Incarnation Parish moved the old parish hall to make way for the new Church of the Incarnation (1001 N. Brand Boulevard, extant). Architect Gene Verge designed the concrete edifice in a Moderne style incorporating elements of Streamline and PWA Moderne. He is known to have designed the 1937 school on the property, and may have designed the other buildings in the complex, which are stylistically compatible.510 It served as the parish church prior to construction of the new edifice, and remains in operation today. The Mid-Century Modern Salem Lutheran Church (1211 N. Brand Boulevard, extant), designed by master architect Culver Heaton, was completed in 1959.511 It became the new home of the Lutheran congregation established in 1925, and joined a parish hall that had been completed in 1947.512 Religious institutions were not restricted to Brand Boulevard and Pacific Avenue; other properties constructed during this period included the American Colonial Revival First Southern Baptist Church (now Word of Life Church, 725 N. Central Avenue, extant) in 1956, a Mid-Century Modern Christian Science Church at 1020 W. Kenneth Road in 1956 (extant, now Chabad of Glendale and the Foothill Communities), the Mid-Century Modern Grandview Presbyterian Church (1130 Ruberta Avenue, extant) in 1957, and several Modern Seventh-Day Adventist properties near the Glendale Adventist Medical 510 “History and Mission”; “Ecclesiastical Architecture Tour.” 511 “Ecclesiastical Architecture Tour.” 512 “History of Salem,” Salem Lutheran Church and School, accessed November 2025, https://www.salemlutheranglendale.org/history-of-salem. 1633 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 163
Center in 1948 (1545 N. Verdugo Road, extant), 1955 (1535 E. Chevy Chase Drive, extensively altered), and 1967 (300 Vallejo Drive, extant). 513
First Church of Religious Science (now Self-Realization Fellowship), 2146 E. Chevy Chase Drive, 1966. (Self-Realization Fellowship, Glendale Temple, glendaletemple.org)
Ecclesiastical architecture became more dramatic with the Modern/Expressionist movement of the 1960s and into the Postmodern movement of the 1970s and ‘80s. The 1966 First Church of Religious Science (extant at 2146 E. Chevy Chase Drive, now the Self-Realization Fellowship) is an excellent example of Expressionist architecture. Designed by architect Howard Van Heuklyn, the church became the new home of the Glendale Church of Religious Science (established 1938) when the congregation was displaced by freeway construction.514 The 1989 First Church of Christ, Scientist at 1320 N. Brand Boulevard (extant) was designed by architect Charles W. Moore of Moore Ruble Yudell. The Glendale Historical Society describes it as “Post-Modern Gothic.”515 Community and Cultural Organizations
A number of cultural and community organizations moved their facilities into the Study Area during the postwar period. A prime example is the 1954 headquarters of the Verdugo Hills Boy Scout Council (1325 Grandview Avenue, extant), containing administrative offices and a training center. The Mid-Century Modern building served Scout troops in Glendale, Burbank, Eagle Rock, La Crescenta, Montrose, Sunland, and Tujunga.516 The Verdugo Club, founded in 1950 as a club for business men that came to include 513 Perry and Parcher, Glendale Area History, 81-83. 514 Perry and Parcher, Glendale Area History, 81; “Self Realization Fellowship,” Los Angeles Conservancy, accessed November 2025, https://www.laconservancy.org/learn/historic-places/self-realization-fellowship/. 515 “Ecclesiastical Architecture Tour.” 516 “Verdugo Hills Scouts Set New Building Rites,” Los Angeles Evening Citizen News March 18, 1954. 1634 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 164
business women in later years, constructed a new clubhouse at 400 W. Glenoaks Boulevard in 1979.517 The building is extant but is no longer occupied by the club. 1953 rendering of the Verdugo Hills Boy Scout headquarters (1325 Grandview Avenue). Valley Times January 23, 1953.

Property Types and Registration Requirements for Post-World War II Institutional Development (1945-2000)
Property Types: Civic or Institutional Building, School, Infrastructure Feature, Designed Landscape, Municipal Park, Medical Facility, Club/Organization Building, Religious Building The East-West Glendale Study Area experienced a period of civic and institutional growth after World War II, with large new properties constructed along major roads like N. Brand Boulevard as well as on smaller neighborhood scales. Both civic/municipal and non-governmental institutional buildings and features are present in the Study Area.

Properties that were developed in the recent past require additional analysis for consideration for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. A property that is less than 50 years old can be listed in the National Register; however, it must meet Criteria Consideration G which states that “a property (which has achieved) significance within the past 50 years is eligible if it is of exceptional importance.” The California Register does not have a specific criteria consideration, but the guidelines state that significant time must have passed for the development of a scholarly perspective on the potential resource. There is 517 Perry and Parcher, Glendale Area History, 203; Katherine Yamada, “Verdugo Club for Men Opened in 1950,” Glendale NewsPress, April 28, 2011. 1635 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 165
no age requirement for local designation, but generally speaking the same need exists for the passage of sufficient time to enable a scholarly perspective.

An institutional property from this period may be significant under this context:

Criteria518 Reason
A/1/A (Event) As a unique or rare example of institutional development representing the growth of Glendale during this period. Institutional buildings may be eligible as the first, best, or rare remaining example of an important institutional property type, or for an association with an organization that is important in the development of Glendale.

C/3/C
(Architecture)
As an excellent or rare example of an architectural style or type from the period. Additional information about architectural styles from each period and their associated character-defining features are outlined in the Architecture & Design context.

Integrity Considerations for Post-World War II Civic and Institutional Development (1945-2000) In order to be eligible for listing at the federal, state, or local levels, a property must retain sufficient integrity to convey its historic significance under the Post-World War II Civic and Institutional Development theme.

Criteria Required Aspects of Integrity
A/1/A (Event) A property that is significant for its historic association is eligible if it retains the essential physical features that made up its character or appearance during the period of its association with the important event or historical pattern.519 An institutional property from this period eligible under Criteria A/1/A (Event) should retain integrity of location, design, workmanship, materials, and feeling, at a minimum, in order to reflect the important association with the city’s institutional development during this period. A property that has lost some historic materials or details can be eligible if it retains the majority of the features that illustrate its style in terms of the massing, spatial relationships, proportion, pattern of windows and doors, texture of materials, and ornamentation. The property is not eligible, however, if it retains some basic features conveying massing but has lost the majority of the features that once characterized its style.520
518 Eligibility criteria are listed in the order National Register/California Register/Local. 519 National Register Bulletin 15.
520 National Register Bulletin 15.
1636 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 166
C/3/C
(Architecture)
A property important for illustrating a particular architectural style or construction technique must retain most of the physical features that constitute that style or technique.521 An institutional property significant under Criterion C/3/C (Architecture) should retain integrity of design, workmanship, materials, and feeling, at a minimum, in order to be eligible for its architectural merit. A property that has lost some historic materials or details can be eligible if it retains the majority of the features that illustrate its style in terms of the massing, spatial relationships, proportion, pattern of windows and doors, texture of materials, and ornamentation. The property is not eligible, however, if it retains some basic features conveying massing but has lost the majority of the features that once characterized its style.

Registration Requirements for Post-World War II Civic and Institutional Development (1945-2000)

To be eligible under the Post-World War II Institutional Development theme, a property must:
• date from the period of significance;
• represent a unique or rare institutional property type from the period; • display most of the character-defining features of the property type or style; • if less than 50 years old, exhibit exceptional importance for listing in the National Register; and • retain the essential aspects of integrity for listing in the National, California, or Glendale Registers. 521 National Register Bulletin 15.
1637 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 167
Context: Architecture and Design
Following is a brief description of the historic architectural styles found in the East-West Glendale Study Area. Buildings that are significant for the embodiment of the distinguishing features of an architectural style and/or as a significant work of a master architect or designer are evaluated under this context.

Designed landscapes or landscape features may also be significant under this context, as the landscape often works in combination with the architecture to create the significant built environment.

For each significant architectural style there is a discussion of the origins and a list of character-defining features intrinsic to each. A property that is eligible for designation as an excellent example of its architectural style retains most - though not necessarily all - of the character-defining features of the style, and continues to exhibit its historic appearance. A property that has lost some historic materials or details can be eligible if it retains the majority of the features that illustrate its style in terms of the massing, spatial relationships, proportion, pattern of windows and doors, texture of materials, and ornamentation. The property is not eligible, however, if it retains some basic features conveying massing but has lost the majority of the features that once characterized its style.522 A property important for illustrating a particular architectural style or construction technique must retain most of the physical features that constitute that style or technique.523
For guidance on the proper treatment of historic resources and appropriate alterations to specific architectural styles, refer to The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings.

Properties significant as an excellent or rare example of an architectural style are eligible under the following criteria:
• Criterion C/3/C: Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values.

There may be properties that are eligible under this context that have not reached 50 years of age, which is the generally accepted threshold for assessing historic significance. A property that is less than 50 years old can be listed in the National Register of Historic Places if it meets Criteria Consideration G which states that “a property (which has achieved) significance within the past 50 years is eligible if it is of exceptional importance.” The California Register does not have a specific criteria consideration, but the guidelines state that significant time must have passed for the development of a scholarly perspective on the potential resource. There is no age requirement for local designation, but generally speaking the same need exists for the passage of sufficient time to enable a scholarly perspective. 522 National Register Bulletin 15. 523 National Register Bulletin 15. 1638 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 168
Theme: Late 19th-Early 20th Century Styles
Late nineteenth and early twentieth century architectural styles are associated with the Late Victorian era. Late Victorian-era architecture became popular in the United States during the 1860s when new advances in construction (i.e. the creation of the lighter wood “balloon” framing, and wire nails) allowed for more complicated building forms. Victorian-era styles reflect these changes through their extravagant detailing and complex volumes. Victorian-era architecture was further popularized during the Centennial celebrations of 1876, becoming the nation’s dominant architectural idiom. Late Victorian-era architecture is loosely derived from medieval prototypes, typically featuring multi-colored or multi-textured walls, steep roofs, and asymmetrical façades. By the turn of the century, Late Victorian-era architecture had fallen out of favor and was replaced with Southern California’s first true modern style: Craftsman.

Sub-Theme: American Foursquare/Classic Box
Example of the American Foursquare style: 2000 Bel Aire Drive.

The American Foursquare was one of the most popular house types in the United States from about 1890 well into the 20th century. It represents an early, fairly modest style of the Arts and Crafts movement and was used widely across the United States—including in Southern California—due to its practicality and ease of construction made possible by pattern books and mail order house catalogs at the turn of the century. The compact, sparsely ornamented Foursquare was an antidote to the ornate Queen Anne and was a popular “kit home.” It is thus found on small urban and suburban lots throughout the country. The style is characterized by its box-like form, two- to two-and-a-half-story height, and lack of ornate detail.

Some examples may include aesthetic references to the Prairie style made popular by Frank Lloyd Wright 1639 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 169
around the turn-of-the-twentieth century, which was characterized by its box-like form, emphasis on horizontality, and flat roofs with overhanging eaves.

Character-defining features include:
• Square or rectangular plan and compact, two-story massing • Symmetrical or asymmetrical composition
• Low-pitched, hipped or pyramidal roof, sometimes with wide boxed eaves and eave brackets or dentil molding
• Central hipped dormers
• Exterior walls finished in clapboard/horizontal wood siding (occasionally shingle or stucco) • Projecting one-story porch across front, sometimes extending over driveway as a porte cochère • Wood double-hung sash windows
• Detached carriage house, usually at rear of property
Sub-Theme: Residential Vernacular
Example of the Residential Vernacular style: 404 Raymond Avenue.

The term “Residential Vernacular” is used to describe simple houses or cottages that have little or no distinguishing decorative features, or that incorporate locally available natural materials. From the 1870s to the early 1900s, a number of vernacular building styles applied much-simplified elements of more opulent Victorian styles like Queen Anne to these modest one-story cottages. These homes typically had 1640 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 170
complex rooflines dominated by either a gable or hipped primary roof, and some adopted features popular in the Arts and Crafts era as well as some basic characteristics of the Queen Anne style. Partialwidth or full-width porches are very common features of vernacular Victorian-era buildings. Early farmhouses often fall within this category. Later iterations incorporated locally sourced natural materials, particularly stone, reflecting the influence of the Arts and Crafts movement and expressing the unique character of their geographic setting.

Character-defining features include:
• One or one-and-a-half stories
• Simple square or rectangular “box-like” form
• Hipped or gabled roof, with our without central dormer • Wide overhanging eaves, often boxed
• Wood clapboard siding
• Simple window and door surrounds
• Partial or full-width porches
• Single-pane double-hung wood sash windows
• Incorporation of locally sourced materials
Sub-Theme: Folk Victorian
Example of the Folk Victorian style: 2056 Bel Aire Drive. 1641 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 171
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, as elaborate, architect-designed residences gained popularity among the wealthy, simpler housing types were also developing to accommodate middle- and workingclass residents. Folk Victorian refers to these modest wood-frame homes, which are characterized by the incorporation of Victorian-era decorative details, typically concentrated along on the porch and the roofline. Folk Victorian houses grew out of the earlier National Folk tradition. While National Folk dwellings were generally small, straightforward in form, and largely unadorned, the Folk Victorian variant retained these basic shapes but introduced more pronounced ornamentation. These decorative features, such as scrollwork, spindlework, and trim, were often mass-produced and widely accessible due to advances in mechanized woodworking and the expansion of railroad networks, which made distribution easier and more affordable. In many cases, existing National Folk houses were later enhanced with decorative elements drawn from styles such as Queen Anne or Eastlake.

Even with these additions, Folk Victorian homes remain identifiable by their smaller scale and simpler, often symmetrical forms. Their massing is typically shaped by intersecting, usually gabled rooflines, with a porch sheltering the main entrance. Folk Victorian buildings are notable for their restrained character and the absence of the more complex features seen in other styles. They are usually one- or two-story woodframe structures with rectangular or L-shaped plans. Common features include wood clapboard siding, gabled roofs with shallow boxed eaves, narrow double-hung windows, and a limited use of prefabricated decorative elements such as brackets, porch posts, and spindles. A related subtype, known as the “Shotgun," is organized in a linear sequence of rooms arranged from front to back, with each room opening directly into the next with no intervening corridors.

Character-defining features include:
• One or two stories in height
• Rectangular or L-shaped plans
• Wood clapboard siding, often with fish scale shingles at gable ends • Gabled roofs, typically with overhanging eaves, often boxed and shallow • Partial or full-width porches, with turned wood posts, spindlework, and modest decorative wood elements
• Double-hung windows, typically narrow

1642 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 172
Sub-Theme: Commercial Vernacular
Example of the Commercial Vernacular style: 1100-1112 North Pacific Avenue.

Although not a formally recognized architectural style, the term “commercial vernacular” describes simple, utilitarian commercial buildings with little ornamentation, commonly seen in American towns and cities from the late 19th to early 20th centuries. These buildings are typically made of brick and display minimal decorative detailing.

Character-defining features include:
• One or two stories
• Simple square or rectangular form
• Flat roof with a flat or stepped parapet
• Brick exterior wall surfaces, with face brick on the primary façade • First-story storefronts, typically with a continuous transom window above • Wood double-hung sash upper-story windows, often in pairs • Segmental arch window and door openings on side and rear elevations • Decorative detailing, if any, may include cornices, friezes, quoins, or stringcourses 1643 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 173
Theme: Arts and Crafts
The Arts and Crafts movement emerged in England as a reaction against the materialism brought about by the Industrial Revolution. Led by English designer William Morris, the movement focused on simplicity of form, direct response to site, informal character, and extensive use of natural materials. At the turn of the 20th century, the Arts and Crafts movement had made its way to North America and gained popularity through the efforts of Elbert Hubbard and Gustav Stickley, as well as other designers, architects, and builders who advocated the ideals set forth by Morris. The Arroyo Seco, a valley stretching from the San Gabriel Mountains above Pasadena through northeast Los Angeles, became a major center of the Arts and Crafts movement in the United States. Charles Fletcher Lummis and George Wharton James, along with artists and architects such as William Lees Judson, Frederick Roehrig, and Sumner Hunt, contributed to the development of the Arroyo Culture, the regional manifestation of the Arts and Crafts movement in Southern California.524
The Arts and Crafts movement was popularized throughout Southern California by Pasadena-based brothers Charles and Henry Greene, whose interest in Japanese wooden architecture, training in the manual arts, and knowledge of the English Arts and Crafts movement helped to develop regional Arts and Crafts styles. The styles were then applied to a range of residential property types, ranging from modest, low-slung bungalows to grander and more articulated multi-story houses. The term “bungalow,” derived from the name of typical native dwellings of the Bengal region of India, has come to define the type of house that is most closely associated with modest, everyday interpretations of the Arts and Crafts style.

In their earliest form, bungalows featured Indian characteristics such as central living spaces and vast, ventilating porches that had been adapted to suit colonial British tastes.525 By the beginning of the twentieth century, bungalows were deemed well suited for the California climate and soon became a prevailing typology. Promoted by architectural periodicals and made widely available by prefabricated “kits” of building components, bungalows proved to be both affordable and adaptable.

524 “Architecture and Engineering, Arts and Crafts Movement, 1895-1930,” Los Angeles Citywide Historic Context Statement, prepared for City of Los Angeles, Office of Historic Resources, June 2016, 1. 525 Clay Lancaster, “The American Bungalow,” The Art Bulletin, 40.3 (1958): 239. 1644 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 174
Sub-Theme: Shingle
Example of the Shingle style: 1600 Bel Aire Drive.

The Shingle style is an early style of the Arts and Crafts movement, reflecting some carryover from Victorian styles like Queen Anne and Eastlake/Stick. As its name suggests, it is characterized by the covering of all or nearly all of a building with wood shingles stained a single color, reflecting the natural aesthetic of Arts and Crafts. Shingle-style buildings are typically two stories in height, though smaller examples are sometimes found, and have asymmetrical facades, steeply pitched roofs, and large porches.

They often incorporate Craftsman-style elements like exposed rafter tails and wood brackets.

Character-defining features include:
• Asymmetrical facades and roof forms
• Complex cross-gables and front-facing gables
• Occasional use of gambrel roof
• Clad with stained shingles in natural tones
• Simple eaves
• Rough-hewn stone foundations and porch supports
• Rectangular, grouped, double-hung windows

1645 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 175
Sub-Theme: Craftsman
Example of the Craftsman style: 438 Burchett Street.

Craftsman architecture grew out of the late-19th century English Arts and Crafts movement as a reaction against the materialism brought about by the Industrial Revolution and the excesses of the Victorian era.

Led by English designer William Morris, the movement stressed simplicity of design, hand-craftsmanship, and the relationship of the building to the climate and landscape. Craftsman architecture developed in the first decade of the 20th century as an indigenous California version of the American Arts and Crafts movement, incorporating Southern California’s unique qualities. Constructed primarily of stained wood, with wide overhanging eaves, balconies, and terraces extending the living space outdoors, the style embodied the goals of the Arts and Crafts movement.

Arts and Crafts elements were applied to a range of residential property types, from modest, low-slung bungalows to grander and more articulated multi-story houses. The term “bungalow,” derived from the name of typical native dwellings of the Bengal region of India, has come to define the type of house that is most closely associated with modest, everyday interpretations of the Arts and Crafts style. The Craftsman bungalow dates from the early 1900s through the 1920s. Promoted by architectural periodicals and made widely available by prefabricated “kits” of building components, bungalows proved to be both affordable and adaptable.

Craftsman bungalows generally have rectangular or irregular plans, and are one to one-and-a-half stories tall. They have wood clapboard or shingle exteriors and a pronounced horizontal emphasis, with broad 1646 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 176
front porches, often composed with stone, clinker brick, or stuccoed porch piers. Other characterdefining features include low-pitched front-facing gable roofs, and overhanging eaves with exposed rafter tails. As opposed to smaller developer-built or prefabricated bungalows, two-story Craftsman houses were often commissioned for wealthy residents and designed specifically with the homeowner’s needs and the physical site in mind. They generally feature a low-pitched gable roof, wide overhanging eaves with exposed rafter tails, and windows grouped in horizontal bands. A high-style Craftsman house is distinguished by the quality of the materials and complexity of design and may feature elaborate, customdesigned woodwork, stained glass, and other fixtures.

By World War I, the Craftsman style declined in popularity and was replaced by Period Revival styles. The Craftsman bungalow continued to be built into the 1920s, but was often painted in lighter colors, stripped of its dark wood interiors, or blended with characteristics of various Revival styles.

Character-defining features include:
• One or two stories in height
• Horizontal massing that responds to the site
• Low-pitched gable roof with rolled or composition shingle roofing • Broad, overhanging eaves with exposed structural members such as rafter tails, outriggers, knee braces, and king posts
• Exterior walls clad in wood shingle, shake, or clapboard siding (occasionally stucco) • Projecting partial- or full-width, or wrap-around front porch with square or battered columns • Heavy porch piers, often of river stone or masonry
• Wood sash casement or double-hung windows, often situated in groups • Wide front doors, often with a beveled light
• Wide, plain window and door surrounds, often with extended lintels • Extensive use of natural materials (wood, brick, or river stone) for columns, chimneys, retaining walls, and landscape features
• Detached garage at rear of property

1647 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 177
Sub-theme: Prairie Style
Example of the Prairie style: 1616 Wabasso Way.

The Prairie Style is an indigenous American style developed in the late 19th century in Chicago, one of the centers of the American Arts and Crafts movement, by a group of architects known collectively as the Prairie School. The acknowledged master of the Prairie House was Frank Lloyd Wright, whose designs emphasized the horizontal with eaves extending well beyond the face of the exterior wall, bands of casement windows, and open floor plans accentuating the flow of space on the interior.

A West Coast version of the Prairie Style developed later and was slightly different from its Midwestern counterpart. Almost exclusively applied to domestic architecture, the Southern California Prairie Style house is defined by simple rectangular volumes and strong horizontal lines. It usually features exterior walls finished in cement plaster, flat or low-pitched roofs with wide boxed eaves sometimes punctuated by decorative brackets, and horizontal bands of windows. French doors frequently provide a flowing connection from living and dining room to outdoor patios and terraces. Unlike their Craftsman counterparts where porches play a key role in welcoming visitors, porches on many Prairie Style houses are reserved for the homeowner, surrounded by low walls with squat square piers and only accessible from the interior. Informal, inviting interior spaces with a clear view of, or direct connection to, the outdoors coupled with a spare use of ornamentation link these houses to the Craftsman idiom as well as the modern styles that would soon follow. The style is rare in Southern California; therefore, representative examples may be considered significant.
1648 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 178
Character-defining features include:
• One- or two-story rectangular volumes, sometimes with projecting wings • Pronounced horizontal emphasis
• Low-pitched hipped or flat roofs
• Wide boxed eaves, sometimes supported on decorative brackets • Smooth cement plaster wall finish
• Recessed or projecting entry porches with low walls and square piers • Wood tripartite windows or casement windows in horizontal groupings, sometimes with continuous sills; double-hung windows found on vernacular examples • Detached garage at rear of property
Theme: 20th Century Period Revivals
By the late 1910s, Period Revival architecture prevailed throughout Southern California. A range of styles associated with Europe and Colonial America inspired Period Revival architecture in the early twentieth century. These styles remained a popular choice for residential design through the late 1930s and early 1940s. By World War II, Period Revival architecture had largely given way to styles such as Minimal Traditional and Mid-Century Modern, which were more pared down and embraced more contemporary materials in lieu of references to the past.

Sub-Theme: Spanish Colonial Revival
Example of the Spanish Colonial Revival style: 1566 Grandview Avenue. 1649 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 179
The Spanish Colonial Revival style attained widespread popularity throughout Southern California following the 1915 Panama-California Exposition in San Diego, which was housed in a series of buildings designed by chief architect Bertram Grosvenor Goodhue in the late Baroque Churrigueresque style of Spain and Mexico. Goodhue had wished to go beyond the popular Mission architectural interpretations of the state’s colonial past and highlight the richness of Spanish precedents found throughout Latin America.

The Churrigueresque style, with areas of intricate ornamentation juxtaposed against plain stucco wall surfaces and accented with towers and domes, lent itself to monumental public edifices, churches, and exuberant commercial buildings and theaters, but was less suited to residential or smaller scale commercial architecture. The exposition prompted other designers to look directly to Spain for architectural inspiration. The Spanish Colonial Revival style was an attempt to create a “native” California architectural style that drew upon and romanticized the state’s colonial past. 526 Architects drew
inspiration from provincial Spain, particularly the arid southern region of Andalusia, where many young American architects were diverted while World War I prevented their traditional post-graduate “grand tour” of Great Britain, France, Italy, and Germany. The resulting style was based on infinitely creative combinations of stucco, tile, wood, and iron, featuring stucco-clad volumes arranged around patios, lowpitched tile roofs, and a sprawling, horizontal orientation. The style drew directly from Spanish and other Mediterranean precedents and bore little resemblance to the missions and rustic adobe ranch houses that comprised the state’s actual colonial-era buildings.

The popularity of the Spanish Colonial Revival style coincided with Southern California’s population boom of the 1920s and extended across nearly all property types, including a range of residential, commercial, and institutional buildings. The versatility of the style, allowing for builders and architects to construct buildings as simple or as lavish as money would permit, helped to further spread its popularity throughout the region. It shaped the region’s expansion for nearly two decades, reaching a high point in 1929 and tapering off through the 1930s as the Great Depression gradually took hold, with later versions simpler in form and ornamentation. Like other revival styles, the Spanish Colonial Revival style was often simplified, reduced to its signature elements, or creatively combined with design features of other Mediterranean regions such as Italy, southern France, and North Africa, resulting in a pan-Mediterranean mélange of eclectic variations (see Mediterranean Revival Style). It was sometimes combined, although much less frequently, with the emerging Art Deco and Moderne styles.

Character-defining features include:
• Complex, irregular plan and massing (often horizontal) with asymmetrical façades • Varied low-pitched gable or hipped roofs with clay barrel tiles • Coved, molded, or wood-bracketed eaves
• Stucco exterior walls forming wide, uninterrupted expanses • Round, pointed, or parabolic arched window and door openings • Single and paired multi-pane wood-sash casement or double-hung windows • Arcades or colonnades
• Towers or turrets
• Incorporation of patios, courtyards, loggias, or covered porches and/or balconies 526 McAlester and McAlester, A Field Guide to American Houses, 418. 1650 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 180
• Decorative grilles and vents of wood, wrought iron, or stucco • Decorative terra cotta or glazed ceramic tile work (sometimes polychromatic) • Details often include the use of secondary materials, including wrought iron, wood, cast stone, and terra cotta
• Detached garage at rear of property
Sub-Theme: Mediterranean Revival
Example of the Mediterranean Revival style: 1633 Virginia Avenue.

The Mediterranean Revival style is distinguished by its eclectic mix of architectural elements from several regions around the Mediterranean Sea, including Spain, Italy, southern France, and North Africa. Much of the American architecture of the late 19th and early 20th centuries can be broadly classified as ultimately Mediterranean in origin, including the Beaux Arts, Mission Revival, Spanish Colonial Revival, and Italian Renaissance Revival styles. By the 1920s, the lines between these individual styles were frequently blurred and their distinguishing characteristics blended by architects who drew inspiration from throughout the Mediterranean region. These imaginative combinations of details from varied architectural traditions resulted in the emergence of a distinct Mediterranean Revival style.

In contrast to the more academic and more literal interpretations such as the Andalusian influenced Spanish Colonial Revival style or the restrained, dignified Italian Renaissance Revival style, the broader Mediterranean Revival frequently incorporated elements of Italian and Spanish Renaissance, Provençal, Venetian Gothic, and Moorish architecture into otherwise Spanish Colonial Revival designs. The style 1651 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 181
became increasingly prevalent in Southern California during the 1920s, largely because of California’s identification with the region as having a similar climate, and the popularity of Mediterranean-inspired resorts along the Southern California coast. It is sometimes more formal and usually more elaborately composed and ornamented than the simpler, more rustic Spanish Colonial Revival style, and often more flamboyant than the sober Italian Renaissance Revival style. Typical features of the Mediterranean Revival style include formal massing with symmetrical façades, arched entrance doorways with richly detailed surrounds; arcades and loggias; stairways and terraces with cast stone balustrades; and Classical decorative elements in cast stone or stucco, including architraves, stringcourses, cornices, pilasters, columns, and quoins.

Character-defining features include:
• Frequently symmetrical façade
• Rectangular plan and two-story height
• Dominant first story, with grand entrances and larger fenestration than upper stories • Hipped roof with clay barrel tiles and wide boxed or bracketed eaves with carved brackets, or eave cornice
• Exterior walls veneered in smooth stucco
• Wood-sash casement windows, typically with divided lights; sometimes double-hung windows • Palladian windows or other accent windows
• Arched door or window openings
• Elaborate door surrounds
• Arcades, colonnades, or loggias
• Terraces and stairs with cast stone balustrades
• Eclectic combination of stylistic features from several countries of the Mediterranean, including cast stone or stucco decorative elements like architraves, stringcourses, cornices, pilasters, columns, and quoins
• Decorative grilles of wood, wrought iron, or stucco
• Balconies, patios, porches or towers
• Decorative terra cotta or glazed ceramic tile work
• Detached garage at rear of property

1652 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 182
Sub-Theme: Monterey Revival
Example of the Monterey Revival style: 1630 Bel Aire Drive.

The Monterey Revival style is based upon the distinctive style of residential architecture that developed in California beginning in the 1830s, as more and more Yankee merchants and settlers arrived in Alta California and adapted the Anglo building traditions of the East Coast to local Hispanic customs. As its name implies, the style developed in and around Monterey and combined vernacular adobe construction with elements of American Federal and Greek Revival architecture, including multi-light sliding sash windows, louvered shutters, paneled doors, and Classical details executed in wood. The style’s most distinguishing characteristic is a second-floor covered wood balcony, often cantilevered, extending the length of the primary façade and sometimes wrapping one or two sides as well. The best-known example of the style, and one of the earliest, is the Thomas Larkin adobe, constructed beginning in 1834 and one of the first two-story dwellings in Monterey.527
The style was revived beginning in the mid-1920s and was favored by architects and homeowners who perhaps found the fantastical Spanish and Mediterranean revivals too exotic and too different from the building traditions familiar to most Americans. The Monterey Revival style replaced adobe construction with wood framed walls veneered in smooth stucco and devoid of surface ornament, and featured second-story balconies, low-pitched gable or hipped roofs, and double-hung wood windows. 527 Monterey County Historical Society, “Monterey’s Larkin House Adobe and Garden,” accessed November 2025, https://mchsmuseum.com/local-history/historic-places/monterey-area-adobes-and-other-early-buildings/montereys-larkinhouse-adobe-and-garden/. 1653 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 183
Character-defining features include:
• Two-story height, typically with an asymmetrical façade • Rectangular or L-shaped plan
• Low-pitched hipped or side-gable roofs with wood shakes or clay tiles • Stucco exterior walls devoid of surface ornament
• Second-floor covered wood balcony, sometimes cantilevered, across primary façade and occasionally wrapping one or more sides, with simple wood posts and wood or metal railing • Wood-sash double-hung windows, typically with divided lights • Louvered or paneled wood shutters
• Recessed entrances with paneled wood doors
Sub-Theme: Tudor Revival
Example of the Tudor Revival style (Storybook sub-type): 2312 Blanchard Drive.

The Tudor Revival style is loosely based on a variety of late medieval English building traditions including Perpendicular Gothic, Tudor, Elizabethan, and Jacobean. It has its origins in the late 19th-century English Arts and Crafts movement, whose leaders drew inspiration in part from English domestic architecture of the 16th and 17th centuries because of its picturesque qualities and sympathetic relationship to the natural landscape. The earliest examples of the style appeared in the United States in large estates of the 1890s. Much like other Period Revival styles, Tudor Revival architecture became extremely popular during the 1920s population boom in Southern California. Masonry veneering techniques of the 1920s and ‘30s 1654 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 184
helped to further disseminate the style, as even modest houses could afford to mimic the brick and stone exteriors of traditional English designs.528
High style Tudor Revival houses are typically two and sometimes three stories in height with steeplypitched, multi-gable roofs; slate roof shingles are found in the finer examples, but wood shakes and composition shingles are also common. At least one front-facing gable is almost universally present as a dominant façade element. The buildings are usually rambling compositions of multiple volumes in a variety of sizes and shapes. Exterior walls are veneered in brick or stone, or feature decorative halftimbering, sometimes in elaborate patterns, with stucco between, which mimics the appearance of medieval construction techniques. Tall, narrow casement windows, often with leaded diamond-shaped lights, are frequently set in horizontal groupings or projecting bays. Main entrances are frequently set in crenellated turrets or under secondary gables with catslides, and feature paneled wood doors framed by four-centered pointed arches. Projecting exterior chimneys with multiple flues and elaborate brickwork are often located on the primary façade. The popularity of the Tudor Revival style waned during the Great Depression as less ornate building designs prevailed. Although the style continued to be used through the 1930s, later interpretations of Tudor Revival architecture were much simpler in terms of form and design.

Sub-types of the Tudor Revival style include the English Revival bungalow and the Storybook cottage. The English Revival bungalow, so called because of its simpler features, is usually veneered in stucco, with brick or stone used only at the chimney or around the primary entrance. Half-timbering, if used at all, is usually limited to the primary front-facing gable. The Storybook cottage is a more whimsical version of the Tudor Revival style, derived from the quaint medieval cottages of the Cotswold region of southwestern England. Storybook cottages typically feature very steeply-pitched roofs with composition shingles laid in irregular patterns and rolled eaves to suggest thatching, eyebrow dormers, and exterior walls veneered in a rough, irregular stucco finish. The Storybook style was particularly popular in Hollywood where motion picture set designers sometimes moonlighted as architects.

Character-defining features include:
• Asymmetrical façade and irregular massing
• Steeply-pitched multi-gabled roof with a prominent front-facing gable and slate, wood shake, or composition shingle roofing
• Rolled, pointed, and/or flared eaves, sometimes with exposed rafter tails • Brick or stucco exterior wall cladding, typically with half-timbering and decorative details in stone or brick
• Tall, narrow multi-pane windows, usually casement, often grouped horizontally or in bays; may have leaded diamond-shaped lights
• Entrance with arched openings, set in turret or under secondary gable • Prominent chimney with elaborate brickwork
• Detached garage at rear of property
528 McAlester and McAlester, A Field Guide to American Houses, 355. 1655 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 185
Sub-Theme: French Revival
Example of the French Revival style: 1400 North Central Avenue.

French Revival style architecture in Southern California often consists of two sub-types, Chateauesque and French Provincial. The Chateauesque style is loosely modeled on the 16th century chateaux of France’s Loire Valley and combines features of French Gothic and Renaissance architecture. The style gained popularity in the United States in the late 19th century and is most closely associated with Richard Morris Hunt, the first American architect to study at the École des Beaux-Arts in Paris. The style did not gain popularity in Southern California until the 1920s where it was more frequently used for luxury apartment buildings and only occasionally for large single-family residences. Chateauesque style buildings are typically vertically oriented with two or more stories in height and feature multiple, steeply-pitched hipped roofs with towers, corner turrets, spires, tall chimneys, and highly ornamented dormers. Exterior walls are usually veneered in stone, brick, or stucco, and are ornamented with classical pilasters, stringcourses, and cornices. Windows are typically divided light wood casements and are frequently paired or grouped with prominent mullions.

The more modest French Provincial style was popularized after World War I and is based upon country houses of the French provinces, including Normandy. Although it shares several basic features with the more elaborate Chateauesque style, the French Provincial style is much simpler in its composition and detailing. It is characterized by a prominent, steeply pitched hipped roof with flared eaves and a classical eave cornice; simple rectangular plan and massing; exterior walls veneered in smooth stucco; and divided light, wood sash casement or double-hung windows, usually with louvered wood shutters. Second floor windows sometimes break the cornice line with shallow dormers. The Norman variation usually features decorative half-timbering and a circular entrance tower with a conical roof. 1656 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 186
Character-defining features of the Chateauesque style include:
• Two or more stories in height
• Complex massing
• Multiple, steeply pitched hipped roofs
• Stone, brick, or stucco veneer at exterior walls
• Towers, turrets, spires; and highly ornamented dormers • Tall chimneys
• French doors
• Divided light wood casement windows, paired or grouped, with prominent mullions • Range of architectural detailing including classical pilasters, stringcourses, cornices, pediments, pilasters, and quoins
• Detached garage at rear of property
Character-defining features of the French Provincial style include:
• One or two stories in height
• Rectangular plan and simple massing
• Steeply pitched hipped roofs with flared eaves and eave cornice • Smooth stucco at exterior walls
• French doors
• Divided light, wood sash casement or double hung windows that sometimes break the cornice line
• Louvered wood shutters
• Decorative half-timbering and circular entrance tower with conical roof (Norman variation) • Detached garage at rear of property

1657 of 5188
City of Glendale | East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Report October 2, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 187
Sub-Theme: American Colonial Revival
Example of the American Colonial Revival style: 330 West Kenneth Road.

American Colonial Revival describes a varied style that combines a number of architectural features found throughout the American Colonies, particularly in New England. The style has neither the strict formality of the Federal and Georgian Revival styles nor the decorative embellishments of the Neoclassical, although it sometimes incorporates elements of both. The Dutch Colonial Revival subtype of American Colonial Revival subtype of American Colonial Revival is characterized by a gambrel roof, a traditional element of Dutch Colonial architecture. The U.S. Centennial Exposition of 1876 inspired a sense of patriotism in Americans and fostered an interest in the styles of the Colonial era. Early examples of a revival style in the late 19th century were rarely accurate reproductions, but were instead free interpretations with details inspired by colonial precedents, while later examples shifted to more historically correct proportions and details. The American Colonial Revival style was popular for grand homes in the early 20th century, and by the 1920s was being applied to more modest homes. The restoration of Colonial Williamsburg in the 1930s refueled interest in the style, and it remained popular into the post-World War II era. Local examples primarily date from the 1930s and early 1940s, and often are a simplified version of the style. By this point, it was often employed in the design of multi-family residential and small-scale commercial properties as well.

Glendale City CouncilOctober 20, 2026

Glendale City Council
October 20, 2026