Agenda packet — Glendale City Council, October 20, 2026 (part 23 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 Location:  Not for Publication  Unrestricted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): 2821 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# 2822 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. 2823 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. 2824 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
2827 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
2829 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. 2830 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. 2831 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). 2832 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.
2833 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
2834 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 2835 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 2836 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 2838 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, 95.2839 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
2842 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
2843 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
2844 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. 2847 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. 2848 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
2851 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
2852 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
2853 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
2854 of 5188

Page 9 of 9 ends

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Appeal Case No. PAPP-007054-2026 – Public Hearing on Appeal of Planning Commission’s Conditional Approval of Density Bonus Case No. PDBP-005269-2025 to construct a new 5-story, 87-unit multi-family residential development with 151 parking spaces for the property located at 3411–3427 Foothill Boulevard.

1. Motion to sustain Planning Commission’s decision to sustain the Planning Hearing Officer’s granting with conditions of Density Bonus Case No. PDBP-005269-2025 for 3411-3427 Foothill Boulevard;

2. Motion to continue the matter, directing the City Attorney to draft findings reversing the Planning Commission’s decision to sustain the Planning Hearing Officer’s granting with conditions of Density Bonus Case No. PDBP-005269-2025 for 3411- 3427 Foothill Boulevard.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Public Hearing
Approved for October 20, 2026 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Planning Hearing Officer originally approved this Density Bonus Case with conditions on March 25, 2026, for a project located at 3411–3427 Foothill Boulevard. The project proposes to demolish the existing automobile dealership building, a multi-tenant commercial building and associated surface parking lot and construct a new 5-story, 87- unit multi-family residential development with 151 parking spaces (“Project”). An appeal to this decision was filed and subsequently heard by the Planning Commission on June 3, 2026. The Planning Commission sustained the Planning Hearing Officer’s approval of this Project with conditions. The current appeal was filed as a result of the Planning Commission’s decision to sustain approval of the Project.

The appellant is requesting that the City Council reverse the Planning Commission’s decision approving the Project. The appellant contends that in rendering its decision to approve the Project with conditions, the Planning Commission violated specific provisions of law and exceeded its authority. The appellant also claims that Planning Commission failed to fulfill its mandatory duty, refused to hear or consider certain facts before rendering its decision and that the evidence before the board was insufficient or inadequate to support its decision. The appellant also alleges there is new evidence not previously presented, which it contends, if considered, should change the decision. 2856 of 5188
11b 2
26-90824

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council deny the appeal and sustain the Planning Commission's decision to approve Density Bonus Case No. PDBP-005269-2025. Under both State Density Bonus Law and the Housing Accountability Act, specific denial findings must be made, and it is staff’s opinion that an evidentiary basis to make such findings and deny the Project does not exist.

ANALYSIS

BACKGROUND
This hearing is an appeal of a decision made by the Planning Commission on June 3, 2026, to approve Density Bonus Case No. PDBP-005269-2025 with conditions to demolish the existing on-site automobile dealership building, a multi-tenant commercial building and associated surface parking lot and construct a new 5-story, 87-unit multifamily residential development (15.5% or 9 units reserved for very-low income households) comprised of 23 one-bedroom, 46 two-bedroom, and 18 three-bedroom units, and a total of 151 parking spaces. Plans for the Project are attached as Exhibit 2.

The subject 57,974 square-foot site is located on the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and New York Avenue in the CH (Commercial Hillside Zone).

The proposed Project was initially heard by the Planning Hearing Officer. As part of the density bonus housing plan application (Exhibit 4), which includes providing 9 affordable rental units reserved for very low-income households. Based on that level of affordability, the proposed Project is entitled to a 50% density bonus, the applicant requested three “concessions/incentives” and three “waivers.” The requested concessions/incentives are:

1. Exceeding the maximum lot coverage (61% lot coverage proposed; 50% maximum permitted).

2. Exceeding the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) (2.49 FAR proposed; 1.2 FAR maximum permitted).

3. Exceeding the maximum building height (5-stories/74 feet proposed; 3-stories/36 feet maximum permitted).

Under the State density bonus law (Government Code §65915), a concession or incentive is a reduction in site development standards or modification of zoning code requirements and includes the type requested by the applicant. A concession/incentive may not be denied without a written finding based on substantial evidence that (1) the concession/incentive will not result in identifiable cost reductions to provide affordable housing, (2) that the concession/incentive will have a specific, adverse impact on public health or on an historic resource or (3) that the incentive/concession will violate federal state law. The Project does not impact an historic resource. As discussed below, the Project and its incentives/concessions will not have a specific, adverse impact on public 2857 of 5188
11b 3
26-90824
health and safety and will not violate state or federal law. The concession/incentives result in cost reductions to provide the affordable units by allowing the applicant to recoup the cost of the affordable units by way of the additional density and the concessions necessary to build the additional units. There is no evidence – much less substantial evidence – that the concessions will not result in cost reductions to support the affordable units. For these reasons, the Planning Hearing Officer granted the concessions/incentives because there was no substantial evidence to support any of the three findings for denial.

The requested waivers are:

1. Allowing some of the proposed residential parking to be at- and above-grade, when all required off-street parking spaces are required to be provided in subterranean or semisubterranean garages.

2. Allowing residential units on the ground floor without approval of a conditional use permit.

3. Allowing the multi-family development without providing the required additional open space.

Under the State density bonus law, the City may not impose any development standard that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of the development at the density and with the incentives/concessions granted for the Project, and must grant waivers to any such development standard when requested by the applicant.

The Planning Hearing Officer granted the waivers as mandated by the State density bonus law and the Zoning Code. The Planning Hearing Officer’s decision to approve the project with conditions was appealed to the Planning Commission.

Further, to reverse the Planning Commission’s decision and deny the density bonus application, the City Council is also required by the Housing Accountability Act to make specific, written findings of denial supported by a preponderance of the evidence in the record. In order to deny the Project, the Council is required to provide evidentiary findings that one of the following narrow exceptions under the Housing Accountability Act (Gov.

Code § 65589.5(d)) exists:
• Public Health and Safety: That the project causes a significant, unavoidable "specific, adverse impact" on public health or safety, with no feasible mitigation based on objective, written health and safety standards in place when the application was deemed complete;
• Legal Compliance: That denial is mandatory to comply with state or federal laws; • Infrastructure Deficiencies: That the site lacks adequate water or sewer facilities or is located on land zoned for agriculture or resource preservation. • Overconcentration: That the project is not for low- or moderate-income households, and 2858 of 5188
11b 4
26-90824
the jurisdiction is already meeting its regional housing needs for that income level; or • Objective Standards Inconsistency: The project violates both zoning and general plan standards. The development is inconsistent with both the zoning and general plan for the site, which was not identified for such housing in a compliant housing element.

As discussed below, it is staff’s assessment that these findings cannot be made. In summary, the Project site is not located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ), in a dam inundation zone, or on a Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Site list for which a closure letter has not been issued. The Project complies with state and federal laws. The Project site has water and sewer facilities and is not located on land zoned for agriculture or resource preservation. The Project will contain nine residential units which will be affordable to very low-income households and the City has not met its regional housing needs for that income level. The Project is consistent with both the zoning and General Plan for the site.

GENERAL INFORMATION
Appellant: Crescenta Highlands Neighborhood Association Mary-Lynn Fisher
PO Box 8098 La Crescenta, CA 91224
Status of Appellants: Neighborhood association
Project Applicant: Khan Consulting
Rodney Khan
2033 Oak Valley Road
Glendale, CA 91208
Property Owner: Camellia Avenue LLC
c/o Jack Harootun
2147 Haven Drive
Glendale, CA 91208
Requested Action: The appellant is requesting that the City Council reverse the Planning Commission’s decision to approve Density Bonus Case No. PDBP-005269-2025.

Legal Description: Portion of Lot 1, Block K, Crescenta Canada Tract APN: 5602-007-020 and 5602-007-021
Zone: CH (Commercial Hillside)
Land Use Element: Community/Services
Circulation: Foothill Boulevard is classified as a major arterial and New York Avenue is 2859 of 5188
11b 5
26-90824
classified as a community collector in the City’s Circulation Element of the General Plan.

Lot Size and Frontage: The Project site is approximately 57,974 SF and has a frontage of approximately 405 feet along Foothill Boulevard and 170 feet along New York Avenue.

Surrounding Land Use/Zoning: The Project site is adjacent to New York Park in the SR (Special Recreation) zone to the north, residential and commercial (auto dealership) development in the R-2250 (Medium Density Residential) and CH (Commercial Hillside) zones to the east, commercial development (retail, auto service and gas station) in the CH zone to the south (across Foothill Boulevard) and commercial development (retail) in the CH zone to the west.

Utilities and Public Services: All municipal and private utilities are in place serving the neighborhood and other public services are currently provided in the vicinity.

Site Description: The Project site is an approximately 57,974 SF corner lot with frontage on Foothill Boulevard and New York Avenue. The site contains a cross-slope, sloping up from south to north and east to west. The site is developed with an auto dealership with a 1,647 square-foot building (built in 1963) at the street intersection, a 21,000 square-foot multi-tenant retail building (built in 1968) in the western portion of the site and a surface parking lot. The Project site is almost entirely paved.

RELEVANT PROJECT HISTORY
June 18, 2025 – Density Bonus Case No. PDBP-005269-2025 was submitted by the Project applicant, Khan Consulting, to demolish the existing commercial development (auto dealership and multi-tenant retail building and associated surface parking lot) and construct a 5-story, 87-unit multi-family residential development with 151 parking spaces.

March 18, 2026 – The Planning Hearing Officer held a public hearing on the density bonus application. March 25, 2026 – The Planning Hearing Officer approved with conditions Density Bonus Case No. PDBP-005269-2025.

April 9, 2026 – An appeal application was filed for the approval of Density Bonus Case No. PDBP-005269-2025.

June 3, 2026 – The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the density bonus application and sustained the Planning Hearing Officer’s approval of the Project with conditions. The Planning Commission appeal staff report is attached as Exhibit 9.

June 18, 2026 – An appeal application was filed for the Planning Commission’s sustained approval with conditions of Density Bonus Case No. PDBP-005269-2025.

SUMMARY OF PLANNING COMMISSION’S DISCUSSION OF CASE NO. PDBP005269-2025 ON JUNE 3, 2026 2860 of 5188
11b 6
26-90824
The Planning Commission was generally conflicted with regard to the Project, given the constraints due to the State’s density bonus law and the realization that the Project would be significantly larger than development currently located in the area, and discussion of the Project was limited.
• All Planning Commission members were present at the June 3, 2026, meeting. • Commission member Nazarian had questions/clarifications regarding the “Cortese List”, which are databases identifying locations of hazardous materials release sites and traffic generated by the proposed Project versus by the existing development.

Staff responded that the Project site was not on the Cortese List and that according to the traffic study, the proposed Project would generate less traffic than the existing conditions.
• Commission Member Chraghchian stated that of the five findings (refer to page 2 of the staff report) to deny a density bonus Project, he felt that Findings 2 – 5 were not applicable and that the Commission should focus its discussion on Finding 1, which states that the Project causes significant, unavoidable “specific impact” on public health and safety with no feasible mitigation. Chraghchian concluded that based on how the State law is written, it would be very difficult to deny the Project. • Commission Member Malekian was sympathetic to the concerns expressed by the public speakers (most of whom were in opposition to the Project). Malekian emphasized that his decision would be based on real facts and data. He stated that the Project is proposed in a commercial zone on a site that has already generated and created traffic. The Project is located at the end of New York Avenue, where traffic from the Project can then be distributed. Based on the information from the staff report, Malekian concluded that he would not be able to grant the appeal and would approve the Project.
• Commission Member Minassian reiterated the constraints placed by the State’s density bonus law and concurred with Mr. Malekian’s statements. • Commission Chair Fuentes agreed with statements made by her fellow Commission members. She summarized that the Project had been reviewed by City Departments and will not have an impact on public health and safety. • Staff received numerous letters from the public prior to the hearing and many members of the public spoke at the hearing in opposition to the Project. Several people spoke in favor. Those in favor of the Project cited the need for more affordable housing, that the existing uses were ugly, that urbanization was a good thing and would lead to a more walkable environment and greater property tax revenues. Those in opposition of the Project cited existing traffic and the amount the Project would create, that the concessions/incentives and waivers requested would result in development incompatible with the area, that there would be changes in neighborhood character, school overcrowding, fire zone/evacuation concerns, overtaxed 2861 of 5188
11b 7
26-90824
infrastructure and the lack of parking. Comment letters are attached as Exhibit 14. • Following review of the staff report and attachments, including the submitted comment letters, and having heard all testimony at the public hearing, Commission Member Nazarian made a motion to approve the Project with conditions. The motion was seconded by Commission Member Chraghchian. The motion is attached as Exhibit

10. SUMMARY OF THE APPELLANT’S BASIS FOR APPEAL AND STAFF RESPONSES The appellant contends that Planning Commission’s approval violated specific provisions of law, exceeded its authority, failed to fulfill their mandatory duty and refused to hear or consider certain facts before rendering a decision. Furthermore, the appellant believes that the evidence before the Planning Commission was insufficient or inadequate to support its decision. The appellant claims to have new evidence not previously presented, which if considered should change the approval decision. In conclusion, the appellant argues that they have identified three risks (hazardous waste site, increased wildfire evacuation risks and reservoir breach) to public health and safety, which would prohibit the City from approving the Project without an Environmental Impact Report.

Appellant’s claims must be evaluated in light of the requirements of the State density bonus law and the Housing Accountability Act with respect to legally permissible bases to deny such a project; As outlined above, it is staff’s assessment that the Planning Hearing Officer and the Planning Commission correctly approved the Density Bonus Case and that there is insufficient evidence to deny the requested concessions/incentives and waivers under the State density bonus law. It is also staff’s opinion that, based on the evidence in the record, the City cannot make any of the Housing Accountability Act’s specific findings required to deny the Project.
• The Project does not cause a significant, unavoidable “specific, adverse impact” on the public health or safety, with no feasible mitigation. The Project site is not located in a VHFHSZ, which is the objective, written standard used to determine a specific, adverse impact related to wildfire risk. Even if the site were located in a VHFJSZ, the City has adopted building codes, which mitigate the wildfire risk. • While the Project site is located on the list of LUST sites, which is a component of the Cortese List, the site has a 2014 closure letter (Exhibit 15), which stipulates that no further cleanup work is required related to site contamination. • The Project site is not located in a dam inundation zone (Exhibit 17 – 2025 Safety Element Update, Exhibits, Plate P-4), which is an objective, written standard used to determine a specific, adverse impact related to flooding risk. • The Project complies with state and federal laws and, therefore, it cannot be denied due to lack of compliance with these laws.
2862 of 5188
11b 8
26-90824
• The Project site is not located on land zoned for agriculture or resource preservation and, therefore, it cannot be denied for this reason. • The Project site is served by water and sewer facilities and the Public Works Department did not cite concerns related to the adequacy of these services and, therefore, the Project cannot be denied due to the lack of these facilities. • The Project will include nine residential units affordable to very low-income households. The City is currently not meeting its regional housing needs for this income level, and therefore, the Project cannot be denied due to overconcentration.
• The Project is consistent with the City’s zoning and General Plan and, therefore, the Project cannot be denied due to violations in zoning or general plan standards.

Below is a summary of the appellant’s statements under Part 4 of the appeal application, which identifies the four bases for appeal (Subsections 4a–4d) in Exhibit 3, along with staff’s responses to each statement.

Appellant’s Claims - Part 4A (Planning Commission Violated Specific Provisions of Law):

The appellant contends that the Planning Commission violated a specific provision of law because the finding that the Project does not present specific adverse threats to public health and safety is erroneous. The appellant cites examples that include that the site is identified as a hazardous waste site, increased wildfire evacuation risk and reservoir breach. The appellant states that the Commission relied on the staff report which stated that the site at 3411 Foothill Boulevard was not listed on the Cortese List, when expert opinion provided by the appellant stated the contrary. Further, the appellant contends the City’s Safety Element is inadequate because it does not directly identify streets used in an evacuation nor the impact that construction of the Project would have on Crescenta Highlands residents. The appellant contends the Planning Commission error in rejecting evidence of significantly longer evacuation times that the Project would create, and that New York Avenue was the only evacuation route for a certain subarea of the Crescenta Highlands neighborhood. Finally, the appellant believes the Planning Commission failed to recognize that New York Reservoir (under New York Park) immediately north of the Project site, constitutes an “unusual circumstances” exception to AB 130, which then allows more in depth CEQA review of the Project. The appellant believes that construction and occupancy of the Project could adversely affect reservoir integrity. The appellant contends that these examples provide evidence that the Project does, in fact, present specific adverse threats to public health and safety, which warrant further environmental review of the Project and are contrary to the AB 130 CEQA statutory exemption, requiring Project sites to satisfy SB 35’s site eligibility criteria for, among other things, hazardous waste sites, fire hazard zones, and flood areas.

Staff Response:
2863 of 5188
11b 9
26-90824
Hazardous Waste Site
The Project qualifies for the AB 130 CEQA statutory exemption, which includes an initial requirement that a Project site not be located on “a hazardous waste site that is listed pursuant to Section 65962.5 or a hazardous waste site designated by the Department of Toxic Substance Control pursuant to Section 25356 of the Health and Safety Code”, commonly referred to as being identified on the “Cortese List”. The environmental databases that make up the Cortese List are described on CalEPA’s website. This website states:

The provisions in Government Code Section 65962.5 are commonly referred to as the “Cortese List”. While Government Code Section 65962.5 makes reference to the preparation of a “list,” many changes have occurred related to web-based information access since 1992 and this information is now largely available on the websites of the responsible organizations. Those requesting a copy of the “Cortese List” are now referred directly to the appropriate information resources contained on the websites of the boards or department that are referenced in the statute.

The CALEPA’s Cortese List Data Resources webpage identifies the following specific databases that currently comprise the “Cortese List”:
• The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) List of Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites;
• The State Water Board (SWB) list of Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Sites;
• The SWB list of solid waste disposal sites with waste constituents above hazardous waste levels;
• The SWB list of Site Cleanup Program sites; and
• DTSC’s list of hazardous waste facilities subject to corrective action pursuant to Section 25187.5 of the Health and Safety Code.

The Project site is not currently identified on any databases administered by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) or on the State Water Resources Control Board’s (State Water Board) current lists of Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) sites, solid waste disposal sites, or Site Cleanup Program sites. More than a decade ago, the Project site was identified as a LUST site in connection with a former cleanup action associated with the removal of several underground storage tanks from a former Texaco gas station located on the site. The State Water Resources Control Board subsequently issued a Confirmation of Case Closure letter (Exhibit 15) dated April 16, 2014. This closure letter states that all required site investigations and corrective actions had been carried out and that “no further action related to the petroleum release(s) at the site is required.” The closure documentation (Exhibit 16) prepared for the Project site shows that the single previously identified concentration of petroleum hydrocarbons in the soil directly below the former tanks had been fully removed, and subsequent sampling did not result in any detections at the Project site. Because potential contaminants had a 2864 of 5188
11b 10
26-90824
“non-detect” status following the cleanup actions, the RWQCB determined that the Project site no longer posed human health or environmental risks.

AB 130 makes an exception for properties on the Cortese List that “received a uniform closure letter issued pursuant to [CA Health and Safety Code Section 25296.10(g)].” CA Gov’t Code § 65913.4(a)(6)(E)(i). Exhibit 15 to this report contains the uniform closure letter dated April 16, 2014 for 3411 Foothill (Case No. 912140052). Appellant’s “new evidence” (contained in Exhibit 3 to this report), which is a June 18, 2026 letter from the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Board specifically notes that 3411 Foothill (Case No. 912140052) is on the Cortese List but has received a closure letter. Moreover, staff investigation into the “Closure Packet” published on the Cortese List supporting the closure letter revealed that the site received a “low threat” closure/designation. Pursuant to the State Water Resources Control Board Low-Threat Underground Storage Tank Case Closure Policy (adopted under Resolution No. 2012-0016) if a site meets the policy's residential criteria, the closure letter is issued without a deed restriction, clearing the path for by-right residential or residential mixed-use redevelopment. Here, the subject site received such a closure letter. Therefore, the appellant’s claim that the Project site is ineligible for the AB 130 CEQA exemption is incorrect because past cleanup actions at the Project site as well as the issuance of a uniform closure letter comply with AB 130’s requirements for former LUST sites.

Further, pursuant to AB 130’s requirements, as well as additional conditions of approval proposed, before construction occurs at the Project site, a new Phase I environmental assessment must be performed. On April 1, 2026, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWB) was contacted by a member of the public regarding potential environmental concerns associated with the Project site. City staff subsequently met with representatives of the SWB’s Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board office to discuss the contaminants documented at the Project site. Following this meeting, the SWB issued a follow-up letter (Exhibit 22) to the City regarding the proposed Project and recommended conditions of approval should the City be inclined to approve the Project.

In summary, although contamination has been documented at the site, SWB indicated that it does not have current information or data regarding the extent of the contamination.

The Los Angeles Water Board recommended that the applicant conduct soil, soil vapor, and groundwater sampling and prepare a Soil Management Plan (SMP) for review and approval by the SWB prior to the issuance of any building or grading permits. To ensure that the potential environmental conditions identified by the SWB are appropriately evaluated and addressed, the recommended sampling and preparation and approval of an SMP will be incorporated as conditions of Project approval. Further, if any new or different environmental contamination issues are identified, the applicant must perform necessary cleanup actions to the satisfaction of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Increase Wildfire Evacuation Risk
The City Council adopted the 2025 Safety Element (Exhibit 17) in April 2025. Consistent 2865 of 5188
11b 11
26-90824
with requirements of AB 747 and as part of this document, Kittelson and Associates, a transportation engineering and planning consulting firm, prepared an evacuation analysis (2025 Safety Element, Appendix C). AB 747 (as well as SB 99) requires that agencies identify evacuation routes and their capacity, safety and viability under a range of emergency scenarios, identify key routes for community areas with only one access point and evaluate the resiliency of their transportation system. Prior to City Council adoption, the draft 2025 Safety Element document was reviewed by CALFire. Contrary to the appellant’s assertion, the 2025 Safety Element identified specific streets used in an evacuation in the text of the document. The north/south streets of New York Avenue, Dunsmore Avenue and Boston Avenue and the east/west streets of Markridge Drive and Santa Carlotta Street are identified in the area of the Project site as Emergency Response Routes. These routes are defined as designated public, paved through-ways that are considered potentially viable for evacuation (2025 Safety Element, Exhibits, Plate P-5).

The appellant states that major streets in Crescenta Highlands are described in the 2025 Safety Element as “overcapacity”. The appellant is correct in that there are certain segments of roadway in the neighborhood around the Project site that are identified as overcapacity in both the Base Year (2021) and Future Year (2025) evacuation analysis, however this characterization of major streets as “overcapacity” is an over-generalization because while some streets at certain segments may be at overcapacity, other segments of the same streets are not, including Foothill Boulevard, which is classified as an arterial street in the Mobility Element.

In the 2021 Base Year (2025 Safety Element, Figure 6), certain street segments in the vicinity of the Project site, including New York, Dunsmore and Pennsylvania Avenues (south of Foothill Boulevard) connecting to the 210 Freeway are at or exceeding roadway capacity. Foothill Boulevard is not identified as overcapacity within the Glendale City limits. Outside of the City, this street is considered overcapacity only in Tujunga and portions of Los Angeles County and La Canada. Additionally, traffic consultant, Jano Baghdanian and Associates (JBA), performed a vehicle miles travelled (VMT) screening assessment for the Project. The analysis was conducted in accordance with City of Glendale Transportation Analysis Guidelines and CEQA Analysis requirements. (Exhibit 8, pgs. 28-32). The traffic study concludes the Project is estimated to generate a negative 51 trips in the morning peak, negative 85 trips in the afternoon peak and negative 800 trips on a typical weekday, when compared to present development on the site. (See detailed analysis on pg.14 of Exhibit 9 (Planning Commission Staff Report)). Therefore, the existing near capacity issues identified will actually improve since the Project will result in fewer trips than existing uses.

Accordingly, though certain street segments in the vicinity of the Project site, including segments of Foothill Boulevard and New York Avenue, were shown to be nearing capacity and over capacity related to congestion locations in both the Base Year and Future Year, morning and afternoon peak, and daily trips for the Project are reduced when compared with the current development, resulting in fewer trips than existing uses, and an improvement of wildfire or other evacuation risk.
2866 of 5188
11b 12
26-90824
Moreover, despite the at- and overcapacity issues identified in the 2025 Safety Element, certain measures can be instituted to lessen evacuation congestion issues. The 2025 Safety Element includes a discussion on evacuation planning considerations, which describes evacuation projects and strategies that may be considered to improve the capacity and resilience of the City’s roadway network to support future evacuation events.

It is important to note that the capacity analysis and travel times are conservative and represent conditions without implementation of any evacuation strategies. These strategies include manual traffic control, contraflow lanes, left turn lane restrictions, which the City can deploy to increase roadway capacity.

Finally, the appellant states that New York Avenue is the only evacuation route for certain households living on that street and on six cul-de-sacs off this street as well as one block of El Caminito, without going north on Cloudsdale Avenue. By definition, houses located on cul-de-sacs only have one-way out until they intersect a cross street. There are a number of east/west streets that intersect New York Avenue, including Reta Street, Stevens Street, Alabama Street and Los Olivos Lane that are located south of the cul-desacs off of New York Avenue that could disperse traffic to other north/south streets in the event of an emergency. The Project site and surrounding area are not considered a single-access neighborhood (2025 Safety Element Update, Exhibits, Plate P-4). The closest single-access neighborhoods to the site are the Markridge neighborhood, approximately 1 mile north of the site and the Whiting Woods neighborhood, approximately ¾ mile southwest of the site. Accordingly, appellant’s assertion that the Project will cause a significant adverse impact that cannot be mitigated is not supported by the evidence.

Reservoir Breach Risk
Immediately abutting to the north of the Project site is New York Park, under which is the New York Reservoir. The appellant contends that the presence of this reservoir constitutes an “unusual circumstances” exception to AB 130. Under standard CEQA rules, an "unusual circumstances" exception dictates that even if a housing project technically qualifies for a categorical exemption, the project could be disqualified from using that categorical exemption by proving there is an usual circumstances exception to that exemption, such as something unique or "unusual" about the project’s size or location that might still cause environmental harm.

As mentioned above, AB 130 created a new statutory CEQA exemption for certain qualifying infill housing projects that meet certain criteria. Staff has determined that this Project qualifies for the AB 130 statutory CEQA exemption. Because the AB 130 CEQA exemption is statutory, it cannot be challenged or overturned using the “unusual circumstances” exception – which exception applies only the categorical CEQA exemptions . That being said, Condition No. 9 of the Density Bonus Housing Plan approval requires the applicant to comply with all Section/Department requirements (Exhibit 8), as specified in the Departmental memos, to the satisfaction of the City or Department Director, which includes Glendale Water and Power’s (GWP) August 29, 2025 interdepartmental memo. The GWP memo did not identify any concerns regarding 2867 of 5188
11b 13
26-90824
potential reservoir breaching risk, while also suggesting conditions that the Project undergo further review at the time of permitting to ensure that required clearances for the reservoir are met and the reservoir’s structural integrity is maintained.

Related to their concern regarding reservoir breach, the appellant cited a court case (Save Our Access v. City of San Diego (2025) 115 Cal.App.5th 388) involving challenges to San Diego County’s approval of an environmental impact report (EIR) for a ballot measure that would permit increased building heights. The court found that, when preparing an EIR authorizing increased building heights across a large area, potential cumulative geological risks associated with the construction of taller buildings must be fully analyzed, which the County failed to do.

Here, the proposed Project is eligible for the AB 130 CEQA exemption (due in part to its location outside of any designated fault zone) and is not required to prepare an EIR as there are no significant unmitigable impacts. Further, the Project is one site and does not contemplate building height increases over a large area. This means that no environmental analysis of geologic hazards or any other environmental issue is required.

Part 4B (Planning Commission exceeded its authority by virtue of any provisions of law)
As evidence that Planning Commission exceeded its authority, the appellant contends the Commission failed to consider substantial evidence and address specific adverse threats, including risks in the event of wildfire, earthquake, reservoir breach or soil and water contamination, to public health and safety, and made no findings regarding risks to the neighborhood that the Project poses.

Staff Response:

AB 130 was a budget trailer bill, which took effect in June 2025, and created a new statutory CEQA exemption for certain qualifying infill housing projects that meet certain criteria. The proposed Project is statutorily exempt from CEQA under AB 130, as analyzed in Exhibit 6. However, the appellant contends that the Project presents “specific adverse threats” to public health and safety and, therefore, does not qualify for this exemption because it does not satisfy SB 35’s site eligibility criteria, where there are specified restrictions for sites located on hazardous waste sites and fire hazard zones, in addition to other designated areas.

As defined by Government Code Section 65915(d)(2), which is part of the Housing Accountability Act (HAA; Government Code Section 65589.5), “Specific, adverse impact” is defined as “a significant, quantifiable, direct and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete”. The HAA further defines “objective” as “involving no personal or subjective judgement by a public official and being uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public 2868 of 5188
11b 14
26-90824
official.” (Government Code Section 65589.5(h)(9).) The HAA provides further limitations on the existence of a “specific, adverse impact” in that it must be demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence.

The Project will have no specific adverse threat to public health or safety, as defined in the Density Bonus Housing Law, Government Code Section 65915(d)(1)(B), because the Project site is not located in any identified Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) (2025 Safety Element Update, Exhibits, Plate P-2), in an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone (2025 Safety Element Update, Exhibits, Plate P-1), in a Fault Hazard Management Zone (2025 Safety Element Update, Exhibits, Plate P-2), in a Landslide Hazard Zone (2025 Safety Element Update, Exhibits, Plate P-2), or in a Liquefaction Hazard Zone (2025 Safety Element Update, Exhibits, Plate P-2).

As stated above, the proposed Project is eligible for the AB 130 CEQA exemption, which means that no further environmental analysis of environmental issues is required or permitted beyond that already done to establish eligibility for AB 130. The appellant contends that the New York reservoir is an “unusual circumstance” which requires the Project to undergo additional environmental review. AB 130 added a statutory CEQA exemption. Under California environmental law, statutory exemptions, cannot be legally challenged or overturned based on the "unusual circumstances" exception to a categorical exemption.

As discussed above in “Staff Response” to Appeal Argument “Part 4A”, the Project site is not listed on any of the databases that make up the “Cortese List” with the exception of SWB’s past list of LUST sites. AB 130 includes a “safe harbor” provision regarding “Cortese List” sites. This provision states that a site remains eligible for an AB 130 exemption if it received a uniform closure letter issued pursuant to the Health and Safety Code based on closure criteria established by the State WRCB. On April 14, 2014, SWB’s Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board issued a uniform closure letter for the Project site. A Phase 1 report was also completed in May, 2017.

Part 4C (Planning Commission failed to fulfill a mandatory duty by any provision of law)
The appellant believes that the Planning Commission failed to fulfill a mandatory duty by not considering substantial evidence presented by the appellant and community members and by not containing references to such evidence or explanation as to why this evidence was inadequate or not considered in the decision letter for the Project.

Staff Response:

State law provides a definition of “substantial evidence”. As set forth by CEQA Guidelines Section 15384, “substantial evidence” includes facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts. Substantial evidence does not include argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, or evidence clearly erroneous or inaccurate. A housing development project’s density bonus request, as well 2869 of 5188
11b 15
26-90824
as the project itself, may only be denied if a preponderance of the evidence in the record shows the existence of a “specific, adverse impact” (defined earlier in this staff report) to public health or safety and that denial of the project is required to avoid such an impact.

The evidence offered by the appellant regarding the project site’s listing on the “Cortese List” is not substantial evidence of the project’s ineligibility for the AB 130 exemption because the project site has received a uniform closure letter for this “Cortese List” case, and, as authorized by AB 130, remains eligible for the CEQA exemption.

The appellant also claims substantial evidence supports a specific, adverse impact finding regarding increased wildfire evacuation and reservoir breach risks. Evidence offered at the Planning Commission public hearing does not meet the substantial evidence standard because the evidence does not constitute facts or expert opinions based on facts, and the evidence is contradicted by the City’s analysis in the 2025 Safety Element Update.

With regard to wildfire evacuation risk, while the appellant offered alternative modeling (Exhibit 20) of traffic patterns during a hypothetical wildfire event, data sources and methodological assumptions supporting this were not given. In contrast, the City’s adopted 2025 Safety Element Update and accompanying Emergency Plan was prepared by expert consultants with extensive evacuation planning experience and includes detailed explanations of the methodologies used.

The appellant cites a court case (Center for Biological Diversity v. County of Los Angeles (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th317), which case the appellant claims supports their contention that additional wildfire risk analysis was required for the project. The court case involved a challenge to Los Angeles County’s approval of an EIR for the Centennial Project in Tejon Ranch. The court found that, when preparing an EIR for a project located within a VHFHSZ, both on- and off-site wildfire risks must be fully analyzed, which the County did not do. However, here the Project site is not located within a VHFHSZ and an EIR is not required to be prepared because the Project qualifies for an AB 130 CEQA exemption, which means that no environmental additional analysis of wildfire risk or any other environmental issue is required.

Part 4D (Planning Commission refused to hear or consider certain facts before rendering its decision)
The appellant claims the Project would pose a threat to residents north of New York Avenue in the event of a wildfire and south of New York Avenue in the event of a reservoir breach, and claims the Planning Commission refused to hear or consider these claims prior to rendering its decision. Additionally, the appellant alleges the Planning Commission failed to consider compelling public testimony regarding these claims.

Staff Response:

AB 130 creates a CEQA statutory exemption for certain qualifying infill projects that meet a specified criteria (Exhibit 6). One of the criteria, that project sites must satisfy SB 35’s site eligibility requirements, excludes farmland, wetlands and conservation/species 2870 of 5188
11b 16
26-90824
habitat areas from sites eligible for the exemption. The Project site is not located in any of these designated areas. Sites located in fire hazard zones and flood areas (and in other areas, including coastal sites, hazardous waste sites, and earthquake fault zones) are subject to specified restrictions. The Project site is not located in a VHFHSZ or in an earthquake fault zone, and, therefore, further environmental review of these issues is not required.

As discussed in detail above, the Project site is on a prior SWB’s list of LUST sites. A uniform closure letter was issued for the site, therefore the Project is eligible for the AB 130 CEQA exemption. Similarly, AB 130 does not require analysis of flooding due to a possible breach of the New York Reservoir because the Project site is not located in a dam inundation zone (2025 Safety Element Update, Exhibits, Plate P-2). New York Reservoir is not large enough to trigger the state’s requirement to prepare inundation maps for this facility. During the public hearing on the Planning Commission appeal, a local firefighter spoke of his experience fighting the Palisades fire. While this testimony may have been compelling, it was not “objective” or “substantial evidence” as defined by State law pertaining to wildfire risk at the Project site.

Part 4E (The evidence before the Planning Commission was insufficient or inadequate to support its determination)
The appellant argues that the Planning Commission failed to note omissions/failures in the staff report and applicant’s presentation to adequately address hazardous waste, wildfire evacuation and reservoir breach risks posed by the Project.

Staff Response:

Concerns regarding hazardous waste, wildfire evacuation and reservoir breach risks have been extensively discussed above in this report. Regarding hazardous waste, the Project site is not found on any of the lists which make up the “Cortese List”, with the exception of the SWB past list of LUST sites. The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board issued a uniform closure letter for the Project site in 2014, which stated that all required site investigations and corrective actions had been carried out and that “no further action related to the petroleum release(s) as the site is required.” Further, a Phase I environmental site assessment was completed in May, 2017. If any recognized environmental conditions (REC) are identified, a “preliminary endangerment assessment” is required. This assessment requires the potential for exposure to significant hazards from nearby properties to be identified and requires mitigation to current Federal and State statutory and regulatory standard levels prior to issuance of project certificate of occupancy.

As part of the City’s 2025 Safety Element Update, an evacuation analysis (Appendix C) was prepared, consistent with requirements outlined in AB 747 and SB 99, which, among other things, requires agencies to identify evacuation routes and evaluate their capacity, safety and viability. As already stated above, evacuation routes in the Project site area include the north/south New York, Dunsmore and Boston Avenues and the east/west 2871 of 5188
11b 17
26-90824
Markridge Drive and Santa Carlotta Street. Evacuation times would increase between 70 and 121 minutes depending on base year vs. future year and evacuation destinations.

Although the evacuation analysis identifies increased travel times under conservative, nostrategy conditions, the City has identified and is required to implement traffic management and emergency response strategies to increase roadway capacity and evacuation efficiency during an emergency by the Safety Element’s Policy 9.5. The required implementation of such strategies are specifically designed to increase evacuation capacity, safety and viability beyond no-strategy conditions and consequently an evacuation using identified routes is considered adequate. Moreover, as discussed above, the Project would result in net decrease in trips compared to the current use, thus improving traffic as well as evacuation risks.

With respect to appellant’s concerns for a potential reservoir breach, neither the Project site, nor areas south of the site, are located within a dam inundation zone – the State does not require preparation of a dam inundation zone map for a reservoir of this size. As required by a condition of approval, the Project will be required to provide geotechnical and structural reports demonstrating compliance with applicable building codes.

Part 4F (The appellant has new evidence of material facts not previously presented, which if considered should change the determination)
The appellant has submitted a letter from the Los Angeles RWQCB which asserts that the site at 3411 Foothill Boulevard (current location of the auto dealership) is on the “Cortese List” (Exhibit 19), which evidence was not previously presented.

Staff Response:

As discussed previously in this report, the Project site is listed on a past SWB list of LUST sites, in connection with a cleanup action associated with the removal of underground storage tanks at a former Texaco gas station. The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board issued a uniform closure letter for the site in April, 2014, indicating that the Project site no longer posed human health or environmental risks. Given this closure letter, the Project site remains eligible for the AB 130 CEQA exemption.

SUMMARY
Based on the analysis of the appeal and the reasoning above, staff recommends that the City Council sustain the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the Project with the originally-imposed conditions.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
The Code requires public notice when the Council considers approval of entitlements such as density bonus projects. Staff has published all required notices and has mailed copies of the notice to all property owners and occupants within 500 feet of the Project.

A public notice has also been posted on-site.
2872 of 5188
11b 18
26-90824

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
AB 130 added Public Resources Code Section 21080.66 creating a new statutory California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemption for certain qualifying infill housing projects that meet following criteria:
• Project site is no more than 20 acres.
• Project site is within the boundaries of an incorporated municipality, or "urban area" as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau.
• Project site was previously developed with "urban uses" or is substantially surrounded by sites developed with urban uses.
• Project is consistent with local zoning standards, applicable general plan standards and any applicable local coastal program, subject to deviations allowed by the State Density Bonus Law.
• Project must be at least half the density deemed appropriate to accommodate lower-income households in the State Housing Element Law, as set forth in California Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(3)(B).
• Project will not require demolition of a historic structure that was placed on a historic register before the project's preliminary application was submitted. • For projects submitted after Jan. 1, 2025, no portion of the project will be used as a hotel, motel, or bed and breakfast.
• All project sites must satisfy SB 35's site eligibility criteria (farmland, wetlands and conservation/species habitat areas are excluded, and coastal sites, fire hazard zones, hazardous waste sites, earthquake fault zones and flood areas are subject to specified restrictions).

The applicant submitted an AB 130 checklist. Staff has reviewed the Project and the submitted checklist and concurs that the Project meets the criteria and is statutorily exempt from CEQA review per Public Resources Code Section 21080.66 (Exhibit 6).

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
The names and business addresses of the members of the board of directors, the chairperson, CEO, COO, CFO, Subcontractors and any person or entity with more than 10% interest in the company proposed for contract in this Agenda Item Report are attached in Exhibit 21 in accordance with the City Campaign Finance Ordinance No. 5744.

ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Since it is staff’s determination that denial of this Project would be inconsistent with the Housing Accountability Act and the State Density Bonus Law, staff is not presenting any 2873 of 5188
11b 19
26-90824
alternative to its recommendation to deny the appeal and sustain the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the Project.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Rachel Dimond, Director of Community Development
Prepared by:

Roger Kiesel, Senior Planner
Approved by:

Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1: Location Map
Exhibit 2: Project Plans
Exhibit 3: June 3, 2026 Appeal Application
Exhibit 4: Density Bonus Housing Plan
Exhibit 5: Photos
Exhibit 6: CEQA Exemption
Exhibit 7: Tribal Mitigation Measures
Exhibit 8: Interdepartmental Comments
Exhibit 9: Planning Commission Appeal Staff Report
Exhibit 10: Planning Commission Motion
Exhibit 11: Planning Hearing Officer Staff Report
Exhibit 12: Planning Hearing Officer Decision Letter
Exhibit 13: April 4,2026 Appeal Application
Exhibit 14: Comment Letters to Planning Commission
Exhibit 15: Uniform Closure Letter
Exhibit 16: Underground Storage Tank Low Risk Case Review Form Exhibit 17: 2025 Updated Safety Element
Exhibit 18: City of Glendale Emergency Plan
Exhibit 19: Regional Water Quality Control Board Letter to Appellant Exhibit 20: Appellant Evacuation Study
Exhibit 21: Campaign Financial Disclosure Form
Exhibit 22: State Water Board Request Letter
Exhibit 23: Phase 1 Report
2874 of 5188
MOTION
Moved by Council Member _____________________________, seconded by Council Member _________________________, that upon review and consideration of all documents, materials, exhibits and testimony relative to Appeal Case No. PAPP007054-2026, the appeal of the Planning Commission approval with conditions of Density Bonus Case No. PDBP-005269-2025 located at 3411–3427 Foothill Boulevard, and after having conducted a public hearing on the appeal on October 20, 2026, pursuant to the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995 (“GMC”), and receiving testimony, the City Council of the City of Glendale, California, based upon all of the evidence in the record, hereby denies the appeal and SUSTAINS the Planning Commission’s decision on appeal to APPROVE Density Bonus Case No. PDBP-005269-2025 based on the findings and conclusions set forth in the June 3, 2026 Planning Commission decision letter and corresponding motion (“June 3 PC Decision”), and the October 20, 2026, report to Council from the Director of Community Development, including any attachments thereto. The City Council hereby incorporates herein by reference all of the findings and conclusions in the June 3 PC Decision, as well as all conditions of approval contained therein, and as follows:

FINDINGS
In approving the Density Bonus case, the Council hereby makes the following findings:

Incentives/Concessions:

1. The incentive or concession does not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs or to provide affordable rents.

The applicant is requesting concessions from maximum lot coverage standards (61% requested vs. 50% maximum permitted), FAR standards (2.49 FAR requested vs. 1.2 maximum permitted) and building height standards (5 stories/74 feet requested vs. 3 stories/36 feet maximum permitted). These requests will reduce costs for the applicant for providing affordable units by enabling a greater number of residential units to be built on the site, which will in turn create construction efficiencies and reduce land costs per residential unit. The additional units constructed will result in identifiable and actual cost reductions because the building of these units will take advantage of 2875 of 5188 2 construction efficiencies. Additionally, once completed and leased, the units will generate rental income to offset the cost of providing the 9 units at a rental rate affordable to very low-income households. If the Project were to comply with the Zoning Code regulations associated with lot coverage, FAR and building height, the volume (footprint and height) of the Project would be significantly reduced and would subsequently affect the viability of the Project to include affordable residential units. With the requested concessions, the owner/applicant will realize cost reductions that will allow it to provide 9 units at an affordable rent to very low-income households. Additionally, the requested concessions will allow the construction of a greater number of larger 2- and 3- bedroom market rate and affordable units, which are in high demand in the La Crescenta area.

Thus, based on the evidence identified above, the incentives/concessions shall be granted, as they will facilitate the project’s ability to provide affordable rents.

As used herein, “specific adverse impact upon public health or safety” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. Inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or the land use designation in the general plan shall not constitute a specific, adverse impact upon public health or safety.

The applicant is seeking approval of three concessions for lot coverage, FAR and building height, pursuant to Government Code Section 65915, et seq. and GMC Chapter 30.36 (Density Bonus Incentives), discussed above, in exchange for providing 9 rental units affordable to very low-income households. This denial finding cannot be made as there is no evidence that these incentives will have specific adverse impacts. To the contrary, no specific adverse impacts upon public health or safety or on the physical environment or on any real property listed in the California Register of Historical Resources would occur by granting the requested concessions for increased lot coverage, floor area and height.

While the site was identified as a State Water Board (SWB) list of Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Sites (part of the database used to compile the Cortese List), the SWB issued a Confirmation of Case Closure letter in April, 2014.

In connection with this site, City staff met with representatives of the SWB’s Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board who recommended conditions of approval that have been incorporated into project approval. Further, a Phase I environmental assessment was performed in 2017 and found no contamination. 2876 of 5188 3 Project site listing on the Cortese List would not have prevented the use of AB 130 statutory exemption, rather it would have required site cleanup prior to commencement of project construction.

The subject site is not located in any identified Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, in an Alquist-Prioto Fault Zone, in a Fault Hazard Management Zone, in a Landslide Hazard Zone or in a Liquifaction Hazard Zone.

As part of the 2025 Safety Element Update, Kittelson and Associates, a transportation engineering and planning consulting firm, prepared an evacuation analysis. This analysis identified certain street segments in the vicinity of the project site as at or exceeding roadway capacity in both the base year (2021) and future year (2040). However, the 2025 Update identifies traffic management strategies to increase evacuation capacity and efficiency. As opposed to the consulting firm cited in the 2025 Update, the appellant submitted evacuation modeling from Tim Tierney, who has a master’s degree in geology and is experienced with software for spatial analysis. Mr. Tierney’s modeling used the Lighthill-Whitham-Richards (LWR) model, which is a macroscopic traffic flow model that uses partial differential equation to describe traffic density over time and treats traffic as a continuous fluid rather than tracking individual vehicles and was executed through Google-AI.

AB 130 is a statutory exemption rather than a categorical exemption. Under California environmental law, statutory exemptions cannot be legally challenged or overturned and, therefore, New York Reservoir, immediately north of the project site cannot be an “unusual circumstance” used to require additional environmental review.

The Project site is not listed on the National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources, or Glendale Register of Historic Resources, and has not been identified as a historic resource in any survey. Accordingly, this denial finding cannot be met.

The requested concessions do not include or necessitate reductions in standards to the California Building Code with City of Glendale amendments, (Community Development Department), Fire Department or Engineering Division (Public Works Department) requirements or other objective, identifiable written requirements pertaining to health and safety. The proposed Project is statutorily exempt from further CEQA review because it meets the requirements for certain qualifying infill housing projects that meet certain criteria (reference Environmental Determination above) by Public Resources Code Section 21080.66 added by state budget trailer bills AB 130 and AB 131.

The additional residential density will, in fact, promote the City’s health and safety since there will be more housing opportunities for low-income households. The Project will advance the goals and policies of the General Plan, Housing Element (2021-2029), including, but not limited to, Goal 1 (“A City with a Wide Range of Housing Types to Meet the Needs of Current and Future Residents”), Goal 3 (“A 2877 of 5188 4 City with Increased Opportunities for Affordable and Special Needs Housing Development”) and Policies 3.1 and 3.2 “Encourage both the private and public sectors to produce or assist in the production of affordable housing for special needs groups such as: persons with disabilities, the elderly, large families, singleparent households, and formerly homeless” and “Promote the development of extremely low, very low, low and moderate income housing by allowing developers density bonuses or other financial incentives for providing units for low and moderate income residents. The unit mix and location of affordable housing units in density bonus projects must be approved by the City and included in an affordable housing agreement.”

3. The incentive or concession will be contrary to state or federal law. The granting of an incentive or concession shall not require or be interpreted, in and of itself, to require a general plan amendment, zoning change, study, or other discretionary approval. For purposes of this subdivision, “study” does not include reasonable documentation to establish eligibility for the concession or incentive or to demonstrate that the incentive or concession meets the definition.

The requested concessions for lot coverage, FAR and building height will not be contrary to state or federal law. No discretionary entitlements other than Design Review Board review and approval for the design of the project is required. The Project is designed to comply with the California Building Code with City of Glendale amendments. The proposed multi-family residential development will be consistent with the City’s General Plan. The Project meets the goals and policies in the Housing Element to provide affordable housing. There is no evidence of state or federal laws being violated. Accordingly, this denial finding cannot be met.

Since there is no substantial evidence to support any of the three findings for denial, the Director of Community Development must grant, and does hereby grant, the requested concessions.

Waivers:

1. The application of said development standard(s) will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of the housing development at the density and with the incentives or concessions granted pursuant to this chapter.

The application of the development standards requested to be waived, including providing all residential parking in subterranean and semi-subterranean levels, allowing residential units on the ground floor and providing additional open space will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of the housing development at the density and with the incentives or concessions granted pursuant to GMC Chapter 30.36.
2878 of 5188
5 The City’s Zoning Ordinance requires off-street parking spaces for residential units to be provided in subterranean or semi-subterranean garages where there is more than one dwelling unit for each 2,500 SF of lot area or when there are more than four dwelling units in one building on a lot. The project proposes one dwelling unit for each 666 SF of lot area and 87 units in the building. The 1.3 acre site contains a cross slope, sloping up both from east to west and from south to north. While requiring the project to provide all parking to be either subterranean or semisubterranean would not literally preclude the construction of dwelling units at the density and with the incentives or concessions granted, it would effectively preclude their development. Certain dwelling units in the northern and western portions of the Project would be constructed below the adjacent ground level, inhibiting their light, air and ventilation and rendering them not desirable or viable in which to reside.

Table 30.12-A of the GMC requires the ground floor level of multi-family residential developments in the CH (Commercial Hillside) zone to be occupied with permitted commercial uses. The applicant is requesting a waiver to provide ground floor dwelling units (approximately 12 units) in lieu of ground floor commercial uses. To provide the ground floor commercial and recover the dwelling units currently located on that level somewhere else on the Project Site, the applicant would need to construct a taller building, which would also significantly increase the cost of constructing the project. Allowing residential units on the ground floor would maximize the Project’s density without further increasing the mass and scale of the overall project.

The CH (Commercial Hillside) zone permits ground level residential uses with approval of a conditional use permit. It could be possible to replace the ground floor commercial with dwelling units through this process. However, if the conditional use permit were not granted, units could not be located at the ground floor, resulting in either fewer affordable units or the need for additional floors on the Project.

The City’s Zoning Ordinance requires that projects on lots with a minimum width of 90 feet and with density exceeding the maximum density permitted by code for lots with less than 90 feet in width, that additional open space be provided equal to 900 SF plus an additional 20 SF for each additional foot of lot width over 90 feet. The Project is required to provide 1,607 SF (900 SF + (170.34 ft. (width of lot) – 90 feet x 20 SF)) of additional open space. If the Project were required to provide this additional open space, it would further restrict where the building footprint could be located on the lot and physically prevent construction of the housing development at the density and with the incentives or concessions granted. This additional open space must be located within 50% of the lot depth/width nearest the street-front or street-side property line, visible from the public street and be integrated with the landscaping of the contiguous setback area and open to the sky. These criteria limit the additional open space to ground-level areas and, as a result, this requirement further constrains the footprint of the building, which, in turn, reduces the area available for residential units. It also limits the ability to design vertically, as extending the building upward without encroaching into the additional open 2879 of 5188 6 space would necessitate a smaller building footprint. The constrained footprint means fewer units can be built at all levels of the building.

2. The waiver or reduction in development standards will not have a specific, adverse impact, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of California Government Code Section 65589.5, upon health, safety, or the physical environment, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact; The waivers for parking location, ground floor residential units and additional open space do not include or necessitate reductions in standards to any state or local Building and Safety Division (Community Development Department), Fire Department or Engineering Division (Public Works Department) requirements or any other objective, identifiable written requirements pertaining to health and safety.

The Project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21080.66.(a) for a housing development project as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 65905.5 of the Government Code, and the Project is subject to the requirements of AB 130 [PRC Section 21080.66. (b) (1) (A)]. The Project meets each standard/criteria for PRC § 21080.66 in-fill statutory exemption, as outlined below:
• Housing Development Project: The Project is a multi-family development, which is devoted entirely to residential use and qualifies as a “housing development project” under the statute.
• Urban Location and Site Size: The Project site is less than 20 acres in size and located in the City of Glendale, which is designated as an urban area by the U.S. Census Bureau.
• Previously Developed Site: The Project site was previously developed with an auto dealership and a commercial center containing retail and restaurant uses, which are considered urban uses.
• Consistency with Objective Plans and Standards: The Project complies with the Glendale General Plan and the City’s Zoning Ordinance, except where deviations are allowed through concessions/incentives and waivers pursuant to the Density Bonus Law.
• Minimum Density Requirement: The Project will meet the minimum density requirement of at least 50% of the default density (44 units per acre), which equals 22 units per acre. The Project proposes a density of 65 units per acre, well above the minimum.
2880 of 5188
7 • Exclusion from Sensitive Environmental Areas: The Project site is not located within any of the following areas:
o Coastal Zone
o Wetlands, as defined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service o Prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, or land zoned/designated for agricultural production
o Sites included on the Cortese List or otherwise identified as hazardous waste sites by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) o Delineated earthquake fault zones
o Special flood hazard areas
o Regulatory floodways as designated by FEMA
o Areas identified for conservation in an adopted natural resource protection plan
• No Sensitive Habitat: The site does not contain habitat for species that are identified as candidate, sensitive, or special status by federal or state wildlife agencies.
• No Conservation Easement: The site is not subject to a conservation easement.
• No Designated Historic Resources: The site does not contain any historic resources listed on the national, state, or local historic registers.

The Project setbacks comply with the Zoning Code to provide light, air and ventilation for adjacent buildings and uses, including New York Park to the north, commercial buildings to the east, west and south and residential buildings to the east and west of the subject site. The requested waivers allow for additional buildable area on the site, which will then accommodate additional dwelling units.

The additional density will promote the City’s health and safety in that there will be greater housing opportunities for very low-income households. The Project will advance the goals and policies of the General Plan, Housing Element (2021- 2029), including, but not limited to, Goal 1 (“A City with a Wide Range of Housing Types to Meet the Needs of Current and Future Residents”), Goal 3 (“A City with Increased Opportunities for Affordable and Special Needs Housing Development”) and Policies 3.1 and 3.2 (“Encourage both the private and public sectors to produce or assist in the production of affordable housing for special needs groups such as: persons with disabilities, the elderly, large families, singleparent households, and formerly homeless”) and (“Promote the development of extremely low, very low, low and moderate income housing by allowing developers density bonuses or other financial incentives for providing units for low and moderate income residents. The unit mix and location of affordable housing units in density bonus projects must be approved by the City and included in an affordable housing agreement.”).
2881 of 5188
8 3. The waiver or reduction in development standards will not have an adverse impact on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources.

The Project site and the existing buildings/structure located on it are not listed on the National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources, or Glendale Register of Historic Resources, and have not been identified as a historic resource in any survey. The waivers for parking location, ground floor residential units and additional open space will not impact a California historic resource.

4. The waiver or reduction in development standards will not be contrary to state or federal law.

The Project is statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to PRC Section 21080.66 under AB 130, is consistent with State Density Bonus Law and the City’s Density Bonus Ordinance, and complies with the Glendale Municipal Code as administered by City Departments (e.g. Fire, Glendale Water & Power, Public Works, Development Services, etc.). No known federal or state laws are in conflict with granting of the waivers.

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Approval of this Density Bonus Housing Plan shall be subject to the following conditions:

1. That the development shall be in substantial accord with the plans submitted with the application except for any modifications as may be required to meet specific Code standards or other conditions stipulated herein as approved by the Director of Community Development. The approval includes the following benefits provided by Density Bonus Law, all only to the extent specifically shown on the plans submitted:
a. Density bonus to allow 87 dwelling units.
b. Three concessions, described as follows:
i. Exceed maximum lot coverage by 11%. (61% lot coverage proposed; 50% maximum permitted).
ii. Exceed maximum FAR by 1.29. (2.49 FAR proposed; 1.2 maximum permitted).
iii. Exceed maximum height by two stories/38 feet. (5 stories/74 feet proposed; three stories/36 feet maximum permitted).
c. Three waivers, described as follows:
i. Requested - Allow some of the proposed residential parking spaces to be 2882 of 5188
9 at- and above-grade.
2883 of 5188
9 Required – When there is more than one dwelling unit for each 2,500 SF of lot area or when there are more than four dwelling units in one building on a lot, all required parking spaces for such dwelling units shall be provided in subterranean or semi-subterranean garages.
ii. Requested – Allow residential units on the ground floor without approval of a conditional use permit.

Required – In the CH (Commercial Hillside) zone, multiple residential dwelling units at the ground floor level require approval of a conditional use permit.
iii. Requested – Allow the multi-family development without providing additional open space.

Required – On lots with a minimum width of 90 feet and with a density exceeding the maximum density permitted by code, an additional 900 square feet oof open space area shall be provided contiguous to a street front/side setback area and for each additional foot of lot width thereafter, as additional 20 feet of such open space shall be provided.

2. That all necessary permits shall be obtained from the Permit Services Center prior to the commencement of construction, and all construction shall be in compliance with the Glendale Building Code and all other applicable regulations.

3. That the premises be maintained in a clean and orderly condition, free of weeds, trash, and graffiti.

4. That any expansion or modification of the structure or use shall require a new Density Bonus application. The phrase “modification of the structure or use” includes, but is not limited to, proposing a different percentage of the units as affordable or altering the affordability of the units (i.e., proposing the affordable units be restricted to low- or moderate-income households when the approval is originally for very low-income households). Expansion shall constitute adding of new floor area, reduction of parking and open spaces, or any physical changes as determined by the Director of Community Development.

5. That the applicant shall work with the Community Development Department and the City Attorney’s Office to make any permissible or required additions, deletions and/or amendments to the Density Bonus & Inclusionary Housing Plan and to execute and record a Density Bonus Housing Agreement pursuant to GMC Section 30.36.140, to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development or their designee and subject to approval as to form and content by the City Attorney. Such Density Bonus Housing Agreement shall restrict the rentals of the required percentage of dwelling units in the housing development to persons or families of very low-income households, as specifically identified in this approval, with 9 units restricted to families or households of very-low incomes for a term of 55 years, and rents consistent with Health & Safety Code Section 50105, all as consistent with Density Bonus Law and the Glendale Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance (GMC Chapter 30.35). The applicant shall be required to execute and record such Density Bonus Housing Agreement prior to issuance of any and all required building permits. 2884 of 5188 10 6. That all affordable units shall be reasonably dispersed throughout the project site (e.g., throughout the different floors) and shall be comparable with the other dwelling units in the project in terms of appearance, finished quality and materials. Subject to requested changes necessary to comply with health and safety standards approved by the Director of Community Development or his designee, the unit type, size and location of the affordable units shall be to the satisfaction of the City’s Housing Division.

7. That the affordability term shall not start until the date of recordation of the Housing Notice of Completion. The applicant shall notify the Housing Division at least six months prior to the anticipated date of the Certificate of Occupancy so that affordable units may be marketed in a timely manner.

8. That the premises shall be made available to any authorized City personnel (Fire, Police, Neighborhood Services, etc.) for inspection to ascertain that all conditions of approval of this Density Bonus application are complied with.

9. That the applicant shall comply with all Section/Department requirements as specified in their memos to the satisfaction of the City or Department Director.

These memos include but are not limited to Community Development Department Housing Division (August 13, 2025), Glendale Water & Power (August 29, 2025), Public Works Urban Forestry Division (August 11, 2025), Community Services & Parks (July 28, 2025), Community Development Mobility Division (July 24, 2025), Public Works Engineering Land Development Section (September 15, 2025), Public Works Traffic Engineering Section (July 30, 2025), Public Works Maintenance Services Division (July 28, 2025), Community Development Department Long Range Planning Division (August 15, 2025) and Fire (August 8, 2025).

10.That pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21080.66(c)(1), a Phase I environmental assessment, as defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 78090, shall be performed for the project site. If the Phase I assessment identifies a recognized environmental condition, the completion of a preliminary endangerment assessment shall be performed. If potential for exposure to significant hazards from surrounding properties or activities exists, the effects of the potential exposure shall be mitigated to levels required by current federal and state statutory and regulatory standards prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the project.

11.That the applicant shall conduct baseline soil and soil vapor sampling and groundwater sampling, if warranted by the soil sampling results indicating a potential threat to groundwater, at the site prior to commencement of construction.

12.That the applicant shall submit a Soil Management Plan for review and approval by staff to provide a protocol for field construction involving earthwork to address newly encountered soil contamination. 2885 of 5188
11 13.That approval of the Design Review Board shall be obtained prior to applying for or obtaining building permits.

14.That if any buildings, sidewalks, curb, or gutter, fencing or landscaping areas, etc., adjacent to the site are damaged during the course of construction on public or private property, the damage shall be repaired to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works for public property.

15.That any proposed exterior lighting shall be directed on the driveways, walkways and parking areas within the development and away from adjacent properties and the public right-of-way to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development.

16.That the developer shall comply with the requirements of the City’s Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance (IZO), except for those requirements for which a concession/waiver has been requested, as provided in GMC Chapter 30.35.

17.That the developer shall comply with all measures included in tribal consultation with the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation (GBMI-KN), as provided in the letter from the GBMI-KN December 30, 2025 (Attachment 2), and all provisions of AB 130 (Public Resources Code Section 21080.66(b)(4)(B)).

At its sole discretion, the City may participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action, but such participation shall not relieve the Developer of any obligation imposed by this condition. The Developer’s indemnity, defense and hold harmless obligations shall include, without limitation, payment of all damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorney’s fees, and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with such action or proceeding.

In the event that a claim, action or proceeding referenced herein is brought, the City shall promptly notify the Developer of the existence of the claim, action or proceeding and will cooperate fully in the defense of such claim, action or proceeding. As used herein, “land use approval” refers to decisions of the City approving requests for planning permits for the Project including, but not limited to, density bonus housing plans (including requests for density bonus, incentives and/or waivers), design review, general plan amendments, zone changes, zoning ordinance text amendments, tentative maps, vesting tentative maps, tentative parcel maps, reversions to acreage, final maps, final map modifications or amendments, time extensions, parcel map waivers, lot line adjustments, boundary line adjustments, certificates of compliance, conditional certificates of compliance, development agreements, conditional use permits, conditional use 2886 of 5188 12 permit modifications, conditional use permit extensions, variances, variance modifications, precise plan of design, specific plans, sign permits, site plans, temporary use permits, any administrative or discretionary permit or any accompanying California Environmental Quality Act determinations pertaining to the type of approval referred to in this section, and any other similar approval.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
2887 of 5188
MOTION
Moved by Council Member ____________, seconded by Council Member ___________, that upon review and consideration of all documents, materials, exhibits and testimony relative to Appeal Case No. PAPP-007054-2026, the appeal of the Planning Commission approval with conditions on appeal of Density Bonus Case No.

PDBP-005269-2025, (“Density Bonus Case”), located at 3411 – 3427 Foothill Boulevard, and after having conducted a public hearing on the appeal on October 20, 2026, pursuant to the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995, and receiving testimony, the City Council of the City of Glendale, California, based upon all of the evidence in the record, hereby REVERSES the Planning Commission’s decision granting the Density Bonus Case, and DENIES the Density Bonus Case. The City Council hereby continues this matter until November 3, 2026, without further public notice, and directs the City Attorney to prepare written findings in support of denying the Density Bonus Case.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Abstain:

Absent:
2888 of 5188
Exhibit 1 - Location Map
2889 of 5188

CAMELLIA AVENUE LLC
3411 FOOTHILL
Bonus Density Submittal
June 10, 2025
Exhibit 2 - Project Plans
2890 of 5188
3411 FOOTHILL

GLENDALE, CA
TCA # 2023-012

CAMELLIA AVENUE LLC FINAL DESIGN REVIEW SUBMITTAL
FEBRUARY 13, 2026
PROJECT DATA ii

SITE INFORMATION DEVELOPMENT PARAMETERS
ASSESSOR PARCEL # ZONING CH (R1250)
ADDRESS Comm.

Hillside
High Den.

Resi
SETBACKS FRONT None 20' Min., 26'
Avg.

SITE AREA
SIDE None 11' Min., 14'
Avg.

LOT COVERAGE
N/A 50% LOT AREA: 57,974 SF
DEDICATIONS/EASEMENTS BUILDING AREA: 35,490 SF
APPLICABLE CODES LOT COVERAGE: 61%
CONCESSION 1 61%
FAR
SPECIFIC PLAN/OVERLAY FLOOR AREA (GROSS) 69,569 SF 144,310 SF LOT AREA 57,974 SF
FAR N/A 1.20 CONCESSION 2 2.49
CONSTRUCTION TYPE MAX. BLDG HEIGHT (PER ZONING) 35' 3 St., 36' CONCESSION 3 74ʻ OCCUPANCY NUMBER OF UNITS 57 DU 87 DU
DENSITY (UNITS PER ACRE) 43 DU/AC 65 DU/AC
DENSITY BONUS 50%
TOTAL BUILDING AREA 209,330 SF
RESIDENTIAL NET RENTABLE SF. 92,601 SF
STORIES 2 SUBTERRENEAN LEVELS / 5 RESIDENTIAL STORIES
LANDSCAPE AREA 26% 14,905 SF

UNIT SUMMARY
Average Total # Total
UNIT TYPE SF* FLR 1 FLR 2 FLR 3 FLR 4 FLR 5 Units Unit Mix Net Rent. 1 Bedroom:

A1 755 0 0 1 1 1 3 2,265 SF
A2 789 2 4 4 4 2 16 12,624 SF
A3 753 0 1 1 1 1 4 3,012 SF
Subtotal 778 2 5 6 6 4 23 26% 17,901 SF
2 Bedrooms:

B1 1,080 3 6 6 6 5 26 28,080 SF
B2 1,097 1 3 4 4 3 15 16,455 SF
B3 1,135 1 1 1 1 1 5 5,675 SF
Subtotal 1,092 5 10 11 11 9 46 53% 50,210 SF
3 Bedrooms:

C1 1,350 1 1 1 0 0 3 4,050 SF
C2 1,345 1 2 2 2 1 8 10,760 SF
C3 1,370 0 1 1 1 1 4 5,480 SF
C4 1,400 1 1 1 0 0 3 4,200 SF
Subtotal 1,361 3 5 5 3 2 18 21% 24,490 SF
TOTAL 1064 10 20 22 20 15 87 100% 92,601 SF
All units to have in-unit laundry amenities
AFFORDABLE UNITS (15% Very Low Income) REQUESTED CONCESSIONS & WAIVERS UNIT TYPE Total # Base Units # Affordable Concession 1: Lot Coverage Increase from 50% to 61% 1 Bedroom 15 2 Concession 2: FAR Increase from 1.20 to 2.49 2 Bedrooms 31 5 Concession 3: Height Increase from 3 stories & 36' to 5 stories & 74' 3 Bedrooms 12 2
TOTAL 58 9

AMENITIES
Leasing / Lobby / Mail 2,000 SF
Amenities (First floor) 3,500 SF
Sky lounge (Fourth floor) 400 SF
TOTAL 5,900 SF

BUILDING AREA SUMMARY (GROSS AREAS)
B2 SUB-T. B1 SUB T. FLR 1 FLR 2 FLR 3 FLR 4 FLR 5 Total SF EXISTING AREA 22,647 22,647

PERMITTED/REQUIRED PROPOSED
TYPE III over TYPE I
5602-007-020 & -021
3411 & 3427 Foothill
Blvd., Glendale 91214
Glendale Municipal Code
R/B/S
* Square footage is taken from centerline of demising walls and outside of exterior walls, excluding all decks and balconies.

Waiver 2: Exemption from providing Additional Common Open Space.

Waiver 3: Exception to provide multiple family residential dwellings units at the ground floor subject to provisions of the R-1250 zone.

Varies, see setback table
on sheet 4
Waiver 1: Exemption from 30.32.040.B.3, requirement to locate all residential parking in subterranean or semi-subterranean garages.
57,974 SF

1.33 AC
North Glendale
Community Plan
OCCUPANCY NUMBER OF UNITS 57 DU 87 DU
DENSITY (UNITS PER ACRE) 43 DU/AC 65 DU/AC
DENSITY BONUS 50%
TOTAL BUILDING AREA 209,330 SF
RESIDENTIAL NET RENTABLE SF. 92,601 SF
STORIES 2 SUBTERRENEAN LEVELS / 5 RESIDENTIAL STORIES
LANDSCAPE AREA 26% 14,905 SF

UNIT SUMMARY
Average Total # Total
UNIT TYPE SF* FLR 1 FLR 2 FLR 3 FLR 4 FLR 5 Units Unit Mix Net Rent. 1 Bedroom:

A1 755 0 0 1 1 1 3 2,265 SF
A2 789 2 4 4 4 2 16 12,624 SF
A3 753 0 1 1 1 1 4 3,012 SF
Subtotal 778 2 5 6 6 4 23 26% 17,901 SF
2 Bedrooms:

B1 1,080 3 6 6 6 5 26 28,080 SF
B2 1,097 1 3 4 4 3 15 16,455 SF
B3 1,135 1 1 1 1 1 5 5,675 SF
Subtotal 1,092 5 10 11 11 9 46 53% 50,210 SF
3 Bedrooms:

AMENITIES
Leasing / Lobby / Mail 2,000 SF
Amenities (First floor) 3,500 SF
Sky lounge (Fourth floor) 400 SF
TOTAL 5,900 SF

BUILDING AREA SUMMARY (GROSS AREAS)
B2 SUB-T. B1 SUB T. FLR 1 FLR 2 FLR 3 FLR 4 FLR 5 Total SF EXISTING AREA 22,647 22,647

PROPOSED AREA
Floor Area (Zoning) - - 37,260 29,600 29,490 26,800 21,160 144,310 Garage 31,000 32,170 20,520 83,690
Balconies 620 1,390 1,520 1,390 1,040 5,960
Covered patios 920 400 1,320
Sq. Footage of Construction 31,000 32,170 37,260 30,400 30,400 27,570 20,530 209,330 Waiver 1: Exemption from 30.32.040.B.3, requirement to locate all residential parking in subterranean or semi-subterranean garages.

Waiver 2: Exemption from providing commercial use. We are proposing multiple family residential dwellings units at the ground floor subject to provisions of the R-1250 zone.

R/B/S
* Square footage is taken from centerline of demising walls and outside of exterior walls, excluding all decks and balconies.

PARKING SUMMARY

REQUIRED PARKING PROVIDED PARKING
Unit Type # Units Ratio Total LEVEL Total
1-Bedroom 23 1.0 23 Basement 2 65
2-Bedrooms 46 2.0 92 Basement 1 47
3-Bedrooms 18 2.0 36 Level 1 39
87 RESIDENTIAL REQ. 1.74 151 TOTAL 151

BICYCLE PARKING - RESIDENTIAL REQUIRED/PROVIDED STORAGE - REQUIRED/PROVIDED Ratio # Units Total # Units Total
Short-term 1/20DU 87 4.35 90 Cubic Feet / Unit 87 87
Long-Term 1/4DU 87 21.75 (Min. horizontal surface area of 24 SF) TOTAL 26.1

OPEN SPACE SUMMARY

REQUIRED PROVIDED
SF per unit # Units Total SF per unit # Units Total
PRIVATE 40 87 3,480 SF PRIVATE BALCONIES* 66 87 5,742 SF Min. 4'

COMMON OPEN SPACE
COMMON 200 25 5,000 SF Courtyards 7,000 SF
Min. 10', 200 SF 150 25 3,750 SF Sky decks 2,600 SF
100 37 3,700 SF Amenities 3,900 SF
900 SF Terrace 700 SF
TOTAL 13,350 SF TOTAL 14,200 SF
* Private balconies measure 6'x11'min. (66 sf./balcony)

NOTES & ASSUMPTIONS

1. Non-residential uses, including residential lobby, do not comply with residential setback requirements.

2. Some residential parking is provided on the ground floor (but is buried by topography at the rear of the site).

ADDITIONAL REQUIRED OPEN SPACE
PER CHAPTER 30.31.020
2891 of 5188
3411 FOOTHILL

GLENDALE, CA
TCA # 2023-012

CAMELLIA AVENUE LLC DENSITY BONUS SUBMITTAL
JUNE 10, 2025
0’ 20’ 40’ 80’ GROUND / BASEMENT 1 FLOOR PLAN 2
(EL.1640)

RESIDENTIAL PARKING
47 STALLS

LOBBY / LEASING /

MAIL / AMENITY

TRANSFORMER
ELEC.

ROOM

BICYCLE ROOM/

STORAGE

TERRACE

OPEN TO
BELOW
FOOTHILL BLVD.

GARAGE
ENTRY
NEW YORK AVE.

A A
2892 of 5188
3411 FOOTHILL

GLENDALE, CA
TCA # 2023-012

CAMELLIA AVENUE LLC DENSITY BONUS SUBMITTAL
JUNE 10, 2025
0’ 20’ 40’ 80’ FIRST FLOOR PLAN 3
(EL.1652)

RESIDENTIAL PARKING
39 STALLS
LOWER
PODIUM

COURTYARD

PARKING
ACCESS
FOOTHILL BLVD.

B1 B2
B1
B1
B3
C2
A2
A2
C4
C1 NEW YORK AVE.

A A
2893 of 5188
3411 FOOTHILL

GLENDALE, CA
TCA # 2023-012

CAMELLIA AVENUE LLC DENSITY BONUS SUBMITTAL
JUNE 10, 2025
0’ 20’ 40’ 80’ SECOND FLOOR PLAN 4
(EL. 1662)
UPPER
PODIUM

COURTYARD

STORAGE

FIRE LANE
FOOTHILL BLVD.

NEW YORK AVE.

C2.1 B1 B1 B1
B2
B2
B1 B1
B1
B3
C2
B2
A2.1
A2.1
A2
A2
C4
C1
A3 C3
A A
2894 of 5188
3411 FOOTHILL

GLENDALE, CA
TCA # 2023-012

CAMELLIA AVENUE LLC DENSITY BONUS SUBMITTAL
JUNE 10, 2025
0’ 20’ 40’ 80’ THIRD FLOOR PLAN 5
(EL. 1672)
FOOTHILL BLVD.

FIRE LANE
A1
B2
C2.1 B1 B1 B1
B2
B2
B1 B1
B1
B3
C2
B2
A2.1
A2.1
A2
A2
C4
C1
A3 C3
NEW YORK AVE.

A A
2895 of 5188
3411 FOOTHILL

GLENDALE, CA
TCA # 2023-012

CAMELLIA AVENUE LLC DENSITY BONUS SUBMITTAL
JUNE 10, 2025
0’ 20’ 40’ 80’ FOURTH FLOOR PLAN 6
(EL. 1682)
FOOTHILL BLVD.

SKY
DECK
A1
C2.1 B1 B1 B1
B2
B2
B1 B1
B1
B3
C2
A2.1
A2.1
A2
A3 C3 A2
B2
B2
NEW YORK AVE.

A A
2896 of 5188
3411 FOOTHILL

GLENDALE, CA
TCA # 2023-012

CAMELLIA AVENUE LLC DENSITY BONUS SUBMITTAL
JUNE 10, 2025
0’ 20’ 40’ 80’ FIFTH FLOOR PLAN 7
(EL. 1692)
SKY
DECK
ROOF
FOOTHILL BLVD.

A1
C2.1 B1 B1 B1
B2
B2
B2
B1 B1
A2.1 B3
A2.1 A3 C3
NEW YORK AVE.

A A
2897 of 5188
3411 FOOTHILL

GLENDALE, CA
TCA # 2023-012

CAMELLIA AVENUE LLC DENSITY BONUS SUBMITTAL
JUNE 10, 2025
0’ 20’ 40’ 80’ BASEMENT 2 FLOOR PLAN 8
(EL.1630)

RESIDENTIAL PARKING
65 STALLS A A
2898 of 5188
3411 FOOTHILL

GLENDALE, CA
TCA # 2023-012

CAMELLIA AVENUE LLC DENSITY BONUS SUBMITTAL
JUNE 10, 2025
0’ 15’ 30’ 60’ ELEVATIONS 9
SOUTH ELEVATION (FOOTHILL BLVD.)

WEST ELEVATION

PARKING
ACCESS

LOWER PODIUM

COURTYARD
LOBBY

ENTRANCE
AVG. GRADE PLANE
EL. 1648
AVG. GRADE PLANE
EL. 1648
P1 W1
W1
M1
P2 M1 P3
P2
P1
T1 W2
B1
L1
L2
L3
L4
L5
B1
L1
L2
L3
L4
L5

FINISH LEGEND
P1 Plaster Color 1
P2 Plaster Color 2
P3 Plaster Color 3
T1 Veneer Tile 1
WD1 Wood Veneer 1
W1 Vinyl Windows
W2 Storefront Windows
M1 Metal Railing
2899 of 5188
3411 FOOTHILL

GLENDALE, CA
TCA # 2023-012

CAMELLIA AVENUE LLC DENSITY BONUS SUBMITTAL
JUNE 10, 2025
0’ 15’ 30’ 60’ ELEVATIONS 10

NORTH ELEVATION (NEW YORK PARK)

LOWER PODIUM COURTYARD
EAST ELEVATION (NEW YORK AVE.)
AVG. GRADE PLANE
EL. 1648
AVG. GRADE PLANE
EL. 1648

FINISH LEGEND
P1 Plaster Color 1
P2 Plaster Color 2
P3 Plaster Color 3
T1 Veneer Tile 1
WD1 Wood Veneer 1
W1 Vinyl Windows
W2 Storefront Windows
M1 Metal Railing
P1 W1
W1
M1
R1 T1 P3 T1 P1
P2
P2 M1
P3
B1
L1
L2
L3
L4
L5
B1
L1
L2
L3
L4
L5
2900 of 5188
3411 FOOTHILL

GLENDALE, CA
TCA # 2023-012

CAMELLIA AVENUE LLC DENSITY BONUS SUBMITTAL
JUNE 10, 2025
0’ 15’ 30’ 60’ SECTION A-A 11
UNITS

PARKING

LOBBY / LEASING /

MAIL / AMENITY

BIKE PARKING
UNITS

LINE OF SIDEWALK

TYPE IIIA

TYPE IA
2901 of 5188
3411 FOOTHILL

GLENDALE, CA
TCA # 2023-012

CAMELLIA AVENUE LLC DENSITY BONUS SUBMITTAL
JUNE 10, 2025
0’ 20’ 40’ 80’ SITE CROSS SECTIONS 12

VIEWSHEDS FROM NEW YORK PARK
SITE CROSS SECTION 1
SITE CROSS SECTION 2
1 1
2 2
2902 of 5188
3411 FOOTHILL

GLENDALE, CA
TCA # 2023-012

CAMELLIA AVENUE LLC DENSITY BONUS SUBMITTAL
JUNE 10, 2025
13 1
2 3
4 5

RENDER VIEW LOCATION
FOOTHILL BLVD.

NEW YORK AVE.
2903 of 5188
3411 FOOTHILL

GLENDALE, CA
TCA # 2023-012

CAMELLIA AVENUE LLC DENSITY BONUS SUBMITTAL
JUNE 10, 2025
14 RENDER VIEW 1

PROJECT RENDERINGS
2904 of 5188
3411 FOOTHILL

GLENDALE, CA
TCA # 2023-012

CAMELLIA AVENUE LLC DENSITY BONUS SUBMITTAL
JUNE 10, 2025
15 RENDER VIEW 2

PROJECT RENDERINGS
2905 of 5188
3411 FOOTHILL

GLENDALE, CA
TCA # 2023-012

CAMELLIA AVENUE LLC DENSITY BONUS SUBMITTAL
JUNE 10, 2025
16 RENDER VIEW 3

PROJECT RENDERINGS
2906 of 5188
3411 FOOTHILL

GLENDALE, CA
TCA # 2023-012

CAMELLIA AVENUE LLC DENSITY BONUS SUBMITTAL
JUNE 10, 2025
17 RENDER VIEW 4

PROJECT RENDERINGS
2907 of 5188
3411 FOOTHILL

GLENDALE, CA
TCA # 2023-012

CAMELLIA AVENUE LLC DENSITY BONUS SUBMITTAL
JUNE 10, 2025
18 RENDER VIEW 5

PROJECT RENDERINGS
2908 of 5188
City ofGlendale CommunityDevelopmentDepartment., PlanningDivision 633 E. Broadway, Rm. 103, Glendale, CA 91206 818.548.2140 www.glendaleca.gov/CDD 09/2023 Page1of2
Case No. ________________ Date ____________________
Submit this form on the Glendale Permits site at www.glendaleca.gov/permits (Click “Apply,” “Skip…” and then search for “Appeal of Planning Decision”). For more information about this form and related fees, please call the Planning Division at (818) 548‐2115. Please complete (PRINT or TYPE) the following information:

PART 1 – NOTICE TO APPELLANT (please read carefully)
A. This form must be prepared and filed, within 15 days of the date of the decision being appealed. Sub-division applications must be appealed within 10 days of the date of decision.

B. Every question must be answered.

C. If a question does not apply, you must answer “does not apply” or words to that effect.

D. Failure to properly fill out this notice or failure to make a sufficient statement of a case in this notice, even if in fact you have valid and sound grounds for appeal, may cause your appeal to be dismissed forthwith.

E. Attach additional pages for long answers.

F. Prior to completing this form, read the Glendale Municipal Code, Title 2, Chapter 2.88 Uniform Appeal Procedure on the City’s webpage at https://library.qcode.us/lib/glendale_ca/pub/municipal_code/item/title_2‐chapter_2_88 PART 2 – APPELLANT INFORMATION
A._______________________________________________________________________________________________________ First Name Last Name Email Address
B._______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Street Address City State Zip Code (Area Code) Phone Number PART 3 – APPEAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. State the name or title of the board, commission, or officer from which this appeal is taken ____________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ B. Were you given written notice of the action, ruling or determination? Yes No If “Yes,” attach a copy of the written notice and write the date you received it here _____________________________________ If “No,” give the following information concerning your receipt of notice of the action, ruling or determination.

Date ___________________ Time ___________________ Location ____________________ Manner ______________________ C. State generally what kind of permit, variance, ruling, determination, or other action was the basis for the decision from which the appeal is taken ____________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ D. State the specific permission or relief that was originally sought from the board, commission, or officer __________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ E. Were you the party seeking the relief that was originally sought? Yes No If “No,” how are you involved with the permit, variance, ruling, determination, or other action referred to above? _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ F. Does this matter involve real property? Yes No
If “Yes,” give the address, or describe the real property affected _____________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 06/3/2026 Crescenta Highlands Neigh Assn P.O. Box 8098, La Crescenta, CA 91224 Planning Commission US Mail and verbal 3411-3437 Foothill Blvd, La Crescenta, CA 91214 3 concessions, 3 waivers
Density Bonus application to construct 87 apartments CHNA represents residents of the neighborhood in which the property is located. ✔
[email protected] 06/3/2026 626-372-7646
Exhibit 3 - June 3, 2026 Appeal Application
2909 of 5188
City ofGlendale CommunityDevelopmentDepartment., PlanningDivision 633 E. Broadway, Rm. 103, Glendale, CA 91206 818.548.2140 www.glendaleca.gov/CDD 09/2023 Page2of2
Statement of additional facts related to the appeal: ______________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ The foregoing statements, contained in PARTS 2, 3 and 4 above, are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. __________________________________________________
Appellant’s Name – Please Print
__________________________________________ _______________________________ Appellant’s Signature Date Signed
PART 4 – STATEMENT OF ERROR
A. Do you contend that there was a violation of a specific provision of law, which forms the basis for this appeal? Yes No If “Yes”, state each specific provision of law that you contend was violated: ____________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ B. Do you contend that the board, commission, or officer exceeded its authority by virtue of any of the provisions of law given in answer “A”? Yes No If “Yes”, state which provisions, and state specifically each act that was in excess of authority:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ C. Do you contend that the board, commission, or officer failed to fulfill a mandatory duty by any provision of law given in answer “A”? Yes No If “Yes”, state which provision, and the specific duty that it failed to exercise:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ D. Do you contend that the board, commission, or officer refused to hear or consider certain facts before rendering its decision? Yes No If “Yes”, state each such fact, and for each fact, state how it should have changed the act, determination, or ruling: ____________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ E. Do you contend that the evidence before the board, commission or officer was insufficient or inadequate to support its action, determination or ruling or any specific finding in support thereof? Yes No If “Yes”, state what evidence was necessary, but lacking: ______________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ F. Do you contend that you have new evidence of material facts not previously presented, which if considered should change the act, determination or ruling? Yes No If “Yes”, state each new material fact not previously presented to the board, commission, or officer. For each fact, state why it was not available, or with the exercise of reasonable diligence could not have been discovered and previously presented by the appellant: _______________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________
FOR STAFF USE ONLY Date Stamp
Date received in Permit Services Center _________________ Received by ___________________ Fee paid ________________________________________ Receipt No. _____________________________________ As above. See Attachment 4A See Attachment F Mary-Lynne Fisher, Pres CHNA, Susan Bolan, Secy GHCC 06/18/2026 ✔ ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
See Attachment 4B See Attachment 4C See Attachment DSee Attachment E Mary-Lynne Fisher, Susan L Bolan 2910 of 5188
Case No. PDBP-005269-2025
Date: June 18, 2026
Appellants: Crescenta Highlands Neighborhood Association and Glendale Homeowners Coordinating Council
Appeal of Density Bonus Application at 3411-3437 Foothill Blvd. (City uses 3411-3427 Foothill Blvd.)
Supplemental Information
Part 4. Statement of Error
A. Do you contend that there was a violation of a specific provision of law, which forms the basis for this appeal?
Yes. The Planning Commission’s findings that the project does not present a specific adverse threats to public health or safety are erroneous.

1. Hazardous Waste Site. The Commission relied on the Staff Report, but ignored a specific provision of the Staff Report namely where on page 88 it states
“The Applicant is correct in stating that the AB 130 statutory exemption does not apply to sites listed on the Cortese List . . .” Appellants produced expert opinion unequivocally stating that the site is on the Cortese List.

The site, specifically 3411 Foothill Blvd., the site of the former Texaco gas station is on the Cortese List. The site is identified as T0603773344 and appears to be a LUST/leaking underground storage tank GeoTracker record. CalEPA identifies the Water Board as a 1 2911 of 5188
Cortese List data source. Because AB 130 eligibility depends on satisfying the hazardous site restrictions incorporated from Gov’t. Code section 65913.4, the city may not simply disregard these listings.

The GeoTracker records for the Texaco Station are substantial evidence requiring the city to determine whether the project site is located on one or more Gov’t. Code section 65962.5 Cortese List sites.

Unless the City identifies the precise regulatory status of the GeoTracker listing and makes supported findings that the project is not disqualified, or that a statutory closure/residential-suitability exception applies, the city cannot lawfully rely on AB 130's CEQA exemption.

Instead the Commission ignored the evidence of Appellant’s expert that the project site in on the Cortese List by incorrectly claiming that GeoTracker is not a Cortese List.

Please see the letter dated June 18, 2026, from Atis Srihiran, Water Resources Control Engineer, at the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board stating that the Texaco gas station site at 3411 Foothill Blvd. IS on the Cortese List. Mr. Srihiran’s letter is attached as Exhibit

5. The city further erred in postponing any significant hazardous material review until after approval. The statutory scheme is clear. If the site is on the Cortese List, which this site is, CEQA requires an Environmental Impact Report prior to approval.

The conclusion is clear. The city’s exemption analysis is legally inadequate, CEQA applies and an Environmental Impact Report is required.

2. Increased Wildfire Evacuation Risk. The Commission
2 2912 of 5188
accepted the city’s Safety Element* as compliance with AB 747 but failed to note that the Safety Element does not directly identify streets that Crescenta Highlands residents would need to use in an evacuation.

The major streets in Crescenta Highlands are described in the Safety Element as “over-capacity” at Appendix C, page 32 and map on page 33 of the Kittelson report. The pages are attached as Exhibit 6. This reference indicates a landslide event, not a wildfire because wildfire evacuation was not studied for the Crescenta Valley.

The Safety Element’s identification of streets but does not address the impact that construction of the proposed project would have on Crescenta Highlands residents.

Further the Commission rejected the evidence of the significantly longer evacuation times the proposed project would impose on Crescenta Highlands residents and Clark Magnet High School students, faculty and staff by claiming the evidence was not “quantifiable.” The clear fact is that such evidence is quantifiable. For example Appellant’s expert’s model for evacuation during a day when Clark Magnet High School is not in session shows the time for the last resident to travel from the top of New York Ave. to Foothill Blvd. is 30 minutes. During a school day and assuming only 90 vehicles would exit the proposed project onto New York Ave. (fewer than the actual number as described below) the trip would be 65 minutes, more than twice as long. By what definition of the word is this not quantifiable?
According to the city’s Traffic Study conducted by Jano, Baghdanian & Associates in 2024, 112 of the project’s 151 parking spaces would exit onto New York Ave. The Commission further ignored the fact that vehicles moving out of the Foothill Blvd. parking garage exit would be funneled directly into the New York and Foothill chokepoint.
3 2913 of 5188
The Commission ignored the fact that neither the staff nor the Applicant submitted any evidence that the Appellant’s expert’s evidence was incorrect. The only challenge to that evidence came from a member of Commission who pointed out that some vehicles from the proposed project will exit on Foothill Blvd and therefore 151 vehicles would not be exiting on New York Ave. But this fails to note the significantly increased times in three of Appellant’s expert’s models positing only 90 vehicles exiting from the project site. Graphs of Appellant’s traffic models are attached as Exhibit 7.

Had the city compiled evidence of the increased evacuation times the proposed project would impose on Crescenta Highlands residents, it would have realized that in the event of a wildfire in Angeles National Forest or Deukmejian Wilderness Park New York Ave. is the ONLY evacuation route for approximately 80 families both on New York Ave. north of Foothill Blvd., and on the six cul de sacs off New York Ave. in the 3300 and 3400 blocks as well as the 3400 block of El Caminito where the only ways out are New York Ave. or going NORTH on Cloudsdale. Similarly any adequate evacuation analysis would have noted that New York Ave. is a narrow two-lane street and that the closest Fire Station is on New York Ave. south of Foothill Blvd., meaning fire trucks would be driving north on New York Ave. as residents are driving south.

In the event of a daytime school year wildfire, Clark Magnet High School on New York Ave. has more than 1400 students, teachers and staff, some of whom drive, adding cars to the street, but most of whom arrive by bus. As a community member who identified herself as employee of GUSD pointed out at the hearing before the Hearing Officer on March 18, 2026, these buses are contracted for by the city for specific schedules and should not be assumed to be available on short notice during the school day. Neither the Applicant nor the city ever disputed her statement.
4 2914 of 5188
The Commission’s findings that the increased evacuation dangers could be mitigated by measures such as making New York Avenue a one-way street, having police officers direct traffic and adjusting traffic signals are speculative and not supported by evidence.

An important issue in this case is who has the burden of proof in approving or denying a Density Bonus Law project. Gov’t. Code section 65915(d)(1) provides in relevant part
“ . . .The city . . . shall grant the concession or
incentive requested by the Applicant unless the city
. . . makes a written finding based upon substantial
evidence . . .”
The clear, common sense interpretation of such language is the city must investigate whether such substantial evidence exists. It is not a burden the city can shift to residents challenging the project.

Instead of returning to the expert consultants which developed the Safety Element in 2025, the Commission told the Appellant to hire a traffic engineer. This is an impermissible attempt to shift the city’s burden to members of the community.

At least one decision of the California Court of Appeal has found that a government entity violated state law by failing to thoroughly analyze and reduce wildfire risk before approving a residential project in a wildfire prone area. Center for Biological Diversity v. County of Los Angeles (2025) 112 Cal. App. 317
Given the number of wildfires that have threatened Crescenta Highlands in recent years, the city cannot reasonably contend that this is not a fire prone area. The Eaton fire of January 7, 2025, is a burning memory. Family members of a CHNA Board member were caught up in 5 2915 of 5188
the chaotic evacuation of the La Tuna Fire of September 1, 2017. In the city we have experienced the Station Fire of August 2009, the Mountain Fire of September 2002 and the College Hills Fire of June 1990. The question is not if but when a major wildfire will threaten Crescenta Highlands. Indeed, the draft Local Hazard Mitigation Plan shows the area with historic wildfire perimeter. See page 39 attached as Exhibit 8.

3. Reservoir Breach Risk. The Commission failed to recognize that the presence of the New York Reservoir adjacent to and uphill from the site constitutes an “Unusual Circumstances Exception” to AB 130 which can bring the proposed project under the jurisdiction of CEQA.

The extensive Flooding section of the city’s Safety Element fails to consider a breach in the New York Reservoir as a potential risk, apparently considering the reservoir too small to include. But the reservoir holds millions gallons of water!
The city has the burden of evaluating whether the proposed project could adversely affect reservoir integrity, slope stability, groundwater movement, subsurface conditions, drainage, erosion, seismic performance, or emergency response. For example, how are First Responders’ vehicles expected to drive up New York Ave. with hundreds of thousands if not millions of gallons of water pouring down the street? These risks exist not only during construction but during occupancy of the proposed project as vehicles constantly drive through the subterranean parking garage let alone during even a relatively minor earthquake.

The Commission’s only requirement related to a breach of the reservoir during excavation for the subterranean parking is to condition the approval of the project on the developer’s indemnifying the city, a condition buried in Condition 9 requiring compliance with the Glendale 6 2916 of 5188
Water & Power memo of August 29, 2025. And what of residents both in the proposed project and who live downslope from it? If the integrity of the reservoir walls are compromised, the result could be catastrophic. This project is on a hillside slope. The planned excavation could unsettle the ground. A five story residential building with 151 vehicles introduces significant structural and environmental burdens near the underground reservoir. Clearly before approving such a project any responsible city government would conduct an engineering study to determine the risk and whether it can be mitigated.

The city’s disregard of the risks listed above resulted in the Commission failing to find that an exception to the Density Bonus Law (Government Code sections 65915-65918, specifically section 65915(d)(1)(B)) exists in that the project presents a specific adverse threat to public health or safety.

Another California Court of Appeal decision Save Our Access v.

City of San Diego (2025) 115 Cal. App. 388 found that the city’s EIR failed to meaningfully analyze the environmental impacts of allowing buildings above 30 feet including geological conditions. At five stories, the proposed project would be 74 feet. There is a reason the city zoning limits height on this site to 36, but both the Staff Report and the Commission failed to look into that reasoning.

B. Do you contend that the board, commission or officer exceeded its authority by virtue of any of the provisions of law given in answer “A”? Yes. The Commission failed to consider the substantial evidence of the Staff Report and the Applicant’s failure to address the specific adverse threats to public health or safety. The Commission made no findings of fact regarding the risks the project presents to neighborhood residents and/or residents of the potential project in the event of wildfire, 7 2917 of 5188
earthquake, reservoir breach or contamination of soil or water. What they label “findings” are merely conclusions mimicking the statutory language.

C. Do you contend that the board, commission or office failed to fulfill a mandatory duty by any provision of law given in answer to “A”? Yes. The Commission failed to consider substantial evidence presented by Appellants and several community members both orally at the hearing and in writing by emails. Nowhere in the Commission’s decision letter is there any reference to such evidence or any explanation as to why it was in adequate or not considered.

D. Do you contend that the board, commission or office refused to hear or consider certain facts before rendering its decision? Yes. In addition to the foregoing the Commission failed to adequately consider the compelling statements of Crescenta Highlands resident Jim Tsarofsky, a local firefighter, who fought the Palisades Fire in January 2025. Mr. Tsarofsky described the panicked evacuation of residents who abandoned cars on clogged streets requiring firefighters to call in bulldozers to remove them so that they could reach the fire.

In Mr. Tsarofsky’s chilling words, “People are going to die.” MyGlendale/You Tube 2:32
Yet the Commission was satisfied with the routine comment of the Fire Department that the project must comply with the city fire code.

Such compliance will be cold comfort to neighborhood residents trapped in congested traffic during a wildfire evacuation such as took place during the La Tuna Fire.

The facts that were not considered include the threat such a large 8 2918 of 5188
project would pose to residents living north on or off New York Ave. in the event of a wildfire. Nor did the Commission consider the threat to residents living south of Foothill Blvd. in the event the New York Reservoir is breached during excavations for the subterranean parking.

E. Do you contend that the evidence before the board, commission or officer was insufficient or inadequate to support its action, determination or ruling on any specific finding in support?
Yes. The Commission failed to note the omissions and failures in both the Staff Report and the Applicant’s presentation to adequately address wildfire evacuation risks, reservoir breach risks and hazardous waste risks posed by the project.

F. Do you contend that you have new evidence of material facts not previously presented, which if considered should change the act, determination or ruling?
Yes. Please see the letter dated June 18, 2026, from Atis Srihiran, Water Resources Control Engineer, at the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board stating that the Texaco gas station site at 3411 Foothill Blvd. IS on the Cortese List. Mr. Srihiran’s letter is attached as Exhibit 5.

Conclusion Individually and in total, the Appellants have identified three risks to public health and safety which prohibit the city from approving this project without an Environmental Impact Report. *Appellant wishes to point out that public outreach on the Safety Element was minimal consisting of two outdoor events in the Spring of 9 2919 of 5188
2024, one on Earth Day and one on a Fire Service Day, each of which drew only a few dozen people.
10 2920 of 5188
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board
June 18, 2026
Ms. Mary-Lynne Fisher
President
Crescenta Highlands Neighborhood Association
Via Email Only
SUBJECT: CORTESE LIST CONFIRMATION
SITE: 3411-3437 FOOTHILL BLVD., LA CRESCENTA, CALIFORNIA 91214 Ms. Fisher,
The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region (Los Angeles Water Board) is the public agency with primary responsibility for the protection of ground and surface water quality for all beneficial uses within major portions of the Los Angeles and Ventura counties, including at the above-referenced site (Site).

On June 12, 2026, you contacted Los Angeles Water Board staff to inquire whether any of the Board’s environmental contamination cases located at the Site meet the provisions of Gov. Code section 65962.5, commonly known as the “Cortese List.” According to the State Water Resources Control Board’s public database, GeoTracker, the following cases under the Los Angeles Water Board’s oversight are located on the Site.

1. Hi Star Auto (Case No. 116.0019, GeoTracker), located at 3411 Foothill Blvd., La Crescenta, California. This case was opened under the former Well Investigation Program (WIP) in 1980’s, in response to the United States Environmental Protection Agency Superfund investigation for groundwater contamination in some of the well fields in the area. This case is still open and currently under oversight of the Site Cleanup Program of the Los Angeles Water Board.

2. Texaco Station (Case No. 912140052, GeoTracker), located at 3411 Foothill Blvd., La Crescenta, California. This case was under oversight of the Underground Storage Tank (UST) Program of the Los Angeles Water Board and received a regulatory case closure in 2014.

3. Palace Cleaners (Case No. 116.0013, GeoTracker), located at 3423 Foothill Blvd., La Crescenta, California. This case was under oversight of the Site Cleanup Program of the Los Angeles Water Board and received a regulatory case closure in 2009.
2921 of 5188
3411-3437 Foothill Blvd., - 2 - June 18, 2026
La Crescenta, California
Of the three cases identified above, Texaco Station (Case No. 912140052) is listed on the Cortese List per Gov. Code section 65962.5 (c)(1).

Comprehensive information regarding the Cortese List is available through the California Environmental Protection Agency’s website. Cortese List Data Resources | CalEPA, calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact the undersigned at (213) 576-6629 or via email at [email protected] or contact Ms. Anita Fang, Site Cleanup Unit VI Supervisor, at (213) 576-6730 or via email at [email protected].

Sincerely,
________________
Atis Srihiran
Water Resource Control Engineer
Site Cleanup Unit VI
cc: (via email only)
Dr. Arthur Heath, Los Angeles Water Board ([email protected]) Axel Jurgens, Office of Chief Counsel, State Water Resources Control Board ([email protected])
2922 of 5188
September 2024 Page 32
City of Glendale Safety Element Update - Evacuation Analysis Evacuation Analysis Results Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Future Year
With peak evacuation from a landslide in the San Gabriel Mountains in north Glendale in the future year, the analysis predicts over-capacity conditions on several roadways in the city as shown in Figure 10. Most congestion locations would be the same as those identified for the base year. In addition to the locations listed for the base year, the roadways where demand volumes are projected to be at or exceed road capacity within the City of Glendale include:
◼ Scattered segments, e.g. San Fernando Rd between S Pacific Ave and W Acacia Ave, E Garfield Ave and E Acacia Ave between S Adam St and S Chevy Chase Dr. ◼ N Glendale Ave (between SR-134 and E Doran St) connecting to SR-134 ◼ Santa Carlotta St/Orange Ave between Dunsmore Ave and Pennsylvania Ave in the east of Glendale Beyond the city limit, the future year scenario indicates congestion in the following locations:
◼ Glendale Blvd and Hyperion Ave to the southwest of Glendale, connecting to I-5 ◼ Yosemite Dr between Townsend Ave and N Figueroa St
◼ Additional length of segments north of SR-210, including Palm Dr, Ocean View Blvd, and Los Amigo St
Travel Times
Travel times between Glendale neighborhoods and various evacuation destinations are listed in Table 2 With base year traffic levels, an evacuation event would add up to 70 minutes to the time to reach the Glendale Civic Auditorium, up to 70 minutes to reach safety in Pasadena, and up to 79 minutes to Glendale High School. With future year traffic levels, an evacuation event would add up to 99 minutes to the time from north Glendale to the Glendale Civic Auditorium, up to 121 minutes to Pasadena, and up to 110 minutes to Glendale High School.
2923 of 5188
September 2024 Page 33
City of Glendale Safety Element Update - Evacuation Analysis Evacuation Analysis Results Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Figure 10: Congestion Locations, Scenario 2 Landslide in North Glendale, Future Year Source: Kittelson & Associates using Glendale travel model, 2024 2924 of 5188 Evacuation Modeling
CONDUCTED BY:
~ Tim Tierney, MA (Geology)
~ Experienced with software for spatial analysis
METHOD
~ LWR (Lighthill-Whitham-Richards) model
~ Executed through Google-AI.

ANALYSIS AREA:
~ New York Ave (above Foothill Blvd)
~ All houses within 1-block
2925 of 5188
Graph Explanation

CARS ON

THE ROAD AVG SPEED
2926 of 5188
Modeling Results
2927 of 5188

CARS ON ROAD
TIME
Total Vehicles on Corride
100
o
200
이
700
600
ahicles onCorridor (No Lights) 150
100
200
250
veficles o
450
400
350
300
250
NIGHT Evacuation: 400 Cars on New York Ave
Moutes Pont-A
DARK NIGHT Evacuation: No Streetlights (400 Cars)
d/Max Cer
Vehicles on Road
DAYTIME Full Evacuation: 400 Homes + 1400 School Population 30 School & Resident
Merge Conflict
Vehicles (650 Cars + 12 Buses)
Avg Speed
10 20 30
Minutes Post-Alert
40 50 60
40 5
+10
20 -25
verage Speed (MPH)
80 -
Average Sceed (MPH)
100
2928 of 5188

CARS ON ROAD
les on Corridor (Dark/No Signal)
900
800
700
600
500
400
Total Vehicles on Corridor
1000
800
600
400
200
300
200
100
200
100
TIME 2
500
10 20 50 60 70 80
Minutes Post-Alert
DARK NIGHT TOTAL FAILURE Br gnals
Way Stop Bottleneck
MIXED-MODE EVACUATION: 790 Cars + 600 Pedestrians
30 Friction Point
20 60
Minutes Post-Alert
ongestion
(851 Cars + Pedestrians)
20 40 60 80
Minutes Post-Alert
Cars
Pedestrian Wave (600 people)
vg Speed
80 Vehicles (851 Cars)
Pedestrian Wave (600 people)
Vehicle Avg Speed
100
w
-5
10 -25
20 verage
S e Speed (MP
10 -30
verageSpeed (MPH)
Simulation #6:
~ Timing = Night
~ 400 Homes
~ 90-Unit Apartmen
"No Electrity"
Duration = 75min
Simulation #7:

Timing = Day
400 Homes
~ CMHS
~ 90-Unit Apartmen
Duration = 75min
Simulation #8:
-25
-20
15 Average
Speed (MPH
Timing = Day
~ 400 Homes
~ CMHS
~ 90-Unit Apartmen
Duration = 95min
2929 of 5188
Hazard Identification
Public Review Draft 39
Figure 5 Historical Wildfire Events in Glendale
2930 of 5188
Density Bonus Housing Plan
3411 – 3427 Foothill Boulevard
Glendale, California, 91214
Exhibit 4 - Density Bonus Housing Plan
2931 of 5188
Number of Dwelling Units Proposed:

The project involves the development of a new Multiple Family Density Bonus Housing Project consisting of 87-unit residential rental apartments in a 5-story building envelope. The project will provide 9 units affordable to very low-income households. The proposal includes development of one-bedroom, twobedroom and three-bedroom units.

Maximum Number of Units Permitted per Zoning Code:

The project is located in the CH Commercial Hillside zone designation that permits a maximum density of 43 units per acre. A total of 57.93 units which is rounded down to 57 units are permitted by right on the 57,930 SF project site.

Number of Affordable Units meeting Density Bonus Requirement:
9 units of the 87 units proposed will be made available as rental units for very low-income households.

Amount of Density Bonus Requested:

By providing the 9 very low affordable units, the project applicant is allowed 50% bonus density above the Code allowed 57.93 which is rounded up to 58 units. A total of 87 units (58 x 1.5) is proposed.

Number and Description of Incentives and Concessions Requested:

The requested three (3) concessions are to 1.) Increase the Lot Coverage to 55% where 50% is allowed, 2.) Increase the Floor Area Ratio to 2.35 (136,290 SF) where 1.2 (69,516 SF) is allowed, 3.) to increase the Height / Stories to 74 feet / 5 stories where 36 feet / 3 stories are allowed.

Also, three (3) waivers are required 1.) to provide multiple family residential parking that is not in a subterranean or semi subterranean garage where multiple family residential parking is allowed only in a subterranean or semi subterranean garage. 2.) exemption from providing commercial use. 3.) allowance of residential units on the ground floor.

Amount of parking concessions requested:

The GMC under 30.36.090 “Parking Concessions” requires 1 parking space per (23)1-bedroom unit, and 1.5 parking spaces per (46) 2 and (18) 3 – bedroom units for a total of 119 spaces to be provided. The project is providing a total of 151 on-site parking spaces for the multiple family residential Project, which is 32 parking spaces more than Code requires.

Affordability:

The Affordable Units shall be made available to Very Low-Income Households at an Affordable Rent (as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50053) for a period of not less than 55 years.

Dispersal of Affordable Units:

All Affordable Units shall be reasonably dispersed throughout the Project (e.g. throughout the different floors) and shall be comparable with the other dwelling units in the Project in terms of appearance, finished quality and materials. The Unit Type and location of the nine (9) Affordable Units as of the date such Affordable Units are first leased to Very Low Income Households shall be as follows:

Two 1-bedroom units, Five 2-bedroom unit and Two 3-bedroom units distributed as follows:
• 1st Floor – one 2-bedroom (Unit #110, 1,060 sf) and one 3-bedroom (Unit #105, 1,350 sf) • 2nd Floor – one 2-bedroom (Unit #210, 1,060 sf) and one 3-bedroom (Unit #205, 1,350 sf) • 3rd Floor – one 1-bedroom (Unit #319, 775 sf) and one 2-bedroom (Unit #312, 1,060 sf) • 4th Floor – one 1-bedroom (Unit #419, 775 sf) and one 2-bedroom (Unit #412, 1,060 sf) • 5th Floor- one 2-bedroom (Unit #512, 1,060 sf)
2932 of 5188
1 2
3 4
5 3411 FOOTHILL

GLENDALE, CA
TCA # 2023-012
JUNE 10, 2025

PHOTOGRAPHIC SURVEY CAMELLIA
AVENUE LLC. 2 EXISTING VIEW LOCATION
FOOTHILL BLVD.

NEW YORK AVE.

Exhibit 5 - Project Site and Surrounding Development Photos 2933 of 5188

CAMELLIA AVENUE LLC
3411 FOOTHILL
Photographic Survey
June 10, 2025
2934 of 5188
1 2
3 4
5 3411 FOOTHILL

GLENDALE, CA
TCA # 2023-012
JUNE 10, 2025

PHOTOGRAPHIC SURVEY CAMELLIA
AVENUE LLC. 2 EXISTING VIEW LOCATION
FOOTHILL BLVD.

NEW YORK AVE.
2935 of 5188
3411 FOOTHILL

GLENDALE, CA
TCA # 2023-012
JUNE 10, 2025

PHOTOGRAPHIC SURVEY CAMELLIA
AVENUE LLC.
3 EXISTING VIEW 1

EXISTING SITE PHOTOS

1. VIEW LOOKING NORTHEAST ON FOOTHILL BLVD.
2936 of 5188
3411 FOOTHILL

GLENDALE, CA
TCA # 2023-012
JUNE 10, 2025

PHOTOGRAPHIC SURVEY CAMELLIA
AVENUE LLC.
4 EXISTING VIEW 2

EXISTING SITE PHOTOS

2. VIEW LOOKING NORTH ON FOOTHILL BLVD.
2937 of 5188
3411 FOOTHILL

GLENDALE, CA
TCA # 2023-012
JUNE 10, 2025

PHOTOGRAPHIC SURVEY CAMELLIA
AVENUE LLC. 5 EXISTING VIEW 3

EXISTING SITE PHOTOS

3. VIEW LOOKING NORTHWEST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BLVD. & NEW YORK AVE. 2938 of 5188
3411 FOOTHILL

GLENDALE, CA
TCA # 2023-012
JUNE 10, 2025

PHOTOGRAPHIC SURVEY CAMELLIA
AVENUE LLC. 6 EXISTING VIEW 4

EXISTING SITE PHOTOS

4. VIEW LOOKING SOUTHWEST ON NEW YORK AVE.
2939 of 5188
3411 FOOTHILL

GLENDALE, CA
TCA # 2023-012
JUNE 10, 2025

PHOTOGRAPHIC SURVEY CAMELLIA
AVENUE LLC. 7 EXISTING VIEW 5

EXISTING SITE PHOTOS

4. VIEW LOOKING SOUTHWEST ON NEW YORK AVE. TOWARDS NEW YORK PARK 2940 of 5188
Across New York Avenue from the Project Site
North side of Foothill Boulevard east of the Project Site 2941 of 5188
South side of Foothill Boulevard east of the Project Site South side of Foothill Boulevard south of the Project Site 2942 of 5188
South side of Foothill Boulevard south of the Project Site South side of Foothill Boulevard west of the Project Site 2943 of 5188
North side of Foothill Boulevard west of the Project Site East side of Frederick Avenue west of the Project Site
2944 of 5188
West side of New York Avenue north of the project site
2945 of 5188
Exhibit
6 - CEQA Exemption
2946 of 5188
2947 of 5188
2948 of 5188
2949 of 5188
2950 of 5188
2951 of 5188
2952 of 5188
2953 of 5188
2954 of 5188
2955 of 5188
GABRIELEÑO BAND OF MISSION
INDIANS – KIZH NATION
California State Recognized Aboriginal Tribe of the Los Angeles Basin (Historically known as the Gabrieleño Tribal Council - San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians) GABRIELENO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS – KIZH NATION - PROPOSED TCR MITIGATION CONDITIONS OF

APPROVAL
Foothill Blvd Multi Family Residential
TCR-1: Retain a Native American Monitor Prior to Commencement of Ground-Disturbing Activities A. The project applicant/lead agency shall retain a Native American Monitor from or approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. The monitor shall be retained prior to the commencement of any “ground-disturbing activity” for the subject project at all project locations (i.e., both on-site and any off-site locations that are included in the project description/definition and/or required in connection with the project, such as public improvement work). “Grounddisturbing activity” shall include, but is not limited to, demolition, pavement removal, potholing, auguring, grubbing, tree removal, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching.

B. A copy of the executed monitoring agreement shall be submitted to the lead agency prior to the earlier of the commencement of any ground-disturbing activity, or the issuance of any permit necessary to commence a ground-disturbing activity.

C. The monitor will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the relevant ground-disturbing activities, the type of construction activities performed, locations of grounddisturbing activities, soil types, cultural-related materials, and any other facts, conditions, materials, or discoveries of significance to the Tribe. Monitor logs will identify and describe any discovered TCRs, including but not limited to, Native American cultural and historical artifacts, remains, places of significance, etc., (collectively, tribal cultural resources, or “TCR”), as well as any discovered Native American (ancestral) human remains and burial goods. Copies of monitor logs will be provided to the project applicant/lead agency upon written request to the Tribe.

D. On-site tribal monitoring shall conclude upon the latter of the following (1) written confirmation to the Kizh from a designated point of contact for the project applicant/lead agency that all ground-disturbing activities and phases that may involve ground-disturbing activities on the project site or in connection with the project are complete; or (2) a determination and written notification by the Kizh to the project applicant/lead agency that no future, planned construction activity and/or development/construction phase at the project site possesses the potential to impact Kizh TCRs.

TCR-2: Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resource Objects (Non-Funerary/Non-Ceremonial) Exhibit 7 - Tribal Mitigation Measures
December 30, 2025
2956 of 5188
A. Upon discovery of any TCRs, all construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall cease (i.e., not less than the surrounding 50 feet) and shall not resume until the discovered TCR has been fully assessed by the Kizh monitor and/or Kizh archaeologist. The Kizh will recover and retain all discovered TCRs in the form and/or manner the Tribe deems appropriate, in the Tribe’s sole discretion, and for any purpose the Tribe deems appropriate, including for educational, cultural and/or historic purposes.

TCR-3: Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and Associated Funerary or Ceremonial Objects A. Native American human remains are defined in PRC 5097.98 (d)(1) as an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness. Funerary objects, called associated grave goods in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, are also to be treated according to this statute.

B. If Native American human remains and/or grave goods are discovered or recognized on the project site, then Public Resource Code 5097.9 as well as Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 shall be followed.

C. Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California Public Resources Code section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2).

D. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment for discovered human remains and/or burial goods.

E. Any discovery of human remains/burial goods shall be kept confidential to prevent further disturbance.

PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING:

Any/all revisions to the Kizh’s proposed TCR Conditions of Approval set forth above must be requested in writing, and not more than ten (30) calendar days from the date that we consulted on the subject Project so that we can conclude consultation. Requested revisions shall be delivered to the Kizh via email at [email protected], and in a Word document, redline format. Please include as the email subject: “REQUEST FOR MITIGATION REVISIONS,” and identify the project name and location/address. If revisions are not requested within 10 calendar days of consultation, the Kizh’s proposed Conditions of Approval are presumed accepted as proposed (i.e., as set forth above). The laws preserving the confidentiality of Native
The laws preserving the confidentiality of Native
American documents and records prohibits the inclusion of any information about the location of Native American artifacts, sites, sacred lands, or any other information that is exempt from public disclosure pursuant to the Public Records Act. (Cal. Code Regs. § 15120(d) Rocklin (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 200, at p. 220. Please be advised that these protective mitigation Conditions of Approval are property of the KIZH Nation Tribal government and no other entity or Tribal government nor should they be utilized for any other Tribal government or entity and are protected under the AB52 confidentiality act 2957 of 5188
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.
2958 of 5188
Exhibit 8 - Departmental Comments
2959 of 5188
2960 of 5188
2961 of 5188
2962 of 5188
2963 of 5188
2964 of 5188
2965 of 5188
2966 of 5188
2967 of 5188
2968 of 5188
2969 of 5188
2970 of 5188
2971 of 5188
2972 of 5188
2973 of 5188
2974 of 5188
2975 of 5188
2976 of 5188
2977 of 5188
2978 of 5188
2979 of 5188
2980 of 5188
2981 of 5188
2982 of 5188
2983 of 5188
2984 of 5188
2985 of 5188
2986 of 5188
2987 of 5188
2988 of 5188
2989 of 5188
2990 of 5188
2991 of 5188
2992 of 5188
2993 of 5188
2994 of 5188
2995 of 5188
2996 of 5188
2997 of 5188
2998 of 5188
2999 of 5188
3000 of 5188
3001 of 5188
3002 of 5188
3003 of 5188
3004 of 5188
3005 of 5188
3006 of 5188
3007 of 5188
3008 of 5188
3009 of 5188
3010 of 5188
3011 of 5188
3012 of 5188
3013 of 5188
3014 of 5188
3015 of 5188
3016 of 5188
3017 of 5188
3018 of 5188
3019 of 5188
3020 of 5188
3021 of 5188
3022 of 5188
3023 of 5188
3024 of 5188
3025 of 5188
3026 of 5188
3027 of 5188
3028 of 5188
3029 of 5188
3030 of 5188
3031 of 5188
3032 of 5188
3033 of 5188
3034 of 5188
3035 of 5188
3036 of 5188
3037 of 5188
3038 of 5188
3039 of 5188
3040 of 5188
3041 of 5188
3042 of 5188
3043 of 5188
1 CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Appeal of Planning Hearing Officer’s approval of a density bonus housing plan to construct a new 5-story, 87-unit multi-family residential development in the CH (Commercial Hillside) Zone.

Location: 3411 - 3427 Foothill Boulevard
Glendale, CA 91214
Legal Description: Portion of Lot 1, Block K, Crescenta Canada Tract (5602-007-020 and 5602-007-021)
Case Numbers: Appeal Case No. PAPP 006680-2026; Density Bonus Case No.

PDBP-005269-2025
Applicant: Rodney Khan/Khan Consulting
Owner: Camellia Avenue LLC
Appellant: Glendale Homeowners Coordinating Council/Crescenta Highlands Neighborhood Association
Approved for June 3, 2026

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Roger Kiesel, Senior Planner
Reviewed by:

Dennis Joe, Principal Planner
Exhibit 9 - Planning Commission Appeal Staff Report
3044 of 5188
2 SUMMARY
This is an appeal of the Planning Hearing Officer’s March 25, 2026, decision (Exhibit 10) to approve a density bonus (Exhibit 4) housing plan to construct a new 5-story, 87- unit multi-family residential development with 151 parking spaces in the CH (Commercial Hillside) Zone (Exhibit 2). Nine of the proposed residential units will be reserved for very low-income households. The project site (Exhibit 1) is 57,974 square feet (1.3 acres) and located at the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and New York Avenue. It consists of two parcels (APNs: 5602-007-020 and 5602-007-021).

This project has been reviewed under the AB 130 permit streamlining and CEQA exemption requirements, and is subject to the objective standards of the Housing Accountability Act, which law sets for specific parameters for project denial.

The applicant is requesting three concessions/incentives and three waivers.

The three concessions/incentives being requested are:

Lot coverage (Glendale Municipal Code (GMC) Section 30.11.030 Table 30.11-B).

Required: The maximum lot coverage in the CH (Commercial Hillside) zone when developed with residential units is 50%.

Requested: Exceed the maximum lot coverage by 5% (55% lot coverage).

Floor area ratio (FAR) (GMC Section 30.11.030 Table 30.11-B).

Required: The maximum FAR in the CH zone when developed with residential units is 1.2.

Requested: Exceed the maximum FAR by 1.15 (2.35 FAR).

Building height (GMC Section 30.11.030 Table 30.11-B).

Required: The maximum height in the CH zone when developed with residential units is three stories/36 feet.

Requested: Exceed maximum height by two stories/38 feet (5 stories/74 feet). 3045 of 5188
3 The three waivers being requested are:

All residential parking shall be contained in subterranean or semi-subterranean garages (GMC Section 30.32.040.B(4)).

Required: When there is more than one dwelling unit for each 2,500 square feet of lot area or when there are more than four dwelling units in one building on a lot, all off-street parking spaces for such dwelling units shall be provided in subterranean or semi-subterranean garages.

Requested: Allow some proposed residential parking to be at- and above-grade.

A conditional use permit is required for ground floor residential units (GMC Residential District and Permit Requirements Table 30.11-A).

Required: In the CH zone, multiple residential dwelling units at the ground floor level require approval of a conditional use permit.

Requested: Allow residential units on the ground floor without approval of a conditional use permit.

Additional open space for sites over 90 feet in width that exceed the base density is required (GMC Section 30.31.020.A(7)).

Required: On lots with a minimum width of 90 feet and with a density exceeding the maximum density permitted by code, an additional 900 square feet open space area shall be provided contiguous to a street front/side setback area and for each additional foot of lot width thereafter, an additional 20 square feet of such open space shall be provided.

Requested: Allow the multi-family development without providing additional open space.

In addition to the concessions/incentives and waivers, the project qualifies for a parking reduction, which must be granted by the City. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65915(p) and GMC Section 30.36.090, an applicant may request a parking reduction. Sections 65915(p)(1) and 65915(p)(4) of the California Government Code provides that upon the request of an applicant, a city shall not require a vehicular parking ratio, inclusive of parking for persons with a disability and guests, to exceed one parking space per studio and one bedroom units and no more than one and one-half (1.5) parking spaces for two to three bedroom units for a development. The parking 3046 of 5188
4 may be provided through tandem parking or uncovered parking, but not through onstreet parking. This parking reduction provision requires the applicant of this project to provide a minimum of 119 parking spaces (23 spaces for the 23 one-bedroom units, plus 69 spaces for the 46 two-bedroom and 27 spaces for the 18 three-bedroom units).

The project satisfies the parking reduction requirement by providing 151 parking spaces. Accordingly, the project meets the parking reduction minimum under Density Bonus Law, California Government Code Sections 65915(p)(1) and 65915(p)(4).

The applicant will be required to enter into a Density Bonus Housing Agreement (“DB Agreement”) which will require that 15.5% of the base density of 58 units (8.99, required to be rounded up to 9 units) be made affordable to very low-income households. The DB Agreement with the City will be a recorded restriction on the property on which the affordable units and density bonus units are constructed. In addition, the DB Agreement will run with the land and bind all future owners and successors in interest.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
On June 30, 2025, budget trailer bills AB 130 and AB 131 were signed and took effect immediately. AB 130 added Public Resources Code Section 21080.66 creating a new statutory California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemption for certain qualifying infill housing projects that meet following criteria:
• Project site is no more than 20 acres.
• Project site is within the boundaries of an incorporated municipality, or "urban area" as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau.
• Project site was previously developed with "urban uses" or is substantially surrounded by sites developed with urban uses.
• Project is consistent with local zoning standards, applicable general plan standards and any applicable local coastal program, subject to deviations allowed by the State Density Bonus Law.
• Project must be at least half the density deemed appropriate to accommodate lower-income households in the State Housing Element Law, as set forth in California Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(3)(B).
• Project will not require demolition of a historic structure that was placed on a historic register before the project's preliminary application was submitted. • For projects submitted after Jan. 1, 2025, no portion of the project will be used as a hotel, motel, or bed and breakfast.
• All project sites must satisfy SB 35's site eligibility criteria (farmland, wetlands and conservation/species habitat areas are excluded, and coastal sites, fire 3047 of 5188
5 hazard zones, hazardous waste sites, earthquake fault zones and flood areas are subject to specified restrictions).

The applicant submitted an AB 130 checklist. Staff has reviewed the project and the submitted checklist and concurs that the project meets the criteria and is statutorily exempt from CEQA review per Public Resources Code Section 21080.66 (Exhibit 6).

RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission deny the appeal and sustain the Planning Hearing Officer's decision to approve Density Bonus Case No. PDBP-005269-2025. In order to reverse the Planning Hearing Officer’s decision and deny the density bonus application, the Planning Commission is required by the Housing Accountability Act to make specific, written findings of denial supported by a preponderance of the evidence in the record (e.g., there is more weight of evidence in support of denial than not). The Commission must find one of the following narrow exceptions under Gov. Code § 65589.5(d) to deny the project:
• Public Health and Safety: The project causes a significant, unavoidable "specific, adverse impact" on public health or safety, with no feasible mitigation. Findings must rely on objective, written standards in place when the application was deemed complete.
• Legal Compliance: Denial is mandatory to comply with state or federal laws. • Infrastructure Deficiencies: The site lacks adequate water or sewer facilities, or is located on land zoned for agriculture or resource preservation. • Overconcentration: The project is not for low- or moderate-income households, and the jurisdiction is already meeting its regional housing needs for that income level.
• Objective Standards Inconsistency: The project violates both zoning and general plan standards. The development is inconsistent with both the zoning and general plan for the site, which was not identified for such housing in a compliant housing element.

If the Planning Commission is inclined to reverse the Planning Hearing Officer’s decision and deny the density bonus application, staff recommends that the matter be continued for two weeks to allow staff time to draft a motion containing the Planning Commission’s findings for denial of the application.
3048 of 5188
6 BACKGROUND
General Information
On June 18, 2025, the applicant submitted the subject density bonus application Density Bonus Case No. PDBP-005269-2025.

On March 18, 2026, the Planning Hearing Officer held a public hearing on the density bonus application. The Planning Hearing Officer’s staff report is Exhibit 9.

On March 25, 2026, the Planning Hearing Officer approved with conditions Density Bonus Case No. PDBP-005269-2025.

On April 9, 2026, an appeal application (Exhibit 3) was filed for the approval of Density Bonus Case No. PDBP-005269-2025.

General Plan: Community Commercial
Zone: CH (Commercial Hillside) zone.

Description of Existing Property and Uses: The project site is developed with an automobile dealer at the northwest corner of Foothill Blvd and New York Ave and a commercial center containing retail and restaurant uses located further west along Foothill Blvd. The site is almost entirely paved with surface parking and includes minimal landscaping.

NEIGHBORING ZONES AND USES:

Zoning Existing Uses
North Special Recreation (SR) New York Park
South Commercial Hillside (CH) Gas station, auto repair and restaurant and retail
East Commercial Hillside (CH)
and Medium Density
Residential (R-2250)
Auto dealership and multi-family
residential
West Commercial Hillside (CH)
and Single-family
Residential (R-1)
Auto repair and single-family
residential
Project Site Commercial Hillside (CH), Auto dealership, restaurant and retail Previous Permits for the Site:

None related to the present application.
3049 of 5188
7 Files Available for Review:

All files and exhibits relative to Density Bonus Case No. PDBP-005269-2025 have been available for review in the Community Development Department – Development Services Division, are available at this hearing, and by reference are hereby made part of the record.

ANALYSIS
Requested Action by the Appellant:

The appellant is requesting that the Planning Commission overturn the March 25, 2026, Planning Hearing Officer’s decision to approve Density Bonus Case No. PDBP-005269- 2025 to allow the 87-unit multi-family development at 3411 – 3427 Foothill Blvd.

Basis of the Planning Hearing Officer’s Decision:

After considering the evidence presented with respect to this application, the plans submitted therewith and testimony at the hearing, the Planning Hearing Officer approved the subject density bonus request. The Planning Hearing Officer’s decision letter, including the determinations of required findings and conditions of approval, is included with this report.

Planning Hearing Officer’s Meeting:

The hearing is available for viewing online:
https://glendaleca.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=39623 Appellant’s Arguments and Staff Responses
In summary, the appellant contends there are violations of a specific provision of law that forms the basis of the appeal, that the Planning Hearing Officer exceeded its authority by virtue of any of the provisions of the law and failed to fulfill a mandatory duty by any provisions of law, and the Planning Hearing Officer refused to hear or consider certain facts before rendering its decision.

Additionally, the appellant believes that the evidence before the Planning Hearing Officer was insufficient or inadequate to support approving the project and that the appellant has new evidence of material facts, not previously presented, which if considered would change the approval decision. In summary, the appellant believes that there are two reasons the Planning Hearing Officer should not have approved the project. The first is the risk to existing residents should an emergency require an evacuation in the area. The second is the risk to future project residents in the event of high site contamination levels. The appellant contends either of these reasons would have been sufficient to deny the density bonus application. 3050 of 5188
8 Appellant’s Appeal Argument “A”:

The appellant contends the project approval violates AB 747 (Government Code Section 8593.3) which requires preparation of a comprehensive evacuation capacity plan, which plan would have identified New York Avenue as the only evacuation route for certain area residents. The appellant cites Government Code Section 65915(d)(1)(B)), which allows exceptions to the state’s density bonus law if the project presents a specific adverse threat to public health or safety. On this basis, the appellant contents the Planning Hearing Officer’s finding that the project does not present a specific adverse threat to public health or safety is, therefore, erroneous because the decision failed to consider the public comment of several community members showing specific adverse safety impact.

Additionally, the appellant contends the Planning Hearing Officer failed to consider the proximity to the site of a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone or that considerable ground shaking could occur potentially damaging the adjacent reservoir and future multi-family project. The appellant also stated that the additional traffic as a result of the project would further delay evacuation times for area residents.

The appellant also identified the risk posed by constructing residences on the site of a former gas station, a dry cleaners and auto dealership as a second reason this project poses a public health and safety threat. The California Water Resources Control Board considers the site to be “Open-Inactive” and staff should have investigated the meaning of this and required soil and water testing to occur and to remediate for contaminants prior to commencing construction.

Staff’s Response to Appeal Argument “A”:

In April 2025, the City Council adopted the 2025 Safety Element Update (Exhibit 11).

As part of this document and consistent with requirements of AB 747, Kittelson and Associates, a transportation engineering and planning consulting firm, prepared an evacuation analysis (2025 Safety Element Update, Appendix C). AB 747 (as well as SB 99) require agencies to evaluate the resiliency of their transportation system, identify evacuation routes and their capacity, safety and viability under a range of emergency scenarios, and identify key routes for community areas with only one access point. The evacuation analysis considered two representative evacuation scenarios (a fire in the Verdugo Mountains and a landslide in North Glendale) and provided the City with estimates of roadway capacity constraints and travel time considerations during evacuations. Both in the 2021 Base Year (Figure 6) and the 2040 Future Year (Figure 7), which takes into account traffic levels and 2040 demographic forecasts certain street segments in the vicinity of the project site, including segments of Foothill Boulevard and New York Avenue, were shown to be nearing capacity and over capacity related to congestion locations. However, these capacity analyses are conservative and represent conditions without implementation of any evacuation strategies, such as manual traffic control or contraflow lanes, which measures the City can deploy in order 3051 of 5188 9 to increase roadway capacity in one direction versus the other. The City also has an Emergency Plan (Exhibit 16), which addresses Glendale’s planned response to extraordinary emergency situations associated with natural disasters, technological incidents and national security emergencies.

The appellant contends that New York Avenue is the only evacuation route for residents on this street north of Foothill Boulevard, certain cul-de-sacs off this street and two blocks of El Caminito, without going north (toward the mountains). In the Glendale Safety Element, an emergency response and evacuation route is defined as a designated public, paved through-way that is considered potentially viable for evacuation. The 2025 Safety Element Update, Exhibits, Plate P-5 identifies not only New York Avenue but also the north/south streets of Dunsmore and Boston Avenues as Emergency Response Routes. Further, the east/west streets Markridge Drive and Santa Carlotta Street are also identified as Emergency Response Routes. Neither the project site, nor the surrounding neighborhood, are located in a neighborhood considered a single-access neighborhood (2025 Safety Element Update, Exhibits, Plate P-4). Based on the City’s adopted 2025 Safety Element and adopted Evacuation Plan, New York Avenue is not the “only” evacuation route available in this area. The appellant’s contention that the City has not complied with AB 747, is therefore not accurate, and is not evidence that Planning Hearing Officer exceeded its authority, failed to fulfill a mandatory duty by any provisions of law, or refused to hear or consider certain facts before rendering its decision.

The appellant also contends that the project presents a specific adverse impact to public health and safety and, therefore, the project should not get approval of the concessions and waivers under the State’s Density Bonus Law, based on Government Code Section 65915(d)(1)(B) and (e)(1) (allowing denial of concessions and waivers if one more findings of specific adverse impact are made). As defined by Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(2), which is part of the Housing Accountability Act (HAA; Government Code Section 65589.5), “specific, adverse impact” is “a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete”. The HAA further defines “objective” as “involving no personal or subjective judgement by a public official and being uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official.” (Government Code Section 65589.5(h)(9).) The HAA provides further limitations on the existence of a “specific, adverse impact” in that it must be demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence. As discussed below, this project will not have a specific, adverse impact to public health and safety with respect to its location adjacent to a Very High Fire Hazard 3052 of 5188
10 Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) , its location in an area generally subject seismic events, and its location on allegedly contaminated soils.

With respect to the project location in a VHFHSZ, the appellant contends that the Planning Hearing Officer’s finding that the project does not present a specific, adverse threat to public health and safety is erroneous because it did not consider the project’s immediate adjacency to the VHFHSZ. The project site is not located in a VHFHSZ, nor is it adjacent to such zone, according to the City of Glendale’s Fire Department High Fire Hazard Zone Map (Exhibit 12), updated in July 2025 in compliance with CalFire.

The site is located roughly one-quarter mile southwest of areas classified within a VHFHSZ. The project site is also not located in a Moderate Fire Hazard Zone (MFHZ).

The northern portion of New York Park, immediately north of the project site, is located in a MFHZ. The objective standard in the present case is whether the project site is located within a VHFHSZ and, as noted above, it is not. Further, even if the project site was located in a VHFHSZ, because the City has adopted fire hazard mitigation measures pursuant to State building and fire code standards that apply to all proposed construction within a VHFHSZ, the project would still be eligible for the AB 130 exemption.

With respect to potential site exposure to a seismic event, the appellant’s contention that the Planning Hearing Officer’s finding is erroneous because it did not contemplate that the subject site could suffer from considerable ground shaking during an earthquake on nearby earthquake faults, fails. The project site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone, a Fault Hazard Management Zone, a Landslide Hazard Zone or a Liquification Hazard Zone (2025 Safety Element Update, Exhibits, Plate P-1). The site is located roughly one-half mile south of areas classified a Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone or a Fault Hazard Management Zone. The closest Liquification Hazard Zone is located approximately one-half mile south of the project site and Landslide Hazard Zones are located approximately one mile north and south of the project site. The objective standard in this case is whether the project site is located within an earthquake fault zone and, as noted above, it is not. Further, even if the subject site was located in an earthquake fault zone, the project would remain eligible under the AB 130 exemption because the project would be required to comply with all applicable seismic protection building code standards adopted by the State as well as the City of Glendale. The appellant does not present evidence that the project presents a specific, adverse threat to public health and safety from a seismic event; in fact, the evidence shows the contrary. Accordingly, the Planning Officer’s findings were not in error.

Finally, with respect to the appellant’s contention that the Planning Hearing Officer failed to consider the risk posed by constructing residences on potentially contaminated soil, the record shows that potential soil contamination risks were considered. The project 3053 of 5188
11 site has been developed for many years and currently contains a used automobile dealership and a strip commercial center, with a variety of uses within it. The appellant contends that the location at one point contained a gas station and a dry cleaners; this contention, by itself, is not evidence that the site is either contaminated or incapable of remediation or redevelopment.

The site is not on the Cortese List1 (Exhibit 13) or otherwise identified by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) as a hazardous waste site. The objective standard in this case is whether the project site is located on the Cortese List or identified as a hazardous waste site by the DTSC and, as noted above, it is not.

Notwithstanding the above, California Public Resources Code Section 21080.66(c)(1) requires projects using CEQA’s AB 130 statutory exemption to complete a Phase I environmental site assessment, as defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 78090. For clarification purposes, the requirement of completing a Phase I environmental site assessment will be made a condition of project approval. Further, if the required Phase I environmental site assessment identifies a Recognized Environmental Condition (REC), AB 130 further requires the completion of a “preliminary endangerment assessment” to determine whether current or past hazardous substance management practices have resulted in release or threatened release of a hazardous substance that poses a threat to the public health or environment, as defined in the California Health and Safety Code Section 78095. This assessment is to determine the existence of any release of a hazardous substance on the site and potential for exposure of future occupants to significant health hazards from nearby property or activity. If potential for exposure to significant hazards from surrounding properties or activities exists, the effects of the potential exposure are required to be mitigated to levels required by current federal and state statutory and regulatory standards before the local government issues a certificate of occupancy for the project.

On April 1, 2026, the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) was contacted by a member of the public expressing concern of potential environmental issues regarding the project. According to the State Water Board’s public database, GeoTracker, three environmental oversight cases are associated with the project site.

A letter (Exhibit 15) received by the City of Glendale from the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, which is the public agency with primary responsibility for the protection of ground and surface water quality within most of Los Angeles County, including the project site, stated that contaminants, including VOCs and petroleum 1 The Cortese List is an annually updated planning document mandated by California Government Code Section 65962.5, used by state and local agencies to identify properties with hazardous material releases for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance. 3054 of 5188
12 hydrocarbons, have been documented at the site. While the presence of contaminants has been documented at the site, the Board has no current information or data regarding the extent of the contamination. The letter recommends that the applicant conduct soil, soil vapor, and groundwater sampling, and that a Soil Management Plan (SMP) be developed and submitted for the Los Angeles Water Board’s approval prior to the issuance of any building or grading permits. The requested sampling and development of an SMP will be made conditions of project approval.

The applicant has provided responses to the appellant’s arguments in a May 18, 2026, letter from Rand|Paster|Nelson, a land use, government, municipal advocacy and environmental law firm (Exhibit 14).

Appellant’s Appeal Argument “B”:

Building on appellant’s appeal argument “A”, the appellant further contends that the Planning Hearing Officer exceeded its authority by failing to make findings regarding the risks associated with wildfire, earthquake, breach of reservoir or soil and water contamination.

Staff’s Response to Appeal Argument “B”:

As set forth above in “Staff’s Response to Appeal Argument “A””, the project will have no specific adverse threat to public health and safety, as defined in the Density Bonus Housing Law, Government Code Section 65915(d)(1)(B), because the project site is not located in any identified VHFHSZ; or in an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone, on in a Fault Hazard Management Zone, or in a Landslide Hazard Zone or in a Liquification Hazard Zone.

Condition No. 9 of the Density Bonus Housing Plan approval requires the applicant to comply, to the satisfaction of the Cit or Department Director, with all Section/Department requirements as specified in the Departmental memos. This includes Glendale Water and Power’s (GWP) August 29, 2025, memo requiring assurance the structural integrity of GWP’s potable water reservoir located beneath New York Park is protected and maintained; and that the developer is responsible for the current cost for GWP’s consultant to verify the clearances required and possible effects due to any structural deterioration of the reservoir.

As stated above in “Staff’s Response to Appeal Argument “A””, the project site is not on the Cortese List or listed as a hazardous waste site identified by the DTSC. As required by AB 130, a Phase I environmental site assessment is required. Should this assessment identify a REC, AB 130 requires a “preliminary endangerment assessment” to identify whether these is potential for exposure to significant hazards from nearby properties. The effects of potential exposure, if any, are required to be mitigated to current federal and state statutory and regulatory standard levels prior to issuance of project certificate of occupancy. Further, as discussed above, the applicant will need to 3055 of 5188
13 conduct certain sampling prior to redevelopment of the site to evaluate the potential risks posed by contamination and develop a soil management plan.

Appellant’s Appeal Argument “C”:

The appellant contends that the Planning Hearing Officer failed to fulfill a mandatory duty by any provision of law in that the Officer did not consider substantial evidence presented by community members concerning the need for soil sampling and soil and water remediation prior to construction commencement. To document this, the appellant states that the decision letter did not reference any evidence presented by community members or the Officer’s consideration of this evidence.

Staff’s Response to Appeal Argument “C”:

There were over 100 comment letters received with regard to the public hearing for the project; these letters were acknowledged at the hearing, as were the speakers who attended and spoke at the hearing. The City’s decision letter approving the project stated that such input was considered. Staff acknowledges the appellant’s desire for a more detailed recognition of community members’ comments and concerns; but detailed responses to comments are not required where the commentors have not presented substantial evidence warranting evaluation and response.

Public comments in favor of the project cited the need for more affordable housing, that the existing uses were ugly, that urbanization was a good thing and would lead to a more walkable environment, and the greater property tax revenues.

The majority of the public comments were in opposition to the project. There were a number of concerns raised, the most mentioned were the following:
• Traffic – the amount of traffic the project would generate and the congestion that currently exists in the neighborhood.
• Concessions/Waivers – the concessions and waivers for height, floor area ratio, lot coverage, parking location, location of residential units and additional open space.
• Change of Neighborhood Character/Size of the Project – the granting of the concessions/waivers, which results in a 5-story project, accommodating 87 residential units, is not consistent with the current environment in La Crescenta and would change the way of live.
• Schools – the project would result in further overcrowding of the area schools. • Fire Zone/Evacuation – the project is located in a fire zone and evacuation would be problematic.
• Infrastructure – how the City would accommodate the project given utility systems/City services are already overtaxed.
3056 of 5188
14 • Parking – the area is already in short supply of parking and the project does not provide enough parking.

Emergency evacuation and proximity to the HFHSZ were addressed above. The public’s additional concerns are summarized below and addressed below:

Traffic
The project site currently contains an automobile dealership and a commercial center with retail, service and restaurant uses. On-site development will be demolished to construct the proposed 87-unit multi-family development. Traffic consultant, Jano Baghdanian and Associates (JBA), performed a vehicle miles travelled (VMT) screening assessment (part of Exhibit 8) for the proposed project. The analysis was conducted in accordance with City of Glendale Transportation Analysis Guidelines and CEQA Analysis requirements. To estimate morning, afternoon and daily vehicular trips generated by the project, trip generation rates from the 11th Edition of the Trip Generation Manual published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers were used.

Trip generation of existing, active uses were also estimated and subtracted from the project trips to determine the proposed project’s “net trip generation” for the VMT analysis. The analysis determined that the project is estimated to generate -51 fewer trips in the morning peak hour, -85 fewer trips in the afternoon peak hour and -800 fewer trips on a typical weekday than the existing uses on the site. The City’s transportation impact analysis guidelines (TIA guidelines) note that projects that generate fewer than 145 daily vehicle trips can be presumed to cause a less-thansignificant transportation impact and would not require a detailed VMT analysis. Based on the vehicle trip generation forecast, formal VMT assessment is not required for the project as forecast daily vehicle trips does not exceed daily vehicle trip threshold of net 145 daily trips. As noted above, the project’s daily trip generation is -800 fewer daily trips on a weekday than the existing uses on the site, well below the 145 net daily vehicle trips threshold.

As noted earlier in the staff report, both in the 2021 Base Year (Figure 6) and 2040 Future Year (Figure 7) certain street segments in the vicinity of the project site, including segments of Foothill Boulevard and New York Avenue, were shown to be nearing capacity and over capacity related to congestion locations in both the Base Year and Future Year. As discussed above, morning and afternoon peak, and daily trips for the proposed project are reduced when compared with the current development.

Therefore, the existing near capacity issues identified will be made better since it would result in fewer trips than existing uses.

Concessions/Waivers
The project is a density bonus housing project, which makes it eligible to use concessions and waivers. Here, nine of the 87 residential units proposed will be affordable to very low-income households. Consistent with the State’s Density Bonus 3057 of 5188
15 Law, the applicant has requested three concessions (increases in lot coverage, floor area ratio, and building height) and three waivers (location of parking, location of residential units and elimination of additional open space). Pursuant to State law, a concession must be granted unless it does not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions, or unless it will have “specific adverse impact” as defined in California Government Code Section 65915 or if it will be contrary to State of Federal law. Also pursuant to the law, a waiver must be granted if the standard will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of the housing development at the density and with the concessions, and where it will not have a “specific adverse impact”, will not have an impact on a California Register of Historical Resources property, and will not be contrary to State or Federal law. In the present case, the Planning Hearing Officer could not make the findings to deny the requested concessions and was able to make findings to grant the waivers, therefore, approval of these concessions and waivers should be sustained.

Change of Neighborhood Character/Size of the Project
Certain concessions (lot coverage 55% requested vs. 50% permitted; floor area ratio

2.35 requested vs. 1.2 permitted; and building height 5-stories/74 feet requested vs. 3- stories/36 feet permitted) allowed the project to be larger than the current zoning of the site permits and under which a “standard”, non-density bonus project would be developed. However, as discussed above, State law compels approval of these concessions absent findings that the concession will not reduce project costs; that it will cause a specific adverse impact, or that the project is contrary to State and Federal law.

The Planning Hearing Officer did not have substantial evidence to make the findings to deny the requested concessions. Staff acknowledges that the proposed project will be larger than existing development in the La Crescenta area, but that by itself is not the basis upon which to deny the requested concessions and waivers. The project is subject to approval by the Design Review Board; however, the project scope will be limited based on the project’s Density Bonus Law status.

Schools
School impact fees are charged on new residential and commercial development to fund school facilities. The current impact fee for residential development is $3.48 per square-foot. The proposed project will be required to pay the school impact fee at final inspection or certificate of occupancy to account for the impact the project will have on schools. Collection of impact fees is considered full mitigation of impact on schools.

Fire Zone/Evacuation
As stated above, the project site is not located in a VHFHSZ; it is located approximately one-quarter mile southwest of areas classified in this zone. The Glendale 2025 Safety Element Update identifies New York, Dunsmore and Boston Avenues in a north/south 3058 of 5188
16 direction and Markridge Drive and Santa Carlotta Street in an east/west direction as emergency response routes in the area of the project site.

Infrastructure
Departmental comments are contained in Exhibit 8.

The Maintenance Services Section of the Public Works Department will require a sewer discharge capacity analysis for the project for evaluation against the master plan sewer model to ensure the project will not have a negative impact on the sewer system.

The Land Development Section of the Public Works Department will require sewer lateral connections be of adequate size to accommodate the needs of the proposed development. Additionally, a sewage capacity increase fee will be assessed based on the increase in sewage flow generated by the project compared with the current uses on the site.

GWP – Water Engineering will require the applicant to pay the cost for the installation of necessary fire, irrigation or domestic water service to the property, as well as off-site water facilities necessary to provide sufficient fire flow.

The Fire Department did not cite concerns related to its ability to serve this project and required the project to comply with California Fire Code and local fire amendments.

The Police Department did not cite concerns related to its ability to serve this project.

The project is subject to the Public Use Facilities Development Impact Fee Ordinance, which requires fees be paid to offset impacts on parks, recreation and library facilities related to this project.

Parking
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65915(p) and Glendale Municipal Code Section 30.36.090, the applicant has requested a parking reduction for the project. California Government Code Sections 65915(p)(1) and 65915(p)(4) stipulates that the City cannot require more than one parking space per studio or one-bedroom unit and no more than 1.5 parking spaces per two- or three-bedroom unit. In the present case, given the proposed unit mix, the applicant is required to provide a minimum of 119 parking spaces for the project. The project is providing 151 on-site parking spaces for the project.

Soil and Water Sampling
The appellant contends that the Planning Hearing Officer failed to impose a condition requiring soil and water sampling and to impose any required remediation. As noted above, AB 130 already requires a Phase I environmental site assessment, and further analysis and remediation, if necessary. To clarify this, a condition of approval will be added to project approval requiring a Phase I site assessment for the project as is 3059 of 5188
17 already required by State law. Additionally, pursuant to a request from Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, certain sampling and development of a soil management plan will be also required.

Appellant’s Appeal Argument “D”:

The appellant contends the Planning Hearing Officer refused to hear/consider certain facts before rendering the approval decision, specifically, that the Officer did not pose questions to staff or the applicant raised by the community and the approval decision does not reflect consideration of facts raised by community members. Further, the appellant states that project construction over contaminated soil, adjacent to a water supply reservoir in a seismically active area next to a fire zone is not a “standard” housing project and concludes this unusual circumstance is enough to override AB 130’s broad exemption from CEQA.

Staff’s Response to Appeal Argument “D”:

The appellant is correct in that the Planning Hearing Officer did not pose questions to Planning staff or community members who spoke at the public hearing regarding the project. During the public hearing, the Planning Hearing Officer recognized both the written comments received as well as speakers at the hearing. As noted in the staff report, these comments were considered as part of the Officer’s approval decision.

Many of the comments raised by community members, including but not limited to, traffic, project incompatibility, fire safety, evacuations, and soil contamination are discussed in greater detail earlier in this appeal staff report.

As documented above, the project is eligible for AB 130’s statutory exemption from CEQA. Statutory exemptions are passed directly by the California State Legislature. If a project explicitly satisfies all the criteria of a statutory exemption, it is completely exempt from CEQA review, even if it has the potential to significantly impact the environment. Unlike categorical exemptions, statutory exemptions are not subject to any limitations or exceptions, like the “unusual circumstances” exemption that can potentially apply to a Class 32 exemption. AB 130 requires that a housing development meet all statutorily defined criteria to be eligible for the exemption. Substantial evidence discussed throughout this staff report demonstrates this project’s eligibility under AB 130.

As cited above in “Staff’s Response to Appeal Argument “A””, the project site is not on the Cortese List or as a hazardous waste site identified by the DTSC. As required by AB 130, a Phase I environmental assessment is required. Should this assessment identify a recognized environmental condition, AB 130 requires a “preliminary endangerment assessment”. If this assessment identifies potential for exposure to significant hazards from nearby property exists, the effects of the potential exposure are required to be mitigated to current federal and state statutory and regulatory standard levels prior to issuance of project certificate of occupancy. 3060 of 5188
18 Appellant’s Appeal Argument “E”:

The appellant contends that the evidence before the Planning Hearing Officer was insufficient or inadequate to support project approval and contends that the Officer failed to acknowledge omissions in the applicant’s presentation and staff report to address evacuation and hazardous waste risks. Further, the appellant notes that AB 130’s exemption does not apply to sites listed on the Department of Toxic Substances Control Hazardous Waste and Substances Site list and requires completion of a Phase I environmental assessment and a Phase II site assessment, if necessary.

Staff’s Response to Appeal Argument “E”:

As noted herein above, the 2025 Safety Element Update included an emergency evacuation analysis in compliance with AB 747. The City also has an adopted Emergency Plan to guide the City’s response to potential emergency events.

The appellant is correct in stating that the AB 130 statutory exemption does not apply to sites listed on the Cortese List or identified as a DTSC hazardous waste site. However, the subject site is not on the Cortese List or identified as a hazardous waste site by DTSC. Notwithstanding that the project is eligible under an AB 130 exemption, as a statutory condition of approval, a Phase I environmental assessment of the site’s soil conditions and any remediation necessary as well as resolution of the issues identified by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board will be required.

Appellant’s Appeal Argument No. “F”:

The appellant contends that there is new evidence of material facts concerning evacuation routes and timing not previously presented, which if considered, should change the Officer’s approval decision. To support this contention, the appellant will be using a software modeling platform to demonstrate longer evacuation times as a result of the project, which will be presented at the appeal hearing. Similarly, Attachment 6 to the appeal application has been submitted that includes environmental assessments from collecting site history, including chemicals used on the site. The appellant states that the Officer failed to note that the State Water Resources Control Board or the Department of Toxic Substance Control needs to be notified when a site use change is proposed and requires a plan to address identified contamination. The appellant documented a conversation with the Water Resources Control Board staff that a questionnaire regarding chemicals used on the property to attempt to move the site to the non-case category was never returned by the property owner.

Staff’s Response to Appeal Argument “F”:

The appellant has not submitted the proposed presentation of a modeling program on emergency evacuation to staff, and, therefore, cannot opine on its validity. The Planning Commission has the discretion to, but is not required to accept a presentation 3061 of 5188
19 of new evidence of a technical nature at the time of the appeal3. However, as mentioned previously, the 2025 Safety Element Update identified roadway segments in the neighborhood of the project site that were nearing or over-capacity related to congestion. As noted earlier in this staff report, a VMT screening assessment concluded that the proposed project would result in fewer morning and afternoon peak and overall typical weekday trips than the present uses generate.

The appellant cites two reasons why the Density Bonus Housing Plan should not have been approved – the community risk in the event of an evacuation and the risk to future residents of the project should contamination levels be too high for residential use.

These two concerns were addressed herein above.

Conclusion:

Based on the above analysis, the evidence in the record, and the reasoning set forth in the approval of Density Bonus Case No. PDBP-005269-2025, staff recommends sustaining the Planning Hearing Officer’s decision.

EXHIBITS

1. Location Map

2. Project Plans

3. Appeal Application

4. Density Bonus Housing Plan

5. Photos

6. CEQA Exemptions provided by Public Resources Code Section 21080.66

7. Tribal Mitigation Measures

8. Department Comments

9. Planning Hearing Officer’s Staff Report for Density Bonus Case No. PDBP005269-2025

10.Planning Hearing Officer’s Decision Letter, dated March 25, 2026 3 GMC § 30.62.030 concerning appeal filing and submittal of information and fees, subsection B, requires that “All technical materials, including but not limited to: geologic/seismic reports, traffic studies, noise studies, biological studies and any other scientific studies; any visual simulations; and any comparative analytical or statistical report submitted by any interested party to be considered by the city council or planning commission, shall be submitted to the director of community development no later than seven days prior to the scheduled date for consideration by the planning commission, Glendale Redevelopment Agency, or the city council. Materials submitted after the seven days prior to the scheduled date for consideration shall only be considered upon the sole discretion of the planning commission, Glendale Redevelopment Agency, or the city council upon a showing of good cause. Materials which may be submitted at the time of the hearing include: petitions, group or individual letters, photographs, renderings, and presentational aids.”
3062 of 5188
MOTION
Moved by Planning Commissioner Nazarian, seconded by Planning Commissioner Chraghchian, that upon review and consideration of all materials and exhibits of current record relative to Density Bonus Case No.

PDBP-005269-2025, located at 3411 – 3427 Foothill Boulevard, and after having conducted an appeal hearing on said matter, that the Planning Commission hereby SUSTAINS the Planning Hearing Officer’s decision to APPROVE the density bonus housing plan to construct a new 5-story, 87-unit multi-family residential development in accord with the findings set forth below:

Incentives/Concessions

1. The incentive or concession does not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs or to provide affordable rents.

The applicant is requesting concessions from maximum lot coverage standards (55% requested vs. 50% maximum permitted), FAR standards (2.35 FAR requested vs. 1.2 maximum permitted) and building height standards (5 stories/74 feet requested vs. 3 stories/36 feet maximum permitted). These requests will reduce costs for the applicant for providing affordable units by enabling a greater number of residential units to be built on the site, which will in turn create construction efficiencies and reduce land costs per residential unit. The additional units constructed will result in identifiable and actual cost reductions because the building of these units will take advantage of construction efficiencies. Additionally, once completed and leased, the units will generate rental income to offset the cost of providing the 9 units at a rental rate affordable to very low-income households. If the Project were to comply with the Zoning Code regulations associated with lot coverage, FAR and building height, the volume (footprint and height) of the Project would be significantly reduced and would subsequently affect the viability of the Project to include affordable residential units. With the requested concessions, the owner/applicant will realize cost reductions that will allow it to provide 9 units at an affordable rent to very low-income households. Additionally, the requested concessions will allow the construction of a greater number of larger 2- and 3- bedroom market rate and affordable units, which are in high demand in the La Crescenta area.

Thus, based on the evidence identified above, the incentives/concessions shall be granted, as they will facilitate the project's ability to provide affordable rents.

2. The incentive or concession will have a “specific adverse impact upon public health and safety,” as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of California Government Code Section 65589.5, or the physical environment or on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact without rendering the housing development Exhibit 10 - Planning Commission Motion
3063 of 5188
Planning Commission Minutes
June 3, 2026
2 unaffordable to low-income and moderate-income households. As used herein, “specific adverse impact upon public health or safety” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. Inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or the land use designation in the general plan shall not constitute a specific, adverse impact upon public health or safety.

Accordingly, this denial finding cannot be met.

The additional residential density will, in fact, promote the City’s health and safety since there will be more housing opportunities for low-income households. The Project will advance the goals and policies of the General Plan, Housing Element (2021-2029), including, but not limited to, Goal 1 (“A City with a Wide Range of Housing Types to Meet the Needs of Current and Future Residents”), Goal 3 (“A City with Increased Opportunities for Affordable and Special Needs Housing Development”) and Policies 3.1 and 3.2 “Encourage both the private and public sectors to produce or assist in the production of affordable housing for special needs groups such as: persons with disabilities, the elderly, large families, single-parent households, and formerly homeless” and “Promote the development of extremely low, very low, low and moderate income housing by allowing developers density bonuses or other financial incentives for providing units for low and moderate income residents. The unit 3064 of 5188
Planning Commission Minutes
June 3, 2026
3 mix and location of affordable housing units in density bonus projects must be approved by the City and included in an affordable housing agreement.”

3. The incentive or concession will be contrary to state or federal law.

The granting of an incentive or concession shall not require or be interpreted, in and of itself, to require a general plan amendment, zoning change, study, or other discretionary approval. For purposes of this subdivision, “study” does not include reasonable documentation to establish eligibility for the concession or incentive or to demonstrate that the incentive or concession meets the definition.

Since there is no substantial evidence to support any of the three findings for denial, the Director of Community Development must grant, and does hereby grant, the requested concessions.

Waivers

The City’s Zoning Ordinance requires off-street parking spaces for residential units to be provided in subterranean or semi-subterranean garages where there is more than one dwelling unit for each 2,500 SF of lot area or when there are more than four dwelling units in one building on a lot. The project proposes one dwelling unit for each 666 SF of lot area and 87 units in the building. The 1.3 acre site contains a cross slope, sloping up both from east to west and from south to north. While requiring the project to provide all parking to be either 3065 of 5188 Planning Commission Minutes
June 3, 2026
4 subterranean or semi-subterranean would not literally preclude the construction of dwelling units at the density and with the incentives or concessions granted, it would effectively preclude their development. Certain dwelling units in the northern and western portions of the Project would be constructed below the adjacent ground level, inhibiting their light, air and ventilation and rendering them not desirable or viable in which to reside.

The ‘CH’ - (Commercial Hillside) zone permits ground level residential uses with approval of a conditional use permit. It could be possible to replace the ground floor commercial with dwelling units through this process. However, if the conditional use permit were not granted, units could not be located at the ground floor, resulting in either fewer affordable units or the need for additional floors on the Project.

The City’s Zoning Ordinance requires that projects on lots with a minimum width of 90 feet and with density exceeding the maximum density permitted by code for lots with less than 90 feet in width, that additional open space be provided equal to 900 SF plus an additional 20 SF for each additional foot of lot width over 90 feet. The Project is required to provide 1,607 SF (900 SF + (170.34 ft. (width of lot) – 90 feet x 20 SF)) of additional open space. If the Project were required to provide this additional open space, it would further restrict where the building footprint could be located on the lot and physically prevent construction of the housing development at the density and with the incentives or concessions granted. This additional open space must be located within 50% of the lot depth/width nearest the street-front or street-side property line, visible from the public street and be integrated with the landscaping of the contiguous setback area and open to the sky. These criteria limit the additional open space to ground-level areas and, as a result, this requirement further constrains the footprint of the building, which, in turn, reduces the area available for residential units. It also limits the ability to design vertically, as extending the building upward without encroaching into the additional open space would necessitate a smaller building footprint. The constrained footprint means fewer units can be built at all levels of the building.

2. The waiver or reduction in development standards will not have a specific, adverse impact, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision 3066 of 5188 Planning Commission Minutes
June 3, 2026
5 (d) of California Government Code Section 65589.5, upon health, safety, or the physical environment, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact; The waivers for parking location, ground floor residential units and additional open space do not include or necessitate reductions in standards to any state or local Building and Safety Division (Community Development Department), Fire Department or Engineering Division (Public Works Department) requirements or any other objective, identifiable written requirements pertaining to health and safety.

The Project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21080.66.(a) for a housing development project as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 65905.5 of the Government Code, and the Project is subject to the requirements of AB 130 [PRC Section 21080.66. (b) (1) (A)]. The Project meets each standard/criteria for PRC § 21080.66 in-fill statutory exemption, as outlined below:
• Housing Development Project: The Project is a multi-family development, which is devoted entirely to residential use and qualifies as a "housing development project" under the statute.
• Urban Location and Site Size: The Project site is less than 20 acres in size and located in the City of Glendale, which is designated as an urban area by the U.S. Census Bureau.
• Previously Developed Site: The Project site was previously developed with an auto dealership and a commercial center containing retail and restaurant uses, which are considered urban uses.
• Consistency with Objective Plans and Standards: The Project complies with the Glendale General Plan and the City’s Zoning Ordinance, except where deviations are allowed through concessions/incentives and waivers pursuant to the Density Bonus Law.
• Minimum Density Requirement: The Project will meet the minimum density requirement of at least 50% of the default density (44 units per acre), which equals 22 units per acre. The Project proposes a density of 65 units per acre, well above the minimum.
• Exclusion from Sensitive Environmental Areas: The Project site is not located within any of the following areas:
o Coastal Zone
o Wetlands, as defined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service o Prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, or land zoned/designated for agricultural production
o Sites included on the Cortese List or otherwise identified as hazardous waste sites by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) o Delineated earthquake fault zones
o Special flood hazard areas
o Regulatory floodways as designated by FEMA
o Areas identified for conservation in an adopted natural resource protection plan 3067 of 5188
Planning Commission Minutes
June 3, 2026
6 • No Sensitive Habitat: The site does not contain habitat for species that are identified as candidate, sensitive, or special status by federal or state wildlife agencies.
• No Conservation Easement: The site is not subject to a conservation easement.
• No Designated Historic Resources: The site does not contain any historic resources listed on the national, state, or local historic registers.

The Project will advance the goals and policies of the General Plan, Housing Element (2021-2029), including, but not limited to, Goal 1 (“A City with a Wide Range of Housing Types to Meet the Needs of Current and Future Residents”), Goal 3 (“A City with Increased Opportunities for Affordable and Special Needs Housing Development”) and Policies 3.1 and 3.2 (“Encourage both the private and public sectors to produce or assist in the production of affordable housing for special needs groups such as: persons with disabilities, the elderly, large families, single-parent households, and formerly homeless”) and (“Promote the development of extremely low, very low, low and moderate income housing by allowing developers density bonuses or other financial incentives for providing units for low and moderate income residents. The unit mix and location of affordable housing units in density bonus projects must be approved by the City and included in an affordable housing agreement.”).

3. The waiver or reduction in development standards will not have an adverse impact on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources.

4. The waiver or reduction in development standards will not be contrary to state or federal law.

The Project is statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to PRC Section 21080.66 under AB 130, is consistent with State Density Bonus Law and the City’s Density Bonus Ordinance, and complies with the Glendale Municipal Code as 3068 of 5188 Planning Commission Minutes
June 3, 2026
7 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
administered by City Departments (e.g. Fire, Glendale Water & Power, Public Works, Development Services, etc.). No known federal or state laws are in conflict with granting of the waivers.

APPROVAL of this Density Bonus Housing Plan shall be subject to the following conditions:

Required – When there is more than one dwelling unit for each 2,500 SF of lot area or when there are more than four dwelling units in one building on a lot, all required parking spaces for such dwelling units shall be provided in subterranean or semi-subterranean garages. ii. Requested – Allow residential units on the ground floor without approval of a conditional use permit.

3. That the premises be maintained in a clean and orderly condition, free of weeds, trash, and graffiti.

4. That any expansion or modification3069 of 5188 of the structure or use shall require a new Planning Commission Minutes
June 3, 2026
8 Density Bonus application. The phrase “modification of the structure or use” includes, but is not limited to, proposing a different percentage of the units as affordable or altering the affordability of the units (i.e., proposing the affordable units be restricted to low- or moderate-income households when the approval is originally for very low-income households). Expansion shall constitute adding of new floor area, reduction of parking and open spaces, or any physical changes as determined by the Director of Community Development.

The applicant shall be required to execute and record such Density Bonus Housing Agreement prior to issuance of any and all required building permits.

6. That all affordable units shall be reasonably dispersed throughout the project site (e.g., throughout the different floors) and shall be comparable with the other dwelling units in the project in terms of appearance, finished quality and materials. Subject to requested changes necessary to comply with health and safety standards approved by the Director of Community Development or his designee, the unit type, size and location of the affordable units shall be to the satisfaction of the City’s Housing Division.

9. That the applicant shall comply with all Section/Department requirements as specified in their memos to the satisfaction of the City or Department Director. These memos include but are not limited to Community Development Department Housing Division (August 13, 2025), Glendale Water & Power (August 29, 2025), Public Works Urban Forestry Division (August 11, 2025), Community Services & Parks (July 28, 2025), Community Development Mobility Division (July 24, 2025), Public Works Engineering Land Development Section (September 15, 2025), Public Works Traffic Engineering Section (July 30, 2025), Public Works Maintenance Services Division (July 28, 2025), Community Development Department Long Range Planning Division (August 15, 2025) and Fire (August 8, 2025). 3070 of 5188 Planning Commission Minutes
June 3, 2026
9 10.That pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21080.66(c)(1), a Phase I environmental assessment, as defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 78090, shall be performed for the project site. If the Phase I assessment identifies a recognized environmental condition, the completion of a preliminary endangerment assessment shall be performed. If potential for exposure to significant hazards from surrounding properties or activities exists, the effects of the potential exposure shall be mitigated to levels required by current federal and state statutory and regulatory standards prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the project.

13.That approval of the Design Review Board shall be obtained prior to applying for or obtaining building permits.

18.That the applicant, the owner of the Site, and any of their successors and/or assigns (collectively, “Developer”) agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, and each of its agents, officers, council members, commissioners, attorneys, employees and representatives, with counsel reasonably acceptable to the City, from any claim, action or proceeding brought against the City to attack, set aside, void or annul any City land use approval for the Project 3411 – 3427 Foothill Boulevard, Glendale, CA 91214 (the “Project”). At its sole discretion, the City may participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action, but such participation shall not relieve the Developer of any obligation imposed by this condition. The Developer’s indemnity, defense and hold harmless obligations shall include, without limitation, payment of all damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorney’s fees, and other costs and expenses incurred in 3071 of 5188 Planning Commission Minutes
June 3, 2026
10 connection with such action or proceeding. In the event that a claim, action or proceeding referenced herein is brought, the City shall promptly notify the Developer of the existence of the claim, action or proceeding and will cooperate fully in the defense of such claim, action or proceeding. As used herein, “land use approval” refers to decisions of the City approving requests for planning permits for the Project including, but not limited to, density bonus housing plans (including requests for density bonus, incentives and/or waivers), design review, general plan amendments, zone changes, zoning ordinance text amendments, tentative maps, vesting tentative maps, tentative parcel maps, reversions to acreage, final maps, final map modifications or amendments, time extensions, parcel map waivers, lot line adjustments, boundary line adjustments, certificates of compliance, conditional certificates of compliance, development agreements, conditional use permits, conditional use permit modifications, conditional use permit extensions, variances, variance modifications, precise plan of design, specific plans, sign permits, site plans, temporary use permits, any administrative or discretionary permit or any accompanying California Environmental Quality Act determinations pertaining to the type of approval referred to in this section, and any other similar approval. Notwithstanding the above, the Developer may be required, at the City’s election, to execute a formal agreement with the City setting forth the above defense, indemnification and hold harmless provisions in substance, within five (5) business days of this approval.

VOTE AS FOLLOWS
Ayes: Nazarian, Chraghchian, Malekian, Minassian, Fuentes Noes: None
Abstain: None

Absent: None
3072 of 5188
1 CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE PLANNING HEARING OFFICER

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Density Bonus Housing Plan
Location: 3411 - 3427 Foothill Blvd.

Legal Description: Portion of Lot 1, Block K, Crescenta Canada Tract Case Number: PDBP-005269-2025
Applicant: Rodney Khan, Khan Consulting
Owner: Jack Harootun
Approved for: March 18, 2026

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Roger Kiesel, Senior Planner
Reviewed by:

Dennis Joe, Principal Planner

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Pursuant to the provisions of the Glendale Municipal Code (GMC), Title 30, Chapter

30.36 and CA Gov’t Code Sections 65915, et seq. (“Density Bonus Law”), the applicant is requesting approval of a density bonus housing plan to construct a new 5-story, 87- unit multi-family residential development (15.5% or 9 units reserved for very lowincome), and a 151-space parking garage with three concessions/incentives and three waivers, located at 3411 – 3427 Foothill Boulevard (the “Project”).

Three concessions/incentives are being requested:

1. To exceed the maximum lot coverage (GMC Section 30.11.030 Residential District General Development Standards Table 30.11-B).

Exhibit 11 - Planning Hearing Officer Staff
Report
3073 of 5188
2 2. To exceed the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) (GMC Section 30.11.030 Residential District General Development Standards Table 30.11-B).

3. To exceed the maximum building height (GMC Section 30.11.030 Residential District General Development Standards Table 30.11-B).

Three waivers are being requested:

1. Exemption from the requirement that all residential parking be contained in subterranean or semi-subterranean garages (Section 30.32.040.B(4)).

2. Exemption from the conditional use permit requirement for ground floor residential units (Residential District and Permit Requirements Table 30.11-A).

3. Exemption from the requirement that the project provide the additional open space for sites over 90 feet in width that exceed the base density.

The Project qualifies for reduced parking under the State Density Bonus Law and GMC Section 30.36.090 and is required to provide 119 parking spaces. The project is providing 151 parking spaces in subterranean, semi-subterranean, at-grade and abovegrade levels.

The Project site is 57,974 square-feet (1.3 acres) and located at the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and New York Avenue. It consists of two parcels (APNs: 5602-007- 020 and 5602-007-021) and is located in the CH (Commercial Hillside) zone.

Code Section 65583.2(c)(3)(B).
• Project will not require demolition of a historic structure that was placed on a historic register before the project's preliminary application was submitted. • For projects submitted after Jan. 1, 2025, no portion of the project will be used as a hotel, motel, or bed and breakfast.
• All project sites must satisfy SB 35's site eligibility criteria (farmland, wetlands and conservation/species habitat areas are excluded, and coastal sites, fire hazard zones, hazardous waste sites, earthquake fault zones and flood areas are subject to specified restrictions).

Staff has reviewed the project and has determined that it meets the criteria and is statutorily exempt from CEQA review per Public Resources Code Section 21080.66.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of this Density Bonus Housing Plan application, which includes three concessions/incentives, to exceed the maximum lot coverage, the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) and the maximum building height, and three waivers for exemptions from the requirements that all residential parking be located in subterranean or semi-subterranean garages and of additional open space and from the prohibition of ground floor residential units without approval of a conditional use permit. This recommendation is based on the fact that all of the required findings for the requested concessions/incentives and waivers can be made pursuant to Density Bonus Law.

SITE CONTEXT
General Plan: Community Services
Zone: CH (Commercial Hillside)
Description of Existing Properties and Uses:

The Project site is developed with an automobile dealer at the corner of Foothill Blvd and New York Ave and a commercial center containing retail and restaurant uses located further west along Foothill Blvd. The site is almost entirely paved with surface parking and includes minimal landscaping.
3075 of 5188
4 Neighboring Zones and Uses
Zoning Existing Uses
North Special Recreation (SR) City Park
South
Commercial Hillside (CH) Gas Station, Auto
Repair and
restaurant and retail
East
Commercial Hillside (CH) and Medium
Density Residential (R-2250)
Auto dealership and
multi-family
residential
West
Commercial Hillside (CH) and Single-family
Residential (R-1)
Auto repair and
single-family
residential
Project Site Commercial Hillside (CH), Auto dealership, restaurant and retail
The General Plan designates the site as Community Services with a corresponding zoning of CH (Commercial Hillside). The 1986 General Plan Land Use Element encourages very restrictive land uses that feature flexibility in the range and type of services and facilities provided. Uses include personal services, shopping, offices and restricted industries that serve local needs. The City has embarked on updating the Land Use Element, given the current document is 40 years old. The draft Land Use Element has been through a public review process and the Community Commercial land-use designation, in addition to allowing a variety of local- and regional-servicing retail, office and service-oriented businesses, encourages the development of standalone residential or mixed-use projects. The CH (Commercial Hillside) zone allows a variety of residential, retail, commercial and office uses.

Previous Permits for the Site:

None pertinent to the project.

COMMENTS FROM OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS
Comments were received from the Community Development Department (Development Services, Economic Development, Housing and Long Range Planning), Public Works Department (Traffic, Engineering and Land Development, and Urban Forestry), Fire Department, Police Department, City Attorney, Community Services and Parks Department, and Glendale Water & Power - Electrical and Water Engineering (See Exhibit 4). Most comments were standard and express no major concerns. Unique comments include a requirement of a sewer discharge capacity analysis for evaluation against the master plan sewer model (Public Works – Wastewater), a requirement to maintain protected trees within New York Park (Public Works – Urban Forestry), and a requirement to pay for the current cost for Glendale Water and Power’s consultant to verify the clearances required and possible effects due to any structural deterioration of the reservoir beneath New York Park (GWP).
3076 of 5188
5 REQUIRED FINDINGS OF FACT
FOR A DENSITY BONUS INCENTIVE OR CONCESSION:

Pursuant to GMC section 30.36.080(A), the Director of Community Development shall grant the requested incentives or concessions, unless he or she makes written findings, based upon substantial evidence, of any one (1) or more of the following:

1. The incentive or concession does not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions, consistent with subdivision (k) of California Government Code Section 65915, to provide for affordable housing costs, as defined in Section 50052.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, or for rents for the targeted units to be set as specified in subdivision (c) of California Government Code Section 65915;

2. The incentive or concession would have a specific adverse impact, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of California Government Code Section 65589.5, upon public health and safety, or on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low-income and moderateincome households; and

3. The incentive or concession will be contrary to state or federal law.

FOR A DENSITY BONUS WAIVER:

Pursuant to GMC section 30.36.080(B), when an applicant requests waivers or reductions of development standards in addition to the incentives or concessions requested, the Hearing Officer shall review the request for waivers or modifications of development standards in conjunction with the incentive or concession requests at a public hearing. The Hearing Officer shall grant the request for waivers or reductions in development standards only if he or she makes all of the following written findings:

3. The waiver or reduction in development standards will not have an adverse impact on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources; and
3077 of 5188
6 4. The waiver or reduction in development standards will not be contrary to state or federal law.

ANALYSIS OF REQUEST
The Project consists of the demolition of an existing auto dealership (consisting of one building and one structure) located at the corner of New York Avenue and Foothill Boulevard, a one-story commercial center located in the western portion of the site and an associated asphalt surface parking lot. In their place, a new 5-story, 136,290 squarefoot multi-family development will be constructed. The project includes 87 residential units, comprised of 23 one-bedroom units, 46 two-bedroom units and 18 three-bedroom units.

The Project site is located in the CH (Commercial Hillside) zone. In accordance with GMC 30.12.020, multiple residential dwellings in this zone are subject to the provisions of the R-1250 zone. In this zone, the maximum density allowed on a lot where the width is greater than 90 feet is one dwelling unit for every 1,000 square feet of lot area. The Project’s site is 57,974 square-feet (1.3 acres) in size, with a lot width of approximately 170 feet along New York Avenue. By right, the Project has a base density allowed of 58 units (57,974 / 1,000 = 57.97 rounded up to 58 (CA Govt Code § 65915(q) requires all density bonus calculations to be rounded up)).

The Project provides 9 affordable rental units reserved for very low-income households (15% of the base density of 58 = 8.7 rounded up to 9). By providing 9 very low-income units, the project is entitled to a 50% density bonus (58 units x 0.50 = 29 units) and can construct a total of 87 units (58 + 29 = 87). With a 15% affordability level, the project is entitled to three concessions/incentives pursuant to the Density Bonus Law and GMC Chapter 30.36. The applicant is requesting three concessions:
1) To exceed the maximum allowable lot coverage;
2) To exceed the maximum allowable floor area ratio (FAR); and 3) To exceed the maximum height.

The applicant is also requesting three waivers:
1) To not locate all residential parking in subterranean or semi-subterranean garages; 2) To locate residential units on the first floor, without approval of a conditional use permit; and
3) To not provide additional open space.

Per the Density Bonus Law, an applicant is ineligible for a density bonus or any other incentives/concessions if a project is proposed on a parcel with all rental dwelling units that have been vacated or demolished within five years from the Project’s development application, or any rental dwelling units that have been occupied by low or very lowincome households, unless the proposed Project replaces those units. There are currently no existing residential dwelling units on the project site. Therefore, the Project is not subject to the replacement obligation required under CA Govt Code § 65915. 3078 of 5188
7 Per GMC 30.35, the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance (“IZO”) requires rental housing developments of eight or more units in the City to provide 15% of the units as affordable to low-income households, with very low-income density bonus units considered equivalent to low-income inclusionary units. Because the Project is proposing more than eight rental units, it is subject to the IZO. To comply with the IZO, the Project is required to provide 9 affordable units to very low-income households [15% of 58 base density units (8.7 rounded up to 9)]. The Project fulfills the IZO requirement by providing 9 affordable units to very-low income households in accordance with the State Density Bonus Law.

The applicant is entitled to a 50% density bonus by providing 9 units to very low-income households. With a 15% affordability level, the applicant is entitled to and is requesting three concessions pursuant to the Density Bonus Law and GMC Chapter 30.36. The Developer will be required to enter into a Density Bonus Housing Agreement (“DB Agreement”) in which the Developer will covenant that at least 15% of the 58 base density units (8.7 rounded up to 9) be restricted to rental to very low-income households. The DB Agreement with the City will be a recorded restriction on the property on which the affordable units and density bonus are constructed. In addition, the DB Agreement will run with the land and bind all future owners and successors in interest to continue to provide the 9 very low-income units for a period of 55 years.

CONCESSIONS/INCENTIVES
The applicant is requesting three concessions/incentives:

I. Lot Coverage
Requested: Exceed the maximum lot coverage by 5% (55% lot coverage proposed; 50% maximum permitted).

Required: The maximum lot coverage in the CH (Commercial Hillside) zone when developed with residential units is 50% (GMC Section 30.11.030 Residential District General Development Standards Table 30.11-B).

II. Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
Requested: Exceed the maximum FAR by 1.15. (2.35 FAR proposed; 1.2 maximum permitted).

Required: The maximum FAR in the CH (Commercial Hillside) zone when developed with residential units is 1.2 (GMC Section 30.11.030 Residential District General Development Standards Table 30.11-B).

III. Height
Requested: Exceed the maximum height by two stories/38 feet. (5 stories/74 feet proposed; three stories/36 feet maximum permitted).

Required: The maximum height in the CH (Commercial Hillside) zone when developed with residential units is three stories/36 feet (GMC Section 30.11.030 Residential District General Development Standards Table 30.11-B). 3079 of 5188
8 According to state law and GMC Section 30.36.080, the three requested incentives must be granted because there is no substantial evidence, of any one or more of the following:

2. The incentive or concession would have a “specific adverse impact, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of California Government Code Section 65589.5, upon public health and safety,” as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of California Government Code Section 65589.5, or the physical environment or on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact without rendering the housing development unaffordable to low-income and moderate-income households. As used herein, “specific adverse impact upon public health or safety” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.

Inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or the land use designation in the general plan shall not constitute a specific, adverse impact upon public health or safety; and

3. The incentive or concession will be contrary to state or federal law.

Finding 1: The incentive or concession does not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions, consistent with subdivision (k) of California Government Code Section 65915, to provide for affordable housing costs, as defined in Section 50052.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, or for rents for the targeted units to be set as specified in subdivision (c) of California Government Code Section 65915 provide affordable rents.

The applicant is requesting concessions from maximum lot coverage standards (55% requested vs. 50% maximum permitted), FAR standards (2.35 FAR requested vs. 1.2 maximum permitted) and building height standards (5 stories/74 feet requested vs. 3 stories/36 feet maximum permitted). These requests will reduce costs for the applicant for providing affordable units by enabling a greater number of residential units to be built on the site, which will in turn create construction efficiencies and reduce land costs per residential unit. The additional units constructed will result in identifiable and actual cost reductions because the building of these units will take advantage of construction efficiencies. Additionally, once completed and leased, the units will generate rental income to offset the cost of providing the 9 units at a rental 3080 of 5188
9 rate affordable to very low-income households. If the Project were to comply with the Zoning Code regulations associated with lot coverage, FAR and building height, the volume (footprint and height) of the Project would be significantly reduced and would subsequently affect the viability of the Project to include affordable residential units.

With the requested concessions, the owner/applicant will realize cost reductions that will allow it to provide 9 units at an affordable rent to very low-income households.

Additionally, the requested concessions will allow the construction of a greater number of larger 2- and 3-bedroom market rate and affordable units, which are in high demand in the La Crescenta area.

Thus, based on the evidence identified above, the incentives/concessions shall be granted, as they will facilitate the project's ability to provide affordable rents.

Finding 2: The incentive or concession would have a “specific adverse impact, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of California Government Code Section 65589.5, upon public health and safety,” as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of California Government Code Section 65589.5, or the physical environment or on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact without rendering the housing development unaffordable to low-income and moderate-income households. As used herein, “specific adverse impact upon public health or safety” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. Inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or the land use designation in the general plan shall not constitute a specific, adverse impact upon public health or safety.

The requested concessions do not include or necessitate reductions in standards to the California Building Code with City of Glendale amendments, (Community Development Department), Fire Department or Engineering Division (Public Works Department) requirements or other objective, identifiable written requirements pertaining to health and safety. The proposed Project is statutorily exempt from further CEQA review because it meets the requirements for certain qualifying infill housing projects that meet certain 3081 of 5188
10 criteria (reference Environmental Determination above) by Public Resources Code Section 21080.66 added by state budget trailer bills AB 130 and AB 131.

The additional residential density will, in fact, promote the City’s health and safety since there will be more housing opportunities for low-income households. The Project will advance the goals and policies of the General Plan, Housing Element (2021-2029), including, but not limited to, Goal 1 (“A City with a Wide Range of Housing Types to Meet the Needs of Current and Future Residents”), Goal 3 (“A City with Increased Opportunities for Affordable and Special Needs Housing Development”) and Policies 3.1 and 3.2 “Encourage both the private and public sectors to produce or assist in the production of affordable housing for special needs groups such as: persons with disabilities, the elderly, large families, single-parent households, and formerly homeless” and “Promote the development of extremely low, very low, low and moderate income housing by allowing developers density bonuses or other financial incentives for providing units for low and moderate income residents. The unit mix and location of affordable housing units in density bonus projects must be approved by the City and included in an affordable housing agreement.”
Finding 3: The incentive or concession will be contrary to state or federal law.

Since there is no substantial evidence to support any of the three findings for denial, the Director of Community Development must grant, and does hereby grant, the requested concessions.

WAIVERS
Per State Density Bonus Law and GMC sections 30.36.040 and 30.36.080.B, an applicant may request an unlimited number of waivers or reductions in development standards in addition to the incentives/concessions requested. The applicant is requesting three waivers:

I. Requirement to Locate all Residential Parking in Subterranean or Semisubterranean garages Requested: Allow some of the proposed residential parking to be at- and abovegrade.

Required: When there is more than one dwelling unit for each 2,500 square-feet (SF) of lot area or when there are more than four dwelling units in one building on 3082 of 5188
11 a lot, all required off-street parking spaces for such dwelling units shall be provided in subterranean or semi-subterranean garages (30.32.040.B.4) II. Allow Residential Units on the Ground Floor without approval of a conditional use permit
Requested: Allow residential units on the ground floor without approval of a conditional use permit.

Required: In the CH (Commercial Hillside) zone, multiple residential dwelling units at the ground floor level require approval of a conditional use permit (GMC

30.12.020 Table 30.12-A).

III. Allow development of the site without providing the additional open space Requested: Allow the multi-family development without providing additional open space.

Required: On lots with a minimum width of 90 feet and with a density exceeding the maximum density permitted by code, an additional 900 SF open space area shall be provided contiguous to a street front/side setback area and for each additional foot of lot width thereafter, an additional 20 SF of such open space shall be provided (GMC 30.31.020.A.7).

The four required findings can be made in support of the requested waivers, as described below.

3. The waiver or reduction in development standards will not have an adverse impact on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources; and

4. The waiver or reduction in development standards will not be contrary to state or federal law.
3083 of 5188
11 3084 of 5188
12 Finding 1: The application of said development standard(s) will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of the housing development at the density and with the incentives or concessions granted pursuant to this chapter.

The City’s Zoning Ordinance requires off-street parking spaces for residential units to be provided in subterranean or semi-subterranean garages where there is more than one dwelling unit for each 2,500 SF of lot area or when there are more than four dwelling units in one building on a lot. The project proposes one dwelling unit for each 666 SF of lot area and 87 units in the building. The 1.3 acre site contains a cross slope, sloping up both from east to west and from south to north. While requiring the project to provide all parking to be either subterranean or semi-subterranean would not literally preclude the construction of dwelling units at the density and with the incentives or concessions granted, it would effectively preclude their development. Certain dwelling units in the northern and western portions of the Project would be constructed below the adjacent ground level, inhibiting their light, air and ventilation and rendering them not desirable or viable in which to reside.

Allowing residential units on the ground floor would maximize the Project’s density without further increasing the mass and scale of the overall project.

The City’s Zoning Ordinance requires that projects on lots with a minimum width of 90 feet and with density exceeding the maximum density permitted by code for lots with less than 90 feet in width, that additional open space be provided equal to 900 SF plus an additional 20 SF for each additional foot of lot width over 90 feet. The Project is required to provide 1,607 SF (900 SF + (170.34 ft. (width of lot) – 90 feet x 20 SF)) of additional open space. If the Project were required to provide this additional open space, it would further restrict where the building footprint could be located on the lot and physically prevent construction of the housing development at the density and with 3085 of 5188
13 the incentives or concessions granted. This additional open space must be located within 50% of the lot depth/width nearest the street-front or street-side property line, visible from the public street and be integrated with the landscaping of the contiguous setback area and open to the sky. These criteria limit the additional open space to ground-level areas and, as a result, this requirement further constrains the footprint of the building, which, in turn, reduces the area available for residential units. It also limits the ability to design vertically, as extending the building upward without encroaching into the additional open space would necessitate a smaller building footprint. The constrained footprint means fewer units can be built at all levels of the building.

Finding 2: The requested waivers and reductions in development standards will not have a specific, adverse impact, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of California Government Code Section 65589.5, upon health, safety, or the physical environment, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact.

The waivers for parking location, ground floor residential units and additional open space do not include or necessitate reductions in standards to any state or local Building and Safety Division (Community Development Department), Fire Department or Engineering Division (Public Works Department) requirements or any other objective, identifiable written requirements pertaining to health and safety.

The Project meets each standard/criteria for PRC § 21080.66 in-fill statutory exemption, as outlined below:
• Housing Development Project: The Project is a multi-family development, which is devoted entirely to residential use and qualifies as a "housing development project" under the statute.
• Urban Location and Site Size: The Project site is less than 20 acres in size and located in the City of Glendale, which is designated as an urban area by the U.S.

Census Bureau.
• Previously Developed Site: The Project site was previously developed with an auto dealership and a commercial center containing retail and restaurant uses, which are considered urban uses.
• Consistency with Objective Plans and Standards: The Project complies with the Glendale General Plan and the City’s Zoning Ordinance, except where deviations are allowed through concessions/incentives and waivers pursuant to the Density Bonus Law.
3086 of 5188
14 • Minimum Density Requirement: The Project will meet the minimum density requirement of at least 50% of the default density (44 units per acre), which equals 22 units per acre. The Project proposes a density of 65 units per acre, well above the minimum.
• Exclusion from Sensitive Environmental Areas:

The Project site is not located within any of the following areas:
o Coastal Zone
o Wetlands, as defined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service o Prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, or land zoned/designated for agricultural production
o Sites included on the Cortese List or otherwise identified as hazardous waste sites by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) o Delineated earthquake fault zones
o Special flood hazard areas
o Regulatory floodways as designated by FEMA
o Areas identified for conservation in an adopted natural resource protection plan • No Sensitive Habitat: The site does not contain habitat for species that are identified as candidate, sensitive, or special status by federal or state wildlife agencies.
• No Conservation Easement: The site is not subject to a conservation easement. • No Designated Historic Resources: The site does not contain any historic resources listed on the national, state, or local historic registers.

The requested waivers allow for additional buildable area on the site, which will then accommodate additional dwelling units. The additional density will promote the City’s health and safety in that there will be greater housing opportunities for very low-income households. The Project will advance the goals and policies of the General Plan, Housing Element (2021-2029), including, but not limited to, Goal 1 (“A City with a Wide Range of Housing Types to Meet the Needs of Current and Future Residents”), Goal 3 (“A City with Increased Opportunities for Affordable and Special Needs Housing Development”) and Policies 3.1 and 3.2 (“Encourage both the private and public sectors to produce or assist in the production of affordable housing for special needs groups such as: persons with disabilities, the elderly, large families, single-parent households, and formerly homeless”) and (“Promote the development of extremely low, very low, low and moderate income housing by allowing developers density bonuses or other financial incentives for providing units for low and moderate income residents.

The unit mix and location of affordable housing units in density bonus projects must be approved by the City and included in an affordable housing agreement.”). 3087 of 5188
15 Finding 3: The waiver or reductions in development standards will not have an adverse impact on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources.

Finding 4: The waivers or reduction in development standards will not be contrary to state or federal law.

The requested waivers for parking location, ground floor residential units and additional open space are not in opposition to state or federal law. The Project will not require any discretionary entitlements other than design review approval. The Project is statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to PRC Section 21080.66 under AB 130, is consistent with State Density Bonus Law and the City’s Density Bonus Ordinance, and complies with the Glendale Municipal Code as administered by City Departments (e.g. Fire, Glendale Water & Power, Public Works, Development Services, etc.). No known federal or state laws are in conflict with granting of the waivers.

EXHIBITS

1. CEQA Exemption Provided by Public Resources Code Section 21080.66

2. Tribal Mitigation Measures

3. Location Map

4. Project Plans

5. Density Bonus Housing Plan

6. Photos of Project Site and Surrounding Development

7. Departmental Comments

8. Draft Findings of Fact and Conditions of Approval
3088 of 5188
Exhibit 1 - CEQA Exemption
3089 of 5188
3090 of 5188
3091 of 5188
3092 of 5188
3093 of 5188
3094 of 5188
3095 of 5188
3096 of 5188
3097 of 5188
3098 of 5188
GABRIELEÑO BAND OF MISSION
INDIANS – KIZH NATION
California State Recognized Aboriginal Tribe of the Los Angeles Basin (Historically known as the Gabrieleño Tribal Council - San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians)

GABRIELENO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS – KIZH NATION - PROPOSED TCR MITIGATION CONDITIONS OF

TCR-2: Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resource Objects (Non-Funerary/Non-Ceremonial) Exhibit 2 - Tribal Mitigation Measures
December 30, 2025
3099 of 5188
A. Upon discovery of any TCRs, all construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall cease (i.e., not less than the surrounding 50 feet) and shall not resume until the discovered TCR has been fully assessed by the Kizh monitor and/or Kizh archaeologist. The Kizh will recover and retain all discovered TCRs in the form and/or manner the Tribe deems appropriate, in the Tribe’s sole discretion, and for any purpose the Tribe deems appropriate, including for educational, cultural and/or historic purposes.

C. Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California Public Resources Code section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2).

D. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment for discovered human remains and/or burial goods.

E. Any discovery of human remains/burial goods shall be kept confidential to prevent further disturbance.

PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING:

CAMELLIA AVENUE LLC
3411 FOOTHILL
Bonus Density Submittal
June 10, 2025
Exhibit 4 Project Plans
3103 of 5188
3411 FOOTHILL