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
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). 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 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 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.
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.
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. 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 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 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 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. 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 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.
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 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 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 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. 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 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.”