11a
CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM
Report: Adoption of the East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement and Historic Resources Survey Report and Authorization to Submit Same to the California Office of Historic Preservation
1. Resolution Adopting the East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement and Historic Resources Survey Report;
2. Motion Authorizing Staff to Submit the Final Adopted East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement and Historic Resources Survey Report to the California Office of Historic Preservation.
COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Public Hearing
Approved for October 20, 2026 calendar
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Historic resource contexts and surveys are critical planning tools for staff, property owners, decision makers, and community groups and they help guide the city’s growth and development. The general boundaries of the Survey Area include north of the 134 Freeway, between the Burbank city limit on the west and the Pasadena and La CañadaFlintridge city limits on the east, and south of the Oakmont Country Club. (See Exhibit 3, Survey Area Map).
The statement contained in the Survey identifies seven contexts and themes that capture major patterns and trends in the city’s development history (from 1872 – 2000) expressed through the existing built environment. The Survey Area includes 22,026 developed parcels. In total, the Survey identified about 3% of the properties in the area as potentially historic. Of these parcels, the Survey identified 265 individual properties as potential historic resources and 10 potential historic districts. Collectively, the 10 potential historic districts contain a total of 437 properties, including 341 individual contributors, 96 non-contributors, 5 properties that are already individually designated, and 7 properties that also appear individually eligible as potential resources. 2 11a
On September 17, 2026, the Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the draft Survey, found the methodology and findings satisfactory, and voted unanimously to recommend that City Council approve the Draft East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement and Historic Resources Survey Report.
RECOMMENDATION
That City Council adopt a resolution approving and adopting the East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement and Historic Resources Survey Report, and a motion authorizing staff to submit the final Survey to the California Office of Historic Preservation.
ANALYSIS
Background
In September of 2024, City Council authorized contracting with ARG to prepare the East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement and Historic Resources Survey Report, and to update the North Glendale Historic Context Statement and Survey. The current focus is on the East-West Historic Context Statement and Survey, as the North Glendale update is underway and will return to Council later.
The City applied for and was awarded a 2024 Historic Preservation Fund grant of $40,000 to partially fund the Survey. The grant is administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO) as part of its Certified Local Government (CLG) program. The City is required to provide a partial match of $26,667, with a total approved project cost of $156,700. The draft Survey was sent to the SHPO on September 28, 2026, to fulfill the terms of the grant agreement. SHPO requires that the final Survey adopted by the Council is sent as well.
Historic resource contexts and surveys are important tools for guiding the development of cities. They provide information about potential historic properties that can help direct future development and let property owners, decision makers, staff, community groups, and the general public know in advance when a site may, or may not, have potential environmental review constraints.
• Historic contexts study the history and development patterns of an area and identify specific contexts and themes that provide a framework for understanding how a place has developed. Themes are often organized by development type, such as single-family or multi-family residential, industrial, commercial, or civic and institutional. They can be further categorized by time periods that define the developmental patterns and types of an area. The document then focuses on the property types associated with each context/theme and identifies what features and levels of integrity are necessary for a property to be considered historic. • Historic surveys look closely at every property within a specified area and assesses each against the framework developed in the context – this is how individual properties are determined to be either historic or not historic under the 3 11a
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). These surveys also identify potential historic districts, which may ultimately be nominated for district status.
Policy Objective 2-2 of the Glendale Historic Preservation Element (1977/1997) establishes a goal to “survey all potential historic resources in Glendale.” The 2019 South Glendale Historic Resource Survey was the most recent step toward fulfilling that goal. Prior to that time, a number of small-scale surveys had been conducted (i.e., 2007 Craftsman Survey and 2011 North Glendale Community Plan Context and Survey), but no comprehensive overview of any larger areas had occurred.
The Survey will, if adopted, go a long way toward fulfilling this longstanding goal of the Historic Preservation Element and will provide information about the potential historic resources in the East-West area of Glendale. In unsurveyed areas, staff are required to consider each property individually and often require applicants to provide a historic resource assessment to make a determination about the property’s historic status. This results in a higher cost for applicants, additional staff review time, and delays in application processing. The adopted Survey will provide a great deal of clarity about a property’s historic status at the forefront of the project, resulting in quicker review times, potentially less cost for an applicant, and a more efficient project review.
Historic Context and Survey
Generally, the boundaries of the Survey Area include the area north of the Ventura Freeway/State Route 134, between the Burbank city limit on the west and the Pasadena and La Cañada-Flintridge city limits on the east, and south of the Oakmont Country Club. (Exhibit 3). The Survey considered all parcels developed before the year 2000.
The Historic Context Statement (part of the Survey, attached to this report as Exhibit 2) was structured and formatted to be consistent with the existing historic context statement for the South Glendale Community Plan area to establish consistency. It is thematically organized and captures the area’s developmental history and major architectural styles. The context also establishes baseline eligibility standards and integrity thresholds to provide a systemic approach in determining what properties and districts associated with a theme may be eligible for designation.
Seven contexts have been identified for the evaluation of historic resources in East and West Glendale. Each of the contexts includes themes that provide a more focused discussion based on the time period and the property type. Property types include residential (single-family and multi-family), commercial, industrial, or institutional and civic. The last context, Architecture and Design, identifies and defines the popular architectural styles reflected in each phase of the area’s development. Together, these contexts and themes help understand how the area developed over time.
A summary of contexts, themes, and architectural styles are as follows:
Context Theme Description
Early Development and
Town Settlement (1872-
1918)
Early Development, 1872-
1918
Early development in the study area and its
close ties to the development of South
Glendale (where the first settlement and
4 11a
primary development of the city occurred).
Single-Family
Residential
Development (1910-
2000)
Suburban Development
through World War II (1910-
1944)
The history of single-family residential
development and Glendale’s population
boom prior to World War II, including
transportation and the racial landscape of
Prewar Glendale.
Post-World War II
Suburban Development
(1945-2000)
Development of the Study Area and the
impact of the postwar population boom on
the City’s single-family residential
development. Subthemes include postwar
transportation and freeway development, the
racial landscape in the postwar era, and
architecture and postwar subdivisions.
Multi-Family Residential
Development (1910-
2000)
Pre-World War II MultiFamily Residential
Development (1910-1944)
While single-family neighborhoods were
predominant in the area, this section focuses
on early multi-family residential
developments and discusses the influence of
original streetcar routes on the location of
multi-family housing.
Post-World War II MultiFamily Residential
Development (1945-2000)
The study area saw an increase in multifamily housing in the postwar era due to a demand for housing for returning
servicemembers. Some of these building
types included duplexes, multiplexes,
bungalow courts, garden apartments,
condominiums, townhomes, and skyrises.
Commercial
Development (1904-
2000)
Pre-World War II
Commercial Development
(1910-1944)
This section focuses on commercial
development in the study area that was
developed to service the residents of new
suburban subdivisions.
Post-World War II
Commercial Development
(1945-2000)
This section discusses postwar commercial
development, which was largely impacted by
the end of the streetcar system and the
beginning of freeway construction.
Industrial Development
(1919-2000)
Pre-World War II Industrial
Development (1919-1944)
This theme discusses the rapid growth and
diversification of Glendale’s industrial sector,
particularly after the Greater Glendale
Development Association’s successful
lobbying to zone the areas surrounding San
Fernando Road for industrial use.
Post-World War II Industrial
Development (1945-2000)
This section focuses on industrial
development in the postwar era after
commercial air traffic shifted to LAX.
Institutions and
Community (1919-2000)
Pre-World War II Civic and
Institutional Development
(1919-1944)
As Glendale’s population expanded and new
subdivisions were built in the study area,
municipal services, civic, educational, and
other institutions arose to serve the new
residents of the study area.
Post-World War II Civic and
Institutional Development
(1945-2000)
The postwar population boom resulted in the
development of new institutional buildings
along primary streets such as N. Brand Blvd,
N. Pacific Avenue, E. Chevy Chase Drive,
and others.
Architecture and Design Late 19th-Early 20th
Century Styles
Styles associated with the Late Victorian era
became popular in the 1860s with advances
5 11a
in construction. Styles include American
Foursquare/Classic Box, Residential
Vernacular, Commercial Vernacular, and
Folk Victorian.
Arts and Crafts The Arts and Crafts movement was
popularized as a reaction against the
materialism brought about by the Industrial
Revolution. Architectural styles include
Shingle, Craftsman, and Prairie.
20th Century Period
Revivals
Period revival styles prevailed in the region
by the late 1910s, inspired by European and
Colonial American inspired architecture, such
as Spanish Colonial Revival, Mediterranean
Revival, American Colonial Revival,
Monterey Revival, among others.
Modernism Modernism is an umbrella term to describe
various architectural styles and schools of
design, but the movement is generally
defined by a movement that was more
progressive and receptive to modernization
and technological advancements. Styles
include Art Deco, Moderne, Mid-Century
Modern, and Programmatic, among others.
Minimal Traditional Minimal Traditional is a simple residential style that was designed to meet the needs of
quick and affordable housing after the Great
Depression, but with a popularity boom in the
1940s and 1950s.
Ranch Ranch style architecture is inspired by
Spanish and Mexican-era haciendas and the
vernacular wood-framed farmhouses often
found in Northern California, Texas, and the
American west.
Postmodernism Postmodernism emerged in the 1970s as a
reactionary style against the earlier Modern
styles, and used traditional building forms
and details, such as pediments, arches,
columns in unconventional and abstract
manners.
Using the established methodology, the surveyors identified the following resources (for more information, see Chapter 5: Survey Findings on page 212 of Exhibit 2):
• 265 individual properties
o 63% - Single-family residential
o 11% - Multi-family residential
o 10% - Commercial properties
o 3% - Industrial
o 14% - Civic/Institutional
• 10 potential historic districts (collectively containing 437 properties) • 9 properties that may be eligible or contributing, but not accessible to be evaluated. These properties were given a code of 7R, meaning the property would require assessment in the future to determine if it will be historically 6 11a
significant.
• Three properties that were identified as potentially significant to the history and development of the City, but lacked sufficient historic integrity for designation.
These were assigned a code of 6L, which means they may warrant special consideration in local planning, or commemoration.
Historic Preservation Commission Meetings
The project was presented at a regularly scheduled Historic Preservation Commission (HPC or the “Commission”) hearing four times between November 2025 and September 2026.
• November 20, 2025: The project team was introduced to the public during a regularly scheduled HPC hearing and presented the project for discussion. • July 16, 2026: The consultant provided a presentation of preliminary findings to the Commission and public. The Commission did not vote on the Survey during this hearing, but considered if the Survey is appropriately done and comprehensive, and if the community has thoughts on properties identified in the survey.
• August 20, 2026: The project was presented for a formal review and recommendation to City Council of the findings. Comments were received from Commissioners and the public regarding additional properties for research, review and consideration by the consultant. The Commission found that the methodology of the Survey was satisfactory. However, they voted to continue the item to allow the consultants additional time to research and investigate the additional properties and address the comments provided. • September 17, 2026: The revised draft Survey was returned to the HPC for review. The Commission reviewed the draft and provided additional comments.
Community members also submitted additional comments. A community member suggested 1401 W. Kenneth Road as a potential individually eligible property as the longtime office of significant landscape architecture firm Troller & Mayer, founded by Glendale-born master landscape architect Howard E. Troller. The property was already identified by ARG as a potential contributor to the Kenneth Village historic district. After the September 17 HPC hearing, following HPC direction, ARG staff conducted additional research and determined that the property appears individually eligible, as well as contributing to the potential Kenneth Village Historic District.
While discussing the Survey, the Commission found that the Survey’s methodology was satisfactory. However, in addition to the survey’s findings, the Commission discussed four other properties against the methodology set forth by the Survey. The Commission has the authority to suggest additional properties be added to the Survey which they find meet the eligibility thresholds set forth by the methodology of the Survey. After the September 17 hearing, following HPC direction, ARG staff conducted additional research regarding the four properties discussed by HPC for potential inclusion.
Those properties were as follows:
7 11a
Address Comment
1350 Andenes Drive Initially, 1350 Andenes Drive was not included due to the appearance of a prominent second
story addition. Additional research and fieldwork
was conducted to verify that the massing is
original to the house, and the research concluded
that the property meets the eligibility thresholds
for a Mid-Century Modern residence and the selfdesigned home of architects Denver and Marjorie Markwith.
1400 Andenes Drive 1400 Andenes Drive was not completely visible due to a construction fence during the various
fieldwork days conducted by the Consultant.
However, the Commissioners noted that the
construction fence was removed before the
Commission hearing and requested additional
fieldwork and research to verify the integrity and
eligibility of the property. After conducting another
field visit, the Consultant was able to determine
the integrity and eligibility of the property and
concur with Commission’s recommendation to
add the property to the survey.
2310 E. Chevy Chase
Drive
A residence designed by noted architect Gerard
Colcord with a rear second story addition. The
Commission found that the addition is thoughtfully
done and does not impact the integrity or
association with the architect.
1314 Sonora Avenue The Commission added 1314 Sonora Drive to the survey as an excellent intact example of an
English Tudor Revival style.
The four properties were subsequently added to the Survey as properties that appear to be individually eligible for designation as historic resources. The HPC did not review the Survey following their direction to study the four properties and 1401 W. Kenneth Road, but the draft Survey before the City Council includes the updated information regarding these five properties.
In addition to these changes, after the Commission hearing, staff recognized an oversight in the draft Survey that the HPC reviewed. A demographic placeholder was included in the document that has since been removed. In addition, 715 W.
Kenneth Road was included as a “7R” property, requiring additional research to confirm its eligibility. However, staff conducted additional research and determined that the property is not eligible for listing, and thus, this property has been removed from the Survey.
As of the writing of this report, staff plans to inform the Commission at the 8 11a
October 15, 2026 HPC meeting that the above-mentioned recommendations and corrections were considered and addressed in the final findings presented to Council.
The complete East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement and Historic Resources Survey Report are attached to this report as Exhibits 2-8 (separated out as 7 separate exhibits for ease of reference, but are collectively the Survey).
STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Over the course of the last two years, City staff and consultants conducted outreach meetings, participated in various community events, and created a project-specific webpage in an effort to engage with as many stakeholders and interested parties. • Community Outreach Meetings – The consultant team was introduced to the public and community on November 20, 2025. On July 16, 2026, the consultant team provided a presentation of the preliminary findings to the Commission and the public.
• Community Events - Staff participated in three community events and hosted tables, where members of the public were made aware of the project and were able to provide feedback on historically important properties. Staff shared a map of the outlined area, provided information on accessing the interactive webpage, and solicited feedback about properties special or important to the community through.
• Website – A website banner for the city website’s homepage was created and shared on GlendaleCA.gov for the project. Staff also created a project-specific interactive webpage (engage.glendaleca.gov/eastwestglendalehistoricsurvey) which outlined the project scope, publicized meetings, and allowed the public to share information about historically significant properties. All information received from the public was relayed to the consultant, who researched and investigated the recommendations during fieldwork. Staff informed the public on how to use the Engage Glendale page at multiple Historic Preservation Commission Hearings. This information was also available on the GlendaleCA.gov historic preservation webpage (glendaleca.gov/government/departments/communitydevelopment/development-services/historic-preservation) • Other – The project was posted on social media, and an article was submitted to the City Connection newsletter. Agenda notification emails were sent to a subscribed list for the various community outreach and HPC hearings. Several emails were also sent to community groups regarding the HPC hearings. 9 11a
The draft versions of the historic context statement, findings, and individual survey forms and all subsequent revisions were made publicly available on GlendaleCA.gov and Engage.GlendaleCA.gov.
The adopted Survey results will be shared with the public on the Engage Glendale website and all property owners and occupants whose properties have been identified in the survey will be notified of the findings for their property or neighborhood through multilingual outreach efforts.
FISCAL IMPACT
There will be no fiscal impact if the Survey is adopted. Future potential listing of properties on the Glendale Register (a process separate and apart from adoption of the Survey) does not have a fiscal impact. However, future property tax savings to private owners of listed historic properties requesting Mills Act contracts will slightly reduce City property tax revenues from the general County tax levy received from each Mills Act property.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
The project is exempt from CEQA as a Class 8 “Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment” exemption pursuant to Section 15308 of the State CEQA Guidelines because historic contexts and surveys provide information and guidance that will help protect the city’s historic built environment.
CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.
ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Decline to adopt the resolution adopting the Survey and decline to authorize staff to send the Survey to the California Office of Historic Preservation.
However, not adopting the Survey would impact on the City’s ability to compete in future rounds of CLG grants and it would result in potential penalty deductions as the SHPO is scoring the city’s application for future grants.
Alternative 2: Any alternative not proposed by staff.
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:
Rachel Dimond, Director of Community Development
Prepared by:
Ani Mnatsakanyan, Planner – Historic Preservation
Approved by:
Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager
10 11a
EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1: Past City Council Motion Authorizing the Preparation of the East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement and Historic Resources Survey Report and Resolution of Appropriation for same;
Exhibit 2: Draft East-West Glendale Historic Context Statement and Historic Resources Survey Report;
Exhibit 3: East-West Survey Area Map (Appendix A of Survey); Exhibit 4: East-West Survey Chronology Map (Appendix B of Survey); Exhibit 5: East-West Survey Findings Map (Appendix C of Survey); Exhibit 6: Potentially Eligible Individual Properties (Appendix D.1 of Survey); Exhibit 7: Potentially Eligible Historic Districts (Appendix D.2 of Survey); Exhibit 8: DPR Forms (Appendix E of Survey).