11b
26-90824
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. 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 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 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 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 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 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.
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:
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 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 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.
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 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 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 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 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 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.
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 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