Glendale design board hears resident objections to 5‑story, 40‑unit Kenwood project; offers advisory comments to council

The Glendale Design Review Board on Aug. 28 reviewed advisory plans for a proposed 5‑story, 40‑unit housing project at 126–128 South Kenwood Street and accepted public comment but did not vote. Staff, the applicant and many nearby residents discussed building massing, setbacks, parking and potential impacts to a neighboring historic house; the board agreed to forward design comments and recommendations to City Council for the project’s Stage 2 review.

Shoike Premian, the project case planner, told the board the hearing was advisory: “No votes. No approval, denial, just, advisory. Staff is looking forward to your comments, recommendations, which then will be, taken to City Council for stage 2 approval.” The proposal calls for demolition of an existing 1,592‑square‑foot house and construction of a 45,983‑square‑foot, five‑story multifamily building with two levels of subterranean parking, 69 parking spaces, balconies, a rooftop sundeck and 1,500 square feet of publicly accessible open space. Staff said the site lies in the Downtown Specific Plan East Broadway District and that the project is claimed to be CEQA‑exempt as a Class 32 infill development; staff also noted a density‑bonus approval and earlier Stage 1 council direction to relocate public open space from the north to the south of the site.

Why it matters: the building would sit immediately north of a single‑story historic house identified as locally significant (the Reverend Cole property) and directly across from a 35‑unit condominium at 118 South Kenwood. Dozens of nearby residents testified that the revised design, which flips the primary courtyard and places public open space on the south to provide relief to the historic house, now puts many condominium units into closer proximity with the new building and would reduce light, privacy and street parking.

Residents who live at 118 South Kenwood described how the revised siting would reduce sunlight and airflow. “This eliminates light, airflow, and privacy for dozens of our units,” said Anna Adamean, a resident of 118 South Kenwood. Multiple residents asked the board and applicant for a larger buffer between the new building and existing condominiums, suggested reducing building height and requested a study of parking and traffic impacts to the narrow neighborhood streets and alley.

Several speakers pressed the board to hold further environmental review before forwarding a recommendation because of excavation risk to the adjoining historic house. Francesca Smith, describing herself as a qualified architectural historian who submitted a letter to staff, asked the board to delay a recommendation “until after the city has performed the correct environmental review,” citing National Park Service guidance and past local incidents where deep excavation adjacent to a historic building posed structural risk. Caller Cathy Yurka, who helped research the property’s significance, also urged care to protect the house during excavation and shoring.

The project team and applicant defended the design and process. Rodney Khan, the applicant, said the lot has been underused for decades and described the project as “a small step towards the city meeting its regional housing needs assessment” while noting the team implemented council direction to relocate the open space and increase the setback adjacent to the historic house from roughly 5 feet to about 24 feet. Architect Ron Mandalian described design adjustments made to increase separation from the adjacent six‑story building to the north and to provide a stepped top story and rooftop screening.

Board deliberations and recommendations: members said no final decision would be made by the board and framed their role as advising the council. Board member Simonian thanked speakers and staff and noted the tension between protecting the historic resource to the south and mitigating impacts on the larger number of residents in the condominium to the north. The board’s principal advisory points that staff will include in the transmittal to City Council were: (1) explore rebalancing public/open space so the north and south courtyards are more evenly distributed (council could consider a concession larger than the 20% administrative reduction already granted); (2) provide screening for rooftop HVAC equipment so units are not visible from the adjacent multifamily building to the north; (3) prepare a windows‑facing‑windows study showing where balconies or living areas will directly face existing units and how privacy will be mitigated; and (4) reduce or limit exterior/balcony lighting to reduce light spill to neighboring residences. Board members also suggested consideration of opaque or partially solid balcony railings on elevations facing the existing condominium to improve privacy.

What was not decided: the board did not vote on approval or deny the project. Staff emphasized the advisory nature of the hearing; final Stage 2 approval is the City Council’s responsibility. The project file notes earlier actions: Stage 1 preliminary approval by City Council on July 30, 2024, an administrative exception for open‑space width dated Dec. 26, 2024, and a density‑bonus/inclusionary housing plan approval on April 16, 2025. The board recommended these design comments be forwarded to council and asked the applicant to return materials showing how privacy, lighting and rooftop equipment screening would be handled.

Community next steps and implementation risk: staff said the project will be scheduled for a future City Council Stage 2 review and that public noticing will be provided when that hearing is scheduled. Several residents were urged to pursue separate channels (traffic and public safety departments) for concerns about parking, alleyway safety and emergency access. Architectural and near‑term construction risks raised by commenters — particularly the risk of damage to the historic Reverend Cole house during excavation — led several speakers to recommend additional environmental and structural protections; staff and the applicant said standard shoring, vibration monitoring and plan‑check reviews would apply during permitting.

Sources and actions: The board’s comments will be included in the staff report forwarded to City Council; no council date was scheduled at the Aug. 28 DRB meeting. The project case number is PDR002684‑2025; staff materials list the Downtown Specific Plan — East Broadway District and CEQA Class 32 infill as the principal regulatory references.

Ending: The board closed public comment after roughly two dozen speakers and entered deliberations; its advisory comments will be included with staff’s transmittal when the project returns to City Council.