Hearing officer takes preschool proposal at 317 West Palmer under submission after public comment

The Glendale planning hearing officer on May 14, 2025 took under submission a conditional use permit application to convert an existing 2,773‑square‑foot church at 317 West Palmer Avenue into a private preschool for up to 60 students, ages 2 to 5, with six staff members.

Case planner Sharik K. Premian summarized the proposal and staff recommendation. The planner said the building, constructed in 1938, would not increase in footprint but would require demolition of a detached rear garage to create a landscaped outdoor activity area. Staff described required departmental reviews and recommended conditions that include a student/staff cap (no more than 60 students and six staff), hours of operation limited to Monday through Friday with morning drop‑off/pick‑up staggered, at least one staff member monitoring drop‑off and pick‑up to avoid traffic congestion on Palmer Avenue, and staggered outdoor play in four shifts with no more than 15 students at a time on the exterior play area. Staff also recommended revisiting the project three years after approval.

Public Works traffic engineering required a trip‑generation memorandum and warned that on‑street parking in the project area is in high demand; its memo said the department could not guarantee a reserved curb (a white‑curb loading zone) for drop‑off/pick‑up. A vehicle‑miles‑traveled screening assessment and a trip‑generation memorandum were included in the record. Building division and Glendale Water and Power provided standard plan and permit comments; the fire department reminded the hearing officer that occupancy and child‑to‑staff limits are subject to fire and building code review. Premian said staff received no written public comments before the hearing.

Applicant representatives presented a revised floor plan showing five classrooms and described operational measures to reduce curbside congestion: the property has an on‑site driveway that the applicant said can accommodate seven to eight cars (intended for staff), and applicants proposed staff or a contracted attendant to escort children from vehicles into the building during drop‑off so parents would not need to leave their cars. Traffic consultant Jono Bagdini told the hearing officer that ITE trip‑generation land‑use categories do not differentiate neatly between “daycare” and “preschool” and that the study used the closest available industry categories; Public Works traffic engineering reviewed and concurred with the analysis.

Hearing‑office questions focused on the difference between a “daycare center” (a California Health and Safety Code‑defined licensed daycare) and a “private school” (an educational institution offering instruction); applicant representatives said the proposed operation will serve children ages 2–5 with an age‑separated curriculum, certified early‑childhood‑education staff, background checks, and California Department of Social Services (CDSS) licensing following city approvals. The applicant said CDSS inspects and licenses childcare facilities and issues the facility license and capacity number once state requirements are met.

About a dozen members of the public called or attended; all callers and in‑person speakers recorded on the hearing supported the project and several said they need more local preschool capacity. The applicant and property owners said they concur with most staff conditions and asked the hearing officer to consider allowing an earlier opening time (7:00 a.m.) than the 7:30 a.m. noted in staff materials; the hearing officer recorded the request but did not adopt any change at the hearing.

No decision was issued; the hearing officer took the matter under submission and staff will prepare a written decision.