By Julie BUTCHER

“I’m not a professional speaker. I’m not a city planner, a civil engineer or a real estate attorney. But I am a resident and a taxpayer, and I feel my voice should be heard,” said “Mark” who lives off of New York Avenue and was one of several dozen local residents who lined up to speak at last week’s Glendale Planning Commission review. The review was for the controversial housing development proposed for 3411-3427 Foothill Boulevard, on the northwest corner of New York and Foothill.

As previously reported by the Crescenta Valley Weekly following the planning officer hearing held on March 18 (https://www.crescentavalleyweekly.com/news/03/26/2026/complaints-and-support-both-found-at-density-bonus-meeting/ the development contemplated is an 87-unit rental housing tower, 74 feet at its highest point, comprising 18 three-bedroom apartments, 46 two-bedroom units, 23 one-bedroom units with 151 parking spaces (31 more than are required). Nine of the units would be designated as “affordable to very low income.” 

Currently the property is occupied by an auto dealer and various other small businesses including a popular taco spot.

After hearing from the public, the appellants and the developer, the project architect and an attorney representing developer Rodney Khan, the planning commission voted unanimously to deny the appeal and uphold the recommendation of the hearing officer and green light the project with certain conditions.

Mark continued his remarks to the commission. 

“I was disgusted to hear the developer’s lawyer remind you that you need to follow the experts and look into what is completely legal (according to his view),” he said. “This city is for us. One of the commissioners mentioned the intent of the code. A hundred fifty percent over density? And 205% above the maximum height allowed? Is that the intent? Why not just build a 50-story skyscraper? If you’re going to just waive the law, how about an AI data center there?

“There’s no picture of the view of this from up the hill. They give you these nice little shots but how many people, how many hundreds of families, are going to have to look at this eyesore in the neighborhood? There’s no other building this tall. There are little shops.” 

Others shared the sentiments Mark expressed.

Senior city planner Roger Kiesel provided the planning commission with an overview of the proposed 1.3-acre development and the concessions and waivers sought as part of the request for a density bonus: 61% lot coverage (50% is the maximum permitted in the Commercial Hillside zone); a floor area ratio of 2.49, above the 1.2 maximum floor area ratio; two additional stories above the three stories that would be allowed “by right” (without any waivers or concessions); residential parking allowed both subterranean and at-grade; ground floor units allowed without additional planning review; and no additional open space would be provided.

The hearing officer who conducted the March 18 hearing issued her approval of the project with conditions on March 25. Appellants representing the Glendale Homeowners Coordinating Council and the Crescenta Highlands Neighborhood Association filed an appeal on April 9.

As planner Kiesel explained, the project is covered by AB130’s statutory exemption from added environmental review (an EIR) as it meets certain criteria. It can be no more than 20 acres (it is 1.3) and within an incorporated municipality in an urban area (it is in Glendale); the use needs to be consistent with urban uses (it is currently developed with an auto dealership and a retail center) and be consistent with zoning and the general plan and the project will not demolish any historic structure.

When Kiesel shared that the traffic study predicted less traffic than there is currently, the full hearing room burst into laughter.

The appellants believe the project violates AB747, which requires the preparation of a comprehensive evacuation plan and requires an agency to evaluate the resiliency of its transportation system, evacuation routes and its capacity, safety and viability under a range of emergency scenarios and to identify key routes for community areas with only one access point. 

Kiesel countered that the project is near but not in a “Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ),” nor is it in a designated earthquake danger area (described as being in the Alquist-Prido Fault Zone or a Fault Hazard Management Zone). He added that the project will be required to comply with state and city seismic building code standards.

Next week CV Weekly will present part 2 of the hearing on the Foothill Boulevard & New York Avenue project.