Commission approves Brand Park 1.8 MW solar array with legal review and undergrounding condition

The Glendale Planning Commission voted June 3 to approve a conditional use permit for a 1.815‑megawatt solar photovoltaic array on a 2.1‑acre portion of the city‑owned site above Brand Park, including approximately 3,300 ground‑mounted PV modules and associated transformers, inverters and combiner panels.

Glendale Water & Power and project representatives told the commission the overhead routing was selected to avoid disturbance to a nearby blue‑line stream and sensitive biological areas, and that significant granite and site constraints reduce feasibility of undergrounding the distribution extension. GWP estimated the array will generate the equivalent annual output to serve roughly 400 homes and provided a preliminary construction cost estimate of about $4 million for the array plus roughly $1 million for the distribution extension.

Public commenters raised two principal concerns: (1) an excerpt from the original Elsie Brand grant deed presented during public comment that includes reversionary language if the park’s conditions are breached, and (2) visual and biological impacts from panels, equipment, and new overhead poles. Longtime park ambassador Steven Weber presented the deed language and urged legal review, saying the deed states the property "shall be used exclusively for a public park" and that breach "shall cause said real property to revert to L.C. Brand and his heirs." He urged the city to confirm the CUP would not trigger reversion rights.

In response, staff and GWP said they had evaluated routing alternatives and that overhead poles were preferred to avoid grading near sensitive resources and a blue‑line stream; they also said covered conductors and wildfire mitigation measures would be used. Commissioners requested and staff agreed to add two conditions: (1) the city attorney will review the Elsie Brand grant excerpt presented in public comment to determine whether any legal impediment exists to the CUP, and (2) the applicant must use reasonable efforts to underground the distribution extension or document, with verifiable geotechnical/economic studies, why undergrounding is infeasible when presenting the contract to City Council. With those conditions the commission approved the CUP on a unanimous roll call.

Provenance: Staff case presentation and environmental/biological conditions (SEG 2362–SEG 2534); applicant/GWP technical and cost comments (SEG 2570–SEG 2776); public deed excerpt and comment (SEG 2611–SEG 2711); legal/feasibility discussion and added conditions (SEG 2746–SEG 2850); motion and vote (SEG 2941–SEG 2956).