Commission sustains approval for 87‑unit Foothill Boulevard density‑bonus project despite resident safety and contamination concerns

The Glendale Planning Commission on June 3 voted unanimously to deny an appeal and sustain the planning hearing officer’s approval of a five‑story, 87‑unit density‑bonus housing project at 3411–3427 Foothill Boulevard.

Staff presented the project as an AB130‑eligible infill site that qualifies for density‑bonus concessions and waivers and reviewed required conditions — including a phase I environmental site assessment and, where warranted, soil/soil‑vapor/groundwater testing and remediation consistent with state agency standards. Staff also summarized an evacuation capacity analysis and the city’s emergency planning and described interdepartmental review by fire, public works, Glendale Water & Power (GWP) and others. "Staff recommends that the planning commission deny the appeal, sustain planning hearing officer's approval of the density bonus housing plan," staff said.

Appellants — represented by members of the Crescent Highlands Neighborhood Association — argued the site is listed in state environmental databases and said that multiple state agency records (they cited the State Water Resources Control Board geotracker entries) remove the AB130 exemption and therefore require an environmental impact report. They also presented neighborhood evacuation modeling showing evacuation-time increases if the project is built. Mary Lynn Fiser summarized those concerns: "It is clear by the staff's admission that this project is not exempt from SQUA," she said in argument.

A resident volunteer and neighborhood modeler, Tim Tierney, described eight evacuation scenarios he ran and reported the presence of the apartment could add between about 15 and 65 minutes to modeled evacuation times depending on assumptions about vehicle counts, school activity and power outages. "In cases where we have the apartment built ... the apartment would add 15 minutes to the evacuation time," he concluded.

Applicant representatives and counsel said the site previously underwent corrective work for a former leaking underground storage tank, that the State Water Board issued closure documentation for certain cases, and that AB130 contains safe‑harbor provisions where prior cases have regulatory closure. Attorney Todd Nelson told commissioners that AB130 requires a phase‑by‑phase environmental review and remediation mechanism for sites with prior industrial uses and that the condition set requires a phase I assessment and further action where the phase I identifies recognized environmental conditions.

Commissioners weighed public safety and environmental concerns against the narrow statutory criteria required to deny density‑bonus concessions under the Housing Accountability Act. They concluded the record and staff evidence did not identify the objective, written standards necessary to support a denial for a specific adverse impact that cannot be mitigated. The motion to deny the appeal and sustain the hearing officer's approval passed on a 5–0 roll call vote.

Provenance: Staff presentation and AB130/evacuation discussion (SEG 482–SEG 719); appellant presentation and modeling (SEG 722–SEG 903); applicant/attorney presentation and staff responses (SEG 959–SEG 1130); public comment and deliberation to final vote (SEG 1156–SEG 2356).