Vartan Gharpetian

I have been following the Historic Preservation Commission and City Council Meetings regarding this project very closely. I would have sustained the decision of the Historic Preservation Commission and would have voted against the demolition of the three-unit 1913 Craftsman which could have been designated as a local historic landmark. The developers knew that the property on 1642 S. Central Ave. was identified in the South Glendale historic survey as a potential historic resource before purchasing the property. There was no surprise there.

When I was on Council, I voted to fund and obtain the South Glendale Historic Survey. The purpose of the survey was to identify and PROTECT the historic resources and properties that were considered eligible for local landmark designation. Current Councilmembers who voted in favor of the demolition of this historic resource, have ultimately VOTED TO DEMOLISH PART OF THE HISTORY OF OUR CITY. And that’s a shame.

Andre Haghverdian

I would agree to an alternative to retain the building and incorporate into the development.

Vrej Agajanian

No response submitted

James Clarke

Reflecting on the proposed demolition of the Craftsman home at 1642 S. Central Avenue, my stance is firmly rooted in the preservation of our city's historical fabric. This Craftsman house, built in 1913, is not merely a structure; it's a testament to the early developmental era of Glendale and Tropico, embodying the Early Development & Town Settlement theme from 1872 to 1919.

The 1642 S. Central Avenue residence, as identified in the South Glendale Historic Resources Survey by HRG, stands as an increasingly rare example of early residential development in the former City of Tropico. This property is not only architecturally significant as an excellent example of the Craftsman style, complete with unique stylistic elements, but it also represents the cultural, social, and historical narratives of early Glendale area residents.

If I had been on the council during the vote, my advocacy would have been strong for preserving this property. I would have proposed a development plan that integrates the Craftsman home into the new project, repurposing it as a community or cultural space. This approach would honor the building's historical significance while adapting it to contemporary needs. By preserving the Craftsman house, we keep alive the story of our city’s evolution and the aesthetic aspirations of its early settlers.

Such an initiative aligns with my vision for Glendale, where progress does not erase our past but rather respects and incorporates it. In this way, we can ensure that the unique character of our city continues to tell its story, balancing the new with the cherished old. 

Ardy Kassakian

I completely understand the concerns of individuals who wanted to see this home preserved despite its irredeemable state. Although I voted for approval of this project I am aware that it raises concerns about the cumulative impact of demolition. I wish that staff had done a far better job of working with the applicant to come up with a better design that incorporated the characteristics of the home on the site into the proposed project.

The staff recommendation of this project was to approve it based on the fact that it met specific council goals.

In an ideal world, the city could have purchased this property and taken the time and care to design a project that would have provided 100% affordable housing and maintained some of the characteristics of the home as it has done in other projects in the city. But once the ingredients are mixed and the cake is ready to go in the oven, it is difficult for the city council to recant the work that was done by city staff on this project.

I don’t believe the architect and applicant’s intent was to destroy a historic structure and my hope is (as I stated at the council meeting) that we will use this opportunity to learn lessons and implement policies that will help preserve the other at-risk properties in the Tropico neighborhood in Glendale.

I will ask the city’s staff as to where this issue stands and hope that we can do more to complete the south Glendale survey and preserve the homes that we have in this area before they are in a similar situation as the one on Central.

Karen Kwak

I attend City Council meetings regularly and remember this case. The main problem was that the City Staff should have acted at a much earlier stage of the project to respect the building’s eligibility for local landmark designation. By the time these cases reach the City Council, many years later, Councilmembers’ hands are tied regarding pursuing alternatives. The option to move the project in a way that would have preserved the house and instead demolished the uglier industrial properties around it would have been more feasible if it had been pursued at an earlier stage of development.

I am not a fan of developers. I have often told the City Council that they should not place the wishes of developers above the needs of the residents of Glendale, but the City actually says things like “Glendale is friendly to developers”; at the Glendale Housing Summit on March 31, 2022, I told them “Yes, Glendale is friendly to developers, and I don’t mean that as a compliment.” City staff who spend all day talking to developers seem to think that it is their job to make developers happy. They need to be reminded to place the needs of Glendale res- idents first, and incorporate the kind of development that the people of Glendale wish to see.

Denise Miller

I would have voted no on both items. The property was previously deemed his-toric, the staff found the property to be historic and all the consultants not hired by the applicant recommended that the property was historic. Alternative #3 meets CEQA requirements which is to prevent or minimize damage to the envi-ronment through development of project alternatives, mitigation measures, and mitigation monitoring.