Public Comments _GDGA Sears Letter — Glendale City Council, October 21, 2025

1 of 9

FRANCESCA SMITH

October 20, 2025
Mayor Ara Najarian and City Council members
City of Glendale
via e-mail to [email protected]

RE: City Council Agenda Item 10 a. Community Development, 236 North Central Avenue – Stage II Design Review (Case No. PDR 2212056, Includes: 236 N.

Central Ave, 201 W. California Ave and 212 [sic] W. California Ave)

Dear Mayor Najarian and City Council members:

I am grateful for the opportunity to comment on the replacement project for Sears referenced above. As an alumna of the Design Review Board and an experienced design reviewer for the cities of Los Angeles, Pasadena, Beverly Hills, Monterey and Vallejo, I have previously commented on this project at nearly every phase of its review.

When City Council approved Stage I Preliminary Design Review on December 6, 2022, several “guiding comments” were made, including:

I. Include retail or commercial on the ground ﬂoor.

II. Provide additional open space and foliage in the plazas.

III. Public park should include playground equipment, ﬁtness equipment, public bathrooms, more foliage and less concrete.

IV. Provide additional height variations (especially on Central Avenue). It was suggested that taller buildings and reduced building footprint width would allow more open space.

V. Provide higher quality and more varied materials on the façade of the building (Glendale, City of. “Design Review Staﬀ Report – Downtown Speciﬁc Plan Project Advisory Review by the Design Review Board” September 11, 2025: 4).

In the September 11th Design Review Board (DRB) meeting, the applicant project team presented their responses to the speciﬁc recommended revisions:

Item I: The proposed project’s ground level plan was revised to include just over 1,500 square feet of retail/restaurant space fronting California Avenue to minimally comply with that comment. A 1,500 sq ft space can accommodate between 50-70 seats, depending on layout and furniture. That scarce change of proposed use would occupy no more than the rough dimensions of a mid-sized home.
2 of 9
To accommodate that minor change, the unit composition for Stage II design Review was altered, reducing the number of proposed live/work (studio) and two-bedroom units, but increasing the number of one-bedroom units. However, the proposed project overall unit count, which drives the project’s all-important future income stream was not altered by that minimal change in proposed use.

In its review, DRB concluded that “ Additional retail or commercial space supplemental to the [proposed]… 1,515 square-feet of ﬂoor area should be provided at the ground ﬂoor” in the September 11th meeting, because the proposed negligible retail/restaurant space fronting California Avenue was not suﬃcient to satisfy the original comment (Glendale City of. “Design Review Board Advisory Review and Comments” [Minutes]) September 11, 2025: 3). The applicant complied with the comment nominally but has not satisﬁed the requirement.

Item II: “The Project should be redesigned with a connection with the potential public park…The greenery at the Orange Street façade and on the sixth and eighth ﬂoor upper levels introduces natural elements and oﬀers visual relief, particularly within the open spaces at these levels. The integration of greenery at the upper ﬂoors should be thoughtfully incorporated into the building’s overall design, especially along California Avenue” (ibid: 3 and 4). The original guiding comment “Provide additional open space and foliage in the plazas” was not adequately addressed in the revised design presented. DRB concluded “The greenery at the Orange Street façade and on the sixth and eighth ﬂoor upper levels introduces natural elements and oﬀers [some] visual relief, particularly within the open spaces at these levels. The integration of greenery at the upper ﬂoors should be thoughtfully incorporated into the building’s overall design, especially along California Avenue” (emphasis added. ibid: 3). The applicant has not fulﬁlled their obligation to connect to the “potential public park” that was originally part of their pr and did not integrate additional upper ﬂoor planting which was directed to be woven into the total plan, including California Avenue.

Item III: Recommendations for the public park component were speciﬁc regarding the inclusion of playground and ﬁtness equipment, public bathrooms, more foliage and less concrete. Because the applicant will no longer be providing the promised public park in the original project description and currently on their website (Glendale, California CA - Available Retail Space & Restaurant Space for Lease Glendale Sears | Merlone Geier Partners and ﬂyer at Glendale Sears - Flyer (page 2) accessed on October 19, 2025), that recommendation, like their agreement to provide it, no longer applies.

The City of Glendale decision makers should think long and hard about whether or not to do business with the applicant. Not only has the applicant chosen not to make the design revisions recommended by DRB and City Council as demonstrated herein, but one of the Sears Automotive properties, at 201 W. California Ave. that the applicant is 3 of 9
planning to sell to the city to beneﬁt themselves is delinquent in its property taxes for the past two years. See Figure A.

Figure A: Annotated property tax summary for the 201 W. California Ave (Sears Automotive) property.

Oﬃce of the Los Angeles County Assessor. “ Assessor Portal” at hĴps://portal.assessor.lacounty.gov/parceldetail/5643020038 accessed on October 20, 2025.

Despite the fact that the “potential future public park” is allegedly no longer part of the project, it remains part of the revised current plans. See AC Martin. “236 North Central Avenue.” “Stage II -Update” Revision 6- August 8, 2025: “Open Space Calculations.” sheet A0.14b and “Phase I Site Plan/Aerial” sheet A1.04 among others).

The DRB further commented on the revised plans in their Advisory Review That the paseo should incorporate connections with the connected streets (Orange Street and North Central) such as kiosks, game area (e.g. chess), and congregation areas to incentives outdoor activities (e.g. City sponsored concerts) to create opportunities that revitalize the [Downtown Speciﬁc Plan] DSP. The addition of a restaurant with an outdoor patio that adjoins the paseo to enhance activation and further revitalization goals.

Consider the addition of neighborhood market at the building’s ground ﬂoor to support residences and enhance symbiotic relationship with surrounding development (ibid: 4).

Those recommendations were not incorporated into the proposed project plans, strongly suggesting that the applicant has demonstrated liĴle to no intention of being a good corporate citizen or partner, or of building a project that would in any way enhance the community.

The DRB further stated that “The Project should be redesigned with a connection with the potential public park” (ibid: 3). No evidence was found to demonstrate compliance

4 of 9
with the prescribed redesign in the plans presented (AC Martin. “236 North Central Avenue.” “Stage II -Update” Revision 6- August 8, 2025: all sheets). As currently designed, no eﬀort was made to connect the proposed project with the speculative potential public park.

Item IV: The comment was, “Provide additional height variations (especially on Central Avenue).” The inference was that taller buildings would reduce the building footprint to enable more open space. Overall, extremely modest, minimal revisions were made to the plans presented for Stage II design review. The building’s site plan remained unchanged, with no additional open space added, however the overall height of the project was only slightly increased.

Speciﬁcally, the proposed corner tower element at the intersection of Central and California Avenues was extended by fewer than 10 feet (9’- 8”), from 85’-4” to 95 feet.

The proposed parapets facing Central Avenue were raised by less than ﬁve feet (4’-8”), from 85’-4” to 90 feet. The recommendation was scarcely addressed, moreover its hat will be objective was not achieved. The change was insigniﬁcant- the addition of about 15 feet in height, made in only two locations on what will be and enormous complex.

Despite the speciﬁc recommendations made by DRB, the project's overall site plan remains unchanged in terms of the proposed building footprint and open space area.

Again, the applicant did as liĴle as possible to “check the box” but again, did not accomplish the city’s clear objective.

Item V. Despite the fact that the DRB concisely recommended that the applicant “Provide higher quality and more varied materials on the façade of the building,” the applicant nevertheless proposes vinyl windows and white stucco exterior wall ﬁnish (See “Wall Sections,” sheet A3.9 specifying “white plaster”). In their review, DRB concluded that the “Color for vinyl windows throughout the building should avoid the color white and match the color scheme shown in the elevations and rendered perspectives, such as silver, espresso, or brown. As a consideration, in lieu of vinyl material, a higher-quality and durable material, such as ﬁberglass, should be considered” (ibid: 4). No change was made, establishing that the applicant has no intention to be a cooperative partner for solutions.

Vinyl windows are certainly inexpensive and can be expected to last between two and four decades (!), although a large number of dual-glazed units fail (fogging and or cracked lites) and the vinyl can sag within the ﬁrst few years. Vinyl windows’ “lifespans” are inﬂuenced by various factors including climate, sun exposure, the sizes of the openings and the quality of manufacturing and initial installation. Windows in harsh, sunny climates like that of Glendale may only last a few years at most, while those in shaded, moderate climates may survive longer. Glendale is known for its hot, dry summers, especially downtown where there are few tall street trees. The proposed 5 of 9
project is therefore not an ideal location for the use of inexpensive vinyl windows, particularly on a mid- to high-rise complex where exterior maintenance will be challenging. The applicant did not comply with the stated recommendation.

DRB further articulated “The Project should redesign each of its four corners with enhanced architectural components to create a signature gateway at each corner of the building” and speciﬁcally directed “Incorporate design elements of the Sears Tower façade along with Art Deco/Streamlined Moderne design language into the Project’s design at the corner of West California Avenue and North Central Avenue, creating a signature gateway that reﬂects the spirit of the former Sears Tower” (ibid: 3). Review of the 118 pages of plans submiĴed for Stage II review reveals that really no eﬀort was made for the recommended redesign.

Strangely, the submiĴal does include a sheet with a keyed diagram featuring Art Deco style buildings in Glendale, ironically including the former Sears subject property, with a narrative that implies that the proposed project will derive its inspiration from those designs. Astonishingly, it concludes with the peroration “We intend to celebrate these styles into the landscape as a simple nod to what historically was here” (emphasis added, EPT DESIGN for AC Martin. “Stage II SubmiĴal” Revision 5, June 13, 2025: 0.00).

The consecutive sheet creates classiﬁcations for the proposed landscape (only) as Classical Moderne and Jazz Moderne-inspired, including the proposed public park, which is nonetheless not part of the proposed project (EPT DESIGN for AC Martin. “Stage II SubmiĴal” Revision 5, June 13, 2025: 0.01). Landscape can represent certain styles in architecture, but normally does not. Despite that reality, the plan features paĴerns and photographs of unrelated landscape design features at other properties that, for the most part are not included in the proposed project. Consideration of the proposed project renderings or “Project Views” and “Project Views- Lighting Design” on sheets A7.0- A7.17 unfortunately exposes the fact that the proposed project landscaping contains none of the promised Classical Moderne or Jazz Moderne features, references, objects or paving paĴerns. Sheet A7.13 reveals a strange cluster of radiating pedestrian streetlights (with their luminaires and illumination centered in one place) that would create a considerable light pool at “Mid-Block Paseo.” The condition has not been satisﬁed.

DRB made another clear, prescriptive comment on September 11, “Provide a designated drop-oﬀ zone for ride share, loading for new residents, and/or loading area for delivery packages within proximity of residential mailboxes” (ibid: 4). Review of the proposed project plans entitled “Loading; Trash Service Action Plan” and “Tenant Loading Access Plan” demonstrates that the proposed four exceptionally small loading areas would be located on parking level one, at the base of the north and south parking ramps, behind the security gates, immediately adjacent to ramps to-and-from P1 and four trash rooms, 6 of 9
electrical rooms #2 and 3 and the Fire Pump Room (AC Martin. “236 North Central Avenue- Stage II -Update” Revision 6- August 8, 2025: A0.21 and A0.22). The two mail rooms would be located on the ground ﬂoor of the proposed project (see “Ground Level Plan” sheet A2. 10), which is at least a half a city block and a ﬂight of stairs (or an elevator ride) away from, and nowhere near the four proposed, precariously located and insuﬃciently sized trivial loading zones intended to serve 682 residential units in perpetuity. The applicant again, did not comply with the condition.

Of the ﬁve conditions imposed, none was satisﬁed by the applicant. In each case, their design capably presented the project to make it appear that the recommendations were addressed, however it is clear that the conditions were not in actuality, fulﬁlled.

In closing, please seriously consider whether the applicant has, thus far, acted in good faith. Behaving in good faith, as you well know means conducting business with honest intent, fairness and loyalty, upholding the spirit and purpose of a contract or an agreement rather than just its leĴer. It requires involves being truthful, not deceiving the other party (the City of Glendale and its residents), and not preventing them from receiving whatever the beneﬁts should be of whatever the agreement or contract was.

This legal standard applies to honest intent, faithfulness to one's duties, and an absence of intent to defraud or taking an unconscionable advantage.

Truthfully, can you say that the applicant and their team are following the direction of decision makers (City Council, Design Review Board) and staﬀ? If, as stated in the City-prepared “Report To The Planning Hearing Oﬃcer,” the project applicant is “Multi-Family Land CA, LP, a Delaware Limited Partnership” but the owner is actually “MGP XII Glendale Central GL, LLC a California Limited-Liability Company” a signiﬁcant problem exists. Unfortunately, the ﬁling status for that limited liability company (LLC) is listed as “terminated” on the California Secretary of State’s website at Business Search (see hĴps://bizﬁleonline.sos.ca.gov/search/business). Details on the website describe the LLC’s “Standing-Agent” as “not good” and its inactive date as just over two years ago (October 2, 2024). The current plans under review and initial study list yet a third entity, MGP XII Glendale Central, LLC as the owner.

To compound the issue, the DRB minutes list a fourth entity, Maple Multi-Family Land CA, LP, a Delaware limited partnership as the applicant (Glendale, City of. “Design Review Board Advisory Review and Comments” September 11, 2025: 1).

You will be interested to know that in 2024, according to the Los Angeles County Assessment Appeals Board, for Agenda Hearing Date: April 22, 2024, the MGP XII Glendale Central, LLC entity requested for a reduction on property taxes for the “proposed potential park” properties (Assessor Identiﬁcation Numbers 5643-020-038, - 039 and -040, which include 201-211 West California Av., 309 and 315 North Orange St.) 7 of 9
based on “decline in value” (see hĴps://assets-us-01.kc-usercontent.com/0234f496-d2b7- 00b6-17a4-b43e949b70a2/525f0c7a-c810-43c8-a70d-348b8cdb9862/4-22%20BD2V.pdf accessed on October 20, 2025). In any event, whatever entity the city is dealing with has not paid taxes on at least one of the parcels (201-211 West California Ave.), which does not seem to indicate good faith on the applicant’s part, whomever they may be.

The public is left wondering who it is, with whom “we” (the City of Glendale) are really doing business. That rhetorical question should be considered by each of you, and researched by staﬀ before the city agrees to move forward to approve a project that promises to make millions of dollars for the applicants but would leave our already ﬁnancially struggling city responsible for payment of back taxes on the Sears Automotive property, in addition to performing required costly hazardous materials remediation1 for a park that the community and prospective tenants were originally promised by the applicant.

The Initial Study prepared for this project in July 2024 states:

The Department of Toxic Substances Control’s (DTSC’s) EnviroStor database and State Water Resources Control Board’s GeoTracker database identiﬁes sites that have known contamination or sites for which there may be evidence to investigate further. Further analysis is required to evaluate if the Project site has been identiﬁed as containing a known contaminant. As such, the Project could result in potentially signiﬁcant impacts related to hazardous materials. This issue will be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.

Because of recent changes to The California Environmental Quality Act, no Draft Environmental Impact Report will be prepared for this project. That does not relieve the applicant or any new owners of the “proposed potential park” for the aﬃrmative responsibility to remediate the existence of hazardous materials.

Regarding the applicant’s experience, as described on their own website, Merlone Geier Partners is
Primarily focused on community and neighborhood shopping centers, Merlone Geier Partners and our predecessor, M&H Realty Partners, have been actively investing in West Coast retail properties since 1993. We have acquired, to date, 176 West

1 Hazardous materials remediation is the process of removing, containing, or neutralizing hazardous substances from a contaminated area to protect human health and the environment. It involves identifying the contaminants, developing a cleanup plan, and using various techniques like excavation, chemical treatment, or physical barriers to address the contamination in soil, groundwater, and other media. This process is overseen by regulatory agencies including the federal Environmental Protection Agency and the California Department of Toxics Substances and can only be performed by trained professionals.

8 of 9
Coast properties representing in excess of 27.6 million square feet. Our ﬁrm… has raised more than $4.5 billion of discretionary institutional equity capital over the past 32 years. We provide our institutional investors the opportunity for aĴractive risk-adjusted returns through active real estate management, including leasing, redevelopment and densiﬁcation. We closed our thirteenth fund, Merlone Geier Partners XIII, L.P., in April 2022 (emphasis added, see merlonegeier.com “ About” at hĴps://www.merlonegeier.com/our-team accessed on September 23, 2025).

They certainly seem to be well-capitalized, for an entity that proposes vinyl windows and cannot manage to pay taxes on a small parcel in Glendale. Brief review of their own proﬁle reveals that their professed expertise and track record is not grounded in developing, holding or eﬀectively managing residential properties; their strength and specialty is retail. This is a highly leveraged and very proﬁtable, closely held organization who can’t seem to do what Glendale requests. Managing Partner, Bradley A Geier “held senior positions with Trammell Crow Company and The Taubman Company” (1983-1993). See company website “Our Team: Meet the Merlone Geier Team” and “Executive Team and Investment CommiĴee. Consider the late Trammell Crow and his son’s connections to Justice Clarence Thomas (see hĴps://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/11/us/politics/clarence-thomas-harlan-crow.html , hĴps://www.cnn.com/2023/04/25/politics/clarence-thomas-harlan-crow-supreme-court and hĴps://fortune.com/2023/04/24/clarence-thomas-billionaire-friend-harlan-crow- business-before-supreme-court/)
The last question is, does this project and its owner, who have consistently demonstrated bad faith throughout this process, deserve the gift of an alley that belongs to the City of Glendale in order to make their enormous, density bonus, primarily market rate, for-proﬁt project work? Their own representative called the subject property “an eyesore” in the last DRB meeting. He must not know that it is the responsibility of the owner to maintain and secure their property, whether it generates income or not.

Please consider all of these factors: their inability and unwillingness to follow through with concise Stage I design recommendations, the endless presentations made to cleverly circumvent making those revisions, shortchanging the community on required open space by an exponential amount, avoiding making connections between those open spaces, reducing private exterior areas, decreasing unit sizes beyond minimum square footage, limiting low-income units to the smallest apartment types, the list is nearly endless. Are they merely shrewd businesspeople, or are we being collectively hoodwinked? I believe, unfortunately it is the laĴer.
9 of 9
Because of these described factors, I ask that you vote to deny the design review application. The applicant has clearly not complied with the intent of the few simple conditions as demonstrated in this leĴer.

In addition, please vote to not vacate the alley (Item 10 b2) and do not accept elaborate shell game that would leave the city without the “potential proposed park” that would be our responsibility to fund. We cannot aﬀord to subsidize the proposed project, in terms of monetary cost, but also the physical, emotional and aesthetic eﬀects to the community.

I appreciate all of your time and your service to the community.

Sincerely,
Francesca Smith
Francesca Smith
CC: Dennis Joe, case planner
Suzie Abajian, PhD, City Clerk
Craig Scholer, Chief Deputy Director, DTSC

2 Public Works, re: Conditional Vacation of a Portion of the First Alley Easterly of Central Avenue, Southerly of California Avenue, Westerly of Orange Street (Alley 239) for the proposed 236 N. Central Avenue Project, Vacation Case No. 192V.

1 Joe, Dennis
From: Samuel Laskey <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2025 1:49 PM
To: Joe, Dennis
Subject: Support for 236 Central Ave Case PDR-003195-2024 CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Planner Dennis Joe,
I’m writing to express strong support for the proposed redevelopment of the former Sears site in downtown Glendale (Stage II Design Review Case No. PDR-003195-2024). This project represents an important investment in Glendale’s urban core and aligns well with the city’s vision for a vibrant, mixed-use downtown.

By replacing an under-utilized parcel with a thoughtfully designed, eight-story residential building and a new public park, the project will bring much-needed housing—including 72 affordable units—to an area with excellent access to transit, retail, and jobs. The architectural approach, massing, and façade articulation demonstrate a high level of design quality while maintaining sensitivity to the surrounding scale and streetscape.

I’m particularly supportive of the project’s emphasis on public realm improvements, including enhanced sidewalks, active ground-floor uses, and the inclusion of a potential public park parcel. These features will make downtown Glendale more walkable, connected, and livable.

Overall, this project will revitalize a key downtown block, increase housing supply, and contribute to a more dynamic, pedestrian-friendly Glendale. I respectfully encourage its approval.

Samuel Laskey
[email protected]
444 Piedmont Ave #235
Glendale, California 91206

You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 1 Joe, Dennis
From: Chris Rhie <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2025 12:12 PM
To: Joe, Dennis
Subject: Support for 236 Central Ave Case PDR-003195-2024 CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Overall, this project will revitalize a key downtown block, increase housing supply, and contribute to a more dynamic, pedestrian-friendly Glendale. I respectfully encourage its approval.

Chris Rhie
[email protected]
4519 Ayla Ln, Los Angeles, CA 90041
, California

You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 1 Joe, Dennis
From: Max Roessler <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2025 11:05 AM
To: Joe, Dennis
Subject: Support for 236 Central Ave Case PDR-003195-2024 CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Overall, this project will revitalize a key downtown block, increase housing supply, and contribute to a more dynamic, pedestrian-friendly Glendale. I respectfully encourage its approval.

Max Roessler
[email protected]
3963 College Crest Drive
Los Angeles, California 90065

You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important

Randy Stevenson, President Rick Lemmo, V.P. & Dir. of Govt. Relat. Helen McDonagh, Treasurer Raul Porto, Secretary Bradley Calvert Judee Kendell David Tonyan 100 N. Brand Boulevard Suite 508 Glendale, CA 91203 818.476.0121 [email protected] www.DowntownGlendale.com Facebook & Twitter: DWTNGlendale #DWTNGlendale October 16, 2025 To: Honorable Mayor Najarian and City Council Roubik Golanian, City Manager SUBJECT: Sears Site Density Bonus Dear Mayor, City Councilmembers and City Manager: The issue of the redevelopment of the former Sears site has been something we have looked forward to for many years now. As you know, the Greater Downtown Glendale Association manages all aspects of Downtown Glendale for the properties that fall within our boundaries. We have enjoyed a close working relationship with the City Manager and City Council over the years. We are writing today to support the project planned at the former Sears site on Central Avenue. We believe that this development, as well as others in the pipeline, will ensure continued growth in the Greater Downtown district and will bring hundreds of additional residents to activate this current closed site and the surrounding area. It will expand the customer market base, enhance walkability, and create new demand for existing small businesses and major retailers, and restaurants. We fully support the project for this site and encourage the City Council to support it as well. Sincerely, Randy Stevenson Rick Lemmo President Vice President, Government Affairs Greater Downtown Glendale Association Greater Downtown Glendale Association

1 Joe, Dennis
From: Nick Cron-DeVico <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2025 6:24 AM
To: Joe, Dennis
Subject: Support for 236 Central Ave Case PDR-003195-2024 CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Overall, this project will revitalize a key downtown block, increase housing supply, and contribute to a more dynamic, pedestrian-friendly Glendale. I respectfully encourage its approval.

Nick Cron-DeVico
[email protected]
2507 Micheltorena St.

Los Angeles, California 90039

You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 1 Joe, Dennis
From: Caitlin Tobin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2025 7:27 AM
To: Joe, Dennis
Subject: Support for 236 Central Ave, Case PDR-003195-2024 CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Planner Dennis Joe,
Hello and happy Tuesday!
I’m unable to attend tonight’s final review hearing but writing to express support for the proposed redevelopment of the former Sears site in downtown Glendale (Stage II Design Review Case No. PDR-003195-2024). This project is an investment in Glendale’s urban core and aligns with the city’s vision for a vibrant, mixed-use downtown! By replacing an under-utilized parcel with a thoughtfully designed, eight-story residential building and a new public park, the project will bring much-needed housing—including 72 affordable units—to an area with excellent access to transit, retail, and jobs.

I’m particularly supportive of the project’s emphasis on public realm improvements, including enhanced sidewalks, active ground-floor uses, and the inclusion of a potential public park parcel. These would make downtown Glendale more walkable, connected, and livable.

This project can revitalize a key downtown block, increase housing supply, and contribute to a more dynamic, pedestrian-friendly Glendale. I support its approval! Thank you very much for your time!
Caitlin Tobin
[email protected]
654 N Virgil Ave, Unit 302
Los Angeles, California 90004

You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important

Glendale City CouncilOctober 21, 2025

Glendale City Council
October 21, 2025