vacation was consistent with the goals and objectives of Glendale’s General Plan. On September 11, 2025, the Design Review Board voted to recommend approval to the City Council of the Stage II Design Review application, subject to certain comments.
Subsequently, on October 14, 2025, the Density Bonus Housing Plan received approval from the Planning Hearing Officer, who determined that it was consistent with the General Plan, Municipal Code, and state law.
The final review authority for the Project is the City Council. HCD understands that on October 21, 2025, the City Council denied the Project despite City staff’s recommendation to approve the Project and the City Attorney informing the City Council that the Project qualifies for protection under Government Code section 65589.5, subdivision (d) of the Housing Accountability Act.
Housing Accountability Act Violation
The Housing Accountability Act (HAA), Government Code section 65589.5, significantly limits the ability of a local agency to deny or reduce the density of a housing development project that complies with applicable, objective standards. Based on the materials reviewed, including the October 21, 2025 staff report, the record demonstrates that the Project, as well as the associated alley vacation, is consistent with the General Plan and applicable zoning regulations, and complies with all objective standards of the Downtown Specific Plan except those proposed to be lawfully modified under the provisions of the State Density Bonus Law (SDBL). The Planning Hearing Officer likewise approved the Density Bonus Housing Plan, determining that the Project satisfied all affordability requirements of the SDBL.
Additionally, the protections afforded under the HAA are more robust for housing development projects that include units affordable to lower income households. This Project includes a total of 67 units affordable to very low-income households, which is at least 10 percent of the total units, and therefore qualifies for the heightened protections under Government Code section 65589.5, subdivision (d). 3 Under subdivision (d), a
local government may only deny a project under narrow circumstances and “based upon a preponderance of the evidence in the record….”4 For this project, in particular, the City would be required to make the finding under subdivision (d)(2) – that the Project “would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact without rendering the development affordable to low- and moderate-income households ….” (None of the other statutory findings are applicable to the site or the City.) Subdivision (d)(2) goes on to define “specific, adverse impact.” HCD reviewed the video recording of the deliberations at the October 21, 2025 meeting.
Despite staff’s findings and recommendation to approve the Project, the City Council 3 See also Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subds. (h)(3)(A), (h)(3)(C)(i)(II). 4 Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (d). 563 of 616
Roubik R. Golanian, City Manager
voted to deny the Stage II Design Review application. Accordingly, the City was required to adopt the written findings mandated by the HAA. 5 While the City Council
raised a variety of concerns during its review of the Project, none appear to HCD to constitute a specific, adverse impact upon public health or safety that would justify denial. Moreover, the motion adopted by the City Council on October 21, 2025 to deny the Project did not include any directive for the City to make the required findings, nor did it identify any meaningful evidence in the record to support such findings.
Conclusion
By improperly denying the Stage II Design Review application, the City is in violation of the HAA. The City was required to make the required findings under the HAA before denying the Project. In the absence of such findings, the City was required to approve the Project.
Under Government Code section 65585, HCD must notify a local government when that local government takes actions that violate the HAA and may notify the California Office of the Attorney General.6
The City has until January 29, 2026, to provide a written response to this letter. In its response, the City should include a specific plan and timeline for corrective action, including the reconsideration and approval of the Project as proposed. HCD will consider any written response before taking further action authorized by Government Code section 65585, subdivision (j), including, but not limited to, referral to the California Office of the Attorney General.
If you have any questions regarding the content of this letter or would like additional technical assistance, please contact Mackenzie Goldberg at [email protected].
Sincerely,
David Zisser
Assistant Deputy Director
Local Government Relations and Accountability
cc: Bradley Calvert, Director of Community Development
Michael J. Garcia, City Attorney
Gillian van Muyden, Chief Assistant City Attorney
5 Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (d)(2).
6 Gov. Code, § 65585, subds. (i)(1), (j)(1).
564 of 616
10a
25-88672
CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM
Report: 236 North Central Avenue – Stage II Design Review (Case No. PDR 2212056) (Includes: 236 N. Central Ave, 201 W. California Ave and 212 W. California Ave)
1. Motion Approving Stage II Design Review Application (Design Review Case No. 2212056) with conditions.
2. Motion Denying the Project Design Review Application.
COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Public Hearing
Approved for October 21, 2025 calendar
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The proposed project (“Project”) site is 4.57-acres located at 236 North Central Avenue, 212 W. California Avenue, and 201 West California Avenue consisting of (i) a 3.7-acre Mixed-Use Building Site and (ii) a 0.87-acre Potential Public Park Site, both located within the Downtown Specific Plan-Orange Central District.
The Mixed-Use Building Site is bounded to the north by West California Avenue, to the west by North Central Avenue, and to the east by North Orange Street, includes four parcels and is bisected by Alley 239, an 18-foot-wide public alley. The Project applicant proposes the demolition of the176,629 square-foot three-story retail building (former Sears Department Store), an adjacent 164,308 square-foot three-level parking structure, and a small asphalt surface parking lot and to construct two new 8-story mixed use buildings constructed above a single podium totaling 655,418 square-feet, and including 682 residential units comprised of 37 Studio units, 493 One-Bedroom units, 135 TwoBedroom, 1 Three-Bedroom unit, 16 Live/Work units and a retail/restaurant space at the ground floor. The Project would contain a total of 72 residential units affordable to very low- and low-income households.
The Potential Public Park Site, located at 201 West California Avenue includes three parcels, currently developed with two vehicle repair buildings totaling 15,933 square-feet and associated surface parking, has been made available for purchase by the City of Glendale for development of a public park, which purchase would be funded by developer’s payment of Development Impact Fees (DIFs). Developer also has the option CC_01272026_Exhibit 16- Staff Report to City Council - Stage II Design Review, dated October 21, 2025 565 of 616
10a 2
25-88672
of dedicating the land for park purposes under the Quimby Act, if developer processes a tract map. Alternatively, the developer could seek to donate the site for a park and request credit of the land value against the DIFs owed. The described scope of work for the Mixed-Use Building site and proposed public park site are defined as the “Project”.
This is the first development project subject to AB 130 brought before the City Council for review. AB 130, effective June 30, 2025, established new CEQA exemptions and stricter timeframes for project approval or disapproval. Here, the approval must occur within thirty days from the conclusion of the required Tribal Consultation process outlined in Public Resources Code Section 21080.66 (b), if a development project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.66. Staff has determined this Project qualifies for a CEQA exemption under AB 130. The tribal consultation process concluded on September 21, 2025. Accordingly, the Project is statutorily required to be approved or disapproved on or before October 21, 2025. To comply with statute, staff is recommending the Council complete its consideration of the Project on October 21, 2025.
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council approve the Stage II Design located at 236 N. Central Ave, 201 W.
California Ave and 212 W. California Ave subject to staff's recommendations.
BACKGROUND
On December 6, 2022, Stage I Preliminary Design Review Case No. PDR 2212056 was presented to City Council and Council approved the Stage I motion subject to the following Council comments:
1. Include retail or commercial on the ground floor.
2. Provide additional open space and foliage in the plazas.
3. Public park should include playground equipment, fitness equipment, public bathrooms, more foliage and less concrete.
4. Provide additional height variations (especially on Central Avenue). It was suggested that taller buildings and reducing the building foot print width to allow for more open space.
5. Provide higher quality and more varied materials on the façade of the building.
On August 6, 2025, Alley Vacation Case No. 192V was presented to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the conditional vacation of a portion of Alley 239, as it is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City of Glendale's Comprehensive General Plan. A copy of the Planning Commission motion is included as Attachment 10. Alley Vacation Case No. 192V is scheduled for the City Council’s final review on October 21, 2025 following Council consideration of the Design Review application.
On September 11, 2025, this Project (Stage II Design Review Case No. PDR 2212056) was presented to the Design Review Board (DRB) for advisory review and comments. 566 of 616
10a 3
25-88672
The DRB concurred with the City Council Stage I approval subject to the City Council comments provided on December 6, 2022 (Stage I Design Review) identified above; and provided additional, following comments:
1. That the Orange Street façade appears to the most sucessful in terms of architectural variety.
2. The Project should redesign each of its four corners with enhanced architectural components to create a signature gateway at each corner of the building.
3. 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.
4. Additional retail or commercial space should be provided at the ground floor, supplemental to the provided 1,515 square-feet of floor area.
5. The Project should be redesigned with a connection with the potential public park.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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 DSP. The addition of a restaurant with an outdoor patio that adjoins the paseo to enhance activation and further revitalization goals.
9. The paseo should incorporate connections to the surrounding streets (Orange Street and North Central) through activating features such as retail kiosks, game areas (e.g., chess), and gathering spaces to encourage outdoor activities (e.g. concerts) and opportunities that help revitalize the DSP. The addition of a restaurant with an outdoor patio adjoining the paseo would further enhance activation.
10.Consider the addition of neighborhood market at the building’s ground floor to support residences and enhance symbiotic relationship with surrounding development.
11.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. 567 of 616
10a 4
25-88672
A copy of the Design Review Board Record of Decision is included as Attachment 11.
On October 14, 2025, Density Bonus Housing Plan Case No. PDBP- 005412-2025 was approved by the Planning Hearing Officer to construct a new 8-story, 655,418 squarefoot, mixed-use development consisting of 666 multi-family residential dwellings units (14% or 67 rental units reserved for very low and 1% or 5 rental units reserved for lowincome), 16 live/work units, 1,515 square feet of retail/restaurant space at the ground floor, and a 930 parking space garage (one above grade and two levels subterranean) with two concessions/incentives and four waivers.
Two concessions/incentives granted:
1. To deviate from the proportionality requirements for inclusionary units with respect to the unit mix. Granted proportionality of the 72 inclusionary units include 37 studios and 35 one-bedroom units; where four studio units, 53 onebedroom units, and 15 two-bedroom units was required.
2. To exceed the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) by 1.06. (4.07 FAR granted; 3.0 maximum by code)
Additionally, the applicant was granted four waivers, which include:
1. A reduction in the amount of publicly accessible open space (PAOS) by 2,754 square feet (13,397 square feet granted; 16,151 square feet was required).
2. A reduction in the required amount of contiguous PAOS (distribution of PAOS was granted across four locations: 4,806 square feet, 5,160 square feet, 2,118 square feet and 1,313 square feet; at minimum 13,728 square feet contiguous PAOS was required)
3. A reduction in the required amount of Residential Private Outdoor Space (19,700 square feet granted; 95,480 square feet was required)
4. Elimination of the required setback for portions of the building wall over 60 feet in height and adjacent to the paseo (zero setback granted; 20-foot setback for portions over 60 feet, or three times the 20-foot paseo width was required).
A copy of the Planning Hearing Officer’s decision letter is included as Attachment 13.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The Project site is currently developed with a 176,629 square-foot three-story retail building that was built for and operated as a Sears Department Store through March 2020. Since March 2020 the building has been temporarily occupied by seasonal businesses. The Project site is also developed with a 164,308 square-foot three-level parking structure and a small asphalt surface parking lot on North Central Avenue. The Project site includes a north-south alley that runs between the retail building and the parking structure. The Project site is almost entirely paved with minimal landscaping.
The adjacent public sidewalk contains some mature street trees along the Project Site boundary.
568 of 616
10a 5
25-88672
Neighboring Zones and Uses
The General Plan and Zone designates the entire Project Site as Downtown Specific Plan (DSP). The General Plan encourages high density residential and mixed use development for areas within the DSP. The DSP is an urban design oriented plan, which includes objective design standards as well as land use regulations for property within the Downtown Specific Plan area. The DSP designates the entire Project Site as Downtown Specific Plan/Orange Central District (DSP/OC). The Orange Central District allows for a mix of residential, retail, and office uses, including mixed-use developments. Parcels north of the Project Site are designated Downtown Specific Plan/Transitional District (DSP/T), DSP/OC, and Downtown Specific Plan/Mid-Orange District (DSP/MO) and include mixed-use, residential, retail, and parking uses. DSP/T parcels located to the northwest across North Central Avenue and West California Avenue include a 6-story, mixed-use residential building. DSP/OC parcels located to the north across West California Avenue include a 6-story mixed-use residential building and a 5-story multi-family residential building. DSP/MO parcels located to the northeast across North Orange Street and West California Avenue include City of Glendale Public Parking Lot No. 6 and a 1-story retail building. The Glendale Metrolink Station is Zoning Existing Uses
North DSP – Orange Central
District
6-story, mixed-use residential building (Legendary) &
5-story, multi-family residential building (Lex on
Orange).
South DSP – Orange Central
District
1-story medical office building (Central Avenue) &
1-story multi-tenant commercial building (Orange St.)
East DSP – Mid-Orange
District
Orange Street, 4-story public parking structure,
City of Glendale Public Parking Lot No. 6 (surface
lot),
1-story counter service restaurant &
1-story retail building
West DSP – Transitional
District
1-story fast-food restaurant with drive-thru and
surface parking lot,
2-story multi-tenant commercial building &
6-story commercial office building and surface
parking lot.
Project
Site
DSP – Orange Central
District
Retail store (Sears), parking structure, and vehicle
repair garage (Sears Auto Center)
569 of 616
10a 6
25-88672
located approximately 1.7 miles to the south and the nearest major roadways are North Central Avenue to the west and Brand Boulevard to the east. The Project Site is served by Metro Routes 92, 94, 180, 217, and 501, and Glendale Beeline Routes 1, 4, and 11.
ANALYSIS
Proposed Project
The Project features a mixed-use development consisting of 682 dwelling units (including 666 apartment units and 16 live/work units), 1,515 square feet of groundfloor retail/restaurant space, and a parking garage with 930 spaces (one level above grade and two subterranean levels). The buildings are eight stories tall, reaching a height of 95 feet based on the City’s zoning code which measures height from the lowest to the highest point of the building (GMC section 30.70.090 Definitions “H”).
However, the buildings are less than 85’ using the California Building Code (CBC) measurement of height, which is based on the vertical distance from the grade plane to the average height of the highest roof surface (CBC section 202). The Project is proposed as a Type IIIA construction which is limited to a maximum height of 85 feet above grade (CBC Table 504.3, Section 504.1). Measurement of height is relevant because AB 130 (Gov’t Code section 21080.66 that took effect earlier this year) requires developers to pay prevailing wages for projects over 85’ in height above grade.
The development includes amenities such as publicly accessible open space, outdoor decks for residents, common rooms, and more. As indicated, in the Summary section of this report, the Developer is obligated to either pay the required Development Impact Fees prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, or dedicate the equivalent value in land for recreation and parks purposes as part of the approval of a final tract map (Quimby Act), or can seek to donate the land and request a credit against DIFs owed.
These options are not required to be exercised at this time, however, the payment of DIFs is mandatory.
The units and associated amenities will be dispersed in two buildings that are connected by the ground-level parking area and second-floor common open space areas. Per GMC Section 30.36 and State Density Bonus law, the project will require 790 stalls for the retail space and residential uses combined and provides 930 parking spaces in one level above-grade and two levels of subterranean parking. Vehicular access is proposed from two new driveway entrances mid-block on California Avenue and the rear alley.
Parking and Circulation
The applicant was granted a density bonus in accordance with State Density Bonus Law (CA Gov’t Code section 65915) and SB 330. Under CA Gov’t Code section 65915, the applicant is entitled to reduced parking requirements. The Project provides 930 parking spaces in one level of above-ground parking and two levels of subterranean parking. For reference, the table below illustrates the minimum 570 of 616
10a 7
25-88672
number of parking requirements established in the Zoning Code (Table 30-32-A, GMC section 30.32.050), and the parking requirements established under CA Gov’t Code section 65915. Vehicular access is proposed from two new driveway entrances that are located mid-block on W. California Avenue and at the southerly portion of the site from the alley.
Unit Type Zoning Code
Standard
Required #
of Spaces
Density Bonus
Standard
Required # of
spaces
Live/Work 3 spaces/unit 48 N/A – must comply
with zoning 48
Studio 1 space/unit 38 1 space/unit 38
1-bedroom 1 space/unit 493 1 space/unit 493
2-bedroom 2 spaces/unit 270 1.5 spaces/unit 202.5
3-bedroom 2 spaces/unit 2 1.5 spaces/unit 1.5
Guest
Parking
1 space/10
units 69 Not required 0
Retail 5 spaces/1,000
SF 8
N/A – must comply
with zoning 8
Total Required 927 Total Required 790
Total Provided 930 Total Provided 930
Stage II Design Review Analysis
Design review for projects in the DSP districts is performed by the City Council. A Stage II Design indicates the completion of the final design phase. The site planning, mass and scale, and architectural style and details of the Project have been analyzed by staff in regard to the DSP Orange Central District standards and objective design standards applicable to the Project, as detailed below.
The Potential Public Park Site at 201 West California Avenue on the northwest corner of North Orange Avenue and West California Avenue was made available for purchase by the City of Glendale for development of a public park. The Developer also has the option of paying the fees, dedicating the land for parks and recreation purposes to the City pursuant to the Quimby Act as a condition of final approval of a final tract map, or seeking to dedicate the property and request a credit against the DIFs owed pursuant to GMC Chapter 4.10. If the City acquires this site, the public park would be developed in compliance with the City’s urban design standards, the GMC, General Plan, and Downtown Specific Plan. The design for the public park has not been developed by the City at this time. As a result, Stage II Design Review analyzes the final design of the proposed mixed-use building. 571 of 616
10a 8
25-88672
SITE PLANNING – DSP Chapter 4.1 Urban Design
Overall Site Plan – The Project site is broken into two sites: a 3.7-acre Mixed-Use Building Site (236 North Central Avenue and 212 W. California Avenue) and a 0.87-acre Potential Public Park Site (201 West California Avenue). The Mixed-Use Building Site is located west of Central Avenue, south of California Avenue and east of Orange Street and is 3.7 acres, while Potential Public Park Site is 0.87 acre in area and is located on the north of California on the northwest corner of Orange Street. The Project’s scope of work on the Mixed-Use Site and designed features two separate buildings that are connected by the ground-level parking area and second-floor common open space areas. The ground floor features a combination of live/work units, 1- and 2-bedroom residential units, and a 1,515 square foot retail space as well as amenity areas (e.g., lobby, business lounge, etc.). The project complies with the building setback requirements of the DSP, which requires a minimum 18-foot setback from Central Avenue, a 16-foot setback from California Avenue, and a minimum 10-foot setback for the building along Orange Street. Required minimum setbacks for the DSP are measured on the ground floor from the face of the curb to the building frontage.
Complying with these setbacks will allow for parkway and sidewalk widening that will activate the pedestrian realm, another goal of the DSP. Vehicular access to the site is proposed from two new driveway entrances, located mid-block on California Avenue and at the southerly portion of the site along Orange Street. All publicly accessible open space is 100% open to the sky, oriented towards and accessed from public streets, and appropriately integrated within the Project’s site planning. At the ground floor, courtyard/plazas are incorporated into the site planning, with the building entries appropriately setback from the street. At the southerly portion of the site, a new public paseo has been designed that provides mid-block pedestrian access from Orange Street to Central Avenue.
4.1.2 Building Heights & Floor Area Ratios
DSP Standards
Orange Central District Project Design
Height (by right) 95 FT maximum
Height (w/ incentive) 245 FT maximum
95 FT
Density (by right) 3.0 FAR maximum
Density (w/ incentive) N/A – must comply with DSP
Standards
4.07 FAR
On October 14, 2025, the Planning Hearing Officer approved the Density Bonus application, and granted the developer’s requested concession to exceed the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) by an additional 1.07 (4.07 FAR proposed; 3.0 maximum) to reduce costs to the applicant for providing affordable units – which the additional FAR affords construction efficiencies and inherent reductions in costs by allowing the construction of a greater 572 of 616
10a 9
25-88672
number of units. The additional units will result in actual and identifiable cost reductions because the additional units will take advantage of construction efficiencies when being built and will generate rental income to offset the cost of providing the units at an affordable rent. If the Project were to comply with the Zoning Code regulations associated with maximum building height/number of stories, the footprint of the new building would be significantly impacted and would subsequently affect the viability of the Project and the proposed development build-out.
4.1.3 Building Setbacks
The Project site features a Mixed-Use Commercial designation along Central Avenue, and a Mixed-Use Residential designation along California Avenue and the northerly portion of Orange Street. The Orange Street frontage south of California Avenue is undesignated. Projects in the DSP located along a MixedUse Commercial streets are required to have a minimum 18-foot setback from the curb face (5-ft. parkway, 10-ft. sidewalk, 3-ft. average building adjacent zone), projects located along Mixed-Use Residential streets are required to have a minimum 16-foot setback from the curb face (5-ft. parkway, 8-ft. sidewalk, 3-ft. average building adjacent zone), and projects located along an undesignated street are required to have a minimum 10-foot setback (4-ft. parkway, 6-ft. sidewalk). The Project complies with the required streetscape and setback standards on all three frontages.
4.1.4 Publicly Accessible Open Space (PAOS)
The Project provides publicly accessible open space (PAOS) within courtyard/plaza areas located at the northeast and northwest corners of the site, a mid-block pedestrian paseo located along the southerly portion of the site that features courtyard/plaza entries along the street frontages. The PAOS is 100% open to the sky, oriented towards and accessed from public streets, and integrated within the site planning for the Project.
The Project’s Density Bonus approval granted two waivers for reductions in development standards concerning PAOS:
o Reduce required amount PAOS by 2,754 square feet (16,151 square feet required; 13,397 square feet provided).
o Reduce required amount of contiguous PAOS (85% contiguous, or 13,728 square feet, PAOS required; PAOS is distributed across four locations:
4,806 square feet, 5,160 square feet, 2,118 square feet and 1,313 square feet).
For the Project to fully comply with PAOS standards granted to be waived (above), significant alterations to the building’s footprint would be necessary, reducing available floor area/dwelling units elsewhere in the building and thus 573 of 616
10a 10
25-88672
negatively impacting the number of residential units, amenities, and other vital components of the development.
BUILDING DESIGN – DSP Chapter 4.2 Urban Design
Overall Building Design – As measured by the City’s Zoning Code, the proposed buildings are 95’ in height. The Project design incorporates the required height and façade modulations into the design, including at the street-level. Along each street frontage, the height modulations range from 12’-1” to 33’-9” at the upper floors. The design also incorporates step backs at the upper floors that range from 6’-5” to 48’-0”, as well as the major and minor façade modulations, and required building separations.
Combined with detailing, articulation, and window patterns these height and façade modulations and the building separations provide visual interest at the pedestrian level and reduces the imposing appearance of the building’s mass over the public right-ofway. The Project is a contemporary design and utilizes architectural solutions (building materials, texture, offset building massing, recessed entries, windows, canopies, and public open space) to articulate the street-facing façades. Overall, the design addresses the public sidewalk, with the design of the street-level facades appropriately detailed with human-scaled high-quality materials. The building design uses materials to differentiate between the different volumes, which combined with the façade modulations and building separations, gives the impression of multiple buildings on the
3.7-acre Project site.
4.2.2 Massing & Scale: Modulation of Height
The Project demonstrates compliance with the DSP’s requirements for roofline variation by incorporating height differences of 12'-1" to 33'-9" along its streetfacing elevation. The varied rooflines break up the building’s massing and reduce its visual impact, contributing to a more articulated and dynamic silhouette. The design also features step-backs at the upper floors ranging from 6’-5” to 48’-0”.
These building step-backs at the upper levels allow for multiple roofline profiles and reduce the imposing appearance of the building’s mass over the public rightof-way.
Stage I feedback from the Council suggested the Project should be revised with a "taller and skinnier" design with varied heights and smaller building footprint leaving more room for plazas, courtyards, landscaping, or other open spaces.
Overall, modest revisions were included in the Stage II design. The building’s site planning remained unchanged, with no additional open space added, and the overall height of the building was slightly increased. Specifically, the corner tower element at the intersection of North Central Avenue and California Avenue was extended by approximately 9 feet, 8 inches (from 85’-4” to 95’-0”). Additionally, the parapets facing North Central Avenue were raised by approximately 4 feet, 8 inches (from 85’-4” to 90’-0”). The Project's overall site planning remains unchanged in terms of building footprint and open space area. 574 of 616
10a 11
25-88672
4.2.3 Massing & Scale: Façade Modulation
The Project has incorporated the major and minor façade modulation standards outlined in this section into the overall building design along the three street frontages, as well as the frontage along the southerly property line oriented towards the proposed pedestrian paseo. These major and minor façade modulations are illustrated on the Project plans and comply with the DSP standards. Along with detailing, articulation, and window patterns, these modulations provide visual interest at the pedestrian level.
4.2.4 Massing & Scale: Building Separations
The Project demonstrates compliance with the DSP’s requirements of building separations, which building façade lengths range from 65’-2” along Orange Street to 166’-0” along the paseo, with the exception of the southerly façade along Central Avenue that has a length of 200 feet. The Project provides six building separations that terminate at the second floor and range from 23 feet to 80 feet along all three street frontages and the paseo. The building separation along the southerly façade along Central Avenue is 80 feet, where 40 feet is the minimum required for a building façade that exceeds 200 feet. These separations are appropriate and meet the DSP standards. For developments such as this that occupy large blocks, these building separations are key to reducing the scale, and provide opportunities for open space, as well as allow for visual relief by creating the appearance of two or more distinct buildings.
4.2.6 Massing & Scale: Landmark Architectural Features
The DSP identifies landmark architectural features, including entry locations, terminated vistas, civic promenades and paseos. The southerly portion of the Project site is identified in the DSP as a paseo landmark architectural feature.
The Project proposes a paseo at this location, which is consistent with the architectural features outlined in the DSP. Paseos provide an opportunity to create pedestrian-scaled walkways that are intimate, and that enhance the image of the Downtown. Although it is not identified in the DSP, the drawings identify the northeast corner of the development along Orange Street and California Avenue to be a landmark entry corner architectural feature that includes a landscaped plaza/courtyard area with seating.
4.2.7 Architectural Elements
The Project incorporates a number of architectural elements and design features that articulate the building façades, including quality and varied building materials, texture, offset building massing, recessed entries, windows and awnings. These features create a design that is unique and identifiable, while recognizing the priorities of the DSP to enhance ground level architectural elements to be human-scaled and to promote pedestrian activity. The Project 575 of 616
10a 12
25-88672
features ground level parking that is wrapped by habitable spaces consistent with the DSP requirements. The ground floor of Project features recreational rooms (e.g., fitness center, business lounge, game room, etc.), live/work units, a 1,515 square-foot commercial unit, and 1- and 2-bedroom residential units.
Overall, the street-level façades are incorporated into the overall building design while also addressing the public sidewalk by providing differentiation in the base of the building. At the ground level, the design also features open space and streetscape improvements along the three frontages and the proposed paseo that improve the pedestrian environment. The base and top of windows are differentiated in the building design, and at the ground floor the large expanses of glass subdivided into smaller units. The ground level floors are visually separated from the floors above through the use of building materials, awnings, canopies, and by recessing the ground-floor from the floors above. In addition to widening the sidewalks to comply with the building setback requirements and providing parkway improvements, at the ground floor the project features landscaped plazas/courtyards, pockets of landscaping providing a buffer for the ground floor residential units, and a landscaped paseo.
4.2.8 Architectural Elements: Materials
The Project features a combination of traditional and modern materials and finishes including metal panels, Trespa laminate-clad panels, Hardie Plank fiber cement siding, plaster finishes, thin brick, and cast-in-place concrete. The proposed materials are consistent with the contemporary aesthetic of the design, and the standards outlined in this section of the DSP which encourage humanscaled materials to reinforce the pedestrian character of the public realm. The building designs use the materials to differentiate between the different volumes.
Combined with the façade modulations and building separations, the application of the materials gives the impression of multiple buildings on the 3.7-acre site.
Stage I feedback from the City Council suggested the Project should provide higher quality and more varied materials on the façade of the building. The use of white colored plaster has been reduced in various areas along the facades by incorporating dark gray plaster and beige cementitious fiberboard siding (Hardie Plank) on select volumes along Orange Street, California Avenue, and Central Street. According to the applicant, these changes have resulted in a 59% reduction of white façades on the west elevation (Central Avenue) and a 31% reduction on the east elevation (Orange Street).
4.2.9 Architectural Elements: Storefronts
Storefronts have been incorporated into the design of each building at the ground floor frontages where the amenity rooms (e.g., business lounge, lobby, etc.) and the live/work units are located. As required by the DSP, the ground floor storefronts are provided on at least half of the façades, will have at least 75% 576 of 616
10a 13
25-88672
transparency, and will feature canopies and marquees on at least 50% of the entire façade. The design of the ground floor storefronts appropriately establishes the base of each building, with the storefronts and building entrances recessed from the building façades which creates depth and contrast.
Stage I feedback from the City Council suggested the Project should include retail or commercial on the ground floor. The ground level plan had been revised to include a 1,515 square foot commercial space fronting California Avenue to address this comment. To accommodate, the ground level unit composition for Stage II was altered with a decrease in live/work and two bedroom units, and an increase of one bedroom units, as follows:
Stage II Unit Changes at the Ground Level
Stage I Stage II (Change)
Live/Work 17 16 -1
One Bed 8 10 +2
Two Bed 5 3 -2
Three Bed 0 0 0
Retail 0 1 +1
subtotals 30 30 0
After revision to include retail space, the Project’s total residential unit count remained at 666 residential units and 18 live/work units.
4.2.10 Architectural Elements: Building Lobbies & Entries The Project features four ground floor residential lobby entrances that are accessed from the corner plazas/courtyards that are significantly setback from their street frontages while maintaining visibility and connectivity to the public realm. The building along Orange Street has a main entry plaza/courtyard at the northeast corner of California Avenue and Orange Street, and a secondary lobby area accessed from the southeast corner along the paseo. The building along Central Avenue has a main entry plaza/courtyard that is located along the northwest corner of California Avenue and Central Avenue and a separate lobby area accessed from the southwest corner along the paseo. The proposed residential lobby entries comply with the standards specified in the DSP because they are integrated into the overall building designs through the use of materials, feature canopy designs and glazing that create distinct and identifiable entry 577 of 616
10a 13
25-88672
578 of 616
10a 14
25-88672
points, and paving materials are incorporated to differentiate the entrance path for pedestrians.
4.2.11 Architectural Elements: Stoops & Ground Level Residential Entries The live/work and commercial units are designed with large aluminum store front windows and door with a minimum 18-inch planter in front of each live/work unit parallel with the sidewalk creating activation, opportunities for engagement with the public realm. Residential dwellings are designed with direct access paths to allow for the greatest amount of landscaping facing the public realm.
4.2.12 Architectural Elements: Corners
These standards apply only for projects that incorporate the corner feature into their design to comply with the height modulation required by Section 4.2.2 of the DSP. As detailed above, the Project is incorporating the roofline height modulation standard into the design, so these requirements are not applicable to the proposal.
4.2.13 Architectural Elements: Canopies
The DSP requires a minimum of 50% of the street elevations including canopies or marquees. The design incorporates architectural marquees/canopies at the ground floor of all three street-facing facades that complement the overall building aesthetic and material palette. At the street elevations, at least half of the ground floor façades include these canopies, as required. The building’s ground level includes a combination of recessed building entrances and entryways covered by metal canopies at each street and paseo facing building façades.
To further enhance the Project’s aesthetic, additional metal cladded canopies were added above two live/work units facing Orange Street and concrete awnings above ground level windows were added to foster a distinct and identifiable aesthetic that complements the overall building design.
4.2.14 Architectural Elements: Balconies
The Project includes a variety of roof decks, as well as projecting and recessed balconies, for certain residential units—particularly those facing public streets— where balconies have been integrated into the building’s elevation. However, many interior-facing units do not include private patios or balconies, largely due to site constraints and design considerations.
The DSP objective design standards require a minimum of 140 square feet of private outdoor space per residential and/or live-work unit. With a total of 666 residential units and 16 live-work units, the Project is required to provide 95,480 square feet of private outdoor space. However, through its Density Bonus 579 of 616
10a 15
25-88672
application, the Project was granted a waiver allowing a reduction in development standards. As a result, approximately 19,700 square feet of private outdoor space will be provided—a reduction of 75,780 square feet—distributed across 394 units in the form of ground-level private patios and balconies.
Overall, the balcony materials include glass railings and vertical metal railings that are compatible with the overall building designs. The proposed balconies are not repetitive or identical, but instead, create a dynamic and visually interesting façade within the well-articulated building elevations.
4.2.15 Architectural Elements: Fenestration
The Project incorporates a variety of window sizes across different façades, creating visual complexity and enhancing façade modulation as well as the overall building scale. The fenestration design also articulates the building’s base, middle, and top, establishing a clear architectural hierarchy. Large expanses of glazing are intentionally avoided, with differentiation at the base and top of the residential unit windows to add visual interest.
While a window schedule has not been provided within architectural drawings, the applicant has indicated a combination of aluminum storefront windows at the ground level and vinyl windows will be provided throughout the building. Staff recommends that the windows match the aesthetic shown in the elevations and renderings, 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.
4.2.16 Architectural Elements: Fences, Walls and Gates
The drawings do not identify any ground-floor fences, walls, or gates. Secondfloor security glass fencing is provided at the top of the staircase leading to the courtyard at the corner of West California Avenue and Orange Street. Glass fencing integrates well with the Project’s modern design and offers high level of transparency required by the DSP objective design standards.
4.2.17 Architectural Elements: Planters
Landscaping is provided at the ground, second and top floor levels with a variety of California-friendly trees, such as Crape Myrtle, California Sycamore, Mesa Oak, Western Rosebud and Italian Cypress, and a variety of low to moderate water shrubs, such as Foxtail Agave, Dwarf Olive, Jerusalem Sage, Rosemary, Cleveland Sage and manzanita.
The quantified amount of landscaping (foliage) on Landscape Plan sheet L0.60 for Stage I and Stage II remain unchanged (28% landscaping proposed; 25% landscaping minimum required). While the Stage II design does not include 580 of 616
10a 16
25-88672
additional open space areas, the Project’s revisions include enhanced seating at the plazas with concrete benches with wooden tops, wooden benches, and fitness equipment.
4.2.20 Architectural Elements: Garage Entries
The Project features 930 parking spaces in one level above-ground parking and two levels of subterranean parking for residential and commercial units.
Vehicular access is proposed from two new driveway entrances that are located mid-block on West California Avenue and at the rear via Alley 239.
Each garage entry design includes an access control arm with automatic vehicle identification and a roll-up lattice metal gate to be used during late evening hours.
Both the access control arm and the metal lattice roll-up gate will be set back from the face of the building to avoid conflicts with pedestrians, the streetscape, and the building design.
4.2.21 Architectural Elements: Utilities
The electrical, transformer and pump rooms are proposed within the main body of the building fronting California Street incorporated into the building to provide the visual appearance of a storefront. The Project’s utility room design complies with the DSP objective design standards for screening.
4.2.22 Architectural Elements: Lighting
Lighting at the ground, podium and upper floor level decks are directed onto driveways, walkways and parking areas within the development and away from adjacent properties. Lighting Plans LD 1.01, LD 1.02 and LD 1.03 identify bollard lights within planters, tree up lights, recessed wall luminaire, LED strip lighting applied at-grade stairs risers, wall mounted down lighting at various locations of the building pointed at walkways. The proposed lighting includes a diversity of lighting that complements and accents the overall design.
4.2.23 Architectural Elements: Signage
This section of the DSP outlines standards related to signage to enhance the pedestrian experiences along commercial streetscapes. Additionally, signs are regulated by the Zoning Code, and all signage will be required to comply with Chapter 30.33 of the Glendale Municipal Code. Due to the multi-family nature of the proposal, a sign program is not required for the Project.
THE PEDESTRIAN REALM – DSP Chapter 4.3 Urban Design
The treatment of sidewalks, setbacks, and building facades varies depending on the street’s use, function, and scale. Downtown’s character and pedestrian comfort are 581 of 616
10a 17
25-88672
shaped by street proportions, building frontages, setbacks, parkways, and the streets themselves, which together create a sense of enclosure and clear pedestrian zones. To improve and manage streetscapes and pedestrian comfort, the DSP defines different street typologies and specific requirements for each of the following types, such as Primary Streets, Mixed-Use Commercial Streets, Mixed-Use Residential Streets, Entertainment Streets and Residential Streets.
The Project site has frontage on three streets: Central Avenue, California Avenue and Orange Avenue. Central Avenue is designated as a “Mixed Use Commercial Street”, California Avenue is designated as a “Mixed-Use Residential Street”, and Orange Avenue between California Avenue and Wilson Avenue is undesignated. While there are no detailed design standards in the DSP for undesignated streets, a minimum 4-foot wide parkway and 6-foot wide sidewalk is required to be provided; the Project complies with this standard.
4.3.2 Mixed-Use Commercial Street
Central Avenue is identified as a Mixed-Use Commercial Street and features wide roadway widths and higher traffic volumes carrying transit vehicles with two travel lanes in each direction. The pedestrian realm design complies with the DSP’s objective design standards because the Project provides:
• A five foot wide parkway measured from the face of the curb, planted with 36” box Platanus X acerifolia (Lond Plane) trees, along with a variety of California-friendly shrubs. Every 20 feet, there is a four-foot-wide paved area to allow for unloading from vehicles.
• A ten foot wide sidewalk unobstructed of urban amenities such as seating, trash receptacles and signage.
• A three foot wide building adjacent zone designed with a balance of landscaped planters with a variety of California-friendly shrubs and opportunity for outdoor seating.
4.3.3 Mixed-Use Residential Street
California Avenue and the portion of Orange Street that is north of California Avenue are classified as Mixed-Use Residential Streets and feature a narrower street width and public right-of-way and are secondary elevations of newer developments fronting Central Avenue, and shall maintain a pedestrian experience for the existing projects. The pedestrian realm design complies with the DSP’s objective design standards because the Project provides:
• A five foot wide parkway measured from the face of the curb, planted with 36” or 48” box Podocarpus gracilior (Yew Pine) trees, along with a variety of 582 of 616
10a 18
25-88672
California-friendly shrubs. Every 20 feet, there is a four-foot-wide paved area to allow for unloading from vehicles.
• A eight foot wide sidewalk unobstructed of urban amenities such as seating, trash receptacles and signage.
• A three foot wide building adjacent zone designed with a balance of landscaped planters with a variety of California-friendly shrubs and outdoor seating for the 1,515 square foot commercial tenant space.
OPEN SPACE – DSP Chapter 5
5.3.1, 5.3.2 and 5.3.3 Open Space Requirements
For all developments with a FAR greater than 3.0, the DSP requires 20% of the gross site area to be open space, with 10% of the gross site area to be dedicated as publicly accessible open space (50% of required open space). An additional 140 SF of residential open space is required per residential unit (can be provided as publicly accessible open space, common open space or private open space).
Moreover, building walls located directly adjacent to a paseo may not exceed three times the width of the paseo in height. Any portion of the building above this height must be set back a minimum of 20 feet. Since the proposed paseo is 20 feet wide, the building must be set back 20 feet at any portion above 60 feet in height.
The Planning Hearing Officer approved the Project’s density bonus application with four waivers concerning open space. Below is a summary of the DSP requirements and Project design proposal. A copy of the Planning Hearing Officer’s decision letter is included as Attachment 13.
DSP Standards Project Design Compliance
Open Space for project
> 3.0 FAR
20% x 161,172 SF =
32,234 SF min. 52,008 SF Yes
Publicly Accessible
Open Space
(50% of required open
space)
50% x 32,234 SF =
16,117 SF min. 13,397 SF
Density
Bonus
Waiver
Granted
Publicly Accessible
Open Space (85%
minimum contiguous)
85% x 16,117 SF =
13,699 SF min.
Dispersed: 4,806
SF, 5,160SF, 2,118
SF and 1,313 SF
Density
Bonus
Waiver
Granted
Portions of Building
Walls Adjacent to
20-foot setback
required for portions
over 60
Zero Setback Density
Bonus
583 of 616
10a 19
25-88672
Paseo Set Back 20
Feet Minimum
feet, or three times
the 20-foot paseo
width
Waiver
Granted
Residential Open
Space
(140 SF per
residential unit)
140 x 682 units =
95,480 SF min. 19,700 SF
Density
Bonus
Waiver
Granted
5.4.1 Publicly Accessible Open Space (PAOS) - Courtyards & Plazas By DSP objective standards, each plaza requires a minimum 1,200 SF in area.
The Project’s includes a 2,118 SF and 1,313 SF courtyard/plaza at the corners of California Avenue/Orange Street and Central Avenue/California Avenue, respectively. The plazas comply with the DSP requirements that include:
• Open to the sky;
• Fully accessible on one or two sides;
• Located at the sidewalk level;
• Include large canopy trees (1 tree per 600 SF minimum); • Provide landscaping primarily at grade (minimum 25% of open space with maximum 25% in raised planters);
• Feature pedestrian scaled lighting, signage and wayfinding, seating, waste receptacles, etc.
5.4.2 Paseos
Along the southern portion of the site, the Project is designed with an approximately 9,966-square-foot paseo connecting Orange Street with Central Avenue. The paseo is bisected into two distinct areas (4,806 square feet and 5,160 square feet) by the garage entrance accessed via the alley. The paseo complies with the minimum 20-foot width required in the DSP, as well as the accessibility and material requirements. The intimate scale of paseos provides pedestrians with safety from vehicular traffic/noise on the street. The landscape plans include landscaping, concrete walkways, and amenities that include outdoor seating, storefront/stoops for the ground floor apartment and live/work units fronting the paseo. The Project will comply with the DSP requirements that includes:
• Open to the sky;
• A width of 20 feet to 30 feet;
• Connects to a public street to another public street or alley; • Located at the same elevation as the adjacent sidewalk; • A special feature such as public art, a water feature, or specimen tree; • Storefronts, stoops, or unit entries lining the edges; • Façades with human-scaled materials;
584 of 616
10a 20
25-88672
• Large canopy trees;
• Landscaping primarily at grade;
• Pedestrian-Scaled lighting, signage and wayfinding;
• Street furnishings: seating, waste receptacles, etc.; • Restricted vehicle access.
5.5 Residential Development Open Space.
The DSP objective design standards require a minimum of 140 square feet of private outdoor space per residential and/or live-work unit. With a total of 666 residential units and 16 live-work units, the Project is required to provide 95,480 square feet of private outdoor space. However, through its Density Bonus application, the Project was granted a waiver allowing a reduction of 75,780 square feet of the required residential private open space. As a result, the Project will provide a reduced total of 19,700 square feet of private outdoor space, distributed across 394 units in the form of ground-level private patios and balconies.
Overall, the balcony materials include glass railings and vertical metal railings that are compatible with the overall building designs. The proposed balconies are not repetitive or identical, but instead, create a dynamic and visually interesting façade within the well-articulated building elevations.
5.6 Public Art Program
Development in the DSP is required to include on-site public art, equal to 2% of project value, subject to review by the Arts & Culture Commission and approval by the City Council. Alternatively, this requirement may be met by paying an amount equivalent to 1% of project value to the City’s Urban Art Fund.
MOBILITY – DSP Chapter 6 Mobility
The DSP designates North Central Avenue at this location as a Vehicular Priority Street, with primary emphasis on moving automobile traffic to regional freeway networks and other communities, and also as a Bicycle Priority Street. There is an existing bike lane along this stretch of North Central Avenue per the Bicycle Transportation Plan adopted by City Council in 2012. There is also an existing Glendale Beeline Bus Stop located on Central, north of the Project site. California Avenue is designated as a Pedestrian Priority Street in the DSP, with primary emphasis on creating excellent conditions for pedestrians including wide sidewalks, curb parking to buffer pedestrians from passing traffic, and frequent safe crossings. This designation is usually most important on primary retail and transit corridors such as Central Avenue and California Avenue that are also desirable on residential streets. Consistent with this designation, the building’s pedestrian entrances are located along California Avenue at the building corners, and oriented towards the street. Orange Street is designated as a Primary Bicycle Street in the DSP; Primary Bicycle Streets are key streets in the City’s bicycle network, as 585 of 616
10a 21
25-88672
adopted in the 2012 Bicycle Transportation Plan. Bicycle Streets do not require the elimination of auto or parking lanes to create a bicycle lane and are typically designated because of their topography and minimal auto/transit conflicts. Balancing the needs of different modes of transportation as they compete for limited space is crucial, and the DSP calls for a rational, practical method of compromise whereby the net gain for the community can be maximized while the net impact on different modes and context can be minimized.
COMMUNITY BENEFITS – DSP Chapter 7
The Project is utilizing the “Community Benefit for Certain Uses” incentive, as permitted by Section 7.2 of the Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) for Density Bonus projects, which defines the baseline residential density as 100 dwelling units per acre. For the purposes of calculating baseline density, the project site’s total underlying fee title area—which extends to the centerlines of Central Avenue, California Avenue, and Orange Street— was used. This results in a total site area of 4.75 acres (207,028.58 square feet).
Including the future vacated alley and the underlying fee title, the project site totals 4.75 acres, establishing a base density of 475 dwelling units.
The Project provides 67 affordable rental units reserved for very-low income households (14 percent of the base density of 475 = 66.5 rounded up to 67) and 5 affordable units reserved for low-income households (1 percent of the base density of 475 = 4.75 rounded up to 5). By providing 67 very-low income units, the Project is entitled to a forty six and a quarter percent (46.25%) density bonus and can construct a total of 695 units (475 x 1.4625 = 694.68 (rounded up to 695).
SUMMARY COMMENTS & RECOMMENDATION
Design Review Board Advisory Comment & Recommendations
Design Review Board concurred with the City Council Stage I approval subject to the City Council comments provided on December 6, 2022 (Stage I Design Review); and provided additional, following comments:
1. That the Orange Street façade appears to the most sucessful in terms of architectural variety.
2. The Project should redesign each of its four corners with enhanced architectural components to create a signature gateway at each corner of the building.
3. 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.
4. Additional retail or commercial space should be provided at the ground floor, supplemental to the provided 1,515 square-feet of floor area. 586 of 616
10a 22
25-88672
5. The Project should be redesigned with a connection with the potential public park.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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 DSP. The addition of a restaurant with an outdoor patio that adjoins the paseo to enhance activation and further revitalization goals.
9. The paseo should incorporate connections to the surrounding streets (Orange Street and North Central) through activating features such as retail kiosks, game areas (e.g., chess), and gathering spaces to encourage outdoor activities (e.g. concerts) and opportunities that help revitalize the DSP. The addition of a restaurant with an outdoor patio adjoining the paseo would further enhance activation.
10.Consider the addition of neighborhood market at the building’s ground floor to support residences and enhance symbiotic relationship with surrounding development.
11.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.
Based on the above analysis, staff recommends Approval with Conditions for the mixeduse building. This determination is based on the implementation of the following recommended conditions:
1. 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.
NO NET LOSS LAW (SB 166)
California's SB 166, codified as Government Code Section 65863, mandates that local governments (cities and counties) cannot reduce the density of housing sites or approve projects with lower densities than planned for in their Housing Element unless they 587 of 616
10a 23
25-88672
identify new sites or make specific findings that the remaining sites can still accommodate the jurisdiction's Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA).
State law requires jurisdictions to ensure that sufficient adequate site capacity is available to accommodate the remaining RHNA by income category. This requires a careful accounting of development on the sites identified in the Housing Element and residential projects throughout the jurisdiction.
Total Project Capacity (Mixed Used Building Site + Potential Public Park Site) The Mixed Use Building Site includes four parcels (APNs: 5642-015-045, 5642-015-056, 5642-015-057, and 5642-015-058), all of four which are listed in the Housing Element Sites Inventory with a cumulative unit capacity assumption of 443 lower income, 29 moderate income and 29 above moderate income units (502 total capacity).
The Potential Public Park Site includes three parcels (APNs 5643-020-038, 5643-020- 039, and 5643-020-040), two of which are listed in the Housing Element Sites Inventory with cumulative unit capacity assumption of zero lower income, 46 moderate income and 46 above moderate income units (92 total capacity).
The Project provides a total of 72 lower income (67 very low and 5 low-income) and 610 above moderate units. The overall Project results in a net decrease in lower income and moderate-income unit capacity and a net increase in above moderate-income and total unit capacity. There is a net decrease of 371 lower income units and 75 moderate income units and a net increase of 535 above moderate-income units. The Project also results in a net increase of 89 total units.
Table 1.5: Remaining Sites Inventory Capacity for the Project Lower
Income
Capacity
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Above
Moderate
Capacity
Total
Capacity
Total Proposed
Project
Capacity
72 - 610 682
Total Assumed
Sites Inventory
Capacity
443 75 75 593
Project Site
Capacity
Surplus
(+)/Deficit (-)
-371 -75 +535 +89
Citywide
Capacity
Surplus
(+)/Deficit (-)
-130 +26 +2,357 +2,226
588 of 616
10a 24
25-88672
As shown in Table 1.5, the Project results in net decreases to both the lower income and moderate-income categories. If the approval of a development at a lower residential density results in the remaining sites capacity becoming inadequate to accommodate the RHNA by income category, a jurisdiction has up 180 days from the approval to identify, or rezone, “sufficient additional, adequate, and available sites” to accommodate the remaining RHNA for each income category.
As such, if the City approves the Project, the City will be required to identify – within 180 days - sufficient additional, adequate, and available sites with an equal or greater residential density and additional adequate sites to accommodate the City’s share of RHNA by income level Preliminarily, it is staff’s assessment that identification of additional sites with sufficient capacity for affected income categories can be achieved under existing zoning, including the property at 611 N. Brand which was not designated in the Housing Element as a housing site but now proposes housing to include 129 units for Lower Income/Very Low Income Households.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65863(c)(2), a city is not authorized to disapprove a housing development project on the basis that the project results in fewer units by income category than identified in the jurisdiction's housing element.
STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Prior to the State of California’s budget trailer bills AB 130 and SB131 (dated June 30, 2025) that established a new statutory CEQA exemption for qualifying infill housing projects, the City issued a Notice of Preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Proposed Project on February 11, 2025. The Project DEIR was circulated for public review and comment from February 11, 2025, through March 12, 202, for a 30-day period to reach out to the following stakeholders:
Outreach was undertaken to residents and parties and/or individuals that expressed interest
On July 11, 2025, the applicant requested a CEQA statutory exemption for in-fill housing projects (Public Resources Code (“PRC”) § 21080.66) now authorized by Assembly Bill 130 with findings on how the Project satisfies the standards/criteria of the exemption (Attachment 5).
Staff provided California Native American tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the Project site with notice of invitation to consult on the Project’s potential effect on cultural resources within 14 days. A total of two responses were received from the invited California Native American tribes. One tribe declined consultation, and the other completed consultation and provided its tribal mitigation measures (Attachment 3).
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report.
589 of 616
10a 25
25-88672
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
On June 30, 2025, budget trailer bills AB 130 and SB 131 were signed and took effect immediately. AB 130 added Public Resources Code Section 21080.66 creating a new statutory CEQA exemption for certain qualifying infill housing project that meet following criteria:
• Project site is no more than 20 acres.
• Project site is within the boundaries of an incorporated municipality, or "urban area" as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau.
• Project site was previously developed with "urban uses" or is substantially surrounded by sites developed with urban uses.
• Project is consistent with local zoning standards, applicable general plan standards and any applicable local coastal program, subject to deviations allowed by the State Density Bonus Law.
• Project must be at least half the density deemed appropriate to accommodate lower-income households in the State Housing Element Law, as set forth in Gov.
Code section 65583.2(c)(3)(B)
• Project will not require demolition of a historic structure that was placed on a historic register before the project's preliminary application was submitted. • For projects submitted after Jan. 1, 2025, no portion of the project will be used as a hotel, motel, or bed and breakfast.
• All project sites must satisfy SB 35's site eligibility criteria (farmland, wetlands and conservation/species habitat areas are excluded, and coastal sites, fire hazard zones, hazardous waste sites, earthquake fault zones and flood areas are subject to specified restrictions).
Staff has reviewed the Project and has determined that it meets the criteria and is statutorily exempt from CEQA review per Public Resources Code Section 21080.66.
CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
In accordance with the City Campaign Finance Ordinance No. 5744, Attachment 7 is attached and contains the names and business addresses of the members of the board of directors, the chairperson, CEO, COO, CFO, Subcontractors and any person or entity with more than 10% interest or more in the company proposed for contract in this Agenda Item.
590 of 616
10a 25
25-88672
591 of 616
10a 26
25-88672
ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
1. The City Council may elect to approve Stage II Design Review Application (Design Review Case No. 2212056) with conditions
2. The City Council may elect to deny the Project Design Review Application
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:
Bradley Calvert, Director of Community Development
Prepared by:
Dennis Joe, Principal Planner
Approved by:
Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager
EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
1. Location Map
2. Photographs
3. Tribal Mitigation Measures - Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation dated July 28, 2025
4. Departmental Comments
5. CEQA Exemption Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.66
6. Campaign Finance Disclosure
7. Stage I Preliminary Design Review City Council Packet, December 6, 2022:
https://glendaleca.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=34110
8. Stage I Preliminary Design Review City Council Motion, December 6, 2022
9. Planning Commission Motion - Alley Vacation Case No. 192V
10. Stage II (Advisory) Design Review Board Record of Decision.
11. Stage II (Advisory) Design Review Board Packet, September 11, 2025:
https://glendaleca.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=39947
12. Planning Hearing Officer’s decision letter – Density Bonus Housing Plan Case No.
PDBP- 005412-2025
13. Density Bonus Housing Plan
14. Stage II Design Review Architectural Drawings
592 of 616
VIA EMAIL
October 15, 2025
Ara Najarian, Mayor Dennis Joe, Senior Planner
Ardy Kassakhian, Councilmember Community Development Department Dan Brotman, Councilmember City of Glendale
Elen Asatryan, Councilmember 633 E. Broadway, Room 103
Vartan Gharpetian, Councilmember Glendale, CA 91206
Glendale City Council [email protected]
613 E. Broadway
Glendale, CA 91206 Bradley Calvert, Director
[email protected] Community Development Department [email protected] City of Glendale
[email protected] 633 E. Broadway, Room 103
[email protected] Glendale, CA 91206
[email protected] [email protected]
[email protected]
Dr. Suzie Abajian, City Clerk
Glendale City Clerk’s Office
613 E. Broadway, Unit 110
Glendale, CA 91206
[email protected]
Re: Required Use of Skilled and Trained Labor and Prevailing Wages under AB 130 for the Central Avenue Mixed-Use Project (Stage II Design Review Case No. PDR 2212056)
Dear Mayor Najarian, Honorable Members of the Glendale City Council, Dr. Abajian, Mr. Joe, and Mr. Calvert:
I am writing on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) and its members living or working in the City of Glendale (“City”) regarding the Central Avenue Mixed-Use Project (Case No. PDR-003195-2024) (“Project”), proposed by Anthony Ditteaux of Maple Multi-Family Land CA, LP (“Applicant”). The Project involves the construction of a new eight-story, 95-foot-tall, 655,418-square-foot, mixed-use development on a
4.57-acre site located at 236 North Central Avenue, 212 West California Avenue, and 201 West California Avenue, in downtown Glendale, California. The Project is scheduled to be heard at the City Council meeting on October 21, 2025 at 6pm.
593 of 616
Letter Re: Required Use of Skilled and Trained Labor and Prevailing Wages under AB 130 Central Avenue Mixed-Use Project
October 15, 2025
Through the recently-enacted Assembly Bill 130 (“AB 130”), the Applicant has sought to exempt the Project from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). AB 130 establishes a new statutory exemption from CEQA for qualifying infill housing projects. (See AB 130 § 59; Pub. Res. Code § 21080.66 [“PRC”].) As discussed below, AB 130 specifies construction labor standards for certain types of projects, including buildings taller than 85 feet, such as the proposed Project here. Therefore, under AB 130, SAFER respectfully requests that the City Council require the Applicant to: (1) employ a skilled and trained construction workforce; and (2) pay its construction workforce prevailing wages.
DISCUSSION
AB 130 states that the labor standards of Government Code § 65913.4(a)(8) [“Gov.
Code”] apply to buildings over 85 feet in height for any housing development project that otherwise qualifies for a CEQA exemption under AB 130. (PRC § 21080.66(d)(2); AB 130 § 59(d)(2).) Here, the Project will be 95 feet tall, thereby triggering the labor standards of Gov.
Code § 65913.4(a)(8).
I. The Applicant must employ a skilled and trained construction workforce to build the Project.
Gov. Code § 65913.4(a)(8)(F)(i) states, inter alia, that the developer for any project over 85 feet tall shall enter construction contracts with prime contractors only if the contract contains an enforceable commitment that the prime contractor and subcontractors at every tier will use a skilled and trained workforce, as defined in Public Contract Code § 2601(d), to perform work on the project that falls within an apprenticeable occupation, as defined in PCC § 2601(a), in the building and construction trades. (Gov. Code § 65913.4(a)(8)(F)(i)(I).) Public Contract Code § 2601(d) [“PCC”] defines a “skilled and trained workforce” as a workforce that meets the following conditions, among others:
(1) All workers performing work in an apprenticeable occupation in the building and construction trades are either skilled journeypersons or apprentices registered in an apprenticeship program approved by the chief.
(2)(A) For work performed on or after January 1, 2017, at least 30 percent of the skilled journeypersons employed to perform work on the contract or project by every contractor and each of its subcontractors at every tier are graduates of an apprenticeship program for the applicable occupation. This requirement shall not apply to work performed in the occupation of teamster. . . .
(2)(D) For work performed on or after January 1, 2020, at least 60 percent of the skilled journeypersons employed to perform work on the contract or project by every contractor and each of its subcontractors at every tier are graduates of an apprenticeship program for the applicable occupation, except that the requirements of subparagraph (A) shall 594 of 616
Letter Re: Required Use of Skilled and Trained Labor and Prevailing Wages under AB 130 Central Avenue Mixed-Use Project
October 15, 2025
continue to apply to work performed in the following occupations: acoustical installer, bricklayer, carpenter, cement mason, drywall installer or lather, marble mason, finisher, or setter, modular furniture or systems installer, operating engineer, pile driver, plasterer, roofer or waterproofer, stone mason, surveyor, teamster, terrazzo worker or finisher, and tile layer, setter, or finisher.
(PCC § § 2601(d).) PCC § 2601(a) defines an “apprenticeable occupation” as an occupation for which the Chief of the Division of Apprenticeship Standards of the Department of Industrial Relations had approved an apprenticeship program pursuant to California Labor Code § 3075 [“CLC”] before 2014.
Here, because the Project building will be over 85 feet tall, the Applicant must use a skilled and trained workforce at every tier to perform work on the Project that falls within an apprenticeable occupation in the building and construction trades.
II. The Applicant must pay its construction workforce prevailing wages for the Project.
For any development that is not entirely a public work, Gov. Code § 65913.4(a)(8)(A) requires, inter alia, that all construction workers employed in the execution of the subject project be paid at least the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for the type of work and geographic area, as determined by the Director of Industrial Relations under CLC §§ 1733 and 1733.9.
However, apprentices registered in programs approved by the Chief of the Division of Apprenticeship Standards may be paid at least the applicable apprentice prevailing rate. (Gov.
Code § 65913.4(a)(8)(A)(i).) Additionally, the development proponent shall ensure that the prevailing wage requirement is included in all contracts for the performance of the work and shall also provide notice of all contracts for the performance of the work to the Department of Industrial Relations for the portions of the development that are not a public work. (Gov. Code § 65913.4(a)(8)(A)(ii).)
Here, because the Project is not a wholly public work and will be over 85 feet tall, the Applicant must pay all its construction workers prevailing wages.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the City Council must require the Applicant to use a skilled and trained construction workforce and pay its construction workforce prevailing wages, in compliance with the labor standards set forth in AB 130. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Richard T. Drury
LOZEAU DRURY LLP
595 of 616
10c
26-89365
CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM
Report: 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. Motion to rescind October 21, 2025, City Council denial of the Vacation (Vacation Case No. 192V)
2. Resolution Ordering the Vacation of a portion of Alley 239 (Vacation Case No. 192V)
3. Resolution Adopting Plan No. 12-247
COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Public Hearing
Approved for January 27, 2026 calendar
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The 236 N. Central Avenue Project proposes to develop a new 8-story, mixed-use building with 682 residential units, of which 72 units would be affordable to very low and low-income households (the “Project”). The conditional vacation of a portion of Alley 239 would allow the project’s parking structure and amenity level deck to span through and across the alley.
On October 21, 2025, the City Council voted to deny the proposed design review approval and denied the proposed alley vacation related to the Project. On December 30, 2025, the city received a Notice of Notice of Violation from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) citing a violation of the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), in connection with the denial of Stage II Design Review Case and this related alley vacation. Government Code section 65589.5 significantly limits a local agency’s ability to deny a housing development project or reduce its density when the project complies with applicable, objective standards unless the city makes findings that the project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactory mitigate or avoid such impact(s) without rendering the development affordable to low-and moderate-income households.
Based on HCD’s review of the case materials, including the October 21, 2025 staff report, testimony and presentations, HCD determined that the Project and the associated alley vacation were improperly denied because they are consistent with the General Plan and applicable zoning regulations and comply with all objective standards of the Downtown 596 of 616
10c 2
26-89365
Specific Plan, except for those standards proposed to be lawfully modified pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law. Additionally, the City Council did not make the required findings for denial.
Prior to further action by HCD, including, but not limited to, referral to the California Office of the Attorney General, a written response to HCD is required by January 29, 2026, outlining a specific plan and timeline for corrective action, including the reconsideration and approval of the Project as proposed.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the motion to rescind the prior denial of the alley vacation and adopt the resolutions approving the conditional vacation of a portion of Alley 239
1. Motion to rescind October 21, 2025, City Council denial of the Vacation (Vacation Case No. 192V)
2. Adopt a resolution ordering the vacation of the public alley; and
3. Adopt Plan No. 12-247 (Exhibit 1) showing the location of said public alley.
ANALYSIS
The proposed 236 N. Central Avenue project site is 4.57 acres and includes two sites separated by California Avenue: (i) the 3.7-acre mixed-use building site bounded by California Avenue, Central Avenue, and Orange Street, and (ii) the 0.87-acre potential public park site located on the northwest corner of California Avenue and Orange Street.
The mixed-use building site is bisected by Alley 239 and is developed with a threestory retail building formerly occupied by Sears (closed in March 2020), a three-level parking structure, and a small asphalt surface parking lot. The project proposes to replace all existing improvements with a new 8-story, 655,418 square-foot mixed-use building on the mixed- use building site. The Project would include 682 residential units of which 72 units would be affordable to very low and low-income households.
The developer has requested the city process the vacation of the subject alley to accommodate redevelopment of the mixed-use building site. The vacation would allow the Project’s parking structure and amenity level deck to span through and across the alley.
Alley 239 is approximately 18 feet wide and 607.6 feet long and is improved with asphaltic concrete pavement. It contains an 8-inch sanitary sewer mainline, an overhead power pole, and underground electrical conduit. The alley connects California Avenue at the north end to Wilson Avenue at the south.
The applicant is proposing to vacate the northerly 403-foot portion of Alley 239 and constructing a new 20-foot-wide by 187-foot-long alley at the Project’s southernmost property line running easterly and connecting to Orange Street. If the portion of Alley 239 is vacated, the underlying fee will revert to the fee owner of the project site and 597 of 616
10c 3
26-89365
will be incorporated into the Project. If the Project is not constructed, the alley will remain "as is" (conditional vacation).
All city departments, various agencies and public utility companies have been notified of the proposed alley vacation and have advised the Public Works Department of their conditions or easements that may need to be reserved. This information will be included in a resolution ordering the vacation to be considered.
Planning Commission Finding
The Planning Commission’s role is to make findings as to whether the proposed alley vacation will be consistent with the goals and objectives of the City of Glendale Comprehensive General Plan, pursuant to Chapters 2.68 and 12.24 of the City of Glendale Municipal Code, and State Government Code Section 65402.
On August 6, 2025, the Planning Commission passed a motion finding and recommending to the City Council that the requested conditional vacation of a portion of Alley 239 is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive General Plan of the City. The Planning Commission’s motion is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
Conditions of Proposed Conditional Vacation
All city departments, various agencies and public utility companies were notified of the proposed vacation. Conditions included in the resolutions are as follows:
a) The complete removal of the existing 8-inch sewer main, including associated manholes and laterals, within the entire portion of the alley to be vacated. b) The removal of the 8-inch sewer main extending from the alley to its connection with the manhole on California Avenue.
c) The construction of a terminal manhole at the southerly end of the vacated alley. d) A Public Works permit for all work conducted within the public right-of-way.
The proposed conditional vacation provisions must be satisfied prior to recording the resolutions with Los Angeles County.
STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Public notification was provided by physical posting at the vacation site, publication in the local newspaper, and through mailings to property owners within 300 feet of the proposed alley vacation.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report. Upon the completion of the alley vacation, the property would revert back to the underlying property owners and the city would receive a requisite share of property tax income. The vacated portion of the alley would be removed from the city’s street and alley maintenance inventory and, as such, the city would gain a small savings in the city’s maintenance budget, even after the construction of the required shorter nearby alley.
598 of 616
10c 4
26-89365
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
On June 30, 2025, budget trailer bills AB 130 and AB 131 were signed and took effect immediately. AB 130 added Public Resources Code Section 21080.66 creating a new statutory CEQA exemption for certain qualifying infill housing projects that meet the following criteria:
• Project site is no more than 20 acres.
• Project site is within the boundaries of an incorporated municipality, or "urban area" as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau.
• Project site was previously developed with "urban uses" or is substantially surrounded by sites developed with urban uses. • Project is consistent with local zoning standards, applicable general plan standards and any applicable local coastal program, subject to deviations allowed by the State Density Bonus Law. • Project must be at least half the density deemed appropriate to accommodate lower-income households in the State Housing Element Law, as set forth in Gov. Code section 65583.2(c)(3)(B) • Project will not require demolition of a historic structure that was placed on a historic register before the project's preliminary application was submitted.
• For projects submitted after Jan. 1, 2025, no portion of the project will be used as a hotel, motel, or bed and breakfast.
• All project sites must satisfy SB 35's site eligibility criteria (farmland, wetlands and conservation/species habitat areas are excluded, and coastal sites, fire hazard zones, hazardous waste sites, earthquake fault zones and flood areas are subject to specified restrictions).
Staff has reviewed the Project and has determined that it meets the criteria and is statutorily exempt from CEQA review per Public Resources Code Section 21080.66.
CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
The Campaign Disclosure is attached hereto as Exhibit 3.
ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Do not approve the resolution as recommended herein. This may prevent the development of the proposed mixed-use building as envisioned by the applicant.
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:
Daniel Hernandez, Director of Public Works
599 of 616
10c 5
26-89365
Prepared by:
Sarkis Oganesyan, P.E., Assistant Director of Public Works/ City Engineer Negin Rezaei, Civil Engineering Associate
Approved by:
Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager
EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1: Plan No. 12-247 and Location Map
Exhibit 2: Planning Commission Motion Dated August 6, 2025 Exhibit 3: Campaign Disclosure
600 of 616
M O T I O N
Moved by Council Member ________________________________, seconded by Council Member ___________________________________, that the City Council’s October 21, 2025, denial of the Vacation (Vacation Case No. 192V), is hereby rescinded.
Vote as follows:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
601 of 616
RESOLUTION NO. __________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA,
ORDERING THE CONDITIONAL VACATION A PORTION OF THE FIRST ALLEY EASTERLY
OF CENTRAL AVENUE, SOUTHERLY OF CALIFORNIA AVENUE, WESTERLY OF ORANGE STREET (ALLEY 239), IN GLENDALE, VACATION CASE 192V.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE:
SECTION 1: The Council having heard the evidence in relation to the proposed conditional vacation a portion of the First Alley Easterly of Central Avenue, Southerly of California Avenue, Westerly of Orange Street (Alley 239), Glendale Alley Vacation Case No. 192V, finds from all the evidence submitted that the public alley referred to above is unnecessary for present or prospective alley purposes, and said Council orders the vacation of said public Right-of-Way, in the City of Glendale, County of Los Angeles, State of California, more particularly described in Exhibit “1” which Exhibit is attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein.
SECTION 2: The project is exempt from any further CEQA review pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.66 as the project meets all the threshold criteria set forth in section 21080.66 (a)(1) through (8).
SECTION 3: By a Motion dated August 6, 2025, the Planning Commission approved the subject alley vacation and found that it is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive General Plan of the City of Glendale, as amended, as required by State Government Code Section 65402 and Chapters 2.68 and 12.24 of the Glendale Municipal Code.
SECTION 4: Reference is made to Plan No. 12-247 adopted concurrently herewith by said Council and to be placed on file in the office of the City Clerk for further particulars of the proposed alley vacation.
SECTION 5: The Council has determined that the public convenience and necessity require that the vacation of said Alley be subject to the following condition:
a) The complete removal of the existing 8-inch sewer main, including associated manholes and laterals, within the entire portion of the alley to be vacated. b) The removal of the 8-inch sewer main extending from the alley to its connection with the manhole on California Avenue.
c) The construction of a terminal manhole at the southerly end of the vacated alley. d) Obtaining a Public Works permit for all work conducted within the public right-of-way.
SECTION 6: The City Clerk is directed to cause a certified copy of this Resolution to be recorded in the office of the County Recorder of Los Angeles County, California.
Adopted this ____ day of January 2026.
__________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________
City Clerk
602 of 616
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS.
CITY OF GLENDALE )
I, SUZIE ABAJIAN, Ph.D., City Clerk of the City of Glendale, certify that the foregoing Resolution No. __________ was adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale, California, at a regular meeting held on the ____ day of January 2026, and that same was adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________________
City Clerk
603 of 616
RESOLUTION NO. __________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE ADOPTING PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT PLAN NO. 12-247 FOR VACATION CASE NO. 192V; THE
PROPOSED CONDITIONAL VACATION OF A PORTION OF THE FIRST ALLEY EASTERLY
OF CENTRAL AVENUE, SOUTHERLY OF CALIFORNIA AVENUE, WESTERLY OF ORANGE STREET (ALLEY 239), IN GLENDALE, AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO FILE SAID PLAN.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE:
SECTION 1: The attached Plan for the proposed vacation of a portion of the First Alley Easterly of North Central Avenue, Southerly of West California Avenue, Westerly of Orange Street (Alley 239), in the City of Glendale, is hereby approved, adopted, and designated, and shall hereafter be known as Plan No. 12-247.
SECTION 2: The City Clerk is hereby directed to file said Plan in the office of the City Clerk as adopted by this Resolution.
Adopted this ____ day of January 2026.
______________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
The City Clerk of the City of Glendale
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SS
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
I, SUZIE ABAJIAN, Ph.D., City Clerk of the City of Glendale, certify that the foregoing Resolution No. __________ was adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale, California, at a regular meeting held on the 27th day of January 2026, and that same was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
604 of 616
"
"
"
"
" "
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
"
"
"
"
"
60 49 18 104.87 155 130.75
1 212 24 53
53 65
53 53
37.87 246
243
54.10 23.69
130.64
25 25
50 23
50 POR LOTS
2 50
232
50 25
25 49 130.52
179.52
22 3
50 50
50 50
50 50
232
239
179.41
4 21
50 50
50 50
50 50
233
BLK. 7
BLK. 7
179.31
PORTIONS OF LOTS
20 5
M.B. 5 ~ 167
50 50
50 5050
228
75 179.20
M.B. 5 ~ 167
PORTIONS OF LOTS
227
96 PORTIONS OF LOTS
GLENDALE BOULEVARD TRACT
GLENDALE BOULEVARD TRACT
6 19
50 50
50GLENDALE BOULEVARD TRACT
50 50
179.09
50 50
50 50
50 18 7
50 124
222
LOTS
178.99
212
LOTS
BDIVISION
50 50
50 50
8 50
17 221
216
216178.88
212
65 50
50 509
5016
50 50
OF212
180
212
215
214178.78
18 M.B. 5 - 167
187 96
OF10
50 50
15 50
50 M.B. 5 - 167
50 16
50 210
210
213
205
178.67
M.B. 5 - 167
14 14 11 5050 50 50
50 50
BLK. 7
204
201
178.57
GLENDALE BOULEVARD TRACT
187213
GLENDALE BOULEVARD TRACT
155
16 2516 50 50 30 25 25
225
BLK. 9
12 13
POR.
PORTIONS
13 BLK. 7
54.56 54.395
54.32 54.27
54.22 53.79
54.60 53.98
121
39.15 55.2054.47
54.14 53.64
23.51 GLENDALE BOULEVARD TRACT
178.46 50 50 16 30 25 1625 2516
213 209 205 201
60 60
96 178.34
1 54
22 54
54 54
200
GLENDALE
LOTS178.23
3 BOULEVARD
115.83
50 5050
14 PORTIONS OF
305
50 11
PORTIONS
129.98
13 36
96 12
301
53.78 217
53.78 53.78
201
53.78 60
53.78 119 16
306
155 129.86 50 187
62 106.36
19.77 47.86
18 185
LOTS
GLENDALE BOULEVARD TRACT
140
Map Prepared by:
Public Works
Engineering Department
Negin Rezaei
28 May 2024
MAP OF PROPOSED VACATION OF ALLEY 239
IN THE CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA
12-247
Plan No.
EXHIBIT "1"
Case No. 192V
1 of 2
N CENTRAL AVE
ALLEY 239
20'
ALLEY TO BE
VACATED
K
Proposed Alley
N ORANGE ST
W CALIFORNIA AVE
W WILSON AVE
60 30 0 60
Feet
Alleys
Street Pavement
Sidewalks
Street Centerline
ROW & Tract Lines
Lot Lines
City Lot Split Lines
! !
County Lot Split Lines
City Boundary
Other
Sanitary Sewer
Sewer Mainline
Sewer Laterals
! Sewer Manhole
Storm Drain
LA County - Main Line
Glendale Main Line
Lateral Line
" LA County Catch Basin
GWP Electric Conduits
"S GWP Electric UG Structure
" GWP Electric Surface Structure
! Power Pole
O Street Light
GWP Potable Water Main Line
" ATT_Manhole
ATT_Conduit
Charter
PROPOSED
ALLEY 605 of 616
50 50
50 48
105
50 50
185
50 50
54 54.47
50 178.67
50 155
54.32 50
54.10 50
130.52
53 54.56
50 50
50 50
54.60 54
50 122
50 155
50 179.20
50 119
178.17
50 50
178.57
129.98
107.05
50 50
25 185
53 180
53.64 179.41
53.79 50
50 50
50 54.10
50 50
54 50
53.78 50
50 50
179.31
25 50
187
16 16
53 50
39.15 50
5 62.50
49 9.35
50 30
50 50
50 50
55.20 25
16 50
50 178.26
53.78 25
53 50
50 50
50 3
50 50
50 50
25 50
187
50 50
30 50 50 50
54.395
50 50
155
54 137.50
62.50 50
50 180.07
50 50
50 54.27
50 50
50 50
53.31 129.86
178.88
50 15.13
50 50
50 50
53.78 50
50 50
50 104.87
137.50
53.26 50
122
54.14 50
122
50 139.55
50 50
55.90 178.34
50 50
115.83
50 50
137.50
25 124
29 53.78 5053.78
50 50
139.55
50 53.78
50 54.10
50 122
25 50
50 16
50 50
53.78 130.75
130.07
50 49
187
50 50
53.98 105
179.09
25 50
50 25
50 50
187
37.83 178.46
75 139.55
53 37.87
50 50
124
50 50
48 50
50 179.52
16 137.50
50 50
122
50 62.50
50 50
178.99
55 124
50 50
75 124
50 54.22
20 178.23
75 50
50 50
23.69 112.40
124
130.64
50 53 50
25 178.78
50 50
M.B. 5 - 167
22 TRAC T
POR OF LOTS
16 11 9
GLEN DALE BOU LEVARD T RACT
201
2 60
BLK. 6
POR .
96 VACATED
16 3
POR TION S OF LOTS
18 1
76 216
OF
19 314
50 8
18 16
MOORE'S RESUBDIVISION
21 17
3 23
13 M.B. 9 - 135
60 1
19 5
213
P.M. NO. 1583
10 14
16 5
BLK. 6
16 GLEN DALE BOULEVAR D TRAC T
11 5
20 217
M.B. 10 ~ 157
2 212
16 233
POR TION S
214
22 16
213
16 20
POR LOT S
200
LOT S
M.B. 5 - 167
305
20 LOT 78A
65 318
BLK. 9
121
M.B. 5 ~ 167
222
14 18
35 7
311 319
GLEN DALE BOULEVAR D T RACT
POR TION S OF LOTS
201
DALE HOME TR ACT
60 GLEN DALE
221
GLEN DALE BOULEVAR D TRAC T
RESUBDIVISION
17 205
205
246
32 227
ALLEY
13 M.B. 5 - 167
228
212
12 75
M.B. 10 ~ 157
4 14
18 OF
22 GLEN DALIA PAR K TR ACT
212
2 309
216
96 POR TION S OF LOTS
210
18 LOT
36 243
11 LOT S
11 POR TION OF LOTS
5 77
6 17
9 M. B. 9 ~ 135
306
GLEN DALIA PAR K TR ACT
212
12 215
60 LOT S
MUN IC IPAL PAR KING
16 4
9 60
BLK. 7
70 303
210
8 35
16 18
18 24
232
2 201 LOT S
POR .
20 GLEN DALIA PAR K TR ACT
15 225
GLEN DALE BOULEVAR D
96 212
315
315
23.51 GLEN DALE BOULEVAR D T RACT
3 POR TION S OF LOTS
6 BLK. 7
10 209
4 15
239
65 13
12 M.B. 5 ~ 167
213
1 34
9 301
96 11
10 M.B. 10 ~ 157
LOT
313
1 BLK. 7
232
BLK. 7
23 24
308
LOT 77A
60 M.B. 5 ~ 167
15 33
21 60
16 POR TION S OF LOT S
M.B. 5 - 167
60 16
8 MOORE'S
204
39 78
GLEN DALE BOULEVAR D TRAC T
1 313
16 GLEN DALE BOULEVAR D T RACT
18 POR . OF
Por. of 1st Alley E'ly of N Central Ave, S'ly of W California Ave (Alley 239) - Glendale, CA 50 50 50 48 105
50 50
185
50 50
54 54.47
50 178.67
50 155
54.32 50
54.10 50
130.52
53 54.56
50 50
50 50
54.60 54
50 122
50 155
50 179.20
50 119
178.17
50 50
178.57
129.98
107.05
50 50
25 185
53 180
53.64 179.41
53.79 50
50 50
50 54.10
50 50
54 50
53.78 50
50 50
179.31
25 50
187
16 16
53 50
39.15 50
5 62.50
49 9.35
50 30
50 50
50 50
55.20 25
16 50
50 178.26
53.78 25
53 50
50 50
50 3
50 50
50 50
25 50
187
50 50
30 50 50 50
54.395
50 50
155
54 137.50
62.50 50
50 180.07
50 50
50 54.27
50 50
50 50
53.31 129.86
178.88
50 15.13
50 50
50 50
53.78 50
50 50
50 104.87
137.50
53.26 50
122
54.14 50
122
50 139.55
50 50
55.90 178.34
50 50
115.83
50 50
137.50
25 124
29 53.78 5053.78
50 50
139.55
50 53.78
50 54.10
50 122
25 50
50 16
50 50
53.78 130.75
130.07
50 49
187
50 50
53.98 105
179.09
25 50
50 25
50 50
187
37.83 178.46
75 139.55
53 37.87
50 50
124
50 50
48 50
50 179.52
16 137.50
50 50
122
50 62.50
50 50
178.99
55 124
50 50
75 124
50 54.22
20 178.23
75 50
50 50
23.69 112.40
124
130.64
50 53 50
25 178.78
50 50
M.B. 5 - 167
22 TRAC T
POR OF LOTS
16 11 9
GLEN DALE BOU LEVARD T RACT
201
2 60
BLK. 6
POR .
96 VACATED
16 3
POR TION S OF LOTS
18 1
76 216
OF
19 314
50 8
18 16
MOORE'S RESUBDIVISION
21 17
3 23
13 M.B. 9 - 135
60 1
19 5
213
P.M. NO. 1583
10 14
16 5
BLK. 6
16 GLEN DALE BOULEVAR D TRAC T
11 5
20 217
M.B. 10 ~ 157
2 212
16 233
POR TION S
214
22 16
213
16 20
POR LOT S
200
LOT S
M.B. 5 - 167
305
20 LOT 78A
65 318
BLK. 9
121
M.B. 5 ~ 167
222
14 18
35 7
311 319
GLEN DALE BOULEVAR D T RACT
POR TION S OF LOTS
201
DALE HOME TR ACT
60 GLEN DALE
221
GLEN DALE BOULEVAR D TRAC T
RESUBDIVISION
17 205
205
246
32 227
ALLEY
13 M.B. 5 - 167
228
212
12 75
M.B. 10 ~ 157
4 14
18 OF
22 GLEN DALIA PAR K TR ACT
212
2 309
216
96 POR TION S OF LOTS
210
18 LOT
36 243
11 LOT S
11 POR TION OF LOTS
5 77
6 17
9 M. B. 9 ~ 135
306
GLEN DALIA PAR K TR ACT
212
12 215
60 LOT S
MUN IC IPAL PAR KING
16 4
9 60
BLK. 7
70 303
210
8 35
16 18
18 24
232
2 201 LOT S
POR .
20 GLEN DALIA PAR K TR ACT
15 225
GLEN DALE BOULEVAR D
96 212
315
315
23.51 GLEN DALE BOULEVAR D T RACT
3 POR TION S OF LOTS
6 BLK. 7
10 209
4 15
239
65 13
12 M.B. 5 ~ 167
213
1 34
9 301
96 11
10 M.B. 10 ~ 157
LOT
313
1 BLK. 7
232
BLK. 7
23 24
308
LOT 77A
60 M.B. 5 ~ 167
15 33
21 60
16 POR TION S OF LOT S
M.B. 5 - 167
60 16
8 MOORE'S
204
39 78
GLEN DALE BOULEVAR D TRAC T
1 313
16 GLEN DALE BOULEVAR D T RACT
18 POR . OF
Scale
Location Map - Alley Vacation Case 192V
Map Prepared By:
Mapping & Real Property
Negin Rezaei
March 2024
125 62.5 0 125
Feet
AG Proj: Vac 192V Util Notif Map.mxd
g
W CALIFORNIA AVE
300 FOOT RADIUS
300 FOOT RADIUS
Area Proposed
to be Vacated
18'
W WILSON AVE
N CENTRAL AVE
N ORANGE ST
EXHIBIT "1" ~ 2 of 2
606 of 616
August 6, 2025
Jamas Gwilliam,
c/o MGP XII Glendale Central LLP
5790 Fleet Street 140 - Unit:140
Calrsbad, CA 92008
&
Reece Pettersen
5790 Fleet Street 140 - Unit:140
Calrsbad, CA 92008
&
Joe Fucas
15439 Vintage Street
Mission Hills, CA 91345
RE: ALLEY 239
ALLEY VACATION CASE NO. 192V
Dear Applicants:
The Planning Commission of the City of Glendale, at its meeting of August 6, 2025, approved your Alley Vacation Case No. 192V for the ALLEY 239, in the City of Glendale, County of Los Angeles.
A copy of the adopted Motion dated August 6, 2025, are attached.
APPEAL PERIOD
The applicant’s attention is called to the fact that this grant is not a permit or license and that any permits and licenses required by law must be obtained from the proper City and public agency.
Under the provisions of Section 16.12.180 of the Glendale Municipal Code, any person affected by the above decision may appeal said determination to the City Council within ten (10) days following the date of the Planning Commission’s action (until AUGUST 18, 2025).
All appeals must be filed using the City’s online permit portal: www.glendaleca.gov/Permits.
Create an account, click “Apply,” type “appeal” in the search bar, and apply for “Appeal of Planning Decision.” Any appeal must be filed within fifteen (15) days following the actual date of Exhibit 2
607 of 616
ALLEY 239
ALLEY VACATION CASE NO. 192V
the decision with the prescribed fee prior to the expiration of the 15-day appeal period, on or before (AUGUST 18, 2025) Information regarding appeals and appeals and fees may be obtained by calling the Community Development Department staff at 818.548.2115, or contacting the case planner, Dennis Joe at [email protected] or 818-937-8157.
NOTICE – subsequent contacts with this office
The Applicant is further advised that all subsequent contacts with this office regarding this determination must be with the Case Planner first and shall be accomplished By Appointment Only, in order to assure that you receive service with a minimum amount of waiting. You should advise any consultant representing you of this requirement as well.
You may contact the case planner, Dennis Joe at (818) 937-8157 / or via e-mail at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Bradley Calvert
Director of Community Development
Dennis Joe
Principal Planner
DJ:sm
CC: Dir. of Public Works; Engineering/GIS Analyst / Housing -M. Fortney & A.Brownell / Cox Castle and Nicholson LLP – C.Burt-Senior Castle; Mitchell M. Tsai – Law Firm - M. Hagemann; P.E. Rosenfeld; case Planner Dennis Joe.
608 of 616
ALLEY 239
ALLEY VACATION CASE NO. 192V
MOTION
Moved by Planning Commissioner Fuentes, seconded by Planning Commissioner Minassian, that upon consideration of Vacation Case No. 192V, and after reviewing the records, files, reports, and all documentary evidence submitted with regard to said alley vacation, subject to compliance with State Government Code Section 65402 and Chapters 2.68 and 12.24 of the Glendale Municipal Code, the Planning Commission find and recommend to the City Council that the requested conditional vacation of a portion of the First Alley southerly of California Avenue between North Central Avenue and North Orange Street (Alley 239) is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive General Plan of the City of Glendale.
Adopted this 6th day of August, 2025.
VOTE AS FOLLOWS
Ayes: Fuentes, Malekian, Minassian, Chraghchian
Noes: None
Absent: Nazarian
Abstain: None
609 of 616
City of Glendale
Information Sheet- Campaign Finance Ordinance
Applicants Seeking Entitlement
Submit to Permit Services Center, 633 E. Broadway, Rm. 101. For more information call 818-548-3200.
In August 2011, the Glendale City Council adopted Ordinance No. 5744, which becomes effective on September 9, 2011 (“Ordinance”). The Ordinance prohibits campaign contributions from “applicants seeking entitlement,” certain of their contractors and subcontractors (including their architects, engineers, and design professionals) while the application is “pending” and for 12 months thereafter. An application is deemed pending when: an application or letter is filed and the City Council, Redevelopment Agency, or Housing Authority has original jurisdiction over approval of the entitlement, or when the application is formally appealed to the City Council.
The Ordinance also prohibits any member of the City Council, Redevelopment Agency, or Housing Authority from voting on any matter pertaining to an entitlement if that member has received a campaign contribution from the applicant seeking the entitlement, or certain contractors or subcontractors of the applicant, within the 12-month period preceding the consideration of the matter.
I. What acts does the Ordinance prohibit?
With respect to an “applicant seeking entitlement” before the Glendale City Council (“Council”), the Glendale Redevelopment Agency (“GRA”), or the Housing Authority of the City of Glendale (“HA”), the Ordinance does the following:
1. Prohibition No. 1 – Ban on contributions while application is pending and for 12 months thereafter. The Ordinance prohibits (a) an “applicant seeking entitlement”, (b) a “contractor of an applicant seeking an entitlement,” or (c) a “subcontractor of an applicant seeking an entitlement” from making a contribution to a member of City Council while an application is “pending” before the Council, GRA, or HA and for a period of 12 months after the last and final approval of the Council, GRA or HA.
2. Prohibition No. 2 – Ban on voting if contribution received during 12-month period preceding consideration of the matter. Prohibits any Council Member, Redevelopment Agency Member, or Housing Authority Member who has received a contribution from an applicant seeking entitlement, a contractor of an applicant seeking entitlement, or a subcontractor seeking entitlement within a period of 12 months prior to consideration of an entitlement from voting on the matter.
II. Who is an applicant seeking entitlement?
• Person who files an application or letter with the City, GRA, or HA, or • Person who is an owner or lessee of property on whose behalf an application or letter is filed
\\Planningsrvr\planningshare\Current Planning\CounterForms\Campaign Finance forms\Campaign Finance SummaryRevised.doc Exhibit 3
610 of 616
III. What is an entitlement?
An entitlement is any land use or similar entitlement including:
Permit License Conditional Use
Permit
Variance Architectural/Design
Review (any stage)
Franchise Administrative
Exception
Parking
Reduction
Permit
Review of Plans Development
Agreement
Disposition and
Development
Agreement
Exclusive
Negotiation
Agreement
Owner
Participation
Agreement
Affordable
Housing
Agreement
Financial
Assistance to a
Project
IV. When is an entitlement “pending?”
• For items that require approval of the Council, Redevelopment Agency or Housing Authority and thus must be set for review or hearing before that body, the application is deemed “pending” at the time the application or letter is filed. • For items where the Council, GRA, or HA is the appellate body, the application is “pending” when the notice of appeal has been filed.
• The three examples set forth below are intended to provide interpretive guidance:
(1) An application for a zone change is filed. Since a zone change can only be effectuated by the City Council, upon filing the application it would be pending before the City Council. (2) An application for a Conditional Use Permit is filed. Only at such time as the grant or denial of a Conditional Use Permit is appealed to the Council would it be pending before the City Council;
(3) An application for a variance in the Downtown Specific Plan (“DSP”) Area is filed. Since the Council has original jurisdiction over variances in the DSP, the variance application would be pending before the Council when filed.
V. Which contractors and subcontractors does the Ordinance apply to? • Contractor of applicant seeking entitlement – A person who has, or has been promised, a contract as an architect, design professional, engineer, or general or prime contractor with an applicant seeking entitlement.
• Subcontractor of applicant seeking entitlement – A person who has, or has been promised, a subcontract as an architect, design professional, engineer, or perform other work with a contractor of applicant seeking entitlement. • For the contractors of applicant seeking entitlement and the subcontractors of applicant seeking entitlement, the prohibitions on campaign contributions and voting on matters related to contributors applies not only to the entity that is the contractor or subcontractor but also to the following individuals or entities of the contractor or subcontactors: CEO/President, Chairperson, Chief Operations Officer, Chief Financial Officer, any member of the Board of Directors, and any individual or entity that owns 10% or more the contractor or subcontractor of applicant seeking entitlement, as well as any campaign committee that is sponsored and controlled by the contractor or subcontractor.
\\Planningsrvr\planningshare\Current Planning\CounterForms\Campaign Finance forms\Campaign Finance SummaryRevised.doc 611 of 616
I I I I I I I
City of Glendale
Disclosure - Campaign Finance Ordinance
Applicants Seeking Entitlement
Submit to Permit Services Center, 633 E. Broadway, Rm. 101. For more information, call 818-548-3200. (To be Completed Prior to Preparation of Staff Reports for Consideration of Entitlement Matter by Council, Agency, or Authority, or at Time of Appeal to the City Council if the Applicant is also the Appellant) In August 2011, the Glendale City Council adopted Ordinance No. 5744, which becomes effective on September 9, 2011 (“Ordinance”). The Ordinance prohibits campaign contributions from “applicants seeking entitlement,” their contractors and subcontractors (including their architects, engineers, and design professionals) while the application is “pending” and for 12 months thereafter. The Ordinance also prohibits Council Members from voting on any matter pertaining to an entitlement if the Council member has received a campaign contribution from the applicant seeking the entitlement, or certain contractors or subcontractors of the applicant, within the 12-month period preceding the vote. The Applicant and the Owner/Lessor hereby discloses as follows. (If printing, please print legibly. Use additional sheets as necessary.) I. Name of Applicant and Name of Owner/Lessor on whose behalf application is filed:
Full Name Title Business Address City State Zip
City of Glendale, Community Development Department (9/9/11) Tony Ditteaux, as agent VP 5790 Fleet St. Suite 140 Carlsbad CA 92008 612 of 616
II. Officers or owners/investors of Applicant Entity. Please also disclose the following persons or entities related to the applicant entity: CEO/President, Chairperson, Chief Operations Officer, Chief Financial Officer, any member of the Board of Directors, and any individual or entity that owns 10% or more the contractor of applicant seeking entitlement, as well as any campaign + Full Name Title Business Address City State Zip
III. Contractor of Applicant(s) Seeking Entitlement*
Full Name Title Business Address City State Zip
* “Contractor of Applicant Seeking Entitlement” means “a person who has, or has been promised, a contract as an architect, design professional, engineer, or general or prime contract with an applicant seeking entitlement. “Contractor of applicant seeking entitlement,” includes not only the contracting party but also the CEO/President, Chairperson, Chief Operations Officer, Chief Financial Officer, any member of the Board of Directors, and any individual or entity that owns 10% or more the contractor of applicant seeking entitlement, as well as any campaign committee that is sponsored and controlled by the contracting party. Please list the names and addresses of all of these parties.
IV. Subcontractor of Applicant(s) Seeking Entitlement** Full Name Title Business Address City State Zip
** “Subcontractor of Applicant Seeking Entitlement” means “a person who has, or has been promised, a subcontract as an architect, design professional, engineer, or perform other work with a ‘contractor an applicant seeking entitlement.”
City of Glendale, Community Development Department (9/9/11) See attached N/A Tony Ditteaux, as agent VP 5790 Fleet St. Suite 140 Carlsbad CA 92008 613 of 616
“Subcontractor of applicant seeking entitlement,” includes not only the subcontracting party, but also the CEO/President, Chairperson, Chief Operations Officer, Chief Financial Officer, any member of the Board of Directors, and any individual or entity that owns 10% or more the subcontractor of applicant seeking entitlement, as well as any campaign committee that is sponsored and controlled by the subcontracting party. Please list the name and addresses of all of these parties.
V. Disclosure. The Applicant Seeking Entitlement has made campaign or officeholder contributions in the preceding 12 months to City of Glendale elected officials as follows:
Elected Official Name of Individual or Entity Date of Contribution I hereby certify, on behalf of the above-named applicant(s) and owner(s)/lessor(s), that the applicant seeking entitlement has made the campaign contributions as set forth above. I also certify that the names of all contractors of applicant and all subcontractors of applicant, as of today’s date, are fully set forth above. I further acknowledge that the applicant has a continuing obligation to update this disclosure form if the applicant selects additional or substitute architects, design professionals, contractors or subcontractors within ten (10) days of the selection or change. I hereby certify that I have been legally authorized by the applicant/owner/lessor to submit this disclosure form and certify to the content hereof. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on ___________________ at _____________________________, California Applicant’s Signature_____________________________, Print Applicant’s Full Name ___________________________________ Applicant’s Address _____________________________________________________________________ Applicant’s Contact Phone Number ________________________________________________________ Applicant’s Email Address _______________________________________________________________
City of Glendale, Community Development Department (9/9/11) 5790 Fleet St. Suite 140 Carlsbad, CA 92008 760-431-3366 [email protected] N/A 614 of 616
Contractor of Applicant(s) Seeking Entitlement
615 of 616
616 of 616