104880\18734324v1 www.coxcastle.com Los Angeles | Orange County | San Francisco Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP
3121 Michelson Drive, Suite 200 C
Irvine, California 92612-5678
P: 949.260.4600 F: 949.260.4699
Christopher Burt
949.260.4606
[email protected]
July 11, 2025
VIA E-MAIL
Dennis Joe
Principal Planner
City of Glendale
633 E. Broadway, Room 103
Glendale, CA 91206
Re: 236 N. Central Avenue Project - AB 130 CEQA Statutory Exemption Dear Dennis:
This letter explains the recently enacted and effective CEQA statutory exemption for in- fill housing projects (Public Resources Code (“PRC”) § 21080.66) contained in Assembly Bill 130, and further explains why the 236 N. Central Avenue project meets each standard/criteria of the exemption and is, therefore, statutorily exempt from CEQA. This letter, which serves as notice that the project is statutorily exempt pursuant to Section 21080.66, (a) obviates the City of Glendale’s (“City”) ongoing preparation of an environmental impact report, and (b) triggers certain statutory timelines.
First, pursuant to Section 21080.66, the City is obligated to notify California Native American tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project site and invite the tribes to consult on the project’s potential effects on cultural resources within 14 days after the project is deemed complete. Here, because the project’s application was deemed complete on January 31, 2025, the City has 14 days from receipt of this letter to send the formal notice and invitation to consult via certified mail and email to each California Native American tribe. (PRC § 21080.66(b)(1).) The applicant his happy to assist with preparing the notice.
Second, after completion of the required consultation, the City has thirty (30) days to approve the project under the Permit Streamlining Act. (Govt. Code § 65950 [a public agency “shall approve or disapprove the project” thirty (30) days “from the conclusion of the process outlined in” PRC § 21080.66(b) if a project is exempt pursuant to that section].) I. PRC § 21080.66 Eligibility
As shown in the table below, the project meets each standard/criteria for the PRC § 21080.66 in-fill statutory exemption.
CC_01272026_Exhibit 5 - CEQA Exemption Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.66 Dennis Joe
July 11, 2025
104880\18734324v1
Criteria Compliance
The project must be a “housing development
project” as defined in Government Code §
65906.5 (which references Government Code
§ 65589.5(h)(2)). (PRC § 21080.66(a).)
Complies. The project is a “housing
development project” as it is a mixed-use
project where 2/3rds of the project square
footage is dedicated to residential use.
The project site must be less than 20 acres
(unless it is a builder’s remedy project, which
must not exceed five acres). (PRC §
21080.66(a)(1)(A).)
Complies. The project site is 4.75 acres
(including the adjacent rights-of-way to the
centerline). Please see submitted survey.
The project is located either (a) within an
unincorporated municipality (b) an urban
area, as defined by the Census Bureau. (PRC
§ 21080.66(a)(2).)
Complies. The project is within the City of
Glendale.
The site meets any of the following: (a)
previously developed with an urban use.
(PRC § 21080.66(a)(3) [other options
omitted].)
The term “urban use” means “any current or
previous residential or commercial
development, public institution, or public
park that is surrounded by other urban uses,
parking lot or structure, transit or
transportation passenger facility, or retail use,
or any combination of those uses”
Complies. The site was previously developed
with a department store and associated
parking. Please see Exhibit A.
The project is consistent with the general plan
and zoning. If the general plan and zoning are
inconsistent, a project is deemed consistent
with both if consistent with one.
The approval of a density bonus,
incentives/concessions, waivers or reductions
of development standards, or reduce parking
pursuant to the Density Bonus Law are not
grounds to find the project inconsistent. (PRC
§ 21080.66(a)(4).)
Complies. The project complies with the
objective standards of the Glendale General
Plan and the Downtown Specific Plan
(“DSP”), except with respect to those specific
standards identified for waivers pursuant to
the Density Bonus Law. The City Council’s
Stage I Design Review staff report recognized
the project’s consistency.
A project shall be deemed consistent if there
is substantial evidence that would allow a
reasonable person to conclude that the
Dennis Joe
July 11, 2025
104880\18734324v1
housing development project is consistent.
(PRC § 21080.66(a)(4).)
The project will be at least 50% of the default
density specified in Government Code §
65583.2(c)(3)(B). (PRC § 21080.66(a)(5).)
Complies. The default density is 30 units/acre
in the City of Glendale. 50% of which is 15
units/acre. The project proposes a base
density of 100 units/acre.
If the site is in the Coastal Zone, there is
substantial evidence in the record that the site
is not located in any of the areas described
below.
1. A site that is between the sea and the first
public road paralleling the sea or within
300 feet of the inland extent of any beach
or of the mean high tide line where there
is no beach, whichever is greater.
2. A site that is tidelands, submerged lands,
public trust lands, or within 100 feet of
any wetland, estuary, or stream or within
300 feet of the top of any coastal bluff.
3. The site is in an area of the Coastal Zone
that is not subject to a certified Local
Coastal Program or certified Land Use
Plan.
4. An area of the Coastal Zone that is
vulnerable to five feet of sea level rise, as
determined by specified entities (e.g.,
NOAA, USGS, OPC, University of
California, or other local government
pursuant to hazards vulnerability
assessment).
5. A site that is not zoned for multifamily
housing.
Complies. The site is not in the Coastal Zone.
Please see Exhibit B.
Dennis Joe
July 11, 2025
104880\18734324v1
6. The site is not on or within 100 feet of a
wetland, or on prime agricultural land.
(PRC § 21080.66(a)(6), Govt. Code §
65913.4(a)(6).)
The site is not either prime farmland or
farmland of statewide importance, or land
zoned or designated for agricultural
production or preservation by a local ballot
measure approved by the voters. (PRC §
21080.66(a)(6), Govt. Code § 65913.4(a)(6).)
Complies. The site is developed with urban
uses and is not farmland. Please see Exhibit
C.
The site does not have wetlands as defined by
the USFWS. (PRC § 21080.66(a)(6), Govt.
Code § 65913.4(a)(6).)
Complies. The site is developed with urban
uses and does not have wetlands. Please see
Exhibit D.
The site is not within a state or local
VHFHSZ, except if the site has adopted fire
hazard mitigation measures pursuant to
existing building standards or state fire
mitigation measures applicable to the
development, including, but not limited to
standards under (1) PRC §§ 4290, 4291 or
51182, (2) Chapter 7A of the CBC. (PRC §
21080.66(a)(6), Govt. Code § 65913.4(a)(6).)
Complies. The site is not within a VHFHSZ.
Please see Exhibit E.
The site is not a hazardous waste site that is
listed on the Cortese List (Govt. Code §
65962.5) or a site designated by DTSC
pursuant to Health & Safety Code § 25356
(repealed) unless either of the following
apply:
1. The site is an underground storage tank
site that received a uniform closure letter
based on closure criteria for residential
use or residential mixed uses.
2. An agency (state or local) has made a
determination that the site is suitable for
residential or mixed-uses.
Complies. The site is not on the Cortese List
or otherwise identified by DTSC as a
hazardous waste site. Please see Exhibit F.
Dennis Joe
July 11, 2025
104880\18734324v1
(PRC § 21080.66(a)(6), Govt. Code §
65913.4(a)(6).)
The site is not within an earthquake fault
zone, unless the development complies with
applicable seismic standards of the CBC and
any local building standards. (PRC §
21080.66(a)(6), Govt. Code § 65913.4(a)(6).)
Complies. The site is not within a delineated
earthquake fault zone. Please see Exhibit G.
The site is not within a special flood hazard
area subject to a 1% annual change of flood as
determined by FEMA, unless specific
standards are met. (PRC § 21080.66(a)(6),
Govt. Code § 65913.4(a)(6).)
Complies. The site is not within a special
flood hazard area. Please see Exhibit H.
The site is not within a regulatory floodway
as determined by FEMA, unless specific
standards are met. (PRC § 21080.66(a)(6),
Govt. Code § 65913.4(a)(6).)
Complies. The site is not within a regulatory
floodway as determined by FEMA. Please see
Exhibit H.
The site is not identified for conservation in
an adopted natural resource protection plan.
(PRC § 21080.66(a)(6), Govt. Code §
65913.4(a)(6).)
Complies. The site is not identified for
conservation in any natural resources
projection plan. It is developed with urban
uses in the downtown area of the City. Please
see Exhibit A.
The site does not have habitat for protected
species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special status species by state/federal
agencies. (PRC § 21080.66(a)(6), Govt. Code
§ 65913.4(a)(6).)
Complies. The site is fully developed with
urban uses. There is no natural habitat,
including any habitat for protected species.
Please see Exhibit A.
The site is not subject to a conservation
easement. (PRC § 21080.66(a)(6), Govt. Code
§ 65913.4(a)(6).)
Complies. The site is developed with urban
uses and is not subject to a conservation
easement. Please see Exhibit I.
The project does not require the demolition of
a historic structure on a national, state or local
register before the date of an SB 330
preliminary application. (PRC §
21080.66(a)(7).)
Complies. The site does not have any historic
resources as designated on a national, state or
local register. A Historic Resources
Assessment Report was prepared for the on-
site buildings, and concluded that none of the
buildings were historic.
Dennis Joe
July 11, 2025
104880\18734324v1
The project is not subject to any labor requirements contained in Section 21080.66. The project is not 100% affordable (Section 21080.66(d)(1)) and is not located in the City and County of San Francisco (Section 21080.66(d)(3)). The project also does not exceed 85 feet in height above grade. Section 21080.66(d)(2) provides that certain labor standards “apply to buildings over 85 feet in height above grade….” The project does not exceed that “height” standard, as measured pursuant to the California Building Code (“CBC”), the only reasonable metric against which to judge height. The CBC defines “building height” as the “vertical distance from grade plane to the average height of the highest roof surface.” (CBC Section 202 [emphasis added].) Thus, the CBC definition of height and the language of Section 21080.66(d)(2) align. The project is also proposed as Type IIIA construction which is limited to a maximum height of 85 feet above grade. (CBC Table 504.3, Section 504.1 [“The height, in feet, and the number of stories of a building shall be determined based on the type of construction, occupancy classification and whether there is an automatic sprinkler system installed throughout the building.”], Section 504.3 [“The maximum height, in feet, of a building shall not exceed the limits specified in Table 504.3.”].) The project’s buildings, as measured pursuant to the CBC and consistent with its Type IIIA construction, are both below the 85-foot threshold: (1) Phase 1 Building = 83.1 feet, and (2) Phase 2 Building = 82.18 feet.
II. Conclusion
The above provides substantial evidence that the 236 N. Central Avenue project meets the standards under Section 21080.66 and is statutorily exempt from CEQA, which obviates the need for any CEQA analysis. It is a classic in-fill housing project, which the California Legislature clearly exempted from CEQA review. (Hilltop Group, Inc. v. County of San Diego (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 890, 918 [an agency abuses its discretion and violates CEQA when requires an applicant to conduct more CEQA analysis without evidentiary support].) This letter, therefore, triggers the Native American tribe notification and consultation process. The City is statutorily required send a formal notice and invitation to consult via certified mail and email to each California Native American tribe, and must do so within 14 days of receipt of this letter. (PRC § 21080.66(b)(1).) The applicant is happy to assist with preparation of that notice and, as permitted, during the consultation process.
Dennis Joe
July 11, 2025
104880\18734324v1
We very much appreciate your time and attention to this matter. If the City has any questions regarding how to navigate the exemption process, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP
Christopher Burt
Senior Counsel
cc:
Mark Berry, Deputy Director of Community Development/Economic Development Gillian Van Muyden, Chief Assistant City Attorney
Erik Krause, Deputy Director of Community Development
Exhibit A – Site Previously Developed with Urban Use [Source: Google Earth, Google Maps]
Exhibit B – Site Not Located in Coastal Zone [Source: Coastal Commission Boundary Map (Los Angeles County)]
Exhibit C – Site Not Designated as Important Farmland [Source: California Department of Conservation - Important Farmland Viewer]
Exhibit D – Site is Developed with Urban Uses and Not Located on Wetlands [Source: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - National Wetlands Inventory]
Exhibit E – Site Not Located within Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone [Source: CalFire – Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map]
Exhibit F – Project Not Located on the Cortese List or otherwise identified by DTSC as Hazardous Waste Site [Source: California Department of Toxic Substances Control – City of Glendale sites]
Exhibit G – Site Not Located within Delineated Earthquake Fault Zone [Source: California Department of Conservation – Fault Activity Map]
Exhibit H – Site Not Located within Special Flood Hazard Zone or Regulatory Floodway [Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency – Flood Map]
Exhibit I – Site Not Subject to Conservation Easement [Source: California Department of Conservation – Williamson Act Map]