25-88672
6 5
8 7
AGENDA ITEM
CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
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 to Rescind the City Council’s October 21, 2025, denial of the Stage II Design Review Application (Design Review Case No. 221205).
2. Motion Approving Stage II Design Review Application (Design Review Case No. 2212056) with conditions.
COUNCIL ACTION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On October 21, 2025, the City Council denied the project's Stage II Design Review application to construct a new mixed-use development consisting of 666 multi-family residential dwellings units, 16 live/work units, 1,515 square feet of retail/restaurant space at the ground floor, and a 930-parking space garage.
On December 30, 2025, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) issued a Notice of Violation, citing the City's denial as a violation of the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) and found the project complies General Plan and zoning regulations, satisfies all objective standards of the Downtown Specific Plan (except those lawfully modified under State Density Bonus Law) and was improperly denied without the required findings under the HAA. HCD requires a written response from the City outlining a specific plan and timeline for corrective action, including the reconsideration and approval of the Project as proposed, by January 29, 2026. Failure to respond may result in referral to the California Attorney General.
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council approve the motion to rescind the prior denial of the Stage II Design Review application; and approve the Stage II Design located at 236 N. Central Ave, 201 W. California Ave and 212 W. California Avenue.
Item Type: Public Hearing
Approved forJanuary 27, 2026 calendar
25-88672
6 5
8 7
10b
25-88672
6 5
8 7
10b
2 25-88672
ANALYSIS
On October 21, 2025, following a duly noticed public hearing, the City Council denied the Stage II Design Review Case No. PDR 2212056 to construct a new 8-story, 655,418 square-foot, 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 low-income), 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) on a 4.57 acre parcel (“Project”).
On December 30, 2025, the City received a Notice of Violation from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) citing a violation of the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), Government Code section 65589.5, in connection with the denial of Stage II Design Review Case No. PDR 2212056 (Attachment 15).
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. (Gov’t Code §65589.5(d)). The City Council did not make findings required to deny the Project.
Based on HCD’s review of the case materials, including the October 21, 2025 staff report (Attachment 16), 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 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.
The proposed corrective action is to rescind City Council’s prior action denying Stage II Design Review Application, approve Stage II Design Review Application with conditions, and approve the associated, but separately agendized alley vacation request.
The Project site is located at 236 North Central Avenue and 212 W. California Avenue, and 201 West California Avenue and consists of two sites: (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, located at 236 North Central Avenue and 212 West 10b
2 25-88672
10b
3 25-88672
California Avenue, 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 (APNs: 5642-015-045, 5642-015-056, 5642-015-057, and 5642-015-058) 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 Two-Bedroom, 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 on the northwest corner of North Orange Avenue and West California Avenue, includes three parcels (APNs 5643-020-038, 5643-020-039, and 5643-020-040). This Site, currently developed with two vehicle repair buildings totaling 15,933 square-feet and associated surface parking, was 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) required under GMC section 4.10. Developer also has the option 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 for 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. As discussed below, staff have determined this Project qualifies for a CEQA exemption under AB 130. The tribal consultation process concluded on September 21, 2025. Accordingly, the Project was statutorily required to be approved or disapproved on or before October 21, 2025.
To address the December 30, 2025 Notice of Violation letter from HCD and to comply with the requirements of the Housing Accountability Act, staff is recommending the Council approve the Project, subject to Condition No. 11 as outlined in the October 21, 2025, staff report, which requires that vinyl window colors avoid white and instead match the building’s approved color palette as depicted in the elevations and renderings (e.g., silver, espresso, or brown). The condition also encourages consideration of higher- quality, more durable materials such as fiberglass in lieu of vinyl.
The Design Review Board (DRB) had recommended a total of eleven conditions to the City Council (including Condition No. 11). Staff finds that the majority of these recommendations are advisory in nature and may require project modifications that could 10b
4 25-88672
render the Project infeasible. However, if the City Council wishes to consider select DRB recommendations, staff recommends Condition No. 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), as a reasonable means of addressing increasing traffic issues stemming from deliveries and ride share, e.g., blocking lanes, double parking. Further, if Council is so inclined, it is staff’s assessment that a portion of Condition No. 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 incentivize outdoor activities [e.g. City sponsored concerts] and create opportunities that revitalize the DSP) can be incorporated into the Project because the additional paseo amenities such as seating and game tables are already consistent with the Project plans and conceptual renderings presented by the applicant and recommended for approval by DRB and staff.
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 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 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, 5642-057, 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 10b
5 25-88672
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 (-)
-127 -32 +2,417 +2,231
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. However, a deficit of 32 units remains for Moderate-Income households. As a result, the City will be required to identify sufficient, adequate, and available additional sites to accommodate its RHNA obligation for the Moderate-Income household income level.
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 10b
6 25-88672
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 the 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.
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 10b
7 25-88672
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 6 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.
ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The City Council may elect to approve Stage II Design Review Application with conditions.
10b
7 25-88672
10b
8 25-88672
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:
Bradley Calvert, Director of Community Development
Prepared by:
Dennis Joe, Principal Planner
Approved by:
Roubik 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
15. Notice of Violation from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), December 30, 2025
16. Staff Report to City Council - Stage II Design Review, dated October 21, 2025