Glendale council denies stage‑2 approval for 682‑unit Sears redevelopment; alley vacation also rejected

Glendale — The City Council on Oct. 21 denied final (stage‑2) design review for a proposed 682‑unit mixed‑use project at the former Sears site at 236 North Central Avenue and, in a separate vote, rejected the applicant's request to vacate a public alley that would have been reconfigured to serve the development.

The votes came after more than three hours of public testimony and planning‑staff presentations. Councilmembers Zasadirian, Brotman and Kasakian voted to deny the design review; one councilmember recused themself from the matter and Mayor Ara Najarian voted against denial. The alley vacation likewise failed with the same roll‑call pattern.

The project would have replaced the long‑vacant department store and adjacent auto site with an eight‑story, 682‑unit building, 1,515 square feet of retail and a 164,000‑square‑foot parking structure. The applicant proposed dedicating the former auto site (about 0.87 acre) to the city “in lieu” of paying park impact fees, a move staff characterized as one of several options that could satisfy the city's park mitigation requirements before a certificate of occupancy.

Why it mattered

The proposal drew sharply divided views at the hearing. Supporters said the site, near downtown and transit, was appropriate for dense housing and would generate tax revenue, new housing stock and a small public park. Opponents — including nearby residents, local design reviewers and several council members — pressed the developer on the project’s massing, the amount and quality of public open space, the scale of retail, the loss of a potential historic façade, and neighborhood traffic and parking impacts.

Staff presentation and legal context

City planning staff said the application had already received a density‑bonus determination and that certain state housing laws limit discretionary rejections of qualifying projects. Principal Planner Dennis Joe explained that the application had sought and received a density bonus that included concessions and waivers, and that the applicant had submitted for a statutorily allowed CEQA exemption under AB 130. Staff also warned the council about the limited legal grounds for denial under the Housing Accountability Act and related statutes, and about the potential for costly litigation or statutory penalties if rejection could not be supported by substantial, adverse impacts on public health or safety.

What opponents told the council

Neighbors and local preservation advocates asked the council to press the developer for a stronger design, larger and better‑integrated public open space, and retention or respectful incorporation of the Sears building’s historic corner expression. Members of the Design Review Board had earlier urged the applicant to introduce stronger corner features, replicate upper‑level planting used on one facade across other elevations, and expand active, commercial frontage along public paseos.

Several public speakers also warned of traffic and emergency‑access implications from the large new population and delivery activity. Another frequent theme at the podium was the sense of a bait‑and‑switch over the park: residents said earlier project materials and stage‑1 discussions had suggested a stronger commitment to build a park, while the applicant later described dedication options that left construction responsibility unclear.

Developer response

The development team said it had worked with the city and had revised the design in response to stage‑1 comments, added a small retail space and refined palettes and materials. The applicant’s team clarified that the park parcel could be dedicated to the city through a subdivision (track) map under local park law in lieu of paying park impact fees, and that final park programming would be coordinated with city parks staff prior to occupancy.

Council action and next steps

The council voted to deny stage‑2 design review. Councilmembers who voted for denial said the applicant had not delivered on council and DRB guidance and that the proposed public‑realm elements were insufficient. Colleagues who voted against denial warned that state housing laws constrain local discretion, and that denial could expose the city to litigation, penalties and an increased risk of the city losing control over how future housing sites are reviewed under the regional housing‑needs process.

Staff told the council that the project team may pursue litigation or administrative appeals and that the city would consult the city attorney on legal exposure and next steps. The alley vacation tied to the development — which would have reconfigured an existing north‑south alley into an east‑west alignment as part of the design — was also denied; staff had noted utilities and public‑access implications tied to any vacation.

Votes at a glance

- Deny Stage‑2 design review for 236 North Central Avenue (PDR2212056) — motion to deny passed. Roll call (as read aloud at the meeting): Councilmember Zasadirian — yes; Councilmember Brotman — yes; Councilmember Carpetian — recused; Councilmember Kasakian — yes; Mayor Ara Najarian — no. Outcome: denied.

- Deny resolution ordering vacation of portion of First Alley (Vacation Case 192V) — motion to deny passed on roll call with the same pattern; outcome: no vacation ordered.

Discussion but no further formal action in this meeting: staff and the applicant discussed options for park mitigation (payment of park impact fees, dedication via map, or potential negotiated donation), but staff emphasized any final arrangement must be completed prior to certificate of occupancy if the project proceeds.

Context and implications

Planning staff and multiple councilmembers warned that state housing laws enacted in recent years — including the Housing Accountability Act and statutory changes tied to AB 130 — reduce the range of defensible local rejections for housing projects that meet qualifying criteria. The council’s denial puts the city in a position where it must weigh neighborhood design objectives and community concerns against legal risks and potential statewide consequences if courts find a denial not justified by the narrow statutory standards.

For community members: staff said any further updates or potential re‑submittal will be noticed and publicly posted. The developer indicated it may evaluate next steps, including whether to revise the design and return or to seek legal review.

Ending

Council members and staff agreed the decision will likely prompt additional legal and procedural follow‑up. For now, the former Sears site remains available for redevelopment, but not under the design package presented on Oct. 21.

Speakers quoted or referenced: Principal Planner Dennis Joe; city attorney (policy/legal summary); developer representatives Reese Pedersen (applicant); Jeremy Grant (AC Martin, architect); Chris Burt (Cox Castle, land‑use counsel); numerous public commenters including Damien Sullivan, Francesca Smith, Beth Brooks.