Planning hearing reviews 8‑story, 682‑unit Central Avenue density‑bonus plan; developer seeks multiple waivers

The Planning Hearing Officer heard a staff presentation and public testimony on Sept. 24 for a density‑bonus housing plan covering two downtown parcels in the Orange Central area of Glendale — the mixed‑use former Sears site and an adjacent parcel under separate consideration for a potential public park.

Case planner Joseph (Joe) (case planner, Glendale Planning Division) described the proposed project as an eight‑story mixed‑use building with roughly 682 residential units and approximately 655,000 square feet of building area. The density‑bonus proposal reserves 72 units at very low and low income levels and requests two concessions and four waivers under Glendale’s Development Standards and Procedures (DSP) and state density‑bonus law. The concessions include a proposed deviation from the municipal proportionality requirement for inclusionary unit bedroom mixes (the applicant proposes a larger share of studios and one‑bedrooms than the municipal proportionality rule would require) and an increase in allowable floor‑area ratio to 4.07 from a base maximum of 3.0. The applicant also requests waivers to reduce the amount and contiguity of the required publicly accessible open space (the Paseo), to reduce required private residential outdoor space versus the DSP minimum (140 sq. ft. per unit), and to limit required upper‑level setbacks adjacent to the Paseo.

Planner Joe summarized the staff analysis concluding the city’s findings for concessions and waivers can be made. Staff advised that, under state density‑bonus law, the city bears the burden of producing written substantial evidence to deny a requested concession; staff reported it could not produce such justification here and therefore recommended approval with conditions. Joe noted the project team argues the requested FAR and unit‑mix concessions reduce per‑unit costs or otherwise enable the project to provide the required number of deed‑restricted units without making the entire project infeasible.

Attorney Chris Burt, land‑use counsel for the applicant, and Reese Patterson, an applicant representative, addressed procedural issues and asked clarifying edits to project conditions related to prevailing‑wage triggers in AB 130 and to how inclusionary unit types will be handled administratively. Burt requested that condition language relying on the city’s local height measure be revised to track state AB 130 language; the applicant confirmed willingness to comply with state prevailing‑wage requirements as applicable.

Public commenters, including preservation advocates and downtown residents, expressed concerns about massing, historic resources and loss of the park and public‑open‑space expectations. Lisa Morris, citing an architectural study, urged preservation and asked the city to fully evaluate the site’s historic fabric before permitting a large demolition and redevelopment. Several commenters characterized the proposal as a “bait‑and‑switch,” saying earlier project iterations showed a public park and different massing; others said the requested waivers would significantly reduce publicly accessible open space compared with DSP expectations.

Planner Joe and the applicant’s team answered technical questions about the Paseo and alley configuration. Staff explained the alley (Alley 236/239) bisects the proposed Paseo footprint and that a partial alley vacation and reconfiguration are part of the overall site plan, but staff said the Paseo as proposed would remain publicly accessible. Project materials show the Paseo footprint at about 9,966 square feet and that combined segments fall short of an 85% contiguity standard (roughly 74% contiguous as presented). The project’s submitted unit mix includes 16 live/work units (1,000 sq. ft. each), 37 studios, 493 one‑bedrooms, 135 two‑bedrooms and one three‑bedroom unit, and staff noted the plan provides private outdoor space for 394 units while the DSP formula requires 140 sq. ft. per unit on average.

The hearing officer closed public comment and took the case under submission. Staff will return a written recommendation and draft findings to the officer for a decision and mailing to interested parties.