Glendale council requires EIR before demolition of Glendale Garden Homes

The Glendale City Council voted unanimously Feb. 4 to sustain the Community Development Director27s decision that an environmental impact report is required for the proposed demolition of the Glendale Garden Homes apartment complex at 13032D1315 North Central Avenue.

The decision came after a three-hour hearing in which city planners, preservation consultants, the project27s attorney and dozens of residents presented competing analyses about whether the 1957-built, roughly 1.9-acre site qualifies as a historic resource under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Staff and the Los Angeles Conservancy concluded the site is eligible for the Glendale Register of Historic Resources; the project team and consultants hired by the applicant argued the record does not contain substantial evidence to support that finding.

"The key issue to be resolved is whether or not the Glendale Garden Homes is a historic resource and therefore whether or not an EIR is required to demolish it," said Cassandra Pruitt, the city case planner assigned to the project, summarizing staff27s position. Senior historic preservation planner Jay Platt told the council his team27s assessment and peer review provide "substantial evidence" that the complex is eligible for local listing.

Attorneys for the developer and the appellant said the city27s historic assessment was methodologically flawed and argued the city had relied on the site for housing-element credits in prior years. "The record is clear," said Michael Gonzalez of Gonzalez Law Group, representing the appellant. "In light of the entire record over the past 20 years, they have not met that burden." Appellant counsel also noted the applicant proposes a 149-unit housing project that would include 19 covenanted affordable units.

Hundreds of people signed speaker cards and dozens addressed the council. Supporters of preservation told the council the complex27s mid-century design and its densely landscaped courtyards set it apart from other multifamily stock in Glendale; supporters of development urged the council not to use CEQA to delay housing during a regional housing shortage. Chris Manasarian, representing the applicant, described the proposal's housing mix and said the site is within a high-density zone and near transit and services.

Councilmembers emphasized that the hearing was narrowly focused on whether an EIR is required under CEQA because of potential historic significance, not on project design, traffic or other entitlements. City staff explained that, if an EIR is prepared, it would address the historic question and any mitigation or feasible alternatives; if staff and the independent consultant determine the resource is not historic, the project may proceed under applicable exemptions. Planning staff estimated a focused EIR would typically take roughly 62D8 months and that consultant costs often fall in the low- to mid-six-figure range; the developer would pay the consultant costs.

After deliberation, a motion to sustain the director27s determination passed on a roll call vote with all councilmembers voting yes. The council27s action means the city will proceed with environmental review on the narrow historic-resource question; the developer will be required to fund the EIR process. The EIR will return to the council or to the designated decision-making body when complete, at which point the council may adopt findings, including a potential statement of overriding considerations if it determines the public benefits outweigh any significant impacts.

What happens next: staff will scope and procure consultants for the focused EIR, begin the initial study and schedule public review. The city has said it will return the consultant27s work product to the council for consideration when the EIR is complete.

Community comments and the competing expert reports are now part of the administrative record the city will use in the EIR process. The council's vote does not approve or deny the proposed redevelopment; it requires further environmental analysis before any demolition permit or demolition-related entitlement may be granted.