Pickwick Project Townhomes

Ask a question to begin.

Owners of the Pickwick Bowl attempt to partner with developer Shea Homes on a residential redevelopment plan for the site. The project does not move forward, facing the same community resistance that would recur with MW Investment Group.

MW Investment Group files a notice of intent to submit an SB 35 application for the Pickwick Bowl property, indicating plans to build approximately 98 townhomes.

MW Investment Group files its formal SB 35 ministerial application for 98 for-sale townhomes (10% affordable) on the 5.01-acre Pickwick site. Simultaneously closes on the purchase of both parcels from Pickwick Recreation Center for $21 million. Pickwick Ice (the on-site rink) is not part of the sale and will remain operational.

Burbank's planning department formally determines that the Pickwick project meets all SB 35 requirements. Development Director Patrick Prescott acknowledges publicly that SB 35 takes away the city's discretion and the project will be required to be approved if it complies.

At a Burbank City Council meeting, City Planner Fred Ramirez reveals that HCD independently reviewed the project after an inquiry from Assemblymember Laura Friedman's office, and reached the same conclusion as city staff: the project qualifies for SB 35.

The Burbank City Council votes 5-0 to deny the Pickwick project under SB 35, claiming the site's Commercial Recreation zoning does not permit residential uses. The council acts despite its own planning staff's eligibility determination, HCD's independent confirmation, and explicit legal warnings that denial risked litigation. Council members acknowledge during the meeting that the denial could prompt a lawsuit.

Matthew Waken / MW Investment Group files suit against the City of Burbank, arguing the council violated SB 35. Developer attorneys argue the city acted in bad faith and was knowingly and willingly in violation of state housing law, motivated by a desire to appease homeowners.

California HCD issues a Notice of Violation to the City of Burbank, requiring the city to reverse course and approve the Pickwick project under SB 35. (Exact date unconfirmed — VERIFY with HCD primary document)

YIMBY Law files a separate lawsuit against the City of Burbank challenging the April 18 denial. Rafa Sonnenfeld: "There is no legal basis for the Burbank City Council to deny this proposed housing project. The Pickwick project meets all requirements under SB 35."

Matthew Waken / MW Investment Group settles its lawsuit with the City of Burbank prior to the October 25 council vote. Terms not publicly disclosed.

The Burbank City Council approves a modified 92-unit version of the Pickwick project under pressure of two active lawsuits. The approved project adds a dedicated equestrian trail and pedestrian/equestrian safety measures. Ten units remain deed-restricted for low-income households. Sonja Trauss, YIMBY Law: "It's good news for housing and the expectation of cities that the state law is real and there's not any point in trying to fight it."

YIMBY Law settles its remaining lawsuit with the City of Burbank. Settlement terms not disclosed.

The Pickwick Bowl holds its last business day after 62+ years of operation. General Manager Darin Mathewson confirms the permanent closure via Instagram. The bowling alley had been a Burbank community institution since its construction in the 1950s.

Heavy machinery begins demolishing the Pickwick Bowl building. ABC7 reports: "Nearly 100 townhomes will be built on the site. No word on when that construction will begin." Pickwick Ice (the on-site rink) remains operational.

Project meets every requirement of SB 35. City staff reviewed and confirmed eligibility. HCD independently confirmed eligibility. City has no legal basis to deny.

"Ultimately, the project that was presented before you and that we submitted under SB 35 is what we feel is very appropriate for the site." (April 18, 2022 City Council meeting)

The city acted in bad faith and was knowingly and willingly in violation of state housing law. The council's decision was driven by a desire to appease existing homeowners. The project was collateral damage in the City Council's effort to send a message to Sacramento affirming opposition to state housing laws.

"There is no legal basis for the Burbank City Council to deny this proposed housing project. The Pickwick project meets all requirements under SB 35. YIMBY Law is looking forward to winning this case." (Rafa Sonnenfeld, June 2022)

Independently reviewed and confirmed the project's eligibility for SB 35 ministerial approval after an inquiry from Assemblymember Laura Friedman's office. Issued Notice of Violation to Burbank following the April 2022 denial.

The Pickwick site has a Commercial Recreation zoning designation that does not permit residential uses. The project does not comply with the city's objective zoning standards and is ineligible for SB 35 ministerial approval.

"The goal of this decision is to ensure proper zoning regulations are followed and the Burbank community has a say in plans for the site moving forward." Framed his vote as a rejection of the interpretation that Pickwick zoning permits residential use under SB 35.

"I regret that we were not included from the beginning, now almost nine months ago." Voted to deny in April 2022.

Traffic on W. Riverside Drive will worsen dramatically with 92 households. Equestrian riders use this street regularly to reach the LA River trail system. The Pickwick Bowl is a 60-year community institution. One councilmember characterized the project as jamming a square peg into a round hole and warned it would potentially shatter the Rancho neighborhood.

"SB 35 takes away our discretion. This project will go through what the state intends it to be, which is to remove our discretion and require us to approve it if it complies with the state statute." (2021, upon project filing)

The City Council voted 5-0 to deny the SB 35 application claiming the site's Commercial Recreation zoning did not permit residential uses. This denial contradicted formal eligibility determinations by the city's own planning staff and HCD. The city's General Plan anticipated low-density residential potential for the site. Developer attorneys characterized the denial as bad-faith use of a zoning pretext to oppose state housing law. Reversed 6 months later under dual-lawsuit pressure.

The city cited its Commercial Recreation zoning designation as an objective zoning standard precluding residential use under SB 35. However, the city's own General Plan anticipated residential use on the site at 20 units/acre, undermining the argument. Developer attorneys argued this was a discretionary interpretation rather than an objective standard. The city's capitulation in October 2022 effectively conceded this point.

Official city planning page. Confirms address, 92 units, unit sizes (1,816-1,931 sq ft), 10 affordable units, 5.01 acres, and SB 35 Ministerial Design Review process. Primary source for confirmed project specifications.

Official YIMBY Law case page. Confirms lawsuit filed June 21, 2022; approval October 25, 2022; settlement December 2022. Primary source for legal framing and timeline.

Visual confirmation that demolition was underway December 2023. Notes no confirmed construction start date.

Best single narrative source. Confirms developer, land purchase price ($21M), approval date, unit reduction (96 to 92), equestrian trail addition, Sonja Trauss quote, and Patrick Prescott's 2021 statement.

Contains Rafa Sonnenfeld quote; confirms HCD Notice of Violation; confirms both city staff and HCD found project eligible before council denial.

Best source for developer attorney Andrew Sabey quotes about bad faith and message to Sacramento. Confirms developer lawsuit filed.

Best coverage of the April 18, 2022 denial. Contains Konstantine Anthony quote; describes council objections and community opposition dynamics.

Earliest detailed coverage. Contains Patrick Prescott's SB 35 takes away our discretion quote; confirms initial 98-unit count, SB 35 submission date, Pickwick Ice retention, and 10% affordable threshold.